"There is one political party in this country, and that is the party of money.
It has two branches, the Republicans and the Democrats, the chief difference between which is
that the Democrats are better at concealing their scorn for the average man."
-- Gore Vidal
“The Democrats are the foxes, and the Republicans are the wolves – and they both want to
devour you.” So what does that make Libertarians? Avian flu viruses?”
-- Leonard Pinkney
The race is no contest when you own both horses. That is why no matter which political party
is in power nothing really changes other than the packaging. The puppets who drink at the champagne
fountains of the powerful do the bidding of their masters. The people are superfluous to the process.
In the “democracy” that America has evolved to, money counts more than people.
In past elections, the votes were counted, now they are going to start weighing them.
“(T)he rich elites of (the USA) have far more in common with their counterparts in London,
Paris, and Tokyo than with their fellow American citizens … the rich disconnect themselves
from the civic life of the nation and from any concern about its well being except as a place
to extract loot. Our plutocracy now lives like the British in colonial India: in the place and
ruling it, but not of it.”
-- Mike Lofgren
Due to the size the introduction (written in the heat of election campaign) was moved to a separate page:
Note: (April 5, 2017): With the attack on Syria after possibly "false flag" operation in the
spirit of 2013 false flag sarin attack (
Khan Sheikhoun gas attack) Trump base is so angry that I think his chances for reelection might
be close to zero. Very few people from anti-war right will vote for him again.
The main issue in this election is that the Neoliberal Imperial Oligarchy has now taken off the mask, they have
abandoned the pretense of "Coke Pepsi" two party competition to unite behind the defender of status quo interests,
with WikiLeaks detailing the gory details of their corruption and malfeasance. In this game Trump
was not supposed to win, it is an anomaly which defied the concerted rigging of election be
neoliberals including Wall Street money and the mainstream media presstitutes.
Neoliberalism has gutted, or, more correctly, is in the process
of gutting, the USA society: American people will be voting for Trump because they now understand the
neoliberalism destroyed their well-being and continue to do so. They want, after "serial
betrayer" Obama "bait and switch" maneuver, so to speak, to lob a hand grenade into the Capitol and
White House.
It is not an exaggeration to see in 2016 Presidential election as a referendum on neoliberal globalization.
But the political power still belongs to Neoliberals, which dominates both the government and
the economy (transnationals are the cornerstone of neoliberal world order). It's
a big question if the American people will be able to change neoliberal dogma,
the official civil religion of the USA without a violent revolution...
I wonder if the various powers that be assembled some kind of "Committee to Defend the Liberal
Order" when Trump began to make noises about re-assessing Nato.
> ...some kind of "Committee to Defend the Liberal Order" when Trump began to make noises about
re-assessing Nato.
A very interesting and pretty plausible hypothesis... That actually is the most deep insight
I got from this interesting discussion. In such case intelligence agencies are definitely a part
of "Committee to Defend the Liberal Order" which is yet another explanation of their strange behavior.
I can't claim that a mere mortal like me actually has the slightest clue what is really going
on. All I will hazard is that, whatever it is, it's a bunch of scams, lies and public manipulation
schemes.
Where this kind of high level foreign policy is involved, the US government and intelligence
services blew their cred with me long ago. I disbelieve them now on as a strong and resilient
prior.
Now after her deposition Aaron should interview Fiona Hill. I would like to see how she would lose all the feathers of her cocky
"I am Specialist in Russia" stance. She a regular MIC prostitute (intelligence agencies are a part of MIC) just like Luke Harding. And
probably both have the same handlers.
Brilliant interview !
Harding is little more than an intelligence asset himself and his idea of speaking to "Russians" is London circle of Russian emigrants
which are not objective source by any means.
He's peddling a his Russophobic line with no substantiation. In fact, the interview constitutes an overdue exposure of this pressitute.
Notable quotes:
"... He's little more than an intelligence asset himself if his idea of speaking to "Russians" is to go and speak to a bunch of people who most certainly have their own ties back to the western intelligence agencies. ..."
"... Also "well this is the kind of person Putin is" is a terrible argument. This isn't about either Putin or Trump really, its about the long history of US-Russia relations and all that has occurred. ..."
"... This interview is a wonderful illustration of everything that is horribly wrong with corporate media. I hope it goes viral. ..."
"... Very well put! Everything that is labeled as "conspiracy theory" when aimed towards the West, is "respectable journalism" when aimed at Russia. ..."
"... Navalny is a corrupt ex-politician just like his mentor that was caught red-handed taking a bribe from a German businessman "all on camera" at a restaurant. Most of corrupt politicians and businessmen that get caught by the Russian government always cry that they are politically repressed and the government is evil. ..."
"... Navalnys brother was the owner of a small transport company that Navalny helped secure contracts with government enterprises '' anywhere in the world that would be a conflict of interest" but that's not why he is in jail! His brother is in jail for swindling the postal service company for transportation costs. ..."
"... Aaron Mate is a brilliant interviewer. He keeps a calm demeanor, but does not let his guest get away with any untruths or non sequiturs. This one of the many reasons I love The Real News. I encourage anyone who appreciates solid journalism to donate to The Real News. ..."
"... GREAT follow up questions Aaron... Harding did not expect to get a real reporter... he obfuscates and diverts to other issues because he can not EVER provide any evidence... Going to Moscow will not tell you anything about whether or not the DNC server was hacked. ..."
"... Luke Harding is a complete and total idiot. He kept qualifying his arguments with "I've been to Moscow... I don't know if you know this, but I've been to Moscow..." and even at one point, "Some of my friends have been murdered." LOL, sure, whatever you say, Luke! Like you're so big time and such an all star journalist who isn't just trying to capitalize on the wild goose chase that is psychologically trapping leftists into delusions and wishful thinking. ..."
"... NSA monitors every communication over the internet. if the Russians hacked the DNC, there would be proof, and it would not take years to uncover. Look at the numbers: Clinton spent 2 billion, Russian "agents" spent 200k to "influence" the election. Great job Aaron for holding this opportunist's feet to the fire. Oh he's a story teller all right. You know a synonym of storyteller? LIAR!!!! ..."
"... Hes making so many factual wrong statements I don't know where to start here. ..."
"... His logic seems to be: Putin does things we don't like -> Trump getting elected is something we don't like -> Putin got Trump elected. ..."
That Harding tells Mate to meet Alexi Navalny, who is a far right nationalist and most certainly a tool of US intelligence
(something like Russia's Richard Spencer) was all I needed to hear to understand where Luke is coming from.
He's little more than an intelligence asset himself if his idea of speaking to "Russians" is to go and speak to a bunch
of people who most certainly have their own ties back to the western intelligence agencies. That's not how you're going to
get the truth about Russia. He's all appeals to authority - Steele's most of all, even name dropping Kerry. To finally land on
"oh well if you would read my whole book" is just getting to the silly season.
Also "well this is the kind of person Putin is" is a terrible argument. This isn't about either Putin or Trump really,
its about the long history of US-Russia relations and all that has occurred. Also, the ubiquitous throwing around of accusations
of the murder of journalists in Russia is a straw man argument, especially when it is just thrown in as some sort of moral shielding
for a shabby argument.
Few in the US know about these cases or what occurred, or of the many forces inside of Russia that might be involved in murdering
journalists just as in Mexico or Turkey. But these cases are not explained - blame is merely assigned to Putin himself. Of course
if someone here discusses he death of Michael Hastings, they're a "conspiracy theorist", but if the crime involves a Russian were
to assign the blame to Vladimir Putin and, no further explanation is required.
That is the video about fire arm legalization "cockroaches ", even if you are not Russian speaking it's pretty graphic to understand
the idea https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8ILxqIEEMg
And FYI - Central Asian workers do the low-wage jobs in Moscow, pretty like Mexicans or Puerto Ricans in US. Yet, that "future
president" is trying to gain some popularity by labeling and demonizing them. Sounds familiar a bit?
"definitelly ddissagree with that assertation about Alexei he's had nationalist views but he's definitely not far right and
calling him a tool of US intelligence is pretty bs this is the exact same assertation that the Russian state media says about
him."
I disagree that there is any evidence of Navalny being tool of US intelligence, but you are wrong for not recognizing
that Navalny is ultranationalist. His public statements are indefensible. He is a Russian ultra nationalist, far right and a racist.
Statements about cockroaches, worse than rats, bullets being too good etc - there is no way to misunderstand that.
Navalny is a corrupt ex-politician just like his mentor that was caught red-handed taking a bribe from a German businessman
"all on camera" at a restaurant. Most of corrupt politicians and businessmen that get caught by the Russian government always
cry that they are politically repressed and the government is evil.
Navalnys brother was the owner of a small transport company that Navalny helped secure contracts with government enterprises
'' anywhere in the world that would be a conflict of interest" but that's not why he is in jail! His brother is in jail for swindling
the postal service company for transportation costs.
@trdi I am a Russian. And I remember the early Navalny who made me sick to my stomach with absolutely disgusting, RACIST, anti-immigration
commentaries. The guy is basically a NEO-NAZI who has toned down his nationalist diatribes in the past 10 or so years. Has he
really reformed? I doubt it.
MrChibiluffy, Navalny became relatively popular in Russia precisely at that time, especially during the White Ribbon protests
in 2011/2012. I remember it very well myself.
I am Russian and I lived in Moscow at that time and he was the darling of the Russian opposition. He publicly defined his views
and established himself back then and hasn't altered his position to this day.
What's more important is that around 2015 or so he made an alliance with the far-right and specifically Diomushkin who is a
neo-nazi activist. I understand that people change their views, it's just that he hasn't.
Nikita Gusarov it still feels like the best chance for some form of populist opposition atm. Even though they just rejected
him he has a movement. Would you rather vote for Sobchak?
Lets not forget that one reason many voted for Trump was his rhetoric about improving the peace-threatening antagonism towards
Russia, especially in order to help resolve the situation in Syria. It's not like it was secret he was trying to hide. He only
moderated his views somewhat when the Democrat-engineered anti-Russian smear campaign took off and there was a concerted effort
to tie him to Russia.
Is it crime surround yourself with people that will help you fullfill your pledges?
Yep, when he talked about murdering journalists, I paused the video and told my girlfriend about the murder of Michael Hastings.
Oh an PS the USA puts journalists in Guantanamo. We play real baseball.
Aaron Mate is a brilliant interviewer. He keeps a calm demeanor, but does not let his guest get away with any untruths
or non sequiturs. This one of the many reasons I love The Real News. I encourage anyone who appreciates solid journalism to donate
to The Real News.
GREAT follow up questions Aaron... Harding did not expect to get a real reporter... he obfuscates and diverts to other
issues because he can not EVER provide any evidence... Going to Moscow will not tell you anything about whether or not the DNC
server was hacked.
Luke Harding is a complete and total idiot. He kept qualifying his arguments with "I've been to Moscow... I don't know
if you know this, but I've been to Moscow..." and even at one point, "Some of my friends have been murdered." LOL, sure, whatever
you say, Luke! Like you're so big time and such an all star journalist who isn't just trying to capitalize on the wild goose chase
that is psychologically trapping leftists into delusions and wishful thinking.
NSA monitors every communication over the internet. if the Russians hacked the DNC, there would be proof, and it would
not take years to uncover. Look at the numbers: Clinton spent 2 billion, Russian "agents" spent 200k to "influence" the election.
Great job Aaron for holding this opportunist's feet to the fire. Oh he's a story teller all right. You know a synonym of storyteller?
LIAR!!!!
Wow Aaron Matte NICE JOB. I'm only half through, I hope you don't make him cry. Do u make him cry? Did I hear this guy say
he's ultimately a storyteller? Lol.
It may seem like Trump has an alarming amount of associations with Russia, because he does.. that's how rich oligarchs work.
But it's all just SPECULATION still. Why publish a book on this without a smoking gun to prove anything? Collusion isn't even
a legal term, it's vague enough for people to make it mean whatever they want it to mean. People investigating and reporting on
this are operating under confirmation bias. Aaron, you're always appropriately critical and you're always asking the right questions.
You seem to be one of the few sane people left in media. Trump is a disgrace but there still is no smoking gun.
Omg a bunch of unproven conspiracy crap.. Hes making so many factual wrong statements I don't know where to start here..
How would anyone in the years before his candidacy have thought Trump would gain any political relevance. I mean even the pro
Hillary media thought until the end, their massive trump coverage would only help to get him NOT elected, but the opposite was
the case. This guy is a complete joke as are his theses. Actually reminding me of the guardian's so called report about Russian
Hacking in the Brexit referendum. Look here if you want to have a laugh
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2017/12/how-097-changed-the-fate-of-britain-not.html
Collusion Rejectionist! Ha Ha. Funniest interview ever. Well done Aaron. The Real News taking a stand for truth. So what's
in the book if there's no evidence? Guardian journalism? Stop questioning the official narrative, oh and have you heard of Estonia.
:)) ps that smiley face was not an admission of my working for the Kremlin.
Best interview ever. Aaron held him to his theories and asked what evidence or proof he had and he didn't come up with one
spec of evidence only hearsay and disputed theories. What a sad indictment this is on America. 1 year on a sensationalized story
and still nothing concrete. What a joke and proof of gullibility to anyone who believes this corporate media Narritive. I guess
at least they don't have to cover policies like the tax theft or net neutrality. This is why we need The Real news.
I'd rather have American business making business deals with Russia for things like hotels, rather than business deals with
the Pentagon to aim more weapons at the Russians. When haven't we been doing business with Russians? We might as well investigate
Cargill, Pepsi, McDonald's, John Deere, Ford, and most of our wheat farmers.
A foreign intelligence asset was used to justify surveillance of Trump[ and some of his associates
Notable quotes:
"... What is clear from the new records is that Christopher Steele, a foreign intelligence officer, had frequent and extensive contacts with the FBI. Who was his FBI Case Agent? ..."
"... The main thing I want to know is WHEN was the decision made to tar Trump with Russia - both at the FBI (and likely CIA) and at the DNC (over the leak) - and WHO was the deciding entity - Comey, Brennan, Clinton, Obama or someone else? And perhaps who came up with the idea in the first place (at the DNC, it was very likely Alexandra Chalupa, the Ukrainian-American DNC "consultant"). ..."
"... The bad thing is that our MSM is so reverent of our Intel agencies that I see them encouraged to increasingly put their hand on the scale. ..."
"... Recently, I saw arm flailing by a Congressman, Dan Coats, and Mueller about how the Russians are still at it. They are trying to disrupt or influence the 2018. Really, then I demand to get a list of the pro-Kremlin candidates. How long before the mere threat of being outed as a Kremlin agent is used to punish elected officials if they are not sufficiently hawkish or don't support certain programs. Unchallenged claims by Intel agencies gives them a lot of political power. ..."
"... I am skeptical. Russia has a lot of fish to fry, why would they expend resources on midterm elections. Now everyone in the U.S. hates them, both traditional hawk Republicans and born again uber-hawk Democrats. There is a tiger behind both doors. ..."
"... if Steele had been a CHS since at least February of 2016, what was the purpose of passing the Dossier to the FBI through Fusion GPS? Why not just going to his FBI handler? Was Steele collaboration with Fusion even in compliance with FBI regulations? Did the FBI know? ..."
"... Because part of the plan was to leak the information in order to damage Trump. FBI could not do that. Would have exposed them to some real legal jeopardy. This was a dual track strategy. Diabolical almost. ..."
"... Don't forget the Nellie Ohr (Fusion GPS) -> Bruce Ohr (DOJ) back channel. The husband & wife tag team. Yes, the same Nellie that was investigating using ham radio to communicate to avoid NSA mass surveillance. ..."
"... From the very beginning that information about all this was slowly leaking from the Congressional investigation, this whole thing smelled very fishy. Then add intense effort at DOJ & FBI to obstruct and obfuscate. And the unhinged tweets and interviews by Brennan, Clapper & Comey. ..."
"... He was working with FBI and GPS at the same time. GPS was in the dark supposedly about his work with the FBI and Steele got their approval to hand over what he had delivered to GPS to the FBI as a cover for his work with the FBI. ..."
"... its also likely FBI had some input into the content of what was delivered to GPS, and more importantly what was not delivered. ..."
"... Re the 'standing agreement to not recruit each other's intelligence personnel for clandestine activities.' As Steele was not by this time a current employee of MI6, was the FBI in technical violation of this? ..."
"... A central question in regard to Steele, as with quite a number of former intelligence/law enforcement/military people who have started at least ostensibly private sector operations, is how far these are being used as 'cover' for activities conducted on behalf of either the state agencies for which they used to work, or other state agencies. ..."
"... It is at least possible that one advantage of such arrangements may be that they make it possible to evade the letter of agreements between intelligence agencies in different countries ..."
"... If, as seems likely, both current and former top FBI and DOJ people – very likely Mueller as well as Comey, Strzok and many others – were intimately involved in the conspiracy to subvert the constitution, then a means of making it possible for Steele to combine feeding information to the FBI while also engaging in 'StratCom' via the MSM could have been necessary. ..."
"... An obvious means of 'squaring the circle' would have been to issue a formal 'termination' to Steele, while creating 'back channels' to those who were officially supposed not to be talking to him ..."
"... A report yesterday by John Solomon in 'The Hill' quotes from messages exchanged between Steele and Bruce Ohr after the supposed termination ..."
"... 'In all, Ohr's notes, emails and texts identify more than 60 contacts with Steele and/or Simpson, some dating to 2002 in London. But the vast majority occurred during the 2016-2017 timeframe that gave birth to one of the most controversial counterintelligence probes in American history.' ..."
"... I have just finished taking a fresh look at Sir Robert Owen's travesty of a report into the death of Litvinenko. In large measure, this develops claims originally made in Christopher Steele's first attempt to provide a convincing account of why figures close to Putin might have thought it made sense to assassinate that figure, and to do so with polonium. The sheer volume of fabrication which has been deployed in an attempt to defend the patently indefensible almost beggars belief. ..."
"... Just as a question arises as to whether Steele is essentially acting on behalf of MI6, a question also arises as to whether the FBI leadership were knowledgeable about, and possibly involved with, the various shenanigans in which Shvets and Levinson were involved. Given that claims about Mogilevich have turned out to be central to 'Russiagate', that seems a rather important issue, and I am curious as to whether Ohr's communications with Steele may cast any light on it. ..."
"... Apparently the FBI got Deripaksa to fund the rescue of Levinson from Iran. Furthermore apparently FBI personnel maybe including McCabe visited with Deripaksa and showed him the Steele dossier. He supposedly had a nice guffaw and dismissed it as nonsense. So on the one hand while they make Russia out to be the most evil they play footsie with Russian oligarchs. ..."
"... Thinking about "Christopher Steele was terminated as a Confidential Human Source for cause.", something that doesn't seem to have gotten as much attention is that Peter Strzok failed his poly: ..."
"... Steele's relationship with the FBI extends far further back than February 2016. Shortly after he left MI6, he contracted with the Football Association to investigate possible FIFA corruption. Once he realized the massiveness of this corruption he contacted his old friends at the FBI Eurasian Crimes Task Force in 2011. Thus began his association with the FBI as a CHS. That investigation culminated in the 2015 FIFA corruption indictments and convictions. ..."
"... One thing I don't understand...we have the anti-Trumpers saying that Donald Junior meeting with a Russian national to get 'dirt' on Hillary is illegal...due to some law about candidates collaborating with foreigners or something like that...[obviously I'm foggy on the technical details]... Yet we know that the Hillary campaign worked with a foreign national, Steele, to get dirt on Trump...how is this not the same...? ..."
"... What role did Stefan Halper and Mifsud play as Confidential Human Sources in all this? ..."
"... Why was British Intelligence allegedly collecting and passing along info about Donald Trump in the first place? Or could this have been a pretext created to give cover and/or support to the agenda here in the US to insure his defeat? Could a foreign intelligence source such as this trigger/facilitate/justify the US counterintelligence investigation of Trump, or give cover to a covert investigation that may have already begun? ..."
"... British intelligence was collecting / passing on info about Trump because of his campaign stance on NATO (he said it was obsolete), his desire to end regime change wars (he castigated the fiasco in Iraq, took Bush to task over it etc.), and his often stated desire to get along with Russia (and China). Trump also talked of ending certain economic policies (NAFTA, TPP, etc.) and reenacting others (Glass-Steagall, the American System of Economics i.e. Hamilton, Carey, Clay), If Trump had acted on those, which he has not so far, he would changed the entire world system, a system in place since the end of WW II, or earlier. That was a risk too big to take without some kind of insurance policy - I believe Christopher Steele was that insurance policy. ..."
"... British Intelligence is verifiably the foreign source with the most extensive and effective meddling in the 2016 election. Perfidious Albion. ..."
"... Or, GSHQ was hovering up signint on Trump campaign early-on (using domestics US resources and databases via their 5-Eyes "sharing agreement" with NSA) cuz Brennan asked them to do it? ..."
"... Trump announced his run for President in 2015. I'm pretty sure that every intel service on the planet was watching him, they would be derelict not to. GCHQ may have been collecting intel on all the candidates, ..."
"... Trump announced his run for President in 2015. I'm pretty sure that every intel service on the planet was watching him, they would be derelict not to. GCHQ may have been collecting intel on all the candidates, ..."
"... I've heard that the Echelon system is used by the Five Eyes IC to do something similar. The Brits spy on US, and give the NSA the data so the NSA can evade US laws prohibiting spying on us, and we return the favor to help them evade what (few) laws they have that prohibits spying on their people. ..."
"... still wonder why the US would need to rely so much on British intelligence sources ..."
"... I've read that Steele's cover was blown 20 years ago and he hasn't even been to Russia since, so I wonder why he was considered such a reliable source by both the US and UK? In my opinion as an absolute naif about such things, Steele seems like he may be a has-been when it comes to Russia. ..."
"... Here is a simple explanation from someone who knows almost nothing about how any of the people in power work: Most of them are not as clever and smart as they think they are. And most of the regular people who are just citizens are smarter than these people think they are. ..."
"... It's simply that their arrogant assessment of their own superiority caused them to do really stupid things ..."
The revelations from US Government records about the FBI/Intel Community plot to take out Donald Trump continue to flow thanks
to the dogged efforts of Judicial Watch. The latest nugget came last Friday with the release of FBI records detailing their recruitment
and management of Britain's ostensibly retired Intelligence Officer, Christopher Steele. He was an officially recruited FBI source
and received at least 11 payments during the 9 month period that he was signed up as a Confidential Human Source.
You may find it strange that we can glean so much information from
a document dump that is almost
entirely redacted . The key is to look at the report forms; there are three types--FD-1023 (Source Reports), FD-209a (Contact
Reports) and FD-794b (Payment Requests). There are 15 different 1023s, 13 209a reports and 11 794b payment requests covering the
period from 2 February 2016 thru 1 November 2016. That is a total of nine months.
These reports totally destroy the existing meme that Steele only came into contact with the FBI sometime in July 2016. It is important
for you to understand that a 1023 Source Report is filled out each time that the FBI source handler has contact with the source.
This can be an in person meeting or a phone call. Each report lists the name of the Case Agent; the date, time and location of the
meeting; any other people attending the meeting; and a summary of what was discussed.
What is clear from the new records is that Christopher Steele, a foreign intelligence officer, had frequent and extensive
contacts with the FBI. Who was his FBI Case Agent?
The main thing I want to know is WHEN was the decision made to tar Trump with Russia - both at the FBI (and likely CIA)
and at the DNC (over the leak) - and WHO was the deciding entity - Comey, Brennan, Clinton, Obama or someone else? And perhaps
who came up with the idea in the first place (at the DNC, it was very likely Alexandra Chalupa, the Ukrainian-American DNC "consultant").
We can be pretty sure this predates any alleged Russian "hacking" (unless it occurred as a result of alleged Russian hacking
of the DNC in 2015).
This needs to be pinned down if anyone is to be successfully prosecuted for creating this treasonous hoax.
A very closely related topic, Victor Davis Hanson is onto something but it is darker than he suggests,
https://www.nationalreview.... Paraphrasing, he gives the typical, rally around the flag we must stop the Russians intro but
then documents how govt flaks abused their power to influence our elections and then makes the point, 'this is why the public
is skeptical of their claims'.
The bad thing is that our MSM is so reverent of our Intel agencies that I see them encouraged to increasingly put their
hand on the scale.
Recently, I saw arm flailing by a Congressman, Dan Coats, and Mueller about how the Russians are still at it. They are
trying to disrupt or influence the 2018. Really, then I demand to get a list of the pro-Kremlin candidates. How long before the
mere threat of being outed as a Kremlin agent is used to punish elected officials if they are not sufficiently hawkish or don't
support certain programs. Unchallenged claims by Intel agencies gives them a lot of political power.
I am skeptical. Russia has a lot of fish to fry, why would they expend resources on midterm elections. Now everyone in
the U.S. hates them, both traditional hawk Republicans and born again uber-hawk Democrats. There is a tiger behind both doors.
What I can't figure out is: if Steele had been a CHS since at least February of 2016, what was the purpose of passing the
Dossier to the FBI through Fusion GPS? Why not just going to his FBI handler? Was Steele collaboration with Fusion even in compliance
with FBI regulations? Did the FBI know?
Because part of the plan was to leak the information in order to damage Trump. FBI could not do that. Would have exposed them
to some real legal jeopardy. This was a dual track strategy. Diabolical almost.
Don't forget the Nellie Ohr (Fusion GPS) -> Bruce Ohr (DOJ) back channel. The husband & wife tag team. Yes, the same Nellie
that was investigating using ham radio to communicate to avoid NSA mass surveillance.
From the very beginning that information about all this was slowly leaking from the Congressional investigation, this whole
thing smelled very fishy. Then add intense effort at DOJ & FBI to obstruct and obfuscate. And the unhinged tweets and interviews
by Brennan, Clapper & Comey. And of course the media narrative that Rep. Nunes, Goodlatte and others were endangering "national
security" by casting aspersions on the "patriotic" law enforcement and intelligence agencies.
He was working with FBI and GPS at the same time. GPS was in the dark supposedly about his work with the FBI and Steele got
their approval to hand over what he had delivered to GPS to the FBI as a cover for his work with the FBI.
Of course, he had most likely already done so and its also likely FBI had some input into the content of what was delivered
to GPS, and more importantly what was not delivered.
Re the 'standing agreement to not recruit each other's intelligence personnel for clandestine activities.' As Steele was
not by this time a current employee of MI6, was the FBI in technical violation of this?
The point is not merely a quibble. A central question in regard to Steele, as with quite a number of former intelligence/law
enforcement/military people who have started at least ostensibly private sector operations, is how far these are being used as
'cover' for activities conducted on behalf of either the state agencies for which they used to work, or other state agencies.
It is at least possible that one advantage of such arrangements may be that they make it possible to evade the letter of
agreements between intelligence agencies in different countries.
Another related matter has to do with the termination of Steele as a 'Confidential Human Source.'
It has long seemed to me that it was more than possible that this was not to be taken at face value. If, as seems likely,
both current and former top FBI and DOJ people – very likely Mueller as well as Comey, Strzok and many others – were intimately
involved in the conspiracy to subvert the constitution, then a means of making it possible for Steele to combine feeding information
to the FBI while also engaging in 'StratCom' via the MSM could have been necessary.
An obvious means of 'squaring the circle' would have been to issue a formal 'termination' to Steele, while creating 'back
channels' to those who were officially supposed not to be talking to him.
A report yesterday by John Solomon in 'The Hill' quotes from messages exchanged between Steele and Bruce Ohr after the
supposed termination.
When on 31 January 2017 – well after the publication of the dossier by BuzzFeed – Ohr provided reassurance that he could continue
to help feed information to the FBI, Steele texted back:
"If you end up out though, I really need another (bureau?) contact point/number who is briefed. We can't allow our guy to be
forced to go back home. It would be disastrous."
At that point, Solomon tells us that 'Investigators are trying to determine who Steele was referring to.' This seems to me
a rather important question. It would seem likely, although not certain, that he is talking about another Brit. If he is, would
it have been someone else employed by Orbis? Or someone currently working for British intelligence? What is the precise significance
of 'forced to go back home', and why would this have been 'disastrous'?
Another crucial paragraph:
'In all, Ohr's notes, emails and texts identify more than 60 contacts with Steele and/or Simpson, some dating to 2002 in
London. But the vast majority occurred during the 2016-2017 timeframe that gave birth to one of the most controversial counterintelligence
probes in American history.'
The earlier contacts may be of little interest, but there again they may not be.
As it happens, it was following Berezovsky's arrival in London in October 2001 that the 'information operations' network he
created began to move into high gear. It is moreover clear that this was always a transatlantic operation, and also fragments
of evidence suggest that the FBI may have had some involvement from early on.
I have just finished taking a fresh look at Sir Robert Owen's travesty of a report into the death of Litvinenko. In large
measure, this develops claims originally made in Christopher Steele's first attempt to provide a convincing account of why figures
close to Putin might have thought it made sense to assassinate that figure, and to do so with polonium. The sheer volume of fabrication
which has been deployed in an attempt to defend the patently indefensible almost beggars belief.
The original attempt came in a radio programme broadcast by the BBC – which was to become known to some of us as the 'Berezovsky
Broadcasting Corporation' – on 16 December 2006, presented by Tom Mangold, a familiar 'trusty' for the intelligence services.
(A transcript sent out from the Cabinet Office at the time is available on the archived 'Evidence' page for the Inquiry, at
http://webarchive.nationala... , as HMG000513. There is an interesting and rather important question as to whether those who
sent it out, and those who received it, knew that it was more or less BS from start to finish.)
The programme was wholly devoted to claims made by the former KGB operative Yuri Shvets, who was presented as an independent
'due diligence' expert, without any mention of the rather major role he had played in the original 'Orange Revolution.'
Back-up was provided by his supposed collaborator in 'due diligence', the former FBI operative Robert 'Bobby' Levinson. No
mention was made of the fact that he had been, in the 'Nineties, a, if not the lead FBI investigator into the notorious Ukrainian
Jewish mobster Semyon Mogilevich.
The following March Levinson would disappear on the Iranian island of Kish, on what we now know was a covert mission on behalf
of elements in the CIA.
Just as a question arises as to whether Steele is essentially acting on behalf of MI6, a question also arises as to whether
the FBI leadership were knowledgeable about, and possibly involved with, the various shenanigans in which Shvets and Levinson
were involved. Given that claims about Mogilevich have turned out to be central to 'Russiagate', that seems a rather important
issue, and I am curious as to whether Ohr's communications with Steele may cast any light on it.
Apparently the FBI got Deripaksa to fund the rescue of Levinson from Iran. Furthermore apparently FBI personnel maybe including
McCabe visited with Deripaksa and showed him the Steele dossier. He supposedly had a nice guffaw and dismissed it as nonsense.
So on the one hand while they make Russia out to be the most evil they play footsie with Russian oligarchs.
Thinking about "Christopher Steele was terminated as a Confidential Human Source for cause.", something that doesn't seem
to have gotten as much attention is that Peter Strzok failed his poly:
Steele's relationship with the FBI extends far further back than February 2016. Shortly after he left MI6, he contracted with
the Football Association to investigate possible FIFA corruption. Once he realized the massiveness of this corruption he contacted
his old friends at the FBI Eurasian Crimes Task Force in 2011. Thus began his association with the FBI as a CHS. That investigation
culminated in the 2015 FIFA corruption indictments and convictions. His initial contact with old friends at the FBI Eurasian
Crime Task Force is awfully similar to his contacting these same friends in 2016 after deciding his initial Trump research was
potentially bigger than mere opposition research.
One thing I don't understand...we have the anti-Trumpers saying that Donald Junior meeting with a Russian national to get
'dirt' on Hillary is illegal...due to some law about candidates collaborating with foreigners or something like that...[obviously
I'm foggy on the technical details]... Yet we know that the Hillary campaign worked with a foreign national, Steele, to get dirt
on Trump...how is this not the same...?
Even worse is that the FBI was using this same foreign agent that a presidential
candidate had hired to get dirt on an opponent... Even knowing nothing about legalities this just doesn't look very good...
Stupid question? As the Col. has explained, the President can declassify any document he pleases. So, why doesn't Donaldo unredact
the redacted portions of these bullcrap docs? What is he afraid of? That the Intel community will get mad and be out to get him?
Isn't time for him to show some cojones?
Why was British Intelligence allegedly collecting and passing along info about Donald Trump in the first place? Or could this
have been a pretext created to give cover and/or support to the agenda here in the US to insure his defeat? Could a foreign intelligence
source such as this trigger/facilitate/justify the US counterintelligence investigation of Trump, or give cover to a covert investigation
that may have already begun?
British intelligence was collecting / passing on info about Trump because of his campaign stance on NATO (he said it was obsolete),
his desire to end regime change wars (he castigated the fiasco in Iraq, took Bush to task over it etc.), and his often stated
desire to get along with Russia (and China). Trump also talked of ending certain economic policies (NAFTA, TPP, etc.) and reenacting
others (Glass-Steagall, the American System of Economics i.e. Hamilton, Carey, Clay), If Trump had acted on those, which he has
not so far, he would changed the entire world system, a system in place since the end of WW II, or earlier. That was a risk too
big to take without some kind of insurance policy - I believe Christopher Steele was that insurance policy.
Or, GSHQ was hovering up signint on Trump campaign early-on (using domestics US resources and databases via their 5-Eyes "sharing
agreement" with NSA) cuz Brennan asked them to do it? And therefore without having to mess about with any formal FISA warrant
thingy's ... But, then use what might be found (or plausibly alleged) to try to get a proper FISA warrant later on (July 2016)?
'Parallel Discovery' of sorts; with Fusion GPS also a leaky cut-out: channelling media reports to be used as confirmation of Steele's
"raw intelligence" in the formal FISA application(s)?
Trump announced his run for President in 2015. I'm pretty sure that every intel service on the planet was watching him, they
would be derelict not to. GCHQ may have been collecting intel on all the candidates,
" Trump announced his run for President in 2015. I'm pretty sure that every intel service on the planet was watching
him, they would be derelict not to. GCHQ may have been collecting intel on all the candidates, "
That's a good question, could it legally enable an end run around the FISC until enough evidence was gathered for a FISC surveillance
authorization?.
I've heard that the Echelon system is used by the Five Eyes IC to do something similar. The Brits spy on US, and give the
NSA the data so the NSA can evade US laws prohibiting spying on us, and we return the favor to help them evade what (few) laws
they have that prohibits spying on their people.
Only a matter of time until someone figured out the same method could be used to "meddle" in national affairs.
I understand, but still wonder why the US would need to rely so much on British intelligence sources such as Steele about
a very high profile American citizen and businessman -- aren't our intelligence services competent enough to have known and discovered
as much if not more about Trump than other countries' intelligence services? I've read that Steele's cover was blown 20 years
ago and he hasn't even been to Russia since, so I wonder why he was considered such a reliable source by both the US and UK? In
my opinion as an absolute naif about such things, Steele seems like he may be a has-been when it comes to Russia.
Here is a simple explanation from someone who knows almost nothing about how any of the people in power work: Most of them
are not as clever and smart as they think they are. And most of the regular people who are just citizens are smarter than these
people think they are.
It's simply that their arrogant assessment of their own superiority caused them to do really stupid things.
"... Meanwhile, Sater is still working for the FBI , according to two current FBI agents. Moreover, he has relationships with at least six members of Robert Mueller's team, "some going back more than 10 years." ..."
Felix Sater, the man at the center of a controversial email "tying" President Trump to
Russia while trying to work a business deal, has come forward in a comprehensive
BuzzFeed News Exposé, which if Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Anthony Cormier and
co-author Jason Leopold hadn't verified - nobody would believe.
Sater went from a "Wall Street wunderkind" working at Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers, to
getting barred from the securities industry over a barroom brawl which led to a year in prison,
to facilitating a $40 million pump-and-dump stock scheme for the New York mafia, to working
telecom deals in Russia - where the FBI and CIA tapped him as an undercover intelligence asset
who was told by his handler " I want you to understand: If you're caught, the USA is going to
disavow you and, at best, you get a bullet in the head ."
... ... ...
Meanwhile, Sater is still working for the FBI , according to two current FBI agents.
Moreover, he has relationships with at least six members of Robert Mueller's team, "some going
back more than 10 years."
To this day, Sater continues to cooperate with the FBI and Justice Department, he said in
his statement to the House Intelligence Committee. He wouldn't disclose additional details,
except to say that he works on "international matters." Two US officials confirmed Sater
continues to be a reliable asset.
As for his regular life, when he relocated back to the US in 2010, he recalled, "Donald
said, 'Where have you been?'" Sater said Trump asked him to join the Trump Organization.
"That's when I became senior advisor to him," he said. The Trump Organization and the White
House declined to comment. - BuzzFeed
In effect, Sater - at least according to BuzzFeed , is more or less a rockstar opportunist
spy with a shady past, who redeemed himself as an asset for the CIA, the Defense Intelligence
Agency (DIA) and the FBI. During the course of his work for the agencies, all unpaid, BuzzFeed
confirmed the following exploits:
He obtained five of the personal satellite telephone numbers for Osama bin Laden before
9/11 and he helped flip the personal secretary to Mullah Omar, then the head of the Taliban
and an ally of bin Laden, into a source who provided the location of al-Qaeda training camps
and weapons caches.
In 2004, he persuaded a source in Russia's foreign military intelligence to hand over the
name and photographs of a North Korean military operative who was purchasing equipment to
build the country's nuclear arsenal.
Sater provided US intelligence with details about possible assassination threats against
former president George W. Bush and secretary of state Colin Powell. Sater reported that
jihadists were hiding in a hut outside Bagram Air Base and planned to shoot down Powell's
plane during a January 2002 visit. He later told his handlers that two female al-Qaeda
members were trying to recruit an Afghan woman working in the Senate barbershop to poison
President Bush or Vice President Dick Cheney.
He went undercover in Cyprus and Istanbul to catch Russian and Ukrainian cybercriminals
around 2005. After the FBI set him up with a fake name and background, Sater posed as a money
launderer to help nab the suspects for washing funds stolen from US financial institutions
.
"... I was not in the least surprised at reports that a known torturer was slated to head the CIA, and I expected quick confirmation. Such is my opinion of our ruling classes. ..."
"... Whatever Haspel may be, we can be sure the CIA will continue to torture, detain people without charge, assassinate and terrorize with its own drone force, and cause mayhem around the world and at home. No one can be trusted with the Ring of Power. ..."
"... American Exceptionalism is perhaps the most toxic ideology since Nazism and Stalinism. It says that the United States is always virtuous even when it tortures, when it bombs towns, villages, cities in the name of "freedom or installs dictators, military governments, trains torturers, and, yes, rapes and loots in the name of "democracy." ..."
"... Fast forward to January, 2017 and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer telling MSNBC's Rachael Maddow that President-elect Donald Trump is "being really dumb" by criticizing the intelligence community and its assessments on Russia's cyber activities: Shumer: "Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you, So even for a practical, supposedly hard-nosed businessman, he's being really dumb to do this." No, Shumer wasn't joking. He was serious. ..."
"... There won't be a 'Nuremberg' tribunal because Al Qaida didn't defeat the United States, and you'd have to convict not just Ms. Haspel, but a sizeable portion of the U.S. Government. ..."
"... If nothing else, the appointment of Bloody Gina as CIA head finally drives a wooden stake through the heart of the myth that "we're The Good Guys(tm)!" or its cousin "all we gotta do is elect Team D and we can be The Good Guys(R) again!" ..."
"... I do not know whether to admire Mr. van Buren's idealism or be astonished at his naivete. Has he never heard of the School of the Americas, of sinister reputation, or the Condor Plan, aided and abetted by U.S. intelligence? People in Latin America know better than to believe the U.S. protestations of virtue. They know about torturers, and the U.S. support for them. ..."
"... She was put in charge there not long after and oversaw the waterboarding of at least one prisoner, and later followed orders to destroy the tapes of waterboarding at that site. Your claim that " She had nothing to do with torture anywhere" is incorrect. ..."
"... furbo: your contention that " US extreme interrogation techniques are not equivalent to forcible sodomy, beating the genitals, pounding the kidneys, or breaking bones" is wrong. The UN Convention against Torture, to which the US is a signatory, states " For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person " Ask anyone who has been waterboarded whether that fits the official definition? ..."
"... Ceterum censeo: given that the Iraq invasion and occupation was an act of aggressive war in violation of the UN Charter and thus illegal under US law, it is not just torturers but also war criminals in government and general staff that have to be considered in the contexts of these words. ..."
Nothing will say more about who we are, across three American administrations -- one that demanded torture, one that covered it
up, and one that seeks to promote its bloody participants -- than whether Gina Haspel becomes director of the CIA.
Haspel oversaw the
torture of human beings in Thailand as the chief of a CIA black site in 2002. Since then, she's worked her way up to deputy director
at the CIA. With current director Mike Pompeo slated to move to Foggy Bottom, President Donald Trump has proposed Haspel as the Agency's
new head.
Haspel's victims waiting for death in Guantanamo cannot speak to us, though they no doubt remember their own screams as they were
waterboarded. And we can still hear former CIA officer
John Kiriakousay : "We did
call her Bloody Gina. Gina was always very quick and very willing to use force. Gina and people like Gina did it, I think, because
they enjoyed doing it. They tortured just for the sake of torture, not for the sake of gathering information."
It was Kiriakou who exposed the obsessive debate over the effectiveness of torture as false. The real purpose of torture conducted
by those like Gina Haspel was to seek vengeance, humiliation, and power. We're just slapping you now, she would have said in that
Thai prison, but we control you, and who knows what will happen next, what we're capable of? The torture victim is left to imagine
what form the hurt will take and just how severe it will be, creating his own terror.
Haspel won't be asked at her confirmation hearing to explain how torture works, but those who were waterboarded under her stewardship
certainly could.
I met my first torture victim in Korea, where I was adjudicating visas for the State Department. Persons with serious criminal
records are ineligible to travel to the United States, with an exception for dissidents who have committed political crimes. The
man I spoke with said that under the U.S.-supported military dictatorship of Park Chung Hee he was tortured for writing anti-government
verse. He was taken to a small underground cell. Two men arrived and beat him repeatedly on his testicles and sodomized him with
one of the tools they had used for the beating. They asked no questions. They barely spoke to him at all.
Though the pain was beyond his ability to describe, he said the subsequent humiliation of being left so utterly helpless was what
really affected his life. It destroyed his marriage, sent him to the repeated empty comfort of alcohol, and kept him from ever putting
pen to paper again. The men who destroyed him, he told me, did their work, and then departed, as if they had others to visit and
needed to get on with things. He was released a few days later and driven back to his apartment by the police. A forward-looking
gesture.
The second torture victim I met was while I was stationed in Iraq. The prison that had held him was under the control of shadowy
U.S.-trained Iraqi security forces. Inside, masked men bound him at the wrists and ankles and hung him upside-down. He said they
neither asked him questions nor demanded information. They did whip his testicles with a leather strap, then beat the bottoms of
his feet and the area around his kidneys. They slapped him. They broke the bones in his right foot with a steel rod, a piece of rebar
ordinarily used to reinforce concrete.
It was painful, he told me, but he had felt pain before. What destroyed him was the feeling of utter helplessness, the inability
to control things around him as he once had. He showed me the caved-in portion of his foot, which still bore a rod-like indentation
with faint signs of metal grooves.
Gina Haspel is the same as those who were in the room with the Korean. She is no different than those who tormented the Iraqi.
As head of a black site, Haspel had sole authority to halt the questioning of suspects, but she allowed torture to continue.
New information
and a redaction of earlier reporting that said Haspel was present for the waterboarding and torture of Abu Zubaydah (she was
actually the station chief at the black site after those sessions) makes it less clear whether Haspel oversaw the torture
of all of the prisoners there, but pay it little mind. The confusion arises from the government's refusal to tell us what Haspel
actually did as a torturer. So many records have yet to be released and those that have been are heavily redacted. Then there are
the tapes of Zubaydah's waterboarding, which Haspel later pushed to have destroyed.
Arguing over just how much blood she has in her hands is a distraction from the fact that she indeed has blood on her hands.
Gina Haspel is now eligible for the CIA directorship because Barack Obama did not prosecute anyone for torture; he merely signed
an executive order banning it in the future. He did not hold any truth commissions, and ensured that almost all government documents
on the torture program remained classified. He did not prosecute the CIA officials who destroyed videotapes of the torture scenes.
Obama ignored the truth that sees former Nazis continue to be hunted some 70 years after the Holocaust: that those who do evil
on behalf of a government are individually responsible. "I was only following orders" is not a defense of inhuman acts. The purpose
of tracking down the guilty is to punish them, to discourage the next person from doing evil, and to morally immunize a nation-state.
To punish Gina Haspel "more than 15 years later for doing what her country asked her to do, and in response to what she was told
were lawful orders, would be a travesty and a disgrace,"
claims one of
her supporters. "Haspel did nothing more and nothing less than what the nation and the agency asked her to do, and she did it well,"
said Michael Hayden,
who headed the CIA during the height of the Iraq war from 2006-2009.
Influential people in Congress agree. Senator Richard Burr, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, which will soon review
Haspel's nomination,
said , "I know Gina personally and she has the right skill set, experience, and judgment to lead one of our nation's most critical
agencies."
"She'll have to answer for that period of time, but I think she's a highly qualified person,"
offered Senator
Lindsey Graham. Democratic Senator Bill Nelson
defended Haspel's
actions, saying they were "the accepted practice of the day" and shouldn't disqualify her.
His fellow Democrat Senator Dianne Feinstein, ranking member on the Intelligence Committee, signaled her likely acceptance,
saying , "Since my concerns were raised over the torture situation, I have met with her extensively, talked with her She has
been, I believe, a good deputy director." Senator Susan Collins
added that Haspel "certainly has the expertise and experience as a 30-year employee of the agency." John McCain, a victim of
torture during the Vietnam War,
mumbled only that Haspel would have to explain her role.
Nearly alone at present, Republican Senator Rand Paul says he will
oppose Haspel's nomination. Senators Ron Wyden and Martin Heinrich, both Democrats, have told Trump she is unsuitable and will
likely also vote no.
Following World War II, the United States could have easily executed those Nazis responsible for the Holocaust, or thrown them
into some forever jail on an island military base. It would have been hard to find anyone who wouldn't have supported brutally torturing
them at a black site. Instead, they were put on public trial at Nuremberg and made to defend their actions as the evidence against
them was laid bare. The point was to demonstrate that We were better than Them.
Today we refuse to understand what Haspel's victims, and the Korean writer, and the Iraqi insurgent, already know on our behalf:
unless Congress awakens to confront this nightmare and deny Gina Haspel's nomination as director of the CIA, torture will have transformed
us and so it will consume us. Gina Haspel is a torturer. We are torturers. It is as if Nuremberg never happened.
Peter Van Buren, a 24-year State Department veteran, is the author of
We Meant Well : How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People andHooper's War : A Novel of WWII Japan. He tweets@WeMeantWell.
Covering up torture is quite possibly the worst thing Obama did. (I'd put it neck-and-neck with targeted killing.) This nation
desperately needs a president who will expose all of these horrors, and appoint an attorney general who will prosecute these acts
as war crimes.
Trump likes waterboarding. He said so himself. One assumes he meant, being a whimpering coward himself, when someone else does
it to someone else. But who knows? Enjoy judge Gorsuch.
"doing what her country asked her to do, and in response to what she was told were lawful orders"
To complete the parallel, we would need to prosecute and punish those who asked her to do it, and those who told her those
orders were lawful. Instead, some are doing paintings of their toes, some are promoted to be Federal judges, and some are influential
professors at "liberal" law schools. Why punish *only* her?
I was not in the least surprised at reports that a known torturer was slated to head the CIA, and I expected quick confirmation.
Such is my opinion of our ruling classes. I am in full support of Mr. Van Buren's thesis. However, Pro Publica, which seems
to have been the source of much reporting of Haspel's torture record, has retracted the claim that Haspel had tortured in Thailand.
Mr. Van Buren quotes another source from his blog that supports the thesis that Haspel is a torturer. How does one know what to
believe? Whatever Haspel may be, we can be sure the CIA will continue to torture, detain people without charge, assassinate
and terrorize with its own drone force, and cause mayhem around the world and at home. No one can be trusted with the Ring of
Power.
Its because we lost our sense of what makes us who we are. We are an empire that dances for private interests. In Rome they were
called families and led by patricians, they had money private guards, gladiators, and even street people supporting them. In the
Modern USA they are called Interest Groups and/or Corporations. They are lead by CEOs and instead of gladiators they have Lawyers.
Our being better matters less then their own squabbles which is why a torturer could reach the highest seat in intel. The majority
of Americans have lost their sense of being Americans instead they are Republicans, Democrats, etc, etc. Things that once use
to be part of an American have come to define us.
American Exceptionalism is perhaps the most toxic ideology since Nazism and Stalinism. It says that the United States is always
virtuous even when it tortures, when it bombs towns, villages, cities in the name of "freedom or installs dictators, military
governments, trains torturers, and, yes, rapes and loots in the name of "democracy."
At least this appointment along with the election of Trump shows the true face of the United States in international affairs.
When we face the fact we are (a) an oligarchy and (b) a brutal Empire we might have a chance to return to something more human.
Few readers, even of TAC, will want to look at our recent history of stunning brutality and lack of interest in even being in
the neighborhood of following international law.
CIA has purposefully refused to disclose Haspel's role for a decade+ They have selectively released information last week to discredit
those criticizing her. I don't think we should play their game, letting them set the agenda. Instead, I declaim torture itself
and any role she played in it, whether she poured the water or kept the books.
Does Peter Van Buren's criticism of the CIA's Haspel put him at risk?
In the 2003 film "Love Actually" the British Prime Minister (played by Hugh Grant) jokes with a Downing Street employee Natalie
(Martine McCutcheon):
"PM: You live with your husband? Boyfriend, three illegitimate but charming children? –
"NATALIE: No, I've just split up with my boyfriend, so I'm back with my mum and dad for a while.
"PM: Oh. I'm sorry.
"NATALIE: No, it's fine. I'm well shot of him. He said I was getting fat.
"PM: I beg your pardon?
"NATALIE: He said no one's going to fancy a girl with thighs the size of big tree trunks. Not a nice guy, actually, in the end.
"PM: Right You know, being Prime Minister, I could just have him murdered.
"NATALIE: Thank you, sir. I'll think about it.
"PM: Do – the SAS are absolutely charming – ruthless, trained killers are just a phone call away."
It's just a film. It's just a joke. But the joke works because the public knows that – in reality – the security services have
the skills-sets and the abilities, to do damage anyone they want to do damage to -- and to probably get away with it.
Fast forward to January, 2017 and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer telling MSNBC's Rachael Maddow that President-elect
Donald Trump is "being really dumb" by criticizing the intelligence community and its assessments on Russia's cyber activities:
Shumer: "Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you, So even
for a practical, supposedly hard-nosed businessman, he's being really dumb to do this." No, Shumer wasn't joking. He was serious.
Fast forward again to yesterday, March 17, 2018: Former CIA Director John Brennan wasn't joking when he reacted to the firing
of FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe -- and President Donald Trump's tweeted celebration of it -- by tweeting this attack against
Trump:
"When the full extent of your venality, moral turpitude, and political corruption becomes known, you will take your rightful
place as a disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history. You may scapegoat Andy McCabe, but you will not destroy America America
will triumph over you."
Obama UN Representative Samantha Power followed up on the Brennan tweet with this:
"Not a good idea to piss off John Brennan."
When public officials and former public officials -- like Shumer, Brennan and Power -- make such public statements it must
necessarily have a chilling effect on public criticism of the security services.
After all, none of the three are joking. They're serious. And the American people know that they're serious.
Does Peter Van Buren's criticism of CIA operative Haspel put him at risk?
New information makes it less clear whether Haspel oversaw the torture of all of the prisoners at her black site, but pay it little
mind. The confusion is because the government refuses to tell us what Haspel actually did as a torturer. Arguing over just how
much blood she has on her hands is a distraction when she indeed has blood on her hands.
The idea is her participation on any level at the black site is sufficient to disqualify her from heading the Agency. If the
Agency wishes to clarify her role, as was done via trial for the various Nazis at Nuremberg, we can deal with her actions more
granularly.
Since we have not had any more successful attacks on the scale of 9-11, it is very easy to be scrupulous regarding rough treatment
of terrorists.
But if we had suffered a dozen or more such attacks, of increasing magnitude and maybe involving nuclear weapons, how many
of you would still be condemning Mrs Haspel et al.? Or would you then be complaining they had not used water-boarding enough?
The 20th hijacker, Zacarias Moussaoui, was caught weeks before 9-11. Investigators figured out he was up to no good, tried
to get permission to search his computer, but were denied. The U.S. Government carefully protected his privacy rights. So are
you pleased with the outcome, Mr van Buren?
I'm sorry – this whole piece is a massive non sequitur. Ms. Haspel has no 'blood' on her hands as US extreme interrogation techniques
(sleep deprivation, uncomfortable positions, waterboarding) didn't draw any. They are not equivalent to forcible sodomy, beating
the genitals, pounding the kidneys, or breaking bones. US techniques might have been bad policy – won't argue – but lets not fall
for a false equivalency.
Ms. Haspel was an agent of her government, acting on it's orders under it's policies and guidelines. Which leads to
Nuremberg. The Nuremberg tribunals (they were military tribunals – not trials) were conducted by a victorious military force
against a defeated military force. They were widely criticized as vengeance even by such august people as Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court Stone and associate Justice Douglas. There won't be a 'Nuremberg' tribunal because Al Qaida didn't defeat the
United States, and you'd have to convict not just Ms. Haspel, but a sizeable portion of the U.S. Government.
And lastly there's this from a comment of the authors: "The idea is her participation on any level at the black site is sufficient
to disqualify her from heading the Agency." Utter nonsense. That was the mission of the Agency at that time. It's like saying
a 33yr old Drone Pilot who takes out an ISIS/Al Qaida operative as well as 15 civilians is disqualified to be the Sec Def 2 decades
later.
If nothing else, the appointment of Bloody Gina as CIA head finally drives a wooden stake through the heart of the myth
that "we're The Good Guys(tm)!" or its cousin "all we gotta do is elect Team D and we can be The Good Guys(R) again!"
We demonize Russia at every opportunity, but I don't see Russia rewarding torturers by appointing them to high office.
I didn't know too much about this woman's background until I read that Rand Paul opposes her nomination. I tend to take notice
whenever Rand Paul holds forth on any subject. All I can say is that if her actual record even approximates what has been alleged,
then this woman is unfit for the post–Nuremberg or no Nuremberg.
"As we've proved, we're not better than them. Any of them." Oh, -PLEASE-, spare us the hyperbole! WE burn alive captives held
in cages? WE saw off their heads?
Thousands of US Navy and Air Force pilots have been waterboarded as part of their Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape
(S.E.R.E.) training programs.
All of the torturers should be brought to justice. So should all of the officials who ordered or authorized torture.
There is no statute of limitations on capital Federal crimes. For a U.S. citizen to kill via torture is a capital Federal crime,
no matter where the torture took place. If statutes of limitations make it too late to prosecute some acts of torture, it is not
too late to bring about some measure of justice by making torturers pariahs. As many sexual harassers have recently learned, there
is no statute of limitations in the court of public opinion.
The story linking her to torture has been formally retracted. She had nothing to do with torture anywhere. How about a retraction
of this story and an apology.
I do not know whether to admire Mr. van Buren's idealism or be astonished at his naivete. Has he never heard of the School
of the Americas, of sinister reputation, or the Condor Plan, aided and abetted by U.S. intelligence? People in Latin America know
better than to believe the U.S. protestations of virtue. They know about torturers, and the U.S. support for them.
Personally,
I prefer that the cruelty should be, as Lincoln once put it, "unalloyed by the base metal of hypocrisy"
bob sykes: you should read Pro Publica's retraction (
https://www.propublica.org/article/cia-cables-detail-its-new-deputy-directors-role-in-torture
) of the claim that Haspel was in charge of the Thai black site when Abu Zubaydeh was tortured. She was put in charge there
not long after and oversaw the waterboarding of at least one prisoner, and later followed orders to destroy the tapes of waterboarding
at that site. Your claim that " She had nothing to do with torture anywhere" is incorrect.
Winston: why do you suppose "thousands of US Navy and Air Force pilots have been waterboarded as part of their Survival, Evasion,
Resistance and Escape (S.E.R.E.) training programs"? Is it not to prepare them for the possibility of what we call torture when
used by our adversaries?
furbo: your contention that " US extreme interrogation techniques are not equivalent to forcible sodomy, beating the genitals,
pounding the kidneys, or breaking bones" is wrong. The UN Convention against Torture, to which the US is a signatory, states "
For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental,
is intentionally inflicted on a person " Ask anyone who has been waterboarded whether that fits the official definition?
Wilfred, the problem was not that the Feds protected Zacarias Moussaoui's right to privacy. The problem is that it let any of
the 20 Arab Muslims into the US in the first place. Closing our borders and mass deportations would have been the best thing to
do in the aftermath of 9/11, not torture and invasions.
Very well put. Lest we forget: Bush also delivered the stern warning that "war crimes will be prosecuted, war criminals will be
punished, and it will be no defense to say, 'I was just following orders'."
Ceterum censeo: given that the Iraq invasion and occupation was an act of aggressive war in violation of the UN Charter
and thus illegal under US law, it is not just torturers but also war criminals in government and general staff that have to be
considered in the contexts of these words.
Chris Mallory (Mar 19 @1:47 p.m.), I agree with you. We shouldn't be letting them in.
But if someone had sneaked-a-peek at Moussaoui's laptop during the 3 weeks they had him before 9-11, we might have been able
to thwart the attack altogether. (And the Press has been strangely incurious about investigating whoever it was who issued the
injunction protecting Moussie's precious computer). This type of hand-wringing cost us 3,000 lives. Even more, considering the
Afghan & 2nd Iraq wars would never have been launched, were it not for 9-11.
Intelligence agencies, once created, has their own development dynamics and tend to escape from the control of
civilians and in turn control them. Such an interesting dynamics. In any case, the intelligence agencies and first of all top
brass of those agencies constitute the the core of the "deep state". Unlike civiliant emplorres they are protected by the veil of
secrecy and has access to large funds. Bush the elder was probably the first deep state creature who became the president of the
USA, but "special relationship" of Obama and Brennan is also not a secret.
Another problem is that secrecy and access to surveillance, Which gives intelligence agencies the ability to blackmail politicians.
Availability of unaccounted financial
resources make them real kingmakers. In a sense, as soon as such agencies were created the tail started waging the dog.
Notable quotes:
"... Serving under nine presidents, from Calvin Coolidge to Richard Nixon, the FBI was turned into a "Gestapo by Hoover whose modus operandi was blackmail". That's how President Harry Truman (1943-53) reportedly characterized Hoover's bureau. How else do you think he survived for so long – five decades – as the nation's top law enforcer? ..."
"... One of Hoover's mainstay sources is strongly believed to be Mafia crime bosses who had lots of dirt on politicians, from bribe-taking to vote-rigging, to illicit sexual affairs. It is suspected that the Mafia had their own dossier of images on Hoover in a compromising homosexual tryst which, in turn, kept him under their thumb. ..."
"... JFK was particularly wide open to blackmail owing to his rampant promiscuity and extra-marital liaisons, including with screen idol Marilyn Monroe. Kennedy more than once confided to his aides that "the bastards" had him nailed. It was for this reason that he made the thuggish Texan Senator Lyndon B Johnson his vice president even though he detested LBJ. Hoover and Johnson were longtime associates and the former no doubt pulled a favor to get LBJ into the White House. ..."
"... However, Hoover's blackmail on JFK was not enough to curtail his defiance of rabidly anti-communist Cold War politics. Against the hostility of the Pentagon, CIA and FBI, Kennedy pursued a courageous policy of detente with the Soviet Union and Cuba. Such a policy no doubt led to his assassination by the Deep State in Dallas on November 22, 1963. There is ample evidence that Hoover and Johnson, who became the new president, then colluded with the Deep State assassins to cover up the assassination as the act of lone nut Lee Harvey Oswald – a cover-up that persists to this day. ..."
"... But Hoover and Johnson got their revenge by subsequently letting Nixon know that there was classified information on him – thanks to FBI wiretaps. The specter of incrimination is possibly a factor in Nixon becoming increasingly paranoid during this presidency, culminating in the ignominy of the Watergate scandal that ended his career. ..."
"... Hoover certainly was the devious architect of a malign Deep State machine. But he was not alone. He instilled a culture and legacy that pervades the top echelons of the bureau. And not just the FBI. The early Cold War years saw the formation of the CIA and the NSA under the Machiavellian guidance of men like Allen Dulles and Richard Helms and a host of others ..."
No other individual in modern US history has a more sinister legacy than John Edgar Hoover,
the founder and lifetime director of the FBI. He founded the bureau in 1924 and was its
director until his death in 1972 at the age of 77.
Serving under nine presidents, from Calvin Coolidge to Richard Nixon, the FBI was turned
into a "Gestapo by Hoover whose modus operandi was blackmail". That's how President Harry
Truman (1943-53) reportedly
characterized Hoover's bureau. How else do you think he survived for so long – five
decades – as the nation's top law enforcer?
J Edgar Hoover and his henchmen kept files on thousands of politicians, judges, journalists
and other public figures, according to
biographer Anthony Summers. Hoover ruthlessly used those files on the secret and often sordid
private lives of senior public figures to control their career conduct and official decisions
so as to serve his interests.
And Hoover's interests were of a rightwing, anti-communist, racist bigot.
Ironically, his own suppressed homosexuality also manifested in witch-hunts against
homosexuals in public life.
It was Hoover's secret files that largely informed the McCarthyite anti-communist
inquisitions of the 1950s, whose baleful legacy on American democracy, foreign policy and
freedom of expression continues to this day.
One of Hoover's mainstay sources is strongly believed to be Mafia crime bosses who had lots
of dirt on politicians, from bribe-taking to vote-rigging, to illicit sexual affairs. It is
suspected that the Mafia had their own dossier of images on Hoover in a compromising homosexual
tryst which, in turn, kept him under their thumb.
Absurdly, the FBI chief maintained that there was "no such thing as the Mafia" in public
statements.
Two notorious cases of how FBI wiretapping worked under Hoover can be seen in the
presidencies of John F Kennedy (1961-63) and Richard Nixon (1969-74).
As recounted by Laurent Guyénot in his 2013 book , 'JFK to 9/11: 50
Years of Deep State', Hoover made a point of letting each new president know of compromising
information he had on them. It wouldn't be brandished overtly as blackmail; the president would
be briefed subtly, "Sir, if someone were to have copies of this it would be damaging to your
career". Enough said.
JFK was particularly wide open to blackmail owing to his rampant promiscuity and
extra-marital liaisons, including with screen idol Marilyn Monroe. Kennedy more than once
confided to his aides that "the bastards" had him nailed. It was for this reason that he made
the thuggish Texan Senator Lyndon B Johnson his vice president even though he detested LBJ.
Hoover and Johnson were longtime associates and the former no doubt pulled a favor to get LBJ
into the White House.
However, Hoover's blackmail on JFK was not enough to curtail his defiance of rabidly
anti-communist Cold War politics. Against the hostility of the Pentagon, CIA and FBI, Kennedy
pursued a courageous policy of detente with the Soviet Union and Cuba. Such a policy no doubt
led to his assassination by the Deep State in Dallas on November 22, 1963. There is ample
evidence that Hoover and Johnson, who became the new president, then colluded with the Deep
State assassins to cover up the assassination as the act of lone nut Lee Harvey Oswald –
a cover-up that persists to this day.
As for Richard Nixon, it is believed that "Tricky Dicky" engaged in secret communications
with the US-backed South Vietnamese regime on the cusp of the presidential elections in 1968.
Nixon promised the South Vietnamese stronger military support if they held off entering peace
talks with communist North Vietnam, which incumbent President Johnson was trying to organize.
LBJ wanted to claim a peace process was underway in order to boost the election chances of his
vice president Hubert Humphrey.
Nixon's scheming prevailed. The Vietnam peace gambit was scuttled, the Vietnam war raged on,
and so the Democrat candidate lost. Nixon finally got into the White House, which he had long
coveted from the time he lost out to JFK back in 1960.
But Hoover and Johnson got their revenge by subsequently letting Nixon know that there was
classified information on him – thanks to FBI wiretaps. The specter of incrimination is
possibly a factor in Nixon becoming increasingly paranoid during this presidency, culminating
in the ignominy of the Watergate scandal that ended his career.
These are but only two examples of how Deep State politics works in controlling and
subverting American democracy. The notion that lawmakers and presidents are free to serve the
people is a quaintly naive one. For the US media to pretend otherwise, and to hail the FBI as
some kind of benign bastion of justice, while also deprecating claims of "Deep State" intrusion
as "conspiracy theory", is either impossibly ignorant of history – or a sign of the
media's own compromised complicity.
Nonetheless, to blame this culture of institutionalized blackmail and corruption on one
individual – J Edgar Hoover – is not fair either.
Hoover certainly was the devious architect of a malign Deep State machine. But he was not
alone. He instilled a culture and legacy that pervades the top echelons of the bureau. And not
just the FBI. The early Cold War years saw the formation of the CIA and the NSA under the
Machiavellian guidance of men like Allen Dulles and Richard Helms and a host of others.
Once formed, the Deep State – as an alternate, unaccountable, unelected government
– does not surrender its immense power willingly. It has learnt to hold on to its power
through blackmail, media control, incitement of wars, and, even ultimately, assassination of
American dissenters.
The illegal tapping of private communications is an oxygen supply for the depredations of
the American Deep State.
Thinking that such agencies are not actively warping and working the electoral system to fix
the figurehead in the White House is a dangerous delusion.
So too are claims that American democracy is being "influenced" by malign Russian enemies,
as the US intelligence chiefs once again
chorused in front of the Senate this past week. The consummate irony of it!
The real "influence campaigns" corrupting American democracy are those of the "All-American"
agencies who claim to be law enforcers and defenders of national security.
US citizens would do well to refresh on the untold history of their country to appreciate
how they are being manipulated.
We might even surmise that a good number of citizens are already aware, if only vaguely, of
the elite corruption – and that is why Washington DC is viewed with increasing contempt
by the people.
Junk author, junk book of the butcher of Yugoslavia who would be hanged with Bill clinton by
Nuremberg Tribunal for crimes against peace. Albright is not bright at all. she a female bully
and that shows.
Mostly projection. And this arrogant warmonger like to exercise in Russophobia (which was the
main part of the USSR which saved the world fro fascism, sacrificing around 20 million people)
This book is book of denial of genocide against Iraqis and Serbian population where bombing with
uranium enriched bombs doubled cancer cases.If you can pass over those facts that this book is
for you.
Like Robert Kagan and other neocons Albright is waiving authoritarism dead chicken again and
again. that's silly and disingenuous. authoritarism is a method of Governance used in military.
It is not an ideology. Fascism is an ideology, a flavor of far right nationalism. Kind of
"enhanced" by some socialist ideas far right nationalism.
The view of fascism without economic circumstances that create fascism, and first of
immiseration of middle and working class and high level of unemployment is a primitive
ahistorical view. Fascism is the ultimate capitalist statism acting simultaneously as the civil
religion for the population also enforced by the power of the state. It has a lot of common with
neoliberalism, that's why neoliberalism is sometimes called "inverted totalitarism".
In reality fascism while remaining the dictatorship of capitalists for capitalist and the
national part of financial oligarchy, it like neoliberalism directed against working class
fascism comes to power on the populist slogans of righting wrong by previous regime and kicking
foreign capitalists and national compradors (which in Germany turned to be mostly Jewish)
out.
It comes to power under the slogans of stopping the distribution of wealth up and elimination
of the class of reinters -- all citizens should earn income, not get it from bond and other
investments (often in reality doing completely the opposite).
While intrinsically connected and financed by a sizable part of national elite which often
consist of far right military leadership, a part of financial oligarchy and large part of lower
middle class (small properties) is is a protest movement which want to revenge for the
humiliation and prefer military style organization of the society to democracy as more potent
weapon to achieve this goal.
Like any far right movement the rise of fascism and neo-fascism is a sign of internal problem
within a given society, often a threat to the state or social order.
Still another noted that Fascism is often linked to people who are part of a distinct ethnic
or racial group, who are under economic stress, and who feel that they are being denied rewards
to which they are entitled. "It's not so much what people have." she said, "but what they think
they should have -- and what they fear." Fear is why Fascism's emotional reach can extend to
all levels of society. No political movement can flourish without popular support, but Fascism
is as dependent on the wealthy and powerful as it is on the man or woman in the street -- on
those who have much to lose and those who have nothing at all.
This insight made us think that Fascism should perhaps be viewed less as a political
ideology than as a means for seizing and holding power. For example, Italy in the 1920s
included self-described Fascists of the left (who advocated a dictatorship of the
dispossessed), of the right (who argued for an authoritarian corporatist state), and of the
center (who sought a return to absolute monarchy). The German National Socialist Party (the
Nazis) originally came together ar ound a list of demands that ca- tered to anti-Semites,
anti-immigrants, and anti-capitalists but also advocated for higher old-age pensions, more
educational op- portunities for the poor, an end to child labor, and improved ma- ternal health
care. The Nazis were racists and, in their own minds, reformers at the same time.
If Fascism concerns itself less with specific policies than with finding a pathway to power,
what about the tactics of lead- ership? My students remarked that the Fascist chiefs we remem-
ber best were charismatic. Through one method or another, each established an emotional link to
the crowd and, like the central figure in a cult, brought deep and often ugly feelings to the
sur- face. This is how the tentacles of Fascism spread inside a democ- racy. Unlike a monarchy
or a military dictatorship imposed on society from above. Fascism draws energy from men and
women who are upset because of a lost war, a lost job, a memory of hu- miliation, or a sense
that their country is in steep decline. The more painful the grounds for resentment, the easier
it is for a Fascist leader to gam followers by dangling the prospect of re- newal or by vowing
to take back what has been stolen.
Like the mobilizers of more benign movements, these secular evangelists exploit the
near-universal human desire to be part of a meaningful quest. The more gifted among them have
an apti- tude for spectacle -- for orchestrating mass gatherings complete with martial music,
incendiary rhetoric, loud cheers, and arm-
lifting salutes. To loyalists, they offer the prize of membership in a club from which
others, often the objects of ridicule, are kept out. To build fervor, Fascists tend to be
aggressive, militaristic, and -- when circumstances allow -- expansionist. To secure the
future, they turn schools into seminaries for true believers, striv- ing to produce "new men"
and "new women" who will obey without question or pause. And, as one of my students observed,
"a Fascist who launches his career by being voted into office will have a claim to legitimacy
that others do not."
After climbing into a position of power, what comes next: How does a Fascist consolidate
authority? Here several students piped up: "By controlling information." Added another, "And
that's one reason we have so much cause to worry today." Most of us have thought of the
technological revolution primarily as a means for people from different walks of life to
connect with one another, trade ideas, and develop a keener understanding of why men and women
act as they do -- in other words, to sharpen our perceptions of truth. That's still the case,
but now we are not so sure. There is a troubling "Big Brother" angle because of the mountain of
personal data being uploaded into social media. If an advertiser can use that information to
home in on a consumer because of his or her individual interests, what's to stop a Fascist
government from doing the same? "Suppose I go to a demonstra- tion like the Women's March,"
said a student, "and post a photo
on social media. My name gets added to a list and that list can end up anywhere. How do we
protect ourselves against that?"
Even more disturbing is the ability shown by rogue regimes and their agents to spread lies
on phony websites and Facebook. Further, technology has made it possible for extremist
organiza- tions to construct echo chambers of support for conspiracy theo- ries, false
narratives, and ignorant views on religion and race. This is the first rule of deception:
repeated often enough, almost any statement, story, or smear can start to sound plausible. The
Internet should be an ally of freedom and a gateway to knowledge; in some cases, it is
neither.
Historian Robert Paxton begins one of his books by assert- ing: "Fascism was the major
political innovation of the twentieth century, and the source of much of its pain." Over the
years, he and other scholars have developed lists of the many moving parts that Fascism
entails. Toward the end of our discussion, my class sought to articulate a comparable list.
Fascism, most of the students agreed, is an extreme form of authoritarian rule. Citizens are
required to do exactly what lead- ers say they must do, nothing more, nothing less. The
doctrine is linked to rabid nationalism. It also turns the traditional social contract upside
down. Instead of citizens giving power to the state in exchange for the protection of their
rights, power begins with the leader, and the people have no rights. Under Fascism,
the mission of citizens is to serve; the government's job is to rule.
When one talks about this subject, confusion often arises about the difference between
Fascism and such related concepts as totalitarianism, dictatorship, despotism, tyranny,
autocracy, and so on. As an academic, I might be tempted to wander into that thicket, but as a
former diplomat, I am primarily concerned with actions, not labels. To my mind, a Fascist is
someone who identifies strongly with and claims to speak for a whole nation or group, is
unconcerned with the rights of others, and is willing to use whatever means are necessary --
including violence -- to achieve his or her goals. In that conception, a Fascist will likely be
a tyrant, but a tyrant need not be a Fascist.
Often the difference can be seen in who is trusted with the guns. In seventeenth-century
Europe, when Catholic aristocrats did battle with Protestant aristocrats, they fought over
scripture but agreed not to distribute weapons to their peasants, thinking it safer to wage war
with mercenary armies. Modern dictators also tend to be wary of their citizens, which is why
they create royal guards and other elite security units to ensure their personal safe- ty. A
Fascist, however, expects the crowd to have his back. Where kings try to settle people down,
Fascists stir them up so that when the fighting begins, their foot soldiers have the will and
the firepower to strike first.
Hypocrisy at its worst from a lady who advocated hawkish foreign policy which included the
most sustained bombing campaign since Vietnam, when, in 1998, Clinton began almost daily
attacks on Iraq in the so-called no-fly zones, and made so-called regime change in Iraq
official U.S. policy.
In May of 1996, 60 Minutes aired an interview with Madeleine Albright, who at the time was
Clinton's U.N. ambassador. Correspondent Leslie Stahl said to Albright, in connection with
the Clinton administration presiding over the most devastating regime of sanctions in history
that the U.N. estimated took the lives of as many as a million Iraqis, the vast majority of
them children. , "We have heard that a half-million children have died. I mean, that's more
children than died in Hiroshima. And -- and, you know, is the price worth it?"
Madeleine Albright replied, "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price -- we think
the price is worth it.
While I found much of the story-telling in "Fascism" engaging, I come away expecting much
more of one of our nation's pre-eminent senior diplomats . In a nutshell, she has devoted a
whole volume to describing the ascent of intolerant fascism and its many faces, but punted on
the question "How should we thwart fascism going forward?"
Even that question leaves me a bit unsatisfied, since it is couched in double-negative
syntax. The thing there is an appetite for, among the readers of this book who are looking
for more than hand-wringing about neofascism, is a unifying title or phrase which captures in
single-positive syntax that which Albright prefers over fascism. What would that be? And, how
do we pursue it, nurture it, spread it and secure it going forward? What is it?
I think Albright would perhaps be willing to rally around "Good Government" as the theme
her book skirts tangentially from the dark periphery of fascistic government. "Virtuous
Government"? "Effective Government"? "Responsive Government"?
People concerned about neofascism want to know what we should be doing right now to avoid
getting sidetracked into a dark alley of future history comparable to the Nazi brown shirt or
Mussolini black shirt epochs. Does Albright present a comprehensive enough understanding of
fascism to instruct on how best to avoid it? Or, is this just another hand-wringing exercise,
a la "you'll know it when you see it", with a proactive superficiality stuck at the level of
pejorative labelling of current styles of government and national leaders? If all you can say
is what you don't want, then the challenge of threading the political future of the US is
left unruddered. To make an analogy to driving a car, if you don't know your destination, and
only can get navigational prompts such as "don't turn here" or "don't go down that street",
then what are the chances of arriving at a purposive destination?
The other part of this book I find off-putting is that Albright, though having served as
Secretary of State, never talks about the heavy burden of responsibility that falls on a head
of state. She doesn't seem to empathize at all with the challenge of top leadership. Her
perspective is that of the detached critic. For instance, in discussing President Duterte of
the Philippines, she fails to paint the dire situation under which he rose to national
leadership responsibility: Islamic separatists having violently taken over the entire city of
Marawi, nor the ubiquitous spread of drug cartel power to the level where control over law
enforcement was already ceded to the gangs in many places...entire islands and city
neighborhoods run by mafia organizations. It's easy to sit back and criticize Duterte's
unleashing of vigilante justice -- What was Mrs. Albright's better alternative to regain
ground from vicious, well-armed criminal organizations? The distancing from leadership
responsibility makes Albright's treatment of the Philippines twin crises of gang-rule and
Islamist revolutionaries seem like so much academic navel-gazing....OK for an undergrad
course at Georgetown maybe, but unworthy of someone who served in a position of high
responsibility. Duterte is liked in the Philippines. What he did snapped back the power of
the cartels, and returned a deserved sense of security to average Philippinos (at least those
not involved with narcotics). Is that not good government, given the horrendous circumstances
Duterte came up to deal with? What lack of responsibility in former Philippine leadership
allowed things to get so out of control? Is it possible that Democrats and liberals are
afraid to be tough, when toughness is what is needed? I'd much rather read an account from an
average Philippino about the positive impacts of the vigilante campaign, than listen of
Madame Secretary sermonizing out of context about Duterte. OK, he's not your idea of a nice
guy. Would you rather sit back, prattle on about the rule of law and due process while
Islamic terrorists wrest control over where you live? Would you prefer the leadership of a
drug cartel boss to Duterte?
My critique is offered in a constructive manner. I would certainly encourage Albright (or
anyone!) to write a book in a positive voice about what it's going to take to have good
national government in the US going forward, and to help spread such abundance globally. I
would define "good" as the capability to make consistently good policy decisions, ones that
continue to look good in hindsight, 10, 20 or 30 years later. What does that take?
I would submit that the essential "preserving democracy" process component is having a
population that is adequately prepared for collaborative problem-solving. Some understanding
of history is helpful, but it's simply not enough. Much more essential is for every young
person to experience team problem-solving, in both its cooperative and competitive aspects.
Every young person needs to experience a team leadership role, and to appreciate what it
takes from leaders to forge constructive design from competing ideas and champions. Only
after serving as a referee will a young person understand the limits to "passion" that
individual contributors should bring to the party. Only after moderating and herding cats
will a young person know how to interact productively with leaders and other contributors.
Much of the skill is counter-instinctual. It's knowing how to express ideas...how to field
criticism....how to nudge people along in the desired direction...and how to avoid ad-hominem
attacks, exaggerations, accusations and speculative grievances. It's learning how to manage
conflict productively toward excellence. Way too few of our young people are learning these
skills, and way too few of our journalists know how to play a constructive role in managing
communications toward successful complex problem-solving. Albright's claim that a
journalist's job is primarily to "hold leaders accountable" really betrays an absolving of
responsibility for the media as a partner in good government -- it doesn't say whether the
media are active players on the problem-solving team (which they have to be for success), or
mere spectators with no responsibility for the outcome. If the latter, then journalism
becomes an irritant, picking at the scabs over and over, but without any forward progress.
When the media takes up a stance as an "opponent" of leadership, you end up with poor
problem-solving results....the system is fighting itself instead of making forward
progress.
"Fascism" doesn't do nearly enough to promote the teaching of practical civics 101 skills,
not just to the kids going into public administration, but to everyone. For, it is in the
norms of civility, their ability to be practiced, and their defense against excesses, that
fascism (e.g., Antifa) is kept at bay.
Everyone in a democracy has to know the basics:
• when entering a disagreement, don't personalize it
• never demonize an opponent
• keep a focus on the goal of agreement and moving forward
• never tell another person what they think, but ask (non-rhetorically) what they think
then be prepared to listen and absorb
• do not speak untruths or exaggerate to make an argument
• do not speculate grievance
• understand truth gathering as a process; detect when certainty is being bluffed;
question sources
• recognize impasse and unproductive argumentation and STOP IT
• know how to introduce a referee or moderator to regain productive collaboration
• avoid ad hominem attacks
• don't take things personally that wrankle you;
• give the benefit of the doubt in an ambiguous situation
• don't jump to conclusions
• don't reward theatrical manipulation
These basics of collaborative problem-solving are the guts of a "liberal democracy" that
can face down the most complex challenges and dilemmas.
I gave the book 3 stars for the great story-telling, and Albright has been part of a great
story of late 20th century history. If she would have told us how to prevent fascism going
forward, and how to roll it back in "hard case" countries like North Korea and Sudan, I would
have given her a 5. I'm not that interested in picking apart the failure cases of
history...they teach mostly negative exemplars. Much rather I would like to read about
positive exemplars of great national government -- "great" defined by popular acclaim, by the
actual ones governed. Where are we seeing that today? Canada? Australia? Interestingly, both
of these positive exemplars have strict immigration policies.
Is it possible that Albright is just unable, by virtue of her narrow escape from Communist
Czechoslovakia and acceptance in NYC as a transplant, to see that an optimum immigration
policy in the US, something like Canada's or Australia's, is not the looming face of fascism,
but rather a move to keep it safely in its corner in coming decades? At least, she admits to
her being biased by her life story.
That suggests her views on refugees and illegal immigrants as deserving of unlimited
rights to migrate into the US might be the kind of cloaked extremism that she is warning us
about.
Albright's book is a comprehensive look at recent history regarding the rise and fall of
fascist leaders; as well as detailing leaders in nations that are starting to mimic fascist
ideals. Instead of a neat definition, she uses examples to bolster her thesis of what are
essential aspects of fascism. Albright dedicates each section of the book to a leader or
regime that enforces fascist values and conveys this to the reader through historical events
and exposition while also peppering in details of her time as Secretary of State. The climax
(and 'warning'), comes at the end, where Albright applies what she has been discussing to the
current state of affairs in the US and abroad.
Overall, I would characterize this as an enjoyable and relatively easy read. I think the
biggest strength of this book is how Albright uses history, previous examples of leaders and
regimes, to demonstrate what fascism looks like and contributing factors on a national and
individual level. I appreciated that she lets these examples speak for themselves of the
dangers and subtleties of a fascist society, which made the book more fascinating and less of
a textbook. Her brief descriptions of her time as Secretary of State were intriguing and made
me more interested in her first book, 'Madame Secretary'. The book does seem a bit slow as it
is not until the end that Albright blatantly reveals the relevance of all of the history
relayed in the first couple hundred pages. The last few chapters are dedicated to the reveal:
the Trump administration and how it has affected global politics. Although, she never
outright calls Trump a fascist, instead letting the reader decide based on his decisions and
what you have read in the book leading up to this point, her stance is quite clear by the
end. I was surprised at what I shared politically with Albright, mainly in immigration and a
belief of empathy and understanding for others. However, I got a slight sense of
anti-secularism in the form of a disdain for those who do not subscribe to an Abrahamic
religion and she seemed to hint at this being partly an opening to fascism.
I also could have done without the both-sides-ism she would occasionally push, which seems
to be a tactic used to encourage people to 'unite against Trump'. These are small annoyances
I had with the book, my main critique is the view Albright takes on democracy. If anything,
the book should have been called "Democracy: the Answer" because that is the most consistent
stance Albright takes throughout. She seems to overlook many of the atrocities the US and
other nations have committed in the name of democracy and the negative consequences of
capitalism, instead, justifying negative actions with the excuse of 'it is for democracy and
everyone wants that' and criticizing those who criticize capitalism.
She does not do a good job of conveying the difference between a communist country like
Russia and a socialist country like those found in Scandinavia and seems okay with the idea
of the reader lumping them all together in a poor light. That being said, I would still
recommend this book for anyone's TBR as the message is essential for today, that the current
world of political affairs is, at least somewhat, teetering on a precipice and we are in need
of as many strong leaders as possible who are willing to uphold democratic ideals on the
world stage and mindful constituents who will vote them in.
The book is very well written, easy to read, and follows a pretty standard formula making
it accessible to the average reader. However, it suffers immensely from, what I suspect are,
deeply ingrained political biases from the author.
Whilst I don't dispute the criteria the author applies in defining fascism, or the targets
she cites as examples, the first bias creeps in here when one realises the examples chosen
are traditional easy targets for the US (with the exception of Turkey). The same criteria
would define a country like Singapore perfectly as fascist, yet the country (or Malaysia)
does not receive a mention in the book.
Further, it grossly glosses over what Ms. Albright terms facist traits from the US
governments of the past. If the author is to be believed, the CIA is holier than thou, never
intervened anywhere or did anything that wasn't with the best interests of democracy at
heart, and American foreign policy has always existed to build friendships and help out their
buddies. To someone ingrained in this rhetoric for years I am sure this is an easy pill to
swallow, but to the rest of the world it makes a number of assertions in the book come across
as incredibly naive. out of 5 stars
Trite and opaque
We went with my husband to the presentation of this book at UPenn with Albright before it
came out and Madeleine's spunk, wit and just glorious brightness almost blinded me. This is a
2.5 star book, because 81 year old author does not really tell you all there is to tell when
she opens up on a subject in any particular chapter, especially if it concerns current US
interest.
Lets start from the beginning of the book. What really stood out, the missing 3rd Germany
ally, Japan and its emperor. Hirohito (1901-1989) was emperor of Japan from 1926 until his
death in 1989. He took over at a time of rising democratic sentiment, but his country soon
turned toward ultra-nationalism and militarism. During World War II (1939-45), Japan attacked
nearly all of its Asian neighbors, allied itself with Nazi Germany and launched a surprise
assault on the U.S. naval base at Pearl Harbor, forcing US to enter the war in 1941. Hirohito
was never indicted as a war criminal! does he deserve at least a chapter in her book?
Oh and by the way, did author mention anything about sanctions against Germany for
invading Austria, Czechoslovakia, Romania and Poland? Up until the Pearl Harbor USA and
Germany still traded, although in March 1939, FDR slapped a 25% tariff on all German goods.
Like Trump is doing right now to some of US trading partners.
Next monster that deserves a chapter on Genocide in cosmic proportions post WW2 is
communist leader of China Mao Zedung. Mr Dikötter, who has been studying Chinese rural
history from 1958 to 1962, when the nation was facing a famine, compared the systematic
torture, brutality, starvation and killing of Chinese peasants compares to the Second World
War in its magnitude. At least 45 million people were worked, starved or beaten to death in
China over these four years; the total worldwide death toll of the Second World War was 55
million.
We learn that Argentina has given sanctuary to Nazi war criminals, but she forgets to
mention that 88 Nazi scientists arrived in the United States in 1945 and were promptly put to
work. For example, Wernher von Braun was the brains behind the V-2 rocket program, but had
intimate knowledge of what was going on in the concentration camps. Von Braun himself
hand-picked people from horrific places, including Buchenwald concentration camp. Tsk-Tsk
Madeline.
What else? Oh, lets just say that like Madelaine Albright my husband is Jewish and lost
extensive family to Holocoust. Ukrainian nationalists executed his great grandfather on
gistapo orders, his great grandmother disappeared in concentration camp, grandfather was
conscripted in june 1940 and decommissioned september 1945 and went through war as
infantryman through 3 fronts earning several medals. his grandmother, an ukrainian born jew
was a doctor in a military hospital in Saint Petersburg survived famine and saved several
children during blockade. So unlike Maideline who was raised as a Roman Catholic, my husband
grew up in a quiet jewish family in that territory that Stalin grabbed from Poland in 1939,
in a polish turn ukrainian city called Lvov(Lemberg). His family also had to ask for an
asylum, only they had to escape their home in Ukraine in 1991. He was told then "You are a
nice little Zid (Jew), we will kill you last" If you think things in ukraine changed, think
again, few weeks ago in Kiev Roma gypsies were killed and injured during pogroms, and nobody
despite witnesses went to jail. Also during demonstrations openly on the streets C14 unit is
waving swastikas and Heils. Why is is not mentioned anywhere in the book? is is because
Hunter Biden sits on the board of one of Ukraine's largest natural gas companies called
Burisma since May 14, 2014, and Ukraine has an estimated 127.9 trillion cubic feet of
unproved technically recoverable shale gas resources? ( according to the U.S. Energy
Information Administration (EIA).1 The most promising shale reserves appear to be in the
Carpathian Foreland Basin (also called the Lviv-Volyn Basin), which extends across Western
Ukraine from Poland into Romania, and the Dnieper-Donets Basin in the East (which borders
Russia).
Wow, i bet you did not know that. how ugly are politics, even this book that could have been
so much greater if the author told the whole ugly story. And how scary that there are
countries where you can go and openly be fascist.
To me, Fascism fails for the single reason that no two fascist leaders are alike. Learning
about one or a few, in a highly cursory fashion like in this book or in great detail, is
unlikely to provide one with any answers on how to prevent the rise of another or fend
against some such. And, as much as we are witnessing the rise of numerous democratic or
quasi-democratic "strongmen" around the world in global politics, it is difficult to brand
any of them as fascist in the orthodox sense.
As the author writes at the outset, it is difficult to separate a fascist from a tyrant or
a dictator. A fascist is a majoritarian who rouses a large group under some national, racial
or similar flag with rallying cries demanding suppression or exculcation of those excluded
from this group. A typical fascist leader loves her yes-men and hates those who disagree: she
does not mind using violence to suppress dissidents. A fascist has no qualms using propaganda
to popularize the agreeable "facts" and theories while debunking the inconvenient as lies.
What is not discussed explicitly in the book are perhaps some positive traits that separate
fascists from other types of tyrants: fascists are rarely lazy, stupid or prone to doing
things for only personal gains. They differ from the benevolent dictators for their record of
using heavy oppression against their dissidents. Fascists, like all dictators, change rules
to suit themselves, take control of state organizations to exercise total control and use
"our class is the greatest" and "kick others" to fuel their programs.
Despite such a detailed list, each fascist is different from each other. There is little
that even Ms Albright's fascists - from Mussolini and Hitler to Stalin to the Kims to Chavez
or Erdogan - have in common. In fact, most of the opponents of some of these
dictators/leaders would calll them by many other choice words but not fascists. The
circumstances that gave rise to these leaders were highly different and so were their rules,
methods and achievements.
The point, once again, is that none of the strongmen leaders around the world could be
easily categorized as fascists. Or even if they do, assigning them with such a tag and
learning about some other such leaders is unlikely to help. The history discussed in the book
is interesting but disjointed, perfunctory and simplistic. Ms Albright's selection is also
debatable.
Strong leaders who suppress those they deem as opponents have wreaked immense harms and
are a threat to all civil societies. They come in more shades and colours than terms we have
in our vocabulary (dictators, tyrants, fascists, despots, autocrats etc). A study of such
tyrant is needed for anyone with an interest in history, politics, or societal well-being.
Despite Ms Albright's phenomenal knowledge, experience, credentials, personal history and
intentions, this book is perhaps not the best place to objectively learn much about the risks
from the type of things some current leaders are doing or deeming as right.
Each time I get concerned about Trump's rhetoric or past actions I read idiotic opinions,
like those of our second worst ever Secretary of State, and come to appreciate him more.
Pejorative terms like fascism or populism have no place in a rational policy discussion. Both
are blatant attempts to apply a pejorative to any disagreeing opinion. More than half of the
book is fluffed with background of Albright, Hitler and Mussolini. Wikipedia is more
informative. The rest has snippets of more modern dictators, many of whom are either
socialists or attained power through a reaction to failed socialism, as did Hitler. She
squirms mightily to liken Trump to Hitler. It's much easier to see that Sanders is like
Maduro. The USA is following a path more like Venezuela than Germany.
Her history misses that Mussolini was a socialist before he was a fascist, and Nazism in
Germany was a reaction to Wiemar socialism. The danger of fascism in the US is far greater
from the left than from the right. America is far left of where the USSR ever was. Remember
than Marx observed that Russia was not ready for a proletarian revolution. The USA with ready
made capitalism for reform fits Marx's pattern much better. Progressives deny that Sanders
and Warren are socialists. If not they are what Lenin called "useful idiots."
Albright says that she is proud of the speech where she called the USA the 'Indispensable
Nation.' She should be ashamed. Obama followed in his inaugural address, saying that we are
"the indispensable nation, responsible for world security." That turned into a policy of
human rights interventions leading to open ended wars (Syria, Yemen), nations in chaos
(Libya), and distrust of the USA (Egypt, Russia, Turkey, Tunisia, Israel, NK). Trump now has
to make nice with dictators to allay their fears that we are out to replace them.
She admires the good intentions of human rights intervention, ignoring the results. She says
Obama had some success without citing a single instance. He has apologized for Libya, but
needs many more apologies. She says Obama foreign policy has had some success, with no
mention of a single instance. Like many progressives, she confuses good intentions with
performance. Democracy spreading by well intentioned humanitarian intervention has resulted
in a succession of open ended war or anarchy.
The shorter histories of Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and Venezuela are much more
informative, although more a warning against socialism than right wing fascism. Viktor Orban
in Hungary is another reaction to socialism.
Albright ends the book with a forlorn hope that we need a Lincoln or Mandela, exactly what
our two party dictatorship will not generate as it yields ever worse and worse candidates for
our democracy to vote upon, even as our great society utopia generates ever more power for
weak presidents to spend our money and continue wrong headed foreign policy.
The greatest danger to the USA is not fascism, but of excessively poor leadership
continuing our slow slide to the bottom.
At the inception of this entire RussiaGate spectacle I suggested that it was a political
distraction to take the attention away from the rejection by the people of neoliberalism which
has been embraced by the establishments of both political parties.
And that the result of the investigation would be indictments for perjury in the covering up
of illicit business deals and money laundering. But that 'collusion to sway the election' was
without substance, if not a joke.
Everything that has been revealed to date tends to support that.
One thing that Aaron overlooks is the evidence compiled by William Binney and associates
that strongly suggests the DNC hack was no hack at all, but a leak by an insider who was
appalled by the lies and double dealing at the DNC.
In general, RussiaGate is a farcical distraction from other issues as they say in the video.
And this highlights the utterly Machiavellian streak in the corporate Democrats and the Liberal
establishment under the Clintons and their ilk who care more about money and power than the
basic principles that historically sustained their party. I have lost all respect for them.
But unfortunately this does open the door for those who use this to approve of the
Republican establishment, which is 'at least honest' about being substantially corrupt servants
to Big Money who care nothing about democracy, the Constitution, or the public. The best of
them are leaving or have already left, and their party is ruined beyond repair.
This all underscores the paucity of the Red v. Blue, monopoly of two parties, 'lesser of two
evils' model of political thought which has come to dominate the discussion in the US.
We are heavily propagandized by the owners of the corporate media and influencers of the
narrative, and a professional class that has sold its soul for economic advantage and access to
money and power.
Politically Obama was a "despicable coward", or worse, a marionette.
Notable quotes:
"... A 50 state strategy, or no 50 state strategy, it really doesn't matter. Democrats were going to take losses. The key is, making sure the party is unified enough to run public policy courses. ..."
"... Your points make little sense in the face of what people wanted in 2016 that Obama could have delivered without interference from the Republicans. Things like anti-trust enforcement, SEC enforcement aka jailing the banksters, not going into Syria, not supporting the war in Yemen (remember he did both of those on his own without Congress), not making the Bush tax cuts permanent, not staying silent on union issues and actually wearing those oft mentioned comfortable shoes while walking a picket line, the list of what could have been done and that people supported goes on and on. None of which required approval from Congress. ..."
"... And speaking of the ACA, we know that Obama and others did whatever they could to kill single payer and replace it with Romneycare 1.5. The language in the bill and the controversy surrounding it show that no one thought this would give them a short term political advantage. If anything, the run up to the vote finally made enough citizens realize that they didn't hate government insurance, they just hated insurance. And here were the Democrats and Obama, forcing people to buy expensive insurance. ..."
"... He had a mandate for change. He had a majorities in both houses. He had the perfect bully pulpit. He chose not to use any of it. He and others killed the support for local parties. The Democrats needed the JFA with Hillary because Obama had pretty much bankrupted the party in 2012. A commitment to all 50 states would have been huge and would have helped Hillary get on the ground where she needed to shore up support by a few thousand votes. ..."
"... Obama and the Democrats took losses from 2008 on because they promised to do what their constituents voted them in to do and then decided not to do it. ..."
"... People don't have Republican fatigue. They don't have Democrat fatigue. They simply don't see the point in voting for people who won't do what they're voted in to do. ..."
"... The citizens of this country want change. They want higher wages and lower prices. They want less war. They want less government interference. They want their kids to grow up with more opportunities than they did. ..."
"Democratic left playing a long game to get 'Medicare for All'" [Bloomberg Law]. "'We don't have the support that we need,'
said Rep. Pramila Jayapal of Washington, who will co-chair the Progressive Caucus. She said that she'd favor modest expansions
of Medicare or Medicaid eligibility as a step toward Medicare for All. 'I am a big bold thinker; I'm also a good practical
strategist,' Jayapal said.
'It's why the Medicare for All Caucus was started, because we want to get information to our members so people feel
comfortable talking about the attacks we know are going to come.'" • So many Democrat McClellans; so few Democrat Grants.
"Progressives set to push their agenda in Congress and on the campaign trail. The GOP can't wait." [NBC]. "While the party
has moved left on health care, many Democrats seem more comfortable offering an option to buy into Medicare or a similar public
plan rather than creating one single-payer plan that replaces private insurance and covers everyone. Progressives, led by Rep.
Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., and her Medicare For All PAC, plan to whip up support for the maximalist version and advance
legislation in 2019." • The "maximalist version" is exactly what Jayapal herself, quoted by Bloomberg, says she will not seek.
Not sure whether this is Democrat cynicism, sloppy Democrat messaging, or poor reporting. Or all three!
The problem is unlike 1933 large sections of the electorate just wanted more Republican
economics to "deal" with the aftermath. That is the difference between a moderate
recession(historically) and a collapse like the early 1930's had when the British Empire and
the de Rothschild dynasty finally collapsed.
40% didn't want anything the Obama Administration came up with succeed. 40% wanted more
than they could possible politically come up with and that left 20% to actually get something
done. You see why the Democrats had to take losses.
Even if Health Care, which was controversial in the party was nixed for more "stimulus",
Democrats look weak. Politically, Stimulus wasn't that popular and "fiscal deficit" whiners were going to whine
and there are a lot of them.
Naked Capitalism ignores this reality instead, looking for esoteric fantasy. I would argue
Democrats in 2009-10 looked for short term political gain by going with Health Care reform
instead of slowly explaining the advantage of building public assets via stimulus, because
the party was to split on Health Care to create a package that would satisfy enough
people.
Similar the Republican party, since Reagan had done the opposite, took short term
political gain in 2016, which was a mistake, due to their Clinton hatred.
Which is now backfiring and the business cycle is not in a kind spot going forward, which
we knew was likely in 2016.
So not only does "Republican fatigue" hurt in 2018, your on the political defensive for
the next cycle. Short-termism in politics is death.
A 50 state strategy, or no 50 state strategy, it really doesn't matter. Democrats were
going to take losses. The key is, making sure the party is unified enough to run public
policy courses.
I truly don't understand your point of view. I also don't understand your claim that NC
deals in fantasy.
Your points make little sense in the face of what people wanted in 2016 that Obama could
have delivered without interference from the Republicans. Things like anti-trust enforcement,
SEC enforcement aka jailing the banksters, not going into Syria, not supporting the war in
Yemen (remember he did both of those on his own without Congress), not making the Bush tax
cuts permanent, not staying silent on union issues and actually wearing those oft mentioned
comfortable shoes while walking a picket line, the list of what could have been done and that
people supported goes on and on. None of which required approval from Congress.
There's even the bland procedural tactic of delaying the release of the Obamacare exchange
premium price increases until after the election in 2016. He could have delayed that notice
several months and saved Hillary a world of hurt at the polls. But he chose not to use the
administrative tools at his disposal in that case. He also could have seen the writing on the
wall with the multiple shut down threats and gotten ahead of it by asking Congress that if
you are deemed an essential employee you will continue to be paid regardless of whether your
department is funded during a shutdown. With 80% of Americans living paycheck to paycheck
that would have been a huge deal.
And speaking of the ACA, we know that Obama and others did whatever they could to kill
single payer and replace it with Romneycare 1.5. The language in the bill and the controversy
surrounding it show that no one thought this would give them a short term political
advantage. If anything, the run up to the vote finally made enough citizens realize that they
didn't hate government insurance, they just hated insurance. And here were the Democrats and
Obama, forcing people to buy expensive insurance.
Obama took a huge organization that could have helped him barnstorm the country (OFA) just
like what Bernie is doing now and killed it early in his first term. He had a mandate for
change. He had a majorities in both houses. He had the perfect bully pulpit. He chose not to
use any of it. He and others killed the support for local parties. The Democrats needed the JFA with Hillary because Obama had pretty much bankrupted the party in 2012. A commitment to
all 50 states would have been huge and would have helped Hillary get on the ground where she
needed to shore up support by a few thousand votes.
Obama and the Democrats took losses from 2008 on because they promised to do what their
constituents voted them in to do and then decided not to do it. By the time 2016 rolled
around, there were estimates which placed 90% of the counties in the US as not having
recovered from the disaster in 2007. Hillary ran on radical incrementalism aka the status
quo. Who in their right mind could have supported the status quo in 2016?
The Democrats lost seats at all levels of government because of their own incompetence,
because of their cowardice, because of their lazy assumptions that people had nowhere else to
go. So when record numbers of people didn't vote they lost by slim margins in states long
considered True Blue. There is nothing cyclical about any of that.
People don't have Republican fatigue. They don't have Democrat fatigue. They simply don't
see the point in voting for people who won't do what they're voted in to do.
The citizens of
this country want change. They want higher wages and lower prices. They want less war. They
want less government interference. They want their kids to grow up with more opportunities
than they did.
Obama and Hillary and all the rest of the Democrats stalking MSM cameras could
have delivered on some of that but chose not to. And here we are. With President Trump. And
even his broken clock gets something right twice a day, whereas Team Blue has a 50/50 chance
of making the right decision and chooses wrong everytime.
Please provide better examples of your points if you truly want to defend your
argument.
And, that often mentioned reason for voting for Democrats, the Supreme Court. Neither
Obama nor the Democrats fought for their opportunity to put their person on the Supreme
Court. Because of norms I guess. Which actually makes some sense because it broke norms.
Because they simply don't care
I truly don't understand why you think any of that. Most mystifying is your claim that
anyone thought ACA would provide short term political benefit?
You know how Obamacare could have given Hillary a short term political gain? If Obama had
directed HHS to delay releasing any premium increase notices until after the election.
Otherwise, you'd have to support your argument a lot better. NC has the least fantastical
commentary base of any website I've seen.
This is complete and utter nonsense. Your calling depicting NC as "fantasy" is a textbook
example of projection on your part.
The country was terrified and demoralized when Obama took office. Go read the press in
December 2008 and January 2009, since your memory is poor. He not only had window of
opportunity to do an updated 100 days, the country would have welcomed. But he ignored it and
the moment passed.
Obama pushed heath care because that was what he had campaigned on and had a personal
interest in it. He had no interest in banking and finance and was happy to let Geither run
that show.
As for stimulus, bullshit. Trump increased deficit spending with his tax cuts and no one
cares much if at all. The concern re deficit spending was due to the fact that the Obama
economic team was the Clinton (as in Bob Rubin) economics team, which fetishized balanced
budgets or even worse, surpluses. We have explained long form that that stance was directly
responsible for the rapid increase in unproductive household debt, most of all mortgage debt,
which produced the crisis.
Is this shadow of Integrity Initiative in the USA ? This false flag open the possibility that other similar events like
DNC (with very questionable investigation by Crowdstrike, which was a perfect venue to implement a false flag; cybersecurity area is
the perfect environment for planting false flags), MH17 (might be an incident but later it definitely was played as a false flag), Skripals
(Was Skripals poisoning a false flag decided to hide the fact that Sergey Skripal was involved in writing Steele dossier?) and Litvinenko
(probably connected with lack of safety measures in the process of smuggling of Plutonium by Litvinenko himself, but later played a
a false flag). All of those now should be re-assessed from the their potential of being yet another flag flag operation
against Russia. While Browder was a MI6 operation from the very beginning (and that explains
why he abdicated the US citizenship more convincingly that the desire to avoid taxes) .
Notable quotes:
"... Democratic operative Jonathon Morgan - bankrolled by LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman, pulled a Russian bot "false flag" operation against GOP candidate Roy Moore in the Alabama special election last year - creating thousands of fake social media accounts designed to influence voters . Hoffman has since apologized, while Morgan was suspended by Facebook for "coordinated inauthentic" behavior. ..."
"... Really the bigger story is here is that these guys convincingly pretended to be Russian Bots in order to influence an election (not with the message being put forth by the bots, but by their sheer existence as apparent supporters of the Moore campaign). ..."
"... By all appearances, they were Russian bots trying to influence the election. Now we know it was DNC operatives. Yet we are supposed to believe without any proof that the "Russian bots" that supposedly influenced the 2016 Presidential election were, actually, Russian bots, and worthy of a two year long probe about "Russian collusion" and "Russian meddling." ..."
"... The whole thing is probably a farce, not only in the sense that there is no evidence that Russia had any influence at all on a single voter, but also in the sense that there is no evidence that Russia even tried (just claims and allegations by people who have a vested interest in convincing us its true). ..."
For over two years now, the concepts of "Russian collusion" and "Russian election meddling" have been shoved down our throats
by the mainstream media (MSM) under the guise of legitimate concern that the Kremlin may have installed a puppet president in Donald
Trump.
Having no evidence of collusion aside from a largely unverified opposition-research dossier fabricated by a former British spy,
the focus shifted from "collusion" to "meddling" and "influence." In other words, maybe Trump didn't actually collude with Putin,
but the Kremlin used Russian tricks to influence the election in Trump's favor. To some, this looked like nothing more than an establishment
scheme to cast a permanent spectre of doubt over the legitimacy of President Donald J. Trump.
Election meddling "Russian bots" and "troll farms" became the central focus - as claims were levied of social media operations
conducted by Kremlin-linked organizations which sought to influence and divide certain segments of America.
And while scant evidence of a Russian influence operation exists outside of a handful of indictments connected to a St. Petersburg
"Troll farm" (which a liberal journalist
cast serious doubt ov er), the MSM - with all of their proselytizing over the "threat to democracy" that election meddling poses,
has largely decided to ignore actual evidence of "Russian bots" created by Democrat IT experts, used against a GOP candidate in the
Alabama special election, and amplified through the Russian bot-detecting "Hamilton 68" dashboard developed by the same IT experts.
Democratic operative Jonathon Morgan - bankrolled by LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman, pulled a Russian bot "false flag" operation
against GOP candidate Roy Moore in the Alabama special election last year - creating thousands of fake social media accounts designed
to influence voters . Hoffman has since apologized, while Morgan was suspended by Facebook for "coordinated inauthentic" behavior.
As Russian state-owned RT puts
it - and who could blame them for being a bit pissed over the whole thing, "it turns out there really was meddling in American democracy
by "Russian bots." Except they weren't run from Moscow or St. Petersburg, but from the offices of Democrat operatives chiefly responsible
for creating and amplifying the "Russiagate" hysteria over the past two years in a textbook case of psychological projection. "
A week before Christmas, the Senate Intelligence Committee released a report accusing Russia of depressing Democrat voter turnout
by targeting African-Americans on social media. Its authors, New Knowledge, quickly became a household name.
Described by the
New York Times
as a group of "tech specialists who lean Democratic," New Knowledge has ties to both the US military and intelligence agencies.
Its CEO and co-founder Jonathon Morgan previously worked for DARPA, the US military's advanced research agenc y. His partner,
Ryan Fox, is a 15-year veteran of the National Security Agency who also worked as a computer analyst for the Joint Special Operations
Command (JSOC). Their unique skill sets have managed to attract the eye of investors, who pumped $11 million into the company
in 2018 alone.
...
On December 19, a New York Times story revealed that Morgan and his crew had created a fake army of Russian bots, as well as
fake Facebook groups, in order to discredit Republican candidate Roy Moore in Alabama's 2017 special election for the US Senate.
Working on behalf of the Democrats, Morgan and his crew created an estimated 1,000 fake Twitter accounts with Russian names,
and had them follow Moore. They also operated several Facebook pages where they posed as Alabama conservatives who wanted like-minded
voters to support a write-in candidate instead.
In an internal memo, New Knowledge boasted that it had "orchestrated an elaborate 'false flag' operation that planted the idea
that the Moore campaign was amplified on social media by a Russian botnet."
It worked. The botnet claim made a splash on social media and was further amplified by Mother Jones, which based its story
on expert opinion from Morgan's other dubious creation, Hamilton 68. -
RT
Moore ended up losing the Alabama special election by a slim margin of just
In other words: In November 2017 – when Moore and his Democratic opponent were in a bitter fight to win over voters – Morgan
openly promoted the theory that Russian bots were supporting Moore's campaign . A year later – after being caught red-handed orchestrating
a self-described "false flag" operation – Morgan now says that his team never thought that the bots were Russian and have no idea
what their purpose was . Did he think no one would notice? -
RT
Disinformation warrior @ jonathonmorgan attempts to control
damage by lying. He now claims the "false flag operation" never took place and the botnet he promoted as Russian-linked (based
on phony Hamilton68 Russian troll tracker he developed) wasn't Russian https://www.
newknowledge.com/blog/about-ala bama
Even more strange is that Scott Shane - the journalist who wrote the New York Times piece exposing the Alabama "Russian bot" scheme,
knew about it for months after speaking at an event where the organizers bragged about the false flag on Moore .
Shane was one of the speakers at a meeting in September, organized by American Engagement Technologies, a group run by Mikey
Dickerson, President Barack Obama's former tech czar. Dickerson explained how AET spent $100,000 on New Knowledge's campaign to
suppress Republican votes, " enrage" Democrats to boost turnout, and execute a "false flag" to hrt Moore. He dubbed it "Project
Birmingham." - RT
Shane told BuzzFeed that he was "shocked" by the revelations, though hid behind a nondisclosure agreement at the request of American
Engagement Technologies (AET). He instead chose to spin the New Knowledge "false flag" operation on Moore as "limited Russian tactics"
which were part of an "experiment" that had a budget of "only" $100,000 - and which had no effect on the election.
New Knowledge suggested that the false flag operation was simply a "research project," which Morgan suggested was designed "to
better understand and report on the tactics and effects of social media disinformation."
While the New York Times seemed satisfied with his explanation, others pointed out that Morgan had used the Hamilton 68 dashboard
to give his "false flag" more credibility – misleading the public about a "Russian" influence campaign that he knew was fake.
New Knowledge's protestations apparently didn't convince Facebook, which
announced last week that five
accounts linked to New Knowledge – including Morgan's – had been suspended for engaging in "coordinated inauthentic behavior."
- RT
They knew exactly what they were doing
While Morgan and New Knowledge sought to frame the "Project Birmingham" as a simple research project, a leaked copy of the operation's
after-action report reveals that they knew exactly what they were doing .
"We targeted 650,000 like AL voters, with a combination of persona accounts, astroturfing, automated social media amplification
and targeted advertising," reads the report published by entrepreneur and executive coach Jeff Giesea.
The rhetorical question remains, why did the MSM drop this election meddling story like a hot rock after the initial headlines
faded away?
criminal election meddling, but then who the **** is going to click on some morons tactic and switch votes?
anyone basing any funding, whether it is number of facebook hits or attempted mind games by egotistical cuck soyboys needs a serious
psychological examination. fake news is fake BECAUSE IT ISNT REAL AND DOES NOT MATTER TO ANYONE but those living in the excited misery
of their tiny bubble world safe spaces. SOCIAL MEDIA IS A CON AND IS NOT IMPORTANT OR RELEVANT TO ANYONE.
far more serious is destroying ballots, writing in ballots without consent, bussing voters around to vote multiple times in different
districts, registering dead voters and imperosnating the corpses, withholding votes until deadlines pass - making them invalid.
Herdee , 10 minutes ago
NATO on behalf of the Washington politicians uses the same bullsh*t propaganda for continual war.
Mugabe , 20 minutes ago
Yup "PROJECTION"...
Yippie21 , 21 minutes ago
None of this even touches on the 501c3 or whatever that was set up , concerned Alabama voters or somesuch, and was funneled
a **** load of money to be found to be in violation of the law AFTER the election and then it all just disappeared. Nothing to
see here folks, Democrat won, let's move on. There was a LOT of " tests " for the smart-set in that election and it all worked.
We saw a bunch of it used in 2018, especially in Texas with Beto and down-ballot races. Democrats cleaned up like crazy in Texas,
especially in Houston.
2020 is going to be a hot mess. And the press is in on it, and even if illegal or unseemly things are done, as long as Democrats
win, all good... let's move on. Crazy.
LetThemEatRand , 21 minutes ago
The fact that MSM is not covering this story -- which is so big it truly raises major questions about the entire Russiagate
conspiracy including why Mueller was appointed in the first place -- is proof that they have no interest in journalism or the
truth and that they are 100% agenda driven liars. Not that we needed more proof, but there it is anyway.
Oldguy05 , 19 minutes ago
Dimz corruption is a nogo. Now if it were conservatives.......
CosineCosineCosine , 23 minutes ago
I'm not a huge fan, but Jimmy Dore has a cathartic and entertaining 30 minutes on this farce. Well worth the watch:
Really the bigger story is here is that these guys convincingly pretended to be Russian Bots in order to influence an election
(not with the message being put forth by the bots, but by their sheer existence as apparent supporters of the Moore campaign).
By all appearances, they were Russian bots trying to influence the election. Now we know it was DNC operatives. Yet we
are supposed to believe without any proof that the "Russian bots" that supposedly influenced the 2016 Presidential election were,
actually, Russian bots, and worthy of a two year long probe about "Russian collusion" and "Russian meddling."
The whole thing is probably a farce, not only in the sense that there is no evidence that Russia had any influence at all
on a single voter, but also in the sense that there is no evidence that Russia even tried (just claims and allegations by people
who have a vested interest in convincing us its true).
dead hobo , 30 minutes ago
I've been watching Scandal on Netflix. Still only in season 2. Amazing how nothing changes.They nailed it and memorialized
it. The MSM are useful idiots who are happy to make money publicizing what will sell the best.
chunga , 30 minutes ago
The media is biased and sucks, yup.
The reason the reds lost the house is because they went along with this nonsense and did nothing about it, like frightened
baby chipmunks.
JRobby , 33 minutes ago
Only when "the opposition" does it is it illegal. Total totalitarian state wannabe stuff.
divingengineer , 22 minutes ago
Amazing how people can contort reality to justify their own righteous cause, but decry their opposition for the EXACT same
thing. See trump visit to troops signing hats as most recent proof. If DJT takes a piss and sprinkles the seat, it's a crime.
DarkPurpleHaze , 33 minutes ago
They're afraid to expose themselves...unlike Kevin Spacey. Trump or Whitaker will expose this with one signature. It's
coming.
divingengineer , 20 minutes ago
Spacey has totally lost it. See his latest video, it will be a powerful piece of evidence for an insanity plea.
CosineCosineCosine , 10 minutes ago
Disagree strongly. I think it was excellent - perhaps you misunderstood the point? 6 minutes Diana Davidson look at it clarifies
"... Special Counsel Robert Mueller has gone so far down the rabbit hole in his $25 million (taxpayer funded) Russia investigation -- going so far as to have "collected a nude selfie " to satisfy his probe. ..."
Special Counsel Robert Mueller has gone so far down the rabbit hole in his
$25
million (taxpayer funded) Russia investigation -- going so far as to have "collected a nude selfie " to satisfy his probe.
The claim, according to The Hill was contained within a court filing by Russian firm Concord Management and Consulting - one of
three businesses indicted by Mueller in February along with 13 individuals for election meddling.
In the Thursday court
filing accusing Mueller's team of illegally withholding information in the case, Concord attorney Eric Dubelier made mention
of the "nude selfie," asking " Could the manner in which he collected a nude selfie really threaten the national security of the
United States? "
"... On December 19, Donald Trump announced in a Twitter message: "Our boys, our young women, our men, they're all coming back and they're coming back now. We won". Shortly thereafter, Pentagon spokeswoman Dana White said in a statement: "We have started the process of returning US troops home from Syria as we transition to the next phase of the campaign". ..."
"... The temperature is heating up for Trump following the midterms, as the Democrats prepare to take command of the House of Representatives in January, something that Trump had always hoped to avert. He surrounded himself with generals, in the forlorn hope that this would somehow protect him. If the last two years of his presidency were constantly under the cloud of Mueller's investigation, or insinuations of being an agent of Putin, from January 2019 the situation is going to get much more complicated. The Democratic electoral base is baying for the President's impeachment, the party already in full pre-primary mode, with more than 20 candidates competing, with the incumbent of the White House offering the rallying cry. ..."
"... Given that 70% of Americans think that the war in Afghanistan was a mistake, the more that the mainstream media attacks Trump for his decision to withdraw, the more they direct votes to Trump. In this sense, Trump's move seems to be directed at a domestic rather than an international audience. ..."
"... The decision to get out of Syria is timed to coincide with another move that will also very much please Trump's base. The government shutdown is a result of the Democrats refusing to fund Trump's campaign promise to build a wall on the Mexican border. ..."
"... The choice to announce to his base, via Twitter, a victory against ISIS and the immediate withdrawal of US troops was a smart election move with an eye on the 2020 election. ..."
"... Macron has for now reacted angrily at Trump's decision, intensifying the division between the two, and is adamant that the French military presence in Syria will continue. ..."
"... The military-industrial-intelligence-media complex considers Trump's decision the worst of of all possible moves. Mattis even resigned on account of this. ..."
"... For Israel, it is a double disaster, with Netanyahu desperate to survive, seeking to factor in expected elections in a now-or-never political move. Trump probably understands that Bibi is done for, and that at this point, the withdrawal of troops, fulfilling a fundamental electoral promise, counts more than Israeli money and his friendship to Bibi. ..."
On December 19, Donald Trump announced in a Twitter message: "Our boys, our young women,
our men, they're all coming back and they're coming back now. We won". Shortly thereafter,
Pentagon spokeswoman Dana White said in a statement: "We have started the process of returning
US troops home from Syria as we transition to the next phase of the campaign".
The reasons for Donald Trump's move are many, but they are mainly driven by US domestic
concerns. The temperature is heating up for Trump following the midterms, as the Democrats
prepare to take command of the House of Representatives in January, something that Trump had
always hoped to avert. He surrounded himself with generals, in the forlorn hope that this would
somehow protect him. If the last two years of his presidency were constantly under the cloud of
Mueller's investigation, or insinuations of being an agent of Putin, from January 2019 the
situation is going to get much more complicated. The Democratic electoral base is baying for
the President's impeachment, the party already in full pre-primary mode, with more than 20
candidates competing, with the incumbent of the White House offering the rallying cry.
The combination of these factors has forced Trump to change gears, considering that the
military-industrial-intelligence-media-complex has always been ready to get rid of Trump, even
in favor of a President Pence. The only option available for Trump in order to have a chance of
reelection in 2020 is to undertake a self-promotion tour, a practice in which he has few peers,
and which will involve him repeating his mantra of "Promises Made, Promises Kept". He will list
how he has fought against the fake-news media, suffered internal sabotage, as well as other
efforts (from the Fed, the FBI, and Mueller himself) to hamper his efforts to "Make America
Great Again".
Trump has perhaps understood that in order to be re-elected, he must pursue a simple media
strategy that will have a direct impact on his base. Withdrawing US troops from Syria, and
partly from Afghanistan, serves this purpose. It is an easy way to win with his constituents,
while it is a heavy blow to his fiercest critics in Washington who are against this decision.
Given that 70% of Americans think that the war in Afghanistan was a mistake, the more that the
mainstream media attacks Trump for his decision to withdraw, the more they direct votes to
Trump. In this sense, Trump's move seems to be directed at a domestic rather than an
international audience.
The decision to get out of Syria is timed to coincide with another move that will also very
much please Trump's base. The government shutdown is a result of the Democrats refusing to fund
Trump's campaign promise to build a wall on the Mexican border. It is not difficult to
understand that the average citizen is fed up with the useless wars in the Middle East, and
Trump's words on immigration resonate with his voters. The more the media, the Democrats and
the deep state criticize Trump on the wall, on the Syria pull out and on shutting down the
government, the more they are campaigning for him.
This is why in order to understand the withdrawal of the United States from Syria it is
necessary to see things from Trump's perspective, even as frustrating, confusing and
incomprehensible that may seem at times.
The difference this time around was that the decision to withdraw US troops from Syria was
Trump's alone, not something imposed on him by the generals that surround him. The choice to
announce to his base, via Twitter, a victory against ISIS and the immediate withdrawal of US
troops was a smart election move with an eye on the 2020 election.
It is possible that Trump, as is his wont, also wanted to send a message to his alleged
French and British allies present in the northeast of Syria alongside the Syrian Democratic
Forces (SDF) and US soldiers. Trump may be now taunting: "Let's see what you can do without the
US!"
It is as if Trump is admonishing these countries in a more concrete way for not lifting
their weight in terms of military spending. Trump is vindictive and is not averse, after taking
advantage of his opponent, to kicking him once he is down. Trump could be correct in this
regard, and maybe French and British forces will be forced to withdraw their small group of 400
to 500 illegal occupiers of Syrian territory. Macron has for now reacted angrily at Trump's
decision, intensifying the division between the two, and is adamant that the French military
presence in Syria will continue.
There is also a more refined reason to justify the US withdrawal, even if Trump is probably
unaware of it. The problem in these cases is always trying to peer through the fog of war and
propaganda in order to discern the clear, unadulterated truth.
We should begin by listing the winners and losers of the Syrian conflict. Damascus, Moscow,
Tehran and Hezbollah have won the war against aggression. Riyadh, Doha, Paris, London, Tel Aviv
and Washington, with their al Qaeda, Daesh and Jabhat al-Nusra terrorist proxies, failed to
destroy Syria, and following seven years of effort, are forced to scurry away in defeat.
Those who are walking a tightrope between war and defeat are Ankara and the so-called SDF.
The withdrawal of the United States has confirmed the balance on the ledger of winners and
losers, with the clock counting down for Erdogan and the SDF to make their next determinative
move.
The enemies of Syria survive thanks to repeated bluffs. The Americans of the
military-industrial-intelligence apparatus maintain the pretence that they still have an
influence in Syria, what with troops on the ground, attacking Trump for withdrawing. In fact,
since the Russians have imposed a no-fly-zone across the country, with the S-300 systems and
other sophisticated equipment that integrate the Syrian air-defenses into the Russian air
defenses, US coalition planes are for all intents and purposes grounded, and the same goes for
the Israelis.
Of course the French and British in Syria are infected with the same delusional disease,
choosing to believe that they can count for something without the US presence. We will see in
the near future whether they also withdraw their illegal presence from Syria.
The biggest bluff of all probably comes from Erdogan, who for months threatened to invade
Syria to fight ISIS, the Kurds, or any other plausible excuse to invade a sovereign country for
the purposes of advancing his dreams of expanding Turkish territory as far as Idlib (which
Erdogan considers a province of Turkey). Such an invasion, however, is unlikely to happen, as
it would unite the SDF, Damascus and her allies to reject the Turkish advance on Syrian
territory.
The Kurds in turn seem to have only one option left, namely, a forced negotiation with
Damascus to give back to the Syrian people, in exchange for protection, the control of their
territory that is rich in oil and gas.
Erdogan wants to eliminate the SDF, and until now, the only thing that stood in his way was
the US military presence. He even threatened to attack several times, even in spite of the
presence of US troops. Ankara has long been on a collision course with NATO countries on
account of this. By removing US troops, Trump imagines, relations between Turkey and the US may
also improve. This of course is of little interest to the US deep state, since Erdogan, like
Mohammed bin Salman (MBS), is considered unsuitable, and is accordingly branded a
"dictator".
Trump probably believes that with this move, as with his defense of MBS concerning
Khashoggi, that he can try and establish a strong personal friendship with Erdogan. There are
even talks about the sale of Patriot systems to the Turks and the extradition of Gulen.
When Will They Leave, and Cui Prodest?
It remains to be confirmed when and to what extent US troops will leave Syria. If the US had
no voice in the future in Syria, with 2,000 men on the ground, now it has even less. Leaving
behind 200 to 300 special forces and CIA operatives, together with another 400 to 500 French
and British personnel, will, once they are captured with their Daesh and al Qaeda friends, be
an excellent bargaining chip for Damascus, as they were in Aleppo.
The military-industrial-intelligence-media complex considers Trump's decision the worst of
of all possible moves. Mattis even resigned on account of this. The presence of US troops in
Syria allowed the foreign-policy establishment to continue to formulate plans (and spend money
to pay a lot of people in Washington) based on the delusion that they are doing something in
Syria to change the course of events. For Israel, it is a double disaster, with Netanyahu
desperate to survive, seeking to factor in expected elections in a now-or-never political move.
Trump probably understands that Bibi is done for, and that at this point, the withdrawal of
troops, fulfilling a fundamental electoral promise, counts more than Israeli money and his
friendship to Bibi.
Erdogan has two options before him. On the one hand, he can act against the Kurds. On the
other hand, he can sit down at the negotiating table with Damascus and the SDF, in an Astana
format, guided by Iran and Russia. Putin and Rouhani are certainly pushing for this solution.
Trump, on the other hand, would like to see Turkey enter Syria in the place of US forces, to
demonstrate he concluded a win-win deal for everyone, beating the deep-state at their own
game.
Erdogan does not really have the military force necessary to enter Syria, which is the big
secret. He would be against both the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and the SDF, though the two not
necessarily in an alliance.
There is a triple bluff going on, and this is what is complicating the situation so much. On
the one hand, the SDF is bluffing in not wanting help from Damascus in case Erdogan sends in
his forces; on the other hand, Erdogan is bluffing in suggesting he is able to conquer the
territory held by the SDF; and finally, the French and British are bluffing by telling the SDF
they will be able to help them against both Erdogan and/or Assad.
Iran, Russia, Syria are the only ones who do not need to bluff, because they occupy the best
position – the commanding heights. They view Trump's decisions and his allies with
distrust. They know very well that these are mostly moves for internal consumption by the
enemies of Syria.
If the US withdraws, there is so much to be gained. The priority then becomes the west of
Syria, sealing the borders with Jordan, removing the pockets of terrorists from the east, and
securing the al-Tanf crossing. If the SDF will request protection from Damascus and will be
willing to participate in the liberation of the country and its reconstruction, Erdogan will be
done for, and this could lead to the total liberation of Idlib. It would be the best possible
outcome, an important national reconciliation between two important parts of the population. It
would give Damascus new economic impetus and prepare the Syrian people to expel the remaining
invaders (ISIS and the FSA/ Turkish Armed Forces) from the country, both in Idlib and in the
northeast in Afrin.
Russia is aware of the risk that Erdogan is running with the choices he will take in the
coming days. Perhaps the reason why Putin chose diplomacy over war with Turkey after the
downing of a Russian Su-24 in 2015 was in order to arrive at this precise moment, with as many
elements as possible present to convince Erdogan to stick with Russia and Iran instead of
embracing Trump's strategy and putting himself on an open collision course with Damascus,
Moscow and Tehran.
Putin has always been five moves ahead. He is aware that the US could not stay long in
Syria. He knows that France and the UK cannot support the SDF, and that the SDF cannot hold
territory it holds in Syria without an agreement with Damascus. He is also conscious that
Turkey does not have the strength to enter Syria and hold the territory if it did. It would
only be able justify an advance on Idlib with the support of the Russian Air Force.
Putin has certainly made it clear to Erdogan that if he made such a move to attack the SDF
and enter Syria, Russia in turn would militarily support the SAA with its air force to free
Idlib; and in case of incidents with Turkey, the Russian armed forces would respond with all
the interest earned from the unrequited downing of the Su-24 in 2015.
Erdogan has no choice. He must find an agreement with Damascus, and this is why he found
himself commenting on Trump's words the following day, criticizing US sanctions on Iran in the
presence of Iranian president Rouhani. The SDF know that they are between a rock and a hard
place, and have already sent a delegation to start negotiations with Damascus.
Trump's move was driven by US domestic politics and aimed at the 2020 elections. But in
doing so, Trump inevitably called out once and for all the bluffs built by Syria's enemies,
infuriating in the process the neoliberal imperialist establishment, revealing how each of
these factions has no more cards to play and is in actual fact destined for defeat.
Anybody who believe that hillary was derailed by Russians is iether idiot or neocon or both.
Notable quotes:
"... Since receiving an $11 million investment from venture capital firm, GGV Capital, in August 2017, New Knowledge has positioned itself as one of the leading private intelligence firms taking on the scourge of Russian disinformation. The outfit made its biggest splash on December 17th when it published one of the two Senate Intelligence Committee-commissioned reports. ..."
"... Of the dozens of conservative Alabamian Facebook pages the Watson campaign messaged, the New Knowledge-run page was the only one that responded to it. "You are in a particularly interesting position and from what we have read of your politics, we would be inclined to endorse you", they wrote. New Knowledge then "asked Mr. Watson whether he trusted anyone to set up a super PAC that could receive funding and offered advice on how to sharpen his appeal to disenchanted Republican voters." While Watson communicated with the deceptive Facebook page, the New Knowledge operators never revealed their identity, and the page disappeared the day after the vote. "It was weird," Watson commented to the New York Times. "The whole thing was weird." ..."
"... New Knowledge then sought to manufacture a link between Roy Moore's campaign and the Kremlin by claiming thousands of his Twitter followers were Russian bots. Mainstream media outlets credulously ran with the narrative, insinuating that the Christian theocrat Moore was secretly backed by Russia. ..."
"... While the impact of the disinformation campaign on the Alabama senate race may never be quantified, the cynicism behind it is hard to understate. A group of Democratic Party operatives with close ties to the national security state waged a cynical campaign of online deception against the American public while marketing themselves as the guardians against foreign interference. Few, if any, Russian hackers could have done as much damage to the already worn fabric of American democracy as they have. ..."
Grayzone Project
-- On December 17, two reports detailing ongoing Russian interference operations commissioned by the
Senate Intelligence Committee were made public. They generated a week's worth of headlines and sent members of Congress and cable
news pundits into a Cold War frenzy. According to the report, everything from the Green Party's
Jill
Stein
to I
nstagram
to
Pokemon
Go
to the
African
American population
had been used and confused by the deceptive Facebook pages of a private Russian troll farm called the
Internet Research Agency.
Nevermind that 56% of the troll farm's pages
appeared
after
the
election
, that 25% of them were seen by no one, or that their miniscule online presence paled in comparison to the millions
of dollars spent on social media by the two major presidential campaigns and their supporters to sway voters. This was an
act
of war
that demanded immediate government action.
According to Sen. Mark Warner, the Democratic chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, the reports were "a wake up call" and a
"bombshell" that was certain to bring "long-overdue guardrails when it comes to social media". His Republican counterpart on the
committee, North Carolina Senator Richard Burr,
hailed
the
research papers as "proof positive that one of the most important things we can do is increase information sharing between the
social media companies who can identify disinformation campaigns and the third-party experts who can analyze them."
But the authors of one of the reports soon suffered a major blow to their credibility when it was revealed that they had engaged
in what they called a "Russian style" online disinformation operation aimed to swing a hotly contested special senate election.
The embarrassing revelation has already resulted in one of the authors
having
his Facebook page suspended
.
The well-funded deception was carried out by New Knowledge, a private cyber intelligence firm founded by two self-styled
disinformation experts who are veterans of the Obama administration: Jonathon Morgan and Ryan Fox.
'It may be designed to manipulate you'
Morgan began his
career
as
a product manager at AOL before founding a series of start ups, some with funding from the United States Agency for International
Development and Silicon Valley billionaire Pierre Omidyar's Omidyar Network. Once a Brookings Institution researcher and special
advisor to the Obama White House and State Department, Morgan founded Data for Democracy, a volunteer organization said to use
"public data to monitor the election system for signs of fraud." Morgan also developed technology for the Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the arm of the Department of Defense created for basic, applied technological research, and
futuristic war toys.
Rising through the ranks of the national security apparatus, Morgan ultimately emerged as a go-to source for credulous reporters
seeking to blame Hillary Clinton's loss to Donald Trump on Russian disinformation.
In an
interview
with
the local CBS affiliate in Austin, Texas, Morgan told viewers that feelings of discontent were telltale signs that they had been
duped by Russian disinformation.
"If it makes you feel too angry or really provokes that type of almost tribal response, then it
may be designed to manipulate you. People should be concerned about things that encourage them to change their behavior," he
warned.
Fox, for his part, is a 15-year veteran of the National Security Agency and was a computer analyst for the Joint Special
Operations Command (JSOC) military unit. JSOC is notorious for its spree of atrocities across the Middle East including digging
their bullets out of dead pregnant women's bodies in Afghanistan. Comparatively little information is available about Fox's
background.
Since
receiving
an $11 million investment
from venture capital firm, GGV Capital, in August 2017, New Knowledge has positioned itself as one
of the leading private intelligence firms taking on the scourge of Russian disinformation. The outfit made its biggest splash on
December 17th when it published one of the two Senate Intelligence Committee-commissioned reports.
The report, titled
"The
Tactics and Tropes of the Internet Research Agency,"
was oversseen by Renee DiResta, a former Wall Street trader and tech
specialist who was recruited by Obama's State Department to devise strategies for combating online ISIS propaganda. The New York
Times
described
DiResta
as one among a small group of "hobbyists" who "meticulously logged data and published reports on how easy it was to manipulate
social media platforms."
The hobby lobby of online obsessives converged at New Knowledge this year to sound the alarm on supposed Russian disinformation.
In a New York Times
op-ed
published
as Americans went to cast their votes in the midterm elections, Morgan and Fox alleged that the Kremlin was secretly running
hundreds of propaganda websites in an effort to swing the outcomes. That assertion ran counter to the narrative the two
operatives had been spinning out just months before.
In an interview earlier in the year, Ryan
Fox
suggested
that despite the Trump administration's multiple rounds of sanctions against Russia, Vladimir Putin was so
satisfied with the state of U.S. affairs that the Kremlin had actually cut back on its supposed interference. "Strategically, are
they content with the way things are? Does it play in their favor to do anything right now? That's a valid question," Fox said.
"Keep up the momentum, keep poking away. But do they have to implement drastic measures like hacking the DNC and exposing
thousands of emails? Probably not."
More recently, Fox
claimed
to
have identified hundreds of Russian-controlled Facebook and Twitter accounts active in France's Yellow Vest movement, which has
raged against the country's neoliberal leadership and sparked anxiety among centrist elites across the Atlantic.
"There has been some suspect activity," a French cybersecurity official said. "We are in the process of looking
at its impact."
https://
on.wsj.com/2EzeS5c
However, Fox produced no evidence to support his incendiary accusation, prompting reporters to qualify his assertions as "
very
likely
" and write that he merely "
believes
"
Russian interference took place.
Drafting the dubious bot dashboard
Morgan is also one the developers of the
Hamilton
68 dashboard
, an online project dedicated to inflaming public outrage over online Russian bots. Funded by the German Marshall
Fund's Alliance for Securing Democracy – which is itself backed by NATO and USAID – Hamilton 68 claims to track hundreds of
accounts supposedly linked to Russian influence operations. The effort has largely succeeded in drawing positive media attention
despite one of its founders, Clint Watts, admitting that the Twitter accounts it follows may actually be real people who are not
Russian at all.
When Morgan was
asked
what
techniques Hamilton 68 uses to identify Russian influence operations, he offered a confident-sounding but ultimately empty
answer: "We developed some techniques for determining who matters in a conversation Using some of those techniques, we've
identified a subset of accounts that we're very confident are core to furthering the Russian narrative in response to mainstream
events."
Because Morgan and his colleagues have explicitly refused to name the accounts monitored by Hamilton 68, his claims can never be
proven.
In a lengthy
profile
of
the musicologist-turned-New Knowledge "online detective" Kris Shaffer, Foreign Policy described the supposed methodology he
employed to identify Russian disinfo operations: "By working with massive datasets of tweets, Facebook posts, and online
articles, he is able to map links between accounts, similarities in the messages they post, and shared computer infrastructure."
The article added an extraordinarily revealing disclaimer: "This method of analysis is in its infancy, remains a fairly blunt
instrument, and still requires human intervention. It sometimes mistakes real people who post anti-imperialist arguments about
U.S. foreign policy for Kremlin trolls, for example."
It may have been that New Knowledge had no knowledge at all of Kremlin botnets, but their reports were nonetheless treated as
gospel by droves of credulous reporters eager to make their name in the frenzied atmosphere of Russiagate.
"We orchestrated an elaborate 'false flag' operation"
According to an internal New Knowledge report
first
seen by the New York Times
, the firm carried out a multi-faceted influence operation designed to undermine a 2017 bid by
right-wing Republican former state supreme court judge Roy Moore for an open Alabama senate seat. By its own admission, New
Knowledge's campaign capitalized on the the sexual assault allegations against Moore to "enrage and energize Democrats" and
"depress turnout" among Republicans.
To accomplish this, the New Knowledge team created a Facebook page aimed at appealing to conservative Alabamians by encouraging
them to endorse an obscure patio supply salesman-turned-write-in candidate named Mac Watson. They hoped the subterfuge would peel
votes away from Moore. It was precisely the kind of tactic that New Knowledge claims Russian troll farms carry out to sow
divisions among the American electorate.
Morgan told the New York Times the effort stopped there. But the New Knowledge report says the Facebook page "boosted" Watson's
campaign and even arranged interviews for him with The Montgomery Advertiser and the
Washington
Post
. At the same time, Watson's Twitter following mysteriously jumped from 100 to about 10,000.
One of the articles New Knowledge took credit for during its disinformation campaign.
Of the dozens of conservative Alabamian Facebook pages the Watson campaign messaged, the New Knowledge-run page was the only one
that responded to it. "You are in a particularly interesting position and from what we have read of your politics, we would be
inclined to endorse you", they wrote. New Knowledge then "asked Mr. Watson whether he trusted anyone to set up a super PAC that
could receive funding and offered advice on how to sharpen his appeal to disenchanted Republican voters."
While Watson communicated with the deceptive Facebook page, the New Knowledge operators never revealed their identity, and the
page disappeared the day after the vote. "It was weird," Watson commented to the New York Times. "The whole thing was weird."
New Knowledge then sought to manufacture a link between Roy Moore's campaign and the Kremlin by claiming thousands of his Twitter
followers were Russian bots. Mainstream media outlets credulously ran with the narrative, insinuating that the Christian theocrat
Moore was secretly backed by Russia.
Today, as can be seen below, Mother Jones is using a bogus story generated by a disinformation campaign to raise funds for more
Russiagate coverage.
As the Russian bot narrative peaked, Moore blamed the Jones campaign for manufacturing the scare. "It's not surprising that
they'd choose the favorite topic of MSNBC and the Fake News outlets -- the Russia conspiracy. Democrats can't win this election on
the issues and their desperation is on full display."
Moore's opponent, Jones, said he had no knowledge of the operation.
Moore was roundly mocked in liberal circles as a conspiratorial crank, but New Knowledge's internal report contained a stunning
admission: "We orchestrated an elaborate 'false flag' operation that planted the idea that the Moore campaign was amplified on
social media by a Russian botnet," its authors revealed.
While the New York Times says the internal report does not confirm that New Knowledge purchased the bot account themselves, the
accounts' flagrant use of Cyrillic language and profile pictures of famous singers including Britney Spears, Christina Aguilera
and Avril Lavigne strongly suggest that whoever bought them went to extreme lengths to leave the appearance of a Russian hand.
The Alabama disinformation campaign was carried out through a network of Silicon Valley tech entrepreneurs and former Obama
administration officials who have joined the private sector to leverage liberal anti-Trump outrage into profits.
Billionaire Reid Hoffman, who co-founded the employment networking site LinkedIn,
provided
$100,000
for the black ops campaign. The money was then pipelined through American Engagement Technologies, which is headed by Mikey
Dickerson, a former Google engineer who founded the United State Digital Service. Dickerson is also Executive Director of the New
Data Project, an organization dedicated to "testing new approaches" and "serving as an advanced technology research lab for
progressives."
A colleague of Hoffman's claimed the purpose of his investments was to "strengthen American democracy."
Since the New York Times' exposé, Facebook released a statement announcing its suspension of "five accounts run by a multiple
individuals for engaging in coordinated inauthentic behavior," including Morgan's account. The social media platform has opened
an investigation, though it has not revealed what the other pages are or who operated them.
The
headline
of
the New York Times story about the Facebook suspensions appeared to have been crafted to keep the focus on Russia while
deflecting scrutiny from the group of Democratic Party-linked hustlers that orchestrated the disinformation operation. It read:
"Facebook Closes 5 Accounts Tied to Russia-Like Tactics in Alabama Senate Race."
For his part, Sen. Jones has
demanded
an
investigation. "I think we've all focused too much on just the Russians and not picked up on the fact that some nefarious groups,
whether they're right or left, could take those same playbooks and start interfering with the elections for their own benefit,"
he said. "I'd like to see the Federal Election Commission and the Justice Department look at this to see if there were any laws
being violated and, if there were, prosecute those responsible."
Facing an inquiry for possible violations of election laws, Morgan issued a mealy-mouthed statement claiming he "did not
participate in any campaign to influence the public and any characterization to the contrary misrepresents the research goals,
methods and outcome of the project."
While the impact of the disinformation campaign on the Alabama senate race may never be quantified, the cynicism behind it is
hard to understate. A group of Democratic Party operatives with close ties to the national security state waged a cynical
campaign of online deception against the American public while marketing themselves as the guardians against foreign
interference. Few, if any, Russian hackers could have done as much damage to the already worn fabric of American democracy as
they have.
Top Photo | Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Richard Burr, R-N.C., right, with Vice Chairman Mark Warner, D-Va.,
left, updates reporters on the status of their inquiry into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. elections, at the Capitol in
Washington, Oct. 4, 2017. J. Scott Applewhite | AP
Dan Cohen
is
a journalist and filmmaker. He has produced widely distributed video reports and print dispatches from across Israel-Palestine.
Dan is a correspondent at RT America and tweets at @
DanCohen3000
.
"... America's presence in Syria, like Jim Mattis himself, is an artifact of another era, the failed GWOT. As a Marine, Mattis served in ground combat leadership roles in Gulf Wars I and II, and also in Afghanistan. He ran United States Central Command from 2010 to 2013, the final years of The Surge in Iraq and American withdrawal afterwards. There is no doubt why he supported the American military presence in Syria, and why he resigned to protest Trump's decision to end it: Mattis knew nothing else. His entire career was built around the strategy of the GWOT, the core of which was to never question GWOT strategy. Mattis didn't need a reason to stay in Syria; being in Syria was the reason. ..."
"... So why didn't Trump listen to his generals? Maybe because the bulk of their advice has been dead wrong for 17 years? ..."
"... The war on terror failed. It should have been dismantled long ago. Barack Obama could have done it, but instead became a victim of hubris and bureaucratic capture, and allowed it to expand. His supporters give him credit for not escalating the war in Syria, but leave out the part about how he also left the pot to simmer on the stove instead of removing it altogether. ..."
"... Peter Van Buren, a 24-year State Department veteran, is the author of ..."
"... . He is permanently banned from federal employment and Twitter. ..."
"... The GWOT was not only a failure, it was a fraud. Saddam's Iraq was secular and had nothing to do with terrorism. The same can be said for Libya and Syria. We armed and trained jihadis for the purpose of overthrowing Assad. How is that fighting terrorism? The war on terror was a deception, to cover for wars which were aggressive and unjustified. These wars were not just a failure, they were criminal and should be a source of shame and sorrow for our country. The men who orchestrated these wars did so by lying to the American people every step of the way, with the media repeating their every lie and distortion with robotic consistency. The neocon planners and all their willing accomplices deserve a special place in hell for the death and destruction they have wrought. Thank God the neocon era seems to be coming to a close. Thank God for Donald Trump, with all his flaws, for having the guts and decency to put an end to this prolonged military outrage. ..."
"... It's strange that Mr. van Buren celebrates the exit of Mattis as symbolizing the end of a long-discredited policy when Mattis was hired less than 2 years ago, many years after that policy became discredited, and after Mattis's hirer ran for President on a platform diametrically opposed to the discredited policy while denouncing the discredited policy. Now we find out belatedly that the only reason President Trump hired Mattis was because Mattis was fired for insubordination by former President Obama which incumbent President Trump hates, and for which a strong motivating factor is doing everything opposite of Obama. So now incumbent President Trump finds to his dismay that Mattis is insubordinate to himself as well. And yet Mr. van Buren thinks the important focus of this development is Mattis ..."
"... "The raw drive to insta-hate everything Trump does is misleading otherwise thoughtful people. So let's try a new lens: during the campaign Trump outspokenly denounced the waste of America's wars. Pro-Trump sentiment in rural areas was driven by people who agreed with his critique, by people who'd served in these wars, whose sons and daughters had served, or, given the length of all this, both. Since taking office, the president has pulled U.S. troops back from pointless conflicts in Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Congress may yet rise to do the same for American involvement in Yemen. No new wars have been started It is time for some old ideas to move on." ..."
"... The GWOT was a repudiation of the Powell Doctrine. Almost 20 years on, Powell looks like genius and the neocons like a bunch of morons. ..."
"... The retreat from Syria does not mean a U.S. retreat from its role as the Global Cop Gorilla. The Pentagon is merely changing its primary target set from the GWOT actors to the "revisionist powers". ..."
"... The National Defense Strategy Commission's report, ironically and perversely released by the "United States Institute of Peace", validates the fear-monger claims and also the claims to more TRILLIONS of taxpayer dollars to feed the Gorilla as it marauds around the perimeter of Asia. ..."
"... "There is no pleasure in watching Jim Mattis end his decades of service with a bureaucratic dirty stick shoved at him as a parting gift." ..."
"... "Don't make me have to kill you" ..."
"... It's no coincidence that Netanyahu's government fell apart today. Another good riddance. May the Israelis elect a new PM who actually wants peace in the Mideast. ..."
"... The War Party is still The War Party -- which is why so many of us who are strong Trump supporters have never joined the Republican Party and have no plans to join. This moment in history is particularly instruction. The Democrats have blown their cover. The Democratic Party is as much The War Party as the Republican Party. ..."
The New York Times , its journalists in mourning over the loss of a war,
ask , "Who will protect America now?" Mattis the warrior-monk is juxtaposed with the
flippant commander-in-Cheeto. The Times sees strategic disaster in an "abrupt and
dangerous decision, detached from any broader strategic context or any public rationale, [that]
sowed new uncertainty about America's commitment to the Middle East, [and] its willingness to
be a global leader."
"A major blunder," tweeted Senator Marco Rubio.
"If it isn't reversed it will haunt America for years to come." Senator Lindsey Graham called
for congressional hearings. And what is history if not irony? Rubio talks of haunting foreign
policy decisions in Syria seemingly without knowledge of previous calamities in Iraq. Graham
wants to hold hearings on quitting a war Congress never held
hearings on authorizing.
That's all wrong. Jim Mattis's resignation as defense secretary (
and on Sunday , Brett McGurk, as special envoy to the coalition fighting ISIS) and Trump's
decision to withdraw from Syria and Afghanistan are indeed significant. But that's because they
mark the beginning of the end of the Global War on Terror (GWOT), the singular, tragic, bloody
driver of American foreign policy for almost two decades.
Why does the U.S. have troops
in Syria?
To defeat the Islamic State? ISIS's ability to hold ground and project power outside its
immediate backyard was destroyed somewhere back in 2016 by an unholy coalition of American,
Iranian, Russian, Syrian, Turkish, and Israeli forces in Iraq and Syria. Sure, there are
terrorists who continue to set off bombs in ISIS's name, but they are not controlled or
directed out of Syria. They are most likely legal residents of the Western countries they
attack, radicalized online or in local mosques. They are motivated by a philosophy, which
cannot be destroyed on the ground in Syria. This is the fundamental failure of the GWOT: that
you can't blow up an idea.
Regime change? It was never a practical idea. As in Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan, there was
never a plan for what to do next, for how to keep Syria from descending into complete chaos the
day Assad was removed. And though progressives embraced the idea of getting rid of another
"evil dictator" when it came through the mouthpiece of Obama's own freedom fighter Samantha
Power, the same idea today has little drive behind it.
Russia? Overwrought fear of Moscow was once a sign of unhealthy paranoia satirized on The
Twilight Zone . Today, Russia hate is seen as a prerequisite to patriotism, though it still
makes no more sense. The Russians have long had a practical relationship with Syria, having
maintained a naval base at Tartus since 1971, which they will continue to do. There was never a
plan for the U.S. to push the Russians out -- Obama in fact saw the Russian presence are part
of the solution
in Syria. American withdrawal is far more of a return to status quo than anything like a win
for Putin. (Elsewhere at TAC , Matt Purple
pokes more holes in Putin paranoia.)
The Kurds? The U.S.-Kurd story is one of expediency over morality. We've used them only
because, at every sad turn, there's been no force otherwise available in bulk. The Kurds have
been abandoned many times by America: in 1991 when it refused to assist them in breaking away
from Saddam Hussein following Gulf War I, when it insisted they remain part of a "united Iraq"
following Gulf War II, and most
definitively in 2017 following Gulf War III when the U.S.
did not support their independence referendum, relegating them to Baghdad's forever
half-loved stepchild.
After all that, America's intentions toward the Kurds in Syria are barely a sideshow-scale
event. The Kurds want to cleave off territory from Turkey and Syria, something neither nation
will
permit and something the U.S. quietly understands would destabilize the region. Mattis, by
the way, supported NATO ally Turkey in its fight against the Kurds, calling them an "active
insurgency inside its borders."
Iran? Does the U.S. really have troops in Syria to brush back Iranian influence? As with
"all of the above," that genie got out of the bottle years ago. Iranian power in the greater
Middle East has grown dramatically since 2003, and has been driven at every step by the
blunders of the United States. If the most powerful army in the world couldn't stop the
Iranians from essentially winning Gulf Wars II and III, how can 2,000 troops in Syria hope to
accomplish much?
The United States, of course, wasn't even shooting at the Iranians in Syria; in most cases
it was working either with them or tacitly alongside them towards the goal of killing off ISIS.
Tehran's role as Assad's protector was set as America rumbled about regime change. Iran has
since pieced together a
land corridor to the Mediterranean through Iraq and Syria, which it will not be giving up,
certainly not because of the presence of a few thousand Americans.
What remains is that once-neocon, now progressive catch-all: we need to stay in Syria to
preserve American credibility. While pundits can still get away with this line, the rest of the
globe already knows the empire has no clothes. Since 2001, the United States has spent some $6
trillion on its wars, and killed multiple 9/11s worth of American troops and foreign civilians.
The U.S. has
tortured , still maintains its gulag at Guantanamo, and, worst of all credibility-wise, has
lost on every front. Afghanistan after 17 years of war festers. Nothing was accomplished with
Iraq. Libya is a failed state. Syria is the source of a refugee crisis whose long-term effects
on Europe are still being played out. We are the "indispensable nation" only in our own minds.
A lot of people around the world probably wish America would just stop messing with their
countries.
So why does the U.S. have troops in Syria? Anyone? Bueller? Mattis?
America's presence in Syria, like Jim Mattis himself, is an artifact of another era, the
failed GWOT. As a Marine, Mattis served in ground combat leadership roles in Gulf Wars I and
II, and also in Afghanistan. He ran United States Central Command from 2010 to 2013, the final
years of The Surge in Iraq and American withdrawal afterwards. There is no doubt why he
supported the American military presence in Syria, and why he resigned to protest Trump's
decision to end it: Mattis knew nothing else. His entire career was built around the strategy
of the GWOT, the core of which was to never question GWOT strategy. Mattis didn't need a reason
to stay in Syria; being in Syria was the reason.
So why didn't Trump listen to his generals? Maybe because the bulk of their advice has
been dead wrong for 17 years? Instead, Trump plans a dramatic
drawdown of troops in Afghanistan. The U.S. presence in Iraq has dwindled from combat to
advise and assist. Congress seems poised to end U.S. involvement in Yemen
against Mattis's advice.
There is no pleasure in watching Jim Mattis end his decades of service with a bureaucratic
dirty stick shoved at him as a parting gift. But to see this all as another Trump versus the
world blunder is very wrong. The war on terror failed. It should have been dismantled long
ago. Barack Obama could have done it, but instead became a victim of hubris and bureaucratic
capture, and allowed it to expand. His supporters give him credit for not
escalating the war in Syria, but leave out the part about how he also left the pot to
simmer on the stove instead of removing it altogether.
The raw drive to
insta-hate everything Trump does is misleading otherwise thoughtful people. So let's try a
new lens: during the campaign Trump outspokenly denounced
the waste of America's wars. Pro-Trump sentiment in rural areas was
driven by people who agreed with his critique, by people who'd served in these wars, whose
sons and daughters had served, or, given the length of all this, both. Since taking office, the
president has pulled U.S. troops back from pointless conflicts in Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq.
Congress may yet rise to do the same for American involvement in Yemen. No new wars have been
started. Though the results are far from certain, for the first time in nearly 20 years,
negotiations are open again with North Korea. Mattis's ending was clumsy, but it was a long
time coming. It is time for some old ideas to move on.
Peter Van Buren, a 24-year State Department veteran, is the author ofWe Meant Well : How I Helped Lose the Battle for
the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People andHooper's War : A Novel of WWII Japan . He is permanently
banned from federal employment and Twitter.
I'm about as left wing as they come and have had a distain for Trump for decades. But, if he
can put an end to the GWOT and truly pull America out of those disasters I protested against
back in 2001-2002 (not to mention Libya and Yemen) then he will be my favorite modern
president. Granted, that's a low bar. I've not had one in my lifetime that was worth
admiring, but would be a welcome change.
I have my doubts he'll be able to pull it off but even if he manages to just not start any
new wars that would be a novel new direction for us.
It's good for Van Buren to remind people that our relationship with the Kurds has long been one
of support when it is convenient and abandonment when it is not. For left and right to feign
concern now is quite hypocritical.
Reading this offers some hope though the bulk of coverage on the Syria withdrawal from left
and right has been most depressing. May Mattis (and his ilk) go far and may it be soon!
Amen to everything in this article. I voted for Trump because of the way he strongly denounced
the Iraq war and our policies of interventionism and nation building in general. It has taken
two full years, but finally he is delivering what I hoped for. The media is trying to turn this
into another Trump smear issue, but I expect them to fail at this. At this point in time how
many people take the news channel narrative seriously? Especially if Trump removes our troops
from Afghanistan, I expect his popularity to soar.
The GWOT was not only a failure, it was a fraud. Saddam's Iraq was secular and had
nothing to do with terrorism. The same can be said for Libya and Syria. We armed and trained
jihadis for the purpose of overthrowing Assad. How is that fighting terrorism? The war on
terror was a deception, to cover for wars which were aggressive and unjustified. These wars
were not just a failure, they were criminal and should be a source of shame and sorrow for our
country. The men who orchestrated these wars did so by lying to the American people every step
of the way, with the media repeating their every lie and distortion with robotic consistency.
The neocon planners and all their willing accomplices deserve a special place in hell for the
death and destruction they have wrought. Thank God the neocon era seems to be coming to a
close. Thank God for Donald Trump, with all his flaws, for having the guts and decency to put
an end to this prolonged military outrage.
It's strange that Mr. van Buren celebrates the exit of Mattis as symbolizing the end of a
long-discredited policy when Mattis was hired less than 2 years ago, many years after that
policy became discredited, and after Mattis's hirer ran for President on a platform
diametrically opposed to the discredited policy while denouncing the discredited policy. Now we
find out belatedly that the only reason President Trump hired Mattis was because Mattis was
fired for insubordination by former President Obama which incumbent President Trump hates, and
for which a strong motivating factor is doing everything opposite of Obama. So now incumbent
President Trump finds to his dismay that Mattis is insubordinate to himself as well. And yet
Mr. van Buren thinks the important focus of this development is Mattis
"The raw drive to insta-hate everything Trump does is misleading otherwise thoughtful
people. So let's try a new lens: during the campaign Trump outspokenly denounced the waste of
America's wars. Pro-Trump sentiment in rural areas was driven by people who agreed with his
critique, by people who'd served in these wars, whose sons and daughters had served, or, given
the length of all this, both. Since taking office, the president has pulled U.S. troops back
from pointless conflicts in Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Congress may yet rise to do the same
for American involvement in Yemen. No new wars have been started It is time for some old ideas
to move on."
The President made the right decision. I WISH it had been reached in a more traditional manner
-- going thru the NSC and such, but we had no achievable strategic goals and were really only a
bit player. The very real danger was that we were dancing around the Russians like two
porcupines making love with the current "Russia!Russia!Russia!" political freakout preventing
what could have been a genuine opportunity for cooperation in at least one area. Syria will not
be any more chaotic for our departure, infact given less scrutiny and no danger of accidental
WW III, the Russians/Iranians/Syrian gov't may be able to wrap this up more faster.
Russia also has interest in Kurdish welfare and as 15% of Israelis ARE Russians, their
wellfare as well. In an administration that needed to project credibility, SEC Mattis was a
good choice and has done some great things cutting alot of uneeded red tape & worthless
'training' and giving clear priorities for the services. But, he's opposed almost everything
the President including the Trans ban so it was 'when not if'.
It all makes sense once you understand that by "restraint" they mean "leave American soldiers
as hostages to fortune in Syria!" and "unlimited mulligans for failed generals in Afghanistan!"
and "let's provoke Erdogan into releasing two or three million refugees into Europe!"
The Times sees strategic disaster in an "abrupt and dangerous decision, detached from any
broader strategic context or any public rationale, [that] sowed new uncertainty about
America's commitment to the Middle East, [and] its willingness to be a global leader."
Geez. I can also come up with something like this artwork by the Times journalists.
Here: "The lack of correlation between convergences caused an unwanted bifurcation of
idiosyncratic dichotomies". Twaddle? But how badass is sounds! Just read it aloud -- and you'll
see the credibility glittering like Swarovski crystals all over the place.
Merry Christmas to the MSM. I wish them to start writing something meaningful next year.
The retreat from Syria does not mean a U.S. retreat from its role as the Global Cop
Gorilla. The Pentagon is merely changing its primary target set from the GWOT actors to the
"revisionist powers".
Mattis fronted the updated National Defense Strategy. It again fear-mongers out the wazoo
about Russia and China with the only solution being "more, more, more" for the War Machine.
The National Defense Strategy Commission's report, ironically and perversely released by
the "United States Institute of Peace", validates the fear-monger claims and also the claims to
more TRILLIONS of taxpayer dollars to feed the Gorilla as it marauds around the perimeter of
Asia.
Re: "There is no pleasure in watching Jim Mattis end his decades of service with a
bureaucratic dirty stick shoved at him as a parting gift."
Au Contraire , there is much pleasure watching that sanctified War-Monger and
Pentagon Hack with his contrived "Don't make me have to kill you" schtick ride off
into the sunset.
Unfortunately for those of us not deluded into the Cult of Military Exceptionalism, Mattis
will no doubt segue to Fox News as yet another "Wizened Sage" of Pentagon wisdom and insight,
where he'll live very large for simply gas-bagging his "Warrior Hero" script. And perhaps Mad
Dog will even meander back to General Dynamics to pimp yet again for the Merchants of
Death.
Make no mistake, Mattis and his General pals are enemies of the taxpayers and rank apostates
of the Founders' principles. Mattis may soon be gone, but unfortunately, he won't be
forgotten.
It's good to see Trump finally realizing that he is the president, and not his generals and
"advisors" that no one elected. Goodbye and good riddance to Mattis, Haley et al. Next to go
should be John Bolton, Mike Pompeo and Jared Kushner.
It's no coincidence that Netanyahu's government fell apart today. Another good riddance.
May the Israelis elect a new PM who actually wants peace in the Mideast.
"'A major blunder,' tweeted Senator Marco Rubio. 'If it isn't reversed it will haunt America
for years to come.' Senator Lindsey Graham called for congressional hearings. And what is
history if not irony? Rubio talks of haunting foreign policy decisions in Syria seemingly
without knowledge of previous calamities in Iraq. Graham wants to hold hearings on quitting a
war Congress never held hearings on authorizing."
The War Party is still The War Party -- which is why so many of us who are strong Trump
supporters have never joined the Republican Party and have no plans to join. This moment in
history is particularly instruction. The Democrats have blown their cover. The Democratic Party
is as much The War Party as the Republican Party.
Article of interest at link below.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -
Send the Mad Dog to the Corporate Kennel
by Ray McGovern Posted on December 22, 2018
No wonder Mr. Van Buren is banned from federal employment and Twitter. His clarity and surgical
observations of American interventionism are indeed enlightening. Deep State forces must cringe
when reading his missives.
I don't agree with everything Trump does, but I have high hopes for his intent to extract
American military forces from the Middle East. Having cost trillions of dollars and countless
lives, these profit-motivated, failed expeditions could never be morally justified even if they
were successful.
Being the world's policeman does not make America a benevolent, inspiring global leader. The
opposite is true, as much of the world now perceives America to be a disruptive force,
conspiring against global peace for the benefit of the military industrial complex and
multinational corporations.
Let's pray for a changing tide that steers us further from the brink.
"Now Trump, the guy everyone expected to start new wars"
Hillary supporters said that. The rest of us knew that she was the danger of more and bigger
wars. That was a prime reason to defeat her. Too bad the only way to defeat her was to elect
Trump, but that is on the DNC, since they offered her, and every other Republican was even
worse (Cruz!).
He has announced his order to withdraw US troops from Syria.
His Defense Secretary James Mattis has resigned. There are rumors National Security
Adviser John Bolton may go too. (Please take
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo with you!)
He announced a start to withdrawing from Afghanistan.
He now says he will veto a government funding bill unless he gets $5 billion for his
Wall, and as of 12:01 AM Washington time December 22 the federal government is officially
under partial shutdown.
All of this should be taken with a big grain of salt. While this week's assertiveness
perhaps provides further proof that Trump's impulses are right, it doesn't mean he can
implement them.
Senator Lindsey Graham is demanding
hearings on how to block the Syria pullout . Congress hardly ever quibbles with a
president's putting troops into a country, where the Legislative Branch has legitimate
Constitutional power. But if a president under his absolute command authority wants to pull
them out – even someplace where they're deployed illegally, as in Syria – well hold
on just a minute!
This will be a critical time for the Trump presidency. (And if God is really on his side, he
soon might get
another Supreme Court pick .) If he can get the machinery of the Executive Branch to
implement his decision to withdraw from Syria, and if he can pick a replacement to General
Mattis who actually agrees with Trump's views, we might start getting the America First policy
Trump ran on in 2016.
Mattis himself said in his resignation letter, "Because you have the right to have a
Secretary of Defense whose views are better aligned with yours on these [i.e., support for
so-called "allies"] and other subjects, I believe it is right for me to step down from my
position."
Right on, Mad Dog! In fact Trump should have had someone "better aligned" with him in that
capacity from the get-go. It is now imperative that he picks someone who agrees with his core
positions, starting with withdrawal from Syria and Afghanistan, and reducing confrontation with
Russia.
Former Defense Secretary
Chuck Hagel complains that "our government is not a one-man show." Well, the "government"
isn't, but the Executive Branch is. Article II,
Section 1 : "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of
America." Him. The President. Nobody else. Period.
Already the drumbeat to saddle Trump with another Swamp critter at the Pentagon is starting:
"Several possible replacements for Mattis this week trashed the president's decision to pull
out of Syria. Retired Gen. Jack Keane called the move a "strategic mistake" on Twitter.
Republican Sens. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) and Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) signed a letter demanding
Trump reconsider the decision and warning that the withdrawal bolsters Iran and Russia." If
Trump even considers any of the above as Mattis's replacement, he'll be in worse shape than he
has been for the past two years.
On the other hand, if Trump does pick someone who agrees with him about Syria and
Afghanistan, never mind
getting along with Russia , can he get that person confirmed by the Senate? One possibility
would be to nominate someone like Acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney specifically
to run the Pentagon bureaucracy and get control of costs, while explicitly deferring
operational decisions to the Commander in Chief in consultation with the Service Chiefs.
Right now on Syria Trump is facing pushback from virtually the whole Deep State
establishment, Republicans and Democrats alike, as well as the media from Fox News , to NPR ,
to MSNBC . Terror has again gripped the establishment that the Trump who was elected president
in 2016 might actually start implementing what he promised. It is imperative that he pick
someone for the Pentagon (and frankly, clear out the rest of his national security team) and
appoint people he can trust and whose views comport with his own. Just lopping off a few heads
won't suffice – he needs a full housecleaning.
In the meantime in Syria, watch for another "Assad poison gas attack against his own
people." The last time Trump said we'd be
leaving Syria "very soon " was on March 29 of this year. Barely a week later, on April 7,
came a supposed chemical incident in Douma, immediately hyped as a government attack on
civilians
but soon apparent as likely staged . Trump, though, dutifully took the bait, tweeting that
Assad was an "animal." Putin, Russia, and Iran were "responsible" for "many dead, including
women and children, in mindless CHEMICAL attack" – "Big price to pay." He then for the
second time launched cruise missiles against Syrian targets. A
confrontation loomed in the eastern Med that could to have led to war with Russia. Now, in
light of Trump's restated determination to get out,
is MI6 already ginning up their White Helmet assets for a repeat ?
Trump's claim that the US has completed its only mission, to defeat ISIS, is being compared
to George W. Bush's "Mission Accomplished" banner following defeat of Iraq's army and the
beginning of the occupation (and, as it turned out, the beginning of the real war). But if it
helps get us out, who cares if Trump wants to take credit? Whatever his
terrible, horrible, no good, very bad national security team told him, the US presence in
Syria was never about ISIS. We are there as Uncle Sam's Rent-an-Army for the Israelis and
Saudis to block Iranian influence and especially an overland route between Syria and Iran (the
so-called
"Shiite land bridge" to the Mediterranean ).
For US forces the war against ISIS was always a sideshow, mainly carried on by the Syrians
and Russians and proportioned about like the war against the Wehrmacht: about 20% "us," about
80% "them." The remaining pocket ISIS has
on the Syria-Iraq border has been deliberate ly left alone, to keep handy as a lever to
force Assad out in a settlement (which is not going to happen). Thus the claim an American
pullout will
lead to an ISIS "resurgence " is absurd. With US forces ceasing to play dog in the manger,
the Syrians, Russians, Iranians, and Iraqis will kill them. All of them.
If Trump is able to follow through with the pullout, will the Syrian war wind down? It needs
to be kept in mind that the whole conflict has been because we (the US, plus Israel, Saudi
Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, UAE, the United Kingdom, etc) are the aggressors. We sought to use
al-Qaeda and other jihadis to effect regime change via the tried and true method. It
failed.
Regarding Trump's critics' claim that he is turning over Syria to the Russians and Iranians,
Assad is nobody's puppet. He can be allied with a Shiite theocracy but not controlled by it;
Iran, likewise, can also have mutually beneficial ties with an ideologically dissimilar
country, like it does with Christian Armenia. The Russians will stay and expand their presence
but unlike our presence in many countries – which seemingly never ends, for example in
Germany, Japan, and Korea, not to mention Kosovo – they'll be there only as long and to
the extent the Syrians want them. (Compare our eternal occupations with the Soviets' politely
leaving Egypt when Anwar Sadat asked them, or leaving Somalia when Siad Barre wanted them out.
Instead of leaving, why didn't Moscow just do a " Diem " on them?) It
seems that American policymakers have gotten so far down the wormhole of their paranoid
fantasies about the rest of the world – and it can't be overemphasized, concerning areas
where the US has no actual national interests – that we no longer recognize classic
statecraft when practiced by other powers defending genuine national interests (which of course
are legitimate only to the extent we say so).
Anyway, if this week's developments are the result of someone putting something into
Donald's morning Egg
McMuffin , America and the world owe him (or her) a vote of thanks. Let's see more of
the wrecking ball we Deplorables voted for !
Trump thought that by bringing the swamp into his fold he might be able to defang it. He
bent the knee, played nice and kissed the ring but still they kept at him. I think Trump has
had enough of giving a mile for getting an inch. I like Trump when he presents himself as a
human wrecking ball to all the evil plans of the Washington establishment and if he continues
like this I honestly believe he will be reelected in 2020, and one day will be acknowleged as
a true chapion for every day Americans but if he shrinks back into his shadow and gives the
likes of Bolton and Pompeo free reign to **** all over the globe with their insane scheming
he will be a one term failure.
Don't get too excited about the possibility that there may be more kinds of viagra to try
out, Jattras. If Trump recently seems to be more like the candidate we voted for, the real
reason for his reversion back is because the midterm elections are over and Trump kept the
Senate.
Check with me before you start making a lot of crack-pot statements
America's
trade policy is in incoherent shambles. Decades of neoliberal "free trade" pacts -- which as
often as not simply gave corporations an end run around the state, or their very own rigged,
pseudo-legal system -- have created terrible social carnage around the world and a furious
political backlash. And President Trump's incoherent, haphazard response has done little to
change the system, let alone reform it in a sensible fashion.
Overhauling such a gargantuan, world-spanning system is a dizzying task. But Timothy Meyer
and Ganesh Sitaraman at the Great Democracy Initiative have a
new paper that presents a solid starting point for developing a fundamental reform of
American trade structure.
Meyer and Sitaraman identify three large problems with the status quo, and propose policy
solutions for each:
The complicated and unbalanced structure of the bureaucracy that oversees trade
policy
The enormous pro-rich bias that is built into trade deals
How the inequality resulting from trade routinely goes totally unaddressed
Let's take these in turn.
The extant trade bureaucracy -- as usual for the American state -- is highly fragmented and
bizarrely structured. There is the Department of Commerce, the United States Trade
Representative, the Export-Import Bank, and the U.S. Trade and Development Agency, plus the
International Development Finance Corporation coming soon. Then there are a slew of other
agencies that have some bearing on trade-related security or economic development.
Meyer and Sitaraman logically suggest combining most of these functions into a single
Department of Economic Growth and Security. The point is not just to streamline the trade
oversight structure, but also to make it consider a broader range of objectives. Neoliberals
insist that trade is simply about making the self-regulating market more "efficient," but trade
very obviously bears on employment, domestic industry, and especially security.
For instance, for all its other disastrous side effects, Trump's haphazard tax on aluminum
has dramatically
revived the American aluminum industry . Ensuring a reasonable domestic supply of key
metals like that is so obviously a security concern -- for military and consumer uses
alike -- that it wouldn't have even occurred to New Deal policymakers to think otherwise. It
takes a lot of ideological indoctrination to think there's no problem when a small price
disadvantage causes a country to lose its entire supply chain of key industrial
commodities.
Then there is the problem of pro-rich bias. Put simply, the last few decades of trade deals
have been outrageously biased towards corporations and the rich. They have powerfully enabled
the growth of
parasitic tax havens , which allow companies to book profits in low-tax jurisdictions,
starving countries of rightful revenue (and often leading to companies piling up gargantuan
dragon hoards of cash they don't know what to do with).
Corporations, meanwhile, have gotten their own fake legal system in the form of
Investor-State Dispute Settlement trade deal stipulations. As I have written before ,
the point of these arbitration systems is to create a legal system ludicrously slanted in favor
of the corporation -- allowing them not just to win almost every time, but to sue over
nonsensical harms like "taking away imaginary future profits."
Meyer and Sitaraman suggest renegotiating the tax portions of trade deals to enforce a
"formulary" tax system -- in which profits are taxed where they are made, not where they are
booked. This would go a considerable distance towards cracking down on tax havens -- who knows,
perhaps Luxembourg might even develop some productive business.
Finally, there is the problem of distributive justice. Again contrary to neoliberal dogma,
trade very often creates winners and losers -- witness the wreckage of Detroit and the fat
salaries of the U.S. executive class. Meyer and Sitaraman suggest new mechanisms to consider
the side effects of trade deals (and ways to compensate the losers), to take action against
abusive foreign nations (for example, by dumping their products below cost, or violating
environmental or labor standards), and finally directly taxing the beneficiaries.
Something the authors don't discuss is the
problem of trade imbalances . When one country develops a surplus (that is, it exports more
than it imports), another country must of necessity be in a deficit. The deficit country in
turn must finance its imports, usually by borrowing. That can easily create a severe economic
crisis if the deficit country suddenly loses access to loans -- which then harms the exporting
country, though not as much. This has been a disastrous problem in the eurozone.
The U.S. does have extremely wide latitude to run a trade deficit, because it controls the
global reserve currency, meaning a strong
demand for dollar-denominated assets so other countries can settle their international
accounts. But this creates its own problems, as discussed above.
To be fair, this is not exactly an omission for a paper focused on domestic policy. Creating
a specifically international trade architecture would require an entire paper of its own, if
not a book or three. But it would be something future trade policymakers will have to
consider.
At any rate, it's quite likely that trade policy will be a major topic of discussion in 2020
-- if for no reason other than Trump's ridiculous shenanigans in the area. However, even that
demonstrates an important fact: The U.S. president has a great deal of unilateral authority
over trade. Democrats should be thinking hard about how they would change things.
This paper is a great place to start.
President Donald Trump is planning on using his executive powers to cut food stamps for more
than 700,000 Americans.
The United States Department of Agriculture is proposing that states should only be allowed
to waive a current food stamps requirement -- namely, that adults without dependents must work
or participate in a job-training program for at least 20 hours each week if they wish to
collect food stamps for more than three months in a three-year period -- on the condition that
those adults live in areas where unemployment is above 7 percent,
according to The Washington Post . Currently the USDA regulations permit states to waive
that requirement if an adult lives in an area where the unemployment rate is at least 20
percent greater than the national rate. In effect, this means that roughly 755,000 Americans
would potentially lose their waivers that permit them to receive food stamps.
The current unemployment rate is 3.7 percent.
The Trump administration's decision to impose the stricter food stamp requirements through
executive action constitutes an end-run around the legislative process. Although Trump is
expected to sign an $870 billion farm bill later this week -- and because food stamps goes
through the Agriculture Department, it contains food stamp provisions -- the measure does not
include House stipulations restricting the waiver program and imposing new requirements on
parents with children between the ages of six and 12. The Senate version ultimately removed
those provisions, meaning that the version being signed into law does not impose a conservative
policy on food stamps, which right-wing members of Congress were hoping for.
"Congress writes laws, and the administration is required to write rules based on the law,"
Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., told The New York Times (Stabenow is the top Democrat on the
Senate's agriculture committee). "Administrative changes should not be driven by ideology. I do
not support unilateral and unjustified changes that would take food away from families."
Matthew Rozsa is a breaking news writer for Salon. He holds an MA in History from
Rutgers University-Newark and is ABD in his PhD program in History at Lehigh University. His
work has appeared in Mic, Quartz and MSNBC.
Craig Murray is right that "As the Establishment feels its grip slipping, as people wake up to the appalling economic exploitation by the few that underlies
the very foundations of modern western society, expect the methods used by the security services to become even dirtier."
Collapse of neoliberal ideology and rise of tentions in neoliberal sociarties resulted in unprecedented increase of covert and false
flag operations by British intelligence services, especially against Russia, which had been chosen as a convenient scapegoat.
With Steele dossier and Skripal affair as two most well known.
New Lady Macbeth (Theresa May) Russophobia is so extreme that her cabinet derailed the election of a Russian to head
Interpol.
Looks like neoliberalism cannot be defeated by and faction of the existing elite. Only when shepp oil end mant people will
have a chance. The US , GB and EU are part of the wider hegemonic neoliberal system. In fact rejection of neoliberal
globalization probably will lead to "national neoliberals" regime which would be a flavor of neo-fascism, no more no less.
Notable quotes:
"... The British state can maintain its spies' cover stories for centuries. ..."
"... I learnt how highly improbable left wing firebrand Simon Bracey-Lane just happened to be on holiday in the United States with available cash to fund himself, when he stumbled into the Bernie Sanders campaign. ..."
"... It is, to say the least, very interesting indeed that just a year later the left wing, "Corbyn and Sanders supporting" Bracey-Lane is hosting a very right wing event, "Cold War Then and Now", for the shadowy neo-con Institute for Statecraft, at which an entirely unbalanced panel of British military, NATO and Ukrainian nationalists extolled the virtues of re-arming against Russia. ..."
"... the MOD-sponsored Institute for Statecraft has been given millions of pounds of taxpayers' money by the FCO to spread covert disinformation and propaganda, particularly against Russia and the anti-war movement. Activities include twitter and facebook trolling and secretly paying journalists in "clusters of influence" around Europe. Anonymous helpfully leaked the Institute's internal documents. Some of the Integrity Initiative's thus exposed alleged covert agents, like David Aaronovitch, have denied any involvement despite their appearance in the documents, and others like Dan Kaszeta the US "novichok expert", have cheerfully admitted it. ..."
"... By sleuthing the company records of this "Scottish charity", and a couple of phone calls, I discovered that the actual location of the Institute for Statecraft is the basement of 2 Temple Place, London. This is not just any basement – it is the basement of the former London mansion of William Waldorf Astor, an astonishing building . It is, in short, possibly the most expensive basement in London. ..."
"... Which is interesting because the accounts of the Institute for Statecraft claim it has no permanent staff and show nothing for rent, utilities or office expenses. In fact, I understand the rent is paid by the Ministry of Defence. ..."
"... I have a great deal more to tell you about Mr Edney and his organisation next week, and the extraordinary covert disinformation war the British government wages online, attacking British citizens using British taxpayers' money. Please note in the interim I am not even a smidgeon suicidal, and going to be very, very careful crossing the road and am not intending any walks in the hills. ..."
"... I am not alleging Mr Bracey-Lane is an intelligence service operative who previously infiltrated the Labour Party and the Sanders campaign. He may just be a young man of unusually heterodox and vacillating political opinions. He may be an undercover reporter for the Canary infiltrating the Institute for Statecraft. All these things are possible, and I have no firm information. ..."
"... one of the activities the Integrity Initiative sponsors happens to be the use of online trolls to ridicule the idea that the British security services ever carry out any kind of infiltration, false flag or agent provocateur operations, despite the fact that we even have repeated court judgements against undercover infiltration officers getting female activists pregnant. The Integrity Initiative offers us a glimpse into the very dirty world of surveillance and official disinformation. If we actually had a free media, it would be the biggest story of the day ..."
"... As the Establishment feels its grip slipping, as people wake up to the appalling economic exploitation by the few that underlies the very foundations of modern western society, expect the methods used by the security services to become even dirtier. ..."
"... You can bank on continued ramping up of Russophobia to supply "the enemy". ..."
The British state can maintain its spies' cover stories for centuries. Look up Eldred Pottinger, who for 180 years appears
in scores of British history books – right up to and including William Dalrymple's Return of the King – as a British officer who
chanced to be passing Herat on holiday when it came under siege from a partly Russian-officered Persian army, and helped to organise
the defences. In researching
Sikunder Burnes, I discovered and published from the British Library incontrovertible and detailed documentary evidence that
Pottinger's entire journey was under the direct instructions of, and reporting to, British spymaster Alexander Burnes. The first
historian to publish the untrue "holiday" cover story, Sir John Kaye, knew both Burnes and Pottinger and undoubtedly knew he was
publishing lying propaganda. Every other British historian of the First Afghan War (except me and latterly
Farrukh Husain) has just followed Kaye's official propaganda.
Some things don't change. I was irresistibly reminded of Eldred Pottinger just passing Herat on holiday, when I learnt how
highly improbable left wing firebrand Simon Bracey-Lane
just happened to be on holiday in the
United States with available cash to fund himself, when he stumbled into the Bernie Sanders campaign.
Recent university graduate Simon Bracey-Lane took it even further. Originally from Wimbledon in London, he was inspired to
rejoin the Labour party in September when Corbyn was elected leader. But by that point, he was already in the US on holiday. So
he joined the Sanders campaign, and never left.
"I had two weeks left and some money left, so I thought, Fuck it, I'll make some calls for Bernie Sanders," he explains. "I just
sort of knew Des Moines was the place, so I just turned up at their HQ, started making phone calls, and then became a fully fledged
field organiser."
It is, to say the least, very interesting indeed that just a year later the left wing, "Corbyn and Sanders supporting" Bracey-Lane
is hosting a very right wing event, "Cold War Then and Now", for the shadowy neo-con Institute for Statecraft, at which an entirely
unbalanced panel of British
military, NATO and Ukrainian nationalists extolled the virtues of re-arming against Russia.
Nor would it seem likely that Bracey-Lane would be involved with the Integrity Initiative. Even the mainstream media has been
forced to give a few paragraphs to the outrageous Integrity Initiative, under which the MOD-sponsored Institute for Statecraft
has been given millions of pounds of taxpayers' money by the FCO to spread covert disinformation and propaganda, particularly against
Russia and the anti-war movement. Activities include twitter and facebook trolling and secretly paying journalists in "clusters of
influence" around Europe. Anonymous helpfully leaked the Institute's internal documents. Some of the Integrity Initiative's thus
exposed alleged covert agents, like David Aaronovitch, have denied any involvement despite their appearance in the documents, and
others like Dan Kaszeta the US "novichok expert", have cheerfully admitted it.
The mainstream media have
tracked down
the HQ of the "Institute for Statecraft" to a derelict mill near Auchtermuchty. It is owned by one of the company directors, Daniel
Lafayeedney, formerly of D Squadron 23rd SAS Regiment and later of Military Intelligence (and incidentally born the rather more prosaic
Daniel Edney).
By sleuthing the company records of this "Scottish charity", and a couple of phone calls, I discovered that the actual location
of the Institute for Statecraft is the basement of 2 Temple Place, London. This is not just any basement – it is the basement of
the former London mansion of William Waldorf Astor, an astonishing building.
It is, in short, possibly the most expensive basement in London.
Which is interesting because the accounts of the Institute for Statecraft claim it has no permanent staff and show nothing
for rent, utilities or office expenses. In fact, I understand the rent is paid by the Ministry of Defence.
Having been told where the Institute for Statecraft skulk, I tipped off journalist Kit Klarenberg of Sputnik Radio to go and physically
check it out. Kit did so and was
aggressively
ejected by that well-known Corbyn and Sanders supporter, Simon Bracey-Lane. It does seem somewhat strange that our left wing
hero is deeply embedded in an organisation that
launches troll attacks on Jeremy Corbyn.
I have a great deal more to tell you about Mr Edney and his organisation next week, and the extraordinary covert disinformation
war the British government wages online, attacking British citizens using British taxpayers' money. Please note in the interim I
am not even a smidgeon suicidal, and going to be very, very careful crossing the road and am not intending any walks in the hills.
I am not alleging Mr Bracey-Lane is an intelligence service operative who previously infiltrated the Labour Party and the
Sanders campaign. He may just be a young man of unusually heterodox and vacillating political opinions. He may be an undercover reporter
for the Canary infiltrating the Institute for Statecraft. All these things are possible, and I have no firm information.
But one of the activities the Integrity Initiative sponsors happens to be the use of online trolls to ridicule the idea that the
British security services ever carry out any kind of infiltration, false flag or agent provocateur operations, despite the fact that
we even have repeated court judgements against undercover infiltration officers getting female activists pregnant. The Integrity
Initiative offers us a glimpse into the very dirty world of surveillance and official disinformation. If we actually had a free media,
it would be the biggest story of the day.
As the Establishment feels its grip slipping, as people wake up to the appalling economic exploitation by the few that underlies
the very foundations of modern western society, expect the methods used by the security services to become even dirtier.
You can
bank on continued ramping up of Russophobia to supply "the enemy".
As both Scottish Independence and Jeremy Corbyn are viewed as
real threats by the British Establishment, you can anticipate every possible kind of dirty trick in the next couple of years, with
increasing frequency and audacity
So at the moment when everybody assumed that Trump lost control of the foreign policy, he
does this. It's a real surprise. Kind of Christmas gift to his voters. And that's with neocon
Pompeo as his State Secretary and neocon Bolton as his national security advisor.
The War Party project of regime change in Tehran suffered a severe setback with the U.S.
pullout from Syria.
Notable quotes:
"... Forced to choose between Turkey, with 80 million people and the second-largest army in NATO, which sits astride the Dardanelles and Bosphorus entrance to the Black Sea, and the stateless Kurds with their Syrian Democratic Forces, or YPG, Trump chose Recep Tayyip Erdogan. ..."
"... And Erdogan regards the YPG as kinfolk and comrades of the Kurdish terrorist PKK in Turkey. A week ago, he threatened to attack the Kurds in northern Syria, though U.S. troops are embedded alongside them. What kind of deal did Trump strike with Erdogan? Turkey will purchase the U.S. Patriot anti-aircraft and missile defense system for $3.5 billion, and probably forego the Russian S-400. Trump also told Erdogan that we "would take a look at" extraditing Muslim cleric Fethullah Gulen whom the Turkish president says instigated the 2016 coup attempt that was to end with his assassination. ..."
"... The war party project, to bring about regime change in Tehran through either crippling sanctions leading to insurrection or a U.S.-Iranian clash in the Gulf, will suffer a severe setback with the U.S. pullout from Syria. ..."
"We have defeated ISIS in Syria, my only reason for being there," wrote President Donald
Trump as he ordered the withdrawal of all U.S. forces from Syria, stunning the U.S. foreign
policy establishment.
Trump overruled his secretaries of state and defense, and jolted this city and capitals
across NATO Europe and the Middle East.
Yet Trump is doing exactly what he promised to do in his campaign. And what his decision
seems to say is this:
We are extricating America from the forever war of the Middle East so foolishly begun by
previous presidents. We are coming home. The rulers and peoples of this region are going to
have to find their own way and fight their own wars. We are not so powerful that we can fight
their wars while also confronting Iran and North Korea and facing new cold wars with Russia and
China.
As for the terrorists of ISIS, says Trump, they are defeated.
Yet despite the heavy casualties and lost battles ISIS has suffered, along with the collapse
of the caliphate and expulsion from its Syrian capital Raqqa and Iraqi capital Mosul and from
almost all territories it controlled in both countries, the group is not dead. It lives on in
thousands of true believers hidden in those countries. And like al-Qaeda, it has followers
across the Middle East and inspires haters of the West living in the West.
The U.S. pullout from Syria is being called a victory for Vladimir Putin. "Russia, Iran,
Assad are ecstatic!" wailed Senator Lindsey Graham.
Graham was echoed by Nebraska Senator Ben Sasse who called the withdrawal a "retreat" and
charged that Trump's generals "believe the high-fiving winners today are Iran, ISIS and
Hezbollah."
But ISIS is a Sunni terrorist organization. And as such, it detests the Alawite regime of
Bashar Assad, and Hezbollah and Iran, both of which are viewed by ISIS as Shiite heretics.
"Russia, Iran, Syria are not happy about the US leaving," Trump tweeted, "despite what the Fake
News says, because now they will have to fight ISIS and others, who they hate, without us."
If Putin, victorious in the Syrian civil war, wishes to fight al-Qaeda and ISIS, the last
major enemies of Assad in Syria, why not let him?
The real losers?
Certainly the Kurds, who lose their American ally. Any dream they had of greater autonomy
inside Syria, or an independent state, is not going to be realized. But then, that was never
really in the cards.
Forced to choose between Turkey, with 80 million people and the second-largest army in
NATO, which sits astride the Dardanelles and Bosphorus entrance to the Black Sea, and the
stateless Kurds with their Syrian Democratic Forces, or YPG, Trump chose Recep Tayyip
Erdogan.
And Erdogan regards the YPG as kinfolk and comrades of the Kurdish terrorist PKK in
Turkey. A week ago, he threatened to attack the Kurds in northern Syria, though U.S. troops are
embedded alongside them. What kind of deal did Trump strike with Erdogan? Turkey will purchase
the U.S. Patriot anti-aircraft and missile defense system for $3.5 billion, and probably forego
the Russian S-400. Trump also told Erdogan that we "would take a look at" extraditing Muslim
cleric Fethullah Gulen whom the Turkish president says instigated the 2016 coup attempt that
was to end with his assassination.
National security advisor John Bolton, who said U.S. troops would remain in Syria until all
Iranian forces and Iran-backed militias have been expelled, appears not to have been speaking
for his president. And if the Israelis were relying on U.S. forces in Syria to intercept any
Iranian weapons shipments headed to Hezbollah in Lebanon through Damascus, then they are going
to have to make other arrangements.
The war party project, to bring about regime change in Tehran through either crippling
sanctions leading to insurrection or a U.S.-Iranian clash in the Gulf, will suffer a severe
setback with the U.S. pullout from Syria.
However, given the strength of the opposition to a U.S. withdrawal -- Israel, Saudi Arabia,
the GOP foreign policy establishment in Congress and the think tanks, liberal interventionists
in the Beltway press, Trump's own national security team of advisors -- the battle to overturn
Trump's decision has probably only just begun.
From FDR's abandonment of 100 million East Europeans to Stalin at Yalta in 1945 to the
abandonment of our Nationalist Chinese allies to Mao in 1949 and of our South Vietnamese allies
in 1975, America has often been forced into retreats leading to the deaths of allies. Senator
Sasse says Trump is risking the same outcome: "A lot of American allies will be slaughtered if
this retreat is implemented."
But is that true?
Trump's decision to pull out of Syria at least has assured us of a national debate on what
it will mean to America to extricate our country from these Mideast wars. It is the kind of
debate we have not had in the 15 years since we were first deceived into invading Iraq.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made
and Broke a President and Divided America Forever . To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and
read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators website at
www.creators.com .
I believe "Syria" is a war crime planned and plotted by some western governments and their
allies. They are even reportedly financing and assisting terrorists. Which is criminal and
treasonous
-- -- --
"With their command and control centre based in Istanbul, Turkey, military supplies from
Saudi Arabia and Qatar in particular were transported by Turkish intelligence to the border
for rebel acquisition. CIA operatives along with Israeli and Jordanian commandos were also
training FSA rebels on the Jordanian-Syrian border with anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons.
In addition, other reports show that British and French military were also involved in these
secret training programmes. It appears that the same FSA rebels receiving this elite training
went straight into ISIS – last month one ISIS commander, Abu Yusaf, said, 'Many of the
FSA people who the west has trained are actually joining us.'" Nafeez Ahmed http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/09/12/how-the-west-created-the-islamic-state/
-- -- -- -- --
"Under U.S. law it is illegal for any American to provide money or assistance to al-Qaeda,
ISIS or other terrorist groups. If you or I gave money, weapons or support to al-Qaeda or
ISIS, we would be thrown in jail. Yet the U.S. government has been violating this law for
years, quietly supporting allies and partners of al-Qaeda, ISIL, Jabhat Fateh al Sham and
other terrorist groups with money, weapons, and intelligence support, in their fight to
overthrow the Syrian government.[i] Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, December 8, 2016,Press Release.
https://gabbard.house.gov/news/press-releases/video-rep-tulsi-gabbard-introduces-legislation-stop-arming-terrorists
-- -- -- -- --
There is further abundant evidence available at links below: http://graysinfo.blogspot.com/2018/12/a-christmas-report-on-crimes-of-war.html
"At the very least, America will have its first serious debate on its Mideast wars since 2003
. It is the kind of debate we have not had in the 15 years since we were first deceived into
invading Iraq."
Finally Mr Buchanan and I agree on something of substance. And I cannot believe I am in
agreement with Trump on this too (even though it was quite clumsy). Will wonders never
cease?
I hate that Trump will probably throw the Kurds under the bus since they acted as our
allies and suffered for it. And if I was Mr Fethullah Gulen I would be packing my bags for
Canada.
However, well done, sir. Now let the debate begin.
I think what is to be accomplished by the US staying in the Middle East? Hasn't over 17 years
and $600 billion spent and over a million dead been price enough? Hopefully, Syria is the 1st
step in ending American military involvement in the Middle East. America has enough to do in
taking care of serious issues here at home. As for the Middle East, let Israel, Saudia
Arabia, Turkey, Iran and other countries and ethnic groups who reside there solve their own
damn problems.
As a European it feels strange to feel this pro-Trump all of a sudden. Before you know it,
I'll order a MAGA cap (I'm always safe with that because carnaval is coming).
Russia just landed a nuclear bomber in Venezuela. Russia and China are making SIGNIFICANT
inroads in the Caribbean, Central America, South America and Africa.
If Israel comes under serious threat, the US will be there to assist in its defense but
the time has come when the US has to admit that the parasite freeloader nations like Europe
and Israel are coming at to high a cost a cost that is both distracting and obstructing the
US from being where it is really needed to deal with China and Russia.
People sit on their collective fat asses inside The Beltway within the confines of some book
lined conference room and make decisions involving the lives of thousands of young men and
women–other people's sons and daughters (never their own)– who may be dispatched
to take a bullet in anger. And over what? Making the MidEast "free for democracy"?
I dislike Trump even though I reluctantly voted for him only to keep the Congenital Liar
out of the White House. One of the few positives he exhibited was a desire to extricate the
United States from that MidEast hell-hole. For once at least he has delivered. Whether he
will succeed, however, remains to be seen. After all, the Beltway is swarming with chicken
hawks.
Very zero sum gain way of thinking. How can the US not spending hundreds of billions on a
lost cause be a win for Russia? Sounds more like a win for the US. I think the Syrian
government with Russia and Iran should be enough to demolish the physical caliphate.
Destroying ISIS ? Good luck with that suppress it OK but destroy easier said then done. How
have we done against, the Mafia? the IRA? drug cartels and so on and so forth. For those who
want to stay is there ever a set of conditions which would be satisfied allowing you to
leave? We are still in Germany, I think the Nazis are gone you can relax, if it was the
Soviets you worry about also gone by about 3 decades. If we can't accept that Germany is
sufficiently stable to no longer be blessed with our presence when oh when would Syria be
viewed as stable?
I have regretted voting for trump for many reasons. I concede that IF USA military leaves
Syria, this is a very positive development. He should now do the same for Afghanistan and
many other places around the world.
Russia, Iran, Hezbollah and the Syrian military have done a fine job of keeping IS on the
run. Let's hope they can finish the job.
In this issue at least I support Trump a hundred percent, and I think a lot of Americans
agree.
He's finally doing what he promised to do during the campaign.
I have been very unhappy with him, but if he follows through on this I'll give him credit.
Given the lock that the elites and establishment have on the media, it took guts. It's good
to see he has some.
While I didn't vote for this excrescence in The White House, I will give credit where credit
is due. Hillary's neocon impulses would have been infinitely worse here.
Still, looking at this past week, I can't help thinking about that whole Flight 93 thing.
But two years into The Trump presidency, it's starting to look more like that disaster movie
camp-fest Airport 1975, where we have crossed-eyed stewardess Karen Black trying to land the
stricken 747. In her immortal words to flight control: "Something hit us! There's no one left
to fly the plane! HELP US! OH MY GOD HELP US!!!"
"... According to the narrative fabricated by the intelligence agencies and promoted by the Democratic Party and the corporate media over the past year and a half, Putin and his minions hacked the Democrats and stirred up social divisions and popular grievances to secure the election for Donald Trump, and they have been working ever since to destroy "our institutions." ..."
A central theme of the hysteria over alleged "Russian meddling" in US politics is the
sinister effort supposedly being mounted by Vladimir Putin "to undermine and manipulate our
democracy" (in the words of Democratic Senator Mark Warner).
According to the narrative fabricated by the intelligence agencies and promoted by the
Democratic Party and the corporate media over the past year and a half, Putin and his minions
hacked the Democrats and stirred up social divisions and popular grievances to secure the
election for Donald Trump, and they have been working ever since to destroy "our
institutions."
Their chosen field of battle is the internet, with Russian trolls and bots infecting the
body politic by taking advantage of lax policing of social media by the giant tech companies
such as Google, Facebook and Twitter.
To defend democracy, the argument goes, these companies, working with the state, must
silence oppositional viewpoints -- above all left-wing, anti-war and socialist viewpoints --
which are labeled "fake news," and banish them from the internet. Nothing is said of the fact
that this supposed defense of democracy is a violation of the basic canons of genuine
democracy, guaranteed in the First Amendment to the US Constitution: freedom of speech and
freedom of the press.
But what is this much vaunted "American democracy?" Let's take a closer look.
The
two-party monopoly
In a vast and complex country with a population of 328 million people, consisting of many
different nationalities, native tongues, religions and other demographics, spanning six time
zones and thousands of miles, two political parties totally dominate the political
system.
The ruling corporate-financial oligarchy controls both parties and maintains its rule by
alternating control of the political institutions -- the White House, Congress, state houses,
etc. -- between them. The general population, consisting overwhelmingly of working people, is
given the opportunity every two or four years to go to the polls and vote for one or the
other of these capitalist parties. This is what is called "democracy."
The monopoly of the two big business parties is further entrenched by the absence of
proportional representation, which it makes it impossible for third parties or independent
candidates to obtain significant representation in Congress.
The role of corporate
money
The entire political process -- the selection of candidates, elections, the formulation of
domestic and foreign policies -- is dominated by corporate money. No one can seriously bid
for high office unless he or she has the backing of sponsors from the ranks of the richest 1
percent -- or 0.01 percent -- of the population. The buying of elections and politicians is
brazen and shameless.
Last month's midterm elections set a record for campaign spending in a non-presidential
year -- $5.2 billion -- a 35 percent increase over 2014 and triple the amount spent 20 years
ago, in 1998. The bulk of this flood of cash came from corporations and multi-millionaire
donors.
In the vast majority of contests, the winner was determined by the size of his or her
campaign war chest. Eighty-nine percent of House races and 84 percent of Senate races were
won by the biggest spender.
Democratic candidates had a huge spending advantage over their Republican opponents,
exposing the fraud of their attempt to posture as a party of the people. The securities and
investment industry -- Wall Street -- favored Democrats over Republicans by a margin of 52
percent to 46 percent.
Elections are anything but a forum to openly and honestly discuss and debate the great
issues facing the voters. The real issues -- the preparation for new wars, deeper austerity
and further attacks on democratic rights -- are concealed behind a miasma of attack ads and
mudslinging. The research firm PQ Media estimates that total political ad spending will reach
$6.75 billion this year. In last month's elections, the number of congressional and
gubernatorial ads rose 59 percent over the previous, 2014, midterm.
The setting of policy and passage of legislation is helped along by corporate bribes,
euphemistically termed lobbying. In 2017 alone, corporations spent $3 billion to lobby the
government.
Ballot access restrictions
A welter of arcane, arbitrary and anti-democratic requirements for gaining ballot status,
which vary from state to state, block third parties from challenging the domination of the
Democrats and Republicans. These include filing fees and nominating petition signature
requirements in the tens of thousands in many states. Democratic officials routinely
challenge the petitions of socialist and left-wing candidates who are likely to find support
among young people and workers.
Media blackout of third party candidates
The corporate media systematically blacks out the campaigns of third party and independent
candidates, especially left-wing and socialist candidates. The exception is candidates who
are either themselves rich or who have the backing of wealthy patrons.
Third party candidates are generally excluded from nationally televised candidates'
debates.
In last month's election, the Socialist Equality Party candidate for Congress in
Michigan's 12th Congressional District, Niles Niemuth, won broad support among workers, young
people and students for his socialist program, but received virtually no press
coverage.
Voting restrictions
Since the stolen election of 2000, when the Supreme Court shut down the counting of votes
in Florida in order to hand the White House to the loser of the popular vote, George W. Bush,
with virtually no opposition from the Democrats or the media, attacks on the right of workers
and poor people to vote have mounted.
Thirty-three states have implemented voter identification laws, which, studies show, bar
up to 6 percent of the population from voting. States have cut back early voting and absentee
voting and shut down voting precincts in working class neighborhoods. A number of states
impose a lifetime ban on voting by felons, even after they have done their time. In 2013, the
Supreme Court gutted the enforcement mechanism of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, with no real
opposition from the Democrats. The United States is one of the few countries that hold
elections on a work day, making it more difficult for workers to cast a
ballot.
Government of, by and for the rich
The two corporate parties have overseen a social counterrevolution, resulting in a
staggering growth of social inequality. In tandem with this process, the oligarchic structure
of society has increasingly found open expression in the political forms of rule. Alongside
the erection of the infrastructure of a police state -- mass surveillance, indefinite
detention, the militarization of the police, Gestapo raids on workplaces and attacks on
immigrants, the ascendancy of the military in political affairs, internet censorship -- the
personnel of government have increasingly been recruited from the rich and the
super-rich.
More than half of the members of Congress are millionaires, as compared to just 1 percent
of the American population. All the presidents for the past three decades -- George H. W,
Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama -- have either been multi-millionaires going
in or have cashed in on their presidencies to become multi-millionaires afterward. In the
person of the multi-billionaire real estate speculator and con man Donald Trump, the
financial oligarchy has directly taken occupancy of the White House.
In The State and Revolution , Vladimir Lenin wrote: "Bourgeois democracy,
although a great historical advance in comparison with medievalism, always remains, and under
capitalism is bound to remain, restricted, truncated, false and hypocritical, a paradise for
the rich and a snare and deception for the exploited, for the poor."
ISIS was created by the US as a part of its divide and conquer strategy. General Flynn blew
the whistle on it which is why he has been vilified. Flynn spoke the truth on ISIS and lied
to the FBI! Horrors.
Now ISIS has been "defeated" and the US Quixote can focus on other windmills.
Except now comes the Syria encore, Afghanistan. Chalk up another loss for team USA.
One of the participants in the scheme, Jonathan Morgan, is the CEO of cybersecurity firm
New Knowledge. Morgan wrote a blistering account of Russian social media operations during
the 2016 election released this week by the Senate Intelligence Committee.
Another angle to this big @nytimes story... Guess who participated in using a Russian
style disinformation campaign to influence the Alabama Senate election AND hoped to frame
Russia for it? The CEO of the company that wrote the Senate Intel report on 2016 election
meddling. https://t.co/uSu8HYCl15
-- Robby Starbuck (@robbystarbuck) December 20, 2018
"... What Are the Democrats Hiding?" http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2017/07/what-are-the-democrats-hiding-by-publius-tacitus.html "Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) demanded that Capitol Police Chief Matthew Verderosa return equipment belonging to her office that was seized as part of the investigation -- or face "consequences." ..."
"... "FBI agents seized smashed computer hard drives from the home of Florida Democratic Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz's information technology (IT) administrator, according to two sources with knowledge of the investigation. Pakistani-born Imran Awan, long-time right-hand IT aide to the former Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chairwoman, has since desperately tried to get the hard drives back." ..."
"... This is not your phony Russia-gate or McCain-commissioned funny dossier on Trump. This is the documented "serious, potentially illegal, violations of the House IT network," which is a case of a free access to classified information by a group of the proven blackmailers. Would this matter be treated with the same urgency of "patriotism" as the cases of Manning and Assange? ..."
Virtually no one [from MSM] is paying attention to the fact that a group of Pakistani
Muslims, working for a Jewish Congresswoman from Florida, had full computer access to a large
number of Democrat Representatives. Most of the press is disinterested in pursuing this
matter."
"FBI agents seized smashed computer hard drives from the home of Florida Democratic
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz's information technology (IT) administrator, according to two
sources with knowledge of the investigation. Pakistani-born Imran Awan, long-time right-hand
IT aide to the former Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chairwoman, has since desperately
tried to get the hard drives back."
This is not your phony Russia-gate or McCain-commissioned funny dossier on Trump. This
is the documented "serious, potentially illegal, violations of the House IT network," which
is a case of a free access to classified information by a group of the proven blackmailers.
Would this matter be treated with the same urgency of "patriotism" as the cases of Manning
and Assange?
"... He might call it a "higher loyalty", but it looks to us peons like a true double-standard. Democrats get Wall Street Bankster treatment, while the rabble get tossed in the slammer. ..."
Former FBI Director James Comey appeared December 17th, 2018, for a
second round of questions by a joint House committee oversight probe into the DOJ and FBI
conduct during the 2016 presidential election and incoming Trump administration.
The Joint House Committee just released the transcript online (full pdf below).
Trey Gowdy grilled Comey on his vastly different handling of comments by Trump and Obama.
When Trump asked Comey whether he could see his way clear to easing up on Flynn, Comey
memorialized the conversation in a memo and distributed it to his leadership team, including
Andrew McCabe and James Baker.
However, when President Obama on 60 Minutes publicly exonerated Hillary Clinton's
mishandling of classified information -- setting the stage for true obstruction of justice --
Comey did nothing. He never talked to the president about potential obstruction, he never
memorialized his observations, and he didn't leak anything to the press. These were all things
he did with Trump.
He might call it a "higher loyalty", but it looks to us peons like a true double-standard.
Democrats get Wall Street Bankster treatment, while the rabble get tossed in the
slammer.
2. According to Comey, Flynn had no right to counsel
This is interesting:
Mr. Gowdy. Did Mr. Flynn have the right to have counsel present during that interview?
Mr. Comey. No.
Oooooooookay.
3. Comey confirmed McCabe called Flynn to initiate "entrapment";
contradicts himself on counsel
And:
Mr. Gowdy. Why not advise General Flynn of the consequences of making false statements to
the FBI?
Mr. Comey. ...the Deputy Director [McCabe] called him, told him what the subject matter
was, told him he was welcome to have a representative from White House Counsel there...
So Comey is saying that Flynn didn't have the right to counsel (item 2), and then states
that he does have the right to a White House counsel attending the meeting.
The lies are getting harder and harder to keep straight with this egregious
individual.
4. Comey lied about McCabe's conversation with Flynn
When asked whether McCabe was trying to set Flynn up by asserting no counsel was needed in
the interview, Comey claimed he was unaware of that critical fact. But McCabe, in a written
memo, asserted that he told Flynn, "[i]f you have a lawyer present, we'll need to involve the
Department of Justice".
In other words, McCabe was trying to ensure Flynn had no counsel present during the
interview.
5. Comey still falls back on the Logan Act scam to justify his actions
Yes, the Logan Act. When former secretary of state John Kerry meets with various Mullahs
while President Trump is unwinding the disastrous Iran deal, there's no crime there !
But let Flynn, a member of the Trump transition team, have a perfectly legitimate
conversation with a Russian diplomat, we get:
Mr. Comey. And I hesitate only with "wrong." I think a Department of Justice prosecutor
might say, on its face, it was problematic under the Logan Act because of private citizens
negotiating and all that business.
What a lying sack of gumbo. At the time, Flynn was not a private citizen. He was a member of
the incoming administration, and had anyone bothered to prosecute prior transitions for similar
"crimes", the entire Obama and Clinton posses would be breaking rocks at Leavenworth.
6.
Comey Throws James Clapper Under the Bus
When asked by Jim Jordan about his private meeting with the President to brief him on a very
tiny portion of the "salacious and unverified" (Comey's words under oath) dossier, Comey
claimed ODNI James Clapper had orchestrated the entire fiasco.
Mr. Comey. ...ultimately, it was Clapper's call. I agreed -- we agreed that it made sense
for me to do it and to do it privately, separately. So I don't want to make it sound like I
was ordered to do it.
He wasn't ordered to do it, but it was Clapper's call.
Oooooooookay.
7. Jordan Torches Comey Over His Dossier Comments
I'll just leave this here. Comey may need to put some ice on that.
Mr. Jordan. So that's what I'm not understanding, is you felt this was so important that
it required a private session with you and the President-elect, you only spoke of the
salacious part of the dossier, but yet you also say there's no way any good reporter would
print this. But you felt it was still critical that you had to talk to the President-elect
about it. And I would argue you created the very news hook that you said you were concerned
about...
...it's so inflammatory that reporters would 'get killed' for reporting it, why was it so
important to tell the President? Particularly when you weren't going to tell him the rest of
the dossier -- about the rest of the dossier?
8. Comey Concealed Critical National Security Concerns About Flynn From the
President
This is quite unbelievable: in a private dinner with the president, Comey neglected to
mention that just three days earlier he had directed the interview of Trump's ostensible
National Security Advisor.
Mr. Comey. ...at no time during the dinner was there a reference, allusion, mention by
either of
us about the FBI having contact with General Flynn or being interested in General Flynn
investigatively.
Mr. Jordan. That was what I wanted to know. So this is not just referring to the President
didn't bring it up. You didn't bring it up either.
Mr. Comey. Correct, neither of us brought it up or alluded to it.
Mr. Jordan. Why not? He's talking about General Flynn. You had just interviewed him 3 days
earlier and discovered that he was lying to the Vice President, knew he was lying to the Vice
President, and, based on what we've heard of late, that he lied tyour agents. Why not tell
his boss, why not tell the head of the executive branch, why not tell the President of the
United States, "Hey, your National Security Advisor just lied to us 3 days ago"?
Mr. Comey. Because we had an open investigation, and there would be no reason or a need to
tell the President about it.
Mr. Jordan. Really?
Mr. Comey. Really.
Mr. Jordan. You wouldn't tell the President of the United States that his National
Security Advisor wasn't being square with the FBI? ... I mean, but this is not just any
investigation, it seems to me, Director. This is a top advisor to the Commander in Chief. And
you guys, based on what we've heard, felt that he wasn't being honest with the Vice President
and wasn't honest with two of your agents. And just 3 days later, you're meeting with the
President, and, oh, by the way, the conversation is about General Flynn. And you don't tell
the President anything?
Mr. Comey. I did not.
Mr. Meadows. So, Director Comey, let me make sure I understand this. You were so concerned
that Michael Flynn may have lied or did lie to the Vice President of the United States, but
that once you got that confirmed, that he had told a falsehood, you didn't believe that it
was appropriate to tell the President of the United States that there was no national
security risk where you would actually convey that to the President of the United States? Is
that your testimony?
Mr. Comey. That is correct. We had an --
The more we learn, the dirtier a cop Comey ends up appearing.
9. Gowdy Destroys the
Double Standard of Clinton vs. Flynn
Check this out:
Mr. Gowdy. ...we are going to contrast the decision to not allow Michael Flynn to have an
attorney, or discourage him from having one, with allowing some other folks the Bureau
interviewed to have multiple attorneys in the room, including fact witnesses. Can you see the
dichotomy there, or is that an unreasonable comparison?
Mr. Comey. I'm not going to comment on that. I remember you asking me questions about that
last week. I'm happy to answer them again.
Mr. Gowdy. You will not say whether or not it is an unreasonable comparison to compare
allowing multiple attorneys, who are also fact witnesses, to be present during an interview
but discouraging another person from having counsel present?
Mr. Comey. I'm not going to answer that in a vacuum...
10. Comey May Have Been Involved With the Infamous Tarmac Meeting
Another interesting vignette, this time from John Ratcliffe :
Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. So it would appear from this that there had been some type of
briefing the day before, with reference to yesterday, June 27, 2016, where you had requested
a copy of emails between President Obama and Hillary Clinton.
Mr. Comey. I see that it says that.
Mr. Ratcliffe. ...The significance of that is, as we talked about last time, June 27th of
2016 was also the date that Attorney General Lynch and former President Bill Clinton met on a
tarmac in Phoenix, Arizona. Do you recall whether or not this briefing was held at the FBI
because of that tarmac meeting, or was it just happened to be a coincidence that it was held
on that day? Mr. Comey. It would have to have been a coincidence. I don't remember a meeting
in response to the tarmac meeting.
Muh don't know!
11. Comey confirms Obama knew Hillary Clinton was using a compromised,
insecure email server
Well, spank me on the fanny and call me Nancy!
Mr. Ratcliffe. ...Hillary Rodham Clinton and President Obama were communicating via email
through an unsecure, unclassified server?
Mr. Comey. Yes, they were between her Clinton email.com account and his -- I don't know
where his account, his unclassified account, was maintained. So I'm sorry. So, yes, here were
communications unclassified between two accounts, hers and then his cover account.
Mr. Ratcliffe. ...Did your review of these emails or the content of these emails impact
your decision to edit out a reference to President Obama in your July 5th, 2016, press
conference remarks?
If Trump had done 1/1,000,000th of this crap, he'd be -- yes -- breaking rocks in
Leavenworth right now.
But there's no double-standard, rabble! Just keep buying iPhones and playing Call of Duty
!
...Aaaaaaaaand I'm spent.
Okay, done for now.
But let's recap the activities of Dr. "Higher Loyalty" Comey:
Did not investigate the felony leak to the press of the conversation between the Russian
Ambassador and Flynn.
Did not advise Congress of the "investigation" into Trump-Russia collusion as required by
statute.
Lied to the FISA court -- another felony -- about Carter Page being "an agent of a
foreign power".
Wrote an exoneration memo for Hillary Clinton before more than a dozen witnesses,
including Clinton herself, had been interviewed.
But, no, there's no double-standard for the aggressiveness of law enforcement when it comes
to Democrats like Clinton and Obama.
"... These intercepted communications provided the means to identify George Papadopoulos as a potential target. ..."
"... British intel was worried about Trump's stated positions in 2015 on Syria and NATO, which were inimical to British interests. ..."
"... Meanwhile, back in my country, Jim Clapper at DNI and John Brennan at CIA started to conspire against Trump. ..."
"... if I may add this also proves an imperial mindset. Anyone dangerous to the influence of the Imperium must destroyed. Right now primarily through Justizmord, but as things turn south (and they will) physically too. ..."
"... My apologies if I missed this in the article, but WHY do these US gov't agencies want to take Donald down? I didn't vote for him, but it seems like he is doing things the GOP wants. ..."
"... IMO they have sensed from the beginning that because of his egomania he would never be truly controllable. As TTG and I have stated before we would never have tried to recruit this man as an intelligence asset. To be worthwhile such an asset must be controllable. Trump is demonstrating now in the Syria matter that he is NOT controllable. He is likely to withdraw from Afghanistan in spite of the "counsel" of the generals' club and the waning influence over him of the neocons. With regard to Syria I think that Natanyahu has already abandoned regime change in Syria. The Russians are probably responsible for this. ..."
"... Excellent summary, Mr Johnson! It is extremely concerning that this information is known but no one has the balls to start nailing some people. I read that it is all about timing, release will be in response to demo atks, etc. I read that x number of sealed indictments are out there but no progress seems to be forthcoming. You are correct, no one is defending the Constitution, it is all personalized against trump, who seems to disengaged from the active fight. ..."
"... Chuck Schumer: "You take on the intelligence community, they have 6 ways from Sunday of getting back at you." Play Hide ..."
On the threshhold of the second anniversary of Donald Trump's inauguration, the details of
the coup to force him from the Presidency are emerging and should alarm all Americans
regardless of political party affiliation. Although many facts remain to be discovered, what
has emerged paints a shocking picture of criminal activity by FBI and CIA officials. That
explains in part why both agencies are going to great lengths to hide documents that provide
indisputable proof of their malfeasance.
When American law enforcement and officials, who carry Top Secret clearances and authority
to collect intelligence or pursue a criminal investigation, decide to employ lies and
intimidation to silence those who worked for Donald Trump's Presidency, our Republic is
endangered.
My interest is not in protecting or defending Donald Trump. I am talking about defending the
rule of law and ensuring that the Constitutional limitations on the powers of the Federal
Government are protected.
What evidence do I offer of the attempted coup? Here is what we know for certain:
Foreign
intelligence entities started collecting intelligence on Donald Trump and his associates in
2015. The names of more than 200 people connected to the Trump campaign listed in those reports
were unmasked by the Obama Administration. The FBI used two paid informants -- Christopher
Steele and Stefan Halper -- to target Trump and members of his team and coordinated this effort
with British MI-6 and the CIA. The FBI had additional informant with direct access to Trump who
specialized in targeting Russian spies and Russian mobsters. His name? Felix Sater. Yet, Sater
appears never to have been tasked to provide any incriminating information on Donald Trump.
Bill Priestrap, the FBI Assistant Director for Counter Intelligence since December 2015, relied
on Felix Sater in a major operation against Russian spies and then had oversight of the
investigation into Donald Trump. So far, no indictment has surfaced from Special Prosecutor
Mueller's efforts implicating Trump with the Russian government.
The operation against Donald Trump is pure and simple covert action. But it is covert action
on a massive scale and has involved coordinated actions between U.S. law enforcement, U.S.
intelligence agencies and foreign intelligence agencies, including both the British Government
and the Australian Government.
There are eight major components to this covert action. This is not a confirmed complete
list. More elements may surface in the coming days. But these are what we know for certain:
British and other foreign intelligence services were collecting on persons working with and
for Donald Trump. GCHQ first became aware in late 2015 of suspicious "interactions" between
figures connected to Trump and known or suspected Russian agents, a source close to UK
intelligence said. Thisintelligence was passed to the US as part of a routine exchange of
information, they added. Over the next six months, until summer 2016, a number of western
agencies shared further information on contacts between Trump's inner circle and Russians,
sources said. This "intelligence" was then used by the Obama Administration to "unmask"
Americans named in the intelligence who were working with Donald Trump. The European
countries that passed on electronic intelligence – known as sigint – included
Germany, Estonia and Poland. Australia, a member of the "Five Eyes" spying alliance that also
includes the US, UK, Canada and New Zealand, also relayed material, one source said. (Luke
Harding, Stephanie Kirchgaessner and Nick Hopkins Exclusive: GCHQ is said to have alerted US
agencies after becoming aware of contacts in 2015 Thu 13 Apr 2017 09.39 EDT, THE
GUARDIAN)
February/March 2016--George Popadopoulus was specifically targeted by a combined MI-6/CIA
operation. GCHQ started collecting on the Trump team in the summer of 2015. These
intercepted communications provided the means to identify George Papadopoulos as a potential
target. But this was more than a mere GCHQ routine collection. MI6 also was involved.
British intel was worried about Trump's stated positions in 2015 on Syria and NATO, which
were inimical to British interests.
Meanwhile, back in my country, Jim Clapper at DNI and John Brennan at CIA started to
conspire against Trump. They did not believe that Trump would be elected but still
decided to take steps to discredit him using the Russia meme. I have this solidly sourced. In
other words, US intel and British intel started working against Trump independently at the
outset. This effort subsequently was coordinated through the JIC. What is alarming is that
despite the targeting of Trump NO intel of any value on the Trump/Russian angle was ever
produced. I thank you for the excellent piece you did on Mifsud. Mifsud's "arrival" at the
London Center for International Law Practice (LCILP) was not, in my view, a mere coincidence.
Papadopoulos was then recruited, unwittingly, to join LCILP as part of a broader intel op
intended to compromise him as a Russian enthusiast.
May 6, 2016--DNC Computer supposedly was hacked by Russian government agents and an outside
firm, Crowdstrike, a cybersecurity firm that was brought in at the recommendation of Mark
Elias (the same attorney who had hired Fusion GPS) is on the record claiming it started
working in early May to counter the Russian threat. It was Crowdstrike, not the FBI, that
claimed in mid-June that the email theft from the DNC was carried out by Russian hackers.
However, the available forensic evidence clearly shows that the information was downloaded by
someone with access to the DNC computers. At no time was the FBI given forensic access to the
DNC computer to conduct an independent investigation.
A "retired" MI-6 officer, Christopher Steele, was hired by Fusion GPS (which had been
retained by a lawyer acting on behalf of the Clinton campaign) to assemble a "dossier" on
Trump and his relationship with Russia. However, turns out that Steele also was a fully
signed up FBI informant since 2013. He was fired in October 2016 by the FBI for leaking to
the media. Despite being funded by a political opponent of Trump, the dossier was a major
justification for seeking a FISA warrant against Carter Page, who was affiliated with the
Trump campaign. ( https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/14/russia-dossier-fbi-trump-obama-1066643
)
Summer 2016--Carter Page targeted by the FBI and collected on by NSA and CIA. Page had no
relationship with Trump other than being named as an advisor to a group of foreign policy
experts. He never met Trump and never spoke with Trump. But the Steele Dossier fingers Page
as playing a lead role in bringing Russian influence into the Trump campaign. This unproven
allegation the major impetus for obtaining a FISA warrant to spy on Carter Page.
August/September 2016--FBI Informant Stefan Halper was used to try to entrap at least three
people associated with Donald Trump. Halper, the son-in-law of a retired famous CIA officers,
also was known to work with the CIA and MI-6 on other matters. In September Halper sought a
meeting with George Papadopoulus to pitch him on writing a policy paper for $3000 and then
traveling to London at Halper's expense. Towards the end of the meeting Halper asked
Papadopoulos: 'George, you know about hacking the emails from Russia, right?'" Papadopoulus
denied any knowledge of such activity.
DNI Jim Clapper and CIA Director John Brennan both engaged in continuous leaks to feed the
meme that Trump was colluding with the Russians even though they knew they had no relevant
intelligence to support their claims. They engaged in a deliberate covert information
operation to poison the media against Trump. A retired FBI agent writing in the Wall Street
Journal noted that, "Robert Hannigan, then head of Britain's Government Communications
Headquarters, to pass information to Mr. Brennan. With only these suspicions, Mr. Brennan
pressured the FBI into launching its counterintelligence probe."
The FBI had an informant with expertise about the Russians planted inside the Trump
organization since 2003, but apparently did not use him. FBI Informant Felix Sater, who
started working with the Trump organization since 2003 and a boyhood friend of Trump's
lawyer, Michael Cohen, had worked with the FBI in making several cases against Russian
intelligence officers and Russian mobsters. Yet, during the 12 years he worked with the Trump
organization, not a single indictment was ever brought against Trump or his employees prior
to the start of his campaign for President. Even though Sater played a key role in the failed
Moscow project, his role with the FBI only involved providing evidence that Michael Cohen
lied to the Senate about the project.
The effort to destroy Donald Trump remains active. Trump, unfortunately, is proving to be
quite feckless in defying this threat and protecting himself. But this should not be about
protecting Trump and his reputation. This goes to something more profound and fundamental --
are those charged with collecting foreign intelligence and investigating crime permitted to act
with impunity against someone they define as a political foe. Such actions and attitudes
reflect an authoritarian government, not a Republic.
Likbez
An excellent narrative of this special operation. I would call it a color resolution against
Trump, as methods are the same. Thank you.
In other words, US and British intelligence started
working closely against Trump very early. May be from the very beginning.
The role of the British Intelligence here deserves more attention. I think you are right that
pursuing UK geopolitical interests (which are similar to US neocons) required derailing of Trump
and that's why they jumped into action. It might be that the idea to hire Steele by Fusion GPS was
injected from overseas.
They also might well push the Brennan faction of CIA into action by feeding his faction the
required disinfo. And Brennan required very little pushing, if any at all.
In this sense DNC "post-hack" investigation looks more and more like a false flag operation
were Crowstrike people were patsies in a bigger game assigned a predetermined task.
The Eastern timezone setting found in Guccifer 2's documents published on July 6, 2016 is
significant, because as we showed in Guccifer 2.0 NGP/Van Metadata Analysis, Guccifer 2 was likely
on the East Coast the previous day, when he collected the DNC-related files found in the ngpvan.7z
Zip file. Also, recall that Guccifer 2 was likely on the East Coast a couple of months later on
September 1, 2016 when he built the final ngpvan.7z file.
There are four additional episodes that can be added to the provided outline:
Michael Rogers intervention to save Trump transition team from surveillance in the Trump
tower and subsequent attempt by Brennan and Co. to fire him.
A very interesting and unexplainable episode is Avan brothers and their connection to Debbie
Wassermann. Theoretically that provided Debbie capability of conduct her own false flag operation.
It is clear that nobody wants to prosecute them. But why ?
The "insurance" folder on Wiener laptop (and probably some other interesting dat on it) and
Comey treatment of this information: https://www.theamericancons...
if I may add this also proves an imperial mindset. Anyone dangerous to the influence of
the Imperium must destroyed. Right now primarily through Justizmord, but as things turn south
(and they will) physically too.
You say: I am talking about defending the rule of law and ensuring that the Constitutional
limitations on the powers of the Federal Government are protected... And I can tell you with
absolute certainty that the US government has engaged in extrajudicial political
assassinations with total impunity, and this is repulsive way beyond what you outlined
here...
Trump is a criminal and has been all his adult life. He's been a liar since he was old enough
to tell a lie. Maybe no more or more less than others; the difference being dumb enough to
expose himself by running for the presidency and getting caught. It's on him.
My apologies if I missed this in the article, but WHY do these US gov't agencies want to take
Donald down? I didn't vote for him, but it seems like he is doing things the GOP wants. And I
was aware even before he ran for office that his past business dealings were shady. Are these
agencies going to try to bring him down using his past business dealings poss. involving the
Russians? Also, what does Mueller get out of this situation? Not a troll, just someone with
an OPEN mind.
IMO they have sensed from the beginning that because of his egomania he would never be truly
controllable. As TTG and I have stated before we would never have tried to recruit this man
as an intelligence asset. To be worthwhile such an asset must be controllable. Trump is
demonstrating now in the Syria matter that he is NOT controllable. He is likely to withdraw
from Afghanistan in spite of the "counsel" of the generals' club and the waning influence
over him of the neocons. With regard to Syria I think that Natanyahu has already abandoned
regime change in Syria. The Russians are probably responsible for this.
Bad: The "deep state" exists and will do whatever it takes to preserve its self-important and
self-enriching place in the Imperial City (the swamp).
Good :The "deep state" is composed mainly of inept blunderers, bureaucratic drones.
My favorite example is Strzok - the FBI "star" - who carried on his "plotting" (and adultery)
through texting on a government phone which apparently this "star" didn't know was being
archived.
Could this dimwit spell "OPSEC?"
As for Trump, two things:
The Clinton crime family is not in the WH.
Two Supreme Court Justices NOT appointed by a Democrat.
Excellent summary, Mr Johnson! It is extremely concerning that this information is known but no one has the balls to
start nailing some people. I read that it is all about timing, release will be in response to
demo atks, etc. I read that x number of sealed indictments are out there but no progress
seems to be forthcoming. You are correct, no one is defending the Constitution, it is all personalized against
trump, who seems to disengaged from the active fight.
Then there is the business of Q, whatever the hell that means-we read, trust the plan,
trust Sessions, trust Rod, trust Mueller. This may be counter productive to the 4th level of
chess but it seems like it is about time to haul some of these bastards off in a perp
walk.
Flynn "treason" is not related to Russia probe and just confirm that Nueller in engaged in witch hunt.
I believe half of Senate and House of Representative might go to jail if they were dug with the ferocity Mueller digs Flynn's past.
So while Flynn behavior as Turkey lobbyist (BTW Turkey is a NATO country and not that different int his sense from the US -- and you
can name a lot of UK lobbyists in high echelons of the US government, starting with McCabe and Strzok) is reprehensible, this is still a witch hunt
When American law enforcement and intelligence officials, who carry Top Secret clearances and authority to collect intelligence
or pursue a criminal investigation, decide to employ lies and intimidation to silence or intimidates those who worked for Donald
Trump's Presidency, we see shadow of Comrage Stalin Great Terror Trials over the USA.
Former U.S. national security adviser Michael Flynn passes by members of the
media as he departs after his sentencing was delayed at U.S. District Court in
Washington, U.S., December 18, 2018. REUTERS/Joshua Roberts
By Jan Wolfe and Ginger Gibson
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. judge fiercely criticized President Donald
Trump's former national security adviser Michael Flynn on Tuesday for lying to
FBI agents in a probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election, and
delayed sentencing him until Flynn has finished helping prosecutors.
U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan told Flynn, a retired U.S. Army
lieutenant general and former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency,
that he had arguably betrayed his country. Sullivan also noted that Flynn had
operated as an undeclared lobbyist for Turkey even as he worked on Trump's
campaign team and prepared to be his White House national security adviser.
Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to FBI agents about his December 2016
conversations with Sergei Kislyak, then Russia's ambassador in Washington,
about U.S. sanctions imposed on Moscow by the administration of Trump's
Democratic predecessor Barack Obama, after Trump's election victory but before
he took office.
Special Counsel Robert Mueller, leading the investigation into possible
collusion between Trump's campaign team and Russia ahead of the election, had
asked the judge not to sentence Flynn to prison because he had already
provided "substantial" cooperation over the course of many interviews.
But Sullivan sternly told Flynn his actions were abhorrent, noting that
Flynn had also lied to senior White House officials, who in turn misled the
public. The judge said he had read additional facts about Flynn's behavior
that have not been made public.
At one point, Sullivan asked prosecutors if Flynn could have been charged
with treason, although the judge later said he had not been suggesting such a
charge was warranted.
"Arguably, you sold your country out," Sullivan told Flynn. "I'm not hiding
my disgust, my disdain for this criminal offense."
Flynn, dressed in a suit and tie, showed little emotion throughout the
hearing, and spoke calmly when he confirmed his guilty plea and answered
questions from the judge.
Sullivan appeared ready to sentence Flynn to prison but then gave him the
option of a delay in his sentencing so he could fully cooperate with any
pending investigations and bolster his case for leniency. The judge told Flynn
he could not promise that he would not eventually sentence him to serve prison
time.
Flynn accepted that offer. Sullivan did not set a new date for sentencing
but asked Mueller's team and Flynn's attorney to give him a status report by
March 13.
Prosecutors said Flynn already had provided most of the cooperation he
could, but it was possible he might be able to help investigators further.
Flynn's attorney said his client is cooperating with federal prosecutors in a
case against Bijan Rafiekian, his former business partner who has been charged
with unregistered lobbying for Turkey.
Rafiekian pleaded not guilty on Tuesday to those charges in federal court
in Alexandria, Virginia. His trial is scheduled for Feb. 11. Flynn is
expected to testify.
Prosecutors have said Rafiekian and Flynn lobbied to
have Washington extradite a Muslim cleric who lives in the United States
and is accused by Turkey's government of backing a 2016 coup attempt. Flynn
has not been charged in that case.
'LOCK HER UP!'
Flynn was a high-profile adviser to Trump's campaign team. At the
Republican Party's national convention in 2016, Flynn led Trump's
supporters in cries of "Lock her up!" directed against Democratic candidate
Hillary Clinton.
A group of protesters, including some who chanted "Lock him up,"
gathered outside the courthouse on Tuesday, along with a large inflatable
rat fashioned to look like Trump. Several Flynn supporters also were there,
cheering as he entered and exited. One held a sign that read, "Michael
Flynn is a hero."
Flynn became national security adviser when Trump took office in January
2017, but lasted only 24 days before being fired.
He told FBI investigators on Jan. 24, 2017, that he had not discussed
the U.S. sanctions with Kislyak when in fact he had, according to his plea
agreement. Trump has said he fired Flynn because he also lied to Vice
President Mike Pence about the contacts with Kislyak.
Trump has said Flynn did not break the law and has voiced support for
him, raising speculation the Republican president might pardon him.
"Good luck today in court to General Michael Flynn. Will be interesting
to see what he has to say, despite tremendous pressure being put on him,
about Russian Collusion in our great and, obviously, highly successful
political campaign. There was no Collusion!" Trump wrote on Twitter on
Tuesday morning.
After the hearing, White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders told reporters
the FBI had "ambushed" Flynn in the way agents questioned him, but said his
"activities" at the center of the case "don't have anything to do with the
president" and disputed that Flynn had committed treason.
"We wish General Flynn well," Sanders said.
In contrast, Trump has called his former long-time personal lawyer
Michael Cohen, who has pleaded guilty to separate charges, a "rat."
Mueller's investigation into Russia's role in the 2016 election and
whether Trump has unlawfully sought to obstruct the probe has cast a shadow
over his presidency. Several former Trump aides have pleaded guilty in
Mueller's probe, but Flynn was the first former Trump White House official
to do so. Mueller also has charged a series of Russian individuals and
entities.
Trump has called Mueller's investigation a "witch hunt" and has denied
collusion with Moscow.
Russia has denied meddling in the election, contrary to the conclusion
of U.S. intelligence agencies that have said Moscow used hacking and
propaganda to try to sow discord in the United States and boost Trump's
chances against Clinton.
Lying to the FBI carries a statutory maximum sentence of five years in
prison. Flynn's plea agreement stated that he was eligible for a sentence
of between zero and six months.
(Reporting by Jan Wolfe and Ginger
Gibson; Additional reporting by Susan Heavey; Editing by Kieran Murray and
Will Dunham)
"... christophere steele admitted before a british court today that he was hired by the clintons/obama/DNC to make up the dossier as a weapon to use against trump as a backup plan in case he won the election.. this proves the DNC lied, paid for a fake dossier, and comey admitted he knew the fake dossier was false before using it to get a FISC warrant and to spy on trump, which was used as an excuse for the mueller investigation.. yahoo news and leftwing media arent covering the story.. educate yourselves ..."
1 hour ago
When I read articles like this I look to see who wrote it, printed it etc. When I see
Bloomberg, Yahoo, HuffPo I approach it as fake news. Now I no longer watch any of Fox news
as they are fast becoming just like the rest of the propaganda outlets. This is just
inflammatory anti Trump drivel with no basis in fact.
O 1 hour
ago Was this the interview report that was written 7 months after the interview?
R 44 minutes ago
Actually this story is not accurate. Mueller released copies of the 302 memos, which are in
effect official documentation to a case file. The 302 was dated seven months after the
interview, when the FBI policy requires such reports to be filed within five days. The
judge will ask tomorrow for copies of agent's contemporaneous interview notes and any other
documents supporting what is written in the 302, as well as an explanation for the delay in
filing the memo. 1
hour ago You mean the notes the FBI, in the person of one Peter Strzok, (yes that Strozk)
made seven months after he was interviewed? with the required 302 documents that are either
to be taken extemporaneously or done within days of the interview being dated months later?
You mean those notes?!!!! Nice try Bloomberg, but no amount of yellow journalism spin will
stop this case from being thrown out! 15 minutes ago christophere steele
admitted before a british court today that he was hired by the clintons/obama/DNC to make
up the dossier as a weapon to use against trump as a backup plan in case he won the
election.. this proves the DNC lied, paid for a fake dossier, and comey admitted he knew
the fake dossier was false before using it to get a FISC warrant and to spy on trump, which
was used as an excuse for the mueller investigation.. yahoo news and leftwing media arent
covering the story.. educate yourselves 1 hour ago Not so bias garbage news .. they
entrapped him what 302 form you want to go with .. FBI doctored the original.. FBI
curuption runs rampant.. comey lied so much about knowing about fake dossier.. then what
the hell was he doing.. comey the tall guy phony
On Friday, 14 December 2018, the office of "special counsel" Robert Mueller filed a reply to Gen. Michael Flynn's sentencing
memorandum by the court's deadline, as noted on the court clerk's docket sheet--
"12/14/2018 56 REPLY by USA as to MICHAEL T. FLYNN to Defendant's Memorandum in Aid of Sentencing (Attachments: # 1 Attachment
A, # 2 Attachment B)(Van Grack, Brandon) (Entered: 12/14/2018)".
Judge Emmet Sullivan in an order on 12 December stated: "In 50 defendant's memorandum in aid of sentencing, the
defendant quotes and cites a 'Memorandum dated Jan. 24, 2017.' See page 8 n. 21, 22. The defendant also quotes and cites a 'FD-302
dated Aug. 22, 2017.' See page 9 n. 23-27. The defendant is ORDERED to file on the docket FORTHWITH the cited Memorandum and FD-302.
The Court further ORDERS the government to file on the docket any 302s or memoranda relevant to the circumstances discussed on
pages 7-9 of the defendant's sentencing memorandum by no later than 3:00 p.m. on December 14, 2018."
In response to Judge Sullivan's order, the Mueller group attached to its reply memo two noticeably blacked out (redacted) documents,
which turned out to be the same ones that were referred to in Flynn's memo raising the issue of FBI conduct surrounding his interview,
and were nothing additional or new!
The government's reply and two documents that were filed are here--
The two redacted documents are the "January 24, 2017" memo and the "FD-302 dated Aug. 22, 2017", which were cited in the court's
order and which Flynn's lawyers apparently already had, or knew what they were about. Judge Sullivan ordered the Mueller
group to produce "any 302s or memoranda relevant to the circumstances discussed on pages 7-9
of the defendant's sentencing memorandum", not just the two that were already known [emphasis added]. The "Attachment B"
is not the form 302 by an agent who interviewed Flynn on 24 January 2017, but rather is a 302 report by an unknown person of an
interview of now former FBI agent Peter Strzok on 20 July 2017, in which Strzok allegedly talks about some things that happened
on 24 January.
Unless the "special counsel" filed a complete set of unredacted documents with a motion (request) for leave to file them under
seal, the reply is on its face a violation of the court's disclosure order.
As 'blue peacock' said in a comment to the posting
on this issue of 14 December, it will be interesting to see what Judge Sullivan does about the response by the Mueller group.
Both documents are heavily blacked out. The form 302 does include the language that the agents at the Flynn interview
"had the impression at the time that Flynn was not lying or did not think he was lying". Since this had already been
revealed in news and mass media reports, they basically had to disclose that little part, otherwise it probably would have
been redacted as well.
On the bottom right corner of each page is a number, which is usually referred to as a "Bates stamp", after the name of
the numbering machines that are often used to number and identify documents that are produced in a lawsuit [1]. The pages
on the form 302 are numbered DOJSCO-700021201 to 05. The one-page typed paper (Attachment A) has number DOJSCO-700021215.
There are nine pages between those pages, but what those might be is not disclosed.
The Justice Department, FBI, and other federal departments are capable of trying to play semantic word games with requests
for information, such that if the exact name or abbreviation of the document or class of documents is not requested, they will
leave them out of their response. In this instance, the judge asked for "any 302s or memoranda" relevant to the circumstances.
The FBI has guidelines about the different types of records it keeps and they can have different names, such as LHM (letterhead
memorandum), EC (electronic communication), original note material, the FD-302, and so forth. There are also different
types of files and records systems. Thus, there may be some ducking and dodging of the court's order on the theory that
the exact types of records were not in the order.
Documents and records may also be generated when any investigative activity is started or requires approval, such as an
assessment, preliminary investigation, or a full investigation. Furthermore, an interesting issue is the type of authorized
activity the Flynn interview was part of: an assessment, preliminary investigation, or full investigation. Although
it is significantly redacted (in this instance whited out instead of blacked out), the FBI Domestic Investigations and Operations
Guide contains some useful information for trying to figure out what is going on with this issue [2].
If this problem with disclosure is not bad enough, on 11 December the Justice Department Inspector General (OIG) issued
a report with the bland title, "Report of Investigation: Recovery of Text Messages from Certain FBI Mobile Devices"-- https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2018/i-2018-003523.pdf
The OIG investigation began when it was discovered that there was a "gap in text message data collection during the period
December 15, 2016, through May 17, 2017, from Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) mobile devices assigned to FBI employees
Peter Strzok and Lisa Page relevant to a matter being investigated by the OIG's Oversight and Review Division". Those
names are familiar. Thousands of the text messages were recovered.
In addition, the report states: "In view of the content of many of the text messages between Strzok and Page, the
OIG also asked the Special Counsel's Office (SCO) to provide to the OIG the DOJ issued iPhones that had been assigned to Strzok
and Page during their respective assignments to the SCO".
The result? After Strzok was forced to leave the special counsel's office, his iPhone was given to another FBI agent
and reset, wiping out the data. The Mueller group's "records officer" told the inspector general's office that "as part
of the office's records retention procedure, the officer reviewed Strzok's DOJ issued iPhone after he returned it to the SCO
and determined it contained no substantive text messages". In other words, after the Strzok and Page scandal erupted
because of text messages while Strzok was at the special counsel's office, the Mueller group decided itself that his other
cellular phone issued to him by the Department of Justice for the special counsel's office had no "substantive" messages on
it.
Strzok's paramour, Lisa Page, also had an iPhone issued to her by the Justice Department while she was at the special counsel's
office. The Mueller group said it could not find her phone, but it eventually was located at the DOJ's Justice Management
Division. It had been reset, wiping out the data, on 31 July 2017.
"...the officer reviewed Strzok's DOJ issued iPhone after he returned it to the SCO and determined it contained no substantive
text messages"..."
So what is the officer's name, what criterea was used in the review and just what relationship to the extended cast of characters
does this individual have?
It seems to me that this is very big news. Can it be that the Straight Arrow is bent, after all? This is amazing. There is
an article in the Daily Caller: "Powell: New Facts Indicate Mueller Destroyed Evidence..."
dailycaller.com/2018/12/16/...
As a former/retired Agent, I have combed through every piece of information regarding Mike's case, as if I was combing through
evidence in the hundreds of cases I have successfully handled while in the FBI.
The publicly reported Brady material alone, in this case, outweighs any statement given by any FBI Agent (we now know
at least one FD-302 was changed), Special Prosecutor investigator report, and any other party still aggressively seeking
that this case remain and be sentenced as a felony. Quite simply, I cannot see justice being served by branding LtG. Michael
Flynn a convicted felon, when the truth is still being revealed while policies, ethics, and laws have been violated by those
pursuing this case.
We now know all FBI employees involved in Mike Flynn's case have either been fired, forced to resign or forced to retire
because of their excessive lack of candor, punitive biases, leaking of information, and extensive cover-up of their deeds.
Michael Flynn has always displayed overwhelming candor and forthrightness.
Trump never ceases to crack me up. While his (terrible) current lawyer, declares on TV
that there was collusion but it just didn't last long, Trump calls his former lawyer/fixer at
"Rat".
This is just too funny, I mean this is the President of the United States calling his
former personal lawyer a "Rat" which of course is a common mob term for a witness testifying
against you.
Of course it never happened, just like Manafort didn't make 3 trips to London to meet
Julian Assange. These fictions were just used as a pretext for diving into the backgrounds of
Trump's political supporters and find crimes to charge them with.
The Cohen raid was particularly egregious, a likely violation of attorney-client
privilege. Not suprisingly the American Bar Association is silent.
So, Manafort never laundered money and failed to report taxes? Did Flynn never fail to
report his work as a foreign agent? Did he also not report income taxes?
Look at all these poor crooks, unfairly being prosecuted for cheating and stealing.
All that could have been prosecuted by a district attorney. They looked at all of
Manafort's dealings 10 years ago and passed because he was working with the Podesta Group at
the time and thus protected by Hillary Clinton's influence.
Corsi, the former Washington bureau chief of Alex Jones' controversial site, InfoWars, filed
a lawsuit on Sunday which claims that special counsel Robert Mueller threatened him with prison
unless he agreed to falsely confess to being a liaison between WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange
and Republican political strategist Roger Stone, who was an adviser to Trump's presidential
campaign.
The suit, which seeks $100 million in actual damages and $250 million in punitive damages,
also accuses the FBI, CIA and NSA of having placed Corsi under illegal surveillance "at the
direction of Mueller."
CIA democrats are still determined to sink Tramp, and continues to beat the dead cat of
"Russian collision". What is interesting is that Jacob Schiff financed Bolsheviks revolution in
Russia.
Yahoo comments reflect the deep split in the opinions in the society, which is positioned
mainly by party lines. Few commenters understadn that the problem is with neoliberalism, not
Trump, or Hillary who represent just different factions of the same neoliberal elite.
Notable quotes:
"... Schiff said Deutsche Bank has paid hundreds of millions of dollars in fines to the state of New York for laundering Russian money, and that it was the one bank willing to do business with the Trump Organization. ..."
"... In an interview with the New Yorker that was posted on line on Dec. 14, Schiff said the Intelligence Committee is "going to be looking at the issue of possible money laundering by the Trump Organization, and Deutsche Bank is one obvious place to start." ..."
"... A Senate investigation, which Warren and Van Hollen want to see followed by a report and a hearing, could put further pressure on the lender. The written request from the senators, sent Dec. 13, cites Deutsche Bank's "numerous enforcement actions" and a recent raid by police officers and tax investigators in Germany. ..."
"... Schiff, a target of Trump's on Twitter, also referred to reported comments by the president's sons some years ago that they didn't need "to deal with U.S. banks because they got all of the cash they needed from Russia or disproportionate share of their assets coming from Russia." He said Sunday he expects to learn more about that claim through financial records. ..."
The incoming chairman of the House Intelligence Committee joined Democratic colleagues in
questioning ties between Deutsche Bank AG and President Donald Trump's real estate
business.
Representative Adam Schiff of California said on NBC's "Meet the Press" Sunday that any type
of compromise needs to be investigated. That could add his panel's scrutiny to that of
Representative Maxine Waters, who's in line to be chair of the House Financial Services
Committee and has also focused on the bank's connections to Trump.
Schiff's comments came three days after Wall Street critic Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts
and fellow Senate Democrat Chris Van Hollen called for a Banking Committee investigation of
Deutsche Bank's compliance with U.S. money-laundering regulations.
Schiff said Deutsche Bank has paid hundreds of millions of dollars in fines to the state
of New York for laundering Russian money, and that it was the one bank willing to do business
with the Trump Organization.
"Now, is that a coincidence?" Schiff said. "If this is a form of compromise, it needs to be
exposed."
In an interview with the New Yorker that was posted on line on Dec. 14, Schiff said the
Intelligence Committee is "going to be looking at the issue of possible money laundering by the
Trump Organization, and Deutsche Bank is one obvious place to start."
More Pressure
A Senate investigation, which Warren and Van Hollen want to see followed by a report and
a hearing, could put further pressure on the lender. The written request from the senators,
sent Dec. 13, cites Deutsche Bank's "numerous enforcement actions" and a recent raid by police
officers and tax investigators in Germany.
It also notes the lender's U.S. operations being implicated in cross-border money-laundering
accusations such as in a recent case involving Danish lender Danske Bank A/S and the movement
of $230 billion in illicit funds.
"The compliance history of this institution raises serious questions about the national
security and criminal risks posed by its U.S. operations," the senators said in their letter.
"Its correspondent banking operations in the U.S. serve as a gateway to the U.S. financial
system for Deutsche Bank entities around the world."
Troy Gravitt, a Deutsche Bank spokesman, responded that the company "takes its legal
obligations seriously and remains committed to cooperating with authorized investigations."
Van Hollen, a Maryland Democrat, had questioned the Federal Reserve earlier this year about
how it would keep the White House from interfering with oversight of the lender, which had been
a major lender to Trump's real estate business.
Schiff, a target of Trump's on Twitter, also referred to reported comments by the
president's sons some years ago that they didn't need "to deal with U.S. banks because they got
all of the cash they needed from Russia or disproportionate share of their assets coming from
Russia." He said Sunday he expects to learn more about that claim through financial
records.
To contact the reporter on this story: Jesse Hamilton in Washington at
[email protected]
To contact the editors responsible for this story: Jesse Westbrook at
[email protected], Mark Niquette, Ros Krasny
55 seconds ago A
special Special Prosecutor must be appointed with a billion dollar budget. Where will the
money come from? Fines, penalties, and restitution by the Godfather.
U 46 seconds ago With
all these investigations, who should die hard Republicans vote for in 2020? Should it be
Donald Trump or Individual 1 or David Dennison? Gonna' be a hard choice next year.
F 1
minute ago Investigations of Trump are just getting started! hahaha
A 7 minutes ago Don
the Con is certainly getting a lot of probes of his illegal, criminal business deals. He
was a total idiot to become president and draw all this attention considering all the
crimes he has committed.
W 3 minutes ago
"Shifty" Schiff....doing everything to bring America together again!
D 17 minutes ago Lets investigate SLIMEY SHIFTLESS SCHIFF for leaking to
the News Media and running faster than a speedy bullet to a microphone and running his
loose lips !
B 3 minutes ago One of
the problem is that politicians, like schiffhead, have never had a real job and only have
scammed their donors and havent a clue how the real world works.
The decision to indict Flynn ruins " esprit de corps " in the USA intelligence community. So
Partaigenosser Mulkler trying to depose Trump oversteped the "norms" of intelligence community.
And if CIA allied with FBI against DIA that's a bad sign. It looks like the US elite was split
into two warring camps that will fight for power absolutely ruthlessly.
As for "In the report, the two agents describe Flynn as being very open and noted said Flynn 'clearly saw the FBI agents
as allies.' " the question arise how he got the to position of the head of DIA with such astounding level of naivety.
If anyone from FBI does not want your lawyer to be present you should probably have a lawyer present.
Notable quotes:
"... "The agents did not provide Gen. Flynn with a warning of the penalties for making a false statement under 18 U.S.C. 1001 before, during, or after the interview," the Flynn memo says. ..."
"... According to the 302, before the interview, McCabe and other FBI officials "decided the agents would not warn Flynn that it was a crime to lie during an FBI interview because they wanted Flynn to be relaxed , and they were concerned that giving the warnings might adversely affect the rapport." ..."
"... McCabe, who has since been fired for lying to the DOJ's Office of Inspector General about leaking information to the media, also asked Flynn not to have his lawyer present during the initial meeting with the FBI agents. ..."
"... On Thursday, FBI Supervisory Agent Jeff Danik told SaraACarter.com that Sullivan must also request all the communications between the two agents, as well as their supervisors around the August 2017 time-frame in order to get a complete and accurate picture of what transpired. Danik, who is an expert in FBI policy, says it is imperative that Sullivan also request "the workflow chart, which would show one-hundred percent, when the 302s were created when they were sent to a supervisor and who approved them." ..."
"... Flynn was found guilty by Mueller on one count of lying to the FBI. Supporters of Flynn have questioned Mueller's tactics in getting the retired three-star general to plead guilty to this one count of lying. ..."
"... In the report, the two agents describe Flynn as being very open and noted said Flynn "clearly saw the FBI agents as allies." Flynn is described as discussing a variety of "subjects." The report includes his openness regarding Trump's "knack for interior design," the hotels he stayed at during his campaign, as well as other issues. ..."
"... It would appear that the branch of government that may be out of control (by the Supreme Court) is the judiciary. It is the court rules and failure of the Supreme Court to act and weed its subordinate courts, that allowed much of this to happen. The FISA Court has been a rubber stamp. No judge is held accountable for failure to obtain justice in their court. ..."
"... Could Mueller's whole appointment be meant to protect the Clinton empire? ..."
The Special Counsel's Office released key documents related to former National Security
Advisor Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn Friday. Robert Mueller's office had until 3 p.m. to get the
documents to Judge Emmet Sullivan, who demanded information Wednesday after
bombshell information surfaced in a memorandum submitted by Flynn's attorney's that led to
serious concerns regarding the FBI's initial questioning of the retired three-star general.
The highly redacted documents included notes from former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe
regarding his conversation with Flynn about arranging the interview with the FBI. The initial
interview took place at the White House on Jan. 24, 2017.
The documents also include the FBI's "302" report regarding Flynn's interview with
anti-Trump former FBI Agent Peter Strzok and FBI Agent Joe Pientka when they met with him at
the White House. It is not, however, the 302 document from the actual January, 2017 interview
but an August, 2017 report of Strzok's recollections of the interview.
Flynn's attorney's had noted in their memorandum to the courts that the documents revealed
that FBI officials made the decision not to provide Flynn with his Miranda Rights, which
would've have warned him of penalties for making false statements.
"The agents did not provide Gen. Flynn with a warning of the penalties for making a false
statement under 18 U.S.C. 1001 before, during, or after the interview," the Flynn memo
says.
According to the 302, before the interview, McCabe and other FBI officials "decided the
agents would not warn Flynn that it was a crime to lie during an FBI interview because they
wanted Flynn to be relaxed , and they were concerned that giving the warnings might adversely
affect the rapport."
McCabe, who has since been fired for lying to the DOJ's Office of Inspector General about
leaking information to the media, also asked Flynn not to have his lawyer present during the
initial meeting with the FBI agents.
The July 2017 report, however, was the interview with Strzok. It described his interview
with Flynn but was not the original Flynn interview.
Apparent discrepancies within the 302 documents are being questioned by may former senior
FBI officials, who state that there are stringent policies in place to ensure that the
documents are guarded against tampering.
On Thursday, FBI Supervisory Agent Jeff Danik told SaraACarter.com that Sullivan must also request all the
communications between the two agents, as well as their supervisors around the August 2017
time-frame in order to get a complete and accurate picture of what transpired. Danik, who is an
expert in FBI policy, says it is imperative that Sullivan also request "the workflow chart,
which would show one-hundred percent, when the 302s were created when they were sent to a
supervisor and who approved them."
He stressed, "the bureau policy – the absolute FBI policy – is that the notes
must be placed in the system in a 1-A file within five days of the interview." Danik said that
the handwritten notes get placed into the FBI Sentinel System, which is the FBI's main record
keeping system. "Anything beyond five business days is a problem, eight months is a disaster,"
he added.
In the redacted 302 report Strzok and Pientka said they "both had the impression at the time
that Flynn was not lying or did not think he was lying." Information that Flynn was not lying
was first published
and reported by SaraACarter.com.
Flynn was found guilty by Mueller on one count of lying to the FBI. Supporters of Flynn have
questioned Mueller's tactics in getting the retired three-star general to plead guilty to this
one count of lying.
In the report, the two agents describe Flynn as being very open and noted said Flynn
"clearly saw the FBI agents as allies." Flynn is described as discussing a variety of
"subjects." The report includes his openness regarding Trump's "knack for interior design," the
hotels he stayed at during his campaign, as well as other issues.
"Flynn was so talkative, and had so much time for them, that Strzok wondered if the
national security adviser did not have more important things to do than have a such a
relaxed, non-pertinent discussion with them," it said.
The documents turned over by Mueller also reveal that other FBI personnel "later argued
about the FBI's decision to interview Flynn." Tags Law Crime
Basically McCabe and others in his unit are totally discredited. He should have this
quashed and the case thrown out of court. No Miranda rights, therefore no lying to FBI.
Why didn't Flynn demand his day in court? He would have won. I am not buying the ********
argument about him being run into bankruptcy. Hell, he could have represented himself and
still won the case at trial. In addition, I am not buying this ******** argument that he
agreed to plead guilty because he was afraid the Mueller would go after his son. Does anyone
know what Flynn's son does for a living? Why would he be afraid?
Flynn was found guilty by Mueller on one count of lying to the FBI.
No! Flynn was not f ound guilty by Mueller on one count of lying. The FBI is an
investigative body (at best) not a judicial body. Only a jury or a judge acting in lieu of a
jury can find someone guilty of anything.
Flynn plead guilty to one count of lying because to have plead innocent would have
bankrupted him in legal fees. However, it's interesting that this ZH article stated that
Mueller found Flynn guilty. In federal courts these days, once you're charged with a crime
you will be found guilty. FBI, DEA, BATF, IRS...whoever, you do not get a fair trial. Federal
judges are hard-wired to find guilt. Vicious and ambitious federal prosecutors have only one
interest, to rack up successful prosecutions. Federal juries are intimidated by the brute
force of the federal system and, I suspect, fear that if they don't bring in a verdict
satisfactory to the prosecutor, they may be investigated themselves. "Investigation" in the
federal sense means that they will be relentlessly harassed forever by the federal
government
My small experience as a juror is that state prosecutors and judges are no different than
what you describe for the federal system. We found a guy non-guilty (not a close call either)
that the judge wanted convicted, and he came back and questioned us about our logic. Casually
of course. I just said the guy was innocent beyond a reasonable doubt. Judge wasn't
pleased.
Flynn is an idiot.... why agree to talk to the FBI at all.... as Martha Stewart found
out.... if they can't make the case for what they're investigating... they'll just find some
statement in your "interview" that they claim was not true.... no matter if it was your
intention to lie or just a recollection that was wrong... and charge you with that!
Simple answer is that if law enforcement wants to "talk" to you they're looking to get
information to charge you.... simple reply.... FU... I want a lawyer!
The compromise of classified docs was really sort of candy-assed, everybody knew it . .
.
Rewind the tape, and you will find the contrite Petreaus in front of any and all
microphones confessing to his affair with Broadwell, which he repeatedly stated began on some
certain date . . .conveniently AFTER his confirmation as CIA director . . .
. . .certainly Petreaus was asked in his FBI background interview if he was involved in
any affairs. And he certainly said no.
So, Paula, since I'm on all the networks at the moment, I know you can hear me, our affair
started on X date, in case the FBI gets a notion to ask you (which they did not.)
See, the FBI takes lying seriously. But somebody must have said something along the lines
of: hey, Petreaus is a good guy, I hope you can find a way to let him off easy.
But when faced with financial destruction, your kids being threatened, and false evidence
against you, you sometimes admit to the charges to make a deal...
The military is realizing they are not on the same team with FBI, CIA, DOJ.
Why do you think they have tried so hard to keep NSA under military leadership? Wink,
wink...
Leguran
It would appear that the branch of government that may be out of control (by the Supreme Court) is the judiciary. It
is the court rules and failure of the Supreme Court to act and weed its subordinate courts, that allowed much of this to
happen. The FISA Court has been a rubber stamp. No judge is held accountable for failure to obtain justice in their court.
The Chief Justice has refused to accept that judges can employ personal poliltical beliefs in court. All courts are
subordinate to the US Supreme Court and therefore the Supreme Court has a duty to ensure justice not just to decide whether
cases are 'sufficiently mature' to come before the Supreme Court. In other words, the Judiciary needs to be disturbed from
their lifetime appointments and made conditional appointments. The Supreme Court needs to deal with incapacity within its own
ranks. All told, this shocking miscarriage of justice came about because the Judicial Branch of government allowed it to
happen. The Judicial Branch has run amok.
lizzie dw
IMO, Judge Emmet Sullivan needs to demand and receive the original UNREDACTED 302 about the Strzok/Pientka interview with
General Flynn. But, really, just by reading the pre-interview discussions of the FBI members involved, the whole thing sounds
fishy.
Caloot
Hedge headline:
Could Mueller's whole appointment be meant to protect the Clinton empire?
Like Trump or not, there are serious cracks appearing in the Clintons foundation.
Two days ago, federal judge Emmet Sullivan in Washington D.C.
ordered the "special counsel" Robert Mueller group to do the following by 3:00 p.m. eastern
time today, as shown on the court clerk's docket sheet--
"12/12/2018 MINUTE ORDER as to MICHAEL T. FLYNN. In 50 defendant's memorandum in aid of
sentencing, the defendant quotes and cites a 'Memorandum dated Jan. 24, 2017.' See page 8 n.
21, 22. The defendant also quotes and cites a 'FD-302 dated Aug. 22, 2017.' See page 9 n.
23-27. The defendant is ORDERED to file on the docket FORTHWITH the cited Memorandum and
FD-302. The Court further ORDERS the government to file on the docket any 302s or memoranda
relevant to the circumstances discussed on pages 7-9 of the defendant's sentencing memorandum
by no later than 3:00 p.m. on December 14, 2018. Should the parties seek to file such material
under seal, the parties may file motions for leave to do so. The government is also ORDERED to
file its reply to the defendant's sentencing memorandum by no later than 3:00 p.m. on December
14, 2018. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 12/12/2018. (lcegs3) (Entered: 12/12/2018)"
Judge Sullivan is a Black lawyer who came up the hard way, going to Washington D.C. public
schools and Howard University and its law school. Howard University has been a reputable
university with a full curriculum as it provided education to Black Americans from the time of
segregation. He was appointed by three different U.S. presidents to judicial positions, by
Reagan, Bush sr, and Bill Clinton [1].
The actions and investigation regarding Gen. Michael Flynn (ret.) beginning when he was
removed as National Security Advisor to president Trump have seemed odd and not to square with
past behavior and the normal course of things. With little information available publicly it is
very difficult to look at the issue and pick through information, since it has been mainly
hidden behind the skirts of the Mueller "investigation", which was supposed to look at
"interference" by the Russian government in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
Flynn's sentencing is set for next Tuesday, 18 December. However, that is subject to change,
depending on what is filed today. I will try to provide some relevant items from the court
clerk's file that you can read to bring yourself up to date about the court case from what is
available; some items are still filed under seal, and the probation office presentence
investigation report (PSI) is kept private as a matter of federal judicial policy.
That defense would be more effective if Flynn was a bewildered youth or someone with
diminished mental capacities being badgered in a police interrogation room.
Flynn certainly acted like a bewildered, naive person.
Did he think that the FBI was showing up to ask about his health?
Was he really the Director of DIA......or did he just stay in a Holiday Inn?
Thank you Robert. It's good to have someone like judge Sullivan presiding over this case.
We'll have to wait and see, but a lot of what I have gathered so far suggests Gen. Flynn is a
man of honorable character who has been raked over for mostly political reasons.
In the meantime, has anyone investigated the leak that supposedly caught Flynn talking to the
Russian Amb?
That apparently did harm sources and methods.
But,noooooooooo, no investigation.
The swamp cares not a whit for national security, but yet constantly lectures us
"deplorables" about their great talent and dedication - they'd all be Fortune 500 CEO's if
they weren't so dedicated.
There are probably a few dedicated talented people trying to do the right thing, but the
bureaucracy - including the Intel. agencies/FBI (VERY important people "risking" their lives,
BTW) - has shown over and over to be populated mostly by self-enriching slugs.
The leak was that USI and LE were listening in on the Russian Ambassador's conversations by
turning his smartphone into a hot mic by exploiting well-known SS7 vulnerabilities. This
hardly reveals anything new about sources and methods. Any one who wants to keep secrets
shouldn't be carrying a smartphone and any ambassador who thinks the host government doesn't
keep him under surveillance is hopelessly naive.
Was it a leak or was it just an assumption of the obvious surveillance of Kislyak? Pence is
the one who confirmed Flynn talked to Kislyak about lifting sanctions and lied to him about
it.
Former FBI Supervisory Special Agent Robyn Gritz has asked SaraACarter.com to post her letter to Judge Emmet G. Sullivan
in support of her friend and colleague retired Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn, who will be
sentenced on Dec. 18. The Special Counsel's Office has requested that Flynn not serve any
jail time due to his cooperation with Robert Mueller's office. Based on new information
contained in a memorandum submitted to the court this week by Flynn's attorney, Sullivan has
ordered Mueller's office to turn over all exculpatory evidence and government documents on
Flynn's case by mid-day Friday. Sullivan is also requesting any documentation regarding the
first interviews conducted by former anti-Trump agent Peter Strzok and FBI Agent Joe Pientka
-known by the FBI as 302s- which were found to be dated more than seven months after the
interviews were conducted on Jan. 24, 2017, a violation of FBI policy, say current and former
FBI officials familiar with the process. According to information contained in Flynn's
memorandum, the interviews were dated Aug. 22, 2017.
Read Gritz's letter below... (emphasis added)
The Honorable Emmet G. Sullivan. December 5, 2018 U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia
333 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington D.C. 20001
Re: Sentencing of Lt. General Michael T. Flynn (Ret.)
Dear Judge Sullivan:
I am submitting my letter directly since Mike Flynn's attorney has refused to submit it as
well as letters submitted by other individuals. I feel you need to hear from someone who was an
FBI Special Agent who not only worked with Mike, but also has personally witnessed and reported
unethical & sometimes illegal tactics used to coerce targets of investigations externally
and internally.
About Myself and FBI Career
For 16 years, I proudly served the American people as a Special Agent working diligently on
significant terrorism cases which earned noteworthy results and fostered substantial
interagency cooperation. Prior to serving in the FBI I was a Juvenile Probation Officer in
Camden, NJ. Currently, I am a Senior Information Security Metrics and Reporting Analyst with
Discover Financial Services in the Chicago Metro area. I have recently been named as a Senior
Fellow to the London Center for Policy Research.
While in the FBI, I served as a Special Agent, Supervisory Special Agent, Assistant
Inspector, Unit Chief, and a Senior Liaison Officer to the CIA. I served on the NSC's Hostage
and Personnel Working Group and brought numerous Americans out of captivity and was part of the
interagency team to codify policies outlining the whole of government approach to hostage
cases.
In November 2007, I was selected over 26 other candidates to become the Supervisory Special
Agent, CT Extraterritorial Squad; Washington Field Office (WFO) in Washington, DC. At WFO, I
led a squad of experts in extraterritorial evidence collection, overseas investigations,
operational security during terrorist attacks/events, and overseas criminal investigations. I
coordinated and managed numerous high profile investigations (Blackwater, Chuckie Taylor,
Robert Levinson, and other pivotal cases) comprised of teams from US and foreign intelligence,
military, and law enforcement agencies. I was commended for displaying comprehensive leadership
performance under pressure, extensive teamwork skills, while conducting critical investigative
analysis within and outside the FBI.
In December 2009, I was promoted to GS-15 Unit Chief (UC) of the Executive Strategy Unit,
Weapons of Mass Destruction Directorate (WMDD). While the UC, I codified the WMDD five-year
strategic plan, formulated goals and objectives throughout the division, while translating the
material into a directorate scorecard with cascading measurements reflecting functional and
operational unit areas. This was the only time in Washington, DC when I did not work with of
for McCabe.
From September to December 2010, I was selected as the FBI's top candidate to represent the
FBI, and the USG in a rigorous, intellectually stimulating; 12 week course for civilian
government officials, military officers, and government academics at the George C. Marshall
Center in Garmisch, Germany, Executive Program in Advanced Security Studies. The class was
comprised of 141 participants from 43 countries.
I have received numerous recommendations and commendations for my professionalism, liaison
and interpersonal ability and experience . Additionally, I have been rated Excellent or
Outstanding for my entire career, to include by Andrew McCabe when I was stationed at the
Washington Field Office. Further, other awards of note are: West Chester University 2005 Legacy
of Leadership recipient, Honored with House of Representatives Citation for Exemplary record of
Service, Leadership, and Achievements: Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and Awarded with a framed
Horn of Africa blood chit from the Department of Defense and Office of the DASD (POW/MPA/MIA)
for my work in bringing Americans Out of captivity, "Patriot, Law Enforcement Warrior, and
Friend."
Length of Association with Flynn, McCabe, and Mueller
I met Michael Flynn in 2005, while working in the Counterterrorism Division (CTD) at FBI
Headquarters (FBIHQ).
I met then Supervisory Special Agent Andrew McCabe, when he reported to CTD at FBIHQ, around
the same time. McCabe subsequently was the Assistant Section Chief over my unit, my Assistant
Special Agent in Charge at the Washington Field Office, and the Assistant Director (AD) over
CTD when I encountered the discrimination and McCabe spearheaded the retaliation personally
(according to documentation) against me.
I have known both men for 12-13 years and worked directly with both throughout my career.
They are on the opposite spectrum of each other with regard to truthfulness, temperament, and
ethics, both professionally and personally.
I regularly briefed former FBI Director and Special Prosecutor Mueller on controversial and
complex cases and attended Deputies meetings at the White house with then Deputy Director
Pistole. I got along with both and trusted both. Watching what has been done to Mike and
knowing someone on the 7th floor had to have notified Mueller of my situation (Pistole had
retired), has been significantly distressing to me.
Lt.G. Michael T. Flynn:
Mike and I were counterparts on a DOJ-termed ground-breaking initiative which served as a
model for future investigations, policies, legislation and FBI programs in the Terrorist Use of
the Internet. For this multi-faceted and leading-edge joint operation, I was commended by Gen.
Stanley McChrystal, Gen. Keith Alexander (NSA Director), and LtG. Michael Flynn as well as
others for leading the FBI's pivotal participation in this dynamic and innovative interagency
operation. I received two The National Intelligence Meritorious Unit Citation (NIMUC) I for my
role in this operation. The NIMUC is an award of the National Intelligence Awards Program, for
contributions to the United States Intelligence Community.
Mick Flynn has consistently and candidly been honest and straightforward with me since the
day I met him in 2005. He has been a mentor and someone I trust to give me frank advice when I
ask for his opinion. His caring nature has shown through especially when he saw me being torn
apart by the FBI and he felt compelled to write a letter in support of me. He further took the
extra step to comment on my character in an NPR article and interview exposing the wrongdoings
in my case and others who have stood up for truth and against discrimination/retaliation.
Senator Grassley also commented on my behalf. NPR characterized this action against me as a
"warning shot" to individuals who stood up to individuals such as McCabe.
The day after I resigned from the FBI, while I was crying, Mike reached out and
congratulated me on my early retirement. I really needed to hear that from someone I respected
so much. His support for the last 13 years has been unparalleled and extremely valuable in
helping me get through the trauma of betrayal, unethical behavior, illegal activity executed
against me and to rebuild my life. Additionally, his support has helped my family in dealing
with their painful emotions regarding my situation. My parents wanted me to pass on to you that
they are blessed that I have had a compassionate and supportive individual on my side
throughout this trying time.
Mike has been a respected leader by his peers and by FBI Agents and Analysts who have
interacted with him. I personally feel he is the finest leader I have ever worked with or for
in my career. Our continued friendship and subsequent friendship with his family has helped all
of us cope with the stress a situation like this puts on individuals and families.
It is so very painful to watch an American hero, and my friend, torn apart like this. His
family has had to endure what no family should have to. I know this because of the damaging
effect my case had on my parent's health, finances, and emotional well-being. Mike and I both
had to sell our houses due to legal fees, endured smear campaigns (mostly by the same
individual, McCabe). I ended up being deemed homeless by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, was
on public assistance and endured extensive health and emotional damage due to the retaliation.
Mike kept in touch and kept me motivated. He has always reached out to help me with whatever he
could.
The Process is the Punishment
Thomas Fitton of Judicial Watch commented to me that the "Process is the punishment." This
is the most accurate description I have heard regarding the time Mike has gone through with
this process and the year and a half I was ostracized and idled before I resigned. This process
is one which many FBI employees, current, retired and former, feel was brought to the FBI by
Mueller and he subsequently brought this to the Special Prosecutor investigation.
It also fostered the behavior among FBI "leadership" which we find ourselves shocked at when
revealed on a daily basis. Is this the proper way to seek justice? I say no. I swore to uphold
the Constitution while protecting the civil rights of the American people. I believe many
individuals involved in Mike's case have lost their way and could care less about protection of
due process, civil and legal rights of who they are targeting. Mike has had extensive
punishment throughout this process. This process has punished him harder than anyone else
could.
Andrew McCabe
I believe I have a unique inside view of the mannerisms surrounding Andrew McCabe, other FBI
Executive Management and Former Director Mueller, as well as the unethical and coercive tactics
they use, not to seek the truth, but to coerce pleas or admissions to end the pain, as I call
it. They destroy lives for their own agendas instead of seeking the truth for the American
people. Candor is something that should be encouraged and used by leadership to have necessary
and continued improvement. Under Mueller, it was seen as a threat and viciously opposed by
those he pulled up in the chain of command.
I am explaining this because numerous Agents have expressed the need for you to know
McCabe's and Mueller's pattern of "target and destroy" has been utilized on many others,
without regard for policies and laws. I, myself, am a casualty of this reprehensible behavior
and I have spoken to well over 150 other FBI individuals who are casualties as well.
I am the individual who filed the Hatch Act complaint against McCabe and provided
significant evidentiary documents obtained via FOIA, open source, and information from current,
former, and retired Special Agents. The Office of Special Counsel (OSC) asked why my filing of
the complaint was delayed from the actual acts. I said I personally thought I was providing
additional information to what should have been an automatic referral to OSC by FBI OPR. I was
notified I was the only complainant. This illustrates not only a fatal flaw in OPR AD Candice
Will not making the appropriate and crucial referral, but also shows the fear of those within
the FBI to report individuals like McCabe for fear of retaliation.
While serving at the CIA, detailed by the FBI in January 2012, I was responsible for
overseas investigations, as opposed to Continental United States-based (CONUS) cases.
Unfortunately, during my assignment at the CIA, I encountered extensive discrimination by two
FBI Special Agents and subsequently, in 2012, I filed an Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO)
complaint. Instead of addressing the issues, then CTD Assistant Director Andrew McCabe chose to
authorize a retaliatory Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) investigation against me,
five days after my EEO contact. The OPR referral he signed was authored by the two individuals
I had filed the EEO complaint against. In his signed sworn statement, McCabe admitted he knew I
had filed or was going to file the EEO.
Numerous members of my department at the CIA requested to be spoken with by CTD executive
management, regarding my work ethic and accomplishments. However, CTD, Inspection Division, and
OPR disregarded the list of names and contact numbers I submitted. This is an example of
knowing you are being targeted and the truth is not being sought.
Although my time at this position was short, I was commended by my CIA direct supervisor
for: "having already contributed more than your predecessor in the short time you have been
here." My predecessor had been assigned to the post for 18 months; I had been there four
months.
In contrast and showing lack of candor, McCabe wrote on official documents the following
statement, contradicting the actual direct supervisor I worked with daily:
"SA Gritz had to be removed from a prior position in an interagency environment, due to
inappropriate communications and general performance issues"
This is one of many comments McCabe used to discredit my reputation and to ostracize me.
McCabe knew me as someone who told the truth, worked hard, got results, and was always willing
to be flexible when needed. He was also acutely aware of the excellent relationships I had
formed in the USG interagency due to comments made by individuals from numerous agencies. Yet,
he continued to make false statements on official documents. He has done this to numerous other
very valuable FBI employees, destroying their careers and lives. He used similar tactics of
lies against Flynn. It should be noted, McCabe was very aware of my professional association
with Mike Flynn.
In July 5, 2012, I was involuntarily pulled back to CTD from the CIA. I was told McCabe made
the decision. A year and a month later, I resigned from the job I absolutely loved and was good
at. All because of the lack of candor of numerous individuals within the FBI.
Unethical and
dishonest investigative tactics
Throughout the last year, I have kept abreast of the revelations surrounding anything
related to Mike's case. I believe, from my years at the FBI and in exposing corruption and
discrimination, the circumstances surrounding the targeting, investigation, leaking, and
coercion of him to plea are all consistent with the unethical process I and many others have
witnessed at the FBI. The charge which Mike Flynn plead to was the result of deception,
intimidation, and bias/agenda. Simply, Mike is being branded a convicted felon due to an
unethical and dishonest investigation by people who were malicious, vindictive, and corrupt.
They wished to silence Mike, like they had once silenced me.
The American people have read the Strzok/Page text messages, the conflicting testimony and
lack of candor statements of former Director Comey, the perceived overstepping of the
reasonable scope of the Special Prosecutor's investigation, the extensive unethical,
untruthful, and outright illegal behavior of Andrew McCabe, to include slanderous statements
against Flynn, and the facts found within FOIA released documents and Congressional testimony.
As a former/retired Agent, I have combed through every piece of information regarding Mike's
case, as if I was combing through evidence in the hundreds of cases I have successfully handled
while in the FBI.
The publicly reported Brady material alone, in this case, outweighs any statement given by
any FBI Agent (we now know at least one FD-302 was changed), Special Prosecutor investigator
report, and any other party still aggressively seeking that this case remain and be sentenced
as a felony. Quite simply, I cannot see justice being served by branding LtG. Michael Flynn a
convicted felon, when the truth is still being revealed while policies, ethics, and laws have
been violated by those pursuing this case.
We now know all FBI employees involved in Mike Flynn's case have either been fired, forced
to resign or forced to retire because of their excessive lack of candor, punitive biases,
leaking of information, and extensive cover-up of their deeds.
Summation
Michael Flynn has always displayed overwhelming candor and forthrightness. One of the main
individuals involved in his case is Andrew McCabe, who used similar tactics against me in my
case, of which Mike Flynn defended me by penning a letter of character reference and is a
witness. Seeing McCabe was named as a Responding Management Official in my case, he should have
recused himself with anything having to do with a character witness on my behalf against him
and DOJ.
I'm told by numerous people, but have been unable to confirm, that McCabe was asked why he
was so viciously going after Flynn; my name was mentioned. I do know, from experience with
McCabe, he is a vindictive individual and I have no doubt Mike's support of me fueled McCabe's
disdain and personally vindictive aggressive unethical activities in this case . It matches his
behavior in my case.
Reliable fact-finding is essential to procedural due process and to the accuracy and
uniformity of sentencing. I'm unsure if the fact-finding in this case is reliable, nor do I
think we currently have all the facts.
The punishment which LtG. Flynn has already endured this past year, due to the nature of the
case, legal fees and reputation damage, is punishment enough. He is a true patriot, a loving
husband and father, a devoted grandfather, a trusted friend, and has a close knit family made
up of compassionate and honest individuals. To be branded a felon, is a major hit to a hero who
protected the American people for 33 years. I do not think society would benefit from Mike
Flynn going to jail nor being branded as a convicted felon. Not knowing the sentencing
guidelines for this charge but if there is any chance that the case can be downgraded to a
misdemeanor, this would be an act of justice that numerous Americans need to see to stay
hopeful for further justice.
This lady is seriously brave. She confirms one more reason i strongly support our Second
Amendment; it's to protect us from tyrants and corrupt people like McCabe, Ohr, Comey and
Mueller. Oh yes. I almost forget Rosenstein who should be hung for treason also.
WOW...all this time I had been asking where are the whistle blowers and kept saying,
certainly not all the FBI are this corrupt -and further asked are they being threatened to
not come forward?"
Well, the later sure seems true when you consider Ms. Gristz statements, particularly "
the fear of those within the FBI to report individuals like McCabe for fear of retaliation.
"
This is the level of corruption that ought to bring this entire cabal to their knees and
place them behind bars. Hopefully Judge Sullivan's intuitions will be bolstered by Ms.
Gristz' letter.
The FBI is corrupt to the core...from top to bottom. If she joined the FBI to "uphold the
Constitution" or "serve the American People" or some other horseshit then that was her first
mistake. The FBI is a completely corrupt & unconstitutional organization that protects
only the (((globalists))) and other enemies of freedom. The Hoover Buliding should be
padlocked and all of the agents of evil put on trial for treason.
Flynn was an example to the rest of the Trump supporters. His guilt or innocense was/is
meaningless and irrlevant to the Prog Attack Dogs. The message was/is clear:
"We are the Power. Resistance is futile. Bend your knee or we will destroy you."
It is prudent for reasonable people to believe that the Progs have spent the past couple
years destroying evidence that can be used against their gods (Obama, Clinton, Soros, etc.)
and their cohorts.
There is no penalty or negative consequence for the Mueller team who engaged in
"unethical" activity. None of them will have to answer to anyone or disgorge the millions of
dollars in "fees" they have been paid by the Sheeple.
All Progs must hang.
Christopher Wray must hang next.
Update 5: Cohen has been sentenced to 36 months in prison for his crimes, far below the
guideline of 51 - 63 months laid out by New York prosecutors. The Judge noted that the
guidelines aren't binding and had the ability to issue a lesser sentence.
Cohen has also been hit with forfeiture of $500,000, restitution of $1.4 million and a fine
of $50,000. He will be allowed to voluntarily surrender on March 6 .
Update 4: Judge Pauley has responded following Cohen's statement, saying "Mr. Cohen's crimes
implicate a far more insidious crime to our democratic institutions especially in view of his
subsequent plea to making false statements to Congress," adding that Cohen's crimes warrant
"specific deterrence."
Update 3: Cohen has spoken, telling the Judge: "Recently the president tweeted a statement
calling me weak and it was correct but for a much different reason than he was implying. It was
because time and time again i felt it was my duty to cover up his dirty deeds." Judge William
Pauley, meanwhile, noted that Cohen pleaded guilty to a " veritable smorgasbord of fraudulent
conduct ," which was motivated by "personal greed and ambition."
Update 2: Petrillo, Cohen's attorney, continues to reference Cohen's desire to cooperate
further with prosecutors to answer future questions - however Manhattan prosecutors don't
appear to care, according to Bloomberg banking reporter Shahien Nasiripour. In a memo last week
to the court, they said that Cohen's promise to cooperate further is worthless - especially
since there would be nothing requiring him to do so once he's already been sentenced.
Meanwhile, Jeannie Rhee - an attorney with Robert Mueller's office, told the court that
while Cohen lied to the special counsel's team during his first interview in July, he has been
truthful since.
Manhattan Assistant US Attorney Nicolas Roos, however, says that any reduction in sentence
"should be modest."
Roos added that Cohen "has eroded faith in the electoral process and compromised the rule of
law," and that he engaged in " a pattern of deception of brazenness and greed ."
Update: Cohen's attorney, Guy Petrillo, says Cohen thought that President Trump would shut
down the Mueller probe, and has argued that his client's cooperation warrants a lenient
sentence.
"Mr. Cohen's cooperation promotes respect for law and the courage of the individual to stand
up to power and influence," said Petrillo.
"His decision was an importantly different decision from the usual decision to cooperate,"
added Petrillo. "He came forward to offer evidence against the most powerful person in our
country. He did so not knowing what the result would be, not knowing how the politics would
play out and not even knowing that the special counsel's office would survive."
"The special counsel's investigation is of the utmost national significance... Not seen
since 40 plus years ago in the days of Watergate." -Guy Petrillo
Petrillo has asked the judge to "consider Cohen's "life of good works" in his decision,
adding that Cohen's cooperation stands in "profound contrast" to others who havern't cooperated
and who "have continued to double-deal while pretending to cooperate."
***
Michael Cohen, former longtime personal lawyer for President Trump, has shown up to a New
York courthouse where he will be sentenced on Wednesday for a laundry list of crimes - some of
which implicate Trump in possible wrongdoing, but most of which have nothing to do with the
president. Judge William Pauley, meanwhile, noted that Cohen pleaded guilty to a " veritable
smorgasbord of fraudulent conduct ," which was motivated by "personal greed and ambition."
Update 2: Petrillo, Cohen's attorney, continues to reference Cohen's desire to cooperate
further with prosecutors to answer future questions - however Manhattan prosecutors don't
appear to care, according to Bloomberg banking reporter Shahien Nasiripour. In a memo last week
to the court, they said that Cohen's promise to cooperate further is worthless - especially
since there would be nothing requiring him to do so once he's already been sentenced.
Meanwhile, Jeannie Rhee - an attorney with Robert Mueller's office, told the court that
while Cohen lied to the special counsel's team during his first interview in July, he has been
truthful since.
Manhattan Assistant US Attorney Nicolas Roos, however, says that any reduction in sentence
"should be modest."
Roos added that Cohen "has eroded faith in the electoral process and compromised the rule of
law," and that he engaged in " a pattern of deception of brazenness and greed ."
Update: Cohen's attorney, Guy Petrillo, says Cohen thought that President Trump would shut
down the Mueller probe, and has argued that his client's cooperation warrants a lenient
sentence.
"Mr. Cohen's cooperation promotes respect for law and the courage of the individual to stand
up to power and influence," said Petrillo.
"His decision was an importantly different decision from the usual decision to cooperate,"
added Petrillo. "He came forward to offer evidence against the most powerful person in our
country. He did so not knowing what the result would be, not knowing how the politics would
play out and not even knowing that the special counsel's office would survive."
"The special counsel's investigation is of the utmost national significance... Not seen
since 40 plus years ago in the days of Watergate." -Guy Petrillo
Petrillo has asked the judge to "consider Cohen's "life of good works" in his decision,
adding that Cohen's cooperation stands in "profound contrast" to others who havern't cooperated
and who "have continued to double-deal while pretending to cooperate."
***
Michael Cohen, former longtime personal lawyer for President Trump, has shown up to a
New York courthouse where he will be sentenced on Wednesday for a laundry list of crimes - some
of which implicate Trump in possible wrongdoing, but most of which have nothing to do with the
president.
Cohen, who went from claiming he would "take a bullet" for President Trump to stabbing his
former boss in the back, faces sentencing on nine federal charges , including campaign finance
violations based on a hush-money scheme to pay off two women who claimed to have had affairs
with Trump, as well as making false statements to special counsel Robert Mueller.
Prosecutors alleged that Cohen paid off two women at the "direction" of "Individual-1,"
who is widely assumed to be Trump.
Prosecutors said the payments amounted to illegal campaign contribution s because they
were made with the intent to prevent damaging information from surfacing during the 2016
presidential election, which Cohen pleaded guilty to in August.
Legal experts view the filing as an ominous sign for Trump , suggesting prosecutors have
evidence beyond Cohen's public admissions implicating the president in the payoff scheme.
While the Justice Department has said previously that a sitting president cannot be indicted,
that would not stop prosecutors from bringing charges against Trump once he leaves office. -
The Hill
New York prosecutors have recommended that Judge William Pauley impose "a substantial term
of imprisonment" on Cohen - which may be around five years. Cohen's attorneys, meanwhile, have
asked Pauley for a sentence which avoids prison time - citing his cooperation with the Mueller
probe and other investigations which began prior to his guilty plea last summer. Mueller said
that Cohen had "gone to significant lengths to assist the Special Counsel's investigation,"
having met with Mueller's team seven times where he reportedly provided information useful to
the Russia investigation. The special counsel's office has recommended that any sentence Cohen
receives for lying to Congress should run concurrently with the charges brought by the
Manhattan federal prosecutors.
Cohen, 52, pleaded guilty in August to tax evasion,
lying to banks and violating campaign finance laws - charges filed by the US Attorney's Office
for the Southern District of New York.
The campaign finance charges relate to his facilitation of two hush-money payments to porn
star Stormy Daniels and Playboy model Karen McDougal shortly before the 2016 presidential
election. Both women say they had sex with Trump in the prior decade. The White House has
denied Trump had sex with either woman.
Prosecutors say the payments were made "in coordination with and at the direction of"
Trump, who is called "Individual-1" in a sentencing recommendation filed last week.
Cohen's crimes were intended "to influence the election from the shadows," prosecutors
wrote. -
CNBC
In November Cohen also pleaded guilty to lying to Congress about the Trump Organization's
ill-fated plans to develop a Trump Tower in Moscow - a project floated by Cohen and longtime
FBI asset who had been in Trump's orbit for years, Felix Sater. Cohen claims he understated
Trump's knowledge of the project. He also lied to Congress when he said that the Moscow project
talks ended in early 2016, when in fact he and the Trump Organization had continued to pursue
it as late as June 2016.
On Wednesday, Stormy Daniels' lawyer, Michael Avenatti - who is in attendance at Cohen's
sentencing, said in a Wednesday tweet that Cohen "thought we would just go away and he/Trump
would get away with it. He thought he was smart and tough. He was neither. Today will prove
that in spades."
Trump's paying around $280,000 in " hush money " .. out of his own pocket is
dwarfed into virtual insignificance by Obama's Presidential Campaign in 2008..,.
BEING FOUND "GUILTY" OF ILLEGAL USE OF 2 MILLION IN CAMPAIGN MONEY
barely reported by the media that saw THE OBAMA DOJ decide not to prosecute Obama and
instead quietly dispose of this
"REAL CRIME" with a fine of 375 thousand dollars by the US FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISION.
Welcome to the two tier Justice System we all live under..
One for the Deeeep State Globalist Elite and .. the other...
"... Peter Van Buren, a 24-year State Department veteran, is the author of ..."
"... Yes, he (and I) read the filings. They are merely the assertions of overzealous Democrat prosecutors in the SDNY that used to work for Preet Bharara and have political/personal axes to grind. Witness past much more egregious instances of what they claim as a felony that have been resolved without charges by fines – most recently, Barak Obama's campaign finance violations. ..."
We last
looked at what Mueller had publicly -- and what he didn't have -- some 10 months ago, and I
remained skeptical that the Trump campaign had in any way colluded with Russia. It's worth
another look now, but first let's give away the ending (spoiler alert!): there is still no real
evidence of, well, much of anything significant about Russiagate. One thing that is clear is
that the investigation seems to be ending. Mueller's office has
reportedly even told various defense lawyers that it is "tying up loose ends." The moment
to wrap things up is politically right as well: the Democrats will soon take control of the
House; time to hand this all off to them.
Ten months ago the big news was Paul Manafort flipped; that seems to have turned out to be
mostly a bust, as we know now he lied like a rug to the Feds and cooperated with the Trump
defense team as some sort of mole inside Mueller's investigation (a heavily-redacted memo about
Manafort's lies, released by Mueller on Friday, adds no significant new details to the
Russiagate narrative.)
George Papadopoulos has already been in and out of jail -- all of two weeks -- for his
sideshow role. Michael Avenatti is now a woman beater who is just figuring out he's
washed up. Stormy Daniels owes Trump over $300,000 in fees after losing to him in court.
There still is no pee tape. And if you don't recall how unimportant Carter Page and Richard
Gates turned out to be (or even who they are), well, there is your assessment of all the
hysterical commentary that accompanied them a few headlines ago.
The big reveal of the Michael Flynn sentencing memo on Tuesday was that he will likely do no
prison time. Everything of substance in the memo was redacted, so there is little insight
available. If you insist on speculation, try this: it's hard to believe that something really
big and bad happened such that Flynn knew about it but still wasn't worth punishing for it, and
now, a year after he started cooperating with the government, still nobody has heard anything
about whatever the big deal is. So chances are the redactions focus on foreign
lobbying in the U.S.
This week's Key to Everything is Michael Cohen, the guy who lied out of self-interest
for Trump until last week when we learned he is also willing to lie, er, testify
against Trump out of self-interest. If you take his most recent statements at face
value, the sum is the failed negotiations to build a Trump hotel in Moscow, which went on a few
months longer than was originally stated, and that we all knew about already.
Meanwhile, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York submitted a
sentencing memo Friday
for Cohen, recommending 42 months in jail. In a separate filing, Mueller made no term
recommendation but praised Cohen for his "significant efforts to assist the special counsel's
office." The memos reveal no new information.
Call it sleazy if you want, but looking into a real estate deal is neither a high crime nor
a misdemeanor, even if it's in Russia. Conspiracy law requires an agreement to commit a crime,
not just the media
declaiming that "Cohen was communicating directly with the Kremlin!" Talking about meeting
Russian persons is not a crime, nor is meeting with them.
The
takeaway that this was all about influence shopping by the Russkies falls flat. If Putin
sought to
ensnare Trump, why didn't he find a way for the deal to actually go through? Mueller has to
be able to prove actual crimes by the president, not just twist our underclothes into weekly
conspiratorial
knots . For fun, look here at the
creative writing needed to even suggest anything illegal. That doesn't sound like Trump's
on thin ice with hot shoes.
Sigh. It is useful at this point of binge-watching the Mueller mini-series to go back to the
beginning.
The primordial ooze for all things Russiagate is less-than-complete intelligence alleging
that hackers, linked to the Russian government, stole emails from the Democratic National
Committee (DNC) in 2016. The details have never been released, no U.S. law enforcement agency
has ever seen the server or scene of the crime, and Mueller's dramatic indictments
of said hackers, released as Trump met with Putin in
Helsinki, will never be heard of again, or challenged in court, as none of his defendants
will ever leave Russia. Meanwhile, despite contemporaneous denials of the
same, is it somehow now accepted knowledge that the emails (and Facebook ads!) had some
unproven major effect on the election.
The origin story for everything else, that Trump is beholden to Putin for favors granted or
via blackmail, is opposition research purchased by the Democrats and carried out by an MI6
operative with complex
connections into American intelligence, the salacious
Steele Dossier . The FBI, under a Democratic-controlled Justice Department, then sought
warrants to
spy on the nominated GOP candidate for president based on evidence paid for by his
opponent.
Yet the real spark was the media, inflamed by Democrats, searching for why Trump won
(because it can't be anything to do with Hillary, and "all white people and the Electoral
College are racists" just doesn't hold up). Their position was and is that Trump must have done
something wrong, and Robert Mueller,
despite helping
squash a Bush-era money-laundering probe, lying about the Iraq
War, and
flubbing the post-9/11 anthrax investigation, has been resurrected with Jedi superpowers to
find it. It might be collusion with Russia or Wikileaks, or a pee tape, or taxes, packaged as
hard news but reading like Game of Thrones plot speculation. None of this is journalism
to be proud of, and it underlies everything Mueller is supposedly trying to achieve.
As the New York Times said in a rare moment of candor, "From the day the Mueller
investigation began, opponents of the president have hungered for that report, or an indictment
waiting just around the corner, as the source text for an incantation to whisk Mr. Trump out of
office and set everything back to normal again."
The core problem -- at least that we know of -- is that Mueller hasn't found a crime
connected with Russiagate that someone working for Trump might have committed. His
investigation to date hasn't been a search for the guilty party -- Colonel Mustard in the
library -- so much as a search for an actual crime, some crime, any crime. Yet all he's
uncovered so far are some
old financial misdealings by Manafort and chums, payoffs to Trump's mistresses that are not
in themselves
illegal (despite what prosecutors simply assert in the Cohen sentencing report ,
someone will have to prove to a jury the money was from campaign funds and the transactions
were "for the
purpose of influencing" federal elections, not simply "protecting his family from shame"),
and a bunch of people lying about unrelated matters.
And that's the giveaway to Muller's final report. There was no base crime as the starting
point of the investigation. With
Watergate , there was the break-in at Democratic National Headquarters. With Russiagate you
had Trump winning the election. (Remember too that the FBI concluded
forever ago that the DNC hack crime was done by the Russians, no Mueller needed.)
Almost everything Mueller has, the perjury and lying cases, are crimes he created through
the process of investigating. He's Schrodinger's Box : the
infractions only exist when he tries to look at them. Mueller created most of his booked
charges by asking questions he already knew the answers to, hoping his witness would lie and
commit new crimes literally in front of him. Nobody should be proud of lying, but it seems a
helluva way to contest a completed election as Trump enters the third year of his term.
Mueller's end product, his report, will most likely claim that a lot of unsavory things went
on. But it seems increasingly unlikely that he'll have any evidence Trump worked with Russia to
win the election, let alone that Trump is now under Putin's control. If Mueller had a smoking
gun, we'd be watching impeachment hearings by now.
Instead, Mueller will end up concluding that some people may have sort of maybe tried to
interfere with an investigation into what turned out to be nothing, another "crime" that exists
only because there was an investigation to trigger it. He'll dump that steaming pile of legal
ambiguity into the lap of the Democratic House to hold hearings on from now until global
warming claims the city of Benghazi and returns it to the sea. That or the 2020 election,
whichever comes first.
Peter Van Buren, a 24-year State Department veteran, is the author ofWe Meant Well : How I Helped Lose the Battle for
the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People andHooper's War : A Novel of WWII Japan .
As the American people are dragged through the media hysteria, one has to know, millions of
Americans have other issues on their minds, and be it right or wrong, don't care about about
Mueller's investigation. Simply put, our political system is far from holier than thou, as
they say. For numerous reasons, people had to decide, of the two personalities we had to
choose from, were a reflection of where our politics is. Clintons or Trumps.
@Kevin – (1) Most campaign finance violations are treated as minor offenses with fines.
Obama's campaign got a fine for a $2 million campaign finance violation. Why is this one, if
it is a crime at all, being treated as a felony?
(2) No court has ever held, and no court will ever hold, that paying your mistress for
silence is a campaign finance violation. Mixed motive payments can't be campaign finance
violations. How about a politician who gets cosmetic surgery before an election? If one of
her purposes is to appear younger and appeal to voters, is that a campaign finance violation
if she doesn't report to the government her payments to the surgeon? No court is going to
accept that theory.
"Good Grief. Did you read the filings? Directing someone to commit a felony?"
Good grief, do you know the difference between a prosecutor trying to make a case in a
one-sided filing versus actually bringing a case to a jury and having to prove elements of a
crime with evidence?
You don't give specifics (typical) but you're presumably referring to the payoffs to keep the
women quiet right? Thing is, that's not illegal unless it was provably for political reasons.
If he was trying to save his marriage, there was no crime. Besides, John Edwards did worse
and skated scot-free. You going to condemn him? If not, you're a hack so be quiet.
Mueller was FBI Director when Hillary was committing national security violations in using
her private server and other unauthorized devices. His conflicts of interest in overseeing an
investigation originating from a case involving those emails are obvious. He was either
incompetent, derelict of duty, and/or complicit in shielding Hillary from prosecution then
and and definitely now given the conspiracy surrounding the Steele dossier by her campaign
proxies, foreign operatives (including Russians), and corrupt Obama administration officials
who engaged in official misconduct to clear her and initiate a campaign to inflence the
election, illegally surveil Trump associates, and illegally circulate salacious, unverified
innuendos or unmasked names.
Mueller is involved in protecting his own reputation. He has obvious conflicts of interest
and was involved in possible official misconduct. He should not be given immunity from
examination, accountability, and disciplinary action. No official should be above the law. Is
he now the American Sulla or Marius?
There were crimes committed by those Mueller is shielding – officials he worked with in
the Obama administration, Clinton and her proxies, and foreign operatives (including
Russians.)
It's not a "felony" unless you prove it the money came from campaign funds, which it didn't.
And Trump only "directed" it according to a known liar trying to get a lighter sentence for
his own financial crimes.
Yes, I do remember who Carter Page is. He is an American citizen -- a bit of a doofus
American citizen I'll admit but still an American citizen -- and he was attacked by the
American Gestapo led by Comey, Brennan, Clinton, Obama, Podesta, the women that unmasked
other American citizens, and Crapper like no American citizen has ever been attacked before.
Carter Page is me and the same can happen to me if it can happen to Carter Page.
The criminal laws in the United States are broad and far reaching enough that an aggressive
prosecutor can always find a crime to charge anyone with. This is especially true for anyone
involved in higher level business or politics.
Even if the charges cannot be made to stick (and usually they can), the expense and hassle
of fighting the case will ruin most of us who are not very rich or married to a team of
criminal defense attorneys with loads of leisure time.
At the same time, even the FBI does not have the resources to charge every crime that it
comes across or could bring an indictment for.
This is entirely intentional. There is always a perfectly legal pretext to punish those
whom the establishment want to punish, and a means to keep everyone else in line.
This is not to suggest that the 1% hold a secret email vote every month to decide whom to
kick off the island. Rather, most prosecutors are glorified politicians, and they know whom
to please.
If, for instance, a prosecutor were to bring charges against HRC (and there are numerous
bases on which to do so), the howls of establishment outrage would be deafening. So nothing
was done. In fact, the FBI was very careful to interview her associates in a group (so that
they could get their stories straight) and to avoid interviewing The Queen at all, so as to
avoid a perjury trap, or forcing Her Majesty to have to lie, and thus putting the FBI in an
embarrassing position as to why it did not prosecute.
By contrast, Trump probably has also committed numerous crimes, even if they don't rise to
the breathless speculation of russiagate conspiracy theorists, nor will any crimes charged
relate to Trump's real crimes in foreign policy (because those crimes are the DC consensus).
However, the establishment didn't want the man in the first place, and it sure wants Trump
gone now.
Therefore, Trump will not enjoy the same protection. "Rule Of Law" and all that.
For my part, I will not be sorry to see him go. As I indicated, the man is a criminal, as
were his predecessors in office.
To all the commenters pointing out the Stormy Daniels payoff. What has that to do with
Russian collusion? The Mueller investigation went way off track finding unrelated crimes in
order to get flip leverage. Its been a "show me da man, I'll find the crime" exercise. In
other words, a witch hunt. If Trump is removed by any means other than an election, it will
be viewed as a coup, and the destruction of our democratic republic.
Yes, he (and I) read the filings. They are merely the assertions of overzealous Democrat
prosecutors in the SDNY that used to work for Preet Bharara and have political/personal axes
to grind. Witness past much more egregious instances of what they claim as a felony that have
been resolved without charges by fines – most recently, Barak Obama's campaign finance
violations.
As was said in the article, those claims would have to be proven in court –
according to the letter of the law – and it is a very high bar for the SDNY to get over
to get a conviction. You can indict a ham sandwich, but if it turns out to in fact be a steak
or cheese and crackers your case isn't worth anything.
Finally, as pointed out, contracting for a NDA is not illegal. It is, point of fact, a
contract that parties willingly enter into. Trump is a business and a brand, so trying to
prove that protecting that brand by spending his own money was NOT the purpose of the NDA is
pretty darn difficult.
Paying off mistresses isn't a felony. Even if it used campaign dollars and even if someone
else involved pleads guilty. Ask John Edwards Kevin.
I also concur that if Mueller could prove that Trump colluded with the Russians, Paul Ryan
(who f*cking hates Trump's guts) would have absolutely started impeachment hearings.
"... One thing that has puzzled me about Trump methods is his constant tweeting of witch hunt with respect to Mueller but his unwillingness to actually disclose what Brennan, Clapper, Comey, et al actually did by declassifying all the documents and communications among them. In your opinion what is he trying to accomplish with his method here? ..."
I believe you are spot on in your analysis of the Trump methods. No doubt based on your
personal observations up close of similar sole proprietor business hustlers. I think one
problem that Trump methods face is that he needs people around him who can make things happen
despite the byzantine ways of the vast federal bureaucracy who have their own agenda.
One thing that has puzzled me about Trump methods is his constant tweeting of witch
hunt with respect to Mueller but his unwillingness to actually disclose what Brennan,
Clapper, Comey, et al actually did by declassifying all the documents and communications
among them. In your opinion what is he trying to accomplish with his method here?
"... I've come to believe that Trump's role is not as a conventional president who promises to get certain things achieved to the
Congress and then does. I don't think he's capable. I don't think he's capable of sustained focus. I don't think he understands the
system. I don't think the Congress is on his side. I don't think his own agencies support him. He's not going to do that. ..."
"... I think Trump's role is to begin the conversation about what actually matters. We were not having any conversation about immigration
before Trump arrived in Washington. ..."
"... Trump asked basic questions like' "Why don't our borders work?" "Why should we sign a trade agreement and let the other side
cheat?" Or my favorite of all, "What's the point of NATO?" The point of NATO was to keep the Soviets from invading western Europe but
they haven't existed in 27 years, so what is the point? These are obvious questions that no one could answer. ..."
"... I mean let me just be clear. I'm not against an aristocratic system. I'm not against a ruling class. I think that hierarchies
are natural, people create them in every society. I just think the system that we have now the meritocracy, which is based really on
our education system, on a small number of colleges has produced a ruling class that doesn't have the self-awareness that you need to
be wise. ..."
"... it was only after the financial crisis of 08 that I noticed that something was really out of whack, because Washington didn't
really feel the crisis. ..."
"... If you leave Washington and drive to say Pittsburgh, which is a manufacturing town about three and a half hours to the west,
you drive through a series of little towns that are devastated. There are no car dealerships, there are no restaurants. There's nothing.
They have not recovered. I remember driving out there one day, maybe eight or nine years ago and thinking, boy, this is a disaster.
..."
"... That's kind of strange since we're the capital city in charge of making policy for everybody else... Massive inequality does
not work in a democracy... ..."
"... If you make above a certain income, or if you live in my neighborhood, you have zero physical contact with other Americans.
In other words, the elite in our country is physically separated in a way that's very unhealthy for a democracy, very unhealthy. ..."
"... The Democratic Party, which for 100 years was the party of average people is now the party of the rich. ..."
"... He served the purpose of bringing the middle class into the Republican Party, which had zero interest, no interest in representing
them at all. Trump is intuitive, he felt, he could smell that there was this large group of voters who had no one representing them
and he brought them to the Republican side, but the realignment is still ongoing. ..."
"... In other words, the Democratic Party used to represent the middle class, it no longer does, it now hates the middle class.
..."
"... I do think, going forward the Republican Party will wake up and realize these are our voters and we're going to represent them
whether we want it or not. ..."
"... I am deeply suspicious of foreign adventurism, voluntary wars, wars of self-defense are not controversial, I'm for them completely,
there's an invasion repellent. The idea that you would send 100,000 troops to a country to improve its political system is grotesque
to me. It would've been grotesque to them. ..."
"... The Vietnam War was horrifying to them because it was a voluntary war, waged for theoretical reasons, geostrategic reasons
which they rejected, and I do too. ..."
"... We can make autonomous choices about how we respond to market forces. People get crushed beneath its wheels. ..."
"... Capitalism drives change, innovation change, the old ways give way to new ways of doing things, and in the process of change
the weak get hurt always, this was true in industrialization 100 years ago and it's true in the digital revolution now. What's changed
is that nobody is standing up on behalf of the people who are being crushed by the change. ..."
"... In your book, you say they've vanishing but they seem to come back again. ..."
"... Have you ever seen this amount of discontent and aggression here in your lifetime? ..."
"... How close to a revolution is your country? ..."
"... The country is getting redder and bluer. ..."
"... Do you think that Europe will get in control of the migration? ..."
The Swiss are very suspicious of anybody who is boastful. That's why I have a question about Trump
I hate that about him. I hate that it's not my culture. I didn't grow up like that.
In your book you speak a lot about people who attack Trump, but you actually don't say very much about Trump's record.
That's true.
Do you think he has kept his promises? Has he achieved his goals?
No. He hasn't?
No. His chief promises were that he would build the wall, de-fund planned parenthood, and repeal Obamacare, and he hasn't done
any of those things. There are a lot of reasons for that, but since I finished writing the book, I've come to believe that Trump's
role is not as a conventional president who promises to get certain things achieved to the Congress and then does. I don't think
he's capable. I don't think he's capable of sustained focus. I don't think he understands the system. I don't think the Congress
is on his side. I don't think his own agencies support him. He's not going to do that.
I think Trump's role is to begin the conversation about what actually matters. We were not having any conversation about immigration
before Trump arrived in Washington. People were bothered about it in different places in the country. It's a huge country, but
that was not a staple of political debate at all. Trump asked basic questions like' "Why don't our borders work?" "Why should
we sign a trade agreement and let the other side cheat?" Or my favorite of all, "What's the point of NATO?" The point of NATO was
to keep the Soviets from invading western Europe but they haven't existed in 27 years, so what is the point? These are obvious questions
that no one could answer.
Apart from asking these very important questions has he really achieved nothing?
Not much. Not much. Much less than he should have. I've come to believe he's not capable of it.
Why should he be not capable?
Because the legislative process in this country by design is highly complex, and it's designed to be complex as a way of diffusing
power, of course, because the people who framed our Constitution, founded our country, were worried about concentrations of power.
They balanced it among the three branches as you know and they made it very hard to make legislation. In order to do it you really
have to understand how it works and you have to be very focused on getting it done, and he knows very little about the legislative
process, hasn't learned anything, hasn't and surrounded himself with people that can get it done, hasn't done all the things you
need to do so. It's mostly his fault that he hasn't achieved those things. I'm not in charge of Trump.
The title of your book is "Ship of Fools". You write that an irresponsible elite has taken over America. Who is the biggest
fool?
I mean let me just be clear. I'm not against an aristocratic system. I'm not against a ruling class. I think that hierarchies
are natural, people create them in every society. I just think the system that we have now the meritocracy, which is based really
on our education system, on a small number of colleges has produced a ruling class that doesn't have the self-awareness that you
need to be wise. I'm not arguing for populism, actually. I'm arguing against populism. Populism is what you get when your leaders
fail. In a democracy, the population says this is terrible and they elect someone like Trump.
When did you first notice that this elite is getting out of touch with the people?
Well, just to be clear, I'm not writing this from the perspective of an outsider. I mean I've lived in this world my whole life.
Which world exactly?
The world of affluence and the high level of education and among-- I grew up in a town called La Jolla, California in the south.
It was a very affluent town and then I moved as a kid to Georgetown here in Washington. I've been here my whole life. I've always
lived around people who are wielding authority, around the ruling class, and it was only after the financial crisis of 08 that
I noticed that something was really out of whack, because Washington didn't really feel the crisis.
If you leave Washington and drive to say Pittsburgh, which is a manufacturing town about three and a half hours to the west,
you drive through a series of little towns that are devastated. There are no car dealerships, there are no restaurants. There's nothing.
They have not recovered. I remember driving out there one day, maybe eight or nine years ago and thinking, boy, this is a disaster.
Rural America, America outside three or four cities is really falling apart. I thought if you're running the country, you should
have a sense of that. I remember thinking to myself, nobody I know has any idea that this is happening an hour away. That's kind
of strange since we're the capital city in charge of making policy for everybody else... Massive inequality does not work in a democracy...
You become Venezuela.
You write about vanishing middle class. When you were born over 60 % of Americans ranked middle class. Why and when did
it disappear?
If you make above a certain income, or if you live in my neighborhood, you have zero physical contact with other Americans.
In other words, the elite in our country is physically separated in a way that's very unhealthy for a democracy, very unhealthy.
The Democratic Party is out of touch with the working class.
Well, that's the remarkable thing. For 100 years the Democratic Party represented wage earners, working people, normal people,
middle class people, then somewhere around-- In precisely peg it to Clinton's second term in the tech boom in the Bay Area in Francisco
and Silicon Valley, the Democratic Party reoriented and became the party of technology, of large corporations, and of the rich. You've
really seen that change in the last 20 years where in the top 10 richest zip codes in the United States, 9 of them in the last election
just went for Democrats. Out of the top 50, 42 went for Democrats. The Democratic Party, which for 100 years was the party of
average people is now the party of the rich.
Donald Trump, who is often seen as this world-changing figure is actually a symptom of something that precedes him that I sometimes
wonder if he even understands which is this realignment. He served the purpose of bringing the middle class into the Republican
Party, which had zero interest, no interest in representing them at all. Trump is intuitive, he felt, he could smell that there was
this large group of voters who had no one representing them and he brought them to the Republican side, but the realignment is still
ongoing.
In other words, the Democratic Party used to represent the middle class, it no longer does, it now hates the middle class.
The Republican Party which has never represented the middle class doesn't want to. That is the source of really all the confusion
and the tension that you're seeing now. I do think, going forward the Republican Party will wake up and realize these are our
voters and we're going to represent them whether we want it or not.
They have to, or they will lose.
They have to, or they will die. Yes.
You're writing in an almost nostalgic tone about the old liberals? People like Miss Raymond, your first-class teacher. You
describe her wonderfully in the book. You say that they have vanished. What happened?
I find myself in deep sympathy with a lot of the aims of 1970s liberals. I believe in free speech, and I instinctively side with
the individual against the group. I think that the individual matters, I am deeply suspicious of foreign adventurism, voluntary
wars, wars of self-defense are not controversial, I'm for them completely, there's an invasion repellent. The idea that you would
send 100,000 troops to a country to improve its political system is grotesque to me. It would've been grotesque to them.
The Vietnam War was horrifying to them because it was a voluntary war, waged for theoretical reasons, geostrategic reasons
which they rejected, and I do too. They were also suspicious of market capitalism. They thought that somebody needed to push
back against the forces of the market, not necessarily because capitalism was bad, capitalism is not bad, it's also not a religion.
We don't have to follow it blindly. We can make autonomous choices about how we respond to market forces. People get crushed
beneath its wheels.
Capitalism drives change, innovation change, the old ways give way to new ways of doing things, and in the process of change
the weak get hurt always, this was true in industrialization 100 years ago and it's true in the digital revolution now. What's changed
is that nobody is standing up on behalf of the people who are being crushed by the change.
Is that really so? Look at the grassroot movement on the left: Alexandra Ocasio Cortez and her socialist group. It is probably
a 100 years ago when Americans last saw a socialist movement of substance emerging?
Yes. You're absolutely right. That's the future.
In your book, you say they've vanishing but they seem to come back again.
Well, you're absolutely right. You're incisive correct to say that the last time we saw this was 100 years ago, which was another
pivot point in our economic and social history. Where, after 10,000 years of living in an Agrarian society, people moved to the cities
to work in factories and that upended the social order completely. With that came huge political change and a massive reaction.
In the United States and in Western Europe labor unions moderated the forces of change and allowed us to preserve capitalism in
the form that we see it now... You're seeing the exact same dynamic play out today, we have another, as I said, economic revolution,
the digital age, which is changing how people work, how they make money, how families are structured. There is a huge reaction to
that, of course, because there always is, because normal people can't handle change at this pace. People are once again crying out
for some help. They feel threatened by the change. What bothers me is that there is no large group of sensible people asking, how
can we buffer this change? How can we restrain it just enough, not to stop it, but to keep people from overreacting and becoming
radical?
Talking about radical. Recently, a radical left-wing group have threatened to storm your Washington home. How is your wife?
How is your family?
They are fine, they're pretty tough. They're rattled.
The Antifa-mob came right to the door of your home?
Yes, they did and threatened my wife.
Which must have been absolutely scary?
Yes, it was. My wife was born in the city, my four children were born here, we're not moving.
Your attackers have a goal, they're trying to silence you.
Of course. I would never, of course, that's a cornerstone of Western civilization is expression and freedom of conscience. You
can tell me how to behave, you can force me not to sleep or take my clothes off in public, that's fine. Every society has the right
to control behavior. But no one has the right to control what you believe. You can't control my conscience, that's mine alone. Only
totalitarian movements do that, and that's what they're attempting. Of course, I would die first I'm never going to submit to that.
Have you ever seen this amount of discontent and aggression here in your lifetime?
No, I've never seen anything like this. What's so striking is that [chuckles] this is really... The radicalism is not on behalf
of people who are actually suffering, fellow Americans who are suffering, on behalf of the 70,000 people who died of drug ODs last
year, or on behalf of the people displaced by automation in GM, or whatever, on behalf of those dying American low class, it's really
on behalf of theoretical goals.
They're saying that I [Tucker Carlson] am saying naughty things that shouldn't be allowed to be expressed in public. Basically,
it's a totalitarian movement. Totally unhelpful. I would say childish. What they're really doing is defending the current order.
They're the shock troops of the elites actually. Actually, what you're seeing is something amazing, you're seeing for the first time
in history a revolution being waged against the working class. When does that happen?
Your way of debating is very tough. You're sitting there, hammering your guests. Sometimes we have a bit of a problem to
understand that. For us it's a bit disturbing.
Of course, it is. It's disturbing for me too!
How tough do you need to be nowadays to have an audience?
Less, I think than sometimes we put into it or I put into it. I'm actually, in my normal life, I think a pretty gentle person.
I've never had a yelling fight with my wife in 34 years. I mean, I've never yelled at my children. No, I don't ever.
Never?
Not one time. No, it's not how I communicate. I never want to be impolite. I have been impolite. I've lost my temper a couple
times, but I don't want to. I don't like that. I believe in civility.
... ... ...
How close to a revolution is your country?
By revolution, let me be clear, I don't think that we're anywhere near an outbreak of civil war, armed violence between two sides
for a bunch of different reasons... Testosterone levels are so low and marijuana use is so high that I think the population is probably
too ... What you don't have, prerequisite fall revolution, violent revolution, is a large group of young people who are comfortable
with violence and we don't have that. Maybe that will change. I hope it doesn't. I don't want violence for violence. I appall violence,
but I just don't see that happening. What I see happening most likely is a kind of gradual separation of the states.
If you look at the polling on the subject, classically, traditionally, Americans had antique racial attitudes. If you say, "Would
you be okay with your daughter marrying outside her race?" Most Americans, if they're being honest, would say, "no, I'm not okay
with that. I'm not for that." Now the polling shows people are much more comfortable with a child marrying someone of a different
race than they are marrying someone of a different political persuasion.
"I'd rather my daughter married someone who's Hispanic than liberal", someone might say. That is one measure. There are many measures,
but that's one measure of how politically divided we are and I just think that over time, people will self-segregate. It's a continental
country. It's a very large piece of land and you could see where certain states just become very, very different. Like if you're
Conservative, are you really going to live in California in 10 years? Probably not.
Orange County is now purely Democrat.
That's exactly right. You're going to move and if you're very liberal, are you really going to want to live in Idaho? Probably
not.
The country is getting redder and bluer.
Exactly.
This revolution you are warning about - What needs to be done to stop it from happening?
Just the only thing you can do in a democracy which is address the legitimate concerns of the population and think more critically
and be more wise in your decision making. Get a handle on technology. Technology is the driver of the change, so sweep aside the
politics, the fundamental fact about people is they can't metabolize change at this pace because as an evolutionary matter, they're
not designed to, they're not. If you asked your average old person what's the most upsetting thing about being old? You expect them
to say, "Well, my friends are dead". But that's not what they say. Or "I have to go to the bathroom six times a night". That's not
what they say.
You know what they say? "Things are too different. This is not the country I grew up in. I don't recognize this." All people hate
that. It doesn't mean you're a bigot, it means you're human. Unless you want things to fall apart, become so volatile that you can't
have a working economy, you need to get a handle on the pace of change. You have to slow it down.
How important is migration in terms of change?
It's central because nothing changes the society more quickly or more permanently than bringing in a whole new population and
that's not an attack on anybody. There are lots of populations- there are lots of immigrants who are much more impressive than I
am. I have no doubt about that. I'm not attacking immigrants. I'm merely saying that the effect on the people who already live here
is real and they're not bigots for feeling that way.
You come from an ancient country with a series of ancient cultures within it and if you woke up one morning and everyone was speaking
Amharic and you didn't recognize any of your surroundings, that would be deeply upsetting to you.
What you saying, it's necessary to slow it down, control it?
You have to slow it down. Look at the Chinese. I abhor, I despise the Chinese government. However, I'm willing to acknowledge
wise behavior when I see it. The Chinese would never accept this pace of demographic change not simply because they're racist, though
of course, they are, but that's not the point. The point is because they don't want their society to fall apart because they're in
charge of it.
The childlike faith that we have in America, and America is the worst at this, that all change is good and that progress is inevitable
and if something is new and fresh and more expensive, it's got to be better.
It is kind of refreshing for Europeans that even Hillary Clinton tells Europeans, "You have got to stop this. You've got
to get control of migration or you disintegrate."
John Kerry said the same thing, amazingly. They're telling the truth.
Do you think Europe is going to be able to get in control of that? We have 28 countries in the EU. And Switzerland is not
a member?
So smart, so smart... You know why? Because they're mountain people. Love them. You know why? Because they're suspicious, that's
what I like about them.
[laughter]
Do you think that Europe will get in control of the migration?
The EU has been doomed since the first day because it's inconsistent with human nature. The reason we have nation states is because
people wanted them, it's organic. A nation-state is just a larger tribe and it's organized along lines that make sense. They evolved
over thousands of years. To ignore it and destroy it because you think that you've got a better idea, is insane!
[And with that, our interview concludes. It has already run far past the allotted 40 minutes. I offer to take Carlson, who seems
to be very passionate about Switzerland, on a ski run in our Alps soon. Perhaps a smoke in one of the outdoor saunas I tell him smell
like rotten eggs. Ambassador Grenell is on the phone line patiently waiting.]
"... Everything Flynn had to say implicated Obama, Clapper & Brennan but the corrupt cabal isn't subject to the laws of unwashed inbreds like you and I and the other 320 million Americans (including those who THINK they're part of the club because they virtue signal so well). ..."
You realize 2 years of Flynn under Mueller's microscope yielded nothing? And the fact he's
facing sentencing means he's not going to be called as a witness to anything.
Everything Flynn had to say implicated Obama, Clapper & Brennan but the corrupt cabal
isn't subject to the laws of unwashed inbreds like you and I and the other 320 million
Americans (including those who THINK they're part of the club because they virtue signal so
well).
Says Summer Sausage who was of course not in the room. You think you know stuff? You know
stuff from the koolaide you've swallowed for the past 20 years...
The author is tried to deceive: Flynn lobbed Russians on behave of Israel.
Muller dirty trick with Flynn (entrapment during the FBI interview) will eventually backfire
Notable quotes:
"... Mueller's memo noted that federal investigators' curiosity about Flynn's role in the presidential transition seemed to have been sparked by a Washington Post account of a conversation he had with Russia's ambassador to the U.S., Sergey Kislyak, in December 2016 ..."
"... But the meat of what should worry Team Trump is in Mueller's disclosure that Flynn has provided firsthand information about interactions between the transition team and Russian government officials -- including, as was already known, several conversations with Kislyak in December 2016. Those included a discussion about lifting economic sanctions the Obama administration had imposed on Russia and about a separate matter involving a United Nations resolution on Israel. ..."
All of that, plus Flynn's "substantial assistance," early cooperation, and acceptance of "responsibility for his unlawful conduct,"
led Muller's team to ask the court to grant Flynn a lenient sentence that doesn't include prison time, according to
a highly anticipated sentencing memo the special counsel's office filed Tuesday night.
And there wasn't much more than that in 13 concise and heavily redacted pages that let down anyone expecting the document to be
another public narrative fleshing out lots of fresh detail about Mueller's investigation. Still, the filing, and some new details
in it, should give pause to members of Trump's inner circle -- especially the president's son-in-law and senior White House adviser,
Jared Kushner.
Mueller's memo noted that federal investigators' curiosity about Flynn's role in the presidential transition seemed to have
been sparked by a Washington Post account of a conversation he had with Russia's ambassador to the U.S., Sergey Kislyak, in December
2016 . The filing also detailed a series of lies Flynn told about his contacts with and work for the Turkish government while
serving in the Trump campaign. (Given that Trump and a pair of his advisers had been pursuing
a real estate deal in Moscow during the first half of 2016, Flynn might mistakenly have seen wearing two hats as noncontroversial.)
But the meat of what should worry Team Trump is in Mueller's disclosure that Flynn has provided firsthand information about
interactions between the transition team and Russian government officials -- including, as was already known, several conversations
with Kislyak in December 2016. Those included a discussion about lifting economic sanctions the Obama administration had imposed
on Russia and about a separate matter involving a United Nations resolution on Israel.
Flynn lied to federal agents who questioned him about those chats on Jan. 24, 2017, and that was a crime (as, possibly, were his
efforts as a private citizen to meddle with a sitting government's foreign policy). The former general
acknowledged lying ,
pleaded guilty a year ago, and
then began cooperating with Mueller's
probe.
The timeline around Flynn's conversations
is crucial because it shows what's still in play for the president and Kushner -- and why Mueller may have been content to lock
in a cooperation agreement that carried relatively light penalties, as well as why Flynn's assistance seems to have subsequently
pleased the veteran prosecutor so much.
Kushner's actions are also interesting because the Federal Bureau of Investigation has examined
his
own communications with Kislyak -- and Kushner reportedly encouraged Trump to fire his FBI director,
James Comey , in the
spring of 2017, when Comey was still in the early stages of digging into the Trump-Russia connection.
Comey, and his successor, Mueller, have been focused on possible favor-trading between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin. We
know that Russian hackers directed by Russian intelligence operatives penetrated Democrat computer servers in 2016 and gave that
information and email haul to WikiLeaks to disseminate as part of an effort to undermine Hillary Clinton's presidential bid. Trump
was also pursuing that
business deal in Moscow in 2016 and had other projects over the years
with a Russian presence . What might the Kremlin have been expecting in return? A promise to lift U.S. economic sanctions?
Kushner also had personal financial issues weighing on his mind at the time. He had spent much of 2016 trying to bail out his
family from his ill-considered and pricey purchase of a Manhattan skyscraper,
666 Fifth
Avenue .
After a meeting in Trump Tower with Kislyak on Dec. 1, 2016, which Flynn and Kushner
attended together ,
the ambassador arranged another gathering on Dec. 13 for Kushner and a
senior Russian
banker with Kremlin ties, Sergei Gorkov. The White House has
said that meeting was
innocent and part of Kushner's diplomatic duties. In a
statement
following his testimony before Congress in the summer of 2017, Kushner said that his interactions with Flynn and Kislyak on Dec.
1 only involved a discussion of Syria policy, not economic sanctions. He said that his discussion with Gorkov on Dec. 13 lasted less
than 30 minutes and only involved an exchange of pleasantries and hopes for better U.S.-Russian relations -- and didn't include any
discussion of recruiting Russians as lenders or investors in the Kushner family's
real estate business .
Kislyak enjoyed continued lobbying from the White House after his meetings with Kushner. On Dec. 22, Flynn asked Kislyak to delay
a UN Security Council resolution condemning Israel for building settlements in Palestinian territory. Flynn later told the FBI that
he didn't ask Kislyak to do that, which wasn't true.
Court documents filed last year
said that a "very senior member of the Presidential Transition Team" directed Flynn to make an overture to Kislyak about the sanctions
vote. According to reporting from my
Bloomberg Opinion colleague Eli Lake and
NBC News , Kushner was that "senior member."
Bloomberg News reported that former Trump advisers Steve Bannon and Reince Priebus also pushed Flynn to lobby Kislyak on the
U.N. vote. (Kushner didn't discuss pressing Flynn to contact Kislyak in his statement last summer and instead noted how infrequent
his direct interactions were.)
Kushner's role in these events isn't discussed in Mueller's sentencing memo for Flynn. The absence of greater detail might cause
Kushner to worry: If Flynn offered federal authorities a different version of events than Kushner -- and Flynn's version is buttressed
by documentation or federal electronic surveillance of the former general -- then the president's son-in-law may have to start scrambling
(a possibility
I flagged
when Flynn pleaded guilty in 2017).
Other portions of the 2016 and early 2017 timelines still matter, too.
On Dec. 28, less than a week after Flynn called Kislyak about the U.N. vote, the ambassador contacted Flynn, according to court
documents. The Obama administration had just imposed economic sanctions on Russia because of the Kremlin's effort to sabotage the
2016 election. Kislyak apparently told Flynn that Russia would retaliate because Flynn asked him to "moderate" Russia's response.
Flynn
reportedly discussed these conversations with a former Trump adviser, K.T. McFarland, on Dec. 29.
In the weeks that followed, Sally Yates, then acting U.S. attorney general, warned the Trump administration about Flynn's duplicity
and said he was a national security threat. She was fired days after that for refusing to enforce Trump's executive order seeking
to ban immigration from seven Islamic nations. The White House forced Flynn out in February of last year, and Trump fired Comey three
months later. The president subsequently began using "witch hunt" to describe the investigation that Mueller inherited from Comey.
Since then, as the White House and Trump have surely absorbed and as Flynn's sentencing memo reinforces, Mueller's hunt has now
ensnared a number of witches.
Essentially Mueller witch hunt repeat the trick invented by Bolsheviks leadership during
Stalin Great Terror: the accusation of a person of being a foreign agent is a 'slam dank" move
that allows all kind to nasty things to be performed to convict the person no matter whether he
is guilty of not.
Consolidation of power using Foreign Counter Intelligence as a tool is a classic and a very
dirty trick.
Notable quotes:
"... It would be of great value to know what the underlying predicate crime(s) are that are sustaining Mueller's scorched earth approach to what looks to be 'all things Trump,' whether the crimes relate to counter intelligence jurisdiction (treason, espionage), illicit overseas business transactions relating to sanctions violations or something of that sort, or election law violations, the smoke of which got the whole Mueller jihad underway ..."
"... This would not be unusual in a Foreign Counter Intelligence case which are almost by definition open ended; it would be very unusual, in fact prohibited, in a criminal case where a factual predicate needs to be articulated that constitutes reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed. ..."
"... It seems Mueller has been riding the FCI horse whither he pleases to round up interviews, compare them, and then take the chicken shit route of charging 1001 violations to leverage his way forward. If that seems to smell bad, it is because it does. ..."
"... IMO, Trump is not helping himself or the American people get to the objective truth by declassifying all the documents and communications. Unless all the documents are released unredacted, all we have are theories and speculation. And Trump will be on the losing end of that as the news media and their Deep State collaborators have all the means to drive the narrative and attempt to convict in the court of public opinion through constant innuendo. ..."
"... In the mean time the Mueller investigation itself creates the crimes as pretty much most Trump associates have been indicted for perjury. Even Manafort was prosecuted for money laundering that took place over a decade ago ..."
"... Trump has stated that he doesn't want to declassify as the American people shouldn't know how corrupt their government is. This seems to contradict his Drain the Swamp rhetoric. ..."
"... Mueller may have created more crimes than existed before his inquiry. ..."
It would be of great value to know what the underlying predicate crime(s) are that are
sustaining Mueller's scorched earth approach to what looks to be 'all things Trump,' whether
the crimes relate to counter intelligence jurisdiction (treason, espionage), illicit overseas
business transactions relating to sanctions violations or something of that sort, or election
law violations, the smoke of which got the whole Mueller jihad underway .
It certainly does give every appearance, at least from the outside perspective, of an
investigation looking for a crime.
This would not be unusual in a Foreign Counter Intelligence case which are almost by
definition open ended; it would be very unusual, in fact prohibited, in a criminal case where
a factual predicate needs to be articulated that constitutes reasonable suspicion that a
crime has been committed.
It seems Mueller has been riding the FCI horse whither he pleases to round up
interviews, compare them, and then take the chicken shit route of charging 1001 violations to
leverage his way forward. If that seems to smell bad, it is because it does.
Precisely the same approach could have been taken vis a vis the Uranium mattter or any of
the Clinton Foundation speaker forays into foreign lands and almost certainly a boatload of
1001 violations would have come into port.
IMO, Trump is not helping himself or the American people get to the objective truth by
declassifying all the documents and communications. Unless all the documents are released
unredacted, all we have are theories and speculation. And Trump will be on the losing end of
that as the news media and their Deep State collaborators have all the means to drive the
narrative and attempt to convict in the court of public opinion through constant
innuendo.
In the mean time the Mueller investigation itself creates the crimes as pretty much
most Trump associates have been indicted for perjury. Even Manafort was prosecuted for money
laundering that took place over a decade ago .
There have been no claims from Mueller that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to
steal the 2016 election.
Trump has stated that he doesn't want to declassify as the American people shouldn't
know how corrupt their government is. This seems to contradict his Drain the Swamp
rhetoric. With the Democrats gonna run the House come January. I think Trump will come
under increased pressure from all sides. I don't believe the Mueller investigation will ever
wind down until Trump is defeated either via impeachment or loss of the next presidential
election.
"... I can also assure you that Luke Harding, the Guardian, Washington Post and New York Times have been publishing a stream of deliberate lies, in collusion with the security services. ..."
Luke Harding and the Guardian Publish Still More Blatant MI6 Lies
The right wing Ecuadorean government of President Moreno continues to churn out its
production line of fake documents regarding Julian Assange, and channel them straight to MI6
mouthpiece
Luke Harding of the Guardian.
Amazingly, more Ecuadorean Government documents have just been discovered for the Guardian,
this time spy agency reports detailing visits of Paul Manafort and unspecified "Russians" to
the Embassy. By a wonderful coincidence of timing, this is the day after Mueller announced that
Manafort's plea deal was over.
The problem with this latest fabrication is that Moreno had already released the visitor
logs to the Mueller inquiry. Neither Manafort nor these "Russians" are in the visitor logs.
This is impossible. The visitor logs were not kept by Wikileaks, but by the very strict
Ecuadorean security. Nobody was ever admitted without being entered in the logs. The procedure
was very thorough. To go in, you had to submit your passport (no other type of document was
accepted). A copy of your passport was taken and the passport details entered into the log.
Your passport, along with your mobile phone and any other electronic equipment, was retained
until you left, along with your bag and coat. I feature in the logs every time I visited.
There were no exceptions. For an exception to be made for Manafort and the "Russians" would
have had to be a decision of the Government of Ecuador, not of Wikileaks, and that would be so
exceptional the reason for it would surely have been noted in the now leaked supposed
Ecuadorean "intelligence report" of the visits. What possible motive would the Ecuadorean
government have for facilitating secret unrecorded visits by Paul Manafort? Furthermore it is
impossible that the intelligence agency – who were in charge of the security –
would not know the identity of these alleged "Russians".
Previously Harding and the Guardian have published documents faked by the Moreno government
regarding a diplomatic appointment to Russia for Assange of which he had no knowledge. Now they
follow this up with more documents aimed to provide fictitious evidence to bolster Mueller's
pathetically failed attempt to substantiate the story that Russia deprived Hillary of the
Presidency.
My friend William Binney, probably the world's greatest expert on electronic surveillance,
former Technical Director of the NSA, has stated that
it is impossible the DNC servers were hacked, the technical evidence shows it was a
download to a directly connected memory stick. I knew the US security services were conducting
a fake investigation the moment it became clear that the FBI did not even themselves look at
the DNC servers, instead accepting a report from the Clinton linked DNC "security consultants"
Crowdstrike.
I would love to believe that the fact Julian has never met Manafort is bound to be
established. But I fear that state control of propaganda may be such that this massive "Big
Lie" will come to enter public consciousness in the same way as the non-existent Russian hack
of the DNC servers.
Assange never met Manafort. The DNC emails were downloaded by an insider. Assange never even
considered fleeing to Russia. Those are the facts, and I am in a position to give you a
personal assurance of them.
I can also assure you that Luke Harding, the Guardian, Washington Post and New York
Times have been publishing a stream of deliberate lies, in collusion with the security
services.
I am not a fan of Donald Trump. But to see the partisans of the defeated candidate (and a
particularly obnoxious defeated candidate) manipulate the security services and the media to
create an entirely false public perception, in order to attempt to overturn the result of the
US Presidential election, is the most astonishing thing I have witnessed in my lifetime.
Plainly the government of Ecuador is releasing lies about Assange to curry favour with the
security establishment of the USA and UK, and to damage Assange's support prior to expelling
him from the Embassy. He will then be extradited from London to the USA on charges of
espionage.
Assange is not a whistleblower or a spy – he is the greatest publisher of his age, and
has done more to bring the crimes of governments to light than the mainstream media will ever
be motivated to achieve. That supposedly great newspaper titles like the Guardian, New York
Times and Washington Post are involved in the spreading of lies to damage Assange, and are
seeking his imprisonment for publishing state secrets, is clear evidence that the idea of the
"liberal media" no longer exists in the new plutocratic age. The press are not on the side of
the people, they are an instrument of elite control.
My opinions are conflicted, but I'd rather give Assange a Nobel Peace Prize than a criminal
conviction. He definitely deserves a Nobel Prize more than Obama. I was in an eatery in
Cambridge, MA, when I heard Obama's prize announced, and even there people where aghast and
astounded.
The Guardian was bought by Soros, a few years ago.
Washpost, NYT and CNN, Deep State mouthpieces.
That the USA, as long as Deep State has not been eradicated completely from USA society, will
continue to try to get Assange, and of course also Snowdon, in it claws, is more than
obvious.
So what are we talking about ?
Assange just uses the freedom of information act, or how the the USA euphemism for telling
them nothing, is called.
How Assange survives, mentally and bodily, being locked up in a small room without a
bathroom, for several years now, is beyond my comprehension.
But of course, for 'traitors' like him human rights do not exist.
"I can also assure you that Luke Harding, the Guardian, Washington Post and New York Times
have been publishing a stream of deliberate lies, in collusion with the security services."
These outfits are largely state-run at this point. The Washington Post is owned by Jeff
Bezos, a man with deep ties to the CIA through his Amazon company (which depends upon federal
subsidies and has received security agency "support") and the Guardian is clandestinely
funded through UK government purchases, among other things. MI6 has also effectively
compromised the former integrity and objectivity of that outlet by threatening them with
prosecutions for revealing MI6 spy practices. And the NYT has always been state-run. See
their coverage of the Iraq War. The Israelis have bragged about having an asset at the Times.
The American government has several.
It's amazing to see the obvious progression of the lies as they take hold in an anti-Trump
elite who seem completely impervious to understanding his victory over Clinton. All these
people who claim to be so cosmopolitan and educated seem to think Assange or Manafort would
have any interest in meeting each other. (Let alone in the company of unspecified
'Russians'.)
At first it was that Assange was wrong to publish the DNC leaks because it hurt Clinton
and thus helped Trump.
Then it was that Assange was actively trying to help Trump.
Now it's that Assange is in collusion with Trump and the 'Russians'.
The same thing happened with the Trump-Russian nonsense which goes ever more absurd as
time goes on. Slowly boiling the frog in the public's mind. The allegations are so
nonsensical, yet there are plenty of educated, supposedly cosmopolitan people who don't
understand the backgrounds or motives of their 'liberal' heroes in the NYT or Guardian who
believe this on faith.
None of these people will ever question how if any of this is true how the security
services of the West didn't know it and if they supposedly know it, how come they aren't
acting like it's true. They are acting like they're attempting to smear politicians they
don't like, however.
Luke Harding is particularly despicable. He made his name as a journalist off privileged
access to Wilkileaks docs, and has been persistently attacking Assange ever since the Swedish
fan-girl farce.
Assange did make a mistake (of which I am sure he is all too aware now) in the choice to,
rather than leave the info. open on-line, collaborate with the filthy Guardian, the sleazy
NYT, and I forget dirty name of the third publication.
@anon Since you
are posting as Anon coward, I am not expecting a reply, but would be interested in (and would
not doubt) state funding of the 'Guardian'?
As for the NYT, they are plainly in some sense state-funded, but the state in question is
neither New York nor the U.S.A., but the state of Israel.
@Che Guava
Perhaps he is referring to the sheer volume of ads the British government places for public
sector appointments. As for the paper edition, most of it seems to be bought by the BBC!
"... At this time, there is no "factual basis" or "statement of the offense" filed in the clerk's file to support the guilty plea. This is unusual, as normally the factual basis is in writing and filed as part of the plea papers. Thus, as in his earlier criminal case in the same courthouse, the factual basis was probably done orally in open court at the time of the plea, and the only way to find out what it was is to get a transcript of the hearing from the court reporter. ..."
"... Most unusual of all is that Cohen is prosecuted for making a false statement to Congress. During the last 10 years or so, has anyone else made a materially false or misleading or fraudulent statement, or covered up or concealed a material fact to Congress, in violation of any U.S. law? Does anything come to mind causing a person wonder whether or not that has happened, such as Fast and Furious gun running, or maybe on the subject of domestic surveillance ...? ..."
Michael Cohen pleads guilty again, this time to the Mueller group As has by now been
plastered all over the mass media, Michael Cohen, a former attorney for president Donald Trump,
today went into federal court in Manhattan, New York City, to plead guilty as part of a deal in
a second case, filed this time by the "special counsel" Robert Mueller group. Also as before,
the deal was telegraphed by a "John Doe" paper filed yesterday in a U.S. District Court in the
Southern District of New York--
The charging document is once again an "information", since it was agreed to and not the
result of a grand jury indictment. It alleges that Cohen made false statements to the U.S.
Congress directed to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence about a "branded property in
Moscow, Russia", obviously referring to a Trump property, and is based on Title 18, U.S. Code,
section 1001(a) and (c), the proverbial false statement statute [1]--
Since he was pleading guilty through the agreed charging paper filed today, he signed a
waiver giving up his right to be charged by an indictment for a felony--
Page 8 of the plea agreement indicates that Cohen talked to the Mueller group at least on 7
August 2018, 12 and 18 September, 8 and 17 October, and 12 and 20 November.
His lawyer filed a letter requesting that this new case be consolidated with his other
criminal case in the Southern District of New York, and be transferred to Judge William Pauley
III, in whose court the earlier case is pending--
Cohen is presently scheduled to be sentenced on 12 December 2018. The request to transfer
the case was granted, as noted on the court clerk's docket sheet--
"11/29/2018 Notice of Case Reassignment as to Michael Cohen, to Judge William H. Pauley,
III. Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr no longer assigned to the case. (ma) (Entered:
11/29/2018)".
At this time, there is no "factual basis" or "statement of the offense" filed in the
clerk's file to support the guilty plea. This is unusual, as normally the factual basis is in
writing and filed as part of the plea papers. Thus, as in his earlier criminal case in the same
courthouse, the factual basis was probably done orally in open court at the time of the plea,
and the only way to find out what it was is to get a transcript of the hearing from the court
reporter.
Most unusual of all is that Cohen is prosecuted for making a false statement to
Congress. During the last 10 years or so, has anyone else made a materially false or misleading
or fraudulent statement, or covered up or concealed a material fact to Congress, in violation
of any U.S. law? Does anything come to mind causing a person wonder whether or not that has
happened, such as Fast and Furious gun running, or maybe on the subject of domestic
surveillance ...?
The Manchurian Candidate conspiracy theories stopped being farcical a while ago -- IMO
they are now in a class by themselves, perhaps a class shared with The Protocols of the
Learned Elders of Zion and other massively destructive lies.
The birther thing was awful, but at least it didn't get anyone killed, while this
thing will lead Trump to do stupid things to disprove it and might get us all killed.
I'm trying to wrap my mind around what precisely Trump is supposed to have done --
told Putin that he'd do anything he wanted in exchange for a real estate opportunity in
Moscow? I'm sure that Putin would have paid cash, no real estate required, for such a
privilege.
And yet the vast majority of people I've met believe that Trump is a Russian puppet
and that aggressive action is needed against Russia for the simple reason that
Trump=Russia=bad.
President Trump's ex-longtime personal attorney Michael Cohen worked with an FBI informant
known as "The Quarterback" to negotiate a deal for Trump Tower Moscow during the 2016 US
election, according to
BuzzFeed News .
"The Quarterback," Felix Sater - a longtime FBI and CIA undercover
intelligence asset who was busted running a $40 million stock scheme, leveraged his
Russia connections to pitch the deal, while Cohen discussed it with Putin's press secretary,
Dmitry Peskov, according to BuzzFeed , citing two unnamed US law enforcement
officials.
Sater told BuzzFeed News today that he and Cohen thought giving the Trump Tower's most
luxurious apartment, a $50 million penthouse , to Putin would entice other wealthy buyers
to purchase their own. "In Russia, the oligarchs would bend over backwards to live in the
same building as Vladimir Putin," Sater told BuzzFeed News. "My idea was to give a $50
million penthouse to Putin and charge $250 million more for the rest of the units. All the
oligarchs would line up to live in the same building as Putin." A second source confirmed
the plan. -
BuzzFeed
The Trump Tower Moscow plan is at the center of Cohen's
new plea agreement with Special Counsel Robert Mueller after he admitted to lying to
congressional committees investigating Trump-Russia collusion.
According to the
criminal information filed against Cohen Thursday, on Jan. 20, 2016 he spoke with a
Russian government official, referred to only as Assistant 1, about the Trump Tower Moscow
plan for 20 minutes. This person appears to be an assistant to Peskov, a top Kremlin
official that Cohen had attempted to reach by email.
Cohen "requested assistance in moving the project forward, both in securing land to
build the proposed tower and financing the construction," the court document states.
Cohen had previously maintained that he never got a response from the official, but in
court on Thursday he acknowledged that was a lie. -
BuzzFeed
While the deal ultimately fizzled, "and it is not clear whether Trump knew of the
intention to give away the penthouse," Cohen has said in court filings that Trump was
regularly briefed on the Moscow negotiations along with his family.
Sater and Cohen "worked furiously behind the scenes into the summer of 2016 to get the
Moscow deal finished," according to BuzzFeed - although it was claimed that the project was
canned in January 2016, before Trump won the GOP nomination.
Sater, who has worked with the Trump organization on past deals, said that he came up with
the Trump Tower Moscow idea, while Cohen - Sater recalled, said "Great idea." "I figured,
he's in the news, his name is generating a lot of good press," Sater told BuzzFeed earlier in
the year, adding "A lot of Russians weren't willing to pay a premium licensing fee to put
Donald's name on their building. Now maybe they would be."
So he turned to his old friend, Cohen, to get it off the ground . They arranged a
licensing deal, by which Trump would lend his name to the project and collect a part of the
profits. Sater lined up a Russian development company to build the project and said that
VTB, a Russian financial institution that faced US sanctions at the time, would finance it.
VTB officials
have denied taking part in any negotiations about the project. -
BuzzFeed
Two FBI agents with "direct knowledge of the Trump Tower Moscow negotiations" told
BuzzFeed earlier this year that Cohen had been in frequent contact with foreigners about the
potential real estate project - and that some of these individuals "had knowledge of or
played a role in 2016 election meddling."
Meanwhile, Trump reportedly personally signed the letter of intent to move forward with
the Trump Tower Moscow plan on October 28, 2015 - the third day of the Republican primary
debate.
Cohen is scheduled to be sentenced on December 12. By cooperating with the DOJ, he is
hoping to avoid prison.
In 1998, Sater pleaded guilty to his involvement in a $40 million stock fraud scheme
orchestrated by the Russian Mafia , and became an informant
for the Federal Bureau of
Investigation and federal prosecutors, assisting with organized crime investigations.
In 2017, Sater agreed to cooperate with investigators into international money laundering schemes.
Left, right and centre in contemporary USSA politics are rotten and corrupt. Bernie
Sanders proved that even he is susceptible to dodgy business decisions. Trump is no more
rotten and adverse to dodgy/boarderline legally tenuous deals than anybody in politics on
Capitol Hill. Do I care about this? No, because there are far more important issues to be
dealt with by a magnitude of 90000 times.
Both sides on this issue are imbeciles. One side is pushing guilt, when compared to what
Killary and the Clinton foundation got up to, it is a complete non-story. The other side
are completely absolving Orange Jesus of any guilt and making out he has morals beyond
reproach.
I rarely comment on the Trump/Russia angle, because most of it is overblown, the
narrative is distorted and context is deliberately misinterpreted.
President Trump's ex-longtime personal attorney Michael Cohen worked with an FBI
informant known as "The Quarterback" to negotiate a deal for Trump Tower Moscow during
the 2016 US election, according to BuzzFeed News.
There is nothing about this sentence which carries any credibility at all.
Honestly, you might not have bothered writing it, or the rest of the article. No. I
didn't read it, and am not going to waste any of my life doing so either.
Can somebody just give me the short, simple, dumbed-down version of what any of this
means? What does this amount to? Is this any kind of game-changer? Does it change
anything?
" ...an un-named source" ..... another fantastical fairytale from a failed american
media company by yet another un-named source. How very convenient. President Vladimir
living in an american themed cramped badly designed apartment building ? Please, I do not
like to laugh much but this is starting to make me smile. Our President has a State owned
mansion in the best part of our glorious capital ....like me he owns almost nothing and
works all the time ....why would anybody with sanity in their brain believe that he would
make this change, especially to be associated with ANYTHING american. Also no Russian
businessman that I know has ever bought a property in a trump complex .... the build
quality and design is rubbish. Westerners should take time to view some of our exceptional
office and residential towers along the Moskva River to see where wealthy people want to
invest, work and live here. Get real West !!
OK thought experiment, given that he "only" earns perhaps 150k, how is Putin going to
pay for the upkeep of such a White Elephant? Imagine if he had to pay for maintenance of
the complementary hot n cold running whores that inevitable come with such an apartment
.... what if something breaks and needs replaced?
It's like giving a Ferrari to an Amish. Thanks, but no, thanks. Not his style.
Because Putin wants to live in a building with a bunch of mobsters.
And small world - wouldnt you know the Russians who try to do hotel deals are also into
hacking illegal, unsecure servers?
And though this indicates nothing, true or not, about the election - here's the secret :
the judeocorporate media has got the public trained to react to 'Russia' and 'Putin' purely
emotionally - so much so the Maddows of the world will shriek that this proves 'collusion'
- when it does no such thing.
More Deep State smoke and mirrors.
If you havent watched any Dan Bongino speeches on youtube its worth a look.
Crooks and criminals took over worldwide. Now even US-citizens elected one for
President. It´s a shame. How long will it take until the killer squads of Blackstone
financed by Blackrock prowl through the streets to kill anybody who isn´t useful in
their view? They have been practicing for years in foreign countries, paid with taxpayers
money.
Why did the FBI or Muller zero in on this guy Michael Cohen?
Because they got everything on him, Trump and his family and associates, long before any
investigations were initiated.
NSA collected all the phone records, emails, text messages, internet usages, banking
records, library loan records, etc, . . . on EVERY Americans. All they need to do is type
in a name, like you type in a search phrase on Google, and everything associated with that
person would come up, on the screen.
The FBI knew everything they need to know about Michael Cohen, and General Michael
Flynn.
All they need to get them or entrap them is to ask them questions, which they already
knew the answers, and wait for them to "lie" or misrepresent themselves.
BINGO!
They are charged with lying to the FBI.
Trump was smart that he refused to be "interview" with the Muller, the Inquisitor. His
lawyers knew Muller will try to trap into "lying" to the FBI.
"... It is quite clear from the charging document that Sater, not Cohen, was the one who was extending the invitation from Russian officials for Cohen to travel to Russia. What remains unknown is whether Felix Sater was doing this on his own initiative or was acting on instructions from his FBI handler to "bait" Cohen with this opportunity. ..."
"... A criminal complaint filed by the FBI in January 2015 shows that the FBI's Counter Intelligence Division directed a Confidential Source of the FBI, who matches the description of Sater, to use the Trump Organization as bait to go after Russian intelligence officers. ..."
"... CS-1 posed as the representative of a wealthy investor looking to work with Bank-1 to develop casinos in Russia. ..."
"... discussed an email to BURYAKOV regarding the potential development of casinos in Russia ..."
"... Worth noting that this operation was carried out while E. W. "Bill" Priestap was the FBI special agent in charge of the Counterintelligence Division in the New York Field Office. Ten months after the success of this case, Priestap was promoted to assistant director of the Counterintelligence Division at FBI Headquarters (FBIHQ) in Washington, DC. It was Priestap's Counterintelligence Division that subsequently played a key role in going after the Trump campaign for allegedly working with the Russians in 2016. ..."
"... Yet, Priestap surely knew that the previous contacts between Trump's organization and the Russians had been brokered at the behest of the FBI. ..."
"... Felix Sater was not just some run of the mill snitch. He was a very important informant and asset for both the FBI and the CIA. Don't take my word for it. That is what former Attorney General Loretta Lynch said. When Loretta Lynch was nominated for US Attorney General, she was pressed by Senator Orin Hatch to divulge information on Sater to satisfy all of the people who had been defrauded in the failed Fort Lauderdale Trump Towers venture. Here's Loretta Lynch's response: ..."
"... 'The defendant in question, Felix Sater , provided valuable and sensitive information to the government during the course of his cooperation, which began in or about December 1998. For more than 10 years, he worked with prosecutors from my Office, the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York and law enforcement agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and other law enforcement agencies, providing information crucial to national security and the conviction of over 20 individuals, including those responsible for committing massive financial fraud and members of La Cosa Nostra. For that reason, his case was initially sealed.' ..."
"... Was Felix Sater operating as an FBI informant when matters related to Russia were discussed with members of Donald Trump's business enterprise? ..."
"... During the time that the FBI directed Felix Sater to use the Trump business enterprise as bait to entrap foreign spies and mobsters, was Trump witting of this ploy? ..."
"... I reiterate a point I made in my previous post. Felix Sater worked with Trump starting in 2003. At no point prior to Trump's June 16, 2015 announcement that he was running for President did the FBI pursue any criminal charges against Donald Trump or any member of his business organization. There are only two possibilities to explain that. Number one -- Donald Trump did not commit any overt acts that would have met the standard for a criminal indictment. Number two -- Donald Trump also was an informer for the FBI and was granted immunity and all records sealed. I believe the later is highly unlikely. Given the level of animus directed at Trump by many senior FBI officials, I find it improbable that such a secret could be kept. ..."
"... We really need to know what the FBI knew about Trump's Russia contacts that were facilitated by their informant, Felix Sater, and when they knew it. I do not think that the FBI will be eager to provide such answers. ..."
Sater is not named in the charging statement filed by the Special Prosecutor but Felix Sater
matches the description of "Individual 2." The charging statement clearly shows that Sater
played a key role in trying to promote contacts with the Russians, including Vladimir
Putin:
COHEN and Individual 2 discussed efforts to obtain Russian governmental approval for the
Moscow Project. (page 5)
COHEN and Individual 2 discussed on multiple occasions traveling to Russia to pursue the
Moscow Project. (page 5)
On or about May 4, 2016, Individual 2 wrote to COHEN,"I had a chat with Moscow. ASSUMING the
trip does happen the question is before or after the convention . . . Obviously the pre-meeting
trip (you only) can happen anytime you want but the 2 big guys where [sic] the question. I said
I would confirm and revert." (page 6)
On or about May 5, 2016, Individual 2 followed up with COHEN and wrote, "[Russian Official
1] would like to invite you as his guest to the St. Petersburg Forum which is Russia's Davos
it's June 16-19. He wants to meet there with you and possibly introduce you to either [the
President of Russia] or [the Prime Minister of Russia], as they are not sure if 1 or both will
be there. . . . He said anything you want to discuss including dates and subjects are on the
table to discuss."
On or about May 6, 2016, Individual 2 asked COHEN to confirm those dates would work for him
to travel. COHEN wrote back, "Works for me."
From on or about June 9 to June 14, 2016, Individual 2 sent numerous messages to COHEN about
the travel, including forms for COHEN to complete. However, on or about June 14, 2016, COHEN
met Individual 2 in the lobby of the Company's headquarters to inform Individual 2 he would not
be traveling at that time.
The day after COHEN's call with Assistant 1, Individual 2 contacted him, asking for a call.
Individual 2 wrote to COHEN, "It's about [the President of Russia] they called today."
It is quite clear from the charging document that Sater, not Cohen, was the one who was
extending the invitation from Russian officials for Cohen to travel to Russia. What remains
unknown is whether Felix Sater was doing this on his own initiative or was acting on
instructions from his FBI handler to "bait" Cohen with this opportunity.
A criminal complaint filed by the FBI in January 2015 shows that the FBI's Counter
Intelligence Division directed a Confidential Source of the FBI, who matches the description of
Sater, to use the Trump Organization as bait to go after Russian intelligence officers. Felix Sater appears to have played a critical role in taking down three Russian Non Official Cover
officers -- Evgeny Buryakov, Igor Sporyshev and Viktor Podobnyy -- who were charged by the FBI
in January 2015 for espionage. The alleged spying by these Russian NOCs commenced in 2012. We
do not know how the FBI discovered their activities, but the Russians became targets of an FBI
Counter Intelligence Division investigation. The complaint filed by FBI agent Gregory Monaghan,
shows how Confidential Source 1 (who fits the role played by Sater in the Trump organization)
used his relationship with Donald Trump's company as bait:
As set forth below, in the summer of 2014, EVGENY BURYAKOV, a/k/a "Zhenya," the defendant,
met numerous times with a confidential source working for the FBI ("CS-1"). CS-1 posed as
the representative of a wealthy investor looking to work with Bank-1 to develop casinos in
Russia. . . BURYAKOV's statements and conduct reflected his strong desire to obtain
information about subjects far outside the scope of his work as a bank employee, and consistent
with his interests as a Russian intelligence agent. These meetings established BURYAKOV's
willingness to solicit and accept documents that CS-1 claimed he had obtained from a U.S.
government agency and which purportedlycontained information potentially useful to the Russian
Federation.
Monaghan's complaint, however, also reveals evidence that the Russians were quite skeptical
of Sater.
On or about July 22, 2014, EVGENY BURYAKOV, a/k/a "Zhenya," and IGOR SPORYSHEV, the
defendants, had a conversation. BURYAKOV and SPORYSHEV discussed an email to BURYAKOV
regarding the potential development of casinos in Russia . BURYAKOV stated that the
subject of the email was concerning "some sort of fucking nonsense" relating to casinos.
SPORYSHEV stated, "It's unclear . Casino, Russia, like, some sort of a set up. Trap of some
sort. I cannot understand what the point is." SPORYSHEV added, "You could meet [an associate of
CS-1] if you want - you will look and decide for yourself."
Notwithstanding their doubts, the Russians went ahead with a meeting with Sater in Atlantic
City, where Sater fulfilled his role on behalf of the FBI and set the hook in the Russians by
having them accept a U.S. Government document:
On or about August 8, 2014, CS-1 met with EVGENY BURYAKOV, a/k/a "Zhenya," the defendant,
and Male-2 in Atlantic City. The meeting lasted from around noon to 7:00 p.m. and included a
tour of casinos in Atlantic City. At the end of the day, CS-1 took BURYAKOV and Male-2 to
CS-l's office, where CS-1 gave a PowerPoint presentation on the proposed casino project in
Russia. At the end of the PowerPoint presentation, CS-1 noted that U.S. sanctions against
Russia could have an impact on their project. CS-1 also presented BURYAKOV with a United States
Government document ("Government Document-1"), labeled "Internal Treasury Use Only," which
contained a list of Russian individuals who had been sanctioned by the United States. CS-1
stated that CS-1 had a contact in the United States Government and could get more information
about sanctions if BURYAKOV was interested. BURYAKOV replied that he was interested in such
information. At the end of the meeting, BURYAKOV asked if he could keep Government Document-1,
which CS-1 then handed to BURYAKOV. BURYAKOV took the document with him and left the
meeting.
Worth noting that this operation was carried out while E. W. "Bill" Priestap was the FBI
special agent in charge of the Counterintelligence Division in the New York Field Office. Ten
months after the success of this case, Priestap was promoted to assistant director of the
Counterintelligence Division at FBI Headquarters (FBIHQ) in Washington, DC. It was Priestap's
Counterintelligence Division that subsequently played a key role in going after the Trump
campaign for allegedly working with the Russians in 2016.
Yet, Priestap surely knew that the
previous contacts between Trump's organization and the Russians had been brokered at the behest
of the FBI. The Monaghan affidavit does not paint a picture of "CS-1" acting unilaterally to
cultivate Russian intelligence officers.
So how do we know that Sater really was an FBI registered informant? The answer lies with
the failed Trump Tower in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Michael Sallah, writing for the Miami
Herald, was the first I could find that wrote about Sater and his FBI ties:
When Felix Sater and his partners launched a plan to put up a Trump tower in Fort Lauderdale
-- luring scores of investors -- he had already been charged in an explosive securities scam
with New York mob figures.
He had pleaded guilty and was awaiting sentencing in the $40 million swindle.
But investors in the Trump tower never knew.
Sater had already been prosecuted in secret -- his arrest records shut down and every trace
of his role in the New York stock scandal stripped from public view. . . .
In a rare move, lawyers are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to intercede in a bitter debate
over the practice of concealing criminal cases from the public.
For now, Sater -- an FBI informant who owns a $4.8 million Fisher Island condo -- has become
the poster boy of the fight over whether judges have the power to bury all traces of someone's
criminal history. The Miami Herald, July 1, 2012 Sunday by Michael Sallah
Sallah provided the first comprehensive summary of Sater's shady past:
Born in the former Soviet Union and raised in New York, Sater began his rise in financial
circles as a young stock broker in the 1990s.
But his career took a wrong turn when he was arrested after getting into a bar fight where
he stabbed another broker in the face with the stem of a shattered margarita glass.
After a stint in prison, he was released on parole. But he got into trouble again, this time
in the stock fraud with members of the Genovese and Colombo crime families in 1998.
After pleading guilty to racketeering -- and the case sealed -- Sater went on to launch a
new career in real estate that would take him across the country, including South Florida.
After he joined the Bayrock Group in New York as an executive in 2003, the firm unveiled a
series of big developments, while licensing Trump's name.
They announced the stunning 24-story high-rise on Fort Lauderdale's beach that became one of
the biggest condo-hotel deals in Florida. The Miami Herald, July 1, 2012 Sunday by Michael Sallah
Felix Sater was not only an FBI informant, but he did some sensitive work for the CIA.
Sallah also broke this angle of the story about Sater:
Charged in a New York securities scandal, the 46-year-old businessman traveled to his native
Russia where he took on a unique role that went far beyond flipping on dangerous criminals.
He began spying for the CIA.
Tapping into the vast underground of the former Soviet Union, Sater was able to track down a
dozen Stinger missiles equipped with powerful tracking devices on the black market.
With the backing of U.S. agents, Sater agreed to buy the weapons -- keeping them out of the
hands of terrorists. In return, the CIA pledged to keep Sater from going to jail in the stock
scam he concocted with New York organized crime figures. . . .
What remains sealed is the work that Sater performed for the government in the past 14 years
that's now the topic of the court fight.
During one hearing, the judge said the case had reached top members "of a national law
enforcement security agency. I should say agencies -- plural." But he didn't elaborate.
The fight has been taken so seriously the judge is using the name John Doe instead of Sater
to hide his identity and to "protect the life of the person." The Miami Herald, September 8, 2012 Saturday by Michael Sallah
Felix Sater was not just some run of the mill snitch. He was a very important informant
and asset for both the FBI and the CIA. Don't take my word for it. That is what former Attorney
General Loretta Lynch said. When Loretta Lynch was nominated for US Attorney General, she was
pressed by Senator Orin Hatch to divulge information on Sater to satisfy all of the people who
had been defrauded in the failed Fort Lauderdale Trump Towers venture. Here's Loretta Lynch's
response:
'The defendant in question, Felix Sater , provided valuable and sensitive information to
the government during the course of his cooperation, which began in or about December 1998. For
more than 10 years, he worked with prosecutors from my Office, the United States Attorney's
Office for the Southern District of New York and law enforcement agents from the Federal Bureau
of Investigation and other law enforcement agencies, providing information crucial to national
security and the conviction of over 20 individuals, including those responsible for committing
massive financial fraud and members of La Cosa Nostra. For that reason, his case was initially
sealed.'
The FBI and Robert Mueller, who ran the FBI during the time that Sater operated as an FBI
informant, need to answer two key questions.
Was Felix Sater operating as an FBI informant when matters related to Russia were
discussed with members of Donald Trump's business enterprise?
During the time that the FBI directed Felix Sater to use the Trump business
enterprise as bait to entrap foreign spies and mobsters, was Trump witting of this
ploy?
I reiterate a point I made in my previous post. Felix Sater worked with Trump starting
in 2003. At no point prior to Trump's June 16, 2015 announcement that he was running for
President did the FBI pursue any criminal charges against Donald Trump or any member of his
business organization. There are only two possibilities to explain that. Number one -- Donald
Trump did not commit any overt acts that would have met the standard for a criminal indictment.
Number two -- Donald Trump also was an informer for the FBI and was granted immunity and all
records sealed. I believe the later is highly unlikely. Given the level of animus directed at
Trump by many senior FBI officials, I find it improbable that such a secret could be
kept.
We really need to know what the FBI knew about Trump's Russia contacts that were facilitated
by their informant, Felix Sater, and when they knew it. I do not think that the FBI will be
eager to provide such answers.
Summary: George Papadopoulos and his wife Simone Mangiante approached in Greece by a
known CIA/FBI operative, Charles Tawil. Mr. Tawil enlists George as a business
consultant, under the auspices of energy development interests, and hands him $10,000
in cash to take back to the U.S. Upon arrival at the Dulles airport Robert Mueller had
FBI agents waiting. Papadopoulos was stopped and searched; however, he never had the
cash because he smartly left it in Greece with his lawyer. Further:
[W]hen he was arrested at Dulles Airport on July 27 after coming off a flight from
Munich, prosecutors had no warrant for him and no indictment or criminal complaint. The
complaint would be filed the following morning and approved by Howell in
Washington.
On a tangential but related note, earlier today I saw an article at Zero Hedge that
was sourced from this Daily Caller article:
EXCLUSIVE: FBI Raids Home Of Whistleblower On Clinton Foundation, Lawyer Says
https://dailycaller.com/201...
FBI agents raided the home of a recognized Department of Justice whistleblower who
privately delivered documents pertaining to the Clinton Foundation and Uranium One to a
government watchdog, according to the whistleblower's attorney.
The Justice Department's inspector general was informed that the documents show that
federal officials failed to investigate potential criminal activity regarding former
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the Clinton Foundation and Rosatom, the Russian
company that purchased Uranium One, a document reviewed by The Daily Caller News
Foundation alleges.
The delivered documents also show that then-FBI Director Robert Mueller failed to
investigate allegations of criminal misconduct pertaining to Rosatom and to other Russian
government entities attached to Uranium One, the document reviewed by TheDCNF alleges.
Mueller is now the special counsel investigating whether the Trump campaign colluded with
Russia during the 2016 election.
"The bureau raided my client to seize what he legally gave Congress about the Clinton
Foundation and Uranium One," the whistleblower's lawyer, Michael Socarras, told TheDCNF,
noting that he considered the FBI's raid to be an "outrageous disregard" of whistleblower
protections.
----------------------------
In one of those "it's a small world" scenarios, one of the WalkAway YouTubers (former
SJW turned conservative) that I follow is the sister-in-law of this whistleblower! Here
is her video today about the raid
Witch hunt has its own dynamics and it is not necessary to get any facts to inflict great damage. Mueller, the key person in 8/11
investigation, is first and foremost a loyal neocon/neolib establishment stooge, not so much a lawyer. So the shadow of McCarthyism
fall on the Washitnton, DC.
Felix Sater was FBI asset from the very beginning.
Which such Byzantium politics in Washington and intrigues between almost identical parties worth of Madrid court it is not
accidental that FBI coves with upper hand in its struggle with Russian intelligence, Russians can't get such training in
viciousness, double dealing and false flag operations anywhere.
Notable quotes:
"... Disappearing for the midterms , Russiagate has re-emerged front and center. This week's barrage of developments in the cases of indicted Trump campaign figures Paul Manafort, Michael Cohen, and George Papadopoulos have renewed long-running declarations of a presidency in peril . ..."
"... They coincide with a fresh round of alarm over the fate of Mueller's investigation following Trump's ouster of attorney general Jeff Sessions and the installation of Matthew Whitaker in his place. ..."
"... Although Mueller's final report has yet to be released, the issue that sparked the FBI investigation he inherited has already been resolved. The FBI began eyeing potential Trump-Russia ties in July 2016 after getting a tip that unpaid campaign aide George Papadopoulos may have been informed that Russia was in possession of stolen Democratic Party emails well before WikiLeaks made them public. But that trail went cold. It turns out that a London-based professor, Joseph Mifsud, told Papadopoulos that the Russian government might possess thousands of Hillary Clinton's emails. ..."
"... The Russia probe's other instigating figure, Carter Page, was also a low-level, unpaid campaign official. The information that led to his investigation is even more suspect. ..."
"... But its a key source for that supposition turned out to be the Steele dossier -- the salacious, Democratic Party-funded opposition research compiled by former MI6 agent Christopher Steele. And while the FBI got Papadopoulos on lying to them, Page has not been accused of any crime... ..."
"... Just as the evidence used in Manafort's bank and tax fraud case underscored that he worked against Russian interests in Ukraine , Flynn's indictment turns up another inconvenient fact for the collusion hopeful: The foreign government that Flynn colluded with on Trump's behalf -- against the US government -- is not Russia, but Israel . ..."
"... Russians never signed on, and Cohen only grew increasingly frustrated with Sater's failure to live up to his lofty pledges. "You are putting my job in jeopardy and making me look incompetent," Cohen wrote Sater on December 31, 2015. "I gave you two months and the best you send me is some bullshit garbage invite by some no name clerk at a third-tier bank." ..."
"... It is also possible that Manafort's alleged lies have nothing to do with a Russia conspiracy; after all, his case, and that of his deputy Rick Gates, pertained not to Russia or the 2016 campaign, but instead to financial crimes during Manafort's lobbying stint in Ukraine. ..."
They coincide with a fresh round of alarm over the fate of Mueller's investigation following Trump's ouster of attorney
general Jeff Sessions and the installation of Matthew Whitaker in his place. Leading Democrats now see the probe as so paramount
that, despite having re-captured the House running on health-care issues, protecting the investigation has been deemed "our top priority"
(Representative Jerry Nadler) and "at the top of the agenda," (Representative Adam Schiff).
There is nothing objectionable about wanting to safeguard the Mueller investigation, nor about concerns that Trump's appointment
of an unqualified loyalist may jeopardize it. Mueller should complete his work, unimpeded. The question is one of priorities. After
all, the fixation on Mueller has not just raised anticipation of Trump's indictment, or even impeachment -- it has also
overshadowed many of
the actual policies that those seeking his political demise oppose him for. At this highly charged moment, it seems prudent to re-consider
whether the probe remains worthy of such attention and high hopes.
Although Mueller's final report has yet to be released, the issue that sparked the FBI investigation he inherited has already
been resolved. The FBI
began eyeing potential Trump-Russia ties in July 2016 after getting a tip that unpaid campaign aide George Papadopoulos may have
been informed that Russia was in possession of stolen Democratic Party emails well before WikiLeaks made them public. But that trail
went cold. It turns out that a London-based professor, Joseph Mifsud, told Papadopoulos that the Russian government might possess
thousands of Hillary Clinton's emails.
The FBI interviewed Mifsud in Washington, DC, in February 2017, but Mueller has never alleged that Mifsud works with the Russian
government. Papadopoulos was ultimately sentenced to just 14 days behind bars for lying to the FBI about the timing and nature of
his contacts with Mifsud. He reported to a federal prison on Monday.
The Russia probe's other instigating figure, Carter Page, was also a low-level, unpaid campaign official. The information
that led to his investigation is even more suspect. In its October 2016 application for a surveillance warrant on Page,
the FBI claimed it "believes that [Russia's]
efforts are being coordinated with Page and perhaps other individuals associated with [the Trump campaign]." But its a key source
for that supposition turned out to be the Steele dossier -- the salacious, Democratic Party-funded opposition research compiled by
former MI6 agent Christopher Steele. And while the FBI got Papadopoulos on lying to them, Page has not been accused of any crime...
With the Russia investigation's catalysts coming up all but empty, there is little reason to expect that the remaining campaign
members who face prison time will reverse that trend. Former national security adviser Michael Flynn awaits sentencing in the coming
weeks on charges similar to Papadopoulos's. Just as the evidence used in Manafort's bank and tax fraud case
underscored that he
worked against Russian interests in Ukraine , Flynn's indictment turns up another inconvenient fact for the collusion
hopeful: The foreign government that Flynn colluded with on Trump's behalf -- against the US government -- is
not Russia, but Israel .
Despite much hoopla to the contrary, Muller's new indictment of former Trump fixer Michael Cohen contains more inconvenient facts.
Cohen has pleaded guilty to a single count for lying to Congress about his role in a failed attempt to build a Trump Tower in Moscow.
According to the plea document, Cohen gave Congress false written answers in order to "minimize links," between the Moscow project
and Trump, and to "give the false impression" that it was abandoned earlier than it actually was. Cohen
told the court that
he made these statements to "be loyal" to Trump and to be consistent with his "political messaging."
As I noted in The Nation
in October 2017 , the attempted real-estate venture in Russia "does raise a potential conflict of interest" for Trump, who
"pursued a Moscow deal as he praised Putin on the campaign trail." But nothing in Cohen's indictment incriminates Trump. Much of
what it details was previously known, and rather than revealing an illicit, transatlantic collusion scheme, it reads more like a
slapstick mafia buddy comedy. As
Buzzfeed News reported in May , Cohen communicated extensively with Trump organization colleague Felix Sater -- identified
in the Cohen plea as "Individual 2″ -- who had promised to secure Russian financing for the proposed Moscow project. But the
Russians never signed on, and Cohen only grew increasingly frustrated with Sater's failure to live up to his lofty pledges. "You
are putting my job in jeopardy and making me look incompetent," Cohen wrote Sater on December 31, 2015. "I gave you two months and
the best you send me is some bullshit garbage invite by some no name clerk at a third-tier bank."
Cohen then took matters into his own hands. As was previously known, he did not have an email address for a Russian contact, so
he wrote to a generic email address at the office of Dmitri Peskov, the press secretary for Vladimir Putin ("Russian Official 1,"
in the indictment). We now learn from Cohen that he managed to reach Peskov's assistant, who asked him "detailed questions and took
notes." But as The New York Times noted when the Trump
Moscow story first emerged: "The project never got [Russian] government permits or financing, and died weeks later." Sater tried
to save the project. He discussed arranging visits to Russia by both Cohen and Trump, but Cohen ultimately backed out after allegations
of Russian email hacking surfaced in June 2016.
According to Buzzfeed , Sater even proposed giving Putin a $50 million penthouse as an enticement, but "the plan never went anywhere
because the tower deal ultimately fizzled, and it is not clear whether Trump knew of "Sater's idea."
Cohen now claims that he spoke to Trump about the project more than the three times that he informed Congress about. For their
part, Trump's attorneys
do not seem concerned, saying that his recently submitted answers to Mueller align with Cohen's account. That Cohen perjured
himself to Congress raises problems for him, but it is hard to see how his lies about a project that failed and a proposed trip to
Russia that never happened can hurt Trump. That could only change if, as part of his new cooperation deal with Mueller, Cohen has
more to give.
As for Manafort, his case took a major turn when Mueller canceled their cooperation agreement and accused him of "crimes and lies."
The crucial questions are what does Mueller allege he lied to him about and what evidence is there to substantiate that charge. Mueller
is expected to provide details in the coming weeks. In the meantime, we can only speculate.
The revelation that
Manafort's lawyers shared information with Trump's attorneys even after the plea deal was struck in September has inevitably
fueled speculation that Manafort is lying to benefit Trump, or even hide evidence of a Russia conspiracy. That is certainly possible.
But theories that Manafort is then banking on a pardon from Trump do not square with the
prevailing
view that his
agreement with Mueller -- which included admitting to crimes that could be re-charged in state court -- was "
pardon proof ."
It is also possible that Manafort's alleged lies have nothing to do with a Russia conspiracy; after all, his case, and that
of his deputy Rick Gates, pertained not to Russia or the 2016 campaign, but instead to financial crimes during Manafort's lobbying
stint in Ukraine. The Wall Street Journal suggests that is the case,
reporting that Manafort's alleged lies "don't appear to be central to the allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 election
that Mr. Mueller is investigating." Earlier this month,
ABC News claimed , citing "multiple sources," that Mueller's investigators are "not getting what they want" from Manafort's cooperation
deal. When it comes to collusion, perhaps there is just nothing to get.
Watergate had tragic Shakespearean overtones , with Nixon as King Lear, but Russia-Gate -
perhaps the last gate America goes through on its giant slalom run to collapse - is but a
Chinese Fire Drill writ large.
The reason? In 1973, we were still a serious people. Today, the most lavishly credentialed
elite in history believe the most preposterous "stories," or, surely even worse, pretend to
believe them for political advantage.
Now, an epic battle of wills is setting up as Robert Mueller's investigation concludes its
business and its primary target, the Golden Golem of Greatness, girds his loins to push back.
Behind the flimsy scrim of Russia collusion accusations stands a bewildering maze of criminal
mischief by a matrix of federal agencies that lost control of their own dark operation to
meddle in the 2016 election.
The US intel community (CIA, NSA, FBI, etc), with the Department of Justice, all colluded
with the Hillary Clinton campaign and the intel agencies of the UK and Australia, to derail Mr.
Trump as a stooge of Russia and, when he shocked them by getting elected, mounted a desperate
campaign to cover their asses knowing he had become their boss.
The Obama White House was involved in all this, attempting to cloak itself in plausible
deniability, which may be unwinding now, too. How might all this play out from here?
One big mystery is how long will Mr. Trump wait to declassify any number of secret files,
memoranda, and communications that he's been sitting on for months .
My guess is that this stuff amounts to a potent weapon against his adversaries and he will
wait until Mr. Mueller releases a final report before declassifying it. Then, we'll have a fine
constitutional crisis as the two sides vie for some sort of adjudication.
Who, for instance, will adjudicate the monkey business that is already on-the-record
involving misdeeds in the Department of Justice itself? Will the DOJ split into two contesting
camps, each charging the other? How might that work? Does the Acting Attorney General Mr.
Whitaker seek indictments against figures such as Bruce Ohr, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, et
al. Will he also rope in intel cowboys John Brennan and James Clapper? Might Hillary find
herself in jeopardy -- all the while on the other side Mr. Mueller pursues his targets,
characters like Mr. Manafort, Michael Cohen, and the hapless Carter Page?
Or might Mr. Mueller, and others, possibly find themselves in trouble, as spearheads of a
bad-faith campaign to weaponize government agencies against a sitting president? That might
sound outlandish, but the evidence is adding up. In fact the evidence of a Deep State gone
rogue is far more compelling than any charges Mr. Mueller has so far produced on Trump-Russia
"collusion." An example of bad faith is former FBI Director James Comey's current campaign to
avoid testifying in closed session before the House Judiciary and Oversight committees -- he
filed a motion just before Thanksgiving. Mr. Comey is pretending that an open session would be
"transparent." His claim is mendacious. If he were questioned about classified matters in an
open session, he would do exactly what he did before in open session: decline to answer about
"sensitive" matters on the basis of national security. He could make no such claims in a closed
session. The truth is, his attorneys are trying to run out the clock on the current composition
of the house committees, which will come under a Democrat majority in January, so that Mr.
Comey can avoid testifying altogether.
There are other dicey matters awaiting some kind of adjudication elsewhere.
For instance, who is going to review the chain of decisions among the FISA judges who
approved of warrants made in bad faith to spy on US citizens? Perhaps the shrinking violet, Mr.
Huber, out in the Utah Prosecutor's Office of the DOJ, is looking into all that. He's been at
something for most of the year (nobody knows what). He has to answer to Mr. Whitaker now, or
the permanent AG who replaces him. And why is Mr. Trump dragging his heels on nominating a
permanent AG? I suppose the FISA court matter will fall to the Supreme Court, but how does that
process work, and how long might it take?
The potential for a stand-off exists that will confound any effort to untangle these things,
and I can see how that might lead to an extraordinary crisis in which Mr. Trump has to declare
some form of emergency or perhaps martial law to clean out this suppurating abscess of
illegality and sedition .
That can only be the last and worst resort, but what if the US judicial system just can't
manage to clean up the mess it has made?
If Trump doesn't go on a major offensive within the next couple of weeks he's fucked
because once the new ... House is sworn in on January 3rd he will be dealing with so many
different distractions at the same time it will make his attempt to fight back almost
impossible...
If Kunstler is right in his prediction of collapse. The Deep State is going to go the way
of the Stasi. Systemic collapse will usher in a purge the scope of which none of us can
fathom.
The CIA was running the entire show. The FBI was the CIA's dog.
Stefan Halper has been mislabeled by MSM as an FBI informant. Stefan Halper is a CIA
operative. He is the smoking gun.
Both the CIA and MI6 were colluding to prevent Trump from being elected and then working a
coup after election.
It all leads back to former CIA director Brennan and national security advisor Clapper.
Both worked under the authority of Obama, thus both believe what they were doing was
authorized by Obama, particularly Clapper who took his marching orders from Obama. They both
believed Clinton would win and everything would be brushed under the rug as usual.
Mueller is a cover up man and yes man with plenty of felonies. Rosenstein wrote the memo
Comey needed to be fired, because he wanted to replace Comey with Mueller. Rosenstein worried
Comey would talk, would begin to release data and start investigation to protect himself and
the FBI, so when Trump refused to appoint Mueller to FBI director, Rosenstein appointed
Mueller to take out Trump.
The MSM and everyone says how good Mueller is, but he's committed countless felonies and
no one at the DOJ has honor to be an American. The DOJ is political and is against this
nation, against the truth.
Sessions was cover up man and a yes man. He was also afraid of being indicted by Mueller.
His main purpose was illegal immigration, that's all he cared about. He didn't care what
happened to Trump and figured Pence would let him stay because of his mission on illegal
immigration and cannabis. Sessions believed he would roll back the legalization of cannabis
and Pence would follow him. Sessions believed Trump was soft on cannabis. That seems petty,
but that's the way Sessions thought.
No one follows the law anymore, this has trickled down to the people. These people have
set a bad example and the people have no respect for the system anymore.
The only way to make it respected again is for these criminals like Mueller, must be
killed. But because of the malaise caused by the criminals no one cares about America
anymore. No one cares enough to kill criminals like Mueller. The MSM is responsible for doing
incredible damage to the character of our nation. It's because of them all of this happened
because they will not tell the truth.
Just 6 corporations - all interlocking - own 95% of America's mainstream media. There's
the problem. Evil controls the narrative and fools the public. For example, ANTIFA - who are
they really, what are their roots, where do they come from? None of THIS will you get from
the MSM:
"The potential for a stand-off exists that will confound any effort to untangle these
things... might lead to an extraordinary crisis in which Trump has to declare some form of
emergency or perhaps martial law to clean out this suppurating abscess of illegality and
sedition ..."
The crooks will not give up without a fight and Trump will have to call in the
military?
Michael Cohen To Plead Guilty To Lying About Trump Russian Real-Estate Deal
by Tyler Durden
Thu, 11/29/2018 - 09:19 128 SHARES
Four months after
he pleaded guilty to campaign finance law violations, former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen has
copped to new charges of lying to congressional committees investigating Trump-Russia
collusion, according to
ABC . His latest plea is part of a new deal reached with Special Counsel Robert Mueller,
which had been said to be winding down before its latest burst of activity, including an
investigation into Roger Stone's alleged ties to Wikileaks. Stone ally
Jerome Corsi this week said he had refused to strike a plea deal with Mueller's
investigators, who had accused him of lying.
To hold up his end of the deal, Cohen sat for 70 hours of testimony with the Mueller probe,
he said Monday during an appearance at a federal courthouse in Manhattan where he officially
pleaded guilty to one count of making false statements.
According to
the Hill, Cohen's alleged lies stem from testimony he gave in 2017, when he told the House
Intelligence Committee that a planned real-estate deal to build the Trump Moscow Hotel had been
abandoned in January 2016 after the Trump Organization decided that "the proposal was not
feasible." While Cohen's previous plea was an agreement with federal prosecutors in New York,
this marks the first time Cohen has been charged by Mueller.
As part of his plea Cohen admitted to lying in a written statement to Congress about his
role in brokering a deal for a Trump Tower Moscow - the aborted project to build a
Trump-branded hotel in the Russian capitol. As has been previously reported, Cohen infamously
contacted a press secretary for President Putin to see if Putin could help with some red tape
to help start development, though the project was eventually abandoned.
Though, according to Cohen's plea, discussions about the project continued through the first
six months of the Trump administration. Cohen had discussed the Trump Moscow project with Trump
as recently as August 2017, per a report in the
Guardian.
As a reporter for NBC News pointed out on twitter, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman
Richard Burr and ranking member Mark Warner foreshadowed today's plea back in August after
Cohen pleaded guilty to the campaign finance violations.
Also notable: The plea comes just as President Trump is leaving for a 10-hour flight to
Argentina. In recent days, Trump appeared to step up attacks on the Mueller probe, comparing it
to
McCarthyism and questioning why the DOJ didn't pursue charges against the Clintons.
Cohen will be sentenced on Dec. 12, as scheduled. By cooperating, Cohen is hoping to avoid
prison, according to his lawyer. While this was probably lost on prosecutors, Cohen's admission
smacks of the "lair's paradox."
Senate Republicans have offered President Trump a degree of relief from his Mueller-related
anxieties by blocking a bill that would have protected the Mueller probe from being disbanded
by the president, but with the special counsel continuing his pursuit of
Roger Stone and
Jerome Corsi , and Congressional Democrats sharpening their knives in anticipation of
taking back the House in January, President Trump is once again lashing out at Mueller and the
FBI, declaring that the probe is an "investigation in search of a crime" and
once again highlighting the hypocrisy in the FBI's decision to give the Clintons a pass for
their "atrocious, and perhaps subversive" crimes.
Reiterating his claims that the Mueller probe bears many similarities to Sen. Joseph
McCarthy's infamous anti-Communist witch hunt, Trump also blasted the DOJ for "shattering so
many innocent lives" and "wasting more than $40,000,000."
"Did you ever see an investigation more in search of a crime? At the same time Mueller and
the Angry Democrats aren't even looking at the atrocious, and perhaps subversive, crimes that
were committed by Crooked Hillary Clinton and the Democrats. A total disgrace!"
"When will this illegal Joseph McCarthy style Witch Hunt, one that has shattered so many
innocent lives, ever end-or will it just go on forever? After wasting more than $40,000,000
(is that possible?), it has proven only one thing-there was NO Collusion with Russia. So
Ridiculous!"
As CBS
News' Mark Knoller notes , this is the 2nd day in a row, Pres Trump likening the Mueller
investigation to the Joe McCarthy witch hunt of the 50s , known for making reckless and
unsubstantiated accusations against officials he suspect of communist views. McCarthy was
eventually censured by the Senate in 1954.
Last night, President Trump threatened to release a trove of
"devastating" classified documents about the Mueller probe if Democrats follow through with
their threatened investigations. He also declared that a pardon for soon-to-be-sentenced former
Trump Campaign executive Paul Manafort was still "on
the table.
My suspicion is that the left, since the special counsel was never actually given a
legitimate crime to investigate, will want this left in place permanently. That's just my
guess though.
Without a crime however, it's hard to argue that the special counsel has any legitimacy,
since the law specifies that there must be a crime.
With that said, how can the results of what Mueller does be looked at as anything but
illegitimate?
Yes, and that I can agree with you on, however, the focus of the investigation has been
misplaced on Trump when it should have been on the Clintons. So again I can say that the
legitimacy of the counsel is in question because with Trump there was no crime.
If anything the criminal activity was perpetrated on Trump by the deep state.
The difference is that McCarthy was right about everything. The similarity is that the
press wanted to talk about everything but the contents of McCarthy's folders. It's like the
Podesta emails - "Russia hacked muh emails!" but no one seems to want to discuss their
contents.
My comments here may try to be humorous but this video needs watched to fully understand
the Mueller probe--and forward to friends........... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aevtHHULag
Trump is right that Mueller is trying to create a crime where there is nothing but
politics as it is played today. Listen to former prosecutor Andrew McCarthy, who now
characterizes the Mueller investigation as 'a clown show', explain in great detail:
The crimes have been found.....and HRC and the democrats and their fbi pals committed
them. Mueller is not "in search of crimes", he's in search of crimes by trump associated
people.
You can see many similarities between the way the Democrats handled the Kavanaugh
nomination and Muellers investigation. If the GOP is smart they will start consolidating all
the facts about the FISA abuse, FBI abuse, IRS abuse, Mueller abuse and start a campaign
about it in time for the 2020 elections. If the Democrats were smart they would drop this
ASAP since it isn't going any where and hope people forget about it. Somehow, I doubt that
the Democrats are that smart... After all there was a movie about Watergate... and seems like
a lot of these people are trying to live Watergate all over again, but it's really about an
abuse of power, by the government and the media.
**** off, the government isnt going to do a ******* thing to these enterprise
criminals.
I find it completely demoralizing and a slap in the face to a country when you have these
enterprise criminals not being indicted and a president threatening to expose them because HE
doesnt like something. This is not about you Trump, this is about THE UNITED STATES.
I mean come-on Trump stop with the BS. DO YOUR ******* JOB.
What in the hell people, I personally find this to be a constant gut punch when these
criminals just commit crimes over and over and it becomes a Hannity or Limbaugh bullet point
for 3 hours.
How ******* stupid of Americans to sit idle while all of this in your face bank robbing
going on. Put another way the bank robber walks from the door of a bank with a sack of cash
to the car and the police say oh look a bank robber, and they turn to their partner and shrug
their shoulders drinking covfeffe
It's the Anglo-zionist entente that meddled in U.S. elections and if Americans don't get
upset about that then they are cucks who deserve their servile fate.
"In his foreword to my book, Alan Dershowitz discusses his time litigating cases in the
old Soviet Union. He was always taken by the fact that they could prosecute anybody they
wanted because some of the statutes were so vague. Dershowitz points out that this was a
technique developed by Beria, the infamous sidekick of Stalin, who said, " Show me the man
and I'll find you the crime ." That really is something that has survived the Soviet
Union and has arrived in the good old USA. "Show me the man," says any federal prosecutor,
"and I can show you the crime." This is not an exaggeration. "
The only reason Mueller exists is for Trump to flog the Dems with. Thats the only reason
Trump keeps him around. The problem is losing the house means losing the power of subpoena,
so this should get interesting. The Repubs have it in for Trump too. Why else would they lose
a supermajority and the power of subpoena while still retaining the power to crush any bill
that the House pushes through? He's doomed, unless he can pull a rabbit out of his ***.
You don't actually believe that, do you? I suppose you still actually believe that they
even bother to count the votes. Trump was INSTALLED, not elected.
To create the illusion of division, which in turn keeps the population divided. It's
theater. Look at everything that's gone down; it's way too stupid to be real and I am
referring to both sides when I say that. The whole thing is custom tailored to stir the
emotions of a population with an average IQ of 100.
The fact that anybody is still clinging to hope in political solutions to anything is
sad and pathetic.
I don't think the political system will solve any of my problems, but Obama made it
abundantly clear that the political system will create plenty of problems.
Does anyone still believe that we have a political solution to our challenges.
1) More invaders than ever flooding our country.
2) Our most notorious criminals still walking our streets.
3) Fed, et al still manipulating our economy.
4) Law abiding citizens still being thrown into jail.
5) Surveillance state becoming ever more all seeing, and all invasive.
6) The push to war stronger than it has ever been in recent times.
7) Over 150 military bases strung across the planet.
8) Open criminality and rampant lies by press and politicians... I realize I already made
mention of the criminals, but thought this deserved emphasis.
9) Big news today... Supremes may limit the degree to which local government can encroach
on eighth amendment... wow... that this is even a debate.
10) The white population is being ordered into silence and obscurity... though no one has
forgotten to collect taxes... while the chimps and thugs are being encouraged to loot what is
left of the asylum...
I could go on... tell me, what is your vote going to accomplish? We are living on borrowed
time, and time has just about run out...
That's why voting is a waste of time because you're simply exchanging one sociopath for
another and I gave up on the notion long ago that we're living in the "land of the free".
That's the biggest line of BS the state has ever pushed but the rubes still believe it.
Progressive income tax, property taxes, central banking and they're all tenet's of communism,
in fact we have attained all ten planks of the communist manifesto. Read the IRS code or the
federal register and you'll see exactly how much freedom you have.
all you need to know about Mueller is his professional position on 9/11/01. From Judicial
Watch:
Under Mueller's leadership, the FBI tried to discredit the story, publicly countering
that agents found no connection between the Sarasota Saudi family and the 2001 terrorist
plot. The reality is that the FBI's own files contained several reports that said the
opposite, according to the Ft. Lauderdale-based news group's ongoing investigation . Files
obtained by reporters in the course of their lengthy probe reveal that federal agents found
"many connections" between the family and "individuals associated with the terrorist attacks
on 9/11/2001." The FBI was forced to release the once-secret reports because the news group
sued in federal court when the information wasn't provided under the Freedom of Information
Act (FOIA).
Though the recently filed court documents reveal Mueller received a briefing about the
Sarasota Saudi investigation, the FBI continued to publicly deny it existed and it appears
that the lies were approved by Mueller. Not surprisingly, he didn't respond to questions
about this new discovery emailed to his office by the news organization that uncovered it.
Though the mainstream media has neglected to report this relevant development, it's difficult
to ignore that it chips away at Mueller's credibility as special counsel to investigate if
Russia influenced the 2016 presidential election. Even before the Saudi coverup documents
were exposed by nonprofit journalists, Mueller's credentials were questionable to head any
probe. Back in May Judicial Watch reminded of Mueller's
misguided handiwork and collaboration with radical Islamist organizations as FBI
director.
"... Everyone knows it's the US presence in the Middle East which creates terrorists, both as proxies of and in resistance to the US imperial presence (and often one and then the other). So reading Orwellian language, Pompeo is saying the US wants to maximize Islamic terrorism in order to provide a pretext for creeping totalitarianism at home and abroad. ..."
"... The real reason is to maintain the petrodollar system, but there seems to be a conspiracy of silence never to mention it among both supporters and opponents of Trump. ..."
"... everyone knows why the usa is in the middle east.. to support the war industry, which is heavily tied to the financial industry.. up is down and down is up.. that is why the usa is great friends with ksa and israel and a sworn enemy of iran... what they don't say is they are a sworn enemy of humanity and the thought that the world can continue with their ongoing madness... ..."
"... The importance of oil is not to supply US markets its to deny it to enemies and control oil prices in order to feed international finance/IMF ..."
Trump also floated the idea of removing U.S. troops from the Middle East, citing the lower price of oil as a reason to withdraw.
"Now, are we going to stay in that part of the world? One reason to is Israel ," Trump said. "Oil is becoming less and less
of a reason because we're producing more oil now than we've ever produced. So, you know, all of a sudden it gets to a point
where you don't have to stay there."
It is only Israel, it is no longer the oil, says Trump. But the nuclear armed Israel does not need U.S. troops for its protection.
And if it is no longer the oil, why is the U.S. defending the Saudis?
Trump's Secretary of State Mike Pompeo disagrees with his boss. In a Wall Street journal op-ed today he claims that
The U.S.-Saudi Partnership
Is Vital because it includes much more then oil:
[D]egrading U.S.-Saudi ties would be a grave mistake for the national security of the U.S. and its allies.
The kingdom is a powerful force for stability in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia is working to secure Iraq's fragile democracy
and keep Baghdad tethered to the West's interests, not Tehran's. Riyadh is helping manage the flood of refugees fleeing Syria's
civil war by working with host countries, cooperating closely with Egypt, and establishing stronger ties with Israel. Saudi
Arabia has also contributed millions of dollars to the U.S.-led effort to fight Islamic State and other terrorist organizations.
Saudi oil production and economic stability are keys to regional prosperity and global energy security.
Where and when please has Saudi Arabia "managed the flood of refugees fleeing Syria's civil war". Was that when it
emptied its jails of violent criminals and sent them to wage jihad against the Syrian people? That indeed 'managed' to push
millions to flee from their homes.
Saudi Arabia might be many things but "a powerful force for stability" it is not. Just ask 18 million Yemenis who, after years
of Saudi bombardment, are near to death for lack of
food .
Pompeo's work for the Saudi dictator continued today with a Senate briefing on Yemen. The Senators will soon vote on a resolution
to end the U.S. support for the war. In his prepared remarks Pompeo wrote:
The suffering in Yemen grieves me, but if the United States of America was not involved in Yemen, it would be a hell of a lot
worse.
What could be worse than a famine that threatens two third of the population?
If the U.S. and Britain would not support the Saudis and Emirates the war would end within a day or two. The Saudi and UAE
planes are maintained by U.S. and British specialists. The Saudis still
seek 102 more U.S. military personal to
take care of their planes. It would be easy for the U.S. to stop such recruiting of its veterans.
It is the U.S. that
holds up an already
watered down UN Security Council resolution that calls for a ceasefire in Yemen:
The reason for the delay continues to be a White House worry about angering Saudi Arabia, which strongly opposes the resolution,
multiple sources say. CNN reported earlier this month that the Saudi crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, "threw a fit" when
presented with an early draft of the document, leading to a delay and further discussions among Western allies on the matter.
There is really nothing in Trump's list on which the Saudis consistently followed through. His alliance with MbS brought him
no gain and a lot of trouble.
Trump protected MbS from the consequences of murdering Jamal Khashoggi. He hoped to gain leverage with that. But that is not
how MbS sees it. He now knows that Trump will not confront him no matter what he does. If MbS "threws a fit" over a UN Security
Council resolution, the U.S. will drop it. When he launches his next 'adventure', the U.S. will again cover his back. Is this
the way a super power is supposed to handle a client state?
If Trump's instincts really tell him that U.S. troops should be removed from the Middle East and Afghanistan, something I doubt,
he should follow them. Support for the Saudi war on Yemen will not help to achieve that. Pandering to MbS is not MAGA.
Posted by b on November 28, 2018 at 03:12 PM |
Permalink
Comments Pompeo: "Saudi Arabia has also contributed millions of dollars to the U.S.-led effort to fight Islamic State and other
terrorist organizations."
Everyone knows it's the US presence in the Middle East which creates terrorists, both as proxies of and in resistance to
the US imperial presence (and often one and then the other). So reading Orwellian language, Pompeo is saying the US wants to maximize
Islamic terrorism in order to provide a pretext for creeping totalitarianism at home and abroad.
The real reason is to maintain the petrodollar system, but there seems to be a conspiracy of silence never to mention it among
both supporters and opponents of Trump.
There is really nothing in Trump's list on which the Saudis consistently followed through. His alliance with MbS brought him
no gain and a lot of trouble.
He did get to fondle the orb - although fuck knows what weirdness was really going on there.
thanks b... pompeo is a very bad liar... in fact - everything he says is about exactly the opposite, but bottom line is he is
a bad liar as he is thoroughly unconvincing..
everyone knows why the usa is in the middle east.. to support the war industry, which is heavily tied to the financial
industry.. up is down and down is up.. that is why the usa is great friends with ksa and israel and a sworn enemy of iran... what
they don't say is they are a sworn enemy of humanity and the thought that the world can continue with their ongoing madness...
oh, but don't forget to vote, LOLOL.... no wonder so many are strung out on drugs, and the pharma industry... opening up to
the msm is opening oneself up to the world george orwell described many years ago...
Take a wafer or two of silicon and just add water. The oil obsession has been eclipsed and within 20 years will be in absolute
disarray. The warmongers will invent new excuses.
A hypothetical: No extraordinary amounts of hydrocarbons exist under Southwest Asian ground; just an essential amount for domestic
consumption; in that case, would Zionistan exist where it's currently located and would either Saudi Arabia, Iraq and/or Iran
have any significance aside from being consumers of Outlaw US Empire goods? Would the Balfour Declaration and the Sykes/Picot
Secret Treaty have been made? If the Orinoco Oil Belt didn't exist, would Venezuela's government be continually targeted for Imperial
control? If there was no Brazilian offshore oil, would the Regime Change effort have been made there? Here the hypotheticals end
and a few basic yet important questions follow.
Previous to the 20th Century, why were Hawaii and Samoa wrested from their native residents and annexed to Empire? In what
way did the lowly family farmers spread across 19th Century United States further the growth of its Empire and contribute to the
above named annexations? What was the unspoken message sent to US elites contained within Frederic Jackson Turner's 1893 Frontier
Thesis ? Why is the dominant language of North America English, not French or Spanish?
None of these are rhetorical. All second paragraph questions I asked of my history students. And all have a bearing on b's
fundamental question.
b says, "And it its no longer the oil, why is the U.S. defending the Saudis?"
The US has a vital interest in protecting the narrative of 9/11. The Saudis supplied the patsies. Mossad and dual-citizen neocons
were the architects of the event. Hence, the US must avoid a nasty divorce from the Saudis. The Saudis are in a perfect blackmailing
position.
Of course, most Americans have no idea that the U.S. Shale Oil Industry is nothing more than a Ponzi Scheme because of the
mainstream media's inability to report FACT from FICTION. However, they don't deserve all of the blame as the shale energy
industry has done an excellent job hiding the financial distress from the public and investors by the use of highly technical
jargon and BS.
S.A. is a thinly disguised US military base, hence the "strategic importance" and the relevance of the new Viceroy's previous
experience as a Four Star General. It's doubtful that any of the skilled personnel in the SA Air Force are other than former US/Nato.
A few princes might fancy themselves to be daring fighter pilots. In case of a Anglo-Zio war with Iran SA would be the most forward
US aircraft carrier. The Empire is sustained by its presumed military might and prizes nothing more than its strategically situated
bases. Saud would like to capture Yemen's oil fields, but the primary purpose of the air war is probably training. That of course
is more despicably cynical than mere conquest and genocide.
Trump is the ultimate deceiver/liar. Great actor reading from a script. The heel in the Fake wrestling otherwise known as US politics.
It almost sounds as if he is calling for an end of anymore significant price drops now that he has got Powell on board to limit
interest rate hikes. After all if you are the worlds biggest producer you dont want prices too low. These markets are all manipulated.
I cant imagine how much insider trading is going on. If you look at the oil prices, they started dropping in October with Iran
sanctions looming (before it was announced irans shipments to its 8 biggest buyers would be exempt) and at the height of the Khashoggi
event where sanctions were threatened and Saudi was making threats of their own. In a real free market prices increase amidst
supply uncertainty.
Regardless of what he says he wants and gets now, he is already planning a reversal. Thats how the big boys win, they know
whats coming and when the con the smaller fish to swim one way they are lined up with a big mouth wide open. Controlled chaos
and confusion. For every winner there must be a loser and the losers assets/money are food for the Gods of Money and War
As for pulling out of the Middle East Bibi must have had a good laugh. My money is on the US to be in Yemen to protect them
from the Saudis (humanitarian) and Iranian backed Houthis while in reality we will be there to secure the enormous oil fields
in the North. Perhaps this was what the Khashoggi trap was all about. The importance of oil is not to supply US markets its to
deny it to enemies and control oil prices in order to feed international finance/IMF
@ Pft who wrote: "The importance of oil is not to supply US markets its to deny it to enemies and control oil prices in order
to feed international finance/IMF"
BINGO!!! Those that control finance control most/all of everything else.
Saudi Arabia literally owns close to 8% of the United States economy through various financial instruments. Their public investment
funds and dark pools own large chunks from various strategic firms resting at the apex of western power such as Blackstone. Trump
and Pompeo would be stupid to cut off their nose to spite their face... It's all about the petrodollar, uncle sam will ride and
die with saudi barbaria. If push comes to shove and the saudis decide to untether themselves from the Empire, their sand kingdom
will probably be partitioned.
The oil certainly still plays an important role, the u.s. cannot maintain the current frack oil output for long. For Tronald's
term in office it will suffice, but hardly longer. (The frack gas supplies are much more substantial.)
Personal interests certainly also play a role, and finally one should not make u.s. foreign policy more rational than it is.
Much is also done because of traditions and personal convictions. Often they got it completely wrong and the result was a complete
failure.
Let us watch what Trump does with this or if the resolution makes it to daylight:
Senate advances Yemen resolution in rebuke to Trump
The Senate issued a sharp rebuke Wednesday to President Trump, easily advancing a resolution that would end U.S. military support
for the Saudi-led campaign in Yemen's civil war despite a White House effort to quash the bill.
The administration launched an eleventh-hour lobbying frenzy to try to head off momentum for the resolution, dispatching
Defense Secretary James Mattis and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to Capitol Hill in the morning and issuing a veto threat
less than an hour before the vote started.
But lawmakers advanced the resolution, 63-37, even as the administration vowed to stand by Saudi Arabia following outcry
over the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi.
"There's been a lot of rhetoric that's come from the White House and from the State Department on this issue," said Sen.
Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. "The rhetoric that I've heard and the broadcasts that we've
made around the world as to who we are have been way out of balance as it relates to American interests and American values."
[/] LINK
TheHill
But Mattis says there is no smoking gun to tie the Clown Thug-Prince to Kashoggi's killing.
TheHill
And Lyias @ 2 is a bingo. Always follow the fiat.
Soon, without any announcements, if they wish to maintain selling oil to China, KSA will follow Qatar. It will be priced in
Yuan...especially given the escalating U.S. trade war with China.
2019 holds interesting times. Order a truckload of popcorn.
Midwest For Truth , Nov 28, 2018 7:29:46 PM |
link
You would have to have your head buried in the sand to not see that the Saudi "Kings" are crypto-Zionistas. Carl Sagan once said,
"One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle.
We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It's simply too painful to acknowledge, even
to ourselves, that we've been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back." And Mark Twain also
wrote "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled."
Gee, not one taker amongst all these intelligent folk. From last to first: 1588's Protestant Wind allowed Elizabeth and her cronies
to literally keep their heads as Nature helped Drake defeat the Spanish Armada; otherwise, there would be no British Empire root
to the USA, thus no USA and no future Outlaw US Empire, the British Isles becoming a Hapsburg Imperial Property, and a completely
different historical lineage, perhaps sans World Wars and atomic weapons.
Turner's message was with the Frontier closed the "safety valve" of continental expansion defusing political tensions based
on economic inequalities had ceased to be of benefit and future policy would need to deal with that issue thus removing the Fear
Factor from the natives to immigrants, and from wide-open spaces to the inner cities. Whipsawing business cycles driving urban
labor's unrest, populist People's Party politics, and McKinley's 1901 assassination further drove his points home.
Nationwide, family farmers demanded Federal government help to create additional markets for their produce to generate price
inflation so they could remain solvent and keep their homesteads, which translated into the need to conduct international commerce
via the seas which required coaling stations--Hawaii and Samoa, amongst others--and a Blue Water Navy that eventually led to Alfred
T. Mahan's doctrine of Imperial Control of the Oceans still in use today.
As with Gengis Khan's death in 1227 that stopped the Mongol expansion to the English Channel that changed the course of European
history, and what was seen as the Protestant Wind being Divine Intervention, global history has several similar inflection points
turning the tide from one path to another. We don't know yet if the Outlaw US Empire's reliance on Saudi is such, but we can see
it turning from being a great positive to an equally potential great negative for the Empire--humanity as a whole, IMO, will benefit
greatly from an implosion and the relationship becoming a Great Negative helping to strip what remains of the Emperor's Clothing
from his torso so that nations and their citizens can deter the oncoming financialized economic suicide caused by massive debt
and climate chaos.
Vico's circle is about to intersect with Hegel's dialectic and generate a new temporal phase in human history. Although many
will find it hard to tell, the current direction points to a difficult change to a more positive course for humanity as a whole,
but it's also possible that disaster could strike with humanity's total or near extinction being the outcome--good arguments can
be made for either outcome, which ought to unsettle everyone: Yes, the times are that tenuous. But then, I'm merely a lonely historian
aware of a great many things, including the pitfall inherent in trying to predict future events.
"The suffering in Yemen grieves me, but if the United States of America was not involved in Yemen, it would be a hell of a lot
worse." And I'll bet Pompeo said that with a straight face, too. lmfao
And as for "...keep[ing] Baghdad tethered to the West's interests and not Tehran's," I'm guessing the "secretary" would have
us all agree "yeah, fk Iraqi sovereignty anyway. Besides, it's not like they share a border with Iran, or anything. Oh,
wait..."
p.s. Many thanks for all you have contributed to collective knowledge, b; I will be contacting you about making a contribution
by snail mail (I hate PayPal, too).
"... a powerful force for stability in the Middle East."
"Instability" more like it.
Paid for military coup in Egypt. Funding anti-Syrian terrorists. Ongoing tensions with Iran. Zip-all for the Palestinians.
WTF in Yemen. Wahhabi crazy sh_t (via Mosque building) across Asia. Head and hand chopping Friday specials the norm -- especially
of their South-Asian slave classes. Ok, so females can now drive cars -- woohoo. A family run business venture manipulating the
global oil trade and supporting US-petro-$ hegemony recently out of goat herding and each new generation 'initiated' in some Houston
secret society toe-touching shower and soap ceremonies before placement in the ruling hierarchy back home. But enough; they being
Semites makes it an offence to criticize in some 'free' democratic world domains.
Instead of the "rebuke to Trump" meme circulating around, I found
this statement to be more accurate:
"'Cutting off military aid to Saudi Arabia is the right choice for Yemen, the right choice for our national security, and the
right choice for upholding the Constitution,' Paul Kawika Martin, senior director for policy and political affairs at Peace Action,
declared in a statement. ' Three years ago, the notion of Congress voting to cut off military support for Saudi Arabia would
have been politically laughable .'" [My Emphasis]
In other words, advancing Peace with Obama as POTUS wasn't going to happen, so this vote ought to be seen as an attack on Obama's
legacy as it's his policy that's being reconsidered and hopefully discontinued.
Trump, Israel and the Sawdi's. US no longer needs middle east oil for strategic supply. Trump is doing away with the petro-dollar
as that scam has run its course and maintenance is higher than returns. Saudi and other middle east oil is required for global
energy dominance.
Energy dominance, lebensraum for Israel and destroying the current Iran are all objectives that fit into one neat package.
Those plans look to be coming apart at the moment so it remains to be seen how fanatical Trump is on Israel and MAGA. MAGA
as US was at the collapse of the Soviet Union.
As for pulling out of the Middle East Bibi must have had a good laugh. Remember when he said he wanted out of Syria. My money
is on the US to be in Yemen before too long to protect them from the Saudis (humanitarian) and Iranian backed Houthis, while in
reality it will be to secure the enormous oil fields in the North. Perhaps this was what the Khashoggi trap was all about.
The importance of oil is not to supply US markets its to deny it to enemies and control oil prices in order to feed international
finance/IMF .
@16 karlof1.. thanks for a broader historical perspective which you are able to bring to moa.. i enjoy reading your comments..
i don't have answers to ALL your questions earlier.. i have answers for some of them... you want to make it easy on us uneducated
folks and give us less questions, like b did in his post here, lol.... cheers james
The US Senate has advanced a measure to withdraw American support for a Saudi-led coalition fighting in Yemen.
In a blow to President Donald Trump, senators voted 63-37 to take forward a motion on ending US support.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Defence Secretary Jim Mattis had urged Senators not to back the motion, saying it would
worsen the situation in Yemen.
...
The vote in the Senate means further debate on US support for Saudi Arabia is expected next week.
However, correspondents say that even if the Senate ultimately passes the bipartisan resolution it has little chance of
being approved by the outgoing House of Representatives.
That is quite a slap for the Trump administration. It will have little consequences in the short term (or for Yemen) but it sets
a new direction in foreign polices towards the Saudis.
Pompeo is a Deep State Israel-firster with a nasty neocon agenda. It is to Trump's disgrace that he chose Pompeo and the abominable
Bolton. At least Trump admits the ME invasions are really about Israel.
Take a look at some of the - informed - comments below the vid to which you linked. Then think again about an 'all electric
civilisation within a few years'. Yes, and Father Christmas will be providing everything that everyone in the world needs for
a NAmerican/European standard of living within the same time frame. Er - not.
'Renewables' are not going to save hitech industrial 'civilisation' from The Long Descent/Catabolic Collapse (qv). Apart from
any other consideration - and there are some other equally intractable ones - there is no - repeat NO - 'renewable' energy system
which doesn't rely crucially on energy subsidies from the fossil-hydrocarbon fuels, both to build it and to maintain it. They're
not stand-alone, self-bootstrapping technologies. Nor is there any realistic prospect that they ever will be. Fully renewable-power
hitech industrial civilisation is a non-deliverable mirage which is just drawing us ever further into the desert of irreversible
peak-energy/peak-everythig-else.
@16 karlof1. I also find your historical references very interesting. We do indeed seem to be at a very low point in the material
cycle, it will reverse in due course as is its want, hopefully we will live to see a positive change in humanity.
For example we know Tesla didn't succeed in splitting the planet in half, the way techno-psychotics fantasize. As for that
silly link, how typical of techno-wingnuts to respond to prosaic physical facts with fantasies. Anything to prop up faith in the
technocratic-fundamentalist religion. Meanwhile "electrical civilization" has always meant and will always mean fracking and coal,
until the whole fossil-fueled extreme energy nightmare is over.
Given the proven fact that the extreme energy civilization has done nothing but embark upon a campaign to completely destroy
humanity and the Earth (like in your Tesla fantasy), why would a non-psychopath want to prop it up anyway?
It is still the oil, even for the US. The Persian Gulf supplies 20% of world consumption, and Western Europe gets 40% of its oil
from OPEC countries, most of that from the Gulf. Even the US still imports 10% of its total consumption.
Peter AU 1 | Nov 28, 2018 9:44:50 PM | 20
b | Nov 29, 2018 2:33:04 AM | 23
USD as a world reserve currency could be one factor between the important ones. With non US support the saud land could crash
under neighbours pressure, that caos may be not welcomed.
Humble people around where I live have mentioned that time is speeding up its velocity; there seems to be a spiritual (evolutionary)/physical
interface effect or something...
Tolstoy, in the long theory-of-history exposition at the end of War and Peace, challenges 'the great man' of History idea,
spreading in his time, at the dawning of the so-called: European Romantic period of Beethoven, Goerte and Wagner, when
the unique person was glorified in the name of art, truth, whatever (eventually this bubble burst too, in the 20th C. and IMO
because of too much fervent worship in the Cult of the Temple of the Money God. Dostoyevki's great Crime and Punishment is all
about this issue.)
Tolstoy tries to describe a scientifically-determined historical process, dissing the 'great man of History' thesis. He was
thinking of Napoleon Bonaparte of course, the run-away upstart repulican, anathema to the established order. Tolstoy describes
it in the opening scene of the novel: a fascinating parlor-room conversation between a "liberal" woman of good-birth in the elite
circles of society and a military captain at the party.
...only tenuously relevant to karlofi1's great post touching upon the Theory of History as such; thanks.
Now as to the question: ¿Why is Trump supporting Saudi Arabia? Let me think about that...
Funny stuff happens when a judge tells a plaintiff she has to
pay $341,500 for the legal expenses of a lawsuit she lost. All of a sudden
Stormy Daniels is saying her CPL, Michael Avenatti, was acting against her wishes:
Greenwald Goes Ballistic On Politico "Theory" Guardian's Assange-Manafort Story Was
Planted By Russians
by Tyler Durden
Wed, 11/28/2018 - 20:25 105 SHARES
After The Guardian attempted to shovel what appears to be a wholly fabricated story down our
throats that Trump campaign manager met with Julian Assange at the London Embassy - Politico
allowed an ex-CIA agent to use their platform to come up with a ham-handed cover story ever;
Russia tricked The Guardian into publishing the Manafort-Assange propaganda.
To that end, The Intercept 's Glenn Greenwald (formerly of The Guardian ) ripped Politico an
entirely new oriface in a six-part Twitter dress down.
Greenwald also penned a
harsh rebuke to the Guardian 's "problematic" reporting in a Tuesday article titled: "It Is
Possible Paul Manafort Visited Julian Assange. If True, There Should Be Ample Video and Other
Evidence Showing This."
In sum, the Guardian published a story today that it knew would explode into all sorts of
viral benefits for the paper and its reporters even though there are gaping holes and highly
sketchy aspects to the story.
It is certainly possible that Paul Manafort, Roger Stone, and even Donald Trump himself
"secretly" visited Julian Assange in the Embassy. It's possible that Vladimir Putin and Kim
Jong Un joined them.
And if any of that happened, then there will be mountains of documentary proof in the form
of videos, photographs, and other evidence proving it . Thus far, no such evidence has been
published by the Guardian. Why would anyone choose to believe that this is true rather than
doing what any rational person, by definition, would do: wait to see the dispositive evidence
before forming a judgment?
The only reason to assume this is true without seeing such evidence is because enough
people want it to be true. The Guardian knows this. They knew that publishing this story
would cause partisan warriors to excitedly spread the story, and that cable news outlets
would hyperventilate over it , and that they'd reap the rewards regardless of whether the
story turned out to be true or false. It may be true. But only the evidence, which has yet to
be seen, will demonstrate that one way or the other. -
Glenn Greenwald, The Intercept
In short, The Guardian tried to proffer a load of easily disprovable claims - which if not
true, are pure propaganda. Once it began to blow up in their face, Politico let an
ex-CIA operative try to save face by suggesting Russia did it . Insanity at its finest.
Ever since Alan Rusbridger. left the Guardian as Chief Editor and made room for Assange
and Snowden etc., it seems that they have been infiltrated by the CIA and Luke H. gets
attention for his stories and Russia-hatred. The ENglish have been conditioned to hate Russia
and the Guardian will do anything to discredit Russia with whatever silly stories. Now they
are begging for money to survive: well, NO, because you went along with fake news to get some
money: corrupt, unlike Alan Rusbridger, Assange, Manning and Snowden.
Doesnt matter, 1/2 of our population is convinced, that our governmemt would never do to
the USA. what they do to other countries for the past 60 years.
Yep, the Russian Collusion / interference is so weak. Look at this story, it's breaking
and will be huge. Epstine's dirty details released, Muller looks pretty bad.
After Democratic party was co-opted by neoliberals there is no way back. And since Obama the trend of Democratic Party is
toward strengthening the wing of CIA-democratic notthe wing of the party friendly to workers. Bought by Wall Street leadership is
uncable of intruting any change that undermine thier current neoliberal platform. that's why they criminally derailed Sanders.
Notable quotes:
"... When you think about the issue of how exactly a clean-energy jobs program would address the elephant in the room of private accumulation and how such a program, under capitalism, would be able to pay living wages to the people put to work under it, it exposes how non threatening these Green New Deals actually are to capitalism. ..."
"... To quote Trotsky, "These people are capable of and ready for anything!" ..."
"... "Any serious measures to stop global warming, let alone assure a job and livable wage to everyone, would require a massive redistribution of wealth and the reallocation of trillions currently spent on US imperialism's neo-colonial wars abroad." ..."
"... "It includes various left-sounding rhetoric, but is entirely directed to and dependent upon the Democratic Party." ..."
"... "And again and again, in the name of "practicality," the most unrealistic and impractical policy is promoted -- supporting a party that represents the class that is oppressing and exploiting you! The result is precisely the disastrous situation working people and youth face today -- falling wages, no job security, growing repression and the mounting threat of world war." - New York Times tries to shame "disillusioned young voters" into supporting the Democrats ..."
"... It is an illusion that technical innovation within the capitalist system will magically fundamentally resolve the material problems produced by capitalism. But the inconvenient facts are entirely ignored by the corporate shills in the DSA and the whole lot of establishment politicians, who prefer to indulge their addiction to wealth and power with delusions of grandeur, technological utopianism, and other figments that serve the needs of their class. ..."
"... First it was Obama with his phoney "hope and change" that lured young voters to the Dumbicrats and now it's Ocacia Cortez promising a "green deal" in order to herd them back into the Democratic party--a total fraud of course--totally obvious! ..."
"... from Greenwald: The Democratic Party's deceitful game https://www.salon.com/2010/... ..."
they literally ripped this out of the 2016 Green Party platform. Jill Stein spoke repeatedly
about the same exact kind of Green New Deal, a full-employment, transition-to-100%-renewables
program that would supposedly solve all the world's problems.
When you think about the issue of how exactly a clean-energy jobs program would address
the elephant in the room of private accumulation and how such a program, under capitalism,
would be able to pay living wages to the people put to work under it, it exposes how non
threatening these Green New Deals actually are to capitalism.
In 2016, when the Greens made
this their central economic policy proposal, the Democrats responded by calling that platform
irresponsible and dangerous ("even if it's a good idea, you can't actually vote for a
non-two-party candidate!"). Why would they suddenly find a green new deal appealing now
except for its true purpose: left cover for the very system destroying the planet.
To quote
Trotsky, "These people are capable of and ready for anything!"
"Any serious measures to stop global warming, let alone assure a job and livable wage to
everyone, would require a massive redistribution of wealth and the reallocation of trillions
currently spent on US imperialism's neo-colonial wars abroad."
Their political position not only lacks seriousness, unserious is their political
position.
"It includes various left-sounding rhetoric, but is entirely directed to and dependent
upon the Democratic Party."
For subjective-idealists, what you want to believe, think and feel is just so much more
convincing than objective reality. Especially when it covers over single-minded class
interests at play.
"And again and again, in the name of "practicality," the most unrealistic and impractical
policy is promoted -- supporting a party that represents the class that is oppressing and
exploiting you! The result is precisely the disastrous situation working people and youth
face today -- falling wages, no job security, growing repression and the mounting threat of
world war." - New York Times tries to shame "disillusioned young voters" into supporting
the Democrats
It is an illusion that technical innovation within the capitalist system will magically
fundamentally resolve the material problems produced by capitalism. But the inconvenient
facts are entirely ignored by the corporate shills in the DSA and the whole lot of
establishment politicians, who prefer to indulge their addiction to wealth and power with
delusions of grandeur, technological utopianism, and other figments that serve the needs of
their class.
First it was Obama with his phoney "hope and change" that lured young voters to the
Dumbicrats and now it's Ocacia Cortez promising a "green deal" in order to herd them back
into the Democratic party--a total fraud of course--totally obvious!
Only an International Socialist program led by Workers can truly lead a "green revolution" by
expropriating the billionaire oil barons of their capital and redirecting that wealth into
the socialist reconstruction of the entire economy.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's "Green New Deal" is a nice laugh. Really, it sure is funny hearing
these lies given any credence at all. This showmanship belongs in a fantasy book, not in real
life. The Democratic Party as a force for good social change Now that's a laugh!
Lies, empty promises, meaningless tautologies and morality plays, qualified and conditional
declarations to be backpedalled pending appropriate political expediencies, devoid any
practical content that is what AOC, card carrying member of DSA, and in fact young energetic
political apparatchik of calcified political body of Dems establishment, duty engulfs. And
working for socialist revolution is no one of them.
What kind of socialist would reject socialist revolution, class struggle and class
emancipation and choose, as a suppose socialist path, accommodation with oligarchic ruling
elite via political, not revolutionary process that would have necessarily overthrown ruling
elite.
What socialist would acquiesce to legalized exploitation of people for profit, legalized
greed and inequality and would negotiate away fundamental principle of egalitarianism and
working people self rule?
Only National Socialist would; and that is exactly what AOC campaign turned out to be all
about.
National Socialism with imperial flavor is her affiliation and what her praises for
Pelosi, wife of a billionaire and dead warmonger McCain proved.
Now she is peddling magical thinking about global change and plunge herself into falacy of
entrepreneurship, Market solution to the very problem that the market solutions were designed
to create and aggravate namely horrific inequality that is robbing people from their own
opportunities to mitigate devastating effects of global change.
The insidiousness of phony socialists expresses itself in the fact that they lie that any
social problem can be fixed by current of future technical means, namely via so called
technological revolution instead by socialist revolution they deem unnecessary or
detrimental.
The technical means for achieving socialism has existed since the late 19th century, with the
telegraph, the coal-powered factory, and modern fertilizer. The improvements since then have
only made socialism even more streamlined and efficient, if such technologies could only be
liberated from capital! The idea that "we need a new technological revolution just to achieve
socialism" reflects the indoctrination in capitalism by many "socialist" theorists because it
is only in capitalism where "technological growth" is essential simply to maintain the
system. It is only in capitalism (especially America, the most advanced capitalist nation,
and thus, the one where capitalism is actually closest towards total crisis) where the dogma
of a technological savior is most entrenched because America cannot offer any other kind of
palliative to the more literate and productive sections of its population. Religion will not
convince most and any attempt at a sociological or economic understanding would inevitably
prove the truth of socialism.
Skripal events probably helped to advance this line of investigation. So in a way UK intelligence services put their own
stooge on the line of fire.
Notable quotes:
"... Russian prosecutors on Monday claimed that Magnitsky and several other people familiar with Browder's illicit activities in Russia may have been killed on his order. They said a new criminal case has been opened against Browder in Russia, and that Moscow will seek his extradition as an alleged ringleader of an international criminal enterprise involved in money laundering ..."
"... The prosecutors identified four people who were suspects in the Browder case, all of whom died over the course of less than two years as the investigation against him unfolded. Oktay Gasanov was the first of the four, dying in October 2007; while Magnitsky's death in November 2009 was the last. By the time of his death, Magnitsky had spent almost a year in pre-trial detention. The two others were Valery Kurochkin and Sergey Korobeinikov, who died in April 2008 and September 2008, respectively. ..."
"... Considering that the three individuals, with the exception of Magnitsky, died within months of each other while being investigated as part of Browder's case, "it is highly likely that they were killed to get rid of accomplices who could give an incriminating testimony against Browder," a senior official with the Russian General Prosecutor's office told journalists. The same may be true for Magnitsky, he said. The prosecutor stressed that Russia didn't conduct detailed studies into how the suspected poison affects living organisms, but several research institutions based in the US, France and Italy did. ..."
"... The prosecutors claim that Browder was the party who benefited most from the death of Magnitsky. They cited journalist Oleg Lurie, who shared a prison cell with Magnitsky before the latter's death. Speaking under oath during a court hearing in New York, Lurie said that his cellmate had complained to him that Browder's lawyers were pressuring him into signing a false statement. Magnitsky's testimony claimed that he had uncovered a conspiracy to embezzle taxpayers' money involving Russian officials. ..."
"... The Russian prosecutors said Browder allegedly wanted to silence his employee after obtaining the false claim. The statement itself was used to blame Russian officials for Magnitsky's death and accuse the Russian government of a cover-up. ..."
"... Described by critics as a 'vulture capitalist,' Browder seemed quite comfortable earning millions of dollars in the financial wild west. In 2005, as fallen oil tycoon Mikhail Khodorkovsky was standing trial for tax evasion, Browder scolded him on the BBC for using personal wealth to grasp at political power, and for leaving "in his wake aggrieved investors too numerous to count." He was also a staunch public supporter of the policies of Russian President Vladimir Putin. ..."
"... The investor then reinvented himself as an anti-Putin figure, using the death of Magnitsky to lobby various countries to impose sanctions on the Russian officials he blamed for his employee's death. The US Magnitsky Act was passed in 2012, allowing people accused by Washington of human rights violations to be targeted. However, it is perceived by the Kremlin as just a tool to restrain Russia for the sake of global political and economic competition. ..."
"... Among Browder's latest exploits is playing a role in the 'Russiagate' story. A key part of the elusive search for collusion between US President Donald Trump and the Russian government is a meeting between Donald Trump Jr. and a Russian lawyer. The meeting was apparently organized with a view to lobbying for the repeal of the Magnitsky Act. Its architect, Browder, has therefore been eager to lend his expertise on 'Russian machinations' to US lawmakers and media outlets. ..."
"... If you like this story, share it with a friend! ..."
Kremlin
critic Bill Browder may have given the order for his employee Sergei Magnitsky to be poisoned
with a rare toxin in a Russian prison cell, along with other suspects in a tax-evasion probe
against him, prosecutors have said. British financier Browder was once a well-connected
investor in post-Soviet Russia, but he became a fugitive from the law in the country after
being accused of financial crimes. In the West, however, he is best known as the employer of
Sergei Magnitsky, a Russian accountant who died in police custody while being investigated in
connection to the Browder case. Magnitsky's death became an international scandal, with Browder
accusing Russian officials of killing him.
Russian prosecutors on Monday claimed that Magnitsky and several other people familiar with
Browder's illicit activities in Russia may have been killed on his order. They said a new
criminal case has been opened against Browder in Russia, and that Moscow will seek his
extradition as an alleged ringleader of an international criminal enterprise involved in money
laundering.
The prosecutors identified four people who were suspects in the Browder case, all of whom
died over the course of less than two years as the investigation against him unfolded. Oktay
Gasanov was the first of the four, dying in October 2007; while Magnitsky's death in November
2009 was the last. By the time of his death, Magnitsky had spent almost a year in pre-trial
detention. The two others were Valery Kurochkin and Sergey Korobeinikov, who died in April 2008
and September 2008, respectively.
Korobeinikov died after falling off a high-rise building, while the others had health
complications. The Russian prosecutors believe all four of them may have been killed with a
rare water-soluble compound of aluminum. Each of the men showed symptoms consistent with being
poisoned by the toxin prior to their deaths, while Korobeinikov had traces of it in his liver,
according to a post mortem. An investigation into four possible murders has been
opened.
Considering that the three individuals, with the exception of Magnitsky, died within
months of each other while being investigated as part of Browder's case, "it is highly likely
that they were killed to get rid of accomplices who could give an incriminating testimony
against Browder," a senior official with the Russian General Prosecutor's office told
journalists. The same may be true for Magnitsky, he said. The prosecutor stressed that Russia
didn't conduct detailed studies into how the suspected poison affects living organisms, but
several research institutions based in the US, France and Italy did.
The prosecutors claim that Browder was the party who benefited most from the death of
Magnitsky. They cited journalist Oleg Lurie, who shared a prison cell with Magnitsky before the
latter's death. Speaking under oath during a court hearing in New York, Lurie said that his
cellmate had complained to him that Browder's lawyers were pressuring him into signing a false
statement. Magnitsky's testimony claimed that he had uncovered a conspiracy to embezzle
taxpayers' money involving Russian officials.
The Russian prosecutors said Browder allegedly wanted to silence his employee after
obtaining the false claim. The statement itself was used to blame Russian officials for
Magnitsky's death and accuse the Russian government of a cover-up.
Last year, Browder was sentenced by a Russian court to nine years in prison for tax evasion.
The trial was held in absentia and Moscow failed to have him extradited to serve the term. The
prosecutors said that they will renew attempts to get custody of Browder as part of the new
criminal case, using a UN convention on fighting transnational crime to have him arrested.
Browder is a US-born British financier, whose change of citizenship had the benefit of
allowing him to avoid paying tax on foreign earnings. However, he claimed the switch was
prompted by his family being persecuted in the US during the McCarthyism witch hunt, while the
UK seemed like the land of law and order.
He made a fortune in Russia during the country's chaotic transition to a market economy,
having invested before there was a stock exchange in Moscow. His Hermitage Capital Management
fund was a leading foreign investment entity in the late 1990s and early 2000s.
Described by critics as a 'vulture capitalist,' Browder seemed quite comfortable earning
millions of dollars in the financial wild west. In 2005, as fallen oil tycoon Mikhail
Khodorkovsky was standing trial for tax evasion, Browder scolded him on the BBC for using personal
wealth to grasp at political power, and for leaving "in his wake aggrieved investors too
numerous to count." He was also a staunch public supporter of the policies of Russian President
Vladimir Putin.
The transformation of his public image from a financial shark into a human rights crusader
started when Browder himself entered the spotlight of Russian law enforcement. In 2007, the
foundation he ran was targeted by a probe into possible large-scale embezzlement of Russian
taxpayers' money. Magnitsky, who worked for Browder and had knowledge of his firms' finances,
was arrested and held in pre-trial detention until his death in November 2009. The British
businessman insisted that the entire case was fabricated and that Magnitsky had been
assassinated for exposing a criminal scheme involving several Russian tax officials.
The investor then reinvented himself as an anti-Putin figure, using the death of
Magnitsky to lobby various countries to impose sanctions on the Russian officials he blamed for
his employee's death. The US Magnitsky Act was passed in 2012, allowing people accused by
Washington of human rights violations to be targeted. However, it is perceived by the Kremlin
as just a tool to restrain Russia for the sake of global political and economic
competition.
Browder's new-found status as a rights advocate and self-proclaimed worst enemy of Putin
helps him deflect Russia's attempts to prosecute him. On several occasions, Russia filed
international arrest warrants against him with Interpol, which even led to his brief detention
in Spain last May.
Among Browder's latest exploits is playing a role in the 'Russiagate' story. A key part
of the elusive search for collusion between US President Donald Trump and the Russian
government is a meeting between Donald Trump Jr. and a Russian lawyer. The meeting was
apparently organized with a view to lobbying for the repeal of the Magnitsky Act. Its
architect, Browder, has therefore been eager to lend his expertise on 'Russian machinations' to
US lawmakers and media outlets.
In the wake of the sending of bomb-like devices of uncertain capability to prominent critics
of US President Donald Trump and of a mass shooting at a Pittsburgh synagogue (
both Trump's fault , of course) – plus a migrant invasion approaching the US through
Mexico – there have been widespread calls for toning down harsh and "divisive" political
rhetoric. Of course given the nature of the American media and other establishment voices,
these demands predictably have been aimed almost entirely against Trump and
his Deplorable supporters , almost never against the same establishment that unceasingly
vilifies Trump and
Middle American radicals as literally Hitler , all backed up by the evil
White-Nationalist-in-Chief,
Russian President Vladimir Putin .
Those appealing for more civility and a return to polite discourse can save their breath.
It's much, much too
late for that .
When Trump calls the establishment media the enemies of the people, that's because they
– together with their
passive NPC drones and active Antifa enforcers – are enemies, if by "the people" we
mean the historic American nation. Trump's sin is that he calls them out for what they are.
Trump didn't cause today's polarization, he only exacerbates it because he punches back.
Good, may he continue to do so. Pining for a more well-mannered time in a country that belongs
to another, long-gone era is futile.
American politics is no longer about a narrow range of governing styles or competing
economic interests. It is tribal. Today's "tribes" are defined in terms of affinity for or
hostility to the founding American ethnos characterized by European, overwhelming
British origin (a/k/a, "white"); Christian, mainly Protestant; and English-speaking, as
augmented by members of other groups who have totally or partially assimilated to that
ethnos or who at least identify with it (think of
Mr. Hamadura in The Camp of the Saints ).
(Unfortunately we don't have a specific word for this core American ethnic identity to
distinguish it from general references to the United States in a civic or geographic sense.
(Russian, by contrast, makes a distinction between ethnic
русский (russkiy) and civic/geographical российский (rossiiskiy).)
Maybe we could adapt Frank Lloyd Wright's " Usonian "? "Or Americaner," comparable to Afrikaner?
"Or Anglo-American
"?)
Since the Left gave up on its original focus on industrial workers as the revolutionary
class, the old bourgeois/proletarian dichotomy is out. Tribes now line up according to
categories in a plural
Cultural Marxist schematic of oppressor and victim pairings , with the latter claiming
unlimited redress from the former. As the late Joe Sobran said, it takes a lot of clout
to be a victim in America these days. The following is a helpful guide to who's who under
the new dispensation:
In most of the above categories there are variations that can increase the intensity of
oppressor or victim status. For example, certified victimhood in a recognized category confers
extra points, like Black Lives Matter for race (it is racist to suggest that " all
lives matter ") or a defined religious group marginalized by "hate" (mainly anti-Jewish or
anti-Muslim , but not something like anti-Buddhist, anti-Rastafarian, or even anti-atheist
or anti-Satanist because no one bothers about them; anti-Christian victimhood is an oxymoron
because "Christian" is inherently an oppressive category). In addition, meeting the criteria
for more than one category confers enhanced victimhood under a principle called "
intersectionality ."
In the same way, there are aggravating factors in oppressor categories, such as being a
policeman (an enforcer of the structure of oppression regardless of the officer's personal
victim attributes, but worse if straight, white, Christian, etc.) or a member of a "hate"
subculture (a Southerner who's not vocally self-loathing
is a presumed Klan sympathizer ; thus, a diabetic, unemployed, opioid-addicted Georgia cracker is an
oppressor as the beneficiary of his "white privilege" and "toxic masculinity," notwithstanding
his socio-economic and health status). Like being Southern, living
while genetically Russian is also an aggravating factor.
Creatively shuffling these descriptors suggests an entertaining game like Mad Libs , or perhaps an endless series of
jokes for which you could be fired if you told them at work:
Two people walk into a bar.
One is a Baptist, straight, male Virginia state trooper whose ancestors arrived at
Jamestown
.
The other is a one-legged, genderqueer
, Somali
DervishWIC recipient
illegally in the US on an expired student visa.
So the bartender says [insert your own punch line here] .
The victim side accuses its opponents of a litany of sins such as racism, sexism,
homophobia, Islamophobia, etc., for which the solution is
demographic and ideological replacement – even while
denying that the replacement is going on or intended. This is no longer ordinary political
competition but (in an inversion of von Clausewitz attributed to Michel Foucault) politics "
as the
continuation of war by other means ." In its immediate application this war is a second
American civil war, but it can have immense consequences for war on the international stage as
well.
To attain victory the forces of victimhood championed by the Democratic Party need to
reclaim part of the apparatus of power they lost in Trump's unexpected 2016 win. (Actually,
much of the apparatus in the Executive Branch remains in Democratic hands but is only of
limited utility as a "resistance" under the superficial Trumpian occupation.) As this
commentary appears it is expected that on November 6 the GOP will retain control of the US
Senate but the House of Representatives will flip to the Democrats.
First, on the domestic political front, while Democrats and their MSM echo chamber have
cooled down talk of impeaching Trump, it will return with a vengeance on November 7
(coincidentally, Great
October Socialist Revolution Day ) if the House changes hands. In contrast to the GOP's
dithering in the area of investigations and hearings relevant to the
US-UK Deep State conspiracy to overturn the 2016 election (which will be buried forever),
the Democrats will be utterly ruthless in using their power with the single-minded purpose of
getting Trump out of office before 2020. They won't waste much time on the phony Russian
"collusion" story (Robert Mueller's report will be an obscenely expensive dud), they'll focus
like a laser on getting Trump's tax returns and dredging up anything they can from his long
involvement in the sharp-elbowed, dog-eat-dog world of New York property development and
construction, confident they can find something that qualifies as a high crime or
misdemeanor. ( Some racist
language couldn't hurt, either.) The model will be Richard Nixon's Vice
President Spiro Agnew , who was forced out of office on charges relating to his time in
Maryland politics years earlier. Even the GOP's retention of the Senate would be far from a
guarantee that Trump won't be removed. It's easily foreseeable that a dozen-plus Republican
Senators would be thrilled to get rid of Trump and restore the party's status quo ante with
Mike Pence in the Oval Office. As with Nixon, Republicans will panic at whatever dirt the
Democrats dig up and demand Trump resign for the "good of the country and the party," as
opposed to the way Democrats formed a protective phalanx around Bill Clinton. Unlike Nixon,
Trump might choose to fight it out in the Senate and might even prevail. In any case, a
change in control of just one chamber means an extended political crisis that will keep Trump
boxed in and perpetually on the defensive.
Third and most ominously, chances of a major war could increase exponentially. If Trump
is fighting for his life, chances of purging his
terrible, horrible, no good, very bad national security team will go from slim to none.
Any hope of a
national interest-based policy along the lines Trump promised in 2016 – and which
still seems to be his personal preference – will be gone. Thankfully, South Korea's
President Moon Jae-in has run with the ball through last year's opening and hopefully
the momentum for peace in Northeast Asia will be self-sustaining. With any luck, the
Khashoggi
imbroglio between Washington and Riyadh will lead to America's " downplaying and
eventually abandoning the anti-Iranian obsession that has so far overshadowed our
regional policy" and to an end the carnage in Yemen, even as the Syria war
lurches toward resolution . Still, the US remains addicted to
ever-increasing sanctions , and despite warnings from both Russia and China that they are
prepared for war – warnings virtually ignored by the US media and political class
– the US keeps pressing on all fronts: outer space, the Arctic, Europe (withdrawal from
the INF treaty),
Ukraine , the South China Sea, the Taiwan Strait,
Xinjiang , and elsewhere. Trump is expected to meet with Putin and Chinese President Xi
Jinping following the US election, but they may have to conclude that he is not capable of
restraining the war machine nominally under his command and will plan accordingly.
She thought the investigation might have about six months left, although if Trump refuses a
face-to-face meeting, Mueller could seek a subpoena to put him before the grand jury. That
could be fought all the way to the supreme court.
There is a precedent, US v Nixon, when the justices ruled that the president must deliver
subpoenaed materials to a district court. Sixteen days later, Nixon resigned.
If Mueller decides not to have that fight, he could write a report saying he believed the
president obstructed justice. If he does not reach that conclusion, the Democratic-led House
could issue its own subpoenas.
"It is a chess match," said Milgram. "We'll have to see how it plays out in the next
year."
In Homage to
Catalonia (1938), his memoir of the Spanish Civil War, George Orwell describes how his
wife was rudely woken by a police-raid on the hotel room she was occupying in Barcelona:
In the small hours of the morning there was a pounding on the door, and six men marched
in, switched on the light, and immediately took up various positions about the room,
obviously agreed upon beforehand. They then searched both rooms (there was a bathroom
attached) with inconceivable thoroughness. They sounded the walls, took up the mats, examined
the floor, felt the curtains, probed under the bath and the radiator, emptied every drawer
and suitcase and felt every garment and held it up to the light. ( Homage to Catalonia , ch.
14)
The police conducted this search "in the recognized OGPU [then the Russian
communist secret-police] or Gestapo style for nearly two hours," Orwell says. He then notes
that in "all this time they never searched the bed." His wife was still in it, you see, and
although the police "were probably Communist Party members they were also Spaniards, and to
turn a woman out of bed was a little too much for them. This part of the job was silently
dropped, making the whole search meaningless."
Orwell's story suggests a new word to me: typhlophthalmism , meaning "the practice
of turning a blind eye to essential but inconvenient facts" (from Greek typhlos
, "blind," + ophthalmos
, "eye"). But it's a long word, so let's call it typhlism for short. Shorter is
better, because the term could be used so often today. Orwell's story is an allegory of modern
Western politics and social commentary, where so many essential but inconvenient facts are
"silently dropped" from analysis.
October
23, 2018globinfo
freexchange
Through his own humorous style, comedian Lee Camp pointed out something quite
serious. As he explained, Facebook's founder and CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, fulfilled all the
conditions necessary to run for president of the United States.
One key condition is certain and obvious: tons of money.
Another one, is to pretend to be religious. And this condition is, of course, particularly
important in the America of Donald Trump. Indeed, as Camp says, the former Atheist Mark
Zuckerberg has suddenly found religion.
And the most recent fulfilled condition by Facebook's boss, was to secure the alliance with the
US deep state.
Indeed , on October 11, Facebook announced the removal of 559 pages and 251
accounts from its service, accusing the account holders of " spam and coordinated
inauthentic behavior. " The primary thread connecting victims of the purge seems to be that
they are critics and/or opponents of the American political "mainstream" or
"establishment."
Also, as Ben Norton of the Real
News points out, Facebook has done this multiple times now. We've seen numerous
pages that have been removed. We've also seen the scare of so-called fake news. And what's
troubling about this is that some of the partners Facebook has in its crackdown on so-called
fake news, vetting pages like these that have been removed, one of the partners is the
Atlantic Council . The Atlantic Council is essentially a kind of unofficial NATO,
funded by the United States government and the European Union along with NATO. Among the other
fact-checkers that have partnered with Facebook to screen so-called fake news is the Weekly
Standard . The Weekly Standard is a neo-conservative website that itself published
false information in the lead-up to the Iraq war, which it strongly supported.
And what about Jeff Bezos? He invested on the mainstream media propaganda power by buying "
one of the leading daily American newspapers, along with The New York Times, the Los Angeles
Times, and The Wall Street Journal. The Post has distinguished itself through its political
reporting on the workings of the White House, Congress, and other aspects of the U.S.
government. " Quite influential on the US political developments.
Right after this key move, Alternet immediately identified the conflicts of interest since the Washington Post would never
reveal the fact that Bezos signed a $600 million contract with the CIA.
It seems that another multi-billionaire rushed to proceed in the necessary actions that could
build a bridge towards the US presidency.
And recently, Jeff Bezos attempted to fix his image by raising minimum wage to $15 an hour for
Amazon workers. The move came out from the pressure exercised by Bernie Sanders and the
progressive movement. Yet, it seems to be another neoliberal-style trick
.
All these indications point to the fact that the liberal plutocracy is determined to 'fire' its
faithful political puppets in the Democratic party, who are rapidly losing popularity and have
become 'inefficient' to serve its interests.
Besides, the progressive movement has already marked some significant victories in the
ideological battlefield. For example, big money and wealthy donors become more and more
repulsive in the eyes of progressive voters and younger generations. And this has become clear
in practice, with the unprecedented victory of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and other progressives
who beat establishment Democrats without the help of the big money.
As the liberal plutocrats understand that it is now pointless to spend money for buying
politicians, they will attempt to take over the Democratic party by themselves. Otherwise, the
party will fall in the hands of the progressives and they will be left without political power.
The liberal plutocrats will use the power of the corporate media to sell themselves as the sole
antidote to Donald Trump.
It is highly unlikely to see this in the 2020 presidential election. The liberal plutocrats
probably prepare the ground to take over the Democratic party in 2024. We may see Mark
Zuckerberg and Jeff Bezos fighting in the Democratic primaries and then, fighting for the
presidency against someone from the Trump 'school', like Nikki
Haley .
The anti-globalist part of the big capital that supported Trump will prefer this development
instead of an uncontrollable progressive movement that will hold political power. Then,
plutocrats of all sides will do what the big capital always does. They will clear up things
between them. In one thing they are unquestionably united: crushing the resistance of the
ordinary people from below.
The world according to Trump -- notice a trend here?
Reporter: "Who should be held accountable?" [for Jamal Khashoggi's murder]
Trump: "Maybe the world should be held accountable because the world is a vicious place. The world is a very, very vicious
place. " -- November 22, 2018.
2007:
" The world is a vicious and brutal place. We think we're civilized. In truth, it's a cruel world and people are ruthless.
They act nice to your face, but underneath they're out to kill you." Think Big and Kick Ass in Business and in Life , Donald
Trump & Bill Zanker, 2007, p. 71.
"Life is not easy. The world is a vicious, brutal place. It's a place where people are looking to kill you, if not
physically, then mentally. In the world that we live in every day it is usually the mental kill. People are looking to put you
down, especially if you are on top. When I watched Westerns as a kid, I noticed the cowboys were always trying to kill the fastest
gun. As a kid, I never understood it. Why would anyone want to go after the fastest gun?
"This is the way it is in real life. Everyone wants to kill the fastest gun. In real estate, I am the fastest gun, and everyone
wants to kill me. You have to know how to defend yourself. People will be nasty and try to kill you just for sport. Even your
friends are out to get you!" Think Big and Kick Ass in Business and in Life , Donald Trump & Bill Zanker, 2007, p. 139.
2018:
"Well, not all people. But it's a vicious place. The world is a vicious place. You know, the lions and tigers, they
hunt for food, we hunt for sport. So, it can be a very vicious place. You turn on the television and you look at what's happening."
Interview with John Barton, Golf Digest , October 13, 2014.
" This is the most deceptive, vicious world. It is vicious, it's full of lies, deceit and deception. You make a deal
with somebody and it's like making a deal with– that table." Interview with Lesley Stahl, CBS 60 Minutes , October 15,
2018.
"This is a r– this is a vicious place. Washington DC is a vicious, vicious place. The attacks, the– the bad mouthing,
the speaking behind your back. –but – you know, and in my way, I feel very comfortable here." Interview with Lesley Stahl, CBS
60 Minutes , October 15, 2018.
Karl Kolchak , November 23, 2018 8:54 pm
The world is a vicious place -- that is utterly dependent on oil and other fossil fuels, and will be until civilization
finally collapses.
ilsm , November 24, 2018 7:19 am
Newly posted DNC democrat Bill Kristol thinks regime change in China a worthwhile endeavor.
The "world is a vicious place" designed, set up, held together, secured by the capitalist "post WW II world order" paid for
by the US taxpayer and bonds bought by arms dealers and their financiers.
The tail wagging the attack dog being a Jerusalem-Medina axis straddling Hormuz and Malacca .
An inept princely heir apparent assassin is far better than Rouhani in a "vicious place".
"... Operating on a budget of £1.9 million (US$2.4 million), the secretive Integrity Initiative consists of "clusters" of local politicians, journalists, military personnel, scientists and academics. The team is dedicated to searching for and publishing "evidence" of Russian interference in European affairs , while themselves influencing leadership behind the scenes, the documents claim. ..."
"... The Integrity Initiative "clusters" currently operate out of Spain, France, Germany, Italy, Greece, Montenegro, Serbia, Norway, Lithuania and the netherlands. According to the leak by Anonymous, the Integrity Initiative is working to aggressively expand its sphere of influence throughout eastern Europe, as well as the US, Canada and the MENA region ..."
"... The work done by the Initiative - which claims it is not a government body, is done under "absolute secrecy via concealed contacts embedded throughout British embassies," according to the leak. It does, however, admit to working with unnamed British "government agencies." ..."
The hacking collective known as "Anonymous" published a
trove of documents on November 5 which it claims exposes a UK-based psyop to create a " large-scale information secret service
" in Europe in order to combat "Russian propaganda" - which has been blamed for everything from
Brexit to US President Trump winning the 2016 US election.
The primary objective of the " Integrity Initiative " - established
in 2015 by the Institute for Statecraft - is "to provide a coordinated
Western response to Russian disinformation and other elements of hybrid warfare."
And while the notion of Russian disinformation has become the West's favorite new bogeyman to excuse things such as Hillary Clinton's
historic loss to Donald Trump, we note that "Anonymous" was called out by WikiLeaks in October 2016 as an FBI cutout, while the report
on the Integrity Initiative that Anonymous exposed comes from Russian state-owned network
RT - so it's anyone's guess whose 400lb
hackers are at work here.
Operating on a budget
of £1.9 million (US$2.4 million), the secretive Integrity Initiative consists of "clusters" of local politicians, journalists,
military personnel, scientists and academics. The team is dedicated to searching for and publishing "evidence" of Russian interference
in European affairs , while themselves influencing leadership behind the scenes, the documents claim.
The UK establishment appears to be conducting the very activities of which it and its allies have long-accused the Kremlin,
with little or no corroborating evidence. The program also aims to "change attitudes in Russia itself" as well as influencing
Russian speakers in the EU and North America, one of the leaked
documents states. -
RT
The Integrity Initiative "clusters" currently operate out of Spain, France, Germany, Italy, Greece, Montenegro, Serbia, Norway,
Lithuania and the netherlands. According to the leak by Anonymous, the Integrity Initiative is working to aggressively expand its
sphere of influence throughout eastern Europe, as well as the US, Canada and the MENA region .
The work done by the Initiative - which claims it is not a government body, is done under "absolute secrecy via concealed contacts
embedded throughout British embassies," according to the leak. It does, however, admit to working with unnamed British "government
agencies."
The initiative has received £168,000 in funding from HQ NATO Public Diplomacy and £250,000 from the
US State Department , the
documents allege.
Some of its purported members include British MPs and high-profile " independent" journalists with a penchant for anti-Russian
sentiment in their collective online oeuvre, as showcased by a brief glance at their Twitter feeds. -
RT
Noted examples of "inedependent" anti-Russia journalists:
Spanish "Op"
In one example of the group's activities, a "Moncloa Campaign" was successfully conducted by the group's Spanish cluster to block
the appointment of Colonel Pedro Banos as the director of Spain's Department of Homeland Security. It took just seven-and-a-half
hours to accomplish, brags the group in the
documents .
"The [Spanish] government is preparing to appoint Colonel Banos, known for his pro-Russian and pro-Putin positions in the Syrian
and Ukrainian conflicts, as Director of the Department of Homeland Security, a key body located at the Moncloa," begins Nacho Torreblanca
in a seven-part tweetstorm describing what happened.
Others joined in. Among them – according to the leaks – academic Miguel Ángel Quintana Paz, who wrote that "Mr. Banos is to
geopolitics as a homeopath is to medicine." Appointing such a figure would be "a shame." -
RT
The operation was reported in Spanish media, while Banos was labeled "pro-Putin" by UK MP Bob Seely.
In short, expect anything counter to predominant "open-border" narratives to be the Kremlin's fault - and not a natural populist
reflex to the destruction of borders, language and culture.
"... It lists Bellingcat and the Atlantic Council as "partner organisations" ..."
"... "The UK's Secret Intelligence Service, otherwise known as MI6, has been scrambling to prevent President Trump from publishing classified materials linked to the Russian election meddling investigation. ... much of the espionage performed on the Trump campaign was conducted on UK soil throughout 2016." ..."
"... "Gregory R. Copley, editor and publisher of Defense & Foreign Affairs, posited that Sergei Skripal is the unnamed Russian intelligence source in the Steele dossier. ... In Skripal's pseudo-country-gentleman retirement, the ex-GRU-MI6 double agent was selling custom-made "Russian intelligence"; he had fabricated "material" that went into the Steele dossier..." ..."
"... this movement in the west by gov'ts to pay for generating lies, hate and propaganda towards russia is really sick... it is perfect for the military industrial complex corporations though and they seem to be calling the shots in the west, much more so then the voice of the ordinary person who is not interested in war ..."
"... Seems to me that this shows the primacy of the City of London, with its offshore network of illicit capital accumulation, within Britain. It is a state within a state or even a financial empire within a state, which, for deep historical reasons isn't subject to the same laws as the rest of the UK. ..."
"... The UK's pathological obsession with Russia only makes sense to me as the city's insistence on continued 90s style appropriation of Russia's wealth ..."
"... British hypocrisy publicly called out. How this all unravels is one to watch. Extra large popcorn and soda for me ..."
"... It seems to me that the UK has far more to lose from doxxing than Russia does. The interference in sovereign allied states to 'manage' who the UK thinks they should appoint does not bode well for such relations ..."
"... A separate subcluster of so-called journalists names Deborah Haynes, David Aaronovitch of the London Times and Neil Buckley from the FT." Subcluster. Love it. Just how crap do you have to be to fail to make it to membership of a full cluster of smear merchants? ..."
"... I doubt very seriously that the British launched this operation without the CIA's implicit and explicit support. This has all the markings of a John Brennan operation that has been launched stealthily to prevent anyone from knowing its real origins. ..."
"... The Brits don't act alone, and a project of this magnitude did not begin without Langley's explicit approval. ..."
"... Now check out the wording in the above document: "Funding from institutional and national governmental sources in the US has been delayed by internal disputes within the US government, but w.e.f. March 2018 that deadlock seems to have been resolved and funding should now flow." Think about that. What would have blocked the flow of USG support for this project?? Why, the allegations of collusion against Trump, of course. Naturally, the Republicans are not going to provide money to an operation that threatens to destroy the head of their own party. So, there has been no bipartisan agreement on funding for anti-Russia propaganda ..."
"... This mob was created in the autumn of 2015, according to their site. That would have been about the time -- probably just after -- the Russians intervened in Syria. The Brits had plans for an invasion of Syria in 2009, according to their fave Guardian fish wrap. ..."
"... Pat Lang posted a report that strongly implies that charges of Russian influence on Trump are a deliberate falsification ..."
"... It seems quite possible that what is alleged as "Russian meddling" is actually CIA-MI6 meddling ..."
"... As I have said before, MAGA is a POLICY RESPONSE to the challenge from Russia and China. The election of a Republican faux populist was necessary and Trump, despite his many flaws, was the best candidate for the job. ..."
"... The Integrity Initiative's goal is to defend democracy against the truth about Russia. All this is so Orwellian. When will we get the Ministry of Love? ..."
"... They shot at an elephant and failed to kill it. So yes, out of the combo of frustration, resentment, and fear they hate the resurgent Russia and prefer Cold War II, and if necessary WWIII, to peaceful co-existence. Of course the usual corporate imperative (in this case weapons profiteering) reinforces the mass psychological pathology among the elites. ..."
"... The ironic thing is that Putin doesn't prefer to challenge the neoliberal globalist "order" at all, but would happily see Russia take a prominent place within it. It's the US and its UK poodle who are insisting on confrontation. ..."
"... Great article! It reminded me of what I read in George Orwell's novella "1984." He summed it all up brilliantly in nine words: "War is Peace"; "Freedom is Slavery"; "Ignorance is Strength." The three pillars of political power. ..."
"... Since UK has always blocked the "European Intelligence" initiative, on the basis of his pertenence to the "Five Eyes", and as UK is leaving the European Union, where it has always been the Troyan Horse of the US, one would think that all these people belonging to the so called "clusters" should register themselves as "foreign agents" working for UK government. ..."
British Government Runs Secret Anti-Russian Smear CampaignsSteveg , Nov 24,
2018 11:43:44 AM |
link
In 2015 the government of Britain launched a secret operation to insert anti-Russia
propaganda into the western media stream.
We have already seen
many consequences of this and similar programs which are designed to smear anyone who
does not follow the anti-Russian government lines. The 'Russian collusion' smear campaign
against Donald Trump based on the Steele dossier was also a largely British operation but
seems to be part of a different project.
The ' Integrity
Initiative ' builds 'cluster' or contact groups of trusted journalists, military
personal, academics and lobbyists within foreign countries. These people get alerts via
social media to take action when the British center perceives a need.
On June 7 it took the the Spanish cluster only a few hours to derail the appointment of
Perto Banos as the Director of the National Security Department in Spain. The cluster
determined that he had a too positive view of Russia and launched a coordinated social media
smear
campaign (pdf) against him.
The Initiative and its operations were unveiled when someone liberated some of its
documents, including its budget applications to the British Foreign Office, and
posted them under the 'Anonymous' label at cyberguerrilla.org .
The Integrity Initiative was set up in autumn 2015 by The Institute for Statecraft in
cooperation with the Free University of Brussels (VUB) to bring to the attention of
politicians, policy-makers, opinion leaders and other interested parties the threat posed
by Russia to democratic institutions in the United Kingdom, across Europe and North
America.
It lists Bellingcat and the Atlantic Council as "partner organisations" and
promises that:
Cluster members will be sent to educational sessions abroad to improve the technical
competence of the cluster to deal with disinformation and strengthen bonds in the cluster
community. [...] (Events with DFR Digital Sherlocks, Bellingcat, EuVsDisinfo, Buzzfeed,
Irex, Detector Media, Stopfake, LT MOD Stratcom – add more names and propose cluster
participants as you desire).
The Initiatives Orwellian slogan is 'Defending Democracy Against Disinformation'. It
covers European countries, the UK, the U.S. and Canada and seems to want to expand to the
Middle East.
On its About page
it claims: "We are not a government body but we do work with government departments and
agencies who share our aims." The now published budget plans show that more than 95% of the
Initiative's funding is coming directly from the British government, NATO and the U.S. State
Department. All the 'contact persons' for creating 'clusters' in foreign countries are
British embassy officers. It amounts to a foreign influence campaign by the British
government that hides behind a 'civil society' NGO.
The organisation is led by one Chris N. Donnelly who
receives (pdf) £8,100 per month for creating the smear campaign network.
To counter Russian disinformation and malign influence in Europe by: expanding the
knowledge base; harnessing existing expertise, and; establishing a network of networks of
experts, opinion formers and policy makers, to educate national audiences in the threat and
to help build national capacities to counter it .
The Initiative has a black and white view that is based on a "we are the good ones"
illusion. When "we" 'educate the public' it is legitimate work. When others do similar, it
its disinformation. That is of course not the reality. The Initiative's existence itself,
created to secretly manipulate the public, is proof that such a view is wrong.
If its work were as legit as it wants to be seen, why would the Foreign Office run it from
behind the curtain as an NGO? The Initiative is not the only such operation. It's
applications seek funding from a larger "Russian Language Strategic Communication Programme"
run by the Foreign Office.
The 2017/18 budget application sought FCO funding of £480,635. It received
£102,000 in co-funding from NATO and the Lithuanian Ministry of Defense. The 2018/19
budget application shows a
planned spending (pdf) of £1,961,000.00. The co-sponsors this year are again NATO
and the Lithuanian MoD, but
also include (pdf) the U.S. State Department with £250,000 and Facebook with
£100,000. The budget lays out a strong cooperation with the local military of each
country. It notes that NATO is also generous in financing the local clusters.
One of the liberated papers of the Initiative is a talking points memo labeled
Top 3 Deliverable for FCO (pdf):
Developing and proving the cluster concept and methodology, setting up clusters in a
range of countries with different circumstances
Making people (in Government, think tanks, military, journalists) see the big
picture, making people acknowledge that we are under concerted, deliberate hybrid attack
by Russia
Increasing the speed of response, mobilising the network to activism in pursuit of
the "golden minute"
Under top 1, setting up clusters, a subitem reads:
- Connects media with academia with policy makers with practitioners in a country to impact
on policy and society: ( Jelena Milic silencing pro-kremlin voices on Serbian TV )
Defending Democracy by silencing certain voices on public TV seems to be a
self-contradicting concept.
Another subitem notes how the Initiative secretly influences foreign governments:
We engage only very discreetly with governments, based entirely on trusted personal
contacts, specifically to ensure that they do not come to see our work as a problem, and to
try to influence them gently, as befits an independent NGO operation like ours, viz;
- Germany, via the Zentrum Liberale Moderne to the Chancellor's Office and MOD
- Netherlands, via the HCSS to the MOD
- Poland and Romania, at desk level into their MFAs via their NATO Reps
- Spain, via special advisers, into the MOD and PM's office (NB this may change very soon
with the new Government)
- Norway, via personal contacts into the MOD
- HQ NATO, via the Policy Planning Unit into the Sec Gen's office.
We have latent contacts into other governments which we will activate as needs be as the
clusters develop.
A look at the 'clusters' set up in U.S. and UK shows some prominent names.
Members of the Atlantic Council, which has a contract to
censor Facebook posts , appear on several cluster lists. The UK core cluster also
includes some prominent names like tax fraudster William Browder , the daft Atlantic Council
shill Ben Nimmo and the neo-conservative Washington Post columnist Anne Applebaum. One person
of interest is Andrew Wood who
handed the Steele 'dirty dossier' to Senator John McCain to smear Donald Trump over
alleged relations with Russia. A separate subcluster of so-called journalists names Deborah
Haynes, David Aaronovitch of the London Times, Neil Buckley from the FT and Jonathan Marcus
of the BBC.
A ' Cluster
Roundup ' (pdf) from July 2018 details its activities in at least 35 countries. Another
file reveals (pdf) the local
partnering institutions and individuals involved in the programs.
The Initiatives Guide
to Countering Russian Information (pdf) is a rather funny read. It lists the downing of
flight MH 17 by a Ukranian BUK missile, the fake chemical incident in Khan Sheikhoun and the
Skripal Affair as examples for "Russian disinformation". But at least two of these events,
Khan Sheikun via the UK run White Helmets and the Skripal affair, are evidently products of
British intelligence disinformation operations.
The probably most interesting papers of the whole stash is the 'Project Plan' laid out at
pages 7-40 of the
2018 budget application v2 (pdf). Under 'Sustainability' it notes:
The programme is proposed to run until at least March 2019, to ensure that the clusters
established in each country have sufficient time to take root, find funding, and
demonstrate their effectiveness. FCO funding for Phase 2 will enable the activities to be
expanded in scale, reach and scope. As clusters have established themselves, they have
begun to access local sources of funding. But this is a slow process and harder in some
countries than others. HQ NATO PDD [Public Diplomacy Division] has proved a reliable source
of funding for national clusters. The ATA [Atlantic Treaty Association] promises to be the
same, giving access to other pots of money within NATO and member nations. Funding from
institutional and national governmental sources in the US has been delayed by internal
disputes within the US government, but w.e.f. March 2018 that deadlock seems to have been
resolved and funding should now flow.
The programme has begun to create a critical mass of individuals from a cross society
(think tanks, academia, politics, the media, government and the military) whose work is
proving to be mutually reinforcing . Creating the network of networks has given each
national group local coherence, credibility and reach, as well as good international
access. Together, these conditions, plus the growing awareness within governments of the
need for this work, should guarantee the continuity of the work under various auspices and
in various forms.
The
third part of the budget application (pdf) list the various activities, their output and
outcome. The budget plan includes a section that describes 'Risks' to the initiative. These
include hacking of the Initiatives IT as well as:
Adverse publicity generated by Russia or by supporters of Russia in target countries, or by
political and interest groups affected by the work of the programme, aimed at discrediting
the programme or its participants, or to create political embarrassment.
We hope that this piece contributes to such embarrassment.
Posted by b on November 24, 2018 at 11:24 AM |
Permalink
"The UK's Secret Intelligence Service, otherwise known as MI6, has been scrambling to
prevent President Trump from publishing classified materials linked to the Russian election
meddling investigation. ... much of the espionage performed on the Trump campaign was conducted on UK soil
throughout 2016."
"Gregory R. Copley, editor and publisher of Defense & Foreign Affairs, posited that
Sergei Skripal is the unnamed Russian intelligence source in the Steele dossier. ... In
Skripal's pseudo-country-gentleman retirement, the ex-GRU-MI6 double agent was selling
custom-made "Russian intelligence"; he had fabricated "material" that went into the Steele
dossier..."
For M16 to expose this level of stupidity is stunning.
this movement in the west by gov'ts to pay for generating lies, hate and
propaganda towards russia is really sick... it is perfect for the military industrial complex
corporations though and they seem to be calling the shots in the west, much more so then the
voice of the ordinary person who is not interested in war.. i guess the idea is to get the
ordinary people to think in terms of hating another country based on lies and that this would
be a good thing... it is very sad what uk / usa leadership in the past century has come down
to here.... i can only hope that info releases like this will hasten it's demise...
Seems to me that this shows the primacy of the City of London, with its offshore network of
illicit capital accumulation, within Britain. It is a state within a state or even a
financial empire within a state, which, for deep historical reasons isn't subject to the same
laws as the rest of the UK.
The UK's pathological obsession with Russia only makes sense to
me as the city's insistence on continued 90s style appropriation of Russia's wealth
@6 ingrian... things didn't go as planned for the expropriation of Russia after the fall of
the Soviet Union.. it seems the west is still hurting from not being able to exploit Russia
fully, as they'd intended...
Let the Doxx wars begin! Sure, Anonymous is not Russian but it will surely now be targeted
and smeared as such which would show that it has hit a nerve. British hypocrisy publicly
called out. How this all unravels is one to watch. Extra large popcorn and soda for me.
I think we've all noticed the euro-asslantic press (and friends) on behalf of, willingly
and in cooperation with the British intelligence et al 'calling out' numerous Russians as
G(R)U/spies/whatever for a while now yet providing less than a shred of credible
evidence.
It seems to me that the UK has far more to lose from doxxing than Russia does. The
interference in sovereign allied states to 'manage' who the UK thinks they should appoint
does not bode well for such relations.
Meanwhile in Brussels they are having their cake and eating it, i.e. bemoaning Europe's
'weak response' to Russian propaganda:
"A separate subcluster of so-called journalists names Deborah Haynes, David Aaronovitch of
the London Times and Neil Buckley from the FT." Subcluster. Love it. Just how crap do you
have to be to fail to make it to membership of a full cluster of smear merchants?
Yet another example of the pot calling the kettle black when in fact the kettle may not be
black at all; it's just the pot making up things. "These Russian criminals are using
propaganda to show (truths) like the fact the DNC and Clinton campaigns colluded to prevent
Sanders from being nominated, so we need to establish a clandestine propaganda network to
establish that the Russians are running propaganda!"
"In 2015 the government of Britain launched a secret operation to insert anti-Russia
propaganda into the western media stream."
I doubt very seriously that the British launched this operation without the CIA's implicit
and explicit support. This has all the markings of a John Brennan operation that has been
launched stealthily to prevent anyone from knowing its real origins.
The Brits don't act alone, and a project of this magnitude did not begin without Langley's
explicit approval.
Now check out the wording in the above document: "Funding from institutional and national governmental sources in the US has been delayed
by internal disputes within the US government, but w.e.f. March 2018 that deadlock seems to
have been resolved and funding should now flow." Think about that. What would have blocked the flow of USG support for this project?? Why, the allegations of collusion against Trump, of course. Naturally, the Republicans are
not going to provide money to an operation that threatens to destroy the head of their own
party. So, there has been no bipartisan agreement on funding for anti-Russia propaganda
BUT...the author assures us that the "deadlock seems to have been resolved and funding
should now flow" Huh?? In other words, the fix is in. Mueller will pardon Trump on collusion charges but the
propaganda campaign against Russia will continue...with the full support of both parties. I could be wrong, but that's how I see it...
This mob was created in the autumn of 2015, according to their site. That would have been
about the time -- probably just after -- the Russians intervened in Syria. The Brits had
plans for an invasion of Syria in 2009, according to their fave Guardian fish wrap.
A lot of
sour grapes with this so-called 'integrity initiative', IMO. BP was behind a lot of this, I
would also think. When Assad pulled the plug on the pipeline through the Levant in 2009, the
Brits hacked up a fur ball. It's gone downhill for them ever since. Couldn't happen to a
nicer lot. If you can't invade or beat them with proxies, you can at least call them names.
If Trump was taking dirty money or engaged in criminal activity with Russians then he
was doing it with Felix Sater, who was under the control of the FBI... And who was in
charge of the FBI during all of the time that Sater was a signed up FBI snitch? You got it
-- Robert Mueller (2001 thru 2013) ...
It seems quite possible that what is alleged as "Russian meddling" is actually CIA-MI6
meddling, including:
Steele dossier: To create suspicion in government, media, and later the public
Leaking of DNC emails to Wikileaks (but calling it a "hack"):
To help with election of Trump and link Wikileaks (as agent) to Russian election
meddling
Cambridge Analytica: To provide necessary reasoning for Trump's (certain) win of the electoral college.
Note: We later found that dozens of firms had undue access to Facebook data. Why did the
campaign turn to a British firm instead of an American firm? Well, it had to be a British
firm if MI6 was running the (supposed) Facebook targeting for CIA.
As I have said before, MAGA is a POLICY RESPONSE to the challenge from Russia and China. The
election of a Republican faux populist was necessary and Trump, despite his many flaws, was
the best candidate for the job.
The Integrity Initiative's goal is to defend democracy against the truth about Russia. All this is so Orwellian. When will we get the Ministry of Love?
"things didn't go as planned for the expropriation of russia after the fall of the soviet
union.. it seems the west is still hurting from not being able to exploit russia fully, as
they'd intended..."
They shot at an elephant and failed to kill it. So yes, out of the combo of frustration, resentment, and fear they hate the resurgent
Russia and prefer Cold War II, and if necessary WWIII, to peaceful co-existence. Of course
the usual corporate imperative (in this case weapons profiteering) reinforces the mass
psychological pathology among the elites.
The ironic thing is that Putin doesn't prefer to challenge the neoliberal globalist
"order" at all, but would happily see Russia take a prominent place within it. It's the US
and its UK poodle who are insisting on confrontation.
Great article! It reminded me of what I read in George Orwell's novella "1984." He summed it
all up brilliantly in nine words: "War is Peace"; "Freedom is Slavery"; "Ignorance is
Strength." The three pillars of political power.
Since UK has always blocked the "European Intelligence" initiative, on the basis of his
pertenence to the "Five Eyes", and as UK is leaving the European Union, where it has always
been the Troyan Horse of the US, one would think that all these people belonging to the so
called "clusters" should register themselves as "foreign agents" working for UK
government...and in this context, new empowerished sovereign governemts into the EU should
consider the possibility expelling these traitors as spies of the UK....
Country list of agents of influence according to the leak:
Germany: Harold Elletson ,Klaus NaumannWolf-Ruediger Bengs, Ex Amb Killian, Gebhardt v Moltke, Roland
Freudenstein, Hubertus Hoffmann, Bertil Wenger, Beate Wedekind, Klaus Wittmann, Florian
Schmidt, Norris v Schirach
Sweden, Norway, Finland: Martin Kragh , Jardar Ostbo, Chris Prebensen, Kate Hansen Bundt, Tor Bukkvoll, Henning-Andre
Sogaard, Kristen Ven Bruusgard, Henrik O Breitenbauch, Niels Poulsen, Jeppe Plenge, Claus
Mathiesen, Katri Pynnoniemi, Ian Robertson, Pauli Jarvenpaa, Andras Racz
Netherlands: Dr Sijbren de Jong, Ida Eklund-Lindwall, Yevhen Fedchenko, Rianne Siebenga, Jerry Sullivan,
Hunter B Treseder, Chris Quick
Spain: Nico de Pedro, Ricardo Blanco Tarno, Eduardo Serra Rexach, Dionisio Urteaga Todo, Dimitri
Barua, Fernando Valenzuela Marzo, Marta Garcia, Abraham Sanz, Fernando Maura, Jose Ignacio
Sanchez Amor, Jesus Ramon-Laca Clausen, Frances Ghiles, Carmen Claudin, Nika Prislan, Luis
Simon, Charles Powell, Mira Milosevich, Daniel Iriarte, Anna Bosch, Mira Milosevich-Juaristi,
Tito, Frances Ghiles, Borja Lasheras, Jordi Bacaria, Alvaro Imbernon-Sainz, Nacho Samor
US, Canada:
Mary Ellen Connell, Anders Aslund, Elizabeth Braw, Paul Goble, David Ziegler
Evelyn Farkas, Glen Howard, Stephen Blank, Ian Brzezinski, Thomas Mahnken, John Nevado,
Robert Nurick, Jeff McCausland
Todd Leventhal
UK: Chris Donnelly
Amalyah Hart William Browder John Ardis
Roderick Collins, Patrick Mileham Deborah Haynes
Dan Lafayeedney Chris Hernon Mungo Melvin
Rob Dover Julian Moore Agnes Josa David Aaronovitch Stephen Dalziel Raheem Shapi Ben
Nimmo
Robert Hall Alexander Hoare Steve Jermy Dominic Kennedy
Victor Madeira Ed Lucas Dr David Ryall
Graham Geale Steve Tatham Natalie Nougayrede Alan Riley [email protected]Anne Applebaum Neil Logan Brown James Wilson
Primavera Quantrill
Bruce Jones David Clark Charles Dick
Ahmed Dassu Sir Adam Thompson Lorna Fitzsimons Neil Buckley Richard Titley Euan Grant
Alastair Aitken Yusuf Desai Bobo Lo Duncan Allen Chris Bell
Peter Mason John Lough Catherine Crozier
Robin Ashcroft Johanna Moehring Vadim Kleiner David Fields Alistair Wood Ben Robinson Drew
Foxall Alex Finnen
Orsyia Lutsevych Charlie Hatton Vladimir Ashurkov
Giles Harris Ben Bradshaw
Chris Scheurweghs James Nixey
Charlie Hornick Baiba Braze J Lindley-French
Craig Oliphant Paul Kitching Nick Childs Celia Szusterman
James Sherr Alan Parfitt Alzbeta Chmelarova Keir Giles
Andy Pryce Zach Harkenrider
Kadri Liik Arron Rahaman David Nicholas Igor Sutyagin Rob Sandford Maya Parmar Andrew Wood
Richard Slack Ellie Scarnell
Nick Smith Asta Skaigiryte Ian Bond Joanna Szostek Gintaras Stonys Nina Jancowicz
Nick Washer Ian Williams Joe Green Carl Miller Adrian Bradshaw
Clement Daudy Jeremy Blackham Gabriel Daudy Andrew Lucy Stafford Diane Allen Alexandros
Papaioannou
Paddy Nicoll
"... When you are paid a lot of money to come up with plots "psyops", you tend to come up with plots for "psyops". The word "entrapment" comes to mind. Probably "self-serving" also. ..."
"... Anti-Russian is just a code word for Globalist, Internationalist. ..."
"... This is such BS. Since when does Russia have the resources to pull all this off? They have such a complex program that they need the coordinated efforts of all the resources of the WEST? This is nuts. ..."
One of the documents lists a series of propaganda weapons to be used against Russia. One is
use of the church as a weapon. That has already been started in Ukraine with Poroshenko
buying off regligious leader to split Ukraine Orthodoxy from Russian Orthodoxy. It also
explicitly states that the Skripal incident is a 'Dirty Trick' against Russia.
The British political system is on the verge of collapse. BREXIT has finally demonstrated
that the Government/ Opposition parties are clearly aligned against the interests of the
people. The EU is nothing more than an arm of the Globalist agenda of world domination.
The US has shown its true colours - sanctioning every country that stands for independent
sovereignty is not a good foreign policy, and is destined to turn the tide of public opinion
firmly against global hegemony, endless wars, and wealth inequity.
The old Empire is in its death throes. A new paradigm awaits which will exclude all those
who have exploited the many, in order to sit at the top of the pyramid. They cannot escape
Karma.
The Western world needs to come to terms with the collapse of the Soviet Union and its
aftermath. Today, Russia is led by Putin and he obviously has objectives as any national
leader has.
Western "leaders" need to decide whether Putin:
Is trying to create Soviet Union 2.0, to have a 2nd attempt at ruling the world thru
communism and to do this by holding the world to ransom over oil/gas supplies. OR
Is wanting Russia to become a member of the family of nations and of a multi-polar world to improve the lives of
Russian people, but is being blocked at every twist and turn by manufactured events like Russia-gate and the Skripal affair
and now this latest revelation of anti-Russian propaganda campaigns being coordinated and run out of London.
Both of the above cannot be true because there are too many contradictions. Which is it??
Yes because imagine that that we lived in 1940 without any means to inform ourselves and
that media was still in control over the information that reaches us. We would already be in
a fullblown war with Russia because of it but now with the Internet and information going
around freely only a whimpy 10% of we the people stand behind their desperately wanted war.
Imagine that, an informed sheople.
Can't have that, they cannot do their usual stuff anymore.... good riddance.
"250,000 from the US State
Department , the documents allege."....... Interesting.
"During the third
Democratic debate on Saturday night, Hillary Clinton called for a "Manhattan-like
project" to break encrypted terrorist communications. The project would "bring the government and the tech communities together" to find a way
to give law enforcement access to encrypted messages, she said. It's something that some
politicians and intelligence officials have wanted for awhile,"........
***wasn't the Manhatten project a secret venture?????? Hummmmm"
Hillary Clinton has all of our encryption keys, including the FBI's . "Encryption keys" is
a general reference to several encryption functions hijacked by Hillary and her surrogate
ENTRUST. They include hash functions (used to indicate whether the contents have been altered
in transit), PKI public/private key infrastructure, SSL (secure socket layer), TLS (transport
layer security), the Dual_EC_DRBG
NSA algorithm and certificate authorities.
The convoluted structure managed by the "Federal Common Policy" group has ceded to
companies like ENTRUST INC the ability to sublicense their authority to third parties who in
turn manage entire other networks in a Gordian knot of relationships clearly designed to fool
the public to hide their devilish criminality. All roads lead back to Hillary and the Rose
Law Firm."- patriots4truth
When you are paid a lot of money to come up with plots "psyops", you tend to come up with
plots for "psyops". The word "entrapment" comes to mind. Probably "self-serving" also.
FBI/Anonymous can use this story to support a narrative that social media bots posting
memes is a problem for everybody, and it's not a partisan issue. The idea is that fake news
and unrestricted social media are inherently dangerous, and both the West and Russia are
exploiting that, so governments need to agree to restrict the ability to use those platforms
for political speech, especially without using True Names.
Oilygawkies in the UK and USSA seem to be letting their spooks have a good-humored (rating
here on the absurd transparency of these ops) contest to see who can come up with the most
surreal propaganda psy-ops.
But they probably also serve as LHO distractions from something genuinely sleazy.
Anti-Russian is just a code word for Globalist, Internationalist. Anything that is
remotely like Nationalism is the true enemy of these Globalist/Internationalists, which is
what the Top-Ape Bolshevik promoted: see Vladimir Lenin and his quotes on how he believed
fully in "internationalism" for a world without borders. Ironic how they Love the butchers of
the Soviet Union but hate Russia. It is ALL ABOUT IDEOLOGY to these people and "the means
justify the ends".
Basically, if one acquires factual information from an internet source, which leads to
overturning the propaganda to which we're all subjected, then it MUST have come from Putin.
This is the direction they're headed. Anyone speaking out against the official story is
obviously a Russian spy.
Better to call it the Anti-Integrity Initiative. UK cretins up to their usual dirty tricks - let them choke on their poison. The judgement of history will eventually catch up with them.
A good 'ole economic collapse will give western countries a chance to purge their crazy
leaders before they involve us all in a thermonuclear war. Short everything with your entire
accounts.
This is such BS. Since when does Russia have the resources to pull all this off? They have
such a complex program that they need the coordinated efforts of all the resources of the
WEST? This is nuts.
Isn't it just as likely someone in the WEST planted this cache, intending Anonymous to
find it?
Any propaganda coming from the UK or US is strictly zionist. EVERYTHING they put out is to
the benefit of Israel and the "lobby". Russia isn't perfect, but if they're an enemy of the
latter, then they should NOT be considered a foe to all thinking and conscientious
people.
Yesterday, the BBC had a thing on Thai workers in Israel, and how they keep dying of
accidents, their general level of slavery etc. Very odd to have a negative Israel story, so I
wonder who upset whom, and what the ongoing status will be.
Thai labourers in Israel tell of harrowing conditions
A year-long BBC investigation has discovered widespread abuse of Thai nationals living
and working in Israel - under a scheme organized by the two governments.
Many are subjected to unsafe working practices and squalid, unsanitary living
conditions. Some are overworked, others underpaid and there are dozens of unexplained
deaths.
England and the U.S. don't like their very poor and rotten social conditions put out for
the public to see. Both countries have severely deteriorating problems on their streets
because of bankrupt governments printing money for foreign wars.
More of the same fraudulent duality while alleged so called but not money etc continues to
flow (everything is criminal) and the cesspool of a hierarchy pretends it's business as
usual.
This isn't about maintaining balance in a lie this is about disclosing the truth and
agendas (Agenda 21 now Agenda 2030 = The New Age Religion is Never Going To Be Saturnism).
The layers of the hierarchy are a lie so unless the alleged so called leaders of those layers
are publicly providing testimony and confession then everything that is being spoon fed to
the pablum puking public through all sources is a lie.
Operating on a budget of £1.9 million (US$2.4 million), the secretive Integrity
Initiative consists of "clusters" of (((local politicians, journalists, military personnel,
scientists and academics))).
The (((team))) is dedicated to searching for and publishing "evidence" of Russian
interference in European affairs, while themselves influencing leadership behind the scenes,
the documents claim.
"... For decades, it has been rumored that the Clintons have FBI files on most members of Congress and use these files for blackmail purposes. Given the events of the past few years, I actually believe this rumor to be grounded in truth. ..."
"... For decades, it has been rumored that the Clintons have FBI files on most members of Congress and use these files for blackmail purposes. Given the events of the past few years, I actually believe this rumor to be grounded in truth. ..."
Somehow I doubt that this Christmas will win the Bing Crosby star of approval. Rather, we
see the financial markets breaking under the strain of sustained institutionalized fraud, and
the social fabric tearing from persistent systemic political dishonesty. It adds up to a nation
that can't navigate through reality, a nation too dependent on sure things, safe spaces, and
happy outcomes. Every few decades a message comes from the Universe that faking it is not good
enough.
The main message from the financials is that the global debt barge has run aground, and with
it, the global economy. That mighty engine has been chugging along on promises-to-pay and now
the faith that sustained those promises is dissolving. China, Euroland, and the USA can't
possibly meet their tangled obligations, and are running out of tricks for rigging, gaming, and
jacking the bond markets, where all those promises are vested. It boils down to a whole lot of
people not getting paid, one way or the other -- and it's really bad for business.
Our President has taken full credit for the bubblicious markets, of course, and will be
Hooverized as they gurgle around the drain. Given his chimerical personality, he may try to put
on an FDR mask -- perhaps even sit in a wheelchair -- and try a few grand-scale policy tricks
to escape the vortex. But the net effect will surely be to make matters worse -- for instance,
if he can hector the Federal Reserve to buy every bond that isn't nailed to some deadly
derivative booby-trap. But then he'll only succeed in crashing the dollar. Remember, there are
two main ways you can go broke: You can run out of money; or you can have plenty of worthless
money.
On the social and political scene, I sense that some things have run their course. Is a
critical mass of supposedly educated people not fatigued and nauseated by the regime of "social
justice" good-think, and the massive mendacity it stands for , starting with the idea that
"diversity and inclusion" require the shut-down of free speech. The obvious hypocrisies and
violations of reason emanating from the campuses -- a lot, but not all of it, in response to
the Golden Golem of Greatness -- have made enough smart people stupid to endanger the country's
political future. A lot of these formerly-non-stupid people work in the news media. It's not
too late for some institutions like The New York Times and CNN to change out their editors and
producers, and go back to reporting the reality-du-jour instead of functioning as agit-prop
mills for every unsound idea ginned through the Yale humanities departments.
Shoehorned into the festivity of the season is the lame-duck session in congress, and one of
the main events it portends is the end of Robert Mueller's Russia investigation. The
Sphinx-like Mueller has maintained supernatural silence about his tendings and intentions. But
if he'd uncovered anything substantial in the way of "collusion" between Mr. Trump and Russia,
the public would know by now, since it would represent a signal threat to national security. So
it's hard not to conclude that he has nothing except a few Mickey Mouse "process" convictions
for lying to the FBI. On the other hand, it's quite impossible to imagine him ignoring the
well-documented evidence trail of Hillary Clinton colluding with Russians to influence the 2016
contest against Mr. Trump -- and to defame him after he won. There's also the Hieronymus Bosch
panorama of criminal mischief around the racketeering scheme known as the Clinton Foundation to
consider. Do these venal characters get a pass on all that?
Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) has announced plans to call Federal Attorney John Huber (Utah
District) to testify about his assignment to look into these Clinton matters. It's a little
hard to see how that might produce any enlightenment, since prosecutors are bound by law to not
blab about currently open cases. The committee has also subpoenaed former Attorney General
Loretta Lynch, former FBI Director James Comey, and others who have some serious 'splainin' to
do. But if both Huber and Mueller come up empty-handed on the Clintons it will be one of the
epic marvels of official bad faith in US history.
There is a core truth to the 2016 Russia collusion story, and the Clintons are at the heart
of it. Failure to even look will have very dark consequences for the public interest.
It ought to be obvious to just about everyone who is paying attention and not a
Corporate-Whore Democrat that the "The Russians Did It" delusion and the accompanying Mueller
"investigation" is only a distraction to draw attention away from the obvious and numerous
crimeS of H. Clinton, including running an electronic drop-box for U.S. state secrets using a
server in her basement, charity fraud, pay-to-play bribe-taking, the uranium to Russia case,
etc. And, that's not counting the inexcusable Unprovoked War of Aggression WAR CRIME against
Libya. (Of course, she had an excuse: "Destroy a country in order to save a few
"protesters".
Mueller is the Deep State (Corporations [especially Military Industrial Complex
Death-Merchants, who direct the politicians and foreign policy actions (continual
War-For-Humongous-Profits that has taken and takes multiple trillions of dollars away from
potential domestic programs & Wall Street bankster-fraudsters who bankrupted the country
with the lead-up to and aftermath of the 2008-2009 financial fiasco and who sent U.S.
industrial production jobs to other countries] and Oligarchs who reap the profits of such
crimes and their results) operative who apparently was brought in the head the FBI to fail to
prevent and to coverup the real actors and actions that occurred in association with the
downing of buildings at the New York City World Trade center on 9/11.
Sorry, nobodies going to jail and all will be swept under the rug. We will have war to
cover their tracks along with all the other frauds. The political buddy buddy system at the
upper levels is set up to protect the guilty, and nobody has to pay the price lest the whole
thing crumble. It's built that way.
Our only way out is a crash and a reset, with no guarantee what happens on the other
side.
I used to be optimistic, but the level of lies, double speak and university factories
pumping out marxist leftists portends a bleak future. How anyone thinks we can reason our way
out of this situation is fooling themselves about human nature.
Nice to see Kunstler focusing on some serious issues like the Uranium One scandal for a
change. He seems to be on the concluding end of a cold-turkey or other rehab from some
long-term unholy influence. As a result, he has been producing increasingly readable articles
for the past several months. Congratulations are due him but with the warning that recovery
is always one day at a time.
" Remember, there are two main ways you can go broke: You can run out of money; or you can
have plenty of worthless money". Both pretty much sums up America's predicament. Americans
are deep in debt, and their money is worthless.
Mueller isn't going to touch the Clintons - they have way too much criminal dirt on him.
And Huber is an unknown lightweight with no Malicious Seditious Media support.
Sooooo . . . there is only one thing to do once the new Congress takes its oath: Trump
gets DOJ Acting AG to appoint the long-awaited Special Prosecutor.
There are more than enough recognized felonies to go after - unlike the Mueller fishing
expedition. That will put the Democrat investigation on ice - mainly because lots of Demo
chairs and members will be part of the investigation.
Any serious investigation of the Clinton Foundation would reveal that "Russian Collusion"
has everything to do with distraction from the crimes of the Clinton family. The fact that
Bill and Hillary have escaped accountability for their heinous crimes is one of the greatest
miscarriages of justice in US history. It is truly quite frightening.
There is a reason why the DOJ, Congress (both parties), MSM, the MIC, the Deep State don't
want ANYONE to look into corruption ... because they are ALL ******* guilty as sin and buried
neck deep in ****. Its long past time for the whole ******* thing to come down. We're all
fucked.
Weiner laptop For The Win. Give us that hard drive, Mr. President! We'll have it all
analyzed in one weekend.
Meanwhile, Seth Rich awaits Mueller's OH SO DILIGENT investigation.
Can you believe that the 'core' of Mueller's 'case' ends up being about WIKILEAKS?
What the serious ****.
If he's done zero serious looks at Seth Rich all Mueller's work will just be thrown out
of court anyway.
Ham sandwich my fat turkey-enriched ***.
For decades, it has been rumored that the Clintons have FBI files on most members of
Congress and use these files for blackmail purposes. Given the events of the past few years,
I actually believe this rumor to be grounded in truth.
This guy is dreaming if he thinks anything is going to happen to the clintons, the MSM/DOJ
is protected those 2 scumbags with the line that if they are investigated trump is going
after his political opponents, just like a banana republic. But truthfully nothing reaks more
of banana repubicism more then letting the high and mighty of on crimes.
If they weren't all on the same side, that of the international bankster cabal, Trump
would order his justice department to prosecute those people you mentioned.
The purpose of the Russia investigation is to fool you into thinking there are two sides,
and to demonized Russia to create public opinion in favor of attacking Russia because it is
not on board with the jwo totalitarian world government. WTFU.
For decades, it has been rumored that the Clintons have FBI files on most members of
Congress and use these files for blackmail purposes. Given the events of the past few years,
I actually believe this rumor to be grounded in truth.
Mueller long ago gave up the fruitless hunt for Russian collusion involving President
Trump and is now desperately seeking overdue library books or unpaid parking tickets on
anyone remotely connected to President Trump to justify his mooching taxpayer dollars.
Comey knows where all the skeletons are buried and has nothing to fear, apart from a
stitch-up behind closed doors hanging, where nobody gets to see. We all know Comey is a Deep
State puppet. This hearing is all for show, to give the dunces the illusion of a functioning
dumbocracy.
Pretty rich that he's worried about leaks....but then again, he would know.
He is damned worried about private testimony as doing so would open him up to suspicion
from guilty parties concerned he might rat them out to save his hide.
Select leaks, even if untrue (fake news turned against them) could bring great pressure
upon his life.
Former
FBI Director James Comey announced over Twitter on Thursday that he has been subpoenaed by
House Republicans.
He has demanded a public testimony (during which legislators would be unable to ask him
questions pertaining to classified or sensitive information), saying that he doesn't trust the
committee not to leak and distort what he says.
"Happy Thanksgiving. Got a subpoena from House Republicans," he tweeted " I'm still happy to
sit in the light and answer all questions. But I will resist a "closed door" thing because I've
seen enough of their selective leaking and distortion . Let's have a hearing and invite
everyone to see." In October Comey rejected a request by the House Judiciary Committee to
appear at a closed hearing as part of the GOP probe into allegations of political bias at the
FBI and Department of Justice, according to Politico
.
"Mr. Comey respectfully declines your request for a private interview," said Comey's
attorney, David Kelly, in a repsonse to the request.
The Judiciary Committee, chaired by Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) didn't appreciate Comey's
response.
" We have invited Mr. Comey to come in for a transcribed interview and we are prepared to
issue a subpoena to compel his appearance ," said a committee aide.
Goodlatte invited Comey to testify as part of a last-minute flurry of requests for
high-profile Obama administration FBI and Justice Department leaders, including former
Attorney General Loretta Lynch and former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates. He threatened
to subpoena them if they didn't come in voluntarily. -
Politico
The House committee has been investigating whether overwhelming anti-Trump bias with in the
FBI and Department of Justice translated to their investigations of the President during and
after the 2016 US election.
Didn't Gowdy deal with this already? "When did the FBI conduct an interview limited to 5
minutes?" "When did the FBI ever conduct an interview in public?" And the rest. Sauce for the
goose is sauce for the gander.
(I happen to think Gowdy is compromised, but the points remain.)
The crook knows a public hearing will allow him to defer answering EVERY question because
it "involves a current investigation", "it's classified", "I don't recall" and every other
dodge under the sun. Put this creep away for good!
Comey knows he can't withstand real questioning. He will be forced to take the 5th. A lot
of desperation showing here. He won't show and time will run out on the House, so Lindsay
Graham needs to take up the cause.
This is long overdue for so many reasons, but the corruption is so pervasive that reform
is nigh impossible (which I'm sure will reassure certain hearts).
I've been rolling on the floor with uncontrollable laughter (between episodes of schizoid
lamentation) listening to Russophobes (e.g., David Sanger of the NYT) rant on in alarmism
about the perils of RUSSIAN COLLUSION, all the while ignoring the elephant from Israel
standing right next to their shoulders.
Seriously, who can coherently argue that any hazard to democracy posed by Russia's
election influence was remotely comparable to the interference of Israel and Britain? And why
should the latter 2′s intentions any more than the former's?
"... Even then, the Russophobes have been frantically making a mountain out of a molehill. We investigated the Russian troll farm in St. Petersburg, for example, and found that it was actually the hobby horse of a mid-sized Oligarch. The latter had been minding his own business trolling the Russian Internet, as the oligarchs of that country are wont to do – until the US sponsored coup in Kiev in 2014 became the occasion for Washington's relentless vilification of Russia and Putin. ..."
"... Still, there is no evidence that this two-bit hobby farm was an instrument of Kremlin policy or that its tiny $2 million budget could hold a candle to the $200 million per year round-the-clock propaganda of Voice of America, and multiples thereof by the other Washington propaganda venues. ..."
"... In any event, turning the Trump Tower meeting into evidence of Russian meddling and collusion actually gives the old saw about turning a molehill into a mountain an altogether new meaning. That is to say, on any given evening Anderson Cooper will be interviewing a lathered-up ex-general or ex-spook admonishing that Natalia Veselnitskaya was actually a nefarious Russian "cut out" sent by Putin to infiltrate the Trump campaign. ..."
"... The fact is, the meeting happened because Veselnitskaya wanted to reach the Trump campaign in behalf of her anti-Magnitsky Act agenda, and to do so used the good offices of what appears to be the Russian Justin Bieber! ..."
"... Specifically, the offer came to Don Trump Jr. via a London-based PR flack named Rob Goldstone, a music publicist who knew the Trumps through the Miss Universe pageant that was held in Moscow in 2013. Goldstone didn't know his head from a hole in the ground when it comes to international affairs or Russian politics, but he did represent the Russian pop singer Emin Agalarov, whose father was also a Trump-style real estate developer and had been involved in the 2013 pageant ..."
"... More fantastically yet, Natalia had meet with Simpson both before and after the Trump Tower meeting apparently to be coached by him on her anti-Magnitsky pitch to the Trump campaign. ..."
"... So if Veselnitskaya was part of a Russian collusion conspiracy, then so was the Glenn Simpson, the midwife of the Trump Dossier! ..."
Political War! Washington Goes Full Retard on the Russia Hoax
by David
Stockman Posted on
August 08, 2018 August 7, 2018 It's hard to identify anything that's more uncoupled from
reality than the Donald's Trade War and reckless Fiscal Debauch. Together they will soon
monkey-hammer today's delirious Wall Street revilers and send main street's aging and anemic
recovery back into the drink.
Except, except. When it comes to unreality, Trump's crackpot economics is actually more
than rivaled by the full retard Russophobia of the MSM, the Dems and the nomenclatura of
Imperial Washington.
In fact, their groupthink mania about the alleged Russian attack on American democracy is
so devoid of fact, logic, context, proportion and self-awareness as to give the Donald's
tweet storms an aura of sanity by comparison.
Their endless obsession with the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting with a Russian nobody by
the name of Natalia Veselnitskaya proves the point. She was actually in New York doing god's
work, as it were, defending a Russian company against hokey money-laundering charges related
to the abominable Magnitsky Act and its contemptible promoter, Bill Browder.
The latter had pulled off an epic multi-billion swindle during the wild west days of
post-Soviet Russia and was essentially chased from the country in 2005 by Putin for hundreds
of millions in tax evasion. Thereafter he turned the murky prison death of his accountant,
Sergei Magnitsky, who was also charged with massive tax evasion, into a revenge crusade
against Putin.
That resulted in a huge lobbying campaign subsidized by Browder's illicit billions and
spearheaded by the Senate's most bloodthirsty trio of warmongers – Senators McCain,
Graham and Cardin – to enact the 2012 Magnitsky Act.
The latter, of course, is the very excrescence of Imperial Washington's arrogant meddling
in the internal affairs of other countries. It imposes sweeping sanctions on Russians (and
other foreigners) deemed complicit in Magnitsky's death in a Russian jail and for other
alleged human rights violations in Russia and elsewhere.
Needless to say, imperial pretense doesn't get any more sanctimonious than this. Deep
State apparatchiks in the US Treasury Department get to try Russian citizens in absentia and
without due process for vaguely worded crimes under American law that were allegedly
committed in Russia, and then to seize their property and persons when involved in any act of
global commerce where Washington can browbeat local satrapies and "allies" into
cooperation!
Only in an imperial capital steeped in self-conferred entitlement to function as global
hegemon would such a preposterous extraterritorial arrangement be even thinkable. After all,
what happens to Russians in Russian prisons is absolutely none of Washington's business
– nor by any stretch of the imagination does it pose any threat whatsoever to America's
homeland security.
So the irony of the Trump Tower nothingburger is that the alleged Russian agent was here
fighting Washington's meddling in Russia , not hooking up with Trump's campaign
to further a Kremlin plot to attack American democracy.
You could properly call this a case of the pot calling the kettle black, but Imperial
Washington and its shills among the ranks of Dem politicians and megaphones in the MSM
wouldn't get the joke in the slightest. That's because Washington is in the business of
meddling in the domestic affairs of virtually every country in the world – friend, foe
and also-ran – on a massive scale never before imagined in human history.
That's what the hideously excessive $75 billion budget of the so-called
17-agency "intelligence community" (IC) gets you. To wit, a backdoor into every access point
and traffic exchange node on the entire global internet, and from there the ability to hack,
surveil, exfiltrate or corrupt the communications of any government, political party,
business or private citizen virtually anywhere on the planet.
And, no, this isn't being done for the noble purpose of rooting-out the terrorist needles
in the global haystack of communications and Internet traffic. It's done because the IC has
the resources to do it and because it has invested itself with endless missions of global
hegemony.
These self-serving missions, in turn, justify its existence, keep the politicians of
Washington well stocked in scary bedtime stories and, most important of all, ensure that the
fiscal gravy train remains loaded to the gills and that the gilded prosperity of the beltway
never falters.
Indeed, if Washington were looking for corporate pen name it would be Meddling "R" Us. And
we speak here not merely of its vast and secretive spy apparatus, but also of its completely
visible everyday intrusions in the affairs of other countries via the billions that are
channeled through the National Endowment for Democracy and the vast NGO network funded by the
State Department, DOD and other organs of the national security complex.
The $750 million per year Board For International Broadcasting, for example,
is purely in the propaganda business; and despite the Cold War's end 27 years ago, still
carries out relentless "agit prop" in Russia and among the reincarnated states of the old
Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact via Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and the Voice of
America.
For example, here is a Voice of America tweet from this morning falsely charging Russia
with the occupation of the former Soviet state of Georgia.
In fact, Russia came to the aid of the Russian-speaking population of the breakaway
province of South Ossetia in 2008; the latter felt imperiled by the grandiose pretensions of
the corrupt Saakashvili government in Tbilisi, which had unilaterally launched an
indiscriminate military assault on the major cities of the province.
Moreover, even an EU commission investigation came to that conclusion way back in 2009
shortly after the events that the inhabitants of South Ossetia feared would lead to a
genocidal invasion by Georgia's military.
An investigation into last year's Russia-Georgia war delivered a damning indictment of
President Mikheil Saakashvili today, accusing Tbilisi of launching an indiscriminate
artillery barrage on the city of Tskhinvali that started the war.
In more than 1,000 pages of analysis, documentation and witness statements, the most
exhaustive inquiry into the five-day conflict dismissed Georgian claims that the artillery
attack was in response to a Russian invasion
The EU-commissioned report, by a fact-finding mission of more than 20 political,
military, human rights and international law experts led by the Swiss diplomat, Heidi
Tagliavini, was unveiled in Brussels today after nine months of work.
Flatly dismissing Saakashvili's version, the report said: "There was no ongoing
armed attack by Russia before the start of the Georgian operation Georgian claims of a
large-scale presence of Russian armed forces in South Ossetia prior to the Georgian offensive
could not be substantiated
The point is, whatever the rights and wrongs of the statelets and provinces attempting to
sort themselves out after the fall of the Soviet Union, this was all happening on Russia's
doorsteps and was none of Washington business even at the time. But wasting taxpayer money 10
years later by siding with the revanchist claims of the Georgian government is just plain
ludicrous.
It's also emblematic of why the Imperial City is so clueless about the rank hypocrisy
implicit in the Russian meddling hoax. Believing that America is the Indispensable Nation and
that Washington operates by its own hegemonic rules, they are now Shocked, Shocked! to find
that the victims of their blatant intrusions might actually endeavor to fight back.
Even then, the Russophobes have been frantically making a mountain out of a molehill.
We investigated the Russian troll farm in St. Petersburg, for example, and found that it was
actually the hobby horse of a mid-sized Oligarch. The latter had been minding his own
business trolling the Russian Internet, as the oligarchs of that country are wont to do
– until the US sponsored coup in Kiev in 2014 became the occasion for Washington's
relentless vilification of Russia and Putin.
Accordingly, this particular Russian patriot hired a few dozen students at $3-4 per hour
who mostly spoke English as a third-language. Operating on 12-hour shifts, they randomly
trolled Facebook and other US based social media, posting crude and sometimes incoherent
political messages from virtually all points on the compass – messages that were
instantly lost in the great sea of social media trivia and mendacity.
Still, there is no evidence that this two-bit hobby farm was an instrument of Kremlin
policy or that its tiny $2 million budget could hold a candle to the $200
million per year round-the-clock propaganda of Voice of America, and multiples
thereof by the other Washington propaganda venues.
In any event, turning the Trump Tower meeting into evidence of Russian meddling and
collusion actually gives the old saw about turning a molehill into a mountain an altogether
new meaning. That is to say, on any given evening Anderson Cooper will be interviewing a
lathered-up ex-general or ex-spook admonishing that Natalia Veselnitskaya was actually a
nefarious Russian "cut out" sent by Putin to infiltrate the Trump campaign.
Really?
We have no brief for Vlad Putin, but one thing we are quite sure of is that he is anything
but stupid. So would he really send a secret agent to Trump Tower – who neither speaks
nor writes a word of English and has been to America only once – in order to plot a
surreptitious attempt to manipulate the American election?
The fact is, the meeting happened because Veselnitskaya wanted to reach the Trump
campaign in behalf of her anti-Magnitsky Act agenda, and to do so used the good offices of
what appears to be the Russian Justin Bieber!
Specifically, the offer came to Don Trump Jr. via a London-based PR flack named Rob
Goldstone, a music publicist who knew the Trumps through the Miss Universe pageant that was
held in Moscow in 2013. Goldstone didn't know his head from a hole in the ground when it
comes to international affairs or Russian politics, but he did represent the Russian pop
singer Emin Agalarov, whose father was also a Trump-style real estate developer and had been
involved in the 2013 pageant .
Said the London PR flack in an email to Don Jr:
"Emin just called and asked me to contact you with something very interesting .The
Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered
to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would
incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your
father .( this is) "part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump."
And a very big so what!
For one thing, the last "Crown prosecutor of Russia" was assassinated by the Bolsheviks in
1917, suggesting Goldstone's grasp of the contemporary Russian government was well less than
rudimentary.
Secondly, there was neither a crime nor national security issue involved when a campaign
seeks to dig-up dirt from foreign nationals. The crime is when they pay for it, and do not
report the expenditure to the Federal Elections Commission.
Of course, that's exactly what Hillary Clinton's campaign did with its multi-million
funding of the Trump Dossier, generated by foreign national Christopher Steele and
intermediated to the FBI and other IC agencies by Fusion GPS.
And that gets us to the mind-boggling silliness of the whole Trump Tower affair.
Self-evidently, the dirt on Hillary suggestion was a come-on so that Veselnitskaya (through
her Russian translator) could make a pitch against the Magnitsky Act; and to point out that
after 33,000 Russian babies had been adopted by Americans before its enactment, that avenue
of adoption had been stopped cold when the Kremlin found it necessary to retaliate.
Don's Jr. emails to his secretary from the meeting long ago proved that he immediately
recognized Natalia's bait and switch operation, and that he wanted to be summoned to the
phone so he could end what he saw was a complete waste of the campaign's time.
But here's the joker in the woodpile. Its seem that Glenn Simpson, proprietor of Fusion
GPs, had also been hired by Veselnitskaya Russian clients to make a case in Washington
against the Magnitsky Act, and to also dig up dirt on the scoundrel behind it: Bill
Browder.
More fantastically yet, Natalia had meet with Simpson both before and after the Trump
Tower meeting apparently to be coached by him on her anti-Magnitsky pitch to the Trump
campaign.
So if Veselnitskaya was part of a Russian collusion conspiracy, then so was the Glenn
Simpson, the midwife of the Trump Dossier!
It doesn't get any crazier than that – meaning that the Donald could not be more
correct about this entire farce:
This is a terrible situation and Attorney General Jeff Sessions should stop this Rigged
Witch Hunt right now, before it continues to stain our country any further. Bob Mueller is
totally conflicted, and his 17 Angry Democrats that are doing his dirty work are a disgrace
to USA!
In truth, the only basis for Natalia Veselnitskaya's alleged Putin ties was through
Russia's prosecutor general, Yuri Chaika.
And exactly why was Chaika interested in making American contacts?
Why, because he was pursuing one Bill Browder, fugitive from Russian justice and the
driving force behind the abominable Magnitsky Act – an instrument of meddling in the
domestic affairs of foreign countries like no other. As one report described it:
Chaika's foray into American politics began in earnest in April 2016. That is when his
office gave Republican congressman Dana Rohrabacher and three other US representatives a
confidential letter detailing American investor Bill Browder's "illegal scheme of buying up
Gazprom shares without permission of the Government of Russia" between 1999 and 2006, one
month after Rohrabacher returned from Moscow.
As it happened, Veselnitskaya had apparently brought a memo to the Trump Tower meeting
that contained many of the same talking points as one written by Chaika's office two months
earlier.
There you have it.
At the heart of the Russian collusion hoax and the wellspring of the current Russophobia
is nothing more than a half-baked effort by Russians to tell their side of the Magnitsky
story, and to expose the real villain in the piece – a monumentally greedy hedge fund
operator who had stolen the Russian people blind and then conveniently gave up his American
citizenship so that he would neither do time in a Russian jail or pay taxes in America.
Spoiler Alert for next part: When both economic policy and politics have gone full retard
in the Imperial City is there anything which could possibly go wrong – that might
pollute the punch bowl on Wall Street?
Don't hold your breath for it, but there should be an abject apology coming from US
politicians, pundits, media and intelligence agencies.
For months leading up to the midterm elections held last week, we were told that the Kremlin
was deviously targeting the ballot, in a replay of the way Russian hackers allegedly interfered
in the 2016 presidential race to get Donald Trump into the White House.
Supposedly reliable news media outlets like the New York Times and heavyweight Senate panels
were quoting intelligence sources
warning that the "Russians are coming – again".
So what just happened? Nothing. Where were the social media campaigns of malicious
Russian-inspired misinformation "sowing division"? Whatever happened to the supposed army of
internet bots and trolls that the Kremlin command? Where are the electoral machines tampered
with to give false vote counts?
Facebook said it had
deleted around 100 social media accounts that it claimed "were linked" to pro-Russian
entities intent on meddling in the midterms. How did Facebook determined that "linkage"? It was
based on a "tip-off" by US intelligence agencies. Hardly convincing proof of a Kremlin plot to
destabilize American democracy.
If elusive Russian hackers somehow targeted the midterm Congressional elections they
certainly seem to have a convoluted objective. Trump's Republican party lost the House of
Representatives to Democrat control. That could result in more Congressional probes into his
alleged collusion with Russia. It could also result in Democrats filing subpoenas for Trump to
finally disclose his personal tax details which he has strenuously refused to do so far.
Moreover, having lost control of one of the two Congressional chambers, Trump will find his
legislative plans being slowed down and even blocked.
Thus, if Russian President Vladimir Putin and the Kremlin are the purported "puppet masters"
behind the Trump presidency, they have a very strange way of showing their support, as can be
seen from the setbacks of the midterms.
A far simpler, more plausible explanation is that there was no Russian hacking of the
midterms, just as there wasn't in the 2016 presidential election. Russian interference,
influence campaigns, malign activity, "Russia-gate", and so on, are nothing but myths conjured
up by Trump's domestic political opponents and their obliging media outlets.
Now that all the dire warnings of Russia hacking into the midterms have been shown to be a
mirage, the US intelligence agencies seem to be adopting a new spin on events. We are told that
they "prevented Russian interference".
In a Bloomberg
article headlined 'One Big Loser of the Midterms – Russian Hackers', it is claimed:
"Security officials believe [sic] they prevented cyberattacks on election day." However, they
added, "it's hard to tell."
In other words, US security officials have no idea if putative Russian hackers were
targeting the elections. The contorted logic is that if there were no hacking incidents, then
it was because US cybersecurity prevented them. This is tantamount to invoking absence to prove
presence. It's voodoo intelligence.
President Trump has a point when he lambastes Democrats and their supportive media for
crying foul only when they lose an election. In various midterm races, it was apparent that
Democrats would protest some alleged electoral discrepancy when their candidate lost against a
Republican. But when Democrats came out on top, there were no irregularities.
One can imagine therefore that if the Democrats had failed to win control over the House of
Representatives, then they and their intelligence agency and media supporters would have been
clamoring about "Russian interference" to help Republicans retain the House.
As it turned out, the Democrats won the House, so there is no need to invoke the Russian
bogeyman. In that case, it is claimed, Russian hackers "did not succeed" to penetrate the
electoral system or pivot social media.
Nonetheless, there was indeed rampant interference in the recent US election. For one thing,
some 28 pro-Israeli Political Action Committees and wealthy individuals spent around $15
million to promote 80 candidates in the Congressional elections, according to the organization If
Americans Knew. This foreign influence on US voters in favor of Israeli interests is nothing
new. It is standard practice in every election.
During the presidential campaign in 2016, the Israeli-American billionaire Sheldon Adelson
reportedly donated $25 million to Trump's campaign. Undoubtedly that legalized bribery is
why Trump on becoming president has pushed such a slavishly pro-Israeli Middle East policy,
including his inflammatory declaration of Jerusalem as the sole capital of the Zionist
state.
But there is no outcry about "Israeli influence campaigns" and "hacking" from the US media
or from Democrats over this egregious interference in American democracy. No, they prefer to
obsess about the phantom of Russian meddling.
Another evident source of electoral hacking was of the homegrown variety. There seem to be
valid grievances among ordinary American voters about gerrymandering of electoral districts by
incumbent parties, as well as voter disenfranchisement, especially among poor African-American
and Latino communities. There were also reported cases of phone canvassers making malicious
calls to discredit candidates, as was claimed by the beaten Democrat contenders in Florida and
Georgia.
Clearly, there are huge flaws in the US electoral system. Most glaringly, the gargantuan
problem of campaign funding by corporations, banks and other representatives of the oligarchic
system.
A further chronic problem is yawning voter apathy. The recent midterms were said to have
seen a "record turnout" of voters. The official figure is that only 48 per
cent of voters exercised their democratic right. That is, over half the voting population view
the ballot exercise as not worth while or something worse. This is a constant massive disavowal
of American democracy expressed in every US election.
The midterm elections demonstrate once again that American democracy has its own inherent
failings. But the political establishment and the ruling oligarchy are loathe to fix a system
from which they benefit.
When the system becomes unwieldy or throws up results that the establishment does not quite
like – such as the election of uncouth, big mouth Trump – then the "error" must be
"explained" away by some extraneous factor, such as "Russian hacking".
However, the latest exercise in American democracy, for what it is worth, gave the salutary
demonstration of the myth of Russian interference – at least for those who care to
honestly see that.
Another valuable demonstration was this: if supposedly reliable news media and an
intelligence apparatus that is charged with national security have been caught out telling
spectacular lies with regard to "Russian hacking", then what credibility do they have on a host
of other anti-Russia claims, or, indeed, on many other matters?
The Democrats are politically responsible for the rise of Trump.
Notable quotes:
"... As Obama said following Trump's election, the Democrats and Republicans are "on the same team" and their differences amount to an "intramural scrimmage." They are on the team of, and owned lock stock and barrel by, the American corporate-financial oligarchy, personified by Trump. ..."
"... The Democrats are, moreover, politically responsible for the rise of Trump. The Obama administration paved the way for Trump by implementing the pro-corporate (Wall Street bailout), pro-war (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, drone killings) and anti-democratic (mass surveillance, persecution of Snowden, Assange, Manning) policies that Trump is continuing and intensifying. And by breaking all his election promises and carrying out austerity policies against the working class, Obama enabled the billionaire gangster Trump to make an appeal to sections of workers devastated by deindustrialization, presenting himself as the anti-establishment spokesman for the "forgotten man." ..."
"... This was compounded by the right-wing Clinton candidacy, which exuded contempt for the working class and appealed for support to the military and CIA and wealthy middle-class layers obsessed with identity politics. Sanders' endorsement of Clinton gave Trump an open field to exploit discontent among impoverished social layers. ..."
Pelosi's deputy in the House, Steny Hoyer, sums up the right-wing policies of the Democrats,
declaring: "His [Trump's] objectives are objectives that we share. If he really means that,
then there is an opening for us to work together."
So much for the moral imperative of voting for the Democrats to stop Trump! As Obama said
following Trump's election, the Democrats and Republicans are "on the same team" and their
differences amount to an "intramural scrimmage." They are on the team of, and owned lock stock
and barrel by, the American corporate-financial oligarchy, personified by Trump.
The Democrats are, moreover, politically responsible for the rise of Trump. The Obama
administration paved the way for Trump by implementing the pro-corporate (Wall Street bailout),
pro-war (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, drone killings) and anti-democratic (mass
surveillance, persecution of Snowden, Assange, Manning) policies that Trump is continuing and
intensifying. And by breaking all his election promises and carrying out austerity policies
against the working class, Obama enabled the billionaire gangster Trump to make an appeal to
sections of workers devastated by deindustrialization, presenting himself as the
anti-establishment spokesman for the "forgotten man."
This was compounded by the right-wing Clinton candidacy, which exuded contempt for the
working class and appealed for support to the military and CIA and wealthy middle-class layers
obsessed with identity politics. Sanders' endorsement of Clinton gave Trump an open field to
exploit discontent among impoverished social layers.
The same process is taking place internationally. While strikes and other expressions of
working class opposition are growing and broad masses are moving to the left, the right-wing
policies of supposedly "left" establishment parties are enabling far-right and neo-fascist
forces to gain influence and power in countries ranging from Germany, Italy, Hungary and Poland
to Brazil.
As for Gay's injunction to vote "pragmatically," this is a crude promotion of the bankrupt
politics that are brought forward in every election to keep workers tied to the capitalist
two-party system. "You have only two choices. That is the reality, whether you like it or not."
And again and again, in the name of "practicality," the most unrealistic and impractical policy
is promoted -- supporting a party that represents the class that is oppressing and exploiting
you! The result is precisely the disastrous situation working people and youth face today --
falling wages, no job security, growing repression and the mounting threat of world war.
The Democratic Party long ago earned the designation "graveyard of social protest
movements," and for good reason. From the Populist movement of the late 19th century, to the
semi-insurrectional industrial union movement of the 1930s, to the civil rights movement of the
1950s and 1960s, to the mass anti-war protest movements of the 1960s and the eruption of
international protests against the Iraq War in the early 2000s -- every movement against the
depredations of American capitalism has been aborted and strangled by being channeled behind
the Democratic Party.
So the USA Congress operates under CIA surveillance... Due to CIA access to Saudi money the situation is probably much
worse then described as CIA tried to protect both its level of influence and shadow revenue streams.
Notable quotes:
"... The idea that the CIA would monitor communications of U.S. government officials, including those in the legislative branch, is itself controversial. But in this case, the CIA picked up some of the most sensitive emails between Congress and intelligence agency workers blowing the whistle on alleged wrongdoing. ..."
"... I am not confident that Congressional staff fully understood that their whistleblower-related communications with my Executive Director of whistleblowing might be reviewed as a result of routine [CIA counterintelligence] monitoring." -- Intelligence Community Inspector General 2014 ..."
"... The disclosures from 2014 were released late Thursday by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). "The fact that the CIA under the Obama administration was reading Congressional staff's emails about intelligence community whistleblowers raises serious policy concerns as well as potential Constitutional separation-of-powers issues that must be discussed publicly," wrote Grassley in a statement. ..."
"... According to Grassley, he originally began trying to have the letters declassified more than four years ago but was met with "bureaucratic foot-dragging, led by Brennan and Clapper." ..."
"... Back in 2014, Senators Grassley and Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) had asked then-Director of National Intelligence Clapper about the possibility of the CIA monitoring Congressional communications ..."
"... CIA security compiled a report that include excerpts of whistleblower-related communications and this reports was eventually shared with the Director of the Office of Security and the Chief of the Counterintelligence Center" who "briefed the CIA Deputy Director, Deputy Executive Director, and the Chiefs of Staff for both the CIA Director and the Deputy Director ..."
"... During Director Clapper's tenure, senior intelligence officials engaged in a deception spree regarding mass surveillance," said Wyden upon Clapper's retirement in 2016. ..."
CIA intercepted Congressional emails about whistleblowers in 2014
The Inspector General expressed concern about "potential compromise to whistleblower confidentiality" and "chilling effect"
Newly-declassified documents show the CIA intercepted sensitive Congressional communications about intelligence community whistleblowers.
The intercepts occurred under CIA Director John Brennan and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. The new disclosures
are contained in two letters of "Congressional notification" originally written to key members of Congress in March 2014, but kept
secret until now.
In the letters, then-Intelligence Community Inspector General Charles McCullough tells four key members of Congress that during
"routing counterintelligence monitoring of Government computer systems," the CIA collected emails between Congressional staff and
the CIA's head of whistleblowing and source protection. McCullough states that he's concerned "about the potential compromise to
whistleblower confidentiality and the consequent 'chilling effect' that the present [counterintelligence] monitoring system might
have on Intelligence Community whistleblowing."
The idea that the CIA would monitor communications of U.S. government officials, including those in the legislative branch,
is itself controversial. But in this case, the CIA picked up some of the most sensitive emails between Congress and intelligence
agency workers blowing the whistle on alleged wrongdoing.
"Most of these emails concerned pending and developing whistleblower complaints," McCullough states in his letters to lead Democrats
and Republicans on the House and Senate Intelligence Committees at the time: Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-California) and Saxby Chambliss
(R-Georgia); and Representatives Michael Rogers (R-Michigan) and Dutch Ruppersberger (D-Maryland). McCullough adds that the type
of monitoring that occurred was "lawful and justified for [counterintelligence] purposes" but
"I am not confident that Congressional staff fully understood that their whistleblower-related communications with my Executive
Director of whistleblowing might be reviewed as a result of routine [CIA counterintelligence] monitoring." -- Intelligence Community
Inspector General 2014
The disclosures from 2014 were released late Thursday by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). "The
fact that the CIA under the Obama administration was reading Congressional staff's emails about intelligence community whistleblowers
raises serious policy concerns as well as potential Constitutional separation-of-powers issues that must be discussed publicly,"
wrote Grassley in a statement.
According to Grassley, he originally began trying to have the letters declassified more than four years ago but was met with
"bureaucratic foot-dragging, led by Brennan and Clapper."
Grassley adds that he repeated his request to declassify the letters under the Trump administration, but that Trump intelligence
officials failed to respond. The documents were finally declassified this week after Grassley appealed to the new Intelligence Community
Inspector General Michael Atkinson.
History of alleged surveillance abuses
Back in 2014, Senators Grassley and Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) had asked then-Director of National Intelligence Clapper about the
possibility of the CIA monitoring Congressional communications. A Congressional staffer involved at the time says Clapper's
response seemed to imply that if Congressional communications were "incidentally" collected by the CIA, the material would not be
saved or reported up to CIA management.
"In the event of a protected disclosure by a whistleblower somehow comes to the attention of personnel responsible for monitoring
user activity," Clapper wrote to Grassley and Wyden on July 25, 2014, "there is no intention for such disclosure to be reported
to agency leadership under an insider threat program."
However, the newly-declassified letters indicate the opposite happened in reality with the whistleblower-related emails:
"CIA security compiled a report that include excerpts of whistleblower-related communications and this reports was eventually
shared with the Director of the Office of Security and the Chief of the Counterintelligence Center" who "briefed the CIA Deputy
Director, Deputy Executive Director, and the Chiefs of Staff for both the CIA Director and the Deputy Director."
Clapper has previously come under fire for his 2013 testimony to Congress in which he denied that the national Security Agency
(NSA) collects data on millions of Americans. Weeks later, Clapper's statement was proven false by material leaked by former NSA
contractor Edward Snowden.
"During Director Clapper's tenure, senior intelligence officials engaged in a deception spree regarding mass surveillance,"
said
Wyden upon Clapper's retirement in 2016.
"Top officials, officials who reported to Director Clapper, repeatedly misled the American people and even lied to them."
Clapper has repeatedly denied lying, and said that any incorrect information he provided was due to misunderstandings or mistakes.
Clapper and Brennan have also acknowledged taking part in the controversial practice of "unmasking" the protected names of U.S.
citizens - including people connected to then-presidential candidate Donald Trump - whose communications were "incidentally" captured
in US counterintelligence operations. Unmaskings within the US intelligence community are supposed to be extremely rare and only
allowed under carefully justified circumstances. This is to protect the privacy rights of American citizens. But it's been revealed
that Obama officials requested unmaskings on a near daily basis during the election year of 2016.
Clapper and Brennan have said their activities were lawful and not politically motivated. Both men have become vocal critics of
President Trump.
Can you imagine what kind of place the US would have been under Clinton?!!!!!!
All the illegality, spying, conniving, dirty tricks, arcancides, selling us out to the highest bidder and full on attack against
our Constitution would be in full swing!
When intel entities can operate unimpeded and un-monitored, it spells disaster for everyone and everything outside that parameter.
Their operations go unnoticed until some stray piece of information exposes them. There are many facilities that need to be purged
and audited, but since this activity goes on all over the world, there is little to stop it. Even countries that pledge allegiance
and cooperation are blindsiding their allies with bugs, taps, blackmails, and other crimes. Nobody trusts nobody, and that's a
horrid fact to contend with in an 'advanced' civilization.
Forget the political parties. When the intelligence agencies spy on everyone, they know all about politicians of both parties
before they ever win office, and make sure they have enough over them to control them. They were asleep at the switch when Trump
won, because no one, including them, believed he would ever win. Hillary was their candidate, the State Department is known overseas
as "the political arm of the CIA". They were furious when she lost, hence the circus ever since.
From its founding by the Knights of Malta the JFK&MLK-assassinating, with Mossad 9/11-committing CIA has been the Vatican's
US Fifth Column action branch, as are the FBI and NSA: with an institutional hiring preference for Roman Catholic "altared boy"
closet-queen psychopaths "because they're practiced at keeping secrets."
Think perverts Strzok, Brennan, and McCabe "licked it off the wall?"
I agree with you 100%. Problem is, tons of secret technology and information have been passed out to the private sector. And
the private sector is not bound to the FOIA requests, therefore neutralizing the obligation for government to disclose classified
material. They sidestepped their own policies to cooperate with corrupt MIC contractors, and recuse themselves from disclosing
incriminating evidence.
Everyone knows that spying runs in the fam. 44th potus Mom and Gma BOTH. An apple doesn't fall from the tree. If ppl only knew
the true depth of the evil and corruption we would be in the hospital with a heart attack. Gilded age is here and has been, since
our democracy was hijacked (McCain called it an intervention) back in 1963. Unfortunately it started WAY back before then when
(((they))) stole everything with the installation of the Fed.
The FBI and CIA have long since slipped the controls of Congress and the Constitution. President Trump should sign an executive
order after the mid terms and stand down at least the FBI and subject the CIA to a senate investigation.
America needs new agencies that are accountable to the peoples elected representatives.
A determined care has been used to cultivate in D.C., a system that swiftly decapitates the whistleblowers. Resulting in an
increasingly subservient cadre of civil servants who STHU and play ostrich, or drool at what scraps are about to roll off the
master's table as the slide themselves into a better position, taking advantage to sell vice, weapons, and slaves.
What the hell does the CIA have to do with ANYTHING in the United States? Aren't they limited to OUTSIDE the U.S.? So why would
they be involved in domestic communications for anything? These clowns need to be indicted for TREASON!
"... There is something very, very COINTELPRO about the idea of "protecting" Americans from "foreign influence", and that should give liberals the heebie-jeebies. There is also an ongoing structural witch-hunt effect, unchanged from the McCarthy era, when internet firm heads are called to testify before congress. ..."
"... Bottom line - the Russians may have had no more effect on the election than the loose change in your house has on your salary. ..."
"... "Even more extreme measures are being planned and implemented, motivated by the basic principle that the greater the lie, the more aggressive the methods required to enforce it." ..."
"... "While the extortionate salaries commanded by the BBC's biggest stars are justified by "market rates," this underlying premise is never challenged by the women who are leading the gender pay fight. They don't oppose the capitalist market; they just want a bigger slice of the pie, with the working class footing the bill via contributions to the £4 billion annual license fee." - BBC gender pay row: Selective outrage of wealthy women ..."
"... The greater the inequality, the greater the lie to enforce it. ..."
"... While WSWS was uniquely correct in exposing Bush, Powell, and the ruling-elite structure of the U.S. as using deceit and lies to start an 'aggressive war' (the ultimate war crime), your description of this corrupt system of global power headquartered in the U.S. did not fully diagnose and expose it for what it was; a disguised global capitalist EMPIRE. ..."
"... Your description could have more effectively warned American citizen/'subjects' and the world that "Rather, it is a war of colonial (Empire) conquest, driven by a series of economic and geo-political aims that center on the seizure of Iraq's oil resources and the assertion of US global (Empire, not merely) hegemony." ..."
"... In any case, Andre and Joseph, thanks for reminding readers of this dark and deceitful moment of U.S. history in starting another 'aggressive war' almost two decades ago --- which wars will unfortunately continue until Americans themselves expose and ignite an essential Second America "Revolution Against Empire" [Justin duRivage] ..."
"... The Anglo-American-Israelite Empire is globally entrenched and enjoying expansion since 1945 ..."
"... I must admit myself I am disturbed by the sheer volume of unchallenged propaganda regarding these claims in the past few months. The media talking heads and various analysts don't ever really say what the implication of what their claims really mean-war. We are in an age of new mccarthyism ..."
"... What was amazing about Powell's charade was that even if Old Bad Ass as I call Saddam had had some Wombars of Mass Destruction they posed no danger whatsoever! It was obvious 9/11 had put the masses into a tizzy and they would have attacked Mars if told to! ..."
"... Yes, the "New Pearl Harbour" called for and carried out by the authors of the "Project for a New American Century" worked as planned. ..."
"... Quite right. My late father was a structural design engineer, specializing in large steel structures like the WTC and he called it as soon as the buildings imploded! ..."
"... Yes, Michael, the 'media/propaganda-sector' of this seven-sectored Disguised Global Capitalist EMPIRE is currently the most effective sector --- but the other six; corporate, financial, militarist, extra-legal, CFR 'Plot-Tanks', and of course the dual-party Vichy-political facade of the 'rougher-talking' neocon 'R' Vichy Party and the 'smoother-lying' neoliberal-con 'D' Vichy Party are all helping to keep the Empire sound, hidden, and empowered over the only American citizen/'subjects' who could possibly form a "Political Revolution against Empire" ..."
"... While it is true that D.C. is run by delusional psychotics that does not mean they are irrational as far as their greed is concerned. ..."
"... As R. Luxemburg pleaded that WWI was not "our" war but war of bunch of aristocrats wanting to divide colonies and bunch of bankers wanted their bad speculative loans repaid, using working class flesh and blood. ..."
This is one of the most sensible editorials on the Russia issue I've seen, and it is true, insofar as it goes. There is something
very, very COINTELPRO about the idea of "protecting" Americans from "foreign influence", and that should give liberals the heebie-jeebies.
There is also an ongoing structural witch-hunt effect, unchanged from the McCarthy era, when internet firm heads are called to
testify before congress.
That said, I wouldn't dismiss the effect of the Russian involvement, or the relevance of the charges against Trump and his
people. Bear in mind that the Party of McCarthy has been all about spying on its opponents from the days of HUAC. Nixon's break-in
at the Watergate Hotel didn't singlehandedly decide the election ... but who would believe that was the only underhanded tactic
he used? Republicans believe that if you're not cheating, you're not trying -- holding out for any ethical standard makes you
inherently disloyal and unworthy of support. Something like Kavanaugh's involvement in the hacking of Democrats in 2003 (
http://www.foxnews.com/poli... ) should be no surprise; neither should the "Guccifer" hack that put the Democrats' data in
the hands of Wikileaks. (Their subsequent attempts to demand Wikileaks not publish such a newsworthy leak, of course, is the sort
of thing that undermines their position with me!)
Bottom line - the Russians may have had no more effect on the election than the loose change in your house has on your salary.
But if you go back in your house after the Republicans were minding it, don't be surprised if together with the missing couch
change you notice some missing silverware, your kitchen tap has been sawed off, and the laptop is short half its RAM. By the time
you've catalogued everything missing, the stolen brass part from the gas main downstairs might have blown you to smithereens.
"Even more extreme measures are being planned and implemented, motivated by the basic principle that the greater the lie,
the more aggressive the methods required to enforce it."
There are many reasons the bourgeoisie is unfit to rule. Each one of them is bound up with the lies required to enforce
its rule. The greater its unfitness, "the greater the lie, the more aggressive the methods required to enforce it.
"While the extortionate salaries commanded by the BBC's biggest stars are justified by "market rates," this underlying premise
is never challenged by the women who are leading the gender pay fight. They don't oppose the capitalist market; they just
want a bigger slice of the pie, with the working class footing the bill via contributions to the £4 billion annual license fee."
- BBC gender pay row: Selective outrage of wealthy women
The greater the inequality, the greater the lie to enforce it.
While WSWS was uniquely correct in exposing Bush, Powell, and the ruling-elite structure of the U.S. as using deceit and lies
to start an 'aggressive war' (the ultimate war crime), your description of this corrupt system of global power headquartered in
the U.S. did not fully diagnose and expose it for what it was; a disguised global capitalist EMPIRE.
Your description could have more effectively warned American citizen/'subjects' and the world that "Rather, it is a war of
colonial (Empire) conquest, driven by a series of economic and geo-political aims that center on the seizure of Iraq's oil resources
and the assertion of US global (Empire, not merely) hegemony."
In any case, Andre and Joseph, thanks for reminding readers of this dark and deceitful moment of U.S. history in starting another
'aggressive war' almost two decades ago --- which wars will unfortunately continue until Americans themselves expose and ignite
an essential Second America "Revolution Against Empire" [Justin duRivage]
The Anglo-American-Israelite Empire is globally entrenched and enjoying expansion since 1945. It is time radical critiques of
its values, power and methods should call it by its right name.
I must admit myself I am disturbed by the sheer volume of unchallenged propaganda regarding these claims in the past few months.
The media talking heads and various analysts don't ever really say what the implication of what their claims really mean-war.
We are in an age of new mccarthyism
What was amazing about Powell's charade was that even if Old Bad Ass as I call Saddam had had some Wombars of Mass Destruction
they posed no danger whatsoever! It was obvious 9/11 had put the masses into a tizzy and they would have attacked Mars if told
to!
just because it was a convenient act for them to do what they wanted in conquering iraq is not reason that idiots like that are
capable of planning and concealing the numerous co-conspirators to arrange something like 9..11. imperialism can always count
on blowback to have occasion for further crimes. there is the slim chance that they knew what was being planned and that they
let it happen - except that none of those folks is evil enough for that. not even dick cheney. what i love about all conspiracy
theories of the american kind is that they never nam or show an actual conspirator conspiring. look at one of the truly great
failed conspiracy, that of the 20th july 1944 in germany that was meant to kill hitler and how many people were arrested in no
time at all and executed..
A "conspiracy" is just any two or more people getting together to discuss something affecting one or more other people without
them being party to the discussion. Like a surprise birthday party, for instance. Obviously the "official" version of the 9/11
events is also a "conspiracy theory" that 19 mostly Saudi Arabians led by a guy hiding in a cave in Afghanistan conspired to carry
out co-ordinated attacks that just happened to coincide with most of the USAF being conveniently off in Alaska and northern Canada
on an exercise that day, and another "coinciding exercise" simulating a multiple hijacking being carried out in the northeast
US thereby confusing the Air Traffic Controllers as to whether the hijackings were "real world or exercise", significantly delaying
the response, among other things.
Do you really believe that WTC 7, a steel frame building which was not adjacent to WTC 1 & 2, and was NOT hit by any airplanes,
coincidentally collapsed due to low temperature paper and furniture office fires? Something that has never happened before or
since? Or that such low temperature fires would cause the massive heavily reinforced concrete central core/elevator shaft to collapse
first, pulling the rest of the building inward onto it in classic controlled demolition technique?
It is getting more difficult to find the videos showing that now as Google, as with WSWS articles, is pushing them off the
front pages of results, while Snopes has put out a some very misleading reports that set up false "straw man" claims and then
"disprove" them. Even the "disproofs" are false.
For instance, a Snopes report on the WTC 7 collapse states: "relied heavily on discredited claims, none of which were new,
including:
Jet fuel cannot melt steel beams (This claim is misleading, as steel beams do to not need to melt completely to be compromised
structurally).
A sprinkler system would have prevented temperatures from rising high enough to cause to cause structural damage. (This claim
ignores the fact that a crash from a 767 jet would likely destroy such a system.)
The structural system would have been protected by fireproofing material (similarly, such a system would have been damaged
in a 767 crash). "
Jet fuel, which is Kerosene, burns at around 575º in open air, which was the case in WTC buildings 1 & 2. Most of it was vaporized
by the impact with the buildings and burned of within minutes. At any rate, 575º is far below the point at which structural steel
specifically designed to withstand high temperature fires like that used in the World Trade Centre buildings is weakened.
All of which is irrelevant, as are the other "points" made by Snopes, because Building 7 was not hit by an airplane and there
was no jet fuel involved. Something conveniently "overlooked" by Snopes and other similar misleading "disproofs". Not to mention
that the Intelligence establishment is busy putting out false trails constantly which use, for instance, obviously faked photos
or videos of the three WTC buildings collapsing to discredit the real videos and photos by setting up "straw men" they can then
"disprove" and point to as "evidence" that people who don't believe the official version are "creating fake news".
Quite right. My late father was a structural design engineer, specializing in large steel structures like the WTC and he called
it as soon as the buildings imploded!
"The perpetrators and their conspiracy is not a theory since it has been proved."
By "proved" I assume you are referring to "proofs" such as the fantastical claim that Mohammed Atta's passport was allegedly
and fortuitously "found" when it supposedly survived the 600 mph impact of the 767 he was supposedly piloting with a huge steel
and concrete building, survived the huge fireball it was supposedly in the middle of unscorched, and conveniently fluttered to
the ground intact to land at the feet of an FBI agent who immediately realized it must have belonged to one of the hijackers!
Even Hans Christian Andersen couldn't invent Fairy Tales like that.
the best that conspiracy theorist can do is, invariably, to call proven facts "just another theory " which only proves that they
are actually aware that they are full of hot air! zarembas father as a structural engineer unless a fantasy is certainly better
off among the dead than among the living and perpetrating his ignorance of steel and weight and fire onto the world!
Just because all the details aren't known as to who conspired and why there's enough holes in the "official conspiracy theory"
of 19 hijackers to conclude that this could not have been pulled off without some conspiring on the American side. Certainly the
the neocons benefited greatly from these attacks. So motive is there for sure.
Yes, Michael, the 'media/propaganda-sector' of this seven-sectored Disguised Global Capitalist EMPIRE is currently the most
effective sector --- but the other six; corporate, financial, militarist, extra-legal, CFR 'Plot-Tanks', and of course the dual-party
Vichy-political facade of the 'rougher-talking' neocon 'R' Vichy Party and the 'smoother-lying' neoliberal-con 'D' Vichy Party
are all helping to keep the Empire sound, hidden, and empowered over the only American citizen/'subjects' who could possibly form
a "Political Revolution against Empire"
While it is true that D.C. is run by delusional psychotics that does not mean they are irrational as far as their greed is
concerned.
There is nothing to win in global nuke war, all know it while the outcome would be surely the current global oligarchy loosing
grip on population destroying the system that works for them so well giving chance to what they dread socialist revolution they
would have been much weaker to counter.
Regional conflicts are just positioning of oligarchy for management of global oligarchic country club while strict class morality
is maintained.
What I do not we are conditions for war (split of global ruling elites) while what I see is broad propaganda of war as a excuse
to clamp down on fake enemy in order to control respective populations while there is factual unity among world oligarchy.
As R. Luxemburg pleaded that WWI was not "our" war but war of bunch of aristocrats wanting to divide colonies and bunch
of bankers wanted their bad speculative loans repaid, using working class flesh and blood.
She died abandoned by those on the left who embraced the war for their political aspirations, she was murdered for her true
internationalism i.e. No war fought between working people of one country and working people of another country.
Kalen, it's only effective to use the correct and understandable term 'Empire' in exposing, warning, and motivating average Americans
--- since very few even know what words like; oligarchy, plutocracy, fascism, authoritarianism, corporate-state, or Wolin's 'inverted
totalitarianism' mean --- let alone could ever serve as rallying cries for the coming essential Second American Revolution against
EMPIRE.
As Pat would have shouted if Tom had taken the Paine to edit his call, "Give me Liberty over EMPIRE, or Give me Death!"
"Sweet Carolyn" OH OH OH --- Yes, only a very small percentage of Americans understand that our former country, the U.S. of America,
is categorically, provably, and absolutely a new form of Empire, and is inexorably the first in world history an; 'effectively-disguised',
'truly-global', 'dual-party Vichy', and 'capitalist-fueled' EMPIRE --- an EMPIRE, really just an EMPIRE!
Just do an honest survey, "Sweet Carolyn", yourself, and if you're not a "Sweet Liarlyn", you will have to admit that essentially
ZERO of the first 1000 people you ask, will say --- "Oh ya, Carolyn, of course I know that this whole effin 'system' that others
less informed may still be so stupid that they think they live in a real country, when I (enter their name) do solemnly swear
is just an effin EMPIRE, which is so well disguised, that these few idiots who don't understand that they are just citizen/'subjects'
of this monsterous EMPIRE."
Do the survey, "Sweet Carolyn" and if you don't lie to yourself --- which maybe you do, because HELL, your job is to lie to
others (so it's quite likely that you'll lie about anything) --- you'll find that exactly zero average Americans have the effin
slightest idea in the world that their great 'country' is actually an effin EMPIRE.
HELL, Carolyn, almost half the Americans repeatedly yell, "We're number ONE", "We're number ONE", that their brains would rather
rattle themselves to death than even let logic, history, knowledge, or anything into their addled and propaganda filled heads!
Excellent article, and it did a particularly good job of tying together the foreign policy and domestic policy stratagems of a
major faction of the U.S. ruling class. I, for one, do not doubt that the Russians conduct some sort of cyber warfare against
the U.S.; but that must be understood by considering the fact that every major governmental, political, military, and business
organization on the face of the Earth must now operate in this manner. A friend of mine's son, who was in the Army, pointed out
that the big players, by a wide margin, in spying on and to some degree interfering in the U.S. domestic scene are China and Israel.
Kevin Barrett has written and said on various radio shows that much of what is attributed to the "Russians" are actually the actions
of Russian/Israeli dual citizens, many of whom move freely between the U.S., Russia, and Israel. And, of course, the U.S. runs
major spy and manipulation operations in more countries than any other nation of Earth, and U.S. based corporations are busy both
inside the U.S. and in foreign places in similar activities.
It is clearly a desire of significant sectors, of the Capitalist rulers of the U.S., to repress dissent and political activities
that oppose their agendas. It took them a few years to realize that their old methods using TV, hate radio, magazines, direct
mail, and newspapers were losing their effectiveness. They have been increasing their attacks on leftist websites, hacking into
websites, closing websites using phonied-up "national security" justifications, employing numerous trolls, and establishing and
funding more far right websites, such as Breitbart and Infowars. These efforts are most effective when they are not overpowering
and heavy handed.
The classic book on this was the 1988 book "Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media"
by Noam Chomsky and Edward Hermann. Rob Williams has updated the concept for the internet age in
<http:
www.vermontindependent.org ="" the-post-truth-world-reviving-the-propaganda-model-of-news-for-our-digital-age=""/>.
The strategy
is nothing new, the methods are merely updated and use the latest technologies.
I guess the lesson to be learned here is that rigging elections through byzantine electoral laws and billion dollar corporate
slush funds is a thing of the past. All you need now is 13 amateur IT goomba's with a marketing scheme and twitter accounts. Well, sure is a fragile "World's Sole Superpower" we got here. Go Team?
"... "Would you rather have a professional assassin after you or a frothing maniac with a meat cleaver? I'd rather have a maniac with a meat cleaver after me, so I think Cheney is way worse. And also, if you look at the body count, more than 600,000 people died in Iraq. It's not even close, right? ..."
The
Wall Street Journal's Maureen Dowd appears to have had enough of the hyperbole,
hyper-short-memories, and hyped up virtue-signaling from the establishment. Reflecting on Adam
McKay's new movie "Vice" with Christian Bale playing Dick Cheney, Dowd gently nudges America
back from the edge of the divisive Midterms to remember that much evil has come before...
Donald Trump is running wild - and running scared.
He's such a menace that it's tempting to cheer any vituperative critic and grab any handy
truncheon. But villainizing Trump should not entail sanitizing other malefactors.
And we should acknowledge that the president is right on one point: For neocons,
journalists, authors, political hacks and pundits, there is a financial incentive to demonize
the president, not to mention an instant halo effect. Only Trump could get the pussy-hat crowd
to fill Times Square to protest Jeff Sessions's firing.
We make the president the devil spawn and he makes us the enemy of the people and everybody
wins. Or do they? To what extent is lucrative Trump hysteria warping our discourse?
Trump may not be sweaty and swarthy, but he makes a good bad guy. As with Nixon and
Watergate, the correct moral response and the lavish remunerative rewards neatly dovetail.
Even for Washington, the capital of do-overs and the soulless swamp where horrendous
mistakes never prevent you from cashing in and getting another security clearance, this is a
repellent spectacle. War criminals-turned-liberal heroes are festooned with book and TV
contracts, podcasts and op-ed perches.
Those who sold us the
"cakewalk" Iraq war and the outrageously unprepared Sarah Palin and torture as "enhanced
interrogation," those who left the Middle East shattered with a cascading refugee crisis and a
rising ISIS, and those who midwifed the birth of the Tea Party are washing away their sins in a
basin of Trump hate.
The very same Republicans who eroded
America's moral authority in the 2000s are, staggeringly, being treated as the new
guardians of America's moral authority.
They bellow that Trump is a blight on democracy. But where were these patriots when the Bush
administration was deceiving
us with a cooked-up war in Iraq?
Michelle Obama has written in her memoir that she will never forgive Trump for pushing the
birther movement. Yet the Pygmalions of Palin, who backed Trump on the birther filth, are now
among the most celebrated voices in Michelle's party.
The architects and enablers of the Iraq war and Abu Ghraib are still being listened to on
foreign policy, both inside
the administration (John Bolton and Gina Haspel) and out. NeverTrumper Eliot Cohen wrote
the Washington Post op-ed after the election telling conservatives not to work for Trump; Max
Boot, who urged an invasion of Iraq whether or not Saddam
was involved in 9/11, is now a CNN analyst, Post columnist and the author of a
new book bashing Trump; John Yoo, who wrote the unconstitutional torture memo, is suddenly
concerned that Trump's appointment of his ghastly acting attorney general is
unconstitutional.
MSNBC is awash in nostalgia for Ronald Reagan and W.
So it's a good moment for Adam McKay, the inventive director of "The Big Short," to enter
the debate with a movie that raises the question: Is insidious destruction of our democracy by
a bureaucratic samurai with the soothing voice of a boys' school headmaster even more dangerous
than a self-destructive buffoon ripping up our values in plain sight?
How do you like your norms broken? Over Twitter or in a torture memo? By a tinpot demagogue
stomping on checks and balances he can't even fathom or a shadowy authoritarian expertly and
quietly dismantling checks and balances he knows are sacred?
McKay grappled with the W.-Cheney debacle in 2009, when he co-wrote a black comedy with
Will Ferrell called "You're Welcome America. A Final Night With George W Bush." In the Broadway
hit, Ferrell's W. dismissed waterboarding as a Bliss spa treatment and confided that he had
once discovered Cheney locked in an embrace with a giant goat devil in a room full of
pentagrams.
When McKay was home with the flu three years ago, he grabbed a book and began reading up on
Cheney. He ended up writing and directing "Vice," a film that uses real-life imagery, witty
cinematic asides and cultural touchstones to explore the irreparable damage Cheney did to the
planet, and how his blunders and plunders led to many of our current crises.
With an echo of his Batman growl, Christian Bale brilliantly shape-shifts into another
American psycho, the lumbering, scheming vice president who easily manipulates the naïve
and insecure W., deliciously played by Sam Rockwell. While W. strives to impress his father,
Cheney strives to impress his wife, Lynne, commandingly portrayed by Amy Adams.
Before we had Trump's swarm of bloodsucking lobbyists gutting government regulations from
within, we had Cheney's. Before Trump brazenly used the White House to boost his brand, we had
Cheney wallowing in emoluments: He let his energy industry pals shape energy policy; he pushed
to invade Iraq, giving no-bid contracts to
his former employer, Halliburton , and helping his Big Oil cronies reap the spoils
in Iraq.
The movie opens at Christmas, but it's no sugary Hallmark fable. It's a harrowing cautionary
tale showing that democracy can be sabotaged even more diabolically by a trusted insider,
respected by most of the press, than by a clownish outsider, disdained by most of the
press.
After a screening of "Vice" Thursday, I asked McKay which of our two right-wing Dementors
was worse, Cheney or Trump.
"Here's the question," he said.
"Would you rather have a professional assassin after you or a frothing maniac with a meat
cleaver? I'd rather have a maniac with a meat cleaver after me, so I think Cheney is way
worse. And also, if you look at the body count, more than 600,000 people died in Iraq. It's
not even close, right? "
"... Donald Trump has been transforming American society not by legislation but by using his executive powers to put people in charge of government agencies who are inimical to their stated goals. It is like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse ..."
"... By contrast, Trump is imposing a regime that was incubated long ago by people such as Grover "Starve the Beast" Norquist and every other libertarian think-tank funded by the Koch Brothers et al. The big bourgeoisie might not like the bad taste, racism and thuggish behavior of the Trump administration but they couldn't be happier with the results. This is an elected government that has fulfilled its deepest policy aspirations and that shows a willingness to push the Democrats back on their heels, so much so that someone like Mikie Sherrill lacks the courage to defend policies that might win elections down the road. After all, if she is unseated, she can always go back to a job as a federal prosecutor in New Jersey. What happens to someone working in Walmart's is not her business, after all. ..."
Ever since the Democratic Party abandoned its New Deal legacy and adopted the neoliberal
centrism associated with the Carter presidency and then cast in stone by the Democratic
Leadership Council in 1985, each election loss has generated a chorus of remonstrations in the
left-liberal press about the need to run "progressive" candidates if the party wants to win.
The latest instance of this was a post to the Jacobin FB page that stated: "By running
to the right, Democrats insist on losing twice: at the polls and in constructing an inspiring
agenda. Bold left-wing politics are our only hope for long-term, substantive victory."
The question of why Democrats are so okay with losing has to be examined closely. In some
countries, elections have huge consequences, especially in Latin America where a job as an
elected official might be not only a source of income for a socialist parliamentarian but a
trigger for a civil war or coup as occurred in Costa Rica in 1948 and in Chile in 1973
respectively.
In the 2010 midterm elections, there was a massive loss of seats in the House of
Representatives for the Democrats. In this month's midterm elections, the Democrats hoped that
a "Blue Wave" would do for them what the 2010 midterms did for the Republicans -- put them in
the driver's seat. It turned out to be more of a "Blue Spray", not to speak of the toothless
response of House leader Nancy Pelosi who spoke immediately about how the Democrats can reach
across the aisle to the knuckle-dragging racists of the Republican Party.
Out of curiosity, I went to Wikipedia to follow up on what happened to the "losers" in 2010.
Did they have to go on unemployment? Like Republicans who got voted out this go-round,
Democrats had no trouble lining up jobs as lobbyists. Allen Boyd from Florida sent a letter to
Obama after the BP oil spill in 2010 asking him to back up BP's claim that seafood in the Gulf
of Mexico was okay to eat. After being voted out of office, he joined the Twenty-First Century
Group, a lobbying firm founded by a former Republican Congressman from Texas named Jack Fields.
A 1980 article on Fields describes him as a protégé of ultraright leader Paul
Weyrich.
Glenn Nye, who lost his job as a Virginia congressman, his considerable CV that included
working for the Agency for International Development (AID) and serving in various capacities
during the occupation of Iraq to land a nice gig as Senior Political Advisor for the Hanover
Investment Group.
John Spratt from South Carolina was described by Dow Jones News as "one of the staunchest
fiscal conservatives among House Democrats." That was enough for him to land a job with Barack
Obama's National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform that was supposed to come up
with a strategy to reduce the deficit. Just the sort of thing that was calculated to lift the
American economy out of the worst slump since the 1930s. Not.
Pennsylvania's Chris Carney was a helluva Democrat. From 2002 to 2004, he was a
counterterrorism analyst for the Bush administration. He not only reported to Douglas Feith in
the Office of Special Plans and at the Defense Intelligence Agency, researching links between
al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, but served as an interrogator in Guantanamo. These qualifications
landed him a job as director of homeland security and policy strategy for BAE Systems when the
House of Representatives gig ended. A British security and munitions powerhouse, BAE won a
contract worth £4.4bn to supply the Saudis with 72 fighter jets – some of which
were used to bomb Red Cross and Physician Without Borders hospitals in Yemen.
With such crumb-bums losing in 2010, you'd think that the Democrats would be convinced that
their best bet for winning elections would be to disavow candidates that had ties to the
national security apparatus and anything that smacked of the DLC's assault on the welfare
state. Not exactly. When the candidates are female, that might work in the party's favor like
sugar-coating a bitter pill.
In Virginia, former CIA officer Abigail Spanberger and retired Navy Commander Elaine Luria
defeated Republican incumbents. Air Force veteran Chrissy Houlahan of Pennsylvania, former CIA
analyst Elissa Slotkin of Michigan, and former Navy pilot Mikie Sherrill of New Jersey also
helped the Democrats regain the House. Sherill calculated that moving to the center would serve
her own and the party's interests. She told MSNBC: "As a Navy helicopter pilot I never flew
Republican missions or Democratic missions, I would have had a very short career. This is
something I do think vets bring to the table, this willingness to work with everyone."
For Sherrill, a newcomer to politics, the 11th has proved to be a tricky terrain. She is
seen as a progressive, but appears wary of carrying the "Trump resistance" banner into the
fray. At Wednesday's debate, Sherrill was determined to show she is more Morris Plains than
Montclair.
There were no heated vows to fight Trump, even though being "appalled" by the president
was what motivated her to run in the first place. The Nov. 6 midterms loom as a referendum on
Trump's presidency, but you would never have guessed that watching Wednesday's contest.
Sherrill repeatedly promised to be bipartisan -- a far cry from the combative,
confrontational tone that many in the party's grass roots are demanding.
On tax policy she sounded more centrist Republican than mainstream liberal Democrat, and
she refused to endorse issues like free community college tuition, which has become a popular
talking point for Democrats and was launched by Gov. Phil Murphy this summer.
"Without understanding how that would be paid for, I haven't supported it because it
sounds like it would raise taxes on our families,'" she said.
The moderate tone puzzled some of her ardent "resistance" activists who mobilized around
her candidacy.
For Eric Fritsch, 32, a Teamster for the film and television industry from West Orange, it
was jarring to hear Sherrill oppose Democratic Party wish-list items like free community
college tuition or "Medicare-for-all" coverage out of fear that it may raise taxes. She used
the same excuse to sidestep supporting a "carbon tax" to reduce global warming.
"By going on the defensive about taxes she is accepting a Republican framing that we don't
want to be responsible with taxes in the first place,'" said Fritsch, who insisted that he
remains a "very enthusiastic" Sherrill supporter.
It should be abundantly clear by now that the Democratic Party leadership will be selecting
a candidate in 2020 in all ways identical to Hillary Clinton but perhaps with a less tawdry
past and less of an appetite for Goldman-Sachs speaking fees. Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Joe
Biden, Andrew Cuomo, et al have no intention of allowing upstarts like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
to spoil their plans, even if it means a second term for Donald Trump.
No matter. Jacobin editor Bhaskar Sunkara urges his readers and DSA comrades to plunge ahead
trying to consolidate a "socialist" caucus in the Democratic Party. From his perspective,
working in the Democratic Party seems to be the "most promising place for advancing left
politics, at least in the short term." Keep in mind that Sherrill raised $1.9 million for her
campaign and my old boss from Salomon Brothers Michael Bloomberg ponied up another $1.8 million
just for her TV ads. Does anybody really think that "socialist" backed candidates will be able
to compete with people like Sherrill in the primaries? Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was able to
defeat the hack Joe Crowley on a shoestring but that was something of a fluke. Until there is a
massive shake-up in American society that finally reveals the Democratic Party to be the
capitalist tool it has been since Andrew Jackson's presidency, it is likely that a combination
of big money and political inertia will keep the Democratic Party an agent of reaction.
Furthermore, the takeover of the House might turn out to be a hollow victory in the light of
how Trump rules. His strategy hasn't been to push through legislation except for the tax cut.
Remember the blather about investing in infrastructure? His minions in Congress have no
intention of proposing a trillion or so dollars in highway or bridge repair, etc. With Nancy
Pelosi fecklessly talking about how the two parties can collaborate on infrastructure, you can
only wonder whether she has been asleep for the past two years.
Donald Trump has been transforming American society not by legislation but by using his
executive powers to put people in charge of government agencies who are inimical to their
stated goals. It is like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse as Malcolm X once put
it. Two days ago, the NY Times wrote about how the "Trump Administration Spares Corporate
Wrongdoers Billions in Penalties". It did not need legislation to help big banks rip off the
public. All it took was naming former head of BankOne Joseph Otting comptroller of the
currency. Senator Sherrod Brown, one of the few Democrats with a spine, called Trump out: "The
president's choice for watchdog of America's largest banks is someone who signed a consent
order -- over shady foreclosure practices -- with the very agency he's been selected to
run."
For all of the dozens of articles about how Trump is creating a fascist regime, hardly any
deal with the difference between Trump and Adolf Hitler. Hitler created a massive bureaucracy
that ran a quasi-planned economy with generous social benefits that put considerable restraints
on the bourgeoisie. Like FDR, he was taking measures to save capitalism. Perhaps if the USA had
a social and economic crisis as deep as Germany's and left parties as massive as those in
Germany, FDR might have embarked on a much more ambitious concentration camp program, one that
would have interred trade unionists as well as Japanese-Americans. Maybe even Jews if they
complained too much.
By contrast, Trump is imposing a regime that was incubated long ago by people such as
Grover "Starve the Beast" Norquist and every other libertarian think-tank funded by the Koch
Brothers et al. The big bourgeoisie might not like the bad taste, racism and thuggish behavior
of the Trump administration but they couldn't be happier with the results. This is an elected
government that has fulfilled its deepest policy aspirations and that shows a willingness to
push the Democrats back on their heels, so much so that someone like Mikie Sherrill lacks the
courage to defend policies that might win elections down the road. After all, if she is
unseated, she can always go back to a job as a federal prosecutor in New Jersey. What happens
to someone working in Walmart's is not her business, after all.
"... Trump wasn't finished, however, and during the same gaggle, he suggested he could pull press credentials from other reporters who don't show him "respect" two days after the president suspended the press pass of CNN chief White House correspondent Jim Acosta after a contentious exchange during a news conference. ..."
"... "I think Jim Acosta is a very unprofessional man," Trump explained and when asked how long Acosta's credentials will be suspended, the president replied: "As far as I'm concerned, I haven't made that decision. But it could be others also." ..."
"... On this one Trump needs to take a hint from Obozo, stop doing daily press briefings... Hold them once a month ..."
"... the stooge press/talking heads have made a cottage industry off of the press conferences. the msm sends stooges to sell their product. trump is 100% correct- the msm doesn't have the guts to cull their stooge legions- oh dear- the white house will do their job for them. ..."
Having barred his CNN arch nemesis Jim Acosta from the White House,
on Friday the president lashed out at another CNN reporter at the White House over his
appointment of Matthew Whitaker as acting AG as well as Whitaker's views towards the special
counsel investigation.
During a Friday morning gaggle with White House reporters before Trump's trip to Paris,
CNN's Abby Phillip asked the president if he was hoping Whitaker, who previously criticized
Robert Mueller's special counsel investigation, would "rein in" the Russia probe. " Do you want
[Whitaker] to rein in Robert Mueller?" Phillip asked.
Trump's response left the stunned reported speechless. "What a stupid question that is,"
Trump said and, just in case it was lost, repeated "what a stupid question."
"But I watch you a lot," Trump continued. "You ask a lot of stupid questions."
Trump then demonstrably walked away, leaving the shocked reporters screaming more questions
in his wake.
Earlier, Trump said he has not spoken to acting AG Matt Whitaker about the Russia
investigation, which Whitaker now oversees. Trump defended Whitaker as a "very well respected
man in the law enforcement community" but claimed he does not know him personally. "I didn't
speak to Matt Whitaker about it. I don't know Matt Whitaker," Trump told reporters at the White
House before leaving for a trip to Paris.
While Trump sought to place personal distance
between himself and Whitaker, he made it clear he stood by his decision to place a loyalist in
charge of the Justice Department, a move many see as an effort to seize control of special
counsel Robert Mueller's probe. The president also rejected suggestions that Whitaker is
ineligible to serve as attorney general, a position held by some legal experts who say the
Justice Department leader must be confirmed by the Senate.
The acting AG has raised eyebrows, and in some cases prediction of a constitutional crisis,
because before joining the DOJ, Whitaker was an outspoken critic of Mueller's investigation and
many Democrats and legal scholars have said he should recuse himself from leading the probe.
Whitaker also claimed there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian
interference efforts in the 2016 election, which is the central question of the Mueller
probe.
Trump lamented the criticism of Whitaker's past commentary, saying "it's a shame that no
matter who I put in, they go after him."
Trump then reiterated his plans to have Whitaker serve in an acting capacity, but declined
to reveal who might be Sessions' permanent replacement. He said he likes Chris Christie, who is
under consideration , but said he has not spoken to the former NJ governor about the post.
Christie was at the White House on Thursday for an event on prison reform but Trump said he did
not speak to him.
* * *
Trump wasn't finished, however, and during the same gaggle, he suggested he could pull press
credentials from other reporters who don't show him "respect" two days after the president
suspended the press pass of CNN chief White House correspondent Jim Acosta after a contentious
exchange during a news conference.
"I think Jim Acosta is a very unprofessional man," Trump explained and when asked how long
Acosta's credentials will be suspended, the president replied: "As far as I'm concerned, I
haven't made that decision. But it could be others also."
Trump also went after April Ryan of American Urban Radio Networks as a "loser" who "doesn't
know what the hell she is doing."
Keyser 15 minutes ago
On this one Trump needs to take a hint from Obozo, stop doing daily press briefings...
Hold them once a month, then hand-pick which reporters you want in the room... And if a
reporter publishes a story you don't like, prosecute them... What we have now is what happens
when the lunatics are given free reign...
dcmbuffy 55 minutes ago remove
the stooge press/talking heads have made a cottage industry off of the press conferences.
the msm sends stooges to sell their product. trump is 100% correct- the msm doesn't have the
guts to cull their stooge legions- oh dear- the white house will do their job for them.
"... Mueller's investigation has been at the center of a McCarthyite-style campaign against Russia spearheaded by the intelligence agencies and the Democratic Party, based on fabricated claims that Russian President Vladimir Putin interfered in the presidential election to undermine the candidacy of Democrat Hillary Clinton and boost Trump. It has been used as a weapon in the drive by the Democrats and sections of the military/intelligence establishment to force Trump to adopt a more aggressive posture against Moscow and in the war for regime-change in Syria. ..."
"... The aim of shifting the Trump administration to a war footing against Russia has been achieved to the extent that there is now a substantial risk of nuclear conflict between the US and the second-leading nuclear power ..."
"... Though promoted in the media and sponsored by over 50 Democratic Party-linked organizations, including MoveOn.org, the rallies on Tuesday were small, reflecting the lack of support in the general population for the anti-Russia crusade. The protests were notable primarily for their unvarnished right-wing and neo-McCarthyite character. ..."
"... Two of the largest were in Washington DC and New York City, which each drew roughly 1,000 demonstrators, many of whom held hammer and cycle posters with Putin's image. Sessions began his career as a segregationist in Jim Crow Alabama and went on to become a right-wing Republican senator from the state. Mueller, for his part, was director of the FBI from 2001 to 2013, during which time he helped institute mass domestic surveillance and other sweeping attacks on democratic rights linked to the so-called "war on terror." ..."
"... At the Washington demonstration, Democratic Congressman Jamie Raskin led those in attendance in a round of applause for Sessions. Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, appealed to the military against Trump, declaring, "You are the defenders of our democracy," and led a chant of "protect Mueller." ..."
The Democrats and their fake "left" allies held war-mongering demonstrations in a number of
cities on Thursday in defense of the fired far-right attorney general, Jeff Sessions, and the
anti-Russia investigation being conducted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller.
Wednesday's ouster of Sessions and his replacement by Trump ally Matthew G. Whitaker has
brought forth a wave of condemnation from Democratic Party figures and their media allies,
including the New York Times and Washington Post , asserting that the move is
the prelude to Trump's closing down of the Justice Department probe into allegations of Russian
"meddling" in the 2016 elections and possible collusion by the Trump campaign.
Trump had repeatedly denounced Sessions for having recused himself from the Russia
investigation in March of 2017, leaving Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, a defender of
the investigation, in overall charge of its conduct. Whitaker, a former US attorney and now
acting attorney general and therefore responsible for overseeing the Mueller probe, is on
record criticizing Mueller and suggesting that the Justice Department could cut off funding for
his office.
Mueller's investigation has been at the center of a McCarthyite-style campaign against
Russia spearheaded by the intelligence agencies and the Democratic Party, based on fabricated
claims that Russian President Vladimir Putin interfered in the presidential election to
undermine the candidacy of Democrat Hillary Clinton and boost Trump. It has been used as a
weapon in the drive by the Democrats and sections of the military/intelligence establishment to
force Trump to adopt a more aggressive posture against Moscow and in the war for regime-change
in Syria.
To the extent that the Democrats oppose the right-wing Trump administration, it is on this
entirely reactionary basis. In the lead-up to Tuesday's midterm elections, they not only called
no demonstrations, they were entirely silent on Trump's fascistic attacks on immigrants, his
deployment of troops to the border against the caravan of Central American asylum seekers, and
his pledge to overturn the 14th Amendment guarantee of birthright citizenship -- a cornerstone
of the Bill of Rights.
Following the election, in which the Democrats won control of the House of Representatives,
the party leadership called repeatedly for bipartisan unity and collaboration with Trump,
underscoring their essential agreement with his policies of war, austerity and repression. It
was only when Trump fired Sessions, a right-wing anti-immigrant zealot, that they swung into
action, reviving their denunciations of Trump as a stooge of Putin.
The aim of shifting the Trump administration to a war footing against Russia has been
achieved to the extent that there is now a substantial risk of nuclear conflict between the US
and the second-leading nuclear power . War could quickly erupt in a number of flash
points, especially Syria, where Russian soldiers, sailors and airmen carry out combat
operations within miles of their American counterparts, as well as US-allied Islamist proxies
armed by Saudi Arabia.
Though promoted in the media and sponsored by over 50 Democratic Party-linked
organizations, including MoveOn.org, the rallies on Tuesday were small, reflecting the lack of
support in the general population for the anti-Russia crusade. The protests were notable
primarily for their unvarnished right-wing and neo-McCarthyite character.
Two of the largest were in Washington DC and New York City, which each drew roughly
1,000 demonstrators, many of whom held hammer and cycle posters with Putin's image. Sessions
began his career as a segregationist in Jim Crow Alabama and went on to become a right-wing
Republican senator from the state. Mueller, for his part, was director of the FBI from 2001 to
2013, during which time he helped institute mass domestic surveillance and other sweeping
attacks on democratic rights linked to the so-called "war on terror."
At the Washington demonstration, Democratic Congressman Jamie Raskin led those in
attendance in a round of applause for Sessions. Randi Weingarten, president of the American
Federation of Teachers, appealed to the military against Trump, declaring, "You are the
defenders of our democracy," and led a chant of "protect Mueller."
In defending Sessions, the Democrats and their allies are rallying around the most
right-wingattorneygeneral in
American history, who, prior to joining the Trump cabinet, had won a well-earned reputation as
a bitter opponent of civil rights. As attorney general, Sessions will primarily be remembered
for the persecution of immigrants, most notably the separation of immigrant children from their
parents and their imprisonment in detention camps built in the desert.
The task of spearheading the attack on immigrants and democratic rights will now fall,
pending the installation of a permanent attorney general, to Whitaker, who has boasted that he
interprets the Constitution from a biblical standpoint. His very first act as head of the
Department of Justice was to issue, in conjunction with the Department of Homeland Security, a
directive stripping the right to asylum from anyone who enters the US over the Mexican border
and has not first gained legal status -- a move that is tantamount to abolishing the right to
asylum, which is guaranteed under international and US law.
This move, a new landmark in the attack on immigrants, due process and basic democratic
rights, has been virtually ignored by the media and the Democratic Party. It was not mentioned
in the press release calling Thursday's demonstration, nor by speakers at the demonstrations in
Washington and New York.
Gold age of the USA (say 40 years from 1946 to approximately 1986 ) were an in some way an aberration caused by WWII. As soon
as Germany and Japan rebuilt themselves this era was over. And the collapse of the USSR in 1991 (or more correct Soviet
nomenklatura switching sides and adopting neoliberalism) only make the decline more gradual but did not reversed it. After
200 it was clear that neoliberalism is in trouble and in 2008 it was clear that ideology of neoliberalism is dead, much like
Bolshevism after 1945.
As the US ruling neoliberal elite adopted this ideology ad its flag, the USA faces the situation somewhat similar the USSR
faced in 70th. It needs its "Perestroika" but with weak leader at the helm like Gorbachov it can lead to the dissolution of
the state. Dismantling neoliberalism is not less dangerous then dismantling of Bolshevism. The level of brainwashing of both
population and the elite (and it looks like the USA elite is brainwashed to an amazing level, probably far exceed the level of
brainwashing of Soviet nomenklatura) prevents any constructive moves.
In a way, Neoliberalism probably acts as a mousetrap for the country, similar to the role of Bolshevism in the
USSR. Ideology of neoliberalism is dead, so what' next. Another war to patch the internal divisions ? That's probably
why Trump is so adamant about attacking Iran. Iran does not have nuclear weapons so this is in a way an ideal target.
Unlike, say, Russia. And such a war can serve the same political purpose. That's why many emigrants from the USSR view the current
level of divisions with the USA is a direct analog of divisions within the USSR in late 70th and 80th. Similarities are
clearly visible with naked eye.
Notable quotes:
"... t is well known that legendary American gangster Al Capone once said that 'Capitalism is the legitimate racket of the ruling class', - and I have commented on the links between organised crime and capitalist accumulation before on this blog, but I recently came across the following story from Claud Cockburn's autobiography, and decided to put it up on Histomat for you all. ..."
"... "Listen," he said, "don't get the idea I'm one of those goddam radicals. Don't get the idea I'm knocking the American system. The American system..." As though an invisible chairman had called upon him for a few words, he broke into an oration upon the theme. He praised freedom, enterprise and the pioneers. He spoke of "our heritage". He referred with contempuous disgust to Socialism and Anarchism. "My rackets," he repeated several times, "are run on strictly American lines and they're going to stay that way"...his vision of the American system began to excite him profoundly and now he was on his feet again, leaning across the desk like the chairman of a board meeting, his fingers plunged in the rose bowls. ..."
"... A month later in New York I was telling this story to Mr John Walter, minority owner of The Times . He asked me why I had not written the Capone interview for the paper. I explained that when I had come to put my notes together I saw that most of what Capone had said was in essence identical with what was being said in the leading articles of The Times itself, and I doubted whether the paper would be best pleased to find itself seeing eye to eye with the most notorious gangster in Chicago. Mr Walter, after a moment's wry reflection, admitted that probably my idea had been correct.' ..."
"... The biggest lie ever told is that American hegemony relies on American imperialism and warmongering. The opposite is true. America is weak precisely because it is trying so hard to project strength, because anyone with half a brain knows that it is projecting strength to enrich oligarhcs, not to protect or favor the American people. ..."
"... please mr. author don't give us more globalist dribble. We want our wealth back ..."
"... America the empire is just another oligarchic regime that other countries' populations rightly see as an example of what doesn't work ..."
"... It's the ruling capitalist Predator Class that has been demanding empire since McKinley was assassinated. That's the problem. ..."
"... And who do you suppose are the forces which are funding US politicians and thus getting to call their shots in foreign policy? Can you bring yourself to name them? ..."
"... The US physical plant and equipment as well as infrastructure is in advanced stages of decay. Ditto for the labor force which has been pauperized and abused for decades by the Predator Class... ..."
"The only wealth you keep is wealth you have given away," said Marcus Aurelius (121-180 AD),
last of the great Roman emperors. US President Donald Trump might know of another Italian,
Mario Puzo's Don Vito Corleone, and his memorable mumble : "I'm going to make him
an offer he can't refuse."
Forgetting such Aurelian and godfather codes is propelling the decline and fall of the
American empire.
Trump is making offers the world can refuse – by reshaping trade deals, dispensing
with American sops and forcing powerful corporations to return home, the US is regaining
economic wealth but relinquishing global power.
As the last leader of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), Mikhail Gorbachev's
perestroika (restructuring) led to the breakup of its vast territory(22 million square
kilometers). Gorbachev's failed policies led to the dissolution of the USSR into Russia and
independent countries, and the end of a superpower.
Ironically, the success of Trump's policies will hasten the demise of the American empire:
the US regaining economic health but losing its insidious hold over the world.
This diminishing influence was highlighted when India and seven other countries geared up to
defy Washington's re-imposition of its unilateral, illegal sanctions against Iran, starting
Monday.
The US State Department granting "permission" on the weekend to the eight countries to buy
Iranian oil was akin to waving the green flag at a train that has already left the
station
The US State Department granting "permission" on the weekend to the eight countries to buy
Iranian oil was akin to waving the green flag at a train that has already left the station.
The law of cause and effect unavoidably delivers. The Roman Empire fell after wars of greed
and orgies of consumption. A similar nemesis, the genie of Gorbachev, stalks Pennsylvania
Avenue, with Trump unwittingly writing the last chapter of World War II: the epilogue of the
two rival superpowers that emerged from humanity's most terrible conflict.
The maverick 45th president of the United States may succeed at being an economic messiah to
his country, which has racked up a $21.6 trillion debt, but the fallout is the death of
American hegemony. These are the declining days of the last empire standing.
Emperors and mafia godfathers knew that wielding great influence means making payoffs.
Trump, however, is doing away with the sops, the glue that holds the American empire together,
and is making offers that he considers "fair" but instead is alienating the international
community– from badgering NATO and other countries to pay more for hosting the US legions
(800 military bases in 80 countries) to reducing US aid.
US aid to countries fell from $50 billion in fiscal year 2016, $37 billion in 2017 to $7.7
billion so far in 2018. A world less tied to American largesse and generous trade tarrifs can
more easily reject the "you are with us or against us" bullying doctrine of US presidents. In
the carrot and stick approach that largely passes as American foreign policy, the stick loses
power as the carrot vanishes.
Don Vito Corleone (Marlon Brando) in The Godfather. Big payoffs needed for big influence. A
presidential lesson for Don Trump
More self-respecting leaders will have less tolerance for American hypocrisy, such as
sanctioning other countries for nuclear weapons while having the biggest nuclear arsenal on the
planet.
They will sneer more openly at the hysteria surrounding alleged interference in the 2016 US
presidential elections, pointing to Washington's violent record of global meddling. They will
cite examples of American hypocrisy such as its sponsorship of coups against elected leaders in
Latin America, the US Army's Project Camelot in 1964 targeting 22 countries for intervention
(including Iran, Turkey, Thailand, Malaysia), its support for bloodthirsty dictators, and its
destabilization of the Middle East with the destruction of Iraq and Libya.
Immigrant
cannon fodder
Trump's focus on the economy reduces the likelihood of him starting wars. By ending the
flood of illegal immigrants to save jobs for US citizens, he is also inadvertently reducing the
manpower for illegal wars. Non-citizen immigrants comprise about 5% of the US Army. For its
Iraq and Afghanistan wars, US army recruiters offered citizenship to lure illegal immigrants,
mostly Latinos.
Among the first US soldiers to die in the Iraq War was 22-year old illegal immigrant
Corporal Jose Antonio Gutierrez, an orphan from the streets of Guatemala City. He sneaked
across the Mexican border into the US six years before enlisting in exchange for American
citizenship.
On March 21, 2003, Gutierrez was killed by friendly fire near Umm Qasr, southern Iraq. The
coffin of this illegal immigrant was draped in the US flag, and he received American
citizenship – posthumously.
Trump policies targeting illegal immigration simultaneously reduces the availability of
cannon fodder for the illegal wars needed to maintain American hegemony.
Everything comes to an end, and so too will the last empire of our era.
The imperial American eagle flying into the sunset will see the dawn of an economically
healthier US that minds its own business, and increase hopes for a more equal, happier world
– thanks to the unintentional Gorbachev-2 in the White House.
I am sure that many of us are OK with ending American Empire. Both US citizens and other
countries don't want to fight un-necessary and un-ending wars. If Trump can do that, then he
is blessed.
See a pattern here? Raja Murthy, you sound like a pro-American Empire shill. 1964 Project
Camelot has nothing to do with the current administration. Raja, you forgot to wear your
satirical pants.
The idea and catchy hook of 2016 was Make America Great Again, not wasting lives and
resources on the American Empire. You point out the good things. Who might have a problem
with the end of the American Empire are Globalists. What is wrong with relinquishing global
power and not wasting lives and money?
"The only lives you keep is lives you've given away" That does not ring true. The only
lies you keep are the lies you've given away. What? You're not making any sense, dude. How
much American Empire are you vested in? Does it bother you if the Empire shrinks its death
grip on Asia or the rest of the world? Why don't you just say it: This is good! Hopefully
Trump's policies will prevent you from getting writers' cramp and being confusing--along with
the canon fodder. Or maybe you're worried about job security.
America is a super power, just like Russia. Just like England. However, whom the US
carries water for might change. Hope that's ok.
Trump is an empirial president, just like every other US president. In fact, that's what
the article is describing. MAGA depends upon imperialist domination. Trump and all of US
capitalism know that even if the brain-dead MAGA chumps don't.
Capitalism can't help but seek to rule the world. It is the result of pursuing
capitalism's all-important growth. If it's not US capitalism, it will be Chinese capitalism,
or Russian capitalism, or European capitalism that will rule the world.
The battle over global markets doesn't stop just because the US might decide not to play
anymore. Capitalism means that you're either the global power who is ******* the royal ****
out of everyone else, or you're the victim of being fucked up the *** by an imperialist
power.
The only thing which makes the US different from the rest of the world is its super
concentration of power, which in effect is a super concentration of corruption.
Another day and another ZeroHedge indictment of American capitalism.
And how refreshing that the article compares US capitalism to gangsterism. It's a most
appropriate comparison.
--------------------
Al Capone on Capitalism
It is well known that legendary American gangster Al Capone once said that 'Capitalism is the
legitimate racket of the ruling class', - and I have commented on the links between organised
crime and capitalist accumulation before
on this blog, but I recently came across the following story from Claud Cockburn's autobiography, and decided
to put it up on Histomat for you all.
In 1930, Cockburn, then a correspondent in America for the Times newspaper,
interviewed Al Capone at the Lexington Hotel in Chicago, when Capone was at the height of his
power. He recalls that except for 'the sub-machine gun...poking through the transom of a door
behind the desk, Capone's own room was nearly indistinguishable from that of, say, a "newly
arrived" Texan oil millionaire. Apart from the jowly young murderer on the far side of the
desk, what took the eye were a number of large, flattish, solid silver bowls upon the desk,
each filled with roses. They were nice to look at, and they had another purpose too, for
Capone when agitated stood up and dipped the tips of his fingers in the water in which
floated the roses.
I had been a little embarrassed as to how the interview was to be launched. Naturally the
nub of all such interviews is somehow to get round to the question "What makes you tick?" but
in the case of this millionaire killer the approach to this central question seemed mined
with dangerous impediments. However, on the way down to the Lexington Hotel I had had the
good fortune to see, I think in the Chicago Daily News , some statistics offered by an
insurance company which dealt with the average expectation of life of gangsters in Chicago. I
forget exactly what the average was, and also what the exact age of Capone at that time - I
think he was in his early thirties. The point was, however, that in any case he was four
years older than the upper limit considered by the insurance company to be the proper average
expectation of life for a Chicago gangster. This seemed to offer a more or less neutral and
academic line of approach, and after the ordinary greetings I asked Capone whether he had
read this piece of statistics in the paper. He said that he had. I asked him whether he
considered the estimate reasonably accurate. He said that he thought that the insurance
companies and the newspaper boys probably knew their stuff. "In that case", I asked him, "how
does it feel to be, say, four years over the age?"
He took the question quite seriously and spoke of the matter with neither more nor less
excitement or agitation than a man would who, let us say, had been asked whether he, as the
rear machine-gunner of a bomber, was aware of the average incidence of casualties in that
occupation. He apparently assumed that sooner or later he would be shot despite the elaborate
precautions which he regularly took. The idea that - as afterwards turned out to be the case
- he would be arrested by the Federal authorities for income-tax evasion had not, I think, at
that time so much as crossed his mind. And, after all, he said with a little bit of
corn-and-ham somewhere at the back of his throat, supposing he had not gone into this racket?
What would be have been doing? He would, he said, "have been selling newspapers barefoot on
the street in Brooklyn".
He stood as he spoke, cooling his finger-tips in the rose bowl in front of him. He sat
down again, brooding and sighing. Despite the ham-and-corn, what he said was probably true
and I said so, sympathetically. A little bit too sympathetically, as immediately emerged, for
as I spoke I saw him looking at me suspiciously, not to say censoriously. My remarks about
the harsh way the world treats barefoot boys in Brooklyn were interrupted by an urgent angry
waggle of his podgy hand.
"Listen," he said, "don't get the idea I'm one of those goddam radicals. Don't get the
idea I'm knocking the American system. The American system..." As though an invisible
chairman had called upon him for a few words, he broke into an oration upon the theme. He
praised freedom, enterprise and the pioneers. He spoke of "our heritage". He referred with
contempuous disgust to Socialism and Anarchism. "My rackets," he repeated several times, "are
run on strictly American lines and they're going to stay that way"...his vision of the
American system began to excite him profoundly and now he was on his feet again, leaning
across the desk like the chairman of a board meeting, his fingers plunged in the rose
bowls.
"This American system of ours," he shouted, "call it Americanism, call it Capitalism, call
it what you like, gives to each and every one of us a great opportunity if we only seize it
with both hands and make the most of it." He held out his hand towards me, the fingers
dripping a little, and stared at me sternly for a few seconds before reseating himself.
A month later in New York I was telling this story to Mr John Walter, minority owner of
The Times . He asked me why I had not written the Capone interview for the paper. I
explained that when I had come to put my notes together I saw that most of what Capone had
said was in essence identical with what was being said in the leading articles of The
Times itself, and I doubted whether the paper would be best pleased to find itself seeing
eye to eye with the most notorious gangster in Chicago. Mr Walter, after a moment's wry
reflection, admitted that probably my idea had been correct.'
This article was obviously written by someone who wants to maintain the status quo.
America would be much stronger if it were not trying to be an empire. The biggest lie ever
told is that American hegemony relies on American imperialism and warmongering. The opposite
is true. America is weak precisely because it is trying so hard to project strength, because
anyone with half a brain knows that it is projecting strength to enrich oligarhcs, not to
protect or favor the American people.
I truly believe that "America First" is not selfish. America before it went full ******
was the beacon of freedom and success that other countries tried to emulate and that changed
the world for the better.
America the empire is just another oligarchic regime that other
countries' populations rightly see as an example of what doesn't work.
Empire is a contrivance, a vehicle for psychopathic powerlust. America was founded by
people who stood adamantly opposed to this. Here's hoping Trump holds their true spirit in
his heart.
If he doesn't, there's hundreds of millions of us who still do. We don't all live in
America...
America is weak precisely because it is trying so hard to project strength, because
anyone with half a brain knows that it is projecting strength to enrich oligarhcs [sic],
not to protect or favor the American people.
And who do you suppose are the forces which are funding US politicians and thus getting to
call their shots in foreign policy? Can you bring yourself to name them? Oligarchs...you're
FULL of ****. Who exactly pools all (((their))) money, makes sure the [s]elected officials
know (((who))) to not question and, instead, just bow down to them, who makes sure these
(((officials))) sign pledges for absolute commitment towards Israel--or in no uncertain
terms-- and know who will either sponsor them/or opposes them next time around?
JSBach1 called you a 'coward', for being EXACTLY LIKE THESE TRAITOROUS SPINELESS
VERMIN who simply just step outside just 'enough' the comfort zone to APPEAR 'real'. IMHO, I
concur with JSBach1 ...your're a coward indeed, when you should know better .....
shame you you indeed!
There is little evidence, Trump's propaganda aside (that he previously called Obama
dishonest for) that the US economy is improving. If anything, the exploding budget and trade
deficits indicate that the economy continues to weaken.
Correct. The US physical plant and equipment as well as infrastructure is in advanced
stages of decay. Ditto for the labor force which has been pauperized and abused for decades
by the Predator Class...
the US can't even raise an army... even if enough young (men) were
dumb enough to volunteer there just aren't enough fit, healthy and mentally acute recruits
out there.
"... The move means that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein will no longer oversee the federal Russia investigation, which he has looked over since Sessions recused himself early last year due to his work on Trump's campaign. ..."
President Trump's pick to replace ousted Attorney General Jeff Sessions plans to take over
oversight of special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation, the Department of Justice (DOJ)
confirmed Wednesday. "The Acting Attorney General is in charge of all matters under the purview
of the Department of Justice," DOJ spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores said in a statement to The
Hill.
The move means that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein will no longer oversee the
federal Russia investigation, which he has looked over since Sessions recused himself early
last year due to his work on Trump's campaign.
Trump on Wednesday afternoon announced Matthew
Whitaker, who served as Sessions's chief of staff at the DOJ, as his temporary replacement atop
the department after ousting Sessions.
"... There is only the Deep Purple Mil.Gov UniParty. The Titanic is dead in the water, lights out, bow down hard. The Rich, the Corporate Profiteers and the Military-Political Establishment have pulled away in their fur and jewel-encrusted life boats. It's one minute after midnight on the Doomsday Clock, the hands have fallen off the Debt Clock, the skies are burning and seas are rising (they say), and we are in WW3 in 8 nations. Or is it 9? ..."
"... So the Democrat faction of the Corporate One-Party took back control of the House from the Republican faction. (It's one hard-right party, of course; only liars and those ignorant of history call the Dems "centrist". By any objective or historical standard they're a right-wing party.) ..."
"... I made no prediction on what would happen in this election, but I've long predicted that if/when the Democrats win control of either house they'll do nothing with that control. Jack squat. Status quo all the way, embellished with more retarded Russia-Derangement stuff and similar nonsense. ..."
"... If there really were a difference between these corporate factions, here's the chance for the House to obstruct all Senate-passed legislation. ..."
"... They claim there's a difference between the two parties? ..."
"... But I predict this House won't lift a finger vs. the Senate, and that it'll strive to work with the Senate on legislation, and that it'll fully concur with the Senate on war budgets, police state measures, anything and everything demanded by Wall Street, Big Ag, the fossil fuel extractors, and of course the corporate welfare state in general. ..."
"... Nothing I've talked about here is anything but what is possible, what is always implicitly or explicitly promised by Dembots, and what it would seem is the minimum necessary given what Dembots claim is the scope of the crisis and what is at stake. ..."
It's not even decent theatre. Drama is much lacking, character development zilch. The outcome that dems take congress,& rethugs
improve in senate is exactly as was predicted months ago.
The dems reveal once again exactly how mendacious and uncaring of
the population they are. Nothing matters other than screwing more cash outta anyone who wants anything done so that the DC trough
stays full with the usual crew of 4th & 5th generation wannabe dem pols guzzling hard at the corporate funded 'dem aligned' think
tanks which generate much hot air yet never deliver. Hardly suprising given that actually doing something to show they give a
sh1t about the citizenry would annoy the donor who would give em all the boot, making all these no-hopers have to take up a gig
actually practising law.
These are people whose presence at the best law schools in the country prevented many who wanted to be y'know lawyers from
entering Harvard, Cornell etc law school. "one doesn't go to law school to become a lawyer It too hard to even pull down a mil
a year as a brief, nah, I studied the law to learn how to make laws that actually do the opposite of what they seem to. That is
where the real dough is."
Those who think that is being too hard on the dem slugs, should remember that the rethugs they have been indoctrinated to detest
act pretty much as printed on the side of the can. They advertise a service of licking rich arseholes and that is exactly what
they do. As venal and sociopathic as they are, at least they don't pretend to be something else; so while there is no way one
could vote for anyone spouting republican nonsense at least they don't hide their greed & corruption under a veneer of pseudo-humanist
nonsense. Dems cry for the plight of the poverty stricken then they slash welfare.
Or dems sob about the hard row african americans must hoe, then go off to the house of reps to pass laws to keep impoverished
african americans slotted up in an over crowded prison for the rest of his/her life.
Not only deceitful and vicious, 100% pointless since any Joe/Jo that votes on the basis of wanting to see more blackfellas
incarcerated is always gonna tick the rethug box anyhow.
Yeah- yeah we know all this so what?
This is what - the dems broke their arses getting tens of millions of young first time voters out to "exercise their democratic
prerogative" for the first time. Dems did this knowing full well that there would be no effective opposition to rethug demands
for more domestic oppression, that in fact it is practically guaranteed that should the trump and the rethug senate require it,
in order to ensure something particularly nasty gets passed, that sufficient dem congress people will 'cross the floor' to make
certain the bill does get up.
Of course the dems in question will allude to 'folks back home demanding' that the dem slug does vote with the nasties, but
that is the excuse, the reality is far too many dem pols are as bigoted greedy and elitist as the worst rethugs.
Anyway the upshot of persuading so many kids to get out and vote, so the kids do but the dems are content to just do more of
the same, will be another entire generation lost to elections forever.
If the DNC had been less greedy and more strategic they would have kept their powder dry and hung off press-ganging the kids
until getting such a turnout could have resulted in genuine change, prez 2020' or whenever, would be actual success for pols and
voters.
But they didn't and wouldn't ever, since for a dem pol, hundreds of thousands of fellow citizens living on the street isn't
nearly as problematic for them, as the dem wannabe pol paying off the mortgage on his/her DC townhouse by 2020, something that
would have been impossible if they hadn't taken congress as all the 'patrons' would have jerked back their cash figuring there
is no gain giving dosh to losers who couldn't win a bar raffle.
As for that Sharice Davids - a total miss she needed to be either a midget or missing an arm or leg to qualify as the classic
ID dem pol. Being a native american lezzo just doesn't tick enough boxes. I predict a not in the least illustrious career since
she cannot even qualify as the punchline in a circa 1980's joke.
As you said, nothing will get out of the House, Pelosi can't lead. They can easily swing 3 Democrats, then Mike Pence puts
the hammer down. If anything manages to crawl through, it won't even be brought to a vote in the Republican Senate. Trump can
still us his bully pulpit to circle the White wagons, fly in even more than his current 1,125,000 H-visa aliens, and No Taxes
for the Rich is now engraved in stone for the Pharoahs.
The imminent $1,500B Omnibus Deficit Bill Three will be lauded as a 'bipartisan solution' by both houses, and 2020 looks to
be a $27,000B illegal, onerous, odious National Debt open Civil War.
There is only the Deep Purple Mil.Gov UniParty. The Titanic is dead in the water, lights out, bow down hard. The Rich,
the Corporate Profiteers and the Military-Political Establishment have pulled away in their fur and jewel-encrusted life boats.
It's one minute after midnight on the Doomsday Clock, the hands have fallen off the Debt Clock, the skies are burning and seas
are rising (they say), and we are in WW3 in 8 nations. Or is it 9?
Smart money is moving toward the exits. This shyte is gonna blow. Let's move to Australia, before it becomes part of Xi's PRC
String of Girls.
Reading most of the comments explaining how the D's won/lost,,, the R's won/lost,,, Trump and company won/lost,,, but couldn't
find one post about how America is losing due to the two suffocating party's and a greedy, disunited, selfish, electorate that
wants it all free.
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the Majority discovers it can vote itself
largess out of the public treasury,,,,,,, After that the Majority always votes for the candidate 'promising the most' ,,,,,,,
Alex Fraser.
So the Democrat faction of the Corporate One-Party took back control of the House from the Republican faction. (It's one hard-right
party, of course; only liars and those ignorant of history call the Dems "centrist". By any objective or historical standard they're
a right-wing party.)
It's no big surprise. Last two years it's been the normally self-assured Republicans who, because of their ambivalence about Trump,
have uncharacteristically taken on the usual Democrat role of existential confusion and doubt. Meanwhile the Democrats, in a berserk
batsh$t-insane way, have been more motivated and focused.
So what are these Democrats going to do with this control now that they have it?
I made no prediction on what would happen in this election, but I've long predicted that if/when the Democrats win control of
either house they'll do nothing with that control. Jack squat. Status quo all the way, embellished with more retarded Russia-Derangement
stuff and similar nonsense.
If there really were a difference between these corporate factions, here's the chance for the House to obstruct all Senate-passed
legislation. And as for things which are technically only in the power of the Senate such as confirming appointments, here's the
chance for the House to put public moral pressure on Democrats in the Senate. And there's plenty of back-door ways an activist
House can influence Senate business. Only morbid pedantry, so typical of liberal Dembots, babbles about what the technical powers
of this or that body are. The real world doesn't work that way. To the extent I pay attention at all to Senate affairs it'll be
to see what the House is doing about it.
They claim there's a difference between the two parties? And they claim Trump is an incipient fascist dictator? In that case there's
a lot at stake, and extreme action is called for. Let's see what kind of action we get from their "different" party in control
of the House.
But I predict this House won't lift a finger vs. the Senate, and that it'll strive to work with the Senate on legislation, and
that it'll fully concur with the Senate on war budgets, police state measures, anything and everything demanded by Wall Street,
Big Ag, the fossil fuel extractors, and of course the corporate welfare state in general.
Nor will any of these new-fangled fake "socialist" types take any action to change things one iota. Within the House Democrats,
they could take action, form any and every kind of coalition, to obstruct the corporate-Pelosi leadership faction. They will not
do so. This "new" progressive bloc will be just as fake as the old one.
Nothing I've talked about here is anything but what is possible, what is always implicitly or explicitly promised by Dembots,
and what it would seem is the minimum necessary given what Dembots claim is the scope of the crisis and what is at stake.
"... There is only the Deep Purple Mil.Gov UniParty. The Titanic is dead in the water, lights out, bow down hard. The Rich, the Corporate Profiteers and the Military-Political Establishment have pulled away in their fur and jewel-encrusted life boats. It's one minute after midnight on the Doomsday Clock, the hands have fallen off the Debt Clock, the skies are burning and seas are rising (they say), and we are in WW3 in 8 nations. Or is it 9? ..."
Anton Worter , Nov 7, 2018 11:13:25 AM |
57 ">link
@9
As you said, nothing will get out of the House, Pelosi can't lead. They can easily swing 3
Democrats, then Mike Pence puts the hammer down. If anything manages to crawl through, it
won't even be brought to a vote in the Republican Senate. Trump can still us his bully pulpit
to circle the White wagons, fly in even more than his current 1,125,000 H-visa aliens, and No
Taxes for the Rich is now engraved in stone for the Pharoahs.
The imminent $1,500B Omnibus Deficit Bill Three will be lauded as a 'bipartisan solution'
by both houses, and 2020 looks to be a $27,000B illegal, onerous, odious National Debt open
Civil War.
There is only the Deep Purple Mil.Gov UniParty. The Titanic is dead in the water,
lights out, bow down hard. The Rich, the Corporate Profiteers and the Military-Political
Establishment have pulled away in their fur and jewel-encrusted life boats. It's one minute
after midnight on the Doomsday Clock, the hands have fallen off the Debt Clock, the skies are
burning and seas are rising (they say), and we are in WW3 in 8 nations. Or is it 9?
Smart money is moving toward the exits. This shyte is gonna blow. Let's move to Australia,
before it becomes part of Xi's PRC String of Girls.
It's true that progressives lost a bunch of very close races in deep-red districts, but many
of the biggest losses of the night were center-right Democrats. Senator Joe Donnelly of
Indiana, Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri and Senator Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota were
just some of those so-called "moderate" losers.
I say good riddance.
"... Investigating Trump for the rest of his tenure will keep them from having to do their jobs for Americans. ..."
"... They're going to spend millions of dollars and better yet, millions of hours babbling on and on about Taxes and Trump. ..."
"... With Sessions now out they're already screaming again about Rosenstein and Mueller for Gods sake. And they'll keep that up right until Nov 2020. ..."
"... In many cases, the people have won. The fresh blood going into the House in particular and some new governorships are more important than people realize yet. ..."
"... There are now over 100 women in the House -- a first. ..."
"... I hope the dems stand firm on protecting both programs plus not raising the retirement age. But with Pelosi who knows. ..."
"... Nancy Pelosi: Democrats Don't Want a New Direction ..."
should not spend their time "investigating" Trump. Leave that to real journalists (there
are still some around).
If they play it right, the Dems could triple Trump's anxiety and paranoia levels by
keeping relative silence over his corruption, rather than starting a war of words with him.
He wins if they let him weasel his way out of things. Besides that, the Dems will do a
lousy job of trying to go after Trump. They need to spend their time going after Trump's
policies period.
up 13 users have voted. --
Regardless of the path in life I chose, I realize it's always forward, never straight.
The corporate Dems have no policies that represent the people who elected them. However,
they are no longer completely surrounded by like thinkers. While the number of progressives
may still be smaller than the numbers of establishment Dems, those progressives DO have an
agenda and the people who want progress MUST support them and let the old guard know that
they will not support obstruction of progressive policies.
Start by telling your congress critter to vote no on Pelosi.
@WindDancer13
The Democrats should be doing everything they can to build up themselves by aggressively
pursuing policies that benefit the people. The Democrats need to stand FOR something.
Otherwise they are just like the old guy shaking his fist at the sky. They can investigate
Trump all they want, but it is waste of time, money, and there will be no impeachment hearing
in the Senate. Besides many of them have so big skeletons in their closets too.
should not spend their time "investigating" Trump. Leave that to real journalists
(there are still some around).
If they play it right, the Dems could triple Trump's anxiety and paranoia levels by
keeping relative silence over his corruption, rather than starting a war of words with
him. He wins if they let him weasel his way out of things. Besides that, the Dems will do
a lousy job of trying to go after Trump. They need to spend their time going after
Trump's policies period.
Investigating Trump for the rest of his tenure will keep them from having to do their jobs
for Americans. The republicans came out with their balls on fire and rescinded and passed
legislation right and left and now that the democrats have the house they're going to look at
Trump's tax returns. For gawd's sake why? Okay.. they find that he did something wrong on
them. Then what? Do they think that if they show he cheated on them then he'll be kicked out
of office? Nope
Look at how many people who Obama tried to appoint were guilty of not paying theirs.
Daschle who came from a medical lobbying firm was supposed to be his secretary of health, but
he hadn't paid his taxes for a decade. Did he go to prison over it? Why no he didn't. Why?
Two Americas. Only little people go to prison for doing .... fill in the blank.
Pelosi is also spouting bipartisanship. Gack! WTF again Nancy? Don't forget pay as you
go.
#3.2 The
Democrats should be doing everything they can to build up themselves by aggressively
pursuing policies that benefit the people. The Democrats need to stand FOR something.
Otherwise they are just like the old guy shaking his fist at the sky. They can
investigate Trump all they want, but it is waste of time, money, and there will be no
impeachment hearing in the Senate. Besides many of them have so big skeletons in their
closets too.
@snoopydawg
Like really? They're going to spend millions of dollars and better yet, millions of hours
babbling on and on about Taxes and Trump. But they'll only go so far as that mess effects all
of them and they good and well know it. But it keeps the divide going and the utter fallacy
of someday sticking it to Trump. They'll come up with nothing and stone wall anything that
threatens their status quo. With Sessions now out they're already screaming again about
Rosenstein and Mueller for Gods sake. And they'll keep that up right until Nov 2020.
destroying the departments they're in charge of. If squeezed, will they sing
like canaries? Cry like babies? Youth wants to know.
If the Democrats think they are going to waste Taxpayer Money investigating us at
the House level, then we will likewise be forced to consider investigating them for all
of the leaks of Classified Information, and much else, at the Senate level. Two can
play that game!
He did not "win," not by a long shot. Neither did the corporate Dems. It was never really
expected (except maybe by some totally unrealistic people) that the Dems would take the
Senate. The seats that were up for grabs were too limited and in some very, very red areas.
However, we need to pay attention to just how close many of those races were. Some major
dents were put into Rep armor and have left some wounds.
I too was very happy to see McCaskill and Heitcamp defeated. They were both totally
worthless. This could be viewed as the start to cleaning out the "bad" Dems, even if we have
to put up with a few Republicans to do so.
Suppression played a huge role in the results (especially governorships), and that must
not be forgotten. In fact needs to be a focal point for the next two years along with getting
corporate money out of the election system.
Another issue that needs to be dealt with is stopping Trump from dominating the news
cycle. Anyone else notice just how many non-news stories popped up regarding Kavanaugh in the
last week? The public does not need to see Dems foaming at the mouth in response to or in
imitation of Trump. If they do, let the culprit from your voting district know how displeased
you are with their actions (get a few friends to also comment).
In many cases, the people have won. The fresh blood going into the House in particular and some new governorships are
more important than people realize yet. For diversity alone, there were huge strides made yesterday. Seeing so many
progressives take a seat in the House will encourage others for 2020 who will have a lot better chance now to remove some of
the riffraff.
There are now over 100 women in the House -- a first. This means that we are still less than
half way to parity. This needs to be worked on for 2020 along with more progressives. (No,
not all women are equal--I remember Phyllis Shaffly only too well, and there is still HRC to
silence, but overall, women and certainly progressive women have different priorities most of
which align with what people really want and need.) Message to all...less time writing and
contemplating and more time taking action.
In short, I see this as a victory--albeit not as large as we would like--for
progressives.
I hope the dems stand firm on protecting both programs plus not raising the retirement
age. But with Pelosi who knows. I would like to think that she would get major push back if
she tries an Obama grand bargain bullshit. But she lives in a such a bubble though.
This is why people don't vote for the Democratic Party and why the big blue wave of cash
won't win the 2018 midterm elections for them:
In December of 2016 – right after Hillary Clinton and the rest of the Democratic
candidates lost big to Trump, the worst presidential candidate of all time – what
happened? Their leader, Nancy Pelosi was asked directly what the Democratic Party was going
to do to change this heinous defeat.
Know what she said? Do you remember? I do.
She said the Democratic Party wasn't going to change anything. Keep the same policies
they lost the 2016 elections on. Know what they were going to change?
Their marketing. Change the marketing so people "get the message."
Same shit. Different wrapper.
Nancy Pelosi: Democrats Don't Want a New Direction
When people who voted for Obama realized the Obama is a fraud with strong CIA connections it
was too late...
When people who voted for Trump realized that Trump was a fraud with strong Israeli
connections it was too late.
Notable quotes:
"... Nor does the caravan 'fix' or even illuminate decades of US abuses in Central and South America. It simply gives Trump an opportunity to grandstand and urge his voters to go to the polls. ..."
...And it seems likely, if not certain, that the caravan is a political stunt that will
end in disappointment for the caravan migrants. So I fail to see why you are so angry Debs.
Our discussion doesn't ignore the realities. Nor does the caravan 'fix' or even
illuminate decades of US abuses in Central and South America. It simply gives Trump an
opportunity to grandstand and urge his voters to go to the polls.
We are being played by an establishment that wants to move the country to the right. MAGA!
is a bi-partisan effort fueled by the challenge from China and Russia. This is clear from
Democratic Party priorities and actions as well as what they don't say or do.
Sen. Mark R. Warner (Va.), the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said
in a statement, "No one is above the law and any effort to interfere with the Special
Counsel's investigation would be a gross abuse of power by the President. While the President
may have theauthority to replace the Attorney General, this must not be the first step in an
attempt to impede, obstruct or end the Mueller investigation."
The leader of Communist China, Chairman Mao, warned the country that revisionists were
threatening to erase all the progress made since the Communist Revolution which brought Mao to
power.
It had been almost 20 years since the bloody revolution, and Mao wanted to reinvigorate the
rebel spirit in the youth. He instructed students to root out any teachers who wove subtle
anti-communist sentiments in their lessons.
Mao encouraged students to rebel against any mindless respect for entrenched authority,
remnants, he said, of centuries of capitalist influence.
Students at Yizhen Middle School, like many others, quickly took up the task. They "exposed"
capitalist intellectual teachers and paraded them around in dunce caps with insulting signs
hung around their necks.
Teachers were beaten and harassed until they confessed to their crimes most of which were,
of course, false confessions to avoid further torture.
It only escalated from there.
What ensued puts Lord of the Flies to shame.
One teacher killed himself after being taken captive by students. Most teachers fled.
Soon the students were left entirely in charge of their school. Two factions quickly
emerged, one calling themselves the East is Red Corps, and the other the Red Rebels.
One student was kidnapped by the East is Red Corps, and suffocated to death on a sock
stuffed in his mouth.
A girl was found to be an East is Red spy among the Red Rebels. She was later cornered with
other East is Red students in a building. She shouted from a window that she would rather die
than surrender. Praising Chairman Mao, she jumped to her death.
Some Red Rebels died from an accidental explosion while making bombs.
Many were tortured, and another student died from his injuries at the hands of the East is
Red Corps.
A female teacher refused to sign an affidavit lying about the cause of death. She was beaten
and gang-raped by a group of students.
Although it might be tempting to see what happened at YMS as mostly relevant to group
adolescent behavior what happened at the school occurred throughout China in government
offices, factories, within the army, and among Chinese of all ages in an eerily similar
way
The students' repressed resentment at having to be so obedient now boiled over into anger
and the desire to be the ones doing the punishing and oppressing
In the power vacuum that Mao had now created, another timeless group dynamic emerged.
Those who were naturally more assertive, aggressive, and even sadistic pushed their way
forward and assumed power , while those who were more passive quietly receded into the
background becoming followers
Once all forms of authority were removed and the students ran the school, there was
nothing to stop the next and most dangerous development in group dynamics. The split into
tribal factions
People may think they are joining because of the different ideas or goals of this tribe or
the other, but what they want more than anything is a sense of belonging and a clear tribal
identity.
Look at the actual differences between the East is Red Corps and the Red Rebels. As the
battle between them intensified it was hard to say what they were fighting for, except to
assume power over the other group.
One strong or vicious act of one side called for a reprisal from the other, and any type
of violence seemed totally justified. There could be no middle ground, nor any questioning of
the rightness of their cause.
The tribe is always right. And to say otherwise is to betray it.
I write this on the eve of the 2018 midterm elections.
And like Mao handing down his orders to dispose of capitalist sympathizers, such have the
leaders of each major US political party rallied their supporters.
This is the most important election of our lifetime, they say.
No middle ground. Violence is justified to get our way. Betray the tribe, and be considered
an enemy.
Just like Mao, they have manufactured a crisis that did not previously exist.
The students had no violent factions before Mao's encouragement. They had no serious
problems with their teachers.
Is there any natural crisis occurring right now? Or has the political establishment whipped
us into an artificial frenzy?
This isn't just another boring election, they say. This is a battle for our future.
The students battled over who were the purest revolutionaries.
The voters now battle over who has the purest intentions for America.
Do the factions even know what they are fighting for anymore?
They are simply fighting for their tribe's control over the government.
The battle of the factions at schools across China were "resolved" when Mao came to support
one side or the other. In that sense, it very much did matter which side the students were
on
The government came down hard against the losing faction.
They had chosen wrong and found themselves aligned against the powerful Communist Party.
It won't be a dictator that hands control to one faction or another in this election. It
will be a simple majority. And those in the minority will suffer.
The winners will feel that it is their time to wield power, just as the students were happy
to finally have the upper hand on their teachers.
If Mao didn't have so much power, he could have never initiated such a violent crisis.
And if our government didn't have so much power, it would hardly matter who wins the
election.
Yet here we are, fighting for control of the government because each faction threatens to
violently repress the other if they gain power.
It is a manufactured crisis. A crisis that only exists because political elites in the
government and media have said so.
They decided that this election will spark the USA's "Cultural Revolution."
And anyone with sympathies from a bygone era will be punished.
You don't have to play by the rules of the corrupt politicians, manipulative media, and
brainwashed peers.
When you subscribe to The Daily Bell, you also get a free guide:
How to Craft a Two Year Plan to Reclaim 3 Specific Freedoms.
This guide will show you exactly how to plan your next two years to build the free life of
your dreams. It's not as hard as you think
Tribal warfare? You clearly don't understand what's happening here. The Globalist cartel
has created division between two parties to incite chaos and violence. The "warfare" you
reference will be nothing but protesting ->rioting ->anarchy ->police restraint of
the Democrat incited sheeple.
There's no tribalism associated with upholding and preserving the Constitution.
I think the globalists will try to cool it off before things spin out of (((their)))
control. Either that or move to the next phase...world war... so they can just slaughter us
and not have to bother trying to herd the increasingly "woke" goyim live stock.
I have NOT heard about a SINGLE CREDIBLE violent incident where people got hurt FROM THE
RIGHT. All the incidents of "White Fascist Violence" look like FALSE FLAGS and contrived
incidents. The foregoing CAN NOT be said of the Leftist Antifa types including racist La Raza
supporters, racist Blacks who want something for nothing, immigrants from any country who
want to be fully supported because they BREATHE and the Top Group (pun intended) Whites who
do not believe in boundaries, standards or quality of life UNLESS it's their lives. NOT all
Blacks, Hispanics and Immigrants are in the Left; but most Blacks, Hispanics and Immigrants
are on the Left and havn't a clue they are responsible for their own prisons because they
cannot REASON and virtue signaling is more important so they are part of the GROUP. Misplaced
EMPHASIS on what is important in creating a CIVILIZED and SAFE society.
"... Dems are fucking bonkers with the caravans. It's as if these fools didn't know Europe does exist and had the same thing happen, on a far bigger magnitude, or didn't learn the lesson - as if Brexit, Le Pen, Lega, Orban and others didn't really exist in their strictly America-centered world. ..."
IMO b is
right. The image works for Trump, not against, on two issues; the border and the ME.
Border
Yes the US Constitution prevents US Troops being used within the country for military
purpose. But the troops are only providing support at the Border.
The reality is the people on the march to the US border all refused an offer from Mexico to
settle in two southern (Mexican) states and receive jobs, free housing, free food, free
education and free healthcare. So much for the PR story of this group as economic
immigrants and sanctuary seekers. They are seen as being in search of the Free Lunch.
These people are being paid (not sure how much) from what I have read and the march is to
create a story of poor souls prevented (by Trump) from obtaining the supposed American
dream.
For voters in the US southwest especially this group is seen as a bunch of scroungers and
Trump as the guy who will keep them out.
The ME
I am not aware of anyone who thinks the US belongs in the ME. Yes, Israel is all for it,
but in the US no one wants troops there. We have lost country after country after country
and some military head just said that after 17 years we are not "winning" in Afghanistan.
These wars are a financial scam in the eyes of many and are for Israel's benefit in the
eyes of many others. I doubt if any troops in recent years have signed up to fight in the
ME so that statement itself is one the NYT will choke on.
But it is the Times, and they play to their now somewhat limited audience who must be told
that the lies they believe are true. If Trump paid for this cartoon, he could probably not be more pleased.
"It's not really possible to excuse the pretense that a band of beggars who plan to ask
for asylum constitute an invasion."
I suppose that is what Assad and the Syrian government thought when the CIA death squads
started trickling into their country under the pretense that they were refugees from the
violence in Libya.
The CIA built lots of death squads in Latin America.
While most of the the "band of beggars" are harmless useful idiots recruited for
the optics, there is a very real possibility that the CIA's death squads from Honduras and
possibly Mexico (have to get out now that AMLO is cracking down) are mingling amongst them.
Why? Page borrowed from the textbook CIA/State Department manual on regime change:
1) Bring protesters into conflict with authorities. 2) Death squads embedded among the protesters kill both protesters and law enforcement
officers. 3) Riots ensue. 5) Complicit corporate mass media winds up the echo chamber forcing the meme that the
violence was the authorities' fault. 6) Profit!
Anywho, it is tough to take serious any accusations of slander against a population that
has been heavily brainwashed since birth. As with a pair of bluejeans that have been washed
several times per day since they were manufactured, over-laundered minds get limp, floppy
and full of holes. Americans' minds are so frayed from daily reprogramming that they cannot
remember what they believed yesterday, much less why they would have believed it.
The possee commitatus law which prohibited federal troops from engaging in domestic law
enforcement has been repealed.
Also, you are aware that Israel is a rogue state in that it does not have a
constitution, it has never defined its borders, it has repeatedly attacked its neighbors,
it is an apartheid state, it has 200-400 illegal nuclear warheads, it engages in mass
punishment of 6 million Arabs the are the dominant peoples of Palestine, and it has pulled
strings to lure the US into wars with Iraq, Syria, Lybia, and Iran.
For these reasons it is perfectly reasonable and accurate and truthful to label such a
rogue state a 'Zionist regime.'
(Now you are informed. Now you should apologize to b.)
One wonders why the NYT is willingly playing into his hands with this.
Because the NYT (and mainstream media in general) have been such psychopathic warmongers
for so long that by now they're really incapable of understanding that there could be any
alternative idea or action. In many states they'd meet the legal definition of
insanity.
Of course Trump is just as insane. He merely wants to do both/and rather than either/or,
as the NYT would have it.
Given that the only characters with speaking parts in the cartoon are hi-profile
non-combatant pro-"Israel" warmongers masquerading as brain-washed grunts, the message it
sends is so mixed that it means whatever the consumer wants it to mean. An attempt at reverse psychology?
Posted by: morongobill | Nov 5, 2018 8:48:58 AM | 5 "I'm a deplorable and proud of it and I believe that this nation needs to make it
crystal clear that the borders mean something."
I don't reckon native americans would agree, particularly since most of those arriving
are indigenous to america. amerika the abortion, has never considered the property rights,
cultures or ethos of other humans anywhere on this old rock. Not in the ME, Asia or more
recently Africa, much less those concerns as they relate to native americans be they those
indigenous to the area that comprises amerika or those who are indigenous to other portions
of the american continents, so I reckon that using this nonsense now to justify racism is
just hypocritical, That it is about as low as it is possible to go. That is compounded to
the n th degree when one considers that the failed states which most of the caravan
peoples originate from suffered failure because amerika the abortion of a place,
deliberately engineered the failures to make amerika's theft of all resources in latin
america, easier and less expensive. Run along and study exactly how amerika has deliberately destroyed Guatemala and Honduras
then come back here and try to justify the attacks on a few hundred thousand of those
people fleeing lawlessness and corruption that the amerikan government has caused in your
name.
Not that it matters - trump or any of his ilk have no chance of preventing the Latin
American influx. Once again if you study history you will discover that over the millennia numerous other
populations have attempted to prevent needs driven migration into what they have
arbitrarily decided are 'their' lands and have used exactly the same techniques the trump
scumbags propose. They inevitably fail. Mass migrations are relentless they cannot be
'blocked' the only viable strategy has been to remove the attraction by ensuring economic
improvement in the areas that migrants come from.
If amerikans actually want to stop the migration, which is debatable since the rich who
control amerika believe increasing the population to be an excellent way to go since they
profit from more humans and increased population density, but let's pretend that ordinary
citizens actually have a say in what happens in amerika, then amerikans need to fix that
which they f**ked. Central amerikans have endured decades of corrupt amerikan installed
'governments' which regarded their primary mission (after trousering all funds in their
purview) to be confiscating all land from the people who have lived on it going back at
least a few thousand years, then selling that stolen land to amerikan corporations, hedge
funds, retirement schemes, AKA any & all of Wall St's scams.
None of the migr Everybody in amerika has been aware of this even tho they pretend they are ignorant of
their culture's rapacious thefts it is impossible for anyone with half a brain not to see 2
+ 2 = 4. So quit whining and either assist the new arrivals or, get yer arse into gear & ensure
your mendacious leadership sets about making amends for the damage done in your name.
nobody remembers anglo persian oil that was ares those iranian gypsy stole it the gas
fields 2. it was not fare fair they kicked are shar out 2 trumped is doing molechs work here hare here. it is vital that latest push on these yemeni ports is a success with a strong tail wind
victory is at hand. a redrawing of the maps is needed and an exodus of musslamics and arab and children of
christ into scotland wales,detroit noray denmark and lovely sweden germany france a big idea may need a new marshall plan trillions of dollars in bonds must be made like
lend lease in great britain it may take 50 years to pay off the debts for this final
solution maybe 100 years or more. never again the man said we must protect the innocent khazar ashkanazi from brutal
goyim. lets do this as paul greengrass said lets roll
Should several thousand knuckle heads attempt to force entry into the United States,... The news story should read as such,... 'Today, a couple thousand knuckleheads attacked our border. We shot them.'
Second: this mass immigration from Latin America is fruit of inumerous American backed
regime changes, aimed at stifling industrialization of the region, thus empoverishing its
peoples.
This
is true even for the Monroe Doctrine poster boy, Mexico .
Dems are fucking bonkers with the caravans. It's as if these fools didn't know Europe
does exist and had the same thing happen, on a far bigger magnitude, or didn't learn the
lesson - as if Brexit, Le Pen, Lega, Orban and others didn't really exist in their strictly
America-centered world.
As a matter of fact, any deliberately illegal entry of anyone into a foreign country
represents per se an invasion. it's just that it's minimal when it's a couple of people,
and not all invasions are armed gangs of conquistadores ready to loot the gold from the
temples, or Mongols on rampage. Not all invasions require military will kill on sight
orders, though. Some measure is required.
Now, where Dems are bloody idiots is that only a part of the progressive wing will see
the caravans as nice people to be welcome. Part of the uber-capitalist wing will see them
as a great opportunity as well, but for very different reasons. The thing is, the inner
subconscious of a majority of Westerners will basically have 2 very different
interpretations of a vast column of people walking towards their border.
One, which is quite recent, occurs if it's a large group of unarmed civilians and
families from a neighbouring country, fleeing it under direct threat of closeby invading
and advancing enemy armies; in this case, the obvious reference in Western psyche,
specially European one, will be WW II and the hosts of panicked civilians fleeing before
the enemy onslaught.
The other reference from the collective psyche, which obviously is the one that lurks in
the mind of most Westerners who saw the vids and pictures of the huge crowds of migrants
back in 2015/16 - and which will likely occur for some Americans as well, with the caravans
-, is obviously the far older picture of the Barbarian Invasions. The ones ironically
called nowadays as "Migration period" by revisionist history in German and Anglo-Saxon
areas, for obvious reasons (they didn't want to tarnish their ancestors by reflecting they
were bloody savages that nearly wiped out civilization, by fear that it would reflect badly
on them); karmic justice puts them now in a bad spot since they're quite forced to consider
the current wave as mere "migration" and no big deal at all, just like in 406.
Of course, there's also karmic justice in having the US tear itself apart and being
slowly invaded by those whose countries it has wrecked beyond recognition for the last
century. But we must be absolutely honest about it. Allowing masses of migrants into the US
isn't about Central Americans deserving a better life in the US, it's about punishing the
US by wrecking it and by pushing it's ever-polarizing political sides towards civil
war.
Section 1076 of the 2006 John Warner National Defense Authorization titled "Use of the
Armed Forces in major public emergencies," provides that "The President may employ the
armed forces... to... restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when,
as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency,
terrorist attack or incident, or other condition... the President determines that...
domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the
State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order... or [to] suppress, in a
State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such...
a condition... so hinders the execution of the laws... that any part or class of its people
is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and
secured by law... or opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or
impedes the course of justice under those laws."
So then the Possee Comitatus Act is repealed by the John Warner Act. The federal
government may send troops to the border to kill any American (Central) that throws a rock.
Killing rock-throwers = MAGA.
In answer to your question, IMHO we are witnessing a very choreographed effort at
political theater on the part of both establishment R's and D's to generate interest in the
election. The ultimate point is to divide the country, which from my perspective, as a
lefty who lives and thrives among R's is not that divided as evidenced by the 2016
election. The game is divide and rule.
The elites of the US are very perturbed that Senator Sanders had such a following in the
last go around with 75% popularity while both running establishment candidates had
negatives ratings greater than their positive ones.
Looking at polling in the US it has been reported that a great majority of people in the
country want Single Payer Health Care, including ~50% R's. Additionally, some 80% of the
population agree that climate change is a major issue and want the government to do
something about it. This cuts across both parties. Meanwhile, neither party is actively
pushing Single Payer, while some Democrats show support, while the establishment is
campaigning to save the insurance and pharmaceutical industies' bonanza of ObamaCare.
IMO we have the makings of a united insurrection on our hands and it is a requirement to
keep Americans at war with each other, rather than them realizing they have been fooled by
the media and sociopathic politicians.
Also interestingly, the biggest fear people have in the US, according to the following
poll is corrupt politicians. How do you campaign against that when you have your fingers in
the till?
Additionally, according to this poll the biggest fears other than crooked politicians,
are primarily related to the environment. Neither party is attempting to address this
issue.
Hell is empty and all the devils are here. ~William Shakespeare
Notable quotes:
"... Scum versus scum. That sums up this election season. Is it any wonder that 100 million Americans don't bother to vote? When all you are offered is Bob One or Bob Two, why bother? ..."
"... One-fourth of Democratic challengers in competitive House districts in this week's elections have backgrounds in the CIA, the military, the National Security Council or the State Department. Nearly all candidates on the ballots in House races are corporate-sponsored, with a few lonely exceptions such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Rashida Tlaib, members of the Democratic Socialists of America who are running as Democrats. ..."
"... "In interviews with two dozen Wall Street executives, fund-raisers, donors and those who raise money from them, Democrats described an extraordinary level of investment and excitement from the finance sector ," The New York Times reported about current campaign contributions to the Democrats from the corporate oligarchs. ..."
There is perhaps no better illustration of the deep decay of the American political system than the Senate race in New Jersey.
Sen. Bob Menendez, running for re-election, was censured by the Senate Ethics Committee for accepting bribes from the Florida businessman
Salomon Melgen, who was convicted in 2017 of defrauding Medicare of $73 million. The senator had flown to the Dominican Republic
with Melgen on the physician's private jet and stayed in his private villa, where the men cavorted with young Dominican women who
allegedly were prostitutes. Menendez performed numerous political favors for Melgen, including helping some of the Dominican women
acquire visas to the United States. Menendez was indicted in a federal corruption trial but escaped sentencing because of a hung
jury.
Menendez has a voting record as sordid as most Democrats'. He supported the $716 billion military spending bill, along with 85
percent of his fellow Senate Democrats. He signed
a letter , along with other Democratic leaders, calling for steps to extradite
Julian Assange to
stand trial in the United States. The senator, the ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, is owned by the lobby for Israel
-- a country that routinely and massively interferes in our elections -- and supported moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem. He helped
cause the 2008 global financial crisis by voting to revoke
Glass-Steagall
, the Depression-era law enacted to create a firewall between commercial and investment banks.
His Republican rival in the Senate race that will be decided Tuesday is
Bob Hugin , whose reported net worth is at least $84 million. With Hugin as its CEO, the pharmaceutical firm Celgene made $200
million by conspiring to keep generic cancer drugs off the market, according to its critics. Celgene, a model of everything that
is wrong with our for-profit health care system, paid $280 million to settle a lawsuit filed by a whistleblower who accused the firm
of improperly marketing two drugs to treat several forms of cancer without getting Federal Drug Administration approval, thereby
defrauding Medicare. Celgene, over seven years, also doubled the price of
the cancer drug Revlimid to some $20,000
for a supply of 28 pills.
The Senate campaign in New Jersey has seen no discussion of substantive issues. It is dominated by both candidates' nonstop personal
attacks and negative ads, part of the typical burlesque of American politics.
Scum versus scum. That sums up this election season. Is it any wonder that 100 million Americans don't bother to vote? When all
you are offered is Bob One or Bob Two, why bother?
One-fourth of Democratic challengers in competitive
House districts in this week's elections have backgrounds in the CIA, the military, the National Security Council or the State Department.
Nearly all candidates on the ballots in House races are corporate-sponsored, with a few lonely exceptions such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
and Rashida Tlaib, members of the Democratic Socialists of America who are running as Democrats.
The securities and finance industry
has backed Democratic congressional candidates 63 percent to 37 percent over Republicans, according to data collected by the
Center for Responsive Politics . Democratic candidates and political action committees have received $56.8 million, compared
with Republicans' $33.4 million, the center reported. The broader sector of finance, insurance and real estate, it found, has given
$174 million to Democratic candidates, against $157 million to Republicans. And
Michael Bloomberg
, weighing his own presidential run, has pledged $100 million to elect a Democratic Congress.
"In interviews with two dozen Wall Street executives, fund-raisers, donors and those who raise money from them, Democrats described
an extraordinary level of investment and excitement from the finance sector ," The New York Times reported about current campaign
contributions to the Democrats from the corporate oligarchs.
Our system of legalized bribery is an equal-opportunity employer.
Of course, we are all supposed to vote Democratic to halt the tide of Trump fascism. But should the Democrats take control of
the House of Representatives, hate speech and violence as a tool for intimidation and control will increase, with much of it directed,
as we saw with the pipe bombs intended to decapitate the Democratic Party leadership, toward prominent Democratic politicians and
critics of Donald Trump. Should the white man's party of the president retain control of the House and the Senate, violence will
still be the favored instrument of political control as the last of democratic protections are stripped from us. Either way we are
in for it.
Trump is a clownish and embarrassing tool of the kleptocrats. His faux populism is a sham. Only the rich like his tax cuts, his
refusal to raise the minimum wage and his effort to destroy Obamacare. All he has left is hate. And he will use it. Which is not
to say that, if only to throw up some obstacle to Trump, you shouldn't vote for the Democratic scum, tools of the war industry and
the pharmaceutical and insurance industry, Wall Street and the fossil fuel industry, as opposed to the Republican scum. But Democratic
control of the House will do very little to halt our descent into corporate tyranny, especially with another economic crisis brewing
on Wall Street. The rot inside the American political system is deep and terminal.
The Democrats, who refuse to address the social inequality they helped orchestrate and that has given rise to Trump, are the party
of racial and ethnic inclusivity, identity politics, Wall Street and the military. Their core battle cry is: We are not Trump!
This is ultimately a losing formula. It was adopted by Hillary Clinton, who is apparently weighing another run for the presidency
after we thought we had thrust a stake through her political heart. It is the agenda of the well-heeled East Coast and West Coast
elites who want to instill corporate fascism with a friendly face.
Elections USA, Inc: "Scum Vs. Scum." When I went looking for Hedges's weekly column today I
rather expected him to be onto the next Bigger Picture item that he is always adroit at
tackling.
So it was a little surprising that he chose instead to lead with an example of the midterm
races in his state of NJ, the one between disgraced Democratic Senator Robert Menendez and
Republican Bob Hugin.
He never disappoints.
There is perhaps no better illustration of the deep decay of the American political
system than the Senate race in New Jersey. Sen. Bob Menendez, running for re-election, was
censured by the Senate Ethics Committee for accepting bribes from the Florida businessman
Salomon Melgen, who was convicted in 2017 of defrauding Medicare of $73 million. The
senator had flown to the Dominican Republic with Melgen on the physician's private jet and
stayed in his private villa, where the men cavorted with young Dominican women who
allegedly were prostitutes. Menendez performed numerous political favors for Melgen,
including helping some of the Dominican women acquire visas to the United States. Menendez
was indicted in a federal corruption trial but escaped sentencing because of a hung
jury.
Menendez has a voting record as sordid as most Democrats'. He supported the $716 billion
military spending bill, along with 85 percent of his fellow Senate Democrats. He signed a
letter, along with other Democratic leaders, calling for steps to extradite Julian Assange
to stand trial in the United States. The senator, the ranking member of the Foreign
Relations Committee, is owned by the lobby for Israel -- a country that routinely and
massively interferes in our elections -- and supported moving the U.S. Embassy to
Jerusalem. He helped cause the 2008 global financial crisis by voting to revoke
Glass-Steagall, the Depression-era law enacted to create a firewall between commercial and
investment banks.
In what is so emblematic of how pathetic and corrupt the opposition party, their
presidential candidate came out to throw her support behind such an odious criminal and
corporate whore and to campaign with him. While at the same time the Dems have made no secret
about their intention to crush any candidate who espouses socialist values.
Vote if you want, but it's a charade in which the Duopoly will remain beholden to the same
money interests who paid for both the Red and Blue campaigns.
Scum versus scum. That sums up this election season. Is it any wonder that 100 million
Americans don't bother to vote? When all you are offered is Bob One or Bob Two, why bother?
One-fourth of Democratic challengers in competitive House districts in this week's
elections have backgrounds in the CIA, the military, the National Security Council or the
State Department. Nearly all candidates on the ballots in House races are
corporate-sponsored, with a few lonely exceptions such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and
Rashida Tlaib, members of the Democratic Socialists of America who are running as
Democrats. The securities and finance industry has backed Democratic congressional
candidates 63 percent to 37 percent over Republicans, according to data collected by the
Center for Responsive Politics. Democratic candidates and political action committees have
received $56.8 million, compared with Republicans' $33.4 million, the center reported. The
broader sector of finance, insurance and real estate, it found, has given $174 million to
Democratic candidates, against $157 million to Republicans. And Michael Bloomberg, weighing
his own presidential run, has pledged $100 million to elect a Democratic Congress.
"In interviews with two dozen Wall Street executives, fund-raisers, donors and those who
raise money from them, Democrats described an extraordinary level of investment and
excitement from the finance sector ," The New York Times reported about current campaign
contributions to the Democrats from the corporate oligarchs.
Our system of legalized bribery is an equal-opportunity employer.
Of course, we are all supposed to vote Democratic to halt the tide of Trump fascism. But
should the Democrats take control of the House of Representatives, hate speech and violence
as a tool for intimidation and control will increase, with much of it directed, as we saw
with the pipe bombs intended to decapitate the Democratic Party leadership, toward
prominent Democratic politicians and critics of Donald Trump. Should the white man's party
of the president retain control of the House and the Senate, violence will still be the
favored instrument of political control as the last of democratic protections are stripped
from us. Either way we are in for it.
Trump is a clownish and embarrassing tool of the kleptocrats. His faux populism is a
sham. Only the rich like his tax cuts, his refusal to raise the minimum wage and his effort
to destroy Obamacare. All he has left is hate. And he will use it. Which is not to say
that, if only to throw up some obstacle to Trump, you shouldn't vote for the Democratic
scum, tools of the war industry and the pharmaceutical and insurance industry, Wall Street
and the fossil fuel industry, as opposed to the Republican scum. But Democratic control of
the House will do very little to halt our descent into corporate tyranny, especially with
another economic crisis brewing on Wall Street. The rot inside the American political
system is deep and terminal.
"Plus ça change, Plus c'est la même chose."
But it is always necessary to remind folks that the Greatest Democracy In The World is
not. It is An Auction House To The Highest Bidder.
He goes on to talk about fascism, its characteristics, its incarnation today, and the
elements that pave the way for, which are economic instability, concentrated wealth,
monopoly, a police state, imperialism, etc. It is Neoliberalism which has ushered in fascism
across the globe, plain and simple.
No totalitarian state has mastered propaganda better than the corporate state. Our press
has replaced journalism with trivia, feel-good stories, jingoism and celebrity gossip. The
banal and the absurd, delivered by cheery corporate courtiers, saturate the airwaves. Our
emotions are skillfully manipulated around manufactured personalities and manufactured
events. We are, at the same time, offered elaborate diversionary spectacles including
sporting events, reality television and absurdist political campaigns. Trump is a master of
this form of entertainment. Our emotional and intellectual energy is swallowed up by the
modern equivalent of the Roman arena. Choreographed political vaudeville, which costs
corporations billions of dollars, is called free elections. Cliché-ridden slogans,
which assure us that the freedoms we cherish remain sacrosanct, dominate our national
discourse as these freedoms are stripped from us by judicial and legislative fiat. It is a
vast con game.
You cannot use the word "liberty" when your government, as ours does, watches you 24
hours a day and stores all of your personal information in government computers in
perpetuity. You cannot use the word "liberty" when you are the most photographed and
monitored population in human history. You cannot use the word "liberty" when it is
impossible to vote against the interests of Goldman Sachs or General Dynamics. You cannot
use the word "liberty" when the state empowers militarized police to use indiscriminate
lethal force against unarmed citizens in the streets of American cities. You cannot use the
word "liberty" when 2.3 million citizens, mostly poor people of color, are held in the
largest prison system on earth. This is the relationship between a master and a slave. The
choice is between whom we want to clamp on our chains -- a jailer who mouths politically
correct bromides or a racist, Christian fascist. Either way we are shackled.
American Exceptionalism reigns supreme to the Nationalist. He refuses to acknowledge that
the real idea of "freedom" is not owning a munitions factory full of weaponry and putting a
flag on the back of a pickup. It is instead the freedom to not have to live in the shadow of
being foreclosed upon for a medical emergency, to not have to spend almost all of one's
income on rent or mortgage debt, to have more time to spend with loved ones or doing what you
love instead of working a dead end job just to pay the bills. In other words, a socialist
economy heavily regulating the banks and corporations, in which debt peonage would largely
become a thing of the past.
And then there it is. "We are being shackled incrementally," by unseen, unelected and
unacknowledged vipers who use their wealth and power to also make sure we're ignorant and
impotent to the real story.
Gross understood that unchecked corporate power would inevitably lead to corporate
fascism. It is the natural consequence of the ruling ideology of neoliberalism that
consolidates power and wealth into the hands of a tiny group of oligarchs. The political
philosopher Sheldon Wolin, refining Gross' thesis, would later characterize this corporate
tyranny or friendly fascism as "inverted totalitarianism." It was, as Gross and Wolin
pointed out, characterized by anonymity. It purported to pay fealty to electoral politics,
the Constitution and the iconography and symbols of American patriotism but internally had
seized all of the levers of power to render the citizen impotent. Gross warned that we were
being shackled incrementally. Most would not notice until they were in total bondage. He
wrote that "a friendly fascist power structure in the United States, Canada, Western
Europe, or today's Japan would be far more sophisticated than the 'caesarism' of fascist
Germany, Italy, and Japan. It would need no charismatic dictator nor even a titular head it
would require no one-party rule, no mass fascist party, no glorification of the State, no
dissolution of legislatures, no denial of reason. Rather, it would come slowly as an
outgrowth of present trends in the Establishment."
As far as I'm concerned America has been fascist for a long time, at least since 9/11 but
probably longer. We've been captured by Inverted Totalitarianism. Trump just puts the ugly
villainous face to that Fascism which has been rampant for a long time. Lewis Lapham had a
great piece called, "Due Process: Lamenting the death of
the rule of law in a country where it might have always been missing" that lays out the
case for a how concentrated wealth has pretty much ruled with impunity since the beginning.
(h/t to wendy davis)
How long will we continue to participate in this elaborate Lesser of Two Evil voting
sham?
And these days those who do will surely let you know too. All the Good Zombies will be
smiling for their selfies with their, "I Voted" stickers (now an added bonus to your "voting
experience," as if it were a child's toy inside of a cereal box or something). How long will
it be until we're handed little candies as a reward for voting? In step with the continuation
of the infantilization of interaction in America. Civics? Nah. Stickers? Yeah.
Seems we're fucking doomed. But not unless people turn off the tv's and social media to
begin talking to one another in public as fellow human beings, who as the 99% pretty much
have so many of the same concerns in common.
Partisan ideology, blasted night and day on the propaganda networks, keeping us divided
and conquered, with fear, manufactured distraction and celebrity gossip thrown in, to keep
the lemmings hypnotized from what's really going on.
But he also pulled back from saying one shouldn't vote for the Dems to stem Trump's
insanity, although he quickly added that it wouldn't stop the onslaught of corporate
tyranny.
The only thing giving me hope lately is taking the longview, and the emergence of
whistleblowers/journalists exposing the inner workings of the corporate coup. To what degree
it matters will depend on how many people they reach.
"... Opposition to the unending and expanding wars of American imperialism has been completely excluded from the election campaigns of both the Democrats and Republicans. ..."
"... The Democrats represent a political alliance of Wall Street and privileged sections of the middle class. Over the past two years, their central focus, in addition to the anti-Russia campaign, has been the promotion of the politics of race and gender, particularly through the #MeToo campaign. ..."
"... The aim has been to divide the working class while advancing the interests of factions within the top 10 percent that are competing over positions of power, money and privilege. ..."
"... Trump is himself the product of a protracted decay of democratic forms of rule. Nodal points in this process were the Clinton impeachment in 1998, the theft of the 2000 election, the launching of the "war on terror" after the 9/11 attacks, accompanied by the erection of a massive apparatus of domestic spying, and the Obama administration's policy of drone assassination, including of US citizens. ..."
Whatever the rhetoric, and however the seats of the Senate and House of Representatives are
allocated, the basic factors that drive American politics will persist. These are:
1. The determination of the ruling class to maintain the global position of American
capitalism through military force, including world war:
This central strategy has dominated American policy for decades. Seventeen years of the "war
on terror," including wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen, have devastated entire
countries and left more than one million people dead. The Trump administration has officially
announced the end of the "war on terror" and ordered the military to begin preparing for "great
power conflict" with Russia or China.
In the weeks leading up to the elections, the administration withdrew from a key Cold
War-era nuclear arms agreement (the INF Treaty) and threatened to launch preemptive strikes
against Russia. At the same time, it effectively declared a new "cold war" against China. With
no public discussion and on a bipartisan basis, the administration has initiated the largest
military buildup since the end of the Cold War.
Opposition to the unending and expanding wars of American imperialism has been
completely excluded from the election campaigns of both the Democrats and Republicans.
The Democrats fully support the strategic aim of the American ruling class to maintain its
global supremacy through military force. From the beginning of the Trump administration, the
Democrats, channeling powerful sections of the military and intelligence apparatus, have
centered their opposition to Trump on the concern that he was pulling back from war in the
Middle East and confrontation with Russia.
2. The staggering levels of social inequality, which cannot be changed by any election, and
which infect every institution of the capitalist state:
Ten years after the 2008 financial crisis, social inequality is at historic highs. Three
individuals now possess more wealth than the bottom half of the population, and just three
families have a combined fortune of $348.7 billion, four million times the median family
wealth. The vast majority of the population confronts the many manifestations of social crisis
-- declining wages, soaring health care costs, a drug overdose epidemic and decaying social
infrastructure.
These conditions are the product of the policies of the Obama administration, which
supported and oversaw the bailout of the banks following the financial meltdown in 2008. Since
Trump's election, the Democrats have collaborated in the implementation of massive tax cuts for
the rich, which they have no intention of rolling back whatever the outcome of the
elections.
The Democrats represent a political alliance of Wall Street and privileged sections of
the middle class. Over the past two years, their central focus, in addition to the anti-Russia
campaign, has been the promotion of the politics of race and gender, particularly through the
#MeToo campaign.
The aim has been to divide the working class while advancing the interests of factions
within the top 10 percent that are competing over positions of power, money and
privilege.
3. The crisis of democratic forms of rule and the turn to authoritarianism:
The crisis of American democracy, of which the Trump administration is an extreme
expression, expresses the alignment of political forms with the oligarchical character of
American society.
While Trump pursues his strategy of developing an authoritarian movement, the Democrats
likewise support the destruction of democratic rights, but in a different way. They have
focused on demands that social media companies censor the internet, under the guise of
combating "fake news" and blocking organizations that "sow discontent." In the course of their
conflict with Trump, they have hailed such enemies of democratic rights as former CIA Director
John Brennan, responsible for torture and domestic spying.
Trump is himself the product of a protracted decay of democratic forms of rule. Nodal
points in this process were the Clinton impeachment in 1998, the theft of the 2000 election,
the launching of the "war on terror" after the 9/11 attacks, accompanied by the erection of a
massive apparatus of domestic spying, and the Obama administration's policy of drone
assassination, including of US citizens.
span y gjohnsit on Mon, 11/05/2018 - 1:47pm By "win" I mean "Democrats take over the
house".
Here's my humble opinion:
1) For the Democratic establishment it won't mean much. If the drubbings in 2010, 2014, and
2016 can't cause a leadership change, or even an autopsy, then nothing will.
If anything they will blame progressives and embrace a neoliberal center-right agenda even
more.
2) For the Democratic base, OTOH, it'll be devastating. Democratic activists will lose heart
and it will begin the real start of America being a one-party state. The reason I think this is
after you call the other guy a traitor and fascist, and that still isn't enough to defeat him,
what else can you do to motivate your voters?
Expect progressive voter activism to plummet in 2020. The Green Party will probably grow,
but not as fast as the Democrats shrink.
The party is the neoliberal/neoconservative party.
The Democrats do not deserve to win. As a party, they have no policy positions and have
based their entire campaign on the we're not as bad. That does not put food on the table,
create health care security, or create living income jobs. The Democrats showed their true
colors when they voted along with the Republicans to increase the DoD budget beyond what
Trump requested and expanded the powers of surveillance under the President that they
loathe.
Most people do not want to see a phony impeachment hearing which does nothing but drain
all resources away from helping the people. If the Democrats truly wanted to win, they would
be proposing an ambitious platform aimed at helping the American people.
One more thing, would this country be better off with President Pence instead of Trump? As
bad as Trump is, I think Pence would be espousing similar hatred and therefore, would far
worse with his theocratic ideas.
Their voting base will believe the lies over the evidence before their own eyes.
I agree with most points, but disagree with this:
Expect progressive voter activism to plummet in 2020.
Given the option to just let the country turn into a full-fledged Fascist state, the
logical thing to do would be for the progressives to fight even harder. Bernie Sanders is an
example of turning a loss into more action on behalf of the people. (For those who constantly
disparage Sanders because he is not perfect, get over it...no one is and no one will ever be.
Amazon screwed their workers, not Sanders.).
Getting more and more progressives in down ballot positions will be extremely important,
no matter their label.
if the Democrats win . There are other possibilities if the corruptocrats lose -
more likely is that the true left could finally be forced to admit that the theory that the
corporatist fifth column can be reformed was always a pollyannish delusion and (for example)
Bernie will run as a Green. Without a fascist Democratic Party sabotaging him he will win
easily. (Ironically a fascist Dem, in a 3 way race, would only win NY and CA, but draw off
enough votes from Bernie so that he could lose the popular vote but would win the Electoral
College. Trump would only win AZ, TX, MS, ID, AL and SC. the final: Bernie 379, Hillscum 84,
Trump 77) On the other hand, what If 60 million people turn out and vote Democratic, and then
the corruptocrats stab them in the back again? You worry about disillusionment?
Actually it might depend on how the Democrats win or lose. I would rather see 100 Dems but 75
of them Berniecrats rather than 225 "Democrats".
Or maybe you're afraid of a racist/theocratic right coup? That is a very legitimate fear. We
have backed them up against a wall, but we don't know if they're a rat or a tiger. But they
have had 50 years to show us which, and the tiger is still hasn't eaten us. Identity politics
however, (unless you count anti-porn feminism) is less than a decade old and has already
achieved more than racism could hope for. I fear the PC SMERSH more than the racist
Gestapo.
1. For current Democratic incumbents who lose, it will mean a job change with a higher
salary.
For a while, we wondered how Democrats could be so stupid as to engage in behaviors that
might cause their constituents to primary them or vote against them in the general.
Eventually, it became clear: to ensure obedience from officeholders, their owners had been
giving officeholders unemployment insurance in the form of cushy, prestigious, well-paying
jobs to be awarded to officeholders who lost their elected slots. This insulated
officeholders very nicely from the need to cater to pain-in-the-neck constituents.
Take for example, the post-Senate career move of Senator Dodd:
Motion Picture Association of America
In February 2011, despite "repeatedly and categorically insisting that he would not work
as a lobbyist,"[23][24] Dodd replaced Dan Glickman as chairman of and chief lobbyist for
the Motion Picture Association of America.[25][26]
On January 17, 2012, Dodd released a statement criticizing "the so-called 'Blackout Day'
protesting anti-piracy legislation."[27] Referring to the websites participating in the
blackout, Dodd said, "It is an irresponsible response and a disservice to people who rely
on them for information and use their services. It is also an abuse of power... when the
platforms that serve as gateways to information intentionally skew the facts to incite
their users in order to further their corporate interests."[27] In further comments, Dodd
threatened to cut off campaign contributions to politicians who did not support the
Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property
Act and the Stop Online Piracy Act, legislation supported by the Motion Picture Association
of America.[28]
Whatever do you suppose qualified Dodd to head the Motion Picture Association?
As an aside, I wonder how Dodd views censorship and/or skewing by the likes of google,
which long since started doing evil, its motto to the contrary; facebook; and twitter
For all other Democratic pols, all over the country, it will mean another two years in
which they make a public show of attacking Trump while just enough of them in D.C. vote for
his budgets, judges, etc. to give him and their corporate sponsors what they want.
2. For the Democratic base, those who eagerly vote blue, no matter who, it will mean--Oh,
screw it. Let's be candid. No one, including the Democratic Party, cares.
3. For Republicans, it would mean a minimum of two more years to be in control of the Oval
Office, both houses of Congress and the Supreme Court, which is better than a demotion to a
mere trifecta. Continued control typically means larger donations to the controlling party
and its incumbents.
While some may vacillate publicly as to whether or not Trump is good for the Party (*gives
Senator Graham and his ilk the side eye fish eye*), they will, in private, be giddy with glee
about both the money and power, thereby having it both ways, the wet dream
scenario of US politicians.
span y Not Henry Kissinger on Mon, 11/05/2018 - 5:05pm
Hillary drops out of the 2020 race and spends the next two years lawyering up.
Meanwhile the Democratic party implodes in an angry round of fingerprinting that
eventually leads to all out street fight between Bernie supporting Progressives and
Establishment Liberals in the run up to the 2020 primary.
Obama tries to play mediator and runs his own slate of phony change agents, but
Berniecrats and lost Hillbots are both hip to the con and aren't having it.
Bernie decides on another run from within, fighting a green tide of corporate payola and
corrupt machine Dems that ends up in a brokered convention.
I hate it when someone only picks out one point of my argument to respond to. Don't
you?
Meanwhile, I suddenly had a picture in my head of HRC running around with a bottle of ink,
a pad to pour it onto, a roller to saturate it with and some unwilling soul grasped by the
wrist and forced to spread their fingers for said fingerprinting.
Crystal ball haze suddenly lifts, and we see the Emerald City in the distance. (Monkeys?
What monkeys?)
Hillary drops out of the 2020 race and spends the next two years lawyering up.
Meanwhile the Democratic party implodes in an angry round of fingerprinting that
eventually leads to all out street fight between Bernie supporting Progressives and
Establishment Liberals in the run up to the 2020 primary.
Obama tries to play mediator and runs his own slate of phony change agents, but
Berniecrats and lost Hillbots are both hip to the con and aren't having it.
Bernie decides on another run from within, fighting a green tide of corporate payola
and corrupt machine Dems that ends up in a brokered convention.
the rich will continue to get richer, the poor more poor, the middle class will continue
to shrink, the war and U.S. imperialism will continue, the deficit and debt will keep going
up, we won't get a nationalized health care system, climate change will continue unabated,
and we still won't live in a democracy. Then the ruling class and it's corporate media will
prepare the sheeple for another election in less than two years.
Of course, we are all supposed to vote Democratic to halt the tide of Trump fascism. But
should the Democrats take control of the House of Representatives, hate speech and violence as
a tool for intimidation and control will increase, with much of it directed, as we saw with the
pipe bombs intended to decapitate the Democratic Party leadership, toward prominent Democratic
politicians and critics of Donald Trump. Should the white man's party of the president retain
control of the House and the Senate, violence will still be the favored instrument of political
control as the last of democratic protections are stripped from us. Either way we are in for
it.
Trump is a clownish and embarrassing tool of the kleptocrats. His faux populism is a sham.
Only the rich like his tax cuts, his refusal to raise the minimum wage and his effort to
destroy Obamacare. All he has left is hate. And he will use it. Which is not to say that, if
only to throw up some obstacle to Trump, you shouldn't vote for the Democratic scum, tools of
the war industry and the pharmaceutical and insurance industry, Wall Street and the fossil fuel
industry, as opposed to the Republican scum. But Democratic control of the House will do very
little to halt our descent into corporate tyranny, especially with another economic crisis
brewing on Wall Street. The rot inside the American political system is deep and terminal.
The Democrats, who refuse to address the social inequality they helped orchestrate and that
has given rise to Trump, are the party of racial and ethnic inclusivity, identity politics,
Wall Street and the military. Their core battle cry is: We are not Trump! This is
ultimately a losing formula. It was adopted by Hillary Clinton, who is apparently weighing
another run for the presidency after we thought we had thrust a stake through her political
heart. It is the agenda of the well-heeled East Coast and West Coast elites who want to instill
corporate fascism with a friendly face.
Bertram
Gross (1912-1997) in "Friendly Fascism: The New Face of American Power" warned us that
fascism always has two looks. One is paternal, benevolent, entertaining and kind. The other is
embodied in the executioner's sadistic leer. Janus-like, fascism seeks to present itself to a
captive public as a force for good and moral renewal. It promises protection against enemies
real and invented. But denounce its ideology, challenge its power, demand freedom from
fascism's iron grip, and you are mercilessly crushed. Gross knew that if the United States'
form of fascism, expressed through corporate tyranny, was able to effectively mask its true
intentions behind its "friendly" face we would be stripped of power, shorn of our most
cherished rights and impoverished. He has been proved correct.
"Looking at the present, I see a more probable future: a new despotism creeping slowly
across America," Gross wrote. "Faceless oligarchs sit at command posts of a
corporate-government complex that has been slowly evolving over many decades. In efforts to
enlarge their own powers and privileges, they are willing to have others suffer the intended or
unintended consequences of their institutional or personal greed. For Americans, these
consequences include chronic inflation, recurring recession, open and hidden unemployment, the
poisoning of air, water, soil and bodies, and more important, the subversion of our
constitution. More broadly, consequences include widespread intervention in international
politics through economic manipulation, covert action, or military invasion."
No totalitarian state has mastered propaganda better than the corporate state. Our press has
replaced journalism with trivia, feel-good stories, jingoism and celebrity gossip. The banal
and the absurd, delivered by cheery corporate courtiers, saturate the airwaves. Our emotions
are skillfully manipulated around manufactured personalities and manufactured events. We are,
at the same time, offered elaborate diversionary spectacles including sporting events, reality
television and absurdist political campaigns. Trump is a master of this form of entertainment.
Our emotional and intellectual energy is swallowed up by the modern equivalent of the Roman
arena. Choreographed political vaudeville, which costs corporations billions of dollars, is
called free elections. Cliché-ridden slogans, which assure us that the freedoms we
cherish remain sacrosanct, dominate our national discourse as these freedoms are stripped from
us by judicial and legislative fiat. It is a vast con game.
You cannot use the word "liberty" when your government, as ours does, watches you 24 hours a
day and stores all of your personal information in government computers in perpetuity. You
cannot use the word "liberty" when you are the most photographed and monitored population in
human history. You cannot use the word "liberty" when it is impossible to vote against the
interests of Goldman Sachs or General Dynamics. You cannot use the word "liberty" when the
state empowers militarized police to use indiscriminate lethal force against unarmed citizens
in the streets of American cities. You cannot use the word "liberty" when 2.3 million citizens,
mostly poor people of color, are held in the largest prison system on earth. This is the
relationship between a master and a slave. The choice is between whom we want to clamp on our
chains -- a jailer who mouths politically correct bromides or a racist, Christian fascist.
Either way we are shackled.
Gross understood that unchecked corporate power would inevitably lead to corporate fascism.
It is the natural consequence of the ruling ideology of neoliberalism that consolidates power
and wealth into the hands of a tiny group of oligarchs. The political philosopher Sheldon
Wolin , refining Gross' thesis, would later characterize this corporate tyranny or friendly
fascism as "inverted totalitarianism." It was, as Gross and Wolin pointed out, characterized by
anonymity. It purported to pay fealty to electoral politics, the Constitution and the
iconography and symbols of American patriotism but internally had seized all of the levers of
power to render the citizen impotent. Gross warned that we were being shackled incrementally.
Most would not notice until they were in total bondage. He wrote that "a friendly fascist power
structure in the United States, Canada, Western Europe, or today's Japan would be far more
sophisticated than the 'caesarism' of fascist Germany, Italy, and Japan. It would need no
charismatic dictator nor even a titular head it would require no one-party rule, no mass
fascist party, no glorification of the State, no dissolution of legislatures, no denial of
reason. Rather, it would come slowly as an outgrowth of present trends in the
Establishment."
Gross foresaw that technological advances in the hands of corporations would be used to trap
the public in what he called "cultural ghettoization" so that "almost every individual would
get a personalized sequence of information injections at any time of the day -- or night." This
is what, of course, television, our electronic devices and the internet have done. He warned
that we would be mesmerized by the entertaining shadows on the wall of the Platonic cave as we
were enslaved.
Gross knew that the most destructive force against the body politic would be the war
profiteers and the militarists. He saw how they would siphon off the resources of the state to
wage endless war, a sum that now accounts for half of all discretionary spending. And he
grasped that warfare is the natural extension of corporatism. He wrote:
Under the militarism of German, Italian, and Japanese fascism violence was openly
glorified. It was applied regionally -- by the Germans in Europe and England, the Italians in
the Mediterranean, the Japanese in Asia. In battle, it was administered by professional
militarists who, despite many conflicts with politicians, were guided by old-fashioned
standards of duty, honor, country, and willingness to risk their own lives.
The emerging militarism of friendly fascism is somewhat different. It is global in scope.
It involves weapons of doomsday proportions, something that Hitler could dream of but never
achieve. It is based on an integration between industry, science, and the military that the
old-fashioned fascists could never even barely approximate. It points toward equally close
integration among military, paramilitary, and civilian elements. Many of the civilian leaders
-- such as Zbigniew Brzezinski or Paul Nitze -- tend to be much more bloodthirsty than any
top brass. In turn, the new-style military professionals tend to become corporate-style
entrepreneurs who tend to operate -- as Major Richard A. Gabriel and Lieutenant Colonel Paul
L. Savage have disclosed -- in accordance with the ethics of the marketplace. The old
buzzwords of duty, honor, and patriotism are mainly used to justify officer subservience to
the interests of transnational corporations and the continuing presentation of threats to
some corporate investments as threats to the interest of the American people as a whole.
Above all, in sharp contrast with classic fascism's glorification of violence, the friendly
fascist orientation is to sanitize, even hide, the greater violence of modern warfare behind
such "value-free" terms as "nuclear exchange," "counterforce" and "flexible response," behind
the huge geographical distances between the senders and receivers of destruction through
missiles or even on the "automated battlefield," and the even greater psychological distances
between the First World elites and the ordinary people who might be consigned to quick or
slow death.
We no longer live in a functioning democracy. Self-styled liberals and progressives, as they
do in every election cycle, are urging us to vote for the Democrats, although the Democratic
Party in Europe would be classified as a right-wing party, and tell us to begin to build
progressive movements the day after the election. Only no one ever builds these movements. The
Democratic Party knows there is no price to pay for selling us out and its abject service to
corporations. It knows the left and liberals become supplicants in every election cycle. And
this is why the Democratic Party drifts further and further to the right and we become more and
more irrelevant. If you stand for something, you have to be willing to fight for it. But there
is no fight in us.
The elites, Republican and Democrat, belong to the same club. We are not in it. Take a look
at the flight roster of the billionaire
Jeffrey Epstein , who was accused of prostituting dozens of underage girls and ended up
spending 13 months in prison on a single count. He flew political insiders from both parties
and the business world to his secluded Caribbean island, known as "Orgy Island," on his jet,
which the press nicknamed "the Lolita Express." Some of the names on his flight
roster, which usually included unidentified women, were Bill Clinton, who took dozens of trips,
Alan
Dershowitz , former Treasury Secretary and former Harvard President Larry Summers, the
Candide -like
Steven Pinker ,
whose fairy dust ensures we are getting better and better, and Britain's Prince Andrew. Epstein
was also a friend of Trump, whom he visited at Mar-a-Lago.
We live on the precipice, the eve of the deluge. Past civilizations have crumbled in the
same way, although as Hegel understood, the only thing we learn from history is "that people
and governments never have learned anything from history." We will not arrest the decline if
the Democrats regain control of the House. At best we will briefly slow it. The corporate
engines of pillage, oppression, ecocide and endless war are untouchable. Corporate power will
do its dirty work regardless of which face -- the friendly fascist face of the Democrats or the
demented visage of the Trump Republicans -- is pushed out front. If you want real change,
change that means something, then mobilize, mobilize, mobilize, not for one of the two
political parties but to rise up and destroy the corporate structures that ensure our doom.
33 Trillion Reasons Why The New York Times Gets It Wrong on Russia-gate
Facebook Said 80,000 Russian Posts Were Buried in 33 Trillion Facebook Offerings Over
Two-Year Period Further Undermining NYT ·s Case
by Gareth Porter Posted on
November 05, 2018 November 3, 2018 Even more damning evidence has come to light
undermining The New York Times ' assertion in September that Russia used social media
to steal the 2016 election for Donald Trump.
The Times '
claim last month that Russian Facebook posts reached nearly as many Americans as actually
voted in the 2016 election exaggerated the significance of those numbers by a factor of
hundreds of millions, as revealed by further evidence from Facebook's own Congressional
testimony.
Further research into an earlier Consortium News
article shows that a relatively paltry 80,000 posts from the private Russian company
Internet Research Agency (IRA) were engulfed in literally trillions of posts on
Facebook over a two-year period before and after the 2016 vote.
That was supposed to have thrown the election, according to the paper of record. In its
10,000-word
article on Sept. 20, the Times reported that 126 million out of 137 million
American voters were exposed to social media posts on Facebook from IRA that somehow had a
hand in delivering Trump the presidency.
The newspaper said: "Even by the vertiginous standards of social media, the reach of their
effort was impressive: 2,700 fake Facebook accounts, 80,000 posts, many of them elaborate
images with catchy slogans, and an eventual audience of 126 million Americans on Facebook
alone." The paper argued that 126 million was "not far short of the 137 million people
who would vote in the 2016 presidential election."
But Consortium News , on Oct. 10,
debunked that story, pointing out that reporters Scott Shane and Mark Mazzetti failed to
report several significant caveats and disclaimers from Facebook officers themselves, whose
statements make the Times' claim that Russian election propaganda "reached" 126
million Americans an exercise in misinformation.
The newspaper failed to tell their readers that Facebook account holders in the United
States had been "served" 33 trillion Facebook posts during that same period -- 413 million
times more than the 80,000 posts from the Russian company.
What Facebook general counsel Colin Stretch testified before the Senate Judiciary
Committee on October 31, 2017 is a far cry from what the Times claims. "Our best
estimate is that approximately 126,000 million people may have been served one of
these [IRA-generated] stories at some time during the two year period," Stretch said.
Stretch was expressing a theoretical possibility rather than an established fact. He said
an estimated 126 million Facebook members might have gotten at least one story
from the IRA –- not over the ten week election period, but over 194 weeks during the
two years 2015 through 2017 – including a full year after the election.
That means only an estimated 29 million FB users may have gotten at least one story
in their feed in two years. The 126 million figure is based only on an assumption that they
shared it with others, according to Stretch.
Facebook didn't even claim most of those 80,000 IRA posts were election–related. It
offered no data on what proportion of the feeds to those 29 million people were.
In addition, Facebook's Vice President for News Feed, Adam Moseri,
acknowledged in 2016 that FB subscribers actually read only about 10 percent of the
stories Facebook puts in their News Feed every day. The means that very few of the IRA
stories that actually make it into a subscriber's news feed on any given day are actually
read.
And now, according to the further research, the odds that Americans saw any of these IRA
ads – let alone were influenced by them – are even more astronomical. In his Oct.
2017 testimony, Stretch said that from 2015 to 2017, "Americans using Facebook were exposed
to, or 'served,' a total of over 33 trillion stories in their News Feeds."
To put the 33 trillion figure over two years in perspective, the 80,000 Russian-origin
Facebook posts represented just .0000000024 of total Facebook content in that time.
Shane and Mazzetti did not report the 33 trillion number even though The New York
Times ' own coverage of that 2017 Stretch testimony explicitly
stated , "Facebook cautioned that the Russia-linked posts represented a minuscule amount
of content compared with the billions of posts that flow through users' News Feeds
everyday."
The Times ' touting of the bogus 126 million out 137 million voters, while not
reporting the 33 trillion figure, should vie in the annals of journalism as one of the most
spectacularly misleading uses of statistics of all time.
Gareth Porter, an investigative historian and journalist specializing in US national
security policy, received the UK-based Gellhorn Prize for journalism for 2011 for articles on
the U.S. war in Afghanistan. His new book is
Manufactured Crisis: the Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare. He can be contacted
at [email protected] .
Reprinted from Consortium
News with the author's permission.
by Justin Raimondo Posted on
November 05, 2018 November 4, 2018 After all the screaming headlines and hysterical talk
of "treason," the Russia-gate hoax was almost entirely absent from the midterms. One would
think that the other party being in the hands of a ruthless foreign dictator who has it in
for America would be a major campaign issue – that is, if the Democrats actually
believed their own propaganda. However, we've seen neither hide nor hair of Putin in all
those campaign ads, or at least hardly a glance: that's because Russia-gate has always been a
fraud, a setup, and really a criminal conspiracy to take down a sitting US President on the
basis of a gigantic lie.
As the promulgators of that lie are exposed – the Deep State amalgam that includes
foreign intelligence agencies as well as Trump's domestic opponents – Democrats are
backing away from what has suddenly become, for them, a very messy narrative. For what has
happened is that the narrative has turned on them, and now implicates them in a massive
scheme to embroil the Trump campaign in a web of foreign influencers.
The campaign to penetrate the Trump campaign appears to have been initiated abroad as much
as it was started by the Clinton campaign – who inherited the operation from a very
mysterious Republican donor after the GOP primaries. The "former" MI6 agent Christopher
Steele, now working for an ostensibly independent spy network, didn't consider the job of
digging up dirt on Trump just a normal job: he was passionately dedicated to stopping Trump
from ever reaching the White House. One can easily impute the same motivations to the little
group that took it upon themselves to break into the Trump campaign and put it under
surveillance, all of them attached to British intelligence:
Cambridge professor and foreign policy maven Stefan Halper ,
with longtime connections to MI6 and the CIA, who made a point of approaching the Trump
campaign early on and offering his "services." He later cultivated George Papadoupoulos, a
low-level aide to the campaign then living in London.
Sir Richard
Dearlove, the former head of MI6, who advised the spy ring and helped pass their
information to US government authorities, is very close to Halper.
"Professor"
Joseph Mifsud , a mysterious figure who first introduced target George Pappadoupolos to
the idea that the Russians had incriminating material on Hillary Clinton, and who has since
mysteriously disappeared (although his lawyer seems to know where he is).
Alexander Downer , formerly Australia's ambassador to the UK, arranged to meet a low
level Trump advisor in a London bar and reportedly learned about Mifsud's contention.
Downer went to the FBI, and Operation Regime Change, Washington, was launched.
That's just the tip of the iceberg: the "intelligence community" has its tentacles
everywhere, and while this has always been the case today our spooks are getting more brazen
than ever before. As an indication of their evolution from government agencies charged with
protecting the country into a coherent and very organized political force, a good number of
these former agents ran as Democratic candidates for Congress on a platform of hurt feelings.
"As someone who is from the intelligence community," former spook and Democratic
congressional candidate Elissa Slotkin
whines , "it is worrisome the way that President Trump has demonized the institutions
where people are working hard every day to keep us safe." The American reverence for the
military doesn't extend to the clandestine services: the public knows too much about their
history of dirty tricks, assassinations, and regime-change antics abroad to trust them much
on the home front.
Slotkin's lament is part and parcel of the great ideological shift when it comes to
matters of national security: it is the Democrats who are now the party of militarism, which
is the natural corollary of the globalist mentality that drives the "progressive" agenda.
These candidates, however, are operating at a disadvantage, as Russia-gate proves to be a
mirage and Robert Mueller continues to produce a bunch of low-level indictments that have
nothing to do with Russian "collusion."
The
polling on the Russia-gate "scandal" puts it somewhere between the 49 th and
the 100 th concern of voters, a number that dramatizes the great gulf that has
opened up between ordinary folks and the political class. The former are barely aware of
Russia-gate: even now, all knowledge of it is fading from their memories. The latter have
been obsessed with Russia-gate for two solid years – and now, when the narrative has
all but fallen apart and the only people left at the party are Louise Mensch and some guy who
keeps saying " It's time for some game
theory! ", will once respectable outlets like The New Yorker admit that they have
covered themselves in shame?
A NOTE TO MY READERS: I apologize for this rather short column, but I am still
recovering from an unfortunate relapse that has made it hard for me to do anything, let alone
write. This glitch was due to a change in my medication, which has now been corrected.
However, this also means I'm back to square one: the heavy chemotherapy in addition to the
Keytruda. I'm making a lot of progress recently and I expect to continue to improve.
Meanwhile, bear with me: the best is yet to come.
NOTES IN THE MARGIN
You can check out my Twitter feed by going here . But please note that my tweets are sometimes
deliberately provocative, often made in jest, and largely consist of me thinking out
loud.
Absent independents, Republicans are running away with it. And independents are most assuredly witnessing the insanity that has gripped the
Democratic Party, and will vote for Republicans at least 9:1.
Well, hang in there, sport. Yes, the US does seem to be going down the tubes, in that it's
lost all respect in the world; we still fear it, but don't respect it. Sic transit
gloria , or something like that...
"... Trump has succeeded in implementing some of his campaign ideas and not all of them are 100% evil or wrongheaded. He has shaken the long term calcification of the US foreign and trade policy, has introduced tariffs especially to combat clearly unfair Chinese trade practices while demanding European and Asian allies pay more for their defense of empire. ..."
"... As b stated recently, Trump is an astute salesman (unfortunately, that is all he is) but what is left unmentioned is that he is of the sales school that is totally unmoored for any sense of ethical, moral or legal responsibility. ..."
"... The US political system was invested with an ability to self-correct, or self-police through separation of powers within the tripartite political system. It is hardly news this system is about dead, starting not with Trump of course, but now reaching its absolute low point under his rule and the acquiescence of the spineless GOP. ..."
That is, he started off on the wrong foot. Campaigning as a populist who eschewed accepted
mainstream "progressive" and "conservative" political positions, he completely cratered the
unpopular Republican orthodoxy during the 2016 primaries by promising such heretical ideas as
a non-interventionist foreign policy, protection for Medicare/Medicaid and social security,
improvement on Obamacare, higher taxes on the wealthiest and a massive infrastructure program
to rebuild the decaying facilities of this so-called once grate nation.
These are all ideas that gained the support of enough Obama voters and independents in
just the right flyover states to lead Trump to an improbable victory while being soundly
thrashed in the popular voting nationwide. A stunning, historical accomplishment as much as
and as much in reaction too, the 2008 Obama victory.
Of course, to those of us who understand the modern GOP and the history of the lying-ass
self promotion of the Trump entertainment spectacle its own self, we were neither duped nor
surprised when the initial 2017 legislative agenda items proferred were none of the populist
agenda but instead were the repeal of Obamacare, massive tax cuts for the wealthy and the
reversal of all Obama executive orders, most notably in the areas of refugee resettlement and
immigration.
Trump, the so-called change agent who in fact was and still is clueless regarding how to
function as President simply let the craven Obama opposition leaders of the prior 8 years,
McConnell and Ryan set out the typical GOP legislative agenda, which is opposed by a
majority, in some cases overwhelming majority, of Amerikkkans.
Obamacare repeal failed memorably based on but one late night thumb's down taken more out
of personal revenge than the ideology of a very soon to be dead Senator.
Trump's ruling style in large part has substituted for any sense of a coherent agenda in
that he obviously cares only about his base (an obdurate block of 36% of the electorate
consisting almost entirely of white, entitled, racist baby boomers who have devolved into
anti-democratic fascists now that they no longer represent a majority of the US population
and believe (falsely) they have something to protect).
Trump has succeeded in implementing some of his campaign ideas and not all of them are
100% evil or wrongheaded. He has shaken the long term calcification of the US foreign and
trade policy, has introduced tariffs especially to combat clearly unfair Chinese trade
practices while demanding European and Asian allies pay more for their defense of
empire.
While I have my own view of whether any of Trump's policies contain great value from a
long term historical perspective, I do recognize Trump's appeal to certain sectors of the
internet, including most obviously certain useful idiots of the ultra left.
I do not believe his victory to be a fluke of nature but rather in keeping with the
current worldwide trend borne of aging whitebread fear, cyncism and disenchantment with
elitist political/economic establishments and which has been amped to a viral degree by a
staggering wealth disparity, but only as it impacts the formerly entitled feeling, aging
white people situated in western countries.
The natural response to any socially or cultural threat is to band together tribally and
fight back. And the main threat, when it is boiled down, is the fear of overpopulation (and
its accompnaying unstoppable environmental degradation) driven by what is viewed
through the Trump voter political lens as non-white, primitive, illsuited people from
shithole countries who are and will continue to ruin Amerikkka and Western Europe.
As perfectly illustrated by the migrant caravan heading to Tijuana.
Unfortunately, Trump through disinterest or incompetence or both hasn't followed through
either with enough of the promises he made that are actually meaningful to most people,
whether GOP or Democratic. He has been able to bind his tribe to him and conquer the GOP
political apparatus simply because the Party platform was already so badly decayed
(overcooked Reagan leftovers) and out of touch with reality pre-Trump that the Donald could
bend delusional conservative tropes in any way he saw fit to his electoral advantage. As long
as he infotained well, and he has indeed, he would dominate.
As b stated recently, Trump is an astute salesman (unfortunately, that is all he is)
but what is left unmentioned is that he is of the sales school that is totally unmoored for
any sense of ethical, moral or legal responsibility.
In other words, Trump is that quintessential Amerikkkan salesman: the grifter. This
particular breed of business person is not an exception in the US but rather the rule. In
fact, the US system has devolved to the point where laws and regulations now enfranchise what
previously had been considered illegal activity. Amerikkkans are heavily incentivised these
days by the call to a form of monopolistic, crony capitalism and institulionised rigged
gambling ("Wall Street"), which in more quaint times was considered mobsterism.
Institutions have been purposefully compromised so they no longer support whatever
criminal laws still exist. It is not by accident that the IRS is now chronically understaffed
and has no effective way to stop income tax cheating or collection of the minimal taxes now
due.
It is not by accident that Trump's main role as President is to weaken institutions such
as the media, to further debase language and kill whatever generally accepted objective truth
remain extant in the land. He is recognisable to all Amerikkkans as a CEO in support of this
ongoing wave of legal criminality through which the 1% and their lackeys section have
prospered at the expense of the 99%.
The US political system was invested with an ability to self-correct, or self-police
through separation of powers within the tripartite political system. It is hardly news this
system is about dead, starting not with Trump of course, but now reaching its absolute low
point under his rule and the acquiescence of the spineless GOP.
And no, I don't believe the Demotardic Party to be absolved of blame in any way. Rather,
the Demotards have entirely gone along to get along with this same trend because of course
the Party leaders have been able to criminally enrich themselves and their cronies along the
way too.
However, let's be real for minute and drop all pretense of holier than thou keyboard
revolutionism. The ultimate solution of the world's disease is not going to be resolved in
2018 through a political revolution, especially one inspired by the disharmony and fraud of
internet based social media and its acolytes. D'uh.
Look around. Since we have been blogging our lives away the world has only grown further
away from leftism. We live in a fascist police state owned and operated by teh ultra wealthy
who have dropped pretense of any humanitarian or religious concern for those less firtunated
than themselves.
Donald Trump has one more chance to make himself truly into the transformational leader he
believes himself to be in his degraded soul.
The first bill on the 2019 legislative needs to be a bipartisan infrastructure bill of
such scope and magnitude that it will serve not only a political change of direction but also
redirect the economy in such way that wealth is re-directed from the wealthy to the rest of
us, particularly those able bodied non-college educated people who have suffered through the
last several decades without hope or gain.
Trump must dictate to his party that Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security will not only
be maintained but strengthened through improved benefits.
Am I dreaming? Yes, I admit that I am. But I'm also calling out to the criminal conman in
chief: it's not too late to reclaim your own legacy.
"... The Democratic Party split into a four-headed monster comprised of Wall Street patrons seeking favors, war hawks and their corporate allies looking for new global rumbles, the permanent bureaucracy looking to always expand itself, and the various ethnic and sexual minorities whose needs and grievances are serviced by that bureaucracy. It's the last group that has become the party's most public face while the party's other activities – many of them sinister -- remain at least partially concealed. ..."
"... the Republicans are being forced to engage on some real issues, such as the need for a coherent and effective immigration policy and the need to redefine formal trade relations. (Other issues like the insane system of medical racketeering and the deadly racket of the college loan industry just skate along on thin ice. And then, of course, there's the national debt and all its grotesque outgrowths.) ..."
"... Meanwhile, the Democratic Party has become the party of bad ideas and bad faith, starting with the position that "diversity and inclusion" means shutting down free speech, an unforgivable transgression against common sense and common decency. It's a party that lies even more systematically than Mr. Trump, and does so knowingly (as when Google execs say they "Do no Evil"). Its dirty secret is that it relishes coercion, it likes pushing people around, telling them what to think and how to act. Its idea of "social justice" is a campus kangaroo court, where due process of law is suspended. And it is deeply corrupt, with good old-fashioned grift, new-fashioned gross political misconduct in federal law enforcement, and utter intellectual depravity in higher education. ..."
"... I hope that the party is shoved into an existential crisis and is forced to confront its astounding dishonesty. I hope that the process prompts them to purge their leadership across the board. ..."
Back in the last century, when this was a different country, the Democrats were the "smart"
party and the Republicans were the "stupid" party.
How did that work?
Well, back then the Democrats represented a broad middle class, with a base of factory
workers, many of them unionized, and the party had to be smart, especially in the courts, to
overcome the natural advantages of the owner class.
In contrast, the Republicans looked like a claque of country club drunks who staggered
home at night to sleep on their moneybags. Bad optics, as we say nowadays.
The Democrats also occupied the moral high ground as the champion of the little guy. If not
for the Dems, factory workers would be laboring twelve hours a day and children would still be
maimed in the machinery. Once the relationship between business and labor was settled in the
1950s, the party moved on to a new crusade on even loftier moral high ground: civil rights,
aiming to correct arrant and long-lived injustices against downtrodden black Americans. That
was a natural move, considering America's self-proclaimed post-war status as the world's Beacon
of Liberty. It had to be done and a political consensus that included Republicans got it done.
Consensus was still possible.
The Dems built their fortress on that high ground and fifty years later they find themselves
prisoners in it. The factory jobs all vamoosed overseas. The middle class has been pounded into
penury and addiction.
The Democratic Party split into a four-headed monster comprised of Wall Street patrons
seeking favors, war hawks and their corporate allies looking for new global rumbles, the
permanent bureaucracy looking to always expand itself, and the various ethnic and sexual
minorities whose needs and grievances are serviced by that bureaucracy. It's the last group
that has become the party's most public face while the party's other activities – many of
them sinister -- remain at least partially concealed.
The Republican Party has, at least, sobered up some after getting blindsided by Trump and
Trumpism. Like a drunk out of rehab, it's attempting to get a life. Two years in, the party
marvels at Mr. Trump's audacity, despite his obvious lack of savoir faire. And despite a
longstanding lack of political will to face the country's problems,the Republicans are being
forced to engage on some real issues, such as the need for a coherent and effective immigration
policy and the need to redefine formal trade relations. (Other issues like the insane system of
medical racketeering and the deadly racket of the college loan industry just skate along on
thin ice. And then, of course, there's the national debt and all its grotesque outgrowths.)
Meanwhile, the Democratic Party has become the party of bad ideas and bad faith, starting
with the position that "diversity and inclusion" means shutting down free speech, an
unforgivable transgression against common sense and common decency. It's a party that lies even
more systematically than Mr. Trump, and does so knowingly (as when Google execs say they "Do no
Evil"). Its dirty secret is that it relishes coercion, it likes pushing people around, telling
them what to think and how to act. Its idea of "social justice" is a campus kangaroo court,
where due process of law is suspended. And it is deeply corrupt, with good old-fashioned grift,
new-fashioned gross political misconduct in federal law enforcement, and utter intellectual
depravity in higher education.
I hope that Democrats lose as many congressional and senate seats as possible.I hope that
the party is shoved into an existential crisis and is forced to confront its astounding
dishonesty. I hope that the process prompts them to purge their leadership across the board. If
there is anything to salvage in this organization, I hope it discovers aims and principles that
are unrecognizable from its current agenda of perpetual hysteria. But if the party actually
blows up and disappears, as the Whigs did a hundred and fifty years ago, I will be content. Out
of the terrible turbulence, maybe something better will be born.
Or, there's the possibility that the dregs of a defeated Democratic Party will just go
batshit crazy and use the last of its mojo to incite actual sedition. Of course, there's also a
distinct possibility that the Dems will take over congress, in which case they'll ramp up an
even more horrific three-ring-circus of political hysteria and persecution that will make the
Spanish Inquisition look like a backyard barbeque. That will happen as the US enters the most
punishing financial train wreck in our history, an interesting recipe for epic political
upheaval.
Not sure the Trump "guns instead of butter" policy is so widely supported. He proved to be a regular neocon marionette and as such
might pay the price during midterm elections, although, of course, domestics issues dominate.
Notable quotes:
"... The Democrats need to pick up 23 seats in the House to gain a majority. Of the 48 seats that are in play only 16 seem likely to change in their favor. In the Senate they need to take gain two seats to become a majority, but at least one of the Democrats' current seats is endangered and polls for the other 9 seats that potentially might change show a tossup. ..."
"... The Democrats have neither a program nor a leadership that incites to vote fro them. They wasted two years with hyping a non-existent Russiagate that no one but Washington insiders and the media cares about. Did they actually oppose anything Trump did? They tried a #metoo stunt around a Supreme Court nomination but how effective was that? On Clinton: the more she squawks the more republicans vote and the less democrats vote. That is my theory. This loser takes the fire out of everyone that counts other than her diminishing blind adherents. I think sometimes that Trump should lock her up for the greatest national security breach of all time but having her come out now blatantly proposing a rerun for president is such good luck for Trump. ..."
What are the chances that the mid-term elections in the United States, one week from now, will change the majority in the House
or Senate?
The Democrats
need to
pick up 23 seats in the House to gain a majority. Of the 48 seats that are in play only 16 seem likely to change in their favor.
In the Senate they need to take gain two seats to become a majority, but at least one of the Democrats' current seats is endangered
and polls for the other 9 seats that potentially might change show a tossup.
My personal hunch is that the Republicans will keep both houses and may even gain a few seats.
The U.S. economy is doing relatively well. The recent drop in share prices points to a more mixed outlook from here on, but
so far everything held up.
The Democrats have neither a program nor a leadership that incites to vote fro them. They wasted two years with
hyping a non-existent Russiagate
that no one but Washington insiders and the media cares about. Did they actually oppose anything Trump did? They tried a #metoo
stunt around a Supreme Court nomination but how effective was that? On Clinton: the more she squawks the more republicans vote
and the less democrats vote. That is my theory. This loser takes the fire out of everyone that counts other than her diminishing
blind adherents. I think sometimes that Trump should lock her up for the greatest national security breach of all time but having
her come out now blatantly proposing a rerun for president is such good luck for Trump.
She should be tried for her email breach of security just the same. And Trump and company tried for being hucksters and shaking
down investors. Bad luck USA you have been mugged for the past 6 decades or whatever. Can't see much chance for change either
with your totally kaput election system. Losers!
"... Today's Blue elite represents the greatest concentration of wealth and power in the United States. Moreover, such wealth is scattered across a mosaic of pristine, manicured, gated communities physically and socially divorced from the realities of normal American life -- glittering bubbles of sovereign privilege . This is the very oligarchy Founders like John Adams so feared . While both Red and Blue elites represent themselves as the people's champion, Blue's protests ring the most false . ..."
Today, two righteous paths are gridlocked in opposition. Both perceive themselves as
champions of national renewal, of cleansing corrupted ideals, and of truly fulfilling America's
promise. Both fervently believe that they alone own virtue. Yet the banners of each course are
absolutist mirrors of one another, pro and contra, all or nothing. Moreover, lightning rod
issues, as in the 1770s and 1850s, make the space between battle lines a no man's land, forcing
majority moderates and compromising fence-sitters to choose or be called out as willing
collaborators with the other.
Today's lightning rods -- a feminist reordering of jurisprudence , a
state-promoted LGBT agenda, closed or open borders, full gun rights guarantees -- should not be
seen as mere hot-button issues that can be manipulated at will by political party elites. These
are way-of-life banners for two warring coalitions. Iconic issues that now represent the future
of two tribal alliances are taking the place of a former, single nation. The time for
compromise is over.
Othering. Here, the barren and
inhospitable new civic space is dominated along looming, fortified lines. Warring
identities have concluded that the only solution is the complete submission of the enemy party,
and both sides are beginning to prepare for an
ultimate showdown . Othering is a transforming process, through which former kin are
reimagined as evil, an American inner-enemy, who once defeated must be punished. The most
familiar metaphor of American othering was the 1770s practice of tarring and feathering .
This less-than-lethal mob punishment corresponds -- in shaming power and severity -- to mob
vengeance pervasive today on social media outlets such as Twitter.
Hence, to work fully as othering, the process must be public, result in the shame of the
transgressor, and show that true virtue is in command. More than anything, othering is a
ceremonial act designed to bring shame not just on the single person being tarred and
feathered, but the entire community to which he belongs. The political object of #MeToo is not
the numerically bounded set of guilty men, but rather the entire population set of
all men . The political object of Black Lives Matter is not racists, but rather all
whitepeople . The
political object of the LGBT movement is not homophobes, but
rather the whole of straight cisgender
society whose reality compass they seek to transform.
The targeted other, equally seized by virtue, operates today from an angry defensive crouch.
Thus do corporate elites support marquee Blue "social justice" agendas on Twitter, Facebook,
and YouTube while censoring counterarguments and comment by Red. This is exactly the goal in
this struggle: namely, to condition moderates to widespread acquiescence of a loud and
insistent Blue agenda, while subtly coercing them to choose sides. They do this by arraigning
Red as social losers, the future minority tribe, on their eventual way to the dustbin of
history.
Red and Blue already represent an irreparable religious schism, deeper in doctrinal terms
even than the 16th-century Catholic-Protestant schism. The war here is over which faction
successfully captures the (social media) flag as
true inheritor of American virtue.
The Decision. Othering's most decisive effect is to condition the whole of society to
believe that an existential clash is coming, that all must choose, and that there are no
realistic alternatives to a final test of wills. Remember, in past times, Jacobins on both
sides were small minorities. Yet for either one of these two angry visions to win, there must
be a showdown. This demands, perversely, that they work together to bring on open conflict,
successfully coercing the majority of Americans to buy into its inevitability. At that point,
only a trigger pull is needed.
This was what the Boston Massacre did to push colonials against Britain in 1770, and this is
what
John Brown's Pottawatomie Massacre and Congressman Preston Brooks's
caning of Charles Sumner on the Senate floor did to push people toward civil war in 1856.
This is what the confirmation hearings of Brett Kavanaugh and the nearly two-year effort to
delegitimize and overthrow President Donald Trump may doing today: getting the two halves of
the former nation to pull that trigger.
The Fight. If the political balance shifts dramatically, then conflict checks -- held
in place by lingering political norms and a longstanding electoral standoff -- disintegrate.
Suddenly, both newly advantaged and disadvantaged parties rush to a test of wills sooner rather
than later. A triggering incident becomes a spark -- yet the spark itself does not ignite.
Rather, it is the readiness for combat in this emerging "community of violence" that makes a
fight the natural way forward. In 1774, the Sons of Liberty were spoiling for a fight. In the
1850s, Jayhawkers and Border Ruffians were equally primed to hit back. That pushed the nation
to civil war.
Evidence from history and our own eyes tells us that we are deep into phase four. Three
takeaways show us how close we are to real battle.
Both sides rush to tear down the constitutional order. Just since the 2016 election,
we have witnessed a rolling thunder of Blue and Red elite rhetoric -- packing
the
SupremeCourt,abolishing
the ElectoralCollege , repealing
the
SecondAmendment
, wholesale state nullification of federal law, shackling of voter rights, and Deep State
invocation of the 25th Amendment. These are all potential extremities of action that would not
only dismantle our constitutional order, but also skew it to one side's juridical construct of
virtue, thus dissolving any semblance of adherence to law by the other. Over time each party
becomes emotionally invested in the lust to dismantle the old and make something new.
Hence, constitutional norms exist only conditionally, until such time as they finally be
dismantled, and only as long as a precariously balanced electoral divide holds firm. A big
historical tilt in favor of one party over the other would very quickly push the nation into
crisis because the party with the new mandate would rush to enact its program. The very threat
of such constitutional dismantling would be sure casus belli . Such tilts in the
early 1770s against Britain, and later in
the 1850s against the slaveholding party, were the real tipping points. Not only was
Dred Scott v. Sandford just such a tipping point in 1857, but subconsciously its legacy
weighs heavily on Americans today, as they contemplate -- often with hysterical passion -- the
dread consequences of a Kavanaugh appointment.
The dead hand of the last civil war grabs us from the grave. It is eerie how today's
angst pulls us back to the 1860s -- and shows us what is likely to happen in our third civil
war. If the poisonous hatreds of the 1860s again inform our civil anger today -- i.e. battles
between the alt-right and antifa -- then this should tell us that we are literally on the cusp
of another time of rage, where the continuity of strife is stronger than any hopes for
reconciliation. What is clear is that two warring parties will accept nothing less from the
other than submission, even though the loser will never submit. Moreover, each factional ethos
is incapable of empathizing with
the other.
Yet we should remember that "unconditional surrender" is like an Old Testament doctrine --
meaning that its invocation hearkens unmistakably to God's judgment. It became the
Federal rallying cry throughout the Civil War, a substrate trope in the Versailles Treaty,
the president's official position for the end of World War II, and even our complacent
conviction during the decomposition of the Soviet Union. It is an apocalyptic vision deeply
embedded in both Blue and Red. Such visions presage existential crisis that puts what is left
of the nation at real risk. If, at war's end, the sacred scrolls, artifacts, and symbols -- the
archaeology of a once-cherished identity -- cannot be restored or repurposed, then our entire
history must be destroyed, and the "we" that once was wiped clean. Civil war -- the battle over
how, or whether, we belong to one another -- thus demands nothing less than transformation.
Disbelieving war makes it inevitable. People will always
disbelieve that we could come to blows, until we do. Delegates at the "Democracy" party
convention in Charleston, in the summer of 1860, were still in denial of
the coming fury . No one dares imagine another civil war playing out like the last, when
two grimly determined American armies fought each other to the death in bloody pitched battles.
It is unlikely that a third American civil war will embrace 18th and 19th century military
dynamics. Antique Anglo-American society -- organized around community "
mustering " -- was culturally equipped to fight civil wars. Today's screen-absorbed
Millennials are not. So what?
But the historical consequences of a non-military American civil war would be just as severe
as any struggle settled by battle and blood. For example, the map of a divided America today
suggests that division into functioning state and local sovereignties -- with autonomy over
kinship, identity, and way of life issues -- might be the result of this non-bloody war. This
could even represent de facto national partition -- without de jure secession, achieved through
a gradual process of accretive state and local
nullification .
So what would a non-military civil war look like? Could it be non-violent? Americans are
certainly not lovers, but they do not seem really to be fighters either. A possible path to
kinship disengagement -- a separation without de jure divorce -- would here likely follow a
crisis, a confrontation, and some shocking, spasmodic violence, horrifyingly amplified on
social media. Passions at this point would pull back, but investment in separation would not.
What might eventuate would be a national sorting out, a de facto kinship separation in which
Blue and Red regions would go -- and govern -- their own ways, while still maintaining the
surface fiction of a titular "United States." This was, after all, the arrangement America came
to after 20 years of civil war (1857-1877). This time, however, there will be no succeeding
conciliation (as was achieved in the 1890s). Culturally, this United States will be, from the
moment of agreement, two entirely separate sensibilities, peoples, and politics.
♦♦♦
The winding path to civil war has yet another wrinkle: the people-elite divide. In the 1770s
and the 1850s, American fissuring was championed by opposing elites. In the 1770s, two elites
had emerged: one was the colonial, homegrown elite -- such as Washington, Hamilton, and Adams
-- and the other was the metropole,
trans-Atlantic
British elite , celebrated by royally endowed landowners such as Lord Fairfax , whose holdings
were in the thousands of square miles. Yet the British aristocracy was less intimately engaged
in the colonies, and the loyalist elite a more sotto voce
voice in colonial politics.
Not so the proto-Confederacy, the celebrated "Slave Power." In the looming struggle between
North and South, the Southern elite was the dominant economic force in the nation, thanks to
its overwhelming capital stored in human flesh. In fact, planter aristocracy capital formation
in 1860
equaled all capital invested in manufacturing, railroads, banks, and all currency in
circulation -- combined. This was the power of chattel slavery as the wealth ecology of the
antebellum South. In
defiant opposition to them were the Northern
anti-slavery elites , nowhere as privileged and rich as their Southern counterparts. The
new Republicans were further thwarted by the indissoluble alliance of planter aristocracy and
the nation's financial hub: New York City. There was an unholy bond between a dominant
slaveholder elite and an equally dominant New York slave-enabling elite. To make the point, in
1859, New York shipbuilders outfitted
85 slave ships for the hungry needs of the Southern planter class.
The dominant cultural position occupied by the overlords of chattel slavery has its analogy
today in the overlords of America's Blue elite. While there is a vocal Red elite, the Blue
elite dominates public life through its hold on the Internet, Hollywood, publishing, social
media, academia, the Washington bureaucracy, and the global grip of corporate giants. Blue
elite's power, in its hold on the cultural pulse and economic lifeblood of American life,
compares granularly to the planter aristocracy of the 1850s.
Ruling elites famously overthrown by history -- like the Ancien Régime in
France, Czarist Russia, and even the Antebellum South -- were fated by their insatiable
selfishness, their impenetrable arrogance, and their sneering aloofness from the despised
people -- "the deplorables" -- upon whom their own
economic status feasted .
Today's
Blue elite represents the
greatest concentration of wealth and power in the United States. Moreover, such wealth is
scattered across a mosaic of pristine, manicured, gated communities physically and socially
divorced from the realities of normal American life
-- glittering bubbles of
sovereign privilege . This is the very oligarchy Founders like John Adams
so feared . While both Red and Blue elites represent themselves as the people's champion,
Blue's protests ring the
most false .
America is divided today not by customary tussles in party politics, but rather by
passionate, existential, and irreconcilable opposition. Furthermore, the onset of battle is
driven yet more urgently by the "intersection" of a culturally embedded kinship divide moving
-- however haphazardly -- to join up with an elite-people divide.
Tragically, our divide may no longer be an outcome that people of goodwill work to overcome.
Schism -- with our nation in an ideological Iron Maiden -- will soon force us all to submit,
and choose.
Michael Vlahos teaches strategy and war at Johns Hopkins Advanced Academic Programs and
formerly, at the Naval War College. He is the author of the book
Fighting Identity: Sacred War and World Change .
Likbez
I think that the key for understating the political crisis in the USA is to understand its
connection with the crisis on neoliberalism as an ideology which was encompassed as the USA
national ideology after WWII.
The US neoliberal elite lost the support of the population, and the is what the current
crisis is about. Also, the level of degeneration of the current elite demonstrated by Haley
appointed to the UN and several other disastrous appointments also signify the Us approaching
the situation of " let them eat cakes."
The same time the power of surveillance state is such that outside of random acts of
violence like we observed recently, insurrection is impossible and political ways to change
the situation are blocked.
Neoliberals came to power with Carter, so more than 40 years ago (although formally Reagan
is considered to be the first neoliberal president.) Now they are are losing political power
and popular support.
Trump attempt to reform "classic neoliberalism" into what can be called "national
neoliberalism" or neoliberalism without globalization is probably doomed to be a failure and
not only due to Trump weaknesses as a political leader. He trying increase the level of
neoliberaliztion with the USA failing to understand that the current problems stem from
excessive levels of deregulation (and associated level of corruption), the excessive power of
military industrial complex (supported by Wall Street) which led to waiting for trillion of
arms race and destruction of New Deal Social protection mechanisms.
With the collapse of neoliberalism of global ideology, international standing of the USA
greatly deteriorated, and now in some areas (especially with unilateral Iran sanctions and
behavior in Korea crisis), Trump administration approaches the status of a pariah nation.
My impression is the neoliberalism just can't be reformed the way Trump is trying it to
reform into what can be called "national neoliberalism."
That's probably why intelligence agencies and Clinton wing of the Democratic party,
closely connected to Wall Street launched a color revolution ("Russiagate) against him in
late 2016, trying to depose him and install a more "compliant" leader, who would support
kicking the can down the road.
So the two warring camps now represent "classic neoliberalism" with its idea of the global
neoliberal empire (and related "Full Spectrum Dominance" doctrine) and "revisionists" of
various flavors (including Trump and Sanders supporters)
BTW neocons, who dominate the USA foreign policy, are also neoliberals, just moonlighting
as lobbyists of the military industrial complex.
I think that globalization as an immanent feature and trump policies this will fail.
As the same, the opposition to neoliberalism on the ground level of the US society demand
reforms and retreat form the globalization, which they connect with outsourcing and
offshoring.
That's why Trump's idea of "national neoliberalism" -- an attempt to retreat from
"globalization" and at the same time to obtain some economic advantages by brute force and
bilateral treaties instead of multilateral organizations like WTO got some initial support.
Along with his fake promises to improve the economic position of the middle class, squeezed
by globalization.
the truth is that the "classic neoliberals" (which are represented by Clinton wing of Dems
and Paul Ryan wing in Republicans ) lost popular support.
Dems, for example, now rely as their major constituency fringe groups and elements of
national security state (that's why so many of their candidates for midterm are associated
with intelligence agencies and military). So they are trying to mobilize elements of national
security state to help them to return to power. That gambit, like Russiagate before it,
probably will fail.
Republicans are also in limbo with Trump clearly betraying his electorate, but still enjoy
some level of ground support.
IMHO his betrayals which is very similar to Obama betrayal(in no way he wants to improve
the condition of the lower middle class and workers, it just hot air) might cost him two
important group of voters who will vote for independent candidates if they vote at all:
1. Anti-war republicans
2. People who want the return of the New Deal.
Factions which are against imperial wars and for more fair redistribution of income in the
society, a distribution which were screwed by 40 years of neoliberalism dominance in the
USA.
So the US electorate have a classic political choice between disastrous and unpalatable
policies once again ;-)
whether that will eventually lead to a military coup in best LA style, we can only
guess.
AP-NORC
Poll national survey with 1,152 adults found 8 in 10 Americans believe the country is
divided regarding essential values, and some expect the division to deepen into 2020.
Only 20% of Americans said they think the country will become less divided over the next
several years, and 39% believe conditions will continue to deteriorate. A substantial majority
of Americans, 77%, said they are dissatisfied with the state of politics in the country , said
AP-NORC.
... ... ...
The nationwide survey was conducted on October 11-14, using the AmeriSpeak
Panel, the probability-based panel of NORC at the University of Chicago. Overall, 59% of
Americans disapprove of how Trump is handling his job as president, while 40% of Americans
approve.
More specifically, the poll said 83% of Republicans approve of how Trump is handling the
job, while 92% of Democrats and 61% of Independents strongly disagree.
More than half of Americans said they are not hearing nor seeing topics from midterm
campaigns that are important to them. About 54% of Democrats and 44% of Republicans said vital
issues, such as health care, education, and economic activity, Social Security and crime, were
topics they wanted to hear more.
Looking at their communities, most American (Republicans and Democrats) are satisfied with
their state or local community. However, on a national level, 58% of Americans are dissatisfied
with the direction of the country, compared to 25%, a small majority who are satisfied.
Most Americans are dissatisfied with the massive gap between rich and poor, race relations
and environmental conditions. The poll noticed there are partisan splits, 84% of Democrats are
disappointed with the amount of wealth inequality, compared with 43% of Republicans. On the
environment, 77% of Democrats and 32% Republicans are dissatisfied. Moreover, while 77%
Democrats said they are unhappy with race relations, about 50% of Republicans said the
same.
The poll also showed how Democrats and Republicans view certain issues. About 80% of
Democrats but less than 33% of Republicans call income inequality, environmental issues or
racism very important.
"Healthcare, education and economic growth are the top issues considered especially
important by the public. While there are many issues that Republicans and Democrats give
similar levels of importance to (trade foreign policy and immigration), there are several
concerns where they are far apart. For example, 80% of Democrats say the environment and
climate change is extremely or very important, and only 28% of Republicans agree. And while
68% consider the national debt to be extremely or very important, only 55% of Democrats
regard it with the same level of significance," said AP-NORC.
Although Democrats and Republicans are divided on most values, many Americans
consider the country's diverse population a benefit.
Half said America's melting pot makes the country stronger, while less than 20% said it
hurts the country. About 30% said diversity does not affect their outlook.
"However, differences emerge by party identification, gender, location, education, and
race . Democrats are more likely to say having a population with various backgrounds makes
the country stronger compared to Republicans or Independents. Urbanities and college-educated
adults are more likely to say having a mix of ethnicities makes the country stronger, while
people living in rural areas and less educated people tend to say diversity has no effect or
makes the country weaker," said AP-NORC.
Overall, 60% of Americans said accusations of sexual harassment with some
high-profile men forced to resign or be fired was essential to them. However, 73% of women said
the issue was critical, compared with 51% of men. The data showed that Democrats were much more
likely than Republicans to call sexual misconduct significant.
More than 40% of Americans somewhat or strongly disapprove of Supreme Court Justice Brett
Kavanaugh's confirmation to the Supreme Court after allegations of sexual harassment in his
college years. 35% of Americans said they heartily approved of Kavanaugh's confirmation.
The evidence above sheds light on the internal struggles of America. The country is divided,
and this could be a significant problem just ahead.
Why is that? Well, America's future was outlined in a book called "The Fourth Turning: What
Cycles of History Tell Us About America's Next Rendezvous With Destiny."
In the book, which was written in the late 1990s, authors William Strauss and Niel Howe
theorize that the history of civilization moves in 80-to-100 year cycles called "saecula."
The idea behind this theory dates back to the Greeks, who believed that at given saeculum's
end, there would come "ekpyrosis," or a cataclysmic event.
This era of change is known as the Fourth Turning, and it appears we are in the midst of one
right now.
The last few Fourth Turnings that America experienced ushered in the Civil War and the
Reconstruction era, and then the Great Depression and World War II. Before all of that, it was
the Revolutionary War.
Each Fourth Turning had similar warning signs: periods of political chaos, division, social
and economic decay in which the American people reverted from extreme division and were forced
to reunite in the rebuild of a new future, but that only came after massive conflict.
Today's divide among many Americans is strong. We are headed for a collision that will rip
this country apart at the seams. The timing of the next Fourth Turning is now, and it could
take at least another decade to complete the cycle.
After the Fourth Turning, America will not be the America you are accustomed to today. So,
let us stop calling today the "greatest economy ever" and start preparing for turbulence.
Among the many untruths told about Donald Trump is the claim that his is not a movement of
ideas. As a candidate in 2016, Trump may not have spoken the language of the policy wonks. But
unlike those Republicans who did, his view of the world was not a stale ideological cliche. It
was instead refreshingly frank: about a foreign policy that couldn't win the wars it waged, an
economy that imperiled middle- and working-class America, and an immigration regime only the
employers of illegal nannies could love. Trump recognized reality, and that drew to his cause
independent-minded intellectuals who had also done so. The Trump movement suffers not from a
dearth of ideas or thinkers, but a dearth of institutions. It has thinkers but no think
tank.
F.H. Buckley, Foundation Professor at George Mason University's Scalia School of Law, is one
of its thinkers. His new book, The Republican Workers Party , comes from a publisher --
Encounter -- led by another, Roger Kimball. Buckley is no relation to William F., who as
writer, editor, and Firing Line host did more than anyone to make conservatism a byword
for eloquence in the latter half of the 20th century. But much as the other Buckley remade the
Right by founding National Review in 1955, this one aims to bring about a profound
change of heart and mind among conservatives. He wants to make good on the promise of the GOP
as a party for American workers.
It was a promise made right from the beginning, when in the mid-19th century the Republicans
were the party of free labor against the slavocracy. But the GOP and the country lost their
way. Today, in Buckley's telling, a self-perpetuating "New Class" of administrators and
mandarins runs the country from perches of privilege in the academy and nonprofit sector, as
well as the media, government, and much of the business world. Republicans of the Never Trump
variety are as much a part of this ruling caste as Clinton-Schumer-Pelosi Democrats are. And if
you might wonder whether someone in Buckley's position isn't part of the same professional
stratum, his answer is that he very much aspires to be a traitor to his class, just as Donald
Trump is.
Trump, writes Buckley, is "unlike anything we've seen before, for the simple reason that
he's up against something that we've never seen before: a liberalism that has given up on the
American Dream of a mobile and classless society." Those who today style themselves as
progressives are nothing of the sort -- they are not revolutionaries but the new aristocrats:
"They are Bourbons who seek to pass themselves off as Jacobins. They have bought into a radical
leftism, while resisting the call to unseat a patrician class that leftists in the past would
have opposed."
This is an eloquent explanation for an inversion that has puzzled many observers. Today's
Left, at least the mainstream Left represented by the Democratic Party, is now
establishmentarian. The Republican Right is now populist, if not downright revolutionary. "When
the upper class is composed of liberals who support socialist measures to keep us immobile and
preserve their privileged position," Buckley argues, "class warfare to free up our economy by
tearing down an aristocracy is conservative and just, as well as popular."
Buckley came to these conclusions before the rise of Donald Trump. They are at the heart of
his last two books, The Way Back and The Republic of Virtue . He recognized in
Trump a force for salutary change. So in early 2016, he signed up as a speechwriter for the
candidate and his family. At one point, this attracted unwanted attention: a speech delivered
by Donald Trump Jr. was found to have plagiarized an article in . Except it wasn't plagiarism:
Buckley was the author of both. I was editor of the magazine at the time, and Buckley is
correct when he says in The Republican Workers Party that I enjoyed the non-scandal --
because it brought attention to an essay I thought deserved a brighter spotlight than it had
initially received.
A further disclosure or two is in order: I also published some of the material that appears
in The Republican Workers Party in the journal I now edit, Modern Age , and I'm
thanked in the book's acknowledgments. My warm words for Buckley's last volume are quoted on
the dust jacket of this one. The review you're reading now is honest, but subjective -- I'm a
part of the story. Only a small one, however: Buckley reveals many details of the Trump
campaign and post-election transition that I had never heard before, including how Michael
Anton came to be hired and fired.
The campaign memoir is intriguing in its own right, but it's in the service of the book's
larger purpose. I've known Buckley to refer to himself as an economic determinist, and he's
also said that the future will be decided by a fight between the right-wing Marxists and the
left-wing Marxists. But those are exaggerations, and The Republican Workers Party isn't
primarily about economics: quite the contrary, it's about solidarity, humanity, and the
Christian spirit of brotherhood. The book is informed by a religious sensibility as much as it
is by policy acumen. But it's a religious sensibility that addresses the soul through material
conditions. Buckley is critical of attempts at a "moral rearmament crusade" that amounts to
shaming the poor and blaming them for their own condition.
On this, Buckley is at odds with what movement conservatism has promoted over the last
30-odd years, which is a pure moralism alongside a theoretically pure free-market economism,
each restricted to its own categorical silo. An economic conservative or libertarian might thus
approach Buckley's book with the trepeditation of a holy Inquisitor fearful that a friend will
be found committing heresy. But there is little in these pages that a free-market conservative
can quibble with at the policy level: rather it is the spirit in which economic conservatives
conduct politics that Buckley criticizes. He is even on the side of conservative orthodoxy,
more or less, when it comes to tariffs. He's a free trader at heart, though not a dogmatic
one.
On immigration, he favors a more Canadian-like, points-based system that would prioritize
skills, with a view toward providing maximum benefit for our current citizens, especially the
least well off among them. The present system "admits people who underbid native-born Americans
for low-skill jobs, while refusing entry to people with greater skills who would make life
better for all Americans." Canada lets in many more immigrants in proportion to its population
than the United States does, but "Canadians see an immigration policy designed to benefit the
native-born, so they don't think their government wants to stick it to them," even when it
comes to generous admission of refugees.
Buckley speaks from experience about immigration and Canada -- he was born, brought up, and
lived most of his life there before becoming a U.S. citizen in 2014. Like Alexander Hamilton,
whose Caribbean origins gave him a view of America's national economy unprejudiced by sectional
interests, Buckley's Canadian background gives him an independent vantage from which to
consider our characteristic shibboleths unsparingly. The separation of powers, for one, is a
dismal failure that "has given us two or more different Republican parties: a presidential
party, which today is the Republican Workers Party, but also congressional Republican parties
rooted in the issues and preference of local members. There's the Freedom Caucus composed of
Tea Party members, the more moderate Main Street Partnership and whatever maverick senators
were thinking this morning." Federalism too is a mixed bag. These are themes touched lightly
upon here but worked out in detail in such earlier Buckley books as The Once and Future
King .
That's not to say there's something alien about Buckley's ideas. He's an heir to Viscount
Bolingbroke, as were many of the Founding Fathers. (He contrasts Bolingbroke's disinterested
ideal of a patriot king, for example, with the identity-driven politics of the Democratic
Party.) But Buckley is also an heir to George Grant and the Anglo-Canadian tradition of Red
Toryism, a form of conservatism that does not bother itself with anti-government formulas that
never seem to reduce the size of government one iota anyway. Buckley's heroes are "leaders such
as Disraeli, Lord Randolph Churchill (Winston's father) and even Winston Churchill himself."
"They were conservative" but "they supported generous social welfare policies."
The policies that Buckley is most concerned about, however, are those that generate social
mobility. Education is thus high on his agenda. He is a strong supporter of vouchers and school
choice and points again to Canada as a success story for private schools receiving public
funds. But America is a rather different country, and as popular as vouchers are on the Right,
some of us can't help but wonder whether they would lead to the same outcome in primary and
secondary education that federal financial aid has produced in higher education. With the money
comes regulation, and usually soaring prices, too.
But Buckley is right that the defects of our present education system go a long way toward
explaining the rise of the new status class, and other countries have found answers to the
questions that perplex American politics -- or some of them at least. More adventurous thinking
is required if anything is to be saved of the American dream of mobility, in place of the
nightmare of division into static castes of winners and losers.
Libertarian economists and blame-the-poor moralizers are not the only figures on the Right
Buckley criticizes. He has no patience for the barely disguised Nietzscheanism of certain "East
Coast" Straussians, who imagine themselves to be philosopher-princes, educating a class of
obedient gentlemen who will in turn dominate a mass of purely appetitive worker bees and cannon
fodder.
Buckley's book is an argument against right-wing heartlessness. Its title may conjure in
some minds phantoms of the National Socialist German Workers Party or America's own penny-ante
white nationalist Traditionalist Workers Party, on which the media has lavished a certain
amount of attention in recent years. But fascists are not traditionalists, workers, or even,
properly speaking, socialists -- they simply steal whatever terms happen to be popular. Buckley
refuses to concede their claims and appease them.
He is eloquent in his American -- not white -- nationalism. "There isn't much room for white
nationalism in American culture," he writes, "For alongside baseball and apple pie, it includes
Langston Hughes and Amy Tan, Tex-Mex food and Norah Jones. You can be an American if you don't
enjoy them, but you might be a wee bit more American if you do." It's populism, not
nationalism, that he considers a toxic term, its genealogy tracing to figures like "Pitchfork
Ben" Tillman, a Jim Crow proponent and defender of lynch mobs.
He is right to defend the honor of nationalism, but Buckley may be mistaken in his animus
toward "populism," a word that for most people is more likely to bring to mind William Jennings
Bryan than the Ku Klux Klan.
Buckley's project in The Republican Workers Party parallels on the Right the task
taken up by Mark Lilla on the Left in last year's The Once and Future Liberal . Like
Lilla, Buckley wants to see a revival of mid-20th-century liberalism. For both, politics is
ultimately class-based, not identity-based. Lilla trains his fire on the identity-parsing Left,
while Buckley rebukes the Right for failing to fight the class war -- or rather, for fighting
on the wrong side, that of the self-serving New Class, the aristocracy of education,
connections, and right-thinking opinion.
This may seem nostalgic, but it's not: Buckley does not expect a return to JFK or Camelot,
even if, like Lilla, he once borrowed a title from T.H. White. The 21st century can only give
us a new and very different Kennedy or Disraeli -- an insurgent from the Right to retake the
center. In Donald Trump, F.H. Buckley found such a figure, but a movement needs a program as
well as a leader, and the program has to be grounded in an idea of humanity and the limits of
politics. The nation defines those limits, and while not every Trump supporter will agree with
Buckley's policy thought in all its specifics, the spirit of Buckley's endeavor represents what
is finest in the Trump moment, and what is best in conservatism, too.
Daniel McCarthy is the editor of Modern Age: A Conservative Review.
The Office of Inspector General (OIG) has
released a new audit of a computer network at the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Earth
Resouces Observation and Science (EROS) Center satellite imaging facility in Sioux Falls, South
Dakota.
OIG initiated an investigation into suspicious internet traffic discovered during a regular
IT security audit of the USGS computer network. The review found that a single USGS employee
infected the network due to the access of unauthorized internet web pages.
Those web pages were embedded with harmful malware, and then downloaded onto a
government-issued laptop, which then "exploited the USGS' network."
A digital forensic team examined the infected laptop and found porn. After further review,
it was determined the USGS employee visited 9,000 web pages of porn that were hosted mainly on
Russian servers and contained toxic malware.
OIG found the employee saved much of the pornographic content on an unauthorized USB drive
and personal smartphone, both of which were synced to the government computer and network.
"Our digital forensic examination revealed that [the employee] had an extensive history of
visiting adult pornography websites" that hosted dangerous malware, the OIG wrote.
"The malware was downloaded to [the employees'] government laptop, which then exploited
the USGS' network."
The forensic team determined two vulnerabilities in the USGS' IT security review: website
access and open USB ports. They said the "malware is rogue software that is intended to damage
or disable computers and computer systems." The ultimate objective of the malware was to steal
highly classified government information while spreading the infection to other systems.
The U.S. Department of the Interior's Rules of Behavior explicitly prohibit employees from
using government networks to satisfy porn cravings, and the IOG found the employee had agreed
to these rules "several years prior to the detection."
The employee was discharged from the agency, OIG External Affairs Director Nancy DiPaolo
told
Nextgov.
However, this is not the first time government workers have been figuratively caught with
their pants down.
Over the last two decades, similar incidents have occurred at the Environmental Protection
Agency, Securities and Exchange Commission, and the IRS.
Last year, a D.C. news team uncovered "egregious on-the-job pornography viewing" at a dozen
federal agencies and national security officials have reportedly found an "unbelievable" amount
of child porn on government devices, said Nextgov.
It seems that porn watching on government devices is so widespread that Rep. Mark Meadows,
R-N.C., introduced legislation banning porn at federal agencies -- three separate times.
Government workers have a porn addiction problem, and it is now jeopardizing national
security.
"... As to your question about who votes for Bolsonaro, I think we can break this down into three or four categories. His hard core is the sort of middle class of small business owners, plus members of the police and the armed forces. This would be, I guess, your classic fascist constituency, if you want to call it that. But you know, that's a very small proportion. ..."
"... Fernando Henrique Cardoso, who is a former academic sociologist who was exiled during the military dictatorship and was president of Brazil in the late '90s. He has yet to endorse Haddad, despite the fact that Bolsonaro previously said something about 10 years ago that Fernando Henrique Cardoso should have been killed by the military dictatorship. This is a real, in my opinion, a real failure of character, a real cowardice from the Brazilian supposedly-centrist elite to defend democracy against the very obvious threat that Bolsonaro poses. ..."
As to your question about who votes for Bolsonaro, I think we can break this down into
three or four categories. His hard core is the sort of middle class of small business owners,
plus members of the police and the armed forces. This would be, I guess, your classic fascist
constituency, if you want to call it that. But you know, that's a very small proportion.
And certainly in terms of his voters, in terms of his voter base, that's a small proportion.
What you have, then, is the rich, amongst whom he has a very significant lead. He polls 60-65
percent amongst the rich. And these people are motivated by what is called [inaudible]machismo,
which is anti-Worker's Party sentiment, which is really a sort form of barely-disguised class
loathing which targets the Worker's Party, rails against corruption, but of course turns a
blind eye to corruption amongst more traditional right-wing politicians.
These are the people who, at the end of the day, are quite influential, and have probably
proved decisive for Bolsonaro. But that isn't to say that he doesn't have support amongst the
poor, and this is the real issue. Bolsonaro would not win an election with just the support of
the reactionary middle class and the rich. He needs the support amongst the broad masses, and
he does have that to a significant degree, unfortunately.
What are they motivated by? They're motivated by a sense that politics has failed them, that
their situation is pretty hopeless. The security situation is very grave. And Bolsonaro seems
to be someone who might do something different, might change things. It's a bit of a rolling of
the dice kind of situation. And you know, here the Worker's Party does bear some blame. They've
lost a large section of the working class. A large section of the poor feel like they were
betrayed by the Worker's Party, who didn't stay true to its promises. The Worker's Party
implemented the austerity in its last government under Dilma, which led to a ballooning of
unemployment. And you know, there's a sense that- well, what have you done for us? A lot of
people don't want to return to the path. They want something better, and kind of roll the dice
hoping that maybe Bolsonaro does something, even though all evidence points to the fact that
he'll be a government for the rich, and the very rich, and for the forces of repression.
GREG WILPERT: So finally, in the little time that we have remaining, what is
happening to Brazil's left? Is it supporting the Haddad campaign wholeheartedly?
ALEX HOCHULI: Yes, absolutely. It's pretty much uniform amongst the left. Certainly
in terms of, you know, in terms of individuals, in terms of groups, in terms of movements.
Everyone, from even the kind of far-left Trotskyist Revolutionary Socialist Workers Party who
hate PT have told its members that they should vote for Fernando Haddad who, it should be
noted, is a figure to the right of that of PT, I guess, within the party. He's a much more
centrist figure. So that's kind of notable.
What hasn't happened is a broad front against fascism. That hasn't really materialized,
because the Brazilian center has failed to defend its democratic institutions against the very
obvious threat that Bolsonaro represents. You know, just to highlight one thing, Eduardo
Bolsonaro, who is Jair Bolsonar's son and a congressman, has threatened the Supreme Court,
saying that you could close down the Supreme Court. All you have to do is send one soldier and
one corporal, and they'll shut down the Supreme Court. I mean, this is a pretty brave threat
against Brazilian institutions. And a lot of the center has failed to really manifest itself,
really failed to take a stand. Marina Silva, who was at one point polling quite high about six
months ago, who is a kind of an environmentalist and an evangelical and a centrist, and who is
known for always in her speeches talking about doing things democratically, even she- it took
her until this week to finally endorse Haddad, lending Haddad critical support.
The center right, which should be the, you know, the Brazilian establishment, the ones
upholding the institutions, have broadly failed to endorse Haddad as the democratic candidate.
Which is really, really striking. I mean, just to give you one example, probably the best known
figure for your viewers outside of Brazil who might not know the ins and outs and all the
players involved, Fernando Henrique Cardoso, who is a former academic sociologist who was
exiled during the military dictatorship and was president of Brazil in the late '90s. He has
yet to endorse Haddad, despite the fact that Bolsonaro previously said something about 10 years
ago that Fernando Henrique Cardoso should have been killed by the military dictatorship. This
is a real, in my opinion, a real failure of character, a real cowardice from the Brazilian
supposedly-centrist elite to defend democracy against the very obvious threat that Bolsonaro
poses.
GREG WILPERT: Wow. Amazing. We'll definitely keep our eyes peeled for what happens on
Sunday. We'll probably have you back soon. I'm speaking to Alex Hochuli, researcher and
communication consultant based in Sao Paulo. Thanks again, Alex, for having joined us
today.
The Blue Wave seems to be receding. The reason; Democrats rule for the Elite 10%. They are
globalists rich from transnational world trade. They expect to cycle back into power.
However, there is no bull pen. They work against policies that would mitigate the neoliberal
winner takes all society and preserve the middle class. The Cold War restarted. Republican
Corporatists, nationalists or not, are no alternative.
The Western political-economic system, with no feedback corrections from democracy, is
tearing itself into pieces. Even though, corporate media continues to say how great things
are.
"... Third party candidates appear to have popped up in important KS races where far-right candidates might not get enough R votes, but where a 3rd party candidate could draw off moderate R votes that might otherwise to go the D candidate. ..."
"... Since getting the nomination, it seems that they caved to the establishment and diluted their platforms to tripe - Eastman did it within days of winning her primary. Same is true in solid Democrat districts that were never part of this series - I can't even view the change in MA-07 as much of a win, since on policy at least, Presley appears to have defeated Capuano from the right, not the left. I'm not at all surprised that this process leaves only 2 genuine leftists remaining, plus AOC. ..."
I sure hope the Dems take over the House. After McConnel said out loud on teevee that he
plans to Gut Social Security and Medicare to fix the deficit (created by the Trump taxcuts
for the Rich), Repubs have become a frightening breed. And what else will they attack? The
Trump presidency has turned from awful to Nightmarish. I'm not even a fan of the corporate
Dems but Congressional gridlock is our only hope.
If I'm completely honest with myself, I think it would be better for Rs to keep the house.
The D/R charade just gives hope to leftists while preventing meaningful institutional reform.
IMO things need to get worse before they can get better, and having a split Congress will
delay that. I think it'll take 3-4 terms of solid R rule before the left has a chance to make
meaningful change.
Here's a thought experiment: suppose the Dems had solid control of both houses: what would
they do? If you aren't excited about that outcome, why vote for it?
I have had similar thoughts in wondering what would be best. Maybe a complete humiliation
for the Ds in the House, like the GOP gaining 10 seats, but then a flip of the Senate, which
doesn't seem likely. It would have to be by several seats to counter Manchin, etc. I voted
straight D. It's all just speculation on my part; damned if I even know anymore what would be
best.
Historically, "the worse the better" hasn't worked out, unless you're hoping for
revolutionary conditions.
Otherwise, most people are pretty unprincipled at the end of the show -- they'll run to
join the crowd.
And the "revolutionary solution" is really, really bad historically. Really bad.
What you really want is the Dems to kick-ass, even if they're total sell-outs, to create
space on the left. But if they lose? You get a whole lot of people becoming radical right
wingers to be on the side of the winners.
flora, October 25, 2018 at 12:19 pm
KS-02 Paul Davis (D) vs Steve Watkins (R) (Jenkins is retiring, not running again.) with a libertarian candidate thrown in
as a 3rd party.
Trump was in town to rally with Watkins a short while ago. Lot of moderate Rs won't vote for far-right* Watkins, even
though this is an R district. Should be an interesting election.
Third party candidates appear to have popped up in important KS races where far-right candidates might not get enough
R votes, but where a 3rd party candidate could draw off moderate R votes that might otherwise to go the D candidate. Who
is funding these 3rd party candidates remains a mystery.
*on the same spectrum as Kris Kobach, imo.
Big River Bandido, October 25, 2018 at 12:20 pm
I think your approach of filtering out who the real candidates are from the left is correct. Dana Balter and Kara Eastman
have been particularly disheartening as general-election candidates; Eastman, especially, talked a great game on health care
back in the primary. Since getting the nomination, it seems that they caved to the establishment and diluted their
platforms to tripe - Eastman did it within days of winning her primary. Same is true in solid Democrat districts that were
never part of this series - I can't even view the change in MA-07 as much of a win, since on policy at least, Presley appears
to have defeated Capuano from the right, not the left. I'm not at all surprised that this process leaves only 2 genuine
leftists remaining, plus AOC.
"... Now there is new information, courtesy of the National Security Agency aka NSA, that confirms that the NSA has Top Secret and Secret documents that are responsive to a FOIA request for material on Seth Rich and his contacts with Julian Assange. While the content of these documents remain classified for now, they may provide documentary proof that Seth Rich "dropped boxed" the emails to Julian. If these documents are declassified, a big hole could be blown in the claim that Russia hacked the DNC. ..."
"... Another case of "Arkancide"? ..."
"... I came to this summary today after I had turned my T.V. off since all the news is now about the "bombs" being mailed to the Clintons and Obamas. (I was afraid a story line would soon continue that the bombs were from Russia via the White House. I can no longer feel certain that anything reported in the "news" is true and wonder what part of it is made up from thin air. ..."
"... And I am sad that such a huge number of American citizens simply no longer care what is true or what is not true. They believe only what they want to believe. Mostly I am sad that Seth Rich lived and died and few seem to want to know the facts surrounding his death. ..."
"... Guccifer 2.0 was nothing but an elaborate joke. ..."
If Russia had actually "hacked" the DNC emails then the National Security Agency would have had proof of such activity. In fact,
the NSA could have tracked such activity. But they did not do that. That lack of evidence did not prevent a coordinated media campaign
from spinning up to pin the blame on Russia for the "theft" and to portray Donald Trump as Putin's lackey and beneficiary.
Any effort to tell an alternative story has met with stout opposition. Fox News, for example, came under withering fire after
it published an article in May 2017 claiming that Seth Rich, a young Democrat operative, had leaked DNC emails to Julian Assange
at Wikileaks. The family of Seth Rich reacted with fury and sued Fox, Malia Zimmerman and Ed Butowsky, but that suit subsequently
was dismissed.
Now there is new information, courtesy of the National Security Agency aka NSA, that confirms that the NSA has Top Secret and
Secret documents that are responsive to a FOIA request for material on Seth Rich and his contacts with Julian Assange. While the
content of these documents remain classified for now, they may provide documentary proof that Seth Rich "dropped boxed" the emails
to Julian. If these documents are declassified, a big hole could be blown in the claim that Russia hacked the DNC.
PT, thank for the very detailed description of the entire story surrounding the supposed Russian hack of the DNC emails.
I always find myself screaming at the T.V. whenever a supposed reporter mentions the supposed Russian hack of the DNC computers
as if such an event is settled history.
I came to this summary today after I had turned my T.V. off since all the news is now about the "bombs" being mailed to the
Clintons and Obamas. (I was afraid a story line would soon continue that the bombs were from Russia via the White House. I can no longer feel certain that anything reported in the "news" is true and wonder what part of it is made up from thin air.
And I am sad that such a huge number of American citizens simply no longer care what is true or what is not true. They believe
only what they want to believe. Mostly I am sad that Seth Rich lived and died and few seem to want to know the facts surrounding his death.
"... I've come to the realization that the MSM and our government are using a very different definition of "democracy" and "democratic institutions" than the one in the dictionary. Their version of "democracy" is all about national security and financial interests, and have very little to do with elections and popular will. ..."
"... ideas and opinions ..."
"... @The Voice In the Wilderness ..."
"... ideas and opinions ..."
"... @The Voice In the Wilderness ..."
"... @The Voice In the Wilderness ..."
"... @enhydra lutris ..."
"... @enhydra lutris ..."
"... @enhydra lutris ..."
"... @The Liberal Moonbat ..."
"... , surprised the special counsel in April when they actually showed up in court to fight the charges ..."
"... "There is no statute of interfering with an election. There just isn't," said Dubelier, who added that Mueller's office alleged a "made-up crime to fit the facts they have." ..."
We can soon forget Russia's "meddling" in the 2016 election (or
lack of meddling ), because the Justice Department is already throwing down indictments for
meddling in the
2018 midterm elections.
Russians working for a close ally of President Vladimir V. Putin are engaging in an elaborate campaign of "information warfare"
to interfere with the American midterm elections next month, federal prosecutors said on Friday in unsealing charges against a
woman whom they labeled the project's "chief accountant."
Information warfare? That sounds serious. So what exactly is her objectives?
But this time, prosecutors said the operatives appeared beholden to no particular candidate. Russia's trolls did not limit themselves
to either a liberal or conservative position, according to the complaint. They often wrote from diverging viewpoints on the same
issue.
Uh, that's called trolling, and if trolling is against the law then 4Chan should watch out. It seems that trolling now equals
fraud .
It isn't just Russia. China and Iran are
meddling as well.
In a joint statement, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Justice Department, FBI and Department of Homeland
Security said they "do not have any evidence" that foreign countries have disrupted the voting process or changed any tallies
, but that the campaigns have spread "disinformation" and "foreign propaganda."
"We are concerned about ongoing campaigns by Russia, China and other foreign actors, including Iran, to undermine confidence
in democratic institutions and influence public sentiment and government policies," the statement said. "These activities also
may seek to influence voter perceptions and decision making in the 2018 and 2020 U.S. elections."
So how exactly are they defrauding the American public? As for "undermine confidence in democratic institutions", we already know
that we are an oligarchy
, not a democracy. So I think the burden of evidence is on our government to prove otherwise, not on Russia.
I've come to the realization that the MSM and our government are using a very different definition of "democracy" and "democratic
institutions" than the one in the dictionary. Their version of "democracy" is all about national security and financial interests,
and have very little to do with elections and popular will.
You would think from the MSM that Russiagate is "liberals" versus Trump, and that everyone on "the left" is OK with this. But even some in the media have noticed that leftists that don't identify as Democrats are Russiagate skeptics.
@gjohnsit AFAIK, all those facebook posts would be legal if posted by someone in the USA. Are foreign
ideas illegal now? are ideas and opinions illegal?
You would think from the MSM that Russiagate is "liberals" versus Trump, and that everyone on "the left" is OK with this. But even some in the media have noticed that leftists that don't identify as Democrats are Russiagate skeptics.
RT aired a documentary about the OccupyWall Street movement on 1, 2, and
4 November. RT framed the movement as a
fight against "the ruling class" and described
the current US political system as corrupt and
dominated by corporations.
RT advertising
for the documentary featured Occupy
movement calls to "take back" the
government. The documentary claimed that
the US system cannot be changed
democratically, but only through "revolution."
After the 6 November US presidential
election, RT aired a documentary called
"Cultures of Protest," about active and often
violent political resistance
RT's reports often characterize the United
States as a "surveillance state" and allege
widespread infringements of civil liberties,
police brutality, and drone use
RT has also focused on criticism of the US
economic system, US currency policy, alleged
Wall Street greed, and the US national debt. Some of RT's hosts have compared the United States to
Imperial Rome and have predicted that government corruption and "corporate greed" will lead to US
financial collapse
#1
AFAIK, all those facebook posts would be legal if posted by someone in the USA.
Are foreign ideas illegal now? are ideas and opinions illegal?
Basically, this Russian woman is being indicted for doing the books for a Russian entity that incorporated a number of US businesses.
These businesses had persons write and post under pen names a number of articles dealing with political subjects. That has been
interpreted by the Special Counsel as a conspiracy to violate a federal campaign law that forbids contributions to US election
campaigns. That's right, the indictment construes written opinion to be the same as money contributions.
The case would probably be thrown out -- nobody has been prosecuted for this before -- however the woman indicted will never
be in court to defend herself, as the prosecutor and FBI know. Mueller is getting desperate to come up with indictments to fill
in his jig saw puzzle.
@enhydra lutris@enhydra lutris@enhydra lutris
speech is constitutionally protected and can't be limited by campaign finance legislation. Mueller appears to have decided on
his own to abrogate the Citizens United decision.
That would be okay, if he applied it to prosecute political mouthpieces such as AIPAC, along with corporate fronts owned by
the Saudis, Chinese, British and 100 other countries who similiarly post anonymously.
It's now undeniable: Mueller is the prosecutorial weapon of a very selective political vendetta.
But somewhere on the left, right around the fault line where Barack Obama is deemed to have been a bad president, opinion
turns back again toward skepticism.
It gets worse from there. I'm betting that this was written by someone from the Atlantic Council or maybe Friedman's twin brother.
This person sure went to a lot of work to deride anyone who doesn't believe in Russia Gate didn't he?
Facebook has almost admitted that they are censoring people and websites because of Russia's ads on it that they say affected
the election. BTW. Didn't Obama also use Cambridge Analytics during his campaign and did the same things that Trump did? Pretty
sure that he did. But I guess that was different because of reasons. Yep. That's why.
You would think from the MSM that Russiagate is "liberals" versus Trump, and that everyone on "the left" is OK with this.
But even some in the media have noticed that leftists that don't identify as Democrats are Russiagate skeptics.
We are concerned about ongoing campaigns by Russia, China and other foreign actors, including Iran, to undermine confidence
in democratic institutions and influence public sentiment and government policies,
First off the GOP is doing a hell of a job undermining confidence in democratic institutions and the voting process by its
gerrymandering and its voter ID policies. Look at what's happening in Georgia (?) where the guy running is in charge of the voting
policies and is kicking thousands of people off the voting rolls.
Influence government policies you say? If millions of Americans can't do that then how could a foreign country do it? BTW.
This is already happening what with all the lobbyists and super PACs. But sure. Let's blame the 3 countries that they want to
war with. Anyone who believes this shit ... well I'll not finish this sentence.
Months before the 2016 election they were already calling Jill Stein a "Nader spoiler" (
here , here , and
here )
Funny how 3rd parties are demonized in this "democracy"
We are concerned about ongoing campaigns by Russia, China and other foreign actors, including Iran, to undermine confidence
in democratic institutions and influence public sentiment and government policies,
First off the GOP is doing a hell of a job undermining confidence in democratic institutions and the voting process by its
gerrymandering and its voter ID policies. Look at what's happening in Georgia (?) where the guy running is in charge of the
voting policies and is kicking thousands of people off the voting rolls.
Influence government policies you say? If millions of Americans can't do that then how could a foreign country do it? BTW.
This is already happening what with all the lobbyists and super PACs. But sure. Let's blame the 3 countries that they want
to war with. Anyone who believes this shit ... well I'll not finish this sentence.
There is so much BS in that article it's hard to choose which one is the worst but I'm going with this one.
But Stein's willingness to praise Russian propaganda outlets and push Kremlin talking points didn't end in Moscow. Indeed,
she challenged – and arguably surpassed – Trump in crafting the most Moscow-friendly campaign of 2016.
For instance, Stein made the strange claim multiple times that NATO had "surrounded" Russia with nuclear weapons. As she
told The Intercept, "This is the Cuban Missile Crisis in reverse, on steroids – in fact, on crack." (Less than 10 percent of
Russia's land border touches any NATO member-states.) She also said last year that NATO is only fighting "enemies we invent
to give the weapons industry a reason to sell more stuff."
This is what she actually said about NATO and Russia.
Stein: I think this is an issue where something does need to be said--but it's important to understand where they are coming
from. The United States, under Bush 1, had an agreement when Germany joined NATO--Russia agreed with the understanding that
NATO would not move one inch to the east. Since then NATO has pursued a policy of basically encircling Russia--including the
threat of nukes and drones and so on.
Okay and this one too.
Likewise, Stein claimed that Ukraine's 2014 revolution was, in reality, a "coup" that the U.S. "helped foment." Only two
other leaders have described Ukraine's toppling of former president Viktor Yanukovych as a "coup": Putin and Kazakhstani President
Nursultan Nazarbayev, whose country remains a security ally of Russia. Stein even spent time last year saying that "Russia
used to own Ukraine."
Pretty sure that during Obama's presidency the Ukraine government was overthrown by this country and now we're arming neo Nazis
with some very bad weapons.
ThinkProgress says it's being targeted by ad networks for producing 'controversial political content'. I'm thinking it's more
because they lie their asses off to people who read its website. This is the most blatant lying I've seen from a website. How
many people believed every word written there?
Join us on Sunday 10/28 to meet Jill Stein and Alameda/SF County Green candidates: Laura Wells, Saied Karamooz, Aidan Hill
and Mike Murphy. to support our candidates. People,... https://t.co/EtWyo6fism
First off the GOP is doing a hell of a job undermining confidence in democratic institutions and the voting process by its
gerrymandering and its voter ID policies.
I agree with your whole comment. Just wanted to make sure we don't leave out the monster that is the Dem establishment, aka
the other half of the single body that screws us every chance it gets. Supposed differences are only spoken, especially in election
years. When it gets down to the meat and potatoes, our representatives are one big symbiotic meal -- the kind that gives you the
shits until you're dead.
We are concerned about ongoing campaigns by Russia, China and other foreign actors, including Iran, to undermine confidence
in democratic institutions and influence public sentiment and government policies,
First off the GOP is doing a hell of a job undermining confidence in democratic institutions and the voting process by its
gerrymandering and its voter ID policies. Look at what's happening in Georgia (?) where the guy running is in charge of the
voting policies and is kicking thousands of people off the voting rolls.
Influence government policies you say? If millions of Americans can't do that then how could a foreign country do it? BTW.
This is already happening what with all the lobbyists and super PACs. But sure. Let's blame the 3 countries that they want
to war with. Anyone who believes this shit ... well I'll not finish this sentence.
The GOP has made it so that over 10% of the population can't vote this year. I think it's in Georgia where thousands are being
kicked off the voting rolls almost every day by the dude that is in charge of it and he is also running for an office. They have
been gerrymandering the country and other things. Of course the democrats don't seem to be doing much to make it easier for people
to vote. But yeah, both parties are just as corrupt.
Isn't it Brian Kemp who is not only running for office, but he is also in a position to purge the voting rolls? This is a huge
conflict of interest and some judge should have stopped him from being able to do that. I guess that's what people are suing him
for?
Close to 500,000 people were not able to vote in one of the states that Trump won in. Not sure if they were Hillary's or Trump's
voters though.
BTW. People are upset with Jill Stein because they think that her votes cost Hillary the election when the libertarian candidate
got more votes than Jill did. And yet he's not blamed for her loss. I wonder why that is?
Isn't it Brian Kemp who is not only running for office, but he is also in a position to purge the voting rolls? This is
a huge conflict of interest and some judge should have stopped him from being able to do that. I guess that's what people are
suing him for?
Close to 500,000 people were not able to vote in one of the states that Trump won in. Not sure if they were Hillary's or
Trump's voters though.
BTW. People are upset with Jill Stein because they think that her votes cost Hillary the election when the libertarian candidate
got more votes than Jill did. And yet he's not blamed for her loss. I wonder why that is?
First off the GOP is doing a hell of a job undermining confidence in democratic institutions and the voting process by
its gerrymandering and its voter ID policies.
I agree with your whole comment. Just wanted to make sure we don't leave out the monster that is the Dem establishment,
aka the other half of the single body that screws us every chance it gets. Supposed differences are only spoken, especially
in election years. When it gets down to the meat and potatoes, our representatives are one big symbiotic meal -- the kind that
gives you the shits until you're dead.
Robert Mueller's indictment of the Russians who interfered in our election is a milestone in an ongoing investigation. The
charges focus on the Russians who used online social networking platforms to divide voters and disrupt the electoral process.
Changed any votes? Party affiliations? Removed people from the voting rolls? Closed down voting precincts? Didn't supply enough
voting machines for high voting areas? Nope. Nope. Nope and nope. Just placed a few ads on Fakebook and most of them after the
election was over. It's taken Mueller two years to look into this? If he hasn't found any evidence yet then why waste time and
money worrying about China and Iran doing anything? I'm thinking that Mueller is just pretending to be investigating, but he's
really spending his time golfing or whatever his favorite activities are.
@snoopydawg
, its like a nuclear submarine calling the teapot black.
Robert Mueller's indictment of the Russians who interfered in our election is a milestone in an ongoing investigation.
The charges focus on the Russians who used online social networking platforms to divide voters and disrupt the electoral
process.
Changed any votes? Party affiliations? Removed people from the voting rolls? Closed down voting precincts? Didn't supply
enough voting machines for high voting areas? Nope. Nope. Nope and nope. Just placed a few ads on Fakebook and most of them
after the election was over. It's taken Mueller two years to look into this? If he hasn't found any evidence yet then why waste
time and money worrying about China and Iran doing anything? I'm thinking that Mueller is just pretending to be investigating,
but he's really spending his time golfing or whatever his favorite activities are.
we were going to receive at Fitzmas? Hoping the Establishment is going to finally reveal its sausage-making, really is a flight of fancy. McSausage for the McResistance. The Public are to be seen at voting stations, and not heard.
Hell I am surprised they even mentioned that first part.
In a joint statement, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Justice Department, FBI and Department of Homeland
Security said they "do not have any evidence" that foreign countries have disrupted the voting process or changed any tallies,
At any rate cracked up when I read Caitlin on FB this morning:
Politico Report Says Russiagaters Should Prepare To Kiss My Ass
"In a just world, everyone who helped promote this toxic narrative would apologize profusely and spend the rest of their
lives being mocked and marginalized."
#Mueller#TrumpRussiahttps://t.co/eN349xhjG3
We had Great discussion about
Caitlin's article. Lots of good comments.
Hell I am surprised they even mentioned that first part.
In a joint statement, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Justice Department, FBI and Department of
Homeland Security said they "do not have any evidence" that foreign countries have disrupted the voting process or changed
any tallies,
At any rate cracked up when I read Caitlin on FB this morning:
Politico Report Says Russiagaters Should Prepare To Kiss My Ass
"In a just world, everyone who helped promote this toxic narrative would apologize profusely and spend the rest of their
lives being mocked and marginalized."
#Mueller#TrumpRussiahttps://t.co/eN349xhjG3
Actually, I am thinking nuclear war with Russia may be the terminus point, but in terms of propaganda we are seeing it. I have
followed the Russia hysteria since 2015 when it was in its infant stage here in the States, but advancing in Europe.
There are still some charges that Russians broke into certain accounts as Microsoft has claimed a few months back, but the
claims go no where as they have to admit they had absolutely no proof. And the story fades away until a new charge is made, and
those now are hard to make up.
As previous posters before in have commented above, basically the terminus point is ascribing all dissent within the Western
powers as Russian created. In this charge it is impossible to to argue as no proof is needed except for the existance of
dissent. No more charges which can be proved such as an actual hack. And that dissent can be for or against an issue. All issues
lead to Moscow.
The huge censorship of various sites done by Facebook and Twitter begin and are justified by the Russia hysteria and "fan news".
-- John "Squinty Forehead Man" Graziano (@jvgraz)
October 18, 2018
Actually, I am thinking nuclear war with Russia may be the terminus point, but in terms of propaganda we are seeing it.
I have followed the Russia hysteria since 2015 when it was in its infant stage here in the States, but advancing in Europe.
There are still some charges that Russians broke into certain accounts as Microsoft has claimed a few months back, but the
claims go no where as they have to admit they had absolutely no proof. And the story fades away until a new charge is made,
and those now are hard to make up.
As previous posters before in have commented above, basically the terminus point is ascribing all dissent within the
Western powers as Russian created. In this charge it is impossible to to argue as no proof is needed except for the existance
of dissent. No more charges which can be proved such as an actual hack. And that dissent can be for or against an issue. All
issues lead to Moscow.
The huge censorship of various sites done by Facebook and Twitter begin and are justified by the Russia hysteria and "fan
news".
computer that wasn't even hooked up to the internet. Brennan said that Russia tried to meddle in 21?state's voting rolls, but
the states said that never happened. But just like people are still saying that all 17 intelligence (3) agencies agree that Russia
interfered with the election people still think that the other stuff is true. This is why spreading propaganda is so powerful.
The lies are what they remember, not the retractions if they're ever given.
About those FB ads that swayed the election ...
The majority of the Russian ad spend happened AFTER the election. We shared that fact, but very few outlets have covered
it because it doesn't align with the main media narrative of Tump and the election.
https://t.co/2dL8Kh0hof
Actually, I am thinking nuclear war with Russia may be the terminus point, but in terms of propaganda we are seeing it.
I have followed the Russia hysteria since 2015 when it was in its infant stage here in the States, but advancing in Europe.
There are still some charges that Russians broke into certain accounts as Microsoft has claimed a few months back, but the
claims go no where as they have to admit they had absolutely no proof. And the story fades away until a new charge is made,
and those now are hard to make up.
As previous posters before in have commented above, basically the terminus point is ascribing all dissent within the
Western powers as Russian created. In this charge it is impossible to to argue as no proof is needed except for the existance
of dissent. No more charges which can be proved such as an actual hack. And that dissent can be for or against an issue. All
issues lead to Moscow.
The huge censorship of various sites done by Facebook and Twitter begin and are justified by the Russia hysteria and "fan
news".
computer that wasn't even hooked up to the internet. Brennan said that Russia tried to meddle in 21?state's voting rolls,
but the states said that never happened. But just like people are still saying that all 17 intelligence (3) agencies agree
that Russia interfered with the election people still think that the other stuff is true. This is why spreading propaganda
is so powerful. The lies are what they remember, not the retractions if they're ever given.
About those FB ads that swayed the election ...
The majority of the Russian ad spend happened AFTER the election. We shared that fact, but very few outlets have covered
it because it doesn't align with the main media narrative of Tump and the election.
https://t.co/2dL8Kh0hof
A Washington federal judge on Thursday ordered special counsel Robert Mueller's team to clarify election meddling claims
lodged against a Russian company operated by Yevgeny Prigozhin, an ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin, according to Bloomberg.
Concord Management and Consulting, LLC. - one of three businesses indicted by Mueller in February along with 13 individuals
for election meddling , surprised the special counsel in April when they actually showed up in court to fight the charges
. Mueller's team tried to delay Concord from entering the case, arguing that thee Russian company not been properly served,
however Judge Dabney Friedrich denied the request - effectively telling prosecutors 'well, they're here.'
*
Concord pleaded not guilty in May. Their attorney, Eric Dubelier - a partner at Reed Smith, has described the election meddling
charges as "make believe," arguing on Monday that Mueller's indictment against Concord "doesn't charge a crime."
"There is no statute of interfering with an election. There just isn't," said Dubelier, who added that Mueller's office
alleged a "made-up crime to fit the facts they have."
Concord is one of the corporations that Mueller said placed ads on FB to sway people's opinion on Trump and Hillary. The ads
that most were placed after the election.
In a new article titled " Mueller
report PSA: Prepare for disappointment ", Politico cites information provided by defense
attorneys and "more than 15 former government officials with investigation experience spanning
Watergate to the 2016 election case" to warn everyone who's been lighting candles at their
Saint Mueller altars that their hopes of Trump being removed from office are about to be dashed
to the floor.
"While [Mueller is] under no deadline to complete his work, several sources tracking the
investigation say the special counsel and his team appear eager to wrap up," Politico
reports.
"The public, they say, shouldn't expect a comprehensive and presidency-wrecking account of
Kremlin meddling and alleged obstruction of justice by Trump - not to mention an explanation
of the myriad subplots that have bedeviled lawmakers, journalists and amateur Mueller
sleuths," the report also says, adding that details of the investigation may never even see
the light of day.
An obscene amount of noise and focus, a few indictments and process crime convictions which
have nothing to do with Russian collusion, and this three-ring circus of propaganda and
delusion is ready to call it a day.
This is by far the clearest indication yet that the Mueller investigation will end with
Trump still in office and zero proof of collusion with the Russian government, which has been
obvious since the beginning to everyone who isn't a complete fucking moron. For two years the
idiotic, fact-free, xenophobic Russiagate conspiracy theory has been ripping through mainstream
American consciousness with shrieking manic hysteria, sucking all oxygen out of the room for
legitimate criticisms of the actual awful things that the US president is doing in real life.
Those of us who have been courageous and clear-headed enough to stand against the groupthink
have been shouted down, censored, slandered and smeared as assets of the Kremlin on a daily
basis by unthinking consumers of mass media propaganda, despite our holding the philosophically
unassailable position of demanding the normal amount of proof that would be required in a
post-Iraq invasion world.
As I
predicted long ago , "Mueller isn't going to find anything in 2017 that these vast,
sprawling networks wouldn't have found in 2016. He's not going to find anything by 'following
the money' that couldn't be found infinitely more efficaciously via Orwellian espionage. The
factions within the intelligence community that were working to sabotage the incoming
administration last year would have leaked proof of collusion if they'd had it. They did not
have it then, and they do not have it now. Mueller will continue finding evidence of corruption
throughout his investigation, since corruption is to DC insiders as water is to fish, but he
will not find evidence of collusion to win the 2016 election that will lead to Trump's
impeachment. It will not happen." This has remained as true in 2018 as it did in 2017, and it
will remain true forever.
None of the investigations arising from the Russiagate conspiracy theory have turned up a
single shred of evidence that Donald Trump colluded with the Russian government to rig the 2016
election, or to do anything else for that matter. All that the shrill, demented screeching
about Russia has accomplished is manufacturing support for
steadily escalating internet censorship , a
massively bloated military budget , a hysterical McCarthyite atmosphere wherein anyone who
expresses political dissent is painted as an agent of the Kremlin and any dissenting opinions
labeled "Russian talking points" , a complete lack of accountability for the Democratic
Party's brazen election rigging, a total marginalization of real problems and progressive
agendas, and an overall diminishment in the intelligence of political discourse. The
Russiagaters were wrong, and they have done tremendous damage already.
In a just world, everyone who helped promote this toxic narrative would apologize profusely
and spend the rest of their lives being mocked and marginalized. In a world wherein pundits and
politicians can sell the public a war which results in the slaughter of a million Iraqis and
suffer no consequences of any kind, however, we all know that that isn't going to happen.
Russiagate will end not with a bang, but with a series of carefully crafted diversions. The
goalposts will be moved, the news churn will shuffle on, the herd will be guided into
supporting the next depraved oligarchic agenda , and almost nobody will have the intellectual
honesty and courage to say "Hey! Weren't these assholes promising us we'll see Trump dragged
off in chains a while back? Whatever happened to that? And why are we all talking about China
now?"
But whether they grasp it or not, mainstream liberals have been completely discredited. The
mass media outlets which inflicted this obscene psyop upon their audiences deserve to be driven
out of business. The establishment which would inflict such intrusive psychological
brutalization upon its populace just to advance a few preexisting agendas has proven that it
deserves to be opposed on every front and rejected at every turn.
And those of us who have been standing firm and saying this all along deserve to be listened
to. We were right. You were wrong. Time to sit down, shut up, stop babbling about Russian bots
for ten seconds, and let those who see clearly get a word in edgewise.
* * *
Thanks for reading! The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see
the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website , which will get you an email notification for
everything I publish. My articles are entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece
please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook , following my antics on Twitter , checking out my podcast , throwing some money into my hat on
Patreon or Paypal , buying my new book Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With
Caitlin Johnstone , or my previous book
Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers .
It's not over until every corrupt "player" who had a material role in the DemoRats'
corrupt scheme to fraudulently frame Trump is brought to justice. Not to do so means there's
absolutely no deterrent to prevent the DemoRats from repeatedly fraudulently weaponizing
government agencies to attack their political opponents (defined as "Obamunism'). After all,
this was the most egregious fraudulent and illegal political conspiracy in our nation's
history. The DemoRat players must spend a decade or more in the big house. You'd think the
MSM would like that, as the trials of the traitors to America would give the MSM fodder for
their endless psycho-babble and shift attention away from the MSM's complicity in
Obamunism.
That ******* **** Maddow is the deep state's Tokyo Rose and should be yanked from the
airwaves and prosecuted for seditious lies and slander. She has plenty of company at the
other major news networks as well.
Can you imagine all of the "Deer-Caught-In-The-Headlights" looks if Mueller were to come
out with an indictment of Hillary, the Decepticrats and the DNC? I can!
All of this Russia ******** has been a diversion to distract the current administration
and to inhibit the discovery of the real crimes that have been committed against the US and
the world since 1991 when GHWB took office... Everything from 9-11 to WMDs in Iraq to
billions of $$$ in cash being airlifted to Iran to Barry Soetoro being a stooge for Saudi
Arabia... They have bought themselves two years in the process, but they cannot stop the
truth coming out...
I spoke to an ex-pat Indian, now an American citizen; settled there for three decades and
more. Well knowledgeable. He praised Pres. Trump but told me, "But Trump did not win fair."
When I told him that this Russia probe is going to wind up, admitting no collusion, he was
surprised. Then I told him that his favourite media are lying to him; he was confused. Then I
asked him to google "Seth Rich"; he was stunned. Finally it dawned on him he was the Truman
without the benefit of a show. By the time I did my talk over, about 20 minutes later, he was
a much chastised man. He had the intellectual integrity to admit that he was wrong, that he
had been fooled and he ought to have been more careful.
Thank you Caitlin, you have been a truth advocate from the beginning. We have been waiting
for #Russiagate ******** to end and embarrass the Democrats. Unfortunately, President Trump
is starting to be hostile towards Russia now. What a pity it was, that Democrats ruined a
chance of Peace !
The entire Mueller probe is based on a lie... Rosenstein called for a special counsel
without evidence of a crime being committed and no, collusion is not a crime on the
books...
Why all of this has taken 2 years to come to light is beyond me.. The only answer is that
the entire affair has been a giant kabuki show on both sides of the aisle to keep the people
distracted and divided...
Not just the Obama admin spying on Trump, but to tie his hands in investigating everything
from billions of $$$ in cash being delivered to Iran, to who controls Barry Soetoro himself,
to Uranium one, to the Clinton Foundation and on and on and on... There is ample evidence
that the US was infiltrated by a Manchurian Candidate that was hell-bent on destroying the
country, but what we have gotten as a by-product is half of the country hating the US... Weak
minded lemmings that want socialism... The US is fucked and has been for decades... All part
of the reason I left...
The best part is, I hope Carter page , George papadopolous, Paul manafort, and myriad
Russian defendants drag their lawsuits out forever and bring unlimited documents into
discovery, pulling these **** head shill lawyers into never ending court circuses and
hopefully sue Mueller's team to recoup the wasted taxpayer millions. BTW much of this is the
fault of shills like McCain, Lindsay Graham, Ben Sasse, Jeff Flake, and the other neocon
establishment who would rather see Trump taken down by Democrat hoax operations than
legitimately beat them.
This is ridiculous, the result could not be clearer:
If there's any suggestion that Mueller's report cannot be released then we know without a
doubt that the report contains absolutely nothing of consequence.
Otherwise, why would they do so much preparation for disappointment.
I too hope that all the people who have been ruined by this debacle bring countless legal
actions that require public disclosure of alleged 'secret' documents.
In the end Trump will have to, regardless of protest from the UK or anyone else for that
matter, have to declassify the whole lot of it so that his false accusers are laid bare on
the alter of shame for all to see.
They never could win legitimately so they cheated like no other, and of course as the
foundation they used the queen cheater Hillary Clinton herself. I hope she does run for
election in 2020, it will be 3 strikes and the bitch is out. What an embarassement for
Hillary.
Obama was a neocon, Trump is a neocon. what's new ?
Chinese leaders appeared to be acting on the advice of the 6th century BC philosopher and general Sun Tzu, who wrote in The Art
of War, "there is no instance of a nation benefiting from prolonged warfare."
Candidate Trump railed against the invasion of Iraq during his campaign, at one point blaming George W. Bush directly and saying,
"we should have never been in Iraq. We have destabilized the Middle East." As president-elect, Trump continued to promise a very
different foreign policy, one that would "stop racing to topple foreign regimes that we know nothing about, that we shouldn't be
involved with."
The election of Donald Trump gave the international community pause: Trump appeared unpredictable, eschewed tradition, and flouted
convention. He might well have followed through on his promise to move the U.S. away from its long embrace of forever war. China's
government in particular must have worried about such a move. If the U.S. focused on its internal problems and instead pursued a
restrained foreign policy that was constructive rather than destructive, it might pose more of an impediment to China's rise to global
power status.
But the Chinese need not have worried. With a continued troop presence in Afghanistan and Syria, a looming conflict with Iran,
and even talk of an intervention in Venezuela, Trump is keeping the U.S. on its perpetual wartime footing.
This is good news for Beijing, whose own foreign policy could not be more different. Rather than embracing a reactive and short-sighted
approach that all too often ignores second- and third-order consequences, the Chinese strategy appears cautious and long-ranging.
Its policymakers and technocrats think and plan in terms of decades, not months. And those plans, for now, are focused more on building
than bombing.
This is not to say that China's foreign policy is altruistic-it is certainly not. It is designed to cement China's role as a great
power by ensnaring as many countries as possible in its economic web. China is playing the long game while Washington expends resources
and global political capital on wars it cannot win. America's devotion to intervention is sowing the seeds of its own demise and
China will be the chief beneficiary.
So intelligence agencies are now charged with protection of elections from undesirable candidates; looks like a feature of neofascism...
Notable quotes:
"... The Department of Justice admitted in a Friday court filing that the FBI used more than one "Confidential Human Source," (also known as informants, or spies ) to infiltrate the Trump campaign through former adviser Carter Page, reports the Daily Caller ..."
"... Included in Hardy's declaration is an acknowledgement that the FBI's spies were in addition to the UK's Christopher Steele - a former MI6 operative who assembled the controversial and largely unproven "Steel Dossier" which the DOJ/FBI used to obtain a FISA warrant to spy on Page. ..."
"... In addition to Steele, the FBI also employed 73-year-old University of Cambridge professor Stefan Halper, a US citizen, political veteran and longtime US Intelligence asset enlisted by the FBI to befriend and spy on three members of the Trump campaign during the 2016 US election . Halper received over $1 million in contracts from the Pentagon during the Obama years, however nearly half of that coincided with the 2016 US election. ..."
"... In short, the FBI's acknowledgement that they used multiple spies reinforces Stone's assertion that he was targeted by one. ..."
"... Stefan Halper's infiltration of the Trump campaign corresponds with the two of the four targets of the FBI's Operation Crossfire Hurricane - in which the agency sent former counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok and others to a London meeting in the Summer of 2016 with former Australian diplomat Alexander Downer - who says Papadopoulos drunkenly admitted to knowing that the Russians had Hillary Clinton's emails. ..."
"... Interestingly Downer - the source of the Papadopoulos intel, and Halper - who conned Papadopoulos months later, are linked through UK-based Haklyut & Co. an opposition research and intelligence firm similar to Fusion GPS - founded by three former British intelligence operatives in 1995 to provide the kind of otherwise inaccessible research for which select governments and Fortune 500 corporations pay huge sums ..."
"... Downer - a good friend of the Clintons, has been on their advisory board for a decade, while Halper is connected to Hakluyt through Director of U.S. operations Jonathan Clarke, with whom he has co-authored two books. (h/t themarketswork.com ) ..."
The Department of Justice admitted in a
Friday court filing that the FBI used
more than one "Confidential Human Source," (also known as informants, or spies ) to infiltrate the Trump campaign through former
adviser Carter Page, reports the Daily Caller
.
"The FBI has protected information that would identify the identities of other confidential sources who provided information or
intelligence to the FBI" as well as "information provided by those sources," wrote David M. Hardy, the head of the FBI's Record/Information
Dissemination Section (RIDS), in court
papers submitted Friday.
Hardy and Department of Justice (DOJ) attorneys submitted the filings in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit
for the FBI's four applications for Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants against Page. The DOJ released heavily
redacted copies of the four FISA warrant applications on June 20, but USA Today reporter Brad Heath has sued for full copies of
the documents. - Daily Caller
Included in Hardy's declaration is an acknowledgement that the FBI's spies were in addition to the UK's Christopher Steele
- a former MI6 operative who assembled the controversial and largely unproven "Steel Dossier" which the DOJ/FBI used to obtain a
FISA warrant to spy on Page.
The DOJ says it redacted information in order to protect the identity of their confidential sources, which "includes nonpublic
information about and provided by Christopher Steele," reads the filing, " as well as information about and provided by other confidential
sources , all of whom were provided express assurances of confidentiality."
Government lawyers said the payment information is being withheld because disclosing specific payment amounts and dates could
"suggest the relative volume of information provided by a particular CHS. " That disclosure could potentially tip the source's
targets off and allow them to "take countermeasures, destroy or fabricate evidence, or otherwise act in a way to thwart the FBI's
activities." - Daily Caller
Steele, referred to as Source #1, met with several DOJ / FBI officials during the 2016 campaign, including husband and wife team
Bruce and Nellie Ohr. Bruce was the #4 official at the DOJ, while his CIA-linked wife Nellie was hired by Fusion GPS - who also employed
Steele, in the anti-Trump opposition research / counterintelligence effort funded by Trump's opponents, Hillary Clinton and the DNC.
In addition to Steele, the FBI also employed 73-year-old University of Cambridge professor Stefan Halper, a US citizen, political
veteran and longtime US Intelligence asset enlisted by the FBI to befriend and spy on three members of the Trump campaign during
the 2016 US election . Halper received over $1 million in contracts from the Pentagon during the Obama years, however nearly half
of that coincided with the 2016 US election.
Stefan Halper
Halper's involvement first came to light after the Daily Caller 's Chuck Ross reported on his involvement with Carter Page and
George Papadopoulos, another Trump campaign aide. Ross's reporting was confirmed by the NYT and WaPo .
In June, Trump campaign aides Roger Stone and Michael Caputo claimed that a meeting Stone took in late May, 2016 with a Russian
appears to have been an " FBI sting operation " in hindsight, following
bombshell reports in May
that the DOJ/FBI used a longtime FBI/CIA asset, Cambridge professor Stefan Halper, to perform espionage on the Trump campaign.
Roger Stone
When Stone arrived at the restaurant in Sunny Isles, he said, Greenberg was wearing a Make America Great Again T-shirt and
hat. On his phone, Greenberg pulled up a photo of himself with Trump at a rally, Stone said. -
WaPo
The meeting went nowhere - ending after Stone told Greenberg " You don't understand Donald Trump... He doesn't pay for anything
." The Post independently confirmed this account with Greenberg.
After the meeting, Stone received a text message from Caputo - a Trump campaign communications official who arranged the meeting
after Greenberg approached Caputo's Russian-immigrant business partner.
" How crazy is the Russian? " Caputo wrote according to a text message reviewed by The Post. Noting that Greenberg wanted "big"
money, Stone replied: "waste of time." -
WaPo
In short, the FBI's acknowledgement that they used multiple spies reinforces Stone's assertion that he was targeted by one.
Further down the rabbit hole
Stefan Halper's infiltration of the Trump campaign corresponds with the two of the four targets of the FBI's Operation Crossfire
Hurricane - in which the agency sent former counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok and others to a London meeting in the Summer of
2016 with former Australian diplomat Alexander Downer - who says Papadopoulos drunkenly admitted to knowing that the Russians had
Hillary Clinton's emails.
Interestingly Downer - the source of the Papadopoulos intel, and Halper - who conned Papadopoulos months later, are linked
through
UK-based Haklyut & Co. an opposition research and intelligence firm similar to Fusion GPS - founded by three former British intelligence
operatives in 1995 to provide the kind of otherwise inaccessible research for which select governments and Fortune 500 corporations
pay huge sums .
Alexander Downer
Downer - a good friend of the Clintons, has been on their advisory board for a decade, while Halper is connected to Hakluyt
through Director of U.S. operations Jonathan Clarke, with whom he has
co-authored two books. (h/t
themarketswork.com )
Alexander Downer, the Australian High Commissioner to the U.K. Downer said that in May 2016, Papadopoulos told him during a
conversation in London about Russians having Clinton emails.
That information was passed to other Australian government officials before making its way to U.S. officials. FBI agents flew
to London a day after "Crossfire Hurricane" started in order to interview Downer.
It is still not known what Downer says about his interaction with Papadopoulos, which TheDCNF is told occurred around May 10,
2016.
Also interesting via
Lifezette - " Downer is not the only Clinton fan in Hakluyt. Federal contribution records show several of the firm's U.S. representatives
made large contributions to two of Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign organizations ."
Halper contacted Papadopoulos on September 2, 2016 according to The Caller - flying him out to London to work on a policy paper
on energy issues in Turkey, Cyprus and Israel - for which he was ultimately paid $3,000. Papadopoulos met Halper several times during
his stay, "having dinner one night at the Travellers Club, and Old London gentleman's club frequented by international diplomats."
They were accompanied by Halper's assistant, a Turkish woman named Azra Turk. Sources familiar with Papadopoulos's claims about
his trip say Turk flirted with him during their encounters and later on in email exchanges .
...
Emails were also brought up during Papadopoulos's meetings with Halper , though not by the Trump associate, according to sources
familiar with his version of events. T he sources say that during conversation, Halper randomly brought up Russians and emails.
Papadopoulos has told people close to him that he grew suspicious of Halper because of the remark. -
Daily Caller
Meanwhile, Halper targeted Carter Page two days after Page returned from a trip to Moscow.
Page's visit to Moscow, where he spoke at the New Economic School on July 8, 2016, is said to have piqued the FBI's interest
even further . Page and Halper spoke on the sidelines of an election-themed symposium held at Cambridge days later. Former Secretary
of State Madeleine Albright and Sir Richard Dearlove, the former head of MI6 and a close colleague of Halper's, spoke at the event.
...
Page would enter the media spotlight in September 2016 after Yahoo! News reported that the FBI was investigating whether he
met with two Kremlin insiders during that Moscow trip.
It would later be revealed that the Yahoo! article was based on unverified information from Christopher Steele, the former
British spy who wrote the dossier regarding the Trump campaign . Steele's report, which was funded by Democrats, also claimed
Page worked with Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort on the collusion conspiracy. -
Daily Caller
A third target of Halper's was Trump campaign co-chairman Sam Clovis, whose name was revealed by the Washington Post on Friday.
In late August 2016, the professor reached out to Clovis, asking if they could meet somewhere in the Washington area, according
to Clovis's attorney, Victoria Toensing.
"He said he wanted to be helpful to the campaign" and lend the Trump team his foreign-policy experience, Toensing said.
Clovis, an Iowa political figure and former Air Force officer, met the source and chatted briefly with him over coffee, on
either Aug. 31 or Sept. 1, at a hotel cafe in Crystal City, she said. Most of the discussion involved him asking Clovis his views
on China.
"It was two academics discussing China," Toensing said. " Russia never came up. " -
WaPo
Meanwhile, Bruce Ohr is still employed by the Department of Justice, and Fusion GPS continues its hunt for Trump dirt after having
partnered with former Feinstein aide and ex-FBI counterintelligence agent, Dan Jones.
It's been nearly three years since an army of professional spies was unleashed on Trump - and he's still the President, Steele
and Downer notwithstanding.
"Made up a crime to fit the facts they have" is a normal mode of operation for federal
prosecutors. Hopefully the judge throws out all charges, but unlikely to have a broader
impact on non-stop fabrications by US attorneys.
What this accusation boils down to is saying that the Russian firm's deception is "proof"
that they thought they were violating US law, and that this intention to break a non-existent
law constitutes a framework under which they can be convicted of breaking a non-existent law.
The crazy never stops. Mueller and his minions should be disbarred.
Why is there any requirement to identify oneself beyond an alias, unless there are
obligations of debt involved. Even there, the LLC places a barrier between an individual and
the creditor.
I post with a pseudonym. My pseudonymous identity bears responsibility for its own
reputation.
ELECTION MEDDLING (as defined by Mueller and Kravis): every VPN blogger and/or user with
more than one GMail account.
But NOT multi-million dollar foreign "contributions" to the Clinton Foundation. That have
dried up since November of 2016. Oh no, nothing meddling about over there.
By participation, do they mean like polls that consistently show the USA as the greatest
impediment to global peace and tranquility? Or the numerous opinion sharers that the US
government is depraved? Or like the kind of participation of Victoria "**** the EU" Nuland?
Or like the Western sponsored Jihadi headchoppers hired to interfere in Syrian elections? Or
like the US military fueled aggression against Yemeni sovereignty? Or like the US/Clinton
sponsored destabilization of Libyan democracy? Or like the Obama/US sponsored destabilization
of Egypt? Or like the US/Western sponsored failed coup in Turkey?
Or most crucially, the US/neoconservative never ending direct interference in internal
Russian affairs?
These need to be clarified so folks can understand what meddling/interference/intervention
means. It's not enough to point fingers, when worse activities have been, are being carried
out by the pointers. Any society that abandons basic ethics, is one destined for the scrap
heap of history.
Americans have forgotten what it means to be Americans, and this desperate gambit by the
DOJ highlights viscerally, that the American system of government, one based on ethical
values, is no more! It demonstrates the fragility of the system.
God alone knows if salvage is possible now, the USA has in the blink of an eye, become the
erstwhile USSR, overly sensitive to the unworkability of its sociopolitical system. It is the
end game of unsustainable imperium.
"Rather, the allegation is that the company knowingly engaged in deceptive acts that
precluded the FEC, or the Justice Department, from ascertaining whether they had broken the
law. -
Bloomberg " I didn't know Prof. Irwin Corey worked for the US Attorney's office. By this
explanation whether you break a law or not you can be guilty of precluding these agencies
from determining that you did not break a law, even if whatever you did to prevent such
determination was not illegal.
didn't the Judge in Manaforts trial do something similar when he called out the Mueller
team on their motivation's for bringing Manafort up on old charges the DOJ had previously
declined to prosecute him on?
Amerika is 180 degree turn from my logic. Mueler presented fake evidence and fabricated
Lockerbie trial. He was working with Steele.
So this is great guy to head FBI and bull sheet Russia medling. In normal country, guy
like Mueler is so discredired that can be hapi to have county investigator job, not
government job
LOL, Mueller's investigation is fucked. Indeed, they are going to have to bring forth the
evidence via discovery.
It will come to light they manufactured a crime without the evidence. Also, if they don't
drop the case they're running the risk of exposing even more crimes they committed.
This is where the American people should rise up and repeal prosecutorial immunity and
make the real criminal's pay the price for manufacturing crime's! Care to speculate how many
prosecutor's wouldn't even touch a potential criminal with doubt of innocence, if indeed
prosecutors were held accountable for their own crimes???
Like I've said, people have NO idea how raunchy and corrupt this manufactured Mueller
investigation is, once the unredacted FISA warrant and 302's are released, the people will
realize both the seditious and traitorous behavior that went on in the ObamaSpy ring to frame
Trump!
A Washington federal judge on Thursday ordered special counsel Robert Mueller's team to clarify election meddling claims lodged against
a Russian company operated by Yevgeny Prigozhin, an ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin, according to
Bloomberg .
Concord Management and Consulting, LLC. - one of three businesses indicted by Mueller in February along with 13 individuals for
election meddling, surprised the special counsel in April when they actually showed up in court to fight the charges. Mueller's team
tried to delay Concord from entering the case, arguing that thee Russian company not been properly served, however Judge Dabney Friedrich
denied the request - effectively telling prosecutors '
well,
they're here .'
Concord was accused in the indictment of supporting the Internet Research Agency (IRA), a Russian 'troll farm' accused of trying
to influence the 2016 US election.
On Thursday, Judge Freidrich asked Mueller's prosecutors if she should assume they aren't accusing Concord of violating US laws
applicable to election expenditures and failure to register as a foreign agent.
Concord has asked Dabney to throw out the charges - claiming that Mueller's office fabricated a crime, and that there is no law
against interfering in elections.
According to the judge's request for clarification, the
Justice Department has argued that it doesn't have to
show that Concord had a legal duty to report its expenditures to the
Federal Election Commission . Rather, the allegation
is that the company knowingly engaged in deceptive acts that precluded the FEC, or the Justice Department, from ascertaining whether
they had broken the law. -
Bloomberg
On Monday, Friedrich raised questions over whether the special counsel's office could prove a key element of their case - saying
that it was "hard to see" how allegations of Russian influence were intended to interfere with US government operations vs. simply
"confusing voters," reports
law.com .
During a 90-minute hearing, Friedrich questioned prosecutor Jonathan Kravis about how the government would be able to show
the Russian defendants were aware of the Justice Department and FEC's functions and then deliberately sought to skirt them.
" You still have to show knowledge of the agencies and what they do. How do you do that? " Friedrich asked.
Kravis, a prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia, argued that the government needed only to
show that Concord Management and the other defendants were generally aware that the U.S. government "regulates and monitors" foreign
participation in American politics . That awareness, Kravis said, could be inferred from the Russians' alleged creation of fake
social media accounts that appeared to be run by U.S. citizens and "computer infrastructure" intended to mask the Russian origin
of the influence operation.
" That is deception that is directed at a higher level ," Kravis said. Kravis appeared in court with
Michael Dreeben , a top Justice Department appellate lawyer on detail to the special counsel's office. -
law.com
Concord pleaded not guilty in May. Their attorney, Eric Dubelier - a partner at Reed Smith, has described the election meddling
charges as "make believe," arguing on Monday that Mueller's indictment against Concord "doesn't charge a crime."
"There is no statute of interfering with an election. There just isn't," said Dubelier, who added that Mueller's office alleged
a "made-up crime to fit the facts they have."
Dubelier added that the case against Concord Management is the first in US history "where anyone has ever been charged with defrauding
the Justice Department" through their failure to register under FARA .
United States District Judge S. James Otero issued an order and ruling today dismissing
Stormy Daniels' defamation lawsuit against President Trump. The ruling also states that the
President is entitled to an award of his attorneys' fees against Stormy Daniels. A copy of
the ruling is attached. No amount of spin or commentary by Stormy Daniels or her lawyer, Mr.
Avenatti, can truthfully characterize today's ruling in any way other than total victory for
President Trump and total defeat for Stormy Daniels. The amount of the award for President
Trump's attorneys' fees will be determined at a later date.
Daniels' attorney Michael Avenatti responded to the dismissal, tweeting: "We will appeal the
dismissal of the defamation cause of action and are confident in a reversal," while stating
that Daniels' other claims against Trump and Cohen "proceed unaffected."
Re Judge's limited ruling: Daniels' other claims against Trump and Cohen proceed
unaffected. Trump's contrary claims are as deceptive as his claims about the inauguration
attendance.
We will appeal the dismissal of the defamation cause of action and are confident in a
reversal.
Last week Trump's legal team argued that it made no sense for them to keep fighting in court
over a $130,000 hush payment received by Clifford, also known as Stormy Daniels, as she
invalidated the non-disclosure agreement she signed with Trump's longtime fixer and lawyer,
Michael Cohen.
The lawsuit is moot because Trump has consented that the agreement, as she has claimed,
was never formed because he didn't sign it and he has agreed not to try to enforce it, Trump
said in his court filing. The company created by Cohen to facilitate the non-disclosure
agreement, which initially said Clifford faced more than $20 million in damages for talking,
said in September that it wouldn't sue to enforce the deal. -
Yahoo
Michael Avenatti's terrible October
This month has not treated Stormy's attorney well. Michael Avenatti went from Democrat
darling during his representation of Daniels, to scapegoat over Justice Brett Kavanaugh's
nomination to the Supreme Court after he introduced an 11th hour claim by a woman who said
Kavanaugh orchestrated gang-rape parties in the early 1980s - an allegation thought by many to
have derailed otherwise legitimate claims against the Judge.
Less than two weeks later Avenatti came under fire after he launched a now-deleted
fundraising page for Texas Democratic Senate candidate Beto O'Rourke.
In the fine print, O'Rourke supporters discovered that half the proceeds went to Avenatti's
Fight PAC , which he formed a little over
seven weeks ago .
Avenatti called the criticism "complete nonsense," noting that Senators Elizabeth Warren and
Kamala Harris "do the same thing." Perhaps sensing he'd made a huge mistake, Avenatti deleted
the page - telling the Daily Beast in a text message: "It wasn't worth the nonsense that
resulted from people that don't understand how common this is."
The question now is; after three strikes, is Avenatti out?
Given his free $50 million in publicity, and the amount of GoFundMe he's gonna get or has
gotten, I'd say "losing" is entirely in the eye of the beholder, lol.
Avenatti is the best thing that has happened to Trump.
It's almost like he is intentionally doing stupid and outrageous things to make the dems
look even more unhinged than they are.
I wouldn't be surprised if we find he has been secretly working for Trump all along. Trump
did run a reality show after all so that would be a great plot twist ;)
The best thing about Avenatti and the Clintons is that they won't stop until they bring
the entire Democratic Party down. It reminds me of Anthony Weiner and Elliot Spitzer,
scumbags who keep coming back and discredit the entire party because of their own glorious
egos.
Fascism is always eclectic and its doctrine is composed of several sometimes contradicting each other ideas. "Ideologically speaking,
[the program] was a wooly, eclectic mixture of political, social, racist, national-imperialist wishful thinking..." (Ideologically speaking,
[the program] was a wooly, eclectic mixture of political, social, racist, national-imperialist wishful thinking..."
)
Some ideas are "sound bite only" and never are implemented and are present only to attract sheeple (looks
National Socialist Program ). he program championed
the right to employment , and called for the institution of
profit sharing , confiscation of
war profits , prosecution of usurers and profiteers,
nationalization of trusts , communalization of department stores,
extension of the old-age pension system, creation of a
national education program of all classes, prohibition
of child labor , and an end to the dominance of
investment capital "
There is also "bait and switch" element in any fascism movement. Original fascism was strongly anti-capitalist, militaristic and
"national greatness and purity" movement ("Make Germany great again"). It was directed against financial oligarchy and anti-semantic
element in it was strong partially because it associated Jews with bankers and financial industry in general. In a way "Jews" were codeword
for investment bankers.
For example " Arbeit Macht Frei " can be viewed as
a neoliberal slogan. Then does not mean that neoliberalism. with its cult of productivity, is equal to fascism, but that neoliberal
doctrine does encompass elements of the fascist doctrine including strong state, "law and order" mentality and relentless propaganda.
The word "fascist" is hurled at political / ideological opponents so often that it lost its meaning. The Nazi Party (NSDAP) originated
as a working-class political party . This is not true about
Trump whom many assume of having fascist leanings. His pro white working class rhetoric was a fig leaf used for duration or elections.
After that he rules as a typical Republican president favoring big business. And as a typical neocon in foreign policy.
From this point of view Trump can't be viewed even as pro-fascist leader because first of all he does not have his own political
movement, ideology and political program. And the second he does not strive for implementing uniparty state and abolishing the elections
which is essential for fascism political platform, as fascist despise corrupt democracy and have a cult of strong leader.
All he can be called is neo-fascist s his some of his views do encompass ideas taken from fascist ideology (including "law and order";
which also is a cornerstone element of Republican ideology) as well as idealization and mystification of the US past. But with Bannon
gone he also can't even pretend that he represents some coherent political movement like "economic nationalism" -- kind of enhanced
mercantilism.
Of course, that does not mean that previous fascist leaders were bound by the fascism political program, but at least they had one.
Historian Karl Dietrich Bracher writes that, "To [Hitler,
the program] was little more than an effective, persuasive propaganda weapon for mobilizing and manipulating the masses. Once it had
brought him to power, it became pure decoration: 'unalterable', yet unrealized in its demands for nationalization and expropriation,
for land reform and 'breaking the shackles of finance capital'. Yet it nonetheless fulfilled its role as backdrop and pseudo-theory,
against which the future dictator could unfold his rhetorical and dramatic talents."
Notable quotes:
"... Fascist politics invokes a pure mythic past tragically destroyed. Depending on how the nation is defined, the mythic past may be religiously pure, racially pure, culturally pure, or all of the above. But there is a common structure to all fascist mythologizing. In all fascist mythic pasts, an extreme version of the patriarchal family reigns supreme, even just a few generations ago. ..."
"... Further back in time, the mythic past was a time of glory of the nation, with wars of conquest led by patriotic generals, its armies filled with its countrymen, able-bodied, loyal warriors whose wives were at home raising the next generation. In the present, these myths become the basis of the nation's identity under fascist politics. ..."
"... In the rhetoric of extreme nationalists, such a glorious past has been lost by the humiliation brought on by globalism, liberal cosmopolitanism, and respect for "universal values" such as equality. These values are supposed to have made the nation weak in the face of real and threatening challenges to the nation's existence. ..."
"... fascist myths distinguish themselves with the creation of a glorious national history in which the members of the chosen nation ruled over others, the result of conquests and civilization-building achievements. ..."
"... The function of the mythic past, in fascist politics, is to harness the emotion of nostalgia to the central tenets of fascist ideology -- authoritarianism, hierarchy, purity, and struggle. ..."
It's in the name of tradition that the anti-Semites base their "point of view." It's in the name of tradition, the long, historical
past and the blood ties with Pascal and Descartes, that the Jews are told, you will never belong here.
-- Frantz Fanon, Black Skin, White Masks (1952)
It is only natural to begin this book where fascist politics invariably claims to discover its genesis: in the past. Fascist
politics invokes a pure mythic past tragically destroyed. Depending on how the nation is defined, the mythic past may be religiously
pure, racially pure, culturally pure, or all of the above. But there is a common structure to all fascist mythologizing. In all fascist
mythic pasts, an extreme version of the patriarchal family reigns supreme, even just a few generations ago.
Further back in time, the mythic past was a time of glory of the nation, with wars of conquest led by patriotic generals,
its armies filled with its countrymen, able-bodied, loyal warriors whose wives were at home raising the next generation. In the present,
these myths become the basis of the nation's identity under fascist politics.
In the rhetoric of extreme nationalists, such a glorious past has been lost by the humiliation brought on by globalism, liberal
cosmopolitanism, and respect for "universal values" such as equality. These values are supposed to have made the nation weak in the
face of real and threatening challenges to the nation's existence.
These myths are generally based on fantasies of a nonexistent past uniformity, which survives in the traditions of the small towns
and countrysides that remain relatively unpolluted by the liberal decadence of the cities. This uniformity -- linguistic, religious,
geographical, or ethnic -- can be perfectly ordinary in some nationalist movements, but fascist myths distinguish themselves
with the creation of a glorious national history in which the members of the chosen nation ruled over others, the result of conquests
and civilization-building achievements. For example, in the fascist imagination, the past invariably involves traditional, patriarchal
gender roles. The fascist mythic past has a particular structure, which supports its authoritarian, hierarchical ideology. That past
societies were rarely as patriarchal -- or indeed as glorious -- as fascist ideology represents them as being is beside the point.
This imagined history provides proof to support the imposition of hierarchy in the present, and it dictates how contemporary society
should look and behave.
In a 1922 speech at the Fascist Congress in Naples, Benito Mussolini declared:
We have created our myth. The myth is a faith, a passion. It is not necessary for it to be a reality. . . . Our myth is
the nation, our myth is the greatness of the nation! And to this myth, this greatness, which we want to translate into a total
reality, we subordinate everything.
The patriarchal family is one ideal that fascist politicians intend to create in society -- or return to, as they claim. The patriarchal
family is always represented as a central part of the nation's traditions, diminished, even recently, by the advent of liberalism
and cosmopolitanism. But why is patriarchy so strategically central to fascist politics?
In a fascist society, the leader of the nation is analogous to the father in the traditional patriarchal family. The leader is
the father of his nation, and his strength and power are the source of his legal authority, just as the strength and power of the
father of the family in patriarchy are supposed to be the source of his ultimate moral authority over his children and wife. The
leader provides for his nation, just as in the traditional family the father is the provider. The patriarchal father's authority
derives from his strength, and strength is the chief authoritarian value. By representing the nation's past as one with a patriarchal
family structure, fascist politics connects nostalgia to a central organizing hierarchal authoritarian structure, one that finds
its purest representation in these norms.
Gregor Strasser was the National Socialist -- Nazi -- Reich propaganda chief in the 1920s, before the post was taken over by Joseph
Goebbels. According to Strasser, "for a man, military service is the most profound and valuable form of participation -- for the
woman it is motherhood!" Paula Siber, the acting head of the Association of German Women, in a 1933 document meant to reflect official
National Socialist state policy on women, declares that "to be a woman means to be a mother, means affirming with the whole conscious
force of one's soul the value of being a mother and making it a law of life . . . the highest calling of the National Socialist
woman is not just to bear children, but consciously and out of total devotion to her role and duty as mother to raise children for
her people." Richard Grunberger, a British historian of National Socialism, sums up "the kernel of Nazi thinking on the women's question"
as "a dogma of inequality between the sexes as immutable as that between the races." The historian Charu Gupta, in her 1991 article
"Politics of Gender: Women in Nazi Germany," goes as far as to argue that "oppression of women in Nazi Germany in fact furnishes
the most extreme case of anti-feminism in the 20th century."
Here, Mussolini makes clear that the fascist mythic past is intentionally mythical. The function of the mythic past, in fascist
politics, is to harness the emotion of nostalgia to the central tenets of fascist ideology -- authoritarianism, hierarchy, purity,
and struggle.
With the creation of a mythic past, fascist politics creates a link between nostalgia and the realization of fascist ideals. German
fascists also clearly and explicitly appreciated this point about the strategic use of a mythological past. The leading Nazi ideologue
Alfred Rosenberg, editor of the prominent Nazi newspaper the Völkischer Beobachter, writes in 1924, "the understanding of and the
respect for our own mythological past and our own history will form the first condition for more firmly anchoring the coming generation
in the soil of Europe's original homeland." The fascist mythic past exists to aid in changing the present.
Jason Stanley is the Jacob Urowsky Professor of Philosophy at Yale University. Before coming to Yale in 2013, he was Distinguished
Professor in the Department of Philosophy at Rutgers University. Stanley is the author of Know How; Languages in Context;
More about Jason Stanley
This could have been such a helpful, insightful book. The word "fascist" is hurled at political / ideological opponents so
often that it has started to lose its meaning. I hoped that this book would provide a historical perspective on fascism by examining
actual fascist governments and drawing some parallels to the more egregious / worrisome trends in US & European politics. The
chapter titles in the table of contents were promising:
- The Mythic Past
- Propaganda
- Anti-Intellectual
- Unreality
- Hierarchy
- Victimhood
- Law & Order
- Sexual Anxiety
- Sodom & Gomorrah
- Arbeit Macht Frei
Ironically (given the book's subtitle) the author used his book divisively: to laud his left-wing political views and demonize
virtually all distinctively right-wing views. He uses the term "liberal democracy" inconsistently throughout, disengenuously equivocating
between the meaning of "representative democracy as opposed to autocratic or oligarchic government" (which most readers would
agree is a good thing) and "American left-wing political views" (which he treats as equally self-evidently superior if you are
a right-thinking person). Virtually all American right-wing political views are presented in straw-man form, defined in such a
way that they fit his definition of fascist politics.
I was expecting there to be a pretty heavy smear-job on President Trump and his cronies (much of it richly deserved...the man's
demagoguery and autocratic tendencies are frightening), but for this to turn into "let's find a way to define virtually everything
the Republicans are and do as fascist politics" was massively disappointing. The absurdly biased portrayal of all things conservative
and constant hymns of praise to all things and all people left-wing buried some good historical research and valid parallels under
an avalanche of partisanism.
If you want a more historical, less partisan view of the rise of fascist politics, I would highly recommend Darkness Over Germany
by E. Amy Buller (Review Here). It was written during World War II (based on interviews with Germans before WWII), so you will
have to draw your own contemporary parallels...but that's not necessarily a bad thing.
The vast regime of
torture created by the Bush administration after the 9/11 attacks
continues to haunt
America.
The political class and most of the media have never dealt honestly with the
profound constitutional corruption that such practices inflicted. Instead, torture enablers are
permitted to pirouette as heroic figures on the flimsiest evidence.
Former FBI chief James Comey is the latest beneficiary of the media's "no fault" scoring
on the torture scandal.
In his media interviews for his new memoir,
A Higher Loyalty:
Truth, Lies, and Leadership
, Comey is portraying himself as a Boy Scout who sought only to do
good things. But his record is far more damning than most Americans realize.
Comey continues to use memos from his earlier government gigs to whitewash all of the
abuses he sanctified.
"Here I stand; I can do no other," Comey told George W. Bush in 2004
when Bush pressured Comey, who was then Deputy Attorney General, to approve an unlawful
anti-terrorist policy. Comey was quoting a line supposedly uttered by Martin Luther in 1521, when
he told Emperor Charles V and an assembly of Church officials that he would not recant his sweeping
criticisms of the Catholic Church.
The American Civil Liberties Union, Human Rights Watch, and other organizations did excellent
reports prior to Comey's becoming FBI chief that laid out his role in the torture scandal. Such
hard facts, however, have long since vanished from the media radar screen.
MSNBC host
Chris Matthews recently declared, "James Comey made his bones by standing up against torture. He
was a made man before Trump came along."
Washington Post columnist Fareed Zakaria, in
a column declaring that Americans should be "deeply grateful" to lawyers such as Comey, declared,
"The Bush administration wanted to claim that its 'enhanced interrogation techniques' were lawful.
Comey believed they were not .
So Comey pushed back as much as he could.
"
Martin Luther risked death to fight against what he considered the scandalous religious
practices of his time. Comey, a top Bush administration policymaker, found a safer way to oppose
the worldwide secret U.S. torture regime widely considered a heresy against American values:
he approved brutal practices and then wrote some memos and emails fretting about the
optics.
Losing Sleep
Comey became deputy attorney general in late 2003 and "had oversight of the legal
justification used to authorize" key Bush programs in the war on terror,
as a Bloomberg
News analysis noted. At that time, the Bush White House was pushing the Justice Department to again
sign off on an array of extreme practices that had begun shortly after the 9/11 attacks. A 2002
Justice Department memo had leaked out that declared that the federal Anti-Torture Act "would be
unconstitutional if it impermissibly encroached on the President's constitutional power to conduct
a military campaign." The same Justice Department policy spurred a secret 2003 Pentagon document on
interrogation policies that openly encouraged contempt for the law: "Sometimes the greater good for
society will be accomplished by violating the literal language of the criminal law."
Photos had also leaked from Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq showing the stacking of naked
prisoners with bags over their heads, mock electrocution from a wire connected to a man's penis,
guard dogs on the verge of ripping into naked men, and grinning U.S. male and female soldiers
celebrating the sordid degradation.
Legendary investigative reporter Seymour Hersh
published extracts in the New Yorker from a March 2004 report by Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba that
catalogued other U.S. interrogation abuses: "Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric
liquid on detainees; pouring cold water on naked detainees; beating detainees with a broom handle
and a chair; threatening male detainees with rape sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and
perhaps a broom stick, and using military working dogs to frighten and intimidate detainees with
threats of attack, and in one instance actually biting a detainee."
The Bush administration responded to the revelations with a torrent of falsehoods,
complemented by attacks on the character of critics.
Bush declared, "Let me make very
clear the position of my government and our country . The values of this country are such that
torture is not a part of our soul and our being." Bush had the audacity to run for reelection as
the anti-torture candidate, boasting that "for decades, Saddam tormented and tortured the people of
Iraq. Because we acted, Iraq is free and a sovereign nation." He was hammering this theme despite a
confidential CIA Inspector General report warning that post–9/11 CIA interrogation methods might
violate the international Convention Against Torture.
James Comey had the opportunity to condemn the outrageous practices and pledge that the
Justice Department would cease providing the color of law to medieval-era abuses. Instead, Comey
merely repudiated the controversial 2002 memo.
Speaking to the media in a
not-for-attribution session on June 22, 2004, he declared that the 2002 memo was "overbroad,"
"abstract academic theory," and "legally unnecessary." He helped oversee crafting a new memo with
different legal footing to justify the same interrogation methods.
Comey twice gave explicit approval for waterboarding
, which sought to break
detainees with near-drowning. This practice had been recognized as a war crime by the U.S.
government since the Spanish-American War. A practice that was notorious when inflicted by the
Spanish Inquisition was adopted by the CIA with the Justice Department's blessing. (When Barack
Obama nominated Comey to be FBI chief in 2013, he testified that he had belatedly recognized that
waterboarding was actually torture.)
Comey wrote in his memoir that he was losing sleep over concern about
Bush-administration torture polices. But losing sleep was not an option for detainees, because
Comey approved sleep deprivation as an interrogation technique.
Detainees could be
forcibly kept awake for 180 hours until they confessed their crimes. How did that work? At Abu
Ghraib, one FBI agent reported seeing a detainee "handcuffed to a railing with a nylon sack on his
head and a shower curtain draped around him, being slapped by a soldier to keep him awake."
Numerous FBI agents protested the extreme interrogation methods they saw at Guantanamo and
elsewhere, but their warnings were ignored.
Comey also approved "wall slamming"
-- which, as law professor David Cole wrote,
meant that detainees could be thrown against a wall up to 30 times. Comey also signed off on the
CIA's using "interrogation" methods such as facial slaps, locking detainees in small boxes for 18
hours, and forced nudity. When the secret Comey memo approving those methods finally became public
in 2009, many Americans were aghast -- and relieved that the Obama administration had repudiated
Bush policies.
When it came to opposing torture, Comey's version of "Here I stand" had more loopholes
than a reverse-mortgage contract.
Though Comey in 2005 approved each of 13 controversial
extreme interrogation methods, he objected to combining multiple methods on one detainee.
The Torture Guy
In his memoir, Comey relates that his wife told him,
"Don't be the torture guy!"
Comey apparently feels that he satisfied her dictate by writing memos that opposed
combining multiple extreme interrogation methods. And since the vast majority of the American media
agree with him, he must be right.
Comey's cheerleaders seem uninterested in the damning evidence that has surfaced since
his time as a torture enabler in the Bush administration.
In 2014, the Senate Intelligence
Committee finally released a massive report on the CIA torture regime -- including death resulting
from hypothermia, rape-like rectal feeding of detainees, compelling detainees to stand long periods
on broken legs, and dozens of cases where innocent people were pointlessly brutalized.
Psychologists aided the torture regime, offering hints on how to destroy the will and resistance of
prisoners. From the start, the program was protected by phalanxes of lying federal officials.
When he first campaigned for president, Barack Obama pledged to vigorously investigate the Bush
torture regime for criminal violations. Instead, the Obama administration proffered one excuse
after another to suppress the vast majority of the evidence, pardon all U.S. government torturers,
and throttle all torture-related lawsuits. The only CIA official to go to prison for the torture
scandal was courageous whistleblower John Kiriakou. Kiriakou's fate illustrates that telling the
truth is treated as the most unforgivable atrocity in Washington.
If Comey had resigned in 2004 or 2005 to protest the torture techniques he now claims to
abhor, he would deserve some of the praise he is now receiving.
Instead, he remained in
the Bush administration but wrote an email summarizing his objections, declaring that "it was my
job to protect the department and the A.G. [Attorney General] and that I could not agree to this
because it was wrong." A 2009 New York Times analysis noted that Comey and two colleagues "have
largely escaped criticism [for approving torture] because they raised questions about interrogation
and the law." In Washington, writing emails is "close enough for government work" to confer
sainthood.
When Comey finally exited the Justice Department in August 2005 to become a lavishly paid senior
vice president for Lockheed Martin, he proclaimed in a farewell speech that protecting the Justice
Department's "reservoir" of "trust and credibility" requires "vigilance" and "an unerring
commitment to truth." But he had perpetuated policies that shattered the moral credibility of both
the Justice Department and the U.S. government. He failed to heed Martin Luther's admonition, "You
are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say."
Comey is likely to go to his grave without paying any price for his role in
perpetuating appalling U.S. government abuses.
It is far more important to recognize
the profound danger that torture and the exoneration of torturers pose to the United States. "No
free government can survive that is not based on the supremacy of the law," is one of the mottoes
chiseled into the façade of Justice Department headquarters. Unfortunately, politicians nowadays
can choose which laws they obey and which laws they trample.
And Americans are supposed
to presume that we still have the rule of law as long as politicians and bureaucrats deny their
crimes.
Tags
Comey was the hand-picked schlub that was placed in a position of
power to be a firewall... Nothing more and he has been rewarded
handsomely for playing this role... One can only hope that one day he
becomes a liability to his handlers and that there is a pack of
hungry, wild dogs that will rips him apart... Hopefully on PPV...
The Absolute, Complete,
Open, in our Faces Tyrannical Lawlessness began.
Unabated. Like a malignant Cancer.
Growing to Gargantuan proportions.
Irrefutable proof of the absolute, complete, open Lawlessness by
the Criminal Fraud UNITED STATES, CORP. INC., its CEO & Board of
Directors.
1. Torture .
2. WMD lie to the American People.
3. Lying the American People into War.
4. Illegal Wars of Aggression.
5. Arming, funding & training of terror organizations by the State
Dept. / CIA & members of CONgress.
6. BENGAZI
7. McCain meets with ISIS (Pics available).
8. Clapper lies to CONgress.
9. Brennan lies to CONgress & taps Congressional phones / computers.
10. Lynch meets Clinton on tarmac.
11. Fast & Furious deals with the Sinaloa Cartel.
12. Holder in Contempt of CONgress.
13. CIA drug / gun running / money laundering through the tax payer
bailed out TBTFB.
14. Illegal NSA Spying on the American People.
15. DNC Federal Election Crime / Debbie Wasserman Shultz.
16. Hillary Clinton email Treason.
17. Clinton Foundation pay to play RICO.
18. Anthony Weiner 650,000 #PizzaGate Pedo Crimes.
19. Secret Iran deal.
20. Lynch takes the Fifth when asked about Iran deal
21. FBI murders LaVoy Finicum
At the current moment we're completely Lawless.
We have been for quite some time. In the past, their Criminality
was "Hidden in plain view."
Now it's out in the open, in your face Criminality & Lawlessness.
Complete debachary.
Thing is, the bar & precedent has been set so high among these
Criminals I doubt we will ever see another person arrested in our
lifetime.
Comey thinks he is above the law. He and his associates feel they are
not bound by the rules and laws of the US, they are the ELITE. Comey
should go to JAIL, HARD CORE not Country Club, along with his
associates, Yates, Rosenstein, Brennan, McCabe, Stzrock, Paige and
etc. Lock him up
Changing the rules, talks of changing the constitution, and the status of the SC because
Dems can't find a positive message, or a positive candidate, or persuade the candidate to
recognize and reach out to voters the Democratic party abandoned, reeks of defeatism and
worse.
Exactly.
Clinton neoliberals (aka soft neoliberals) still control the Democratic Party but no longer
can attract working-class voters. That's why they try "identity wedge" strategy trying to
compensate their loss with the rag tag minority groups.
Their imperial jingoism only makes the situation worse. Large swaths of the USA population,
including lower middle class are tired of foreign wars and sliding standard of living. They see
exorbitant military expenses as one of the causes of their troubles.
That's why Hillary got a middle finger from several social groups which previously supported
Democrats. And that's why midterm might be interesting to watch as there is no political party
that represents working class and lower middle class in the USA.
"Lesser evil" mantra stops working when people are really angry at the ruling neoliberal
elite.
control of the Senate, a relentlessly undemocratic institution
likbez 10.08.18 at 6:24 am (no link)
I think the US society is entering a deep, sustained political crisis and it is unclear what
can bring us back from it other then the collapse, USSR-style. The USA slide into corporate
socialism (which might be viewed as a flavor of neofascism) can't be disputed.
Looks like all democracies are unstable and prone to self-destruction. In modern America,
the elite do not care about lower 80% of the population, and is over-engaged in cynical
identity politics, race and gender-mongering. Anything to win votes.
MSM is still cheering on military misadventures that kill thousands of Americans,
impoverish millions, and cost trillions. Congress looks even worse. Republican House leader
Paul Ryan looks like 100% pure bought-and-paid-for tool of multinational corporations
The scary thing for me is that the USA national problems are somewhat similar to the ones
that the USSR experienced before the collapse. At least the level of degeneration of
political elite of both parties (which in reality is a single party) is.
The only positive things is that there is viable alternative to neoliberalism on the
horizon. But that does not mean that we can't experience 1930th on a new level again. Now
several European countries such as Poland and Ukraine are already ruled by far right
nationalist parties. Brazil is probably the next. So this or military rule in the USA is not
out of question.
Some other factors are also in play: one is that a country with 320 million population
can't be governed by the same methods as a country of 76 million (1900). End of cheap oil is
near and probably will occur within the next 50 years or so. Which means the end of
neoliberalism as we know it.
Tucker states that the USA's neoliberal elite acquired control of a massive chunk of the
country's wealth. And then successfully insulated themselves from the hoi polloi. They send
their children to the Ivy League universities, live in enclosed compounds with security
guards, travel in helicopters, etc. Kind of like French aristocracy on a new level ("Let them
eat cakes"). "There's nothing more infuriating to a ruling class than contrary opinions.
They're inconvenient and annoying. They're evidence of an ungrateful population Above all,
they constitute a threat to your authority." (insert sarcasm)
Donald Trump was in many ways an unappealing figure. He never hid that. Voters knew it.
They just concluded that the options were worse -- and not just Hillary Clinton and the
Democratic Party, but the Bush family and their donors and the entire Republican
leadership, along with the hedge fund managers and media luminaries and corporate
executives and Hollywood tastemakers and think tank geniuses and everyone else who created
the world as it was in the fall of 2016: the people in charge. Trump might be vulgar and
ignorant, but he wasn't responsible for the many disasters America's leaders created .
There was also the possibility that Trump might listen. At times he seemed interested in
what voters thought. The people in charge demonstrably weren't. Virtually none of their
core beliefs had majority support from the population they governed .Beginning on election
night, they explained away their loss with theories as pat and implausible as a summer
action movie: Trump won because fake news tricked simple minded voters. Trump won because
Russian agents "hacked" the election. Trump won because mouth-breathers in the provinces
were mesmerized by his gold jet and shiny cuff links.
From a reader review:
The New Elite speaks: "The Middle Class are losers and they have made bad choices, they
haven't worked as hard as the New Elite have, they haven't gone to SAT Prep or LSAT prep so
they lose, we win. We are the Elite and we know better than you because we got high SAT
scores.
Do we have experience? Uh .well no, few of us have been in the military, pulled KP, shot
an M-16 . because we are better than that. Like they say only the losers go in the
military. We in the New Elite have little empirical knowledge but we can recognize patterns
very quickly."
Just look at Haley behavior in the UN and Trump trade wars and many things became more
clear. the bet is on destruction of existing international institutions in order to save the
USA elite. A the same time Trump trade wars threaten the neoliberal order so this might well
be a path to the USA self-destruction.
On Capital hill rancor, a lack of civility and derisive descriptions are everywhere.
Respect has gone out the window. Left and right wings of a single neoliberal party (much like
CPSU was in the USSR) behave like drunk schoolchildren. Level of pettiness is simply
amazing.
The fundamental rule of democratic electoral politics is this: tribes don't win elections,
coalitions do. Trump's appeal is strongly tribal, and he has spent two years consolidating
his appeal to that tribe rather than reaching out. But he won in 2016 (or 'won') not on the
strength of that tribal appeal, but because of a coalition between core Trumpists and more
respectable conservatives and evangelicals, including a lot of people who find Trump himself
vulgar and repellent, but who are prepared to hold their noses. The cause
célèbre (or cause de l'infâme) that Kavanaugh's appointment became
ended-up uniting these two groups; the Trumpists on the one hand ('so the Libs are saying we
can't even enjoy a beer now, are they?') and the old-school religious Conservatives,
for whom abortion is a matter of conscience.
Given the weird topographies of US democratic process, the Democrats need to build a
bigger counter-coalition than the coalition they are opposing. Metropolitan liberals are in
the bag, so that means reconnecting with the working class, and galvanising the black and
youth votes, which have a poor record of converting social media anger into actual ballot-box
votes. But it also means reaching out to moderate religious conservatives, and the Dems don't
seem to me to have a strategy for this last approach at all. Which is odd, because it would
surely, at least in some ways, be easier than persuading young people to vote at the levels
old people vote. At the moment abortion (the elephant in the Kavanaugh-confirmation room) is
handled by the Left as a simple matter of structural misogyny, the desire to oppress and
control female bodies. I see why it is treated that way; there are good reasons for that
critique. But it's electorally dumb. Come at it another way instead, accept that many
religious people oppose abortion because they see it as killing children; then lead the
campaign on the fact that the GOP is literally putting thousands upon thousands of
children in concentration camps . Shout about that fact. Determine how many kids
literally die each year because their parents can't access free healthcare and put that stat
front and centre. Confront enough voters with the false consciousness of only caring about
abortion and not these other monstrosities and some will reconsider their position.
And one more thing that I have never understood about the Dems (speaking as an outsider),
given how large a political force Christianity is in your country: make more of Jimmy Carter.
He's a man of extraordinary conscience as well as a man of faith; the contrast with how he
has lived his post-Presidential life and the present occupier of the White House could
hardly, from a Christian perspective, be greater. If the Dems can make a love-thy-neighbour
social justice Christianity part of their brand, leaving Mammon to the GOP, then they'd be in
power for a generation.
adopted false US personas online to get
people to attend rallies and conduct other political activities. (An alternative explanation is
that IRA is a purely commercial, and not political, operation.)
Whether those efforts even came close to swaying US voters in the 2016 presidential
election, as Shane and Mazzetti claimed, is another matter.
Shane and Mazzetti might argue that they are merely citing figures published by the social
media giants Facebook and Twitter, but they systematically failed to report the detailed
explanations behind the gross figures used in each case, which falsified their
significance.
Their most dramatic assertions came in reporting the alleged results of the IRA's efforts on
Facebook. "Even by the vertiginous standards of social media," they wrote, "the reach of their
effort was impressive: 2,700 fake Facebook accounts, 80,000 posts, many of them elaborate
images with catchy slogans, and an eventual audience of 126 million Americans on Facebook
alone."
Then, to dramatize that "eventual audience" figure, they observed, "That was not far short
of the 137 million people who would vote in the 2016 presidential elections."
But as impressive as these figures may appear at first glance, they don't really indicate an
effective attack on the US election process at all. In fact, without deeper inquiry into their
meaning, those figures were grossly misleading.
A Theoretical Possibility
What Facebook general counsel Colin Stretch actually said in testimony before the Senate
Judiciary Committee last October was quite different from what the Times reporters
claimed. "Our best estimate is that approximately 126,000 million people may have been served
one of these [IRA-generated] stories at some time during the two year period," Stretch
said.
Stretch was expressing a theoretical possibility rather than an established accomplishment.
Facebook was saying that it estimated 126 million Facebook members might have gotten at
least one story from the IRA –- not over the ten week election period but over 194 weeks
during the two years 2015 through 2017. That, figure, in turn, was based on the estimate that
29 million people might have gotten at least one story in their Facebook feed over that same
two-year period and on the assumption that they shared it with others at a particular rate.
The first problem with citing those figures as evidence of impact on the 2016 election is
that Facebook did not claim that all or even most of those 80,000 IRA posts were
election–related. It offered no data on what proportion of the feeds to those 29 million
people was, in fact, election-related. But Stretch did testify that IRA content over that
two–year period represented just four thousandths (.0004) of the total content of
Facebook newsfeeds.
Thus each piece of IRA content in a twitter feed was engulfed in 23,000 pieces of non-IRA
content.
That is an extremely important finding, because, as Facebook's Vice President for News Feed,
Adam Moseri,
acknowledged in 2016 , Facebook subscribers actually read only about 10 percent of the
stories Facebook puts in their News Feed every day. The means that very few of the IRA stories
that actually make it into a subscriber's news feed on any given day are actually read.
Facebook did conduct research on what it calls "civic engagement" during the election
period, and the researchers concluded
that the "reach" of the content shared by what they called "fake amplifiers" was "marginal
compared to the volume of civic content shared during the US elections." That reach, they said,
was "statistically very small" in relation to "overall engagement on political issues."
Shane and Mazzaetti thus failed to report any of the several significant caveats and
disclaimers from Facebook itself that make their claim that Russian election propaganda
"reached" 126 million Americans extremely misleading.
Tiny IRA Twitter Footprint
Shane and Mazzetti's treatment of the role of Twitter in the alleged Russian involvement in
the election focuses on 3,814 Twitter accounts said to be associated with the IRA, which
supposedly "interacted with 1.4 million Americans." Although that number looks impressive
without any further explanation, more disaggregated data provide a different picture: more than
90 percent of the Tweets from the IRA had nothing to do with the election, and those that did
were infinitesimally few in relation to the entire Twitter stream relating to the 2016
campaign.
Twitter's
own figures show that those 3,814 IRA-linked accounts posted 175,993 Tweets during the ten
weeks of the election campaign, but that only 8.4 percent of the total number of IRA-generated
Tweets were election-related.
Twitter estimated that those 15,000 IRA-related tweets represented less than .00008 (eight
one hundred thousandths) of the estimated total of 189 million tweets that Twitter identified
as election-related during the ten-week election campaign. Twitter has offered no estimate of
how many Tweets, on average were in the daily twitter stream of those people notified by
Twitter and what percentage of them were election-related Tweets from the IRA. Any such
notification would certainly show, however, that the percentage was extremely small and that
very few would have been read.
Research by Darren Linvill and Patrick Warren of Clemson University on 2.9 million Tweets
from those same 3,814 IRA accounts over a two year period has
revealed that nearly a third of its Tweets had normal commercial content or were not in
English; another third were straight local newsfeeds from US localities or mostly non-political
"hashtag games", and the final third were on "right" or "left" populist themes in US
society.
Furthermore, there were more IRA Tweets on political themes in 2017 than there had been
during the election year. As a graph of those tweets over time shows,
those "right" and "left" Tweets peaked not during the election but during the summer of
2017.
The Mysterious 50,000 'Russia-Linked' Accounts
Twitter also determined
that another 50,258 automated Twitter accounts that tweeted about the election were associated
with Russia and that they have generated a total to 2.1 million Tweets – about one
percent of the total number election-related tweets of during the period.
But despite media coverage of those Tweets suggesting that they originated with the Russian
government, the evidence doesn't indicate that at all. Twitter's Sean Edgett told
the Senate Intelligence Committee last November that Twitter had used an "expansive
approach to defining what qualifies as a Russian-linked account". Twitter considered an account
to be "Russian" if any of the following was found: it was created in Russia or if the user
registered the account with a Russian phone carrier or a Russian email; the user's display name
contains Cyrillic characters; the user frequently Tweets in Russian, or the user has logged in
from any Russian IP address.
Edgett admitted
in a statement in January, however, that there were limitations on its ability to determine
the origins of the users of these accounts. And a past log-in from a Russian IP address does
not mean the Russian government controls an account. Automated accounts have bought and sold
for many years on a huge market, some of which is located in Russia. As Scott Shane reported
in September 2017, a Russian website BuyAccs.com offers tens and even hundreds of thousands
of Twitter accounts for bulk purchase.
Twitter also observed that "a high concentration of automated engagement and content
originated from data centers and users accessing Twitter via Virtual Private Networks ("VPNs")
and proxy servers," which served to mask the geographical origin of the tweet. And that
practice was not limited to the 50,000 accounts in question. Twitter found that locations of
nearly 12 percent of the Tweets generated during the election period were masked because of use
of such networks and servers.
Twitter identified over half of the Tweets, coming from about half of the 50,000 accounts as
being automated, and the data reported on activity on those 50,000 accounts in question
indicates that both the Trump and Clinton campaigns were using the automated accounts in
question. The roughly 23,000 automated accounts were the source of 1.34 million Tweets, which
represented .63 percent of the total election-related Tweets. But the entire 50,000 accounts
produced about 1 percent of total election-related tweets.
Hillary Clinton got .55 percent of her total retweets from the 50,000 automated accounts
Twitter calls "Russia-linked" and .62 percent of her "likes" from them. Those percentages are
close to the percentage of total election-related Tweets generated by those same automated
accounts. That suggests that her campaign had roughly the same proportion of automated accounts
among the 50,000 accounts as it did in the rest of the accounts during the campaign.
Trump, on the other hand, got 1.8 percent of this total "likes" and 4.25 percent of his
total Retweets for the whole election period from those accounts, indicating his campaign was
more invested in the automated accounts that were the source of two-thirds of the Tweets in
those 50,000 "Russia-linked" accounts.
The idea promoted by Shane and Mazzetti that the Russian government seriously threatened to
determine the winner of the election does not hold up when the larger social media context is
examined more closely. Contrary to what the Times' reporters and the corporate media in
general would have us believe, the Russian private sector effort accounted for a minuscule
proportion of the election-related output of social media. The threat to the US political
system in general and its electoral system in particular is not Russian influence; it's in part
a mainstream news media that has lost perspective on the truth.
Gareth Porter, an investigative historian and journalist specializing in US national
security policy, received the UK-based Gellhorn Prize for journalism for 2011 for articles on
the U.S. war in Afghanistan. His new book is
Manufactured Crisis: the Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare . He can be contacted at
[email protected] . Reprinted from
Consortium News with the author's
permission.
"Jessica Morse, a former State Department and AID official in Iraq, running in the Fourth
District of California, blasts the Trump administration for "giving away global leadership to
powers like China and Russia. Our security and our economy will both suffer if those
countries are left to re-write the international rules."
Former FBI agent Christopher Hunter, running in the 12th District of Florida, declares,
"Russia is a clear and present danger to the United States. We emerged victorious over the
Soviet Union in the Cold War. We must resolve anew to secure an uncompromising victory over
Russia and its tyrannical regime."
Elissa Slotkin, the former CIA agent and Pentagon official running in Michigan's Eighth
Congressional District, cites her 14 years of experience "working on some of our country's
most critical national security matters, including U.S.-Russia relations, the counter-ISIS
campaign, and the U.S. relationship with NATO." She argues that "the United States must make
investments in its military, intelligence, and diplomatic power" in order to maintain "a
unique and vital role in the world."
Max Rose, a combat commander in Afghanistan now running in New York's 11th Congressional
District (Staten Island and Brooklyn), calls for "recognizing Russia as a hostile foreign
power and holding the Kremlin accountable for its attempts to undermine the sovereignty and
democratic values of other nations." Rose is still in the military reserves, and took two
weeks off from his campaign in August to participate in small-unit drills.
Joseph Kopser, running in the 21st District of Texas, is another anti-Russian firebrand,
writing on his website, "As a retired Army Ranger, I know first hand the importance of
standing strong with your allies. Given Russia's march toward a totalitarian state showing
aggression around the region, as well as their extensive cyber and information warfare
campaign directed at the U.S., England, and others, our Article 5 [NATO] commitment to our
European allies and partners is more important than ever." He concludes, "Since the
mid-twentieth century, the United States has been a principal world leader -- a standard that
should never be changed."
Four national-security candidates add North Korea and Iran to China and Russia as specific
targets of American military and diplomatic attack.
Josh Welle, a former naval officer who was deployed to Afghanistan, now running in the
Fourth Congressional District of New Jersey, writes, "We have to stand together in the face
of threats from countries like North Korea and Iran. The human rights violations and nuclear
capabilities of these countries pose a direct threat to the stability of this world and
therefore need to be met with strong military presence and a robust defense program to
protect ourselves."
Tom Malinowski, former assistant secretary of state for human rights, running in New
Jersey's Seventh District, calls for maintaining economic sanctions on Russia "until it stops
its aggression in Ukraine and interference in our democracy," effusively endorses the state
of Israel (whose government actually interferes in US elections more than any other), and
calls for stepped up sanctions against North Korea.
Mikie Sherill, a former Navy pilot and Russian policy officer, running in New Jersey's
11th District, writes, "I have sat across the table from the Russians, and know that we need
our government to take the threat they pose seriously." She adds to this a warning about
"threats posed by North Korea and Iran," the two most immediate targets of
military-diplomatic blackmail by the Trump administration. She concludes, referring to North
Korea's nuclear program, "For that reason I support a robust military presence in the region
and a comprehensive missile defense program to defend America, our allies, and our troops
abroad."
Dan McCready, an Iraq war unit commander who claims to have been born again when he was
baptized in water from the Euphrates River, calls for war to be waged only "with overwhelming
firepower," not "sporadically, with no strategy or end in sight, while our enemies like Iran,
North Korea, Russia, and the terrorists outsmart and outlast us." He is running in North
Carolina's Ninth Congressional District, adjacent to the huge military complex at Fort
Bragg.
One military-intelligence candidate cites immigration as a national-security issue,
echoing the position of the Trump administration, which constantly peddles scare stories that
terrorists are infiltrating the United States disguised as immigrants and refugees. That is
Richard Ojeda, running in the Third Congressional District of West Virginia, who publicly
boasts of having voted for Trump in 2016, in the same election in which he won a seat in the
West Virginia state senate running as a Democrat.
Ojeda writes on his web site, "We must also ensure that terrorists do not reach American
soil by abusing our immigration process. We must keep an up to date terror watch list but
provide better vetting for those that go onto the watch list."
A career Army Airborne officer, Ojeda voices the full-blown militarism of this social
layer. "If there is one thing I am confident in, it is the ability of our nation's military,"
he declares. "The best way to keep Americans safe is to let our military do their job without
muddying up their responsibilities with our political agendas."
He openly rejects control of the military by civilian policy-makers. "War is not a social
experiment and I refuse to let politics play a role in my decision making when it comes to
keeping you and your family safe," he continues. "I will not take my marching orders from
anyone else concerning national security."
Only one of the 30 candidates, Ken Harbaugh, a retired Air Force pilot running in the
Seventh Congressional District of Ohio, centered on the industrial city of Canton,
acknowledges being part of this larger group. He notes, "In 2018, more vets are running for
office than at any moment in my lifetime. Because of the growing inability of Washington to
deal responsibly with the threats facing our nation, veterans from both sides of the aisle
are stepping into the breach."
Referring to the mounting prospect of war, he writes, "Today, we face our gravest
geopolitical challenge since 9/11. Our country remains at war in Afghanistan, we have troops
engaged in North Africa, Iraq and Syria, and Russia continues to bully our allies. Meanwhile,
North Korea has the ability to directly threaten the American mainland with nuclear
missiles." He concludes, "we need leaders with the moral authority to speak on these issues,
leaders who have themselves been on the front lines of these challenges."
These statements, taken cumulatively, present a picture of unbridled militarism and
aggression as the program of the supposed "opposition" to the Trump administration's own
saber-rattling and threats of "fire and fury like the world has never seen."
Perhaps even more remarkable is that the remaining 17 national-security candidates say
nothing at all about foreign policy (in 11 cases) or limit themselves to anodyne observations
about the necessity to provide adequate health care and other benefits to veterans (two
cases), or vague generalities about the need to combine a strong military with diplomatic
efforts (four cases). They give no specifics whatsoever.
In other words, while these candidates tout their own records as part of the
national-security apparatus as their principal credential for election to Congress, they
decline to tell the voters what they would do if they were in charge of American foreign
policy.
Given that these 17 include intelligence agents (Abigail Spanberger and Gina Ortiz Jones),
a National Security Council Iraq war planner (Andy Kim), and numerous other high-level State
Department and military commanders, the silence can have only the most ominous
interpretation.
These CIA Democrats don't want to tell voters about their plans for foreign policy and
military intervention because they know these measures are deeply unpopular. They aim to gain
office as stealth candidates, unveiling their program of militarism and war only after they
take their seats, when they may very well exercise decisive influence in the next
Congress."
I don't see the republicans being the Nazis. The US war party is composed of both Democraps
and Rethuglicans. The Republican base has values closer in line with paleocons and not the
neocons.
The values of the Democraps are pure imperialist, exceptionalist and totalitarian in the
name of PC. Obummer was neocon tool like W. Bush.
Thus it is the Democraps that are the proper heirs of the Nazis and their 4th Reich global
domination project. Paleocons are isolationist nationalists that actually believe in the
constitutional values that the USA claims to espouse. The Democraps are all about lust for
power and dirty tricks to enable the seizing of power.
Obummer weaponized the FBI and CIA into partisan instruments giving us the Russia meddling
inquisition. Truman was a foaming at the mouth racist cold warrior.
Eisenhower at least warned about the creeping influence of the MIC. Clinton was a
slimeball that continued the Reich agenda in the Balkans. And so on.
"... Why should a robed, unelected politician be redefining marriage? ..."
"... Many people here still don't get it. This fake left vs right paradigm is just a show and is no different than either professional football or wrestling. The public cheer on their teams and engage in meaningless battle while the controllers pilfer everything of value. ..."
"... Peter Hitchens has remarked that demonstrations are actually indicators of weakness rather than power or authority (something that seems to have eluded Flake and Murkowski), however shrill and enraged that they may be. ..."
"... I'm an aging New Deal Democrat. I have not changed but my former party changed with the tenure of the immoral and ethically challenged rapist, Bill Clinton and his enabler wife. In their previous lives, both were Goldwater Republicans. They switched to the Democrat Party to win elections but they never strayed too far from teats of the the Bushes and their destructive political roots. I"m willing to bet thousands of dollars that if given a fair chance at a quiz about the Clintons, most of the young SJW's, rabid homo's and the poor suckers who follow them know very little about the real Clintons. ..."
"... The Democrat party today is less a party than it is a mob of homosexuals and rabid social justice warriors duped into believing they are oppressed by the extremist college courses in Social Justice. Yet, what they have offer the world is not justice. They offer chaos and anarchy as we saw with the mob of racists black and stupid white kids attacking a man who looked lost and confused, and as it turns out, rightfully frightened by the crowd of social justice terrorists from the Alt-Left. ..."
"... The Democrat Party is gonzo, the same as Hillary and Bill Clinton's speaking tour is destined to be. ..."
Mr. Buchanan, you forgot the "treacherous" work of porn lawyer Michael Avenatti who offered
the straw that broke the camel's back by presenting such an abysmal "witness" such as Julie
Swetnick. Ms. Ramirez' alleged allegations also came down to nothing. Even the so-called Me
too movement suffered a big blow. They turned a fundamental democratic principle upside down:
The accused is innocent until proven guilty. They insisted instead that the accuser is right
because she is a woman!
I watched the whole confirmation circus on CNN. When Dr. Ford started talking my first
thought was; this entire testimony is a charade initiated by the Dems. As a journalist, I was
appalled by the CNN "colleagues." During the recesses, they held tribunals that were 95
percent staffed by anti-Trumpets. Fairness looks different.
For me, the Democratic Party and the Me too movement lost much of its credibility. To
regain it, they have to get rid of the demons of the Clinton's and their ilk. Anyone who is
acquainted with the history of the Clinton's knows that they belong to the most politically
corrupt politicians in the US.
@utu
You're thinking of Justice Kennedy, another Republican choice for whom young Mr. Kavanaugh
clerked before helping President Cheney with the Patriot Act to earn his first robe on the
Swampville Circuit. Chief Justice Roberts was the one who nailed down Big Sickness for the
pharmaceutical and insurance industries.
Like the "federal" elections held every November in even-numbered years and the 5-4
decrees of the Court, these nailbiting confirmation hearings are another part of the show
that keeps people gulled into accepting that so many things in life are to be run by people
in Washington. Mr. Buchanan for years has been proclaiming each The Most Important Ever.
I'm still inclined to the notion that the Constitution was intended, at least by some of
its authors and supporters, to create a limited national government. But even by the time of
Marbury, those entrusted with the powers have arrogated the authority to redefine them. In my
lifetime, the Court exists to deal with hot potato social issues in lieu of the invertebrate
Congress, to forebear (along with the invertebrate Congress) the warmongering and other
"foreign policy" waged under auspices of the President, and to dignify the Establishment's
shepherding and fleecing of the people.
Why should a robed, unelected politician be redefining marriage? Entrusted to
enforce the Constitutional limitations on the others? Sure, questions like these are posed
from time to time in a dissenting Justice's opinion, but that ends the discussion other than
in the context of replacing old Justice X with middle-aged Justice Y, as exemplified in this
cliche' column from Mr. Buchanan. Those of us outside the Beltway are told to tune in and
root Red. And there are pom pom shakers and color commentators just like him for Team
Blue.
Many people here still don't get it. This fake left vs right paradigm is just a show and
is no different than either professional football or wrestling. The public cheer on their
teams and engage in meaningless battle while the controllers pilfer everything of value.
Buchanan knows this but is too afraid to tell "the other half of the story."
It was a costly victory, but not a Pyrrhic one. The Left will no doubt raise the decibel
and octave levels, but if they incur a richly-deserved defeat a month from now, they won't
even make it to the peanut gallery for at least the next two years.
Peter Hitchens has remarked that demonstrations are actually indicators of weakness
rather than power or authority (something that seems to have eluded Flake and Murkowski),
however shrill and enraged that they may be. Should the Left choose to up the ante, to
REALLY take it to the streets well as the English ditty goes: We have the Maxim Gun/And they
have not.
Pat, you are one of the few thinkers with real common sense.
I'm an aging New Deal Democrat. I have not changed but my former party changed with
the tenure of the immoral and ethically challenged rapist, Bill Clinton and his enabler wife.
In their previous lives, both were Goldwater Republicans. They switched to the Democrat Party
to win elections but they never strayed too far from teats of the the Bushes and their
destructive political roots. I"m willing to bet thousands of dollars that if given a fair
chance at a quiz about the Clintons, most of the young SJW's, rabid homo's and the poor
suckers who follow them know very little about the real Clintons.
The Democrat party today is less a party than it is a mob of homosexuals and rabid
social justice warriors duped into believing they are oppressed by the extremist college
courses in Social Justice. Yet, what they have offer the world is not justice. They offer
chaos and anarchy as we saw with the mob of racists black and stupid white kids attacking a
man who looked lost and confused, and as it turns out, rightfully frightened by the crowd of
social justice terrorists from the Alt-Left.
They all slept through the Obama disaster thinking the globalist open borders would make
the world Shang Ri La instead of crime ridden, diseased, and under attack from Muslims and
their twisted ides about God and Sharia Law. Look at the Imam who proclaimed yesterday they
Sharia is the law of Britain and that Muslims are at war with the British government. Yet,
Tommy Robinson gets jailed for pointing out their sated intentions. Messed up. We cannot let
this happen in America.
They ignore the fact that the emasculated Obama failed to fight to pick a Supreme Court
Justice. Even though he was going to choose Neil Gorsuch, not a leftist, the Alt-Left no
doubt would have remained silent if he had. Why? Because Obama was black. But the Alt-Left is
shallow and they could not see that the oreo president was black on the outside but rich and
creamy white on the inside. No doubt, Obama was more like a 1980′s Republican than he
was a Democrat as I understood them to be for decades.
The Democrat Party is gonzo, the same as Hillary and Bill Clinton's speaking tour is
destined to be.
@Ludwig
Watzal Vis-a-vis #PayAttentionToMeToo, it really was a win-win. Rightists successfully
defended the firewall and kept it contained to the left. Perfect. As far as leftists are
concerned, it's still perfectly legitimate – the leftist circular firing squads will
continue.
Many people here still don't get it. This fake left vs right paradigm is just a show and
is no different than either professional football or wrestling.
Well I get it and have been saying so. Trump knows damn well that the people he has
surrounded himself with are Deep Staters Trump is a part of the Deep State. Trump has done
nothing of significance for the 99%. Trump hasn't prosecuted anyone for criminal activity
'against' his campaign or administration. Trump hasn't built a wall (he won't either).
Instead of reducing conflict and war Trump has been belligerent in his actions toward Russia,
China, Syria and Iran .risking all out war. All these things are being done to increase the
wealth and power of the Deep State. For the past ten years Republican House members have been
promising investigations and prosecutions of Democrats for criminal activities .not one god
damn thing changed. Kabuki theater is the name of the game. With such inane bullshit as
Dancing With The Stars on TV and the fake Republicans v Democrats game, it is all meant to
keep the proles from knowing how they are being screwed .a rather easy task at that.
@utu
Same sex marriage is basically irrelevant. Less than 10% of homosexuals co-habitate with a
partner. Perhaps 10% of the general population is openly homosexual (and that's definitely an
over-estimation.).
This means that if all homosexuals that cohabitate with a partner are married, it's less
than 1% of the population we're talking about.
This is a "who really cares?" situation. There's more important things to worry about when
the nation has been at war for 16 years straight, started over a bunch of lies starting with
George W. Bush and continuing with Barak Obama. We have lost the moral high ground because of
those two, identical in any important way, scumbags.
Democrats are enraged and have seen the GOP for the white supremacist evil institution
that it is
This from a group of people that have been endlessly complaining that the Butcher of
Libya, who voted for the Authorization to Use Force in Iraq (what you know as the 2nd Iraq
War) wasn't elected president just because she was running a fraudulent charity, was storing
classified information on an unsecured and compromised server illegally, and is telling you
absolutely morally bankrupt and unprincipled individuals that you have the moral high ground
because she's a woman after all, not just another war criminal like George W. Bush is, and
Obama is.
Caligula's horse would have beaten Hillary Clinton, if the voter base had any sense.
Clinton was the worst possible candidate ever. Anybody, and I mean anybody, that voted for
the Iraq War should be in prison, not in government. They are all traitors.
@Realist
Agree Big money interets have broguht us Trump not only for the tax cuts but to destroy
America's hemegomony. to start the final leg of the shift from west to east. A traitor of the
highest order Pat Buchanan has led the grievence brigade of angry white men for decades
distracted and deluded over the social issues meanwhile the Everyman/woman has lost ground
economically or stayed static no improvement.
@Jon
Baptist You can just about guarantee that the losers in the false 'Right' versus 'Left'
circus will be We The People.
Big Government/Big Insider Corporations/Big Banks feed parasitically off the population.
The role of the lawyers wearing black dresses on the SC, is to help hide the theft. They use
legal mumbo jumbo. The economists at the Fed use economics & mathematical mumbo
jumbo.
Much of current Western society is made up of bullsh*t.
Russian President Vladimir Putin accused Washington of making a "colossal" but "typical"
mistake by exploiting the dominance of the dollar by levying economic sanctions against regimes
that don't bow to its whims.
"It seems to me that our American partners make a colossal strategic mistake," Putin
said.
"This is a typical mistake of any empire," Putin said, explaining that the US is ignoring
the consequences of its actions because its economy is strong and the dollar's hegemonic
grasp on global markets remains intact. However "the consequences come sooner or later."
These remarks echoed a sentiment expressed by Putin back in May, when he said that Russia
can no longer trust the US dollar because of America's decisions to impose unilateral sanctions
and violate WTO rules.
... ... ...
With the possibility of being cut off from the dollar system looming, a plan prepared by Andrei Kostin, the head of Russian
bank VTB, is being embraced by much of the Russian establishment. Kostin's plan would facilitate the conversion of dollar
settlements into other currencies which would help wean Russian industries off the dollar. And it already has the backing of
Russia's finance ministry, central bank and Putin.
Meanwhile, the Kremlin is also working on deals with major trading partners to accept the Russian ruble for imports and exports.
In a sign that a united front is forming to help undermine the dollar, Russia's efforts have been readily embraced by China
and Turkey, which is unsurprising, given their increasingly fraught relationships with the US. During joint military exercises
in Vladivostok last month, Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping declared that their countries would work together to counter
US tariffs and sanctions.
"More and more countries, not only in the east but also in Europe, are beginning to think about how to minimise dependence on
the US dollar," said Dmitry Peskov, Mr Putin's spokesperson. "And they suddenly realise that a) it is possible, b) it needs to
be done and c) you can save yourself if you do it sooner."
strip away the right of Corprati0ns to have the legal standing of a person in a Court of
Law .
when we could just abolish the institution of incorporation without remorse? This
would like treating a cause of widespread disease with an ounce of inexpensive
prevention.
Buh-bye limited liability parasitism. Buh-bye rootless, world-wandering capital with scant
interest in the hosts' long-term wellbeing.
I suppose that there would be a shrill outcry of protest from the many little fire teams,
squads, and platoons of mind rapists (e.g. A. Cockburn) who have a career interest in
complaining for a living. But so what? It would be fun to watch "social justice" factions
twist and squirm as a chorus of abolitionists asks why the "Resistance" never resisted
"corporatocracy" with abolitionism. The rapists will "spew" much sanctimonious b.s.
defensively between artful meals in nice restaurants, but the chorus will know a real
reason. Lefty humanist finds incorporation very useful for cultivating the intense
concentration of wealth and power which he pretends to oppose.
Eventually the chorus will get around to asking lefty internationalist about his
contemporary plans to merge every firm with government without looking like an old fashioned
commie expropriationist. The chorus might ask the mind rapists still more embarassing
questions:
Righteous Lefty, why would you establish incorporation now if it wasn't a feature of
commerce already? Because you would not then have a little handful of company shares to
trade in a stock exchange? Nor be planning to exploit a stock tip from an ally who is
married to a corporate go-getter with C-level knowledge of plans?
Traditional labor unions, TOO, have been involved with the racketeering of incorporation.
Take the UMWA, for example. Where in the eleven points of its constitution is there any hint
that labor organizers and their Blair Mountain warriors were thinking about abolishing a
pernicious institution which had done so much to slant market power in favor of neverlaboring
mine operators?
It's been obvious for some time that the allegedly right wing "ALT RIGHT" is another
faction with little interest in getting rid of the corporation. It is sympathetic,
however, to old fashioned communist schemes like "Social Security" and communist health care
finance. So what, um, pecuniary interest does its leading lights have in maintaining the
incorporated status quo? Explain, please.
In other words CIA Democrats actually are running on classic Republican foreign policy platform with some neo-McCarthyism
flavor added for appetite. . Such a convergence of two parities.
The Democratic Party is widely favored to win control of the House of Representatives in the
US midterm elections November 6, with projections that it will gain 30 to 50 seats, or even
more, well above the net gain of 23 required for a majority.
The last time the Democratic Party won control of the House from the Republicans was in
2006, when it captured 30 Republican seats on the basis of a limited appeal to the massive
antiwar sentiment among working people after three years of disastrous and bloody warfare in
Iraq, and five years after the US invasion and occupation of Afghanistan.
In stark contrast, there is not a hint of an antiwar campaign by the Democratic challengers
seeking Republican seats in the 2018 elections. On the contrary, the pronouncements of leading
Democrats on foreign policy issues have been strongly pro-war, attacking the Trump
administration from the right for its alleged softness on Russia and its hostility to
traditional US-led alliances like NATO.
This is particularly true of the 30 Democratic congressional nominees in competitive races
who come from a national-security background. These challengers, previously identified by the
World Socialist Web Site as the CIA Democrats , constitute the
largest single grouping among Democratic nominees in competitive seats, more than state and
local officials, lawyers or those wealthy enough to finance their own campaigns.
The 30 national-security candidates include six actual CIA, FBI or military intelligence
agents, six State Department or other civilian national security officials, 11 combat veterans
from Iraq and Afghanistan, all but one an officer, and seven other military veterans, including
pilots, naval officers and military prosecutors (JAGs).
The range of views expressed by these 30 candidates is quite limited. With only one
exception, Jared Golden , running in the First District of Maine, the military-intelligence
Democrats do not draw any negative conclusions from their experience in leading, planning or
fighting in the wars of the past 25 years, including two wars against Iraq, the invasion of
Afghanistan, and other military engagements in the Persian Gulf and North and East Africa.
Golden, who is also the only rank-and-file combat veteran -- as opposed to an officer -- and
the only one who admits to having suffered from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, criticizes
congressional rubber-stamping of the wars of the past 20 years. "Over the past decade and a
half, America has spent trillions on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and on other conflicts
across the globe," his campaign website declares. "War should be a last resort, and only
undertaken when the security interests of America are clearly present, and the risks and costs
can be appropriately justified to the American people."
These sentiments hardly qualify as antiwar, but they sound positively radical compared to
the materials posted on the websites of many of the other military-intelligence candidates. In
some ways, Golden is the exception that proves the rule. What used to be the standard rhetoric
of Democratic Party candidates when running against the administration of George W. Bush has
been entirely scrapped in the course of the Obama administration, the first in American history
to have been engaged in a major military conflict for every day of its eight years.
All the other national-security candidates accept as a basic premise that the United States
must maintain its dominant world position. The most detailed foreign policy doctrine appears on
the website of Amy McGrath , who is now favored to win her contest against incumbent Republican
incumbent Andy Barr in the Sixth Congressional District of Kentucky.
McGrath follows closely the line of the Obama administration and the Hillary Clinton
presidential campaign, supporting the Iran nuclear deal that Trump tore up, embracing Israel,
warning of North Korea's development of nuclear weapons, and declaring it "critical that the US
work with our allies and partners in the region to counter China's advances" in the South China
Sea and elsewhere in Asia.
But Russia is clearly the main target of US national-security efforts, in her view. She
writes, "Our Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has testified that Russia is the greatest
threat to American security. Russia poses an existential threat to the United States due to its
nuclear weapons and its behavior in the past several years has been disturbing. Russia's
aggression in Georgia, Crimea, Ukraine, and Syria has been alarming. It's becoming more
assertive in the Arctic, likely the most important geostrategic zone of competition in the
coming decades. The US should consider providing defensive arms to Ukraine and exerting more
pressure on Moscow using economic sanctions."
She concludes by calling for an investigation modeled on the 9/11 Commission into alleged
Russian interference in the 2016 elections.
Five other national-security candidates focus on specific warnings about the danger of
Russia and China, thus aligning themselves with the new national security orientation set in
the most recent Pentagon strategy document, which declares that the principal US national
security challenge is no longer the "war on terror," but the prospect of great power conflicts,
above all with Russia and China.
Jessica Morse , a former State Department and AID official in Iraq, running in the Fourth
District of California, blasts the Trump administration for "giving away global leadership to
powers like China and Russia. Our security and our economy will both suffer if those countries
are left to re-write the international rules."
Former FBI agent Christopher Hunter , running in the 12th District of Florida, declares,
"Russia is a clear and present danger to the United States. We emerged victorious over the
Soviet Union in the Cold War. We must resolve anew to secure an uncompromising victory over
Russia and its tyrannical regime."
Elissa Slotkin , the former CIA agent and Pentagon official running in Michigan's Eighth
Congressional District, cites her 14 years of experience "working on some of our country's most
critical national security matters, including U.S.-Russia relations, the counter-ISIS campaign,
and the U.S. relationship with NATO." She argues that "the United States must make investments
in its military, intelligence, and diplomatic power" in order to maintain "a unique and vital
role in the world."
Max Rose , a combat commander in Afghanistan now running in New York's 11th Congressional
District (Staten Island and Brooklyn), calls for "recognizing Russia as a hostile foreign power
and holding the Kremlin accountable for its attempts to undermine the sovereignty and
democratic values of other nations." Rose is still in the military reserves, and took two weeks
off from his campaign in August to participate in small-unit drills.
Joseph Kopser , running in the 21st District of Texas, is another anti-Russian firebrand,
writing on his website, "As a retired Army Ranger, I know first hand the importance of standing
strong with your allies. Given Russia's march toward a totalitarian state showing aggression
around the region, as well as their extensive cyber and information warfare campaign directed
at the U.S., England, and others, our Article 5 [NATO] commitment to our European allies and
partners is more important than ever." He concludes, "Since the mid-twentieth century, the
United States has been a principal world leader -- a standard that should never be
changed."
Four national-security candidates add North Korea and Iran to China and Russia as specific
targets of American military and diplomatic attack.
Josh Welle , a former naval officer who was deployed to Afghanistan, now running in the
Fourth Congressional District of New Jersey, writes, "We have to stand together in the face of
threats from countries like North Korea and Iran. The human rights violations and nuclear
capabilities of these countries pose a direct threat to the stability of this world and
therefore need to be met with strong military presence and a robust defense program to protect
ourselves."
Tom Malinowski , former assistant secretary of state for human rights, running in New
Jersey's Seventh District, calls for maintaining economic sanctions on Russia "until it
stops its aggression in Ukraine and interference in our democracy ,"
effusively endorses the state of Israel (whose government actually interferes in US elections
more than any other), and calls for stepped up sanctions against North Korea.
Mikie Sherill , a former Navy pilot and Russian policy officer, running in New Jersey's 11th
District, writes, "I have sat across the table from the Russians, and know that we need our
government to take the threat they pose seriously." She adds to this a warning about "threats
posed by North Korea and Iran," the two most immediate targets of military-diplomatic blackmail
by the Trump administration. She concludes, referring to North Korea's nuclear program, "For
that reason I support a robust military presence in the region and a comprehensive missile
defense program to defend America, our allies, and our troops abroad."
Dan McCready , an Iraq war unit commander who claims to have been born again when he was
baptized in water from the Euphrates River, calls for war to be waged only "with overwhelming
firepower," not "sporadically, with no strategy or end in sight, while our enemies like Iran,
North Korea, Russia, and the terrorists outsmart and outlast us." He is running in North
Carolina's Ninth Congressional District, adjacent to the huge military complex at Fort
Bragg.
One military-intelligence candidate cites immigration as a national-security issue, echoing
the position of the Trump administration, which constantly peddles scare stories that
terrorists are infiltrating the United States disguised as immigrants and refugees. That is
Richard Ojeda , running in the Third Congressional District of West Virginia, who publicly
boasts of having voted for Trump in 2016, in the same election in which he won a seat in the
West Virginia state senate running as a Democrat.
Ojeda writes on his web site, "We must also ensure that terrorists do not reach American
soil by abusing our immigration process. We must keep an up to date terror watch list but
provide better vetting for those that go onto the watch list."
A career Army Airborne officer, Ojeda voices the full-blown militarism of this social layer.
"If there is one thing I am confident in, it is the ability of our nation's military," he
declares. "The best way to keep Americans safe is to let our military do their job without
muddying up their responsibilities with our political agendas."
He openly rejects control of the military by civilian policy-makers. "War is not a social
experiment and I refuse to let politics play a role in my decision making when it comes to
keeping you and your family safe," he continues. "I will not take my marching orders from
anyone else concerning national security."
Only one of the 30 candidates, Ken Harbaugh , a retired Air Force pilot running in the
Seventh Congressional District of Ohio, centered on the industrial city of Canton, acknowledges
being part of this larger group. He notes, "In 2018, more vets are running for office than at
any moment in my lifetime. Because of the growing inability of Washington to deal responsibly
with the threats facing our nation, veterans from both sides of the aisle are stepping into the
breach."
Referring to the mounting prospect of war, he writes, "Today, we face our gravest
geopolitical challenge since 9/11. Our country remains at war in Afghanistan, we have troops
engaged in North Africa, Iraq and Syria, and Russia continues to bully our allies. Meanwhile,
North Korea has the ability to directly threaten the American mainland with nuclear missiles."
He concludes, "we need leaders with the moral authority to speak on these issues, leaders who
have themselves been on the front lines of these challenges."
These statements, taken cumulatively, present a picture of unbridled militarism and
aggression as the program of the supposed "opposition" to the Trump administration's own
saber-rattling and threats of "fire and fury like the world has never seen."
Perhaps even more remarkable is that the remaining 17 national-security candidates say
nothing at all about foreign policy (in 11 cases) or limit themselves to anodyne observations
about the necessity to provide adequate health care and other benefits to veterans (two cases),
or vague generalities about the need to combine a strong military with diplomatic efforts (four
cases). They give no specifics whatsoever.
In other words, while these candidates tout their own records as part of the
national-security apparatus as their principal credential for election to Congress, they
decline to tell the voters what they would do if they were in charge of American foreign
policy.
Given that these 17 include intelligence agents ( Abigail Spanberger and Gina Ortiz Jones ),
a National Security Council Iraq war planner ( Andy Kim ), and numerous other high-level State
Department and military commanders, the silence can have only the most ominous
interpretation.
These CIA Democrats don't want to tell voters about their plans for foreign policy and
military intervention because they know these measures are deeply unpopular. They aim to gain
office as stealth candidates, unveiling their program of militarism and war only after they
take their seats, when they may very well exercise decisive influence in the next Congress.
"... As the hoax unravels, the real story of "foreign collusion" comes out ..."
"... This entire episode has Her Majesty's Secret Service's fingerprints all over it. Steele's key role is plain enough: here was a British spook who was not only hired by the Clinton campaign to dig up dirt on Trump but was unusually passionate about his work – almost as if he'd have done it for free. And then there was the earliest approach to the Trump campaign, made by Cambridge professor and longtime spook Stefan Halper to Carter Page. And then there's the mysterious alleged "link" to Russian intelligence, Professor Joseph Mifsud, whose murky British-based thinktank managed to operate openly despite later claims it was a Russian covert operation. ..."
"... It was Mifsud who orchestrated the Russia-gate hoax, first suggesting that the Russians had Hillary Clinton's emails, and then disappearing into thin air as soon as the story he had planted percolated into plain view. Some "Russian agent"! ..."
"... Trump's decision to walk back his announcement that the key Russia-gate intelligence would be declassified tells us almost as much as if he'd tweeted it out, unredacted. For what it tells us is that public knowledge of the contents would constitute a major break in relations with at least one key ally. ..."
"... So here we have it at last, the final truth of Russia-gate: yes, there was indeed foreign collusion in the 2016 election, but it came from the opposite direction than the media are telling us. We weren't attacked by Russia: a few thousand dollars in Facebook ads that nobody saw did not put Trump in the White House. Our democratic process was undermined, not by the supposedly omnipotent Vladimir Putin but by the intelligence agencies of some of our more beloved "allies." We were attacked by a tag -team, both foreign and domestic, intent on ousting a democratically-elected President by any means necessary. ..."
"... When those subsidies, subventions, and special privileges are threatened, as they are by the nationalist cheapskate Trump, who would gladly demolish the whole decrepit, dated, and dangerous cold war architecture with a wave of his hand. A US President who puts America first? They can't allow it. ..."
"... The global Establishment has risen up against the People. ..."
As the hoax unravels, the real story of "foreign collusion" comes out
The
conspiracy to overthrow a sitting US President extends far beyond our own "Deep State." As I've
been
saying in this space for quite some time, it's been an international team effort from the
beginning. Setting aside the British origins of the obscene "dossier" compiled by "ex"-MI6
agent Christopher Steele, we now have further confirmation of foreign involvement in President
Trump's
decision to delay (perhaps indefinitely) the declassification of key Russia-gate documents.
While US intelligence officials were expected to oppose the move, "Trump was also swayed by
foreign allies, including Britain, in deciding to reverse course, these people said. It wasn't
immediately clear what other governments may have raised concerns to the White House."
But of course the Washington Post knows perfectly well which other governments would
have reason to raise "concerns" to the White House. It's clear from the public record that the
following "allies" have rendered the "Resistance" essential assistance at one time or
another:
United Kingdom – This entire episode has Her Majesty's Secret Service's
fingerprints all over it. Steele's key role is plain enough: here was a British spook who was
not only hired by the Clinton campaign to dig up dirt on Trump but was unusually passionate
about his work – almost as if he'd have done it for free. And then there was the
earliest approach to the Trump campaign, made by Cambridge professor and longtime spook
Stefan Halper to Carter
Page. And then there's the mysterious alleged "link" to Russian intelligence, Professor
Joseph Mifsud, whose murky British-based thinktank managed to operate openly despite later
claims it was a Russian covert operation.
It was Mifsud who orchestrated the Russia-gate hoax, first suggesting that the Russians
had Hillary Clinton's emails, and then disappearing into thin air as soon as the story he had
planted percolated into plain view. Some "Russian agent"!
Australia – Why would the former Australian High Commissioner to the UK seek
out George Papadopoulos, a low-level semi-advisor to the Trump campaign, and milk him for
information while getting him drunk?
Israel – So how did Papadopoulos find himself spilling his guts at a bar
with a top Australian intelligence figure? The Times reports that "The meeting at the
bar came about because of a series of connections, beginning with an Israeli Embassy official
who introduced Mr. Papadopoulos to another Australian diplomat in London."
Estonia – The Times and other outlets report that a "Baltic
intelligence agency" was the first to relay "concerns" about Russian influence over the Trump
team. I'm willing to bet it was the Estonians, who have always been the most actively
anti-Russian actors in the region.
Ukraine – Democratic National Committee members actually met with Ukrainian
government leaders in an attempt to uncover dirt on Trump. Working together with the DNC,
Democratic official and Ukrainian lobbyist Alexandra Chalupa received active assistance from
the Ukrainian embassy, which became a veritable
locus of Clintonian campaign operations.
This is part of the price we pay for our vaunted "empire," and the "liberal international
order" the striped-pants set is so on about. As that grizzled old "isolationist" prophet, Garet
Garrett, described the insignia of empire at the dawn of the cold war:
"There is yet another sign that defines itself gradually. When it is clearly defined it may
be already too late to do anything about it. That is to say, a time comes when Empire finds
itself –
"A prisoner of history.
"The history of a Republic is its own history . A Republic may change its course, or
reverse it, and that will be its own business., But the history of Empire is a world history,
and belongs to many people."
A Republic may restrain itself, wrote Garrett, but "Empire must put forth its power" –
on whose behalf? There are many claimants whose wealth, position, and prestige depend on the
Imperial largesse. When that claim is threatened, the "satellites" turn against their
protector. This is what the Russia-gate covert action -- carried out by coordinated action of
our "allies" – is all about. We now have clear evidence of just how far our "client"
states are willing go to ensure that the American gravy train of free goodies continues to
flow.
Trump's decision to walk back his announcement that the key Russia-gate intelligence would
be declassified tells us almost as much as if he'd tweeted it out, unredacted. For what it
tells us is that public knowledge of the contents would constitute a major break in relations
with at least one key ally.
So here we have it at last, the final truth of Russia-gate: yes, there was indeed foreign
collusion in the 2016 election, but it came from the opposite direction than the media are
telling us. We weren't attacked by Russia: a few thousand dollars in Facebook ads that nobody
saw did not put Trump in the White House. Our democratic process was undermined, not by the
supposedly omnipotent Vladimir Putin but by the intelligence agencies of some of our more
beloved "allies." We were attacked by a tag -team, both foreign and domestic, intent on ousting
a democratically-elected President by any means necessary.
Here is the final irrefutable argument against America as the "world leader," designated
champion of the "liberal international order" – we become, as Garrett noted, a prisoner
of history. Indeed, we are no longer entitled to write our own history, but must endure the
lobbying and aggressive interventions of our ungrateful and spiteful "allies," whose welfare
states could not exist without generous US "defense" subsidies.
When those subsidies, subventions, and special privileges are threatened, as they are by the
nationalist cheapskate Trump, who would gladly demolish the whole decrepit, dated, and
dangerous cold war architecture with a wave of his hand. A US President who puts America first?
They can't allow it.
And that's really the essence of the fight, the issue that will determine the woof and warp
of American politics in the new millennium. The global Establishment has risen up against the
People. There's no telling what the outcome will be, but one thing I know for sure: I know what
side I'm on. Do you?
"... the last two Democratic presidents were centrists in favor of a big tent Democratic Party (the Clintons were co-founders of the Democratic Leadership Council, and Obama considered Joe Lieberman his mentor in the Senate) and they oversaw the collapse of their party in the states and Congress. Centrists are mainly concerned with keeping Wall Street and Silicon Valley happy, and have been purging "old-fashioned" New Deal liberals from the party for the better part of 30 years. ..."
"... It is not the Sandernistas OR the Democratic Socialists of America who are pushing identity politics or demonizing white or religious people (it's the Hillary bots at Daily Kos who go nuts when anyone on the left wing of the party expresses any interest in winning over working class Trump voters, or dares to view said Trump voters as anything but racist deadenders). ..."
Werd "I can't understand their (progressives) tactics. Why push Transgenderism literally 5
seconds after gay marriage got passed?"
Because it keeps the Democratic base from focusing on economic issues inimical to the
interests of the Democratic funding elite.
Werd "Why push poor minorities into becoming socialist identitarians instead of being the
calm centrist big tent party?"
First, Pelosi and Clinton have made it very clear that they are capitalists, and it's
their supporters "identitarian" wave (Daily Kos had an "In defense of Nancy Pelosi" article
not that lone ago), not the "socialist" or Sandernista wing of the party. Second, the
last two Democratic presidents were centrists in favor of a big tent Democratic Party (the
Clintons were co-founders of the Democratic Leadership Council, and Obama considered Joe
Lieberman his mentor in the Senate) and they oversaw the collapse of their party in the
states and Congress. Centrists are mainly concerned with keeping Wall Street and Silicon
Valley happy, and have been purging "old-fashioned" New Deal liberals from the party for the
better part of 30 years.
Werd "Why fire up the Republican base literally right before the midterm? Why turn the
dude who would've been the next Anthony Kennedy into a far-right gang rapist? The Dems and
their media apparatus just keep snatching defeat from the jaws of victory."
Stupidity? Arrogance? To keep their base within the Democratic Party, which is more
concerned about cultural issues than economic ones (like a certain part of the GOP
coalition), fired up, while demobilizing voters with mainly economic concerns?
Werd "When Susan Collins and Lindsey Graham are calling you insane, you've become
insane."
Collins and Graham are hacks, and when it comes to foreign affairs, Graham IS insane (I
exaggerate, but only a little). This may be Collins' statesmanship moment (kind of like
Democratic hack John Murtha's in 2004 over the Iraq War), but I have my doubts. As one other
commentator here said, she was always likely to vote for Kavanaugh after putting on a show of
hemming-and-hawing.
Werd "I've never voted for a Republican presidential candidate, had things stayed the
same I probably never would. Why not just wait 20 years to admit you want socialism, hate
white people and hate religious people?"
It is not the Sandernistas OR the Democratic Socialists of America who are pushing
identity politics or demonizing white or religious people (it's the Hillary bots at Daily Kos
who go nuts when anyone on the left wing of the party expresses any interest in winning over
working class Trump voters, or dares to view said Trump voters as anything but racist
deadenders).
Werd "The Blue Dogs really need to make a come back. At the very least, they might do
some trust busting and wouldn't make Donald Trump look like the sane one."
Since Fritz Hollings backed protectionism and some of the John Murtha-types voted against
NAFTA, when have any Blue Dog Democrats backed trust busting, investigating the banks and
brokerage houses that brought us the Great Recession, or backed any economic policy to the
left of (or less popular than) raising the minimum wage?
Werd, I think you should investigate the Democrats who actually call themselves
socialists. I may not vote for them – too wishy-washy reformist for me – but I
think you may actually find them to be surprisingly on your wavelength. It's the "Hillary is
TOO just as progressive as Bernie is!" types that you want to avoid.
given the years of pointless investigations of the Clintons and all the nonsense about
Obama, aren't we due an investigation or two of our own?
Harve, like all good liberals, wants to grow up to be just like the Republicans. That's
how we get progressive presidents leading us into full participation in the Great Imperialist
War.
Werd "I can't understand their (progressives) tactics. Why push Transgenderism
literally 5 seconds after gay marriage got passed?"
Because it keeps the Democratic base from focusing on economic issues inimical to the
interests of the Democratic funding elite.
There it is folks. The plain truth. I keep telling you, only socialism can save America
from the liberals.
It might not go away, but a lot of Democrats probably will. We may have to build new
prisons to hold them.
Nah. We send Scott Walker to a tropical island for an episode of "Survivor," with that
Democratic state senator who was literally in bed with a PayDay Loan lobbyist. (The lobbyist
was female, or at least identified as such in public.)
I can't understand their (progressives) tactics. Why push Transgenderism literally 5 seconds
after gay marriage got passed? Why push poor minorities into becoming socialist identitarians
instead of being the calm centrist big tent party? Why fire up the Republican base literally
right before the midterm? Why turn the dude who would've been the next Anthony Kennedy into a
far-right gang rapist? The Dems and their media apparatus just keep snatching defeat from the
jaws of victory. When Susan Collins and Lindsey Graham are calling you insane, you've become
insane. I've never voted for a Republican presidential candidate, had things stayed the same
I probably never would. Why not just wait 20 years to admit you want socialism, hate white
people and hate religious people? The Blue Dogs really need to make a come back. At the very
least, they might do some trust busting and wouldn't make Donald Trump look like the sane
one.
Werd (October 6, 9:27 am) "I can't understand their (progressives) tactics. Why push
Transgenderism literally 5 seconds after gay marriage got passed?"
It's important to remember that gay marriage didn't get "passed." Gay marriage arrived
nationwide as the result of a 2015 5-4 US Supreme Court decision authored by Justice Anthony
Kennedy, who retired from the Court in July.
I write this as a very moderate conservative who didn't vote for Trump and who has never been
fond of the GOP: Next month, and probably in 2020, I'll be voting for the Republicans. For
all their horrible flaws, they don't claim "illegitimacy" every time they lose, they don't
harass people in restaurants or on their front porches–as I see on the news the
"women's march" activists are doing to Senator Collins this afternoon. If Republicans did
this crap, the same people would be weeping about incipient fascism.
The GOP is dreadful. Trump is a buffoon. But I'm tired of 1960s-style activist anarchy,
which I consider worse for our national life than Republican directionlessness. I'm voting
against the "hey hey, ho ho " Democrats. Enough of this crap.
"... A few months ago, a dozen Russian individuals were charged with cyber-crime offenses that Mueller knew would never be tested at trial b/c the charged individuals would never be extradited. However, the indictment included charges against two Russian corporations that cleverly hired American lawyers to appear on their behalf, and enter pleas of Not Guilty. ..."
"... This tactic should have set the pre-trial discovery process to begin, causing Mueller to be obliged to turn over evidence supporting the charges as well as any exculpatory information favoring the accused corporations. ..."
A few months ago, a dozen Russian individuals were charged with cyber-crime offenses that
Mueller knew would never be tested at trial b/c the charged individuals would never be
extradited. However, the indictment included charges against two Russian corporations that
cleverly hired American lawyers to appear on their behalf, and enter pleas of Not
Guilty.
This tactic should have set the pre-trial discovery process to begin, causing Mueller
to be obliged to turn over evidence supporting the charges as well as any exculpatory
information favoring the accused corporations.
As any reference to this case can't seem to be found, can anyone help with info as to the
present status of the case?
"... James Baker, a former top FBI lawyer, told congressional investigators on Wednesday that the Russia probe was handled in an "abnormal fashion" and was rife with "political bias" according to Fox News , citing two Republican lawmakers present for the closed-door deposition. ..."
"... Lawmakers did not provide any specifics about the interview, citing a confidentiality agreement signed with Baker and his attorneys, however they said that he was cooperative and forthcoming about the beginnings of the Russia probe in 2016, as well as the FISA surveillance warrant application to spy on former Trump campaign aide Carter Page. ..."
"... According to Fox , Baker "is at the heart of surveillance abuse allegations, and his deposition lays the groundwork for next week's planned closed-door interview with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein." ..."
James Baker, a former top FBI lawyer, told congressional investigators on Wednesday that the
Russia probe was handled in an "abnormal fashion" and was rife with "political bias" according
to
Fox News , citing two Republican lawmakers present for the closed-door deposition.
"Some of the things that were shared were explosive in nature," Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C.,
told Fox News. "This witness confirmed that things were done in an abnormal fashion. That's
extremely troubling."
Meadows claimed the "abnormal" handling of the probe into alleged coordination between
Russian officials and the Trump presidential campaign was "a reflection of inherent bias that
seems to be evident in certain circles." The FBI agent who opened the Russia case, Peter
Strzok, FBI lawyer Lisa Page and others sent politically charged texts, and have since left
the bureau. -
Fox News
Baker, who worked closely with former FBI Director James Comey, left the bureau earlier this
year.
Lawmakers did not provide any specifics about the interview, citing a confidentiality
agreement signed with Baker and his attorneys, however they said that he was cooperative and
forthcoming about the beginnings of the Russia probe in 2016, as well as the FISA surveillance
warrant application to spy on former Trump campaign aide Carter Page.
"During the time that the FBI was putting -- that DOJ and FBI were putting together the
FISA (surveillance warrant) during the time prior to the election -- there was another source
giving information directly to the FBI, which we found the source to be pretty explosive,"
said Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio.
Meadows and Jordan would not elaborate on the source, or answer questions about whether
the source was a reporter. They did stress that the source who provided information to the
FBI's Russia case was not previously known to congressional investigators. -
Fox News
According to Fox , Baker "is at the heart of surveillance abuse allegations, and his
deposition lays the groundwork for next week's planned closed-door interview with Deputy
Attorney General Rod Rosenstein."
As the FBI's top lawyer, baker helped secure the FISA warrant on Page, along with three
subsequent renewals .
Rosenstein is scheduled to appear on Capitol Hill on October 11 for a closed-door interview,
according to Republican House sources, "not a briefing to leadership," and comes on the heels
of a New York Times report that said Rosenstein had discussed secretly recording President
Trump and removing him from office using the 25th Amendment.
Rosenstein and Trump pushed off a scheduled meeting into limbo amid speculation of his
impending firing.
White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders told reporters Wednesday the meeting remains in
limbo.
But in blaming "revenge on behalf of the Clintons" for the sexual misconduct allegations
against him, the Supreme Court nominee is drawing new attention to his time on the Kenneth
Starr team investigating Bill Clinton. And in doing so, he's shown he can deliver a Trump-like
broadside against detractors even if it casts him in a potentially partisan light.
As a young lawyer, Kavanaugh played a key role on Starr's team investigating sexual
misconduct by then-President Bill Clinton, helping to shape one of the most salacious chapters
in modern political history.
Kavanaugh spent a good part of the mid-1990s jetting back and forth to Little Rock,
Arkansas, digging into the Clintons' background, according to documents that were made public
as part of his nomination to the Supreme Court
The Kavanaugh confirmation process has been a missed opportunity for the United States to
face up to many urgent issues on which the bi-partisans in Washington, DC are united and
wrong.
Kavanaugh's career as
a Republican legal operative and judge supporting the power of corporations, the security
state and abusive foreign policy should have been put on trial. The hearings could have
provided an opportunity to confront the security state, use of torture, mass spying and the
domination of money in politics and oligarchy as he has had an important role in each of
these.
Kavanaugh's behavior as a teenager who likely drank too much and was inappropriately
aggressive and abusive with women, perhaps even attempting rape, must also be confronted. In an
era where patriarchy and mistreatment of women are being challenged, Kavanaugh is the wrong
nominee for this important time. However, sexual assault should not be a distraction that keeps
the public's focus off other issues raised by his career as a conservative political
activist.
The Security State, Mass Spying and Torture
A central issue of our era is the US security state -- mass spying on emails, Internet
activity, texts and phone calls. Judge Kavanough
enabled invasive spying on everyone in the United States . He described mass surveillance
as "entirely consistent" with the US Constitution. This manipulation of the law turns the
Constitution upside down a it clearly requires probable cause and a search warrant for the
government to conduct searches.
Kavanaugh
explained in a decision, "national security . . . outweighs the impact on privacy
occasioned by this [NSA] program." This low regard for protecting individual privacy should
have been enough for a majority of the Senate to say this nominee is inappropriate for the
court.
Kavanaugh ruled multiple times that police have the
power to search people, emphasizing "reasonableness" as the standard for searching people.
He ruled broadly for the police in searches conducted on the street without a warrant and for
broader use of drug testing of federal employees. Kavanaugh applauded Justice Rehnquist's views
on the Fourth Amendment, which favored police searches by defining probable cause in a flexible
way and creating a broad exception for when the government has "special needs" to search
without a warrant or probable cause. In this era of police abuse through stop and frisk, jump
out squads and searches when driving (or walking or running) while black, Kavanaugh is the
wrong nominee and should be disqualified.
Kavanaugh also played a role in the Bush torture policy. Torture is against US
and international law , certainly facilitating torture should be disqualifying not only as
a justice but
should result in disbarment as a lawyer . Kavanaugh was appointed by President Trump, who
once vowed he would "bring back waterboarding and a hell of a lot worse than
waterboarding." Minimizing torture is demonstrated in his rulings, e.g. not protecting
prisoners at risk of torture and not allowing people to sue the government on allegations of
torture.
Torture is a landmine in the Senate, so
Kavanaugh misled the Senate likely committing perjury on torture . In his 2006
confirmation, he said he was "not involved" in "questions about the rules governing detention
of combatants." Tens of thousands of documents have been kept secret by the White House about
Kavanaugh from the Bush era. Even so, during these confirmation hearings documents related to
the nomination of a lawyer involved in the torture program showed
Kavanaugh's role in torture policies leading Senator Dick Durbin to write : "It is clear
now that not only did Judge Kavanaugh mislead me when it came to his involvement in the Bush
Administration's detention and interrogation policies, but also regarding his role in the
controversial Haynes nomination."
Durbin spoke more broadly about perjury writing: "This is a theme that we see emerge with
Judge Kavanaugh time and time again – he says one thing under oath, and then the
documents tell a different story. It is no wonder the White House and Senate Republicans are
rushing through this nomination and hiding much of Judge Kavanaugh's record -- the questions
about this nominee's credibility are growing every day." The long list of
perjury allegations should be investigated and if proven should result in him not being
confirmed.
This should have been enough to stop the process until documents were released to reveal
Kavanaugh's role as Associate White House Counsel under George Bush from 2001 to 2003 and
as his White House Staff Secretary from 2003 to 2006. Unfortunately, Democrats have been
complicit in allowing torture as well, e.g. the Obama administration never prosecuted anyone
accused of torture and advanced the careers of people involved in torture.
Shouldn't the risk of having a torture facilitator on the Supreme Court be enough to stop
this nomination?
Corporate Power vs Protecting People and the Planet
In this era of corporate power, Kavanaugh sides with the corporations. Ralph Nader
describes him as a corporation masquerading as a judge . He narrowly limited the powers of
federal agencies to curtail corporate power and to protect the interests of the people and
planet.
This is evident in cases where Kavanaugh has favored
reducing restrictions on polluting corporations. He dissented in cases where the majority ruled
in favor of environmental protection but has never dissented where the majority ruled against
protecting the environment. He ruled against agencies seeking to protect clean air and water.
If Kavanaugh is on the court, it will be much harder to hold corporations responsible for the
damage they have done to the climate, the environment or health.
Kavanaugh takes the side of businesses over their workers with a consistent history of
anti-union and anti-labor rulings. A few examples of many, he ruledin favor of the Trump Organizatio
n throwing out the results of a union election,
sided with the management of Sheldon Adelson's Venetian Casino Resort upholding the
casino's First Amendment
right to summon police against workers engaged in a peaceful demonstration -- for which
they had a permit, affirmed the Department of Defense's discretion to negate
the collective bargaining rights of employees, and overturned an NLRB ruling that allowed
Verizon workers to display pro-union signs on company property despite having given up the
right to picket in their collective bargaining agreement. In this time of labor unrest and
mistreatment of workers, Kavanaugh will be a detriment to workers rights.
Kavanough
opposed the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) ruling in favor of net neutrality,
which forbids telecom companies from discrimination on the Internet. He argued net neutrality
violated the First Amendment rights of Internet Service Providers (ISP) and was beyond the
power granted to the FCC. He put the rights of big corporations ahead of the people having a
free and open Internet. The idea that an ISP has a right to control what it allows on the
Internet could give corporations great control over what people see on the Internet. It is a
very dangerous line of reasoning in this era of corporations curtailing news that challenges
the mainstream narrative.
Kavanaugh will be friendly to powerful business and the interests of the wealthy on the
Supreme Court, and will tend to stand in the way of efforts by administrative agencies to
regulate them and by people seeking greater rights.
On the third day of his confirmation hearings, Judge Brett Kavanaugh seemed to refer to the
use of contraception as "abortion-inducing drugs ." It was a discussion of a case where
Kavanaugh dissented from the majority involving the Priests for Life's challenge to the
Affordable Care Act (ACA). Kavanaugh opposed the requirement that all health plans cover birth
control, claiming that IUDs and emergency contraception were an infringement of their free
exercise of religion.
Kavanaugh clerked for Judge Kosinski who he describes as a mentor. Kosinski was forced to
resign after being accused of harassing at least 12 women in the sanctity of his judicial
chambers. Kavanaugh swears he never saw any signs that the judge was sexually harassing
women, but the Democrats did not ask a single question about it.
Multiple accusers
have come forward to allege Kavanaugh's involvement in sexual assault and abuse. While Dr.
Christine Blasey Ford is viewed as credible – she was the only witness allowed to testify
– it is not clear these allegations will be thoroughly reviewed. After being approved by
the committee, the Republican leadership and President Trump agreed on a limited FBI
investigation. It is unclear
whether the FBI will be allowed to follow all the evidence and question all the witnesses.
As we write this newsletter, the outcome has yet to unfold but Jeffrey St.
Clair at Countpunch points out, "the FBI investigation will be overseen by director
Christopher Wray, who was two years behind Brett-boy at both Yale and Yale Law. After
graduation, they entered the same rightwing political orbit and both took jobs in the Bush
Administration. How do you think it's going to turn out?"
Why don't Democrats, as Ralph Nader
suggests , hold their own hearing and question all the witnesses? If there is corroborating
evidence for the accusers, Kavanaugh should not be approved.
During his confirmation process, in response to the accusations of assault, he claimed they
were "a calculated and orchestrated political hit" and "revenge on behalf of the Clinton's." He
demonstrated partisan anger and displayed a lack of judicial temperament, making him unfit to
serve on the Supreme Court.
Kavanaugh exposes the true partisan nature of the highest court, which is not a neutral
arbiter but another battleground for partisan politics. The lack of debate on issues of spying,
torture and more shows both parties support a court that protects the security state and
corporate interests over people and planet. Accusations of sexual assault must be confronted,
but there are many reasons Kavanaugh should not be on the court. The confirmation process
undermines the court's legitimacy and highlights bi-partisan corruption.
An interesting hypothesis. CIA definitly became a powerful political force in the USA -- a rogue political force which starting from JFK assasination tries to control who is elected to important offices. But in truth Cavanaugh is a pro-CIA candidate so to speak. So why CIA would try to derail him.
Notable quotes:
"... I think I've figured out why they had to go to couples counseling about an outside door and why she came up with claim that she needed an outside bedroom door because she'd been assaulted 37 years ago. The Palo Alto building codes for single family homes were created to make sure single family homes remained single family and weren't chopped up into apartments. ..."
"... An outside door into a master bedroom with attached bathroom is a red flag that it's intended for an illegal what's called in law apartment ..."
"... So she wants the door. Husband says waste of money and trouble. Contractor says call me when you're ready. So they go to counseling Husband explains why the door's unreasonable. Therapist asks wife why she " really deep down" needs the door. Wife makes up the story about attempted rape 35 years ago flashbacks If only there were 2 doors in that imaginary bedroom she could have escaped. ..."
"... Kacanaugh was nominated. CIA searched for sex problems in his working life. Found nothing Searched law school and college found nothing. In desperation searched high school found nothing. Searched CIA personnel records which go back to grade school and found one of their own employees was about Kavanaugh's age and attended a high school near his and the students socialized. ..."
"... She's 3rd generation CIA. grandfather assistant director. Father CIA contractor who managed CIA unofficial band accounts. And she runs a CIA recruitment office. ..."
I think I've figured out why they had to go to couples counseling about an outside door and why she came up with claim
that she needed an outside bedroom door because she'd been assaulted 37 years ago. The Palo Alto building codes for single family
homes were created to make sure single family homes remained single family and weren't chopped up into apartments.
Outside doors enter public areas kitchen sunroom living rooms not bedrooms. An outside door into a master bedroom with
attached bathroom is a red flag that it's intended for an illegal what's called in law apartment
There's a unit It's a stove 2 ft counter space and sink. The stoves electric and plugs into an ordinary household electricity.
It's backed against the bathroom wall. Break through the wall, connect the pipes running water for the sink. Add an outside door
and it's a small apartment.
Assume they didn't want to make it an apartment just a master bedroom. Usually the contractor pulls the permits routinely.
But an outside bedroom door is complicated. The permits will cost more. It might require an exemption and a hearing They night
need a lawyer. And they might not get the permit.
So she wants the door. Husband says waste of money and trouble. Contractor says call me when you're ready. So they go to
counseling Husband explains why the door's unreasonable. Therapist asks wife why she " really deep down" needs the door. Wife
makes up the story about attempted rape 35 years ago flashbacks If only there were 2 doors in that imaginary bedroom she could
have escaped.
Kacanaugh was nominated. CIA searched for sex problems in his working life. Found nothing Searched law school and college
found nothing. In desperation searched high school found nothing. Searched CIA personnel records which go back to grade school
and found one of their own employees was about Kavanaugh's age and attended a high school near his and the students socialized.
She's 3rd generation CIA. grandfather assistant director. Father CIA contractor who managed CIA unofficial band accounts.
And she runs a CIA recruitment office.
America's two mainstream political parties agree furiously with one another on war,
neoliberalism, Orwellian surveillance, and every other agenda which increases the power and
profit of the plutocratic class which owns them both. The plutocrat-owned mass media plays up
the differences between Democrats and Republicans to hysterical proportions, when in reality
the debate over which one is worse is like arguing over whether a serial killer's arms or legs
are more evil.
Well, I don't know. My sister is an executive assistant. I thought I knew what that meant and
you probably do too. But then one day I sat down with her and we actually talked about her
job, and I quickly realized that not only was my understanding of her job so shallow as to be
effectively meaningless, but it was so shallow that I didn't even understand how much I was
missing. I'd just glanced at the title and said to myself "yep, executive assistant, assist
executives, that's what she does" and at no point had it ever even occurred to me that there
was anything past that. In fact, it was even worse than that, because half the stuff I
imagined she might do wasn't part of her job at all (hint, if you think "executive assistant"
and "secretary" are remotely similar you are just as far off track as I was).
I still don't understand what she does but at least now I know how little I know. If she
came to me for career advice there's no chance I'd be able to offer her anything other than
meaningless platitudes, because I don't even know enough right now to know if her current job
is a good one or a bad one. If she'd asked me before I realized how much I don't know I'd be
in the same boat, only probably rolling my eyes that she would get so worked up over x, y, or
z when her job was so simple and straightforward that there's no possible way it could be
that stressful.
Yeah.
All of this is to say that unless your friends are on a career path similar to yours they
probably not only fail to understand your job, but they probably fail so bad that they don't
even know how far off they are. That's not because your friends are stupid or because IT is
so impenetrably complex that only the chosen few can grasp it; its just that most of us don't
have a lot of expertise in careers outside of our own. Lacking context, we turn to pop
culture for reference. Picture the stereotypical Hollywood "computer guy" (or, if you must,
"hacker"). That's probably what your friends think your job is like. Now imagine that guy
coming to you complaining about how hard and stressful his job is. How hard could it be
anyway? I have a computer at home and don't have to do much to keep it running. These things
all basically run themselves, don't they?
So, point is his friends aren't necessarily assholes or in denial. They probably just
don't know enough to understand how little they know, as is true for all of us, and are
trying to give well-intentioned advice; OP asked, after all, and they want to help their
friend. But you can't give good advice if you don't have all the facts, and especially not if
you don't even know how much you're missing.
The executive assistants I know (to VPs, presidents, CEOs) practically run the company. Not
entirely, but a good chunk of it.
Filter what their executive knows and doesn't know, what meetings that take and don't,
and what their priorities are. If the EA isn't on your side, you're not getting to their
exec.
This influences strategy for the company, which means the EA is often helping direct
strategy.
Because they are spending 100% of their time with the exec (compared to the, say, 2
hours I get every other month as one of the department heads), they have a huge amount of
influence. They are trusted. And they have heard about everything that is happening at the
company. They know more than I do about what's really happening.
As to what they do, on the surface, it does look like secretary work. Schedule
appointments. Schedule venues for meetings/conferences. Book travel. Make sure the exec is
prepared for the appointments (knows what they need to know; has met with the right people in
advance to get briefed; leaves on time to get to the appointment). Answer emails and phone
calls.
But the level of knowledge they need to perform those tasks for an executive is much
higher.
Well, sure, that's an unfortunate commute. You're basically saying "I would take getting paid
for X for y hours of work over getting paid (x - costs of transportation ) for y + 4.5 or
more hours of work.
It's a decent jumping-off point for a middle management role of your own, if one opens up at
the same company. You're playing a huge role in running your exec's department
already, so you've got the lay of the land and you're clearly a competent wrangler of humans.
Who promoted herself from Harvey's legal secretary to the COO in a span of two episodes,
didn't skip a beat, and kept doing exactly what she was doing before.
Well, seeing as my last post was a big long thing about how I don't fully understand what
they do this is a limited view, but a short pithy summary would be that she handles all the
stuff her boss should be doing but doesn't have time to actually do. That's everything from
negotiating phone plans and insurance rates to making sure all the certifications and permits
they need to function are taken care of to planning and booking meetings and seminars. It's
very wide ranging and is a ton of responsibility. As noted elsewhere a good EA practically
runs the company.
I work from home 2 days a week. My wife thought I was nuts when I brought home a gaming
headset and 2nd monitor for the PC I use at home.
She thought I was sitting at home playing minecraft all day.
The reality is I need lots of screen space to doy job and I have conference call meetings
several times a day. I can actually hear and be heard with the headset.
I agree the downside is getting tagged for late day or after hours emergency work because
I can respond quickly.
I ended up buying an egpu so I could hook up a third monitor to my laptop. Currently trying
to figure out how to arrange stuff on my desk to fit a fourth; may have to start mounting
them on swivel arms. I want as much screen space as I can get when I doy job.
I also have an hdmi switch to change the monitors to my gaming machine when it's Minecraft
time. Tax deductible 4k 27 " monitors are good for that too.
Got a stud above/behind your desk? The fourth one on the wall angled down can work pretty
well, throw your notifications bar up there, calendar, anything you rarely glance at but
should be able to see without moving another program or window.
All of these makes sense, but I am just going to add the following: - Your friends should
recognize if you are yourself or if you are frustrated, close to being burned out. That is a
clear indicator if you are at right job or not. - Your friends should also be able to help
you figure out if you are appreciated and in a company with good culture
Good companies/management do everything they can to empower employees, provide adequate
training, and set realistic expectations. All of that increases employees' morale and
confidence. Without those two, company is bound to fail sooner or later.
Your friends should recognize if you are yourself or if you are frustrated, close to
being burned out. That is a clear indicator if you are at right job or not.
Your friends should also be able to help you figure out if you are appreciated and in
a company with good culture
And, as your friend, you might want to listen to us if we point out these things more than
a few times. There are one off vent sessions over a beer then there are long-term, consistent
complaints.
Yes, sometimes you just want to vent, but if someone is pointing out the same thing
constantly, they may have a point and it's up to you to start on a path to changing the
situation.
This. Many resources out there clearly state that your friends either support your success or
place negative labels on your success.
Go check out 7 habits of highly effective peeps. Will give you a completely new
perspective. Not just about friends but yourself and how you interact with others.
Sorry, it seems this comment or thread has violated a sub-reddit rule and has been removed by
a moderator.
Community Members Shall Conduct Themselves With Professionalism.
This is a Community of Professionals, for Professionals.
Please treat community members politely - even when you disagree.
No personal attacks - debate issues, challenge sources - but don't make or take things
personally.
No posts that are entirely memes or AdviceAnimals or Kitty GIFs.
Please try and keep politically charged messages out of discussions.
Intentionally trolling is considered impolite, and will be acted against.
The acts of Software Piracy, Hardware Theft, and Cheating are considered
unprofessional, and posts requesting aid in committing such acts shall be removed.
No, he just needs to understand that people give generic advice that they think sounds good
but they really don't understand your job or have never been in your situation. And he does.
Being able to empathize with your friends concerns, to understand their feelings without
understanding exactly what they're going through, is a talent that not everybody has. Neither
is being self-aware enough to recognize when you lack such a talent and instead say "wow,
that sounds tough, I don't have any advice, but good luck." But these are not the only
attributes that make someone friend-worthy.
On the other hand, not everybody can tolerate having friends that lack empathy and
understanding. So for some the answer "they need new friends" may be true, I just don't think
OP necessarily does. In fact, I think it's the same kind of generic, bad advice that I'm
talking about to say that he does.
Neither is being self-aware enough to recognize when you lack such a talent and instead
say "wow, that sounds tough, I don't have any advice, but good luck."
When I'm in situations like this (I can't advise because I lack context or experience) I
advise flipping a coin. Quit after finding a new job or stay and keep trying to change the
place, heads or tails. After you've flipped the coin and seen the result, examine your
feeling... disappointed or relieved? There's your answer regardless of the coin toss you know
how you really feel, and should trust your gut.
This! When my friend(s) complain about their current workplace/position/etc I always
recommend they get their feelers out and start looking. It may take a while but you'll
eventually find something.
It took me almost a year to find something comparable or better but didn't land the final
interview this past year. But, my old job lost our largest client and I am now working for
said client. Couldn't be happier!
You don't know what someone deals with & those people may want to bend over backward to
help this person if they could. Don't automatically label them shitty friends. You don't even
know them.
No. I trust them and usually come to them when I'm emotionally invested/upset and yelling
about a situation at work. Making decisions in this mindset is always a bad idea. I was
talked off a ledge long enough to make a smart, calculated decision.
You probably figured this out already, but the whole "go hire someone" thing was a ploy to
keep you around a little longer. They gave you permission to recruit, not authority to hire.
They were never going to green light the position.
You also facilitated management's bad behavior by putting too much effort into doing the
right thing. You weren't valued or appreciated, you were just taken advantage of.
Spot on. I was given the illusion of great authority, but in the end - not on the things that
matter. I borderline want to say the word 'budget' doesn't exist here.
This. Why would they hire someone when you're doing it all. IT employees have a much better
stress level, work life balance, and career when they learn how to say no or "that's not my
role". Unless you're trying to get into that area, never volunteer you do work that should be
done by another area. It'll start becoming the norm and will never stop. Good luck on your
next gig though!
Yeah. I learned at my old job that the "what can we do to keep you?" question is bullshit.
It's a way for them to determine what they can lie to your face about to string you along as
far as possible. I asked for a team change, and they managed to string me along saying I was
approved for almost 9 months, until suddenly I'm not approved anymore and there's not even a
spot open for me.
Never again will I attempt to be honest with my manager. You can know that I'm thinking
about leaving when I give you my 2 weeks notice.
Thanks for the story, and the perspective. I'm the sole SA at a smallish entertainment-based
development studio, didn't understand half the tech you reference and I do have a senior
network architect I can (remotely) fall back on, but many days I'm totally overwhelmed. We
had a major product success last year and we've been ramping up like crazy. More office
rollout, more servers, more users, more developers (so like users but worse), more backup
needs, more bandwidth, more "and can you get better teleconference speakers for the meeting
rooms", more baroque software licensing to figure out, also do I have batteries? Mouse pads?
Highlighters? Why are you asking me for highlighters? No I can't fix your chair. Etc etc. And
I'm waiting for that one crucial system to break that I won't know how to fix.
I guess I'm just saying your post gave me some much-needed perspective. Cheers.
The best time to look for a job is when you don't need a job
Hell yeah! I quit about 6 months ago and don't even look. I get sporadic emails from
LinkedIn and other avenues and if things look good, I'll apply, otherwise the hell with it.
I've had a few interviews but sadly most places look like they have issues with
understaffing, overworked, etc.
Ah well, in the next few years I'm sure something good comes up.
Had my jr get assigned 2 more standing desks this week (about 8 installed in the last 2
months and I guess we literally can't trust someone to unplug their 3 cables from the little
NUC...). I wrote him an email discussing the core parts of his job and how no one cares about
how many standing desks are or are not installed at any given time. Focus on doing your job
well, please talk to me or CIO if you are getting stressed by any workload (we all know that
sometimes it feels like the tickets just stream in and you make no headway no matter what you
do). We'll do whatever is needed to either take care of em.
I have also done some stand up desk troubleshooting and installation, if it has a wire in it
or on it, or even holds something with a sufficient number of wires people can claim it is
confusing, it's your problem. 15 years of working in the IT/SA field and I'm unboxing a desk
because 'my computer has all the wires and I'll probably just mess it up if I try to move
everything myself'. Fortunately our users are very reasonable in general.
How about one of those tiny space heaters? A user asked me if I could figure out why it
wasn't working, and all I did was flip a big red switch marked "ON."
Start to say no. Do the hours in your contract and go home. When stuff doesn't get done tell
them you need more people. Either they get more people or you search for a new job. But if
they don't get more people you would search for a new job anyway. Just burned out.
Seems to me like a lot of horror stories here are because people either care too much or
are deeply afraid of looking for a new job. These conditions exist because you let them.
Years ago a manager from a different department (non IT obviously) walked over to us to let
us know a toilet was clogged. We all just looked at him and laughed. I was also yelled at
once for not helping someone move a file cabinet during an office move, while we still had
tons of PC's left to setup.
IT has always been the "well, we don't have above whose responsibility it is to take care
of this, so IT can do it" field.
I'm going through a similar situation to you OP but for a different reason.
I left a good MSP job (busy and at times frustrating) for a larger employer and the job I
was expecting to have is not at all like the one I applied for it's very boring and quite
slow with too much idle time sometimes which is weird since it's an operations roles for a
billion dollar business but probably half of the "work" I'm doing now is "hey sorry to wake
you but we got this alarm and we've raised an incicent can you take a look" when I used to
design and manage environments end to end.
My job for some people would be the jackpot but for me it's awful and I'm considering
leaving to go back to my way more stressful MSP job.
My problem is I have too many resources to call on (multiple teams to escalate to) and I'm
just left watching the screens because of it.
This is what I'm afraid of as well but I need more friggin money. The screen watchers
actually make more because they exist in big companies with lots of money.
We definantely do some automation but maybe not enough.
The alarms are mostly validation checks (is it actually p1? Is that event due to a
change?) and anything that can be automated is and we don't get alerts for it.
Our alarm dashboard is an aggregator of a ton of systems that all send their alarms to
it.
Unfortunately once the infrastructure and databases become self healing we're all out of a
job.
Same boat here. "is this really going to happen again before this system is decommed?" Should
I spend a few hours making a good test that will determine if its really this problem again
and fixing it + reporting the result of the fix? Or should I spend the 6 minutes it takes to
fix this and move on with my life.
Re: Self healing - out of a job. Oh PLEASE! We're not out of a job when stuff is self
healing; we're into a new one. I'm just a regular sys admin and even I am starting to think
about how I can use machine learning to solve issues I face or to improve our business. It'll
be QUITE some time before I actually start doing anthing with ML, let alone something useful.
I'd LOVE to have more time to play with new stuff.
We use ansible for automation. I do love it but it's fairly time consuming to setup (half the
stuff is in a txt doc waiting for a playbook to be built)
Management jobs usually require some management experience and I have a little bit of team
leading experience but not the sort of "manage this budget and this department" management
experience I'm also torn between making that jump to management and getting "off the tools"
or doing a deep dive into a specific set of technical tools.
My dad was an engineer for various semiconductor factories for years. He hit that same point
in his role - but there was a much bigger push to go to management, which he did. after about
5 years of that he quit - he was way to burnt out and hasn't returned to corporate life
since. The money was good but the job wasn't worth it.
Hell, the only job he's had in years was as a general contractor putting in sinks and
stuff making what I do as a help desk monkey.
I'm sort of going into a remote management position. Working for a MSP as problem escalation
for 8 techs. Finding 'teachable moments' (probably all of them!) to train on troubleshooting
process. In my spare time I'll be getting amazon aws certs and I'll eventually move into a
different role. Sounds challenging enough not to be bored :)
Oh I can do their jobs they're like "tier 3" while we're "tier 2" and we can do actual work
(permissions allowing) our team holds the same level of certs they do (MCSA, MCSE etc) were
just in at a different layer of the business which is changing.
I don't just watch for alarms and escalate it's just a small part of the role really but
it's the most prominent part when you're on the graveyards which always makes me a bit
resentful of my own choice to come here.
No, he said he had to sweep snow off a satellite dish because it's heater was broke. He said
nothing about being on the roof. Sweeping dishes after a heavy snowfall is not uncommon. I
had to do the same thing this morning while on-call.
I work in a small environment incredibly similar to OP's, Calix, Metaswitch, etc. We have
a SME for each area; one for voice, one for IP/IT systems (me), one for video, and two
outside plant guys. We cover/triage each others duties during on-call rotation. It works well
enough for us, but sounds like OP is doing it all. It would be one thing if he had to only
deal with the non-IT stuff on occasion, but if all those responsibilities are solely his,
thats untenable.
If it's a small company everyone needs to chip in beyond their official responsibility to
make things work, but they also need to be compensated at the rate of their top skills and
not driven into the ground. IMO
The problem here is that you kept the ship running, even though you told management you
needed help, things were still getting done.
Management will not do anything about thing until they break, so while you bust your ass
keeping things going they don't care how you did it. All they know is things are still
running.
You either have to show them things breaking or put your foot down negotiate a commitment to
hire a hand.
Just out of interest what was their reaction when you handed in your notice? Did they counter
or they simply decided to hire a replacement. They must have been in a world of hurt if it
was the latter and you were the only one doing that role.
Yep, a recruiter bringing someone in will cost 15-25k. Giving someone an internal referral
for 7k is comparative peanuts, AND you get two happy employees because of that.
Heya, I don't know how far into your career you are, but I'm 45, pretty senior level (I've
been a c-level exec) and wanted to tell you:
Don't ever compromise. Ever.
I am in a similar situation at an MSP (I'm in a leadership role) and have the same kinds
of conversations about resources and losing valuable workers because there's no help. The
management above me isn't listening and we are going to lose a very fine employee (like
yourself -- someone with skill who is trying to make it better but is not being
heard -- and it's because management don't know how to run an ITIL-based shop and hire to
that kind of skill set. I put toghether a framework to measure qualifications of our
employees and they all measure up to Tier 1 analysts/engineers (in both experience and quals)
and some of them are considered Tier 3 employees and they can't do something as simple as
read and interpret a Wireshark packet capture. And I keep being told either "we have to make
do with what we have" or "you're not seeing what good they can do". So clearly in my case
there's a division in vision for leadership and I'm giving up and probably moving on. In your
case, you tried, gave your input, and, if they're not gonna listen to you, move on. Your
expectations are NOT too high. Their expectations aren't high enough. Move on to somewhere
there's a fit. You can only help someone from burning their hand on the stove so many times
before you give up and go watch TV.
Yes. They all are 6 months to 1 year out of technical school. They are able to accomplish
SOME tasks. They are unskilled at anything above Tier 1 despite someone saying "you know
about X. Here, go do it."
For instance, a windows admin should be able to implement GPO and know what it's about.
Maybe have an MS cert. but our main windows admin is working towards his CCNA and has been
out of school for 6 months. Not exactly a right fit for that job.
I've been in a similar situation, the problem is not necessarily an issue with vision. More
than likely upper management have been given the mandate to keep costs down or at least
same.
So they will come up with any excuse not to hire more people or if someone of good quality
leaves they will only hire someone lower quality i.e. lower pay.
That is the problem with corporate culture everyone is there looking only after number one,
as long as the job is getting done they don't care how much those doing it care about the
company or that they are doing their jobs efficiently, cost effective or to a high
standard.
All they care about is that the job is getting done.
Stories like this is why I gave up trying. Used to, I would change my plans to do a last
minute cutover on the weekend because you changed the date 3 different times. These days, my
response is always, "I have an opening 3 weeks from now".....because I don't let it fuck up
my life anymore. Frankly, nothing has happened since I started giving those answers. What are
they going to do anyways? Hire someone else? pffft.
Christ, I felt bad for myself when I quit MY job but goddamn, you were in a
shithole! Glad you found something better.
I still hear from people at my old job that nothing has changed. They hire someone else
but never fix the problems. Overworked, understaffed, complaints are listened too with great
concern and then ignored.
It does sound very much like they're, perhaps unwittingly, taking advantage of you and you're
right to want to leave a job that's damaging your life so terribly.
I mean, works sucks most of the time, but it doesn't have to suck ALL the time and there
should be at least enough people to have the work ease off from time to time or you just go
manic from the stress.
Everybody expects different things from their job and not all jobs are right for all
people. IMO, life is too short to spend it doing a job you hate or working in a toxic
environment. I applaud your efforts to try and improve things but ultimately you've got to
draw a line where enough is enough and just move on. Do what's right by you, because your
company is working every day to do what's right by them and not necessarily what's good for
you.
Something sounds off. You talked to the ceo about what they can do, and they have their own
headend, but won't outsource the printers? That's always the first thing that needs to be
sourced out because it's petty shit like toner or pain in ass like the fuser.
Sounds like they needed someone to streamline the processes, and have 2-3 more people on
board. A senior network guy and two more minions eager to learn and take those 'patch cable
broken' or port security tickets.
You were used hard and long and have been fed bad advice. You should have left that place
long ago and hopefully this lesson will stick with you forever.
The same two questions, every time, before you go looking. And then the third, when you have
an offer on the table (sometimes it's one you went looking for, sometimes it's one that just
appeared in your inbox).
Are you happy? If not, why not?
Will a different job make you happier?
Will this opportunity make you happier?
Sometimes the problem is at home, and changing your work life might help (if it brings
more money or a shorter commute), and sometimes it won't. Sometimes the problem is at work,
and you can influence change either within the organization or within yourself (changing your
expectations, adjusting your work schedule to be earlier or later, discussing with your
management group about changes to your role, etc) in order to improve the situation. Or you
improve your work situation by leaving it behind, if there is no way to improve it or the
people who can help improve it are unwilling (or themselves unable) to do so.
Yes, sometimes the easy opportunities for change just aren't there, and you need to make
harder decisions about the change your life needs. In those moments one should be grateful
for what they have, but it doesn't necessarily mean they should accept that this is their lot
in life. Maybe you need to move. Maybe you're looking for a remote position. Maybe you take
the plunge and live off savings for a few months -- though unless you're on the verge of a
breakdown, this can cause complications later; it's generally true that it is easier to find
a job if you have a job. Not universally, but generally. Maybe you give up IT and become a
Birthday Clown, because you enjoy making children happy more than you enjoy clicking buttons
anymore.
Best of luck to you in your new place, hopefully it works out!
Are your friends in IT in any way? I find that most people have no idea what IT means, or the
individual fields. They expect the same person who helps them with spreadsheets also
makes/updates the websites, sets up the phone system, maintains the network.. and may even
think they plug in their power bar. Most people can't discern the difference between
facilities, an electrician and someone in one of the many fields of IT in my experience.
Heck, at my company the executives have no idea what I do. They ask me to do things from
investigate and roll out MDM.. to go to one of our communities and setup one of the
resident's televisions. I've even been asked to install generator power outlets.. I've just
learned to say "no" and explain to them who's responsibility it is. If they are unwilling to
hire someone or even just bring the proper person from within the organization, the problem
can stay a problem.
Your friends may not be crappy, they might just be clueless.
The CEO found out and we sat down ... He puts that responsibility on me.
I've seen my own managers do the same, and still am thinking through if, when and how it's
a mistake. Managers are there to support and enable important things happening. If it's a
small thing then all they need to do is give you permission to do it. But if it's a big thing
then they need to mange it, e.g track it, ask how it's going, ask what you need, get
other people involved, set priorities etc. Not just give a pep talk, say "it's on you now"
and wash hands of it. That basically means, "cheer up, but I don't care". If I wanted someone
to listen carefully and then do nothing about it I'd go to therapy, thanks.
Being that IT is generally a self-taught field, where we can play around with and test things
before doing them in production...
I recommend sticking to jobs where you're doing commonly reproducible/testable software
stuff. i.e. standard Windows/Linux servers + standard software. Basically things that can be
completely learned and tested in virtual machines, without needing any special hardware at
all.
I reckon all the proprietary "black box" / vendor specific devices etc you mentioned make
working in "IT" much much more stressful. You basically have to learn a whole heap of
different systems where what you learn is only applicable to one device. And you can't easily
play around with them like you can with pure software and virtual machines etc. So you're
often learning & testing in production, and even then, only once something has already
failed. And you're likely not going to have spare parts, or even be able to get them easily.
The same goes for network engineers dealing with lots of cisco routers etc to a certain
degree. Basically anything that involves hardware except for standard PCs and servers running
Windows or Linux.
I worked for a post-production company for a while, and yeah it was similar. I was busy as
fuck with the regular standard everyday IT shit, yet still had the responsibly to figure out
all there proprietary devices etc that I'd never even heard of before. And because they're
not commonplace IT stuff, there's fuckall information on the internet to learn about them and
troubleshoot etc. And of course learning about that shit doesn't translate into useful skills
you can take elsewhere in other IT jobs.
So yeah these days, I'm 100% software. I actually do IT consulting part time, and even
when my clients want to buy hardware, I just give them some recommendations and get them to
order it directly from Dell or whoever. I don't want to be responsible for hardware failures,
of which I have zero control over.
OP I'm in the same boat. COO found out that my medial issues I may jump ship. Had a chat and
he said he would do everything to get people hired. My boss has had approval for hiring for
weeks now and not one person has been interviewed. I have also been thinking about getting
medicated because I'm in denial with work. I'm going to jump ship soon take time off and see
what happens.
That is what MSP is. MSP is the environment where self-driven, stoic people survive and other
people crumble. MSP is especially tough in the role like yours as you have no one to rely on
anymore, but everyone else is coming to you to fix a problem they can't figure out. I am
there, been there for awhile. People think you are smarter than them, but all you are is more
persistent and willing to sacrifice your sanity and your free time to figure out a problem by
going to 10th page of google and performing advanced search queries on reddit.
I think MSP life after age of 35 is impossible to do unless you are crazy. :)
You were in an impossible situation with really shit poor management. Don't waste a second
thought. They'll either figure out why they can't keep people or they'll fail in spectacular
fashion. The bottom line is you have to protect yourself and your interests, you owe that
company nothing. The only time you owe a company that isn't your own is if the company makes
significant investment in your and your career, which your former company clearly didn't.
Good for you on recognizing that you had options. In many ways in that former situation you
were the one with the power and its great that you exercised it.
I went through practically the same thing. Found a nice job down the street from my house I
could just walk to. They had a full web team to handle all their websites and web problems,
but their skills were about 20 years old. At first I didn't notice because I would handle IT
/ network problems all day.
Then eventually I started getting web site issues pushed to me, then web design issues.
Eventually I was building all their web sites and running their entire web platform while
everyone else on that team just sat around all day making emails. All this extra work never
came with any pay increase and everyone would always say "You do everything here, if you
leave we're screwed".
A day came when there was a landslide of issues combined with an HR nightmare and nobody
seemed to wanted to handle anything. By the end of the day I realized I had wanted to leave
the job for over a year and I was only staying to keep things together until I got everything
to a stable point. Unfortunately this place could never reach a stable point because their
management was an absolute shit show and never wanted to step up to face any big
problems.
This seems really common after reading some stories here. A good amount of IT people
probably feel obligated to keep things running even when they hate their job.
I also found a remote job with a ridiculous salary increase after going through so many
interviews to the point of utter mental exhaustion. The grass definitely can be greener
sometimes its just much harder to find than you would ever think.
Iberiano says:
September 29, 2018 at 11:47 am GMT 300 Words Looking at that photo of the former primary
contenders, reminded me of all the holier-than-though talk we got from the right-of-center,
about how Trump was too gruff, and crass, about everything, including sexual topics,
interactions with women, etc.
What these hearings demonstrated, that we already knew, was that the Puritan-Jew alliance is
obsessed with all things sexual, perverted, distasteful theirs is a world of, as you
point out, "preppy white boy" fantasies, where the bad guys look like the blond jock in Karate
Kid, and drive around in their Dad's 1982 Buick Regal or their own '79 Camero, looking to
"score" with virginal know-nothing, Red Riding Hoods, that happen to find themselves at 'gang
rape parties' (?), out of nowhere. Who go on to have Leftist careers only to resurrect
repressed memories 35 years later–projected in front of the world
It's a silly framework from which they obsess, but it's similar to Kinsey, Mead and others
of the Left. Sex. Projection, doubling-down, and an absence of due process to punish people for
the very things that actually occupy their minds. Even in her advanced age, you could
tell, Feinstein was enjoying the open air discussions regarding sexual topics.
Let the Right / Never-Trumpers be on notice–Trump is light fare compared to where the
Left will go and has been, regarding women, sex, and all things crass.
Those are signs of political crisis, not the other way around
Notable quotes:
"... The historical parallel is American social and political polarization in the decades prior to the American Civil War. It is conceivable martial law and military power will resolve the conflict and contradictions not reconciled by rule of law and politics. ..."
I am concerned about dysfunction and incivility
in American culture and politics.
The historical parallel is American social and political polarization in the decades
prior to the American Civil War. It is conceivable martial law and military power will resolve
the conflict and contradictions not reconciled by rule of law and politics.
This topic was raised when Senator Lindsey Graham questioned Judge Brett Kavanaugh in the
confirmation hearings.
See YouTube video: Senator Lindsey Graham Questions Brett Kavanaugh Military Law vs Criminal Law.
"... My take on Rosenstein is he went to the WH to force Trump to accept his resignation or fire him or keep him and thus shut him up either way because even as large a fool as Trump can't be so stupid as to fire RR before the midterms. A trap laid by the Deputy AG not the media imho to also take heat off Mueller. ..."
Last Friday the New York Times published
a story that reflected negatively on the loyalty of Deputy Attorney General Rod
Rosenstein towards President Trump. Rosenstein, the NYT claimed, suggested to
wiretap Trump and to remove him by using the 25th amendment. Other news reports contradicted
the claim and Rosenstein himself denied it.
The report was a trap to push Trump towards an impulsive firing of the number two in the
Justice Department, a repeat of Nixon's Saturday Night Massacre . The
Democrats would have profited from such an ' October surprise ' in the November 6
midterm elections. A campaign to exploit such a scandal to get-out-the-votes was already
well prepared .
The trap did not work. The only one who panicked was Rosenstein. He feared for his
reputation should he get fired. To prevent such damage he offered to resign amicably. He
tried this at least three times:
By Friday evening, concerned about testifying to Congress over the revelations that he
discussed wearing a wire to the Oval Office and invoking the constitutional trigger to
remove Mr. Trump from office, Mr. Rosenstein had become convinced that he should resign,
according to people close to him. He offered during a late-day visit to the White House to
quit, according to one person familiar with the encounter, but John F. Kelly, the White
House chief of staff, demurred.
...
Also over the weekend, Mr. Rosenstein again told Mr. Kelly that he was considering
resigning. On Sunday, Mr. Rosenstein repeated the assertion in a call with Donald F. McGahn
II, the White House counsel. Mr. McGahn -- [...] -- asked Mr. Rosenstein to postpone their
discussion until Monday.
...
By about 9 a.m. Monday, Mr. Rosenstein was in his office on the fourth floor of the Justice
Department when reporters started calling. Was it true that Mr. Rosenstein was planning to
resign, they asked.
...
At the White House the deputy attorney general slipped into a side entrance to the West
Wing and headed to the White House counsel's office to meet with Mr. McGahn, who had by
then been told by Mr. Kelly that Mr. Rosenstein was on his way and wanted to resign.
McGhan punted the issue back to Kelly and finally Rosenstein spoke with Trump. Trump did
not fire him nor did he resign. It is now
expected that he will stay until the end of the year or even
longer :
President Trump told advisers he is open to keeping Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein
on the job, and allies of the No. 2 Justice Department official said Tuesday he has given
them the impression he doesn't plan to quit.
The trap did not work. Neither did Trump panic nor did the White House allow the panicking
Rod Rosenstein to pull the trigger. The people who set this up, by leaking some dubious FBI
memo to the NYT , did not achieve their aims.
There are only six weeks left until the midterm elections. What other October surprises
might be planned by either side?
Posted by b on September 26, 2018 at 11:20 AM |
Permalink
This account gives an interesting twist, that Trump wants to keep Rosenstein
as leverage.
I think it is not in the interest of Trump to do anything that could look like hampering the
Mueller investigation. It might be in his interest to try to force Mueller to show what he
has bevore the midterm elections, but that could also be seen as a form of hampering.
I think there are already lots of indications that the whole Russiagate collusion story
was fabricated. The messages between Peter Strzok und Lisa Page point towards this direction,
and it seems that different stories that were used for Russiagate were connected.
It seems that the Steele dossier played a crucial role for getting warrants for spying on
the Trump campaign and for starting the media campaign about Trump-Russia "collusion".
Obviously, the Steele dossier is a rather implausible conspiracy theory (allegedly, Russia
made preparations for Trump's candidacy years earlier when hardly anyone thought Trump would
have the slightest chance of being nominated by a major party), contains no evidence for the
allegations, and the elements that can be verified are either banal and don't show collusion
or they are false (e.g. Trump's lawyer going to Prague, it seems he has an alibi, and there
are leaks that there was another person named Michael Cohen, without a connection to Trump,
who flew to Prague, so Steele probably had access to flight data, but did not do further
verifications).
A further strand of "Russiagate" is the story around Papadopoulos. First, it should be
noted that it hardly shows foreknowledge of the DNC leaks when someone may have speculated
that Russia may have e-mails from Hillary Clinton - at that time, the deleted mails from
Clinton's private server were talked about a lot, and one of the concerns that was often
mentioned was that Clinton's private server may have been hacked by Russia or China. None of
the versions of what Papadopoulos was allegedly told by Mifsud and told Downer specifically
mention DNC or Podesta e-mails. Second, the people involved had close connections to Western
intelligence services. Mifsud had close ties with important EU institutions and was connected
with educational institutions used by Western intelligence agencies (mainly Italian, British,
FBI). If he really was a Russian spy, there would have been larger consequences, and the FBI
would hardly have let him go after questioning him. According to a book by Roh and Pastor who
have known Mifsud for a long time, he denies having told Papadopoulos anything about damaging
material about Hillary Clinton (Mifsud also said that in an interview), and Mifsud suspects
Papadopoulos of being a provocateur of Western intelligence services - Papadopoulos
forcefully tried to create connections between the Trump campaign and Russians, but both
sides were not willing to go along (a representative of a Russian think tank which
Papadopoulos asked to invite Trump answered that the Trump campaign should send an official
request, which never followed). Papadopoulos was in (probably frequent) contact with FBI
informer Stefan Halper, and it may be that Papadopoulos was an unwitting provocateur because
of events Stefan Halper arranged. The Australian diplomat Downer has connections to the
Clinton foundation (he helped arranging large payments by Australia) and Western secret
services. Third, what has exactly been said by whom is disputed. As mentioned, Mifsud denies
mentioning anything about damaging material on Hillary Clinton to Papadopoulos (the only one
who claims this is Papadopoulos), and Papadopoulos denies mentioning e-mails to Downer. It
seems, Papadopoulos were only half-willing participants in the setup arranged by Stefan
Halper whose goal was to have some background for the message that could be received from
Downer. Papadopoulos' wife has shared a picture of Stefan Halper and Downer together, which
also fits the idea that this story was set up by FBI informant Halper with Downer.
The visit of the Russian lawyer Veselnitskaya was arranged by Fusion GPS, and she met with
him before and after the meeting she met with Glen Simpson.
Of course, we are just in the beginning, there is certainly enough concrete material for
starting an investigation (unlike with the alleged Trump-Russia collusion), but many details
are still open. Those who presumably set up the collusion story went from offensive to
defensive, even if that might not be clear if someone reads particularly biased media. Now,
the time until the midterms certainly is not enough for conducting and concluding such an
investigation. But it should be enough for unclassifying and publishing some documents that
shed further light on these events.
The time for more decisive action against those who set up Russiagate may be after the
midterm elections, and how easy that will be probably partly depends on the election result.
Therefore, I suppose that Trump and other Republicans will strongly press for important
documents being unclassified and published before the elections.
Trump admin and GOP Congress are doing almost everything possible to alienate the majority of
the public on a wide spectrum of issues that's also helped threaten the positions of
Republicans masquerading as Democrats. The fallout from the 2016 Primary and subsequent
disclosures about Clinton and DNC corruption and law breaking--meddling in elections and
caucuses--has emboldened numerous people--particularly women--who were previously politically
apathetic, not just to run for office, but also to work to get like-minded candidates
elected. Sanders called for an insurrection--and yes, he's still sheep dogging--and it's
emerged and isn't totally controlled by the DemParty despite its efforts: The cat's out of
the bag.
Now I expect the usual attacks using the trite adage that voting doesn't matter. Well,
guess what, Trump's election proves that adage to be 100% false. There's only one path to
making America Great and that's by getting the neoliberals and neocons out of government; and
the only way to do that is to run candidates with opposing positions and elect
them--then--once in office, they need to oust the vermin from the bureaucracy--Drain the
Swamp, as Trump put it. I know it can be done as it's been done before during two different
epochs of US History. And the System was just as rigged against popular success than as it is
now.
Karlof1 I agree w you 100%. Voters can make a difference and change is still possible however
unlikely and rare. The problem is voter complacency which is fed by cynicism. Ironically
younger liberal voters tend to be the most complacent especially at the midterm elections.
This year complacency doesn't appear to be an issue so we will probably see a Dem House in
January if not also a Dem Senate.
My take on Rosenstein is he went to the WH to force Trump to accept his resignation or
fire him or keep him and thus shut him up either way because even as large a fool as Trump
can't be so stupid as to fire RR before the midterms. A trap laid by the Deputy AG not the
media imho to also take heat off Mueller.
Trump could shock the world by being on his best behavior for a few weeks. (j/k don't hold
your breath).
Just a little review:
In November, Dems are expected to take the House of Representatives by a modest margin.
The House, not the Senate determines impeachment. Impeachment is like an indictment -- the
Senate would then have a "trial" of sorts, and then to convict, you need 2/3 majority of
Senators. Nobody expects that.
Nixon actually resigned out of shame after being impeached. Clinton didn't. Trump gives
zero f**ks so this outcome isn't even worth discussing.
The Senate is more important. It is just barely within reach for Democrats if everything
goes in their favor. If they win every single seat that is competitive, Democrats get 51/100
seats, plus 2 independents who side with them, but minus a couple of Democrats-in-name-only
who regularly vote with Republicans (West Virginia's Manchin for example). Recall that the
Vice President (Pence) is the tie-breaking vote in the Senate.
More realistically, in a still optimistic scenario, Democrats will lose one or more of the
competitive races, and end up with 49-50 votes in the Senate. (they are expected to win big
in 2 years in 2020, due to many more Republicans facing re-election then).
Only someone morbidly partisan within the Corporate One-Party would bother seeking the
impeachment of a fungible geek like a US president. Indeed, those fixated on impeachment
evidently have no rationale beyond Trump Derangement Syndrome. To replace Trump with Pence
would be no improvement and most likely would make things worse. Trump and Pence share the
corporate globalization ideology and goals, but Trump's more chaotic execution is more likely
to lead to chaotic, perhaps system-destructive effects more quickly than a more disciplined
execution. The same is true of any Democrat we could envision replacing Trump in 2020.
That's why it was a good thing that Trump won in 2016: He's more likely to bring about a
faster collapse of the US empire and of the globalization system in general. Not because
these are his goals, but because his indiscipline adds a much-needed wild card to the
deck.
Needless to say, humanity and the Earth have nothing to lose, as we're slowly but surely
being exterminated once and for all regardless.
@Justsaying
Trump's infamous campaign slogan of MAGA quickly mutated into MIGA which is the originally
intended version anyways. Obedience to Israel has become a norm in presidential election
campaigns. Even the disenfranchised minority caucuses, including and especially the Black one
is firmly in Israel's pockets now. The Black leadership role has now been essentially reduced
to making the odd noise after the shooting of an unarmed Black by a White cop.
"The Black leadership role has now been essentially reduced to making the odd noise
after the shooting of an unarmed Black by a White cop."
As a brown person in Asia I grew up inculcated with the idea that I must always be in
solidarity with black people in America and they would be with me (it was the 1970s, Malcolm
X was still a fresh memory, Muhammad Ali still strode the scene like a colossus, and Martin
Luther King Jr was still thought of as a hero in most circles).
Today, black Americans are people so wallowing in self abnegation that they mass voted for
the racist war criminal Killary Clinton, owing to whose actions black people in America were
incarcerated in hitherto unknown numbers; due to whose crimes black people in Haiti were
looted to destitution; because of whom black people in Libya are literally being sold as
slaves. Black Americans parade around saying "black lives matter", but are more than happy
voting for war criminals who loot Haitian blacks, enslave Libyan blacks, massacre Somali
blacks, deprive Sudanese blacks of life saving drugs, and plot to imperialistically occupy
Africa, a continent of black people. Forget about us brown people, to American blacks in
2018, black lives do *not* matter.
Only virtue signalling and tribal identity matters. Nothing else.
CNN: Former Trump campaign aide Michael Caputo weighs in on who he believes wrote the
anonymously authored op-ed published in the New York Times that was highly critical of
President Donald Trump.
Caputo also said the real writer of the piece is a ghostwriter in terms of looking for the
person behind the piece. Caputo said he believes the person is a woman.
"The language of the op-ed is useless to look at because it's a ghostwriter," he said.
"I think, first of all, this person will never admit it. In my mind, the author of this
op-ed believes that she is a hero to the American people," Caputo also said.
MICHAEL CAPUTO, FMR. TRUMP ADVISOR: I'm fairly certain I know who it is. I've been going
through this parlor game like everybody else has and I am also completely 100% certain that
the person who wrote this is on the list of people who said they didn't write it.
FREDRICKA WHITFIELD, CNN HOST: Alright. So who do you think it is?
CAPUTO: I'm not going to go into that. My attorney tells me it's a bad idea. But I can
tell you think...
WHITFIELD: You consulted your attorney. You said I think I know who this is based on
certain language that was and you consulted your attorney and your attorney says don't reveal
it?
CAPUTO: Right. Based on language. Based on the fact that I believe these kinds of people
leave a trail of crumbs when they are trying to deceive people around them. This is the way
it is always is. And if the president looks at key departments of his government that has
been purged of all Trump supporters that is a good place to start, and that actually exists.
Trump supporters have been purged from this government for 18 months. Last week I spent the
evening with several friends of mine from the Trump campaign: all of them have been forced
out of the Trump administration. ...
I don't think this person is in the White House... this person really has to be high up.
It's got to be a deputy, secretary-level, or higher, otherwise The New York Times is
misleading people.
WHITFIELD: Do you believe it is someone who has taken an oath?
CAPUTO: I believe so...
The White House political office and others have kind of shrugged off the idea about
losing the House and maybe being impeached because the Senate won't do anything. They won't
convict the president on the charges of impeachment. But I think when we find out who this
person is, and the president team should find out, we're going to find out this person has
real deep and abiding ties to Congress and this op-ed is one step closer not just to
impeachment but conviction...
I started with this. Who is the person who I believe hates the president the most? Who is
the person in the administration who has screamed about him in their own private office and
gone forward and purged their entire office of Trump people? ...
I think, first of all, this person will never admit it. In my mind, the author of this
op-ed believes that she is a hero to the American people.
Sic Semper Tyrannis has published a response to the Rosenstein fantastic "Indictment of
Trolls" (Part II): "Something Rotten About the DOJ Indictment of the GRU," by Publius Tacitus
http://www.turcopolier.typepad.com
"Assistant Attorney General Rosenstein announced a bizarre indictment against Russian
military intelligence operatives today that, rather than confirming the case of "Russian
meddling" in the U.S. 2016 Presidential election raises more questions. Here are the major
oddities:
1. How did the FBI obtain information about activity on the DNC and DCCC servers when the
DNC/DCCC refused to give the Feds access to the servers/computers?
2. Why does Crowdstrike get credit as being a competent computer security firm when,
according to the indictment, they completely and utterly failed to stop the "hacks?
"
3. Why does the indictment refuse to name Wikileaks by name as the Russian collaborator? Here
is the bottomline–if US officials knew as early as April that Russia was hacking the
DNC, why did it take US officials more than six months to stop the activity? The statement of
"facts" contained in the indictment also raises another troubling issue–what is the
source of the information? For example, if the FBI was not given access to the DNC/DCCC
servers and computers then how do they know what happened on specific dates as alleged in the
complaint?"
-- Why does the US national security hang on the opinions and concoctions of a visceral
Russophobe Dm. Alperovitch (a ziocon) who is an "expert" (together with the badly uneducated
Elliot Higgins) at the thoroughly corrupted and zionized Atlantic Council?
-- What kind of antisemite has been working hard to make the US Jewry at large suspected in a
massive conspiracy and treason against the United States of America?
Here is the context for the "Indictment of Trolls" (Paty II):
https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/62c97j/the_awan_brothers_compromised_at_least_80/
"The Awan brothers compromised at least 80 congressional computers and got paid 5 million to
do it. We may never know the extent of the breach.
After compromising the Congress' networks for 12 years they do a quick cleanup by breaking in
to 20 congressional offices, store data in an off site server before running of to Pakistan
and the D.C. Police are investigating. But wait there's more
Imran Awan has a longtime relationship with some members of Congress, including working for
Meeks and Becerra starting in 2004 and joining Wasserman Schultz's office in 2005. The IT
staffer position expanded to include more than 30 representatives, including work under
congressional members who were members of top secret level congressional committees (DHS,
Foreign affairs, Select intelligence committee).
Although personal office computers are not supposed to be used for Intelligence Committee
business or classified material, accessing these computers is a high priority for foreign
intelligence services because of the information they could glean about the committee's work
from unclassified emails.
• The brothers are suspected of serious violations including accessing members' computer
networks without their knowledge and stealing equipment from Congress, over billing congress
for work and parts, transferring data to a remote server, and bypassing normal security
protocols for IT staff. Their Democrat benefactors allowed the breech of policy for the sake
of convenience.
• The Awans operated an external server, which is against all protocols concerning
secured government information.
Further, there were instances where House information was discovered in an external "cloud"
server. The contractors in question reportedly were sending and storing House-related
information in that off-site server.
• The Awans had special access to the White House and for Visas.
• Multiple Democratic lawmakers have yet to cut ties with House staffers under criminal
investigation for wide-ranging equipment and data theft."
– Hey, Mueller! Hey, Rosenstein! Do your job.
The letter from the Democrats on the Gang of 8 to Coats, Rosenstein and Wray is
something. Asking them to be insubordinate by refusing the order of the President to
release unredacted documents & communications. What were the verbal assurances these
apparatchiks gave the Democrats? Did they agree to withhold information from their boss?
As Col. Lang has stated numerous times the President is the ultimate classification
authority except for atomic secrets. Coats, Rosenstein & Wray I'm sure know that. If
they disagree with his declassification order they can always resign. Insubordination is
a fireable offense.
Journalist Sara Carter told Sean Hannity during his Wednesday radio show that the FBI has
two sets of records in the Russia investigation, and that "certain people above Peter Strzok
and above Lisa Page" were aware of it - implicating former FBI Director James Comey and his #2,
Andrew McCabe.
Hannity : Sara, I'm hearing it gets worse than this–that there is potentially out
there–if you will, two sets of record among the upper echelon of the FBI–one that
was real one that was made for appearances . Is there any truth to this?
Carter : Absolutely, Sean . With the number of sources that I have been speaking with as
well as some others that there is evidence indicating that the FBI had separate sets of
books.
I will not name names until all of the evidence is out there, but there were certain
people above Peter Strzok and above Lisa Page that were aware of this . I also believe that
there are people within the FBI that have actually turned on their former employers and are
possibly even testifying and reporting what happened inside the FBI to both the Inspector
General and possibly even a Grand Jury.
First, let me say I voted for Trump as a "Disrupter" and to that end he has exceeded
expectations.
The book starts out great through the first 5 or 6 chapters, but then becomes a bit
convoluted. The bottom line of the book and reality is that Trump is surrounded by apprentice
scoundrels, and that he is the boss scoundrel.
He demands loyalty but gives none. As a Former Marine I would not follow him into battle;
I would never have the opportunity because he and his sons would never go into harm's
way.
The best of the book was the hinted forthcoming bombshells, that never exploded. Woodward
dropped the ball on this one, and as an author myself, it's nice to see even the big boys,
Simon & Schuster, have editing issues.
None of the Times' sources are named - except one: Former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, or rather his memos about the
meetings with Rosenstein and other officials.
The number two official at the Justice Department wanted to secretly record President Donald Trump so as to impeach him, claims
the New York Times. Spoiler Alert: Rod Rosenstein denies the claim, but does it matter in the swamp?
"Rod Rosenstein Suggested Secretly Recording Trump and Discussed 25th Amendment" the Times blared in a breaking news headline
on Friday afternoon, adding that the deputy attorney general also discussed recruiting Cabinet members to invoke the
constitutional provision for removing Trump from office.
The Times would have its readers believe that Rosenstein was surprised when Trump used his memo to justify the firing of FBI
Director James Comey in May 2017, and sought to enlist AG Jeff Sessions and Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly –now the
White House chief of staff– to support him in ousting Trump.
Hard to know the truthfulness of anything coming from the NYT. Rosenstein denies the story and says there is no basis for
invoking the 25th amendment against Trump. The story might be disinformation to provoke a response from Trump.
Still Rosenstein has been slow walking the release of FISA related documents, and it's hard to trust him. This Russia
investigation is a witcvh hunt , and Rosenstein has been right at the center of it. If Rosenstein was fair minded he would have
shut this yard sale down a long time ago. In the meantime, Trump is looking more and more like a victim. I'd probably wait for the
documents to come out and let the pressure build on Sessions and Rosenstein.
If this latest revelation from the New
York Times doesn't drive President Trump to fire Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, or
convince Congress to impeach him, then we can't imagine what would.
In a shocking report citing a bevy of anonymous DOJ officials, the NYT recounted on Friday
an aborted mutiny attempt organized by Rosenstein, who allegedly tried to organize members of
Trump's cabinet to invoke the 25th amendment to oust Trump from office. In an attempt to
persuade the clearly reluctant members of Trump's cabinet, Rosenstein suggested that he or
other officials should secretly tape Trump "to expose the chaos" he said was engulfing the West
Wing. According to NYT, the sources were either briefed on Rosenstein's plans, or learned about
it from the files of former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, who was fired after being
disgraced by an inspector general investigation.
ABC News, which also reported the story, cited sources familiar with McCabe's files. A
grand jury is also weighing whether to press charges against McCabe for allegedly misleading
the inspector general.
Mr. Rosenstein made the remarks about secretly recording Mr. Trump and about the 25th
Amendment in meetings and conversations with other Justice Department and F.B.I. officials.
Several people described the episodes, insisting on anonymity to discuss internal
deliberations. The people were briefed either on the events themselves or on memos written by
F.B.I. officials, including Andrew G. McCabe, then the acting bureau director, that
documented Mr. Rosenstein's actions and comments.
None of Mr. Rosenstein's proposals apparently came to fruition. It is not clear how
determined he was about seeing them through, though he did tell Mr. McCabe that he might be
able to persuade Attorney General Jeff Sessions and John F. Kelly, then the secretary of
homeland security and now the White House chief of staff, to mount an effort to invoke the
25th Amendment.
According to the NYT, this all happened during the spring of 2017, shortly after Trump cited
a letter that Rosenstein had penned criticizing former FBI Director James Comey's handling of
the Clinton probe as justification to fire Comey. Rosenstein reportedly felt he had been "used"
by the president as an excuse to fire Comey. Rosenstein soon began telling colleagues that he
would ultimately be "vindicated" for his role in Comey's firing. Around the same time, he began
to express his displeasure with Trump's handling of the hiring process for Comey's
replacement.
The president's reliance on his memo caught Mr. Rosenstein by surprise, and he became
angry at Mr. Trump, according to people who spoke to Mr. Rosenstein at the time. He grew
concerned that his reputation had suffered harm and wondered whether Mr. Trump had motives
beyond Mr. Comey's treatment of Mrs. Clinton for ousting him, the people said.
A determined Mr. Rosenstein began telling associates that he would ultimately be
"vindicated" for his role in the matter. One week after the firing, Mr. Rosenstein met with
Mr. McCabe and at least four other senior Justice Department officials, in part to explain
his role in the situation.
During their discussion, Mr. Rosenstein expressed frustration at how Mr. Trump had
conducted the search for a new F.B.I. director, saying the president was failing to take the
candidate interviews seriously. A handful of politicians and law enforcement officials,
including Mr. McCabe, were under consideration.
Rosenstein also tried to recruit some of his would-be co-conspirators to surreptitiously
record Trump in the Oval Office.
Mr. Rosenstein then raised the idea of wearing a recording device or "wire," as he put it,
to secretly tape the president when he visited the White House. One participant asked whether
Mr. Rosenstein was serious, and he replied animatedly that he was.
However, although Rosenstein "appeared conflicted, regretful and emotional" during what can
only be described as a coup attempt against a sitting president, even the paper admit that his
conduct in attempting to solicit the illicit wiretapping of a sitting president was extremely
reckless and unwarranted, and that, if uncovered, it could be used as grounds to fire
Rosenstein.
If not him, then Mr. McCabe or other F.B.I. officials interviewing with Mr. Trump for the
job could perhaps wear a wire or otherwise record the president, Mr. Rosenstein offered.
White House officials never checked his phone when he arrived for meetings there, Mr.
Rosenstein added, implying it would be easy to secretly record Mr. Trump.
The suggestion itself was remarkable. While informants or undercover agents regularly use
concealed listening devices to surreptitiously gather evidence for federal investigators,
they are typically targeting drug kingpins and Mafia bosses in criminal investigations, not a
president viewed as ineffectively conducting his duties.
In the end, the idea went nowhere, the officials said. But they called Mr. Rosenstein's
comments an example of how erratically he was behaving while he was taking part in the
interviews for a replacement F.B.I. director, considering the appointment of a special
counsel and otherwise running the day-to-day operations of the more than 100,000 people at
the Justice Department.
The Times and ABC reported that Rosenstein told McCabe that he believed Attorney General
Jeff Sessions and then-Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly would go along with the plan.
Another source said they believed Rosenstein was being sarcastic when he made the comment about
recording Trump
One source who was in the meeting confirmed that Rosenstein did make a remark about
recording Trump with the use of a wire. But the source insists: "The statement was sarcastic
and was never discussed with any intention of recording a conversation with the
president."
Rosenstein has decried the story as "factually incorrect" and said that "based on my
personal dealings" with the president, that there isn't any basis to invoke the 25th amendment.
This, of course, is tantamount to a deep state insider admitting that there is no factual basis
to impeach Trump.
Mr. Rosenstein disputed this account.
"The New York Times's story is inaccurate and factually incorrect," he said in a
statement. "I will not further comment on a story based on anonymous sources who are
obviously biased against the department and are advancing their own personal agenda. But let
me be clear about this: Based on my personal dealings with the president, there is no basis
to invoke the 25th Amendment."
A lawyer representing McCabe told CNN and the Times that his client had documented his
conversations in Rosenstein in a series of memos, which he later turned over to Mueller more
than a year ago. However, a set of those memos was left at the FBI when McCabe departed.
McCabe's lawyer, Michael Bromwich, said in a statement to CNN that his client "drafted
memos to memorialize significant discussions he had with high level officials and preserved
them so he would have an accurate, contemporaneous record of those discussions."
"When he was interviewed by the special counsel more than a year ago, he gave all of his
memos - classified and unclassified - to the special counsel's office. A set of those memos
remained at the FBI at the time of his departure in late January 2018. He has no knowledge of
how any member of the media obtained those memos," Bromwich added.
The
Washington Post reported that FBI lawyer Lisa Page (the former lover of disgraced FBI
special agent Peter Strzok) was also at the meeting where wiretapping was discussed. WaPo also
said that McCabe had pushed for the DOJ to open an investigation into the president, to which
Rosenstein replied, "what do you want to do Andy, wire the president?"
While Rosenstein and Trump clearly never saw eye to eye, the level of resentment that
Rosenstein harbored toward the president was not previously known. Unsurprisingly, the story
has already fired up speculation that Rosenstein may have been the anonymous administration
official who penned a critical op-ed that was published earlier this month in the New York
Times. Underscoring the seriousness of these allegations, CNN
reported that the McCabe memos that were described to ABC and the Times have been turned over
to Special Counsel Robert Mueller.
iinthesky , 13 minutes ago
Try to remember this is the New York Times. This is suspect and there is a motive in
publishing this now.. they want Trump to fire Rosenshmuck before the elections.
Debt Slave , 12 minutes ago
Recall Strzok's behavior during his testimony. It couldn't be more obvious if they took
out a full page ad in the New York Times.
LaugherNYC , 1 hour ago
This is coming from McCabe.
Trying to get a deal. Remember what he screamed when he heard that he was under
investigation: "If they **** with my pension I will burn this place to the ground!!"
Well, he's got the gas and the matches. He doesn't want to go to prison where Hillary's
people can shank him. He's letting some tidbits out now to convince Huber he will do more
damage from outside than inside.
I say **** HIM. Let him burn it down. Sessions is recused - not his fault.
McCabe needs to do 3-5 in a FedPen for his lies and cover-ups. Tried to quash the Weiner
laptop and impede a Federal investigation. Repeatedly leaked information to misdirect and
interfere with a Federal investigation.
A top, trained intel officer. Lock him the hell up. This is the kind of "patriot" who
comes up through the Deep State system to run the alphabet agencies that work day and night
to protect America from the sunlight its intel community so desperately needs on those who
sell out the rank-and-file, hardworking true patriots for their own boundless ambition.
Strzok and Page come next.
Burn out the poison vipers' nests.
1970SSNova396 , 1 hour ago
Read the article and you better understand why the NYT is throwing Rosenstein under the
bus.
Holy shite. I'm getting a feeling that this is ready to EXPLODE on the world stage. And
implicate Britain and Australia as in on the scam. I'm getting the sense, the Brits called
Trump and begged him not to let this come completely to light. Trump has ALL these
motherfuckers by the balls now. I just hope and pray that ******* arrogant poser Obama is
sweating bullets right now.
I cant even imagine how this all plays out. These arrogant ******* Nee World Order pieces
of ****,especially both Clinton's, Obama and most if not ALL of his senior administration
just felt entitled to do whatever the **** they wanted, the ends justify the means, the
Constitution and the people be damned. These people really to need to endure a special type
of hell. If this charade doesn't warrant it, what does? To Big To Fail comes to mind, though.
This might be SO big, Trump actually has to manage the shitshow...or the train goes off the
rails.
This guy quit the week before The Don took the keys to the white house.....Imagine that.
As you might recall Judge Nap at Fox stated that the Obama Cabal used the brits to spy on
Trump and then was place in timeout for 2 weeks. He returned and double downed on his
statement.
KimAsa , 16 minutes ago
The swamp turning on each other. Love it.
dems will lose 5 senate incumbent seats at midterms and offset one. The dems will not win
over the Senate.
the dem running in AZ has a bit of a past that is catching up to her now.
The dems will lose the House handily.
Keyser , 25 minutes ago
Enough is enough... Time to drag rat-faced Rosenstein out of the FBI in chains, then put
him on an airplane to Gitmo and charge him with sedition... This scum sucking ****** needs a
refresher course in the LAW, military law that is...
iinthesky , 23 minutes ago
Not now.. after november
pelican , 13 minutes ago
**** it
iinthesky , 13 minutes ago
Try to remember this is the New York Times. This is suspect and there is a motive in
publishing this now.. they want Trump to fire Rosenshmuck before the elections.
bigrooster , 14 minutes ago
Hmm the last name seems like a Tribe member. I am sure that there is no connection. But
Trump's daughter and granddaughter are now members of the Tribe. I would die before taking
that mark. I guess we now know what the Number of The Beast is...join the Tribe or die/starve
in the near future. Good thing we of faith know who wins in the end.
SunRise , 15 minutes ago
"Fired", That's all? No jail? They're attempting to frame the conversation, so a low
penalty for High Treason seems normal in the minds of the Public.
Goldennutz , 16 minutes ago
HAHAHAHAHA!!
NOTHING will happen to ANYONE!!!
Ohhh...they might get someone to fall on the sword for a few mill in a Swiss account but
that's about it!
All these career uncivil serpents will walk away with a fat goobermint pension with free
lifetime bennies courtesy of us suckas , get a fat self-serving book deal and a cushy million
dollar job with some firm.
Meantime us ZH-ers will still be here typing away and blubbering about how unfair this all
is.
BWWWWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
inosent , 28 minutes ago
"public servant"? puhleeez, give it a rest!
Shelby cobra , 28 minutes ago
The news just keeps getting worse each day for these swamp monsters ,but there is a better
chance of hell freezing over than any of them going to jail!
Is-Be , 38 minutes ago
From an outsiders perspective, this is not a Jewish problem. It is a monotheist
problem.
How can anyone blame the Jews and worship his God?
Are we all Semites now?All Jews? With you-know-who in charge being the font of all our
troubles.
Soon we will all be one.
Soon each will know his place.
Indeed, Dr. Jacobs.
All is clear to Odin. But what of Thor?
No wonder Mrvl comix is keen to abuse our Gods and Goddesses. It's what they do.
Of cause they'll let loose their Muslims upon us as enforcers if we stray from their
plan.
Secrecy, dear Goy. No light please.
It was not for nothing that Odin hung for 9 days on Yggdsdril, the tree of life.
And the squirrel runs up and down the Sacred tree, telling tales.
romanmoment , 35 minutes ago
Rosenstein needs to be fired, right now.
Debt Slave , 33 minutes ago
You can't trust one of them. The truth may be inconvenient and unacceptable in our
current, political climate, but you can not trust a god damned one of them.
If it is a bad thing to recognize the facts of life, then proceed at your own peril.
The Swamp Got Trump , 35 minutes ago
Please fire this **********.
debtserf , 23 minutes ago
He will only fire him if he doesnt do exactly as he is told from now till November.
Hass C. , 52 minutes ago
Putin must be getting irritable bowel from too much popcorn.
Aerows , 49 minutes ago
What a big flaming bag of dog **** on the doorstep of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Except this isn't a prank, it affects our government at the highest of levels.
Harvey's-Rabbi , 49 minutes ago
I made up mind that today my posted comments will contain as much relevant materiel as
possible, other than that which may implicate legendary destroyers of their host culture. I
have kept this in mind while commenting on this guy and what he as attempted to do, even
trying to enlist other sectors of the nation's leadership.....
Thank you for reading.
Debt Slave , 25 minutes ago
I think you are doing a fine job of it.
History and the study of pathological behavior are .the greatest of endeavors. Only then
can a man recognize the reality of his world without any artificially induced delusions.
It really is an exercise of maturity.
divingengineer , 56 minutes ago
Yeah, they knew enough about Trump this early in his term to justify spying and
impeachment/removal?
Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure.
apocalypticbrother , 1 hour ago
Rod Rodentstein is a dirty rat.
Debt Slave , 22 minutes ago
He certainly does resemble one.
EscondidoSurfer , 55 minutes ago
NYT wanted to get ahead of Trump before he released this and other sensitive information,
sources and procedures.
Hass C. , 1 hour ago
Are they setting Trump up for some sort of confrontation? After all, the NYT is not
exactly a Friend of Trump these days.
Vigilante , 1 hour ago
High time the evil kikester gets the boot. Isn't he who also hired Mueller to start his
bogus investigation?
Debt Slave , 21 minutes ago
I believe he did, yes. Odd that Trump can't seem to get rid of him.
Victory_Garden , 1 hour ago
Of course this is a firable evil deed.
Like, phuck! This evil ziobot phuckin phaggot phucker pile of shat should have been
phuchin french fried and thrown out the phucking building shiteter years ago. Phuckin-A,
PERIOD!
Question is, will the Sir Pres fire this cikesucxker?
Take a look at the commie news networks view of this and be darn sure to keep this bfore
they erase it. This will make good eatin for this costa crow and wolfie bafaronizer and all
the, they suck hitlery cunthags big plastic kak purple hippie tie wareing dweebs of drool.
Phuckin phaggots.
Speaking of isreall. What the phuck are those phuckin crazy arsehole woarmongers up to
now?
chinese censorship SUCKS!
.
GoingBig , 1 hour ago
The drivel that you people post is hilarious!
1970SSNova396 , 1 hour ago
You should file a complaint.....try door FU2....closed at 5 PM...
Walking Turtle , 54 minutes ago
You should file a complaint.....try door FU2....closed at 5 PM...
Ah but even after hours, there is STILL the Secret Access Complaint Department.
That office is open 18/7/365\6, right there behind that selfsame door (FU2 iirc) with
generous seating and several magazines to share. Just buzz the buzzer for admittance.
But there is a secret, which shall herein be disclosed forthwith. To wit, the
Secret Password. Because without it one will never be admitted. Turns out, the Secret
Password is (and always was) the Office Manager's name. Know that name and you can
expect satisfaction in due full course!
Her name is Helen Waite. Those with After-Hours Complaints such as this one really should
go to Helen Waite, now shouldn't they? "Always there for YOU !" is the Standing Motto.
Servicing that nasty complaint and smiling while doing so...
Just stay seated and don't lose your Number. Remember Herself's Name. And that is all.
0{;-)o[
GoingBig , 20 minutes ago
LMAO!
Ranger7676 , 1 hour ago
Trump did not go to Princeton, Harvard or Yale and rape children and drink their blood
like Hillary, Obama and the Bush's, so you know the deep state is out to get him. Drain the
swamp and expose these assholes Mr. President.
Buck Shot , 1 hour ago
Worried about his reputation? Is he afraid the other cheerleaders will say he is a slut?
What a ******* *****. I bet he has never been in a fistfight in his life.
novictim , 1 hour ago
Wow. I may have reached a peak now. I don't think I could be anymore cynical about the FBI
and DOJ at this point.
GoingBig , 1 hour ago
lmao, I think most people would gasp in horror if they actually heard Trump go on one of
his famous Trumptantrums, which happens every 3-4 minutes. This is freaking hilarious.
NoPension , 1 hour ago
Haha!
You're right...you're hilarious.
Hass C. , 58 minutes ago
More wishful thinking from you.
1970SSNova396 , 57 minutes ago
The best part of you ran down your mothers leg
GoingBig , 19 minutes ago
That's a ******* new one! LMFO. What are you 100 years old! FLMAO
cheech_wizard , 41 minutes ago
Here, have another soy latte.
vintage512 , 1 hour ago
lmao... this is outrageous....this generation should be in the streets.. they get into the
streets to wait in line for the new iphone but not for their civil liberties...priorities...a
nation of pathetic eunuchs
DingleBarryObummer , 1 hour ago
like the liberty of having sound money... which we don't have?
Ranger7676 , 1 hour ago
I have several young 30's friends who went from liberal to Trump supporters. They see
whats going on with the Deep State and don't like it.
Is-Be , 56 minutes ago
iPhones and eunuchs go together like hookers and blow.
Keep them away from your gonads if you are worth breeding from.
Megaton Jim , 1 hour ago
Get rid of the ******* kikes in government, Wall St and the media. Jooz are Satanic
vermin!
DingleBarryObummer , 1 hour ago
Trump's going to be mighty lonely in his white house.
moman , 1 hour ago
'Get rid of the ******* kikes in government,' ....get rid of the DUMB-*** Goyim that alow
this ****!
GoingBig , 1 hour ago
somebody needs some milk and cookies....
Hass C. , 54 minutes ago
Actually, you have a point, moman. To hell with the whole pack. But who's going to send
them there?
Victory_Garden , 1 hour ago
Oh my, he said, ****!
So, has the ships Tyler lifted the chinese censorship?
Curious crew member wanna know and if indeed this be the truth, then let the good rants
roll!
Testing: ****! Holy...****!
So OK, back to the farkin grind.
All hands forward for leave.
Ding...ding...ding.
+
True Historian , 1 hour ago
Sessions and Trump are together, a team. Session's recusal will be rescinded after the
2018 election. Then the real "deep state" removal process will begin. Trump has played them
all; and is in the process of destroying them.
Sessions-Trump secret deal is that Sessions will take the verbal assaults until the
Mueller investigation goes down in flames.
Notice that Mueller has gone quiet. He knows he is through; he is cutting a deal with
Trump so that he doesn't go to jail over the "Uranium One" deal.
The Kav anaugh hearings with Feinstein are just to incite all anti-democrats to vote.
1970SSNova396 , 1 hour ago
If not for LBJ's great slacking society the dems would never win another election. Blacks
will do what they always do and vote for dems. They fuq up everything they touch.
Nunny , 55 minutes ago
I hate the LBJ ********, and we all see what he did there. I talk to mill working blacks
everyday that have got 'woke'....and not in the stupid snowflake way.
Hass C. , 48 minutes ago
A man on the cusp of winning such a chess game is not having tweet tantrums every morning.
Those pathetic tweets are a sign of powerlessness, not the opposite.
When this is said, i wish you were right.
JoeTurner , 1 hour ago
In diverse, multicultrual America competency will soon be a crime
Seems pretty clear by now that the reason Trump doesn't fire these 5th-columnists
is because he can't . The rot in the system is far more deeply entrenched than most
imagined: We are seeing a system openly and contemptuously ignore the wishes of the elected
Chief Executive, and he seems to have no power to do anything but launch a few acerbic tweets
at his tormenters.
So why isn't Hillary Clinton in jail? Because the Clinton cabal is still in control,
that's why. Which explains all sorts of things, including Rosenstein's display of arrogance
before the Congress: He knows well who runs things and it ain't Congress or the President. He
knows that it's a matter of time before Trump is either completely broken, or run out of
town, or both, and isn't a bit concerned about showing what he thinks of the "deplorables"
who dared question his divine right to do what the corporations goddamn please.
And I don't even have much hope for these grand jury hearings on worms like McCabe and
Comey, either. A prosecutor has pretty unlimited control over a grand jury in the real world,
and they almost always do what the prosecutor wants. I have not heard anything that tells me
that the government agents in charge of these grand jury investigations aren't just more
Clintonites. In which case, look for no-bills for the Clintonist criminals. It's the classic
way corrupt prosecutors get rid of cases without fading the heat: "We presented the cases,
but the grand jury no-billed, nothing we can do. Next case..."
Corrupt to the bone. Wish I were wrong, but sure doesn't look like it.
debtserf , 1 hour ago
Trump is the big dog. He looks for leverage. Why fire Slippery Rod if he has all the
leverage over him to secure his own insurance policy against impeachment - and crush the Dems
in the midterms. If Rod doesnt do this and pronto, then Bubba will be telling him to "get on
ma body".
Looks like Big T has this one covered.
Debt Slave , 12 minutes ago
Recall Strzok's behavior during his testimony. It couldn't be more obvious if they took
out a full page ad in the New York Times.
debtor of last resort , 1 hour ago
They have put the left on the altar to make the right start the war.
LaugherNYC , 1 hour ago
This is coming from McCabe.
Trying to get a deal. Remember what he screamed when he heard that he was under
investigation: "If they **** with my pension I will burn this place to the ground!!"
Well, he's got the gas and the matches. He doesn't want to go to prison where Hillary's
people can shank him. He's letting some tidbits out now to convince Huber he will do more
damage from outside than inside.
I say **** HIM. Let him burn it down. Sessions is recused - not his fault.
McCabe needs to do 3-5 in a FedPen for his lies and cover-ups. Tried to quash the Weiner
laptop and impede a Federal investigation. Repeatedly leaked information to misdirect and
interfere with a Federal investigation.
A top, trained intel officer. Lock him the hell up. This is the kind of "patriot" who
comes up through the Deep State system to run the alphabet agencies that work day and night
to protect America from the sunlight its intel community so desperately needs on those who
sell out the rank-and-file, hardworking true patriots for their own boundless ambition.
Strzok and Page come next.
Burn out the poison vipers' nests.
NoPension , 1 hour ago
All these ******* vipers are go to start eating other. As I think about it...Mr.Trump
should just stay out of their way...and poke the hornets nest every so often, get them all
stirred up!
McCabe...muh Pension. Haha! All those years...carrying scumbag water...and he gets to end
up in the graybar hotel, while they skate? I do not think sooooo......
Man, this is going to make a great movie some day.
debtserf , 1 hour ago
Sopranos meets Veep.
NoPension , 1 hour ago
House of Cards is going to look like Sesame Street when this thing winds up....
debtserf , 54 minutes ago
It's a perpetual Muppet Show.
Nunny , 50 minutes ago
I was thinking the same thing. Why watch 'fiction' when you can watch it in real time. I
told my husband, if Trump gets in, one thing I know, it will be ENTERTAINING. And BTW, hubby
had never registered to vote in all his 60+ years....but he did just to vote for Trump. THAT
is how much we hate the status quo of a government that hates it's own citizens.
And as a side bar....we also did it to throw a big fat middle finger to the press, the
'celebrities' the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
Cobra Commander , 1 hour ago
NYT and "anonymous sources;" sounds like the Left is trying to goad President Trump, or at
least sow more discord in the White House.
That said, how is it that President Obama gets a self-described "wingman" for an attorney
general (Holder), and President Trump gets bird feces for his?
Holy shite. I'm getting a feeling that this is ready to EXPLODE on the world stage. And
implicate Britain and Australia as in on the scam. I'm getting the sense, the Brits called
Trump and begged him not to let this come completely to light. Trump has ALL these
motherfuckers by the balls now. I just hope and pray that ******* arrogant poser Obama is
sweating bullets right now.
I cant even imagine how this all plays out. These arrogant ******* Nee World Order pieces
of ****,especially both Clinton's, Obama and most if not ALL of his senior administration
just felt entitled to do whatever the **** they wanted, the ends justify the means, the
Constitution and the people be damned. These people really to need to endure a special type
of hell. If this charade doesn't warrant it, what does? To Big To Fail comes to mind, though.
This might be SO big, Trump actually has to manage the shitshow...or the train goes off the
rails.
This guy quit the week before The Don took the keys to the white house.....Imagine that.
As you might recall Judge Nap at Fox stated that the Obama Cabal used the brits to spy on
Trump and then was place in timeout for 2 weeks. He returned and double downed on his
statement.
I for one am shocked that's a *** would try to subvert America's political system.
ObiterDictum , 2 hours ago
Watch how the media puts this story into its magic hat and poof!, it disappears. Meanwhile
those two investigative journalistic corpses known as Woodward and Bernstein, heroes of J
schools everywhere, will shake off their mothballs of irrelevance and swill cocktails with
their fellow elitist nitwits and talk about Watergate and Trump while this open corruption
accelerates. The truth does not matter anymore - just repeat a lie over and over again and
the moronic media reports it as a "competing fact." Or, just call up WaPo and say, "I will
speak to you as an anon. government official" and THEY PRINT IT with a line that they
asked you for a comment and you declined. The media becomes the publicist/lap dog of the
corrupted politicians. The majority of people reading the comment thinks, " hey, it must
be true if they are afraid to be named. I am sure the paper verified it." The lack of an
independent media has killed Truth. Truth is now a concept. And, then the media blame Trump
for the fact that 50% of the population does not trust them. A bit like the old story of the
person who kills his parent and says, ' oh, feel sorry for me, I am an orphan ."
Endgame Napoleon , 1 hour ago
Back in the Watergate days, the American people cared about the 4th Amendment, which is
why an audible gasp was heard in the congressional hearings, when it was revealed that Nixon
taped people in the WH.
Today, the American people have ceded their 4th Amendment rights in many ways, including
when agreeing to be taped and filmed in the maze of paperwork signed in any
$10-to-$12-per-hour office job that will not even cover the cost of rent for those with no
spousal income and no womb-productivity-based welfare and progressive tax-code welfare.
'We've come a long way, baby.'
High-ranking, highly paid people in the WH, too, are already being taped, hence the Flynn
incident.
There is a word for it when you try to wiretap a head of State... now what was that? Oh,
yes. Espionage , and pieces of **** like Julius and Ethel Rosenberg fried in the
electric chair for it. Why should this particular dual citizen be any
different? Fry his *** extra crispy -just like a chicken.
RictaviousPorkchop , 2 hours ago
Rosenberg...Rosenstein.....Hmmmmmm
Jackprong , 2 hours ago
Rosenstein orchestrated a COUP ATTEMPT! Rosenstein needs to pay for this Banana Republic
move on his part. Before he pays, he should spill his guts about his relationships with Obama
and Mrs. Bill Clinton.
blindfaith , 2 hours ago
Is the New York Times and ABC beginning to see the light? Are they awakening to the
deception? Will they become actual news reporters?
So many questions.....
RictaviousPorkchop , 2 hours ago
No. The media is merely cashing in on the chaos, AND in hopes that Trump will fire the
Jewish Lad.
That's a bold statement but cancerous growth is typical of any intelligence agency, especially CIA: all of them want more and more
budget money and try to influence both domestic and foreign policy. That's signs of cancel.
FBI actually has dual mandate: suppressing political dissent (STASI functions) and fight with criminals and organized crime.
The fact the President does not control his own administration, especially State Department isclearly visible now. He is more like
a ceremonial figura that is allowed to rant on Twitter, but can't change any thing of substance in forign policy. and Is a typucal Repiblican
in domenstic policy, betraying the electorate like Obama did
Notable quotes:
"... Sessions recused himself from the "Russia Collusion" investigation. Now that it is known to have been an extension of Democratic election rigging, and DC bureaucratic "Resistance," he could be initiate a broad sweep investigation into Washington, DC based bureaucratic bias and corruption. ..."
Shifting from Sessions to the much-maligned FBI, Trump said the agency was "a cancer" and that uncovering deep-seated corruption
in the FBI may be remembered as the "crowning achievement" of his administration, per
the Hill .
"What we've done is a great service to the country, really," Trump said in a 45-minute, wide-ranging interview in the Oval
Office.
"I hope to be able put this up as one of my crowning achievements that I was able to ... expose something that is truly a cancer
in our country."
Moreover, Trump insisted that he never trusted former FBI Director James Comey, and that he had initially planned to fire Comey
shortly after the inauguration, but had been talked out of it by his aides.
Trump also said he regretted not firing former FBI Director James Comey immediately instead of waiting until May 2017, confirming
an account his lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, gave Hill.TV earlier in the day that Trump was dismayed in 2016 by the way Comey handled
the Hillary Clinton email case and began discussing firing him well before he became president.
"If I did one mistake with Comey, I should have fired him before I got here. I should have fired him the day I won the primaries,"
Trump said. "I should have fired him right after the convention, say I don't want that guy. Or at least fired him the first day
on the job. ... I would have been better off firing him or putting out a statement that I don't want him there when I get there."
The FISA Court judges who approved the initial requests allowing the FBI to surveil employees of the Trump Campaign also came
in for some criticism, with Trump claiming they used "poor Carter Page, who nobody even knew, and who I feel very badly for...as
a foil...to surveil a candidate or the presidency of the United States." Trump added that he felt the judges had been "misled" by
the FBI.
He criticizing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court's approval of the warrant that authorized surveillance
of Carter Page, a low-level Trump campaign aide, toward the end of the 2016 election, suggesting the FBI misled the court.
"They know this is one of the great scandals in the history of our country because basically what they did is, they used Carter
Page, who nobody even knew, who I feel very badly for, I think he's been treated very badly. They used Carter Page as a foil in
order to surveil a candidate for the presidency of the United States."
As for the judges on the secret intelligence court: "It looks to me just based on your reporting, that they have been misled,"
the president said, citing a series of columns in The Hill newspaper identifying shortcomings in the FBI investigation. "I mean
I don't think we have to go much further than to say that they've been misled."
"One of the things I'm disappointed in is that the judges in FISA didn't, don't seem to have done anything about it. I'm very
disappointed in that Now, I may be wrong because, maybe as we sit here and talk, maybe they're well into it. We just don't know
that because I purposely have not chosen to get involved," Trump said.
Trump continued the assault on Sessions during a brief conference with reporters Wednesday morning. When asked whether he was
planning to fire Sessions, Trump replied that "we're looking into lots of different things."
To be sure, Sessions has managed to hang on thus far. And if he can somehow manage to survive past Nov. 6, his fate will perversely
rest on the Democrats' success. Basically, if they wrest back control of the Senate (which, to be sure, is unlikely), Sessions chances
of staying on would rise dramatically. But then again, how much abuse can a man realistically endure before he decides that the costs
of staying outweigh the benefits of leaving?
DingleBarryObummer , 19 minutes ago
Sessions works for Trump, because Trump is running the uniparty russia-gate stormy-gate anti-trump show. Sessions was intentionally
placed there to stonewall and make sure the kabuki goes on. Rosenstein is a Trump appointee. This **** garners sympathy for him
as the persecuted underdog, rallies his base; and distracts from the obvious zio-bankster influence over his admin and his many
unfulfilled campaign promises. He's deceiving you. Why do you think Giuliani acts like such a buffoon? It's because that's what
he was hired for. All distractions and bullshit. He will not get impeached, Hillary is not going to jail, nothing will happen.
The zio-Banksters will continue to stay at the top of the pyramid, because that's who trump works for, NOT you and me.
"While Trump's fascination with the White House still burned within him [re: 2011], he also had The Apprentice to deal with--and
it wasn't as easy as you might think. He loved doing the show and was reluctant to give it up. At one point, he was actually thinking
of hosting it from the oval office if he made it all the way to the White House. He even discussed it with Stephen Burke, the
CEO at NBCUniversal, telling Burke he would reconsider running if the network was concerned about his candidacy." -Roger Stone
"To some people the notion of consciously playing power games-no matter how indirect-seems evil, asocial, a relic of the past.
They believe they can opt out of the game by behaving in ways that have nothing to do with power. You must beware of such people,
for while they express such opinions outwardly, they are often among the most adept players at power. They utilize strategies
that cleverly disguise the nature of the manipulation involved. These types, for example, will often display their weakness and
lack of power as a kind of moral virtue. But true powerlessness, without any motive of self-interest, would not publicize its
weakness to gain sympathy or respect. Making a show of one's weakness is actually a very effective strategy, subtle and deceptive,
in the game of power." -Robert Greene
Sparkey , 31 minutes ago
This is why the 'little' people love President 'The Donald' Trump, he says the things they would like to say, but have no platform
to speak from, Mushroom man The Donald has no fear he has got Mushroom power, and he has my support in what ever he does!
Secret Weapon , 43 minutes ago
Is Sessions a Deep State firewall? Starting to look that way.
TrustbutVerify , 48 minutes ago
Sessions recused himself from the "Russia Collusion" investigation. Now that it is known to have been an extension of Democratic
election rigging, and DC bureaucratic "Resistance," he could be initiate a broad sweep investigation into Washington, DC based
bureaucratic bias and corruption.
I suspect Sessions will last until after the mid-term elections. Then Trump will fire him and bring someone like Gowdy in to
head the DOJ and to bring about investigations.
And, my gosh, there seems to be so much to investigate. And to my mind prosecute.
loop, 49 minutes ago
"I've never seen a President - I don't care who he is - stand up to them (Israel). It just boggles the mind. They always
get what they want. The Israelis know what is going on all the time. I got to the point where I wasn't writing anything down.
If the American people understood what a grip these people have got on our government, they would rise up in arms.
Our citizens certainly don't have any idea what goes on."
- U.S. Navy Admiral and former head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Thomas Moorer
mendigo, 59 minutes ago
Cool stuff. But really the cancer goes much deeper. That is the scary part. Trump is now largely controlled by the Borg.
Government employees and elected officials have a choice: can either play along and become wealthy and powerful or have
their careers destroyed, or worse.
"... A 75-year old insider that dropped out of the race in 2008, after capturing less than 1% of the vote in the Iowa caucus, and who "occupies the sensible center of the Democratic Party." That just screams excitement, does it not? ..."
Even an inbred domesticated pet can learn simple tricks, but corporate Democrats...Let's just say that they are further down the
evolutionary ladder. Joe Biden
proved that today.
"Despite losing in the courts, and in the court of opinion, these forces of intolerance remain determined to undermine and roll
back the progress you all have made," he said. "This time they - not you - have an ally in the White House. This time they have
an ally. They're a small percentage of the American people - virulent people, some of them the dregs of society."
At least he didn't say "deplorables." Why do establishment Dems think that insulting a third of the electorate is a good idea?
And why are establishment Dems incapable of learning from 2016? Why do they think Biden is the
"solution"?
Amid discussion of resistance to Trump, he surprised me with talk of 2020, when he'll turn 78. "I'll run," the
vice president deadpanned, "if I can walk." Three days later, he informed the Washington press corps that he wasn't joking.
Biden isn't likely to run, but keeping the door ajar gives him a bigger voice in Democratic Party debates. The one that worries
him most is over repositioning to win back Trump voters. He has little patience with Democrats who want to move either left or
right. " 'We gotta move to the center,' 'We gotta move to those white guys,' 'We gotta move to those working-class
people' or 'We gotta double down on the social agenda.' " It's a false choice, he said: "They are totally compatible. I have never
said anything to the A.C.L.U. that I wouldn't say to the Chamber of Commerce."
A 75-year old insider that dropped out of the race in 2008, after capturing less than 1% of the vote in the Iowa caucus, and
who "occupies the sensible center of the Democratic
Party." That just screams excitement, does it not? /s And yet the establishment continues to try to force Joe Biden down
our throats, but their recent effort is
more laughable than most.
Former Vice President Joe Biden leads President Donald Trump by 7 percentage points in a head-to-head match-up, according to a
new POLITICO/Morning Consult poll.
A plurality of registered voters, 44 percent, said they'd choose Biden in the 2020 presidential election, while 37 percent
of voters said they would vote for Trump.
The percentage of Democrats who would choose Biden - 80 percent - was slightly higher than the 78 percent of Republicans who
would vote for the president's reelection. The former vice president, who ran for the White House in 1988 and 2008, has been floated
as a 2020 contender, and Biden himself has said he's not ruling out a third try.
OK. You following this so far? Creepy Joe is the overwhelming favorite, especially amoung Democrats, right?
span y The Voice In th... on Tue, 09/18/2018 - 10:19am
I hope they do run Biden and he falls flat on his face. This will hasten the demise of the Democratic Party and make room in
the political spectrum for a truly progressive Party.
Regarding retreads, I see that Bill Daley has thrown his hat into the ring for Boss of All Bosses Mayor of Chicago.
Another retread but possibly a baby step up from the odious Rahm Emanuel.
Good post gj. Biden is Mr. Establishement, the epitome of what is wrong with the Dem party. Like Clinton, Bush, Trump, Obama,
a master at pretending he is there for you. But not really. He's there for corporate America. You are right they haven't learned
a thing. Look at the Hillary Atlantic piece (have barf bag handy).
They are self-righteous at a level the precludes objective reflection or introspection. They are a psychopathic mix of ego,
greed, power and war monger. They are meeting Einstein's definition of insanity very well, doing the same thing and expecting
a different result. I guess a thousand seat loss is no cause for concern.
Its those low-info dregs, and Russia, and Jill Stein, and promises of ponies. Same people running the ship into the same ground.
The same 30% of blind followers will always follow their leaders, no matter what, be it Trumpsters or DemBots.
Haaretz via Antiwar.com:
Israel's defense chief calls for probe into identity of top official embroiled in Manafort
case
Special counsel Robert Mueller's office tells Haaretz that it cannot reveal more details
regarding individuals who were not accused in the case
Noa Landau, Amir Tibon | Sep. 17, 2018 | 2:45 AM
The document alleges that a senior Israeli government official conspired with Manafort
in 2012 to defame then-Ukrainian opposition leader Yulia Tymoshenko by accusing her of
maintaining ties with anti-Semitic groups. Manafort said that, as a result, American Jews
would pressure the Obama administration not to support Yulia Tymoshenko, whose opponent was a
client of Manafort's, the indictment says .
"... Since when have these "Guardians of Our Republic" ever been against the release of more information from our government? Obviously, only when such release might put a dent in the Russia cloud that they have deliberately perpetuated regardless of the drip, drip, drip of evidence implicating high-ranking FBI, CIA and Justice officials in wrongdoing. ..."
"... The actions of former Secretary of State John Kerry in meeting with Iranian ministers -- a country with which we have no diplomatic relations -- are 100 times more troubling, as he is actively undermining the policy of the current administration. ..."
"... So, two years, a trail of ruined lives, shredded constitutional protections, an administration under a cloud, and no collusion. All that's really been uncovered is a single meeting with a Russian lawyer who actually dined the night before and after the Trump Tower meeting with Glen Simpson of Fusion GPS, who testified he didn't speak to her about it, even though she was his client. ..."
"... It's time for the shroud of secrecy around this investigation to be lifted, for everything to be put in public view. The Justice Department -- and even Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who has brazenly defied congressional subpoenas -- must comply with these very lawful and appropriate orders without delay. It also is time for the media to give full, fair coverage to any and all revelations that come out of these documents, regardless of who it hurts or helps. ..."
"... President Barack Obama once famously said that "elections have consequences," and he was right. But those consequences can't be the weaponization of our intelligence assets and the setting-off of investigations to bring down a newly elected government we don't like. Policy changes should be the consequence. ..."
"... Remember, the ends don't justify the means. It is the means that justify the ends. ..."
Democrats are squawking about President Trump's order to release the material used by the
FBI and the Justice Department to initiate the investigation of his campaign. These minority
committee chairs, soon likely to be in the majority, claim it's unfair, an abuse of power,
one-sided.
Since when have these "Guardians of Our Republic" ever been against the release of more
information from our government? Obviously, only when such release might put a dent in the
Russia cloud that they have deliberately perpetuated regardless of the drip, drip, drip of
evidence implicating high-ranking FBI, CIA and Justice officials in wrongdoing.
This investigation of the Trump campaign, his administration, family and associates has gone
on for more than two years without any serious evidence supporting the Russia-Trump collusion
theory. And, increasingly, it looks like there never was any real evidence to support the
launching of the largest investigation of an administration in history. It's the only known
investigation ever by an outgoing party of the incoming officials of the other party. It was
whipped up by opposition-research firm Fusion GPS, former British spy Christopher Steele and
partisans in the Obama administration, creating a vast echo chamber with information that was
never substantiated in any material way and, on the face of it, was preposterous. (No one ever
offered Trump campaign adviser Carter Page $19 billion for anything.)
Now, before Americans go to vote, is precisely the time to unmask publicly this information;
if it favors the current administration, then the originators of the investigation will have
even more explaining to do. Information that was used to start an investigation can't possibly
be exculpatory unless, in the light of day, it appears forced, false or incomplete. After all,
it was used to convince judges that crimes were being committed by Trump and his
associates.
Based on what we see in the prosecutions, there appears to have been three tranches of
allegations behind the investigations -- the "tip" from Australian diplomat Alexander Downer
that George Papadopoulos had some generalized advance information about email hacking, the
Christopher Steele dossier, and the then-Acting Attorney General Sally Yates investigation of
Gen. Michael Flynn for potential Logan Act violations. The Mueller probe systematically pursued
all of them to the prosecutorial limits, until every witness was bludgeoned into
cooperation.
The Papadopoulos case yielded tremendous speculation but no collusion -- just a rather
pointless prosecution against him, resolved with 14 days in jail. The best they got from the
former Trump campaign adviser was a nod at a meeting that maybe Trump should meet Vladimir
Putin. It remains unclear whether FBI plants were sent to entrap him, and others, but that may
come out in these documents.
The famous dossier pointed fingers at Page, Trump personal attorney Michael Cohen and
onetime campaign chairman Paul Manafort as the collusion masterminds. Page was extensively
spied upon, apparently to no avail. Cohen did not take the fabled trips to Prague or anywhere
else and, yet, his financial life was investigated anyway and he became a victim of the Mueller
probe. He is now part of a Stormy Daniels insurance policy if the main investigation fails to
take down the president.
Manafort quite rightly sought a plea deal after losing part of the first trial, and he
admitted he did not pay taxes or file lobbying reports, but none of the charges against him
include collusion with Russians. I would not hold my breath for any bombshell revelations from
him. He could add more color to a Trump Tower meeting with a Russian lawyer, but that meeting
was not a crime.
Gen. Flynn is set to be sentenced and it's unlikely he will get even 14 days, given his
record of service to the nation. He was deliberately targeted by Yates, an outgoing Obama
official, who intercepted legitimate transition calls with the Russian ambassador and
dispatched the FBI to question Flynn about those, even though she already had a transcript
showing they were benign. The actions of former Secretary of State John Kerry in meeting with
Iranian ministers -- a country with which we have no diplomatic relations -- are 100 times more
troubling, as he is actively undermining the policy of the current administration.
Then there is Roger Stone. He may have texted with one of the hackers of Clinton campaign
emails, but he rejected operatives' efforts to get him to pay for Hillary dirt. Here, Mueller
is having less luck trying the same playbook used on others, of finding something in his
personal or business life to deploy as leverage against him.
Investigating people in this manner is so completely un-American that Congress should pass
legislation to prohibit it in the future, especially when there are political considerations.
We investigate crimes, not people. Here, people were named and then investigated until crimes
of any kind were found.
So, two years, a trail of ruined lives, shredded constitutional protections, an
administration under a cloud, and no collusion. All that's really been uncovered is a single
meeting with a Russian lawyer who actually dined the night before and after the Trump Tower
meeting with Glen Simpson of Fusion GPS, who testified he didn't speak to her about it, even
though she was his client.
It's time for the shroud of secrecy around this investigation to be lifted, for everything
to be put in public view. The Justice Department -- and even Deputy Attorney General Rod
Rosenstein, who has brazenly defied congressional subpoenas -- must comply with these very
lawful and appropriate orders without delay. It also is time for the media to give full, fair
coverage to any and all revelations that come out of these documents, regardless of who it
hurts or helps.
President Barack Obama once famously said that "elections have consequences," and he was
right. But those consequences can't be the weaponization of our intelligence assets and the
setting-off of investigations to bring down a newly elected government we don't like. Policy
changes should be the consequence.
We have elections every two years, and that's the right route for Americans to express their
frustrations. Investigations, especially without probable cause, are most often the wrong way
-- and maybe this additional sunlight on what was done here will bring us together around
needed reforms to prevent this from ever happening again.
Remember, the ends don't justify the
means. It is the means that justify the ends.
Mark Penn is a managing partner of the Stagwell Group, a private equity firm
specializing in marketing services companies, as well as chairman of the Harris Poll and author
of "Microtrends Squared." He served as pollster and adviser to President Clinton from 1995 to
2000, including during Clinton's impeachment. You can follow him on Twitter
@Mark_Penn.
'Assume, for the sake of argument, that powerful, connected people in the intelligence community and in politics worried that a
wildcard Trump presidency, unlike another Clinton or Bush, might expose a decade-plus of questionable practices. Disrupt long-established
money channels. Reveal secret machinations that could arguably land some people in prison.
'What exactly might an "insurance policy" against Donald Trump look like?'
All this leads me back to the suspicion that Steele's involvement may have been less in crafting the dossier, than making it
possible to conceal its actual origins while giving it an appearance of credibility. It could also be the case that Nellie Ohr's sudden
interest in radio transmissions had to do with communications inside the United States, rather than with Steele.
Notable quotes:
"... A great deal of evidence, I think, suggests that practically all those involved in 'Russiagate' were caught totally unprepared by Trump's victory, that they then went rushing around like headless chickens, and that part of this process involved a decision being taken to publish the dossier, without consulting British intelligence. If people like Younger were not consulted, then it would seem to me unlikely that Steele was. ..."
"... And I have immense difficulty seeing how any competent media lawyer would not have recommended, at the minimum, the redaction of the names of Aleksej Gubarev and his company from the final December 2016 memorandum. This would have made legal action unlikely, without greatly diminishing the effect of the claims. ..."
"... But if this was so, and if what they thought was accurate information was actually disinformation, the likely conduit would not have been through Steele, but from FSB cybersecurity people to their FBI counterparts. ..."
"... It it is I think material that intelligence agencies commonly include a great variety of people, ranging from very able analysts and operators to complete dolts. So, the CIA has employed both Philip Giraldi and John Brennan, MI6 both Alastair Crooke and also Christopher Steele and Alex Younger. ..."
"... It is however somewhat revealing that one now finds Giraldi and Crooke appearing on a Russian site, 'Strategic Culture Foundation', while Brennan and Younger are treated as authoritative figures by the MSM. ..."
"... My strong suspicion is that 'Russiagate' is a kind of nemesis, arising from the fact that key figures in British and American intelligence have, over a protracted period of time, got involved in intrigues where they are way out of their depth. The unintended consequences of these have meant that people like Brennan and Younger, and also Hannigan, have ended up having to resort to desperate measures to cover their backsides. ..."
"... There are many aspects to this story that don't make any sense to me if one looks at it from a rational perspective. One of course being concerns about libel litigation and the related legal discovery that you note. The second being no real contingency planning in the event Hillary loses the election. Admittedly they must have bought the media line and Nate Silver's forecast of a greater than 75% probability of a Hillary win. ..."
"... The purported "arms length" relationships don't make any sense. There's Fusion GPS and Glenn Simpson playing a central role. They hire Nellie Ohr, a possible CIA asset and the wife of Bruce Ohr, the 4th highest ranking official at the DOJ. ..."
"... Glenn Simpson also hires Christopher Steele who he knows from previous "spook" associations. Steele had numerous and continuous communications including telephone, Skype, email and personal meetings with Bruce and Nellie Ohr during all this. ..."
"... Then there is Mifsud and Halper. Apparently both are CIA and FBI assets. ..."
"... You have Brennan ginning up concerns giving super secret and individual briefings to the Gang of 8 in Congress. There's Democratic Senator Mark Warner, the minority leader on the Senate Intelligence Committee texting and calling Adam Waldman, Deripaska's US attorney about setting up clandestine meetings with Steele. ..."
"... Not to be left behind there's Sen. McCain doing the same. His top aide even travels to London to meet Steele. And then there's Strzok and his mistress Lisa Page busily spending every waking moment texting each other about every twist and turn in all the political games being played. Of course there's Admiral Rogers investigating unusual searches by FBI officials and contractors on the NSA database. And he briefs President-elect Trump at Trump Tower which prompts the entire transition team to move to Trump's golf course in NJ. ..."
"... In fact the IG report on the Clinton "investigation" states that many at the FBI were accepting "gifts" from various media personalities for a quid pro quo ..."
"... There's Rod Rosenstein, Bruce Ohr's direct boss who testifies he knew nothing about Ohr being a conduit to Strzok for Steele. Of course he knew nothing but signed the FISA application on Carter Page. ..."
"... At this point I don't buy that Christopher Steele dug up real intelligence from his contacts at the highest levels of the Russian government, which caught Brennan, Clapper, Comey and Lynch's pants on fire, who then launched a formal investigation of Russia collusion with Trump. Many things just don't pass the smell test. Now of course I have no qualifications nor experience in spookdom. ..."
"... I agree that it (and Skripalmania) are almost impossible to make sense of unless you think of a bunch of highly politicised not very bright people sinking deeper and deeper into what looked like a bright idea at the time. ..."
"... I ask because, if one tries to look at it in a non-partisan way, the Western IC seemed to be a failure when it came to predicting Russian reactions in the Donbass, the Crimea, and it seems in Syria. I link this to various comments from Colonel Lang indicating that true experts were replaced over the years by less experienced and knowledgeable people. Does being "highly politicised" mean that they're not up to much when it comes to minding the shop? ..."
"... I thought I detected a protest against the politicisation of the US in the world some years ago. And we must not forget that Gen Flynn (DIA) and Adm Rogers (NSA) acted strongly against this. Flynn was the first casualty of the Trump/Russia hysteria and the Clapper claque tried to fire Rogers. ..."
"... I was born in the Depression and have seen vitriolic politics but never have seen such a massive opposition by the media, the pundits and the establishment of both parties. Over 500 print publications endorsed Hillary. Only some 20 endorsed Trump. Yet he confounds the pundits by winning the election. Clearly many voters are at odds with the political media class. ..."
"... I think there is an ideological background to this, on which the piece by Alastair Crooke – himself former MI6 – to which Patrick Armstrong links, and the piece by James George Jatras to which Crooke links, are both to the point. The 'end of history' crowd thought they were inhabiting a realised utopia, and cannot cope with the fact that their dream is collapsing. ..."
"... In relation to the millenarian undercurrents on which Crooke focuses, however, it is also worth noting that a traditional conservative suspicion has been that millenarianism is naturally linked to antinomianism: the belief that the moral law is not binding on the elect. ..."
"... It is obviously possible that Ohr did not report up the chain of command, and if so, he and his wife become pivotal figures in the conspiracy. Alternatively, it could be that Rosenstein is lying – in which case, we have large questions about who else is implicated, and specifically whether the termination of Steele by the FBI was anything more than a ruse. ..."
"... 'Yet, Simpson allegedly acknowledged that most of the information Fusion GPS and British intelligence operative Christopher Steele developed did not come from sources inside Moscow. "Much of the collection about the Trump campaign ties to Russia comes from a former Russian intelligence officer (? not entirely clear) who lives in the U.S.," Ohr scribbled in his notes.' ..."
"... And it confirms my strong suspicion that the dossier is actually a composite product, much of it assembled at Fusion, which could indeed contain material from a range of people from the former Soviet space, who could living in the United States, Britain, or elsewhere – Ukraine and the Baltics being obvious possibilities. ..."
"... So Sergei Skripal and Sergei Millian, neither of whom fit the description by Simpson, have been mentioned as possible sources, and there is also the very curiously ambiguous role of Rinat Akhmetshin. ..."
"... All these people, obviously, could simply have fabricated material or retailed gossip, and Steele himself was involved in fabricating material on an industrial scale to cover up what actually happened to Alexander Litvinenko. ..."
"... All this leads me back to the suspicion that Steele's involvement may have been less in crafting the dossier, than making it possible to conceal its actual origins while giving it an appearance of credibility. It could also be the case that Nellie Ohr's sudden interest in radio transmissions had to do with communications inside the United States, rather than with Steele. ..."
"... Apparently that organisation is doing rather well in sustaining the claiming that 'fair report privilege' could circumvent any requirement to prove truth – and a key question now is whether documents which the DOJ is being forced to produce will establish that the dossier was being used by officials in ways that would trigger the privilege as of 10 January 2017. ..."
"... That said, what Ohr reports Simpson as telling him raises fundamental questions about how anyone could have relied upon the dossier for anything – and should push people back to actually asking hard questions about its origins. ..."
"... To add: Steele was on the FBI's payroll, in addition to being on Fusion GPS's payroll. And on the payroll of Her Majesty's Government. After he got caught leaking to the media he was apparently "fired" by the FBI. But he was continuing to communicate and brief through Bruce Ohr at the DOJ. ..."
"... I think the circle of Glenn Simpson. Chris Steele, Bruce & Nellie Ohr, Adam Waldman. Peter Strzok, and Sen. Mark Warner will be very interesting to pursue. ..."
"... The other circle that should be investigated is the Brennan, Clapper, Lynch, Comey, Yates, Susan Rice. ..."
"... No investigation can exclude the active participation of key people from the media complex including people like Comey's good friend Benjamin Wittes. ..."
"... In its original version, the 'Statement of Principles' explained, among other things, that the Society: 'Believes that only modern liberal democratic states are truly legitimate, and that any international organization which admits undemocratic states on an equal basis is fundamentally flawed.' ..."
"... Ironically, it was shortly after the publication of the dossier that Anatol Lieven published in the 'National Interest' an article entitled 'Is America Becoming a Third World Country?' (See https://nationalinterest.or... .) ..."
"... Also in June, Sergei Karaganov published a piece in 'Russia in Global Affairs', of which he is publisher, entitled 'Ideology of Eastward Turn.' ..."
"... I do not think Karaganov's article is simply a reflection of changes in Russian attitudes. The changes, it seems to me, are global. ..."
"... I do think that we in the West really blew it. In 1990, we could have said, in all humility, that our way of life (IMO the key word is pluralism) had proven more survivable. So we should welcome the others into the tent. Instead, we were right and that was that. ..."
"... Just as you're asking about the origins of the dossier I wonder if it was orchestrated or something that evolved organically? If it was orchestrated, then who was the mastermind? Did Brennan, Clapper and Come sit down and hatch it or was Simpson the brains? What is astounding is the scale. So many people involved. Were they all motivated by ideology or by the need to protect their racket? ..."
"... It seems there are many sub-plots. There's the Deripaska, Steele, Waldman, Mueller, Sen. Warner angle. Then there's the Simpson, Steele, Ohr, Strzok, Page, McCabe angle. There's also the Simpson, Steele, media reporters angle. Then there's the whole Mifsud, Halper, Carter Page, Papadopolous, Downer bit. There's the Comey, Rosenstein, Yates, Strzok FISA application piece. Then there's all the stuff happening in the UK including Hannigan's resignation as soon as Trump is elected. Of course the whole Mueller appointment and the obstruction of justice thread to tie Trump's hand. There are so many elements. Who initiated and coordinated? Was each element separate? ..."
"... Together, these methods are likely to have produced a mass of information. It is important to remember, for example, that at the time of his mysterious death on 23 March 2013 Boris Berezovsky was negotiating to return to Russia, and that his head of security, Sergei Sokolov did return, with a 'cache' of documents. ..."
"... The purpose was to demonstrate that Alexei Navalny was the instrument of a 'régime change' plot in which William Browder was acting as an agent of MI6. ..."
"... An important role in the Apelbaum piece is played by the private security company Hakluyt. A quick look at the entries on Wikipedia and Powerbase will make clear that, if there is a British 'deep state', this is likely to be at its core. ..."
"... It is against this background that on has to see a specific claim which Apelbaum makes, for which I do not think any evidence is produced, about two figures whose role in 'Russiagate' is clearly central. So Luke Harding is described as 'A Guardian reporter and a Hakluyt and Orbis contractor' (note word.) Meanwhile, Edward Baumgartner is described as 'Co-founder of Edward Austin. Contractor at Orbis and Hakluyt.' ..."
"... That Harding is corrupt, as also Sir Robert Owen's 'Inquiry' into the death of the late Alexander Litvinenko, I can prove. When Owen's report was published in January 2016, a preliminary response by me was posted here on SST, which among other things listed some of the evidence establishing that the interviews supposedly recorded with Litvinenko by Detective Inspector Brent Hyatt immediately before his death were blatant forgeries. ..."
"... In relation to that part of the evidence discussed in my January 2016 post which exposes the fumbling attempts by Steele and his colleagues to cover up the truth about when and how Litvinenko travelled into central London on the day he was supposedly killed, most of this had been among a mass of material submitted by me to the Inquiry Team, which I have e-mails to prove was read. ..."
"... Further study of Owen's report has confirmed my suspicion that a strong 'prima facie case' of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice exists against very many of those involved in it. ..."
"... At the same time, materials produced on the Russian side have confirmed my suspicion that the reason why Steele and others have been able to get away with their cover-up is that the Russian intelligence services are no more enthusiastic than their British counterparts about having anything like the whole truth about how Litvinenko lived and died made public. ..."
"... Additionally, the text itself displays an odd parallelism with his assertion regarding the Steele Dossier- that is, the likelihood of multiple authors, of diverse origins. ..."
"... My curiosity about who Apelbaum might be is reinforced by the fact that the intimations he gives about his background in his responses to comments, while not incompatible with what he has said in the past, do not sit so easily with it. ..."
"... So, questions naturally arise about Apelbaum's intelligence career, in particular, who he is likely to have been employed by, and associated with, in the past, and whether he is still involved with any of those agencies which have employed him. ..."
"... 'Also, there is a large Hakluyt/Orbis "commercial intelligence" network in the US that regularly services political and federal agencies and has the power to summon Nazgûls the likes of John Brennan. So Steele is not the new kid on the block, he has been doing this type of work long before 2016. This is also why he has such a cozy relationship with the brass at the DOJ and state.' ..."
"... This is that he, the Ukrainian nationalist former KGB person Yuri Shvets, the convicted Italian disinformation peddler Mario Scaramella, and quite possibly the sometime key FBI expert on Mogilevich, Robert 'Bobby' Levinson, were involved in trying to suggest that Mogilevich was an instrument of a plot by Putin to equip Al Qaeda with a 'mini nuclear bomb.' ..."
"... In his prepared statement, Lugovoi claimed that his supposed victim used to say that everyone in Britain were ''retards', to use the translation submitted in evidence to Owen's Inquiry, or 'idiots', to use that by RT. And according to this version, the British believed in everything that 'we' – that is, the Berezovky group – said was happening in Russia. ..."
"... Whether or not Litvinenko expressed this cynical contempt, the credulity with which the claims of the 'information operations' people around Berezovsky have been accepted – well illustrated by Owen's report and perhaps most ludicrous in Harding's journalism – makes clear it is justified. ..."
"... Perhaps then, cartoons about Trump as a puppet, with the strings pulled by another puppet representing Manafort, whose strings are in turn pulled by Putin, should be replaced by ones in which Mueller is seen as a puppet manipulated by the ghost of Boris Berezovsky. ..."
"... But that is the irony. The relationship with Berezovsky blew up in the faces of all concerned, when in the wake of the successsful corruption of the investigation into the death of Litvinenko by him and his 'information operations' people, he attempted to recoup his fortunes by suing Roman Abramovich, and got taken to pieces by Lord Sumption. ..."
"... The 'Vesti Nedeli' piece uses what Elizaveta Berezovskaya says in support of the claim that Berezovsky was murdered by British 'special forces', because he was planning to return to Russia, and he 'knew too much about them.' ..."
"... One of the things I've never understood about the Trump Dossier story is the lack of any forensic analysis of its content and style anywhere in the media, even the alt media. Who was supposed to have actually written it? Steele? The style does not match someone of his background and education, and the formatting and syntax were atrocious. The font actually varied from "report" to "report." It certainly did not give me the impression of being the product of a high-end, Belgravia consultancy. ..."
"... I wonder whether it was produced by an American of one sort or another and then "laundered" by being accorded association with the UK firm. Given that Steele just happened to be hired by the USG to help in the anti-FIFA skulduggery, he and his firm seem very much to be a concern that does dirty little jobs that need discretely to be done, though in this case, the discretion was undermined. ..."
"... Most of the memos were issued before October and Fusion/Simpson authorized Steele to release information to the FBI starting in July. The question is why the memos were released after the election when a release before the election would have been enough to sink Trump. Instead the FBI and presumably those paying Fusion on Hillarys behalf sat on it, and Comey comes out days before the election ..."
"... Kind of looks like they all wanted Trump in office and the disclosure was to give Trump the excuse needed to back track on his promises to improve relations with Russia and blame that on pressure from the Deep State and Russia Gate. ..."
"... Looking at Trumps history with Sater (FBI/CIA asset) and his political aspirations that began following his Moscow visit in 1987 it seems likely Trump has been a Deep State asset for 30 years and fed intelligence to CIA/FBI on Russian oligarchs and mafia . Indeed he may well have duped Russians into believing he was working for them when in fact it was the CIA/FBI who had the best Kompromat with US RICO laws that could have beggared him ..."
"... One thing to remember about the FBI is Sy Hersh. Hersh claims the FBI has been sitting on a report for two years that fingers murdered DNC staffer Seth Rich as the Wikileaks DNC email leaker (or one of them, at least.) ..."
"... I suspect the decision to publish the dossier was political. It was required to enable Clapper, Brennan, and others to opine on national media and create further media hysteria prior to the vote as well as to justify the counter-intelligence investigations underway. They were throwing the kitchen sink to sink Trump's electoral chances. I don't think a lot of thought was given about the legal ramifications. ..."
"... This seems to be a pattern. Leak information. Then use the leaked story to justify actions like apply for a FISA warrant or fan the media flames. ..."
"... I find it incredulous that former leaders of the intelligence and law enforcement agencies have gained paid access to powerful media platforms and they have used it to launch vicious attacks on a POTUS. ..."
"... I find it amazing that McCabe and Peter Strzok are raising hundreds of thousands of dollars on social media platforms. ..."
"... If the GOP retains the House and Jim Jordan becomes speaker, then there may be a possibility that Sessions, Rosenstein and Wray may be fired and another special counsel appointed who will then convene a grand jury. ..."
My strong impression is that nobody on the British side vetted the dossier for publication. A striking feature of the early news
coverage is that there appeared to be total confusion, with some of the reporting suggesting that the sources quoted wanted to hang
him out to dry, others that they wanted to defend him.
An interesting aspect is that not only were anonymous sources linked to MI6 quoted on both sides of the argument -- which could
have been explained by disagreements within the organisation: in different stories, not however far apart in date, its head, Sir
Alex Younger, was portrayed as holding radically different views.
When CNN publicised the existence of the dossier on 10 January 2017, the same day that it was published by 'BuzzFeed', it suggested
that the author was British. The following day, the WSJ named Steele.
On 13 January, Martin Robinson, UK Chief Reporter for 'Mail Online', published a report whose headlines seem worth quoting in
full:
'I introduced him to my wife as James Bond': Former spy Chris Steele's friends describe a "show-off" 007 figure but MI6 bosses
brand him "an idiot" for an "appalling lack of judgement" over the Trump "dirty dossier": Intelligence expert Nigel West says friend
is like Ian Fleming's famous character; He said: "He's James Bond. I actually introduced him to my wife as James Bond'; Mr West says
Steele dislikes Putin and Kremlin for ignoring rules of espionage; Angry spy source calls him 'idiot' and blasts decision to take
on the Trump work; Current MI6 boss Sir Alex Younger is said to be livid about reputation damage.'
On 15 January, however, Kim Sengupta, Defence Editor of the 'Independent', produced a report headlined: 'Head of MI6 used information
from Trump dossier in first public speech; Warnings on cyberattacks show ex-spy's work is respected.'
A great deal of evidence, I think, suggests that practically all those involved in 'Russiagate' were caught totally unprepared
by Trump's victory, that they then went rushing around like headless chickens, and that part of this process involved a decision
being taken to publish the dossier, without consulting British intelligence. If people like Younger were not consulted, then it would
seem to me unlikely that Steele was.
This leads me on to another puzzle about the dossier to which I have been having a difficulty finding a solution. Long years
ago I was reasonably familiar with libel law in relation to journalism. Anyone who 'served indentures', as very many of us did in
those days, had to study it. Later, I got involved in a protracted libel suit -- successfully, I hasten to add -- in relation to
a programme I made, and had the sobering experience of having a top-class libel barrister requiring me to justify every assertion
I had made.
In the jargon then, a crucial question when an article, or programme, was being 'vetted' before publication was whether it represented
a 'fair business risk.' This involved both the technical legal issues, and also judgements as to whether people were likely to sue,
and how if they did the case would be likely to pan out.
On the face of things, one would not have expected that people at 'BuzzFeed' would have gone ahead and make the dossier public,
without having it 'vetted' by competent lawyers. And I have difficulty seeing how, if they did, the advice could have been to publish
what they published.
I have some difficulty seeing how the advice could have been to include the memorandum with the claims about the Alfa Group oligarchs,
unless either these could be seriously defended or it was assumed that contesting them effectively would involve revealing more 'dirty
linen' than these wanted to see aired in public.
And I have immense difficulty seeing how any competent media lawyer would not have recommended, at the minimum, the redaction
of the names of Aleksej Gubarev and his company from the final December 2016 memorandum. This would have made legal action unlikely,
without greatly diminishing the effect of the claims.
Trying to make sense of why such an obvious precaution was not taken, I find myself wondering whether, in fact, the reason may
have been that the people responsible for the dossier may have actually believed this part of it at least.
If that is so, however, the most plausible explanation I can see is that while other claims in the dossier may well be total fabrication,
either by the people at Fusion and Steele or by some of their questionable contacts, this information at least did come from what
Glenn Simpson, Nellie Ohr et al thought were reliable Russian government sources.
But if this was so, and if what they thought was accurate information was actually disinformation, the likely conduit would
not have been through Steele, but from FSB cybersecurity people to their FBI counterparts.
I think that the cases involving Karim Baratov and Dmitri Dokuchaev and his colleagues may be much more complex than is apparent
from what looks to me like patent disinformation put out both on the Western and Russian sides.
It it is I think material that intelligence agencies commonly include a great variety of people, ranging from very able analysts
and operators to complete dolts. So, the CIA has employed both Philip Giraldi and John Brennan, MI6 both Alastair Crooke and also
Christopher Steele and Alex Younger.
It is however somewhat revealing that one now finds Giraldi and Crooke appearing on a Russian site, 'Strategic Culture Foundation',
while Brennan and Younger are treated as authoritative figures by the MSM.
If you want to get a clear picture of quite how low-grade the latter figure is, incidentally, it is worth looking at the speech
to which Kim Sengupta refers.
A favourite line of mine comes in Younger's discussion of the -- actually largely mythical -- notion of 'hybrid warfare': 'In
this arena, our opponents are often states whose very survival owes to the strength of their security capabilities; the work is complex
and risky, often with the full weight of the State seeking to root us out.'
Leaving aside the fact that this is borderline illiterate, what it amazing is Younger's apparent blindness to clearly unintended
implications of what he writes. If indeed, the 'very survival' of the Russian state 'owes to the strength of [its] security capabilities',
the conclusions, seen from a Russian point of view, would seem rather obvious: vote Putin, and give medals to Patrushev and Bortnikov.
My strong suspicion is that 'Russiagate' is a kind of nemesis, arising from the fact that key figures in British and American
intelligence have, over a protracted period of time, got involved in intrigues where they are way out of their depth. The unintended
consequences of these have meant that people like Brennan and Younger, and also Hannigan, have ended up having to resort to desperate
measures to cover their backsides.
There are many aspects to this story that don't make any sense to me if one looks at it from a rational perspective. One
of course being concerns about libel litigation and the related legal discovery that you note. The second being no real contingency
planning in the event Hillary loses the election. Admittedly they must have bought the media line and Nate Silver's forecast of
a greater than 75% probability of a Hillary win.
The purported "arms length" relationships don't make any sense. There's Fusion GPS and Glenn Simpson playing a central
role. They hire Nellie Ohr, a possible CIA asset and the wife of Bruce Ohr, the 4th highest ranking official at the DOJ.
Glenn Simpson also hires Christopher Steele who he knows from previous "spook" associations. Steele had numerous and continuous
communications including telephone, Skype, email and personal meetings with Bruce and Nellie Ohr during all this. They even
have discussions about Deripaska and about his visa application to visit the US. Bruce is a conduit to Strzok at FBI. Glenn Simpson
also is part of these discussions with Steele and the Ohrs.
Simpson also arranges for Steele to brief "reporters" like David Corn and others at the NY Times, WaPo, WSJ, Politico and others.
Then there is Mifsud and Halper. Apparently both are CIA and FBI assets. They are communicating with Carter Page and
Papadopolous, who in turn is drinking and yapping with Aussie ambassador Downer.
You have Brennan ginning up concerns giving super secret and individual briefings to the Gang of 8 in Congress. There's
Democratic Senator Mark Warner, the minority leader on the Senate Intelligence Committee texting and calling Adam Waldman, Deripaska's
US attorney about setting up clandestine meetings with Steele. There's Sen. Harry Reid passing on the Steele "dossier" to
Comey.
Not to be left behind there's Sen. McCain doing the same. His top aide even travels to London to meet Steele. And then
there's Strzok and his mistress Lisa Page busily spending every waking moment texting each other about every twist and turn in
all the political games being played. Of course there's Admiral Rogers investigating unusual searches by FBI officials and contractors
on the NSA database. And he briefs President-elect Trump at Trump Tower which prompts the entire transition team to move to Trump's
golf course in NJ.
Oh, there is also Nellie Ohr setting up ham radio to avoid detection in her communications with Steele. Then we have everyone
leaking and spinning to their "cohorts" in the premier media like the NY Times, CNN and WaPo.
Comey even has his buddy a professor and ostensibly his legal counsel on the payroll of the FBI as a contractor with access
to all the sensitive databases leaking to the media.
Andy McCabe has his legal counsel Lisa Page spin stories around his wife's huge campaign contributions from Clinton consigliere
McAuliffe.
In fact the IG report on the Clinton "investigation" states that many at the FBI were accepting "gifts" from various media
personalities for a quid pro quo.
As if all this was not enough there's AG Loretta Lynch, meeting with Bill Clinton on a tarmac ostensibly to discuss their grandkids.
Not to forget there were these "unmaskings" of surveillance information by Susan Rice, Samantha Power.
There's Rod Rosenstein, Bruce Ohr's direct boss who testifies he knew nothing about Ohr being a conduit to Strzok for Steele.
Of course he knew nothing but signed the FISA application on Carter Page. Then there are the FISC judges who never believed
their mandate required them to verify the evidence before issuing sweeping surveillance warrants. Now all this is what I as an
old farmer and winemaker have read. Those more in tune would easily add to these convoluted machinations.
I don't know how to make sense of all this. All I see is the extent of effort to prevent Donald Trump from being elected and
after he won from governing. The most obvious observation is that the leadership in our law enforcement and intelligence agencies
are so busy politicking spinning and leaking they have neither the time or the inclination let alone competence to do their real
job for which they get paid a handsome wage and sterling benefits.
At this point I don't buy that Christopher Steele dug up real intelligence from his contacts at the highest levels of the
Russian government, which caught Brennan, Clapper, Comey and Lynch's pants on fire, who then launched a formal investigation of
Russia collusion with Trump. Many things just don't pass the smell test. Now of course I have no qualifications nor experience
in spookdom.
If you have any speculative theories that connects some of the dots it would be my great pleasure to read.
I agree that it (and Skripalmania) are almost impossible to make sense of unless you think of a bunch of highly politicised
not very bright people sinking deeper and deeper into what looked like a bright idea at the time.
Confident that their horse is going to win the race and that the media will cover it all up and nobody will ever hear anything
about anything. Now that the unexpected happened, they're just spinning and denying faster hoping the Dems win in Nov and stop
all the investigations. And, they're getting nervous wondering who's going to sell out whom next. Up and down, around and around.
Gerbils -- there really isn't anything very consistent, planned or thought-out.
"I agree that it (and Skripalmania) are almost impossible to make sense of unless you think of a bunch of highly politicised
not very bright people sinking deeper and deeper into what looked like a bright idea at the time."
I believe your summary of what's happening is more accurate than Alastair Crooke's as set out in the article linked to.
But bright or not, what are these people in the IC doing being "highly politicised"? Does that not render them considerably
less efficient?
I ask because, if one tries to look at it in a non-partisan way, the Western IC seemed to be a failure when it came to
predicting Russian reactions in the Donbass, the Crimea, and it seems in Syria. I link this to various comments from Colonel Lang
indicating that true experts were replaced over the years by less experienced and knowledgeable people. Does being "highly politicised"
mean that they're not up to much when it comes to minding the shop?
I thought I detected a protest against the politicisation of the US in the world some years ago. And we must not forget
that Gen Flynn (DIA) and Adm Rogers (NSA) acted strongly against this. Flynn was the first casualty of the Trump/Russia hysteria
and the Clapper claque tried to fire Rogers.
Usually the incumbent party loses the mid-term election. The Democrats lost big in Obama's first mid-term. The Republicans
won the House and gained six senators. While the punditry claims a Blue Wave and Nate Silver is giving the Dems the odds. I'm
not so sure. I think the GOP will increase their majority in the Senate putting any conviction of Trump out of question.
I was born in the Depression and have seen vitriolic politics but never have seen such a massive opposition by the media,
the pundits and the establishment of both parties. Over 500 print publications endorsed Hillary. Only some 20 endorsed Trump.
Yet he confounds the pundits by winning the election. Clearly many voters are at odds with the political media class.
Yeah. My bet is that the Repubs hold onto both. 1) the economy is getting better 2) what do the Dems have to offer other than
this crazy Trump/Russia thing?
Economy will slow down sharply in 2019 but there should be enough momentum to help with the mid-terms. Trump needs to stop
with the endless sanction stuff. The House does look like a close one.
At a very general level, a 'speculative theory' which I have been mulling over for some time was rather well set out in a commentary
in 'The Hill' on 9 August by Sharyl Attkisson, which opens:
'Let's begin in the realm of the fanciful.
'Assume, for the sake of argument, that powerful, connected people in the intelligence community and in politics worried that
a wildcard Trump presidency, unlike another Clinton or Bush, might expose a decade-plus of questionable practices. Disrupt long-established
money channels. Reveal secret machinations that could arguably land some people in prison.
'What exactly might an "insurance policy" against Donald Trump look like?'
And Attkisson goes on to outline precisely the developments that appear to have happened.
I think there is an ideological background to this, on which the piece by Alastair Crooke – himself former MI6 – to which
Patrick Armstrong links, and the piece by James George Jatras to which Crooke links, are both to the point. The 'end of history'
crowd thought they were inhabiting a realised utopia, and cannot cope with the fact that their dream is collapsing.
In relation to the millenarian undercurrents on which Crooke focuses, however, it is also worth noting that a traditional
conservative suspicion has been that millenarianism is naturally linked to antinomianism: the belief that the moral law is not
binding on the elect. And in turn, according to a familiar skeptical view, antinomianism can easily end up in in straightforward
rascality.
On the rascality – to which Attkisson is pointing – I am working on how parts of the picture can be fleshed out. A few preliminary
points raised by your remarks.
As you note, 'There's Rod Rosenstein, Bruce Ohr's direct boss who testifies he knew nothing about Ohr being a conduit to Strzok
for Steele.' So, we know that Ohr and Steele were conspiring together to ensure that the latter could continue to be intimately
involved in the Mueller investigation, despite the FBI termination,
It is obviously possible that Ohr did not report up the chain of command, and if so, he and his wife become pivotal figures
in the conspiracy. Alternatively, it could be that Rosenstein is lying – in which case, we have large questions about who else
is implicated, and specifically whether the termination of Steele by the FBI was anything more than a ruse.
If, as seems to me likely, although not certain, the second possibility is closer to the truth than the former, then before
Ohr testifies on 28 August before the House Judiciary and Oversight Committees he will have to consider whether he is prepared
to 'take the rap' for his superiors, or 'sing sweetly.'
The fact that in a report in 'The Hill', I think on the same day as the Attkisson piece, John Solomon was quoting from Ohr's
handwritten notes of a meeting with Glenn Simpson in December 2016 makes me wonder whether he may not already have made a decision.
A key paragraph from the report:
'Yet, Simpson allegedly acknowledged that most of the information Fusion GPS and British intelligence operative Christopher
Steele developed did not come from sources inside Moscow. "Much of the collection about the Trump campaign ties to Russia comes
from a former Russian intelligence officer (? not entirely clear) who lives in the U.S.," Ohr scribbled in his notes.'
There is I think a need for caution here. There is no guarantee that Simpson was telling the literal truth to Ohr, or indeed
the latter reproducing with absolute accuracy with he was told (handwritten notes can be disposed of easily, but they can also
be rewritten.)
One is I think on firmer ground in relation to what it suggests was not the case – that there is any substance whatsoever in
the ludicrous story of someone running a private security company in London sending out hired employees who then gain access to
top Kremlin insiders, with these, of course, telling them precisely what they actually think.
And it confirms my strong suspicion that the dossier is actually a composite product, much of it assembled at Fusion, which
could indeed contain material from a range of people from the former Soviet space, who could living in the United States, Britain,
or elsewhere – Ukraine and the Baltics being obvious possibilities.
So Sergei Skripal and Sergei Millian, neither of whom fit the description by Simpson, have been mentioned as possible sources,
and there is also the very curiously ambiguous role of Rinat Akhmetshin.
All these people, obviously, could simply have fabricated material or retailed gossip, and Steele himself was involved
in fabricating material on an industrial scale to cover up what actually happened to Alexander Litvinenko.
That said, I continue to think it possible that both the second and final memoranda may incorporate some 'glitter', as well
as 'chickenfeed' fed from FSB cybersecurity people to their FBI counterparts, to hark back to George Smiley says to the Minister,
quite possibly included in the hope that the BS involved would be reproduced in contexts where it could provoke legal action.
All this leads me back to the suspicion that Steele's involvement may have been less in crafting the dossier, than making
it possible to conceal its actual origins while giving it an appearance of credibility. It could also be the case that Nellie
Ohr's sudden interest in radio transmissions had to do with communications inside the United States, rather than with Steele.
It could then be that Steele has been, in effect, hoist with his own petard, in that he is having to sustain the fiction that
he had some kind of grounds for making the claims about Aleksej Gubarev and XBT. How far this matters, at least in relation to
the action bought against 'BuzzFeed' in Florida, remains moot at the moment.
Apparently that organisation is doing rather well in sustaining the claiming that 'fair report privilege' could circumvent
any requirement to prove truth – and a key question now is whether documents which the DOJ is being forced to produce will establish
that the dossier was being used by officials in ways that would trigger the privilege as of 10 January 2017.
That said, what Ohr reports Simpson as telling him raises fundamental questions about how anyone could have relied upon
the dossier for anything – and should push people back to actually asking hard questions about its origins.
Mr Habakkuk, you mention "ambiguous role of Rinat Akhmetshin" - I am not sure if you meant Akhmetov.
I am surprised and curious about you mentioning him - if you meant Akhmetov - because that is one name among all the oligarchs
which has so far not been prominent. Thank you for your posts, these posts and the SST comments could and should serve as help
to the congressional investigations and hearings.
To add: Steele was on the FBI's payroll, in addition to being on Fusion GPS's payroll. And on the payroll of Her Majesty's
Government. After he got caught leaking to the media he was apparently "fired" by the FBI. But he was continuing to communicate
and brief through Bruce Ohr at the DOJ.
I think the circle of Glenn Simpson. Chris Steele, Bruce & Nellie Ohr, Adam Waldman. Peter Strzok, and Sen. Mark Warner
will be very interesting to pursue.
The other circle that should be investigated is the Brennan, Clapper, Lynch, Comey, Yates, Susan Rice.
No investigation can exclude the active participation of key people from the media complex including people like Comey's
good friend Benjamin Wittes.
Younger isn't the brightest bulb in the box, is he?
"If you doubt the link between legitimacy and effective counter-terrorism, then – albeit negatively – the unfolding tragedy
in Syria will, I fear, provide proof. I believe the Russian conduct in Syria, allied with that of Assad's discredited regime,
will, if they do not change course, provide a tragic example of the perils of forfeiting legitimacy. In defining as a terrorist
anyone who opposes a brutal government, they alienate precisely that group that has to be on side if the extremists are to
be defeated. Meanwhile, in Aleppo, Russia and the Syrian regime seek to make a desert and call it peace. The human tragedy
is heart-breaking"
Those were indeed some of the most inane comments in an inane piece.
But then, if you read an interview given to Jay Elwes of 'Prospect' magazine in May last year by Younger's predecessor Sir
Richard Dearlove, who looks to have been a significant background presence in what has been going on, you will find that, although
he is much more coherent than than his successor, it is almost as inane.
As it happens, Dearlove was one of the signatories of the 'Statement of Principles' of something called the 'Henry Jackson
Society.'
This was founded in 2005, in Cambridge, by a group in whom acolytes of an historian called Maurice Cowling were prominent –
Dearlove is himself a graduate in history from that university.
In its original version, the 'Statement of Principles' explained, among other things, that the Society: 'Believes that
only modern liberal democratic states are truly legitimate, and that any international organization which admits undemocratic
states on an equal basis is fundamentally flawed.'
Ironically, it was shortly after the publication of the dossier that Anatol Lieven published in the 'National Interest'
an article entitled 'Is America Becoming a Third World Country?' (See
https://nationalinterest.or...
.)
Among other things, he harked back to the way that, in 1648, a century and a half of bloody ideological strife in Europe had
been ended with a recognition that the legitimacy of different state forms had to be accepted, if a kind of 'war of all against
all' was to be avoided.
And Lieven went on to reflect on the way that, at what was then widely seen as the end of the Cold War, the abandonment of
universalisitic pretensions by Russia and China was interpreted as justifying an embrace of these by the the West.
This, he went on to argue, had actually had the paradoxical effect of relegitimising 'régimes' which do not conform to Western
'democratic' models, concluding by noting what appears to our new, quasi-Soviet, preference for not letting experience interfere
with ideological dogma:
'Finally – even after the catastrophes of Iraq and Libya – there is almost no awareness among US policymakers of the fact that
US attempts to change the regimes of other countries are likely to be seen not only by the elites of those countries but also
by their populations as leading to – and intended to lead to – the destruction of the state itself, leading to disaster for its
society and population. When the Communist regime in the USSR collapsed (though only in part under Western pressure), it took
the Soviet state with it. The Russian state came close to following suit in the years that followed, Russia was reduced to impotence
on the world stage, and large parts of the Russian and other populations suffered economic and social disaster. Remembering their
own past experiences with state collapse, warlordism, famine and foreign invasion, Chinese people looked at this awful spectacle
and huddled closer to the Chinese state – one that they may dislike in many ways, but which they certainly trust more than anything
America has to offer – especially given the apparent decay of democracy throughout the West.'
I read with interest your piece back in June entitled 'Putin Once Dreamed the American Dream', reprinting Charles Heberle's
account of the 'Transforming Subjects Into Citizens' project, and the attitude of some people close to Putin to it.
One of the things which struck me was that the question why the American Revolution succeeded, and so many others failed, which
was concerning the intellectuals to whom Heberle talked, is one of the central questions of modern political thought, from Tocqueville
on.
(Indeed, the question of the preconditions for what might be called 'constitutional' government, has been central to 'republican'
thought, ever since it was revived by Italian thinkers, including prominently Machiavelli, when the 'Renaissance' made them reactivate
and rework debates from ancient Rome and Greece.)
However, to hark back to the anxieties expressed by Lieven, nothing in the analysis of the great French thinker necessary guarantees
that the success of 'Democracy in America' is stable and permanent, or indeed that the relatively civilised order of the post-war
'Pax Americana' is necessarily durable in Western Europe.
Also in June, Sergei Karaganov published a piece in 'Russia in Global Affairs', of which he is publisher, entitled 'Ideology
of Eastward Turn.' A paragraph that struck me:
'Russian society should by no means abdicate from its mostly European culture. But it should certainly stop being afraid,
let alone feel ashamed, of its Asianism. It should be remembered that from the standpoint of prevailing social mentality and
society's attitude to the authorities Russia, just as China and many other Asian states, are offspring of Chengiss Khan's Empire.
This is no reason for throwing up hands in despair or for beginning to despise one's own people, contrary to what many members
of intelligencia sometimes do. It should be accepted as a fact of life and used as a strength. The more so, since amid the
harsh competitive environment of the modern world the authoritarian type of government – in the context of a market economy
and equitable military potentials – is certainly far more effective than modern democracy. This is what our Western partners
find so worrisome. Of course, we should bear in mind that authoritarianism – just like democracy – may lead to stagnation and
degradation. Russia is certainly confronted with such a risk.'
Unlike you, I cannot claim serious expertise on Russia. But, as a reasonably alert generalist television current affairs producer,
I took note of the indications which were emerging in the course of 1987 that the Gorbachev 'new thinking' was underpinned by
a realisation that Soviet institutions and ideas had become fundamentally dysfunctional, to which you have referred repeatedly
over the years.
And, after long tedious months trying interest the powers that were in British broadcasting in what was happening, I ended
up producing a couple of programmes for BBC Radio in February/March 1989 in which we interviewed some of the leading 'new thinkers',
among them Karaganov's then immediate superior at the Institute of Europe, Vitaly Zhurkin.
At the Institute for the USA and Canada, by contrast, we did not interview its head, Georgiy Arbatov, but his deputy, Andrei
Kokoshin, and one of the latter's mentors on military matters and collaborators General-Mayor Valentin Larionov, who I later realised
had earlier been one of the foremost Soviet nuclear strategists. (At the Institute for World Economy and International Relations,
we interviewed Arbatov's son, Alexei.)
Talking to these people we got a sense, although it had to be fleshed out later, of the scale of the disillusion with Soviet
models, and indeed – which began to frighten me not long after – of the way many of them were romanticising the West.
What Karaganov now writes is I think a hardly very surprising reaction to the way that the Western powers responded to the
'new thinking.' Moreover, it seems to me that the disillusionment involved is in no sense particular Russian, but rather global.
If one regards 'democracy' as though it were quoted on the stock exchange, before 1914 there were very many buyers, including
among the Russian élite. By 1931, in very many places, including large sections of the 'intelligentsia' in Western countries,
it was a sellers' market, to put it mildly.
After 1945, a kind of long 'bull market' in 'democracy' started: for very good reasons.
The – largely but very far from entirely – peaceful retreat and collapse of Soviet power was to a very significant extent the
product of this. The subsequent behaviour of Western élites has generated a vicious 'bear market', a fact they appear unable to
understand.
I do not think Karaganov's article is simply a reflection of changes in Russian attitudes. The changes, it seems to me,
are global.
I do think that we in the West really blew it. In 1990, we could have said, in all humility, that our way of life (IMO
the key word is pluralism) had proven more survivable. So we should welcome the others into the tent. Instead, we were right and
that was that.
PS, in light of the Henry Jackson society and all Younger's references to "values" this one rather stands out "A vital lesson
I take from the Chilcot Report is the danger of group think."
Yeah. Group think, the very opposite of what I mean by pluralism.
Sharyl Atkinson describes well the conspiracy. When one steps back and look at all the machinations we know now, it seems incredible.
Just as you're asking about the origins of the dossier I wonder if it was orchestrated or something that evolved organically?
If it was orchestrated, then who was the mastermind? Did Brennan, Clapper and Come sit down and hatch it or was Simpson the brains?
What is astounding is the scale. So many people involved. Were they all motivated by ideology or by the need to protect their
racket?
It seems there are many sub-plots. There's the Deripaska, Steele, Waldman, Mueller, Sen. Warner angle. Then there's the
Simpson, Steele, Ohr, Strzok, Page, McCabe angle. There's also the Simpson, Steele, media reporters angle. Then there's the whole
Mifsud, Halper, Carter Page, Papadopolous, Downer bit. There's the Comey, Rosenstein, Yates, Strzok FISA application piece. Then
there's all the stuff happening in the UK including Hannigan's resignation as soon as Trump is elected. Of course the whole Mueller
appointment and the obstruction of justice thread to tie Trump's hand. There are so many elements. Who initiated and coordinated?
Was each element separate?
There's no doubt a political thriller movie could be made.
I guess the comedy part is that there actually exist people with medically functioning brains, who are somehow able to contort
such a worldview...Aleppo as peaceful 'desert' indeed...who knew that having bearded fanatics in charge is somehow 'better'...[and
not 'heart-breaking']...
Some here may find blogpost from March of this year interesting as it speaks to the production of the Steele dossier. I have
not seen it mentioned here before and a site search produced no results.
https://apelbaum.wordpress....
Some sections seem to have gotten David Cay Johnston's hackles up.
I had seen Yaacov Apelbaum's piece referred to by Clarice Feldman in a post on the 'American Thinker' site a few days back,
but not looked at it properly.
It is indeed fascinating, and clearly repays a closer study than I have so far had time to give it. I was however relieved
to find that what Apelbaum writes 'meshes' quite well with my own views of the likely authorship of the dossier.
A question I have is whether the monumental amount of labour involved in producing it can really be the work of a single IT
person – however wide-ranging his abilities and interests. My suspicion is that there may be input from Russian intelligence.
This is not said in order to discredit Apelbaum's work. In matters where I have had occasion critically to examine claims from
official Russian sources, I have found several unsurprising, but recurring, patterns. Sometimes, the information provided can
be shown to be essentially accurate, and it is reasonably clear how it has been obtained.
At other times, claims are made which information from other sources suggests either are, or may well be, true, but the 'sources
and methods' involved are deliberately obscured, making evaluation more difficult.
And then, there are many occasions when what one gets is quite patently a mixture of accurate information and disinformation.
Analysing these can be very productive, if one can both sift out the accurate information, and attempt to see what the disinformation
is designed to obscure.
One thing of which I am absolutely certain is that the networks which are outlined by Apelbaum are precisely those which Russian
intelligence will have spent a great deal of time and ingenuity penetrating.
This will have been attempted by 'SIGINT' and surveillance methods, and also through infiltrating agents and turning people.
(There are often grounds to suspect that some of those most vociferously denouncing Putin are colluding with Russian intelligence.)
Together, these methods are likely to have produced a mass of information. It is important to remember, for example, that
at the time of his mysterious death on 23 March 2013 Boris Berezovsky was negotiating to return to Russia, and that his head of
security, Sergei Sokolov did return, with a 'cache' of documents.
Some of these were used back in April 2016 in a 'Vesti Nedeli' edition presented by Dmitry Kiselyov, who manages Russia's informational
programming resources, and an accompanying documentary on the 'Pervyi Kanal' station.
The purpose was to demonstrate that Alexei Navalny was the instrument of a 'régime change' plot in which William Browder was
acting as an agent of MI6.
There is a good discussion of this, which highlights some of the problems with the documents, by Gilbert Doctorow, and Sokolov
appears to have been involved in some murky activities since.
But whatever the credibility or lack of it of the material, its appearance illustrates a general pattern, where the political
disintegration of the London-based opposition to Putin has meant that more and more people involved in it have been supplying
information to the Russians.
If, as I strongly suspect, there is fire beneath the smoke in those Russian television programmes, and if a great part of a
series of projects of a related kind orchestrated in conjunction by elements in American and British intelligence were actually
large run from this side, this will be creating headaches for people in Washington, as well as London.
An important role in the Apelbaum piece is played by the private security company Hakluyt. A quick look at the entries
on Wikipedia and Powerbase will make clear that, if there is a British 'deep state', this is likely to be at its core.
It is against this background that on has to see a specific claim which Apelbaum makes, for which I do not think any evidence
is produced, about two figures whose role in 'Russiagate' is clearly central. So Luke Harding is described as 'A Guardian reporter
and a Hakluyt and Orbis contractor' (note word.) Meanwhile, Edward Baumgartner is described as 'Co-founder of Edward Austin. Contractor
at Orbis and Hakluyt.'
That Harding is corrupt, as also Sir Robert Owen's 'Inquiry' into the death of the late Alexander Litvinenko, I can prove.
When Owen's report was published in January 2016, a preliminary response by me was posted here on SST, which among other things
listed some of the evidence establishing that the interviews supposedly recorded with Litvinenko by Detective Inspector Brent
Hyatt immediately before his death were blatant forgeries.
If this is the case, then questions are raised about how much of the apparently compelling forensic evidence is forged – and
close examination suggests that key parts of it are.
In relation to that part of the evidence discussed in my January 2016 post which exposes the fumbling attempts by Steele
and his colleagues to cover up the truth about when and how Litvinenko travelled into central London on the day he was supposedly
killed, most of this had been among a mass of material submitted by me to the Inquiry Team, which I have e-mails to prove was
read.
Likewise, also in January 2016, I sent the key relevant evidence on this crucial matter to Harding and senior figures at the
'Guardian', and have reason to believe it was read.
Further study of Owen's report has confirmed my suspicion that a strong 'prima facie case' of conspiracy to pervert the
course of justice exists against very many of those involved in it.
At the same time, materials produced on the Russian side have confirmed my suspicion that the reason why Steele and others
have been able to get away with their cover-up is that the Russian intelligence services are no more enthusiastic than their British
counterparts about having anything like the whole truth about how Litvinenko lived and died made public.
Given the central role which Steele has now assumed in what looks like one of the biggest political scandals in American history,
and the fact that in his book 'Collusion' Harding was again coming out in support of him, it would be of the greatest possible
interest if indeed the latter had combined being a senior 'Guardian' correspondent with being paid by both Orbis and – even more
important – Hakluyt.
And, particularly given the peculiar ambiguities of the role both of Fusion GPS and Baumgartner in the 'Trump Tower' meeting,
it would be of great interest if the latter could be tied not only to Fusion, but to Orbis and – again even more important – Hakluyt.
This in turn might be relevant in trying to make sense of whether the fact that he and Simpson appear to have been working
against Trump and Browder at the same time was or was not part of an elaborate ploy to give credibility to 'information operations'
against the former.
There are accordingly two possibilities. It may be that, while much else in the Apelbaum material can be shown to be accurate,
such accurate information is being used to give credibility to disinformation.
Alternatively, he is being used as a conduit for accurate and really explosive information about the British end of 'Russiagate',
which he is unlikely to have unearthed all by himself, and the actual sources of which are – for very understandable reasons –
being obscured.
Thank you for your reply. You have given me much to think about and I am very grateful that you took the time to respond in
such a comprehensive manner, and that you have provided me and others here with some really compelling information and notions.
In particular, the issue of sources and methods you note seems spot on. The author(s)'s information gathering methodologies
and expertise are certainly not those of the laiety. In fact in the comments below his post YA mentions intelligence work.
Additionally, the text itself displays an odd parallelism with his assertion regarding the Steele Dossier- that is, the
likelihood of multiple authors, of diverse origins.
One thing that did catch my eye was a response he made to David Cay Johnston's pissy request for a retraction about Jacoby
involvement. YA included a quote in Latin from Cicero's accusations against Cataline. Here is the English: What is there that
you did last night, what the night before -- where is it that you were -- who was there that you summoned to meet you -- what
design was there which was adopted by you, with which you think that any one of us is unacquainted?
While this sort of riposte isn't exactly hyper-erudite, it ain't chopped liver either. What I mean to say is that exceptional
cyber skills, algorithm coding (I'm guessing crawlers) are not commonly coupled with that sort of classical formation. His recourse
to various biblical quotes suggests an unusual level of education as well. And no way is he younger than 38 or so.
At any rate, thank you for the article and your kind and informative reply.
Thanks. I have now read both a good few of Apelbaum's earlier posts, and also the comments on his discussion of the dossier.
Given the importance of his analysis of that document closer study is clearly needed of all this material, but I have some preliminary
reactions.
My curiosity about who Apelbaum might be is reinforced by the fact that the intimations he gives about his background in
his responses to comments, while not incompatible with what he has said in the past, do not sit so easily with it.
In a July 2010 post, he explained that: 'In my previous life, I was a civil engineer. I worked for a large power marine construction
company doing structural design and field engineering.' According to the account he gave then, he subsequently shifted to software
development.
What he now tells us is that: 'As far as how I first started, I do have an intelligence background and have been developing
OSINT/cyber/intelligence platforms for many years.'
That makes sense in terms of the analysis, which – whatever other inputs there may or may not have been – looks to me like
the work of someone who has a serious background in these kinds of methodology, and moreover, is clearly not any kind of 'Fachidiot.'
So, questions naturally arise about Apelbaum's intelligence career, in particular, who he is likely to have been employed
by, and associated with, in the past, and whether he is still involved with any of those agencies which have employed him.
Even if he is not, questions would obviously rise about present connections arising from past work. This is in addition to
the possibility that the logic of events may have provoked him to collaborate with those who might earlier have been his adversaries.
Reading Apelbaum's work, I am reminded of another interesting intervention in an embittered argument relating to the Middle
East and the post-Soviet space, from what turned out to be an unexpected source.
In the period following the 'false flag' sarin attack at Ghouta on 21 August 2013 an incisive demolition of the conventional
wisdom was provided in the 'crowdsourced' investigation masterminded by one 'sasa wawa' on a site entitled 'Who Attacked Ghouta?'
And then, in December 2016, an Israeli high technology entrepreneur called Saar Wilf, a former employee of Unit 8200, that
country's equivalent of the NSA or GCHQ, who had subsequently made a great deal of money when he and his partner sold their company
to Paypal, co-founded a site called 'Rootclaim.'
The site, it was explained, was dedicated to applying Bayesian statistics to 'current affairs' problems. This is a methodology,
whose modern form owes much to work done at Bletchley Park in the war, which is invaluable in 'SIGINT' analysis and also combating
online fraud.
At the outset, 'Rootclaim' posted a recycled version of some of the key material from the 'Who Attacked Ghouta?' investigation.
So, it seems likely, if not absolutely certain, that Saar Wilf and 'sasa wawa' are one and the same.
Following the Salisbury incident on 4 March, a blogger using the name 'sushi' produced a series of eleven posts under the title
'A Curious Incident' on the 'Vineyard of the Saker' blog.
Again, there are some very clear resemblances to 'sasa wawa' and Saar Wilf, which made me wonder whether the same person may
be reappearing under yet another 'moniker.'
While the 'flavour' of Apelbaum seems to be different, the combination of what looks like serious technical expertise in IT
techniques relating to intelligence with broad general intellectual interests looks to me similar.
I was amused by the combination of his quotation of the words from John 8:32 etched into the wall of the original CIA headquarters
– 'And you shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free' – and the following remarks:
'The June 2016 start date of Steele's contract with Fusion GPS is the start of the "billable" activity, not the beginning of
the research. Steele and Simpson/Jacoby have been collaborating on Trump/Russia going back to 2009.
'Also, there is a large Hakluyt/Orbis "commercial intelligence" network in the US that regularly services political and
federal agencies and has the power to summon Nazgûls the likes of John Brennan. So Steele is not the new kid on the block, he
has been doing this type of work long before 2016. This is also why he has such a cozy relationship with the brass at the DOJ
and state.'
As it happens, I think that many of the collaborations involved may have started significantly earlier than this. In his response
to David Cay Johnston, Apelbaum links to an April 2007' WSJ' article by Simpon and Jacoby which, among other things, deals with
Semyon Mogilevich.
This is behind a paywall, but, fortunately, the fact that Ukrainian nationalists have had an obvious interest in treating it
as a source of reliable information has meant that it is easily accessible.
It should I think be clear from my January 2016 post why I find this particularly interesting, in that it has to be interpreted
in the context of a crucial 'key' to the mystery of the death of Alexander Litvinenko.
This is that he, the Ukrainian nationalist former KGB person Yuri Shvets, the convicted Italian disinformation peddler
Mario Scaramella, and quite possibly the sometime key FBI expert on Mogilevich, Robert 'Bobby' Levinson, were involved in trying
to suggest that Mogilevich was an instrument of a plot by Putin to equip Al Qaeda with a 'mini nuclear bomb.'
So, I then come back to the question of whether this notion of a 'large Haluyt/Orbis "commercial intelligence" network in the
US', playing the role of Sauron with Brennan, perhaps, as the 'Witch-king of Angmar', does or does not have substance.
If it does, there would be very good reasons for a variety of people, with a range of different attitudes to events in the
post-Soviet space and the Middle East, to think that they had an interest in collaborating with Russian intelligence against a
common enemy.
If it does not, then there is a real possibility that Apelbaum may be involved in using accurate intelligence to disseminate
inaccurate. (It seems to me that he is much too intelligent to be a plausible candidate for the role of 'useful idiot.')
One further point that may, or may not, be relevant. Many of the most influential American and British Jews, for reasons which
I find somewhat hard to understand, seem to have decided that the heirs of the architects of the Lvov pogrom are nice and cuddly.
So, for example, Chrystia Freeland, the unrepentant granddaughter of the notorious Nazi collaborator Michael Chomiak, has been
able to end up as Canadian Foreign Minister because made a successful journalistic career on the London 'Financial Times', a paper
with a strong Jewish presence.
That the editorial staff of such a paper thought it appropriate to have someone like Freeland as their Moscow correspondent
gives you a good insight into how moronic British élites have become. This may well be relevant, in trying to evaluate claims
about Hakluyt and other matters.
In relation to Apelbaum, it may be quite beside the point that other Jews from a Russian/East European background, both in
Russia, Israel, and the United States, have very different views on Ukraine, Russia, and the dangers posed – not least to Israel
– by jihadists. It is however a fact which needs to be born in mind, when one comes across people whose views cut across conventional
dividing lines in the United States and Britain.
Beside the point in relation to Apelbaum, I am confident, but also needing to be kept in mind, is the possibility that elements
in the United States 'intelligence community', seeing the 'writing on the wall', may think it appropriate to shift from trying
to pass the buck by blaming the Russians to doing so by blaming the Brits.
It seems apparent that Putin's reordering of the Russian economy after the collapse of Long-Term Capital Management, Republic
Bank's difficulites and the death of Edmund Safra left a bitter taste in the mouths of many who had hoped to exercise rentier
rights over the Russian economy and resources. Why so much US resources and energy have been committed to recovering a contested
deed is a real conundrum.
I was unaware of Freeland's grandfather and his lamentable CV. Thank you. It's funny that you mentioned both the Ghouta post
and the Vineyard of the Saker. I recall reading those and thinking- this is not like common fare on the intertubes.
Your last points about failings in the quality of elite decision-making is extremely important. This dynamic of the dumb (US,
UK, EU) at the wheel is, for me, the most frightening feature of the current state of play. In the worst moments I fear we are
all on a bus driven by a drunk monkey, careening through the Andes. It's going to hurt all the way to the bottom.
Again, I am very grateful for your replies and all the great information and thought.
I think the question of why large elements in both American and British élites got so heavily invested, in essence, in supporting
the oligarchs who refused Putin's terms in what turned into a kind of 'bare knuckles' struggle they were always likely to lose
is a very interesting one.
It has long seemed to me that, even if one looked at matters from the most self-interested and cynical point of view, this
represented a quite spectacular error of judgement. And, viewing the way in which 'international relations' are rearranging themselves,
I am reasonably confident that this was one matter on which I got things right.
A central reason for this, I have come to think, is that Berezovsky and the 'information operations' people round him – Litvinenko
is important, but the pivotal figure, the 'mastermind', if you will, was clearly Alex Goldfarb, and Yuri Shvets and Yuri Felshtinsky
both played and still play important supporting roles – were telling people in the West what these wanted to hear.
It is a truth if not quite 'universally acknowledged', at least widely recognised by those who have acquired some 'worldly
wisdom', that intellectually arrogant people, with limited experience of the world and a narrow education, can commonly be 'led
by the nose' by figures who have more of the relevant kinds of intelligence and experience, and few scruples.
This rather basic fact is central to understanding the press conference on 31 May 2007 where the figure whom the Berezovsky
group and Christopher Steele had framed in relation to the death of Litvinenko, Andrei Lugovoi, responded to the Crown Prosecution
Service request for his extradition.
In his prepared statement, Lugovoi claimed that his supposed victim used to say that everyone in Britain were ''retards',
to use the translation submitted in evidence to Owen's Inquiry, or 'idiots', to use that by RT. And according to this version,
the British believed in everything that 'we' – that is, the Berezovky group – said was happening in Russia.
Whether or not Litvinenko expressed this cynical contempt, the credulity with which the claims of the 'information operations'
people around Berezovsky have been accepted – well illustrated by Owen's report and perhaps most ludicrous in Harding's journalism
– makes clear it is justified.
What moreover became very evident, when Glenn Simpson testified to the House Intelligence and Senate Judiciary Committees,
was that he was once again recycling the Berezovsky's group's version of Putin 'sistema' as the 'return of Karla.'
Given what has been emerging on the ways in which Fusion GPS and Steele were both integrated into networks involving top-level
people in the FBI, DOJ, State Department and CIA, it seems clear that the 'retards'/'idiots' label is as applicable to people
on your side as to people on ours.
Perhaps then, cartoons about Trump as a puppet, with the strings pulled by another puppet representing Manafort, whose
strings are in turn pulled by Putin, should be replaced by ones in which Mueller is seen as a puppet manipulated by the ghost
of Boris Berezovsky.
But that is the irony. The relationship with Berezovsky blew up in the faces of all concerned, when in the wake of the
successsful corruption of the investigation into the death of Litvinenko by him and his 'information operations' people, he attempted
to recoup his fortunes by suing Roman Abramovich, and got taken to pieces by Lord Sumption.
As to what happened next, a recent item on 'Russian Insider', providing a link to and transcript of a more recent piece presented
by Dmitry Kiselyov on 'Vesti Nedeli is a good illustration of where accurate information and disinformation can be mixed in material
from Russian sources.
The piece, which appeared in July, discusses, and quotes from, an interview given the previous month to Dmitry Gordon, who
runs a Ukrainian nationalist site, by Berezovsky's daughter Elizaveta. Among other things, this deals with Berezovsky's death.
(See
https://gordonua.com/public...
. A little manipulation will get you a reasonably serviceable English translation, although
it becomes comic because Berezovsky is referred to as 'pope'.)
The 'Vesti Nedeli' piece uses what Elizaveta Berezovskaya says in support of the claim that Berezovsky was murdered by
British 'special forces', because he was planning to return to Russia, and he 'knew too much about them.'
As it happens, this is a patently tendentious reading of what she says. However, interesting features of the actual text of
the interview are 1. that it does provide what to my mind is compelling evidence that her father was murdered, and 2. while she
clearly suggests that this was covered up by the British, she is not suggesting that they were responsible – but also not making
Putin 'prime suspect.'
Whether the suggestion by his daughter that her father might have been murdered by people who knew that by so doing they might
get control of assets he might otherwise recoup has any merit I cannot say: I doubt it but cannot simply rule the possibility
out.
What remains the case is that at that point there were very many people, including but in no way limited to elements in Western
intelligence agencies, who had strong interests in avoiding a return by Berezovsky to Russia.
And the same people had the strongest possible interest in avoiding his being treated at the Inquest into Litvinenko's death
by a competent barrister representing the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation in the way he had been treated by
Lord Sumption.
Ironically, it may have been partly because Lugovoi had made a dramatic announcement that he was withdrawing from the proceedings
less than a fortnight before Berezovsky's death that before this happened a lot of people were staring at an absolutely worst-case
scenario.
Time and again, in Owen's report, one finds matters where he recycles patent disinformation, which a well-briefed barrister
acting for the ICRF could have easily ripped to shreds. At the same time, in this situation, the Russians could most probably
have made a reasonable fist of coping with the multiple contradictions in claims made on their own side.
And, crucially, their patent weak suit – the need to obscure the actual role of Russian intelligence in the smuggling of the
polonium into London, which had nothing to do with any murder plot – could have been reasonably well 'covered.'
Precisely because of these facts, the one scenario which can very easily be completely ruled out is that which is basic to
the 'information operations' now coming out of London and Washington. In this, Berezovsky's death is portrayed as a key element
in a systematic attempt by the Putin 'sistema' to eradicate the supposedly heroic opposition, much of it located in London.
That sustaining this fable is critical to defending the credibility of Steele, and therefore of the whole 'Russiagate' narrative,
is quite evident from the 'From Russia With Blood' materials published by 'BuzzFeed' in July last year.
This, however, leads on to a paradox, which is highlighted by a piece posted by James George Jatras on the 'Strategic Culture
Foundation' site on 18 August, entitled 'Have You Committed Your Three Felonies Today?'
Among the points Jatras – who I think is an Orthodox Christian – makes is that the logic of contesting the 'Russiagate' narrative
has had some strange consequences. Among these, there is one on which the actual history of the activities of Berezovsky and his
'information operations' people bears directly:
'Flipping the "Russians did it" narrative: Among the President's defenders, on say Fox News, no less than among his detractors,
Russia is the enemy who (altogether now!) "interfered in our elections" in order to "undermine our democracy." Mitt Romney was
right! The only argument is over who was the intended beneficiary of Muscovite mendacity, Trump or Hillary – that's the variable.
The constant is that Putin is Hitler and only a traitor would want to get along with him. All sides agree that the Christopher
Steele dossier is full of "Russian dirt" – though there's literally zero actual evidence of Kremlin involvement but a lot pointing
to Britain's MI6 and GCHQ.'
For reasons I have already discussed, I think what while Jatras is substantially right, 'zero evidence' is only partially correct:
It seems to me that disinformation supplied by elements in Russian intelligence could quite possibly have found its way into the
second and final memoranda.
That said, Jatras has pointed to a fundamental feature of the current situation, which involves multiple ironies.
The total destruction of Steele's credibility could easily be achieved by anyone who was interested in looking at the evidence
about the life and death of the late Alexander Litvinenko seriously. However, because a central tactic of most of those who are
attacking the 'Russiagate' narrative has generally been 'Flipping the "Russians did it" narrative', they are like people who ought
to be able to see Steele's 'Achilles' heel', but in practice, often end up attacking him where his armour is, without being, not
at its weakest.
Meanwhile, as I have already stressed, the ability of the Russian authorities to undermine the 'narrative' produced by the
'information operations' people around Berezovsky, of whom the most important are Alex Goldfarb and Yuri Shvets, is compromised
by their fear of having to 'own up to' their actual role in the smuggling of the polonium into London in October-November 2007.
The person who had a strong interest in blowing this structure of illusion to pieces was actually Lugovoi. But it seems to
me at least possible that there has been a kind of disguised covert conspiracy by elements in Western and Russian intelligence
to ensure there was no risk of him doing so.
One of the things I've never understood about the Trump Dossier story is the lack of any forensic analysis of its content
and style anywhere in the media, even the alt media. Who was supposed to have actually written it? Steele? The style does not
match someone of his background and education, and the formatting and syntax were atrocious. The font actually varied from "report"
to "report." It certainly did not give me the impression of being the product of a high-end, Belgravia consultancy.
I wonder whether it was produced by an American of one sort or another and then "laundered" by being accorded association
with the UK firm. Given that Steele just happened to be hired by the USG to help in the anti-FIFA skulduggery, he and his firm
seem very much to be a concern that does dirty little jobs that need discretely to be done, though in this case, the discretion
was undermined.
Most of the memos were issued before October and Fusion/Simpson authorized Steele to release information to the FBI starting
in July. The question is why the memos were released after the election when a release before the election would have been enough
to sink Trump. Instead the FBI and presumably those paying Fusion on Hillarys behalf sat on it, and Comey comes out days before
the election
Saying he was reopening the HC email investigation.
Kind of looks like they all wanted Trump in office and the disclosure was to give Trump the excuse needed to back track
on his promises to improve relations with Russia and blame that on pressure from the Deep State and Russia Gate.
Looking at Trumps history with Sater (FBI/CIA asset) and his political aspirations that began following his Moscow visit
in 1987 it seems likely Trump has been a Deep State asset for 30 years and fed intelligence to CIA/FBI on Russian oligarchs and
mafia . Indeed he may well have duped Russians into believing he was working for them when in fact it was the CIA/FBI who had
the best Kompromat with US RICO laws that could have beggared him
One thing to remember about the FBI is Sy Hersh. Hersh claims the FBI has been sitting on a report for two years that fingers
murdered DNC staffer Seth Rich as the Wikileaks DNC email leaker (or one of them, at least.)
Now can we imagine that not everyone in a senior position at the FBI knows about that report? I can't. Literally everyone from
the supervisor of the Special Agent or computer forensic investigator who examined Rich's computer right up to the Director HAD
to know that report exists - and covered it up.
That right there is obstruction of justice and conspiracy. Literally everyone at the FBI who can't PROVE he didn't know about
that report will be going to jail. The entire top administration of the FBI is going to go down.
And how many people at the Department of Justice are aware of that report? Did Rosenstein know? Who else in the Obama administration
knew?
That would be motivation for a lot of desperate maneuvering. Add to that who was really behind the Steele Dossier and even
more people are likely to end up in jail.
You haven't heard that yet? It's the infamous audio tape that Hersh was caught on discussing it. He's since obfuscated what
he said, but the tape stands on its own, and he has never said that anything he said on the tape wasn't true, despite that a lot
of Democrats and Trump-bashers claim he has.
I have told you several times and I will tell you again probably hopelessly that Hersh PERSONALLY has told me that the "tape"
was made without his permission or knowledge when he was aimlessly speculating on possibilities.
I am unaware of your explicitly telling me that he personally told you that the tape was "aimless speculation." My apologies
if I missed that response.
Of course the tape was made without his permission. We all know that. It's irrelevant to what he said on the tape.
What I'm saying is that despite what he may have told you, nothing on that tape sounds like "aimless speculation".
When you consider that he has four good reasons for dissembling about the tape, I view it as far more likely that everything
he said was true.
1) If what he said is true, he may have compromised his FBI contact. Not good for his line of work.
2) If what he said is true, compromising that contact may well make all his other contacts wary about talking to him in the
future - a bad deal for a journalist who relies on his contacts.
3) If what he said is true, he may have compromised his ability to get his "long form journalism" article published - a problem
he already has had in the past.
4) If what he said is true, he's accusing the FBI of sitting on that report for two years, which might well make him a target
of retaliation in some way.
If you believe that everything he said on the tape is untrue and that is what he explicitly told you, fine. I'm waiting for
his "long form journalism" report to explain it. So far everything he has said publicly about it has not contradicted what he
said on the tape, but merely waved his hands about it.
Sy Hersh talks a lot both loudly and profanely. He never intended to tell Buttowski that there was more than a possibility
that the FBI held more than a rumor that this might be true. He talked to Buttowski because a mutual friend of him and me asked
him to do so for no good reason. Please go talk to all the other people you pester and not on SST. You are an argumentative nuisance.
I have no stake in the debate about Rich, DNC, wikileaks. But I do notice some loose ends. Hersh may well have engaged in speculation, but it is interesting speculation:
quote: 55. During his conversation with Butowsky, Mr. Hersh claimed that he had received information from an "FBI report." Mr. Hersh
had not seen the report himself, but explained: "I have somebody on the inside who will go and read a file for me. And I know
this person is unbelievably accurate and careful. He's a very high level guy."
56. According to Mr. Hersh, his source told him that the FBI report states that, shortly after Seth Rich's murder, the D.C.
police obtained a warrant to search his home. When they arrived at the home, the D.C. police found Seth Rich's computer, but were
unable to access it.The computer was then provided to the D.C. police Cyber Unit, who also were unable to access the computer.
At that point, the D.C. police contacted the Cyber Unit at the FBI's Washington D.C. field office. Again, according to the supposed
FBI report, the Washington D.C. field office was able to get into the computer and found that in "late spring early summer [2016],
[Seth Rich][made] contact with Wikileaks." "They found what he had done. He had submitted a series of documents, of emails. Some
juicy emails from the DNC." Mr. Hersh told Butowsky that Seth Rich "offered a sample [to WikiLeaks][,] an extensive sample, you
know I'm sure dozens, of emails, and said I want money." . . . "I hear gossip," Hersh tells NPR on Monday. "[Butowsky] took two and two and made 45 out of it."
. . . The clip is definitely worth listening to in its entirety if you haven't already. Hersh is heard telling Butowsky that he had
a high-level insider read him an FBI file confirming that Seth Rich was known to have been in contact with WikiLeaks prior to
his death, which is not even a tiny bit remotely the same as having "heard rumors". Hersh's statements in the audio recording
and his statement to NPR cannot both be true. endquote https://medium.com/@caityjo...
You may very well be right. There may be a large element of 'amateur night out' about this.
But then I come back to the question of who decided that the dossier be published, and who, if anyone, was consulted before
the decision was made. For the reasons I gave, I am reasonably confident that those on this side who had been in one way or another
complicit in its production and covert dissemination were taken aback by the publication.
It is not clear to me whether anything significant can be inferred from the publicly available evidence about whether those
on your side who had been complicit were involved in the decision to publish without taking even elementary precautions, or whether
the 'Buzzfeed' people just had a rush of blood to the head.
I suspect the decision to publish the dossier was political. It was required to enable Clapper, Brennan, and others to
opine on national media and create further media hysteria prior to the vote as well as to justify the counter-intelligence investigations
underway. They were throwing the kitchen sink to sink Trump's electoral chances. I don't think a lot of thought was given about
the legal ramifications.
This seems to be a pattern. Leak information. Then use the leaked story to justify actions like apply for a FISA warrant
or fan the media flames.
And now they are turning on one another. Hayden just slammed Clapper for making too much of losing the security clearance the
he abuse for political reasons.
Looks like both Clapper and Haydon made the same comment about Brennan. they said "his rhetoric was becoming a problem. Ah,
the USAF intel rats are swimming for the shore. Lets see how many others (not all USAF) decide to try to save themselves.
I find it incredulous that former leaders of the intelligence and law enforcement agencies have gained paid access to powerful
media platforms and they have used it to launch vicious attacks on a POTUS.
I find it amazing that McCabe and Peter Strzok are raising hundreds of thousands of dollars on social media platforms.
IMO, everyone on the list that Sarah Sanders noted, should not just lose their clearance but should be testifying to a grand
jury.
Not really incredulous. Just expected behavior from swamp creatures whose self-assumed importance and "rights" (that the rest
of us peasants don't have) are coming under threat.
It seems to me absolutely appalling, and I am also appalled that people on this side appear to have been playing a central
role in all this.
One question. It seems to me that if what seems likely to be true does prove true, a range of these people must have committed
very serious offences indeed.
However, I am too ignorant to know what precisely those offences might be. If you, or anyone else, had a clear understanding,
I would be interested.
"It seems to me absolutely appalling, and I am also appalled that people on this side appear to have been playing a central
role in all this."
That says it all. We got the more discreditable side of the affair outsourced to us. Ugh. Is that all we're fit for now in
the UK? White helmets and Khan Sheikhoun and Steele, all the scrubby stuff? Is that what the famous "Special Relationship" now
consists of? We get to do the scrubby stuff because it's what we're fit for and we can be relied upon to keep it quiet?
Because at least on the American side there are people concerned about the political/PR involvement of parts of their own Intelligence
Community, and seeking to have it looked into. Here - am I right? - it's dead silence.
I've been permitted to say before on SST that I don't think the Americans are going to resolve this affair satisfactorily until
more light is cast on the UK side. But I also think that, for our own sakes, we should be looking at what exactly our IC does,
and in particular, how much UK political involvement there was in what is now clear was a direct PR attack on an American President.
I'm not a lawyer and have no experience with the federal criminal statutes. Having said that I suspect that the following could
be considered crimes:
intentionally misleading FISC
perjury
leaking classified information
launching investigations on the basis of known false information
surveillance of US citizens on the basis of false information
conspiracy to subvert the constitution
sedition/treason
There may also be certain professional agreements with the government that may have been violated. The only way any of these
people will face a grand jury is if Donald Trump chooses to take action. Left to the natural devices of the law enforcement institutions
nothing will happen and they will sweep everything under the rug. The intensity of Trump's tweets and the accusations therein
are rising. If the GOP retains the House and Jim Jordan becomes speaker, then there may be a possibility that Sessions, Rosenstein
and Wray may be fired and another special counsel appointed who will then convene a grand jury.
Considering what has been uncovered by Congressional investigators and the DOJ IG, I am truly surprised that Sessions has resisted
the appointment of a special counsel. But of course that could go the way of the Owens inquiry in your country.
"... there is strong support for egalitarian populist redistributive public policy. ..."
"... His positions against illegal immigration and free trade also beat Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton was a very experienced and savvy politician but she was tied to NAFTA thru her husband. And the Democratic party's defense of allowing ANY foreigner to walk across our borders without ANY sort of background check whatsoever, and remain in the country, was a losing proposition. ..."
"... Labor unions can claw back the "missing 10%" of overall income that a unionless labor market has squeezed out of the bottom 40% of earners; raising the bottom 40% back to 20% income share -- through higher consumer prices at Target, Walgreen's, etc. ..."
"... if fast food can pay $15/hr with 33% (!) labor costs, Target('s consumers) can easily pay $20/hr with 12% labor costs and Walmart('s consumers) can easily pay $25/hr with 7% labor costs. ..."
"... Your description of Republicans is spot on. However, other than their maniacal obsession with divisive identity politics, Democrats are hardly much better given the that they ALSO kowtow to the Wall Street and the wealthy. Neither major party represents working people–it just too bad that working people allow themselves to be forever divided by two corrupt political parties who view them with little but contempt. ..."
"... In other words Dems lost their legitimacy, identify politics did not work this time as well as in the past. I would say that the whole neoliberal elite lost its legitimacy. That's why Russiagate was launched, and Neo-McCarthyism hysteria was launched by Podesta and friends to cement those cracks that divide the USA. ..."
"... The Dem Party became a grab bag of identity groups. But this election the dominant was anti-globalization discourse, and Dems suffered a humiliating defeat. With Republican Party grabbing the the tool they created. The collies of small town America led to collapse of Dems. ..."
"... People do vote against their economic interest ("What the matter with Kansas" situation). But the level of alienation of working and lower middle class is really extreme. The opioid epidemic is just one sign of this. So Trump election was just a middle finger to the neoliberal elite. ..."
"... We actually do not have left in the USA. Because there is no real discussion about neoliberalism and alternatives. Bernie called himself "democratic socialist'. Which was at least in sense transformational. But that's it. Bernie is not anti-war and anti-American empire. ..."
As should already be clear from existing polls ( click and search for "fair" ), there is strong
support for egalitarian populist redistributive public policy.
At Data For Progress, they chose
to emphasize the positive -- four proposals with overwhelming support, but I think it is just
as striking that opinion is almost equally split on a top marginal income tax rate of 90% (2%
more oppose than support) and universal basic income (2% more oppose than support).
In particular, a (very narrow) plurality of whites without a bachelors degree support a
universal basic income. One way to summarize the results is that pundits' guesses about public
opinion match the opinions of college educated whites (surprise surprise). That is the group
least enthusiastic about universal basic income (by far) (OK I admit I am white and have
university degrees so I should say "we are" but like hell i'm going to be classed with my
fellow White American College educated opponents of UBI).
JimH , August 2, 2018 9:59 am
"The key question for Democrats (and the USA) is why did most of a group of people more of
whom support than oppose UBI vote for Trump ? How can there be such a huge gap between bread
and butter big dollar issue polling (where the median US adult is to the left of the
mainstream of the Democratic Party) and voting ?"
During the Republican primaries, candidate Trump lost in the polls and won on the ballots.
In the run up to the Republican convention, mainstream Republicans were searching for any way
to deny the nomination to candidate Trump. (Without ruining the party.)
So candidate Trump was not a traditional mainstream Republican presidential candidate.
Candidate Trump espoused most of the mainstream Republican party position. But what separated
him from the pack were his positions on illegal immigration and free trade treaties. And
Republican voters chose him.
His positions against illegal immigration and free trade also beat Hillary Clinton.
Hillary Clinton was a very experienced and savvy politician but she was tied to NAFTA thru
her husband. And the Democratic party's defense of allowing ANY foreigner to walk across our
borders without ANY sort of background check whatsoever, and remain in the country, was a
losing proposition.
Candidate Clinton could have beaten any of the other Republican candidates.
Unbridled immigration into European countries has caused enough problems for the native
born citizens that it has become a huge political issue. Angela Merkel successfully oversaw
the uniting of east and west Germany. (A triumph!) But on immigration, her reach exceeded her
grasp, she completely misunderstood the magnitude of the problem. And she is splitting the
European Union.
Politicians in Europe and the United States speak of populism as if it was some sort of
new influence. That voters have never been seen to vote their own interests! European and
American voters have allowed their politicians almost a free rein for decades. They seemed to
assume that the political class knew best. But that period is coming to an end.
Democrats can beat Republican candidates, but first they have to accept that politics is
the art of the possible.
There is a practical, doable way to re-institute American labor unions (to German density
level) tomorrow.
Labor unions can claw back the "missing 10%" of overall income that a unionless labor
market has squeezed out of the bottom 40% of earners; raising the bottom 40% back to 20% income
share -- through higher consumer prices at Target, Walgreen's, etc.
No doubt about this: if
fast food can pay $15/hr with 33% (!) labor costs, Target('s consumers) can easily pay $20/hr
with 12% labor costs and Walmart('s consumers) can easily pay $25/hr with 7% labor costs.
Easy practical way to do this: amend the NLRA to mandate regularly scheduled cert
elections at every private workplace (I would suggest one, three or five year cycles; local
plurality rules).
Practical because no other way to rebuild American unions. Illegal (effective-penalty
free) union busting disease has so permeated our labor market that there is no normal
organizing going back. Even if we made union busting a felony, millions of businesspersons
across the country could just say: "What are you going to do, put us all in jail?"
Tear a page from the Rebublican's union busting playbook -- skip over organizing -- skip
right to elections on a regular basis:
Why Not Hold Union Representation Elections on a Regular Schedule?
Andrew Strom -- November 1st, 2017
"Republicans in Congress have already proposed a bill [Repub amend] that would require a new
election in each unionized bargaining unit whenever, through turnover, expansion, or merger,
a unit experiences at least 50 percent turnover. While no union would be happy about
expending limited resources on regular retention elections, I think it would be hard to turn
down a trade that would allow the 93% of workers who are unrepresented to have a chance to
opt for unionization on a regular schedule."
Wheels within wheels of poetic justice: a Democratic proposed labor market-make-over would
corral a lot of blue collar voters (Obama voters, remember?) back into the Democratic win
column – so we could pass said amendment in the first place.
All said, all you have to realize is that there is no other way back -- do this or do
nothing forever.
Stealing a page from Scott Walker's playbook is "the" win-win-win issue.
Karl Kolchak , August 2, 2018 10:35 am
Your description of Republicans is spot on. However, other than their maniacal obsession
with divisive identity politics, Democrats are hardly much better given the that they ALSO
kowtow to the Wall Street and the wealthy. Neither major party represents working
people–it just too bad that working people allow themselves to be forever divided by
two corrupt political parties who view them with little but contempt.
EMichael, August 2, 2018 11:11 am
KK,
"To hold President Trump accountable, the Center for American Progress Action Fund's American Worker Project is
tracking every action the president takes to weaken job protections for Americans.
Our list includes legislation and orders signed by the president; procedural changes and regulations enacted or proposed
by his administration; and official statements of policy, such as the president's proposed budget. The list does not
include political nominations and appointments of individuals with records of enacting anti-worker policies, since these
actions happened outside their role in the administration."
"Neither major party represents working people–it just too bad that working people
allow themselves to be forever divided by two corrupt political parties who view them with
little but contempt."
That's the kind of bullshit that allowed Trump to sneak into office. The Democrats may not
be your idea of pro-worker or anti-Wall Street, but the difference in voting on
bread-and-butter issues between Republicans and Democrats is dramatic. On just one issue,
with a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress, there is no doubt we already would
have seen a minimum wage to at least $10 per hour. That's not sufficient, but it's almost 40%
better than what the Republicans are happy with. Tell a family with two minimum wage workers
that an extra $11,000 in their pockets is worthless!
We also would not have seen a Janus decision, because Gorsuch would not be on the
Court.
We probably would have already had a public option added to ACA -- at least for people
aged 50-64 without employer-provided insurance having the right to buy into Medicare.
Consideration of a broader public option for everyone in the exchanges would be on the table,
too, with very strong public support (and, therefore, likely passage).
That's just three issues. This pox-on-both-your houses is truly toxic. It's uninformed.
Yes, it's deplorable.
likbez , August 4, 2018 12:30 am
"Neither major party represents working people–it just too bad that working
people allow themselves to be forever divided by two corrupt political parties who view
them with little but contempt."
That's the kind of bullshit that allowed Trump to sneak into office. The Democrats may
not be your idea of pro-worker or anti-Wall Street, but the difference in voting on
bread-and-butter issues between Republicans and Democrats is dramatic
This line of thinking is well known as "What the matter with Kansas" line. It is true that
"That's allowed Trump to sneak into office."
But you ignored the fact that Democratic Party entered a profound crisis (aka "demexit"
similar to Brexit) from which they still are unable to escape. Clinton ideas that workers do
not have alternative and will vote for peanuts Dems are willing to give them stop working.
In other words Dems lost their legitimacy, identify politics did not work this time as
well as in the past. I would say that the whole neoliberal elite lost its legitimacy. That's
why Russiagate was launched, and Neo-McCarthyism hysteria was launched by Podesta and friends
to cement those cracks that divide the USA.
The Dem Party became a grab bag of identity groups. But this election the dominant was
anti-globalization discourse, and Dems suffered a humiliating defeat. With Republican Party
grabbing the the tool they created. The collies of small town America led to collapse of
Dems.
People do vote against their economic interest ("What the matter with Kansas"
situation). But the level of alienation of working and lower middle class is really extreme.
The opioid epidemic is just one sign of this. So Trump election was just a middle finger to
the neoliberal elite.
We actually do not have left in the USA. Because there is no real discussion about neoliberalism and
alternatives. Bernie called himself "democratic socialist'. Which was at least in sense
transformational. But that's it. Bernie is not anti-war and anti-American empire.
Hillary was a traditional neocon warmonger, defender of the empire in foreign policy and
corrupt to the core, greedy politician in domestic policy (in the pocket of Wall Street and
special interests).
As somebody noted here:
The term Progressive is now so mutilated that it's no longer effective as an identifier
of political affiliation. To be a real Progressive: one must be Anti-War, except in the
most dire of circumstances, which includes being Anti-Imperialist/Anti-Empire; 2nd, one
must be Pro-Justice as in promoting Rule of Law over all else; 3rd, one must be tolerant
and willing to listen to others; and 4th, work for Win-Win outcomes and denounce Zero-sum
as the smoke screen for increasing inequality.
This is a very weak article, but it raises several important questions such as the role or neoliberal MSM in color revolution
against Trump and which social group constituted the voting block that brought Trump to victory. The author answers incorrectly on
both those questions.
I think overall Tremblay analysis of Trump (and by extension of national neoliberalism he promotes) is incorrect. Probably the largest group
of voters which voted for Trump were voters who were against neoliberal globalization and who now feel real distrust and aversion to
the ruling neoliberal elite.
Trump is probably right to view neoliberal journalists as enemies: they are tools of intelligence agencies which as agents of
Wall Street promote globalization
At the same time Trump turned to be Obama II: he instantly betrayed his voters after the election. His
election slogan "make Ameraca great again" bacem that same joke as Obama "Change we can believe in". And he proved to be as
jingoistic as Obama (A Nobel Pease Price laureate who was militarists dream come true)
In discussion of groups who votes for Trump the author forgot to mention part of professional which skeptically view neoliberal
globalization and its destrction of jobs (for example programmer jobs in the USA) as well as blue color
workers decimated by offshoring of major industries.
Notable quotes:
"... "Just stick with us, don't believe the crap you see from these people [journalists], the fake news Just remember, what you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening. " ..."
"... Donald Trump (1946- ), American President, (in remarks made during a campaign rally with Veterans of Foreign Wars, in Kansas City, July 24, 2018) ..."
"... "The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." ..."
"... This is a White House where everybody lies ..."
"... I am a mortal enemy to arbitrary government and unlimited power ..."
"... The second one can be found in Trump's artful and cunning tactics to unbalance and manipulate the media to increase his visibility to the general public and to turn them into his own tools of propaganda. ..."
"... ad hominem' ..."
"... Donald Trump essentially has the traits of a typical showman diva , behaving in politics just as he did when he was the host of a TV show. Indeed, if one considers politics and public affairs as no more than a reality show, this means that they are really entertainment, and politicians are first and foremost entertainers or comedians. ..."
"... He prefers to rely on one-directional so-called 'tweets' to express unfiltered personal ideas and emotions (as if he were a private person), and to use them as his main public relations channel of communication. ..."
"... checks and balance ..."
"... The centralization of power in the hands of one man is bound to have serious political consequences, both for the current administration and for future ones. ..."
"Just stick with us, don't believe the crap you see from these people [journalists], the fake news Just remember, what
you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening. "
Donald Trump (1946- ), American President, (in remarks made during a campaign rally with Veterans of Foreign Wars, in Kansas
City, July 24, 2018)
"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."
George Orwell (Eric Arthur Blair) (1903-1950), English novelist, essayist, and social critic, (in '1984', Ch. 7, 1949)
" This is a White House where everybody lies ." Omarosa Manigault Newman (1974- ), former White House aide to President
Donald Trump, (on Sunday August 12, 2018, while releasing tapes recording conversations with Donald Trump.)
" I am a mortal enemy to arbitrary government and unlimited power ." Benjamin Franklin (
1706 –
1790 ), American inventor and US Founding Father, (in 'Words of
the Founding Fathers', 2012).
***
In this day and age, with instant information, how does a politician succeed in double-talking, in bragging, in scapegoating and
in shamefully distorting the truth, most of the time, without being unmasked as a charlatan and discredited? Why? That is the mysterious
and enigmatic question that one may ask about U. S. President Donald Trump, as a politician.
The most obvious answer is the fact that Trump's one-issue and cult-like followers do not care what he does or says and whether
or not he has declared a
war on truth and reality , provided he delivers the political and financial benefits they demand of him, based on their ideological
or pecuniary interests. These groups of voters live in their own reality and only their personal interests count.
1- Four groups of one-issue voters behind Trump
There are four groups of one-issue voters to
whom President Donald Trump has delivered the goodies:
Christian religious right voters, whose main political issue is to fill the U. S. Supreme Court with ultra conservative
judges. On that score, Donald Trump has been true to them by naming one such judge and in nominating a second one.
Super rich Zionists and the Pro-Israel Lobby, whose obsession is the state of Israel. Again, on that score, President
Donald Trump has fulfilled his promise to them and he has unilaterally moved the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, in addition
to attacking the Palestinians and tearing up the 'Iran Deal'.
The one-percent Income earners and some corporate owners, whose main demand to Trump was substantial tax cuts and
deregulation. Once again, President Trump has fulfilled this group's wishes with huge tax cuts, mainly financed with future public
debt increases, which are going to be paid for by all taxpayers.
The NRA and the Pro-Gun Lobby, whose main obsession is to have the right to arm themselves to the teeth, including
with military assault weapons, with as few strings attached as possible. Here again President Donald Trump has sided with them
and against students who are increasingly in the line of fire in American schools.
With the strong support of these four monolithic lobbies -- his electoral base -- politician Donald Trump can count on the indefectible
support of between 35 percent and 40 percent of the American electorate. It is ironic that some of Trump's other policies, like reducing
health care coverage and the raising of import taxes, will hurt the poor and the middle class, even though some of Trump's victims
can be considered members of the above lobbies.
Moreover, some of Trump's supporters regularly rely on
hypocrisy and on excuses to exonerate their favorite
but flawed politician of choice. If any other politician from a different party were to say and do half of what Donald Trump does
and says, they would be asking for his impeachment.
There are three other reasons why Trump's rants, his
record-breaking lies , his untruths, his deceptions and his dictatorial-style attempts to
control information , in the eyes of his fanatical supporters, at least, are like water on the back of a duck. ( -- For the record,
according to the
Washington Post , as of early August, President Trump has made some 4,229 false claims, which amount to 7.6 a day, since his
inauguration.)
The first reason can be found in Trump's view that politics and even government business are first and foremost another form
of
entertainment , i.e. a sort of TV reality show, which must be scripted and acted upon. Trump thinks that is
OK to lie
and to ask his assistants to
lie
. In this new immoral world, the Trump phenomenon could be seen a sign of
post-democracy .
The second one can be found in Trump's artful and cunning tactics to unbalance and
manipulate the media to increase his visibility to the general public and to turn them into his own tools of propaganda.
When Trump attacks the media, he is in fact coaxing them to give him free coverage to spread his
insults , his fake accusations, his provocations, his constant
threats , his denials or reversals, his convenient
changes of subject or his political spins. Indeed, with his outrageous statements, his gratuitous accusations and his attacks
' ad hominem' , and by constantly bullying and insulting adversaries at home and foreign heads of states abroad, and
by issuing threats in repetition, right and left, Trump has forced the media to talk and journalists to write about him constantly,
on a daily basis, 24/7.
That suits him perfectly well because he likes to be the center of attention. That is how he can change the political rhetoric
when any negative issue gets too close to him. In the coming weeks and months, as the Special prosecutor
Robert Mueller's report is likely to be released, Donald Trump is not above resorting to some sort of "
Wag the Dog " political trickery, to change the topic and to possibly push the damaging report off the headlines.
In such a circumstance, it is not impossible that launching an illegal war of choice, say against Iran (a
pet
project of Trump's National Security Advisor John Bolton), could then look very convenient to a crafty politician like Donald
Trump and to his warmonger advisors. Therefore, observers should be on the lookout to spot any development of the sort in the
coming weeks.
That one man and his entourage could whimsically consider launching a
war of aggression is a throwback to ancient times
and is a sure indication of the level of depravity to which current politics has fallen. This should be a justified and clear
case for impeachment .
Finally, some far-right media outlets, such as
Fox News and
Sinclair Broadcasting , have taken it upon themselves to systematically present Trump's lies and misrepresentations as some
'alternative' truths and facts.
Indeed, ever since 1987, when the Reagan administration abolished the
Fairness Doctrine for licensing public radio
and TV waves, and since a Republican dominated Congress passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which allowed for the
mass conglomeration of local broadcasting
in the United States, extreme conservative news outlets, such as the Fox and Sinclair networks, have sprung up. They are well
financed, and they have essentially become powerful
political propaganda machines , erasing the line between facts and fiction, and regularly presenting fictitious alternative
facts as the truth.
In so doing, they have pushed public debates in the United States away from facts, reason and logic, at least for those listeners
and viewers for whom such outlets are the only source of information. It is not surprising that such far-right media have also
made Donald Trump the champion of their cause, maliciously branding anything inconvenient as 'fake' news, as Trump has done in
his own anti-media campaign and his sustained assault on the free press.
2- Show Politics and public affairs as a form of entertainment
Donald Trump does not seem to take politics and public affairs very seriously, at least when his own personal interests are involved.
Therefore, when things go bad, he never volunteers to take personal responsibility, contrary to what a true leader would do, and
he conveniently
shifts the blame on somebody else. This is a sign of immaturity or cowardice. Paraphrasing President Harry Truman, "the buck
never stops at his desk."
Donald Trump essentially has the traits of a typical
showman diva , behaving
in politics just as he did when he was the host of a TV show. Indeed, if one considers politics and public affairs as no more than
a reality show, this means that they are really entertainment, and politicians are first and foremost entertainers or comedians.
3- Trump VS the media and the journalists
Donald Trump is the first U.S. president who rarely holds scheduled press conferences. Why would he, since he considers journalists
to be his "enemies"! It doesn't seem to matter to him that freedom of the press is guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution by the First
Amendment. He prefers to rely on one-directional so-called 'tweets' to express unfiltered personal ideas and emotions (as if
he were a private person), and to use them as his main public relations channel of communication.
The ABC News network
has calculated that, as of last July, Trump has tweeted more than 3,500 times, slightly more than seven tweets a day. How could he
have time left to do anything productive! Coincidently, Donald Trump's number of tweets is not far away from the number of outright
lies and misleading claims that he has told and made since his inauguration.
The Washington Post has counted no less than 3,251 lies or misleading claims of his, through the end of May of this year, --
an average of 6.5 such misstatements per day of his presidency. Fun fact: Trump seems to accelerate the pace of his lies. Last year,
he told 5.5 lies per day, on average. Is it possible to have a more cynical view of politics!
The media in general, (and
not only American ones), then serve more or less voluntarily as so many resonance boxes for his daily 'tweets', most of which
are often devoid of any thought and logic.
Such a practice has the consequence of demeaning the public discourse in the pursuit of the common good and the general welfare
of the people to the level of a frivolous private enterprise, where expertise, research and competence can easily be replaced by
improvisation, whimsical arbitrariness and charlatanry. In such a climate, only the short run counts, at the expense of planning
for the long run.
Conclusion
All this leads to this conclusion: Trump's approach is not the way to run an efficient government. Notwithstanding the U.S. Constitution
and what it says about the need to have " checks and balance s" among different government branches, President Donald Trump
has de facto pushed aside the U.S. Congress and the civil servants in important government Departments, even his own
Cabinet
, whose formal meetings under Trump have been little more than photo-up happenings, to grab the central political stage for himself.
If such a development does not represent an ominous threat to American democracy, what does?
The centralization of power in the hands of one man is bound to have serious political consequences, both for the current
administration and for future ones.
There might be criminal connection to Russian oligarchs, but it was for Trump organization which might play a role in Russian oligarchs
money laundering via real estate
Notable quotes:
"... The US and the UK, unlike most Western democracies, permit anonymous ownership of real estate which facilitates money laundering of roughly $300 billion per year in the United States alone, most of it from Russia. As a result, luxury real estate has provided a haven for Russian oligarchs ..."
"... According to a BuzzFeed investigation by Thomas Frank, more than 1,300 condos, one-fifth of all Trump-branded condos sold in the US since the eighties, were sold "in secretive, all-cash transactions that enable buyers to avoid legal scrutiny by shielding their finances and identities." The BuzzFeed article added that the total value of these condo sales -- sales that match the US Treasury's criteria for possible money laundering -- was about $ 1.5 billion, a figure that actually may understate the amount of dirty money in play. ..."
"... Starting in 2006, Donald Jr., executive vice president of development and acquisitions for the Trump Organization, made about half a dozen trips to Russia over the course of a year and a half. "In terms of high-end product influx into the US, Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets, ....We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia." ..."
"... After a decade of litigation, multiple bankruptcies, and $4 billion in debt, Trump rose from the near-dead with the help of Bayrock and its alleged ties to Russian intelligence and the Russian Mafia. "They saved his bacon," said Kenneth McCallion, a former federal prosecutor ..."
"... Another Bayrock partner, the Sapir Organization, had, through its principal, oligarch Tamir Sapir, a long business relationship with Semyon Kislin, the Ukranian billionare commodities trader who was tied to the Chernoy brothers and, according to the FBI, to Vyacheslav Ivankov's Russian mafias gang in Brighton Beach. ..."
"... Mueller has had over a year to investigate. No doubt he can call on vast resources of US govt too. For all that effort, Mueller has not shown direct Russian govt influence (yet). ..."
"... JR, ben was right on that point. I would put it this way: Trump is owned by Zionist Russian Oligarchs with dual citizenship. Haaretz has an article Know your oligarch: A guide to the Jewish billionaires in the Trump Russia probe. ..."
"... Let's just say there's a huge incentive to sell the Trump illusion and push the Trump juice around here. ..."
House of Trump, House of Putin has some interesting stuff.
The US and the UK, unlike most Western democracies, permit anonymous ownership of real estate which facilitates money laundering
of roughly $300 billion per year in the United States alone, most of it from Russia. As a result, luxury real estate has provided
a haven for Russian oligarchs
According to a BuzzFeed investigation by Thomas Frank, more than 1,300 condos, one-fifth of all Trump-branded condos sold
in the US since the eighties, were sold "in secretive, all-cash transactions that enable buyers to avoid legal scrutiny by shielding
their finances and identities." The BuzzFeed article added that the total value of these condo sales -- sales that match the US
Treasury's criteria for possible money laundering -- was about $ 1.5 billion, a figure that actually may understate the amount
of dirty money in play.
Starting in 2006, Donald Jr., executive vice president of development and acquisitions for the Trump Organization, made
about half a dozen trips to Russia over the course of a year and a half. "In terms of high-end product influx into the US, Russians
make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets, ....We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia."
After a decade of litigation, multiple bankruptcies, and $4 billion in debt, Trump rose from the near-dead with the help
of Bayrock and its alleged ties to Russian intelligence and the Russian Mafia. "They saved his bacon," said Kenneth McCallion,
a former federal prosecutor
Another Bayrock partner, the Sapir Organization, had, through its principal, oligarch Tamir Sapir, a long business relationship
with Semyon Kislin, the Ukranian billionare commodities trader who was tied to the Chernoy brothers and, according to the FBI,
to Vyacheslav Ivankov's Russian mafias gang in Brighton Beach.
Trumps man Giuliani appointed Kislin to be a member of the New York City Economic Development Corporation
Kushner paid $295 million for some of the floors in the old New York Times building, purchased in 2015 from the US branch of
Israili-Russian oligarch Leviev's company, Africa Israel Investments (AFI), and partner, Five Mile Capital.
Kushner later borrowed $285 million from the German financial company Deutsche Bank, which has also been linked to Russian
money laundering,
The Trumps Taj Mahal had become a favorite destination for the Russian mob because Trump made a point of giving high rollers
"comps" for up to $100,000 a visit, an amenity that casinos often offered big-time gamblers. Later, two other Trump casinos, the
Trump Castle Hotel and Casino, and the Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino, agreed to pay fines for "willfully failing to report" currency
transactions over $10,000 and failing to comply with laws designed to prevent money laundering.
There is not a major Russian organized crime figure who we are tracking who does not also carry an Israeli passport," said
Jonathan Winer, the former money-laundering czar in the Clinton State Department.
Trump World Tower, one-third of the units on the tower's highest and priciest floors, floors seventy-six to eighty-three,*
had been snatched up, either by individual buyers from the former Soviet Union, or by limited liability companies connected to
Russia or countries that had been part of the Soviet Union. "We had big buyers from Russia and Ukraine and Kazakhstan," sales
agent Debra Stotts told Bloomberg Businessweek. Ukrainian billionaire Semyon "Sam" Kislin assisted the sales effort by issuing
mortgages to buyers of Trump's latest luxury condos.
Trump Tower in Toronto. When it came to financing the skyscraper, Shnaider, a billionaire of Russian extraction, turned to
Raiffeisen Bank International AG in Vienna, a bank whose affiliate has been called "a front to provide legitimacy to the gas company
[US-indicted Russian crime boss Semion Mogilevich] controls, RosUkrEnergo," according to Scott F. Kilner, deputy chief of mission
for the US embassy in Austria. So it followed that it was likely that funds from the Mogilevich-Firtash money pipeline were behind
the Trump project in Toronto.
Then there is the Chabad connection of the Kushners and Putin backed Russian oligarchs, but no time for that
Clarifying: it's good info about the suspicions of Trump-Russian connections. I appreciate you're being helpful in providing
that.
Mueller has had over a year to investigate. No doubt he can call on vast resources of US govt too. For all that effort,
Mueller has not shown direct Russian govt influence (yet).
JR, ben was right on that point. I would put it this way: Trump is owned by Zionist Russian Oligarchs with dual citizenship.
Haaretz has an article Know your oligarch: A guide to the Jewish billionaires in the Trump Russia probe.
It would be great if the Mueller probe exposes how minor Russia collusion is compared to Zionist collusion. Ergo the big prizes
for Israel and status quo for Russia under Trump.
I suspect that most still pushing the Trump illusion here are Zionists who care squat about party and American democracy but
are really pleased with what Trump is doing for Israel i.e. MIGA and the Zionist American collusion that is growing exponentially
with each successive American President.
Trump is their man and he's being well-supported by Zionists even here disguised as Russia lovers, populists and Hillary haters.
Let's not forget how many Russians are Zionists: over one million in Israel, not to mention Soviet Jews from former Soviet territory.
So the numbers are much greater. An army of hasbara on the web.
Let's just say there's a huge incentive to sell the Trump illusion and push the Trump juice around here. It's concealed
hasbara masquerading as Trumpism, plain and simple! Shameless pretense and very transparent.
"... Rather than being a revelatory, shocking look behind the curtain of an administration run by the single dumbest man to ever hold his office, the book just confirms the stories we've already heard, mixing in additional commentary from people in or close to the White House, mostly former employees who clearly still agree with Trump's agenda, even if they could no longer stand the man himself. ..."
"... Woodward presents anecdotes from these individuals--people like Sen. Lindsay Graham, a renown proponent of endless wars in the Middle East, and Steve Bannon, former Chief Strategist, an out-and-proud xenophobe and fascist--without commentary or context, which has the odd effect of presenting these people only in contrast and comparison to Trump himself. ..."
A frustratingly neutral collection of accounts from morally questionable people.
Trump is really, really bad at being President. This isn't news to anyone who has been
following the leaks, rumors, announcements, policies, and tweets coming out of the White
House for the last nineteen months.
Rather than being a revelatory, shocking look behind the
curtain of an administration run by the single dumbest man to ever hold his office, the book
just confirms the stories we've already heard, mixing in additional commentary from people in
or close to the White House, mostly former employees who clearly still agree with Trump's
agenda, even if they could no longer stand the man himself.
Woodward presents anecdotes from
these individuals--people like Sen. Lindsay Graham, a renown proponent of endless wars in
the Middle East, and Steve Bannon, former Chief Strategist, an out-and-proud xenophobe and
fascist--without commentary or context, which has the odd effect of presenting these people
only in contrast and comparison to Trump himself.
One unfamiliar with Bannon, for example,
could come away from the book thinking that he was a fairly reasonable person (rather than a
racist, white nationalist) because he is only ever shown as a foil to the ongoing circus of
incompetence that is the Trump administration.
This is Woodward's style, of course; he
presents himself as an almost entirely neutral presence, merely transcribing the things he
learned, but when discussing such dangerous and reprehensible people, a paragraph here and
there dedicated to reminding readers what, exactly, these people claim to believe would have
been appreciated additional context.
Essentially, this book is just Michael Wolfe or Omarosa's stories, only drier and with
more footnotes.
"... Mueller is getting bad press for not going after Hillary and the democrats. If his findings are all against Trump it will be portrayed as a partisan hack job given all the dems on his team. ..."
Wait - where is the Special Counsel looking into FBI/DOJ misconduct with regard to falsely
exonerating Hillary ehile fabricating probable cause to spy on Trump??
Seriously, Mueller has been on a fishing expedition for 2 fucking years premised entirely
on what seems to be FBI/DOJ manufactured evidence and lies to the FISA court... steele memo,
the meetings with 'Russians' that were obvious set ups... Sally Yates making what should be a
CRIMINAL abuse of office call in justifying spying on Flynn because as part of an incoming
admin he was (gasp!) talking to Russian diplomats like incoming admins HAVE TO AND ALWAYS
do...
There are more than enough reasons for a special counsel to look into all that because the
Very fucking point Is the FBI and DOJ have been corrupted by political bias, despite the
'nothing to see here' bullshit of the IG Report.
All this while Hillary and Brennan and Comey and Clapper with his phony bullshit DNI
report all walk around free.. and I'll believe McCabe and Rosenstein are going to be indicted
when they are indicted.
Rosenstein tried to hide very relevant texts from Congress and lied about why.
Trump is getting shit advice. He should fire Sessions and Rosenstein right away, let the
media go nuts, and find a couple black or latino guys or women to replace them in 'acting'
status. See - they just need to be honest and teasonably good.
I Claudius, 4 hours ago
Completely disagree w/Dershowitz. Mueller is getting bad press for not going after Hillary and the democrats. If his
findings are all against Trump it will be portrayed as a partisan hack job given all the dems on his team.
My thoughts? Tony Podesta and that Skadden Arps attorney have been selected by the party leaders as the fall guys for the
dems. They are throwing them overboard so the Mueller BS probe can be portrayed as non-partisan. They can claim that Manafort
was not just a "get Trump's associates" hit job by now stating that Manafort got them these two clowns.
Manafort has zero on Trump and Mueller now has a huge dem jizz load on his face for getting nowhere. He now has to
preserve his reputation and going after these two f'wads for some minor issue (don't forget, the Repubs backed themselves
into a corner claiming this Foreign lobbyist thing is a minor infraction). So now they get these two guys on a BS charge . .
.
And they walk and Mueller saves face.
caconhma, 3 hours ago
It is all BS. The Trump affairs are just diversions from his primary assignments:
Utterly promote and advance interests of Zionist Mafia and Israel
Destabilize the US internal situation and use it as a pretext for transforming the USA into a totalitarian police
state
Protect and defend US$ as the only one viable reserve currency
Prevent by any means China from becoming a geopolitical superpower challenging the USA
IMHO, Trump's masters are doing their job very incompetent and their evil game will terribly backfire against them.
In a way Pence is a guarantee that Trump will not be impeached no matter what ;-)
Notable quotes:
"... The Republican elite (and the Democratic elite) have always wanted Pence for President, and they may yet get their wish. But not yet. ..."
"... In terms of the current situation, Manafort is simply irrelevant. Cohen is relevant, but paying a porn start off because you are worried your wife might find out that you are a philanderer: it seems a stretch to interpret that as 'trying to influence an election' although I can sort of see the logic (I suppose Bill Clinton's behaviour vis a vis Monica Lewinsky was ultimately political too). ..."
"... It also seems weird to conceptualise hush money to a porn star as 'campaign finance violations'. But what do I know. ..."
"... Cohen is a serious problem. He has implicated Trump in criminal conduct. ..."
"... Presumably one of the key reasons that Clinton lied about the Lewinsky affair was because he thought it would make him look bad and therefore lose him votes in the 2000 elections. And in a sense it did (although others presumably voted for him 'cos they felt sorry for him). But that seems like a weird way to conceptualise his activities. ..."
"... To further clarify your statement, the issue is that the payment was transparently not to keep Ms. Trump from finding out about Ms. Cliffords or Ms. McDougal – the timing of the payment/catch-and-kill story, well after the incidents but immediately before the election, make that clear: their purpose was to avoid extramarital affairs with adult entertainers from turning into October Surprises. ..."
"... It's intentionally vague . It should be noted that when Johnson was impeached , one of the eleven articles was "Bringing disgrace and ridicule to the presidency by his aforementioned words and actions." ..."
"... And I don't see impeachment as a very useful strategy for the Ds to pursue. Even if successful at removing Trump, that just gets you Pence -- just as public policy irrational, only less politically disorganized. ..."
"... Maybe impeachment comes up as a tactic, to facilitate some other plan of action, but I don't see conviction on impeachment as a useful means of even control of Trump behavior, much less removal. ..."
This is bad for Trump but not unexpected. Despite the fig leaf of 'Russian collusion' the
main brief of Mueller was 'find out bad stuff about Trump and his associates' and of course it
was almost inevitable that he would find such stuff because Trump and his cronies are scumbags
who exist to break the law. This is the reality of capitalism (as has been pointed out 'crony
capitalism' is the only kind of capitalism that has ever existed or ever will exist). Congress
might or might not accept it, but the Senate (even more viciously 'gerrymandered' albeit de
facto) won't yet. So Trump won't go down, not yet.
The only way that Trump will go down, IMHO is if and when the Republican establishment
decide that they have got everything out of him that they're going to get, which means after
the next Presidential election. Assuming he wins it, he may be ditched quickly. The
Republican elite (and the Democratic elite) have always wanted Pence for President, and they
may yet get their wish. But not yet.
In terms of the current situation, Manafort is simply irrelevant. Cohen is relevant, but
paying a porn start off because you are worried your wife might find out that you are a
philanderer: it seems a stretch to interpret that as 'trying to influence an election' although
I can sort of see the logic (I suppose Bill Clinton's behaviour vis a vis Monica Lewinsky was
ultimately political too).
It also seems weird to conceptualise hush money to a porn star as 'campaign finance
violations'. But what do I know.
Manaforte is a publicity problem, which will get worse with his second trial, and, if the
US Attorney decides to proceed on the hung counts, a third trial.
None of it ties to Trump; it suggests he hangs out with criminals and does not notice or
care about their conduct. That is a publicity issue. Cohen is a serious problem. He has
implicated Trump in criminal conduct.
As he is still facing a state investigations, there is high risk that he will exchange
information for leniency in that investigation. Which will result in more, at least
potentially, statements incriminating Trump. It is not clear to me what the status is
relative to the Mueller investigation -- only that his current deal does not require
cooperation with Mueller.
Having taken this step, I would expect him to work with Mueller as a way to further
leniency in sentencing and to insure no further prosecutions. (I can't tell from news
coverage whether the deal includes all federal investigations or not.) Cohen seems a credible
witness and too close to Trump on the direct political issues for any very successful effort
to wall him off.
His statement also is a big problem for the lawsuits by Daniels, and others, as it shreds
Trump's defenses to date. But none of it will mean that significant numbers of Republicans in
the Congress will back away from Trump. Nixon held most Republicans until he resigned. I
don't see a reason to think the team loyalty now will be less.
Watch what Lanny Davis, Cohen's attorney, says and does. He is not a Giuliani. He is
clearly telling prosecutors his client has valuable information and is willing to provide it
(if not already disclosed).
'The Republicans simply don't care, and nothing will make them care.'
To be fair, I don't care either, and nothing will make me care. Anyway, back in the real world .
'Michael Cohen, who spent a decade as a lawyer for Trump, told a judge Tuesday that he was
directed by Trump to coordinate payments to two women designed to prevent them from
disclosing alleged affairs with the real estate mogul before the presidential election, in
violation of campaign finance law.
Such an explosive assertion against anyone but the president would suggest that a criminal
case could be in the offing, but under long-standing legal interpretations by the Justice
Department, the president cannot be charged with a crime.
The department produced legal analyses in 1973 and 2000 concluding that the Constitution
does not allow for the criminal indictment of a sitting president.
In comments to reporters after Cohen pleaded guilty to eight felony counts in federal
court in Manhattan, Deputy U.S. Attorney Robert Khuzami said prosecutors were sending a
message that they are unafraid to file charges when campaign finance laws are broken. But he
did not mention Trump or offer any indication that his office planned to pursue action
against the president.'
(Washington Post)
'Despite impeachment talk, it's no easy task to remove a president in such a way. Both
Bill Clinton and Andrew Johnson were impeached, but both were acquitted by the Senate.
President Richard Nixon resigned before he could be removed from office.
There are three impeachable offenses: treason, bribery and the more opaque "high crimes
and misdemeanors," but the House of Representatives has the responsibility to accuse the
president of one of those things. If a majority in the House agrees, a president is then
impeached. The Senate then votes on impeachment, which under the U.S. Constitiution requires
a two-thirds majority.
In Trump's case, starting the impeachment process would currently require a mass revolt by
Republicans against him in the House of Representatives -- controlled by the GOP -- an event
even less likely than normal with midterm elections on the horizon.'
I am not sure that hush money being paid to the porn star the President was banging in
order that his pregnant wife not find out was precisely what the Founding Fathers had in mind
by 'High crimes and misdemeanors,'
'I am no lawyer, but apparently if you spend that much money covering up your adultery to
avoid damage to your political campaign, that is a crime'.
I sort of see what you are saying, and of course, in a certain sense, what you say is not
only true but self-evidently and obviously true. Any politician engages in activities to gain
him or herself votes. All I am saying is that it doesn't seem like the most obvious way to
conceptualise these activities. CF Bill Clinton.
Presumably one of the key reasons that Clinton lied about the Lewinsky affair was because
he thought it would make him look bad and therefore lose him votes in the 2000 elections. And
in a sense it did (although others presumably voted for him 'cos they felt sorry for him).
But that seems like a weird way to conceptualise his activities.
Does it not seem more likely that Trump's main concern in paying the hush money was to
avoid his wife, who had just given birth, finding out? Obviously the effect on votes would be
of benefit to him, but I'm not sure that was his main concern.
I too agree with most of what Hidari said here (and there), except for their last
paragraph here.
To further clarify your statement, the issue is that the payment was
transparently not to keep Ms. Trump from finding out about Ms. Cliffords or Ms. McDougal
– the timing of the payment/catch-and-kill story, well after the incidents but
immediately before the election, make that clear: their purpose was to avoid extramarital
affairs with adult entertainers from turning into October Surprises.
These functioned as
(unreported) in-kind donations, insofar as they were third-party resources expended to for
the explicit purpose of providing electoral support to the candidate.
I am not sure that hush money being paid to the porn star the President was banging in
order that his pregnant wife not find out was precisely what the Founding Fathers had in mind
by 'High crimes and misdemeanors,'
It's intentionally
vague . It should be noted that when Johnson was impeached , one
of the eleven articles was "Bringing disgrace and ridicule to the presidency by his
aforementioned words and actions."
Again, though, the idea that the payoffs to Ms. Cliffords and Ms. McDougal were made to
prevent Ms. Trump from learning of the affairs defies all credibility when considering that
they occurred in the fall of 2016 rather than ten years earlier.
It would be a strange way to conceptualise the activity if it was based purely on
the fact that the hush money was politically helpful. But:
"He told a judge in United States District Court in Manhattan that the payments to the
women were made "in coordination with and at the direction of a candidate for federal
office," implicating the president in a federal crime.
"I participated in this conduct, which on my part took place in Manhattan, for the
principal purpose of influencing the election" for president in 2016, Mr. Cohen said."
So I don't really know how you can keep insisting this is an issue of conceptual
analysis
I don't think that a Congressional majority, and certainly not the 2/3 Senate majority
needed for removal, is going to feel much ethical pressure to impeach based on the list of
wrongdoing we know about so far, or that are at all likely to emerge. Quite aside from the
lack of gravity of the crimes on that list, none of them are a clear betrayal of the
electorate that decided he should be president. That electorate already knew he was a
Russophile, had even invited Russians to hack D computers, they knew that he was a
pussy-grabber, and that his privately-owned business was ethically challenged -- yet an
electoral majority voted him in anyway. Removal on impeachment involves the legislature
asserting its will and its judgment over that of the people. Of course the legislature is
also elected by the people to accomplish duties that include holding the president to certain
standards. But I don't see even a 2/3 D Senate (which we would only get by the Rs losing
every race up this year, plus about 15 of them party-switching) having the cojones for such
an assertion, certainly not when the electorate already knew about the crimes when they voted
for the criminal. The Rs have cojones for such enterprises, and in spades, but not our
beloved Ds.
And I don't see impeachment as a very useful strategy for the Ds to pursue. Even if
successful at removing Trump, that just gets you Pence -- just as public policy irrational,
only less politically disorganized.
Maybe impeachment comes up as a tactic, to facilitate some other plan of action, but I
don't see conviction on impeachment as a useful means of even control of Trump behavior, much
less removal.
If the Ds do have control of either house after the election, of course the usual that we
can expect of them is not very much. Even if they control both chambers, they couldn't
possibly have the 2/3 in both needed to run the govt by overriding the vetoes that any actual
program of theirs would be sure to attract from the president. Even with 2/3, because this is
a D 2/3 we're talking about, we can most likely discount the possibility that they would even
try to exercise any oversight over what the govt does in opposition to the president's
control.
An actual political party in this situation of even controlling a bare majority of just
the House could do a whole lot to not only thwart Trump, but to at least make a credible
effort at asserting control over the govt. They could of course block any new legislation, or
the repeal of any existing law, and even the actual Ds are probably up to that. But to go
further, to control or limit how Trump runs the govt under existing law, this D majority of
the House would have to be willing to boldly set sail on the sea of political hardball and
take up a career of budgetary hostage-taking -- so right off we should say that this is
political fanfic, and not even canonic fanfic.
But a girl can dream, can't he, so let's pursue this alternate reality just a bit. Who
knows, if Trump's misrule makes things sufficiently dire, maybe even the Ds will be motivated
to find their inner pirate.
To take ICE as an example, it would go something like this. The House only agrees to pass
the annual appropriations on a 30-day continuing resolution basis, so that their assent is
needed every 30-days to the govt doing anything. They pass all the spending except for the
ICE funding (keeping the funding for whatever ICE spends on housing and otherwise caring for
people already apprehended -- that funding goes with the funding of the rest of the govt),
which they hold back until and unless Senate and president agree to ICE funding that includes
new law that keeps ICE from doing family separations, and whatever else the Ds find
objectionable. After success getting control of ICE abuses, next month when the CRs come due,
they do the same maneuver on their next target of Trump misrule.
The risk is that the Rs, Senate and president, just refuse to agree to the omnibus that
funds everything else the govt does until the Ds let loose the ICE funding. There is a govt
shutdown, and the Ds run the risk of being blamed. It turns into a game of legislative
chicken. Of course, this has to be anti-canon fanfic for such a game to end other than by the
Ds swerving first, so the real world Ds will never actually even start the game, because
whatever their faults, they know their limitations.
Hidari #13: " they 'all' want to get rid of him now?"
The Republican Senate would be happy to throw him overboard tomorrow. His voters are the
problem. They won't wait for his voters to turn on him however, if the Senate receives a
lengthy bill of impeachment from a Democratic House and Mueller has signed off on some of the
charges.
They'd rather have Pence do the sanctimonious messaging and go into 2020 trying to
reconstruct the party with an open primary.
After all, the GOP stands to lose Senate seats in 2020 anyway, just due to the map (the
same problem they have this year, with the House). If the election in 76 days puts the
Democrats in charge of the House, Trump won't make it to the end of his term.
'To further clarify your statement, the issue is that the payment was transparently not to
keep Ms. Trump from finding out about Ms. Cliffords or Ms. McDougal – the timing of the
payment/catch-and-kill story, well after the incidents but immediately before the election,
make that clear: their purpose was to avoid extramarital affairs with adult entertainers from
turning into October Surprises. '
Oh ok, I didn't really understand that. I haven't to be honest, been following the Stormy
Daniels story too closely for the good reason that I don't care.
So one infers that the FL did in fact know about these things. Could we conceptualise it
thus, then: Trump paid the hush money to ensure that Melania was not publicly humiliated by
these things (I mean, humiliated even more than simply being married to Donald Trump)?
But obviously, in that case, Trump not wanting this to be a big story in the run up to the
election was obviously a 'thing'.
"... That said, many - including Yahoo News's Michael Isikoff (the guy whose article containing info fed to him by Christopher Steele was used by the FBI to obtain Carter Page's FISA warrant) - have pointed to potential targets on the left. ..."
"... Those people include former Manafort associates Tony Podesta, Vin Weber and Greg Craig - all of whom failed to register as foreign agents in connection with work outside the United States, as well as members of the Obama administration . Of course, the thought of Mueller going after "the untouchables" seems a bit far fetched. ..."
"... The FSB ambition: to choose the least competent Presidential candidate and, unbeknownst to him, smooth his way to the White House. Thus Robert Meuller's inconvenient truth: If Donald Trump were competent enough to be entrusted with collusion, then he would be too competent for the FSB to achieve its ambitions! I bet the FSB people in charge are gobsmacked that The Donald hasn't been impaled on the 25th Amendment yet! ..."
"... I don't understand Dershowitz here. What could Manafort say that Papadopoulos and Flynn haven't already told Mueller? He was Trump's campaign manager for what three months? ..."
"... If anyone had something juicy on Trump it'd be Michael Flynn since he was in the Trump administration if just for a short time. This is about keeping this farce of a charade going as long as humanly possible. ..."
"... My guess -- a guess -- is that Mueller is under a lot of pressure from the Clinton Family including Brennan, Clapper et al to find something, anything, on enough people to make the last 2 years look legit to the Americans who watch CNN. ..."
"... My guess is that the CF has gone from supporting Mueller to making him scared. ..."
"... That should work for continuing the Conspiracy theory... It is all the DOJ, FBI, Sessions and now newcomer Manafort trying to BRING Down the POTUS. All of this is happening to such a great guy like Trump... Sad huh... ..."
"... Jesus you Trumptards are delusional. The average American is no more likely to take up arms against his masters than the North Koreans are. ..."
Harvard Law professor and prominent liberal Alan Dershowitz - who has been shunned by the
liberal elite of late for defending President Trump - now says that the White House should be
alarmed over Paul Manafort's plea deal with special counsel Robert Mueller.
" Well of course they should be ," replied Dershowitz - though he added the rather large
caveat that Mueller is "not a credible witness," and would be at best be a corroborating
witness against Trump.
"There's nothing he can testify to that would probably lend weight to impeachment because he
didn't have close contact with President Trump while he was president," said Dershowitz. " What
they are looking for is self-corroborating information that can be used against Trump if they
can make him sing and then there's the possibility of him composing, elaborating on the story
."
Dershowitz added that there is "no doubt" Mueller is trying to flip Manafort against
Trump.
" Once he agrees to cooperate, he has to cooperate about everything , said Dershowitz.
"There's no such thing as partial cooperation."
As for Trump pardoning Manafort? That's now "off the table," and that flipping on the
President "opens up a lot of doors that probably haven't been opened before."
It's a "big win" for Mueller, Dershowitz concludes.
That said, many - including Yahoo
News's Michael Isikoff (the guy whose article containing info fed to him by Christopher Steele
was used by the FBI to obtain Carter Page's FISA warrant) - have pointed to potential targets
on the left.
Those people include former Manafort associates Tony Podesta, Vin Weber and Greg Craig - all
of whom failed to register as foreign agents in connection with work outside the United States,
as well as members of the Obama administration . Of course, the thought of Mueller going after
"the untouchables" seems a bit far fetched.
quintus.sertorius , 19 minutes ago
The Tribe plays both sides: Dershowitz the plant in Trump team has the same real loyalty
as fellow tribesman Haim Saban or Sheldon Adelson. They want to blackmail Trump into fighting
Israel's war in Syria.
radbug , 55 minutes ago
The FSB ambition: to choose the least competent Presidential candidate and, unbeknownst to
him, smooth his way to the White House. Thus Robert Meuller's inconvenient truth: If Donald
Trump were competent enough to be entrusted with collusion, then he would be too competent
for the FSB to achieve its ambitions! I bet the FSB people in charge are gobsmacked that The
Donald hasn't been impaled on the 25th Amendment yet!
ZazzOne , 1 hour ago
"Big Win For Mueller"? Only if he plans on going after the founders of the Red Shoe "Pedo"
Club.....John and Tony Podesta! Though I highly doubt he'll ever go down that rabbit
hole!!!!!
Straddling-the-fence , 2 hours ago
Once he agrees to cooperate, he has to cooperate about everything , said Dershowitz.
"There's no such thing as partial cooperation.
That's asinine. There are terms to a plea agreement. Unless those terms encompass what is
claimed above, then that is simply false.
KekistanisUnite , 3 hours ago
I don't understand Dershowitz here. What could Manafort say that Papadopoulos and Flynn
haven't already told Mueller? He was Trump's campaign manager for what three months?
George
Papadopoulos I don't know how long he was there but if really has nothing of value to offer
then neither would Manafort.
If anyone had something juicy on Trump it'd be Michael Flynn
since he was in the Trump administration if just for a short time. This is about keeping this
farce of a charade going as long as humanly possible.
Econogeek , 3 hours ago
My guess -- a guess -- is that Mueller is under a lot of pressure from the Clinton Family
including Brennan, Clapper et al to find something, anything, on enough people to make the
last 2 years look legit to the Americans who watch CNN.
My guess is that the CF has gone from supporting Mueller to making him scared.
ThePhantom , 4 hours ago
i like to think Mueller is on the plate too, and this is his chance to save his own ass.
Greg Craig and Podesta's names are out in all the papers .... they worked with manafort first
and foremost....
no idea what dershowitz is talking about.. none.
Calvertsbio , 4 hours ago
Yea sure he is, the SPECIAL Counsel running the show to bring down corruption is "ON THE
PLATE" yea, ok...
That should work for continuing the Conspiracy theory... It is all the DOJ, FBI, Sessions
and now newcomer Manafort trying to BRING Down the POTUS. All of this is happening to such a
great guy like Trump... Sad huh...
Doesn't make much difference how much of this BS is posted, no one is buying it anymore...
Even FAUX news has basically given up on him... Everyone know that once it all comes out, it
will be labelled by HIS SHEEPLE that it is all made up BS to take him down...
Hillary did it... no ! Sessions did it, nope, it was RYAN ? McConnell... lets keep the
guessing game going... The Dossier did it...
BigJim, 4 hours ago
"The swamp critters better stop ignoring the Hillary/DNC side of this or the population is going to be marching in with
pitchforks and guillotines."
Jesus you Trumptards are delusional. The average American is no more likely to take up arms against his masters than
the North Koreans are.
Uncovered text messages reveal that FBI agent Peter Strzok wanted to use CNN's
"bombshell" report about the infamous "Steele Dossier" to interview witnesses in the
Trump-Russia probe
CNN used leaked knowledge that Comey briefed Trump on the dossier as a trigger to
publish
The FBI knew of CNN's plans to publish, confirming a dialogue between the FBI and
CNN
This is particularly damning in light of revelations of FBI-MSM collusion against the
Trump campaign
Newly revealed text messages between former FBI agent Peter Strzok and former FBI attorney
Lisa Page reveal that Strzok wanted to use CNN's report on the infamous "Steele Dossier" to
justify interviewing people in the Trump-Russia investigation, reports CNN
.
911bodysnatchers322 ,
So now CNN is complicit in illegal leaking, (dis)information laundering, citizen
targetting, conspiracy against rights, subversion, sedition and treason?
No wonder it's a nonstop Trump hate fest. They aren't just trying to get Trump impeached
in the court of public opinion, they're desperate to get rid of him before he 100% destroys
him
Well it's too late. Impeach away. But we'll still hold CNN for treason. The two things
aren't related. You can't steal from a store just because Trump set the one next to it on
fire
BGO ,
Fatigue is setting in with this charade. Soon the (((pundits))) will respond with the
obligatory ***yawn*** troll to all future allegations.
If Trump cannot or is unable to respond to this non-sense in the harshest terms possible,
he should not be president. It's amazing no one in this drama has met their maker Hitlery
style. If that cunt was in charge and dealing with this shit, bodies would have already hit
the floor.
J Mahoney ,
This whole situation has to piss off anyone that is even 10% objective. How could any
elected representative or senator still spew shit like "Leave Mueller Alone"
BOTTOM LINE -- If we do not get to work quickly to elect non establishment republicans in
the midterms NOTHING will EVER be done and Trump may be forced out if Dems make gains
apocalypticbrother ,
All old news. No one in jail except Manafort. It really seems like Trump is powerless
against agencys. He must hate being a powerless president.
squid ,
If, and I do mean IF, the GOP holds onto both houses of congress.....
Everyone of these fucks has to be indited with sedition, PERIOD.
its slam dunk. And, if the elected houses ever wants to get hold of the CIA, FBI and NSA
and gain some control over those rogue agencies 20-50 agents from each will have to go down
to spend the rest of their lives in Leavenworth.
These uncollected asshats have tried to change the government of the United States.
The only person on the left that appears to understand this is Glen Greenwald.
Squid
Save_America1st ,
the problem is that in my opinion the majority of the GOP is also so fucking corrupt that
I don't think most of them actually want to hold control of the House. They never even wanted
Trump to win in the first place. On top of that, I would say many of those treasonous
scumbags probably actually wanted Hitlery to win the fucking thing even if Trump wasn't going
to be her opponent!
Look at all the resignations. Never seen before in history. Why? Two reasons...Trump is
using the evidence to push many of them out or they end up in Guantanamo for life. And others
in the beginning were quitting in order to give up part of the majority in order to flip the
House to the even more evil, treasonous Demoscums so that it would restrict Trump's full
majority.
Just look how "No Name" McStain acted when voting down against repealing O-Fuck-You-Care,
right???
He was a traitor, plain and fucking simple. We all know it. Fuck their bullshit funeral.
That was a cathedral full of traitors to this country. Psychopaths and sociopaths. Except for
General Kelly and General Mattis keeping a close eye on that room full of demons.
The Mueller investigation has been going on for a very long time - if he had found
anything of any real value it would be out there already, trying to reduce Trump popularity
and hit the GOP mid-terms.
The Mid Terms are very important to Deep State. The Dems must at least get the House back
in order to stop Trump.
That Mueller and Co have virtually have found nothing to put out there to stop Trump and
the GOP means they have fuck all, and are now clutching at Straws.
They are going to have to go the Bullshit path....start inventing. OH and all sorts of
False Flags between now and Mid Terms are guaranteed. ALSO will the neocons dupe Trump into a
Syria mistake that causes the death of many US soldiers? We know Deep State don't care who or
how many they kill, so long as they get what they want.
One wonders if the Censoring of Conservative media, and Political Sites is because Deep
State are planning to Assassinate President Trump , as is stated on Alex Jone's site.
BANNED VIDEOS – PENTAGON INTEL SAYS GLOBALISTS WANT TRUMP DEAD BY MARCH 2019
Watch the clips censored by over one hundred websites
There have probably been several Trump assassination attempts since he was elected.
Knowing what happened to Lincoln when he vetoed the National Bank / Fed Reserve of his
time;
And what happened to JFK when he stated he would shut down the CIA;
Trump is fully aware he performs a death defying act daily. There may be others out there
willing to make the Trump-JFK-Lincoln sacrifice, to take back America, but not Pence, not
Sanders, not any current Democrat prez wanna be.
Thom Paine ,
It would be impossible, or an exercise in suicide by the GOP and or Democrats if they
actually impeached Trump.
Two thirds of the Senate is required for Impeachment, meaning the GOP would have to
vote with the Dems and that would mean total devastation of the GOP at the following
elections.
If the Dems tried impeachment, they would be only signaling to their hardcore base, but
there would be a significant voter backlash against them. It would be a self defeating
act.
If the GOP and Dems voted to impeach Trump in the Senate, Trump can appeal to the
Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court would deny the Impeachment - unless there was proper legal
cause.
There has to be a legally provable breach of Federal law outside the POTUS exercise of
powers. Extraordinary prosecution requires extraordinary evidence.
You cannot remove a President elected by 62 million people on flimsy hearsay, or 'he said
she said' evidence, or pure circumstantial evidence. It would also set a precedence where
Presidents could be impeached on the drop of a hat.
At the moment the Dems and Deep State want to impeach Trump because he beat Clinton and
fucked up the last step in their plan to own America.
If Trump beat Sanders not many would be whining right now, they wouldn't care.
StarGate ,
Your premise legally appears to be accurate, that the Supreme Court is a failsafe against
a retaliatory political impeachment, based primarily on fact Hillary lost.
However, that means the Supreme Court would have to been beyond corruption and Trump would
have to bring a case.
j0nx ,
No. All the Dems and deep state need to know is that a lot of the deplorable would riot
like mofos if they tried. No dem would be safe. You think they don't know that? Sociology
101.
Saying the deplorables wouldn't riot is like saying Obama's minions wouldn't have if the
shoe were reversed 7 years ago and there was an open coup against him like there is
Trump.
Withdrawn Sanction ,
Sorry to nit pick, but there are 2 steps here: the first is impeachment by the House. Akin
to an indictment. Then there is a trial in the Senate which is presided over by the Chief
Justice of the SC. THEN a 2/3s affirmative vote is required for conviction and removal from
office.
An impeachment just like an indictment is meaningless w/o a conviction. You see how much
"damage" an impeachment did to Slick Willy. Didn't skip a beat
"... What I do find absurd is the reception of Bob Woodward's book. It seems that most Trump haters don't seem to have any problems with thinking Trump is unhinged because he threatened to kill the president of a country that is allied with Russia and that he is a Russian puppet and that therefore the investigation about "collusion" is necessary. ..."
"... Bob Woodward's book also stands in a strange relationship to the anonymous NYT piece. The author of that piece seems to be a hardcore neoconservative and free-trade neoliberal -- he wants deregulation, more money for the military, but he dislikes that Trump does not escalate tensions against Russia enough and has to be pressured in order to expell enough Russian diplomats, and also the tentative support of peace efforts for Korea go against his neoconservative desires. ..."
"... Although it is not mentioned explicitly, the piece is at least compatible with "Russiagate" -- Trump's desire not to escalate international tensions against countries like Russia and North Korea too much is seen as a "preference for dictators and authoritarian leaders", which is an interpretation that is typical of neoconservative ideologues. In contrast, Woodward's main point for accusing Donald Trump of being unhinged is that he wanted to have Assad killed -- something many of the hard-core neocons would hardly object. ..."
What I find interesting in the case of Bob Woodward's book is that many anti-Trumpers seem to
celebrate it without even taking into account that, if its contents were to be believed, it
would completely discredit the whole "Russiagate" story that has been the main line of attack
against Donald Trump.
As far as I can judge from the excerpts that have been published, most of the book deals
with issues of style -- it is certainly nothing new that many people in the establishment
strongly dislike Trump's style -- and about people in important positions in Trump's
surroundings have a negative opinion of him and sometimes try to work against him -- that is
hardly something new, either.
The only piece of information that could really make Trump look like someone unhinged and
dangerous is the claim that he demanded Assad to be killed. Of course, I don't know whether
that claim is true and if Trump said something like that, it was meant as an assignment or he
just wanted to know what others thought about the idea. But Trump certainly would not have
said anything like that if he was a Russian puppet. Although Russia hardly has absolutely
loyalty to Assad as a person, killing the president of a government with which Russia is
allied and thereby causing more instability is certainly not something Russia might want. So,
not only does Bob Woodward's book that claims to report things that happened behind the
scenes not show any hints that the Russiagate conspiracy theory might be true, but -- if it
is to be believed -, it shows quite strong evidence against that theory.
I don't know whether Bob Woodward spells this out anywhere in the book -- I doubt it
because the main target audience of the book is probably Trump haters who like to hate Trump
for any conceivable reason and might be upset if one such reason, which had been heavily
promoted, was taken away from them. But at least, Bob Woodward seems to be consistent on this
to some degree -- after the report by a few handpicked agents from three agencies and
Clapper's bureau in January 2017, Woodward criticized the politicization of the secret
services. Apart from a few excerpts, I have not read Bob Woodward's book, and I cannot judge
its merits, but I think that he is probably somewhat less dishonest than many of Trump haters
-- this strange coalition of pseudo-leftists with the deep state.
What I do find absurd is the reception of Bob Woodward's book. It seems that most
Trump haters don't seem to have any problems with thinking Trump is unhinged because he
threatened to kill the president of a country that is allied with Russia and that he is a
Russian puppet and that therefore the investigation about "collusion" is necessary. I
think that once more demonstrates the irrationality of the base of that "Anti-Trump
Resistance" (not, of course, of people from the Clinton campaign, the FBI and CIA who
invented Russiagate, they just exploit the irrationality of large parts of the public).
Bob Woodward's book also stands in a strange relationship to the anonymous NYT piece.
The author of that piece seems to be a hardcore neoconservative and free-trade neoliberal --
he wants deregulation, more money for the military, but he dislikes that Trump does not
escalate tensions against Russia enough and has to be pressured in order to expell enough
Russian diplomats, and also the tentative support of peace efforts for Korea go against his
neoconservative desires.
Although it is not mentioned explicitly, the piece is at least compatible with
"Russiagate" -- Trump's desire not to escalate international tensions against countries like
Russia and North Korea too much is seen as a "preference for dictators and authoritarian
leaders", which is an interpretation that is typical of neoconservative ideologues. In
contrast, Woodward's main point for accusing Donald Trump of being unhinged is that he wanted
to have Assad killed -- something many of the hard-core neocons would hardly object.
@Adrian E. What I find interesting in the case of Bob Woodward's book is that many
anti-Trumpers seem to celebrate it without even taking into account that, if its contents
were to be believed, it would completely discredit the whole "Russiagate" story that has been
the main line of attack against Donald Trump.
As far as I can judge from the excerpts that have been published, most of the book deals
with issues of style - it is certainly nothing new that many people in the establishment
strongly dislike Trump's style - and about people in important positions in Trump's
surroundings have a negative opinion of him and sometimes try to work against him - that is
hardly something new, either.
The only piece of information that could really make Trump look like someone unhinged and
dangerous is the claim that he demanded Assad to be killed. Of course, I don't know whether
that claim is true and if Trump said something like that, it was meant as an assignment or he
just wanted to know what others thought about the idea. But Trump certainly would not have
said anything like that if he was a Russian puppet. Although Russia hardly has absolutely
loyalty to Assad as a person, killing the president of a government with which Russia is
allied and thereby causing more instability is certainly not something Russia might want. So,
not only does Bob Woodward's book that claims to report things that happened behind the
scenes not show any hints that the Russiagate conspiracy theory might be true, but - if it is
to be believed -, it shows quite strong evidence against that theory.
I don't know whether Bob Woodward spells this out anywhere in the book - I doubt it
because the main target audience of the book is probably Trump haters who like to hate Trump
for any conceiveable reason and might be upset if one such reason, which had been heavily
promoted, was taken away from them. But at least, Bob Woodward seems to be consistent on this
to some degree - after the report by a few handpicked agents from three agencies and
Clapper's bureau in January 2017, Woodward criticized the politicization of the secret
services. Apart from a few excerpts, I have not read Bob Woodward's book, and I cannot judge
its merits, but I think that he is probably somewhat less dishonest than many of his haters -
this strange coalition of pseudo-leftists with the deep state.
What I do find absurd is the reception of Bob Woodward's book. It seems that most Trump
haters don't seem to have any problems with thinking Trump is unhinged because he threatened
to kill the president of a country that is allied with Russia and that he is a Russian puppet
and that therefore the investigation about "collusion" is necessary. I think that once more
demonstrates the irrationality of the base of that "Anti-Trump Resistance" (not, of course,
of people from the Clinton campaign, the FBI and CIA who invented Russiagate, they just
exploit the irrationality of large parts of the public).
Bob Woodward's book also stands in a strange relationship to the anonymous NYT piece. The
author of that piece seems to be a hardcore neoconservative and free-trade neoliberal - he
wants deregulation, more money for the military, but he dislikes that Trump does not escalate
tensions against Russia enough and has to be pressured in order to expell enough Russian
diplomats, and also the tentative support of peace efforts for Korea go against his
neoconservative desires. Although it is not mentioned explicitly, the piece is at least
compatible with "Russiagate" - Trump's desire not to escalate international tensions against
countries like Russia and North Korea too much is seen as a "preference for dictators and
authoritarian leaders", which is an interpretation that is typical of neoconservative
ideologues. In contrast, Woodward's main point for accusing Donald Trump of being unhinged is
that he wanted to have Assad killed - something many of the hard-core neocons would hardly
object. Very good observations. Maybe the "kill Assad" ploy is not intended for domestic
consumption but rather to further undermine Trump's working relationship with Putin –
just as with the of the phoney Russian agent indictment which wast timed precisely to disrupt
the Helsinki summit.
History is very clear who runs the media for those who are in the know.
9/23/1975 Tom Charles Huston Church Committee Testimony
Tom Charles Huston testified before the Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental
Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, commonly known as the Church Committee,
on the 43-page plan he presented to the President Nixon and others on ways to collect
information about anti-war and "radical" groups, including burglary, electronic surveillance,
and opening of mail.
September 1, 2015 THE CIA AND THE MEDIA: 50 FACTS THE WORLD NEEDS TO KNOW
Since the end of World War Two the Central Intelligence Agency has been a major force in
US and foreign news media, exerting considerable influence over what the public sees, hears
and reads on a regular basis.
President Trump's greatest legacy will be his exposing how corrupt the American government
has become. Almost every branch of Government has been exposed as corrupt but the absolute
worst is the FBI. This attempted coup should be met with the hangman's rope for traitors.
Historians know that very few people understand great historical events when they happen.
My idea is that this now is the case.
Never before in history did the leader of an empire understand that that empire could not
survive, and act accordingly.
The British empire was already not sustainable, financially, before 1914. Britain had to
give up the two fleet standard, the situation where the British fleet was superior to the
next two biggest fleets. Obama had to give up the two war standard, the USA went to one and a
half war. What a half war accomplishes one can see in Syria.
The British empire fell apart through WWII, Churchill the undertaker. For this reason, I
suspect, are the peace proposals that Rudolf Hess brought to Scotland in May 1941 still
secret. France got a generous peace, logical to assume that Hitler would propose the same to
Great Britain, the empire he admired.
The British example makes two things clear: what should have been clear prior to 1914 was
not clear, or was ignored, and the price of unwilling, or not capable of understanding
history at the moment it happens becomes clear. Britain did not have a Deep State, one might
say, on the other hand, one can be of the opinion that the British Deep State did exist. A
conflict as now in the USA never existed in Great Britain.
What would have happened if say Chamberlain would have acted as Trump does know, anybody's
guess. Chamberlain did not want war, but he also did not want to end British imagined power,
he belonged to the Thirtyniners, those with the illusion that Great Britain was ready for war
in 1939.
As in 1917, the USA had to rescue Britain, but this time the price was high: opening the
empire to foreign competition, on top of that, FDR's lofty statements, the Atlantic Charter,
in fact the end of all colonial European empires.
@Buckwheat President Trump's greatest legacy will be his exposing how corrupt the
American government has become. Almost every branch of Government has been exposed as corrupt
but the absolute worst is the FBI. This attempted coup should be met with the hangman's rope
for traitors.
President Trump's greatest legacy will be his exposing how corrupt the American
government has become. Almost every branch of Government has been exposed as corrupt but
the absolute worst is the FBI. This attempted coup should be met with the hangman's rope
for traitors.
The media controls the minds of the mob, and presents itself as vox populi .
Corruption has been exposed, and the media admits to it, endorses it, and encourages
more.
So, whaddya figure? 20 years to total economic collapse? Who's gonna feed the messicans?
Oh! The humanity! Oh, Rome, do not burn!
"Shining city on a hill" and all that bullshit. Turn out the lights.
@Deschutes I didn't like Clinton, but I think Trump is as bad, probably worse. Look at
the EPA under Trump, it's a fucking joke with fossil fuel shills like Pruitt gutting much
needed laws to protect environment and people. Look at Education secretary DeVoss: it does
NOT get any worse: a billionaire christian fundamentalist wacko billionaire who bought her
way into that post funding the GOP/Trump ticket!? She's the epitome of what the 'Trump
voters' ostensibly hate: a billionaire class aka 'Rome on the Potomac' as this author calls
it, the plutocracy who own and run the show while the proletariat slave away at their office
temp jobs, or worse yet amazon.com sweatshop, etc. DeVoss is privatizing education so that
christian fundies can have their kids taught 'gawd made the world in 7 days' instead of
Darwin's evolution. Look at Trumps Atty General Sessions: he's a reactionary fossil from the
1950s who wants to illegalize weed? Roll back sensible drug policy? He's a fucking disaster.
And look at what Trump is doing for Israel!? Moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, and
Kishner sucking up to Netanyahoo, doing his bidding like an Israel firster? This is all good?
This is what the disenfranchised Trump supporter voted for and had in mind??
Trump is a fucking awful trainwreck. ' Moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, '
If this makes Netanyahu happy for some time, at negligible cost to the USA, smart move.
At the same time, Trump can claim 'see how I love Israel'.
For me the same as the fake attacks on Syria.
Show.
@Wizard of Oz You seem to be using language like Alice's Humpty Dumpty. "Zionism" is at
least a little bit constrained in meaning by its being a movement to restore the Jewish
people as currently understood to the land of Israel (Judea and Samaria principally which
creates special difficulties...) with Jerusalem as it's capital, and, I suppose to maintain
them there. You are absolutely correct.
But it also includes protection of Israel.
And what is the best protection of Israel?
..
To control the most powerful country in the world ergo USA
..
And what is even better protection of Israel?
To to rule the world.
..
What is wrong or evil in this plan?
Nothing! it is good plan.
..
So where is the snag?
..
Complications in executing this plan.
According to the Washington Post, Barbara K. Olson called her husband twice on September
11, 2001 in the final minutes of Flight 77. Her last words to him were, "What do I tell the
pilot to do?"
"She called from the plane while it was being hijacked," said Theodore Olson -- 42nd
Solicitor General of the United States. "I wish it wasn't so, but it is."
However, prosecution exhibit P200054 (attached) in United States v.
Zacarias Moussaoui -- http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/
exhibits/prosecution/flights/P200054.html -- shows that Barbara Olson made only one phone
call -- it did not connect, and it lasted for 0 seconds!
Both accounts of Barbara Olson's phone calls -- the Solicitor General's and the
prosecution's in United States v. Zacarias Moussaoui -- cannot be correct.
Media lies and fabrications have been going on ever since there were "journalists" (I use
that term loosely). The difference today, is that "professional journalism" is now blatantly
showing its liberal communistic bias.
From "Remember the Maine" in the Spanish-American war (actually a powder magazine
explosion–not an attack) to walter duranty's extolling the "virtues" of communism while
one of the greatest artificially-engineered (by communists)famines in the Ukraine was taking
place, in order to force the "collectivization" of privately-held farms, to walter cronkite
outright lying about the American military's effectiveness during the 1968 Vietnam "Tet
offensive" (in which much enemy life was lost) journalism has always been a "nasty craft". In
cronkite's case, the North Vietnamese were ready to settle (and capitulate) until cronkite's
lies about the supposed American "defeat" were publicized. Cronkite's lies gave the North
Vietnamese new resolve, as they realized that they had the American "news media" on their
side. There has always been a certain sympathy for communism and totalitarianism in the
so-called "mainstream media". All one has to do is to look at the journalists fawning over
Cuba's Fidel Castro and how wonderful life is in that communist "paradise".
Journalists HATE the internet because it exposes their "profession" for what it really is
with the internet, anyone can be a true journalist. This is why the same "mainstream media"
is calling for the "licensing" of journalists–something that would have been unheard of
(and treasonous) in previous decades
Professional journalism is its own worst enemy
We're surprised the tools of the Oligarch Class remain loyal to their paymasters? Comey and
Müller both received very lucrative board-seat assignments for looking the other way
when appropriate, or digging a little deeper when asked.
"In the absence of the governmental checks and balances present in other areas of our
national life, the only effective restraint upon executive policy and power in the areas of
national defense and international affairs may lie in an enlightened citizenry -- in an
informed and critical public opinion which alone can here protect the values of democratic
government. For this reason, it is perhaps here that a press that is alert, aware, and free
most vitally serves the basic purpose of the First Amendment. For, without an informed and
free press, there cannot be an enlightened people."
I have no choice. I must don the mantle of greatness and take the reins of the country.
Desperate times call for desperate measures. I will run for the office of dictator, or
President in American parlance.
Readers may ask, "But Fred, what makes you think you are qualified to be President?" To
which I respond, "Nothing. But have you seen what we have now? You want a White House with
John Bolton in it?"
You see.
I append here a few of the enlightened policies which I will effect. Hold your applause
until the end. Interspersed for perusal are a few slogans that I may use to incite your
fervor.
One: I will end all policies hostile to Cuba. I will not make life difficult for
eleven million perfectly good people to please a ratpack of phony Cubans afflicting Miami. In
fact, I will offer Havana a twenty-billion-dollar loan if they will take the bastards back.
Cuba poses no danger to anyone. They have good cigars. They should be left alone to live as
they please and drink mojitos. If nutcake Republicans protest my policy, I will have them
stuffed into an abandoned oil well. Along with the pseudo-Cubans.
Two: Elizabeth Warren will be required to take a DNA test to see whether she is a
wild Indian. If she is, she will have to wear feathers. Otherwise, to see a psychiatrist.
We have nothing to be afred of but Fred hisself! Has a classic ring, don't you
think?
Three: I will end the Afghan war in an afternoon, relying on use the exit strategy
proposed by James P. Coyne, the Sun Tsu of our age:
"OK, on the plane. Now ."
If Lindsey Graham complains that we need to kill more puzzled goatherds, I will have him
inserted into the oil well on top of the Republicans and pseudo-Cubans, with Oprah tamped
down on top as a sort of cork. There is nothing in Afghanistan that Americans need or want,
except opium products, and private enterprise now provides these in abundance. Check the
nearest street corner, or ask your kids.
Four: I will make membership in AIPAC a felony, and remind its members that I could
have Oprah temporarily removed from the oil well to make more room. Aipackers can act as they
please in their own country–I will not meddle in foreign affairs–but leave ours
alone.
Fred! Ahhhhhh . This has a nicely orgasmic quality that will appeal to the younger
demographic. It represents the satisfaction that my rule will bring to the entire
country.
Five: I will end all sanctions against Iran. Then I will sell those Persian rascals
airplanes and cars and electronic stuff and towel softener and lock them into the American
economic system. This will make Boeing and AT&T and Intel love me with the deep sweet
love that never dies, at least as long as the money flows, and there will be lots of jobs in
Seattle.
Six: I will bring charges of treason against the contents of the Great Double Wide
on Pennsylvania Avenue. The evidence is incontrovertible. The first rule of empire is Don't
Let Your Enemies Unite. Everybody who has an empire knows this. Except us. Inside the White
House a bunch of apparently brain-damaged political mostly left-overs, suffering from Beltway
Bubble Syndrome, push China, Russia, and Iran together like some kind of international
spaghetti-grope LGTBQRSTUV threesome. Who are our dismal leaders really working for?
China?
A Fred in Every Pot This makes no sense, you may say. No, but we are doing
politics. It is almost iambic pentameter, like Shakespeare. It will lend class to my
campaign.
Seven: I will keep the F-35 program. It provides a lot of jobs. However, I will but get
rid of the airplane. Isn't this brilliant? Instead of building the thing, workers will dig
holes and fill them in, but keep their current salaries. It will improve their health, and
make America safer. The fewer dangerous things the children in the Five-Sided Wind Tunnel
have, the less trouble it can cause.
Better Fred than Dead! Some readers will dispute this. What do they know?
Eight: I have been urged to end affirmative action on the grounds that things
should be done by people who can actually do them. This is racist. I will have nothing to do
with it. Instead I will make affirmative action democratic and inclusive. Everyone will
qualify for it. Special privilege should not be restricted to a minority. It isn't the
American way.
Fred! Good as Any, Better'n Some. Good thinking.
Nine: I will abolish NATO. America should find a cheaper way to control the
vassals. There is of course the bedtime story that NATO exists to confront the Russkies, and
only incidentally provides a compulsory market for American armament. Nuts. Russia cannot
seem dangerous to anyone who wasn't dropped on his head at some formative juncture in life.
Smallish population, low military budget.
Likewise South Korea, which has twice the population and forty times the economy of the
North. If it wants to defend itself, it has my blessing. If it doesn't, it isn't our
problem.
Tippecanoe and Frederick Too! This may require exhumation, but for this we have
backhoes.
Ten: I will make a modest reduction in the military budget, say seventy-five
percent. To keep the soldiers happy I will invest in high-throughput roller coasters, a
shooting range with BB guns, and really loud speaker systems that say Va roooom and
Bangbangbang and fzzzzzzzzboom. These will provide psychic emoluments of
martial life without the murder.
Eleven: The money thus saved I will use on pressing domestic problems. LA has
68,000 homeless people on the streets, San Francisco loses conventions because of so many
homeless defecating on the sidewalks, Portland has homeless riots,. The lower primates in
Antifa and BLM rend such social fabric as any longer exists. Dams are aging. Our trains are
out of of the Fifties. And we spend a trillion a year on goddam aircraft carriers?
Fred? Well, Got a Better Idea?
Twelve: As an educational reform, I will have the Department of Education filled
with linoleum cement, the occupants being left inside. This will raise the national IQ by at
least three points. I will pass an amendment to the fragments of the Constitution saying, "No
federal entity or person shall say, think, suggest, or do anything whatever regarding
schooling on pain of garroting." Part of the savings from lowering the military budget will
go to purchasing garrotes. The duration, content, and nature of the schools shall be left to
localities without exception.
Thirteen: The father of any girl subjected to genital mutilation will be awarded a
free gender reassignment operation, preferably with tin-snips. Genital mutilation should be
inclusive. The father will then be placed for two weeks in the bottom of a public latrine in
Uganda. If this doesn't suffice to deter the practice, I may be forced to adopt extreme
measures. A country that allows such treatment of daughters deserves to go to hell. And seems
to be.
Fourteen: I will impose a literacy test for voting. People too dim to find their
way home should not be permitted to influence policies they have never heard of and can't
spell. Yes, this might be called illiberal. If so, it will doubtless be the only example of
illiberalism in this meritorious list.
Fifteen: In higher education, I will prescribe horse whipping for anyone saying
microaggression, white privilege, whiteness, patriarchy, safe space, people of color, racism,
any kind of phobia, or "Resist" in a squalling voice with an exclamation point. No curriculum
containing the word "Studies" will be permitted.
Sixteen: Anyone prescribing Ritalin for children under twenty-one will be thrown from a
helicopter.
In conclusion, I say to my yearning public, There, you, see, there is hope. Together we can
do this. See you at the polls.
... ... ...
Fred Reed is a former news weasel and part-time sociopath living in central Mexico
with his wife and three useless but agreeable street dogs. He says it suits him.
"... Retired USAF Col. Fletcher Prouty revealed that the "Pentagon Papers" were a planned CIA leak to shift blame for the failed war in Vietnam from the CIA to the Pentagon. The documents were real, but only certain documents were released. ..."
"... Nixon was ousted with the help of covert CIA agent Bob Woodward, working undercover as a reporter at the CIA co-founded "Washington Post". Gerald Ford became President, who just happened to be a member of the discredited Warren Commission that engineered the cover-up of the JFK assassination! ..."
He graduated from the CIA university (aka Yale) then went to CIA basic training as a naval
intelligence officer for five years, then to the Washington Post. This is why he was allowed
White House access by the Trump Neocons, despite is record as a back stabber to those who
oppose the Neocon agenda. The Washington Post itself was co-founded by the CIA. Woodward was
a key player in the last CIA coup when Nixon was ousted, not too long after they disposed of
troublesome President Kennedy. I noted some of this in my 2010 blog:
Retired USAF Col. Fletcher Prouty revealed that the "Pentagon Papers" were a planned
CIA leak to shift blame for the failed war in Vietnam from the CIA to the Pentagon. The
documents were real, but only certain documents were released. Prouty wrote the other
reason for this "leak" was to upset the Nixon administration, which it was trying to
destabilize in hopes of ousting Nixon.
That President was upset that the CIA refused to provide him with requested documents
concerning the Bay of Pigs and the JFK assassination. Nixon also angered the "Power Elite" by
withdrawing American troops from their profitable business venture in Vietnam and improving
relations with Red China.
Nixon was ousted with the help of covert CIA agent Bob Woodward, working undercover as
a reporter at the CIA co-founded "Washington Post". Gerald Ford became President, who just
happened to be a member of the discredited Warren Commission that engineered the cover-up of
the JFK assassination!
This piece makes Trump look like a credible president – that is, if he is to be judged
by his campaign promises to the American electorate who voted him in. This is only partly
true. Recall that Trump did make unequivocal promises: "We will stop racing to topple foreign
regimes that we know nothing about, that we shouldn't be involved with,". and "We will stop
racing to topple foreign regimes that we know nothing about, that we shouldn't be involved
with," Not long after such promises, he announced he would be sending more troops to
Afghanistan. His bombing of Syria and illegally keeping American boots in that country surely
flies in the face of such promises especially in light of statements that American troops
will not leave that country any time soon, in keeping with America's zeal for fighting
Israel's wars. This piece portrays Trump as intrepid and true to his word. Yet, like many of
his predecessors, the morbid fear of the pro-Israeli lobby remains a defining feature of US
foreign policy matters. Neither can Trump exonerate himself from the ongoing tragedy in Yemen
emboldening the Saudis and their Emirati allies with the sale of billions of dollars of arms
to these medieval monarchies, not to mention the logistical support given them by the US.
Prime Minister Teresa May took
to the floor of the Parliament today to report that the Crown Prosecution Service and Police
had issued warrants for two Russian GRU officials who, they claim, had carried out the Skripal
attacks last March. "We were right," she said with a stiff upper lip, "to say in March that the
Russian State was responsible." Mugshots were released of two people whose names, she declared,
were aliases (how they know they are GRU officials if they don't know their names was not
explained). "This chemical weapon attack on our soil was part of a wider pattern of Russian
behavior that persistently seeks to undermine our security and that of our allies around the
world," she intoned.
At the same time, dire warnings have been issued to Syria and Russia that there will be a
major military response if Syria uses chemical weapons in Idlib. This is despite the fact that
Russia has presented the proof to the OPCW and to the UN that the British intelligence-linked
Olive security outfit and the British-sponsored White Helmet terrorists have prepared a false
flag chlorine attack in Idlib, to be blamed on the Syrian government, to trigger such a
military atrocity by the US and the UK.
Also at the same time, in the US, Washington Post fraudster Bob Woodward released a book
claiming that numerous Trump cabinet officials made wildly slanderous statements about Trump --
all third hand from anonymous sources, of course. Chief of Staff John Kelly called the claims
"total BS," while Secretary of State Jim Mattis called it typical Washington DC fiction, adding
that "the idea that I would show contempt for the elected Commander-in-Chief, President Trump,
or tolerate disrespect to the office of the President from within our Department of Defense, is
a product of someone's rich imagination."
Worse, the New York Times, apparently for the first time, printed an "anonymous" op-ed by
someone claiming to be a "senior official in the Trump administration whose identity is known
to us," under the title: "I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration -- I work
for the president but like-minded colleagues and I have vowed to thwart parts of his agenda and
his worst inclinations." Whether this person is or is not who they claim to be, it is clearly
part of the British coup attempt, as proven in the op-ed itself. After calling Trump amoral,
unhinged, and more, and claiming there is discussion within the Administration of using the
25th Amendment to remove him for mental incompetence, it then states: "Take foreign policy: In
public and in private, President Trump shows a preference for autocrats and dictators, such as
President Vladimir Putin of Russia and North Korea's leader, Kim Jong-un, and displays little
genuine appreciation for the ties that bind us to allied, like-minded nations [read: the United
Kingdom - ed.]. Astute observers have noted, though, that the rest of the administration is
operating on another track, one where countries like Russia are called out for meddling and
punished accordingly, and where allies around the world are engaged as peers rather than
ridiculed as rivals. On Russia, for instance, the president was reluctant to expel so many of
Mr. Putin's spies as punishment for the poisoning of a former Russian spy in Britain. He
complained for weeks about senior staff members letting him get boxed into further
confrontation with Russia, and he expressed frustration that the United States continued to
impose sanctions on the country for its malign behavior. But his national security team knew
better such actions had to be taken, to hold Moscow accountable."
And, while news about the British drive for war with Russia and their attempted coup against
the government of the United States fills the airwaves and the press, not a single word --
repeat, not a single word -- has been reported in the US or British media about the truly
historic conference which took place on Monday and Tuesday in Beijing, the Forum on
China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAP). Helga Zepp-LaRouche declared this week that this event will
be recognized in history as the end of the era of colonialism and neo-colonialism. Every
African nation except one was represented at the conference in Beijing (the "one" was
Swaziland, the last holdout on the African continent which still maintains diplomatic relations
with Taiwan rather than Beijing).
All but six were represented their head of state. They reviewed the transformation taking
place across Africa due to the Belt and Road Initiative since the last FOCAP meeting in 2015,
and laid out plans for the even more rapid development over the next three years, and on to
2063 -- the target year for full modernization over 50 years, adopted by the African Union in
2013. One after another the leaders of the African nations described the actual liberation
taking place, finally seeing in China the example that real development and the escape from
poverty is possible. The program launched at the 1955 Asian-African Conference in Bandung,
Indonesia, where the formerly colonized nations met for the first time without their colonial
masters, has finally been realized.
But no one reading the western press would even know that this transformative event had
taken place.
Rather, there is only the new McCarthyism, trying to demonize Russia and China, to revive
the "enemy image" which should have been eliminated with the fall of the Soviet Union and the
recognition of the People's Republic of China.
Trump threatens this new McCarthyism, insisting that America should be friends with Russia
and China. No longer will the U.S. accept Lord Palmerston's imperial dictate for the Empire,
that "nations have no permanent friends or allies, only permanent interests." The "special
relationship" is to be no more.
This is the cause of Theresa May's hysterical rant today in the Parliament. Better war, led
by the "dumb giant" America, than to see the Empire destroyed in a world united through a
shared vision of universal development.
Britain's drive for war must be exposed and stopped, along with their Russiagate coup
attempt in the US. A victory for the common aims of mankind is within our grasp, but the danger
is great, and the time is short.
All Trump has to do to get rid of the Op Ed guy is to fire all those who want to go to war
withRussia. That would leave him with no staff.
But Trump is not fooling me. You do not make a campaign promise to cooperate with Russia,
and then hire all these people who want to go to war with Russia.
It tells me that Trump was lying during his campaign.
He told us Iraq was the wrong decision, and now he has bombed Syria twice and is ready to
bomb them again; he told us that he wants out of the mid-east; he told us he wanted to
cooperate with Russia.
So I voted for him, but he was lying. I already found out he is a brazen liar. He took
those Clinton women to his debate to humiliate Hillary and Bill Clinton, when all the while
he was doing the same thing with women. That is what I call a brazen liar.
He is a pawn of the State of Israel, nothing more and nothing less. They probably told him
to hire Bolton and all the other war-mongers around him. He's not surrounded by the enemy. He
is surrounded by his friends.
The biggest mystery of this whole presidency is why the guy who went to battle against the
GOP foreign policy establishment turned over those policy positions to them, instead of
putting people into office who actually looked favorably on him and shared areas of agreement
with him (paleocons, realists, non-interventionists, etc.). The only foreign policy promise
he's kept is the one that happened to align with the neocon preferences: backing out of the
Iran deal.
I guess it must come down to Jared Kushner and his close ties with Israel and the Gulf
Arabs, but still find it bizarre that Trump never reached out to Pat Buchanan, Rand Paul,
Steve Bannon, etc., in selecting foreign policy officials.
@Admiral
Assbar The biggest mystery of this whole presidency is why the guy who went to battle
against the GOP foreign policy establishment turned over those policy positions to them,
instead of putting people into office who actually looked favorably on him and shared areas
of agreement with him (paleocons, realists, non-interventionists, etc.). The only foreign
policy promise he's kept is the one that happened to align with the neocon preferences:
backing out of the Iran deal.
I guess it must come down to Jared Kushner and his close ties with Israel and the Gulf
Arabs, but still find it bizarre that Trump never reached out to Pat Buchanan, Rand Paul,
Steve Bannon, etc., in selecting foreign policy officials. "The biggest mystery of this whole
presidency is why the guy who went to battle against the GOP foreign policy establishment
turned over those policy positions to them "
It seems fairly clear that, whenever a new President is sworn in, he immediately receives
a "pep talk" in which he is informed what he will and will not say and do, and what will
happen to him, his family, their pets, and everyone they have ever spoken to if he disobeys.
Probably this "offer that he can't refuse" is concluded by words along the lines of: " and if
you want to get what the Kennedys got, just try stepping out of line".
J. Edgar Hoover used to do something of the kind when he was head of the FBI, but that was
relatively benign – just a threat of blackmail accompanied by kindly advice never to
fight the FBI.
@AlbionRevisited I was
referring to the campaign, of course we're in a different situation now. It's amazing the way
in which they were able to co-oped his administration. AlbionRevisted wrote: "It's amazing
the way in which they (Neoconservatives) were able to co-oped his (Trump)
administration."
Greetings AlbionRevisited!
Many were disappointed with Trump and that might even include a percentage of the voting bloc
known as "Deplorables."
Nonetheless, after honing into candidate Donald Trump's awful 2017 homage to AIPAC, it
becomes dramatically less amazing how Neoconservatives crept into the White House.
Recall how rabid leftist Neoconservatives wanted Hillary, and how suddenly the naysayer,
Extra-Octane Neoconservative, John Bolton, stuck with the phoney populist, "America
First-After-Israeli-Interests," talkin' Donald J. Trump?
The essence of American presidential campaigns/elections boil down to powerful international
Jewry needs & timing, and disemboweled citizens must take-it or leave-it. Uh, support the
immoral wars and pay the bill!
Thanks, AlbionRevisted.
Herald says: September 12, 2018 at 10:53 am GMT • 100 Words
@Tom Welsh
I am not convinced that Trump started out with good intentions but quickly bowed to threats. Trump was never a principled
person and it seems much more likely that he was always a stooge for the Israel lobby and the MIC.
I used to think that things would have been worse under Hillary but these days I'm even beginning to have doubts on that
score.
jacques sheete, September 12, 2018 at 11:19 am GMT • 100 Words
@Admiral Assbar
The biggest mystery of this whole presidency is why the guy who went to battle against the GOP foreign policy establishment
turned over those policy positions to them
No mystery at all. It was all campaign rhetoric like the Shrub's promises of "a humble foreign policy" and "compassionate
conservatism," O-bomba-'s "hope and change"and Woody 'n Frankies promises to keep the US out of war.
KenH, September 12, 2018 at 12:20 pm GMT
Trump is now becoming more "patriotic" by the day with his willingness to get us into another no-win, forever war in Syria
for Israel. I say we air drop John Brennan into Idlib so he can fight and die like a real man.
"Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday
at getting back at you" – Chuck Schumer. maybe Schumer's protective scare-mongering
goes to a deeper matter; the matter of the most powerful intelligence agency operating in the
USA is MOSSAD, an entity which has penetrated every aspect of American governance.
AIPAC is one of MOSSAD's favorite playgrounds
Did Sanders' people challenge 'the Russians did it' propaganda line, demand the DNC
servers be examined by forensic specialists and investigate Crowdstrike? No.
no U.S. intelligence agency has performed its own forensic analysis on the [Clinton's] hacked
servers. Instead, the bureau and other agencies have relied on analysis done by the
third-party security firm CrowdStrike [Dm. Alperovitch, of the CrowdStrike fame, is a vicious
Russophobe and loyal zionist fed and cared for by the ziocon Atlantic Council.] In actuality
we know it was the assassinated Seth Rich took the DNC emails with a thumbdrive.
Vladimir Putin, the man standing in the way of Syria's breakup and working to keep the
Iran agreement intact and avert a war, must be demonized to realize Bibi Netanyahu's goals.
In fact, Israel's intelligence services focus has historically prioritized Russia, first, and
the USA second "
– The Jewish Bolsheviks are in arms against Russia and the US because this is what
the Jewish Bolsheviks are best for -- at the destruction of functioning human societies.
"... "Let us linger over the perversity," he writes in "Why Millions of Ordinary Americans Support Donald Trump," one of the seventeen component essays in Rendezvous with Oblivion : "Let us linger over the perversity. Left parties the world over were founded to advance the fortunes of working people. But our left party in America -- one of our two monopoly parties -- chose long ago to turn its back on these people's concerns, making itself instead into the tribune of the enlightened professional class, a 'creative class' that makes innovative things like derivative securities and smartphone apps ..."
"... And the real bad news is not that this Creative Class, this Expert Class, this Meritocratic Class, this Professional Class -- this Liberal Class, with all its techno-ecstasy and virtue-questing and unleashing of innovation -- is so deeply narcissistic and hypocritical, but rather that it is so self-interestedly parasitical and predatory. ..."
Thomas Frank's new collection of essays: Rendezvous with Oblivion: Reports from a
Sinking Society (Metropolitan Books 2018) and Listen, Liberal; or,Whatever
Happened to the Party of the People? (ibid. 2016)
To hang out with Thomas Frank for a couple of hours is to be reminded that, going back to
1607, say, or to 1620, for a period of about three hundred and fifty years, the most archetypal
of American characters was, arguably, the hard-working, earnest, self-controlled, dependable
white Protestant guy, last presented without irony a generation or two -- or three -- ago in
the television personas of men like Ward Cleaver and Mister Rogers.
Thomas Frank, who grew up in Kansas and earned his Ph.D. at the University of Chicago, who
at age 53 has the vibe of a happy eager college nerd, not only glows with authentic Midwestern
Nice (and sometimes his face turns red when he laughs, which is often), he actually lives in
suburbia, just outside of D.C., in Bethesda, where, he told me, he takes pleasure in mowing the
lawn and doing some auto repair and fixing dinner for his wife and two children. (Until I met
him, I had always assumed it was impossible for a serious intellectual to live in suburbia and
stay sane, but Thomas Frank has proven me quite wrong on this.)
Frank is sincerely worried about the possibility of offending friends and acquaintances by
the topics he chooses to write about. He told me that he was a B oy Scout back in Kansas, but
didn't make Eagle. He told me that he was perhaps a little too harsh on Hillary Clinton in his
brilliantly perspicacious "Liberal Gilt [ sic ]" chapter at the end of Listen,
Liberal . His piercing insight into and fascination with the moral rot and the hypocrisy
that lies in the American soul brings, well, Nathaniel Hawthorne to mind, yet he refuses to say
anything (and I tried so hard to bait him!) mean about anyone, no matter how culpable he or she
is in the ongoing dissolving and crumbling and sinking -- all his
metaphors -- of our society. And with such metaphors Frank describes the "one essential story"
he is telling in Rendezvous with Oblivion : "This is what a society looks like when the
glue that holds it together starts to dissolve. This is the way ordinary citizens react when
they learn that the structure beneath them is crumbling. And this is the thrill that pulses
through the veins of the well-to-do when they discover that there is no longer any limit on
their power to accumulate" ( Thomas Frank in NYC on book tour https://youtu.be/DBNthCKtc1Y ).
And I believe that Frank's self-restraint, his refusal to indulge in bitter satire even as
he parses our every national lie, makes him unique as social critic. "You will notice," he
writes in the introduction to Rendezvous with Oblivion, "that I describe [these
disasters] with a certain amount of levity. I do that because that's the only way to confront
the issues of our time without sinking into debilitating gloom" (p. 8). And so rather than
succumbing to an existential nausea, Frank descends into the abyss with a dependable flashlight
and a ca. 1956 sitcom-dad chuckle.
"Let us linger over the perversity," he writes in "Why Millions of Ordinary Americans
Support Donald Trump," one of the seventeen component essays in Rendezvous with Oblivion
: "Let us linger over the perversity. Left parties the world over were founded to advance the
fortunes of working people. But our left party in America -- one of our two monopoly parties --
chose long ago to turn its back on these people's concerns, making itself instead into the
tribune of the enlightened professional class, a 'creative class' that makes innovative things
like derivative securities and smartphone apps " (p. 178).
And it is his analysis of this "Creative Class" -- he usually refers to it as the "Liberal
Class" and sometimes as the "Meritocratic Class" in Listen, Liberal (while Barbara
Ehrenreich uses the term " Professional Managerial Class ,"and Matthew Stewart recently
published an article entitled "The 9.9 Percent Is the New American Aristocracy" in the
Atlantic ) -- that makes it clear that Frank's work is a continuation of the profound
sociological critique that goes back to Thorstein Veblen's Theory of the Leisure Class
(1899) and, more recently, to Christopher Lasch's The Revolt of the Elites (1994).
Unlike Veblen and Lasch, however, Frank is able to deliver the harshest news without any
hauteur or irascibility, but rather with a deftness and tranquillity of mind, for he is both in
and of the Creative Class; he abides among those afflicted by the epidemic which he diagnoses:
"Today we live in a world of predatory bankers, predatory educators, even predatory health care
providers, all of them out for themselves . Liberalism itself has changed to accommodate its
new constituents' technocratic views. Today, liberalism is the philosophy not of the sons of
toil but of the 'knowledge economy' and, specifically, of the knowledge economy's winners: the
Silicon Valley chieftains, the big university systems, and the Wall Street titans who gave so
much to Barack Obama's 2008 campaign . They are a 'learning class' that truly gets the power of
education. They are a 'creative class' that naturally rebels against fakeness and conformity.
They are an ' innovation class ' that just can't stop coming up with awesome new stuff" (
Listen, Liberal , pp. 27-29).
And the real bad news is not that this Creative Class, this Expert Class, this
Meritocratic Class, this Professional Class -- this Liberal Class, with all its
techno-ecstasy and virtue-questing and unleashing of innovation -- is so deeply narcissistic
and hypocritical, but rather that it is so self-interestedly parasitical and
predatory.
The class that now runs the so-called Party of the People is impoverishing the people; the
genius value-creators at Amazon and Google and Uber are Robber Barons, although, one must
grant, hipper, cooler, and oh so much more innovative than their historical predecessors. "In
reality," Frank writes in Listen, Liberal ,
.there is little new about this stuff except the software, the convenience, and the
spying. Each of the innovations I have mentioned merely updates or digitizes some business
strategy that Americans learned long ago to be wary of. Amazon updates the practices of
Wal-Mart, for example, while Google has dusted off corporate behavior from the days of the
Robber Barons. What Uber does has been compared to the every-man-for-himself hiring
procedures of the pre-union shipping docks . Together, as Robert Reich has written, all these
developments are 'the logical culmination of a process that began thirty years ago when
corporations began turning over full-time jobs to temporary workers, independent contractors,
free-lancers, and consultants.' This is atavism, not innovation . And if we keep going in
this direction, it will one day reduce all of us to day laborers, standing around like the
guys outside the local hardware store, hoping for work. (p. 215).
And who gets this message? The YouTube patriot/comedian Jimmy Dore, Chicago-born,
ex-Catholic, son of a cop, does for one. "If you read this b ook, " Dore said while
interviewing Frank back in January of 2017, "it'll make y ou a radical" (Frank Interview Part 4
https://youtu.be/JONbGkQaq8Q ).
But to what extent, on the other hand, is Frank being actively excluded from our elite media
outlets? He's certainly not on TV or radio or in print as much as he used to be. So is he a
prophet without honor in his own country? Frank, of course, is too self-restrained to speculate
about the motives of these Creative Class decision-makers and influencers. "But it is ironic
and worth mentioning," he told me, "that most of my writing for the last few years has been in
a British publication, The Guardian and (in translation) in Le Monde Diplomatique
. The way to put it, I think, is to describe me as an ex-pundit."
Frank was, nevertheless, happy to tell me in vivid detail about how his most fundamental
observation about America, viz. that the Party of the People has become hostile to the
people , was for years effectively discredited in the Creative Class media -- among the
bien-pensants , that is -- and about what he learned from their denialism.
JS: Going all the way back to your 2004 book What's the Matter with Kansas? -- I
just looked at Larry Bartels's attack on it, "What's the Matter with What's the Matter with
Kansas?" -- and I saw that his first objection to your book was, Well, Thomas Frank says the
working class is alienated from the Democrats, but I have the math to show that that's false.
How out of touch does that sound now?
TCF: [laughs merrily] I know.
JS: I remember at the time that was considered a serious objection to your
thesis.
TCF: Yeah. Well, he was a professor at Princeton. And he had numbers. So it looked
real. And I actually wrote a response to
that in which I pointed out that there were other statistical ways of looking at it, and he
had chosen the one that makes his point.
JS: Well, what did Mark Twain say?
TCF: Mark Twain?
JS: There are lies, damned lies --
TCF: [laughs merrily] -- and statistics! Yeah. Well, anyhow, Bartels's take became
the common sense of the highly educated -- there needs to be a term for these people by the
way, in France they're called the bien-pensants -- the "right-thinking," the people who
read The Atlantic, The New York Times op-ed page, The Washington Post op-ed page,
and who all agree with each other on everything -- there's this tight little circle of
unanimity. And they all agreed that Bartels was right about that, and that was a costly
mistake. For example, Paul Krugman, a guy whom I admire in a lot of ways, he referenced this
four or five times.
He agreed with it . No, the Democrats are not losing the white working class outside the
South -- they were not going over to the Republicans. The suggestion was that there is
nothing to worry about. Yes. And there were people saying this right up to the 2016
election. But it was a mistake.
JS: I remember being perplexed at the time. I had thought you had written this brilliant
book, and you weren't being taken seriously -- because somebody at Princeton had run some
software -- as if that had proven you wrong.
TCF: Yeah, that's correct . That was a very widespread take on it. And Bartels was
incorrect, and I am right, and [laughs merrily] that's that.
JS: So do you think Russiagate is a way of saying, Oh no no no no, Hillary didn't really
lose?
TCF: Well, she did win the popular vote -- but there's a whole set of pathologies out
there right now that all stem from Hillary Denialism. And I don't want to say that Russiagate
is one of them, because we don't know the answer to that yet.
JS: Um, ok.
TCF: Well, there are all kinds of questionable reactions to 2016 out there, and what
they all have in common is the faith that Democrats did nothing wrong. For example, this same
circle of the bien-pensants have decided that the only acceptable explanation for
Trump's victory is the racism of his supporters. Racism can be the only explanation for the
behavior of Trump voters. But that just seems odd to me because, while it's true of course that
there's lots of racism in this country, and while Trump is clearly a bigot and clearly won the
bigot vote, racism is just one of several factors that went into what happened in 2016. Those
who focus on this as the only possible answer are implying that all Trump voters are
irredeemable, lost forever.
And it comes back to the same point that was made by all those people who denied what was
happening with the white working class, which is: The Democratic Party needs to do nothing
differently . All the post-election arguments come back to this same point. So a couple
years ago they were saying about the white working class -- we don't have to worry about them
-- they're not leaving the Democratic Party, they're totally loyal, especially in the northern
states, or whatever the hell it was. And now they say, well, Those people are racists, and
therefore they're lost to us forever. What is the common theme of these two arguments? It's
always that there's nothing the Democratic Party needs to do differently. First, you haven't
lost them; now you have lost them and they're irretrievable: Either way -- you see what I'm
getting at? -- you don't have to do anything differently to win them.
JS: Yes, I do.
TCF: The argument in What's the Matter with Kansas? was that this is a
long-term process, the movement of the white working class away from the Democratic Party. This
has been going on for a long time. It begins in the '60s, and the response of the Democrats by
and large has been to mock those people, deride those people, and to move away from organized
labor, to move away from class issues -- working class issues -- and so their response has been
to make this situation worse, and it gets worse, and it gets worse, and it gets worse, and it
gets worse! And there's really no excuse for them not seeing it. But they say, believe,
rationalize, you know, come up with anything that gets then off the hook for this, that allows
them to ignore this change. Anything. They will say or believe whatever it takes.
JS: Yes.
TCF: By the way, these are the smartest people! These are tenured professors at Ivy
League institutions, these are people with Nobel Prizes, people with foundation grants, people
with, you know, chairs at prestigious universities, people who work at our most prestigious
media outlets -- that's who's wrong about all this stuff.
JS: [quoting the title of David Halberstam's 1972 book, an excerpt from which Frank uses
as an epigraph for Listen, Liberal ] The best and the brightest!
TCF: [laughing merrily] Exactly. Isn't it fascinating?
JS: But this gets to the irony of the thing. [locates highlighted passage in book] I'm
going to ask you one of the questions you ask in Rendezvous with Oblivion: "Why are
worshippers of competence so often incompetent?" (p. 165). That's a huge question.
TCF: That's one of the big mysteries. Look. Take a step back. I had met Barack Obama.
He was a professor at the University of Chicago, and I'd been a student there. And he was super
smart. Anyhow, I met him and was really impressed by him. All the liberals in Hyde Park --
that's the neighborhood we lived in -- loved him, and I was one of them, and I loved him too.
And I was so happy when he got elected.
Anyhow, I knew one thing he would do for sure, and that is he would end the reign of
cronyism and incompetence that marked the Bush administration and before them the Reagan
administration. These were administrations that actively promoted incompetent people. And I
knew Obama wouldn't do that, and I knew Obama would bring in the smartest people, and he'd get
the best economists. Remember, when he got elected we were in the pit of the crisis -- we were
at this terrible moment -- and here comes exactly the right man to solve the problem. He did
exactly what I just described: He brought in [pause] Larry Summers, the former president of
Harvard, considered the greatest economist of his generation -- and, you know, go down the
list: He had Nobel Prize winners, he had people who'd won genius grants, he had The Best and
the Brightest . And they didn't really deal with the problem. They let the Wall Street
perpetrators off the hook -- in a catastrophic way, I would argue. They come up with a health
care system that was half-baked. Anyhow, the question becomes -- after watching the great
disappointments of the Obama years -- the question becomes: Why did government-by-expert
fail?
JS: So how did this happen? Why?
TCF: The answer is understanding experts not as individual geniuses but as members
of a class . This is the great missing link in all of our talk about expertise. Experts
aren't just experts: They are members of a class. And they act like a class. They have loyalty
to one another; they have a disdain for others, people who aren't like them, who they perceive
as being lower than them, and there's this whole hierarchy of status that they are at the
pinnacle of.
And once you understand this, then everything falls into place! So why did they let the Wall
Street bankers off the hook? Because these people were them. These people are their peers. Why
did they refuse to do what obviously needed to be done with the health care system? Because
they didn't want to do that to their friends in Big Pharma. Why didn't Obama get tough with
Google and Facebook? They obviously have this kind of scary monopoly power that we haven't seen
in a long time. Instead, he brought them into the White House, he identified with them. Again,
it's the same thing. Once you understand this, you say: Wait a minute -- so the Democratic
Party is a vehicle of this particular social class! It all makes sense. And all of a sudden all
of these screw-ups make sense. And, you know, all of their rhetoric makes sense. And the way
they treat working class people makes sense. And they way they treat so many other demographic
groups makes sense -- all of the old-time elements of the Democratic Party: unions, minorities,
et cetera. They all get to ride in back. It's the professionals -- you know, the professional
class -- that sits up front and has its hands on the steering wheel.
* * *
It is, given Frank's persona, not surprising that he is able to conclude Listen,
Liberal with a certain hopefulness, and so let me end by quoting some of his final
words:
What I saw in Kansas eleven years ago is now everywhere . It is time to face the obvious:
that the direction the Democrats have chosen to follow for the last few decades has been a
failure for both the nation and for their own partisan health . The Democrats posture as the
'party of the people' even as they dedicate themselves ever more resolutely to serving and
glorifying the professional class. Worse: they combine self-righteousness and class privilege
in a way that Americans find stomach-turning . The Democrats have no interest in reforming
themselves in a more egalitarian way . What we can do is strip away the Democrats' precious
sense of their own moral probity -- to make liberals live without the comforting knowledge
that righteousness is always on their side . Once that smooth, seamless sense of liberal
virtue has been cracked, anything becomes possible. (pp. 256-257).
What is interesting that the first eight reviews were all written by neocons.
The book looks like an implicit promotion of Pence. Which is probably not
what Dems want ;-).
Notable quotes:
"... I fell in love with Woodward's writing with "All the President's Men." It inspired me to work in journalism. But Woodward has lost his touch. His "reporting" feels second-hand and arm's length. Each Chapter in his Source Notes leads with this disclaimer: "The information in the chapter comes primarily from multiple deep background interviews and firsthand sources." We have no way of knowing what firsthand sources even means – an article he read in the New York Times whose author he's friends with? ..."
"... The review mentions biography of Mike Pence, "The Shadow President ..." by Michael D'Antonio and Peter Eisner . For former Harvard alumni this is an extremely naive review, that is completely devoid of understanding of political forces that are shaping the country and first of all the crisis of neoliberalism. ..."
"... Mike Pence, the "Shadow President" and Trump's hand picked successor, will from many indications become president in the months following the November 6 election. ..."
I went into this book thinking that it would confirm all of my deepest fears about Trump and give me more reasons to
dislike him. At the end of the book, I had the distinct impression that Trump's presidency is not as bad as it is often
portrayed.
Some of Trump's ideas are not so bad -- for example, the book spends a lot of time on Afghanistan. Trump has for a long
time believed the war was a mistake, that there is no way to "win," and that it is a perpetual loss of our country's
treasures.
The book spends a lot of time showing how Trump fought the "swamp" to come up with a strategy to get out -- and failed.
Of course, many other stories in the book confirmed my belief that he is a disaster for a president.
The book jumps around in time and topic a lot, making it difficult to follow. Kind of like Trump himself.
Melanie Gilbert, September 12, 2018
Deep Fear
My Kindle book loaded at 12:30 Tuesday morning , and I stayed up until 6:30 a.m. reading this fascinating and alarming
story. The scariest part of this massive tome is the sheer hubris of everyone in President Trump's orbit including the
author, famed Watergate reporter, Bob Woodward. They all think they are more presidential than the actual president, and that
sense of entitlement and arrogance drives this tell-all narrative.
Even though I agree that Trump is mentally unfit to be Commander-in-Chief – and Woodward cites many troubling incidents that
point to a memory-impaired leader – it feels as if Woodward operated under the theory of selection bias, finding sources who
would confirm his thesis. I don't know what's scarier, a president who is off the rails, or a staff that helps keep him there
while they are busy running the country the way they see fit (except when the crazy uncle escapes his handlers and spouts off
on Twitter.)
Woodward, a veteran reporter, and the man (with Carl Bernstein) who broke the Nixon-era Watergate crime with a source the
known only as "Deep Throat" falls for and magnifies their conceit. The real story isn't Trump, it's his unelected and
unconstitutional enablers (senior staff, family, media, lobbyists, rogue governments) who act like they are running a shadow
government (surreptitiously taking papers off his desk, screening his briefing materials.) Woodward's story will feed Trump's
main argument that there's a Deep State at work in this country.
I fell in love with Woodward's writing with "All the President's Men." It inspired me to work in journalism. But Woodward
has lost his touch. His "reporting" feels second-hand and arm's length. Each Chapter in his Source Notes leads with this
disclaimer: "The information in the chapter comes primarily from multiple deep background interviews and firsthand sources."
We have no way of knowing what firsthand sources even means – an article he read in the New York Times whose author he's
friends with?
This book is beneath Woodward's skill and reputation. You can basically retrieve the same message in "Unhinged" a much
briefer and far more readable format - though no less disturbing account - of working in the Trump White House.
NOTES: The review mentions biography of Mike Pence, "The Shadow President ..." by
Michael
D'Antonio and Peter Eisner
. For former Harvard alumni this is an extremely naive review, that is completely devoid of
understanding of political forces that are shaping the country and first of all the crisis of
neoliberalism.
Donald Trump's Demotion & Mike Pence's Promotion! When and How?
Bob Woodward has done it again. "Fear" is a remarkable and important book, especially
because it is so current and revealing and is vouched for by this very credible reporter.
Woodward's book confirms in much greater detail many earlier and less credible reports, plus
many others --- establishing clearly that Donald Trump is not fit to be the US president ---
politically, intellectually, psychologically or morally. Moreover, his erratic behavior is a
threat to US national security, as Woodward's book and recent TV interviews make very clear.
Of course, most of the media attention on this book has been and will continue to be on
Woodward's many shocking scoops. The most important question, however, that the book raises,
for me at least, is "When and how will Trump's reckless rule be retired?"
Mike Pence, the "Shadow President" and Trump's hand picked successor, will from many
indications become president in the months following the November 6 election. That seems
to be a high probability, even without Special Counsel Robert Mueller's likely devastating
report on the Russian conspiracy to influence illegally the 2016 presidential elections and
the related cover up obstructing Mueller's investigation of this conspiracy . The only
unknown now is when and how Trump goes--- by the impeachment process or by simple resignation
like Nixon did.
We can expect Pence will then give Trump a full pardon, after Trump fully pardons some
family members and close associates. Michael Cohen and Paul Manafort need not hold their
breath waiting for a pardon. Trump, some of his family members and close associates will, of
course, still be at risk of state law prosecutions, expecially in NY.
Trump has long used fear to exercise power over others. Fear, as Machiavelli strongly
recommended five centuries ago to a corrupt pope's nephew, is preferable to and more
effective than kindness. Paradoxically, Trump's own deep personal fear of failure still
drives him desperately--- any means are justified to reach Trump's top goals of personal
profit and glory forever. Any means is OK, including even orphaning innocent infants at the
Mexican border, while other immigrants are welcomed to work temporarily at Mar-a-Lago.
Woodward's book just reinforces these observations many have already made.
It is amazing to me that many of the so-called "adults in the room" cannot see that Trump
is misbehaving as he always did. He cannot be changed, certainly not now and not by the many
handlers selected seemingly because Trump can dominate them. That said, Trump still has more
than two years remaining on his term!
I have strong reactions to Woodward's many disturbing disclosures, as (1) a former Harvard
Law assistant to Archibald Cox (prior to his being the unforgettable Watergate Prosecutor and
nailing Nixon), (2) a former high school chum of Rudy Guiliani (now an unimpressive key Trump
advisor), (3) a former law firm colleague of Bob Khuzami (now the impressive head of NYC
federal investigations of Trump criminal matters) and (4) a father and grandfather.
... ... ...
At 75 years old, Woodward clearly had a purpose in this voluntary and prodigious effort to
research and write this book--- to flush out the true Donald Trump and show the danger he
poses for US national security. Woodward, a Navy veteran like John McCain before him, is also
a patriot. To paraphrase Trump, Woodward shows vividly that Trump's behavior is "very sad and
really disgusting".
The media will have a field day with some of the troubling Trump episodes Woodward
reports. Many persons cited in the book will challenge some of his reports. To be expected
and perhaps understandable, given Trump's fiery temper about those he thinks are in any way
disloyal to him. The facts will nevertheless prevail, as they have mostly for Woodward's
earlier books about the many presidents who immediately preceded Trump.
More important, however, than specific episodes, is what the confluence of these troubling
episodes clearly shows --- Trump is clearly unfit to be president! The longer he remains, the
greater the risk in our nuclear age for the US, and the world as well. It is well to recall
the near catastrophe last January when a Hawaiian technician pressed the wrong button
indicating a non-existent "imminent" North Korean missile attack, following Trump's reckless
rhetoric about the real North Korean threat. This must have sent a real chill down the spines
of the leaders of all nuclear nations, and many others as well.
Will Trump then finish his first term? Very doubtful, it appears.
If the Democrats win a House majority in less than two months, prompt impeachment
proceedings and numerous House investigations of Trump and his corrupt cronies appear to be
inevitable. That dooms Trump.
Even if the Democrats remain the minority, impeachment is still likely to occur in my view
as Mueller's efforts continue --- they cannot be stopped now. They will continue even if
Mueller is fired as they continued after Nixon fired Archibald Cox. Moreover, there is a
reasonable prospect that one or more of Trump's children and/or in-laws could soon be
indicted.
Trump will after November be an increasingly unnecessary liability for Republicans, the
GOP. Only 32% of voters currently polled even think Trump is honest. He has already done what
the GOP and its billionaire backers like the Kochs and Devoses most wanted --- a major tax
cut for the wealthiest, reckless deregulation, insuring a right wing judiciary majority,
reducing drastically Federal revenues needed to fund the social safety net, et al.
Moreover, it seems unlikely that Trump will be able to handle the steadily growing
pressure he faces. He may even elect to resign as Nixon did. Pence can finish up to the
cheers of the Kochs, Devoses, et al.
For a fuller picture of what to expect from Pence when Trump "retires", please see the new
comprehensive, readable and detailed biography of Mike Pence, "The Shadow President ..." by
Pulitzer Prize winning investigative reporter, Michael D'Antonio, and by his co-author, Peter
Eisner. This book's findings dovetail nicely with the findings in "Fear".
Unlike Woodward, D'Antonio even got, for his recent excellent Trump biography, hours of
direct interviews of Trump before the 2016 elections, until Trump abruptly ended the
interviews apparently concerned that D'Antonio was writing a truthful book based on facts,
not on Trump's limitless lies and specious spin. We now know from this important book on
Pence why it is very unlikely that Pence will ever be able to clean up Donald Trump's mess.
We also can understand much better why Trump recently predicted that stock markets would
crash if he were to be impeached. Not too great an endorsement of his successor, Pence, by a
reckless and incompetent boss who has now witnessed up close for almost two years the
non-stop cheerleading of the "Shadow President", Mike Pence.
Pence successfully strived during the last two years behind the scenes, with Trump's
apparent blessings, to advance his repressive and regressive fundamentalist Christian
remaking of American society, including through administration and judicial right-wing
appointments and adoption of fundamentalist social policies, like curtailing legal abortions
and even limiting contraception access. Significantly, these policies mostly benefit in the
end the already "uberrich" top 0.01% of Americans at the expense of the 99.99 % less
fortunate--- how Christian is that?
Trump's and Pence's unfair tax cuts and excessive deregulation can readily be fixed by
Democrats when they regain power. But Trump and Pence have already changed the Federal
judiciary with their many right wing judges appointed for life. That is not so easily
fixed.
This is scary stuff for a religiously diverse nation with constitutional safeguards of
religious freedom that were extremely important for good reason to our Founding Fathers. They
rejected a theocracy as well as a monarchy !
By providing a brisk and insightful history of Pence's personal and political journey, we
are able with this book to see behind Pence's perpetual smile and smooth style. It is not a
very pretty picture.
All, even Trump supporters, should read this book to understand better the threat Pence
poses even for Trump. After the midterm elections, the "uberrich" will know they can fulfill
all their remaining political and economic dreams through Pence, without having to put up any
longer with Trump's erratic and at times almost bizarre policies and behavior. By
mid-November, Trump will need Pence more than Pence will need Trump.
It is not surprising the Omarosa recently observed on Chris Matthews' "Hardball" show that
she thinks one of Pence's staff was the author of the unprecedented and anonymous New York
times Op Ed column that further undercuts Trump and re-inforces some of Woodward's
revelations. As to be expected, Pence offers to swear under oath that HE did not write the Op
Ed column, which denial leaves room that one of his staffers wrote it, no?
"Fear" and "The Shadow Presidency" raise a very ironic possibility in my mind. If Special
Counsel Robert Mueller's report, after the midterm elections in November, indicates that
Trump and Pence were both implicated in Russian election conspiracy and/or in the subsequent
cover-up, both of them could be removed from office or worse by a Congress forced by public
outrage to act on Mueller's report. Even Nixon's base abandoned him once the true facts were
widely known.
Pence often played a key role in the 2016 campaign, as well as during the two years since.
Who knows what he said and did in secret? Who knows if Pence was recorded by Amarosa, an
evangelical pastor, or Michael Cohen, a "tell all" third rate lawyer or someone else at the
White House, including possibly Trump himself. I suspect that by now, Mueller knows!
If that happens, Nancy Pelosi could succeed after next January to the presidency as
Speaker of the House, third in line after the President and Vice President. So much then for
the great Trump/Pence strategy.
The Pence book makes very clear why Pence is to be feared, perhaps even more than Trump.
The "god" of Trump is Trump --- in that sense, he is obvious and usually predictable. Pence's
"god" is much darker and more dangerous, as well as unpredictable, as this book has confirmed
for me. It may be that a needy and greedy Trump is a safer bet than a surreptitious and
smiling religious zealot, Pence.
Pence legitimated Trump with the important and united fundamentalist voter base, who voted
by over 80% to elect Trump! Trump also won 52% of Catholics' votes, while only 46% of the
national vote. Who will legitimate Pence? This book suggests "good" fundamentalists should
now vote against Pence if they ever find their Christian moorings again!
Pence appears determined to advance a repressive and regressive fundamentalist evangelical
theocracy, even though most Americans, including most Christians, have no interest in a
theocracy, Christian or otherwise. Our Founding Fathers were well aware of the brutal
post-Reformation religious wars that some of their not too distant relatives had fled Europe
to avoid.
Interestingly, Pence was a Catholic altar boy and Trump attended for two years a Jesuit
college, Fordham. And the current four male Supreme Court conservative Catholic Justices and
the newly nominated likely to be Justice, Brett Kavanagh, were also raised Catholic. Four of
these five also went to Catholic schools --- Clarence Thomas to Jesuit Holy Cross College,
Neil Gorsuch and Kavanagh to Jesuit Georgetown Prep and John Roberts to La Lumiere School.
Samuel Alito was raised in a traditional Italian American Catholic family environment.
Looks like this "Iago" op-ed injected the poison of mutual suspicion into Trump administration: "Cabinet secretaries quickly
lined up to plead their innocence of any involvement, playing Bukharin to Trump's Stalin. Who wrote the op-ed? Someone by the name
of "Not Me." An internal administration manhunt (womanhunt?) has allegedly launched to unmask the
evildoer."
The op-ed itself was a jejune and mediocre example of
a time-honored American pastime, talking smack about one's boss behind his back. On its own
terms, it deserved at most a brief period of public mockery before fading away to something less
than an historical footnote.
But then Trump responded swiftly and decisively from his favorite bully pulpit, Twitter.
As for the alleged internal "resistance" the anonymous writer claims to belong to, it seems
to have fled the scene. Cabinet secretaries quickly lined up to plead their innocence of any
involvement, playing Bukharin to Trump's Stalin. Who wrote the op-ed? Someone by the name of
"Not Me." An internal administration manhunt (womanhunt?) has allegedly launched to unmask the
evildoer.
"... kind of psy-op. The problem I've had all along with this and the continued blaming of the "deep state" for preventing Trump from being the next coming of Jesus is that it creates sympathy for Trump, which is very dangerous. As I've said many times, none of them are on our side, Trump and his included. ..."
"... @Big Al ..."
"... "With no jail time for executives and half a trillion in post-crisis profits, the big banks have made out like bandits during the post-crash period." ..."
"... "With no jail time for executives and half a trillion in post-crisis profits, the big banks have made out like bandits during the post-crash period." ..."
"... @WoodsDweller ..."
"... @WoodsDweller ..."
"... to take criminal action, ..."
"... @Unabashed Liberal ..."
"... to take criminal action, ..."
"... Leaks to the media are equated with espionage. ..."
"... Leaks to the media are equated with espionage. ..."
This, according to author Paul Craig Roberts. In his urgent and compelling essay, he breaks the discovery down piece by piece.
You'll want to follow the link below and read it yourself for the full effect of the logic in action. Here are a few of his key
assertions:
The op-ed is a forgery. As a former senior official in a presidential administration, I can state with certainty that no
senior official would express disagreement anonymously. Anonymous dissent has no credibility. Moreover, the dishonor of it
undermines the character of the writer.
The New York Times' claim to have vetted the writer lacks credibility, as the New York Times has consistently printed
extreme accusations against Trump and against Vladimir Putin without supplying a bit of evidence. The New York Times
has consistently misrepresented unsubstantiated allegations as proven fact. There is no reason whatsoever to believe the
New York Times about anything.
Roberts is convinced that this obviously forged op-ed is an attempt to break up the Trump administration by creating suspicion
throughout the senior level. Unfortunately, Trump has fallen for the hoax and may not realize his mistake before significant damage
is done.
The New York Times motive for this deception, and the reason for the op-ed in the first place, is to serve the interests
of the military/security complex, which has long been the newspaper's primary objective. They desperately seek to compel a paranoid
nation to hold on to the enemies with whom Trump prefers to make peace.
For example, the alleged "senior official" misrepresents, as does the New York Times , President Trump's efforts
to reduce dangerous tensions with North Korea and Russia as President Trump's "preference for autocrats and dictators, such
as President Vladimir Putin of Russia and North Korea's leader, Kim Jong-un" over America's "allied, like-minded nations."
This is the same non-sequitur that the New York Times has expressed endlessly.
Why is resolving dangerous tensions a "preference for dictators" and not a preference for peace? The New York Times
has never explained, and neither does the "senior official."
How is it that Putin, elected three times by majorities that no US president has ever received, is a dictator? Putin stepped
down after serving the permitted two consecutive terms and was again elected after being out of office for a term. Do dictators
step down and sit out for 6 years?
The "senior official" also endorses as proven fact the alleged Skripal poisoning by a "deadly Russian nerve agent," an event
for which not one scrap of evidence exists. Neither has anyone explained why the "deadly nerve agent" wasn't deadly. The entire
Skripal event rests only on assertions. The purpose of the Skripal hoax was precisely what President Trump said it was: to
box him into further confrontation with Russia and prevent a reduction in tensions.
If the "senior official" is really so uninformed as to believe that Putin is a dictator who attacked the Skripals with a
deadly nerve agent and elected Trump president, the "senior official" is too dangerously ignorant and gullible to be a senior
official in any administration. These are the New York Times' beliefs or professed beliefs as the New York Times
does everything the organization can do to protect the military/security complex's budget from any reduction in the "enemy
threat."
Roberts points out another favorite attack on President Trump used by the New York Times, that he is unstable and
unfit for office. He notes that even the wording of the attack is reproduced in the fake op-ed:
"Given the instability many witnessed, there were early whispers within the cabinet of invoking the 25th Amendment, which
would start a complex process for removing the president," writes the invented and non-existent "senior official."
Americans are an insouciant people. But are any so insouciant that they really think that a senior official would write
that the members of President Trump's cabinet have considered removing him from office? What is this statement other than a
deliberate effort to produce a constitutional crisis -- the precise aim of John Brennan, James Comey, Rod Rosenstein, the DNC,
and the New York Times . A constitutional crisis is what the hoax of Russiagate is all about. The level
of mendacity and evil in this plot against Trump is unequaled in history.
This op-ed hoax puts people in grave danger, all for the financial gain of the war profiteers. There is not a politician left
in America that has the nerve to stand up against this atrocity. They are all owned and fearful; they know full well a factual
and moral criticism against these inhumane wars and designated enemies will instantly destroy their careers. They will be banished
from the Capitol. It is up to the people themselves to denounce the coup government that is waging these illegal wars and destabilizing
the world.
In America today, and in Europe, people are living in a situation in which the liberal-progressive-left's blind hatred of
Donald Trump, together with the self-interested power and profit of the military security complex and election hopes of the
Democratic Party, are recklessly and irresponsibly risking nuclear Armageddon for no other reason than to act out their hate
and further their own nest.
This plot against Trump is dangerous to life on earth and demands that the governments and peoples of the world act now
to expose this plot and to bring it to an end before it kills us all.
...in a democracy. But according to recent polls, more than 75 percent of Americans have no one to represent them in ending
the wars. No one to vote for in upcoming elections because no one in Congress will take a stand against the deep state Coup government
that is pushing military aggression and intervention around the world.
The headline findings show, among other things, that 86.4 percent of those surveyed feel the American military should be
used only as a last resort, while 57 percent feel that US military aid to foreign countries is counterproductive. The latter
sentiment "increases significantly" when involving countries like Saudi Arabia, with 63.9 percent saying military aid -- including
money and weapons -- should not be provided to such countries.
The poll shows strong, indeed overwhelming, support, for Congress to reassert itself in the oversight of US military interventions,
with 70.8 percent of those polled saying Congress should pass legislation that would restrain military action overseas
@Pluto's
Republic
When was the last time the US Congress declared war, as required by the Constitution ?
Many assume it was Dec.8, 1941 against Japan or maybe Dec.11, 1941 against Germany and Italy.
Actually, it was June 5, 1942 against Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania.
I had to look that up: wikipedia
...in a democracy. But according to recent polls, more than 75 percent of Americans have no one to represent them in ending
the wars. No one to vote for in upcoming elections because no one in Congress will take a stand against the deep state Coup
government that is pushing military aggression and intervention around the world.
The headline findings show, among other things, that 86.4 percent of those surveyed feel the American military should
be used only as a last resort, while 57 percent feel that US military aid to foreign countries is counterproductive. The
latter sentiment "increases significantly" when involving countries like Saudi Arabia, with 63.9 percent saying military
aid -- including money and weapons -- should not be provided to such countries.
The poll shows strong, indeed overwhelming, support, for Congress to reassert itself in the oversight of US military
interventions, with 70.8 percent of those polled saying Congress should pass legislation that would restrain military action
overseas
I'm not as amazed as I might have been before I learned about the establishment of the Council on Foreign Relations in 1921
for the sole purpose of forcing US involvement in wars around the world.
The people refused to do it, saw no point in it, so the bankers had to do it themselves.
#1
When was the last time the US Congress declared war, as required by the Constitution ?
Many assume it was Dec.8, 1941 against Japan or maybe Dec.11, 1941 against Germany and Italy.
Actually, it was June 5, 1942 against Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania.
I had to look that up: wikipedia
Insouciant - showing a casual lack of concern; indifferent.
PCR overuses the word, but it is basically a dig at "the exceptional nation". He means we are so arrogant that we can't be
concerned to inform ourselves about the facts or their implications. I guess you could say it means ignorant, but its a kind of
willful, fingers in the ears ignorance.
Not out of ignorance, but because he's too damned polite.
but particularly after the NYT put out a response to over 23,000 reader inquiries. The answers to those inquires simply did
not ring credible.
I laid out two scenarios in a comment
on wendy davis' essay yesterday. In the beginning of the second scenario, I wrote of my belief that this op ed was not what it
was purported to be. It did not pass the smell test to me.
The more I am learning about this op ed and particularly as a result of the Times explanation of how it came to be, I am
beginning to think this op ed was concocted as a way of poisoning the well by those who wish Trump out of office. Two red flags
jumped out for me in the Times response to reader inquiries.
While this op ed may not have been written in house by Times staff, it was probably written by someone who has worked closely
with the Times in the past and may have even been written at the request of the Times editor in chief or publisher.
The op-ed is an obvious forgery. As a former senior official in a presidential administration, I can state with certainty that
no senior official would express disagreement anonymously. Anonymous dissent has no credibility. Moreover, the dishonor
of it undermines the character of the writer. A real dissenter would use his reputation and the status of his high position
to lend weight to his dissent.
This is exactly why I used William Ruckelhaus' resignation from the Nixon Administration as an example of an insider using
his reputation and honor to call attention to what Nixon wanted to do by firing Archibald Cox.
Another aspect of Roberts' essay is something that is very important to me personally and that is what would be the long term
damage done to the country by those calling for Trump's impeachment or removal via the 25th Amendment. And that does not take
into consideration the frightening prospect of Pence becoming President.
The level of mendacity and evil in this plot against Trump is unequaled in history. Have any of these conspirators
given a moment's thought to the consequences of removing a president for his unwillingness to worsen the dangerously high tensions
between nuclear powers? The next president would have to adopt a Russophobic stance and do nothing to reduce the tensions
that can break out in nuclear war or himself be accused of "coddling the Russian dictator and putting America at risk."
but particularly after the NYT put out a response to over 23,000 reader inquiries. The answers to those inquires simply
did not ring credible.
I laid out two scenarios in a comment
on wendy davis' essay yesterday. In the beginning of the second scenario, I wrote of my belief that this op ed was not what
it was purported to be. It did not pass the smell test to me.
The more I am learning about this op ed and particularly as a result of the Times explanation of how it came to be, I
am beginning to think this op ed was concocted as a way of poisoning the well by those who wish Trump out of office. Two
red flags jumped out for me in the Times response to reader inquiries.
While this op ed may not have been written in house by Times staff, it was probably written by someone who has worked closely
with the Times in the past and may have even been written at the request of the Times editor in chief or publisher.
kind of psy-op. The problem I've had all along with this and the continued blaming of the "deep state" for preventing Trump
from being the next coming of Jesus is that it creates sympathy for Trump, which is very dangerous. As I've said many times, none
of them are on our side, Trump and his included.
"Personifying a serious and unfortunate division on the left, progressive-libertarian journalist Glenn Greenwald has focused
his ire on the individuals in the administration who seek to undermine Trump's presidency, and his anger at these alleged "deep
state" bureaucrats has been echoed by numerous leftists I've spoken with in recent days. While admitting that Trump "may be a
threat," Greenwald responds: "but so is this covert coup" within the White House, which represents "an unelected cabal that covertly
imposed their own ideology with zero democratic accountability, mandate or transparency."
"Greenwald is an important figure for leftists considering his work with Edward Snowden to expose the federal government and
NSA's illegal spying in the "War on Terror." But his message here badly misses the mark. The claim that Trump "may be a threat"
to the country is perhaps the understatement of the century.And his willingness to focus on turmoil within the administration
as a major threat to democracy is strange. It's akin to complaining that your lawn is slowly turning brown when your house is
burning down in front of you. This is not a critique that's unique to Greenwald, as I've engaged with numerous individuals on
the left over the last week who see the White House op-ed as an example of the "deep state's" assault on civilian political rule.
I don't see it this way. The stakes are far higher than some monkey wrenchers in the White House undermining the president. If
we cannot separate the real threat to the nation – fascism in the White House – from the marginal "problem" of intra-administrative
discord within that fascist administration, then we are in serious trouble."
I'm not clear if, with your extensive quotations, you are endorsing the Counterpunch article. To me, that article is busy attacking
Greenwald for defending the Constitution and the political process. The author perverts defending the law into defending Trump.
Even murderers are supposed to be given a fair trial. The author, DiMaggio, does not seem to be in favor of that.
This article fits a pattern at Counterpunch. They print some leftwing stuff, but when the chips are down, they will publish
an article that supports the Deep State. I judge Counterpunch on an article by article basis. This article gets an F.
kind of psy-op. The problem I've had all along with this and the continued blaming of the "deep state" for preventing Trump
from being the next coming of Jesus is that it creates sympathy for Trump, which is very dangerous. As I've said many times,
none of them are on our side, Trump and his included.
"Personifying a serious and unfortunate division on the left, progressive-libertarian journalist Glenn Greenwald has focused
his ire on the individuals in the administration who seek to undermine Trump's presidency, and his anger at these alleged "deep
state" bureaucrats has been echoed by numerous leftists I've spoken with in recent days. While admitting that Trump "may be
a threat," Greenwald responds: "but so is this covert coup" within the White House, which represents "an unelected cabal that
covertly imposed their own ideology with zero democratic accountability, mandate or transparency."
"Greenwald is an important figure for leftists considering his work with Edward Snowden to expose the federal government
and NSA's illegal spying in the "War on Terror." But his message here badly misses the mark. The claim that Trump "may be a
threat" to the country is perhaps the understatement of the century.And his willingness to focus on turmoil within the administration
as a major threat to democracy is strange. It's akin to complaining that your lawn is slowly turning brown when your house
is burning down in front of you. This is not a critique that's unique to Greenwald, as I've engaged with numerous individuals
on the left over the last week who see the White House op-ed as an example of the "deep state's" assault on civilian political
rule. I don't see it this way. The stakes are far higher than some monkey wrenchers in the White House undermining the president.
If we cannot separate the real threat to the nation – fascism in the White House – from the marginal "problem" of intra-administrative
discord within that fascist administration, then we are in serious trouble."
internal or external? I really don't have an opinion on which, but I think both are a threat to our rapidly disappearing democracy.
Trump is a threat too and easy to hate. It makes him such a great foil for a coup.
@dkmich
target of a coup, doesn't it? The more I see of this stuff the more I cannot help but think that Trump WAS part of their plan
and not just Hers plan that she would win against him but maybe the perfect plan to dismantle what's left of our pathetically
termed "democracy."
Trump is dangerous as hell in his own right, what he and his idiots are doing to the climate is something we'll all live with,
or rather, die with, but he's doing what our owners want there and it is so easy to blame it all on him when I think we all know
our fossil fuel psychos are as much a part of the deep state as is the MIC.
This is a coup alright and what they want is nothing less than totalitarianism. By using Trump to get there it is the same
damned game of dupe, divide and conquer. Trump is no hero either, he's not going to "save America" but drive it into a ditch,
and really, I think that's been the plan all along.
internal or external? I really don't have an opinion on which, but I think both are a threat to our rapidly disappearing
democracy. Trump is a threat too and easy to hate. It makes him such a great foil for a coup.
Trump was the plan all along. He is doing much of the same things that Obama was doing but people weren't noticing because
of his so called 'charm'. It looks like Trump is rolling back a lot of Obama's policies where it comes to the environment, but
many of those policies were done just before Obama left office and wouldn't take affect for months or years. But it makes it look
like Obama was more progressive than he was and Trump is the one destroying the country.
Hillary wouldn't have been able to appoint the type of people Trump has in order to get to where we are now. And I see that
the only thing that has changed when it comes to our foreign interventions is that Trump has relaxed the rules of engagement and
isn't even bothering to protect the civilians who are in our way. Trump is still supporting ISIS and AQ who Obama and Hillary
armed and funded to do our dirty work.
Then there's the economic issues that the GOP are ramming through and the poor democrats are in no position to defend against
them. How convenient, eh?
People are going to pissed when Trump cuts the social programs, but lets not forget that they were cut during Obama's tenure
too and he even put SS on the table. Rumor is that McConnell stopped him, but why did he? SO that he could take credit for it?
Hmmm. Fishy that.
"With no jail time for executives and half a trillion in post-crisis profits, the big banks have made out like bandits
during the post-crash period."
The 2008 financial meltdown inflicted devastating financial and psychological damage upon millions of ordinary Americans,
but a new report released by Public Citizen on Tuesday shows the Wall Street banks that caused the crash with their reckless
speculation and outright fraud have done phenomenally well in the ten years since the crisis.
Thanks to the Obama administration's decision to rescue collapsing Wall Street banks with taxpayer cash and the Trump administration's
massive tax cuts and deregulatory push, America's five largest banks -- JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo,
and Goldman Sachs -- have raked in more than $583 billion in combined profits over the past decade, Public Citizen found in
its analysis marking the ten-year anniversary of the crisis.
"With no jail time for executives and half a trillion in post-crisis profits," said Robert Weissman, president of Public
Citizen, "the big banks have made out like bandits during the post-crash period. Like bandits."
What a surprise,
According to a Washington Post analysis published on Saturday, many of the lawmakers and congressional aides who helped
craft the Democratic Congress' regulatory response to the 2008 crisis have gone on to work for Wall Street in the hopes of
benefiting from big banks' booming profits.
Not
#5 target of a coup,
doesn't it? The more I see of this stuff the more I cannot help but think that Trump WAS part of their plan and not just Hers
plan that she would win against him but maybe the perfect plan to dismantle what's left of our pathetically termed "democracy."
Trump is dangerous as hell in his own right, what he and his idiots are doing to the climate is something we'll all live
with, or rather, die with, but he's doing what our owners want there and it is so easy to blame it all on him when I think
we all know our fossil fuel psychos are as much a part of the deep state as is the MIC.
This is a coup alright and what they want is nothing less than totalitarianism. By using Trump to get there it is the same
damned game of dupe, divide and conquer. Trump is no hero either, he's not going to "save America" but drive it into a ditch,
and really, I think that's been the plan all along.
@snoopydawg
You always put it so much better and in better detail than I do. I've felt from the beginning with Trump the more repulsive and
stupid the policy, they better for our owners. They're fine with all that, but they will not tolerate dissent on overall American
dominance of the entire world and Trump, for whatever greedy reasons, is bucking them there. And I do not believe Her could have
gotten away with his more egregious things and our owners were certainly aware of that. The mask is off, let the final gutting
commence openly.
And the more they "fight" Trump the more "credible" Trump looks. I find that personally terrifying.
Trump was the plan all along. He is doing much of the same things that Obama was doing but people weren't noticing because
of his so called 'charm'. It looks like Trump is rolling back a lot of Obama's policies where it comes to the environment,
but many of those policies were done just before Obama left office and wouldn't take affect for months or years. But it makes
it look like Obama was more progressive than he was and Trump is the one destroying the country.
Hillary wouldn't have been able to appoint the type of people Trump has in order to get to where we are now. And I see that
the only thing that has changed when it comes to our foreign interventions is that Trump has relaxed the rules of engagement
and isn't even bothering to protect the civilians who are in our way. Trump is still supporting ISIS and AQ who Obama and Hillary
armed and funded to do our dirty work.
Then there's the economic issues that the GOP are ramming through and the poor democrats are in no position to defend against
them. How convenient, eh?
People are going to pissed when Trump cuts the social programs, but lets not forget that they were cut during Obama's tenure
too and he even put SS on the table. Rumor is that McConnell stopped him, but why did he? SO that he could take credit for
it? Hmmm. Fishy that.
"With no jail time for executives and half a trillion in post-crisis profits, the big banks have made out like bandits
during the post-crash period."
The 2008 financial meltdown inflicted devastating financial and psychological damage upon millions of ordinary Americans,
but a new report released by Public Citizen on Tuesday shows the Wall Street banks that caused the crash with their reckless
speculation and outright fraud have done phenomenally well in the ten years since the crisis.
Thanks to the Obama administration's decision to rescue collapsing Wall Street banks with taxpayer cash and the Trump
administration's massive tax cuts and deregulatory push, America's five largest banks -- JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America,
Citigroup, Wells Fargo, and Goldman Sachs -- have raked in more than $583 billion in combined profits over the past decade,
Public Citizen found in its analysis marking the ten-year anniversary of the crisis.
"With no jail time for executives and half a trillion in post-crisis profits," said Robert Weissman, president of Public
Citizen, "the big banks have made out like bandits during the post-crash period. Like bandits."
What a surprise,
According to a Washington Post analysis published on Saturday, many of the lawmakers and congressional aides who helped
craft the Democratic Congress' regulatory response to the 2008 crisis have gone on to work for Wall Street in the hopes
of benefiting from big banks' booming profits.
By that I'm saying that both major legacy Parties always managed to nominate Party candidates who were acceptable to the Deep
State and the One Percent--until DT came along, and won the Republican nomination in 2016.
Blue Onyx
"Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong." ~~W. R. Purche
#5 target of a coup,
doesn't it? The more I see of this stuff the more I cannot help but think that Trump WAS part of their plan and not just Hers
plan that she would win against him but maybe the perfect plan to dismantle what's left of our pathetically termed "democracy."
Trump is dangerous as hell in his own right, what he and his idiots are doing to the climate is something we'll all live
with, or rather, die with, but he's doing what our owners want there and it is so easy to blame it all on him when I think
we all know our fossil fuel psychos are as much a part of the deep state as is the MIC.
This is a coup alright and what they want is nothing less than totalitarianism. By using Trump to get there it is the same
damned game of dupe, divide and conquer. Trump is no hero either, he's not going to "save America" but drive it into a ditch,
and really, I think that's been the plan all along.
leading to a Pence administration. Trump's main qualification is that he's incompetent. What this op-ed (I also think it is
fake, perhaps written by someone at an intelligence agency) is supposed to do is to tie the Trump White House in knots and keep
them from functioning. A Democratic wave in November, even if it does no more than retake the House, will put a stop to Trump's
initiatives. If the Democrats take the Senate they will be able to hold up appointments, in particular of judges.
And how many Democratic candidates have an intelligence or military background? What voting block would be calling the shots?
Delay and befuddle for just a few months more, and the worst of the Trump threat will be disarmed. I don't think this is any more
complicated than that.
the biggest Dem Congressional voting block will be a military/intel/national security/State Dept cabal--or, a 'shadow Deep
State.' Probably, one reason that the DCCC and Dem Leadership recruited scores of these candidates to run in open seats.
On November 7, it will be a piece of cake to take out (figuratively) DT.
Blue Onyx
"Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong." ~~W. R. Purche
leading to a Pence administration. Trump's main qualification is that he's incompetent. What this op-ed (I also think it
is fake, perhaps written by someone at an intelligence agency) is supposed to do is to tie the Trump White House in knots and
keep them from functioning. A Democratic wave in November, even if it does no more than retake the House, will put a stop to
Trump's initiatives. If the Democrats take the Senate they will be able to hold up appointments, in particular of judges.
And how many Democratic candidates have an intelligence or military background? What voting block would be calling the shots?
Delay and befuddle for just a few months more, and the worst of the Trump threat will be disarmed. I don't think this is any
more complicated than that.
...on domestic issues, but don't expect improvements.
As for foreign policy, the Dems will vote with the Deep State every time.
The trajectories of the past 50 years are not going to change.
leading to a Pence administration. Trump's main qualification is that he's incompetent. What this op-ed (I also think it
is fake, perhaps written by someone at an intelligence agency) is supposed to do is to tie the Trump White House in knots and
keep them from functioning. A Democratic wave in November, even if it does no more than retake the House, will put a stop to
Trump's initiatives. If the Democrats take the Senate they will be able to hold up appointments, in particular of judges.
And how many Democratic candidates have an intelligence or military background? What voting block would be calling the shots?
Delay and befuddle for just a few months more, and the worst of the Trump threat will be disarmed. I don't think this is any
more complicated than that.
Greenwald. The CP piece is factually incorrect--the Admin is not asking for an investigation of the author to
take criminal action, per the NYT & LA Times. They're wanting assistance to "root out the source of the
Op-Ed." Not to prosecute, or jail him/her.
After all, it's perfectly reasonable to assume that OPM wouldn't have a Department that can suss out 'who' the author
is. So, in order to discipline the author, some other agency would have to identify him/her.
No doubt, we're witnessing an attempted coup d'état.
Now, if it's a 'single' official--my money's on Jon Huntsman. I've also wondered if the Op-Ed could be a collective effort
(by a cabal of officials ).
OTOH, it could very well be the Editorial Board of the NYT, considering the way the author(s) wove in so many verbal
expressions that could point to various 'officials.' IOW, it seemed very contrived.
(Pence uses 'lodestar' a lot. Read that a couple other terms/expressions were common to John Kelly, and one other person--whose
name I can't recall, right now.)
Anyhoo, who'd be better equipped to throw out 'BS' like that, than a bunch of newspaper editors. After all, they'd have a great
deal of familiarty with politicians'/officials' verbiage.
Guess I'll need to amend my comment in WD's essay, now!
Blue Onyx
"Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong." ~~W. R. Purche
have attributed this excellent essay to Pluto. My apologies!
(Nancy's comments were great, too. )
Blue Onyx
"Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong." ~~W. R. Purche
Greenwald. The CP piece is factually incorrect--the Admin is not asking for an investigation of the author
to take criminal action, per the NYT & LA Times. They're wanting assistance to "root out the source
of the Op-Ed." Not to prosecute, or jail him/her.
After all, it's perfectly reasonable to assume that OPM wouldn't have a Department that can suss out 'who' the
author is. So, in order to discipline the author, some other agency would have to identify him/her.
No doubt, we're witnessing an attempted coup d'état.
Now, if it's a 'single' official--my money's on Jon Huntsman. I've also wondered if the Op-Ed could be a collective effort
(by a cabal of officials ).
OTOH, it could very well be the Editorial Board of the NYT, considering the way the author(s) wove in so many verbal
expressions that could point to various 'officials.' IOW, it seemed very contrived.
(Pence uses 'lodestar' a lot. Read that a couple other terms/expressions were common to John Kelly, and one other person--whose
name I can't recall, right now.)
Anyhoo, who'd be better equipped to throw out 'BS' like that, than a bunch of newspaper editors. After all, they'd have
a great deal of familiarty with politicians'/officials' verbiage.
Guess I'll need to amend my comment in WD's essay, now!
Blue Onyx
"Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong." ~~W. R. Purche
Even before a former U.S. intelligence contractor exposed the secret collection of Americans' phone records, the Obama administration
was pressing a government-wide crackdown on security threats that requires federal employees to keep closer tabs on their co-workers
and exhorts managers to punish those who fail to report their suspicions.
President Barack Obama's unprecedented initiative, known as the Insider Threat Program, is sweeping in its reach. It has
received scant public attention even though it extends beyond the U.S. national security bureaucracies to most federal departments
and agencies nationwide, including the Peace Corps, the Social Security Administration and the Education and Agriculture departments.
It emphasizes leaks of classified material, but catchall definitions of "insider threat" give agencies latitude to pursue and
penalize a range of other conduct.
Government documents reviewed by McClatchy illustrate how some agencies are using that latitude to pursue unauthorized disclosures
of any information, not just classified material. They also show how millions of federal employees and contractors must watch
for "high-risk persons or behaviors" among co-workers and could face penalties, including criminal charges, for failing to
report them. Leaks to the media are equated with espionage.
"Hammer this fact home . . . leaking is tantamount to aiding the enemies of the United States," says a June 1, 2012, Defense
Department strategy for the program that was obtained by McClatchy.
Even before a former U.S. intelligence contractor exposed the secret collection of Americans' phone records, the Obama
administration was pressing a government-wide crackdown on security threats that requires federal employees to keep closer
tabs on their co-workers and exhorts managers to punish those who fail to report their suspicions.
President Barack Obama's unprecedented initiative, known as the Insider Threat Program, is sweeping in its reach. It
has received scant public attention even though it extends beyond the U.S. national security bureaucracies to most federal
departments and agencies nationwide, including the Peace Corps, the Social Security Administration and the Education and
Agriculture departments. It emphasizes leaks of classified material, but catchall definitions of "insider threat" give agencies
latitude to pursue and penalize a range of other conduct.
Government documents reviewed by McClatchy illustrate how some agencies are using that latitude to pursue unauthorized
disclosures of any information, not just classified material. They also show how millions of federal employees and contractors
must watch for "high-risk persons or behaviors" among co-workers and could face penalties, including criminal charges, for
failing to report them. Leaks to the media are equated with espionage.
"Hammer this fact home . . . leaking is tantamount to aiding the enemies of the United States," says a June 1, 2012,
Defense Department strategy for the program that was obtained by McClatchy.
I haven't seen Trump behave in any way but in a way consistent with this op-ed. I watched Omarosa on The View (on youtube)
yesterday, and she was completely convinced of the op-ed's truth and had her own theory about who in the administration wrote.
She also played a recording of Trump spewing terrible lies (I forgot the subject matter out a need for tranquility) and Sara Huckabee
was there backing up the lies, ready to spew them at her next press conference.
I mean, come on: Trump University? The President
was born in Kenya? Bankruptcies, inability to condemn a deadly nazi parade? etc etc et fucking cetera. This is real and it's Trump
and maybe Putin. The evidence is getting overwhelming.
We know Trump is a liar. The public knew that when they elected him. That's actually a better deal than the suckers who voted
for Obama the "peacemaker" but got Obama the war starter, drone bomber, and coup instigator. That's a better deal than the people
who voted for Obama to undo the Bush/Cheney damage, and got Obama the bailer-out of Wall St, Obama the prosecutor of whistleblowers.
Lying is not an impeachable offense. Politicians do it all the time.
The constant undermining of the office of the President by intelligence agencies who abuse their access to classified information
is a crime - although one that we have never been able to prosecute the CIA for since the day it was founded.
I haven't seen Trump behave in any way but in a way consistent with this op-ed. I watched Omarosa on The View (on youtube)
yesterday, and she was completely convinced of the op-ed's truth and had her own theory about who in the administration wrote.
She also played a recording of Trump spewing terrible lies (I forgot the subject matter out a need for tranquility) and Sara
Huckabee was there backing up the lies, ready to spew them at her next press conference. I mean, come on: Trump University?
The President was born in Kenya? Bankruptcies, inability to condemn a deadly nazi parade? etc etc et fucking cetera. This is
real and it's Trump and maybe Putin. The evidence is getting overwhelming.
@arendt
That was the point I was making, since this is an article that seems to imply the op-ed is part of a conspiracy. So you agree
with me about the character of Trump and that the op-ed could very well be real?
We know Trump is a liar. The public knew that when they elected him. That's actually a better deal than the suckers who
voted for Obama the "peacemaker" but got Obama the war starter, drone bomber, and coup instigator. That's a better deal than
the people who voted for Obama to undo the Bush/Cheney damage, and got Obama the bailer-out of Wall St, Obama the prosecutor
of whistleblowers.
Lying is not an impeachable offense. Politicians do it all the time.
The constant undermining of the office of the President by intelligence agencies who abuse their access to classified information
is a crime - although one that we have never been able to prosecute the CIA for since the day it was founded.
Of course I think the op-ed is part of the plot to overthrow a legitimately elected president.
Trump's a bum. But so was George W. Bush, and Nancy Pelosi said "impeachment is off the table". The Clintons are crooks who
TPTB refuse to prosecute. Maybe the NYT should start a smear campaign against Hillary.
You seem to not care about the process of government. You seem to think that all that matters is getting rid of Trump, not
how that is done, not how much of the Constitution we tear up to do it. You seem not to care that impeaching Trump brings us Mike
Pence, who may be even worse.
This is the same game as Jose Padilla and Habeus Corpus. You find some loathsome character and use him as a test case to get
rid of some basic rights from everyone, forever.
If you can't see the plot by this point, I can't help you.
#9.1
That was the point I was making, since this is an article that seems to imply the op-ed is part of a conspiracy. So you agree
with me about the character of Trump and that the op-ed could very well be real?
@arendt@arendt
Democracy requires:
1) A readiness to debate honestly, in a civil manner, with people who disagree.
2) An openess to facts and expert opinion about such things as climate change.
3) A respect for due process and fairness.
4) A respect for non-partisanship in reference, to say, what the attorney general can investigate.
There's a lot of other things a democracy requires but first and foremost Trump has no respect for honest debate. How the hell
are we going to solve climate change when Trump's only response is to insult scientists and the intelligence of every American?
You seem to not care about the process of government. You seem to think that all that matters is getting rid of Trump, not
how that is done, not how much of the Constitution we tear up to do it.
I never said the word "impeachment" until this reply. Quit putting words in my mouth. Everybody needs to vote against Trump
this November because it's critical as hell.
Of course I think the op-ed is part of the plot to overthrow a legitimately elected president.
Trump's a bum. But so was George W. Bush, and Nancy Pelosi said "impeachment is off the table". The Clintons are crooks
who TPTB refuse to prosecute. Maybe the NYT should start a smear campaign against Hillary.
You seem to not care about the process of government. You seem to think that all that matters is getting rid of Trump, not
how that is done, not how much of the Constitution we tear up to do it. You seem not to care that impeaching Trump brings us
Mike Pence, who may be even worse.
This is the same game as Jose Padilla and Habeus Corpus. You find some loathsome character and use him as a test case to
get rid of some basic rights from everyone, forever.
If you can't see the plot by this point, I can't help you.
You have to wait for 2020 when you will be able to vote for Biden if you can stop throwing up on your way to the polls.
#9.1.1.1#9.1.1.1
Democracy requires:
1) A readiness to debate honestly, in a civil manner, with people who disagree.
2) An openess to facts and expert opinion about such things as climate change.
3) A respect for due process and fairness.
4) A respect for non-partisanship in reference, to say, what the attorney general can investigate.
There's a lot of other things a democracy requires but first and foremost Trump has no respect for honest debate. How the
hell are we going to solve climate change when Trump's only response is to insult scientists and the intelligence of every
American?
You seem to not care about the process of government. You seem to think that all that matters is getting rid of Trump,
not how that is done, not how much of the Constitution we tear up to do it.
I never said the word "impeachment" until this reply. Quit putting words in my mouth. Everybody needs to vote against Trump
this November because it's critical as hell.
That was the point I was making, since this is an article that seems to imply the op-ed is part of a conspiracy.
In other words, you have difficulty acknowledging that PCR has been on record for months claiming there is a conspiracy. Are
you really that unwilling to acknowledge he thinks there is a conspiracy? What is your objection to acknowledging the man's stated
position?
In this second response, you jump on the word "impeachment" as if that is an unjustifiable stretch from the facts on the table.
I never said the word "impeachment" until this reply. Quit putting words in my mouth.
To many of us, including the OP writer, this op-ed is just the latest stirring of the pot in an ongoing campaign to get rid
of/impeach/remove Trump well before 2020. Such provocations have been occurring since before Trump was sworn in. To claim, as
you do, that this op-ed was done only to influence this election is a classic "broken clock is right twice a day" argument. Its
true it might influence the election, but its purpose is to further the coup attempt that is underway.
That you react so strongly ("I never said") to the word impeachment is part of a pattern. You want to wall off the issue of
the conspiracy (which you still only acknowledge with a "seems to imply") from the issue of Trump's behavior and only focus on
the latter. This is exactly the pattern of the corporate Dems.
I refuse to adhere to your compartmentalization. The op-ed and impeachment ARE related.
#9.1.1.1#9.1.1.1
Democracy requires:
1) A readiness to debate honestly, in a civil manner, with people who disagree.
2) An openess to facts and expert opinion about such things as climate change.
3) A respect for due process and fairness.
4) A respect for non-partisanship in reference, to say, what the attorney general can investigate.
There's a lot of other things a democracy requires but first and foremost Trump has no respect for honest debate. How the
hell are we going to solve climate change when Trump's only response is to insult scientists and the intelligence of every
American?
You seem to not care about the process of government. You seem to think that all that matters is getting rid of Trump,
not how that is done, not how much of the Constitution we tear up to do it.
I never said the word "impeachment" until this reply. Quit putting words in my mouth. Everybody needs to vote against Trump
this November because it's critical as hell.
"It's Time for the Press to Stop Complaining -- And to Start Fighting Back"
Chuck Todd SEP 3, 2018 in "The Atlantic"
Two days later the NYT article hit. That was my reaction to the piece, Chuck called for this.
What deep state conspiracy? There's your proof right there! So, Trump was right?
"It's a witch hunt!" Trumps seemingly paranoid ejaculations, do not seem so paranoid with every passing day of nothing but backfires.
"Fake News!" Strzok-Page's "media leak strategy" Not so crazy after all?
Trump is so unpredictable. The tweeting maniac is impossible to handle. Is that such a bad thing?
I think we can afford it, there is a benefit.
Some people just wanted Washington shook up, they are getting what they wanted.
I don't know that there's a better way to bring actual change.
The means are not conventional that's for sure, what are the results we want?
If he achieves them, will he be credited?
If all his fantastic assertions keep coming true, he'll be around for some time.
No? Why not, because of anonymous articles like this? Another deep state back fire; keep digging.
"... The op-ed, perhaps by no coincidence whatsoever, appeared one week before the release of the new book by Bob Woodward Fear: Trump in the White House , which has a similar tale to tell and came out on Amazon today. ..."
And there is always Iran just waiting to get kicked around, when all else fails. Haley,
always blissfully ignorant but never quiet,
commented while preparing to take over the presidency of the U.N. Security Council last
Friday, that Russia and Syria "want to bomb schools, hospitals, and homes" before launching
into a tirade about Iran, saying
that "President Trump is very adamant that we have to start making sure that Iran is
falling in line with international order. If you continue to look at the spread Iran has had in
supporting terrorism, if you continue to look at the ballistic missile testing that they are
doing, if you continue to look at the sales of weapons we see with the Huthis in Yemen -- these
are all violations of security council resolution. These are all threats to the region, and
these are all things that the international community needs to talk about."
And there is the usual hypocrisy over long term objectives. President Donald Trump said in
April that "it's time" to bring American troops home from Syria -- once the jihadists of
Islamic State have been definitively defeated. But now that that objective is in sight, there
has to be some question about who is actually determining the policies that come out of the
White House, which is reported to be in more than usual disarray due to the appearance last
week of the New York Timesanonymous
op-ed describing a "resistance" movement within the West Wing that has been deliberately
undermining and sometimes ignoring the president to further Establishment/Deep State friendly
policies. The op-ed, perhaps by no coincidence whatsoever, appeared one week before the
release of the new book by Bob Woodward Fear: Trump in the White House , which has a similar tale to tell and came out on
Amazon today.
The book and op-ed mesh nicely in describing how Donald Trump is a walking disaster who is
deliberately circumvented by his staff. One section of the op-ed is particularly telling and
suggestive of neocon foreign policy, describing how the White House staff has succeeded in
"[calling out] countries like Russia for meddling and [having them] punished accordingly" in
spite of the president's desire for détente. It then goes on to elaborate on Russia and
Trump, describing how " the president was reluctant to expel so many of Mr. Putin's spies as
punishment for the poisoning of a former Russian spy in Britain. He complained for weeks about
senior staff members letting him get boxed into further confrontation with Russia, and he
expressed frustration that the United States continued to impose sanctions on the country for
its malign behavior. But the national security team knew better – such actions had to be
taken to hold Moscow accountable."
If the op-ed and Woodward book are in any way accurate, one has to ask "Whose policy? An
elected president or a cabal of disgruntled staffers who might well identify as
neoconservatives?" Be that as it may, the White House is desperately pushing back while at the
same time searching for the traitor, which suggests to many in Washington that it will right
the sinking ship prior to November elections by the time honored and approved method used by
politicians worldwide, which means starting a war to rally the nation behind the
government.
As North Korea is nuclear armed, the obvious targets for a new or upgraded war would be Iran
and Syria. As Iran might actually fight back effectively and the Pentagon always prefers an
enemy that is easy to defeat, one suspects that some kind of expansion of the current effort in
Syria would be preferable. It would be desirable, one presumes, to avoid an open conflict with
Russia, which would be unpredictable, but an attack on Syrian government forces that would
produce a quick result which could plausibly be described as a victory would certainly be worth
considering.
By all appearances, the preparation of the public for an attack on Syria is already well
underway. The mainstream media has been deluged with descriptions of tyrant Bashar al-Assad,
who allegedly has killed hundreds of thousands of his own people. The rhetoric coming out of
the usual government sources is remarkable for its truculence, particularly when one considers
that Damascus is trying to regain control over what is indisputably its own sovereign territory
from groups that everyone agrees are at least in large part terrorists.
Last week, the Trump White House approved the
new U.S. plan for Syria, which, unlike the old plan of withdrawal, envisions something like
a permanent presence in the country. It includes a continued occupation of the country's
northeast, which is the Kurdish region; forcing Iran plus its proxies including Hezbollah to
leave the country completely; and continued pressure on Damascus to bring about regime
change.
Washington has also shifted its perception of who is trapped in Idlib, with
newly appointed U.S. Special Representative for Syria James Jeffrey arguing that
". . . they're not terrorists, but people fighting a civil war against a brutal
dictator." Jeffrey, it should be noted, was pulled out of retirement where he was a fellow with
the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), an American Israel Public Affairs
Committee (AIPAC) spin off. On his recent trip to the Middle East he stopped off in Israel nine
days ago to meet Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The change in policy, which is totally in
line with Israeli demands, would suggest that Jeffrey received his instructions during the
visit.
Israel is indeed upping its involvement in Syria. It has bombed the country 200
times in the past 18 months and is now threatening to extend the war by attacking Iranians in
neighboring Iraq. It has also been providing
arms to the terrorist groups operating inside Syria .
As Doug French
noted last July , this result would surprise no one familiar with F.A. Hayek's Road to
Serfdom. As Hayek wrote in his chapter dedicated to the question "Why the Worst Rise to the
Top:"
Advancement within a totalitarian group or party depends largely on a willingness to do
immoral things. The principle that the end justifies the means, which in individualist ethics
is regarded as the denial of all morals, in collectivist ethics becomes necessarily the
supreme rule. There is literally nothing which the consistent collectivist must not be
prepared to do if it serves 'the good of the whole', because that is to him the only
criterion of what ought to be done.
Donald Trump is a man that is guilty of a great many sins, but at the end of the day he's no
worse than your average – overpaid
– Federal senior staffer. The elites that make up the professional political class and
their cheerleaders in the mainstream media have no moral high ground here. Their aim is not to
restore "civility" or "decency" to American politics, after all their desire to expand the
reach of government power is precisely what undermines such values .
No, their goal is simply to reverse an election they didn't expect to lose. It's quite possible
they may end up succeeding.
Hopefully the takeaway for those who relished the idea of "draining the swamp" is the
realization that this can't be accomplished by simply changing the name of the person who
occupies the top office. The Federal government can't be fixed; it must have its powers taken
away.
Political decentralization is the only way to truly make America great again.
"... Trump's new saber rattling against Syria, Russia and Iran goes beyond pure irony and will certainly fuel rumors embraced by critics that he is becoming senile. When Trump was running for the Presidency, he sang a radically different tune: ..."
"... If Vladimir Putin wants to launch airstrikes inside Syria, that's no problem for Donald Trump, who said Wednesday that he believes Russia's military moves in Syria are targeting ISIS and that the United States shouldn't interfere. ( https://www.cnn.com/2015/09/30/politics/donald-trump-syria-don-lemon/index.html ) 1 October 2015 ..."
"... However, Trump did note the complexity of the situation on the ground in Syria, pointing out in reference to Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad that Putin "is an Assad person" and "the United States doesn't like Assad". He went on to condemn the Obama administration for "backing people who they don't know who they are", and to warn that rebels backed by the United States "could be Isis" ..."
"... President Donald Trump warned Syria and its allies Russia and Iran on Monday against attacking the last major rebel stronghold of Idlib province in the country's northwest. "President Bashar al-Assad of Syria must not recklessly attack Idlib Province," Trump wrote on Twitter. "The Russians and Iranians would be making a grave humanitarian mistake to take part in this potential human tragedy. Hundreds of thousands of people could be killed. Don't let that happen!" ( https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/03/politics/trump-syria-tweet-assad-rebel-idlib/index.html ) 4 September 2018 ..."
"... In a recent discussion about Syria, people familiar with the exchange said, President Trump threatened to conduct a massive attack against Mr. Assad if he carries out a massacre in Idlib, the northwestern province that has become the last refuge for more than three million people and as many as 70,000 opposition fighters that the regime considers to be terrorists. ( https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-says-syria-plans-gas-attack-in-rebel-stronghold-1536535853?mod=mktw ) 9 September 2018 ..."
Trump's new saber rattling against Syria, Russia and Iran goes beyond pure irony and will certainly fuel rumors embraced by critics
that he is becoming senile. When Trump was running for the Presidency, he sang a radically different tune:
If Vladimir Putin wants to launch airstrikes inside Syria, that's no problem for Donald Trump, who said Wednesday that he believes
Russia's military moves in Syria are targeting ISIS and that the United States shouldn't interfere. (
https://www.cnn.com/2015/09/30/politics/donald-trump-syria-don-lemon/index.html
) 1 October 2015
Addressing Russia's intervention in the Syrian conflict, which has so far
disproportionately targeted rebel-held areas with no Isis presence, Trump expressed confidence that Vladimir Putin would eventually
target the Islamic State. "He's going to want to bomb Isis because he doesn't want Isis going into Russia and so he's going to want
to bomb Isis," Trump said of the Russian president. "Vladimir Putin is going to want to really go after Isis, and if he doesn't it'll
be a big shock to everybody."
However, Trump did note the complexity of the situation on the ground in Syria, pointing out in reference
to Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad that Putin "is an Assad person" and "the United States doesn't like Assad". He went on to condemn
the Obama administration for "backing people who they don't know who they are", and to warn that rebels backed by the United States
"could be Isis". (
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/13/donald-trump-foreign-policy-doctrine-nation-building
) 13 October 2015.
That was then. Now Trump is chest thumping and trash talking Syria and Russia like the recently deceased John McCain. He now appears
ready to lead the NeoCon Conga line into an escalation of the war in Syria:
President Donald Trump warned Syria and its allies Russia and Iran on Monday against attacking the last major rebel stronghold
of Idlib province in the country's northwest. "President Bashar al-Assad of Syria must not recklessly attack Idlib Province," Trump
wrote on Twitter. "The Russians and Iranians would be making a grave humanitarian mistake to take part in this potential human tragedy.
Hundreds of thousands of people could be killed. Don't let that happen!" (
https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/03/politics/trump-syria-tweet-assad-rebel-idlib/index.html
) 4 September 2018
In a recent discussion about Syria, people familiar with the exchange said, President Trump threatened to conduct a massive attack
against Mr. Assad if he carries out a massacre in Idlib, the northwestern province that has become the last refuge for more than
three million people and as many as 70,000 opposition fighters that the regime considers to be terrorists. (
https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-says-syria-plans-gas-attack-in-rebel-stronghold-1536535853?mod=mktw
) 9 September 2018
In an Op-Ed in WSJ:
https://www.wsj.com/article...
"Moderate rebels played a key role in Turkey's fight against terrorists in Northern #Syria; their assistance and guidance will
be crucial in Idlib as well"
Yep wonder where all those moderate rebels aka foreign jihadis came through after landing in IST.
Putin told him off in Tehran and now he is back on the fence or on the FUKUS side.
Guess Qatar must be pushing him to play nice by flooding him with billions .
WSJ is really hoping to get the war going . This is a second article /op-ed two days in a row.
Fisk is an old school journalist who doesn't sport a parting in his tongue. I've found him to be very reliable in his reporting.
His latest report reveals that despite considerable searching over a 2 day period, he could find no massed Syrian troops around
Idlib ready for the looming ground battle.
It's not like you can miss 100,000 men and all the supporting equipment; armoured vehicles,, kitchens, field hospitals, tent
cities etc. No Hezbollah, no Russians.
Which raises the question: are we being played here?
The US has no more authority to interfere in Syria domestic affairs than Syria has to interfere in US domestic affairs.
>Syrian President Bashar Assad has authorized his forces to use chlorine gas in the assault on the last significant rebel redoubt
in the country, The Wall Street Journal reported Sunday. Who can doubt the Wall Street Journal?
>The Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods
of Warfare, usually called the Geneva Protocol, is a treaty prohibiting the use of chemical and biological weapons in international
armed conflicts.
> The Protocol was Signed at Geneva June 17, 1925, and Entered into force February 8, 1928, and the convention were ratified by
President Ford on January 22, 1975.
>Chlorine itself is not a chemical weapon. It's a toxic industrial chemical that is very useful to purify water. It's really very
important to have clean water to avoid water borne diseases. But chlorine is a chemical agent that effects the eyes and the ability
to breath. When mixed with water it produces hydrochloride acid. It's not a very efficient chemical weapon because we can sense
it when it's not very toxic yet. So you can run away. Using chlorine gas is not prohibited as such, but using chlorine gas as
a weapon is prohibited in international armed conflicts.
We can be certain that the jihadi White Helmets will stage an "outrage" event, since Bolton and Nikki have already stated what
the US response would be. The media I'm sure have their playbook already figured out and ready to create the necessary media hysteria.
The last two times Trump fired a few missiles and called it a day. Woodward however claims that his "anonymous" sources say
that Trump wanted to assassinate Assad and Mattis walked it back to token missile strikes. Woodward also claims that the #Resistance
in the White House are doing whatever they want and Trump is for all intents and purposes rather clueless about what they're up
to. If this has any credence would it be possible that Bolton and Nikki and the other ziocons in the White House orchestrate a
provocation by the jihadis that will then be setup to "we need a muscular response to show who's boss". You know the all too familiar
argument that the US needs to act to retain credibility.
All this is coming just before the mid-terms which is a pivotal election for Trump. If he loses the House then he's up shit
creek with Dems running all kinds of investigations and Mueller emboldened. How does he calculate the political implications of
a deeper military engagement in Syria? IMO, many who supported him in the last election will not be very happy and their enthusiasm
may waver which could be the difference in close races. OTOH, there is a perception that his economic team and policies are making
a positive difference and that is benefiting the Deplorables.
Obama lost big time in his first mid-terms and did very poorly for the Democrats in both federal and state elections during
his term as president. Yet the Democrat establishment has continued to back him. That may not happen with Trump as the GOP establishment
will find the opportunity to go back to their traditional ways if Trump can't hold the House.
It is really becoming unlearn why the Deep State hates Trump so much and tries to depose him. He became a typical neocon,
Republican Obama, another "bait and switch" artist with slogan "Make America Great Again" (MAGA) as equivalent to Obama's fake
"Change we can believe in".
May be Deep State has so many skeletons in the closet (811 is one) that he can only allow CIA controlled puppets as
Presidents (looks like Clinton, Bush and Obama were such puppets).
Notable quotes:
"... If you believe Trump is trying to remove neocons(Deep State) from the government, explain Bolton and many other Deep State denizens Trump has appointed. ..."
"... Drain the Swamp? Trump and his sidekick Jared K inhabit the murkiest depths of that Swamp. But people will say Tubby's being forced into a corner and just has to appoint neoCON psychopaths like Bolton. Then explain Trump appointing Nutty Nikki to the UN, at the start of his presidency? Israeli PM wanted Nutty in that job and after watching her unhinged performances in the UNGA, I see why; she's a Shabbos Goy, more than willing to do anything Israel asks, and BTW, keep me in mind for that POTUS opening, OK guys? ..."
"... MAGA was Trump's 'Hope and Change' mantra that many bought. ..."
"... Trump made and lost four multi-billion dollar fortunes while using NYC as his home base. Then made another multi-billion dollar fortune. One doesn't do that in NYC unless you're in bed with the same gangsters that have been looting this nation for decades, those TBTF Wall Street banks that us peasants are forced to bail-out every 10 or so years. ..."
"... Trump was bought and paid for a long time ago, now he's paying off his helpers by doing their dirty work around the word while the 'marks,' us Americans, get our pockets picked. ..."
Another great
article by Mr. Giraldi. If Trump can't get the neocons out of the government, who possibly
can?
In liberals derangement over Trump, and willingness to support anything that challenges his
2016 America First (anti-interventionist) campaign, they're willing to support the old order
for fear of an "isolationist," or realist one, taking its place. If there's a large scale
intervention, it'll be interesting to see what kind of left-liberal/dissident-right anti-war
movement emerges, and if that furthers the deformation of the normative "liberal"
"conservative" divide.
Another great article by Mr. Giraldi. If Trump can't get the neocons out of the
government, who possibly can?
If you believe Trump is trying to remove neocons(Deep State) from the government, explain
Bolton and many other Deep State denizens Trump has appointed.
If you believe Trump is trying to remove neocons(Deep State) from the government,
explain Bolton and many other Deep State denizens Trump has appointed.
Agreed.
Drain the Swamp? Trump and his sidekick Jared K inhabit the murkiest depths of that
Swamp. But people will say Tubby's being forced into a corner and just has to appoint neoCON
psychopaths like Bolton. Then explain Trump appointing Nutty Nikki to the UN, at the start of
his presidency? Israeli PM wanted Nutty in that job and after watching her unhinged
performances in the UNGA, I see why; she's a Shabbos Goy, more than willing to do anything
Israel asks, and BTW, keep me in mind for that POTUS opening, OK guys?
MAGA was Trump's 'Hope and Change' mantra that many bought.
Trump made and lost four multi-billion dollar fortunes while using NYC as his home base. Then
made another multi-billion dollar fortune. One doesn't do that in NYC unless you're in bed
with the same gangsters that have been looting this nation for decades, those TBTF Wall
Street banks that us peasants are forced to bail-out every 10 or so years.
Trump was bought and paid for a long time ago, now he's paying off his helpers by doing
their dirty work around the word while the 'marks,' us Americans, get our pockets picked.
"... Top Trump aides like chief of staff John Kelly, national security advisor John Bolton, press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders and son-in-law Jared Kushner reportedly met with Trump Thursday in an effort to convince him that none of them was the author of the op-ed and that he could still trust his inner circle. Some two dozen top officials issued formal denials that they were the anonymous writer. ..."
Every day last week brought new demonstrations of an unprecedented crisis within the Trump
White House and US state apparatus. The Trump administration is torn by internal divisions,
amidst palace coup conspiracies involving the corporate media and sections of the
military-intelligence apparatus, as well as the Democratic Party.
On Tuesday, initial reports on the new book by Bob Woodward portrayed top Trump aides
deriding his intelligence and even sanity, working behind the scenes to derail his most
inflammatory orders -- such as a demand for the assassination of Syrian President Bashar
al-Assad. Trump administration officials were carrying out what Woodward characterized as "an
administrative coup d'état," i.e., disobeying his wishes and carrying out their own.
The next day, the New York Times made public an op-ed, written for its Thursday
print edition, in which an unnamed "senior administration official" presented himself as the
spokesman for a cabal of top officials working to keep Trump in check. "We are the real
resistance," the official claimed, making clear his support for the main elements of the
administration's right-wing program.
On Friday, Barack Obama weighed in with a campaign-style speech -- unusual for an
ex-president in the first election after leaving office -- in which he described the Trump
administration as "radical" and "not normal." He called on Republicans, conservatives and
Christian fundamentalists to vote for Democratic candidates in November, to "restore sanity" in
Washington and allow a Democratic-controlled House of Representatives to provide an
institutional check on Trump.
President Trump responded in kind. On Monday, he attacked his own attorney-general, Jeff
Sessions, for not quashing Justice Department investigations into two Republican congressmen
indicted on criminal charges of stock market swindling and theft. On Tuesday he denounced the
Woodward book as a fabrication, and on Wednesday he called the New York Times op-ed an
act of treason. On Thursday, he told a campaign rally in Montana that they had to vote
Republican in November to prevent his impeachment. On Friday, he tweeted his demand that
Sessions have the Justice Department investigate the New York Times op-ed and identify
the anonymous writer.
Top Trump aides like chief of staff John Kelly, national security advisor John Bolton, press
secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders and son-in-law Jared Kushner reportedly met with Trump
Thursday in an effort to convince him that none of them was the author of the op-ed and that he
could still trust his inner circle. Some two dozen top officials issued formal denials that
they were the anonymous writer.
There is simply no precedent in modern American history for such a level of political
conflict and dysfunction within the leading institutions of the capitalist state. How is this
to be explained? What direction will the crisis take?
It is entirely superficial to root such an explanation in the personality of Donald Trump.
Even Obama in his Illinois speech admitted that Trump is not the cause, but merely the symptom,
of more profound processes. But Obama, of course, covered up his own role, depicting his
presidency as eight years of heroic efforts to repair the damage caused by the 2008 financial
crash. At the end of those eight years, however, Wall Street and the financial oligarchy were
fully recovered, enjoying record wealth, while working people were poorer than before, a
widening social chasm that made possible the election of the billionaire con man and demagogue
in November 2016.
This social crisis underlies the political convulsions in Washington. There are, of course,
political differences within the two factions fighting it out within the ruling elite. They are
deeply divided over foreign policy, particularly over how to deal with the failure of US
intervention in Syria and the Middle East more broadly, and over whether to target Russia or
China first in the struggle to maintain the global dominance of American imperialism. The most
significant passage in Obama's speech was his criticism of the Republican Party for having
retreated from its Cold War, anti-Communist roots by tolerating Trump's supposed "softness"
toward Putin.
More fundamental, however, is the growing concern within all sections of the ruling elite
over the possibility of a renewed economic crisis under conditions of mounting social
opposition from below, following the initial stirrings of the American working class this year
-- the series of statewide teachers' strikes, the mounting resistance of industrial workers to
sellout contracts imposed by the unions, and the buildup of anger over super-exploitation by
giant employers like Amazon and Walmart.
Facing an impending eruption of the class struggle, there is little confidence in corporate
boardrooms, on Wall Street, or at the Pentagon and CIA that the current chief executive of the
American government can meet the test of great events.
One of the premier institutions of big business, JP Morgan Chase, issued an internal report
on the eve of the 10th anniversary of the 2008 crash, which warned that another "great
liquidity crisis" was possible, and that a government bailout on the scale of that effected by
Bush and Obama will produce social unrest, "in light of the potential impact of central bank
actions in driving inequality between asset owners and labor."
The report went on to note that political explosions on the scale of 1968 could develop,
facilitated by the role of the internet as a means of dissemination for radical political views
and a means of political self-organization. "The next crisis is also likely to result in social
tensions similar to those witnessed 50 years ago in 1968," the bank report warned. "Similar to
1968, the internet today (social media, leaked documents, etc.) provides millennials with
unrestricted access to information In addition to information, the internet provides a platform
for various social groups to become more self-aware, polarized, and organized."
The ruling class response to this danger is to prepare domestic repression on a massive
scale. In that respect, there is no difference between Trump and his opponents, except the
ferocious disagreement over who should be in control of the forces of repression that will be
unleashed against the American working class. Trump, of course, is an authoritarian through and
through, organizing a fascistic attack on immigrant workers and developing tools that will be
used against the entire working class.
However, his opponents, utilizing of the methods of the palace coup -- intrigues, leaks,
media smears, special prosecutors and other provocations -- are no more wedded to democratic
forms than Trump. The essence of the drive to censor the internet, spearheaded by the
Democratic Party, is revealed by the JP Morgan report: it is the platform for "social groups,"
above all, the working class, "to become more self-aware."
As one of Trump's leading media critics, Washington Post columnist Anne Applebaum,
a frothing anti-communist, wrote Sunday, "Maybe we have also underestimated the degree to which
our Constitution, designed in the 18th century, has proved insufficient to the demands of the
21st."
Trump's political opponents seek to use the Democratic Party campaign in the November
elections both to further the preparations for repression and to disguise them from working
people. The disguise is provided by a handful of self-styled leftwing and even "socialist"
candidates for the House of Representatives, many aligned with Bernie Sanders, like Alexandria
Ocasio-Cortez and Ayanna Pressley.
The substance is provided by the much larger number of Democratic candidates drawn directly
from the military-intelligence apparatus, nearly three dozen in all, who will hold the balance
of power if the Democrats win control of the House of Representatives. The policy the Democrats
will pursue if they win the election has already been demonstrated by the anti-Russia campaign
and the accompanying demands for internet censorship.
Whatever the outcome of the elections, it will not resolve the crisis in Washington nor
alter the basic trajectory of politics, which is bringing the working class into explosive
conflict with the ruling class, the entire state apparatus, and the capitalist system.
"... Serious border enforcement, demanding our wealthy allies do more for their own security, infrastructure investment, the (campaign's) refutation of Reaganomics, acknowledging the costs of globalism, calling BS on all of the dominant left PC pieties and lies, were themes of Trump's campaign that were of value. ..."
Serious border enforcement, demanding our wealthy allies do more for their own security,
infrastructure investment, the (campaign's) refutation of Reaganomics, acknowledging the
costs of globalism, calling BS on all of the dominant left PC pieties and lies, were themes
of Trump's campaign that were of value.
Trump was able to harness and give voice to some very important energies. But being Trump,
he's poisoned these issues for a couple of generations. No serious leader will be able to
touch these things.
Add this to all the institutional and political ruin he has created.
Responding to an anonymous Op-Ed in the New York Times detailing an active resistance within
the Trump White House, former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon told
Reuters that President Trump is facing a "coup" the likes of which haven't been seen since
the American Civil War.
... ... ...
" This is a crisis . The country has only ever had such a crisis in the
summer of 1862 when General McClellan and the senior generals, all Democrats in the Union Army,
deemed that Abraham Lincoln was not fit and not competent to be commander in chief ," said
Bannon - whose departure from the White House was in large part over a fallout with Trump's
"establishment" advisers. Bannon said at the time that the "Republican establishment" sought to
nullify the results of the 2016 election and effectively neuter Trump.
"There is a cabal of Republic establishment figures who believe Donald Trump is not fit to
be president of the United States. This is a crisis," Bannon said in Rome.
Anonymous IX ,
The naivete of so many astounds me. Do you really think that Trump cannot get the name of
the person who wrote the op-ed? In the old days, you sent your operatives to break into the
Watergate. With today's computers and backdoors everywhere into any computer system [open
your reading horizons... https://www.rt.com/op-ed/437895-privacy-five-eyes-encryption/
], anyone can obtain this information if they so desire. Why is Trump being portrayed as a
poor "rich guy" who only wants the best for the country while valiantly fighting a nefarious
coup...whose members, by the way, are so clever and clandestine that they write an op-ed in
the friggin' New York Times! Sorry...don't have much time to continue discussing op-eds in
the NYT, gotta go re-insert ourselves into an independent sovereign nation, called Syria,
where our 1%-ers have deemed we need to go!
I like Trump's bravado and I like his partner, Melania. Designers should definitely bring
back slits in skirts! Scroll down. Here's a lady with class and style. She doesn't have to
show you her entire bosom for you to get the idea that she's hot! https://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2018/09/03/melania-trump-labor-day-looks/
thebigunit ,
Silicon Valley comes full circle:
Apple's famous "1984" ad.
How ironic.
The guy on the TV screen is Tim Cook. He's saying "WE MUST SUPPRESS ALEX JONES!"
The anonymous leaker might not exist. Maybe the oped was written by someone at the new
york times. The reason for lying such might be to make Trump start hunting for his own
subordinates, that could turn some of his subordinates against him who then become an actual
leaker. I think this is their plan.
Moe Howard ,
Of course it is a coup in progress. So obvious it is beyond a question.
The fake op-ed was just the latest shot.
Seems to me that we need to break up and destroy these MSM and interweb monopolies.
No more dual national control over media outlets.
DEDA CVETKO ,
Yes, Steve Bannon. This is a coup. And it is a bad, bad, bad nazi-style,
beer-putsch kind of coup, the night of long knives and all.
But this is the coup you and your party (as well as your technical adversaries, but
friends in real life - the "democrats" - have been preparing for decades . This is the
coup you have been paving the way for with bombbombbomb Iran, with "export of
democracy" to Libya, Syria, Egypt, Iraq, Afghanistan, the Balkans and Russia (and pretty much
everywhere else); with weaponization of dollar and global finance and militarization of media
and the police, with colored and rosey and khaki revolutions, with vulture hedge funds as the
primary instrument of the foreign policy and with 1% distribution of the 99% of national
wealth.
Yes. Steve Bannon. These are all proud accomplishments of the Republican and
Democratic party.
This is the coup your party (as well as the other one) has been funding for almost
three decades by voting for $1 trillion-per-year war budgets and never-ending wars across the
globe and by vigorously bankrolling the nazi merchants of death a/k/a/
military-industrial-financial-academic-media complex. And now you are shocked to learn that
nazis have fondness for putcshes? No kiddin', Sherlock!
This is the coup your party ideologically, theologically and morally justified in
terms of divine national exceptionalism, messianic narcissism, arrogant group-think and
never-ending pursuit of national might-makes-right and peace-through-strength.
Yes, Steve Bannon, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright was right when he said that the chickens are
coming home to roost, er...roast. But this time, they are not coming home as McDonalds'
Chikken McNuggets or Kentucky Fried Chicken Shit. This time they are returning as chicken
guts'n'bones for the gigantic globalist chicken soup called New World Order.
You and your party should be rejoicing, not bemoaning. For, after all, this is your
proudest achievement and your finest hour.
God is The Son ,
Bannon is a retard, Trump is a retard, both Zionists. The only hope is Mattias to a Order
Coup De Ta. Military General needs to recognize that how Israel, Jews, Rothschilds have taken
over Banking Politics and Media in US and have hijacked US and are looting it. He also needs
to realize that they run the Left and the Right of Politics's. Arrest Trump, Alex Jones,
Zionists, ABC, FOX, Re-Investigate 9/11 findings will probably come to that the CIA and
Zionists did it, and that JFK killing was also CIA and Zionists. The CIA gets destroyed into
Thousand pieces and Israeli influence is removed entirely from all parts of American Society.
Federal Reserve, gets taken and turned into Public Central Bank of America under eye of US
Military. Rothschilds then told to leave or Arrested.
Peter41 ,
Well, correct up to a point. The established world order elites "saved" the system in
2007-08, by propping up the moribund banks (Citibank, JP Morgan, and others) by massive
injections of liquidity. Rather than removing this liquidity after the debacle, the Fed kept
the accelerator to the floor with continued "quantitative easing." Now presiding over a
$4Trillion balance sheet, the Fed is in the famous "liquidity trap" which Lord Keynes avoided
describing a solution for, by opining, "in the long run we are all dead."
Well, the elites are now in the position of watching the whole shitteree come unglued as
the Fed's policies framed by the elites will soon come unwound. Then, the elites will be
exposed as powerless.
Griffin ,
The old world order was not so organised, and the main ideology the ruling elites had in
common was transfer of wealth and wealth control,.
Using ideas like privatisation to get control of strategic assets like natural resources,
energy etc.
Using scams like pump and dump to suck wealth out of economies and then investing outside
the economy or planting it in a tax haven.
In Iceland there was roughly a 5 year interval between crashes. I called it the bubble
crash machine.
The msm and bank analysts were a important tool for politicians to keep this scam running,
but its dead now.
The new world order was supposed to be far more advanced and more organised, a tool to
eliminate all kinds of problems for large corporations, like the sovereign rights of states
for instance.
This was supposed to be a fusion between the superstate in Europe, where Merkel was at the
helm, and the liberal globalist friendly USA where Hillary was supposed to lead.
If this would have materialised it would have enabled multinational corporations to sue
nation states for imposing inconvenient laws that could suppress hopes of future profits for
instance, giving the corporations a indirect control over state politics, overriding
democracy and constitutions.
Abraxas ,
Coup, my ass. These guys turn everything upside-down. What a bunch of hyaenas.
Just look, these are the people that will drag us all down to the depths of hell with
them, telling us how nice and prosperous ride we'll have getting there. Stop this train, I
want to get off!
shortonoil ,
Having worked around DC I can tell you that the place collects nutcases, screwballs, and
sociopaths like fresh dog fresh shit collects flies. The Deep State is not the problem, the
problem is the DC State! DC is the epicenter of power hungry, greedy, self centered, self
serving, backstabbing, backbiting lunatics, and every one of them is looking for a gimmick to
advance their own personal agenda. The welfare of the nation is number 101 on their list of
100. Too much money, in too small a place with too many people trying to climb the same
ladder at the same time leads to anarchy. Give the power to collect money, and regulate back
to the States where it belongs, and let DC sink back into the swamp it was built on. The
Federal Government is out of control. The States have the Constitutional power, and
responsibility to regulate, and control the Federal government, and they had better start
using it before this dog and pony show breaks down into a lynching party.
Herdee ,
U.S. under Trump interfering in the internal affairs of Venezuela. The CIA goes around the
world overthrowing governments. American hypocrisy is so phony, especially their Washington
NeoCon/NeoNazi politicians:
These uniparty hacks are the same who claim Trump has disemboweled the Obama agenda, which
he has. Some nutcase... doing what he ran on. The only things he can't get done are because
of the career uniparty hacks.The op-ed was nothing more then carryover from the McCain
funeral. It's all transparent and meaningless, but a useful tool for Trump now.
DingleBarryObummer ,
"To some people the notion of consciously playing power games-no matter how indirect-seems
evil, asocial, a relic of the past. They believe they can opt out of the game by behaving in
ways that have nothing to do with power. You must beware of such people, for while they
express such opinions outwardly, they are often among the most adept players at power. They
utilize strategies that cleverly disguise the nature of the manipulation involved. These
types, for example, will often display their weakness and lack of power as a kind of moral
virtue. But true powerlessness, without any motive of self-interest, would not publicize its
weakness to gain sympathy or respect. Making a show of one's weakness is actually a very
effective strategy, subtle and deceptive, in the game of power" -Robert Greene '48 Laws of
Power'
chumbawamba ,
What results though? So far, the results are in and the swamp is still pretty full.
As Dinglebutt pondered: deception, but for what purpose? Have you considered that you
might be being lulled into a safe landing right into the heart of totalitarianism?
Don't think for one moment Trump isn't capable of selling you out for his own
interests.
-chumblez.
Dilluminati ,
correction demonic coup (re-posted) but the Pizza gate it seems to be real, all the fake
news for generatons and the one story the globalists couldn't get to uncovering ~~~ YOU MUST
DECIDE!!
Sweden tonight.. Europe tomorrow. The left lives in fantasy land. Where Kapernick is some
NFL hero and the guy sucked at QB, I mean looking at the record, he sucked, he didn't win
anything. He ran like Mike Vick and that is about that.. and like Mike he suddenly realized
that EVERYBODY runs fast in the NFL unlike college. Then there is IMMIGRATION notice how the
globalists love three things above all others: profits for the 1%, paying no taxes, and they
love them some open borders and immigrant cheap labor. Take for example the imaginary op-ed
fake news from the NYT, or the CNN fake news story with leftist Lanny Davis, or lets drag
that whore Stormy out on stage for another trailer park runway dollar bill, or how about the
hearings on SCOTUS and Spartacus? Pocahontas? Abolishing Ice to fight crime, getting rid of
the 2nd amendment to make us safer, Or more gun legislation in Chicago or Baltimore doubling
down on stupid.. And now the ghouls who run the Democratic party have to go and try and sell
the Obama myth, talk about fantasy.. what the fuck was Obamacare? Where was the $ saved and
could people keep their doctor if they wanted? Each and every idea the Democrats and left
have come up with is proof that what the left doesn't fuck up it shits upon instead, and
now.. after being globally discredited the GLOBALISTS cocksuckers are done. Name a single
promise that the Globalists kept to any but the 1% the cocksuckers!
But turn on any globalist media, the NFL, ESPN, CNN, and of the Globalist monopoly news or
media outlets, the same lies are told. These Globalist cocksuckers cannot stop telling these
lies so instead they need to be removed by ballot, laws, and if need be FORCE!
The rudeness and desperation of the 1% is astonishing, but their boldness is like that of
the Pedophile Catholic Church! They get up on stage and do their empty virtue signalling and
then rape their communities cynically and with methodical efficiency, yes they are the 1% and
they do not care, yes they are the 1% and there is now no laws to confront them. There is
only the ballot. They intend to run to New Zealand as they know their days are numbered, they
skip the hearings like Google when called to account by Congress, and still you turn on the
media and see:
I'm sure Madeline has brokered some deal to service some 1% benefactor somewhere. But
again the rudeness, they come into your home under the guise of sports, under the guise of a
legitimate news source, and then they spread their LIES and distortions.
Watch Brexit and Google pissing in the face of Congress.. they do not respect the ballot
though they clamor about democracy, they but care about the 1% like the Pedophile Catholic
Church and do not care about your laws, they want to abolish Ice, they want to disarm you so
that they can more efficiently abuse you. That is your globalists not some loser on a Nike
ad, who has less of a career than say Tim Tebow (who could run) but wasn't the apologist and
hate America first Cunt stooge of the globalists. Watch Brexit and Google as they piss in the
face of democracy and remember.
This brief comment became the biggest headline news to come out of the third debate, as
many saw it as Mr Trump threatening to shatter a 240-year-old electoral tradition, one of the
cornerstones of US democracy: the losing candidate must always concede defeat, regardless of
the result.
Presidential rival Hillary Clinton called his stance "horrifying", saying it "was not
the way our democracy works".
Barack Obama labelled Trump's comments as "dangerous", and damaging to
democracy.
You see how that works? The left is like the Pedophile Catholic Church all worked up about
the plastic in the ocean, one set of laws and democracy for you, and another for them..
The lies, the globalist lies.. vote for your freedom.. What does the NFL and the Pedophile
Catholic Church have in common? NEITHER PAYS TAXES! Them globalists them silly globalists:
love three things above all others: profits for the 1%, paying no taxes, and they love them
some open borders and immigrant cheap labor.
The real PIZZA GATE my friends is the Globalists. The 1% with their laws, unaccountable to
ours which they twist against us.
I'm watching Bob Woodward being pimped by the Globalists media this morning, and I have to
think that in this guy's lifetime the largest scandal in the Church, the global abuse and
coverup, never warranted an op-ed. Need I say more? When you look at the fabled globalist Bob
Woodward, remember that he missed the abuse, the cover-up, the complete and orchestrated
abuse of power globally, he missed that story!
It took the state of Pennsylvania and a Grand Jury to tell that story that the globalist
and Bob Woodward would not, instead he peddled rumors, similar to Stormy trotted out for a
dollar bill on the trailer park runway.
notfeelinthebern ,
Been nothing but a coup since before day one even.
iinthesky ,
Started right after the Trump stepped off the escalator
Jim in MN ,
If the globalist elite neolibcon blackmail files ever see the light of day a lot of folks
are going to swing from nooses...where have I heard that phrase before....
This is still our last peaceful chance for change.
iinthesky ,
I think most historically competent folks quickly come to the conclusion that ''Kompramat"
as the Russians call it is without a doubt how the government governs itself.. hence an
'outsider' is rarely ever seen and never allowed to govern
Regarding that mysterious New York Times op-ed: I don't claim to know the truth of the
matter, but I'm mildly surprised that so few people are thinking out of the box-- or should I
say "outside the frame"?-- in which this curious op-ed was presented.
These days, I shouldn't be surprised that any old sensational "bombshell" is taken at face
value, especially by extreme anti-Trumpers.
The largely unexamined assumption that the mysterious op-ed is legitimate has triggered a
rush of whodunit fantasising; it's reminiscent of a pack of racing dogs chasing after the
mechanical bunny used on the racetrack to give the critters a reason to run. (Or the endless,
churning amateur espionage screenplay-writers' discussions of the Skripal diversion.)
I don't want to get pulped in the stampede, so I've held off expressing the obvious
thought that this agitprop gem could've easily been fabricated right in the NYT newsroom.
Why not? Never mind the conventional pious blather asserting that the prestigious
Newspaper of Record would never stoop to such chicanery.
Actually, I realize that this is a little too cut-and-dried; it's probable that the
NYT poobahs would be more inclined to "let it happen" rather than "make it happen"-- they
need a measure of deniability.
OTOH, the NYT is a major Big Lie fulfillment center. It essentially demands that the
public trust its explanation of the circumstances under which the op-ed was published; once
the "bombshell" is detonated, and the whodunit controversy is off and running, only rigorous
skeptics (ahem) would even think to question whether the NYT itself launched this IED of
self-sealing infoganda.
This possibility is too mind-blowing for Normals, of course. But why assume that the NYT's
carefully-staged and veiled assertions about the op-ed's origins are credible? It certainly
pushes all of the right "Resistance" buttons; whether it's perceived as a righteous
"whistleblower" attempting to Save Us from the ongoing horror of a Trump presidency, or a
treacherous stab in the back from some insider, it doesn't reflect well on Trump.
If one accepts these sources as credible and reliable, one must perforce conclude that
Trump is either seriously deranged, or is so hamstrung by his own megalomania and narcissism
that he's intolerably incompetent and out of control. He is simply too mad, or bad, or both,
to be allowed to remain on the Oval Office Throne.
I just saw a column by a progressive-liberal columnist, Will Bunch, at philly.com with the
headline " President Trump is not well. Congress must curb his power to start a nuclear
war. ". It almost sounds sympathetic, but the message is that both the mysterious op-ed
and Woodward's book conclusively "prove" that Trump is either ethically or mentally unfit to
hold office, or both.
Hmmm... these days, no matter where one looks, it's all about the "bombshells"!
Pepe Escobar has a wonderful new article today in which he discusses the Resistance
warrior in the NYT op-ed, as well as the Resistance hit piece from Bob Woodward, and reprises
Nixon and Kissinger from the old days of the "golden age of journalism", as Seymour Hersch
calls it in his latest memoir, Reporter , and as Escobar details.
The spookiness of the age we live in today couldn't be more resonant with the spookiness
exposed back in the golden age. It's all one piece. The only questions are, which is the side
to be on? And how are we supposed to leak these secrets anyhow? It's a gripping thriller of
an article from Pepe:
I said something similar to your quote from the link a couple of days ago. Its part of the
show
Frankly the whole Trump show is psyops theater. While the show is going on in public, in
the the wrecking crew in the shadows is working to dismantle every aspect of government that
works for the benefit of the population, whats left of it anyways.
I remember the Watergate hearings. They dared to interrupt soap operas which allowed me to
grab the TV from my mother some summer afternoons and I found it more entertaining than the
50's shows in UHF stations. Pure entertainment. Maybe we see something similar soon to liven
up the show
Of course this time they might give us a civil war to have an excuse to declare martial
law.
Cant really predict these things though . Stay tuned.
Pft @57: Frankly the whole Trump show is psyops theater.
Yup.
Pepe reinforces the narrative that Trump is a nationalist who peace initiatives are
thwarted by the nasty deep state. But Trump proved his love for the establishment in the
years before he ran for President and no real populist can be elected in USA.
It should be noted that the NYT oped cruise missile happened to be exactly timed with the
big splash of the Bob Woodward 'book' that trumpets the same meme ie the Trump administration
is dysfunctional and in a state of mutiny
'There is credible evidence that the American Deep State of the military-intelligence
apparatus used the Watergate scandal as a way to get rid of Nixon whose febrile mental
state was becoming a concern to them. Woodward, who had a background in Navy intelligence
was suspiciously a prodigy journalist who rapidly rose to cover what became the scandal
that ended Nixon's presidency.'
I would disagree only about Nixon's 'febrile mental state' as the reason for the deep
state wanting him gone the real reason was in fact that Nixon moved against neoliberalism and
expelled Milton Friedman and the 'Chicago School' from the white house he in fact turned
toward socialism on the economy
'Nixon's purge of Friedman from his administration was not merely symbolic. Facing a
serious economic downturn, Nixon utilized huge amounts of government spending, spending
$25.2 billion to stimulate the economy in 1972.
Nixon went as far to openly propose a plan to provide a universal basic income of $1,600
(the equivalent of $10,000 present day) to every American family of four.'
This was a step too far for the Rockefellers and the plutocracy that runs the United
States
as Caleb Maupin explained presciently back in May in his superb historical parallel
between the war on Trump and the Nixon offing
Now we see that the deep state 'journalist' Woodward is here attempting to reprise his
Watergate role in bringing down a sitting POTUS the claims in the Woodward book about an
'administrative coup' in the Trump white house, and this 'oped' are so obviously part of the
same ploy that it is way beyond coincidence
Now it is interesting to note that we have on record THREE very astute commentators saying
the same thing about the provenance of the 'anonymous' hit piece that it is a creation of the
NYT itself PCR was first out of the blocks, yesterday Mr Cunningham, one of the few honest
and capable writers on the REAL left and now Ms Johnstone
And here's where things get curioser yet even the neoliberal standard bearer, the New
Yorker magazine ran a scathing piece by none other than Putin [and Trump] hater Masha Gessen
condemning the 'media corruption' embodied in the NYT oped
'But having this state of affairs described in print further establishes that an
unelected body, or bodies, are overruling and actively undermining the elected leader
An anonymous person or persons cannot govern for the people, because the people do not
know who is governing.'
Clearly there is a civil war going on behind the scenes inside the executive branch of the
United States government what the results will be nobody can know but we must realize that
when even one link in the chain of command is broken, the whole thing falls apart
I predicted right after the Singapore Trump-Kim summit and the fierce media backlash that
resulted that the media and their deep state partners in crime would overplay their hand and
shoot themselves in the foot
They have now done exactly that we will see how the people react, but I suspect that even
those who might not otherwise support Trump will in fact rally round the embattled president
by firing this cannonade now the treasonous media have nailed their on coffin tightly
shut
For the "Full Spectrum Dominance " crows even neutered and bitten down Trump is unacceptable. They want him out.
Notable quotes:
"... I have no idea how deep this amorality charge goes, but coming from people who actually support killing children in the womb, that men and women are the same and marriage is the same dynamic between two people of the same sex as it is for the traditional dynamic, that relations out of wedlock are the same, that illegal immigrants are in fact entitled, that criticizing a foreign state is a crime, that have cheerlead for no less than the four military interventions or destabilizing state actions of the same . . . ..."
"... They don't need him gone, they just need him weak enough to destroy his ability to govern, his agenda and or him personally -- I think they prefer all four. ..."
"... This NYT op ed is a classic forgery, from the scammer NYT posing as a "conservative" (another common scam) to attacking Trump. ..."
This comes as no news. The NYT has been after part of the "get the president" for anything
and everything camp since the nomination.
I have no idea how deep this amorality charge goes, but coming from people who actually
support killing children in the womb, that men and women are the same and marriage is the
same dynamic between two people of the same sex as it is for the traditional dynamic, that
relations out of wedlock are the same, that illegal immigrants are in fact entitled, that
criticizing a foreign state is a crime, that have cheerlead for no less than the four
military interventions or destabilizing state actions of the same . . .
just does not have the weight to make much headway with me. It's like the supposedly
wonderful kobe beef from Japan I had today -- spoiled and sour.
The NYT reputation was tainted long before the current president took office. I think that
the compromise made by the president to adopt in full the intel report has serious
repercussions. The issue here is not whether the Russians engage in espionage or influence, i
take it for granted that they do. But thus far the evidence has been mighty thin that they
actually have done so and did so to any effect.
Something rather nasty has been seeping out of US polity and if Trump is anything he
represents that polity with all its veneer of integrity swept aside.
Not all of the members he chose for his staff are self seeking aggrandizers, making the US
safe for democracy is but a disguise. Some are honorable men and women who simply should not
have been selected because they openly rejected the current executive for political, policy
and personal reasons. I think that was a managerial mistake.
They don't need him gone, they just need him weak enough to destroy his ability to govern,
his agenda and or him personally -- I think they prefer all four.
This article about who, wrote or said what is just a side show.
@Rational DEAR
JUDAISTS -- PLEASE STOP LYING AND SCAMMING, PLEASE. BECOME CIVILIZED PLEASE.
Thanks for the excellent article, Sir. Great points!
This NYT op ed is a classic forgery, from the scammer NYT posing as a "conservative"
(another common scam) to attacking Trump.
Anonymous sources -- fabricated conversations that cannot be verified, because the source
is non-existent. It is all fabricated.
... ... ... You're being Rational again: "please stop these childish scams. This is
juvenile." You're appealing to hardened criminals.
I commend you for moderation and compassion, but if these people were to be redeemed it
would have happened before the FED, the Great Depression (read Wayne Jett), the assassination
of JFK and RFK, Tonkin, 911, 2008 and God know what more.
The neocon crowd wants a revenge. Badly. "Full Spectrum Dominance" is a a religion for them. And they uses all dirty tricks
intelligence agencies are know for.
In a speech Friday at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, former President Barack Obama publicly joined the escalating
offensive against President Trump being mounted by sections of the ruling class and the state. The speech, directed at channeling
both popular and ruling class opposition to the Trump administration behind the Democrats in the fall midterm elections, marked Obama's
first direct attack on his successor.
Obama's speech came as the culmination of a series of extraordinary events over the past two weeks that have brought the acute
political crisis in the US to a new and explosive level of intensity.
First came the week-long spectacle of bipartisan hypocrisy and political reaction occasioned by the death of Republican Senator
John McCain, one of the most ferocious war-mongers in the US political establishment. Democrats sought to outdo the Republicans in
eulogizing McCain as an "American hero" and model statesman. Within two days of McCain's burial, the media was ablaze with revelations
from the forthcoming book on the Trump White House by Washington Post editor Bob Woodward. Woodward, citing anonymous interviews
with high-ranking Trump officials, paints a picture of turmoil and dysfunction in which figures such as Defense Secretary James Mattis
and White House Chief of Staff John Kelly call Trump an idiot. Woodward recounts incidents of Trump administration officials countermanding
orders from the president, a situation Woodward characterizes as an "administrative coup d'état."
This was followed by the New York Times ' publication of an op-ed piece by an anonymous "senior official" in the Trump
administration describing the activities of an internal "resistance" to Trump within the White House. The piece cited discussions
among Trump aides about seeking his removal on the grounds of mental incompetence, as stipulated in the 25th Amendment to the US
Constitution. It made clear that the "resistance," promoted by the Times and the Democrats, supports Trump's tax cuts for
the rich, removal of corporate regulations and increase in military spending. It attacks Trump for his "softness" toward Russia and
North Korea and his overall impulsiveness, unpredictability and recklessness.
Obama's speech was along similar lines. He presented an absurdly potted history of American progress on the basis of the "free
market," with, he acknowledged, some imperfections -- such as the wars in Vietnam and Iraq (which killed millions of people). His
administration was supposedly part of this march of progress.
... ... ...
The reality, of course, is that Obama presided over the funneling of trillions of dollars to Wall Street to rescue the financial
oligarchy, carrying out the greatest redistribution of wealth from the bottom to the top in history. This was paid for by wage cuts
and the destruction of decent-paying jobs, replaced by poverty-wage, part-time and temporary employment, the gutting of health benefits
for millions of workers under "Obamacare," pension cuts, the closure of thousands of public schools and layoff of tens of thousands
of teachers, and a general lowering of the living standards of the working class.
Trump's attacks on democratic rights were prepared by Obama's brutal policy of deportations, his continuation of indefinite detention
and the Guantanamo torture camp, his support for mass domestic spying and his program of drone assassinations, including of US citizens.
The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were continued and new wars were launched in Libya and Syria.
"... The methodology is familiar. After a years-long assault on the White House and president by a special prosecutor's office, the House takes up impeachment, while a collaborationist press plays its traditional supporting role. ..."
The campaign to overturn the 2016 election and bring down President Trump shifted into high
gear this week.
Inspiration came Saturday morning from the altar of the National Cathedral where our
establishment came to pay homage to John McCain.
Gathered there were all the presidents from 1993 to 2017, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and
Barack Obama, Vice Presidents Al Gore and Dick Cheney, Secretaries of State Hillary Clinton,
John Kerry and Henry Kissinger, the leaders of both houses of Congress, and too many generals
and admirals to list.
Striding into the pulpit, Obama delivered a searing indictment of the man undoing his
legacy:
"So much of our politics, our public life, our public discourse can seem small and mean and
petty, trafficking in bombast and insult and phony controversies and manufactured outrage. It's
a politics that pretends to be brave and tough but in fact is born of fear."
Speakers praised McCain's willingness to cross party lines, but Democrats took away a new
determination: From here on out, confrontation!
Tuesday morning, as Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on Judge Brett Kavanaugh's
nomination to the Supreme Court began, Democrats disrupted the proceedings and demanded
immediate adjournment, as scores of protesters shouted and screamed to halt the hearings.
Taking credit for orchestrating the disruption, Sen. Dick Durbin boasted, "What we've heard
is the noise of democracy."
But if mob action to shut down a Senate hearing is the noise of democracy, this may explain
why many countries are taking a new look at the authoritarian rulers who can at least deliver a
semblance of order.
Wednesday came leaks in The Washington Post from Bob Woodward's new book, attributing to
Chief of Staff John Kelly and Gen. James Mattis crude remarks on the president's intelligence,
character and maturity, and describing the Trump White House as a "crazytown" led by a fifth-
or sixth-grader.
Kelly and Mattis both denied making the comments.
Thursday came an op-ed in The New York Times by an anonymous "senior official" claiming to
be a member of the "resistance working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his
(Trump's) agenda."
A pedestrian piece of prose containing nothing about Trump one cannot read or hear daily in
the media, the op-ed caused a sensation, but only because Times editors decided to give the
disloyal and seditious Trump aide who wrote it immunity and cover to betray his or her
president.
The transaction served the political objectives of both parties.
While the Woodward book may debut at the top of The New York Times best-seller list, and
"Anonymous," once ferreted out and fired, will have his or her 15 minutes of fame, what this
portends is not good.
For what is afoot here is something America specializes in -- regime change. Only the regime
our establishment and media mean to change is the government of the United States. What is
afoot is the overthrow of America's democratically elected head of state.
The methodology is familiar. After a years-long assault on the White House and president
by a special prosecutor's office, the House takes up impeachment, while a collaborationist
press plays its traditional supporting role.
Presidents are wounded, disabled or overthrown, and Pulitzers all around.
ORDER IT NOW
No one suggests Richard Nixon was without sin in trying to cover up the Watergate break-in.
But no one should delude himself into believing that the overthrow of that president, not two
years after he won the greatest landslide in U.S. history, was not an act of vengeance by a
hate-filled city that ran a sword through Nixon for offenses it had covered up or brushed under
the rug in the Roosevelt, Kennedy and Johnson years.
So, where are we headed?
If November's elections produce, as many predict, a Democratic House, there will be more
investigations of President Trump than any man charged with running the U.S. government may be
able to manage.
There is the Mueller investigation into "Russiagate" that began before Trump was
inaugurated. There is the investigation of his business and private life before he became
president in the Southern District of New York. There is the investigation into the Trump
Foundation by New York State.
There will be investigations by House committees into alleged violations of the Emoluments
Clause. And ever present will be platoons of journalists ready to report the leaks from all of
these investigations.
Then, if media coverage can drive Trump's polls low enough, will come the impeachment
investigation and the regurgitation of all that went before.
If Trump has the stamina to hold on, and the Senate remains Republican, he may survive, even
as Democrats divide between a rising militant socialist left and the Democrats' septuagenarian
caucus led by Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, John Kerry, Bernie Sanders and Nancy Pelosi.
2019 looks to be the year of bellum omnium contra omnes, the war of all against all.
Entertaining, for sure, but how many more of these coups d'etat can the Republic sustain before
a new generation says enough of all this?
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of "Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made and
Broke a President and Divided America Forever."
Just for the record -- not that we're keeping one -- I strongly suspect that that NYT Op Ed
by an "insider" is almost entirely fraudulent. OK, there might be an assistant to the
assistant undersecretary in charge of cutting the grass at the White House who will be
willing to put her name at the bottom of this thing, thereby giving the Times an "out" in
terms of committing outright journalistic perjury.
But who's going to call these people on it? The Times themselves? CNN? The Washington
Post? The Huffington Post?
What consequences will they suffer? Will the rabid dog leftists who read the
aforementioned periodicals suddenly do an about-face and abandon their leftist religion
because of journalistic fraud?
Of course not.
They'll just move on to the next "scandal" (almost certainly based on anonymous sources or
triple hearsay).
I think Trump is his own worst enemy. It is his incompetence that is fueling all these calls
for impeachment. He should have fired Mueller long time ago. The screaming could not have
been any worse. I don't think he comprehends the seriousness of the current situation. He
doesn't realize that he is the president. He has fallen into the trap of anti-Russian
rhetoric while I know he does not believe any of it.
He should never have hired John Bolton or Pompeo. For God's sakes; he appointed all these
heads of Departments, CIA, FBI, DNI, etc. and none of them can control his own department. He
is letting others control his agenda and his foreign policy. If it weren't for Pence, I would
prefer impeachment at this time because he is making the US a laughing stalk of the world.
But Pence scares me even more.
Acts 3:25 "He said to Abraham, 'Through your offspring all peoples on earth will be
blessed.'"
By the way, God's covenant with Abraham included Ishmael, who was also his offspring. The
Jews have altered the bible to make the covenant with Isaac only, as they have done with the
sacrifice of the "only son."
So far the only 2 senior officials who have not come out to deny writing the op-ed are John
Kelly and Nikki Haley, both are highly suspect at this point. John Kelly gave all those
disparaging accounts of the president to Bob Woodward then tried to deny it. Nikki Haley's
been running her own dog and pony show at the UN for two years, clashing with Trump more than
once for wanting to take out Assad. She takes her orders directly from the Prime Minister of
Israel, Trump who?
This NYTimes hit piece shows clearly the existence of a Deep State that is actively
working to subvert and overthrow a democratically elected POTUS. The Deep State must be
defeated for America to survive, but the only way to defeat the Deep State is through a
functioning DOJ. Jeff Sessions must now be considered part of the Deep State, along with
Pence and all the people Pence brought into Trump's cabinet when he was in charged of setting
up the interim government, from John Kelly to Mattis, Haley, Bolton, Kirstjen Nielsen,
Christopher Wray, Mike Pompeo, and above all Rod Rosenstein -- all are neocon Deep State
stooges and big time swamp creatures.
"... he has brought North Korea away from the edge of nuclear war and established at least tentative diplomatic relations with that nation, something no president has done before him. Against frenzied opposition from the American Establishment, he has somewhat softened U.S. relations with Russia. ..."
"... On domestic and environmental matters, Trump is pro-plutocrat, a climate change denier, and the installer of arch-reactionary Supreme Court justices. But this is more a function of the current national Republican party than of Trump himself. Any of Trump's opponents in the 2016 primaries would have followed the same policies. ..."
Trump is not crazy at all. He is the proponent of a particular philosophy, Trumpism, which
he follows very clearly and consistently.
As president, he has had significant successes. Notably, he has brought North Korea away
from the edge of nuclear war and established at least tentative diplomatic relations with
that nation, something no president has done before him. Against frenzied opposition from the
American Establishment, he has somewhat softened U.S. relations with Russia.
On domestic and environmental matters, Trump is pro-plutocrat, a climate change denier,
and the installer of arch-reactionary Supreme Court justices. But this is more a function of
the current national Republican party than of Trump himself. Any of Trump's opponents in the
2016 primaries would have followed the same policies.
Trumpism is undeniably a form of near-fascism. Trump has followed viciously anti-immigrant
tendencies, and this, along with his ties to out-and-out racists, is the worst part of his
presidency. But these horrible aspects do not at all show that he is crazy. He has used them
coldly and calculatedly to gain power.
And while his schtick and bluster are indeed bizarre, he has used them very consistently
to keep a 40%-plus approval rating in the face of an Establishment opposition the like of
which has used against a president at least in our lifetimes.
As I have commented here before, except for Trump's disgusting anti-immigration policies,
George W. Bush was on balance a far worse president.
U.S. President Donald Trump continued his
attacks Wednesday on an explosive book about his administration.
Trump said the book, written by U.S. veteran investigative journalist Bob
Woodward, "means nothing" and called it "a work of fiction" during a photo op with
visiting Kuwaiti Emir Sheikh Sabah Al-Ahmad Al-Jaber Al-Sabah at the White
House.
Woodward's book -- "Fear: Trump in the White House" -- is to be released next
week.
According to excerpts obtained by media outlets, Trump's aides describe him as a
"liar" and an "idiot" who is running a "crazytown."
"Isn't it a shame that someone can write an article or book, totally make up
stories and form a picture of a person that is literally the exact opposite of the
fact, and get away with it without retribution or cost," Trump tweeted earlier in
the day.
He also tweeted out written statements of White House Chief of Staff John Kelly
and Secretary of Defense James Mattis, both of whom denied uttering quoted
criticisms of the president in the book.
In a statement to The Washington Post, Woodward said, "I stand by my
reporting."
The book was based on hundreds of hours of conversations with direct players,
according to the author.
Woodward has been a reporter at the The Washington Post since 1971 and remains
an associate editor there.
He is most famous for breaking the story of the Watergate scandal, which
promoted the resignation of Richard Nixon from the presidency in 1974.
"... two more people tied to me would be dragged before the Grand Jury. ..."
"... Mueller and his smug band of thugs seek to browbeat before the Grand Jury is conservative author Dr. Corsi. ..."
"... It was Dr. Corsi who first alerted me to the lucrative business deals and Russian collusion of John and Tony Podesta but Corsi, a brilliant researcher, got this information from already published public sources! ..."
"... The other longtime contact Mueller seeks to interrogate this week is Trump hating left-wing radio host and deranged but job Randy Credico who merely confirmed for me that Wikileaks had, as it's publisher Julian Assange told CNN in June if 2016 a trove of devastating material on Hillary and would publish the material in October before the election. ..."
Robert Mueller the biased and partisan " Special Counsel "who has no interest whatsoever in
the multiple crimes of Bill and Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama and his deeply corrupted FBI
and Justice Department but is on a relentless drive to remove President Donald Trump has done
it again!
This time Mueller and the partisan band of left-wing hitmen on the "Get Trump squad" leaked
to the media that two more people tied to me would be dragged before the Grand
Jury.
If you believe the fake news media Mueller seeks to prove that I had advance knowledge of an
alleged hacking of the Democratic National Committee by "the Russians" and that this alleged
hack email material was then sent to Julian Assange of WikiLeaks who then passed it on to me to
pass in to my friend and client if 40 years Donald Trump. This is a damnable provable lie!
The other fairy tale Mueller is pushing is the false claim that I knew that Wikileaks had
obtained and would [publish] Clinton campaign chief John Podesta's incredibly incriminating
emails. This also categorically false!
One of my friends Mueller and his smug band of thugs seek to browbeat before the Grand
Jury is conservative author Dr. Corsi.
It was Dr. Corsi who first alerted me to the lucrative business deals and Russian
collusion of John and Tony Podesta but Corsi, a brilliant researcher, got this information from
already published public sources! Corsi also made me aware of an August 14, 2016 article
in Breitbart News by Peter Schweizer who reported that John Podesta's brother Tony had lobbied
for the same Ukrainian political party as Paul.
While Corsi did not memorialize his findings until Aug 31 I had heard enough to post my now
Iconic tweet predicting " the Podesta's time in the barrel (time under the same public scrutiny
as Paul Manafort) would come "on August 21. Remember the context- Manafort was taking a beating
in the press but I knew the Podesta's Russian ties were more extensive and that Tony was in the
same boat as Manafort.
Note in the original Tweet I said THE Podesta's time in the barrel while THE (which is
omitted in virtually every news report including ironically the final House Intelligence
Committee Report) clearly refers to TWO Podestas. There is much debate about the apostrophe s
in Podesta's- I say it is correct as it is a plural possessive (referring to BOTH their time in
the barrel) while others argue it should be "Podestas" if I was speaking of two people.
The other longtime contact Mueller seeks to interrogate this week is Trump hating
left-wing radio host and deranged but job Randy Credico who merely confirmed for me that
Wikileaks had, as it's publisher Julian Assange told CNN in June if 2016 a trove of devastating
material on Hillary and would publish the material in October before the election.
This I know- there is no evidence in my emails or texts or anywhere else or from any other
party that would demonstrate that I knew about the publication or content of John Podesta's
extraordinarily embarrassing and incriminating emails in advance or that I knew about the
source or content of the DNC material Wikileaks did publish .Mr. Mueller will find nothing of
the sort and any claim to the contrary by anyone would be composed perjury.
If Corsi and Credico testify truthfully their testimony would be exculpatory for me but
Mueller has a lifelong record of squeezing witnesses to get them to lie.
Some people should be very careful what they wish for.
UPDATE- the testimony of Dr. Jerome Corsi before the Grand Jury today was canceled.
"... Mueller's problem is that his entire investigation has been revealed to be permeated with illegality and dubious Constitutional premises. As the result of investigations by Congress, we know that as of December, 2015 British intelligence agencies were frantically signaling their fears about Donald Trump to Obama Administration intelligence officials, primarily the CIA of John Brennan. ..."
"... The British were demanding that Trump be taken out by whatever means because he was "soft on Russia." They were demanding that Trump be taken out by criminalizing the idea for which the American people ultimately voted, a rational relationship, rather than war, between the U.S. and Russia. ..."
"... By the early Spring, we now know Brennan was operating out of the CIA with a taskforce investigating Trump based on British "leads," despite multiple legal prohibitions against just such domestic activity by the CIA. ..."
"... That task force included Peter Strzok, the fired FBI agent who said he would do anything to prevent Trump's election. This operation included sending informants to plant fabricated evidence on peripheral figures in the Trump campaign, including George Papadopoulos and Carter Page. ..."
The media posited that these two events, one by trial, one by plea, gave Robert Mueller new
found credibility and "momentum' at a point where both were dissipating extremely rapidly. This
claim, like the others we have examined here, has no relation to reality.
Mueller's problem is that his entire investigation has been revealed to be permeated with
illegality and dubious Constitutional premises. As the result of investigations by Congress, we
know that as of December, 2015 British intelligence agencies were frantically signaling their
fears about Donald Trump to Obama Administration intelligence officials, primarily the CIA of
John Brennan.
The British were demanding that Trump be taken out by whatever means because he
was "soft on Russia." They were demanding that Trump be taken out by criminalizing the idea for
which the American people ultimately voted, a rational relationship, rather than war, between
the U.S. and Russia.
By the early Spring, we now know Brennan was operating out of the CIA with a taskforce
investigating Trump based on British "leads," despite multiple legal prohibitions against just
such domestic activity by the CIA.
That task force included Peter Strzok, the fired FBI agent
who said he would do anything to prevent Trump's election. This operation included sending
informants to plant fabricated evidence on peripheral figures in the Trump campaign, including
George Papadopoulos and Carter Page. The fake evidence suggested that Trump was using Russian
obtained "dirt" against Hillary Clinton. The evidence planting operations, mostly conducted on
British soil, were designed to back up the bogus and otherwise evidence free and indefensible
dossier authored by MI-6's Christopher Steele, paid for by the Clinton campaign, and promoted
by the Department of State, Department of Justice, the FBI, and select reporters. The dirty
British Steele dossier claimed that Trump had been compromised by Putin. Based on this, Trump
was targeted in a full-set counterintelligence investigation by the FBI including surveillance
of his campaign and anyone associated with it. The goal of this surveillance was to put those
who were around Trump under an investigative microscope stretching back years to find any crime
or misdeed for which they could be prosecuted. That is the illegal and unconstitutional
backdrop to everything Robert Mueller has produced thus far. Nothing produced by Mueller has
shown Trump to be a puppet of Putin as claimed by the British, the Clinton campaign, and the
national news media. Nonetheless, the entire episode has damaged relations between the U.S. and
Russia and between the U.S. and China, which was the British strategic goal in the first
instance, continuing the dive into a new and dangerous Cold War. Trump has fought this at every
step.
Paul Manafort was hired to handle delegate selection at the Republican National Convention
and then as campaign manager. He worked for Trump for six months total until his legal problems
became known and he resigned. He was charged by Mueller with tax, foreign agent registration
act, and bank fraud offenses for his lobbying activities on behalf of the deposed government of
Ukraine. That government was overthrown in coup in which John McCain played a critical role, a
coup which empowered outright neo-Nazis. Christopher Steele, British intelligence, and the U.S.
State Department also played major roles in the Ukraine regime change operation. Manafort was
targeted by both Ukrainian and British intelligence because he, in effect, backed the perceived
Russian side in the coup. For this, he was being investigated by the Obama Justice Department
well prior to any campaign association with Donald Trump. Mueller simply adjusted the focus of
this already political investigation, a focus aimed at turning Manafort into an asset against
Trump by means of the terror of potential prison sentences numbering in the hundreds of years
as the result of overcharged and duplicative indictments.
Michael Cohen, who worked with Trump as a lawyer, also had his share of prior legal
problems, primarily related to taxes concerning his taxi medallion business in New York City.
For months, the mainstream media has featured the claims of porn star Stormy Daniels claiming a
one night stand with the future President, ten years ago, as if the nation could draw some
lesson from Daniels about public virtue. Cohen apparently arranged to pay off Daniels and
another woman concerning their allegations about sex with the President. Among other suspicious
dealings, Cohen tape recorded conversations with his client, Donald Trump, during the campaign,
a complete and total violation of legal ethics which would independently cost him his law
license. For many months prior to his plea deal, Cohen has been a target of intense
investigative interest based on his tax problems. In recent months, Cohen has repeatedly
signaled that he was willing to betray the President and say whatever prosecutors in the
Southern District of New York wanted him to say about Donald Trump in order to avoid jail. The
problem is that prosecutors thought Cohen an obvious desperate liar and were not buying.
Ultimately, the deal which Cohen struck has him claiming that candidate Trump asked him to pay
hush money to the women, resulting in Federal Election Campaign Act violations. This is what
the Justice Department claimed against John Edwards in a widely ridiculed and failed
prosecution. It is exactly the type of claim by which the British and our Establishment
impeached Bill Clinton.
Cohen hired long-time Clinton operative Lanny Davis to represent him in recent months and to
make a deal. Following his plea, Davis claimed that Cohen had two made-up morsels to offer
Mueller, in return for a reduced sentence, a claim that Trump knew about the June 2016 Trump
Tower meeting with a Russian lawyer, and a claim that Cohen knew about Russian hacking of
Hillary Clinton's emails. Davis has since admitted that both these claims were totally false
and has had to walk them back publicly.
So, if you are tempted by the media t think that either of these "convictions" are germane
to the President's fitness for office, or Robert Mueller's credibility, please, seek medical
attention. The madness which now infects much of official Washington may have claimed you.
First of all as Diana
Johnstone noted this can be attempt to saw discord in Trump administration and anonymous
author iether does not exist or is a former official fired by Trump. See The New York Times as Iago, by Diana
Johnstone . She suggested that it was written by NYT staff " The letter by Mister or Ms
Anonymous is very well written. By someone like, say, Thomas Friedman. That is, someone on the
NYT staff. It is very cleverly composed to achieve quite obvious calculated aims. It is a
masterpiece of treacherous deception." ... "The "resistance" proclaimed is solely against the
facets of Trump's foreign policy which White House insiders are said to be working diligently to
undermine: peaceful relations with Russian and North Korea." The letter amounts to an endorsement
of future President Pence. Just get rid of Trump and you'll have a nice, neat, ultra-right-wing
Republican as President.
She continues: " Isn't it obvious that all this is designed to make Trump distrust everyone
around him? Isn't that a way to drive him toward that "crazy" where they say he already is, and
which is fallback grounds for impeachment when the Mueller investigation fails to come up with
anything more serious than the fact that Russian intelligent agents are intelligent agents?"
AS Daniel Larrison points out the dishonesty of anonymous author is evident: " They want
credit for "resisting" Trump when their "resistance" amounts to manipulating the policies of the
government to their own liking. ". And they so far succeeded in manipulating Trump foreign
policy to the extent that he does not differ from Bush II.
Notable quotes:
"... The New York Times ..."
"... They want credit for "resisting" Trump when their "resistance" amounts to manipulating the policies of the government to their own liking. ..."
"... There are legitimate political and constitutional remedies for an unfit president, but the anonymous "resistance" official isn't interested in any of that. He prefers to keep the administration from completely imploding because it also happens to be advancing a mostly conventional Republican agenda that he likes. There is nothing particularly admirable about that, and he should not have been granted anonymity to write his self-congratulatory article. ..."
The
New York Timespublished
a strange op-ed purportedly written by a "senior official" in the Trump administration:
The dilemma -- which he does not fully grasp -- is that many of the senior officials in
his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda
and his worst inclinations.
I would know. I am one of them.
To be clear, ours is not the popular "resistance" of the left. We want the administration
to succeed and think that many of its policies have already made America safer and more
prosperous.
But we believe our first duty is to this country, and the president continues to act in a
manner that is detrimental to the health of our republic.
The author of the op-ed flatters himself by claiming to be acting in the best interests of
the country, but there is something very wrong with having self-appointed guardians assuming
that they have the right to sabotage certain policies of the elected president. For one, they
have no authority to do what they're doing, and no one voted for them. It is one thing to argue
that professionals should be willing to serve a bad president in the interests of public
service, and it is quite another to argue that the officials working for the president are
entitled to disregard and override the president's decisions because the president happens to
be an ignorant buffoon. The "two-track presidency" that the official boasts about is an affront
to our system of government. It is not reassuring that U.S. foreign policy continues as if on
autopilot no matter what the electorate votes for.
Perversely, the more that Trump administration officials "frustrate parts of his agenda,"
the more likely it is that Trump remains in power longer than he otherwise would. The official
says that the core of the problem is the president's "amorality." That raises the obvious
question: how can someone acknowledge that the president has no principles or scruples of any
kind and still in good conscience try to help him succeed? These officials are not only
enabling a president whose behavior they consider to be "detrimental to the health of our
republic," but they are helping to make sure that he stays in office instead of hastening his
defeat. They want credit for "resisting" Trump when their "resistance" amounts to
manipulating the policies of the government to their own liking.
There are legitimate political and constitutional remedies for an unfit president, but
the anonymous "resistance" official isn't interested in any of that. He prefers to keep the
administration from completely imploding because it also happens to be advancing a mostly
conventional Republican agenda that he likes. There is nothing particularly admirable about
that, and he should not have been granted anonymity to write his self-congratulatory
article.
If this official feels so strongly that the president endangers the health and well-being of
the country, he should put his name on a statement to that effect when he announces his
resignation.
"... I am interested in another, a very simple question: why? Why would Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea interfere in the US midterm elections? What they want to achieve. All right, let's drop all the others, let's just talk about us, Russians. ..."
"... The same hackers who broke into the DNC and stole Hillary Clinton emails now will steal midterm elections. But from whom? Do you understand anything? Personally, I don't understand anymore. Which Party we support? Who is the target of our effort to interfere in the USA elections. Are we promoting Repubs or DemoRats ? ..."
"... Perhaps the head of the US national intelligence Daniel Coates is right when he declared that "their goal is to divide and undermine our democratic values." Well, let's suppose that we really are against those sacred values. ..."
"... But the midterm elections will still be held, despite any interference. And one of candidates will win, while the other will lose. If we see no difference in candidates why we should interfere? ..."
"... Looks like Daniel Coats think that the world government is us. No, I'd certainly like the idea, even if this requires smoking something really strong (let's use Musk as a lodestar ;-). But I'm afraid we're not capable to serve in this role. After economic rape of 1991 we are too poor. And to serve the role of world government you better be rich. ..."
"... why we Russians should interfere in already completely messed up US elections, which typically equal to a force choice between two equally unacceptable candidates, already chosen and vetted by neoliberal elite. Like Trump vs. Hillary. why we should play this game of "the lesser evil." It's plain vanilla stupidity. ..."
According to popular belief, the cold war ended with the victory of the United States of America. And, accordingly, the demice
of the Soviet Union. However, what exactly represent such a victory is not that easy to understand. Instead of one conservative,
and therefore predictable player, the United States received a half dozen countries, of which only three or four are loyal, with
other living by "the laws of jungles" (sorry free market). The number of aimed at American cities Intercontinental ballistic missiles
with nuclear warheads remained approximately the same as before the infamous "victory." And strategic atomic submarines remained,
and strategic bombers. There are less of them, for sure, but they are more modern and more dngerous with more sophisticated weaponry.
In any ccase remaining are still enough to make the winner to feel like a loser after b=neclear apolaipsys. And the idfea of victory
is that the victor is the master (in this case the master of the plant). Am I missing something ?
Of course, another inquisitive observer will tell us about the controlled chaos, about the growing influence and plans for the
establishing of the world neoliberal government. I was impressed by the recent revelation of Senator John Tester, who said that Putin
is promoting communism in America. As the idea that this senator is a complete idiot who does not understand the Russia rejected
communism as a dead-born system is pretty absurd. I would venture to assume that it might be that Russia did something that can with
some stretch be qualifies as an attempt to influence the USA election, but, alas, Putin has no strategic plan, not the intention.
First of all this would be pretty idiotic idea as two candidates were equally bad for Russia and it was completely unclear who is
worse.
But all those crazy US neocons still managed to imposed on Russia sanctions because of its "interference in the elections." That
tells us something about the US congress. I do not want to write about the lack of evidence and absurdity of the arguments again.
I've already written a lot about it. No, let's stop talking about the past and try to look into the future.
The US President's national security adviser John Bolton (who theoretically should be a sanest person in the administration) recently
said that the US is concerned about the potential for interference in the midterm elections to the Congress of four countries. Russia,
China, Iran and North Korea. "I will not go into details of what I saw or didn't see, but I tell you that in the 2018 elections,
these four countries raise the greatest fears," proclaim this highly placed Presidential adviser.
Theoretically it make some sense. Any man with a knife has a potential to kill. Any country with nuclear weapons has the potential
to strike at the US. Any country with developed IT has a potential opportunity to interfere in elections with the help of cyber attacks.
For example, Israel. But it is not a good idea to scare the American voter with Israel. No, he/she should be confused, and he/she
should be afraid of potential menace. And this external enemy should unite fragmented by neoliberal excesses country (for this purpose
those good-for nothing people grazing in State Department and Spaso House (The US embassy in Moscow) should constantly accuse the
Russian authorities of all sorts nefarious activities. So there is nothing new here: Great Britain uses similar dirty tricks against
Russia for centuries. I am interested in another, a very simple question: why? Why would Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea
interfere in the US midterm elections? What they want to achieve. All right, let's drop all the others, let's just talk about us,
Russians.
What do we want? Let's say we want the midterms to be won by the Republicans. Then explain to me why Republican John Bolton fears
this. If there's anything John Bolton should be afraid of, it's that Russia will intervene in the midterms in order to win the Democrats.
But The Washington Post writes that "the leaders of the Democratic party of the United States fear the potential interference of
Russia and start to increase its presence in anticipation of the interim election cycle on such platforms as Facebook and Twitter."
President Trump writes on Twitter that Russia will" make a lot of effort " to intervene in the midterm elections on the side of the
Democrats. Microsoft claims that Russian hackers created fake websites of Republican organizations in order to collect information
about Republicans. The same hackers who broke into the DNC and stole Hillary Clinton emails now will steal midterm elections.
But from whom? Do you understand anything? Personally, I don't understand anymore. Which Party we support? Who is the target of our
effort to interfere in the USA elections. Are we promoting Repubs or DemoRats ?
Perhaps the head of the US national intelligence Daniel Coates is right when he declared that "their goal is to divide and
undermine our democratic values." Well, let's suppose that we really are against those sacred values.
But the midterm elections will still be held, despite any interference. And one of candidates will win, while the other will
lose. If we see no difference in candidates why we should interfere? If the net result for us anyway will be the same: more
sanctions? Here we should go back to the idea of "controlled chaos" and world government. Looks like Daniel Coats think that
the world government is us. No, I'd certainly like the idea, even if this requires smoking something really strong (let's use Musk
as a lodestar ;-). But I'm afraid we're not capable to serve in this role. After economic rape of 1991 we are too poor. And to serve
the role of world government you better be rich.
Again the question arise, why we should interfere in he USA elections. Only if we are out for revenge, "eye for eye" principle
as they interfered in ours. There's no other reasonable answer. But even in this case, why we Russians should interfere in already
completely messed up US elections, which typically equal to a force choice between two equally unacceptable candidates, already chosen
and vetted by neoliberal elite. Like Trump vs. Hillary. why we should play this game of "the lesser evil." It's plain vanilla stupidity.
And before we get the answer to this fundamental question "Why?" there can be no further questions. None. Moreover, no other questions
are needed. So let them just explain to us why we should interfere and how we can benefit from such an interference, and we will
try our best. Before that, let's just watch.
And when they explain this to us, we can communicate the answer to China, Iran and North Korea free of charge.
President Trump and those close to him have challenged the narrative of Bob
Woodward's new book, which portrays him as "a 5th-grader" ready to make rash decisions, such as
ordering the assassination of Assad.
"The Woodward book has already been refuted and
discredited by General (Secretary of Defense) James Mattis and General (Chief of Staff) John
Kelly," Trump tweeted on Tuesday afternoon, after excerpts from the book were published by
the Washington Post and other publications. The manuscript, which is scheduled for release next
week, contains many quotes that were "made up frauds," Trump said, calling the book's
narrative "a con on the public."
The Woodward book has already been refuted and discredited by General (Secretary of
Defense) James Mattis and General (Chief of Staff) John Kelly. Their quotes were made up
frauds, a con on the public. Likewise other stories and quotes. Woodward is a Dem operative?
Notice timing?
Rejecting the claims that senior aides have been plucking sensitive documents off his desk
to prevent him from making rash decisions, Trump noted in an exclusive interview with
the Daily Caller that the bulk of the stories in the book were just a compilation of "nasty
stuff" totally "made up" by the famed Watergate Washington Post reporter.
Trump was not the only one to slam Woodward's claims, which present the US leader as an
impulsive decision-maker, who is sometimes called an "idiot" and a "liar"
even by those closest to him:
Trump ordered Mattis to 'f**king kill' Assad
One of the excerpts from the book claims the president ordered Secretary of Defense Jim
Mattis to assassinate the Syrian leader following the 2017 Idlib chemical incident. "Let's
f**king kill him! Let's go in. Let's kill the f**king lot of them," Trump allegedly told
Mattis. "We're not going to do any of that. We're going to be much more measured," the
defense secretary allegedly told one of his senior staffers after that.
Following the controversial claim, US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley denied that Trump
ever planned to assassinate Assad. "I have not once ever heard the president talk about
assassinating Assad,"
she told reporters at UN headquarters.
"Mr. Woodward never discussed or verified the alleged quotes included in his book with
Secretary Mattis or anyone within the DOD," a Pentagon spokesman, Col. Rob Manning,
added.
Mattis compared Trump to '5th or 6th grader'
Woodward claims that Trump once asked Mattis why the US backs South Korea militarily and
financially, prompting the defense secretary to tell close associates afterward that Trump had
the understanding of a fifth or sixth grader. "Secretaries of defense don't always get to
choose the president they work for," Mattis allegedly said in another instance.
Mattis personally rejected the claim made in the book. "In serving in this
administration, the idea that I would show contempt for the elected Commander-in-Chief,
President Trump, or tolerate disrespect to the office of the President from within our
Department of Defense, is a product of someone's rich imagination," he said.
Chief
of Staff described Trump as an 'unhinged idiot'
"He's an idiot. It's pointless to try to convince him of anything. He's gone off the
rails. We're in crazytown," Woodward quotes White House Chief of Staff John Kelly as
saying at a staff meeting in his office. "I don't even know why any of us are here. This is
the worst job I've ever had."
Kelly, however, has firmly
denied the allegations, dismissing the chapter about him as "total
BS."
Staff snatched documents from Trump's desk fearing he might sign them
Former Chief Economic Adviser Gary Cohn, according to Woodward, once saw a draft letter on
the Oval Office desk that would have withdrawn the US from a trade agreement with South Korea.
"I stole it off his desk," Cohn told an associate, allegedly terrified Trump might
sign it. "I wouldn't let him see it. He's never going to see that document. Got to protect
the country." Former staff secretary Rob Porter, who handled the flow of presidential
papers, allegedly used similar tactics on several occasions.
However, according to White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders, the entire book is nothing
more than a bunch of "fabricated stories" told by "disgruntled" former
employees to make the president "look bad."
Egypt's president wondered if Trump
was 'going to be around' for long
According to Woodward, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi is one of the world leaders
who was worried the infamous Mueller probe might eventually result in impeachment. "Donald,
I'm worried about this investigation. Are you going to be around?" al-Sisi allegedly said.
Trump supposedly later told his lawyer that the question was "like a kick in the
nuts."
Amid the barrage of firm denials by Trump and his team, Woodward
reiterated that he "stands by" his reporting and the book's contents.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
"... "This is very different from Watergate. This is gossip. Much of it is anonymous gossip, so it feeds this neverending reality television show political drama that cable news channels like CNN are making quite a bit of money off of," ..."
"... "It's always something, it's endless burlesque, and this feeds into this kind of narrative." ..."
"... "a little more likely to side with Woodward on this one," ..."
"... "At the same time, 70 percent of the people in this country are in pretty severe economic distress, and their voices are not being heard at all, and I think that that's why Trump's base remains firm, because these people have been rendered invisible by the press... that has just become a giant carnival act," ..."
"... "shady world of anonymous sources" ..."
"... "Institutions like the New York Times... use language about the president that would've been wholly unacceptable when I was there. Calling him a liar day in and day out – that doesn't mean he didn't lie, but presidents lie all the time, and every administration I covered lied, starting with the Reagan administration. This is really a war on the part of the establishment press, the Washington establishment, to take down Trump." ..."
The paradoxical era of anonymous anti-Trump reporting has turned once-solid journalism into
a carnival of unverifiable accusations. True or not, they distract from real issues, says
Pulitzer prize winning journalist Chris Hedges. A new bombshell book about the horrors of
Trump's White House is about to hit the shelves. This time it's not penned by a disgruntled
former official, but the world-famous Bob Woodward – the investigative journalist who
uncovered the 1970s Watergate scandal that brought down President Richard Nixon. Only this
time, instead of doing solid, verifiable journalism, he is peddling damning claims by anonymous
sources, says Chris Hedges, a Pulitzer prize winning journalist and author.
"This is very different from Watergate. This is gossip. Much of it is anonymous gossip,
so it feeds this neverending reality television show political drama that cable news channels
like CNN are making quite a bit of money off of," – Mr. Hedges told RT. "It's
always something, it's endless burlesque, and this feeds into this kind of narrative."
This doesn't mean accusations against Trump are necessarily false – in fact, Mr.
Hedges says he's "a little more likely to side with Woodward on this one," – but
it does draw attention from America's real issues, and thus further entrenches Trump's voter
base.
"At the same time, 70 percent of the people in this country are in pretty severe
economic distress, and their voices are not being heard at all, and I think that that's why
Trump's base remains firm, because these people have been rendered invisible by the press...
that has just become a giant carnival act," Mr. Hedges says.
The "shady world of anonymous sources" has enabled phenomena like the recent New
York Times op-ed by a supposed anonymous White House insider, claiming there's a 'Resistance'
hotbed within the heart of the presidency. Chris Hedges, who has worked at the NYT for 15 years
himself, says the media's war on the president is like nothing he has seen before.
"Institutions like the New York Times... use language about the president that would've
been wholly unacceptable when I was there. Calling him a liar day in and day out – that
doesn't mean he didn't lie, but presidents lie all the time, and every administration I covered
lied, starting with the Reagan administration. This is really a war on the part of the
establishment press, the Washington establishment, to take down Trump."
More plausible theory is that it was written by NYT staff in Iago-style operation to saw discord in Trump administration
and promote Woodward's book
Notable quotes:
"... might be just what the NYT wants the Trump Whitehouse to waste time on. ..."
"... It could very well be a trap. In fact, the timing almost guarantees it. The other alternative is that the NYT is very desperate and the Deep State in dire straights. ..."
"... I don't think the op-ed piece came from anyone in the WH. It's fake but rest assured Trump can still use it to his advantage. ..."
"... The "op-ed" was likely either a set-up fabrication / amalgam from the CIA Toilet Paper of Record or some deluded over ambitious piece of shit like Nikki Haley. ..."
1) The NYT OpEd was actually written by one of the people who were fired during the very
EARLY days of the Trump administration because they turned out to not be so good (like
Bannon, Preibus, Walsh, Yates, Comey, Spicer, Gorka, Tillerson, McMaster, etc). This also
makes sense because they are describing (very exaggerated) the early days of the Trump admin
which were known to be somewhat chaotic before Trump got a good chief of staff (because
Preibus was useless)
2) The NYT has been holding onto the letter for almost two years as a weapon to use during
the mid-term elections
3) Looking for them inside the current administration is useless, because they are already
long gone
4) The NYT is probably stretching the truth about them being "senior" official which they
have a history of stretching the truth on for sources
5) It is also the exact same person as the (primary/only) source for all the accusations
in Woodward's book
Assuming this was written recently is a HUGE tactical oversight and might be just what the NYT wants the Trump
Whitehouse to waste time on.
Brazen Heist II ,
It could very well be a trap. In fact, the timing almost guarantees it. The other alternative is that the NYT is very desperate and the Deep State in dire
straights.
FreeEarCandy ,
"Issue Of National Security" and "looking into legal action".
If its a "REAL" issue of national security looking into legal action is non sequitur. You
raid the NYT and send all the usual suspects to Guantanamo Bay for a little water
boarding.
This whole stunt is pure political mind fuckery. Since when does the justice department
determine if we can legally defend our national security?
Kreditanstalt ,
Trump, like the rest of the Deep State elite, detests and is enraged more by "disloyalty"
among fellow elitists than by the opposition!
Dangerclose ,
I don't think the op-ed piece came from anyone in the WH. It's fake but rest assured Trump
can still use it to his advantage. I'll bet he gets EVERYONE to show a little more support
and less resistance. Hmmmmmm?
benb ,
The "op-ed" was likely either a set-up fabrication / amalgam from the CIA Toilet Paper of
Record or some deluded over ambitious piece of shit like Nikki Haley.
In any event it doesn't
matter. It's all about subversion. The Communist Party USA (Democrats) and Deep State know
they are about to get their asses handed to them in November.
They're are a bunch of desperate assholes at this point. Heads up. Be ready for anything
from here on out.
"... The letter by Mister or Ms Anonymous is very well written. By someone like, say, Thomas Friedman. That is, someone on the NYT staff. It is very cleverly composed to achieve quite obvious calculated aims. It is a masterpiece of treacherous deception. ..."
"... This anonymous enemy of amorality claims to approve of all the most extreme right-wing measures of the Trump administration as "bright spots": deregulation, tax reform, a more robust military, "and more" – cleverly omitting mention of Trump's immigration policy which could unduly shock the New York Times' liberal readers. The late Senator John McCain, the model of bipartisan bellicosity, is cited as the example to follow. ..."
"... The "resistance" proclaimed is solely against the facets of Trump's foreign policy which White House insiders are said to be working diligently to undermine: peaceful relations with Russian and North Korea. ..."
"... Trump's desire to avoid war is transformed into "a preference for autocrats and dictators". (Trump gets no credit for his warlike rhetoric against Iran and close relations with Netanyahu, even though they must please Anonymous.) ..."
"... The purpose of this is stunningly obvious. The New York Times has already done yeoman service in rounding up liberal Democrats and left-leaning independents in the anti-Trump lynch mob. But now the ploy is to rally conservative Republicans to the same cause of overthrowing the elected President. The letter amounts to an endorsement of future President Pence. ..."
"... This is the Iago ploy. Shakespeare's villain destroyed Othello by causing him to distrust those closest to him, his wife and closest associates. Like Trump in Washington, Othello, the "Moor" of Venice, was an outsider, that much easier to deceive and betray. ..."
"... The New York Times is playing Iago, whispering that Putin in the Kremlin is surrounded by secret "informants", and that Trump in the White House is surrounded by people systematically undermining his presidency. Putin is not likely to be impressed, but the trick might work with Trump, who is truly the target of open and covert enemies and whose position is much more insecure. There is certainly some undermining going on. ..."
"... Was the New York Times oped written by the paper's own writers or by the CIA? It hardly matters since they are so closely entwined. ..."
"... The military-industrial-congressional-deep state-media complex is holding its breath to breathe that great sigh of relief. The intruder is gone. Hurrah! Now we can go right on teaching the public to hate and fear the Russian enemy, so that arms contracts continue to blossom and NATO builds up its aggressive forces around Russia in hopes that this may frighten the Russians into dumping Putin in favor of a new Boris Yeltsin, ready to let the United States pursue the Clintonian plan of breaking up the Russian Federation into pieces, like the former Yugoslavia, in order to take them over one by one, with all their great natural resources. ..."
"... When dialogue is impossible, all that is left is force and violence. That is what is being promoted by the most influential media in the United States. ..."
The New York Times continues to outdo itself in the production of fake news. There is no
more reliable source of fake news than the intelligence services, which regularly provide their
pet outlets (NYT and WaPo) with sensational stories that are as unverifiable as their sources
are anonymous. A prize example was the August 24 report that US intelligence agencies don't
know anything about Russia's plans to mess up our November elections because "informants close
to Putin and in the Kremlin" aren't saying anything. Not knowing anything about something for
which there is no evidence is a rare scoop.
A story like that is not designed to "inform the public" since there is no information in
it. It has other purposes: to keep the "Russia is undermining our democracy" story on front
pages, with the extra twist in this case of trying to make Putin distrustful of his entourage.
The Russian president is supposed to wonder, who are those informants in my entourage?
But that was nothing compared to the whopper produced by the "newpaper of record" on
September 5. (By the way, the "record" is stuck in the same groove: Trump bad, Putin bad
– bad bad bad.) This was the sensational oped headlined "I am Part of the Resistance
Inside the Trump Administration", signed by nobody.
The letter by Mister or Ms Anonymous is very well written. By someone like, say, Thomas
Friedman. That is, someone on the NYT staff. It is very cleverly composed to achieve quite
obvious calculated aims. It is a masterpiece of treacherous deception.
The fictional author presents itself as a right-wing conservative shocked by Trump's
"amorality" – a category that outside the Washington swamp might include betraying the
trust of one's superior.
This anonymous enemy of amorality claims to approve of all the most extreme right-wing
measures of the Trump administration as "bright spots": deregulation, tax reform, a more robust
military, "and more" – cleverly omitting mention of Trump's immigration policy which
could unduly shock the New York Times' liberal readers. The late Senator John McCain, the model
of bipartisan bellicosity, is cited as the example to follow.
The "resistance" proclaimed is solely against the facets of Trump's foreign policy which
White House insiders are said to be working diligently to undermine: peaceful relations with
Russian and North Korea.
Trump's desire to avoid war is transformed into "a preference for autocrats and
dictators". (Trump gets no credit for his warlike rhetoric against Iran and close relations
with Netanyahu, even though they must please Anonymous.)
The purpose of this is stunningly obvious. The New York Times has already done yeoman
service in rounding up liberal Democrats and left-leaning independents in the anti-Trump lynch
mob. But now the ploy is to rally conservative Republicans to the same cause of overthrowing
the elected President. The letter amounts to an endorsement of future President Pence.
Just get rid of Trump and you'll have a nice, neat, ultra-right-wing Republican as
President.
The Democrats may not like Pence, but they are so demented by hatred of Trump that they are
visibly ready to accept the Devil himself to get rid of the sinister clown who dared defeat
Hillary Clinton. Down with democracy; the votes of deplorables shouldn't count.
That is treacherous enough, but even more despicable is the insidious design to destabilize
the presidency by sowing distrust. Speaking of Trump, Mr and/or Ms Anonymous declare: "The
dilemma – which he does not fully grasp – is that many of the senior officials in
his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and
his worst inclinations" (meaning peace with Russia).
This is the Iago ploy. Shakespeare's villain destroyed Othello by causing him to
distrust those closest to him, his wife and closest associates. Like Trump in Washington,
Othello, the "Moor" of Venice, was an outsider, that much easier to deceive and
betray.
The New York Times is playing Iago, whispering that Putin in the Kremlin is surrounded
by secret "informants", and that Trump in the White House is surrounded by people
systematically undermining his presidency. Putin is not likely to be impressed, but the trick
might work with Trump, who is truly the target of open and covert enemies and whose position is
much more insecure. There is certainly some undermining going on.
Was the New York Times oped written by the paper's own writers or by the CIA? It hardly
matters since they are so closely entwined.
No trick is too low for those who consider Trump an intolerable intruder on THEIR power
territory. The New York Times "news" that Trump is surrounded by traitors is taken up by other
media who indirectly confirm the story by speculating on "who is it?" The Boston Globe (among
others) eagerly rushed in, asking:
"So who's the author of the op-ed? It's a question that has many people poking through the
text, looking for clues. Meanwhile, the denials have come thick and fast. Here's a brief look
at some of the highest-level officials in the administration who might have a motive to write
the letter."
Isn't it obvious that all this is designed to make Trump distrust everyone around him? Isn't
that a way to drive him toward that "crazy" where they say he already is, and which is fallback
grounds for impeachment when the Mueller investigation fails to come up with nothing more
serious than the fact that Russian intelligent agents are intelligent agents?
The White House insider (or insiders, or whatever) use terms like "erratic behavior" and
"instability" to contribute to the "Trump is insane" narrative. Insanity is the alternative
pretext to the Mueller wild goose chase for divesting Trump of the powers of the presidency. If
Trump responds by accusing the traitors of being traitors, that will be final proof of his
mental instability. The oped claims to provide evidence that Trump is being betrayed, but if he
says so, that will be taken as a sign of mental derangement. To save our exemplary democracy
from itself, the elected president must be thrown out.
The military-industrial-congressional-deep state-media complex is holding its breath to
breathe that great sigh of relief. The intruder is gone. Hurrah! Now we can go right on
teaching the public to hate and fear the Russian enemy, so that arms contracts continue to
blossom and NATO builds up its aggressive forces around Russia in hopes that this may frighten
the Russians into dumping Putin in favor of a new Boris Yeltsin, ready to let the United States
pursue the Clintonian plan of breaking up the Russian Federation into pieces, like the former
Yugoslavia, in order to take them over one by one, with all their great natural
resources.
And when this fails, as it has been failing, and will continue to fail, the United States
has all those brand new first strike nuclear weapons being stationed in European NATO
countries, aimed at the Kremlin. And the Russian military are not just sitting there with their
own nuclear weapons, waiting to be wiped out. When nobody, not even the President of the United
States, has the right to meet and talk with Russian leaders, there is only one remaining form
of exchange. When dialogue is impossible, all that is left is force and violence. That is
what is being promoted by the most influential media in the United States.
"... Taken together, the two are the equivalent of a stiff left jab followed by a roundhouse right. The president has been left reeling, staring into the political abyss. ..."
"... The president is betrayed, openly, in the pages of America's paper of record and, according to the activist, "the senior people in the [administration] do nothing about it." ..."
"... A report of mine in the National Interest last year relayed the hiring procedures, or lack thereof, of Trump appointees on the campaign and in the administration; prospective employees were rarely asked about their policy preferences. Said Scott McConnell , founding editor of TAC , on Wednesday: "Trump's biggest weakness is lacking knowledge of the policy people who might have helped him with a realist/populist agenda. But he never evinced any interest in finding smart realists to staff his administration." ..."
"... "We're Watching an Antidemocratic Coup Unfold," says David Graham in The Atlantic . "How the 'resistance' in the White House threatens American democracy . ..."
"... There's more than one path to authoritarianism," posits Damon Linker in The Week. ..."
"... But it's also true that Trump openly ran on detente . Should actual voters' preferences just be tossed aside in the name of, as the author suggests, the preservation of democracy? "So let's see: Trump ran on closer relations with Russia," Fox News host Tucker Carlson opined on Wednesday night. "Voters agreed with that. And so they elected him president of the United States. And yet, the tiny and incompetent Washington foreign policy establishment -- the very same people who brought you Iraq and Libya -- do not agree with that. So they subvert his views, which are also the views of voters." ..."
The Coup Against TrumpOne of his advisors tells TAC a plot is afoot. How far will
the president go to ensure his political survival?
... ... ...
Donald Trump rose from pariah to president through politics, and now may be on the brink of
being returned by the same means, the result of Bob Woodward's searing testimonial in
Fear and a scathing New York Times op-ed from someone in his own ranks.
Taken together, the two are the equivalent of a stiff left jab followed by a roundhouse
right. The president has been left reeling, staring into the political abyss.
A former senior administration official tells me that Wednesday's
op-ed in the New York Times , by an anonymous senior administration official, is
nothing short of an attempt at a "coup" against Trump himself. A veteran conservative activist
who is close to the White House says the story here is one insiders have been identifying since
the early days of the Trump administration (and that I've reported on
ad nauseum ): personnel.
The president is betrayed, openly, in the pages of America's paper
of record and, according to the activist, "the senior people in the [administration] do nothing
about it."
Something tantamount to a national game of "Clue" is underway. It was Mike Pence, with an
email to the Times , in the Naval Observatory. It was Ambassador Jon Huntsman, Jr.,
with the phone, in the bathroom of his Moscow apartment. This reporter is loathe to delve into
conjecture, but the author of the op-ed seems clearly to be, first, interested in national
security, and second, a traditional conservative. A preponderance of my sources argue that the
simplest explanation is usually the correct one. "[National Security Advisor John] Bolton would
shock me," a State Department veteran says.
The op-ed author writes: "This isn't the work of the so-called deep state. It's the work of
the steady state." He (or she) maligns the president as "amoral" and devoid of "first
principles." A veteran watcher of Secretary of Defense James Mattis tells me that "'steady' is
a favorite Mattis word. I think the McCain funeral hit Mattis hard." Yet even if the president
suspected his defense chief, he would be loathe to quickly dispatch him -- and anyway Mattis
may leave on his own after the midterms.
♦♦♦
A case of seismic duplicity -- or needed patriotism, depending on who you talk to -- is, of
course, only half the story.
The other half is one that has been recurrent throughout this administration: the president
and his apparatchiks expended little initial capital on staffing the White House with genuine
loyalists, or true believers. They appointed neither longtime personal friends of the president
nor policy hands faithful to anything resembling a populist-nationalist agenda. News reports
abound of the president's surprising and depressing paucity of genuine friends.
As I relayed last week
in TAC : "A former senior Department of Defense official [being considered] for top
administration positions recalls meeting Jeff Sessions after the election. After hitting it
off, the future AG asked the candidate: ' Where have you been? '"
A report of mine in
the National Interest last year relayed the hiring procedures, or lack thereof, of
Trump appointees on the campaign and in the administration; prospective employees were rarely
asked about their policy preferences. Said Scott McConnell ,
founding editor of TAC , on Wednesday: "Trump's biggest weakness is lacking knowledge of
the policy people who might have helped him with a realist/populist agenda. But he never
evinced any interest in finding smart realists to staff his administration."
The president suggested that the op-ed was perhaps "TREASON?" He routinely conflates
national interest and personal interest, and thus now demands that the Times betray its
source. In doing so, he denigrates a founding ideal of the republic, prepared to erode civic
support for the First Amendment to dull the pain of an atrocious but largely self-inflicted
news cycle.
The personal nature of the president's complaint convulses the persuasive authority of the
arguments against his opposition. Since the publishing of the op-ed, there has been a steady
trickle of concern, particularly among left-liberal writers, about the precedent being set.
"We're Watching an Antidemocratic Coup Unfold," says David Graham in The Atlantic .
"How the 'resistance' in the White House threatens American democracy .There's more
than one path to authoritarianism," posits Damon Linker in The Week.
And indeed there are parts of the op-ed that are cause for genuine concern:
On Russia, for instance, the president was reluctant to expel so many of Mr. Putin's spies
as punishment for the poisoning of a former Russian spy in Britain. He complained for weeks
about senior staff members letting him get boxed into further confrontation with Russia, and
he expressed frustration that the United States continued to impose sanctions on the country
for its malign behavior.
Treating Russia as the adversarial power that it is and proportionately punishing its malign
behavior smacks of sound policy. But it's also true that Trump openly ran on detente
. Should actual voters' preferences just be tossed aside in the name of, as the author
suggests, the preservation of democracy? "So let's see: Trump ran on closer relations with
Russia," Fox News host Tucker Carlson opined on Wednesday night. "Voters agreed with that. And
so they elected him president of the United States. And yet, the tiny and incompetent
Washington foreign policy establishment -- the very same people who brought you Iraq and Libya
-- do not agree with that. So they subvert his views, which are also the views of
voters."
Beyond the substantive criticisms from both sides, of Trump and of his critics, is the
diagnostic nature of the conspiracy -- and it is a conspiracy -- against the president. First
and foremost, Trump, they say, is unwell or unfit. The case for invocation of the 25th
Amendment is being made plainly in the pages of the United States' most-read newspapers.
What's truly remarkable is that, to a certain extent, the U.S. is already functioning as
though the 25th Amendment has been invoked -- at least if the reporting of Bob Woodward, the
premier journalist of his generation, is to be believed. In spring of 2017, after Syrian despot
Bashar al-Assad reportedly murdered citizens in rebel-held territory with chemical weapons,
Trump, according to Woodward, told Defense Secretary Mattis: "Let's f**ing kill him! Let's go
in. Let's kill the f**king lot of them." Mattis replied, "We're not going to do any of that."
(Mattis denies Woodward's accounts.) As the author of the op-ed gloats, this is "is a two-track
presidency. Astute observers have noted, though, that the rest of the administration is
operating on another track, one where countries like Russia are called out for meddling and
punished accordingly."
The debate, then, isn't about policy. It isn't as though Trump is trying to decimate the
civil service, or staff the State Department with "realists" on Russia, or halve legal
immigration. If he leaves office, his legacy will be tax cuts and (likely) two conservative
Supreme Court justices; on policy, it's unlikely that a President Cruz or Rubio would have done
much differently. But the paranoid style that Trump has mainstreamed is, of course, a separate
matter and not a small one. Neither is the fealty, or at least feigned fidelity, to a
populist-nationalism that is now likely a prerequisite to becoming the Republican presidential
nominee for the foreseeable future. That's even though, at their core, the president's
protestations of "treason" and a "deep state" are about personal survival, not the
implementation of a nationalist revolution.
For his supporters, Trump's continued occupancy of the White House is more about cultural
grievance -- a middle finger to a failed establishment -- than about a knock-down, drag-out
fight over real political change.
As Steve Bannon told the Weekly Standard after his ouster last year: "The Trump
presidency that we fought for, and won, is over."
Curt Mills is the foreign affairs reporter at The National Interest, where he covers
the State Department, National Security Council, and the Trump presidency.
Striding to the pulpit, Obama delivered a searing indictment of the man undoing his legacy.
"So much of our politics, our public life, our public discourse can seem small and mean and
petty," he said, "trafficking in bombast and insult and phony controversies and manufactured
outrage. It's a politics that pretends to be brave and tough but in fact is born of fear."
Speakers praised McCain's willingness to cross party lines, but Democrats took away a new
determination: from here on out, confrontation!
Tuesday morning, as Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on Judge Brett Kavanaugh's
nomination to the Supreme Court began, Democrats disrupted the proceedings and demanded
immediate adjournment, as scores of protesters shouted and screamed.
Taking credit for orchestrating the disruption, Senator Dick Durbin boasted, "What we've
heard is the noise of democracy."
But if mob action to shut down a Senate hearing is the noise of democracy, this may explain
why many countries are taking a new look at the authoritarian rulers who can at least deliver a
semblance of order.
Wednesday came leaks in the Washington Post from Bob Woodward's new book,
attributing to Chief of Staff John Kelly and General James Mattis crude remarks on the
president's intelligence, character, and maturity, and describing the Trump White House as a
"crazytown" led by a fifth or sixth grader.
Kelly and Mattis both denied making the comments.
Thursday came an op-ed in the New York Times by an anonymous "senior official"
claiming to be a member of the "resistance working diligently from within to frustrate parts of
his [Trump's] agenda."
A pedestrian piece of prose that revealed nothing about Trump one cannot read or hear daily
in the media, the op-ed nonetheless caused a sensation, but only because Times editors
decided to give the disloyal and seditious Trump aide who wrote it immunity and cover to betray
his or her president.
The transaction served the political objectives of both parties.
While the Woodward book may debut at the top of the New York Times bestseller list,
and "Anonymous," once ferreted out and fired, will have his or her 15 minutes of fame, what
this portends is not good.
For what is afoot here is something America specializes in -- regime change. Only the regime
our establishment and media mean to change is the government of the United States. What is
afoot is the overthrow of America's democratically elected head of state.
The methodology is familiar. After a years-long assault on the White House and president by
a special prosecutor's office, the House takes up impeachment, while a collaborationist press
plays its traditional supporting role.
Presidents are wounded, disabled, or overthrown, and Pulitzers all around.
No one suggests Richard Nixon was without sin in trying to cover up the Watergate break-in.
But no one should delude himself into believing that the overthrow of that president, not two
years after he won the greatest landslide in U.S. history, was not an act of vengeance by a
hate-filled city for offenses it had covered up or brushed under the rug in the Roosevelt,
Kennedy, and Johnson years.
So where are we headed?
If November's elections produce, as many have predicted, a Democratic House, there will be
more investigations of President Trump than any man charged with running the U.S. government
may be able to manage.
There is the Mueller investigation into "Russiagate" that began before Trump was
inaugurated. There is the investigation into his business and private life before he became
president in the Southern District of New York. There is the investigation into the Trump
Foundation by New York State.
There will be investigations by House committees into alleged violations of the Emoluments
Clause. And ever present will be platoons of journalists ready to report on the leaks from all
of these investigations.
Then, if the media coverage can drive Trump's polls low enough, will come the impeachment
investigation and the regurgitation of all that went before.
If Trump has the stamina to hold on, and the Senate remains Republican, he may survive, even
as Democrats divide between a rising militant socialist left and a septuagenarian caucus led by
Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, John Kerry, and Nancy Pelosi.
2019 looks to be the year of bellum omnium contra omnes, the war of all against all.
Entertaining, for sure, but how many more of these coups d'etat can the Republic sustain before
a new generation says enough of all this?
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That
Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever . To find out more about Patrick
Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators
website at www.creators.com.
On NBC's Thursday morning broadcast of the "Today" show, former CIA director John Brennan
repeatedly praised the unknown author of the New York Times's recent anti-Trump op-ed as a
supreme example of "courageous" American patriotism. While admitting that the anonymous writer
was committing "active insubordination" with the piece, Brennan justified his or her actions by
claiming that because Trump is too "unfit" to be President, the writer is admirably trying to
"prevent disasters" in the future.
"I think there are two major takeaways," Brennan told "Today" co-host Savannah Guthrie in
relation to the op-ed. "One is, what the author wrote is wholly consistent with all the reports
that we have seen over the last year, the reports within Bob Woodward's book, and other things
about just how unfit, reckless, irresponsible Donald Trump is. But secondly, it shows the depth
of concern within the administration, within the senior ranks of the administration, about what
is happening and the extraordinary steps that individuals are willing to take, such as this
op-ed, to prevent disasters."
Sara h
Huckabee Sanders has a tiny request: Please stop asking her about that pesky little
New York Times op-ed written by an anonymous White House official.
... ... ...
On Thursday, Sanders tweeted a message addressed to all the people "asking for the identity
of the anonymous coward" (basically, everyone).
The media's wild obsession with the identity of the anonymous coward is recklessly
tarnishing the reputation of thousands of great Americans who
proudly serve our country and work for President Trump. Stop. If you want to know who this
gutless loser is, call the opinion desk of the failing NYT at 212-556-1234, and ask them.
They are the only ones complicit in this deceitful act.
We stand united together and fully support our President Donald J.Trump.
Whoever it was, this "gutless" person seems pretty craven, opportunistic neocon of McCain
flavor. Most neocons are chickenhawks. And there are plenty of neocons in Trump
administration.
It might well be that anonymous "resistance" op-ed in NYT is CIA operation to promote Woodward's book ( Woodward is definitely
connected to CIA from the time of Nixon impeachment)
Notable quotes:
"... You are not protecting this country, you are sabotaging it with your cowardly actions ..."
During an interview with Fox and Friends, conducted onstage prior to Trump's rally and set
to air on Friday, the president called the paper's decision to publish the column "very
unfair".
"When somebody writes and you can't discredit because you have no idea who they are,"
Trump said. "It may not be a Republican, it may not be a conservative, it may be a deep state
person that's been there a long time.
It's a very unfair thing, but it's very unfair to our country and to the millions of
people that voted really for us."
Since the editorial was published, the highest-ranking officials in Trump's administration
have come forth to
publicly deny any involvement. Those distancing themselves from the column have included
the vice-president, Mike Pence, and the secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, along with much of
Trump's cabinet. The first lady, Melania Trump, also condemned the author and called on the
individual to come forward.
"You are not protecting this country, you are sabotaging it with your cowardly actions," she
wrote.
The editorial was published as the White House was contending with yet another
firestorm.
A book authored by the famed journalist
Bob Woodward , poised for release next week, chronicles the chaos and dysfunction within
the Trump administration.
Excerpts released on Tuesday provided an unflattering portrait of the
president, who was described by aides in disparaging terms that included being likened to a
schoolchild.
Most probably this anonymous official does not exist and this is Iago style disinformation operation by the NYT to saw
discord in trump administration.
Notable quotes:
"... Does the so-called "Senior Administration Official" really exist, or is it just the Failing New York Times with another phony source? ..."
Meanwhile, First Lady Melania Trump said: "If a person is bold enough to accuse people of negative actions, they have a responsibility
to publicly stand by their words."
Why does it matter?
The White House is already on the defensive amid questions over Mr Trump's suitability for office raised in a book by revered
political journalist Bob Woodward.
Fear: Trump in the White House also describes staff deliberately undermining the president, with some hiding sensitive documents
from him to prevent him signing them, and other aides calling him an "idiot" and a "liar". Mr Trump has called the book a "con".
Image deleted (copyright REUTERS) Image caption Bob Woodward is one of the most respected journalists in the US
One of the most explosive passages in the New York Times article says there were "early whispers within the cabinet of invoking
the 25th Amendment", which would allow Mr Trump to be forced out of office.
"What the author has just done is throw the government of the United States into even more dangerous turmoil," he wrote. "He or
she has enflamed the paranoia of the president and empowered the president's willfulness."
So much puzzles me about Mr/Ms Anon in @ nytimes - if you really
think best interests of state are served working covertly inside to thwart president, why blurt out what you're doing? Aren't
you making @ realDonaldTrump case of a
# DeepState ? Surely resign or keep schtum?
Donald J. Trump✔ @realDonaldTrump
Does the so-called "Senior Administration Official" really exist, or is it just the Failing New York Times with another
phony source? If the GUTLESS anonymous person does indeed exist, the Times must, for National Security purposes, turn him/her
over to government at once! 2:54 AM
- Sep 6, 2018
End of Twitter post by @BBCJonSopel
A former CIA director, John Brennan, who has been strongly critical of Mr Trump, called the article "active insubordination" although
he said it was "born out of loyalty to the country".
"... When the center does fail to hold, it is usually in periods of political and perhaps also social upheaval. In those conditions, centrist parties, along with the constituencies they represent, often radicalize – generally merging into the side that wins the day. ..."
"... The jury is still out on how effective Trump's verbal assaults on the institutions that regulate global trade will be. No matter what Trump says, tweets, or thinks, those institutions were fashioned to work to America's advantage, and still generally do. Evidently, though, they do not conform well enough to his or his base's understanding of American "greatness"; thus they have become imperiled. ..."
"... It wasn't always so, but nowadays, almost without exception, Democrats occupy left or center positions on that spectrum; Republicans line up on its right. In a relational sense, the center is replete with Democrats; the left not so much. Centrist Republicans, long a vanishing breed, are, by now, as rare as snowstorms in July. ..."
"... In this respect, the United States is an exceptional case. There are few, if any, liberal democratic regimes in modern capitalist states in which notionally leftwing political forces have played such a negligible role. ..."
"... s was evident in the Clinton campaign's efforts to fight back the Sanders insurgency in 2016, it has forged robust political machines in the process. Their ability to mobilize voters on behalf of mainstream Democratic candidates has been disappointing however; what they have been mainly good at is tamping down radical dissent. ..."
"... Thus conditions are now in place for a revival of Left politics at the electoral level. This frightens the party's leaders. They and the pundits who serve them speak of unity. But is plain as can be that they are determined to quash whatever they cannot turn to their own advantage. Corporate media's role in this endeavor is crucial. They are already hard at work – pushing the all-too-familiar line that the way to win, especially in "red" states and districts, is to occupy the (relational) center. ..."
"... That center in today's Democratic Party is a dead center; it is where progressive impulses go to die. And, like a vampire on a mission, that dead center is gearing up for a fight – against those who would challenge the Democratic Party from the left. Witness the weeklong spectacle that accompanied the departure of John McCain from the land of the living. What a nauseating display of veneration for a man supremely unworthy, and of nostalgia for the good old (actually bad old) pre-Trump days! ..."
When the center does fail to hold, it is usually in periods of political and perhaps
also social upheaval. In those conditions, centrist parties, along with the constituencies they
represent, often radicalize – generally merging into the side that wins the day.
Thus it is mainly in situations in which the regime itself is undergoing fundamental
transformations that the center is depleted of its former occupants. In time, though, a new
mainstream is constituted, and its center again becomes the point on the left/right continuum
where the majority of positions and policies in play at the time cluster.
***
To everyone living through it, it feels as if the Trump presidency has turned the political
scene topsy-turvy. This is what happens when there is an imbecilic president whose governing
style is a low-grade imitation of a mob boss's.
The fact is, though, that the Trump presidency, destructive as it has been, has changed a
good deal less than meets the eye. The foundations of the regime remain the same as before;
fundamental neoliberal economic structures remain intact, and the perpetual war regime that
went into overdrive after 9/11 continues to flourish.
The jury is still out on how effective Trump's verbal assaults on the institutions that
regulate global trade will be. No matter what Trump says, tweets, or thinks, those institutions
were fashioned to work to America's advantage, and still generally do. Evidently, though, they
do not conform well enough to his or his base's understanding of American "greatness"; thus
they have become imperiled.
What is disturbingly clear is that for all but the filthy rich, and especially for anyone
not white as the driven snow, life in Trump's America has taken a turn for the worse.
Trump has been a godsend for "white nationalists," the current euphemism for nativists and
racists. He has legitimated them and their views to an extent that no one would have imagined
just a few years ago.
Also, to the detriment of the health and well being of the vast majority of Americans, Trump
and his minions have done serious harm to America's feeble welfare state institutions.
And even this is not the main reason why there will be hell to pay when the next economic
downturn happens, as it inevitably will, more likely sooner than later. By giving Wall Street
free rein again, and by cutting taxes for the rich, depleting the treasury of financial
resources that could be put to use in a crisis, Trump has all but guaranteed that most
Americans will soon find themselves in straits as bad or worse than ten years ago.
Worst of all, by watering down or setting aside the weak but nevertheless indispensible
environmental regulations in place before their arrival on the scene, Trump has hastened the
day when the world will be hit with, and perhaps be undone by, grave, possibly irreparable,
ecological catastrophes.
There are many other lesser harms for which, directly or indirectly, Trump is responsible.
This is all serious stuff, but while they make life worse for many people and shift the
political spectrum to the right, they do not shake the foundations of the regime in a way that
puts the center in jeopardy -- at least not yet.
In short, what we are living through is not a Trumpian "revolution," not even in the "Reagan
Revolution" sense, but a degeneration of much of what is worth preserving in the old regime.
Trump didn't start the process, but he has come to dominate it, and his mindless and mean
spirited antics accelerate it.
***
If "left," "right," and "center" are understood in relational terms, American politics
plainly does have a left, right, and center. These designations overlay the deeply entrenched,
semi-established duopoly party system that structures the American political scene.
It wasn't always so, but nowadays, almost without exception, Democrats occupy left or
center positions on that spectrum; Republicans line up on its right. In a relational sense, the
center is replete with Democrats; the left not so much. Centrist Republicans, long a vanishing
breed, are, by now, as rare as snowstorms in July.
Understood notionally, where "left," "right," and "center" designate positions on an
historically evolving, widely understood, ideal political spectrum, the situation is much the
same, but with a major difference: there is hardly any left at all.
There have always been plenty of (notional) leftists in the United States, but there has
never been much of an intersection between the left of the political spectrum, understood
relationally, and anything resembling a notional Left.
In this respect, the United States is an exceptional case. There are few, if any,
liberal democratic regimes in modern capitalist states in which notionally leftwing political
forces have played such a negligible role.
This unfortunate state of affairs has become worse in recent decades under the aegis of
(notionally) center-right Democrats like the Clintons and their co-thinkers. Thanks to them,
the Democratic Party today is a (notionally) centrist party through and through.
They succeeded as well as they did partly because our party system stifles progressive
politics more effectively than it is stifled in other ways in other liberal democracies.
The duopoly is still going strong, but, even so, times change. Largely thanks to Trump,
there are now inklings of a notional Left in formation that stands a chance of avoiding
marginalization.
Thus Democrats all along the (relational) spectrum now consider themselves embattled,
challenged from the Left by anti-Trump militants. Many of the challengers come from
under-represented, Democratic-leaning constituencies – the young, women, and "persons of
color" – with traditionally low levels of political participation. In view of the
abundant, well meaning but generally toothless "diversity" blather for which Democrats are
notorious, this is delightfully ironic.
The challengers include African Americans, of course, but also people drawn from sectors of
the population that Trump has targeted and demeaned with particular malice -- Hispanics and
Muslims especially.
The Democratic Party has been actively courting – and colonizing – African
American and other subaltern constituencies for a long time. A s was evident in the Clinton
campaign's efforts to fight back the Sanders insurgency in 2016, it has forged robust political
machines in the process. Their ability to mobilize voters on behalf of mainstream Democratic
candidates has been disappointing however; what they have been mainly good at is tamping down
radical dissent.
But because race and ethnicity intersect with age and gender – and because, in the
final analysis, "it's the politics, stupid" -- many of the African Americans, Hispanics,
Muslims and others now being drawn into the electoral fold will likely not be as amenable to
being coopted by Democratic Party grandees as persons who "look like them" have been in the
past. The danger of cooptation remains formidable, but it is almost certainly surmountable if
the will to resist the pressure is strong.
Thus conditions are now in place for a revival of Left politics at the electoral level.
This frightens the party's leaders. They and the pundits who serve them speak of unity. But is
plain as can be that they are determined to quash whatever they cannot turn to their own
advantage. Corporate media's role in this endeavor is crucial. They are already hard at work
– pushing the all-too-familiar line that the way to win, especially in "red" states and
districts, is to occupy the (relational) center.
In this context, "red," of course, doesn't mean red; it means almost the opposite,
Republican. Only in America!
... ... ...
What passes for a "resistance" in liberal or "democratic socialist" circles nowadays is a
pale approximation of the genuine article. This is not just because the spirit of rebellion has
been bred out of us or because of any failure of imagination; it is because in the
circumstances that currently obtain, resistance, like "revolution," even in the anodyne "Our
Revolution" sense, just isn't on the agenda.
But there is something now that can and should be resisted by any and all appropriate means
– the illusion that the way to defeat Trump and Trumpism and, more generally, to advance
progressive causes, is to tack to the relational center.
That center in today's Democratic Party is a dead center; it is where progressive
impulses go to die. And, like a vampire on a mission, that dead center is gearing up for a
fight – against those who would challenge the Democratic Party from the left. Witness the
weeklong spectacle that accompanied the departure of John McCain from the land of the living.
What a nauseating display of veneration for a man supremely unworthy, and of nostalgia for the
good old (actually bad old) pre-Trump days!
How pathetic! The whole country's, not just the Democratic Party's, left, right, and center
– minus Donald Trump, of course -- heaping praise on a Navy pilot who, heeding McCain
family traditions and the call of Lyndon Johnson, killed a lot of Vietnamese peasants for no
defensible reason, before becoming a "hero" after the Vietnamese shot his plane down, and who,
after repatriation, embarked on a legislative career in which, despite a few "maverick"
exceptions, he promoted every retrograde Republican cause that arose, war mongered vociferously
at every opportunity, and did all he could, even before Hillary Clinton took a notion, to get
the Cold War revved up again.
They were all there, every rotten one of them -- from Barack Obama and Joe Biden and, their
brother-in-arms, George W. Bush, the man who, but for Trump, could now boast of being the worst
president in modern times, all the way to the decrepit Henry Kissinger, the never to be
indicted war criminal whom liberals have learned to stop loathing and to call upon for advice
instead.
Even that malevolent airhead couple Jarvanka showed up, invited, it seems, by Senator
Lindsey Graham, McCain's hapless sidekick. This was no popular front. It was a festival of the
dead Center, a blight on the political landscape, and, with Trump sucking up all the air, a
harbinger of things to come.
(theverge.com)Sanders' Stop Bad Employers by Zeroing Out Subsidies Act
(abbreviated "Stop BEZOS") -- along with Khanna's House of Representatives counterpart, the
Corporate Responsibility and Taxpayer Protection Act --
would institute a 100 percent tax on government benefits that are granted to workers at large
companies . The bill's text characterizes this as a "corporate welfare tax," and it would
apply to corporations with 500 or more employees. If
workers are receiving government aid through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
(SNAP, formerly known as food stamps), national school lunch and breakfast programs, Section 8
housing subsidies, or Medicaid, employers will be taxed for the total cost of those benefits.
The bill applies to full-time and part-time employees, as well as independent contractors that
are de facto company employees.
"... No doctor that has examined him says he is insane. All that's presented are third-party anonymous accusations of incompetence shot through with gossip. A book written by a Hollywood trash reporter is otherwise held up as critical evidence of the inner workings of the president's mind. ..."
"... We might instead look at the actual decisions Trump has made, and those of his predecessors. One president used nuclear weapons to decimate two cities' worth of innocents , and a set of presidents squandered hundreds of thousands of American lives washing Vietnam with blood. Ronald Reagan was famously caught on an open mic saying he was going to start bombing the Soviet Union in the next few minutes. Another president spread false information about WMDs to launch an invasion of Iraq and mocked North Korea's leader as a pygmy. Obama said he "will not hesitate to use our military might" against the North, knowing that meant Armageddon. Historical psychiatrists say half of our past presidents may have suffered from some sort of mental illness. If Trump is dangerous as president, he would seem to have company. ..."
"... In the minds of the "Trump is Insane" crowd what matters most is that never-used fourth subsection, the incapacitation clause. People claim because Trump is insane he is unable to carry out his duties, and so Mike Pence, et al, must step in and transfer power away from him. Trump would legally exist in the same status as Grandpa Simpson in the nursing home, and Pence would take over. Among other problems, this imagines that the 25th Amendment's legally specific term "unable" means the same thing as "unfit." An unconscious man is unable to drive. A man who forgot his glasses is unfit, but still able, to drive. The 25th Amendment only refers to the first case. ..."
The media chatterati seems to be of one mind: Donald Trump is mentally incompetent and may
have to be removed from office before he blows us all to hell.
The solution, to their minds, lies in the 25th Amendment to the Constitution, which creates
a mechanism outside of impeachment to remove an "incapacitated" president. Trump's mental
state, some believe, qualifies him. Is there a case?
Dr. Bandy Lee , one of the
editors of The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump ,
says yes. Her evidence includes tweets that Trump sent threatening Kim Jong-un. She really
has no other ammunition: no doctor who says Trump is insane, including Lee, has examined him.
No doctor that has examined him says he is insane. All that's presented are third-party
anonymous
accusations of incompetence shot through with gossip. A book written by a Hollywood trash
reporter is otherwise held up as critical
evidence of the inner workings of the president's mind.
So is there a case without the tweets? Not really. Lee
adds that while Trump has not committed violent acts against himself or others, his "verbal
aggressiveness, history of boasting about sexual assault, history of inciting violence at his
rallies, and history of endorsing violence in his key public speeches are the best predictors
of future violence," and thus concludes he will destroy the world. Lee also weakly
points to Trump "being drawn to violent videos." Oh my.
We might instead look at the actual decisions Trump has made, and those of his predecessors.
One president used nuclear weapons to decimate two
cities' worth of innocents , and a set of presidents squandered hundreds of thousands of
American lives washing Vietnam with blood. Ronald Reagan was famously caught on an open mic
saying he was going to start bombing the Soviet Union in the next few minutes. Another
president spread false information about WMDs to launch an invasion of Iraq and mocked North
Korea's leader as a pygmy. Obama said he
"will not hesitate to use our military might" against the North, knowing that meant Armageddon.
Historical psychiatrists say
half of our past presidents may have suffered from some sort of mental illness. If Trump is
dangerous as president, he would seem to have company.
But how can we know? Trump will never voluntarily undergo a mental competency exam, though
courts can order people to submit. But even Lee, who met with congressional representatives to
press the case that Trump is insane, admits this is unlikely to happen. "Many lawyer groups
have actually volunteered to file for a court paper to ensure that the security staff will
cooperate with us," Lee
said . "But we have declined, since this will really look like a coup, and while we are
trying to prevent violence, we don't wish to incite it through, say, an insurrection."
Still, those arguing Trump is insane and must be removed from office will point to the 25th
Amendment as just what the doctor ordered.
The framers did not originally include rules for what happens if a president dies or becomes
incapacitated. It was just assumed the vice president would serve as "Acting President." The
25th Amendment, passed after the Kennedy
assassination , created the first set of protocols for this sort of situation.
The amendment has four short
subsections. If the presidency goes vacant (for example, after a fatal heart attack), the vice
president becomes president. If the vice presidency goes vacant, the president chooses a new
VP. If the president knows he'll be incapacitated (due to scheduled surgery, for example), he
can voluntarily and temporarily assign his duties to the vice president. If the president is
truly incapacitated (unconscious after an assassination attempt) and can't voluntarily assign
away his duties, the VP and cabinet can do it for him, with a two-thirds majority confirming
vote of the House and Senate.
In the minds of the "Trump is Insane" crowd what matters most is that never-used fourth
subsection, the incapacitation clause. People claim because Trump is insane he is unable to
carry out his duties, and so Mike Pence, et al, must step in and transfer power away from him.
Trump would legally exist in the same status as Grandpa Simpson in the nursing home,
and Pence would take over. Among other problems, this imagines that the 25th Amendment's
legally specific term "unable" means the same thing as "unfit." An unconscious man is unable to
drive. A man who forgot his glasses is unfit, but still able, to drive. The 25th Amendment only
refers to the first case.
The use of the 25th Amendment to dethrone Trump is the kind of thing non-experts with too
much Google time can convince themselves is true. But unlike much of the Constitution, where
understanding original intent requires the Supreme Court and a close reading of the Federalist
Papers, the 25th Amendment is modern legislation. We know the drafters' intent
was an administrative
procedure, not a political thunderbolt. The 25th Amendment premises that the president will
almost always invoke succession himself, either by dying in office or by anticipating that he
will be unable to discharge his duties, as in 2007 when George W. Bush went under anesthesia
for his annual colonoscopy and signed things over to his vice president for a few hours.
The reason the 25th Amendment is not intended to be used adversarially is the Constitution
already specifies impeachment as the way to force an unfit president out against his
will, his unfitness specifically a result of "high crimes and misdemeanors." The people who
wrote the 25th Amendment did not intend it to be an alternate method of impeachment or a
do-over for an election.
The Constitution at its core grants ultimate power to the people to decide, deliberately,
not in panic, every four years, who is president. Anything otherwise would mean the drafters of
the 25th Amendment wrote a backdoor into the Constitution that would allow a group of
government officials, many of whom in the Cabinet were elected by nobody, to overthrow an
elected president who they simply think has turned out to be bad at his job.
Accusations of mental illness are subjective, unprovable in this case, and alarmist --
perfect fodder to displace the grinding technicalities of Russiagate. Denouncing one's
political opponents as crazy was a tried-and-true Soviet and Maoist tactic, and a movie trope
where the youngsters try to get the patriarch shut away to grab his fortune. We fear the
mentally ill, and psychiatric name calling against Trump invokes that fear
. "The 25th Amendment would require, for mental incapacity, a major psychotic break,"
said one former Harvard Law School professor. "This is hope over reality. If we don't like
someone's politics we rail against him, we campaign against him, we don't use the psychiatric
system against him. That's just dangerous."
Trump's time in office is finite, but what happens around him will outlast his tenure. It is
dangerous to mess with the very fundamentals of our democracy, where the people choose the
president and then replace him with a cabal called into session by pop psychologists. This is
an attack on the process at its roots: you yokels voted for the wrong guy so somebody smarter
has to clean up.
Peter Van Buren, a 24-year State Department veteran, is the author ofWe Meant Well : How I Helped Lose the Battle for the
Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People andHooper's War : A Novel of WWII Japan. Follow him on Twitter@WeMeantWell.
Judging by the fact that he's still the only president after the end of the Cold War who
hasn't yet dragged the country into any new costly and unnecessary war, it indeed must be
that either he's a genius or his predecessors are mentally challenged. Your choice.
" . . . and a set of presidents squandered hundreds of thousands of American lives washing
Vietnam with blood."
Total US losses in the Vietnam War/conflict: 58,300
It is sad that plans were made to remove the Pres. even before he was elected. It has been
the use of a special prosecutor has certainly been a factor
in damaging our republics democracy.
I remember hearing a reporter comment upon Obama and Bush meeting on inauguration day that
the "Peaceful transition of power is what makes our Democracy great." Now 8 years later those
same people are saying we need to oust the Democratically elected candidate. The danger here
is not against the offices of our government but against the press itself. As the media
continues down this path they paint themselves as lunatics, hypocrites and partisans. I think
our institutions will survive this and much worse. But I don't think the media as we know it
will. Trust is at an all time low in most all of the media outlets. The question that needs
to be asked is will our Democracy survive the death of the press and what if anything will
replace what used to be called investigative and informative journalism?
There's a NeverTrump and Resistance checklist that's being worked through, and this was the
next gambit if Russiagate failed, which was the gambit if the Electoral College revolt didn't
work The next in line will be something along the arc of a politicized MeToo They're making a
list, and they're checking it twice
There's a NeverTrump and Resistance checklist that's predictably being worked through, and
this was the next gambit if Russiagate failed, which was the gambit if the Electoral College
revolt didn't work The next in line will be something along the arc of a politicized MeToo
They're making a list, and they're checking it twice
Reading this only serves as a reminder that the ones whom we really need to fear are the
masses of the great Unwashed Elite (Vox, CNN, etc.), not Trump.
Slightly off topic, but "the youngsters try to get the patriarch shut away to grab his
fortune" is, sadly, no movie trope; my family is living it right now. Trying to right this
outrageous wrong on behalf of the forcibly shut-away patriarch is costing us non-grabby
siblings tens of thousands of dollars in legal and court fees. Justice has a crippling price
in modern America and those who can't pay don't get much justice.
In East Germany, Stasi leader Markus Wolfe took things a step further with the "zersetzung"
tactic.
The idea was to *induce* a "personal crisis" through clandestine harassment, including at
the hands of acquaintances secretly recruited by the Stasi.
In other words, while the Frankfort School was content to merely *label* their opponents
mentally ill ("Authoritarian Personality", "Paranoid Style", etc.), Markus Wolfe was actively
trying to cause *real* mental illness by relentlessly gaslighting selected individual
dissidents until they cracked.
How many centuries will it take for the reputation of the mental health profession to
recover from their association with various repressive left-wing regimes and
pseudo-scientists such as the Freudians and the Frankfurt School?
HRC warned us of all the dumb white male deplorable's , as being a major threat. Wonder where
the pop psychologist have these Americans slotted, possibly not allowed to vote ?
What's insane is that a married FBI agent and an FBI lawyer hooked up and conspired to bring
down a President, yet both still work for the FBI! That's really insane.
It's just silliness re. Mr Trump. He's perfectly sane.
We had a former governor- whom I actually admire- but his behavior was authentically erratic.
If Pres. Trump ever acts even half this way, then we should take a serious look at his mental
health 🙂 :
" Long spent ninety minutes ranting and lashing out against his opponents. Spotting
Rainach in the crowd, Long launched into the salacious details of the murder of Rainach's
uncle, killed by a black man who had caught him in bed with the man's wife. In one of Long's
most famous remarks, he told the crowd, "After all this is over [Rainach will] probably go up
there to Summerfield, get up on his front porch, take off his shoes, wash his feet, look at
the moon, and get close to God." Pointing and shouting at Rainach, he continued, "And when
you do, you got to recognize that n**gers is human beings!" When he concluded his tirade,
Earl was rushed to the governor's mansion and locked in a bedroom where he grew violent. At
one point, he stood in the smashed bedroom window shouting, "Murder!"
Concerned about his mental health, Long's family had him institutionalized in Texas before
transferring him to the Louisiana State Hospital in Mandeville. With the assistance of his
subordinates, however, Long won release from the asylum, firing the director in the process,
and proceeded on an interstate buying spree trailed by national press agents. Many have
speculated on the cause of Long's apparent breakdown, with at least one biographer convinced
the politician suffered from bipolar disorder. Others speculate that Long's all-night
escapades in New Orleans, including dalliances with dancer Blaze Starr, coupled with the
regular ingestion of large amounts of alcohol and the powerful stimulants Dexedrine
undermined Long's perception of reality. Regardless of the cause, it was clear to many,
including the national press, that Long needed an extended vacation."
If one day Trump wakes up and decides it's a good day to launch nuclear missiles at some
country because their leader said disparaging remarks against him, then the 25th should be
invoked. But not before then.
One of the hallmarks of mental illness is that a person's personality or behavior change and
people close to them that love them are most alarmed by it and want them to get treated. None
of this holds in Trump's case. His behavior is the same as it's always been, which is what
people voted on. And the ones trying to use it are his enemies which don't care about
treatment, but simply as a machination to depose him.
The author has made several errors. He assumes that discussing the possibility of a
psychiatric disorder making Trump unfit means proving insanity. In reality, the most likely
disorder does not meet the legal definition of insanity, but does make a person incapable of
competently or faithfully performing the duties of office.
The suggestion that this is some type of superficial soviet style political maneuver
ignores the fact that good diagnosis is done nowadays based to a large extent on observed
behavior, history, and the reports of third parties. This is especially important when the
individual shows signs of being a pathological liar. In these cases, information gained in a
face-to-face interview may be virtually useless.
The condition that Mr. Trump should be assessed for is Antisocial Personality Disorder
with Psychopathic Features. (Alternative PDOs in DSM-5, pg. 761-765 Some of the signs and
symptoms which make such a person unfit for office include-
Dishonesty and fraudulence
Embellishment or fabrication when relating events
Anger or irritability in response to minor slights and insults
Mean, nasty, or vengeful behavior
Boredom proneness and thoughtless initiation of activities to counter boredom
Lack of concern for one's limitations
Acting on the spur of the moment in response to immediate stimuli
Acting on a momentary basis without a plan or consideration of outcomes
Disregard for -- and failure to honor–financial and other obligations or
commitments
No one imagined that someone with this possible disorder would ever make it to the White
House, however, the 25th Amendment provides an avenue for him to temporarily be removed from
power while he can undergo proper evaluation by military psychiatrists and neurologists. This
is all mental health professionals are requesting. These individuals can do tremendous damage
when give power over others.
"The condition that Mr. Trump should be assessed for is Antisocial Personality Disorder
with Psychopathic Features. (Alternative PDOs in DSM-5, pg. 761-765 Some of the signs and
symptoms which make such a person unfit for office include-
Dishonesty and fraudulence
Embellishment or fabrication when relating events
Anger or irritability in response to minor slights and insults
Mean, nasty, or vengeful behavior
Boredom proneness and thoughtless initiation of activities to counter boredom
Lack of concern for one's limitations
Acting on the spur of the moment in response to immediate stimuli
Acting on a momentary basis without a plan or consideration of outcomes
Disregard for -- and failure to honor–financial and other obligations or
commitments "
An Orwellian comment like the above just proves the point of the article, and then some.
As if there isn't anyone in the world who couldn't be shoehorned to fit such a diagnoses,
with a crafty narrative reconfiguring of their actions.
If there are indeed any witch doctors (excuse me, "psychiatrists") pathologizing people on
the basis of a laughable list like the above, then I consider them to be far more undeserving
of the power they have, and far more toxic to society, than Trump in any of the actions or
utterances that he has made.
Susan Dawkins, who claims my article has mistakes, didn't read it. Her amateur diagnosis that
Trump has "Antisocial Personality Disorder with Psychopathic Features" does not make him
UNABLE to be president, which is what the 25th Amendment is for.
She claims he is UNFIT. Fitness is judged primarily by the people, who elected him. If a
president somehow becomes unfit while in office it must be because of "high crimes and
misdemeanors." That's the only reason the Constitution provides for. And impeachment is the
only answer.
Sorry kiddies, the 25th is a not-over for an election Rachael Maddow doesn't like.
This is all mental health professionals are requesting."
"All"? That's rich.
Indeed, is that all that they're requesting? My goodness -- what a modest
request! -- a request merely to have complete veto power over America's entire citizenry, in
terms of who is allowed to be President; a request merely to be able to remove any President
who is not to their liking.
In short, a mere request to be able to legally perform a coup d'etat at will, to overturn
any election that does not yield their desired result.
How gratified we all should be that their request for power is such a small one. Imagine
if they asked for something just a bit more ambitious. "Omnipotence" comes to mind.
Trump is the one who messes with the very fundamentals of our democracy. Remember his voting
commission and the crap they wanted? Force states to provide all the 2016 voter information
to his CosaNostra buddies. And remember when they wanted all Americans to fill out a
registration form similar to the one used when purchasing a gun? They said they wanted to
make sure only those qualified were on the voter registration lists.
Trrump's as sane as any other 71 year old man-baby.
Obviously saner and infinitely more mature than a 70 year old woman-baby, who wrecked a
havoc all over the Middle East, was laughing like a bloodthirsty child when watching an old
man's violent death in the hands of a barbaric crowd as one of the results of that havoc and
then, out of a sheer infantile negligence, caused an American ambassadors similarly violent
death in the hands of likely the same crowd as another result of the same havoc.
***
Susan Dawkins,
So, you claim that something that something that doesn't meet the legal definition of
insanity is somehow a basis to invoke a legal mechanism that would require someone to be
legally defined as insane ? How pathetic. Do you know that this mere writing of yours
can be a sign of at least three mental disorders, assuming it was written in good faith and
not as an umpteenth attempt of a comically maladroit political hackery? Note that I have
certain knowledge in psychiatry and can highlight the signs of these disorders step by step,
not by hysterical shrilling "I'm an MD, you philistines", which can be a sign of yet another
mental disorder.
Though the most comical part of your hackery is that every point of your list meant to
"describe" Trump perfectly fits Hillary Clinton. You should try better. Seriously. You have
just shown that your knowledge of psychiatry is abysmal, no matter the degrees you
might have.
Ultimately to the leftists everybody is mentally ill because they don't understand the
necessities of history and they don't possess "secret" knowledge.
Susan Dawkins, that list of symptoms reminds me of most all of the people that run for
political office or spend a majority of their lives up on the hill. I immediately thought of
several people on both the left and the right. Let's see how HIllary does:
1&2: embellished/lied in saying she was personally shot at by a sniper in Bosnia?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1582795/Hillary-Clintons-Bosnia-sniper-story-exposed.html
. Might I add that she said this while other Americans were on battlefields half a world away
actually getting shot at.
3&4: Calling American Citizens deplorable 5&6&8: Voted for Iraq, pushed for
action in Libya.
Hmm, I guess there is a reason voters didn't pick her.
What matters in this narrative is not law, not ethics or sanity, not anything else but
power.
If those who want Trump removed will have the power to do so, they will do so. Whatever
law is invoked will merely be an excuse, a cover story, if you will.
"The suggestion that this is some type of superficial soviet style political maneuver ignores
the fact that good diagnosis is done nowadays based to a large extent on observed behavior,
history, and the reports of third parties. This is especially important when the individual
shows signs of being a pathological liar. In these cases, information gained in a
face-to-face interview may be virtually useless."
So what happens when the third parties or the psychiatrist in question are pathological
liars? Would a face-to-face interview help in that case?
Looks like this Iago-style false flag operation by NYT: the anonymous author does not exists and the the plot is to saw
discord and mutual suspicion
Notable quotes:
"... The more I study US politics, the less useful I find it to think of it in political terms. The two-headed one party system exists to give Americans the illusion of choice while advancing the agendas of the plutocratic class which owns and operates both parties, yes, but even more importantly it's a mechanism of narrative control. ..."
"... If you belonged to a ruling class, obviously your goal would be to ensure your subjects' continued support for you. In a corporatist oligarchy, the rulers are secret and the subjects don't know they're ruled, and power is held in place with manipulation and with money. As such a ruler your goal would be to find a way to manipulate the masses into supporting your agendas, and, since people are different, you'd need to use different narratives to manipulate them. You'd have to divide them, tell them different stories, turn them against each other, play them off one another, suck them in to the tales you are spinning with the theater of enmity and heroism. ..."
"... As a result of the New York Times op-ed, if this administration engages in yet another of its many, many establishment capitulations (let's say by attacking the Syrian government again ), Trump's supporters won't see it as his fault; it will be blamed on the deep state insiders in his administration who have been working to thwart his agendas of peace and harmony. ..."
"... Would a billionaire WWE Hall of Famer and United States President understand the theater of staged conflict for the advancement of plutocratic interests, and willingly participate in it? I'm going to say probably. ..."
If any evidence existed to be found that Donald Trump had illegally colluded with the
Russian government to rig the 2016 presidential election, that evidence would have been picked
up by the sprawling surveillance networks of the US and its allies and leaked to the Washington
Post before Obama left office.
Russiagate is like a mirage. From a distance it looks like a solid, tangible thing, but when
you actually move in to examine it critically you find nothing but gaping plot holes,
insinuation, innuendo, conflicting narratives, bizarre mental contortions to avoid
acknowledging contradictory information, a few arrests for corruption and process crimes, and a
lot of hot air. The whole thing has been held together by nothing but the confident-sounding
assertions of pundits and politicians and sheer, mindless repetition. And, as we approach the
two year mark since this president's election, we have not seen one iota of movement toward
removing him from office. The whole thing's a lie, and the smart movers and shakers behind it
are aware that it is a lie.
And yet they keep beating on it. Day after day after day after day it's been Russia, Russia,
Russia, Russia. Instead of attacking this president for his many, many real problems in a way
that will do actual damage, they attack this fake blow-up doll standing next to him in a way
that never goes anywhere and never will, like a pro wrestler theatrically stomping on the
canvass next to his downed foe.
What's up with that?
... ... ....
As you doubtless already know by now, the New York Times has made the wildly controversial
decision to publish an anonymous op-ed
reportedly authored by "a senior official in the Trump administration." The op-ed's author
claims to be part of a secret coalition of patriots who dislike Trump and are "working
diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations." These
"worst inclinations" according to the author include trying to make peace with Moscow and
Pyongyang, being rude to longtime US allies, saying mean things about the media, being
"anti-trade", and being "erratic". The possibility of invoking the 25th Amendment is briefly
mentioned but dismissed. The final paragraphs are spent gushing about John McCain for no
apparent reason.
I strongly encourage you to read the piece in its entirety, because for all the talk and
drama it's generating, it doesn't actually make any sense. While you are reading it, I
encourage you to keep the following question in mind: what could anyone possibly gain by
authoring this and giving it to the New York Times ?
Seriously, what could be gained? The op-ed says essentially nothing, other than to tell
readers to relax and trust in anonymous administration insiders who are working against the bad
guys on behalf of the people (which is interestingly the exact same message of the right-wing
8chan conspiracy phenomenon QAnon, just with the white hats and black hats reversed). Why would
any senior official risk everything to publish something so utterly pointless? Why risk getting
fired (or risk losing all political currency in the party if NYTAnon is Mike Pence, as
has been
theorized ) just to communicate something to the public that doesn't change or accomplish
anything? Why publicly announce your undercover conspiracy to undermine the president in a
major news outlet at all?
What are the results of this viral op-ed everyone's talking about? So far it's a bunch of
Democratic partisans making a lot of excited whooping noises, and Trump loyalists feeling
completely vindicated in the belief that all of their conspiracy theories have been proven
correct. Many rank-and-file Trump haters are feeling a little more relaxed and complacent
knowing that there are a bunch of McCain-loving "adults in the room" taking care of everything,
and many rank-and-file Trump supporters are more convinced than ever that Donald Trump is a
brave populist hero leading a covert 4-D chess insurgency against the Deep State. In other
words, everyone's been herded into their respective partisan stables and trusting the
narratives that they are being fed there.
And, well, I just think that's odd.
Did you know that Donald Trump is in the WWE Hall of Fame ? He was inducted
in 2013, and he's been enthusiastically involved in pro wrestling for many years, both as a fan
and as a performer .
He's made more of a study on how to draw a crowd in to the theatrics of a choreographed fight
scene than anyone this side of the McMahon family (a member of whom happens to be part of the Trump
administration currently).
You don't have to get into any deep conspiratorial rabbit hole to consider the possibility
that all this drama and conflict is staged from top to bottom. Commentators on all sides
routinely crack jokes about how the mainstream media pretends to attack Trump but secretly
loves him because he brings them amazing ratings. Anyone with their eyes even part way open
already knows that America's two mainstream parties feign intense hatred for one another while
working together to pace their respective bases into accepting more and more neoliberal
exploitation at home and more and more neoconservative bloodshed abroad. They spit and snarl
and shake their fists at each other, then cuddle up and share candy
when it's time for a public gathering. Why should this administration be any different?
I believe that a senior Trump administration official probably did write that anonymous
op-ed. I do not believe that they were moved to write it out of compassion for the poor
Americans who are feeling emotionally stressed about the president. I believe it was written
and published for the same reason many other things are written and published in mainstream
media: because we are all being played.
The more I study US politics, the less useful I find it to think of it in political terms.
The two-headed one party system exists to give Americans the illusion of choice while advancing
the agendas of the plutocratic class which owns and operates both parties, yes, but even more
importantly it's a mechanism of narrative control. If you can separate the masses into two
groups based on extremely broad ideological characteristics, you can then funnel streamlined
"us vs them" narratives into each of the two stables, with the white hats and black hats
reversed in each case. Now you've got Republicans cheering for the president and Democrats
cheering for the CIA, for the FBI, and now for a platoon of covert John McCains alleged to be
operating on the inside of Trump's own administration. Everyone's cheering for one aspect of
the US power establishment or another.
If you belonged to a ruling class, obviously your goal would be to ensure your subjects'
continued support for you. In a corporatist oligarchy, the rulers are secret and the subjects don't
know they're ruled, and power is held in place with manipulation and with money. As such a
ruler your goal would be to find a way to manipulate the masses into supporting your agendas,
and, since people are different, you'd need to use different narratives to manipulate them.
You'd have to divide them, tell them different stories, turn them against each other, play them
off one another, suck them in to the tales you are spinning with the theater of enmity and
heroism.
As a result of the New York Times op-ed, if this administration engages in yet another of
its many, many establishment capitulations (let's say by
attacking the Syrian government again ), Trump's supporters won't see it as his fault; it
will be blamed on the deep state insiders in his administration who have been working to thwart
his agendas of peace and harmony. Meanwhile those who see Trump as a heel won't experience any
cognitive dissonance if any of the establishment agendas they support are carried out, because
they can give the credit to the secret hero squad in the White House.
Would a billionaire WWE Hall of Famer and United States President understand the theater of
staged conflict for the advancement of plutocratic interests, and willingly participate in it?
I'm going to say probably.
* * *
The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish
is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website , which will get you an email notification for
everything I publish. My articles are entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece
please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook , following my antics on Twitter , checking out my podcast , throwing some money into my hat on
Patreon or Paypal , or buying my book
Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers .
What is interesting is that Wolffe links the op-ed and publishing Bob Woodward's latest
book: "Woodward has cornered the panicked Trump rats into screeching about all the ways they
prevented
World War Three , or a massive trade war, by ignoring the ranting boss or snatching papers
off his desk."
Notable quotes:
"... Nothing proved, unnamed sources, claims about this, claims about that. Until someone is prepared to step forward and reveal themselves this is a non story. Still, it gives the Trump haters comfort. ..."
"... Personally, I am not surprised or impressed by this White House insider's account. Nothing he or she has said should be a real revelation to anyone who has cast a critical eye on the Trump presidency. And whoever it is, this person is so enamored with tax cuts, deregulation, ramping up military spending and the usual Republican horse shit that he or she does not seem prepared to risk further discrediting the administration by identifying him/herself and resigning publicly. ..."
If you really believe your boss is a threat to the constitution which you've
taken an oath to protect, perhaps you should consider quitting or going public. As in: going on
Capitol Hill to hold a press conference to urge impeachment.
In this regard, and only in this regard, our anonymous whistleblower has handed the crazy
boss a degree of righteous indignation.
"If the GUTLESS anonymous person does indeed exist," tweeted the madman in the
attic, "the Times must, for National Security purposes, turn him/her over to government at
once!"
Donald, we feel your pain, albeit briefly. Your internal enemies are indeed gutless, and if
you feel better putting that in ALL CAPS, that's fine. Let it out.
But that bit about turning people over to you for national security reasons is kind of the
point here. If you'll allow us to summarize the GUTLESS person's arguments: you are
fundamentally a threat to democracy and national security yourself. You are indeed, as your
lawyers have pointed out repeatedly, your own worst witness.
This much we know from this week's other bombshell in the shape of Bob Woodward's latest
book. Woodward has cornered the panicked Trump rats into screeching about all the ways they
prevented
World War Three , or a massive trade war, by ignoring the ranting boss or snatching papers
off his desk.
... ... ...
Mr or Ms GUTLESS describes Trump's decisions as "half-baked, ill-informed and occasionally
reckless", while chief of staff John Kelly says Trump is "an idiot" living in a place called
"Crazytown". This revelation led to the priceless statement from Kelly where he had to deny
calling the president an idiot.
Somewhere in Texas, former secretary of state Rex Tillerson is swirling a glass of bourbon
muttering that he lost his job for calling Trump a moron.
Second, Trump's staffers are enabling the very horrors they claim to hate, while grandiosely
pretending to be doing the opposite.
Mr or Ms GUTLESS says there were "early whispers within the cabinet of invoking the 25th
amendment" in what he imagines is a clear sign they can distinguish reality from reality
TV.
Ladies and gentlemen of the Trump cabinet: please know that you will not be accepted into
the next edition of Profiles in Courage for your early whispers. If you truly believe the
president is incapacitated, you should perhaps consider raising your voice to at least
conversational level, if you're not inclined to bellow from the mountaintops. Library rules are
inoperative at this point.
Given the weight of evidence, even the most diehard Trump defenders are now conceding the
obvious, by signing up to the GUTLESS gang's self-promotion. Brit Hume, a Fox News veteran, let
the cat out of the bag when he tweeted that it was a "good
thing" they were restraining Trump "from his most reckless impulses".
This is how the pirate ship Trump eventually sinks to the ocean's floor. You can fool some
of Fox News's viewers all of the time, and you can fool all of them some of the time.
But no fool wants to drown with the captain we all know is plain crazy.
It's someone high up that makes policy decisions, brags about everything they have done to
help America despite Cheetos interfering. Why now? Pence wants it known that he is running
the government not useless trump whom has passed nothing. Pence will come out as the author
when Don is removed from office. Which could be nearing since this OPED is likely to expose
him. Maybe he planned it that way.
What's most remarkable to me is how closely the Michael Wolff's White House, Omarosa's
White House, Bob Woodward's Whitehouse, and Anonymous Staffer's White House reflect each
other.
Clearly a massive conspiracy. And one which Trump is helpfully participating in by
constantly saying and doing stuff which accords with the pictures they're all painting.
What's most remarkable to me is how closely the Michael Wolff's White House, Omarosa's White
House, Bob Woodward's Whitehouse, and Anonymous Staffer's White House reflect each other. All
these sources come together to display a rather coherent image of a chaotic White House led
by a man who's not bright enough to realize he's in over his head.
The New York Times attack piece was anonymous. It is therefore completely unverifiable and
could have been written by anyone, including any of the politically biased NYT editorial
team, or by Bob Woodward to publicize his new book. It's junk news.
I'm firmly convinced that when it's all said and done we'll be able to represent his
presidency as an MMO boss fight. This is the bit where everyone concentrates fire on the
glowy spot until the enrage mechanic kicks in. In fact it looks like the mad flailing has
started and now everyone will try not to stand in the AoE as they DPS him down.
Mussolini was in power for twenty years before his functionaries deposed him to keep the
regime intact while removing its newly-a-liability head. Mussolini was the legal (if
abhorrent) premier of a coalition government in a liberal-democratic (both words with a pinch
of salt) regime for his first two years, until winning a parliamentary majority of his own;
indeed, after the leader of the Socialist Party was killed by his supporters, his coalition
partners almost pulled out of government: that's not a totalitarian dictatorship, but what
was then called "pre-fascism", and today we'd call it an 'illiberal democracy'. The
dictatorship was informal (result of a supportive majority) until the constitional reform of
1928 - five years into his government.
Thinking that all will turn out fine because American democracy is under strain but
generally intact, is a dangerous complacency. All interwar autocrats went through a
transition of first governing under the old constitution, slowly undermining opposition, then
installing a new organic law. Perhaps all will turn out well in the US, and Trump will leave
office with the old 'rules of the game' untouched - but that can't be assumed, and we won't
know until after he is gone.
Pepperoni Pizza is absolutely correct. We DON'T know his staff are going behind his back
- we have this anonymous bollocks as the totality of our evidence.
Truckloads of "anonymous bollocks" reported by credible, highly respected journalists with
excellent reasons to protect their sources.
"Anonymous" bollocks" which syncs perfectly with events and pronouncements by the
president himself - including numerous firings of so many of the "best people" he hired.
"Anonymous bollocks" confirmed in evidence/testimony presented publicly and under oath in
court.
Nothing proved, unnamed sources, claims about this, claims about that. Until someone is
prepared to step forward and reveal themselves this is a non story.
Still, it gives the Trump haters comfort.
There is a segment of this country that is willfully ignorant because a con man told them
to be. We really need to ignore this shrinking number of fuck-nuts and just out vote
them.
We live in a democracy. If you choose to use facebook as your only source of news about the
world, it is not because a con man told you to, it is because you are just too plain stupid
to go looking elsewhere.
I'm surprised that no one has compared the author of the anonymous article in the New York
Times with "Deep Throat", who anonymously met Bernstein and Woodward in an underground
parking garage in Washington to spill the beans about Watergate. Deep Throat turned out to be
Mark Felt, a high-ranking official in the FBI who kept working against Nixon under cover and
whose name was revealed only a few years ago.
Personally, I am not surprised or impressed by this White House insider's account. Nothing he
or she has said should be a real revelation to anyone who has cast a critical eye on the
Trump presidency. And whoever it is, this person is so enamored with tax cuts, deregulation,
ramping up military spending and the usual Republican horse shit that he or she does not seem
prepared to risk further discrediting the administration by identifying him/herself and
resigning publicly.
Screw whoever it is, they are obviously no hero to the American people.
So now we know what 'the resistance' really is. It's the establishment. It's the old
political order. It's that late 20th-century political set, those out-of-touch managerial
elites, who still cannot believe the electorate rejected them. That is the take-home message of
the bizarre political spectacle that was the burial of John McCain, where this neocon in life
has been transformed into a resistance leader in death: that while the anti-Trump movement
might doll itself up as rebellious, and even borrow its name from those who resisted fascism in
Europe in the mid 20th-century, in truth it is primarily about restoring the apparently cool,
expert-driven rule of the old elites over what is viewed as the chaos of the populist Trump /
Brexit era.
The response to McCain's death has bordered on the surreal. The strangest aspect has been
the self-conscious rebranding of McCain as a searing rebel. In death, this key establishment
figure in the Republican Party, this military officer, senator, presidential candidate and
enthusiastic backer of the exercise of US military power overseas, has been reimagined as a
plucky battler for all that is good against a wicked, overbearing political machine. 'John
McCain's funeral was the biggest resistance meeting yet', said a headline in the New
Yorker , alongside a photo of George W Bush, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, and
soldiers from the US Army, the most powerful military machine on Earth. This is 'the
resistance' now: the former holders of extraordinary power, the invaders of foreign nations,
the Washington establishment.
The New Yorker piece, like so much of the McCain commentary, praises to the heavens the
anti-Trump theme of McCain's funeral. McCain famously said Trump couldn't attend his funeral.
And that in itself was enough to win him the posthumous love of a liberal commentariat that now
views everything through the binary moral framework of pro-Trump (evil, ill-informed,
occasionally fascistic) and anti-Trump (decent, moral, on a par with the warriors against
Nazism). Even better, though, was the fact that orators at the funeral, including McCain's
daughter Meghan and both Bush and Obama, used the church service to slam Trumpism, without
explicitly mentioning it, and in the process to big-up what came before Trumpism, which of
course was their rule, their politics, their establishment. The Washington political and media
set might seem bitterly bipartisan, said the New Yorker writer, but it is also 'more united' in
one important sense - 'in its hatred of Donald Trump'.
Hatred of Trump has become the moral glue of the bruised elites who have been either pushed
aside or at least dramatically called into question by the populist surge taking hold in the
West. And so motored are these people by the shallow moralism of Anti-Trumpism that they are
happy to marshal even a life as complex and interesting and flawed as McCain's to the service
of hurting Trump. A former Al Gore adviser, Carter Eskew, wrote in the Washington Post: 'In
death, John McCain is about to exact revenge on Donald Trump.' Unwittingly revealing the Old
Testament streak to the new elite religion of Hating Trump, Eskew said that as 'McCain ascends
to heaven on an updraft of praise, Trump's political hell on Earth will burn hotter'. On why it
suddenly started to rain when McCain's coffin was brought into the Capitol, a CNN journalist
said: 'The angels were crying.' What century is this?
The religious allusions, the talk of vengeance against Trump, the misremembering of McCain's
life so that it becomes a moral exemplar against the alleged crimes of Trumpism, exposes the
infantile moralism of the so-called resistance. Albert Burneko, assessing some of the madder
McCain commentary, says there is now a 'condition' that he calls 'Resistance Brain', where
people display an 'urge to grab and cling on to anything that seems, even a little bit, like it
might be the thing that Finally Defeats Donald Trump'. Even if the thing they're grabbing on to
is actually a bad thing. Like a seemingly endless FBI investigation into the elected
presidency. Or George W Bush, whose moral rehabilitation on the back of Anti-Trumpism has been
extraordinary. Or neoconservatism: this was the scourge of liberal activists a decade ago, yet
now its architects are praised because they subscribe to the religion of Anti-Trumpism. Being
against Trump washes away all sins.
Some on the left have criticised the moral rehabilitation of McCain. 'Let's not forget that
he wanted war with Iran and lots of other places too!', they cry. Yet the truth is they paved
the way for his posthumous rebranding as one of the great Americans of the late 20th century.
Since 2016 they have talked about Trump as a uniquely wicked president, a shocking aberration,
the closest thing to Hitler since the 1930s. Their anti-Trump hyperbole, driven by their own
political disorientation and increasing sense of distance from the electorate, has allowed any
politician who is not Trump to mend their reputations and gloss over their own destructive
behaviour. The transformation of Trump into the bête noire of all right-minded
people, a pillar of unrivalled wickedness that we all have a duty to protest against in our
pussy hats and orange wigs, has been a boon to the wounded pre-Trump political class keen both
to whitewash its own crimes and to prepare for its return to the position of power it enjoyed
before the electorate was corrupted by 'post-truth' hysteria.
'The resistance' is the fightback of the establishment against the people. As it is in
Britain, too, where the rich and influential people fuelling the war on Brexit - the largest
act of democracy in British history - like to refer to themselves as 'insurgents'. It is the
height of Orwellianism for these acts of elitist reaction against democratic dissent to dress
themselves up as forms of resistance. But it is not surprising. From the get-go, the so-called
resistance has been more a pining for the old establishment, for Hillary's rule and for the
continued domination of Britain by the EU, than it has been any kind of daring strike for a new
politics. Look closely at the funereal elitism of McCain's burial and you will see one of the
saddest and most striking political developments of our time: how self-styled radicals
preferred to throw their lot in with the old establishment under the umbrella of 'the
resistance' rather than heed ordinary people who were saying: 'Let's tear up the old
order.'
Brendan O'Neill is editor of spiked. Find him on Instagram: @burntoakboy
Nice post and well put.
I am currently sitting in an office where 30% are blaggers of the highest order. They talk
and kiss ass - but ultimately - deep down - know they cannot do they do not know the job. The
responsibiltiy they have will make you shudder. I have told friends and they are visibly
shaken that this can happen. But I think it is the way of the world at the moment. They dare
not argue with me for full knowledge they will be sent packing, they already have been but on
"minor" non work related items.
"Fake it til you make it" is the slogan they clutch tight to their heart the consequences
however are far far reaching. My only hope is that should any of them leave here - they will
get found out in a week.
Yes the likes of Trump are a reflection of just that.
The mad thing is - I now am of the belief that I could do that job ie President of the US.
That is madness.
to foil the wishes of the elected members of government.
No. Just one member. And that one member isn't a supreme leader. You need to look
elsewhere for those types of leaders - they're usually standing next to Trump while he fawns
over them.
Personally I'm grateful for a bureaucracy that frustrates bad ideas - wherever they
come
from. That's part of their role.
Everything, with the exception of Steve Bannon in Michael Wolf's book, has been anonymous.
These people write things, attribute them to, say, John Kelly, then Kelly says I NEVER SAID
THAT and we're left to believe whom?
If there is genuine resistance inside the White House to Trump- If it is at all like
anybody says- then I would imagine that a genuine top level appointee would go on camera,
throw themselves on their sword, and speak to the American people. Until such a time I
question what is Woodward's agenda? Do I trust Omarosa? Is Michael Wolf credible? What are
their goals? I'm not blind but I want to see more than anonymous. And until then... I don't
believe it.
I agree, I'd hate to defend him either, but you can't help thinking he has a point by
calling this person gutless. Either stand up in public and say it or, if s/he really is
working in the background to save us from Trump's excesses, then surely you're better off
(and the country as a whole) staying there and not alerting him?
It's the New York Times, and no, they certainly haven't been against Trump since his
election.
Their lead White House correspondent, Maggie Haberman, still writes extremely
understanding pieces of Trump. And she's been covering the man for almost 15 years, so one
would think she had the measure of the man long ago.
More importantly, the NYT threw the election for Trump by first exonerating Trump of any
Russian collusion - which was false - and by covering the last-minute Comey statements on the
Clinton emails in the worst negative light possible for the Democratic candidate. The NYT
turned out to be wrong, but the damage was done.
The NYT even tried to put new faces on their opinion staff with close connections to
actual American neo-Nazis (!) and only failed when old tweets came to light.
I'm not quite sure what the NYT is playing at - I guess it's easy to play the devil's
advocate in artsy-fartsy, liberal New York - but they most certainly have not been
against Trump from January 2017 at all.
Trump is not a freedom fighter, he is not your Great White Messiah, he's not an advocate
for blue collar American citizens. Trump is a stupid, vulgar, greedy old fat racist who
conned his way into the White House. There has been a lot of talk in all mediums about his
unsuitability for the office, and his obvious ties to the Kremlin, but there has been no
organized effort to remove him from office, no matter what you might have read on Qanon.
You think the entire population is incapable of thinking about serious issues because there's
some tittle-tattle on twitter? When did that happen? No-one would work because there's always
fluffy kittens on YouTube.
"He's an idiot. It's pointless to try to convince him of anything. He's gone off the
rails. We're in crazytown," Kelly is quoted as saying at a staff meeting in his office. "I
don't even know why any of us are here. This is the worst job I've ever had."
(CNN) WARNING: This story contains graphic language.
President Donald Trump 's
closest aides have taken extraordinary measures in the White House to try to stop what they saw
as his most dangerous impulses, going so far as to swipe and hide papers from his desk so he
wouldn't sign them, according to a new book from legendary journalist Bob Woodward.
Woodward's 448-page book, " Fear: Trump in the White
House, " provides an unprecedented inside-the-room look through the eyes of the President's
inner circle. From the Oval Office to the Situation Room to the White House residence, Woodward
uses confidential background interviews to illustrate how some of the President's top advisers
view him as a danger to national security and have sought to circumvent the commander in
chief.
Many of the feuds and daily clashes have been well documented, but the picture painted by
Trump's confidants, senior staff and Cabinet officials reveal that many of them see an even
more alarming situation -- worse than previously known or understood. Woodward offers a
devastating portrait of a dysfunctional Trump White House, detailing how senior aides -- both
current and former Trump administration officials -- grew exasperated with the President and
increasingly worried about his erratic behavior, ignorance and penchant for lying.
Chief of staff John Kelly describes Trump as an "idiot" and "unhinged," Woodward reports.
Defense Secretary James Mattis describes Trump as having the understanding of "a fifth or sixth
grader." And Trump's former personal lawyer John Dowd describes the President as "a fucking
liar," telling Trump he would end up in an "orange jump suit" if he testified to special
counsel Robert Mueller.
Sounds like a palace coup to me: first, news of the forthcoming Woodward book (and excepts);
then-coincidentally-today's "anonymous" and 'Gutless' article in the Times.
As far as I'm concerned, this entire hellish administration is sheer "madness" and a very
clear indication that this country is in its agonizing twilight.
Each and every senior official in this administration is an enabler of this "shithole"
human being and current president, so there is no such thing as bravery here, just covering
one's tail if a coup were to occur.
Not once, as has been mentioned here and elsewhere, has this 'Gutless' wonder decried the
immorality of family separation, employing white racists as policy makers, shredding the
social safety net for millions of this nation's most vulnerable; an outlandish Pentagon
budget and etcetera.
What is solidly on display in this unfolding miasma is a firmly entrenched kleptocracy,
enabled and supported by U.S. corporations and the death of democracy.
The Woodward book seems to me just more kiss and tell stories of the Michael Wolff ilk
(remember him?). The juiciest quotes - Trump being called an idiot by Kelly - is denied by
Kelly himself and most of the others are ex-employees.
A better - more objective - book would
get past the unconventional, apparent chaos of the Whitehouse and perhaps investigate whether
Trumps methods have or will bear fruit.
That perhaps, as David Lynch said, traditional
politicians can't take the country or the world forward - they can't get things done anymore
because they are afraid of political consequences or media backlash. Trump and his ego
doesn't seem to care about that - is that a good thing or a bad thing? Trump has turned
everything on it's head and liberals find themselves allying with establishment politicians
and business groups. It is a fascinating period of political change and time - and better
journalism - will eventually judge Trump more objectively.
'Pence... not a dangerous, mentally ill megalomaniac'
Pence is more dangerous – make that outright terrifying – than Trump. Yes.
Trump is a senile vulgarian oaf – but he doesn't really believe in anything and is
motivated only by his greed and pathological need for self-aggrandizement. He's mentally
incompetent in a very obvious way, which renders him laughably inept at trying to bring his
more odious policy objectives to fruition (in fact, inept at everything, pretty much).
Pence is far more sinister, because he's a dementedly fanatical believer in a
fundamentalist and authoritarian mutation of religion – a crazed zealot. While
sometimes able to imitate the superficial demeanour of a person of sound mind, he is in truth
utterly deranged.
While Trump lies and denies obvious specific facts almost as a reflex, he doesn't really
sustain his warped world view consistently or with conviction that lasts longer than it takes
to play his next round of golf.
Pence vehemently espouses a whole alternative reality based
upon his religious fantasies, and believes he has a mission to impose his delusional ideas in
a punitive and repressive manner on his country's entire population, permanently. He may have
the cunning to be chillingly effective at realising his most ghastly ambitions.
Trump represents a temporary aberration; a collective brain fart. Pence could be the
instigator of a new dark age for the USA
Having seen this type of character assassination visited on Bill and Hillary Clinton,
character assassination before any reported crimes have been proven against them or for that
matter any sexual misdemeanors as president are proven, what exactly is going on here?
I totally disagree with this type of thing even if the person is someone I don't
understand much. The world has come to a dangerous place where digital lynching without
reference to law seems to be the prevailing modus operandi.
A little word of warning. Be careful what you wish for. If Don can be removed prior to the
next election, (and I don't believe that would happen), then Mike Pence takes the reins. He
has just as many crazy notions as his current boss, but is an experienced politician who
knows the ins and outs of Congress. He may get more of the programme through than little Don
can. And that would not be good.
He's done it before. Lots of times.
Example: one of his posts back in April:
"Trump is a genius. Nobody can take him down, the man is a fighter, you punch him and he'll
punch you back 10 times harder. The FBI, Democrats and MSM have tried to take him down since
he decided to run for president, yet he's standing tall and with a 50% approval rating."
There's no point in engaging in discussion with folks like that ...
Welcome to postmodernist politics folks. It will continue to degenerate until, in despair,
people turn toward an orderly system of politics; the Chinese system, the Russian system or
even a coherent religious system. Counsellors will be on hand for those who feel hurt or
upset by the return to authoritarianism -- they will be able to get great treatment in
re-education centres. Just a matter of time before our current system just crumbles from
within.
Yeah they're sucking it direct from Ayn Rand's teat. Bunch of sociopaths. And I think most
political scientists are well aware that citizens united was the death of American democracy
as a representative political system. The illusion of functionality has collapsed under the
weight of corruption. Trump is really just a symptom of that. A giant orange enema of the
state.
LOL. The west is about to collapse. There is no more money to finance the Ponzy Scheme of the
everlasting growth you seem to think is natural. while everyone is distracted in this
dualistic BS, the planet is slowly shutting down her ressources.
The Russia after years of
sanctions have developed an economy that make them less dependant on other countries. So
They will probably less affected by what is coming.
Unless you live in you own bubble, maybe
you noticed that Occidental countries have become empty shells...gutted from their skills at
making stuff. It is all virtual production now...all banking stuff, numbers insurance...most
skilled stuff are either in Germany or in Asia...what is going on?
Trump is a megalomaniac I agree, but he is not dangerous and is not mentally ill.
Mental illness is a real thing and you shouldn't casually trivialize it in this way.
Finally anyone who runs for office as President of the USA is by very definition a pretty
extreme megalomaniac. So you have two points that are not real and/or could be considered erroneous
discrimination and one point that is a prerequisite for any POTUS candidate.
Looking for a reason to impeach him is a ridiculous back to front thing to do and is itself
proof that any impeachment will fail. To impeach someone you must first start with a very
obvious reason.
It's simply not possible to impeach a president because you don't like their politics or
their personality. This whole searching for a reason to impeach is itself evidence that any
impeachment is politically motivated and the very optics of this serve only to strengthen
Trump's own political support in direct opposition.
Trump is President because the DNC was captured by very stupid and deeply corrupt
people.
Many say Mike Pence could have been the one behind the op-ed, because the unidentified author
singled out the late John McCain as "a lodestar for restoring honor to public life and our
national dialogue." The word isn't that commonly used. But Pence has used the word with some
regularity. Yet the word could have been a ploy to divert attention from the real author, who
claimed to support many of the GOP policies – "effective deregulation, historic tax
reform, a more robust military and more."
No doubt the current crisis works for Pence: "Given the instability many witnessed, there
were early whispers within the cabinet of invoking the 25th Amendment, which would start a
complex process for removing the president." Of course he and the GOP didn't want to
"precipitate a constitutional crisis. So we will do what we can to steer the administration
in the right direction until -- one way or another -- it's over." But they don't want Trump
to finish his term and hope that he'll soon be gone.
Pepperoni Pizza is absolutely correct. We DON'T know his staff are going behind his back - we
have this anonymous bollocks as the totality of our evidence.
This op-ed is going to absolutely confirm, in the eyes of Trump supporters, all his whines
about being thwarted by the Deep State. It's going to increase his support among the crazies,
and it's also useful for the Republicans who want to ditch him in favour of Mike Pence.
The whole thing stinks to high heaven and for the Democrats or the 'resistance' to see it
as some kind of bonus is insane. Even if you take it at face value it's a disgusting piece of
authoritarian, we-know-best hypocrisy. If you look at its actual effects, the net result is
not likely to benefit the forces of sanity in any way.
The media's complacency about all of this, and their failure to actually report on the
Republican trajectory and the bigger picture, is criminal. Instead we get YET ANOTHER bit of
'oh look the wheels are just about to come off the bus!', and all the while the Republicans
are gerrymandering and purging voter rolls like crazt before the midterms, and of course
refusing to change their unaccountable electronic voting machines and - did you read THIS one
in the news? - blocking a bill which would have audited the election results.
Tl;dr: The US, and by extension the planet via environmental destruction and possibly war
on top, is utterly fucked.
"... Mr anonymous also concedes that the administration has done some good things .. like .. a robust military. Now call me old fashioned, but having a military with twice(three times .. four times) the capability of the rest of the world put together and spending enough yearly to run the whole of Africa .. probably India too, just on a means of killing .. and this even before the US military became .. robust?.. ..."
Mr anonymous also concedes that the administration has done some good things .. like .. a
robust military. Now call me old fashioned, but having a military with twice(three times ..
four times) the capability of the rest of the world put together and spending enough yearly
to run the whole of Africa .. probably India too, just on a means of killing .. and this even
before the US military became .. robust?..
What is wrong with you people .. national security?.. Laughable .. when is your security
ever, ever, ever threatened! And yet people starve, people don't have clean water to drink
..
Perhaps were the US to help lift the basic burdens of millions who have bugger all, then
there wouldn't be so many suposed 'enemies'. I do believe film maker Michael Moore has voiced
this very same thing .. but then, what purpose all those shiny new expensive killing
machines?..
Something is seriously wrong in America .. and it ain't just Trump!
This is a very poor op-ed piece. Simply calling the President "a crazy loon " isn't political
analysis, or at least not the sort of political analysis I would be willing to pay for. Nor
do I think the thesis that certain members of the administration are busy trying to shore up
their reputations in the face of a sinking presidency holds water. Firstly, unless the
current investigations provide incontrovertible evidence that the President was engaged in
criminal activity I don't think there is any change that he will be impeached. Secondly, if
you wanted to protect your reputation surely the thing to do would be to resign and maintain
a dignified silence while you are writing your memoirs. Or if you really were part of a
secret clique protecting the American constitution against a reckless President you would
keep quiet and get on with your important business. It seems to me that this anonymous piece
was either a clumsy attempt to further damage the President or a sophisticated attempt to
galvanise his support base by "proving" that the President is being undermined by unelected
traitors. Or something else completely might be going on. That's why I would like to read a
thoughtful opinion piece by an informed observer.
Sounds like there's a treasonous public servant there, doing their best to subvert the will
of the people. And of course loudly supported by the squealing hard left guardian mob.
Looking at the type of far left fascists crawling out of the woodwork, I would say
Trump is provoking utter derangement in all the right people.
"the corrupt metropolitan elites have swindled them again"
-Who appointed these 'corrupt metropolitan elites' if it was not Trump himself? Who are these
people-Betsy DeVos, Wilbur Ross and Steve Mnuchin- quite apart from Jeff Sessions and the now
disgraced Michael Flynn? Trump appointed them, they weren't forced on him by the "corrupt
metropolitan elites". Is Trump to be given a free pass for his own mistakes?
What many commentators here seem to fail to recognise, because of their political bias I
suppose, is that there is a ground swell of dissatisfaction with the political consensus that
has seen the working class and lower middle class disenfranchised or at least their perceived
interests ignored. As a result, populist ideologies, as espoused by Steven Bannon, and
others, and exemplified by leaders like Donald Trump have thrown away the rule book with all
its aims to support the extremely wealthy and have reached out to those that want jobs before
green policies, law and order before gender diversity programs and so on.
I doubt that many of the readers here will receive the message but we are witnessing a
revolution that I see as significant as the rise of the sans-culottes in the early part of
the French Revolution. That didn't end well for the sans-culottes or their aims but we can
hardly blame them for trying. Today the retrenched car worker in the US can hardly be blamed
for being unhappy that the CEO of a car company receives a huge pay rise and bail outs from
the government and similar stories in other areas.
Vive la revolution.
Some of this stuff is clearly nonsense. Example: the insider claimed Trump is an admirer of
dictators:
"In public and in private, President Trump shows a preference for autocrats and dictators,
such as President Vladimir Putin of Russia and North Korea's leader, Kim Jong-un, and
displays little genuine appreciation for the ties that bind us to allied, like-minded
nations."
And yet the forthcoming Bob Woodward book claims Trump told his defence secretary he
wanted to kill Assad:
Donald Trump ordered his defence secretary to assassinate Syria's president Bashar
al-Assad and "kill the f****** lot of them" in the leader's regime, in the wake of a chemical
attack against civilians, according to a new book.
Defence secretary James Mattis is said to have told the president during a phone call he
would "get right on it" before hanging up the phone and instead telling an aide: "We're not
going to do any of that. We're going to be much more measured." In the wake of the chemical
attack in April 2017, the president's national security team developed options that included
the more conventional airstrike that Mr Trump eventually ordered.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The anti-Trump lot can't have it both ways. He can't be a fan of dictators but also want to
kill them! It's clear there is lying or exaggeration on both sides. The people out to impeach
Trump (or sell books!) will lie too.
This is plausible as McCain was involved in Steele dossier saga
Notable quotes:
"... In this sense, the author may well have felt the need to plant the red herring in question in this very part of the letter so as to create the 'Pence diversion' in the very place that one might otherwise being looking for someone associated with John McCain. ..."
"... The next logical question would then be: how did he do it? The answer to this is quite simple. Just as he meticulously arranged his own funeral prior to his death, apparently down to the seating arrangements for guests, McCain could have easily handed the letter to a highly trusted associate or family member who would then present the letter to an ideological ally at the infamously anti-Trump New York Times. ..."
"... It is therefore not beyond the realm of the possible to consider that the infamous letter was not actually drafted by a Trump White House official but instead was drafted by John McCain as the final salvo in his long war against Donald Trump. Stranger things have happened and this without a doubt is a strange era in American political life. ..."
Not only was John McCain never in the Trump administration but at
the time when the infamous anonymous New York Times op-ed from a reportedly disgruntled senior
Trump White House official was published, John McCain had been dead for eleven days. Therefore
to suggest that McCain wrote the letter isn't to suggest a belief in time travel or the
supernatural. Instead it is to suggest a calculated scheme from beyond the grave by a man who
famously choreographed every detail of his own funeral during his final weeks or possibly
months of life.
Whoever wrote the letter was clever enough to include in the text a red herring designed to
convince the public and possibly Donald Trump himself that the letter's author was none other
than Vice President Mike Pence. But as Andrew Kroybko
rightly illustrates in his piece on the subject in Eurasia Future, Pence would never be so
foolish as to include in the letter the word "lodestar" as the highly obscure word is
frequently used by Pence while not being a part of the daily vocabulary of most English
speakers anywhere in world. Such an obvious giveaway could have only been planted by design
considering that whoever did write the letter most likely penned the most important epistle in
his or her life.
Making matters more curious, the word "lodestar" appears in the ed-op in the paragraph where
the author negatively compares Trump with John McCain. This itself is an indication that McCain
and his much anticipated death were clear sources of inspiration for the content of the letter
and the timing of its publication. The paragraph in question reads as follows:
"We may no longer have Senator McCain. But we will always have his example -- a lodestar
for restoring honor to public life and our national dialogue. Mr. Trump may fear such
honorable men, but we should revere them".
In this sense, the author may well have felt the need to plant the red herring in question
in this very part of the letter so as to create the 'Pence diversion' in the very place that
one might otherwise being looking for someone associated with John
McCain.
While not casting judgment on the reality that John McCain was indeed a surviving prisoner
of war, it is factually true that unlike many prisoners of war, McCain tended to publicly revel
in his status as a survivor and even used the fame derived from his harrowing experience to
launch a long political career. Because of this, it is not by any means unreasonable to think
that the kind of egotism one associates with McCain might have led him to devise such a
'parting shot' at his powerful and more politically successful rival. This was after all the
man who flew to all corners of the earth even in old age to rally various armed rebellions of
one sort or another from Georgia and Ukraine to Syria and Iraq. It is also instructive to
realise that McCain is the man who without a second thought handed the hoax Steele dossier to
then FBI Director James Comey and later
said the following about his actions:
"I discharged that obligation, and I would do it again. Anyone who doesn't like it can go
to hell".
The next logical question would then be: how did he do it? The answer to this is quite
simple. Just as he meticulously arranged his own funeral prior to his death, apparently down to
the seating arrangements for guests, McCain could have easily handed the letter to a highly
trusted associate or family member who would then present the letter to an ideological ally at
the infamously anti-Trump New York Times.
While Donald Trump has suggested that he will use legal pressure to force the New York Times
to divulge the source of the letter, such a matter could take years of back and forth in the
courts, by which time the relevance of the letter would have been greatly reduced by the
passage of time. In any case, as the drafting of the letter may well be a seditious or
treasonous act, unlike an actual member of the Trump White House staff, McCain is currently in
a place where no judge, jury or executioner can reach him.
It is therefore not beyond the realm of the possible to consider that the infamous letter
was not actually drafted by a Trump White House official but instead was drafted by John McCain
as the final salvo in his long war against Donald Trump. Stranger things have happened and this
without a doubt is a strange era in American political life.
"... The author writes for this publication in a private capacity which is unrepresentative of anyone or any organization except for his own personal views. Nothing written by the author should ever be conflated with the editorial views or official positions of any other media outlet or institution. ..."
The Mainstream Media's latest reports that internet sleuths think that Vice President Pence
probably wrote yesterday's "Resistance" op-ed in the New York Times because of the anonymous
writer's use of the word "lodestar" is nothing more than a red herring by the "deep state" to
provoke a showdown between Trump & Pence ahead of this November's midterms and possibly
even push the President to trigger a constitutional crisis by trying to fire him.
Everyone in the world is wondering which high-level official in the Trump Administration
penned yesterday's
"Resistance" op-ed in the New York Times, but the Mainstream Media is running with the
story that internet sleuths think that it's Vice President Pence because of the anonymous
writer's use of the word "lodestar", which he's publicly used on
at least five separate occasions before. He probably wasn't behind the piece, however, but
his idiosyncratic use of a relatively uncommon word was likely picked up by the "deep state"
well in advance and deliberately inserted into the preplanned infowar provocation that was just
published in order to pin the blame on him as part of a larger scheme to sow discord in the
White House.
The "deep state" wants to provoke Trump to unleash one of his famously scathing and
unscripted tweets against Pence, which would irreparably ruin their professional relationship
but also throw the President into a constitutional conundrum because he can't
legally fire his Vice President no matter how much the two might come to hate each other as
a result of this devious psy-op. Running with this scenario for a moment, whether Trump tries
to fire a publicly insulted Pence or seethes with rage because he can't, the resultant turmoil
that would play out in the Mainstream Media would be enough to seemingly confirm all of the
accusations of chaos that Bob Woodward alleged in his upcoming book, therefore potentially
tipping the midterm electoral scales to the Democrats' favor.
Reviewing the fast-moving developments of the past couple of days, it's inarguable that The
Establishment planned for all of this to happen far in advance as part of their plot to
undermine Trump ahead of the midterms, with the phased escalation of their infowar campaign so
far moving from Woodward's book to the anonymous "Resistance" op-ed and finally to the claims
that Pence is somehow involved because the unknown author cleverly inserted a very uncommon
word that he's known to occasionally use. While Trump will probably display more common sense
that he's regularly given credit for and likely won't fall for the trap of jumping the gun and
publicly condemning Pence, he's in a dilemma when it comes to identifying who's behind the
scandalous op-ed.
Trump has no choice but to order an immediate investigation on national security
grounds after it was revealed that a high-ranking official in his administration is
supposedly conspiring with others to sabotage the policies of the democratically elected and
legitimate President of the United States, but this is predictably being framed by the
Mainstream Media as a "witch hunt" that they'll soon try to compare to a "Stalinist purge" (if
they haven't done so already). Actually, they seem to secretly hope that Trump becomes paranoid
to the point of overreacting and punishes or publicly embarrasses innocent members of his staff
in order to counterproductively create an internal "Resistance" where there might not have even
really been one to begin with.
Whatever ends up happening, and the latest "deep state" coup attempt against Trump has only
just begun, this much is certain, and it's that the inclusion of the word "lodestar" was a red
herring designed to manipulate the President's mind after he finds out that the Mainstream
Media is promoting internet sleuths who apparently "discovered" that Pence used this uncommon
word on several occasions. The whole point at this stage is to provoke Trump, who they
mistakenly believe to be an unhinged maniac incapable of controlling his actions and prone to
lashing out at whoever and whenever at the slightest hint of an affront, to publicly attack
Pence and then trigger a constitutional crisis by trying to fire him, all of which would be
taking place in front of the entire nation ahead of the upcoming
midterms.
Trump's much too clever to fall for this trap, and the fact that something so blatantly
obvious has been attempted speaks to just how much his opponents underestimate him, but he
nevertheless needs to be careful that he doesn't take action against any innocent members of
his administration who might get caught up in the current investigation to find the traitor and
their ilk, if they even exist. This means that he has to trust whoever it is that he's
dispatched to dig up evidence on this issue and won't doubt the findings that they present to
him, after which he'll have to determine whether they're also being set up just like Pence is
or if they're actually guilty as charged. Trump's toughest tests are therefore ahead of him and
could make or break his presidency in the coming days.
DISCLAIMER:The author writes for this publication in a private capacity which
is unrepresentative of anyone or any organization except for his own personal views. Nothing
written by the author should ever be conflated with the editorial views or official positions
of any other media outlet or institution.
he reversed the war in afghanistan? drones? did he prosecute bankers? does he favor
increasing offshore drilling? now it looks like he's renegotiating clinton's nafta and
pushing for some version of obama's trade treaties. trump is the invading python, and the
democrats and establishment republicans are the alligators; whichever wins, the small furry
animals get eaten. i just hope they don't start world war 3 while they're settling
things--trump looks to be doubling down on obama's syria policy too, and support of the
current ukrainian government.
'Fraid so. Every new generation of neocons regurgitates the same discredited lies from the
previous generation, and suckers believe them all over again. Even the title "neocon" or
"neoliberal" is a lie: there's nothing new about them.
Trump was not only openly attacked during the nomination process, the Republican Party
nominee who was selected to fight Obama in 2012 -Mitt Romney- delivered a savage attack in
which he described Trump as a con-man and a chronic liar -yet the same people who could,
there and then have told Trump to get lost backed him. Trump has been attacked from the start
and every time and all of the time said to his attackers: so what? I dare you to remove me
from the nomination, I dare you to remove me from the Office of President. This is a man who
is challenging the governance of the US in a manner no other President has done before, and
so far, he is still winning. That is the scary part.
Trump is threatening Deep State corruption by placing his own family members in positions of
power and profiting from charging the nation for his and his staff's repeated use of Trump
Tower and Mar-a-Lago? That's a bizarre way of draining the swamp.
The US political system has many flaws, not least that the President can be elected on an
apparent electoral college landslide while losing the popular vote. But then again no
country's political system is perfect, human nature being what it is.
However, Trump is clearly not up to the job. Not by intellect, understanding of world
affairs, honesty, temperament, respect for the law, nor constitution. The list goes on
frankly.
The system has gone bad. Trump hasn't "drained the swamp", he's made it far deeper. That
said, "the system" such as it is should work in the hands of honest men and women of
integrity. The trouble is they're few and far between in the GOP as it wilfully ignores
issues in which they would be clamouring for a Democrat president to be impeached.
I sincerely hope the GOP get a thrashing in the mid-terms which may, just may, give them
pause for thought. A Democrat Congress might also actually hold Trump to account. The only
danger there is that he lashes out with even less self control.
Dangerous times.
"... Dear Readers: Your website needs your support. It cannot exist without it. ..."
"... When you read my column below, you will read what you cannot find anywhere else–a clear, concise, correct explanation of who the author is of the New York Times op-ed falsely attributed to a "senior Trump official." ..."
"... Anonymous dissent has no credibility. ..."
"... A real dissenter would use his reputation and the status of his high position to lend weight to his dissent. ..."
"... thwart his and his fellow co-conspirators' plot by revealing it! ..."
"... This forgery is an attempt to break up the Trump administration by creating suspicion throughout the senior level. If Trump falls for the New York Times' deception, a house cleaning is likely to take place wherever suspicion falls. A government full of mutual suspicion cannot function. ..."
"... Why is resolving dangerous tensions a "preference for dictators" and not a preference for peace? ..."
"... removing a president for his unwillingness to worsen the dangerously high tensions between nuclear powers? ..."
Dear Readers: Your website needs your support. It cannot exist without it.
When you read my column below, you will read what you cannot find anywhere else–a
clear, concise, correct explanation of who the author is of the New York Times op-ed falsely
attributed to a "senior Trump official."
I know who wrote the anonymous "senior Trump official" op-ed in the New York Times. The New
York Times wrote it.
The op-ed ( http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/50194.htm
) is an obvious forgery. As a former senior official in a presidential administration, I can
state with certainty that no senior official would express disageeement anonymously.
Anonymous dissent has no credibility. Moreover, the dishonor of it undermines the
character of the writer. A real dissenter would use his reputation and the status of his
high position to lend weight to his dissent.
The New York Times' claim to have vetted the writer also lacks credibility, as the New York
Times has consistently printed extreme accusations against Trump and against Vladimir Putin
without supplying a bit of evidence. The New York Times has consistently misrepresented
unsubstantiated allegations as proven fact. There is no reason whatsoever to believe the New
York Times about anything.
Consider also whether a member of a conspiracy working "diligently" inside the
administration with "many of the senior officials" to "preserve our democratic institutions
while thwarting" Trump's "worst inclinations" would thwart his and his fellow
co-conspirators' plot by revealing it!
This forgery is an attempt to break up the Trump administration by creating suspicion
throughout the senior level. If Trump falls for the New York Times' deception, a house cleaning
is likely to take place wherever suspicion falls. A government full of mutual suspicion cannot
function.
The fake op-ed serves to validate from within the Trump administration the false reporting
by the New York Times that serves the interests of the military/security complex to hold on to
enemies with whom Trump prefers to make peace. For example, the alleged "senior official"
misrepresents, as does the New York Times, President Trump's efforts to reduce dangerous
tensions with North Korea and Russia as President Trump's "preference for autocrats and
dictators, such as President Vladimir Putin of Russia and North Korea's leader, Kim Jong-un"
over America's "allied, like-minded nations." This is the same non-sequitur that the New York
Times has expressed endlessly. Why is resolving dangerous tensions a "preference for
dictators" and not a preference for peace? The New York Times has never explained, and
neither does the "senior official."
How is it that Putin, elected three times by majorities that no US president has ever
received, is a dictator? Putin stepped down after serving the permitted two consecutive terms
and was again elected after being out of office for a term. Do dictators step down and sit out
for 6 years?
The "senior official" also endorses as proven fact the alleged Skripal poisoning by a
"deadly Russian nerve agent," an event for which not one scrap of evidence exists. Neither has
anyone explained why the "deadly nerve agent" wasn't deadly. The entire Skripal event rests
only on assertions. The purpose of the Skripal hoax was precisely what President Trump said it
was: to box him into further confrontation with Russia and prevent a reduction in tensions.
If the "senior official" is really so uninformed as to believe that Putin is a dictator who
attacked the Skripals with a deadly nerve agent and elected Trump president, the "senior
official" is too dangerously ignorant and gullible to be a senior official in any
administration. These are the New York Times' beliefs or professed beliefs as the New York
Times does everything the organization can do to protect the military/security complex's budget
from any reduction in the "enemy threat."
Do you remember when Condoleezza Rice prepared the way for the US illegal invasion of Iraq
with her imagery of "a mushroom cloud going up over an American city"? Iraq had no nuclear
weapons, and everyone in the government knew it. There was no prospect of such an event.
However, there is a very real prospect of mushroom clouds going up over many American and
European cities if the crazed Russiaphobia of the New York Times and the other presstitutes
along with the Democratic Party and the security elements of the deep state continue to pile
lie after lie, provocation after provocation on Russia's patience. At some point, the only
logical conclusion that the Russian government can reach is that Washington is preparing
Americans and Europeans for an attack on Russia. Propaganda vilifying and demonizing the enemy
precedes military attacks.
The New York Times' other attack on President Trump -- that he is unstable and unfit for
office -- is reproduced in the fake op-ed: "Given the instability many witnessed, there were
early whispers within the cabinet of invoking the 25th Amendment, which would start a complex
process for removing the president," writes the invented and non-existent "senior
official."
Americans are an insouciant people. But are any so insouciant that they really think that a
senior official would write that the members of President Trump's cabinet have considered
removing him from office? What is this statement other than a deliberate effort to produce a
constitutional crisis -- the precise aim of John Brennan, James Comey, Rod Rosenstein, the DNC,
and the New York Times. A constitutional crisis is what the hoax of Russiagate is all
about.
The level of mendacity and evil in this plot against Trump is unequaled in history. Have any
of these conspirators given a moment's thought to the consequences of removing a president
for his unwillingness to worsen the dangerously high tensions between nuclear powers? The
next president would have to adopt a Russophobic stance and do nothing to reduce the tensions
that can break out in nuclear war or himself be accused of "coddling the Russian dictator and
putting America at risk."
The reason that America is at risk is that the CIA and the presstitute media have put
America -- and Europe -- at risk by frustrating President Trump's intention to reduce the
dangerous level of tensions between the two major nuclear powers. Professor Steven Cohen,
America's premier Russian expert, says that never during the Cold War were tensions as high as
they are at this present time. As a former member of The Committee on the Present Danger, I
myself am a former Cold Warrior, and I know for a fact that Professor Cohen is correct.
In America today, and in Europe, people are living in a situation in which the
liberal-progressive-left's blind hatred of Donald Trump, together with the self-interested
power and profit of the military security complex and election hopes of the Democratic Party,
are recklessly and irresponsibly risking nuclear Armageddon for no other reason than to act out
their hate and further their own nest.
This plot against Trump is dangerous to life on earth and demands that the governments and
peoples of the world act now to expose this plot and to bring it to an end before it kills us
all.
This is a classic color revolutions trick, usually called "Diplomats letter". Used many times
in many color revolutions worldwide. In EuroMaydan it preceded "sniper massacre".
Notable quotes:
"... I think he has to do it ASAP because the NYT editorial looks like an act of desperation and I expect Mueller to pile on soon, so beat them to the punch and put them on their heels for a change. No doubt, this is hardball. ..."
Now that ridiculously juvenile NYT's "op-ed" starts to make sense...they were given a
heads up on the GJ proceedings against this "stellar public servant" and wanted to knock it
off the front page.
What's in my head is declassifying a bunch of nasty shit.
Either way, if NYT made up fake news pretending to be a senior white house official, OR,
there really is somebody in his inner circle anonymously stabbing POTUS in the back, it is
very bad news and there should be serious hell to pay. I do not like nor trust a single one
of his appointees so I'm guessing it's somebody. It would be suicide for NYT getting caught
making this all up, that would be risky business IMO.
This isn't a complicated timeline of he said, she said over this piss dossier that glosses
people's eyes over. This is very simple stuff people can understand and Trump could make a
very rational case that the swamp is so damn deep he can't even put together a staff without
it being infiltrated and say "here look" and declassify shit that would encompass ALL the
recent scandals and ensnare the fake news experts colluding to make this happen.
That would light a big fire in DC that would be very hard to put out.
Well personally I don't believe for one second that the "op-ed" was anything other than
Fake Nuuuz.
As far as ordering the release/declassification of everything the DoJ & FBI has on the
Hillary Dossier I believe it's getting close but it's a hardball kind of swamp, it would be
before the midterms for maximum effect I would think.
I think he has to do it ASAP because the NYT editorial looks like an act of desperation
and I expect Mueller to pile on soon, so beat them to the punch and put them on their heels
for a change. No doubt, this is hardball.
As was no doubt their intent, the mainstream media has succeeded in overshadowing the Kavanaugh
confirmation hearing with a flurry of stories about a mutiny allegedly brewing inside the West Wing
that has set
more than a
few
tongues
wagging
about the
possibility of Trump's cabinet invoking the 25th amendment
(an eventuality that was once reportedly discussed by former White House Chief Strategist
Steve Bannon
). But while White House officials have already vehemently denied the quotes
gathered by Bob Woodward
in the strategically leaked (to his own newspaper) excerpts from the
Watergate reporter's upcoming book, speculation is shifting to
who might be the mystery author
of a scathing NYT op-ed reportedly penned by a "senior
administration official" that portrays Trump as unfit for office.
Fortunately for Trump, several voices of moderation have come forward to condemn the attacks
(amid speculation that the Times' "senior" source may not be so senior after all).
But this
incipient backlash didn't deter Axios (a media org that, like the Times, is notoriously critical of
Trump) from piling on with a story about President Trump's intensifying distrust of those in his
inner circle.
Trump, Axios claims, is "deeply suspicious of much of the government he
oversees" from federal agency grunts all the way up to those privileged few with unfettered access
to the Oval Office. The piece even goes so far as to quote yet another anonymous "senior
administration official" as saying that "a lot of us are wishing we'd been the writer."
"I find the reaction to the NYT op-ed fascinating - that people seem so shocked that there is
a resistance from the inside," one senior official said.
"A lot of us [were] wishing
we'd been the writer, I suspect ... I hope he [Trump] knows - maybe he does? - that there are
dozens and dozens of us."
And in case you couldn't figure out why this is important, allow
Axios
to elaborate:
Why it matters:
Several senior White House officials have described their
roles to us as saving America and the world from this president.
A good number of current White House officials have privately admitted to us they consider
Trump unstable, and at times dangerously slow.
But the really deep concern and contempt, from our experience, has been at the agencies -- and
particularly in the foreign policy arena.
In what was perhaps the most bombastic claim included in the piece, Trump reportedly once
carried around with him a list of suspected leakers.
"The snakes are everywhere but we're
getting rid of them,"
he reportedly told
Axios.
For some time last year,
Trump even carried with him a handwritten list of people
suspected to be leakers undermining his agenda.
"He would basically be like, 'We've gotta get rid of them.
The snakes are everywhere
but we're getting rid of them,'"
said a source close to Trump.
Trump would often ask staff whom they thought could be trusted.
He often
asks the people who work for him what they think about their colleagues, which can be not only
be uncomfortable but confusing to Trump: Rival staffers shoot at each other and Trump is left
not knowing who to believe.
And just in case you haven't read enough about Trump's purported obsession with "snakes" -
here's some more.
"When he was super frustrated about the leaks, he would rail about the 'snakes' in
the White House,"
said a source who has discussed administration leakers with the
president.
"Especially early on, when we would be in Roosevelt Room meetings,
he would sit down
at the table, and get to talking, then turn around to see who was sitting along the walls behind
him."
"One day, after one of those meetings, he said, 'Everything that just happened is going to
leak. I don't know any of those people in the room.' ... He was very paranoid about this."
All of this reinforces the idea that Trump truly believes that there is an organized "deep
state" conspiracy to take him down.
Of course, what Axios neglects to say,
is that he's
not wrong.
"Trump flopped as an owner of a professional football
team, effectively killing not only his own franchise but
the league as a whole... He bankrupted his casinos five
times over the course of nearly 20 years. His eponymous
airline existed for less than three years and ended up
almost a quarter of a billion dollars in debt. And he has
slapped his surname on a practically never-ending
sequence of duds and scams (Trump Ice bottled water,
Trump Vodka, Trump Steaks,
Trump
magazine, Trump
Mortgage, Trump University -- for which he settled a
class-action fraud lawsuit earlier this year for $25
million)."
And Kruse didn't even mention The Donald's sixth
bankruptcy, the one he filed for the debt-ridden Plaza Hotel
in 1992.
So, people, what do you think Trump, the
bankrupter-in-chief, is gonna do to the good old US of A?
That's one of my major hopes for this presidency. That
Trump can get us through the coming bankruptcy without
a large scale war/depression breaking out.
"one senior
official said"... oh really, why should I believe
that? When something is obvious BS, repeating it
just makes you look foolish, it doesn't make it
true, Hitlers propaganda play book is dated and no
longer functions in the age of the internet. At
least we know that Operation Mocking Bird is alive
and well.
This just shows us how they keep recycling
the same shit bureaucrat's over and over
again and they become an animal that lives
within and outside of whomever is POTUS.
Perhaps it's time to burn the whole thing
down and start over again.....
We the People are not so
schooled in the finer points.
We have rope and can see
treason with our own eyes, and
figure to do our part, be
civic minded for the greater
good and all.
If he has the power to do it, the time is
right to declassify some major bombs on the
swamp.
It sounds sensational but it's also
a step in the right direction to move the
capital out of DC. It really is the nerve
center of raunch, deceit, fraud and an
irredeemable shit hole.
Agreed, but moving won't help. The problem
is the concentration of money and power.
You could move the capitol every day and
the swamp would follow like remoras follow
a shark
The only way to deal with the Debt, is to grow the
economy and shrink it on a relative basis. So much
of the past debt was incurred on non-productive
expenditures that yield no returns.
Trump knows
that. Amazing what he gets done with all the
snipers outside and all the cockroaches inside. A
lesser man would have said fuck it a long time ago.
Its as if they think the people actually support
the Deep State Establishment and don't loath them.
Please tell me how I should really love John McCain
again now that he's dead.
"Trump, Axios claims, is
'deeply suspicious of much of the government
he oversees'
"
Again, if people believed the corporate
media Trump wouldn't be president right now,
HIllary would be, so that fight is pretty
much over.
Also, just because you are paranoid and
think they are all out to get you doesn't
mean it isn't true!. Of course the deep
state hates Trump. It's all just a circus
and a show until it's not. I really don't
know what Trump is waiting for. Call Bill
Binney in and get your heads together and
take down all the deep state.
PUT THEM ALL IN PRISON.
Yes, it will wipe out the whole government
as we know it.... but that is why Trump was
elected in the first place.
a very big part. rub is, i don't think he
knew. i think wray came in on a "if you
don't appoint him, the FIB is going to be
without a director" sort of threat. i think
sessions totally ass raped trump.
as for the remainder of his
administration, if you turn the white house
into goldman south, what exactly do you
expect for an economic plan.
as for the pre-election dumbfucks saying
trump is an executive, he will appoint good
people, and let them do their jobs. i
haven't seen one good appointment yet out of
trump. out of all of his appointments, scott
pruitt was the best and trump should have
backed him up, but didn't. he was sacrificed
to the environmentalists.
holee shit!!!!!
have i got an off topic comment to make.
i clicked on the globalintelhub link at
the top of the page about the possible source
of the op-ed.
what i found about one fourth of the way
into the article stopped me dead in my
tracks. this is the comment that did it:
But what is news in this disclosure
are the
newly
released emails
between Mark Mazzetti,
the New York Times's national security and
intelligence reporter, and CIA spokeswoman
Marie Harf.
you see it? do you see it? MARIE
HARF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
does that name ring a bell? it damn well
should. she was a long time spokeshole in
the HNIC state department. she is the one
who uttered the phrase:
We need in the medium to longer term
to go after the root causes that leads people
to join these groups, whether it's a lack of
opportunity for jobs,
jobs for jihadists!!!! and this whore
still has a job in gov't? as a CIA
spokeshole? RUFKM
my fucking gawd get rid of these fucking
people!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
So if they go 25th Amendment on him will
Trump supporters chimp out or wait for the
proof to be presented and evaluate if his
staff have a vaild point?
Edit: I mostly
agree with your post and thats why I have
been so critical. What I saw early on, and
since, has been one big clusterfuck of
"you keep making decisions that in no way
reflect a person who is as awesome as you
promised."
Figures. When you are blocked from pillaging foreign
nations, you of course turn to the idea of bankruptcy.
You people just don't seem to understand that you are
not kings and queens, but common folk and you should
pay your debts, and tighten your belts. It would be
relatively short term pain for long term gain.
That,
more than anything else, speaks to the absence of any
character in the American make up.
I'll not believe it until Woof Shitzer and/or
Rachel Madcow confirm these rumors.
Radical Left
Plagiarist Farheed Diarrhea has evidently been
preoccupied by being dumped by his wife after 21
years of hardship so we won't be hearing his inane
comments bashing Trump for awhile.
Zakaria was suspended for a week in August
2012 while Time and CNN investigated an allegation
of plagiarism
[46]
involving an August 20 column on gun control with
similarities to a New Yorker article by
Jill Lepore
. In a statement Zakaria apologized,
saying that he had made "a terrible mistake."
Go back to Chinese Tire and buy some "made in
Canada" crap. Tell me again how the "Canadians"
co-opted the British in 1812 . Watch some more
Franz Kafka on the CBC, the Chinese Broadcasting
Corporation and explain to the CAW in southern
Ontario how Justine Twinklesocks traded auto worker
jobs for the Quebec Milk Quota.
There are
Canadians with character, but you ain't one of
them.
The US went into receivership in 1933, so I guess
"make it bankruptier?"
I have no problem with this,
since it's going to be interesting to see how the
debtors (The US and its employees) are going to pay
the creditors (that would be the Citizens) back for
the $17 trillion they owe us.
Going to have to be one helluva bake sale.
But my guess is they will just throw another woar
and kill off another generation of Creditors like they
have done for the past century. (And collect the
insurance premiums, since Social Security Insurance
pays out to the primary beneficiary first..and that
would be...The US GOv).
What? You thought Social Security was for YOUR
benefit?! Hahah, silly wabbits.
The author clearly supports a neocon foreign policy. just look at his stance about Russia. Can this me MI6 false flag designed
to paralyze Trump administration by sowing suspicion among the top officials.? British clearly resent Trump attempt to shrink the US
led global neoliberal empire created by his predecessors.
Although he was elected as a Republican, the president shows little affinity for
ideals long espoused by conservatives: free minds, free markets and free people. At best, he has invoked these
ideals in scripted settings. At worst, he has attacked them outright.
In addition to his mass-marketing of the notion that the press is the "enemy of
the people," President Trump's impulses are generally anti-trade and anti-democratic.
Don't get me wrong. There are bright spots that the near-ceaseless negative
coverage of the administration fails to capture: effective deregulation, historic tax reform, a more robust
military and more.
But these successes have come despite -- not because of -- the president's
leadership style, which is impetuous, adversarial, petty and ineffective.
From the White House to executive branch departments and agencies, senior
officials will privately admit their daily disbelief at the commander in chief's comments and actions. Most are
working to insulate their operations from his whims.
Meetings with him veer off topic and off the rails, he engages in repetitive
rants, and his impulsiveness results in half-baked, ill-informed and occasionally reckless decisions that have to
be walked back.
"There is literally no telling whether he might change his mind from one minute to
the next," a top official complained to me recently, exasperated by an Oval Office meeting at which the president
flip-flopped on a major policy decision he'd made only a week earlier.
The erratic behavior would be more concerning if it weren't for unsung heroes in
and around the White House. Some of his aides have been cast as villains by the media. But in private, they have
gone to great lengths to keep bad decisions contained to the West Wing, though they are clearly not always
successful.
It may be cold comfort in this chaotic era, but Americans should know that there
are adults in the room. We fully recognize what is happening. And we are trying to do what's right even when
Donald Trump won't.
The result is a two-track presidency.
Take foreign policy: In public and in private, President Trump shows a preference
for autocrats and dictators, such as President Vladimir Putin of Russia and North Korea's leader, Kim Jong-un, and
displays little genuine appreciation for the ties that bind us to allied, like-minded nations.
Astute observers have noted, though, that the rest of the administration is
operating on another track, one where countries like Russia are called out for meddling and punished accordingly,
and where allies around the world are engaged as peers rather than ridiculed as rivals.
On Russia, for instance, the president was reluctant
to expel
so many of Mr. Putin's spies as punishment for the poisoning of a former Russian spy in Britain. He
complained for weeks about senior staff members letting him get boxed into further confrontation with Russia, and
he expressed frustration that the United States continued to impose sanctions on the country for its malign
behavior. But his national security team knew better -- such actions had to be taken, to hold Moscow accountable.
This isn't the work of the so-called deep state. It's the work of the steady
state.
Given the instability many witnessed, there were early whispers within the cabinet
of invoking the 25th Amendment, which would start a complex process for removing the president. But no one wanted
to precipitate a constitutional crisis. So we will do what we can to steer the administration in the right
direction until -- one way or another -- it's over.
The bigger concern is not what Mr. Trump has done to the presidency but rather
what we as a nation have allowed him to do to us. We have sunk low with him and allowed our discourse to be
stripped of civility.
Senator John McCain put it best in his
farewell letter
. All Americans should heed his words and break free of the tribalism trap, with the high aim
of uniting through our shared values and love of this great nation.
We may no longer have Senator McCain. But we will always have his example -- a
lodestar for restoring honor to public life and our national dialogue. Mr. Trump may fear such honorable men, but
we should revere them.
There is a quiet resistance within the administration of people choosing to put
country first. But the real difference will be made by everyday citizens rising above politics, reaching across
the aisle and resolving to shed the labels in favor of a single one: Americans.
The writer is a senior official in the Trump administration.
I assumed it was an effort at creating some sort of record of resistance. Does anybody
really believe Paul Ryan is retiring from the 3rd most powerful position in the US Government
to "spend more time with family"? The rats are fleeing a sinking ship. Even if Trump serves
out a full four years, anybody too closely tied to this stupid shit-storm of an
Administration will be tarred in public eyes. But, American voters are notoriously forgetful,
and getting out before the ship goes down will probably work.
Funny shit. "the mole" wrote an Op/Ed piece, that contains no information of a sensitive
nature. S/he wrote of their own personal observations working in the White House. There is
nothing illegal in that.
I get that you might not have any functional understanding of
US law, but it is deeply disturbing that the President of the United States is calling for
the arrest of a citizen exercising their constitutionally guaranteed rights.
The op-ed piece being anonymous makes me wonder if Mr Trump himself put someone up to do it.
What better way of stirring up the base ahead of the mid-terms than talk of undemocratic
factions within the administration and fifth columnists to be rooted out for the cause. It
also offers the president another cudgel against the press that will appeal to his core
constituencies.
Even if Mr Trump isn't capable of coming up with such a scheme, there are certainly those
around him who are.
The statements in the opinion piece are horribly anti-pluralist anti-democratic in
themselves. The writer's nationalist appeal to 'American' unity at the end is based on
everyone uniting around US Republican principles of neo-liberalism, inequality and
militarism. S/he would use a false unity against Trump to impose the worst kind of
conservative fundamentalism and eliminate anything more progressive from the political
spectrum.
Maybe this is mainstream neo-liberal thinking but it's the end of a plural, democratic
state. There would be no more room to discuss inequality, climate change, race or gender
discrimination or new welfare provisions. Just an offer of false unity around hard neoliberal
principles. I guess it's a very similar game to Brexit, which is a choice between
life-threatening asset striping of the UK or May's 'hard right soft Brexit' super
Thatcherism.
Is Vice President Mike Pence trying to pull off a "House of Cards"-style scheme to undermine Trump
and increase his own chances of assuming the presidency?
Apparently, more than a few journalists
believe that might be the case. According to the Huffington Post, some believe that
the use
of a single word - "lodestar" - is a crucial tell
pointing toward Pence as the op-ed's
author. During the op-ed's final paragraphs the mystery author refers to John McCain as "a lodestar
for restoring honor to public life and our national dialogue."
Senator John McCain put it best in his farewell letter.
All Americans should
heed his words and break free of the tribalism trap, with the high aim of uniting through our
shared values and love of this great nation.
We may no longer have Senator McCain. But we will always have his example - a
lodestar for restoring honor to public life and our national dialogue.
Mr. Trump may
fear such honorable men, but we should revere them.
There is a quiet resistance within the administration of people choosing to put
country first.
But the real difference will be made by everyday citizens rising above
politics, reaching across the aisle and resolving to shed the labels in favor of a single one:
Americans.
Pence has, of course, categorically denied these allegations and affirmed his loyalty to the
president.
Still, one video circulating on twitter shows Pence using the word in eight different speeches
dating back to 2001, when he was a Congressman from Indiana.
At the very least, there's some evidence to suggest that the author is a man. As Bloomberg's
Jennifer Jacobs pointed out yesterday, the Times' official Twitter feed may have inadvertently
revealed their gender.
For those who aren't familiar with the word, Merriam-Webster defines "lodestar" as
"a
star that leads or guides"
or a person who
"serves as an inspiration, model, or
guide."
To be sure, the Pence theory isn't without its holes. Trump staffers have said previously that
they pay attention to the idioms employed by others as a defense mechanism when speaking to the
press under the guise of anonymity.
"To cover my tracks, I usually pay attention to other staffers' idioms and use that in
my background quotes.
That throws the scent off me," one White House official told
Axios
.
But online betting markets have put Pence at the top of the list of suspects, with MyBookie
currently
reflecting 2-to-3 odds
on Pence as the culprit, per the
New
York Post
. The favorite right now, at 1-3 odds, is "the field" - i.e. someone not listed among
the 18 most likely senior admin officials, according to the Costa-Rica-based betting operation.
Still, at first brush, the theory makes a degree of sense:
As first in line for the
throne, Pence undoubtedly has the most to gain from the collapse of the Trump presidency.
But it's equally likely that a more junior official could've intentionally included these cues to
sow discord in the ranks.
As the Trump administration has proved time and time again, anything is possible in the West
Wing.
not sure pence is entirely a team member ... he has been told
to wait for more ... being around the trump tower, you can see
why pence would believe it besides the fact that he must have
been talking to real players that he knows they are real
players ...
having said all that, 100% this is coordinated ... it is no
coincidence it comes out at the same time with Bob Woodwards
book, Theresa May verdict on assailant of the failed attempt to
kill in salisbury soil, big offensive in Idlib (where trimp is
doing a 180 degrees and being a team member again ... to name
just a few ... it is the end of the line ... that economist
magazine "prediction" from 1988 on 30 years later comes to mind
... time for the US to come down hard i suppose ...
No way is the op-ed writer VP Pence. It
doesn't have his boring Midwestern tone.
It seems much more likely that the
letterbomb was written by a group --
not
in
the administration.
Rather, a
group of Deep State crybabies who aren't
getting their way and have devised this
lame, transparent effort akin to
Valley girls passing notes in homeroom ...
"like, I mean, um, whatever" ... because
they're too dumb to do anything else. And
the NYTimes ate it up.
But he IS a moron. All the war mongering pharisees are
morons.
Pence is a pro war psychopath who is very much
disconnected from his tortured soul and is a simple
biological robot devoid of higher levels of thought.
Pence is literally a moron. Only humans have souls and
access to imagination, inspiration, intuition, empathy:
pharisees DO NOT. They are all robotic machines: morons.
There being so many convoluted theories floating around,
here's mine. Trump, Pence and friends arranged this whole
editorial/reaction incident. As you point out, many other
stories were suddenly demoted to by-the-way status. This
gives Trump another reason to urge his supporters to be
enraged. It also could provide courage for purges within the
administration, someqthing it has long needed. Diverse
elements of the MSM are even attacking each other.
Ultimately, ask yourselves: cui bono? Who benefits?
It is
all too confusing. I'm getting a headache. Back to munching
on dark chocolate and watching cat videos.
Millions were beginning to think that that Trump wasn't
really leading the charge against the NWO and that he was
really
part of the NWO himself
--just like the NYT and the
person who wrote the op-ed, but by attacking Trump, these
NWO stooges
proved
Trump is leading the charge
against the NWO, and
proved
(after the
Sarah Jeong scandal
) to just as many others that the
NYT really is the most trustworthy institution in America
... just when both the NYT and Trump needed some street
cred the most ... and there's no way we are getting
played ... and there's no way this could be just theater
... or a psyop ... oh wait ...
Wasn't there a ZH article a few weeks ago about an algorithm that
could predict the author of a text, to a very high 90's percentile,
based on speech patterns?
I say we try it out and root out this
"saboteur".
However, I think we'd find that they are a fake.
Something about it feels contrived, why would a deep spate
functionary expose the apparatus that controls power regardless of
who is elected? What is the first rule of Fight Club?
I have a suspicion it is a plant, in an effort to convince the
masses that the deep state does exist. They are preaching to the
choir here at ZH, but 98% of the country has absolutely no idea what
the fuck Deep State even means. This makes it real for the common
man, In that respect, I guess it's a good thing. It just feels fake
though.
This whole year is playing out like the script from "House of Cards."
Now the MSM is calling for Trump to be removed as "unfit to hold
office." Liberals have hated Donald Trump since he first appeared on the
scene oil the 1970s as a loudmouth trust fund developer. They fought
every project he undertook and mocked him. Famously, "Spy" Magazine
belittled him as a "short-fingered vulgarian and Queens-born casino
operator" every time they mentioned his name, which was often. The
magazine's editor, Graydon Carter, despised Trump. Trump predicted the
magazine would fail within a year. So Carter put a calendar in the back
of the magazine, tearing off the days to prove Trump wrong. Alas, Trump
was right, and Spy shuttered before the year was out. It was a shame,
because the magazine was terrific and funny, but it had that typical
liberal New York Ivy League snottiness and superiority.
As
embarrassing as Trump may be, and he is certainly that, he is not
insane, nor unable to do the job. You may hate the job he is doing, but
this country has laws. If Mueller proves Trump committed real crimes
that mandate his indictment and removal, then so be it. But until then,
just because he runs a chaotic ship doesn't mean he can simply be taken
out.
The op-ed represents a shocking critique of Trump and is without precedent in modern
American history. Former CIA Director
John Brennan , who has sparred fiercely with the president, called the op-ed "active
insubordination born out of loyalty to the country, not to Donald Trump".
"This is not sustainable to have an executive branch where individuals are not following the
orders of the chief executive," Brennan told NBC's "Today" show. "I do think things will get
worse before they get better. I don't know how Donald Trump is going to react to this. A
wounded lion is a very dangerous animal, and I think Donald Trump is wounded."
In it, the anonymous author describes Trump as amoral, "anti-trade and anti-democratic" and
prone to making "half-baked, ill-informed and occasionally reckless decisions".
The writer claims aides had explored the possibility of removing Trump from office via
the 25th amendment , a complex constitutional mechanism to allow for the replacement of a
president who is "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office", but had decided
against it.
An op-ed written in the New York Times by an anonymous "senior official in the Trump
administration" has drawn harsh rebuke from both sides of the aisle and beyond - after everyone
from President Trump to Glenn Greenwald to the
Los Angeles Times
chimed in with various
criticisms.
The author, who claims to be actively working against Trump in collusion with other
senior officials in what they call a "resistance inside the Trump administration," has now been
labeled everything from a coward, to treasonous, to nonexistent.
Trump, as expected,
lashed out
at the "failing" New York Times - before questioning whether the the mystery
official really exists, and that if they do, the New York Times should reveal the author's identity
as a matter of national security.
Trump supporters, also as expected, slammed the op-ed as either pure fiction or treason - a
suggestion Trump made earlier Wednesday.
What we don't imagine the anonymous author or the
Times
saw coming was the onslaught of
criticism coming from the center and left - those who stand to benefit the most from Trump's fall
from grace, or at least probably wouldn't mind it.
In an op-ed which appeared hours after the
NYT
piece, Jessica Roy of
the
Los
Angeles Times
writes: "
No, anonymous Trump official, you're not 'part of
the resistance.' You're a coward
" for not going
far enough
to stop Trump and in
fact enabling him.
If they really believe there's a need to subvert the president to protect the country,
they should be getting this person out of the White House. But they're too cowardly and
afraid of the possible implications
. They hand-wave the notion thusly:
"Given the instability many witnessed, there were early whispers within the cabinet of
invoking the 25th Amendment, which would start a complex process for removing the president. But
no one wanted to precipitate a constitutional crisis."
How is it that utilizing the 25th Amendment of the Constitution would cause a crisis,
but admitting to subverting a democratically elected leader wouldn't?
...
If you're reading this, senior White House official, know this: You are not resisting
Donald Trump. You are enabling him for your own benefit. That doesn't make you an unsung hero.
It makes you a coward. -
LA
Times
Meanwhile, Glenn Greenwald - the Pulitzer Prize Winning co-founder of
The Intercept,
also
called the author of the op-ed
a "coward" whose ideological issues "voters didn't ratify."
Greenwald continues; "The irony in the op-ed from the NYT's anonymous WH coward is glaring and
massive:
s/he accuses Trump of being "anti-democratic" while boasting of membership in an
unelected cabal that covertly imposes their own ideology with zero democratic accountability,
mandate or transparency.
"
So who is the "coward" in the White House?
While the author remains anonymous, there are a couple of clues in the case. For starters,
Bloomberg
White
House reporter Jennifer Jacobs points out that the
New York Times
revealed that a man
wrote the op-ed, which rules out Kellyanne Conway, Nikki Haley, Ivanka and Melania (the latter two
being
CNN's
suggestions
).
A second clue comes from the language used in the op-ed, and in particular "
Lodestar
"
- a rare word used by Mike Pence in at least one speech. Then again, someone trying to make one
think it's pence would also use that word (which was oddly Merriam-Webster's
word of the day
last
Tuesday).
A pence-theory hashtag has already emerged to support this theory;
#VeepThroat
Given the Op-Ed's praise of the late Senator John McCain, never-Trumper and Iraq War
sabre-rattler Bill Kristol tweeted that it was Kevin Hassett, the Chairman of the Council of
Economic Advisers. Of course, Kristol and whoever wrote the op-ed are ideologically aligned, so one
might question why he would voluntarily work against this person.
So while we don't know who wrote the op-ed, it appears to be backfiring spectacularly on its
author(s) amid wild theories and harsh rebuke from all sides of the aisle.
We're sure Carlos Slim - the largest owner of the
New York Times
and once the richest
man on earth, is having a good laugh at Trump's expense either way... for now.
Perhaps Trump can push the "fabrication" angle longer than NYT can retain the moral high ground
- especially after they hired, then refused to fire,
Sarah Jeong
- a new addition to the NYT editorial board who was revealed in old tweets to be an
openly bigoted, with a particularly deep hatred of "old white men."
The
New York Times
stood by Jeong - claiming she was simply responding to people
harassing her for being an Asian lesbian - only to have their absurd theory shredded within hours
.
Jeong
in fact has a multi-year history of unprovoked and random comments expressing hatred towards white
men.
And now she's right on the front lines of perhaps the greatest attempt to smear Trump yet. Not
exactly a good look for the
Times
at a time when MSM credibility has already taken a hit.
How many
broke bread
with the Clinton campaign leading up to the 2016 election?
Vote up!
158
Vote down!
2
Coup d'etat, in every sense of the word.......Constitution? What's that?
Roaches aren't even scurrying when you turn the lights on anymore. Trying to overthrow an elected standing government is the very definition of
treason.
That is an interesting angle. . . Trump creating his
own narratives by using agents to leak to the
blatently bias NYT. Jeebus, but the trouble that
strategy could cause. Millions out there are wound
tight across Amerika. Wouldnt take much of a spark to
get a good fire going. .
These are all staged irrelevances designed to distract
people...the few remaining people who are not addicted to
their screens. Remember - all media, all members of both
parties, all white house employees and especially Trump
work for the same cabal. No one can step out of line and
stay alive. The cabal knows everything.
If people yell loud and often enough, many will
actually forget that they are now knee deep in
ice-cold saltwater.
#Titanic
Let's focus on the important things, like a
scripted reality show fight, versus, idk, the fact
that we are again on the precipice of yet another
meltdown, only this time the Fed is fucked cause
nobody can borrow anymore $$, interest rates are still
way too low, and we are on our way to a Maunder
Minimum.
I could go on and on with REAL issues, but it seems
we just don't talk about them anymore. No need to see
how medical is bankrupting us, pensions are fucked,
"students" are quickly on their way to being
skullfucked with no way out.
We are setup for a calamity that will be 10x worse
than 2008, and the only thing I hear is the ever
increasing volume of "Everything is Awesome."
My dear, you don't really quite realize what you have
given the Trump Administration.
What the Times have
done is assured their readers that there is a counter
coup currently underway to bring down this sitting
President.
Back up and let that reality marinate.
Understand that now any failings or short comings that
come out of this administration can be laid at the feet
of the saboteurs working to bring down the government.
So if the economy rolls over and dies, it's the
saboteur's fault. If gas prices spike, it's the
senator's fault. If a nuke goes off in an American city,
it's the saboteur's fault. If the President is
impeached, it is the saboteur's fault. Any opposition to
this President from this point on is the result of a
concerted effort on the part of a gang of saboteurs to
bring down the government.
Merry Christmas, you have
just added the raison d'eter for a purge of all Obama
appointees in every executive agency.
President Trump thought that he could 'go along
to get along'. He is a slow learner. Taking credit
for a ginormous stock market bubble created by
cheap credit and buybacks, no real effort to build
a wall, massive tax cuts to
millionaires/billionaires, kissing Israel's ass,
the list goes on and on. The man hasn't done much
of anything to really help the middle class. And,
he hasn't done enough to even protect himself. The
op-ed is a hit piece. So what. But, Trump better
get up to speed sooner rather than later.
Are you really this stupid? The Trump administration
is owned by the banksters, every bit as much as the
'saboteur'. You really don't understand the game at
all.
CIA hit piece to discredit Trump and
sow division in the cabinet shortly before midterms.
If Trump fires half of his cabinet, or locks everyone down
hunting for the mole - "Seee?! We told you he was tyrannical!"
If he doesn't react or address it, it hangs out there,
continuing to make everyone believe he's an unstable bumbling
moron. And as he's stated previously, he's a "very stable
genius".
Either way, what may have been a clever ploy is a ham-fisted
CIA plot that misjudged it's audience (like they've never done
THAT before) and will continue to backfire. People are so sick
of the virtue signalling horseshit (Nike and Kuntpaernik come
to mind) that it's almost a guaranteed backfire when you try to
do it.
Imagine for a moment that you win the lottery and are appointed the
director of the CIA. Do you have any idea what the CIA does? Do you have
any inkling beyond what you have read in the media and the alternate media
of what agendas are afoot? Do you have any idea of what's at stake? Do
you have a clue about who you can trust? Are the lower echelons for you or
against you? Who do you talk to just to find out what is going on? Once
you are informed can you trust the information? Are the options you are
offered real options or are the serving someone's private agenda?
Now
imagine that you are President of the United States and half the electorate
wants to remove you from office. Who do you tap on the shoulder to
initiate the purge? How do you know they won't purge you?
I never said I was smart but I worked for one of the most corrupt
bureaucracies in the world for about a decade, and I learned a few
things about political tools and how to manipulate the narrative. What
the Times has done is publicly assert that there are saboteurs working
in the Trump administration who are actively attempting to bring down
this President. The Resistance i.e. the Democratic Party through its
mouth piece has openly stated that they are participating in an ongoing
coup to bring down the government. Do you not realize what kind of club
that has just been handed to Trump to beat down his opposition? Any
opposition is now aiding and abetting the attempted coup.
As for
government, the banks lent the money to purchase it in 1913. The banks
running the show is old news.
CIA hit piece to discredit Trump and sow division
in the cabinet shortly before midterms.
If Trump fires half of his cabinet, or locks everyone down hunting for
the mole - "Seee?! We told you he was tyrannical!" If he doesn't react or
address it, it hangs out there, continuing to make everyone believe he's an
unstable bumbling moron. And as he's stated previously, he's a "very stable
genius".
Either way, what may have been a clever ploy is a ham-fisted CIA plot
that misjudged it's audience (like they've never done THAT before) and will
continue to backfire. People are so sick of the virtue signalling horseshit
(Nike and Kuntpaernik come to mind) that it's almost a guaranteed backfire
when you try to do it.
syria had a legitimately elected government too, and look what's gone on
for the last seven years there.
you think these fuckers at CIA see any
difference between what they are able to do there and here in the US?
over there they drop pallets of weapons from the sky. over here they
drop what passes for information from their mockingbird operations.
same difference.
most america haters here at ZH are laughing because they think this
is the US getting their comeuppance. the comeuppance we are getting is
for challenging those who have been doing this to others for all these
years. it's not other nations turning around and doing this to the US.
it is those who have done this to others, are now doing it to the
citizens of the US. those america haters better hope we citizens win,
if not, that hell trump said would be unleashed on iran, will be
unleashed on the world. and all the hyperweapons invented or dreamed of
will not be able to stop it.
Government , its representatives and its agencies are unscrupulous
and immoral beyond the imagination of a normal person.
Northwoods,
Iraq WMD, Vietnam chemical weapon campaign, The Lusitania, Grenada,
Tonkin, kennedy assassinations.
The amazing thing is how people swallow all that and trot off to
the polls and never ask for any murderous corrupt bastard to be held
to account.
Meanwhile we lost the free press so now no lone voice questions
the moves of the real powers. The waste their voice on partisan
bickering over people who are only puppets leaving real power to play
its global killing games un remarked.
"... "When you think about it it's an amazing statement of their willingness to make themselves bigger than the entire American system," ..."
"... "extremely self-indulgent." ..."
"... "You should not be lapping up the benefits of being a senior administration official, no doubt while scouting for lucrative opportunities for when you leave your post," ..."
"... "If you are this person, you really should resign tonight." ..."
"... "just made things worse," ..."
"... "Anonymous leaking won't take down Trump. A person of honor speaking openly would have far more impact." ..."
"... "The thing about the op-ed is that reading its text, you can think the writer is 'principled,' as the NYT did. But in context, the author is a coward confessing to a coup and daring Trump to get worse," ..."
"... "Trump will go nuclear, making the efforts of this 'internal resistance' far harder," ..."
"... "What is the point of a secret cabal if you don't keep it secret?" ..."
"... "We all know Putin wrote the op-ed and the NYT claimed it's a senior Trump official because they think that's true," ..."
"... Think your friends would be interested? Share this story! ..."
Press Pundits are lining up to
weigh in on a salacious New York Times op-ed allegedly penned by an anonymous #Resister in the
Trump administration, with some experts on television calling the piece an all-out coup against
the president. The opinion piece in question, "I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump
Administration," has spawned a level of frenetic punditry not seen since George W. Bush was
spotted
sneaking Michelle Obama a cough drop. Only this time the stakes are allegedly much higher.
MSNBC's Nicolle Wallace said on Wednesday the stunning claims made in the anonymous op-ed
– for example, that there is a group of "adults" in the White House who believe
Trump is unfit to hold office and are trying
to shape policy behind the president's back – are akin to "a coup."
"In other countries... they sometimes call this a coup," Wallace said on MSNBC's
Deadline: White House, referring to the article's assertion that there is a
"resistance" made up of administration officials which aims to protect the republic
from Trump's "amorality."
Another MSNBC talking head, Howard Fineman, said that he was troubled by the fact that the
op-ed appears to describe how "unelected aides have staged a slo-mo coup." Impeachment
– not "frenzy, mutiny and rumors" – is the antidote to Trump's criminal
unfitness for public service, he added.
The @nytimes
essay is troubling. Why? 1. The dangerous, ignorant volatility of @realDonaldTrump . 2. The claim
by UNELECTED aides to have staged a slo-mo coup. 3. The NYT letting the accuser hide.
#Trump 's unfit, but
caution: impeachment -- not frenzy, mutiny and rumor -- is the answer.
But others were even less impressed by the anonymous scoop-provider. Fox News host Sean
Hannity called the author of the op-ed a "swamp sewer creature who can't stand that there
is a new sheriff in town."
Hannity calls the senior Trump administration official who wrote the NYT op-ed a "swamp
sewer creature."
Speaking with Hannity on his program, former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich said
that the anonymous author had "repudiated our whole constitutional process."
"When you think about it it's an amazing statement of their willingness to make
themselves bigger than the entire American system," Gingrich
said .
Dana Perino, the former White House press secretary under George W. Bush, called the
mysterious author of the op-ed "extremely self-indulgent."
"You should not be lapping up the benefits of being a senior administration official, no
doubt while scouting for lucrative opportunities for when you leave your post," she
said .
"If you are this person, you really should resign tonight."
Almost all of the nation's sharpest political minds were in agreement on one point, however:
This mystery senior government official should reveal him/herself, in order to save America
from fascism, or hokey #Resistance claptrap, depending on whom you ask.
The op-ed "just made things worse," conservative commentator and National Review
senior fellow David French said. "Anonymous leaking won't take down Trump. A person of
honor speaking openly would have far more impact."
1) The guy is real (no way the NYT puts forth a fake source);
2) His story is likely largely true (perhaps exaggerated at the margins);
3) He's just made things worse.
4) Anonymous leaking won't take down Trump. A person of honor speaking openly would have
far more impact
"If you are the author of this and you truly want to effectuate change... you want to do
something in service to the nation, you have to come forward and sign your name to this..
Come forward. You could change the fate of the country..."- @DavidJollyFL w/ @NicolleDWallacepic.twitter.com/d9l7PMnzkj
"The thing about the op-ed is that reading its text, you can think the writer is
'principled,' as the NYT did. But in context, the author is a coward confessing to a coup and
daring Trump to get worse," veteran journalist Dan Froomkin said. He added that he thought
it was wrong of the Times not to identify the piece's author.
The thing about the op-ed is that reading its text, you can think the writer is
"principled," as the NYT did. But in context, the author is a coward confessing to a coup and
daring Trump to get worse. They shouldna granted anonymity.
Much has also been discussed about Trump's reaction to the article.
"Trump will go nuclear, making the efforts of this 'internal resistance' far
harder," predicted Washington Post contributor Carlos Lozada. "What is the point
of a secret cabal if you don't keep it secret?"
Gut reaction to NYT oped:
1) Feeds/confirms Trump's worst fears about the deep state plots
2) Trump will go nuclear, making the efforts of this "internal resistance" far harder
3) What is the point of a secret cabal if you don't keep it secret?
Not everyone is calling for the anonymous author to come forward, however: At least one
pundit claims to already know who penned the troubling opinion piece.
"We all know Putin wrote the op-ed and the NYT claimed it's a senior Trump official
because they think that's true," Ben Shapiro tweeted.
We all know Putin wrote the op-ed and the NYT claimed it's a senior Trump official because
they think that's true.
This really smells with coup d'état. Trump may be a threat but so is this covert coup
to impose these policies. The op ed suggests the existence of anti-Trump 'sleeper cells' within
the government"
The author also claimed that the administration's achievements had included some "bright
spots" such as "effective deregulation, historic tax reform, a more robust military and
more".
Notable quotes:
"... The New York Times ..."
"... is required by their own oath ..."
"... If Anonymous=Deep State, then Trump brought this Deep State with him. These are his appointees ..."
The New York Timespublished
a strange op-ed purportedly written by a "senior official" in the Trump administration:
The dilemma -- which he does not fully grasp -- is that many of the senior officials in
his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda
and his worst inclinations.
I would know. I am one of them.
To be clear, ours is not the popular "resistance" of the left. We want the administration
to succeed and think that many of its policies have already made America safer and more
prosperous.
But we believe our first duty is to this country, and the president continues to act in a
manner that is detrimental to the health of our republic.
The author of the op-ed flatters himself by claiming to be acting in the best interests of
the country, but there is something very wrong with having self-appointed guardians assuming
that they have the right to sabotage certain policies of the elected president. For one, they
have no authority to do what they're doing, and no one voted for them. It is one thing to argue
that professionals should be willing to serve a bad president in the interests of public
service, and it is quite another to argue that the officials working for the president are
entitled to disregard and override the president's decisions because the president happens to
be an ignorant buffoon. The "two-track presidency" that the official boasts about is an affront
to our system of government. It is not reassuring that U.S. foreign policy continues as if on
autopilot no matter what the electorate votes for.
Perversely, the more that Trump administration officials "frustrate parts of his agenda,"
the more likely it is that Trump remains in power longer than he otherwise would. The official
says that the core of the problem is the president's "amorality." That raises the obvious
question: how can someone acknowledge that the president has no principles or scruples of any
kind and still in good conscience try to help him succeed? These officials are not only
enabling a president whose behavior they consider to be "detrimental to the health of our
republic," but they are helping to make sure that he stays in office instead of hastening his
defeat. They want credit for "resisting" Trump when their "resistance" amounts to manipulating
the policies of the government to their own liking.
There are legitimate political and constitutional remedies for an unfit president, but the
anonymous "resistance" official isn't interested in any of that. He prefers to keep the
administration from completely imploding because it also happens to be advancing a mostly
conventional Republican agenda that he likes. There is nothing particularly admirable about
that, and he should not have been granted anonymity to write his self-congratulatory article.
If this official feels so strongly that the president endangers the health and well-being of
the country, he should put his name on a statement to that effect when he announces his
resignation.
Who knew the Deep State (tm?) included Trump's political appointees? (see Times guidelines on
who that attribute as "senior administration officials" )
Donald: Yes, but that Deep State was brought in by Trump and is trying to keep their jobs. I
agree with Daniel's analysis, but I am not at all confident that our Constitution is equipped
to deal with a sociopath as President when you also have a legislative branch that knows it
but refuses to do it's constitutional duty.
It is my understanding from carefully listening to Trump Supporters (I am not one) that this
is exactly the reason why he was elected. There is a feeling (particularly strongly felt
among Trump supporters, but a lot of Bernie supporters felt a version of it too) that
although we continue to have elections in this country, that we are ceasing to be a democracy
because decision-making is increasingly being taken away from or being delegated away from
elected officials.
Supporters of a very powerful Executive Branch might argue "hey, it's not exactly the way
that our Founder Fathers envisioned our Federal System to work, but if the Executive takes
decision-making power away from unelected bureaucrats, lifetime-appointed judges, and a
deadlocked Congress, then at least we get to vote every 4 years on kicking the bum out of the
White House or not".
A White House that has decision-making taken power away from the person of the Executive,
thus devolving power back to unelected officials, is a true crisis for democracy. Impeachment
or the 25th Amendment are Constitutional remedies for a corrupt or incapacitated Executive
because they take power away from an elected official and invest them in a new official
subject to election. White House officials secretly undermining the President doesn't pass
Constitutional muster, no matter how bad the President is.
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get
it good and hard." – H. L. Mencken
It's a remarkable editorial. It appears to be a confession of treason. Similar words, written
in response to a popular president, would hopefully trigger an investigation leading to
conviction and imprisonment of those involved.
Every indication is that the writer is correct: Trump is a disaster. But if the writer
wants to live up to his/her claim of putting country first, s/he and the other cafeteria
Republicans (i.e., selective co-conspirators) should stop trying to have it both ways,
keeping their salaries and their positions of power in the name of the Trump administration
while simultaneously reserving the right to undermine it. Instead, they should find the
courage to step forward en masse.
An independent investigator could help them to find that courage. The process of exploring
and publicizing what has gone on, in that White House, may help to push the nation toward a
serious discussion of an appropriate replacement for its present corrupted and dysfunctional
form of democracy.
I have some reservations about this so called 'Resistance' Op-Ed in the NYT. This whole
'resistance' affair sounds hollow and not very authentic to me. I also have reservation about
the new book 'Fear' by Bob Woodward. The book as such probably is needed, but naming who said
what is counterproductive, to put it mildly. I do not think B. Woodward got permission to
assign names to who said what because if he had permission the people to whom some statements
are assigned would not deny them. I suspect that B. Woodward in reality conscientiously works
for D. Trump. Why I do think so: because I can not imagine that he in his book could not
anticipate what D. Trump will do next with those named. The book by B. Woodward will only
help to purge the rest of the moderate people from trump administration and put in their
place his favorites so he will have free hand to do whatever he wants probably until 2024.
I suspect this op-ed is nothing more than someone trying to establish their own personal
defense for when the whole thing comes crashing down. "No no no – don't blame me! I
wasn't really part of it. In fact I was really trying to stop it the whole time." If what
this person is writing is true, then there is a constitutional remedy that he or she is
required by their own oath to implement. Failing to do that, and just trying to
undermine Trump secretly is making them just as guilty. I despise Trump as much as anyone,
but this is not the way to deal with him.
I agree up to a point. If Trump got up one morning and decided he was tired of arguing with
North Korea and ordered a first nuclear strike, I'd hope that there'd be people around him
who would stop him, as that would, no doubt, be in the best interest of the country. To
assume that they'd have time to go through the constitutional removal procedure in time to
stop the needless deaths of millions of people is absurd.
Now, I'm not saying what they are doing is preventing nuclear war. I'm just making the
point that there are limits to your principled position.
"They want credit for "resisting" Trump when their "resistance" amounts to manipulating
the policies of the government to their own liking. "
Yes. Creepy. Especially in light of Trump's about-turn on foreign policy, in which this
administration has used our money and military power to serve Israeli and Saudi Arabian
interests instead of America's.
Now we know where the "America First" policy of the campaign went. It went down the Deep
State rabbit hole. We're still mired in the Middle East, still doing favors for Israel and
Saudi Arabia. Things didn't get better. They got far worse.
Hiding behind anonymity I believe shows a lack of courage and conviction. I am surprised a
genuine "newspaper" would even publish the article. How can anyone be believed when they
don;t have the courage to sign their name?
This basically confirms what many have suspected and feared. Neocon Establishment types
worked their way into the White House and have been pursuing their own foreign policy agenda,
exploiting the President's ignorance, stupidity, and impulsiveness.
"On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron" – H. L.
Mencken
Some at TAC have suggested for quite a while that Trump was "hijacked" by his staff at some
point. While most of what he's done is clearly down to Trump himself, those who have
suggested that he has been manipulated and controlled by advisors just got whopping
corroboration from the Woodward book and NYT op/ed.
Under the circumstances, there's obviously concern that foreign countries have been
exploiting the situation. FBI counterespionage agents, a small army of them, should be
checking and re-checking the foreign connections of his current staff, to the extent that
isn't already being done by Mueller.
And it isn't just Russia. China, Israel and Saudi Arabia are obvious suspects, if for no
other reason that they spy on and attempt to influence us with at least the same intensity as
Russia. The investigators should look where Trump has been spending his time in the foreign
policy arena. He has been threatening and pressuring some countries, but he is also doing
favors for others. For what countries has he been doing favors? And in threatening certain
countries is he doing the will of others?
Reminds me of the story of the last days of the Nixon White House, when the pressure was
driving him to drunken wanderings punctuated by near unhinged rants. Senior officials became
so worried that they contacted the pentagon and told them to ignore nuclear launch orders
unless confirmed by someone else.
In all seriousness though, this is less some kind of "deep state" and more of what you get
when you run the White House the way Trump apparently has. He's packed his administration
with people of dubious ability for the most part, with the highest qualification apparently
being how he perceives their loyalty to him. Then he sets them all at odds against each
other, fighting for the scraps of his attention to get their own agendas enacted.
In that kind of environment it's inevitable that someone will believe that One, the
emperor has no clothes, and Two, the agenda they are fighting so hard to shepherd through
this administration is more important than the administration itself. So why not just do an
end run around the moron and do whatever they want.
Ray Woodcock: " It appears to be a confession of treason. "
Only if you regard the US president as a monarch to whom his minions owe a duty of
personal allegiance. Because that is the way treason is typically defined in monarchies. (For
example, in the UK.) In the United States treason has a very different definition. You can
find it in section 3 of article 3 of the Constitution. There allegiance is not to any one
person but to the United States as a whole, and more specifically to the Constitution.
In other words, in the US it isn't treason to betray a president, although I will grant
you many Americans do treat treason as if that WERE the case. But then just how many of them
have even read their nation's Constitution?
Re treason : "There allegiance is not to any one person but to the United States as a whole,
and more specifically to the Constitution."
Yes. There may be treason if a foreign country has infiltrated Trump's staff with
operatives who persuaded Trump to do things against the national security interests of the
United States – actions on behalf of a foreign country that imperil American persons or
property, civilian or military.
The idea that the ethical problem at the White House is not Pr. Trump is pretty odd.
Pr. Trump says GOP legislators shouldn't be prosecuted by DOJ, voting is rigged, FBI is
corrupt, 3 million Mexicans voted, orders economic deal with S. Korea to end, apparently
forgets about it, and etc, and somehow Mr. Larison, David Frum, and David Graham think a
bureaucrat ratting on the President and other bureaucrats frustrating the President's desires
is a constitutional crisis?
When members of the President's own cabinet are taking the same actions as these
bureaucrats, because they think the President is immature, not stable, or immoral?
They work with the President. They would know.
Apparently no one wants to work for Pr. Trump. Why can't he find people who agree with him
and respect him?
Go after Pr. Trump's cabinet members for a deep state, not petty bureaucrats who could be
fired and replaced any time.
Ask yourself why the President can't find good people to work for him.
The answer is tweeting at you every day and the finger should be pointing back at him.
"It's a remarkable editorial. It appears to be a confession of treason. "
But Trump has been spectacularly disloyal to the people who work for him. Is there anyone
other than family members who he hasn't belittled and attacked? Hell, he's even betrayed
those who voted for him (see long list of broken promises).
Given his own treacherous nature, how much loyalty can he reasonably expect? He must have
already fired half of those he hired, so it's not too surprising that many are now writing
books or telling tales to the NYT or WaPo.
That said, there are probably some real traitors in there. I'd guess most of the real
traitors are spies working for foreign countries, taking advantage of the chaos to get things
done for their foreign masters. That's a real cause for concern.
Clearly this is an admission of a Deep State. Many of you might agree with the politics of
the Deep State operative below but keep in mind he is phrasing the issue in the most
political way possible but that's the point. We don't resolve political disagreements by
using the power if the bureaucracy to tie the President up in say, 'collusion investigations'
in combination with what entrenched agencies want. If we did so we would still be enemies of
Great Britain. Those rogues burned down the White House and armed the Confederates.
The Deep State is trying to get us into battle against the Russians in Syria to create
Iraq 2.0 and is cheering on his mania against Iran for Iraq 3.0.
"Take foreign policy: In public and in private, President Trump shows a preference for
autocrats and dictators, such as President Vladimir Putin of Russia and North Korea's
leader, Kim Jong-un, and displays little genuine appreciation for the ties that bind us to
allied, like-minded nations.
Astute observers have noted, though, that the rest of the administration is operating on
another track, one where countries like Russia are called out for meddling and punished
accordingly, and where allies around the world are engaged as peers rather than ridiculed
as rivals.
On Russia, for instance, the president was reluctant to expel so many of Mr. Putin's
spies as punishment for the poisoning of a former Russian spy in Britain. He complained for
weeks about senior staff members letting him get boxed into further confrontation with
Russia, and he expressed frustration that the United States continued to impose sanctions
on the country for its malign behavior. But his national security team knew better -- such
actions had to be taken, to hold Moscow accountable"
All of this is well and good as the expression goes. The anonymous author of the Op Ed piece
should come forward and cease serving in an administration which is at odds with his or her
sensibilities except for one thing that above all else must be considered in this respect:
The Chief Executive has his finger on the button.
The case made by Mr. Larison is correct except for this one major consideration. One
individual can launch a nuclear strike and that individual no matter who it has been and no
matter who it is today and will be tomorrow has that power. Perhaps the time is past due to
reconsider granting one individual with this capacity to act which with one directive sent
directly to our nuclear warhead tipped missile silos may bring the end to our species on this
planet.
Many of the complaints from the NYT's anonymous WH coward - not all, but
many - are ideological: that Trump deviates from GOP orthodoxy, an ideology he didn't
campaign on & that voters didn't ratify. Trump may be a threat but so is this covert
coup to impose these policies. pic.twitter.com/4Qf54JJHN9
Replying to @ggreenwald The irony in the op-ed from the
NYT's anonymous WH coward is glaring and massive: s/he accuses Trump of being
"anti-democratic" while boasting of membership in an unelected cabal that covertly imposes
their own ideology with zero democratic accountability, mandate or transparency
Michael Cohen's guilty plea
directly implicating President Trump in the commission of a crime has stimulated new talk
about possible impeachment. Given how the case involves sexual liaisons, it also has
stimulated comparisons with the impeachment of Bill Clinton. Most such comparisons focus on
the domestic politics of each episode, and on such questions as whether Democrats who
downplayed the significance of Clinton's dalliance with a White House intern would be
inconsistent if they now went after Trump -- although Clinton's behavior did not involve an
election and violation of campaign finance law -- whereas Cohen's allegation about Trump
does.
Those more interested in foreign and security policy might focus instead on another
dimension of how Clinton's caper with Monica Lewinsky was discussed at the time. When
Clinton, following al-Qaeda's attacks on the U.S. embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam
twenty years ago this month, ordered cruise missile attacks against facilities associated
with al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Sudan, some of his political opponents accused him of using
the strikes to boost domestic support that was sagging amid the Lewinsky affair. The
accusation was stimulated partly by the timing of the missile strikes, which occurred just
three days after Clinton admitted in a televised address that he had misled the public about
his relationship with Lewinsky.
Russian Oligarch Oleg Deripaska, a close associate of Vladimir
Putin, has gone on record with
The
Hill
's John Solomon - admitting to colluding with Americans
leading up to the 2016 US election, except it might not be what
you're thinking.
Deripaska, rumored to be Donald Trump's "
back
channel
" to Putin via the Russian's former association with Paul
Manafort, says he "colluded" with the
US
Government
between 2009 and 2016.
In 2009, when
Robert
Mueller was running the FBI
, the agency asked Deripaska to
spend $25 million of his own money to bankroll an FBI-supervised
operation to rescue a retired FBI agent - Robert Levinson, who was
kidnapped in 2007 while working on a 2007 CIA contract in Iran. This
in and of itself is more than a bit strange.
Deripaska agreed, however the Obama State Department, headed by
Hillary Clinton, scuttled a last-minute deal with Iran before
Levinson could be released. He hasn't been heard from since.
FBI agents courted Deripaska in 2009 in a series of secret hotel
meetings in Paris; Vienna; Budapest, Hungary, and Washington
.
Agents persuaded the aluminum industry magnate to underwrite the
mission. The Russian billionaire insisted the operation neither
involve nor harm his homeland. -The Hill
In other words -
Trump's
alleged "back channel" to Putin was in fact an FBI asset
who
spent $25 million helping Obama's "scandal free" administration find
a kidnapped agent. Deripaska's admitted
Steele, Ohr and the 2016 US Election
Trending Articles
Earth's "Big Freeze" Looms As Sun Remains Devoid
Of
Scientists believe that Earth could experience a
"big freeze" as the sun goes through what's
known as "solar minimum."
As the
New
York Times
frames it, distancing Deripaska from the FBI (no
mention of the $25 million rescue effort, for example), the Russian
aluminum magnate was just one of several Putin-linked Oligarchs the
FBI tried to flip.
The attempt to flip Mr. Deripaska was part of a broader,
clandestine American effort to gauge the possibility of gaining
cooperation from roughly a half-dozen of Russia's richest men,
nearly
all of whom, like Mr. Deripaska, depend on President Vladimir V.
Putin to maintain their wealth, the officials said. -
NYT
Central to the recruiting effort were two central players in the
Trump-Russia investigation; twice-demoted DOJ #4 official
Bruce
Ohr and Christopher Steele
- the author of the largely
unverified "Steele Dossier."
Steele, a longtime associate of Ohr's, worked for Deripaska
beginning in 2012 researching a business rival - work which would
evolve to the point where the former British spy was interfacing
with the Obama administration on his behalf - resulting in Deripaska
regaining entry into the United States, where he visited numerous
times between 2009 and 2017.
The State Department tried to keep him from getting a U.S. visa
between 2006 and 2009 because they believed he had unspecified
connections to criminal elements in Russia as he consolidated
power in the aluminum industry. Deripaska has denied those
allegations...
Whatever the case,
it
is irrefutable that after he began helping the FBI, Deripaska
regained entry to the United States
. And he visited
numerous times between 2009 and 2017, visa entry records show. -
The
Hill
Deripaska is now banned from the United States as one of
several
Russians sanctioned
in April in response to alleged 2016
election meddling.
In a September 2016 meeting,
Deripaska
told FBI agents that it was "preposterous" that Paul Manafort was
colluding with Russia to help Trump win the 2016 election
.
This, despite the fact that Deripaska and Manafort's business
relationship "ended in lawsuits, per
The
Hill
- and the Russian would have every reason to throw
Manafort under the bus if he wanted some revenge on his old
associate.
So the
FBI
and DOJ secretly collaborated with Trump's alleged backchannel over
a seven-year period
, starting with Levinson, then on
Deripaska's Visa, and finally regarding whether Paul Manafort was an
intermediary to Putin. Deripaska vehemently denies the assertion,
and even took out newspaper advertisements in the US last year
volunteering to testify to Congress, refuting an
AP
report
that he and Manafort secretly worked on a plan to
"greatly benefit the Putin government" a decade ago.
Soon after the advertisements ran, representatives for the House
and Senate Intelligence Committees called a Washington-based
lawyer for Mr. Deripaska, Adam Waldman, inquiring about taking
his client up on the offer to testify, Mr. Waldman said in an
interview.
What happened after that has been in dispute. Mr. Waldman, who
stopped working for Mr. Deripaska after the sanctions were
levied, said he told the committee staff that his client would
be willing to testify without any grant of immunity, but would
not testify about any Russian collusion with the Trump campaign
because "he doesn't know anything about that theory and actually
doesn't believe it occurred." -
NYT
In short, Deripaska wants it known that he worked with the FBI and
DOJ, and that he had nothing to do with the Steele dossier.
Today, Deripaska is banned anew from the United States, one of
several Russians sanctioned in April by the Trump administration
as a way to punish Putin for 2016 election meddling. But he
wants to be clear about a few things, according to a statement
provided by his team.
First,
he did collude with Americans in the form of voluntarily
assisting and meeting with the FBI, the DOJ and people such as
Ohr between 2009 and 2016.
He also wants Americans to know
he
did not cooperate or assist with Steele's dossier, and he tried
to dispel the FBI notion that Russia and the Trump campaign
colluded during the 2016 election
. -
The
Hill
Interestingly, Steele's dossier which was partially funded by the
Clinton campaign, relied on
senior
Kremlin officials
.
"... In one dramatic encounter, F.B.I. agents appeared unannounced and uninvited at a home Mr. Deripaska maintains in New York and pressed him on whether Paul Manafort, a former business partner of his who went on to become chairman of Mr. Trump's campaign, had served as a link between the campaign and the Kremlin. ..."
"... The attempt to flip Mr. Deripaska was part of a broader, clandestine American effort to gauge the possibility of gaining cooperation from roughly a half-dozen of Russia's richest men, nearly all of whom, like Mr. Deripaska, depend on President Vladimir V. Putin to maintain their wealth, the officials said. ..."
By Kenneth P. Vogel and Matthew Rosenberg
Sept. 1, 2018
WASHINGTON -- In the estimation of American officials, Oleg V. Deripaska,
a Russian oligarch with close ties to the Kremlin, has faced credible accusations
of extortion, bribery and even murder. They also thought he might make a
good source.
Between 2014 and 2016, the F.B.I. and the Justice Department unsuccessfully
tried to turn Mr. Deripaska into an informant. They signaled that they might
provide help with his trouble in getting visas for the United States or
even explore other steps to address his legal problems. In exchange, they
were hoping for information on Russian organized crime and, later, on possible
Russian aid to President Trump's 2016 campaign, according to current and
former officials and associates of Mr. Deripaska.
In one dramatic encounter, F.B.I. agents appeared unannounced and
uninvited at a home Mr. Deripaska maintains in New York and pressed him
on whether Paul Manafort, a former business partner of his who went on to
become chairman of Mr. Trump's campaign, had served as a link between the
campaign and the Kremlin.
The attempt to flip Mr. Deripaska was part of a broader, clandestine
American effort to gauge the possibility of gaining cooperation from roughly
a half-dozen of Russia's richest men, nearly all of whom, like Mr. Deripaska,
depend on President Vladimir V. Putin to maintain their wealth, the officials
said.
___________________
As I and some others around here have been saying for a while, "Russiagate"
started years before Trump entered the scene. He stumbled face-first into a
CIA/MI-6 effort to use Russian oligarchs to regime change Putin. It's right
there, if you read between the lines and the usual NYT spin.
Look at the dates. Also be aware of the larger context here. As we know,
this obviously didn't start with Russian "meddling" in US elections – and it
isn't about law enforcement. The FBI is the junior partner in such matters of
Oligarchs, Big Politics and Big Money. For decades, the FBI and DOJ knew about
and did surprisingly little about international organized crime, and its movement
of capital into the United States -- most of it into the Eastern District of
New York -- even Russian organized crime has been largely hands off. That's
why they actively helped Mr. Deripaska with his visa problems so he could move
his Manhattan bank accounts around after he began cooperating with western intelligence
in 2009.
What we're finally seeing is the lid coming off is the dying vestiges of
an ongoing, covert program to promote regime change in Moscow. Because since
that has already failed, Plan B is to escalate the Cold War and wipe out any
chance of continued detente with Russia. That'll teach 'em, even if we have
to bring our own corrupt empire down around our ears. It'll be a miracle if
we not to blow up the world this time 'round. We've already been improbably
lucky too many times.
As the world shifts, this is also an opportunity for the CIA to settle some
old scores, using Robert Mueller's Star Chamber to punish Americans such as
Mike Flynn and Manafort who for various reasons -- good and bad -- tried to
push back during the last Administration against failed regime change programs
in Syria and Ukraine.
If you buy into Russiagate, better be aware of the backstory what goes along
with it. As the lid comes off, who knows what else might crawl out.
Really, publishing a story which doesn't actually accuse El Trumpo of
Russian collusion. Is the geomagnetic pole starting to shift--after all
both polar ice caps are melting, throwing the celestial orb off track.
The brilliance of the FBI! Boy, it is unmatched in the files of history.
Trying to "turn" a Russian billionaire who not only owes his wealth to V.V.
Putin, but also his life? Oleg must have laughed his head off after the
Feebs left his home.
"What kind of story, boys, do you want me to tell you? About the Chinese
masquerading as Russians? About the Awangate? About Difi's Chinese spy 'about
which she didn't know--nor did you'?"
From NYT:
Mr. Trump and his allies have cast Mr. Steele's research -- and the
serious consideration it was given by Mr. Ohr and the F.B.I. -- as part
of a plot by rogue officials and Mrs. Clinton's allies to undermine
Mr. Trump's campaign and his presidency.
I would change rogue officials to "all of the senior officials". Of course
NYT won't admit to this silent civil war between two factions of the Deep
State.
Did Mr. Oleg get to deduct his money paid to the Feebs to rescue Levinson
from the Imams? It definitely was a loss. Apparently, though--and this is
the good news, The FBI doesn't get much funding from drug running, at least
unlike the CIA, so they had to rely on a furriner to bail them out. And
then they try to use him again, gratis, to pin a big one on El Trumpo.
The tides are slowly turning and lying assholes like Rachel Madcow are
beginning to slowly pirouette away from Russia-Russia-Russia. She actually
gave Brennan some hardball questions in her interview with the Ringleader
on MSDNC. Now perhaps Mr. Slim will be deprived of his part ownership of
the Slimes under Trump's new SHAFTA.
a fairly frequent and close observer of Tim Russert. Part of what I observed
was his asking both Democrats and Republicans what he called "the hard questions.
However, he would allow Republicans to complete their answers in peace.
Sometimes, he even nodded as they spoke, looking for all the world like
he was agreeing with what they were saying. Then, he would go on to the
next question, or ask a softball follow up question. So, the "hard question"
merely gave Republicans the opportunity to give their side of a story on
national television.
When he questioned Democrats, however, he would cut them off while they
were speaking, talk over them and barrage them with follow up questions,
sometimes not even waiting for them to respond before asking his next question.
I saw one interview of Ted Kennedy that could not have been more disrespectful,
with cutting off Kennedy repeatedly while shouting at him.
The first time Obama was on MTP, Russert hammered him about, of all things,
something controversial that Harry Belafonte had recently said, spending
most of Obama's air time on that one comment that Obama had not even made!
(I suppose it only made sense to insist that one Democratic black man defend
the comment of another Democratic black man?/s)
But, Russert would brag that he asked "both" sides the hard questions
and show video to back up his claim. Problem was, the video showed only
the initial question and not what followed. And it was only in what followed
the initial "hard question" that Russert's bias showed.
We helped put the Oligarchs into business, Putin reigned them in so he
has to go
From before the collapse of the Soviet Union, the U.S. has been cultivating
a commercial and political elite abroad that we could "work with." As in
most of the developing world during the Cold War, that meant that post-communist
Russia was an oligarchy kept in money and power by IMF loans, graft, private
militias and death squads.
Such was the case during the Boris Yeltsin's government that presided
over the Russian Federation, a self-contained trading bloc shorn of half
of its richest territories. The result of loss of most military spending
and trade resulted in an average 50% loss in real living standards for the
typical Russian in the depths of the Depression during the early 1990s.
What grew out of the rubble was the New Russia controlled by the Oligarchs,
run by returning members of Russian ethnic organized crime families once
scattered around the world and remnants of the KGB, party bosses, and former
Soviet military who couldn't move enough their assets out of the country
while the door was still open. For Deripaska, that door closed the other
way in 2006, when he lost his US B-1 visa, which meant that he had to make
a deal with the FBI's McCabe and other US intelligence handlers to reenter
the U.S. to access his stash deposited in Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley.
Is Oleg really Putin's "closest oligarch", as is again repeated here
in the Times?
The arrest of Mikhail Khodorkovsky, the owner of Yukos Oil Co., one of
the world's major oil suppliers on October fifth, 2003 was a signal that
things would never be the same for the oligarchs. By the time he took his
third term as Russian President in 2012, Putin had put highly concentrated
large industries increasingly under state supervision, curtailing the effective
power and range of operation of many oligarchs, restricting the movement
of private wealth out of the country, including that of Oleg Deripaska,
whom he publicly humiliated in 2009, as seen in this video.
1) You pay your taxes
2) You pay your employees
3) There will be no asset stripping
Bill Browder (of Magnitsky fame) broke all these rules while pillaging
Russia. From 1995–2006 his company, Hermitage Capital Management, siphoned
untold billions of dollars out of Russia into offshore accounts while paying
no taxes and cheating workers of wages and pensions.
Putin put an end to US and UK backed shysters stealing Russia blind.
Is it any wonder the western oligarchs hate him with such a passion?
@Alligator Ed the oligarchs. This has been a common historical
issue for Russia over many centuries.
Successful Czars controlled the oligarchs.
If you were in favor you could attend court and keep your position and wealth
in Russian society. Otherwise not.
The US deep state figured that they had won the cold war with Russia. Reality
had a different tale to tell. They are a bunch of sore losers and revengeful
bastards. Thinking that they could find another wedge to neuter Russia by
working with Russian oligarchs was wishful thinking, and showed a fundamental
misunderstanding of modern Russia. Today the neocons can't work through
the oligarchs, or NGOs, can't find any serious "Liberal" opposition and
can't generate any dislike of President Putin through the media. It's amazing
to travel in Moscow and talk to Russians about their government. They love
Vladimir Putin. Their attitude is the exact opposite of Liberal America
today. No hatred, just love and appreciation. It's really nice. The hate
in this country is disgusting and dangerous. Right mow Democrats are seething
with hate for both Presidents. I sat at a meeting of local Democrats led
by our Rep, seething with hate for Russia-- how dare they hack our pristine
god-sent democratic process? Unfortunately they betray themselves for who
they really are, and it's pretty ugly.
...until Putin was elected in 1999 and began to rein in the robber barons.
By then, the Russian people had fallen into poverty from a decade of
asset stripping, and their life expectancy had taken a steep dive.
The next decade, from 2000 to 2010, saw a reversal of those fortunes
under Putin's guidance. The people's standards of living had improved significantly,
and medical services were made available to them. Year-over-year economic
improvements made Putin a popular figure in Russia. That's when the US sanctions
and fear mongering began in earnest, along with NATO'S push to the West
and myriad military provocations against Russia, including the overthrow
of Ukraine's democratically elected government.
But I would suggest that the unintended consequences of US aggression
against Russia, coupled with larger geopolitical developments created a
condition that took regime change off the table and replaced it with a mad
grab for global supremacy and empire.
Sensable analysts would have seen by 2015 that regime change in Russia
was impossible -- especially after the failed attempt to seize Russia's
only warm water Navy base in Crimea (which was the key strategic purpose
of the Ukraine overthrow). The Russians are more attached to their 200-year-old
navy base than the West can ever begin to understand. It was a catastrophic
move. As a consequence, the US pushed Russia and China together and triggered
the explosive rise of Eurasia. In the face of illegal sanctions, Russia
grew stronger and opened markets decades into the future. Trading alliances
formed throughout the Eastern Hemisphere favoring Russia and China. The
roles of currencies transformed and comprehensive new banking systems that
could replace US controlled banking and hegemony were successfully established.
Almost immediately, the US was facing the reality of multipolar world
powers -- which replaced their dream of a New American Century. Even with
regime changes, the die had been cast. One hundred nations are now Members
of the Asian Investment and Infrastructure Bank AIIB, which will stand at
the center of global trade. The US is no longer the largest trading partner
of anybody, outside of Canada and Mexico. The US Dollar is optional, not
mandatory.
I would suggest that the US provoking Iran, Russia, and China is a desperate
attempt to undo the terrible consequences of the neocon's Ukraine fiasco;
it is their last, insane push to secure the American Empire they thought
was theirs already. Hillary Clinton devoted her time as SoS putting the
Empire timeline in place. She ushered in the TPP, the TTIP, and the Pivot
to Asia to wrap it up. As President of the United States, she was going
to oversee the final execution of the plan.
But the Neocons spoiled everything with the Ukraine coup.
Thanks for this stimulating essay. Your very first sentence got me laughing.
Good one.
@Pluto's Republic Your exposition is so clear and logical that
it's a wonder the genii at HFA, DNC, NeoCon Central didn't get it. Oh, wait...they
didn't want to "get it". They never acknowledge their fiascos. It's what
narcissistic sociopaths do.
The author had put me in a funny mood and I found your rifts on the topic
both amusing and insightful, especially your view on the contortions of
the NYT and Maddow. Do you think many readers can see this embarrassing
clawback? It seems so obvious.... but we are dealing with an intellectually
tased readership, so it's hard to know.
and excellent comments too. This is why this blue blog rocks.
Russia Gate boils down to this.
We helped put the Oligarchs into business, Putin reigned them in so he
has to go.
As the world shifts, this is also an opportunity for the CIA to settle
some old scores, using Robert Mueller's Star Chamber to punish Americans
such as Mike Flynn and Manafort who for various reasons -- good and
bad -- tried to push back during the last Administration against failed
regime change programs in Syria and Ukraine.
Good point. Manafort was working with the Ukraine president before Obama,
Biden, McCain and Nuland threw him out of his country because he accepted
the loan from Russia instead of the IMF which would bankrupted the country
unless he allowed foreign corrupt to steal the resources. And just like
every other country we have "meddled" with Ukraine is full of violence and
being run by despots. But why did Podesta get immunity for doing the same
things that Manafort did? John Podesta worked with Manafort on many issues.
Could it be because he's a friend of the Clintons?
And when Oleg refused to play along with the FBI:
In April, Deripaska and his company were hit by sweeping US sanctions,
with Washington accusing him of links to crime, various abuses and even
of ordering a murder.
During the previous Russian election the streets were full of protesters
against Putin's presidency. Putin wanted a more peaceful one during the
last one so he kicked out a bunch of NGOs and that made all the difference.
I reference to the Alligator's comment Rachel pinned down Brennan on
his tweet accusing Trump of committing treason. I wonder if she had a flash
back to when she had a conscience and reported on the heinous acts that
the intelligence agencies committed? But Rachel isn't the only one kissing
Brennan's buttocks.
In their blind hatred for Trump, liberals have sunk to an all-time
low by unabashedly cheering a war criminal.
On August 24, HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher had former CIA director
John Brennan on as an interview guest. Brennan has been in the news
lately because he accused Trump of treason or, more precisely, "nothing
short of treason," due to the president's weak-kneed, post-summit news
conference with Russia's Vladimir Putin.
...
On the episode of Real Time, the usually acerbic Maher, or as I am fond
of calling him due to his petulant demeanor and intellectual dwarfism,
Little Bill, immodestly degraded himself fawning over John Brennan before
the former CIA chief ever got on stage by gushing that he was a "
true American patriot. "
The nadir for the #Resistance occurred shortly thereafter as Brennan
rumbled on stage and was greeted by the eruption of a raucous standing
ovation by the liberal audience, with Little Bill calling it a " well-deserved
standing ovation. " Only in the bizarre universe where a silver-spooned,
multi-bankrupted, reality television star is president does a former
CIA director who has committed crimes and war crimes such as implementing
and covering up Bush's rendition and torture regime, spying on the US
Senate, and masterminding Obama's deadly drone program, get a delirious
ovation from those on the left.
Trump derangement syndrome has infected the country. Everyone who spoke
at McCain's funeral had to get a dig in about Trump. Great way to honor
the biggest war hero in the history of the country wasn't it?
And just like every other country we have "meddled" with Ukraine is
full of violence and being run by despots.
Since "we" have meddled plenty with this our own country, we are full
of violence and being run by despots, who in the U.S. are generally called
billionaires--large beasts, ravenous appetites, and very little brain in
the small cranii.
Number two:
Trump derangement syndrome has infected the country. Everyone who spoke
at McCain's funeral had to get a dig in about Trump. Great way to honor
the biggest war hero in the history of the country wasn't it?
I missed the /shark label--oooh, never could spell well, er, I meant
/snark label. Surely you thought the Quote would be recognized for what
it is.
"... For the first 15 months of his presidency, Donald Trump saw no need to appoint members to the Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, a group of outside advisors who have historically served as watchdogs over the official intelligence community on behalf of the Chief Executive. ..."
"... There's a power struggle between trump and the IC which wants to vet US. presidents like a modern praetorian guard; I don't know who is going to win, but the IC is on the side of pushing policies that risk war with Russia, so I support Trump there. ..."
For the first 15 months of his presidency, Donald Trump saw no need to appoint members to
the Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, a group of outside advisors who have historically
served as watchdogs over the official intelligence community on behalf of the Chief
Executive. It fit Trump's profile and his skepticism about the USIC that he felt no need
to have more quasi-official advisors peering over his shoulder. And a year-and-a-half into the
first term, the Trump Administration is still suffering from scores of vacancies in important
posts in all the executive branch departments.
Now, lo and behold, some appointments have been made to PFIAB, and it don't look good. The
only two names I have been able to locate as appointees to the PFIAB are: Steve Feinberg, who
was named on May 11, 2018 as the PFIAB chairman, and Samantha Ravich was named more recently as
the Board's vice chairman. To date, there are no indications there are any other members. Back
in January, Peter Thiel, the Silicon Valley billionaire who founded PayPal and was one of the
only Valley big wigs to back Trump for President, rejected the offer to head PFIAB. Thiel's
data mining firm Palantir has extensive contracts with the USIC and he may have felt he'd be
caught up in conflict of interest allegations. He has also expressed concerns to friends that
the Trump Presidency may be headed for oblivion.
So who are the new PFIAB chair and vice chair? Steve Feinberg is a vulture fund magnate,
whose Cerberus Capital Management has wrought havoc across the US economy. The firm, founded in
1992 and named after the mythical three-headed dog that guarded the gates of Hades, Apropos.
After looting GMAC, the financial arm of General Motors, Feinberg bought up a number of arms
manufacturers and defense contractors, including DynCorp. According to his bio on AllGov,
Feinberg was trained by ex-Army snipers and set up his own private "military base" outside of
Memphis, Tennessee.
Ever the hedger, Feinberg backed Jeb Bush for president, then switched to Donald Trump in
the final months of the 2016 campaign, while also bankrolling Chuck Schumer in his Senate
re-election campaign.
Samantha Ravich is pure neocon. She was a national security aide to Vice President Dick
Cheney and was one of the biggest promoters of the "Saddam WMD" hoax, leading to the Iraq
invasion of March 2003. She runs the Foundation for Defense of Democracies' Transformative
Cyber Innovation Lab, is listed on the FDD site as "principal investigator on FDD's
Cyber-Enabled Economic Warfare project" and Board Advisor on FDD's Center on Sanctions and
Illicit Finance. She is an advisor to the Chertoff Group.
You can't get more neocon than Samantha Ravich.
Question: Has President Trump finally caved in to the neocon long march through the
institutions? Is PFIAB another romper room for son-in-law and Netanyahu captive and love slave
Jared Kushner? Will PFIAB actually have a role or simply be a window dressing that Trump
ignores as he relies on a handful of cabinet and White House advisors and his rolodex of
billionaire friends who he chats up most evenings from the East Wing?
What I don't understand is after Iraq, who in the world with any brains would listen to
the Neo-cons again? As a veteran of the NY real estate wars, Trump has run into tons of snake
oil salesmen in his life and survived because he did not listen to them. What arguments are
neo-cons now advancing that would overcome all our previous mistakes and cause Trump to not
boot them out of the room. In my previous job as interim CFO of Prudential I was involved
with the negotiations with Trump and his Japanese partner over selling the ground under the
Empire State Building in 1991. At least back then, Trump did not listen to anyone except what
his gut told him. His mannerisms and personality have not changed one iota from those days to
his Presidency so why would Trump be susceptible to the nwo-cons when it goes against the
grain of everything he has espoused in the past.
Sad, but Trump doesn't pay any attention to groups like that. For him anything like that
is just PR and shareholder relations. He is much more interested in what the true loudmouths
on the boob tube have to say.
It's amazing to me that somebody who has engaged in NYC business and politics for so long
is so oblivious of how and when the strings are pulled when something needs to get done. Is
it even humanly possible that the same person that got himself into the WH can be so
oblivious. It's really an enigma. But then again, you kindly like to point out that sometimes
the most obvious explanations are the ones staring you right in the face
Donald Trump doesn't have an ideology or think tanks backing him; only his family. He is
in his 70s. He will appoint GOP flacks who didn't diss him in the past notwithstanding if
they are neocons or not. What he has done is jump in front of the parade. The FBI ran a sting
on Mayor of Tallahassee who is now the Democrat's Florida candidate for governor. The power
class is trying to contain the parade and direct it in the direction that they want. If it
goes wild, they will jail it.
More on Stephen Feinberg and his military connections:
"Through DynCorp, Feinberg already controls one of the largest military
contractors in the U.S., one which trains Afghanistan's police force and
assists in their narcotics-trafficking countermeasures. According to the
Times, Feinberg proposed an expanded role for such contractors, and
also recommended transferring the command of paramilitary operations in
the country to the C.I.A., increasing their operating footprint while
decreasing both transparency and accountability. He reportedly discussed
Afghanistan with President Trump in person."
same bullshit from the MIC, promoting war in Syria, in the bottles of the democrats and
the republicans. both parties are supporting the Russia bullshit -- look at the politics
swirling around McCain's funeral for example.
Both parties interfere in the middle east, paying off different sides, fighting al Qaida
one place, supporting them in Syria.
Both parties promote people like Bolton, with Bolton's agenda. Trump's main value is as a
destabilizer, which is why the established republicans and the democrats hate him, but the
people he surrounds himself with are very telling.
There's a power struggle between trump and the IC which wants to vet US. presidents
like a modern praetorian guard; I don't know who is going to win, but the IC is on the side
of pushing policies that risk war with Russia, so I support Trump there.
Ok, no insights or insides to offer, Harper, but from my own reading of Trump's Foreign
Policy Speech, scripted it was, I seem to recall I was told then vs earlier ad lib
approaches, I somewhat assumed this more general road into the future under Trump.
Strictly I dislike it deeply to approach anything resembling the, I" told you so" pattern.
It could suggest I only search for bits and pieces that fit in.
Irony/sarcasm alert: How well did the respectively selected PFIAB experts conform under
Bush, Obama? And who but a master in business would fit into let's say Trump's larger
meme-strategy: we have been exploited as a nation by close to everyone for ages?
What a wonderful insightful comment. Other than missing that PFIAB helped sell the Iraq
WMD, just like they were paid to do; and this pair will do the same next time out.
"... "The Russia Hoax Theme Got Started As a Dirty Trick by Hillary's 2016 Campaign ..."
"... "The seed was planted and significant parts of the American voting public noticed, particularly those who believed that Hillary Clinton had the God-given right to take control of the Oval Office. One way or another, Team Hillary was going to cram the Russian narrative down our collective throats." ..."
"The Russia Hoax Theme Got Started As a Dirty Trick by Hillary's 2016 Campaign
"The seed was planted and significant parts of the American voting public noticed,
particularly those who believed that Hillary Clinton had the God-given right to take control of
the Oval Office. One way or another, Team Hillary was going to cram the Russian narrative down
our collective throats."
No question, the woman fits the description "evil," but that sure doesn't make Trump a saint
by comparison.
America's tragedy – one shared by the entire world – is that this is the kind of
choice American voters get, a Hillary Clinton or a Donald Trump.
No matter who wins or loses each American presidential election, the people in general lose
and the establishment wins.
And right now, the American establishment likes and embraces the Clinton nonsense about
Russia. It serves its current purposes. Actually, it wasn't truly Clinton's own nonsense. She
was definitely feeding off a pre-existing set of attitudes in her Washington set.
So, it is more threatening than just a residual from an election campaign.
"... They are simply dragged along for the ride when Washington is determined to do something. They have nowhere to turn with their votes even. Republican or Democrat, the results in terms of war and empire will be the same. ..."
"... Washington ignores the UN. It ignores international law. It ignores many traditions and norms. Oh, it will offer up some excuse, some flimsy excuse for what it is doing, but, in the end, it doesn't matter what the American public believes, any more than it matters what the other 95% of humanity represented by the UN believes ..."
"... John Bolton's ugly public threat about even more devastating bombing if chemical weapons are used again -- "again," entirely begging the question of whether such weapons had ever been used by the government, with virtually all indicators saying they had not -- serves as a public invitation to the paid mercenaries in al-Nusra and such affiliates as the phony humanitarians of the White Helmets, to get on with the job of generating a needed provocation. ..."
"... And what will it matter if the public supports it or not? They know absolutely nothing anyway about what goes on in Syria and America's big, long-term role in it on behalf of Israel and others, including Saudi Arabia, to work towards destroying a legitimate government and cripple a beautiful country ..."
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY JUSTIN RAIMONDO IN RUSSIA INSIDER
"The New Cold War Flops, The American People Are Not Buying
"Poll shows anti-Russia campaign had little effect"
Justin Raimondo, as he has shown in other articles, often just does not "get it."
It simply does not matter whether the American public embraces the power establishment's
disinformation efforts.
There is almost no connection between what average Americans want and believe and what
Washington does.
And this has been true for a very long time. Did the public want the holocaust in Vietnam or
a list of other horrors?
They are simply dragged along for the ride when Washington is determined to do
something. They have nowhere to turn with their votes even. Republican or Democrat, the results
in terms of war and empire will be the same.
The United States' power establishment doesn't care what anyone thinks anymore when it wants
to do something. Oh, I'm sure they'd rather the public "bought in," but whether they do or not
simply is not a "deal breaker."
Washington ignores the UN. It ignores international law. It ignores many traditions and
norms. Oh, it will offer up some excuse, some flimsy excuse for what it is doing, but, in the
end, it doesn't matter what the American public believes, any more than it matters what the
other 95% of humanity represented by the UN believes .
The American public is virtually uninformed about what goes on abroad anyway. Their press
and government representatives work hard towards that end. And the truth is the American public
is largely uninterested. Bored with foreigners and even knee-jerk hostile to many. So many
people also are just trying to keep body and soul together in the changed economic realities of
contemporary America. They have no time to be concerned about what goes on "out there."
America's establishment actually counts on such realities in its imperial calculations.
The only time America's public ever gets really worked up over such matters is when
Americans die in considerable numbers. Foreigners, who cares? But America has arranged its
foreign dirty work so that numbers of Americans do not die.
The numbers at a certain point during Vietnam began to generate something like the national
divisions of the American Civil War. Through many mechanisms, that has never been allowed to
happen again.
Look at the dirty work in Syria. We know, right now, a new phony gas attack is being planned
around Idlib. There is significant intelligence on the matter. And it is only a set-up for a
new round of bombing Syria, a country with which America is not legally at war and a country
where it has no business having any forces without permission.
John Bolton's ugly public threat about even more devastating bombing if chemical weapons are
used again -- "again," entirely begging the question of whether such weapons had ever been used
by the government, with virtually all indicators saying they had not -- serves as a public
invitation to the paid mercenaries in al-Nusra and such affiliates as the phony humanitarians
of the White Helmets, to get on with the job of generating a needed provocation.
And will even one newspaper or network in America question the fraud? Or question the
excessive response?
And what will it matter if the public supports it or not? They know absolutely nothing
anyway about what goes on in Syria and America's big, long-term role in it on behalf of Israel
and others, including Saudi Arabia, to work towards destroying a legitimate government and
cripple a beautiful country .
This is incorrect: Russiagate first and foremost is a color revolution
against Trump
Notable quotes:
"... Of course, the Deep State has many other goals and priorities which align with Russiagate, and therefore support it fully, but the principals of Russiagate are the criminals trying to save their skin ..."
"... Of course, you can look at it at different levels with differing breadths, and at one level the Deep State role is included within the definition of "Russiagate" and therefore will include both Trump and Russia. But the view I expressed above is more fundamental (a) in terms of how and why Russiagate came into being, (b) in terms of the main principals involved, and (c) in terms of the causality of the the main processes. ..."
"... Once the "Russian election meddling" and "Putin puppet" memes were concocted as 1) a deflection from the Wikileaks DNC meddling scandal and 2) a smear to help assure that Trump couldn't be elected, the Dems painted themselves into a corner that they couldn't get out of once Trump was elected. ..."
"... They had made their scurrilous charges without anticipating that Trump would win. Throwing a smear during a campaign is one thing; conducting an investigation to shore up a smear is quite another. A campaign smear doesn't have to withstand scrutiny if it achieves its effect by dominating news cycles. But once they had thrown it and Trump was elected anyway, they were forced into a position where the smear needed to be shored up with bogus investigations. The alternative would have been an admission that the smear was just a smear. ..."
"... Russia derangement is a response to having to deal with an independent regional power acting on its own interests. The only thing that could have defused it would have been if the Russians folded over the Crimea and Donbas, and not shown their agency in Syria. And of course "progressives" have latched onto the new McCarthyism in their aspirations to regain power. Not that I love Trump or the Republicans, but if "progressives" wake up after election day with results showing that it backfired, it will be a great day ..."
"... IMO Russia gate is a cover for the Dems to make no change to their playbook. It also gives Trump an excuse to not deliver on some campaign promises he never intended to deliver on, much like Obama and many other Presidents. Its a great distraction keeping people from looking at the biggest foreign influence on government and elections, which is Israel ..."
"... Whether intended or not Russia gate also serves to strengthen Putin at home in the face of an external threat and keep them on their neoliberal path such as cutting pensions to support their MIC in the face of the US threat, and it will allow EU members to increase their own military spending to meet Trumps demands and many of those Euros will flow to the US ..."
"... IMO this is a carefully planned psyops and con game with each party playing their role and facilitating the execution of the ruling elites game plan. Sure, there are different factions and some infighting is allowed to maintain an illusion of Democracy for the proles, but the only Democracy is at the level of the ruling elite during their many private meetings of various elite groups that need not be named since they are so well known ..."
Russiagate has just one purpose: coverup for the crimes of operatives involved in the
election manipulation of 2016 and earlier crimes such as the Clinton email scandal
investigation.
Nothing to do with Trump, nothing to do with Russia. Anything else is purely peripheral.
(Of course, the Deep State has many other goals and priorities which align with
Russiagate, and therefore support it fully, but the principals of Russiagate are the
criminals trying to save their skin.)
"Nothing to do with Trump, nothing to do with Russia."
Of course, you can look at it at different levels with differing breadths, and at one
level the Deep State role is included within the definition of "Russiagate" and therefore
will include both Trump and Russia. But the view I expressed above is more fundamental (a) in
terms of how and why Russiagate came into being, (b) in terms of the main principals
involved, and (c) in terms of the causality of the the main processes.
Once the "Russian election meddling" and "Putin puppet" memes were concocted as 1) a
deflection from the Wikileaks DNC meddling scandal and 2) a smear to help assure that Trump
couldn't be elected, the Dems painted themselves into a corner that they couldn't get out of
once Trump was elected.
They had made their scurrilous charges without anticipating that
Trump would win. Throwing a smear during a campaign is one thing; conducting an investigation
to shore up a smear is quite another. A campaign smear doesn't have to withstand scrutiny if
it achieves its effect by dominating news cycles. But once they had thrown it and Trump was
elected anyway, they were forced into a position where the smear needed to be shored up with
bogus investigations. The alternative would have been an admission that the smear was just a
smear.
Russia derangement is a response to having to deal with an independent regional power
acting on its own interests. The only thing that could have defused it would have been if the
Russians folded over the Crimea and Donbas, and not shown their agency in Syria. And of
course "progressives" have latched onto the new McCarthyism in their aspirations to regain
power. Not that I love Trump or the Republicans, but if "progressives" wake up after election
day with results showing that it backfired, it will be a great day.
IMO Russia gate is a cover for the Dems to make no change to their playbook. It also gives
Trump an excuse to not deliver on some campaign promises he never intended to deliver on,
much like Obama and many other Presidents. Its a great distraction keeping people from
looking at the biggest foreign influence on government and elections, which is Israel
Whether intended or not Russia gate also serves to strengthen Putin at home in the face of
an external threat and keep them on their neoliberal path such as cutting pensions to support
their MIC in the face of the US threat, and it will allow EU members to increase their own
military spending to meet Trumps demands and many of those Euros will flow to the US
IMO this is a carefully planned psyops and con game with each party playing their role and
facilitating the execution of the ruling elites game plan. Sure, there are different factions
and some infighting is allowed to maintain an illusion of Democracy for the proles, but the
only Democracy is at the level of the ruling elite during their many private meetings of
various elite groups that need not be named since they are so well known
The sleaze around Donald Trump's NYC businesses has gotten a couple of convictions. This a
classic case of looking under the streetlight and finding it. The FBI/DOJ/CIA collaboration
is something else. The forwarding of Clinton's 30,000 e-mails to the Chinese that was posted
here has popped up, again. The e-mails reportedly went to a business front in Northern
Virginia. The Chinese said they have heard this before. The Washington Post says that the FBI
denies it. The truth is totally in the dark, but this can be investigated and be proven if
true or false.
Jeff Sessions has appointed John Huber, Utah US Attorney, to investigate the claims
against the FBI. He is not a special counsel. This likely is the source of friction between
the two. The President is starting to show the wounds from the media attacks. All he has is
his family. His staff is third string. He doesn't read briefings and gets his news
from Fox TV. He blows his top. He is being wrestled down by the Lilliputians until he slaps
the mat.
The last thing Globalists want is the incompetence and corruption in DC of the last
decades brought out into the daylight. If the Democrats gain control of the House
this year, the President will be hard pressed to make to 2021. John Kelly and Fox News won't
tell the President, but the only way he can get off the ropes is to appoint a Second Special
Counsel to investigate the Obama Administration FBI/DOJ and the Intelligence Coup against
him.
Sir;
How far back does the China/Clinton 'connection' go? I remember some minor scandal from back
in Bill Clinton's administration concerning Chinese purported 'agents of influence.' Money,
of course played a role.
From your experience "inside the beltway," how large an effect do you think venality has on
national governance?
What a cast of characters. Grifters, con-men and neo-con-men. It's a wonder there are any
honest men and women left in Washington.
"... As I have argued previously , such evidence that exists points to John Brennan and James Clapper, President Obama's head of the CIA and director of national intelligence respectively, even though attention has been focused on the FBI. ..."
"... Until Brennan, Clapper, and their closest collaborators are required to testify under oath about the real origins of Russiagate, these crises will grow ..."
For nearly two years, mostly vacuous (though malignant) Russiagate
allegations have drowned out truly significant news directly affecting
America's place in the world. In recent days, for example.
French
President Emmanuel Macron declared
"Europe can no longer rely on the
United States to provide its security," calling for instead a broader kind
of security "and particularly doing it in cooperation with Russia." About
the same time, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Russian President
Vladimir Putin met to expand and solidify an essential energy partnership by
agreeing to complete the Nord Stream 2 pipeline from Russia, despite US
attempts to abort it. Earlier, on August 22, the Afghan Taliban announced it
would attend its first ever major peace conference -- in Moscow, without US
participation.
Thus does the world turn, and not to the wishes of Washington. Such news
would, one might think, elicit extensive reporting and analysis in the
American mainstream media. But amid all this, on August 25, the ever-eager
New
York Times
published yet another front-page Russiagate story -- one that
if true would be sensational, though hardly anyone seemed to notice.
According to the
Times
'
regular Intel leakers, US intelligence agencies, presumably the CIA, has had
multiple "informants close to Putin and in the Kremlin who provided crucial
details" about Russiagate for two years. Now, however, "the vital Kremlin
informants have largely gone silent." The
Times
laces
the story with misdeeds questionably attributed to Putin and equally
untrustworthy commentators, as well as a mistranslated Putin statement that
incorrectly has him saying all "traitors" should be killed. Standard US
media fare these days when fact-checkers seem not to be required for Russia
coverage. But the sensation of the article is that the US had moles in
Putin's office.
Skeptical or credulous readers will react to the
Times
story
as they might. Actually, an initial, lesser version of it first appeared in
The
Washington Post
, an equally hospitable Intel platform, on December 15,
2017.
I
found it implausible
for much the same reasons
I
had previously found Christopher Steele's "dossier,"
also purportedly
based on "Kremlin sources," implausible. But the
Times
'
new, expanded version of the mole story raises more and larger questions.
If US intelligence really had such a priceless asset in Putin's office -- the
Post
report
implied only one, the
Times
writes
of more than one -- imagine what they could reveal about Enemy No. 1 Putin's
intentions abroad and at home, perhaps daily -- why would any American Intel
official disclose this information to any media at the risk of being charged
with a treasonous capital offense? And now more than once? Or, since "the
Kremlin" closely monitors US media, at the risk of having the no less
treasonous Russian informants identified and severely punished? Presumably
this why the
Times
'
leakers insist that the "silent" moles are still alive, though how they know
we are not told. All of this is even more implausible. Certainly, the
Times
article
asks no critical questions.
But why leak the mole story again, and now? Stripped of extraneous financial
improprieties, failures to register as foreign lobbyists, tacky lifestyles,
and sex having nothing to do with Russia, the gravamen of the Russiagate
narrative remains what it has always been: Putin ordered Russian operatives
to "meddle" in the US 2016 presidential election in order to put Donald
Trump in the White House, and Putin is now plotting to "attack" the November
congressional elections in order to get a Congress he wants. The more Robert
Mueller and his supporting media investigates, the less evidence actually
turns up, and when it seemingly does, it has to be considerably massaged or
misrepresented.
Nor are "meddling" and "interfering" in the other's domestic policy new in
Russian-American relations. Tsar Aleksandr II intervened militarily on the
side of the Union in the American Civil War. President Woodrow Wilson sent
troops to fight the Reds in the Russian Civil War. The Communist
International, founded in Moscow in 1919, and its successor organizations
financed American activists, electoral candidates, ideological schools, and
pro-Soviet bookstores for decades in the United States. With the support of
the Clinton administration, American electoral advisers encamped in Moscow
to help rig Russian President Boris Yeltsin's reelection in 1996. And that's
the bigger "meddling" apart from the decades-long "propaganda and
disinformation" churned out by both sides, often via forbidden short-wave
radio. Unless some conclusive evidence appears, Russian social media and
other meddling in the 2016 presidential election was little more than old
habits in modern-day forms. (Not incidentally, the
Times
story
suggests that US Intel had been hacking the Kremlin, or trying to, for many
years. This too should not shock us.)
The real novelty of Russiagate is the allegation that a Kremlin leader,
Putin, personally gave orders to affect the outcome of an American
presidential election. In this regard, Russiagaters have produced even less
evidence, only suppositions without facts or much logic. With the Russiagate
narrative being frayed by time and fruitless investigations, the "mole in
the Kremlin" may have seemed a ploy needed to keep the conspiracy theory
moving forward, presumably toward Trump's removal from office by whatever
means. And hence the temptation to play the mole card again, now, as yet
more investigations generate smoke but no smoking gun.
The pretext of the
Times
story
is that Putin is preparing an attack on the upcoming November elections, but
the once-"vital," now-silent moles are not providing the "crucial details."
Even if the story is entirely bogus, consider the damage it is doing.
Russiagate allegations have already delegitimized a presidential election,
and a presidency, in the minds of many Americans. The
Times
'
updated, expanded version may do the same to congressional elections and the
next Congress. If so, there is an "attack on American democracy" -- not by
Putin or Trump but by whoever godfathered and repeatedly inflated
Russiagate.
As I have argued
previously
,
such evidence that exists points to John Brennan and James Clapper,
President Obama's head of the CIA and director of national intelligence
respectively, even though attention has been focused on the FBI.
Indeed,
the
Times
story
reminds us of how central "intelligence" actors have been in this saga.
Arguably, Russiagate has brought us to the worst American political crisis
since the Civil War and the most dangerous relations with Russia in history.
Until Brennan, Clapper, and their closest collaborators are required to
testify under oath about the real origins of Russiagate, these crises will
grow
Jeffrey Harrison
says:
August 30, 2018 at 1:06 am
I'd love to know, Mr. Cohen, why you think that Russiagate was
perpetrated by Messrs Brennan and Clapper. I've been under the
impression that it all started with Three Names whining about a hack
to the DNC done by the Russians (based on no evidence) and the theft
of e-mails which revealed Three Names and her henchmen as amoral
political con artists. It is so clearly unfair and borderline
illegal to expose her and her henchmen for what they are
in.their.own.words that something must be done! I would advise that
we apply Occam's Razor to this problem and see what kind of answers
we get.
David Gurarie
says:
August 30, 2018 at
7:00 pm
The whining trio is a sideshow on general background run by our
deep state (or fourth government branch) made of
Clapper-Brennan-McCain types.
Joel Herman
says:
August 29, 2018 at 4:18 pm
Wrong . All we have to do is look at the actions of Trump and all
those that surround him to know that you are wrong take a hike with
the BS.
We have a conspiracy in plain sight. We did not meet with any
Russians. We discussed adoptions. But so what if we did engage in a
criminal conspiracy to swing an election. Then we established or
attempted to establish backchannels. To cash in.
All quite normal. Stick your nonsense where the sun doesn't shine.
Clark Shanahan
says:
August 30, 2018 at
11:30 am
Joel,
Were you part of Hill's $9.5 million "Correct the Record" troll
op?
"The lady doth protest too much, methinks".
Jeffrey Harrison
says:
August 30, 2018 at
12:02 pm
It's amazing to me how easily duped people with suspicious
minds are. It's also amazing to me how often people think
that they can create dynasties out of thin air. Three Names
has largely been unable to get anything right; the invasion
of Libya being a prime example of her capabilities. It would
be best if she just went away and took her daughter with
her.
The simplest explanation is usually the correct one and
simply being incompetent is much simpler than some
fantastical tale of Russian interference which was magically
able to flip 80,000 votes in three states so that she could
snatch defeat from the jaws of victory with a 2.9 million
vote lead.
Most of US Russiagate charges are projection. Russiagate is a color
revolution of the block of neoliberals and neocons to depose Trump. They are
afraid of too many skeletons in the closet to allow Trump to finish his
term. And for a right reason. Trump is unpredictable and he at one moment
can turn on them and start revealing unpleasant truth about Bush II and
Obama.
But rumors about the demise of the US neoliberal empire are slightly
exaggerated ;-). Without providing an alternative model to neoliberalism and
without ethnological superiority China does not stand a chance.
Notable quotes:
"... Through endless repetition, allegations are transformed into "facts." Sanctions are loaded upon sanctions, based on these unsubstantiated charges in an economic war against Russia. ..."
"... Today's propaganda tool is named "RussiaGate," a campaign to bring down a deeply flawed U.S. president for possibly trying to mend U.S. relations with Russia. ..."
"... Nations, such as Russia, China & others just want to determine their own futures & keep their National sovereignty's! It's America, with it's unbelievable arrogance & hubris, that wants to dominate & impose its sovereignty on every Country on Earth! ..."
"... Their claim to One Truth (no alternate facts tolerated in NYT/WaPo Land) that they've enjoyed for more than 100 years has fallen victim to the Internet, a creation of the American war technology development system (DARPA) ..."
"... other Nations may reach a saturation point when enough is enough & they finally come to the realization that this crooked American Empire is to dangerous to be allowed too continue & must be stopped, once & for all time! ..."
It was around 1898, when America first starting thinking it was the center of the universe.
In that year the U.S. intervened in Cuba's war for independence and proceeded to take over
parts of the decrepit Spanish Empire, from Latin America to the Philippines. Shortly before, in
1893, the U.S. overthrew the Queen of Hawaii on behalf of U.S.-backed sugar and pineapple
plantation owners.
That led to a long history of political interference in other countries, in the form of
destabilization, coups and invasions. Once the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991, a narrative was
fostered to justify expanding NATO to Russia's borders.
In the last four years, anti-Russian propaganda has reached a fever pitch: lies about
Russia's "expansionism" in Ukraine; hype about Russia's "meddling" in the U.S. elections,
creating an existential "threat to democracy;" unproven allegations of Russia using chemical
weapons to poison the Skripals in London. Experts are trotted out on major media to further the
narrative without hard evidence. Together with think-tanks, the American and British media run
these stories daily with almost no counter news or opinions. Through endless repetition,
allegations are transformed into "facts." Sanctions are loaded upon sanctions, based on these
unsubstantiated charges in an economic war against Russia.
In 2004, journalist Ron Suskind wrote in The New York Times magazine that a top White
House strategist for President George W. Bush -- identified later as Karl Rove, Bush's Deputy
White House Chief of Staff -- told him, "We're an empire now; we create our own reality."
Swiss journalist, Guy Mettan, in his 2017 book, Creating Russophobia: From the Great Religious
Schism to Anti-Putin Hysteria, writes that the West's psycho-social pathology
about Russia dates back over 1,000 years to the division of Christendom between the Orthodox
and Roman churches. The U.S. is a relative newcomer to this, but seeks perhaps its biggest
role.
" More than merely dominate, the American superpower now seeks to control history," Mettan
says.
Myth of Russian Expansionism
The astute University of Chicago Professor John J. Mearsheimer exposed how the West provoked
the Ukraine crisis in his 2014 Foreign Affairs article,
"Why the Ukraine Crisis is the West's Fault: The Liberal Delusions That Provoked Putin."
But the American foreign policy establishment and media remain committed to the suppression of
facts about the U.S.-backed coup in Kiev and the resulting escalating tensions with Russia.
Ignoring or fabricating evidence, the U.S. and NATO persist in
lying that Russia has expansionist goals in Ukraine, Crimea and Syria. Russia is helping
ethnic Russians in the east of Ukraine who are resisting the coup, Crimea (which had been part
of Russia since 1783 and transferred by the Soviets to Ukraine in 1954) held a referendum in
2014 in which the public voted to rejoin Russia. The Syrian government invited Russia in to
help fight Western and Gulf-backed jihadists trying to violently overthrow the government, as
even then Secretary of State John Kerry admitted .
Another scholar, Richard Sakwa, Professor of Russian and European Politics at the University
of Kent, writes in his latest book, Russia Against the Rest: The Post-Cold War Crisis of World Order, that the
Ukraine crisis crystallized the profound differences between Russia and the West, differences
that are not just a replay of the "Cold War."
Simply put, under the banner of the indispensable "liberal world order," neo-conservative
warriors and "democracy"-spreading-"humanitarian-interventionists"
are promoting the Russophobia "reality" to justify American hegemony.
Ditching Solzhenitsyn
Solzhenitsyn : Ditched when he turned on America. (Wikimedia Commons)
One of the greatest illustrations of the centuries-old Russophobia, says Mettan in his 2017
book, is the case of Russian dissident Alexander Solzhenitsyn.
" During the 1990s, I was shocked by the way the West treated Solzhenitsyn," Mettan wrote.
"For decades, we had published, celebrated, and acclaimed the great writer as bearing the torch
of anti-Soviet dissidence," but only when he criticized his communist Russia. But after moving
to the U.S., when Solzhenitsyn showed a preference for privacy "rather than attending
anticommunist conferences, western media and academics began to distance themselves."
And when Solzhenitsyn returned to Russia and spoke out against Russian 'westernizers' and
liberals who denied Russian interests, he was labeled "an outdated, senile writer," though he
had not changed his fundamental views on freedom.
After the mid-July, Trump-Putin Helsinki summit, there were countless mass media delusions
and hysteria against U.S.-Russia ties, reminiscent of the Hearst newspaper empire's propaganda
that whipped up a frenzy to support the empire-building war against Spain in 1898. Professor
Stephen Kinzer vividly described the unsuccessful battle by prestigious anti-imperialists
against the power of the Hearst propaganda in his latest book, The True Flag:Theodore Roosevelt, Mark Twain, and the Birth of American Empire."
Today's propaganda tool is named "RussiaGate," a campaign to bring down a deeply flawed
U.S. president for possibly trying to mend U.S. relations with Russia.
Do we have enough good sense left to follow the advice of Henry David Thoreau: "Let us
settle ourselves, and work and wedge our feet downward through the mud and slush of opinion,
and prejudice till we come to a hard bottom and rocks in place, which we can call reality."
Or, as I thought when I visited Galileo's house that day in the Florentine hills: the world
does not revolve around America.
Jean Ranc is a retired psychologist/research associate at the University of North
Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Wonderful observations that challenge the complete and utter madness of our times here in
the U.S., and the West in general. The inquisitorial "accusations" leveled against Putin and
Russia by the West bear no more resemblance to "reality" than the lunatic accusations that
the Holy Inquisition leveled against "witches," "heretics" and "non-believers" for centuries
as it used terror to consolidate power. Given the ever more shrill and painfully persistent
nature of these ongoing nonsense anti-Russian accusations – it would appear more and
more of us in the West are falling into the category of – "non-believers."
jose , August 28, 2018 at 8:45 pm
A very good post Gary. The West is decadent and corrupt.Whatever high moral grounds the
West once held, I am afraid they are either forgotten or totally gone.
Delightful piece to read, great comments as usual. I can only add that the neocolonialists
who don't want to give up leading the US over the edge, as mike says "into the abyss", will
be forced to change their ways, well stated by Babylon and others. The tragedy of what they
have done by their narcissistic, egoistic, delusional misleading, is that they have wrecked
the lives of millions worldwide. But of course, that is the story of deluded conquerors until
they meet their own end. I welcome the sun setting on the "American Century"; a sharp reset
awaits us all but we should welcome it.
jose , August 28, 2018 at 8:48 pm
Jessika: the saddest part in all this is that they still continue to wreck and decimate
lives worldwide. It is like a cancer eating and obliterating every thing in their path. A
very incisive post.
The cancer is psychopathy! These people have no conscience or empathy. They are liars and
manipulators. They treat people like objects to be used and abused. Until America admits that
we've had a substantial percentage of psychopathic leaders and mentality, from the Puritans
forward, we will never recover from the psychological, social, economic, political, legal,
religious destruction this ilk has forced upon the rest of us. It took me deep research and
therapy to discover that psychopaths project themselves onto the rest of us and then claim we
are somehow damaged, flawed or have sinful human nature. The problem has always been the
psychopaths among us (1%) who have created hierarchies and placed themselves atop them. They
have bamboozled most of us with their lies but as we wake up to their games, we can kick them
out of power and we can create a country of the 99% with conscience and empathy rather than a
country of slaveowners and deluded "Israelites" who believed they had the right to exploit,
enslave, kill
KiwiAntz , August 29, 2018 at 1:36 am
It's not sad, it's what's deathcult tyrants & dying Empires do, they take as many
victims as they can, once they realise the end is nigh! It's a mass shooter mentality &
it's disgraceful!
JR , August 28, 2018 at 9:14 pm
HI Jessika,
I tried to find you while I was still living in NH as I got the idea you live there as well.
I had lived in the Dartmouth area in the 70's but the brutal winters were too much! this time
around so I returned to my home base here in Chapel Hill. If you'd like to be in touch, you
can reach me at my old-but-still-good Santa Fe address: [email protected]
mike k , August 28, 2018 at 5:37 pm
American egotism is legendary. It is the defining mark of the breed. Ignorant know-it-alls
lead us confidently into the abyss.
jose , August 28, 2018 at 8:53 pm
Mike: If American leaders that are in control of the country have studied history of any
empire, they would come to the realization that empires do not last forever. The illogical
part is that empire's life expectancy has been more or less the same worldwide. And like an
opened book the end is closing in and they know it.
Realist , August 28, 2018 at 5:00 pm
Excellent bit of necessary truth-telling. Too bad it won't be read in most of America, not
because the people would reject its premise, but because their keepers just won't let them
see it in the highly manipulated mass media.
America has repeatedly become what it most professes to hate: first an onerous empire like
Spain, then a pack of fascists like Nazi Germany, and now totalitarian tyrants like the
Soviets. Welcome to the truth, the one NOT fabricated by Rove's inheritors of empire.
Babyl-on , August 28, 2018 at 4:32 pm
This thought is so important to understand if you are to make any sense of the new
multi-polar world which does not revolve around the failing Western empire.
China's Belt and Road is a catalyst but China will benefit only through the
interconnection of the entire Eurasian land mass – sooner than you think, high-speed
trains will cross the steppes. That is the new world the Enlightenment era is dead the
Eurasian era is opening. Eurasia will trade most naturally with Africa and it will prosper
because The US Empire is the last of the Enlightenment white European empires.
When you consider the integration of the great Eurasian land mass for the first time is
history (the ancient Silk Road writ large) it's easy to forget about a US over there
separated by all that water from the thriving markets.
Those oceans which protected the center of power from attack now are a big disadvantage in
trade.
We are witnessing the end of the Enlightenment and the end of Empire which it spawned.
China is not imperial, Russia is not imperial – no country today seeks empire but
the US and they are failing in every way. Western Liberal Democracy also died with the
Enlightenment, new forms of governance and culture will develop, the sky really is the limit,
now that the old dead Enlightenment is moving out of the way.
It would be a brighter future if not for that pesky climate.
KiwiAntz , August 29, 2018 at 1:51 am
Nations, such as Russia, China & others just want to determine their own futures &
keep their National sovereignty's! It's America, with it's unbelievable arrogance &
hubris, that wants to dominate & impose its sovereignty on every Country on Earth!
Russia
& China are the future with the one belt, one road initiative & America is being left
in the rear view mirror & is on the path to total oblivion thanks to its warmongering
ways! The end of this corrupt American Empire can't come soon enough for people who want to
live in peace!
Egocentrism isn't just a Donald Trump thing, it's an American thing. America's
never-ending RussiaGate narrative is a classic example of psychological projection. It can't
be US who has the problem, it must be THEM who has the problem. Time to own it.
paraphrasing J. Pilger -- America should leave the rest of the world
alone -- leave it alone
KiwiAntz , August 29, 2018 at 2:15 am
Yes, I second what Mr Pilger stated & I will add a few more requests? "Leave the
World" alone! Stop your Warmongering interference in other Countries affairs! Immediately
stop all your murderous Wars, Coups & Financial & Economic terrorism such as
weaponising the dollar & Trade sanctions to illegally punish other Nations! Abide by
International Laws & the U.N. charter! Remove your 800 bases from around the World &
stick to your own backyard! Stop being the Worlds Policeman because no one asked you to
perform this role! Look after your own people first & stop wasting trillions of dollars
on the pointless & stupid Military Industrial Complex! Ban Campaign lobbyists & big
money from Politics! Jail all corrupt Corporates & thieving Bankers, Politicians &
seize their assets! These are a few things for a start! There are many more things you could
do more numerous to name here, but the main thing is LEAVE THE WORLD ALONE! We are sick to
death of this American Empire!
Sally Snyder , August 28, 2018 at 2:28 pm
Here is what Americans really think about the anti-Russia hysteria coming from
Washington:
Less than half of Americans believe that Russia's interference in the 2016 election made a
difference to the final outcome and nearly six in ten Americans believe that it is important
that Washington continue to improve relations with Moscow.
Jeff Harrison , August 28, 2018 at 2:25 pm
When you get to the end of The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, six volumes of dense,
erudite prose which details the failings of a decadent society, Gibbon lets you in on a
secret. The Roman Empire was militarily defeated. Not all at once, mind. But militarily
defeated nonetheless. Consider what that means for the US.
RnM , August 28, 2018 at 9:27 pm
Rome became a victim of its success, being overstretched beyond their war technology
(horses, shields, swords and siege machines.)
My inability and unwillingness to predict the end of the rise of The Empire of "We the
People" and its brand of War Technologies, is due to my close perspective and life-long
Bernaiseian (?sp) brainwashing by the mass media, which, thankfully, has, since 2016, been
dealt a blow to the mask on their (the corporate media's) Totalitarian nature.
Their claim to
One Truth (no alternate facts tolerated in NYT/WaPo Land) that they've enjoyed for more than
100 years has fallen victim to the Internet, a creation of the American war technology
development system (DARPA). So, in the American attempt to surpass the Romans, the Empire of
We the People (as a Totalitarian dystopia) may well be thwarted by the spread of open
information. I hope so. The alternative might be very difficult to defeat.
Jeff, if you enjoyed Gibbons, I think you would really enjoy Michael Parenti's, "The
Assassination of Julius Caesar". There are so many parallels between the late Roman Republic
and today's America. Michael got his PhD in political science and history from Yale and
writes "people's history". He argues convincingly that Caesar was assassinated -- - not for
being an egomaniac and dictator -- - but because he stood up against the most elite in the
senate by seeking reforms that would benefit the masses. He actually argues that Gibbons
wrote as a historian from the priviledged class and therefore never condemned the senate for
exploiting the masses.
KiwiAntz , August 29, 2018 at 2:34 am
Yes, what it means,& if History is anything to go by, that other Nations may reach a
saturation point when enough is enough & they finally come to the
realization that this
crooked American Empire is to dangerous to be allowed too continue & must be stopped,
once & for all time!
The Roman Empire never saw the Barbarian hordes such as the
Visigoth's, Huns & Vandals coming until it was to late! Will the American Empire see
there downfall coming? 9/11 proved the arrogant American Empire couldn't even see that event
coming, due to their own hubris & complacency!
Sorry Mike, what do you mean by saying the goal is to "create a center-right" Democratic
Party? The Clinton's accomplished this in the 1990s -- what we have here is a full scale
enfoldment of the Dems into the National Security State
Not that it matters much -- both Republicans and Democrats have been on the same page for
a few decades now (since the 1940s IMHO). Inter-party politics don't matter much, except
insofar as the voting public can be conned into supporting one or the other, because no
matter which party holds the Congress or Presidency the same Deep State agenda is their top
priority.
Why? It's simple really -- money. Big campaign donors expect "value" in return for their
"political contributions". And if value isn't had for their money, the Deep State's
intelligence community can usually dig up something "useful" in the offender's background to
"persuade" him or her to support the current bipartisan agenda
If it's really true that to find out who has power, just take note of whom is above
criticism, perhaps we ought to consider that Rockefeller and JPMorgan money founded the CFR
in 1921 and it took root and bloomed in government "service" during and after WWII.
If you doubt the CFR's power as the Deep State personified, I suggest reading historian
Quigley's Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time and sociologist Tom
Dye's Who Is Running America series.
Paraphrasing Quigley, writing when Bill Clinton was his student at Georgetown, the two
parties should be as alike as two sides of a coin so that voters can "throw the rascals out"
in any election without significantly changing governmental priorities and policies because
the policies the US is and ought be pursuing are not subject to significant dispute (or
at the least not by the voting public).
Which begs the question -- who is (and has been since the 1940s) setting US policy? If we,
the voters, cannot alter or change our national policies, then democratic oversight of the
Republic is nothing but a sham. The US is, in this view, just another Banana Republic which
Tom Dye ably documents from Watergate to Shrub's administration.
The two party "uniparty" is alive and well. In fact, while the party's supporters still
may include self- described "leftists" the party itself has gone further right than the
traditionally rightwing GOP. The dual party structure relies on the "Democrats" to gut
"entitlements", that is Social Security or Medicare.
It was the "Democrats" who put in Obamacare, which mandated people to spend an arm and a
leg on crappy medical insurance the cost of which was massively inflated which they could
only use when they had spent way more than average on medical bills. Meanwhile it was the
democrats' harpy candidate who proposed a no-fly zone in Syria on behalf of raghead
mercenaries hired by the yankee imperium.
While Trump has largely caved in to the deep state, in part perhaps because of the
pressure applied by the phony deep state witch hunt taking over the "justice" department of
the yankee regime, we know what the democrats, exponents of the fraudulent "Russia-gate"
stories, now espouse: a new cold war far more dangerous than the old one.
Meanwhile, the commercial media in the US and satellite countries, has degenerated into a
Goebbels-like propaganda apparat. Trump's clumsiness actually may have the accidental
salutary effect of enabling the satellite countries to slip the yankee leash, at least to
some extent.
The situation brought about by this unprecedented two faction version of fascism is
profoundly depressing, in addition to being seriously dangerous.
Why is this article entitled: "Dems Put Finishing Touches on One-Party 'Surveillance
Superstate'"
This website seems to have articles that show their authors are awake and yet, this article
shows quite the opposite. Who today, with the slightest modicum of common sense, who has made
the effort in understanding how the system works, still plays the left-right paradigm,
Hegelian Dialectic, political game nonsense?
I mean, let's get real here; the Democrats and the Republicans, like their UK counterparts of
Labour and Conservative are merely wings on the same bird, ultimately flying to a
destination. Both parties are taking the USA towards a one-party, surveillance, super state.
You do not enter American politics unless you bow to Zionism and International Jewry. Unless
you show 100% support to Israel then forget a career in politics.
Incidentally, to many who may have heard of her; the new luvey of the conservatives is
none other than black, Candace Owens, who is better known as Red Pill Black. She has been
this new voice who has entered into the 'alternative right', itself nothing more than
controlled opposition, speaking out against feminism, white privilege, rape culture,
transgender culture etc etc and has gained a large following. Other than being a complete
fraud, as information has appeared that she tried to launch a 'doxing' website, targeting
youngsters, she has appeared at the opening of the American Embassy in Jerusalem:
Why on earth, would some nobody, who has had an incredibly fast rise on YouTube (most
certainly her subscriber base and video view has been doctored) and more so a black
conservative, be invited to attend the opening of the American embassy in Jerusalem? Bottom
line? She's being groomed for a career in politics and I wouldn't be surprised if they wheel
her out, some time in the future, as a presidential hopeful to capture the black vote in the
USA.
Again, this is controlled opposition.
You never vote in a new party in politics. You vote out the old one. 326 million is the
population of the USA and there are only two political parties? Are you serious? It's bad
enough, here in the UK with three (liberal party along with Labour and Conservative), with a
66 million population but only two in the USA?
Both parties are heavily controlled.
The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) has been putting presidents into power now for over a
hundred years. The CFR is the sister organization of the Royal Institute for International
Affairs, which has been doing the same, here in the UK for the same time. All politicians are
groomed from an early age, taught how to avoid answering any question directly, how to lie
and of course who their masters are. By implementing their wishes, politicians are then
granted a seat on some board, within some multi conglomerate, a six figure salary, a fat
pension on top of their political one and of course umpteen houses spread across wherever.
Blair and Obama epitomize this.
Both political parties are left wing, hiding under the right wing and classic liberal
monikers.
"... Democrats are proceeding down a dark path: identity politics brings only conflict, civil war. ..."
"... Anybody who trusts the Democrats to save us from the evil machinations of the Neocons is as hopelessly stupid as anyone who trusts the Neocons to save us from the evil machinations of the Democrats. ..."
"... These new Democrats will never vote for less spending. There previous career was based on having abundant and in some cases unlimited Federal funds at their fingertips. ..."
Ron Unz has linked to WSWS.org several times in the past as WSWS was targeted by the Deep
State/Google etc. cabal to make it disappear into the "memory hole."
The only activism I've seen from progressives in the past two years has nothing to do
with economic concerns; their energy is entirely focused on race, gender, and sexuality.
The cultural-Marxist troika.
Just one of many good point you make. The only thing I'd add is in relation to:
Democrats are proceeding down a dark path: identity politics brings only conflict, civil
war.
As Reg mentions: conflict among the masses is very much the plan. Divide et
impera.
And my stupid [neo]liberal friends still think the democrats are going to save them, and then
on to super – duper – special stupid, they think their vote for a democrat is
going to have an impact. On to ludicrous stupid – it's all the republicans fault.
Identity politics at its finest.
Unfixable, and circling the drain.
The Alarmist, June 8, 2018 at 11:03 am GMT • 100 Words
"Center-right" and "business oriented?"
Try Oligarch-centric.
There is a story, perhaps apocryphal, from the fall of
Constantinople: Sultan Mehmed II rounded up the surviving oligarchs of
the Empire and asked them why they had withheld their riches and
resources from supporting the Empire's final defense against his
conquest, to which the oligarchs replied that they were saving their
riches for his most excellent majesty. He had them brutally executed.
Jake, June 8, 2018 at 11:13 am GMT
Anybody who trusts the Democrats to save us from the evil
machinations of the Neocons is as hopelessly stupid as anyone who trusts
the Neocons to save us from the evil machinations of the Democrats.
At the upper levels there is no difference between the Demonrats and the
Republicons as all are controlled by the Zionists and congress would by
more accurately called the lower house of the Knesset..
prusmc, June 8, 2018 at 1:18 pm GMT • 100 Words
@anon
These new Democrats will never vote for less spending. There
previous career was based on having abundant and in some cases unlimited
Federal funds at their fingertips.
It is a mistake to think they will be any different than Maxine
Waters, Sheila Jackson Lee, Jerold Nadler or Luis Guitirez. Senator Joe
Manchin of West Virginia is about a unconventional as we can expect the
new congressional majority members to be.
jacques sheete, June 8, 2018 at 1:44 pm GMT
@Anon
The ultra rich use the poor to attack the middle so they can
distract everyone else from uniting
That, in fact, is the practical aim of government in general.
Parties, schmarties it's all one huge extortion racket.
"... In fact, a technical glitch prevented FBI technicians from accurately comparing the new emails with the old emails. Only 3,077 of the 694,000 emails were directly reviewed for classified or incriminating information. Three FBI officials completed that work in a single 12-hour spurt the day before Comey again cleared Clinton of criminal charges. ..."
"... "Most of the emails were never examined, even though they made up potentially 10 times the evidence" of what was reviewed in the original year-long case that Comey closed in July 2016, said a law enforcement official with direct knowledge of the investigation. ..."
"... Contradicting Comey's testimony, this included highly sensitive information dealing with Israel and the U.S.-designated terrorist group Hamas. The former secretary of state, however, was never confronted with the sensitive new information and it was never analyzed for damage to national security. ..."
"... Even though the unique classified material was improperly stored and transmitted on an unsecured device, the FBI did not refer the matter to U.S. intelligence agencies to determine if national security had been compromised, as required under a federally mandated "damage assessment" directive . ..."
"... "There was no real investigation and no real search," said Michael Biasello, a 27-year veteran of the FBI. "It was all just show -- eyewash -- to make it look like there was an investigation before the election." ..."
"... Many Clinton supporters believe Comey's 11th hour reopening of a case that had shadowed her campaign was a form of sabotage that cost her the election. But the evidence shows Comey and his inner circle acted only after worried agents and prosecutors in New York forced their hand. At the prodding of Attorney General Lynch, they then worked to reduce and rush through, rather than carefully examine, potentially damaging new evidence. ..."
"... However, conducting a broader and more thorough search of the Weiner laptop may still have prosecutorial justification. Other questions linger, including whether subpoenaed evidence was destroyed or false statements were made to congressional and FBI investigators from 2014 to 2016, a time frame that is within the statute of limitations. The laptop was not searched for evidence pertaining to such crimes. Investigators instead focused their search, limited as it was, on classified information. ..."
"... The headers indicated that the emails on the laptop included ones sent and/or received by Abedin at her clintonemail.com account, her personal Yahoo! email account as well as a host of Clinton-associated domains including state.gov, clintonfoundation.org, presidentclinton.com and hillaryclinton.com. ..."
"... (McCabe told Horowitz he didn't remember Sweeney briefing him about the Weiner laptop, but personal notes he took during the teleconference indicate he was briefed. Sweeney also updated McCabe in a direct call later that afternoon in which he noted there were potentially 347,000 relevant emails, and that the count was climbing. McCabe was fired earlier this year and referred to the U.S. Attorney's office in Washington, D.C., for possible criminal investigation into allegations he made false statements to federal agents working for Horowitz.) ..."
"... FBI officials in New York assumed that the bureau's brass would jump on the discovery, particularly since it included the missing emails from the start of Clinton's time at State. In fact, the emails dated from the beginning of 2007 and covered the entire period of Clinton's tenure as secretary and thereafter. The team leading the Clinton investigation, codenamed "Midyear Exam," had never been able to find Clinton's emails from her first two months as secretary. ..."
"... Lynch -- who had admonished Comey to call the Clinton case a "matter" and not an investigation, aligning FBI rhetoric with the Clinton campaign, and who inappropriately agreed to meet with Bill Clinton aboard her government plane five days before the FBI interviewed Hillary Clinton -- sought to keep the Weiner laptop search quiet and was opposed to going to Congress with the discovery so close to the election. ..."
"... But this time, Comey made no public show of his announcement. On Oct. 28, 2016, Comey quietly sent a terse and private letter to the chairs and the ranking members of the oversight committees on the Hill, informing them, vaguely, that the FBI was taking additional steps in the Clinton email investigation. ..."
"... The unnamed agent, who is identified in the IG report only as "Agent 1," is now married to another Midyear investigator, who on Election Day IM'd her then-boyfriend to say Clinton "better win," while threatening to quit if she didn't. Known as "Agent 5," she also stated, "fuck trump," while calling his voters "retarded." ..."
"... Also excluded were Abedin's Yahoo emails, even though investigators had previously found classified information on her Yahoo account and would arguably have probable cause to look at those emails, as well. ..."
"... Also removed from the search were the BlackBerry data -- even though the FBI had previously described them as the "golden emails," because they covered the dark period early in Clinton's term. ..."
"... In addition to limiting the scope of their probe, the agents were also under pressure from both Justice Department prosecutors and FBI headquarters to complete the review of the remaining emails in a hurry. ..."
"... Lynch urged Comey to process the Weiner laptop "as fast as you can," according to notes from a high-level department meeting on Oct. 31, 2016, which were obtained by the IG. ..."
"... Advanced new "de-duplicating" technology would allow them to speed through the mountain of new emails automatically flagging copies of previously reviewed material. ..."
"... But according to the IG, FBI's technology division only "attempted" to de-duplicate the emails, but ultimately was unsuccessful. The IG cited a report prepared Nov. 15, 2016, by three officials from the FBI's Boston field office. Titled "Anthony Weiner Laptop Review for Communications Pertinent to Midyear Exam," it found that "[b]ecause metadata was largely absent, the emails could not be completely, automatically de-duplicated or evaluated against prior emails recovered during the investigation." ..."
"... Contrary to Comey's claim, the FBI could not sufficiently determine how many emails containing classified information were duplicative of previously reviewed classified emails. As a result, hundreds of thousands of emails were not actually processed for evidence, law enforcement sources say. ..."
"... Later that evening of Nov. 6, after he announced to Congress that Clinton was in the clear again, an exuberant Comey gathered his inner circle in his office to watch football. ..."
"... Page noted that "Trump is talking about [Clinton]" on Fox News, and how "she's protected by a rigged system." ..."
"... RCI has learned that these highly sensitive messages include a Nov. 25, 2011, email regarding talks with Egyptian leaders and Hamas, and a July 9, 2011, "call sheet" Abedin sent Clinton in advance of a phone conversation she had that month with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The document runs four pages. ..."
"... Another previously unseen classified email, dated Nov. 25, 2010, concerns confidential high-level State Department talks with United Arab Emirates leaders. The note, including a classified "readout" of a phone call with the UAE prime minister, was written by Abedin and sent to Clinton, and then forwarded by Abedin the next day from her [email protected] account to her then-husband's account identified under the rubric "Anthony Campaign." ..."
"... Comey and Strzok also decided to close the case for a second time without interviewing its three central figures: Abedin, Weiner and Clinton. ..."
"... In a statement, Strzok's attorney blamed the delays in processing the new emails on "bureaucratic snafus," and insisted they had nothing to do with Strzok's political views, which he said never "affected his work." ..."
"... "When informed that Weiner's laptop contained Clinton emails, Strzok immediately had the matter pursued by two of his most qualified and aggressive investigators," Goelman said. Still, contemporaneous messages by Strzok reveal he was not thrilled about re-investigating Clinton. On Nov. 5, for example, he texted Page: "I hate this case." ..."
"... A final mystery remains: Where is the Weiner laptop today? ..."
"... Wherever its location, somewhere out there is a treasure trove of evidence involving potentially serious federal crimes -- including espionage, foreign influence-peddling and obstruction of justice -- that has never been properly or fully examined by law enforcement authorities. ..."
When then-FBI Director James Comey announced he was closing the Hillary Clinton email
investigation for a second time just days before the 2016 election, he certified to Congress
that his agency had "reviewed all of the communications" discovered on a personal laptop used
by Clinton's closest aide, Huma Abedin, and her husband, Anthony Weiner.
James Comey, above.
Top photo: His certification to Congress just before Election Day clearing Hillary Clinton a
second time. That certification is challenged by new reporting. AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite,
File Top: AP Photo/Jon Elswick
At the time, many wondered how investigators managed over the course of one week to read the
"hundreds of thousands" of emails residing on the machine, which had been a focus of a
sex-crimes investigation of Weiner, a former Congressman.
Comey later
told Congress that "thanks to the wizardry of our technology," the FBI was able to
eliminate the vast majority of messages as "duplicates" of emails they'd previously seen.
Tireless agents, he claimed, then worked "night after night after night" to scrutinize the
remaining material.
But virtually none of his account was true, a growing body of evidence reveals.
In fact, a technical glitch prevented FBI technicians from accurately comparing the new
emails with the old emails. Only 3,077 of the 694,000 emails were directly reviewed for
classified or incriminating information. Three FBI officials completed that work in a single
12-hour spurt the day before Comey again cleared Clinton of criminal charges.
"Most of the emails were never examined, even though they made up potentially 10 times the
evidence" of what was reviewed in the original year-long case that Comey closed in July 2016,
said a law enforcement official with direct knowledge of the investigation.
Yet even the "extremely narrow" search that was finally conducted, after more than a month
of delay, uncovered more classified material sent and/or received by Clinton through her
unauthorized basement server, the official said. Contradicting Comey's testimony, this included
highly sensitive information dealing with Israel and the U.S.-designated terrorist group Hamas.
The former secretary of state, however, was never confronted with the sensitive new information
and it was never analyzed for damage to national security.
Even though the unique classified material was improperly stored and transmitted on an
unsecured device, the FBI did not refer the matter to U.S. intelligence agencies to determine
if national security had been compromised, as required under a federally mandated "damage
assessment" directive
.
The newly discovered classified material "was never previously sent out to the relevant
original classification authorities for security review," the official, who spoke to
RealClearInvestigations on the condition of anonymity, said.
Other key parts of the investigation remained open when the embattled director announced to
Congress he was buttoning the case back up for good just ahead of Election Day.
One career FBI special agent involved in the case complained to New York colleagues that
officials in Washington tried to "bury" the new trove of evidence, which he believed contained
the full archive of Clinton's emails -- including long-sought missing messages from her first
months at the State Department.
RealClearInvestigations pieced together the FBI's handling of the massive new email
discovery from the "Weiner laptop." This months-long investigation included a review of federal
court records and affidavits, cellphone text messages, and emails sent by key FBI personnel,
along with internal bureau memos, reviews and meeting notes documented in government reports.
Information also was gleaned through interviews with FBI agents and supervisors, prosecutors
and other law enforcement officials, as well as congressional investigators and public-interest
lawyers.
If the FBI "soft-pedaled" the original investigation of Clinton's emails, as some critics
have said, it out-and-out suppressed the follow-up probe related to the laptop, sources for
this article said.
"There was no real investigation and no real search," said Michael Biasello, a 27-year
veteran of the FBI. "It was all just show -- eyewash -- to make it look like there was an
investigation before the election."
Although the FBI's New York office first pointed headquarters to the large new volume of
evidence on Sept. 28, 2016, supervising agent Peter Strzok, who was fired on Aug. 10 for
sending anti-Trump texts and other misconduct, did not try to obtain a warrant to search the
huge cache of emails until Oct. 30, 2016. Violating department policy, he edited the warrant
affidavit on his home email account, bypassing the FBI system for recording such government
business. He also began drafting a second exoneration statement before conducting the
search.
The search warrant was so limited in scope that it excluded more than half the emails New
York agents considered relevant to the case. The cache of Clinton-Abedin communications dated
back to 2007. But the warrant to search the laptop excluded any messages exchanged before or
after Clinton's 2009-2013 tenure as secretary of state, key early periods when Clinton
initially set up her unauthorized private server and later periods when she deleted thousands
of emails sought by investigators.
Far from investigating and clearing Abedin and Weiner, the FBI did not interview them,
according to other FBI sources who say Comey closed the case prematurely. The machine was not
authorized for classified material, and Weiner did not have classified security clearance to
receive such information, which he did on at least two occasions through his Yahoo! email
account – which he also used to email snapshots of his penis.
Many Clinton supporters believe Comey's 11th hour reopening of a case that had shadowed her
campaign was a form of sabotage that cost her the election. But the evidence shows Comey and
his inner circle acted only after worried agents and prosecutors in New York forced their hand.
At the prodding of Attorney General Lynch, they then worked to reduce and rush through, rather
than carefully examine, potentially damaging new evidence.
Comey later admitted in his memoir "A Higher Loyalty," that political calculations shaped
his decisions during this period. But, he wrote, they were calibrated to help Clinton:
"Assuming, as nearly everyone did, that Hillary Clinton would be elected president of the
United States in less than two weeks, what would happen to the FBI, the Justice Department or
her own presidency if it later was revealed, after the fact, that she still was the subject of
an FBI investigation?"
What does it matter now? Republicans are clamoring for a special counsel to reopen the
Clinton email case, though a five-year statute of limitations may be an issue concerning crimes
relating to her potential mishandling of classified information.
However, conducting a broader and more thorough search of the Weiner laptop may still have
prosecutorial justification. Other questions linger, including whether subpoenaed evidence was
destroyed or false statements were made to congressional and FBI investigators from 2014 to
2016, a time frame that is within the statute of limitations. The laptop was not searched for
evidence pertaining to such crimes. Investigators instead focused their search, limited as it
was, on classified information.
Also, the FBI is still actively investigating the Clinton Foundation for alleged
foreign-tied corruption. That probe, handled chiefly out of New York, may benefit from evidence
on the laptop.
The FBI did not respond to requests for comment.
The Background
In March 2015, it was revealed that Hillary Clinton had used a private email server located
in the basement of her Chappaqua, N.Y., home to conduct State Department business during her
2009-2013 tenure as the nation's top diplomat. The emails on the unsecured server included
thousands of classified messages, including top-secret information. Federal law makes it a
felony for government employees to possess or handle classified material in an unprotected
manner.
By July, intelligence community authorities had referred the matter to the FBI.
That investigation centered on the 30,490 emails Clinton handed over after deeming them
work-related. She said she had deleted another 33,000 because she decided they were "personal."
Also missing were emails from the first two months of her tenure at State – from Jan. 21,
2009, through March 18, 2009 -- because investigators were unable to locate the BlackBerry
device she used during this period, when she set up and began using the basement server,
bypassing the government's system of archiving such public records as required by federal
statute.
Comey faces media on July 5, 2016. AP Photo/Cliff Owen
One year later, in a dramatic July 2016 press conference less than three weeks before
Clinton would accept her party's nomination for president, Comey unilaterally cleared Clinton
of criminal wrongdoing. While Clinton and her aides "were extremely careless in their handling
of very sensitive, highly classified information," he said, "no charges are appropriate in this
case."
Comey would later say he broke with normal procedures whereby the FBI collects evidence and
the Department of Justice decides whether to bring charges, because he believed Attorney
General Loretta Lynch had engaged in actions that raised doubts about her credibility,
including secretly meeting with Clinton's husband, the former president, just days before the
FBI interviewed her.
Fast-forward to September 2016.
FBI investigators in New York were analyzing a Dell laptop, shared by Abedin and Weiner, as
part of a separate sex-crimes investigation involving Weiner's contact with an underage girl. A
former Democratic congressman from New York, Weiner is serving a 21-month prison sentence after
pleading guilty to sending obscene material to a 15-year-old.
On Sept. 26, 2016, the lead New York agent assigned to the case found a large volume of
emails – "over 300,000" – on the laptop related to Abedin and Clinton, including a
large volume of messages from Clinton's old BlackBerry account.
The headers indicated that the emails on the laptop included ones sent and/or received by
Abedin at her clintonemail.com account, her personal Yahoo! email account as well as a host of
Clinton-associated domains including state.gov, clintonfoundation.org, presidentclinton.com and
hillaryclinton.com.
The agents had reason to believe that classified information resided on the laptop, since
investigators had already established that emails containing classified information were
transmitted through multiple email accounts used by Abedin, including her clintonemail.com and
Yahoo! accounts. Moreover, the preliminary count of Clinton-related emails found on the laptop
in late September 2016 -- three months after Comey closed his case -- dwarfed the total of some
60,000 originally reported by Clinton.
The agent described the discovery as an "oh-shit moment." "Am I seeing what I think I'm seeing?" he asked another case agent. They agreed that the information needed "to get reported up the chain"
immediately.
The next day, Sept. 27, the official in charge of the FBI's New York office, Bill Sweeney,
was alerted to the trove and confirmed "it was clearly her stuff." Sweeney reported the find to
Comey deputy Andrew McCabe and other headquarters officials on Sept. 28, and told Justice
Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz that "everybody realized the significance of
this."
(McCabe told Horowitz he didn't remember Sweeney briefing him about the Weiner laptop, but
personal notes he took during the teleconference indicate he was briefed. Sweeney also updated
McCabe in a direct call later that afternoon in which he noted there were potentially 347,000
relevant emails, and that the count was climbing. McCabe was fired earlier this year and
referred to the U.S. Attorney's office in Washington, D.C., for possible criminal investigation
into allegations he made false statements to federal agents working for Horowitz.)
McCabe, in turn, briefed Strzok - who had led the Clinton email probe - that afternoon, text
messages show.
Comey was not on the conference call, but phone records show he and McCabe met privately
that afternoon and spoke during a flurry of phone calls late that evening. McCabe said he could
not recall what they discussed, while Comey told investigators that he did not hear about the
emails until early October -- and then quickly forgot about them. ("I kind of just put it out
of my mind," he said, because he claimed it did not "index" with him that Abedin was closely
connected to Clinton. "I don't know that I knew that [Weiner] was married to Huma Abedin at the
time.")
FBI officials in New York assumed that the bureau's brass would jump on the discovery,
particularly since it included the missing emails from the start of Clinton's time at State. In
fact, the emails dated from the beginning of 2007 and covered the entire period of Clinton's
tenure as secretary and thereafter. The team leading the Clinton investigation, codenamed
"Midyear Exam," had never been able to find Clinton's emails from her first two months as
secretary.
By Oct. 4, the Weiner case agent had finished processing the laptop, and reported that he
found at least 675,000 emails potentially relevant to the Midyear case (in fact, the final
count was 694,000). "Based on the number of emails, we could have every email that Huma and
Hillary ever sent each other," the agent remarked to colleagues. It appeared this was the
mother lode of missing Clinton emails. But Strzok remained uninterested. "This isn't a ticking
terrorist bomb," he was quoted as saying in the recently issued inspector general's report.
Besides, he had bigger concerns, such as, "You know, is the government of Russia trying to get
somebody elected here in the United States?"
Strzok and headquarters sat on the mountain of evidence for another 26 days. The career New
York agent said all he was hearing from Washington was "crickets," so he pushed the issue to
his immediate superiors, fearing he would be "scapegoated" for failing to search the pile of
digital evidence. They, in turn, went over Strzok's head, passing their concerns on to career
officials at the National Security Division of the Justice Department, who in turn set off
alarm bells at the seventh floor executive suites of the Hoover Building.
The New York agent has not been publicly identified, even in the recent IG report, which
only describes him as male. But federal court filings in the Weiner case
reviewed by RCI list two FBI agents present in court proceedings, only one of whom is male -
John Robertson. RCI has confirmed that Robertson at the time was an FBI special agent assigned
to the C-20 squad investigating "crimes against children" at the bureau's New York field office
at 26 Federal Plaza, which did not return messages.
The agent told the inspector general that he wasn't political and didn't understand all the
sensitive issues headquarters may have been weighing, but he feared Washington's inaction might
be seen as a cover-up that could wreak havoc on the bureau. "I don't care who wins this election," he said, "but this is going to make us look really,
really horrible."
Once George Toscas, the highest-ranking Justice Department official directly involved in the
Clinton email investigation, found out about the delay, he prodded headquarters to initiate a
search and to inform Congress about the discovery.
By Oct. 21, Strzok had gotten the word. "Toscas now aware NY has hrc-huma emails," he texted
McCabe's counsel, Lisa Page, who responded, "whatever."
Four days later, Page told Strzok - with whom she was having an affair - about the murmurs
she was hearing from brass about having to tell Congress about the new emails. "F them," Strzok
responded, apparently referring to oversight committee leaders on the Hill.
The next day, Oct. 26, the New York agent finally was able to brief Strzok's team directly
about what he had found on the laptop. On Oct. 27, Comey gave the green light to seek a search
warrant.
Michael Horowitz: Pressure from New York was key to
reopening email case.
"This decision resulted not from the discovery of dramatic new information about the Weiner
laptop, but rather as a result of inquiries from the Weiner case agent and prosecutors from the
U.S. Attorney's Office [in New York]," Horowitz said in his recently released report on
the Clinton investigation.
Former prosecutors say that politics is the only explanation for why FBI brass dragged their
feet for a month after the New York office alerted them about the Clinton emails.
"There's no rational explanation why, after they found over 300,000 Clinton emails on the
Wiener laptop in late September, the FBI did nothing for a month," former deputy Independent
Counsel Solomon "Sol" L. Wisenberg said in a recent interview with Fox News host Laura
Ingraham. "It's pretty clear there's a real possibility they did nothing because they thought
it would hurt Mrs. Clinton during the election."
Horowitz concurred. The IG cited suspicions that the inaction "was a politically motivated
attempt to bury information that could negatively impact the chances of Hillary Clinton in the
election."
He noted that on Nov. 3, after Comey notified Congress of the search, Strzok created a
suspiciously inaccurate "Weiner timeline" and circulated it among the FBI leadership.
The odd document, written after the fact, made it seem as if New York hadn't fully processed
the laptop until Oct. 19 and had neglected to fill headquarters in on details about what had
been found until Oct. 21. In fact, New York finished processing on Oct. 4 and first began
reporting back details to top FBI executives as early as Sept. 28.
Fearing Leaks
Fears of media leaks also played a role in the ultimate decision to reopen the case and
notify Congress.
FBI leadership worried that New York would go public with the fact it was sitting on the
Weiner emails, because the field office was leaking information on other sensitive matters at
the time, including Clinton-related conflicts dogging McCabe, which the Wall Street Journal had
exposed that October. At the same time, Trump surrogate and former New York Mayor Rudy
Giuliani, who was still in touch with FBI sources in the city, was chirping about an "October
surprise" on Fox News.
Loretta Lynch: Stop those leaks.
During the October time frame, McCabe called Sweeney in New York and chewed him out about
leaks coming out of his office. On Oct. 26, then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch was so worried
about the leaks, she called McCabe and Sweeney and angrily warned them to fix them. Sweeney
confirmed in an interview with the inspector general that they got "ripped by the AG on leaks."
McCabe said he never heard the attorney general "use more forceful language."
Lynch -- who had admonished Comey to call the Clinton case a "matter" and not an
investigation, aligning FBI rhetoric with the Clinton campaign, and who inappropriately agreed
to meet with Bill Clinton aboard her government plane five days before the FBI interviewed
Hillary Clinton -- sought to keep the Weiner laptop search quiet and was opposed to going to
Congress with the discovery so close to the election.
"We were quite confident that somebody is going to leak this fact, that we have all these
emails. That, if we don't put out a letter [to Congress], somebody is going to leak it,"
then-FBI General Counsel James Baker said. "The discussion was somebody in New York will leak
this."
Baker advised Comey that he also was under obligation to update Congress about any new
developments in the case. Just a few months earlier, the director had testified before Hill
oversight committees about his decision to close the case. Baker said the front office
rationalized that since Clinton was ahead in the polls, the notification would not have a big
impact on the race. The Democratic nominee would likely win no matter what the FBI did.
But this time, Comey made no public show of his announcement. On Oct. 28, 2016, Comey
quietly sent a terse and private letter to the chairs and the ranking members of the oversight
committees on the Hill, informing them, vaguely, that the FBI was taking additional steps in
the Clinton email investigation.
Those steps, of course, started with finally searching the laptop for relevant
emails.
'Giant Nothing-Burger'
Prosecutors and investigators alike, however, approached the search as an exercise in
futility, even prejudging the results as a "giant nothing-burger."
That was an assessment that would emerge later from David Laufman, then a lead prosecutor in
the Justice Department's national security division assigned to the Clinton email probe. He had
"a very low expectation" that any evidence found on the laptop would alter the outcome of the
Midyear investigation. And he doubted a search would turn up "anything novel or consequential,"
according to the IG report.
Mary McCord: Discounted laptop trove, and she wasn't the only
one.
Hired by former Attorney General Eric Holder, Laufman complained it was "exceptionally
inappropriate" to restart the investigation so close to the election. (Records show Laufman,
who sat in on Clinton's July 2016 interview at FBI headquarters, gave money to both of Barack
Obama's presidential campaigns.)
His boss, Mary McCord, discounted the laptop trove as emails they'd already seen. "Hopefully
all duplicates," she wrote in notes she took from an October 2016 phone call she had with
McCabe, who shared her hope. McCord opposed publicly opening the case again "because it could be a big nothing."
In an Oct. 27 email to the lead Midyear analyst, Strzok suggested the search would not be
serious, that they would just need to go through the motions, while joking about "de-duping,"
or excluding emails as ones they'd already seen.
The reactivated Midyear investigators were not eager to dive into the new emails, either.
They also prejudged the batch as evidence they had already analyzed -- while at the same time
expressing pro-Hillary and anti-Trump sentiments in internal communications.
For example, the Midyear agent who had called Clinton the "future pres[ident]" after
interviewing her in July, pooh-poohed the idea they would find emails substantively different
than what the team had previously reviewed. Even though he expected they'd find some missing
emails, even new classified material, he discounted their significance.
"My best guess -- probably uniques, maybe classified uniques, with none being any different
tha[n] what we've already seen," the agent wrote in an Oct. 28 instant message to another FBI
employee on the bureau's computer system. (Back in May 2016, as Clinton was locking up the
Democratic primary, the agent had revealed in another IM that there was "political urgency" to
wrap up her email investigation.)
The unnamed agent, who is identified in the IG report only as "Agent 1," is now married to
another Midyear investigator, who on Election Day IM'd her then-boyfriend to say Clinton
"better win," while threatening to quit if she didn't. Known as "Agent 5," she also stated,
"fuck trump," while calling his voters "retarded."
At the same time, the lead FBI attorney on the Midyear case, Sally Moyer (whose lawyers
confirmed is the anonymous "FBI Attorney 1" cited in the IG report), was in no hurry to process
the laptop. Before examining them, she expressed the belief that the massive volume of emails
"may just be duplicative of what we already have," doubting there was a "smoking gun" in the
pile.
A Hurried, Constrained Search
Moyer, a registered Democrat, was responsible for obtaining legal authority to review the
laptop's contents. She severely limited the scope of the evidence that investigators could
search on the laptop by setting unusually tight parameters.
Working closely with her was Strzok, who forwarded a draft of the warrant to his personal
email account in violation of FBI policy, where he helped edit the language in the affidavit.
By processing the document at home, no record of his changes to the document were captured in
the FBI system.
(Strzok had also edited the language in the drafts of Comey's public statement about his
original decision on the Clinton email investigation. He changed the description of Clinton's
handling of classified information from "grossly negligent" -- which is proscribed in the
federal statute -- to "extremely careless," eliminating a key phrase that could have had legal
ramifications for Clinton.)
The next day, the search warrant application drafted by Strzok and Moyer was filed in New
York. It was inexplicably self-constraining. The FBI asked the federal magistrate judge, Kevin
N. Fox, to see only a small portion of the evidence the New York agent told headquarters it
would find on the laptop.
"The FBI only reviewed emails to or from Clinton during the period in which she was
Secretary of State, and not emails from Abedin or other parties or emails outside that period,"
Horowitz pointed out in a section of his report discussing concerns that the search
warrant request was "too narrow."
That put the emails the New York case agent found between 2007 and 2009, when Clinton's
private server was set up, as well as those observed after her tenure in 2013, outside
investigators' reach. The post-tenure emails were potentially important, Horowitz noted,
because they may have offered clues concerning the intent behind the later destruction of
emails.
Also excluded were Abedin's Yahoo emails, even though investigators had previously found
classified information on her Yahoo account and would arguably have probable cause to look at
those emails, as well.
Also removed from the search were the BlackBerry data -- even though the FBI had previously
described them as the "golden emails," because they covered the dark period early in Clinton's
term.
"Noticeably absent from the search warrant application prepared by the Midyear team is both
any mention that the NYO agent had seen Clinton's emails on the laptop and any mention of the
potential presence of BlackBerry emails from early in Clinton's tenure," Horowitz noted.
Even though the BlackBerry messages were "critical to [the] assessment of the potential
significance of the emails on the Weiner laptop, the information was not included in the search
warrant application," he stressed, adding that the application appeared to misrepresent the
information provided by the New York field agent. It also grossly underestimated the extent of
the material. The affidavit warrant mentioned "thousands of emails," while the New York agent
had told them that the laptop contained "hundreds of thousands" of relevant emails.
That meant that the Midyear team never got to look, even if it wanted to, at the majority of
the communications secreted on the laptop, further raising suspicions that headquarters wasn't
really interested in finding any evidence of wrongdoing – at least on the part of Clinton
and her team.
"I had very strict instructions that all I was allowed to do within the case was look for
Hillary Clinton emails, because that was the scope of our work," an FBI analyst said, even
though Horowitz said investigators had probable cause to look at Abedin's emails as well.
In addition to limiting the scope of their probe, the agents were also under pressure from
both Justice Department prosecutors and FBI headquarters to complete the review of the
remaining emails in a hurry.
One line prosecutor, identified in the IG report only as "Prosecutor 1," argued that they
should finish up "as quickly" as possible. Baker said there was a general concern about the new
process "being too prolonged and dragged [out]."
Lynch urged Comey to process the Weiner laptop "as fast as you can," according to notes from
a high-level department meeting on Oct. 31, 2016, which were obtained by the IG.
On Nov. 3, Strzok indicated in a text that
Justice demanded he update the department twice a day on the FBI's progress in clearing the
stack. "DOJ is hyperventilating," he told Page.
De-Duplicating 'Wizardry'
Before the search warrant was issued, the Midyear team argued that the project was too vast
to complete before the election. According to Comey's recently published memoir, they insisted
it would take "many weeks" and require the enlistment of "hundreds of FBI employees." And, they
contended, not just anybody could read them: "It had to be done by people who knew the
context," and there was only a handful of investigators and analysts who could do the job.
"The team told me there was no chance the survey of the emails could be completed before the
Nov. 8 election," Comey recalled, which was right around the corner.
But after Comey decided he'd have to move forward with the search regardless, Strzok and his
investigators suddenly claimed they could finish the work in the short time remaining prior to
national polls opening.
At the same time, they cut off communications with the New York field office. "We should
essentially have no reason for contact with NYO going forward on this," Strzok texted Page on
Nov. 2.
Strzok followed up with another text that same day, which seemed to echo earlier texts about
what they viewed as their patriotic duty to stop Trump and support Clinton.
"Your country needs you now," he said in an apparent attempt to buck up Page, who was "very
angry" they were having to reopen the Clinton case. "We are going to have to be very wise about
all of this."
"We're going to make sure the right thing is done," he added. "It's gonna be ok."
Responded Page: "I have complete confidence in the [Midyear] team."
"Our team," Strzok texted back. "I'm telling you to take comfort in that." Later, he
reminded Page that any conversations she had with McCabe "would be covered under atty
[attorney-client] privilege."
Suddenly, however, the impossible project suddenly became manageable thanks to what Comey
described as a "huge breakthrough." As the new cache of emails arrived, the bureau claimed it
had solved one of the most labor-intensive aspects of the previous Midyear investigation
– having to sort through the tens of thousands of Clinton emails on various servers and
electronic devices manually.
Advanced new "de-duplicating" technology would allow them to speed through the mountain of
new emails automatically flagging copies of previously reviewed material.
Strzok, who led the effort, echoed Comey's words, later telling the IG's investigators that
technicians were able "to do amazing things" to "rapidly de-duplicate" the emails on the
laptop, which significantly lowered the number of emails that he and other investigators had to
individually review manually.
But according to the IG, FBI's technology division only "attempted" to de-duplicate the
emails, but ultimately was unsuccessful. The IG cited a report prepared Nov. 15, 2016, by three
officials from the FBI's Boston field office. Titled "Anthony Weiner Laptop Review for
Communications Pertinent to Midyear Exam," it found that "[b]ecause metadata was largely
absent, the emails could not be completely, automatically de-duplicated or evaluated against
prior emails recovered during the investigation."
Trump at rally Nov. 7, 2016, in
Manchester, N.H. : "You can't review 650,000 emails in eight days."
The absence of this metadata -- basically electronic fingerprints that reveal identifying
characteristics such as To, CC, Date, From, Subject, attachments and other fields –
informed the IG's finding that "the FBI could not determine how many of the potentially
work-related emails were duplicative of emails previously obtained in the Midyear
investigation."
Contrary to Comey's claim, the FBI could not sufficiently determine how many emails
containing classified information were duplicative of previously reviewed classified emails. As
a result, hundreds of thousands of emails were not actually processed for evidence, law
enforcement sources say.
"All those communications weren't ruled out because they were copies, they were just ruled
out," the federal investigator with direct knowledge of the case said. The official, who wished
to remain anonymous, explained that hundreds of thousands of emails were simply overlooked.
Instead of processing them all, investigators took just a sample of the batch and looked at
those documents.
After Comey announced his investigators wrapped up the review in days – then-candidate
Donald Trump expressed skepticism. "You can't review 650,000 emails in eight days," he said
during a rally on Nov. 7. He was more correct than he knew.
Exoneration Before Investigation
At the urging of Lynch, Comey began drafting a new exoneration statement several days before
investigators finished reviewing the sample of emails they took from the Weiner laptop.
High-level meeting notes reveal they even discussed sending Congress "more-clarifying"
statements during the week to "correct misimpressions out there."
A scene from the
documentary "Weiner."
As the search was under way, one of the Midyear agents – Agent 1 -- confided to
another agent in a Nov. 1 instant message on the FBI's computer network that "no one is going
to pros[ecute Clinton] even if we find unique classified [material]."
On Nov. 4 – two days before they had completed the search – Strzok talked about
"drafting" a statement. "We might have this stmt out and be substantially done," Page texted
back about an hour later.
The pair seemed confident at that point that Clinton's campaign had weathered the new
controversy and would still pull off a victory.
"[O]n Inauguration Day," Page texted Strzok, "in addition to our kegger, we should also have
a screening of the Weiner documentary!" The film, "Weiner," documented the former Democratic
lawmaker's ill-fated run for New York mayor in 2013.
Filtering
Even after the vast reservoir of emails had been winnowed down by questionable methods, the
remaining ones still had to be reviewed by hand to determine if they were relevant to the
investigation and therefore legally searchable as evidence.
Moyer, the lead FBI attorney on the Midyear team who had initially discounted the trove of
new emails as "duplicates" and failed to act upon their discovery, was also head of the
"filtering" team. After various searches of the laptop, she and the Midyear team came up with
6,827 emails they classified as being tied directly to Clinton. Moyer then culled away from
that batch emails she deemed to be personal in nature and outside the scope of legal
agreements, cutting the stack in half. That left 3,077 which she deemed "work related."
On Nov. 5, Moyer, Strzok and a third investigator divided up the remaining pool of 3,077
emails -- roughly 1,000 emails each -- and rifled through them for classified information and
incriminating evidence in less than 12 hours, even though the identification of classified
material is a complicated and prolonged process that requires soliciting input from the
original classification authorities within the intelligence community.
"We're doing it ALL," Strzok told Page late that evening. The trio ordered pizza and worked into the next morning combing through the emails. "Finishing up," Strzok texted Page around 1 a.m. that Sunday.
By about 2 a.m. Sunday, he declared they were done with their search, noting that while they
had found new State Department messages, they had found "no new classified" emails. And
allegedly nothing from the missing period at the start of Clinton's term that might suggest a
criminal motive.
Later that evening of Nov. 6, after he announced to Congress that Clinton was in the clear
again, an exuberant Comey gathered his inner circle in his office to watch football.
As news of the case's swift re-closure hit the airwaves, Page and Strzok giddily exchanged
text messages and celebrated. "Out on CNN now And fox I WANT TO WATCH THIS WITH YOU!" Strzok
said to Page. "Going to pour myself a glass of wine ."
Page noted that "Trump is talking about [Clinton]" on Fox News, and how "she's protected by
a rigged system."
New Classified Information
Like a self-fulfilling prophecy, earlier prognostications that the results of the laptop
search would not be a game-changer turned out to be accurate. Yet investigators nonetheless
found 13 classified email chains on the unauthorized laptop just in the small sample of 3,077
emails that were individually inspected, and four of those were classified as Secret at the
time.
Contrary to the FBI's public claims, at least five classified emails recovered were not
duplicates but new to investigators.
RCI has learned that these highly sensitive messages include a Nov. 25, 2011, email
regarding talks with Egyptian leaders and Hamas, and a July 9, 2011, "call sheet" Abedin sent
Clinton in advance of a phone conversation she had that month with Israeli Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu. The document runs four pages.
Another previously unseen classified email, dated Nov. 25, 2010, concerns confidential
high-level State Department talks with United Arab Emirates leaders. The note, including a
classified "readout" of a phone call with the UAE prime minister, was written by Abedin and
sent to Clinton, and then forwarded by Abedin the next day from her [email protected]
account to her then-husband's account identified under the rubric "Anthony Campaign."
Tom
Fitton: "sham" investigation.
Judicial Watch, a Washington-based government watchdog group which has filed a lawsuit
against the State Department seeking a full production of Clinton records, confirmed the
existence of several more unique classified emails it has received among the rolling release of
the 3,077 "work-related" emails.
"These classified documents are not duplicates," Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton told
RCI. "They are not ones the FBI had already seen prior to their November review."
He accused the FBI of conducting a "sham" investigation and called on Attorney General Jeff
Sessions to order a new investigation of Clinton's email.
The unique classified emails call into question Comey's May 2017
testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, when he maintained that although
investigators found classified email chains on the laptop, "We'd seen them all
before."
No Damage Assessment
Comey, in subsequent interviews and public testimony, maintained that the FBI left no stone
unturned. This, too, skirted the truth.
Although Comey claimed that investigators had scoured the laptop for intrusions by foreign
hackers who may have stolen the state secrets, Strzok and his team never forensically examined
the laptop to see if classified information residing on it had been hacked or compromised by a
foreign power before Nov. 6, law enforcement sources say. A complete forensic analysis was
never performed by technicians at the FBI's lab at Quantico.
Nor did they farm out the classified information found on the unsecured laptop to other
intelligence agencies for review as part of a national security damage assessment -- even
though Horowitz confirmed that Clinton's illegal email activity, in a major security breach,
gave "foreign actors" access to unknowable quantities of classified material.
Without addressing the laptop specifically, late last year the FBI's own inspection division
determined that classified information kept on Clinton's email server "was compromised by
unauthorized individuals, to include foreign governments or intelligence services, via cyber
intrusion or other means."
Judicial Watch is suing the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the State
Department to force them to conduct, as required by law, a full damage assessment, and prepare
a report on how Clinton's email practices as secretary harmed national security.
Comey and Strzok also decided to close the case for a second time without interviewing its
three central figures: Abedin, Weiner and Clinton.
Abedin was eventually interviewed, two months later, on Jan. 6, 2017. Although summaries of
her previous interviews have been made public, this one has not.
Investigators never interviewed Weiner, even though he had received at least two of the
confirmed classified emails on his Yahoo account without the appropriate security clearance to
receive them.
The IG concluded, "The FBI did not determine exactly how Abedin's emails came to reside on
Weiner's laptop."
Premature Re-Closure
In his May 2017 testimony, however, Comey maintained that both Abedin and Weiner had been
investigated.
Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana: Investigating investigators. AP
Photo/Jacquelyn Martin
Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.): Is there an investigation with respect to the two of them?
Comey: There was, it is -- we completed it.
Pressed to answer why neither of them was charged with crimes, including mishandling
classified information, Comey explained:
"With respect to Ms. Abedin, we didn't have any indication that she had a sense that what
she was doing was in violation of the law. Couldn't prove any sort of criminal intent."
At the time, the Senate Judiciary Committee was unaware that the FBI had not interviewed
Abedin to make such a determination before the election. What about Weiner? Did he read the classified materials without proper authority? the
committee asked. "I don't think so," Comey answered, before adding, "I don't think we've been able to
interview him."
Pro-Clinton Bias
The IG report found that Strzok demonstrated intense bias for Clinton and against Trump
throughout the initial probe, followed by a stubborn reluctance to examine potentially critical
new evidence against Clinton. These included hundreds of messages exchanged with Page, embodied
by a Nov. 7 text referencing a pre-Election Day article headlined, "A victory by Mr. Trump
remains possible," about which Strzok stated, "OMG THIS IS F*CKING TERRIFYING."
Strzok is a central figure because he was a top agent on the two investigations with the
greatest bearing on the 2016 election – Clinton emails and the Trump campaign's ties to
Russia. These probes overlapped in October as the discovery of Abedin's laptop renewed Bureau
attention on Clinton's emails at the same time it was preparing to seek a Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act warrant to spy on Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.
Some Republicans have charged that the month-long delay between the New York office's
discovery of the laptop and the FBI's investigation of it can be explained by Strzok's partisan
decision to prioritize the Trump investigation over the Clinton one.
Among the evidence they cite is an Oct. 14 email to Page in which Strzok discussed applying
"hurry the F up pressure" on Justice Department attorneys to secure the FISA surveillance
warrant on Page approved before Election Day. (This also happened to be the day the Obama
administration promoted his wife, Melissa Hodgman , a big Hillary booster,
to associate director of the SEC's enforcement division.) On Oct. 21, his team filed an
application for a wiretap to spy on Carter Page.
IG Horowitz would not rule out bias as a motivating factor in the aggressive investigation
of Trump and passive probe of Clinton. "We did not have confidence that Strzok's decision to
prioritize the Russia investigation over following up on the Midyear-related investigative lead
discovered on the Weiner laptop was free from bias," he said.
Asked to elaborate in recent Senate testimony, Horowitz reaffirmed, "We did not find no bias
in regards to the October events."
Throughout that month, the facts overwhelmingly demonstrate that instead of digging into the
cache of new Clinton evidence, Strzok aggressively investigated the Trump campaign's alleged
ties to Moscow, including wiretapping at least one Trump adviser based heavily on unverified
allegations of espionage reported in a dossier commissioned by the Clinton campaign.
In a statement, Strzok's attorney blamed the delays in processing the new emails on
"bureaucratic snafus," and insisted they had nothing to do with Strzok's political views, which
he said never "affected his work."
The lawyer, Aitan D. Goelman, a partner at Zuckerman Spaeder LLP in Washington, added that
his client moved on the new information as soon as he could.
"When informed that Weiner's laptop contained Clinton emails, Strzok immediately had the
matter pursued by two of his most qualified and aggressive investigators," Goelman said. Still,
contemporaneous messages by Strzok reveal he was not thrilled about re-investigating Clinton.
On Nov. 5, for example, he texted Page: "I hate this case."
Recovering the
Laptop
A final mystery remains: Where is the Weiner laptop today?
The whistleblower agent in New York said that he was "instructed" by superiors to delete the
image of the laptop hard drive he had copied onto his work station, and to "wipe" all of the
Clinton-related emails clean from his computer.
But he said he believes the FBI "retained" possession of the actual machine, and that the
evidence on the device was preserved.
The last reported whereabouts of the laptop was the Quantico lab. However, the unusually
restrictive search warrant Strzok and his team drafted appeared to remand the laptop back into
the custody of Abedin and Weiner upon the closing of the case.
"If the government determines that the subject laptop is no longer necessary to retrieve and
preserve the data on the device," the document states on its final page, "the government will
return the subject laptop."
Wherever its location, somewhere out there is a treasure trove of evidence involving
potentially serious federal crimes -- including espionage, foreign influence-peddling and
obstruction of justice -- that has never been properly or fully examined by law enforcement
authorities.
"... "I guess we've just got to pull up our socks and back ol' Boris again," Clinton told an aide. "I know the Russian people have to pick a president, and I know that means we've got to stop short of giving a nominating speech for the guy. But we've got to go all the way in helping in every other respect." Later Clinton was even more categorical: "I want this guy to win so bad it hurts." With that, the public and private resources of the United States were thrown behind a Russian presidential candidate. ..."
"... Four months before the election, Clinton arranged for the International Monetary Fund to give Russia a $10.2 billion injection of cash. Yeltsin used some of it to pay for election-year raises and bonuses, but much quickly disappeared into the foreign bank accounts of Russian oligarchs. The message was clear: Yeltsin knows how to shake the Western money tree. In case anyone missed it, Clinton came to Moscow a few weeks later to celebrate with his Russian partner. Oligarchs flocked to Yeltsin's side. American diplomats persuaded one of his rivals to drop out of the presidential race in order to improve his chances. ..."
"... Yeltsin won the election with a reported 54 percent of the vote. The count was suspicious and Yeltsin had wildly violated campaign spending limits, but American groups, some funded in part by Washington, rushed to pronounce the election fair. The New York Times called it "a victory for Russia." In fact, it was the opposite: a victory by a foreign power that wanted to place its candidate in the Russian presidency. ..."
"... American interference in the 1996 Russian election was hardly secret. On the contrary, the press reveled in our ability to shape the politics of a country we once feared. When Clinton maneuvered the IMF into giving Yeltsin and his cronies $10.2 billion, the Washington Post approved: "Now this is the right way to serve Western interests. . . It's to use the politically bland but powerful instrument of the International Monetary Fund." After Yeltsin won, Time put him on the cover -- holding an American flag. Its story was headlined, "Yanks to the Rescue: The Secret Story of How American Advisors Helped Yeltsin Win." The story was later made into a movie called "Spinning Boris." ..."
"... This was the first direct interference in a presidential election in the history of US-Russia relations. It produced bad results. Yeltsin opened his country's assets to looting on a mass scale. ..."
"... It is a delightful irony that shows how unwise it can be to interfere in another country's politics. If the United States had not crashed into a presidential election in Russia 22 years ago, we almost certainly would not be dealing with Putin today. ..."
FOR ONE OF THE world's major powers to interfere systematically in the presidential
politics of another country is an act of brazen aggression. Yet it happened.
Sitting in a distant capital, political leaders set out to assure that their
favored candidate won an election against rivals who scared them. They succeeded.
Voters were maneuvered into electing a president who served the interest of
the intervening power. This was a well-coordinated, government-sponsored project
to subvert the will of voters in another country -- a supremely successful piece
of political vandalism on a global scale.
The year was 1996. Russia was electing a president to succeed Boris Yeltsin,
whose disastrous presidency, marked by the post-Soviet social collapse and a
savage war in Chechnya, had brought his approval rating down to the single digits.
President Bill Clinton decided that American interests would be best served
by finding a way to re-elect Yeltsin despite his deep unpopularity. Yeltsin
was ill, chronically alcoholic, and seen in Washington as easy to control. Clinton
bonded with him. He was our "Manchurian Candidate."
"I guess we've just got to pull up our socks and back ol' Boris again,"
Clinton told an aide. "I know the Russian people have to pick a president, and
I know that means we've got to stop short of giving a nominating speech for
the guy. But we've got to go all the way in helping in every other respect."
Later Clinton was even more categorical: "I want this guy to win so bad it hurts."
With that, the public and private resources of the United States were thrown
behind a Russian presidential candidate.
Part of the American plan was public. Clinton began praising Yeltsin as a
world-class statesman . He defended Yeltsin's scorched-earth tactics in Chechnya,
comparing him to Abraham Lincoln for his dedication to keeping a nation together.
As for Yeltsin's bombardment of the Russian Parliament in 1993, which cost 187
lives, Clinton insisted that his friend had "bent over backwards" to avoid it.
He stopped mentioning his plan to extend NATO toward Russia's borders, and never
uttered a word about the ravaging of Russia's formerly state-owned economy by
kleptocrats connected to Yeltsin. Instead he gave them a spectacular gift.
Four months before the election, Clinton arranged for the International
Monetary Fund to give Russia a $10.2 billion injection of cash. Yeltsin used
some of it to pay for election-year raises and bonuses, but much quickly disappeared
into the foreign bank accounts of Russian oligarchs. The message was clear:
Yeltsin knows how to shake the Western money tree. In case anyone missed it,
Clinton came to Moscow a few weeks later to celebrate with his Russian partner.
Oligarchs flocked to Yeltsin's side. American diplomats persuaded one of his
rivals to drop out of the presidential race in order to improve his chances.
Four American political consultants moved to Moscow to help direct Yeltsin's
campaign. The campaign paid them $250,000 per month for advice on "sophisticated
methods of polling, voter contact and campaign organization." They organized
focus groups and designed advertising messages aimed at stoking voters' fears
of civil unrest. When they saw a CNN report from Moscow saying that voters were
gravitating toward Yeltsin because they feared unrest, one of the consultants
shouted in triumph: "It worked! The whole strategy worked. They're scared to
death!"
Yeltsin won the election with a reported 54 percent of the vote. The
count was suspicious and Yeltsin had wildly violated campaign spending limits,
but American groups, some funded in part by Washington, rushed to pronounce
the election fair. The New York Times called it "a victory for Russia." In fact,
it was the opposite: a victory by a foreign power that wanted to place its candidate
in the Russian presidency.
American interference in the 1996 Russian election was hardly secret.
On the contrary, the press reveled in our ability to shape the politics of a
country we once feared. When Clinton maneuvered the IMF into giving Yeltsin
and his cronies $10.2 billion, the Washington Post approved: "Now this is the
right way to serve Western interests. . . It's to use the politically bland
but powerful instrument of the International Monetary Fund." After Yeltsin won,
Time put him on the cover -- holding an American flag. Its story was headlined,
"Yanks to the Rescue: The Secret Story of How American Advisors Helped Yeltsin
Win." The story was later made into a movie called "Spinning Boris."
This was the first direct interference in a presidential election in
the history of US-Russia relations. It produced bad results. Yeltsin opened
his country's assets to looting on a mass scale. He turned the Chechen
capital, Grozny, into a wasteland. Standards of living in Russia fell dramatically.
Then, at the end of 1999, plagued by health problems, he shocked his country
and the world by resigning. As his final act, he named his successor: a little-known
intelligence officer named Vladimir Putin. It is a delightful irony that
shows how unwise it can be to interfere in another country's politics. If the
United States had not crashed into a presidential election in Russia 22 years
ago, we almost certainly would not be dealing with Putin today.
"... And now Davis, the Clinton fixer, is Michael Cohen's lawyer. The fixer defending a fixer. So who pays the bill? Well, ostensibly no-one, because Davis started a Go Fund Me campaign where people can donate so Cohen "can tell people the truth about Trump". The goal is $500,000. Which goes to .. Lanny Davis. ..."
"... On TV yesterday he apparently promoted a wrong URL , which was promptly picked up by someone else who had it redirect to the Trump campaign. Even fixers screw up, right? Still, there's already well over $100,000 donated for Cohen Davis. But why $500,000? One of the accusations against Cohen concerns lying to a bank for a $20 million loan. He bought an apartment not long ago for $6.7 million. He owned multiple apartments in Trump buildings. ..."
"... Did he lose everything when Robert Mueller et al raided his office, home and hotel room on April 9 2018? Were all his assets frozen? Possibly. What we do know is that he 'expected' the Trump campaign to pay for his legal fees. Which they declined. Or rather, as Fortune reported in June : "The Trump campaign has given some money to Cohen to help cover legal expenses for the Russia investigation. To date, though, it has not offered financial assistance in the investigation of his business practices." ..."
"... But anyway. So Lanny Davis, fixer of fixers and presidents, goes on a talk-show tour last night and what do you think happens? He walks back just about everything he's said the previous day. Aaron Maté made a list in this Twitter thread ..."
"... What do you think will happen when someone of the stature of Bob Mueller spends 18 months investigating the Clintons and their fixers? Perhaps the events of the past few days won't bring such a 2nd Special Counsel any closer, but by the same token they might do just that. Offense is the best defense. ..."
"... That is both dangerous in that the mandate of a Special Counsel should be limited lest it becomes endless and veers off the reasons it was initiated, as well as in the risk that it can easily turn into a party-political tool to hurt one's opponent while one's own dirt remains unscrutinized. ..."
"... In the end, I can draw only one conclusion: there are so many sharks and squids swimming in the swamp that either it should be expanded or the existing one should be cleaned up and depopulated. So bring it: investigate the FBI, the Clintons, and fixers like Lanny Davis and Michael Avenatti, the same way the Trump camp has been. ..."
If there's one thing that is exposed in the sorry not-so-fairy tale of former Trump aides Paul Manafort and Michael Cohen, it's
that Washington is a city run by fixers. Who often make substantial amounts of money. Many though by no means all, start out as lawyers
and figure out that let's say 'the edges of what's legal' can be quite profitable.
And it helps to know when one steps across that edge, so having attended law school is a bonus. Not so much to stop when stepping
across the edge, but to raise one's fees. There's a lot of dough waiting at the edge of the law. None of this should surprise any
thinking person. Manafort and Cohen are people who think in millions, with an easy few hundred grand thrown in here and there.
But sometimes the fixers happen to come under scrutiny of the law, like when they get entangled in a Special Counsel investigation.
Both Manafort and Cohen now rue the day they became involved with Trump, or rather, the day he was elected president and solicited
much more severe scrutiny.
Would either ever have been accused of what they face today had Trump lost to Hillary? It's not too likely. They just gambled
and lost. But there are many more just like them who will never be charged with anything. Still, a new fixer name has popped up the
last few days who may, down the line, not be so lucky.
And that's not even because Lanny Davis is a registered foreign agent for Dmytro Firtash, a pro-Russia Ukrainian oligarch wanted
by the US government. After all, both Manafort and Cohen have their contacts in that part of the world. Manafort made tens of millions
advising then-president Yanukovich in the Ukraine before the US coup dethroned the latter. Cohen's wife is Ukrainian-American.
Lanny Davis is a lawyer, special counsel even, for the Clintons. Has been for years. Which makes it kind of curious that Michael
Cohen would pick him to become his legal representation. But that's not all Davis is involved in. Like any true fixer, he has his
hands in more cookie jars than fit in the average kitchen. Glenn Greenwald wrote this in August 2009 about the health care debate:
After Tom Daschle was selected to be Barack Obama's Secretary of Health and Human Services and chief health care adviser, Matt
Taibbi wrote: "In Washington there are whores and there are whores, and then there is Tom Daschle." One could easily have added:
"And then there's Lanny Davis." Davis frequently injects himself into political disputes, masquerading as a "political analyst"
and Democratic media pundit, yet is unmoored from any discernible political beliefs other than: "I agree with whoever pays me."
It's genuinely difficult to recall any instance where he publicly defended someone who hadn't, at some point, hired and shuffled
money to him. Yesterday, he published a new piece simultaneously in The Hill and Politico – solemnly warning that extremists on
the Far Left and Far Right are jointly destroying democracy with their conduct in the health care debate and urging "the vast
center-left and center-right of this country to speak up and call them out equally" – that vividly illustrates the limitless whoring
behavior which shapes Washington generally and specifically drives virtually every word out of Lanny Davis' mouth.
Davis' history is as long and consistent as it is sleazy. He was recently hired by Honduran oligarchs opposed to that country's
democratically elected left-wing President and promptly became the chief advocate of the military coup which forcibly removed
the President from office. He became an emphatic defender of the Israeli war on Gaza after he was named by the right-wing The
Israel Project to be its "Senior Advisor and Spokesperson." He has been the chief public defender for Joe Lieberman, Jane Harman
and the Clintons, all of whom have engaged his paid services.
And as NYU History Professor Greg Grandin just documented: "Recently, Davis has been hired by corporations to derail the labor-backed
Employee Free Choice Act, which would make it easier for unions to organize, all the while touting himself as a "pro-labor liberal."
Davis was also the chief U.S. lobbyist of the military dictatorship in Pakistan in the late 90s and played an important role in
strengthening relations between then President Bill Clinton and de facto president General Perez Musharraf."
Trending Articles Majority Of Young Americans Live In A Household Receiving
New analysis from CNS News finds that the majority of Americans under 18 live in households that take "means-tested
There's much more in that article, but you get the drift. And now Davis, the Clinton fixer, is Michael Cohen's lawyer. The fixer
defending a fixer. So who pays the bill? Well, ostensibly no-one, because Davis started a Go Fund Me campaign where people can donate
so Cohen "can tell people the truth about Trump". The goal is $500,000. Which goes to .. Lanny Davis.
On TV yesterday
he apparently promoted a wrong URL , which was promptly picked up by someone else who had it redirect to the Trump campaign.
Even fixers screw up, right? Still, there's already well over $100,000 donated for Cohen Davis. But why $500,000? One of the
accusations against Cohen concerns lying to a bank for a $20 million loan. He bought an apartment not long ago for $6.7 million.
He owned multiple apartments in Trump buildings.
Did he lose everything when Robert Mueller et al raided his office, home and hotel room on April 9 2018? Were all his assets frozen?
Possibly. What we do know is that he 'expected' the Trump campaign to pay for his legal fees. Which they declined. Or rather, as
Fortune reported in June : "The
Trump campaign has given some money to Cohen to help cover legal expenses for the Russia investigation. To date, though, it has not
offered financial assistance in the investigation of his business practices."
It seems safe to assume that's the point where Cohen turned, or was turned, to Lanny Davis. From a full decade of being Trump's
fixer to being fixed by the Clintons' fixer. That's a big move. It raises a number of questions :
First, why did Trump not pay Cohen's legal fees? This is 2 months after the raid on the man's office, home, hotel room, in
which huge amounts of files and disks etc. were seized.
Second question: if Lanny Davis only now sets up a Go Fund Me campaign, who's been paying him over the past 2 months? Did Cohen
sell assets, or is someone else involved?
Anyway, so Davis goes on TV with big words about how Cohen will tell all about Trump -provided people donate half a million- and
adding "I know that Mr. Cohen would never accept a pardon from a man that he considers to be both corrupt and a dangerous person
in the oval office. And [Cohen] has flatly authorized me to say under no circumstances would he accept a pardon from Mr. Trump."
Oh, and that "the turning point for his client's attitude toward Trump was the Helsinki summit in July 2018 which caused him to
doubt Trump's loyalty to the U.S." That, to my little brain, doesn't sound like something that would come from Cohen. That sounds
more like a political point the likes of which Cohen has never made. That's plain old Russiagate.
But anyway. So Lanny Davis, fixer of fixers and presidents, goes on a talk-show tour last night and what do you think happens?
He walks back just about everything he's said the previous day. Aaron Maté made a list in this Twitter thread:
1/ In a few minutes of airtime today, Michael Cohen attorney Lanny Davis has rejected a key Steele dossier claim, and, more
significantly I think, the basis for all of the ceaseless, frenzied speculation that Cohen has something to offer Mueller on Trump-Russia
collusion:
3/ Right after, Davis walks back his already heavily qualified innuendo to
@ Maddow -- which generated endless chatter -- about Cohen being useful
to Mueller's probe on collusion & knowing of hacking. Now Davis claims he was "tentative", that Cohen "may or may not be useful",
etc:
4/ Earlier in the day, Davis also asserted that Cohen was "never, ever" in Prague -- undermining a key claim in the Steele
dossier that he went there in August/September 2016 as part of the collusion scheme:
https:// twitter.com/ChuckRossDC/st atus/1032427395993624576
6/ So in short: Lanny Davis has not just denied what was explosively alleged about Cohen-Trump by Steele, CNN, and McClatchy,
but has also walked back the explosive speculation about Cohen-Trump that Lanny Davis himself generated.
Is Michael Cohen sure he wants this guy as his lawyer? Is he watching this stuff?
If Cohen and Manafort have broken laws, they should be punished for it. The same goes for all other Trump campers, including the
Donald. But it would be good if people realize that Cohen and Manafort are not some kind of stand-alone examples, that they are instead
the norm in Washington. And Moscow, and Brussels, London, everywhere there's a concentration of power. In all these places, and probably
more so in DC, there are these folks specializing in the edge of the law.
What do you think will happen when someone of the stature of Bob Mueller spends 18 months investigating the Clintons and their
fixers? Perhaps the events of the past few days won't bring such a 2nd Special Counsel any closer, but by the same token they might
do just that. Offense is the best defense.
I don't know, we don't know, what monsters Trump has swept under his luxurious carpets. But we do know that those are not the
only monsters in Washington. Meanwhile, the Steele dossier that was used to start the entire Mueller remains just about entirely
unverified. The Russian collusion meme he was tasked with investigating has so far come up empty.
That he would find something if he tried hard enough was obvious from the start. That is both dangerous in that the mandate of
a Special Counsel should be limited lest it becomes endless and veers off the reasons it was initiated, as well as in the risk that
it can easily turn into a party-political tool to hurt one's opponent while one's own dirt remains unscrutinized.
In the end, I can draw only one conclusion: there are so many sharks and squids swimming in the swamp that either it should be
expanded or the existing one should be cleaned up and depopulated. So bring it: investigate the FBI, the Clintons, and fixers like
Lanny Davis and Michael Avenatti, the same way the Trump camp has been.
Because if you don't do that, you can only possibly end up in an even bigger mess. You can't drain half a swamp.
This is Lavrentiy Beria style move from John "911 coverup" Mueller. It is clear that he can dig dirt on trump business dealings.
Notable quotes:
"... What's more, Mr Weisselberg has been at the beating heart of the Trump Organization since the 1970s. He handles the president's private trust, is the treasurer of the family's charitable foundation - currently under investigation by the state of New York - and has, at times, reviewed the Trump presidential campaign's accounting books ..."
The Trump Organization's finance boss, Allen Weisselberg, has reportedly been granted legal immunity in the probe into Michael
Cohen.
He was summoned to testify earlier this year in the investigation into Cohen, Donald Trump's longtime former lawyer, US media
report.
Cohen pleaded guilty on Tuesday to handling hush money for Mr Trump in violation of campaign finance laws.
Mr Weisselberg, Chief Financial Officer, is the latest to get immunity.
On Thursday, it emerged that David Pecker, head of the company that publishes the National Enquirer tabloid, was also given immunity.
Mr Weisselberg is reportedly mentioned on a tape secretly recorded by Cohen in 2016 in which a hush money payment to an alleged
lover of Mr Trump is discussed.
It is not yet clear what Mr Weisselberg has agreed to in return for getting legal immunity.
The Trump Organization has not commented on the reports, which first emerged in the Wall Street Journal.
Where does this fit in?
This is the latest twist in a saga continuing to dog the Trump administration.
In a serious blow, Cohen, Mr Trump's personal lawyer for more than a decade, pleaded guilty on Tuesday to eight criminal charges,
including tax evasion, bank fraud and campaign finance violations.
He said he had paid hush money to two women who alleged they had affairs with Mr Trump, at the direction of "the candidate" -
a clear reference to Mr Trump.
Cohen said the payment was made for the "principal purpose of influencing [the 2016] election".
His plea deal with prosecutors could see his prison sentence reduced from 65 years to five years and three months.
Mr Weisselberg was one of those called to give evidence before a federal grand jury for the Cohen investigation earlier this year,
the Wall Street Journal reports.
Separately, the Manhattan district attorney has launched a preliminary investigation into whether the Trump Organization falsified
business records relating to payments made to Cohen, a source confirmed to CBS news.
The dominoes continue to fall
By Anthony Zurcher, Senior North America Reporter
Donald Trump's former personal lawyer has told a federal judge that the president knew about his illegal payments to women claiming
illicit affairs with the then-candidate. The publisher of the National Enquirer tabloid, formerly a close ally of Mr Trump's, has
reportedly received immunity to discuss his role in the payments.
Now multiple US media outlets are reporting that Allen Weisselberg, chief financial officer of the Trump Organization and the
only non-relative trusted by the president to run his business empire during his presidency, is co-operating with federal investigators.
While much of the political world has been focused on Special Counsel Robert Mueller, the situation in New York for the president
is increasingly threatening.
Mr Weisselberg reportedly oversaw the reimbursements Mr Cohen received from the Trump Organization for paying adult film star
Stormy Daniels. Depending on how the financial transfer was accounted for, it could run afoul of a number of campaign finance and
accounting laws.
What's more, Mr Weisselberg has been at the beating heart of the Trump Organization since the 1970s. He handles the president's
private trust, is the treasurer of the family's charitable foundation - currently under investigation by the state of New York -
and has, at times, reviewed the Trump presidential campaign's accounting books.
He's the man who knows things - and now he's talking.
What's the origin of all this?
It is the latest fallout from the wider inquiry launched by Special Counsel Robert Mueller in May 2017 into suspected collusion
between the Trump election campaign and Russia.
As part of that probe, Cohen's offices were raided and investigators looked into his finances. What they found was passed on to
New York judicial authorities.
Cohen's lawyer has said his client is "more than happy" to help the collusion inquiry.
Mr Trump has repeatedly denied collusion with Russia, and Russia denies involvement in the 2016 election.
Related Topics
Federal prosecutors have granted immunity to American Media Inc. CEO and longtime friend of
President Trump, David Pecker, reports the Wall Street
Journal .
The Democrats' progressive wing claimed victory on Saturday after 'Superdelegates' lost the
ability to vote on the first ballot of the party's nomination process
"... Duncan described herself as an avid supporter of President Trump, but said she was moved by four full boxes of exhibits provided by Mueller's team – though she was skeptical about prosecutors' motives in the financial crimes case. ..."
"... Though Duncan said the jury was not political in its conviction, she said she was skeptical of prosecutors' intentions, which she implied were political. ..."
A juror who sat on former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort's
case said on
Fox
News Wednesday night
that a
lone
juror prevented a ruling on all 18 counts against Manafort.
Juror
Paula Duncan said a lone juror could not come to a guilty verdict on
10 charges, forcing judge T.S. Ellis III to declare a mistrial on 10
of Manafort's 18 counts.
"It was one person who kept the verdict from being guilty on all 18
counts," Duncan, 52, said. She added that Mueller's team of
prosecutors often seemed bored, apparently catnapping during parts
of the trial.
In an exclusive interview on
@
foxnewsnight
,
Paul Manafort juror Paula Duncan said Special
Counsel Robert Mueller's team was one holdout
juror away from convicting Paul Manafort on all
18 counts of bank and tax fraud.
https://
fxn.ws/2Mrmrzb
While the identities of the jurors have been closely held, kept
under seal by Judge T.S. Ellis III at Tuesday's conclusion of the
high-profile trial, Duncan gave a behind-the-scenes account to Fox
News on Wednesday, after the jury returned a guilty verdict against
the former Trump campaign chairman on eight financial crime counts
and deadlocked on 10 others.
Duncan described herself as an avid supporter of President Trump,
but said she was moved by four full boxes of exhibits provided by
Mueller's team – though she was skeptical about prosecutors' motives
in the financial crimes case.
"Certainly Mr. Manafort got caught breaking the law, but he
wouldn't have gotten caught if they weren't after President
Trump," Duncan said of the special counsel's case, which she
separately described as a "witch hunt to try to find Russian
collusion," borrowing a phrase Trump has used in tweets more
than 100 times.
Though Duncan said the jury was not political in its conviction, she
said she was skeptical of prosecutors' intentions, which she implied
were political.
Following a lengthy jury deliberation, former
Trump
campaign
manager Paul Manafort was
convicted
on
eight counts, including tax fraud, failure to disclose
foreign bank accounts, and bank fraud –
even
though jurors were still hung on another ten counts
:
"If we cannot come to a consensus for a single count, how can we
fill in the verdict sheet?" the jurors asked in the note.
"It is your duty to agree upon a verdict if you can do so," said
Ellis, who encouraged each juror to make their own decisions on
each count. If some were in the minority on a decision, however,
they could think about the other jurors' conclusions.
Notably, the case has nothing
to
do
with "Trump, the Trump campaign or the 2016 US election" – it
has to do with work Manafort did with former Ukranian President
Victor Yanukovych from 2005-2014.
The
case was referred to the federal prosecutors in the Southern
District of New York (SDNY) by Special Investigator
Robert
Mueller
who also referred Democrat superlobbyist Tony Podesta
for prosecution as part of similar work he did for Yanukovych.
All of this begs the question – if Tony Podesta committed the same
crimes as Paul Manafort, why hasn't the SDNY brought charges against
him?
Last year, Tucker Carlson exposed just how close Tony Podesta and
the
Podesta
Group
were to the Ukranian and Russian governments...
...which was summed up in the below list originally complied by
iBankCoin
–
detailing Manafort's close ties with the Podesta Group regarding
Russian
/Ukranian
lobbying:
Lobbyist and temporary Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort
is at the center of the Russia probe – however the scope of
the investigation has broadened to include his activities
prior to the 2016 election.
Manafort worked with the Podesta Group since at least
2011 on behalf of Russian interests
, and was at the
Podesta Group offices "all the time, at least once a
month," peddling Russian influence through a shell group
called the
European
Centre for a Modern Ukraine
(ECMU).
Manafort brought a "parade" of Russian oligarchs to congress
for meetings with members and their staffs, however, the
Russia's
"central effort" was the Obama Administration.
In 2013,
John
Podesta recommended that Tony hire David Adams, Hillary
Clinton's chief adviser at the State Department, giving them
a "direct liaison" between the group's Russian clients and
Hillary Clinton's State Department.
In late 2013 or early 2014,
Tony
Podesta and a representative for the Clinton Foundation met
to discuss how to help Uranium One
– the Russian
owned company that controls 20 percent of American Uranium
Production – and whose board members gave over $100 million
to the Clinton Foundation.
"
Tony
Podesta was basically part of the Clinton Foundation."
Believing she would win the 2016 election,
Russia
considered the Podesta Group's connection to Hillary highly
valuable
.
Podesta Group is a nebulous organization with no board
oversight and all financial decisions made by Tony Podesta.
Carlson's source said
payments
and kickbacks could be hard for investigators to trace,
describing it as a "highly secret treasure trove."
One
employee's only official job was to manage Tony Podesta's
art
collection
, which could be used to conceal
financial transactions.
Trending Articles
"Thank God This Is Happening" Russia Says Time
Has Come To
With the US unveiling a new set of sanctions
against Russia on Friday, Moscow said it would
definitely respond to
Additionally, Zerohedge
explained
why
this list is so significant:
emails obtained by the Associated Press showed that Gates
personally directed two Washington lobbying firms,
Mercury
LLC and the Podesta Group, between 2012 and 2014 to set up
meetings between a top Ukrainian official and senators and
congressmen on influential committees involving Ukrainian
interests
. Gates noted in the emails that the official,
Ukraine's foreign minister, did not want to use his own embassy
in the United States to help coordinate the visits.
And this is where the plot thickens,
because
while the bulk of the press has so far spun the entire Ukraine
lobbying scandal, which led to Manafort's resignation, as the
latest "proof" that pro-Moscow powers were influencing not only
Manafort but the Trump campaign in general (who some democrats
have even painted of being a Putin agent), the reality is that a
firm closely tied with the Democratic party, the Podesta Group,
is just as implicated.
As AP further adds, the European Center for a Modern Ukraine, a
Brussels-linked nonprofit entity which allegely ran the lobbying
project,
paid
Mercury and the Podesta Group a combined $2.2 million over
roughly two years.
In papers filed in the U.S. Senate,
Mercury and the Podesta Group listed the European nonprofit as
an independent, nonpolitical client. The firms said the center
stated in writing that it was not aligned with any foreign
political entity.
In other words, the Podesta Group was likely
as
much or even more complicit in any wrongdoing than Manafort was
.
Of course, none of this stopped
Mueller
from
offering
Podesta immunity – in exchange for testimony against Manafort:
It is not as though Manafort is blameless or guilt-free in his
conduct – and according to Corey Lewandowski,
President
Trump
himself was not particularly fond of
some
of
his conduct on the campaign trail, at one point
lowering
his helicopter
to berate him via cell phone:
While were in the air, heading for Delaware, somebody -- I think it
was Ann Coulter -- tweeted out
a
quote from Manafort saying that Trump shouldn't be on television
anymore
, that he shouldn't do the Sunday shows. And
from now on Manafort would do all shows. Because he's the
fucking expert, right? Not Trump, who had already turned the
whole primary race on its head
"Yes, sir," Hope said, "Paul said he doesn't want you on TV."
Trump went fucking ballistic. We were still over the New York
metropolitan area, where you can get cell service if you fly at
a low altitude.
"Lower it!" Trump yelled to the pilot. "I have to make a call."
He got Manafort on the phone, "Did you say I shouldn't be on TV
on Sunday??" Manafort could barely hear him because of the
helicopter motor. But Trump said,
"I'll
go on TV anytime I goddamn fucking want and you won't say
another fucking word about me! Tone it down? I wanna turn it up!
I don't wanna tone anything down! I played along with your
delegate charts, but I have had enough."
He got Paul on the phone and completely decimated him again
verbally. Ripped his fucking head off. I wish I'd recorded it,
because it was one of the greatest takedowns in the history of
the world.
"You're a political pro? Let me tell you something. I'm a pro at
life. I've been around a time or two. I know guys like you, with
your hair and your skin "
and again, according to Lewandowski, Trump was unaware of
Manafort's connections when he took the job, but was seriously
unhappy about them after they were released to the press:
"It's all lies," Manafort said. "My lawyers are fighting it."
"But if it's in the paper someone has to give Trump a heads-up,
because if it's in the paper, it's reality."
Just as Steve had thought, the story ran the next day, August
15, on Page One, above the fold.
"I've got a crook running my campaign," Trump said when he read
it.
However, in spite of his apparent misgivings for Manafort, Trump has
decided to support him – ostensibly because he did not cave to the
outrageous demands of the Mueller "
investigation
":
I feel very badly for Paul Manafort and his
wonderful family. "Justice" took a 12 year old
tax case, among other things, applied tremendous
pressure on him and, unlike Michael Cohen, he
refused to "break" - make up stories in order to
get a "deal." Such respect for a brave man!
....and why hasn't the Podesta brother been
charged and arrested, like others, after being
forced to close down his very large and
successful firm? Is it because he is a VERY well
connected Democrat working in the Swamp of
Washington, D.C.?
...the Podesta brothers are both well-connected swamp creatures, on
the same political team as the
uber-politicized
SDNY
assigned to levy charges against them.
"... First of all, the Democrats will now face increasing demands for impeachment from the impassioned members of their base whom they have riled up to see Trump as the epitome of the Putin-Nazi evil that threatens "our democracy." ..."
"... It would deeply undermine any notion that the political system holds the confidence of the people, and intensify division, disruption, and the sense of incipient civil war in the country more than any number of Russian Facebook posts. ..."
But these crimes are tax fraud, money laundering, and credit app padding that have nothing
to do with Donald Trump, and campaign-finance violations related to what a critic of Trump
aptly describes
as "a classic B-team type of bumbling screw-up of covering up mistresses." I question the level
of word play, if not fantasizing, necessary to claim that these crimes validate "
this investigation of foreign subversion." None of them has anything to do with that.
The perils of this, that, these, and those.
Do these results disprove that the Mueller probe is "a political investigation"? I think
they imply quite the opposite, and quite obviously so.
Why? Because these convictions would not have occurred if Hillary Clinton had been elected
president. There would be no convictions because there would have been no investigation.
If Hillary had been elected, all the crimes of Manafort and Cohen -- certainly those that
took place over many years before the election, but even, I think, those having to do with
campaign contributions and mistress cover-ups -- would never have been investigated, because
all would have been considered right with the political world.
The Manafort and Cohen crimes would have been ignored as the standard tactics of the elite
financial grifting -- as well as of parasitism on, and payoffs by, political campaigns -- that
they are. Indeed, there would have been no emergency,
save-our-democracy-from-Russian-collaboration, Special Counsel investigation, from which these
irrelevant charges were spun off, at all.
... ... ...
Have you heard of the Podestas? The Clinton Foundation? Besides, the economic purpose of
American electoral politics is to funnel millions to consultants and the media. Campaign
finance law violations? We'll see how the
lawsuit over $84 million worth of funds allegedly transferred illegally from state party
contributions to the Clinton campaign works out. Does the media report, does anybody know or
care, about it? Will anybody ever go to prison over it?
... ... ...
First of all, the Democrats will now face increasing demands for impeachment from the
impassioned members of their base whom they have riled up to see Trump as the epitome of the
Putin-Nazi evil that threatens "our democracy." If the Democrats insist these convictions
are not just matters of financial hijinx, irrelevant to Mueller's "Russia collusion"
investigation, and irrelevant in fact to anything of political substance; if they assert that
the payoffs to Stormy and Karen (the only acts directly involving Trump) disqualify Trump for
the presidency, then they will have no excuse but to call for Trump's impeachment, and act to
make it happen. Their base will demand that Democratic candidates run on that promise, and if
the Democrats re-take the House, that they begin impeachment proceedings immediately.
... ... ...
If they try to impeach and fail (which is likely), well, then, as happened to the
Republicans with Clinton, they will just look stupid, and will be punished for having wasted
the nation's political time and energy foolishly. And Trump will be strengthened.
If they were to impeach, convict, and remove Trump (even by forcing a resignation), a large
swath of the population would conclude, correctly, that a ginned-up litigation had been used to
overturn the result of the 2016 election, that the Democrats had gotten away with what the
Republicans couldn't in 1998-9. That swath of the population would likely withdraw completely
from electoral politics, leaving all their problems and resentments intact -- hidden for a
while, but sure to erupt in some other ways. It would deeply undermine any notion that the
political system holds the confidence of the people, and intensify division, disruption, and
the sense of incipient civil war in the country more than any number of Russian Facebook
posts.
. .. ... ...
...if they do move forward, that will initiate a political battle that will tear the country
apart and end up either with their defeat or the victory of Mike Pence.
... ... ...
By the way, for those who think that Manafort's conviction portends a smoking gun, based on
his work for "pro-Kremlin Viktor Yanukovych," as the NYT and other liberals persistently call
him, I would suggest looking at this Twitter thread by Aaron
Maté. It's a brilliant shredding of Rachel Maddow's (and, to a lesser extent, Chris
Hayes's) version of the deceptive implication -- presented as an indisputable fact -- that
Manafort's work for Yanukovych is proof that he (and by extension, Trump) was working for
Putin. As Maté shows, that is actually indisputably false. Manafort was working hard to
turn Yanukovych away from Russia to the EU and the West, and the evidence of that is
abundant and easily available. It was given in the trial, though you'd never know that from
reading the NYT or listening to MSNBC. As a former Ukraine Foreign Ministry spokesman said: "If
it weren't for Paul, Ukraine would have gone under Russia much earlier. He was the one dragging
Yanukovich to the West." And the Democrats know this.
And if you think Cohen is harboring secret knowledge of Trump-Russia collusion that he's
going to turn over to Mueller, take look at Maté's thread on that.
We are now entering a new period of intense political maneuvering that's the latest turning
point in the bizarre and flimsy "Russiagate" narrative. I've been asked to comment on that a
number of times over the past two years, and each time I or one of my fellow commentators would
say, "Why are we still talking about this?" It was originally conjured up as a Clinton campaign
attack on Trump, but, to my and many others' surprise and chagrin, it somehow morphed into the
central theme of political opposition to Trump's presidency.
... ... ...
Russiagate was a pretext to dig around everywhere in his closet. Trump was clueless about
the trap he was setting for himself, and has been relentlessly foolish in dealing with it. It
is a witch hunt, and he's riding around on his broom, skywriting self-incriminating
tweets.
There are a thousand reasons to criticize Donald Trump -- his racism, his stupidity, his
infantile narcissism, his full embrace of Zionist colonialism with its demand to attack Iran,
his enactment of Republican social and economic policies that are destroying working-class
lives, etc. That he is a Kremlin agent is not one of them. His election was a symptom of deep
pathologies of American political culture that we must address, including the failure of the
"liberal" party and of the two-party system itself. That Donald Trump is a Russian agent is not
one of them. There are a number of very good justifications for seeking his impeachment,
starting with the clear constitutional crime of launching a military attack on another country
without congressional authorization. That he is a Kremlin agent is not one of them.
Unfortunately, the Democratic Party and its allied media do not want to center the fight on
these substantive political issues. Instead, they are centering on this barrage of Russiagate
litigation -- none of which yet proves, or even charges, Russian "collusion" -- which they are
using as a substitute for politics. And, in place of opposition, they're substituting
uncritical loyalty to the heroes of the military-intelligence complex and "our democracy" that
only a complete fantasist could stomach. I mean, when you get to the point that you're
suspecting John Bolton's "
ties to Russia " .
"... Brennan is hardly a model of credibility. But in that he is simply characteristic of the national security apparatus's leaders over the decades. The starting point with these guys has always been an obvious contempt for the legislative branch and the public it represents. ..."
"... In fact, it's probably a qualification for the job. ..."
"... Not so obvious is the reference to "documentary evidence" that allegedly demonstrates how national security officials "play[ed] fast and loose with the Constitution and the law". A number of them made it clear during the campaign that they believed only one of the candidates was even remotely suitable for the presidency. ..."
"... Why people opposed to Clinton are still on about Comey is a mystery. His Prince-of-Denmark obsession with his own virtue materially contributed to her losing the election. ..."
(1) An intellectual Rubicon is crossed when Giuliani is deemed a reliable source for
anything.
(2) Brennan is hardly a model of credibility. But in that he is simply characteristic of the
national security apparatus's leaders over the decades. The starting point with these guys has
always been an obvious contempt for the legislative branch and the public it represents.
It's
not a quality unique to Brennan. In fact, it's probably a qualification for the job.
(3) Am happy to hear that Brennan wants "all Americans [to] get the answers they so rightly
deserve" [NYT] from the Mueller investigation. But he'd be more persuasive if that desire
extended equally to the Senate's investigation into torture.
(4) Not so obvious is the reference to "documentary evidence" that allegedly demonstrates
how national security officials "play[ed] fast and loose with the Constitution and the law". A
number of them made it clear during the campaign that they believed only one of the candidates
was even remotely suitable for the presidency. Where does the law come in? If the claim --
hinted at but not made explicit -- is that Brennan was part of a conspiracy to produce the
Steele dossier, allegations of fact, not to mention citation to laws violated, would be
helpful. Based on information known to date, we can reasonably surmise that some, but not all,
of the material in the dossier was the product of Russian disinformation channelled to Steele.
If there's something more, it would be good to get details.
(5) Why people opposed to Clinton are still on about Comey is a mystery. His
Prince-of-Denmark obsession with his own virtue materially contributed to her losing the
election. And, more broadly, if there really was a conspiracy by the national security
apparatus, it was an endeavor that failed. One would think that the 63 million would be pleased
on both counts.
(6) If law breaking there was, what explains the silence from the DOJ under Sessions, whose
stellar career is littered with contrived prosecutions of political opponents? It doesn't take
much to draft an indictment. Yet, here we are, nearly two years into the new dawn, and Brennan
continues to walk free and even spout off publicly. What explains that?
"... The Republican elite (and the Democratic elite) have always wanted Pence for President, and they may yet get their wish. But not yet. ..."
"... It also seems weird to conceptualise hush money to a porn star as 'campaign finance violations'. But what do I know. ..."
"... There are three impeachable offenses: treason, bribery and the more opaque "high crimes and misdemeanors," but the House of Representatives has the responsibility to accuse the president of one of those things. If a majority in the House agrees, a president is then impeached. The Senate then votes on impeachment, which under the U.S. Constitiution requires a two-thirds majority. ..."
"... I am not sure that hush money being paid to the porn star the President was banging in order that his pregnant wife not find out was precisely what the Founding Fathers had in mind by 'High crimes and misdemeanors ..."
"... the timing of the payment/catch-and-kill story, well after the incidents but immediately before the election, make that clear: their purpose was to avoid extramarital affairs with adult entertainers from turning into October Surprises. ..."
This is bad for Trump but not unexpected. Despite the figleaf of 'Russian collusion' the
main brief of Mueller was 'find out bad stuff about Trump and his associates' and of course
it was almost inevitable that he would find such stuff because Trump and his cronies are
scumbags who exist to break the law. This is the reality of capitalism (as has been pointed
out 'crony capitalism' is the only kind of capitalism that has ever existed or ever will
exist). Congress might or might not accept it, but the Senate (even more viciously
'gerrymandered' albeit de facto) won't yet. So Trump won't go down, not yet.
The only way that Trump will go down, IMHO is if and when the Republican establishment
decide that they have got everything out of him that they're going to get, which means after
the next Presidential election. Assuming he wins it, he may be ditched quickly. The
Republican elite (and the Democratic elite) have always wanted Pence for President, and they
may yet get their wish. But not yet.
In terms of the current situation, Manafort is simply irrelevant. Cohen is relevant, but
paying a porn start off because you are worried your wife might find out that you are a
philanderer: it seems a stretch to interpret that as 'trying to influence an election'
although I can sort of see the logic (I suppose Bill Clinton's behaviour vis a vis Monica
Lewinsky was ultimately political too).
It also seems weird to conceptualise hush money to a porn star as 'campaign finance
violations'. But what do I know.
'The Republicans simply don't care, and nothing will make them care.'
To be fair, I don't care either, and nothing will make me care.
Anyway, back in the real world .
'Michael Cohen, who spent a decade as a lawyer for Trump, told a judge Tuesday that he was
directed by Trump to coordinate payments to two women designed to prevent them from
disclosing alleged affairs with the real estate mogul before the presidential election, in
violation of campaign finance law.
Such an explosive assertion against anyone but the president would suggest that a criminal
case could be in the offing, but under long-standing legal interpretations by the Justice
Department, the president cannot be charged with a crime.
The department produced legal analyses in 1973 and 2000 concluding that the Constitution
does not allow for the criminal indictment of a sitting president.
In comments to reporters after Cohen pleaded guilty to eight felony counts in federal
court in Manhattan, Deputy U.S. Attorney Robert Khuzami said prosecutors were sending a
message that they are unafraid to file charges when campaign finance laws are broken. But he
did not mention Trump or offer any indication that his office planned to pursue action
against the president.'
(Washington Post)
'Despite impeachment talk, it's no easy task to remove a president in such a way. Both
Bill Clinton and Andrew Johnson were impeached, but both were acquitted by the Senate.
President Richard Nixon resigned before he could be removed from office.
There are three impeachable offenses: treason, bribery and the more opaque "high
crimes and misdemeanors," but the House of Representatives has the responsibility to accuse
the president of one of those things. If a majority in the House agrees, a president is then
impeached. The Senate then votes on impeachment, which under the U.S. Constitiution requires
a two-thirds majority.
In Trump's case, starting the impeachment process would currently require a mass revolt by
Republicans against him in the House of Representatives -- controlled by the GOP -- an event
even less likely than normal with midterm elections on the horizon.'
I am not sure that hush money being paid to the porn star the President was banging in
order that his pregnant wife not find out was precisely what the Founding Fathers had in mind
by 'High crimes and misdemeanors ,'
'I am no lawyer, but apparently if you spend that much money covering up your adultery to
avoid damage to your political campaign, that is a crime'.
I sort of see what you are saying, and of course, in a certain sense, what you say is not
only true but self-evidently and obviously true. Any politician engages in activities to gain
him or herself votes. All I am saying is that it doesn't seem like the most obvious way to
conceptualise these activities. CF Bill Clinton.
Presumably one of the key reasons that Clinton lied about the Lewinsky affair was because
he thought it would make him look bad and therefore lose him votes in the 2000 elections. And
in a sense it did (although others presumably voted for him 'cos they felt sorry for him).
But that seems like a weird way to conceptualise his activities.
Does it not seem more likely that Trump's main concern in paying the hush money was to
avoid his wife, who had just given birth, finding out? Obviously the effect on votes would be
of benefit to him, but I'm not sure that was his main concern.
Very serious. Cohen is obviously going to cooperate (if he hasn't begun already) on topics
far afield from his own charges, and Manafort must be thinking hard about doing the same
thing, now.
Lawfare does not mention the politics: this also boosts the possibility that
Democrats will take control of the House. Then they may wait for Mueller's report do the
heavy lifting before impeaching Trump and in the meantime start various committee
investigations of emoluments and the corruption elsewhere in the Administration.
The next two
years will be unremitting television news of more crime and corruption. If and when they
impeach Trump, even a Republican-controlled Senate will convict; the Senate only needs
2/3rds. The Senators all want to get rid of him; he makes it harder for them to run for
President themselves.
For now, they will all be watching the disapproval rating at someplace
reputable like FiveThirtyEight's aggregator. Tuesday's news will cycle into these figures, in
about a week or ten days. If it starts to tick downwards 3-5%, back to the levels in the last
half of 2017, Trump is toast sooner rather than later.
I too agree with most of what Hidari said here (and there), except for their last
paragraph here. To further clarify your statement, the issue is that the payment was
transparently not to keep Ms. Trump from finding out about Ms. Cliffords or Ms. McDougal
– the timing of the payment/catch-and-kill story, well after the incidents but
immediately before the election, make that clear: their purpose was to avoid extramarital
affairs with adult entertainers from turning into October Surprises.
These functioned as (unreported) in-kind donations, insofar as they were third-party
resources expended to for the explicit purpose of providing electoral support to the
candidate.
Hidari@ I am not sure that hush money being paid to the porn star the President was banging in
order that his pregnant wife not find out was precisely what the Founding Fathers had in mind
by 'High crimes and misdemeanors,'
It's intentionally
vague . It should be noted that when Johnson was impeached , one
of the eleven articles was "Bringing disgrace and ridicule to the presidency by his
aforementioned words and actions."
Again, though, the idea that the payoffs to Ms. Cliffords and Ms. McDougal were made to
prevent Ms. Trump from learning of the affairs defies all credibility when considering that
they occurred in the fall of 2016 rather than ten years earlier.
@Hidari it would be a strange way to conceptualise the activity if it was based purely on
the fact that the hush money was politically helpful. But:
"He told a judge in United States District Court in Manhattan that the payments to the
women were made "in coordination with and at the direction of a candidate for federal
office," implicating the president in a federal crime.
"I participated in this conduct, which on my part took place in Manhattan, for the
principal purpose of influencing the election" for president in 2016, Mr. Cohen said."
So I don't really know how you can keep insisting this is an issue of conceptual
analysis
I don't think that a Congressional majority, and certainly not the 2/3 Senate majority
needed for removal, is going to feel much ethical pressure to impeach based on the list of
wrongdoing we know about so far, or that are at all likely to emerge.
Quite aside from the lack of gravity of the crimes on that list, none of them are a clear
betrayal of the electorate that decided he should be president. That electorate already knew
he was a Russophile, had even invited Russians to hack D computers, they knew that he was a
pussy-grabber, and that his privately-owned business was ethically challenged -- yet an
electoral majority voted him in anyway.
Removal on impeachment involves the legislature asserting its will and its judgment over
that of the people. Of course the legislature is also elected by the people to accomplish
duties that include holding the president to certain standards. But I don't see even a 2/3 D
Senate (which we would only get by the Rs losing every race up this year, plus about 15 of
them party-switching) having the cojones for such an assertion, certainly not when the
electorate already knew about the crimes when they voted for the criminal. The Rs have
cojones for such enterprises, and in spades, but not our beloved Ds.
And I don't see impeachment as a very useful strategy for the Ds to pursue. Even if
successful at removing Trump, that just gets you Pence -- just as public policy irrational,
only less politically disorganized.
Maybe impeachment comes up as a tactic, to facilitate some other plan of action, but I
don't see conviction on impeachment as a useful means of even control of Trump behavior, much
less removal.
If the Ds do have control of either house after the election, of course the usual that we
can expect of them is not very much. Even if they control both chambers, they couldn't
possibly have the 2/3 in both needed to run the govt by overriding the vetoes that any actual
program of theirs would be sure to attract from the president. Even with 2/3, because this is
a D 2/3 we're talking about, we can most likely discount the possibility that they would even
try to exercise any oversight over what the govt does in opposition to the president's
control.
An actual political party in this situation of even controlling a bare majority of just
the House could do a whole lot to not only thwart Trump, but to at least make a credible
effort at asserting control over the govt. They could of course block any new legislation, or
the repeal of any existing law, and even the actual Ds are probably up to that. But to go
further, to control or limit how Trump runs the govt under existing law, this D majority of
the House would have to be willing to boldly set sail on the sea of political hardball and
take up a career of budgetary hostage-taking -- so right off we should say that this is
political fanfic, and not even canonic fanfic.
But a girl can dream, can't he, so let's pursue this alternate reality just a bit. Who
knows, if Trump's misrule makes things sufficiently dire, maybe even the Ds will be motivated
to find their inner pirate.
To take ICE as an example, it would go something like this. The House only agrees to pass
the annual appropriations on a 30-day continuing resolution basis, so that their assent is
needed every 30-days to the govt doing anything. They pass all the spending except for the
ICE funding (keeping the funding for whatever ICE spends on housing and otherwise caring for
people already apprehended -- that funding goes with the funding of the rest of the govt),
which they hold back until and unless Senate and president agree to ICE funding that includes
new law that keeps ICE from doing family separations, and whatever else the Ds find
objectionable. After success getting control of ICE abuses, next month when the CRs come due,
they do the same maneuver on their next target of Trump misrule.
The risk is that the Rs, Senate and president, just refuse to agree to the omnibus that
funds everything else the govt does until the Ds let loose the ICE funding. There is a govt
shutdown, and the Ds run the risk of being blamed. It turns into a game of legislative
chicken. Of course, this has to be anti-canon fanfic for such a game to end other than by the
Ds swerving first, so the real world Ds will never actually even start the game, because
whatever their faults, they know their limitations.
Hidari #13: " they 'all' want to get rid of him now?"
The Republican Senate would be happy to throw him overboard tomorrow. His voters are the
problem. They won't wait for his voters to turn on him however, if the Senate receives a
lengthy bill of impeachment from a Democratic House and Mueller has signed off on some of the
charges.
They'd rather have Pence do the sanctimonious messaging and go into 2020 trying to
reconstruct the party with an open primary.
After all, the GOP stands to lose Senate seats in 2020 anyway, just due to the map (the
same problem they have this year, with the House). If the election in 76 days puts the
Democrats in charge of the House, Trump won't make it to the end of his term.
'To further clarify your statement, the issue is that the payment was transparently not
to keep Ms. Trump from finding out about Ms. Cliffords or Ms. McDougal – the timing
of the payment/catch-and-kill story, well after the incidents but immediately before the
election, make that clear: their purpose was to avoid extramarital affairs with adult
entertainers from turning into October Surprises. '
Oh ok, I didn't really understand that. I haven't to be honest, been following the Stormy
Daniels story too closely for the good reason that I don't care.
So one infers that the FL did in fact know about these things. Could we conceptualise it
thus, then: Trump paid the hush money to ensure that Melania was not publicly humiliated by
these things (I mean, humiliated even more than simply being married to Donald Trump)?
But obviously, in that case, Trump not wanting this to be a big story in the run up to the
election was obviously a 'thing'.
"... Mueller's team of partisan prosecutors seek to prove the unprovable -- that I received allegedly hacked e-mails from the Russians or Wikileaks and passed them on to Donald Trump. ..."
Mueller is running a criminally abusive, constitutionally unaccountable, professionally and
politically incestuous conspiracy of ethically conflicted cronies colluding to violate my
Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights and those of almost everyone who had any sort of
political or personal association with me in the last 10 years.
He has conducted a supposedly comprehensive investigation of a very narrow and limited issue
as an open-ended, totally limitless Grand Prosecution, with absolutely no articulable or even
identifiable criminal predicate to substantiate it as a lawful investigation, even under
ordinary circumstances.
Mueller's team of partisan prosecutors seek to prove the unprovable -- that I received
allegedly hacked e-mails from the Russians or Wikileaks and passed them on to Donald
Trump. This threadbare false narrative is harped on endlessly by the slugs at MSNBC and
other despicable "fake news" outlets.
Now, because of the accuracy of my tweets -- in which I merely followed the tweets of
Wikileaks and the many public interviews of Wikileaks publisher Julian Assange -- Mueller and
his hit-men seek to frame some ludicrous charge of "defrauding the United States."
This is, of course, based on a false and unproven assumption that Assange is a Russian agent
and Wikileaks is a Russian front -- neither of which has been proven in a court of law.
Interestingly Assange himself has said, "Roger Stone has never said or tweeted anything we at
Wikileaks had not already said publicly."
A question for all the impeach Trump for colluding with Russia weenies:
How would Cohen know anything about Trump's collusion with Russia? Why would Trump need a
lawyer for this illegal activity? If you are going to claim that Trump just happened to share
this information with Cohen, then why not anyone else? Is Cohen some sort of consigliere or
confession booth priest for Trump?
This whole farce with Cohen is pathetic BS. Cohen will be told to say this and that my
Mueller and this will be deemed "evidence". Americans are really a few cards short of a full
deck to swallow this drivel.
BTW, the new consensus emerging amongst the "deplorables" who do not share the official
CNN fake news narrative, is that the dirty dossier produced by Steele was a Russian
machination. This is truly overwhelming in its retardation. Why the f*ck would Russia
undermine Trump by colluding with Hillary when Hillary was basically foaming at the mouth to
start a war over Russia's intervention in Syria. Hillary's Democratic Party has ignited the
current anti-Russian hysteria in America, so there is no way that Russia was colluding with
her or her party. Americans are apparently too brainwashed or dumb to distinguish between the
involvement of Russian nationals and the Russian state. You can find dozens of nationals from
any country to do anything with the right motivation.
"... "Within 24 hours of her concession speech, [campaign chair John Podesta and manager Robby Mook] assembled her communications team at the Brooklyn headquarters to engineer the case that the election wasn't entirely on the up-and-up. For a couple of hours, with Shake Shack containers littering the room, they went over the script they would pitch to the press and the public. Already, Russian hacking was the centerpiece of the argument." ..."
"... The investigation is based on a lie. Therefore it is unconstitutional and nothing more than an attempt to cover up MASSIVE crimes committed by the pplayers now losing their security clearance and their puppet masters ..."
"Within 24 hours of her concession speech, [campaign chair John Podesta and manager Robby
Mook] assembled her communications team at the Brooklyn headquarters to engineer the case
that the election wasn't entirely on the up-and-up. For a couple of hours, with Shake Shack
containers littering the room, they went over the script they would pitch to the press and
the public. Already, Russian hacking was the centerpiece of the argument."
The plan, according to the book, was to push journalists to cover how "Russian hacking was
the major unreported story of the campaign," and it succeeded to a fare-thee-well. After the
election, coverage of the Russian "collusion" story was relentless, and it helped pressure
investigations and hearings on Capitol Hill and even the naming of a special counsel, which
in turn has triggered virtually nonstop coverage.
And now you want to talk about trying to shoe horn reality into your fantasy outcome.
Anyone with with 2 brain cells to rub together is laughing at you and your ilk pushing this
complete horse chit.
The investigation is based on a lie. Therefore it is unconstitutional and nothing more
than an attempt to cover up MASSIVE crimes committed by the pplayers now losing their
security clearance and their puppet masters.
Do yourself a favor and turn off that freak Rachel Madcow!
Cohen / Manafort mess creates a whole other level of problems for the current
Administration. So Mueller got Trump in an old fashioned way by digging the
personal and business related dirt and going after people who were close to
Trump. This is how prosecutors approach mafia cases ;-)
Notable quotes:
"... Cohen claims he and Trump thus conspired to violate federal law. But paying girlfriends to keep past indiscretions private is neither a crime nor a campaign violation. And Trump could legally contribute as much as he wished to his own campaign for president. ..."
"... Hence the high-fives among never-Trumpers are premature. ..."
"... But if Cohen's guilty plea and Tuesday's conviction of campaign manager Paul Manafort do not imperil Trump today, what they portend is ominous. For Cohen handled Trump's dealings for more than a decade and has pledged full cooperation with prosecutors from both the Southern District of New York and the Robert Mueller investigation. ..."
"... Also, Manafort, now a convicted felon facing life in prison, has the most compelling of motives to "flip" and reveal anything that could be useful to Mueller and harmful to Trump. Then there is the Mueller probe itself. ..."
"... Twenty-six months after the Watergate break-in, President Nixon had resigned. Twenty-six months after the hacking of the DNC and John Podesta emails, Mueller has yet to deliver hard evidence the Trump campaign colluded with Putin's Russia, though this was his mandate. ..."
"... However, having, for a year now, been marching White House aides and campaign associates of Trump before a grand jury, Mueller has to be holding more cards than he is showing. And even if they do not directly implicate the president, more indictments may be coming down. ..."
"... And as this Congress has only weeks left before the 2018 elections, it will be the new House that meets in January, which may well be Democratic, that will receive Mueller's report. ..."
"... Trump is not going to resign. To do so would open him up to grand jury subpoenas, federal charges and civil suits for the rest of his life. To resign would be to give up his sword and shield, and all of his immunity. He would be crazy to leave himself naked to his enemies. ..."
"... No, given his belief that he is under attack by people who hate him and believe he is an illegitimate president, and seek to bring him down, he will use all the powers of the presidency in his fight for survival. And as he has shown, these powers are considerable: the power to rally his emotional following, to challenge courts, to fire Justice officials and FBI executives, to pull security clearances, to pardon the convicted. ..."
"... if Democrats capture the House, then they will be the ones under intolerable pressure from their own media auxiliaries to pursue impeachment. ..."
"... Instead, he's embarked on a massively ambitious nation-building project in northeast Syria and is otherwise scouring the globe for new wars to start, while mostly catering to his rich friends at home. And Israel, Israel, Israel all the time. ..."
"... What has he done that's actually useful? Ditching TTIP? OK let's grant him that one. Meeting Kim? Mayyybe, but at the same time he chose to appoint Bolton and Pompeo who are predictably sabotaging the Singapore understanding. Meanwhile, American finances are going off the cliff at an ever-accelerating pace. ..."
"... All of which is the perfect mirror image of an equally true statement: if Obama hadn't been such a lousy president (which his supporters are in denial about), a known charlatan like Trump would've never had a shot at the office. ..."
"If anyone is looking for a good lawyer," said President Donald Trump ruefully, "I would
strongly suggest that you don't retain the services of Michael Cohen." Michael Cohen is no Roy
Cohn.
Tuesday, Trump's ex-lawyer, staring at five years in prison, pled guilty to a campaign
violation that may not even be a crime. Cohen had fronted the cash, $130,000, to pay porn star
Stormy Daniels for keeping quiet about a decade-old tryst with Trump. He had also brokered a
deal whereby the National Enquirer bought the rights to a story about a Trump affair with a
Playboy model, to kill it.
Cohen claims he and Trump thus conspired to violate federal law. But paying girlfriends
to keep past indiscretions private is neither a crime nor a campaign violation. And Trump could
legally contribute as much as he wished to his own campaign for president.
Would a Democratic House, assuming we get one, really impeach a president for paying hush
money to old girlfriends?
Hence the high-fives among never-Trumpers are premature.
But if Cohen's guilty plea and Tuesday's conviction of campaign manager Paul Manafort do
not imperil Trump today, what they portend is ominous. For Cohen handled Trump's dealings for
more than a decade and has pledged full cooperation with prosecutors from both the Southern
District of New York and the Robert Mueller investigation.
Nothing that comes of this collaboration will be helpful to Trump.
Also, Manafort, now a convicted felon facing life in prison, has the most compelling of
motives to "flip" and reveal anything that could be useful to Mueller and harmful to Trump.
Then there is the Mueller probe itself.
Twenty-six months after the Watergate break-in, President Nixon had resigned. Twenty-six
months after the hacking of the DNC and John Podesta emails, Mueller has yet to deliver hard
evidence the Trump campaign colluded with Putin's Russia, though this was his mandate.
However, having, for a year now, been marching White House aides and campaign associates
of Trump before a grand jury, Mueller has to be holding more cards than he is showing. And even
if they do not directly implicate the president, more indictments may be coming down.
Mueller may not have the power to haul the president before a grand jury or indict him.
After all, it is Parliament that deposes and beheads the king, not the sheriff of Nottingham.
But Mueller will file a report with the Department of Justice that will be sent to the
House.
And as this Congress has only weeks left before the 2018 elections, it will be the new
House that meets in January, which may well be Democratic, that will receive Mueller's
report.
Still, as of now, it is hard to see how two-thirds of a new Senate would convict this
president of high crimes and misdemeanors.
Thus we are in for a hellish year.
Trump is not going to resign. To do so would open him up to grand jury subpoenas,
federal charges and civil suits for the rest of his life. To resign would be to give up his
sword and shield, and all of his immunity. He would be crazy to leave himself naked to his
enemies.
No, given his belief that he is under attack by people who hate him and believe he is an
illegitimate president, and seek to bring him down, he will use all the powers of the
presidency in his fight for survival. And as he has shown, these powers are considerable: the
power to rally his emotional following, to challenge courts, to fire Justice officials and FBI
executives, to pull security clearances, to pardon the convicted.
Democrats who have grown giddy about taking the House should consider what a campaign to
bring down a president, who is supported by a huge swath of the nation and has fighting allies
in the press, would be like.
Why do it? Especially if they knew in advance the Senate would not convict.
That America has no desire for a political struggle to the death over impeachment is
evident. Recognition of this reality is why the Democratic Party is assuring America that
impeachment is not what they have in mind.
Today, it is Republicans leaders who are under pressure to break with Trump, denounce him,
and call for new investigations into alleged collusion with the Russians. But if Democrats
capture the House, then they will be the ones under intolerable pressure from their own media
auxiliaries to pursue impeachment.
Taking the House would put newly elected Democrats under fire from the right for forming a
lynch mob, and from the mainstream media for not doing their duty and moving immediately to
impeach Trump.
Democrats have been laboring for two years to win back the House. But if they discover that
the first duty demanded of them
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, "Nixon's White House Wars: The
Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever. "
President Pence would do little to undo the political polarization that America has
experienced over the past two decades since his voting record suggests that he leans rather
heavily to the right side of the political spectrum.
Maybe this is payback for the other impeachment attempt 20 years ago. Perhaps some dems
have been waiting two decades for vengeance. Whatever Clinton's faults, the GOP should not
have opened that can of worms back then.
Either the Republicans come out ahead in which case the left will say it was because of
"Russian" interference and the election results are thus illegitimate. Or the Democrats will
and they will not only be under pressure to impeach Trump but also to punish the deplorables
who voted for him.
Well, this would constitute a real civil war. All because Obama and Hillary failed at
rigging an election and failed at launching a coup. Good Times. Keep your powder dry.
Well, this would constitute a real civil war. All because Obama and Hillary failed at
rigging an election and failed at launching a coup. Good Times. Keep your powder dry.
Meh. Who are you going to shoot at? Your neighbors? The local messican ghetto? Cops in
general?
IMO, just like always throughout history, the key is to nab "elected representatives" from
local, state and federal positions, and hang them. You don't have to hang very many --
they're smarter than they look; they're merely corrupt slimebags. Kill a few, and the rest
scatter, awaiting future opportunity.
Mr. Buchanan somehow manages to make it through the entire article without reminding us
that, in fact, the GOP did impeach a president over a blowjob–what goes around,
comes around. And while I doubt that Pat is among his fans, Bill Clinton at the time was a
good deal more popular than Trump is now.
Which brings us to something basic: Democrats and liberals in general have jumped the
shark for everyone to see, they're stark raving mad. Granted, the GOP is not exactly Trump's
party, but in an environment where Republicans face no substantial opposition, Trump could
potentially do something for his voters and there would be no possibility of a blue wave.
Instead, he's embarked on a massively ambitious nation-building project in northeast Syria
and is otherwise scouring the globe for new wars to start, while mostly catering to his rich
friends at home. And Israel, Israel, Israel all the time.
What has he done that's actually
useful? Ditching TTIP? OK let's grant him that one. Meeting Kim? Mayyybe, but at the same
time he chose to appoint Bolton and Pompeo who are predictably sabotaging the Singapore
understanding. Meanwhile, American finances are going off the cliff at an ever-accelerating
pace.
All of which is the perfect mirror image of an equally true statement: if Obama hadn't
been such a lousy president (which his supporters are in denial about), a known
charlatan like Trump would've never had a shot at the office.
For an outsider, the
sentimental attachment of this supposedly forward-looking country to its two officially
allowed parties which haven't served their stated purpose for decades already is a curious
thing to behold.
Although I lean conservative, I despair for my country. If Trump's election "unauthorized by the real powers that be" proves to be the match that
sets alight the country then we're all in for a form of Hell that few of us have seen.
Note that someone whose supposed level of intimacy with violence is someone who would not
know the first thing to do if war actually broke out. Exactly why you, the armchair warrior,
who waits with bated breath to jackboot your "enemies", will be staying at home rather than
being on the front lines, just like yourself, dear.
Now, onto Patrick's post.
"Michael Cohen is no Roy Cohn."
Patrick is partially right. They are both Jewish, and they both engaged in illegal
activity, but one was a closet homosexual.
"But paying girlfriends to keep past indiscretions private is neither a crime nor a
campaign violation "
Obviously if that was the case, Cohen would not have pled guilty. And clearly Patrick has
not been keeping up with the Mueller investigation on this particular development.
"Cohen claims he and Trump thus conspired to violate federal law."
No, Cohen is offering to corroborate the evidence collected by prosecutors as to what
constitutes illegal activities.
"No, given his belief that he is under attack by people who hate him and believe he is an
illegitimate president, and seek to bring him down, he will use all the powers of the
presidency in his fight for survival."
Well, we know for a fact that if Shitlery or Obama was in the SAME SITUATION, Patrick
would NOT be advocating this course of action. Rather, he would call for either of them to
step aside.
"Twenty-six months after the Watergate break-in, President Nixon had resigned. Twenty-six
months after the hacking of the DNC and John Podesta emails, Mueller has yet to deliver hard
evidence the Trump campaign colluded with Putin's Russia, though this was his mandate."
The Mueller investigation is a sore spot for Buchanan, who had to endure an eerily similar
experience with Nixon. So it is other than surprising that Buchanan is defending Trump.
Patrick ought to know better here, as Mueller is carefully gathering evidence from one of the
most complex cases in our nation's political history.
Justice in this instance has no time
table. Mueller is under no obligation to show his cards, that is not how prosecutions
work.
"... "Perhaps the greatest political damage came not from the felony charges, all of them related to various forms of financial chicanery, including five counts each for Cohen and Manafort of income tax evasion, but from Cohen's public statement in the courtroom of Judge Kimba Wood. In confessing his guilt to the eight counts, Cohen declared that in two instances, violating federal laws by using personal funds to suppress politically inconvenient statements by Playboy model Karen McDougal and adult film actress Stormy Daniels, he was acting "in coordination and at the direction of a candidate for federal office." ..."
"... My point is that Cohen's admissions implicating Trump in carrying out either himself or in concert with others willful ongoing acts violative of Federal Campaign Finance laws are CLEARLY sufficient-if substantiated-to oust him from office. ..."
"... "Mueller's strategy of focusing on Cohen and Manafort's white-collar crimes is perfectly reasonable, even in a probe directed at Russian interference in the 2016 election. "It's not unusual for prosecutors to use charges -- Al Capone is the primary example -- to bring down a criminal conspiracy in any way they can," Waxman pointed out." ..."
"... Cohen's guilty plea effectively makes Trump an unindicted co-conspirator. Current Justice Department guidelines say a sitting president cannot be indicted -- but building a legitimate criminal case against Trump would make it harder for Republicans to stand united in opposition to impeaching the president ..."
"... Cohen would be a prosecutor's "dream cooperator: one who had special insider access to the leader of a powerful, closed, corrupt organization," former prosecutors Mimi Rocah and Elie Honig wrote last month. "We used to prosecute mafia cases. We both know that in the mob -- and perhaps in this White House -- the right cooperator can bring down the entire hierarchy." ..."
"Perhaps the greatest political damage came not from the felony charges, all of them
related to various forms of financial chicanery, including five counts each for Cohen and
Manafort of income tax evasion, but from Cohen's public statement in the courtroom of Judge
Kimba Wood. In confessing his guilt to the eight counts, Cohen declared that in two
instances, violating federal laws by using personal funds to suppress politically
inconvenient statements by Playboy model Karen McDougal and adult film actress Stormy
Daniels, he was acting "in coordination and at the direction of a candidate for federal
office."
My point is that Cohen's admissions implicating Trump in carrying out either himself
or in concert with others willful ongoing acts violative of Federal Campaign Finance laws are
CLEARLY sufficient-if substantiated-to oust him from office.
Don't think so??
If the following transgressions were sufficient to 'nail' their intended targets -which is
what happened - then Trump's acts in attempting to hush up Stormy (supra) COULD achieve the
same result. Whether or not some faction of TPTB has the WILL to impeach him is another
matter.
"Mueller's strategy of focusing on Cohen and Manafort's white-collar crimes is perfectly
reasonable, even in a probe directed at Russian interference in the 2016 election. "It's not
unusual for prosecutors to use charges -- Al Capone is the primary example -- to bring down a
criminal conspiracy in any way they can," Waxman pointed out."
Yup!!!
" Cohen's guilty plea effectively makes Trump an unindicted co-conspirator. Current
Justice Department guidelines say a sitting president cannot be indicted -- but building a
legitimate criminal case against Trump would make it harder for Republicans to stand united
in opposition to impeaching the president .
When President Richard Nixon was named an unindicted co-conspirator by a grand jury, he
opted to resign instead of face impeachment proceedings. Trump seems unlikely to step down,
however. Any further efforts on his part to block the investigation into his campaign would
put the Justice Department in uncharted territory"
Cohen would be a prosecutor's "dream cooperator: one who had special insider access to
the leader of a powerful, closed, corrupt organization," former prosecutors Mimi Rocah and
Elie Honig wrote last month. "We used to prosecute mafia cases. We both know that in the mob
-- and perhaps in this White House -- the right cooperator can bring down the entire
hierarchy."
From links I've already posted , getting a USC Title 18 conviction of Trump is not
necessarily that required to charge him with "High Crimes and Misdemeanors". Although there
is some dispute in legal circles as to what exactly constitutes a sufficent basis of facts
upon which impeachment can be based.
But it will establish an unsavory precedent – that any sitting president can be taken
out merely by selecting one of his/her aides and then threatening them with crushing
penalties for some silly transgression or other or they can turn state's evidence. Anyone who
ever dreamed of ascending to the nation's highest office would have to know that, by
facilitating this process, they were handing the lawmakers the means to remove any future
president.
But, as I said, I don't care. Hillary can't win it now, Pence is a dink, The Donald would
dig in his heels and fight all the way out, probably causing great damage, but if he went, so
what? He's a dreadful president. And the USA would be in political chaos.
Trump should have fired Sessions for recusing himself from this Congress instituted
witch-hunt. The job of Sessions is to be over-seer of the Special Counsel investigation.
Mueller cannot have special rights, he must follow the rules. Shaking down people around
Trump for tax evasion or assorted other unrelated crimes is not following the rules. It is
pure Inquisition tactics.
I would not be so quick to write Trump off as dreadful. He basically sabotaged the two
hyped up cruise missile attacks on Syria. Even though his hands are tied and his mouth is
gagged by US corporate-run "freedom", he managed to make both those attacks totally
ineffective. If he was a loyal servant of the US elites, he would have kept sending more and
more missiles and actually ordered NATzO or "coalition" jets to bomb Syrian targets
seriously. The sporadic Israeli and coalition attacks have been basically irrelevant.
He is rocking the boat as much as he can. This creates are sorts of noise. This noise is
not a metric of his efforts and success.
We'll see. If the Democrats are successful at having him impeached, they will probably create
a special holiday recognizing Stormy Daniels, or give her the Presidential Medal of Freedom
or something. I frankly don't care – he beat Hillary, and that's something she can
never erase or cover up.
I imagine they sweated him with the possibility of spending the rest of his life in prison;
all the newspaper accounts of his testimony spoke of his shaky voice, and it's typically
pretty hard to scare a lawyer. They likely told him that he could just disappear into the
prison system and that there would be nothing at all he could do about it.
Degeneration os social democratic parties into soft neoliberals is a world wide tendency.
That spell troubles for them as they lost their key constituency. The level of corruption within
the party elite is staggering (exemplified by Clintons and Obama). The
"Democratic" Party is completely captured by FIRE (Finance, Insurance, Real
Estate)
If this assessment has some connection to reality Dems will be unable to improve their
position during the US mid-term elections.
At the same time idea that "proletariat" is capable organizing
resistance and winning th election enforcing favorable for them changes
proved to be wrong. Most positive changes of the New Deal/fair Deal
were forced concessions in face of the possibility of open armed revolt. Now
with the dissolution of the USSR this possibility is discounted by the
ruling neoliberal elite.
Also we face the end of "cheap oil" and that means that standard of
living of working class will continue to deteriorate.
The future is really grim...
Notable quotes:
"... Most social-democratic parties in Europe have the same problem the U.S. Democrats have. The party establishments angle for the ever elusive 'liberal' center. ..."
"... This phenomenon is the micro version of a much larger trend. [neo]Liberal globalization, as promoted by the party 'elites', promises but does not deliver what the real people need and want. [neo]Liberal globalization turned out to be a class war in which only the rich can win. A revolt, locally on the level of voters, and globally on the level of nations, is underway to regain a different view. ..."
"... Wages rise when companies have to compete for workers. Immigration increases the available work force. A political program that supports both does not compute. ..."
"... Neither LGBTXYZ identity policies nor other aloof 'liberal values' will increase the income of the poor. To win back the necessary masses the Democrats and social-democrats in Europe will have to shun, or at least de-emphasize such parts of their program. It's a class war. The rich are winning. Fight. ..."
"... your last sentence is right on target. It's been a class war for many decades. Most of the Dems have been playing "good cop, bad cop" for many years now. They talk progressive, but in the end they opt for the rich man's money. ..."
"... At present, the oligarchs own everything in the U$A. Giant corporate interests own the Govt., the Media, & the voting systems. No matter the good intentions of a few, if the people don't hear it or see it, it never happened. ..."
"... "The progressive Democrats...." Uh-oh! No such thing. "Working people understand this and in 2016 many of them voted for Trump." God...German working people also understand this and voted for Hitler or, rather for the Nazis. ..."
"... I think Marx call it "Dictatorship of the bourgeoisie" ..."
"... The western fiat faction requires perpetually increasing inputs of capital, commodities and labor - labor population must increase or the debt ponzi falls. Thus, as long as we have declining birthrates in the West, immigration will continue regardless of what the peasants want... ..."
"... I agree that it is a class war, but it is one we have already lost. We are at the end of the oil era, yet our financial economic system requires perpetual growth, how do you think this will work out? (It won't) ..."
"... The "Democratic" party is completely captured by its FIRE (Finance, Insurance, Real Estate) funders on Wall Street and the corporate class. The DNC crowd will stick to their losing guns election after election while not offering any benefits to working people ..."
"... Were it not for the purposefully restricted structure of the two party systems where voters bounce between two awful parties before giving up altogether, the Democratic party would have fully collapsed long ago. ..."
"... Remember: the donors don't care if the Republicans or Democrats win, as long as their agenda prevails. And most Democrats and most Republican politicians don't care about their party either, as long as they can retire and get put on the boards of big corporations and cash in etc. ..."
"... Big Money and the Political Machines it built within the USA became prominent soon after its Civil War. Those plus the oligarchical controls built into the USA's governmental organization ensured that Commonfolk would have a very difficult time trying to govern themselves and promote their own interests. ..."
"... By WW2's end, the foundation for Keynesian Militarism and its in-built [monies get redistributed upward, not downward, automatically] Class War was laid along with the basis for Big Money's recapture of government. ..."
"... Essentially, tax dollars are spent on weapons and munitions and the manufacturer endowed with excess profits which are then plowed back into the political system through campaign contributions--politico buying--which in turn further corrupts the system. ..."
"... until we get beyond predatory finance, we are all essentially screwed.. ..."
"... US Health care, despised by everyone in the U.S: doctors, nurses, patients and pharmacists, is not the only thing that needs reform. How we select and elect those who allegedly represent us is unacceptable. Private money is more important than humanity and no one can guarantee that those elected actually won. ..."
"... What's happening now in the USA is no longer democracy or capitalism at all. It's military plutocracy. The elections and voting process are a sham and certainly have been since G.W. Bush "won" the election vs Al Gore. Strangely, last year's showdown between Killary and Trump was probably the first live election in a while where the establishment didn't get their (wo)man. Killary seemed to scare a few powerful people - she'd spent too much time in Washington, was too ruthless and had too many of her own people in institutions or available as ANTIFA brownshirts. She failed a few final interviews and some key establishment players switched sides, allowing Trump a last minute real shot at the ring. ..."
"... Only by setting us at each other's throats can the establishment maintain its place for another decade or two. It seems they are prepared to take this risk ..."
"... Marx and then the Soviet Union scared the capitalists at the start of the twentieth century. National Socialism scared them even more. The Western Establishment have built a system and a plan to put off the revolution. How long can they hold us under? This is the fascinating question which The Hunger Games set out to answer. ..."
"... the Democrats, and similar "liberal" movements in Europe, Canada, etc, know exactly what they're doing, which is simply what the donors want. It's not about the strategists, and it's not about winning elections either--at least not in the first place. ..."
"... In case anybody didn't hear it Warren Buffet some time back came out with: "There is a class war and we have won it." ..."
"... Psychohistorian's stress on the importance of private finance is of course correct but it is just part of an imperial equation where finance + military = empire or vice versa. ..."
"... For a century and a half, the primary purpose of the Democratic Party has been to crush leftist/socialist movements. Eugene Debs knew this a century ago. The SDS knew this 1/2 century ago. Bernie Sanders knew this until 2016. ..."
"... Hudson's first magnum opus was SuperImperialism , but please get the updated version as the first is somewhat dated. ..."
"... Clearly, the US military is used by this "loose affiliation of millionaires and billionaires" to enforce their will on those who foolishly believe their governments should serve their own citizens. But it is not the US, or even primarily the 0.01% of the US who are calling the shots. The PTSB have no allegiance to any nation-state (with one glaring exception). But they use nationalism to divide the 99% of the world into bite-sized, easily edible pieces. ..."
"... Yes exactly, a class war. Basically elites vs the rest of us. Maybe 10% of non elites go along for the ride and puck up some crumbs. Another 20% do alright for a time until they get replaced by cheaper and younger and struggle to survive to reach social security without losing their home due to medical bankruptcy. ..."
"... So long as both parties go along with the neoliberal imperialistic agenda there will be rewards, even for the minority party. Best to be a minority party with plenty of funding than one without funding ..."
"... Real median incomes are much lower than the early 70's when adjusted with the pre-1980 CPI. CPI post 1980 has been adjusted to mask the impact of neoliberalism and enhance it by lowering COLA's and keeping money cheap to fuel asset inflation which does not impact the new CPI as much ..."
Staying out of the single-payer debate, party strategists say, could help Democrats in the
general election, when they'll have to appeal to moderates skeptical of government-run health
care. Earlier this year, the DCCC warned candidates about embracing single payer, hoping to
avoid Republican attacks on "socialized" medicine.
Why is "socialized" medicine supposed to be a bad thing? Why not defend it? It is what the
voters want :
The 'strategists' say the voters can not have the nice stuff they want. Their arguments lost
the elections. If the Democrats want to win again their must tell their
voters to demand more nice stuff. Some people get that
:
Progressive insurgents believe Clinton's defeat, on top of losing control of Congress and
most state governments, proved them right. They aspire to overthrow conventional wisdom that
Democrats must stay safely in the middle to compete.
" Democrats have been fixated for 20 years on this elusive, independent, mythical middle
of the road voter that did not exist ," said Crystal Rhoades, head of the Democratic Party in
Nebraska's Douglas County, where a progressive candidate, Kara Eastman, is trying to wrest a
competitive congressional district from a Republican.
"We're going to try bold ideas."
Most social-democratic parties in Europe have the same problem the U.S. Democrats have.
The party establishments angle for the ever elusive 'liberal' center. They move the
parties further to the right and lose their natural constituencies, the working class. This
gives rise to (sometimes fascist) 'populists' (see Trump) and to an ever growing share of
people who reject the established system and do not vote at all.
This phenomenon is the micro version of a much larger trend. [neo]Liberal globalization,
as promoted by the party 'elites', promises but does not deliver what the real people need and
want. [neo]Liberal globalization turned out to be a class war in which only the rich can win. A
revolt, locally on the level of voters, and globally on the level of nations, is underway to
regain a different view.
Alastair Crooke recently
outlined the larger trend within a global, 'metaphysical' perspective.
The progressive Democrats who are pushing for single payer healthcare still miss out on
other issues. They also support higher wages, but are, at the same time, against restrictions
on immigration. Wages rise when companies have to compete for workers. Immigration
increases the available work force. A political program that supports both does not
compute.
Working people understand this and in 2016 many of them voted for Trump. Neither LGBTXYZ
identity policies nor other aloof 'liberal values' will increase the income of the poor. To win
back the necessary masses the Democrats and social-democrats in Europe will have to shun, or at
least de-emphasize such parts of their program. It's a class war. The rich are winning.
Fight.
Corporations and their lobbyists pay big money to influence both parties to ignore the will
of the proletariat in favor of the one percent. If the candidate does not deliver the goods
to his rich benefactors, he will lose his funding.
Therefore, a candidate can talk a populist game, but if he tries to implement anything of
value to the proles, he will be ousted as quickly as possible.
In this way, For the money, the Democratic Party that championed the working man (to a
degree) helped the Republicans to sabotage Labor Unions.
Now the D party is a champion of LGTBQ.
Could be difficult to win back the blue collar working man.
Thanks b, your last sentence is right on target. It's been a class war for many decades. Most
of the Dems have been playing "good cop, bad cop" for many years now. They talk progressive,
but in the end they opt for the rich man's money.
At present, the oligarchs own everything in the U$A. Giant corporate interests own the
Govt., the Media, & the voting systems. No matter the good intentions of a few, if the
people don't hear it or see it, it never happened.
It'll take torches and pitchforks to make a change, and, I just don't see that happening
until we hit rock bottom.
"The progressive Democrats...."
Uh-oh! No such thing.
"Working people understand this and in 2016 many of them voted for Trump."
God...German working people also understand this and voted for Hitler or, rather for the
Nazis.
Without a true labor party all the narrative that you mentioned is taking place within
capitalist's class, i.e. State Ideological Apparatus.
I think Marx call it "Dictatorship of the bourgeoisie"
P.S.--Even with massive voter turn-out this Nov., we have no way of knowing what the real
vote is, since our voting systems have never been vetted. The machines are privately owned by
corporations, and they refuse vetting on grounds that their systems are proprietary
information. No problem huh? Except for this..
The western fiat faction requires perpetually increasing inputs of capital, commodities and
labor - labor population must increase or the debt ponzi falls. Thus, as long as we have
declining birthrates in the West, immigration will continue regardless of what the peasants
want...
I agree that it is a class war, but it is one we have already lost. We are at the end of
the oil era, yet our financial economic system requires perpetual growth, how do you think
this will work out? (It won't)
People should be thinking of how they are going to keep their children from starving in a
couple of years, the rest is just noise...
The "Democratic" party is completely captured by its FIRE (Finance, Insurance, Real Estate)
funders on Wall Street and the corporate class. The DNC crowd will stick to their losing guns
election after election while not offering any benefits to working people.
Further, they
would rather continue to lose elections than adapting to the will of the people -- hence their
ridiculous focus on Russiagate and other phantoms rather than offering real programs of
substance that would attract voters.
Were it not for the purposefully restricted structure of the two party systems where
voters bounce between two awful parties before giving up altogether, the Democratic party
would have fully collapsed long ago.
The capitalist migration policy intentions are not just to have.. "Immigration increase
the available work force", but rather to saturate the labour market. That way they keep the
cost of labour down by having more people compete for the jobs than there are available thus
bringing the labour costs down. This leads to the kinds of ethnic ghetto's wherein rampant
unemployment for the vast majority is a way of life, which in turn fosters non integration
into the country's larger society and hence we get what you are referring to as some."living
off of freebies in their own 'no-go' Shari law enclaves"
Solution? STOP bombing other countries back into the stone age, creating millions of
destitute refugees and after that, simply regulate immigration according to the available
jobs and workforce a country can reasonably accommodate and thereby successfully integrate
any newcomers from other lands.
Q: Why did the Democrats lose the Senate, House and presidency as well as more than a
thousand state government positions?
A: They listened to their DONORS, not to their voters.
Remember: the donors don't care if the Republicans or Democrats win, as long as their
agenda prevails. And most Democrats and most Republican politicians don't care about their
party either, as long as they can retire and get put on the boards of big corporations and
cash in etc.
"The progressive Democrats who are pushing for single payer healthcare still miss out on
other issues. They also support higher wages, but are, at the same time, against restrictions
on immigration." Kudos to you for pointing out the obvious. Be careful though, this kind of
talk can easily get you labelled as a racist, a fascist, as "literally Hitler" and Vladimir
Putin's homosexual lover.
Bottom line: the Democrats give lip service to supporting higher
wages, but in reality they support low wages, hence their opposition to moderating the rate
of immigration.
My last reply on the previous thread serves well as a beginning comment here:
"IMO, too many assets that elevate/enhance one's life experiences need to be made into
publicly owned utilities, social media communication platforms being one as I explained
above. If the Outlaw US Empire's people can finally get universal healthcare for all enacted,
then other realms of the for-profit arena can be targeted as a tsunami-sized political wave
is building that will make such changes possible provided the insurrection's sustained for
decades to forestall the forces of Reaction. It's really the only political direction capable
of making America great for the first time in its history--Being a Great Nation contains a
moral aspect the USA has never attained and is nowhere near close to attaining anytime
soon."
The Class War's been raging for centuries--millennia actually. But as Michael Hudson
notes at the end of his autobiographical interview, something deliberate was done to
alter the course of political-economy:
"[Marx] showed that capitalism itself is revolutionary, capitalism itself is driving
forward, and of course he expected it to lead toward socialism, as indeed it seemed to be
doing in the nineteenth century.
But it's not working out that way. Everything changed in World War One."
( I highly suggest reading the rest of that passage .)
Elsewhere Hudson has shown Marx expected the contradictions within Capitalism to spawn its
antithesis--Socialism--in a natural, evolutionary manner; but, clearly, the forces of
Reaction stepped in to arrest that path as Kolko illustrated in his Triumph of
Conservatism .
However, popular ideas within societies forwarding the evolution to
socialism needed to be constrained and harnessed -- the populism of the late 19th Century
couldn't be allowed to resurface as it was the #1 threat to elite control. And so began The
Great Reaction as soon as WW1 ended.
Unfortunately, Capitalism's contradictions arose to temporarily derail the
Counter-Revolution as the Great Depression ushered in a return of dynamic Populism within
Europe and especially the USA. WW2 provided a golden opportunity to finally crush dynamic
Populism once and for all as the forces of Reaction emerged from their closets within FDR's
administration and tools were forged to enable societal control, which included the newly
emerging forms of mass communication and indoctrination.
Big Money and the Political Machines it built within the USA became prominent soon after
its Civil War. Those plus the oligarchical controls built into the USA's governmental
organization ensured that Commonfolk would have a very difficult time trying to govern
themselves and promote their own interests.
The changes made to the system after the very
nearly won success of the Progressive Populists greatly aided the forces of Reaction as did
the imposition of Prohibition and the Red Scare--Populist successes were a mixed bag during
the 1930s as very reactionary laws were also introduced--The House Un-American Activities
Committee in 1938 and The Smith Act in 1940.
By WW2's end, the foundation for Keynesian
Militarism and its in-built [monies get redistributed upward, not downward, automatically]
Class War was laid along with the basis for Big Money's recapture of government.
Essentially,
tax dollars are spent on weapons and munitions and the manufacturer endowed with excess
profits which are then plowed back into the political system through campaign
contributions--politico buying--which in turn further corrupts the system.
It's been ongoing
since 1938--80 years--and must be excised from the body politic if the Outlaw US Empire is
ever to go straight and become a law abiding global citizen amongst the community of
nations.
All the countries with single payer health systems have a small military. I live in Canada
and when military spending is broached the people always want the money to be spent on
health care. I personally doubt that the NATO countries will actually drastically increase
there defense budgets against the voters wishes. No western country outside the USA feels
threatened so why spend more on defense?
It is up to the American people to make similar choices when they vote.
thanks b.. the whole political system as it presently stands in the west is not working.. it
is one step up from the system in places like Saudi Arabia and etc... i go back to
psychohistorians main view that until we get beyond predatory finance, we are all essentially
screwed..
folks talk immigration but in the forest industry here on the westcoast of canada,
machines have replaced workers.. This is just one example.. robots and etc. etc. are working
towards the same end.. a corp that can get a robot or machine to do something will go that
way based on long term costs. None of the political parties i know of are addressing the
impact of technology on job opportunities.. In fact they are all cheer leaders for technology
while talking of growing the economy and etc. etc...
So we just keep ''growing the population'' while skipping over addressing the private
finances elephant in the room.. at some point the world is going to have to change or not
survive.. the political class here in Canada is abysmal.. it seems like it is much the same
everywhere in the land of democracy too, where corporations and private interests with money
are calling the shots.. plutocracy is what i think they call it..
I read
this article then discovered b had written a similar one based on the same polling
results. But is the long-denied desire within the Outlaw US Empire for universal healthcare
an actual revolt against what b describes as "liberal globalization"?
What I see is a global
revolt against the Outlaw US Empire's gross illegalities and immoral hegemony which also
contains an ideological battle with nations embracing Win-Winism while rejecting Zerosumism,
which can also be interpreted as rejection of the Millenia-long Class War.
Globalization
continues on, actually increasing its velocity through the twin Eurasian projects--BRI &
EAEU. IMO, the Eurasian projects have the potential to force Capitalism to finally evolve
into Socialism, which is what Winwinism embodies.
Today's middle is yesterday's right. Party strategists are reflecting the views of their pay
masters. Both parties dial for the same dollars. Those dollars come from billionaires who
what to protect their wealth and power. Both parties parties parties reflect this sad
reality.
US Health care, despised by everyone in the U.S: doctors, nurses, patients and pharmacists,
is not the only thing that needs reform. How we select and elect those who allegedly
represent us is unacceptable. Private money is more important than humanity and no one can
guarantee that those elected actually won.
The assertion that immigration (in the U.S., at least) is keeping wages low needs to be
questioned. The immigrants from south of the border by and large do the work that no one else
wants to do. Unemployment is low, and relatively good paying jobs in less popular
geographical areas are not getting filled.
Wages are low because the forces of regulation
making them higher have been weakened, and unionization has declined. It has to be questioned
whether the individual worker has ever had bargaining power over wages.
It's been the
collective power of governmental action and union action that has worked for the benefit of
higher wages.
Thank you for your comment, Karlof. Deep comments like your and those of Paveway and a few
others are what make the comment section an occasional joy to read.
What's happening now in the USA is no longer democracy or capitalism at all. It's military
plutocracy. The elections and voting process are a sham and certainly have been since G.W.
Bush "won" the election vs Al Gore. Strangely, last year's showdown between Killary and Trump
was probably the first live election in a while where the establishment didn't get their
(wo)man. Killary seemed to scare a few powerful people - she'd spent too much time in
Washington, was too ruthless and had too many of her own people in institutions or available
as ANTIFA brownshirts. She failed a few final interviews and some key establishment players
switched sides, allowing Trump a last minute real shot at the ring.
People all over the Western world have woken up to diminishing incomes, higher bills
(education/medicine/utilities - all of which you can't avoid if you have children) and much
worse employment opportunities even for the very motivated but only modestly capable (if you
have 110 IQ or lower and didn't grow up inside a business household, your chances
going into business for yourself are very low and you are
likely to just dig yourself or your family a deeper hole). This is not what the people were
promised during the last five elections (whether in the USA, UK, Canada, Australia or
France). The game is up.
Only by setting us at each other's throats can the establishment maintain its place for
another decade or two. It seems they are prepared to take this risk. The Hunger Games were a
surprise huge world wide hit (the films are rather boring and not particularly well made,
despite a good performance in the lead role).
The close similarity between that dystopia and
what we live now with NFL football (literally knocks the brains out of your skull, may cause
sane people to
commit suicide or
murder their wife and children ) or even Premier League Football or Tour de France where
the contestants even now are mad roiders, compromising both personal integrity and long term
health in pursuit of yellow vest.
Marx and then the Soviet Union scared the capitalists at the start of the twentieth
century. National Socialism scared them even more. The Western Establishment have built a
system and a plan to put off the revolution. How long can they hold us under? This is the
fascinating question which The Hunger Games set out to answer.
Hey, I worked In Canada For CN on the running trades for 37 years. I'm 65 plus so CCP and Old
Age pension both kick in on top of my CN pension which leaves me able to indulge in all my
bad habits.
I lease a new car every four years and my Buick Regal turbo goes back this January. I live in an upscale apartment with all the amenities I've been sick lately but have been receiving excellent healthcare. You don't get bills.
Nada.
I'm a senior and my meds have been costing $4.11 per prescription. So you'll have to excuse me if up I'm not up for a revolution right now.
How 'bout you james? You ready to take to the streets?
Even as one who opposes single-payer health care (all monopolies cause problems, be they
private or public) I have to agree with b in principle. The rich are doing to us now what
they did to Russia in the 1990's. We of the working class don't deserve to have our interests
protected because we're "deplorables."
Oh please; we've had EIGHT years of earnest-sounding, well-intentioned advice to Obama to do
the right, progressive thing. As if he ever needed it; the Democrats, and similar "liberal"
movements in Europe, Canada, etc, know exactly what they're doing, which is simply
what the donors want. It's not about the strategists, and it's not about winning elections
either--at least not in the first place.
Continuing to pay attention to this zombie party only supports it; when it's burned to the
ground, that's when you may be having an impact.
@12 karlof1... thanks for the link to the autobiography on Michael Hudson. i really enjoyed
reading about him and didn't realize all that he has done over the course of his life. it
motivates me to read one of his books.. thanks.
@13 mdroy... that also looks like a good book.. thanks..
@21 peter.. i think the question is this: when's it all going to come crashing down? i
think uncoy is right.. it is coming down sometime within mine or the younger generations
lifetime.. young folks view things very differently then you... the fall will force many to
alter their present day view and drop with the smug attitude that seems so pervasive with
those who think they have it all..
A fascinating topic tonight and so much to ponder on with so many thoughtful comments.
In case anybody didn't hear it Warren Buffet some time back came out with: "There is a class
war and we have won it."
b. references Crooke's article. The poor folks over at zerohedge were hopelessly lost when
the article was put up there; some of them got very angry when concepts such as the
enlightenment celestially orbited way beyond their limited spheres. Maybe it stank of culture
or gay paintings or something. Who knows. But maybe they had a point.
Rather than the enlightenment I see the creation of empires as the starting point - at which
the English excelled. What the English did was to literally sacrifice their pawns (pawns =
peons = peasants) for the greater game when they kicked their peasantry off the land in the
enclosure movement (they always think up a nice word for a disgusting deed). Scientific
methods began to be employed on the new larger farms sufficient to feed a burgeoning
industrial proletariat. But it was this one revolutionary act that kickstarted the British-US
empire that has ruled us for so long.
Psychohistorian's stress on the importance of private finance is of course correct but it
is just part of an imperial equation where finance + military = empire or vice versa.
I am inclined to agree with Spike @ 18 that immigration by itself does not keep wages low. In
Australia (where I live), unemployment is low in comparison with other countries.
There are
sectors where more workers are needed: more nurses are needed and more primary and secondary
school teachers are needed. English-speaking countries in particular are short of medical and
nursing staff to the extent that they are drawing (poaching?) such people away from Asian and
African countries that need these people.
At the same time young people who might consider careers in nursing and medicine are
dissuaded by the cost of pursuing degrees as universities increasingly rely more on charging
on students for university education as government funding dries up.
Yet registered nurses earn an average annual pay of about A$65,000. Lower level nurses
earn less. Average annual income in Australia (as of 2nd quarter of 2018) is about
$82,000.
In Australia, wages growth has not kept pace with the cost of living since the 1980s when
the unions struck an accord with the then Labor government under Bob Hawke. The result is
that households have turned to credit cards to finance spending. Most households as a result
carry large amounts of debt and have very little savings. At the same time, we have had
steady if not very large levels of immigration.
For a century and a half, the primary purpose of the Democratic Party has been to crush
leftist/socialist movements. Eugene Debs knew this a century ago. The SDS knew this 1/2
century ago. Bernie Sanders knew this until 2016.
Faux Newz's "Fox and Friends" did a survey after the Koch Brothers funded "study" of
Bernie's Medicare For All plan. Going on the misleading figure, they asked "Is Medicare For
All worth the $32 Trillion it will cost?"
73% said YES!
All up and down, policies which we'd label "progressive" or even "socialist" are widely
popular with USAmericans. From ending these wars to cutting military spending to increasing
taxes on the rich and corporations to tuition free public education through college or trade
schools, and on and on.
Right now, Sanders is still the most popular politician in the US by a country mile. Were
he, Tulsi Gabbard, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Nina Turner, and other well-respected
politicians with records of electoral success to join together and create a new party, it
would instantly be the most popular party in the country.
Then, all we'd have to do is establish legitimate election systems.
Hudson's first magnum opus was SuperImperialism , but please get
the updated version as the first is somewhat dated.
What I think is his crowning achievement--he seems to
think so too--is his newest, and forgive them their debts: Lending, Foreclosure and
Redemption -- From Bronze Age Finance to the Jubilee Year , the culmination of almost 40
years of research. Funny how its only been reviewed by
Brits .
When you read the entire autobiographical interview, you'll see there're several
other joint books he's produced prior to debts I'd consider getting via a university
library--it's 5 volumes @$150 each new--although he says he's going to rewrite them with
debts being the first volume in the series. That I don't have any of those volumes or
even knew about them is rather embarrassing given my fields of study. Here's Hudson's
introducing the series via a lecture:
"The five colloquia volumes that we've published began in 1994. We decided we have to
re-write the history to free it from the modern ideological preconceptions that have
distorted much popular understanding."
Earlier in the thread, you mentioned immigration, population growth and automation. Are
you aware that China scrapped its family planning policy despite their goal of instituting a
high degree of robotics into their manufacturing system? CCP leaders seem to believe their
system can provide resilient support for 1.3-1.5 Billion people, whereas we see the USA
growing increasingly dysfunctional trying to keep 330 million content.
@30 karlof1.. yes - he talks of those books in the autobio interview, but i don't see them
listed on amazon for example.. nor is his latest book - and forgive them their debts' listed
either.. i suppose the reason for the last title is it is yet to be released.. release date
is in nov 2018.. http://michael-hudson.com/2018/08/and-forgive-them-their-debts/
i was unaware of that change in policy in china.. i wonder how they envision everything -
greater population and continued work opportunities, in the face of automation? for me -
people need greater resources in order to continue to survive.. as i understand it - eating
meat is making a much bigger carbon footprint then not.. the chinese with their new wealth
are very much into eating pork and meat... i can't see how it all works out for the planet,
while i do think china would have thought this thru... i suppose it will remain a mystery to
me how they envision the intersection of these diverse interests and developments.. thanks
again for your comments..
"it seems like it is much the same everywhere in the land of democracy too, where
corporations and private interests with money are calling the shots.. plutocracy is what i
think they call it.."
Exactly! And it is the very same supra-national banking cabal, trans-national corporations
and Zionist racial supremacists in each of these "democracies" that are calling the shots.
They are the loci of power, not the political facades of nation-states.
Clearly, the US military is used by this "loose affiliation of millionaires and
billionaires" to enforce their will on those who foolishly believe their governments should
serve their own citizens. But it is not the US, or even primarily the 0.01% of the US who are
calling the shots. The PTSB have no allegiance to any nation-state (with one glaring
exception). But they use nationalism to divide the 99% of the world into bite-sized, easily
edible pieces.
I provided this link in my above
comment to james, but I had yet to read the entire lecture. It's very important and quite
germane to this discussion as this excerpt shows:
"It's very funny: If you go into Congress – I was the economic advisor to Dennis
Kucinich – you go into Congress and there's a big mural with Moses in the center and
Hammurabi on his right. Well, you know what Moses did? He gave the law. Leviticus, right in
the center of Mosaic law, canceled the debt. What did Hammurabi do? Debt cancellation as
well. You're not going to see Congress canceling the debts like that. If you look at the
Liberty Bell, it is inscribed with a quotation from Leviticus 25: "Proclaim liberty
throughout all the land." Well now we have translation problems again. The word really isn't
liberty: The real word means Clean Slate. It means freeing society from debt, letting
everybody have their own basic housing and means of self-support. And by striking
coincidence, what does the Statue of Liberty do? She's holding aloft a flame. And in the
Babylonian historical records, when Hammurabi would cancel the debts they would say: "The
ruler raised the sacred torch." So here you have a wonderful parallelism. It's been written
out of history today, It's not what you're taught in Bible school, or in ancient studies, or
in economic history. So you have this almost revolution that's been occurring in Assyriology,
in Biblical studies and Hebrew studies, and it's all kept up among us specialists. It hasn't
become popular at all, because almost everything about the Bronze Age and about the origins
of Christianity is abhorrent to the vested interests today."
My reaction: Wow! I'm figuratively kicking myself for not diligently reading
all of Hudson's essays--this was from January 2017. Just imagine what might occur if
the global public decided to demand the genuine Old Time Religion!
Yes exactly, a class war. Basically elites vs the rest of us. Maybe 10% of non elites go
along for the ride and puck up some crumbs. Another 20% do alright for a time until they get
replaced by cheaper and younger and struggle to survive to reach social security without
losing their home due to medical bankruptcy.
The rest its basically a struggle to survive
from day 1 with these people living from paycheck to paycheck or just checking into one of
the Prison Industrial Complex Apartments
Anyways, with the Democratic Party behind even Trump in the latest popularity polls (31%
vs 38%) they stay the course and maintain their pro elitist policies. Both parties are
puppets of the elites, differing on only on social issues that divide and distract from the
major issues of importance to the elite class
So long as both parties go along with the neoliberal imperialistic agenda there will be
rewards, even for the minority party. Best to be a minority party with plenty of funding than
one without funding
Meanwhile life expectancy has been stagnating and now declining in US since 2010 (actually
declined in 2015 and 2016 and most likely 2017) while most developed countries except UK are
rising. Health care costs still the source of most individual bankruptcies although
bankruptcy laws have been changed to ensure most lose their home in going that route (unlike
owners of corporations like Trump)
Real median incomes are much lower than the early 70's when adjusted with the pre-1980
CPI. CPI post 1980 has been adjusted to mask the impact of neoliberalism and enhance it by
lowering COLA's and keeping money cheap to fuel asset inflation which does not impact the new
CPI as much
Its not just in the US, this is going on globally, some places faster than others
"The assertion that immigration (in the U.S., at least) is keeping wages low needs to be
questioned. The immigrants from south of the border by and large do the work that no one else
wants to do. "
There are plenty of countries that do not rely on large scale immigration and yet
"someone" is doing those jobs there.
"Were it not for the purposefully restricted structure of the two party systems where
voters bounce between two awful parties before giving up altogether, the Democratic party
would have fully collapsed long ago."
This is the essence of the problem. Whose problem to solve is it? The average American
citizen.
Anyone can use social media and crowdfunding to start a huge popular campaign for a
specific objective.
True representative democracy. What's not to love about that?
All the nonsense about 'revolution' blah blah then becomes redundant. Once there are
multiple parties representing multiple interests, deals have to be done. Government becomes
far more careful and conservative.
Problems don't disappear, but at least there is an intelligent airing of the issues.
Fiscal prudence becomes front and centre. Individual welfare is also elevated to a central
concern. Everyone then recognises that tax money requires healthy businesses that pay their
fair share.
Try it! In spite of the initial barrage of fear, uncertainty, doubt, you will come to a
much more engaged and civil society.
The psyops against the American people have been nothing short of astounding.
"Trickle down!"
"Multi-culturalism"
"Globalism"
"Efficient Markets"
"War on Drugs! War on Terror! Russian interference!"
Each of these may have been reasonable in moderation but were pushed to the extreme via
the oligarch-fed elite of BOTH political Parties. Starting with Bill Clinton, the Democrats
sold out the people they used to represent. They have done MORE than simply block
change, they have poisoned the well via divisive identity politics.
Obama is the poster child for the Democrats "Third Way" disaster. He proved to be a tool
of neolibs and neocons alike, masking their evil agendas with a big smile, slick slogans
("YES WE CAN!") and clever quips ("If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to
fear") . No bankers went to jail for the 2008 GFC, a trillion dollar fraud estimated
to total a YEAR of global GNP , instead his administration "foamed the runway" for Bank
home foreclosures (mostly of lower income people that couldn't fight back) .
Obama promised to include a public option as part of his 'signature' healthcare initiative
("Obamacare") but instead produced a boondoogle for insurance companies which has proven to
be the epic failure that progressive critics said it would be.
Mis-allocated resources of an oligarch-centered public policy has created a supreme
clusterf*ck, the magnitude of which has grown with every new can-kicking initiative.
IMO USA probably loses 30% of GDP to such things as:
- overpriced healthcare;
- a bloated military which is largely useless (who are we going to invade? who is going
to invade us?);
- a police state that imprisons more people than any other Western democracy largely due
to misguided social policies (why not regulate drugs and prostitution illegal? why not
provide good training/jobs and workplace childcare?) ;
- terribly inefficient transportation system where everyone strives for "the American
dream" of commuting dozens of miles from their suburban home via a big SUV;
- education costs that have skyrocketed due to failed govt educational policies;
- a pampered executive and "investor class" that siphons billions - inequality is at
record levels and CEOs make dozens of times more pay then the average worker;
- while the US govt recognizes that climate change is real, they have decided to address
it gradually and accept the cost of 'mitigation' (defensive measures like sea walls,
when necessary) .
No one trust the government to fix anything. And fixes that are contemplated or in the
works will take decades to effect any meaningful change.
The saddest part may be that most people can't see that they've been played.
Americans used to be free thinkers. Now most of them are in an unhealthy relationship with
one of the two parties. Like the jealous, emotionally abusive partner they are, each party
plays on the fears of their 'base'.
Societal Stockholm Syndrome. Is that a thing? It is now.
Immigration, in the grand scheme of things, don't bring wages down mainly for two reasons:
1) it doesn't actually change the total number of human beings in the face of the Earth,
it just reallocates them to one or another specific corner of it. Since modern capitalism is
already global, even Steven.
2) in capitalism, labor power moves according to a reverse osmosis pattern: it goes from
the corner of the Earth with less capital (in money form, therefore money-capital) to the
corner of the Earth with more money-capital. So, for example, if 1,000,000 Mexicans immigrate
-- legally or illegally, it doesn't matter to capitalism -- to the USA in one year, it is
already presupposed the USA already has a wealth differential vis-à-vis Mexico that
can accomodate 1,000,000 more people than it in one year. This movement is also known as "job
hunt": people go where jobs are.
The only case mass immigration really distorts wages is when movement of labor force is
not induced by capitalism, but by a black swan, natural, catastrophic event, e.g. if the
hotspot in Yellowstone burst tommorow, and the American population somewhat manages to
evacuate to, let's say, Mexico, then Mexico receives, in a matter of months, 400 million
people thanks to a process the capitalist society didn't forsee. Then we have a so-called
"humanitarian crisis", i.e. a crisis not induced from capitalism's inner metabolism.
As for the German case, it was a miscalculation by Merkel. She had just arrived from a
huge victory in Greece (her finance minister, Wolfgang Schäuble, had just put the
socialist government of Syriza on its knees), and she was cocky. She decided to move fast
and, enjoying the favorable wind from the Aegean, called for 1 million Syrians to come to
Germany.
At that time, there was a rumor stating most of the Syrians that were fleeing the war were
middle class, affluent Syrians who could afford the trip to Europe -- those were doctors,
engineers, businessmen, etc. etc. It is a known fact the German bourgeoisie uses mass
immigration from the Middle East as a leverage against the German powerful unions since the
Turks offered themselves. So, if Merkel acted impulsively in the execution, the plan was old
and had their approval with good antecedence.
Problem was Merkel appeared to be badly advised by the BND (or the CIA?).First, immigrants
can only force wages down if they are willing to work. Those "affluent Syrians", if they
existed, either were intercepted and coopted by Turkey and Saudi Arabia (where they had to
stop first, before going to Europe via Greece or Italy), or were a very tiny minority. Most
of the refugees were either already indigents, bandits, housewives with little children or
even some terrorists. They were not capable, nor willing, to "assimilate", i.e. to work for
German capitalists under German Law. So, it backfired.
Is this a joke??
Has anybody read the article from this Crooke that B is referring to in his post? This is
really the worst crap. So enlightenments is just a " totalitarian " ideology made to help the
Europeans rule the world? And Russia is just an old regime nation promoting blood based
brotherhood fighting them ? In a word the eating-babies communists versus the Teutonic aryan
Knights??
And then, I find an approving reference to the old stinking theory of " workers vs immigrants
" to explain low wages ? Btw, where have you seen democrats elites being " against
restrictions on immigrations " ? Didn't know that US under Obama was open door...
I don't recognize this website anymore! Let's hope the CIA is just fooling with me !
quot;Most social-democratic parties in Europe have the same problem the U.S.
Democrats have."
It is plain wrong to mention social-democratic parties in connection with the u.s. Dems. They
are a Wall street party very much at the right of even the most rightist, neoliberal social
democrats in Europa.
And no. Immigration is definitely not the cause for the work place competition. Not in the usa
at least. Most of the Latinos coming from the south do jobs u.s. citizen do not want,
especially in agriculture. And; the immigrants are not only workers, they are consumers too and
as such they raise the GDP and indirectly create additional work places. The capitalist system
works best if the population is on a steady, not too pronounced rise. (It is different with
inner-EU immigration though.)
"Most social-democratic parties in Europe have the same problem the U.S. Democrats have."
It is plain wrong to mention social-democratic parties in connection with the u.s. Dems. They
are a Wall street party very much at the right of even the most rightist, neoliberal social
democrats in Europa.
And no. Immigration is definitely not the cause for the work place competition. Not in the
usa at least. Most of the Latinos coming from the south do jobs u.s. citizen do not want,
especially in agriculture. And; the immigrants are not only workers, they are consumers too
and as such they raise the GDP and indirectly create additional work places. The capitalist
system works best if the population is on a steady, not too pronounced rise. (It is different
with inner-EU immigration though.)
On the subject of immigration keeping wages low. This has some truth to it of course,
although it does not explain it in its entirety. The main reason of course is the US has
extremely high unemployment/unxerempoyment rates
On the subject of immigration keeping wages low. This has some truth to it of course,
although it does not explain it in its entirety.
One reason of course is the US has extremely high unemployment/underemployment rates, far
greater than official figures.
Then you have the destruction of unions in the private sector. The few remaining unions
are coopted from within by union leadership
A principal cause of the above reasons may be globalization which has led to the
outsourcing of jobs to countries with lower wages
And of course you have minimum wages which are much lower in real dollars than they were
40 years go as both parties became corrupted by the neoliberal elite.
As for immigration. Illegal immigrants
tend to work in jobs not very appealing and are low paying but may suppress technical
innovation to make up for a low labor supply in this area at the cost of some higher paying
jobs
Legal immigration tends bring in professional labor who are willing to work at lower wages
in the hope of getting a shot at the American dream (or European Dream).
I feel both forms of immigration are minor impacts. The main purpose for the elite is to
create divisions within the society. Divide and rule. Which is why neither party has sought
to stamp it out entirely. Its simple really, jail time for anyone hiring an undocumented
worker and enforcement. Go after the corporations who hire them and not the worker.
A: They listened to their 'strategists', not to their voters.
...
Why is "socialized" medicine supposed to be a bad thing? Why not defend it? It is what
the voters want:
B: I haven't agreed with a whole lot of your posts lately, but this one I think you
nailed. Wish you would say a little more about Green Energy and AGW.
I actually think that Obama's first election was for young people in this country at that
time the equivalent of the assassination of President Kennedy in my younger years. A blow
from which there shall have to be allowed the loss of an entire generation - in my time, that
was accomplished by the Vietnam War. And indeed the generation of so-called millenials in the
US has been living through an ongoing psychological nightmare of similar proportions.
All the comments do apply, in spades. Thank you, fellow Americans.
The equivalence of which I speak is the shocking about face Obama presented after his
inauguration. He could have been a new Kennedy inspiring the young - he chose not to be. For
many, that was an assassination of an ideal - some clung on desperately refusing to believe,
but most finally knew they had been betrayed.
All I can hope is that there is some decent, anonymous Putin-like figure out there ready
to grab hold of power and throw it back to the people where it belongs. It happened there;
maybe it will happen here, sometime.
Other than calling the Trump-phenom quasi or crypto fascist in your post and in the same
breath at the end provide justification for the Trump-vote regarding the effect of an illegal
work force, you are right, b. There are many things that hurt the left in the global scene.
Do they not notice this or are they willfully biding their time to reemerge in the same
putrid swamp so us dumbasses can fawn over her like the Lady of the Lake?
I think the libs in this country, at least, are the real cheerleaders of globalism and a
stupifying urbanism that is preaching a false future of free stuff and you don't even have to
work for it!
Why would I Joe-taxpayer want to fund a student- loan debt relief program where morons the
country over are relieved of any responsibility of their idiotic line of thinking where they
believed that an overpriced degree equated to instant playboy lifestyle and on demand oral
sex?
Lower forms of employment to be occupied by natural citizens is absolutely vital to a
country's economic culture.
People have said that these are jobs that only Mexicans will take. That is BS. The market
would natutally adjust to an actual shortage in labor and pay citizens appropriately for
their menial labor. Having an abundance of black market labor prohibits this natural function
of a healthy economy.
General Lee knew that slavery was anaethma and a tragedy to America. A correlation could
be made about alien labor.
This is partially incorrect view on Trump foreign policy. At the center of
which is careful retreat for enormous expenses of keeping the global neoliberal
empire, plus military Keyseanism to revive the us economy. Which means
tremendous pressure of arm sales as the only way to improve trade balance.
NATO was always an instrument of the USA hegemony,
so Trump behavior is perfectly compatible with this view -- he just downgraded vassals
refusing usual formal respect for them, as they do no represent independent nations.
That's why he addressed them with the contempt. He aptly remarked that German stance
of relying on Russia hydrocarbons and still claiming the it needs the USA defense
is pure hypocrisy. On the other side china, Russia and North Korea can't be considered
the USA vassals.
China is completely dependent on the USA for advanced technologies so their
dreams of becoming the world hegemon is such exist are premature.
Notable quotes:
"... Washington's dominance over the world economy had begun to wither and its once-superior work force to lose its competitive edge. ..."
"... By 2016, in fact, the dislocations brought on by the economic globalization that had gone with American dominion sparked a revolt of the dispossessed in democracies worldwide and in the American heartland, bringing the self-proclaimed "populist" Donald Trump to power. ..."
"... Determined to check his country's decline, he has adopted an aggressive and divisive foreign policy that has roiled long-established alliances in both Asia and Europe and is undoubtedly giving that decline new impetus. ..."
"... On the realpolitik side of that duality, Washington constructed a four-tier apparatus -- military, diplomatic, economic, and clandestine -- to advance a global dominion of unprecedented wealth and power. This apparatus rested on hundreds of military bases in Europe and Asia that made the U.S. the first power in history to dominate (if not control) the Eurasian continent. ..."
"... Instead of reigning confidently over international organizations, multilateral alliances, and a globalized economy, Trump evidently sees America standing alone and beleaguered in an increasingly troubled world -- exploited by self-aggrandizing allies, battered by unequal trade terms, threatened by tides of undocumented immigrants, and betrayed by self-serving elites too timid or compromised to defend the nation's interests. ..."
"... Instead of multilateral trade pacts like NAFTA, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), or even the WTO, Trump favors bilateral deals rewritten to the (supposed) advantage of the United States. ..."
"... As he took office, the nation, it claimed, faced "an extraordinarily dangerous world, filled with a wide range of threats." ..."
"... Despite such grandiose claims, each of President Trump's overseas trips has been a mission of destruction in terms of American global power. Each, seemingly by design, disrupted and possibly damaged alliances that have been the foundation for Washington's global power since the 1950s ..."
"... Donald Trump acted more like Argentina's former presidente Juan Perón, minus the medals. ..."
"... Beijing's low-cost infrastructure loans for 70 countries from the Baltic to the Pacific are already funding construction of the Mediterranean's busiest port at Piraeus, Greece, a major nuclear power plant in England, a $6 billion railroad through rugged Laos, and a $46 billion transport corridor across Pakistan. If successful, such infrastructure investments could help knit two dynamic continents, Europe and Asia -- home to a full 70% percent of the world's population and its resources -- into a unified market without peer on the planet. ..."
"... In January, to take advantage of Arctic waters opened by global warming, Beijing began planning for a "Polar Silk Road," a scheme that fits well with ambitious Russian and Scandinavian projects to establish a shorter shipping route around the continent's northern coast to Europe. ..."
"... Financial Times ..."
"... New York Times ..."
"... Yet neither China nor any other state seems to have the full imperial complement of attributes to replace the United States as the dominant world leader. ..."
"... In addition to the fundamentals of military and economic power, "every successful empire," observes Cambridge University historian Joya Chatterji, "had to elaborate a universalist and inclusive discourse" to win support from the world's subordinate states and their leaders. ..."
"... China has nothing comparable. Its writing system has some 7,000 characters, not 26 letters. ..."
"... During Japan's occupation of Southeast Asia in World War II, its troops went from being hailed as liberators to facing open revolt across the region after they failed to propagate their similarly particularistic culture. ..."
"... A test of its attitude toward this system of global governance came in 2016 when the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague ruled unanimously that China's claims to sovereignty in the South China Sea "are contrary to the Convention [on the Law of the Sea] and without lawful effect." ..."
...Although they started this century on generally amicable terms, China
and the U.S. have, in recent years, moved toward military competition and open
economic conflict. When China was admitted to the World Trade Organization (WTO)
in 2001, Washington was confident that Beijing would play by the established
rules and become a compliant member of an American-led international community.
There was almost
no awareness of what might happen when a fifth of humanity joined the world
system as an economic equal for the first time in five centuries.
By the time Xi Jinping became China's seventh president, a decade of rapid
economic growth averaging 11% annually and currency reserves surging toward
an unprecedented $4 trillion had created the economic potential for a rapid,
radical shift in the global balance of power. After just a few months in office,
Xi began tapping those vast reserves to launch a bold geopolitical gambit, a
genuine challenge to U.S. dominion over Eurasia and the world beyond. Aglow
in its status as the world's sole superpower after "winning" the Cold War, Washington
had difficulty at first even grasping such newly developing global realities
and was slow to react.
China's bid couldn't have been more fortuitous in its timing. After nearly
70 years as the globe's hegemon, Washington's dominance over the world economy
had begun to wither and its once-superior work force to lose its competitive
edge.
By 2016, in fact, the dislocations brought on by the economic globalization
that had gone with American dominion sparked a revolt of the dispossessed in
democracies worldwide and in the American heartland, bringing the self-proclaimed
"populist" Donald Trump to power.
Determined to check his country's decline, he has adopted an aggressive
and divisive foreign policy that has roiled long-established alliances in both
Asia and Europe and is undoubtedly giving that decline new impetus.
Within months of Trump's entry into the Oval Office, the world was already
witnessing a sharp rivalry between Xi's advocacy of a new form of global collaboration
and Trump's version of economic nationalism. In the process, humanity seems
to be entering a rare historical moment when national leadership and global
circumstances have coincided to create an opening for a major shift in the nature
of the world order.
Trump's Disruptive Foreign Policy
Despite their constant
criticism of Donald Trump's leadership, few among Washington's corps of
foreign policy experts have grasped his full impact on the historic foundations
of American global power. The world order that Washington built after World
War II rested upon what I've
called a "delicate duality": an American imperium of raw military and economic
power married to a community of sovereign nations, equal under the rule of law
and governed through international institutions such as the United Nations and
the World Trade Organization.
On the realpolitik side of that duality, Washington constructed a four-tier
apparatus -- military, diplomatic, economic, and clandestine -- to advance a
global dominion of unprecedented wealth and power. This apparatus rested on
hundreds of military bases in Europe and Asia that made the U.S. the first
power in history to dominate (if not control) the Eurasian continent.
Even after the Cold War ended, former national security adviser Zbigniew
Brzezinski
warned that Washington would remain the world's preeminent power only as
long as it maintained its geopolitical dominion over Eurasia. In the decade
before Trump's election, there were, however, already signs that America's hegemony
was on a downward trajectory as its share of global economic power fell from
50% in 1950 to just
15% in 2017. Many financial forecasts now
project that China will surpass the U.S. as the world's number one economy
by 2030, if not before.
In this era of decline, there has emerged from President Trump's torrent
of tweets and off-the-cuff remarks a surprisingly coherent and grim vision of
America's place in the present world order. Instead of reigning confidently
over international organizations, multilateral alliances, and a globalized economy,
Trump evidently sees America standing alone and beleaguered in an increasingly
troubled world -- exploited by self-aggrandizing allies, battered by unequal
trade terms, threatened by tides of undocumented immigrants, and betrayed by
self-serving elites too timid or compromised to defend the nation's interests.
Instead of multilateral trade pacts like NAFTA, the Trans-Pacific Partnership
(TPP), or even the WTO, Trump favors bilateral deals rewritten to the (supposed)
advantage of the United States. In place of the usual democratic allies
like Canada and Germany, he is trying to weave a web of personal ties to avowedly
nationalist and autocratic leaders of a sort he clearly admires: Vladimir Putin
in Russia, Viktor Orbán in Hungary, Narendra Modi in India, Adel Fatah el-Sisi
in Egypt, and Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman of Saudi Arabia.
Instead of old alliances like NATO, Trump favors loose coalitions of like-minded
countries. As he sees it, a resurgent America will carry the world along, while
crushing terrorists and dealing in uniquely personal ways with rogue states
like Iran and North Korea.
His version of a foreign policy has found its fullest
statement in his administration's December 2017 National Security Strategy.
As he took office, the nation, it claimed, faced "an extraordinarily dangerous
world, filled with a wide range of threats." But in less than a year of his
leadership, it insisted, "We have renewed our friendships in the Middle East
to help drive out terrorists and extremists America's allies are now contributing
more to our common defense, strengthening even our strongest alliances." Humankind
will benefit from the president's "beautiful vision" that "puts America First"
and promotes "a balance of power that favors the United States." The whole world
will, in short, be "lifted by America's renewal."
Despite such grandiose claims, each of President Trump's overseas trips
has been a mission of destruction in terms of American global power. Each, seemingly
by design, disrupted and possibly damaged alliances that have been the foundation
for Washington's global power since the 1950s. During the president's first
foreign trip in May 2017, he promptly
voiced withering complaints about the supposed refusal of Washington's European
allies to pay their "fair share" of NATO's military costs, leaving the U.S.
stuck with the bill and, in a fashion unknown to American presidents, refused
even to endorse the alliance's core principle of collective defense. It was
a position so extreme in terms of the global politics of the previous half-century
that he was later forced to formally
back down . (By then, however, he had registered his contempt for those
allies in an unforgettable fashion.)
During a second, no-less-divisive NATO visit in July, he charged that
Germany was "a captive of Russia" and pressed the allies to immediately
double their share of defense spending to a staggering 4% of gross domestic
product (a
level even Washington, with its monumental Pentagon budget, hasn't reached)
-- a demand they all ignored. Just days later, he again questioned the very
idea of a common defense,
remarking that if "tiny" NATO ally Montenegro decided to "get aggressive,"
then "congratulations, you're in World War III."
Moving on to England, he promptly kneecapped close ally Theresa May, telling
a British
tabloid that the prime minister had bungled her country's Brexit withdrawal
from the European Union and "killed off any chance of a vital U.S. trade deal."
He then went on to Helsinki for a summit with Vladimir Putin, where he visibly
abased himself before NATO's nominal nemesis, completely enough that there were
even brief, angry
protests
from leaders of his own party.
During Trump's major Asia tour in November 2017, he
addressed the Asian-Pacific Economic Council (APEC) in Vietnam, offering
an extended "tirade" against multilateral trade agreements, particularly the
WTO. To counter intolerable "trade abuses," such as "product dumping, subsidized
goods, currency manipulation, and predatory industrial policies," he swore that
he would always "put America first" and not let it "be taken advantage of anymore."
Having denounced a litany of trade violations that he termed nothing less than
"economic aggression" against America, he
invited everyone there to share his "Indo-Pacific dream" of the world as
a "beautiful constellation" of "strong, sovereign, and independent nations,"
each working like the United States to build "wealth and freedom."
Responding to such a display of narrow economic nationalism from the globe's
leading power, Xi Jinping had a perfect opportunity to play the world statesman
and he took it,
calling upon APEC to support an economic order that is "more open, inclusive,
and balanced." He spoke of China's future economic plans as an historic bid
for "interconnected development to achieve common prosperity on the Asian, European,
and African continents."
As China has lifted 60 million of its own people out of poverty in just a
few years and was committed to its complete eradication by 2020, so he urged
a more equitable world order "to bring the benefits of development to countries
across the globe." For its part, China, he assured his listeners, was ready
to make "$2 trillion of outbound investment" -- much of it for the development
of Eurasia and Africa (in ways, of course, that would link that vast region
more closely to China). In other words, he sounded like a twenty-first century
Chinese version of a twentieth-century American president, while Donald
Trump
acted
more like Argentina's former presidente Juan Perón, minus the medals. As
if to put another nail in the coffin of American global dominion, the remaining
11 Trans-Pacific trade pact partners, led by Japan and Canada,
announced major progress in finalizing that agreement -- without the United
States.
In addition to undermining NATO, America's Pacific alliances, long its historic
fulcrum for the defense of North America and the dominance of Asia, are eroding,
too. Even after 10 personal meetings and frequent phone calls between Japan's
Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and Donald Trump during his first 18 months in office,
the president's America First trade policy has
placed a "major strain" on Washington's most crucial alliance in the region.
First, he ignored Abe's
pleas and cancelled the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade pact and then, as
if his message hadn't been strong enough, he promptly imposed heavy
tariffs on Japanese steel imports. Similarly, he's
denounced the Canadian prime minister as "dishonest" and
mimicked Indian Prime Minister Modi's accent, even as he made chummy with
North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un and then
claimed ,
inaccurately , that his country was "no longer a nuclear threat."
It all adds up to a formula for further decline at a faster pace.
Beijing's Grand Strategy
While Washington's influence in Asia recedes, Beijing's grows ever stronger.
As China's currency reserves
climbed rapidly from $200 billion in 2001 to a peak of $4 trillion in 2014,
President Xi launched a new initiative of historic import. In September 2013,
speaking in Kazakhstan, the heart of Asia's ancient Silk Road caravan route,
he
proclaimed a "one belt, one road initiative" aimed at economically integrating
the enormous Eurasian land mass around Beijing's leadership. Through "unimpeded
trade" and infrastructure investment, he suggested, it would be possible to
connect "the Pacific and the Baltic Sea" in a proposed "economic belt along
the Silk Road," a region "inhabited by close to 3 billion people." It could
become, he predicted, "the biggest market in the world with unparalleled potential."
Within a year, Beijing had
established a Chinese-dominated Asian Infrastructure and Investment Bank
with 56 member nations and an impressive $100 billion in capital, while launching
its own $40 billion Silk Road Fund for
private equity projects. When China convened what it called a "belt and
road summit" of 28 world leaders in Beijing in May 2017, Xi could, with good
reason,
hail his initiative as the "project of the century."
Although the U.S. media has often described the individual projects involved
in his "one belt, one road" project as
wasteful ,
sybaritic ,
exploitative , or even
neo-colonial , its sheer scale and scope merits closer consideration. Beijing
is expected to
put a mind-boggling $1.3 trillion into the initiative by 2027, the largest
investment in human history, more than 10 times the famed American Marshall
Plan, the only comparable program, which
spent a more modest $110 billion (when adjusted for inflation) to rebuild
a ravaged Europe after World War II.
Beijing's low-cost infrastructure
loans for 70 countries from the Baltic to the Pacific are already funding
construction of the Mediterranean's
busiest port at Piraeus, Greece, a major nuclear power plant in England,
a $6 billion
railroad through rugged Laos, and a $46 billion transport
corridor across Pakistan. If successful, such infrastructure investments
could help knit two dynamic continents, Europe and Asia -- home to a full 70%
percent of the world's population and its resources -- into a unified market
without peer on the planet.
Underlying this flurry of flying dirt and flowing concrete, the Chinese leadership
seems to have a design for transcending the vast distances that have historically
separated Asia from Europe. As a start, Beijing is building a comprehensive
network of trans-continental gas and oil pipelines to import fuels from Siberia
and Central Asia for its own population centers. When the system is complete,
there will be an integrated inland energy grid (including Russia's extensive
network of pipelines) that will extend 6,000 miles across Eurasia, from the
North Atlantic to the South China Sea. Next, Beijing is working to link Europe's
extensive rail network with its own expanded high-speed rail system via transcontinental
lines through Central Asia, supplemented by spur lines running due south to
Singapore and southwest through Pakistan.
Finally, to facilitate sea transport around the sprawling continent's southern
rim, China has already bought into or is in the process of building more than
30 major port facilities, stretching from the Straits of Malacca across
the Indian Ocean, around Africa, and along
Europe's extended coastline. In January, to take advantage of Arctic waters
opened by global warming, Beijing began
planning for a "Polar Silk Road," a scheme that fits well with ambitious
Russian and
Scandinavian projects to establish a shorter shipping route around the continent's
northern coast to Europe.
Though Eurasia is its prime focus, China is also pursuing economic expansion
in Africa and Latin America to create what might be dubbed the strategy of the
four continents. To tie Africa into its projected Eurasian network, Beijing
already had doubled its
annual trade there by 2015 to $222 billion, three times that of the United
States, thanks to a massive infusion of capital expected to reach a trillion
dollars by 2025. Much of it is financing the sort of commodities extraction
that has already made the continent China's second largest source of crude oil.
Similarly, Beijing has
invested heavily in Latin America, acquiring, for instance, control over
90% of Ecuador's oil reserves. As a result, its commerce with that continent
doubled in a decade, reaching $244 billion in 2017, topping U.S. trade with
what once was known as its own "backyard."
A Conflict with Consequences
This contest between Xi's globalism and Trump's nationalism has not been
safely confined to an innocuous marketplace of ideas. Over the past four years,
the two powers have engaged in an escalating military rivalry and a cutthroat
commercial competition. Apart from a
shadowy struggle for
dominance in space and cyberspace, there has also been a visible, potentially
volatile naval arms race to control the sea lanes surrounding Asia, specifically
in the Indian Ocean and South China Sea. In a 2015 white paper, Beijing
stated
that "it is necessary for China to develop a modern maritime military force
structure commensurate with its national security." Backed by lethal land-based
missiles, jet fighters, and a global satellite system, China has built just
such a modernized fleet of 320 ships, including nuclear submarines and its first
aircraft carriers.
Within two years, U.S. Chief of Naval Operations Admiral John Richardson
reported
that China's "growing and modernized fleet" was "shrinking" the traditional
American advantage in the Pacific, and warned that "we must shake off any vestiges
of comfort or complacency." Under Trump's latest $700-billion-plus defense budget,
Washington has responded to this challenge with a crash program to build 46
new ships, which will
raise its total to 326 by 2023. As China builds new naval bases bristling
with armaments in the Arabian and South China seas, the U.S. Navy has begun
conducting assertive "freedom-of-navigation" patrols near many of those same
installations, heightening the potential for conflict.
It is in the commercial realm of trade and tariffs, however, where competition
has segued into overt conflict. Acting on his
belief that "trade wars are good and easy to win," President Trump
slapped heavy tariffs, targeted above all at China, on steel imports in
March and, just a few weeks later, punished that country's intellectual property
theft by
promising tariffs on $50 billion of Chinese imports. When those tariffs
finally hit in July, China immediately
retaliated against what it called "typical trade bullying" with similar
tariffs on U.S. goods. The Financial Times
warned that this "tit-for-tat" can escalate into a "full bore trade war
that will be very bad for the global economy." As Trump
threatened to tax $500 billion more in Chinese imports and
issued confusing, even contradictory demands that made it unlikely Beijing
could ever comply, observers became
concerned that a long-lasting trade war could destabilize what the New
York Times called the "mountain of debt" that sustains much of China's
economy. In Washington, the usually taciturn Federal Reserve chairman issued
an uncommon
warning that "trade tensions could pose serious risks to the U.S. and global
economy."
China as Global Hegemon?
Although a withering of Washington's global reach, abetted and possibly accelerated
by the Trump presidency, is already underway, the shape of any future world
order is still anything but clear. At present, China is the sole state with
the obvious requisites for becoming the planet's new hegemon. Its phenomenal
economic rise, coupled with its expanding military and growing technological
prowess, provide that country with the obvious fundamentals for superpower status.
Yet neither China nor any other state seems to have the full imperial complement
of attributes to replace the United States as the dominant world leader. Apart
from its rising economic and military clout, China, like its sometime ally Russia,
has a self-referential culture, non-democratic political structures, and a developing
legal system that could deny it some of the key instruments for global leadership.
In addition to the fundamentals of military and economic power, "every
successful empire,"
observes Cambridge University historian Joya Chatterji, "had to elaborate
a universalist and inclusive discourse" to win support from the world's subordinate
states and their leaders. Successful imperial transitions driven by the
hard power of guns and money also require the soft-power salve of cultural suasion
for sustained and successful global dominion. Spain espoused Catholicism and
Hispanism, the Ottomans Islam, the Soviets communism, France a cultural
francophonie , and Britain an Anglophone culture.
Indeed, during its century of global dominion from 1850 to 1940, Britain
was the exemplar par excellence of such soft power, evincing an enticing
cultural ethos of fair play and free markets that it propagated through the
Anglican church, the English language and its literature, and the virtual invention
of modern athletics (cricket, soccer, tennis, rugby, and rowing). Similarly,
at the dawn of its global dominion, the United States courted allies worldwide
through soft-power programs promoting democracy and development. These were
made all the more palatable by the appeal of such things as Hollywood films,
civic organizations like
Rotary International , and popular sports like basketball and baseball.
China has nothing comparable. Its writing system has some 7,000 characters,
not 26 letters. Its communist ideology and popular culture are remarkably, even
avowedly, particularistic. And you don't have to look far for another Asian
power that attempted Pacific dominion without the salve of soft power. During
Japan's
occupation of Southeast Asia in World War II, its troops went from being
hailed as liberators to facing open revolt across the region after they failed
to propagate their similarly particularistic culture.
As command-economy states for much of the past century, neither China nor
Russia developed an independent judiciary or the autonomous rules-based order
that undergirds the modern international system. From the foundation of the
Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague in 1899 through the formation of
the International Court of Justice under the U.N.'s 1945 charter, the world's
nations have aspired to the resolution of conflicts via arbitration or litigation
rather than armed conflict. More broadly, the modern globalized economy is held
together by a web of conventions, treaties, patents, and contracts grounded
in law.
From its founding in 1949, the People's Republic of China gave primacy to
the party and state, slowing the growth of an autonomous legal system and the
rule of law. A test of its attitude toward this system of global governance
came in 2016 when the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague
ruled unanimously that China's claims to sovereignty in the South China
Sea "are contrary to the Convention [on the Law of the Sea] and without lawful
effect." Beijing's Foreign Ministry simply
dismissed the adverse decision as "invalid" and without "binding force."
President Xi
insisted China's "territorial sovereignty and maritime rights" were unchanged,
while the state Xinhua news agency
called the ruling "naturally null and void."
If Donald Trump's vision of world disorder is a sign of the American future
and if Beijing's projected $2 trillion in infrastructure investments, history's
largest by far, succeed in unifying the commerce and transport of Asia, Africa,
and Europe, then perhaps the currents of financial power and global leadership
will indeed transcend all barriers and flow inexorably toward Beijing, as if
by natural law. But if that bold initiative ultimately fails, then for the first
time in five centuries the world may face an imperial transition without a clear
successor as global hegemon. Moreover, it will do so on a planet where the "
new normal " of
climate change -- the heating of the atmosphere and the
oceans , the intensification of flood, drought, and
fire , the rising seas that will
devastate coastal cities, and the
cascading damage to a densely populated world -- could mean that the very
idea of a global hegemon is fast becoming a thing of the past.
Alfred W. McCoy, a
TomDispatch regular , is the Harrington professor of history at the University
of Wisconsin-Madison. He is the author of The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity
in the Global Drug Trade , the now-classic book which probed the conjuncture
of illicit narcotics and covert operations over 50 years, and the recently published
In the Shadows of the American Century: The Rise and Decline of U.S. Global
Power (Dispatch Books).
"... The mind of the mass media: Email exchange between myself and a leading Washington Post foreign policy reporter: ..."
"... For the record, I think RT is much less biased than the Post on international affairs. And, yes, it's bias, not "fake news" that's the main problem – Cold-War/anti-Communist/anti-Russian bias that Americans have been raised with for a full century. RT defends Russia against the countless mindless attacks from the West. Who else is there to do that? Should not the Western media be held accountable for what they broadcast? Americans are so unaccustomed to hearing the Russian side defended, or hearing it at all, that when they do it can seem rather weird. ..."
"... Regard these indictments in proper perspective and we find that election interference is only listed as a supposed objective, with charges actually being for unlawful cyber operations, identity theft, and conspiracy to launder money by American individuals unconnected to the Russian government. So we're still waiting for some evidence of actual Russian interference in the election aimed at determining the winner. ..."
"... However, I have no doubt that the great majority of Americans who follow the news each day believe the official stories about the Russians. They're particularly impressed with the fact that every US intelligence agency supports the official stories. They would not be impressed at all if told that a dozen Russian intelligence agencies all disputed the charges. Group-think is alive and well all over the world. As is Cold War II ..."
"... And here is Tom Malinowski, former Assistant Secretary of State for democracy, human rights and labor (2014-2017) – last year he reported that Putin had "charged that the U.S. government had interfered 'aggressively' in Russia's 2012 presidential vote," claiming that Washington had "gathered opposition forces and financed them." Putin, wrote Malinowski, "apparently got President Trump to agree to a mutual commitment that neither country would interfere in the other's elections." ..."
"... We also have the case of the US government agency, National Endowment for Democracy (NED), which has interfered in more elections than the CIA or God. Indeed, the man who helped draft the legislation establishing NED, Allen Weinstein, declared in 1991: "A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA." On April 12, 2018 the presidents of two of NED's wings wrote: "A specious narrative has come back into circulation: that Moscow's campaign of political warfare is no different from U.S.-supported democracy assistance." ..."
"... "Democracy assistance", you see, is what they call NED's election-interferences and government-overthrows ..."
William Blum shares with us his correspondence with
Washington Post presstitute Michael Birnbaum. As you can tell from Birnbaum's replies, he comes
across as either very stupid or as a CIA asset.
When I received my briefing as staff associate, House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee,
which required top secret clearance, I was told by senior members of the staff that the
Washington Post was a CIA asset. Watching the Washington Post's takedown of President Richard
Nixon with the orchestrated Watergate story, that became obvious. President Nixon had made too
many overtures to the Soviets and too many arms limitations agreements, and he opened to China.
Watching President Nixon's peace initiatives water down the threat level from the Soviet Union
and Maoist China, the military/security complex saw a threat to its budget and power and
decided that Nixon had to go. The assassination of President John F. Kennedy had resulted in
far too much skepticism about the Warren Commission Report, so the CIA decided to use the
Washington Post to get rid of Nixon. To keep the clueless American left hating Nixon, the CIA
used its assets in the leftwing to keep Nixon blamed for the Vietnam war, a war that Nixon
inherited and did not want.
The CIA knew that Nixon's problem was that he could not exit the war without losing his
conservative base, which was convinced of the nonsensical "Domino Theory." I have always
wondered if the CIA concocted the "Domino Theory," as it so well served them. Unable to get rid
of the war "with honor," Nixon was driven to brutal methods to force the North Vietnamese to
accept a situation that he could depart without defeat and soiling America's "honor" and losing
his conservative support base. The North Vietnamese wouldn't bend, but the US Congress did, and
so the CIA succeeded in discrediting among both the leftwing and righwing Nixon's war
management. With no one to defend him, Nixon was an easy target for the CIA.
Here is Blum's exchange with Birnbaum. It is possible that Birnbaum is neither stupid nor a
CIA asset, but just a person wanting to hold on to a job. The last thing he can afford to do is
to disabuse readers of the "Russian Threat" when Bezos' Amazon and Washington Post properties
are dependent on the CIA's annual subsidy of $600 million disquised as a "contract."
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-20/cia-washington-post-and-russia-what-youre-not-being-told
The Anti-Empire Report # 159 Willian Blum
The mind of the mass media: Email exchange between myself and a leading Washington Post
foreign policy reporter: July 18, 2018
Dear Mr. Birnbaum,
You write Trump "made no mention of Russia's adventures in Ukraine". Well, neither he nor Putin
nor you made any mention of America's adventures in the Ukraine, which resulted in the
overthrow of the Ukrainian government in 2014, which led to the justified Russian adventure.
Therefore ?
If Russia overthrew the Mexican government would you blame the US for taking some action in
Mexico? William Blum
Dear Mr. Blum,
Thanks for your note. "America's adventures in the Ukraine": what are you talking about? Last
time I checked, it was Ukrainians in the streets of Kiev who caused Yanukovych to turn tail and
run. Whether or not that was a good thing, we can leave aside, but it wasn't the Americans who
did it.
It is, however, Russian special forces who fanned out across Crimea in February and March 2014,
according to Putin, and Russians who came down from Moscow who stoked conflict in eastern
Ukraine in the months after, according to their own accounts. Best, Michael Birnbaum
To MB,
I can scarcely believe your reply. Do you read nothing but the Post? Do you not know of high
State Dept official Victoria Nuland and the US Ambassador in Ukraine in Maidan Square to
encourage the protesters? She spoke of 5 billion (sic) dollars given to aid the protesters who
were soon to overthrow the govt. She and the US Amb. spoke openly of who to choose as the next
president. And he's the one who became president. This is all on tape. I guess you never watch
Russia Today (RT). God forbid! I read the Post every day. You should watch RT once in a
while. William Blum
To WB,
I was the Moscow bureau chief of the newspaper; I reported extensively in Ukraine in the months
and years following the protests. My observations are not based on reading. RT is not a
credible news outlet, but I certainly do read far beyond our own pages, and of course I talk to
the actual actors on the ground myself – that's my job.
And: yes, of course Nuland was in the Maidan – but encouraging the protests, as she
clearly did, is not the same as sparking them or directing them, nor is playing favorites with
potential successors, as she clearly did, the same as being directly responsible for
overthrowing the government. I'm not saying the United States wasn't involved in trying to
shape events. So were Russia and the European Union. But Ukrainians were in the driver's seat
the whole way through. I know the guy who posted the first Facebook call to protest Yanukovych
in November 2013; he's not an American agent. RT, meanwhile, reports fabrications and terrible
falsehoods all the time. By all means consume a healthy and varied media diet – don't
stop at the US mainstream media. But ask yourself how often RT reports critically on the
Russian government, and consider how that lacuna shapes the rest of their reporting. You will
find plenty of reporting in the Washington Post that is critical of the US government and US
foreign policy in general, and decisions in Ukraine and the Ukrainian government in specific.
Our aim is to be fair, without picking sides. Best, Michael Birnbaum
======================= end of exchange =======================
Right, the United States doesn't play indispensable roles in changes of foreign governments;
never has, never will; even when they offer billions of dollars; even when they pick the new
president, which, apparently, is not the same as picking sides. It should be noticed that Mr
Birnbaum offers not a single example to back up his extremist claim that RT "reports
fabrications and terrible falsehoods all the time." "All the time", no less! That should make
it easy to give some examples.
For the record, I think RT is much less biased than the Post on international affairs. And,
yes, it's bias, not "fake news" that's the main problem –
Cold-War/anti-Communist/anti-Russian bias that Americans have been raised with for a full
century. RT defends Russia against the countless mindless attacks from the West. Who else is
there to do that? Should not the Western media be held accountable for what they broadcast?
Americans are so unaccustomed to hearing the Russian side defended, or hearing it at all, that
when they do it can seem rather weird.
To the casual observer, THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
indictments of July 14 of Russian intelligence agents (GRU) reinforced the argument that the
Soviet government interfered in the US 2016 presidential election. Regard these indictments in
proper perspective and we find that election interference is only listed as a supposed
objective, with charges actually being for unlawful cyber operations, identity theft, and
conspiracy to launder money by American individuals unconnected to the Russian government. So
we're still waiting for some evidence of actual Russian interference in the election aimed at
determining the winner.
The Russians did it (cont.)
Each day I spend about three hours reading the Washington Post. Amongst other things I'm
looking for evidence – real, legal, courtroom-quality evidence, or at least something
logical and rational – to pin down those awful Russkis for their many recent crimes, from
influencing the outcome of the 2016 US presidential election to use of a nerve agent in the UK.
But I do not find such evidence.
Each day brings headlines like these:
"U.S. to add economic sanctions on Russia: Attack with nerve agent on former spy in England
forces White House to act"
"Is Russia exploiting new Facebook goal?"
"Experts: Trump team lacks urgency on Russian threat"
These are all from the same day, August 9, which led me to thinking of doing this article,
but similar stories can be found any day in the Post and in major newspapers anywhere in
America. None of the articles begins to explain how Russia did these things, or even WHY.
Motivation appears to have become a lost pursuit in the American mass media. The one thing
sometimes mentioned, which I think may have some credibility, is Russia's preference of Trump
over Hillary Clinton in 2016. But this doesn't begin to explain how Russia could pull off any
of the electoral magic it's accused of, which would be feasible only if the United States were
a backward, Third World, Banana Republic.
There's the Facebook ads, as well as all the other ads The people who are influenced by this
story – have they read many of the actual ads? Many are pro-Clinton or anti-Trump; many
are both; many are neither. It's one big mess, the only rational explanation of this which I've
read is that they come from money-making websites, "click-bait" sites as they're known, which
earn money simply by attracting visitors.
As to the nerve agents, it makes more sense if the UK or the CIA did it to make the Russians
look bad, because the anti-Russian scandal which followed was totally predictable. Why would
Russia choose the time of the World Cup in Moscow – of which all of Russia was immensely
proud – to bring such notoriety down upon their head? But that would have been an ideal
time for their enemies to want to embarrass them.
However, I have no doubt that the great majority of Americans who follow the news each day
believe the official stories about the Russians. They're particularly impressed with the fact
that every US intelligence agency supports the official stories. They would not be impressed at
all if told that a dozen Russian intelligence agencies all disputed the charges. Group-think is
alive and well all over the world. As is Cold War II.
But we're the Good Guys, ain't we?
For a defender of US foreign policy there's very little that causes extreme heartburn more
than someone implying a "moral equivalence" between American behavior and that of Russia. That
was the case during Cold War I and it's the same now in Cold War II. It just drives them up the
wall.
After the United States passed a law last year requiring TV station RT (Russia Today) to
register as a "foreign agent", the Russians passed their own law allowing authorities to
require foreign media to register as a "foreign agent". Senator John McCain denounced the new
Russian law, saying there is "no equivalence" between RT and networks such as Voice of America,
CNN and the BBC, whose journalists "seek the truth, debunk lies, and hold governments
accountable." By contrast, he said, "RT's propagandists debunk the truth, spread lies, and seek
to undermine democratic governments in order to further Vladimir Putin's agenda."
And here is Tom Malinowski, former Assistant Secretary of State for democracy, human rights
and labor (2014-2017) – last year he reported that Putin had "charged that the U.S.
government had interfered 'aggressively' in Russia's 2012 presidential vote," claiming that
Washington had "gathered opposition forces and financed them." Putin, wrote Malinowski,
"apparently got President Trump to agree to a mutual commitment that neither country would
interfere in the other's elections."
"Is this moral equivalence fair?" Malinowski asked and answered: "In short, no. Russia's
interference in the United States' 2016 election could not have been more different from what
the United States does to promote democracy in other countries."
How do you satirize such officials and such high-school beliefs?
We also have the case of the US government agency, National Endowment for Democracy (NED),
which has interfered in more elections than the CIA or God. Indeed, the man who helped draft
the legislation establishing NED, Allen Weinstein, declared in 1991: "A lot of what we do today
was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA." On April 12, 2018 the presidents of two of NED's
wings wrote: "A specious narrative has come back into circulation: that Moscow's campaign of
political warfare is no different from U.S.-supported democracy assistance."
"Democracy assistance", you see, is what they call NED's election-interferences and
government-overthrows. The authors continue: "This narrative is churned out by propaganda
outlets such as RT and Sputnik [radio station]. it is deployed by isolationists who propound a
U.S. retreat from global leadership."
"Isolationists" is what [neo]conservatives call critics of US foreign policy whose arguments they
can't easily dismiss, so they imply that such people just don't want the US to be involved in
anything abroad.
And "global leadership" is what they call being first in election-interferences and
government-overthrows.
That might have been true .then. However, Bannon was never the puppet master (Trump is a
capitalist who has never listened to anyone else apart from his own messy ego in his life: the
idea that he would be a puppet for anyone, Bannon, Putin or whatever, is risible). Without
wanting to raise from the dead the 'Trump is teh Hitler' meme: there is a very very tiny grain
of truth in it, just as there is a very very tiny grain of truth in the right wing idea that
Hitler was a socialist because his party had the word 'socialist' in it. Hitler's initial
programme really did have a tiny element of 'socialism' in it, and some elements of the working
class (shamefully) swallowed the lies and gained him votes.
But it was never real and Hitler was never going to deliver. He dealt with the Brownshirts
(the most authentically 'working class' and 'socialist' part of the Nazi movement) in the Night
of the Long Knives, and from that point on, the 'socialist' parts of the Nazi programme were
steadily ditched, as the regime became more and more strongly right wing throughout the
'30s.
Same with Trump (in this respect only). It's true that in the run up to the election he
threw some scraps to the working class, and some of his protectionist rhetoric swung him some
states in the Rust Belt. Some union supporters, to their shame, trooped along to the White
House soon after.
But Trump, a right wing Republican who is, as I've said, far more orthodox a Republican than
the media would have you believe, was never going to deliver. Bannon was the most 'left wing'
of Trump's circle (and as his admiration for Thatcher makes clear, he was never very left wing)
and he was quickly cast out. Trump did not, in fact, 'drain the swamp' and nor did he try. His
major economic policy has turned out to be .tax cuts for the rich. And he has totally failed to
follow through on the (interesting) isolationist rhetoric he used in his election campaign
(despite the fact that some of us hoped otherwise). He has turned out to be as much of a
warmonger as Obama or even Bush jr (even towards Russia, again despite what the media would
have you believe).
And we haven't heard too much about that 'trillion dollar' investment in infrastructure
recently have we?
The problem is that the Democrats have concentrated on the (mainly trivial and
uninteresting) ways in which Trump differs from previous Republican Presidents (the lies, the
silly tweets, the dubious rhetoric) and have therefore persuaded themselves that this
'unorthodox' President will have to be removed by 'unorthodox means'. 'Tain't so. Trump will be
removed the only way any President (except Nixon) has ever been removed since the dawn of the
Republic: by the opposing party organising, developing a strong program that people can believe
in, and getting out the core vote. No election has ever been won any other way. In the case of
the Democrats this means using the might and money of organised labour and activists to get
candidates who can inspire and who have a genuinely progressive message that resonates with
people.
Democrats, #Russiagate will not save you. Getting your core vote out to vote for a genuinely
progressive candidate, will.
Likbez
@Hidari 08.18.18 at 6:41 pm
Powerful post and a veryclear thinking. Thank you !
Also an interesting analogy with NSDAP the 25-point Plan of 1928
Hitler's initial programme really did have a tiny element of 'socialism' in it, and some
elements of the working class (shamefully) swallowed the lies and gained him votes.
But it was never real, and Hitler was never going to deliver. He dealt with the Brownshirts
(the most authentically 'working class' and 'socialist' part of the Nazi movement) in the Night
of the Long Knives, and from that point on, the 'socialist' parts of the Nazi programme were
steadily ditched, as the regime became more and more strongly right wing throughout the
'30s.
Same with Trump (in this respect only). It's true that in the run-up to the election he
threw some scraps to the working class, and some of his protectionist rhetoric swung him some
states in the Rust Belt. Some union supporters, to their shame, trooped along to the White
House soon after.
Actually NSAP program of 1928 has some political demands which are to the left of Sanders
such as "Abolition of unearned (work and labor) incomes", ".We demand the nationalization of
all (previous) associated industries (trusts)." and "We demand a division of profits of all
heavy industries."
7.We demand that the state be charged first with providing the opportunity for a livelihood
and way of life for the citizens... ... ...
... ... ...
9.All citizens must have equal rights and obligations.
10.The first obligation of every citizen must be to productively work mentally or
physically. The activity of individuals is not to counteract the interests of the universality,
but must have its result within the framework of the whole for the benefit of all.
Consequently, we demand:
11.Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of debt (interest)-slavery.
12.In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands
of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the
people. Therefore, we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
13.We demand the nationalisation of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).
14.We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.
15.We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.
16.We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate
communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the
utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or
municipality.
17.We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free
expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and
prevention of all speculation in land.
18.We demand struggle without consideration against those whose activity is injurious to the
general interest. Common national criminals, usurers, profiteers and so forth are to be
punished with death, without consideration of confession or race.
... ... ...
21.The state is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and
child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the
legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all
organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young.
22.We demand abolition of the mercenary troops and formation of a national army.
23.We demand legal opposition to known lies and their promulgation through the press...
.... ... ...
24.We demand freedom of religion for all religious denominations within the state so long as
they do not endanger its existence or oppose the moral senses of the Germanic race...
But I think Trump was de-facto impeached with the appointment of Mueller. And that was the
plan ( "insurance" as Strzok called it). Mueller task is just to formalize impeachment.
Pence already is calling the shots in foreign policy via members of his close circle (which
includes Pompeo). The recent "unilateral" actions of State Department are a slap in the face
and, simultaneously, a nasty trap for Trump (he can cancel those sanctions only at a huge
political cost to himself) and are a clear sign that Trump does not control even his
administration. Here is how <a
href="http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2018/august/17/america-the-punitive/">Philip
Giraldi</a> described this obvious slap in the face:
The most recent is the new sanctioning of Russia over the Skripal poisoning in Salisbury
England. For those not following developments, last week Washington abruptly and without any
new evidence being presented, imposed additional trade sanctions on Russia in the belief that
Moscow ordered and carried out the poisoning of Sergey Skripal and his daughter Yulia on March
4th. The report of the new sanctions was particularly surprising as Yulia Skripal has recently
announced that she intends to return to her home in Russia, leading to the conclusion that even
one of the alleged victims does not believe the narrative being promoted by the British and
American governments.
Though Russian President Vladimir Putin has responded with restraint, avoiding a
tit-for-tat, he is reported to be angry about the new move by the US government and now
believes it to be an unreliable negotiating partner. Considering the friendly recent exchanges
between Putin and Trump, the punishment of Russia has to be viewed as something of a surprise,
suggesting that the president of the United States may not be in control of his own foreign
policy.
From the very beginning, any anti-globalization initiative of Trump was sabotaged and often
reversed. Haley is one example here. She does not coordinate some of her actions with Trump or
the Secretary of State unliterary defining the US foreign policy.
Her ambitions worry Trump, but he can so very little: she is supported by Pence and Pence
faction in the administration. Rumors "Haley/Pence 2020" surfaced and probably somewhat poison
atmosphere in the WH.
Add to this that Trump has hostile to him Justice Department, CIA, and FBI. He also does not
control some critical appointments such as the recent appointment of CIA director (who in no
way can be called Trump loyalist).
Which means that in some ways Trump already is a hostage and more ceremonial President than
a real.
"... Why didn't Sanders complain about DNC-Hillary collusion (he knew about it well before she captured the nomination - MSM didn't publicize it until after she had won). ..."
"... Why didn't Sanders make a big deal of Hillary's winning 6 of 6 coin tosses during the Iowa primaries. Character was an issue from the start of the race. Trump would later lambast "crooked Hillary". ..."
There were only two populists in the race: Trump and Sanders. One on Hillary's left (sheep-dogging voters to Hillary)
and one on Hillary's right (Trump).
Why did any of the other 18 republicans turn populist? Why didn't they wait so long to complain about the coverage being
provided to Trump?
Why were Republicans so adamantly against Trump after he won the nomination? Many said that they prefered Hillary - whom they
had claimed to hate so much only months before? Answer: Trump had to be an outsider. That's what makes the populist so compelling.
He has to be seen as taking on the establishment.
After such a contentious race, why did Trump quickly say that there would be no prosecution of Hillary? He has proven to be
petty and vain yet he was so quick to forgive the Clintons?
Why did Trump wait so long to fire Comey? It's almost like it was timed for Comey to hand the baton to a special prosecutor.
<> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Here's a few more questions (of many many other questions)
Why didn't Sanders complain about DNC-Hillary collusion (he knew about it well before she captured the nomination -
MSM didn't publicize it until after she had won).
Why didn't Sanders make a big deal of the well-documented time that Hillary changed her vote for a big donor? Hillary loudly
proclaimed that she NEVER changed her vote for money before and DURING the crucial New York debate.
Why didn't Sanders release his 2014 tax returns? He called his tax returns "boring" yet, despite Hillary having released
10 years of tax returns, Sanders only released his 2015 returns. When his 2015 returns were delayed, reporters
asked for the 2014 returns but Sanders refused to provide them.
Why didn't Sanders make a big deal of Hillary's winning 6 of 6 coin tosses during the Iowa primaries. Character was
an issue from the start of the race. Trump would later lambast "crooked Hillary".
Good questions. Asking them sequentially leads even a dumbass like me to conclude Sanders is a fraud.
Unfortunately, most Sanders supporters probably don't remember the issues long enough to reevaluate them collectively. Each
issue appears to them during "the news cycle" as some one-off foible -- considered as misdemeanors and then forgotten before
the next one occurs and thus never assembled mentally as evidence for a larger felony case.
At last – a paterfamiliar earful by none other than James Howard Kunstler, on the state
of the "Three Headed Monster" that is the Democratic Party.
This is an important tipping point, because the country is waiting for nobles of the left
to lead their children from the deep dark woods.
Every day, we ask, "Where are the adults? Who will call this madness for what it is?" I'll
provide the link to this masterful analysis of the "illness" – but first let me tempt
readers with a brief synopsis of the "first head".
" one infected with the toxic shock of losing the 2016 election. The illness took hold
during the campaign that year when the bureaucracy under President Obama sent its lymphocytes
and microphages in the "intel community" to attack the perceived disease that the election of
Donald Trump represented.
The "doctors" of this Deep State diagnosed the condition as "Russian collusion." An
overdue second opinion by doctors outside the Deep State adduced later that the malady was
actually an auto-immune disease.
The agents actually threatening the health of the state came from the intel community
itself . who colluded with pathogens in the DNC, the Hillary campaign, and the British intel
service to chew up and spit out Mr. Trump as expeditiously as possible.
With the disease now revealed by hard evidence, the chief surgeon called into the case,
Robert Mueller, is left looking ridiculous -- and perhaps subject to malpractice charges --
for trying to remove an appendix-like organ called the Manifort from the body politic instead
of attending to the cancerous mess all around him. Meanwhile, the Deep State can't stop
running its mouth -- "
This was published on his blog yesterday..... this is monumental, if only because the
masks are coming off.
Read his description of the other 2 heads.... it's wonderful.
But always remember, the FBI/DOJ is "honorable". Yeah, that's the term
they use to refer to the scumbags that "represent" us in congress. In
reality, "there is no honor amongst thieves", and government is full of
them because sociopaths gravitate to positions of power.
It's a unruly fuck show at the FBI and nobody is being held accountable. No
leadership, no standards, no neutrality, no accountability. Obama weaponized
the FBI. Fire everyone.
"... If convicted on all counts, Mr Manafort could face a sentence of up to 305 years in prison based on the maximum for each count, with the most serious charge carrying up to 30 years. However, if convicted, he likely would be given between seven and 12 years, according to a range of estimates from three sentencing experts interviewed by Reuters. ..."
"... Meanwhile Mr Mueller recommended in a court filing on Friday that a judge sentence former Trump campaign aide George Papadopoulos to up to six months in prison for lying to agents investigating Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. ..."
Prosecutors accuse Mr Manafort of a complex effort to hide millions of dollars in income
from Ukrainian politicians.
Mr Ellies earlier refused to release the names of jurors, saying he has received threats and
fears for their safety as well.
The judge said he is currently under the protection of U.S. marshals. He declined to delve
into specifics, but said he's been taken aback by the level of interest in the trial.
President Trump earlier said the case was "sad" and described Mr Manafort as a "good
person."
If convicted on all counts, Mr Manafort could face a sentence of up to 305 years in
prison based on the maximum for each count, with the most serious charge carrying up to 30
years. However, if convicted, he likely would be given between seven and 12 years, according to
a range of estimates from three sentencing experts interviewed by Reuters.
Meanwhile Mr Mueller recommended in a court filing on Friday that a judge sentence
former Trump campaign aide George Papadopoulos to up to six months in prison for lying to
agents investigating Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
"The government does not take a position with respect to a particular sentence to be
imposed, but respectfully submits that a sentence of incarceration, within the applicable
guidelines range of zero to six months imprisonment is appropriate and warranted," Mr Mueller
said in the filing.
Mr Papadopoulos pleaded guilty in October to lying to FBI agents investigating possible
collusion between President Donald Trump's campaign and Russia. He is scheduled to be sentenced
on Sept. 7.
Thursday, the New York Times decried Trump's accusation that the media are "the enemy of the
people." "Insisting that truths you don't like are 'fake news' is dangerous to the lifeblood of
democracy. And calling journalists 'the enemy of the people' is dangerous, period," said the
Times .
"... The agents actually threatening the health of the state came from the intel community itself: Mr. Brennan, Mr. Clapper, Mr. Comey, Mr. Strzok, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Ohr, Ms. Yates. Ms. Page, et. al. who colluded with pathogens in the DNC, the Hillary campaign, and the British intel service to chew up and spit out Mr. Trump as expeditiously as possible. ..."
"... Meanwhile, the Deep State can't stop running its mouth -- The New York Times , CNN, WashPo , et al -- in an evermore hysterical reaction to the truth of the matter: the Deep State itself colluded with Russia (and perhaps hates itself for it, a sure recipe for mental illness). ..."
"... The second head of this monster is a matrix of sinister interests seeking to incite conflict with Russia in order to support arms manufacturers, black box "security" companies, congressmen-on-the-take, and an army of obscenely-rewarded Washington lobbyists in concert with the military and a rabid neocon intellectual think-tank camp wishing to replay the cold war and perhaps even turn up the temperature with some nuclear fire. ..."
"... This second head functions by way of a displacement-projection dynamic. We hold war games on the Russian border and accuse them of "aggression." ..."
"... The third head of this monster is the one aflame with identity politics. It arises from a crypto-gnostic wish to change human nature to escape the woes and sorrows of the human condition -- for example, the terrible tensions of sexuality. Hence, the multiplication of new sexual categories as a work-around for the fundamental terrors of human reproduction as represented by the differences between men and women. ..."
"... "We engineer and pay for a coup against the elected government of Ukraine, and accuse Russia of aggression. We bust up one nation after another in Middle East and complain indignantly when Russia acts to keep Syria from becoming the latest failed state. We disrupt the Russian economy with sanctions, and the Russian banking system with a cut-off of SWIFT international currency clearing privileges, and accuse them of aggression. This mode of behavior used to be known as "poking the bear," a foolish and hazardous endeavor. " ..."
"... And this shit has been going on since the Soviet Union broke up and the "Harvard Boys" helped turn Russia into a corrupt Oligarchy, something the Left was first to identify. ..."
"... The rising of the Populist parties in the UK, Germany, especially Italy and now Sweden, portends an interesting trend, not just nationally, but world wide... ..."
The faction that used to be the Democratic party can be described with some precision these days as a three-headed monster driving
the nation toward danger, darkness, and incoherence.
Anyone interested in defending what remains of the sane center of American politics take heed:
The first head is the one infected with the toxic shock of losing the 2016 election. The illness took hold during the campaign
that year when the bureaucracy under President Obama sent its lymphocytes and microphages in the "intel community" -- especially
the leadership of the FBI -- to attack the perceived disease that the election of Donald Trump represented. The "doctors" of this
Deep State diagnosed the condition as "Russian collusion." An overdue second opinion by doctors outside the Deep State adduced later
that the malady was actually an auto-immune disease.
The agents actually threatening the health of the state came from the intel community itself: Mr. Brennan, Mr. Clapper, Mr.
Comey, Mr. Strzok, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Ohr, Ms. Yates. Ms. Page, et. al. who colluded with pathogens in the DNC, the Hillary campaign,
and the British intel service to chew up and spit out Mr. Trump as expeditiously as possible.
With the disease now revealed by hard evidence, the chief surgeon called into the case, Robert Mueller, is left looking ridiculous
-- and perhaps subject to malpractice charges -- for trying to remove an appendix-like organ called the Manifort from the body politic
instead of attending to the cancerous mess all around him. Meanwhile, the Deep State can't stop running its mouth -- The New
York Times , CNN, WashPo , et al -- in an evermore hysterical reaction to the truth of the matter: the Deep State itself colluded
with Russia (and perhaps hates itself for it, a sure recipe for mental illness).
The second head of this monster is a matrix of sinister interests seeking to incite conflict with Russia in order to support
arms manufacturers, black box "security" companies, congressmen-on-the-take, and an army of obscenely-rewarded Washington lobbyists
in concert with the military and a rabid neocon intellectual think-tank camp wishing to replay the cold war and perhaps even turn
up the temperature with some nuclear fire. They are apparently in deep confab with the first head and its Russia collusion storyline.
Note all the current talk about Russia already meddling in the 2018 midterm election, a full-fledged pathogenic hallucination.
This second head functions by way of a displacement-projection dynamic. We hold war games on the Russian border and accuse
them of "aggression." We engineer and pay for a coup against the elected government of Ukraine, and accuse Russia of aggression.
We bust up one nation after another in Middle East and complain indignantly when Russia acts to keep Syria from becoming the latest
failed state.We disrupt the Russian economy with sanctions, and the Russian banking system with a cut-off of SWIFT international
currency clearing privileges, and accuse them of aggression. This mode of behavior used to be known as "poking the bear," a foolish
and hazardous endeavor. The sane center never would have stood for this arrant recklessness. The world community is not fooled, though.
More and more, they recognize the USA as a national borderline personality, capable of any monstrous act.
The third head of this monster is the one aflame with identity politics. It arises from a crypto-gnostic wish to change human
nature to escape the woes and sorrows of the human condition -- for example, the terrible tensions of sexuality. Hence, the multiplication
of new sexual categories as a work-around for the fundamental terrors of human reproduction as represented by the differences between
men and women. Those differences must be abolished, and replaced with chimeras that enable a childish game of pretend, men pretending
to be women and vice-versa in one way or another: LBGTQetc. Anything BUT the dreaded "cis-hetero" purgatory of men and women acting
like men and women. The horror .
Its companion is the race hustle and its multicultural operating system. The objective has become transparent over the past year,
with rising calls to punish white people for the supposed "privilege" of being Caucasian and pay "reparations" in one way or another
to underprivileged "people of color." This comes partly from the infantile refusal to understand that life is difficult for everybody,
and that the woes and sorrows of being in this world require fortitude and intelligence to get through -- with the final reward being
absolutely the same for everybody.
"We engineer and pay for a coup against the elected government of Ukraine, and accuse Russia of aggression. We bust
up one nation after another in Middle East and complain indignantly when Russia acts to keep Syria from becoming the latest
failed state. We disrupt the Russian economy with sanctions, and the Russian banking system with a cut-off of SWIFT international
currency clearing privileges, and accuse them of aggression. This mode of behavior used to be known as "poking the bear," a
foolish and hazardous endeavor. "
And this shit has been going on since the Soviet Union broke up and the
"Harvard Boys" helped turn Russia into
a corrupt Oligarchy, something the Left was first to identify.
I was talking to someone, who knows a lot about the 'inner workings' and we were discussing, not only the US, but Europe's
situation as well.
The rising of the Populist parties in the UK, Germany, especially Italy and now Sweden, portends an interesting trend,
not just nationally, but world wide...
Fifteen years ago, on February 5, 2003, against the backdrop of worldwide mass
demonstrations in opposition to the impending invasion of Iraq, then-US Secretary of State
Colin Powell argued before the United Nations that the government of Saddam Hussein was rapidly
stockpiling "weapons of mass destruction," which Iraq, together with Al Qaeda, was planning to
use against the United States.
In what was the climax of the Bush administration's campaign to justify war, Powell held up
a model vial of anthrax, showed aerial photographs and presented detailed slides purporting to
show the layout of Iraq's "mobile production facilities."
There was only one problem with Powell's presentation: it was a lie from beginning to
end.
... ... ...
...War against Iraq, the WSWS wrote, was not about "weapons of mass destruction."
Rather, "it is a war of colonial conquest, driven by a series of economic and geo-political
aims that center on the seizure of Iraq's oil resources and the assertion of US global
hegemony."
The response of the American media, and particularly its liberal wing, was very different.
Powell's litany of lies was presented as the gospel truth, an unanswerable indictment of the
Iraqi government.
Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen, who rushed off a column before he could
have examined Powell's allegations, declared, "The evidence he presented to the United Nations
-- some of it circumstantial, some of it absolutely bone-chilling in its detail -- had to prove
to anyone that Iraq not only hasn't accounted for its weapons of mass destruction but without a
doubt still retains them. Only a fool -- or possibly a Frenchman -- could conclude
otherwise."
The editorial board of the New York Times -- whose reporter Judith Miller was at
the center of the Bush administration's campaign of lies -- declared one week later that there
"is ample evidence that Iraq has produced highly toxic VX nerve gas and anthrax and has the
capacity to produce a lot more. It has concealed these materials, lied about them, and more
recently failed to account for them to the current inspectors."
Subsequent developments would prove who was lying. The Bush administration and its
media accomplices conspired to drag the US into a war that led to the deaths of more than one
million people -- a colossal crime for which no one has yet been held accountable.
Fifteen years later, the script has been pulled from the closet and dusted off. This time,
instead of "weapons of mass destruction," it is "Russian meddling in the US elections." Once
again, assertions by US intelligence agencies and operatives are treated as fact. Once again, the
media is braying for war. Once again, the cynicism and hypocrisy of the American government --
which intervenes in the domestic politics of every state on the planet and has been relentlessly
expanding its operations in Eastern Europe -- are ignored.
"... When I hear people talk about how vulnerable Trump is because of his allegedly dirty business deals, I wonder: if that's true, then why wasn't he charged long ago, since he's been active as a businessman for many years. ..."
"... My hunch is that seriously investigating these deals, if they do exist, would expose too many powerful people to scrutiny they don't want, so Trump gets a pass. ..."
"... I doubt it very much, Trump has any dirty deals in those Russian money laundering as some commentators write about, the money the corrupt Russian Oligarchs, mostly Jewish, who brought to London and other West's Financial Centers during the plundering of Russia in 1992 – 2004 period. And as you pointed out, if there is any, seriously investigating these deals will expose many powerful people, and the corruption and rot of London Financial Center along with many other West's Financial Centers. ..."
"... All the Oligarchs engage in some sort of corruption, Mitt Romney was no different with all his money stashed away in off shore financial safe heavens. Trump is singled out because he ran against that Swamp which he called it during his election campaign, and in their view, he is damaging the World Uni-polar System with U.S. as the Master and EU as vassal States. ..."
When I hear people talk about how vulnerable Trump is because of his allegedly dirty
business deals, I wonder: if that's true, then why wasn't he charged long ago, since he's
been active as a businessman for many years.
My hunch is that seriously investigating these deals, if they do exist, would expose too many
powerful people to scrutiny they don't want, so Trump gets a pass.
And yes, I agree, there is no public evidence of collusion, not surprising since it isn't a
federal crime to begin with, except, potentially, in an anti-trust context that doesn't apply
here.
Dave P. , August 15, 2018 at 2:56 pm
John Kirsch – Good comments. I agree.
I doubt it very much, Trump has any dirty deals in those Russian money laundering as some
commentators write about, the money the corrupt Russian Oligarchs, mostly Jewish, who brought
to London and other West's Financial Centers during the plundering of Russia in 1992 –
2004 period. And as you pointed out, if there is any, seriously investigating these deals
will expose many powerful people, and the corruption and rot of London Financial Center along
with many other West's Financial Centers.
All the Oligarchs engage in some sort of corruption, Mitt Romney was no different with all
his money stashed away in off shore financial safe heavens. Trump is singled out because he
ran against that Swamp which he called it during his election campaign, and in their view, he
is damaging the World Uni-polar System with U.S. as the Master and EU as vassal States.
Trump says he discovered the power of being shallow: "Whenever I am making a creative
choice, I think back and remember my first shallow reaction. The day I realized it can be
smart to be shallow, was for me, a deep experience.
I have no personal business dealings with Trump nor have I ever met the guy. Just reading
information as everyone else does. No special knowledge of specific anything.
The allegation floating around is one very common to real estate. Laundering money.
Trump's business model is his "brand," which basically means Trump lends his names to
building projects rather than actually owning said buildings himself. Sounds similar to
franchising.
Not surprisingly, Trump has been involved in such shady scandals in the past. As someone
else stated, "My hunch is that seriously investigating these deals, if they do exist, would
expose too many powerful people to scrutiny they don't want, so Trump gets a pass."
Whether or not Trump gets convicted of these sorts of crimes depends on a cost/ benefit
analysis the powers that be will have to make. Is nailing Trump worth enough to them to draw
unwanted attention to how these money laundering/ not paying taxes/ globalism foreign
investment/ corrupt crony capitalist scams work?
"... The people behind advancing the Russiagate fraud are not concerned about the widening chaos it has engendered. On the contrary, it is playing out exactly as they hoped. ..."
"... Fast growing censorship of dissent, isolation of a major geopolitical competitor, providing an explanation for the rise of Trump and the precipitous decline in public faith in establishment institutions. ..."
The people behind advancing the Russiagate fraud are not concerned about the widening
chaos it has engendered. On the contrary, it is playing out exactly as they hoped.
Fast growing censorship of dissent, isolation of a major geopolitical competitor,
providing an explanation for the rise of Trump and the precipitous decline in public faith in
establishment institutions.
Hell, it's even being leveraged to explain away racism. Win win win win. I'd say they are
right where they want to be at this juncture.
Dave P. , August 14, 2018 at 6:21 pm
GM – Excellent observations. Very true.
I would add that they – the Ruling Establishment – are accomplished in the art
of manipulating the public into believing whatever they want them to believe in. In fact,
they have world wide reach.
"... But it is worth noting that, particularly in recent decades, and under the auspices of Editorial Page editor James Bennet, there has been a remarkable integration of the Times ..."
Less than four days after the Parkland school shooting, the New York Times has
found a way to turn a national tragedy that claimed the lives of 17 high school students into
an opportunity to escalate its unrelenting campaign of anti-Russian propaganda, involving the
continuous bombardment of the public with reactionary lies and warmongering.
Against the backdrop of a major escalation of military tensions between the two countries,
the Times seized upon the Justice Department indictment of Russian nationals over the
weekend to claim that Russia is at "war" with the United States. Now, the Times has
widened this claim into an argument that Russia somehow bears responsibility for social
divisions over the latest mass shooting in America.
Its lead headline Tuesday morning blared: "SHOTS ARE FIRED, AND BOTS SWARM TO SOCIAL DIVIDES
- Florida School Shooting Draws an Army Ready to Spread Discord"
According to the Times , Russian "bots," or automated social media accounts, sought
"to widen the divide" on issues of gun control and mental illness, in order to "make compromise
even more difficult." Russia sought to exploit "the issue of mental illness in the gun control
debate," and "propagated the notion that Nikolas Cruz, the suspected gunman" was "mentally
ill."
The absurd claim that Russia is responsible for the existence of social divisions in America
is belied by the shooting itself, which is a testament to the fact that American society is
riven by antagonisms that express themselves, in the absence of a progressive outlet, in
outpourings of mass violence.
The aim of this campaign is to target anyone who would criticize the underlying social
causes of the shooting -- the violence of American society, the nonexistence of mental health
services, or even the social psychology that gives rise to mass shootings -- as a "Russian
agent" seeking to "sow divisions" in American society. The Times lead is based
entirely on a "dashboard" called Hamilton 68 created by the German Marshall Fund's Alliance for
Securing Democracy, whose lead spokesman is Clint Watts, the former US intelligence agent and
censorship advocate who declared in November that social media companies must "silence" sources
of "rebellion."
Without naming any of the accounts it follows, Hamilton 68 claims to track content tweeted
by "Russian bots and trolls." But most of the trends leading the dashboard are news stories,
many posted by Russia Today and Sputnik News , that are identical with the
trending topics followed by any other news agency. Thus, Hamilton 68 provides an instant
New York Times headline generator: Any major news story can be presented as the result
of "Russian bots."
The New York Times is making its claims about "Russian meddling" with what is known
in the law as "unclean hands." That is, the Times practices the very actions of which
it accuses others.
Here is not the place to deal with the long and bloody history of American destabilization
campaigns and their horrific consequences in Latin America and the Middle East, or to review
the fact that many American journalists serving abroad had dual functions -- as reporters and
as agents.
But it is worth noting that, particularly in recent decades, and under the auspices of
Editorial Page editor James Bennet, there has been a remarkable integration of the
Times with the major operations of the US intelligence agencies.
This is
particularly true with regard to Russia, in regard to which the Times acts as an
instrument of US foreign policy misinformation, practicing exactly what it accuse the Kremlin
of.
Take, for example, the so-called political "dissident" Aleksei Navalny. This proponent of
extreme nationalism and xenophobia, with deep ties to Russia's fascistic right, and extensive
connections to US intelligence agencies, has been championed by the Times as the voice
of social dissent in Russia. Despite his miniscule support within Russia, Navalny's activities
generate front-page headlines in the Times , which has mentioned him in over 400
separate articles.
Another example is the Times ' promotion of the "feminist" rock band Pussy Riot,
which makes a habit of getting themselves arrested by taking their clothes off in Russian
Orthodox churches, and whose fate the Times holds up as a horrific example of Russian
oppression. The very name "Pussy Riot," which in typical usage is not even translated into
Russian, expresses the fact that this operation aims to influence American, and not Russian,
public opinion.
In 2014, the Times met with members of Pussy Riot at their editorial offices, and
have since extensively promoted the group, having mentioned it in over 400 articles. The term
"anti-Putin opposition" is mentioned in another 600 articles.
The logic of the Times ' campaign was expressed most clearly by its columnist
Thomas Friedman, the personification of the pundit as state intelligence mouthpiece whose
career was aptly summed up in a biography titled Imperial Messenger . In a column
published on February 18 ("Whatever Trump is Hiding is Hurting All of US Now"), Friedman
declares a "code red" threat to the integrity of American democracy.
"At a time when the special prosecutor Robert Mueller -- leveraging several years of
intelligence gathering by the F.B.I., C.I.A. and N.S.A. -- has brought indictments against 13
Russian nationals and three Russian groups -- all linked in some way to the Kremlin -- for
interfering with the 2016 U.S. elections," Friedman writes, "America needs a president who will
lead our nation's defense against this attack on the integrity of our electoral democracy."
This "defense," according to Friedman, would include "bring[ing] together our intelligence
and military experts to mount an effective offense against Putin -- the best defense of all."
In other words, war.
The task of all war propaganda is to divert internal social tensions outwards, and the
Times ' campaign is no different. Its aim is to take the anger that millions of people
feel at a society riven by social inequality, mass alienation, police violence, and endless
war, and pin it on some shady foreign adversary.
The New York Times ' claims of Russian "meddling" in the Parkland shooting set the
tone for even more hysterical coverage in the broadcast evening news. NBC News cited Jonathan
Morgan, another collaborator on the Hamilton 68 project, who declared that Russia is "really
interested in sowing discord amongst Americans. That way we're not focused on putting a unified
front out to foreign adversaries."
The goal of the ruling class and its media accomplices is to put on "a unified front"
through the suppression of social opposition within the United States. Along these Lines, NBC
added, "Researchers tell us it's not just Russia deploying these attacks on social media,"
adding "many small independent groups are trying to divide Americans and create chaos."
Who are these "small independent groups" seeking to "create chaos"? By this, they no doubt
mean any news or political organization that dares question the official line that everything
is fine in America, and that argues that the horrendous levels of violence that pervade
American society are somehow related to social inequality and the wars supported and justified
by the entire US political establishment
In philosophy there is a concept called Teleology which means to view things "by the purpose they serve rather than by postulated
causes". If we are to look at Russiagate from a teleological perspective, and indeed we should, as the evidentiary and proportional
justification is severely lacking, we see a distinct organism with a broad purpose. So let's examine, what purposes are being
served by Russiagate, what agendas being driven, and interests being advanced?
Control of information by imperial, establishment and corporate interests
Control of discourse and dissent being stigmatized
Restriction of democracy by third parties and anti-establishment candidates being smeared as "Kremlin supported'
The enlargement of the military industrial complex
The ideological alignment of the nominal left and center with authoritarianism
The justification of imperialism and aggressive foreign policy
The deflection from widespread issues of discontent
The projection of issues in the 2016 election, particularly primary rigging, voting irregularities, voter suppression,
candidate funded troll operations like Correct the Record, widespread collusion between candidates and the mainstream media,
and outsized influence of Israeli, Saudi and Ukrainian lobbies
Considering how much of an impact Russiagate has had towards these ends, in comparison how meagerly it has tackled these phantom
Russian meddlers and "active measures", I think it's fair to say that Russiagate has NOTHING to do with it's stated cause. If
Russiagate can be described by what it does, and not what allegedly caused it, what it is is an authoritarian push to broadly
increase control of society by establishment elites, and to advance their imperialistic ambitions. In this way, it does not look
dissimilar to the way previous societies have succumbed to authoritarian and imperialist rule, nor do the flavors of propaganda,
censorship and nationalism differ greatly. The 2016 election represented the ruling Establishment losing control of the narrative,
and to a lesser degree, not getting their preferred candidate. And in response the velvet glove is slipping.
Reply
mike k , August 13, 2018 at 7:33 pm
Excellent analysis!
Dunderhead , August 13, 2018 at 9:12 pm
You nailed that one man, Kudos
Maxwell Quest , August 13, 2018 at 9:32 pm
9. The delegitimization of Trump's presidency, and a false justification for removing him from office, or in the very least
crippling his ability to function as the executive.
Indeed. The Shit Snowball keeps gaining size and momentum because so many groups get various benefits from propagating the
Russiagate narrative.
I xeroxed your list of 8 – as well as an excerpt from Patrick Lawrence's original article – then added references and artwork
to set it off in a classy way.
Please let me know what the two of you think of the results:
exiled off mainstreet , August 15, 2018 at 3:00 am
This analysis is spot on.
Kevin Huxford , August 13, 2018 at 7:18 pm
Duncan Campbell's article is embarrassing, especially in that it took him so long to even slightly correct his misrepresentation
of Binney's position on the matter.
Dunderhead , August 13, 2018 at 7:00 pm
This article touches on such a fundamental truth which is the new paradigm of US disunity, the fracturing of both US political
parties and a greater General dysfunction of the American body politic not to mention the US's Image of itself.
A truly excellent and very important post! Thank you.
"To doubt the hollowed-out myth of American innocence is a grave sin against the faith." – author
Absolutely! The current "Russiagate" lunacy renders anyone a "heretic" who might engage in such "doubt"
– or who engages in any independent critical thinking on this matter. I've never seen the political class, the deep state psychopaths,
and the MSM more irrational, nor more out of touch with and more contemptuous of – simple basic verifiable physical "reality"
– than at this historical moment. The current state of affairs suggests the American empire may not simply be in decline, but
is instead perhaps in free fall with the hard ground of reality rapidly approaching. The current level of absolute public lunacy
also suggests the landing will be neither graceful nor pleasant, and may actually come as a shock to the true believers.
Terrific article, Patrick Lawrence. Too Big Too Fail is exactly correct. Just as the banks in the 2008 mortgage crisis got
bailed out, so the Russiagate narrative is cultivated by the US government. Both are insults to the American people.
As you know, there has been some recent discussion of this leak vs. hack topic. To wit:
There is a response by William Binney in video form at the end of this article:
"... With the strong support of these four monolithic lobbies -- his electoral base -- politician Donald Trump can count on the indefectible support of between 35 percent and 40 percent of the American electorate. It is ironic that some of Trump's other policies, like reducing health care coverage and the raising of import taxes, will hurt the poor and the middle class, even though some of Trump's victims can be considered members of the above lobbies. ..."
"... Donald Trump does not seem to take politics and public affairs very seriously, at least when his own personal interests are involved. Therefore, when things go bad, he never volunteers to take personal responsibility, contrary to what a true leader would do, and he conveniently shifts the blame on somebody else. This is a sign of immaturity or cowardice. Paraphrasing President Harry Truman, "the buck never stops at his desk." ..."
"... Donald Trump essentially has the traits of a typical showman diva , behaving in politics just as he did when he was the host of a TV show. Indeed, if one considers politics and public affairs as no more than a reality show, this means that they are really entertainment, and politicians are first and foremost entertainers or comedians. ..."
There are four groups of one-issue voters to whom President
Donald Trump has delivered the goodies:
Christian religious right voters, whose main political issue is to fill the U. S. Supreme
Court with ultra conservative judges. On that score, Donald Trump has been true to them by
naming one such judge and in nominating a second one.
Super rich Zionists and the Pro-Israel Lobby, whose obsession is the state of Israel.
Again, on that score, President Donald Trump has fulfilled his promise to them and he has
unilaterally moved the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, in addition to attacking the
Palestinians and tearing up the 'Iran Deal'.
The one-percent Income earners and some corporate owners , whose main demand to Trump was
substantial tax cuts and deregulation. Once again, President Trump has fulfilled this group's
wishes with huge tax cuts, mainly financed with future public debt increases, which are going
to be paid for by all taxpayers.
The NRA and the Pro-Gun Lobby, whose main obsession is to have the right to arm
themselves to the teeth, including with military assault weapons, with as few strings
attached as possible. Here again President Donald Trump has sided with them and against
students who are increasingly in the line of fire in American schools.
With the strong support of these four monolithic lobbies -- his electoral base --
politician Donald Trump can count on the indefectible support of between 35 percent and 40
percent of the American electorate. It is ironic that some of Trump's other policies, like
reducing health care coverage and the raising of import taxes, will hurt the poor and the
middle class, even though some of Trump's victims can be considered members of the above
lobbies.
Moreover, some of Trump's supporters regularly rely on hypocrisy and on excuses to
exonerate their favorite but flawed politician of choice. If any other politician from a
different party were to say and do half of what Donald Trump does and says, they would be
asking for his impeachment.
There are three other reasons why Trump's rants, his
record-breaking lies , his untruths, his deceptions and his dictatorial-style attempts to
control information , in the eyes of his fanatical supporters, at least, are like water on
the back of a duck. ( -- For the record, according to the
Washington Post , as of early August, President Trump has made some 4,229 false claims,
which amount to 7.6 a day, since his inauguration.)
The first reason can be found in Trump's view that politics and even government
business are first and foremost another form of
entertainment , i.e. a sort of TV reality show, which must be scripted and acted upon.
Trump thinks that is
OK to lie and to ask his assistants to
lie . In this new immoral world, the Trump phenomenon could be seen a sign of
post-democracy .
The second one can be found in Trump's artful and cunning tactics to unbalance and
manipulate the media to increase his visibility to the general public and to turn them
into his own tools of propaganda. When Trump attacks the media, he is in fact coaxing them to
give him free coverage to spread his
insults , his fake accusations, his provocations, his constant
threats , his denials or reversals, his convenient
changes of subject or his political spins. Indeed, with his outrageous statements, his
gratuitous accusations and his attacks ' ad hominem' , and by constantly bullying
and insulting adversaries at home and foreign heads of states abroad, and by issuing threats
in repetition, right and left, Trump has forced the media to talk and journalists to write
about him constantly, on a daily basis, 24/7.
That suits him perfectly well because he likes to be the center of attention. That is how he
can change the political rhetoric when any negative issue gets too close to him. In the coming
weeks and months, as the Special prosecutor
Robert Mueller's report is likely to be released, Donald Trump is not above resorting to
some sort of "
Wag the Dog " political trickery, to change the topic and to possibly push the damaging
report off the headlines.
In such a circumstance, it is not impossible that launching an illegal war of choice, say
against Iran (a
pet project of Trump's National Security Advisor John Bolton), could then look very
convenient to a crafty politician like Donald Trump and to his warmonger advisors. Therefore,
observers should be on the lookout to spot any development of the sort in the coming weeks.
That one man and his entourage could whimsically consider launching a
war of aggression is a throwback
to ancient times and is a sure indication of the level of depravity to which current politics
has fallen. This should be a justified and clear
case for impeachment .
Finally, some far-right media outlets, such as
Fox News and
Sinclair Broadcasting, have taken it upon themselves to systematically present Trump's
lies and misrepresentations as some 'alternative' truths and facts.
Indeed, ever since 1987, when the Reagan administration abolished the Fairness Doctrine for licensing
public radio and TV waves, and since a Republican dominated Congress passed the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, which allowed for the mass conglomeration of local
broadcasting in the United States, extreme conservative news outlets, such as the Fox and
Sinclair networks, have sprung up. They are well financed, and they have essentially become
powerful
political propaganda machines , erasing the line between facts and fiction, and regularly
presenting fictitious alternative facts as the truth.
In so doing, they have pushed public debates in the United States away from facts, reason
and logic, at least for those listeners and viewers for whom such outlets are the only source
of information. It is not surprising that such far-right media have also made Donald Trump the
champion of their cause, maliciously branding anything inconvenient as 'fake' news, as Trump
has done in his own anti-media campaign and his sustained assault on the free press.
2- Show Politics and public affairs as a form of entertainment
Donald Trump does not seem to take politics and public affairs very seriously, at least when
his own personal interests are involved. Therefore, when things go bad, he never volunteers to
take personal responsibility, contrary to what a true leader would do, and he conveniently
shifts the blame on somebody else. This is a sign of immaturity or cowardice. Paraphrasing
President Harry Truman, "the buck never stops at his desk."
Donald Trump essentially has the traits of a typical showman
diva , behaving in politics just as he did when he was the host of a TV show. Indeed, if
one considers politics and public affairs as no more than a reality show, this means that they
are really entertainment, and politicians are first and foremost entertainers or comedians.
3- Trump VS the media and the journalists
Donald Trump is the first U.S. president who rarely holds scheduled press conferences. Why
would he, since he considers journalists to be his "enemies"! It doesn't seem to matter to him
that freedom of the press is guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution by the First Amendment. He
prefers to rely on one-directional so-called 'tweets' to express unfiltered personal ideas and
emotions (as if he were a private person), and to use them as his main public relations channel
of communication.
The ABC News
network has calculated that, as of last July, Trump has tweeted more than 3,500 times,
slightly more than seven tweets a day. How could he have time left to do anything productive!
Coincidently, Donald Trump's number of tweets is not far away from the number of outright lies
and misleading claims that he has told and made since his inauguration.
The Washington Post has counted no less than 3,251 lies or misleading claims of his,
through the end of May of this year, -- an average of 6.5 such misstatements per day of his
presidency. Fun fact: Trump seems to accelerate the pace of his lies. Last year, he told 5.5
lies per day, on average. Is it possible to have a more cynical view of politics!
The media in general, (and
not only American ones), then serve more or less voluntarily as so many resonance boxes for
his daily 'tweets', most of which are often devoid of any thought and logic.
Such a practice has the consequence of demeaning the public discourse in the pursuit of the
common good and the general welfare of the people to the level of a frivolous private
enterprise, where expertise, research and competence can easily be replaced by improvisation,
whimsical arbitrariness and charlatanry. In such a climate, only the short run counts, at the
expense of planning for the long run.
Conclusion
All this leads to this conclusion: Trump's approach is not the way to run an efficient
government. Notwithstanding the U.S. Constitution and what it says about the need to have "
checks and balance s" among different government branches, President Donald Trump has
de facto pushed aside the U.S. Congress and the civil servants in important government
Departments, even his own Cabinet
, whose formal meetings under Trump have been little more than photo-up happenings, to grab the
central political stage for himself. If such a development does not represent an ominous threat
to American democracy, what does?
The centralization of power in the hands of one man is bound to have serious political
consequences, both for the current administration and for future ones.
"... Peskov made a statement about how unfriendly this action was after the two presidents met and got on – is this guy for real? The Americans are aiming to crush Russia and Peskov thinks it's unfriendly. This is what I mean by pandering ..."
"... What was the cost to Russia? Nada. What did it do to the US – more comical flailing, posturing and noise. Russia clearly understood what they were doing and the repercussions to the US political system – more dysfunction and misdirection. Score: Russia 1, USA 0. ..."
When I used the term pandering I mean the following
– Agreeing to meet in Helsinki with no agenda.
The meeting btw Lavrov and Pompeo was cancelled.
But Russia went along and has now escalated the Russophobia attacks against itself – this behaviour by Russia is
pandering – let's meet with America whatever the cost, since at least 2014 and the latest Ukrainian coup; USA has
proved untrustworthy yet Russia turns up when the USA asks. Putin was even going to Washington.
Is the Kremlin living in a bubble?
Putin lavrov Shoigu have been there for years and yet they seem to wear rose coloured glasses when it comes to
America
Now with the latest sanctions – there is a protest and vague threat to respond –
Peskov made a statement about how unfriendly this action was after the two presidents met and got on – is
this guy for real? The Americans are aiming to crush Russia and Peskov thinks it's unfriendly. This is what I mean
by pandering
I really think the government needs fresh people – doing what they have been doing is not working.
What was the cost to Russia? Nada. What did it do to
the US – more comical flailing, posturing and noise. Russia clearly understood what they were doing and the
repercussions to the US political system – more dysfunction and misdirection. Score: Russia 1, USA 0.
If the situation eventually resolves itself without a major war, and things go back to something more like
normal, when American manufacturers like Caterpillar and Ford are looking to expand into Russia, they will say
"Waaahhhhh!!! Why do they hate us?"
Media: "We would like to have better relations with the Russian government. And sanctions are one tool
from a whole set, through which we can try to set up some kind of government that shows an improvement in its
behavior", the head of the State Department press service has said.
What kind of tool-set is this, "through which governments are set up to improve their behaviour for the
betterment of their relations with the US":
?
And I should like a couple of examples of where and how this "set" has worked.
I daresay there are a few countries in the world which would like to use various tools against the United
States until those countries managed to set up a government in America which showed an improvement in its
behavior. Would that be regarded as just another avenue of diplomacy by America? Surely not, in the Shining
City On A Hill? Then what's all this talk of 'meddling' in America's democracy? Either the people of the
country get to pick its leader, or the international community decides who would be appropriate and then uses
the tools at its disposal to maneuver a satisfactory government into power. Make up your mind, but stop
babbling about 'democracy', what say?
Amazingly enough, some people believe this nonsense. There are a
handful of Russian liberals who allow that the country deserves to be sanctioned, and express hope that there
will be more until the government is cast down, and a new American-style – possibly even American-picked –
government takes power. This, to the US State Department, is the very distilled essence of democracy and
freedom. However, the electoral process in America is evidently flawless, as no tampering with it is either
required or permitted, and any result which does not meet with the approval of the corporate lobbyists is
obviously an engineered takeover attempt by Russia.
"See: I'm not biased against the POTUS and never have been, cos I'm investigating the
Dems, too. So I need to continue my impartial work forever" scam:
" anything he unearths about Russian election interference.." Future tense, as in not yet
accomplished as of this date. Mueller landed himself a good gig, but you can bet he has
discovered a great deal about 'foreign money flowing into Washington' which will never be
told, because it's not good politics, and has nothing to do with Russia. I daresay a
significant amount flows out of Washington as well, for intrigues and influence-peddling
abroad.
"... Thus ends another episode in the seemingly interminable serial, "Bernie Sanders Tries, and Fails, to Put a Progressive Coat of Paint on the Democratic Party." Since he rocketed to political prominence in 2016 in his challenge to Hillary Clinton, the presumptive presidential nominee of the Democratic Party, Sanders has played this role again and again. ..."
"... First, he appeals to the idealism of young people and the economic grievances of working people, claiming to represent a genuine alternative to the domination of American politics by the oligarchy of "millionaires and billionaires." Then he diverts those who have responded to his campaign back into the existing political framework, endorsing whatever right-wing hack emerges from the Democratic wing of the corporate-controlled two-party system. ..."
"... In the 2018 campaign, where he is not a candidate except for reelection in Vermont, Sanders has endorsed and campaigned for a number of supposedly left-wing candidates in the Democratic primaries, always based on the same pretense, that the Democratic Party can be reformed and pushed to the left, that this party of corporate America can be transformed into an instrument of social reform and popular politics. ..."
"... The requirements for receiving Sanders' support and that of "Our Revolution," the political operation formed by many of his 2016 campaign staffers, are not very demanding. The self-proclaimed socialist does not demand that his favored candidates oppose capitalism or pay lip service to socialism -- and almost none of them do. ..."
"... In other words, Sanders uses the image of radicalism and opposition to the status quo that surrounded his 2016 campaign to lend support to very conventional, pro-capitalist candidates, whose policies are well within the mainstream of the Democratic Party -- a party whose leadership has embraced most of the measures cited above, secure in the knowledge that it will not keep a single one of these promises and can always blame the Republicans for blocking them. ..."
"... In Michigan, Sanders spoke at rallies for El-Sayed, and his supporters were quite active on college campuses and on social media, mobilizing support among young people. But as in 2016, there was little effort to reach the working class, particularly minority workers in Detroit, Flint, Saginaw and other devastated industrial cities. ..."
"... Sanders and the supposedly "left" Democrats he promotes all fervently support the trade union bureaucracy, which is working overtime this year to prevent strikes by angry and militant workers -- as at United Parcel Service -- and to isolate, terminate and betray them where they break out -- as with the state-wide teachers' strikes in West Virginia, Oklahoma and Arizona earlier this year. ..."
"... Under these conditions, the Democratic Party is not a party that can or will can carry out social reforms in order to save capitalism, as in Roosevelt's day. It is a party that will carry out the dictates of the ruling class for war and austerity while using the services of "left" politicians like Sanders to confuse and disorient working people and youth. ..."
Michigan gubernatorial candidate Abdul El-Sayed went down to a double-digit defeat Tuesday in the Democratic primary, overwhelmed
by the near-unanimous support of the Democratic Party establishment for former state senator Gretchen Whitmer. The daughter of
former Blue Cross/Blue Shield CEO Richard Whitmer won every county in the state and will go on to face Republican State Attorney
General Bill Schuette in the November general election.
In a tweet to his supporters, El-Sayed declared: "The victory was not ours today, but the work continues. Congratulations to
@gretchenwhitmer on her primary win. Tomorrow we continue the path toward justice, equity and sustainability."
When tomorrow came, however, that "path" led to a unity luncheon at which El-Sayed and the third candidate in the race, self-funding
millionaire Shri Thanedar, pledged their full support to Whitmer. "Today we all retool and figure out how we make sure that Bill
Schuette does not become governor. I'm super committed to that," El-Sayed said. "Never has it been more important to have a Democrat
lead state government."
Thus ends another episode in the seemingly interminable serial, "Bernie Sanders Tries, and Fails, to Put a Progressive
Coat of Paint on the Democratic Party." Since he rocketed to political prominence in 2016 in his challenge to Hillary Clinton,
the presumptive presidential nominee of the Democratic Party, Sanders has played this role again and again.
First, he appeals to the idealism of young people and the economic grievances of working people, claiming to represent
a genuine alternative to the domination of American politics by the oligarchy of "millionaires and billionaires." Then he diverts
those who have responded to his campaign back into the existing political framework, endorsing whatever right-wing hack emerges
from the Democratic wing of the corporate-controlled two-party system.
In 2016, this involved appealing to his supporters to back Hillary Clinton, the candidate of Wall Street and the military-intelligence
apparatus. The Clinton campaign refused to make the slightest appeal to the working class in order to preserve its support within
corporate America and, in the process, drove millions of desperate workers to stay home on Election Day or vote for Trump, allowing
the billionaire demagogue to eke out an Electoral College victory.
In the 2018 campaign, where he is not a candidate except for reelection in Vermont, Sanders has endorsed and campaigned
for a number of supposedly left-wing candidates in the Democratic primaries, always based on the same pretense, that the Democratic
Party can be reformed and pushed to the left, that this party of corporate America can be transformed into an instrument of social
reform and popular politics.
The requirements for receiving Sanders' support and that of "Our Revolution," the political operation formed by many of
his 2016 campaign staffers, are not very demanding. The self-proclaimed socialist does not demand that his favored candidates
oppose capitalism or pay lip service to socialism -- and almost none of them do.
Their platforms usually include such demands as raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour, implementing "Medicare for all," interpreted
in various fashions, establishing free public college education for families earning less than $150,000 a year, and enacting universal
pre-K education. They usually promise not to accept corporate money and to support campaign finance reform.
These Sanders-backed candidates, like Sanders himself in 2016, have very little to say about foreign policy and make no appeal
whatsoever to the deep anti-war sentiment among American youth and workers. There is no discussion of Trump's threats of nuclear
war. As for trade war, most, like Sanders himself, embrace the economic nationalism that is the foundation of Trump's trade policy.
In other words, Sanders uses the image of radicalism and opposition to the status quo that surrounded his 2016 campaign
to lend support to very conventional, pro-capitalist candidates, whose policies are well within the mainstream of the Democratic
Party -- a party whose leadership has embraced most of the measures cited above, secure in the knowledge that it will not keep
a single one of these promises and can always blame the Republicans for blocking them.
In Michigan, Sanders spoke at rallies for El-Sayed, and his supporters were quite active on college campuses and on social
media, mobilizing support among young people. But as in 2016, there was little effort to reach the working class, particularly
minority workers in Detroit, Flint, Saginaw and other devastated industrial cities.
Sanders and the supposedly "left" Democrats he promotes all fervently support the trade union bureaucracy, which is working
overtime this year to prevent strikes by angry and militant workers -- as at United Parcel Service -- and to isolate, terminate
and betray them where they break out -- as with the state-wide teachers' strikes in West Virginia, Oklahoma and Arizona earlier
this year.
The real attitude of Sanders and El-Sayed to genuine socialism was made clear when they sought to ban supporters of the Socialist
Equality Party and SEP candidate for Congress Niles Niemuth from distributing leaflets and holding discussions outside campaign
rallies for El-Sayed.
This year, Sanders has been campaigning with a sidekick, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a member of the Democratic Socialists of
America who won the Democratic congressional nomination in the 12th District of New York, defeating incumbent Representative Joseph
Crowley, the fourth-ranking member of the Democratic leadership in the House.
Ocasio-Cortez campaigned for El-Sayed in Michigan and also for several congressional candidates, including Brent Welder in
Kansas and Cori Bush in Missouri, who also went down to defeat on August 7. Like Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez claims that the Democratic
Party can be transformed into a genuinely progressive "party of the people" that will implement social reforms.
But at age 28, Ocasio-Cortez has less practice in performing the song-and-dance of pretending to be independent of the Democratic
Party establishment while working to give it a left cover and prop it up. She was clumsier in her execution, attracting notice
as she walked back a campaign demand to abolish the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency and sought to downplay her previous
criticism of Israeli oppression of the Palestinian people.
After her campaign swing through the Midwest, Ocasio-Cortez traveled to the Netroots Nation conference in New Orleans, an annual
assemblage of the left flank of the Democratic Party. She told her adoring audience that her policies were not radical at all,
but firmly in the Democratic mainstream. "It's time for us to remember that universal college education, trade school, a federal
jobs guarantee, a universal basic income were not all proposed in 2016," she said. "They were proposed in 1940, by the Democratic
president of the United States."
The reference to Franklin D. Roosevelt was inadvertently revealing. Roosevelt adopted reform policies, including many of those
suggested by the social democrats of his day such as Norman Thomas. He was no socialist, but rather a clever and conscious bourgeois
politician who enacted limited reforms in a deliberate effort to save the capitalist system.
Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez likewise seek to save the capitalist system, but under conditions where no such reforms are possible.
The American ruling class no longer dominates the world economy, but is beset by powerful rivals in both Europe and Asia. It is
pouring resources into the military to prepare for world war. And at home, even the most modest measures run up against the intransigent
opposition of the super-rich, who control both parties and demand even greater wealth for themselves at the expense of working
people.
Under these conditions, the Democratic Party is not a party that can or will can carry out social reforms in order to save
capitalism, as in Roosevelt's day. It is a party that will carry out the dictates of the ruling class for war and austerity while
using the services of "left" politicians like Sanders to confuse and disorient working people and youth.
Thus, at Netroots Nation, the assembled "left" Democrats gave a loud ovation to Ocasio-Cortez, but also to Gina Ortiz Jones,
the Democratic nominee in the 23rd Congressional District of Texas, also young, nonwhite and female. Ortiz Jones has another characteristic,
however. She is a career Air Force intelligence officer who was deployed to Iraq, South Sudan and Libya -- all the scenes of US-instigated
bloodbaths.
Ortiz Jones is one of nearly three dozen such candidates chosen to represent the Democratic Party in contested congressional
districts around the country. Another such candidate is Elissa Slotkin, who won the Democratic nomination Tuesday in Michigan's
Eighth Congressional District. Slotkin served three tours with the CIA in Baghdad before being promoted to high-level positions
in the Pentagon and the Obama-era National Security Council.
The fake leftism of Bernie Sanders in alliance with the CIA: That is the formula for the Democratic Party in 2018.
"... Israel – not Russia – is the one foreign country that can interfere with impunity with the political processes in the United States yet it is immune from criticism. ..."
By all means confront Israel if that is your thing, but don't pretend that there is any
possibility of besting them.
Israel – not Russia – is the one foreign country that can interfere with
impunity with the political processes in the United States yet it is immune from
criticism.
Yes. And that is why only Israel can tame American Jews.
We are in a very peculiar ideological and political place in which Democracy (oh sainted
Democracy) is a very good thing, unless the voters reject the technocrat class's leadership.
Then the velvet gloves come off. From the perspective of the elites and their technocrat
apparatchiks, elections have only one purpose: to rubberstamp their leadership.
As a general rule, this is easily managed by spending hundreds of millions of dollars on
advertising and bribes to the cartels and insider fiefdoms who pony up most of the cash.
This is why incumbents win the vast majority of elections. Once in power, they issue the
bribes and payoffs needed to guarantee funding next election cycle.
The occasional incumbent who is voted out of office made one of two mistakes:
1. He/she showed a very troubling bit of independence from the technocrat status quo, so a
more orthodox candidate is selected to eliminate him/her.
2. The incumbent forgot to put on a charade of "listening to my constituency" etc.
If restive voters can't be bamboozled into passively supporting the technocrat status quo
with the usual propaganda, divide and conquer is the preferred strategy. Only voting for the
technocrat class (of any party, it doesn't really matter) will save us from the evil Other :
Deplorables, socialists, commies, fascists, etc.
In extreme cases where the masses confound the status quo by voting against the technocrat
class (i.e. against globalization, financialization, Empire), then the elites/technocrats will
punish them with austerity or a managed recession. The technocrat's core ideology boils down to
this:
1. The masses are dangerously incapable of making wise decisions about anything, so we have
to persuade them to do our bidding. Any dissent will be punished, marginalized, censored or
shut down under some pretext of "protecting the public" or violation of some open-ended
statute.
2. To insure this happy outcome, we must use all the powers of propaganda, up to and
including rigged statistics, bogus "facts" (official fake news can't be fake news, etc.),
divide and conquer, fear-mongering, misdirection and so on.
3. We must relentlessly centralize all power, wealth and authority so the masses have no
escape or independence left to threaten us. We must control everything, for their own good of
course.
4. Globalization must be presented not as a gargantuan fraud that has stripmined the planet
and its inhabitants, but as the sole wellspring of endless, permanent prosperity.
5. If the masses refuse to rubberstamp our leadership, they will be punished and told the
source of their punishment is their rejection of globalization, financialization and
Empire.
Technocrats rule the world, East and West alike. My two favorite charts of the outcome of
technocrats running things to suit their elite masters are:
The state-cartel-crony-capitalist version: the top .1% skim the vast majority of the gains
in income and wealth. Globalization, financialization and Empire sure do rack up impressive
gains. Too bad they're concentrated in the top 1.%.
The state-crony-socialist version: the currency is destroyed, impoverishing everyone but the
top .1% who transferred their wealth to Miami, London and Zurich long ago. Hmm, do you discern
a pattern here in the elite-technocrat regime?
Ideology is just a cover you slip over the machine to mask what's really going on.
Throughout, Republicans in Congress were relentless in their pursuit. (If the recent Peter
Strzok hearing shocked you, you didn't watch any of the dozens of Whitewater hearings.) Starr's
office leaked like a sieve, making it clear that his mission had strayed far beyond normal law
enforcement into being a political operation intended to bring down the president. The media
ate it all up like little baby birds with their beaks open, eager to take whatever was fed to
them. The atmosphere was febrile and intense.
Starr had finally decided to close up shop after years and years of chasing his tail had
come up with no evidence of a crime. But that was when the Paula Jones civil suit opened the
door for Linda Tripp to stab her friend Monica Lewinsky in the back, and right-wing lawyers set
a perjury trap for the president. Clinton walked into it, lying under oath when asked if he'd
engaged in an extramarital affair with Lewinsky. The rest is history.
Of course this kind of devious machination is what Republicans see happening with Robert
Mueller's investigation into Trump's campaign dealings with Russians.
This is an interesting analysis shedding some light on how the US intelligence services have gone rogue...
Notable quotes:
"... Most recently, British "special services," which are a sort of Mini-Me to the to the Dr. Evil that is the US intelligence apparatus, saw it fit to interfere with one of their own spies, Sergei Skripal, a double agent whom they sprung from a Russian jail in a spy swap. They poisoned him using an exotic chemical and then tried to pin the blame on Russia based on no evidence. ..."
"... the Americans are doing their best to break the unwritten rule against dragging spies through the courts, but their best is nowhere near good enough. ..."
"... That said, there is no reason to believe that the Russian spies couldn't have hacked into the DNC mail server. It was probably running Microsoft Windows, and that operating system has more holes in it than a building in downtown Raqqa, Syria after the Americans got done bombing that city to rubble, lots of civilians included. When questioned about this alleged hacking by Fox News, Putin (who had worked as a spy in his previous career) had trouble keeping a straight face and clearly enjoyed the moment. ..."
"... He pointed out that the hacked/leaked emails showed a clear pattern of wrongdoing: DNC officials conspired to steal the electoral victory in the Democratic Primary from Bernie Sanders, and after this information had been leaked they were forced to resign. If the Russian hack did happen, then it was the Russians working to save American democracy from itself. So, where's the gratitude? Where's the love? Oh, and why are the DNC perps not in jail? ..."
"... The logic of US officials may be hard to follow, but only if we adhere to the traditional definitions of espionage and counterespionage -- "intelligence" in US parlance -- which is to provide validated information for the purpose of making informed decisions on best ways of defending the country. But it all makes perfect sense if we disabuse ourselves of such quaint notions and accept the reality of what we can actually observe: the purpose of US "intelligence" is not to come up with or to work with facts but to simply "make shit up." ..."
"... The objective of US intelligence is to suck all remaining wealth out of the US and its allies and pocket as much of it as possible while pretending to defend it from phantom aggressors by squandering nonexistent (borrowed) financial resources on ineffective and overpriced military operations and weapons systems. Where the aggressors are not phantom, they are specially organized for the purpose of having someone to fight: "moderate" terrorists and so on. ..."
"... "What sort of idiot are you to ask me such a stupid question? Of course they are lying! They were caught lying more than once, and therefore they can never be trusted again. In order to claim that they are not currently lying, you have to determine when it was that they stopped lying, and that they haven't lied since. And that, based on the information that is available, is an impossible task." ..."
"... "The US intelligence agencies made an outrageous claim: that I colluded with Russia to rig the outcome of the 2016 presidential election. The burden of proof is on them. They are yet to prove their case in a court of law, which is the only place where the matter can legitimately be settled, if it can be settled at all. Until that happens, we must treat their claim as conspiracy theory, not as fact." ..."
"... But no such reality-based, down-to-earth dialogue seems possible. All that we hear are fake answers to fake questions, and the outcome is a series of faulty decisions. Based on fake intelligence, the US has spent almost all of this century embroiled in very expensive and ultimately futile conflicts. ..."
"... Thanks to their efforts, Iran, Iraq and Syria have now formed a continuous crescent of religiously and geopolitically aligned states friendly toward Russia while in Afghanistan the Taliban is resurgent and battling ISIS -- an organization that came together thanks to American efforts in Iraq and Syria. ..."
"... Another hypothesis, and a far more plausible one, is that the US intelligence community has been doing a wonderful job of bankrupting the country and driving it toward financial, economic and political collapse by forcing it to engage in an endless series of expensive and futile conflicts -- the largest single continuous act of grand larceny the world has ever known. How that can possibly be an intelligent thing to do to your own country, for any conceivable definition of "intelligence," I will leave for you to work out for yourself. While you are at it, you might also want to come up with an improved definition of "treason": something better than "a skeptical attitude toward preposterous, unproven claims made by those known to be perpetual liars. ..."
In today's United States, the term "espionage" doesn't get too much
use outside of some specific contexts. There is still sporadic talk of industrial espionage,
but with regard to Americans' own efforts to understand the world beyond their borders, they
prefer the term "intelligence." This may be an intelligent choice, or not, depending on how you
look at things.
First of all, US "intelligence" is only vaguely related to the game of espionage as it has
been traditionally played, and as it is still being played by countries such as Russia and
China. Espionage involves collecting and validating strategically vital information and
conveying it to just the pertinent decision-makers on your side while keeping the fact that you
are collecting and validating it hidden from everyone else.
In eras past, a spy, if discovered, would try to bite down on a cyanide capsule; these days
torture is considered ungentlemanly, and spies that get caught patiently wait to be exchanged
in a spy swap. An unwritten, commonsense rule about spy swaps is that they are done quietly and
that those released are never interfered with again because doing so would complicate
negotiating future spy swaps.
In recent years, the US intelligence agencies have decided that torturing prisoners is a
good idea, but they have mostly been torturing innocent bystanders, not professional spies,
sometimes forcing them to invent things, such as "Al Qaeda." There was no such thing before US
intelligence popularized it as a brand among Islamic terrorists.
Most recently, British "special services," which are a sort of Mini-Me to the to the Dr.
Evil that is the US intelligence apparatus, saw it fit to interfere with one of their own
spies, Sergei Skripal, a double agent whom they sprung from a Russian jail in a spy swap. They
poisoned him using an exotic chemical and then tried to pin the blame on Russia based on no
evidence.
There are unlikely to be any more British spy swaps with Russia, and British spies working
in Russia should probably be issued good old-fashioned cyanide capsules (since that supposedly
super-powerful Novichok stuff the British keep at their "secret" lab in Porton Down doesn't
work right and is only fatal 20% of the time).
There is another unwritten, commonsense rule about spying in general: whatever happens, it
needs to be kept out of the courts, because the discovery process of any trial would force the
prosecution to divulge sources and methods, making them part of the public record. An
alternative is to hold secret tribunals, but since these cannot be independently verified to be
following due process and rules of evidence, they don't add much value.
A different standard applies to traitors; here, sending them through the courts is
acceptable and serves a high moral purpose, since here the source is the person on trial and
the method -- treason -- can be divulged without harm. But this logic does not apply to proper,
professional spies who are simply doing their jobs, even if they turn out to be double agents.
In fact, when counterintelligence discovers a spy, the professional thing to do is to try to
recruit him as a double agent or, failing that, to try to use the spy as a channel for
injecting disinformation.
Americans have been doing their best to break this rule. Recently, special counsel Robert
Mueller indicted a dozen Russian operatives working in Russia for hacking into the DNC mail
server and sending the emails to Wikileaks. Meanwhile, said server is nowhere to be found (it's
been misplaced) while the time stamps on the files that were published on Wikileaks show that
they were obtained by copying to a thumb drive rather than sending them over the internet.
Thus, this was a leak, not a hack, and couldn't have been done by anyone working remotely from
Russia.
Furthermore, it is an exercise in futility for a US official to indict Russian citizens in
Russia. They will never stand trial in a US court because of the following clause in the
Russian Constitution: "61.1 A citizen of the Russian Federation may not be deported out of
Russia or extradited to another state."
Mueller may summon a panel of constitutional scholars to interpret this sentence, or he can
just read it and weep. Yes, the Americans are doing their best to break the unwritten rule
against dragging spies through the courts, but their best is nowhere near good enough.
That said, there is no reason to believe that the Russian spies couldn't have hacked
into the DNC mail server. It was probably running Microsoft Windows, and that operating system
has more holes in it than a building in downtown Raqqa, Syria after the Americans got done
bombing that city to rubble, lots of civilians included. When questioned about this alleged
hacking by Fox News, Putin (who had worked as a spy in his previous career) had trouble keeping
a straight face and clearly enjoyed the moment.
He pointed out that the hacked/leaked emails showed a clear pattern of wrongdoing: DNC
officials conspired to steal the electoral victory in the Democratic Primary from Bernie
Sanders, and after this information had been leaked they were forced to resign. If the Russian
hack did happen, then it was the Russians working to save American democracy from itself. So,
where's the gratitude? Where's the love? Oh, and why are the DNC perps not in jail?
Since there exists an agreement between the US and Russia to cooperate on criminal
investigations, Putin offered to question the spies indicted by Mueller. He even offered to
have Mueller sit in on the proceedings. But in return he wanted to question US officials who
may have aided and abetted a convicted felon by the name of William Browder, who is due to
begin serving a nine-year sentence in Russia any time now and who, by the way, donated copious
amounts of his ill-gotten money to the Hillary Clinton election campaign.
In response, the US Senate passed a resolution to forbid Russians from questioning US
officials. And instead of issuing a valid request to have the twelve Russian spies interviewed,
at least one US official made the startlingly inane request to have them come to the US
instead. Again, which part of 61.1 don't they understand?
The logic of US officials may be hard to follow, but only if we adhere to the
traditional definitions of espionage and counterespionage -- "intelligence" in US parlance --
which is to provide validated information for the purpose of making informed decisions on best
ways of defending the country. But it all makes perfect sense if we disabuse ourselves of such
quaint notions and accept the reality of what we can actually observe: the purpose of US
"intelligence" is not to come up with or to work with facts but to simply "make shit
up."
The "intelligence" the US intelligence agencies provide can be anything but; in fact, the
stupider it is the better, because its purpose is allow unintelligent people to make
unintelligent decisions. In fact, they consider facts harmful -- be they about Syrian chemical
weapons, or conspiring to steal the primary from Bernie Sanders, or Iraqi weapons of mass
destruction, or the whereabouts of Osama Bin Laden -- because facts require accuracy and rigor
while they prefer to dwell in the realm of pure fantasy and whimsy. In this, their actual
objective is easily discernible.
The objective of US intelligence is to suck all remaining wealth out of the US and its
allies and pocket as much of it as possible while pretending to defend it from phantom
aggressors by squandering nonexistent (borrowed) financial resources on ineffective and
overpriced military operations and weapons systems. Where the aggressors are not phantom, they
are specially organized for the purpose of having someone to fight: "moderate" terrorists and
so on.
One major advancement in their state of the art has been in moving from real false flag
operations, à la 9/11, to fake false flag operations, à la fake East Gouta
chemical attack in Syria (since fully discredited). The Russian election meddling story is
perhaps the final step in this evolution: no New York skyscrapers or Syrian children were
harmed in the process of concocting this fake narrative, and it can be kept alive seemingly
forever purely through the furious effort of numerous flapping lips. It is now a pure
confidence scam. If you are less then impressed with their invented narratives, then you are a
conspiracy theorist or, in the latest revision, a traitor.
Trump was recently questioned as to whether he trusted US intelligence. He waffled. A
light-hearted answer would have been:
"What sort of idiot are you to ask me such a stupid question? Of course they are lying! They
were caught lying more than once, and therefore they can never be trusted again. In order to
claim that they are not currently lying, you have to determine when it was that they stopped
lying, and that they haven't lied since. And that, based on the information that is available,
is an impossible task."
A more serious, matter-of-fact answer would have been:
"The US intelligence agencies made an outrageous claim: that I colluded with Russia to rig
the outcome of the 2016 presidential election. The burden of proof is on them. They are yet to
prove their case in a court of law, which is the only place where the matter can legitimately
be settled, if it can be settled at all. Until that happens, we must treat their claim as
conspiracy theory, not as fact."
And a hardcore, deadpan answer would have been:
"The US intelligence services swore an oath to uphold the US Constitution, according to
which I am their Commander in Chief. They report to me, not I to them. They must be loyal to
me, not I to them. If they are disloyal to me, then that is sufficient reason for their
dismissal."
But no such reality-based, down-to-earth dialogue seems possible. All that we hear are fake
answers to fake questions, and the outcome is a series of faulty decisions. Based on fake
intelligence, the US has spent almost all of this century embroiled in very expensive and
ultimately futile conflicts.
Thanks to their efforts, Iran, Iraq and Syria have now formed a continuous crescent of
religiously and geopolitically aligned states friendly toward Russia while in Afghanistan the
Taliban is resurgent and battling ISIS -- an organization that came together thanks to American
efforts in Iraq and Syria.
The total cost of wars so far this century for the US is reported to be $4,575,610,429,593.
Divided by the 138,313,155 Americans who file tax returns (whether they actually pay any tax is
too subtle a question), it works out to just over $33,000 per taxpayer. If you pay taxes in the
US, that's your bill so far for the various US intelligence "oopsies."
The 16 US intelligence agencies have a combined budget of $66.8 billion, and that seems like
a lot until you realize how supremely efficient they are: their "mistakes" have cost the
country close to 70 times their budget. At a staffing level of over 200,000 employees, each of
them has cost the US taxpayer close to $23 million, on average. That number is totally out of
the ballpark! The energy sector has the highest earnings per employee, at around $1.8 million
per. Valero Energy stands out at $7.6 million per. At $23 million per, the US intelligence
community has been doing three times better than Valero. Hats off! This makes the US
intelligence community by far the best, most efficient collapse driver imaginable.
There are two possible hypotheses for why this is so.
First, we might venture to guess that these 200,000 people are grossly incompetent and that
the fiascos they precipitate are accidental. But it is hard to imagine a situation where
grossly incompetent people nevertheless manage to funnel $23 million apiece, on average, toward
an assortment of futile undertakings of their choosing. It is even harder to imagine that such
incompetents would be allowed to blunder along decade after decade without being called out for
their mistakes.
Another hypothesis, and a far more plausible one, is that the US intelligence community has
been doing a wonderful job of bankrupting the country and driving it toward financial, economic
and political collapse by forcing it to engage in an endless series of expensive and futile
conflicts -- the largest single continuous act of grand larceny the world has ever known. How
that can possibly be an intelligent thing to do to your own country, for any conceivable
definition of "intelligence," I will leave for you to work out for yourself. While you are at
it, you might also want to come up with an improved definition of "treason": something better
than "a skeptical attitude toward preposterous, unproven claims made by those known to be
perpetual liars."
"... Second, the U.S. government in April imposed sanctions on Deripaska, one of several prominent Russians targeted to punish Vladimir Putin -- using the same sort of allegations that State used from 2006 to 2009. Yet, between those two episodes, Deripaska seemed good enough for the FBI to ask him to fund that multimillion-dollar rescue mission. And to seek his help on a sensitive political investigation. And to allow him into the country eight times. ..."
"... "The real question becomes whether it was proper to leave [Deripaska] out of the Manafort indictment, and whether that omission was to avoid the kind of transparency that is really required by the law," Dershowitz said. ..."
"... Melanie Sloan, a former Clinton Justice Department lawyer and longtime ethics watchdog, told me a "far more significant issue" is whether the earlier FBI operation was even legal: "It's possible the bureau's arrangement with Mr. Deripaska violated the Antideficiency Act, which prohibits the government from accepting voluntary services." ..."
But there's one episode even Mueller's former law enforcement comrades -- and independent ethicists -- acknowledge raises legitimate
legal issues and a possible conflict of interest in his overseeing the Russia election probe.
ADVERTISEMENT In 2009, when Mueller ran the FBI,
the bureau
asked Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska to spend millions of his own dollars funding an FBI-supervised operation to rescue a retired
FBI agent, Robert Levinson, captured in Iran while working for the CIA in 2007.
Yes, that's the same Deripaska who has surfaced in Mueller's current investigation and who was recently sanctioned by the Trump
administration.
The Levinson mission is confirmed by more than a dozen participants inside and outside the FBI, including Deripaska, his lawyer,
the Levinson family and a retired agent who supervised the case. Mueller was kept apprised of the operation, officials told me.
Some aspects of Deripaska's help were chronicled in
a 2016 book by reporter Barry
Meier , but sources provide extensive new information about his role.
They said FBI agents courted Deripaska in 2009 in a series of secret hotel meetings in Paris; Vienna; Budapest, Hungary, and Washington.
Agents persuaded the aluminum industry magnate to underwrite the mission. The Russian billionaire insisted the operation neither
involve nor harm his homeland.
"We knew he was paying for his team helping us, and that probably ran into the millions," a U.S. official involved in the operation
confirmed.
Deripaska's lawyer said the Russian ultimately spent $25 million assembling a private search and rescue team that worked with
Iranian contacts under the FBI's watchful eye. Photos and videos indicating Levinson was alive were uncovered.
Then in fall 2010, the operation secured an offer to free Levinson. The deal was scuttled, however, when the State Department
become uncomfortable with Iran's terms, according to Deripaska's lawyer and the Levinson family.
FBI officials confirmed State hampered their efforts.
"We tried to turn over every stone we could to rescue Bob, but every time we started to get close, the State Department seemed
to always get in the way," said Robyn Gritz, the retired agent who supervised the Levinson case in 2009, when Deripaska first cooperated,
but who left for another position in 2010 before the Iranian offer arrived. "I kept Director Mueller and Deputy Director [John] Pistole
informed of the various efforts and operations, and they offered to intervene with State, if necessary."
FBI officials ended the operation in 2011, concerned that Deripaska's Iranian contacts couldn't deliver with all the U.S. infighting.
Levinson was never found; his whereabouts remain a mystery, 11 years after he disappeared.
The State Department declined comment, and a spokesman for Clinton did not offer comment. Mueller's spokesman, Peter Carr, declined
to answer questions. As did McCabe.
The FBI had three reasons for choosing Deripaska for a mission worthy of a spy novel. First, his aluminum empire had business
in Iran. Second, the FBI wanted a foreigner to fund the operation because spending money in Iran might violate U.S. sanctions and
other laws. Third, agents knew Deripaska had been banished since 2006 from the United States by State over reports he had ties to
organized crime and other nefarious activities. He denies the allegations, and nothing was ever proven in court.
The FBI rewarded Deripaska for his help. In fall 2009, according to U.S. entry records, Deripaska visited Washington on a rare
law enforcement parole visa. And since 2011, he has been granted entry at least eight times on a diplomatic passport, even though
he doesn't work for the Russian Foreign Ministry.
Former FBI officials confirm they arranged the access.
Deripaska said in a statement through Adam Waldman, his American lawyer, that FBI agents told him State's reasons for blocking
his U.S. visa were "merely a pretext."
"The FBI said they had undertaken a careful background check, and if there was any validity to the State Department smears, they
would not have reached out to me for assistance," the Russian said.
Deripaska once hired Manafort as a political adviser and invested money with him in a business venture that went bad. Deripaska
sued Manafort, alleging he stole money.
Mueller's indictment of Manafort makes no mention of Deripaska, even though prosecutors have evidence that Manafort
contemplated inviting his old Russian client for a 2016 Trump campaign briefing. Deripaska said he never got the invite and investigators
have found no evidence it occurred. There's no public evidence Deripaska had anything to do with election meddling.
Deripaska also appears to be one of the first Russians the FBI asked for help when it began investigating the now-infamous Fusion
GPS "Steele Dossier." Waldman, his American lawyer until the sanctions hit, gave me a detailed account, some of which U.S. officials
confirm separately.
Two months before Trump was elected president, Deripaska was in New York as part of Russia's United Nations delegation when three
FBI agents awakened him in his home; at least one agent had worked with Deripaska on the aborted effort to rescue Levinson. During
an hour-long visit, the agents posited a theory that Trump's campaign was secretly colluding with Russia to hijack the U.S. election.
"Deripaska laughed but realized, despite the joviality, that they were serious," the lawyer said. "So he told them in his informed
opinion the idea they were proposing was false. 'You are trying to create something out of nothing,' he told them." The agents left
though the FBI sought more information in 2017 from the Russian, sources tell me. Waldman declined to say if Deripaska has been in
contact with the FBI since Sept, 2016.
So why care about some banished Russian oligarch's account now?
Two reasons.
First, as the FBI prepared to get authority to surveil figures on Trump's campaign team, did it disclose to the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court that one of its past Russian sources waived them off the notion of Trump-Russia collusion?
Second, the U.S. government in April imposed sanctions on Deripaska, one of several prominent Russians targeted to punish
Vladimir Putin -- using the same sort of allegations that State used from 2006 to 2009. Yet, between those two episodes, Deripaska
seemed good enough for the FBI to ask him to fund that multimillion-dollar rescue mission. And to seek his help on a sensitive political
investigation. And to allow him into the country eight times.
I was alerted to Deripaska's past FBI relationship by U.S. officials who wondered whether the Russian's conspicuous absence from
Mueller's indictments might be related to his FBI work.
They aren't the only ones.
Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz told me he believes Mueller has a conflict of interest because his FBI previously accepted
financial help from a Russian that is, at the very least, a witness in the current probe.
"The real question becomes whether it was proper to leave [Deripaska] out of the Manafort indictment, and whether that omission
was to avoid the kind of transparency that is really required by the law," Dershowitz said.
Melanie Sloan, a former Clinton Justice Department lawyer and longtime ethics watchdog, told me a "far more significant issue"
is whether the earlier FBI operation was even legal: "It's possible the bureau's arrangement with Mr. Deripaska violated the Antideficiency
Act, which prohibits the government from accepting voluntary services."
George Washington University constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley agreed: "If the operation with Deripaska contravened
federal law, this figure could be viewed as a potential embarrassment for Mueller. The question is whether he could implicate Mueller
in an impropriety."
Now that sources have unmasked the Deripaska story, time will tell whether the courts, Justice, Congress or a defendant formally
questions if Mueller is conflicted.
In the meantime, the episode highlights an oft-forgotten truism: The cat-and-mouse maneuvers between Moscow and Washington are
often portrayed in black-and-white terms. But the truth is, the relationship is enveloped in many shades of gray.
John Solomon is an award-winning investigative journalist whose work over the years has exposed U.S. and FBI intelligence
failures before the Sept. 11 attacks, federal scientists' misuse of foster children and veterans in drug experiments, and numerous
cases of political corruption. He is The Hill's executive vice president for video.
WASHINGTON -- Saying that their investigation indicated her involvement in election interference went deeper than
previously believed, the FBI revealed Thursday that Russian agent Maria Butina traded sex in exchange for all 62,984,828 votes Donald
Trump received for president in 2016. "Our inquiry into Ms. Butina
WASHINGTON -- Suffering yet another unexpected setback during his ongoing investigation into foreign collusion with the Trump
campaign, Special Counsel Robert Mueller scrambled Friday to contain the damage to his documents after spilling an entire Grape Crush
Big Gulp all over his Russia evidence. "No, no, no! No! Aw,
"... By Sanjay Reddy, Associate Professor of Economics, The New School for Social Research. Originally published at the Institute for New Economic Thinking website ..."
Grappling with the shock of Donald Trump's election victory, most analysts focus on his
appeal to those in the United States who feel left behind, wish to retrieve a lost social
order, and sought to rebuke establishment politicians who do not serve their interests. In this
respect, the recent American revolt echoes the shock of the Brexit vote in the United Kingdom,
but it is of far greater significance because it promises to reshape the entire global order,
and the complaisant forms of thought that accompanied it.
Ideas played an important role in creating the conditions that produced Brexit and Trump.
The 'social sciences' -- especially economics -- legitimated a set of ideas about the economy
that were aggressively peddled and became the conventional wisdom in the policies of mainstream
political parties, to the extent that the central theme of the age came to be that there was no
alternative. The victory of these ideas in politics in turn strengthened the iron-handed
enforcers of the same ideas in academic orthodoxy.
It is never clear whether ideas or interests are the prime mover in shaping historical
events, but only ideas and interests together can sustain a ruling consensus for a lengthy
interval, such as the historic period of financialization and globalization running over the
last 35 years. The role of economics in furnishing the now-rebuked narratives that have reigned
for decades in mainstream political parties can be seen in three areas.
First, there is globalization as we knew it. Mainstream economics championed
corporate-friendly trade and investment agreements to increase prosperity, and provided the
intellectual framework for multilateral trade agreements. Economics made the case for such
agreements, generally rejecting concerns over labor and environmental standards and giving
short shrift to the effects of globalization in weakening the bargaining power of workers or
altogether displacing them; to the need for compensatory measures to aid those displaced; and
more generally to measures to ensure that the benefits of growth were shared. For the most
part, economists casually waved aside such concerns, both in their theories and in their policy
recommendations, treating these matters as either insignificant or as being in the jurisdiction
of politicians. Still less attention was paid to crafting an alternate form of globalization,
or to identifying bases for national economic policies taking a less passive view of
comparative advantage and instead aiming to create it.
Second, there is financialization, which led to increasing disconnection between stock
market performance and the real economy, with large rewards going to firms that undertook asset
stripping, outsourcing, and offshoring. The combination of globalization and financialization
produced a new plutocratic class of owners, managers and those who serviced them in global
cities, alongside gentrification of those cities, proleterianization and lumpenization of
suburbs, and growing insecurity and casualization of employment for the bulk of the middle and
working class.
Financialization also led to the near-abandonment of the 'national' industrial economy in
favor of global sourcing and sales, and a handsome financial rentier economy built on top of
it. Meanwhile, automation trends led to shedding of jobs everywhere, and threaten far more.
All of this was hardly noticed by the discipline charged with studying the economy. Indeed,
it actively provided rationales for financialization, in the form of the efficient-markets
hypothesis and related ideas; for concentration of capital through mergers and acquisitions in
the form of contestable-markets theory; for the gentrification of the city through attacks on
rent control and other urban policies; for remaking of labor markets through the idea that
unemployment was primarily a reflection of voluntary leisure preferences, etc. The mainstream
political parties, including those historically representing the working and middle classes, in
thrall to the 'scientific' sheen of market fetishism, gambled that they could redistribute a
share of the promised gains and thus embraced policies the effect of which was ultimately to
abandon and to antagonize a large section of their electorate.
Third, there is the push for austerity, a recurrent trope of the 'neoliberal' era which,
although not favored by all, has played an important role in creating conditions for the rise
of popular movements demanding a more expansionary fiscal stance (though they can paradoxically
simultaneously disdain taxation, as with Trumpism). The often faulty intellectual case made by
many mainstream economists for central bank independence, inflation targeting, debt
sustainability thresholds, the distortive character of taxation and the superiority of private
provision of services including for health, education and welfare, have helped to support
antagonism to governmental activity. Within this perspective, there is limited room for fiscal
or even monetary stimulus, or for any direct governmental role in service provision, even in
the form of productivity-enhancing investments. It is only the failure fully to overcome the
shipwreck of 2008 that has caused some cracks in the edifice.
The dominant economic ideas taken together created a framework in which deviation from
declared orthodoxy would be punished by dynamics unleashed by globalization and
financialization. The system depended not merely on actors having the specific interests
attributed to them, but in believing in the theory that said that they did. [This is one of the
reasons that Trumpism has generated confusion among economic actors, even as his victory
produced an early bout of stock-market euphoria. It does not rebuke neoliberalism so much as
replace it with its own heretical version, bastard neoliberalism, an orientation without a
theory, whose tale has yet to be written.]
Still, to the extent that Trumpism has any economic policy content it's the idea that a
package of immigration restrictions and corporate tax cuts[1] will make workers better off by
reducing competition from migrants and increasing labor demand from corporations. The second
part of this claim has been pretty thoroughly demolished, so I want to look mainly at the
first. However, as we will see, the corporate tax cuts remain central to the argument.
Still, to the extent that Trumpism has any economic policy content it's the idea that a
package of immigration restrictions and corporate tax cuts[1] will make workers better off
by reducing competition from migrants and increasing labor demand from corporations.
The emergence of Trumpism signifies deepening of the ideological crisis for the
neoliberalism. Neoclassical economics fell like a house of cards. IMHO Trumpism can be viewed
as a kind of "national neoliberalism" which presuppose rejection of three dogmas of "classic
neoliberalism":
1. Rejection of neoliberal globalization including, but not limited to, free movement
of labor. Attempt to protect domestic industries via tariff barriers.
2. Rejection of excessive financialization and primacy of financial oligarchy.
Restoration of the status of manufacturing, and "traditional capitalists" status in
comparison with financial oligarchy.
3. Rejection of austerity. An attempt to fight "secular stagnation" via Military
Keysianism.
Trumpism sent "Chicago school" line of thinking to the dustbin of history. It exposed
neoliberal economists as agents of financial oligarchy and "Enemy of the American People"
(famous Trump phase about neoliberal MSM).
It is never clear whether ideas or interests are the prime mover in shaping historical
events, but only ideas and interests together can sustain a ruling consensus for a lengthy
interval, such as the historic period of financialization and globalization running over
the last 35 years. The role of economics in furnishing the now-rebuked narratives that have
reigned for decades in mainstream political parties can be seen in three areas.
First, there is globalization as we knew it. Mainstream economics championed
corporate-friendly trade and investment agreements to increase prosperity, and provided the
intellectual framework for multilateral trade agreements. ...
Second, there is financialization, which led to increasing disconnection between stock
market performance and the real economy, with large rewards going to firms that undertook
asset stripping, outsourcing, and offshoring. The combination of globalization and
financialization produced a new plutocratic class of owners, managers and those who
serviced them in global cities, alongside gentrification of those cities,
proletarianization and lumpenization of suburbs, and growing insecurity and casualization
of employment for the bulk of the middle and working class.
Financialization also led to the near-abandonment of the 'national' industrial economy
in favor of global sourcing and sales, and a handsome financial rentier economy built on
top of it. Meanwhile, automation trends led to shedding of jobs everywhere, and threaten
far more.
All of this was hardly noticed by the discipline charged with studying the economy.
Indeed, it actively provided rationales for financialization, in the form of the
efficient-markets hypothesis and related ideas; for concentration of capital through
mergers and acquisitions in the form of contestable-markets theory; for the gentrification
of the city through attacks on rent control and other urban policies; for remaking of labor
markets through the idea that unemployment was primarily a reflection of voluntary leisure
preferences, etc. The mainstream political parties, including those historically
representing the working and middle classes, in thrall to the 'scientific' sheen of market
fetishism, gambled that they could redistribute a share of the promised gains and thus
embraced policies the effect of which was ultimately to abandon and to antagonize a large
section of their electorate.
Third, there is the push for austerity, a recurrent trope of the 'neoliberal' era which,
although not favored by all, has played an important role in creating conditions for the
rise of popular movements demanding a more expansionary fiscal stance (though they can
paradoxically simultaneously disdain taxation, as with Trumpism). The often faulty
intellectual case made by many mainstream economists for central bank independence,
inflation targeting, debt sustainability thresholds, the distortive character of taxation
and the superiority of private provision of services including for health, education and
welfare, have helped to support antagonism to governmental activity. Within this
perspective, there is limited room for fiscal or even monetary stimulus, or for any direct
governmental role in service provision, even in the form of productivity-enhancing
investments. It is only the failure fully to overcome the shipwreck of 2008 that has caused
some cracks in the edifice.
The dominant economic ideas taken together created a framework in which deviation from
declared orthodoxy would be punished by dynamics unleashed by globalization and
financialization. The system depended not merely on actors having the specific interests
attributed to them, but in believing in the theory that said that they did. [This is one of
the reasons that Trumpism has generated confusion among economic actors, even as his
victory produced an early bout of stock-market euphoria. It does not rebuke neoliberalism
so much as replace it with its own heretical version, bastard neoliberalism, an orientation
without a theory, whose tale has yet to be written.]
Finally, interpretations of politics were too restrictive, conceptualizing citizens'
political choices as based on instrumental and usually economic calculations, while
indulging in a wishful account of their actual conditions -- for instance, focusing on low
measured unemployment, but ignoring measures of distress and insecurity, or the indignity
of living in hollowed-out communities.
Mainstream accounts of politics recognized the role of identities in the form of wooden
theories of group mobilization or of demands for representation. However, the psychological
and charismatic elements, which can give rise to moments of 'phase transition' in politics,
were altogether neglected, and the role of social media and other new methods in politics
hardly registered. As new political movements (such as the Tea Party and Trumpism in the
U.S.) emerged across the world, these were deemed 'populist' -- both an admission of the
analysts' lack of explanation, and a token of disdain. The essential feature of such
movements -- the obscurantism that allows them to offer many things to many people,
inconsistently and unaccountably, while serving some interests more than others -- was
little explored. The failures can be piled one upon the other. No amount of quantitative
data provided by polling, 'big data', or other techniques comprehended what might be
captured through open-eyed experiential narratives. It is evident that there is a need for
forms of understanding that can comprehend the currents within the human person, and go
beyond shallow empiricism. Mainstream social science has offered few if any resources to
understand, let alone challenge, illiberal majoritarianism, now a world-remaking
phenomenon.
Trump attacked former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele, the man at the center of the Trump dossier scandal, who
had extensive contacts with the Department of Justice's former #4 ranked official, before and after the FBI opened its Trump-Russia
probe in the summer of 2016,
according to new emails
recently turned over to Congressional investigators.
That official, Bruce Ohr, was
demoted twice
after the DOJ's Inspector General discovered that he lied about his involvement with opposition research firm Fusion
GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson - who employed Steele. Ohr's CIA-linked wife, Nellie, was also
employed by Fusion
as part of the firm's anti-Trump efforts, and had ongoing communications with the ex-UK spy, Christopher Steele
as well, suggesting that Steele was much closer to the Obama administration than previously disclosed, and his DOJ contact Bruce
Ohr reported directly to Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates - who approved at least one of the FISA warrants to surveil Trump campaign
aide Carter Page.
"The big story that the Fake News Media refuses to report is lowlife Christopher Steele's many meetings with Deputy A.G. Bruce
Ohr and his beautiful wife, Nelly. It was Fusion GPS that hired Steele to write the phony & discredited Dossier, paid for by Crooked
Hillary & the DNC.... " Trump tweeted.
"...Do you believe Nelly worked for Fusion and her husband STILL WORKS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF "JUSTICE." I have never seen anything
so Rigged in my life. Our A.G. is scared stiff and Missing in Action. It is all starting to be revealed - not pretty. IG Report soon?
Witch Hunt!"
Trump's latest broadside on Steel and Ohr was likely prompted by speculation that the Republican chairman of the House Judiciary
Committee is preparping subpoenas for people connected to the controversial Steele dossier. As The Hill
reported earlier
this week
, Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) is said to be preparing subpoenas for Bruce Ohr, his wife Nellie Ohr and Fusion GPS
co-founder Glenn Simpson.
By escalating his all too public demands on AG Sessions, Trump is risking further scrutiny by Robert Mueller, who is
already
poring over Trump's tweets
to solidify his Obstruction of justice case, while inviting a whole new set of contradictory statements
by his newest attorney, Rudy Giuliani, who most recently said that Trump would be willing to sit down with Mueller if two specifics
topics are not discussed:
Why Trump fired FBI Director James Comey.
What Trump said to Comey about the investigation of former national security adviser Michael Flynn.
Of course, by continuing his periodic twitter attacks on Sessions, Trump makes it prohibitively difficult for Mueller to agree
to those terms. Tags
Multiline Utilities - NEC
It's hard to say what's really going on behind the scenes but you'd think at some point soon that a huge and undeniable truth-bomb
is revealed.
Here's a sick thought...is Session's position as Trump's AG the "insurance policy" (((they))) had in place?
If Session's isn't part of Trump's plan then he'll be gone soon enough. If Trump endlessly tolerates Session's inactivity and
merely berates him periodically (just for optics) then we'll know Sessions is clandestinely working behind the scenes (w/HUBER)
and this movie starts to finally get interesting.
Obama, Hillary & Co. will pay for their attempted/failed treason. But will Session's be the AG that see's it through?
He's just trying to mess with your head and make you confused. That's what he does.
"Hit it from every angle. Open multiple fronts on your enemy. He must be confused, and feel besieged on every side."- Roger
Stone's Rules (the guy who got trump elected.)
What you don't realize is WE the people are his "enemy" in that tactic above. It's gaslighting.
Here's another Stone rule
"Always praise 'em before you hit 'em."
"Politics isn't theater. It's performance art. Sometimes, for its own sake."
"Unless you can fake sincerity, you'll get nowhere in this business"
MetaMussolini Our golfing warthog president has picked a cabinet of semi-human dirty people who are intellectually corrupt gangsters. Trump makes worse the sorrows of the middle class.
This confirms what we've been hearing on the alt news. Sessions isn't doing his job and the criminals will get a pass. Mr.
Sessions, you may not agree with the President and may feel you're acting honorably but that's a problem. You were put there to
round up the criminals (your former esteemed colleagues) and didn't follow through on your duties. Step aside and let someone
step up who isn't timid and let's git 'er done. Of course, that's assuming any of this was real to begin with and I have serious
doubts.
I think it goes a lot deeper than Hillary, Obama, or any intel agencies. All the way up to the globalist western oligarchs who
are scared shitless of losing control and allowing a populist movement to fuck up their racketts.
Orders come down the pike from
the oligarchs through the politicans [ who's campaigns cannot be funded without the oligarchs, and who nod is needed to be accepted
by either of the two parties ] and their appointed intelligentce agents, down through the media, through the special interest groups
to the idiot at home watching CNN.
If Session's isn't part of Trump's plan then he'll be gone soon enough. If Trump endlessly tolerates Session's inactivity
and merely berates him periodically (just for optics) then we'll know Sessions is clandestinely working behind the scenes (w/HUBER)
and this movie starts to finally get interesting.
Do you think that there are a lot of public servants in Washington DC
who practice rule of law, hold themselves to higher ideals, are
interested in promoting and spreading liberty? Tell me about them.
Most Reps are just talking heads, that's all they do, appear before
cameras looking like they are accomplishing shit. Same with Sessions,
except now he's in a appointed position, where there's actual things
to be accomplished besides finding the next donor to sell out to. But
it's not called the swamp for nothing. These law abiding freedom
loving so called conservatives we've been voting for are a joke, no
significant gains, only slightly less aggressive rate of
deterioration into a bigger state. And Session fits into that club
nicely. The conservative club is the joke. I'm merely pointing it
out. I'd like to be wrong, but I see no evidence of it. We're way
past the tipping point, too many of us are in on the take, in one way
or another, to go back, and by design.
Amen! I heard a sound clip of Sessions giving a speech on XM 125 a few
days ago. The man can barely talk and when he does talk he sounds like a
moron. A real life Forest Gump. He sounds retarded. Bad choice on the
part of Trump.
ADF: Alliance Defending Freedom and is made of Christians. Because of
that it is a hate group. The fucking commies will never stop. This PC
crap that everything is hate speech and everything is racist is
nonsense. I'm sick of it, quite frankly. Want to be racist? Go ahead.
Want to say something hateful or stupid? Go ahead. Let the leftists
freak out. I have had enough of their caterwauling!
This is awesome: "lowlife Christopher Steele's many meetings with Deputy A.G.
Bruce Ohr and his beautiful wife, Nelly." If you have seen pics of Nelly,
well, she isn't beautiful. Her being married to Ohr is weird. Beyond weird.
These two things do not go together!
Thats interesting because waldman inserted himself with assange and did
nine visits..the purpuse of that was to establish a mythical Russian
bridge to Assange that would be used against him by Mueller who was
exposed workin on Oleg Matter with the FBI . Oleg powed 25 M of own
money..and never got his visa. Chris steele was working to Get Oleg his
visa..Walman represented steele assange and Oleg...
He completed his
mission..on assange then sold him down the river turning the immunity
deal over to Warner...
Knowing full well Warner Comey and deepstate would trash it.
Warner is King of the Snakes..Adam was just doing what was best for
his mafioso boss Olegs business. Oleg and FBI are joined at the hip.
Sessions was the insurance. He screened everyone during the transition
including halper, who was then pushed aggressively by Navarro... Its ironic
that when paige , the patsy, went to the Cambridge meeting paid by Halpers
connection.. Paige took it cuz no body wanted to go so he volunteered.. the
guest speakers were Madelinne Albright of the Atlantic Council and Vin Weber
disgraced congressman whose PR firm was scrutinized by Mueller.
Albright went to emphasize what a threat Trump and the populist movement
was and how important it was to get on the transition team. No telling how
many others Sessions let thru. Make no mistake.. he will be implicated in
this. Trump knows what a betrayal this really was.
"... By Sanjay Reddy, Associate Professor of Economics, The New School for Social Research. Originally published at the Institute for New Economic Thinking website ..."
"... Finally, interpretations of politics were too restrictive, conceptualizing citizens' political choices as based on instrumental and usually economic calculations, while indulging in a wishful account of their actual conditions -- for instance, focusing on low measured unemployment, but ignoring measures of distress and insecurity, or the indignity of living in hollowed-out communities. ..."
"... Welcome to the "New World Economic Order;" which looks suspiciously like Dickensian Predatory Capitalism. ..."
"... Just one caveat: Neoliberalism is not really market-fetishism, unless fetishism is understood as fake devotion. Neoliberalism is a State ideology of the economy, its central tenet being that the State must directly help the rich, the poor will be better off as a by-product. ..."
"... The Academy are direct and indirect employees of the State. The Ivy League are direct and indirect employees of plutocrats (thru the university endowment). The State officials are plutocrats or more commonly indirect employees of the plutocrats. What is not to like? How can the Academy be reformed, when it has been oligarchic since Plato (an oligarch) invented it the first Rand Corporation ..."
"... Steve Keen said similarly in Forbes – that once you offshore an industry it is too expensive to reinstall, and that some old factory for making furnaces cannot be retooled to make textiles, etc. even tho' you might have a comparative advantage for doing textiles – sounds like corporate raiding and big time looting more and more because once you devastate an industry you really cannot do anything economically with those facilities and those workers. ..."
"... Another factor in maintaining manufacturing in the USA is what is referred to as furthering the "next bench syndrome". This is where one is made aware of a manufacturing problem to solve due to proximity to the factory floor, and the solution leads to new profitiable products that can be used both inside/outside the original factory. ..."
"... Financialization leads to asset bubbles and deindustrialization. It hollows out industries. When money/credit are created in ever increasing quantity, the makeup of how we "work" shifts from goods producing to "finance". ..."
"... Get ready for real kleptocracy. Breitbart obscurantism + Trump/Bannon misdirection = turkeys vote for thanksgiving. ..."
"... TINA was definitely an ideology – an idea backed by interest. They were making fun of Thatcherism last nite on France 24 because it had been so devastating and now one of the candidates in France is talking her old trash again. ..."
"... "The Anti-Corn Law League was a successful political movement in Great Britain aimed at the abolition of the unpopular Corn Laws, which protected landowners' interests by levying taxes on imported wheat, thus raising the price of bread at a time when factory-owners were trying to cut wages to be internationally competitive." ..."
Grappling with the shock of Donald Trump's election victory, most analysts focus on his
appeal to those in the United States who feel left behind, wish to retrieve a lost social
order, and sought to rebuke establishment politicians who do not serve their interests. In this
respect, the recent American revolt echoes the shock of the Brexit vote in the United Kingdom,
but it is of far greater significance because it promises to reshape the entire global order,
and the complaisant forms of thought that accompanied it.
Ideas played an important role in creating the conditions that produced Brexit and Trump.
The 'social sciences' -- especially economics -- legitimated a set of ideas about the economy
that were aggressively peddled and became the conventional wisdom in the policies of mainstream
political parties, to the extent that the central theme of the age came to be that there was no
alternative. The victory of these ideas in politics in turn strengthened the iron-handed
enforcers of the same ideas in academic orthodoxy.
It is never clear whether ideas or interests are the prime mover in shaping historical
events, but only ideas and interests together can sustain a ruling consensus for a lengthy
interval, such as the historic period of financialization and globalization running over the
last 35 years. The role of economics in furnishing the now-rebuked narratives that have reigned
for decades in mainstream political parties can be seen in three areas.
First, there is globalization as we knew it. Mainstream economics championed
corporate-friendly trade and investment agreements to increase prosperity, and provided the
intellectual framework for multilateral trade agreements. Economics made the case for such
agreements, generally rejecting concerns over labor and environmental standards and giving
short shrift to the effects of globalization in weakening the bargaining power of workers or
altogether displacing them; to the need for compensatory measures to aid those displaced; and
more generally to measures to ensure that the benefits of growth were shared. For the most
part, economists casually waved aside such concerns, both in their theories and in their policy
recommendations, treating these matters as either insignificant or as being in the jurisdiction
of politicians. Still less attention was paid to crafting an alternate form of globalization,
or to identifying bases for national economic policies taking a less passive view of
comparative advantage and instead aiming to create it.
Second, there is financialization, which led to increasing disconnection between stock
market performance and the real economy, with large rewards going to firms that undertook asset
stripping, outsourcing, and offshoring. The combination of globalization and financialization
produced a new plutocratic class of owners, managers and those who serviced them in global
cities, alongside gentrification of those cities, proleterianization and lumpenization of
suburbs, and growing insecurity and casualization of employment for the bulk of the middle and
working class.
Financialization also led to the near-abandonment of the 'national' industrial economy in
favor of global sourcing and sales, and a handsome financial rentier economy built on top of
it. Meanwhile, automation trends led to shedding of jobs everywhere, and threaten far more.
All of this was hardly noticed by the discipline charged with studying the economy. Indeed,
it actively provided rationales for financialization, in the form of the efficient-markets
hypothesis and related ideas; for concentration of capital through mergers and acquisitions in
the form of contestable-markets theory; for the gentrification of the city through attacks on
rent control and other urban policies; for remaking of labor markets through the idea that
unemployment was primarily a reflection of voluntary leisure preferences, etc. The mainstream
political parties, including those historically representing the working and middle classes, in
thrall to the 'scientific' sheen of market fetishism, gambled that they could redistribute a
share of the promised gains and thus embraced policies the effect of which was ultimately to
abandon and to antagonize a large section of their electorate.
Third, there is the push for austerity, a recurrent trope of the 'neoliberal' era which,
although not favored by all, has played an important role in creating conditions for the rise
of popular movements demanding a more expansionary fiscal stance (though they can paradoxically
simultaneously disdain taxation, as with Trumpism). The often faulty intellectual case made by
many mainstream economists for central bank independence, inflation targeting, debt
sustainability thresholds, the distortive character of taxation and the superiority of private
provision of services including for health, education and welfare, have helped to support
antagonism to governmental activity. Within this perspective, there is limited room for fiscal
or even monetary stimulus, or for any direct governmental role in service provision, even in
the form of productivity-enhancing investments. It is only the failure fully to overcome the
shipwreck of 2008 that has caused some cracks in the edifice.
The dominant economic ideas taken together created a framework in which deviation from
declared orthodoxy would be punished by dynamics unleashed by globalization and
financialization. The system depended not merely on actors having the specific interests
attributed to them, but in believing in the theory that said that they did. [This is one of the
reasons that Trumpism has generated confusion among economic actors, even as his victory
produced an early bout of stock-market euphoria. It does not rebuke neoliberalism so much as
replace it with its own heretical version, bastard neoliberalism, an orientation without a
theory, whose tale has yet to be written.]
Finally, interpretations of politics were too restrictive, conceptualizing citizens'
political choices as based on instrumental and usually economic calculations, while indulging
in a wishful account of their actual conditions -- for instance, focusing on low measured
unemployment, but ignoring measures of distress and insecurity, or the indignity of living in
hollowed-out communities.
Mainstream accounts of politics recognized the role of identities in the form of wooden
theories of group mobilization or of demands for representation. However, the psychological and
charismatic elements, which can give rise to moments of 'phase transition' in politics, were
altogether neglected, and the role of social media and other new methods in politics hardly
registered. As new political movements (such as the Tea Party and Trumpism in the U.S.) emerged
across the world, these were deemed 'populist' -- both an admission of the analysts' lack of
explanation, and a token of disdain. The essential feature of such movements -- the
obscurantism that allows them to offer many things to many people, inconsistently and
unaccountably, while serving some interests more than others -- was little explored. The
failures can be piled one upon the other. No amount of quantitative data provided by polling,
'big data', or other techniques comprehended what might be captured through open-eyed
experiential narratives. It is evident that there is a need for forms of understanding that can
comprehend the currents within the human person, and go beyond shallow empiricism. Mainstream
social science has offered few if any resources to understand, let alone challenge, illiberal
majoritarianism, now a world-remaking phenomenon.
Trumpism is a crisis for the most prestigious methods of understanding economic and social
life, ennobled and enthroned by the metropolitan academy of the last third of a century. It has
caused mainstream 'social science' to fall like a house of cards. It can only save itself
through comprehensive reinvention, from the ground up.
You are onto something here. I always wondered if the suppression of wages would lead to a
decline in the population of people even willing to learn a task due to a perceived lack of
incentive to make the effort. This would work alongside a seldom mentioned fact; the limits
to the supply of appropriately skilled "foreigners" to perform a task.
The resultant mix must
be generating an industry of active recruiters in foreign lands for in demand, for less,
skill sets. I would lay money on the bet that eventually, things will reach the point where
criminal activities make more sense than the miserable jobs on offer.
"I always wondered if the suppression of wages would lead to a decline in the population
of people even willing to learn a task due to a perceived lack of incentive to make the
effort."
Just from what I've seen & heard I'm pretty sure that's already happened with CNC
machinists, and it's happening with CDLs, and starting to happen with CNAs.
"I'm pretty sure that's happened with CNC machinists."
One of my neighbours is a CNC machinist. He is presently working "free lance" because the
company he was associated with was bought by a Taiwanese concern and all the skilled labour,
previously in house, was out sourced. After a couple of years of near disasterous
"production," the company re-shored the more technical work, but as sub contract labour.
Now
Jack receives regularly spaced "jobs" from the company to do what was previously done in
house. Naturally, now Jack and his fellow "free tradesmen" have to supply all the incidental
work involved, such as quarterly taxes, insurance if any, self supplied "workers comp," of a
sort, and most importantly, the actual machinery to do the work. Even a used CNC machine is a
pretty big investment for an individual.
Jack's CNC machine is almost as big as a Volkswagen
Beetle. Jack was "lucky" insofar as he was already trained to do this work. Others needs rely
on the support of small businesses in this "Engineering Trade," or go into debt to learn the
process at a technical college. Then, as Jack has remarked, there is no set schedule nor
guaranteed contract. The ultimate "craps shoot."
Welcome to the "New World Economic Order;" which looks suspiciously like Dickensian Predatory
Capitalism.
Sounds like a classic supply/demand curve: the lower the price, the lower the supply and
the greater the demand. As many have noted – perhaps higher wages would increase the
number of job applicants.
However, skilled workers aren't widgets – they need to be trained. Companies don't
want to invest in training, and students don't want to take out all those student loans
without some assurance that there'll be a job which pays enough to pay off the loans and
still have enough left over to put food on the table and have a roof over their heads. Thus,
it takes time to bring more skilled workers on-line, and by then, the demand may have
evaporated.
Public schools investing in training workers would help – but that would mean
raising taxes to pay for them – and Grover would get angry.
I think some states are seeing a shortage of teachers because of the way they've demonized
the teaching profession and cut wages for the last fifteen years.
That was front page on the Wall St Journal Europe a couple days ago – a jaw-drop
moment. The voice of business effectively calling for a larger pool of voiceless dirt-cheap
laborers to dismantle the social contract. Clearly the management class has no fear of
suffering consequences, like maybe even higher crime rates (their native victims not the
illegals the perps), dystopic civics, encapsulation, culture = branding. are those
undocumented roofers in code with that left over sealing? you bet! management has got them by
the cajones.
Important to note there's quite a lot of Europeans who stay illegally in the US by
entering on the visa waiver program as tourists and simply overstaying. Irish and Eastern
Europeans especially. If you're in the Northeast it's common to see Irishmen working
maintenance jobs at buildings here, or as bartenders or other cash jobs – 90% are going
to be out of status. But this issue gets almost zero media attention.
Citizen registration (cr) would effectively end illegal immigration in the US. Once you
get past the immigration control at the airport you are in. access to relevant services is
possible without having to prove citizenship/legality. It is insane and/or perversely clever
that illegals can get drivers licenses, ss#s, use dumps, open bank accounts, receive water
and electrical services, even pay taxes without having to out themselves.
The only barrier is
at the border and Trump is gonna make it really big! hahaha.
To receive any municipal service, including registering to vote, it should be necessary to be
registered at city hall, anytime you change address you have to renew your registration,
standard practice in eur social democracies.
The thing to do is try to push the actual numbers of people trying to immigrate here down,
by ceasing to ruin their home countries. No one's ever even tried that.
You are on the right path Tim.
Any of you notice this shift in economic possibilities from Russia?
Excerpt:
The Stolypin Group
The third group represented was the one most Western observers ridiculed and dismissed,
with the US Pentagon-linked Stratfor referring to them as a "strange collective." I have
personally met and talked with them and they are hardly strange to anyone with a clear moral
mind.
This is the group which after two months has emerged with the mandate from Vladimir Putin
to lay out their plans to boost growth again in Russia.
The group is in essence followers of what the great almost-forgotten 19th Century German
economist, Friedrich List, would call "national economy" strategies. List's national economy
historical-based approach was in direct counter-position to the then-dominant British Adam
Smith free trade school.
Can we find some common ground in this demographic driven trade problem?
De`tante (Steady State) trade, lack of traditional "growth" yet more abundance and sanity?
Can we defeat demographic trends with a better monetary system? There is plenty of need, is
that not unfulfilled demand?
We see massive malinvestment and over capacity right now, so some common sense like List
and George sounds good to me.
I thought it's not possible to get a driver's license without a green card or US
citizenship since they changed the laws after 9/11. If this is true, one cannot get a SS No.,
open a bank a/c etc. Mexicans and others who cross the border w/o papers are unable to open a
bank a/c and therefore pay big fees to Amex for money orders.
Not all states adopted the OpenID law which requires this, and the federal government cannot impose it since it imposes a
financial cost on the states without compensating benefit. There are federal punishments for not adopting it, but states are
fighting it.
In my state you need legal presence docs and proof of residence in the state, at least a
student visa for example, to get a drivers license. And then the info is checked against the
federal govt Save request.
I think the post office and drug stores sell money orders without id? Certainly without
perm res status.
I think bank accounts can be opened at least at some banks with a foreign passport and
maybe an itin number.
I'm told by my father that in Berkely Springs, West Virginia, men can get haircuts for as
little as $1.75. Perhaps these are eastern European barbers? More likely it is simply a
product of the crushing desperation we see in our broken economy. But hey, unemployment is
under 5% so everything's fine, right? The dismal science indeed.
Just one caveat: Neoliberalism is not really market-fetishism, unless fetishism is
understood as fake devotion. Neoliberalism is a State ideology of the economy, its central
tenet being that the State must directly help the rich, the poor will be better off as a
by-product.
So if the push of the populace is strong enough, a new State ideology of the economy (aka
mainstream economic dogma) would develop around the concepts of Self-suficiency (as opposed
to Globalization), Industrialism (as opposed to Financialization), and Stimulus (as opposed
to Austerity). Probably MMT has something to say about the latter, but what about
Self-sufficiency and Industrialism?
its central tenet being that the State must directly help the rich, the poor will be
better off as a by-product. Ruben
Yes, government-subsidized* private credit creation being a (the?) prime example of
this.
*e.g. forcing the poorer to lend (a deposit is legally a loan) to banks to lower the
borrowing costs of the more so-called creditworthy, the richer, or else be limited to dealing
with unsafe, inconvenient physical fiat, cash.
The Academy are direct and indirect employees of the State. The Ivy League are direct and
indirect employees of plutocrats (thru the university endowment). The State officials are
plutocrats or more commonly indirect employees of the plutocrats. What is not to like? How
can the Academy be reformed, when it has been oligarchic since Plato (an oligarch) invented
it the first Rand Corporation
Tell me where you want to go and I'll provide the selective facts and the subjective
interpretation of those facts to reach the desired conclusions = Economists
-- - or merely arbitrarily change the cell definitions in excel as Harvard economists
Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff.
As early as 1967 Greenspan was well known as an academic whore and a Rockefeller Puppet
which now is a vast army of dial up opinions.
"Ideas played an important role in creating the conditions that produced Brexit and Trump.
The 'social sciences' -- especially economics -- legitimated a set of ideas about the economy
that were aggressively peddled and became the conventional wisdom in the policies of
mainstream political parties, to the extent that the central theme of the age came to be that
there was no alternative. The victory of these ideas in politics in turn strengthened the
iron-handed enforcers of the same ideas in academic orthodoxy."
Yesterday I posted a link from Krugman saying that manufacturing CANNOT be restored in the
US.
Not that laws, rules, trade agreements make it difficult, but that something akin to the
"arrow of time" or entropy prevents it – " that there was no alternative." Which is why
I so vehemently disagree with the man. 1st, economics is not a physical science. 2nd, the
loss of manufacturing in this country is due to man made conventions. Men made the rules, men
can unmake the rules.
Just like prohibition was thought to be a good idea, but with the passage of time, it was
revealed that whatever benefits arise of not drinking, it is more than offset by the
setbacks.
I used to believe in "free trade" – but a thing called reality whacked me upside the
head and disabused me of the notion. Whether GDP is going up fast enough or not, there is
overwhelming evidence that the vast majority of GDP is not distributed to the 90% of the
members of society.
Like a lot of things, we did the experiment – it doesn't work, but a few who gain
advantage by that state of affairs want it to continue. The emperor has been exposed as
having no clothes, and once you see the nakedness, you can't unsee it.
of course you could institute that all manufacturng used 1960s technology – or maybe
even 1860s, that would generate even more jobs.
short of doing that, todays higly automated factory will use about tenth of blue collar
workforce than in 1960s with the same productivity but creating much more complex
products.
I've seen reshoring happen (into compartively high labour cost country) and it created a
thousand jobs or so. the previus offshoring costed close to five or six thousands iirc.
I doubt that you'd wish for the US workers to have 10k or less annual salary –
because that is what the Chinese get (10k is about the average salary for a worker at one of
the plants making Apple gadgets, and that involves almost continuous overtime. IIRC, the
hourly rate is something like $1.80. Oh, and there's no health or social insurance).
I suggest you investigate why the UK was the birthplace of industrial revolution and the
Continent wasn't (hint – the UK labour costs were order(s) of magnitude higher than say
in France or Germany. It just didn't make sense to invest in up-front expensive capital goods
when you could get reams of very cheap labour instead).
And, in fact, the QE and ZIRP made it even worse, because before that you'd to cost the
capital at much more than labour, while now you can get money for literally nothing (assuming
you want to use it for something, like capital goods). At the same time, the companies run
locally optimal, but globally bad strategy of holding on the money, failing to recognise that
for people to spend, they have to earn first. The supply economic mantra "if you make it
cheap enough, someone will buy" fails to recognise that shopping basket of most people is
very much skewed towards food, energy and housing, leaving limited buffer for other goods
– so the "cheap enough" may have to be "free" or "near free" in the environment of
falling real wages.
But I'd be happy for you to provide examples of re-shored operations where the number of
jobs created were the same (assuming the same quality of jobs) or comparable to the number of
jobs lost by offshoring before.
I don't have US numbers, but I can give you UK ones. In 1970s, UK car manufacturing
industry employed about 500k people. That number has been steadily dropping and today it's
about 140k total between all manufacturers (you may see some sources use number as high as
750k – but that generally includes anyone who has anything to do with cars, like car
salesmen, garage staff etc. – not just car manufacturers. I don't have a reliable
comparable number for 1970, so use manufacturers only).
In 1970, UK manufactured about 2m cars, in 2014 it was about 1.6m. The loss of 400k is
almost entirely covered by the loss of commercial vehicles capacity – personal cars are
at the same level.
So, the UK car industry lost about 70% of its jobs, but only 20% of its output. And the
cars it manufactures today are mostly driveable unlike say Austin Allegro.
The situation is not that much different elsewhere. Yves run an article on Trump making US
coal "great again" – and the conclusion was the same – it will never employ the
same number of people at the same salaries.
I work in the electronics industry and had a minor observation point for some of the
outsourcing of electronics manufacturing from the USA to, primarily, Asia, starting in the
late 1980's. At first USA employees were told not to worry as only excess capacity would be built
overseas. But, that was proven to be an optimistic(?) statement, as even the managers making these
statements also disappeared.
If one looks at the value of raw electronic "ingredients" produced in Asia, for example,
Printed Circuit Boards (PCBs), one can see how much capacity has been built up overseas.
Here are some numbers pulled from report I have access to:
For 2015, 26.5 billion dollars of PCB's were produced in China.
Taiwan and South Korea produce 7.8Billion and 7.3billion respectively.
Even high priced Japan produces 5.36 billion dollars of PCB's
The North American number is 2.846 billion.
China + Japan + Taiwan + South Korea +Other Asia = .51.94 billion vs 2.8 billion in North
America.
So Asia produces 18.55 x as much dollar volume of PCBs than North America (Canada +
USA)
In my simple minded labor model, when a country allows very free migration of capital
overseas, importation of foreign workers by migration or temporary visas and outsourcing of
labor by computer networks to overseas workers, it seems implausible one would argue that USA
wages would not tend lower in response.
But we have Obama and numerous economists, pushing the Free Trade mantra, via TPP, as good
for American workers.
And a further factor is the US military and State Department strive to make it safer for
American businesses to function anywhere in the world, lowering business risk while pitching
increased national security to the USA population (who bears the military cost).
It will be difficult to bring American manufacturing back, especially when the alleged
high paying white collar college jobs are pushed as the solution to USA wage stagnation.
Steve Keen said similarly in Forbes – that once you offshore an industry it is too
expensive to reinstall, and that some old factory for making furnaces cannot be retooled to
make textiles, etc. even tho' you might have a comparative advantage for doing textiles
– sounds like corporate raiding and big time looting more and more because once you
devastate an industry you really cannot do anything economically with those facilities and
those workers.
Which explains why after clever men like Mitt Romney finish with your
corporation's takeover nobody dashes in to re-up something new. Like pulling a tree out by
its roots and then expecting it to grow into some kinda shrub.
Well I like Steve Keen but he and PK are finally on the same page, where neither knows not
what the f he is talking about.
A lot of "offshoring" of the steel industry happened as the US plants themselves were
passing the "invest or wind down" point in their life. Since the US labor force was
considered intractable and foreign governments had much newer facilities the TPTB in steel
just punted on US manufacturing.
I am going to try to find a link, but there was a lot of
debate between the union and US Steel (? one of them? ) about building a continuous caster
plant in the 70's. Foreign companies had them, we didn't. I think they didn't, but the point
is the, all other things being equal, any plants of any type of manufacturing go
thru the same technological vs ageing cycle, and the US is as likely to gain "back" -- quotes
because like continuous casting, it's steelmaking but not the same as before -- an industry
as it is to have lost it in the first place. Factories like to be located where they make
sense.
And what is all this about "well they don't need anybody in manufacturing, it's all gonna
be machines now". Yeah, right. Been on a manufacturing floor lately? People have yet to be
born that are going to be working in something called "manufacturing". And if the machines
cut the work need by 10x, we may well need 10x as much stuff as long as it is the
right stuff.
Well, if we had universal heathcare and Germanic trade education, but that would require
elections not between carrot-heads and Queen Wannabes.
Because they have a skilled trade education track, and manufacturing is a respected
occupation that one can raise a family doing. Because of the high-skill labor base, Germany
can make high-margin products that the rest of the world wants to import.
From very early, all German kids are encouraged to build things and take things apart, and
they are given this opportunity even in urban areas at special "building playgrounds" that
have hammers, nails, and wood. How is a poor American kid in a housing project going to do
this? He's not, and even if he does have a clue what to do with a tool someone hands him on
the job, he won't have the deep fundamental background to use it well without a long period
of training and screwups -- the kind of period he would have already gotten through while
growing up.
American small businesses that require skilled technicians are desperate for them. We
literally cannot grow our businesses because of labor constraints.
Since I am not an economist nor a historian probably I should restrain myself, but if you
look at the history of labor relations in Germany you might notice that Bismark, not exactly
a bleeding heart, believed that it was in the nation's interest to have a healthy, well-fed,
well-educated populace. They not only made better workers, they made better soldiers. Then
from the 1890s onward Socialism was much better regarded in Germany than it ever has been in
the U.S. I speculate that there is a desire for fairness that has deeper roots in German
culture than in American culture -- which is not particularly homogenous anyway.
Nobody wants to hear this, but manufacturing profit margins, according to Bruce Greenwald
of Columbia Business School, are plummeting around the world. Globalization has hit its peak
without our recognizing the fact and without our help. Fifty years from now, most of the
things we buy will be made within fifty miles of our homes. In twenty years, we won't be
admiring the German system.
I used to respect Krugman during Bush II presidency. His columns at this time looked like
on target for me. No more.
Now I view him as yet another despicable neoliberal shill. I stopped reading his columns
long ago and kind of always suspect his views as insincere and unscientific. In this
particular case the key question is about maintaining the standard of living which can be
done only if manufacturing even in robotic variant is onshored and profits from it
re-distributed in New Deal fashion. Technology is just a tool. There can be exception for it
but generally attempts to produce everything outside the US and then sell it in the USA lead
to proliferation of McJobs and lower standard of living. Creating robotic factories in the
USA might not completely reverse the damage, but might be a step in the right direction. The
nations can't exist by just flipping hamburgers for each other.
Actually there is a term that explains well behavior of people like Krugman and it has
certain predictive value as for the set of behaviors we observe from them. It is called
Lysenkoism and it is about political control of science.
Yves in her book also touched this theme of political control of science. It might be a
good time to reread it. The key ideas of "ECONned: How Unenlightened Self Interest Undermined
Democracy and Corrupted Capitalism " are still current.
Another factor in maintaining manufacturing in the USA is what is referred to as
furthering the "next bench syndrome". This is where one is made aware of a manufacturing problem to solve due to proximity to
the factory floor, and the solution leads to new profitiable products that can be used both
inside/outside the original factory.
This might be an improved process or an improvement in manufacturing tooling that had not
been anticipated before.
New products will be created with their profits/knowledge flowing to the country hosting
the manufacturing plants.
The USA seems to be on a path of "we can create dollars and buy anything we want from
people anywhere in the world".
Manufacturing dollars and credit rather than real goods might prove very short sighted if
dollars are no longer prized.
Perhaps the TPP, with its ISDS provisions, indicates that powerful people understand this
is coming and want additional wealth extraction methods from foreign countries.
The author mentions globalization and financialization. But what seems to be always left
out (and given a pass) in these discussions is the role of central banks and monetary
policy.
Central banking policy (always creating more money/credit) lies at the nexus of almost all
that is wrong with modern capitalism and is the lubricant and fuel that enables
financialization's endless growth.
Financialization leads to asset bubbles and deindustrialization. It hollows out
industries. When money/credit are created in ever increasing quantity, the makeup of how we
"work" shifts from goods producing to "finance".
Then through globalization, what we lack in goods, foreigners who accept our paper, seem
to provide. At least for now. In a closed system, financialization has its natural limits.
But enabled by cross-border trade, it metastasizes.
In the short run, it appears to be a virtuous circle. We print paper. They make real
stuff. They take our paper. We take their stuff. We feel very clever.
But over time, wealth inequality grows. Industries are hollowed out. The banking sector
dominates.
And then we get a populist uprising because people realize "something is wrong".
But mistakenly, they think it's globalization. Or free trade. Or capitalism. When all
along, it's just central banking. Central banks are the problem. Central bankers are the
culprits.
Yes, insofar as they create fiat for the private sector since that is obviously violation
of equal protection under the law in favor of the banks and the rich.
Otoh, all citizens, their businesses, etc. should be allowed to deal directly in their
nation's fiat in the form of account balances at the central bank or equivalent and not be
limited to unsafe, inconvenient physical fiat, a.k.a. cash.
Central banks are part of the problem, but not because any of the things you say. Abandon
monetarism, is just wrong, on everything.
CB's do not control the rates effectively during the upturns (they are just procyclical as
they add to savings though higher rates).
CB's "creating money" would mean loanable funds theory is right, but as it has been
demonstrated over and over it's horribly wrong. Banks suffice themselves to expand credit on
upturns, and CB'ers can do nothing about it. On downturns they cna try, and fail, because the
appetite for credit is just not there. Credit expansion and contraction is endogenous and
apart of of what CB's do, not to speak about all the forms of shadow money which are the real
outliers and trouble makers.
What CB's do, in practice, is to prevent capitalism from collapsing on crisis, making "bad
money" good, by stabilising asset prices. All their tools are reactive, not pro-active, so
they cannot create any condition, because they react to conditions. They neither set the
rates in reality, nor "create money" that enters the real economy in any meaningful way.
The religion of "central bankism" is part of the problem, but as it is the religion of
"monetarism" (which are the same) on which many of those ideas are based.
Banks suffice themselves to expand credit on upturns, and CB'ers can do nothing about
it IDG
Yes, "loans create deposits" but only largely virtual liabilities wrt to the non-bank
private sector. We should fix that by allowing the non-bank private sector to deal with
reserves too then it would be much more dangerous for banks to create liabilities since bank
runs would be as easy and convenient as writing a check to one's cb account or equivalent. Of
course, government provided deposit insurance could then be abolished too since accounts at
the cb or equivalent are inherently risk-free.
Our system is a dangerous mess because of privileges for depository institutions –
completely unnecessary privileges given modern computers and communications.
Get ready for real kleptocracy. Breitbart obscurantism + Trump/Bannon misdirection = turkeys vote for thanksgiving.
Sessions views on race at Justice = curtailed civil rights.
Wilbur Ross pension stripping = privatize Social Security.
DeVos at education = privatize the golden egg of public education.
85% tax credit for private infrastructure spending = fire sale of the public square (only
rich need apply).
3~4 Military generals in the cabinet = enforcement threat for crypto-fascist state.
McGahn at counsel + Pompeo at CIA = Koch Bros.
Ryan at speaker = privatize Medicare
Welcome to government of the billionaires, by the billionaires, for the billionaires.
btw, if Giuliani is appointed to a cabinet post, he will have to explain his foreknowledge
of the NY FBI→Kallstrom→Comey connection→to Congress under oath (if they
aren't too afraid to ask).
I worry along with you, but again: When somebody Ms DeVos opens her mouth people just
naturally recoil. Trump doesn't seem to have grasped the only thing that mattered in his
election – you want your enemies to suck. His appointees are people that suck. Hillary
would have appointed smooth-talkers who could effortlessly move between "private and public"
positions.
PS: Paul Ryan is a good counterexample – people fall for his BS because he isn't
quite a stupid as, say Guiliani. Of course he was elected, not picked by Trump.
mr reddy solves the riddle of the Great Refusal but doesn't far enough: certainly
mainstream economists were wrong to act as cheerleaders for the kleptocracy, yet they were
also complicit in a material sense by furnishing all the necessary algorithms to boost the
derivatives industry into the realm of corporate cyber-theft. that genie isn't going back
into bottle. what's in store for us then? economic apartheid. just read what the new team has
been saying about walls, guns, police, military and terrorism. the bannon plan is for heavily
policed gated communities monopolizing vital resources; high surveillance, rights abatement
zones for the proletariat; and a free-fire wilderness of lumpen gangsters, gun-toting
vigilantes, survivalist cults, etc. competing for subsistence. mad max, only run by people
worse than mel gibson. close to what we already have but once legislated into existence
impossible to reverse without a violent revolution. once again mr. reddy is correct: hobbes'
leviathan is the negation of social science.
hmmmm .. Trump said quite a few contradictory things during his campaign and it would seem
an error to believe anything a candidate says on either side of an issue. Have the Koch
brothers (who are involved w/Trump) been particularly unhappy with the numerous billions
they've accumulated under Obama? I expect this regime to be more along the 'different
globalization' side (more a shuffling of the deck chairs on the Titanic). Manufacturing will
be back in relation to the degree – penalties are eliminated on 'repatriated' funds,
land is eminent domained on behalf of oligarchs, private profit is granted primacy over
pollution, then build their factories with public money and abolish the minimum wage.
Austerity will continue but the new con will be private/public partnerships. Don't you want
to buy you friend/family member/neighbor a job? Don't you?
The elite, including the Trump's, are going to continue their actions until they've taken
it all.
Since you mention land you might be interested in the idea of land value taxation a way to
take the land back from the oligarchs an idea that has been around for a long time
assiduously ignored by folks like Naked Capitalism.
Mr. Fitzgerald, if you search in NC for "land value taxation" you will see many articles,
especially from Mr. Hudson. NC has thoroughly covered a lot of territory regarding this
topic.
Yes you could probably catch us restlessly muttering "Henry George" in our sleep half the
time.
The problem is it's a really, really hard sell. It just sounds funny. Pittsburgh actually
had it until a few years ago when it was "discovered" and before there was even a discussion
the Democratic mayor and City Council who should have known better had rescinded it before
anybody got a chance to say anything.
" during 2001 after years of underassessment, and the system was abandoned in favor of the
traditional single-rate property tax. The tax on land in Pittsburgh was about 5.77 times the
tax on improvements."
To be good Russian plants, we do actually need to know things about Amerika
Anyway, here's the problem: people just voted for a billionaire how you gonna get this
type of taxation approved given the Pittsburgh example?
It seems to be forgotten that this was a vote against Clinton and not a vote for Trump. If
Trump goes back on his progressive platform, jobs jobs jobs there will be a backlash so fast
that it will give everyone, especially the billionaires whiplash. Let them touch one hair on
Social Security's head or privatize Medicare, there will be another big surprise in the
mid-term elections. When the good people of the rust belt find out about the plans to put
rentier tolls on all that public infrastructure, trust me the pitchforks will come out from
their corners quick as you blink The best laid plans of billionaires and their lackeys often
go awry. The curtain has been lifted. If Trump thinks he can satisfy the working class by
giving another huge tax break to the .01%, he better think again. They do not have enough
rubber bullets nor pepper spray.
Nah, as long as Trump keeps blaming folks of color, he's got a good six years. You
overestimate the people of Flyover. Yes, they got hosed by Obama, but they've been electing
Republicans to flog them for 30 years.
It's a hard sell for good reason. Many Americans are land rich and cash poor. The idea
that they'd have to sell property to pay such a tax offends even the simplest conception of
sound land planning. If a lot more property came on the market at once, as it would have to
under the land tax scheme, we'd be Japan all over again.
Taxes should be unavoidable to avoid violating equal protection under the law and land
taxes are certainly unavoidable in that land can't be hidden as income, for example, can
be.
Another unavoidable tax, except for the existence of physical fiat* (notes and coins),
would be a tax on fiat, i.e. negative interest.
*Yet these can be taxed when bought and sold to the central bank with/for "reserves"**
**Just another name for fiat account balances at the central bank when the account owners are
depository institutions.
The goal should be to reduce injustice – preferably at its source. And the source of
much injustice is surely government privileges for private credit creation and other welfare
for the rich such as positive interest paying sovereign debt.
Still, there's previous injustice to deal with so asset redistribution should be on the
table too and that could include taxing the rich to give to the poor – certainly not to
run a surplus (or even a balanced budget) as you say.
Mainstream analysts don't want to recognize the real problem. They failed the people have
lost their legitimacy to govern.
Not saying Trump is the solution (I'm hoping for a solution from the left and think that
Trump could enable his cronies, but nothing else), but the Establishment is unworthy to
govern.
A solution that most people would consider being from the left but which is the radical
center (taking valid ideas from both left and right) is land value taxation the wedge issue
to tax the various sources of unearned income (estimated at 40+% of GNP however you determine
it) thus allowing for the elimination of taxation of earned income from wages and profit from
the investment of real capital in the real economy. Taxing community created land value and
making the distinction between earned and unearned income has been assiduously ignored and
avoided by mainstream economists, most of our vaunted/sainted public intellectuals and
sources like naked capitalism but since all of that has failed there is nothing to lose by
considering what this author, Sanjay Reddy, says is necessary: "It [social science] can only
save itself through comprehensive reinvention, from the ground up." I suggest that the this
has already been done literally from the ground up by the analysis that has been around for a
very long time that takes land, how its value is created, who owns it and what happen when
you tax its value into account. Happy day.
We finally made it to the post-modern wasteland. It is pretty weird to see the post-modern
methods used by social scientists for decades to dissect culture actually manifest in
practiced culture.
TINA was definitely an ideology – an idea backed by interest. They were making fun
of Thatcherism last nite on France 24 because it had been so devastating and now one of the
candidates in France is talking her old trash again. Humor is effective against ideology when
all else fails but it takes a while. But as defined above, we actually do have an alternative
– our current alternative is "illiberal majoritarianism". Sounds a tad negative. We
should just use the word "democracy".
"The Anti-Corn Law League was a successful political movement in Great Britain aimed
at the abolition of the unpopular Corn Laws, which protected landowners' interests by levying
taxes on imported wheat, thus raising the price of bread at a time when factory-owners were
trying to cut wages to be internationally competitive."
The landowners wanted to increase their profit by charging a higher price for corn, but
this posed a barrier to international free trade in making UK wage labour uncompetitive by
raising the cost of living for workers.
In a free trade world the cost of living needs to be the same in West and East as this
sets the wage levels.
The US has probably been the most successful in making its labour force internationally
uncompetitive with soaring costs of housing, healthcare and student loan repayments.
These costs all have to be covered by wages and US businesses are now squealing about the
high minimum wage.
US labour can never compete with Eastern labour and will have to be protected by
tariffs.
Free trade has requirements and you must meet them before you can engage in free
trade.
The cost of living needs to be the same in West and East.
Assume, for the sake of argument, that all assets in the West were equally owned by its
citizens? Then wouldn't free trade with the East be a universal blessing for the citizens of
the West and not a curse for some (actually many) of them?
So the problem is unjust asset distribution? But how could that occur if our economic
system is just? Except it isn't just since government subsidies for private credit creation
are obviously unjust in that the poor are forced to lend (a deposit is legally a loan) to
banks for the benefit of the rich.
A technical note, to avoid possible confusion: "corn" in British means wheat and other
small grains – a "corn" is a kernel. Maize was not a big factor in Britain; too far
north.
There are two certainties in life – death and taxes.
There are two certainties about new versions of capitalism; they work well for a couple of
decades before failing miserably.
Capitalism mark 1 – Unfettered Capitalism
Crashed and burned in 1929 with a global recession in the 1930s.
The New Deal and Keynesian ideas promised a bright new world.
Capitalism mark 2 – Keynesian Capitalism
Ended with stagflation in the 1970s.
Market led Capitalism ideas promised a bright new world.
Capitalism mark 3 – Unfettered Capitalism – Part 2 (Market led Capitalism)
Crashed and burned in 2008 with a global recession in the 2010s.
We are missing the vital ingredient.
When the first version of capitalism failed, Keynes was ready with a new version.
When the second version of capitalism failed, Milton Freidman was waiting in the wings
with his new version of capitalism.
Elites will always flounder around trying to stick with what they know, it takes someone
with creativity and imagination to show the new way when the old way has failed.
Today we are missing that person with creativity and imagination to lead us out of the
wilderness and
stagnation we have been experiencing since 2008.
1) The work of the Classical Economists and the distinction between "earned" and
"unearned" income, also "land" and "capital" need to be separated again (conflated in
neoclassical economics)
Reading Michael Hudson's "Killing the Host" is a very good start
2) How money and debt really work. Money's creation and destruction on bank balance
sheets.
3) The work of Irving Fisher, Hyman Minsky and Steve Keen on debt inflated asset
bubbles
>The Euro was designed with today's defective economics.
Man I didn't think of that. What comically lousy timing. I do like this post because it
similar to sigh, ok it asserts my belief but still don't think I'm in an echo chamber here, I
actually want people to know what I think so they can reinforce the good and whittle out the
bad anyway, asserts my belief that "economics" isn't a science but when used in the best way
is a toolkit, here we need an hammer (austerity), here we need a screwdriver (some tweaking).
It isn't one tool for all jobs for all time.
American's are brainwashed from birth about capitalism and Milton Freidman may have been
as susceptible as the next man.
He may not have realised he was building on a base that had already been corrupted, the
core of neoclassical economics.
The neoclassical economists of the late 19th century buried the difference between
"earned" and "unearned" income.
These economists also conflated "land" and "capital" to cause further problems that were
clear to the Classical Economists looking out on a world of small state, raw capitalism.
Thorstein Veblen wrote an essay in 1898 "Why is economics not an evolutionary
science?".
Real sciences are evolutionary and old theory is replaced as new theory comes along and
proves the old ideas wrong.
Economics needs a scientific, evolutionary rebuild from the work of the classical
economists.
Most of the UK now dreams of giving up work and living off the "unearned" income from a
BTL portfolio, extracting the "earned" income of generation rent.
The UK dream is to be like the idle rich, rentier, living off "unearned" income and doing
nothing productive.
This is what happens when stuff goes missing from economics.
Keynes realised wage income was just as important as profit.
Wage income looks after the demand side of the equation and profit the supply side.
I think we will find he was right, this knowledge has just gone missing at the moment.
Keynes studied the Great Depression and noted monetary stimulus lead to a "liquidity
trap".
Businesses and investors will not invest without the demand there to ensure their investment
will be worthwhile.
The money gets horded by investors and on company balance sheets as they won't invest.
Cutting wages to increase profit just makes the demand side of the equation worse and leads
you into debt deflation.
Central Banks today talk about the "savings glut" not realising this is probably Keynes's
"liquidity trap".
It's more missing stuff.
When Keynes was involved in Bretton Woods after the Second World War they put in
mechanisms for recycling the surplus, to keep the whole thing running.
The assumption today is that capitalism will just reach stable equilibriums by itself.
The Euro is based on this idea, but Greece has just reached max. debt and collapsed, it
never did reach that stable equilibrium.
Recycling the surplus would probably have worked better.
I disagree that we don't have a ready to go replacement. MMT. We just have TPTB throwing
$$$ around to make sure no one hears about it, much less does anything.
I believe that our way out of this morass is to start by buying locally. There are always
people who make things and they need to be supported. We may not get the cheap products, but
we can build our communities up gradually over time. Our standard of living will be different
but we will have our dignity and the means for creating prosperous communities.
I have been a member of a localist group here in AZ. Said group does a great job of
appealing to people from across the political spectrum. And that is a good example to
follow.
"I believe that our way out of this morass is to start by buying locally."
I very much like the localist movement, and I try very hard to support it in upstate NY,
among other places. The problem with this approach is that there are simply way too many
people for us to painlessly revert back to an artisanal, agrarian 18th c. lifestyle.
To put this in Empire State terms: we might just be able to accommodate hundreds of
thousands of people who used to work for Kodak, I.B.M, or Xerox upstate– in new jobs
making craft beer or high-quality string instruments, etc. Yet what do we do with the many
millions of people, who live downstate, who currently work in jobs very dependent on a
globalized economy?
We've seen a few economists posting lately to say that all social sciences got it wrong,
and especially economics. What's curious to me is that non of the examples given apply to any
social science except economics.
Is this the same discipline that refuses to acknowledge the value of other disciplines and
cross-discipline research, ducking for cover behind the very disciplines it's been
snobbing?
'All social sciences' indeed.
The election was less about trump gaining voters in the rust belt than Clinton losing
hers. Romney lost with exactly as many votes as trump got because 6 million that voted for
black Obama preferred to stay home rather than vote for white Clinton.
All the dems need to do is to run a candidate willing to spend quality time in the swing
states, somebody not totally corrupt and not verbally advocating confrontation with Russia
would also be a big help, though this already rules out most dem elites.
Of course if trump manages to get a lot of infra built, and gets a lot of decent jobs, his
support in 2020 will grow, maybe to the point only a strong progressive could beat him.
But today's dem elites will fight tooth and nail to keep real progressives from controlling
the party, as instructed by their corp overlords remember, bankers might go to jail if the
wrong person gets AG. First indication is Keith on dec 1 can/will big o keep him out?
I liked this 'take' by Prof. Reddy a lot in terms of looking at what happened to bring us
to a Trump Presidency (with an observation that Orange Duce hasn't YET been sworn in).
But if he thinks that a Tea Party shaped Republican House and Senate and soon to be skewed
Supreme Court aren't about to launch a season of Rent Taking and Austerity to levels
previously only attained in Arthur Laffer's wet dreams he needs his otherwise rational head
examined.
Don't go so excited the "Trump Revolution" like the "Obama Revolution" will likely end up
as "hopeless" for ordinary folk. So for starters Trump's tax breaks will save the 1% fifteen
percent and the rest of us 2 percent! Already the msm including my local paper are already
grinding out the counter-propaganda against raising tariff barriers for China. The majority
of the electorate are too ignorant to figure much of it out and come 2024 will be voting
Ivanka Trump in as president!
If Trump raises MORE(notice that word son) tariffs against China, he will get a nice
uppercut across the forehead when China cancels contracts one after another and jobs start
being lost in the next NBER recession. His ego can't take that.
He was the Mercers introduction to the elite, nothing more or less. If anything, the
Republicans are more Jewy than ever.
"The dominant economic ideas taken together created a framework in which deviation from
declared orthodoxy would be punished by dynamics unleashed by globalization and
financialization."
IOW, it isn't science; it's political ideology.
The environmental economist Herman Daley traces that back to the very beginning of the
field; he says the earliest economists essentially chose sides in the contest then raging
between landowners (resource based) and merchants (trade based). That made them
propagandists, not referees. And it's the reason economics, from the beginning, suppressed
the distinction between natural resources, like land, water, and minerals, and human-created
capital. It recognized only two "production factors," when in reality there are at least
three. Marx picked up the same self-serving :"error."
" illiberal majoritarianism"
That's an unfortunate word choice, considering that Trump lost the election by nearly 2
million votes. It was an extraordinary demonstration of the defective Electoral College
system. Maybe now we'll get some action on the Popular Vote initiative.
It's important to remember that the rebellion is "illiberal" mainly because the "liberal"
parties refuse to offer a "liberal" populism, aka the New Deal. You could call it an old,
proven idea. Some of us see that as weak tea, but even that isn't on offer outside the
marginalized Left. (This is the essential point of Thomas Franks' "What's the Matter with
Kansas.")
Of course, that's just a further illustration of the author's point.
One of the most insightful chapters in Karl Polanyi's THE GREAT TRANSFORMATION is about
something Karl calls "the discovery of society." It is the story of how those who wrestled
with the fundamental falsehoods of the "self-regulating market" [our Libertarian friends'
dreamworld] had to begin thinking about how people in their everyday lives actually, really,
incompletely, made a life for themselves in a world defined by trickle-down economics. It was
never a pretty sight, but the lesson was that the "self-regulating market" was going to be
regulated somehow by non-economic actors with non-economic considerations foremost in mind,
like it or not, or face destruction by human beings whose lives were distorted beyond what
would be tolerated by ordinary people. Most people put up with neoliberal BS for a generation
because that's what most people do, most of the time, even when they know they're being sold
a bunch of horsecr*p. But the limit of what people will tolerate in a society defined by the
false gods of market capitalism is reached periodically. Trump's victory tells us that one of
these limits has been reached. The question now is, "What are we going to "discover" about
ourselves and about the society we want to live in–and will we find a way to create it,
assuming it's something good?" (Or flee from, if it turns sour.)
TINA folks will repeat, over and over, that "there is no alternative," but that bugaboo
has just been smashed. Clinton, Summers, Obama, Rubin, Schumer, and the many, many lesser
lights of Neo-Liberalism have become "old hat" almost overnight. Let's hope our discovery of
society includes a stronger dose of Reason and Solidarity than would seem to exist in
Trumpworld.
ergo: Less work (at all levels) + increasing population (which includes some explosive
variables, like a large increase of older persons who will require economic support from
fewer younger workers) = a massive increase in tension re: the struggle for available
necessities.
Technology innovation will help with some of this, but the great, looming problem is: how
are billions of idle people with nothing to do going to be motivated to remain
non-disruptive? I can see a massive surveillance state controlling the "idles"; perhaps new
technologies that permit people to jack their brains into the network for diversion (but how
long before people become desensitized to that?). Will there be a "spiritual" revolution that
is not attached to current dogmatic religions, that values having less, sharing more,
cooperating with others, etc.? Hard to say.
Anyway, it's coming, yet very few policy makers are talking about it. I'll bet the
Pentagon is planning for this scenario, among others.
In twenty years – maybe a few more – we should be able to begin to migrate
away from earth. It will probably be a LONG time before extra-earth settlements are feasible
and sustainable. That said, we here on earth are going to have our hands full.
Can humanity somehow find ways to overcome its wired propensity for status reflected by
material wealth, and somehow change that status-seeking to a sharing model that is not
top-down?
I've been pondering this for a while. People much smarter than I will hopefully lead the
way. We have our work cut out for us.
This segment is interesting theatre, especially considering that Mr. Giuliani is acting as
President Trump's attorney on the Russiagate matter, and that he is going public about anything
at all having to do with the investigation and its case, in full knowledge that anything he
says publicly will be noted. Nevertheless, "America's Mayor" made several very strong
assertions:
Mueller doesn't need to ask a single question on obstruction; he has all the answers
already and those answers are not going to change in a direct interview with President
Trump.
Mueller is trying to trap the President into perjury.
The reason Mueller is trying to trap the President is simply because he does not have a
case.
According to Mr. Giuliani, the case will not fizzle; it is going to blow up on
them
This is because there is a lot more that they (meaning the Democrats) did, that no one
knows yet.
It will wind up with Mr. Mueller himself having a lot to answer for.
These and other points are included in Mr. Giuliani's responses in his discussion with Sean
Hannity.
The question that would logically arise with such a set of claims is "why would this
investigation even be happening in the first place, if it is only guaranteed to lose?"
And this question is what gives lie to the massive conspiracy of the Deep State and various
powerful figures
such as Bill Browder , the neo-con establishment, and secular humanist liberals, all banded
together to stop President Trump atany cost from changing America's headlong
plunge into the darkness of the soft tyranny of modern-day liberalism. Russia stands as the one
great power in the world that declares with great strength that this group of people is wrong,
and therefore, Russia, and anyone who wishes to grant her legitimacy – must be
stopped.
A speculative question that next arises is this:
What happens when President Trump gets vindicated?
There is a massive power play in motion here, and the stakes are much higher than anyone
cares to admit.
"... Coalition attacks on Yemeni markets are unfortunately all too common. The Saudis and their allies know they can strike civilian targets with impunity because the Western governments that arm and support them never call them out for what they do. ..."
There was another Saudi coalition airstrike on a
crowded market in northern Yemen today. Dozens of civilians have been killed and dozens more
injured. Many of the dead and injured were children whose school bus was hit in the attack:
Coalition attacks on Yemeni
markets are unfortunately all too common. The Saudis and their allies know they can strike
civilian targets with impunity because the Western governments that arm and support them never
call them out for what they do. The U.S. continues to arm and refuel coalition planes
despite ample evidence that the coalition has been deliberately attacking civilian targets. At
the very least, the coalition hits civilian targets with such regularity that they are
ignoring whatever
procedures they are supposed to be following to prevent that. The weapons that the U.S.,
Britain, and other arms suppliers provide them are being used to slaughter wedding-goers,
hospital patients, and schoolchildren, and U.S. refueling of coalition planes allows them to
carry out more of these attacks than they otherwise could. Today's attack ranks as one of the
worst.
Saada has come under some of the most intense attacks from the coalition bombing campaign.
The coalition illegally
declared the entire area a military target three years ago, and ever since they have been
blowing up
homes ,
markets ,
schools ,
water treatment systems, and
hospitals without any regard for the innocent civilians that are killed and injured.
The official U.S. line on support for the war is that even more civilians would be killed if
the U.S. weren't supporting the coalition. Our government has never provided any evidence to
support this, and the record shows that civilian casualties from Saudi coalition airstrikes
have
increased over the last year. The Saudis and their allies either don't listen to any of the
advice they're receiving, or they know they won't pay any price for ignoring it. As long as the
U.S. arms and refuels coalition planes while they slaughter Yemeni civilians in attacks like
this one, our government is implicated in the war crimes enabled by our unstinting military
assistance. Congress can and must halt that assistance immediately.
Update: CNN reports on the
aftermath of the airstrike:
The International Committee for the Red Cross (ICRC) said that a hospital it supports in
Saada had received 29 dead bodies of "mainly children" under 15 years of age, and 40 injured,
including 30 children.
"(The hospital) is very busy. They've been receiving wounded and dead since the morning
and it is non-stop ," ICRC head of communications and spokesperson Mirella Hodeib told
CNN.
Second Update: The Associated Press
reports that the death toll stands at 43 with another 63 injured.
Third Update: The death toll has reportedly risen to 50 . 77 were
injured.
Of course I have no right to surprise or shock. They've already targeted hospitals,
foreign doctors and nurses, first responders, wedding parties, and funerals.
School buses.
We used to make movies about killing people who do things like this. Now we help them do
it.
The repetitive frequency and intensity of these attacks on hospitals, schools, markets and
other civilian gatherings, coupled with the indifference of the guilty national governments
and their international enablers, signals that the world and human species is passing through
a mass psychosis. This psychosis is playing itself out at all levels. Fascism, which is very
current as a national psychology, is generally speaking, a coping strategy for dealing with
nasty chaos. This coping strategy is designed around generating even more chaos, since that
is a familiar and therefore more comfortable pattern of behavior; and that does provide a
delusion of stability. A good example would be the sanctions just declared by the Trump
Administration on Iranian commerce. In an intrinsically connected global market, these
sanctions are so thorough that they qualify as a blockade, within a contingency plan for
greater global conflict. But those who destroy hospitals, schools, school buses and public
celebrations are not, otherwise, forward looking nice people. We are descending into a nasty
fascist war psychosis. Just shake it. Live. Long and well.
"even more civilians would be killed if the U.S. weren't supporting the coalition"
If we did not hand them satellite images, did not service, repair and refuel their planes,
and did not sell them the bombs, then they would . kill more civilians how? They could not
even reach their targets, let alone drop explosives they do not have.
What Would Mohammad Do? Buy bombs from the Russians? Who have better quality control and
fewer duds, hence more victims?
What Would Mohammad Do? Get the UAE to hire Blackwater to poison the wells across
Yemen?
How exactly do the profiteers in our country, that get counted out blood money for every
single Yemeni killed, propose that the Saudis and Emiratis would make this worse?
But, good to know that our "smart" and "precise" munitions can still hit a school bus.
Made In America!
The coverage in the media has been predictably cowardly and contemptible in the aftermath of
this story. I read articles from CNN and MSNBC and they were variations on "school bus
bombed", in the passive tense – with no mention of who did it or who is supporting them
in the headline, ad if the bombings were natural disasters.
Fox, predictably, was even worse and led with "Biblical relics endangered by war", which
speaks volumes about the presumed priorities of their viewership.
This, and not anything to do with red meat domestic politics, is the worst media
malpractice of our time. "Stop directly helping the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks drop
bombs on school children" should be the absolute easiest possible moral issue for our media
to take a stand on and yet they treat it like it's radioactive.
Speaking as someone who considers themselves a liberal I am infuriated by the Democrats
response. How can the party leadership not see that if they keep flogging the horse of
Russian trolls and shrugging their shoulders over American given (not sold – *given*)
bombs being dropped on schools and hospitals, no one is ever going to take the supposed
Democratic anti-war platform seriously again. The Republicans can afford to be tarde by
association with these atrocities. The Democrats can't.
I wonder how many Democrats are in the same boat as me right now: I may not like Trump or
the Christian conservatives but fights over the Supreme Court or coal plants or a healthcare
law look terribly petty compared to the apparent decision by Saudi Arabia to kill literally
millions. For the first time in my life I'm seriously wishing there was a third-party
candidate I could support and the congressional elections just so I could send a message on
this.
@Hunter C
Vote Libertarian Party. You won't agree with a lot of their domestic agenda, but they're not
going to win, so it doesn't matter. The noninterventionist foreign policy is your message.
Chittum's work makes more sense than either of the books reviewed here. The two books
discussed above are good for the Harry Potter set but in no way conform to 2018 reality.
I frequently reread Chittum's work and am amazed at how he correctly analyzed the future into
what is contemporary USSA.
LOOK NO further, than the incipient election of a reparation Democrat governor in Georgia and
a like minded legislature,come November, for validation of Chittum's hypotheses. The one
weakness in his predictions is the belief that there will be a patriotic core in the local
police and national military that could be relied on to protect the lives and property of
traditional Americans. This just won't happen. The FBI, CIA, ATFE, Homeland Security Police
and like activities set the pace, call the shots and control the funds and the locals provide
a conditioned response.
Chittum writing 20 years back could not see the rise of the mass surveillance and correct
thought propagation that we increasingly welcome or endure today.
My bet is Unz Review will totally access denied after the massive Democrat election gains in
November.
"... During his election campaign, Donald Trump reportedly received a $20 million donation from the American-Israeli casino mogul Sheldon Adelson. Adelson has Israeli citizenship. Is that not foreign help, according to definition of US laws? ..."
"... Russiagate is a cover to conceal the really disturbing scandal which was, and continues to be, the attempt to subvert American democracy by US intelligence agencies working in cahoots with the Obama administration and Clinton's election campaign. To cover up those crimes, Russia is being maligned for "attacking American democracy". ..."
So the US news
media are in uproar over President Trump's latest admission that a meeting between his son and
a Russian lawyer more than two years ago was about "getting dirt" on Hillary Clinton.
With self-righteous probity, Trump's political and media enemies are declaring him a felon
for accepting foreign interference in the US presidential election.
Admittedly, President Trump appears to have been telling lies about the past meeting, which
took place at Trump Tower in New York City in the summer of 2016. Or maybe it's just this
American president shooting himself in the foot -- again -- with his inimical
gibberish-style.
However, the burning issue of "foreign interference" is being stoked out of all proportion
by Trump's enemies who want him ousted from the White House.
US constitutional law forbids candidates from receiving help from foreign governments or
foreign nationals.
Are You Tired Of The Lies And Non-Stop Propaganda?
Thus, by appearing to accept a meeting with a Russian lawyer in June 2016 -- during the
presidential campaign -- the Trump election team are accused of breaking US law.
The alleged transgression fits in with the wider narrative of "Russiagate" which posits that
Republican candidate Donald Trump colluded with the Kremlin to win the race to the White House
against Democrat rival Hillary
Clinton .
Russia has always denied any involvement in the US elections, saying the allegations are
preposterous. Moscow also points out that in spite of indictments leveled by American
prosecutors, there is no evidence to support claims that Russian hackers meddled in the
presidential campaign, or that the Kremlin somehow assisted Trump.
The Russian lawyer, Natalia
Veselnitskaya , who met with the Trump campaign team in early June 2016 is described in US
media as "Kremlin-linked". But that seems to be just more innuendo in place of facts. She
denies any such connection. The Kremlin also says it had no relation with the attorney on
her business of approaching Team Trump.
In any case, what is being totally missed in the latest brouhaha is the staggering hypocrisy
in the US media circus over Trump. Let's take Trump at his word -- not a reliable source
admittedly -- that his campaign team were trying to "get dirt" on Clinton. That would appear to
be a violation of US law.
If Trump is going to be nailed for improper conduct with regard to alleged foreign
assistance, then where does that leave Hillary Clinton and US intelligence agencies?
During the presidential campaign, Clinton's team contracted a British spy, Christopher
Steele, to dig up dirt on Trump in the form of the so-called "Russian dossier". That was the
pile of absurd claims alleging that the Kremlin had blackmailing leverage over Donald Trump. It
was Steele's fantasies that largely turned into the whole Russiagate affair which has dominated
US media and politics for the past two years.
Not only that, but now it transpires that the Federal Bureau of Investigation also paid the
same British spy to act as a source for the FBI's wiretapping of Trump's associates, according to
declassified documents obtained by Judicial Watch, a US citizens' rights group.
In other
words, the foreign interference that the FBI engaged in under the Barack Obama administration,
as well as by Hillary Clinton's campaign team, is on a far greater and more scandalous scale
that Trump seems to have clumsily endeavored to do with a Russian lawyer.
The real, shocking interference in US democracy was not by Russia or Trump, but by American
secret services working in collusion with the Clinton Democrats to distort the presidential
elections. This scandal which Princeton Professor Stephen Cohen has labeled "Intelgate" is far
more grievous than the Watergate crisis which resulted in President Richard Nixon's ignominious
resignation back in the mid-1970s.
The Obama administration's intelligence agencies and the Democrats attempted to sabotage the
2016 presidential election in order to keep Trump out of the White House. They failed. And they
have never gotten over that defeat to their illegal scheming.
The Russiagate claims are just a sideshow. As American writer Paul Craig Roberts, among
others, has
commented , the media-driven "witch hunt" against Trump and Russia is blown out of all
proportion in order to distract from the real scandal which is Intelgate -- and how millions of
American voters were potentially disenfranchised by the US intelligence apparatus for a
political power grab.
Another staggering hypocrisy in the US media kerfuffle over Trump and alleged Russian
interference is that all the fastidious hyperbole completely ignores actual foreign
interference in American democracy -- foreign interference that is on an absolutely colossal
scale.
As American critical thinker Noam Chomsky points out , "Israeli intervention in
US elections overwhelms anything Russia may have done".
Israel's interference includes the multi-million-dollar lobbying by such groups as the
American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and its financial sponsorship of hundreds of
lawmakers in both houses of Congress. Many critics maintain
that the entire Congress is in effect "bought" by AIPAC.
Chomsky referred specifically to the occasion in 2015 when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu snubbed then President Obama by addressing the US Congress with a speech openly
calling for lawmakers to reject the internationally-backed nuclear deal with Iran.
During his election campaign, Donald Trump
reportedly received a $20 million donation from the American-Israeli casino mogul Sheldon
Adelson. Adelson has Israeli citizenship. Is that not foreign help, according to definition of
US laws?
Trump has since shown himself to do Adelson's and Israel's bidding by walking away from the
Iran deal and in pushing stridently pro-Israeli interests in the conflict with
Palestinians.
Another foreign benefactor in US politics is the so-called Saudi lobby and other oil-rich
Gulf Arab states. Millions of dollars are funneled into Congress by these dubious regimes to
shape US government foreign policy in the Middle East. For several decades, Saudi oil money is
also documented to be
a major contributor to the CIA and its off-the-books covert operations around the world.
Foreign interference in US politics -- in which often nefarious foreign interests are
promoted over those of ordinary American citizens -- is conducted on a gargantuan and
systematic scale. But this massively illegal interference in flagrant violation of US laws is
stupendously ignored by the American media.
Trump is being assailed over an alleged scandal regarding Russia which is, by any objective
measure, negligible.
The whole Russiagate narrative is sheer hysteria driven by anti-Trump forces who do not want
to accept the result of the 2016 election. It is, in effect, a coup attempt by unelected
political forces.
Russiagate is a cover to conceal the really disturbing scandal which was,
and continues to be, the attempt to subvert American democracy by US intelligence agencies
working in cahoots with the Obama administration and Clinton's election campaign. To cover up
those crimes, Russia is being maligned for "attacking American democracy".
Such lies are an odious distortion of the truth by America's real enemies who are its own
domestic political and media operators trying to cover up their anti-constitutional crimes.
What's even more despicable is that these people are willing to inflame US-Russia relations to
the point of starting a war between two nuclear powers.
Finian Cunningham has written extensively on international affairs, with articles published
in several languages. He is a Master's graduate in Agricultural Chemistry and worked as a
scientific editor for the Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, England, before pursuing a
career in newspaper journalism. He is also a musician and songwriter. For nearly 20 years, he
worked as an editor and writer in major news media organisations, including The Mirror, Irish
Times and Independent.
This article was originally published by " Sputnik "
-
The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect the opinions of Information Clearing House.
The by product of small minds and limited options. The collapse of the Democratic Party
also represented a failure to create a bench. AOC is a person who should have been identified
and pushed to run for local or even state government by a healthy political party.
In many ways, the Democratic elite are small "c"onservatives. New ideas and such are
frightening to them.
Donna Brazille knocked the Clinton Headquarters staff for not having sex, but the pictures
of the Clinton staffers looked like a particularly boring group of College Republicans. Wow,
the President listens to Jay-Z. He's really popular with kids from the suburbs!
This morning I was reminded that Sam Power apologized for calling Hillary a monster in
2013 probably because it seemed inevitable HRC would be President, but now I see it as a lack
of creative thinking where these boring people (they are boring) couldn't envision an
alternative.
As far as the options, the energy of the political left is not with the Democrats
hence why they have to pimp Biden every few months.
HRC use to pay DavidHow much went to MSNBC to be in ads for the choir? What good was an
HRC ad during a network dedicated to "Her"?
As far as her staff, she use to pay Mark Penn. Its reasonable to expect the Clinton
campaign would simply light money on fire, but I was always puzzled by the ads on MSNBC. What
good were they beyond preaching Hillary was running for President?
We know from the DNC emails Podesta said he needed to talk to HRC about promising the VP
to everyone after she had picked Kaine long before the announcement. I'm wondering what kinds
of ad buys she promised. When Obama got to the end, he just randomly ran an infomercial and
gave the field staff a fairly decent bonus. With all her money in a slam dunk election, I
think the story is more than a campaign of would be Mark Penns.
Thank you, Lambert, for going beyond the facile "horserace" and "blue wave" tropes and
assembling enough data for us non-insiders to be able to gain some understanding of the game
the insiders are playing.
These are people who speak of the process as an end in itself, connected only nominally,
and vestigially, to the electorate and its possible concerns "Anything that brings the
process closer to the people is all to the good," George Bush declared in his 1987
autobiography, Looking Forward, accepting as given this relatively recent notion that the
people and the process need not automatically be on convergent tracks.
When we talk about the process, then, we are talking, increasingly, not about "the
democratic process," or the general mechanism affording the citizens of a state a voice in
its affairs, but the reverse: a mechanism seen as so specialized that access to it is
correctly limited to its own professionals, to those who manage policy and those who report
on it, to those who run the polls and those who quote them, to those who ask and those who
answer the questions on the Sunday shows, to the media consultants, to the columnists, to
the issues advisers, to those who give the off-the-record breakfasts and to those who
attend them; to that handful of insiders who invent, year in and year out, the narrative of
public life.
I have a simple question: Why vote? Both parties are largely control by the same donors.
It strikes me as a waste of energy. When someone such a Sanders comes around who actually
slightly challenges the status quo, the powers to be actively collude to disenfranchise the
movement.
Simple answer: It's the only thing we have that scares them. Why else would they spend so
much effort trying to suppress the vote, or not fighting voter suppression? And who knows,
some candidates you vote for might win.
I don't think it actually scares them. It's more important for them to keep the showing
going. By voting, we are actively buying into the political theatre. It's a sham. Really
democracy simply can't coexist in a Capitalistic system.
Hard question, but how much is an Obama or Clinton endorsement really worth?
They are not going to be very appealing to swing voters, independents, etc. They have
limited to appeal to getting young people and supporters of Bernie Sanders to vote.
Seems like they are most useful for just motivating Establishment Democratic voters.
Second, the Democrat Party really is split. As you can see, Obama, Clinton, and the
DCCC's endorsements overlap in only a single case (again, CA-50) with "insurgent" backers
like Justice Democrats (JD) and Our Revolution (OR). Negative confirmation: Obama did not
endorse Ocasio-Cortez ("Party Unity is for Rubes"). Her district is a safe Democrat seat
(unless Crowley, running as a straw on the Working Families line, somehow takes it away
from her), so perhaps that doesn't matter: Positive confirmation: Obama and Clinton didn't
endorse Bryce in WI-01, although -- because? -- Sanders did, even though the DCCC did, and
the seat used to be Paul Ryan's![1]
It has been split between those who got rich by neoliberalism (the 10%er base) and the
rest of us.
My sense is the importance of the Oprah endorsement of Obama wasn't the endorsement as
much as the spectacle and crowds. 10,000 people at a campaign event in New Hampshire is huge.
At that point, Obama didn't have to face the usual primary audience much like HRC where
candidates do get fairly difficult questions in comparison to the msm garbage questions
cookie recipes.
Yellow dog types who might vote for AOC over say Crowley on their own might be swayed, but
I suspect "DNC" letter head would have the same effect.
Here are ten bombshell revelations and fascinating new details to lately come out of both Sy
Hersh's new book, Reporter , as well as
interviews he's given since publication...
1) On a leaked Bush-era intelligence memo outlining the neocon plan to remake the Middle
East
(Note: though previously alluded to only anecdotally by General Wesley Clark in his memoir and in a 2007
speech , the below passage from Seymour Hersh is to our knowledge the first time this
highly classified memo has been quoted . Hersh's account appears to corroborate now retired
Gen. Clark's assertion that days after 9/11 a classified memo outlining plans to foster regime
change in "7 countries in
5 years" was being circulated among intelligence officials.)
From Reporter: A Memoir
pg. 306 -- A few months after the invasion of Iraq, during an interview overseas with a general
who was director of a foreign intelligence service, I was provided with a copy of a Republican
neocon plan for American dominance in the Middle East. The general was an American ally, but
one who was very rattled by the Bush/Cheney aggression. I was told that the document leaked to
me initially had been obtained by someone in the local CIA station. There was reason to be
rattled: The document declared that the war to reshape the Middle East had to begin "with the
assault on Iraq. The fundamental reason for this... is that the war will start making the U.S.
the hegemon of the Middle East. The correlative reason is to make the region feel in its bones,
as it were, the seriousness of American intent and determination." Victory in Iraq would lead
to an ultimatum to Damascus, the "defanging" of Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, and Arafat's Palestine
Liberation Organization, and other anti-Israeli groups. America's enemies must understand that
"they are fighting for their life: Pax Americana is on its way, which implies their
annihilation." I and the foreign general agreed that America's neocons were a menace to
civilization.
From Reporter: A Memoir
pages 306-307 -- Donald Rumsfeld was also infected with neocon fantasy. Turkey had refused to
permit America's Fourth Division to join the attack of Iraq from its territory, and the
division, with its twenty-five thousand men and women, did not arrive in force inside Iraq
until mid-April, when the initial fighting was essentially over. I learned then that Rumsfeld
had asked the American military command in Stuttgart, Germany, which had responsibility for
monitoring Europe, including Syria and Lebanon, to begin drawing up an operational plan for an
invasion of Syria. A young general assigned to the task refused to do so, thereby winning
applause from my friends on the inside and risking his career. The plan was seen by those I
knew as especially bizarre because Bashar Assad, the ruler of secular Syria, had responded to
9/11 by sharing with the CIA hundreds of his country's most sensitive intelligence files on the
Muslim Brotherhood in Hamburg, where much of the planning for 9/11 was carried out... Rumsfeld
eventually came to his senses and back down, I was told...
3) On the Neocon deep state which seized power after 9/11
From Reporter: A Memoir
pages 305-306 -- I began to comprehend that eight or nine neoconservatives who were political
outsiders in the Clinton years had essentially overthrown the government of the United States
-- with ease . It was stunning to realize how fragile our Constitution was. The intellectual
leaders of that group -- Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, and Richard Perle -- had not hidden their
ideology and their belief in the power of the executive but depicted themselves in public with
a great calmness and a self-assurance that masked their radicalism . I had spent many hours
after 9/11 in conversations with Perle that, luckily for me, helped me understand what was
coming. (Perle and I had been chatting about policy since the early 1980s, but he broke off
relations in 1993 over an article I did for The New Yorker linking him, a fervent supporter of
Israel, to a series of meetings with Saudi businessmen in an attempt to land a
multibillion-dollar contract from Saudi Arabia . Perle responded by publicly threatening to sue
me and characterizing me as a newspaper terrorist. He did not sue.
Meanwhile, Cheney had emerged as a leader of the neocon pack. From 9/11 on he did all he
could to undermine congressional oversight. I learned a great deal from the inside about his
primacy in the White House , but once again I was limited in what I would write for fear of
betraying my sources...
I came to understand that Cheney's goal was to run his most important military and
intelligence operations with as little congressional knowledge, and interference, as possible.
I was fascinating and important to learn what I did about Cheney's constant accumulation of
power and authority as vice president , but it was impossible to even begin to verify the
information without running the risk that Cheney would learn of my questioning and have a good
idea from whom I was getting the information.
4) On Russian meddling in the US election
From the recent
Independent interview based on his autobiography -- Hersh has vociferously strong opinions
on the subject and smells a rat. He states that there is "a great deal of animosity towards
Russia. All of that stuff about Russia hacking the election appears to be preposterous." He has
been researching the subject but is not ready to go public yet.
Hersh quips that the last time he heard the US defense establishment have high confidence,
it was regarding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. He points out that the NSA only has moderate confidence in Russian
hacking. It is a point that has been made before; there has been no national intelligence
estimate in which all 17 US intelligence agencies would have to sign off. "When the intel
community wants to say something they say it High confidence effectively means that they don't
know."
5) On the Novichok poisoning
From the recent
Independent interview -- Hersh is also on the record as stating that the official version
of the
Skripal poisoning does not stand up to scrutiny. He tells me: "The story of novichok
poisoning has not held up very well. He [Skripal] was most likely talking to British
intelligence services about Russian organised crime." The unfortunate turn of events with the
contamination of other victims is suggestive, according to Hersh, of organised crime elements
rather than state-sponsored actions –though this files in the face of the UK government's
position.
Hersh modestly points out that these are just his opinions. Opinions or not, he is scathing
on Obama –
"a trimmer articulate [but] far from a radical a middleman". During his Goldsmiths talk, he
remarks that liberal critics underestimate Trump at their peril.
He ends the Goldsmiths talk with an anecdote about having lunch with his sources in the
wake of 9/11 . He vents his anger at the agencies for not sharing information. One of his
CIA sources fires back: "Sy you still don't get it after all these years – the FBI
catches bank robbers, the CIA robs banks." It is a delicious, if cryptic aphorism.
* * *
6) On the Bush-era 'Redirection' policy of arming Sunni radicals to counter Shia Iran, which
in a 2007 New Yorker article
Hersh accurately predicted
would set off war in Syria
From the
Independent interview : [Hersh] tells me it is "amazing how many times that story has been
reprinted" . I ask about his argument that US policy was designed to neutralize the Shia sphere
extending from Iran to Syria to Hezbollah in Lebanon and hence redraw the Sykes-Picot
boundaries for the 21st century.
He goes on to say that Bush and Cheney "had it in for Iran", although he denies the idea
that Iran was heavily involved in Iraq: "They were providing intel, collecting intel The US did
many cross-border hunts to kill ops [with] much more aggression than Iran"...
He believes that the Trump administration has no memory of this approach. I'm sure though
that the military-industrial complex has a longer memory...
I press him on the RAND and Stratfor reports including one authored by Cheney and Paul
Wolfowitz in which they envisage deliberate ethno-sectarian partitioning of Iraq . Hersh
ruefully states that: "The day after 9/11 we should have gone to Russia. We did the one thing
that George Kennan warned us never to do – to expand NATO too far."
* * *
7) On the official 9/11 narrative
From the
Independent interview : We end up ruminating about 9/11, perhaps because it is another
narrative ripe for deconstruction by sceptics. Polling shows that a significant proportion of
the American public believes there is more to the truth. These doubts have been reinforced by
the declassification of the suppressed 28 pages of the 9/11 commission report last year
undermining the version that a group of terrorists acting independently managed to pull off the
attacks. The implication is that they may well have been state-sponsored with the Saudis
potentially involved.
Hersh tells me: "I don't necessarily buy the story that Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11.
We really don't have an ending to the story. I've known people in the [intelligence] community.
We don't know anything empirical about who did what" . He continues: "The guy was living in a
cave. He really didn't know much English. He was pretty bright and he had a lot of hatred for
the US. We respond by attacking the Taliban. Eighteen years later How's it going guys?"
8) On the media and the morality of the powerful
From a recent
The Intercept interview and book review -- If
Hersh were a superhero, this would be his origin story. Two hundred and seventy-four pages
after the Chicago anecdote, he describes his coverage of a massive
slaughter of Iraqi troops and civilians by the U.S. in 1991 after a ceasefire had ended the
Persian Gulf War. America's indifference to this massacre was, Hersh writes, "a reminder of the
Vietnam War's MGR, for Mere Gook Rule: If it's a murdered or raped gook, there is no crime." It
was also, he adds, a reminder of something else: "I had learned a domestic version of that rule
decades earlier" in Chicago. "Reporter" demonstrates that Hersh has derived three simple lessons from that rule:
The powerful prey mercilessly upon the powerless, up to and including mass murder.
The powerful lie constantly about their predations.
The natural instinct of the media is to let the powerful get away with it.
New McCarthyism allows
corporate media to tighten grip, Democrats to ignore their own failings Alan MacLeod
The election of Donald Trump came as a shock to many ( Independent ,
11/5/16 ).
To the shock of many, Donald Trump won the 2016 presidential elections, becoming the 45th
president of the United States. Not least shocked were corporate media, and the political
establishment more generally; the Princeton Election Consortium
confidently predicted an over 99 percent chance of a Clinton victory, while MSNBC 's
Rachel Maddow ( 10/17/16 ) said
it could be a "Goldwater-style landslide."
Indeed, Hillary Clinton and her team actively
attempted to secure a Trump primary victory, assured that he would be the easiest candidate
to beat. The Podesta emails show that her team considered even
before the primaries that associating Trump with Vladimir Putin and Russia would be a winning
strategy and employed the tactic throughout 2016 and beyond.
With Clinton claiming , "Putin would rather have a puppet
as president," Russia was by far the most discussed topic during the presidential debates (
FAIR.org ,
10/13/16 ), easily eclipsing healthcare, terrorism, poverty and inequality. Media seized
upon the theme, with Paul Krugman ( New York Times , 7/22/16
) asserting Trump would be a " Siberian
candidate," while ex-CIA Director Michael Hayden ( Washington Post ,
5/16/16 ) claimed Trump would be Russia's "useful fool."
The day after the election, Jonathan Allen's book Shattered detailed, Clinton's team
decided that the proliferation of Russian-sponsored "fake news" online was the primary reason
for their loss.
Within weeks, the Washington Post (
11/24/16 ) was publicizing the website PropOrNot.com , which purports to help users
differentiate sources as fake or genuine, as an invaluable tool in the battle against fake news
( FAIR.org , 12/1/16
, 12/8/16 ).
The website soberly informs its readers that you see news sources critiquing the "mainstream
media," the EU, NATO, Obama, Clinton, Angela Merkel or other centrists are a telltale sign of
Russian propaganda. It also claims that when news sources argue against foreign intervention
and war with Russia, that's evidence that you are reading Kremlin-penned fake
news.
The Washington Post (
11/24/16 ) was one of the first media outlets to blame the election results on Russian
"fake news."
PropOrNot claims it has identified over 200 popular websites that "routinely peddle Russian
propaganda." Included in the list were Wikileaks , Trump-supporting right-wing websites
like InfoWars and the Drudge Report , libertarian outlets like the Ron Paul
Institute and Antiwar.com , and award-winning anti-Trump (but also Clinton-critical)
left-wing sites like TruthDig and Naked Capitalism . Thus it was uniquely news
sources that did not lie in the fairway between Clinton Democrats and moderate Republicans that
were tarred as propaganda.
PropOrNot calls for an FBI investigation into the news sources listed. Even its creators see
the resemblance to a new McCarthyism, as it appears as a frequently asked question on
their website. (They say it is not McCarthyism, because "we are not accusing anyone of
lawbreaking, treason, or 'being a member of the Communist Party.'") However, this new
McCarthyism does not stem from the conservative right like before, but from the establishment
center.
That the list is so evidently flawed and its creators refuse to reveal their identities or
funding did not stop the issue becoming one of the most discussed in mainstream circles. Media
talk of fake news sparked organizations like Google , Facebook , Bing and
YouTube to change their algorithms, ostensibly to combat it.
However, one major effect of the change has been to hammer progressive outlets that
challenge the status quo. The Interceptreported a 19 percent reduction
in Google search traffic, AlterNet63 percent and Democracy
Now!36 percent. Reddit and
Twitter deleted thousands of accounts, while in what came to be called the
"AdPocalypse," YouTube began demonetizing videos from independent creators like
Majority Report and the Jimmy Dore Show on controversial political topics like
environmental protests, war and mass shootings. (In contrast, corporate outlets like CNN
did not have their content on those subjects demonetized.) Journalists that questioned aspects
of the Russia narrative, like Glenn Greenwald and Aaron Maté, were accused of being
agents of the Kremlin ( Shadowproof ,
7/9/18 ).
The effect has been to pull away the financial underpinnings of alternative media that
question the corporate state and capitalism in general, and to reassert corporate control over
communication, something that had been loosened during the election in particular. It also
impels liberal journalists to prove their loyalty by employing sufficiently bellicose and
anti-Russian rhetoric, lest they also be tarred as Kremlin agents.
Thomas Friedman ( Morning Joe ,
2/14/18 ) pointedly compared email hacking to events that the US responded to with major
wars.
When it was reported in February that 13 Russian trolls had been indicted by a US grand jury
for sharing and promoting pro-Trump and anti-Clinton memes on Facebook , the response
was a general uproar. Multiple senior political figures declared it an "act of war." Clinton
herself described Russian interference as a "
cyber 9/11 ," while Thomas Friedman said that it was a "
Pearl Harbor–scale event ." Morgan Freeman's viral video, produced by Rob Reiner's
Committee to Investigate Russia, summed up the outrage: "We have been attacked," the actor
declared ; "We are at war with Russia." Liberals declared Trump's refusal to react in a
sufficiently aggressive manner further proof he was Putin's puppet.
The McCarthyist wave swept over other politicians that challenged the liberal center. Green
Party presidential candidate Jill Stein refused to endorse the Russia narrative, leading
mainstream figures like Rachel Maddow to
insinuate she was a Kremlin stooge as well. After news broke that Stein's connection to
Russia was being officially investigated, top Clinton staffer Zac Petkanas announced :
Jill Stein is a Russian agent.
Jill Stein is a Russian agent.
Jill Stein is a Russian agent.
Jill Stein is a Russian agent.
Jill Stein is a Russian agent.
Jill Stein is a Russian agent.
Jill Stein is a Russian agent.
Jill Stein is a Russian agent.
"Commentary" that succinctly summed up the political atmosphere.
In contrast, Bernie Sanders has consistently and explicitly endorsed the RussiaGate theory,
claiming it is "clear
to everyone (except Donald Trump) that Russia was deeply involved in the 2016 election and
intends to be involved in 2018." Despite his stance, Sanders has also been constantly presented
as another Russian agent, with the Washington Post (
11/12/17 ) asking its readers, "When Russia interferes with the 2020 election on behalf of
Democratic nominee Bernie Sanders, how will liberals respond?" The message is clear: The
progressive wave rising across America is and will be a consequence of Russia, not of the
failures of the system, nor of the Democrats.
Outlets like Slate (
5/11/18 ) warned of a sinister connection between Black Lives Matter and Russia.
It is not just politicians who have been smeared as Russian agents, witting or unwitting;
virtually every major progressive movement challenging the system is increasingly dismissed in
the same way. Multiple media outlets, including CNN (
6/29/18 ), Slate (
5/11/18 ), Vox ( 4/11/18
) and the New York Times (
2/16/18 ), have produced articles linking Black Lives Matter to the Kremlin, insinuating
the outrage over racist police brutality is another Russian psyop.
Others claimed Russia funded the riots in Ferguson and that Russian trolls promoted
the Standing Rock environmental protests.
Meanwhile, Democratic insider Neera Tanden retweeted a
description of Chelsea Manning as a "Russian stooge," writing off her campaign for the Senate
as "the Kremlin paying the extreme left to swing elections. Remember that." Thus corporate
media are promoting the idea that any challenge to the establishment is likely a Kremlin-funded
astroturf effort.
The tactic has spread to Europe as well. After the poisoning of Russian double agent Sergei
Skripal, the UK government immediately blamed Russia and imposed sanctions (without publicly
presenting evidence). Jeremy Corbyn, the pacifist, leftist leader of the Labour Party, was
uncharacteristically bellicose, asserting , "The Russian
authorities must be held to account on the basis of the evidence and our response must be both
decisive and proportionate."
The British press was outraged -- at Corbyn's insufficient jingoism. The Sun 's front
page ( 3/15/18 )
attacked him as "Putin's Puppet," while the Daily Mail (
3/15/18 ) went with "Corbyn the Kremlin Stooge." As with Sanders, the fact that Corbyn
endorsed the official narrative didn't keep him from being attacked, showing that the
conspiratorial mindset seeing Russia behind everything has little to do with evidence-based
reality, and is increasingly a tool to demonize the establishment's political enemies.
The Atlantic Council
published a report claiming Greek political parties Syriza and Golden Dawn were not
expressions of popular frustration and disillusionment, but "the Kremlin's Trojan horses,"
undermining democracy in its birthplace. Providing scant evidence, the report went on to link
virtually every major European political party challenging the center, from right or left, to
Putin. From Britian's UKIP to Spain's Podemos to Italy's Five Star Movement, all are charged
with being under one man's control. It is this council that Facebookannounced
it was partnering with to help promote "trustworthy" news and weed out "untrustworthy" sources
( FAIR.org ,
5/21/18 ), as its CEO Mark Zuckerberg met with representatives from some of the largest
corporate outlets, like the New York Times , CNN and News Corp , to help
develop a system to control what content we see on the website.
"We are at war," Morgan Freeman
assures us on behalf of the Committee to Investigate Russia.
The utility of this wave of suspicion is captured in Freeman's aforementioned
video . After asserting that "for 241 years, our democracy has been a shining example to
the world of what we can all aspire to" -- a tally that would count nearly a century of chattel
slavery and almost another hundred years of de jure racial disenfranchisement -- the actor
explains that "Putin uses social media to spread propaganda and false information, he convinces
people in democratic societies to distrust their media, their political process."
The obvious implication is that the political process and media ought to be trusted, and
would be trusted were it not for Putin's propaganda. It was not the failures of capitalism and
the deep inequalities it created that led to widespread popular resentment and movements on
both left and right pressing for radical change across Europe and America, but Vladimir Putin
himself. In other words, "America is already great."
For the Democrats, Russiagate allows them to ignore calls for change and not scrutinize why
they lost to the most unpopular presidential candidate in history. Since Russia hacked the
election, there is no need for introspection, and certainly no need to accommodate the Sanders
wing or to engage with progressive challenges from activists on the left, who are Putin's
puppets anyway. The party can continue on the same course, painting over the deep cracks in
American society. Similarly, for centrists in Europe, under threat from both left and right,
the Russia narrative allows them to sow distrust among the public for any movement challenging
the dominant order.
For the state, Russiagate has encouraged liberals to forego their faculties and develop a
state-worshiping, conspiratorial mindset in the face of a common, manufactured enemy. Liberal
trust in institutions like the FBI has
markedly increased since 2016, while liberals also now espouse a neocon foreign policy in
Syria, Ukraine and other regions, with many supporting the vast increases in the US military
budget and attacking Trump from the right.
For corporate media, too, the disciplining effect of the Russia narrative is highly useful,
allowing them to reassert control over the means of communication under the guise of preventing
a Russian "fake news" infiltration. News sources that challenge the establishment are censored,
defunded or deranked, as corporate sources stoke mistrust of them. Meanwhile, it allows them to
portray themselves as arbiters of truth. This strategy has had some success, with
Democrats' trust in media increasing since the election.
None of this is to say that Russia does not strive to influence other countries' elections,
a tactic that the United States has employed even more frequently ( NPR ,
12/22/16 ). Yet the extent to which the story has dominated the US media to the detriment
of other issues is a remarkable testament to its utility for those in power.
In the wake of President Trump's Helsinki press conference, National Review declared
itself "Against
Moral Equivalence." The magazine claimed that there could be no equating American
meddling in foreign elections with Russian interference in our election because the goal of
the U.S. is to "promote democracy and political liberty and human rights." Though while
America's actions might be noble and have the sanction of heaven, National Review did
concede that its efforts to promote democracy have often been "messy" -- an adjective that the
people of Iraq might find understated.
Like many of Trump's critics, National Review 's embrace of American exceptionalism,
of exempting the United States from the moral laws of the universe because of its commitment to
democracy, is of a type the West has seen before. Swept up in their revolutionary enthusiasm,
the French Jacobins made similar claims. In late 1791, a member of the Assembly, while
agitating for war with Austria, declared that France "had become the foremost people of the
universe, so their conduct must now correspond to their new destiny. As slaves they were bold
and great; are they to be timid and feeble now that they are free?"
Robespierre himself was taken aback by the turn of a domestic revolution into a call for
military adventurism. Of plans to invade Austria and to overthrow "enemies" of liberty in other
nations, he famously remarked, "No one loves armed missionaries." (Robespierre's advice might
have also benefited the American occupiers of Iraq.) The Jacobins' moral preening led France to
declare war on Austria in 1792 and set in motion years of French military adventurism that
devastated much of central Europe. Military imperialism abroad and guillotines at home became
the legacy of self-declared French exceptionalism.
Hubristic nations that claim a unique place for themselves high atop the moral universe tend
to be imperialistic. This is because claims of national exceptionalism, whether of the French
or American variety, are antinomian, even nihilistic. The "exceptional" ones carve out for
themselves an exemption from the moral law. And prideful claims of moral purity are the
inevitable predicate to imposing one's will upon another. Once leaders assert that their
national soul is of a special kind -- indispensable and not subject to the same rules -- the
road to hell has been paved.
While supporters of American exceptionalism are careful to claim the mantle of Western
civilization, their philosophical orientation in fact amounts to a repudiation of the central
principles of the West and the Constitution.
Arguably, the tradition of the Judeo-Christian West has been special because it has asserted
that human nature is not particularly special. And the Constitution has been exceptional
because it's warned Americans that we are not particularly exceptional.
For example, the legacy of Pauline Christianity, Irving Babbitt tells us, is "the haunting
sense of sin and the stress it lays upon the struggle between the higher and lower self,
between the law of the flesh and the law of the spirit." No person or nation is above this
moral challenge. The uniquely American repudiation of exceptionalism shines brightly in The
Federalist , where no angels can be found among men, and, because no one's behavior enjoys
the sanction of heaven, extensive checks are placed upon people's ability to impose their wills
upon others. The foreign policy that flowed out of the worldview of the Framers was that of
George Washington, a strong recommendation against hubris and foreign meddling.
These historical and cultural warnings about human nature have since been swept away by
acolytes of American exceptionalism. Our moral superiority, they claim, makes us Masters of the
Universe, not careful and mindful custodians of our own fallen nature. We have been put on
earth to judge other nations, not to be judged. Tossing the legacy of the Framers onto the ash
heap of history, George W. Bush declared in his Second Inaugural Address
that our exceptionalism creates an obligation to promote democracy "in every nation and
culture." In this endeavor, Bush pronounced, the United States enjoys the sanction of heaven,
as "history also has a visible direction, set by liberty and the author of liberty." Bush's
Second Inaugural was probably better in the original French.
Now, the puffed-up American establishment, many of whom supported the bloody Iraq war, drip
with moral condescension as they brand Vladimir Putin an existential outlaw and the enemy of
democracy, foreclosing the possibility of common ground with Russia on nuclear weapons, China,
terrorism, and other issues that matter to the national security of the United States. That
Washington has meddled in countless nations' affairs from Iraq to Russia -- and caused untold
damage -- is of no account to the establishment. Rules do not apply to democracy promoters.
After the Iraq war, we should have reconsidered our hubristic American exceptionalism. One
can take pride in the American tradition without laying claim to a uniquely beautiful national
soul that is exempt from the laws of nature and of nature's God. The hysterical reaction to
Trump's truthful admission that the United States too has made mistakes in its relationship
with Russia is a sign that American exceptionalism is still in full flower among elites.
Without the return of a certain humility, there will be more military adventures abroad and
political strife at home.
William S. Smith is research fellow and managing director at the Center for the Study
of Statesmanship at The Catholic University of America.11 Responses to America the
Unexceptional
I agree with the sentiment but the facts show we've always been this way. Historically
speaking our hubris didn't start with George W. Bush. We had quite the exceptionalist spirt
with "Manifest Destiny" back in the 19th century. And indeed it took a bit of hubris to
declare independence from Britain.
Dr. Smith wrote his PhD dissertation in political philosophy on a critique of romanticism in
political thinking. However, in the above article he somehow believes America is unexceptional
for having exempted itself from God's laws and natural law. But what if American policy makers
acted out of political necessity and realism, not "hubris" or un-humility? I might agree with
Smith about using "democracy building" as a pretense for military intervention. But does Smith
take what US presidents and congressmen say at face value? What if US intervention in Iraq had
to do with trying to balance power between Iraq and Iran, or stop Islamic expansionism from
pushing into Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states? Moralism can be just as dangerous as democracy
building in foreign affairs.
We did renounce exceptionalism and imperialism after WW1. Wilson's pet agencies faded out and
we focused internally. We remained non-interventionist until 1946 when the Wilsonians snatched
power again.
We should figure out why and how the bureaucracy and media gave up Empire in the early '20s.
Obviously the people were tired, just as they are now, but the people are irrelevant.
Something changed in the power structure. What was it? Can we help it to happen again?
The writer in question of the referenced piece at National Review, Jimmy Quinn, is a
20something college intern, proving they aren't even interested in hiring newer young
conservatives at NRO who don't just mindlessly repeat the neoconservative line on "American
exceptionalism". They are long past their days as a serious magazine. If not by ideology, just
by having a more interesting collection of writers, I'd say even the Weekly Standard is now a
better magazine than National Review. It's become like the boring Pravda rulebook for Official
Conservatism™ in America.
Well done, Mr. Smith. Our hubris blinds this nation to the pain it inflicts in other lands. I
reflect again and again on these words from the hymn (tune Finlandia):
This is my song, oh God of all the nations,
a song of peace for lands afar and mine.
This is my home, the country where my heart is;
here are my hopes, my dreams, my holy shrine;
but other hearts in other lands are beating
with hopes and dreams as true and high as mine.
My country's skies are bluer than the ocean,
and sunlight beams on clover leaf and pine.
But other lands have sunlight too and clover,
and skies are everywhere as blue as mine.
This is my song, thou God of all the nations;
a song of peace for their land and for mine.
When nations rage, and fears erupt coercive,
The drumbeats sound, invoking pious cause.
My neighbors rise, their stalwart hearts they offer,
The gavels drop, suspending rights and laws.
While others wield their swords with blind devotion;
For peace I'll stand, my true and steadfast cause.
We would be one as now we join in singing,
Our hymn of love, to pledge ourselves anew.
To that high cause of greater understanding
Of who we are, and what in us is true.
We would be one in loving and forgiving,
with hopes and dreams as true and high as thine.
C'mon people, it's right to separate yourselves from the bombast and violent meddling we've
done all over the world, but let's not get carried away with this ridiculous "we're just like
any other bully" mentality.
The exceptionalism is in the elevation of individual human freedom as a foundational
principle. We declared it, the French declared it, and it remains a beacon for many others, no
matter how poorly we've observed it from time to time.
"Military imperialism abroad and guillotines at home became the legacy of self-declared
French exceptionalism." No, that was the paroxysm of revolution, one that the U,S. fortunately
avoided.
The real legacy was the sweeping away of monarchy across the continent, despite the irony of
Napoleon making himself emperor.
For all our imperialism, did we treat western Europe the same as Stalin treated eastern
Europe?
Is it just an accident of history that the U.S., Canada, New Zealand, and Australia, former
British colonies all, lead the world in the protection of individual human rights? You can draw
a line, crooked though it may be, from those countries right back to the Magna Carta.
Yes, we had slavery, a legacy of our status as an agricultural colony, but the British,
French, and Americans all abolished it because it couldn't square with our declared
principles.
We may forget why we are exceptional but our immigration pressure shows that the the rest of
the world hasn't.
Re: The Jacobins' moral preening led France to declare war on Austria in 1792
It wasn't just the Jacobins: pretty much everyone wanted war. The royalists hoped that
foreign intervention would restore Louis XVI as an absolute monarch. The moderates wanted to
consolidate the gains of the Revolution and deflect public anger at its economic failings. The
radicals, as noted, looked to evangelize Europe with the Rights of Man. And the foreign powers
wanted to crush the Revolution lest its ideals take root in their own country -- and help
themselves to this or that bit of France's empire.
Why, then, would a coalition of leftish and right-wing patriots not join in
denouncing a leader who seemed to put Russia's interests ahead of those of his own country?
Sorry to say, things are not so simple. Look a bit more closely at what holds the anti-Trump
foreign policy coalition together, and you will discover a missing reality that virtually no
one will acknowledge directly: the existence of a beleaguered but still potent American Empire
whose junior partner is Europe. What motivates a broad range of the President's opponents,
then, is not so much the fear that he is anti-American as the suspicion that he is
anti-Empire.
Of course, neither liberals nor conservatives dare to utter the "E-word." Rather, they argue
in virtually identical terms that Trump's foreign and trade policies are threatening the
pillars of world order: NATO, the Group of Seven, the World Trade Organization, the
International Monetary Fund, the OSCE, and so forth. These institutions, they claim, along with
American military power and a willingness to use it when necessary, are primarily responsible
for the peaceful, prosperous, free, and democratic world that we have all been privileged to
inhabit since the Axis powers surrendered to the victorious Allies in 1945.
The fear expressed plainly by The New York Times 's David Leonhardt, a
self-described "left-liberal," is that "Trump wants to destroy the Atlantic Alliance." Seven
months earlier, this same fear motivated the arch-conservative National Review to
editorialize that, "Under Trump, America has retreated from its global and moral leadership
roles, alienated its democratic allies, and abandoned the bipartisan defense of liberal ideals
that led to more than 70 years of security and prosperity." All the critics would agree with
Wolfgang Ischinger, chair of the Munich Security Conference, who recently stated, "Let's face
it. Mr. Trump's core beliefs conflict with the foundations of Western grand strategy since the
mid-1940's."
"Western grand strategy," of course, is a euphemism for U.S. global hegemony – world
domination, to put it plainly. In addition to peace and prosperity (mainly for privileged
groups in privileged nations), this is the same strategy which since 1945 has given the world
the Cold War, the specter of a nuclear holocaust, and proxy wars consuming between 10 and 20
million lives in Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, the Balkans, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya,
and Yemen. Its direct effects include the overthrow of elected governments in Guatemala, Iran,
Lebanon, Congo, Nigeria, Indonesia, Chile, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Granada, Ukraine, et al.;
the bribery of public officials and impoverishment and injury of workers and farmers world-wide
as a result of exploitation and predatory "development" by Western governments and
mega-corporations; the destruction of natural environments and exacerbation of global climate
change by these same governments and corporations; and the increasing likelihood of new
imperialist wars caused by the determination of elites to maintain America's global supremacy
at all costs.
It is interesting that most defenders of the Western Alliance (and its Pacific equivalent:
the more loosely organized anti-Chinese alliance of Japan, Taiwan, the Philippines, Thailand,
and South Korea) virtually never talk about American hegemony or the gigantic military
apparatus (with more than 800 U.S. bases in 60 or so nations and a military-industrial complex
worth trillions) that supports it. Nor is the subject of empire high on Mr. Trump's list of
approved twitter topics, even when he desecrates NATO and other sacred cows of the Alliance.
There are several reasons for this silence, but the most important, perhaps, is the need to
maintain the pretense of American moral superiority: the so-called "exceptionalist" position
that inspires McCain to attack Trump for "false equivalency" (the President's statement in
Helsinki that both Russia and the U.S. have made mistakes), and that leads pundits left and
right to argue that America is not an old-style empire seeking to dominate, but a new-style
democracy seeking to liberate.
The narrative you will hear repeated ad nauseum at both ends of the liberal/conservative
spectrum tells how the Yanks, who won WW II with a little help from the Russians and other
allies, and who then thoroughly dominated the world both economically and militarily,
could have behaved like vengeful conquerors, but instead devoted their resources and
energies to spreading democracy, freedom, and the blessings of capitalism around the world. Gag
me with a Tomahawk cruise missile! What is weird about this narrative is that it "disappears"
not only the millions of victims of America's wars but the very military forces that
nationalists like Trump claim deserve to be worshipfully honored. Eight hundred bases? A
million and a half troops on active duty? Total air and sea domination? I'm shocked . . .
shocked!
In fact, there are two sorts of blindness operative in the current U.S. political
environment. The Democratic Party Establishment, now swollen to include a wide variety of
Russia-haters, globalizing capitalists, and militarists, is blind (or pretends to be) to the
connection between the "Western Alliance" and the American Empire. The Trump Party (which I
expect, one of these days, to shed the outworn Republican label in favor of something more
Berlusconi-like, say, the American Greatness Party) is blind – or pretends to be –
to the contradiction between its professed
"Fortress America" nationalism and the reality of a global U.S. imperium.
This last point is worth emphasizing. In a recent article in The Nation , Michael
Klare, a writer I generally admire, claims to have discovered that there is really a method to
Trump's foreign policy madness, i.e., the President favors the sort of "multi-polar" world,
with Russia and China occupying the two other poles, that Putin and Xi Jinping have long
advocated. Two factors make this article odd as well as interesting. First, the author argues
that multi-polarity is a bad idea, because "smaller, weaker states, and minority peoples
everywhere will be given even shorter shrift than at present when caught in any competitive
jousting for influence among the three main competitors (and their proxies)." Wha? Even shorter
shrift than under unipolarity? I think not, especially considering that adding new poles (why
just three, BTW? What about India and Brazil?) gives smaller states and minority peoples many
more bargaining options in the power game.
More important, however, Trump's multi-polar/nationalist ideals are clearly contradicted by
his determination to make American world domination even more overwhelming by vastly increasing
the size of the U.S. military establishment. Klare notes, correctly, that the President has
denounced the Iraq War, criticized American "overextension" abroad, talked about ending the
Afghan War, and declared that the U.S. should not be "the world's policeman." But if he wants
America to become a mere Great Power in a world of Great Powers, Trump will clearly have to do
more than talk about it. He will have to cut the military budget, abandon military bases,
negotiate arms control agreements, convert military-industrial spending to peaceful uses, and
do all sorts of other things he clearly has no intention of doing. Ever.
No – if the Western Alliance, democratic values, and WTO trade rules provide
ideological cover and junior partners for American global hegemony, "go-it-alone" nationalism,
multi-polarity, and Nobel Peace Prize diplomatic efforts provide ideological cover for . . .
American global hegemony! This can be seen most clearly in the case of Iran, against whom Trump
has virtually declared war. He would like to avoid direct military involvement there, of
course, but he is banking on threats of irresistible "fire and fury" to bring the Iranians to
heel. And if these threats are unavailing? Then – count on it! – the Empire will
act like an empire, and we will have open war.
In fact, Trump and his most vociferous critics and supporters are unknowingly playing the
same game. John Brennan, meet Steve Bannon! You preach very different sermons, but you're
working for the same god. That deity's name changes over the centuries, but we worship him
every time we venerate symbols of military might at sports events, pay taxes to support U.S.
military supremacy, or pledge allegiance to a flag. The name unutterable by both Trump and his
enemies is Empire.
What do we do with the knowledge that both the Tweeter King and the treason-baiting
coalition opposing him are imperialists under the skin? Two positions, I think, have to be
rejected. One is the Lyndon Johnson rationale: since Johnson was progressive on domestic
issues, including civil rights and poverty, that made him preferable to the Republicans, even
though he gave us the quasi-genocidal war in Indochina. The other position is the diametric
opposite: since Trump is less blatantly imperialistic than most Democratic Party leaders, we
ought to favor him, despite his billionaire-loving, immigrant-hating, racist and misogynist
domestic policies. Merely to say this is to refute it.
My own view is that anti-imperialists ought to decline to choose between these alternatives.
We ought to name the imperial god that both Trump and his critics worship and demand
that the party that we work and vote for renounce the pursuit of U.S. global hegemony.
Immediately, this means letting self-proclaimed progressives or libertarians in both major
parties know that avoiding new hot and cold wars, eliminating nuclear weapons and other WMD,
slashing military spending, and converting war production to peaceful uses are top priorities
that must be honored if they are to get our support. No political party can deliver peace and
social justice and maintain the Empire at the same time. If neither Republicans nor Democrats
are capable of facing this reality, we will have to create a new party that can.
Notes.
[1]
The author is University Professor of Conflict Resolution and Public Affairs at George Mason
University. His most recent book is Resolving Structural Conflicts : How Violent
Systems Can Be Transformed (2017).
"... STEPHANOPOULOS: And I gave you a chance to explain all the irregularities you thought you saw in the investigation. I asked you about that. You said no collusion. At first the White House said that there were no contacts with Russians. We now know there were at least 80 contacts. If the White House or anyone connected to the Trump campaign accepted information from the Russians, that could potentially be collusion. That would be -- that could be considered collusion, could be considered participating with a conspiracy. ..."
STEPHANOPOULOS: And I gave you a chance to explain all the irregularities you thought
you saw in the investigation. I asked you about that. You said no collusion. At first the White
House said that there were no contacts with Russians. We now know there were at least 80
contacts. If the White House or anyone connected to the Trump campaign accepted information
from the Russians, that could potentially be collusion. That would be -- that could be
considered collusion, could be considered participating with a conspiracy.
So that's also -- that's also the possibility of a legal violation there as well. But I do
want to ask you about --
(CROSSTALK)
SEKULOW: -- in that allegation, though, you'd have to -- the -- the so-called collusion,
which by the way is not a legal term, that's now what results in a -- a-- a issue of
criminality. I mean, that's just one theory (ph). And by the way, you know, the phrasing here,
especially at this late date is very important. So everyone is still talking about this
collusion concept. And when Rudy Giuliani said collusion's not a crime, that was again rather
unremarkable.
What was the fact? I mean what was the fact? Well the facts that we know is what is the
violation or what violation has anybody put forward of an actual federal statute that's been
violated by the – by the president of the United States?
And we've yet to seen (ph) it, and as I said, we've seen an awful lot of it.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Well that's one of the things that Robert Mueller's investigating. I agree
with you on that.
Once the Democratic Party has burned the people who fall under the marketing term
"Millennials" enough times, they'll move on to the new "hope" of Gen Z who won't have
multiple memories of lie after lie.
Some people have told me they could think better when hungry.
After the initial pangs go away, and one can think clearly, one is incentivized to really
find solutions, but thinking as in learning? They have different brains then me, let's just
say.
Marketing and advertising thrive on the same concept.
Exalting youth to exploit it.
When that doesn't work, use fear (of not being wealthy enough, attractive enough, etc,). That
base emotion gets played on throughout people's lives.
That is why those marketing terms found a comfy fit with political narratives and polling
(which is done to fit a narrative).
"... There are too many lucrative salaries on the line that depend on that trillion dollars a year military budget to allow Russia to end up being bogeyman number one. ..."
"... They are fighting for their own lifestyles. And I think that speaks to a broader point that the Russiagate narrative is one that sustains privilege because, really, who does it threaten? ..."
"... And of course, Russia has no huge, powerful lobby in Washington. Russia has no major economic power in the U.S. So attacking Russia really hurts nobody domestically in a position of privilege and influence. And meanwhile, attacking Russia serves a double benefit of allowing people to deflect from other interests much more powerful than Russia that are doing real damage here at home, as Paul has been talking about. ..."
"... While the importance of the existential threat of Russia, the importance of that narrative to the military-industrial complex, is I think that's only one piece of why the American state and large sections of the American oligarchy see Russia so much as a threat. They keep using the word 'adversary.' ..."
"... The United States wants what they call in some of their documents Full Spectrum Dominance. They want global hegemony. Global hegemony means hegemony in every region of the world. They do not like it when any power emerges. The challenges for regional hegemonic because that's obviously part of global hegemony. So they don't like the fact that Russia has a major economy; and not one of the biggest economies, by any means, but a major economy. A big army. Of course, nuclear weapons. So they don't like that it has, kind of, independent will in this region. It's not a global competitor. ..."
"... In the 1990s after the collapse of the Soviet Union, there was a free-for-all plundering of all the natural resources and state resources, privatization mania. And the U.S., the Americans thought they'd get a much bigger piece of this. I don't think they thought, after all these years of trying, they thought, bringing down the Soviet Union, in truth the Soviet Union fell mostly for internal reasons. And bureaucrats within the party and the state became the oligarchs, became the billionaires. They seized a lot of these assets, not the West and the Americans. ..."
"... And the out of the chaos emerges a Russian state, led by Putin, to create some sense of normalcy, turn it into a kind of a normal capitalist country, with laws, to some extent, so you can do business and commerce. And one of the things that state did is it didn't allow the West to just hocus pocus, I forget the term, they didn't just allow the West to come in and pick up all these resources and privatization directly themselves. ..."
"... So different parts of the U.S. state have different agendas connected to different sections of capital that have their other agendas, but none of this justifies this McCarthyite level of Cold War rhetoric. ..."
"... And Kissinger observed to Nixon, he says: In 20 years your successor, if he's as wise as you, will wind up leaning towards the Russians against the Chinese. And then he went on to say: Right now we need the Chinese to correct the Russians, and to discipline the Russians. ..."
"... The, the metaphysical vision of the world- and don't forget, Hitler had quite a metaphysical vision of the world. The, the role of, the mission of the aryan nation to take over the world and march into a new era of civilization and all this was all intertwined with, with a metaphysical, quasi-fanatical religious view of the world. ..."
"... Putin is very close to the Russian Orthodox Church. He's been promoting this kind of nationalism intertwined with religious messaging through the church. He promotes this kind of stuff in Western Europe. Putin has been nurturing the far right in Western Europe. So this jives, the agenda of the people around Trump and Putin have similar views of the world. ..."
"... So yeah, the idea of some kind of accommodation with Russia because of the coming trade war, and who knows what kind of war, with China, yeah, this is definitely, I think, part of the equation. The shorter-term play is Iran. They are, this group, this cabal in Washington, is fixated on regime change in Iran. I actually am not sure how they, why they see that fits the China strategy, but I don't know that it matters, because that's their play. And they've been talking about it for years, since the late night 1990s. And this document, Project for a New American Century. Undoing the Iranian revolution has been absolutely at the core of these people's foreign policy. ..."
Watch Part 2 of Paul Jay and Aaron Mate's interactive discussion with viewers about the
controversy over Trump's visit to Helsinki – From a live recording on July 18th, 2018
AARON MATE: I want to read a comment from a viewer, Kristen Lee, who writes: There
are too many lucrative salaries on the line that depend on that trillion dollars a year
military budget to allow Russia to end up being bogeyman number one. To not end up-. To have
Russia not end up being boogeymen number one, I believe. They are fighting for their own
lifestyles. And I think that speaks to a broader point that the Russiagate narrative is one
that sustains privilege because, really, who does it threaten? I mean, yes, it threatens Trump.
But we already know that there's a huge cross-section of the elite that despises Trump,
including many Republicans who campaigned against him during the campaign.
And of course, Russia has no huge, powerful lobby in Washington. Russia has no major
economic power in the U.S. So attacking Russia really hurts nobody domestically in a position
of privilege and influence. And meanwhile, attacking Russia serves a double benefit of allowing
people to deflect from other interests much more powerful than Russia that are doing real
damage here at home, as Paul has been talking about.
PAUL JAY: Could I just, could I just then-.
AARON MATE: Let me ask you about China, first. Because we're-.
PAUL JAY: Before we do China, before we do China, let me just add one thing to this,
which I think-. While the importance of the existential threat of Russia, the importance of
that narrative to the military-industrial complex, is I think that's only one piece of why the
American state and large sections of the American oligarchy see Russia so much as a threat.
They keep using the word 'adversary.' .
And the reason why I think there's a several pieces to it, and I said this in the interview
the other day, one, the United States does not like regional powers that are not under the
American thumb. They don't want anyone, they-. The United States wants what they call in
some of their documents Full Spectrum Dominance. They want global hegemony. Global hegemony
means hegemony in every region of the world. They do not like it when any power emerges. The
challenges for regional hegemonic because that's obviously part of global hegemony. So they
don't like the fact that Russia has a major economy; and not one of the biggest economies, by
any means, but a major economy. A big army. Of course, nuclear weapons. So they don't like that
it has, kind of, independent will in this region. It's not a global competitor.
But there's another piece to this. Russia has oil. They don't like an oil state, a country
that has such massive oil supply, not being under the U.S. umbrella, U.S. hegemony. That's,
that's number two. Number three, they don't like the way Putin and that state emerged. You
know, if people are watching the series that I'm doing of interviews with Alexander Buzgalin,
we're telling the whole story of the emergence of Putin out of the collapsed Soviet state,
Soviet system. In the 1990s after the collapse of the Soviet Union, there was a
free-for-all plundering of all the natural resources and state resources, privatization mania.
And the U.S., the Americans thought they'd get a much bigger piece of this. I don't think they
thought, after all these years of trying, they thought, bringing down the Soviet Union, in
truth the Soviet Union fell mostly for internal reasons. And bureaucrats within the party and
the state became the oligarchs, became the billionaires. They seized a lot of these assets, not
the West and the Americans.
And the out of the chaos emerges a Russian state, led by Putin, to create some sense of
normalcy, turn it into a kind of a normal capitalist country, with laws, to some extent, so you
can do business and commerce. And one of the things that state did is it didn't allow the West
to just hocus pocus, I forget the term, they didn't just allow the West to come in and pick up
all these resources and privatization directly themselves.
So this Putin's state's been to some extent blocking the U.S. from turning this Russia, as
they have with most most other areas of the world- of course the other big exception is China
and Iran- under, into the American global capitalist system, where the Americans are the
dominant power. And they even had ways to do that. But these things jive, don't always jive, I
should say, which is the economic incorporation of Russia into, into global capitalism, into,
even into the EU, for example, or something, some structure like that, does not jive with the
narrative of an existential threat that serves this massive military expenditure.
So different parts of the U.S. state have different agendas connected to different
sections of capital that have their other agendas, but none of this justifies this McCarthyite
level of Cold War rhetoric.
AARON MATE: Right. So in terms of China, as we're talking about other possible
explanation for Trump's desire to work with Russia that go beyond him being a potential
intelligence asset, or that Putin has kompromat on Trump, which really is right now the
dominant corporate media narrative and question. You've been laying out some- I want to focus
on China for a second, and actually read to you, Paul, a quote. This is John Pomfret. He's a
historian. And he writes about Kissinger talking to Nixon after Kissinger returned from China
as part of the Nixon administration's overture to China in the early '70s. And Kissinger
observed to Nixon, he says: In 20 years your successor, if he's as wise as you, will wind up
leaning towards the Russians against the Chinese. And then he went on to say: Right now we need
the Chinese to correct the Russians, and to discipline the Russians.
So I find that interesting, because it's a way to help understand what might have motivated
Nixon's overtures to China back then. But also I think that might help us understand what might
motivate Trump's overtures to Russia. Now, obviously China has been a huge obsession of Trump.
He talks about it constantly. He's launching a trade war right now. And it's quite likely, I
think, he recognizes that if he really wants to confront China, a far bigger world power than
Russia is, especially, obviously, economically, that he might need to enlist Russia for that
task.
PAUL JAY: I certainly think there's part of it. How conscious Trump himself is of
these kind of geostrategic assessments and plans, I don't know. Trump's a very smart con man. I
don't know that he has a big geopolitical brain. But that being said, he's got people around
him, including John Bolton, who are actually quite smart and have real geopolitical brains, and
are fanatics.
The, my guess is the short-term play, and I don't see this- I think it's ridiculous that
Trump is Putin's stooge, and all of this. The agenda of this group that's in power and that
Trump represents the interests of, this isn't just a one man band, even if he flies off the
handle in a one-man way. But this agenda of Iran and China, this was very well articulated by
Steve Bannon before and after the victory of Trump in the election. This has economic interests
which they, of course, China is the real economic competitor in the world that's a threat to
American dominance. But it also has an ideological framing for it. And that's the defense of
Western Christian civilization. And I think they believe in this stuff. Bannon himself is
connected to Opus Dei in the Catholic Church. He's connected to Cardinal Burke. They're waging
a war against Pope Francis. They want to overthrow the Pope. And it's really as open as that.
They don't like, they're shocked that they've got a pope that's a social democrat. The, the
metaphysical vision of the world- and don't forget, Hitler had quite a metaphysical vision of
the world. The, the role of, the mission of the aryan nation to take over the world and march
into a new era of civilization and all this was all intertwined with, with a metaphysical,
quasi-fanatical religious view of the world.
Well I think they have this. So China does not fit the plan of saving Western civilization.
But Russia does. And Putin is very close to the Russian Orthodox Church. He's been
promoting this kind of nationalism intertwined with religious messaging through the church. He
promotes this kind of stuff in Western Europe. Putin has been nurturing the far right in
Western Europe. So this jives, the agenda of the people around Trump and Putin have similar
views of the world. And it is a far right, far right view of the world.
So yeah, the idea of some kind of accommodation with Russia because of the coming trade
war, and who knows what kind of war, with China, yeah, this is definitely, I think, part of the
equation. The shorter-term play is Iran. They are, this group, this cabal in Washington, is
fixated on regime change in Iran. I actually am not sure how they, why they see that fits the
China strategy, but I don't know that it matters, because that's their play. And they've been
talking about it for years, since the late night 1990s. And this document, Project for a New
American Century. Undoing the Iranian revolution has been absolutely at the core of these
people's foreign policy.
So there are, all these things are interconnected. And you know, dividing Russia from China,
and having clearly some kind of alliance there, it's also in the interests of Putin, and it's
very much in the interest of this, of this cabal. I think we should even stop talking and being
so focused on Trump. Because if they bring down Trump the individual, they'll find some other,
some other individual to come play a similar role. And he won't, this, whoever he or she is
won't be such a clown.
"... Graph: The Democrats' choice to blame external forces, e.g. Russian meddling, for their electoral loss in 2016 ignores evidence of that none-of-the-above is the people's choice. The largest voting bloc in the 2016 election was eligible voters who chose not to vote. In contrast to the received wisdom in political consultant circles, choosing not to vote is a political act. The U.S. has the lowest voter turnout in the 'developed' world for a reason. Source: ..."
Prior to the 2016 presidential election, if one were to ask what single act could seal a
new Cold War with Russia, align liberals and progressives with the operational core of the
American military-industrial-surveillance complex, expose the preponderance of left-activism as
an offshoot of Democratic Party operations and consign most of what remained to personal
invective against an empirically dangerous leader, consensus would likely have it that doing so
wouldn't be easy.
The decision to blame Russian meddling for Hillary Clinton's electoral loss was
made in the immediate aftermath of the election by her senior campaign staff. Within days
the
received wisdom amongst Clinton supporters was that the election had been stolen and that
Donald Trump was set to enter the White House as a pawn of the Russian political leadership.
Left out was the history of U.S. – Russian relations; that the largest voting bloc in the
2016 election was eligible voters who didn't vote and that domestic business interests
substantially control the American electoral process.
Graph: The Democrats' choice to blame external forces, e.g. Russian meddling, for their
electoral loss in 2016 ignores evidence of that none-of-the-above is the people's choice. The
largest voting bloc in the 2016 election was eligible voters who chose not to vote. In contrast
to the received wisdom in political consultant circles, choosing not to vote is a political
act. The U.S. has the lowest voter turnout in the 'developed' world for a reason. Source:electproject.org.
More than a year later, no credible evidence has been put forward to establish that
any votes were changed due to 'external' meddling. As the Intercept has reported
, since the election progressive candidates seeking public office have been systematically
subverted by establishment Democrats in favor of those with connections to big-money donors.
And
the Democratic Party leadership in congress just voted to give Mr. Trump expanded spying
powers with fewer restraints. Congressional Democrats are certainly behaving as if they believe
Mr. Trump was duly elected. And more to the point, they are supporting his program.
The choice of Russia would seem bizarre if not for the history. Residual propaganda from the
first Cold War -- itself largely a business enterprise that provided
ideological cover for American imperial incursions , had it that substantive grievances
against the American government, in the form of protests, were universally the product of
'external' enemies intent on sowing discord to promote their own interests. This slander was
used against the Civil Rights movement, organized labor, anti-war protesters and the
counterculture of the 1960s.
Therefore, the choice by the Clintonites to invoke a new Cold War by bringing Russia into
the American electoral mix is not without a past. Students of history may recall that in the
early 1990s Mikhail Gorbachev was
given assurances by senior members of George H.W. Bush's administration that NATO would not
be expanded to Russia's border in exchange for Russia's help re-integrating East and West
Germany. It was Bill
Clinton who unilaterally abrogated these assurances and moved nuclear-armed NATO to
Russia's border.
In 2013 the Obama administration ' brokered ' (Mr. Obama's term) a coup in the
former Soviet state of Ukraine that ousted the democratically elected President to install
persons favorable to the
interests of Western oligarchs . At the time Hillary Clinton had just vacated her post as
Mr. Obama's Secretary of State to prepare for her 2016 run for president, but her lieutenants,
including Victoria
Nuland , were active in coordinating the coup and deciding who the new 'leadership' of
Ukraine would be.
An analogy would be if Russia moved troops and weaponry to the Mexican border with the U.S.
after giving assurances that it wouldn't do so and then engineered a coup (in Mexico) to
install a government friendly to the interests of the Russian political leadership. One needn't
be sympathetic to Russian interests to understand that these are provocations. Given U.S. and
Russian nuclear weapons stockpiles, the provocations seem more reckless than 'tough.' Then
consider Mr. Obama's, later Trump's, move to 'upgrade' the U.S. nuclear arsenal toward
'tactical' use.
This is to suggest that it certainly makes sense that the Russian political leadership would
want to keep American militarists, a/k/a the Clintons and their neocon ' crazies
,' out of White House. But as of now, the evidence is that the Russians changed no votes in the
2016 election. As far as inciting dissent -- the charge that protests were organized by Russian
'interests,' not only does this reek of prior misdirection by the FBI and CIA, but there is no
evidence that any such protests had an impact on the outcome of the 2016 election.
Given Mr. Trump's belligerent (unhinged) rhetoric toward North Korea, if enhancing
geopolitical stability was the Russians' goal, Mr. Trump must be a disappointment.
Unfortunately for Mr. Trump's critics (among whom I count myself), there is a lot of 'theory'
from American think tanks that supports crazy as a strategy . And it was
after Mr. Trump's provocative posture toward North Korea became widely known that
senior Democrats voted to give him additional NSA powers with fewer restrictions.
The most cynically brilliant outcome of the 'blame Russia' campaign has been to neuter left
activism by focusing the attack on Donald Trump rather than the interests he represents. As
evidence, the proportion of Goldman Sachs alumni in Mr. Trump's administration approximates
that in Mr. Obama's and what was expected for Mrs. Clinton's. If the problem is Donald Trump,
then the solution is 'not Trump.' However, if the problem is that the rich substantially control American political
outcomes, how would electing 'not Trump' bring about resolution?
As it is, within days of the 2016 election Mr. Trump, his supporters plus the political
opponents of Mrs. Clinton were recast as stooges of the Kremlin. George W. Bush and Dick Cheney
had required loyalty oaths
from their stalwarts. But even a loyalty oath wouldn't prove that one isn't a stooge of the
Kremlin. And the larger problem with the theory (of Russian meddling) is that the U.S.
electoral system was already thoroughly corrupted by
economic power.
As students of the scientific method know, you can't 'prove' a negative. Condoleezza Rice
used this knowledge in 2003 to sell the
George W. Bush administration's calamitous war against Iraq through the charge that the proof
that Saddam Hussein had an ongoing WMD program is that he hadn't handed over his WMDs. As
history has it, Mr. Hussein couldn't hand over his WMDs because he didn't have any to hand
over. How then would critics of Mrs. Clinton 'prove' they weren't / aren't acting on behalf of
foreign interests?
The answer lies with Democratic Party loyalists. Much as Bush – Cheney supporters were
impervious to logical and evidentiary challenges to the rationales given for the war against
Iraq, Clintonites believe what they believe because they believe it. For those with an interest
and some knowledge of empirical research, read the myriad articles touting 'proof' of Russian
meddling and find a single instance where such proof is provided. Or with an eye toward not
being the half of
Republicans who still believe that Saddam Hussein had WMDs, bring the proof forward if it
exists.
Here is the disclaimer taken from the National Intelligence Estimate (link here ).
The National
Intelligence Estimate , initially claimed to be based on input from 17 intelligence
agencies, later reduced to selected representatives from three of the agencies (NSA, CIA and
FBI), provides no proof for claims of Russian meddling and states quite openly that it is
conjecture. Amongst these agencies, one (NSA) is known for illegally spying on Americans and
lying about it to congress, the second (CIA) provided fraudulent 'evidence' to drag the U.S.
into a calamitous war against Iraq where it ran illegal torture camps and the third (FBI) has
such a checkered history that is was called 'Gestapo'
by former U.S. president Harry Truman.
Here is James
Clapper, the former Director of National Intelligence, lying to congress about NSA spying.
Here is Trevor Timm in the
Columbia (University) Journalism Review explaining the many ways former head of the NSA and CIA
Michael Hayden has lied to congress and the American people. Here is a brief history of
COINTELPRO and FBI attempts to disrupt and discredit the Civil Rights movement. At the time
that FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover was accusing Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. of being a communist
(link above), the term approximated being an agent of Russia.
(Here is a compendium of links related to claims made in this piece:
Promise by U.S. that NATO wouldn't expand to surround Russia. Bill Clinton expands NATO
to Eastern Bloc to surround Russia. Barack Obama admits U.S. role in Ukraine coup. James
Clapper
committing perjury. Victoria Nuland discusses overthrowing the democratically
elected government of Ukraine and installing U.S. puppets. Backstory of CIA and Robert Sheer that
supports argument Propornot is government operation with ties to Ukrainian fascists.)
There is circumstantial
evidence that the first list of 'Russian-linked' websites published by the 'credible'
media, that of Propornot
published in the Washington Post (in their 'Business' section) to which a
disclaimer was subsequently added, was the work of Ukrainians with links to the CIA. The
Propornot website (link above) is worth visiting to get a sense of how implausible the whole
enterprise is. On it former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Ronald Reagan, Paul Craig Roberts , is listed
prominently as a puppet of the Kremlin. And deep-research political website Washington's Blog made the honor roll as well.
More recently, the New York Times
cited the German Marshall Fund as an authority on Russian meddling. The German Marshall
fund (U.S.) is headed by Karen Donfried , a former Obama
Administration official and operative for the National Intelligence Council. The National
Intelligence Council supports the Director of National Intelligence.Here (again) is James Clapper,
the former Director of National Intelligence, lying to congress about NSA spying. Derek Chollet , Executive Vice
President of the fund, is the former Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Obama
administration and a senior member of Hillary Clinton's Policy Planning Staff.
The question for the Left is why liberals and progressives would align themselves with
Hayden, Clapper, the FBI, CIA and NSA, and suspect organizations like Propornot and the German
Marshall Fund when most have spent their entire existences trying to undermine and shut down
the Left? The (near-term) cynical brilliance of the Democrats' strategy is through revival of
the Cold War frame of national interests that was always a cover for imperial business schemes.
As the Intercept articles (links above) have well- uncovered, this is all just business for the
Democrats anyway. Can you say class warfare?
Assuming for a moment that not everyone is playing the Democrats' one-dimensional checkers,
if the Russian political leadership really intended to 'undermine the U.S.-led liberal
democratic order,' as the NIE puts it, it is doing Mrs. Clinton
a disservice to suggest that she wasn't up to the job. From the Clintons' 1994 Crime Bill to
deregulating Wall Street to support for George W. Bush's calamitous war against Iraq to the
U.S. / NATO destruction of Libya, Mrs. Clinton has 'undermine(d) the U.S.-led liberal
democratic order' just fine.
Likely not considered when the Russian meddling hypothesis was originally put forward is
what happens next? The initial charge that America's 'sacred democratic tradition' was soiled
when the Russian political leadership hacked the election has run up against the apparent fact
that no votes have been found to have been changed. The charge that AstroTurf protests
organized by the Russians led to dissent smells a lot like the last half-century of FBI / CIA
lies against / about the Left. And the charge that narcissistic plutocrat Trump has been
'compromised' misses that he was already compromised by the circumstances of his birth and
upbringing. This is the problem.
The Democrats, in their wisdom, have given a gift to the U.S. intelligence 'community' that
provides political cover for closing down inconvenient commentary and disrupting inconvenient
political organizations. A political Left with a brain would be busy thinking through strategy
for when the internet becomes completely unusable for organizing and communication. The
unifying factor in the initial 'fake news' purge was criticism of Hillary Clinton. Print media,
a once viable alternative, has been all but destroyed by the move to the internet. This
capability needs to be rebuilt.
Bourgeois incredulity that Donald Trump still has supporters could be seen by an inquisitive
Left through a lens of class struggle. Yes, his effective supporters are rich, just as the
national Democrats' are -- the term for this is plutocracy. But back in the realm of human
beings, rising deaths of despair tie in theory and fact to the wholesale abandonment of the
American people by the political class. An inquisitive Left would be talking to these people,
not at them. The Russian meddling story is a sideshow with a political purpose. But class
struggle remains the relevant story. Join the debate on
Facebook More articles by: Rob Urie
Rob Urie is an artist and political economist. His book Zen Economics is
published by CounterPunch Books.
"... Chart: Demonization of Russia centers on competition for oil and gas revenues. Pipelines to deliver oil and gas from the Middle East to Europe run through North Africa (Libya) and Syria and / or Turkey. These pipelines are substantially controlled by Western interests with imperial / colonial ties to the U.S., Britain and 'developed' Europe. Russian oil and gas did run through Ukraine, which is now negotiating to join NATO, or otherwise hits a NATO wall before entering Europe. ..."
The indictments are a major political story, but not for the reasons given in
mainstream press coverage. Once Mr. Mueller's indictment is understood to charge the
exploitation of existing social tensions (read it and decide for yourself), the FBI, which Mr.
Mueller directed from 2001 – 2013, is precisely the wrong entity to be rendering
judgment. The FBI has been America's political police since its founding in 1908. Early on
former FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover led legally dubious mass
arrests of American dissidents. He practically invented the slander of conflating
legitimate dissent with foreign agency. This is the institutional backdrop from which Mr.
Mueller proceeds.
In the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s the FBI's targets included the civil rights movement, the
antiwar movement, the American Indian Movement (AIM), the Black Panther Party and any other
political organization Mr. Hoover deemed a threat. The secret (hidden) FBI program COINTELPRO was intended to
subvert political outcomes outside of allegations of criminal wrongdoing and with no regard for the lives of its
targets . Throughout its history the FBI has sided with the powerful against the powerless
to maintain an unjust social order.
Robert Mueller became FBI Director only days before the attacks of September 11, 2001. One
of his first acts as Director was to arrest 1,000 persons without any evidence of criminal
wrongdoing. None of those arrested were ever charged in association with the attacks. The frame
in which the FBI acted -- to maintain political stability threatened by 'external' forces, was
ultimately chosen by the George W. Bush administration to justify its aggressive war against
Iraq.
It is the FBI's legacy of conflating dissent with being an agent of a foreign power that Mr.
Mueller's indictment most insidiously perpetuates. Russians are 'sowing discord,' and they are
using Americans to do so, goes the allegation. Black Lives Matter and Bernie Sanders are listed
in the indictment as roadblocks to the unfettered ascension of Hillary Clinton to the
presidency. Russians are sowing discord, therefore discord is both suspect in itself and
evidence of being a foreign agent.
The posture of simple reporting at work in the indictment -- that it isn't the FBI's fault
that the Russians (allegedly) inserted themselves into the electoral process, runs against the
history of the FBI's political role, the tilt used to craft criminal charges and the facts put
forward versus those put to the side. Given the political agendas of the other agencies that
the FBI joined through the charges, they are most certainly but a small piece of a larger
story.
In the aftermath of the indictments it's easy to forget that the Pentagon created the internet ,
that the NSA
has its tentacles in all of its major chokepoints, that the CIA has been heavily
involved in funding and 'using' social media toward its own ends and that the FBI is only
reputable in the present because of Americans' near-heroic ignorance of history. The claim that
the Russian operation was sophisticated because it had corporate form and function is countered
by the fact that it was, by the various agencies' own claims, ineffectual in changing the
outcome of the election.
I Have a List
While Robert Mueller was busy charging never-to-be-tried Russians with past crimes, Dan
Coats, the Director of National Intelligence,
declared that future Russian meddling has already cast a shadow over the integrity of the
2018 election. Why the Pentagon that created the internet, the NSA that has its tentacles in
all of its major chokepoints, the CIA that has been heavily involved in funding and 'using'
social media toward its own ends and the FBI that just landed such a glorious victory of good
over evil would be quivering puddles when it comes to precluding said meddling is a question
that needs to be asked.
The political frame being put forward is that only these agencies know if particular
elections and candidates have been tainted by meddling, therefore we need to trust them to tell
us which candidates were legitimately elected and which weren't. As generous as this offer
seems, wouldn't the creation of free and fair elections be a more direct route to achieving
this end? Put differently, who among those making the offer, whether personally or as
functionaries of their respective agencies, has a demonstrated history of supporting democratic
institutions?
The 2016 election was apparently a test case for posing these agencies as the meddling
police. By getting the bourgeois electocracy -- liberal Democrats, to agree that the loathsome
Trump is illegitimate, future candidates will be vetted by the CIA, NSA and FBI with impunity.
It's apparently only the pre-'discord, ' the social angst that the decade of the Great
Recession left as its residual, that shifts this generous offer from the deterministic to the
realm of the probable. The social conditions that led to the Great Recession and its aftermath
are entirely home grown.
More broadly, how do the government agencies and people that spent the better part of the
last century undermining democracy at home and abroad intend to stop 'Russian meddling?' If the
FBI couldn't disentangle home grown 'discord' from that allegedly exploited and exacerbated by
the Russians, isn't the likely intention to edit out all discord? And if fake news is a problem
in need of addressing, wouldn't the
New York Times and the Washington Post have
been shut down years ago?
The Great Satin (sic)
While Russia is the villain of the day, week and year due to alleged election 'meddling,'
the process of demonization that Russia has undergone has shown little variation from (alleged)
villain to villain. It is thanks to cable news and the 'newspaper of record' that the true
villainy of Vladimir Putin, Muammar Gadhafi, Saddam Hussein, Nicolas Maduro and the political
leadership of Iran has been revealed. In the face of such monsters, questions of motivation are
moot. Why wouldn't Mr. Putin 'sow discord?'
The question as yet unasked, and therefore unanswered is: is there something besides base
villainy that brought these national leaders, and the nations they lead, into the crosshairs of
America's fair and wise leadership? This question might forever go unanswered were it not for
the secret list from which their names were apparently drawn. No, not that secret list. This one is publicly available -- hiding in plain sight, as it
were. It is the list of proven oil reserves by country (below). This is no doubt unduly
reductive -- evil is as evil does, but read on.
The question of how such a list could divide so evenly between heroes and villains I leave
to the philosophers. On second thought, no I won't. The heroes are allies of a small cadre of
America's political and economic elite who have made themselves fabulously rich through the
alliances. The villains have oil, gas, pipelines and other resources that this elite wants.
Reductive, yes. But this simple list certainly appears to explain American foreign policy over
the last half-century quite well.
Source: gulfbusiness.com
It's almost as if America's love for humanity, as demonstrated through humanitarian
interventions, is determined by imperial competition for natural resources -- in this case oil
and gas. Amongst these countries, only one (Canada) is 'democratic' in the American sense of
being run by a small cadre of plutocrats who use the state to further their own interests. Two
-- Iraq and Libya, were recently reduced to rubble (for the sake of humanity) by the U.S.
Nigeria is being 'brought' under the control of AFRICOM. What remains are various and sundry
petro-states plus Venezuela and Russia.
Following the untimely death of Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, the horrible tyrant kept in office
via free
and fair elections , who used Venezuela's petro-dollars to feed, clothe and educate his
people and was in the process of creating a regional Left alliance to counter American abuse of
power, the CIA joined with local
plutocrats to overthrow his successor, Nicolas Maduro. The goal: to 'liberate' Venezuela's oil
revenues in their own pockets. At the moment Mr. Maduro is down the list of villains, not
nearly the stature of a 'new Hitler' like Vladimir Putin. But where he ends up will depend on
how successfully the CIA (with Robert Mueller's help) can drum up a war against nuclear armed
Russia.
What separates Russia from the other heroes and villains on the list is its history as a
competing empire as well as the manner in which Russian oil and gas is distributed. Geography
placed it closer to the population centers of Europe than to Southeastern China where Chinese
economic development has been concentrated. This makes Europe a 'natural' market for Russian
oil and gas.
The former Soviet state of Ukraine did stand between, or rather under, Russian pipelines and
Europe until Hillary Clinton had her lieutenants engineer a coup there in 2014. In contrast to
the 'new Hitler' of Mr. Putin (or was that Trump?) Mrs. Clinton and her comrades demonstrated a
preference for the old Hitler in the form of Ukrainian fascists who were the ideological
descendants of 'authentic' WWII Nazis. But rest assured, not all of the U.S.'s allies in this
affair
were ideological Nazis .
Chart: Demonization of Russia centers on competition for oil and gas revenues. Pipelines
to deliver oil and gas from the Middle East to Europe run through North Africa (Libya) and
Syria and / or Turkey. These pipelines are substantially controlled by Western interests with
imperial / colonial ties to the U.S., Britain and 'developed' Europe. Russian oil and gas did
run through Ukraine, which is now negotiating to join NATO, or otherwise hits a NATO wall
before entering Europe.
In contrast to the alternative hypotheses given
in the American press, NATO, the geopolitical extension of the U.S. military in Europe,
admits that the U.S.
engineered coup in Ukraine was 'about' oil geopolitics with Russia. The American storyline
that Crimea was seized by Russia ignores that the Russian navy has had a Black Sea port in Crimea for decades. How
amenable, precisely, might Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats and his friends be if
Russia seized a major U.S. naval port given their generous offer to take over the U.S.
electoral system because of a few Russian trolls?
Although Russia is toward the bottom of the top ten countries in terms of oil reserves, it
faces a problem of distribution that the others don't. Imperial ties and recent military
incursions have left the distribution of oil and gas from the Middle East to Europe largely
under Western control. Syria, Turkey and North Africa are necessary to moving this oil and gas
through pipelines to Europe. That Syria, Libya and Turkey are now, or recently have been,
militarily contested adds credence to the contention that the 'international community's'
heroes and villains are largely determined by whose hands their oil and gas resources are
currently in.
Democratic Party loyalists who see Putin, Maduro et al as the problem first need to
answer for the candidate they put forward in 2016. Hillary Clinton led the carnage in Libya
that murdered
30,000 – 50,000 innocents for Western oil and gas interests. Russia didn't force the
U.S. into its calamitous invasion of Iraq. Russia didn't take Americans' jobs, houses and
pensions in the Great Recession. Russia didn't reward Wall Street for causing it. Democrats
need to take responsibility for their failed candidates and their failed Party.
Part of the point in relating oil reserves to American foreign entanglements is that the
countries and leaders involved are incidental. Vladimir Putin certainly seems smarter than the
American leadership. But this has no bearing on whether or not his leadership of Russia is
broadly socially beneficial. The only possible resolution of climate crisis requires both
Russia and the U.S. to greatly reduce their use of fossil fuels. Reports have it that Mr. Putin
has no interest in doing so. And once the marketing chatter is set to the side, neither do the
Americans.
By placing themselves as arbiters of the electoral process, the Director of National
Intelligence and the heads of the CIA, NSA and FBI can effectively control it. Is it accidental
that the candidate of liberal Democrats in the 2016 election was the insiders' -- the
intelligence agencies' and military contractors,' candidate as well? Implied is that these
agencies and contractors are now 'liberal.' Good luck with that program if you value peace and
prosperity.
There are lots of ways to create free and fair elections if that is the goal. Use
paper ballots that are counted in public, automatically register all eligible voters, make
election days national holidays and eliminate 'private' funding of electoral campaigns. But why
make elections free and fair when fanciful nonsense about 'meddling' will convince the liberal
class to deliver power to grey corpses in the CIA, NSA and FBI for the benefit of a tiny cabal
of stupendously rich plutocrats. Who says America isn't already great?
"... Akhilesh "Akhi" Pillalamarri is a fellow at Defense Priorities. An international relations analyst, editor, and writer, he studied international security at Georgetown University. Find him on Twitter ..."
Iranians: Not Pining for American InterventionSome seem to think they can't wait
for us to overthrow their government. Nothing could be further from the truth. By
Akhilesh Pillalamarri
•
August 6, 2018
Ryan
Rodrick Beiler/Shutterstock Defense hawks in Washington think the people of Iran are
waiting with bated breath for the regime in Tehran to collapse and wouldn't mind a little
American help along the way -- whether through direct military intervention, or "naturally" as
the result of grassroots
protests , "with Washington backing," of course.
There is no greater fallacy. While the people of Iran are undoubtedly frustrated with their
government, they are not on the
cusp of changing it, as Secretary of State Mike Pompeo seems to believe . In fact, any attempt
by outside actors to change the regime would cause the people of Iran to unify around the
clerics. We would end up deflating the reformist party and enabling the hardliners who have
consistently warned their people that we can't be trusted.
This ongoing mind reading of the Iranian people is pure Washington hokum with no basis in
reality.
After witnessing the debacles of our interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, who can
blame the people of Iran for not wanting direct American military aid? As Damon Linker
points out in
The Week , our attitude towards unsavory regimes in other nations is all too often
informed by "an incorrigible optimism about the benefits of change and consequent refusal to
entertain the possibility that a bad situation might be made even worse by overturning it."
Almost nobody in Iran supports the main group pushing for Western-backed regime change, the
National Council for the Resistance of Iran (NCRI). That organization is widely seen as a
front for
the despised Mojahedin-e-Khalq (MeK), an Iranian Marxist group that fought against the late
Shah, was virulently anti-American, and worked with Saddam Hussein to
invade Iran during the Iran-Iraq War before rebranding itself as a democratic opposition
group.
Despite this being common knowledge among unbiased observers, figures like National Security
Advisor John Bolton
continue to promote it as an alternative for Iran.
In actuality, despite the desire among a sizable segment of Iranians -- especially young
people in Tehran and other large cities -- for a pro-Western government, there is no
well-organized, secular, democratic alternative waiting to take charge. Any organization that
bills itself as such is following in the deceitful footsteps of Ahmed
Chalabi , the Iraqi leader-in-exile who sold himself in the United States as the Iraqi
George Washington, but failed to garner any political support after the fall of Saddam
Hussein.
History shows us that there is no quicker way for a leader or group to lose legitimacy than
by seeking the aid of a foreign power. King Louis XVI of France managed to hold on to his
throne for a few years after the storming of the Bastille, but was deposed after fleeing Paris
and seeking the aid of France's enemies. Iranians, like Americans, value liberty in the sense
of national self-determination: they would rather be under-served by their own leaders than by
well-meaning foreigners or those perceived to be puppets.
After wasting almost two decades of blood and treasure trying to rebuild countries with
weaker national identities than Iran -- like Iraq -- U.S. policymakers would have to be
detached from reality to believe that anything good could come of intervention in Iranian
affairs.
The people of Iran have a long historical memory: those who sold out their nation to foreign
powers, even in opposition to tyranny, have garnered not thanks but the collective hatred of
the Iranian people. From the actions
of the satrap Bessus who killed the last Achaemenid Persian king Darius III to curry favor with
Alexander the Great, to the slaying of the last pre-Islamic Persian ruler Yazdegerd III by a
local ruler to appease the invading Arabs, Iranians have long looked askance at collaboration
with foreigners. Numerous 19th-century Qajar rulers failed to implement their policies because
they were thought to be too close to the goals of the imperial powers of Russia or Britain. And
the last Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, never escaped the perception that his ascent to power in
1953 was enabled by British and American intelligence agencies, regardless of his own
self-portrayal as a nationalist.
Most Iranians, no matter how much they oppose their current government and politics, would
not support an invasion of their own country, let alone the peaceful ascendancy of groups
believed to serve interests other than theirs: it is a matter
of pride and honor.
It is true that Iran has been racked by protests throughout the past year, such as January's
multi-city demonstrations and the closure of the Grand Bazaar in Tehran in June. But those were
spontaneous actions resulting from blue-collar frustrations with the economy and are unlikely
to lead to an outcome favorable to American interests.
If our pressure on Iran leads to regime change, the most likely alternative is
probably a military junta led by members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), a
shift away from the semi-civilian government that Iran now enjoys. The IRGC has been infringing
on our geopolitical interests throughout the Middle East for decades and could take an even
harder anti-American line than the current government. When confronted with invaders and
foreign pressure, Iranians have always rallied around military strongmen, such as Nader Shah in
the early 18th century, who threw out the invading Afghans, and Reza Shah in the early 20th
century, who saved
Iran from disintegration after World War I.
Washington should be careful what it wishes for. We should not delude ourselves into
thinking that the people of Iran are waiting for our support and intervention. The truth is
much darker.
Akhilesh "Akhi" Pillalamarri is a fellow at Defense Priorities. An international
relations analyst, editor, and writer, he studied international security at Georgetown
University. Find him on Twitter@akhipill.
The people of Iran instinctively love America because everyone in the world loves America.
This is true regardless of the fact that we have never done anything whatsoever to merit
their love. We have never given them assistance when they had an earthquake, we won't let
them get spare parts for passenger airlines causing air travel to be unsafe. We hinder
civilian projects but since we are narcissists, we simply believe that everyone loves us
because of our intrinsically great qualities.
Really, what if the shoe were on the other foot? Trump is very unpopular as our own
President. But if a foreign power were to attempt to depose him and install a new government,
there would be massive popular resistance to that here. Why the neocons think it would be
different in any other country eludes me.
Nothing can unite even a fractiously divided nation more readily than foreign
interference.
US policy since Libya and Syria has been "regime destruction", with not even token
commitments to pretend "nation building". The miscalculation continues: if the US manages to
turn Iran into a "failed to comply" state without effective governance, there will be several
factions with professional military capabilities – especially given the IRGC
"deterrent" of connections and alliances throughout the Middle East – that can continue
where our pathological US "maglinity" plans to stop.
There are no "wars of choice". The only choice the US gets is whether to start an
unnecessary war, from then on our victims get a say, eventually. We are still trapped in
Eisenhower's grandstanding "meddling" in Iranian elections, after all .
Everyone knows that Iranians are not begging for "liberation", just as everyone with the
brains God gave my youngest cat knew damn well that American boots would not transform Iraq
into a western democracy, that American bombs would ruin Libya and American bombs are used
for genocide in Yemen.
The Trump Administration is looking for an excuse to attack. Just as the Bush
Administration shed crocodile tears over the poor Iraqis, and Obama cynically exploited the
fate of Libyans.
"... If, on average, just seven Republicans are moderates, and Democrats need 15 additional votes, Democrats will obviously fall short. Where else then could and should Democrats look? The more promising pools of people are actually Democratic voters -- many of whom face greater economic obstacles in finding the time and transportation to get to the polls. ..."
"... In the quest for those necessary 15 votes, the number-one place Democrats should look is among the 19 percent of Democrats who voted in 2016, but are unlikely to cast ballots this year. ..."
"... In fact, the largest pool of people Democrats should be trying to tap is actually nonvoters -- the 200,000 people per district who were eligible but didn't cast ballots in 2016. It is in these sectors of society where Democrats will find the source of success and the path to winning back the House and taking back our country and winning elections for years to come. ..."
Democratic leaders have gone to great lengths, for example, to
encourage
military veterans to run for Congress
this year. Veterans can be great progressive leaders (my father and
uncle served in the military, and I was born on a military base), but if the strategic objective is to appeal to
swing voters drawn to Trump's posture and positions, the math doesn't add up. The painful truth is that there just
aren't that many swing voters.
Doing a deep data dive on the districts reveals that the number of swing voters is
far smaller than many people realize, especially when you factor in the drop-off in voter turnout in midterm
elections. In the most competitive Republican-held congressional districts, Clinton won by an average of 17,000
votes, but the incumbent GOP congressperson beat his or her Democratic foe by an average of 34,000 votes.
This reality is particularly problematic when you factor in the smaller electorate during midterms, when fewer
turn out to vote than in a presidential year. This diagram shows the total voter pool in an average competitive
district, how many people voted, and how many voted for Clinton, Trump, and the Republican member of the House. For
illustration purposes, if 100 people voted in one of these Clinton-Republican representative-won districts in 2016,
the incumbent House Republican received 54 votes, and his or her Democratic opponent received 43 votes. Of those 54
people who voted for the incumbent Republican, seven (out of 100 votes) voted for Clinton. That's seven moderate
Republicans out of 100 voters. Historically, in midterm elections, Republicans are more likely to come back out and
vote than are Democrats, and as a result, that 54-43 Republican advantage from the higher-turnout presidential year
will be about 39-25 this midterm year (based on historical turnout data). This means Democrats need to find 15 votes
in every 100 in order to flip those 23 seats. Looking at the possible sources of an additional 15 percent highlights
how few moderate Republicans there are.
If, on average, just seven Republicans are moderates, and Democrats need 15 additional votes, Democrats will
obviously fall short. Where else then could and should Democrats look? The more promising pools of people are
actually Democratic voters -- many of whom face greater economic obstacles in finding the time and transportation to get
to the polls.
In the quest for those necessary 15 votes, the number-one place Democrats should look is among the 19 percent of
Democrats who voted in 2016, but are unlikely to cast ballots this year.
In races that may well be decided by a few thousand votes (for example, Pennsylvania Democrat Conor Lamb won his
special US House election earlier this year by a mere
627 votes
), it makes sense to also target the 20,000 young people in each congressional district who were not old
enough to vote in 2016, but are now eligible.
In fact, the largest pool of people Democrats should be trying to tap is actually nonvoters -- the 200,000 people per
district who were eligible but didn't cast ballots in 2016. It is in these sectors of society where Democrats will
find the source of success and the path to winning back the House and taking back our country and winning elections
for years to come.
It is hard work to get all of these voters out, but that is the work that will determine success or failure this
fall.
August 06, 2018 " Information Clearing House " - So the US news
media are in uproar over President Trump's latest admission that a meeting between his son and
a Russian lawyer more than two years ago was about "getting dirt" on Hillary Clinton.
With self-righteous probity, Trump's political and media enemies are declaring him a felon
for accepting foreign interference in the US presidential election.
Admittedly, President Trump appears to have been telling lies about the past meeting, which
took place at Trump Tower in New York City in the summer of 2016. Or maybe it's just this
American president shooting himself in the foot -- again -- with his inimical
gibberish-style.
However, the burning issue of "foreign interference" is being stoked out of all proportion
by Trump's enemies who want him ousted from the White House.
US constitutional law forbids candidates from receiving help from foreign governments or
foreign nationals.
Are You Tired Of The Lies And Non-Stop Propaganda?
Thus, by appearing to accept a meeting with a Russian lawyer in June 2016 -- during the
presidential campaign -- the Trump election team are accused of breaking US law.
The alleged transgression fits in with the wider narrative of "Russiagate" which posits that
Republican candidate Donald Trump colluded with the Kremlin to win the race to the White House
against Democrat rival Hillary
Clinton .
Russia has always denied any involvement in the US elections, saying the allegations are
preposterous. Moscow also points out that in spite of indictments leveled by American
prosecutors, there is no evidence to support claims that Russian hackers meddled in the
presidential campaign, or that the Kremlin somehow assisted Trump.
The Russian lawyer, Natalia
Veselnitskaya , who met with the Trump campaign team in early June 2016 is described in US
media as "Kremlin-linked". But that seems to be just more innuendo in place of facts. She
denies any such connection. The Kremlin also says it had no relation with the attorney on
her business of approaching Team Trump.
In any case, what is being totally missed in the latest brouhaha is the staggering hypocrisy
in the US media circus over Trump. Let's take Trump at his word -- not a reliable source
admittedly -- that his campaign team were trying to "get dirt" on Clinton. That would appear to
be a violation of US law.
If Trump is going to be nailed for improper conduct with regard to alleged foreign
assistance, then where does that leave Hillary Clinton and US intelligence agencies?
During the presidential campaign, Clinton's team contracted a British spy, Christopher
Steele, to dig up dirt on Trump in the form of the so-called "Russian dossier". That was the
pile of absurd claims alleging that the Kremlin had blackmailing leverage over Donald Trump. It
was Steele's fantasies that largely turned into the whole Russiagate affair which has dominated
US media and politics for the past two years.
Not only that, but now it transpires that the Federal Bureau of Investigation also paid the
same British spy to act as a source for the FBI's wiretapping of Trump's associates, according to
declassified documents obtained by Judicial Watch, a US citizens' rights group.
In other
words, the foreign interference that the FBI engaged in under the Barack Obama administration,
as well as by Hillary Clinton's campaign team, is on a far greater and more scandalous scale
that Trump seems to have clumsily endeavored to do with a Russian lawyer.
The real, shocking interference in US democracy was not by Russia or Trump, but by American
secret services working in collusion with the Clinton Democrats to distort the presidential
elections. This scandal which Princeton Professor Stephen Cohen has labeled "Intelgate" is far
more grievous than the Watergate crisis which resulted in President Richard Nixon's ignominious
resignation back in the mid-1970s.
The Obama administration's intelligence agencies and the Democrats attempted to sabotage the
2016 presidential election in order to keep Trump out of the White House. They failed. And they
have never gotten over that defeat to their illegal scheming.
The Russiagate claims are just a sideshow. As American writer Paul Craig Roberts, among
others, has
commented , the media-driven "witch hunt" against Trump and Russia is blown out of all
proportion in order to distract from the real scandal which is Intelgate -- and how millions of
American voters were potentially disenfranchised by the US intelligence apparatus for a
political power grab.
Another staggering hypocrisy in the US media kerfuffle over Trump and alleged Russian
interference is that all the fastidious hyperbole completely ignores actual foreign
interference in American democracy -- foreign interference that is on an absolutely colossal
scale.
As American critical thinker Noam Chomsky points out , "Israeli intervention in
US elections overwhelms anything Russia may have done".
Israel's interference includes the multi-million-dollar lobbying by such groups as the
American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and its financial sponsorship of hundreds of
lawmakers in both houses of Congress. Many critics maintain
that the entire Congress is in effect "bought" by AIPAC.
Chomsky referred specifically to the occasion in 2015 when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu snubbed then President Obama by addressing the US Congress with a speech openly
calling for lawmakers to reject the internationally-backed nuclear deal with Iran.
During his election campaign, Donald Trump
reportedly received a $20 million donation from the American-Israeli casino mogul Sheldon
Adelson. Adelson has Israeli citizenship. Is that not foreign help, according to definition of
US laws?
Trump has since shown himself to do Adelson's and Israel's bidding by walking away from the
Iran deal and in pushing stridently pro-Israeli interests in the conflict with
Palestinians.
Another foreign benefactor in US politics is the so-called Saudi lobby and other oil-rich
Gulf Arab states. Millions of dollars are funneled into Congress by these dubious regimes to
shape US government foreign policy in the Middle East. For several decades, Saudi oil money is
also documented to be
a major contributor to the CIA and its off-the-books covert operations around the world.
Foreign interference in US politics -- in which often nefarious foreign interests are
promoted over those of ordinary American citizens -- is conducted on a gargantuan and
systematic scale. But this massively illegal interference in flagrant violation of US laws is
stupendously ignored by the American media.
Trump is being assailed over an alleged scandal regarding Russia which is, by any objective
measure, negligible.
The whole Russiagate narrative is sheer hysteria driven by anti-Trump forces who do not want
to accept the result of the 2016 election. It is, in effect, a coup attempt by unelected
political forces.
Russiagate is a cover to conceal the really disturbing scandal which was,
and continues to be, the attempt to subvert American democracy by US intelligence agencies
working in cahoots with the Obama administration and Clinton's election campaign. To cover up
those crimes, Russia is being maligned for "attacking American democracy".
Such lies are an odious distortion of the truth by America's real enemies who are its own
domestic political and media operators trying to cover up their anti-constitutional crimes.
What's even more despicable is that these people are willing to inflame US-Russia relations to
the point of starting a war between two nuclear powers.
Finian Cunningham has written extensively on international affairs, with articles published
in several languages. He is a Master's graduate in Agricultural Chemistry and worked as a
scientific editor for the Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, England, before pursuing a
career in newspaper journalism. He is also a musician and songwriter. For nearly 20 years, he
worked as an editor and writer in major news media organisations, including The Mirror, Irish
Times and Independent.
This article was originally published by " Sputnik "
-
The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect the opinions of Information Clearing House.
"... I'm somewhat puzzled why Trump and his people, when referring to the "fake news" and answering questions from hostile journalists, especially about the idea that the media are "enemies of the American people", fail to bring up the fact that the "fake news" and the "enemies of the people" are not the journalists themselves, but rather the management and ownership of the media. ..."
I posted this one to my facebook page three or four days ago. It's brilliant. I have a few comments. First, I disagree with the
analysis given by the fellow from the Duran in the introduction, something along the lines of "even Anderson Cooper was smirking
because Cohen was demolishing Boot so badly".
If you pay attention to the questions and statements, you find that Cooper is equally as unhinged as Boot is, first hammering
on the point that nobody knows what was discussed in the meeting, then after Cohen rattles off a list, Cooper shifts to the "you're
believing Vladimir Putin on this" tactic, a nail that Cohen wisely smashes with a hammering statement, "I don't want to shock
you, but I believe Vladimir Putin on several things."
Cooper continues to insist that the content of the meeting is unknown and unconfirmed, regardless of what Putin and Trump say.
The sheer hubris of journalists today is unprecedented and outrageous.
I do admit that Cooper shuts up after being schooled by Cohen a second and third time and after Boot makes the mistake of calling
Cohen an apologist for Putin and Russia. This leads me to a second point.
I'm somewhat puzzled why Trump and his people, when referring to the "fake news" and answering questions from hostile journalists,
especially about the idea that the media are "enemies of the American people", fail to bring up the fact that the "fake news"
and the "enemies of the people" are not the journalists themselves, but rather the management and ownership of the media.
\This would accomplish two important things, both necessary, in my opinion. First, it would put the front line journalists
into their correct place, telling them that they are really nothing but mouthpieces, and we know that the real decisions on content
are not made by them.
What a blow to their narcisstic self-esteem that would be!
Second, it would give the American people more information on how their consent is engineered, how the media has owners
who have an agenda, and that agenda is not related to improving the lives of the American people, or even keeping them informed
with accurate information.
Why, then, would a coalition of leftish and right-wing patriots not join in
denouncing a leader who seemed to put Russia's interests ahead of those of his own country?
Sorry to say, things are not so simple. Look a bit more closely at what holds the anti-Trump
foreign policy coalition together, and you will discover a missing reality that virtually no
one will acknowledge directly: the existence of a beleaguered but still potent American Empire
whose junior partner is Europe. What motivates a broad range of the President's opponents,
then, is not so much the fear that he is anti-American as the suspicion that he is
anti-Empire.
Of course, neither liberals nor conservatives dare to utter the "E-word." Rather, they argue
in virtually identical terms that Trump's foreign and trade policies are threatening the
pillars of world order: NATO, the Group of Seven, the World Trade Organization, the
International Monetary Fund, the OSCE, and so forth. These institutions, they claim, along with
American military power and a willingness to use it when necessary, are primarily responsible
for the peaceful, prosperous, free, and democratic world that we have all been privileged to
inhabit since the Axis powers surrendered to the victorious Allies in 1945.
The fear expressed plainly by The New York Times 's David Leonhardt, a
self-described "left-liberal," is that "Trump wants to destroy the Atlantic Alliance." Seven
months earlier, this same fear motivated the arch-conservative National Review to
editorialize that, "Under Trump, America has retreated from its global and moral leadership
roles, alienated its democratic allies, and abandoned the bipartisan defense of liberal ideals
that led to more than 70 years of security and prosperity." All the critics would agree with
Wolfgang Ischinger, chair of the Munich Security Conference, who recently stated, "Let's face
it. Mr. Trump's core beliefs conflict with the foundations of Western grand strategy since the
mid-1940's."
"Western grand strategy," of course, is a euphemism for U.S. global hegemony – world
domination, to put it plainly. In addition to peace and prosperity (mainly for privileged
groups in privileged nations), this is the same strategy which since 1945 has given the world
the Cold War, the specter of a nuclear holocaust, and proxy wars consuming between 10 and 20
million lives in Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, the Balkans, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya,
and Yemen. Its direct effects include the overthrow of elected governments in Guatemala, Iran,
Lebanon, Congo, Nigeria, Indonesia, Chile, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Granada, Ukraine, et al.;
the bribery of public officials and impoverishment and injury of workers and farmers world-wide
as a result of exploitation and predatory "development" by Western governments and
mega-corporations; the destruction of natural environments and exacerbation of global climate
change by these same governments and corporations; and the increasing likelihood of new
imperialist wars caused by the determination of elites to maintain America's global supremacy
at all costs.
It is interesting that most defenders of the Western Alliance (and its Pacific equivalent:
the more loosely organized anti-Chinese alliance of Japan, Taiwan, the Philippines, Thailand,
and South Korea) virtually never talk about American hegemony or the gigantic military
apparatus (with more than 800 U.S. bases in 60 or so nations and a military-industrial complex
worth trillions) that supports it. Nor is the subject of empire high on Mr. Trump's list of
approved twitter topics, even when he desecrates NATO and other sacred cows of the Alliance.
There are several reasons for this silence, but the most important, perhaps, is the need to
maintain the pretense of American moral superiority: the so-called "exceptionalist" position
that inspires McCain to attack Trump for "false equivalency" (the President's statement in
Helsinki that both Russia and the U.S. have made mistakes), and that leads pundits left and
right to argue that America is not an old-style empire seeking to dominate, but a new-style
democracy seeking to liberate.
The narrative you will hear repeated ad nauseum at both ends of the liberal/conservative
spectrum tells how the Yanks, who won WW II with a little help from the Russians and other
allies, and who then thoroughly dominated the world both economically and militarily,
could have behaved like vengeful conquerors, but instead devoted their resources and
energies to spreading democracy, freedom, and the blessings of capitalism around the world. Gag
me with a Tomahawk cruise missile! What is weird about this narrative is that it "disappears"
not only the millions of victims of America's wars but the very military forces that
nationalists like Trump claim deserve to be worshipfully honored. Eight hundred bases? A
million and a half troops on active duty? Total air and sea domination? I'm shocked . . .
shocked!
In fact, there are two sorts of blindness operative in the current U.S. political
environment. The Democratic Party Establishment, now swollen to include a wide variety of
Russia-haters, globalizing capitalists, and militarists, is blind (or pretends to be) to the
connection between the "Western Alliance" and the American Empire. The Trump Party (which I
expect, one of these days, to shed the outworn Republican label in favor of something more
Berlusconi-like, say, the American Greatness Party) is blind – or pretends to be –
to the contradiction between its professed
"Fortress America" nationalism and the reality of a global U.S. imperium.
This last point is worth emphasizing. In a recent article in The Nation , Michael
Klare, a writer I generally admire, claims to have discovered that there is really a method to
Trump's foreign policy madness, i.e., the President favors the sort of "multi-polar" world,
with Russia and China occupying the two other poles, that Putin and Xi Jinping have long
advocated. Two factors make this article odd as well as interesting. First, the author argues
that multi-polarity is a bad idea, because "smaller, weaker states, and minority peoples
everywhere will be given even shorter shrift than at present when caught in any competitive
jousting for influence among the three main competitors (and their proxies)." Wha? Even shorter
shrift than under unipolarity? I think not, especially considering that adding new poles (why
just three, BTW? What about India and Brazil?) gives smaller states and minority peoples many
more bargaining options in the power game.
More important, however, Trump's multi-polar/nationalist ideals are clearly contradicted by
his determination to make American world domination even more overwhelming by vastly increasing
the size of the U.S. military establishment. Klare notes, correctly, that the President has
denounced the Iraq War, criticized American "overextension" abroad, talked about ending the
Afghan War, and declared that the U.S. should not be "the world's policeman." But if he wants
America to become a mere Great Power in a world of Great Powers, Trump will clearly have to do
more than talk about it. He will have to cut the military budget, abandon military bases,
negotiate arms control agreements, convert military-industrial spending to peaceful uses, and
do all sorts of other things he clearly has no intention of doing. Ever.
No – if the Western Alliance, democratic values, and WTO trade rules provide
ideological cover and junior partners for American global hegemony, "go-it-alone" nationalism,
multi-polarity, and Nobel Peace Prize diplomatic efforts provide ideological cover for . . .
American global hegemony! This can be seen most clearly in the case of Iran, against whom Trump
has virtually declared war. He would like to avoid direct military involvement there, of
course, but he is banking on threats of irresistible "fire and fury" to bring the Iranians to
heel. And if these threats are unavailing? Then – count on it! – the Empire will
act like an empire, and we will have open war.
In fact, Trump and his most vociferous critics and supporters are unknowingly playing the
same game. John Brennan, meet Steve Bannon! You preach very different sermons, but you're
working for the same god. That deity's name changes over the centuries, but we worship him
every time we venerate symbols of military might at sports events, pay taxes to support U.S.
military supremacy, or pledge allegiance to a flag. The name unutterable by both Trump and his
enemies is Empire.
What do we do with the knowledge that both the Tweeter King and the treason-baiting
coalition opposing him are imperialists under the skin? Two positions, I think, have to be
rejected. One is the Lyndon Johnson rationale: since Johnson was progressive on domestic
issues, including civil rights and poverty, that made him preferable to the Republicans, even
though he gave us the quasi-genocidal war in Indochina. The other position is the diametric
opposite: since Trump is less blatantly imperialistic than most Democratic Party leaders, we
ought to favor him, despite his billionaire-loving, immigrant-hating, racist and misogynist
domestic policies. Merely to say this is to refute it.
My own view is that anti-imperialists ought to decline to choose between these alternatives.
We ought to name the imperial god that both Trump and his critics worship and demand
that the party that we work and vote for renounce the pursuit of U.S. global hegemony.
Immediately, this means letting self-proclaimed progressives or libertarians in both major
parties know that avoiding new hot and cold wars, eliminating nuclear weapons and other WMD,
slashing military spending, and converting war production to peaceful uses are top priorities
that must be honored if they are to get our support. No political party can deliver peace and
social justice and maintain the Empire at the same time. If neither Republicans nor Democrats
are capable of facing this reality, we will have to create a new party that can.
Notes.
[1]
The author is University Professor of Conflict Resolution and Public Affairs at George Mason
University. His most recent book is Resolving Structural Conflicts : How Violent
Systems Can Be Transformed (2017).
"... As widely loathed as the Democratic establishment is, it has been remarkably adept at engineering a reactionary response in favor of establishment forces. Its demonization of Russia! has been approximately as effective at fomenting reactionary nationalism as Mr. Trump's racialized version. Lest this be overlooked, the strategy common to both is the use of oppositional logic through demonization of carefully selected 'others.' ..."
"... What preceded Donald Trump was the Great Recession, the most severe capitalist crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s. The Great Recession followed approximately three decades of neoliberal de-industrialization, of policies intended to reduce the power of organized labor, reduce working class wages and raise economic insecurity under the antique capitalist theory that destitution motivates workers to produce more for less in return. ..."
"... The illusion / delusion that these problems -- lost livelihoods, homes, social roles, relationships, sense of purpose and basic human dignity -- were solved, or even addressed, by national Democrats, illustrates the class divide at work. The economy that was revived made the rich fabulously rich, the professional / managerial class comfortable and left the other 90% in various stages of economic decline. ..."
"... Asserting this isn't to embrace economic nationalism, support policies until they are clearly stated or trust Mr. Trump's motives. But the move ties analytically to his critique of neoliberal economic policies. As such, it is a potential monkey wrench thrown into the neoliberal world order. ..."
"... Democrats could have confronted the failures of neoliberalism without resorting to economic nationalism (as Mr. Trump did). And they could have confronted unhinged militarism without Mr. Trump's racialized nationalism. But this would have meant confronting their own history. And it would have meant publicly declaring themselves against the interests of their donor base. ..."
"... Mr. Trump's use of racialized nationalism is the primary basis of analyses arguing that he is fascist. Left unaddressed is the fact the the corporate-state form that is the basis of neoliberalism was also the basis of European fascism. Recent Left analysis proceeds from the premise that Trump control of the corporate-state form is fascism, while capitalist class control -- neoliberalism, is something else. ..."
"... Lest this not have occurred, FDR's New Deal was state capitalism approach within the framework of the corporatism (merge of corporations and a state) social formation. The only widely known effort to stage a fascist coup in the U.S. was carried out by Wall Street titans in the 1930s to wrest control from FDR before the New Deal was fully implemented. Put differently, the people who caused the Great Depression wanted to control its aftermath. And they were fascists. ..."
"... As political scientist Thomas Ferguson has been arguing for decades and Gilens and Page have recently chimed in, neither elections nor the public interest hold sway in the corridors of American power. The levers of control are structural -- congressional committee appointments go to the people with lots of money. Capitalist distribution controls the politics. ..."
"... The best-case scenario looking forward is that Donald Trump is successful with rapprochement toward North Korea and Russia and that he throws a monkey wrench into the architecture of neoliberalism so that a new path forward can be built when he's gone. If he pulls it off, this isn't reactionary nationalism and it isn't nothing. ..."
"... Rob Urie is an artist and political economist. His book ..."
The election of Donald Trump fractured the American Left. The abandonment of class analysis
in response to Mr. Trump's racialized nationalism left identity politics to fill the void. This
has facilitated the rise of neoliberal nationalism, an embrace of the national security state
combined with neoliberal economic analysis put forward as a liberal / Left response to Mr.
Trump's program. The result has been profoundly reactionary.
What had been unfocused consensus around issues of economic justice and ending militarism
has been sharpened into a political program. A nascent, self-styled socialist movement is
pushing domestic issues like single payer health care, strengthening the social safety net and
reversing wildly unbalanced income and wealth distribution, forward. Left unaddressed is how
this program will move forward without a revolutionary movement to act against countervailing
forces.
As widely loathed as the Democratic establishment is, it has been remarkably adept at
engineering a reactionary response in favor of establishment forces. Its demonization of
Russia! has been approximately as effective at fomenting reactionary nationalism as Mr. Trump's
racialized version. Lest this be overlooked, the strategy common to both is the use of
oppositional logic through demonization of carefully selected 'others.'
This points to the most potent fracture on the Left, the question of which is the more
effective reactionary force, the Democrats' neoliberal nationalism or Mr. Trump's racialized
version? As self-evident as the answer apparently is to the liberal / Left, it is only so
through abandonment of class analysis. Race, gender and immigration status are either subsets
of class or the concept loses meaning.
By way of the reform Democrat's analysis , it was the shift of
working class voters from Barack Obama in 2012 to Donald Trump in 2016 that swung the election
in Mr. Trump's favor. To the extent that race was a factor, the finger points up the class
structure, not down. This difference is crucial when it comes to the much-abused 'white
working-class' explanation of Mr. Trump's victory.
What preceded Donald Trump was the Great Recession, the most severe capitalist crisis
since the Great Depression of the 1930s. The Great Recession followed approximately three
decades of neoliberal de-industrialization, of policies intended to reduce the power of
organized labor, reduce working class wages and raise economic insecurity under the antique
capitalist theory that destitution motivates workers to produce more for less in
return.
The illusion / delusion that these problems -- lost livelihoods, homes, social roles,
relationships, sense of purpose and basic human dignity -- were solved, or even addressed, by
national Democrats, illustrates the class divide at work. The economy that was revived made the
rich fabulously rich, the professional / managerial class comfortable and left the other 90% in
various stages of economic decline.
Left apparently unrecognized in bourgeois attacks on working class voters is that the
analytical frames at work -- classist identity politics and liberal economics, are ruling class
ideology in the crudest Marxian / Gramscian senses. The illusion / delusion that they are
factually descriptive is a function of ideology, not lived outcomes.
Here's the rub: Mr. Trump's critique of neoliberalism can ] accommodate class analysis
whereas the Democrats' neoliberal nationalism explicitly excludes any notion of economic power,
and with it the possibility of class analysis. To date, Mr. Trump hasn't left this critique
behind -- neoliberal trade agreements are currently being renegotiated.
Asserting this isn't to embrace economic nationalism, support policies until they are
clearly stated or trust Mr. Trump's motives. But the move ties analytically to his critique of
neoliberal economic policies. As such, it is a potential monkey wrench thrown into the
neoliberal world order. Watching the bourgeois Left put forward neoliberal trade theory to
counter it would seem inexplicable without the benefit of class analysis.
Within the frame of identity politics rich and bourgeois blacks, women and immigrants have
the same travails as their poor and working-class compatriots. Ben Carson (black), Melania
Trump (female) and Melania Trump (immigrant) fit this taxonomy. For them racism, misogyny and
xenophobia are forms of social violence. But they aren't fundamental determinants of how they
live. The same can't be said for those brutalized by four decades of neoliberalism
The common bond here is a class war launched from above that has uprooted, displaced and
immiserated a large and growing proportion of the peoples of the West. This experience cuts
across race, gender and nationality making them a subset of class. If these problems are
rectified at the level of class, they will be rectified within the categories of race, gender
and nationality. Otherwise, they won't be rectified.
Democrats could have confronted the failures of neoliberalism without resorting to
economic nationalism (as Mr. Trump did). And they could have confronted unhinged militarism
without Mr. Trump's racialized nationalism. But this would have meant confronting their own
history. And it would have meant publicly declaring themselves against the interests of their
donor base.
Mr. Trump's use of racialized nationalism is the primary basis of analyses arguing that
he is fascist. Left unaddressed is the fact the the corporate-state form that is the basis of
neoliberalism was also the basis of European fascism. Recent Left analysis proceeds from the
premise that Trump control of the corporate-state form is fascism, while capitalist class
control -- neoliberalism, is something else.
Lest this not have occurred, FDR's New Deal was state capitalism approach within the
framework of the corporatism (merge of corporations and a state) social formation. The only
widely known effort to stage a fascist coup in the U.S. was carried out by Wall Street titans
in the 1930s to wrest control from FDR before the New Deal was fully implemented. Put
differently, the people who caused the Great Depression wanted to control its aftermath. And
they were fascists.
More recently, the effort to secure capitalist control has been led by [neo]liberal
Democrats using Investor-State Dispute Resolution (ISDS) clauses in trade agreements. So that
identity warriors might understand the implications, this control limits the ability of
governments to rectify race and gender bias because supranational adjudication can overrule
them.
So, is race and / or gender repression any less repressive because capitalists control the
levers? Colonial slave-masters certainly thought so. The people who own sweatshops probably
think so. Most slumlords probably think so. Employers who steal wages probably think so. The
people who own for-profit prisons probably think so. But these aren't 'real' repression, are
they? Where's the animosity?
As political scientist Thomas Ferguson
has been arguing for decades and
Gilens and Page have recently chimed in, neither elections nor the public interest hold
sway in the corridors of American power. The levers of control are structural -- congressional
committee appointments go to the people with lots of money. Capitalist distribution controls
the politics.
The liberal explanation for this is 'political culture.' The liberal solution is to change
the political culture without changing the economic relations that drive the culture. This is
also the frame of identity politics. The presence of a desperate and destitute underclass
lowers working class wages (raising profits), but ending racism is a matter of changing
minds?
This history holds an important lesson for today's nascent socialists. The domestic programs
recently put forward, as reasonable and potentially useful as they are, resemble FDR's effort
to save capitalism, not end it. The time to implement these programs was when Wall Street was
flat on its back, when it could have been more. This is the tragedy of betrayal by Barack Obama
his voters.
Despite the capitalist rhetoric at the time, the New Deal wasn't 'socialism' because it
never changed control over the means of production, over American political economy. Internal
class differences were reduced through redistribution, but brutal and ruthless imperialism
proceeded apace overseas.
The best-case scenario looking forward is that Donald Trump is successful with
rapprochement toward North Korea and Russia and that he throws a monkey wrench into the
architecture of neoliberalism so that a new path forward can be built when he's gone. If he
pulls it off, this isn't reactionary nationalism and it isn't nothing.
Otherwise, the rich have assigned the opining classes the task of defending their realm.
Step 1: divide the bourgeois into competing factions. Step 2: posit great differences between
them that are tightly circumscribed to prevent history from inconveniently intruding. Step 3:
turn these great differences into moral absolutes so that they can't be reconciled within the
terms given. Step 4: pose a rigged electoral process as the only pathway to political
resolution. Step 5: collect profits and repeat. Join the debate on
Facebook More articles by: Rob Urie
Rob Urie is an artist and political economist. His bookZen Economicsis
published by CounterPunch Books.
"... I'm somewhat puzzled why Trump and his people, when referring to the "fake news" and answering questions from hostile journalists, especially about the idea that the media are "enemies of the American people", fail to bring up the fact that the "fake news" and the "enemies of the people" are not the journalists themselves, but rather the management and ownership of the media. ..."
I posted this one to my facebook page three or four days ago. It's brilliant. I have a
few comments. First, I disagree with the analysis given by the fellow from the Duran in
the introduction, something along the lines of "even Anderson Cooper was smirking because
Cohen was demolishing Boot so badly".
If you pay attention to the questions and
statements, you find that Cooper is equally as unhinged as Boot is, first hammering on
the point that nobody knows what was discussed in the meeting, then after Cohen rattles
off a list, Cooper shifts to the "you're believing Vladimir Putin on this" tactic, a nail
that Cohen wisely smashes with a hammering statement, "I don't want to shock you, but I
believe Vladimir Putin on several things."
Cooper continues to insist that the content of
the meeting is unknown and unconfirmed, regardless of what Putin and Trump say. The sheer
hubris of journalists today is unprecedented and outrageous.
I do admit that Cooper shuts
up after being schooled by Cohen a second and third time and after Boot makes the mistake
of calling Cohen an apologist for Putin and Russia. This leads me to a second point.
I'm somewhat puzzled why Trump and his people, when referring to the "fake news" and
answering questions from hostile journalists, especially about the idea that the media
are "enemies of the American people", fail to bring up the fact that the "fake news" and
the "enemies of the people" are not the journalists themselves, but rather the management
and ownership of the media.
\This would accomplish two important things, both necessary,
in my opinion. First, it would put the front line journalists into their correct place,
telling them that they are really nothing but mouthpieces, and we know that the real
decisions on content are not made by them.
What a blow to their narcisstic self-esteem
that would be!
Second, it would give the American people more information on how their
consent is engineered, how the media has owners who have an agenda, and that agenda is
not related to improving the lives of the American people, or even keeping them informed
with accurate information.
"... While you are at it, you might also want to come up with an improved definition of "treason": something better than " a skeptical attitude toward preposterous, unproven claims made by those known to be perpetual liars. ..."
"... So you plan to continue this McCarthy Russian BS? You didn't speak out when you got cheated in the primaries, and you didn't seem to care that Hillary was using her own paid troll army. Integrity matters Bernie and you are losing yours. ..."
"... You stopped speaking for me and millions of others when you caved to crooked HRC. No it was NOT clear that Russia was "deeply involved in the election. What is CLEAR is your betrayal of your followers and cover up of the election fraud perpetrated by DNC! Everybody knows... ..."
"... Bernie, that's MIC propaganda. Stop helping it. There are millions of reasons Trump should not be president. We don't need a hyped up corporate fairytale to make that point https://t.co/7FAwb47LtB ..."
"... Democratic party jingoism in 2020 will be extra-ordinary with candidates each trying to out do each other how they will fuck over Putin and the Russian nation. There will be a shit load of public loyalty testing against any third party candidate by the democrats. ..."
It has been clear to everyone (except Donald Trump) that Russia was deeply involved in the 2016 election and intends to be
involved in 2018. It is the American people who should be deciding the political future of our country, not Mr. Putin and the
Russian oligarchs.
However, Sanders had already committed the unforgivable
sin of criticizing the Democratic establishment candidate from the left. There is simply no way of coming back from that treason.
Despite his stance, Sanders has also been constantly presented as another Russian agent, with the Washington Post (11/12/17) asking
its readers, "When Russia interferes with the 2020 election on behalf of Democratic nominee Bernie Sanders, how will liberals
respond?" The message is clear: The progressive wave rising across America is and will be a consequence of Russia, not of the
failures of the system, nor of the Democrats.
It isn't just progressive politicians that are all traitors. Movements like Black Lives Matter are also traitors for Russia.
It is the American people who should be deciding the political future of our country, not Mr. Putin and the Russian oligarchs.
Hey, Bernie. The American people were the ones who should have decided who won the primary, not Hillary, the DNC and the delegates.
That you are blaming Her loss on Russia instead of admitting that the American people rejected her makes you nothing more than
a democratic puppet. How embarrassing for you.
Every Black voter should abandon the DP until they apologize for their disrespect for the BLM and saying that they only started
protesting cops killing Blacks because Russia manipulated them into doing so.
Eichenwald thinks that our intelligence agencies are patriots who have spent their lives working on keeping us safe does he?
I agree with Dmitry Orlov's take on them.
The objective of US intelligence is to suck all remaining wealth out of the US and its allies and pocket as much of it as
possible while pretending to defend it from phantom aggressors by squandering nonexistent (borrowed) financial resources on
ineffective and overpriced military operations and weapons systems. Where the aggressors are not phantom, they are specially
organized for the purpose of having someone to fight: "moderate" terrorists and so on.
....
the US intelligence community has been doing a wonderful job of bankrupting the country and driving it toward financial,
economic and political collapse by forcing it to engage in an endless series of expensive and futile conflicts -- the largest
single continuous act of grand larceny the world has ever known. How that can possibly be an intelligent thing to do to your
own country, for any conceivable definition of "intelligence," I will leave for you to work out for yourself.
While you are at it, you might also want to come up with an improved definition of "treason": something better than
" a skeptical attitude toward preposterous, unproven claims made by those known to be perpetual liars. "
And let's not forget how many
coups
and false flag events they had a hand in creating that have cost so much misery and death.
One major advancement in their state of the art has been in moving from real false flag operations, à la 9/11, to fake false
flag operations, à la fake East Gouta chemical attack in Syria (since fully discredited). The Russian election meddling story
is perhaps the final step in this evolution: no New York skyscrapers or Syrian children were harmed in the process of concocting
this fake narrative, and it can be kept alive seemingly forever purely through the furious effort of numerous flapping lips.
It is now a pure confidence scam. If you are less then impressed with their invented narratives, then you are a conspiracy
theorist or, in the latest revision, a traitor.
The real puppets are the ones who believe in this silly story that Russia is pulling Trump's strings and that the GOP are also
Russian puppets. Good grief!
The others show that there are others out there that have seen through this propaganda crap. I'd like to see the breakdown
of Hillary supporters that believe Russia Gate and the Bernie supporters that don't. Most of the Trump supporters think it's phony
so what made Hillary's believe in something that everyone should be laughing at?
You deserve a lot of credit. Russia interfered in your favor, yet you are man enough to admit that they interfered. Thank
you Bernie!
So you plan to continue this McCarthy Russian BS? You didn't speak out when you got cheated in the primaries, and you
didn't seem to care that Hillary was using her own paid troll army. Integrity matters Bernie and you are losing yours.
You stopped speaking for me and millions of others when you caved to crooked HRC. No it was NOT clear that Russia was
"deeply involved in the election. What is CLEAR is your betrayal of your followers and cover up of the election fraud perpetrated
by DNC! Everybody knows...
Bernie, that's MIC propaganda. Stop helping it. There are millions of reasons Trump should not be president. We don't
need a hyped up corporate fairytale to make that point https://t.co/7FAwb47LtB
Democratic party jingoism in 2020 will be extra-ordinary with candidates each trying to out do each other how they will
fuck over Putin and the Russian nation. There will be a shit load of public loyalty testing against any third party candidate
by the democrats.
The democrats (and media cohorts) have become an apocolyptic death cult. The language that comes from them is infused with
the language of conspiracies, violence, treason, aggression and demonization.
And here is the thing, Bernie to survive electorally will have to become a cult member. Effectively he will have to be pro-war
with Russia. He will be giving from the the Left supposed support for aggressive action andmilitarism toward Russia.
I fear that if a democrat becomes president in 2020 (it won't be Bernie), is elected president that in the year of the midterms
in 2022, the US will start a real war with Russia which has a highly likehood of going nuclear.
So the US neoliberal establishment tried to sabotage Trump-Putin summit in doer to pursue "business as usual". In other words military-industrial
complex is in control of the USA government...
Notable quotes:
"... It's no coincidence that, at the very moment when the President of the United States was about to meet with the President of Russia, special prosecutor Robert Mueller III charged twelve Russians with having manipulated the US presidential elections by hacking into the data networks of the Democratic party in order to hinder candidate Hillary Clinton. The twelve Russians, accused of being agents of the military secret services (GRU), were officially defined as " conspirators ", and found guilty of " conspiracy to the detriment of the United States ". Simultaneously, Daniel Coats, National Director of Intelligence and principal advisor to the President in these matters, accused Russia of working to " undermine our basic values and our democracy ". He then sounded the alarm about the " threat of cyber-attacks which have arrived at a critical point " similar to that which preceded 9/11, on behalf not only of Russia, " the most aggressive foreign agent ", but also China and Iran. ..."
"... At the same time, in London, British " investigators " declared that the Russian military secret service GRU, which had sabotaged the Presidential elections in the USA, is the same service which poisoned ex-Russian agent, Sergueï Skripal and his daughter, who, inexplicably, survived contact with an extremely lethal gas. ..."
"... The political objective of these " enquiries " is clear – to maintain that at the head of all these " conspirators " is Russian President Vladimir Putin, with whom President Donald Trump sat down at the negotiating table, despite vast bi-partisan opposition in the USA. After the " conspirators " had been charged, the Democrats asked Trump to cancel the meeting with Putin. Even though they failed, their pressure on the negotiations remains powerful. ..."
"... In opposition to the easing of tension with Russia are not only the Democrats (who, with a reversal of formal roles, are playing the " hawks "), but also many Republicans, among whom are several highly-important representatives of the Trump administration itself. It is the establishment, not only of the US, but also of Europe, whose powers and profits are directly linked to tension and war. ..."
"... Even if an agreement on these questions were reached between Putin and Trump, would the latter be able to implement it? Or will the real deciders be the powerful circles of the military-industrial complex? ..."
While the International Press distorted the content of the NATO Summit, the US establishment perfectly understood the unique
issue – the end of enmity with Russia. Thus disturbing the bilateral summit in Helsinki between the USA and Russia became its priority.
By all means possible, it had to prevent any rapprochement with Moscow.
We need to talk about everything, from commerce to the military, missiles, nuclear, and China " - this was how President Trump
began at the Helsinki Summit. " The time has come to talk in detail about our bilateral relationship and the international flashpoints
", emphasised Putin.
But it will not only be the two Presidents who will decide the future relationships between the United States and Russia.
It's no coincidence that, at the very moment when the President of the United States was about to meet with the President
of Russia, special prosecutor Robert Mueller III charged twelve Russians with having manipulated the US presidential elections by
hacking into the data networks of the Democratic party in order to hinder candidate Hillary Clinton. The twelve Russians, accused
of being agents of the military secret services (GRU), were officially defined as " conspirators ", and found guilty of " conspiracy
to the detriment of the United States ". Simultaneously, Daniel Coats, National Director of Intelligence and principal advisor to
the President in these matters, accused Russia of working to " undermine our basic values and our democracy ". He then sounded the
alarm about the " threat of cyber-attacks which have arrived at a critical point " similar to that which preceded 9/11, on behalf
not only of Russia, " the most aggressive foreign agent ", but also China and Iran.
At the same time, in London, British " investigators " declared that the Russian military secret service GRU, which had sabotaged
the Presidential elections in the USA, is the same service which poisoned ex-Russian agent, Sergueï Skripal and his daughter, who,
inexplicably, survived contact with an extremely lethal gas.
The political objective of these " enquiries " is clear – to maintain that at the head of all these " conspirators " is Russian
President Vladimir Putin, with whom President Donald Trump sat down at the negotiating table, despite vast bi-partisan opposition
in the USA. After the " conspirators " had been charged, the Democrats asked Trump to cancel the meeting with Putin. Even though
they failed, their pressure on the negotiations remains powerful.
What Putin tried to obtain from Trump is both simple and complex – to ease the tension between the two countries. To that purpose,
he proposed to Trump, who accepted, to implement a joint enquiry into the " conspiracy ". We do not know how the discussions on the
key questions will go – the status of Crimea, the condition of Syria, nuclear weapons and others. And we do not know what Trump will
ask in return. However, it is certain that any concession will be used to accuse him of connivance with the enemy. In opposition
to the easing of tension with Russia are not only the Democrats (who, with a reversal of formal roles, are playing the " hawks "),
but also many Republicans, among whom are several highly-important representatives of the Trump administration itself. It is the
establishment, not only of the US, but also of Europe, whose powers and profits are directly linked to tension and war.
It will not be the words, but the facts, which will reveal whether the climate of détente of the Helsinki Summit will become reality
- first of all with a de-escalation of NATO in Europe, in other words with the withdrawal of forces (including nuclear forces) of
the USA and NATO presently deployed against Russia, and the blockage of NATO's expansion to the East.
Even if an agreement on these questions were reached between Putin and Trump, would the latter be able to implement it? Or
will the real deciders be the powerful circles of the military-industrial complex?
One thing is certain – we in Italy and Europe can not remain the simple spectators of dealings which will define our future.
Manlio Dinucci
The conflict between transnational financial capitalism and productive national capitalism has entered into a paroxystic
phase. On one side, Presidents Trump and Putin are negotiating the joint defence of their national interests. On the other, the major
daily newspaper for the US and the world is accusing the US President of high treason, while the armed forces of the US and NATO
are preparing for war with Russia and China.
You have attacked our democracy. Your well-worn gamblers' denials do not interest us. If you continue with this attitude, we will
consider it an act of war." This is what Trump should have said to Putin at the Helsinki Summit, in the opinion of famous New
York Times editorialist Thomas Friedman, published in La Repubblica . He went on to accuse the Russian President of having
"attacked NATO, a fundamental pillar of international security, destabilised Europe, and bombed thousands of Syrian refugees, causing
them to seek refuge in Europe."
He then accused the President of the United States of having " repudiated his oath on the Constitution " and of being an " asset
of Russian Intelligence " or at least playing at being one.
What Friedman expressed in these provocative terms corresponds to the position of a powerful internal and international front
(of which the New York Times is an important mouthpiece) opposed to USA-Russia negotiations, which should continue with the
invitation of Putin to the White House. But there is a substantial difference.
While the negotiations have not yet borne fruit, opposition to the negotiations has been expressed not only in words, but especially
in facts.
Cancelling out the climate of détente at the Helsinki Summit, the planetary warmongering system of the United States is in the
process of intensifying the preparations for a war reaching from the Atlantic to the Pacific:
After the landing of an US armoured brigade in Anvers, totalling a hundred tanks and a thousand military vehicles, a US aerial
brigade landed in Rotterdam with sixty attack helicopters. These forces and others, all of them USA/NATO, are deployed along the
borders of Russian territory, in the framework of operation Atlantic Resolve , launched in 2014 against " Russian aggression.
" In its anti-Russian function, Poland asked for the permanent presence of an armoured US unit on its own territory, offering
to pay between 1.5 - 2 billion dollars per year.
At the same time, NATO is intensifying the training and armament of troops in Georgia and Ukraine, candidates for entry into
membership of the Alliance on the frontiers with Russia.
Meanwhile, the US Congress received with all honours Adriy Parubiy, founder of the National-Social Party (on the model of
Adolf Hitler's National-Socialist Party), head of the neo-Nazi paramilitary formations employed by NATO in the Maïdan Square putsch.
NATO command in Lago Patria (JFC Naples) – under the orders of US Admiral James Foggo, who also commands the US naval forces
in Europe and those in Africa – is working busily to organise the grand-scale exercise Trident Juncture 18 , in which will
participate 40,000 military personnel, 130 aircraft and 70 ships from more than 30 countries including Sweden and Finland, which
are NATO partners. The exercise, which will take place in October in Norway and the adjacent seas, will simulate a scenario of
" collective defence " - naturally enough, against " Russian aggression. "
In the Pacific, the major naval exercise RIMPAC 2018 (27 June to 2 August) is in full swing - organised and directed
by USINDOPACOM, the US Command which covers the Indian and Pacific oceans – with the participation of 25,000 sailors and marines,
more than 50 ships and 200 war-planes.The exercise – in which France, Germany and the United Kingdom are also participating –
is clearly directed against China, which Admiral Phil Davidson, commander of USINDOPACOM, defines as a "major rival power which
is eroding the international order in order to reduce the access of the USA to the region and thus become hegemonic."
When Trump meets Chinese President Xi Jinping, Friedman will no doubt accuse him of connivance not only with the Russian enemy,
but also with the Chinese enemy. Manlio Dinucci
We are in the point when capitalist system (which presented itself as asocial system that created a large middle class)
converted into it opposite: it is social system that could not deliver that it promised and now want to distract people from this
sad fact.
The Trump adopted tax code is a huge excess: we have 40 year when corporation paid less taxes. This is last moment when they
need another gift. To give them tax is crazy excess that reminding
Louis XV of France. Those gains are going in buying of socks. And real growth is happening elsewhere in the world.
After WW2 there were a couple of decades of "golden age" of US capitalism when in the USA middle class increased considerably.
That was result of pressure of working class devastated by Great Depression. Roosevelt decided that risk is too great and he
introduced social security net. But capitalist class was so enraged that they started fighting it almost immediately after the
New Deal was introduced. Business class was enrages with the level of taxes and counterattacked. Tarp act and McCarthyism were
two successful counterattacks. McCarthyism converting communists and socialists into agents of foreign power.
The quality of jobs are going down. That's why Trump was elected... Which is sad. Giving your finger to the
neoliberal elite does not solve their problem
Notable quotes:
"... Finally, if everybody tries to save themselves (protection), we have a historical example: after the Great Depression that happened in Europe. And most people believe that it was a large part of what led to WWII after WWI, rather than a much saner collective effort. But capitalism doesn't go for collective efforts, it tends to destroy itself by its own mechanisms. There has to be a movement from below. Otherwise, there is no counter force that can take us in another direction. ..."
"... When Trump announced his big tariffs on China, we saw the stock market dropped 700 points in a day. That's a sign of the anxiety, the danger, even in the minds of capitalists, about where this is going. ..."
"... Everything is done to avoid asking the question to what degree the system we have in place - capitalism is its name - is the problem. It's the Russians, it's the immigrants, it's the tariffs, it's anything else, even the pornstar, to distract us from the debate we need to have had that we haven't had for a half a century, which puts us in a very bad place. We've given a free pass to a capitalist system because we've been afraid to debate it. And when you give a free pass to any institution you create the conditions for it to rot, right behind the facade. ..."
"... The Trump presidency is the last gasp, it's letting it all hang out. A [neoliberal] system that's gonna do whatever it can, take advantage of this moment, grab it all before it disappears. ..."
In another interesting interview with Chris Hedges, Richard Wolff explains why the Trump presidency is the last resort of a system
that is about to collapse:
Finally, if everybody tries to save themselves (protection), we have a historical example: after the Great Depression that happened
in Europe. And most people believe that it was a large part of what led to WWII after WWI, rather than a much saner collective effort.
But capitalism doesn't go for collective efforts, it tends to destroy itself by its own mechanisms. There has to be a movement from
below. Otherwise, there is no counter force that can take us in another direction.
So, absent that counter force we are going to see this system spinning out of control and destroying itself in the very way its
critics have for so long foreseen it well might.
When Trump announced his big tariffs on China, we saw the stock market dropped 700 points in a day. That's a sign of the anxiety,
the danger, even in the minds of capitalists, about where this is going. If we hadn't been a country with two or three decades of
a middle class - working class paid really well - maybe we could have gotten away with this. But in a society that has celebrated
its capacity to do what it now fails to do, you have an explosive situation.
Everything is done to avoid asking the question to what degree the system we have in place - capitalism is its name - is the problem.
It's the Russians, it's the immigrants, it's the tariffs, it's anything else, even the pornstar, to distract us from the debate we
need to have had that we haven't had for a half a century, which puts us in a very bad place. We've given a free pass to a capitalist
system because we've been afraid to debate it. And when you give a free pass to any institution you create the conditions for it
to rot, right behind the facade.
The Trump presidency is the last gasp, it's letting it all hang out. A [neoliberal] system that's gonna do whatever it can, take advantage
of this moment, grab it all before it disappears.
In France, it was said
'Après moi, le déluge' (after me the
catastrophe). The storm will break.
Princeton, Harvard Law, Oxford law studies, six years in the navy, appointed by Reagan. This
is a hard fellow to talk your way around in a courtroom.
Sayings from TS Ellis:
"Don't roll your eyes at me." (to Mueller's crew in court.
"My wife thinks your statement that you might not call Rick Gates as a witness is funny.
Without him you do not have a case." (to the Muelleristas)
paraphrasing "You don't want Manafort. You are here to impeach the president."
"We do not try people for being rich, or throwing their money around." (in response to
Muellerite fascination with Manafort's lack of taste in throwing money around.)
"Sometimes prosecutors seek to make a witness sing. In others they seek to make them
compose."
Ellis' federal courthouse (Eastern District of Virginia) is about half a mile from my house.
I spent a lot of time there as a consultant and expert witness. I hope to never see the inside
of the place again.
IMO Ellis is going to do something dramatic with the Manafort case that is now in his court.
If he tosses the whole thing that will gut Mueller as a factor in The Resistance. pl
Sir,
I've been following this. Seeing the same things you are. Fascinating that this case has gone
to trial so quickly. If Ellis tosses the case or Manafort is found not guilty, then IMO,
Mueller is finished. This could happen well before the mid-terms. Ellis will provide some
quote worthy statements in throwing the case out that will be used to help justify getting
rid of Mueller; will help it stick and help Trump with the fallout of the s__t canning. Part
of me can't believe that Mueller would be so foolish as to put his part of the coup, and his
reputation, at such risk, but another part says that the coup has always been built on shaky
methods by sketchy incompetent people. If Mueller goes, then other dominoes begin to fall.
I hope so, I have always thought the US more corrupt than most suppose, recent events have
proven this, but I have always thought America one of the few places the rule of law
prevails, where a man can get a fair trial, this needs to be proven. Ellis sounds an
impressive character, a throw back to the Virginia gentry that has produced many notable
historical figures, let us hope he doesn't disappoint.
In February, the Pentagon announced
a $950 million no-bid contract to REAN Cloud, LLC for the migration of legacy systems to the
cloud. As an Amazon Web Services consulting partner and reseller, REAN Cloud was likely favored
due to Amazon's recent $600 million cloud project for the Central Intelligence Agency. Creating
an unusually large contract with little oversight or competition led to ample criticism of the
Pentagon, as lawmakers demanded an explanation from DoD. In response to the brouhaha, the
Pentagon announced in early March that the maximum value of the contract would be
reduced from $950 million to $65 million.
As it turned out, though, even the Pentagon wasn't exactly sure how to apply the murky
requirements of OTA. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) ruled in May that the REAN contract did not
accord with federal law, in that REAN was granted an award without even really considering
going through a competitive bidding process. "Vague and attenuated" statements from the
Pentagon to potential bidders in the beginning of the process ensured that the process would
not be an open one. After the cancellation of the REAN deal, the Pentagon finally seems open to
competitive bidding for cloud migration.
Unfortunately, OTA is still alive and well across the DoD procurement process. In June, the
Defense Information Systems Agency
joined the growing list of agencies dabbling in OTA, noting that "many of the companies
we're dealing with are small start-ups." But as the REAN Cloud case shows, many companies
appear "small" but have far larger partners. According to statistics in the
Federal News Radio report , "Only $7.4 billion of the nearly $21 billion went to
nontraditional companies." The problem is created in part by the use of consortiums, which are
comprised of multiple companies, which vary in size. The consortium can decide how money is
allocated for an award, allowing larger businesses to benefit disproportionately out of sight
of the DoD and taxpayers.
Congress has finally started to demand more accountability for OTAs. The 2019 National
Defense Authorization Act passed by Congress requires more data
reporting and analysis by acquisition officials. But far more work remains.
Lawmakers should set stricter limits on when it's okay to eschew competitive bidding, and
lower the threshold for requiring congressional notification (currently set at $500 million).
Allowing tens of billions of dollars to be spent behind the backs of taxpayers without a
bidding process cannot continue.
Ross Marchand is the director of policy for the Taxpayers Protection Alliance.
We have lost some of our democratic habits -- indeed, in many ways we are losing
our very cohesion as a society. But I frame the question very differently.
I know a bunch of Trump supporters. Some of them are intellectuals who write for places like
TAC . But most are not. Neither are any of them raving bigots or knuckle-dragging
neanderthals, and all of them read the news, though with vastly less obsessiveness than people
who work in the business.
None of them "like" things like "unremitting chaos, lies, ignorance, trash-talking
vulgarity, legislative failure" or collusion with foreign governments. Some of them minimize
some of these things at least some of the time -- and I myself have been known to derive a kind
of pleasure from the absurdity of a figure like Mooch. But this isn't what the people who I
know who voted Trump voted for , nor is it why they continue to be happy with their
vote -- which, however unhappy they are with how the administration is conducting itself, most
of them still are.
Rather, the commonality among those who voted for Trump is their conviction that the
Democratic party's leadership is utterly bankrupt, and, to one degree or another, so is the
Republican leadership. And that assessment hasn't changed one iota since the
election.
"They are, however, people who have lost trust in the individuals and institutions who are
most alarmed about Trump: the political establishment, the press, etc. And so, on a relative
basis, they'd rather continue to put their trust in Trump."
That last line does not follow .We have lost trust in all of the others; so would rather
see what Trump does; not that we have any trust in him to do the right thing
THAT would be ridiculous; especially after the last six months.
Hmmm. Populism can not govern or build institutions by its very nature? I can't help but read
that as saying the plebeians are so incompetent and stupid that only the elites are capable
of governing. As for the American people taking a turn to authoritarianism. This is possible,
after all, our Federal government has spent most of the last century increasing their control
over many of the aspects of our lives and stretching the limits of the Constitution beyond
any recognition. We have been prepared to accept authoritarianism. Increasingly we have had
an authoritarian presidency that surveils its own people and has usurped regulatory and
warmaking authority from the Congress. The Federal government has created, out of whole
cloth, a role for itself in public education. Do not blame the populace for being what the
elite has spent a century shaping them to be.
I am convinced that the saber rattling and fear-mongering concerning Korea, Iran, and Russia
are not happening because we have any reason to be particularly concerned about these
countries or because they threaten our interests. No, this is the way a corrupt and
ineffective regime distracts its citizens from its own failings. Lets be clear, this would be
happening even if She-who-shall-not-be-named had one the Presidency.
Whatever happened to "trust but verify"?
OK, a bunch of people did the political equivalent of a Hail Mary play in voting for Trump.
But now that the ball has not only fallen short but gone way out of bounds and beaned some
spectators in the stands shouldn't they be revoking that trust and casting around for someone
else to represent them? Why stick with a sinking ship?
There is strong evidence to suggest that one factor in Trump's victory was distrust of US
foreign policy. The link above is to an article about exit polls showing Trump won the
veteran's vote 2:1 over Hillary Clinton.
People don't regret their votes for Trump because if they had voted for Clinton, they or
their loved ones would be coming home in body bags–or minus body parts.
As bad as Trump is, his foreign policy instincts are less hawkish than
Clinton's–witness his decision to end the CIA funding of Syrian insurgents.
Trump's behavior is certainly "unpresidential" and chaotic. It is also less horrible than
war by many orders of magnitude.
"The politically relevant, and profoundly disturbing, fact is precisely the opposite of the
conventional wisdom: After six months of unremitting chaos, lies, ignorance, trash-talking
vulgarity, legislative failure, and credible evidence of a desire to collude with a hostile
foreign government to subvert an American election, President Trump's approval rating is
astonishingly high -- with something between one-third and two-fifths of the American people
apparently liking what they see and hear from the White House"
But George W Bush at his nadir averaged 26% approval, and that's seven years in, during an
epic economic collapse, a catastrophic war, and a host of other disasters. Trump is not THAT
far away from that average.
There is simply a line beyond which a president can't decline unless he murders and eats a
puppy in public, and I see no reason to presume that we can judge that Trump hit his bottom
six months in, when the economy is decent and no non-self inflicted crisis looming.
I'd also add that while all your friends have different reasons to stay aboard the Trump
train, all of them sound like high information, fairly ideological voters. This is probably
not the profile of Trump voters set to vote for The Rock in 2020
Well, when a building is rotten to the core, the only thing you can do is raze it to the
ground to start rebuilding. Our government has long passed its sell-by date. Really,
expecting a political solution to arise from a government controlled system such as ours does
not border on insanity – it completely crosses that border in leaves it miles in the
dust. Witness our insane Congress voting by a 98% margin to inflict sanctions based upon
absolute crock. But then the US has never let reality get in the way of statesmenshowmanship.
We get what we deserve, good and hard.
You're OK until the last line. "And populism by its very nature cannot build institutions,
cannot govern "
You're still using the Deepstate definition of populism. In fact populists want only one
thing: We think the government of THIS country should serve the interests of the people of
THIS country.
It's perfectly possible to govern by this rule. FDR did it magnificently.
Why did it work for FDR? Because he was determined to BREAK the monopolies and forces that
acted contrary to the interests of the people, and because governments BELOW the Federal
level were still strong. When he closed the banks for several months, cities and Chambers of
Commerce jumped in immediately to develop scrip systems.
Thanks to an unbroken series of evil judges and presidents after WW2, local governments
and institutions are dead or dying. Even if a competent and determined populist tried to
close down banks or Amazon or the "health" insurance system, there would be no organized way
to replace them.
What exactly did these people think a Clinton administration would do? What nightmarish
dystopia did they see coming around the bend? And what do you think -- were their perceptions
of America's future under a Clinton administration accurate, or at least close to the mark?
And if so, why?
Also, I get that people have lost trust in mainstream institutions. What makes them think
that Trump is trustworthy in comparison? Why do they have more trust in Trump than in the
institutions? And does that seem reasonable?
I didn't vote for Trump: His rhetorical style turns me cold; I don't like his position on
many issues, or his general governing philosophy, to the extent he can be said to have one.
But, BUT, I sure as Hell did not vote for Hilary Clinton(I voted for Johnson and Weld, who
were obvious non-starters from the word Go. I might possibly have voted for Trump if it had
looked like the election might be close in Illinois, but since the Chicago Machine had
already stolen it for HRC, I could salve my conscience and vote for Johnson.
Clinton was the status quo candidate, and since I did not desire "more of the same",
governmentally, Trump and his circus are preferable to Clinton and whatever cabal she would
have assembled to run the country.
You claim that the elite "inevitably" run the machinery of government, but it's worth
noting that once upon a time in America, most of the people in government were political
appointees who could be sent packing(along with their bosses) by the voters. Nowadays, the
'elite' which runs government is dug in pretty much permanently, and the same people will be,
in practice, running the government no matter who wins the next election, or the one after
that
Hilary Clinton was forthrightly the candidate of the permanent, un-elected bureaucracy,
and Trump, well, didn't seem to be. The choice was between Trump, whose actual position on
the size of government was not clear, and Hilary Clinton who was actually promising to make
government bigger, more centralized, more expensive and less responsive. I'm not sorry Trump
won however distasteful he and his henchmen are to me.
I too had a friend who was a huge Ron Paul supporter who not only backed Trump, but became a
major apologist for him ever since. The man ran two back to back campaigns in Georgia for US
Senate, the Ron Paul mold. Now, no on his original team will give him the time of day. Those
who tried to get some sense into him, have been closed off.
As a libertarian, I am no more afraid of the left or the right. In fact, listening to the
right rant about the left yields a lot of ignorance, disinformation and paranoia: stock in
trade for right wing propaganda. But I am disturbed when people spend years fighting for
liberty suddenly joined Cult 45 that has no sense of liberty Ron Paul or his followers would
recognize.
But Trump fit the bankrupt GOP. Lest we forget, those 49 GOP Senators who voted for
"skinny repeal" (even the name is joke!) never gave a moment's consideration to the bill
written by Rand Paul that covers the conservative attributes of free markets and
self-determination. Lest we also forget that Rand is not only one of the few legit
conservatives, but a doctor and the son of doctor or former Congressman. Those credentials
alone would have been enough if GOP was actually interested being conservative. Apparently,
Trumpism is what the GOP is about and 49 of them proved it.
I think that you have identified a problem that transcends Trump and his opponents. Vitriolic
partisanship is one thing. At various points in our history, we have had some nasty spells of
polarization. The deeper problem that the institutions of public life are now losing their
very legitimacy.
Legitimacy is something deeper than mere approval. It relies upon the unspoken acceptance
of political and institutional norms.
We are clearly in the process of publicly reevaluating and even rejecting these norms. The
birthers questioning Obama's background and "not my president" folks do not view their
oppponents as legitimate, if mistaken. In the case of Trump and the radical left, they
contest the legitimacy of the other side even participating in the process, a process by the
way to which they owe no fealty.
Nothing wrong with America that couldn't be fixed, one, by making voting mandatory, and two,
by having top two vote getters in primary face each other in the general.
We'd have a moderate politics with elected officials clustering slightly right and left of
the center.
Speaking as a Commie Pinko Red, I still prefer Trump as President over Clinton, precisely
because he is doing so much to undermine America's "leadership" in world affairs. He's still
a murderous imperialist, maybe even just as much as she would have been, but there's just so
much more damage that she could have done making bi-partisan deals with the GOP for the
benefit of Wall Street and the insurance industry.
The movement against GOPcare – Trumpcare wasn't really a fair name for the wet
dreams of Paul Ryan and Conservative, Inc. – probably couldn't have been so effective
or flew under the radar of the establishment tools running the Democratic Party and its media
mouthpieces if a Democrat was in the White House and the various beltway "movement" honchos
had had their precious seat at the table where they could have rolled over for the Democratic
president of the moment.
The biggest problem is what comes after Trump for the GOP?
He's kicked off a process for the GOP that will be very difficult to manage going forward.
He showed that outright racism, sexism, continuous lying, even treasonous collusion with
Russia to subvert our election is just fine with the Republican Party. How does the GOP sell
family values to their 'base' after they all lined up with Donald j Trump, serial
wife-cheater and money-launderer?
It will be hard for anyone to forget that any of this happened.
Consider this: 8 years of W Bush yielded the first black President – It really could
not have happened if W hadn't burned the house down. What comes after Trump?
I'm a very middle-class worker in the IT sector where most of my coworkers have been
sensible, but my weekend hobby of playing music has put me in contact (largely via Facebook)
with many Trump supporters who do happen to be knuckle-dragging neanderthals. They generally
don't read; their "news" comes from partisan demagogues on the radio or TV. If I give one the
benefit of the doubt and share an article from, say, The American Conservative -- "The
Madness of King Donald" was a favorite -- it's been all too common to receive a
childish/hate-filled meme in response. Bigots are legion: I've unfriended the raving variety,
and unfollowed the milder dog-whistlers. These deplorables have in fact been emboldened by
the current POTUS.
But I get your point. I abhor the current duopoly, but it could be fixed if thinking
citizens wanted to put in some effort. So, it's depressing in a different kind of way that so
many thoughtful and well-read Americans are so cynical about state of US politics that they
are fine with Trump wrecking it.
"Rather, the commonality among those who voted for Trump is their conviction that the
Democratic party's leadership is utterly bankrupt, and, to one degree or another, so is the
Republican leadership. And that assessment hasn't changed one iota since the election."
They are people who were full of it beforehand, and as the evidence rolls in, they just
sink deeper into lies.
Linker's quote "a desire to collude" you reference later as "collusion". The first instance
is an attempt to broaden the charge from collusion, the second instance is a (sloppy?) change
in language.
@Will Harrington, "Populism can not govern or build institutions by its very nature? I can't
help but read that as saying the plebeians are so incompetent and stupid that only the elites
are capable of governing."
I read that statement as "Once you are governing, once you are the one(s) in a position of
power, then by definition you have become 'the elite' and are no longer 'a plebeian'".
Populists, by definition, are the people who call for the tearing down of institutions that
make up the status-quo, and elites, by definition, are the people who build and maintain
status-quo institutions. At least in my eyes, "being a populist" and "governing institutions"
are mutually exclusive.
Since the conservative party of Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Eisenhower was invaded by the right
wingers and became the party of Jefferson Davis and John Wilkes Booth, the goal has been to
tarnish all concept of a functioning a democracy and a government is built to work for the
people, of the people, and by the people. The right wing main tactic is lies and just get
people riled up so that they don't realize and oblivious to the fact that America has slipped
from capitalism to corporatism; from a capitalist democracy to a caste based plutocracy run
for the sole benefit of the oligarchs who bought this country.
Don Trump is the embodiment and distillation of the right winger and their economic and
social cultural policies. He is not an alternative or antidote to the Republicans or
Democrats.
" Is he happy with Trump? No -- he's especially unhappy with the number of Goldman bankers
Trump appointed to senior economic posts, but more generally he acknowledges that the
government is in chaos and that Trump is not bringing the change he hoped for. But he doesn't
regret his vote, and he prefers the chaos of Trump to business-as-usual under either the
Democrats or the Republicans. And if Trump winds up discrediting the Federal government
generally, that's fine with him."
I didn't vote this election because I didn't like either candidate. I had been promoting
'America First' as a rallying cry for a candidate for years but Trump wasnt exactly the kind
of leader I had in mind for it.
But I'm with the guy above -- if chaos will bust up the musical chair dual monarchies of the
dems and repubs and the corrupt status quo government bring it on.
A somewhat related question, Noah: If you had been a young man living in China on August 1,
1927, do you think you would have joined the People's Liberation Army?
Originally I wanted to sit out this past election but gave in to peer pressure. And I regret
this. Trump? Clinton? Johnson? Stein? All were mediocre. Clinton/Trump were the two worst
candidates that the "major" parties have ever produced in my lifetime. It was with fear and
trepidation that I voted for Trump, notwithstanding that I fundamentally agreed with him on
the issues of immigration and the need for a reduced American role in global affairs. In the
end, I rationalized this (wasted) vote based upon the notion that not only had his opponent
committed a felony (detouring government emails) but also because (as others have pointed
out) she was the candidate of the status quo, the "permanent bureaucracy", Big Finance etc.
etc. The fact that Trump actually won surprised me, but only moderately, because as terrible
a candidate as he was, his opponent was even worse.
What has transpired since his election comes as no surprise. Had Clinton been elected
conditions would have only been mirror imaged, such being the state of things in this
once-great republic. I continue to maintain that the two-party system is archaic and has to
go. Whether a multi-party system would be better, I don't know. Perhaps we have reached a
point where the country is simply ungovernable. Perhaps more responsibility should be
returned to state and local government (Jefferson would have approved). Again, I don't
know.
What I do know is that the current system is dysfunctional.
And that, my friends, is why we have a real estate/TV personality as President.
i am neither an establishment voter, or a member of the media/press. i am deeply worried
where the man (trump) is taking this nation. the gop is complicit in this chaos as they see
trump as a rubber stamp for their plutocratic agenda. i don't know what it will take to right
the ship of state
I don't regret my vote. And I ave had issues with my choice before and after the election.
The sky is not even close to falling as predicted. And the democracy you claim is at threat
may very well be, but it's from the current executive. And nothing thus far suggests that it
will.
I m not going to dismiss the caterwauling liberals have been making since the campaign or
the election as major distraction to governance.
And by the way there remain not a twiddle's evidence that the WH prior to the election
colluded to undermine the US in any manner. It's time to cease throwing that out as sauce for
the goose.
I think I agree with all four of your "freinds". I am very fond of the establishment, they
have their place. What they provide in cohesion, stability and continuity is valuable to the
state. But they appear to be want for any level of substance, depth thereof or moral
consistency (if any at all). The double standards they hold themselves, their donors and
connections on issues and accountability is unsustainable in a democracy as I think you
understand it.
When I was laid out in the ER, I found myself wrestling with my own position on
healthcare. The temptations are great to bend the guide as to my own conditions -- but I
don't think I could so with a clear conscience. I am nor sot sure that what we haven't lost
is a sense of conscience -- that sense that truth overrides immediate gain. I don't think the
US can survive as the US if the leadership is bent on holding themselves to a standard not
available to the country's citizens.
"Is he happy with Trump? No -- he's especially unhappy with the number of Goldman bankers
Trump appointed to senior economic posts, but more generally he acknowledges that the
government . . ."
And the discredited notions that
1. the rich know how to run an economy effectively and
2. that a rise in the market is a sign of economic health.
Pear Conference captures perfectly the 'thinking' i have heard from more than one Trump
voter. This is 'reasoning'?
If there is one system in America that needs blowing up to start over it might be our
education system. I am generally supportive of public ed, and i am impressed by some of the
commitment and inventiveness i see among the proposers of various alternatives to public ed.
So, some folks are trying, even sometimes succeeding, but we have managed to arrive at a
point in our culture where we have elected a President whose election success depended more
than anything else on a public who have lost the ability to think critically. (if they ever
had it, of course)
Yes I know the other one got more votes, by a lot. And i know that this other candidate was
oddly not at all an attractive alternative. I know all that, but still, a huge fraction of
the voting population–a fraction large enough to make themselves now THE base the
government is playing to–is a group who could not/would not see this con-job coming?
There was every opportunity to use actual logic and facts to reach a voting decision, but
these millions of voters chose instead to go with various variations on the theme of 'they
all stink, so i'm using my vote to poke a stick in their eyes." Or, as Pear satirized, "I
hate/mistrust the elites and they like almost anybody else other than my guy, so I'm gonna
turn my country over to the most vulgar non-elite pig the system can come up with."
There is talk now about the damage he can do to American politics and sense of community, but
I think he may be more symptom than cause. We don't value the things we thought were a
standard part of the American process: truthfulness, kindness, authenticity, devotion to the
common good. We value, it turns out, showmanship, machismo, crass shows of wealth and power,
and ..I can't go on.
I'm not sure how we got here, but I know the institutions held in high regard on this site,
such as church, and some factors we all put our faith in such as increasing levels of
education, turn out not to matter so much as we had thought. It is going to take some hard
work and more than a little time to recover from this sickness in the country's soul.
"Trump supporters are just like people who are outraged by something and show it by rioting
and burning down their own neighborhoods." – Greg in PDX
The antifas rioting and destroying in Portland also got very violent when some old folks
held a peaceful rally for Trump there.
Oh, sorry. I forgot that when "progressives" disagree with someone, they consider that
merely disagreeing with them constitutes "violence" against their "safe space" and they are
compelled to go out and punch or shoot people.
No reason why populism couldn't govern. Huey Long was a damn effective governor of Louisiana.
Send the whole Acela Corridor élite to Saddam's woodchipper and the country would
noodle along just fine. I'm not for state violence, and yet the fantasy gives me a
frisson. Forgive me, a sinner.
On Monday, WSWS International Editorial Board Chairman David North interviewed Chris Hedges,
the Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, author, lecturer and former New York Times
correspondent. Among Hedges' best-known books are War is a Force That Gives Us Meaning, The
Death of the Liberal Class , Empire of Illusion: the End of Literacy and the Triumph
of Spectacle, Days of Destruction, Days of Revolt , which he co-wrote with the cartoonist
Joe Sacco, and Wages of Rebellion: the Moral Imperative of Revolt .
In an article published in Truthdig September 17 , titled "The Silencing
of Dissent," Hedges referenced the WSWS coverage of Google's censorship of left-wing sites and
warned about the growth of "blacklisting, censorship and slandering dissidents as foreign
agents for Russia and purveyors of 'fake news.'"
Hedges wrote that "the Department of Justice called on RT America and its 'associates' --
which may mean people like me -- to register under the Foreign Agent Registration Act. No
doubt, the corporate state knows that most of us will not register as foreign agents, meaning
we will be banished from the airwaves. This, I expect, is the intent."
North's interview with Hedges began with a discussion of the significance of the anti-Russia
campaign in the media.
David North: How do you interpret the fixation on Russia and the entire interpretation of
the election within the framework of Putin's manipulation?
Chris Hedges: It's as ridiculous as Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. It is an
absolutely unproven allegation that is used to perpetuate a very frightening accusation --
critics of corporate capitalism and imperialism are foreign agents for Russia.
I have no doubt that the Russians invested time, energy and money into attempting to
influence events in the United States in ways that would serve their interests, in the same way
that we have done and do in Russia and all sorts of other countries throughout the world. So
I'm not saying there was no influence, or an attempt to influence events.
But the whole idea that the Russians swung the election to Trump is absurd. It's really
premised on the unproven claim that Russia gave the Podesta emails to WikiLeaks, and the
release of these emails turned tens, or hundreds of thousands, of Clinton supporters towards
Trump. This doesn't make any sense. Either that, or, according to the director of national
intelligence, RT America, where I have a show, got everyone to vote for the Green Party.
This obsession with Russia is a tactic used by the ruling elite, and in particular the
Democratic Party, to avoid facing a very unpleasant reality: that their unpopularity is the
outcome of their policies of deindustrialization and the assault against working men and women
and poor people of color. It is the result of disastrous trade agreements like NAFTA that
abolished good-paying union jobs and shipped them to places like Mexico, where workers without
benefits are paid $3.00 an hour. It is the result of the explosion of a system of mass
incarceration, begun by Bill Clinton with the 1994 omnibus crime bill, and the tripling and
quadrupling of prison sentences. It is the result of the slashing of basic government services,
including, of course, welfare, that Clinton gutted; deregulation, a decaying infrastructure,
including public schools, and the de facto tax boycott by corporations. It is the result of the
transformation of the country into an oligarchy. The nativist revolt on the right, and the
aborted insurgency within the Democratic Party, makes sense when you see what they have done to
the country.
Police forces have been turned into quasi-military entities that terrorize marginal
communities, where people have been stripped of all of their rights and can be shot with
impunity; in fact over three are killed a day. The state shoots and locks up poor people of
color as a form of social control. They are quite willing to employ the same form of social
control on any other segment of the population that becomes restive.
The Democratic Party, in particular, is driving this whole Russia witch-hunt. It cannot face
its complicity in the destruction of our civil liberties -- and remember, Barack Obama's
assault on civil liberties was worse than those carried out by George W. Bush -- and the
destruction of our economy and our democratic institutions.
Politicians like the Clintons, Pelosi and Schumer are creations of Wall Street. That is why
they are so virulent about pushing back against the Sanders wing of the Democratic Party.
Without Wall Street money, they would not hold political power. The Democratic Party doesn't
actually function as a political party. It's about perpetual mass mobilization and a
hyperventilating public relations arm, all paid for by corporate donors. The base of the party
has no real say in the leadership or the policies of the party, as Bernie Sanders and his
followers found out. They are props in the sterile political theater.
These party elites, consumed by greed, myopia and a deep cynicism, have a death grip on the
political process. They're not going to let it go, even if it all implodes.
DN: Chris, you worked for the New York Times . When was that, exactly?
CH: From 1990 to 2005.
DN: Since you have some experience with that institution, what changes do you see? We've
stressed that it has cultivated a constituency among the affluent upper-middle class.
CH: The New York Times consciously targets 30 million upper-middle class and
affluent Americans. It is a national newspaper; only about 11 percent of its readership is in
New York. It is very easy to see who the Times seeks to reach by looking at its
special sections on Home, Style, Business or Travel. Here, articles explain the difficulty of
maintaining, for example, a second house in the Hamptons. It can do good investigative work,
although not often. It covers foreign affairs. But it reflects the thinking of the elites. I
read the Times every day, maybe to balance it out with your web site.
DN: Well, I hope more than balance it.
CH: Yes, more than balance it. The Times was always an elitist publication, but it
wholly embraced the ideology of neo-conservatism and neoliberalism at a time of financial
distress, when Abe Rosenthal was editor. He was the one who instituted the special sections
that catered to the elite. And he imposed a de facto censorship to shut out critics of
unfettered capitalism and imperialism, such as Noam Chomsky or Howard Zinn. He hounded out
reporters like Sydney Schanberg, who challenged the real estate developers in New York, or
Raymond Bonner, who reported the El Mozote massacre in El Salvador.
He had lunch every week, along with his publisher, with William F. Buckley. This pivot into
the arms of the most retrograde forces of corporate capitalism and proponents of American
imperialism, for a time, made the paper very profitable. Eventually, of course, the rise of the
internet, the loss of classified ads, which accounted for about 40 percent of all newspaper
revenue, crippled the Times as it has crippled all newspapers. Newsprint has lost the
monopoly that once connected sellers with buyers. Newspapers are trapped in an old system of
information they call "objectivity" and "balance," formulae designed to cater to the powerful
and the wealthy and obscure the truth. But like all Byzantine courts, the Times will
go down clinging to its holy grail.
The intellectual gravitas of the paper -- in particular the Book Review and the Week in
Review -- was obliterated by Bill Keller, himself a neocon, who, as a columnist, had been a
cheerleader for the war in Iraq. He brought in figures like Sam Tanenhaus. At that point the
paper embraced, without any dissent, the utopian ideology of neoliberalism and the primacy of
corporate power as an inevitable form of human progress. The Times , along with
business schools, economics departments at universities, and the pundits promoted by the
corporate state, propagated the absurd idea that we would all be better off if we prostrated
every sector of society before the dictates of the marketplace. It takes a unique kind of
stupidity to believe this. You had students at Harvard Business School doing case studies of
Enron and its brilliant business model, that is, until Enron collapsed and was exposed as a
gigantic scam. This was never, really, in the end, about ideas. It was about unadulterated
greed. It was pushed by the supposedly best educated among us, like Larry Summers, which
exposes the lie that somehow our decline is due to deficient levels of education. It was due to
a bankrupt and amoral elite, and the criminal financial institutions that make them rich.
Critical thinking on the op-ed page, the Week in Review or the Book Review, never very
strong to begin with, evaporated under Keller. Globalization was beyond questioning. Since the
Times , like all elite institutions, is a hermetically sealed echo chamber, they do
not realize how irrelevant they are becoming, or how ridiculous they look. Thomas Friedman and
David Brooks might as well write for the Onion .
I worked overseas. I wasn't in the newsroom very much, but the paper is a very
anxiety-ridden place. The rules aren't written on the walls, but everyone knows, even if they
do not articulate it, the paper's unofficial motto: Do not significantly alienate those
upon whom we depend for money and access! You can push against them some of the time. But
if you are a serious reporter, like Charlie Leduff, or Sydney Schanberg, who wants to give a
voice to people who don't have a voice, to address issues of race, class, capitalist
exploitation or the crimes of empire, you very swiftly become a management problem and get
pushed out. Those who rise in the organization and hold power are consummate careerists. Their
loyalty is to their advancement and the stature and profitability of the institution, which is
why the hierarchy of the paper is filled with such mediocrities. Careerism is the paper's
biggest Achilles heel. It does not lack for talent. But it does lack for intellectual
independence and moral courage. It reminds me of Harvard.
DN: Let's come back to this question of the Russian hacking news story. You raised the
ability to generate a story, which has absolutely no factual foundation, nothing but assertions
by various intelligence agencies, presented as an assessment that is beyond question. What is
your evaluation of this?
CH: The commercial broadcast networks, and that includes CNN and MSNBC, are not in the
business of journalism. They hardly do any. Their celebrity correspondents are courtiers to the
elite. They speculate about and amplify court gossip, which is all the accusations about
Russia, and they repeat what they are told to repeat. They sacrifice journalism and truth for
ratings and profit. These cable news shows are one of many revenue streams in a corporate
structure. They compete against other revenue streams. The head of CNN, Jeff Zucker, who helped
create the fictional persona of Donald Trump on "Celebrity Apprentice," has turned politics on
CNN into a 24-hour reality show. All nuance, ambiguity, meaning and depth, along with
verifiable fact, are sacrificed for salacious entertainment. Lying, racism, bigotry and
conspiracy theories are given platforms and considered newsworthy, often espoused by people
whose sole quality is that they are unhinged. It is news as burlesque.
I was on the investigative team at the New York Times during the lead-up to the
Iraq War. I was based in Paris and covered Al Qaeda in Europe and the Middle East. Lewis
Scooter Libby, Dick Cheney, Richard Perle and maybe somebody in an intelligence agency, would
confirm whatever story the administration was attempting to pitch. Journalistic rules at the
Times say you can't go with a one-source story. But if you have three or four
supposedly independent sources confirming the same narrative, then you can go with it, which is
how they did it. The paper did not break any rules taught at Columbia journalism school, but
everything they wrote was a lie.
The whole exercise was farcical. The White House would leak some bogus story to Judy Miller
or Michael Gordon, and then go on the talk shows to say, 'as the Times reported .' It gave
these lies the veneer of independence and reputable journalism. This was a massive
institutional failing, and one the paper has never faced.
DN: The CIA pitches the story, and then the Times gets the verification from those
who pitch it to them.
CH: It's not always pitched. And not much of this came from the CIA. The CIA wasn't buying
the "weapons of mass destruction" hysteria.
DN: It goes the other way too?
CH: Sure. Because if you're trying to have access to a senior official, you'll constantly be
putting in requests, and those officials will decide when they want to see you. And when they
want to see you, it's usually because they have something to sell you.
DN: The media's anti-Russia narrative has been embraced by large portions of what presents
itself as the "left."
CH: Well, don't get me started on the American left. First of all, there is no American left
-- not a left that has any kind of seriousness, that understands political or revolutionary
theories, that's steeped in economic study, that understands how systems of power work,
especially corporate and imperial power. The left is caught up in the same kind of cults of
personality that plague the rest of society. It focuses on Trump, as if Trump is the central
problem. Trump is a product, a symptom of a failed system and dysfunctional democracy, not the
disease.
If you attempt to debate most of those on the supposedly left, they reduce discussion to
this cartoonish vision of politics.
The serious left in this country was decimated. It started with the suppression of radical
movements under Woodrow Wilson, then the "Red Scares" in the 1920s, when they virtually
destroyed our labor movement and our radical press, and then all of the purges in the 1950s.
For good measure, they purged the liberal class -- look at what they did to Henry Wallace -- so
that Cold War "liberals" equated capitalism with democracy, and imperialism with freedom and
liberty. I lived in Switzerland and France. There are still residues of a militant left in
Europe, which gives Europeans something to build upon. But here we almost have to begin from
scratch.
I've battled continuously with Antifa and the Black Bloc. I think they're kind of poster
children for what I would consider phenomenal political immaturity. Resistance is not a form of
personal catharsis. We are not fighting the rise of fascism in the 1930s. The corporate elites
we have to overthrow already hold power. And unless we build a broad, popular resistance
movement, which takes a lot of patient organizing among working men and women, we are going to
be steadily ground down.
So Trump's not the problem. But just that sentence alone is going to kill most discussions
with people who consider themselves part of the left.
The corporate state has made it very hard to make a living if you hold fast to this radical
critique. You will never get tenure. You probably won't get academic appointments. You won't
win prizes. You won't get grants. The New York Times , if they review your book, will
turn it over to a dutiful mandarin like George Packer to trash it -- as he did with my last
book. The elite schools, and I have taught as a visiting professor at a few of them, such as
Princeton and Columbia, replicate the structure and goals of corporations. If you want to even
get through a doctoral committee, much less a tenure committee, you must play it really, really
safe. You must not challenge the corporate-friendly stance that permeates the institution and
is imposed through corporate donations and the dictates of wealthy alumni. Half of the members
of most of these trustee boards should be in prison!
Speculation in the 17th century in Britain was a crime. Speculators were hanged. And today
they run the economy and the country. They have used the capturing of wealth to destroy the
intellectual, cultural and artistic life in the country and snuff out our democracy. There is a
word for these people: traitors.
DN: What about the impact that you've seen of identity politics in America?
CH: Well, identity politics defines the immaturity of the left. The corporate state embraced
identity politics. We saw where identity politics got us with Barack Obama, which is worse than
nowhere. He was, as Cornel West said, a black mascot for Wall Street, and now he is going
around to collect his fees for selling us out.
My favorite kind of anecdotal story about identity politics: Cornel West and I, along with
others, led a march of homeless people on the Democratic National Convention session in
Philadelphia. There was an event that night. It was packed with hundreds of people, mostly
angry Bernie Sanders supporters. I had been asked to come speak. And in the back room, there
was a group of younger activists, one who said, "We're not letting the white guy go first."
Then he got up and gave a speech about how everybody now had to vote for Hillary Clinton.
That's kind of where identity politics gets you. There is a big difference between shills for
corporate capitalism and imperialism, like Corey Booker and Van Jones, and true radicals like
Glen Ford and Ajamu Baraka. The corporate state carefully selects and promotes women, or people
of color, to be masks for its cruelty and exploitation.
It is extremely important, obviously, that those voices are heard, but not those voices that
have sold out to the power elite. The feminist movement is a perfect example of this. The old
feminism, which I admire, the Andrea Dworkin kind of feminism, was about empowering oppressed
women. This form of feminism did not try to justify prostitution as sex work. It knew that it
is just as wrong to abuse a woman in a sweatshop as it is in the sex trade. The new form of
feminism is an example of the poison of neoliberalism. It is about having a woman CEO or woman
president, who will, like Hillary Clinton, serve the systems of oppression. It posits that
prostitution is about choice. What woman, given a stable income and security, would choose to
be raped for a living? Identity politics is anti-politics.
DN: I believe you spoke at a Socialist Convergence conference where you criticized Obama and
Sanders, and you were shouted down.
CH: Yes, I don't even remember. I've been shouted down criticizing Obama in many places,
including Berkeley. I have had to endure this for a long time as a supporter and speech writer
for Ralph Nader. People don't want the illusion of their manufactured personalities, their
political saviors, shattered; personalities created by public relations industries. They don't
want to do the hard work of truly understanding how power works and organizing to bring it
down.
DN: You mentioned that you have been reading the World Socialist Web Site for some
time. You know we are quite outside of that framework.
CH: I'm not a Marxist. I'm not a Trotskyist. But I like the site. You report on important
issues seriously and in a way a lot of other sites don't. You care about things that are
important to me -- mass incarceration, the rights and struggles of the working class and the
crimes of empire. I have read the site for a long time.
DN: Much of what claims to be left -- that is, the pseudo-left -- reflects the interests of
the affluent middle class.
CH: Precisely. When everybody was, you know, pushing for multiculturalism in lead
institutions, it really meant filtering a few people of color or women into university
departments or newsrooms, while carrying out this savage economic assault against the working
poor and, in particular, poor people of color in deindustrialized pockets of the United States.
Very few of these multiculturalists even noticed. I am all for diversity, but not when it is
devoid of economic justice. Cornel West has been one of the great champions, not only of the
black prophetic tradition, the most important intellectual tradition in our history, but the
clarion call for justice in all its forms. There is no racial justice without economic justice.
And while these elite institutions sprinkled a few token faces into their hierarchy, they
savaged the working class and the poor, especially poor people of color.
Much of the left was fooled by the identity politics trick. It was a boutique activism. It
kept the corporate system, the one we must destroy, intact. It gave it a friendly face.
DN: The World Socialist Web Site has made the issue of inequality a central focus
of its coverage.
CH: That's why I read it and like it.
DN: Returning to the Russia issue, where do you see this going? How seriously do you see
this assault on democratic rights? We call this the new McCarthyism. Is that, in your view, a
legitimate analogy?
CH: Yes, of course it's the new McCarthyism. But let's acknowledge how almost irrelevant our
voices are.
DN: I don't agree with you on that.
CH: Well, irrelevant in the sense that we're not heard within the mainstream. When I go to
Canada I am on the CBC on prime time. The same is true in France. That never happens here. PBS
and NPR are never going to do that. Nor are they going to do that for any other serious critic
of capitalism or imperialism.
If there is a debate about attacking Syria, for example, it comes down to bombing Syria or
bombing Syria and sending in troops, as if these are the only two options. Same with health
care. Do we have Obamacare, a creation of the Heritage Foundation and the pharmaceutical and
insurance industries, or no care? Universal health care for all is not discussed. So we are on
the margins. But that does not mean we are not dangerous. Neoliberalism and globalization are
zombie ideologies. They have no credibility left. The scam has been found out. The global
oligarchs are hated and reviled. The elite has no counterargument to our critique. So they
can't afford to have us around. As the power elite becomes more frightened, they're going to
use harsher forms of control, including the blunt instrument of censorship and violence.
DN: I think it can be a big mistake to be focused on the sense of isolation or
marginalization. I'll make a prediction. You will have, probably sooner than you think, more
requests for interviews and television time. We are in a period of colossal political
breakdown. We are going to see, more and more, the emergence of the working class as a powerful
political force.
CH: That's why we are a target. With the bankruptcy of the ruling ideology, and the
bankruptcy of the American liberal class and the American left, those who hold fast to
intellectual depth and an examination of systems of power, including economics, culture and
politics, have to be silenced. (Republished from World Socialist Web Site by
permission of author or representative)
I'm a moderate admirer of Chris Hedges, but he is really cooking in this interview. Too much
to praise here, but his thinking that corporations, the mainstream media, and the academy can
and do successfully "game" dissent by suppression, divide and conquer, co-optation, and so
on, is spot on.
Good but not great interview with Chris Hodges: he manages to talk about an amorphous elite
without identifying any of them and not a word about Israel. So pseudo-good roally
I think this was an excellent discussion, and I would like to thank you both for having it,
and sharing it.
Among the crises effecting the United States, the one effecting us most profoundly is the
absence of any accountability for the crimes committed by our oligarchic class.
Addressing this issue is ground zero for any meaningful change.
If there is no accountability for their crimes , there will be no change.
Certainly the greatest among these crimes was(is) defrauding the nation into " a war of
aggression". which, being the supreme international crime, should be met with harsh prison
sentences for all who promoted it.
It is important for everyone to recognize just how much damage these policies have done to
the country, not just in terms of our collective morale or our constitutional mandates,not
just in terms of our international standing on universal principles of legality and justice,
but our long term economic solvency as a nation.
The "exceptionalism" of our "war of aggression" elites has completely devastated our
nation's balance sheet.
Since 9-11, our national debt has grown by a mind numbing "fourteen and a half trillion
dollars".. nearly quadrupling since 1999.
This unconscionable level of "overspending" is unprecedented in human history.
Not one lawmaker, not one primetime pundit, nor one editorialist (of any major newspaper),
has a CLUE how to deal with it.
Aside from the root atrocity in visiting mass murder on millions of innocents who never
attacked us (and never intended to) which is a horrible crime in and of itself,
There is the profound crisis , in situ , of potentially demanding that 320 million
Americans PAY FOR THE WARS OUR ELITES LIED US INTO .
This is where the rubber meets the road for our "war of aggression-ists ", gentlemen.
This is the "unanimous space" of our entire country's population on the issue of "no
taxation without representation".
WHOSE assets should be made forfeit to pay for these wars .The DECEIVERS or the DECEIVED
?
Ask "The People" ..and you will find your answer .very fast.
No wonder our "elites" are terrified to discuss this .
I agree with the general tenor of this article and would further state that in addition to
the Iraq thing which was a war crime and eliminated any shreds of legitimacy retained by the
yankee regime that the Libya overthrow and destruction, a war crime of historic proportions,
and the use of that overthrow to provide major support to the barbaric element in Syria
expose the yankee regime as an enemy of civilization with all that entails, including
questions of whether, absent any legitimacy, the regime's continued existence itself does not
constitute a major threat.
The elements in the article discussing and exposing the New York Times and its role as an
integral part of the power structure should be read and remembered by all.
How do you interpret the fixation on Russia and the entire interpretation of the
election within the framework of Putin's manipulation?
Chris Hedges: It's as ridiculous as Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. It is
an absolutely unproven allegation that is used to perpetuate a very frightening accusation
-- critics of corporate capitalism and imperialism are foreign agents for Russia.
With all due respect for Chris Hedges, who is doubtless a courageous journalist and an
intelligent commentator, I would suggest that what is also and most ridiculous is the thought
that it is only agents of Israel that have suborned the neocon faction within USA's
government and 'Deep State' (controllers of MSM). Or is this OT? I don't think so, because if
we are to discuss the anti-Russia campaign realistically, as baseless in fact, and as
contrived for an effect and to further/protect some particular interests, we can hardly avoid
the question: Who or what interest is served by the anti-Russia campaign?
Who or what interest is served by anti-Russia propaganda other than, or in addition to,
just the usual MIC suspects, profiteering corporations who want to keep a supposed need for
nuclear weapons front and center in the minds of Congress? Cui bono?
To be clear: I suggest that neocon office-holders within USA's government or within the
Deep State (controllers of MSM) are foreign agents for at least three nations: the People's
Republic of China,the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the State of Israel.
(I would compare USA now with Imperial China in its declining years when it was being sold
piecemeal to all the great powers of Europe.)
Who benefits from this situation and how do they benefit? All three of these countries are
deeply involved in suborning members of Congress and others within the government of the USA,
yet none of the three is mentioned in such a connection by the MSM or by officials of the
Executive. Thus, it is beneficial to them to have suspicion thrown onto Russia and thus
investigative attention deflected from themselves. A few public figures (e.g., Philip
Giraldi) have made such allegations respecting Israel, more public figures have made such
suggestions respecting Saudi Arabia, but very few have made the allegations in the case of
the PRC.
Let's think about this in the context of history, beginning with the Vietnam War. When USA
got involved in Vietnam -- which involvement began during the days of Eisenhower/Dulles --
probably the primary interest groups that swayed USA global/foreign policy were the Vatican
and the China Lobby. The interests of these two lobbies converged in Vietnam. From the RC
side, consider an historical event that is unknown practically to any Americans under the age
of 60 or 70, namely, Operation Passage to Freedom, 1954-55.
"The period was marked by a CIA-backed propaganda campaign on behalf of South Vietnam's
Roman Catholic Prime Minister Ngo Dinh Diem. The campaign exhorted Catholics to flee
impending religious persecution under communism, and around 60% of the north's 1 million
Catholics obliged." (Wikipedia: Operation Passage to Freedom )
From the side of the China Lobby – avoiding the matter of JFK's planning to dump USA
involvement in Vietnam after the 1964 election – what we saw in the early years of
USA's involvement, 1965-1969, was a period in which the China Lobby could push an agenda that
included widening the Vietnam campaign into southern China, particularly to include the
tungsten mining operations supposedly owned by K.C. Wu. Tungsten at that time was considered
as having tremendous strategic value, centering on, but not limited to, its essential use in
the filaments of incandescent light-bulbs. It became clear after the Tet Offensive that the
entire strategy of reopening the Chinese civil war, capturing the tungsten, etc, could make
sense only if Chang Kai Shek's KMT would commit its troops in huge numbers, virtually all of
its troops, on the ground in Vietnam (which would have brought in huge numbers of PRC troops
on the other side) -- it became, to borrow one of Nixon's favorite phrases, "perfectly clear"
that expansion into southern China and capture of the tungsten operations there were not in
the cards. When Kissinger talked up his 'realpolitik', what he really meant was the politics
of surrendering to Beijing. So, Nixon in July 1969, recognizing that there was nothing to be
gained by the loss of life and expenditure of every form of capital, ordered first of many
troop withdrawals from Vietnam. It was all a done deal as of Kissinger taking over as
National Security Adviser, January 1969 -- everything but the tears.
Now, patience, dear reader, this is all leading up to a certain crucial event that took
place in 1971 -- namely, Kissinger's secret trip to Beijing in July (1971) to arrange for
everything regarding what amounted to a surrender to the PRC, except the end of the Vietnam
War. The documents are still unavailable as classified Top Secret or whatever, but clearly,
China had no interest in seeing an end to the Vietnam War, because both parties –
Vietnam and USA – were adversaries of China. (Let them knock each other out!) Most
likely, Zhou talked Henry into doing what he could to prolong USA's involvement in the
Vietnam War, not to shorten it. See, including between the lines, National Security
Archives:
As noted, this stuff is mostly unavailable to us, the public, but it is clear that USA's
'leaders' (Nixon and Kissinger) wanted to make kissy-kissy with Zhou Enlai, and it was all
arranged including George H. W. Bush's appointment as USA's first 'Ambassador' (in all but
name) to Beijing, and including giving China's permanent seat on the UNSC to Beijing and
otherwise selling out the old China Lobby. I call it the 'old China Lobby' because part of
what was arranged was that the old China Lobby would be taken over by the New China lobby,
complete with all the payola channels into Congress and the Deep State.
Now, I think, we arrive at today, 2017, and the failure of Trump to act on his campaign
promises to oppose China in any way. Maybe he thought about it for a minute, but he was
surrounded by neocons, who were already on the payroll of the PRC -- if not taking direct
orders from the Standing Committee of the CCP, then at least promised to avoid offending the
interests of the PRC -- on pain of losing regular paychecks from Beijing into their secret
Grand Cayman accounts.
What I would like to say to Hedges. and others like him, is just this:
THEY say that you are foreign agents for Russia? Time to use a little judo on them: time
for YOU to speak truth that THEY are foreign agents for the People's Republic of China.
And don't forget this potent phrase: YET NONE DARE CALL IT TREASON!
"The elite has no counterargument to our critique. So they can't afford to have us
around. As the power elite becomes more frightened, they're going to use harsher forms of
control, including the blunt instrument of censorship and violence."
Precisely! What makes it even worse, they will be pushing this new pretexts for control
sloppy (as in Vegas) and in a hurry. Which will make them look even more ridiculous and due
to the lack of time will force to act even more stupid, resulting in an exponential curve of
censorship, oppression and insanity. And that's there the maniacal dreams of certain forces
to start a really big war in the Middle East (with or without attacking North Korea first)
may come true.
"avoiding the matter of JFK's planning to dump USA involvement in Vietnam after the 1964
election – "
Now that's a lie. This part is a lie. Or it is carefully crafted ex post hoc mythology a
la Camelot, the Kennedy Mystique.
FACT: JFK was a Cold War Hawk and during his administration increased nuclear arms higher
than Ike and until Reagan.
JFK during his administration increased the number of "advisers" to a higher number than
Ike.
William F. Buckley pointedly asked Senator Robert Kennedy in the mid. '60′s "So, was
there any thought of the White House pulling out [of Vietnam]?
RFK: No. There never was.
If anything, had he lived to see a second term, most likely US involvement in Vietnam
would have escalated as much as under LBJ, perhaps with the same disastrous results, perhaps
not. But JFK was no peacenik dove.
Mr. Hedges comes across as a total whackjob, and makes Bill Moyers appear to be a gentle
moderate in comparison. That he thinks so highly of race man BLM supporter Cornell West
speaks volumes of naivety to the nth degree. A total cuck without even knowing it, nay,
totally appreciative of being a cuck and it appears to be his hope that one day his cardinal
sin of being white will be purged by peoples of color, who are his true moral and
intellectual betters in every step of the way.
I agree that the Russia fixation is garbage, but explaining the populist revolt without
touching on the major issue of forced demographic and cultural change through legal and
illegal immigration is dishonest. Almost everyone who isn't an immigrant or the descendant or
relative of a post-65 immigrant is pissed off beyond words about this! How did you miss the
popular response to Trump's promises to "deport them all," end birthright citizenship and
chain migration, build a wall etc.? Without those promises, he wouldn't have made it to the
debates.
I'm also not sure how welfare has been stripped. What programs aren't available?
I'm not sure how to lower black incarceration rates. Having taught in inner-city schools
and worked in the same environment in other jobs, I know that crime and dysfunction are
through the roof. I can only imagine what those communities would be like if the predators
and crooks that are incarcerated were allowed to roam free.
Chris Hedges: It's as ridiculous as Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. It is
an absolutely unproven allegation that is used to perpetuate a very frightening accusation
-- critics of corporate capitalism and imperialism are foreign agents for Russia.
Is this the same Chris Hedges that wrote those articles in November 2001 that Saddam and
al Qaeda were in cahoots, which led to the illegal 2003 invasion?
Tell me Chris, did you know about the CIA pollution then or just find out lately? And
correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you also write NYT articles in the Fall of 2002 saying
that Saddam had WMD's?
Again, getting your tips from the CIA? Ever hear of 'Operation Mockingbird?"
It is the result of the transformation of the country into an oligarchy.
That's cringe-worthy.
Transformation into an oligarchy? Transformation ??? I like Hedges' work,
but such fundamental errors really taint what he sez.
The country was never transformed into an oligarchy; it began as one.
In fact, it was organized and functioned as a pluto-oligarchy right out of the box. In
case anyone has the dimness to argue with me about it, all that shows is that you don't know
JS about how the cornstitution was foisted on the rest of us by the plutoligarchs.
"An elective despotism was not the government we fought for "
-Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XIII, 1782 . ME 2:163
The Elites "Have No Credibility Left"
Guess what, boys and girls Why did they have any to begin with?
Where do people get their faith? WakeTF up, already!! (Yes, I'm losing it. Because even a
duumbshit goy like myself can see it. Where are all you bright bulb know-it-alls with all the
flippin answers???)
Newspapers are trapped in an old system of information they call "objectivity" and
"balance," formulae designed to cater to the powerful and the wealthy and obscure the
truth.
It's amazing that here we are, self-anointed geniuses and dumbos alike, puttering around
in the 21st century, and someone feels the necessity to point that out. And he's right; it
needs to be pointed out. Drummed into our skulls in fact.
Arrrgggghhhh!!! Jefferson again.:
Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes
suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of
misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within
their knowledge with the lies of the day.
More deja vu all over again and again. Note the date.:
"This is a story of a powerful and wealthy newspaper having enormous influence And never
a day out of more than ten thousand days that this newspaper has not subtly and
cunningly distort the news of the world in the interest of special privilege.
"
Upton Sinclair, "The crimes of the "Times" : a test of newspaper decency," pamphlet,
1921
"The serious left in this country was decimated. It started with the suppression of radical
movements under Woodrow Wilson, then the "Red Scares" in the 1920s, when they virtually
destroyed our labor movement and our radical press, and then all of the purges in the 1950s.
For good measure, they purged the liberal class -- look at what they did to Henry Wallace."
Look what they did to Henry Wallace -- Are you kidding me? Wallace was a Stalinist stooge,
too treasonous even for his boss, FDR, although the bird brain Eleanor loved him. The guy was
so out of touch with reality that after the Potemkin tour of the Gulag that Stalin gave him
during WWII he came back raving about how swell it was for the lunch-bucket gang in Siberia.
He also encouraged FDR to sell out the Poles to Stalin
I find it most fascinating that none of what Hedges says is news, but even UR readers
probably think it is. Here's an antidote to that idea.
The following quote is from Eugene Kelly who's excoriating government press releases but
the criticism applies as well to the resulting press reports. I found the whole article
striking.:
Any boob can deduce, a priori, what type of "news" is contained in this
rubbish.
-Eugene A. Kelly, Distorting the News, The American Mercury, March 1935 , pp.
307-318
Hedges doesn't seem to understand that the "Resistance" is openly and obviously working FOR
Deepstate. They do not resist wars and globalism and monopolistic corporations. They resist
everyone who questions the war. They resist nationalism and localism.
Nothing mysterious or hidden about this, no ulterior motive or bankshot. It's explicitly
stated in every poster and shout and beating.
"... The vilification of alternative, dissenting views or linking those views to a foreign power -- in many people's views, an implacably hostile foreign power -- is the degradation of our political media culture. When Rand Paul, who is interesting on foreign policy, reminds, as The New York Times has over the last -- you know, that America has meddled in other countries' elections, has interfered, has overthrown countries' governments, and MSNBC contributors tweet "traitor"? ..."
"... - it's dangerous when you have a suffocating consensus instead of a full, robust debate. ..."
"... But I think what -- the tweeting, to call someone a traitor because they have a point of you don't agree with, we're in a dangerous territory. ..."
KATRINA VANDEN HEUVEL : I think what Trump did on this trip, between Europe and the Helsinki
summit, is he played to his base. He's reconfiguring the Republican Party so that it becomes
more consistent with its isolationist roots, its roots as going it alone, not tethered by
international institutions, and also sympathetic to strongmen. I mean, I think Trump is more a
con man than a strongman, but he certainly has an affinity. I don't have much use for those who
say, "Look, he's guilty, because he never says a bad word about Putin." Problem is, he never
says a bad word about Bibi Netanyahu, doesn't say a bad word about the Saudi leaders, nor does
he say a bad word about the murderous Duterte in the Philippines. So he does have an affinity
for those strongmen, which I think does lead him and guide a kind of foreign policy. So we
need, as small-D democrats, to counter and not accept -- what I talked to Amy about last week
-- the failed bipartisan foreign policy establishment as our default. We should not go back to
policing the world, indispensable nation, but instead have a demilitarized foreign policy that
truly deals with the challenges of our time, which most of are not going to be met with a
military solution.
... ... ...
KATRINA VANDEN HEUVEL : The vilification of alternative, dissenting views or
linking those views to a foreign power -- in many people's views, an implacably hostile foreign
power -- is the degradation of our political media culture. When Rand Paul, who is interesting
on foreign policy, reminds, as The New York Times has over the last -- you know, that
America has meddled in other countries' elections, has interfered, has overthrown countries'
governments, and MSNBC contributors tweet "traitor"?
And I would also mention Glenn Greenwald.
We talked of him earlier. Malcolm Nance, a very ubiquitous commentator on MSNBC on intelligence
and other issues, said Glenn was -- I'm going to read it, because it's so outrageous -- "an
agent of Trump & Moscow deep in the Kremlin's pocket." This is -- we've seen this in our
history before. And I think it is -- it's dangerous when you have a suffocating consensus
instead of a full, robust debate.
And it should be about issues. Juan is right. When we fix so much on personalities, we're
feeding the beast, we've seen, of media malpractice, this obliteration of the line between news
and entertainment, the conglomeratization, the decimation of local news.
These are issues which
collide with an administration which does want to delegitimize public accountability, if they
know public accountability journalism, delegitimize any check on abuses. And we, as
representatives of a media which seek to speak to the issues, seek debate, to foster, not
police, debate, need to stand up and continue to do our work despite these fake news and --
people are despairing about the issue of news, about facts, about -- anyway.
But I think what
-- the tweeting, to call someone a traitor because they have a point of you don't agree with,
we're in a dangerous territory.
NOAM CHOMSKY : So, take, say, the huge issue of interference in our pristine elections. Did
the Russians interfere in our elections? An issue of overwhelming concern in the media. I mean,
in most of the world, that's almost a joke. First of all, if you're interested in foreign
interference in our elections, whatever the Russians may have done barely counts or weighs in
the balance as compared with what another state does, openly, brazenly and with enormous
support. Israeli intervention in U.S. elections vastly overwhelms anything the Russians may
have done, I mean, even to the point where the prime minister of Israel, Netanyahu, goes
directly to Congress, without even informing the president, and speaks to Congress, with
overwhelming applause, to try to undermine the president's policies -- what happened with Obama
and Netanyahu in 2015. Did Putin come to give an address to the joint sessions of Congress
trying to -- calling on them to reverse U.S. policy, without even informing the president? And
that's just a tiny bit of this overwhelming influence. So if you happen to be interested in
influence of -- foreign influence on elections, there are places to look. But even that is a
joke.
I mean, one of the most elementary principles of a functioning democracy is that elected
representatives should be responsive to those who elected them. There's nothing more elementary
than that. But we know very well that that is simply not the case in the United States. There's
ample literature in mainstream academic political science simply comparing voters' attitudes
with the policies pursued by their representatives, and it shows that for a large majority of
the population, they're basically disenfranchised. Their own representatives pay no attention
to their voices. They listen to the voices of the famous 1 percent -- the rich and the
powerful, the corporate sector. The elections -- Tom Ferguson's stellar work has demonstrated,
very conclusively, that for a long period, way back, U.S. elections have been pretty much
bought. You can predict the outcome of a presidential or congressional election with remarkable
precision by simply looking at campaign spending. That's only one part of it. Lobbyists
practically write legislation in congressional offices. In massive ways, the concentrated
private capital, corporate sector, super wealth, intervene in our elections, massively,
overwhelmingly, to the extent that the most elementary principles of democracy are undermined.
Now, of course, all that is technically legal, but that tells you something about the way the
society functions. So, if you're concerned with our elections and how they operate and how they
relate to what would happen in a democratic society, taking a look at Russian hacking is
absolutely the wrong place to look. Well, you see occasionally some attention to these matters
in the media, but very minor as compared with the extremely marginal question of Russian
hacking.
And I think we find this on issue after issue, also on issues on which what Trump says, for
whatever reason, is not unreasonable. So, he's perfectly right when he says we should have
better relations with Russia. Being dragged through the mud for that is outlandish, makes --
Russia shouldn't refuse to deal with the United States because the U.S. carried out the worst
crime of the century in the invasion of Iraq, much worse than anything Russia has done. But
they shouldn't refuse to deal with us for that reason, and we shouldn't refuse to deal with
them for whatever infractions they may have carried out, which certainly exist. This is just
absurd. We have to move towards better -- right at the Russian border, there are very extreme
tensions, that could blow up anytime and lead to what would in fact be a terminal nuclear war,
terminal for the species and life on Earth. We're very close to that. Now, we could ask why.
First of all, we should do things to ameliorate it. Secondly, we should ask why. Well, it's
because NATO expanded after the collapse of the Soviet Union, in violation of verbal promises
to Mikhail Gorbachev, mostly under Clinton, partly under first Bush, then Clinton expanded
right to the Russian border, expanded further under Obama. The U.S. has offered to bring
Ukraine into NATO . That's the kind of a heartland of Russian geostrategic concerns. So, yes,
there's tensions at the Russian border -- and not, notice, at the Mexican border. Well, those
are all issues that should be of primary concern. The fate of -- the fate of organized human
society, even of the survival of the species, depends on this. How much attention is given to
these things as compared with, you know, whether Trump lied about something? I think those seem
to me the fundamental criticisms of the media.
... ... ...
And I think we find this on issue after issue, also on issues on which what Trump says, for
whatever reason, is not unreasonable. So, he's perfectly right when he says we should have better
relations with Russia. Being dragged through the mud for that is outlandish, makes -- Russia
shouldn't refuse to deal with the United States because the U.S. carried out the worst crime of
the century in the invasion of Iraq, much worse than anything Russia has done. But they shouldn't
refuse to deal with us for that reason, and we shouldn't refuse to deal with them for whatever
infractions they may have carried out, which certainly exist. This is just absurd. We have to
move towards better -- right at the Russian border, there are very extreme tensions, that could
blow up anytime and lead to what would in fact be a terminal nuclear war, terminal for the
species and life on Earth. We're very close to that. Now, we could ask why. First of all, we
should do things to ameliorate it. Secondly, we should ask why. Well, it's because NATO expanded
after the collapse of the Soviet Union, in violation of verbal promises to Mikhail Gorbachev,
mostly under Clinton, partly under first Bush, then Clinton expanded right to the Russian border,
expanded further under Obama. The U.S. has offered to bring Ukraine into NATO . That's the kind
of a heartland of Russian geostrategic concerns. So, yes, there's tensions at the Russian border
-- and not, notice, at the Mexican border. Well, those are all issues that should be of primary
concern. The fate of -- the fate of organized human society, even of the survival of the species,
depends on this. How much attention is given to these things as compared with, you know, whether
Trump lied about something? I think those seem to me the fundamental criticisms of the media.
"... Authorities are investigating whether Mr. Cohen engaged in unregistered lobbying in connection with his consulting work for corporate clients after Mr. Trump went to the White House, according to people familiar with the probe ..."
"... Investigators are also examining potential campaign-finance violations and bank fraud surrounding, among other deals, Mr. Cohen's October 2016 payment to Stephanie Clifford , the former adult-film star called Stormy Daniels, to keep her from discussing an alleged sexual encounter with Mr. Trump, according to people familiar with the probe. Mr. Trump denies any encounter took place. - WSJ ..."
Authorities are investigating whether Mr. Cohen
engaged in unregistered lobbying in connection with his consulting work for corporate
clients after Mr. Trump went to the White House, according to people familiar with the
probe .
Investigators are also examining potential campaign-finance violations and bank fraud
surrounding, among other deals,
Mr. Cohen's October 2016 payment to Stephanie Clifford , the former adult-film star called
Stormy Daniels, to keep her from discussing an alleged sexual encounter with Mr. Trump,
according to people familiar with the probe. Mr. Trump denies any encounter took place. -
WSJ
Is David Brooks openly flirting with the state-worship
of this vexing 19th Century philosopher?Conservatism has gone from a rigid waltz between
libertarians, social conservatives, and foreign policy hawks to a limb-flailing rave. Writers
are reaching towards the bookshelf for thinkers that will refine and define first principles
during this time of flux. While it's all been great fun, an esteemed but concerning guest has
now entered the party. Increasingly, the right is dancing with G.W. Hegel.
David Brooks' recent column
is a clear example of a Hegel flirtation. In it, Brooks defines conservatism as an internal
critique of the Enlightenment. Explaining opposition to the idea that individuals randomly
choose to start society, he writes: "There never was such a thing as an autonomous, free
individual who could gather with others to create order. Rather, individuals emerge out of
families, communities, faiths, neighborhoods and nations. The order comes first. Individual
freedom is an artifact of that order."
Family and community are the basic building blocks of society and social contract theory has
plenty of flaws. Yet note how Brooks lists the nation state as prior to individual freedom.
It's dropped so casually that its radicalism is almost obscured. What type of freedom is
dependent on the nation state? Hegelian.
Hegel argued that freedom was the origin of self-consciousness, and defined his work as
tracing "the stages in the evolution of the idea of the will free in and for itself." In
Philosophy of Right , he critiqued how Enlightenment liberals see freedom, arguing
that liberal freedom could be divided into three stages.
First comes freedom defined negatively: "Nothing can determine where I'll eat dinner!" In
the second stage of freedom, we want to choose specific states of mind or to concern ourselves
with a particular. "I'm going to eat at Waffle House." But if we choose to eat at Waffle House,
we've restricted that first stage of freedom. We can no longer say "nothing can determine where
I'll eat dinner" because we've selected a particular place to eat. So the third stage of
freedom is the ability to change one's mind, to keep options open, regardless of prior
commitments. "I will eat at Waffle House, unless I decide to just drink mini-wines in the
Applebee's parking lot." This reveals how our conception of freedom is dependent upon the
options available to us.
Liberal freedom is thus our capacity to enter and exit choices, which are determined by
factors other than ourselves. I did not choose for Waffle House to exist. I did not choose to
get hungry at dinner time. We do not choose what we choose between. Therefore, the order of
society creates freedom.
So Brooks is clearly doing the robot with Hegel. But so what? Maybe Hegel's ideas are both
conservative and correct. Maybe conservatives ought to embrace Hegel openly. There have always
been right-wing Hegelians. These are defensible positions. Yet we should remember that
conservative bouncers have restricted Hegel from their canon before and for good reason.
Hegel has always been associated with state worship, and Marxism largely sprang from his
thought. In History of the Idea of Progress , conservative sociologist Robert Nisbet
wrote that, while many try to disguise Hegel as some sort of liberal, "There is simply no way
of separating him from ideas and expressions which were in themselves acts of obeisance to the
national state and which on the ineffacable record, led others to ever-higher levels of
intensity in the glorification of the state."
Some may disagree with Nisbet's reading. Some
may say that Marxists misread Hegel . Yet the link to state worship and Marxism must be
contended with, and anyone who slips in Hegel without acknowledging it -- like Brooks -- is
masking the potentially radical nature of his statement.
Strip the Brooks column of the usual sentimental odes to "beautiful communities" and his
strange statement stands bare and a little menacing. There is a world of difference between
saying that freedom is dependent upon the family and saying that it's dependent on the nation
state. Brooks sounds an awful lot like former President Barack Obama: "Somebody helped to
create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody
invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business -- you didn't build that."
Yet apparently, as Brooks tells us, big government is no longer a threat to the "sacred
space." Community focused conservatives often use Nisbet's Quest for Community to
criticize hyper-individualism, yet they should also remember Nisbet's criticism of Hegelian
freedom: "Hegel clothes the absolute state, just as Rousseau had, in the garments of freedom;
but there cannot be the slightest doubt of Hegel's dedicated belief in the absolutism, the
sanctity, even the divinity of the national state's power."
Perhaps I'm reading too much into a throwaway line. After all, Aristotle offered ideas
similar to those of Hegel and Brooks without the taint of state worship -- maybe that's where
Brooks is drawing his inspiration from. Yet the connection between Brooks and Hegel is still
inescapable because the former is basing his definition of conservatism from British
philosopher Roger Scruton.
Scruton is one of two modern philosophers currently disseminating Hegelian ideas into
mainstream punditry. He reads Hegel in a positive light, and in his book The Soul of the
World , he writes: "Freedom is fully realized only in the world of persons, bound together
by rights and duties that are mutually recognized." Yet Scruton does not say "in the world of
nations," and elsewhere warns that Hegel is like a "beautiful oasis around a treacherous pool
of nonsense." Brooks doesn't offer any such qualifications.
Alasdair MacIntyre is the other philosopher who has helped popularize Hegel in conservative
circles, and in fact Brooks referenced him
just a few days ago . Conservatives who discuss "liquid modernity" as read through
MacIntyre describe something almost identical to Hegel's Absolute Negativity. And McIntyre's
idea of waiting for Benedict is similar to waiting for the Absolute Spirit, which is similar to
waiting for the revolution.
What would a more Hegelian conservatism look like? It's hard to tell. Perhaps we'd see books
declaring an end to one form of consciousness. Perhaps Hegel's ideas on corporations would be
directly referenced by those concerned with working-class alienation. Or perhaps we would see
more fishy ideas about the nation state being a prerequisite for individual freedom.
This isn't about pointing at Brooks and pulling an " Invasion of the Body Snatchers ," or just
beating up on him for the sake of it. He's merely the most obvious example of a conservative
who's done a waltz with the German philosopher. And even then it's always difficult to tell.
Hegel wrote on such a wide range of topics in such confusing prose, that, like a crazed ex, we
might mistakenly spot him everywhere.
Hegel's work is important, and both Scruton and MacIntyre are geniuses. Yet we should always
remember Russell Kirk's warnings that "Marx could draw upon Hegel's magazine; he could find
nothing to suit him in Burke" and that Hegel was "a conservative only from chance and
expediency." Hegel is already at the party; whether we want him to stay is another question
entirely.
James McElroy is a New York City-based novelist and essayist, who also works in
finance.
"... It is a sham since no evidence of election influence by the Russians was provided and no preventive or corrective measures our government is taking to prevent Emmanuel Goldstein (The Russians) from further attacking and usurping our elections was put forth. ..."
Today on ABC Martha Raddatz hosted "This Week" which featured James Lankford a Republican
from Oklahoma describing how Russia and Putin were actively trying to ruin our democracy and
also were trying to influence elections at every possible turn. The Russian Bear and Putin
according to Lankford were also trying to rewrite the Constitution, trying to upend every
election and were seeking to disrupt our national electrical grid not to be confused with our
national election grid which they were also trying to destroy as well as to control the most
local elections by a means of electronic control that was beyond any means to control.
Of course no mention was made about possible solutions to thwart the Russians was
mentioned and it is doubtful that there are any serious efforts to counteract the alleged
Russian hacking of US elections since not one single preventive action to stop the Orwellian
monster of Russia, like Emmanuel Goldstein in Orwell's novel "Nineteen Eighty Four" was put
forth.
Apparently ABC and the other media are trying to convince Americans that there is an
overwhelming force in Russia that is somehow able to infiltrate and control all our national
elections. Apparently the Russians are unstoppable.
It is a sham.
It is a sham since no evidence of election influence by the Russians was provided and
no preventive or corrective measures our government is taking to prevent Emmanuel Goldstein
(The Russians) from further attacking and usurping our elections was put forth.
Instead the publishers of "This Week" on ABC were content to provide evidence-free
incriminations of Russia and attribute all manner of influence in our elections to the
incredibly sneaky and unstoppable Russian-Putin election Influencing machine which is
unstoppable by our intelligence agencies.
What is missing from Martha Radditz's show? There will never be any admission that they
have jobs because of Citizens United, their corporate benefactors (Koch Industries),
Gerrymandering, Dark Money, Media Bias which ensures that the Iron Triangle of corporate
election dark money flows to hand picked political candidates that will support conservative
causes or that these are the real election influencing mechanisms which have the most power
in our country to influence elections.
As long as ABC, NBC, CBS and other cable news shows fail to correctly identify the real
reasons of election corruption which is our very near and dear corporate money funded
political organizations we will continue to be duped by the free press to believe that Russia
has control over our national elections and not believe that US Corporations hold all the
power.
Thanks to Norman for reminding us of the continued waste of time and effort on the
'russiagate' stories based on allegations and indictments, NOT evidence or possible reasons
for such behavior. The USA is fully capable of unfair election practices, helped by the
undemocratic system of electoral college, partisan gerrymandering, voter suppression, lack of
response to voter desires .plus of course Israel being the very large external factor.
Trump's influence on workers, environment, USA's reputation are negative, but blaming Russia
when this is in nobody's real interest is hardly the way forward for the Democratic
Party.
Realist , July 27, 2018 at 9:26 pm
All those loons you mentioned are effectively practicing a religion, in which there is a
dogma everyone must believe to be virtuous and a set of commandments every believer must live
by to gain salvation. Don't toe the line on every bit of it and you are rejected as an
apostate.
I'm surprised that some of those folks, notably Thom Hartmann, choose not to practice what
they preach -- you know, the platitudes about studying the facts and coming to your own
conclusions rather than following the herd. They rightly condemn acting on prejudice, out of
pure self-interest, without verifiable facts (indeed at odds with empirical fact) and using
group intimidation, as per McCarthyist tactics, and then they go ahead and embrace those
vices to their own ends.
It is my process on everything in this life to learn as much as I can on my own, without
being brainwashed by any group or movement, and only backing a cause if it is congruent with
my own conclusions. Unfortunately, most people do the opposite: they are joiners first and
analysts only if their biases are not threatened.
I feel entirely justified in agreeing with movements on some things and not others. I
doubt that human beings have arrived at definitive answers about most phenomena in the real
world or that any single organised group of us has it all down accurate and pat on
everything. Listen to any casual debate on the questions big and small in science: the give
and take, back and forth, can go on as long as the participants have the interest and energy.
I never give my interlocutors any respite, because there is always one more thing to be
considered or one more way of looking at a problem. I'm sure I would have been burned at the
stake in many previous lives and so would a lot of the readers here.
Eddie , July 27, 2018 at 11:26 pm
Yes, good points Drew. I view Maddow as a liberal Rush Limbaugh, trying to win a Leni
Riefenstahl award from the DNC, and having to be satisfied with her purported $9M/yr salary
(which definitely DOES buy a LOT of co-opting).
In support of your argument, I would add that ultimately we should be voting for a
candidate based on his/her POLICIES, as evidenced by their prior political voting record and
whatever political actions they've taken, NOT based on what they SAY they believe -- that's
1st period high school civics as I recall. It's too easy for candidates to say this or that
during a campaign. Trump's policy of detente w/Russia, is -- like the proverbial 'blind
squirrel who occasionally finds a nut' -- probably random chance or perhaps a way to
penetrate a relatively untapped market with his hucksterism. But so what?? For something as
IMPORTANT as NOT having a nuclear war, I'm all for any honest, significant efforts in that
direction. Even Nixon, whose presidency I disliked greatly, did a good thing by 'going to
China' -- I don't recall anybody on the liberal side at that time saying he was Mao's dupe or
foolishness like that. Did Nixon do it as a cynical ploy to draw attention away from other
political problems, and did he previously help aggravate/perpetuate a lot of the conflict
w/China? Sure, but the act of rapprochement w/China was in-and-of-itself desirable and
laudable in that it moved the world a major step AWAY from possible nuclear war. And
full-scale nuclear war trumps (no pun intended) virtually all other problems, with the
possible exception of climate change, so a POTUS should devote extra energy to that task.
Ideally, they should be ramping down the militarism and nationalism, but unfortunately those
are campaign tactics that are too easy for either major party to set aside (with 1/2 the
fault lying in the electorate who too often endorses those 'isms).
Re-reading this today for some reason really popped a few things up for me. The first one
right in my face was: "Now, after a remarkable 46-minute news conference on foreign soil
where Trump stood side by side with a former KGB agent to praise his 'strong' denials of
election interference and criticize the FBI, those strategists believe the ground may have
shifted."
Can someone explain to me what the hell "foreign soil" has to do with the price of tea in
China? Trump has given plenty of pressers "on foreign soil" but that phrase nor anything like
it is ever mentioned. Trump stood side by side with a former KGB agent.
Talk about a lack of respect and blatant bias. He stood side by side with the
democratically elected President of the Russian Federation who, by the way, won his election
by a clear majority of the vote unlike Mr. Trump who would have lost the election had it been
held in Russia. One wonders what would have happened had WaPo and the NYT said something like
Russian President Gorbachev stood side by side with the former head of the KGB I mean CIA
without ever saying President Bush?
It's also blindingly obvious how screwed we are. We really only have one political party
in the US -- the US Corporate Party. There is, indeed, very little reason to vote as a recent
survey pointed out Congressional votes correspond to the people's preferences as determined
by polling only about 5% of the time.
Gregory Herr , July 27, 2018 at 12:08 pm
Progressives, particularly those few taken tokens the Democrats allow for, should have
realised long ago that MSNBC is all in on the corporatist controlled economy and leans
heavily forward in the quest for War and Profits.
FAIR is correct to point to the "traditional centers of power" that MSNBC services, but
the farcical "coverage" of Russiagate inanity certainly doesn't "preserve" a "progressive
image" and is not "elegant" in any way.
The war on Yemen and the weapons contracting with the Saudi terrorist regime was already
"steroidal" during Obama's Administration. In October 2016, warplanes bombed a community hall
in Yemen's capital, Sana'a, where mourners had gathered for a funeral, killing at least 140
people and wounding hundreds. We should note that the U.S. provided intelligence assistance
in identifying targets and mid-air refueling for Saudi aircraft and helped blockade the ports
of Yemen during Obama's tenure.
Manafort situation now is difficult. But the crimes he is accused of were committed
outside the election campaign period. He has some chances to fight them with a good
lawyers team claiming the Mueller exceeded his mandate and engaged in the witch hunt
against Trump.
If we assume that Mueller is a hired gun of Clinton wing of Democratic Party, and his
appointment was a gambit to impeach Trump, then he is also in a difficult position.
1. Now a lot of people started raising unpleasant questions about his role in 911
cover-up. So he is investigated too.
2. After spending taxpayers money for more than a year, the results were questionable.
He suffered greatly from Strzokgate and Steele dossier saga,
3. As Hillary aptly said" If that bastard wins, we all hang from nooses!" so I would
assume that Trump digs out some skeletons too.
4. If Rosenstein falls, Mueller is cooked. There are some people who would like to
take revenge, and without "Lord-protector" in the Justice Department, he is very
vulnerable.
5. The direct interference of the intelligence agencies in the election and derailing
Sanders now make all Russiagate saga a double-edged sword. There is also "the Sword of
Damocles" over Dems due to Avan brothers scandal. Those can be played strategically.
So this catfight between two factions of the US neoliberal elite might be very
interesting to watch.
In any case, Russiagate is just a smoke screen to cover the huge crack in the
neoliberal state façade.
robert Waldmann , August 1, 2018 10:13 am
@Likbez, what Joel said (with compliments for the topical reference to Virginian
congressional campaigns). Mueller is a lifetime Republican appointed bt lifetime Republican Rod
Rozenstrein who was appointed by sometimes Democrat Donald Trump.
The probability that "is a hired gun of Clinton wing of Democratic Party" is, like the
probability that you are a butterfly, one of those cases which help us decide if we can believe
that a probability can really be exactly exactly zero.
For that reason only, your comment is not off topic.
likbez , August 1, 2018 3:18 pm
@Robert Waldmann August 1, 2018 10:13 am
@Likbez, Mueller is a lifetime Republican appointed bt lifetime Republican Rod Rosenstein
who was appointed by sometimes Democrat Donald Trump.
This is just a deflection. Nobody can deny that we observe a fight between two factions of
the US elite. Which is about the direction of the country. Russiagate is just a smoke
screen.
And Mueller actions talk louder than words, or this superficial detail of his resume
(Democratic Party after Bill Clinton can well be renamed into Moderate Republican Party).
Look at the composition of Mueller team and try to find people who might be sympathetic to
Trump platform (not that he lasted long; he betrayed it in three month in office). All the team
consists exclusively of rabid Clinton supporters. Who knows what is their main task without the
necessity of Mueller telling them anything. And as we all know "Personnel is policy."
Now tell me again that he is a lifelong Republican ;-)
Also being a Republican (and moreover, being the head of FBI after 911, and one of the
architects of transition of the USA into national security state) does not exclude actions
against detractors from neoliberal globalization and neoliberalism even if they are fellow
Republicans.
His loyalty is not to the Republican party, but to neoliberalism and Neoconservatism
including neoliberal globalization, which is assaulted by Trump. Looks how smoothly neocons
aligned with the Democratic Party during and after the elections.
To some, that fear was not a problem but a tool -- one could defeat political enemies simply by accusing them of being Russian
sympathizers. There was no need for evidence, so desperate were Americans to believe; just an accusation that someone was in league
with Russia was enough. Wisconsin Senator Joseph McCarthy
fired his first shot on February 9, 1950,
proclaiming there were 205 card-carrying members of the Communist Party working for the Department of State. The evidence? Nothing
but assertions .
Indeed, the very word " McCarthyism " came to mean making
accusations of treason without sufficient evidence. Other
definitionsinclude a ggressively
questioning a person's patriotism, using accusations of disloyalty to pressure a person to adhere to conformist politics or discredit
an opponent, and subverting civil and political rights in the name of national security.
Pretending to be saving America while he tore at its foundations, McCarthy destroyed thousands of lives over the next four years
simply by pointing a finger and saying "communist." Whenever anyone invoked his Fifth Amendment right to silence, McCarthy
answered that this was "the most positive
proof obtainable that the witness is communist." The power of accusation was used by others as well: the
Lavender Scare , which
concluded that the State Department was overrun with closeted homosexuals who were at risk of being blackmailed by Moscow for their
perversions, was an offshoot of McCarthyism, and by 1951, 600 people had been fired based solely on evidence-free "morals" charges.
State legislatures and school boards
mimicked McCarthy. Books and movies were banned. Blacklists abounded.
The FBI embarked on campaigns of political
repression (they would later claim Martin Luther
King Jr. had communist ties), even as journalists and academics voluntarily narrowed their political thinking to exclude communism.
Hegel: The Uninvited Guest at the Conservative Party
Is David Brooks openly flirting with the state-worship of this vexing 19th Century philosopher?
By
James McElroy
•
August 1, 2018
Columnist David Brooks and German Philosopher G.W. Hagel (public domain)
Conservatism has gone from a rigid waltz between libertarians, social conservatives, and foreign policy hawks to a
limb-flailing rave. Writers are reaching towards the bookshelf for thinkers that will refine and define first principles
during this time of flux. While it's all been great fun, an esteemed but concerning guest has now entered the party.
Increasingly, the right is dancing with G.W. Hegel.
David Brooks' recent
column
is a clear example of a Hegel flirtation. In it, Brooks defines conservatism as an internal critique of the
Enlightenment. Explaining opposition to the idea that individuals randomly choose to start society, he writes: "There
never was such a thing as an autonomous, free individual who could gather with others to create order. Rather,
individuals emerge out of families, communities, faiths, neighborhoods and nations. The order comes first. Individual
freedom is an artifact of that order."
Family and community are the basic building blocks of society and social contract theory has plenty of flaws. Yet
note how Brooks lists the nation state as prior to individual freedom. It's dropped so casually that its radicalism is
almost obscured. What type of freedom is dependent on the nation state? Hegelian.
Hegel argued that freedom was the origin of self-consciousness, and defined his work as tracing "the stages in the
evolution of the idea of the will free in and for itself." In
Philosophy of Right
, he critiqued how
Enlightenment liberals see freedom, arguing that liberal freedom could be divided into three stages.
First comes freedom defined negatively: "Nothing can determine where I'll eat dinner!" In the second stage of
freedom, we want to choose specific states of mind or to concern ourselves with a particular. "I'm going to eat at
Waffle House." But if we choose to eat at Waffle House, we've restricted that first stage of freedom. We can no longer
say "nothing can determine where I'll eat dinner" because we've selected a particular place to eat. So the third stage
of freedom is the ability to change one's mind, to keep options open, regardless of prior commitments. "I will eat at
Waffle House, unless I decide to just drink mini-wines in the Applebee's parking lot." This reveals how our conception
of freedom is dependent upon the options available to us.
Liberal freedom is thus our capacity to enter and exit choices, which are determined by factors other than ourselves.
I did not choose for Waffle House to exist. I did not choose to get hungry at dinner time. We do not choose what we
choose between. Therefore, the order of society creates freedom.
So Brooks is clearly doing the robot with Hegel. But so what? Maybe Hegel's ideas are both conservative and correct.
Maybe conservatives ought to embrace Hegel openly. There have always been right-wing Hegelians. These are defensible
positions. Yet we should remember that conservative bouncers have restricted Hegel from their canon before and for good
reason.
Hegel has always been associated with state worship, and Marxism largely sprang from his thought. In
History of
the Idea of Progress
, conservative sociologist Robert Nisbet wrote that, while many try to disguise Hegel as some
sort of liberal, "There is simply no way of separating him from ideas and expressions which were in themselves acts of
obeisance to the national state and which on the ineffacable record, led others to ever-higher levels of intensity in
the glorification of the state."
Some may disagree with Nisbet's reading.
Some may say that
Marxists misread Hegel
. Yet the link to state worship and Marxism must be contended with, and anyone who slips in
Hegel without acknowledging it -- like Brooks -- is masking the potentially radical nature of his statement.
Strip the Brooks column of the usual sentimental odes to "beautiful communities" and his strange statement stands
bare and a little menacing. There is a world of difference between saying that freedom is dependent upon the family and
saying that it's dependent on the nation state. Brooks sounds an awful lot like former President Barack Obama: "Somebody
helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads
and bridges. If you've got a business -- you didn't build that."
Yet apparently, as Brooks tells us, big government is no longer a threat to the "sacred space." Community focused
conservatives often use Nisbet's
Quest for Community
to criticize hyper-individualism, yet they should also
remember Nisbet's criticism of Hegelian freedom: "Hegel clothes the absolute state, just as Rousseau had, in the
garments of freedom; but there cannot be the slightest doubt of Hegel's dedicated belief in the absolutism, the
sanctity, even the divinity of the national state's power."
Perhaps I'm reading too much into a throwaway line. After all, Aristotle offered ideas similar to those of Hegel and
Brooks without the taint of state worship -- maybe that's where Brooks is drawing his inspiration from. Yet the connection
between Brooks and Hegel is still inescapable because the former is basing his definition of conservatism from British
philosopher Roger Scruton.
Scruton is one of two modern philosophers currently disseminating Hegelian ideas into mainstream punditry. He reads
Hegel in a positive light, and in his book
The Soul of the World
, he writes: "Freedom is fully realized only in
the world of persons, bound together by rights and duties that are mutually recognized." Yet Scruton does not say "in
the world of nations," and elsewhere warns that Hegel is like a "beautiful oasis around a treacherous pool of nonsense."
Brooks doesn't offer any such qualifications.
Alasdair MacIntyre is the other philosopher who has helped popularize Hegel in conservative circles, and in fact
Brooks referenced him
just a few days
ago
. Conservatives who discuss "liquid modernity" as read through MacIntyre describe something almost identical to
Hegel's Absolute Negativity. And McIntyre's idea of waiting for Benedict is similar to waiting for the Absolute Spirit,
which is similar to waiting for the revolution.
What would a more Hegelian conservatism look like? It's hard to tell. Perhaps we'd see books declaring an end to one
form of consciousness. Perhaps Hegel's ideas on corporations would be directly referenced by those concerned with
working-class alienation. Or perhaps we would see more fishy ideas about the nation state being a prerequisite for
individual freedom.
This isn't about pointing at Brooks and pulling an "
Invasion of
the Body Snatchers
," or just beating up on him for the sake of it. He's merely the most obvious example of a
conservative who's done a waltz with the German philosopher. And even then it's always difficult to tell. Hegel wrote on
such a wide range of topics in such confusing prose, that, like a crazed ex, we might mistakenly spot him everywhere.
Hegel's work is important, and both Scruton and MacIntyre are geniuses. Yet we should always remember Russell Kirk's
warnings that "Marx could draw upon Hegel's magazine; he could find nothing to suit him in Burke" and that Hegel was "a
conservative only from chance and expediency." Hegel is already at the party; whether we want him to stay is another
question entirely.
James McElroy is a New York City-based novelist and essayist, who also works in finance.
"... This week, under the headline " It's Been Over a Year Since MSNBC Has Mentioned U.S. War in Yemen ," journalist Adam Johnson reported for the media watchdog group FAIR about the collapse of journalistic decency at MSNBC, under the weight of the network's Russia Russia Russia obsession. Johnson's article asks a big-type question: "Why is the No. 1 outlet of alleged anti-Trump #resistance completely ignoring his most devastating war?" ..."
"... It would be easy for news watchers to see that the Democratic Party is much more committed to a hard line against Russia than a hard line against the corporate forces imposing extreme economic inequality here at home. ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... "Amplifying the anti-Russia din helps to drown out the left's core messages for economic fairness, equal rights, environmental protection, diplomacy and so much more." That, of course, is the purpose and intent. Just like hobbling the 'left' with absurd identity politics. ..."
"... It is a sham since no evidence of election influence by the Russians was provided and no preventive or corrective measures our government is taking to prevent Emmanuel Goldstein (The Russians) from further attacking and usurping our elections was put forth. ..."
"... I'm surprised that some of those folks, notably Thom Hartmann, choose not to practice what they preach -- you know, the platitudes about studying the facts and coming to your own conclusions rather than following the herd. They rightly condemn acting on prejudice, out of pure self-interest, without verifiable facts (indeed at odds with empirical fact) and using group intimidation, as per McCarthyist tactics, and then they go ahead and embrace those vices to their own ends. ..."
Hammering on Russia is a losing strategy for progressives as most Americans care about
economic issues and it is the Republicans and corporate Democrats who stand to gain, argues
Norman Solomon.
Progressives should figure it out. Amplifying the
anti-Russia din helps to drown out the left's core messages for economic fairness, equal
rights, environmental protection, diplomacy and so much more. Echoing the racket of blaming
Russia for the USA's severe shortages of democracy plays into the hands of Republicans and
corporate Democrats eager to block progressive momentum.
When riding on the "Russiagate" bandwagon, progressives unwittingly aid political forces
that are eager to sideline progressive messages. And with the midterm elections now scarcely
100 days away, the torrents of
hyperbolic and
hypocritical claims about Russia keep diverting attention from why it's so important to
defeat Republicans.
As a practical matter, devoting massive amounts of time and resources to focusing on Russia
has reduced capacities to effectively challenge the domestic forces that are assaulting
democratic possibilities at home -- with such tactics as state voter ID laws, purging of voter
rolls, and numerous barriers to suppress turnout by people of color.
Instead of keeping eyes on the prize, some of the Democratic base has been watching and
trusting media outlets like MSNBC. An extreme Russia obsession at the network has left precious
little airtime to expose and challenge the vast quantity of terrible domestic-policy measures
being advanced by the Trump administration every day.
Likewise with the U.S. government's militarism. While some Democrats and Republicans in
Congress have put forward legislation to end the active U.S. role in Saudi Arabia's
mass-murderous war on Yemen, those efforts face a steeper uphill climb because of MSNBC.
This week, under the headline "
It's Been Over a Year Since MSNBC Has Mentioned U.S. War in Yemen ," journalist Adam
Johnson reported for the media watchdog group FAIR about the collapse of journalistic decency
at MSNBC, under the weight of the network's Russia Russia Russia obsession. Johnson's article
asks a big-type question: "Why is the No. 1 outlet of alleged anti-Trump #resistance completely
ignoring his most devastating war?"
Maddow: Most Americans don't care for her obsession.
The FAIR report says: "What seems most likely is MSNBC has found that attacking Russia from
the right on matters of foreign policy is the most elegant way to preserve its 'progressive'
image while still serving traditional centers of power -- namely, the Democratic Party
establishment, corporate sponsors, and their own revolving door of ex-spook and military
contractor-funded talking heads."
Russia Doesn't Concern Americans
Corporate media have been exerting enormous pressure on Democratic officeholders and
candidates to follow a thin blue party line on Russia. Yet polling shows that few Americans see
Russia as a threat to their well-being; they're far more concerned about such matters as
healthcare, education, housing and overall economic security.
The gap between most Americans and media elites is clear in a
nationwide poll taken after the Trump-Putin summit in Helsinki, which was fiercely
condemned by the punditocracy. As The Hill newspaper reported this week under the
headline "Most Americans Back Trump's Call for Follow-Up Summit With Putin," 54 percent of
respondents favored plans for a second summit. "The survey also found that 61 percent of
Americans say better relations with Russia are in the best interest of the United States."
Yet most Democratic Party leaders have very different priorities. After investing so much
political capital in portraying Putin's government as an implacable enemy of the United States,
top Democrats on Capitol Hill are hardly inclined to help thaw relations between the world's
two nuclear superpowers.
It would be easy for news watchers to see that the Democratic Party is much more committed to a hard line against Russia
than a hard line against the corporate forces imposing extreme economic inequality here at home.
National polling underscores just how out of whack and out of touch the party's top dogs are. Last month, the Gallup
organization asked: "What do you think is the most important problem facing the country today?" The results were telling. "Situation with Russia" came in at
below one-half of 1 percent.
The day after the Helsinki summit, TheWashington Post reported: "Citing
polls and focus groups that have put Trump and Russia far down the list of voter priorities,
Democratic strategists have counseled candidates and party leaders for months to discuss
'kitchen table' issues. Now, after a remarkable 46-minute news conference on foreign soil where
Trump stood side by side with a former KGB agent to praise his 'strong' denials of election
interference and criticize the FBI, those strategists believe the ground may have shifted."
Prominent corporate Democrats who want to beat back the current progressive groundswell
inside their party are leading the charge. Jim Kessler, a senior vice president at the
"centrist" Third Way organization, was quick to
proclaim after the summit: "It got simple real fast. I've talked to a lot of Democrats that
are running in purple and red states and districts who have said that Russia rarely comes up
back home, and I think that has now changed."
The Democratic National Committee and other official arms of the party keep sending out
Russia-bashing emails to millions of people on a nearly daily basis. At times the goals seem to
involve generating and exploiting manic panic.
At the end of last week, as soon as the White House announced plans (later postponed) for
Vladimir Putin to meet with President Trump in Washington this fall, the Democratic
Congressional Campaign Committee fired off a mass email -- from "RUSSIA ALERT (via DCCC)" --
declaring that the Russian president "must NOT be allowed to set foot in our country." The
email strained to conflate a summit with Russian interference in U.S. elections. "We cannot
overstate how dangerous this is," the DCCC gravely warned. And: "We need to stop him at all
costs."
For Democrats who move in elite circles, running against Putin might seem like a smart
election move. But for voters worried about economic insecurity and many other social ills, a
political party obsessed with Russia is likely to seem aloof and irrelevant to their lives.
Norman Solomon is the national coordinator of the online activist group RootsAction.org and
the executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy. He is the author of a dozen books
including "War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death."
Nop , July 31, 2018 at 10:38 am
"Amplifying the anti-Russia din helps to drown out the left's core messages for economic
fairness, equal rights, environmental protection, diplomacy and so much more." That, of course, is the purpose and intent. Just like hobbling the 'left' with absurd
identity politics.
Bill Goldman , July 30, 2018 at 6:44 pm
If the Democrats don't turn primaries into housecleaning out establishment Dems, they will
gain no seats in the midterm election and Trump will retain his Republican majority in both
chambers. Putin is an heroic figure to the global electorates. They admire and respect him
and even wish he were running on their tickets. Most Americans want nothing to do with
mainstream media be it the NYT, WSJ, Fox, Financial Times, Guardian, MSNBC, or CNN. They are
mostly viewed as extreme liars and propagandists of the Goebbels variety. The real action is
in the alternative media who realize capitalist wars are military-industrial rackets. The
play is at RT, Sputnik International, Consortium, The Saker, New Eastern Outlook, and
Greenville Post, among others.
Taras77 , July 30, 2018 at 11:42 am
Not sure where this link would fit but here it is:
It was ok when Hillary said we need a "strong" Russia:
"We want very much to have a strong Russia because a strong, competent, prosperous, stable
Russia is , we think, in the interests of the world," Clinton said as Obama's secretary of
state in her 2010 interview with the partially Russian government-owned First Channel
Television.
Russia is not the USSR, although PMSNBC wants the ignorant to "stay ignorant, my
friend.."
Thedems are their own worst enemy.
Lois Gagnon , July 29, 2018 at 11:41 pm
Rachel Maddow is unfortunately a cult hero in my neck of the Western Mass woods as she
makes her permanent home here. It's impossible to penetrate the total brainwashing she has
managed to accomplish among the pink hat wearing crowd. It's very dispiriting.
It's sad when someone like Rachel Maddow uses their social gifts to advance tribalism. In
this case, one could say the Russia bashing amounts to racism.
H Beazley , July 29, 2018 at 9:55 pm
I have a foolproof method for proving which journalists are controlled by the C.I.A. The
agency always advocates for war and always claims that JFK was killed by a "lone nut." Rachel
Maddow always goes along with war propaganda and supports the Warren Commission every
November 22. Therefore, she is a tool for the C.I.A. and cannot be trusted.
Reference for above statement. Jim DiEugenio is a real source for the truth of the JFK
assassination, not Phil Shenon.
glitch , July 31, 2018 at 7:23 am
JFK is their most blatant "tell". Some can't even say his name without spitting it
out.
CitizenOne , July 29, 2018 at 9:26 pm
Today on ABC Martha Raddatz hosted "This Week" which featured James Lankford a Republican
from Oklahoma describing how Russia and Putin were actively trying to ruin our democracy and
also were trying to influence elections at every possible turn. The Russian Bear and Putin
according to Lankford were also trying to rewrite the Constitution, trying to upend every
election and were seeking to disrupt our national electrical grid not to be confused with our
national election grid which they were also trying to destroy as well as to control the most
local elections by a means of electronic control that was beyond any means to control.
Of course no mention was made about possible solutions to thwart the Russians was
mentioned and it is doubtful that there are any serious efforts to counteract the alleged
Russian hacking of US elections since not one single preventive action to stop the Orwellian
monster of Russia, like Emmanuel Goldstein in Orwell's novel "Nineteen Eighty Four" was put
forth.
Apparently ABC and the other media are trying to convince Americans that there is an
overwhelming force in Russia that is somehow able to infiltrate and control all our national
elections. Apparently the Russians are unstoppable.
It is a sham.
It is a sham since no evidence of election influence by the Russians was provided and no
preventive or corrective measures our government is taking to prevent Emmanuel Goldstein (The
Russians) from further attacking and usurping our elections was put forth.
Instead the publishers of "This Week" on ABC were content to provide evidence-free
incriminations of Russia and attribute all manner of influence in our elections to the
incredibly sneaky and unstoppable Russian-Putin election Influencing machine which is
unstoppable by our intelligence agencies.
What is missing from Martha Radditz's show? There will never be any admission that they
have jobs because of Citizens United, their corporate benefactors (Koch Industries),
Gerrymandering, Dark Money, Media Bias which ensures that the Iron Triangle of corporate
election dark money flows to hand picked political candidates that will support conservative
causes or that these are the real election influencing mechanisms which have the most power
in our country to influence elections.
As long as ABC, NBC, CBS and other cable news shows fail to correctly identify the real
reasons of election corruption which is our very near and dear corporate money funded
political organizations we will continue to be duped by the free press to believe that Russia
has control over our national elections and not believe that US Corporations hold all the
power.
Cassandra , July 29, 2018 at 8:43 pm
Hell hath no fury like a Clinton scorned. The Goldwater Girl just can't over her loss to
El Chumpo. It had to be the Russians, not the thoroughly disgusted American people who voted
with their feet by not going to the polls at all.
Thanks to Norman for reminding us of the continued waste of time and effort on the
'russiagate' stories based on allegations and indictments, NOT evidence or possible reasons
for such behavior. The USA is fully capable of unfair election practices, helped by the
undemocratic system of electoral college, partisan gerrymandering, voter suppression, lack of
response to voter desires .plus of course Israel being the very large external factor.
Trump's influence on workers, environment, USA's reputation are negative, but blaming Russia
when this is in nobody's real interest is hardly the way forward for the Democratic
Party.
SteveK9 , July 28, 2018 at 3:57 pm
Incredible as it seems, the re-election of Donald Trump (assuming he is not deposed or
killed before then) is not essential to preserve our democracy. If they bring him down
(whatever you may think of him), then we might just as well have a 'Star Chamber' of the
Military/Industrial/Intelligence complex choose the President, not that it would matter who
that might be.
It really is peculiar what's happened to these dimwit Dems. I used to listen to Thom
Hartmann and Rachel Maddow when they were on Air America, and their main political positions
were for working people. Now, all they do is partisan politics which they don't seem to
understand benefits only the Deep State war party.
Incidentally, State of the Nation website, http://www.sott.net , has an article by Alex Krainer, who wrote
the book about Bill Browder's crooked dealings in Russia. His book, which was suppressed by
Browder first, i think is "Grand Deception", now available from Red Pill Press for $25 (and
must be selling well because it's being reprinted). I wrote this hastily but you'll see it on
sott.net. Russia's resurgence under Putin is nothing short of astounding.
Also, there is a video on Youtube, "The Rise of Putin and the Fall of the Russian Jewish
Oligarchs", 2 parts. I only saw the beginning showing how the Russian people were given state
vouchers that led to the oligarchs buying them up for their own profit and plunging Russians
into shock therapy disaster instigated by IMF and other US led monetary agencies including
Harvard. This is why it is so incredible how Americans receive political "perception control"
when the truth is exactly opposite of what they are being told. At least more people are
realizing the lies being told about Russia and Putin.
Drew Hunkins , July 27, 2018 at 3:51 pm
Maddow, Corn and the rest of them are playing a dangerous game. This weekend there's a guy
over at Counterpunch ("The curious case of pro-Trump leftism") who's essentially saying that
any progressives or liberal minded folks who concede that Trump's on the righteous path in
pursuing a detente of sorts with the Kremlin is a naive fool and isn't to be taken seriously
(Thom Hartmann also had a recent piece saying similar things). He sets up a Manichean world
in which you either see Trump as the sole embodiment of evil or you're a dupe playing into
rightwing hands. I for one, and most others at CN, have been highly critical of 90% of
Trump's platform and policies but we're also not dunderheaded dolts, we know when to give the
man a modicum of credit for going against the military industrial media complex on at least
this one particular issue.
Realist , July 27, 2018 at 9:26 pm
All those loons you mentioned are effectively practicing a religion, in which there is a
dogma everyone must believe to be virtuous and a set of commandments every believer must live
by to gain salvation. Don't toe the line on every bit of it and you are rejected as an
apostate.
I'm surprised that some of those folks, notably Thom Hartmann, choose not to practice what
they preach -- you know, the platitudes about studying the facts and coming to your own
conclusions rather than following the herd. They rightly condemn acting on prejudice, out of
pure self-interest, without verifiable facts (indeed at odds with empirical fact) and using
group intimidation, as per McCarthyist tactics, and then they go ahead and embrace those
vices to their own ends.
It is my process on everything in this life to learn as much as I can on my own, without
being brainwashed by any group or movement, and only backing a cause if it is congruent with
my own conclusions. Unfortunately, most people do the opposite: they are joiners first and
analysts only if their biases are not threatened.
I feel entirely justified in agreeing with movements on some things and not others. I
doubt that human beings have arrived at definitive answers about most phenomena in the real
world or that any single organised group of us has it all down accurate and pat on
everything. Listen to any casual debate on the questions big and small in science: the give
and take, back and forth, can go on as long as the participants have the interest and energy.
I never give my interlocutors any respite, because there is always one more thing to be
considered or one more way of looking at a problem. I'm sure I would have been burned at the
stake in many previous lives and so would a lot of the readers here.
Dogmatic party-line Democrats, Republicans, Communists, Islamists, Rastafarians,
Bokononites and all the rest suffer from the same malady of checking their minds at the door
when it comes to movement politics. They will never do the unthinkable and cooperate with the
opposition even if they happen to agree on an issue. This is a manifestation of the Manichean
approach you mentioned, Drew. Admit that the opposition is right about anything and you open
the door to the possibility that they are right about more, AND that you may (heaven forbid!)
be wrong more often than absolutely never. The main exception, at least in America, seems to
be warfare, which both main factions and a lot of the marginal ones agree enthusiastically
upon and engage with relish.
"... The whole corrupt, crazy political process is a distraction from our real problems, and an endless maze of futility. The illusion of democracy is collapsing all around us, and safety lies in abandoning it. ..."
"... Agreed. Our entire national political debate is a theater of smoke and mirrors. The facts most obvious and degrading to the national interest are ignored at all costs, e.g., an out of control military-industrial-intelligence complex that now swallows up an obscene $1 trillion annually (including "defense related expenditures"). ..."
"... My plans for the upcoming Democratic primary in Florida: I will write "none of these clowns" at the top of the ballot. ..."
"... I tend to think that the Cold War bankrupted us as well as the Soviets, but we just haven't figured it that out yet. ..."
"... Most of the human race has been speeding towards the cliff at 100 mph like Thelma and Louise. Certainly America has been. It's getting ever closer. We will get there. Don't expect Zeno's paradox to save us. ..."
"... I share your setiment about the Democrats but voting for Republicans just because is equally foolish. Why support banning labor unions, corporate very expensive health care, greatly reducing and eventually eliminating social security and Medicare, privitzing all public infrastructure and bailing out wall Street at all cost. I could go on but you get the idea. Vote for candidates that stand for the American people and have the guts to stand up to the elites. If no such candidates exist in a particular election don't vote simple as that. ..."
"... tealing a "none of the above" write-in requires the ballot be destroyed, so it can provide a paper trail and/or a potential theft exposure point. ..."
"... I am a registered Democrat; I will NOT be voting for them this fall. They no longer have any credibility with me. Rachel helped them shoot themselves in the foot as far as I'm concerned. How are they any different from neocons??? I'm grateful WikiLeaks pulled off their mask. I'm a historian and know a lot of both CIA and Russian history and am not buying Russiagate or Democrats. ..."
"... I like that, the "Demented-crats"! They are so completely clueless, in their overpaid bubbles, nothing to say about the Race-to-the-Bottom, Hunger Games society they have helped create. ..."
"... The loyal shrills to Clinton? Those aren't progressives. ..."
"... As Jimmy Dore keeps telling us: the Democratic leadership, which is totally corporatist and neocon, would rather lose to the GOP candidate than to see a progressive or liberal Democrat win the office. The Dems have no independent policies of their own and are merely enablers to make sure that the hard right agenda always prevails. ..."
"... And I see Bernie Sanders was spewing this neo-McCarthyite crap on a Sunday morning talk show earlier this week. He really should know better. ..."
"... Isaac Christiansen observes that "As Democrats seek to shift blame away from the discontent with our economic system, their party and their chosen Neoliberal candidate, we are told that Trump came to power almost solely due to Russian interference in the U.S. 2016 election." ..."
"... Remember how the entire anti-Russian theme began? The Clinton team used Russia as their excuse for losing 2016. It didn't get much attention at first because the party/candidate that loses inevitably blames someone or something other than the candidate/party. But the Democrats ran with it from there, using much of the media marketed to liberals to build the Russian Tale. The most insane thing about the claims that Russia hacked voting machines for Trump, etc.: In spite of much Dem voter opposition to the Clinton right wing, H. Clinton got the most votes. (Did Russia do that, and if so, why?) Trump is president because of our antiquated electoral college process. Meanwhile, while Dems ramble on about a Putin/Trump bromance, the sane world has watched as Trump set the stage for our final war, US vs. Russia and China. ..."
"... Everything gets conspicuously twisted by a biased media, yet no one (of consequence) says anything about that. Even as Trump gets bashed, he gets cheered whenever he does something dangerous and stupid, such as launching missiles in the aftermath of an obvious false flag incident. We see the matrix being blatantly and clumsily spun right before our eyes and nobody says a word about the emperor's nakedness. ..."
"... It is time for the progressives to flee the Democratic party en masse and go their own way. ..."
"... "One quarter of all the Democratic challengers in competitive House districts have military-intelligence, State Department or NSC backgrounds. This is by far the largest subcategory of Democratic candidates." ..."
"... We haven't seen any progressives in years. Progressive politics isn't a new invention. In the US, it goes back at least to the early 1900s. It's about building a better nation from the bottom up -- legit aid for the poor at one end, firm restraints in the rich at the other end.We have nothing like that today. This isn't about "political purity," but about not calling an apple an armadillo. ..."
The whole corrupt, crazy political process is a distraction from our real problems,
and an endless maze of futility. The illusion of democracy is collapsing all around us, and
safety lies in abandoning it. We need a new way of thinking and acting that clearly and
directly sees our problems and deals with them. Politics as now understood is a dead end.
Agreed. Our entire national political debate is a theater of smoke and mirrors. The
facts most obvious and degrading to the national interest are ignored at all costs, e.g., an
out of control military-industrial-intelligence complex that now swallows up an obscene $1
trillion annually (including "defense related expenditures"). Even the fact that we no
longer live in a democracy but an oligarchy, according to objective studies and noted
commentators, including former president Carter, is never commented upon by the miscreant
pundits posing as reporters (Hayes, Maddow, Anderson, Cuomo, et al).
Realist , July 27, 2018 at 6:33 am
My plans for the upcoming Democratic primary in Florida: I will write "none of these
clowns" at the top of the ballot. Under that I will write "Stop the warmongering and
phony Russia-bashing. Stop the obstructionism just to damage Trump and exonerate Hillary for
losing a poorly-run campaign. I cannot vote for my party this November, and never again until
you stop trying to run to the right of the Republicans." Maybe someone reading the ballot
will pass the message on to the party leadership and adjustments will at least be
considered.
If not, eff 'em. We will be better off sweeping corrupt corporatist cronies of Hillary,
like Wasserman-Schultz, out of congress. Then there will be no doubt that the GOP needs to go
too, after they use their mandate to totally wreck all before them, and maybe, after a few
election cycles, some third party representing the interests of the people rather than Wall
Street and the MIC can emerge. Maybe the Greens and the Libertarians can become at least
equal players with the corporatist Dems and GOPers.
Somebody new is going to have to preside over the coming economic and societal collapse,
and do we want that to be the military, the police and the spooks? That is who will seize
power (not just covertly but overtly) if the usually mercenary politicians cannot effect some
workable changes.
Broompilot , July 27, 2018 at 7:01 pm
Like the Eastern Roman Empire, we could wax and wane for 1000 years with the power we
possess. Or, like the Soviet Union, we could suffer an economic collapse over a decade
throwing a large percentage of us into poverty.
I tend to think that the Cold War bankrupted us as well as the Soviets, but we just
haven't figured it that out yet.
Realist , July 27, 2018 at 9:48 pm
"I tend to think that the Cold War bankrupted us as well as the soviets, but we just
haven't figured that out yet."
Because we prefer to blow off science and empirically-supported concepts like the first
law of thermodynamics which states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, just
transferred or changed in form.
We choose to believe that we can endlessly create money, which is a token representing
access to available stored energy, out of nothing by issuing debt. Even if the tokens are
infinite, on a finite planet the available energy is certainly not.
Most of the human race has been speeding towards the cliff at 100 mph like Thelma and
Louise. Certainly America has been. It's getting ever closer. We will get there. Don't expect
Zeno's paradox to save us.
Ma Laoshi , July 27, 2018 at 5:37 am
We are long past the point that this extreme Russophobia has revealed itself to be plain
old race hatred. These bouts of hysteria have always been part of the American DNA, and it
has been most instructive how fast and seamless the switch has been from Muslims to Russians
as the hated. Other. Progressives have solemnly declared themselves to be the good guys
without much introspection, so one would expect them to be more susceptible to this bigotry,
not less; a more astute observer might have asked "When will the machine turn on me next?",
as is of course already happening to Sanders and others.
Yes RussiaGating is a losing strategy, but most of the evidence is that progressives ARE
losers. So there's no surprise that they're falling for it, and little to indicate that they
deserve any better.
Mike , July 26, 2018 at 11:43 pm
Never voted for Republican congressmen in the past. Never. This time I will. Democrats are
the party of open borders and war. Now they want conflict with Russia over this ginned up
fake investigation. They don't represent working people any more. I don't even think they put
AMERICANS over illegal immigrants. Why is it wrong that people should be forced to obey
immigration law? The laws for citizens are enforced. Never thought I'd vote Republican.
I can't think of any reason to vote for 99.9% of the Democrats. The more everyone
including the media lies about Russia, the more I empathize with them.
I'd guess the business owners that rely on illegals vote for Republicans because they're
business owners. We need to eat and they need to make more money than they deserve so neither
party is going to stand in the way of it as long as they bribe their politicians and anybody
else that feels entitled to free stuff. Democrats won't get rid of ICE soon, if ever.
Nearly all people coming from the South are escaping conditions we've created and are
granted asylum when allowed to make their case in court.
I think treating defenseless people terribly to show how mean we can be is wrong.
I share your setiment about the Democrats but voting for Republicans just because is
equally foolish. Why support banning labor unions, corporate very expensive health care,
greatly reducing and eventually eliminating social security and Medicare, privitzing all
public infrastructure and bailing out wall Street at all cost. I could go on but you get the
idea. Vote for candidates that stand for the American people and have the guts to stand up to
the elites. If no such candidates exist in a particular election don't vote simple as
that.
glitch , July 28, 2018 at 11:28 am
If you can't vote third party write in none of the above on a paper ballot. If those
aren't options spoil your ballot but turn it in. Not voting doesn't register your disdain,
it's easier for them to ignore as apathy. And non votes can be spoofed (stolen). S
tealing a "none of the above" write-in requires the ballot be destroyed, so it can
provide a paper trail and/or a potential theft exposure point.
I am a registered Democrat; I will NOT be voting for them this fall. They no longer
have any credibility with me. Rachel helped them shoot themselves in the foot as far as I'm
concerned. How are they any different from neocons??? I'm grateful WikiLeaks pulled off their
mask. I'm a historian and know a lot of both CIA and Russian history and am not buying
Russiagate or Democrats.
I like that, the "Demented-crats"! They are so completely clueless, in their overpaid
bubbles, nothing to say about the Race-to-the-Bottom, Hunger Games society they have helped
create.
Meanwhile, over in Russia, the government with leadership of Vladimir Putin has increased
the Russians' standard of living, much as was done for Americans under FDR and the New Deal.
(Never a word about the 80+ governments the USA/CIA has destabilized or directly overthrown,
including Russia's -- oh no! We're exceptional, didn't you know?)
Yea, I don't get it. Who the hell do you consider to be the progressives!?! Most people I
know who consider themselves to be progressives aren't all wrapped up in the Russian
narrative. The loyal shrills to Clinton? Those aren't progressives. Clinton herself
pretty much backed away from that stamp during the election cycle. Pelosi has quite obviously
made it clear she can't even see that side of the fence. Or will she allow it the light of
day. In case you missed it, there's a war on progressives going on. And we aren't allowed in
that club over there. I follow a hand full of Green Party sites on face hack, and they aren't
having the Russia did it by any means. Only those loyal to the liberal democrats have the
ignorance to bellow out the talking points and support for Sanders. Yea, those people that
wouldn't give him the light of day during that same election cycle when we thought he was a
progressive. Easy Bob! Just a hic cup. I hope! Rest peacefully!
Realist , July 27, 2018 at 6:46 am
As Jimmy Dore keeps telling us: the Democratic leadership, which is totally
corporatist and neocon, would rather lose to the GOP candidate than to see a progressive or
liberal Democrat win the office. The Dems have no independent policies of their own and are
merely enablers to make sure that the hard right agenda always prevails. They are a sham
party. Enough "blue dogs" and GOP-light types always win as Democrats to ensure that no
progressive legislation will ever be enacted even when "the party" has 60% majorities in both
houses -- as they did in Obama's first term. This is by design. Even the putative Democratic
presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama functioned as center-right Republicans. Obama said
as much. Clinton didn't have to as his policies were all reactionary and brought us to the
impending economic collapse.
Zim , July 26, 2018 at 5:39 pm
Looks like the Inauthentic Opposition Party is gearing up for another ass whooping at the
polls. The hypocrisy, the cluelessness is astounding.
JMG , July 26, 2018 at 5:33 pm
From this excellent Norman Solomon's article:
"As The Hill newspaper reported this week under the headline "Most Americans Back Trump's
Call for Follow-Up Summit With Putin," 54 percent of respondents favored plans for a second
summit. "The survey also found that 61 percent of Americans say better relations with Russia
are in the best interest of the United States.""
And I see Bernie Sanders was spewing this neo-McCarthyite crap on a Sunday morning
talk show earlier this week. He really should know better.
Realist , July 27, 2018 at 7:01 am
He's been co-opted. He's been told that the blame will be his when the Democratic Party
collapses unless he works like hell to keep his sheep in the fold. He's following orders from
the DNC which believes that the party's last best hope for a comeback, indeed to stave off
annihilation, is to keep bashing Putin and Trump because they have no policies, no
credibility and no candidates that the people eagerly want to get behind. They think that
lies and war are the winning combination. How did that work out for LBJ, Bushdaddy, and
Dubya's organisation?
mrtmbrnmn , July 26, 2018 at 5:15 pm
Ever since the Bonnie & Clyde Clinton years, the sclerotic Establishment Dementedcrats
have essentially despised their base. They only speak AT them. Never FOR them. Or else they
SCOLD them or simply IGNORE them. I hope now they are beginning to FEAR them.
jose , July 26, 2018 at 4:22 pm
Personally speaking, I am yet to see any serious evidence against allege Russia meddling
in US elections. And I am not alone in this regard; For instance, according to counterpunch
news, " The decision to blame Russian meddling for Hillary Clinton's electoral loss was made
in the immediate aftermath of the election by her senior campaign staff." According to Mike
Whitney, "So far, no single piece of evidence has been made public proving that the Trump
campaign joined with Russia to steal the US presidency."
Isaac Christiansen observes that "As Democrats seek to shift blame away from the
discontent with our economic system, their party and their chosen Neoliberal candidate, we
are told that Trump came to power almost solely due to Russian interference in the U.S. 2016
election." I reckon that any rational person should believe any Russian interference in
US electoral system only when presented with real iron-clad prove. Otherwise, it would be
foolhardy to accept at face value speculations and innuendo of a foreign interference that
purportedly put Trump in the White House.
DH Fabian , July 26, 2018 at 3:28 pm
Well, a couple of issues here. Liberals have not been about economic justice, but about
protecting the advantages of the middle class (with an occasional pat on the head to min.
wage workers). They've forgotten that we're over 20 years into one hell of a war on the poor.
Not everyone can work, and there aren't jobs for all. The US began shipping out jobs in the
'80s, ended actual welfare aid in the '90s -- lost over 6 million manufacturing jobs alone
since 2000. What is" justice" for today's jobless poor?
Remember how the entire anti-Russian theme began? The Clinton team used Russia as
their excuse for losing 2016. It didn't get much attention at first because the
party/candidate that loses inevitably blames someone or something other than the
candidate/party. But the Democrats ran with it from there, using much of the media marketed
to liberals to build the Russian Tale. The most insane thing about the claims that Russia
hacked voting machines for Trump, etc.: In spite of much Dem voter opposition to the Clinton
right wing, H. Clinton got the most votes. (Did Russia do that, and if so, why?) Trump is
president because of our antiquated electoral college process. Meanwhile, while Dems ramble
on about a Putin/Trump bromance, the sane world has watched as Trump set the stage for our
final war, US vs. Russia and China.
Realist , July 27, 2018 at 7:09 am
"Meanwhile, while Dems ramble on about a Putin/Trump bromance, the sane world has
watched as Trump set the stage for our final war, US vs. Russia and China."
So very right. Everything gets conspicuously twisted by a biased media, yet no one (of
consequence) says anything about that. Even as Trump gets bashed, he gets cheered whenever he
does something dangerous and stupid, such as launching missiles in the aftermath of an
obvious false flag incident. We see the matrix being blatantly and clumsily spun right before
our eyes and nobody says a word about the emperor's nakedness.
Skip Scott , July 26, 2018 at 2:27 pm
It is time for the progressives to flee the Democratic party en masse and go their own
way. If they haven't learned anything from the 2016 election, they are doomed. The DNC
has a stranglehold on the Progressive movement, and sheep dog Bernie will once again herd
them over to the corporate sponsored candidate in the end. For the midterms, this is what the
Democrats have planned:
"One quarter of all the Democratic challengers in competitive House districts have
military-intelligence, State Department or NSC backgrounds. This is by far the largest
subcategory of Democratic candidates."
The Green Party has a truly Progressive platform on Domestic and Foreign policy, and are
our only hope at this point. They just need the right standard bearers to break through the
MSM censorship. If they could get a charismatic candidate for President in 2020 and break the
15% threshold for the debates, the American people would finally see that they really do have
a choice for a better future.
DH Fabian , July 26, 2018 at 3:36 pm
We haven't seen any progressives in years. Progressive politics isn't a new invention.
In the US, it goes back at least to the early 1900s. It's about building a better nation from
the bottom up -- legit aid for the poor at one end, firm restraints in the rich at the other
end.We have nothing like that today. This isn't about "political purity," but about not
calling an apple an armadillo.
It's true that the Green Party platform does include legitimatrely addressing poverty, but
perhaps understandably, this fact was swept under the carpet during their 2016 campaign.
will , July 26, 2018 at 8:32 pm
"We haven't seen any progressives in years" Apparently you don't get out much.
hetro , July 26, 2018 at 4:14 pm
Skip, let's hope we don't have the "hold your nose and vote Democrat" arguments again,
with Greens as a vote for Trump (or Putin?). Interestingly, the following poll from FOX news
indicates the strum und feces hysteria of the current Democratic machine may not be working
out all that well, as 7 in 10 respondents here indicate the political atmosphere in the US at
this time is "overheated."
Well, a good deal of that overheat is coming from the "them Russians them Russians" meme
continually pushed -- and way over the top for most American people trying to "have a great
day!" This poll does indicate Dems are ahead at this point, and in the past several election
cycles there has been a regular switch every two years in congressional domination.
"The Green Party has a truly Progressive platform on Domestic and Foreign policy, and
are our only hope at this point."
The Green Party is a Capitalist party, just the kindest and gentlest Capitalism of any of
the Capitalist parties with the most stringent leash on the mad killer dog that is Capitalism
and the best safety net for those chased off the cliff by that mad killer dog.
For those of us who see that Capitalism is the problem, that makes voting Green actually a
lesser evil choice. If we're going to vote lesser evil, we might as well vote for the most
progressive Democrats, or even centrist ones when they're running against fire breathing
Randian Republicans who combine that with a Fundamentalist Christian Theocratic agenda (a
combination that makes no sense, but who said the GOP makes sense?)
There are few viable Socialist parties in the US anymore. The biggest jettisoned Socialism
nearly 50 years ago when it also jettisoned actually being a political party and decided to
just be a lobby group within the Democratic Party. The only political heir of Eugene V. Debs,
the Socialist Party USA, is now a fringe group whose national conventions are more like a
picnic gathering of a few friends. The other organizations that seem more viable are actually
Trotskyite groups, and Trotsky was not non-violent at all, which I am.
I am really at a lost what to do as far as the less important task of voting (which is
less important than ongoing activism.) I just did my primary ballot. We've got this terrible
top two primary, a system that basically kills movement building.
I could have voted for Gigi Ferguson, the independent, who was endorsed by the Green
Party, running for senate against NeoLiberal phony environmentalist Maria Cantwell and not
the poser, who said he was Green, (parties have no say in candidates' statements of which
party they prefer,) but is for privatizing Social Security. But I instead voted for Steve
Hoffman, the only avowed Socialist on the ballot in any race, even though his Freedom
Socialist Party is Troskyite.
I voted for Stoney Bird, a real Green, running against TPP loving and indefinite detention
loving and NeoLiberal anti-Single Payer Rick Larsen for Congress.
My state legislation had two positions. In one I voted for Alex Ramel, an ecological
activist, over the preferred establishment choice of Identity Politics candidate (tribal,)
Debra Lekanoff. In the other the incumbent, Jeff Morris, another establishment Democrat, ran
unopposed. I wrote in "None." (Morris having the same family name as my mother's maiden name
didn't affect me at all.)
But it was all an exercise in futility, voting for my conscience as much as possible. I
have little doubt that none of my choices, except maybe Ramel, will make it to the top two.
Cantwell and Larsen are shoo-ins and they'll surely face the establishment GOP candidate.
Thus cutting out all other options in the Fall.
I'll have to write in my choices then. Oh well.
maryam , July 27, 2018 at 4:54 am
Over here in Europe (not UK) and faced with the similar problem of inapt candidates, we
sometimes need to vote creatively: so we vote, of course, but choose to make the ballot sheet
invalid. this way our voice is noted and we show that we care about the electoral process,
while it also makes clear that we do not care much about the cabdidate(s). "we" will vote,
but "they" are not very trustworthy.
MBeaver , July 27, 2018 at 8:12 am
Yep. We in Germany had that lesson already. The Green party was one of the most corrupt
one when they finally got elected into the government. They also harmed the social systems
massively and supported the first offensive war with German support since WW2. Even as
opposition they show all the time how much they lie about their true intentions.
They are not an option, because they are hypocrites.
ronnie mitchell , July 27, 2018 at 4:09 pm
Interesting comment with some good information that I appreciate.\ I live in Bellingham
and have filled out my vote for Stony Bird over Rick Larsen whom I truly despise. In fact in
previous election cycles I voted for Mike Lapointe instead but he quit running more than a
few years ago so the last time I just left it blank and the same goes for the general
election vote for Congress.
With the TPP issue Rick Larsen had a townhall meeting at City hall building which was packed
and he starts off by saying he hasn't read any of the text of the TPP yet so he was free from
answering most questions however he would be checking it out BUT no there would be no further
meeting before the voting. In other words he was giving us NOTHING.
I had been part of the protesters outside his fundraising gathering (private and by
invitation only) and have been to his local office many times (it's two blocks from where I
live) and when myself and a small group were in opposition to building the largest coal
terminal in north America at Cherry Point. He would never say he was against it or for it but
his fundraisers were backers of the terminal and as each of our group stepped forward to give
a statement to his office workers on the issue (Rick was in DC,aka District of Corruption at
the time) they just politely listened but neither recorded nor wrote down ANYTHING we
said.
The list is long regarding issues on which he is on the opposite side of his constituents
wishes and at one gathering was smugly dismissive of requests to represent the votes of the
people and not use his super delegate status(not Democratic) to endorse Hillary Clinton
because votes in Caucuses were overwhelmingly for Sen. Sanders.
I could go on but it would be too long of a comment but you've given me some good ideas for
other choices on the ballot which I needed in particular with Maria Cantwell whom (like
fellow neoliberal Patty Murray) I have refused to support in the last two elections.For one
of many examples of why, one big one was their stand against importing cheaper medicines from
Canada which was word for word straight out of the Big PHarma handbook of talking points, but
they DID get quite a lot of flak for it.
I'll look into some of your other suggestions as well before I turn in this ballot, thanks
for your comment.
TS , July 27, 2018 at 4:06 am
> Skip Scott
> If they could get a charismatic candidate for President in 2020 and break the 15%
threshold for the debates,
And what makes you think the people who decide wouldn't simply shift the goalposts?
Skip Scott , July 27, 2018 at 2:48 pm
I'm sure that would be attempted, but with a strong candidate hopefully there'd be enough
of a fuss made to get them to back off. I'd also like to dream that some of the more
progressive Democrats in congress would see the writing on the wall, and declare themselves
Greens. That'd give us a toehold in two branches of government. I know I'm being overly
optimistic, but it keeps me away from the whiskey bottle.
Piotr Berman , July 28, 2018 at 3:06 pm
I have some misgivings to "eco politics", I am not sure to what extend they apply to
Greens, and I am sorry to say, liberals have a knack to pick the worst parts of any
progressive idea.
Any goal has to consider trade-off. If we think that emitting carbon to the atmosphere is
a major problem, solutions must follow economic calculus. Instead, there was two much stress
on "aesthetic solutions" and sometimes scientifically unsound solutions. For example,
aesthetic solution is electric vehicles, but hybrid vehicles offer a much smaller cost per
amount of carbon that is saved, only when majority of vehicles already gain from regenerative
braking and having engines work only in fuel optimal conditions (battery absorbing surplus or
augmenting the engine power when the amount of needed power is outside parameters optimal for
the internal combustion engine) you may get better cost from electric engines.
Or excluding nuclear power from the "approved solutions". One of my many objections on
"Republicans on energy" that they promised a few times to be "rational" but they never
delivered.
Philosophically, there should be a fat carbon tax and social policies and subsidies to
avoid poor people to loose.
"Hyperrational" progressive approach would be to make a balance: as a society, where do we
waste, and where do we spent too little.
1. Military/foreign policy. In aggregate, spendings are huge and nobody is overly proud
from the results. An open question if this category of spending should be decreased by 50% or
75%, if we proceed in stages we can reach satisfactory point. Mind you, the largest ticket
items are improving nuclear weapons or conventional weapon systems that are needed against
very few most sophisticated adversaries who also waste resources. USA, Russia, China, the
rest of NATO etc. could agree to some disarmament, Russia and China actually accelerated
weapon development in response to "Let America dominate forever" policies, bad news are they
they do it for less money.
2. Medical robbery complex. Private insurance and lack of costs control leads to spending
on medical care around 18% of GDP rather than 10%. This waste is actually larger than all
spending on defense.
3. Infrastructure (large public role) and other capital investments (small public role but
essential fiscal policies and "thoughtful protectionism"), we spent too little, can be
covered by a part of 1 and 2.
I could continue with "hyperrational progressive manifesto" but I will give one example.
Enforcing labor standards may eliminate 90% of illegal employment without walls,
concentration camps for aliens etc. Some industries cannot make it without cheap illegal
aliens, if they REALLY cannot, workers should work legally in their home countries and
resulting imports should be encouraged. If picking carrots is too expensive in USA, we may
get them from other countries in Western Hemisphere. On that note, lately there are enough
jobs in USA, but native born citizens do not flock to carrot picking, they would rather have
jobs that required large capital investments and there are too few of those.
Hyperrational rhetoric can borrow from libertarians: if our allies do not feel secure when
they spend X times more than their regional adversaries (especially if we add our own
regional expenditures), that says that money alone cannot cure their "secure feeling" deficit
and we and they are already spending too much. We do not need to hate or demean anyone to
reach such conclusions.
Skip Scott , July 29, 2018 at 1:09 pm
Piotr-
I am all in favor of rational solutions to our environmental problems. The problem is the
entrenched power of the existing exploitive industries. An incredible amount of progress
could be made through on-site power generation and energy efficient building design.
I'm am not in favor of current nuclear power plants, but I am not opposed to research, and
I've heard good things about recent designs, especially thorium nukes. I am no engineer, but
if we had safe nukes, we could go with hydrogen fuel cells for automobiles. There are plenty
of other creative ideas as well for things such as localized food production.
If we find common purpose with the Libertarians to stop the war machine, the amount of
energy and resources and creative potential to bring humanity forward would be tremendous.
First we have to stop the war machine, and then we can argue about the extent of the role of
government in a free society.
For several years, a family of foreign nationals (and not only Wassermannn-Schultz) has
been surfing the congressional computers while having no security clearance.
Both Debbie and Hillary should be in federal prison already. Clinton used to be fond of
droning Assange for divulging the criminal and illegal activities of the state. What Debbie
and Hillary did has been much more dangerous to the US national security.
"... Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is www.councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected]. ..."
Philippics are good, but at some point they faile to exite. The key question that Phipip forgot to ander is: Dore Izreal acts
a alobbist of the US MIC or it hasits own l(local agnda) that conflicts the MIC interests in the region.
So President Donald Trump reckoned on Monday that the United States Intelligence Community (IC) just might be wrong in its assessment
that Russia had sought to interfere in the 2016 U.S. election but then decided on Tuesday that he misspoke and had the greatest confidence
in the IC and now agrees that they were correct in their judgment. But Donald Trump, interestingly, added something about there being
"others" that also had been involved in the election in an attempt to subvert it, though he was not specific and the national media
has chosen not to pursue the admittedly cryptic comment. He was almost certainly referring to China both due to possible motive and
the possession of the necessary resources to carry out such an operation. Indeed, there are
reports that China hacked the 30,000 Hillary Clinton emails that are apparently still missing.
Just how one interferes in an election in a large country with diverse sources of information and numerous polling stations located
in different states using different systems is, of course, problematical. The United States has interfered in elections everywhere,
including in Russia under Boris Yeltsin. It engaged in regime change in Iran, Chile, and Guatemala by supporting conservative elements
in the military which obligingly staged coups. In Iraq and Afghanistan, U.S. forces invaded and overthrew the governments while in
Libya the change in regime was largely brought about by encouraging rebels while bombing government forces. The same model has been
applied in Syria, though without much success because Damascus actually was bold enough to resist.
So how do the Chinese "others" bring about "change" short of a full-scale invasion by the People's Liberation Army? I do not know
anything about actual Chinese plans to interfere in future American elections and gain influence over the resulting newly elected
government but would like to speculate on just how they might go about that onerous task.
First, I would build up an infrastructure in the United States that would have access to the media and be able to lobby and corrupt
the political class. That would be kind of tricky as it would require getting around the Foreign Agent Registration Act of 1938 (FARA),
which requires representatives of foreign governments operating in the United States to register and have their finances subject
to review by the Department of the Treasury. Most recently, several Russian news agencies that are funded by the Putin government
have been required to do so, including RT International and Sputnik radio and television.
The way to avoid the FARA registration requirement is to have all funding come through Chinese-American sources that are not directly
connected with the government in Beijing. Further, the foundations and other organizations should be set up as having an educational
purpose rather than a political agenda. You might want to call your principal lobbying group something like the American Chinese
Political Action Committee or ACPAC as an acronym when one is referring to it shorthand.
Once established, ACPAC will hire and send hundreds of Chinese-American lobbyists to Capitol Hill when Congress is in session.
They will be carefully selected to come from as many states and congressional districts as possible to maximize access to legislative
offices. They will have with them position papers prepared by the ACPAC central office that explain why a close and uncritical relationship
with Beijing is not only the right thing to do, it is also a good thing for the United States.
As part of the process, new Congressmen will benefit from free trips to China paid for by an educational foundation set up for
that purpose. They will be able to walk on the Great Wall and speak to genuine representative Chinese who will tell them how wonderful
everything is in the People's Republic.
Congressmen who nevertheless appear to be resistant to the lobbying and the emoluments will be confronted with a whole battery
of alternative reasons why they should be filo-Chinese, including the thinly veiled threat that to behave otherwise could be construed
as politically damaging anti-Orientalist racism. For those who persist in their obduracy, the ultimate weapon will be citation of
the horrors of the Second World War Rape of Nanking. No one wants to be accused of being a Rape of Nanking denier.
The second phase of converting Congress is to set up a bunch of Political Action Committees (PACs). They will have innocuous names
like Rocky Mountain Sheep Herders Association, but they will all really be about China. When the money begins to flow into the campaign
coffers of legislators any concerns about what China is doing in the world will cease. The same PACs can be use to fund billboards
and voter outreach in some districts, allowing China to have a say in the elections without actually having to surface or be explicit
about whom it supports. Other PACs can work hard at inserting material into social websites, similar to what the Russians have been
accused of doing.
And then there is the mass media. Using the same Chinese-American conduit, you would simply buy up controlling interests in newspapers
and other media outlets. And you would begin staffing those outlets with earnest young Chinese-Americans who will be highly protective
of Chinese interests and never write a story critical of the government in Beijing or the Chinese people. That way the American public
will eventually become so heavily propagandized by the prevailing narrative that they will never question anything that China does,
ideally beginning to refer to it as the "only democracy in Asia" and "America's best friend in the whole wide world." Once the indoctrination
process is completed, the Chinese leadership might even crush demonstrators with tanks in Tiananmen Square or line up snipers to
pick off protest leaders and no congressman or newspaper would dare say nay.
When the political classes and media are sufficiently under control, it would then be time to move to the final objective: the
dismantling of the United States Constitution. In particularly, there is that pesky Bill of Rights and the First Amendment guaranteeing
Free Speech. That would definitely have to go, so you round up your tame Congress critters and you elect a president who is also
in your pocket, putting everything in place for the "slam-dunk." You pass a battery of laws making any criticism of China both racist
and felonious, with punitive fines and prison sentences attached. After that success, you can begin to dismantle the rest of the
Bill of Rights and no one will be able to say a word against what you are doing because the First Amendment will by then be a dead
duck. When the Constitution is in shreds and Chinese lobbyists are firmly in control of corrupted legislators, Beijing will have
won a bloodless victory against the United States and it all began with just a little interference in America's politics alluded
to by Donald Trump.
Of course, dear reader, all of the above might be true but for the fact that I am not talking about China at all and am only using
that country as a metaphor. Beijing may have spied on the U.S. elections but it otherwise has evidenced little interest in manipulating
elections or controlling any aspect of the U.S. government. And even though I am sure that Donald Trump was not referring to Israel
when he made his offhand comment about "others," the shoe perfectly fits that country's subjugation of many of the foreign and national
security policy mechanisms in the United States over the past fifty years. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently
boasted
about how he controls Trump and convinced him to pull out of the Iran nuclear agreement.
The real mystery, if there is one, is why no American politician has either the guts or the integrity or perhaps the necessary
intelligence to substitute Tel Aviv for Moscow and to call Israel out like we are currently calling out Russia for actions that pale
in comparison to what Netanyahu has been up to.
To be specific, there is no evidence that Russia ever asked for favors from Trump's campaign staff and transition team but
Israel did so over a vote on its illegal
settlements at the United Nations. Is Special Counsel Robert Mueller or Congress interested? No. Is the media interested? No.
Israel, relying on Jewish power and money to do the heavy lifting, has completely corrupted many aspects of American government
and, in particular, its foreign policy by aggressive lobbying and buying politicians. All new members of Congress and spouses are
taken to Israel on generously funded "fact finding"
tours after being elected to make sure they get their bearings straight right from the git-go. Israel's nearly total control over
the message on the Middle East coming out of the U.S. mainstream is aided and abetted by the numerous Jewish editors and journalists
who are prepared to pump the party line. The money to do all this comes from Jewish billionaires like Haim Saban and Sheldon Adelson,
who have their hooks deep into both political parties. Meanwhile, the ability of America's most powerful foreign policy lobby AIPAC
to avoid registration as a foreign agent is completely due to the exercise of Jewish power in the United States which means in practice
that Israel and its advocates will never be sanctioned in any way.
Israel is eager to have the United States fight Iran on its behalf, even though Washington has no real interest in doing so, and
all indications are that it will be successful. Though it is a rich country, it receives a multi-billion-dollar handout from the
U.S. Treasury every year. When its war criminal prime minister comes to town he receives
26 standing ovations from a completely sycophantic congress and now the United States has even stationed soldiers in Israel who
are
"prepared to die" for Israel even though there is no treaty of any kind between the two countries and the potential victims have
likely never been consulted regarding dying for a foreign country. All of this takes place without the public ever voting on or even
discussing the relationship, a tribute to the fact that both major parties and the media have been completely co-opted.
And now there is the assault on the First Amendment, with legislation currently in Congress
making
it a crime either to criticize Israel or support a boycott of it in support of Palestinian rights. When those bills become law,
which they will, we are finished as a country where fundamental rights are respected.
And what has Russia done in comparison to all this? Hardly anything even if all the claims about its alleged interference are
true. So when will Mueller and all the Republican and Democratic baying dogs say a single word about Israel's interference in our
elections and political processes? If past behavior is anything to go by, it will never happen.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational
foundation that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is
www.councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O.
Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected].
Thanks for the great article, Sir. You are so right.
The New York Times should change its name to Tel Aviv Times. Everyday, it interferes in virtually every US election, on behalf
of Israel, attacking candidates who do not support Israel or those who are patriotic and want to ban immigration.
Same with CNN, WaPo, the Economist (a Rothschild publication), etc.
Our Congressmen are Gazans. They are forced to sign pledges supporting Israel, and forced to destroy their country through
3rd world immigration, or risk destruction of their careers, mockery or defamation by the Zionist controlled media, loss of campaign
contributions from their biggest donors, or even risk being framed.
When Cynthia McKinney refused to sign the pledge, she was forced out. When another freshman Congressman simply wanted to delay
a vote in favor of Israel, he was attacked, taken to Israel where he was softened up and now is totally under the Jewish Lobby's
control.
"... With impeachment itself on the table, Mueller has done little more than issue the equivalent of parking tickets to foreigners he has no jurisdiction over. Intelligence summaries claim the Russians meddled, but don't show that Trump was involved. Indictments against Russians are cheered as evidence, when they are just Mueller's uncontested assertions. ..."
An answer was needed, so one was created: the Russians. As World War II ended with the U.S.
the planet's predominant power, dark forces saw advantage in arousing new
fears . The Soviet Union morphed from a decimated ally in the fight against fascism into a
competitor locked in a titanic struggle with America. How did they get so powerful so quickly?
Nothing could explain it except traitors. Cold War-era America? Or 2018 Trump America? Yes, on
both counts.
To some, that fear was not a problem but a tool -- one could defeat political enemies simply
by accusing them of being Russian sympathizers. There was no need for evidence, so desperate
were Americans to believe; just an accusation that someone was in league with Russia was
enough. Wisconsin Senator Joseph McCarthy fired his first shot on February
9, 1950, proclaiming there were 205 card-carrying members of the Communist Party working for
the Department of State. The evidence? Nothing but assertions .
Indeed, the very word " McCarthyism " came to mean making accusations
of treason without sufficient evidence. Other definitionsinclude a ggressively
questioning a person's patriotism, using accusations of disloyalty to pressure a person to
adhere to conformist politics or discredit an opponent, and subverting civil and political
rights in the name of national security.
Pretending to be saving America while he tore at its foundations, McCarthy destroyed
thousands of lives over the next four years simply by pointing a finger and saying "communist."
Whenever anyone invoked his Fifth Amendment right to silence, McCarthy answered that this was "the
most positive proof obtainable that the witness is communist." The power of accusation was used
by others as well: the Lavender
Scare , which concluded that the State Department was overrun with closeted homosexuals who
were at risk of being blackmailed by Moscow for their perversions, was an offshoot of
McCarthyism, and by 1951, 600 people had been fired based solely on evidence-free "morals"
charges. State legislatures and school boards mimicked McCarthy.
Books and movies were banned. Blacklists abounded. The FBI embarked on campaigns of political
repression (they would later claim Martin Luther King Jr. had
communist ties), even as journalists and academics voluntarily narrowed their political
thinking to exclude communism.
Watching sincere people succumb to paranoia again, today, is not something to relish. But
having trained themselves to intellectualize away Hillary Clinton's flaws, as they had with
Obama, about half of America seemed truly gobsmacked when she lost to the antithesis of
everything that she had represented to them. Every
poll (that they read) said she would win. Every
article (that they read) said it too, as did every
person (that they knew). Lacking an explanation for the unexplainable, many advanced
scenarios that would have failed high school civics, claiming that only the popular vote
mattered, or that the archaic
Emoluments Clause prevented Trump from taking office, or that Trump was insane and could be
disposed of under the
25th Amendment .
After a few trial balloons during the primaries under which
Bernie Sanders' visits to Russia and
Jill Stein's attendance at a banquet in Moscow were used to imply disloyalty, the fearful
cry that the Russians meddled in the election morphed into the claim that Trump had worked with
the Russians and/or (fear is flexible) that the Russians had something on Trump. Everyone
learned a new Russian word: kompromat .
Donald Trump became the Manchurian Candidate. That term was taken from a 1959 novel made
into a classic Cold War movie that follows an American soldier brainwashed by communists as
part of a Kremlin plot to gain influence in the Oval Office. A
Google search shows that dozens of news sources -- including
The
New York Times , Vanity
Fair ,
Salon ,
The Washington Post , and, why not, Stormy Daniels' lawyer
Michael Avenatti -- have all claimed that Trump is
a 2018 variant of the Manchurian Candidate,
controlled by ex-KGB officer Vladimir Putin.
The birth moment of Trump as a Russian asset is traceable to MI-6 intelligence
officer-turned-Democratic opposition researcher-turned FBI mole
Christopher Steele , whose "dossier" claimed the existence of the pee tape. Supposedly,
somewhere deep in the Kremlin is a surveillance video made in 2013 of Trump in Moscow's
Ritz-Carlton Hotel, watching prostitutes urinate on a bed that the Obamas had once slept in. As
McCarthy did with homosexuality, naughty sex was thrown in to keep the rubes' attention.
No one, not even Steele's alleged informants, has actually seen
the pee tape. It exists in a blurry land of certainty alongside the elevator
tape , alleged video of Trump doing something in an elevator that's so salacious it's been
called "Every Trump Reporter's White Whale." No one knows when the elevator video was made, but
a dossier-length article in
New York magazine posits that Trump has been a Russian asset since 1987.
Suddenly no real evidence is necessary, because it is always right in front of your face.
McCarthy accused
Presidents Roosevelt, Truman, and Eisenhower of being communists or communist stooges over the
"loss" of China in 1949. Trump holds a bizarre press conference in Helsinki and the only
explanation must be that he is a traitor.
Nancy
Pelosi ("President Trump's weakness in front of Putin was embarrassing, and proves that the
Russians have something on the president, personally, financially, or politically") and
Cory Booker ("Trump is acting like he's guilty of something") and
Hillary Clinton ("now we know whose side he plays for") and John Brennan ("rises to and
exceeds the threshold of 'high crimes and misdemeanors.' It was nothing short of treasonous.
Not only were Trump's comments imbecilic, he is wholly in the pocket of Putin") and
Rachel Maddow ("We haven't ever had to reckon with the possibility that someone had
ascended to the presidency of the United States to serve the interests of
another country rather than our own") and others have said that Trump is
controlled by Russia. As in 1954 when the press provided live TV coverage of McCarthy's
dirty assertions against the Army, the modern media uses each new assertion as "proof" of an
earlier one. Snowballs get bigger rolling downhill.
When assertion is accepted as evidence, it forces the other side to prove a negative to
break free. So until Trump "proves" he is not a Russian stooge, his denials will be seen as
attempts to wiggle out from under evidence that in fact doesn't exist. Who, pundits ask, can
come up with a better explanation for Trump's actions than blackmail, as if that was a
necessary step to clearing his name?
Joe McCarthy's victims faced similar challenges: once labeled a communist or a homosexual,
the onus shifted to them to somehow prove they weren't. Their failure to prove their innocence
became more evidence of their guilt. The Cold War version of this mindset was well illustrated
in movies like Invasion of the Body Snatchers or the classic Twilight Zone episode "
The Monsters Are Due on
Maple Street ." Anyone who questions this must themselves be at best a useful fool, if not
an outright Russia collaborator. (Wrote one
pundit : "They are accessories, before and after the fact, to the hijacking of a democratic
election. So, yes, goddamn them all.") In the McCarthy era, the term was "fellow traveler":
anyone, witting or unwitting, who helped the Russians. Mere skepticism, never mind actual
dissent, is muddled with disloyalty.
Blackmail? Payoffs? Deals? It isn't just the months of Mueller's investigation that have
passed without evidence. The IRS and Treasury have had Trump's tax documents and financials for
decades, even if Rachel Maddow has not. If Trump has been a Russian asset since 1987, or even
2013, he has done it behind the backs of the FBI, CIA, Secret Service, and NSA. Yet at the same
time, in what history would see as the most out-in-the-open intelligence operation ever, some
claim he asked on TV for his handlers to deliver hacked emails. In TheManchurian
Candidate , the whole thing was at least done in secret as you'd expect.
With impeachment itself on the table, Mueller has done little more than issue the
equivalent of parking tickets to foreigners he has no jurisdiction over. Intelligence summaries
claim the Russians meddled, but don't show that Trump was involved. Indictments against
Russians are cheered as evidence, when they are just Mueller's uncontested assertions.
There is no evidence the president is acting on orders from Russia or is under their
influence. None.
As with McCarthy, as in those famous witch trials at Salem, allegations shouldn't be
accepted as truth, though in 2018 even pointing out that basic tenet is blasphemy. The burden
of proof should be on the accusing party, yet the standing narrative in America is that the
Russia story must be assumed plausible, if not true, until proven false. Joe McCarthy tore
America apart for four years under just such standards, until finally public opinion, led by
Edward R. Murrow , a
journalist brave enough to demand answers McCarthy did not have, turned against him. There is no
Edward R. Murrow in 2018.
When asking for proof is seen as disloyal, when demanding evidence after years of
accusations is considered a Big Ask, when a clear answer somehow always needs additional time,
there is more on the line in a democracy than the fate of one man.
Peter Van Buren, a
24-year State Department veteran, is the author of We Meant Well : How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and
Minds of the Iraqi People and Hooper's War
: A Novel of WWII Japan. Follow him on Twitter @WeMeantWell .
The fact that Mark Zuckerberg is so rich is annoying, and his separateness from Main Street may not be a great thing socially,
but in an economic sense, his fortune did not "come from" the paychecks of ordinary workers...
It damn sure did. It came straight out of their pension funds. Thousands of pension funds across the world bought faang stocks
and those workers will be getting fucked in the end while while zuck heads back to hawaii with their money. look at elon, his
company hasn't made dime one in profit but he is a billionaire. amzn, with a p/e of 228. they didn't get that p/e without millions
of ordinary folk buying their overpriced stock. it is pure ponzi-nomics with fascist overtones and the maggots are cashing out
big time.
The greatest fortunes in history have been built in the last 10 years with 0% interest rates. You were spot on about pensions,
they were the casualties, almost every private pension in the country bankrupted by 0% rates so that these fucks could amass unimaginable
wealth.
Now the filthy commoner scum have the audacity to suggest that they should pay taxes on it. Where will the madness end?
All my friends Jews knew this was going to happen. They were buying stocks like crazy when I was telling them to buy gold and
get ready for a big reset that never happened. Ten years later they are all multimillionaires and I lost half of my money buying
gold...
institutions bought their shares with real earned money. bezos did not. as far as i'm concerned being a ceo is a license to
steal. bezos damn sure didn't earn that money because he is smarter or works harder than anyone else. look at how he treats his
workers. what an asshole.
It's even worse than that. So much worse. Facebook was stolen by the Satanic Judaic Zionist crowd. Research it. Another gentleman
invented it. The Jews stole it, like they've stolen pretty much everything else. No wonder Napoleon said that "The Jews are the
master robbers of the modern age". And beyond the criminal vile theft, you have what they are using it for. And that is?
Using it for the 911'd cows in America. And that is you. The Satanic Jews are murdering you and robbing you blind. They 911'd
you physically with the Twin Towers. Now they're doing it mentally and financially with Facebook, a control system grid -- a gate
to herd cattle which they view you as. They are herding you. You'll be 911'd again in larger and larger numbers until the Satanic
Judaic is removed from the World Stage.
Zuckerberg is a planted punk Zionist spook. You're going to have to clear the world of all of these Satanic Judaic ladies and
gentlemen. First the idea needs to come in to show how and why. This is underway.
Ever since the housing crisis I been waiting for the world to become a better place. I see now that I been fooling myself into
believing that we live in a civilized and honest world. Nobody gives a shit about anyone nor anything, people only care about
themselves...
The Rosenstein Justice Department is entirely too calculated and manipulative, from all we have now seen, to believe there is
not a deep and profound ulterior motive behind its obstinate, even petulant, refusal to produce critical documents at the center
of the entire Russian collusion pretextual hoax that, beyond question now, was manufactured."
Roger Stone 4 hours
ago | 311
31 Stay classy MSM
Well, America's national freak show hit
parade of the sleazy shaved head "Intelligence Community" liars, and Bond-villainous deep state subversives are at it again, busy
rolling out the 6th or 7th permutation (who can keep count?) of their ever-evolving (ever-collapsing, really) Russian collusion defamation-distraction
hoax.
Even with the fact that bipartisan hitman Robert Mueller has spent $16 Million and two years using bully tactics and continuously
threatening lawyers for people who don't care to testify in this Inquisition still has proof of collusion, conspiracy.
Deep State Democrat frauds are frantic to keep the most cynical, deceitful smear campaign in American history alive and kicking.
Time is not on their side. It has brought steady plodding revelation of the facts, inevitably exposing the depths of their deceit
and willingness to corrupt public power.
With their bag of manipulative dirty tricks approaching exhaustion these sordid schemers are in panic mode, and their shrill lies
and flailing antics are escalating. On July 23, 2018, two of California's worst political afflictions on America, Nancy Pelosi, and
Adam Schiff used the ruse of announcing a toothless, useless House resolution "condemning" the president's remarks at the Helsinki
summit to double down on their latest round of twisted defamations of President Trump.
" As the whole world knows, one week ago, President Trump sold out our democracy ," crowed Pelosi, in typically-understated
rhetorical style.
Without the slightest irony, the under-medicated then incredibly pronounced, " The last thing you want in intelligence is partisanship,
and we were able to avoid that for so long ."
[Certainly, Nancy, we wouldn't want that. And rest assured, the self-unmasking of the psychopathic duo of Obama thugs John Brennan
and James Clapper has made abundantly obvious which lying partisan lunatics are responsible for ending this mythical streak of non-partisan
intelligence.]
If nothing else, Pelosi and Schiff's grandstand-of-the-day highlighted how practiced and polished the Democrat tribe's demagogues
are at hyperbole, hypocrisy and almost medical-grade ingenuity. Entirely predictable does not make their nauseating faux sanctimony
any less appalling to witness, though.
But really who's to complain when watching one's opponents make complete asses of themselves huckstering a contrived scandal that
is polling around 1% in the list of most important issues to Americans.
Plus, if not for power-lusting Democrat demagogues like Adam and Nancy and their Democrat platoon of expert political bullshit
artists, America might be forced to go on without the benefit of having our public life perpetually hijacked by one phony leftist
melodrama after another.
With the president's poll numbers steadily rising, when not holding firm, it is easy to understand why the conniptions underway
amongst the unholy alliance between the bellicose Russo-phobic Beltway war party and perpetually-impotent Democrat leftist losers.
Both camps were tossed aside .dethroned in one fell swoop by the ascendancy of a president who promotes the alien idea of having
peace around the world. It is no wonder they are so apoplectic.
They are getting an object lesson about how Donald Trump will not be bumrushed and bullied into launching any more messianic military
misadventures, squandering American blood and treasure in some hell hole on the other side of the planet. Nor will he be hoaxed into
provoking the world's only other nuclear power even close to the United States in its stockpile.
Their latest descent into It was not enough that the Robert Mueller hit squad, being so high, holy and apolitical as we have all
been repeatedly admonished by those whose motives are just as pure, happened to conveniently announce the indictment of 12 Russians
within hours of the president's face-to-face meetings with the Russian president.
Surely this was just a pure coincidence. Who could dare think there was anything suspicious (or malicious) about having an ad
hoc legal inquisition headed by Barack Obama's former FBI chief and loaded with Hillary Clinton supporters (donors, even) spark a
partisan media frenzy around astonishingly-specific domestic criminal allegations against purported agents of America's only matching
nuclear-armed rival on the planet, just as the president is on foreign soil daring try to establish a workable relationship with
that nation, potentially affecting everything from middle-east conflict reduction to North Korean denuclearization.
Apparently this cute little connivance staged by Trump's own #2 at the DOJ, the pompous smirking self-righteous foot-dragger and
Mueller protégé Rod Rosenstein, was merely a prelude to the truly-grotesque torrent of vicious, seditious slander unleashed on the
president by the Clinton-Obama fifth columnists and their himself was about one step away from facing articles of impeachment for
his obstruction of congressional oversight and inquiry into the unprecedented abuse of national security by Obama apparatchiks.
Over at the Comey Noise Network, the hairless, brainless, spineless tub of crap named Brian Stelter (you can also refer to him
by his initials: BS) oozed up from his feeding hole to act as a lead parrot for their latest and, so far, thinnest of fabricated
defamations.
CNN's very own BS ominously posed their latest ploy to all six of his viewers and on Twitter in the form of laughably-demented
questions:
"What does Putin have on Trump?"
"Has he been compromised ?"
When there is a particularly important lie or smear or spin that the Democrat-Media axis of sleaze wants to be injected into the
news cycle, the specific talking (lying) points will usually be assigned to multiple prominent Democrat spokesliars to be repeated
pretty much verbatim in separate appearances on various high profile news outlets (the Sunday morning network shows are most favored).
Whether their latest consensus lie is meant to breathe new life into their perpetually-collapsing false narrative using a newly
cooked-up defamation or false accusation or it is designed to manufacture a timely distraction drawing attention away from some other
story they want to be squelched, the imperative of putting it out there can be gauged by how many media stooges are enlisted to parrot
it and how precisely the stooges repeat the exact wording of the lie.
This was clearly the case with the latest load of bullschiff initially shoveled by Stelter. Chief Hoaxliar Adam Schiff (and likely
fabricator of most or all of the Trump-Russia lies and manipulations floated over the last two years) added his shiny talking head
to Smelter's stooging, on where else but ABC's This Week with Clinton deceit fluffer and amenable leftist dwarf, George Stephanopoulos.
Schiff quadrupled down, likely out of smug satisfaction at having concocted this latest twist on his Russia-Trump carousel of
lies:
"I think there's no ignoring the fact that for whatever reason, this president acts like he's compromised ."
"Well, I certainly think he's acting like someone who is compromised . And it may very well be that he is compromised
or it may very well be that he believes that he's compromised , that the Russians have information on him."
"I hope that Bob Mueller's investigating it, because again, if that's the leverage the Russians are using, it would not only explain
the president's behavior, but it would help protect the country by knowing that in fact our president was compromised ."
Schiff naturally did not find the 145 million smakers Bill and Hillary took from executives of the Russian State-owned Energy
company compromising – just as he sees no problem with his own association with defense contractors connected to Ukrainian Organized
crime.
Reinforcing these two spinning BS artists, they brought in a real luminary from the Obama Mafia to drive the smear home. Good
old Susan Rice, what with her clean hands.
Like any other professional con artist, they know better than to linger around any particular pack of lies they pounded incessantly
for weeks, or even months, extracting every last molecule of ill-gotten benefit they possibly could from it while desperately squirming
to salvage anything possible from their messy, slimy trail of serially-debunked lies and disinformation.
The Rosenstein Justice Department is entirely too calculated and manipulative, from all we have now seen, to believe there is
not a deep and profound ulterior motive behind its obstinate, even petulant, refusal to produce critical documents at the center
of the entire Russian collusion pretextual hoax that, beyond question now, was manufactured.
Spot on about the Russiagate witch hunt -- but describing Trump as a "president who promotes the alien idea of having peace
around the world" is almost as Fake News as CNN.
Trump doesn't want peace in Iran. Trump doesn't want peace for Syria or Palestine.
He's less insane than Hitlery Clinton on Russia, but that's like saying he's less insane than Adolf Hitler on the issue of annexing
Austria.
Surely the Democrats suck -- but it's not like Republicans or Trump are the solution.
when thinking about Trump and Iran, try to inform your thoughts with the Trump and North Korea story .... he's a very skilled
dealmaker, and when doing negotiations, you don't lay your full hand on the table at the beginning ...
Perhaps Trump, et al, are not the solution, but in the U$ system they are the only other option. There will be only two options
until this straw shack finally goes up in flames, and rebuilds itself as something better.
They are getting an object lesson about how Donald Trump will not be
bumrushed and bullied into launching any more messianic military
misadventures
Unless one of those 'messianic adventures' features Iran in a starring role. This orange-haired assclown is literally minutes
away from doing his benefactor's bidding and starting a war with Persia.
A war the Monkey Empire will lose - but that's beside the point.
This is all great fun to see them hissing and fighting but at the end of the day, it is very unproductive to be so preoccupied
with things US. I promise I will try to avoid the soap opera a bit more.
The author expresses his justified anger in an ingenious and hilarious way! I just would like Mr. Stone to apologize for saying
that Trump will not continue "squandering American blood and treasure in some hell hole on the other side of the planet". The
invaded countries in the ME (or in other parts of the world earlier) were not "hell holes" before the US set its deadly boot on
their soil! The author's anger should not be deflected against the US gov's victims
Here's an important article on 'why' os many in the West, the neocons, hate Russia. Eye opening to the reality of things.
https://www.sott.net/articl...
Enough irony to explode your brain. Stone misidentifies the subversives in his McCarthy-Murrow graphic. Murrow represented
the anti-America Judeo-supremacist faction. It was McCarthy who accurately warned us of the Deep State threat for which shabbos
Murrow fronted.
Russiagate isn't a partisan freak show. It is a naked demonstration of Jewish subversion of public institutions to aggress
against the White race. Thank you for today's cognitive infiltration, (((Mr. Stone))). We so love marching in circles, it's good
cardio training.
There should be a special investigation into Mueller. Dodgy, some of the investigations he has been involved in, plus, who
he supports. Now why does Uranium One, so come to mind?
Has anybody read the George Eliason articles on the Mueller investigation?
Duh, no kidding. Ukrainian hackers have been posing as Russians from day one. Add to that, the SBU's little noivichok scam
and you have the full picture of Ukraine Today.
Congress CAN'T be that stupid. Only logical conclusion, they're in cahoots.
Have you seen how much they get from their sponsors? Funny, how the Pro-Israel America Lobby, spend so much on sponsoring politicians,
whilst doing nought for the people of Israel or America.
This article from The Saker, with regards who wrote the HR1644 Bill (then went on to write the Russian Sanction Bill, using
no more than a Government telephone directory), shows how much they are sponsored, not to represent the electorate. I could not
believe it, or the fact the Pro-Israel America Lobby, support the Ukraine Nazis.
THE US BILL H.R. 1644 TO KILL RUSSIAN FOOD EXPORT AND CHINESE TRADE
Authors of the Bill
Edward Randall "Ed" Royce, a member of the United States House of Representatives for California's 39th congressional district,
is listed as the main author of this bill.
Edward R. Royce is listed by the non-government political watchdogs as the top second US representative that received pro-Israel
campaign contributions – $233,943
Total Campaign Contributions Received by Ed Royce: $4,041,553
NORPAC is a bipartisan, multi-candidate political action committee working to strengthen the United States–Israel relationship
– $114,243
Organization Contributions
NORPAC $114,243
Royce Victory Fund $35,100
Morgan Stanley $17,500
Mutual Pharmaceutical $15,600
Blackstone Group $13,500
Rida Development $13,500
First American Financial Corporation $12,700
Seville Classics $12,240
Arnold and Porter $12,200
Wells Fargo $12,000
Contributions above are for the last two years of available data, Nov 29, 2014 – Nov 28, 2016.
According to the MapLight disclamer, "Contributions data provided by the Center for Responsive Politics (
OpenSecrets.org
). Legislative data from
GovTrack.us
. "
-- –
Eliot L. Engel Democrat (Elected 1988), NY House district 16
I wrote in details about the Representative Eliot Lance Engel in connection to his anti-Russia activities in authoring STAND
for Ukraine Act H.R. 5094 in May 2016
Eliot Lance Engel has been reported as being a recipient of the pro-Israel campaign contributions $191,150
Total Campaign Contributions Received by Eliot L. Engel: $1,596,646
Top 10 Interests Funding
Interest Contributions
Pro-Israel $191,150
Real Estate $123,000
Health Professionals $105,925
Lawyers/Law Firms $95,186
Securities & Investment $68,025
Pharmaceuticals/Health Products $55,700
Hospitals/Nursing Homes $36,350
Education $34,300
Building Trade Unions $34,000
Public Sector Unions $31,500
Top 10 Organizations Funding
Organization Contributions
NORPAC $28,000
St Georges University $20,000
Natural Food Source Incorporated $16,200
Duty Free Americas $16,200
Stroock Stroock and Lavan $11,100
Nimeks Organics $10,800
Baystate Medical Center $10,800
Boeing Company $10,000
Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers $10,000
Raytheon Company $10,000
Contributions above are for the last two years of available data, Nov 29, 2014 – Nov 28, 2016.
-- -
Ted S. Yoho Republican (Elected 2013), FL House district 3
Total Campaign Contributions Received by Ted S. Yoho: $721,346
Top 10 Interests Funding
Interest Contributions
Crop Production & Basic Processing $72,411
General Contractors $39,451
Real Estate $35,177
Agricultural Services/Products $24,839
Health Professionals $23,960
Livestock $23,300
Special Trade Contractors $22,150
Pro-Israel $17,000
Securities & Investment $13,400
Printing & Publishing $11,800
Top 10 Organizations Funding
Organization Contributions
Islands Mechanical $15,400
Anderson Columbia Company $13,400
Angel Investor $10,800
National Cattlemens Beef Association $10,000
Hennessey Arabian Horses $10,000
Florida Congressional Committee $10,000
American Crystal Sugar $7,500
Cecil W Powell And Company $6,400
Lockheed Martin $6,000
Vallencourt Construction $5,900
--
Brad Sherman Democrat (Elected 1996), CA House district 30
Brad Sherman has reputedly received $93,580 in pro-Israel campaign contributions.
Total Campaign Contributions Received by Brad Sherman: $1,575,550
Top 10 Interests Funding
Interest Contributions
Real Estate $122,900
Securities & Investment $109,475
Pro-Israel $93,580
Lawyers/Law Firms $72,198
Insurance $69,300
Accountants $60,330
Building Trade Unions $57,500
Misc Finance $51,300
Health Professionals $46,575
TV/Movies/Music $46,015
Top 10 Organizations Funding
Organization Contributions
NORPAC $25,720
Hackman Capital Partners $16,200
Capital Group Companies $15,400
Majestic Realty $10,800
Pachulski Stang Et Al $10,800
Saban Capital Group $10,800
Keyes Automotive Group $10,800
United Food and Commercial Workers Union $10,000
Honeywell International $10,000
Deloitte Llp $10,000
Contributions above are for the last two years of available data, Nov 29, 2014 – Nov 28, 2016.
--
The US Representatives sponsoring the Bill
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen is listed as a recipient of the pro-Israel campaign contributions – $138,800
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen Republican (Elected 1988), FL House district 27
Total Campaign Contributions Received by Ileana Ros-Lehtinen: $1,453,178
Top 10 Interests Funding
Interest Contributions
Pro-Israel $140,650
Real Estate $85,650
Lawyers/Law Firms $80,048
Foreign & Defense Policy $53,750
Transportation Unions $38,000
Health Professionals $36,150
Republican/Conservative $34,700
Building Trade Unions $29,000
Misc Manufacturing & Distributing $27,300
Defense Aerospace $26,750
Top 10 Organizations Funding
Organization Contributions
Duty Free Americas $20,500
NORPAC $18,850
Leon Medical Centers $16,450
Southern Wine and Spirits $15,400
Clearpath Foundation $10,800
Badia Spices $10,800
Irving Moskowitz Foundation $10,800
Tate Enterprises $10,700
At and T Incorporated $10,000
Operating Engineers Union $10,000
Contributions above are for the last two years of available data, Nov 29, 2014 – Nov 28, 2016. Contributions fro
--
The US representative Ralph Lee Abraham, Jr.
Total Campaign Contributions Received by Ralph Lee Abraham: $649,364
Top 10 Interests Funding
Interest Contributions
Crop Production & Basic Processing $76,435
Health Professionals $61,950
Agricultural Services/Products $33,200
Oil & Gas $23,950
Commercial Banks $23,450
Real Estate $22,775
Lawyers/Law Firms $20,850
Hospitals/Nursing Homes $17,900
Misc Business $15,100
Forestry & Forest Products $14,000
Top 10 Organizations Funding
Organization Contributions
American Society of Anesthesiologists $15,000
American Sugar Cane League $10,000
National Association of Realtors $8,500
Farm Credit Council $8,000
Intermountain Management $6,300
Centurylink $6,250
Central Management $5,400
Moore Oil $5,400
Lasalle Management $5,400
Hospital Administrator $5,400
Contributions above are for the last two years of available data, Nov 29, 2014 – Nov 28, 2016. Contributions from political
--
William R. Keating (D-MA) U.S. House
Total Campaign Contributions Received by William R. Keating: $1,094,550
Top 10 Interests Funding
Interest Contributions
Lawyers/Law Firms $76,117
Building Trade Unions $67,500
Public Sector Unions $53,500
Transportation Unions $48,500
Industrial Unions $47,000
Real Estate $40,549
Pharmaceuticals/Health Products $39,000
Special Trade Contractors $30,475
Defense Aerospace $30,000
Crop Production & Basic Processing $26,500
Top 10 Organizations Funding
Organization Contributions
Superior Plumbing $21,700
Nixon Peabody LLP $13,320
United Food and Commercial Workers Union $10,000
Honeywell International $10,000
Plumberspipefitters Union $10,000
Carpenters and Joiners Union $10,000
Operating Engineers Union $10,000
Painters and Allied Trades Union $10,000
Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers $10,000
Ironworkers Union $10,000
Contributions above are for the last two years of available data, Nov 29, 2014 – Nov 28, 2016.
https://southfront.org/the-...
"... AG Sessions allowed a special investigation into the new President while allowing rogue actors from the Obama Administration to lead the investigation. ..."
"... Former FBI Director and Dirty Cop Robert Mueller was selected to lead the investigation. Mueller had a history of allowing Clinton and Obama related scandals to dissolve. ..."
It's Official: The US is in a Constitutional Crisis – Only President Trump Can Save the Nation Now!The US is now in a constitutional crisis. Yesterday Attorney General
Sessions announced that he was refusing to set up a special investigation into FBI and DOJ wrongdoing even though the evidence
of corruption, illegalities and cover ups of Obama and Clinton scandals is rampant. A year ago Sessions had no problem with the creation
of an unconstitutional investigation into President Trump when no crimes were committed.
Mueller's illegal Trump-Russia investigation moves on while investigations into obvious corruption and criminal activities in
Obama's FBI, DOJ and State Department are ignored. We asked in October what does the
deep state
have on AG Sessions causing him to ignore the constitution and his duty to serve the American people? It's now clear that Sessions
must go and a new team be brought in to clean up the FBI, DOJ and other deep state led government departments.
How did we get here?
During the 2016 election one of the biggest chants at Trump rallies was – Drain the swamp!
Americans were tired of the corruption and criminal acts perpetrated by the government under the Obama administration but no one
guessed how corrupt it really was. The sinister Obama administration had the audacity to spy on the Trump campaign using the entire
apparatus of the US government and then framed the incoming President once he won.
AG Sessions allowed a special investigation into the new President while allowing rogue actors from the Obama Administration
to lead the investigation.
Former FBI Director and
Dirty Cop Robert Mueller was selected to lead the investigation. Mueller had a history of allowing Clinton and Obama related
scandals to dissolve. Emailgate, Fast and Furious, the Clinton Foundation, Clinton emails, Uranium One, and the IRS scandal
all fizzled with no wrong doing identified over Mueller's years with the FBI. Mueller also was best friends with disgraced and fired
leaker former FBI Director James Comey. Mueller should have never taken the job to lead the investigation due to his numerous conflicts
of interest.
We know that the FBI had an investigation into the Clintons and money they received from Russia in return for giving Russia 20%
of all US uranium. Prior to the Obama administration approving the very controversial Uranium One deal in 2010, the FBI had evidence
that Russian nuclear industry officials were involved in bribery, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering in order to benefit Vladimir
Putin. The
FBI approved the deal anyway. We also know that Rosenstein and Mueller were the ones who allowed the Uranium One deal to go forward.
This was the real Russia collusion story involving the US government.
Mueller brought in
a team of Obama and Clinton lackeys to form his investigative team who had no intention of performing an independent and objective
investigation. The entire team is corrupt lefties who have represented the Clinton Foundation or let Hillary go in her obvious crimes
related to her email scandal. This included the texting FBI scoundrels Peter Strzok and Lisa Page. Some suspect that their efforts
are as much to cover past wrong doings as to frame the current President for unethical acts.
We know that Mueller's team
illegally
obtained emails related to the Trump transition team as reported in December and these emails were protected under attorney-client
privilege. Mueller and his entire team should have resigned after this but the investigation moves on.
Unconstitutionality of the Mueller Investigation
Not only is the Mueller investigation corrupt, it is unconstitutional. We learned
in January that Paul Manafort was suing Mueller, Rosenstein and Sessions as Head of the DOJ due to the Mueller investigation
being unconstitutional.
Gregg Jarrett at FOX News wrote when initially Mueller brought charges against Manafort that Mueller is tasked with finding a
crime that does not exist in the law. It is a legal impossibility. He is being asked to do something that is manifestly unattainable.
In addition Jarrett stated-
As I pointed out in a column last May, the law (28 CFR 600) grants legal authority to appoint a special counsel to investigate
crimes. Only crimes. He has limited jurisdiction. Yet, in his order appointing Mueller as special counsel (Order No. 3915-2017),
Rosenstein directed him to investigate "any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated
with the campaign of President Donald Trump." It fails to identify any specific crimes, likely because none are applicable.
Manafort sued the DOJ, Mueller and Rosenstein because what they are doing is not supported by US Law as noted previously by Jarrett.
Manafort's case argues in paragraph 33 that the special counsel put in place by crooked Rosenstein gave crooked and criminal Mueller
powers that are not permitted by law –
But paragraph (b)(ii) of the Appointment Order purports to grant Mr. Mueller further authority to investigate and prosecute
" any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation." That grant of authority is not authorized
by DOJ's special counsel regulations. It is not a "specific factual statement of the matter to be investigated." Nor is it an
ancillary power to address efforts to impede or obstruct investigation under 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).
In addition to Jarrett and Manafort's arguments above, Robert Barnes wrote this past week at
Law
and Crimes that –
Paul Manafort's legal team brought a motion to dismiss on Tuesday, noting that Rosenstein could not appoint Mueller to any
investigation outside the scope of the 2016 campaign since Sessions did not recuse himself for anything outside the campaign.
I agree with this take on Mueller's authority. If we follow that argument that would mean Sessions himself has exclusive authority
to appoint a special counsel for non-collusion charges, and Sessions has taken no such action. Sessions himself should make that
clear to Mueller, rather than await court resolution. Doing so would remove three of the four areas of inquiry from Mueller's
requested interview with President Trump.
Sessions formally notifying Mueller that he does not have authority to act outside of campaign-related cases and cases related
to obstruction of Mueller's investigation would be doing what the Constitution compels: enforcing the Appointments Clause of the
Constitution. Additionally, Sessions notifying Mueller that he does not have authority to act outside of campaign-related cases
would be exercising Sessions' court-recognized Constitutional
obligation to "direct and supervise
litigation" conducted by the Department of Justice. Furthermore, Sessions notifying Mueller that he does not have authority to
act outside of campaign-related cases protects against the inappropriate use of the federal grand jury that defendant Manafort
now rightly complains about.
Sessions limiting Mueller to the 2016 campaign would also be restoring confidence in democratic institutions, and restore public
faith that democratically elected officials.
One thing to remember about Sessions'
recusal : Sessions only recused himself from "any existing or future investigations of any matters related in any way to the
campaigns for President of the United States." This recusal letter limits the scope of Sessions' recusal to the 2016 campaigns;
it does not authorize Sessions' recusal for anything beyond that. Constitutionally, Sessions has a "
duty to direct and supervise
litigation" conducted by the Department of Justice. Ethically, professionally, and legally, Sessions cannot ignore his supervisory
obligations for cases that are not related to the "campaigns for President."
Not only is the Mueller investigation run by former FBI and DOJ criminals and bad cops but it is unconstitutional in the way it
was created and in the way it is currently being managed outside the scope of Sessions' recusal while incorporating Sessions duties
as AG.
The only solution
There's a lot of speculation from some Americans and Trump supporters who believe that AG Sessions is behind the scenes working
on cleaning the swamp, but this is all speculation. Little if any evidence supports these hopes.
We must look at the facts. Sessions recused himself from the Russia investigation. Rosenstein was somehow recommended and hired
as Assistant AG. With a background of multiple conflicts of interest related to
Uranium One and having
signed off on at least one FISA warrant to spy on candidate and future President Trump, Rosenstein never should have been appointed.
In spite of his conflicts, Rosenstein hired Mueller to investigate President Trump and continues in his oversight role. Sessions',
Rosenstein's and Mueller's actions are unethical, illegal and unconstitutional.
We are currently in a constitutional crisis. AG Sessions will not uphold the law. He must be replaced with an aggressive, competent
and fair AG who will uphold the constitution. This is something we haven't had in at least a decade.
Only President Trump can save America. Only President Trump can replace AG Sessions and now it's time.
You're right. But the reality is being right doesn't do squat for Sessions very little credibility. For good reason...his actions
merit distrusting him. It's the height of arrogance and simply smells to high heaven that a "Man of the highest integrity"...would
knowingly allow himself to be confirmed one day and recuse himself the next day......without first telling his boss the POTUS.
That excuse dog is not going to hunt no matter how long or whomever blows that dog whistle. It's an insult to not only the
intelligence of folks but their common sense as well.
Bluntly, he is a disaster for the country and POTUS. The problem is NO THINKING ADULT TRUST SESSIONS ANY FARTHER THAN THEY CAN
THROW HIM! What he did disqualifies him for the position he took under false pretenses. That is is Deception...not...Integrity.
PERIOD!
We are in a war. Nice guys don't win wars. They clean up afterwards. He acts like Mr Magoo and not the nations Chief Law Enforcement
Officer. We are in a war and the equivalent of the Military Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of Law Enforcement has gone
missing.
Sessions is the classical..."Fool me once..your fault; Fool me twice, my fault"
My deadline for him is June 20, 2018 at the maximum. Nothing significant by then....it will be a confirmation he is part of the
problem....and always has been....a plant of the "Deep State"
Tom Fitton: "When you read the letter its pretty clear Huber isn't charged with prosecuting anyone. Sessions is not going to
appoint a special counsel to investigate anything having to do with the Obama FBI or Hillary Clinton. I don't think [Huber] has
empaneled a grand jury or is doing a prosecution, he's just looking at the record and may suggest additional resources. Nothing
is going to be done. There is no public indication of any serious investigation by the DOJ."
Had I not come across the following, I would absolutely agree with you. But below is what is really occurring behind the scenes.
They ARE fighting the Deep State which has existed for decades, but rest assured POTUS and his team of patriots are on it. If
you take the time to really go through it, you can almost predict what POTUS will do next.
It seems unbelievable at first but it checks out as the story unfolds and Q predicts things before they happen... Also, Trump
has signalled the truth of it; do you think he said "tip top tippety top" just for the heck of it at Easter speech? (He was asked
by an anon to use this in something to verify validity of Q.) It won't make sense unless you start at the beginning in Oct and
read posts from there. (And disregard MSM reports that Q is false; if he was, why even bother trying to discredit?)
Think about it - is it like POTUS to keep someone so "obviously inept" around as Sessions? Does that really sound like POTUS?
Trump and team have handled this beautifully...they even have conservatives screaming for Sessions' head. He is neither uninvolved
nor clueless as is being portrayed. It's the Art of the Deal. Many are going down and POTUS and Q team are bringing us to it live
through the posts.
I promise you, this will open your eyes to the long game that POTUS and Sessions are playing out. Check it out - it will be
the best read of your life. So many things that never made sense, so many lies, massive corruption...be prepared.
Once you've gone through Q, you will truly know that POTUS meant every single word, literally, in this short link.
Biggest problem after watching the video of Lou Dobbs tonight is that Rod Rosenstein is still acting in an oversite position.
He will never let anyone be convicted of any crime because he is a sitting member of almost every crime that was committed. I
don't think Sessions is that smart in the first place, I believe that Rosenstein is running the show and that is all it is a Dog
and Pony show for the masses. All of them should be fired
Au contraire-All you Sessions sycophants are the ones who'll have an uncomfortably full stomach! That man's public actions
are NOT those of a sly old law and order prosecutor maintaining "radio silence" while tirelessly working behind the scenes! They're
the actions of a compromised Attorney General who is NOT performing his Constitutional duties and is actively covering for known
lawbreakers and Obstructing Justice--NOT demanding it!!
"... Improving the relationship with Moscow has been and continues to be a worthwhile goal, but Trump has made it politically impossible to pursue that goal in the near term. ..."
"... I do think the credit for this goes to the Clinton campaign, the "intelligence" agencies, the neoconlib biparty and individuals like McCain, who have gone to McCarthyite lenghts since before the GOP primaries ended to prevent Trump from attempting *any* change of the status quo on foreign policy. Granted, the man might be ineffectual no matter what, but we will never know. The US establishment and the retainees of the war profiteering classes have made any negotiations with Russia impossible long before Trump even announced his campaign. ..."
"... We also should not forget to credit the GOP for test-driving the whole "weak on Russia" playbook during the Obama years. ..."
"... Additionally there has yet to be any actual evidence presented re significant election interference. Indictments are accusations, not evidence. ..."
"... I'm no Trump fan, but he was just saying he believed Putin rather than the people who are clearly trying to bring his administration down. Can't really blame him. ..."
"... CNN even used Putin's dearly departed Labrador, Konni making her look like Cujo stating that Putin use her to terrorize Angela Merkel. A U.S. Congressman fumed that the 50,000 children died in Syria because this fiend supported Assad when Syria was about to be liberated (a number suspiciously close to the true number of Yemeni children we helped to kill). ..."
"... As flawed as Trump may be, he is merely holding up a mirror to what we have become. Had we elected a conventional candidate it would just be business as usual with these seething hatreds buried just below the surface. ..."
"... No one better suggest that we should tarnish ourselves talking to the likes of a Russian leader unless we are discussing terms of surrender. We want Yeltsin or maybe Medvedev. ..."
Improving the relationship with Moscow has been and continues to be a worthwhile goal, but Trump has made it politically impossible
to pursue that goal in the near term. The U.S. and Russia could and should have a more constructive relationship, but it can't
be based on the denial of reality and ignoring the genuine disagreements that exist between our governments.
If there is to be genuine improvement in U.S.-Russian relations, it will come from facing up to these disagreements and finding
a way to work through or around them.
"Trump has made it politically impossible to pursue that goal in the near term."
I do think the credit for this goes to the Clinton campaign, the "intelligence" agencies, the neoconlib biparty and individuals
like McCain, who have gone to McCarthyite lenghts since before the GOP primaries ended to prevent Trump from attempting *any*
change of the status quo on foreign policy. Granted, the man might be ineffectual no matter what, but we will never know. The
US establishment and the retainees of the war profiteering classes have made any negotiations with Russia impossible long before
Trump even announced his campaign.
We also should not forget to credit the GOP for test-driving the whole "weak on Russia" playbook during the Obama years.
I agree with b. While Trump may not be savvy enough to calibrate his engagement with Putin in a way that would allow a proper
dialogue with Russia in spite of the political backdrop in the US, the primary blame for any failure to allow such dialogue rests
for those responsible for creating that political backdrop that makes it so difficult in the first place (hint: it's not Trump,
unless you blame him for winning the election – rather it is the unholy alliance of Democrats looking for an excuse for them losing
the election and Cold War hawk neocons who have Russia-hate in their DNA (and their stock portfolios)).
That Putin talked up the Iran deal in the press conference makes me wonder what was said in the one-on-one. Couldn't have pleased
the Adelson/Bolton wing.
Additionally there has yet to be any actual evidence presented re significant election interference.
Indictments are accusations, not evidence.
I saw nothing particularly wrong with the press conference. I'm no Trump fan, but he was just saying he believed Putin
rather than the people who are clearly trying to bring his administration down. Can't really blame him.
The embarrassment was the reaction in the MSM showcasing how they are now CIA state run media.
They trot out former high ranking CIA officers now employed by them recycling every meme to reinforce that we are the forces
goodness and light and anyone strong enough to oppose us is evil.
CNN even used Putin's dearly departed Labrador, Konni making her look like Cujo stating that Putin use her to terrorize
Angela Merkel. A U.S. Congressman fumed that the 50,000 children died in Syria because this fiend supported Assad when Syria was
about to be liberated (a number suspiciously close to the true number of Yemeni children we helped to kill). These are just
two random examples in a very long day. It was
a show worthy of the priests of Baal who confronted Elijah.
As flawed as Trump may be, he is merely holding up a mirror to what we have become. Had we elected a conventional candidate
it would just be business as usual with these seething hatreds buried just below the surface.
No one better suggest that we should tarnish ourselves talking to the likes of a Russian leader unless we are discussing
terms of surrender. We want Yeltsin or maybe Medvedev.
The summit was announced by the White House and the Kremlin on June 28. The Finnish hosts probably knew about it a few days earlier.
That leaves only three weeks for preparation.
The summit itself lasted one day. Putin arrived late and after lunch and diplomatic niceties there was only 2-3 hours for actual
talks.
That's not a problem if everything is already carefully negotiated and the presidents just sign documents and smile for the
cameras. But it seems very little was agreed on beforehand.
I'm all for world leaders meeting and talking. The more the better. But I really don't see the point of hastily calling a summit
where nothing is agreed upon. At least not that we know of.
The "uncivil war" within the US neoliberal elite is getting a lot hotter... The problem for the American establishment is that it
doesn't like the way democracy worked out.
The bloated US intelligence industry fears that Trump may slash its budgets, power and perks.
Notable quotes:
"... Written by Eric Margolis ..."
"... But after the presidential meeting, Trump replied to reporters' questions by saying he believed Russia had no role in attempts to bug the Democratic Party during the election. Outrage erupted across the US. 'Trump trusts the Russians more than his own intelligence agencies' went up the howl. Trump is a traitor, charged certain of the wilder Democrats and neocon Republicans. Few Americans wanted to hear the truth. ..."
"... In fact, so intense was the outrage at home that Trump had to backtrack and claim he had misspoken. Yes, he admitted, the Russians had meddled in the US election. But then he seemed to back away again from this claim. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton did not lose the election due to Russian conniving. She lost it because so many Americans disliked and mistrusted her. When the truth about her rigging of the Democratic primary emerged, she deftly diverted attention by claiming the Russians had rigged the election. What chutzpah (nerve). ..."
"... Besides, compared to US meddling in foreign politics, whatever the Ruskis did in the US was small potatoes. Prying into US political and military secrets is precisely what Russian intelligence was supposed to do. Particularly when the US Democratic Party was pushing a highly aggressive policy towards Russia that might lead to war. ..."
"... For the US to accuse Russia of meddling is the ultimate pot calling the kettle black. The neocon former US Assistant Secretary of State, Victoria Nuland, admitted her organization had spent $5 billion to overthrow Ukraine's pro-Russian government. US undercover political and financial operations have recently been active in Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Yemen, Somalia, Uganda, Ethiopia, Egypt and Sudan, to name but a few nations. ..."
"... It's also clear that Trump's most ardent foes are the big US intelligence agencies whose mammoth $78 billion combined budget exceeds total Russian military spending. The bloated US intelligence industry fears that Trump may slash its budgets, power and perks. ..."
"... The uproar over Putin has revealed just how fanatic and far to the right were the heads of the US national security state operating under the sugarcoating of the Obama administration. Straight out of the wonderful film, 'Dr. Strangelove.' We now see them on CNN, snarling away at President Trump. ..."
"... Speaking of far right generals, one is also reminded of the brilliant film, `Seven Days in May,' in which a cabal of generals tries to overthrow the president because of a peace deal he made with Moscow. Could there be a real plot against the president? Watching US TV one might think so. ..."
"... Now, completing the childish 'Reds Under Our Beds' hysteria comes the final touch, the evil Russian temptress-spy who managed to infiltrate the National Prayer Breakfast, of all silly things. This dangerous Jezebel is now in the hands of the FBI. If this is the best KGB or GRU can come up with they need urgent help from Congolese intelligence. ..."
Comedy? Disaster? Mental disorder? Hearing loss? Even days after President Donald Trump's bizarre appearance in Moscow alongside
a cool, composed President Vladimir Putin, it's hard to tell what happened. But it certainly was entertaining. In case anyone in
the universe missed this event, let me recap. Trump met in private with Putin, which drove bureaucrats on both sides crazy. So far,
Trump won't reveal most of what was said between the two leaders.
But after the presidential meeting, Trump replied to reporters' questions by saying he believed Russia had no role in attempts
to bug the Democratic Party during the election. Outrage erupted across the US. 'Trump trusts the Russians more than his own intelligence
agencies' went up the howl. Trump is a traitor, charged certain of the wilder Democrats and neocon Republicans. Few Americans wanted
to hear the truth.
In fact, so intense was the outrage at home that Trump had to backtrack and claim he had misspoken. Yes, he admitted, the
Russians had meddled in the US election. But then he seemed to back away again from this claim.
The whole thing was black comedy. Maybe it was due to Trump's poor hearing or to jet lag and travel fatigue.
Hillary Clinton did not lose the election due to Russian conniving. She lost it because so many Americans disliked and mistrusted
her. When the truth about her rigging of the Democratic primary emerged, she deftly diverted attention by claiming the Russians had
rigged the election. What chutzpah (nerve).
Yet many Americans swallowed this canard. If Russia's GRU military intelligence was really involved in the run-up to the election,
as US intelligence reportedly claimed, it's alleged buying of social media amounted to peanuts and hardly swung the election.
Back in the 1940's, GRU managed to penetrate and influence Roosevelt's White House. Now that's real espionage. Not some junior
officers and 20-somethings on a laptop in Moscow.
Besides, compared to US meddling in foreign politics, whatever the Ruskis did in the US was small potatoes. Prying into US
political and military secrets is precisely what Russian intelligence was supposed to do. Particularly when the US Democratic Party
was pushing a highly aggressive policy towards Russia that might lead to war.
For the US to accuse Russia of meddling is the ultimate pot calling the kettle black. The neocon former US Assistant Secretary
of State, Victoria Nuland, admitted her organization had spent $5 billion to overthrow Ukraine's pro-Russian government. US undercover
political and financial operations have recently been active in Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Yemen, Somalia,
Uganda, Ethiopia, Egypt and Sudan, to name but a few nations.
Democrats and Republican neocons are in full-throat hysteria over an alleged Russian threat – Russia, whose total military budget
is smaller than Trump's recent Pentagon budget increase this year.
What we have been seeing is the fascinating spectacle of America's war party and neocons clamoring to oust President Trump. Included
in their ranks are most of the US media, led by the NY Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal and TV's war parties, CNN and
NBC.
It's also clear that Trump's most ardent foes are the big US intelligence agencies whose mammoth $78 billion combined budget exceeds
total Russian military spending. The bloated US intelligence industry fears that Trump may slash its budgets, power and perks.
The uproar over Putin has revealed just how fanatic and far to the right were the heads of the US national security state
operating under the sugarcoating of the Obama administration. Straight out of the wonderful film, 'Dr. Strangelove.' We now see them
on CNN, snarling away at President Trump.
Speaking of far right generals, one is also reminded of the brilliant film, `Seven Days in May,' in which a cabal of generals
tries to overthrow the president because of a peace deal he made with Moscow. Could there be a real plot against the president? Watching
US TV one might think so.
Now, completing the childish 'Reds Under Our Beds' hysteria comes the final touch, the evil Russian temptress-spy who managed
to infiltrate the National Prayer Breakfast, of all silly things. This dangerous Jezebel is now in the hands of the FBI. If this
is the best KGB or GRU can come up with they need urgent help from Congolese intelligence.
"... This silly article is proof, as if more was needed that what passes for Russia scholarship in the US is little more than politicized group-think. ..."
"... Russia has risen from utter economic, political, and societal collapse (gold reserves, factories, military secrets, science labs stripped bare and shipped or brain-drained out of the country; millions of pre-mature deaths; plunging birth rates) to recover, within a mere 20 years, to the point where the population has stabilized and the nation can credibly hold its own again on the world stage. Infrastructure is being rebuilt and modernized, the military has been restructured and re-equipped, pensions and salaries have risen 3 or 4-fold. ..."
"Vladimir Putin rode a counter-wave of anti-Western nationalism to power in Moscow."
Uh, no. Putin came to power at a time when Russia seemed to be falling apart, quite
literally. There was war in Chechnya, open criminal activity on the streets, and clear social
decay. Putin's popularity begins with his address to the nation after the bombing of the
Moscow metro, promising that the government (which he did not then lead) would chase those
responsible down and kill them, even if that meant chasing them into outhouses. The
relationship between the bombing and Putin's rise is so well-known that the conspiracy
theorists who have Jay Nordlinger's ear over at National Review claim that the bombing was a
set up by Putin's pals in the FSB, precisely to bring Putin to power.
My wife is Russian, from the city of Kazan in the Tatar Republic (part of Russia; it's
complicated), and when we were merely pen pals in 2003 she wrote me what it was like. It was
bad, very bad. At one point her entire neighborhood was placed under curfew on account of
open warfare between criminal gangs. And of course when we visit the cemetery today one sees
the striking spike in tombstones whose date of death is at some point in the mid- to late
90's, when it all seemed to be going to pieces and the government didn't even pay its own
employees for half a year.
Today, by contrast, Russians can walk the streets more or less without fear, count on a
paycheck, read in the news how their country has sent yet another capsule of Western
astronauts to the international space station (because Westerners haven't been able to do
that for the better part of a decade, thanks to Bush and Obama), and even find jobs in a
successful tech sector (Kaspersky, JetBrains, Yandex, the list goes on).
But, hey, if you want to fantasize that Putin's rise is thanks to anti-Western sentiment,
you go ahead and do that.
One other comment, if I may. I share the concern most Westerners have about Russia's seizure
of Crimea. But where is our concern about Turkey's 40-plus-year occupation of northern
Cyprus, also sparked by internal political disorder on the island? Why is it alright for a
NATO country to invade another nation and prop up its separatists, expel the inhabitants of a
disfavored ethnic group -- in this case, the Greeks?
Shame on TAC for publishing this garbage. For one, Putin more or less saved Russia as a
sovereign state, it is easy to forget the sorry condition Russia was in at the turn of the
century. Without him, Russia would've most likely been dismembered or simply colonized by the
West and China. He has performed admirably in the face of massive odds. Russia will still
exist in 100 years as the state of the Russian and other native people of its land –
can the same be said of the United States? Russia is slowly climbing its way out of the pit
of despair created by 80 years of Communism, the United States is crawling into the very same
pit.
I am much more concerned that voter roll purges, suppression of the vote, Citizen's United
Dark Money and folks like the Kochs and Addelson are undermining US democracy than the
Russians. As for the aggression of military machines around the world, the US wins hands
down.
Like Fran my inclination was to bail after the first paragraph but I pushed on.
In the first paragraph Mr Desch lays out his position which is well within the bounds of
polite discussion that Russia is a corrupt oligarchy but don't worry because it's an economic
and military basketcase.
Where to start?
1. Corrupt kleptocracy. The Russian oligarchy/ mafia was a biproduct of the
privatization binge that followed the collapse of the USSR. This evolved under the disastrous
Yeltsin aided and abetted by US elites. The case of William Browder is instructive. Putin has
taken significant measures to reassert government control and has greatly improved the lot of
the average Russian.
2. Political freedom. Putin did not inherit a developed liberal democracy. Russia
needs to be judged in the context of its own historical timeline in this regard not compared
to western democracies. Do you prefer Stalin, Brezhnev, Andropov? In contrast compare the
state and trajectory of US democratic institutions to, say the 1970s.
3. Human rights. Again the situation in Russia vis a vis human rights needs to be
judged in terms of Russia's history not against Western nations with a long-standing
tradition of human rights and political freedoms. That said, the illusion of political
repression is largely overstated. For example Putin is routinely accused of murdering
journalists but no real proof is ever offered. Instead, the statement is made again in this
article as though it were self evident.
4. Foreign aggression. This is my favorite because it flies in the face of
observable reality to the point of being ridiculous. Russia did not invade Ukraine. It
provided support to ethnic Russians in Ukraine who rebelled after the illegal armed overthrow
of the Russian leaning democratically elected president.That coup was directly supported by
the United States. Far from ratcheting up tensions Russia has consistently pressed for the
implementation of the Minsk accords. Putin is not interested in becoming responsible for the
economic and political basket case which is Ukraine. The "largely bloodless" occupation of
Crimea was actually a referendum in which the citizens of Crimea overwhelmingly supported
annexation to Russia. Again This result makes sense in light of even a basic understanding of
Russian history. Finally, in the case of Georgia Russia engaged after Georgia attacked what
was essentially a Russian protectorate. This was the conclusion reached by an EU
investigation.
Russia's so-called aggressive foreign-policy has been primarily in response to NATOs
continuous push eastward and the perceived need to defend ethnic Russians from corrupt
ultranationalist governments in former republics of the USSR. This is what Putin was talking
about when he called the dissolution of the USSR one of the greatest tragedies of the 20th
century – the fact that, overnight 20 million Russians found themselves living in
foreign countries. It wasn't about longing for a Russian empire.
As for the current state of Russias military capabilities, Mr Desch Would do well to read
Pepe Escobar's recent article in the Asia Times. Russian accomplishments in Syria illustrated
a level of technology and strategic effectiveness that rivals anything the US can do. Name
one other nation – other than the US – that can design and build a world class
6th generation fighter jet or develop its own space program. Even Germany can't do that.
This silly article is proof, as if more was needed that what passes for Russia
scholarship in the US is little more than politicized group-think.
VG1959
"It is in the pursuit of empire that Putin, like Napoleon or Hitler before him, threatens the
stability of Europe and by extension world peace."
Ah! ha!ha! Right.
Like Russia with a population of 150 million persons inhabiting a land mass that stretches
across 9 or 10 time zones, from the Arctic pole to the Black Sea is chafing for "lebensraum"
!?
No, Russia just wants to develop what it already owns. And, trying to do it on the
strength of their own efforts (no overseas colonies filling the coffers), on a GDP as
Winston, above, has pointed out which is smaller than that some US states. They're focussed,
not on grabbing tiny, constipated territories like Estonia. Latvia, and Lithuania (full of
Nazi sympathizers), but on bringing back to life those ancient trade routes which are their
inheritance from the past (the Silk Road, primarily).
Why not just leave them alone and see what they can do? Those who have been relentlessly
picking fault with Russia (and North Korea) might want to put down their megaphones and start
taking notes.
What I mean is: pause for a moment to consider that:
1. Russia has risen from utter economic, political, and societal collapse (gold
reserves, factories, military secrets, science labs stripped bare and shipped or
brain-drained out of the country; millions of pre-mature deaths; plunging birth rates) to
recover, within a mere 20 years, to the point where the population has stabilized and the
nation can credibly hold its own again on the world stage. Infrastructure is being rebuilt
and modernized, the military has been restructured and re-equipped, pensions and salaries
have risen 3 or 4-fold.
2. North Korea, in 1953, had been so destroyed by war that no structures over a single
story were left standing (and American generals were actually barfing into their helmets at
the horror of what had been done to those people). The DPRK authorities, helpless to assist
the population, could only advise to dig shelters underground to survive the winter. Yet, 70
years later, under international sanctions designed to starve those traumatized people into
surrender, North Korea has restored its infrastructure, built modern cities, and developed a
military apparatus able to credibly resist constant threats from abroad.
See: rather than picking nits to find things that are not yet perfectly hunky-dory with
the governing structures/systems in those countries, I'm taking notes!!
Because, I'm convinced that if those people (those nations) were able to do what they've
done with the time and resources they've had to work with, there is absolutely no reason and
no excuse for our rich nations of "the West" to be caught in a nightmare of austerity
budgeting, crumbling infrastructure, collapsing pensions, and spiralling debt.
Funny how the English speaking world SO resisst learning something that could actually do
us a whole lot of good. I don't know who coined the terms "stiffnecked" and "bloodyminded",
but it sure describes us!
"From Moscow's perspective, the events in Kiev in late 2013 and 2014 looked suspiciously like
a Western-backed coup."
Gee, ya think? Kinda reminds one of the 1996 Russian election. But, hey, don't broadcast
this because, after all, too many people might start, er, noticing.
"... After Bush I's James Baker's verbal agreement with Russia to not expand NATO was proven "inoperative", the Russians should be very skeptical of American verbal promises/agreements, anyway. ..."
"... BILL MAHER: All our intelligence agencies said that Russia attacked us in 2016. Yes, it was cyber. It wasn't with armaments. But it was still-. ..."
"... not the only time Wilkerson has failed to stop the discussion cold until such points can be countered and clarified ..."
"... no examples or links to ..."
"... left sites will fade if the left doesn't get it's act together. The liberals are about gone already -- and the conservatives are riding a temporary wave ..."
"... and the conservatives are riding a temporary wave. Capitalism is dying. Everything in the empire is falling apart as contradictions of thesis and antithesis transform into some foggy synthesis, or destruction ..."
Yves here. As Lambert might say, the behavior of the enforcers of Liberal Goodthinking has
been wonderfully clarifying. Despite the fact that there is a catalogue-full of reasons to be
deeply disturbed about the Trump presidency, prominent media figures are regularly resorting to
the screeching, pearl-clutching, straw manning, and other forms of "any stick to beat a dog"
strategies even faced with people like Lawrence Wilkerson, who is expressing only mild
opposition to their views. That sort of behavior is usually the behavior of someone who does
not have astrong case. Of course, on RussiaRussia! that is par for the course. The fact that
Wilkerson was effectively silenced by Bill Maher is a disgrace. Don't invite people on your
show if you aren't prepared to let them have their say.
This Real News Network segment reviews the particulars.
Note that Wilkerson was ridiculed for making what should have been an utterly
uncontroversial point: that US leaders need to, and always have, had a dialogue with our
strategic opponents. Wilkerson doesn't add, perhaps because he does not have corroborating
information, or alternatively, does not want to appear to be talking Russia's book, that Putin
announced that Russia has weapon systems that the US appeared to have been unaware of, such as
a nuclear-powered missile that can fly over the South Pole. If even half of them are real, they
are game changers.
There's a sour note at the very end, where Wilkerson says he expects the Democrats to
impeach Trump if they win both houses of Congress in the fall. As regular readers know,
Nancy Pelosi
has taken that off the table .
SHARMINI PERIES: Now, Larry, from what I understand from this
morning's announcement that the invitation that Trump had issued to Vladimir Putin to come to
Washington is now rescinded, or it's off. Apparently there was no movement on either side to
make sure this happens. Now, are you surprised by that move?
LARRY WILKERSON: Not at all, politically. Because most of everything Donald Trump has
done of substance since he was elected is based on his reading of his domestic political needs.
As the German foreign minister said so aptly, I think, about his withdrawal from the Joint
Comprehensive Plan of Action, the nuclear agreement with Iran, it was all based on domestic
politics in the United States. It had nothing to do with strategy, nothing to do with security,
nothing to do with NATO or the security of Western Europe. It had everything to do with Donald
Trump and his political base. I think the German foreign minister was absolutely correct.
So I have to look at everything that Trump does from that perspective, because that's his
first consideration. So what he saw was what you cited at the beginning; 46 percent thought he
was treasonous, and he said, ooh, John- talking to John Bolton, his national security adviser-
walk this bit back about a meeting, and put it out that we're walking it back because we want
the brouhaha about the meeting to subside. We want the accusations about the meeting to subside
a bit before we invite Mr. Putin to come to Washington. This is bad on two levels. One, Mr.
Putin should come to Washington, and we should continue the talks, and hopefully, in the way
that I describe, good meaningful talks earlier. That's how we should continue them,
particularly the nuclear issues. And two, because we do not need a war in Europe. And it's
increasingly apparent that both sides are looking very hard at the potential for that war.
And if you want a war that will pale- make all the other prospects, Iran, Syria, North Korea
and everything else, pale in comparison, let's have one break out in Europe, and let's have one
go nuclear. This is bad stuff. So I really would like to see Mr. Putin come to Washington and
meaningful talks take place. But to answer your question, and to reiterate, the reason this
delay or maybe even cancellation altogether has occurred is because Trump read the domestic
political signals and said, oop, can't get caught in this mess. The midterms are coming up.
These midterms, Sharmini, are going to determine the fate of the Republican Party. If the
Democrats were to win both houses of the U.S. Congress in November, I think impeachment would
be on the table for a majority of Republicans, and certainly Democrats, almost instantly. So
Trump has got to start thinking about these midterms. And so I think that's the reason he
canceled it, or at least told John Bolton to tell the Russians that it'll be later.
A word about that video. I couldn't play it at first but the clip can also be on YouTube
found at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79oymCf_pRk
I noticed that when Larry Wilkerson stated that the US had also interfered in countries since
1947 the audience agreed as there was a lot of clapping about that. Maybe the audience was
getting jack over Maher's obstinacy.
I also note that it was not Maher that said in reply "But that doesn't make it right" but
Michael Moore who until then had said nothing (How the mighty have fallen). Maher's comment
was basically that it was "it's still us" which of course made it different.
You just wish that they had a speaker that would be more direct and say something like:
"Well Bill Maher, should we attack and sink a Russian ship in the Black sea to show them
who's boss? Maybe attack that Russian airbase in Syria to show how hurt our feelings are?".
Probably find that footage like that would hit the editing floor in the same way that guest
that give opinions that don't agree with the main stream get cut off and the same happens
even with their own reporters.
There is a reason why newspapers are dying of irrelevancy over the past few decades and I
would not be surprised if the same fate followed television if this performance is typical
fare. The good ones on TV end up like Phil Donahue so all you get left with are the shrills
or neocons like Rachel Maddow.
If one goes to Youtube and looks at the readers' comments, there is little support for
Bill Maher. An occasional "Trump should not have had secret conversation with Putin".. I may
be naive, but I still do not understand why a private conversation with Putin was a
problem.
Even if Trump made some concession with Putin during this private talk, wouldn't it have
to be backed up with formal written agreements?
After Bush I's James Baker's verbal agreement with Russia to not expand NATO was
proven "inoperative", the Russians should be very skeptical of American verbal
promises/agreements, anyway.
I worked at a company that advocated for "Management by walking around". Part of the
advantage of the higher ups talking with workers well down the organization chart was that
the entire organization knew there was an alternate path for information to flow outside of
the hierarchy.
I believe this improved the accuracy of information flowing in the normal management path
as a consequence.
Trump's wandering to Russia might have the same positive effect. The
Democrats/Republicans/MIC seem to want to control the Russia narrative by telling Trump,
"trust us, you should not try to determine anything about Russia on your own, we will tell
you what to do".
Trump, to his credit, ignored them and did not cancel the trip.
Maher has a particularly severe case of Trump Derangement Syndrome. The condition seems to
have seriously impaired that part of the brain where his sense of humor resides, not to
mention perspective, at least insofar as the topic of Trump is concerned. His calling for the
U.S. intelligence community to save us from Trump is particularly unfunny.
That may be, but irrespective of Trump, Maher has always been sneaky, underhanded and
whiney. He is at his most palatable when he covers a topic where one tends to be of the same
mind, (which, of course, gets one to wonder about objectivity in general) and even then just
barely. Scratch beneath superficial agreements and he is but one self indulgent spoiled
brat.
IMNSHO, Maher has never been funny, nor particularly bright. I've never understood the
appeal, and ever since the whole anti-science anti-vax campaign nonsense (which he pushed)
I've come to feel Maher is dangerous, every bit a part of the problem. Certainly he's no
friend of the left.
BILL MAHER: All our intelligence agencies said that Russia attacked us in 2016. Yes,
it was cyber. It wasn't with armaments. But it was still-. -Idiot
As far as I know, ONE: this, "Russia attacked us in 2016" claim is still only claimed by
three (3) agencies, not all of them, and TWO: the claim is still simply a set of
allegations regarding origin and not hard established facts.
Because people like Wilkerson do not call Macarthyites out on such claims, the allegations
have taken on the aspect of established fact to most Americans. If it's still allegations and
not facts (that is, if I haven't missed important updates), then much as I like Wilkerson, I
fault him for this kind of acquiescence to weapons of mass deception. Perhaps not so much
with such a slimy shill as this particular comedic disease, who doesn't let Larry get a word
in edgewise and is brain dead enough to think he's being clever, but the Maher episode is not
the only time Wilkerson has failed to stop the discussion cold until such points can be
countered and clarified.
well he is a conservative, he was colin powell's chief of staff when powell was lying to
the u.n. about wmd's in iraq. he tells the truth sometimes, and admits some responsibility,
but i don't really trust him.
He has done a number of interviews for The Real News Network that were quite good where he
has seemed far more impervious to spin (I think the experience with weapons of mass
destruction fiasco, including Powell, represented a sea-change for him). I'm pretty sure that
includes the realization that Ukraine was a US backed coup, that Syria and Assad wasn't so
cut and dry, that Putin is a remarkable strategist, our part in the horrible fiasco in
Lebanon, the brutal nature of Saudia Arabia, Israel criminality and on and on. But I may well
be giving him more credit than he is due (by process of projection from a given interview I
saw to a topic I thought I had heard him discuss).
And for sure, every now and then, it's as if his military training or background kicks in
and he goes into obtuse mode though still making sense.
As to the Maher incident, I suspect he avoids (and/or gets put off balance by) cat claw
scrabbles, as undignified.
> not the only time Wilkerson has failed to stop the discussion cold until such
points can be countered and clarified
perhaps the colonel needs to milk the system for a bit. Any company boards clamouring for
his services? That's the whole point: many returns, much clarification for as long as
possible, with suitably deep yellow hip waders.
"The Russians attacked us." Depending on what parts of the 'attack' you are talking about
there is little doubt about who did it.. For example – you can read interviews in the
Russian newspapers with people who worked in the Internet Research Agency about what they did
in the US social media. I don't really see the big deal. We have done it to many other
countries. There was blow back and we got the same thing done to us. The real issue is that
we where not very well prepared.
Many years ago, when I was a college freshman, there was one fraternity on campus that was
looked down upon as a collection of losers. But it had at least one very sharp and
enterprising brother named Jack, who was a counselor in the freshman dorm. As pledge time
approached, he would talk to the most popular freshmen, one by one, and tell us that he had a
proposition for us. Why, he asked, would we want to join one of the cool frats and find
ourselves at the bottom of the pecking order? Why not instead join his struggling frat, en
mass, take it over, and run things ourselves? If we did so, he assured us, this loser frat
would become the coolest one on campus, and new students would be beating down the doors to
join. Believe it or not, his scheme actually worked, and, one by one, the most popular
freshmen agreed to go along with the concept. The key to his success was that he would put it
to us this way: Look, I know this is a difficult choice to make, and I'm not asking you to do
it on your own. But would you do it these other guys did it? If Jim and Steve and Pete and
John and Bill, etc., all agreed to pledge with you, will you now give me your promise that
you'd join them? That's all I want you to promise right now, that if these other guys do
this, you will too. And by God, it worked, and at pledge time he had a huge group of popular
freshmen lined up to join his loser fraternity. Had his conscience not bothered him and
caused him to release us from our promises right before pledge day, the greatest and most
sudden transformation in my college's frat history would have occurred. I tell this true
story because I don't see why it couldn't apply to the Green Party, if only it had enough
Jacks in its ranks, with the insight and savvy to reach out in similar fashion to
progressives and minorities, one by one or group by group.
We stopped watching his show when he let his guests talk over each other on a regular
basis, and besides that, he's slower on the uptake of what's really going on, as opposed to
any NC reader.
I watch Bill Maher's show regularly. I normally watch just the beginning and the end. The
opening monologue and the New Rules segment at the end. I normally skip the panel in the
middle of the show because it's so one-sided. Two or three liberals versus one conservative
plus Bill Maher. So the conservative constantly gets drowned out and interrupted. He has
little to no airtime because he can barely get a sentence in before the panel devolves to a
hysterical shouting match. And this was before Trump even ran for President. Now, it's even
worse. They don't even allow anyone else to have a contrarian opinion to the Beltway
consensus.
I find Maher odious in general. However, it does puzzle me as to why he was a strong
Sanders supporter (kind of the opposite of a Libertarian) and he also clearly wasn't thrilled
about Hillary, although he supported her over Trump.
What ever scruples Maher may have, they come along with a heaping helping of
playing to what he thinks his perceived public wants to hear. It's possible that he actually
does have a soft spot for Sanders (though that could be influenced by shared religious
tribe).
Network TV is still a thing ?? Guess I've been missin out .. well, not really. It's such
that whenever I happen to be in proximity to a set that's 'on', which is rather rare, it just
seems loud, obnoxious, and stupifying .. whether it be the programmed 'entertainment', or the
commercial klaxons whailing away. If one thinks of Corpse-rated TV as a virus, then maher et.
al. are the phomites of obsfucation, psychopathy and spite !
Wilkerson was in with Powell when the phony reasons for the attack on Iraq were being
mounted, and was deep into the military, and MIC. Maher, and Moore are both psychopaths,
which Wilkerson, for all his faults, is not. The Republicans and conservatives are insane.
The Democrats and liberals are even worse now. It's like watching two groups of insane,
childish, drug-crazed, chimps flinging feces at each other as they both set the jungle on
fire. The level of stupidity, ignorance, and lunacy is astounding. None of this makes
sense.
I think I understand why elves and flying saucer people are not seen: "What? You want to
try to contact these creatures? Are you on drugs? They would kill you without thinking twice.
Better to interact with hyenas or grizzly bears."
Help! I've fallen into this insane nightmare and can't wake up. The best I've been able is
to ignore some of it and hide in my 'cave' with the cats while I still can. It's hard to even
find a good reason for thinking or talking about it any more: pissing into the wind.
He sums it up in the last three paragraphs:
"
This troubling trend of the Western public gravitating toward and supporting individuals like
McFaul and Browder solely out of their perceived hatred for President Trump and Russia is
pushing Western political discourse further from rational debate and deeper toward
hysteria.
That powerful special interests can easily manipulate sections of the Western public to
support virtually anyone or anything, including unsavory characters like McFaul and Browder
or the notion of expanding NATO or continued war abroad in nations like Syria simply by
invoking "Trump" or "Russia" represents a predictable but dangerous Pavlovian phenomenon
likely to leave deep scars, permanently disfiguring American politics and society much in the
way the so-called "War on Terror" has.
The increasing lack of political sophistication in America is a reflection of a much wider
deterioration of American economic and geopolitical strength both at home and around the
globe. While one would expect sound leadership to begin preparing America for an orderly
transition from a once global hegemon to a constructive member of a more multipolar world
order, history has proven the lack of grace that generally accompanies an empire's
decline.
"
I've thought since 2011 that "Tony Cartalucci" is a Kremlin writers-group operation thing,
or something like that. Those writings are always group projects of some sort, not just one
dude, kind of like "Tyler Durden" at zerohedge, but much, much higher quality. I'm
not saying to not listen to or to disregard everything "Cartalucci" says. There's a
lot of genuinely insightful and useful information in there. But be aware of how "not exactly
for America's 99%" the bias is. "They" seem to think we should all give up on democracy and
become preppers and wait on techno-utopian solutions to solve all of our problems.
I see at https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Tony_Cartalucci
he is
"Tony Cartalucci is a geopolitical researcher and writer based in Bangkok, Thailand. His work
covers world events from a Southeast Asian perspective and promotes self-sufficiency as one
of the keys to true freedom."
I see no reason to doubt that right now, but I don't care. I read things for content, and
his content is often good, so I pay attention when I see something from him. Other names I
recognize as rubbish and don't wast my time or energy with it. I take no one without
skepticism, fact checking, etc. Sometimes I could learn something from an idiot, but it's
generally not worth the effort to try.
I also read some, such as Paul Craig Roberts, who has some good material and also some blind
spots and obvious bias or flaws.
It all goes into the box from which I assemble my own take on the probabilities of which
models and narratives are most accurate and useful.
"Sex is Funny, but Love isn't." Hence it is that shopping cart traffic conflict is funny,
but empty shelves isn't. Most I've done as a stand-up is the pro set time of 45 minutes. I've
heard of Maher doing 2 hours. Someone like Eddie Murphy did movie length stand-up. People pay
to see Maher live. Carlin was better at being serious. There is the Lenny Bruce tradition for
which few can handle, and the Will Ferrell silly genus. If you want to see fine comedy watch
Kate McKinnon do Kelly Ann Conway on SNL. I understand Bill Maher as a successful
producer.
What do we mean by "BiPartisan". What it best means is neither Left or Right. Best it
means American, Eclectic, Ethical, Pragmatism. In fact this is easiest achieved when it is an
issue of Defense in Foreign Policy. GOP domestic policy is essentially selfish and mean.
Makes the right answer hard to get near. Philosophy of leading GOP figures like Paul Ryan who
has terrific power as Speaker is Objectivism not American Pragmatism. Ayn Rand makes what
would be wonderful bleak.
You will have reasons to feel safer when you hear that the US & NATO have put 3
thousand Tanks along the Fronts where Russian Tanks would roll into Europe. It is either that
or you know that Russian Tanks can all be bazooka blasted away by lots of mobile tank killing
crews and their missiles. Nukes exist to kill tanks and their crews. US doctrine is still to
use nukes to kill tanks.
When Carter saw he was going to fail to "rid all nuclear weapons from the face of this
earth." -Inaugural Address) he came up with the neutron bomb. For some unfathomable reason
this flipped people out. We would prefer the Neutron bomb since it would not destroy
farmland.
In the time of Trump and the open assault on Democracy characterized by failures of the TV
Press distorted by profits and personalities I look at the famines that are associated with
One Party Rule, and the Dictators such as Stalin and Mao. Maybe there is a way to make it
funny in how I might say "Democracy & a Free Press, No Famine!. One Party Rule & a
Dictator & Famine. Don't vote for Famine Folks!"
If I was even negotiating with Russia and China I would be pointing out they are Food
Insecure and the US is not. Russia and China need to be wary and fair if they want the US to
sell them food at a price the US can maintain its farmers from.
Soybean Tariffs threaten to cause farmland in the US to be taken out of food production
making the US take one turn itself towards less food insecurity. It is too much to expect
that US Grants to Farmers would prevent some good high number of farmers selling their land
for other uses when they are forced to fail on price competition.
William Burroughs who gave us sci fi phrases like "Heavy Metal", & the art he produced
from heroin, Scientology's E Meter, pills, guns, spiritually justified murder? and Methadone
in Kansas, ended his life saying all he cared about were his 11 cats.
I understand that very few Americans have any objectivity left or imagination, but let's
try a thought experiment. Substitute Hillary Clinton and Clinton Advisor for every time we
hear Trump or Trump Advisor and tell me that the rabid right would not be foaming at the
mouth, demanding impeachment (along with waterboarding and lynching) and threatening to round
up all registered democrats as a precaution.
Hillary Clinton is a terrible thing. She should never have been allowed to run or even
held any position in anyone's administration for a variety of reasons. But that does not
absolve Trump from being everything HE is. And it does not absolve Trump from appearing to
collude with Russia and be Putin's puppet. I cannot and will not buy the 9 Dimensional Chess
argument or the He's a Business Genius Argument when both are patently false. He is
admittedly incredibly ignorant and lacking any attention span. He is a narcissistic liar. A
proven racist. A misogynist. A womanizer. A serial cheater. An unfaithful husband and
business partner.
How have we gotten to the point where we are defending Donald Trump? How are we giving him
the benefit of the doubt in anything when every past lie and action indicates he is
incompetent and merits no trust whatsoever.
The Trump Spin Team has done an amazing job turning a megalomaniac serial liar into a
victim. And America rolls over and takes it again.
With all due respect, you have this wrong. Please tell me for starters who this "Trump
spin team" is. The media is united against him, as is all of the Democratic party and big
swathes of the GOP. Helsinki is a case study. Trump does something which every president has
done, including the sainted Ronald Reagan, when "Russia" was not Russia but the far more
threatening USSR, and no one got bent out of shape about it. All Trump did was high five
Putin. He didn't make any commitments. And even when Trump makes commitments, he reneges on
them a high proportion of the time. Oh, and Saint Ronnie also got on personally with
Gorbachev.
The Republicans made clear they would impeach Hillary. They had both her server and the
Clinton Foundation taking foreign cash as issues. They could get her alone on what amounted
to taking kickbacks for brokering uranium to Russia.
As for RussiaRussia, you totally misrepresent the issue. What readers and many on the left
are upset about is:
1. Disregard for facts or evidence. No one has yet to provide any solid evidence against
Trump regarding his supposed dalliance with Russia. The stuff coming from Team Dem is on the
order of the birther charges re Obama. Just read this discussion of the Steele dossier as an
example:
If you don't demand accuracy from the press, you are volunteering to be propagandized all
the time.
2. The effort to demonize Trump has moved into New McCarthyism. And you are actively
promoting it. Standing up for the idea of integrity of information and accurate reporting is
now being mischaracterized as defense of Trump. This is tantamount to a loyalty test and is
crass authoritarianism.
3. In case you missed it, various parties are now treating the left as a threat and using
RussiaRussia to up the ante. See this telling Comey tweet as an example,
I'm usually more or less immune to groupthink and propaganda, at least compared to many,
but even I had to take a few days away from all internet communications last week and just
re-read old Orwell essays to get my mind straight again regarding Helenski.
"One of the peculiar phenomena of our time is the renegade Liberal. Over and above the
familiar Marxist claim that 'bourgeois liberty' is an illusion, there is now a widespread
tendency to argue that one can only defend democracy by totalitarian methods. If one loves
democracy, the argument runs, one must crush its enemies by no matter what means. And who
are its enemies? It always appears that they are not only those who attack it openly and
consciously, but those who 'objectively' endanger it by spreading mistaken doctrines. In
other words, defending democracy involves destroying all independence of thought."
"These people don't see that if you encourage totalitarian methods, the time may come
when they will be used against you instead of for you. Make a habit of imprisoning Fascists
without trial, and perhaps the process won't stop at Fascists. Soon after the suppressed
Daily Worker had been reinstated, I was lecturing to a workingmen's college in South
London. The audience were working-class and lower-middle class intellectuals -- the same
sort of audience that one used to meet at Left Book Club branches. The lecture had touched
on the freedom of the press, and at the end, to my astonishment, several questioners stood
up and asked me: Did I not think that the lifting of the ban on the Daily Worker was a
great mistake? When asked why, they said that it was a paper of doubtful loyalty and ought
not to be tolerated in war time. I found myself defending the Daily Worker, which has gone
out of its way to libel me more than once. But where had these people learned this
essentially totalitarian outlook?"
What am I missing? Why does a guy like Wilkerson lower himself to appear on this show?
Once maybe. More than that, why? No one is perfect including Wilkerson and he has a "past"
but don't we all?
There is a possibility that Maher's behavior reflects an expanded role of the BBG
(Broadcasting Board of Governors), who controls it, concentration of media ownership in a few
large corporate hands, and the recent modifications of the Smith-Mundt Act to allow domestic
propaganda. IMO "RussiaRussia!" and "IranIran!" would not have been and continue to be
relentlessly injected into our MSM diet for the past year and a half without the table having
been set.
Unfortunately, as other readers have noted, this misdirection is also damaging in the
sense that it serves to divert attention away from issues of genuine public concern such as
climate change, the sad state of our nation's infrastructure, public education, erosion of
civil liberties, transitioning from a war-based economy, extreme economic inequality,
meaningful campaign finance reform, etc.
Where did Wilkerson pick up that it is now Russian military doctrine to use nukes? Every
analysis I've read is that Putin's aim in weapons development, real or imaginary, is to
restore deterrence, which the U.S. has been steadily eroding.
Russia's latest edition of its nuclear doctrine allows the use of nuclear weapons in
response to a nuclear attack against Russia or its allies, or to a conventional attack that
threatens the existence of Russia.
Only the "or its allies" bit isn't straightforward deterrence doctrine. That would be
"extended deterrence", a contradictory doctrine that the U.S. has adopted since virtually the
start of the Cold War. McNamara's "ladder of escalation" doctrine was its explicit
formulation. ("Full spectrum dominance" is its lineal descendant). And the fact of the matter
is that the U.S. military has never really fully accepted the straight-forward notion of
deterrence, but has always been pressing further, seeking some obscure advantage or leverage.
I think it's clear from his statements over many years, that Putin is attempting to respond
to the erosion of deterrence by the U.S., (while the Soviet Union itself never explicitly
embraced deterrence doctrine, originally crudely understanding nukes as just high powered
artillery).
Here is yet another 'liberal' or 'leftist' who has fallen into Trump Derangement Syndrome,
complete with hurling names and insults at any who disagree with him and spouting a host of
logical and rhetorical fallacies -- and another who has fallen out of list of people who I
think are worth listening to.
"It's true that the number of self-professed "analysts" and dementia-addled lefties
spouting the Trump-as-peacenik line is relatively small
Indeed, because of the Dotard's doting on Putin, we should all sing hosannas as we erect
cheaply made gold-plated monuments in his honor.
But back on Planet Earth, even the specious notion that Trump is somehow a peacemaker
cannot fake news its way into being true. In fact, if anything, Trump has been the most
bellicose president in recent memory. But don't tell those Trumpy lefties that. "
Counterpunch itself is teetering on the edge of that 'worth reading' list such that I
rarely bother going there any more. Have these clowns been listening to what Clinton and the
Dems have been saying and doing? -- "treason" for a president to talk to Russian leaders
("doting on Putin")? They think Clinton, who laughed when she destroyed Libya, would be
better?
Adding, I just reread the thing, and I found no examples or links to these
supposed "Left Trumpists." So it's a smear, plain and simple, left lying about for future
use.
Re: "Left Trumpists" If anyone from the left agrees with *any* of the hundreds, if not
thousands, of policies opinions espoused by Trump. Is a "Left Trumpist". He is evil, to give
support to evil in any way is evil. It's politics driven almost purely by ad hominem fallacy.
Therefore any person of the left who is capable of independent thought will necessarily be
presumptively labeled a "Left Trumpist" by the absurd definition of the #resistance. I won't
even bother pointing out to them that always disagreeing with someone puts you in their
complete control. if I can make you always contradict me, I can make you think or say almost
whatever I like.
The world is full of Trump mind readers .wish I had their extra sensory powers.
And some of us who consider ourselves "leftists" do hope Trump makes peace with Russia and
others. Since these are things he talked about before he was president it's not impossible.
If you think Trump's main goal in life is to build his brand it's also not illogical.
Starting a war with, say, Iran would be very unpopular–one new poll says 23 percent
support–and bad for brand building. The public now wants peace IMO. Most of Trump's
current mayhem is grandfathered in from Obama or at least too much under the radar to be
noticed (except for those trash talking tweets of course).
Counterpunch publishes all sorts of views. I don't think we should condemn the site
because of one article. However they do publish authors who like to say things like "dotard."
Name calling is so childish (unless it's about Hillary).
A view is one thing; this is something else: a tirade of insults is not a view. I
regularly listen to Crosstalk, for example, and appreciate Lavelle and most of his guests,
even if I disagree with the conservative positions, but they don't rant and rave and insult
me with phrases such as "depraved" or "dementia-addled". This is not just unpleasant to read,
but demonstrates a fundamental weakness in his analytical, and his writing, ability. If
that's the best Draitser can manage then I don't want to take time to see what he has to say
-- and there is really not much more there, but a litany of complaints about Trump which most
everyone not in the matrix are aware of. It's not just name-calling which is childish, but
his thinking and perception. And that's something I find increasingly common in Counterpunch,
and other western publications. I have no need or time for more crude propaganda.
The idea of defending Trump is not defending Trump and his ogrish ways, but defending law,
legitimate process, open inquiry and dialogue, sophisticated analysis, and even truth. That's
not about Trump; that's about us.
If it helps I agree they do accept some articles that aren't very good. I think they may
be struggling since Cockburn died. I don't think they actually pay people to write there.
But that site has been around a long time and it would be a shame to see it go. Too many
lefty sites have bitten the dust.
It started with Alexander Cockburn's weird "Climate Science is a fraud! A man on the
Nation cruise told me this!" and achieved its defining moment with Andrew Levine, who went on
endlessly as to how Trump was necessarily, inevitably, "unelectable in American Democracy,"
but could be a source of wry amusement to the enlightened liberal.
I suspect an upcoming merger between Counterpunch and the Guardian.
Cockburn was a contrarian who liked to provoke. He was also a vehement opponent of nuclear
power and thought the AGW warnings were a Trojan horse to restart nuclear power–which
is to say even if true the proposed cure could be worse than the disease.
And while AGW is now more widely accepted it's hard to say that much is being done about
it. It's not so much an inconvenient truth as a problem from hell. Bandaid solutions make us
feel better but may not change the outcome. Fortunately nuclear still seems to be on the
skids.
Whether global warming is a hoax or not, nuclear is expensive and dangerous, and can be
replaced with solar, wind, hydro, etc. with some good side effects for employment and other
economic factors. Beat your swords into plowshares and your soldiers into energy technicians.
Just do it -- make the investment (and remember MMT) -- and the survival of the ecology and
civilization could well be a nice side effect. There is enough with that to make a decision
with. Other countries are managing it.
The old Counterpunch was worth saving, I guess, but for the new one it isn't so clear.
Many more left sites will fade if the left doesn't get it's act together. The liberals are
about gone already -- and the conservatives are riding a temporary wave. Capitalism is dying.
Everything in the empire is falling apart as contradictions of thesis and antithesis
transform into some foggy synthesis, or destruction.
It's a place to begin where there is a not a crowd of climate change deniers and
proponents breaking out into avoidable fights which would derail plans and efforts to go
sustainable.
It doesn't matter whether the sun goes around the earth and actually sets, or if the earth
rotates out of the light, to decide that when it gets dark one needs to light a lamp to see
and not fall down the steps. It is being in the dark which is sufficient reason for the
decision to light it.
A sufficient decision to do away with coal fired plants is that the pollution makes us
sick -- we don't need to consider CO2 or albedo warming effects to not want to breath in the
junk.
left sites will fade if the left doesn't get it's act together. The liberals are about
gone already -- and the conservatives are riding a temporary wave
you shouldn't ignore the belly of the beast, the working class, losing their divide that was
the big risk to the status quo from sanders, he could have bridged that divide
and the conservatives are riding a temporary wave. Capitalism is dying. Everything in
the empire is falling apart as contradictions of thesis and antithesis transform into some
foggy synthesis, or destruction
the only quibble I have with this perfect description is that many democrats are
conservative, and the democrat conservatives got, well, served, and the compass is kind of
spinning right now
Eric Draitser is a deeply, deeply meretricious commentator. In the essay you linked to,
Blue, note how he tries to have it both ways. First, he criticizes us for, in effect, being
the dupes of Russian propaganda:
Left Trumpists focus their ire on the opponents of Trumpism. Ostensibly, it's because
the anti-Trump activists are hypocrites who only form political opposition against
Republicans while letting Democrats eat live babies on YouTube and roll wheelchair-bound
pensioners into oncoming traffic. But, seen from a more realistic perspective, it seems
this chorus of silliness is based more on Trump's words, and those of openly pro-Putin
media , than on reality. [Emphasis mine]
Next, he himself begins to spout what–only a few short months ago–would have
been roundly dismissed by the MSM as Russian propaganda:
Well, it wasn't particularly inspiring when the Trump Administration decided to escalate
Obama's already insane policy vis-à-vis Ukraine by providing lethal weapons to the
US-backed Kiev regime which continues to be partnered with, and in some ways captive to,
Ukrainian Nazis and other fascist, er um, "ultra-nationalist," forces.
Nazis in Ukraine! Why, that's so very RT of you, Eric.
So, to recap: Eric Draitser can switch sides in an argument whenever he wants, while still
claiming that we are the ones who are being inconsistent.
Draitser, along with the rest of the 'Gang of Four' (Louis Proyect, Yoav Litvin, Jeffrey
St. Clair), is the reason I now find CounterPunch to be basically unreadable. Sad for years
it was my absolute favorite website–head and shoulders above the other alt-left sites
back then. But I guess it was just Alexander Cockburn who made it what it was. Over the past
two years, they've lost so many of their best writers that I've taken to calling it
CounterPurge. Not to worry, though: most of their best writers have turned up at Unz.com.
I'm far to the left of Bill Maher, but in a general way I agree with him more often than
with Nancy Pelosi or Chuck Schumer. However on what is apparently an attempt at a show with
thoughtful discussion from a variety of perspectives, the way Col. Larry Wilkerson was
treated was not helpful for any side. Col. Wilkerson is one of the last republicans on the
national stage who is reasonable, or even rational at this point in time. And certainly one
of the very few who have the backbone to stand up even for what they personally believe is
"right". A real lost opportunity by Mr Maher. And regarding "tRump derangement syndrome" how
SAD is it that we live in a world where we have to discuss whether it is worse to have a
willfully ignorant and egomaniacal dotard with his finger on the nuclear button or whether
the real problem is a country where forty per cent of the voters support an authoritarian
party willing to steal elections so that they can pass laws to steal wages and savings at
home and abroad, destroy the biosphere, and wage war for profit.
On a related note at 51 minutes into this video by the excellent journalist Egberto
Willies,Col. Larry Wilkerson, says that the military is being told that the worst case
scenario (and IPCC "worst case" scenarios are routinely exceeded) is that "by the end of
2100" there will be less than enough arable land on the planet for 400 MILLION people.
https://egbertowillies.com/2015/09/25/lawrence-wilkerson-the-travails-of-empire-lone-star-college-kingwood-video/
"No such thing as bad publicity" is one of those truisms that isn't true. For example,
this interview was very bad publicity indeed for Donna Brazile. https://youtu.be/GQtu1VsH_0s?t=47s
It looks as though the Pentagon is agreeing with the War Hawks in the Administration
(Bolton) and Legislature (Graham) that nuclear war is the way ahead. They must disbelieve the
Russian revelation of new weapons. That's a bold position to take when your entire country
and its population is likely to be bombed.
I disagree with Colonel Wilkerson's apparent expectation that the war will be restricted
to Europe. The day something falls on Russia is the day something falls on the continental
USA.
The survivors will be those hundreds of thousands of US soldiers serving in Asia and
Africa and South America. The recruiting offices might be able to make something of that but
how will they keep the PXs supplied?
"... I'll second Rod Rosenstein, I couldn't stand his performance before Congress. He played it both ways, 'we are working day and night to get you the documents', same as saying, I don't have enough people and then said he didn't know because ..., 'I can't watch everyone, I have thousands of people working under me'. A first class weasel. ..."
"... It appears that some senior FBI Cybersecurity leaders are retiring. Just when they are needed most - to explain how they let China run rampant through the Secretary of State's email server. They should be fired rather than allowed to collect a retirement check. ..."
"... https://www.wsj.com/article... ..."
"... I wonder which one of the three is Sy Hersh's source for the Seth Rich report. Because that came directly from the FBI cyber division and clearly would have been so explosive that anyone senior at that division would have been aware of it and had access to it. Of course, it could have come from some other agency but Hersh was clear that his source was very good. "I have somebody on the inside who will go and read a file for me. This person is unbelievably accurate and careful. He's a very high level guy. He'll do a favor." ..."
"... Since Globalization and President Obama giving out "get out of jail" cards, the Elite can do what they want. Government is secondary. The rule of law for Multinationals is dead. Fines are the cost of doing business. Courtiers use the revolving door to climb the ladder and accumulate power ..."
"... Chris Christie and Wray- two Jersey Republicans. Sessions knew Rosenstein from DoJ and the courts. This tells me that Trump did not know government people. ..."
The government of the United States is not a parliamentary government. There are three
co-equal branches in the federal government; the Executive, the Legislative and the Judiciary.
The president is the "line and block chart" boss of everyone in the Executive Branch. All of
the categories of political appointees listed above plus the actual department heads in the
cabinet serve at the pleasure of the president acting as head of the Executive Branch of the US
Government. He does not have such a free hand in disposing of civil servants who are below
these political appointees and whose employment is protected by law. They generally work for
the political appointees. For the record - I was a career SES after retirement from the army
and not a presidential appointee. The Department of Justice is part of the Executive Branch of
the federal government and all its political appointees are subject to presidential discipline
as are all others in the Executive Branch. Presidents, like the heads of all executive teams
have the right to expect the loyalty of the subordinates below them. It is expected that these
subordinates should carry out all policies that are not illegal, nor grossly contrary to the
interests of the United States. If an Executive Branch civilian employee believes that a policy
is illegal or so contrary to US interests then this person should resign his or her position.
In no instance should an Executive Branch employee act as a member of a "resistance" to the
lawfully elected president. With that in mind I would suggest that the following officials
should be dismissed by President Trump:
DNI Dan Coats - He has made it clear by his utterances at the Aspen security conference
this week that he is not loyal to the president. For a supposed member of the president's
inner team to communicate in public by words or body language his rejection of presidential
policy is a firing offense.
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. This man is an obvious affiliate of the
"resistance." His arrogance in dealing with the Congress clearly indicates that he thinks
that all power is rightfully in the hands of the lawyer bureaucrats at the DoJ and that both
the Congress and the president will get what he chooses to give them.
FBI Director Christopher Wray. His performance at Aspen indicates that he thinks that as
head of the FBI he is the consecrated protector of the Knights of the Round Table reborn as
the FBI. IMO that comes before loyalty to the president for him. The FBI is in no legal or
constitutional sense independent of presidential authority.
Others are candidates for this list, but time will develop the case. IMO it is clearly
suicidal to retain such people in office when they are proceeding through action or inaction to
undermine the administration. The argument will be made that there will be cries of Obstruction
of Justice. So be it. pl https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_appointments_in_the_United_States
The US Armed Forces are headed by commissioned officers whose appointments at each level of
rank are confirmed by the US Senate. They can be removed at will from positions by superiors
including of course the president/commander in chief but cannot be deprived of rank or
expelled from the services except by court-martial. The armed forces understand very well
that within the limits of US law they are completely subordinated to the commander in chief
and will not speak against him or his policies unless they wish to risk conviction under the
Punitive Article in UCMJ that forbids such speech. (Article 88)
I'll second Rod Rosenstein, I couldn't stand his performance before Congress. He played it both ways, 'we are working day and night to get you the documents', same as
saying, I don't have enough people and then said he didn't know because ..., 'I can't watch
everyone, I have thousands of people working under me'. A first class weasel.
It appears that some senior FBI Cybersecurity leaders are retiring. Just when they are
needed most - to explain how they let China run rampant through the Secretary of State's
email server. They should be fired rather than allowed to collect a retirement check.
I wonder which one of the three is Sy Hersh's source for the Seth Rich report. Because
that came directly from the FBI cyber division and clearly would have been so explosive that
anyone senior at that division would have been aware of it and had access to it. Of course,
it could have come from some other agency but Hersh was clear that his source was very good.
"I have somebody on the inside who will go and read a file for me. This person is
unbelievably accurate and careful. He's a very high level guy. He'll do a favor."
You are correct. Except at this point the only people the President can trust are his
family members. He went off to Helsinki and did his thing without senior staff.
Since Globalization and President Obama giving out "get out of jail" cards, the Elite
can do what they want. Government is secondary. The rule of law for Multinationals is dead.
Fines are the cost of doing business. Courtiers use the revolving door to climb the ladder
and accumulate power .
Donald Trump slammed that door shut. Climbers can not work for him and risk pissing off
future bosses. Andrea Mitchell (Mrs. Greenspan), Don Coats, Rod Rosenstein and Christopher
Wray were at the Aspen Security Forum bonding and networking. If they lose their jobs and
power, they face Paul Manafort's fate; jail before trial.
Donald Trump was elected because of American voters lost their jobs and homes,
immigration, plus the endless wars. The Aspen Four's mission is to elevate VP Mike Pence and
avoid a second Civil War while allowing the continued exploitation of the American people and
environment to get richer. Will the global corporate propaganda and coup succeed? We are
Americans. "The past isn't dead. It isn't even past."
Maybe I'm painting with too broad a brush but I honestly don't understand why President Trump
didn't demand the resignations of all of the Obama political appointees the moment he took
the oath of office.
but who does he replace them with? because i think it's this, primarily - the fact that he
has no bullpen - that's his single biggest problem afa this issue's concerned...
I think you are right but this seems to be changing. He was not part of the Borg (in it's
wider sense i.e not just re. FP) and therefore was not the GOP's man. As such it must have
been a problem to find enough like minded people to fill all these positions who were not
part of the status quo and had the experience to effectively operate within the beltway. Had
any of the GOP's boys won they would have been able to dip into the establishment think-tank
pool and pick the clones they wanted - not so easy for a boat rocker like President Trump.
The unrelenting attacks from the Dems seem to be rallying more of the old Republicans in line
behind the President.
We have a very similar problem here in the UK. Corbyn won an overwhelming victory from the
Labour party rank and file but Blair had been PM for so long almost all of the senior
positions were held by Blairites (AKA 'New Labour') and Corbyn is having a hard time finding
'Traditional Labour' ideologues with experience. Again, like Trump, he is having to try and
restructure his party while under constant attack from the MSM and backstabbing from the
Blairites. It is not easy trying to steer a Juggernaut like Westminster or Washington on a
new course when all the existing crew only know, or want, the old way.
Should our current Brexit meltdown end PM May's Government we could end up with a
Trump/Corbyn 'special relationship'. Now that really would be something very interesting to
watch, preferably from a safe distance.
There are a lot of lawyers in the DOJ and FBI. DNI wouldn't be too hard either. Maybe he
should recall Martin Dempsey to active duty and give him the job.
yeah, i'm not saying that there aren't any, i'm sure there're a number of very qualified
people. but trump, personally, has no background in government, & just doesn't seem to
have any kind of substantial, trustworthy inner circle who's judgments he can rely on when it
comes to separating the wheat from the chaff, & filling positions like these...
Rosenstein is a member of SES. I wonder if that is having an effect. Comey was also an SES
member, but he was fired, although I guess that was for malfeasance. Or was Comey fired
simply because DOJ members can be fired by the president? BTW, a cursory search showed that
Jeff Sessions, Lisa Page, Peter Strzok, Bill Priestap, Valerie Jarrett, and Bruce Ohr are
also members of SES.
That is not correct. A cabinet member cannot be a member of the SES. What is the citation for
your assertion that these people were members of the SES? I think you are lying.
I completely concur with you and will add AG Sessions and DCIA Ms. Gina to the list.
Anyone recommended by the traitor and avowed Communist Brennan should go. Jeff Sessions is a
disgrace for hiding under his desk. If he had any decency he would have resigned long
ago.
Are all SES employees of the federal government, "at will" employees? Or can they only be
fired for "cause"?
IMO, a significant purge of the top echelons of the intelligence and law enforcement
agencies is required to restore the rule of law and confidence in the integrity and
competence of these institutions.
If guys like Andy McCabe, Peter Strzok, Sally Yates can rise up to the levels they did
something is wrong with these institutions. I would even go further and shut them all down
and re-build from scratch. These agencies are a bigger threat to our constitutional republic
than our foreign adversaries.
To get rid of a career SES you either have to remove him for malfeasance and make it stick or
give him a poor annual rating three years in a row. The president can remove them from
position and let them sit in a bare office with a telephone until you have three poor
ratings. That was always true.
I for one and all in favor. My favorite possible action which I am sure we will never see is
the complete closure of the CIA, but we all know how that idea yielded unfortunate results
the last time it was proposed by a President.
At what point do we declare Treason? My personal redline is Trump's Presidency. I don't
pretend to know what Trump faces everyday. I do not like his rudeness, his incivility, and
several of his policies, but I also don't doubt that he cares about America. And I know that
he was legally elected.
Right after the election we saw an incredible social media push against the electoral
college, the Constitution. It was the beginning of a coup d'etat here in the USA. That
attempt has not ended.
The Constitution will stand or not, but it will not go easy and not without the blood of
Patriots. Millions can moan whatever blather the TV tells them but it was a few that created
this country and it will be a few that defend it and continues it into the future.
A few passionate and moral people can outweigh millions.
Not advocating revolution here but if needed and and we can get 1% to show up in
Washington that is 3.3 million people. 5X current population. D.C. rolled out the tanks and
used Patton for only 17,000 vets in 1932.
From where I sit and knowing the absolute disgust I am hearing from so many people around me,
both those who are old moderates, those who are avid Trump supporters, and the ones around
here who always vote for what I call "white 'bread" Republicans all the time, it's time for
draining and hosing out the swamp. Even a few of the Democrats I know are a little
embarrassed about what is going on in D.C.
I think you would be able to hear the cheering from the West clear out there in D.D. if
your recommendations were put into place.
The Saker suggests he do what Putin did. (Maybe this is something the two of them talked
about) "When Putin came to power he inherited a Kremlin every bit as corrupt and
traitor-infested as the White House nowadays."
https://www.paulcraigrobert...
BTW what did they talk about? There's asyory going around that VVP gave him terabytes of
coded US messages by and about the conspirators and the key to reading the codes. Don't know
what to make of that but we should be alert for sudden revelations.
I humbly suggest that Trump supporters can stop hyperventilating. Your required reading
should be the series of ten articles on the 2016 election by surely the most astute pollster
on the political scene, Nate Silver. Among many, many money quotes, here is one of the most
brutal,
""Coverage rarely mentioned the parallels between Clinton and Al Gore, for instance, who
had failed to win a third consecutive term for Democrats in 2000 under similar conditions to
the ones Clinton faced."
-- Nate Silver
Realistically, we're looking at eight years of Trump... and the transformation of U.S.
society under malign Russian rule, because I firmly believe the bromance between Trump and
Putin is based on one of the two things that Louisiana Governor Edwin Edwards said could
defeat him.
This is a reverse Yeltsin if you will. What goes around comes around. Given that it may
end the horror of American military adventure across the globe, I intend to sit back and
enjoy it. States' rights is thankfully a two-edged sword.
Trump has very limited support among the GOP establishment in the House and Senate. Just look
at the response to the meeting with Putin from Flake, Corker, McCain and Rubio. Who does he
have in the White House that shares his views on foreign policy? At least on trade policy he
has Ross, Navarro and Lighthizer.
He clearly needs another team to lead the intelligence and law enforcement functions. I
think he realizes it but it seems from recent interviews that he feels constrained due to
Mueller and the obstruction of justice charge. Maybe he acts after the mid-terms. In the mean
time the assault by the TDS crowd will continue.
while i agree with your sentiment that these people all need the axe, it seems like a trend
where presidents putting key official in places where they sabotage themselves.
i mean i don't like obama, but what ever good instincts he had, were totally derailed by
his own appointments. particularly on the foreign policy side of things.
Dan Coats was pushed for DNI by Mike Pence. You have to wonder where Pence now stands in
regards to Coats' statements? Wray was pushed for his job by NJ governor Chris Christie. Not sure who was Rosenstein's patron. My guess is Sessions.
Yes. Coats and Pence - two Hoosiers. Chris Christie and Wray- two Jersey Republicans.
Sessions knew Rosenstein from DoJ and the courts. This tells me that Trump did not know
government people.
"... This is the proverbial case where the real " action is in the reaction " and, in this case, the reaction of the Neocon run US deep-state and its propaganda machine (the US corporate media) was nothing short of total and abject hysterics. ..."
"... What Trump is facing today is not a barrage of criticism but a very real lynch mob! And what is really frightening is that almost nobody dares to denounce that hysterical lynch mob for what it is. ..."
"... Even such supposed supporters of President Trump like Trey Gowdy who has fully thrown his weight behind the "Russia tried to attack us" nonsense . With friends like these... ..."
"... What has been taking place after this the summit is an Orwellian "two minutes of hatred" but now stretched well into a two weeks of hatred. And I see no signs that this lynch mob is calming down. In fact, as of this morning, the levels of hysteria are only increasing . ..."
"... By the way, these are typical Neocon-style tactics: double-down, then double-down again, then issue statements which make it impossible for you to back down, then repeat it all as many times as needed. This strategy is useless against a powerful and principled enemy, but it works miracles with a weak and spineless foe like Trump. ..."
"... The process which is taking place before our eyes splits the people of the US into two main categories: first, the Neocons and those whom the US media has successfully brainwashed and, second, everybody else. That second group, by the way, is very diverse and it includes not only bona fide Trump supporters (many of whom have also been zombified in their own way), but also paleo-conservatives, libertarians, antiwar activists, (real) progressives and many other groups. ..."
"... I am also guessing that a lot of folks in the military are watching in horror as their armed forces and their country are being wrecked by the Neocons and their supporters. Basically, those who felt "I want my country back" and who hoped that Trump would make that happen are now horrified by what is taking place. ..."
"... I believe that what we are seeing is a massive and deliberate attack by the Neocons and their deep state against the political system and the people of the United States. Congress, especially, is now guilty of engaging on a de-facto coup against the Executive on so many levels that they are hard to count (and many of them are probably hidden from the public eye) including repeated attempts to prevent Trump from exercising his constitutional powers such as, for example, deciding on foreign policy issues. ..."
"... By now there is overwhelming evidence that a creeping Neocon coup has been in progress from the very first day of Trump's presidency and that the Neocons are far from being satisfied with having broken Trump and taken over the de-facto power in the White House: they now apparently also want it de-jure too. ..."
"... From the Russian point of view, it matters very little whether Trump is removed from office or not – the problem is not one of personalities, but one of the nature of the AngloZionist Empire. ..."
"... the infighting of the US elites does and, if not, then at the very least the current crisis will further weaken the US, hence the Russian willingness to participate in this summit even if by itself this summit brought absolutely no tangible results: the action was in the reaction. ..."
"... The Deep State has opposed him at every turn, choosing to favor the policies of the Neocons and their enablers in the Democratic Party. Hence, having no team of his own, he has been saddled with personnel from the ranks of his most virulent enemies at every level. ..."
"... the Neocons and the Clinton gang are willing to say anything, no matter how destabilizing, to hurt Trump even if the US political system by itself is also put at risk. ..."
"... Saker, something is not adding up. If Trump is truly as pathetic a pushover, as "weak and spineless," as you say, why all the hysteria? If, on the other hand, he is a rather successful wrecking ball, already having put in jeopardy half the key resources of the empire, that's another story. ..."
"... He's laying waste to the Empire in the most peaceful process possible – in large part by so embarrassing the Empire's elites, allies and vassals that they withdraw first their active support, and then finally even their consent. Inducing hysteria, both foreign and domestic, is a non-trivial component of the forces giving the wrecking ball an extra push as it heads for the edifice. ..."
"... I don't think that Trump is the fool on the hill. I think that mostly all those around him are. The latest hysteria over Russia is not about any "meddling" in any "democracy". It's about throwing tantrums that Russia won't submit to US hegemony. In my opinion, they don't deserve to be in charge of their own country, let alone to be asking to be in charge of Russia. ..."
"... It is not just "unanimity of hatred and chaos", "abject hysterics", "hate-filled hysteria", "two minutes of hatred stretched well into a two weeks of hatred" etc. It's something else and, I feel, simply much worse and dangerous. ..."
Oh sure, there were a number of general statements made about "positive discussions" and the
like, and some vague references to various conflicts, but the truth is that nothing real and
tangible was agreed upon. Furthermore, and this is, I believe, absolutely crucial, there never
was any chance of this summit achieving anything. Why? Because the Russians have concluded a
long time ago that the US officials are "
non-agreement capable "
(недоговороспособны).
They are correct – the US has been non-agreement capable at least since Obama and Trump
has only made things even worse: not only has the US now reneged on Joint Comprehensive Plan of
Action (illegally – since this plan was endorsed by the
UNSC ), but Trump has even pathetically backtracked on the most important statement he made
during the summit when he retroactively changed his "
President Putin says it's not Russia. I don't see any reason why it would be " into "
I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be Russia " (so much for 5D chess!).
If Trump can't even stick to his own words, how could anybody expect the Russians to take
anything he says seriously?! Besides, ever since the many western verbal promises of not moving
NATO east "
by one inch eastward " the Russians know that western promises, assurances, and other
guarantees are worthless, whether promised in a conversation or inked on paper. In truth, the
Russians have been very blunt about their disgust with not only the western dishonesty but even
about the basic lack of professionalism of their western counterparts, hence the
comment by Putin about " it is difficult to have a dialogue with people who confuse
Austria and Australia ".
It is quite obvious that the Russians agreed to the summit while knowing full well that
nothing would, or even could, come out of it. This is why they were already dumping US
Treasuries even
before meeting with Trump (a clear sign of how the Kremlin really feels about Trump
and the US).
So why did they agree to the meeting? Because they correctly evaluated the
consequences of this meeting. This is the proverbial case where the real "
action is in
the reaction " and, in this case, the reaction of the Neocon run US deep-state and its
propaganda machine (the US corporate media) was nothing short of total and abject
hysterics. I could list an immense number of quotes, statements and declarations accusing
Trump of being a wimp, a traitor, a sellout, a Putin agent and all the rest. But I found the
most powerful illustration of that hate-filled hysteria in a collection of cartoons from the
western corporate media posted by Colonel Cassad on this page:
What we see today is a hate campaign against both Trump and Russia the likes of which
I think the world has never seen before: even in the early 20th century, including the pre-WWII
years when there was plenty of hate thrown around, there never was such a unanimity of
hatred as what we see today. Furthermore, what is attacked is not just "Trump the man" or
"Trump the politician" but very much so "Trump the President". Please compare the following two
examples:
The US wars after 9/11: many people had major reservations about the wars against
Afghanistan, Iraq and the entire GWOT thing. But most Americans seemed to agree with the "we
support our troops" slogan. The logic was something along the lines of "we don't like these
wars, but we do support our fighting men and women and the military institution as such". Thus,
while a specific policy was criticized, this criticism was never applied to the institution
which implement it: the US armed forces. Trump after Helsinki: keep in mind that Trump made no
agreement of any kind with Putin, none. And yet that policy of not making any
agreements with Putin was hysterically lambasted as a sellout. This begs the question: what
kind of policy would meet with the approval of the US deep state? Trump punching Putin in the
nose maybe? This is utterly ridiculous, yet unlike in the case of the GWOT wars, there is no
differentiation made whatsoever between Trump's policy towards Putin and Trump as the President
of the United States. There is even talk of impeachment, treason and "high crimes &
misdemeanors" or of the "KGB" (dissolved 27 years ago but nevermind that) having a hand in the
election of the US President.
What Trump is facing today is not a barrage of criticism but a very real lynch mob! And what
is really frightening is that almost nobody dares to denounce that hysterical lynch mob for
what it is. There are a few exceptions, of course, even in the media (I think of Tucker
Carlson), but these voices are completely drowned out by the hate-filled shrieks of the vast
majority of US politicians and journalists. Even such supposed supporters of President Trump
like Trey Gowdy who has
fully thrown his weight behind the "Russia tried to attack us" nonsense . With friends like
these...
What has been taking place after this the summit is an Orwellian "two minutes of hatred" but
now stretched well into a two weeks of hatred. And I see no signs that this lynch mob is
calming down. In fact, as of this morning, the levels of hysteria are
only increasing .
By the way, these are typical Neocon-style tactics: double-down, then double-down again,
then issue statements which make it impossible for you to back down, then repeat it all as many
times as needed. This strategy is useless against a powerful and principled enemy, but it works
miracles with a weak and spineless foe like Trump. This is particularly true of US politicians
and journalists who have long become the accomplices of the deep state (especially after the
9/11 false flag and its cover-up) and who now cannot back down under any circumstances or treat
President Trump as a normal, regular, President. The anti-Trump rhetoric has gone way too far
and the US has now reached what I believe is a point of no return.
The brewing constitutional crisis: the Neocons vs the "deplorables"
I believe that the US is facing what could be the worst crisis in its history: the lawfully
elected President is being openly delegitimized and that, in turn, delegitimizes the electoral
process which brought him to power and, of course, it also excoriates the "deplorables" who
dared vote for him: the majority of the American people.
The process which is taking place before our eyes splits the people of the US into two main
categories: first, the Neocons and those whom the US media has successfully brainwashed and,
second, everybody else. That second group, by the way, is very diverse and it includes not only
bona fide Trump supporters (many of whom have also been zombified in their own way), but
also paleo-conservatives, libertarians, antiwar activists, (real) progressives and many other
groups.
I am also guessing that a lot of folks in the military are watching in horror as their
armed forces and their country are being wrecked by the Neocons and their supporters.
Basically, those who felt "I want my country back" and who hoped that Trump would make that
happen are now horrified by what is taking place.
I believe that what we are seeing is a massive and deliberate attack by the Neocons and
their deep state against the political system and the people of the United States. Congress,
especially, is now guilty of engaging on a de-facto coup against the Executive on so
many levels that they are hard to count (and many of them are probably hidden from the public
eye) including repeated attempts to prevent Trump from exercising his constitutional powers
such as, for example, deciding on foreign policy issues. A perfect example of this can be found
in Nancy Pelosi's official statement about a possible invitation from Trump to Putin:
"The notion that President Trump would invite a tyrant to Washington is beyond belief.
Putin's ongoing attacks on our elections and on Western democracies and his illegal actions
in Crimea and the rest of Ukraine deserve the fierce, unanimous condemnation of the
international community, not a VIP ticket to our nation's capital. President Trump's
frightened fawning over Putin is an embarrassment and a grave threat to our democracy. An
invitation to address a Joint Meeting of Congress should be bipartisan and Speaker Ryan must
immediately make clear that there is not – and never will be – an invitation for
a thug like Putin to address the United States Congress."
Another example of the same can be found in the unanimous 98-0 resolution by the
US Senate expressing Congress's opposition to the US government allowing Russia to question
US officials. Trump, of course, immediately caved in, even though he had originally declared
"fantastic" the idea of actually abiding by the terms of an existing 1999 agreement on mutual
assistance on criminal cases between the United States of America and Russia. The White House
"spokesperson", Sarah Sanders, did even better and stated : (emphasis
added)
"It is a proposal that was made in sincerity by President Putin, but President Trump
disagrees with it. Hopefully, President Putin will have the 12 identified Russians come to
the United States to prove their innocence or guilt "
Talk about imperial megalomania! The US will not allow the Russians to interrogate anybody,
but it wants Putin to extradite Russian citizens. Amazing
Every single day, I find myself asking: what do the Russians have on @realDonaldTrump
personally, financially, & politically? The answer to that question is that only thing
that explains his behavior & his refusal to stand up to Putin. #ABetterDeal.
Pretty clear, no? "Trump is a traitor and we have to stop him".
By now there is overwhelming evidence that a creeping Neocon coup has been in progress from
the very first day of Trump's presidency and that the Neocons are far from being satisfied with
having broken Trump and taken over the de-facto power in the White House: they now
apparently also want it de-jure too. The real question is this: are there any forces
inside the US capable of stopping the Neocons from completely taking all the reins of power
and, if yes, how could a patriotic reaction to this Neocon coup manifest itself? I honestly
don't know, but my feeling is that we might soon have a "President Pence" in the Oval Office.
One way or another, a constitutional crisis is brewing.
What about the Russian interests in all this?
I have said it many times, Russia and the AngloZionist Empire (as opposed to the United
States as a country) are at war, a war which is roughly 80% informational, 15% economic and
only 5% "kinetic". This is a very real war nonetheless and it is a war for survival simply
because the Empire cannot allow any major country on the planet to be truly sovereign.
Therefore, not only does the AngloZionist Empire represent an existential threat to Russia,
Russia also represents an existential threat to the Empire. In this kind of conflict for
survival there is no room for anything but a zero-sum game and whatever is good for Russia is
bad for the US and vice-versa.
The Russians, including Putin, never wanted this zero-sum game,
it was imposed upon them by the AngloZionists, but now that they have been forced into it, they
will play it as hard as they can. It is therefore only logical to conclude that the massive
systemic crises in which the Neocons and their crazy policies have plunged the US are to the
advantage of Russia.
To be sure, the ideal scenario would be for Russia and the US (as opposed
to the AngloZionst Empire) to work together on the very long list of issues where they share
common interests. But since the Neocons have seized power and are sacrificing the US for the
sake of their imperial designs, that is simply not going to happen, and the Russians understand
that. Furthermore, since the US constitutes the largest power component of the AngloZionist
Empire, anything weakening the US also thereby weakens the Empire and anything which weakens
the Empire is beneficial for Russia (by the way, the logical corollary of this state of affairs
is that the people of the US and the people of Russia have the same enemy – the Neocons
– and that makes them de-facto allies).
It is not my purpose here to discuss when and how the Neocons came to power in the US, so I
will just say that the delusional policies followed by the various US administrations since at
least 1993 (and, even more so, since 2001) have been disastrous for the United States and could
be characterized as one long never-ending case of imperial hubris (to use the title of
here
). The long string of lost wars and foreign policy disasters are a direct result of this lack
of even basic expertise. What passes for "expertise" today is basically hate-filled hyperbole
and warmongering hysterics, hence the inflation in the paranoid anti-Russian rhetoric.
The
US armed forces are only good at three things: wasting immense sums of money, destroying
countries and alienating the rest of the planet. They are still the most expensive and bloated
armed forces on the planet, but nobody fears them anymore (not even relatively small states,
nevermind Russia or China). In technological terms, the Russians (and to a somewhat lesser
degree the Chinese) have found asymmetrical answers to all the key force planning programs of
the Pentagon and the former US superiority in the air, on land and on the seas is now a thing
of the past. As for the US nuclear triad, it is still capable of accomplishing its mission, but
it is useless as an instrument of foreign policy or to fight Russia or China (unless suicide is
contemplated).
[Sidebar: this inability of the US military to achieve desired political goals might explain
why, at least so far, the US has apparently given up on the notion of a Reconquista of
Syria or why the Ukronazis have not dared to attack the Donbass. Of course, this is too early
to call and these zigs might be followed by many zags, especially in the context of the
political crisis in the US, but it appears that in the cases of the DPRK, Iran, Syria and the
Ukraine there is much barking, but not much biting coming from the supposed sole "hyperpower"
on the planet] The US is now engaged in simultaneous conflicts not only with Iran or Russia but
also with the EU and China. In fact, even relationships with vassal states such as Canada or
France are now worse than ever before. Only the prostituted leaders of "new Europe", to use
Rumsfeld's
term , are still paying lip service to the notion of "American leadership", and only if
they get paid for it.
The US "elites" and the various interest groups they represent have now
clearly turned on each other which is a clear sign that the entire system is in a state of deep
crisis: when things were going well, everybody could get what they wanted and no visible
infighting was taking place. The Israel Lobby has now fully subordinated Congress, the White
House, and the media to its narrow Likudnik agenda and, as a direct result of this,
the US has lost all their positions in the Middle-East and the chorus of those with enough
courage to denounce this Zionist Occupation Government is slowly but steadily growing (at least
on the Internet). Even US Jews are getting fed up with the now openly
Israeli apartheid state (see
here or
here ). By withdrawing from a long list of important international treaties and bodies
(TPP, Kyoto Protocol, START, ABM, JCPOA. UNESCO, UN Human Rights Council, etc.) the United
States has completely isolated themselves from the rest of the planet. The ironic truth is that
Russia has not been isolated in the least, but that the US has isolated itself from the rest of
the planet.
In contrast, the Russians are capitalizing on every single US mistake – be it the
carrier-centric navy, the unconditional support for Israel or the simultaneous trade wars with
China and the EU. Much has been made of the recent revelation of new and revolutionary Russian
weapon systems (see here
and here
) but there is much more to this than just the deployment of new military systems and
technologies: Russia is benefiting from the lack of any real US foreign policies to advance her
own interests in the Middle-East, of course, but also elsewhere. Let's just take the very
latest example of a US self-inflicted PR disaster – the following "tweet" by
Trump: (CAPS in the original)
To Iranian President Rouhani: NEVER, EVER THREATEN THE UNITED STATES AGAIN OR YOU WILL
SUFFER CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES OF WHICH FEW THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED BEFORE. WE
ARE NO LONGER A COUNTRY THAT WILL STAND FOR YOUR DEMENTED WORDS OF VIOLENCE & DEATH. BE
CAUTIOUS!
This kind of infantile (does he not sound like a 6 year old?) and, frankly, rather demented
attempts at scaring Iranians (of all people!) is guaranteed to have the exact opposite effect
from the one presumably sought: the Iranian leaders might snicker in disgust, or have a good
belly-laugh, but they are not going to be
impressed .
The so-called "allies" of the US will be embarrassed in the extreme to be "led"
by such a primitive individual, even if they don't say so in public. As for the Russians, they
will happily explore all the possibilities offered to them by such illiterate and
self-defeating behavior.
Conclusion one: a useful summit for Russia
As a direct consequence of the Helsinki summit, the infighting of the US ruling classes has
dramatically intensified. Furthermore, faced with a barrage of hateful attacks Trump did what
he always does: he tried to simultaneously appease his critics by caving in to their rhetoric
while at the same time trying to appear "tough" – hence his latest "I am a tough guy with
a big red button" antics against Iran (he did exactly the same thing towards the DPRK). We will
probably never find out what exactly Trump and Putin discussed during their private meeting,
but one thing is sure: the fact that Trump sat one-on-one with Putin without any "supervision"
from his deep-state mentors was good enough to create a total panic in the US ruling class
resulting in even more wailing about collusion, impeachment, high crimes & misdemeanors and
even treason. Again, the goal is clear: Trump must be removed.
From the Russian point of view, it matters very little whether Trump is removed from office
or not – the problem is not one of personalities, but one of the nature of the
AngloZionist Empire. The Russians simply don't have the means to bring down the Empire, but the
infighting of the US elites does and, if not, then at the very least the current crisis will
further weaken the US, hence the Russian willingness to participate in this summit even if by
itself this summit brought absolutely no tangible results: the action was in the reaction.
Conclusion two: the Clinton gang's actions can result in a real catastrophe for the
US
Trump's main goal in meeting with Putin was probably to find out whether there was a way to
split up the Russian-Chinese strategic partnership and to back the Israeli demands for Syria.
On the issue of China, Trump never had a chance since the US has really nothing to offer to
Russia (whereas China and Russia are now locked into a
vital symbiotic relationship ). On Syria, the Russians and the Israelis are now negotiating
the details of a deal which would give the Syrian government the control of the demarcation
line with Israel (it is not a border in the legal sense) and Trump's backing for Israel will
make no difference. As for Iran, the Russians will not back the US agenda either for many
reasons ranging from basic self-interest to respect for international law. So while Trump did
the right thing in meeting with Putin, it was predictable at least under the current set of
circumstances, that he would not walk away with tangible results.
For all his very real failings, Trump cannot be blamed for the current situation. The real
culprits are the Clinton gang and the Democratic Party which, by their completely irresponsible
behavior, are creating a very dangerous crisis for the United States: the Neocons and the
Clinton gang are willing to say anything, no matter how destabilizing, to hurt Trump even if
the US political system by itself is also put at risk. Furthermore, the Neocons have now
completely flipped around the presumption of innocence – both externally (Russian
"attack" on the US elections) and internally (Trump's "collusion" with Putin). As for Trump,
whatever his good intentions might have been, he is weak and cannot fight the entire US deep
state by himself. The Neocons and the US deep state are now on a collision course with Russia
and the people of the United States and while Russia does have the means to protect herself
from the Empire, it is unclear to me who, or what could stop the Neocons from further damaging
the US. Deep and systemic crises often result in new personalities entering the stage, but in
the case of the US, it is now undeniable that the system cannot reform
All of this seems profoundly depressing, but it appears to be how things are. I was
disappointed by Trump's efforts to cave into the deep state on his statements. The fact he
can't even control his justice ministry reveals his weakness. I'm of the view history shows
that once spy agencies reach a critical mass in power they become the absolute rulers of a
structure and the rule of law becomes a facade, then is sidelined completely.
Trump was a complete outsider to politics when he decided to run for the presidency in
2015. He had no team or political allies. He really didn't have much of a philosophy of
governance, a solid foundation of history and facts, a first rate vocabulary or the debating
skills of an 8th grader. He has consistently failed to win over any Democratic and probably
not even a majority of Republican politicians.
The Deep State has opposed him at every turn, choosing to favor the policies of the
Neocons and their enablers in the Democratic Party. Hence, having no team of his own, he has
been saddled with personnel from the ranks of his most virulent enemies at every level.
His lack of knowledge and primitive persuasive skills, which might work in big business
but not under the microscope of politics, have not won him any converts but only encouraged a
vicious escalation of antipathy from his opponents, who, controlling the media from top to
bottom, are openly calling him a traitor on no objective grounds, unless trying to do the job
of the office, maintain the peace, and explore possible avenues for reducing international
tensions is now considered treasonous. The charge of treason is clearly bombastic but with
virtually everyone of influence nodding in agreement, it's difficult for the man to retain
his credibility before the public.
Actually, a smidgen south of half the public are the only base of his support. And a very
eclectic base they are, including numerous liberals, progressives, intellectuals and
peaceniks, in addition to conservatives, Republicans and Libertarians, who prefer to deal
with the real world rather than Hillary's deliberate misrepresentation of it.
Will that be enough for him to survive? The way the maniacs are raving in the media,
expect the country to throw a big celebration if he gets "taken out" one way or another
tomorrow. The situation is really dangerous and utterly shameful. Most of the blame goes to
Hillary Clinton and her insurrectionists for not accepting the outcome of our system of
ersatz "democracy." Her husband won with something like 43% of the popular vote in 1992. I'm
pretty sure Trump had a higher number. Cry me a river, Hillary, but stop trying to destroy
what you can't have like a petulant child.
the logical corollary of this state of affairs is that the people of the US and the people
of Russia have the same enemy – the Neocons – and that makes them de-facto
allies
I think it would be more accurate to say that the people of Russia had the same
enemy.
By the way, these are typical Neocon-style tactics: double-down, then double-down again,
then issue statements which make it impossible for you to back down, then repeat it all as
many times as needed.
It's like trial lawyers say: if the facts are on your side and the law is not, then argue
the facts; if the law is on your side and the facts are not, then argue the law; and if
neither the facts nor the law are on your side, then bang your fists on the table and shout
as loud as you can! That's exactly what the neo-clowns are doing here.
the Neocons and the Clinton gang are willing to say anything, no matter how
destabilizing, to hurt Trump even if the US political system by itself is also put at
risk.
All of which just helps to further discredit the empire. Even with all the insanity in the
media, I still thank God every day that Hellary did not become president.
The above h0moerotic caricature of Putin and Trump is quite revealing in what it tells us
about what drives the emotional life of White Liberals and White Leftist. They are driven by
powerful urges to impose homosexuality-pedophilia-pederasty on both Christian Russia and the
Working Class Native Born White American Christians.
Saker, something is not adding up. If Trump is truly as pathetic a pushover, as "weak and
spineless," as you say, why all the hysteria? If, on the other hand, he is a rather successful wrecking ball, already having put in
jeopardy half the key resources of the empire, that's another story.
I think because Trump postulated himself as a candidate, then got nominated the Republican
candidate and worst of all, despite the huge campaign against him, won the elections, without
the blessing of the Deep State and the neocons. So now they want to teach him (and anyone
else who might think about doing the same) a lesson: "Anyone who tries to become president
without our approval will be crushed", so it never happens again.
something is not adding up. If Trump is truly as pathetic a pushover, as "weak and
spineless," as you say, why all the hysteria?
And nobody seems to like him
They can tell what he wants to do
And he never shows his feelings
But the fool on the hill
Sees the sun going down
And the eyes in his head
See the world spinning around
That Trump is a wrecking ball is a hypothesis I've held since the first GOP debate, when I
also realized he would (probably) win not only the election, but may even succeed at the far
more difficult challenge of bringing the Empire to a sufficiently soft landing that the
nation survives. I'm less convinced of the latter now, largely because I underestimated the
centrifugal forces driving the fault lines in the American body politic. The nation,
tragically may not survive the Empire's twilight, but I've seen nothing that makes me want to
change my hypothesis.
He's laying waste to the Empire in the most peaceful process possible – in large
part by so embarrassing the Empire's elites, allies and vassals that they withdraw first
their active support, and then finally even their consent. Inducing hysteria, both foreign
and domestic, is a non-trivial component of the forces giving the wrecking ball an extra push
as it heads for the edifice.
As for the summit, I frankly wouldn't be surprised to learn that much of it was staged for
maximum hysteria-inducing effect. Their 2hrs spent alone probably was little more than
comparing notes. After all, what can Trump promise that he can also deliver under the
circumstances? He can only promise to keep doing what he's doing.
In any case, they both know the Empire has to go, and they both want the American nation
to be a player after it goes. A vibrant America is as critical to the multipolar world as it
is to Americans. Maybe more so.
Collusion? Maybe, but the Trump phenomena, IMHO, has all the earmarks of regime change
done right. With or without collusion, the hystericals can't quite put their finger on
what happened, which drives further hysteria, which pushes the wrecking ball even faster,
which drives....
now undeniable that the system cannot reform itself
Yes, Saker and that puts US politics behind European fascism of 70+ years ago. Mussolini was booted out by a fascist committee, Franco paved the way for a constitutional
monarchy, but all Americans get is Bozo the Clown/President.
The destruction of the US working class amazes me in its absence from all serious debate.
First subverted by the CIA then rendered null by outsourcing (which is still undercounted)
the "deplorables" have no mechanism for resistence except the unthinkable one: Hope for total
breakup of the United States. Or hope for a foreign invasion.
Makes one wonder. When Egyptians greeted Alexander the Great as a liberator as he
conquered them, it was a fairly pungent comment on the ruling Persians. Will blue-collar
former-Yanks be cheering for liberating Chinese or Russian troops anytime soon? Henry
Kissinger once predicted something of the sort.
Well on the way, head in a cloud
The man of a thousand voices talking perfectly loud
But nobody ever hears him
Or the sound he appears to make
And he never seems to notice
He never listens to them
He knows that they're the fools
They don't like him
I don't think that Trump is the fool on the hill. I think that mostly all those around him
are. The latest hysteria over Russia is not about any "meddling" in any "democracy". It's about throwing tantrums that Russia won't submit to US hegemony. In my opinion, they
don't deserve to be in charge of their own country, let alone to be asking to be in charge of
Russia.
All they come up with is terrible ideas which they in their generosity are way too eager
to share with the world – against the wishes or the best interests of the world. Like
the multiculturalism. It's bad enough that they came up with that awful idea, but then they
had to force it down the throats of the stupid Europeans.
Then when Merkel showed enough brains to challenge their idea, they forced her to make 180
turn and to welcome over a 1 million refugees from the imperial misadventures.
Well, Saker did put, this time, some good points here.
Of course, they were well mixed with the usual Kremlin propaganda, but that's now like "good
morning" with his writing. Probably all public members of "Team Russia" have that clause in
their contract.
The usual spin "Russia is great, winning, and all is not only good but simply getting better
for Kremlin and the Great Leader".
He does point to this "thing" with MSM and public figures in West re the summit.
I agree, it's surreal. If I were watching this in a serious movie I'd change the channel/walk
out. If I were reading a serious book with the "thing" as a part of the plot I'd stop
reading. I think there IS something there.
It is not just "unanimity of hatred and chaos", "abject hysterics", "hate-filled
hysteria", "two minutes of hatred stretched well into a two weeks of hatred" etc. It's
something else and, I feel, simply much worse and dangerous.
I guess we have entered a zone beyond geopolitics into mass psychology. Not my area of
expertise at all, but simply feel there is something there. It feels as watching, hard to express it, hysterical people? Now, on my level, whenever I dealt with such people I simply walked away, most of the
time. A couple of times, when I couldn't walk away I simply floored them (or so I say). Both
men and women (talking about being a gentleman , a). With women, it's even easier, just one
strike, weak hand even. With men a full combination, even with a takedown and
..anyway. Joking. Sort of. Besides, I was younger then. But how can you take out people who control, in essence, US power, nuclear weapons in
particular? You simply can't . That is what makes, IMHO, this so dangerous. I simply can't recollect anything similar in relationship between superpowers. I am not so optimistic re the collapse of The Empire, multipolar world etc.
This "thing" can, I concede, deliver a couple of goods:
People, at last, realizing who, or better what, are our "betters".
The real power of The Empire diminishing because of the mess and chaos those species
..created.
Those two things creating an opportunity to, somehow, do something about this
abomination.
But, and a big but, there is the flip there.
People simply not paying attention. And, those hysterics really getting the levers of power
in their hands. While they are in that state, that is.
As I've said several times here so far (doesn't matter a bit, of course) Trump supporters
fucked up.
Not him; he didn't expect to win and when he did he found himself in a really bad
position.
His supporters. As soon as he won they walked home. A mistake.
A terrible mistake. I feel we'll all pay, dearly, for it.
California – $2.751 trillion
Texas – $1.707 trillion
Russia – $1.578 trillion
Likbez:
@Winston July 28, 2018 at 10:00 am
Cult of GDP is a damaging mental disease. With the size of the USA financial sector it is grossly distorted.
The inflated costs of pharmaceutical and medical-industrial complex add another large portion of air into the US GDP.
Surveillance Valley (Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, etc ) firms valuations are also inflated and their
contribution to the USA economics is overestimated in GDP.
There is also such thing as purchase parity. To compare GDP between countries, you must use purchasing power parity. To
compare GDP without calculating in purchasing parity is just naïve.
I suspect that in real purchasing power Russia is close to Germany (which means it it is the fifth largest economy)
The USA still has dominance is key technologies and cultural influence.
"... While agree totally with what Col. Davis says here about ending America's involvement in the Afghanistan War. Way to many are profiting from this long-term misadventure. ..."
"... Eminently sensible advice, except that Trump can't take it without being greeted with a hysterical chorus of "we're losing Afghanistan ZOMG!" (as if we ever had it) and "Putin puppet!" ..."
"... "Of course most Americans are clueless about the cost of these wars and how it impacts money necessary to re-build our country infrastructures." ..."
"... Completely disagree. I don't know a single individual who supports the war in Afghanistan or misunderstands its costs. The American people just have no say in the matter. ..."
"... Finally, they realise what St Ronnie knew in the 1980s. He created the Taliban we know today via Operation Cyclone. Maybe Ollie North can lead the negotiations? He seems to have a good channel to the Iranians ..."
"... Putting together Sid_finster's and spite's comments paints an interesting picture. Aside from war profiteering (Fran Macadam) there is no real purpose served by our occupation except to be there. ..."
"... I'll go a step further and say that the invasion of Afghanistan was unnecessary too. We were not attacked by Afghanistan. We were not even attacked by the Taliban. We were attacked by al Quaida, by teams comprised mostly of Saudi Arabians. ..."
"... It cannot be repeated too often that Afghanistan is the graveyard of empires. Let the Taliban have it. ..."
"... What the Army could not do, and still cannot do, is transform a tribal society in isolated mountainous terrain into a liberal democracy. As LTC Davis observes: "The reason McChrystal failed to end the war -- and Miller will likewise fail -- is that these objectives can't be militarily accomplished." ..."
"... The conclusion of this simple argument is that the war in Afghanistan actually has almost nothing to do with that country and almost entirely to do with the political and economic demands arising from the US .nothing to do with Afghanistan other than the destruction of the place and its people. ..."
We have no choice. The 17-year war in Afghanistan has failed at every level, while the violence is only
getting worse.
Reports have surfaced recently that the White House is
instructing
its senior diplomats
to begin seeking "direct talks with the Taliban." It's a
measure that would have been unthinkable at the start of the Afghanistan war yet today it's long overdue. Despite the
criticism it's elicited, such talks offer the best chance of ending America's longest and most futile war.
While there is broad agreement that American leaders were justified in launching military
operations in Afghanistan following the 9/11 attacks, it's painfully evident after 17 years that no one has any idea how
to end the fighting on military terms.
Possibly the biggest impediment to ending the war has been the definition of the word
"win." General
Stanley McChrystal
said in 2009 that winning in
Afghanistan meant "reversing the perceived momentum" of the Taliban, "seek[ing] rapid growth of Afghan national security
forces," and "tackl[ing] the issue of predatory corruption by some" Afghan officials.
Nine full years and zero successes later, however, Lieutenant General Austin S.
Miller, latest in line to command U.S. troops in Afghanistan, defined as America's "core goal" at his
confirmation hearing
that "terrorists can never again use Afghanistan as a
safe haven to threaten the United States."
The reason McChrystal failed to end the war -- and Miller will likewise fail -- is that
these objectives
can't be militarily accomplished.
Predicating an end to the war on such is to guarantee perpetual failure. A major course correction is therefore in
order.
Keeping 15,000 U.S. troops on the ground in Afghanistan does not,
in any way
, prevent terror attacks against the
United States from originating there -- and for this lack of success we will pay at least
$45 billion
this year alone. The real solution
is therefore to withdraw our troops as quickly as can be safely accomplished rather than throw more of them into a
fruitless conflict.
I personally observed in 2011 during my second combat deployment in Afghanistan that
even with 140,000 U.S. and NATO boots on the ground, there were still vast swaths of the country that were ungoverned
and off-limits to allied troops.
Meaning, at no point since October 2001 has American military power prevented
Afghanistan from having ungoverned spaces. What
has
kept us safe, however -- and will continue to keep us safe -- has been our robust, globally
focused
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities that work in concert with the CIA, FBI, and local law
enforcement to defend our borders from external attack.
Many pundits claim that if the U.S. military withdraws from Afghanistan then chaos
will reign there -- and that is almost certainly true. But that's how we found Afghanistan, that's how it is today,
and -- wholly irrespective of when or under what conditions the U.S. leaves -- that's how it will be long into the future
until Afghans themselves come to an accommodation.
The question U.S. policymakers need to ask is which is more important to American
interests: the maintenance of a perpetually costly war that fails to prevent any future attacks, or ending America's
participation in that war?
Continuing to fight for a country that can't be won cements a policy that has drained
the U.S. of vital resources, spilled the blood of American service members to no effect, and dissipated the Armed Forces'
ability to defend against potentially existential threats later on -- while in the meantime not diminishing the threat of
international terrorism. To strengthen our national security, we must end the enduring policy of failure by prudently
and effectively ending our military mission.
While the fundamentals of a withdrawal plan are relatively straightforward, they would
still be met by considerable opposition. One of the arguments against leaving was voiced by McChrystal nine years ago
when
he pleaded
with the American public to "show resolve" because "uncertainty
disheartens our allies [and] emboldens our foe." Yet the facts can't be denied any longer: for all eight years of the
Obama administration and the first 500 days of Trump's tenure, we maintained that "resolve" and were rewarded with an
unequivocal deterioration of the war.
Since McChrystal's admonition to maintain the status quo, the Taliban have exploded in
strength to
reportedly 77,000
, more territory is now in the
hands of the insurgents than at
any point since 2001
, the Afghan government
remains one of the
most corrupt regimes
on the planet, and
civilian casualties in the first half of 2018 are the
highest ever recorded
.
The only way this permanent failure ends is if President Trump shows the courage he
has sometimes demonstrated to push back against the Washington establishment. That means ignoring the status quo that
holds our security hostage, ending the war, and redeploying our troops. Without that resolve, we can count on continued
failure in Afghanistan. With it, American security will be strengthened and readiness improved.
Daniel L. Davis is a senior fellow at Defense Priorities and a former lieutenant
colonel in the U.S. Army who retired in 2015 after 21 years, including four combat deployments. Follow him on Twitter
@DanielLDavis1
.
While agree totally with what Col. Davis says here about ending America's involvement in the Afghanistan War.
Way to many are profiting from this long-term misadventure. The only way these wars of choice will ever end is
when Congress has the balls to cut off funding. Of course most Americans are clueless about the cost of these
wars and how it impacts money necessary to re-build our country infrastructures. Military madness indeed.
Eminently sensible advice, except that Trump can't take it without being greeted with a hysterical chorus of
"we're losing Afghanistan ZOMG!" (as if we ever had it) and "Putin puppet!"
If Trump were going to leave, he
should have done so soon after taking office. At least then he could blame his predecessors.
The financial security of the National Security State and its suppliers now depends on no war ever ending or
being won. The new definition of defeat is having any war end. As long as it continues, that war is being won.
"Of course most Americans are clueless about the cost of these wars and how it impacts money necessary to
re-build our country infrastructures."
Completely disagree. I don't know a single individual who supports the
war in Afghanistan or misunderstands its costs.
The American people just have no say in the matter.
There is only one reason why the USA is still in Afghanistan that makes sense (all the official reasons are an
insult to ones intelligence), it borders on Iran and thus serves as a means to open a new front against Iran.
The more the US pushes for war against Iran, the more this seems correct.
"Reports have surfaced recently that the White House is instructing its senior diplomats to begin seeking
"direct talks with the Taliban."
I have to give my Jr High response here:
"Well, duh."
__________________
"While there is broad agreement that American leaders were justified in launching military operations in
Afghanistan following the 9/11 attacks . . ."
Yeah . . . no.
1. They manipulated the game to make what was a crime an act of war to justify the an unnecessary,
unethical, and strategically unwise invasion. I remain now where I was 14 years ago -- bad decision in every
way.
2. It was even a poor decision based on reason for war. To utterly bend the will of the opponent to conform
to the will of the US. it is possible to win. But to do so would require such massive force, brutality and
will.
3. 9/11 was a simple criminal act, despite the damage. As a crime we should have sought extradition, and or
small team FBI and special forces operations to a small footprint in either capturing, and or if need be
killing Osama bin Laden and company.
Nothing that has occurred since 9/11 provides evidence that the invasion was either justified or effective.
It will if the end game is to quit be one of three losses suffered by the US.
They are: War of 1812
Iraq
Afghanistan
" . . . it's painfully evident after 17 years that no one has any idea how to end the fighting on military
terms."
Sure leave. Though talking so as to avert whole slaughter of those that aided the US is the decent thing to
do.
Finally, they realise what St Ronnie knew in the 1980s. He created the Taliban we know today via Operation
Cyclone. Maybe Ollie North can lead the negotiations? He seems to have a good channel to the Iranians
Solving USA problems in Afghanistan an at the same time pushing for war with Iran is by definition classic
oxymoron. Afghanistan's problems can only be solved with cooperation and understanding with Iran. Conflict of
the USA with Iran will extend indefinitely the suffering of the Afghanis and the eventual lose of the
Afghanistan and Iran to the Russia. Always reigniting and keeping on the front burner the conflict with Iran by
the USA is exactly what Russia and V. Putin want. I can't see any other politicians except D. Trump, B.
Netanyahu and American 'conservatives' for the advancement of the Russia's goals in the Middle East and in the
globalistan. These are the new XXI century 'useful (adjective)'.
Putting together Sid_finster's and spite's comments paints an interesting picture. Aside from war profiteering
(Fran Macadam) there is no real purpose served by our occupation except to be there.
I'll go a step further
and say that the invasion of Afghanistan was unnecessary too. We were not attacked by Afghanistan. We were not
even attacked by the Taliban. We were attacked by al Quaida, by teams comprised mostly of Saudi Arabians. This
should have been a dirty knife fight in all the back alleys of the world, but we responded to the sucker punch
as our attackers intended; getting into a brawl with somebody else in the same bar; eventually, with more than
one somebody else.
It cannot be repeated too often that Afghanistan is the graveyard of empires. Let the Taliban have it.
Indeed, but as others have commented, the entire point of the Afghanistan war is that it is pointless. It can
suck up enormous amounts of money, and generate incredible profits for politically connected defense
contractors – and because Afghanistan is in fact pointless, it doesn't matter if all of that money is wasted or
stolen, how could you tell? The vested interest in these winless pointless foreign wars means that they will
continue until the American economy finally collapses – and anyone who opposes these wars is a fascist, a
Russian stooge, "literally Hitler." Because money.
Thank you for this. I am very surprised to learn that Trump is pursuing this, given his pugilistic nature. I
hope he does in fact, get us the hell out of there. He may be, like Nixon, the one who is politically able to
make this smart move. Can you imagine the Republican outrage if Obama had tried a diplomatic exit from this
sand trap?
We can still be proud of what we attempted to do there. A few years post-9/11, an Afghan colleague of mine
who had come to the US as a boy said, "9/11 is the best thing to ever happen to Afghanistan." He meant that
rather than carpet bombing Afghanistan "back to the Stone Age," as the left predicted the US would do, we
poured billions of dollars in aide to build schools, hospitals, sewage and water plants, roads, etc.
"He meant that rather than carpet bombing Afghanistan "back to the Stone Age," as the left predicted the US
would do, we poured billions of dollars in aide to build schools, hospitals, sewage and water plants, roads,
etc."
And we could have done a lot more if we had not invaded. The Taliban had nothing to do with 9/11.
The achievable operational level Military objectives in the Afghan war were accomplished in the first year; The
Taliban were out of power and hiding in Pakistan and the Afghans had a somewhat benevolent government that
wanted to guarantee security an property and a measure of individual liberty.
What the Army could not do, and still cannot do, is transform a tribal society in isolated mountainous
terrain into a liberal democracy. As LTC Davis observes: "The reason McChrystal failed to end the war -- and
Miller will likewise fail -- is that these objectives can't be militarily accomplished."
This has been particularly true with the intense guerrilla actions enabled by the Pakistanis who have a
vested interest in an unstable Afghanistan.
I believe the noble goals 'might' have been doable – but it would have required a level of effort, and more
importantly a 'cultural confidence' on par with the Roman Empire of the 2nd Century to pull it off. That is no
longer us.
"9/11 is the best thing to ever happen to Afghanistan"? I bet none of his family members died or suffered.
Probably they are all living in the US. Are we supposed to feel proud that instead of carpet bombing and
killing millions our war killed only a hundred thousand?
Sadly, Kent, I do know people who still claim that our continued presence in Afghanistan is a good thing. Some
of these are otherwise fairly bright people, so I really can't comprehend why they continue to buy into this
idiocy.
Afghanistan must be Afghanistan and the US must be the US; this is such a simple tautology. If the US leaves,
Afghanistan will become what ever it can for its own reasons and options. If the US stays, it will be for the
US' reasons, not for the Afghans.
The conclusion of this simple argument is that the war in Afghanistan
actually has almost nothing to do with that country and almost entirely to do with the political and economic
demands arising from the US .nothing to do with Afghanistan other than the destruction of the place and its
people.
"... Well, it comes down to the myths we've been sold. Myths that are ingrained in our social programming from birth, deeply entrenched, like an impacted wisdom tooth. These myths are accepted and basically never questioned. ..."
"... Our media outlets are funded by weapons contractors, big pharma, big banks, big oil and big, fat hard-on pills. (Sorry to go hard on hard-on pills, but we can't get anything resembling hard news because it's funded by dicks.) The corporate media's jobs are to rally for war, cheer for Wall Street and froth at the mouth for consumerism. It's their mission to actually fortify belief in the myths I'm telling you about right now. Anybody who steps outside that paradigm is treated like they're standing on a playground wearing nothing but a trench coat. ..."
"... The criminal justice system has become a weapon wielded by the corporate state. This is how bankers can foreclose on millions of homes illegally and see no jail time, but activists often serve jail time for nonviolent civil disobedience. Chris Hedges recently noted , "The most basic constitutional rights have been erased for many. Our judicial system, as Ralph Nader has pointed out, has legalized secret law, secret courts, secret evidence, secret budgets and secret prisons in the name of national security." ..."
"... This myth (Buying will make you happy) is put forward mainly by the floods of advertising we take in but also by our social engineering. Most of us feel a tenacious emptiness, an alienation deep down behind our surface emotions (for a while I thought it was gas). That uneasiness is because most of us are flushing away our lives at jobs we hate before going home to seclusion boxes called houses or apartments. We then flip on the TV to watch reality shows about people who have it worse than we do (which we all find hilarious). ..."
"... According to Deloitte's Shift Index survey : "80% of people are dissatisfied with their jobs" and "[t]he average person spends 90,000 hours at work over their lifetime." That's about one-seventh of your life -- and most of it is during your most productive years. ..."
"... Try maintaining your privacy for a week without a single email, web search or location data set collected by the NSA and the telecoms. ..."
Our society should've collapsed by now. You know that, right?
No society should function with this level of inequality (with the possible exception of one of those prison planets in a "Star
Wars" movie). Sixty-three percent of Americans
can't afford a $500 emergency
. Yet Amazon head Jeff Bezos is now
worth a record $141 billion . He could literally end world hunger for multiple years and still have more money left over than
he could ever spend on himself.
Worldwide,
one in
10 people only make $2 a day. Do you know how long it would take one of those people to make the same amount as Jeff Bezos has?
193 million years . (If they only buy single-ply toilet paper.) Put simply, you cannot comprehend the level of inequality in our
current world or even just our nation.
So shouldn't there be riots in the streets every day? Shouldn't it all be collapsing? Look outside. The streets aren't on fire.
No one is running naked and screaming (usually). Does it look like everyone's going to work at gunpoint? No. We're all choosing to
continue on like this.
Why?
Well, it comes down to the myths we've been sold. Myths that are ingrained in our social programming from birth, deeply entrenched,
like an impacted wisdom tooth. These myths are accepted and basically never questioned.
I'm going to cover eight of them. There are more than eight. There are probably hundreds. But I'm going to cover eight because
(A) no one reads a column titled "Hundreds of Myths of American Society," (B) these are the most important ones and (C) we all have
other shit to do.
Myth No. 8 -- We have a democracy.
If you think we still have a democracy or a democratic republic, ask yourself this: When was the last time Congress did something
that the people of America supported that did not align with corporate interests? You probably can't do it. It's like trying to think
of something that rhymes with "orange." You feel like an answer exists but then slowly realize it doesn't. Even the Carter Center
and former President Jimmy Carter believe that America has been
transformed into
an oligarchy : A small, corrupt elite control the country with almost no input from the people. The rulers need the myth that
we're a democracy to give us the illusion of control.
Myth No. 7 -- We have an accountable and legitimate voting system.
Gerrymandering, voter purging, data mining, broken exit polling, push polling, superdelegates, electoral votes, black-box machines,
voter ID suppression, provisional ballots, super PACs, dark money, third parties banished from the debates and two corporate parties
that stand for the same goddamn pile of fetid crap!
What part of this sounds like a legitimate election system?
No, we have what a large Harvard study called the
worst election system in the Western world . Have you ever seen where a parent has a toddler in a car seat, and the toddler has
a tiny, brightly colored toy steering wheel so he can feel like he's driving the car? That's what our election system is -- a toy
steering wheel. Not connected to anything. We all sit here like infants, excitedly shouting, "I'm steeeeering !"
And I know it's counterintuitive, but that's why you have to vote. We have to vote in such numbers that we beat out what's stolen
through our ridiculous rigged system.
Myth No. 6 -- We have an independent media that keeps the rulers accountable.
Our media outlets are funded by weapons contractors, big pharma, big banks, big oil and big, fat hard-on pills. (Sorry to go hard
on hard-on pills, but we can't get anything resembling hard news because it's funded by dicks.) The corporate media's jobs are to
rally for war, cheer for Wall Street and froth at the mouth for consumerism. It's their mission to actually fortify belief in the
myths I'm telling you about right now. Anybody who steps outside that paradigm is treated like they're standing on a playground wearing
nothing but a trench coat.
Myth No. 5 -- We have an independent judiciary.
The criminal justice system has become a weapon wielded by the corporate state. This is how bankers can foreclose on millions
of homes illegally and see no jail time, but activists often serve jail time for nonviolent civil disobedience. Chris Hedges
recently noted , "The most basic constitutional
rights have been erased for many. Our judicial system, as Ralph Nader has pointed out, has legalized secret law, secret courts, secret
evidence, secret budgets and secret prisons in the name of national security."
If you're not part of the monied class, you're pressured into releasing what few rights you have left. According to
The New
York Times , "97 percent of federal cases and 94 percent of state cases end in plea bargains, with defendants pleading guilty
in exchange for a lesser sentence."
That's the name of the game. Pressure people of color and poor people to just take the plea deal because they don't have a million
dollars to spend on a lawyer. (At least not one who doesn't advertise on beer coasters.)
Myth No. 4 -- The police are here to protect you. They're your friends .
That's funny. I don't recall my friend pressuring me into sex to get out of a speeding ticket. (Which is essentially still
legal in 32
states .)
The police in our country are primarily designed to do two things: protect the property of the rich and perpetrate the completely
immoral war on drugs -- which by definition is a war on our own people .
We lock up more people than
any other country on earth
. Meaning the land of the free is the largest prison state in the world. So all these droopy-faced politicians and rabid-talking
heads telling you how awful China is on human rights or Iran or North Korea -- none of them match the numbers of people locked up
right here under Lady Liberty's skirt.
Myth No. 3 -- Buying will make you happy.
This myth (Buying will make you happy) is put forward mainly by the floods of advertising we take in but also by our social engineering. Most of us feel a
tenacious emptiness, an alienation deep down behind our surface emotions (for a while I thought it was gas). That uneasiness is because
most of us are flushing away our lives at jobs we hate before going home to seclusion boxes called houses or apartments. We then
flip on the TV to watch reality shows about people who have it worse than we do (which we all find hilarious).
If we're lucky, we'll make enough money during the week to afford enough beer on the weekend to help it all make sense. (I find
it takes at least four beers for everything to add up.) But that doesn't truly bring us fulfillment. So what now? Well, the ads say
buying will do it. Try to smother the depression and desperation under a blanket of flat-screen TVs, purses and Jet Skis. Now does
your life have meaning? No? Well, maybe you have to drive that Jet Ski a little faster! Crank it up until your bathing suit flies
off and you'll feel alive !
The dark truth is that we have to believe the myth that consuming is the answer or else we won't keep running around the wheel.
And if we aren't running around the wheel, then we start thinking, start asking questions. Those questions are not good for the ruling
elite, who enjoy a society based on the daily exploitation of 99 percent of us.
Myth No. 2 -- If you work hard, things will get better.
According to Deloitte's Shift
Index survey : "80% of people are dissatisfied with their jobs" and "[t]he average person spends 90,000 hours at work over their
lifetime." That's about one-seventh of your life -- and most of it is during your most productive years.
Ask yourself what we're working for. To make money? For what? Almost none of us are doing jobs for survival anymore. Once upon
a time, jobs boiled down to:
I plant the food -- >I eat the food -- >If I don't plant food = I die.
But nowadays, if you work at a café -- will someone die if they don't get their super-caf-mocha-frap-almond-piss-latte? I kinda
doubt they'll keel over from a blueberry scone deficiency.
If you work at Macy's, will customers perish if they don't get those boxer briefs with the sweat-absorbent-ass fabric? I doubt
it. And if they do die from that, then their problems were far greater than you could've known. So that means we're all working to
make other people rich because we have a society in which we have to work. Technological advancements can do most everything that
truly must get done.
So if we wanted to, we could get rid of most work and have tens of thousands of more hours to enjoy our lives. But we're not doing
that at all. And no one's allowed to ask these questions -- not on your mainstream airwaves at least. Even a half-step like universal
basic income is barely discussed because it doesn't compute with our cultural programming.
Scientists say it's quite possible artificial intelligence will take away
all human jobs in 120 years . I think they know that will
happen because bots will take the jobs and then realize that 80 percent of them don't need to be done! The bots will take over and
then say, "Stop it. Stop spending a seventh of your life folding shirts at Banana Republic."
One day, we will build monuments to the bot that told us to enjoy our lives and leave the shirts wrinkly.
And this leads me to the largest myth of our American society.
Myth No. 1 -- You are free.
... ... ...
Try sleeping in your car for more than a few hours without being harassed by police.
Try maintaining your privacy for a week without a single email, web search or location data set collected by the NSA and the telecoms.
Try signing up for the military because you need college money and then one day just walking off the base, going, "Yeah, I was
bored. Thought I would just not do this anymore."
Try explaining to Kentucky Fried Chicken that while you don't have the green pieces of paper they want in exchange for the mashed
potatoes, you do have some pictures you've drawn on a napkin to give them instead.
Try using the restroom at Starbucks without buying something while black.
We are less free than a dog on a leash. We live in one of the hardest-working, most unequal societies on the planet with more
billionaires than ever .
Meanwhile,
Americans
supply 94 percent of the paid blood used worldwide. And it's almost exclusively coming from very poor people. This abusive vampire
system is literally sucking the blood from the poor. Does that sound like a free decision they made? Or does that sound like something
people do after immense economic force crushes down around them? (One could argue that sperm donation takes a little less convincing.)
Point is, in order to enforce this illogical, immoral system, the corrupt rulers -- most of the time -- don't need guns and tear
gas to keep the exploitation mechanisms humming along. All they need are some good, solid bullshit myths for us all to buy into,
hook, line and sinker. Some fairy tales for adults.
815M people chronically malnourished according to the UN. Bezos is worth $141B.
$141B / 815M people = $173 per person. That would definitely not feed them for "multiple years". And that's only if Bezos could
fully liquidate the stock without it dropping a penny.
" Point is, in order to enforce this illogical, immoral system, the corrupt rulers -- most of the time -- don't
need guns and tear gas to keep the exploitation mechanisms humming along. All they need are some good, solid bullshit myths for
us all to buy into, hook, line and sinker. Some fairy tales for adults. "
Seems like there's tear gas in the air and guns are going to be used soon. The myths are dying on the tongues of the liars.
Molon Labe!....and I'm usually a pacifist.
"American Society Would Collapse If It Weren't For Invasions Of Foreign Countries, Murdering Their People, Stealing Their Oil
Then Blaming Them For Making The US Do It."
Well, in a world driven by oil, it is entirely bogus to suggest that citizens have to work their asses off. That was the whole
point of the bill of goods that was sold to us in the late 70's and early 80'. More leisure time, more time for your family and
personal interests.
Except! It never happened. All they fucking did was reduce real wages and force everyone from the upper middle class down,
into a shit hole.
But, they will pay for their folly. Guaran-fucking-teed.
As one who has hoed many rows of cotton in 115F temperatures as well as picking cotton during my childhood and early adolescence
during weekends and school holidays, I concur. It was a very powerful inducement to get a good education back when schools actually
taught things and did not tolerate backtalk or guff from students instead of babysitting them. It worked, and I ended up writing
computer software for spacecraft, which was much fun than working in the fields.
Yeah, it's amazing to watch. With Trump in 2016 they went with "Racist, Sexist, Homophobe,
insane person", etc. and now they're going with "Russia" and censorship.
Labor was such a longtime stronghold for the Democrats and they've lost it. Labor doesn't
give a shit about Russia. Everyone though, is sick of the corruption. #Walkaway. The whole
"Russia" hoax is designed to blow a huge smoke screen into the felony crimes committed
principally by Clinton allies and the deep state.
The immolation of both the legacy media and the democratic party is occurring
simultaneously. We have seen Peak Facebook.
We have some real giants out there like Stefan Molyneux. A whole galaxy of them helped
bring Trump into the White House and as legacy platforms censor, new ones arise.
I am afraid that historically we better be prepared for what the left does when it doesn't
get its way and that is violence. Look at how the media is openly inciting violence. They've
made heros out of thugs who rob, out of violent shit-and-piss hurling hooligans, and
democratic local bosses have stood down as law-abiding citizens assembled for peaceful
speech.
So the wholesale insanity is going to be more than screaming at the sky.
We continue careening towards more conflicts which can always lead to unintended
consequences, ever closer to nuclear war. Meanwhile efforts for a dialogue with Russia are
thwarted by our internal politics and dysfunction in Washington.
Sifting through the cacophony of commentary from the Trump-Putin meeting in Helsinki, here
are four key points missed, ignored or glossed over by the Washington establishment and
mainstream news coverage - and they require a good airing.
They are:
1) It's clear now that Europeans will increase their contributions to NATO. But Big Media
totally ignored the trillion dollar gorilla in room: Why does anyone have to spend so much on
NATO in the first place?
Are we planning a ground attack on Russia because we really think the former Soviet Empire
will invade Poland or the Baltic nations? Are we planning for a land war in Europe to
intervene in the Ukraine? What for is the money? The Trump administration and Big Media, for
all their noise, mainly argue that more spending is good. There is no debate about the
reasons why. Meanwhile
Russia is cutting its military spending.
Washington is so dominated by our military-industrial-congressional complex that spending
money is a major intent. Remember when Washington first insisted that putting up an
anti-missile system in Poland and Romania was supposed to protect Europe from an Iranian
attack? Of course, it was really directed against Russia. Washington was so eager to spend
the money that it didn't even ask the Europeans to pay the cost even though it was supposedly
for their defense. As of 2016 Washington had spent $800 million on the
site in Romania. Now it appears that Poland and Romania will pay billions to the Raytheon
Corporation for the shield to comply with their commitment to increase military spending to 2
percent of gross national product.
2) There was no focus on the real, growing threat of nuclear war, intentional or
accidental. No one, including journalists at the joint press conference, spoke about the
collapsing missile treaties (the only one who reportedly seemed keen to discuss it was
ejected beforehand).
Scott Ritter details these alarming risks here on TAC .
The U.S. is now funding new cruise missiles with nukes which allow for a surprise attack
on Russia with only a few minutes of warning, unlike the ICBMs which launch gives a half an
hour or more. This was the reason Russia opposed the anti-missile system in Eastern Europe,
because they could have little warning if cruise missiles were fired from the new bases.
Americans may think that we don't start wars, but the Russians don't. The old shill argument
that democracies don't start wars is belied by American attacks on Serbia, Iraq, Libya, and
Yemen.
3) For all the Democratic and Big Media attacks on Trump for supposedly caving in to
Putin, he gave Putin nothing. His administration is still maintaining an increasingly
stringent economic attack on Russian trade and banking, announcing (just days after his
meeting)
$200 million of new aid to Ukraine's military and threatening Europeans with sanctions if
they go ahead with a new Baltic pipeline to import Russian natural gas. Consequently, some
analysts believe that
Putin has given up on wanting better relations with the U.S. and instead is just trying
to weaken and discredit America's overwhelming power in the world. In a similar vein Rand
Paul writes how we never think
about other nations' interests.
4) The release of intelligence agency findings about Russians' intervention in the last
election just a day before the conference precisely shows the strength of the "Deep State" in
dominating American foreign policy. An article by Bruce Fein in TAC argues we should
"Forget Trump: The Military-Industrial Complex is Still Running the Show With Russia, "
showing how Washington wants to keep Russia as an enemy because it's good for business.
Furthermore, releasing the accusations and indictments via a press already out for Trump's
blood is explained away by pointing out that the special prosecutor has separate authority to
that of the president. But the timing, a day before the Helsinki meeting, obviously shows
intent to cause disarray and to prevent meaningful dialogue with Russia. It's interesting to
note that TAC has been criticizing the "Deep
State" since at least 2015.
The casualness with which much of Washington regards conflict and starting wars is only
comparable to the thoughtlessness of Europeans when they started World War I. Like now, that
war followed nearly a century of relative peace and prosperity. Both sides thought a war would
be "easy" and over quickly and were engulfed in it because of minor incidents instigated by
their small nation allies. It was started with a single assassination in Serbia. The situation
is similar now. America is hostage to the actions of a host of tiny countries possibly starting
a war. Think of our NATO obligations and promises to Taiwan and Israel.
America has become inured to the risks of escalation and Congress has ceded its war powers
to the president. The authority of war power was one of the most important tenets of our
Constitution, designed to prevent our rulers from irresponsibly launching conflicts like the
European kings. Witness now how casually Trump talks about starting a war with Iran, with no
thought of possible consequences, including blowing up oil facilities in the Persian Gulf, oil
and gas vital for the world economy.
For most Americans, war means sitting in front of their TVs watching the bombs fall on small
nations unable to resist or respond to our power. "We" kill thousands of "them" in easy battles
and then worry if a single American soldier is harmed. We don't viscerally understand the full
threat of modern weapons because they've never been used against us. This is not unlike World
War I, for which the countries engaged were wholly unprepared for a protracted siege war
against the lethality of new modern artillery and chemical weapons. All had assumed the war
would be over in weeks. I wrote about these issues after visiting the battlefields of the
Crimean war. (See " Lessons in
Empire")
And so we continue careening towards more conflicts which can always lead to unintended
consequences, ever closer to nuclear war. Meanwhile efforts for a dialogue with Russia are
thwarted by our internal politics and dysfunction in Washington.
The Trump Tower meeting was arranged by Fusion GPS associate Rob Goldstone, who said during
Congressional testimony reviewed by
Breitbart that he believes the June 9, 2016 meeting was a "bait and switch" by a Russian
lobbyist who promised "dirt" on Hillary Clinton, and admitted that he used hyperbolic language
on purpose to ensure that the meeting would take place.
"I, therefore, used the strongest hyperbolic language in order to secure this request from
Donald Trump Jr. based on the bare facts I was given," said Goldstone, a UK publicist and music
manager.
"It was an example of, I was given very limited information, and my job was to get a
meeting, and so I used my professional use of words to emphasize what my client had only
given bare-bones information about, in order to get the attention of Mr. Trump Jr. " -Rob
Goldstone
Goldstone then said " it appeared to me to have been a bait and switch of somebody who
appeared to be lobbying for what I now understood to be the Magnitsky act," - which sanctions
Russian officials thought to be involved in the death of a Russian tax accountant.
Fusion GPS associate Natalia Veselnitskaya, an attorney for Russian businessman and Fusion
GPS client Denis Katsy, said that Emin Agalarov - the son of Russian oligarch Aras Agalarov -
told her to contact his representative, Irakly "Ike" Kaveladze to set up the Trump Tower
meeting, which Kaveladze attended.
While both Agalarov and Katsyv opposed the Magnitsky act, Veselnitskaya worked only for
Katsyv, while approaching Agalarov and his associates to participate in the Trump Tower
meeting. Of ntoe, Agalarov organized the 2013 Miss Universe pageant in Moscow when it was
partially owned by Donald Trump.
Veselnitskaya said Agalarov told her to get in touch with Kaveladze about the meeting
because he had connections with the Trump team.
Veselnitskaya said she made a point of asking Goldstone -- who she mistakenly thought was
a lawyer -- whether it was OK to include Akhmetshin, given that he was a registered lobbyist.
Goldstone told her it was fine, she said. -
NBC News
On June 3, 2016, Goldstone sent an email to Trump Jr. on behalf of Emin Agalarov to set up
the meeting. Goldstone was described last July as "associated with Fusion GPS" by Mark Corallo
- spokesman for Trump's outside legal counsel, according to the
Washington Post .
"Specifically, we have learned that the person who sought the meeting is associated with
Fusion GPS , a firm which according to public reports, was retained by Democratic operatives
to develop opposition research on the president and which commissioned the phony Steele
dossier" -Mark Corallo
The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting
offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would
incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father.
This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its
government's support for Mr. Trump -- helped along by Aras and Emin.
Trump Jr. replied to Goldstone that " if it's what you say I love it especially later in the
summer ."
Breitbart News previously
reported that Russian-born Washington lobbyist Rinat Akhmetshin, who attended the meeting
with Veselnitskaya, evidenced a larger relationship with Fusion GPS and the controversial
firm's co-founder Glenn Simpson , according to Akhmetshin's testimony before the same
committee. -
Breitbart
Fusion's fingerprints are all over this...
Hours before Veselnitskaya attended the Trump Tower meeting to lobby Trump Jr. about the
Magnitsky act, she met with Fusion GPS co-founder
Glenn Simpson .
While most people know that Fusion GPS was paid by the Clinton campaign to produce the
infamous "Steele Dossier" - assembled by former MI6 spy Christopher Steele, Fusion was also
working for a Russian businessman who wanted the Magnitsky act repealed, Denis Katsyv, and
Veselnitskaya was his lawyer who was given special permission by the Obama DOJ to enter the
U.S. to represent him.
In late November of 2017, The Daily Caller 's Chuck Ross reported that
heavily redacted Fusion GPS bank records reveal DNC law firm Perkins Coie
paid Fusion a total of $1,024,408 in 2016 for opposition research on then-candidate Donald
Trump - including the 34-page dossier.
Ross also reported that law firm Baker Hostelter paid Fusion $523,651 between March and
October 2016 on behalf of a company owned by Katsyv
to research Bill Browder , a London banker who helped push through the Magnitsky Act.
Keep in mind, Veselnitskaya really doesn't like Donald Trump based on several archived
Facebook posts:
I'm unsure of the zeitgeist being proposed here but it sure sounds like you are offering
up the theory that the Deep State actually wanted Trump.
Yet he..."colluded"...among outside parties like the DNC funded Fusion, Perkins Coie, MI6
and then the FBI, the CIA, DNI and the DoJ to manufacture FALSE EVIDENCE.
In order to produce that "evidence" to a FISA court, in order to "legally" surveil (with
taxpayer funds, of course) the very same man (and his associates).
So as to, gather incriminating evidence against him (Trump) so he could be removed from
office in disgrace (almost immediately) because he is actually the one the Deep State wants
in office, as President of the United States.
The only one telling a different story is the guy who's trying desperately to stay out of
prison. Not the best witness. Particularly since he didn't remember for two years prior.
Reasonable doubt anyone?
So hold on this chick is employed by Fusion GPS- who was paid to concoct a dossier against
Trump- using Russian sources and UK intelligence, has dinner with the head of Fusion GPS the
night before the meeting, she gets the meeting offering information- within minutes changes
the course of the meeting- realizing something was wrong, Donald Trump Jr ends the meeting-
and the crime is Trump may have known about it??
It's a set up plain and simple. These fucking people are dirty AS SHIT- including the
Brown Clown Kenyan.
The big story is using opposition research- paid for- submitted to the court as proof to
secure a FISA warrant, and if they didn't know the information was false and paid for- what
the fuck is the "I" in FBI for??
April 2018...."Michael is in business, he is really a businessman, a fairly big business,
as I understand it. I don't know his business." He "also practices law." And, "I have many
attorneys. Sadly, I have so many attorneys you wouldn't even believe it." Cohen handled only
a "tiny, tiny little fraction of my overall legal work."
According to Adam Davidson of the New Yorker, Cohen was not part of the Trump
Organization's Legal Team in any sense. Alan Garten was the Trump Org's attorney on real
estate matters and Marc Kasowitz usually represented Trump in important cases.
Cohen's legal education was not stellar by any sense of the word. Cohen often told this
joke:
Q: "What do you call a lawyer who graduated with a 2.0?"
A: "Counselor."
Would Trump actually hire a guy like this to be his "personal" attorney? He was
effectively a trip-and-fall attorney up to the point he was brought into the organization by
Trump Sr. In truth, Cohen was a fairly savvy real estate investor and, as such, was appointed
Trump's "deal maker" for international projects. He was also Trump's personal "fixer." Cohen
made things 'go away.' You don't need to be an attorney to "make things go away."
It's doubtful that there was a legitimate "attorney/client" relationship there.
In any case, reports are out tonight that the Trump Organization's CFO has been subpoenaed
to testify in the Cohen investigation. Why? Allen Weisselberg's name came up in the recording
that Lanny Davis released yesterday. While everyone was getting their thongs in a twist about
who said "cash," the Weisselberg mention was actually the biggest shoe to drop on that tape.
Weisselberg has a thorough knowledge of all Trump's deals, payments and income.
It was setup by Democrats trying to tie Trump to Russia
The Russian lawyer was briefed before and after the meeting by Fusion GPS
The lawyer was offering dirt on Clinton, but lied and had another agenda
What people should care about, is that Democrats were attempting to frame Trump, in the
dirtiest campaign trick in my lifetime, and using it as a pretext to get the government to
spy on Trump. But you're right that the Dems care about it, because they think (magically)
that it means Trump was colluding with Russia. LOL Consider, wouldn't Trump be doing the USA
a great favor by obtaining Hillary's emails from Russia, which would prove that Putin was
blackmailing her and Obama. The Democrats are completely ignoring this narrative, as if it's
Trump's fault Putin has her emails. LOL
You're a funny guy...The perverse inquisition by the Purple Inquisitors strike again.
Nothing but a pathetic Op to "Sting" Trump by the Psyop Deep State Dip Shits. Cohen squeals
on cue, check his Cayman Isle bank account. Mr Mueller is beyond desperate as you should be
well able to relate to. Ha F'n Ha, but you'll always have Hillary's " "Precious" pee pee
dossier...
Trump knew about a meeting re: oppo research on Hellary. Which is the same crime Hellary
and the DNC did with the bogus Russo 8ntel from the Steele Dossier against What is good for
the goose not good for the gander.
It's like a George Webb wayback machine.
Also funny how no one ever mentions that the Podesta Group closed shop immediately after
George Webb filed his lawsuit against them.
Who were in bed with Fusion... who were in bed with the DNC... who were in bed with Awan.
Also funny how that fake ass Rosenstein Russian indictment stole George Webbs lawsuits
actblues paragraph almost word for word, but substituting Russians for Awan.
The Awan who also downloaded terabytes of congressional data From Pakistan, ffs.
My, what a wicked web they weave.
Cohen is a plant. The guy was in no danger of anything happening to him. Once the DOJ took
everything they broke the law for lawyer client confidentiality. Cohen could just stfu and
say nothing and no judge would prosecute him given he never broke a law... So why is he
singing like a bird? Because its all a fucking setup.
Who knows, maybe he disliked Trump, Maybe his bitch wife made him do it at the end of the
day its his word against a bunch of other people.
Incredible what they are allowing Mueller to do. He basically makes it clear to the person
that if they do not say what they want to hear they are going to ruin them financially, so
people say tell me what you want me to say, and Mueller backs off. I am blown away this
charade is being allowed to go forward. Mueller has done more to destroy the faith people
have in our justice system than any other figure in our modern history. Truly, Mueller should
be rotting in prison for a very long time since it is clear that he is attempting a silent
coup, the US and the American public be damned. This is all about Mueller and appeasing his
puppet masters.
But slowly, ever so slowly, this charade is unraveling. This is throwing his constituents
a bone.
How do I really feel? FUCK YOU, Mueller. Fuck you and your outsized ego.
Was just reported Cohen has already testified to Congress under oath Trump didn't know and
Lanny Davis is accusing the Trump team of leaking this made up story...Cohen getting the
treatment by Trump..
President Trump's former longtime personal attorney, Michael Cohen, is prepared to tell
special counsel Robert Mueller that then-candidate Donald Trump knew in advance about the June
2016 Trump tower meeting between Donald Trump Jr. and Fusion GPS associate Natalia
Veselnitskaya - who is not a fan of Trump Sr., and several other individuals - including Cohen
who says he was there, reports
CNN .
The Washington establishment came to their own conclusions about Russia and NATO --
but this is what they missed.
Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump during the recent
summit in Helsinki. (Office of the Russian Presisdent/Kremin.ru) Sifting through the cacophony
of commentary from the Trump-Putin meeting in Helsinki, here are four key points missed,
ignored or glossed over by the Washington establishment and mainstream news coverage -- and
they require a good airing.
They are:
It's clear now that Europeans will increase their contributions to NATO. But
Big Media totally ignored the trillion dollar gorilla in room: Why does anyone have to spend so
much on NATO in the first place?
Are we planning a ground attack on Russia because we really think the former Soviet Empire
will invade Poland or the Baltic nations? Are we planning for a land war in Europe to intervene
in the Ukraine? What for is the money? The Trump administration and Big Media, for all their
noise, mainly argue that more spending is good. There is no debate about the reasons why.
Meanwhile
Russia is cutting its military spending.
Washington is so dominated by our military-industrial-congressional complex that spending
money is a major intent. Remember when Washington first insisted that putting up an
anti-missile system in Poland and Romania was supposed to protect Europe from an Iranian
attack? Of course, it was really directed against Russia. Washington was so eager to spend the
money that it didn't even ask the Europeans to pay the cost even though it was supposedly for
their defense. As of 2016 Washington had spent $800 million on the
site in Romania. Now it appears that Poland and Romania will pay billions to the Raytheon
Corporation for the shield to comply with their commitment to increase military spending to 2
percent of gross national product.
There was no focus on the real, growing threat of
nuclear war, intentional or accidental. No one, including journalists at the joint press
conference, spoke about the collapsing missile treaties (the only one who reportedly seemed
keen to discuss it was ejected beforehand).
Scott Ritter details these alarming risks here on TAC .
The U.S. is now funding new cruise missiles with nukes which allow for a surprise attack on
Russia with only a few minutes of warning, unlike the ICBMs which launch gives a half an hour
or more. This was the reason Russia opposed the anti-missile system in Eastern Europe, because
they could have little warning if cruise missiles were fired from the new bases. Americans may
think that we don't start wars, but the Russians don't. The old shill argument that democracies
don't start wars is belied by American attacks on Serbia, Iraq, Libya, and Yemen.
For
all the Democratic and Big Media attacks on Trump for supposedly caving in to Putin, he gave
Putin nothing. His administration is still maintaining an increasingly stringent economic
attack on Russian trade and banking, announcing (just days after his meeting)
$200 million of new aid to Ukraine's military and threatening Europeans with sanctions if
they go ahead with a new Baltic pipeline to import Russian natural gas. Consequently, some
analysts believe that
Putin has given up on wanting better relations with the U.S. and instead is just trying to
weaken and discredit America's overwhelming power in the world. In a similar vein Rand Paul
writes how we never think
about other nations' interests.TAC argues we should
"Forget Trump: The Military-Industrial Complex is Still Running the Show With Russia, "
showing how Washington wants to keep Russia as an enemy because it's good for business.
Furthermore, releasing the accusations and indictments via a press already out for Trump's
blood is explained away by pointing out that the special prosecutor has separate authority to
that of the president. But the timing, a day before the Helsinki meeting, obviously shows
intent to cause disarray and to prevent meaningful dialogue with Russia. It's interesting to
note that TAC has been criticizing the "Deep
State" since at least 2015.
The casualness with which much of Washington regards conflict and starting wars is only
comparable to the thoughtlessness of Europeans when they started World War I. Like now, that
war followed nearly a century of relative peace and prosperity. Both sides thought a war would
be "easy" and over quickly and were engulfed in it because of minor incidents instigated by
their small nation allies. It was started with a single assassination in Serbia. The situation
is similar now. America is hostage to the actions of a host of tiny countries possibly starting
a war. Think of our NATO obligations and promises to Taiwan and Israel.
America has become inured to the risks of escalation and Congress has ceded its war powers
to the president. The authority of war power was one of the most important tenets of our
Constitution, designed to prevent our rulers from irresponsibly launching conflicts like the
European kings. Witness now how casually Trump talks about starting a war with Iran, with no
thought of possible consequences, including blowing up oil facilities in the Persian Gulf, oil
and gas vital for the world economy.
For most Americans, war means sitting in front of their TVs watching the bombs fall on small
nations unable to resist or respond to our power. "We" kill thousands of "them" in easy battles
and then worry if a single American soldier is harmed. We don't viscerally understand the full
threat of modern weapons because they've never been used against us. This is not unlike World
War I, for which the countries engaged were wholly unprepared for a protracted siege war
against the lethality of new modern artillery and chemical weapons. All had assumed the war
would be over in weeks. I wrote about these issues after visiting the battlefields of the
Crimean war. (See " Lessons in
Empire")
And so we continue careening towards more conflicts which can always lead to unintended
consequences, ever closer to nuclear war. Meanwhile efforts for a dialogue with Russia are
thwarted by our internal politics and dysfunction in Washington.
Mr. Utley is the publisher of The American Conservative 15 Responses to What
Everyone Seemed to Ignore in Helsinki
"And so we continue careening towards more conflicts which can always lead to unintended
consequences, ever closer to nuclear war. Meanwhile efforts for a dialogue with Russia are
thwarted by our internal politics and dysfunction in Washington."
Careful with such cavalier use of the truth. Someone is sure to point out Vlad said just
the same, which means according to D.C. war profiteer sponsored consensus we should do
exactly the opposite.
Lovely article. One aspect of going to war for conquest over and over, is that it leads to
moral deterioration. Defensive wars aren't that bad. I am not sure why we haven't seen any
articles on TAC about this aspect -- is it that it's not a popular idea?
"1) It's clear now that Europeans will increase their contributions to NATO."
No, they are not. Defense budgets are increasing -- very different, and it was happening
already before Trump's tweets came along.
"2) There was no focus on the real, growing threat of nuclear war, intentional or
accidental."
How do you know, since Trump hasn't told anyone what was discussed in Helsinki?
"3) For all the Democratic and Big Media attacks on Trump for supposedly caving in to Putin,
he gave Putin nothing."
Trump abased himself before Putin. That's not nothing. And who knows what else he gave Putin
behind closed doors. One must assume a lot since Trump is not out bragging about
particulars.
"4) The release of intelligence agency findings about Russians' intervention in the last
election just a day before the conference precisely shows the strength of the "Deep State" in
dominating American foreign policy."
Trump personally approved the release of that intelligence.
The myth that NATO has kept Europe at peace since WWII (except for the Balkan war) is still
alive and well. But really, it was the fear of nuclear weapons that kept the peace.
It is the risk of war vs. the hidden agenda of trying to break Russia a second time.
The people who want to break Russia a second time really do believe that Russia is weak and
unwilling to risk war under any circumstances. So they want to expand NATO, get into another
arms race and wait for Russia to go bankrupt again. Rinse repeat China.
If we expand NATO, pull out of INF and even START, we can build missile bases near Russia's
borders, reduce or eliminate their exports, we can drive their economy into overdrive. But this
requires an information war to make it look like they are the aggressors while we are the ones
implementing this strategy.
By 'we' I mean our entrenched Foreign Policy Establishment that blathers about the 'rules
based world order' while we bomb any country we want whenever we want. Queue up another story
on how they encroached on NATO airspace while flying to their enclave in Kaliningrad, look at a
map, it's impossible not to so so.
Tying it back, they do not believe that there is any risk of war. They are wrong.
"The release of intelligence agency findings about Russians' intervention in the last
election just a day before the conference precisely shows the strength of the 'Deep State' in
dominating American foreign policy Releasing the accusations and indictments via a press
already out for Trump's blood a day before the Helsinki meeting, obviously shows intent to
cause disarray and to prevent meaningful dialogue with Russia."
To be sure, the 6-4-3 (Mueller to Rosenstein to Mainstream Media) double play appeared at
first to be a real beauty. However, the video replay showed that the pitcher had not yet
pitched the ball to the batter and that the shortstop Mueller, the second baseman Rosenstein,
and the MSM first baseman had carried out their double play with a ball that Mueller had pulled
out of his hip pocket. ("Hip pocket" is a polite euphemism for the proximate area of the
Mueller anatomy from whence the ball was actually pulled.)
The real question is what did Putin give Trump? Nothing, as far as can be seen. Efforts for a
dialogue with Russia are thwarted by Putin's continued occupation of Ukrainian territory, with
its implicit denial of the principle of the sovereign nation-state, which has been the building
block of the European political order since the French Revolution. For Americans, given the
history of the American continent, European nationalism and the nation-state are wholly
incomprehensible concepts but they're very real to us in Europe. Those Americans who promote a
poorly-understood European nationalism in the hope of destroying the EU are promoting the very
war they so piously claim to oppose.
It's clear now that Europeans will increase their contributions to NATO. But Big Media
totally ignored the trillion dollar gorilla in room: Why does anyone have to spend so much on
NATO in the first place?
Why would you top post a commentor who so clearly doesn't understand the details of what
he's discussing?
I mean -- such fundamental misunderstanding of the issues might qualify him to be the
Republican nominee for President (and thanks to the Electoral College, the President) but it is
beneath your editorial standards.
Enough of this "Deep State" nonsense: stop lambasting U.S. Federal law enforcement and
intelligence professionals for calling out Trump's willful ignorance/intentional lies about
Russia's malicious actions. Russian belligerence against the U.S. is a predictable and
manageable problem, but only by a President (e.g., Reagan, Bush 41) who grasps the complexity
of the issue and who can balance targeted confrontation and selective cooperation with Russia.
Trump is inherently incapable of striking that balance, as Putin clearly understands, therefore
U.S.-Russian relations will remain (usefully for Putin) confrontational for the near term.
Why is it up to the media to address the elephant in the room? Shouldn't the media simply
report what happened? Why doesn't Trump address the elephant in the room?
Our grandparents and parents fought the Commies.
GOP throws that away in search of lower taxes and less regulation.
GOP elites belong to the international elite, namely the highest bidder.
Shame.
"The release of intelligence agency findings about Russians' intervention in the last election
just a day before the conference precisely shows the strength of the 'Deep State' in dominating
American foreign policy"
Others have already pointed out that the facts might not back up that the timing was some
elaborate plot, but even if this was a Derp State conspiracy on full display, it would probably
be proof of the opposite -- this would have not been an indication of influence, control,
domination, but a sign of weakness.
Like all conspiracy theories, "Deep State" implies competence, coordination, capability. Our
problem appears to be that we have too many bureaucracies infighting with each other, and
filled with too many shallow minds. Indeed, one could argue that 9/11 happened precisely
because of this.
That said, the first half of the article makes a compelling case of the foreign policy
aspect of the manufactured "Russia!" hysteria, and the existential threat originating with the
nuclear sector of the war profiteering presidential-congressional-military-industrial complex
-- "We end the world for money!" -- and the Great Gambler faction of the nelibcon biparty --
"We can win nuclear war!".
The other half of the national, collectivized insanity that is "Russia!" is the domestic
fraud: the biggest threat to the integrity of our elections and the functions of our
institutions of government is not Russia, but ourselves.
The semi-organized biparty mob -- the "Derp State" -- that is pushing the "Russia!"
narrative as the Grant Unified Theory of US American Home-Made Failure is systematically
destroying whatever is left of The People's confidence in our processes and institutions --
confidence in our ruling class had to have died before anybody considered voting for Trump --
and soon, we will find ourselves in a nation in which nobody can profess any trust in any
elected representative without being accused of being a traitor or useful idiot.
Putin, for one, could never accomplish that. American Excess: Hamstring your political
opponent? Worth It. Destroy democracy to protect it from The People? Priceless.
I wasn't aware that the U.s. Is finding new niclear-armed cruise missiles that would give
Russia only minutes to respond to an attack, as opposed to a half hour with ICBMs. Russia only
has to recalibrate its fully automated Doomsday Machine to target Warsaw, Berlin, and Cracow
along with U.S. cities, and to shorten the time of response.
We have to ask whether the exponentially greater likelihood of nuclear holocaust by
accident, which is what the U.S. would be bringing about by nuclear-arming cruise missiles,
proves that the Deep State's lust for power is irrational bordering on madness.
If Zero Hedge commenters represent a part of the US public opinion Clinton neoliberal are in
real trouble. This is real situation when the elite can't goverm as usual
Notable quotes:
"... it does seem odd that Rosenstein was part of the plan to indict charges on Russians right before Trump met Putin since he met Trump earlier that week to discuss those plans ..."
"... Mule-face is just as conflicted... he applies and interviews for the FBI job, doesn't get it... then takes on an investigation of Trump??? Bullshiiiiiiiiit!!!! Special Counsel statutes are CLEAR... but Sessions is totally corrupt. ..."
"... For those of you who have not seen this...This has been in the works since April...... https://gosar.house.gov/uploadedfiles/criminal-referral.pdf ..."
"... Recuse himself? He violated US Code with improper appointment of Special Counsel. Don't even think he didn't know. That alone is enough for Malfeasance, Abuse of Office, and a mistrial for anything Bueller can get in front of a Judge. ..."
News of the resolution comes after weeks of frustration by Congressional investigators, who
have repeatedly accused Rosenstein and the DOJ of "slow walking" documents related to their
investigations. Lawmakers say they've been given the runaround - while Rosenstein and the rest
of the DOJ have maintained that handing over vital documents would compromise ongoing
investigations.
Not even last week's
heavily redacted release of the FBI's FISA surveillance application on former Trump
campaign Carter Page was enough to dissuade the GOP lawmakers from their efforts to impeach
Rosenstein. In fact, its release may have sealed Rosenstein's fate after it was revealed that
the FISA application and subsequent renewals - at least one of which Rosenstein signed off on ,
relied heavily on the salacious and largely unproven Steele dossier.
In late June, Rosenstein along with FBI Director Christopher Wray clashed with House
Republicans during a fiery hearing over an internal DOJ report criticizing the FBI's handling
of the Hillary Clinton email investigation by special agents who harbored extreme animus
towards Donald Trump while expressing support for Clinton. Republicans on the panel grilled a
defiant Rosenstein on the Trump-Russia investigation which has yet to prove any collusion
between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin.
"This country is being hurt by it. We are being divided," Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) said of
Mueller's investigation. "Whatever you got," Gowdy added, " Finish it the hell up because this
country is being torn apart. "
Rosenstein pushed back - dodging responsibility for decisions made by subordinates while
claiming that Mueller was moving "as expeditiously as possible," and insisting that he was "not
trying to hide anything."
" We are not in contempt of this Congress, and we are not going to be in contempt of this
Congress ," Rosenstein told lawmakers.
Congressional GOP were not impressed.
" For over eight months, they have had the opportunity to choose transparency. But they've
instead chosen to withhold information and impede any effort of Congress to conduct
oversight," said Representative Mark Meadows of North Carolina, a sponsor of Thursday's House
resolution who raised the possibility of impeachment this week. " If Rod Rosenstein and the
Department of Justice have nothing to hide, they certainly haven't acted like it. " -
New York Times (6/28/18)
And now, Rosenstein's fate is in the hands of Congress.
I got directed to Meadows Twitter feed earlier and I couldn't believe some of the comments
from the Hilary crowd. Either they actually believe the CNN/MSNBC "Russia did it" bullshit or
they've decided to roll with that narrative regardless of what reality shows because they
think it gives them some kind of leverage if they keep spewing those accusations. Those
people are really sick in the head.
Somewhat. Yes, sometimes cowards need a good swift kick in the ass to get em
going...lol.
But you gotta place yourself into the mind of a bureautocracy kleptocrat like Rosenstein
to discover where his head was at (or whatever bureaucrat, pick any one)...this was "business
as usual"...for EIGHT SOLID YEARS they were able to delay/obstruct Congressional oversight at
will into any number of things, from "recycled hard drives" to "rogue agents" to "smashed
Blackberries" to "Bleachbit" to "illegal servers" to "spontaneous protests in Benghazi" to
"Car Czars" to "the benign tracking of weapons into Mexico" (lol...my personal favorite) et
fucking cetra so...there was no reason whatsoever that Rosenstein would suspect that
oversight would..."change".
See, all of this nation ending angst, hate, ill-will, divide & conquer, the rending of
clothes and gnashing of teeth could have been completely avoided if the People would have
just complied with their betters, the elites, the educated, the non-deplorables and used that
gift of, ahem, "democracy" (lol) that the rich & powerful are so insecure in trusting us
with...none of this would have happened.
There would have been a "historic" coronation of our new Queen Hillary! There were royal
wedding plans even!
And we, the deplorables, the plebes, the low-lifes, had to go and mess up their plans of
sweeping it all under the rug ;-)
Why in the Sam hell do you think they're jawboning this thing to death ..
swmnguy Wed, 07/25/2018 - 19:39 Permalink
"They'll move to impeach Rosenstein just as they voted to repeal ObamaCare 50 times or
however many. And, just like when they got the chance to re-do ObamaCare altogether and had
not the foggiest notion what to do, if they get to impeach Rosenstein they won't have any
idea how to proceed."
This ..
Damned Kabuki, will be answered! With more Kabuki ..
Also a big problem, was his CHOICE to not recuse himself from being involved in appointing
Mueller, when he was heavily involved in the investigations, such as signing a FISA warrant
to spy on Trump campaign staff when there was allegedly (in the FISA warrant) Russian
collusion.
What is the swamp hiding? This latest revelation by Republicans looking into Spygate
offers us some tantalizing clues. In this episode I address the growing efforts by the swamp
to sweep the scandal under the rug.
"Is they don't want to get into who pushed the Information into the Trump Team orbit. And,
the questions surrounding Joseph Mizut. Who was the initiator, I should say, of the
Papadopoulos, "they have dirt on Hillary story."
"If this guy was working for Western Intelligence Agencies, this whole case is going to
explode." "It's already exploding. But it's going to explode at just Nuclear Levels."
"Right?"
"Now they're starting to realize that, that may be a problem too. So, now there's a third
track. The third track Joe, is going to be:
"Verification is not necessary." "They're starting to creep this out there now."
"Remember what I told you about the "Woods Procedure." "The Woods Procedure" is a
procedure in the FBI & DOJ to verify information before it goes in front of the FISA
Court, right?"
"The new line of attack is going to be:
"Well, that's really not necessary. This thorough verification of all the information."
"Why they're going down that track I can't give you a conclusive explanation. I can only tell
you that, my guess here, is that they're realizing that whatever fork they take in the
road."
"Cater Paige who was spied on. With no verified information. Not good. Papadoplolus, who
we Prosecuted despite the fact that a potential "Western Connected Intelligence Asset,"
pushed the information into Papadopoulos. Meaning he was framed. That's not good either."
"They know there's no way out. So what are they going to do? Now, they're going to
push:
"Well, lets go back to Cater Paige. But let's say, "Alright, we may have made a mistake
but Verification is really not necessary. We were really worried he (Carter Paige) was a
terrorist or a spy. So we had to just run with it."
"Folks, they have no where to go."
"Now, how does this tie into the Bryon York piece. Remember, that they're are people up in
the House. Nunes & other folks in these Committees. Don't forget this. They're folks,
Republicans in the House & on the Senate side too who have seen the Declassified,
Unredacted documents about why this whole case stated."
"They've seen that now. They haven't seen all of the DOJ or FBI records. That is where
this fight is brewing. But the FISA application. They have seen most of what's in it. The
redacted copy the one you've seen. Obviously, has blacked out information. Hence, the
redactions. They dropped a hint yesterday. They want disclosed Joe. And, I'm quoting Bryon
York here:
"What is on pages 10-12 & 17-34. of the FISA application."
"He says, this is York:
"That is certainly a tantalizing clue dropped by the House Intel Members. But it's not
clear what is means. Comparing the relevant sections from the initial FISA application in
October & the third renewal in June much appears the same. But in pages 10-12 the date
the Republicans want redacted. Of the third renewal. There's a sightly different
headline:
"The Russian Governments coordinated effort to influence the 2016 Presidential Election."
Plus a footnote seven lines long that was not in the original."
"Folks, the Republicans know something. They have seen these redactions. now, based on
some research. I can't tell you because I have not seen the unredacted copy of the document.
I can only tell you based on research surrounding the case & some Information I've been
working hard to develop. That it may disclose, those footnotes may disclose some connections
for information streams. Again, that were not related to formal Intelligence Channels."
"In other words, the theory from the start that we've been operating on is that this case
was not developed through standard protocol. If you develop Intelligence in a Five Eyes
Country & Intelligence cooperated with the UNITED STATES against Donald Trump. You pass
that information to your domestic Intelligence Agency who passes it Central Intelligence
Agency. They vet the information before it makes it to the Presidents desk."
"That is not the way this case worked. May I suggest to you that the redactions describe
other channels. Other channels of information that developed outside of those standard
channels."
"Are we clear on this? I want to make clear what we're talking about. Standard way to do
this is Intel Agency to Intel Agency. Vet it, vet the information, check the information
before it makes it to the President. The only reason you would go outside of that network
with Intelligence, specifically against a Political Candidate in the UNITED STATES is because
you want to launder the information without vetting it. You want to clean it to make it seen
legitimate."
"We already know, based on Public admissions by State Department Officials on the Obama
Administration that they used The State Department. We already know, that there where people
working for the Clinton Team that met with people on The State Department. May I suggest that
this describes an alternative information channel outside of the standard "modus operandi"
here that is going to expose The whole thing was an information laundering operation. The
Republicans know something here folks."
Woods procedure IS required, it's not optional. And we have the FBI self-admittedly not
adhering to their own procedure. If they had, Steele would have been paid. The FBI stiffed
him.
Further, it's the Judge's responsibility to insure the Prosecutors and Agents followed the
procedure, and additionally that they vetted the sources - not just the informant. The
informant's sources. They were criminally negligent on that point as well. The Judge was no
victim here, the Judge had to be complicit in the conspiracy.
Totally illegal in their own country, so they have another country do it for them. Can it
be prosecuted as Espionage? What about when it's used in Conspiracy to commit Sedition? What
about failure to prosecute a crime of this magnitude, a direct attack on our govt by
FVEY?
What will the punishment be, nothing, be fired for incompetence, that's all. Why are they
being stubborn dicks and not handing over the information because if fucking proves they are
incompetent and gets them fired.
So either way they are fired, they just suck up more inflated salary for longer by holding
off as long as they can and fuck everyone else, fuck the government, fuck Americans, fuck
justice, they will stay there as long as they can sucking up quite a large salary well over
$100,000 per year, plus perks, plus super and we are not talking dicking around for days but
months.
Fired months and months later for not releasing the information versus fired within days
of the information being released. As simple as that and as far as they are concerned fuck
all other US citizens, they will not leave their spot at the trough of corruption until
forced.
Trump hired him but I don't think he's Trump's guy. Although it does seem odd that Rosenstein was part of the plan to indict charges on Russians right before Trump met Putin
since he met Trump earlier that week to discuss those plans. It is all theater, you got that
right, just not sure what the plot is.
Zerohedge readers might want to read this article from
theconservativetreehouse.....Rosenstein and Sessions may be up to more than meets the eye;
i.e., drain the swamp by catching the leakers:
Mule-face is just as conflicted... he applies and interviews for the FBI job, doesn't get it... then takes on an
investigation of Trump??? Bullshiiiiiiiiit!!!! Special Counsel statutes are CLEAR... but Sessions is totally corrupt.
Rosenstein signing off on the FISA documents means he should have recused himself from the
Mueller investigation instead of overseeing it. That's what is going to take him down.
Recuse himself? He violated US Code with improper appointment of Special Counsel. Don't
even think he didn't know. That alone is enough for Malfeasance, Abuse of Office, and a
mistrial for anything Bueller can get in front of a Judge.
True... but WTF is Trump thinking??? He should use this action to FIRE Rosenstein's
traitor's ass NOW. Include the useless Sessions and Wray and, obviously, McCabe and Ohr.
DiGenova for AG, David Clarke for FBI head... Maybe Andy McCarthy for new Special Counsel
to prosecute Hillary and all the rest of the Barry Obongo criminals... especially pigfart
Brennan.
"... Sanders's support for the anti-Russia and anti-Wikileaks campaign is all the more telling because he was himself the victim of efforts by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic Party leadership to block his 2016 campaign. In June and July 2016, Wikileaks published internal Democratic emails in which officials ridiculed the Sanders campaign, forcing the DNC to issue a public apology: "On behalf of everyone at the DNC, we want to offer a deep and sincere apology to Senator Sanders, his supporters, and the entire Democratic Party for the inexcusable remarks made over email." ..."
"... In the aftermath of his election campaign, Sanders was elevated into a top-level position in the Democratic Party caucus in the US Senate. His first response to the inauguration of Trump was to declare his willingness to "work with" the president, closely tracking remarks of Obama that the election of Trump was part of an "intramural scrimmage" in which all sides were on the same team. As the campaign of the military-intelligence agencies intensifies, however, Sanders is toeing the line. ..."
"... The Sanders campaign did not push the Democrats to the left, but rather the state apparatus of the ruling class brought Sanders in to give a "left" veneer to a thoroughly right-wing party. ..."
"... There is no contradiction between the influx of military-intelligence candidates into the Democratic Party and the Democrats' making use of the services of Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez to give the party a "left" cover. Both the CIA Democrats and their pseudo-left "comrades" agree on the most important questions: the defense of the global interests of American imperialism and a more aggressive intervention in the Syrian civil war and other areas where Washington and Moscow are in conflict. ..."
Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders appeared on the CBS interview program "Face the Nation"
Sunday and fully embraced the anti-Russia campaign of the US military-intelligence apparatus,
backed by the Democratic Party and much of the media.
In response to a question from CBS host Margaret Brennan, Sanders unleashed a torrent of
denunciations of Trump's meeting and press conference in Helsinki with Russian President
Vladimir Putin. A preliminary transcript reads:
SANDERS: "I will tell you that I was absolutely outraged by his behavior in Helsinki, where
he really sold the American people out. And it makes me think that either Trump doesn't
understand what Russia has done, not only to our elections, but through cyber attacks against
all parts of our infrastructure, either he doesn't understand it, or perhaps he is being
blackmailed by Russia, because they may have compromising information about him.
"Or perhaps also you have a president who really does have strong authoritarian tendencies.
And maybe he admires the kind of government that Putin is running in Russia. And I think all of
that is a disgrace and a disservice to the American people. And we have got to make sure that
Russia does not interfere, not only in our elections, but in other aspects of our lives."
These comments, which echo remarks he gave at a rally in Kansas late last week, signal
Sanders' full embrace of the right-wing campaign launched by the Democrats and backed by
dominant sections of the military-intelligence apparatus. Their opposition to Trump is centered
on issues of foreign policy, based on the concern that Trump, due to his own "America First"
brand of imperialist strategy, has run afoul of geostrategic imperatives that are considered
inviolable -- in particular, the conflict with Russia.
Sanders did not use his time on a national television program to condemn Trump's persecution
of immigrants and the separation of children from their parents, or to denounce his naming of
ultra-right jurist Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, or to attack the White House
declaration last week that the "war on poverty" had ended victoriously -- in order to justify
the destruction of social programs for impoverished working people. Nor did he seek to advance
his supposedly left-wing program on domestic issues like health care, jobs and education.
Sanders' embrace of the anti-Russia campaign is not surprising, but it is instructive. This
is, after all, an individual who presented himself as "left-wing," even a "socialist." During
the 2016 election campaign, he won the support of millions of people attracted to his call for
a "political revolution" against the "billionaire class." For Sanders, who has a long history
of opportunist and pro-imperialist politics in the orbit of the Democratic Party, the aim of
the campaign was always to direct social discontent into establishment channels, culminating in
his endorsement of the campaign of Hillary Clinton.
Sanders's support for the anti-Russia and anti-Wikileaks campaign is all the more
telling because he was himself the victim of efforts by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic
Party leadership to block his 2016 campaign. In June and July 2016, Wikileaks published
internal Democratic emails in which officials ridiculed the Sanders campaign, forcing the DNC
to issue a public apology: "On behalf of everyone at the DNC, we want to offer a deep and
sincere apology to Senator Sanders, his supporters, and the entire Democratic Party for the
inexcusable remarks made over email."
In the aftermath of his election campaign, Sanders was elevated into a top-level
position in the Democratic Party caucus in the US Senate. His first response to the
inauguration of Trump was to declare his willingness to "work with" the president, closely
tracking remarks of Obama that the election of Trump was part of an "intramural scrimmage" in
which all sides were on the same team. As the campaign of the military-intelligence agencies
intensifies, however, Sanders is toeing the line.
The experience is instructive not only in relation to Sanders, but to an entire social
milieu and the political perspective with which it is associated. This is what it means to work
within the Democratic Party. The Sanders campaign did not push the Democrats to the left,
but rather the state apparatus of the ruling class brought Sanders in to give a "left" veneer
to a thoroughly right-wing party.
New political figures, many associated with the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) are
being brought in for the same purpose. As Sanders gave his anti-Russia rant, Alexandria
Ocasio-Cortez sat next to him nodding her agreement. The 28-year-old member of the DSA last
month won the Democratic nomination in New York's 14th Congressional District, unseating the
Democratic incumbent, Joseph Crowley, the fourth-ranking member of the Democratic leadership in
the House of Representatives.
Since then, Ocasio-Cortez has been given massive and largely uncritical publicity by the
corporate media, summed up in an editorial puff piece by the New York Times that
described her as "a bright light in the Democratic Party who has brought desperately needed
energy back to New York politics "
Ocasio-Cortez and Sanders were jointly interviewed from Kansas, where the two appeared
Friday at a campaign rally for James Thompson, who is seeking the Democratic nomination for the
US House of Representatives from the Fourth Congressional District, based in Wichita, in an
August 7 primary election.
Thompson might appear to be an unusual ally for the "socialist" Sanders and the DSA member
Ocasio-Cortez. His campaign celebrates his role as an Army veteran, and his website opens under
the slogan "Join the Thompson Army," followed by pledges that the candidate will "Fight for
America." In an interview with the Associated Press, Thompson indicated that despite his
support for Sanders' call for "Medicare for all," and his own endorsement by the DSA, he was
wary of any association with socialism. "I don't like the term socialist, because people do
associate that with bad things in history," he said.
Such anticommunism fits right in with the anti-Russian campaign, which is the principal
theme of the Democratic Party in the 2018 elections. As the World Socialist Web
Site has pointed out for many months, the
real thrust of the Democratic Party campaign is demonstrated by its recruitment as
congressional candidates of dozens of former CIA and military intelligence agents, combat
commanders from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and war planners from the Pentagon, State
Department and White House.
There is no contradiction between the influx of military-intelligence candidates into
the Democratic Party and the Democrats' making use of the services of Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez
to give the party a "left" cover. Both the CIA Democrats and their pseudo-left "comrades" agree
on the most important questions: the defense of the global interests of American imperialism
and a more aggressive intervention in the Syrian civil war and other areas where Washington and
Moscow are in conflict.
Rand Paul blocks Sanders's Russia resolution, calls it 'crazy hatred' against Trump
By Jordain Carney
Sen.
Rand Paul
(R-Ky.) on Thursday
blocked a resolution from Sen.
Bernie
Sanders
(I-Vt.) that backed the intelligence community's assessment of Russian election interference and demanded
President Trump
speak with special
counsel
Robert Mueller
.
Sanders
asked for unanimous consent to try to pass his resolution, saying senators "must act" if they are "serious about
preserving American democracy."
"The Congress must make it clear that we accept the assessment of our intelligence community with regard to
Russian election interfering in our country and in other democracies," Sanders said during a Senate floor speech.
Under Senate rules, any one senator could block his request.
"The hatred for the president is so intense that partisans would rather risk war than give diplomacy a chance," he
said.
Paul questioned why senators would not want to have relations with Russia.
"We should stand firm and say 'Stay the hell out of our elections,' but we should not stick our head in the ground
and say we're not going to talk to them," he said.
But Sanders fired back that Paul's objection was unrelated to
his resolution, which he noted doesn't push for cutting off talks with the Russians.
"What the senator said is totally irrelevant to what is in this resolution," Sanders said.
The resolution comes as Congress is weighing how to push back against Russia after Trump sparked bipartisan backlash
during his meeting with Putin on Monday in Helsinki, Finland.
Trump refused to condemn Russia for interfering in
the 2016 presidential election during a joint press conference on Monday. He then tried to walk back his comments on
Tuesday, saying he accepted the intelligence community's findings but added that "other people" could have been
involved too.
The attorney for President Trump's former longtime personal attorney has given
CNN
a copy of a secretly recorded conversation between Trump and Cohen, in which they
discuss purchasing the rights to a Playboy model's claim that she and Trump had an affair.
McDougal, claims to have had a nearly yearlong affair with Trump in 2006, right before Melania
Trump gave birth to their son Barron. McDougal sold her story to the National Enquirer for $150,000
as the 2016 presidential campaign was in its final months, however the tabloid sat on the story
which kept it from becoming public in a practice known as "catch and kill."
Cohen told Trump about his plans to set up a company and finance the purchase of the rights
from American Media, which publishes the National Enquirer.
"I need to open up a company for the transfer of all of that info regarding our
friend David,"
Cohen said in the recording, likely a reference to American Media head
David Pecker.
Trump interrupts Cohen asking,
"What financing?"
according to the recording.
When Cohen tells Trump,
"We'll have to pay."
Trump is heard saying
"pay
with cash"
but the audio is muddled and it's unclear whether he suggests paying with
cash or not paying. Cohen says,
"no, no"
but it is not clear what is said next.
-
CNN
The Enquirer's chairman, David J. Pecker, is a personal friend of Trump's, and McDougal has
accused Cohen of taking part in the deal.
By burying Ms. McDougal's story during the campaign in a practice known in the tabloid
industry as "catch and kill," A.M.I. protected Mr. Trump from negative publicity that could have
harmed his election chances, spending money to do so.
The authorities believe that the company was not always operating in what campaign finance
law calls a "legitimate press function," according to the people briefed on the investigation,
who spoke on the condition of anonymity. That may explain why prosecutors did not follow typical
Justice Department protocol to avoid subpoenaing news organizations when possible, and to give
journalists advance warning when demanding documents or other information. -
New
York Times
While Trump never paid for the rights, Lanny Davis says that the recording, made in 2016, shows
Trump knew about the payment.
On Saturday, President Trump broke his silence over the recording, tweeting: "Inconceivable that
the government would break into a lawyer's office (early in the morning) - almost unheard of. Even
more inconceivable that a lawyer would tape a client - totally unheard of & perhaps illegal. The
good news is that your favorite President did nothing wrong!" Trump tweeted.
Meanwhile, Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani confirmed with the
New York Times
last week
that Trump and Cohen had discussed payments - and that "
there was no indication on the tape
that Mr. Trump knew before the conversation about the payment from the Enquirer's parent company,
American Media Inc., to Ms. McDougal
."
"
Nothing in that conversation suggests that he had any knowledge of it in advance
,"
said Giuliani, adding that Trump had previously told Cohen that if he were to make a payment
related to the woman, to write a check instead of sending cash so that the transaction could be
properly documented. "In the big scheme of things, it's powerful exculpatory evidence," Giuliani
added.
Cohen made a similar payment of $130,000 to porn star and stripper Stormy Daniels, whose real
name is Stephanie Clifford. Cohen said at the time "In a private transaction in 2016, I used my own
personal funds to facilitate a payment of $130,000 to Ms. Stephanie Clifford."
Clifford - whose husband
just
filed for divorce
, is suing Trump over a nondisclosure agreement so that she can "tell her
story" (in the form of a book, we imagine), while she is also suing both Trump and Cohen for libel
after Trump called her statements "fraud" over Twitter, while claiming that Clifford fabricated a
story that she was threatened by a man after she went to journalists with the story of her affair.
Shortly before the 2016 election, former Trump campaign spokeswoman Hope Hicks said that
McDougal's allegations were "totally untrue."
Honestly, no one cares except the libtards and democrats
if there is a difference. The men and women I know love
Trump because, among other things, he is not limp-wristed
like Bush and Obama were.
Americans care about jobs,
immigrants and terrorists.
"pay with cash" probably is just a response to the
word "financing". Just my guess of course, but
from the dialogue it flows logically, as in Trump
saying to himself "why finance it, just pay her
cash". Doesn't necessarily mean pay with currency
just means don't borrow the money. Besides, it
doesn't matter much in this context since the
lawyer said no, and there is no crime here unless
he said "pay her with campaign contributions".
Clinton paid Paula Jones, what, $850,000? And he
didn't even get the rights to the story.
Trump's negotiating genius on display lol.
"'pay with cash' probably is just a response to
the word 'financing'."
I would say 99%
probability that's what he meant. Lawyer: "we
need to talk about financing" Trump: "pay with
cash." He didn't mean a suitcase full of
bills. He meant "just write a check." Anyone
in business knows the terminology. Plus it's
not even clear WTF they are talking about.
I have no love for Trump, in fact I think
he's an asshole. But this is all so much ado
about nothing.
I have to admit I'm confused as to why he should
pay anything at all. Why not let the smoking hot
model tell the world you scored with her? What's
the downside here?
So this is the tape that Trump said he doesn't give a
crap about the release of, outside of the larger
question of EVERYONE'S RIGHT of lawyer-client
privilege?
Well just damn, it must be a smoker
that will finally lead to his impeachment ;-)
Well yeah...but these days ya just roll with what
they present, like..."past and former government
officials who are in a position to know have
confirmed that"...which invariably leads to, abuse
of authority, presenting falsified/manufactured
evidence to a court, withholding exculpatory
evidence to a court, stolen classified documents
after being fired, obstruction of justice,
perjury...ya know, the normal regular things progs
do to put their heads in the noose ;-)
It was FBI that raided Cohen's office so I'll
presume that's where this tape came from.
I'm
not going to start sticking up for the
maverick's lapses in fidelity, but holy crap,
the FBI/DOJ have been blatantly weaponized
against him and in charge of those outfits
are....Sessions and Wray?
Well yeah...but these days ya just roll with what
they present, like..."past and former government
officials who are in a position to know have
confirmed that"...which invariably leads to, abuse
of authority, presenting falsified/manufactured
evidence to a court, withholding exculpatory
evidence to a court, stolen classified documents
after being fired, obstruction of justice,
perjury...ya know, the normal regular things progs
do to put their heads in the noose ;-)
It was FBI that raided Cohen's office so I'll
presume that's where this tape came from.
I'm
not going to start sticking up for the
maverick's lapses in fidelity, but holy crap,
the FBI/DOJ have been blatantly weaponized
against him and in charge of those outfits
are....Sessions and Wray?
At least DJT has shown generosity toward his, um, friends. What did JFK do
to Marilyn? What did Teddy do to Mary Jo? LBJ had at least one mistress.
What did Bill Clinton call the gal in the blue dress, wasn't it "that
woman"? What did Obama call his wife, Michael if I recall correctly.
Poor
Jimmy Carter. All he ever had was a killer rabbit. He may have been totally
incompetent, but at least he was a decent guy while in office. Afterward,
unfortunately, not so much.
Broadcast of a recording that falls under attorney-client priviledge,
which is specifically exempted from use by anyone, period
recorded with single-party consent
from records siezed by a surprise raid by the FBI of the standing
president's attorney
as part of an investigation predicated on evidence completely
fabricated by the other party
discovered by a special group tasked
specifically keep privledged
information from being passed on,
by court order
the investigation is still ongoing so presumably all evidence is
sensitive
leaked by special counsel
Any one of these is a federal felony. The people behind this are willing to
break a
lot
of laws to make it happen. All to release a
recording that on the face of it is regarding a legal activity (a forebearance
contract.)
"... Gordon Duff is a Marine combat veteran of the Vietnam War that has worked on veterans and POW issues for decades and consulted with governments challenged by security issues. He's a senior editor and chairman of the board of Veterans Today , especially for the online magazine " New Eastern Outlook ." https://journal-neo.org/2018/07/21/russiagate-the-comedy-of-errors/ ..."
NEO: Russiagate, the Comedy of Errors - Veterans Today | News - Military Foreign Affairs Policy
The 2018 Helsinki summit has left Americans puzzled, some terrified, others feign outrage but few
have stood back and taken a breath. Always stand back, always take a breath, always keep the mouth shut and
the hand off the keyboard.
A quick review of the facts, such as they are, such as we can assume
them to be, is a place to begin. Donald Trump, despite his denials and obfuscation, really did side with
Russia against America's intelligence agencies.
Let's take a breath, on one hand you have the CIA, NSA and 14 other agencies, all heavily politicized,
all with long histories of abuses, of lying, of even drug trafficking, rigging elections, assassinations –
this is the "one hand."
On the other, you have Russian President Vladimir Putin saying, "I didn't do it."
Then you have Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller telling us he has evidence of Russian wrongdoing –
evidence he got from the CIA, NSA and 14 other agencies.
Then again, I forgot to mention that these agencies generally get their intelligence from Israel, about
half of it – a nation that is seldom an unbiased or disinterested party – or from open source intelligence.
They see it on TV.
Then again, they have been accused, from time to time, of making it all up.
Add to this Donald Trump
, a man who would lie about what day it was; he doesn't seem to
be able to help himself – the mouth opens and out they come – an endless stream of them, many of them
bizarre and quite unnecessary. It is as though he is testing us.
There is a simple answer here. Based on reason, Trump may well have been quite correct in his assessment
that Putin wasn't lying. Putin was right there; Trump only told the audience what he was told. Trump wasn't
making that part up.
As you can note, we are now testing one or more hypotheses, hoping we might end up with something
resembling truth, a lonely effort in the best of cases.
Robert
Mueller
We can assume Robert Mueller
was telling the truth also. He
said, through indictments of Russian intelligence personnel, that he had "evidence" received from
"intelligence sources" and "witnesses," some of whom are already convicted criminals, that support his
hypothesis. Mueller says his evidence proves "the Russians did it."
This doesn't mean Putin lied. It doesn't even mean Trump lied, though in his recent denials, he has begun
lying, and quite embarrassingly; nothing new there.
Here is what it hinges down to – the American judicial system, an adversarial system that can be
manipulated and in many cases, as Trump has claimed over and over, can be used to target innocent victims.
Then again, we aren't saying Trump is an innocent victim, only that Putin didn't lie.
Then we ask, is it possible for Russian intelligence officers to do exactly what Mueller has claimed –
steal identities, hack computers, pay off stooges – the normal things intelligence officers are paid to do
anyway, without Putin knowing?
The answer to this is yes; but the answer is also mitigated, in that
the likelihood of "yes" being correct is poor. Putin should have known. He says he didn't and, thus, based
on his character, or at least his history of blatant fearlessness, he is unlikely to lie over something
where he has little or nothing to lose nor does lying serve the interests of the Russian people and their
welfare.
Then we look at the real weak link, the sources of the evidence, witness statements from admitted
criminals and reports from intelligence agencies.
Past this
, we look at who has something to gain in destroying American institutions,
discrediting President Trump even more than usual, and worsening relations between the US and Russia.
It isn't Iran. It isn't Syria. It isn't Germany.
We then step back again and assess which nations have the power to fake evidence or corrupt the output of
American intelligence reports even more than they are usually faked or corrupted.
Three nations come to mind, in order; Israel, Saudi Arabia and Turkey.
Each have powerful lobbies in Washington, each could potentially gain through weakening both Russia and
the United States, and each has a long history of using black propaganda and even false flag terrorism to
achieve gains.
I like this list.
We then take an anecdotal look
at a couple of minor aspects of the Mueller inquiry. We
begin with internet manipulation of fake news stories attacking Hillary Clinton.
It is one thing putting out a fake story; it is quite another featuring it on Facebook with extremely
strong preferences and making sure any and every Google search, for cabbage recipes or vacation spots, gives
results that attack the Clinton campaign.
Assuming that "Zuckerberg" of Facebook would work with Israeli intelligence, simply because of his name
might well be considered anti-Semitism. However, when examining how Zuckerberg dealt with Cambridge
Analytica during an election year and his relationship with Israeli spy contractor, Black Cube, Israel comes
to the top of the list.
Jared
Cohen at Google Ideas
Google
also has things to hide. Behind Google
is a regime-change organization, formerly known as Google Idea Groups, now called Google Jigsaw.
Jigsaw, a powerful military and intelligence contractor owned by Google Corporation, is headed by former
Bush White House clandestine intelligence chief, Jared Cohen.
Cohen has been active in operations against Russian interests in Crimea, he has run operations inside
Iran and has a number of organizations under his command in Turkey aimed at ousting President Assad of
Syria.
After all
, Cohen's job is "regime change" and Russia, Iran and Syria are long targets of
the "Russia bashers" in Washington, many of whom, if not most, are also powerful members of the Israel lobby
as well.
We will let Saudi Arabia off the hook this time.
Time to step back again. Note that even if Russia were guilty, but guilty of what? Spying is not illegal.
There is no international convention against spying.
America's troops in Syria are illegal. Drone killings are illegal. Recognizing Jerusalem as the capitol
of Israel is illegal. Russia rigging an American election is not a violation of international law.
It's not nice, but then again, American sanctions against Russia aren't nice either. America's rightist
coup against Ukraine wasn't so nice. America's invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, and a few other countries,
wasn't so nice.
America's efforts to flood Russia with heroin from Afghanistan isn't nice either, but we don't have to
get into that right now.
What we are saying, and a case we are making, there was no reason for Putin to lie. However, there is
reason for a nation, let's take Israel for instance, to fake Russia as a "bad guy," putting an American
president in office who, as Trump has proven, does what Israel tells him to do 100% of the time.
Does Israel have the muscle, the capability or, using the legal term, the "means" to fake evidence?
We already established
they have a motive and they have opportunity.
We then have it – Mueller told the truth, Putin told the truth, even Trump told the truth before he
started lying.
Should the Russian people take solace in the fact that America is poorly governed? America has hurt
Russia, over and over, though few Americans realize it.
Peace could and should have broken out decades ago, except America has been ruled by
Russia-haters for a hundred years – Russia-haters that are alive and well and in control in Washington,
even now.
I am not saying Putin is perfect or above sin. I am only saying he would not have bothered lying about
anything this stupid or minor; it isn't worth it. He has nothing to gain. Putin is not stupid, though he may
well be poorly informed. Is he so poorly informed that his own intelligence agencies might well have acted
with blatant stupidity against the United States and gotten caught?
The Russia of the Cold War, the old Soviet Union, would never have been so stupid.
Then again, how much has Russia gained from Trump?
As the ire of the first 48 hours after Helsinki dies down, and some real rage among a population of
Americans – no one knows how big – burns on, we ask why?
To many Americans
, perhaps a majority that ebbs and flows according to fake pollsters,
Russia foisted a dangerous clown into the Oval Office as a sick joke – perhaps a punishment for some crime
Americans would never admit to anyway.
"Why have you done this to us?"
When asked, Vladimir Putin simply said,
"Look elsewhere."
I saw a
Twitter thread between two journalists the other day which completely summarized my
experience of debating the establishment Russia narrative on online forums lately . Aaron
Maté, who is in my opinion one of the clearest voices out there on American Russia
hysteria, was approached with an argument by a journalist named Jonathan M Katz.
Maté engaged the argument by asking for evidence of the claims Katz was making,
only to be given the runaround.
I'm going to copy the back-and-forth into the text here for anyone who doesn't feel like
scrolling through a Twitter thread, not because I am interested in the petty rehashing of a
meaningless Twitter spat, but because it's such a perfect example of what I want to talk about
here.
Katz : Are you aware of what Russian agents did during the 2016 presidential election, by
chance?
Maté : I'm aware of what Mueller has accused Russian agents of --
are we supposed to just reflexively believe the assertions of prosecutors &
intelligence officials now, or is it ok to wait for the evidence? (as I did in the tweet
you're replying to)
Katz : Why are you even asking this question if you're just going to discard the reams of
evidence that have supplied by investigators, spies, and journalists over the last two
years?
Maté : Why are you avoiding answering the Q I asked? If I can guess, it's
cause doing so would mean acknowledging your position requires taking gov't claims on faith.
Re: "reams of evidence", I've actually written about it extensively, and disagree that it's
convincing.
Katz : Yeah I'm familiar with your work. You're asking for someone to summarize two years
of reporting, grand jury indictments, reports from independent analysts, give agencies both
American and foreign, and on and on just so you can handwave and draw some vague
equivalencies.
Maté : No, actually I've asked 2 Qs in this thread, both of which have been
avoided: 1) what evidence convinces you that Russia will attack the midterms 2) are we
supposed to reflexively believe the assertions of prosecutors & intel officials now, or
is it ok to wait for the evidence?
Katz : See this is what you do. You pretend like all of the evidence produced by
journalists, independent analysts and foreign governments doesn't exist so you can accuse
anyone who doesn't buy this SF Cohen Putinist bullshit you're selling of being a deep state
shill.
Maté : Except I haven't said anything about anyone being a "deep state shill",
here or anywhere else. So that's your embellishment. I'm simply asking whether we should
accept IC/prosecutor claims on faith. Mueller does lay out a case, that's true, but no
evidence yet.
Katz : No. You should not accept a prosecutor's claims on faith. You should read
independent analyses, evidence gathered by journalists and other agencies, and compare all it
to what is known on the public record. And you could if you wanted to.
Katz continued to evade and deflect until eventually exiting the conversation .
Meanwhile another journalist, The Intercept 's Sam Biddle, interjected that the debate was
"a big waste of" Katz's time and called Maté an "inverse louise mensch", all for
maintaining the posture of skepticism and asking for evidence. Maté invited Katz
and Biddle to debate their positions on The Real News , to which Biddle replied , "No thank you,
but I have some advice: If everyone has gotten it wrong, you should figure out who really did
it! If not Russia, find out who really hacked the DNC, find out who really spearphished
American election officials. Even OJ pretended to search for the real killer."
If you were to spend an entire day debating Russiagate online (and I am in no way suggesting
that you should), it is highly unlikely that you would see anything from the proponents of the
establishment Russia narrative other than the textbook fallacious debate tactics exhibited by
Katz and Biddle in that thread. It had the entire spectrum:
Gish gallop
-- The tactic of providing a stack of individually weak arguments to create
the illusion of one solid argument, illustrated when Katz cited unspecified "reams of
evidence" resulting from "two years of reporting, grand jury indictments, reports from
independent analysts, give agencies both American and foreign." He even claimed he shouldn't
have to go through that evidence point-by-point because there's too much of it, which is like
a poor man's Gish gallop fallacy.
Argumentum
ad populum -- The "it's true because so many agree that it is true"
argument that Katz attempted to imply in invoking all the "journalists, independent analysts
and foreign governments" who assert that Russia interfered in a meaningful way in America's
2016 elections and intends to interfere in the midterms.
Ad hominem
-- Biddle's "inverse louise mensch". You have no argument, so you insult the other
party instead.
Attempting
to shift the burden of proof -- Biddle's suggestion that Maté
needs to prove that someone else other than the Russian government did the things Russia is
accused of doing. Biddle is implying that the establishment Russia narrative should be
assumed true until somebody has proved it to be false, a tactic known as an appeal to ignorance
.
I'd like to talk about this last one a bit, because it underpins the entire CIA/CNN Russia
narrative.
As we've
discussed previously , in a post-Iraq invasion world the confident-sounding assertions of
spies, government officials and media pundits is not sufficient evidence for the public to
rationally support claims that are being used to escalate dangerous cold war
tensions with a nuclear superpower . The western empire has every motive in the world to
lie about the behaviors of a noncompliant government, and has an extensive and well-documented
history of doing exactly that. Hard, verifiable, publicly available proof is required.
Assertions are not evidence.
But even if there wasn't an extensive and recent history of disastrous US-led escalations
premised on lies advanced by spies, government officials and media pundits, the burden of proof
would still be on those making the claim, because that's how logic works. Whether you're
talking about law, philosophy or debate, the burden of proof is always on the party
making the claim . A group of spies, government officials and media pundits saying that
something happened in an assertive tone of voice is not the same thing as proof. That side of
the Russiagate debate is the side making the claim, so the burden of proof is on them. Until
proof is made publicly available, there is no logical reason for the public to accept the
CIA/CNN Russia narrative as fact, because the burden of proof has not been met.
This concept is important to understand on the scale of individual debates on the subject
during political discourse, and it is important to understand on the grand scale of the entire
Russia narrative as well. All the skeptical side of the debate needs to do is stand back and
demand that the burden of proof be met, but this often gets distorted in discourse on the
subject. The Sam Biddles of the world all too frequently attempt to confuse the situation by
asserting that it is the skeptics who must provide an alternative version of events and somehow
produce irrefutable proof about the behaviors of highly opaque government agencies. This is
fallacious, and it is backwards.
There are many Russiagate skeptics who have been doing copious amounts of research to come
up with other theories about what could have happened in 2016, and that's fine. But in a way
this can actually make the debate more confused, because instead of leaning back and insisting
that the burden of proof be met, you are leaning in and trying to convince everyone of your
alternative theory. Russiagaters love this more than anything, because you've shifted the
burden of proof for them. Now you're the one making the claims, so they can lean back and come
up with reasons to be skeptical of your argument. Empire loyalists like Sam Biddle would like
nothing more than to get skeptics like Aaron Maté falling all over themselves
trying to prove a
negative , but that's not how the burden of proof works, and there's no good reason to play
into it.
Until hard, verifiable proof of Russian election interference and/or collusion with the
Trump campaign is made publicly available, we are winning this debate as long as we continue
pointing out that this proof doesn't exist. All you have to do to beat a Russiagater in a
debate is point this out. They'll cite assertions made by the US intelligence community, but
assertions are not proof. They'll cite the assertions made in the recent Mueller indictment as
proof, but all the indictment contains is more assertions. The only reason Russiagaters confuse
assertions for proof is because the mass media treats them as such, but there's no reason to
play along with that delusion.
There is no good reason to play along with escalations between nuclear superpowers when
their premise consists of nothing but
narrative and assertions . It is right to demand that those escalations cease until the
public who is affected by them has had a full, informed say. Until the burden of proof has been
met, that has not even begun to happen.
* * *
The best way to make sure you see the stuff I publish is to get on the mailing list for my
website , which will get you an
email notification for everything I publish. My articles are entirely reader-supported, so if
you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook , following my antics on Twitter , checking out my podcast , throwing some money into my hat on
Patreon or Paypal , or buying my book
Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers .
The Russiagate conspiracy is exposed as a seditious fraud. The FISA warrant was attested
to by a who's who of these clowns. they swore the bogus, unvetted basis of the warrant had
been validated.
It no longer much matters what the MSM consumer, demo true believers think. It's headed to
prosecutions. The revocation of clearances threat is opening publicity shot on the
process.
We in the USSA live in what can rightly be called a target rich environment. I believe
that the corruption of not just the government (all levels) but the culture too -
particularly the MSM, Hollyweird, etc. - is so immense that pulling the plug on all the bad
guys would cause the country to crash. I keep hoping that it is simply a matter of picking
one target at a time and crushing it before moving on to the next one. Going along, for the
time being, with the "war on drugs" and lavishing $ on MIC could then be seen as a way of
mollifying certain opponents until the time to attack them rolled around.
If my suspicions are correct, there just aren't enough uncompromised good guys around to
tackle all the corruption at once. My big fear is that there are not enough uncompromised
good guys in positions to do anything at all.
"... Rouhani is identifying the current administration policy of trying to strangle Iran's oil exports as a hostile act, a "declaration of war" by the U.S. against the Iranian people. Trump's hostility to Iran is such that he treats a verbal rebuke to a destructive policy he initiated as the same as a threat of attack, and he twists Rouhani's defensive statement into a call for war. ..."
"... Trump's outburst is not the response of someone interested in finding a diplomatic solution to tensions between our countries ..."
"... It is obviously the response of a belligerent bully who overreacts to the slightest opposition and seeks confrontation for its own sake. Trump's Iran obsession is extremely dangerous for both the U.S. and Iran, and it is poisoning relations with Iran for many years to come. ..."
Golnar Motevalli gives the full context for the Rouhani statement that caused Trump to make
his unhinged threat
earlier this week:
Verbatim excerpts of what Rouhani said on Sunday. The entire statement was almost 2 hrs
long. He didn't say he wants to "launch war", he said opposite but warned of what war would
look like. He said US policy to choke Iran's economy is a US declaration of war against
Iranians: pic.twitter.com/XcirZTWi4d
As I said Sunday
night, it's clear that the statement from Rouhani wasn't a threat against the U.S. It was a
warning not to take aggressive action against Iran. Furthermore, Rouhani is identifying the
current administration policy of trying to strangle Iran's oil exports as a hostile act, a
"declaration of war" by the U.S. against the Iranian people. Trump's hostility to Iran is such
that he treats a verbal rebuke to a destructive policy he initiated as the same as a threat of
attack, and he twists Rouhani's defensive statement into a call for war.
It shouldn't have to be said at this point, but Trump's outburst is not the response of
someone interested in finding a diplomatic solution to tensions between our countries
.
It is obviously the response of a belligerent bully who overreacts to the slightest
opposition and seeks confrontation for its own sake. Trump's Iran obsession is extremely
dangerous for both the U.S. and Iran, and it is poisoning relations with Iran for many years to
come.
"... The Mueller special counsel investigation was launched to probe charges that the key FBI officials developing evidence in the case thought were baseless. That's a bombshell accusation that appears to have been confirmed by former FBI lawyer Lisa Page , according to John Solomon . It tends to confirm the suspicion that the Mueller probe is a cover-up operation to obscure the criminal use of counterintelligence capabilities to spy on a rival presidential campaign and then sabotage the presidency that resulted. ..."
"... she offered a bombshell confirmation of the meaning of one of the most enigmatic text messages that the public has seen (keep in mind that there are many yet to be released). ..."
"... The truth behind the Mueller probe is looking uglier and uglier. Pursuing bogus accusations without foundation is the very definition of a witch hunt – President Trump's term for Mueller's team of Hillary-supporters. ..."
"... We don't know anything at all about the activities of Utah U.S. attorney Peter Huber , who is investigating the potential abuse of U.S. intelligence apparatus for political purposes. That is the proper procedure for grand jury probes. But if Lisa Page is honestly answering questions under oath for a congressional committee, she probably is doing so in grand jury sessions, if summoned. ..."
The Mueller special counsel investigation was launched to probe charges that the key FBI
officials developing evidence in the case thought were baseless. That's a bombshell accusation
that appears to have been confirmed by former FBI lawyer Lisa Page , according to John Solomon
. It tends to confirm the suspicion that the Mueller probe is a cover-up operation to obscure
the criminal use of counterintelligence capabilities to spy on a rival presidential campaign
and then sabotage the presidency that resulted.
Earlier reports indicated that Page has been answering questions from the House Judiciary
Committee quite frankly and may even have
cut a deal selling out her ex-lover Peter Strzok over their professional misbehavior (and
quite possibly worse) in targeting the campaign and presidency of Donald Trump with the
intelligence-gathering tools of the FBI.
Last night, John Solomon of
The Hill revealed that he has obtained information from sources who heard Page's testimony
in two days of sworn depositions behind closed doors that she offered a bombshell
confirmation of the meaning of one of the most enigmatic text messages that the public has seen
(keep in mind that there are many yet to be released).
[T]here are just five words, among the thousands of suggestive texts Page and Strzok
exchanged, that you should read.
That passage was transmitted on May 19, 2017. "There's no big there there," Strzok
texted.
The date of the text long has intrigued investigators: It is two days after Deputy
Attorney General Rod
Rosenstein
named special counselRobert Mueller to oversee an investigation
into alleged collusion between Trump and the Russia campaign.
Since the text was turned over to Congress, investigators wondered whether it referred to
the evidence against the Trump campaign.
This month, they finally got the chance to ask. Strzok declined to say – but Page,
during a closed-door interview with lawmakers, confirmed in the most pained and contorted way
that the message in fact referred to the quality of the Russia case, according to multiple
eyewitnesses.
The admission is deeply consequential. It means Rosenstein unleashed the most awesome
powers of a special counsel to investigate an allegation that the key FBI officials, driving
the investigation for 10 months beforehand, did not think was "there."
The truth behind the Mueller probe is looking uglier and uglier. Pursuing bogus
accusations without foundation is the very definition of a witch hunt – President Trump's
term for Mueller's team of Hillary-supporters.
We don't know anything at all about the activities of Utah U.S. attorney Peter Huber ,
who is
investigating the potential abuse of U.S. intelligence apparatus for political purposes.
That is the proper procedure for grand jury probes. But if Lisa Page is honestly answering
questions under oath for a congressional committee, she probably is doing so in grand jury
sessions, if summoned.
The glacial pace of this probe is frustrating for Trump-supporters. But doing it right and
observing the ethical and legal constraints takes time and does not generate leaks.
Nevertheless, I am deeply encouraged by this leak to Solomon, as it seems to indicate that the
truth will come out.
Appearing on Hannity last night, Solomon elaborated: watch video
here .
"... The wing of the Democratic Party that looks for the dollars instead of the votes is called "The Third Way" and it presents itself as representing the supposedly vast political center, nothing "extremist" or "marginal." But didn't liberal Republicanism go out when Nelson Rockefeller did? Conservative Democrats are like liberal Republicans -- they attract flies and billionaires, but not many votes. And didn't the Rockefeller drug laws fill our prisons with millions of pathetic drug-users and small drug-dealers but not with the kingpins in either the narcotics business or the bankster rackets (such as had crashed the economy in 2008 -- and the Third Way Democrat who had been the exceptional politician and liar that was so slick he actually did attract many votes, President Barack Obama, told the banksters privately, on 27 March 2009, "I'm not out there to go after you. I'm protecting you." And, he did keep his promise to them, though not to his voters .) ..."
"... They want another Barack Obama. There aren't any more of those (unless, perhaps, Michelle Obama enters the contest). But, even if there were: How many Democrats would fall for that scam, yet again -- after the disaster of 2016? ..."
"... Maybe the Third Way is right, and there's a sucker born every minute. But if that's what the Democratic Party is going to rely upon, then America's stunningly low voter-participation rate is set to plunge even lower, because even more voters than before will either be leaving the Presidential line blank, or even perhaps voting for the Republican candidate (as some felt driven to do in 2016). ..."
"... Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They're Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010 , and of CHRIST'S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity . He is a frequent contributor to Global Research. ..."
The wing of the Democratic Party that looks for the dollars instead of the votes is
called "The Third Way" and it presents itself as representing the supposedly vast political
center, nothing "extremist" or "marginal." But didn't liberal Republicanism go out when Nelson
Rockefeller did? Conservative Democrats are like liberal Republicans -- they attract flies and
billionaires, but not many votes. And didn't the Rockefeller drug laws fill our prisons with
millions of pathetic drug-users and small drug-dealers but not with the kingpins in either the
narcotics business or the bankster rackets (such as had crashed the economy in 2008 -- and the
Third Way Democrat who had been the exceptional politician and liar that was so slick he
actually did attract many votes, President Barack Obama, told the banksters privately, on 27
March 2009, "I'm not out there to go after you.
I'm protecting you." And, he did
keep his promise to them, though not to his voters .)
They're at it, yet again. On July 22nd, NBC News's Alex Seitz-Wald headlined
"Sanders' wing of the party terrifies moderate Dems. Here's how they plan to stop it." And
he described what was publicly available from the 3-day private meeting in Columbus Ohio of The
Third Way, July 18-20, the planning conference between the Party's chiefs and its billionaires.
Evidently, they hate Bernie Sanders and are already scheming and spending in order to block
him, now a second time, from obtaining the Party's Presidential nomination. "Anxiety has
largely been kept to a whisper among the party's moderates and big donors, with some of the
major fundraisers pressing operatives on what can be done to stop the Vermonter if he runs for
the White House again." This passage in Seitz-Wald's article was especially striking to me:
The gathering here was an effort to offer an attractive alternative to the rising
Sanders-style populist left in the upcoming presidential race. Where progressives see a rare
opportunity to capitalize on an energized Democratic base, moderates see a better chance to
win over Republicans turned off by Trump.
The fact that a billionaire real estate developer, Winston Fisher, cohosted the event
and addressed attendees twice, underscored that this group is not interested in the class
warfare vilifying the "millionaires and billionaires" found in Sanders' stump speech.
"You're not going to make me hate somebody just because they're rich. I want to be
rich!" Rep. Tim Ryan, D-Ohio, a potential presidential candidate, said Friday to
laughs.
I would reply to congressman Ryan's remark: If you want to be rich, then get the hell out of
politics! Don't run for President! I don't want you there! And that's no joke!
Anyone who doesn't recognize that an inevitable trade-off exists between serving the public
and serving oneself, is a libertarian -- an Ayn Rander, in fact -- and there aren't many of
those in the Democratic Party, but plenty of them are in the Republican Party.
Just as a clergyman in some faiths is supposed to take a vow of chastity, and in some faiths
also to take a vow of poverty, in order to serve "the calling" instead of oneself, anyone who
enters 'public service' and who aspires to "be rich" is inevitably inviting corruption
-- not prepared to do war against it . That kind of politician is a Manchurian
candidate, like Obama perhaps, but certainly not what this or any country needs, in any case.
Voters like that can be won only by means of deceit, which is the way that politicians like
that do win.
No decent political leader enters or stays in politics in order to "be rich," because no
political leader can be decent who isn't in it as a calling, to public service, and as a
repudiation, of any self-service in politics.
Republican Party voters invite corrupt government, because their Party's ideology is
committed to it ("Freedom [for the rich]!"); but the only Democratic Party voters who at all
tolerate corrupt politicians (such as Governor Andrew Cuomo in New York State) are actually
Republican Democrats -- people who are confused enough so as not really to care much about what
they believe; whatever their garbage happens to be, they believe in it and don't want to know
differently than it.
The Third Way is hoping that there are
enough of such 'Democrats' so that they can, yet again, end up with a Third Way Democrat being
offered to that Party's voters in 2020, just like happened in 2016. They want another Barack
Obama. There aren't any more of those (unless, perhaps, Michelle Obama enters the contest).
But, even if there were: How many Democrats would fall for that scam, yet again -- after the
disaster of 2016?
Maybe the Third Way is right, and there's a sucker born every minute. But if that's what the
Democratic Party is going to rely upon, then America's stunningly low voter-participation rate
is set to plunge even lower, because even more voters than before will either be leaving the
Presidential line blank, or even perhaps voting for the Republican candidate (as some felt
driven to do in 2016).
The Third Way is the way to the death of democracy, if it's not already dead . It is no answer
to anything, except to the desires of billionaires -- both Republican and Democratic.
The center of American politics isn't the center of America's aristocracy. The goal
of groups such as The Third Way is to fool the American public to equate the two. The
result of such groups is the contempt that America's
public have for America's Government . But, pushed too far, mass disillusionment becomes
revolution. Is that what America's billionaires are willing to risk? They might get it.
"... Congress wasted no time jumping on the Treason bandwagon, led by Chuck Schumer conjuring the spectre of the KGB, Marco Rubio as neocon point-man (one imagines Barbara Bush rolling in her grave at his usurpation of Jeb's rightful role) proposing locked-and-loaded sanctions in case of future "meddling," and John McCain , still desperate to take the rest of the world with him before he finally kicks a long-overdue bucket, condemning the "disgraceful" display of two heads of state trying to come to an agreement about matters of mutual interest. The Pentagon has invested a lot of time and money in positioning Russia as Public Enemy #1, and for Trump to put his foot in it by making nice with Putin might diminish the size of their weapons contracts – or the willingness of the American people to tolerate more than half of every tax dollar disappearing down an unaccountable hole . Peace? Eh, who needs it. Cash , motherfucker. ..."
"... The Intelligence Community believes it is God, and it hath smote Trump good. Smelling blood in the water, the media redoubled their shrieking for several days, and crickets. ..."
The Helsinki hysteria shone a spotlight on the utter impotence of the establishment media
and their Deep State controllers to make their delusions reality. Never before has there been
such a gaping chasm visible between the media's "truth" and the facts on the ground. Pundits
compared the summit to Pearl Harbor and
9/11 , with some even reaching for the brass ring of the Holocaust by likening it to
Kristallnacht , while
polls revealed the American people reallydidn't care .
Worse, it laid bare the collusion between the media and their Deep State handlers –
the central dissemination point for the headlines, down to the same phrases, that led to every
outlet claiming Trump had "thrown the Intelligence Community under the bus" by refusing to
embrace the Russia-hacked-our-democracy narrative during his press conference with Putin.
Leaving aside the sudden ubiquity of "Intelligence Community" in our national discourse –
as if this network of spies and murderous thugs is Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood – no one
seriously believes every pundit came up with "throws under the bus" as the proper way of
describing that press conference.
The same central control was apparent in the unanimous condemnations of Putin – that
he murders
journalists , breaks
international agreements , uses bannedchemical
weapons ,
kills women and children
in Syria , and, of course,
meddles in elections . For every single establishment pundit to exhibit such a breathtaking
lack of insight into their own government's misdeeds is highly unlikely. Many of these same
talking heads remarked in horror on Sinclair Broadcasting's Orwellian "prepared statement"
issuing forth from the mouths of hundreds of stations' anchors at once. Et tu, Anderson
Cooper?
The media frenzy was geared toward sparking a popular revolt, with tensions already running
high from the previous media frenzy about family separation at the border (though only one
MSNBC segment seemed to recall that they should still care about that, and belatedly included
some footage of kids
behind a fence wrapped in Mylar blankets). Rachel Maddow , armed with the crocodile tears that
served her so well during the family-separation fracas, exhorted her faithful cultists to
do something.
Meanwhile, national-security neanderthal John Brennan all but called for a coup, condemning the
president for the unspeakable "high crimes and misdemeanors" of seeking to improve relations
with the world's second-largest nuclear power. He called on Pompeo and Bolton, the two biggest
warmongers in a Trump administration bristling with warmongers, to resign in protest. This
would have been a grand slam for world peace, but alas, it was not to be. Even those two
realize what a has-been Brennan is.
Congress wasted no time jumping on the Treason bandwagon, led by Chuck Schumer conjuring
the spectre of the KGB, Marco Rubio as neocon point-man (one imagines Barbara Bush rolling in
her grave at his usurpation of Jeb's rightful role) proposing locked-and-loaded sanctions in
case of future "meddling," and John McCain , still desperate to take the rest of the world with
him before he finally kicks a long-overdue bucket, condemning the "disgraceful" display of two
heads of state trying to come to an agreement about matters of mutual interest. The Pentagon
has invested a lot of time and money in
positioning Russia as Public Enemy #1, and for Trump to put his foot in it by making nice
with Putin might diminish the size of their weapons contracts – or the willingness of the
American people to tolerate more than half of every tax dollar disappearing down an unaccountable
hole . Peace? Eh, who needs it. Cash , motherfucker.
Trump's grip on his long-elusive spine was only temporary, and he held another press
conference upon returning home to reiterate his trust in the intelligence agencies that have
made no secret of their utter loathing for him since day one. When the lights went out at the
climactic moment, it became clear for anyone who still hadn't gotten the message who was
running the show here (and Trump, to his credit, actually joked about it). The Intelligence
Community believes it is God, and it hath smote Trump good. Smelling blood in the water, the
media redoubled their shrieking for several days, and crickets.
On to the Playmates .
Sacha Baron Cohen 's latest series, "Who is America," targeted Ted Koppel for one segment.
Koppel cut the interview short after smelling a rat and expressed his
high-minded concern that Cohen's antics would hurt Americans' trust in reporters. But after
a week of the entire media establishment screaming that the sky is falling while the heavens
remain firmly in place, Cohen is clearly the least of their problems. At least he's funny.
*
Helen Buyniski is a journalist and photographer based in New York City. She covers
politics, sociology, and other anthropological/cultural phenomena. Helen has a BA in Journalism
from New School University and also studied at Columbia University and New York University.
Find more of her work at http://www.helenofdestroy.com and http://medium.com/@helen.buyniski .
This screaming comes not only from the US mainstream, but also from that European elite
which has been housebroken for seventy years as obedient poodles, dachshunds or corgis in
the American menagerie, via intense vetting by US trans-Atlantic "cooperation"
associations.
"... Dave Lindorff is an award-winning US journalist, former Asia correspondent for Business Week, and founder of the collectively-owned journalists' news site ThisCantBeHappening.net. ..."
Socialism as a political force has never had an easy time in the US, a country that
mythologizes the go-it-alone entrepreneur and the iconoclastic loner. For a brief time in the
period between the two world wars, socialism was popular enough among US workers that American
Socialist Party leader Eugene Debs was able to win almost a million votes for president in 1912
(about 6 percent of the popular vote at that time). But after two brutal government anti-red
campaigns in the '20s and '50s that included Debs' arrest, the blacklisting of many actors,
teachers and journalists in the 1950s on charges of being Communists, and finally decades of
government and media propaganda equating socialism with Communism, Bolshevism and Maoism,
socialism has had few adherents and little public acceptance among most Americans.
Until now, that is.
Things started to change in late 2015 and the spring of 2016 when the independent US Senator
Bernie Sanders, who has long called himself a "democratic socialist," surprised
everyone by running a popular grass-roots primary campaign that nearly defeated Hillary Clinton
for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination. (Many believe hidden favoritism and
sabotage by the leadership of the Democratic Party may have stolen that primary from
Sanders.)
Now, in part because the Sanders campaign has made socialist ideas like national healthcare
and free college education – once not on any Democratic candidate's campaign agenda
– suddenly acceptable topics for political discourse, his millions of enthusiastic
youthful supporters from that campaign are openly considering socialism as a possible answer to
the economic problems they face.
And as those young people, and older folks too, look for answers, more and more candidates
are willing to espouse them. And like Ocasio-Cortez and the four socialists who won primaries
in Pennsylvania, they are showing that proposing or supporting socialist programs, and even
calling oneself a socialist, can be a winning strategy.
One sign that this sudden popularity of socialist politics and ideas is not just a
short-time phenomenon is that it's showing up most among younger people, many of whom hadn't
shown much interest in politics before. A Harvard University study
published in April for example, found that 51 percent of those between the ages of 18-29
disliked capitalism, with a majority preferring socialism as a political system. A year
earlier, the conservative magazine National Review wrote with alarm that in the wake of the
Sanders campaign, a
poll by the conservative American Culture and Faith Institute had found 40 percent of
Americans saying they favored socialism over capitalism.
... ./.. ...
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
Dave Lindorff is an award-winning US journalist, former Asia correspondent for Business
Week, and founder of the collectively-owned journalists' news site
ThisCantBeHappening.net.
"... If Trump is serious about a dramatic realignment of US relations with Russia, why did he surround himself with people who are implacably opposed to his approach: Nikki Haley, John Bolton, Mad Dog Mattis, Pompeo Maximus, Bloody Gina Haspel, Christopher Wray, and Dan Coats, who undermined him before Air Force One lifted off from Helsinki? Either Trump should fire them for insubordination or they should resign. Otherwise, this is all psychology not politics ..."
"... What kind of tyrant would appoint all of his own "deep state" coup plotters? ..."
"... Trump's doltish prevarications have done more to boost Mueller's deflating investigation than 1000 hours of the hyperventilating Rachel Maddow . ..."
"... Trump didn't do Putin any favors. The political over-reaction to Trump's obsequiousness will almost certainly prevent the removal of sanctions on the Russian economy. It may even prompt the imposition of more onerous measures. Russian civilians will almost certainly bear most of the price. ..."
He is pathologically narcissistic and supremely arrogant. He has a grotesque sense of entitlement, never doubting that he can
do whatever he chooses. He loves to bark orders and to watch underlings scurry to carry them out. He expects absolute loyalty, but
he is incapable of gratitude. The feelings of others mean nothing to him. He has no natural grace, no sense of shared humanity, no
decency.
He is not merely indifferent to the law; he hates it and takes pleasure in breaking it. He hates it because it gets in his way
and because it stands for a notion of the public good that he holds in contempt. He divides the world into winners and losers. The
winners arouse his regard insofar as he can use them for his own ends; the losers arouse only his scorn. The public good is something
only losers like to talk about. What he likes to talk about is winning.
He has always had wealth; he was born into it and makes ample use of it. But though he enjoys having what money can get him, it
is not what excites him. What excites him is the joy of domination. He is a bully. Easily enraged, he strikes out at anyone who stands
in his way. He enjoys seeing others cringe, tremble, or wince with pain. He is gifted at detecting weakness and deft at mockery and
insult. These skills attract followers who are drawn to the same cruel delight, even if they know that is dangerous, the followers
help him advance to his goal, which is the possession of supreme power.
His possession of power includes the domination of women, but he despises them far more than desires them. Sexual conquest excites
him, but only for the endlessly reiterated proof that he can have anything he likes. He knows that those he grabs hate him. For that
matter, once he has succeeded in seizing the control that so attracts him, in politics as in sex, he knows that virtually everyone
hates him. At first that knowledge energizes him, making him feverishly alert to rivals and conspiracies. But it soon begins to eat
away at him and exhaust him.
Sooner or later, he is brought down. He dies unloved and unlamented. He leaves behind only wreckage.
Donald Trump? Not exactly. This is Stephen Greenblatt's psychological profile of Richard the Third in his briskly readable new
book, Tyrant: Shakespeare on Politics
.
Based on Trump's infantile performance in Helsinki, we'd probably all be better off if Putin just went ahead and annexed the
US.
If Trump is serious about a dramatic realignment of US relations with Russia, why did he surround himself with people
who are implacably opposed to his approach: Nikki Haley, John Bolton, Mad Dog Mattis, Pompeo Maximus, Bloody Gina Haspel, Christopher
Wray, and Dan Coats, who undermined him before Air Force One lifted off from Helsinki? Either Trump should fire them for insubordination
or they should resign. Otherwise, this is all psychology not politics
What kind of tyrant would appoint all of his own "deep state" coup plotters?
Trump's doltish prevarications have done more to boost Mueller's deflating investigation than 1000 hours of the hyperventilating
Rachel Maddow .
Trump was momentarily on track when he wanted to draw a moral equivalence between the brutish global political games of Russia
and the US. But instead of lashing Hillary over her stupid emails, which have nothing to do with antagonizing Russia, why didn't
Trump attack her for her nefarious activities in Ukraine and the decimation of Libya? I know, I know. He's a dotard.
Will Mueller subpoena that soccer ball?
Trump didn't do Putin any favors. The political over-reaction to Trump's obsequiousness will almost certainly prevent
the removal of sanctions on the Russian economy. It may even prompt the imposition of more onerous measures. Russian civilians
will almost certainly bear most of the price.
Trump should have consulted with his Small Business Administrator Linda McMahon. She could have told him from her experience
running the World Wrestling Federation that you have to at least put up a little fight during the Hoedown in Helsinki to make
a fixed outcome look if not real, at least entertaining
For those of us anxious for a de-escalation in tensions between the US and Russia, Trump's petulant display probably ensured
that the opposite will happen
Putin and Trump both sought Bibi's blessing before the summit. Bibi has become the new Billy Graham, who all politicians have
on direct dial for consultation in fraught political moments. Graham always considered him a top notch military strategist, once
urging Nixon to bomb the dikes in North Vietnam which would have killed a million people.
Trump: "What is the server saying?"
The Server: "This subpoena is for you, sir ."
Did QE2 ask Putin to show up 30 minutes late for his huddle with Trump as payback for Trump's tardiness at Windsor?
Ari Melber, MSDNC: "Today, July 16, 2018, will go down in the history books as an inflection point in US-Soviet relations."
The Cold War may be over, as Putin declared, but not the Cold War mentality
"... After the Creation of the "CIA" Unelected, Unconstitutional CIA Intelligence Agency Interfered In Foreign Presidential Elections At Least 81 Times In 54 Years. The US was found to have interfered in foreign elections at least 81 times in 31 countries between 1946 and 2000 – not counting Libya, Syria, Turkey, Ukraine, The US-backed military coups or regime change efforts, Proxy-Wars. Just saying ..."
"... Tucker Carlson has been analyzing policies/ideas on a deeper level this year. He is painting US a big picture for us to see. It's quite refreshing to see Fox News actually allow objective truth be aired on on occasion. ..."
"... The Intelligence Agencies are the Praetorian Guard in the United States. ..."
"... Party politics is a means of control. When you come to realize that we all have a tendency to agree that the major issues have no party loyalty, and we're all on the same side, you can look past minor differences and move forward to working for the greater good... ..."
"... I just saw another Tucker Carlson news clip that Tony Podesta is offered immunity to testify against Paul Manafort? WTF? Why aren't Podestas charged?! ..."
"... Neocons, military industrial complex and liberal leftists have penetrated deeply into the government intelligence communities, wall street banking, both houses of Us congress, mainstream media as well as Hollywood people, even in an academia. This country is deep sh*t. I am surprised liberal leftists have not crucified Tucker Carlson yet for speaking out. ..."
"... Russiagate is DemoKKKrat horse cookies. Putin is correct. DemoKKKrats are bad losers. $1.2 billion gone, servers gone! ..."
Guys Did you know: After the Creation of the "CIA" Unelected, Unconstitutional CIA
Intelligence Agency Interfered In Foreign Presidential Elections At Least 81 Times In 54
Years. The US was found to have interfered in foreign elections at least 81 times in 31
countries between 1946 and 2000 – not counting Libya, Syria, Turkey, Ukraine, The
US-backed military coups or regime change efforts, Proxy-Wars. Just saying.
¯\_(^)_/¯
Tucker Carlson is a special character. 95% of time i disagree with Tucker but 5% of time
he's just exceptionally good. In April his 8 minute monologue was epic. I love Jimmy Dore's
passion... specially when he pronounes "they're lying!!!" Jimmy clearly hates liars ;-) We
love you Jimmy for your integrity and intelligence.
Weapons of mass destruction, 9/11, Bin Laden, Lybia, Gulf of Tonkin, Opium fields in
Afghanistan, Operation Mockingbird, Operation Paperclip..... A few reasons not to trust your
CIA and FBI. I am sure you guys can name some more.
Tucker Carlson has been analyzing policies/ideas on a deeper level this year. He is
painting US a big picture for us to see. It's quite refreshing to see Fox News actually allow
objective truth be aired on on occasion.
Pulling off the partisan blinders is the first step toward enlightenment... Party politics
is a means of control. When you come to realize that we all have a tendency to agree that the
major issues have no party loyalty, and we're all on the same side, you can look past minor
differences and move forward to working for the greater good...
THE CIA HAS BEEN OVERTHROWING GOVERMENTS FOR DECADES,and you wonder why Trump doesn't
trust them? It's because he doesn't want war. He ain't no saint but at least we have an anti
war President.
Morning Joe's panel said today that the Democrats need to run on this Russia conspiracy
theory, and nothing else, in order to win the midterms. If they bring up free college or
medicare for all it will "weaken their message and confuse the voters". Once again the
corporate neoliberal warmonger Democrats and their rich TV puppets are setting us up for
failure, no voter gives a damn about Russia, MSNBC wants our progressive candidates to lose
instead of reform their corrupt party!
I think what has happened to the Liberals, is that for decades and decades they were the
most progressive, tolerant party. They really did want to do more for the people and tried to
introduce things that the right would instantly point to and call "socialist!!" Corporations
started to look at these liberals as representatives they could pay off but without suspect,
unlike Republicans, who were widely known to accept money from Corporations, Big Pharma and
huge construction companies (Haliburton anyone?).
Over time, Liberals saw the benefits of
being chummy with these same big $$ companies and voted on bills, etc in the ways that would
make these corps very happy and more profitable. No one wanted to believe that Liberals were
doing the same thing as Republicans but now we know they are. It's not a secret anymore. Most
politicians aren't in it to make their country, their state or their cities better; they're
in it to make their bank accounts unbelievably huge and that's it. They're greedy people with
no integrity, pretending to serve the people.
I'm a righty, and I'm so surprised to see a liberal agree with Tucker in all the things I
care about! Imagine what we could accomplish if we put aside our differences for a time and
work on what we agree on! No more immoral wars for Israel! TRY BUSH, CHENEY, AND ALL NEOCONS
THAT LED US TO WAR WITH IRAQ FOR TREASON!!
You are so right. Thank you for bringout the truth. Neocons, military industrial complex
and liberal leftists have penetrated deeply into the government intelligence communities,
wall street banking, both houses of Us congress, mainstream media as well as Hollywood people,
even in an academia. This country is deep sh*t. I am surprised liberal leftists have not
crucified Tucker Carlson yet for speaking out.
Russiagate is DemoKKKrat horse cookies. Putin is correct. DemoKKKrats are bad losers. $1.2
billion gone, servers gone! DmoKKKrats cannot even prove climate change
The is question about whether that information was classified was really important, but if take classification at face value Clinton
and her associated are guilty in obstruction of justice...
DAAAAAMMMNNN ... IT ... COMEY IS A LIAR ... DAMN IM SICK OF THIS BASTARD LYING !!! ... HE HAS BROKEN THE LAW BIG TIME ... HES
GOING TO BE UNDER THE JAIL !!! ... SON OF BITCH ... LET ONE OF US EVEN TRY TO THINK ABOUT BREAKING ONE OF THOSE CRIMES WE WOULD
BE IN GITMO ... WHAT THE F
Please write to the DOJ fellow Trump Supporter.. Here is a link you send the request to Attorney General.. I have been asking
for a Special Prosuctor to look into Hillary/Comey Hillary Clinton Foundation/Podesta / Russia (He had ties to Russia) And Obama
Hello They are all so damn corrupt.
This is seriously PISSING ME OFF!!!!!!!!!! James Comey is a lying bastard and needs to be fired immediately!!! He is either involved
or completely paid off!
AMERICANS JAMES COMEY WORKED FOR THE CLINTON FOUNDATION BEFORE HE WAS DIRECTOR OF FBI . DOES THIS EXPLAIN ANYTHING IN THAT NOGGIN
? I AM TALKING TO THE LIBTARDS . I WONDER HOW HE GOT HIS PROMOTION ? HHHHHMMMM
Comey's entire testimony and the whole of this investigation is a complete farce and he's made a mockery of one of the highest
and most elite law enforcement agencies in our nation as a result. WHY he is still the director of the FBI is beyond me... his
credibility was obliterated with this ONE case and he will NEVER regain it. As far as most Americans are concerned, everything
that comes out of the FBI and/or Comey's mouth is as worthless as shit on the bottom of your shoe.
+Brian Cunningham -- President Trump is doing HIS OWN job.. running the country. THIS is the job of the Justice department.
IF Comey is "committing perjury", then the Justice Department - NOT the President - will deal with him. Meanwhile, the
hearings have to be completed first . QUIT saying that Trump "isn't doing his job, as he IS. Not every function of our
government is *President TRUMP'S job!!*
*I give up*. Clueless....... +Brian Cunningham , PLEASE learn how our government works. Stay in school - or use the Internet in
front of you to learn something - like, how our government works, for example... that's a start... Please. Please!
+Frank Marshall -- Exactly -- I reported the title as misleading.. Go up above where it says "more"..click, and "report" comes
up. The click bait false titles (and this one is slanderous towards Congressman Gowdy) will NOT stop until enough people
get to reporting them and the uploader is warned to stop it by You Tube themselves... things like that and the filthy language
people use in comments in general. It's ALL out of hand..thus I started reporting it all. It HAS to start somewhere to shut it
down. Take care, have a good week!
In 2015 the Clinton Foundation had $225 million and 2000 employees. The decision to suspend future operations is blamed on (mostly
foreign) unfulfilled donor pledges . I wonder why? The layoff of 22 employees recently made headlines. Gonna be a lot of screaming
for termination bonus' from the rest. Any wagers they'll fall on deaf ears?
Are you kidding me. They and that is the Clintons,Comey should be put in prison then the will follow. Different strokes for different
folks that is what is destroying this country. The big shoots can do whatever they want. If it was the regular Joey they would
have been imprisoned long ago.......thats why this country is crumbles. No rule of law. Well there is for the regular citizens
but not are voted in politicians they can do whatever they want why Illinois sucks.
Wow - Comey, the guy that fixed Hillary's email problem has an urgent centrist plea.
"Democrats, please, please don't lose your minds and rush to the socialist left. This
president and his Republican Party are counting on you to do exactly that. America's great
middle wants sensible, balanced, ethical leadership."
"... A World in Disarray: American Foreign Policy and the Crisis of the Old Order ..."
"... The American ruling class turned to neoliberalism after the failure of Keynesianism -- with its emphasis on state intervention and state-led development -- to overcome the economic crisis of the 1970s and restore profitability and growth in the system. Neoliberalism was not a conspiracy hatched by the Chicago School of Economics, but a strategy that developed in response to globalization and the end of the long postwar boom. ..."
"... For a period, the United States did indeed superintend a new global structure of world imperialism. It integrated most of the world's states into the neoliberal order it dubbed the Washington Consensus, using its international financial and trade institutions like the IMF, World Bank, and the World Trade Organization to compel all nations to adopt neoliberal policies that benefited a handful of powerful players. It used international loans and debt restructuring not only to remove trade and investment restrictions, but also to impose privatization and cuts in health, education, and other vital social services in states all over the world. The Pentagon deployed its military might to police and crush any so-called rogue states like Iraq. ..."
"... The Making of Global Capitalism ..."
"... Washington's attempt to lock in its dominance through its 2003 war and occupation of Iraq backfired. Even before launching the invasion, Bush recognized that the United States needed to do something to contain China and other rising rivals. In a sign of this growing awareness, he and his secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, rebranded China, which Clinton had called a strategic partner, as a strategic competitor. ..."
"... Bush used 9/11 as an opportunity to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq, as part of a plan for serial "regime change" in the region. If it succeeded, the United States hoped it would be able to control rivals, particularly China, which is dependent on the region's strategic energy reserves. Instead, Washington suffered, in the words of General William Odom, the former head of the National Security Agency, its "greatest strategic disaster in American history." ..."
"... Iran, one of the projected targets for regime change in Bush's so-called "Axis of Evil," emerged as a beneficiary of the war. It secured a new ally in the form of the sectarian Shia fundamentalist regime in Iraq. And while the United States was bogged down in Iraq, China became increasingly assertive throughout the world, establishing new political and economic pacts throughout Latin America, the Middle East, and a number of African countries. ..."
"... Finally, the Great Recession of 2008 hammered the United States and its allies in the EU particularly hard. By contrast, Beijing's massive state intervention in the economy sustained its long boom and lifted the growth rates of countries in Latin America, Australia, Asia, and sections of Africa that exported raw materials to China. ..."
"... Trump's strategy to restore American dominance in the world is economic nationalism. This is the rational kernel within his erratic shell of bizarre tweets and rants. He wants to combine neoliberalism at home with protectionism against foreign competition. It is a position that breaks with the American establishment's grand strategy of superintending free-trade globalization. ..."
"... Demagogic appeals to labor aside, Trump is doing none of this for the benefit of American workers. His program is intended to restore the competitive position of American capital, particularly manufacturing, against its rivals, especially in China but also in Germany. ..."
"... This economic nationalism is paired with a promise to rearm the American military, which he views as having been weakened by Obama. Thus, Trump has announced plans to increase military spending by $54 billion. He wants to use this 9 percent increase in the military budget to build up the Navy and to modernize and expand the nuclear arsenal, even if that provokes other powers to do the same. As he quipped in December, "Let it be an arms race." 21 Trump's fire-breathing chief strategist, former Brietbart editor Steve Bannon, went so far as to promise, "We're going to war in the South China Sea in five to ten years. There's no doubt about that." 22 ..."
"... Trump threatens a significant break with some previously hallowed institutions of US foreign policy. He has called NATO outdated. This declaration is really just a bargaining position to get the alliance's other members to increase their military spending. Thus, both his secretary of state and defense secretary have repeatedly reassured European states that the United States remains committed to NATO. More seriously, he denounced the EU as merely a vehicle for German capital. Thus, he supports various right-wing populist parties in Europe running on a promise to imitate Britain and leave the EU. ..."
"... Trump's "transactional" approach comes out most clearly in his stated approach to international alliances and blocs. He promises to evaluate all multilateral alliances and trade blocs from the standpoint of American interests against rivals. He will scrap some, replacing them with bilateral arrangements, and renegotiate others. Much of the establishment has reacted in horror to these threats, denouncing them as a retreat from Washington's responsibilities to its allies. ..."
"... Hoping that he can split Russia away from China and neutralize it as a lesser power, Trump then wants to confront China with tariffs and military challenges to its assertion of control of the South China Sea. Incoming Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has already threatened to deny China access to its newly-built island bases in the South China Sea. ..."
"... On top of all this, multinational capital opposes his protectionism. Of course almost all capital is more overjoyed at his domestic neoliberalism, a fact demonstrated in the enormous stock market expansion, but they see his proposals of tariffs, renegotiation of NAFTA, and scrapping of the TPP and the TTIP as threats to their global production, service, and investment strategies. They consider his house economist, Peter Navarro, to be a crackpot. ..."
"... Beneath the governmental shell, whole sections of the unelected state bureaucracy -- what has been ominously described as the "deep state" -- also oppose Trump as a threat to their interests. He has openly attacked the CIA and FBI and threatens enormous cuts to the State Department as well as other key bureaucracies responsible for managing state policy at home and abroad. Many of these bureaucrats have engaged in a campaign of leaks, especially of Trump's connections with the Russian state. ..."
"... One of Trump's key allies, Newt Gingrich, gives a sense of how Trump's backers are framing the dispute with these institutions. "We're up against a permanent bureaucratic structure defending itself and quite willing to break the law to do so," he told the New York Times ..."
"... The Democratic Party selectively opposes some of Trump's program. But, instead of attacking him on his manifold reactionary policies, they have portrayed him as Putin's "Manchurian Candidate," posturing as the defenders of US power willing to stand up to Russia. ..."
"... Even if Trump weathers the storm of this resistance from above and below, his foreign policy could flounder on its own internal conflicts and inconsistencies. To take one example: his policy of collaboration with Russia in Syria could flounder on his simultaneous commitment to scrap the nuclear deal with Iran. Why? Because Iran is a Russian ally in the region. Most disturbingly, if the Trump administration goes into a deeper crisis, it will double down on its bigoted scapegoating of immigrants and Muslims to deflect attention from its failures. ..."
"... China is accelerating the transformation of its economy. It seeks to push out multinationals that have used it as an export-processing platform and replace them with its own state-owned and private corporations, which, like Germany, will export its surplus manufactured goods to the rest of the world market. 31 No wonder, then, that a survey conducted by the American Chamber of Commerce found that 80 percent of American multinationals consider China inhospitable for business. ..."
"... China is also aggressively trying to supplant the United States as the economic hegemon in Asia. Immediately after Trump nixed the TPP, China appealed to states in the Asia Pacific region to sign on to its alternative trade treaty, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP). China is determined to challenge American imperial rule of the Asia Pacific. Though its navy is far smaller than Washington's, it plans to accelerate efforts to build up its regional naval power against Trump's threats to block Chinese access to the strategic islands in the South China Sea. ..."
"... Financial Times ..."
"... Imperial Brain Trust: The Council on Foreign Relations and United States Foreign Policy ..."
"... Wall Street's Think Tank: The Council on Foreign Relations and the Empire of Neoliberal Geopolitics ..."
"... Foreign Affairs ..."
"... A World in Disarray: American Foreign Policy and the Crisis of the Old Order ..."
"... International Socialism Journal ..."
"... Global Slump: The Economics and Politics of Crisis and Resistance ..."
"... International Socialist Review ..."
"... Imperialism and World Economy, ..."
"... International Socialist Review ..."
"... A Theory of Global Capitalism: Production, Class, and the State in a Transitional World ..."
The neoliberal world order of free-trade globalization that the United States has pioneered
since the end of the Cold War is in crisis. The global slump, triggered by the 2007 Great
Recession, has intensified competition not only between corporations, but also between the
states that represent them and whose disagreements over the terms of trade have paralyzed the
World Trade Organization. Similar conflicts between states have disrupted regional free-trade
deals and regional blocs. Obama's Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement failed to come to a
vote in Congress, and now Trump has scrapped it. The vote for Brexit in the United Kingdom is a
precedent that could lead other states to bolt from the European Union. Rising international
tensions, especially between the United States, China, and Russia, fill the daily
headlines.
Indeed, the world has entered a new period of imperialism. As discussed in previous articles
in this journal, the unipolar world order based on the dominance of the United States, which
has been eroding for some time, has been replaced by an asymmetric multipolar
world order. The United States remains the only superpower, and possesses by far the largest
military reach, but it faces a global rival in China and a host of lesser rivals like Russia.
And the competition between nation-states over the balance of geopolitical and economic power
is intensifying.
The multiple crises and conflicts have also confronted all the world's states with the
largest migration crisis in history. Over fifty million migrants and refugees are fleeing
economies devastated by neoliberalism, the economic crisis, political instability, and in the
case of the Middle East -- especially Syria -- counterrevolution against the Arab Spring
uprisings. The bourgeois establishment and their right-wing challengers have scapegoated these
migrants in country after country.
All of this has destabilized bourgeois politics throughout the world, opening the door to
both the Left and the Right posing as alternatives to the establishment. In the United States,
Donald Trump won the presidency with the promise to "Make America Great Again" by putting
"America First." He threatens to retreat from the post-Cold War grand strategy of the United
States overseeing the international free-trade regime, in favor of economic nationalism and
what has been described as a "transactional" approach to international politics.
While Trump aims to continue certain neoliberal policies at home (such as deregulation,
privatization, and tax cuts for the wealthy), his international policies represent a
significant shift away from global "free trade." He has promised to rip up or renegotiate
free-trade deals and impose protectionist tariffs on economic competitors. To enforce this, he
wants to rearm the American military to push back against all rivals -- China in particular --
and conduct what he depicts in racist fashion a civilizational war against Islam in the Middle
East. He marries this militaristic nationalism to a bigoted campaign of scapegoating against
immigrants, Muslims, Blacks, women, and all other oppressed groups.
Panic in the imperial brain trust
The architects and ideologues of American imperialism recognize that their grand strategy is
in crisis, and worry that Trump's new stand will only magnify it. The Financial Times
' Martin Wolf declares,
We are, in short, at the end of both an economic period -- that of western-led
globalization -- and a geopolitical one -- the post-cold war "unipolar moment" of a US-led
global order. The question is whether what follows will be an unraveling of the post-second
world war era into de-globalization and conflict, as happened in the first half of the 20th
century, or a new period in which non-western powers, especially China and India, play a
bigger role in sustaining a co-operative global order. 1
Obama's favorite neocon Robert Kagan warns that Washington's retreat from managing the world
system risks "backing into World War III," the title of the piece in which he writes:
Think of two significant trend lines in the world today. One is the increasing ambition
and activism of the two great revisionist powers, Russia and China. The other is the
declining confidence, capacity, and will of the democratic world, and especially of the
United States, to maintain the dominant position it has held in the international system
since 1945. As those two lines move closer, as the declining will and capacity of the United
States and its allies to maintain the present world order meet the increasing desire and
capacity of the revisionist powers to change it, we will reach the moment at which the
existing order collapses and the world descends into a phase of brutal anarchy, as it has
three times in the past two centuries. The cost of that descent, in lives and treasure, in
lost freedoms and lost hope, will be staggering. 2
In somewhat more measured tones, the imperial brain trust of American imperialism, the
Council on Foreign Relations, is using their journal, Foreign Affairs , to oppose
Trump and defend the existing neoliberal order with minor modifications. 3 Stewart
Patrick, for example, worries that Trump has laid-out
no broader vision of the Unites States' traditional role as defender of the free world,
much less outline how the country play that part. In foreign policy and economics, he has
made clear that the pursuit of narrow national advantage will guide his policies --
apparently regardless of the impact on the liberal world order that the United States has
championed since 1945. That order was fraying well before November 8. It had been battered
from without by challenges from China and Russia and weakened from within by economic malaise
in Japan and crises in Europe, including the epochal Brexit vote last year. No one knows what
Trump will do as president. But as a candidate, he vowed to shake up world politics by
reassessing long-standing U.S. alliances, ripping up existing U.S. trade deals, raising trade
barriers against China, disavowing the Paris climate agreement, and repudiating the nuclear
accord with Iran. Should he follow through on these provocative plans, Trump will unleash
forces beyond his control, sharpening the crisis of the Western-centered order.
The Council's Gideon Rose fears that Trump is introducing "damaging uncertainty into
everything from international commerce to nuclear deterrence. At worst, it could cause other
countries to lose faith in the order's persistence and start to hedge their bets, distancing
themselves from the Unites States, making side deals with China and Russia, and adopting
beggar-thy-neighbor programs." 4
But the Council and the rest of the foreign policy establishment have little to offer as a
solution to the crisis they describe. For example, the Council on Foreign Relations' president,
Richard Haass's, new book, A World in Disarray: American Foreign Policy and the Crisis of
the Old Order , produces little more than tactical maneuvers designed to incorporate
America's rivals into the existing neoliberal order. 5 But it is within that very
order that the United States has undergone relative decline against its increasingly assertive
rivals, especially China.
Neoliberalism's solution to the crisis last time
The American ruling class turned to neoliberalism after the failure of Keynesianism -- with
its emphasis on state intervention and state-led development -- to overcome the economic crisis
of the 1970s and restore profitability and growth in the system. Neoliberalism was not a
conspiracy hatched by the Chicago School of Economics, but a strategy that developed in
response to globalization and the end of the long postwar boom.
The US ruling class adopted what later came to be known as neoliberalism in coherent form
under the regimes of Ronald Reagan in the United States and Margaret Thatcher in Britain.
6 Neoliberalism had domestic and international dimensions. At home, the mantra was
privatization and deregulation. The ruling class got rid of regulations on capital and launched
a war against workers. They privatized state-run businesses as well as traditionally state-run
institutions like prisons and schools. They busted unions, drove down wages, and cut the
welfare state to ribbons.
Abroad, the United States expanded the program of "free trade" they had pursued since the
end of World War II. Seeking cheap labor, resources, and markets, Washington used its dominance
of international institutions to pry open national economies throughout the world. It aimed
first to incorporate its allies, then its antagonists in this neoliberal world order, with the
promise that it would work in the interests of "the capitalist class" around the world. As
Henry Kissinger once remarked, "What is called globalization is really another name for the
dominant role of the United States." 7 These domestic and international policies
overcame the crises of the 1970s and ushered in a period of economic expansion (interrupted by
a few recessions) that lasted from the early 1980s through to the early 2000s. 8
The brief unipolar moment
Unable to keep pace with the West's economic expansion and the Reagan administration's
massive rearmament program, and beset by its own internal contradictions, the Soviet Union
collapsed in 1991, and the Cold War's bipolar geopolitical order came to an end. The United
States hoped to establish a new unipolar world order in which it would solidify its position as
the world's sole remaining, and unassailable, superpower.
For a period, the United States did indeed superintend a new global structure of world
imperialism. It integrated most of the world's states into the neoliberal order it dubbed the
Washington Consensus, using its international financial and trade institutions like the IMF,
World Bank, and the World Trade Organization to compel all nations to adopt neoliberal policies
that benefited a handful of powerful players. It used international loans and debt
restructuring not only to remove trade and investment restrictions, but also to impose
privatization and cuts in health, education, and other vital social services in states all over
the world. The Pentagon deployed its military might to police and crush any so-called rogue
states like Iraq.
Amidst the heady days of this unipolar moment, much of the left abandoned the classical
Marxist theory of imperialism developed chiefly by the early twentieth century Russian
revolutionaries Vladimir Lenin and Nikolai Bukharin. In brief, Lenin and Bukharin argued that
capitalist development transformed economic competition into interstate rivalry and war for the
political and economic division and redivision of the world system between the dominant
capitalist powers vying for hegemony. 9
"The development of world capitalism leads," wrote Bukharin, "on the one hand, to an
internationalization of the economic life and, on the other, to the leveling of economic
differences, and to an infinitely greater degree, the same process of economic development
intensifies the tendency to 'nationalize' capitalist interests, to form narrow 'national'
groups armed to the teeth and ready to hurl themselves at one another at any moment."
10
Imperialism was a product of the interplay between the creation of a world market and the
division of the world between national states, and as such was a product of the system rather
than simply a policy of a particular state or party. This was in contrast to the German
socialist Karl Kautsky, who argued that imperialism was a policy favored by some sections of
the capitalists but which ran against the interests of ruling classes as a whole, which, as a
result of the economic integration of the world market, had a greater interest in peaceful
competition.
The new period of globalized capitalism produced new theories that rejected Lenin and
Bukharin's approach. Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri argued in their 2000 book that
globalization had replaced imperialism with a new structure of domination they termed empire.
Nonstate networks of power, like international financial institutions such as the IMF and the
World Bank, were now, in an era where states were increasingly powerless, the dominant world
players. 11 "The United States does not, and indeed no nation-state can today, form
the center of an imperialist project," they famously wrote in the preface. 12 Others
took the argument further, maintaining that a system of globalized transnational production and
trade was fast displacing states, including Washington, as influential centers of power.
13
On the other extreme, Leo Panitch and Sam Gindin argue in their 2012 book The Making of
Global Capitalism that the American state organized globalization and integrated all the
world's states as vassals of its informal empire. 14 Though diametrically opposed at
the start, these arguments ended with the same conclusion -- inter-imperial rivalries between
the world's leading states, including the potential for them to spill over into military
conflict -- are not a necessary outcome of capitalism; and today those rivalries are a thing of
the past.
The return of rivalry in an asymmetric world order
Developments in the real world -- such as the Bush administration's 2001 invasion and
occupation of Afghanistan, and two years later of Iraq -- viscerally disproved these arguments.
Indeed, changes in the real world were already undermining the foundations of the postwar world
order that Kagan and others are frantically holding up against Trump's "America First"
nationalism.
Washington's drive to cement its hegemony in a unipolar world order was undermined in
several ways. The neoliberal boom from the early 1980s to the 2000s produced new centers of
capital accumulation. China is the paradigmatic example. After it abandoned autarkic state
capitalism in favor of state-managed production for the world market, it transformed itself
from a backwater producer to the new workshop of the world. It vaulted from producing about 1.9
percent 15 of global GDP in 1979 to about 15 percent in 2016. 16 It is
now the second-largest economy in the world and predicted to overtake the United States as the
largest economy in the coming years.
But China was not the sole beneficiary of the neoliberal expansion. Brazil and other
regional economies also developed. And Russia, after suffering an enormous collapse of its
empire and its economic power in the 1990s, managed to rebuild itself as a petro-power with
disproportionate geopolitical influence because of its nuclear arsenal. Of course, whole
sections of the world system did not develop at all, but instead suffered dispossession and
economic catastrophe.
Washington's attempt to lock in its dominance through its 2003 war and occupation of Iraq
backfired. Even before launching the invasion, Bush recognized that the United States needed to
do something to contain China and other rising rivals. In a sign of this growing awareness, he
and his secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, rebranded China, which Clinton had called a
strategic partner, as a strategic competitor.17
Bush used 9/11 as an opportunity to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein's regime in
Iraq, as part of a plan for serial "regime change" in the region. If it succeeded, the United
States hoped it would be able to control rivals, particularly China, which is dependent on the
region's strategic energy reserves. Instead, Washington suffered, in the words of General
William Odom, the former head of the National Security Agency, its "greatest strategic disaster
in American history."18
Iran, one of the projected targets for regime change in Bush's so-called "Axis of Evil,"
emerged as a beneficiary of the war. It secured a new ally in the form of the sectarian Shia
fundamentalist regime in Iraq. And while the United States was bogged down in Iraq, China
became increasingly assertive throughout the world, establishing new political and economic
pacts throughout Latin America, the Middle East, and a number of African countries.
Russia also took advantage of American setbacks to reassert its power against EU and NATO
expansionism in Eastern Europe. It went to war against US ally Georgia in 2008. In Central
Asia, China and Russia came together to form a new alliance, the Shanghai Cooperation
Organization. They postured against American imperialism in their own imperial interests.
Finally, the Great Recession of 2008 hammered the United States and its allies in the EU
particularly hard. By contrast, Beijing's massive state intervention in the economy sustained
its long boom and lifted the growth rates of countries in Latin America, Australia, Asia, and
sections of Africa that exported raw materials to China.
This was the high-water mark of the so-called BRICS -- Brazil, Russia, India, China, and
South Africa. The lesser powers in this bloc hitched their star to Chinese imperialism,
exporting their commodities to fuel China's industrial expansion. Together they launched the
BRICS bank, officially known as the New Development Bank, and China added another, the Asian
Infrastructure Development Bank, as alternatives to the IMF and World Bank. The recent Chinese
slowdown and the consequent drop in commodity prices have, however, hammered the economies of
many of the BRICS.
These developments cracked the unipolar moment and replaced it with today's asymmetric world
order. The United States remains the world's sole superpower; but it now faces an international
rival in China and in lesser powers like Russia. It must also wrestle with regional powers that
pursue their own interests, sometimes in sync with Washington and other times at odds with
it.
Obama's failure to restore dominance
The Obama administration came to power with the hopes of restoring the credibility and
standing of American power in the wake of Bush's disasters in the Middle East. It implemented a
combined program of stimulus and austerity to restore growth and profitability. By imposing a
two-tier wage structure on the auto industry, it set a precedent for competitive
reindustrialization in the United States, and launched the massive fracking expansion to
provide cheap domestic energy to US corporations.
Intending to extract the United States from its costly and inconclusive ground wars in the
Middle East, Obama turned to air power, shifting the focus of the so-called War on Terror to
drone strikes, Special Force operations, and air support for US proxy forces in different
countries.
Once disentangled from Bush's occupations, Obama planned to conduct the ballyhooed "pivot to
Asia" to contain China's ongoing rise, bolster Washington's political and military alliance
with Japan and South Korea, and prevent their economic incorporation into China's growing
sphere of influence. The now dead Trans-Pacific Partnership was meant to ensure American
economic hegemony in the region, which would then be backed up militarily with the deployment
of 60 percent of the US Navy to the Asia Pacific region. 19 Obama also began to push
back against Russian opposition to the EU and NATO expansion into Eastern Europe -- hence the
standoff over Ukraine.
But Obama was unable to fully implement any of this because US forces remained bogged down
in the spiraling crisis in the Middle East. Retreating from the Bush administration's policy of
regime change to balancing between the existing states, Obama, while continuing to support
historic US allies such as Israel and Saudi Arabia, at the same time struck a deal with Iran
over its nuclear program. But this strategy was undermined by the Arab Spring, the regimes'
counterrevolutions, attempts by regional powers to manipulate the rebellion for their own ends,
and the rise of ISIS in Syria and Iraq. The United States has been unable to resolve many of
these developing crises on its own terms.
Now Russia, after having suffered a long-term decline of its power in the region, has
managed to reassert itself through its intervention in Syria in support of Assad's
counterrevolution. It is now a broker in the Syrian "peace process" and a new player in the
broader Middle East.
While the United States continued to suffer relative decline, China and Russia became even
more assertive. Russia took Crimea, which provoked the United States and Germany to impose
sanctions on the Kremlin. China intensified its economic deal making throughout the world,
increasing its foreign direct investment from a paltry $17.2 billion in 2005 to $187 billion in
2015. 20 At the same time, it engaged in a massive buildup of its navy and air force
(though its military is still dwarfed by the US) and constructed new military bases on various
islands to control the shipping lanes, fisheries, and potential oil fields in the South China
Sea.
Obama did manage to oversee the recovery of the US economy, and China has suffered an
economic slowdown. That has dramatically reversed the economic fortunes of the BRICS, in
particular Brazil, which has experienced economic collapse and a right-wing governmental coup.
The drop in oil prices that accompanied the Chinese slowdown also hammered the OPEC states as
well as Russia.
But China's slowdown has not reversed Beijing's economic and geopolitical ascension. In
fact, China is in the process of rebalancing its economy to replace multinational investment,
expand its domestic market, and increase production for export to the rest of the world. The
aim is to increase its ability to compete with the United States and the EU at all levels.
Thus, well before Trump's election, the United States had been mired in foreign policy
problems that it seemed incapable of resolving.
Trump's break with neoliberalism
Trump's strategy to restore American dominance in the world is economic nationalism. This is
the rational kernel within his erratic shell of bizarre tweets and rants. He wants to combine
neoliberalism at home with protectionism against foreign competition. It is a position that
breaks with the American establishment's grand strategy of superintending free-trade
globalization.
Inside the United States, Trump aims to double down on some aspects of neoliberalism. He
plans to cut taxes on the rich, rip up government regulations that "hamper" business interests,
expand Obama's fracking program to provide corporations cheaper energy, and to go after public
sector unions. He also wants to invest $1 trillion to modernize the country's decrepit
infrastructure. While his Gestapo assault on immigrants is less popular among the business
class, they are salivating over the tax and regulatory cuts. Trump hopes with these economic
carrots to lure American manufacturing companies back to the United States.
At the same time, however, Trump wants to upend the neoliberal Washington Consensus. He is
threatening to impose tariffs on American corporations that move their production to other
countries. He has already nixed the TPP and intends to do the same to the Transatlantic Trade
and Investment Partnership (TTIP) with Europe. He promises to renegotiate NAFTA with Mexico and
Canada to secure better terms, and, in response to Chinese and EU protectionism, he threatens
to impose a border tax of 45 percent on Chinese and others countries' exports to the United
States. These measures could trigger a trade war.
Demagogic appeals to labor aside, Trump is doing none of this for the benefit of American
workers. His program is intended to restore the competitive position of American capital,
particularly manufacturing, against its rivals, especially in China but also in Germany.
This economic nationalism is paired with a promise to rearm the American military, which he
views as having been weakened by Obama. Thus, Trump has announced plans to increase military
spending by $54 billion. He wants to use this 9 percent increase in the military budget to
build up the Navy and to modernize and expand the nuclear arsenal, even if that provokes other
powers to do the same. As he quipped in December, "Let it be an arms race." 21
Trump's fire-breathing chief strategist, former Brietbart editor Steve Bannon, went so far as
to promise, "We're going to war in the South China Sea in five to ten years. There's no doubt
about that." 22
Trump also plans to intensify what he sees as a civilizational war with Islam. This will
likely involve ripping up the nuclear deal with Iran, intensifying the war on ISIS in Iraq and
Syria, and conducting further actions against al Qaeda internationally. It will also likely
involve doubling down on Washington's alliance with Israel. Trump's appointment as ambassador
to Israel, David Friedman, is actually to the right of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu. 23 Trump has already begun escalating the ongoing war on Muslims
conducted by the last two administrations, with his executive orders that are in effect an
anti-Muslim ban and have increased the profiling, surveillance, and harassment of Muslims
throughout the country.
To pay for this military expansion, the Trump administration, in Bannon's phrase, plans to
carry out the "deconstruction of the administrative state." Thus, the administration has
appointed heads of departments, like Ed Pruitt at the Environmental Protection Agency, whose
main purpose is to gut them. 24 No doubt this will entail massive cuts to social
programs like Medicare and Medicaid.
Trump threatens a significant break with some previously hallowed institutions of US foreign
policy. He has called NATO outdated. This declaration is really just a bargaining position to
get the alliance's other members to increase their military spending. Thus, both his secretary
of state and defense secretary have repeatedly reassured European states that the United States
remains committed to NATO. More seriously, he denounced the EU as merely a vehicle for German
capital. Thus, he supports various right-wing populist parties in Europe running on a promise
to imitate Britain and leave the EU.
Trump's "transactional" approach comes out most clearly in his stated approach to
international alliances and blocs. He promises to evaluate all multilateral alliances and trade
blocs from the standpoint of American interests against rivals. He will scrap some, replacing
them with bilateral arrangements, and renegotiate others. Much of the establishment has reacted
in horror to these threats, denouncing them as a retreat from Washington's responsibilities to
its allies.
In a departure from Obama's policy toward Russia, Trump intends to create a more
transactional relationship with the Kremlin. He does not view Russia as the main threat; he
believes that is China. In addition to considering cutting a deal with Russia to drop sanctions
over its seizure of Crimea, he wants to collaborate with Putin in a joint war against ISIS in
Syria.
Hoping that he can split Russia away from China and neutralize it as a lesser power, Trump
then wants to confront China with tariffs and military challenges to its assertion of control
of the South China Sea. Incoming Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has already threatened to
deny China access to its newly-built island bases in the South China Sea.
Trump's economic nationalism leads directly to his "fortress America" policies. These
policies chiefly target Muslims and immigrants, but they should not be seen in isolation from
other domestic policies. With the wave of protests against his attacks that emerged from the
moment he stepped into office, Trump and his allies in state governments have introduced bills
that impose increasing restrictions on the right to protest and give the police a license for
repression with impunity. Thus the corollary of his "America First" imperialism abroad is
authoritarianism at home.
Can Trump succeed?
Trump faces a vast array of obstacles that could stop him from implementing his new
strategy. To begin with, he is an unpopular president with an approval rating hovering below 40
percent in his first months in office. He and his crony capitalist cabinet will no doubt face
many scandals, compromising their ability to push through their agenda.
He may be his own biggest obstacle. His 6 A.M. tweets are signs of someone more concerned
with his celebrity status than imperial statecraft. He has already lost his national security
adviser, Michael Flynn, due to Flynn's failure to disclose his communication with Russian
diplomats during the campaign, and his Attorney General Jeff Sessions took heat on similar
charges, forcing him to recuse himself from any investigations of the Trump campaign with the
Kremlin.
There are also real economic challenges to his ability to follow through on his economic
program. He simultaneously promises to cut taxes for the wealthy, spend hundreds of millions on
domestic infrastructure (not to mention the billions it would cost to build a wall along the
US–Mexico border), and cut the deficit. This does not square with economic reality.
On top of all this, multinational capital opposes his protectionism. Of course almost all
capital is more overjoyed at his domestic neoliberalism, a fact demonstrated in the enormous
stock market expansion, but they see his proposals of tariffs, renegotiation of NAFTA, and
scrapping of the TPP and the TTIP as threats to their global production, service, and
investment strategies. They consider his house economist, Peter Navarro, to be a crackpot.
25
Even his cabinet opposes much of his program. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson testified
that he supports the TTP and American obligations to its NATO allies in Europe, including
recent deployments of American troops to Poland. And Trump's Defense Secretary James "Mad Dog"
Mattis disagrees with Trump's proposal to rip up the nuclear treaty with Iran.
Beneath the governmental shell, whole sections of the unelected state bureaucracy -- what
has been ominously described as the "deep state" -- also oppose Trump as a threat to their
interests. He has openly attacked the CIA and FBI and threatens enormous cuts to the State
Department as well as other key bureaucracies responsible for managing state policy at home and
abroad. Many of these bureaucrats have engaged in a campaign of leaks, especially of Trump's
connections with the Russian state.
One of Trump's key allies, Newt Gingrich, gives a sense of how Trump's backers are framing
the dispute with these institutions. "We're up against a permanent bureaucratic structure
defending itself and quite willing to break the law to do so," he told the New York
Times . 26 Thus, the core of the capitalist state is at least attempting to
constrain Trump, bring down some of his appointees and may, if they see it as necessary, do the
same to Trump himself. At the very least, these extraordinary divisions at the top create a
sense of insecurity, and open up space for questioning and struggle from below.
The Democratic Party selectively opposes some of Trump's program. But, instead of attacking
him on his manifold reactionary policies, they have portrayed him as Putin's "Manchurian
Candidate," posturing as the defenders of US power willing to stand up to Russia. As Glenn
Greenwald writes, the Democrats are
not "resisting" Trump from the left or with populist appeals -- by, for instance, devoting
themselves toprotection ofWall Street and environmental regulations
under attack , or supporting the revocation of jobs-killing free trade
agreements, or demanding that Yemini civilians not be massacred. Instead, they're attacking him
on the grounds of insufficient nationalism, militarism, and aggression: equating a desire to
avoid confrontation with Moscow as a form of treason (just like they did when they were the
leading Cold Warriors).
This is why they're finding such common cause with the
nation's most bloodthirsty militarists -- not because it's an alliance of convenience but
rather one of shared convictions (indeed, long before Trump,
neocons were planning a re-alignment with Democrats under a Clinton presidency).
27
Republicans also object to many of Trump's initiatives. For example, John McCain has
attacked his cozy relationship with the Kremlin. And neoliberals in the Republican Party
support the TPP and free trade globalization in general. The neocon Max Boot has gone so far as
to support the Democrat's call for a special counsel to investigate Trump's collusion with
Putin. He explains,
There is a good reason why Trump and his partisans are so apoplectic about the prospect of
a special counsel, and it is precisely why it is imperative to appoint one: because otherwise
we will never know the full story of the Kremlin's tampering with our elections and of the
Kremlin's connections with the president of the United States. As evidenced by his desperate
attempts to change the subject, Trump appears petrified of what such a probe would reveal.
28
Even if Trump weathers the storm of this resistance from above and below, his foreign policy
could flounder on its own internal conflicts and inconsistencies. To take one example: his
policy of collaboration with Russia in Syria could flounder on his simultaneous commitment to
scrap the nuclear deal with Iran. Why? Because Iran is a Russian ally in the region. Most
disturbingly, if the Trump administration goes into a deeper crisis, it will double down on its
bigoted scapegoating of immigrants and Muslims to deflect attention from its failures.
Economic nationalism beyond Trump?
While Trump's contradictions could stymie his ability to impose his economic nationalist
program, that program is not going to disappear any more than the problems it is intended to
address. The reality is that the United States faces continued decline in the neoliberal world
order. China, even taking into account the many contradictions it faces, continues to benefit
from the current setup.
That's why, in an ironic twist of historic proportions, Chinese premier Xi Jing Ping
defended the Washington Consensus in his country's first address at the World Economic Forum in
Davos Switzerland. He even went so far as to promise to come to the rescue of free-trade
globalization if the Trump administration abandoned it. "No one will emerge as a
winner in a trade war ," he declared. "Pursuing protectionism is just like locking one's
self in a dark room. Wind and rain may be kept outside, but so are light and air."
29
One of his underlings, Zhang Jun, remarked, "If anyone were to say China is playing a
leadership role in the world I would say it's not China rushing to the front but rather the
front runners have stepped back leaving the place to China. If China is required to play that
leadership role then China will assume its responsibilities." 30
China is accelerating the transformation of its economy. It seeks to push out multinationals
that have used it as an export-processing platform and replace them with its own state-owned
and private corporations, which, like Germany, will export its surplus manufactured goods to
the rest of the world market. 31 No wonder, then, that a survey conducted by the
American Chamber of Commerce found that 80 percent of American multinationals consider China
inhospitable for business.32
China is also aggressively trying to supplant the United States as the economic hegemon in
Asia. Immediately after Trump nixed the TPP, China appealed to states in the Asia Pacific
region to sign on to its alternative trade treaty, the Regional Comprehensive Economic
Partnership (RCEP). China is determined to challenge American imperial rule of the Asia
Pacific. Though its navy is far smaller than Washington's, it plans to accelerate efforts to
build up its regional naval power against Trump's threats to block Chinese access to the
strategic islands in the South China Sea.
All of this was underway before Trump. That's why Obama was already inching toward some of
Trump's policies. He initiated the pivot to Asia, deployed the US Navy to the region, and
imposed tariffs on Chinese steel and tires. He also complained about NATO countries and others
freeloading on American military largesse. He thus encouraged Japan's rearmament and
deployments of its forces abroad. He also began the move to on-shoring manufacturing based on a
low-wage America with cheap energy and revitalized infrastructure.
So it's imaginable that another figure could take up and repackage Trump's economic
nationalism. Regardless of whether this happens or not, it is clear that there is a trajectory
deep in the dynamics of the world system toward interimperial rivalry between the United States
and its main imperialist challenger, China. Obviously there are countervailing forces that
mitigate the tendency toward military conflict between them. The high degree of economic
integration makes the ruling classes hesitant to risk war. And, because all the major states
are nuclear powers, each is reluctant to risk armed conflicts turning into mutual
annihilation.
For background on this key institution of American imperialism see Laurence H. Shoup and
William Minter, Imperial Brain Trust: The Council on Foreign Relations and United States
Foreign Policy (New York: Authors Choice Press, 2004), and Laurence H. Shoup, Wall
Street's Think Tank: The Council on Foreign Relations and the Empire of Neoliberal
Geopolitics (New York: Monthly Review Press, 2015).
Gideon Rose, "Out of Order," Foreign Affairs (January–February,
2017).
Richard Haass, A World in Disarray: American Foreign Policy and the Crisis of the Old
Order (New York: Penguin Press, 2017).
For one of the best accounts of neoliberalism as a response to globalization and a
strategy to overcome the crisis of the 1970s, see Neil Davidson, "The Neoliberal Era in
Britain: Historical Developments and Current Perspectives," International Socialism
Journal , no. 139 (2013),
http://isj.org.uk/the-neoliberal-era-in-... .
Lecture at Trinity College, Dublin, Oct. 12, 1999, cited by Sam Gindin in "Social Justice
and Globalization: Are They Compatible?" Monthly Review , June 2002, 11.
For an account of the neoliberal boom and consequent crisis and slump, see David McNally,
Global Slump: The Economics and Politics of Crisis and Resistance (Oakland, CA: PM
Press, 2010).
For a summary of the classical theory of imperialism, see Phil Gasper, "Lenin and
Bukharin on Imperialism," International Socialist Review , no. 100 (May 2009),
http://isreview.org/issue/100/lenin-and-...
.
For a summary and critique of Hardt and Negri's ideas see Tom Lewis, "Empire strikes
out," International Socialist Review , no. 24 (July–August 2002), www.isreview.org/issues/24/empire_strike...
.
Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, Empire (Cambridge, MA: Harvard, 2000),
xiii–xiv.
See, for example, William Robinson, A Theory of Global Capitalism: Production, Class,
and the State in a Transitional World (Baltimore MD: Johns Hopkins, 2004).
See Ashley Smith, "Global empire or imperialism?" International Socialist Review
, no 92 (Spring 2014), http://isreview.org/issue/92 .
Justin Yifu Lin, "China and the Global Economy," Remarks at the Conference "Asia's Role
in the Post-Crisis Global Economy," November 29, 2011,
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DEC/s... .
Ed Pilkington and Martin Pengelly, "'Let it Be an Arms Race': Donald Trump Appears to
Double Down on Nuclear Expansion," The Guardian , December 24, 2016, www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/23/...
.
Phillip Rucker and Robert Costa, "Bannon Vows Daily Fight for the "Deconstruction of the
Administrative State," Washington Post , February 23, 2017,
www.washingtonpost.com/politics/top-wh-s... .
Julie Hirschfeld Davis, "Rumblings of a 'Deep State' Undermining Trump? It Was Once a
Foreign Concept," New York Times , March 6, 2017,
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/06/us/po... .
Stephen Fidler, Te-Ping Chen, and Lingling Wei, "China's Xi Jingping Seizes Role as
Leader of Globalization," Wall Street Journal , January 17, 2017, www.wsj.com/articles/chinas-xi-jinping-d...
.
For further discussion of this point, see Ashley Smith, "Anti-imperialism and the Syrian
Revolution," Socialist Worker , August 25, 2016, https://socialistworker.org/2016/08/25/a...
.
"... Through neoliberal rationales, they are able to reach many of their social objectives even if they fall short of their policy goals ..."
"... The belief that Trump would alter American conservativism away from neoliberal economics is not without its basis. ..."
"... The marriage between neoliberalism and Christian nationalism that neo-conservatives pursued during the George W. Bush era was going to experience a soft separation under Trump. The pursuit of neoliberalism policies would be relegated in importance, if not abandoned completely, and there would be doubling down on Christian nationalism, with a tripling down on the nationalist element. Unsurprisingly, the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act reveals that Trump is ready to renege on his end of this bargain with the hope that poor whites will still be willing to keep up their end. ..."
"... The argument that Trump would somehow overturn America's neoliberal economic order myopically focused on Trump's trade policy. In doing so, it both misunderstood what Trump represented and the ideological framework of neoliberalism. Trump's fever pitch agonizing over the United States' trade deficit with China and Mexico are both the wallowing of an economic idiot and the maneuvering of a political savant. ..."
"... The insinuation was for average Americans to take back what was rightfully theirs by engaging in a new round of economic bargaining with these two nations, if not an open trade war. ..."
"... As the latest tax bill has shown, Trump is dedicated to weakening the ability of the government to extract wealth from the rich. This supreme goal takes priority over the Republican gospel of balance budgets. ..."
"... The Right Nation: Conservative Power in ..."
"... The United States now has an Americanized version of European style far Right politics, and its xenophobic ambitious has come about through a constant assertion of neoliberal values. ..."
"... Understood in proper terms, "economic nationalism" is best described as "market statism" -- where, in Milton Friedman's words, the purpose of the state should be "to preserve law and order, to enforce private contracts, to foster competitive markets" but nothing else. ..."
The passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act has refuted any notion that
Trump's ascension to the White House would mark an end to neoliberalism. Poor whites who
supported Trump expected him to offer America a new version of conservativism that would break
with neoliberalism. Instead, furthering neoliberal policies has become a critical objective
that works in tandem with Trump's xenophobic rhetoric
With the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, President Trump secured his first major
policy victory. Despite their federal dominance, the Republican Party has proven to be
legislatively constipated. Below the surface of party unity, sectarian differences between the
competing strains of American conservatism have hindered it from taking advantage of its
historical positioning. Nevertheless, tax cuts proved to be a workable common ground that Trump
was able to take advantage of. While commentary of the passage has tended to focus on this
Republican unity, the most significant aspect of the Act's passage is the refutation that
Donald Trump's ascension to the White House would somehow mark an end to the era of neoliberal
economics. Furthering neoliberal policies has not only been an aspect of Trump's agenda but a
critical goal that works in tandem with his xenophobic rhetoric. Far from being opposed by the
Bannon faction of Trump's coalition, neoliberalism has provided a comforting aerie for their
fascist inclinations to develop. Through neoliberal rationales, they are able to reach many
of their social objectives even if they fall short of their policy goals .
The belief that Trump would alter American conservativism away from neoliberal economics
is not without its basis. In a bizarre case of enveloping ironies, Trump's presidential
campaign was successful in portraying him as both a billionaire business wizard and as an
example of an American everyman. He advocated for "draining the swamp" of corrupt Wall Street
executives, while at the same time paraded his practice of tax evasion has an example of his
shrewd financial acumen. The incompatibility of these two personas is obvious, but it has a
certain appeal within the context of America's poor whites. Poor white Americans are both
spiteful toward and enamored by capitalism. They are spiteful because it retards their own
social mobility, but enamored with it because it provides a basis for their own privilege over
racial minorities. Unlike their counterparts among racial minorities, poor whites do not
consider themselves poor by class, but poor by temporary misfortune. They are not poor per se,
but rather down-on-their-luck millionaires whose are unjustly treated by liberal elites and
coddled minorities. For these people, Trump represented an enchanting example of uncouth
success. The fact that he was crass and despised only reinforced the notion that it is not
connections and education that made a person wealthy, but hard work and an intuition for
affluence. Culturally speaking, these are traits are considered innate to white Americans. Of
course, to believe this mythology, many of Trump's low-class acolytes were only willing to
support his campaign under the pretext of an unspoken bargain: they would ignore the reality
that his wealth was inherited and not earned, and he would refrain from the usual Republican
claptrap about the virtues of privatizing Social Security and Medicare. That way both partners
could remain comfortable in their delusions that all their current and potential future wealth
was a product of their own doing. The result of this unspoken bargain was that Trump was
supposed to offer America a new version of conservativism. The marriage between
neoliberalism and Christian nationalism that neo-conservatives pursued during the George W.
Bush era was going to experience a soft separation under Trump. The pursuit of neoliberalism
policies would be relegated in importance, if not abandoned completely, and there would be
doubling down on Christian nationalism, with a tripling down on the nationalist element.
Unsurprisingly, the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act reveals that Trump is ready to renege
on his end of this bargain with the hope that poor whites will still be willing to keep up
their end.
Astute observers saw this betrayal coming. The argument that Trump would somehow
overturn America's neoliberal economic order myopically focused on Trump's trade policy. In
doing so, it both misunderstood what Trump represented and the ideological framework of
neoliberalism. Trump's fever pitch agonizing over the United States' trade deficit with China
and Mexico are both the wallowing of an economic idiot and the maneuvering of a political
savant. The issue was always economically inane. A trade deficit in-and-of-itself reveals
very little about the overall health of an economy. Whether a nation should strive for or
against a trade deficit is more dependent on that nation's strategic position within the global
economy, and not necessarily an indicator of the health of domestic markets. But, trade proved
to be a salient issue for symbolic purposes. Stagnation and automation have compelled American
middle and lower classes to accept an economic torpor. Making trade deficits a central campaign
tenant provided these people with an outlet for their class anxieties without having to
question the nature of class itself. Lethargic economic growth was blamed on Mexicans and the
Chinese. The insinuation was for average Americans to take back what was rightfully theirs
by engaging in a new round of economic bargaining with these two nations, if not an open trade
war.
While Trump's criticism of Mexico and China seemed to imply an undoing of international
market liberalization and a return to an age of greater protectionism, in reality, Trump very
rarely recommended such policies. Instead, he made vague references to "good people" who will
make "good deals" for American workers and openly preferred lowering America's corporate tax
rate in order to encourage businesses to reinvest in the United States. The first proposal was
always understood as meaningless. Its value was in showmanship. A person can hoodwink the world
into thinking that they are a genius just by referring to everyone around them as a moron.
However, the second proposal not only does not overturn the reigning neoliberal order, it
strengthens it. As the latest tax bill has shown, Trump is dedicated to weakening the
ability of the government to extract wealth from the rich. This supreme goal takes priority
over the Republican gospel of balance budgets. The deficit be damned if preventing it
smacks of any hint of expropriation of the wealthy. But, the deficit is not entirely damned. It
is an open secret that Republicans are salivating for a fiscal crisis that will provide them
with a pretext for cutting Social Security and Medicare. It was only a matter of time before
Trump's administration wholeheartedly joins them.
The fact that the real potential for cutting favored government programs has not resulted in
the same outcry among Trump's supporters, even among low-class demographics, as his suggestion
that he might soften his position on immigration is a grave concern. Social Security and
Medicare are extremely popular in the United States among poor and working people regardless of
ethnicity and political ideology. Nevertheless, tolerance for their obliteration has become
palatable to the majority of white Americans. In 2004, journalists John Micklethwait and Adrian
Wooldridge published their exhaustive history of the American Right, The Right Nation: Conservative Power
inAmerica . At the time, Michlethwait and Wooldridge could accurately claim
that "in no other country is the Right defined so much by values rather than class Yet despite
the importance of values, America has failed to produce a xenophobic 'far Right' on anything
like the same scale as Europe has." A little over a decade later, Michlethwait's and
Wooldridge's observation has become obsolete. Trump is inept at policy and governance, but he
is a skilled mobilizer and has managed to shift the American Right into a new direction.
The United States now has an Americanized version of European style far Right politics, and
its xenophobic ambitious has come about through a constant assertion of neoliberal
values.
Trump has not only furthered the neoliberal doctrine of privatization, but also that of the
economization of everyday life, and specifically, the economization of American racism. While
fear of cultural differences between "the west" and "the rest" has always been front and center
for the Bannon wing of Trump's coalition, more tactical voices find economic justifications for
their xenophobia: immigrants steal jobs, freeride on welfare benefits, and don't pay taxes. The
image that emerges when these talking points converge is a political system enamored with
quantifying and dispensing material goods between those who deserve and those who do not. For
most modern conservatives, opposition to immigration is not based on an open fear of
differences; rather, it is a feeling that immigrants, especially undocumented immigrants, are
unwilling to accept a free market economic system that treats all Americans on fair and equal
terms. Unlike average Americans, who work hard and thus deserve their market remunerations,
immigrants -- and by implication other minorities -- rely on a mixture of government handouts
and liberal acquiescence to the rules. Immigrants cash their welfare checks because liberal
elites look the other way on law enforcement. This worldview suggests that the government
should not only be redirected to strenuous law enforcement but also that it should not be in
the business of providing society with social welfare in the first place. Doing so only creates
an impetus for illegal immigration and lazy minorities. In this manner, Bannon's cheerleading
of "economic nationalism" was always a rhetorical mirage. Understood in proper terms,
"economic nationalism" is best described as "market statism" -- where, in Milton Friedman's
words, the purpose of the state should be "to preserve law and order, to enforce private
contracts, to foster competitive markets" but nothing else.
There is no fundamental difference in the terms of the realpolitik outcomes between
Friedman's neoliberalism and Bannon's economic nationalism, even if they begin from separate
economic philosophies. The only difference is in what should be considered preferable within
market configurations. In Capitalism and Freedom ,
Friedman emphasizes his personal objections to racist ideologies but sees no need for a
government to ensure racial equality. According to Friedman, racism is to be overcome through
individual argumentation, not political struggle; it is the changing of tastes within the
marketplace that will provide the liberation of ethnic minorities, not the paternal hand of the
government preventing discrimination. Friedman's de-politicizing of racial anxieties to mere
matters of "taste," provides an opening for those -- like Bannon -- who are eager to engage in
a culture war, but are well aware of the potentially alienating effects of actually taking up
arms. If racial discrimination is only a matter of "taste," similar to other desires within the
marketplace, then the maintenance of white supremacy is predicated on its profitability. As
long as whiteness can maintain its social hegemony, then Friedman's governmental obligations
"to preserve law and order, to enforce private contracts, to foster competitive markets," will
serve to reinforce it. The neoliberal economizing of American racism allows for many of the
effects of white supremacy without necessarily the adoption of any of its core premises.
Trump's coalition of white nationalists and free-market ideologues thus become comfortable
bedfellows, even while maintaining a rhetorical mistrust of each other.
The question is can Trump maintain his coalition of realigned conservatives in time for the
next election cycle? While his low polling numbers and recent Democratic Party successes are
encouraging, they are not foolproof. The destabilizing of the narrative on American racism can
only occur through a refusal to accept the economization of the debate. The exclusion of racial
minorities from social welfare and the utter bureaucratic madness of the United States'
immigration policies have a moral dimension that has to take precedence over concerns regarding
job stealing and tax burdens, no matter how fallacious such arguments are to begin with.
Expecting the Democratic Party's leadership to play a leading role in this de-economization of
the debate is not impossible, but unlikely. Along with Republicans, Democrats have been
complicit in the framing social issues in relations to the economy, and the economy as merely
working in the service of private interests. Only recently has the leftwing of the Democratic
Party been organized and energized enough to counter this influence and return the party to its
New Deal orientation. Whatever its limitations, Roosevelt's "freedom from want" provides a
moral framework for economic policy. It is a reasonable and familiar starting point to break
with a neoliberal credo that economizes all morality within a capitalist framework.
While the left-wing of the Democratic Party has seen tremendous progress, it is still far
from overturning the organization's centrist leadership. In many ways, the passage of the Tax
Cuts and Jobs Act is a painful reminder of how weak the American Left is once Republicans are
able to stay united. Like with the repeal of the Affordable Care Act, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act
is extremely unpopular. The trickledown theory of economics that the act is based on is rightly
seen a convenient canard for the rich. So much so, that it has been reduced to a cliché
joke among late night talk show hosts. With the exception of Fox News, the mainstream press has
frequently commented on the nearly universal consensus among economists that the Act will
result in a massive transfer of wealth to the upper class. Intellectually, there is no place
for defenders of the Act to hide. However, unlike opposition to repealing the Affordable Care
Act, opposition to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act has been somewhat muted. While Americans still are
seething from the injustices of the 2007-2008 economic collapse, ten years on, they still have
not found a tangible political venue to express their frustrations. This means that regardless
of the outcome of the next election cycle the American Left is going to have to play a
persistent role creating a meaningful outlet for people's dismay, and fostering a political
discourse that recognizes that the Trump phenomenon is rooted in the neoliberal age that
preceded it. The dangerous tantrum-prone child of Trumpism will only be forced off the
playground when its neoliberal parents no longer own the park.
"... The Russians could do nothing to build support for Trump, and there is not a hint of evidence that they tried. They might have done something to harm Hillary, because there was so much there: the private server emails, the Clinton foundation, the murder of Moammer Gaddafi, the call for a no-fly zone in Syria they didn't have to invent it. It was there. So was the hanky panky at the Democratic National Committee, on which the Clintonite accusations focus, perhaps to cause everyone to forget much worse things. ..."
"... When you come to think of it, the DNC scandal focused on Debbie Wasserman Schultz, not on Hillary herself. Screaming about "Russian hacking the DNC" has been a distraction from much more serious accusations against Hillary Clinton. Bernie Sanders supporters didn't need those "revelations" to make them stop loving Hillary or even to discover that the DNC was working against Bernie. It was always perfectly obvious. ..."
Mass Dementia in the Western Establishment Diana Johnstone July 20, 2018 1,600 Words
7
CommentsReply
Email This Page to Someone
Where to begin to analyze the madness of mainstream media in reaction to the Trump-Putin
meeting in Helsinki? By focusing on the individual, psychology has neglected the problem of
mass insanity, which has now overwhelmed the United States establishment, its mass media and
most of its copycat European subsidiaries. The individuals may be sane, but as a herd they are
ready to leap off the cliff.
For the past two years, a particular power group has sought to explain away its loss of
power – or rather, its loss of the Presidency, as it still holds a predominance of
institutional power – by creation of a myth. Mainstream media is known for its herd
behavior, and in this case the editors, commentators, journalists have talked themselves into a
story that initially they themselves could hardly take seriously.
Donald Trump was elected by Russia ?
On the face of it, this is preposterous. Okay, the United States can manage to rig elections
in Honduras, or Serbia, or even Ukraine, but the United States is a bit too big and complex to
leave the choice of the Presidency to a barrage of electronic messages totally unread by most
voters. If this were so, Russia wouldn't need to try to "undermine our democracy". It would
mean that our democracy was already undermined, in tatters, dead. A standing corpse ready to be
knocked over by a tweet.
Even if, as is alleged without evidence, an army of Russian bots (even bigger than the
notorious Israeli army of bots) was besieging social media with its nefarious slanders against
poor innocent Hillary Clinton, this could determine an election only in a vacuum, with no other
influences in the field. But there was a lot of other stuff going on in the 2016 election, some
for Trump and some for Hillary, and Hillary herself scored a crucial own goal by denigrating
millions of Americans as "deplorables" because they didn't fit into her identity politics
constituencies.
The Russians could do nothing to build support for Trump, and there is not a hint of
evidence that they tried. They might have done something to harm Hillary, because there was so
much there: the private server emails, the Clinton foundation, the murder of Moammer Gaddafi,
the call for a no-fly zone in Syria they didn't have to invent it. It was there. So was the
hanky panky at the Democratic National Committee, on which the Clintonite accusations focus,
perhaps to cause everyone to forget much worse things.
When you come to think of it, the DNC scandal focused on Debbie Wasserman Schultz, not on
Hillary herself. Screaming about "Russian hacking the DNC" has been a distraction from much
more serious accusations against Hillary Clinton. Bernie Sanders supporters didn't need those
"revelations" to make them stop loving Hillary or even to discover that the DNC was working
against Bernie. It was always perfectly obvious.
So at worst, "the Russians" are accused of revealing some relatively minor facts concerning
the Hillary Clinton campaign. Big deal.
But that is enough, after two years of fakery, to send the establishment into a frenzy of
accusations of "treason" when Trump does what he said he would do while campaigning, try to
normalize relations with Russia.
This screaming comes not only from the US mainstream, but also from that European elite
which has been housebroken for seventy years as obedient poodles, dachshunds or corgis in the
American menagerie, via intense vetting by US trans-Atlantic "cooperation" associations. They
have based their careers on the illusion of sharing the world empire by following U.S. whims in
the Middle East and transforming the mission of their armed forces from defense into foreign
intervention units of NATO under U.S. command. Having not thought seriously about the
implications of this for over half a century, they panic at the suggestion of being left to
themselves.
The Western elite is now suffering from self-inflicted dementia.
Donald Trump is not particularly articulate, navigating through the language with a small
repetitive vocabulary, but what he said at his Helsinki press conference was honest and even
brave. As the hounds bay for his blood, he quite correctly refused to endorse the "findings" of
US intelligence agencies, fourteen years after the same agencies "found" that Iraq was bursting
with weapons of mass destruction. How in the world could anyone expect anything else?
But for the mainstream media, "the story" at the Helsinki summit, even the only
story, was Trump's reaction to the, er, trumped up charges of Russian interference in our
democracy. Were you or were you not elected thanks to Russian hackers? All they wanted was a
yes or no answer. Which could not possibly be yes. So they could write their reports in
advance.
Anyone who has frequented mainstream journalists, especially those who cover the "big
stories" on international affairs, is aware of their obligatory conformism, with few
exceptions. To get the job, one must have important "sources", meaning government spokesmen who
are willing to tell you what "the story" is, often without being identified. Once they know
what "the story" is, competition sets in: competition as to how to tell it. That leads to an
escalation of rhetoric, variations on the theme: "The President has betrayed our great country
to the Russian enemy. Treason!"
This demented chorus on "Russian hacking" prevented mainstream media from even doing their
job. Not even mentioning, much less analyzing, any of the real issues at the summit. To find
analysis, one must go on line, away from the official fake news to independent reporting. For
example, "the Moon of Alabama" site offers
an intelligent interpretation of the Trump strategy , which sounds infinitely more
plausible than "the story". In short, Trump is trying to woo Russia away from China, in a
reverse version of Kissinger's strategy forty years ago to woo China away from Russia, thus
avoiding a continental alliance against the United States. This may not work because the United
States has proven so untrustworthy that the cautious Russians are highly unlikely to abandon
their alliance with China for shadows. But it makes perfect sense as an explanation of Trump's
policy, unlike the caterwauling we've been hearing from Senators and talking heads on CNN.
Those people seem to have no idea of what diplomacy is about. They cannot conceive of
agreements that would be beneficial to both sides. No, it's got to be a zero sum game, winner
take all. If they win, we lose, and vice versa.
They also have no idea of the harm to both sides if they do not agree. They have no project,
no strategy. Just hate Trump.
He seems totally isolated, and every morning I look at the news to see if he has been
assassinated yet.
It is unimaginable for our Manichean moralists that Putin might also be under fire at home
for failing to chide the American president for U.S. violations of human rights in Guantanamo,
murderous drone strikes against defenseless citizens throughout the Middle East, the
destruction of Libya in violation of the UN mandate, interference in the elections of countless
countries by government-financed "non-governmental organizations" (the National Endowment of
Democracy), worldwide electronic spying, invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention the
world's greatest prison population and regular massacres of school children. But the diplomatic
Russians know how to be polite.
Still, if Trump actually makes a "deal", there may be losers – neither the U.S. nor
Russia but third parties. When two great powers reach agreement, it is often at somebody else's
expense. The West Europeans are afraid it will be them, but such fears are groundless. All
Putin wants is normal relations with the West, which is not much to ask.
Rather, candidate number one for paying the price are the Palestinians, or even Iran, in
marginal ways. At the press conference, asked about possible areas of cooperation between the
two nuclear powers, Trump suggested that the two could agree on helping Israel:
"We both spoke with Bibi Netanyahu. They would like to do certain things with respect to
Syria, having to do with the safety of Israel. In that respect, we absolutely would like to
work in order to help Israel. Israel will be working with us. So both countries would work
jointly."
In political terms, Trump knows where political power lies, and is counting on the influence
of the pro-Israel lobby, which recognizes the defeat in Syria and the rising influence of
Russia, to save him from the liberal imperialists – a daring bet, but he does not have
much choice.
On another subject, Trump said that "our militaries" get along with the Russians "better
than our politicians". This is another daring bet, on military realism that could somehow
neutralize military industrial congressional complex lobbying for more and more weapons.
In short, the only chance to end the nuclear war threat may depend on support for Trump from
Israel and the Pentagon!
The hysterical neoliberal globalists seem to have ruled out any other possibility –
and perhaps this one too.
"Constructive dialogue between the United States and Russia forwards the opportunity to open
new pathways toward peace and stability in our world" Trump declared "I would rather take a
political risk in pursuit of peace than to risk peace in pursuit of politics."
That is more than his political enemies can claim.
This is a frightening, accurate commentary on what we face as a result of an unaccountable
power structure resorting to any and all means to retain power which, if this structure
continues to exercise it, will lead to our extinction.
In the establishment, it's not dementia as such, it's just serving the highest bidder. You
can accuse only the elites of dementia: they forgot that to enjoy the fruits of your thievery
you have to be alive. If only they die, it would be a great service to the humanity.
Unfortunately, the way things go, they might take us all with them.
Thank you, this is an excellent summary of the situation right now. It's worth noting too
just how disconnected the establishment is from the wider public. They have enormous
financial resources and access to the entire legacy media but seem to have almost no real
base of support. Remember how the Never Trumpers had no one more prominent and well-known
than Evan McMullan (!!) to run as their candidate? Note too the tiny number of views the
YouTube videos of the Aspen Institute get: https://www.youtube.com/user/AspenInstitute/videos
.
On its own, these things aren't conclusive proof but together they add up. The Aspen
Institute crowd is an almost entirely self-contained subculture. They seem to have no base of
support, beyond their stacks of money, job titles and the power that come with the various
offices they hold. That's probably why they can never stop calling their opponents
"populists" or why Bill Kristol keeps tweeting about encountering scrappy shoeshine boys who
shout "give Trump hell, Mr Kristol!" as he goes about his urban peregrinations.
Diana Johnstone is not alone. Others on the alt-Left are starting to wake up, too. This is
Joaquín Flores:
People are seeing through dishonesty, and the old language traps are used up and done
for. If reconquista is the goal, then we need to have an honest conversation about that. If
there's a Latino nation with self determination in the south-west US, or rights 'back' to
the south-west US, then let's speak of it in such terms. Because then we'd be looking at a
Euro-American nation also. Now of course there's issues of interpenetrated peoples, and
identities we carry in our minds in diverse urban centers. But the point here is that we
have to have an honest discourse, and stop hiding reconquista sentiments under the rubric
of 'human rights'. Because European-Americans don't have right of return to Europe, so the
left is promoting what will ultimately be a race war, full scale, if they don't chill the
fuck out and back off this disingenuous approach to policy-wonkism on immigration.
The paradigmatic question today is, how is wealth made, and where does wealth come from?
What is the balance of trade and debts, and how is that is no longer manageable? The US
empire and NATO is no longer manageable. Trump is unwinding NATO. That can't be a bad
thing.
Insightful but who do you believe?? James does make many good points but without confirmation from another or two people, i.m
just wondering who is telling the truth. Still something fishy here and I think both parties are full of BS and probably James
as well. But only time will tell when historians can weed through all the smoke and mirrors
This is an interesting read. In years gone I wouldn't have been interested but the current political climate in the US is such
that I felt it worth a read. The polarity in the system and its players appears beyond what I'd expected and while there appears
to be corruption in most systems, it's amazing the Americans have been able to present an appearance of decency and leadership
this long. I guess the vail is down now and the current administration is showing just how broken and morally bankrupt the place
is and has been for a long time.
Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely, the desire for power corrupts the very fabric of humanity
I think the title says it all, Comey has only one true loyalty and that is to himself. I enjoyed this book. It was insightful
trip through the mind of a psychopath. His deviations from procedure, his lies, half truths and lawyerisms litter the book and
highlight the forces that have corrupted this nation and agencies we rely on.
Its clear that Comey did not act independently but with the tacit guidance and approval of those above him. He makes no admission
of guilt about his demonstrated lies, but rathers blames others. His self inflated ego is too commonplace to those who have worked
in Washington DC among various political agencies and dens where politicians and their allies lurk. The book betrays no empathy
for those he shamelessly prosecuted. The book is laden with attempts at manipulation through lies, half truths, and gross distortions.
On one hand I highly recommend this book because it is sure to become the "textbook" on psychopaths and their characteristics.
On the other hand this book serves as a cautionary warning about ambition run wild, corruption at the highest levels of government,
the abuse of power. No author could pen such a novel. As an exhibit it ranks with 1984 as a warning of what evil men do in the
name of "a higher good."
This is a lying, childish, self-serving, narcissistic, money grab from a partisan author who can't even keep his story straight.
His interviews contradict his book and this book is probably illegal in that it talks about an ongoing sham "investigation" that
isn't even an investigation, it's an investigation to find something to investigate.
I went into this book with an open mind after seeing Mr Comey on alot of the morning shows. I didn't like the way he seemed
to be trying to be "holier than thou" regardless of which political he was answering to. It did, in the other hand, explain what
he was thinking on some of his decisions on some of the moves he made during the election season. But truly it just read like
he was making a lot of excuses and sour grapes. I didn't enjoy this book at all. I had to force myself to finish it. I just didn't
think it was very well written.
There is no moral high ground in this book as much as its author would like to claim that he is on it
If you read the "Author's Note" on the first page of this book, it will tell you all you need to know about this smug arrogant
self righteous man. It reads, "WHO AM I TO TELL others what ethical leadership is?" If you read the book, you may come to the
same conclusion as I did. There is no moral high ground in this book as much as its author would like to claim that he is on it.
You could read that first sentence and be done with it and you would get as much out of the book without reading more.
Just a book filled with Hatred of a former employee. The people who defend this guy are the same people who accused him of
violating the Hatch Act when he announced a few days prior to the election that the FBI was reopening the Clinton email investigation.
I must admit I was touched at nearly drawn to tears when he details the lost of his newborn son. However that does not change
the fact that Comey is a liar. James Comey:'I don't leak.'(In a memo that he leaked.)
This book is second only to What Happened by Hillary Clinton in self-serving drivel. It started out interesting enough with
Cindy's work history, but once he got to the subject of his (supposed) interactions with President Trump, it was downhill from
there. It will be interesting to see what he has to say now in light of the FBI's possible spying on the Trump campaign. I'm just
glad I read it in Overdrive and didn't waste my own money.
A higher loyalty would be to the country - not the ego of a sad individual that hates the president. Love him or hate him the
president is leading the country in a direction that shows promise. The electorate can throw him out after 4 years, just like
it rejected the previous 8 years. In the meantime all Americans should be praying for the president's success and the success
of the country. That's loyalty......
Don't waste your money, Jim wants go for sainthood
Comey is extremely bright, and knows how ( or thinks he does) how to convince his readers he is one step down from sainthood.
I am not that naieve. He could have done away with the first ten chapters, where he was born and what he wore growing up was irrelevant.
I knew what he was doing. It annoyed me. He is absolutely blameless in everything.
Having dinner with Donald ALONE four times, making sure he made a EXTENDIVE note of it and gave it to another " means nothing.
The head of the FBI does NOT meet with the president alone. Saying he did not know what to do each time insults my intelligence.
He is sport on correct what he wrote " in my opinion " about Trump, but, everyone knew all this and it was on the last 4 chapters.
Jim wanted to tell his story, simple as that. Don't waste your money, I did there is not one thing that you do not already
know, if you know politicks .
I really liked the first part of this book, learning about Comey and his background. At some point though, he started to rationalize
and justify his actions and seemed to get on a high horse about defending the reputation of the FBI no matter what. I disagree
with the premise that the honor of the FBI is more important than truth and integrity.
Comey explains that he did the things he did for the greater good of the FBI. Look where we are now. By his actions alone,
Trump won the election and is now daily attacking the FBI and the DOJ. Is this the outcome Comey really wanted? And where is he
beloved FBI's reputation now?
Comey is an excellent writer. No errors or mistakes and a very readable book. He has a sense of humor, but is a little full
of himself. When he got into the rationalization of his actions, I couldn't take it anymore and stopped reading.
I really didn't enjoy this book very much. Only the last two chapters were addressed to the problems with Trump. The rest of
the book was rather boring, mainly talking about how his career progressed, etc. If I had known what this book contained I would
never have bought it. Comey's many TV interviews were misleading in what the majority of the content was. I do not recommend this
book at all.
China is enjoying this as the Dems distract us without real evidence about Russia collusion
we are being blindsided by them. Funny how Brennan a former communist sympathizer who voted
for Gus Hall in 1976 is crying treason. Wow.
Brennan, who voted for the US Communist Party candidate in the 1976 election, is screaming
the treason hyperbole because the CIA is most likely the origin of the Russia Collusion
farce:
"According to one account, GCHQ's then head, Robert Hannigan, passed material in summer
2016 to the CIA chief, John Brennan. The matter was deemed so sensitive it was handled at
"director level". After an initially slow start, Brennan used GCHQ information and
intelligence from other partners to launch a major inter-agency investigation."
BTW, Hannigan resigned for the usual "family reasons" the Monday after Trump was sworn
in.
It now appears that there were three dossier versions, all coming via different unofficial
channels, outside the intel community channels which was therefore unvetted. Many suspect
they were all from the same source coming in from different angles to create a false
impression of legitimacy.
What we are going to find out when Trump declassifies everything after the mid-term
election, regardless of whether or not the Dems take the House and try to impeach him, is
that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act put in place after the revelations of
COINTELPRO wasn't adequate protection against the serious misuse of power.
The reason Trump won't declassify now is obvious – if you think screams of
interference/obstruction are loud now, just watch after he does that, something which would
harm the Reps in the mid-terms because any revelations buried within would take time to dig
out and would suppressed as much as possible by the incredibly biased media.
The DOJ/FBI stalling in providing the documents demanded by Congress is an obvious
stalling tactic in the hope that the Dems take the house in the mid-terms. If Clinton had won
as everyone expected, we'd have never heard about any of this which is why they thought they
could get away with it.
Yes he is a libral domestcally and nationalsit in forign policy -- that's why the term "national neoliberalism" looks appropriate
for definition of his policies
Notable quotes:
"... When one compares these 10 neoliberal commandments with Trump's policy agenda, it is clear that the president is far more neoliberal than his populist rhetoric would suggest. ..."
"... Trump is clearly and consistently positioning himself to cut taxes on the wealthy, deregulate big business and the financial industry, and pursue a wide range of privatization plans and public-private partnerships that will further weaken American unions. In short, he will govern like the neoliberals who came before him and against whom he campaigned so ardently. ..."
"... In fact, Trump's agenda aims to realize the foremost goals of neoliberalism: privatization, deregulation, tax-cutting, anti-unionism, and the strict enforcement of property rights. For example, in his address to Congress , Trump promised "a big, big cut" for American companies and boasted about his administration's "historic effort to massively reduce job-crushing regulations." Ironically, Trump then asserted that he will reduce regulations by "creating a deregulation task force inside of every government agency," itself a contradictory expansion of the administrative state he had just sworn to shrink. ..."
"... Like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Trump was correct to criticize the Obama administration, whose economic team was for a time staffed by neoliberal Democrats like Timothy Geithner and Lawrence Summers, for saving Wall Street after the financial collapse of 2008 while allowing Main Street to go under. Trump's victory is the direct result of the fact that American workers have not been well served by the country's policymaking elites. ..."
"... Yet the resistance that Trump's presidency has inspired across the country must also learn from the contradictions between his economic nationalism and neoliberalism. Those who reject his phony populism must be careful not to dismiss the concerns of Trump's voters, which has unfortunately been the response of too many who console themselves by deriding Trump's supporters as ignorant "deplorables" who deserve what they will get. ..."
"... The problem with the last paragraph is that it tries once again to put the election in purely economic terms. It wasn't. It was largely white cultural backlash. Much of his vote was driven by bans on immigration and a promise to maintain a white rural/suburban culture by bringing jobs back like coal mining or manufacturing jobs to Northwood Michigan. ..."
In his first speech to a joint session of Congress, President Trump promised to deliver on his populist campaign pledges to protect
Americans from globalization. "For too long," he bemoaned, "we've watched our middle class shrink as we've exported our jobs and
wealth to foreign countries." But now, he asserted, the time has come to "restart the engine of the American economy" and "bring
back millions of jobs." To achieve his goals, Trump proposed mixing massive tax-cuts and sweeping regulatory rollbacks with increased
spending on the military, infrastructure and border control.
This same messy mix of free market fundamentalism and hyper-nationalistic populism is presently taking shape in Trump's proposed
budget. But the apparent contradiction there isn't likely to slow down Trump's pro-market, pro-Wall Street, pro-wealth agenda. His
supporters may soon discover that his professions of care for those left behind by globalization are -- aside from some mostly symbolic
moves on trade -- empty.
Just look at what has already happened with the GOP's
proposed
replacement for Obamacare , which if enacted would bring increased pain and suffering to the anxious voters who put their trust
in Trump's populism in the first place. While these Americans might have thought their votes would win them protection from the instabilities
and austerities of market-led globalization, what they are getting is a neoliberal president in populist clothing.
Neoliberalism is a term most often used to critique market-fundamentalism rather than to define a particular policy agenda. Nonetheless,
it is most useful to understand neoliberalism's policy implications in terms of 10 norms that have defined its historical practice.
These norms begin with
trade liberalization and extend to
the encouragement of exports;
enticement of foreign investment;
reduction of inflation;
reduction of public spending;
privatization of public services;
deregulation of industry and finance;
reduction and flattening of taxes;
restriction of union organization;
and, finally, enforcement of property and land ownership.
Politicians don't necessarily have to profess faith in all of these norms to be considered neoliberal. Rather, they have to buy
into neoliberalism's general market-based logic and its attendant promise of opportunity.
When one compares these 10 neoliberal commandments with Trump's policy agenda, it is clear that the president is far more
neoliberal than his populist rhetoric would suggest. This conclusion will likely surprise his supporters, especially in light
of Trump's assaults on the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the North American Free Trade Agreement. Despite these attacks, however,
Trump is clearly and consistently positioning himself to cut taxes on the wealthy, deregulate big business and the financial
industry, and pursue a wide range of privatization plans and public-private partnerships that will further weaken American unions.
In short, he will govern like the neoliberals who came before him and against whom he campaigned so ardently.
In fact, Trump's agenda aims to realize the foremost goals of neoliberalism: privatization, deregulation, tax-cutting, anti-unionism,
and the strict enforcement of property rights. For example, in his
address
to Congress , Trump promised "a big, big cut" for American companies and boasted about his administration's "historic effort
to massively reduce job-crushing regulations." Ironically, Trump then asserted that he will reduce regulations by "creating a deregulation
task force inside of every government agency," itself a contradictory expansion of the administrative state he had just sworn to
shrink.
Since so much of Trump's agenda aligns with the long-standing ambitions of the Republican Party, it is likely that Trump will
be able to work with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) to pass strictly neoliberal
legislation. Unlike his approach to trade, which congressional Republicans will probably scuttle, there is little reason to doubt
that we will see new legislation that privatizes public lands, overturns Dodd-Frank and other Wall Street regulations, cuts taxes
on business, makes organizing unions difficult, and allows big landowners to develop, mine, log, and shoot without restraint. For
all the animosity that may exist between the Trump administration and Republican congressmen, the two groups share a neoliberal vision
of the world.
From his new budget proposal we also know that Trump plans to continue the neoliberal assault on social service provisions --
such as the subsidies in the Affordable Care Act -- as well as public broadcasting, arts funding, scientific research and foreign
aid. As Trump vowed to Congress, he intends to implement a plan in which "Americans purchase their own coverage, through the use
of tax credits and expanded health savings accounts." Moreover, the money he does want to spend will be expended on military and
infrastructure projects that will almost certainly be organized around public-private partnerships that will fill the coffers of
Trump's business cronies.
What does Trump's neoliberal agenda mean for those whose discontent with globalization gave him the presidency? Nothing good.
The irony here is that the same neoliberalism that Trump plans to strengthen created the conditions that allowed him to enter the
White House. Like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Trump was correct to criticize the Obama administration, whose economic team was
for a time staffed by neoliberal Democrats like Timothy Geithner and Lawrence Summers, for saving Wall Street after the financial
collapse of 2008 while allowing Main Street to go under. Trump's victory is the direct result of the fact that American workers have
not been well served by the country's policymaking elites.
Yet the resistance that Trump's presidency has inspired across the country must also learn from the contradictions between
his economic nationalism and neoliberalism. Those who reject his phony populism must be careful not to dismiss the concerns of Trump's
voters, which has unfortunately been the response of too many who console themselves by deriding Trump's supporters as ignorant "deplorables"
who deserve what they will get. Going forward, all of those who want to resist the President's agenda must engage those left
behind by neoliberalism and provide them with an economic vision that addresses their very real concerns. After all, Trump's administration
will probably strengthen the forces that have hurt these citizens, and they will need representatives who are genuinely concerned
with their well-being if our political turmoil is to be put to rest.
Don't let his trade policy fool you: Trump is a neoliberal
(2/2) I think the truth is that many of these people are too far gone mentally and emotionally to ever come around to the "correct"
way of thinking (which is to say, they have been so brainwashed by reacting to facile nonsense like "liberty" and "freedom" that
they will believe anything as long as the argument is couched in those terms, despite the fact that when they vote they are indeed
consigning themselves and the rest of the country to a world without those very freedoms for anybody who's not supposedly "one
of them").
A great man once famously said "Conscience do cost." And boy, does it. Liberals need to get over their conscience once and
for all, and push back against conservatives the way conservatives have been for decades, but that can only happen if we are honest
about who we are arguing with, and call them out, boldly and proudly, on their intellectual failings.
(1/2) It's clear the authors don't expose themselves to right-wing news outlets. Far too much is made in liberal media about the
"deplorables" and how they feel suffocated by the economy (or more realistically, by the natural ebb and flow of capitalism),
but they belie the fact that so much of modern conservatism is more about being anti-liberal than it is about any sort of pro-conservative
ideology. The "deplorable" moniker has been adapted and co-opted by conservatives and is now worn proudly as a badge of honor
(in the same way "fake news" began as a liberal criticism of specific, deliberately-misleading media targeted towards the right,
but is now a term used almost exclusively by the right to blanket-describe literally any media that they disagree with). Any criticisms
of Trump are immediately met with criticisms of Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, or Democrats in general. Bring up the KKK's support
of Trump 3 months ago? They'll bring up how the KKK was invented by Democrats 150 years ago.
The authors are too nice/professional to say it, but liberals need to stop handling conservatives with kid gloves and start
calling them what they are: rubes. Because it's not enough that they vote against their own self-interest and the interests of
the country, they take it one further and are actively gleeful in depriving liberals of anything liberals might value. Conversely,
most liberals I know and read online don't have an active hatred of conservatives, instead they have compassion and want to educate
them, and I suppose the thought is that if only enough of these articles get written, they'll eventually come around.
Like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Trump was correct to criticize the Obama administration, whose economic team was for a
time staffed by neoliberal Democrats like Timothy Geithner and Lawrence Summers, for saving Wall Street after the financial
collapse of 2008 while allowing Main Street to go under.
And here you have it. This is how Trump got elected. The Bernibots are the unwitting agent that gave us Trump. And they
are planing on doubling down
The problem with the last paragraph is that it tries once again to put the election in purely economic terms. It wasn't. It
was largely white cultural backlash. Much of his vote was driven by bans on immigration and a promise to maintain a white rural/suburban
culture by bringing jobs back like coal mining or manufacturing jobs to Northwood Michigan.
It is quite possible that Trump can win again in these areas despite implementing neoliberal policies. And it isn't that Democrats
don't have an economic message, they do. But it is one that includes and supports a much wider cultural base and one that many
of that WWC that voted for Trump don't want to hear.
I-Myslef 3/22/2017 1:37 PM EDT
NO. The Rust Belt was handed over to him by Bernie and non stop assault on Clinton and trade ...
"... Maybe we can stop with the apologetics and demand he stop funding nazis in Ukraine, terrorists in Syria, "color revolutionaries" in Venezuela and Nicaragua and mostly secret "dirty wars" in Africa. Maybe we can demand he actually serve the interests of the 99% in the US, and not the globalist banksters, MIC contractors and extraction industries who are his real beneficiaries. ..."
"... Who knows? Maybe we can even force him to stop "Making Greater Israel Again" at great cost to the US in prestige, blood and gold. ..."
"... "Admittedly, Trump has many flaws and much of his foreign policy is in keeping with the usual criminal conduct of American imperialism." "The problem for the American establishment is that it doesn't like the way democracy worked out." ..."
"... USA deep state's Russian gambit expires on November 4th when the embargo on Iran goes into effect. It is already clear that China will support Iran. ..."
"... Anyone noticed how much personal wealth Obama has gained since he was president? Someone, anyone, please grab a clue... ..."
"... Things fall apart. The center cannot hold. Surely the Borg understand this? ..."
"... Mark Blyth is one of my favorite economists. He coined the great phrase, that once the 0.01% screw us bad enough, "The Hamptons is not a defensible position." ..."
"... " The weapon industry and the military recognize that the 'war of terror' is nearing its end. To sell more they need to create an new 'enemy' that looks big enough to justify large and long-term spending. " ..."
"... Trump is being given way too much credit. If Russia would have flown all their jets home right after the fake chemical attack in eastern Ghouta, Damascus and the rest of Syrian government controlled areas would lay in rubles by American bombs with jihadi scum committing the most unimaginable atrocities. ..."
"... The whole idea of splitting Russia and China sure, maybe 20 years ago but those days are long gone. The two nations now have deep wide and strategic agreements and interests. Besides, what does the US have to offer? ease sanctions wow how kind. A project to split them can only fail. ..."
"... LOL! Do you really think the US is a democracy? Do you think a real "outsider" populist can be elected via the money-centered US election process? Do you think Obama kept his campaign promises? Do think Trump has? (Prosecute "crooked" Hillary? Eliminated Obamacare "on day one"? Build a wall (and have Mexico pay for it)? Drained the swamp? Pull US troops out of the Middle East?) ..."
"... Consider: The US is NOT a democracy and "the borg" controls the narrative AND the counter-narrative. Obama and Trump were selected and made into the most appealing choice ("lesser evil"). ..."
"... Within days of this press conference, Trump OK'd another $200 million in military aid for the neo-nazis we planted on Russia's border. ..."
"... But all I see is Trump executing the policies of the 0.01% sponsors of the US duopoly. ..."
"... I'm not sure that the borg haven't already won long ago. The hysterical verbal attacks against Trump by the MSM and the swamp are worrying, but I'm starting to notice a similarity between this and Trump's own rhetoric. Trump's "fire and fury," his attacks on journalists, European allies, and "very unfair trade" make a lot of people uncomfortable. ..."
"... The US political circus has been cranked up to maximum volume. The question is whether there are any real actions happening to justify this noise. ..."
"... I would like to see Trump fire some people, but I'm not sure it's necessary (from Trump's perspective) because I'm not sure that the level of conflict is as serious as what is portrayed. Same thing with impeachment. It won't happen, because pretty soon the people would realize that their lot hasn't improved, that Trump wasn't the problem, and the MSM and the swamp would end up with even less credibliity. And if one president can be impeached, the calls for impeachment will continue with the next president and the next... ..."
"... Was it Rosenstein who ordered the arrest of the Russian gun lobbyist woman the day after the summit? ..."
"... There is much to suggest that Special Counsel Mueller takes his orders from Rosenstein, but who does Rosenstein answer to, and is he untouchable within the USA legal system? How much cognitive dissonance is the public supposed to handle in relation to Rosenstein not being held accountable for his crimes, including high treason? ..."
"... regarding your last line - i am not so sure.. it looks dicey to me and he is creating a lot of uncertainty with the countries - europe - that typically go along with everything the usa says.. maybe his stirring up stuff is a part of his plan, but he doesn't seem to have a genuine plan... he comes across like a loose cannon mostly.. ..."
"... No one in their right-fucking mind would willingly drag themselves through the festering piles of all possible mammalian fecal matter that DJT has had to endure since the start of his presidency. You're gonna tell me that he didn't mind that they were going to drag his philandering ass through the mud so that his YOUNG BOY and family would know what kind of a real piece of garbage this two-timer is? ..."
When I interviewed him a week ago on Air Force One, Trump explained why he's getting in the
room with traditional US enemies like North Korea and Russia.
'I'd like to see peace. A lot of people thought we're going to be at war with Trump as
President. Well here it is - we're getting rid of wars. We're actually getting out of
wars.'
'Look, if we can get along with Russia that's a good thing. For the United States to get
along with Russia and China and all these other places . Piers that's a good thing, that's
not a bad thing. That's a really good thing.'
For 8 years, I argued with Obama-bots who remained convinced that President CareBear really
wanted to do all these wonderful things he said, but was forced to do the opposite by
"Republican Obstructionism" (ignoring the Democratic super-majority in his first years), and
by threats against him and his family by the very agencies now branded by the MSM as the
"Deep State."
When I pointed out that CitiBank picked his Wall Street revolving door Cabinet, I was told
that this was a "4-D Chess move," and that the brilliant Obama had to hire insiders who knew
how "the system" worked so that he could dismantle that system and bring rainbows and
unicorns to the 99%.
Now we are almost 1/2 way through the (first) term of President Trump®, and even b is
promoting this exact same narrative for the Orange Führer.
Well, I was only able to win over a small percentage of Obama-bots with my pleas to look
at what he was actually doing, and not the pretty words he spoke. Let alone my insistence
that if he was really being threatened then the right thing to do would have been to say so,
and either call for the people to rise up to overthrow the PTSB or resign. If a President is
afraid to serve USAmerican interests, he doesn't deserve to be President.
So maybe I should change tacks for those sucked into either pole of this Trump Derangement
Syndrome. Maybe I should jump on the wagon barreling down the abyss, but try to help steer
that wagon towards the conclusion that we must push our beloved leader (or despised Putin
Puppet) to actually execute those "mumbles, such are promises All lies and jests."
Maybe we can stop with the apologetics and demand he stop funding nazis in Ukraine,
terrorists in Syria, "color revolutionaries" in Venezuela and Nicaragua and mostly secret
"dirty wars" in Africa. Maybe we can demand he actually serve the interests of the 99% in the
US, and not the globalist banksters, MIC contractors and extraction industries who are his
real beneficiaries.
Who knows? Maybe we can even force him to stop "Making Greater Israel Again" at great
cost to the US in prestige, blood and gold.
Yeah, I know. All we'll see is another round of the copyrighted "You're Fired" trope of
our first Reality TV Show President.
A couple of quotes from the Finian Cunningham piece b has linked to.
"Admittedly, Trump has many flaws and much of his foreign policy is in keeping with
the usual criminal conduct of American imperialism."
"The problem for the American establishment is that it doesn't like the way democracy worked
out."
The only two choices the world faces in US leadership is the Russia hating fanatics that
may quickly bring on WWIII, or an imperialist realist US that goes back to attacking
countries that are no match for US military power.
The longer this internal war in the US lasts, the better off the world will be.
Daniel 4
When Trump announced the Goldman boys in his group - after campaigning against Wall Street -
I pointed this out to friends only to have them tell me the exact same thing, that Trump had
to have insiders to help him do what he needed to do. Bah! A pox on both their houses R and
D.
Alternative theory: Trump got NOTHING from Putin and that angered the deep state. The
peace initiative known as "Trump" will be withdrawn (impeach/resign) if Putin doesn't come
around by this fall. The late invitation for Putin to visit Washington - coming after (not before) the
firestorm of deep-state protest is the tell.
USA deep state's Russian gambit expires on November 4th when the embargo on Iran goes into
effect. It is already clear that China will support Iran.
<> <> <> <> <> <> <>
One more thing. MIC wants weapons contracts, sure. But that doesn't mean that US and Israel doesn't have strategic
goals that go beyond enriching MIC.
really good post b.. thank you! grieved posted a link on the Helsinki thread that aligns with
your view in many regards... others would enjoy watching it - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUK5g6v5zrg
@1 virgile.. good quote from trump.. thanks for that.. a moment of sanity and clarity from
the unpredictable usa president!
@3 peter.. good comparison / analogy! and i agree with your last paragraph @5 too.
thanks..
@4 daniel.. some aspects of trumps presidency look very promising... check out that video
grieved shared if you haven't already.. it conforms to your thinking and it especially
interesting coming from a russian! opps - it must be a russian set up!!
Such naivete b, it's very alarming. DJT, despite all his rhetoric, is just another empire
puppet. He'll do what he must to further his, and his families ambitions, throwing the
workers and the "little people" under the bus, along with the rule of law, the constitution,
and anything else that gets in his way. The globalists own him, just like rest of our modern
day presidents. His increase in personal wealth, is just the price he charges for being
"owned" by them.
Anyone noticed how much personal wealth Obama has gained since he was president? Someone, anyone, please grab a clue...
instead of mic, pl likes 'globalist corporate bankster elites.' i can't see the difference
frankly...
@13 ben... on the one hand i agree - another empire puppet, but on another level he
isn't... now, just what is intentional and what isn't is hard to say.. see virgiles quote
@1.. is that the voice of an empire puppet? well - maybe it is and he is fooling his base and
plans to start ww3 sometime soon... why would he want to piss off the globalist corporate
bankster elites - or mic as others refer to it here? okay.. maybe he isn't going to, but
whatever one wants to say about trump, i think the most outstanding thing about him is his
unpredictability and the fact he doesn't appear to give a shit what the msm - that
brianwashing channel - thinks.. he does his own thing and for that - i admire him.. i still
think he is a creep, but i admire that aspect of his.. he does lead, even if one doesn't like
his style..
But I come back to the voter. Part of the reason O-Bomber and the Dems were elected was
due to US public weariness of W's non-stop wars after pronouncing 'Mission Accomplished'.
Part of the reason Trump got in (apart from it was a change election) was the same. The
Borg wants what the Borg wants, but if Trump and his base is the symptom, and Trump is
neutered, what will voters do? The Dems aren't offering anything compelling apart anti-Trump
guff.
Things fall apart. The center cannot hold. Surely the Borg understand this?
Mark Blyth is one of my favorite economists. He coined the great phrase, that once the
0.01% screw us bad enough, "The Hamptons is not a defensible position."
But to imagine that Trump is all alone with just his family is to be blind to the big
money interests that have propped him up and promoted him at least since the Rothschilds (who
are never to be called "globalists") pumped $billions into his failing real estate and
gambling businesses back in the 1980s.
Mercers. Adelson. Princes (including the de Vos branch). It goes on and on.
james @ said in part:"even if one doesn't like his style.."
IMO "his style", is nothing more, nothing less than distraction. Everything of any substance he's done has benefited the giant corporate forms he
serves.
"Globalists" are nothing more than the huge multi-national corporations. Through their
massive profits they buy the politicians like DJT and others that do their bidding. It's not
rocket science. They now own the U$A.
When DJT and his minions propose ANYTHING that benefits the working classes, maybe I'll
change my mind, but, as of now, that hasn't happened.
@18 jsn - ivan @12 spoken like a typical jack ass American - talking to other Americans and
probably thinks this is an American website too.... the freak could start by getting up to
speed..
@20 ben... trump talking with putin and suggesting that peace would be a good thing is a
start! But i hear what you are saying.. Watch peoples actions, not their words.. fully
concur..
Nice appraisal, b.
I'm still in Recovery Mode after the shock of reading Pat Lang's "Political Appointees who
should be fired" musings. I expected to be waiting for Trump's 2nd term before any serious
slime-removal began. But PL makes a persuasive case that time's a-wasting and Trump needs to
grab a fire hose ASAP and flush some muck from the stables, now.
" The weapon industry and the military recognize that the 'war of terror' is nearing its
end. To sell more they need to create an new 'enemy' that looks big enough to justify large
and long-term spending. "
I bet Donald John Trump being such a douchebag bigot will go
for Iran (or else Venezuela) just like his Republican predecessor went for Iraq. To be honest
I don't believe Trump will go for Iran but the "shadow government" (if I can call it like
that) will effectively go for a hot war with Iran. USA presidents are just some nice faces on
a plutocratic system who need to sell policies to the masses and make them feel they have a
say.
" Trump does not buy the nonsense claims of 'Russian meddling' in the U.S. elections
and openly says so. " Imagine he does believe it and says it out loud. "Dear US citizens,
the Russians have tampered with our beloved free and fair democratic voting system so now you
have me!" Of course there was no Russian meddling. But if it were so, who would ever admit
it?
Trump is being given way too much credit. If Russia would have flown all their jets home
right after the fake chemical attack in eastern Ghouta, Damascus and the rest of Syrian
government controlled areas would lay in rubles by American bombs with jihadi scum committing
the most unimaginable atrocities.
The whole idea of splitting Russia and China sure, maybe 20 years ago but those days are long
gone. The two nations now have deep wide and strategic agreements and interests. Besides,
what does the US have to offer? ease sanctions wow how kind. A project to split them can only
fail.
On another point, it has been my understanding that Pentagon policy sinse WWII assumed war
with one would mean war with the other even when they were at odds.
You are right, this is a reality TV intended to try to implant in the US a Nazi regime
through a military junta.
As soon as they have tested that people has become increasingly aware that everything remains
the same, they are willing to throw the American people against each other as a last resort
to impose the so pursued martial law which will allow cutting all rights and liberties at
root, to be able to requisition funds, at whatever price the US workers would have to pay,
and go after the needed wars, for US continuing hegemony, against Iran, Russia and
China....
This is why Trump is playing the card of opposing the DS policies and the others the
role of fighting back to the limit of asking his impeachment, so as enrage his followers
enough to get them rising in arms....In fact there are some "alt-media" just calling for this
online at unison....These was the outcome wished since the beginning of the election campaign
and such aggressive stance by Trump and Nazi and KKK followers, and this is what lays behind
the attack and intends of slamming and undermining every and each US institutions, so as that
people gets enraged and disoriented enough, unable to trust the government or any of its
agencies, and this way easy to fall into chaos and the arms of extremists armed gangs...
That the US is calling for a genuine revolution of the people to the shouts does not mean
that this one in the making has anything to do with genuine US people at all. I bet that it
is the MIC ( which Pat Lang denies existing, btw...!!!) which directs the scene from
behind...
Just found this video posted at other blog in which a man tells it as it is...This is the
perception of the people around the muslim world...( and no muslim as well ), also
increasingly aware...and they know it....Notice that the message Sheik Sudair is advancing
follows the same script than Trump and his, at least part, administration....But so as that
not permeate anybody any more...
LOL! Do you really think the US is a democracy? Do you think a real "outsider" populist
can be elected via the money-centered US election process? Do you think Obama kept his
campaign promises? Do think Trump has? (Prosecute "crooked" Hillary? Eliminated Obamacare
"on day one"? Build a wall (and have Mexico pay for it)? Drained the swamp? Pull US troops
out of the Middle East?)
Consider: The US is NOT a democracy and "the borg" controls the narrative AND the
counter-narrative. Obama and Trump were selected and made into the most appealing choice
("lesser evil").
=
Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be
the truth.
I just want to say that the phrase "cold war" or "new cold war" has far outlived its
usefulness and meaning. If there is an indecisive battle and the sides return to base then it
becomes a cold war it just has no meaning in relation to current events. That was then this
is now.
Well, I have to say there is no better person than Karen Shakhnazarov to promote the
standard narrative of our first Reality TV Show President to a Russia audience. He is, after
all a famous TV and film director who brags about being able to sway huge masses of people to
do his bidding.
And he presented quite a performance. He had few, if any actual evidences to back up his
soliloquy, but he presented it with the force of a true believer.
I would have liked to hear the rebuttals of the other guests, but they don't seem to be
online.
For no matter who is promoting it, I find the standard narrative to be specious. Trump is
not, and never was an "outsider." He is not opposing the PTSB, but enriching them.
I don't care what he, or anyone says; I watch what they actually do. Within days of this
press conference, Trump OK'd another $200 million in military aid for the neo-nazis we
planted on Russia's border.
I don't know why some in Russian media promote the US MSM narrative about this "war"
between Trump and "the establishment" and "Deep State." I want to keep believing that
President Putin is acting in the best interests of the Russian people and their allies.
Perhaps they believe that promoting the narrative gives Trump some room to actually
execute the policies which I think Shakhnazarov is correct in saying the US public backs.
But all I see is Trump executing the policies of the 0.01% sponsors of the US duopoly.
I'm not sure that the borg haven't already won long ago. The hysterical verbal attacks
against Trump by the MSM and the swamp are worrying, but I'm starting to notice a similarity
between this and Trump's own rhetoric. Trump's "fire and fury," his attacks on journalists,
European allies, and "very unfair trade" make a lot of people uncomfortable.
The US political
circus has been cranked up to maximum volume. The question is whether there are any real
actions happening to justify this noise.
Trump's public opponents have offered endless predictions of doom and gloom which have not
come to pass. Pulling out of the Iran deal and the climate deal, the nomination of BK for
SCOTUS, and the tariffs have all been condemned but we are still waiting to see how these
situations play out.
The Trump administration's internal dissenters have cried about his gestures toward peace
and nonintervention, at the same time the "defense" spending and the drone strikes continue
as strong as ever.
I would like to see Trump fire some people, but I'm not sure it's necessary (from Trump's
perspective) because I'm not sure that the level of conflict is as serious as what is
portrayed. Same thing with impeachment. It won't happen, because pretty soon the people would
realize that their lot hasn't improved, that Trump wasn't the problem, and the MSM and the
swamp would end up with even less credibliity. And if one president can be impeached, the
calls for impeachment will continue with the next president and the next...
xor @24, "Of course there was no Russian meddling. But if it were so, who would ever admit
it?"
Actually, The Donald has said publicly on several occasions that the accepts the story
that Russia meddled in our election. He just says (as did the Republican committee) that they
didn't change the results.
I believe they're keeping that story alive so they can impose even more draconian
restrictions on voting, and install even more opaque election systems so future rigging is
even less obvious.
Thanks, this is an important post. The coup will be a success when Dissidents are labeled
Russian Collaborators and the internet goes black. Even if Donald Trump doesn't resign or
isn't impeached, the splintering apart will continue. Money making chaos is spreading across
Europe and North America. The counter is to restore government by and for the people and
secure borders.
Who is actually in charge over there, among the Borg? And how much in charge? They cannot
function yet as the collective electronic mind of science fiction, can they?
Was it Rosenstein who ordered the arrest of the Russian gun lobbyist woman the day after
the summit? That looks very much like an act of desperation. There is much to suggest that
Special Counsel Mueller takes his orders from Rosenstein, but who does Rosenstein answer to,
and is he untouchable within the USA legal system? How much cognitive dissonance is the
public supposed to handle in relation to Rosenstein not being held accountable for his
crimes, including high treason?
Who are the 'globalists' actually and which is their chain of command? Which positions do
Soros, Bezos, CIA-MI6 have? What is the role of Mossad?
As it appears, after the ascendance of Trump, the actors are not sure themselves anymore
about any of this, that is about who is in charge, or in particular about how much authority
and insurance their actual real-life handlers do possess and vouch for. They waver, in the
case of media hysterically so.
"The Intelligence Community", in particular CIA, is a central executive force in the
circus, in collaboration with MI6 and the obedient assets in the NATO sphere, but they have
grown so incompetent due to incessant politicizing and sycophantism that they are perhaps
little more a paper tiger by now? If this fact, with the help of Trump and allies, would be
perceived clearer by the political classes of the USA, much good would be the result.
Nah, Trump shouldn't sack them yet but give them more rope to hang themselves.
The only thing he must do is beef up his security detail with some really mean mofos.
Spetsnaz or Hezbollah main force might be best but would be politically unacceptable. I
suspect he could get enough ex-US SF volunteers willing to die for him to ensure his safety
when the Washington Borg goes postal as they will in the next year or so when it dawns on
them how completely Trump has fucked them over. The last week or so has done much to convince
me that Trump is a revolutionary.
@29 ivan.. you're a bit of a lun - short for lunatic.. henceforth, i am skipping your
inanities..
@30 daniel.. i hear what you are saying.. he was and probably still is, a real estate
developer.. he dreams trump towers around the world.. but, he was never a politician until
very recently.. that he won the election came as a surprise to many.. yes - he had powerful
backing - just how much he owes to that, i don't know.. but it is a plutocracy as i see it..
he has very little wiggle room.. he is also a live wire and unpredictable.. i can't think of
a president who was this off script, forthright, ignorant and on and on the characteristics
go.. but i don't see him towing the line exactly... so, maybe i am wrong on trump..
as for the interview, yes - would have been nice to hear some of the other guests rebut
his comments.. the host did a very small bit, but that wasn't much... yes - the guy is in
entertainment - he shares that with trump, lol... but the guy wasn't fickle.. i find trump
quite capricious..
regarding your last line - i am not so sure.. it looks dicey to me and he is creating a
lot of uncertainty with the countries - europe - that typically go along with everything the
usa says.. maybe his stirring up stuff is a part of his plan, but he doesn't seem to have a
genuine plan... he comes across like a loose cannon mostly.. i know one when i see one,
lol... he is more of an outsider then an insider as i see it, but time will tell.. obviously
people and politicians have to be a bit of both to move forward..as with so much - a simple
black and white breakdown is impossible as i see it..
I don't know what the United States is. A quilt? ;)
Trump simply shouldn't have been elected in the first place if the system of political
filtration was working properly. The Borg appears to have done some deft footwork since it
became clear he was a serious contender and prepared for him becoming President. The
Christopher Steele Dossier, courtesy of the UK, looks like just one strand of this.
I'm just not ready to call it. I don't know what will happen. Traditionally it takes two
terms for a President to leave a clear mark, but I don't know if this applies anymore.
I'm also wary of treating the voter as an easily managed moron as much of the media and
many pols do. I think that is an error. There will be fallout.
My head is pessimist, my heart it optimist. Does not compute.
Sasha @26. That's an amazing video! Thanks. The people are awakening.
Frank Zappa observed 30 or 40 years ago that the facade of "democracy" in the US will be
dropped whenever it becomes expedient to do so. And that facade became a lot thinner 3 days
after "the event that changed everything."
The US has been under a form of "Martial Law" since President Bush II signed Executive Order 13223 on
September 14, 2001.
Exactly what this EO established is classified, but even the changes since 9/11 that are
public are horrifying. No more habeas corpus. US military permitted to police the streets.
"Kill lists" of US citizens, even on US territory. Imagine what powers are still
classified!
Since then, every year, each President has extended it for another year.
President Trump extended, and expanded it last year , giving him the authority to recall
into service any "retired member of the Regular Army, Regular Navy, Regular Air Force, or
RegularMarine Corps."
Starting with some posts at 4-Chan, some in the "alt-right" were claiming that the purpose
of this power to confiscate private property is Trump's "4-D Chess Move" to eviscerate the
Clinton "Deep State" Globalists.
That 4-Chan thread evolved into "Q" and QAnon which are serving to keep Trump fans chasing
squirrels, and ignoring what this Administration is actually doing.
b has the courage (finally) to admit that passing a summary judgment against Trump at
this juncture is absurd and would exhibit symptoms of TDS and immediately people are here to
remind us (program us) into thinking that this is all theatre and there is no daylight btw
Obama and Trump.
Bullshit.
No one in their right-fucking mind would willingly drag themselves through the festering
piles of all possible mammalian fecal matter that DJT has had to endure since the start of
his presidency. You're gonna tell me that he didn't mind that they were going to drag his
philandering ass through the mud so that his YOUNG BOY and family would know what kind of a
real piece of garbage this two-timer is? You're going to tell me that he willfully signed on
for death threats and to be publically shamed and turned on by all his orchestrated
advisor-elections?
For what? So he could sell more steaks post-presidency or build towers in Pyongyang?
So this is all theater and it doesn't even matter, huh?
Poor DJT. The loneliest dumbass in the world right now. His wife even "shooed" his hand
away on camera at a tarmac meet-and-greet. Gosh...who wouldn't sign up for that?!
And surely he must really be having a lot of fun backstage sniggering at all the gullibles
in his deplorable army. Gosh, do I feel like a twit.
I wouldn't say "the borg have won," because that means the game is over. I'd say this borg
are in power, and are playing us with awesome finesse.
But I still believe that once enough of us see through the deceptions, and unite to take
them down, that we can beat them. The real PTSB are a tiny percentage. Additionally, they
have a few percent of enforcers (cops/militaries/paramilitaries). And a few more percent who
believe that they're benefiting from this borg-dominance enough to support it.
But it really won't take that many dedicated revolutionaries to topple their house of
cards. Once we convince even a significant minority of the enforcers to refuse orders and
stand with us, I expect their rule will fall quickly, as it has in other instances.
Ben @20: said "When DJT and his minions propose ANYTHING that benefits the working classes,
maybe I'll change my mind, but, as of now, that hasn't happened."
I'd have thought that proposing peace with Russia, rather than risking nuclear war with
them as his would-be deposers seemingly want, is a policy that benefits the working
classes.
You seem to have good instincts, but continue to fall back into the MSM narratives.
"i can't think of a president who was this off script,"
Have you seen the script? I haven't. I just watch what his Administration actually does.
The only change in US policies have been escalations of the worst and stripping of the better
ones.
"he doesn't seem to have a genuine plan... he comes across like a loose cannon mostly"
Yep. That is precisely what we see our First Realty TV Show President doing. Especially
through those Tweets that we're told he writes, his character is all those things you say.
But again, what is his Administration actually doing?
" but time will tell.. "
We're almost halfway through his (first) term, and what have we seen? We've seen war
escalated. We're up to one bomb every 12 minutes! That's 3x as many as Obama and 6x as many
as Bush II. We now have unknown thousands of regular troops occupying more than 1/3 of the
sovereign state of Syria, replacing a few hundred Special Ops guys Obama had.
We're still working to overturn countries that displease the 0.01%/globalists/elites/Deep
State/borg or whatever one wants to call them. Within weeks of his Administration floating
the idea that we may need to send troops into Venezuela, we welcome their neighbor, Colombia
into NATO. Article V anyone?
Continuing to "wait and see" benefits whom?
Really, you do see it. You're just letting yourself get swept up into the squirrel cage.
Almost everyone out there is. Heck, even our beloved b is chasing that squirrel today.
But you see it, and several barflies are describing it quite well.
For some reason my screen confused 12&13, it still reads that way on my monitor while the
numbers shift one on my hand held. It was Ivan's content with which I agreed while not liking
his tone.
As far as I could tell, the EO to confiscate property is to mitigate the loss of
funds/assets "instantaneously" transferred by bad guys to unreachable destinations by the US
Treasury. It is a way to beat tipping off confiscations with a warrant. The people affected
by this EO would still have recourse to prove their legitimate and lawful holdings of those
assets.
Daniel, the Federal Gov't already has the law on its side to confiscate your private
property: your gold. Please provide more than this paltry EO to prove DJT's fascist-cred.
"Because many American banks wouldn't lend money to Trump's debt-soaked company, he had to
look elsewhere, like Russia. "Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a
lot of our assets," Donald Trump Jr. said in 2008, specifically mentioning projects in SoHo
and Dubai.
Trump could clear up this issue by releasing his tax returns. That he has not, unlike
every other modern presidential candidate, means that he deserves no benefit of the doubt.
The fairest assumption is that he has Russian business ties he wants to keep hidden.
By the looks of the war that has been going on in the US that involves the intelligence
agencies, if there was dirt in trumps tax returns or any other part of his business career,
it would have been 'leaked'. There would have been no need for a fictional 'dossier'.
US to alert public to foreign operations targeting Americans
The question should be whether the US would alert the US public of domestic operations,
disguised "cleverly", by keyboards and spoof IP's as foreign, especially Russian entities.
The best cover for US intelligence, particularly if politically motivated and even if it is
for testing purposes, is to hide behind Russian identities if only to stay out of legal
problems. The argument that every country hacks and steals, so therefore no big deal, misses
the most obvious reasons of motivation. Elements of US intelligence would and logically
should have the biggest motivations to meddle in US politics. Seriously, if you were Pootin,
would you really be interested in getting involved in US electoral politics? I'd run the
other way.
The people you see are marionettes; the people you don't see are pulling the strings.
If you don't know who's running the marionettes, you can't stop the show...
Trump and Deep state... what is it about NA people who analyse NA politics/power that they
almost always resort to dualisms?
Recently (a couple years ago) in N. Syria there were 4 or 5 different factions all
supported by rival power centers in the US, all fighting each other - ignoring their stated
enemy - the SAA, and fighting each other in order to gain points back in Washington!
It is meaningless to talk about either the US, the US government, the US military, The
Corporate world, etc, as if they are single actors. Even the bankers will at times square off
against each other.
Before Obama, each president had a relative stable configuration of power-factions backing
him (in exchange for special access to the public trough). With Obama, they all were all at
the trough, each of them trying to elbow another couple groups out of the way. That is why
there was little ideological coherance to what he actual did legislatively (other than buying
off the faction-flavor of the day for a limited bounce in the polls). Still, the factions
gave nominal assent to Obama as an icon of US power.
With Trump, the factions that under Obama consolidated their control over a sector of
power (Pentagon, Neo-Cons, CIA, Special Ops, Media, Tech/Silicon Valley, Finance, Oil, Health
Care, DHS/FBI, State, EPA, etc) have come out from the shadows and fight for dominance. Why
at this time? Is it the perception of pending collapse that propels them? If so they hasten
their own end.
Trump's antics (ie Verbal welcome to Putin while immediately sending 200 million of
offensive arms to Ukraine) are all a smokescreen, distraction from the real changes to law
that benefit the elite and punish the wage earner. Don't listen to what he says, or what the
media says he says, or what the media says about him. It is all a con.
Look at what is done. By way of example look at the world military scene. Trump talks
withdrawl. What did he do?
- highest budget ever for the Pentagon, more than they asked for!
- more US troops on the ground in Syria
- more US funds for Ukraine
- more US/Nato forces & $costs on the border with Russia
- more confrontation with China in the south China sea
- more US involvement in Yemen
- expanded special ops role in Africa
- expanded economic-military role against Venezuela
Notice too that each of those actions benefits a different power faction
- Pentagon budget rewards republican/conservative supporters
- Syria rewards the Neo-cons/Israel, while controlling EU access to ME energy.
- Nato patrols in Estonia etc play to the anti-Russia MSM and the US as world policeman
meme.
- Confronting China is all about US dollar dominance - which is why the trade war will evolve
into a currency war
- US involvement in Yemen is about supporting the Saudi's
- Like Big Pharma, special ops get a whole continent to play games in & test their
toys.
- Venezuela is ultimately about controlling the worlds second largest oil resource.
My point is that like many presidents before him, Trump actually controls very little.
What he does control is rapidly being eroded by both his actions and the actions of others.
The net effect invariably benefits US elites and penalizes all others.
@45 daniel.. maybe so.. i dunno.. i can tell you i don't partake of any msm, so my sources
are limited, lol.. lets use syria as an example.. how has it worked out since trump has been
in power? now, how much of that is trumps doing, or as a consequence of russia and irans
doing and etc. etc.? i don't know if i see it, but it seems to me trump, or the usa - are not
in the same position they were around the time trump got the presidency... i don't doubt more
bombs and drones are being released... i am not sure how much of that falls at trumps
doorstep.. i would like it if he stopped the madness on yemen, thanks saudi arabia.. he seems
partly paralyzed with regard to ksa, but i too liked the video that @26 sasha linked to..
as for continuing to wait and see... i don't know what other options i have! i don't
believe waxing eloquent on moa is going to make any difference! i am happy to consider others
ideas and explore the possibilities.. no one so far as i know has made a convincing argument
that trump is the consummate insider... i think he is more of a mix of both.. i guess that is
the basis for my wait and see approach here..
@49 ben.. that is the constant insinuation on trump - needed money so he went to russia...
what if we find out he got it from the mercers, sheldon adelson, the rothchilds, ksa, israel
and etc etc? it is only that he could get it from russia that gets repeated ad nauseam in the
msm.. i have a problem with that..
@55 viviana... thanks, but it is in russian with no english subtitles.. that is the video
both daniel and i would like to see more fully and that grieved shared on a previous thread -
but only part of it.. if an english translation comes available, let us know.. thanks.
Did I read this correctly? Fire Mattis and keep Bolton? How someone can be so perceptive in
their foreign policy thoughts but so off the reservation on US politics is incredible.
... immediately people are here to remind us (program us) into thinking that this is all
theatre and there is no daylight btw Obama and Trump .
Allow me to clarify. It's true that Trump isn't "like" Obama as in facing the same issues
and obstacles. It would be foolish to make that claim.
Instead, what Daniel and I (and I think ben and a few others) have pointed out is that
they both follow a similar faux populist political model. They make populist appeals
(which appears genuine because we are told they are "outsiders") but govern for the
benefit of the establishment.
= = = = = =
hopehely @44:
It is kinda double negative . :-D
Yes. And just how a native speaker would say it.
= = = = = =
ben @49:
The fairest assumption is that he has Russian business ties he wants to keep
hidden.
No. There are many other possibilities.
>> Doesn't want crazed antifa/anti-Russians to attack his business interests
It is certainly an act of great courage for a POTUS to go against the PTB. The Kennedy's fate
pops into ones mind.
Standing up against his party's opinion, against the MSM narratives is truly a
remarkable thing.
We live in doxocracy and what governments or leaders do normally is create news that will
entail a reaction from the masses that will implore the government to do exactly what the
Government wanted to do in the first place.
IN other words, as Rove says, the (empire) government creates a reality that the people
gets to study and this entails a reaction which favours the entity taking the action it
wanted to take.
Say for example you want dictatorial powers, you create 9/11 and you get to have all the
dictatorial powers you dreamed off with the blessing and the urgings of the oppressed.
All PsOTUS since G.W.Bush have been granted absolute power by acts of Congress through the
war on terror legislation.
So, Trump can arrest anybody he wants without any process in any form, sequester anybody
he wants to, kill anyone who stands in his way, all this absolutely legally. The legislation
authorises it. Nobody in and out of the US is above it or beyond what Congress has adopted.
He can seize any property, any assets of anyone including and not limited to the Rockefellers
et al and all the banksters.
To do this he only needs a loyal battallion commander.
So the swamp is planning a coup? DT can act swiftly and in his one night of the long
knives do away with his critics, detractors, pursuers, the Clintons, the Soroses etc.
He and his loyalists must prepare a list of enemies and in one night round all of them up
including the newspapers and TV editors, broadcasters et al.
DT's night of the long knives. He might not have the courage to do it. but it's either him
or them.
He has the Congress legislation to back him up. He only needs to prepare a good Speech to
the Nation afterwards.
People believe what they want to believe. Trump of course has many personal business reasons
to want sanctions removed from Russia since quite of lot of money looted from Russia and the
FSU ended up in his pocket by way of loans or investments in his projects. Tracing this money
puts his Empire at risk. He is what they call "Kompromat" in Russia, so he must do the
bidding of the Cold War forces. To say he is sabatoged by people he himself appointed is
curious.
Part of the reason for all this is the drying up of capital flight from Russia and FSU
since 2005 or so. Over a trillion USD flowed into Eurodollar accounts from 1990-2005 and much
of it ended up in the US as multiples of this as these dollars in offshore banks were loaned
10-20 times this amount to the US and European clients/banks. Some of it flowed directly into
US via these tax havens, legally or otherwise. This huge source of cash fueled asset
inflation in that period and when it dried up we had the Great Recession starting in 2006
-2007, and coincidentally that was shortly after Browder was kicked out of Russia
Browder may be an MI6/CIA/Mossad agent that helped facilitate and track this looting in
partnership with the Israeli Safra who owned the Republican Bank of New York and was said to
be Mossad/Mafia connected. At the same time Hermitage Capital began operations Safras bank
was selling up to 1 billion dollars a day in 100 dollar bills to Russian "entities" and
flying it to Russia in what was called the "Money Plane". This obviously was with the support
of the Fed Reserve and Clinton administration which helped to get Yeltsin reelected with IMF
money. Funny how billions of that IMF money still ended up getting sent to the Bank of New
York and Safras Republican Bank before Safra blew the whistle as he neared a deal to sell his
bank and Hermitage holdings to the notorious HSBC
He was killed days after agreeing to sell under mysterious circumstances (fire) in Monaco
despite using a top security company that used ex-Mossad agents, similar to the company he
used in Moscow to protect his "Money Plane" and Browder. Someone was obviously unhappy about
his blowing the whistle. Perhaps Semyon Mogilevitch, who was implicated and is reportedly the
top Don of the Russian mafia
Trumps ex-partner Felix Sater and a number of tenants in the Trump Tower have been
connected to Semyon Mogilevitch
So anyways , now the Fed and ECB plan to end the QE of the last 8 years and must find a
way to replace toxic assets on the balance sheet with quality assets . Otherwise the next
crash, and they seem to happen every 10 -11 years now, will be a whopper.
Thats where Browder and the Magnitsky Act come in. Cold War II besides propping up the MIC
and replacing the fizzling GWOT may be an excuse to seize assets to prop up the Fed
Putin however might like to recover some of those assets from enemy oligarchs in exile for
Russia and himself, and must protect the oligarchs in his camp who have a lot to lose, not to
mention the RCB , Gazprom and oil companies who keep a lot of reserves /assets offshore .
Thats why he has requested interviews with Browder associates and officials that know about
such transfers so he can recover them, or at least provide some leverage as protection
Putin like Trump has his own Deep State he must satisfy.
"Now let's connect all the dots: there is a pro-western (in realty, western-controlled)
faction inside the government which is financing those who are attempting to overthrow Putin
by making him unpopular with the Russian general public (which overwhelmingly opposes
"(neo)liberal" economic policies and which despises the Russian liberal elites) by constantly
forcing him into (neo)liberal economic policies which he clearly does not like (he declared
himself categorically opposed to such policies in 2005) and the so-called "patriotic media"
is covering it all up. And Putin cannot change this without shedding blood........
Just like in the West, in Russia the media depends first and foremost on money. Big
financial interests are very good at using the media to promote their agenda, deny or
obfuscate some topics while pushing others. This is why you often see the Russian media
backing WTO/WB/IMF/etc policies to the hilt while never criticizing Israel or, God forbid,
rabidly pro-Israel propagandists on mainstream TV (guys like Vladimir Soloviev, Evgenii
Satanovsky, Iakov Kedmi, Avigdor Eskin and many others). This is the same media which will
gladly criticize Iran and Hezbollah but never wonder why the Russian main TV stations are
spewing pro-Israeli propaganda on a daily basis.
And, of course, they will all mantrically repeat the same chant: "there is no 5th column
in Russia!! None!! Never!!"
This is no different than the paid for corporate media in the USA which denies the
existence of a "deep state" or the US "Israel Lobby".
And yet, many (most?) people in the USA and Russia realize at an almost gut-level that
they are being lied to and that, in reality, a hostile power is ruling over them."
By the looks of the war that has been going on in the US that involves the intelligence
agencies, if there was dirt in trumps tax returns or any other part of his business
career, it would have been 'leaked' .
Good point!
It actually helps to make the case that Trump is part of the establishment. They protect
his business interests by not leaking his tax returns and other info.
This is an insight akin to when Qanon started promoting war with Irran.
Trump and the people behind realize that to be a great power in the coming era, the US must
once again become a manufacturing power. This I believe is behind Trump's push, tarrifs and
so forth, to rebuild US manufacturing. He is pushing for a lower US dollar which means
imported items will be more expensive compared to domestically produced goods.
although there is a lot of automation in todays manufacturing, this overall effort will
create a lot of jobs within the US.
In looking into domestic oil production in the US, one field is held up from expanding output
until a second pipeline is completed. Trucking the oil out in the interim was also a problem
as US trucking is now very busy and in short supply with all sectors in the US.
This is far more than giving money to banks trickle down crap. It is physical rebuilding of
US domestic manufacturing capability.
Trump wants peace my ass! What about IRAAAAAN??? Did you all conveniently forget about
his obsession with Iran, or is everyone back on the Trump juice?
_________________
He wants to pull Russia out of the alliance with China, neutralize it in a political sense,
to then be able to better tackle China which is the real threat to the American (economic)
supremacy.
To neutralize China in any sense is a fool's errand and failed mission from the
get-go.
China is a threat to the Empire? And that's a bad thing?...exactly why???
I, for one, will not compromise my soul, and sell out Iran and China and the well-being of
this planet for a fantasy peace with Russia that will never last or come to fruition with the
devious, duplicitous Zionist American Empire.
I ridiculed the "Show Us Your Tax Forms" protests as diversionary and useless. He's not
going to listen to a bunch of "liberals" and his fans have already accepted he's not
releasing them.
But let us remember that he promised his fans several times during the campaign that he
would release them. He made up the excuse of being audited, but he (or his handlers) felt it
necessary to make that promise.
Yet he hasn't. Why? Is it because he's so shy about his wealth? Doesn't want to rub in our
faces how much income he makes? Hardly.
It should be pretty clear there's stuff in there he doesn't want to make public. Chances
are, it's stuff that might turn off some of his fan base (because Trump haters gonna hate no
matter what).
So, the point that the "Deep State" hasn't leaked them came up. That's absolutely true,
and should tell us something.
It tells us that this "Deep State" has chosen not to hurt Trump by releasing them. Maybe
there really is this "war" the MSM shows us daily, and they're waiting for the right time. Or
maybe, this "war" is a psyop.
Thanks James @56 for a reasoned and reasonable reply.
First, we are all enmeshed in the MSM narrative even if we don't read or watch MSM
outlets. Even here at MoA, we are given samples of them, and discuss their meaning. In fact,
personally exposing oneself to the MSM directly may give one a better idea of what narratives
they're trying to sell.
What's happened in Syria since Trump came in is that SAA and its allies have retaken most
of the south, and the US has firmly militarily taken the north, while NATO ally Turkey has
conquered significant portions along their border.
What's happened is the US has killed as many as 200 Russians for daring to get too close
to the US proxy fighters on "their" side of the country. That's separate from the at least 4
times the US has bombed Syrian forces, and the Syrian jet it shot down.
By some accounts, the US coalition killed 40,000 civilians in "liberating" Raqqa, while
firing more artillery shells than any time in the past 1/2 century. We've established about
12 military bases.
Which all boils down to an escalation of Obama's war, with the apparent admission that the
"regime change" failed (which even during Obama's reign, was an on again/off again
issue).
But I grant you that you and I are not in positions to do much about any of this. You
could try to affect your government, and i mine, but we know we have no influence. So,
perhaps just accepting that sitting back and watching the horror show is all we can do
anyway.
"... When Trump himself calls the establishment's attitude toward Russia a " rigged witch hunt ," the question must arise: What is going on ..."
"... China is the world's second-largest economy and the top US creditor. It owns 19% of the US debt, more than any other nation. China's military expenditures are almost four times Russia's. Most experts agree that China is about to displace the US as the world's largest and most influential economy. Why Russia, and not China, is being painted as America's chief geopolitical foe is hard to grasp. ..."
As expected, the Trump-Putin summit in Helsinki produced a media circus across the Atlantic.
Western commentators were hell-bent on insulting President Donald Trump as a traitor and
denigrating President Vladimir Putin as an "
autocrat ," "dictator" and the "enemy" of the free world, the United States in
particular.
Never mind that Putin is an elected president and the whole of Russia is dreaming about
normalizing relations with the United States. Never mind that with all Robert Mueller's
indictments there's a long way to go to make a case for a Trump/Putin conspiracy. The point is,
Putin has become the Western media's devil incarnate, and Trump the same media's favorite
whipping boy.
When Trump himself calls the establishment's attitude toward Russia a " rigged witch
hunt ," the question must arise: What is going on and why does Russia have the honor
of being singled out in a world of dozens of real autocrats who hate the West and murder their
political opponents?
Yes, Russia is a big country with nuclear weapons, which allows it to shoot above its weight
in international politics. Yes, it openly supported the pro-Russian referendum in Crimea and
annexed the peninsula soon thereafter. And yes, it does provide military support to the
pro-Russian rebels in Ukraine. But given all the secessionist movements supported by outside
forces across the world, none of this (save nuclear weapons) is remarkable enough to merit the
special treatment.
At the same time, be it in politics or in the economy, Russia's real impact on the United
States is minuscule. Hacking or not, nobody can seriously claim that Moscow could sway the
outcome of the US presidential elections.
Russia does not make it to the list of the top 10 economies in the world, trailing South
Korea and Canada. The value of US goods exports to Russia in 2017 was less than US$7 billion,
while goods imports from Russia were valued at slightly more than $17 billion. The total trade
turnover was barely above 0.1% of the US gross domestic product.
China is the world's second-largest economy and the top US creditor. It owns 19% of the
US debt, more than any other nation. China's military expenditures are almost four times
Russia's. Most experts agree that China is about to displace the US as the world's largest and
most influential economy. Why Russia, and not China, is being painted as America's
chief geopolitical foe is hard to grasp.
Why Russia, and not China, is being painted as America's chief geopolitical foe is hard to
grasp. It is also hard to grasp the intensity of vilification of either Putin or Trump in
Western media
It is also hard to grasp the intensity of vilification of either Putin or Trump in Western
media. The Obama-era director of the US Central Intelligence Agency, John Brennan, calls the
summit "
nothing short of treasonous " – an accusation never applied to Trump's admittedly
one-sided concessions to Kim Jong-un. The Washington Post talks of
appeasement . The Daily Mirror calls Trump "
Putin's poodle ." The New York Times has muddied itself enough to carry a cartoon depicting
the two leaders as gay
lovers .
Such a level of hostility was not even demonstrated against the Soviet Union at the height
of the Cold War. It is clearly unimaginable with regards to Communist Party-led China or even
one-man-ruled North Korea. Yet it is acceptable and encouraged with respect to the third-rate
capitalist country that Russia has now become.
And it is here, perhaps, where the key to the puzzle lies. It is not wise to hurl
street-level insults at a country that is your real geopolitical competitor and has enough
power to make you regret your behavior. That was the case with the USSR yesterday, and this is
the case with the People's Republic of China today.
The ideological challenge presented to freewheeling capitalist individualism by stern
communist collectivism also helped to maintain a modicum of respect throughout the Cold War
years. It was only when Russia went capitalist, and conspicuously failed to advance into the
ranks of the top economies, that former respect gave way to contempt. It was only after Russia
abandoned its communist ethics that it became subject to the Western media hooliganism
exemplified by The New York Times' distasteful satire.
Western hatred of Putin cannot be explained by Crimea, or Donbass, or the alleged poisoning
of four individuals of no interest to the Kremlin by a military-grade nerve toxin with a
recognizably "Russian" signature. It can be explained by one thing only – Russia's
successful opposition to the US world-domination machine.
Were Russia still a Soviet socialist state, this hatred could yet be complemented by
respect. But a capitalist Russia trying to oppose the world's leading capitalist nation, while
falling ever further behind in trade and economy – such a Russia can only elicit hatred
complemented with contempt. Which makes for ever more vitriolic Russophrenia.
We're at a point now where it's really difficult to have an intelligent conversation, a
serious discussion, a rational debate about this stuff.
The reason being that the John Brennans of the world and the lib-Dem-media-neocon mob of
which he is a member, which now routinely traffic in hyperventilating accusations of treason,
have forfeited any claim to credibility or respect.
Having concocted the conspiracy-fantasy of Trump being a puppet of Putin and having
contrived a farcical criminal investigation of imaginary "collusion," that same mob staged
the latest ludicrous meltdown -- over Trump's bumbling, stumbling press conference in
Helsinki with the Evil Monster Putin.
The only appropriate response now to people like John Brennan and his cabal of fools is
sarcasm, mockery, and contempt. They are beyond the reach of reason or evidence or facts.
Indeed, they have zero interest in evidence or facts. They simply emote and spew.
The main question in my mind is this: are the John Brennans of the world really stupid
enough to believe their vicious nonsense or are they so hopelessly dishonest and lacking in
conscience that they propagate poisonous falsehoods for the simple reason they know it
advances their political agenda of delegitimizing Trump's presidency.
I'm guessing more the second than the first.
And if in the process, they whip up an atmosphere of venomous hysteria and damage
U.S.-Russia relations to the point where scholars like Stephen Cohen and John Mearsheimer
call the environment as dangerous as that which existed at the time of the U.S.-Soviet Cuban
missile crisis and the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists moves their Doomsday Clock to two
minutes before midnight (as recently happened) well, you gotta break some eggs to make an
omelette, right?
Honest to God, the dimension and character of this vast circus of corruption and lies is
breathtaking. It's downright freaking biblical.
"... The borg, financed and sworn to the agenda of globalists and the military-industrial-media complex, has its orders and is acting on them. The globalists want more free trade agreements, no tariffs and more immigration to prevent higher wages. Capital does not have a national attachment. It does not care about the 'deplorables' who support Trump and his policies: ..."
"... Nearly three-fourths, or 73 percent, of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents who responded to a Pew Research survey out this week said they felt increased tariffs would benefit the country. ..."
"... Donald Trump is, indeed, a kind of traitor to the Washington Consensus, a hyper-militarized capitalist utopia of corporate dominated global supply chains that doubled the international wage-slave workforce in the last two decades of the 20th century and herded these desperate billions into a race to the bottom. The leadership of both corporate parties conspired to force U.S. workers into the global meat-grinder. ..."
"... The weapon industry and the military recognize that the 'war of terror' is nearing its end. To sell more they need to create an new 'enemy' that looks big enough to justify large and long-term spending. Russia, the most capable opponent the U.S. could have, is the designated target. A new Cold War will give justification for all kinds of fantastic and useless weapons. ..."
"... Trump grand foreign policy is following a realist assessment . He sees that previous administrations pushed Russia into the Chinese camp by aggressive anti-Russian policies in Europe and the Middle East. He wants to pull Russia out of the alliance with China, neutralize it in a political sense, to then be able to better tackle China which is the real thread to the American (economic) supremacy. ..."
President's Trump successful summit with President Putin was used by the 'resistance' and
the deep state to launch a coup-attempt against Trump. Their minimum aim is to put Trump into a
(virtual) political cage where he can no longer pursue his foreign policy agenda.
One does not have to be a fan of Trump's policies and still see the potential danger. A
situation where he can no longer act freely will likely be worse. What Trump has done so far
still does not add up to the
disastrous policies and crimes his predecessor committed.
The borg, financed and sworn to the agenda of globalists and the
military-industrial-media complex, has its orders and is acting on them. The globalists want
more free trade agreements, no tariffs and more immigration to prevent higher wages. Capital
does not have a national attachment. It does not care about the 'deplorables' who support
Trump and his policies:
[P]olls show that Trump appears to still have the support of the bulk of Republican voters
when it comes to tariffs. Nearly three-fourths, or 73 percent, of Republicans and
Republican-leaning independents who responded to a Pew Research survey out this week said
they felt increased tariffs would benefit the country.
Donald Trump is, indeed, a kind of traitor to the Washington Consensus, a
hyper-militarized capitalist utopia of corporate dominated global supply chains that doubled
the international wage-slave workforce in the last two decades of the 20th century and herded
these desperate billions into a race to the bottom. The leadership of both corporate parties
conspired to force U.S. workers into the global meat-grinder.
The weapon industry and the military recognize that the 'war of terror' is nearing its
end. To sell more they need to create an new 'enemy' that looks big enough to justify large and
long-term spending. Russia, the most capable opponent the U.S. could have, is the designated
target. A new Cold War will give justification for all kinds of fantastic and useless
weapons.
Trump does not buy the
nonsense claims of 'Russian meddling' in the U.S. elections and openly says so. He does not
believe that Russia wants to attack anyone. To him Russia is not an enemy.
Trump grand foreign policy is following a
realist assessment . He sees that previous administrations pushed Russia into the Chinese
camp by aggressive anti-Russian policies in Europe and the Middle East. He wants to pull Russia
out of the alliance with China, neutralize it in a political sense, to then be able to better
tackle China which is the real thread to the American (economic) supremacy.
Former CIA chief John Brennan denounced Trump as a "traitor" who had "committed high crimes"
in holding a friendly summit with Putin.
It can't get more seditious than that. Trump is being denigrated by almost the entire
political and media establishment in the US as a "treasonous" enemy of the state.
Following this logic, there is only one thing for it: the US establishment is calling for
a coup to depose the 45th president. One Washington Post oped out of a total of five
assailing the president gave the following stark ultimatum: "If you work for Trump, quit
now".
Some high ranking people working for Trump followed that advice. His chief of staff John
Kelly rallied
others against him:
According to three sources familiar with the situation, Kelly called around to Republicans on
Capitol Hill and gave them the go-ahead to speak out against Trump. (The White House did not
respond to a request for comment.) Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker
Paul Ryan held televised press conferences to assert that Russia did meddle in the election.
Others who attacked Trump over his diplomatic efforts with Russia
included the Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats who used an widely distributed
interview for that:
The White House had little visibility into what Coats might say. The intelligence director's
team had turned down at least one offer from a senior White House official to help prepare
him for the long-scheduled interview, pointing out that he had known Mitchell for years and
was comfortable talking with her.
Coats was extraordinarily candid in the interview, at times questioning Trump's judgment
-- such as the president's decision to meet with Putin for two hours without any aides
present beyond interpreters -- and revealing the rift between the president and the
intelligence community.
FBI Director Wray also
undermined his boss' position:
FBI Director Christopher Wray on Wednesday defended Special Counsel Robert Mueller as a
"straight shooter," and said the Russia investigation is no "witch hunt."
Speaking at the Aspen Security Forum in Colorado, Wray said he stood by his view that
Russia meddled in the 2016 presidential election in some capacity and that the threat
remained active.
A day latter Secretary of Defense Mattis also issued a statement that contradicted his
president's policy:
Secretary of Defense James Mattis took his turn doing the implicit disavowing in a statement
about new military aid to Ukraine:
"Russia should suffer consequences for its aggressive, destabilizing behavior and its
illegal occupation of Ukraine. The fundamental question we must ask ourselves is do we wish
to strengthen our partners in key regions or leave them with no other options than to turn to
Russia, thereby undermining a once in a generation opportunity to more closely align nations
with the U.S. vision for global security and stability."
Pat Lang
thinks that Trump should fire Coats, Wary and Rosenstein, the Deputy Attorney General who
is overseeing the Mueller investigation.
My advice is to spare Rosenstein, for now, as firing him would lead to a great uproar in
Congress. The Mueller investigation has not brought up anything which is dangerous to Trump and
is unlikely to do so in the immediate future. He and Rosenstein can be fired at a latter
stage.
But Wray and Coats do deserve a pink slip and so do Kelly and Mattis. They are political
appointees who work 'at the pleasure of the President'.
The U.S. has the legislative and the judicative as a counterweight to the president who
leads the executive. The 'deep state' and its moles within the executive should have no role in
that balance. The elected president can and must demand loyalty from those who work for
him.
Those who sabotage him should be fired, not in a Saturday night massacre but
publicly, with a given reason and all at the same time. They do not deserve any warning. Their
rolling heads will get the attention of others who are tempted by the borg to act against the
lawful policy directives of their higher up.
All this is not a defense of Trump. I for one despise his antics and most of his policies.
But having a bad president of the United States implementing the policies he campaigned on, and
doing so within the proper process, is way better than having unaccountable forces dictating
their policies to him.
It will be impossible for Trump to get anything done if his direct subordinates, who work
'at his pleasure', publicly sabotage the implementation of his policies. Either he fires these
people or the borg will have won.
"Fun experiment: of those old enough, how many today who believe the "Trump is a Russian
asset" story, in 2003 believed the Iraq has WMD story? 'Cause the source who lied to you in
2003, the intel community, is your same source today."
Growing up as I did in the Nixon/Vietnam era, I developed a skepticism of the 'official'
story, something that served me well through Iran contra, incubator babies being tossed to
the floor, and WMD's (a skepticism reinforced at the time by Scott Ritter, among others). As
I recall, the WMD story was less a failure of intelligence as much as an administration
insisting on so-called 'stovepiped' intelligence to sell their war to an American public
through a mostly compliant MSM.
Regardless, my conclusion that Trump is a "Russian asset" is a result of my belief that
Trump- who has yet to disclose the financial information that would disprove that belief- is
reliant on Russian money, some or all of it organized crime related, to sustain his 'empire',
and that there is significant overlap between the Russian mob and the Russian government.
His actions as president haven't done anything to dispel me of my belief that he is a
'Russian asset', including his traitorous behavior this past week.
Intelligence community is a new Praetorian guard which since JFK murder can decide the fate of presidents.
Notable quotes:
"... Peter Strzok, the disgraced and disgraceful Federal Bureau of Investigation official, is the very definition of a slimy swamp creature. Strzok twitched, grimaced and ranted his way to infamy during a joint hearing of the House Oversight and Judiciary Committees, on July 12. ..."
"... Strzok is the youthful face of the venerated "Intelligence Community," itself part of the sprawling political machine that makes up the D.C. comitatus ..."
"... Smug, self-satisfied, cheating creature that he is, Strzok can't take responsibility for his own misconduct, and blames Russia for dividing America. In the largely progressive bureau, moreover, Agent Strzok is neither underling nor outlier, for that matter. ..."
"... A "blind bootlicking faith in spooks" is certainly unwarranted and may even be foolish. What of odious individuals like former FBI Director Andrew McCabe, and his predecessor, James Comey, now openly campaigning for the Democrats? Are these leaders outliers in the "Intelligence Community"? ..."
"... Similarly, it's hard to think of a more partisan operator than John O. Brennan -- he ran the CIA under President Obama. True to type, he cast a vote for Communist Party USA, back in 1976, when the current Russia monomania would have been justified. Brennan has dubbed President Trump a traitor for having dared to doubt people like himself. ..."
"... The very embodiment of the Surveillance State at its worst is Michael V. Hayden. Hayden has moved seamlessly from the National Security Agency and the CIA to CNN where he beats up on Trump. The former Bush employee hollered treason: "One of the most disgraceful performances of an American president in front of a Russian leader," Hayden inveighed. Not only had POTUS dared to explore the possibility of a truce with Russia, which is a formidable nuclear power; but the president had the temerity to express a smidgen of skepticism about a community littered with spooks like Mr. Hayden. ..."
"... Pray tell, since when does the Deep State -- FBI, CIA, DIA, NSA, DNI, (Director of National Intelligence), on and on -- represent, or stand for, the American People? The president, conversely, actually got the support of at least 60 million Americans. ..."
"... Outside the Beltway, ordinary folks -- Deplorables, if you will -- have to sympathize with the president's initial and honest appraisal of the Intelligence Community's collective intelligence. This is the community that has sent us into quite a few recreational, hobby wars. ..."
Peter Strzok, the disgraced and disgraceful Federal Bureau of Investigation official, is the very definition of a slimy swamp
creature. Strzok twitched, grimaced and ranted his way to infamy during a joint hearing of the House Oversight and Judiciary Committees,
on July 12.
In no way had he failed to discharge his professional unbiased obligation to the public, asserted Strzok. He had merely
expressed the hope that "the American population would not elect somebody demonstrating such horrible, disgusting behavior."
But we did not elect YOU, Mr. Strzok. We elected Mr. Trump.
Strzok is the youthful face of the venerated "Intelligence Community," itself part of the sprawling political machine that
makes up the D.C. comitatus , now writhing like a fire breathing mythical monster against President Donald Trump.
As Ann Coulter observed, the FBI is not the FBI of J. Edgar Hoover. Neither is the Intelligence Community
Philip Haney's IC
any longer. Haney was a heroic, soft-spoken, demure employee at the Department of Homeland Security. Agents like him are often fired
if they don't get with the program. He didn't. Haney's method and the
authentic intelligence he mined and developed might have stopped the likes of the San Bernardino mass murderers and many others.
Instead, his higher-ups in the "Intelligence Community" made Haney and his data disappear.
Post Haney, the FBI failed to adequately screen and stop Syed Farook and blushing bride Tashfeen Malik.
A "blind bootlicking faith in spooks" is certainly unwarranted and may even be foolish. What of odious individuals like former
FBI Director Andrew McCabe, and his predecessor, James Comey, now openly campaigning for the Democrats? Are these leaders outliers
in the "Intelligence Community"?
As Peter Strzok might say to his paramour in a private tweet, "Who ya gonna believe, the Intelligence Community or your
own lying eyes?" The Bureau in particular and the IC cabal, in general, appear to be dominated by the likes of the dull-witted Mr.
Strzok.
Similarly, it's hard to think of a more partisan operator than John O. Brennan -- he ran the CIA under President Obama. True
to type, he cast a vote for Communist Party USA, back in 1976, when the current Russia monomania would have been justified. Brennan
has dubbed President Trump a traitor for having dared to doubt people like himself.
The very embodiment of the Surveillance State at its worst is Michael V. Hayden. Hayden has moved seamlessly from the National
Security Agency and the CIA to CNN where he beats up on Trump. The former Bush employee hollered treason: "One of the most disgraceful
performances of an American president in front of a Russian leader," Hayden inveighed. Not only had POTUS dared to explore the possibility
of a truce with Russia, which is a formidable nuclear power; but the president had the temerity to express a smidgen of skepticism
about a community littered with spooks like Mr. Hayden.
As one wag
noted
, not unreasonably, ours is "a highly-politicized intelligence community, infiltrated over decades by cadres of Deep State operatives
and sleeper agents, whose goal is to bring down this presidency."
Pray tell, since when does the Deep State --
FBI, CIA, DIA, NSA, DNI, (Director of National Intelligence), on and on -- represent, or stand for, the American People? The
president, conversely, actually got the support of at least 60 million Americans.
That's a LOT of support. Outside the Beltway, ordinary folks -- Deplorables, if you will -- have to sympathize with the president's
initial and honest appraisal of the Intelligence Community's collective intelligence. This is the community that has sent us into
quite a few recreational, hobby wars.
And this is the community that regularly intercepts but fails to surveys and stop the likes of mass murderers Syed Farook and
bride Tashfeen Malik. Or, Orlando nightclub killer Omar Mateen, whose father the Bureau saw fit to
hire as an informant. The same "community" has invited the Muslim Public Affairs Council and the Arab-American Institute to help
shape FBI counterterrorism training.
The FBI might not be very intelligent at all. About the quality of that intelligence, consider: On August 3, 2016, as the mad
media were amping up their Russia monomania, a frenzied BuzzFeed -- it calls itself a news org -- reported that "the Russian foreign
ministry had wired nearly $30,000 through a Kremlin-backed bank to its embassy in Washington, DC."
Intercepted by American intelligence, the Russian wire
stipulated
that the funds were meant "to finance the election campaign of 2016." Was this not "meddling in our election" or what? Did
we finally have irrefutable evidence of Kremlin culpability? The FBI certainly thought so. "Worse still, this was only one of 60
transfers that were being scrutinized by the FBI,"
wrote
the Economist, in November of 2017. "Similar transfers were made to other countries." As it transpired, the money was wired from
the Kremlin to embassies the world over. Its purpose? Russia was preparing to hold parliamentary elections in 2016 and had sent funds
to Russian embassies "to organize the polling for expatriates."
While it did update its Fake News factoids, Buzzfeed felt no compunction whatsoever to remove the erroneous item or publicly question
their sources in the unimpeachable "Intelligence Community."
Most news media are just not as inquisitive as President Trump.
Looks like MIC is a cancel of the society for which there is no cure....
While this jeremiad raises several valid point the key to understanding the situation should
be understanding of the split of the Us elite into two camp with Democratic party (representing
interests of Wall Street) and large part of intelligence communality fighting to neoliberal
status quo and Pentagon, some part of old money, part of trade unions (especially rank and file
members) and a pert of Republican Party (representing interests of the military) realizing that
neoliberalism came to the natural end and it is time for change which includes downsizing of the
American empire.
This bitter internal struggle in which neoliberals so far have an upper hand over Trump
administration and forced him into retreat.
Notable quotes:
"... Trump is a traitor because he wants peace with Russia. ..."
"... The Russians, the Chinese, the Iranians, and the North Koreans, as well as the rest of the world, desperately need to notice the extremely hostile reaction to peace on the part of the US Democratic Party, many members of the Republican Party, including the despicable US Republican Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, and the Western Presstitute Media, a collection of people on the CIA payroll according to the German newspaper editor, Udo Ulfkotte, and the CIA itself. ..."
"... Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and the rest of the corrupt filth that rules over us are all in the pay of the military/security complex. Just go and investigate the donations to their re-election campaigns. The 1,000 billion dollar budget of the military/security complex, amplified by the CIA's front corporations and narcotics business, provides enormous sums with which to purchase the senators and representatives that the insouciant American voters think that they elect. ..."
"... Therefore, the American public gets not representation, but lies that justify war and conflict. The military/security complex, about which President Eisenhower warned the American people to no effect, is in desperate need of an enemy. In obedience to the military/security complex, the Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama regimes have made Russia that enemy. If Trump and Putin do not understand this, they will easily be made irrelevant. ..."
"... They both can be assassinated, and that is what the statements from Pelosi, Schumer, McCain, Lindsey Graham, et. al., repeated endlessly in the propaganda ministry that is the Western press, encourages. ..."
"... The Supply-Side Revolution ..."
"... When the combination of tax cuts with defense budget cuts came up for a vote, the legendary senator Strom Thurmond, a 48-year member of the US Senate from South Carolina, tapped me on the shoulder. He said: "son, never set your senator up against the military/security complex. He will not be re-elected, and you will be out of a job." I replied that we were just establishing for the record that under no conditions would the Democrats, who wanted more government, vote for a tax rate reduction even if there was a case that it would cure stagflation. He replied: "son, the military/security complex doesn't care." ..."
"... Later as a member of a secret presidential committee, I saw how the CIA attempted to prevent President Reagan from ending the Cold War. ..."
"... Today, right now, at this moment, we are faced with a massive effort of the military/security complex, the neoconservatives, the Democratic Party, and the presstitute media to discredit the elected President of the United States and to overthrow him in order that the utterly corrupt elite that rule American can continue to hold on to power and to protect the massive budget of the military/security complex that, along with the Israel Lobby, funds the elections of those who rule us. ..."
"... There is no institution in America, government or private, that can be trusted. Any government or person who trusts America or any Western country is stupid beyond belief. ..."
"... The entire Russiagate hoax is an orchestration by the military/security complex, led by John Brennen, Comey, and Rosenstein. The purpose is to discredit President trump for two reasons. One is to prevent any normalization of relations with Russia. The other is to remove Trump's agenda as an alternative to the agenda of the Democratic Party. ..."
"... President Trump is almost powerless. Putin, the Chinese, the Iranians, and the North Koreans should recognize this before it is too late for them. President Trump cannot fire and arrest for high treason Mueller and Rosenstein. ..."
"... Reckless and irresponsible comments about treason from former CIA director Brennan, and other ranking public figures, echo similar inflammatory rhetoric from far-right-wing rabble rouser Gen. Edwin Walker, and other members of the John Birch Society, in the days before Pres. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas. ..."
"... What's going on in the United States of America beats the band what happened under Joe McCarthy. The witch hunt against a sitting President by 95 percent of the media, major government institutions such as the criminal CIA, FBI, DOJ and the rest of the crooked Intel community plus the rascals in the US Congress can only happen in a totalitarian society, which the US is. ..."
"... The Brennan, Clappers, Obamas, Clintons, Comeys, Rosenstein and their many subordinate political Mafiosi should be put behind bars instead of running from one TV station to the next and lay the ground for a possibly Trump assassination. ..."
"... As Mr. Rogers correctly states, President Trump is almost powerless. These US fools even try to breed discord between the so-called nationalists and the globalists in Russia for which Medvedev stays. He once served US interests more than Russian ones when he was Prime Minister and got flattered by the ineffable Bill Clinton. ..."
"... So what do we see now ? Putin aiding Trump in steering the USA away from trying to control the whole world, an effort that is destroying the USA, but Deep State does not mind. In this way Russia indeed meddles in USA politics. Trump now invited Putin to come to Washington, the MH17 statement is withheld, the hysteria at CNN is such that MH17 is not even mentioned. In stead: Trump must be mentally deranged. ..."
"... Gore Vidal said there's only one party in America, it's the Money Party and it has two branches. It is even more true today than when he said it. There is no Left or Right anymore, only the question, is it good for Israel? And the American people be damned. ..."
"... Trump is completely powerless to do anything about these two. And this has gone on for a year and a half. ..."
"... It's clear though that Trump believes he has forced his opponents to play a bad hand in their outlandish craze the past week. It's why he doubled down and invited Putin to Washington near the 2018 election time. He perceives this as a chance to re-enact the 2016 election and coast to victory. The establishment is insane, and if he brings their insanity out it plays to his favor. ..."
The US Democratic Party is determined to take the world to thermo-nuclear war rather than to
admit that Hillary Clinton lost the presidential election fair and square. The Democratic Party
was totally corrupted by the Clinton Regime, and now it is totally insane. Leaders of the
Democratic Party, such as Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, my former co-author in the New York
Times, have responded in a non-Democratic way to the first step President Trump has taken to
reduce the extremely dangerous tensions with Russia that the Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama
regimes created between the two superpowers.
Yes, Russia is a superpower. Russian weapons are so superior to the junk produced by the
waste-filled US military/security complex that lives high off the hog on the insouciant
American taxpayer that it is questionable if the US is even a second class military power. If
the insane neoconservatives, such as Max Boot, William Kristol, and the rest of the neocon scum
get their way, the US, the UK, and Europe will be a radioactive ruin for thousands of
years.
House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi (CA), Minority Leader of the US House of
Representatives, declared that out of fear of some undefined retribution from Putin, a dossier
on Trump perhaps, the President of the United States sold out the American people to Russia
because he wants to make peace: "It begs the question, what does Vladimir Putin, what do the
Russians have on Donald Trump -- personally, politically and financially that he should behave
in such a manner?" The "such a manner" Pelosi is speaking about is making peace instead of
war.
To be clear, the Democratic Minority Leader of the US House of Representatives has accused
Donald Trump of high treason against the United States. There is no outcry against this
blatantly false accusation, totally devoid of evidence. The presstitute media instead of
protesting this attempt at a coup against the President of the United States, trumpet the
accusation as self-evident truth. Trump is a traitor because he wants peace with
Russia.
Here is Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer (NY) repeating Pelosi's false accusation: "Millions
of Americans will continue to wonder if the only possible explanation for this dangerous
behavior is the possibility that President Putin holds damaging information over President
Trump." If you don't believe that this is orchestrated between Pelosi and Schumer, you are
stupid beyond belief.
Here is disgraced Obama CIA director John Brennan, a leader of the fake Russiagate campaign
against President Trump in order to prevent Trump from making peace with Russia and, thus, by
making the world safer, threatening the massive, unjustified budget of the military/security
complex: "Donald Trump's press conference performance in Helsinki rises to and exceeds the
threshold of high crimes and misdemeanors. It was nothing short of treasonous. Not only were
Trump's comments imbecilic, he is wholly in the pocket of Putin. Republican Patriots: Where are
you???"
NOTICE THAT NOT ONE WESTERN MEDIA SOURCE IS CELEBRATING AND THANKING TRUMP AND PUTIN FOR
EASING THE ARTIFICIALLY CREATED TENSIONS THAT WERE LEADING TO NUCLEAR WAR. HOW CAN THIS BE? HOW
CAN IT BE THAT THE WESTERN MEDIA IS SO OPPOSED TO PEACE? WHAT IS THE EXPLANATION?
The Russians, the Chinese, the Iranians, and the North Koreans, as well as the rest of
the world, desperately need to notice the extremely hostile reaction to peace on the part of
the US Democratic Party, many members of the Republican Party, including the despicable US
Republican Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, and the Western Presstitute Media, a
collection of people on the CIA payroll according to the German newspaper editor, Udo Ulfkotte,
and the CIA itself.
Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and the rest of the corrupt
filth that rules over us are all in the pay of the military/security complex. Just go and
investigate the donations to their re-election campaigns. The 1,000 billion dollar budget of
the military/security complex, amplified by the CIA's front corporations and narcotics
business, provides enormous sums with which to purchase the senators and representatives that
the insouciant American voters think that they elect.
Do you know how large 1,000 billion is? You would have to live for thousands of years and do
nothing for 24/7 except count to reach that figure. It is a sum that nurtures the recipients,
and the recipients regard it as worth protecting.
Therefore, the American public gets not representation, but lies that justify war and
conflict. The military/security complex, about which President Eisenhower warned the American
people to no effect, is in desperate need of an enemy. In obedience to the military/security
complex, the Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama regimes have made Russia that enemy. If Trump
and Putin do not understand this, they will easily be made irrelevant.
They both can be assassinated, and that is what the statements from Pelosi, Schumer,
McCain, Lindsey Graham, et. al., repeated endlessly in the propaganda ministry that is the
Western press, encourages. Trump can be assassinated or overthrown in a political coup for
selling out America to Russia, as members of both political parties claim and as the media
trumpets endlessly. Putin can be easily assassinated by the CIA operatives that the Russian
government stupidly permits to operate throughout Russia in NGOs and Western/US owned media and
among the Atlanticist Integrationists, Washington's Firth Column inside Russia serving
Washington's purposes. These Russian traitors serve in Putin's own government!
ORDER IT NOW
Americans are so unaware that they have no idea of the risk that President Trump is taking
by challenging the US military security complex. For example, during the last half of the 1970s
I was a member of the US Senate staff. I was working together with a staffer of the US
Republican Senator from California, S. I. Hayakawa, to advance understanding of a supply-side
economic policy cure to the stagflation that threatened the US budget's ability to meet its
obligations. Republican Senators Hatch, Roth, and Hayakawa were trying to introduce a
supply-side economic policy as a cure for the stagflation that was threatening the US economy
with failure. The Democrats, who later in the Senate led the way to a supply-side policy, were,
at this time, opposed (see Paul Craig Roberts, The Supply-Side Revolution , Harvard
University Press, 1984). The Democrats claimed that the policy would worsen the budget deficit,
the only time in those days Democrats cared about the budget deficit. The Democrats said that
they would support the tax rate reductions if the Republicans would support offsetting cuts in
the budget to support a balanced budget. This was a ploy to put Republicans on the spot for
taking away some groups' handouts in order "to cut tax rates for the rich."
The supply-side policy did not require budget cuts, but in order to demonstrate the
Democrats lack of sincerety, Hayakawa's aid and I had our senators introduce a series of budget
cuts together with tax cuts that, on a static revenue basis (not counting tax revenue feedbacks
from the incentives of the lower tax rates) kept the budget even, and the Democrats voted
against them every time.
When the combination of tax cuts with defense budget cuts came up for a vote, the
legendary senator Strom Thurmond, a 48-year member of the US Senate from South Carolina, tapped
me on the shoulder. He said: "son, never set your senator up against the military/security
complex. He will not be re-elected, and you will be out of a job." I replied that we were just
establishing for the record that under no conditions would the Democrats, who wanted more
government, vote for a tax rate reduction even if there was a case that it would cure
stagflation. He replied: "son, the military/security complex doesn't care."
My emergence from The Matrix began with Thurmond's pat on my shoulder. It grew with my time
at the Wall Street Journal when I learned that some truthful things simply could not be said.
In the Treasury I experienced how those outside interests opposed to a president's policy
marshall their forces and the media that they own to block it. Later as a member of a
secret presidential committee, I saw how the CIA attempted to prevent President Reagan from
ending the Cold War.
Today, right now, at this moment, we are faced with a massive effort of the
military/security complex, the neoconservatives, the Democratic Party, and the presstitute
media to discredit the elected President of the United States and to overthrow him in order
that the utterly corrupt elite that rule American can continue to hold on to power and to
protect the massive budget of the military/security complex that, along with the Israel Lobby,
funds the elections of those who rule us. Trump, like Reagan, was an exception, and it is
the exceptions that accumulate the ire of the corrupt leftwing, bought off with money, and the
ire of the media, concentrated into small tight ownership groups indebted to those who
permitted the illegal concentration of a once independent and diverse American media that once
served, on occasion, as a watchdog over government. The rightwing, wrapped in the flag,
dismisses all truth as "anti-American."
If Putin, Lavrov, the Russian government, the traitorous Russian Fifth Column -- the
Atlanticist Integrationists -- the Chinese, the Iranians, the North Koreans think that any
peace or consideration can come out of America, they are insane. Their delusions are setting
themselves up for destruction. There is no institution in America, government or private,
that can be trusted. Any government or person who trusts America or any Western country is
stupid beyond belief.
The entire Russiagate hoax is an orchestration by the military/security complex, led by
John Brennen, Comey, and Rosenstein. The purpose is to discredit President trump for two
reasons. One is to prevent any normalization of relations with Russia. The other is to remove
Trump's agenda as an alternative to the agenda of the Democratic Party.
President Trump is almost powerless. Putin, the Chinese, the Iranians, and the North
Koreans should recognize this before it is too late for them. President Trump cannot fire and
arrest for high treason Mueller and Rosenstein. And Trump cannot indict Hillary for her
numerous unquestionable crimes in plain view of everyone, or Comey or Brennan, who declares
Trump "to be wholly in the pocket of Putin," for trying to overthrow the elected president of
the United States. Trump cannot have the Secret Service question the likes of Pelosi and
Schumer and McCain and Lindsey Graham for false accusations that encourage assassination of the
President of the United States.
Trump cannot even trust the Secret Service, which accumulated evidence suggests was
complicit in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy and Robert Kennedy.
If Putin and Lavrov, so anxious to be friends of Washington, let their guards down, they are
history.
As I said above, Russiagate is an orchestratration to prevent peace between the US and
Russia. Leading military/security complex experts, including the person who provided the CIA's
daily briefing of the President of the United States for many years, and the person who devised
the spy program for the National Security Agency, have proven conclusively that Russiagate is a
hoax designed for the purpose of preventing President Trump from normalizing relations between
the US and Russia, which has the power to destroy the entirety of the Western World at
will.
If Putin doesn't listen to him, Russia is in the trash can of history.
Keep in mind that no media informs you better than my website. If my website goes down, you
will be left in darkness. No valid information comes from the US government or the Western
presstitutes. If you sit in front of the TV screen watching the Western media, you are
brainwashed beyond all hope. Not even I can rescue you. Nor God himself.
Americans, and indeed the Russians themselves, are incapable of realizing it, but there is a
chance that Trump will be overthrown and a Western assault will be launched against the handful
of countries that insist on sovereignty.
I doubt that few of the Americans who elected Trump will be taken in by the anti-Trump
propagana, but they are not organized and have no armed power. The police, militarized by
George W. Bush and Obama, will be set against them. The rebellions will be local and suppressed
by every violation of the US Constitution by the private powers that rule Washington, as always
has been the case with rebellions in America.
In the West, which the Russians are so anxious to join, all freedoms are dead -- freedom of
assembly, freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of inquiry, freedom of privacy,
freedom from arbitrary search, freedom from arbitrary arrest, along with the Constitutional
protections of due process and habeas corpus. Today there are no countries less free than the
United States of America.
Why do the Russian Atlanticist Integrationists want to join an unfree Western world? Are
they that brainwashed by Western Propaganda?
If Putin listens to these deluded fools, Putin will destroy Russia.
There is something wrong with Russian perception of Washington. Apparently the Russian
elite, with the exception of Shoigu and a few others are incapable of comprehending the
neoconservative drive for US world hegemony and the neoconservative determination to destroy
Russia as a constraint on US unilateralism. The Russian government somehow, despite all
evidence to the contrary, believes that Washington's hegemony is negotiable. (Republished from
PaulCraigRoberts.org by permission of author or representative)
is big question even if Trump wants peace at all. Trump has shown his real face on the very
beginning when he said that they are going to talk about "his friend" Xi, making Putin very
uncomfortable and throwing some worms in Russia~China relationship in front of cameras for
all to see
Trump came to the meeting in hope to impress Putin with his cowboy arrogance, He now says
that he'll be Putin's worst enemy ( if he don't bow to him I guess : ). all Trump cares about
is his ego, nothing else too sweat mouthed sleazy person
Reckless and irresponsible comments about treason from former CIA director Brennan, and
other ranking public figures, echo similar inflammatory rhetoric from far-right-wing rabble
rouser Gen. Edwin Walker, and other members of the John Birch Society, in the days before
Pres. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas.
What's going on in the United States of America beats the band what happened under Joe
McCarthy. The witch hunt against a sitting President by 95 percent of the media, major
government institutions such as the criminal CIA, FBI, DOJ and the rest of the crooked Intel
community plus the rascals in the US Congress can only happen in a totalitarian society,
which the US is.
The Brennan, Clappers, Obamas, Clintons, Comeys, Rosenstein and their many subordinate
political Mafiosi should be put behind bars instead of running from one TV station to the
next and lay the ground for a possibly Trump assassination. Trump is portrayed by these
crooks as a "traitor." In the US, traitors usefully deserve death. If these political Mafiosi
don't bring down Trump "legally," they will hire a kind of Lee Harvey Oswald who "shot"
JFK.
As Mr. Rogers correctly states, President Trump is almost powerless. These US fools
even try to breed discord between the so-called nationalists and the globalists in Russia for
which Medvedev stays. He once served US interests more than Russian ones when he was Prime
Minister and got flattered by the ineffable Bill Clinton.
Let's wait and see what happens in the upcoming mid-term elections. If the Dems win both
Houses of Congress, Trump is done. The obstructionists will have the upper hand. If they
can't remove him from office "legally," there will be a hitman out there somewhere.
President smugly making peace with the Russian nation that was supposed to be the evil enemy
in a 3rd and final brother war to devastate the white race beyond recovery.
Little upstart in the Democrat party making left wing politics less palatable to the
masses with her heavy handed socialist rhetoric. All while preaching BDS and anti-Israel
sentiment too, representing Frankenstein's CultMarx monster turning on it's creator.
And fewer and fewer people on all sides buying what the American Pravda is selling with
each passing day. The resulting hysteria is both par for the course and downright
delectable.
" Apparently the Russian elite, with the exception of Shoigu and a few others are incapable
of comprehending the neoconservative drive for US world hegemony and the neoconservative
determination to destroy Russia as a constraint on US unilateralism. " My idea is that many
in Russia understand quite well, this is why they demonstrate Russia's military capabilities
frequently. Why does Putin support Assad and Syria ? Not because he likes these countries,
but because he understands that if these countries also get the USA yoke the position of
Russia and China deteriorate.
Putin is careful not to give USA public opinion more 'reason' to fear Russia. Already a
few years ago something fell into the E part of the Mediterranean. It was asserted that
Russia had intercepted a USA missile fired from Spain to Syria. USA and Israel declared that
an excercise had been held. Putin said nothing.
Despite all that NATO does at Russia's borders Putin does not let himself be provoked.
MH17, I suppose Putin knows quite well what happened, Russia has radar and satelites, yet
Putin never gave the Russian view.
So what do we see now ? Putin aiding Trump in steering the USA away from trying to
control the whole world, an effort that is destroying the USA, but Deep State does not mind.
In this way Russia indeed meddles in USA politics. Trump now invited Putin to come to
Washington, the MH17 statement is withheld, the hysteria at CNN is such that MH17 is not even
mentioned. In stead: Trump must be mentally deranged.
Good to see PCR accepting comments again. It's not just the Dumbocruds, it's the Rupuglicunts
too. Follow the money, it's coming from the same sources. Gore Vidal said there's only
one party in America, it's the Money Party and it has two branches. It is even more true
today than when he said it. There is no Left or Right anymore, only the question, is it good
for Israel? And the American people be damned.
Is President Trump A Traitor Because He Wants Peace with Russia? The Democrats say he is
The Democrats -- and their wholly-owned MSM -- will call Trump any name that'll stick. It
means little. Even if Trump got everything he wanted on immigration, that particular
toothpaste is already out of the tube and unless we send back some of the millions of
illegal third-world squatters we've no hope of recovering the United States of America.
If you want to talk treason, you need look no further than the Hart-Celler Act of 1965,
whereby the plan was laid to replace the population of this nation with third-world refuse,
which guaranteed cheap labor for GOP capitalists and endless political support for Democrat
traitors.
As the saying goes "timing is everything." I have to admit I was incredulous that you were
somehow able to link to a functioning version of the Nekrosov film. I've been trying to get
my hands on that documentary for the last few years, but to no avail. I finally managed to
read a comment on another blog that recommended that people who were interested in viewing
the film could do so by reaching out to the producer to request a personalized link, after
which you had to request a password from another individual affiliated with the film.
I managed to do all of that a few weeks ago and was able to watch the video on Vimeo for
the full 2 hours. It was riveting, to say the least. After viewing it again, I thought about
making it available to others. Due to the pressures by Browder and his lawyers, however,
Nekrosov was prevented from making his film available to a wider audience. He got around this
limitation by making it available for private viewing only. And to prevent a private viewer
from uploading it onto the internet he cleverly placed a watermark on each film, indicating
the owner of each copy of the video by displaying a number on the screen. I was surprised to
see the version you linked to indeed has this watermark shown on the screen. Somehow, this
did not deter the individual tied to that number from uploading it and being the one
identified as doing so. That said, I'm glad the film is more widely available as it should be
viewed by as many people as possible so that they can realize what a despicable liar Browder
really is and how the passage of The Magnitsky Act was a travesty of justice which must be
reversed.
"Do you know how large 1,000 billion is? You would have to live for thousands of years and do
nothing for 24/7 except count to reach that figure. It is a sum that nurtures the recipients,
and the recipients regard it as worth protecting."
Tens of thousands of years. At one count per second, 31,687 years and a few months.
"In the West, which the Russians are so anxious to join, all freedoms are dead --
freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of inquiry, freedom
of privacy, freedom from arbitrary search, freedom from arbitrary arrest, along with the
Constitutional protections of due process and habeas corpus."
True. That is the Anglo-Zionist Empire. That is what the WASP Empire delivers, and
it does so to destroy more conservative national and local cultures so their peoples are
tossed into the melting pot and reduced into a goop easy to rule.
Oliver Cromwell taking Jewish money, allying with Jews so he would have the funds to wage
permanent war against the vast, vast majority of non-WASP whites within his reach: that is
the definition of WASP culture; that picture tells you what it always will do.
make something serious about Obama and Hillary destroying whole African country of Libya
killing Colonel Gaddafi on the street, which is greatest war crime in the 21st century so far
or, Bill Clinton bombing Bosnian Serbs '95 opening the door to jihadis to continue behead
people in the middle of the Europe or, Bill Clinton and Nato bombing Serbia '99 to give
"Kosovo" independence killing many civilian and destroying infrastructure on purpose or
Madeline Albright confessing killing half of million Iraqi kids on the camera or, Bush and or
Bushes or those such Bill Browder are just small dirty fish who in comparison is almost not
worth filming I appreciate the effort but get seriously real if you are about to get truth to
people
"The Brennan, Clappers, Obamas, Clintons, Comeys, Rosenstein and their many
subordinate political Mafiosi "
What is going on in the US is systematic. Assange, an investigative journalist who became
the light of truth worldwide, is under a grave danger from US' and UK' Intelligence
Communities of the non-intelligent opportunists and real traitors: https://www.rt.com/news/433783-wikileaks-assange-ecuador-uk/
Meanwhile, Mrs. Clinton, who was criminally negligent with regard to the most important
classified information, has been protected by the politicking Brennan, Clapper, and Mueller:
" it was over 30,000 emails , emails that were sent through to Hillary Clinton through
the unauthorized server and unsecured server and every email she sent out.
There were highly classified -- beyond classified -- top secret-type stuff that had
gone through that server. an instruction embedded, compartmentalized data embedded in the
email server telling the server to send a copy of every email that came to Hillary Clinton
through that unauthorized server and every email that she sent out through that server, to
send it to this foreign entity that is not Russia."
http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2018/07/congressional-record-transcript-on-chinagate.html
The Awan Affair, the most serious ever violation of national cybersecurity, has
demonstrated the spectacular incompetence of the CIA and FBI, which had allowed a family of
Pakistani nationals to surf congressional computers of various committees, including
Intelligence Committee, for years. None of the scoundrels had a security clearance! Their
ardent protector, Wasserman-Schultz (who threatened the DC Marschall) belongs to the
untouchables, unlike Assange:
https://www.theepochtimes.com/awan-congressional-scandal-in-spotlight-as-president-suggests-data-could-be-part-of-court-case_2500703.html
Trump and Putin made a mistake. I do not understand how it could have happened. They should
have issued communiqué that they have agreed to work toward peace and relieve tensions
and suppress conflicts around the world. (I do not have a time for now to write more.)
(sorry)
If Rosenstein & Mueller had done what they did with the publication of the indictments a
few days before the summit -- and were North Koreans -- they'd be in front of a firing squad
within 24 hours. Trump is completely powerless to do anything about these two. And this
has gone on for a year and a half. This is not a strength of democracy.
The US today is like Venezuela was shortly after Maduro was elected (by a narrow margin)
-- after Chavez's death -- and before violence eventually broke out. The losing opposition
refused to accept the result and tensions simmered for a long time.
Or after Morsi was elected in Egypt and before the military coup. The victory was narrow,
the opposition refused the to accept the result and tensions simmered for a long time.
Or maybe like Bush vs Gore. Bush was kinda saved by 9/11 which completely changed the
atmosphere.
Who knows what will happen. It's clear though that Trump believes he has forced his
opponents to play a bad hand in their outlandish craze the past week. It's why he doubled
down and invited Putin to Washington near the 2018 election time. He perceives this as a
chance to re-enact the 2016 election and coast to victory. The establishment is insane, and
if he brings their insanity out it plays to his favor.
The reception of the Trump- Putin meeting is breathtaking. I have in my 61 years never
witnessed such a hate and slander in the MSM. I have after this begun to actually dismiss
that Americans are sensible people! They have completely forgotten the cost of the Civil War.
We in Europe have not forgotten the cost of war and are not going there again. Ever.
The US has become a lunatic asylum with nuclear weapons, never mind Kim Jong Un, look a
squirrel! But the US is a threat to humanity, included it's protegé Israel, the new
Apartheid state.
"Is President Trump A Traitor Because He Wants Peace with Russia?"
Wait; what?
From badmouthing Russia to appointing Russophobes to high office, to imposing sanctions,
to illegally seizing Russian diplomatic property, to committing war crimes in Syria, to a
provocative military buildup in Europe, to arming the illegitimate Ukrainian "government,"
etc., presidential poseur Orange Clown has spent 99% of his "presidency" so far antagonizing
Russia; apparently trying to provoke some kind of Russian military response.
If it was anyone else other than Vladimir Putin calling the shots in Russia, WW3 probably
would've happened already. Yet PCR claims Orange Clown wants peace with Russia?
Note to PCR: It is Vladimir Putin who wants peace, not presidential poseur Orange Clown.
If Orange Clown has had some kind of spiritual epiphany/change of heart, he's going to have
to show good faith by taking some kind of unambiguous action; posturing won't suffice.
There is a lot of truth in what you say, but it does not account for the fight we are
currently witnessing. Two factions in the Money Party are at war with each other. Neither one
is willing to level with the public as to its true aims and motives -- they are fighting
viciously but under the bed sheets, which is why the spectacle looks so unhinged and
silly.
It appears that he is trying to save the US from financial collapse. Hence, he is a traitor
to MIC, particularly to the obscenely greedy Pentagon contractors. The US presidents and
Congress always pandered to MIC first and foremost. He broke (or at least tried to break) the
pattern.
Don't blame all Americans. Forty-eight percent of us voted for Trump; it is very likely
that more than half of the rest voted for Hellary only with great reluctance, owing largely
to the unprecedented campaign of vilification directed at Trump. The point is: a very large
majority of people in this country are nowhere near as insane as the media and elites are --
in fact, we're still nowhere near insane enough for their taste!
"... It isn't a pretty face, but one scarred from a dark past, repackaged now by the frenzy of "resistance." Accusing Donald Trump recklessly, implying he knows more than he lets on, promising redemption: John Brennan is the face of American politics in 2018. ..."
"... But before all that, Brennan lived in a hole about as far down into the deep state as one can dwell while still having eyes that work in the sunlight. He was director of the Central Intelligence Agency. He was Obama's counterterrorism advisor, helping the president decide who to kill every week, including American citizens. He spent 25 years at the CIA, and helped shape the violent policies of the post-9/11 Bush era. He was a fan of torture and extrajudicial killing to the point that a 2012 profile of him was entitled, "The Seven Deadly Sins of John Brennan." Another writer called Brennan "the most lethal bureaucrat of all time, or at least since Henry Kissinger." Today, however, a New York Times ..."
"... On Twitter this week, Brennan cartoonishly declaimed, "Donald Trump's press conference performance in Helsinki rises to and exceeds the threshold of high crimes and misdemeanors. It was nothing short of treasonous. Not only were Trump's comments imbecilic, he is wholly in the pocket of Putin." ..."
"... Brennan is a man of his times, all bluster and noise, knowing that so long as he says what a significant part of the country apparently believes -- that the president of the United States is under the control of the Kremlin -- he will never be challenged. ..."
"... New York Magazine ..."
"... Only after Clinton lost did it become necessary to create a crisis that might yet be inflated (it wasn't just the Russians, as originally thought, it was Trump working with them) to justify impeachment. Absent that need, Brennan would have disappeared alongside other former CIA directors into academia or the lucrative consulting industry. Instead he's a public figure with a big mouth because he has to be. That mouth has to cover his ass. ..."
"... Brennan is part of the whole-of-government effort to overturn the election. ..."
"... Yet despite all the hard evidence of treason that only Brennan and his supine journalists seem to see, everyone appears resigned to have a colluding Russian agent running the United States. You'd think it would be urgent to close this case. Instead, Brennan admonishes us to wait out an investigative process that's been underway now through two administrations. ..."
"... Is Brennan signaling that there is one step darker to consider? A Reuters commentary observes that "Trump is haunted by the fear that a cabal of national-security officers is conspiring in secret to overthrow him . Trump has made real enemies in the realm of American national security. He has struck blows against their empire. One way or another, the empire will strike back." ..."
"... Peter Van Buren, a 24-year State Department veteran, is the author of ..."
He accuses Trump of treason. But what's his bluster really about?
•
It isn't a pretty face, but one scarred from a dark past, repackaged now by the frenzy of
"resistance." Accusing Donald Trump recklessly, implying he knows more than he lets on,
promising redemption: John Brennan is the face of American politics in 2018.
But before all that, Brennan lived in a hole about as far down into the deep state as
one can dwell while still having eyes that work in the sunlight. He was director of the Central
Intelligence Agency. He was Obama's counterterrorism advisor, helping the president decide who
to kill every week, including American citizens. He spent 25 years at the CIA, and helped shape
the violent policies of the post-9/11 Bush era. He was a fan of torture and extrajudicial
killing to the point that a 2012 profile of him was entitled, "The Seven Deadly Sins of John
Brennan." Another writer called Brennan "the most lethal bureaucrat of all time, or at least
since Henry Kissinger." Today, however, a New York Times puff piece sweeps all that
away as a "troubling inheritance."
On Twitter this week, Brennan cartoonishly declaimed, "Donald Trump's press conference
performance in Helsinki rises to and exceeds the threshold of high crimes and misdemeanors. It
was nothing short of treasonous. Not only were Trump's comments imbecilic, he is wholly in the
pocket of Putin."
Because it is 2018, Brennan was never asked to explain exactly how a press conference
exceeds the threshold of high crimes and misdemeanors the Constitution sets for impeachment,
nor was he asked to lay a few cards on the table showing what Putin has on Trump. No,
Brennan is a man of his times, all bluster and noise, knowing that so long as he says what
a significant part of the country apparently believes -- that the president of the United
States is under the control of the Kremlin -- he will never be challenged.
Brennan slithers alongside those like Nancy Pelosi and Cory Booker who said Trump is
controlled by Russia, columnists in the New York Times who called him a traitor, an
article (which is fast becoming the Zapruder film of Russiagate) in New York Magazine
echoing former counterterrorism coordinator Richard Clarke in speculating that Trump met Putin
as his handler, and another former intelligence officer warning that "we're on the cusp of
losing the constitutional republic forever."
Brennan's bleating has the interesting side effect of directing attention away from who was
watching the front door as the Russians walked in to cause what one MSNBC analyst described as
a mix of Pearl Harbor and Kristallnacht. During the 2016 election, Brennan was head of the CIA.
His evil twin, James Clapper, who also coughs up Trump attacks for nickels these days, was
director of national intelligence. James Comey headed the FBI, following Robert Mueller into
the job. Yet the noise from that crowd has become so loud as to drown out any questions about
where they were when they had the duty to stop the Russians in the first place.
The excuse that "everybody believed Hillary would win" is in itself an example of collusion:
things that now rise to treason, if not acts of war, didn't matter then because Clinton's
victory would sweep them all under the rug. Only after Clinton lost did it become necessary
to create a crisis that might yet be inflated (it wasn't just the Russians, as originally
thought, it was Trump working with them) to justify impeachment. Absent that need, Brennan
would have disappeared alongside other former CIA directors into academia or the lucrative
consulting industry. Instead he's a public figure with a big mouth because he has to be. That
mouth has to cover his ass.
Brennan is part of the whole-of-government effort to overturn the election.
Remember how recounts were called for amid (fake) allegations of vote tampering? Constitutional
scholars proposed various Hail Mary Electoral College scenarios to unseat Trump. Lawsuits
claimed the Emoluments Clause made it illegal for Trump to even assume office. The media set
itself the goal of impeaching the president. On cue, leaks poured out implying the Trump
campaign worked with the Russian government. It is now a rare day when the top stories are not
apocalyptic, rocketed from Raw Story to the Huffington Post to the New York Times .
Brennan, meanwhile, fans the media's flames with a knowing wink that says "You wait and see.
Soon it's Mueller time."
Yet despite all the hard evidence of treason that only Brennan and his supine
journalists seem to see, everyone appears resigned to have a colluding Russian agent running
the United States. You'd think it would be urgent to close this case. Instead, Brennan
admonishes us to wait out an investigative process that's been underway now through two
administrations.
The IRS, meanwhile, has watched Trump for decades (they've seen the tax docs), as have
Democratic and Republican opposition researchers, the New Jersey Gaming Commission, and various
New York City real estate bodies. Multiple KGB/FSB agents have defected and not said a word.
The whole Soviet Union has collapsed since the day that some claim Trump first became a Russian
asset. Why haven't the FBI, CIA, and NSA cottoned to anything in the intervening years? Why are
we waiting on Mueller Year Two?
If Trump is under Russian influence, he is the most dangerous man in American history. So
why isn't Washington on fire? Why hasn't Mueller indicted someone for treason? If this is Pearl
Harbor, why is the investigation moving at the pace of a mortgage application? Why is everyone
allowing a Russian asset placed in charge of the American nuclear arsenal to stay in power even
one more minute?
You'd think Brennan would be saying it is time to postpone chasing the indictments of
Russian military officers that will never see the inside of a courtroom, stop wasting months on
decades-old financial crimes unconnected to the Trump campaign, and quit delaying the real
stuff over a clumsy series of perjury cases. "Patriots: Where are you???" Brennan asked in a
recent tweet. Where indeed?
Is Brennan signaling that there is one step darker to consider? A
Reuters commentary observes that "Trump is haunted by the fear that a cabal of
national-security officers is conspiring in secret to overthrow him . Trump has made real
enemies in the realm of American national security. He has struck blows against their empire.
One way or another, the empire will strike back." James Clapper is confirming reports that
Trump was shown evidence of Putin's election attacks and did nothing. Congressman Steve Cohen
asked, "Where are our military folks? The Commander-in-Chief is in the hands of our enemy!"
Treason, traitor, coup, the empire striking back -- those are just words, Third World stuff,
clickbait, right? So the more pedestrian answer must then be correct. The lessons of Whitewater
and Benghazi learned, maybe the point is not to build an atmosphere of crisis leading to
something undemocratic, but just to have a perpetual investigation, tickled to life as needed
politically.
Because, maybe, deep down, Brennan (Clapper, Hayden, Comey, and Mueller) really do know that
this is all like flying saucers and cell phone cameras. At some point, the whole alien
conspiracy meme fell apart because somehow when everyone had a camera with them 24/7/365, there
were no more sightings and we had to admit that our fears had gotten the best of us. The threat
was inside us all along. It is now, too.
Peter Van Buren, a 24-year State Department veteran, is the author ofWe Meant Well : How I Helped Lose the Battle for the
Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People andHooper's War : A Novel of WWII Japan . Follow him on Twitter
@WeMeantWell.
After another week saw leading Republicans accosted in public places, many on the left are
arguing that harassment is legitimate
The day after Sarah Sanders was asked to leave the Red Hen restaurant in Virginia, Maxine
Waters, the representative for the California 43rd who has become a leader of the anti-Trump
resistance within Congress, addressed a rally in Los Angeles. Up until that point, national
Democratic leaders had mostly urged respectful protest in response to the Trump
administration.
"Let's make sure we show up wherever we have to show up," she said to cheers from the crowd.
"And if you see anybody from that cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline
station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them
they're not welcome any more, anywhere."
In the days that followed, other leading Democrats, among them Nancy Pelosi and David
Axelrod, distanced themselves from the comments and called for civility. Trump personally
attacked Waters, calling her an "extraordinarily low IQ person". But Waters gave voice, and
perhaps legitimacy, to what has become a prominent form of activism since Trump took office:
accosting members of his team in public places.
Over the weekend, Steve Bannon was called "a piece of trash" by a heckler at a bookstore; a
bartender gave Stephen Miller the middle finger, apparently causing Miller to throw away $80 of
sushi he'd just bought in disgust; and Mitch McConnell was chased out of a restaurant in
Kentucky by protesters, who followed him to this car yelling "turtle head" and "we know where
you live".
These follow similar encounters for other members of Trump's top team. The homeland security
secretary, Kirstjen Nielsen, was confronted by protesters chanting "shame" while she ate at a
Mexican restaurant. Last week, Scott Pruitt was accosted by Kristin Mink while he was eating
lunch. Mink, a teacher, held her two-year-old child as she asked him to resign "before your
scandals push you out". Days later, Pruitt did resign, and although he was probably asked to do
so by Trump, in his letter he cited "the unrelenting attacks on me" as his reason for
leaving.
After each case, the merits of such an approach have been debated – many have called
for civility or argued that protesters leave themselves open to attack if they pursue
Trump-like techniques. There has been some consensus that encounters like Mink's, which are
eloquent and non-aggressive, are more acceptable than when protesters chant personal attacks or
use threatening language
... you don't stand with most of C99 and most of progressive society. He is wrong, on this
and many other things. Where was his (and your) outrage when Obama was droning American
citizens, destroying Libya and creating Europe's current refugee crisis, and helping Saudi
Arabia wreak havoc on Houthi civilians? How many pies did he throw then? How many Obama
administration officials did he publicly shame?
administration too? He did many of the same things that Trump is doing to immigrants. He
deported more of them then any president including 56% of them who hadn't committed any crimes.
How about shaming them for his drone policies, killing 3 Americans without due process, bombing
wedding parties and then the people who came to their rescue? Or the many, many other things he
and his admin members did that were absolutely heinous?
Should we have done that to the people in the Bush administration too or how far back should
we have been shaming people who worked in a president's administration?
Maybe we should be shaming the democrats who have been voting with the republicans to pass
Trump's legislation, cabinet picks and justices? Where would it stop?
Submitted by thanatokephaloides on Thu, 07/19/2018 - 5:49pm
Maybe we should be shaming the democrats who have been voting with the republicans to
pass Trump's legislation, cabinet picks and justices? Where would it stop?
Where it should -- with the non-voluntarily-complicit.
the publicly harassing, embarrssing, and running off the oposition then we're really fucked.
Or do you seriousy think those tactics won't be repaid in kind?
on public shaming.
#7
Especially in public restaurants.
There is no better way to protest this admin than to shame them in a public place, confront
them while they attempt to swallow a bite of pork chop.
up 0 users have voted. --
I'm tired of this back-slapping "Isn't humanity neat?" bullshit. We're a virus with shoes,
okay? That's all we are. - Bill Hicks
Politics is the entertainment branch of industry. - Frank Zappa Submitted by gulfgal98 on
Thu, 07/19/2018 - 12:00pmCritical thinking skills seem
to be non-existent over there.
Again, Markos and his staff refuse to discuss policy from a positive perspective. Instead,
they focus their readers on the outrage de jour and tribalism. The entire purpose of that site is
a massive propaganda push designed to keep us divided. And the narrative they keep pushing are
not only divisive, but extremely dangerous.
I rarely go there any more, mostly because I would like to keep as many of my remaining brain
cells intact. But when I have visited that place, it is a very frightening place to see how
Markos (post purge) has herded the remaining members into a small corral, all of them nodding in
agreement with whatever gruel Markos and his front pagers are serving up. Submitted by
snoopydawg on Thu, 07/19/2018 - 6:29pmDaily Kos should change its name
to
@gulfgal98
BAR Book Forum: Jeremy Kuzmarov's and John Marciano's "The Russians are Coming, Again"
"The American people have been constantly manipulated and made to fear the Russian threat when
it is the United States that has been the aggressive power."
In this series, we ask acclaimed authors to answer five questions about their book. This
week's featured authors are Jeremy Kuzmarov and John Marciano . Kuzmarov is Jay P. Walker
Assistant Professor of American History, University of Tulsa. Marciano is Professor Emeritus at
SUNY Cortland. Their book is The Russians Are Coming, Again: The First Cold War as Tragedy,
the Second as Farce.
Roberto Sirvent: How can your book help BAR readers understand the current political and social
climate?
Jeremy Kuzmarov and John Marciano: Our book provides a historical perspective on
contemporary affairs by showing how the Russo-phobia that has been prevalent in our political
discourse over the last four to five years has deep and long historical roots, and has often
been used by government leaders to turn public attention away from domestic inequalities by
channeling societal resources towards the military sector. During the early Cold War, a period
of labor militancy and momentum for the expansion of the New Deal was destroyed by McCarthyism
and the Cold War.The Korean War brought on huge military budgets that have never left us and an
expansion of the U.S. overseas military base network. These policies were underlain by
exaggerated views about the Soviet Union which were stoked by political elites, who had worked
for companies that reaped enormous profit from the permanent warfare state. The same forces are
behind the renewed efforts to demonize Russian President Vladimir Putin and exaggerate the
Russian threat, with serious adverse consequences for society that have already been evident.
The consequences include a revitalization of the arms race, waging of proxy wars, and a further
poisoning of the domestic political culture through the reinvigoration of a McCarthyist
discourse and tactics.
"During the early Cold War, a period of labor militancy and momentum for the expansion of
the New Deal was destroyed by McCarthyism and the Cold War."
The "Deep state" honchos who created this indictment have a working assumption that the USA
remain a sole superpower and that everything is permitted, even if this is a provocation/false
flag operation conducted solely for internal consumption. That might be the assumption that is no
longer true.
Notable quotes:
"... The document itself also provides no information on how the Russian officers and their positions were identified, which suggests that it could have been a US hack or agent in place, either run by CIA or NSA, that came up with a list of those individuals connected to GRU cyber operations. That would be information involving sources and methods, codeword protected material beyond Top Secret. ..."
"... Beyond what is or is not contained in the document itself, there is a clear misunderstanding regarding how a sophisticated intelligence organization, which certainly includes the GRU, operates. ..."
"... Reprinted with permission from Strategic Culture Foundation . ..."
The document itself also provides no information on how the Russian officers and their
positions were identified, which suggests that it could have been a US hack or agent in place,
either run by CIA or NSA, that came up with a list of those individuals connected to GRU cyber
operations. That would be information involving sources and methods, codeword protected
material beyond Top Secret.
If the GRU list is authentic, it would expose US ability to penetrate that organization,
leading to Moscow tightening up security to the detriment of American intelligence. But it
might alternatively be suggested that the drafters needed a group of plausible Russians and
used a generic list provided by either CIA or NSA to come up with the culprits and then used
those identities and the detailed information regarding them to provide credibility to their
account. What they did not do, however, is provide the actual evidence connecting the
individuals to the "hack/interference" or to connect the same to the Russian government. If the
information in the indictment is completely accurate, which may not be the case, there is some
suggestion that alleged Moscow linked proxies may have deliberately sought to undermine the
campaign of Hillary Clinton to favor Bernie Sanders, but absolutely no evidence that they did
anything to help Donald Trump.
Beyond what is or is not contained in the document itself, there is a clear
misunderstanding regarding how a sophisticated intelligence organization, which certainly
includes the GRU, operates. If there had been a large-scale Kremlin sanctioned plan to
disrupt the US election, it would not be run by twelve identifiable GRU officers working with
what appears to be only limited cover and resources. If the facts are correct, the activity
might have been a routine probing, collecting and selective dissemination of information effort
that all intelligence agencies engage in. The United States does so routinely in many
countries, interfering in elections worldwide, far more than Russia with its limited resources,
and even carrying out regime change.
If the Kremlin's objective were truly to undermine American democracy, a task that is
already being undertaken very ably by the GOP and Democrats, hundreds of officers would be
involved, all working under deep cover and operating securely out of dispersed sites. And no
one involved would be using computers connected to networks that could be penetrated to enable
personal identification or discovery of the ultimate source of the activity. Everyone would be
working in alias on stand-alone machines and the transmission of information would be done
using cut-outs to break any chain of custody. A cut-out might consist of using thumb drives to
transmit information from one computer to another, for example. There would be no sending or
receiving of information by channels that could be identified by NSA or CIA and
compromised.
So the idea that the United States government identified twelve culprits who were
responsible for trying to overthrow American democracy is by any measure ludicrous, if indeed
there was a major plan to disrupt the election at all. The indictment is little more than a
political document seeking to undermine any effort by Donald Trump to establish rapprochement
with Vladimir Putin. It will also serve to give fuel to the Democrats, who are still at a loss
to understand what happened to Hillary Clinton, and Republican hawks like John McCain, Lindsay
Graham, Jeff Flake and Ben Sasse who persist in seeking to refight the Cold War. As Donald
Trump and Vladimir Putin said in their Helsinki press conference, the coming together of the
leaders of the world's two most powerful nuclear armed countries is too important an
opportunity to let pass. Cold Warriors in Washington should take note.
"... Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, ..."
"... . To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators website at www.creators.com. ..."
Under the Constitution, these are the offenses for which
presidents can be impeached.
And to hear our elites, Donald Trump is guilty of them all.
Trump's refusal to challenge Vladimir Putin's claim at Helsinki that his GRU boys did not hack Hillary Clinton's
campaign has been called treason, a refusal to do his sworn duty to protect and defend the United States, by a former
director of the CIA.
Famed journalists and former high officials of the U.S. government have called Russia's hacking of the DNC "an act of
war" comparable to Pearl Harbor.
The
New York Times
ran a story on the many now charging Trump with treason. Others suggest Putin is
blackmailing Trump, or has him on his payroll, or compromised Trump a long time ago.
Wailed Congressman Steve Cohen: "Where is our military folks? The Commander in Chief is in the hands of our enemy!"
Apparently, some on the left believe we need a military coup to save our democracy.
Not since Robert Welch of the John Birch Society called Dwight Eisenhower a "conscious agent of the Communist
conspiracy" have such charges been hurled at a president. But while the Birchers were a bit outside the mainstream,
today it is the establishment itself bawling "Treason!"
What explains the hysteria?
The worst-case scenario would be that the establishment actually believes the nonsense it is spouting. But that is
hard to credit. Like the boy who cried "Wolf!" they have cried "Fascist!" too many times to be taken seriously.
A month ago, the never-Trumpers were comparing the separation of immigrant kids from detained adults, who brought
them to the U.S. illegally, to FDR's concentration camps for Japanese Americans.
Other commentators equated the separations to what the Nazis did at Auschwitz.
If the establishment truly believed this nonsense, it would be an unacceptable security risk to let them near the
levers of power ever again.
Using Occam's razor, the real explanation for this behavior is the simplest one: America's elites have been driven
over the edge by Trump's successes and their failures to block him.
Trump is deregulating the economy, cutting taxes, appointing record numbers of federal judges, reshaping the Supreme
Court, and using tariffs to cut trade deficits and the bully pulpit to castigate freeloading allies.
Worst of all, Trump clearly intends to carry out his campaign pledge to improve relations with Russia and get along
with Vladimir Putin.
"Over our dead bodies!" the Beltway elite seems to be shouting.
Hence the rhetorical WMDs hurled at Trump: liar, dictator, authoritarian, Putin's poodle, fascist, demagogue,
traitor, Nazi.
Such language approaches incitement to violence. One wonders whether the haters are considering the impact of the
words they so casually use. Some of us yet recall how Dallas was charged with complicity in the death of JFK for slurs
far less toxic than this.
The post-Helsinki hysteria reveals not merely the mindset of the president's enemies, but the depth of their
determination to destroy him.
They intend to break Trump and bring him down, to see him impeached, removed, indicted, and prosecuted, and the
agenda on which he ran and was nominated and elected dumped onto the ash heap of history.
Thursday, Trump indicated that he knows exactly what is afoot, and threw down the gauntlet of defiance: "The Fake
News Media wants so badly to see a major confrontation with Russia, even a confrontation that could lead to war," he
tweeted. "They are pushing so recklessly hard and hate the fact that I'll probably have a good relationship with Putin."
Spot on. Trump is saying: I am going to call off this Cold War II before it breaks out into the hot war that nine
U.S. presidents avoided, despite Soviet provocations far graver than Putin's pilfering of DNC emails showing how Debbie
Wasserman Schultz stuck it to Bernie Sanders.
Then the White House suggested Vlad may be coming to dinner this fall.
Trump is edging toward the defining battle of his presidency: a reshaping of U.S. foreign policy to avoid clashes and
conflicts with Russia and the shedding of Cold War commitments no longer rooted in the national interests of this
country.
Yet should he attempt to carry out his agenda -- to get out of Syria, pull troops from Germany, and take a second look
at NATO's Article 5 commitment to go to war for 29 nations, some of which, like Montenegro, most Americans have never
heard of -- he is headed for the most brutal battle of his presidency.
This Helsinki hysteria is but a taste.
By cheering Brexit, dissing the EU, suggesting NATO is obsolete, departing Syria, trying to get on with Putin, Trump
is threatening the entire U.S. foreign policy establishment with what it fears most: irrelevance.
For if there is no war on, no war imminent, and no war wanted, what does a War Party do?
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book,
Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a
President and Divided America Forever
. To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators
writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators website at www.creators.com.
"... McFaul: "Russia made the whole story up." Typical projection. And Browder only became a critic of Putin (the russian justice system) after his criminal enterprise was uncovered. ..."
"... As a "red blooded, Bible believing American", one who has served under oath, and know the duties and penalties, I suggest it's perhaps the best "diplomatic move" seen since Mr. Putin took up the Secretary of State's offer, took Syria's chemical weapons, and took up truly ridding the Nation of terrorists, both those of Saudi, and those my own government made. ..."
This is pure brilliance on Russia's part. It wont happen, but it draws attention to
the Browder story, and discredits McFaul by association. Very smart. Update : It
appears Michael McFaul is really getting nervous, tweeting like a teenager on meth tonight:
"I hope the White House corrects the record and denounces in categorical terms this
ridiculous request from Putin. Not doing so creates moral equivalency between a legitimacy US
indictment of Russian intelligence officers and a crazy, completely fabricated story invented
by Putin"
With The White House flip-flopping back and forth on what was actually said - and meant to
be said - in Helsinki, Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders dropped the latest tape-bomb to
blow the establishment's mind during to today's press conference.
Sanders reported that President Trump is open to a proposal from Vladimir Putin to let
Russian authorities question the former U.S. ambassador to Moscow, Michael McFaul .
While Trump reportedly made no commitments to Putin, the Russian president offered to allow
Special Counsel Robert Mueller to observe interrogations of the 12 Russian intelligence agents
indicted by a U.S. grand jury last week for hacking Democratic Party email accounts.
Trump called it an "interesting idea" and an "incredible offer" at the news conference.
Sanders left the press corps dangling by concluding that:
"The president will work with his team and we'll let you know if there's an announcement
on that front."
As The Hill reports, Russia state-owned outlet RT reported that
Russia wanted to question McFaul and the author of the so-called Steele dossier, Christopher
Steele, among others in its investigation into American financier Bill Browder.
Browder is a prominent critic of Putin who lobbied on behalf of the Magnitsky Act, which
imposed sanctions against Russia.
McFaul has denounced the possibility of his being questioned by Russian officials, and has
called on Trump to condemn the proposal .
"Putin has been harassing me for a long time," McFaul said
on Twitter on Wednesday.
"That he now wants to arrest me, however, takes it to a new level. I expect my government
to defend me and my colleagues in public and private ."
And went on...
Does he seem nervous to you?
Source: Zero HedgePutin Asked Trump Permission to Interrogate Obama's Ambassador This is pure brilliance
on Russia's part. It wont happen, but it draws attention to the Browder story, and discredits
McFaul by association. Very smart. Tyler Durden 11 hours ago | 1,727
41 MORE: Politics Update : It appears Michael
McFaul is really getting nervous, tweeting like a teenager on meth tonight:
"I hope the White House corrects the record and denounces in categorical terms this
ridiculous request from Putin. Not doing so creates moral equivalency between a legitimacy US
indictment of Russian intelligence officers and a crazy, completely fabricated story invented
by Putin"
With The White House flip-flopping back and forth on what was actually said - and meant to
be said - in Helsinki, Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders dropped the latest tape-bomb to
blow the establishment's mind during to today's press conference.
Sanders reported that President Trump is open to a proposal from Vladimir Putin to let
Russian authorities question the former U.S. ambassador to Moscow, Michael McFaul .
While Trump reportedly made no commitments to Putin, the Russian president offered to allow
Special Counsel Robert Mueller to observe interrogations of the 12 Russian intelligence agents
indicted by a U.S. grand jury last week for hacking Democratic Party email accounts.
Trump called it an "interesting idea" and an "incredible offer" at the news conference.
Sanders left the press corps dangling by concluding that:
"The president will work with his team and we'll let you know if there's an announcement
on that front."
As The Hill reports, Russia state-owned outlet RT reported that
Russia wanted to question McFaul and the author of the so-called Steele dossier, Christopher
Steele, among others in its investigation into American financier Bill Browder.
Browder is a prominent critic of Putin who lobbied on behalf of the Magnitsky Act, which
imposed sanctions against Russia.
McFaul has denounced the possibility of his being questioned by Russian officials, and has
called on Trump to condemn the proposal .
"Putin has been harassing me for a long time," McFaul said
on Twitter on Wednesday.
"That he now wants to arrest me, however, takes it to a new level. I expect my government
to defend me and my colleagues in public and private ."
McFaul: "Russia made the whole story up." Typical projection.
And Browder only became a critic of Putin (the russian justice system) after his criminal
enterprise was uncovered.
I did like this one review of your insightful book, Mr. McFoul. If I send you the
review, will you sign it? I'd be honored. Russia's Unfinished Revolution: Political Change from Gorbachev to Putin By Michael McFaul, Cornell University Press, 2001
http://exiledonline.com/mik...
This book is a four-hundred page testimonial to the intellectual and moral bankruptcy
of the American Russia-watching mafia. In its pages, Michael McFaul condemns himself
again and again with staggering non-sequiturs, self-serving lies, crude
misrepresentations of his own past and the recent history of Russia, and repeated
failures to meet even the most basic standards of academic rigor.
Mr McFaul seems to be unfamiliar with the concept of law and a justice system. If he
is indicted by the Russian courts and required for questioning, why is that any different
from Russian "suspects" being indicted by US courts and required for questioning? Until the justice system has made its inquiries and run its course, no one can know
for sure whether Mr McFaul is guilty of crimes or not. So why does he demand total immunity from justice in such a peremptory, entitled
way?
Surely it can't be because he feels that Americans are in any way "superior",
"exceptional", or immune from justice? Surely Mr McFaul isn't a crude common-or-garden racist? Surely...?
The rub here is the ambassador enjoys diplomatic immunity from prosecution for events
that might have occurred during his tenure in Moscow from Russian courts. If the Trump
DOJ decides he should face the music then he has no immunity.
Your third question answers your second question almost perfectly. Because he feels that Americans are in every way "superior", "exceptional", and should
be immune from justice, no matter how heinous the crimes they have committed.
There fixed it for ya. :-)
What a circus and what a lot of clowns. As they say, nobody is above the law or at least they shouldn't be. I would say that Mr McFaul does protest too much and judging by his rattled statements
appears that he has something to hide. Getting back to basics where is the $400K and how did it get there and did any
go missing on the way?
McFaul is a bag boy shabbos goy for the Jooz that are trying to re-steal (1917, 1991,
2014) Russian wealth. Browder was a discarded Rothschild foreskin.
Earl Browder was lauding Soviet Russia and its successes. He didn't fleece the Russian
people. His grandson is a parasite that hates Russia and has siphoned his ill-gotten
gains from the country. No comparison.
The interesting side of the story is Trump can say yes as president. Not much Michael
McFaul can do then?
It will turn MSM Media upside down.
Btw. NSA can give tips to the Russians about what to ask. They know everything.
Assad probably would also like to question McCain regarding illegal stay in Syria
What I like most of all is Trump´s comment "an interesting idea and an
incredible offer".
ha ha ha ha ha ha.
It will probably not be possible to realize, but it shows Trump is not stupid at all.
Pay Back Time: Puppeticians will be taken out... One at the time...the Longer the Fun
will Last...Russia just make all their Lies Visible... it is a very Strong Weapon...
People are Tired and fed up with Liars, Traitors & Deceivers... Yesterday they caught
our Foreign Minister Blok with some nice Statements...He's like a gut-Shot animal at the
moment...one more Trick and He is Exit....just keep an eye on him...
https://www.aljazeera.com/n...
Stef Blok... You are a complete idiot... take your stuff and Buzz Off...the IMF or the
European Union always can use Some Retarded Ex-Puppeticians Like You...
"Trump invited Putin to Washington for summit: White House".
Washington: President Donald Trump invited Russian leader Vladimir Putin to Washington
for a summit in the northern autumn.
"In Helsinki, @POTUS agreed to ongoing working level dialogue between the two security
council staffs," White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said in a tweet on Thursday.
"President Trump asked @AmbJohnBolton to invite President Putin to Washington in the fall
and those discussions are already underway.
Sanders announced the invitation less than an hour after the
Republican-led Senate effectively rebuked President Donald Trump for considering Russia's
request to question US officials, giving voice to growing unease over the president's
relationship with Putin following their summit in Helsinki on Monday...
Russia should be allowed to question McFaul. We should honor the treaty.
Unfortunately, the intelligence agencies have more power than the president at this
point. They want to assassinate him.
As a "red blooded, Bible believing American", one who has served under oath, and know
the duties and penalties, I suggest it's perhaps the best "diplomatic move" seen since
Mr. Putin took up the Secretary of State's offer, took Syria's chemical weapons, and took
up truly ridding the Nation of terrorists, both those of Saudi, and those my own
government made.
I was afraid for a bit, Syria was going to be broken, and I've served
beside Syrian Army in Beirut, I respect them highly, consider them among the best
professionals, as the world can easily see they are, and I hate what a criminal cadre are
doing to my Country, while we enjoy our sit/coms and beer, and eat snacks and get
fat.
God Bless Russia and President Putin, "it take's a man to make a man", is an old saying,
and the same is true for Nations, I expect.
Semper Fidelis,
John McClain
Vanceboro, NC, USA
You did not understand the proposal. Russian police interrogates the indicted Russian
officials, and Mueller and team can be given permission to enter Russia and watch the
interrogations. American police interrogates Browder and accomplices, and Russian police
can be given permission to enter the US and watch the proceedings. Completely fair and
transparent, according to existing Treaty between the 2 countries. Nobody can be
extradited, because there is no extradition treaty between the countries.
If Russia is doing killing and poisoning, how come Soros and Browder are not killed,
if anybody deserves - here are two biggest criminals and both of them are Joos.
"... The governments of Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea, if their countries are to survive, must give up their deluded hopes of reaching agreements with the United States. No such possibility exists on terms that the countries can accept. ..."
"... American foreign policy rests on threat and force. It is guided by the neoconservative doctrine of US hegemony, a doctrine that is inconsistent with accepting the sovereignty of other countries. ..."
"... The Russians -- especially the naive Atlanticist Integrationists -- should take note of the extreme hostility, indeed, to the point of insanity, directed at the Helsinki meeting across the entirety of the American political, media, and intellectual scene ..."
"... There is no support for Trump's agenda of peace with Russia in the US foreign policy arena. The president of the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haass, spoke for them all when he declared that "We must deal with Putin's Russia as the rogue state it is." Russia is a " rogue state" simply because Russia does not accept Washington's overlordship. ..."
"... There is no support even in Trump's own government for normalizing relations with Russia unless the neoconservative definition of normal relations is used. By normal relations neoconservatives mean a vassal state relationship with Washington. That, and only that, is "normal." Russia can have normal relations with America only on the basis of this definition of normal. Sooner or later Putin and Lavrov will have to acknowledge this fact. ..."
"... A lie repeated over and over becomes a fact. That is what has happened to Russiagate. Despite the total absence of any evidence, it is now a fact in America that Putin himself put Trump in the Oval Office. That Trump met with Putin at Helsinki is considered proof that Trump is Putin's lackey, as the New York Times and many others now assert as self-evident. That Trump stood next to "the murderous thug Putin" and accepted Putin's word that Russia did not interfere in the election of the US president is regarded as double proof that Trump is in Putin's pocket and that the Russiagate story is true. ..."
The governments of Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea, if their countries are to
survive, must give up their deluded hopes of reaching agreements with the United States. No
such possibility exists on terms that the countries can accept.
American foreign policy rests on threat and force. It is guided by the neoconservative
doctrine of US hegemony, a doctrine that is inconsistent with accepting the sovereignty of
other countries. The only way that Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea can reach an agreement
with Washington is to become vassals like the UK, all of Europe, Canada, Japan, and
Australia.
The Russians -- especially the naive Atlanticist Integrationists -- should take note of the
extreme hostility, indeed, to the point of insanity, directed at the Helsinki meeting across
the entirety of the American political, media, and intellectual scene. Putin is incorrect that
US-Russian relations are being held hostage to an internal US political struggle between the
two parties. The Republicans are just as insane and just as hostile to President Trump's effort
to improve American-Russian relations as the Democrats, as Donald
Jeffries reminds us .
The American rightwing is just as opposed as the leftwing. Only a few experts, such as
Stephen Cohen and Amb. Jack Matlock , President Reagan's ambassador to the Soviet Union, have
spoken out in support of Trump's attempt to reduce the dangerous tensions between the nuclear
powers. Only a few pundits have explained the actual facts and the stakes.
There is no support for Trump's agenda of peace with Russia in the US foreign policy arena.
The president of the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haass, spoke for them all when he
declared that "We must deal with Putin's Russia as the rogue state it is." Russia is a " rogue state" simply because Russia does not accept Washington's overlordship.
Not for any other reason.
There is no support even in Trump's own government for normalizing relations with Russia
unless the neoconservative definition of normal relations is used. By normal relations
neoconservatives mean a vassal state relationship with Washington. That, and only that, is
"normal." Russia can have normal relations with America only on the basis of this definition of
normal. Sooner or later Putin and Lavrov will have to acknowledge this fact.
A lie repeated over and over becomes a fact. That is what has happened to Russiagate.
Despite the total absence of any evidence, it is now a fact in America that Putin himself put
Trump in the Oval Office. That Trump met with Putin at Helsinki is considered proof that Trump
is Putin's lackey, as the New York Times and many others now assert as self-evident. That Trump
stood next to "the murderous thug Putin" and accepted Putin's word that Russia did not
interfere in the election of the US president is regarded as double proof that Trump is in
Putin's pocket and that the Russiagate story is true.
"... Propaganda works, proved effective time and again – why it's a key tool in America's deep state playbook. ..."
"... Virtually anything repeated enough, especially through the major media megaphone, gets most people to believe it – no matter how preposterous the claim. ..."
"... Normalized relations with Russia and world peace are anathema notions in Washington. Bipartisan neocons infesting the US political establishment want none of it. America's hegemonic aims matter most – wanting dominance over planet earth, its resources and populations. Endless wars of aggression, color revolutions, and other unlawful practices harmful to human rights and welfare are its favored strategies. ..."
Propaganda works, proved effective time and again – why it's a key tool in
America's deep state playbook.
Virtually anything repeated enough, especially through the major media megaphone, gets
most people to believe it – no matter how preposterous the claim.
Not a shred of evidence suggests Russia meddled in America's political process –
nothing.
Yet an earlier NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll showed most Americans believe the Russia
did it Big Lie. A months earlier Gallup poll showed three-fourths of Americans view Vladimir
Putin unfavorably.
Americans are easy marks to be fooled. No matter how many times they were deceived before,
they're easily manipulated to believe most anything drummed into their minds by the power of
repetitious propaganda – fed them through through the major media megaphone – in
lockstep with the official falsified narrative.
America's dominant media serve as a propaganda platform for US imperial and monied interests
– acting as agents of deception, betraying their readers and viewers time and again
instead of informing them responsibly.
CNN
presstitute Poppy Harlow played a clip on air of Reuters reporter Jeff Mason asking Putin
in Helsinki the following question:
"Did you want President Trump to win the election and did you direct any of your officials
to help him do that?"
Putin said: "Yes," he wanted Trump to win "because he talked about bringing the US-Russia
relationship back to normal," as translated from his Russian language response.
Here's the precise translation of his remark:
"Yes, I wanted him to win, because he talked about the need to normalize US-Russia
relations," adding:
"Isn't it natural to have sympathy towards a man who wants to restore relations with your
country? That's normal."
Putin did not address the fabricated official narrative notion that he directed his
officials to help Trump win. Yet CNN's Harlow claimed otherwise, falsely claiming he ordered
Kremlin officials to help Trump triumph over Hillary.
He did nothing of the kind or say it, nor did any other Kremlin officials. No evidence
proves otherwise – nothing but baseless accusations supported only by the power of
deceptive propaganda.
Time and again, CNN, the NYT, and rest of America's dominant media prove themselves
untrustworthy.
They consistently abandon journalism the way it's supposed to be, notably on geopolitical
issues, especially on war and peace and anything about Russia.
After rejecting, or at least doubting, the official narrative about alleged Russian meddling
in the US political process to aid his election, Trump backtracked post-Helsinki –
capitulating to deep state power.
First in the White House, he said he misspoke abroad – then on CBS News Wednesday
night, saying it's "true," deplorably adding:
Russia meddled in the 2016 presidential election, and he "would" hold Russian President
Vladimir Putin responsible for the interference – that didn't occur, he failed to
stress.
GLOR: "You say you agree with US intelligence that Russia meddled in the election in
2016."
TRUMP: "Yeah and I've said that before, Jeff. I have said that numerous times before, and
I would say that is true, yeah."
GLOR: "But you haven't condemned Putin, specifically. Do you hold him personally
responsible?"
TRUMP: "Well, I would, because he's in charge of the country. Just like I consider myself
to be responsible for things that happen in this country. So certainly as the leader of a
country you would have to hold him responsible, yes."
GLOR: "What did you say to him?"
TRUMP: "Very strong on the fact that we can't have meddling. We can't have any of that
– now look. We're also living in a grown-up world."
"Will a strong statement – you know – President Obama supposedly made a strong
statement. Nobody heard it."
"What they did hear is a statement he made to Putin's very close friend. And that
statement was not acceptable. Didn't get very much play relatively speaking. But that
statement was not acceptable."
"But I let him know we can't have this. We're not going to have it, and that's the way
it's going to be."
There you have it – Trump capitulating to America's deep state over Russia on national
television.
From day one in power, he caved to the national security state, Wall Street, and other
monied interests over popular ones.
The sole redeeming part of his agenda was wanting improved relations with Russia and
Vladimir Putin personally – preferring peace over possible confrontation, wanting the
threat of nuclear war defused.
Despite tweeting post-Helsinki that he and Putin "got along well which truly bothered many
haters who wanted to see a boxing match," his remarks on CBS News showed he'll continue dirty
US business as usual toward Russia.
Anything positive from summit talks appears abandoned by capitulating to deep state power
controlling him and his agenda.
Normalized relations with Russia and world peace are anathema notions in Washington.
Bipartisan neocons infesting the US political establishment want none of it. America's
hegemonic aims matter most – wanting dominance over planet earth, its resources and
populations. Endless wars of aggression, color revolutions, and other unlawful practices
harmful to human rights and welfare are its favored strategies.
Will Americans go along with sacrificing vital freedoms for greater security from invented
enemies – losing both? Will US belligerent confrontation with Russia inevitably follow?
Will mushroom-shaped denouement eventually kill us all?
*
Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the CRG, Correspondent of Global Research
based in Chicago.
My newest book as editor and contributor is titled "Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US
Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III. http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html "
"... They secured and and announced the indictments "with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States." ..."
"... That language is from 1799's Logan Act (18 U.S.C. § 953). Its constitutionality is suspect and no one has ever been indicted under it in the 219 years since its passage. Rosenstein and Mueller aren't likely to be the first two, and may not even technically have violated its letter. But I'd be hard put to name a more obvious, intentional, or flagrant act in violation of its spirit. ..."
Friday the 13th is presumably always someone's unlucky day. Just whose may not be obvious at the time, but I suspect that "Russiagate"
special counsel Robert Mueller and Deputy US Attorney General Rod Rosenstein already regret picking Friday, July 13 to announce the
indictments of 12 Russian intelligence officers on charges relating to an embarrassing 2016 leak of Democratic National Committee
emails. They should.
Legally, the indictments are of almost no value. Those indicted will never be extradited to the US for trial, and the case that
an external "hack" – as opposed to an internal DNC leak – even occurred is weak at best, if for no other reason than that the DNC
denied the FBI access to its servers, instead commissioning a private "cybersecurity analysis" to reach the conclusion it wanted
reached before hectoring government investigators to join that conclusion.
Diplomatically, on the other hand, the indictments and the timing of the announcement were a veritable pipe bomb, thrown into
preparations for a scheduled Helsinki summit between US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin.
House Republicans, already incensed with Rosenstein over his attempts to stonewall their probe into the Democratic Party's use
of the FBI as a proprietary political hit squad, are planning a renewed effort to impeach him. If he goes down, Mueller likely does
as well. And at this point, it would take a heck of an actor to argue with a straight face that the effort is unjustified.
Their timing was clearly intentional. Their intent was transparently political. Mueller and Rosenstein were attempting to hijack
the Trump-Putin summit for the purpose of depriving Trump of any possible "wins" that might come out of it.
They secured and and announced the indictments "with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government
or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures
of the United States."
That language is from 1799's Logan Act (18 U.S.C. § 953). Its constitutionality is suspect and no one has ever been indicted
under it in the 219 years since its passage. Rosenstein and Mueller aren't likely to be the first two, and may not even technically
have violated its letter. But I'd be hard put to name a more obvious, intentional, or flagrant act in violation of its spirit.
Rosenstein and Mueller are attempting to conduct foreign policy by special prosecutor, a way of doing things found nowhere in
the US Constitution. Impeachment or firing should be the least of their worries. I'm guessing that there are laws other than the
Logan Act that could, and should, be invoked to have them fitted for orange coveralls and leg irons pending an appointment with a
judge.
That they even have defenders is proof positive that some of Trump's most prominent opponents consider "rule of law" a quaint
and empty concept – a useful slogan, nothing more – even as they continually, casually, and hypocritically invoke it whenever they
think doing so might politically disadvantage him.
Thomas L. Knapp is director and senior news analyst at the William
Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism . He lives and works in north central Florida. This article is reprinted
with permission from William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism.
So it appears America and democracy have miraculously survived the dreaded Trump-Putin summit or Trump's meeting with his Russian
handler, as the neoliberal ruling classes and their mouthpieces in the corporate media would dearly like us all to believe. NATO has
not been summarily dissolved. Poland has not been invaded by Russia.
Notable quotes:
"... So it appears America and democracy have miraculously survived the dreaded Trump-Putin summit or Trump's meeting with his Russian handler, as the neoliberal ruling classes and their mouthpieces in the corporate media would dearly like us all to believe. NATO has not been summarily dissolved. Poland has not been invaded by Russia. ..."
"... And so, once again, Western liberals, and others obsessed with Donald Trump, having been teased into a painfully tumescent paroxysm of anticipation of some unimaginably horrible event that would finally lead to Trump's impeachment ..."
"... In the days and weeks leading up to the summit, the global capitalist ruling class Resistance deployed every weapon in its mighty arsenal to whip the Western masses up into a frenzy of anti-Putin-Nazi fervor ..."
So it appears America and democracy have miraculously survived the dreaded Trump-Putin summit or Trump's meeting with his
Russian handler, as the neoliberal ruling classes and their mouthpieces in the corporate media would dearly like us all to believe.
NATO has not been summarily dissolved. Poland has not been invaded by Russia.
The offices of The New York Times , The Washington Post , CNN, and MSNBC have not been stormed by squads of jackbooted Trumpian
Gestapo.
The Destabilization of the Middle East, the Privatization of Virtually Everything, the Conversion of the Planet into One Big Shopping
Mall, and other global capitalist projects are all going forward uninterrupted. Apart from Trump making a narcissistic, word-salad-babbling
jackass of himself, which he does on a more or less daily basis, nothing particularly apocalyptic happened.
And so, once again, Western liberals, and others obsessed with Donald Trump, having been teased into a painfully tumescent
paroxysm of anticipation of some unimaginably horrible event that would finally lead to Trump's impeachment (or his removal
from office by other means) were left standing around with their hysteria in their hands. It has become a sadistic ritual at this
point like a twisted, pseudo-Tantric exercise where the media get liberals all lathered up over whatever fresh horror Trump has just
perpetrated (or some non-story story they have invented out of whole cloth), build the tension for several days, until liberals are
moaning and begging for impeachment, or a full-blown CIA-sponsored coup, then pull out abruptly and leave the poor bastards writhing
in agony until the next time which is pretty much exactly what just happened.
In the days and weeks leading up to the summit, the global capitalist ruling class Resistance deployed every weapon in its
mighty arsenal to whip the Western masses up into a frenzy of anti-Putin-Nazi fervor. While continuing to flog the wildly popular
baby concentration
camp story (because the Hitler stimulus never fails to elicit a Pavlovian response from Americans, regardless of how often or
how blatantly you use it), the corporate media began hammering hard on the "Trump is a Russian Agent" hysteria. (Normally, the corporate
media alternates between the Hitler hysteria and the Russia hysteria so as not to completely short-circuit the already scrambled
brains of Western liberals, but given
the
imminent threat of a peace deal , they needed to go the whole hog this time and paint this summit as a secret, internationally
televised assignation between Hitler and well, Hitler).
Activist Potato @164, well Obama was on record saying that they stood by and watched ISIS
grown, and take ever more territory and expected it would weaken the Syrian government,
leading to "Mission Accomplished." Even if he did want to prevent Trump from being
(s)elected, that would be a hard hill to fight for.
The US public has been fed up with the corruption and disastrous policies of the US
government for quite a while. I mean, 10 years ago we elected a black(ish) man with a Muslim
name for criizzacks! How desperate were we to do that in the middle of the "Clash of
Civilizations" Global War OF Terror?
By the time they were planning out the 2016 (s)election, it should have been clear to
anyone that the US was going to vote for real change. It turns out that a good number were so
desperate that they said they'd vote for the New York City conman, knowing he was horrible,
simply because they thought they were throwing a monkey wrench into "the system."
So, what did they give us? A woman who was not only the most hated and mistrusted
candidate in history (until The Donald), but also the very symbol of "more of the same."
Then, some how, "leaked" or "hacked" documents came out showing she was even more criminal
and corrupt that most had thought. And they came out at just the right time to make a good
number of those who were willing to hold their noses and vote for her to refuse to.
Meanwhile, the MSM filled the airwaves with everything Trump such that they sucked the
oxygen out of the room for anyone else. And the MSM insisted Trump was "an outsider," and
showed us every way possible that "the Establishment" didn't want to let him "win."
I came to see the whole operation as a brilliant psyop about the time of the Party
Conventions. I was so sucked into the drama of the DNC stealing the nomination from Sanders
that I allowed myself to be sucked right along (as I believe I was meant to be).
But after a year and a half of watching the only changes in US policy have been to escalate
the worst of them, and rape the 99% with even greater fury, it takes a special kind of faith
to still believe that Trump was ever an "outsider" and that the "establishment" is anything
except thrilled with how it's going. Hell, even failed "news" organizations like the NY Times
and MSDNC are in boon times again!
And the brilliant irony of it all is that they're making bank on telling us how much they
hate what's making them rich! LOL!
As for Trump, the same case is true. He represents the part of America which is realizing
it is loosing its sole superpower status. Had Hillary Clinton won in 2016 (which could
have happened -- Trump only won because of American system's technicalities) , the
cauldron that is today's USA social fabric would've only gathered even more pressure,
triggering an even deeper crisis in 2020.
Posted by: vk | Jul 17, 2018 2:09:39 PM | 80
That's the sort of fuzzy logic I was whingeing about in the comment to which this
codswallop is purporting to be a response. Team Trump was fully aware of the 'technicalities'
and ran a campaign designed to capitalise on them. Not only did they figure out how to
maximise the potential advantage of focusing on the Electoral College, Trump campaigned his
arse off 7 days a week.
Hillary the "consummate professional insider", on the other hand ran a lazy lacklustre
campaign. The over-arching feature of Her public gatherings was that they were little more
than an invitation to bask in Hillary's reflected Radiance. So not only did Trump win the
race, his victory was enhanced by Hillary's stupidity and chronic self-absorption.
The problem is everyone is stuck in the "lesser over greater evil" construct and that's
what makes the American Zionist-influenced duopoly so powerful. Trump is part of that failed
system that Americans are so dependent on and that always leads to the same place. People
should fight this lesser vs greater evil construct, even if Americans are too stupid at this
time to get out of it. It means they'd have to choose outside the box, outside the media's
choices example Fox and other Rightist outlets for Trump. CNN, MSNBC - Hillary, but the media
is all Zionist run and specializes in the brainwash on both sides. It's all part of the same
sham. The duopoly.
It starts with primaries for representatives and choosing a candidate that demonstrates
independence and integrity; especially those that the media wants to ignore; that's not
beholden to special interests or financed by Zionists.
Most importantly when America goes wrong and it's royally f...cked up right now, the rest
of the world, the web has to push back against their ignorance and their stupid choices,
because those choices hurt others as much as they hurt them only they're still too
brainwashed to see it. Americans had the right idea to turn on the establishment, but Trump
was the perfect Zionist anti-establishment decoy, a fraud, a pretender just like Obama was
for the Left.
In the past election, the only viable contender was Bernie who got railroaded by
Democratic Zionists like Wasserman and Podesta. I think Bernie was more authentic than the
two evils, Hillary and Trump, and although his Zionist roots are always a concern; he was run
out precisely because he was a rogue Jew and Zionists couldn't trust him. He wasn't in the
pocket of Zionist financiers although he was running with the Democrats, but in the current
status quo he had no choice but to use the Democratic Party as a means to an end and they did
him in. If Hillary were not on the ticket who knows what could have been. He was a start in
the right direction away from the Zionist financed duopoly.
Consortiumnews Volume 24, Number 199
-- –Independent Investigative Journalism Since 1995 -- –July 18, 2018
US Media is Losing Its Mind Over Trump-Putin Press Conference July 16, 2018 •
316 Comments
The media's mania over Trump's Helsinki performance and the so-called Russia-gate scandal reached new depths on Monday, says Joe
Lauria
By Joe Lauria Special to Consortium News
The reaction of the U.S. establishment media and several political leaders to President Donald Trump's press conference
after his summit meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Monday has been stunning.
" There are exactly two possible explanations for the shameful performance the world witnessed on Monday, from a serving American
president.
Either Donald Trump is flat-out an agent of Russian interests -- maybe witting, maybe unwitting, from fear of blackmail, in
hope of future deals, out of manly respect for Vladimir Putin, out of gratitude for Russia's help during the election, out of
pathetic inability to see beyond his 306 electoral votes. Whatever the exact mixture of motives might be, it doesn't really matter.
Or he is so profoundly ignorant, insecure, and narcissistic that he did not realize that, at every step, he was advancing the
line that Putin hoped he would advance, and the line that the American intelligence, defense, and law-enforcement agencies most
dreaded.
Conscious tool. Useful idiot. Those are the choices, though both are possibly true, so that the main question is the proportions
never before have I seen an American president consistently, repeatedly, publicly, and shockingly advance the interests of another
country over those of his own government and people."
As soon as the press conference ended CNN cut to its panel with these words from TV personality Anderson Cooper: "You have been
watching perhaps one of the most disgraceful performances by an American president at a summit in front of a Russian leader, surely,
that I've ever seen."
David Gergen, who for years has gotten away with portraying himself on TV as an impartial political sage, then told CNN viewers:
" I've never heard an American President talk that way but I think it is especially true that when he's with someone like Putin,
who is a thug, a world-class thug, that he sides with him again and again against his own country's interests of his own institutions
that he runs, that he's in charge of the federal government, he's in charge of these intelligence agencies, and he basically dismisses
them and retreats into this, we've heard it before, but on the international stage to talk about Hillary Clinton's computer server
"
" It's embarrassing," interjected Cooper.
" It's embarrassing," agreed Gergen.
Cooper: "Most disgraceful performance by a US president."
White House correspondent Jim Acosta, ostensibly an objective reporter, then gave his opinion: "I think that sums it up nicely.
This is the president of the United States essentially taking the word of the Russian president over his own intelligence community.
It was astonishing, just astonishing to be in the room with the U.S. president and the Russian president on this critical question
of election interference, and to retreat back to these talking points about DNC servers and Hillary Clinton's emails when he had
a chance right there in front of the world to tell Vladimir Putin to stay the HELL out of American democracy, and he didn't do it."
In other words Trump should just shut up and not question a questionable indictment, which Acosta, like nearly all the media,
treat as a conviction.
The Media's Handlers
The media's handlers were even worse than their assets. Former CIA director John Brennan
tweeted : "Donald Trump's press conference
performance in Helsinki rises to & exceeds the threshold of 'high crimes & misdemeanors,.' It was nothing short of treasonous. Not
only were Trump's comments imbecilic, he is wholly in the pocket of Putin. Republican Patriots: Where are you???"
Here's where the Republican Patriots are, Brennan: " That's how a press conference sounds when an Asset stands next to his Handler,"
former RNC Chairman Michael Steele tweeted.
Representative Liz Cheney, the daughter of the former vice president, said on Twitter: " As a member of the House Armed Services
Committee, I am deeply troubled by President Trump's defense of Putin against the intelligence agencies of the U.S. & his suggestion
of moral equivalence between the U.S. and Russia. Russia poses a grave threat to our national security."
All these were reactions to Trump expressing skepticism about the U.S. indictment on Friday of 12 Russian intelligence agents
for allegedly interfering in the 2016 U.S. presidential election while he was standing next to Russian President Vladimir Putin at
the press conference following their summit meeting in Helsinki.
" I will say this: I don't see any reason why it would be" Russia, Trump said. "I have great confidence in my intelligence people,
but I will tell you that President Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today."
The indictments, which are only unproven accusations, formally accused 12 members of the GRU, Russian military intelligence, of
stealing Democratic Party emails in a hacking operation and giving the materials to WikiLeaks to publish in order to damage the candidacy
of Trump's opponent, Hillary Clinton. The indictments were announced on Friday, three days before the summit, with the clear intention
of getting Trump to cancel it. He ignored cries from the media and Congress to do so.
Over the weekend Michael Smerconish on CNN
actually said the indictments proved that Russia had committed a "terrorist attack" against the United States. This is in line
with many pundits who are comparing this indictment, that will most likely
never produce any evidence, to 9/11 and Pearl Harbor. The danger inherent in that thinking is clear.
Putin said the allegations are "utter nonsense, just like [Trump] recently mentioned." He added: "The final conclusion in this
kind of dispute can only be delivered by a trial, by the court. Not by the executive, by the law enforcement." He could have added
not by the media.
Trump reasonably questioned why the FBI never examined the computer servers of the Democratic National Committee to see whether
there was a hack and who may have done it. Instead a private company, CrowdStrike, hired by the Democratic Party studied the server
and within a day blamed Russia on very
dubious grounds.
" Why haven't they taken the server?" Trump asked. "Why was the FBI told to leave the office of the Democratic National Committee?
I've been wondering that. I've been asking that for months and months and I've been tweeting it out and calling it out on social
media. Where is the server? I want to know, where is the server and what is the server saying?"
But being a poor communicator, Trump then mentioned Clinton's missing emails, allowing the media to conflate the two different
servers, and be easily dismissed as Gergen did.
At the press conference, Putin offered to allow American investigators from the team of special counsel Robert Mueller, who put
the indictment together, to travel to Russia and take part in interviews with the 12 accused Russian agents. He also offered to set
up a joint cyber-security group to examine the evidence and asked that in return Russia be allowed to question persons of interest
to Moscow in the United States.
" Let's discuss the specific issues and not use the Russia and U.S. relationship as a loose change for this internal political
struggle," Putin said.
On CNN, Christiane Amanpour called Putin's clear offer "obfuscation."
Even if Trump agreed to this reasonable proposal it seems highly unlikely that his Justice Department will go along with it. Examination
of whatever evidence they have to back up the indictment is not what the DOJ is after. As I
wrote about the indictments in detail on Friday:
" The extremely remote possibility of convictions were not what Mueller was apparently after, but rather the public perception
of Russia's guilt resulting from fevered media coverage of what are after all only accusations, presented as though it is established
fact. Once that impression is settled into the public consciousness, Mueller's mission would appear to be accomplished."
Still No 'Collusion'
The summit begins. (Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead)
The indictments did not include any members of Trump's
campaign team for "colluding" with the alleged Russian hacking effort, which has been a core allegation throughout the two years
of the so-called Russia-gate scandal. Those allegations are routinely reported in U.S. media as established fact, though there is
still no evidence of collusion.
Trump emphasised that point in the press conference. "There was no collusion at all," he said forcefully. "Everybody knows it."
On this point corporate media has been more deluded than normal as they clutch for straws to prove the collusion theory. As one
example of many across the media with the same theme, a New York Times
story on Friday , headlined, "Trump Invited the Russians to Hack Clinton. Were They Listening?," said Russia may have absurdly
responded to Trump's call at 10:30 a.m. on July 27, 2016 to hack Clinton's private email server because it was "on or about" that
day that Russia allegedly first made an attempt to hack Clinton's personal emails, according to the indictment, which makes no connection
between the two events.
If Russia is indeed guilty of remotely hacking the emails it would have had no evident need of assistance from anyone on the Trump
team, let alone a public call from Trump on national TV to commence the operation.
More importantly, as Twitter handle "Representative Press" pointed
out: "Trump's July 27, 2016 call to find the missing 30,000 emails could not be a 'call to hack Clinton's server' because at that
point it was no longer online . Long before Trump's statement, Clinton had already
turned
over her email server to the U.S. Department of Justice." Either the indictment was talking about different servers or it is
being intentionally misleading when it says "on or about July 27, 2016, the Conspirators attempted after hours to spearphish for
the first time email accounts at a domain hosted by a third party provider and used by Clinton's personal office."
This crucial fact alone, that Clinton had turned over the server in 2015 so that no hack was possible, makes it impossible that
Trump's TV call could be seen as collusion. Only a desperate person would see it otherwise.
But there is a simple explanation why establishment journalists are in unison in their dominant Russian narrative: it is career
suicide to question it.
As Samuel Johnson said as far back as 1745: "The greatest part of mankind have no other reason for their opinions than that they
are in fashion since vanity and credulity cooperate in its favour."
Importance of US-Russia Relations
Trump said the unproven allegation of collusion "has had a negative impact upon the relationship of the two largest nuclear powers
in the world. We have 90 percent of nuclear power between the two countries. It's ridiculous. It's ridiculous what's going on with
the probe."
The American president said the U.S. has been "foolish" not to attempt dialogue with Russia before, to cooperate on a range of
issues.
"As president, I cannot make decisions on foreign policy in a futile effort to appease partisan critics or the media or Democrats
who want to do nothing but resist and obstruct," Trump said. "Constructive dialogue between the United States and Russia forwards
the opportunity to open new pathways toward peace and stability in our world. I would rather take a political risk in pursuit of
peace than to risk peace in pursuit of politics."
This main reason for summits between Russian and American leaders was also ignored: to use diplomacy to reduce dangerous tensions.
"I really think the world wants to see us get along," Trump said. "We are the two great nuclear powers. We have 90 percent of the
nuclear. And that's not a good thing, it's a bad thing."
Preventing good relations between the two countries appears to be the heart of the matter for U.S. intelligence and their media
assets. So Trump was vilified for even trying.
Ignoring the Rest of the Story
Obsessed as they are with the "interference" story, the media virtually ignored the other crucial issues that came up at the summit,
such as the Middle East.
Trump sort of thanked Russia for its efforts to defeat ISIS. "When you look at all of the progress that's been made in certain
sections with the eradication of ISIS, about 98 percent, 99 percent there, and other things that have taken place that we have done
and that, frankly, Russia has helped us with in certain respects," he said.
Trump here is falsely taking credit, as he has before, for defeating ISIS with only some "help" from Russia. In Iraq the U.S.
led the way against ISIS coordinating the Iraqi and Kurdish security forces. But in the separate war against ISIS in Syria, Russia,
the Syrian Arab Army, Kurdish forces, Iranian troops and Hizbullah militias were almost entirely responsible for ISIS' defeat.
A grand deal? (Photo: Sputnik)
Also on Syria, Trump appeared to endorse what is being
reported as a deal between Russia and Israel in which Israel would accept Bashar al-Assad remaining as Syrian president, while
Russia would work on Iran to get it to remove its forces away from the northern Golan Heights, which Israel illegally considers its
border with Syria.
After a meeting in Moscow last week with Putin, Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said he accepted Assad remaining in power.
" President Putin also is helping Israel," Trump said at the press conference. "We both spoke with Bibi Netanyahu. They would
like to do certain things with respect to Syria, having to do with the safety of Israel. In that respect, we absolutely would like
to work in order to help Israel. Israel will be working with us. So both countries would work jointly."
Trump also said that the U.S. and Russian militaries were coordinating in Syria, but he did not go as far as saying that they
had agreed to fight together there, which has been a longstanding proposal of Putin's dating back to September 2015, just before
Moscow intervened militarily in the country.
" Our militaries have gotten along probably better than our political leaders for years," Trump said. "Our militaries do get along
very well. They do coordinate in Syria and other places."
Trump said Russia and the U.S. should cooperate in humanitarian assistance in Syria.
" If we can do something to help the people of Syria get back into some form of shelter and on a humanitarian basis that's what
the word was, a humanitarian basis," he said. "I think both of us would be very interested in doing that."
Putin said he had agreed on Sunday with French President Emmanuel Macron on a joint effort with Europe to deliver humanitarian
aid. "On our behalf, we will provide military cargo aircraft to deliver humanitarian cargo. Today, I brought up this issue with President
Trump. I think there's plenty of things to look into," Putin said.
Joe Lauria is editor-in-chief of Consortium News and a former correspondent for T he Wall Street
Journal, Boston Globe , Sunday Times of London and numerous other newspapers. He can be reached at
[email protected]and followed on Twitter @unjoe .
If you enjoyed this original article please consider
making
a donation to Consortium News so we can bring you more stories like this one.
I'm really hard pressed to come up with anything to be optimistic about given the dire nature of our current global and national
predicaments combined with the bat-sheet crazy nature of our current version of the mass psyche. About the only bright spot I
can find is that it is really encouraging to read the overall high quality of the comments here at CN, which suggest that I can
look forward to taking part in some wonderful future conversations in "the camps."
"The Reuters/Ipsos poll gathered responses from 1,011 registered voters throughout the United States, including 453 Republicans
and 399 Democrats. The poll has a credibility interval, a measure of precision, of 4 percentage points."
Independents/anaffiliated make up more than 42% of the registered voters currently in the USA.
irina , July 17, 2018 at 11:09 pm
"medium = Social / source = Twitter"
Babyl-on , July 17, 2018 at 9:35 pm
I think we should take heart that they are such a small group – loud yes, they have the corporate press, but it is not a big
group and they have already lost the narrative. This has to be the end for them, they have no political support for impeachment
after all this screeching articles can't even get introduced mostly the "resistance" isn't even trying – they know they don't
have evidence.
The scream these words TREASON and COLLUSION but they are powerless politically to do anything. So a "treasonous" president
goes on. Clearly they are at their wits end their heads have actually exploded. The powerful "liberal" cabal which has run Washington
for decades is disintegrating before there very eyes. Clinton is the witch – Trump is the water.
A , July 17, 2018 at 11:33 pm
Okay , I get it, I will go down , but I am not going down by the orange shit head. You guys win, you wanted your Cheeto to
give us some love, and tax breaks , favorable trade deals, get rid of people like me , be besties with Russia, kill everyone from
central America. Cool. You guys win. I hope you are happy , apparently you have achieved what you wanted.
Thanks, Drew and Realist, i just read Finian Cunningham's essay at Information Clearing House. Yes, this is indeed scary. It
does appear a coup is being planned. All the more reason for us to speak up. The thought of Mike Pence is scarier than Trump.
willow , July 17, 2018 at 9:30 pm
I was a Sanders supporter and donor who voted for Trump because he promised diplomacy, whereas Hillary wanted a no-fly zone
in Syria, and her proven track record of supporting illegal regime change in Iraq, Honduras, Libya, Ukraine and Syria. She was
a faux progressive and ultimate racist in that she has the blood of countless brown people (mostly women and children) on her
hands. What is really scary and disheartening is that the pro-WW3 propaganda seems to be working if the reader comments from the
NYT and WaPo are accurate gauges of public perception. The verdict of commenters in corporate media websites is unanimous: Trump
is a traitor for committing the crime of détente. Consortium news readers are informed because we search truth in alternative
media. I hope it's not naïve to believe we are the silent majority and most Americans still possess the common sense and critical
thinking skills necessary to see through the hysteria even if they don't venture to sites like Consortium news.
AnthraxSleuth , July 17, 2018 at 10:19 pm
Don't worry yourself too much. The highest rated MSM news shows only garner about 1.2 million viewers. That's far less than
1% of the American population.
The MSM fancy themselves what they have not been in decades; Relevant.
That was good, mrbt (not enough vowels for me). Yes, we are in a jalopy headed for a cliff. Instead we get a cliffhanger with
this Mueller intel fiasco. I misspoke with the bank bailout, of course, it was 2009 just after Obama got into office; he told
those banksters, "I'm the only one between you and the pitchforks". Now it seems like we're on a roller coaster ready to jump
the track!
mrtmbrnmn , July 17, 2018 at 7:33 pm
This disgraceful and obscene display of pants-wetting by the MSM over the Trump-Putin meeting and press conference was pre-planned
and essentially pre-scripted to advance the deep state regime change op against Trump (and ultimately Putin). I was trying to
imagine these journalistic malpracticers prepped to embarrass and humiliate Obama in a similar setting by asking questions like:
"Mr Obama, which do you prefer, watermelon or chicken bones?"
It is clear beyond doubt that we are helpless passengers in the back seat of the out of control jalopy that is America, barreling
helter skelter down the highway bound to hell and total collapse. The Dementedcrats need to get off the crack pipe and the unconscionable
CIA thug John Brennan might benefit from a frontal lobotomy to get him to chill out.
irina , July 17, 2018 at 8:32 pm
the best description i've read of this insanity is : 'the MSM is (p-faced) drunk on its own p . . . " with appreciation
to the commentor who wrote that !
It sounds like Lisa Page is, unlike Strzok (remember him, from late last week ?) cooperatively providing information which
might implicate China as the 'party which got the 30,000 emails'. Perhaps this is what Trump & Putin talked about ? In which case,
The Donald's walking back his press conference comments may be only a temporary feint. If true, Lisa will need excellent protection
and a new name !
Something big may be in the works, as Stephen says. Now Veterans Today says that a move on Iran by the US was discussed at
Helsinki, and they think that Putin would capitulate in some sort of trade-off -- what, to get off their backs? Putin is much
smarter than that. Zero Hedge just reports that Russia has dumped all their US Treasury bonds, further stating that Russia's close
ties to China indicate a trial run on the market preparatory to China dumping their pile, too. What many feel the big event is
really another economic meltdown, as nothing was done in the 2008 Obama crisis except bail out the banks, which went right back
to their chicanery. The western Deep State always sets up for war to divert attention from internal crisis.
Deniz , July 17, 2018 at 6:59 pm
I get far more concerned when the press, intelligence agencies and various other DC gangsters lavish praise on Trump. Judging
by their reactions, it seems likely that Trump must have actually brought us closer to peace.
Stephen J, excellent verse as usual, "Blame It On Putin". It was reported that "the lights went out" in the White House when
Trump did his U-turn on Russian election meddling. Was that supposed to be symbolic of something?
Thanks Jessika. I believe something big is in the works. The powers that be have had things their own way for so long. The
corporate media monopoly are their mouthpieces and are barking like dogs in a frenzy in case they lose their bones. The bones
being the millions dead from planned wars and blood soaked profits that attained to the corporate cannibals. Enemies are needed
to continue the corrupt system. The War Criminals are getting desperate, the gangsters war is just starting. Unfortunately we
are all Prisoners of "Democracy" https://graysinfo.blogspot.com/2017/07/the-prisoners-of-democracy.html
Antiwar7 , July 17, 2018 at 6:22 pm
David Gergen says Trump acts "against his [Trump's] own country's interests of his own institutions [including] these intelligence
agencies."
There's the rub, isn't it? The interests of our country and of those institutions: are they the same?
Susan Sunflower , July 17, 2018 at 6:59 pm
Also worth, sorry for broken record but, using Trump's unique "awfulness" as justification for vigilante-style "trial in the
press" or manipulated/propagandized "public opinion" there's a deep deep antidemocratic anti-due process or rule-of-law desperation
here which has had "liberal" (or "illiberal") precedent we've already seen in "political correctness" and #metoo (emanating from
the "progressive camp" often justified by the awfulness / despicable-ness of those they despise.
This is a very very sad devolution (or arguably the unmasking) of the Democratic Party (I vote the latter).
mike k , July 17, 2018 at 6:13 pm
Trump mumbled some sort of half maybe apology about questioning Russian meddling. But he will contradict that apology just
as quickly. They are really having trouble pinning this guy down on anything. His enemies want to nail him, but he just keeps
moving. For a fat guy, he is pretty nimble.
Now, Trump says he misspoke and "accepts US intel on Russian election meddling"! I guess he got anothet 'trip to the woodshed',
as Skip Scott has often said. James Howard Kunstler is right, it's a "Clusterfuck Nation". Well, the Russians are smart enough
never to trust the US.
irina , July 17, 2018 at 9:49 pm
He got the truth out first and for that I have to give him kudos.
He probably knew backtracking and its attendant issues was
Inevitable. Very nice that power went out while he said he misspoke.
as WaPo itself says, "Truth Dies in Darkness".
Drew Hunkins , July 17, 2018 at 5:18 pm
Look, this is getting frightening.
Never in my lifetime have I witnessed a group think/mob mentality like what's occurring over Russiagate and the overriding
Russophobia fueling it all. This is washing over virtually all planks of the political spectrum. We just had a damaged and awful
president try to do one of the very few things he actually gets right: make rapprochement with Moscow; he was subsequently browbeaten,
smeared and viciously attacked by every single mainstream Western media outlet on the planet. Not just news media, but also the
entertainment media are completely on board -- Kimmel, Fallon, Colbert, Maddow, etc.
To say one kind word about Putin or the modicum of detente that Trump just unsuccessfully tried to pull off is to be mocked,
ridiculed, scoffed at and laughed at by liberal leaning friends, colleagues and acquaintances.
The militarist-corporate propaganda during the run-up to the 2003 Iraq War pales in comparison to this new and scary McCarthyism
that has permeated everything.
I'm 47 y.o. and never experienced anything like this.
The liberal intelligentsia who are falling for this and propagating this have some of the hottest places in heII waiting for
them.
Deniz , July 17, 2018 at 5:31 pm
If you think the overwhelming majority of the US cares about what the press and politicians think, then I would suggest you
spend less time with Democrats. I dont agree with many Republican platforms, but on the reliability of media, they are far more
prescient than the Democrats. I wonder if it is because they have more first-hand knowledge than the Democrats because they tend
to send their kids to the meat grinder oil, wars more frequently than Democrats.
Drew Hunkins , July 17, 2018 at 5:40 pm
The best thing we have going right now Deniz is the cynical and skeptical attitude of much the hardworking American population.
The Russians certainly aren't the ones who foisted this unconscionable inequality on the U.S. population, nor was it the Russians
who caused the American heartland to deteriorate into a wasteland of service sector employment and Oxy dependence. It wasn't Putin
who mired recent American college grads in deplorable debt in the range of $30,000 to $400,000, nor was it Putin who demanded
that millions of Americans go without adequate healthcare coverage.
It's economic inequality and it's political enablers who are stalking the towns and cities of America, not the Russian military.
John P , July 17, 2018 at 6:37 pm
That is the real problem, so why arn't kids, their parents and the poor out on the streets like those of my generation during
the Vietnam war stiring things up. Is it social media which kills the urge to go out and protest and make yourself heard? Get
the money and business influence out of modern day politics, Raise hell !
irina , July 17, 2018 at 8:15 pm
There was a DRAFT during the Vietnam war. That made a huge difference.
And, I think we were actually better informed than today's young people.
Bringing the war live into people's living rooms was New Thing back then,
and we paid attention. Now, we are habituated and just tune out bad news,
unless it happens to be a domestic shooting spree or other home turf stuff.
willow , July 17, 2018 at 9:36 pm
Irina below is right. The draft was the difference. People would wake up and engage if we had the draft. We have an economic
draft today. It's the only option for poor and lower class kids who will never afford college. It's unfortunate that identity
politics doesn't include the socioeconomic bias of targeting of poor kids being used as cannon fodder
irina , July 17, 2018 at 11:12 pm
And moreover, the draft was based on a birthdate lottery.
All in the luck of the draw. (And of course, economic standing
since there were college deferments, etc. etc.)
Realist , July 17, 2018 at 5:49 pm
I'm 71, Drew, and can tell you that the darkest days of the Vietnam War were not as scary. Our power structure has taken McCarthyism
as practiced during the Korean Conflict and doubled down on it, directing its kinetics at the office of the presidency. This is
as close to a civil war or an actual coup d'etat that I have ever seen, much more divisive and explosive than Nixon and Watergate.
Someone claiming authority they do not have may soon make a move against Trump. They've stirred up enough hate by the mob to mask
their motives.
Drew Hunkins , July 17, 2018 at 6:02 pm
Thanks for kicking some historical info to this Gen Xer. You make some very interesting (and quite scary) points.
Over at 'Information Clearing House' the always excellent Finian Cunningham has just penned a dynamite and trenchant essay
on a possible pending coup against Trump.
Realist , July 17, 2018 at 6:32 pm
Thanks. I always read your spot-on posts at the ICH website, Drew.
Drew Hunkins , July 17, 2018 at 8:36 pm
Thanks Realist.
In solidarity,
Drew Hunkins
Madison, WI
Dave P. , July 17, 2018 at 7:13 pm
Yes. This excellent article by Finian Cunningham really nails it.
Monoloco , July 17, 2018 at 6:49 pm
Trump derangement syndrome is so powerful, it turns liberals into neocons.
KiwiAntz , July 17, 2018 at 7:27 pm
Drew your absolutely correct, this is a unprecedented groupthink & dangerous propaganda on a scale that's never existed before!
It's mass hysteria on steroids! And all because of the simple fact that Trump, a man who was never supposed to win the Election
over the anointed candidate, crooked Hillary Clinton occurred! Trump must be removed by a slow motion coup by any means possible?
Whether it's by undermining his authority or belittering his character. If that doesn't work they will take the JFK removal method?
As Stalin stated, death is the solution to all problems, no man, no problem? It's frightening where all this fake Russiagate nonsense
is going to lead us, it's almost as if they want to start the next great extinction event by starting WW3 & a Nuclear War with
Russia? The arrogance of America & its Deepstate, Propagandist MSM & political system is going to be the death of us all!
I don't know that to say. Whatever was left of the republic is either gone or doomed. If we have a mainstream media that is
so nakedly attempting a coup d'état or calling for one with such universal fury based on little evidence and just embroidering
one myth over another then I will have to just focus my energy elsewhere. My comrades on most of the left have, despite decades
of proof that the media is deeply dishonest and constantly howling for one war after another the only hope is to batten down the
hatches and just survive the next decade through local efforts. The sad part is I oppose many of Trump's policies but this isn't
about policies–this is about re-invigorating American militarism and imperialism.
I've been around a lot of crises but nothing like this madness.
As usual the "media impostors" and propaganda pushers blame Putin.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -
January 10, 2017
"Blame It" On Putin
There is endless wars and devastation around the world
Western war criminals have their war banners unfurled
Millions dead and many millions uprooted
And the financial system is corrupted and looted
"Blame it" on Putin
The war criminals are free and spreading bloody terror
And their dirty propaganda says Putin is an "aggressor"
These evil plotters of death and destruction
Should be in jail for their abominable actions
But, "Blame it" on Putin.
The American election is won by Donald Trump
Hillary Clinton loses and gets politically dumped
The media is frenzied and foaming at their mouths
They are crying and lying, these corporate louts
They "Blame it" on Putin
Hollywood, too, is getting in on the act
The B.S. merchants are able to twist facts
In their fantasy world of channel changers
They do not approve of a political stranger
They "Blame it" on Putin
The spymasters and their grovelling politicians
All agree that "their democracy" is "lost in transmission"
Their comfortable and controlled system is now in danger
And these powerful parasites are filled with anger
They "Blame it" on Putin
One loose canon talks and babbles of "an act of war"
Could nuclear hell be started by a warmongering whore?
If the madmen of the establishment get their way
Could we all be liquidated in the nuclear fray?
"Blame it" on Putin
There is no doubt that the ruling class
Are all worried about saving their ass
Could there be huge changes and still more coming?
Is the sick and depraved society finally crumbling?
Hey, "Blame it" on Putin
[more info at link below] http://graysinfo.blogspot.com/2017/01/blame-it-on-putin.html
Susan Sunflower , July 17, 2018 at 3:46 pm
This just in: (NYT headline / top of page)
Trump Backtracks on Russian Meddling
Under Fire, He Says He Accepts U.S. Intelligence Reports
Susan Sunflower , July 17, 2018 at 4:03 pm
and then
Guardian:
Trump flips – then flips again – a day after downplaying Russian interference
President says he supports US intelligence consensus on 2016 election – but then says 'it could be other people also'
I heard him say that. He meant that Russia did it and others could also have been involved.
Will , July 17, 2018 at 3:30 pm
Perhaps New York magazine has it right? "The president isn't a traitor: He's just constitutionally incapable of processing
simple information, or prioritizing the national interest above his own egoistic desires." or more maybe New York's earlier article
from last week suggesting Trumpkin has been a Russian intelligence asset since 1987 is true.
One thing's for sure: Trumpkin borrowed 100's of millions from shady Russian bankers and other oligarchs, some of whom seem
to have laundered a bunch of money through Trump's real estate holdings by buying condos for dollars on the penny. If you foliks
don't see that as being at least somewhat on the same level as Dick Cheney holding those un-exercised Halliburton stock options
at the time Haliburton was servicing the Iraq invasion
michael , July 17, 2018 at 7:06 pm
Or Hillary exchanging access to the State department for donations
Gregory Herr , July 17, 2018 at 7:40 pm
"Cheney has pursued a political and corporate career to make himself very rich and powerful. He is the personification of a
war profiteer who slid through the revolving door connecting the public and private sectors of the defense establishment on two
occasions in a career that has served his relentless quest for power and profits."
Profiting from the death and destruction of a heinous war of aggression that Cheney himself played a key role in instigating
can in no way be compared with shady business dealings. I harbour disdain for shady businessmen who cheat property owners, honest
contractors or workers. But that type of wrongdoing pales in comparison to the wicked malfeasance of Cheney (or the Bush family
for that matter).
Before you "process" any more simple "information" from New York magazine Will, I suggest you take note of the GIGO truism
and check yourself for leakage.
It seems President Lenin Moreno of Ecuador might have the perfect solution for his "problem" in London.
Free Julian Assange, Allow him to walk out of the Ecuadorian Embassy with all the proper rights available for any innocent
man or woman on Earth.
Immediately upon Mr. Assange's exit, allow William (Bill) Browder to enter and occupy the same room at the Ecuadorian Embassy
– whereupon Mr. Browder will reside at that address until July 2024, punished under the identical treatment and conditions as
Julian Assange.
"Problem solved" – President Moreno!
David Otness , July 17, 2018 at 2:50 pm
Not much to say but the USA has gone bat-shit cray-cray.
I'm going to be delighted to be excised from many so-called "friends" – friends of mob mentality.
The US media and Intel complex have induced a national psychosis and a likely Constitutional crisis.
Keep yer powder dry.
Susan Sunflower , July 17, 2018 at 3:04 pm
I'd guess half the country considers this -- in the end -- just more partisan theatrics sad to suspect that they actually are
the "sane ones" It's ennui versus cynicism as to which is more deadly .
KiwiAntz , July 17, 2018 at 7:47 pm
The scary thing is, Americans second amendment right to bear arms against enemies both domestic & foreign! There's a Edward
Abbey saying that a days "a Patriot must always be ready to defend his Country against his Govt"! How long will it be before American
citizens reach a tipping point where they recognise that it's enemies are its own domestic leaders & institutions such as the
false corporate propagandist MSM & corrupt Politicians in both Republican & Democratic Parties who are undermining & sabotaging
their human rights as free people! How long will it be before they say enough's enough we can't stomach this anymore?
Larry Gates , July 17, 2018 at 2:37 pm
In the Odyssey a witch-goddess named Circe turned Odysseus' men into pigs. I think Trump is a modern day sorcerer. In the GOP
primaries he turned his more intelligent and more experienced competitors into incoherent cartoon characters. He has done the
same to the entire Democratic establishment, and he has done it to the entire mainstream press. There is no effective opposition
because politicians and the media have become stark-raving mad – wild swine, just as dangerous as the monster they oppose. We
are in America's darkest hour and only half the blame goes to the vulgarian in the White House.
The Ministry of Truth has declared that seeking détente with Russia is an act of treason. And peace is war. Long live Oceania!
jsinton , July 17, 2018 at 6:14 pm
I love it.
BobS , July 17, 2018 at 2:37 pm
The POTUS stood on foreign soil and announced to the world that the leader of one of our historical adversaries was more credible
than the US intelligence services.
If it walks like a traitorous duck, and quacks like a traitorous duck, ..
anon , July 17, 2018 at 4:25 pm
Then it is a traitorous troll.
Gregory Herr , July 17, 2018 at 7:47 pm
That's rich! Do please grace us with an explanation as to why "credible" is an adjective aptly applied to either the FBI or
the CIA.
Dario Zuddu , July 17, 2018 at 2:33 pm
Excellent piece. Fortunately, there is still someone here retaining sanity.
The only thing I have to add is that, most regrettably, it is not only the media and opportunistic politicians that have lost
their minds on this matter.
Large segments of the public appear to have too.
Just take a look at the readers' comments on the very same type of press coverage that is indicted by Mr. Lauria.
They overwhelmingly level the same one sided, unbalanced, shallow, wrong-headed and hysterical attacks on Trump as the press articles
they comment – and for the same completely questionable reasons.
Accusations of Trump "surrendering to Putin", being a "traitor" for siding with Russia instead of the US intelligence community
(on a totally unproven matter, by the way; and since when the US intelligence community is necessarily more reliable than foreign
leaders on these matters?) are the norm in the readers' comment (as well as in the mostly recommended ones).
Incredibly, the same public that lambasted at the intelligence community for its appalling record on Iraq, now does not even want
to consider that same community's obvious self interest in Russia-bashing.
In the USA, who stands the most to loose from a possible pacification of foreign relations with the biggest military counterpart,
i.e., well, Russia?
This question just rings as troubling now as it did at the onset of the cold war.
Yet, nobody seems to wonder it.
It's just over for those of us on the old left. The Orwellian nature of the media has taken hold and we are powerless against
it. We have a population utterly uncurious of facts or history, logic or science, rationality or erudition. It's over. People
want to belong, want to share their anger at whatever enemy there is no matter how ludicrous is that threat from the enemy. This
is how the oligarch has decided to use Trump's election–first to divide us on tribal grounds and second to invent some enemy that
uses all the mythology of Hollywood villains with Russian accents. It's working and it means the oligarchs are unassailable and
now are able to control public opinion with a bunch of gestures on the screen and the population will bark on command. Goebbels
is, somewhere, cackling with delight.
We will be lucky if we avoid war, fortunately the professional military understands the situation much better than the civilian
leaders and have put brakes on our drift into permanent major war everywhere.
Paula Densnow , July 17, 2018 at 2:19 pm
The US media tries to browbeat Trump into saying that he stole the 2016 election with the help of Putin, and when he refuses
to do that, they call him a traitor.
We live in an insane asylum.
Will , July 17, 2018 at 3:31 pm
No, trump is clearly a traitor.
Beard681 , July 17, 2018 at 9:07 pm
To who? The military industrial complex? Bill Browder who renounced his citizenship to avoid Taxes? Certainly not average US
people for whom Russia poses no credible threat.
Robin Harper , July 17, 2018 at 10:31 pm
Gee, if this is all made up, explain this: (And keep in mind, to get an indictment, you MUST have proof.)
The full list of known indictments and plea deals in Mueller's probe:
Total of indictments (so far) – 35.
1) George Papadopoulos, former Trump campaign foreign policy adviser, pleaded guilty in October to making false statements
to the FBI.
2) Michael Flynn, Trump's former national security adviser, pleaded guilty in December to making false statements to the FBI.
3) Paul Manafort, Trump's former campaign chair, was indicted in October in Washington, DC on charges of conspiracy, money
laundering, and false statements -- all related to his work for Ukrainian politicians before he joined the Trump campaign. He's
pleaded not guilty on all counts. Then, in February, Mueller filed a new case against him in Virginia, with tax, financial, and
bank fraud charges.
4) Rick Gates, a former Trump campaign aide and Manafort's longtime junior business partner, was indicted on similar charges
to Manafort. But in February he agreed to a plea deal with Mueller's team, pleading guilty to just one false statements charge
and one conspiracy charge.
5-20) 13 Russian nationals and three Russian companies were indicted on conspiracy charges, with some also being accused of
identity theft. The charges related to a Russian propaganda effort designed to interfere with the 2016 campaign. The companies
involved are the Internet Research Agency, often described as a "Russian troll farm," and two other companies that helped finance
it. The Russian nationals indicted include 12 of the agency's employees and its alleged financier, Yevgeny Prigozhin.
21) Richard Pinedo: This California man pleaded guilty to an identity theft charge in connection with the Russian indictments,
and has agreed to cooperate with Mueller.
22) Alex van der Zwaan: This London lawyer pleaded guilty to making false statements to the FBI about his contacts with Rick
Gates and another unnamed person based in Ukraine.
23) Konstantin Kilimnik: This longtime business associate of Manafort and Gates, who's currently based in Russia, was charged
alongside Manafort with attempting to obstruct justice by tampering with witnesses in Manafort's pending case this year.
24-35) 12 Russian GRU officers: These officers of Russia's military intelligence service were charged with crimes related to
the hacking and leaking of leading Democrats' emails in 2016.
Two ex-Trump advisers lied to the FBI about their contacts with Russians:
Michael Flynn Mario Tama/Getty
No, Trump didn't 'steal' the election. The presidency was handed to him – by Putin.
skipNclair , July 17, 2018 at 2:01 pm
The US media lost its mind long ago.
didi , July 17, 2018 at 1:46 pm
What has happened on this trip of President Trump is simple. The axis Washington-EU/NATO has been thrown under the bus., It
has been replaced by the axis Washington-Moscow. Whether that is a cause to rejoice remains to be seen. Rejoicing now is wildly
premature. Axes can break.
There will be expectations of better lives by the Russian people. What if that does not happen? There have been far more uprisings
and revolutions in Russian history than in ours.
lizzie dw , July 17, 2018 at 1:34 pm
To respond to one commenter's suggestion that the US get rid of the electoral college; if one looked at the map of the US on
post-election morning, one saw that practically the entire country was coloured red – only the coasts were blue. If we went the
"popular vote" route, every president would be elected by the coastal states because that is where most of the people live. The
coastal population does not represent the country. In my opinion, since we want to have a representative government we need the
electoral college so that each state gets to vote. The people in each state can direct the vote of their state.
didi , July 17, 2018 at 1:51 pm
Sorry Lizzie. The population of all states represent our nation. That is why the vote count, while it does not elect the President
and Vice President, is not wholly without meaning. Governing totally against the views of the majority of voters implies that
they are wrong and stupid. That is my view. It is also arrogant.
strngr-tgthr , July 17, 2018 at 2:32 pm
Thanks you! The MAJORITY should ALWAYS rule. There should be no acceptions especially for President of the United States. Too
few people speak this TRUTH! In this day an age there is no reason to have any system or institutions in place that does not speak
for the MAJORITY! Electoral College down!
Susan Sunflower , July 17, 2018 at 2:52 pm
Never heard of the "tyranny of the majority", eh? It's a genuine problem with democracy it's quite possible that many issues
would never have reached majority status -- slavery would never have been abolished (so much fuss about a regional "peculiar institutution"),
""The notion of the tyranny of the majority was popularised by the 19th century political thinkers Alexis de Tocqueville (Democracy
in America) and John Stuart Mill (On Liberty). It refers to a situation in which the majority enforces its will on a disadvantaged
minority through the democratic process.""
The vote of far too many would be rendered irrelevant if there were no proportional representation mechanism in place too much
of those disenfranchised by the elimination of the electoral college are already amongst the have-nots of our country, at the
further hungry end of income inequality (some do better than other by providing "services" -- vacation homes/destinations and
cheap labor -- to the oligarchs. -- those coasts are where the money and jobs are wealth
The electoral college DOES NOT prevent the "tyranny of the majority" because you do not have equal voting. If every state cast
the same number of votes then you have equal voting. Because each state has different number of electoral votes based on their
populations, candidates can spend their time in a few states while ignoring others.
A national popular vote restores equality
A national popular vote means 3rd party candidates can win because there is no more electoral strategy or asinine argument
of red state / blue state.
Realist , July 17, 2018 at 5:12 pm
We've never had such a system, wise guy. The Senate is inherently undemocratic, based on states' rights, not one man one vote.
Moreover, judges are not elected but appointed by the executive and confirmed by the legislature. Having the president chosen
by the Congress, as is done in all parliamentary systems, would be "tidier" ("fairer?") than the present system, but we've lived
with this mess since 1789 and several times have been governed by a "minority president" without the world coming to an end. The
rules were no excuse for a coup d'etat then, nor are they now.
michael , July 17, 2018 at 7:22 pm
The Constitution allows Amendments to change with changing times. The vote has been given to free men without property, freed
slaves and women. More than 10% of Presidents did not win the plurality of votes. If people truly want their votes to count more,
they can work to amend the Constitution, or vote with their feet and move to states where their votes count more.
A much bigger issue is the lack of proportional voting practiced by most real Democracies around the world. Gerrymandering districts
can result in the party getting the least votes (of the two) in a state still winning the most representatives. Proportional voting
would eliminate this problem, but was outlawed by LBJ in favor of first-past-the-post, winner takes all Districts.
Sorry, Didi, but our federal constitutional republican form of government is neither stupid nor arrogant.
It is a well designed construct that binds together the entire nation, not only the people but the states, into an organic
being. The electoral college consciously factors in the fact that we are a union of states, not only a union of "demos" (people).
That is why the "New Jersey plan" at the Federal Convention was a high point in your high school civics class. The states are
intended to mean something in our federal republican form of government.
Indeed, for those who view the massive growth of our federal government into an imperial hegemon over the past century or so,
it is no small coincidence that the balance constructed by the founders was tipped in favor of Washington, and BIG MONEY, by the
passage of the 17th Amendment in 1912. That amemdment (for the popular election of Senators instead of their being appointed by
state legislatures as written in the constitution) inexorably led to the growth of our imperial state; immediately thereafter
came the passage of the Federal Reserve Act, enactment of a the personal income tax to replace import tariff's to fund the federal
government, our engagement in WW 1, and increasing alliance with the British Empire that lasts today in our "special relationship",
the NATO alliance, and the Anglo American hegemon.
It is also no coincidence that the root source of "Russia-gate" and "Trump Derangement Syndrome" is a sustained effort by British
Intelligence, in cahoots with US deep state intelligence that works not for the people of the US but for the Anglo-American empire
of western capital centered on Wall Street and the medieval City of London. That is why the "golden shower dossier" was written
by a British intelligence officer (Steele), that the basis for the deep state rat Strzok to spy on Trump was an Australian "diplomat"
(read spy) Downer, friend of the globalist Clintons, and US deep state intelligence operatives attempted entrapment of Trump campaign
supporters (such as by Stefan Halper, an Mi-6 and CIA asset).
The entire attack to undermine the results of the Electoral College triumph of Donald Trump is directed by Anglo-American deep
intelligence assets, working for the globalist western capitalist cabal, that cannot permit a mere president to alter their globalist
plans; ergo, deep state rats Brennan and 10 hand picked analysts come up with "Russian collusion", unleasigh Mueller (protector
of the Whitey Bulger Winter Hill Gang), Strzok, Rosenstein, etc. to to find a basis to neuter, if not impeach, the constitutionally
elected President.
Indeed, Pres. Washington foresaw such an eventuality of foreign influence tainting our Republic; see his Farewell Address at
Paragraphs 32-39. Indeed, his prescience amazing; read these warnings:
"So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite
nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing
into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without
adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which
is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained,
and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And
it
gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or
sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of
a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or
foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.
As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened
and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of
seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils. Such an attachment of a small or weak towards
a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.
Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people
ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of
republican government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence
to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another
cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on
the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its
tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests."
Indeed, if any nation can be found to be interfering in our domestic politics and seeking to influence the actions of the President,
or more precisely to have him removed from power, it's not Russia, its the United Kingdom.
Susan Sunflower , July 17, 2018 at 3:59 pm
Interesting, thank you. I will read up on the 17th. I've blamed the "federalization" of politics for a lot of the apparent
decline in citizen interest in Democracy as state and local influence "on people's lives" seemed to have been ceded over to the
fed not entirely a bad thing (when it comes to civil rights, equal opportunity and federal funding for stuff states could never
afford) still, I think something encouraged a complacent electorate even if the educational values of unions (voting for your
interests rather than against) signifies.
backwardsevolution , July 17, 2018 at 4:31 pm
Jim in NH – brilliant post! Thank you. Everybody should read it.
Fred , July 17, 2018 at 10:08 pm
If three million more voted for Hillary than Trump, then majority of voters are wrong and stupid. Good thing the Electoral
College saved us from ourselves.
" one saw that practically the entire country was coloured red – only the coasts were blue."
Right, "only the coasts". The ones where nearly 50% of the US population live.
irina , July 17, 2018 at 8:09 pm
And that 50% mostly live in big cities which would not survive long
without the rural areas which provide the resources to support them.
Fred , July 17, 2018 at 10:09 pm
They actually think food comes from the supermarket Irina.
irina , July 17, 2018 at 11:17 pm
And you buy it with EBT (Electronic Benefit Transfer) cards.
JoeD , July 17, 2018 at 3:06 pm
The coasts were not blue. Clinton got the west coast. Trump won most of the east: FL, GA, SC, NC and they split Maine. Trump
won 30 out of 50 states. There were also less people who voted in 2016 than did in 2012 and in 2008.
So it does not follow Clinton would win if there was a National Popular vote.
Our electoral system(s) have very serious problems voter access (and apathy) and gerrymandering probably top the list, but
that "neoliberal income inequality" appears to color/overlay everything
Bob Van Noy , July 17, 2018 at 1:33 pm
Great article and commentary CN, many thanks. There is an excellent comment by Craig Murray at his site and one should not
miss the commentary there either
Liberals should be ashamed of themselves. They voted a Russian bribery hag Hillary and now go far-right John Birch in drumming
up war with Russia -- just because Trump hurt their feelings by beating Hillary. Sad!
I was impressed on the eve of 2016 election how ineffective Clinton's constant beating on Obama's drum wrt to Russia-Russia-Russia
had been I don't remember the polls but the numbers for "major concern" iirc were low, around maybe 12% (after months and months)
I think the media is drunk on their own piss . I remember feeling frustrated when Gore (who had a better case for "stolen electoin"
imho) walked away my suspicion is that on completion of the Mueller inquiry this is going backfire badly . even if Manafort gets
decades in prison for money laundering
Anon , July 17, 2018 at 12:22 pm
Debate: Is Trump-Putin Summit a "Danger to America" or Crucial Diplomacy Between Nuclear Powers?
Glenn Greenwald and another thoughtful dude, Joe Cirincione. All substance and strong disagreements without shouting or personal
attacks.
Greenwald:
I also think that that last point that Joe made is actually an important one, and it does put people like me into a difficult
position, which is, you know, on the one hand, of course I don't think that Donald Trump is well intentioned and is going to have
the diplomatic skill to negotiate complicated new agreements of trade and of arms control with very sophisticated regimes like
the one in North Korea, or at least complicated regimes in North Korea, or in Russia. On the other hand, as we've been discussing,
unfortunately, he's the only game in town. There is nobody else who's saying that we ought to question NATO. Democrats, when you
say we ought to question NATO, act like you've committed blasphemy. There is nobody else talking about tariffs and the unfairness
of free trade agreements, except for a couple of fringe people within the Democratic Party. Just like this week, when he said
that the European Union was a foe, what he said was something that for a long time on the left was really kind of just uncontroversial
orthodoxy, which is that of course the European Union is an economic competitor of the U.S., and a lot of what their trade practices
are do harm the American worker. We put up barriers against Chinese products entering the U.S., and yet the EU buys them and then
sells them into the U.S., indirectly helping China circumvent those barriers in a way that directly harms U.S. workers. This is
something that people like Robert Reich and Sherrod Brown and Bernie Sanders have been talking about for a long time. So it does
make it very difficult when the only person who's raising these kinds of issues and talking about these things-we need to get
along better with Russia and China, we need to reform these old, archaic, destructive institutions-is a megalomaniac, somebody
who's completely devoid of any positive human virtue, which is Donald Trump. So it puts you in the position of kind of trying
to agree with him, while knowing that he's really not going to be able to do anything about those in a positive way.
On the other hand, I don't feel comfortable being aligned with people like Bill Kristol and David Frum and all of those Bush-era
hawks who are now the best friends of MSNBC and the Democratic Party, either, because they're not well intentioned, either. And
so, what I try and do is use Donald Trump and the kind of shifting alliances, that we started off by talking about, to open up
a lot of the debates, that will remain closed if you only look at U.S. politics through the prism of the 2016 election and Republicans
versus Democrats. And I think the most important point is the one that, as I said, Joe made just this week, which is that until
the Democratic Party figures out-and this is true not just of Democrats but of center-left parties all throughout Europe and here
in Brazil-until they figure out how again to reconnect, not with the highly educated class and the rich and the metropolitan enclaves,
but with the working class of these countries, that feel trampled on and ignored, and for that reason are turning to demagogues,
we're going to have more Donald Trumps and worse Donald Trumps, not just in the United States, but throughout the world. And that
is, for me, the greatest problem that we face politically
This is the best article I've read on the topic, hands down.
Realist , July 17, 2018 at 11:38 am
No question about that, TIEDE, but considering the pitifully low standards applied to what emanates from the wreckage of the
American mass media, Mr. Lauria really didn't have much competition to beat. Of course, no matter how deserved, he will not be
winning any Pulitzers, since mediocre groupthink, especially of the warmongering variety, is the new standard of excellence in
American letters.
Susan Sunflower , July 17, 2018 at 12:45 pm
As others have noted, it "treason" isn't impeachable, what is? If not now, when?
Should we go off and invade Somalia in retaliation? The anti-Trump/Democrats are undermining their own credibility -- not to
mention the press, whose credibility might reach nosedive if they still had much of an audience .
More ridiculous than GWB after 09/11 . which reminds me that Trump keeps reminding me of want-to-share-a-beer-with GWB but
stupider and with less "fund of knowledge"
Realist , July 17, 2018 at 5:26 pm
And how are these "others" defining "treason?" Whatever they say it is, and without any evidence that it genuinely occurred?
This is not a case of treason, it is a case of attempted mob rule, like the Reign of Terror during the French Revolution. The
vile media acts as the bull horn of the seditionists, they show some insurrectionists making a hullabaloo on your television screen,
and the coup plotters point and say, "see, it's treason, off with his head!" Meanwhile, your government has been stolen yet again
because some insiders didn't like the results.
michael , July 17, 2018 at 7:42 pm
To have treason you must have a declared war and a declared enemy. If you look at the list of people convicted of treason in
the US, there are what, a dozen?
The President has broad powers of foreign policy (and immigration) which may be a bad thing, but I applaud Trump's peace overtures
to North Korea and Russia as well as Obama's (reviled by many of the same warmongers) deal with Iran. Unfortunately all these
deals are President-specific and undercut by un-elected Intelligence agencies with agendas of their own, and politicians taking
money from the MIC and foreign lobbyists with war profiteering agendas. No one can believe a President no matter how well meaning
and sincere. Clinton abrogated Reagan's deal with Gorbachev, almost destroying Russia, as did Obama reneging on the deal with
Gaddafi, destroying Libya. Clearly the best option is to build up a cache of nuclear arms and to use them if necessary to protect
sovereignty.
gailstorm , July 17, 2018 at 10:53 am
At least Cooper used a small window – there haven't been many U.S. Russia summits – but Fallows? Uh, 9/11 and the Saudis anyone?
More evidence there than Russian collusion and three Presidents – including Trump – have given that a pass.
Treason-schmeason, Dave! You don't seem to know much about the real history of the US government, only the manufactured one
of the powers in charge. Pick up a copy of Oliver Stone and Peter Kuznick's book "The Untold History of the United States".
As for the vaunted democracy these talking bobbleheads and puppet politicians go on about, we don't hear them speaking about
lobbying, do we, or Citizens United or McCutcheon vs Buckley decisions of the Supreme Court? It's not even the Electoral College
that skews the vote and takes democracy out of the citizens' decisions -- it's lobbying, which is legalized fraud and bribery.
No, they go on and on about Russia, Russia, Russia, all to make sure folks look somewhere else while they continue the hijacking.
Dave , July 17, 2018 at 10:35 am
What is amazing is how you and so many GOP are actually defending Russia! This was treason!
Deniz , July 17, 2018 at 10:53 am
What is amazing is the extent that the Democrats are lied to, and the extent that they believe those lies. I am awestruck by
the complete and utter brainwashing of a democratic, educated country by the CIA. Getting Republicans, who are inclined to think
negatively of foreigners is one thing, but Liberal Democrats, who profess to believe in education and equality becoming the brown
shirts, it never occurred to me that was possible.
By the way, i am speaking as a former Democrat, Obama voter.
gailstorm , July 17, 2018 at 10:58 am
Yes, it is quite frightening. I think Trump is dangerously inept but reading the intelligence report on Russia released Jan.,
2017 was the most frightened I have ever been as an American. It provided no evidence (apparently keeping things top secret is
more important than alleged election tampering which should give cause to thought right there) and instead laid out a game plan
for attacking dissenters of U.S. foreign policy.
Realist , July 17, 2018 at 11:18 am
Maybe it's just wishful thinking, because I am one too, but it seems the country must be full of former Democrats (and thoroughly
disillusioned Obama voters), or at least we should be if we want to survive over the long term. Hillary was just another pack
of lies (and threatened violence) too far, which is why she lost. Had NOTHING to do with Russians hacking elections, influencing
the vote or stealing our democracy. That is simply the revisionist bullshit in the aftermath of her self-inflicted debacle, as
she persists in dragging down the party, the country and maybe the world out of self-centered petulance.
Realist , July 17, 2018 at 11:24 am
Unless you are trying to be sarcastic, Dave, you added an extraneous letter to the word you should really want. What Mr. Lauria
has written here is pure "reason," not "treason." Go back and consider all the relevant issues again, this time accurately.
Daniel , July 17, 2018 at 1:12 pm
I guess Dave forgot that our intelligence agencies have lied us into war in the past.
Realist , July 17, 2018 at 5:29 pm
And YOU are prosecuting Russia on what EVIDENCE? None! That is madness and the ticket to war. You are just the sort of pawn
to make Goebbels tremble with delight, Dave.
Samuel , July 18, 2018 at 12:34 am
I am not American but like so many out there, am concerned by what is going on in your once beautiful country. It amazes to
realize that people have chosen to bury truth and reason for hatred's sake. How can one hope to build a secure, prosperous democracy
based on a fraudulent lie? If one can pick a leaf from the Iraqi war it is that one should never believe unquestioningly everything
that comes from the intelligence community. That deception resulted in perhaps millions dead. This time round it might result
in billions dead including Americans. Is that what people like Dave want? Could this be a secret conspiracy to bring destruction
to the entire universe? To what ends?
David G , July 17, 2018 at 10:00 am
Trump's actual treason:
-- turning environmental policy over to the biggest polluters
-- turning financial regulation over to parasitic elites
-- turning education policy over to anti-public, pro-charter grifters
-- turning the FCC over to the big telecoms
-- turning the Iran-nuke deal over to Netanyahu
What gets Trump called a traitor by the Beltway blob:
-- wanting to talk with Russia, and holding a Soviet/Russia summit just like every president since FDR
Wotta country!
Karen , July 17, 2018 at 11:06 am
Exactly!
BrianS , July 17, 2018 at 7:54 pm
Don't relish the me too, or "same here" moniker, but: Exactly!
mike k , July 17, 2018 at 9:39 am
The enemies of Peace, having failed to prevent the Putin/Trump summit, are now busy saying that it was a disaster, and that
it was meaningless – two seemingly discordant observations. The real religion of America is WAR. Anything that smacks of peace
is Heresy!
David G , July 17, 2018 at 10:08 am
"The stories of how North Korea is now violating an imaginary pledge by Kim to Trump in Singapore are even more outrageous,
because big media had previously peddled the opposite line: that Kim at the Singapore Summit made no firm commitment to give up
his nuclear weapons and that the 'agreement' in Singapore was the weakest of any thus far."
Yeah. The lunatics would have the world believe that Trump was a cowardly traitor because he didn't i) berate President Putin
to his face for rigging the election in his favor (as did the impertinent network goon Chris Wallace whom Putin totally pwned,
though absolutely unbeknownst to the American jingoist corp) and ii) summarily declare war on the Russian Federation to cap everyone's
day of fun and games. Insults and war seem to be what the imbeciles so passionately want. I wish I could give them their suicidal
war that didn't involve me, my relatives, friends and other innocent bystanders, but that's not how it works and they will eagerly
take us all down if given the chance. We are seeing war fever sweep across a crazed nation led astray by the worst demagogues
to come down the pike since the "Greatest Generation" got an invite from Uncle Sam to Hitler's big dance. Everybody is a flag
waving blood-lusting maniac, from the corporate boardrooms, to the residue of what is left skulking around the fake newsrooms,
to the cocky stand-up comedians now inhabiting every late night channel spewing trash and attitude without having the first clue.
Must be as invigorating as sucking in the cordite-perfumed air of Berlin circa 1939. The pity is that this time the glorious experience
will be so short once the rockets are launched. Almost seems a waste to squander the experience on a bunch of lame brains who
probably assume they can get their ticket price back if they don't fully enjoy the show.
Realist, As always, your comments are stunningly accurate, and have literary flavor as well. It is really getting there as
you have described.
As Gore Vidal wrote long ago, this brainwashing started long time ago during the nineteenth century when they started inoculating
the innocent American population against socialism and all that, the ideas which were sweeping across Europe in that century.
Here we are now, it is almost a crazed Nation. My wife reads L.A. Times religiously and being a Hillary fan has been watching
CNN, MSNBC, Judy Woodruff and other channels like these.
It is not going to end up pretty, the atmosphere is frightening.
Doran Zeigler , July 17, 2018 at 9:32 am
I consider my politics as beyond progressive, and I am definitely not a Trump cheerleader, but I must say that this article
by Consortium News is by far the most balanced and fair article I have read on the Trump/Putin press conference. Did the Russians
hack Clinton's emails? Most likely. Were the hacks responsible for Clinton's defeat -- not on your life. Hillary offered nothing
other than the same old tired rhetoric and hostilities toward Russia. She basically defeated herself.
The fact that Clinton won the popular vote by three million should dispel any notion that the Russian hacks were effective.
What this does say is that we should get rid of the antiquated and unfair Electoral College. The press conference was not the
venue to grill or attempt to embarrass Putin, besides, Putin could hurl those same accusations at the US for not only interfering
in the Ukraine election, but also contributing millions of dollars to it. Putin, if he wanted, could point to NATO creeping up
to Russian borders when NATO had promised years ago not to go beyond unified Germany. The Russians have a multitude of complaints,
but are more diplomatic than the provocative Americans and would rather not solve these problems in the press.
Is Trump a bumbler -- no doubt. The conference was not the place to air America's dirty laundry or bring up his usual complaints.
All of this hoopla is a dog and pony show, a theatrical media event to distract the American people from their real problems like
a collapsing economy made worse by Trump's tariffs, like the bloated military budget, the horrific income inequality, the rise
of poverty, and an endless stream of worsening problems of which neither party has a solution. It is the old sleight of the hand
trick -- watch the hand I wave in front of you face, but pay no attention to the hand that is stealing you blind.
I am at least happy to see a media outlet that has broken from the pack of running lemmings that are not heading for a cliff,
but are running in a small circle.
Daniel , July 17, 2018 at 1:16 pm
Where is the evidence that Russia, rather than an insider like Seth Rich, released the emails?
Assange has all but verbally confirmed it was Seth Rich, not Russia.
Zinny , July 17, 2018 at 1:44 pm
Begs the question; Why doesn't the NSA either confirm or deny the download?
michael , July 17, 2018 at 7:50 pm
Why doesn't Mueller offer Assange immunity to testify? Sounds like Mueller may offer the Podestas (Manafort's partners in crime
in the Ukraine) immunity to testify against Manafort.
TragiCom , July 17, 2018 at 9:28 am
You'd be forgiven if you thought Brennan's rant was an episode from 'Who is America'!!
Brennan & co. behaving absolutely like unaccountable gangsters. Very dangerous gangsters. Nuclear armed gangsters.
"The indictments, which are only unproven accusations, formally accused 12 members of the GRU, Russian military intelligence,
of stealing Democratic Party emails in a hacking operation and giving the materials to WikiLeaks to publish in order to damage
the candidacy of Trump's opponent, Hillary Clinton. The indictments were announced on Friday, three days before the summit, with
the clear intention of getting Trump to cancel it. He ignored cries from the media and Congress to do so."
The most blatant and desperate effort to date to sabotage détente, any effort to cooperate on crucial issues. The media and
its sources are hysterical but scary as hell. Using words like treason without a peep from the media or anyone in Washington is
also scary as hell.
Didn't watch much of the news but curious about CNN, turned it on to watch Blitzer and Rand Paul exchange. Last question do
you trust our security folks or Putin. The patriots versus the devil. Rand Paul ignored it and earlier pointed to our less than
Simon pure history of trying to meddle in elections. Hell we ran the campaign of the greatest thief in Russian history, Yeltsin.
Bottom line, folks will do anything to stop the President's efforts to improve relations with Russia. It began before the inauguration
and has not let up since.
There is reason to use the word treason but it is not Trump's.
It's a bizarre world when Donald Trump is actually the voice of reason in the USA. The corporate media (including our "public"
networks) are running around with their hair on fire at the thought of the two nuclear nations having a rational relationship.
Why can't the public see the insanity of what's going on?
michael , July 17, 2018 at 7:53 pm
Sedition is the more accurate word for those in the Intelligence agencies seeking a soft coup.
richard vajs , July 17, 2018 at 8:54 am
The US Media lost its mind about two years ago. After all this time they are still trying to change the 2016 election. It was
plain then – a dirt-bag vs. a fool. The US Media had a dog in that fight – the dirt-bag. What is driving them insane is that the
"fool" has survived their best efforts to destroy him – should have been easy, but it is not. So the insane manipulators are going
for the throat now – TREASON. It is all ridiculous – America has deep economic problems that need to be addressed, namely the
terminal income inequality that exists. Killing the fool and re-elevating the dirt-bag will accomplish nothing but give the U
S Media and the elites they represent another fifteen minute stroll on the decks of the Titanic
Charron , July 17, 2018 at 8:24 am
The corporate press has been shocked that President Trump would not believe the findings of his own intelligence. Never once
has anyone in the Corporate press ever noted that out intelligence sources, the CIA in particular lied when they said Iraq had
WMDS. It was a terrible lie. And even if you prefer to believe that the intelligence community had merely made a mistake, our
invasion cost us over 3trillion dollars, cost thousands of American soldiers their lives, and ended up causing the death of hundreds
of thousands of Iraqi civilians, and has ignited the middle east, resulting in the rise of ISIS. But no one in the corporate press
sees fit to even mention the fact that the CIA claimed were a "slam dunk." Nor has anyone in the corporate press mentioned the
fact that James Come, when he was in the FBI, who headed up the Anthrax investigation fingered the wrong man, though he had said
when questioned if he had the right man, said he was absolutely certain that Hatfiield was the man who spread the Anthrax. The
government settled the false charges against Hatfiled for 5.82 million, as it turned out a fellow named ivans. P.S. Robert Mueller
was the head of the FBI during most of the investigation. And let me make this clear, I also think Trump is a scoundrel, but the
members of our corporate press are scoundrels too.
gailstorm , July 17, 2018 at 11:09 am
That the parroted information that got us into Iraq was a lie was widely reported and the intelligence debunked in independent
media at the time. There was no mistake. The information was out there but went ignored by the mainstream media. But it goes back
further. Yugoslavia, the first Gulf War erroneous reporting on such issues has been consistent at CNN.
AnthraxSleuth , July 17, 2018 at 3:18 pm
You could not be more wrong about the Anthrax.
Comey and co. ignored a material witness in that case (me) that caught Hatfill snooping around my house in November of 2001. Approx.
a month and a half after I received an anthrax letter. Mr Comey's Anthrax investigation was no such thing. It was just like Hillary's
email investigation. It was a "matter" not an investigation.
An investigation would have included having agents pay a visit to the man (me) that gave them Hatfill's last name 7 months before
his name became public. I was able to do that b/c I when I caught him snooping around my house he was arrogant enough to wear
his army jacket. Guess what is on your army jacket? Your last name.
MR. Comey's Anthrax matter also ignored when I informed the FBI that Ottillie Lundgren and Cathy Nugyen had posted on the same
internet message board at the same time and to the same article that I did.
Mr. Comey and Mr. Mueller lied then and are lying now.
For kicks and giggles you can hear Hatfill admit that he was in North Carolina at the time I caught him snooping around my
house in NC here . https://youtu.be/fSfcIh1WCdg?t=1640
Mike , July 17, 2018 at 8:01 am
"The queen of diamonds the queen of diamonds"
padre , July 17, 2018 at 7:41 am
You ain't seen nothing yet, wait till your allies come tot their senses!
Well now I feel silly. I just saw the ZeroHedge piece and understand that Robert Parry wrote often about Browder, so presumably
most visitors of this site are familiar with the name. I'll have to look for those articles. Is Browder in the same league as
Soros?
Alcuin , July 17, 2018 at 1:25 pm
Webb: "Trump and Putin are closing in on this Brennan/Browder gang; that's why you had that incredible reaction from Brennan
"
Putin tried to make the point that private citizens are not the state in a country. A private citizen doesn't speak official
government words.
Russian billionaires perhaps poured money into election campaigns. If so, the head of state is not to blame, nor is the crime
done by authority of the government.
Putin said Browder evaded Russian taxes and laundered $1.2 bn into USA, and moved one-third = $400 mn to Clinton's campaign.
Netted him $800 mn. With one-eighth of that Browder bribed Congress to enact Magnitsky (sp) proclamation to spur sanctions.
Russia filed criminal warrants with US under the 1999 treaty (Putin cited) to question Browder and bring charges; unlawfully
ignoring them, US violated treaty.
Browder money 'meddling' in 2016 campaigns is NOT 'Putin dunnit' and NOT 'Kremlin dunnit' and NOT 'Russia dunnit.' Only truthfully,
'Russian Browder dunnit.'
Trump's right for peace, but deplorable (almost) every other way.
If he did 'collude and conspire' that seems the least of his crimes. Impeach him for being morally unfit. Cripes, he was named
in Florida court indictments as co-defendant against charges of rape and abuse of 13- and 14-yo girls; his partner Jeffrey Epstein
was convicted and did time. Forget Russia, Trump's is a sex pervert, racist, and fascist -- unfit for office.
https://www.justice-integrity.org/1445-welcome-to-waterbury-the-city-that-holds-secrets-that-could-bring-down-trump
No link but find July 10 item at ClubOrlov.com titled, Taking Refuge in Insanity. It may be solace for Joe, in a way, and moreover
a general understanding of media cohort insanity.
If understanding is possible.
And MOST I stopped to say Thank You, thank you Joe Lauria. Your work brought me deep relief and it's refreshing.
_____
PS, I predict the 12 indicted Russians do get their day in US courtroom to defend themselves with lawyers rightfully allowed
to question (Mueller's) prosecution witnesses and testimony, and to present defense , and (Mueller's) prosecution loses there.
PPS, any rich moneybags domestic or foreign who aimed to spend in 2016 to hurt Hillary or help Donald be elected,
put all the money into Bernie's campaign: split the left vote and the rightist candidate skulks into office. Vice versa, Dems
in 2020 may prop up a Republican candidate on the left of Trump; split the R's vote between soft and hard rightwingers.
exiled off mainstreet , July 17, 2018 at 2:25 am
Who are the traitors? Those who seek war with a nuclear power or those who wish to solve the problems. What about Browder's
$400,000,000 to the Clinton campaign. Putin wouldn't make such a statement if there were nothing to back it up, though Mueller
is willing to lay unsubstantiated charges which go against proven evidence that the DNC leak was from a thumb drive, not internet
transmission. In any event, why is it so bad that the crimes of the DNC were revealed? I guess the truth is dangerous to the yankee
form of "managed democracy."
Alcuin , July 17, 2018 at 2:10 am
I don't know if it's true or not, but I once read that Nicholas II actually ordered the de-mobilization of the Russian army
on the eve of WWI, but that his order was ignored by his subordinates who were eager for war. Trump in his interview with Hannity
implies at one point that he doesn't have full control over the military -- that the belligerent rhetoric has been having practical
and dangerous consequences. Frightening. Starting at ca. min. 5. https://youtu.be/dRMW4knpiUo
Zhu Ba Jie , July 17, 2018 at 1:22 am
Just for sh*ts & giggles, try listening to prophecy preachers like Bro. Stair at
http://www.overcomerministry.org (Do NOT belive them!) Such folks
have radically different assumptions. Listening will clear your intellectual pallette, so to say.
David G , July 17, 2018 at 1:11 am
Others may not feel the connection strongly, but watching today's (yesterday's now) media meltdown flashed me back to the day
of Colin Powell's Iraqi WMD presentation to the U.N.
I watched that live, and even at the time – before the specific fabrications were exposed – it was such a self-evidently lame
effort that I was genuinely surprised and confused when all the media people instantly hailed the its supposedly irresistible
power in making the case for the coming war. And it's not like I went into the day with such a high opinion of the corporate media.
As with Trump in Helsinki, it was clear the media was activating a pre-arranged narrative (approval then, opprobrium now) rather
than genuinely reacting to what they had seen and heard.
Jared , July 17, 2018 at 6:48 am
That is an excellent assesment.
That is the dumbfound aspect the blatantly preconceived and coordinated attack on the public dialog.
I feel certain the media is being required to sacrifice its reputation for the purpose of distracting the public from some issue.
I dont thing the anderson coopers realise that this is the purpose they belive they are simply acting as political assasins of
the enemy.
Maybe is niave of me but is it possible this is simply to defray discussion of dnc communications and dnc conspiring by which
they pretty much destroyed the democratic brand? Of course there are also the globalists concern with nationalism and populism
and mic with concern fear of outbreak of peace.
gailstorm , July 17, 2018 at 11:23 am
The average journalist, mostly print but even regional TV, statistically makes less money than school teachers. It's quite
different at the national TV level. They are paid ridiculously well and maybe coincidentally (maybe not) removed from the ground
work among the masses. The system has rewarded them so there is natural bias toward the status quo (something that exists to a
degree in objective journalism to begin with). They likely aren't aware but they are hired and keep their jobs based on questions
they are not likely to ask. It's corporate America. Just as in low level administrative job hiring at large companies, blandness
and safe get the jobs.
Chumpsky , July 16, 2018 at 11:23 pm
"Constructive dialogue between the United States and Russia forwards the opportunity to open new pathways toward peace and
stability in our world. I would rather take a political risk in pursuit of peace than to risk peace in pursuit of politics."
A page taken out of JFK's playbook.
No wonder the democrats/MSM/Deep State are so disturbed and ready to shoot the messenger. He's encroaching on their sanctified
turf!
"As president, I cannot make decisions on foreign policy in a futile effort to appease partisan critics or the media or Democrats
who want to do nothing but resist and obstruct Constructive dialogue between the United States and Russia forwards the opportunity
to open new pathways toward peace and stability in our world. I would rather take a political risk in pursuit of peace than to
risk peace in pursuit of politics."
Question for those who have seen the video: were these prepared remarks, or were they spontaneous?
I appreciate them either way, but if Trump crafted those lines on the fly I really might have to give the cheeto-faced, ferret-wearing
shitgibbon (thank you, Scotland!) a fresh look.
Nora De Groote , July 17, 2018 at 3:44 am
I was thinking the exact same thing when reading that quote. That doesn't seem like his rhetoric at all. The "good thing bad
thing" is where you have his level of "eloquence" again. Regardless, even if he had to memorize the statement beforehand, he still
scored in my book.
Vivian O'Blivion , July 17, 2018 at 7:10 am
"cheeto-faced, ferret-wearing, shitgibbon" as a Scotsman I can only apologise for my compatriots sickeningly sycophantic language.
We are normally less diplomatic in our appraisals. In Scotland, if you hear the word "f**k", it's just to let you know a noun
is coming.
Zim , July 17, 2018 at 9:00 am
It's hard to believe that statement came out of Trumps mouth. But I believe it to be spot on.
To Chumpsky : A very courageous statement of Trump! He is no fool . You can't tell a bonk from its cover,
David G , July 16, 2018 at 11:12 pm
Lauria: "The media's handlers were even worse than their assets."
Zing! Props to you, Joe.
David G , July 16, 2018 at 11:00 pm
I haven't read the article or the comments yet, but I want to chime in now:
I've been watching MSNBC on and off all day, and the summit has clearly caused their brains (already in parlous condition)
to completely liquefy.
"Treason! Worse than Watergate *and* 9/11!!"
Demented.
tom , July 17, 2018 at 10:07 am
+1
Lois Gagnon , July 16, 2018 at 10:38 pm
Once again, the hypocrisy of the media is on full display. Every president including this one pays total fealty to the criminal
state of Israel which we know has interfered in the US political process, not to mention sinking a US naval vessel. But heaven
forbid there be diplomatic talks with Putin who has bent over backwards to accommodate the US when he can. So far all he's gotten
is sand kicked in his face.
The behavior of the media and its fellow juvenile delinquents in Washington are an embarrassment. They are without realizing
it, making Trump look presidential. You can't make this sh*t up.
mike k , July 16, 2018 at 10:35 pm
The Evil Monsters destroying our world with their greed and violence are being flushed into the open. But will the brainwashed
masses be able to see this? That is the crucial test that humanity faces at this time. The Rulers will go all out to spin this
in their favor, and if that fails, they will probably try to assassinate this dangerous man, President Donald Trump.
Joe Tedesky , July 16, 2018 at 10:33 pm
Meanwhile, while everyone is focused on Trump and Putin's summit, the real power of collusion is hard at work.
I'm posting this, because while it's appropriate we talk at length about the disgraceful reception Trump got for his trying
to wage peace, we should not lose sight to what country is using the U.S, as it's useful idiot.
Besides that, an article such as what Phil Giradi wrote should not go unnoticed thank you once again MSM for being the jerks
you are. Did the MSM ever hear of the word 'reporting'? Thank you Joe Lauria & the Parry family for being here when we need you
the most. I don't know what I'd do without the Consortium. Hey kudos to you too Robert Parry, your still number one with me.
For trying to restore a note of sanity and balance in the crucible of journalistic/political dialogue between Russia and the
US centers of power, where we sense the truth will be lost in white hot bombast, and the accepted narrative of reality will be
decided by the heads pushing the correct emotional buttons to fit their nationalistic needs, and their needs for continued employment.
Who can forget the last time all 17 intelligence services were of one mind on weapons of mass destruction – that turned out to
be nonexistent! Let's hope we can catch our breath before we trip into a patriotic war that destroys civilization.
John P , July 16, 2018 at 11:20 pm
Excuse me, but the intelligence service was turned upside down by Bush and his team inserting their own officials to sensor
what was released. The Agencies were very upset that the truth wasn't coming out, and you had the Valerie Plame incident also.
From Slate: "Trump and Putin Met in Helsinki's Hall of Mirrors. Here Are the Highlights." ends with the following:
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- –
On a related note, Rob Goldstone, the British publicist who set up that Trump Tower meeting by promising Trump's son that it was
"part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump," just tweeted that Putin had lied earlier in the day when he said
he did not know that Trump would be in Moscow for the 2013 Miss Universe pageant.
Rob Goldstone @GoldstoneRob
President Putin just stated that he had no idea Donald Trump was in Moscow in 2013. I know for sure that he did and tell the full
story in my soon to be released book "Pop Stars, Pageants & Presidents: How an Email Trumped My Life"
1:16 PM – Jul 16, 2018
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -
There may not have been collusion but I think we can say there probably was interference, voting machines and misinformation spread
by agents throughout the social communications media of today. And Putin did admit late, that he was for Trump not Hillary.
If there was funding from Russia to the Democrats as some say, and Putin is truthful that he preferred Trump then why did they
give money to the Democrats? Was it to designed to undermine Hillary through its exposure.
Others complain about the timing of the 12 Russian agents, but that was no different from the timing of the Hillary email story
release shortly before the election.
Zhu Ba Jie , July 17, 2018 at 1:44 am
"Putin Stole the Election" is fantasy fiction, just like "Obama is a Kenyan" was.
Typingperson , July 17, 2018 at 1:46 am
So you're OK with Hillary using an illegal, off-the-books email server to do pay-to-play arms deals with shitty countries like
Saudi Arabia–that gave millions of $$ to Clinton Foundation in return?
If lawfully using a govt server, Hillary"s emails would be subject to FOIA petitions. By USA citizen taxpayers and reporters.
Her emails as Sec of State are the property of the American people, who paid her salary. That's what people still don't get.
She used a private server to keep secret the illegal, pay-to-play arms deals–in return for payola bucks to Clinton Foundation.
And Obama turned a blind eye for 4 years. His specialty: Suck-up talking while turning a blind eye.
To Hillary"s incompetence and murderous corruption, to his weekly drone-murders, and to accelerated deportation of innocent
immigrants–and ICE separating parents from kids.
While starting 5 new wars on top of Iraq and Afghanistan–including ongoing genocide of Yemen.
Obama was a good boy for the deep state / war profiteers. And he collected his $60M "book contract." Bribe.
Bill , July 17, 2018 at 3:59 pm
"So you're OK with Hillary using an illegal, off-the-books email server to do pay-to-play arms deals with shitty countries
like Saudi Arabia–that gave millions of $$ to Clinton Foundation in return?"
How is that different from Trumpkin or Bush doing much the same thing?
Tony Frede , July 17, 2018 at 1:50 am
Maybe it doesn't make sense because Russia never really worked for either side.
Ron Johnson , July 17, 2018 at 6:48 am
Tracing who, exactly, did the hacking is always difficult because the evidence left behind is usually impossible to trace.
In the case of the hacking or attempted hacking of certain states' data, the only evidence that it was the Russians came from
Russian language characters in the code. Slam dunk, right? Well no, since our CIA/NSA admitted to using exactly such techniques
to misdirect researchers away from their own hacking.
If you read deeper into the story of how the Russians funded Clinton, you'll find that it was not the Russian government. Putin
pointed out that the money was made 'illegally' in Russia and sent out of the country 'illegally', ending up in Clinton's campaign.
There are a number of differences between the indictments of the Russians and the release of information in the Hillary e-mail
investigation. First, there is no chance the Russians will ever end up in a U.S. court so it is an indictment with no future.
Second, Comey, a supporter of Hillary, made the announcement and subsequently cleared her, probably to save his own career because
the field office that was doing the investigating was about to go public with his dereliction of duty in the Clinton investigation.
Subsequent investigations have revealed how the highly politicized FBI and DOJ went out of their way to protect Clinton. Mueller's
indictments, on the other hand, are just pure political malfeasance.
John P , July 17, 2018 at 7:20 pm
Zhu Ba Jie, I never said that Russia influnced the results of the election. It probably didn't. But what I do think is that
the Russians are probably laughing at how didvided America has become. Neoliberalism which caters to busines rather than liberalism
which caters to the people and the country as a whole is destroying society. People need to get on the streets and voice their
concerns, Get together and form rallies like those who spoke out against the Vietnam War.
Is it social media that makes people babble and rave rather than be active out there getting the much needed attention?
Gather fo support a greener world, a fairer more benevolent world. To get local economies going putting money in needy people's
pockets is far better than trickle down or financing and support for big business. The poor will spend it locally and that's good.
Get out there and make a stir. Trump ain't going to help you. Get rid of PACs, superPACs and other big donor money pots for a
start start. Bernie Sanders and now some new young people are seeing the light. Get in there and help them along. Get out on the
streets and shout for change!
Throw away the smart phone and get marching!
John P , July 17, 2018 at 7:34 pm
Also, Ron Johnson , I'm not American, I didn't know the full story of the mob money and Hillary. My choice was Bernie Sanders
never Hillary or Trump. My fear is, the way things are going, it's like the period between the great wars and the effects of poverty
and big business. Support for the needy and the busting up of big business were two steps which helped the world climb out of
the mire. Perhaps we need to add robotics to the list. People need work and a purpose.
Larry Gates , July 16, 2018 at 9:59 pm
Donald Trump is a vile human being, and I disagree with 98% of what he says and does, but today he was right and everyone else
was wrong. I've been on a trip in my car most of the day, listening to public radio. It was an endless orgy of misinformation
and deep-state propaganda. PRI was as insane and dangerous as Fox News on a really bad day. I'm starting to think that nuclear
war is a more immanent danger than global warming. It isn't just Rachel Maddow who has gone off the deep end. It is the entire
national media. What kind of country have we become? Pray for peace.
strngr-tgthr , July 16, 2018 at 10:45 pm
Larry – Don't buy the Trump CoolAid He is completely wrecking are world order. Last month was Kim, this month was Putin and
now this! Look:
White House Orders Direct Taliban Talks to Jump-Start Afghan Negotiations
He is meeting with all the dictators of the world now! Guaranteed he will have Assad at the White House before we can get him
impeached. This is 100% out of Putin's play book. He is a trader to American Values. Never have we sunk so low, dissing are true
allies and honoring thugs, killers and despots! 110% vile!
Joe Lauria , July 16, 2018 at 11:00 pm
Do you mean like Pinochet, Somoza, Galtieri, Rios Montt, Suharto, Mobuto, shall I go on?
Joe Lauria , July 16, 2018 at 11:02 pm
And it is about time there are direct talks with the Taliban. The U.S. has lost in Afghanistan. It has to try to get something
out of it.
strngr-tgthr , July 16, 2018 at 11:23 pm
We are in Afghanistan for woman's rights! "Hillary: justified by the desire to emancipate Afghan women." And we have all seen
the concern that Trump has for woman (Billy Bush – Babies at the Border, shall I go on?) 120% vile!
You are totally deluded, Mr. Man Without Vowels in His Name, if you think we are in Afghanistan to promote women's rights.
I'm sure you still faithfully watch the Jay Leno Show to stay apprised of Mrs. Leno's featured assessment of that crusade. Ranking
light years ahead of your purported reason for the last 17 years of war in the Hindu Kush are i) the planned oil and gas pipelines*,
ii) the proven deposits of rare earth elements essential to modern electronic devices, and iii) the immediate proximity to Iran,
Russia, China and Pakistan giving Washington the ability to raise hell from its many military bases in Afghanistan on a moment's
notice (all part of Obama's infamous "Pivot to Asia," which implied far more than a new cadre of Peace Corp workers–more like,
we can buy any locals we need with the pallets of Franklins we now air drop on a routine schedule).
* Read "Forbidden Truth: U.S.-Taliban Secret Oil Diplomacy and the Failed Hunt for Bin Laden" by Brisard and Dasquie, it's
still relevant 17 years later, while Hillary's "feminist" credentials remain completely irrelevant.
Gene Poole , July 17, 2018 at 5:48 am
An analysis of this contributor's writing style reports a 98.3% likelihood that he/she is Donald Trump.
Larry Gates , July 17, 2018 at 8:04 am
The United States has been "honoring thugs, killers, and despots" at least since Allen Dulles became the director of the CIA
in the 1940s. America is an expansive empire, controlled by our corporate oligarchy. It's all about their money and power. They
talk about human rights, but that is just a cover for their greed. Much of Trump's foreign policy is bad, but it is simply a logical
continuation of the foreign policies of Obama, Bush, and Clinton. Negotiations with Putin is a step in the right direction and
the Orange Beast deserves credit for it. It looks to me like it is you, not me that has swallowed the Kool-Aid.
Susan Sunflower , July 17, 2018 at 11:02 am
The Taliban, in the last week – 10 days, has said they will not negotiate as long as the USA occupies Afghanistan This was
abbreviated in most headlines to say that the Taliban refuse to negotiate.
The Americans have launched the "time to negotiate with the Taliban" trial balloon before -- "tragically" coming to nothing.
We (USA) interfere when the Baghdad government attempts their own negotiations. (or simply do things that encourage retaliatory
attacks) . Now ISIS in the mix.
Zhu Ba Jie , July 17, 2018 at 1:47 am
We've become a theater state. A powerful performance is what matters.
Susan Sunflower , July 17, 2018 at 11:08 am
Indeed. The histrionics of the last 48 hours have been beyond belief and credulity. The hardcore news-as-scandal-addicted will
stay tuned, but I lost respect for some "stars" of the news in ways that won't be forgotten I keep expecting Maddow to either
use hand puppets or present "crime reenactment" videos, along with her other show-and-tell visual aids.
BBC is just as bad in terms of prejudice but at least present a professional facade .DW and France 24 are alternatives as is
the (much too short, almost every hour on the hour) RT headline news. RT's interview and talk shows are excellent and quite sober.
It's not that they aren't slanted, they're just not insulting to the audience.
HiggBo , July 17, 2018 at 10:10 am
Maybe now you will think about the things these very same people said about him. Maybe they arent true either.
Hint: The vast majority arent.
Deniz , July 16, 2018 at 9:59 pm
They are losing their minds over Putins announcement of the $400 milion that was transferred Clinton through Browder.
michael , July 17, 2018 at 7:01 am
Seems Hillary learned a lot from Chinagate (where the Clintons paid the illegal donations from a foreign nation back AFTER
winning the Election). And China only received military technology, offshored jobs and permanent favored nation trading status
in return. Win-win.
You can be sure Hillary will claim that $400 million, if ever traced to her despite bleach bitting all her records, was for the
Clinton Foundation Campaign and it was just an inadvertent mixup.
PuddinNTain , July 16, 2018 at 9:54 pm
Thank you for this reasoned piece amidst a plethora of madness. Most of my friends and colleagues who identify as Democrats,
liberals, progressives, haters of Trump, etc, people I have the most in common with, politically speaking, have completely lost
their freaking minds over this stuff. Critical thinking? Who needs it! Mueller and the intelligence community have surely seen
the light since the "Iraq has WMDs" days.
Exactly when did the intelligence community, the sellers of lies and perpetrators of regime change world-wide, become a friend
to the American people?
Drew Hunkins , July 16, 2018 at 9:49 pm
"He had a chance right there in front of the world to tell Vladimir Putin to stay the HELL out of American democracy,.."
What democracy? 99% of the candidates' campaigns have been almost completely funded by Wall Street, the blood thirsty giant
defense contractors, or paranoid and hegemonic Zionist sociopaths.
It's been proven in a recent academic study by Princeton political scientists (and long lamented before these guys got on the
case by such luminaries as Michael Parents, S. Wollin, James Petras, N. Chomsky, Vidal, Hedges) that the American citizenry has
absolutely no influence whatsoever regarding poltico-economic decisions that emanate from Washington, they're drowned out by big
business and the imperialist ruling elites.
So I ask this warmongering Russophobic talking head once again: what democracy? What democracy do you speak of? The same democracy
that mires millions of newly college grads with $30,000 to $500,000 in student loan debt, or the same democracy that's witnessing
close to 50% of the entire population living close to the poverty level, or that has tens of millions of its denizens without
adequate healthcare coverage
Drew Hunkins , July 16, 2018 at 9:55 pm
typo: such luminaries as Michael Parenti, S. Wollin, James Petras
The editor regrets the error.
John P , July 16, 2018 at 11:26 pm
Trump ain't going to help you on that one. You need to get together with others work to get rid of PACs and Super PACs. In
most western countries they wouldn't be allowed.
Sam F , July 17, 2018 at 7:20 am
The political parties are also corrupt, taking donations fed back directly or indirectly from government funding of contractors.
These are extensive rackets supported by half the population, who have never worked for anything but a political gang operation,
and really believe in gangs.
michael , July 17, 2018 at 7:11 am
Why are you bringing up "ponies" that we will never have, when Hillary's private club (or so the judge ruled when Bernie's
supporters tried to fight their fraud, saying private clubs can do what they please, particularly picking potential presidents)
was hacked into by those supercompetent Russians? Much akin to the Nigerian guy who's been trying to help me collect money from
some dead rich relative I didn't know I had. Still waiting, but I'm sure if this was a fraud Mueller and our Intelligence agencies
would be all over it, just like Hillary's Private Club, the DNC. The Russians didn't steal any money from Hillary, as far as I
know, or there would have been War!
gcw919 , July 16, 2018 at 9:29 pm
These media "pundits" are truly an embarrassment. They become apoplectic about "possible" Russian hacking in our elections,
but one can search in vain for their comments about our own interference in Ukrainian politics, and many other countries around
the globe. (eg, Victoria Nuland, Hillary's pit bull, gloating about the US spending $5 billion in "support" of Ukrainian democracy).
Its as if real concerns, such as nuclear annihilation, or catastrophic climate change, were afterthoughts. We are certainly living
in mystifying times.
Mike From Jersey , July 16, 2018 at 10:16 pm
I think the same thing. The whole "election meddling" hoopla, even if it was true, pales to insignificance in light of what
we are actually doing.
We have a base – a military base – in Syria. We weren't invited. We didn't get permission to set up a base. But we set up a
military base in another country while announcing that that country's leader "must go." And now – with a total absence of evidence
– we have the gall to condemn Russia for "meddling in our democracy."
What is wrong with these people? Can't they see the utter hypocrisy in it all?
AZ_bob , July 16, 2018 at 11:29 pm
I tell people all the time, if Russia did put their thumb on the scale, then hey – I guess "What Goes Around, Comes Around"
huh? If you CAN'T take it, DON'T dish it out. Quite simple, really
irina , July 17, 2018 at 1:28 am
The US media's hysterical (in the unfunny sense) response to "Russian meddling"
is very like the husband who catches his wife cheating on him and goes totally postal,
although he himself has been cheating on her ever since their courting days . . .
Tony Frede , July 17, 2018 at 1:53 am
No they don't see the hypocrisy. A large percentage of the population suffers from a severe Irony Deficiency and that can't
be cured.
Layne , July 17, 2018 at 6:55 am
I beat my head against the wall with the very same question! Thanks for sharing..
Tristan , July 16, 2018 at 9:26 pm
Thank you for doing the real journalism needed for readers to gain perspective and understanding. It is important to call out
propaganda in the face of facts. One thing that stands out significantly is the statement by Trump, "I would rather take a political
risk in pursuit of peace than to risk peace in pursuit of politics." Even if only partially pursued, the goal of peace is indeed
a very worthy endeavor. In fact, this is one of the first times in recent memory that a US president has used the word "Peace".
I don't like the majority of what the Trump administration is doing, it is important to stick to the facts and support efforts
that could lead to a reduction of the tensions and hostility which dominate current US / Russia relations.
F. G. Sanford , July 16, 2018 at 9:22 pm
"A productive dialogue is not only good for the United States and good for Russia, but it is good for the world."
I could hear in the inflection of that sentence the profoundly courageous and confidently certain voice of John F. Kennedy.
Gergen, Amanpour, Cooper, Cheney, Brennan, Clapper and the rest of them be damned. The usual suspects, the bought and paid-for
mouthpieces of the "deep state" raised their reptilian ire in the expected reprehensible fashion. War is what keeps them on the
"payroll", and they'll tell any lie it takes to keep those checks rolling in. Despicable. It seems likely that their vitriol may
stem as much from fear of exposure as anything else.
I think President Trump gave a laudable and compelling performance. It's a tragedy that this article will probably not get
the circulation it deserves. Thanks to Joe Lauria for having the guts to write it.
Litchfield , July 16, 2018 at 9:43 pm
Amen.
jaycee , July 16, 2018 at 10:15 pm
Cheers. I noticed the same JFK echo in that sentence.
Brennan and the whole lot of those pundits sound exactly like the paleolithic right from the 50s and 60s, the ones who insisted
MLK was a communist and were so effectively personified by Sterling Hayden in the Dr Strangelove film.
Joe Tedesky , July 16, 2018 at 10:35 pm
Here ya go F.G. your on par with Paul Craig Roberts.
I recall about 16 years ago when the U.S. media almost unanimously reported, with absolute certainty, that Saddam Hussein was
harboring numerous weapons of mass destruction. I also recall their fervent calls for regime change because Hussein was a threat
to our national security. There were a few voices who spoke against it, but they were drowned out by MSM. It would appear that
U.S. media is adamantly against anyone who is opposed to war. Is it because war is so profitable for the media, or is it because
war is so profitable for their masters?
Hey, Johnmichael, you must know that the US is headed by an oligarchy, UK too, France, etc. What runs the world is banks and
multinational corporations. The US could actually be called a corporatocracy, because the people have very little say in their
government. Yes, media bashers do bash media when they lie because they are supposed to ferret out facts but they don't, they
serve their money masters. They all use "Goebbels style" messaging, Putin the least, i notice. It's a western script.
Steve , July 16, 2018 at 9:08 pm
Everything the Main Stream media says about Trump applies ten times over to themselves, the presstitutes that they are useful
Idiots of the Corrupt New World Order.
Bob In Portland , July 16, 2018 at 9:03 pm
A look at Mueller's career will go far in explaining why Mueller is handling this and what he won't see while investigating:
I did Bob, and I'm encouraging more to read it. Joe
Dave P. , July 17, 2018 at 3:30 am
Bob – Yes, I have read the article about Mueller's career.
backwardsevolution , July 17, 2018 at 5:08 am
Bob in Portland – excellent read! Thank you. Mueller is like a fixer, a sweeper, someone who cleans up and, as you said, moves
investigations away from the CIA.
"He knew where to look and where not to look."
No doubt he's a valuable asset to the Deep State. Not a nice man.
Seer , July 17, 2018 at 8:39 am
Great work!
Yes, Mueller's a master of misdirection. Was it Parry who noted (likely others as well) that reporting is now less about lying
than deliberate omission. Hard to fact-check what ain't there (vs. a lie which lays out data which can be tested) Knowledge IS
power: we are not to have knowledge.
Bob Van Noy , July 17, 2018 at 9:34 am
Thanks to all in this thread. I filed this statement recently here, and it was edited out. I'll try again because it's appropriate.
A relatively vibrant Press was modified violently in the days and weeks following November 22, 1963. Some careers were enhanced,
some lives were lost. If some contemporary student of History or Journalism wanted to study the decline of American Democracy
they might begin by reading all of the linked article below about a Journalist named Penn Jones
As much as I loathe Trump, I have to admit this is one time I agree with him. No matter how much Trump screws up, the simple
fact is that no one is 100% wrong, and it's important to recognize when they are not wrong.
I don't agree that the Russians are our enemy. I don't believe they are our friends, but there's a large gap between an enemy
and a friend and I place the Russians somewhere in that gap. I don't deny that they hacked into the DNC database, but that doesn't
rise above my threshold of significance and certainly doesn't hold a candle to all the U.S. interference in the politics of most
of the world's nations (which includes deposing democratically elected presidents). And finally, I don't believe in gunboat diplomacy
and I agree that it's better to talk with the Russians than it is to beat the war drums and seek more confrontation.
Having said that, I deplore Trump's behavior toward our European, Canadian and Mexican friends, and his domestic policies are
the worst of any in the last 100 years. But as much as I deplore this buffoon, I believe that he is right in attempting to normalize
relations with Russia.
Litchfield , July 16, 2018 at 9:49 pm
"I don't deny that they hacked into the DNC database,"
Well, you should, because there is zero evidence of a Russian hack.
On what basis in the world do you so confidently assert that you "do not deny" something that is untrue?
The evidence is of an inside leak.
Please, learn the difference between the two, a hack and a leak.
Another indication of the insidious power of the media over common sense.
Realist , July 17, 2018 at 3:22 am
Of course it is entirely within the interests of America to have free and friendly relations with Russia. Why? Not only because
peace beats the hell out of war, especially the nuclear variety, but because we, along with the rest of the world, need Russia's
vast resources in a planet rapidly being depleted of everything essential to modern technology. If they don't sell their products
to the West on the open market because Washington thinks it can steal them after some kind of "regime change," all those essential
goodies will go to China, India and the other peoples of the East whom we look down upon, and are also fixing to mess with.
From all I have gleaned, Russia has always aspired to be a part of the West, ever since Peter the Great opened Russia to Europe,
but Washington thinks that being a member of team West means being a totally subservient vassal to it and only it. Look at how
shamelessly Washington has abused the interests of the EU in its efforts to subjugate Russia. There is mostly one party that threatens
the future of Western prosperity and moral values: the United States, or rather its government. Its motives are uncontested power
and greed to benefit its small clique of decadent aristocrats.
Zhu Ba Jie , July 16, 2018 at 8:51 pm
Why would anyone believe the Liars' Club (the CIA) about anything? Their successes are more shameful than their failures.
Seer , July 17, 2018 at 8:43 am
Ah, but successes and failures are not ours to judge, no, it is for the ruling elite to judge, and given that their power and
wealth has but steadily increased it is safe to say, under their measuring, that the CIA has been quite successful.
Johnmichael2 , July 16, 2018 at 8:45 pm
Putin brilliantly heads an Oligarchy. Trump obsequiously admires Putin because he too, by all of his actions to date, aspires
to the same power. To all of you media bashers, who are on a very strange campaign of denial, don't forget that Trump and his
Goebbels style messaging received prime time from the electronic media throughout the campaign and was probably key to the win.
The real Deep State is the multinational world order of capitalism, which doesn't care what type of government it owns. Yet
CN seems totally oblivious to their existence. If the media is to blame for anything, it is that their coverage tends to be controlled
by ratings; in other words, by money, and the Deep State controls the money.
Zhu Ba Jie , July 16, 2018 at 8:52 pm
The US has oligarchic since 1789.
Zhu Ba Jie , July 16, 2018 at 8:53 pm
Goebbels was far smarter and articulate than Trump.
Danny , July 17, 2018 at 9:57 pm
the free $2B from the same media now screeching for his head? (Fox excepted) the 35-40 minutes dedicated to his empty podium
while Sanders talked? I have some REALLY bad news for you 'bout who was behind that
I highly recommend reading James Howard Kunstler's piece on Russia Insider, "Idiotic Russia Meddling Hoax Kept Alive by Trump-Putin
Summit". On his blog 'Clusterfuck Nation' he titles it "12 Ham Sandwiches with Russian Dressing". Kunstler is a great cynicist
humorist called a dystopian by the NYT. This piece he just published is one of the best and will undoubtedly be picked up by others.
Has a funny cartoon on Russia Insider for a musical based on the Mueller never-ending saga. At least it's a few cynical laughs
for this sorry affair.
Mass hysteria is a frightening spectacle to behold. The power with which it grips the minds of virtually everyone is beyond
belief. As I watched the media coverage of Helsinki unfold, it seemed the media minions were perceptibly working themselves into
a collective frenzy, a totally berserk, bonkers group who were bidding the price of tulips up to a million each. The ironic aspect
of all this to me is that even if the commie bastards did what we say they did would it have made any difference? And if indeed
it was they who hacked HC's "personal" email files and made them available to Wikileaks, I'm glad as Hell they did.
Zhu Ba Jie , July 16, 2018 at 8:56 pm
It would not make any difference. We Americans are to blame for our own follies and mistakes.
KiwiAntz , July 16, 2018 at 9:03 pm
It's Washington & the MSM's mass hysteria, not the common folk who couldn't give a rats ass about this lunacy? Ask the ordinary
citizen in the US or Worldwide what they care about? It's not the never ending Russiagate BS spewed out by the MSM or corrupt
DEMS! It's about, how will my Family be housed, Fed, & cared for! How will I support myself & my Family's needs & wants! THATS
WHAT WE CARE ABOUT, WE DON'T CARE ABOUT THE FAKE RUSSIAGATE NONSENSE & it's BS! But what do these MSM idiots know, they think
their smarter than those who voted for change & are getting that with Mr Trump!
David G , July 17, 2018 at 12:01 am
Right on, Lester D.
JRGJRG , July 16, 2018 at 8:39 pm
I'm starting to get hopeful about Trump after a lot of doubts.
Whatever his limitations, he at least has some common sense. This is something we would never have seen happen with Crooked Hillary
Clinton, ever. Somebody had to listen to Putin, who actually has quite a lot of sensible things to say about this, and is a very
intelligent and articulate politician.
Given enough time, Trump might actually figure things out in Washington before he leaves office and sees all the treasonous forces
in the permanent security state. I didn't vote for either Clinton or Trump in '16 but if he listens to Putin and gives peace a
chance, this will mend all cracks with me.
Maybe they should put up a fence around CNN headquarters and call in a battalion of psychs to provide mental health treatments
to the war profiteers and talking heads.
I voted for peace. I want to see peace. Kudos to Trump and Putin for bringing an oasis of sanity to the world. Nuclear war is
bad for our kids. I am very relieved to see this happening. Even General Eisenhower could not buck the Military Industrial Complex
in 1959 when he tried to reach detente with Khrushchev. Trump will go down in history as a great president if he can pull this
off.
mike k , July 16, 2018 at 8:38 pm
The incredible ugliness of the media, spy agencies, military figures, and politicians is unfortunately only the tip of a huge
iceberg. Underneath all that is the deep state oligarchs, who are willing to sacrifice billions of lives and the very continuation
of life on our precious planet – just to fulfill their insatiable greed for wealth and power. These evil monsters are the real
enemies of Humanity.
Lolita , July 16, 2018 at 8:29 pm
Not only the U.S. Media, but also the Canadian, French, British etc that is, the agitprop tools for NATOland/Soros, ready for
selective and well rehearsed indignation, on cue.
Tonight CBC The National managed to invite a "balanced" panel to discuss the Trump-Putin press conference: a researcher from
Stratfor and a journalist from the Washington Post!!!! LOL
Lolita , July 17, 2018 at 5:32 pm
And when CBC's narrative and their fake-debate in the National is challenged in the comment section the CBC sycophants know
only one action:
"Your account has been banned until 10/15/2018. Reason: We have banned this account for 90 days because we believe it is in
violation of our Terms of Use, specifically repeated off-topic comments, uncivil comments, and personal attacks. For more information,
please visit: http://www.cbc.ca/aboutcbc/discover/submissions.html
."
All of this to mask political censorship
In my last posts, I quoted Joe Lauria and they did not like it one bit:
"To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize."
Good Bye ICIJ
KiwiAntz , July 17, 2018 at 2:16 am
And add NZ's Media to that shameful list of Propagandists telling lies & expecting us to belithis tripe!
The calls of President Trump being a traitor mimic those of the calls that President Eisenhower was a traitor back in the 1950s.
But what can you expect from the cult followers of the former Goldwater girl who have done their best to turn the Party of Gene
McCarthy into the Party of Joe McCarthy?
Zhu Ba Jie , July 16, 2018 at 8:59 pm
Dems have GOP lite for a long time, at least since Reagan.
Pandas4peace , July 16, 2018 at 8:22 pm
Americans need to turn off their damn television sets.
JRGJRG , July 16, 2018 at 8:45 pm
I canceled my cable subscription three months ago and haven't missed it one bit.
Realist , July 17, 2018 at 2:53 am
One needs to keep apprised of the lies that the enemies of humanity so effectively spread through their propaganda in order
to counter them.
Besides, if you ever need a good emetic, there is always the opportunity to tune in Rachel Maddow until your stomach upchucks
its contents.
Seer , July 17, 2018 at 8:51 am
Ha ha! The Rachel Maddow weight loss program!
Zhu Ba Jie , July 16, 2018 at 9:01 pm
Good idea. I quit watching regularly in the '70s. But does make one somewhat alienated from everyone else.
Freedom lover , July 16, 2018 at 10:32 pm
Actually I have Direct TV and for a change I can tune in to channel 321 RT America and listen to some real news instead of
the 24-hr fake news on the rest of the channels.
Skip Scott , July 17, 2018 at 6:55 am
Last night I blocked CNN on the TV where I am currently forced to reside. I am the only one with the p/w to unblock it. Take
that CNN!!!
Well said, as always, Realist, but the scary part is to read the vitriolic anti-Trump responses indicating the 'liberals' would
actually rather risk war! I just read a few of them and honestly wonder if there's any hope for this country, maybe we will have
to take some harsh lessons that will be meted out. They do not realize that they are assisting in bringing down every one of us
with their hate. The controllers who play them love it.
JRGJRG , July 16, 2018 at 8:47 pm
The danger is that they will bring their war hysteria into the next election and get someone elected that is even worse than
Hillary would have been.
Zhu Ba Jie , July 16, 2018 at 9:02 pm
I'm not convinced that anyone is control. "Time and chance come to them all."
Realist , July 17, 2018 at 2:46 am
My, how we have come full circle, Jessika. So, now it's the "liberals" who would rather be "dead" than "red?" That used to
be the far right John Birchers back in my youth. (Not that anyone anywhere on the planet is a genuine "communist" any longer,
not even in Cuba or North Korea.) I just wish there was some mechanism to allow them to self-immolate without killing or harming
the rest of us nearly 8 billion human beings. They have some potent demons colonizing what passes for their minds. Perhaps they
could use a convincing exorcist to drive the Hillary entity out of their system.
Seer , July 17, 2018 at 8:54 am
All comes in cycles. Dixiecrats, anyone?
Brad Owen , July 17, 2018 at 12:09 pm
EXACTLY. Actually, FDR was the "Bernie Sanders" of his day, and completely turned the Party upside down with his "New Deal
for the forgotten man" (Labor and farmers). The traditional D-Party was the party of southern plantation aristocracy and their
money handlers on Wall Street, and the original R-Party contained the fire-breathing radicals within its ranks.
jose , July 16, 2018 at 8:10 pm
It is my understanding that Russia and US are holding approximately 90% of nuclear weapons worldwide. In a sane world, The
US media should be commending Trump for trying to reach an agreement regarding denuclearization with Putin. Nonetheless, Trump
is being grilled for doing what almost the entire planet is seeking: a world free of nuclear weapons. Indubitably, US national
media are very busy undermining Trump's efforts to reduce the scorch of nuclear war. Do the US media think that in a nuclear exchange
humans will survive? We will all lose.
JRGJRG , July 16, 2018 at 8:54 pm
No, the elites on both sides of the political spectrum are living in a mythical Hollywood rich man's fantasy world believing
that the worst that can happen to them is they will retreat to their luxury underground cities and live out the nuclear war, communicating
with their nuclear subs, while the rest of us paeons fry. They don't care about us, at all. They are congenital psychopaths.
It sounds crazy because it is, and it is hard for the rest of us to believe they could be so foolish. They are fatally misguided
in their beliefs that this would ever work and be good for them.
Joe Tedesky , July 16, 2018 at 9:34 pm
I think your right. Joe
Jean wyman , July 16, 2018 at 9:53 pm
Good comment Jose. In answer to your observations, I'd pose a question: what was Obusha thinking when he proposed a 3TRILLION
dollar upgrade of America's nukes? Who exactly was it that he was placating and that T-rump isn't.
Skip Scott , July 16, 2018 at 8:09 pm
When the talking heads said that Trump trusted Putin more than his own Intelligence Agencies, I screamed at the TV, "ME TOO!".
I can think of no clearer sign that the CIA is still embedded with the MSM. Discussion of the history of our Intelligence Community
in both the near and distant past, and it's utter lack of trustworthiness, is a forbidden topic. My only hope is that enough people
actually listened to what Putin said, instead of the talking heads' rantings, and saw for themselves that Putin is a rational
and fair-minded leader. The near hysteria of Anderson Cooper and his ilk is a sure sign that their grip on the narrative is slipping.
jose , July 16, 2018 at 8:15 pm
I concur with your post. Personally, I rather listen to Putin than the US national media. You are correct to assert that "Putin
is a rational and fair-minded leader" You would have to be mentally retarded to pay any heed to US national media that have proven
to be a tool of those controlling the livers of power. Well done, Skip.
Joe Lauria , July 16, 2018 at 9:04 pm
"To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize."
JRGJRG , July 16, 2018 at 9:07 pm
Anderson Cooper, the grandson of Gloria Vanderbilt, and great-grandson of robber baron railroad mogul Cornelius Vanderbilt
is CIA trained in Operation Mockingbird. https://youtu.be/w8NTLVOjas8
Joe Tedesky , July 16, 2018 at 9:33 pm
I said that once, and got booed out of the room. Joe
Joe Tedesky , July 16, 2018 at 9:28 pm
Skip I hear ya, but allow me to tell you what I saw, and heard today. So after Trump made his remarks about trusting, or not
trusting, certain intelligence data, I while driving in my car heard callers calling in to the local talk show. The callers who
expressed themselves the way we do on this comment board were berated by the callers who thought this kind of talk (like we here
on CN talk) was treasonous by all known treasonous standards. The callers who sounded like we do here were labeled as their being
crazed Trump supporters, and yet all of them said of how they don't even necessarily like Trump, but right is right and left is
now warmongering. None of the other opposing callers bought this denial of Trump, as they just fluffed it off, as Trump supporters
hiding behind whatever it was their suppose to be hiding behind. Facts are painfully ignored, especially when it comes to analyzing
Trump.
I see the MSM pundits and the strongly patriotic lying legislators taking Trump's remarks while calling him a trader, as the
launching of a great American vs American social confrontation. This new confrontation will pit brother against brother, child
against parent, and wife against husband . just ask my wife. The discontent is about where we were back during the Vietnam years,
as the only thing missing are the peace marchs. This time our civil war will be fought strictly on a social level, aided by an
instigating MSM, as division messes up any real citizen advocacy as the citizen may require to straighten out any of this disconnection
of their society or that's at least the way I see it.
We citizens are officially at war with each other. We will all look back upon this period of our evolvement, and laugh over
the Facebook censorship, and dream of a time when it was merely just about politics, and taxes. We are moving in a direction where
the National Security Deep State is beating up an outsider maverick, and this maverick is now in the Deep States crosshairs. It's
darn strange, and I swear if something awful were to happen to President Trump that the MSM would encourage us Americans to make
Trump's ugly fate a new national holiday . I think there are many among this Deep State cabal who still celebrate with joy the
sad happenings of November 22nd, 1963.
The empire is finally going down, and we are all witnessing it first hand. Joe
Dave P. , July 17, 2018 at 4:14 am
"I see the MSM pundits and the strongly patriotic lying legislators taking Trump's remarks while calling him a trader, as the
launching of a great American vs American social confrontation. This new confrontation will pit brother against brother, child
against parent, and wife against husband . just ask my wife. . . ."
Good observation Joe. It already started happening some time back in our home. A truce was reached with a compromise that my
wife would not watch CNN, MSNBC . . . when I am around the house and I will not read CN and make comments, at least when she is
around. This morning my wife went to our retired neighbor's house to watch these channels with her. Both of them have been feeling
today as if some tragedy has happened.
That is what this two years of Russia Gate hysteria fueled by the Media and Politicians has done to the people. Today was probably
the worst day; they are really messing up the population. It is even worse than those cold war days of 1950's which I have read
about. And there is no end in sight.
Killary had a crap platform. That is why she lost. If the platform was something progressives could support, then people would
come out and vote for her. Her record of dependability is crap; just a double talking republican liar. No good. That's why she
lost. I didn't vote for her and won't vote for her if she is forced on us again. Lyle Courtsal
http://www.3mpub.com
jose , July 16, 2018 at 8:20 pm
You are correct Lyle about Hillary's lost. I would like to add the following:Vladimir Putin has not meddled in the US election,
Hillary Clinton has. Leaked emails reveal that the popular socialist Bernie Sanders had his chance of becoming president stolen
from him by Hillary Clinton and her associates at the Democratic National Committee. If defrauding democracy is worth going to
war over, certainly it is worth going to jail over. Millions of Americans had their votes stolen.
Litchfield , July 16, 2018 at 10:34 pm
Yes, I listened to some of her campaign speeches, and they were embarrassingly awful, and empty of ideas except inciting horror
of "Le Trump"! She was truly pathetic in her confidence that she was in the in-group, addressing others in the "in-group," thus
not needing to actually campaign.
Recently Hillary was awarded the Radcliffe medal, and she spoke at Radcliffe Day. I was horrified that she was given this honor.
I heard that she read from a Teleprompter. That indicates to me that she was and is indeed not physically up to the challenges
of the office, quite apart from her many other deficits.
Seer , July 17, 2018 at 9:07 am
I wouldn't vote for a mass murderer. If you cannot fundamentally be for peace then all else, no matter how wonderful it sounds
(it could be) has nowhere to anchor.
John V. Walsh , July 16, 2018 at 8:05 pm
Great column.
There is no doubt that the Summit moved us away from confrontation with Russia which holds the grave danger of going nuclear.
Bravo for Trump and the brave words he spoke.
Now it is up to us.
If we wish the process to continue which these meetings with Putin initiated, let us raise our voices in support.
If we wish to let the neocons, "Deep State," Dem and GOP elites to stop the process, let us stay silent.
I read the New York times and the comments to the editorial. This is my comment.
The comments here sound like a lynch mob working themselves into a frenzy to hang someone. Proof? Who needs any dang proof.
Clapper the guy who admitted lying to Congress under oath said Trump was guilty and thats good enough for the people who commented
here. The Intelligence Agencies that lied to get the USA to invade Iraq with their WMD claims say he is guilty, well that must
be proof then.
This goes to show that Barnum was right, there is a sucker born every minute. But a whole nation suckered into believing this
nonsence about Russia having Trump elected with not one shred of evidence presented? Even Barnum would have been shocked and surprised
at that one.
Well, I guess that influential people on the inside figure that the "reign of terror" worked out so well in effecting regime
change during the French Revolution that they'd give it another go approximately two centuries later approximately a hundred years
after the Bolshevik Revolution, so maybe this is a natural phenomenon with a periodicity of about 100 years. Perhaps Hillary thinks
she's gonna pick up the pieces as the next Napoleon after the revolution burns itself out. More like her fate will be as the next
Robespierre, hoisted on her own guillotine.
Seer , July 17, 2018 at 9:11 am
Yes, the cycle is tied to the controlling currency, the USD in current day form. That control is rapidly slipping away. The
crooks are pulling the fire alarms in the bank and running out the back door and the public is looking for safety from the crooks'
army (MSM, "authority figures" etc.).
There is nothing left to say.
The summit only leaves one to speculate.
Realist , July 16, 2018 at 7:57 pm
It would seem that there is not a single independent, unbought, honest, objective journalist left working for the corporate
mass media in America. They are all mere puppets delivering the propaganda and fake analysis demanded of them by the oligarchy
that owns them. It's absolutely stunning how lock-step they all are in maintaining the false narrative cooked up by the careless
and arrogant tyrants who threw away a sure thing (Hillary's coronation) by pressing too hard to give her what they thought was
the biggest patsy (Trump) in the clown show called the presidential election. They were so confident they actually allowed the
ballots to be counted and have been scrambling to undo the results using every possible mechanism and pretext ever since. If there
is one thing the American people can count on in the future, it is that no election will ever again be semi-free, fair and not
rock-solid rigged with the contrived results agreed upon months before the charade of elections ever goes on.
A rational mind might say, well, give us more reasonable candidates, those in tune with the problems of the voters (mostly
caused by government), and give us more of them, more parties, more platforms, more options. That is exactly what they intend
to avoid. They tried to force feed us Hillary as the only acceptable figure running for the position, but enough people saw through
that and chose the fellow they wanted us to abhor after they deliberately built him up to help the despised Hillary. Now absolutely
every loyal apparatchik in the elite establishment, and most especially the media–the essential propagandists, are working 24/7
for regime change in Washington, what they perceive as the necessary first step towards regime change in Moscow and later Beijing.
Only then will the NWO–in which they give all the orders and control everything and everybody–be complete.
I tell you, the reach of their tentacles and the uniformity of response amongst their minions is impressive in a most foreboding
way. They will brook NO peaceful co-existence with any geopolitical "partners" or competitors and will not give even the slightest
iota of respect to our own elected leader, not even to his office out of formal courtesy. Rather than "going high" when he "goes
low," they choose to up the ante in ad hominem insults and political thuggery. The power structure in this country has become
irretrievably warmongering neo-con and ruthlessly imperialistic. The most catastrophic consequence will be to see the dissolution
of civilisation itself as the myriad of environmental, population and resource crises hit the planet full on as the century unfolds,
for thuggery, tyranny and simplistic political slogans are not the solutions for escaping the impending bottleneck with an actual
future still remaining for humanity.
Joe Tedesky , July 16, 2018 at 8:42 pm
Hey Realist you brought back memories of the 2016 presidential election to when Trump was given 4.9 billion dollars worth of
free air time (JP Sottile quoted the 4.9). As it has been written about of how early on the Clinton campaign thought Trump was
the best to run up against, because who in their right mind would take the Trumpster serious, was the go to mindset among the
DNCer's. So the MSM turned on the cameras at Trump rallies believing that given enough rope that Trump would hang himself. The
backlash that came from this, was mind boggling on many levels. One no one likes Hillary, number two no one likes the MSM. So
with that the MSM, and Hillary's bend strategy was what loss the election for the Democrats, and oh yeah then there's Bernie.
I don't think in total we Americans are all living on the same planet. Joe
Mike From Jersey , July 16, 2018 at 8:55 pm
I am absolutely appalled by the behavior of the American media. They are acting like Trump is a disgrace to the country but
the MSM is a disgrace to journalism.
I don't even like Trump but – to me – he is coming out better in this exchange.
JRGJRG , July 16, 2018 at 9:17 pm
Excellent statement.
Sam F , July 16, 2018 at 9:29 pm
Indeed the US mass media are no more than propagandists for the arrogant tyrants of its government. But despite US bluster
and economic arm-twisting, educated people know that BRICS cannot be dominated so imperialism is theater not policy. Over 20-40
years, the US can only choose cooperation or self-embargo. Few educated people believe the recycled hysteria of invisible threats.
The enmity of the PTB toward Russia and Korea always starts with and returns to the Mideast and centers upon Israel, which
controls the US mass media and both political parties, and thereby appoints the politicians who control the military budget and
agenda. Indeed "no election will ever again be semi-free." The MIC is large and will attack small countries anywhere, but it is
the servant of Israel.
Zhu Ba Jie , July 17, 2018 at 2:22 am
People who complain aboutIsrael somehow never mention Dispensationalism, Christian Zionism, etc.
Sam F , July 17, 2018 at 6:26 am
Thank you for mentioning those; I did not have room in that comment.
Israel also substantially controls the Christian z leaders.
I thought Mueller was playing politics to announce the indictments of 12 Russians mere hours before Trump met Putin more and
more I'm losing faith in Mueller and the Democrats who have damn near destroyed their party themselves
Seer , July 17, 2018 at 9:17 am
If the fact that the Dems managed to undermine the people's choice for president (Sanders) isn't enough to convince you that
the Dems are destroyed then I don't know what to tell you.
I'm almost certain that the CIA had a hand in that: consider their infiltration into the MSM (ensuring that Sanders was not
talked about). Not only was the CIA involved in trying to derail Trump, but it was active in preempting Sanders. For sure, having
meddling in BOTH parties would likely bring out real pitch forks: when it's just one party it's easy to use the other party to
offset the anger. Joe, if you're reading these comments (still), I'd love to get your take on this "theory."
Thanks for this report, Mr. Lauria; you're certainly of stronger mettle than me. I would not have withstood the noxious exhalations
of the US newsmedia (which itself now openly includes newly "retired" intelligence agents as commentators) you've described in
this article; the anecdotes alone almost had me hurling my phone across the room.
Thank you for performing a valuable public service with this report. Peace.
Welcome to what passes for "reality" in 2018 America. If the stakes for humanity were not so frightfully high these bizarre,
slapstick, nonsense comments from the MSM talking heads would be knee-slapping hilarious in their total off the charts lunacy
and patent absurdity. What can one say? Wow – off the freaking charts! You simply can't make this stuff up! Words are inadequate
in an age of mass delusion posing as sanity!
Gregory Herr , July 16, 2018 at 7:34 pm
I think your words "total off the charts lunacy and patent absurdity" are as adequate as they come in this situation.
Litchfield , July 16, 2018 at 10:42 pm
Not only absurd, though, but also deeply isulting, treasonous, really horrendous that our national-level journalists arrogate
to themselves the right to diss, insult, accuse, charge, condemn, vilify, etc. the president of the United States. I don't like
trump either, I hate waht he is doing in Israel, supporting the rabid Zionists there and here. BUT, standing up to the media and
intelligence onslaught took guts, and he came out of the meeting looking pretty good, I think. The meeting also gave Putin an
opportunity to score a few points for reason, thus an international platform he might otherwise not have had.
I LOVE the Putin points re Browder $$$ (rather, rubles) to Hillary. I do so hope that this topic is taken up and richly sucked
and considered and tasted and finally chewed and swallowed and digested and the real . . . finally is delivered to the AMerican
people regarding Hill's $$$ shenanigans. If that happens it could point once again to an investigation of her emails and those
of her assistant Huma Abedin. Remember her? When do we get the full investigation of this very compromised woman?
These people have no shame, as they take their massive paychecks for lying to keep the fools in line. Well, thanks to websites
like this one and others, there aren't so many fools anymore. They are pathetic, and days of Cronkite, Murrow et al who reported
news objectively are dead and buried.
Zhu Ba Jie , July 16, 2018 at 9:38 pm
Probably they believe their own nonsense, at least when they say. Much as crooked preachers do.
Jean , July 16, 2018 at 10:30 pm
Cronkite wasn't so objective, Jessika. He was pretty bought into the glory of our Viet nam adventuring until the war protesters
(whom he did not represent objectively either) opened Amerika's eyes.
mike k , July 16, 2018 at 7:01 pm
FOR ONCE, I AM PROUD TO STAND WITH OUR PRESIDENT.
irina , July 16, 2018 at 7:17 pm
Roger That.
Mike From Jersey , July 16, 2018 at 8:14 pm
Ditto
JRGJRG , July 16, 2018 at 9:21 pm
Me, too. An act of extraordinary political courage.
mike k , July 16, 2018 at 6:59 pm
That took guts, Mr. Trump. I didn't know you had it in you. Congratulations for standing up to your (deadly) opponents. They
are now showing themselves to be the evil scum they really are.
Rohit , July 16, 2018 at 6:57 pm
There is one small problem with this article. While I trust Consortium News far more than the New York Times, there are those
who trust the latter. And the article is far too long for those who already believe that Trump is guilty of collusion with Russia.
A shorter article by Consortium News with a one two punch is what is needed.
JRGJRG , July 16, 2018 at 9:22 pm
Oh, go pound sand, would you?
Zhu Ba Jie , July 16, 2018 at 9:40 pm
People don't change their minds because of rational arguments. Russiagate will go on, in spite of logic and evidence, much
as Birther nonsense does.
mike k , July 16, 2018 at 6:54 pm
I just listened to NBC nightly news, and CNN. They are screaming treason! And the end of America! They are absolutely aghast
that Trump is making peace moves with Putin. Doesn't he know that America is a Warfare State?? To talk peace is against everything
we hold sacred. Beware Mr. Trump, the CIA hit squads will be champing at the bit to field one of their "lone assassins on you".
Pray for the Donald not being gunned down for doing the right thing (for once).
JRGJRG , July 16, 2018 at 9:37 pm
I still fear someone will do the president harm as a result of this. Trump is taking chances with the mafia that runs this
shadow permanent government, given this level of hysteria. They just have too much at stake. They are used to getting their way.
I hope I'm wrong. The last time a president took on the entire establishment to this extent was JFK. I wish I could be more optimistic.
Litchfield , July 16, 2018 at 10:44 pm
"They are screaming treason! "
How dare they???
they are the treasonous ones.
These crazed zombies are terrifying.
Gregory Herr , July 16, 2018 at 6:52 pm
"I would rather take a political risk in pursuit of peace, than risk peace in pursuit of politics."
Bravo Mr. President.
Joe Tedesky , July 16, 2018 at 8:27 pm
Great quote Gregory. Joe
Bruce Dickson , July 16, 2018 at 8:51 pm
A JFK-worthy quote, that.
And, to quote its deliverer, "Who would think..?"
JRGJRG , July 16, 2018 at 9:23 pm
That one statement will go down in history, mark my words.
Jeff Harrison , July 16, 2018 at 6:40 pm
"never before have I seen an American president consistently, repeatedly, publicly, and shockingly advance the interests of
another country over those of his own government and people."
Really? You obviously haven't been paying attention to the US's obeisance to Israel. I can think of no other country that puts
another country's wishes ahead of their own the way the US does with Israel.
"he had a chance right there in front of the world to tell Vladimir Putin to stay the HELL out of American democracy, and he
didn't do it."
And he was wise not to do so. The United States has far more blatantly interfered with Russian elections than what the idiots
in our alphabet soup of intelligence agencies are accusing Russia of now. The reason you call Putin a thug is not because he is
one but because he won't let you get away with that kind of crap. Putin has made it clear that American regime change is off the
table and he intends to see to it that it stays off the table.
Rohit , July 16, 2018 at 7:30 pm
""never before have I seen an American president consistently, repeatedly, publicly, and shockingly advance the interests of
another country over those of his own government and people.""
Is that why he wants NATO to beef up? Is that why he complained about Germany's energy dependence on Russia?
He is not putting Putin above the American people. He is just not accepting the lies told by the FBI which is really pretty
much still controlled by Obama.
JesseJean , July 16, 2018 at 10:33 pm
Bravo, Jeff!
David Hamilton , July 16, 2018 at 6:34 pm
If the allegations are true – of GRU officers successfully phishing for HRC campaign dirt from Chairman Podesta's emails –
then the officers are guilty as charged. As I understand it, this was the avenue through which Wikileaks obtained the content
of Hillary Clinton's speeches to Goldman Sachs. That confirmation of what most already suspected to be true – that Hillary had
been pledging fealty to Wall Street bankers at the expense of the people – probably contributed to Hillary's defeat at the polls.
So, I say "more power to 'em". Those officers show common cause with the common man and woman in America. Hillary was never going
to release those transcripts on her own!
And that same phishing – if true – was certainly no "terrorist attack" or "act of war' or other hyperbolic nonsense like "the
undermining of democracy in America". We have no democracy – only an oligarchy – much like the Russians under Boris Yeltsin. Maybe
the phishing undermined oligarchy here, which would be a good thing. Oligarchy is at the heart of the cruel neo-liberal order
which tyrannizes the people.
Jeff Harrison , July 16, 2018 at 6:42 pm
Julian Assange has consistently said he did not get the files from Russia. Assange has yet to be caught in a lie. The US is
a serial liar and doesn't even look embarrassed when caught in a lie.
David Hamilton , July 16, 2018 at 6:49 pm
Thanks Jeff, maybe I don't understand the transfers to Wikileaks very well. I wonder if the FBI/Justice Department really knows,
like they say they do.
LarcoMarco , July 16, 2018 at 7:41 pm
Well, if DNC's servers and Hillarious' stealth servers and Podesta's email were hacked, the NSA has Hooverd up all the evidence
(if it exists). The Dumpster should demand this material be revealed and also demand disclosure of proof that RussiaGate is more
than Deep State designs.
Something must be done to release Assange! Trump: do something.
backwardsevolution , July 16, 2018 at 8:57 pm
Frederike – I think Trump will release Assange. Patience.
JRGJRG , July 16, 2018 at 9:33 pm
911 ushered in the post-truth era.
JRGJRG , July 16, 2018 at 9:25 pm
Maybe they got the information because Hillary took home classified documents and recklessly-knowingly exposed them to hackers
in her private basement server?
Freedom lover , July 16, 2018 at 10:56 pm
"If the allegations are true". Well we probably will never find out will we. Putin was shrewd to offer to have Mueller and
his investigators come to Russia to investigate the indited GRU officers and offering full cooperation with Russian Law enforcement.
Putin and Trump both know that Mueller will make every excuse in the book of why that can't happen. Mueller must be craping his
pants wondering if he will somehow be forced to take his investigation to Russia and have it publically exposed for the fraud
that it is.
backwardsevolution , July 17, 2018 at 3:42 pm
Freedom lover – yes, what a great move by Putin! "Come on, let's work together to get to the bottom of this." Mueller must
just be dying! Unfortunately, Trump is really in danger now.
"I have GREAT confidence in MY intelligence people." Translation: He has little confidence in Obama and Bush intelligence people.
Good for him.
JRGJRG , July 16, 2018 at 9:32 pm
Wow, that was explosive! Just imagine how bad things would be right now if someone other than Putin were in charge of Russia.
We should count ourselves as lucky.
It was a remarkable moment in a remarkable press conference. President Donald Trump had just
finished a controversial summit meeting in Helsinki with his Russian counterpart Vladimir
Putin, and
the two were talking to the media . Jeff Mason, a political affairs reporter with Reuters,
stood up and asked Putin a question pulled straight out of the day's headlines: "Will you
consider extraditing the 12 Russian officials that were indicted last week by a U.S. grand
jury?"
The "12 Russian officials" Mason spoke of were military intelligence officers accused of
carrying out a series of cyberattacks against various American-based computer networks
(including those belonging to the Democratic National Committee), the theft of emails and other
data, and the release of a significant portion of this information to influence the outcome of
the 2016 U.S. presidential election. The names and organizational affiliations of these 12
officers were contained in a detailed 29-page indictment prepared by special
prosecutor Robert Mueller, and subsequently made public by Assistant Attorney General Rob
Rosenstein on July 13 -- a mere three days prior to the Helsinki summit.
Vladimir Putin responded, "We have an existing agreement between the United States of
America and the Russian Federation, an existing treaty, that dates back to 1999, the mutual
assistance on criminal cases. This treaty is in full effect. It works quite efficiently."
Putin then discussed the relationship between this agreement -- the 1999 Mutual Legal Assistance
Treaty -- and the Mueller indictment. "This treaty has specific legal procedures," Putin
noted, that "we can offer the appropriate commission headed by special attorney Mueller. He can
use this treaty as a solid foundation and send a formal and official request to us so that we
would interrogate, we would hold the questioning of these individuals who he believes are privy
to some crimes and our enforcement are perfectly able to do this questioning and send the
appropriate materials to the United States."
In the
uproar that followed the Trump-Putin press conference , the exchange between Mason and
Putin was largely forgotten amidst invective over Trump's seeming public capitulation on the
issue of election interference. "Today's press conference in Helsinki," Senator John McCain
observed afterwards in a typical comment, "was one of the most disgraceful performances by an
American president in memory."
It took an
interview with Putin after the summit concluded , conducted by Fox News's Chris Wallace, to
bring the specific issue of the 12 indicted Russians back to the forefront and give it context.
From Putin's perspective, this indictment and the way it was handled by the United States was a
political act. "It's the internal political games of the United States. Don't make the
relationship between Russia and the United States -- don't hold it hostage of this internal
political struggle. And it's quite clear to me that this is used in the internal political
struggle, and it's nothing to be proud of for American democracy, to use such dirty methods in
the political rivalry."
Regarding the indicted 12, Putin reiterated the points he had made earlier to Jeff Mason.
"We -- with the United States -- we have a treaty for assistance in criminal cases, an existing
treaty that exists from 1999. It's still in force, and it works sufficiently. Why wouldn't
Special Counsel Mueller send us an official request within the framework of this agreement? Our
investigators will be acting in accordance with this treaty. They will question each individual
that the American partners are suspecting of something. Why not a single request was filed?
Nobody sent us a single formal letter, a formal request."
There is no extradition treaty between the U.S. and Russia, which makes all the calls for
Trump to demand the extradition of the 12 Russians little more than a continuation of the
"internal political games" Putin alluded to in his interview. There is, however, the treaty
that Putin referenced at both the press conference and during the Wallace interview.
Signed in Moscow on June 17, 1999, the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty calls for the
"prevention, suppression and investigation of crimes" by both parties "in accordance with the
provisions of this Treaty where the conduct that is the subject of the request constitutes a
crime under the laws of both Parties."
It should be noted that the indicted 12 have not violated any Russian laws. But the Mutual
Legal Assistance Treaty doesn't close the door on cooperation in this matter. Rather, the
treaty notes that "The Requested Party may, in its discretion, also provide legal assistance
where the conduct that is the subject of the request would not constitute a crime under the
laws of the Requested Party."
It specifically precludes the process of cooperating from inferring a right "on the part of
any other persons to obtain evidence, to have evidence excluded, or to impede the execution of
a request." In short, if the United States were to avail itself of the treaty's terms, Russia
would not be able to use its cooperation as a vehicle to disrupt any legal proceedings underway
in the U.S.
The legal assistance that the treaty facilitates is not inconsequential. Through it, the
requesting party can, among other things, obtain testimony and statements from designated
persons; receive documents, records, and other items; and arrange the transfer of persons in
custody for testimony on the territory of the requesting party.
If the indictment of the 12 Russians wasn't the "dirty method" used in a domestic American
"political rivalry" that Putin described, one would imagine that Assistant Attorney General Rob
Rosenstein would have availed himself of the opportunity to gather additional evidence
regarding the alleged crimes. He would also have, at the very least, made a request to have
these officers appear in court in the United States to face the charges put forward in the
indictment. The treaty specifically identifies the attorney general of the United States "or
persons designated by the Attorney General" as the "Central Authority" for treaty
implementation. Given the fact that Jeff Sessions has recused himself from all matters
pertaining to the investigation by the Department of Justice into allegations of Russian
meddling in the 2016 election, the person empowered to act is Rosenstein.
There are several grounds under the treaty for denying requested legal assistance, including
anything that might prejudice "the security or other essential interests of the Requested
Party." However, it also requires that the reasons for the any denial of requested assistance
be put in writing. Moreover, prior to denying a request, the Requested Party "shall consult
with the Central Authority of the Requesting Party to consider whether legal assistance can be
given subject to such conditions as it deems necessary. If the Requesting Party accepts legal
assistance subject to these conditions, it shall comply with the conditions."
By twice raising the treaty in the context of the 12 Russians, Putin has clearly signaled
that Russia would be prepared to proceed along these lines.
If the indictment issued by the Department of Justice is to be taken seriously, then it is
incumbent upon Rosenstein to call Putin's bluff, and submit a detailed request for legal
assistance per the mandate and procedures specified in the treaty -- in short, compel Russia to
either put up or shut up.
Any failure to do so would only confirm Putin's assertion that the indictment was a
political game to undermine the presidency of Donald J. Trump.
Scott Ritter is a former Marine Corps intelligence officer who served in the former
Soviet Union implementing arms control treaties, in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert
Storm, and in Iraq overseeing the disarmament of WMD. He is the author ofDeal of the Century: How Iran Blocked the West's Road to
War .
Very cogent analysis. Putin, who's incredibly well briefed, knew exactly what he was
offering, and thought that by doing so, would force the DoJ/Mueller to either take him up on
his offer or otherwise display the overt politicism of the indictments. But the American
anti-Trump mindhive is so completely addled, they of course miss the point entirely. The
absence of reason among the anti-Trump/anti-Russia collective is truly something to behold
– it's scary.
The request V. Putin proposed and Scot Ritter writes about, if send to Russia, would be
equivalent to 'go and whistle' and would be treated the same way the Russians treat the
requests from Poland to return the remains of the Polish plane that crashed in controversial
and strange circumstances near Smolensk on April 10, 2010. They, the Russians, did not return
the remains of the plane up until today and the place where the plane crashed they bulldozed
the ground and paved with very thick layer of concrete.
Such request would only give the Russians propaganda tools to delay and dilute any
responsibility from the Russian side and at the end they would blame the USA for the whole
mess with no end to their investigation, because they would investigate until the US
investigators would drop dead. Anybody who seriously thinks about V.
Putin offer to investigate anything with Russia should first have his head examined by a
very good, objective, and politically neutral head specialist.
"If the indictment issued by the Department of Justice is to be taken seriously, then it is
incumbent upon Rosenstein to call Putin's bluff, and submit a detailed request for legal
assistance per the mandate and procedures specified in the treaty -- in short, compel Russia
to either put up or shut up.
Any failure to do so would only confirm Putin's assertion that the indictment was a
political game to undermine the presidency of Donald J. Trump."
That was one long-winded way of recognizing that Putin just told the US biparty
establishment behind the manufactured "Russia!" hysteria to put up or shut up.
I don't think that Pres Putin has anything to lose here.
"ARTICLE 4 DENIAL OF LEGAL ASSISTANCE
The Central Authority of the Requested Party may deny legal assistance if:
(1) the request relates to a crime under military law that is not a crime under general
criminal law;
(2) the execution of the request would prejudice the security or other essential interests
of the Requested Party; or "whether accurate or not the treaty permits a denial of request,
if said requests threaten Russian security."
Almost by definition, an investigation interrogation by the US of the personnel in
question because said questioning might very well stray into other areas , unrelated to the
hacking charge. Now Pres. Putin has played two cards: a treaty is in place that deals with
criminal matters between the two states and surely must have known that and should have
already made the formal requests in conjunction with the treaty or he didn't know either way,
the rush to embarrass the president may very well backfire. As almost everything about this
investigation has.
Right! That's not going to happen .the DOJ has no proof .their indictment was a ploy to
queer any deal with Russia. Anybody that believes anything the 'intelligence' agencies say,
without proof, is an idiot.
"... No Russian interference in America's political process occurred in 2016, earlier, or is being cooked up for the nation's November midterm elections. ..."
"... Trump knows it and said so in Helsinki. When asked if he holds Russia accountable for anything, he said: ..."
"... Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the CRG, Correspondent of Global Research based in Chicago. ..."
"... VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: stephenlendman.org (Home – Stephen Lendman). Contact at [email protected]. My newest book as editor and contributor is titled "Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III." http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html ..."
No Russian interference in America's political process occurred in 2016, earlier, or is
being cooked up for the nation's November midterm elections.
Trump knows it and said so in Helsinki. When asked if he holds Russia accountable for
anything, he said:
"I hold both countries responsible (for dismal bilateral relations). I think that the
United States has been foolish. I think we've all been foolish And I think we're all to
blame."
Regarding election meddling, he said:
"There was no collusion at all. Everybody knows it. And people are being brought out to
the fore. So far that I know, virtually none of it related to the campaign. And they're going
to have to try really hard to find somebody that did relate to the campaign."
"My people came to me and some others (T)hey think it's Russia President Putin said it's
not Russia. I will say this: I dont see any reason why it would be."
" President Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today."
Trump is wrong about most things, not this. No evidence, nothing, proves Russian meddling in
the US political process.
If it existed, it would have been revealed long ago. It never was and never will be because
there's nothing credible to reveal, Big Lies alone.
Trump's above remarks were in Helsinki. In response to a raging Russophobic firestorm of
criticism back home, he backtracked from his above comments, saying he misspoke abroad.
He accepts the intelligence community's claim about Russian US election meddling –
knowing it didn't occur.
Russiagate was cooked up by Obama's thuggish Russophobic CIA director John Brennan , media
keeping the Big Lie alive.
DNC/John Podesta emails were leaked, not hacked – an indisputable fact media
scoundrels suppress to their disgrace.
Former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray earlier explained that
"(t)he source of these emails and leaks has nothing to do with Russia at all," adding:
"I discovered what the source was when I attended the Sam Adam's whistleblower award in
Washington."
"The source of these emails (came) from within official circles in Washington DC. You
should look to Washington, not to Moscow."
"WikiLeaks has never published any material received from the Russian government or from
any proxy of the Russian government. It's simply a completely untrue claim designed to divert
attention from the content of the material" and its true source.
The Big Lie alone matters when it's the official narrative. The Russian meddling hoax and
mythical Kremlin threat to US security are central to maintaining adversarial relations with
America's key invented enemy.
It's vital to unjustifiably justifying the nation's global empire of bases, its outrageous
amount of military spending, its belligerence toward all sovereign independent states, its
endless wars of aggression, its scorn for world peace and stability, its neoliberal harshness
to pay for it all, along with transferring the nation's wealth from ordinary people to its
privileged class.
America's deeply corrupted political process is far too debauched to fix, rigged to serve
wealth, power and privilege exclusively, at war on humanity at home and abroad.
It's a tyrannical plutocracy and oligarchy, a police state, not a democracy, a cesspool of
criminality, inequity and injustice, run by sinister dark forces – monied interests and
bipartisan self-serving political scoundrels, wicked beyond redemption, threatening humanity's
survival.
Today is the most perilous time in world history. What's going on should terrify everyone
everywhere.
Washington's rage for global dominance, its military madness, its unparalleled recklessness,
threatens world peace, stability, and survival.
*
Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the CRG, Correspondent of Global Research
based in Chicago.
VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: stephenlendman.org (Home – Stephen Lendman). Contact at [email protected].
My newest book as editor and contributor is titled "Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III."
"... Cutting through the crap on foreign policy is something of a Paul family tradition. ..."
"... When Ron Paul suggested on a Republican presidential primary debate stage in 2008 that U.S. foreign policy created " blowback " that led to 9/11, fellow GOP candidate Rudy Giuliani accused Paul of blaming America and defending the attackers. Paul didn't relent: "Have you ever read about the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years." ..."
"... The American Conservative ..."
"... There are neocons in both parties who still want Ukraine and Georgia to be in NATO. That's very, very provocative. It has stimulated and encouraged nationalism in Russia. George Kennan predicted this in 1998 when we still had Yeltsin and Russia was coming in our direction. He said, "If you push NATO up against Russia's borders, nationalism will arise and their militarist tendencies will increase, and you may get someone like a Putin," basically. ..."
"... "It's a big mistake for us, not to say that we're morally equivalent or that anything Russia does is justified," Paul told Tapper. "But if we don't understand that everything we do has a reaction, we're not going to be very good at understanding and trying to have peace in our world." ..."
"... "Most Americans are understandably shocked by what they view as an unprecedented attack on our political system," the New York Times ..."
"... New York Times ..."
"... Rand Paul said Sunday, "People need to think through these things before they get so eager to rattle their sabers about wanting to have a confrontation with Russia." ..."
"... Jack Hunter is the former political editor of ..."
Ron and Rand Paul Call Out Foreign Policy Hysteria
And like his father, the senator found himself on the wrong end of the media mob this week.
When Mitt Romney called Russia America's "
number
one geopolitical foe
" during the 2012 election campaign, Barack Obama
mocked
him:
"The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back." Vice President Joe Biden
dismissed
Romney as a "Cold War holdover." Hillary Clinton
said
Romney was "looking backward." John Kerry
said
"Mitt Romney talks like he's only seen Russia by watching
Rocky IV
."
But that was then. This week the Cold War seemed to be back in full force for many former Obama supporters, as
President Trump met with Russian President Vladimir Putin in the wake of 12 Russian agents
being indicted
for
allegedly meddling in the 2016 election.
In the midst of this hysteria, Senator Rand Paul was
asked
by CNN's Jake
Tapper on Sunday whether he thought Trump should demand that Putin acknowledge Russia's meddling.
"They're not going to admit it in the same way we're not going to admit that we were involved in the Ukrainian
elections or the Russian election," Paul
replied
. "So all countries that can
spy do. All countries that want to interfere in elections and have the ability to, they try." Paul insisted that U.S.
and Russian meddling are not "morally equivalent," but said we must still take into account that both nations do this.
That's when "Rand Paul" began trending on Twitter.
"Rand Paul is on TV delivering line after line of Kremlin narrative, and it is absolutely stunning to watch," read
one tweet
with nearly 5,000 likes. Another
tweet, just as popular,
said
, "Between
McConnell hiding election interference and Rand Paul defending it, looks like Russia's already annexed Kentucky." A Raw
Story headline on Paul's CNN interview read, "
Stunned
Jake Tapper explains why NATO exists to a Russia-defending Rand Paul
."
But was Paul really "defending" Russia? Was he even defending Russian meddling in U.S. elections? Or was he merely
trying to pierce through the hysteria and portray American-Russian relations in a more accurate and comprehensive
context -- something partisans left and right won't do and the mainstream media is too lazy to attempt?
Cutting through the crap on foreign policy is something of a Paul family tradition.
When Ron Paul suggested on a Republican presidential primary debate stage in 2008 that U.S. foreign policy created "
blowback
"
that led to 9/11, fellow GOP candidate Rudy Giuliani accused Paul of blaming America and defending the attackers. Paul
didn't relent: "Have you ever read about the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we've been over there.
We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years."
No one in the GOP wanted to hear what Ron Paul had to say because it challenged and largely rebutted Republicans'
entire political identity at the time. Paul was roundly denounced. FrontPageMag's David Horowitz called him a "
disgrace
."
RedState
banned
all Paul supporters.
The American Conservative
's Jim Antle would
recall
in 2012: "The optics were
poor: a little-known congressman was standing against the GOP frontrunner on an issue where 90 percent of the party
likely disagreed with him . Support for the war was not only nearly unanimous within the GOP, but bipartisan."
Rand Paul now poses a similar challenge to Russia-obsessed Democrats. Contra Jake Tapper sagely explaining "why NATO
exists" to a supposedly ignoramus Paul, as the liberal Raw Story headline framed it, here's what the senator actually
said:
There are neocons in both parties who still want Ukraine and Georgia to be in NATO. That's very, very provocative.
It has stimulated and encouraged nationalism in Russia. George Kennan predicted this in 1998 when we still had
Yeltsin and Russia was coming in our direction. He said, "If you push NATO up against Russia's borders, nationalism
will arise and their militarist tendencies will increase, and you may get someone like a Putin," basically.
Do you think Jake Tapper Googled "George Kennan"? That's about as likely as Giuliani Googling "blowback."
"It's a big mistake for us, not to say that we're morally equivalent or that anything Russia does is justified," Paul
told Tapper. "But if we don't understand that everything we do has a reaction, we're not going to be very good at
understanding and trying to have peace in our world."
As for Russian spying -- was Paul just blindly defending that, too? Or did he make an important point in noting both
sides do it?
"Most Americans are understandably shocked by what they view as an unprecedented attack on our political system," the
New York Times
reported in February. "But intelligence veterans, and scholars who have studied covert
operations, have a different, and quite revealing, view."
The
Times
continued: "'If you ask an intelligence officer, did the Russians break the rules or do something
bizarre, the answer is no, not at all,' said Steven L. Hall, who retired in 2015 after 30 years at the C.I.A., where he
was the chief of Russian operations. The United States 'absolutely' has carried out such election influence operations
historically, he said, 'and I hope we keep doing it.'"
The U.S. will no doubt keep meddling in foreign elections. Russia will do the same, just as it did during the
Obama administration and years prior
. The cries against diplomacy and for war will ebb, flow, flip, and flop,
depending on who sits in the White House and how it makes the screaming partisans feel. Many Democrats who view Trump's
diplomacy with Russia as dangerous would have embraced it (and did) under Obama. Many Republicans who hail Trump's
diplomatic efforts
wouldn't
have done so were he a Democrat. President Hillary Clinton could be having the same meeting with Putin and
most Democrats would be fine with it, Russian meddling or no meddling.
So many
headlines
attempted to portray Paul as the partisan hack on Sunday when the opposite is actually true. It's the left, including
much of the media, that's now turned hawkish towards Russia for largely partisan reasons, while Paul was making the same
realist
foreign policy
arguments
regarding
NATO
and
U.S.-Russia relations
long before the Trump presidency.
Responding to Romney's anti-Russia, anti-Obama comments in 2012, Thomas de Waal, a Russia expert at the Carnegie
Endowment for International Peace,
told
the
New York Times
, "There's a whole school of thought that Russia is one you need to work with to
solve other problems in the world, rather than being the problem." Rand Paul said Sunday, "People need to think through
these things before they get so eager to rattle their sabers about wanting to have a confrontation with Russia."
But think they won't and sabers they'll rattle, as yesterday's villains become today's heroes and vice versa.
There's the elephant in the room, of course. Nobody seems to want to touch it yet, but everybody knows that
Israeli meddling in US elections puts Russian meddling in the shade. Still, it's fascinating watching the
reporting and waiting to see who will break the silence.
In the meantime, wake me up when there's something
called "the Russia-American Political Action Committee" in DC. Wake me up when US politicians vie to win its
favor, as they vie to win the favor of AIPAC, and win the huge financial contributions that result from getting
its support. Wake me up when Russian oligarchs contribute even a fraction of what Israel donors like Sheldon
Adelson already contribute to US political campaigns – and wake me up when they get results like an American
president moving the US embassy to Jerusalem or an America president sending American troops to stand between
Israel and its enemies Russia may have moved a few thousand votes here or there, but Israel gets American
politicians to send America's children to die in Middle East wars. At the moment, Russia can only dream of
meddling with that degree of success.
Yep – American elections have been corrupted by foreign countries for a long time. Russia's only problem is
that it hasn't learned who to pay off, and how much. Next time Mr. Netanyahu visits Mr. Putin (and he visits
him fairly often), he can give him a few pointers. And then Mr. Putin will be invited to give speeches to joint
sessions of Congress. Just like Mr. Netanyahu. And freshmen US congressmen will be frog-marched to Russia for
instructions, just like they're already frog-marched to Israel.
Russia has been engaging in international espionage dating back at least to Peter the Great. As such, they play
the game as well as, or possibly better, than anyone. They, like we, will do what is necessary-even to the
point of injecting themselves in the internal affairs of another country–if they deem it in their interest to
do so or, as the cliche has it, "in the interest of state". Not very nice but–that's the way the game is
played.
Thank you, Rand Paul and Mr. Hunter, for injecting some much needed sanity into this debate.
There is no need to demonize the Russians. Their country has
national interests and goals. If they are patriots, the Russians will seek to advance those interests and
goals.
We also have interests and goals, and if we are patriots, we seek to advance them (though we disagree on
what our real interests are and what our goals should be).
When our interests concide with that of Russia we collaborate. When they clash, we seek to undermine each
other.
The Russians seem to have been doing it, as their interests now clash with ours. Nothing to be worked out
about. That's how the game is played.
Which does not mean that we should defend ourselves strenuously from such undermining. And the President is
precisely tasked with defending this country and advance its interests. This he seems to be unable to do.
Do not hate the Russians. Do not demonize them. But be aware of what they are doing, because we are NOT in a
Kumbayah moment with them.
Well done, Mr. Hunter. It's a shame that the Pauls' position on foreign policy is not shared by ostensibly
"libertarian" commentators who value DC cocktail parties above all principles.
The left's hatred of Russia goes even deeper than US partisan politics. They hate them because they gave up
their world-wide communism ideology. And they hate them because they are not fully on board with the LGBQTXYZ
movement.
The real problem with Russia is that it exists, and it is too big for us to control. The real problem with
Putin is that he is the first strong leader Russia has had since the fall of the Soviet Union, and he is
messing up our plans for world hegemony.
As one who grew up during the Cold War (the real one) and lived
through the whole thing (the Iron Curtain, the Warsaw Pact, the crushing of Hungary, communists behind every
door and under every bed), I find it very hard to take all the current hysteria about Russia very seriously.
Sane, reasonable comments. Totally agree with your sentiments. Unfortunately, since we live in a
3-ring media circus, so few people will listen or pay heed. In a world possibly even more dangerous than any
time since the Cold War, the act of demonizing one of the two greatest nuclear powers on earth is surely
madness.
CNN etc. headlines are not even thinly veiled editorials against Trump. Not related to just publishing the
news. But telling readers how to think. Mainstream media has an M&M type coating. Remove the outer shell and
you find the good old boys and girls as ever-lurking and ever vigilant Neocon Nation pushing their one and only
agenda on the American people. They are insatiable as long as they do not do the fighting and dying. Stay tough
Trump and realize short of complete capitulation you cannot satisfy these people.
Donald Trump took a step towards peace. Of course, not everyone likes this. As can be seen, Donald Trump has
many enemies, even among Republicans. They want war. These are people dangerous to America and the world.
What is better: peace with Russia, or a global nuclear war?
The Book of Revelation warns: "And another horse, fiery red, came out, and the one who rode it was granted
permission to take peace from the earth, so that people would butcher one another, and he was given a huge
sword." (6:4) "The great sword" – what does it mean?
Jesus gave many important details: "Terrors [φοβητρα] both [τε] and [και] unusual phenomena [σημεια –
unusual occurrences, transcending the common course of nature] from [απ] sky [ουρανου] powerful [μεγαλα] will
be [εσται]." (Luke 21:11)
Some ancient manuscripts contain the words "and frosts" [και χειμωνες] (we call this today "nuclear
winter"), and in Mark 13:8 "and disorders" [και ταραχαι] (in the sense of confusion and chaos). There will be
also significant tremors, food shortages and epidemics along the length and breadth of the regions as a result
of using this weapon.
This weapon will also cause climate change, catastrophic drought and global famine. (cf. Revelation 6:5, 6)
So here we have a complete picture of the consequences of the global nuclear war. Is there any sense in
speeding up this war?
He called out the perfidy and incompetence of American intelligence and foreign policy officials during the
Obama era, as he should have. He wants a productive relationship with a declining nuclear and regional power,
as he should have. Is Putin a nice man? No. But neither is he a pusillanimous Leftist eurotwit.
I'm glad to see adults in the room, at long last. The Sixties are over, baby. Good riddance.
"Of course the Paul's are right as they always are."
Always?
"A number of the newsletters criticized civil rights activist Martin Luther King, Jr., calling him a
pedophile and "lying socialist satyr".[2][15] These articles told readers that Paul had voted against making
Martin Luther King, Jr.'s birthday a federal public holiday, saying "Boy, it sure burns me to have a national
holiday for that pro-communist philanderer, Martin Luther King. I voted against this outrage time and time
again as a Congressman. What an infamy that Ronald Reagan approved it! We can thank him for our annual Hate
Whitey Day."[2][16][17] During the 2008 and 2012 presidential election campaigns, Paul and his supporters said
that the passages denouncing King were not a reflection of Paul's own views because he considers King a
"hero".[18][19][20″
That last sentence is a hoot. Talk about "hysteria", but, go ahead, repeat Paul's lies that he knew nothing
about his own newsletter.
Johann:
"The left's hatred of Russia goes even deeper than US partisan politics. They hate them because they gave up
their world-wide communism ideology. And they hate them because they are not fully on board with the LGBQTXYZ
movement."
Like the NRA, The American Conservative needs to open "The Russian Conservative" chapters in Putin's
conservative Russia to protect Putin's murderous government.
It could be that the "Left", whatever that is in addlepated minds, merely desires a little real politik in
our relations with relations with Putin's Russia.
It's hard to tell the difference between ex-KGB Putin and ex-republicans like Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan.
The latter two make "full of crap" seem mild praise.
Off the top of my head, a few egregious examples in which the US government has "meddled" in other countries
during the last 100 years:
Mexico (Woodrow Wilson had thousands of US troops occupying Mexico until calling
them back to "meddle" in Europe's War to End All Wars, setting the stage for an even worse war 20 years later.)
Russia (Woodrow Wilson used the US military to "meddle" in the Russian revolution after the War to End All
Wars.)
Korea (undeclared war)
Vietnam (undeclared war)
Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Chile, and much of the rest of Central and South America.
Iran (helped overthrow its government in the 1950s and install the Shah of Iran, setting the stage for the
Iranian revolution.)
Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Egypt.
Yemen (huge humanitarian disaster as I write this. US government fully supporting head-chopping Saudi
Arabians in their campaign to starve, sicken and blow to bits hundreds of thousands of people. Support includes
US planes in-flight fueling of Saudi fighter/bomber jets.)
And let us not forget the enormous "meddling" in numerous US government elections and policy debates by . .
. Israel.
"He called out the perfidy and incompetence of American intelligence and
foreign policy officials during the Obama era, as he should have. He wants a productive relationship with a
declining nuclear and regional power, as he should have. Is Putin a nice man? No. But neither is he a
pusillanimous Leftist eurotwit."
It's important to understand what the US intelligence community is calling "interference in our election."
There has been no accusation that the Russians hacked into our electronic voting and changed results. Rather,
they did what we have done in other countries–the Russians ran an influence campaign. They bought ads and
created bots to spread the word. This is so utterly tame . . . there is nothing out of the ordinary US playbook
here.
Hacking the DNC server and revealing underhanded DNC doings? Hey, that's on the DNC for being both venal and
incompetent.
Anybody in 1962 shouting wild paranoid conspiracy theories about
THERE ARE RUSSIAN SPIES EVERYWHERE, THEY'RE TRYING TO TAKE OVER AMERICA
These people in 1962 would be (correctly) dismissed as Right Wing conspiracy kooks, now it's just standard
Lib Dems, RINOs, Neo Conservatives and fake news lying press.
We commissioned this Farstar comics with this theme – I mean like who in 2018 is really scared that Russians
like Anna Kournikova are going to take over America –
Unfortunately, Rand Paul is acting, but not on principle or in good faith. If he really wanted to stand against
manufactured hysteria, he would not accept the US "intelligence" agency claims and refer to their record – e.g.
on Iraq and before regarding stability of the Soviet Union – he would question the staggering difficulties of
attribution and forensics for networked, digital attacks (the main reason why any claims about who hacked whom
have to be read with skepticism), he would point to the corruption of our foreign politics by Saudi and Israeli
interests and money within the Trump-Kushner clan, and both parties, and he would compare the alleged – and
allegedly ineffectual – attempts to influence an already ridiculous election to the very real, pervasive and
corrupting impact of GOP voter disenfranchisement and bipartisan gerrymandering in service of incumbents and
their networks.
Rand Paul is the man who was going to stand against the Haspel appointment. He is a phoney,
but he serves as a weather vane for niche politicians on how the winds are turning.
Nothing about New START, no word about how George Bush made a promise that might have been in bad faith, how
Gorbachev was foolish enough to accept it, and how Bill Clinton broke it across the board, and piled on by
targeting Serbia in the Balkan conflict. Kennan did not refer to the Ukraine on his missive.
If Rand Paul is our last best hope, we are in deep trouble.
Jack Hunter " Senator Rand Paul was asked by CNN's Jake Tapper on Sunday whether he thought Trump should
demand that Putin acknowledge Russia's meddling."
(0:01) TAPPER: 48 hours ago the US government, the Trump
administration, said the top Russian military intelligence officers orchestrated a massive hack to affect the
US election. How much do you want President Trump to try to hold Putin accountable for that?
PAUL: I think really we mistake our response if we think it's about accountability from the Russians.
They're another country. They're going to spy on us. They do spy on us. They're going to interfere in our
elections. We also do the same. Dov Levin at Carnegie Mellon studied this over about a 50-year period in the
last century and found 81 times that the US interfered in other countries' elections. So we all do it. What we
need to do is to make sure that our electoral process is protected. And I think because this has gotten
partisan and it's all about partisan politics we have forgotten that really the most important thing is the
integrity of our election. And there are things we can do and things that I've advocated: Making sure it's
decentralized all the way down to the precinct level; making sure we don't store all the data in one place,
even for a state, and that there's a back-up way so that someone in a precinct can say, 'Two thousand people
signed in, this was the vote tally I sent to headquarters.' There's a lot of ways that we can back-up our
election. Advertising, things like that, it's tricky. Can we restrict the Russians? We might be able to in some
ways, but I think at the bottom line we wanted the Russians to admit it. They're not going to admit it in the
same way we're not going to admit that we were involved in the Ukrainian elections or the Russian elections. So
all countries that can spy do. All countries that want to interfere in elections and have the ability to, they
try."
TAPPER: It sounds as though you are saying that the United States has done the equivalent of what the
Russians did in the 2016 election, and it might sound to some viewers that you're offering that statement as an
excuse for what the Russians did.
PAUL: No, what I would say is it's not morally equivalent, but I think in their mind it is. And I think it's
important to know in your adversary's mind the way that they perceive things. I do think that they react to our
interference in both their elections. One of the reasons they really didn't like Hillary Clinton is they found
her responsible for some of the activity by the US in their elections under the Obama administration. So I'm
not saying it's justified
TAPPER: But surely, Senator Paul, the United States has never done what the Russians did.
PAUL: I'm not saying they're equivalent, or morally equivalent, but I am saying that this is the way that
the Russians respond. So if you want to know how we have better diplomacy, or better reactions, we have to know
their response. But it's not just interference in elections that I think has caused this nationalism in Russia.
Also, I think part of the reason is is we promised them when James Baker, at the end when Germany reunified, we
promised them that we wouldn't go one inch eastward of Germany with NATO, and we've crept up on the borders,
and we still have neocons in both parties who want Ukraine and Georgia to be in NATO.
That's very, very provocative and it has stimulated and encouraged nationalism in Russia. George Kennan
predicted this. In 1998 when we still had Yeltsin and Russia was coming in our direction, he said, if you push
NATO up against Russia's borders, nationalism will arise and their militarist tendencies will increase, and you
may get someone like a Putin, basically.
George Kennan predicted the rise of Putin in 1998. And so we have to understand that for every action we
have, there is a reaction. And it's a big mistake for us -- not to say that we're morally equivalent or that
anything that Russia does is justified – but if we don't realize that everything we do has a reaction, we're
not going to be very good at understanding and trying to have peace in the world (3:38)
Bernie Town Hall Tonight: Changing The Narrative Again By Using His Platform To Give People's Stories A Chance to Be Heard
Where Corporate Media Utterly Fails
Mark from Queens on Mon, 07/16/2018 - 9:18pm This is gonna be quick. I just remembered that Bernie Sanders is holding another
one of his excellent town halls tonight. This one is called "CEO's vs. Workers."
Before the negativity comes in, let me say clearly that this isn't a Bernie is our savior bit or arguing for electoral salvation
or whatever. It's simply a recognition of someone with a platform putting in the time to make sure these stories are seen and documented
for posterity, despite whatever limitations inherent in the broadcast's reach. I see this as highly commendable - and potent.
The story here that made me turn on the computer and hit "new essay" was from a young woman working for Disneyland in Anaheim,
who tells of how brutal it is trying to survive on $12 an hour, having to cram roommates in to barely make the rent.
Then she mentions that some of her co-workers are living in their cars. Many have lost their homes and/or living in motels.
There's also a Tent City, which extends to a larger Orange County problem, where more Disney co-workers are living. One of here co-workers
was so ashamed of her situation that she told nobody that she was living in her car - and went missing and later found dead in it.
She then admits a great fear of losing her home, saying there are no resources to be found if you're in that position. (Her story
begins around the 18min mark).
Quite frankly, it's fucking heartbreaking and angering to listen to these people humbly tell their stories to the public without
shame.
People in this country are not hearing these stories . And because of it, are easily kept distracted by corporate media
manufactured controversy and divide and conquer by partisan ideologues. They're not having their own realities reflected back to
them; are instead bred to be in a constant state of fear about things that don't effect their everyday lives and led to believe relatively
inconsequential things are more important than fundamental ones that do effect their daily lives.
Every one of these Bernie townhalls (I've seen two others) have been riveting. This guy is single-handedly trying to give a platform
to marginalized and dispossessed voices. Nothing like this ever gets on tv. Anytime there's a corporate attempt to do something similar
it's a highly controlled, stilted affair. His are the opposite.
To me this is an example of how to change the narrative, which is the linchpin to everything. Why can't we get more people at
a quicker pace to align themselves in solidarity to what we think and espouse here? Because there isn't a forum for the downtrodden,
the castaways, the ripped off, the overworked and underpaid, the isolated, to tell their stories on a large scale. When people here
stories firsthand there is a much better chance of building the kid of empathy and compassion at the heart of forming coalitions
and/or support for those outside of one's life's station or class.
Of course it's all relative. And Bernie, despite being the most popular politician by far, doesn't have the reach of CNN. But
it is something. And if this could inspire more of these types of panel discussion that dignify the working class it could revolutionize
how narratives
get built.
This is the difference between people reading about this stuff and moving on, and having to look into the eyes of the afflicted
and being moved to act.
If this can't work on the American public to rile up indignation and compassion we're completely hopeless.
Simply put, firsthand stories are so potent. He's really onto something with these townhalls giving folks the opportunity to
speak their truth. No pundits, annoying talking heads, slick stage set.
No matter what you think of him, there's nobody in politics who comes close to what he's done to change the narrative. He continues
to impact and expand it to include the real issues of people's lives (lack of healthcare, joblessness, being underpaid and overworked,
etc.) that are completely ignored by the MSM.
Change The Narrative. Propaganda. What is the public corralled into talking about next? Almost always something to distract
from how bad things really are.
Simply put, firsthand stories are so potent. He's really onto something with these townhalls giving folks the opportunity to
speak their truth. No pundits, annoying talking heads, slick stage set.
No matter what you think of him, there's nobody in politics who comes close to what he's done to change the narrative. He continues
to impact and expand it to include the real issues of people's lives (lack of healthcare, joblessness, being underpaid and overworked,
etc.) that are completely ignored by the MSM.
Change The Narrative. Propaganda. What is the public corralled into talking about next? Almost always something to distract
from how bad things really are.
But Burnme is not.
Once again he refuses to broadcast the spectacle of american political corruption while laying the blame on russia.
Rather than make clear that interference in our elections is unacceptable, Trump instead accepted Putin's denials and cast
doubt on the conclusions of our intelligence community. This is not normal.
@Pricknick is the phrase "This is not normal." We are a fascist state, and it IS normal, just as the kidnapping and torturing
small children by Trump's Gestapo is normal. (We might want to do something about it?)
Ditto Trump's obsequious ass kissing of Putin in Helsinki, proving he is a Russian asset the same way Frank Burns (on MASH)
was a North Korean asset.
Bernie, however, points out the obvious (or what would be obvious if anyone cared to look), that even "blue states" hide an
economic hellscape. Obama's bailout of the banks and reinflation of the housing bubble enriched the One Percent but left everyone
else behind. Those who can't afford $750,000 crap shacks either end up homeless or get stuck with hours-long commutes to reach
their jobs. Here in Portland we have so many tent cities you would think you stepped back into the 1930s.
Welcome to Hell. Maybe Bernie and others can show us the way out. If only we listen this time.
But Burnme is not.
Once again he refuses to broadcast the spectacle of american political corruption while laying the blame on russia.
Rather than make clear that interference in our elections is unacceptable, Trump instead accepted Putin's denials and cast
doubt on the conclusions of our intelligence community. This is not normal.
@SancheLlewellyn
And PLEASE don't misunderstand me, I'm NOT dismissing their plight. I'm glad that someone is showing the desperation of people
whose problems are NOT from their life choices i.e. prison, drugs, dropping out of High School.
Move to the Midwest. Housing is expensive here too, but $750,000 is a mansion. In my Chicago Suburb there are still houses
under $150,000, usually small (1200-1500 sq ft) 1950's tract houses. There are 20 houses right now for sale between $250,000 and
$300,000, quite nice houses built in the last thirty years. There are even 14 houses between $400,000 and $500,000 that look so
upscale I can only dream about them (and dream of affording them). Illinois minimum wage is only $8.25 but even McDonald's is
paying $12.
Taxes are regressive and horrendous. And the Weather sucks big time. But it's better than trying to live on $12 an hour in California.
The coasts are now only for the elite and their servants.
The weather is better in the South, but society and politics are extremely conservative.
#2 is the phrase "This is not normal." We are a fascist state, and it IS normal, just as the kidnapping and torturing small
children by Trump's Gestapo is normal. (We might want to do something about it?)
Ditto Trump's obsequious ass kissing of Putin in Helsinki, proving he is a Russian asset the same way Frank Burns (on MASH)
was a North Korean asset.
Bernie, however, points out the obvious (or what would be obvious if anyone cared to look), that even "blue states" hide an
economic hellscape. Obama's bailout of the banks and reinflation of the housing bubble enriched the One Percent but left everyone
else behind. Those who can't afford $750,000 crap shacks either end up homeless or get stuck with hours-long commutes to reach
their jobs. Here in Portland we have so many tent cities you would think you stepped back into the 1930s.
Welcome to Hell. Maybe Bernie and others can show us the way out. If only we listen this time.
@SancheLlewellyn I'm sorry but come on now. As for this being normal you'd be correct but it surely wasn't only Trump
that normalized this, it's been normalized for a long damned time but most simply don't look at it, especially when it's a "Democrat"
at the helm with a pretty smiling face assuring us that everything will be fine as long as we play along with them.
Hell is already here but buying into that Russia crapola is a cop out - Russia didn't cut high end taxes repeatedly while the
rest of the country went to shit. Russia didn't bail out the banks at taxpayer expense and tell the taxpayers to pound sand and
STFU. Russia is not fighting wars for global domination all over the planet and it does not have almost 1000 foreign bases all
over the world.
Can Bernie save us? He'd best get off that Russia crap as even he knows good and damned well that our continued "defense" budgets
cannot continue alongside Medicare for All, etc, etc, etc. THAT is the elephant in the room that apparently even Bernie is simply
not willing to address.
#2 is the phrase "This is not normal." We are a fascist state, and it IS normal, just as the kidnapping and torturing small
children by Trump's Gestapo is normal. (We might want to do something about it?)
Ditto Trump's obsequious ass kissing of Putin in Helsinki, proving he is a Russian asset the same way Frank Burns (on MASH)
was a North Korean asset.
Bernie, however, points out the obvious (or what would be obvious if anyone cared to look), that even "blue states" hide an
economic hellscape. Obama's bailout of the banks and reinflation of the housing bubble enriched the One Percent but left everyone
else behind. Those who can't afford $750,000 crap shacks either end up homeless or get stuck with hours-long commutes to reach
their jobs. Here in Portland we have so many tent cities you would think you stepped back into the 1930s.
Welcome to Hell. Maybe Bernie and others can show us the way out. If only we listen this time.
@lizzyh7
That part is disputable but the rest is absolutely correct.
Remember, in politics, whether local or global, there doesn't have to be a good guy and a bad guy. Most often there are two
(or more) bad guys.
#2.1 I'm sorry but come on now. As for this being normal you'd be correct but it surely wasn't only Trump that normalized
this, it's been normalized for a long damned time but most simply don't look at it, especially when it's a "Democrat" at the helm
with a pretty smiling face assuring us that everything will be fine as long as we play along with them.
Hell is already here but buying into that Russia crapola is a cop out - Russia didn't cut high end taxes repeatedly while the
rest of the country went to shit. Russia didn't bail out the banks at taxpayer expense and tell the taxpayers to pound sand and
STFU. Russia is not fighting wars for global domination all over the planet and it does not have almost 1000 foreign bases all
over the world.
Can Bernie save us? He'd best get off that Russia crap as even he knows good and damned well that our continued "defense" budgets
cannot continue alongside Medicare for All, etc, etc, etc. THAT is the elephant in the room that apparently even Bernie is simply
not willing to address.
This comment is just another example of the trump hysteria that has taken over.
#2 is the phrase "This is not normal." We are a fascist state, and it IS normal, just as the kidnapping and torturing small
children by Trump's Gestapo is normal. (We might want to do something about it?)
Ditto Trump's obsequious ass kissing of Putin in Helsinki, proving he is a Russian asset the same way Frank Burns (on MASH)
was a North Korean asset.
Bernie, however, points out the obvious (or what would be obvious if anyone cared to look), that even "blue states" hide an
economic hellscape. Obama's bailout of the banks and reinflation of the housing bubble enriched the One Percent but left everyone
else behind. Those who can't afford $750,000 crap shacks either end up homeless or get stuck with hours-long commutes to reach
their jobs. Here in Portland we have so many tent cities you would think you stepped back into the 1930s.
Welcome to Hell. Maybe Bernie and others can show us the way out. If only we listen this time.
expressing what I also believe is Bernie's intent. The deep state might be able to keep him from being president, but they
have not yet silenced him. They ensure the msm doesn't cover his town halls, but they are found and spread far and wide anyway.
When I was a manager, I would tell my employees that if I didn't know something was broken, I couldn't fix it. Bernie continues
to publicize what is broken.
It is up to we, the people, to fix it through revolution. It's the only way.
I'm glad you posted this. Bernie is one of a handful of D.C. politicians that addresses the plight of the working poor. Most
Democrats talk about the difficulties of the middle class since that's a "safe" topic.
@karl pearson
Most of the working poor think they are lower middle class and not at all like welfare people. Often, they are the most conservative.
It's easy to have that outlook when things are always going against you. Most haven't caught on that the Democrats are no longer
their friends and haven't been for around half a century. Some realize that the Republicans never have been. Others think if one
side (D) has a black hat the other (R) must have a white hat. They actually think that Trump is their friend. "If he's Hillary's
enemy, he must be my friend."
Putin handed Trump a means of openly investigating Killary's/CIA's manipulation of US politics via the Browder investigation,
the crime of manipulating the DNC to remove Bernie can also loop into the mix.
Let's hope Trump follows through and exposes the nest of vipers. The majority of people are now seeing the light, only the
people with skin the game or those far too controlled through an excellent propaganda/mass mind control experiment do not.
Edward Bernays and Joseph Goebels could only dream that their methods would go this far.
"But being dependent, every day of the year and for year after year, upon certain politicians for news, the newspaper reporters
are obliged to work in harmony with their news sources."
― Edward L. Bernays ,
Propaganda
The problem is everyone is stuck in the "lesser over greater evil" construct and that's
what makes the American Zionist-influenced duopoly so powerful. Trump is part of that failed
system that Americans are so dependent on and that always leads to the same place. People
should fight this lesser vs greater evil construct, even if Americans are too stupid at this
time to get out of it. It means they'd have to choose outside the box, outside the media's
choices example Fox and other Rightist outlets for Trump. CNN, MSNBC - Hillary, but the media
is all Zionist run and specializes in the brainwash on both sides. It's all part of the same
sham. The duopoly.
It starts with primaries for representatives and choosing a candidate that demonstrates
independence and integrity; especially those that the media wants to ignore; that's not
beholden to special interests or financed by Zionists.
Most importantly when America goes wrong and it's royally f...cked up right now, the rest
of the world, the web has to push back against their ignorance and their stupid choices,
because those choices hurt others as much as they hurt them only they're still too
brainwashed to see it. Americans had the right idea to turn on the establishment, but Trump
was the perfect Zionist anti-establishment decoy, a fraud, a pretender just like Obama was
for the Left.
In the past election, the only viable contender was Bernie who got railroaded by
Democratic Zionists like Wasserman and Podesta. I think Bernie was more authentic than the
two evils, Hillary and Trump, and although his Zionist roots are always a concern; he was run
out precisely because he was a rogue Jew and Zionists couldn't trust him. He wasn't in the
pocket of Zionist financiers although he was running with the Democrats, but in the current
status quo he had no choice but to use the Democratic Party as a means to an end and they did
him in. If Hillary were not on the ticket who knows what could have been. He was a start in
the right direction away from the Zionist financed duopoly.
Everyone messes with everyone in their elections around the world. My first
question is why is the media on both sides still pounding the American
public with the "Russia did it" bullhorn. What exactly does Russia gain ?
They're 9 times smaller than NATO. China has the most to gain.
The
Ukrainians were working with Hillary against Trump. The Deep State has the
ability to make every act of espionage look like Russia did it. The DNC
didn't turn over their server to the FBI. The Awan server disappeared too.
Something smells terrible, like Kankles Huma hole.
jesus they can accuse you of being a putin puppet if you don't...
and how do you defend yourself.. "how dare you insult every branch of
our intelligence agencies"( and the lying james clapper!!!! )how dare
you...?
Hey Groot, I think these countries hack and spy on each other 24/7.
It's bullshit. They appoint a special prosecutor and with the
exceptions of the BS Flynn and Manafort charges the only others he's
charged are non-americans. Nothing about the elephant in the room, the
billion dollar + money laundering schemes and treason of the
Obama/Clinton and their lackeys.
Looks like it was actually China which implemented forwarding of all 30K email to controlled
by them account. See sic_semper_tyrannis blog for details. This is a bombshell revelation, if
true,
For debunking of the information presented in the indictment see
To me Mueller fiction sounds like a second rate Crowdstrike "security porn" -- a bragging
about non-existent capabilities.
And I agree that the "Le Carre level of details" with names (which are obviously
classified) are extremely suspicious. It also invites a nasty retaliation, because it breaks
de-facto mode of work of intelligence agencies with each other and undermines any remnant of
trust (if such exists in respect to CIA; it probably existed for NSA).
As sessions were encrypted so to decode them you need to steal SSH key, or break SSH
encryption. Both are not very realistic, and, if realistic, disclosing such NSA capabilities
greatly damages those capabilities.
Also Guccifer 2.0 Internet personality looks more and more to me like a false flag
operation with the specific goal to implicate Russians. Mueller is actually pretty adept in
operating in such created for specific purpose "parallel reality" due to specifics of his
career. So nothing new here. Just a strong stench of a false flag operation
Another weak point is the use of CCcleaner. This is not how professionals from state
intelligence agencies operate. Any Flame-style exfiltration software (and Flame was pioneered
by the USA ;-) has those capabilities built-in, so exposing your activities in Windows logs
is just completely stupid.
The Russian government on Friday strongly denied the charges. In a statement, the Foreign
Ministry called the indictments "a shameful farce" that was not backed up by any evidence.
"Obviously, the goal of this 'mud-slinging' is to spoil the atmosphere before the
Russian-American summit," the statement said.
The Ministry added that the 12 named Russians were not agents of the GRU.
" When you dig into this indictment there are huge problems, starting with how in the world
did they identify 12 Russian intelligence officers with the GRU?" said former CIA analyst Larry
Johnson in an interview with Consortium News. Johnson pointed out that the U.S. Defense
Intelligence Agency was not allowed to take part in the January 2017 Intelligence Community
Assessment on alleged interference by the GRU. Only hand-picked analysts from the FBI, the NSA
and the CIA were involved.
" The experts in the intelligence community on the GRU is the Defense Intelligence Agency
and they were not allowed to clear on that document," Johnson said.
" When you look at the level of detail about what [the indictment is] claiming, there is no
other public source of information on this, and it was not obtained through U.S. law
enforcement submitting warrants and getting affidavits to conduct research in Russia, so it's
clearly intelligence information from the NSA, most likely," Johnson said.
CrowdStrike's Role
The indictment makes clear any evidence of an alleged hack of the DNC and DCCC computers did
not come from the FBI, which was never given access to the computers by the DNC, but instead
from the private firm CrowdStrike, which was hired by the DNC. It is referred to as Company 1
in the indictment.
" Despite the Conspirators' efforts to hide their activity, beginning in or around May 2016,
both the DCCC and DNC became aware that they had been hacked and hired a security company
("Company 1") to identify the extent of the intrusions," the indictment says.
Dimitri Alperovitch, a CrowdStrike co-founder, is also a senior fellow at the anti-Russian
Atlantic Council think tank.
The indictment doesn't mention it, but within a day, CrowdStrike claimed to find Russian
"fingerprints" in the metadata of a DNC opposition research document, which had been revealed
by DCLeaks, showing Cyrillic letters and the name of the first Soviet intelligence chief. That
supposedly implicated Russia in the hack.
CrowdStrike claimed the alleged Russian intelligence operation was extremely sophisticated
and skilled in concealing its external penetration of the server. But CrowdStrike's conclusion
about Russian "fingerprints" resulted from clues that would have been left behind by extremely
sloppy or amateur hackers -- or inserted intentionally to implicate the Russians.
One of CrowdStrike's founders has ties to the anti-Russian Atlantic Council raising
questions of political bias. And the software it used to determine Russia's alleged involvement
in the DNC hack, was later proved to be faulty in a high-profile case in Ukraine, reported
by the Voice of America.
The indictment then is based at least partially on evidence produced by an interested
private company, rather than the FBI.
Evidence Likely Never to be Seen
Other apparent sources for information in the indictment are intelligence agencies, which
normally create hurdles in a criminal prosecution.
" In this indictment there is detail after detail whose only source could be intelligence,
yet you don't use intelligence in documents like this because if these defendants decide to
challenge this in court, it opens the U.S. to having to expose sources and methods," Johnson
said.
If the U.S. invoked the states secret privilege so that
classified evidence could not be revealed in court a conviction before a civilian jury would be
jeopardized.
Such a trial is extremely unlikely however. That makes the indictment essentially a
political and not a legal document because it is almost inconceivable that the U.S. government
will have to present any evidence in court to back up its charges. This is simply because of
the extreme unlikelihood that arrests of Russians living in Russia will ever be made.
In this way it is similar to the indictment earlier this year of the Internet Research
Agency of St. Petersburg, Russia, a private click bait company that was alleged to have
interfered in the 2016 election by buying social media ads and staging political rallies for
both Clinton and Trump. It seemed that no evidence would ever have to back up the indictment
because there would never be arrests in the case.
But Special Counsel Robert Mueller was stunned when lawyers for the internet company showed
up in Washington demanding
discovery in the case. That caused Mueller to scramble and demand a delay in the first hearing,
which was
rejected by a federal judge. Mueller is now battling to keep so-called sensitive material
out of court.
In both the IRA case and Friday's indictments, the extremely remote possibility of
convictions were not what Mueller was apparently after, but rather the public perception of
Russia's guilt resulting from fevered media coverage of what are after all only accusations,
presented as though it is established fact. Once that impression is settled into the public
consciousness, Mueller's mission would appear to be accomplished.
For instance, the Times routinely dispenses with the adjective "alleged" and
reports the matter as though it is already established fact. It called Friday's indictments,
which are only unproven charges, "the most detailed accusation by the American government to
date of the [not alleged] Russian government's interference in the 2016 election, and it
includes a litany of [not alleged] brazen Russian subterfuge operations meant to foment chaos
in the months before Election Day."
GRU Named as WikiLeak's Source
The indictment claims that GRU agents, posing as Guccifer 2.0, (who says he is a Romanian
hacker) stole the Democratic documents and later emailed a link to them to WikiLeaks, named as
"Organization 1." No charges were brought against WikiLeaks on Friday.
Assange: Denied Russia was his source. (CNBC screenshot)
" After failed attempts to transfer the stolen documents starting in late June 2016, on or
about July 14, 2016, the Conspirators, posing as Guccifer 2.0, sent Organization 1 an email
with an attachment titled 'wk dnc linkl.txt.gpg,'" the indictment says. "The Conspirators
explained to Organization 1 that the encrypted file contained instructions on how to access an
online archive of stolen DNC documents. On or about July 18, 2016, Organization 1 confirmed it
had 'the 1Gb or so archive' and would make a release of the stolen documents' this week.'"
WikiLeaks founder and editor Julian Assange, who is in exile in the Ecuador embassy in
London, has long denied that he got the emails from any government. Instead Assange has
suggested that his source was a disgruntled Democratic Party worker, Seth Rich, whose
murder on the streets of Washington in July 2016 has never been solved.
On Friday, WikiLeaks did not repeat the denial that a government was its source. Instead it
tweeted: "Interesting timing choice by DoJ today (right before Trump-Putin meet), announcing
indictments against 12 alleged Russian intelligence officers for allegedly releasing info
through DCLeaks and Guccifer 2.0."
Assange has had all communication with the outside world shut off by the Ecuadorian
government two months ago.
Since the indictments were announced, WikiLeaks has not addressed the charge that GRU
agents, posing as Guccifer 2.0, were its source. WikiLeaks' policy is to refuse to disclose any
information about its sources. WikiLeaks' denial that the Russian government gave them the
emails could be based on its belief that Guccifer 2.0 was who he said he was, and not what the
U.S. indictments allege.
Those indictments claim that the Russian military intelligence agents adopted the personas
of both Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks to publish the Democratic Party documents online, before the
Russian agents, posing as Guccifer 2.0, allegedly supplied WikiLeaks.
The emails, which the indictment does not say are untrue, damaged the Clinton campaign. They
revealed, for instance, that the campaign and the Democratic Party worked to deny the
nomination to Clinton's Democratic Party primary challenger Bernie Sanders.
The indictments also say that the Russian agents purchased the use of a computer server in
Arizona, using bitcoin to hide their financial transactions. The Arizona server was used to
receive the hacked emails from the servers of the Democratic Party and the chairman of
Clinton's campaign, the indictment alleges. If true it would mean the transfer of the emails
took place within the United States, rather than overseas, presumably to Russia.
Some members of the Veterans' Intelligence Professionals for Sanity argue
that metadata evidence points to a local download from the Democratic computers, in other words
a leak, rather than a hack. They write the NSA would have evidence of a hack and, unlike this
indictment, could make the evidence public: " Given NSA's extensive trace capability, we
conclude that DNC and HRC servers alleged to have been hacked were, in fact, not hacked. The
evidence that should be there is absent; otherwise, it would surely be brought forward, since
this could be done without any danger to sources and methods."
That argument was either ignored or dismissed by Mueller's team.
The Geopolitical Context
US enabled Yeltsin's reelection.
It is not only allies of Trump, as the Times thinks, who believe the timing of the
indictments, indeed the entire Russia-gate scandal, is intended to prevent Trump from pursuing
detente with nuclear-armed Russia. Trump said of the indictments that, "I think that really
hurts our country and it really hurts our relationship with Russia. I think that we would have
a chance to have a very good relationship with Russia and a very good chance -- a very good
relationship with President Putin."
There certainly appear to be powerful forces in the U.S. that want to stop that.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, Wall Street rushed in behind Boris Yeltsin
and Russian oligarchs to asset strip virtually the entire country, impoverishing the
population. Amid widespread accounts of this grotesque corruption, Washington
intervened in Russian politics to help get Yeltsin re-elected in 1996. The political rise
of Vladimir Putin after Yeltsin resigned on New Year's Eve 1999 reversed this course, restoring
Russian sovereignty over its economy and politics.
That inflamed American hawks whose desire is to install another Yeltsin-like figure and
resume U.S. exploitation of Russia's vast natural and financial resources. To advance that
cause, U.S. presidents have supported the eastward expansion of NATO and have deployed 30,000
troops on Russia's borders.
In 2014, the Obama administration helped orchestrate a coup that
toppled the elected government of Ukraine and installed a fiercely anti-Russian regime. The
U.S. also undertook the risky policy of aiding jihadists to overthrow a secular Russian ally in
Syria. The consequences have brought the world closer to nuclear annihilation than at
any time
since the Cuban missile crisis in 1962.
In this context, the Democratic Party-led Russia-gate appears to have been used not only to
explain away Clinton's defeat but to stop Trump -- possibly via impeachment or by inflicting
severe political damage -- because he talks about cooperation with Russia.
Joe Lauria is editor-in-chief of Consortium News and a former correspondent forThe Wall Street Journal, Boston Globe,Sunday
Timesof London and numerous other newspapers. He can be reached at[email protected]and followed
on Twitter @unjoe .
If you enjoyed this original article please consider
making a donation to Consortium News so we can bring you more stories like this
one.
They can't allow Assange to speak now, because if he should decide to reveal that Seth
Rich was the leaker, that would create a whole new set of circumstances. Incredible article,
Joe.
Real estate mogul Leona Helmsley is remembered for infamously stating, "Rich people don't
pay taxes. Taxes are for the little people."
Similarly, "Rich people hide evidence (real – or alleged (non-existent) for criminal
or propaganda purposes) under the umbrella of 'national security'. Evidence is for the little
people."
And the great war between truth and lies moves forward
Hank , July 15, 2018 at 9:51 am
As with the last indictment of 'Russian hackers' these GRU officers should retain an
American attorney who can then demand Mueller hand over whatever evidence he has (aka:
discovery). Last time that happened Mueller was forced to refuse (because he had none). That
was embarrassing for Mueller and you'd think he would've learned his lesson not to try the
gimmick again. You'd think.
Sam F , July 15, 2018 at 9:07 am
The entire Russia-gate invention is a diversion from Israel-gate, the control of US
elections and mass media by zionists. That is the story here, not silly disputes over who did
what to reveal DNC emails.
Red_Dog , July 15, 2018 at 8:03 am
1. Lauria is correct when he says, "Some members of the Veterans' Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity argue that metadata evidence points to a local download from the
Democratic computers, in other words a leak, rather than a hack." But he fails to give the
full story. William Binney and some members of the VIPS wrote a memo stating that computer
data showed that the files were downloaded locally to a flash drive because of transmission
speeds. This memo was challenged in a separate memo by Thomas Drake and other members of the
VIPS. To try and resolve the problem The Nation hired an independent computer expert,
Nathanial Freitas, to analyze the memos and date. He concluded that the data did fit the
Binney analysis. But it also fit several other possibilities that used remote access. So the
data could not be used to prove that the files were locally downloaded. https://www.thenation.com/article/a-leak-or-a-hack-a-forum-on-the-vips-memo/
2. Perhaps the most important part of the indictments is not in the Lauria article.
500,000 voters had their data stolen and, because most state-local voter systems are running
on outdated and dilapidated computers, it may be impossible to tell if other systems had been
hacked. Unfortunately, very few people are considering this part of the indictment. It means
that if we want a fair election in 2018 paper ballots should be used. In any case all voting
systems must be auditable.
3. Finally, the level of detail and attribution in the indictments indicates to me that
the NSA and CIA were consulted. And it was worth providing this detail because of the
incredible threat our country is under. The fact that we can now track down hacks with such
precision should give others pause.
Skip Scott , July 15, 2018 at 8:18 am
I think you are jumping to a false conclusion about the "level of detail". The NSA and the
CIA have now had enough time to cut the entire indictment out of whole cloth. Are we supposed
to trust their so called "evidence" at this point, when the entire RussiaGate theater of the
absurd was created to cover their ass and hamstring detente with Russia?
Piotr Berman , July 15, 2018 at 5:11 pm
I did not read the indictment, so I do not know if the level of detail rose to heights
exhibited by Gen. Colin Powell in his famous "white powder vial" speech. Today we know that
the white powder he showed to the entire world could be indeed harmful, as the baby powder of
Johnson and Johnson was revealed to have traces of asbestos. But then again, it could be
genuinely harmless.
On top of that, Innocence Project revealed that surprising number of successful
prosecutions leading to the death penalty were based on hoaxes. For example, the "culprit"
was implicated by his blood being found on a seat of the escape car, however when the defense
examined the vial of the sentenced person blood that was in police possession, it had DNA of
two people -- some blood was removed (presumably, splashed in the escape car) and to mask it,
blood of another person was added. This is stuff done without any political motivation, just
to get good number of solved cases -- the race and prior criminal record of the "culprit"
probably being the bonus.
Creating compelling narratives is what prosecutors do for living. I hope that more often
than not these narratives are true, but a true professional is not bound by such
constraints.
j. D. D. , July 15, 2018 at 7:44 am
Thank you for a thorough and damning report on the indicttments by the cowardly and
thuggish Mueller who, as the author notes, is confident that they nevr be answered in a court
of law. Moreover, with all the hullabaloo attached to Robert Mueller's stunt, the fact
remains that the DNC and John Podesta emails revealed a stunning and irrefutable truth:
Hillary Clinton and the DNC were rigging the election against her Democratic primary
opponent, Bernie Sanders. However, I would add two aspects which place into context the
timing of Mueller's publicity stunt. First, that it came on the heels of embattled FBI Agent
Peter Strzok's appearance before a joint House hearing on Thursday at which Strzok claimed
that the Republicans on the House Judiciary and Government Oversight Committees were doing
"Putin's work" by continuing to examine the British and Obama Administration/Democratic Party
origins of Russiagate. Strzok's charge, obviously choreographed with Congressional Democrats,
wasendlessly cycled in the news media. The Democrats otherwise sought to obstruct the
discredited FBI agent's testimony by any and all means necessary to the delight of the
"resist" social media universe. While the Justice Department's independent IG found that
Strzok's prioritization of the Trump Russiagate investigation over the Clinton email
investigation was not free from bias, an inconvenient fact largely glossed over in Thursday's
staged event, it noted that Strzok and his mistress, former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe
counsel, Lisa Page, exchanged daily texts vowing to stop Trump's election, disparaging
Trump's s supporters, and declaring themselves the saviors of the nation from the current
President. The third element,of this assault on the prospect of peace was meant to cooincide
with Trump's visit to the UK, i.e.the discovery of a bottle or vial of the so-called Novichok
nerve agent allegedly used to poison former British spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter. The
bottle was discovered at the home of Charlie Rowley and Dawn Sturgess in Amesbury, England.
The British went on an international rampage around the March 4, 2018, Skripal poisoning
claiming Putin was conducting a murder of a long-retired British spy on British territory in
some form of retaliaton, demanding war-like sanctions against Russia. When their claims
failed to achieve substantive credibility, even with the British bioweapons lab, Porton Down,
Rowley and Sturgess appeared as new victims of the nerve gas poisoning on June 30th and
Sturgess subsequently died. The British press is filled with the imputation that the found
vial will somehow be traceable back to Russia, a fact which eluded the original Skripal hoax
Yet despite all of this, it appears that the desperate attempt of Mueller and his allies in
the US and British intel community to block or ruin the Helsinki summit lack the suficient
credibiltiy to succeed.
I guess I'm showing my age with this comment, but our military & intelligence
communities, our politicians and our corporate media's non-stop, fact-free, free-association,
paranoid delusional drivel about "Russian election interference" has all the solidity, yet
none of the charm, of a bad acid trip circa 1972. Offered the choice I'd certainly opt for
the bad acid flashback – especially given what is actually at stake in terms of the
prospects for human survival if this absurd and dangerous nonsense continues. The
institutions of the West have shown themselves to be completely, totally and utterly corrupt!
To bear witness to such complete corruption is absolutely breathtaking! Expecting anything
rational, ethical, fact-based or simply honest to emanate from any of our Western
institutions at this point requires an almost child-like level of trust – or –
lacking that – a willingness to enter into and embrace the world of these mad delusions
and their purveyors!
Bjorn Jensen , July 15, 2018 at 12:52 am
This is worth reading as a summary of grand jury proceedings, the prosecutor's case
presentatation and the proposal for indictment through the summary of evidence either oral or
via documents.
I think it is important to remember that grand juries are comprised of ordinary citizens
and are independent of the courts.
Yes, this era of total corruption of the US government is unprecedented.
The disputes between one corrupt branch and another condemn them all.
mrtmbrnmn , July 15, 2018 at 12:09 am
This is not breaking news anymore, but worth repeating:
The odious NY Times inadvertently stepped on its own shtick (and everyone else's) when it
front-paged the FBI's "Operation Hurricane Crossfire" against the Trump campaign. This whole
farcedy was conceived as a rolling scheme to regime change Putin when Hillary ascended the
throne, with Trump as merely a mug and patsy. When the moo-cow Hillary lost, the plan had to
be repurposed to uckfay with Putin AND regime change Trump. If it looks like a Federal crime,
smells like a Federal crime and quacks like a Federal crime, well You be the judge. There are
so many organs of the Federal Gov and the MSM in on this criminal conspiracy, they are going
to need a new wing at Gitmo to house all these scoundrels
Nabi , July 14, 2018 at 10:40 pm
Great right up to the last few paragraphs. Too hard for a logical conservative to swallow
that the prime reason we have troops (small assets at that) near the Russia border is because
of the greed of Wall Street. Up 'til then not a bad piece.
Joe Lauria , July 14, 2018 at 11:10 pm
Nabi, I suggest you read War is a Racket by General Smedley Butler if you think such a
thing is unheard of.
Yes, greed of Wall Street. And perhaps this is the most important motive. But many former
Warsaw Pact countries (or at least the ruling classes and opinion makers in those countries)
wanted to become members of NATO because they apparently feared, perhaps not without reason,
Russian domination in the future. And there's also the sheer libido dominandi of some people
in Washington, not exclusively neoconservatives. So greed, fear, and love of power.
bobzz , July 14, 2018 at 10:08 pm
In all likelihood, we'll never know who killed Seth Rich who probably leaked the emails.
The CIA did not have time to create patsies like Lee Harvey Oswald, James Earl Ray, or Sirhan
Sirhan. So RIP Rich.
jsinton , July 14, 2018 at 9:28 pm
Wouldn't it be a hoot if the alleged GRU agents decide to defend themselves in court
against the indictments and demand discovery evidence?
Skip Scott , July 15, 2018 at 8:01 am
The problem with that is that you'd be buying into a stage play that the Deep State
players get to direct. Let's not forget about the abilities detailed in the Vault 7 releases.
Unfortunately it is just as Karl Rove has stated: they can create "reality" now, and they've
had plenty of time to "create" their asses off.
jsinton , July 15, 2018 at 11:41 am
Did you not hear about the St Petersburg click-bait operation that Mueller indicted with
great fanfare back in February? Well, the 13 Russians sent lawyers to answer the indictment
and plead not guilty, much to the shock of Mueller and the investigation. The problem is when
you indict someone, they now have the right to examine the EVIDENCE against them . a process
know as "discovery". Mueller has been trying to suppress the evidence in that case ever
since. Will the GRU agents send a lawyer? I'd be laughing if they did.
Skip Scott , July 15, 2018 at 12:12 pm
Yes, I recall the click-bait operation and the demand for discovery, and Mueller's being
caught by surprise. This time will be a little different:
"Seemingly overlooked by most, Rosenstein said the indictment will now be passed-off (code
word for "buried") to the DOJ National Security Division." The public will never even get to
see any evidence due to "National Security".
Considering the actions of the USA elsewhere,and the accepted, even encouraged,
interference by Israel in all elections in the USA (as Chuck Schumer knows very well!), the
whole process is a complete put-up job. Since the emails were true, and Wikileaks is reputed
to keep to valid reports, the emphasis on finding a suitable scapegoat for the election of
DJT is to steer people away from the genuine actions now destroying the USA.
fred54 , July 14, 2018 at 3:11 pm
They won't have to arrest and extradite the Russians because they will show up in court
just like the two indicted Russians did back in May. Mueller had a heart attack and asked the
Judge to deny the defendants right in discovery to see the evidence. He thought the Russians
wouldn't show and he'd get his judgement exparte without having to produce the non-existent
evidence. The Russians knew the evidence didn't exist just like in this latest lie on the
part of Mueller where there is no evidence. The judge denied the motion and Mueller had no
choice to quietly drop the charges. The same thing will happen here. Only this time the
Russians aren't going to be so sanguine.
GM , July 14, 2018 at 7:02 pm
i don't believe that's accurate. Last I heard the judge agreed to deny the defendant
discovery to the bulk of the prosecution's purported evidence based on Mueller's fatuous
assertions of "national security", though he added that it is temporary and subject to change
in the future.
D3F1ANT , July 14, 2018 at 2:35 pm
Democrat smoke and mirrors. Sad that it's worked for so long. This entire Russia collusion
fantasy has blown up in their faces though. Not only has it failed spectacularly it's exposed
the depth and scope of their corrution and the insidious way in which they've coopted
critical components of the Federal government to their exclusive service–at taxpayer
expense (DOJ/FBI)! It really is staggering. Especially since its allowed to continue even
now!
jsinton , July 15, 2018 at 9:00 pm
Not to mention the credibility of the Deep-State MSM apparatus, which has exposed itself
at purveyors of propaganda without investigation
Jeff Harrison , July 14, 2018 at 11:57 am
A couple of things occur to me. One. Have the Russian government respond to the
indictments with discovery as occurred with the other inane indictments that Mueller
produced. Two. Have Putin respond to the Democrat's demands by demanding the same from the
US. On the one hand, the US only has alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 election. On the
other, Russia has proof of US meddling in essentially every Russian election since the
collapse of the old SovU. The US won't like this. It was absolutely hilarious when that
blonde bubble head of a State Department spokeswoman complained about VOA, RFE, etc being
required to register as foreign agents only to be told by Russia to take RT off the foreign
agent list. The Russians could also repay the favor by indicting Americans who interfered in
Russian elections. They could start with Slick Willie.
In 1745, Samuel Johnson published a commentary entitled Miscellaneous Observations on
the Tragedy of Macbeth :
"Thus the doctrine of witchcraft was very powerfully inculcated; and as the greatest
part of mankind have no other reason for their opinions than that they are in fashion, it
cannot be doubted but this persuasion made a rapid progress, since vanity and credulity
cooperate in its favor. The infection soon reached the Parliament, who, in the first year
of King James, made a law, by which it was enacted, Chapter XII: That "if any person shall
use any invocation or conjuration of any evil or wicked spirit; 2. or shall consult,
covenant with, entertain, employ, feed or reward any evil or cursed spirit to or for any
intent or purpose; 3. or take up any dead man, woman or child out of the grave, –or
the skin, bone, or any part of the dead person, to be employed or used in any manner of
witchcraft, sorcery, charm, or enchantment; 4. or shall use, practice, or exercise any sort
of witchcraft, sorcery, charm, or enchantment; 5. whereby any person shall be destroyed,
killed, wasted, consumed, pined, or lamed in any part of the body; 6. that every such
person being convicted shall suffer death."
"Thus, in the time of Shakespeare, was the doctrine of witchcraft at once established by
law and by the fashion, and it became not only unpolite, but criminal, to doubt it; and as
prodigies are always seen in proportion as they are expected, witches were every day
discovered and multiplied so fast in some places that Bishop Hall mentions a village in
Lancashire where their number was greater than that of the houses."
From Through the Looking Glass , by Lewis Carroll:
"I can't believe that!" said Alice.
"Can't you?" the Queen said in a pitying tone. "Try again: draw a long breath, and shut
your eyes."
Alice laughed. "There's no use trying," she said: "one can't believe impossible
things."
"I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was your age, I always
did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible
things before breakfast."
Two quick comments on the Russiagate hoax:
1. Julian Assange has always refused to compromise his sources, but did the next best thing
by offering a $20,000 reward for the arrest and conviction of Seth Rich's killer(s). There's
only one possible reason he would do this.
2. The truth of the leaked information has never been challenged. For those who insist on
believing in witches and Russiagate, the 12 Russian defendants are guilty only of defending
U.S. democracy, since the content of Clinton's emails helped save the U.S. from a Clinton
presidency.
Excellent article, but it could be improved by including a link to the indictment text:
https://www.justice.gov/file/1080281/download
. It's a 29-page PDF, but it's double-spaced with large margins, so only requires a few
minutes to read.
Mueller Grand Jury Indictment Does Not Prove Russia Hacked DNCSteven D on
Tue, 07/17/2018 - 1:37pm
="username">detroitmechworks
I'd
disagree, since it's one singular action.
@chuckutzman While the PTB want to think of it as OOOH, 12 indictments, when he
actually just got one group of people to agree with him. Not even ALL of them. Just most of
them. And he could get rid of any he didn't think were going to agree with him. Because of
course he fucking can.
Ugh, I'll go with my own BS stories than the government's rather boring line of same old
shit.
At the crux of the indictment is an outright absurdity – Assange announced that he
would be releasing Clinton-related material on June 10th, 2016, whereas the indictment claims
that Guccifer 2.0 gave him access to the DNC emails on July 14th. Moreover, considerable
evidence points to Guccifer 2,0 as being an affiliate of the DNC.
Mish - Six Questions: (1) Is this a trial or a witch hunt? (2) Do we need to see the evidence or do we believe known liars? (3)
Is Trump guilty of treason? Before we even see proof Putin was involved? (4) Is the CIA incapable of fabricating evidence? (5) Even
if Russia interfered in the election, why should anyone have expected otherwise? (6) Has everyone forgotten the US lies on WMDs already?
Notable quotes:
"... Sending lethal arms to Ukraine, bordering Russia, is a really serious adverse action against the interest of the Russian government. Bombing the Assad regime is, as well. Denouncing one of the most critical projects that the Russian government has, which is the pipeline to sell huge amounts of gas and oil to Germany, is, as well. ..."
"... The United States funds oppositional groups inside Russia. The United States sent advisers and all kinds of operatives to try and elect Boris Yeltsin in the mid-1990s, because they perceived, accurately, that he was a drunk who would serve the interests of the United States more than other candidates who might have won. The United States interferes in Russian politics, and they interfere in their cyber systems, and they invade their email systems, and they invade all kinds of communications all the time. And so, to treat this as though it's some kind of aberrational event, I think, is really kind of naive ..."
"... And so, I would certainly hope that we are not at the point, which I think we seem to be at, where we are now back to believing that when the CIA makes statements and assertions and accusations, or when prosecutors make statements and assertions and accusations, unaccompanied by evidence that we can actually evaluate, that we're simply going to believe those accusations on faith, especially when the accusations come from George W. Bush's former FBI Director Robert Mueller, who repeatedly lied to Congress about Iraq and a whole variety of other issues. So, I think there we need some skepticism. ..."
For example, reader Brian stated " There is zero doubt now that Putin stole the election
from Hillary. So much so that she MUST be given the nomination again in 2020. All potential
challengers must step aside. To refuse her the 2020 nomination would be evidence of traitorous
activities with Putin."'
I congratulated Brian for brilliant sarcasm but he piled on. It now seems he was
serious. Mainstream media, the Left an the Right were in general condemnation. Numerous cries of treason emerged from the Left and the Right (see the above link)
It Happened - No Trial Necessary
A friend I highly respect commented " There is simply no question that they did it. You can
legitimately claim that it's not important or that there has been no tie to Trump shown. On the
Russians' side, they can say, screw off, we were pursuing our interests. But you can't take the
view it did not happen. It happened. "
There is a question who did it. Indictments are just that, not proof.
The US fabricated evidence to start the Vietnam war and the US fabricated WMD talk on the
second war in Iraq. US intelligence had no idea the Berlin Wall was about to fall. The US
meddled in Russia supporting a drunk named Yeltsin because we erroneously thought we could
control him.
They Are All Liars
It's a mystery why anyone would believe these proven liars. That does not mean I believe
Putin either. They are all capable liars. Let's step back from the absurd points of view to reality.
US Meddling
The US tries to influence elections in other countries and has a history of assisting the
forcible overthrow of governments we don't like.
Vietnam
Iran
Iraq
Libya
Drone policy
All of the above are massive disasters of US meddling. They are all actions of war,
non-declared, and illegal. I cannot and do not condone such actions even if they were legal.
911 and ISIS resulted from US meddling. The migration crisis in the EU is a direct
consequence of US meddling. The Iranian revolution was a direct consequence of US meddling.Now we are pissing and moaning that Russia spent a few million dollars on Tweets to steal
the election. Please be serious.
Let's Assume
Let's assume for one second the DNC hack was Russia-based. Is there a reason to not be thankful for evidence that Hillary conspired to deny Bernie
Sanders the nomination? Pity Hillary? We are supposed to pity Hillary? The outrage from the Right is amazing. It's pretty obvious Senator John McCain wanted her to win. Neither faced a war or military
intervention they disapproved of.
Common Sense
Let's move on to a common sense position from Glenn Greenwald at the Intercept.
GLENN GREENWALD : In 2007, during the Democratic presidential debate, Barack Obama
was asked whether he would meet with the leaders of North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, Syria and
Iran without preconditions. He said he would. Hillary Clinton said she wouldn't, because it
would be used as a propaganda tool for repressive dictators. And liberals celebrated Obama. It
was one of his greatest moments and one of the things that I think helped him to win the
Democratic nomination, based on the theory that it's always better to meet with leaders, even
if they're repressive, than to isolate them or to ignore them. In 1987, when President Reagan
decided that he wanted to meet with Soviet leaders, the far right took out ads against him that
sounded very much just like what we just heard from Joe, accusing him of being a useful idiot
to Soviet and Kremlin propaganda, of legitimizing Russian aggression and domestic repression at
home.
GLENN GREENWALD : It is true that Putin is an authoritarian and is domestically repressive.
That's true of many of the closest allies of the United States, as well, who are even far more
repressive, including ones that fund most of the think tanks in D.C., such as the United Arab
Emirates or Saudi Arabia. And I think the most important issue is the one that we just heard,
which is that 90 percent of the world's nuclear weapons are in the hands of two countries --
the United States and Russia -- and having them speak and get along is much better than having
them isolate one another and increase the risk of not just intentional conflict, but
misperception and miscommunication, as well.
JOE CIRINCIONE : Right. Let's be clear. Glenn, there's nothing wrong with meeting. I
agree with you. Leaders should meet, and we should be negotiating with our foes, with those
people we disagree with. We're better off when we do that. And the kind of attacks you saw on
Barack Obama were absolutely uncalled for, and you're right to condemn those.
JOE CIRINCIONE : What I'm worried about is this president meeting with this leader
of Russia and what they're going to do. That's what's so wrong about this summit coming now,
when you have Donald Trump, who just attacked the NATO alliance, who calls our European allies
foes, who turns a blind eye to what his director of national intelligence called the warning
lights that are blinking red. About what? About Russian interference in our elections. So you
just had a leader of Russia, Putin, a skilled tactician, a skilled strategist, interfere in a
U.S. election. To what? To help elect Donald Trump.
GLENN GREENWALD : I think this kind of rhetoric is so unbelievably unhinged, the idea that
the phishing links sent to John Podesta and the Democratic National Committee are the greatest
threat to American democracy in decades. People are now talking about it as though it's on par
with 9/11 or Pearl Harbor, that the lights are blinking red, in terms of the threat level. This
is lunacy, this kind of talk. I spent years reading through the most top-secret documents of
the NSA, and I can tell you that not only do they send phishing links to Russian agencies of
every type continuously on a daily basis, but do far more aggressive interference in the
cybersecurity of every single country than Russia is accused of having done during the 2016
election. To characterize this as some kind of grave existential threat to American democracy
is exactly the kind of rhetoric that we heard throughout the Bush-Cheney administration about
what al-Qaeda was like .
JOE CIRINCIONE : Why does Donald Trump feel that he has to meet alone with Putin? What is
going on there? I mean, that -- when Ronald Reagan met with Gorbachev at Reykjavik, at least he
had George Shultz with him. The two of them, you know, were meeting with Gorbachev and his
foreign minister at the time. This is -- it's deeply disturbing. It makes you feel that Trump
is hiding something, that he is either trying to make a deal with Putin, reporting something to
Putin. I tell you, I know U.S. intelligence officials -- I'm probably going right into Glenn's
wheelhouse here. But U.S. intelligence officials are concerned about what Donald Trump might be
revealing to the Russian leader, the way he revealed classified information to the Russian
foreign minister when he met privately with him in the Oval Office at the beginning of his
term. No, I don't like it one bit.
GLENN GREENWALD : I continue to be incredibly frustrated by the claim that we hear over and
over, and that we just heard from Joe, that Donald Trump does everything that Vladimir Putin
wants, and that if he were a paid agent of the Russian government, there'd be -- he would be
doing nothing different. I just went through the entire list of actions that Donald Trump has
taken and statements that he has made that are legitimately adverse to the interest of the
Russian government, that Barack Obama specifically refused to do, despite bipartisan demands
that he do them, exactly because he didn't want to provoke more tensions between the United
States and Russia.
Sending lethal arms to Ukraine, bordering Russia, is a really serious
adverse action against the interest of the Russian government. Bombing the Assad regime is, as
well. Denouncing one of the most critical projects that the Russian government has, which is
the pipeline to sell huge amounts of gas and oil to Germany, is, as well.
So is expelling
Russian diplomats and imposing serious sanctions on oligarchs that are close to the Putin
regime. You can go down the list, over and over and over, in the 18 months that he's been in
office, and see all the things that Donald Trump has done that is adverse, in serious ways, to
the interests of Vladimir Putin, including ones that President Obama refused to do. So, this
film, this movie fairytale, that I know is really exciting -- it's like international intrigue
and blackmail, like the Russians have something over Trump; it's like a Manchurian candidate;
it's from like the 1970s thrillers that we all watched -- is inane -- you know, with all due
respect to Joe. I mean, it's -- but it's in the climate, because it's so contrary to what it is
that we're seeing. Now, this idea of meeting alone with Vladimir Putin, the only way that you
would find that concerning is if you believed all that.
JOE CIRINCIONE : So, Trump knew that this indictment was coming down, before he went to
Europe, and still he never says a word about it. What he does is continue his attacks on our
alliances, i.e. he continues his attacks on our free press, he continues his attacks on FBI
agents who were just doing their job, and supports this 10-hour show hearing that the House of
Representatives had. It's really unbelievable that Trump is doing these things and never says
one word about it. He still has not said a word about those indictments.
GLENN GREENWALD : That's because the reality is -- and I don't know if Donald Trump knows
this or doesn't know this, has stumbled into the truth or what -- but the reality is that what
the Russians did in 2016 is absolutely not aberrational or unusual in any way. The United --
I'm sorry to say this, but it's absolutely true. The United States and Russia have been
interfering in one another's domestic politics for since at least the end of World War II, to
say nothing of what they do in far more extreme ways to the internal politics of other
countries. Noam Chomsky was on this very program several months ago, and he talked about how
the entire world is laughing at this indignation from the United States -- "How dare you
interfere in our democracy!" -- when the United States not only has continuously in the past
done, but continues to do far more extreme interference in the internal politics of all kinds
of countries, including Russia .
GLENN GREENWALD : The United States funds oppositional groups inside Russia. The United
States sent advisers and all kinds of operatives to try and elect Boris Yeltsin in the
mid-1990s, because they perceived, accurately, that he was a drunk who would serve the
interests of the United States more than other candidates who might have won. The United States
interferes in Russian politics, and they interfere in their cyber systems, and they invade
their email systems, and they invade all kinds of communications all the time. And so, to treat
this as though it's some kind of aberrational event, I think, is really kind of naive .
GLENN GREENWALD : It wasn't just Hillary Clinton in 2016 who lost this election. The entire
Democratic Party has collapsed as a national political force over the last decade. They've lost
control of the Senate and of the House and of multiple statehouses and governorships. They're
decimated as a national political force. And the reason is exactly what Joe said. They become
the party of international globalization. They're associated with Silicon Valley and Wall
Street billionaires and corporate interests, and have almost no connection to the working
class. And that is a much harder conversation to have about why the Democrats have lost
elections than just blaming a foreign villain and saying it's because Vladimir Putin ran some
fake Facebook ads and did some phishing emails. And I think that until we put this in
perspective, about what Russia did in 2016 and the reality that the U.S. does that sort of
thing all the time to Russia and so many other countries, we're going to just not have the
conversation that we need to be having about what these international institutions, that are so
sacred -- NATO and free trade and international trade organizations -- have done to people all
over the world, and the reason they're turning to demagogues and right-wing extremists because
of what these institutions have done to them. That's the conversation we need to be having, but
we're not having, because we're evading it by blaming everything on Vladimir Putin. And that,
to me, is even more dangerous for our long-term prospects than this belligerence that's in the
air about how we ought to look at Moscow.
Indictments and First Year Law
Mish : I now wish to return to a statement my friend made regarding the idea " No question
Russia did it ".
From Glenn Greenwald
As far as the indictments from Mueller are concerned, it's certainly the most specific
accounting yet that we've gotten of what the U.S. government claims the Russian government did
in 2016. But it's extremely important to remember what every first-year law student will tell
you, which is that an indictment is nothing more than the assertions of a prosecutor
unaccompanied by evidence. The evidence won't be presented until a trial or until Robert
Mueller actually issues a report to Congress.
And so, I would certainly hope that we are not at
the point, which I think we seem to be at, where we are now back to believing that when the CIA
makes statements and assertions and accusations, or when prosecutors make statements and
assertions and accusations, unaccompanied by evidence that we can actually evaluate, that we're
simply going to believe those accusations on faith, especially when the accusations come from
George W. Bush's former FBI Director Robert Mueller, who repeatedly lied to Congress about Iraq
and a whole variety of other issues. So, I think there we need some skepticism.
But even if the
Russians did everything that Robert Mueller claims in that indictment that they did, in the
scheme of what the U.S. and the Russians do to one another and other countries, I think to say
that this is somehow something that we should treat as a grave threat, that should mean that we
don't talk to them or that we treat them as an enemy, is really irrational and really quite
dangerous.
Mish - Six Questions
Is this a trial or a witch hunt?
Do we need to see the evidence or do we believe known liars?
Is Trump guilty of treason? Before we even see proof Putin was involved?
Is the CIA incapable of fabricating evidence?
Even if Russia interfered in the election, why should anyone have expected
otherwise?
Has everyone forgotten the US lies on WMDs already?
Irrational and Dangerous
I don't know about you, but I have no reason to believe known liars and hypocrites. I
disagree with Trump all the time, in fact, more often than not. The amount of venom on Trump
over this is staggering. Adding a missing word, I stand by my previous statement: " Nearly
every political action that generates this much complete nonsense and hysteria from the Left
and Right is worthy of immense praise."
If you disagree please provide examples. The only two I can come up with are Pearl Harbor
and 911. In both, the US was directly attacked. For rebuttal purposes I offer Vietnam, Syria,
Iraq, Russia, Iran, WWI, treatment of Japanese-American citizens in WWII, and McCarthyism.
Greenwald accurately assesses the situation as "really irrational and really quite dangerous."
Indeed. And if indictments and accusations were crimes, we wouldn't need a jury.
If the DNC servers were hacked, they are evidence, where is the fucking evidence now? At the bottom of the Hudson River with
concrete shoes that's where! Where are the Anwan servers, Podesta's, Wieners....where are Hillary's emails?
Fuck this is getting out of hand. All of the top spooks in the alphabet agencies are complicit, DOJ too, right up to the skinny
faggot in the rainbow house!
Getting close to the time for some real fucking justice in America!
Sic Semper Tyrannis
Here is an update to the map I posted yesterday about where not to be, not sure I agree one way or the other, you decide:
Even if it were found to be true that Russia (and not Seth Rich) was the source of the info that revealed to the American people
(and the world) that the DNC conspired to rig its own primary election, my response would be one of gratitude for shining a light
on the cockroaches.
the zeal with which MSN and especially CNN Wolf Blitzer now defend the 'Intelligence Community' as a singular infallible flawless
entity is incredible ...
... in the context of the war they waged on that very same 'Intelligence Community' in light of it being wrong about WMD in
Iraq
... or the Snowden-gate about it spying on Americans.
most two-faced biased blindly-agended-based manipulative thing I've ever seen on CNN
Russian hack? hahaha, as if. Everybody knows it was an inside job. That sort of thing with all the emails is inside -> Seth
Rich is a good place to look.
BESIDES! LET'S NOT FORGET ABOUT THE CONTENT OF THOSE EMAILS!!!
This guy in the article above that says Hellary "must" be given the nomination because Russia 'hacked' the election. Great!
I'll be very happy to see that nasty bitch go down a second time, based on the substance of her twisted, hypocritical, and consummately
evil character.
" Deep State agent Bill Browder operated at the very nexus of the
U.S. and U.K. Intelligence Communities that conspired to produce
both the fake Russiagate and very real Spygate ."
***It is a tale, full of sound and fury, told by idiots, signifying nothing***
how can we be expected to take any of this shit seriously?
-- avowed globalist-communists opposed to any nation's sovereignty, repulsed at the faintest wiff of patriotism scolding us
for our lack of patriotism?
-- political parties, intelligence agencies, the media and much of the judiciary attempting to undermine the democratic process
for over a year and a half, delegitamize a Presidency, vilify half the nation, stoke the flames of enmity...now they kvetch about
our skepticism?
no, langley, we do not trust you. no, media, your agitprop has no currency.
of all the reasons for hillary's defeat, no one ever mentions the fact that she campaigned on a platform of war...WWIII, no
less. starting in May/June of 2016, cankles started pounding the war drums. in a scenario so stale and overused as to threadbare,
the left initiated the process of demonizing russia and russians.
Trump supporters are not only pro-American, they/we are anti-war. forever spinning in a manic and frenzied swirl of hysterics,
the left often loses sight of this...but as much is to be expected, in that the left doesn't think, they instead parrot the tropes
fed to them on a daily basis, forever unable to assemble the fragments of these disparate priorities into a cogent whole. but
if they were able to arrange this mess into coherence, the image would terrify them with its ghastliness. the left openly and
earnestly serves the forces of evil -- in fact, they are the forces of evil. they depend on the idiocy and credulity of their
minions to keep this reality obscured. fortunately for the left, their supporters are sufficiently dull and benighted to keep
the truth forever blighted.
maybe we should play the victoria nuland tapes again...as a refresher:
we not only interfered with Ukranian/Russian politics, we overtly overthrew a democratically elected government, attempted
to provoke Russia to respond militarily, started a civil war in the Ukraine, (downed a commercial airliner in a disgusting FF),
funded and trained Nazis and left the nation in shambles. these are the same people calling Trump a traitor. these are the same
forces who demand faith and fidelity.
it's gone...no one trusts (((you))) anymore...we know you're nothing but a bunch of bloodthristy satanists...your time is in
eclipse, the more you struggle, the tighter the constraints.
"fuck the EU (for balking at WWIII)" Victoria Nuland, Clinton apparatchik, globalists, communist, satanist, kike.
Zionists are a large part of the problem (and remember what Biden said) but not at all the whole problem. Don't hyperfocus
- the 'Deep State' is chock full of non-Jewish warmongers and traitors. In fact the top traitors are guys like Brennan, Comey,
McCabe, Clapper, Clinton, Obama, and Strozk.
" The US fabricated evidence to start the Vietnam war and the US fabricated WMD talk on the second war in Iraq. US intelligence
had no idea the Berlin Wall was about to fall. The US meddled in Russia supporting a drunk named Yeltsin because we erroneously
thought we could control him."
YUP! AMEN.
It's amusing to me that the Leftist's NOW have a blind-faith trust in government, whereas during the Vietnam war, and at the
start of the Iraq war the opposite was (justifiably) the case.
And remember, the [neoliberal] Left was all OVER how we manipulated Russia into an Oligarchy:
There is nothing in either the dictionary definition of "Marxism," nor the social facts, which justifies using that label for
the ruling classes, the pyramidion people of the globalized social pyramid systems.
The root of the runaway "mass hysteria" is the long history of the control over the public money supplies being captured by
the best organized gangsters, the banksters. There is an overwhelming amount of historical evidence regarding how that happened.
See Excellent Videos on Money Systems .
Some of that evidence indicates some of those banksters were behind the promotion of messianic Marxism through the Russian
Revolution which resulted in the Soviet Union. (Less compelling evidence indicates similar factors were at play in the later Chinese
Revolution.)
The original Marxism was relatively scientific, for its time and place in history. However, it was messianic Marxism which
became the ideologies of so-called "communist" movements, all of which necessarily ended up being dominated by their own kinds
of best available professional hypocrites, resulting in even steeper social pyramid systems than previously.
It is RIDICULOUS to label the banksters as "Marxists." The comment posted above by HopefulCynical only begins to make some
sense AFTER one substitutes some label which refers to the banksters , rather than to some ideologies which those banksters used
to covertly advance their overall agenda.
Ideologies which become publicly significant are always systems of organized lies, which operate robberies. There is actually
only one political system: organized crime. Therefore, contemporary geopolitical events make more sense after one recognizes who
are the best organized gangsters , which are dominating civilization, including dominating the mass media's public presentation
of those events.
While President Trump is correctly presenting the degree to which the mainstream media is based on "fake news," President Trump
deliberately does not engage in deeper analysis of that phrase "fake news," but rather, used his oratory skill to capture that
phrase, and thereby turn it against those who originally intended to use that phrase against President Trump.
The comment above by HopefulCynical was overwhelmingly up-voted by its readers. Tragically, the indicates the degree to which
so many people want to believe in bullshit.
"The Marxists who've run America (and the rest of the world) into the ground for so many decades ..."
It was NOT "Marxists," but rather the banksters, who've run America (and the rest of the world) ... for so many decades. In
particular, since 1971, when the American Dollar lost its last connection with the material world, after the last vestiges of
money backed by precious metals were cut, the banksters have been able to astronomically amplify their frauds, as enforced by
governments, to become about exponentially more fraudulent.
That about exponentially increasing fraudulence, as demonstrated by debt slavery systems generating numbers which have become
debt insanities, is at the root of the runaway manifestation of "mass hysteria" in America (and the rest of the world.)
The debt slavery systems were made and maintained by the international bankers, as the best organized gangsters, the banksters,
whose persistent and prolonged participation in the funding of all aspects of the political processes (including schooling and
mass media) has resulted in the public powers of government being primarily used to back up the privatized interests of big banks,
and the big corporations that grew up around those big banks being able to issue the public money supplies out of nothing as debts.
Those real social facts do NOT correspond to the dictionary definition of Marxism, nor to any other goofy ideologies which
were popularized to conceal the real social facts, and permit public discussion of those facts to be drowned under the bullshit
of false fundamental dichotomies and the related impossible ideals.
There continues to be a lot of awful nonsense presented in articles and comments published on Zero Hedge , because of the degree
to which the authors of those like to continue to believe in their favourite kinds of impossible ideals, by mislabeling what they
do not like in erroneous ways, which ignore both the actual facts and definitions of those labels.
BANKSTERS' "psychopathic dreams of total control" require that it will be possible for systems based on being able to enforce
frauds can continue to become about exponentially more fraudulent. However, endless exponential growth is absolutely impossible.
Rising popular awareness and resistance to the banksters is manifesting through various political movements. However, so far,
those movements continue to mostly be forms of controlled "opposition." Anyone who continues to misuse the labels such as "capitalism
versus communism," or abuses the label "Marxist," etc., is still actually a form of controlled "opposition," because of the degree
to which their thinking and communication is still based on taking for granted the biggest bullies' bullshit, which has become
the banksters' bullshit .
After the banksters kicked the shit out of Russia during the 20th Century, Russia has returned having learned something from
those experiences. The results are that Russia is slightly more able and willing to advance its national interests against the
international banksters. That is the main reason why Russia is being demonized by those who are still almost totally the banksters'
puppets.
President Trump appears to be a relative anomaly, whose social successfulness was based on the apparently increasing anomalies,
due to the systems based on enforced frauds becoming about exponentially more fraudulent. It was that diffuse awareness of mass
media propaganda being systematic lying, serving the interests of the owners of those mass media, that was one of the factors
which enabled President Trump to win the election.
Some of his most significant campaign promises were to diminish the demonization of Russia, and thereby diminish the threat
of war with weapons of mass destruction spinning out of control, which continues to potentially be the greatest of threats, which
are somewhat under human control, but which look like those are going more and more out of control.
However, in my opinion, President Trump tends to NOT go beyond superficially correct analysis of the accumulating apparent
anomalies, whose root causes are the systems of enforced frauds being amplified by about exponentially advancing technologies
to become about exponentially more fraudulent, which factors are at the root of the accumulating "mass hysteria."
The best overall ways to approach understanding current geopolitical events are that the excessively successful applications
of the methods of organized crime through the political processes are resulting in civilization manifesting runaway criminal insanities,
which situation is so serious that people who attempt to reduce that insanity are attacked by those who want to increase that
insanity.
The deeper reasons for the underlying issues are that there must be some death control systems, precisely because endless exponential
growth is absolutely impossible, and therefore, death control systems develop to stop that happening, which drives those death
control systems to become murder systems which maximize maliciousness.
The longer term consequences of the social successfulness of maximized maliciousness are that the biggest bullies' bullshit
almost totally dominates civilization, including the layers of controlled "opposition" that surround the central core of the best
organized gangsters, which have become the banksters . Hence, most of those who believe that they are "resisting" continue to
think and communicate in ways which still take for granted most of that bullshit .
Two points:
1. This indictment is nearly identical to the Jan. 6, 2017 ODNI Report, which came from a
handful of unnamed analysts from the CIA and FBI. There is very little new information in
well over a year. Right there, this raises red flags. Who were these analysts?
2. Did Mueller/Rosenstein consult with any foreign policy advisors? Does meddling in the
president's national security affairs put the country at ris?
It's a dangerous game and a slippery slope. For the sake of the country, they better be
right.
O Society July 14, 2018 at 6:20 am
Rosenstein makes the announcement. 8 minutes into this video he states:
There are no allegations in the indictment any American knew they were in contact with Russians
or with a Russian operation,
any American committed a crime in relation to this,
or that the operation changed or influenced the election.
Fist thoughts:
If there is no allegation (evidence) the operation influenced the election, then why do we care
about any of this?
Seems odd no Americans did anything worthy of investigating. Exonerating the DNC/ DCCC of all
wrong doing?
How does Rosenstein (or anyone in the FBI) know Russians did this "hack" without having access
to examine the DNC computers? Are we going by what CrowdStrike says they found? John
McCarthy , July 14, 2018 at 5:08 am
Mueller should be prosecuted for violating the Logan Act. The timing of this is an illegal
attempt to interfere with Foreign Policy.
Right on!
Apparently Mueller couldn't get a U-2 to fly over Russia and get shot down (which in 1960
scuttled a summit between President Eisenhower and Soviet Premier Khrushchev).
How coincidental that just the day before the announcement of the indictments , The Daily
Beast published an extensive hit-piece on John Mark Dougan , who has admitted setting up the
DCLeaks website that was used to release some of the earlier leaks :
"Fugitive Cop Says He's Behind the DNC Leaks. It's His Latest Hoax.
A Florida cop turned hacker who fled to Russia to escape the FBI claims Seth Rich leaked him
DNC documents. But his story is full of holes."
George Webb is not a right-winger. He is a Bernie supporter. LOL. Still, the similarity of
the wording suggests that the indictment is meant not only as an attempt to bolster the
Russiagate fiction but also to defend Hillary and Podesta against charges of corruption,
rigging the Dem primary, and incompetence and perhaps allow Hillary to run in 2020 or at
lease to choose who the Dem candidate will be. It is also, of course, meant to sabotage
detente with Russia and damage both Trump and Bernie Sanders. Sanders is probably regarded as
even more dangerous than Trump by the deep state and by the corrupt, no-talent leaders of the
pathetic Dem party -- just look at Shumer's ridiculous and unpatriotic demand that Trump
cancel the summit. The current Dem leaders have absolutely nothing positive to offer the
American people in terms of foreign policy and do nothing but repeat neocon nonsense, but the
deep state supports the Dems at the moment because they want to see Trump impeached and
Bernie make a fool of himself by criticizing Russia with no evidence. Bernie lost a lot of
support with his recent uninformed Russophobic statement. The strong implied focus on
defending Podesta and by further implication Hillary, obvious from the similarities with the
Webb lawsuit, shows the real aim of the indictments. As Lauria points out, it's all for
internal consumption. But there are several apparent contradictions in the indictment, and
those contradictions will be no doubt be pointed out in the coming days by computer experts,
so this indictment may have no lasting effect outside of people who are already True
Believers in Russiagate. Even so, the failure to interview Assange and Craig Murray is truly
shocking and disappointing.
Alcuin , July 14, 2018 at 10:49 am
George Webb has talked with Bill Binney and despite being somewhat eccentric should not be
dismissed out of hand. He is rumored to be former Mossad. From his videos of the last three
days (days 15, 16, 17) it appears that he thinks Russian-born hackers living in the USA were
indeed involved, but that they were not working for the Russian government but rather for
various Americans (including well-known American politicians), concentrating on economic
espionage.
Remember that Assange when questioned repeatedly emphasized that that the emails did not come
from Russian "state" actors. Putin recently seems to have wanted to imply the same point.
According to Webb the hackers received their training from Russian military intelligence.
Webb also ties the hacking and espionage to the wider picture of pipeline politics in Europe
and the Middle East. Even if Webb is wrong, or if he represents Israeli interests, it's an
interesting view that is worth investigating.
Alcuin , July 16, 2018 at 2:18 am
Webb (for what it's worth): "They're really not Trump's Russians; they're really not
Putin's Russians -- they're really Rosenstein and Comey's Russians."
"... Crowdstrike's Danger Close report , which was supposed to be the nail in the coffin that proved the GRU was involved in the DNC hack, has been repudiated by the Ukrainian government, the IISS whose data they misused, and the builder of the military app that they claimed was compromised. ..."
"... The Reality Winner leak of a classified NSA document contained a graphic that used different colors of lines to qualify the data (confirmed, analyst judgment, contextual information). The line that connected the "actors" who sent out the spearphishing email to various electoral organizations with the GRU was yellow (analyst judgment) and included the words "probably within"; meaning that this was not a communications intercept. ..."
"... There are many other problems with the DNC investigation starting with the fact that no government agency actually did the forensics work. It was done by a company with strong ties to the Clinton campaign and an economic incentive to blame foreign governments for cyber attacks on evidence that was either flimsy or non-existent. ..."
"... Does any of this mean that the Russian government didn't do it? No. It only means that there is insufficient public evidence to say that it did. ..."
This gist of the article was, since we can't know what the classified evidence is that
supports the U.S. government's finding in favor of Russian government intereference, there is
plenty of public evidence which should convince us.
Bump is wrong about that. The public evidence isn't enough to identify Russian government
involvement, or even identify the nationality of the hackers involved. That doesn't mean that
the Russian government isn't responsible. It means that we don't know enough to say who is
responsible based solely on the publicly known evidence, including classified evidence that's
been leaked.
Here's a recap:
The X-Agent malware used against the DNC is not exclusive to Russia. The source code
has been acquired by at least one Ukrainian hacker group and one European cybersecurity
company, which means that others have it as well. "Exclusive use" is a myth that responsible
cybersecurity companies need to stop using as proof of attribution.
The various attacks attributed to the GRU were a comedy of errors ; not
the actions of a sophisticated adversary.
The FBI/DHS Grizzly Steppe report was a disaster ( here
,
here , here , and
here ).
Crowdstrike's
Danger Close report , which was supposed to be the nail in the coffin that proved the GRU
was involved in the DNC hack, has been repudiated by the Ukrainian government, the IISS whose
data they misused, and the builder of the military app that they claimed was
compromised.
The Arizona and Illinois attacks against electoral databases that were blamed on the Russian
government were actually conducted by
English-speaking hackers .
The Reality Winner leak of a classified NSA document contained a graphic that used
different colors of lines to qualify the data (confirmed, analyst judgment, contextual
information). The line that connected the "actors" who sent out the spearphishing email to
various electoral organizations with the GRU was yellow (analyst judgment) and included the
words "probably within"; meaning that this was not a communications intercept.
There are many other problems with the DNC investigation starting with the fact that no
government agency actually did the forensics work. It was done by a company with strong ties to
the Clinton campaign and an economic incentive to blame
foreign governments for cyber attacks on evidence that was either flimsy or
non-existent.
Does any of this mean that the Russian government didn't do it? No. It only means that
there is insufficient public evidence to say that it did.
ill-gotten goods are undeserving of protection of law. The DNC and Podesta had no legitimate
expectation of privacy in their combinations to defraud the public and steal elections.
It's been imputed that the Russians did this to damage the reputation of Hillary Clinton. To
take the alleged damage to reputation angle to its conclusion, truth is an entirely sufficient
defense to any charge of libel. What was revealed by an alleged hack was the truth, something
that is entirely lacking in the rest of this affair.
As for the alleged theft and public release of email, ill-gotten goods are undeserving of
protection of law. The DNC and Podesta had no legitimate expectation of privacy in their
combinations to defraud the public and steal elections.
The Russian GRU is accused of revealing that the people who run the DNC and Clinton campaign
committee colluded with each other to steal the nomination. The allegedly hacked emails show
what they really did and thought during the fraudulent nomination of Hillary Clinton. It might
be argued, that whomever revealed the truth actually did a public service for the American
people. An odd sort of "act of war," that.
Finally, individual officials and military officers have a limited immunity and are not
normally indicted by foreign states for intelligence activities such as electronic surveillance
and hacking across borders. That is where the element of harm comes in. The only real precedent
for this is the Rainbow Warrior case. In 1985, French intelligence officers blew up and sank a
Greenpeace ship by that name anchored in Auckland, NZ harbour, killing a passenger, a Dutch
photographer. A UN arbitrator held in that case the French agents were not immune under
customary international law to prosecution in a New Zealand court and could be individually
tried and jailed, but only because of the death of the victim as part of "a criminal act of
violence against property in New Zealand . . . done without regard for innocent civilians."
Greenpeace was additionally awarded damages in the UK under international Maritime Law because
the vessel was a British-flagged ship.
Also bear in mind, the US and UK both provide immunity to their own intelligence officers
and law enforcement officers for hacking and related computer crimes committed against foreign
powers. The UK takes that a step further and exempts police officers for domestic hacking:
This is a dangerous precedent, and the likely result is to ignite retaliation and further
exacerbate U.S.-Russian tensions. The entire staffs of the NSA, GCHQ and GRU could be similarly
"prosecuted," but what will that accomplish? Even if every word of the indictment is fact, the
indictment itself violates the norms of international law and this latest "Russiagate"
escalation by Mueller seems intended to ratchet up the New Cold War.
That is why "Russiagate" is a legal sham, in my opinion. Even if the alleged Russian hack of
the DNC email actually happened as claimed, and even if the hack was with bad intent, there was
no real crime or harm in the release of that information. That information was no more the
private property of the DNC and Clinton Campaign than a plan to rob a bank belongs to the
robbers. Isn't that so, Mr. Mueller?
Tomorrow, I am going to get in contact with Special Counsel Robert Mueller and tell him
that I have found the real people behind the hacking of the 2016 US election and they aren't
Russian – they are Chinese! I am prepared to give names and so to give everybody the
scoop, here they are-
Li Keqiang, Zhang Dejiang, Yu Zhengsheng, Zhou Qiang, Cao Jianming, Li Yuanchao, Han
Zheng, Sun Chunlan, Hu Chunhua and Liu He.
They are all real names of real Chinese government officials but unfortunately, as they
are Chinese, they cannot be extradited out of China in the same way that Russians can't be
extradited out of Russia. And like Special Counsel Robert Mueller, I have no real proof that
they did it and cannot bring them to a US court for trial so you will all have to take my
word for it so we're cool, right?
"... Rosenstein, Mueller and Strozk are clever, privileged boys who have always been able, to bamboozle their way out of a jam. So we have this scary, claptrap yarn about twelve ethereal "Russian Agents" ((1) Boris (2) Natashia (3) ..) who, being in Russia, can never be extradited or interrogated. Therefore, the narrative can be endlessly developed. The only constraint is the imagination of the second-rate story writers. An ongoing serial wow ..."
"... Credit to Isikoff for having the courage to face a skeptic, even if his attitude is indignant that Mate ain't buying what he's selling. ..."
Rosenstein, Mueller and Strozk are clever, privileged boys who have always been able,
to bamboozle their way out of a jam. So we have this scary, claptrap yarn about twelve
ethereal "Russian Agents" ((1) Boris (2) Natashia (3) ..) who, being in Russia, can never be
extradited or interrogated. Therefore, the narrative can be endlessly developed. The only
constraint is the imagination of the second-rate story writers. An ongoing serial
wow
I believe that Seth Rich was the leaker. What are the FBI/CIA/DOJ doing to investigate
Seth's murder? Not much.
However, the FBI/CIA/DOJ, ARE consumed with The Hunting of the Russian Snark ."It's a
Snark!" was the sound that first came to their ears,
And seemed almost too good to be true.
Then followed a torrent of laughter and cheers:
Then the ominous words "It's a Boo -- "
Then, silence. Some fancied they heard in the air
A weary and wandering sigh
That sounded like "-jum!" but the others declare
It was only a breeze that went by.
They hunted till darkness came on, but they found
Not a button, or feather, or mark,
By which they could tell that they stood on the ground
Where the Baker had met with the Snark.
In the midst of the word he was trying to say,
In the midst of his laughter and glee,
He had softly and suddenly vanished away --
For the Snark was a Boojum, you see.
I have watched Rosenstein, Mueller and Strozk testifying over the last months. Creeps. I
wouldn't leave a pet Labradoodle in their care, much less entrust them with the defense of
"Our" Democracy
AARON MATE: I have no idea. Whoever it is, I think Guccifer is very sloppy. And given how
sophisticated we're told Russian military intelligence is supposed to be, they didn't do a
very good job of covering their tracks.
Maté makes an excellent observation here. Further, if you go to Guccifer's site,
his style is U.S. hipster English. It is possible that the Russians are that adept at U.S.
hipster English, or have suborned some hipster from Brooklyn, or, maybe, that Guccifer is an
American who has some other agenda.
Interestingly, in all of this hacking, we haven't heard what happened to Hillary Clinton's
30,000 yoga e-mails, which would be a masterpiece of contemplation of yoga, on the level of
Patanjali's Yoga Sutras. We read repeated allegations that the Clinton Family server was
hacked. How is it that the injured party here is only the Democratic National Committee?
And how many of these dangerous Russians will be extradited to the U S of A? You can't
have a finding of fact without a trial, and conveniently for aggrieved people like Isikoff,
there isn't going to be a trial.
Aaron Mate does a fine job in this interview of pushing back against unproven claims. No
hysteria, no yelling. But point by point he just takes Isikoff to task, calmly. He even
manages two separate digs without staking a high moral ground: Isikoff's own previous
reporting on (lack of) WMD, and a clip from a lying Robert Mueller in front of congress in
2003.
So I was very impressed with this interview. As someone who's taught myself the read the
lies in the MSM this was a clinic in how to get a major journalist (Isikoff) to make
concessions that essentially wipe out his argument without getting into a yelling match.
He's done some of the best reporting on this story that I can recall. Credit to Isikoff
for having the courage to face a skeptic, even if his attitude is indignant that Mate ain't
buying what he's selling.
It kills me that the only 'evidence' supporting Russia-gate is the public statements and
testimony of a bunch of high level government officials that are 1) proven liars and 2) have
reason to believe they'll never be held to account for these lies.
If you saw Strzok's testimony the other day, you'd have seen a number of Dems absolutely
willing to lay down in front of oncoming traffic to 'protect' the FBI. If my reps were that
dedicated to protecting me from the horror of facing a series of probing questions, I'd feel
pretty comfortable that I was untouchable, too!
Credit to Isikoff for having the courage to face a skeptic, even if his attitude is
indignant that Mate ain't buying what he's selling.
Good catch! I noticed this also, though I'm not as sure it's to Isikoff's credit. Mate has
positively ripped to shreds at least one other Isikoff like stooge (Luke Harding of The
Guardian ) in this interview: https://therealnews.com/stories/wheres-the-collusion-2
which really makes one wonder why Isikoff accepted such a challenge. (I include the link for
the benefit of others – it looks like you are already aware of it). After all, he has
basically nothing the other one didn't have other than perhaps a conviction he knows some
secret alchemy that: when lies reach a certain volume, or quantity, or momentum, they
miraculously transform to truth.
If anything, I suspect Isikoff is simply as full of himself as Luke Harding. Their basic
argument (it must be true because of the sheer volume and detail of all the allegations) is
exactly the same with Isikoff only having the advantage of yet another heaping helping of
allegation pudding that he knows full well will never see the light of verification.
As an aside, did you notice Isikoff's sour sign off? I think he was quite aware Mate had
served him some serious egg on the chin and was none too happy about it. Just my take on
it.
"... NOTE: There will likely be various amendments made to this article over the next 24 hours. ..."
"... So, in fairness, there is actually circumstantial evidence to suggest an overlap as Guccifer 2.0 clearly had Podesta's emails and it looks like the spearphishing attack used to snare Podesta's emails was identical to one that was attributed to the acquisition of emails published by DCLeaks. ..."
"... (NOTE: CrowdStrike decided to start investigating the NGP-VAN breach within a week of Podesta's emails being acquired, three months after the December 2015 incident) ..."
"... (using the publicly accessible default server in France) ..."
"... (in which he used ":)" at a far higher frequency) ..."
"... (in one of the documents, change tracking had been left on and recorded someone in a PST timezone saving one of Guccifer 2.0's documents after the documents had being manipulated in the Russian timezones!) ..."
"... (which was actually inconsistent with aspects of English language that Russians typically struggle with). ..."
This author is responding to the indictment because it features claims about Guccifer 2.0
that are inconsistent with what has been discovered about the persona, including the
following:
Virtually everything that has been claimed to indicate Guccifer 2.0 was Russian was based
on something he chose to do.
Considering that Guccifer 2.0 had access to Podesta's emails, yet never leaked anything
truly damaging to the Clinton campaign even though he would have had access to it, is highly
suspicious. In fact, Guccifer 2.0 never referenced any of the scandals that would later
explode when the DNC emails and Podesta email collections were published by WikiLeaks.
The first piece of malware at the DNC identified by Crowdstrike as relating to "Fancy Bear,"
was compiled on 25 April, 2016. This used a C2 (command and control) IP address that, for the
purposes of the APT group, had been inoperable for over a year. It was useful mostly as a
signature for attributing it to "Fancy Bear."
Two additional pieces of malware were discovered at the DNC attributed to the same APT
group. These were compiled on 5 May 2016 and 10 May 2016 while Robert Johnston was working with
the DNC on CrowdStrike's behalf to counter the intrusion reported at the end of April and
install Falcon.
This could be inferred from a number of things. DCLeaks was re-registered on 19 April 2016,
however, what they published included Republicans and individuals that were not connected to
the DNC. In fact, DCLeaks didn't start publishing anything relating to Clinton campaign staff
until June/July 2016. There was also the fact that the daily frequency of
emails in the DNC emails released by WikiLeaks increased dramatically from around 19 April
2016 , however, this wasn't indicative of the start of hacking activity but rather caused
by a 30 day email retention policy combined with the fact that the emails were acquired between
May 19th and May 25th.
There has been no technical evidence produced by those who had access to the DNC network
demonstrating files were being manipulated or that malware was engaging in activity prior to
this and by CrowdStrike's own admissions, many of the devices at the DNC were wiped in June. As
such, it's unclear where this may have come from.
There's an issue here with the conflation of Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks. Why would Guccifer
2.0 have had an account at DCLeaks with which he had restricted access and could only manage a
subset of the leaks (and only those relating to the DNC) while DCLeaks featured leaks covering
those unconnected to and even opposing the DNC?
It makes no sense that the GRU would have even used Guccifer 2.0 in the manner we now know
he operated – it only caused any harm to Trump and served to undermine leaks due to the
deliberate placement of Russian metadata that would give a false perception of Russians
mishandling those documents (including the Trump research document found in Podesta's
emails).
So, in fairness, there is actually circumstantial evidence to suggest an overlap as
Guccifer 2.0 clearly had Podesta's emails and it looks like the spearphishing attack used to
snare Podesta's emails was identical to one that was attributed to the acquisition of emails
published by DCLeaks.
Is there a reason for ambiguity when referencing WikiLeaks?
While he clearly had access to the Podesta emails (NOTE: CrowdStrike decided to start
investigating the NGP-VAN breach within a week of Podesta's emails being acquired, three months
after the December 2015 incident) , Guccifer 2.0 used those materials to fabricate
evidence on 15 June 2016 implicating Russians and which, coincidentally appeared to support
(but ultimately helped refute) multiple assertions made by
CrowdStrike that the Trump Opposition report (actually sourced from Podesta's emails) was
targeted by Guccifer 2.0 at the DNC in April 2016 – and that the theft of this specific
file from the DNC – which, again, could not have been stolen from the DNC – had set
off the " first
alarm " indicating a security breach.
On 6 July 2016, Guccifer 2.0 released a batch of documents that were exclusively attachments
to DNC emails that would later be released by WikiLeaks.
Guccifer 2.0 certainly didn't make a genuine effort to "conceal a Russian identity," far
from it. The persona made decisions that would leave behind a demonstrable trail of
Russian-themed breadcrumbs, examples include:
Choosing the Russian VPN Service (using the publicly accessible default server in
France) in combination with a mail service provider that would forward the sender's IP
address .
Creating a blog and dropping a Russian emoticon in the second paragraph of the first
post, something he only ever did one other time over months of activity (in which he used
":)" at a far higher frequency) .
Tainting documents with Russian language metadata.
Going through considerable
effort to ensure Russian language errors were in the first documents provided to the
press.
Probable use of a VM set to Russian timezone while manipulating documents so that
datastore objects with timestamps implying a Russian timezone setting are saved (in one
of the documents, change tracking had been left on and recorded someone in a PST timezone
saving one of Guccifer 2.0's documents after the documents had being manipulated in the
Russian timezones!)
The deliberate and inconsistent mangling of English language (which was actually
inconsistent with aspects of English language that Russians typically struggle
with).
Guccifer 2.0 claimed credit for a hack that was already being attributed to Russians
without making any effort to counter that perception and only denied it when outright
questioned on it.
How have these identities been connected to the respective GRU officers? This query applies
to additional identities mentioned throughout the indictment.
Where have these pseudonyms been cited in any of the research or evidence published in the
past two years? Most seem to be new and were never referenced by the firms specifically
investigated the relevant phishing campaigns in the past.
Unfortunately, the indictment itself provides no reference for us to ascertain what the
individual attributions are based on.
How do we know for sure Morgachev was developing a version of it and that this is related to
the DNC?
Again, everything found on Google relating to "blablabla1234565" is in relation to the
indictment, where were these details during the past 2 years, where have they come from and how
has X-Agent development/monitoring been traced back to this individual?
It's unlikely technical evidence of his testing was left behind in deployed malware.
There is a "realblatr" profile at https://djangopackages.org/profiles/realblatr/
but this doesn't indicate anything relevant to this and other results for "realblatr" seem to
be about the indictment.
We know that whoever had the Podesta emails had far more damaging content on Hillary than
that produced by Guccifer 2.0 or DCLeaks and we know Guccifer 2.0 had access to Podesta's
emails. If it was the GRU and they wanted to harm Hillary, they had FAR better material do that
with than what they chose to release.
DCLeaks featured leaks from those that were not involved in the US presidential election.
Guccifer 2.0 only released content relating to the Democratic party and only content that was
of little harm to the DNC leadership and Clinton's campaign.
Yandex.com is the domain usually given to people outside of Russia that use the Yandex
service, in Russia it's yandex.ru by default.
"... I have read the entire indictment, more than once. As a lawyer, I suspect that little to none of what it asserts about supposed illegal activities could possibly be proven beyond a reasonable doubt according to the rules of evidence (unless some judge decides that actual evidence need not be presented, on "national-security" grounds, in which event the whole case would be exposed as nothing but a "show trial" or "kangaroo court"). The indictment appears to be little more than political theater, timed to embarrass Trump and Putin. Even Mueller cannot expect that there will ever be an actual trial of the defendants he has named. ..."
"... Even Stalin's show trials (to use a "Russian" analogy) were more credible than what Mueller has produced in the two indictments of Russians which he has obtained so far. ..."
"... More revealing is that the FBI supposedly is able to break through a maze of computer obfuscation and backtrack a highly convoluted e-conspiracy to named individuals in one of the (if not the) premier espionage outfits in the world -- the GRU -- but finds itself helpless in case after case in tracking down various perpetrators of "ransom ware" who have done significant economic damage to Americans over the last several years. How can one believe both of these observations to be true? ..."
"... Also, the indictment claims that the FBI has also broken through the maze of "anonymity" surrounding transactions in bitcoin (and apparently some other e-currencies). If this is true, that selling point for such currencies has now been exposed as hype. ..."
I have read the entire indictment, more than once. As a lawyer, I suspect that little
to none of what it asserts about supposed illegal activities could possibly be proven beyond
a reasonable doubt according to the rules of evidence (unless some judge decides that actual
evidence need not be presented, on "national-security" grounds, in which event the whole case
would be exposed as nothing but a "show trial" or "kangaroo court"). The indictment appears
to be little more than political theater, timed to embarrass Trump and Putin. Even Mueller
cannot expect that there will ever be an actual trial of the defendants he has
named.
If Putin's people have wanted to "undermine our democracy", they must be enjoying a good
laugh. Because Mueller and his team are doing a far better job of that than anything alleged
in the indictment could have done. Mueller is making "our democracy" the laughing stock of
the entire thinking world with this drivel. Even Stalin's show trials (to use a "Russian"
analogy) were more credible than what Mueller has produced in the two indictments of Russians
which he has obtained so far.
More revealing is that the FBI supposedly is able to break through a maze of computer
obfuscation and backtrack a highly convoluted e-conspiracy to named individuals in one of the
(if not the) premier espionage outfits in the world -- the GRU -- but finds itself helpless
in case after case in tracking down various perpetrators of "ransom ware" who have done
significant economic damage to Americans over the last several years. How can one believe
both of these observations to be true?
Also, the indictment claims that the FBI has also broken through the maze of
"anonymity" surrounding transactions in bitcoin (and apparently some other e-currencies). If
this is true, that selling point for such currencies has now been exposed as hype. Will
the bitcoin market now react (as it should) in a violently negative manner? If it does not,
would that not be a further indication that knowledgeable people consider the indictment
fatuous?
"... Sir, in my cynical old age, I have a hard time believing there will be any prosecution of the Deep State top echelons. The DOJ and FBI it seems are very focused on protecting their own. If Rosenstein is impeached then one could say the tide is turning. Otherwise it would appear to be more kabuki. ..."
"Former top FBI lawyer Lisa Page testified during two days of closed-door House hearings,
revealing shocking new Intel against her old bosses at the Bureau, according the well-placed
FBI sources.
Alarming new details on allegations of a bureau-wide cover up. Or should we say another
bureau-wide cover up.
The embattled Page tossed James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok and Bill Priestap among
others under the Congressional bus, alleging the upper echelon of the FBI concealed
intelligence confirming Chinese state-backed 'assets' had illegally acquired former Secretary
of State Hillary Clinton's 30,000+ "missing" emails, federal sources said.
The Russians didn't do it. The Chinese did, according to well-placed FBI sources.
And while Democratic lawmakers and the mainstream media prop up Russia as America's
boogeyman, it was the ironically Chinese who acquired Hillary's treasure trove of classified
and top secret intelligence from her home-brewed private server.
And a public revelation of that magnitude -- publicizing that a communist world power
intercepted Hillary's sensitive and top secret emails -- would have derailed Hillary Clinton's
presidential hopes. Overnight. But it didn't simply because it was concealed." True Pundit
------------
A woman scorned? Maybe, but Page has done a real job on these malefactors. And, who knows
how many other penetrations of various kinds there were in Clinton's reign as SecState?
"You mean like with a towel?" Clinton mocked a reporter with that question when asked if her
servers had been wiped clean. It is difficult to believe that there won't be prosecutions.
pl
Putin offered to allow Mueller's team to go to Russia and interrogate the suspects in the
Mueller indictment provided 1) that Russian investigators could sit in on the
interrogations, and 2) that the US would allow Russian investigators to investigate
people like Bill Browder in the US.
This would be done until the existing treaty which allows the US and Russia to
cooperate in criminal investigation cases.
Now, let's get back to the issue of this 12 alleged intelligence officers of Russia. I
don't know the full extent of the situation. But President Trump mentioned this issue. I
will look into it.
So far, I can say the following. Things that are off the top of my head. We have an
existing agreement between the United States of America and the Russian Federation, an
existing treaty that dates back to 1999. The mutual assistance on criminal cases. This
treaty is in full effect. It works quite efficiently. On average, we initiate about 100,
150 criminal cases upon request from foreign states.
For instance, the last year, there was one extradition case upon the request sent by
the United States. This treaty has specific legal procedures we can offer. The
appropriate commission headed by Special Attorney Mueller, he can use this treaty as a
solid foundation and send a formal, official request to us so that we could interrogate,
hold questioning of these individuals who he believes are privy to some
crimes. Our enforcement are perfectly able to do this questioning and send the
appropriate materials to the United States. Moreover, we can meet you halfway. We can
make another step. We can actually permit representatives of the United States, including
the members of this very commission headed by Mr. Mueller, we can let them into the
country. They can be present at questioning.
In this case, there's another condition. This kind of effort should be mutual one.
Then we would expect that the Americans would reciprocate. They would question officials,
including the officers of law enforcement and intelligence services of the United States
whom we believe have something to do with illegal actions on the territory of Russia. And
we have to request the presence of our law enforcement.
End Quote
Putin then proceeds to stick it to Hillary Clinton with the bombshell accusation that
Bill Browder - possibly with the assistance of US intelligence agencies - contributed a
whopping $400 million dollars to Clinton's election campaign!
Quote:
For instance, we can bring up Mr. Browder in this particular case. Business associates
of Mr. Browder have earned over $1.5 billion in Russia. They never paid any taxes.
Neither in Russia nor in the United States. Yet, the money escapes the country. They were
transferred to the United States. They sent huge amount of money, $400 million as a
contribution to the campaign of Hillary Clinton. [He presents no evidence to back up that
$400 million claim.] Well, that's their personal case. It might have been legal, the
contribution itself. But the way the money was earned was illegal. We have solid
reason to believe that some intelligence officers guided these transactions. [This
allegation, too, is merely an unsupported assertion here.] So we have an interest of
questioning them. That could be a first step. We can also extend it. There are many
options. They all can be found in an appropriate legal framework.
End Quote
This article mentions the above and provides background information on Browder and the
US Magnitsky Act which he finagled Congress into passing which were the original Russian
sanctions.
Despite Putin's claim that this was "off the top of his head", I'd say this was a
calculated response to the Mueller indictment as well as a calculated attack on Hillary
Clinton and the US intelligence agencies who were clearly in support of her election
campaign. Frankly, it's brilliant. It forces Mueller to "put up or shut up" just as much
as the company which challenged the previous indictment over Russian ads.
"US would allow Russian investigators to investigate people like Bill Browder in the US."
The example would be a good one, except, the US has no power to allow anybody to
investigate Bill Browder (grandson of the head of the American Communist Party, btw)
because Browder gave up his US citizenship, it is said, to avoid paying taxes
Skepticism is always prudent when it comes to any news source.
Regarding the issue of "trust"... Putin himself said that he and Trump shouldn't be
basing their discussions on trust of each other. While I trust Putin to be skillful and
strategic that doesn't mean I trust all of his words. After all, he is a politician and a
powerful leader. Respect is the key here, not trust.
From a transcript
http://time.com/5339848/don...
PUTIN (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): As to who is to be believed and to who's not to be believed,
you can trust no one if you take this.
Where did you get this idea that President Trump trusts me or I trust him? He defends
the interests of the United States of America, and I do defend the interests of the
Russian Federation.
We do have interests that are common. We are looking for points of contact. There are
issues where our postures diverge, and we are looking for ways to reconcile our
differences, how to make our effort more meaningful.
-----------------
Of course both countries spy on each other and engage in various forms of cyber
warfare, as do many other countries. It's business as usual. That's why the Mueller
investigation is bullshit. It doesn't acknowledge that most basic fact of geopolitics. It
posits Russia as the only bad actor in the relationship. I was very pleased that Trump
acknowledge that both sides created the issues the countries have with each other, though
of course the Borg and their media puppets went wild over that.
Trump and Putin both have excellent trolling skills. I very much enjoy this aspect of
the great Game!
Though perhaps Putin botched his trolling of Hillary by getting the number wrong. Or
may be he pulled a Trump maneuver and purposely gave the wrong number to force reporters
to research it and post the correction.
Let's see if "China hacked Clinton's server and got the 30,000 e-mails" goes mainstream.
This would nail the Borg dead. What has been peculiar about the last four years is that
there are concerted proxy operations to take down the Iranian and Russian governments to
get at their resources at the risk of crashing the world economy; let alone, a nuclear
war that would destroy the earth. But, nothing against China other than bleating about
freedom of passage in South China Sea. China is #2 and rising by all criteria. It is
restoring its ancient Imperial power to rule the civilized world. Europe has much more in
common with Russia. Over the centuries they keep battling the Kremlin over Crimea.
. It is difficult to believe that there won't be prosecutions.
Sir, in my cynical old age, I have a hard time believing there will be any
prosecution of the Deep State top echelons. The DOJ and FBI it seems are very focused on
protecting their own. If Rosenstein is impeached then one could say the tide is turning.
Otherwise it would appear to be more kabuki.
I don't get why President Trump does not declassify the documents that the DOJ are
withholding from Congress rather than tweet "witch hunt".
"... There was also the stunning Awan affair when a family of Pakistanis (with no security clearance) had been surfing congressional computers for years and perhaps selling the obtained classified information to the third parties. So much for the mighty mice CIA and FBI. ..."
It is hard to reconcile this, "Chinese state-backed 'assets' had illegally acquired former
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's 30,000+ "missing" emails" with that, "the US "defense"
budget is approximately 1.2 trillion dollars a year."
There was also the stunning Awan affair when a family of Pakistanis (with no security
clearance) had been surfing congressional computers for years and perhaps selling the obtained
classified information to the third parties. So much for the mighty mice CIA and FBI.
I think there is much more to the comment made by Putin regarding Bill Browder and his money flows into the DNC and Clinton
campaign. That would explain why the DNC didn't hand the servers over to the FBI after being hacked. If you follow the money a
lot of what happened during the election and afterwards in regards to Russia and Trump start to make sense. Could it be that we
are finally witnessing the removal the last layers of the center of the onion?
... that is a much harder conversation to have about why the Democrats have lost elections than just blaming a foreign villain
and saying it's because Vladimir Putin ran some fake Facebook ads and did some phishing emails ... the conversation we need
to be having [about lies/corruption from the deep state and powerful actors acting against US citizens interests, and decline
of institutions that support US citizens' freedom], but we're not having, because we're evading it by blaming everything on
Vladimir Putin.
I agree with Mish on all this, including " Nearly every political action that generates this much complete nonsense and hysteria
from the Left and Right is worthy of immense praise" though he doesn't qualify/define "Left and Right" as the Left and Right establishment
aka. the Uniparty. The statement wouldn't have applied to say the Left and Right establishment that existed when our founders
created the country and were united to create a government that defends our lives, liberties and pursuit of happiness with an
extremely limited (by today's standards) government. You don't see the Freedom Caucus getting hysterical about Trump's meeting
Putin.
Mass hysteria is exactly what it is, because it threatens their gravy train that comes from money taken by force from taxpayers.
the citizens voted against the establishment, and the establishment is fighting back along with their MSM cronies.
I've never been enthralled with Neil Cavuto due to considering him inferior as a host on things financial. Today he just crapped
in his mess kit with me. He has to be dirty, the way he was defending the wonderful intelligence "community" of the USA, and was
hinting that treason may not be a strong assessment of Trump with Putin. He is a real POS along with girly-man Shepard Smith.
Not one criticism of any Cabalist about graft and corruption, and especially no mention of the uranium to Russia by Obama's and
Hillary's REAL treason.
I repeat, all of you goofy imbeciles, Trump is sucking you down into the depths of embarrassment once the hammer drops. I expected
the fruity Smith but must admit the Cavuto stupidity is a bit of a surprise. Someone has pics of that dumb fuck in a compromising
situation.
James Cook
Verified account @BBCJamesCook
3h3 hours ago
BREAKING Under intense pressure, accused of treachery, President Trump now says he accepts the conclusion of US
intelligence that Russia 'meddled' in the US election. A lot of damage has already been done though.
----------
however....
Trump meets Putin officially in a summit: he's called traitor. By media. So what do we call Russia's opp filing into US
embassy 2012 an election year ?
I sure wish the mainstream media and all those critics of Donald Trump had had better civics
teachers in high school. If they had, they would understand that special counsel Robert
Mueller's indictment against those Russian officials for supposedly illegally meddling in
America's presidential election doesn't mean squat. Instead, the media and the Trump critics
have accepted the indictment as proof, even conclusive proof, that the Russians really did do
what Mueller is charging them with doing.
Of course, it's not really Mueller's indictment. It's a federal grand jury that has returned
the indictment. But, in reality, it's Mueller's indictment. He drafts it up and the grand jury
dutifully signs whatever he presents to them. As the old legal adage goes, prosecutors can get
a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.
A prosecutor can say whatever he wants in an indictment. It's not sworn to. Neither the
prosecutor nor the grand jury can be prosecuted for perjury or false allegations in an
indictment.
In this particular case, the matter is even more problematic because Mueller knows that
those Russian officials who he has indicted will never be brought to trial. That's because
there is no reasonable possibility that the Russian government would ever turn them over to the
U.S. government. That means that Mueller knows that whatever he says in that indictment is
never going to be tested in a court of law. He can say whatever he wants in that indictment
knowing full well that he will never be required to prove it.
If only the mainstream media and the Trump critics would just attend one single criminal
case, they would learn that criminal indictments don't mean squat and are not evidence of
anything. Here is what judges always tell juries, in one way or another, in criminal cases:
An indictment is not evidence; it is simply the formal notice to the defendants of the
charges against each of them. The mere fact of an indictment raises no suspicion of guilty.
The government has the burden to prove the charges against the defendants beyond a reasonable
doubt, and that burden stays with the government from start to finish. The defendants have no
burden or obligation to prove anything at all. They are presumed innocent. The defendants
started this trial with a clean slate, with no evidence at all against them, and the law
presumes that they are each innocent. This presumption of innocence stays with each defendant
unless and until the government presents evidence here in court that overcomes the
presumption, and convinces you beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants are guilty.
Is that the standard that the mainstream media and Trump critics are applying in response to
the Mueller indictment? Are you kidding? They are applying the standard that is used in
communist and other totalitarian regimes. They are pointing to the accusation as proof that
those Russian officials really are guilty! After all, their argument goes, if they weren't
guilty, former FBI Director Mueller would never have secured an indictment against them.
Anyway, everybody knows that the Russians are guilty because America's deep state -- i.e.,
the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA -- say they are. What more proof does anyone need than that?
What even needs a trial? Case closed! Grab them, take them to Gitmo, torture them, and hang
them!
Pardon me, but I thought the special counsel was appointed to determine whether President
Trump somehow illegally "colluded" with the Russians to defeat Hillary Clinton for president.
What's Mueller doing wasting time and money indicting Russian officials who he knows will never
stand trial? Isn't it time for Mueller to put up or shut up with respect to President Trump and
let the Justice Department handle other criminal prosecutions?
Maybe it's just a coincidence that Mueller announced his indictment on the eve of Trump's
meeting with Russian president Vladimir Putin. Or maybe not.
Ever since the end of the Cold War, the U.S. deep state has done everything it can to gin up
another Cold War with Russia. Recall that at the end of the Cold War in 1989, the U.S. deep
state was caught flat-footed. They had fully expected the Cold War to last forever, which would
guarantee ever-increasing budgets for the deep state and its army of bureaucrats, contractors,
and subcontractors.
In fact, people were talking about a "peace dividend," which would have entailed deep cuts
in expenditures for the military-industrial complex, which was President Eisenhower's term for
the deep state. That threw all elements of the deep state into a full-blown panic.
That's when they went into the Middle East and began poking hornet's nests, knowing full
well that their violent and destructive interventionism would produce terrorist blowback. It
did and the terrorist blowback was then used as the excuse for continuing out of control
deep-state expenditures in order to "keep us safe" from the enemies that their interventionism
was producing. In fact, it's probably worth mentioning that Russia's supposed hacking of some
email accounts pales to insignificance compared to massive U.S. interventionism, including the
destruction of democratic regimes, in the political affairs of other countries since the advent
of the U.S. deep state, including bribery, kidnappings, assassinations, coups, embargoes,
sanctions, and invasions.
At the same time they were intervening in the Middle East, they never gave up hope of
revitalizing the Cold War crisis environment with Russia. That is what NATO expansion into
Eastern Europe, including the hope of absorbing Ukraine into NATO, was all about. The U.S. deep
state knew that the closer NATO got to Russia's border, the more likely it would be that Russia
would have to respond. When Russia finally did respond by taking over Crimea, before the U.S.
deep state could, U.S. officials responded predictably: "We are shocked -- shocked! -- at this
act of aggression, which shows that Russia is preparing to attack and invade Eastern Europe,
the Baltics, Germany, France, and undoubtedly even the United States.
It's really just a repeat of the fears that the U.S. deep state inculcated into the American
people throughout the Cold War, as a way to get Americans to support the conversion of the
federal government from a limited-government republic to a national-security or deep states.
The only thing missing is the communist part: Instead of the Reds coming to get us, it's now
just Putin and the Russkies.
What nonsense. Mueller should do the country a favor and shut down his ridiculous and
ridiculously expensive investigation. No matter how much one might dislike Donald Trump, the
fact is that he won the election, fair and square, and Hillary Clinton lost it. Accept it. Deal
with it. Wait until the 2020 election to try to oust Trump from office. Time to shut down all
the regime-change operations, including those of the U.S. deep state.
Share This
Article
(0)
This post was written by: Jacob G. Hornberger Jacob G. Hornberger is
founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. He was born and raised in Laredo,
Texas, and received his B.A. in economics from Virginia Military Institute and his law degree
from the University of Texas. He was a trial attorney for twelve years in Texas. He also was an
adjunct professor at the University of Dallas, where he taught law and economics. In 1987, Mr.
Hornberger left the practice of law to become director of programs at the Foundation for
Economic Education. He has advanced freedom and free markets on talk-radio stations all across
the country as well as on Fox News' Neil Cavuto and Greta van Susteren shows and he appeared as
a regular commentator on Judge Andrew Napolitano's show Freedom Watch . View these
interviews at LewRockwell.com and from Full
Context . Send him email .
"... Did the Russian government seek to interfere in the 2016 US presidential elections? It's certainly possible, however we don't know. None of the Justice Department's assertions have been tested in a court of law, as is thankfully required by our legal system. It is not enough to make an allegation, as Mueller has done. You have to prove it. ..."
"... That is why we should be very suspicious of these new indictments. Mueller knows he will never have to defend his assertions in a court of law so he can make any allegation he wants. ..."
"... It is interesting that one of the Russian companies indicted by Mueller earlier this year surprised the world by actually entering a "not guilty" plea and demanding to see Mueller's evidence. The Special Counsel proceeded to file several motions to delay the hand-over of his evidence. What does Mueller have to hide? ..."
"... Meanwhile, why is no one talking about the estimated 100 elections the US government has meddled in since World War II? Maybe we need to get our own house in order? ..."
July 17, 2018 The term "deep state" has been so overused in the past few years that it may
seem meaningless. It has become standard practice to label one's political adversaries as
representing the "deep state" as a way of avoiding the defense of one's positions. President
Trump has often blamed the "deep state" for his political troubles. Trump supporters have
created big conspiracies involving the "deep state" to explain why the president places neocons
in key positions or fails to fulfill his campaign promises.
But the "deep state" is no vast and secret conspiracy theory. The deep state is real, it
operates out in the open, and it is far from monolithic. The deep state is simply the
permanent, unelected government that continues to expand its power regardless of how Americans
vote.
There are factions of the deep state that are pleased with President Trump's policies, and
in fact we might say that President Trump represents some factions of the deep state.
Other factions of the deep state are determined to undermine any of President Trump's
actions they perceive as threatening. Any move toward peace with Russia is surely something
they feel to be threatening. There are hundreds of billions of reasons – otherwise known
as dollars – why the Beltway military-industrial complex is terrified of peace breaking
out with Russia and will do whatever it takes to prevent that from happening.
That is why Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein's indictment on Friday of 12 Russian
military intelligence officers for allegedly interfering in the 2016 US presidential election
should immediately raise some very serious questions.
First the obvious: after more than a year of investigations which have publicly revealed
zero collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, why drop this bombshell of an allegation
at the end of the news cycle on the last business day before the historic Trump/Putin meeting
in Helsinki? The indictment could not have been announced a month ago or in two weeks? Is it
not suspicious that now no one is talking about reducing tensions with Russia but is all of a
sudden – thanks to Special Counsel Robert Mueller – talking about increasing
tensions?
Unfortunately most Americans don't seem to understand that indictments are not evidence. In
fact they are often evidence-free, as is this indictment.
Did the Russian government seek to interfere in the 2016 US presidential elections? It's
certainly possible, however we don't know. None of the Justice Department's assertions have
been tested in a court of law, as is thankfully required by our legal system. It is not enough
to make an allegation, as Mueller has done. You have to prove it.
That is why we should be very suspicious of these new indictments. Mueller knows he will
never have to defend his assertions in a court of law so he can make any allegation he
wants.
It is interesting that one of the Russian companies indicted by Mueller earlier this
year surprised the world by actually entering a "not guilty" plea and demanding to see
Mueller's evidence. The Special Counsel proceeded to file several motions to delay the
hand-over of his evidence. What does Mueller have to hide?
Meanwhile, why is no one talking about the estimated 100 elections the US government has
meddled in since World War II? Maybe we need to get our own house in order?
Putin statement about $400 million 'donation' to Hillary Clinton by MI6-connected Bill Browder in his Helsinki presser is
obviously of great interest. This has given some new insights into the DNC false flag operation dynamics.
Notable quotes:
"... The FBI would get info about these hackers through the CrowdStrike team's disk images, memory dumps, network logs and other reports. CrowdStrike's Robert Johnston also said he worked with FBI investigators during his work at the DNC so the FBI also got some of their info directly. ..."
"... IMHO believing in the Crowdstrike analysis is like believing in Santa Claus. They did propagate unsubstantiated "security porno" like a hack of Ukrainians for a while. After this incident, Dmitry Alperovich looks like a sleazy used car salesman, not like a real specialist and, in any case, his qualification is limited to the SMTP protocol. ..."
"... What if it was Crowdstrike which compiled and planted the malware using Vault 7 tools and then conducted full-scale false flag operation against Russians to deflect allegations that Bernie was thrown under the bus deliberately and unlawfully. They have motivation and means to do this. ..."
PT, regarding your questions: "How did the FBI obtain information about activity on the DNC
and DCCC servers", "what is the source of the information?",
"how do they know what happened on specific dates as alleged in the complaint?", I believe
the answers are implicit in the first part of this news article:
It describes in considerable detail how, STARTING IN SEPTEMBER 2015, the FBI tried
strenuously to alert the DNC to the fact that it was being hacked by Russia, but the DNC,
remarkably, chose to ignore these warnings.
Here's how the article begins:
When Special Agent Adrian Hawkins of the Federal Bureau of Investigation called the
Democratic National Committee in September 2015 to pass along some troubling news about its
computer network, he was transferred, naturally [ sic! ], to the help desk.
His message was brief, if alarming. At least one computer system belonging to the D.N.C.
had been compromised by hackers federal investigators had named "the Dukes," a
cyberespionage team linked to the Russian government.
The F.B.I. knew it well: The bureau had spent the last few years trying to kick the
Dukes out of the unclassified email systems of the White House, the State Department and
even the Joint Chiefs of Staff, one of the government's best-protected networks.
BTW, I sincerely thank TTG for providing this link in one of his previous comments.
The FBI warned the DNC of the Dukes (aka APT29, Cozy Bear) in September 2015. These are
the hackers that the Dutch AIVD penetrated and warned the NSA in real time when they attacked
Pentagon systems in 2015. Their goal seemed to be intelligence collection as one would expect
as the Dutch said they are affiliated with the SVR.
The Fancy Bear hackers (aka APT28) are the ones referred to in the recent indictment of
the GRU officers. They penetrated the DNC systems in April 2016 and weren't discovered until
CrowdStrike identified them. They're the ones who took data and released it through DCLeaks,
Guccifer 2.0 and Wikileaks as part of a coordinated information operation (IO). I'm not at
all surprised that the GRU would lead this IO as a military operation. The FBI would get
info about these hackers through the CrowdStrike team's disk images, memory dumps, network
logs and other reports. CrowdStrike's Robert Johnston also said he worked with FBI
investigators during his work at the DNC so the FBI also got some of their info
directly. There is absolutely no need to take physical possession of the servers.
The detail of some of the GRU officers' online activity indicates their computers were
penetrated by US or allied IC/LEA much like the Dutch AIVD penetrated the FSB computers. This
was probably a main source for much of the indictment's evidence. That the IC would release
information about this penetration for this indictment is extraordinary. Normally this stuff
never sees the light of day. It sets the precedent for the release of further such
intelligence information in future indictments.
IMHO believing in the Crowdstrike analysis is like believing in Santa Claus. They did
propagate unsubstantiated "security porno" like a hack of Ukrainians for a while. After this
incident, Dmitry Alperovich looks like a sleazy used car salesman, not like a real specialist
and, in any case, his qualification is limited to the SMTP protocol.
What if it was Crowdstrike which compiled and planted the malware using Vault 7 tools and
then conducted full-scale false flag operation against Russians to deflect allegations that
Bernie was thrown under the bus deliberately and unlawfully. They have motivation and means
to do this.
Now we also see a DNC motivation of keeping the content of affected servers from FBI eyes
-- Browder money.
Money quote: "This is just a softer "Saddam has WMDs [scam]" And people fell for it."
The cat fight between two factions of the US elite would be funny, if it was not so dangerous.
Notable quotes:
"... The greatest irony in all this is we have hard evidence that the Clinton machine swayed the MSM to promote T-rump in the primary and squash Bernie. Isn't that election tampering? ..."
"... We also witness the blatant privilege when Comey didn't indict the $hill when she obviously and without a doubt broke the law. So we have the Clinton's above the law laundering money through their foundation But it's Russia's fault....come on. ..."
"... You have totally taken the wind out of the sails of Russia Gate. As you stated, what was the crime? The information that came from the DNC computers and Podesta's emails showed that there was a plan to rig the primary against Bernie so that Hillary would win it. I've said numerous times that was the real election interference. ..."
"... Brennan who had admitted in Jan 2017 that there was no evidence that Russia affected the election in any way has since been prattling on about Russia Gate without every offering any evidence, but that is why this country has been peddling propaganda since Wilson decided it was a great way to get people on board with anything their government want to do. Here is the latest from Brennan. ..."
"... While standing next to the American president, Putin accuses Hillary Clinton of accepting illegal Russian campaign contributions. Trump doesn't push back. ..."
"... Propaganda baby. It works. Every person I have spoken with since Her Majesty lost the election really believes that this country is being run by Putin directly and with the full knowledge and help from the GOP. Because Putin has blackmailed them too or something ..."
"... @lizzyh7 ..."
"... What this episode really proves is that the US finally has joined the USSR as a broken, bankrupt empire that is run by shifting coalitions of international bankers and splinter groups of spooks. The facade of law and democratic norms in America has fallen and shattered on Washington steps. ..."
"... Personally, I accept that in modern times all major intelligence agencies and military general staffs routinely spy on each other and meddle in politics, including elections in their own countries. That's a given and should be obvious to everyone since Yuri Andropov succeeded Brezhnev and Director George H.W Bush had three terms as President of the United States. ..."
"... What is most significant about the current spectacle is how it reveals the polarization and breakdown in discipline within US military and intelligence agencies. The internal policy dispute over Syria and Ukraine and botched election tampering has led to open infighting among the spooks. That's what "Russiagate" is really all about and it's why Flynn and Manafort were the first Mueller indicted. ..."
"... The Mueller investigation is an extension of politics by other means. ..."
"... Social media is completely insane. I've got a very large demographic of fairly open minded people given my trade, and it's unanimous: Drumpf is a Traitor and has committed Treason - both with capital Ts. ..."
The FBI never examined the DNC server. And even if they had, we learned from the vault 7 wikileaks that the CIA can leave evidence
of any country they choose when they hack into a system. I can't believe my normally rational friends can be so brainwashed as
to buy into the whole Russiagate narrative. T-rump has caused them to lose their ability to think.
The greatest irony in all this is we have hard evidence that the Clinton machine swayed the MSM to promote T-rump in the
primary and squash Bernie. Isn't that election tampering?
We also witness the blatant privilege when Comey didn't indict the $hill when she obviously and without a doubt broke the
law. So we have the Clinton's above the law laundering money through their
foundation But it's Russia's fault....come on.
Jimmy accuse people of thinking with their lizard brains...I fear he is right.
You have totally taken the wind out of the sails of Russia Gate. As you stated, what was the crime? The information that came
from the DNC computers and Podesta's emails showed that there was a plan to rig the primary against Bernie so that Hillary would
win it. I've said numerous times that was the real election interference. As to what Russia is accused of doing Obama, Brennan
and others have stated that no votes were changed from Hillary to Trump no were any voting machines hacked. Funny thing about
that though. 3 states have said that they did see signs of some entity trying to hack into their state's voting data bases but
it came from the DHS. Not a foreign country.
Could it be that Mueller is acknowledging something important here without stating it? There is no real victim in "Russiagate."
So, where is the crime? Was anyone harmed? No. Was a U.S. Navy battleship resting at anchor blown up? No, again. Not a scratch
to anything except the reputations of those who were shown to have rigged the Democratic primaries so that the DNC Chair's
favored candidate won.
Putin said that he would welcome the US investigation into those 12 military officers if the US would send someone to interview
them in Russia since the two countries have a treaty to do just that. Will anyone take him up on that offer? Anyone? Bueller?
After Trump's meeting with Putin neocons are doubling down and accusing Trump of doing all kinds of shady things.
Mueller indictments strengthen case that Trump's win was stolen. What's new? a) Strong possibility Russians monkeyed w/
voter rolls, affecting the 11/8/16 outcome and b) Trump's fall strategy may have been driven by stolen Democratic analytics.
My column: https://t.co/io2B8Nhjs7
Brennan who had admitted in Jan 2017 that there was no evidence that Russia affected the election in any way has since been
prattling on about Russia Gate without every offering any evidence, but that is why this country has been peddling propaganda
since Wilson decided it was a great way to get people on board with anything their government want to do. Here is the latest from
Brennan.
Donald Trump's press conference performance in Helsinki rises to & exceeds the threshold of "high crimes & misdemeanors."
It was nothing short of treasonous. Not only were Trump's comments imbecilic, he is wholly in the pocket of Putin. Republican
Patriots: Where are you???
A few other tweets from the joint press conference.
I'm pretty sure that no one will ask Putin a follow up question about what he meant by this.
While standing next to the American president, Putin accuses Hillary Clinton of accepting illegal Russian campaign contributions.
Trump doesn't push back. pic.twitter.com/dDt2TTV24E
Debunked? I don't see that this was debunked. In fact I don't remember anyone ever talking about the content of the emails
that showed that the primary was rigged.
Asked if he believes US intel agencies or Putin about Russia's interference in the 2016 election, Trump immediately starts
pushing debunked DNC & Hillary conspiracy theories.
"I don't see any reason why it would be" Russia, Trump says, affirming he believes Putin's denials.
pic.twitter.com/uciAoRxbxA
PUTIN doesn't deny having blackmail material on Trump
"When Trump was in Moscow back then, I didn't even know that he was there. I treat him with utmost respect, but back then
when he was private person, a businessman, nobody informed me"
What we saw *today* was collusion. Trump's refusal to treat Russian sabotage of our democracy as the crime that it is encourages
Putin to keep it up. https://t.co/9OTDPQUmpWpic.twitter.com/efyNriYSwy
Propaganda baby. It works. Every person I have spoken with since Her Majesty lost the election really believes that this country is
being run by Putin directly and with the full knowledge and help from the GOP. Because Putin has blackmailed them too or something
....
I kept waiting for the day Russia Gate exploded and became known for the farce it is. I really wanted to see Rachel's reaction
and see how she would explain to her viewers that she had just made everything up. But now I'm don't think that is going to happen.
The PTB have invested to much into it and they won't let their agendas be derailed. This is just a softer "Saddam has WMDs." And
people fell for it.
What this episode really proves is that the US finally has joined the USSR as a broken, bankrupt empire that is run by shifting
coalitions of international bankers and splinter groups of spooks. The facade of law and democratic norms in America has fallen
and shattered on Washington steps.
Personally, I accept that in modern times all major intelligence agencies and military general staffs routinely spy on each
other and meddle in politics, including elections in their own countries. That's a given and should be obvious to everyone since
Yuri Andropov succeeded Brezhnev and Director George H.W Bush had three terms as President of the United States.
What is most significant about the current spectacle is how it reveals the polarization and breakdown in discipline within
US military and intelligence agencies. The internal policy dispute over Syria and Ukraine and botched election tampering has led
to open infighting among the spooks. That's what "Russiagate" is really all about and it's why Flynn and Manafort were the first
Mueller indicted.
The Mueller investigation is an extension of politics by other means.
Social media is completely insane. I've got a very large demographic of fairly open minded people given my trade, and it's
unanimous: Drumpf is a Traitor and has committed Treason - both with capital Ts.
I could see Civil War in weeks. Completely terrifying.
@detroitmechworks He ostensibly went to seek advice on how to do his confirmation hearing for SOS. What actually happened
is the Medusa told him who to retain and what policies to pursue. Pompeo had no intention of adopting her policies (except Neocon
points) but he got valuable clues as to Clinton allies in the DOS. He then began purging them. Stupid HRC! But I hope she runs
in 2020.
"... For instance, we can bring up Mr. Browder, in this particular case. Business associates of Mr. Browder have earned over $1.5 billion in Russia and never paid any taxes neither in Russia or the United States and yet the money escaped the country. They were transferred to the United States. They sent [a] huge amount of money, $400,000,000, as a contribution to the campaign of Hillary Clinton. Well that's their personal case. ..."
"... we have solid reason to believe that some [US] intelligence officers accompanied and guided these transactions. So we have an interest in questioning them. ..."
"... Browder is notoriously the man behind the 2012 Magnitsky Act, which exploited Congressional willingness to demonize Russia and has done so much to poison relations between Washington and Moscow. ..."
"... Browder, a media favorite who self-promotes as "Putin's enemy #1," portrays himself as a selfless human rights advocate, but is he? He has used his fortune to threaten lawsuits for anyone who challenges his version of events, effectively silencing many critics. He claims that his accountant Sergei Magnitsky was a crusading "lawyer" who discovered a $230 million tax-fraud scheme that involved the Browder business interest Hermitage Capital but was, in fact, engineered by corrupt Russian police officers who arrested Magnitsky and enabled his death in a Russian jail. ..."
"... William Browder is again in the news recently in connection with testimony related to Russiagate. On December 16th Senator Diane Feinstein of the Senate Judiciary Committee released the transcript of the testimony provided by Glenn Simpson, founder of Fusion GPS. According to James Carden, Browder was mentioned 50 times, but the repeated citations apparently did not merit inclusion in media coverage of the story by the New York Times, Washington Post and Politico. ..."
Vladimir Putin made a bombshell claim during Monday's joint press conference with President
Trump in Helsinki, Finland, when the Russian President said some $400 million )should be $400K) in illegally
earned profits was funneled to the Clinton campaign by associates of American-born British
financier Bill Browder - at one time the largest foreign portfolio investors in Russia. The
scheme involved members of the U.S. intelligence community, said Putin, who he said
"accompanied and guided these transactions."
Browder made billions in Russia during the 90's. In December, a Moscow court sentenced
Browder in absentia to nine years in prison for tax fraud, while he was also found guilty of
tax evasion in a separate 2013 case. Putin accused Browder's associates of illegally earning
over than $1.5 billion without paying Russian taxes, before sending $400 million to Clinton.
After offering to allow special counsel Robert Mueller's team to come to Russia for their
investigation - as long as there was a reciprocal arrangement for Russian intelligence to
investigate in the U.S., Putin said this:
For instance, we can bring up Mr. Browder, in this particular case. Business associates of
Mr. Browder have earned over $1.5 billion in Russia and never paid any taxes neither in
Russia or the United States and yet the money escaped the country. They were transferred to
the United States. They sent [a] huge amount of money, $400,000,000, as a contribution to the
campaign of Hillary Clinton. Well that's their personal case.
It might have been legal, the contribution itself but the way the money was earned was
illegal. So we have solid reason to believe that some [US] intelligence officers accompanied
and guided these transactions. So we have an interest in questioning them.
Israel Shamir, a keen observer of the
American-Russian relationship, and celebrated American journalist Robert
Parryboth think
that one man deserves much of the credit for the new Cold War and that man is William Browder,
a hedge fund operator who made his fortune in the corrupt 1990s world of Russian commodities
trading.
Browder is also symptomatic of why the United States government is so poorly informed about
international developments as he is the source of much of the Congressional "expert testimony"
contributing to the current impasse. He has somehow emerged as a trusted source in spite of the
fact that he has self-interest in cultivating a certain outcome. Also ignored is his
renunciation of American citizenship in 1998, reportedly to avoid taxes. He is now a British
citizen.
Browder is notoriously the man behind the 2012 Magnitsky Act, which exploited Congressional
willingness to demonize Russia and has done so much to poison relations between Washington and
Moscow. The Act sanctioned individual Russian officials, which Moscow has rightly seen as
unwarranted interference in the operation of its judicial system.
Browder, a media favorite who self-promotes as "Putin's enemy #1," portrays himself as a
selfless human rights advocate, but is he? He has used his fortune to threaten lawsuits for
anyone who challenges his version of events, effectively silencing many critics. He claims that
his accountant Sergei Magnitsky was a crusading "lawyer" who discovered a $230 million
tax-fraud scheme that involved the Browder business interest Hermitage Capital but was, in
fact, engineered by corrupt Russian police officers who arrested Magnitsky and enabled his
death in a Russian jail.
Many have been skeptical of the Browder narrative, suspecting that the fraud was in fact
concocted by Browder and his accountant Magnitsky. A Russian court recently
supported that alternative narrative, ruling in late December that Browder had deliberately
bankrupted his company and engaged in tax evasion. He was sentenced to nine years prison in
absentia.
William Browder is again in the news recently in connection with testimony related to
Russiagate. On December 16th Senator Diane Feinstein of the Senate Judiciary Committee released
the transcript of the testimony provided by Glenn Simpson, founder of Fusion GPS.
According to James Carden, Browder was mentioned 50 times, but the repeated citations
apparently did not merit inclusion in media coverage of the story by the New York Times,
Washington Post and Politico.
Fusion GPS, which was involved in the research producing the Steele Dossier used to
discredit Donald Trump, was also retained to provide investigative services relating to a
lawsuit in New York City involving a Russian company called Prevezon. As information provided
by Browder was the basis of the lawsuit, his company and business practices while in Russia
became part of the investigation. Simmons maintained that Browder proved to be somewhat evasive
and his accounts of his activities were inconsistent. He claimed never to visit the United
States and not own property or do business there, all of which were untrue, to include his
ownership through a shell company of a $10 million house in Aspen Colorado. He repeatedly
ran away , literally, from attempts to subpoena him so he would have to testify under
oath.
Per Simmons, in Russia, Browder used shell companies locally and also worldwide to avoid
taxes and conceal ownership, suggesting that he was likely one of many corrupt businessmen
operating in what was a wild west business environment.
My question is, "Why was such a man granted credibility and allowed a free run to poison the
vitally important US-Russia relationship?" The answer might be follow the money. Israel Shamir
reports
that Browder was a major contributor to Senator Ben Cardin of Maryland, who was the major
force behind the Magnitsky Act.
The Dems. and journalists are jumping all over themselves to fawn over the intelligence
services as the defenders of democracy.
What is the journalism equivalent for 'regulatory capture'?
And even assuming that everything in the indictments are 100% true, then the DNC were
grossly negligent in handling their communications. And Clinton too, with her email
server. And the Obama administration for letting this happen.
I just finished reading Donna Brazile's book, Hacks .
According to Brazile, the DNC's IT department was alerted by the FBI. This was back in
2015 when a G-man called the DNC headquarters and was transferred to the DNC's help desk,
which had been outsourced to a Chicago-based company called The MIS Department. And, you
guessed it, this company had connections to Obama.
Well, it gets worse. The help desk guy who answered the phone thought it was a crank call.
And, after a cursory examination of the DNC computer network, he concluded that there was no
hack.
"... as Isikoff says, "everything the US government says is a lie, or is concocted, or is made up out of 'whole cloth'." Even the Republican Senate Intelligence Committee report blames the Russians for interference. ..."
This is obviously more horse poop, timed to mess up the Trump-Putin summit. Hardly worth
time to pay any attention to.
I could read about this, or I can read a nifty book I found in PDF format,
https://kalamkopi.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/utsa-patnaik-the-agrarian-question-in-the-neoliberal-era.pdf
The Agrarian Question in the Neoliberal Era Primitive Accumulation and the Peasantry
Utsa Patnaik and Sam Moyo with Issa G. Shivji
What do you think I'll spend my time doing? (And also finding other material from Utsa
Patnaik.) No, the deep state does not want people reading about these neoliberal and
imperialist frauds, but wants to distract them from understanding what it is really up to.
Let them keep their fairy tales or tell them to the mystified -- I'm going to keep exploring
the reality.
Mueller the ultimate connoisseur of ham sandwiches. How's the indictment of three Russian
companies coming along?
Federal judge slaps Robert Mueller with humiliating fact check in courtroom over massive
'error' :
U.S. Magistrate Judge G. Michael Harvey asked one of Concord's attorneys, Eric Dubelier, if
he was also representing Concord Catering. They were not because the company did not exist
during the time period Mueller alleges, Dubelier said.
"What about Concord Catering? The government makes an allegation that there's some
association. I don't mean for you to -- do you represent them, or not, today? And are we
arraigning them as well?" the judge asked. Dubelier responded: "We're not. And the reason for
that, Your Honor, is I think we're dealing with a situation of the government having indicted
the proverbial ham sandwich."
"That company didn't exist as a legal entity during the time period alleged by the
government.
Yawn I'm waiting for Mueller to take the fifth prior to indicting foreign interference of
Christopher Steele- former British M16 spy, for the Steele dossier during a presidential
election. Oh lest not we forget who the players were and who funded that too .
Now that Mueller has solved the mystery of the Russians "hijacking" an election that the
Democrats wanted to hijack, maybe he could turn his attention to helping OJ find out who
killed Nicole and Ron. The National Enquirer is now our newspaper of record. Adios America.
200 years wasn't a bad run but it's over
Until there's a call for changing the vote tabulation system to something secure and
public, DOJ can indict every single person in Russia and its nothing but tilting at
windmills. It doesn't address the problem at all.
WMD in 2003 = Remember the Maine in 1898 = Russia Russia Russia.
Since we know that CIA has tools to make hacks look like it came from any suspect source,
and this technology has been leaked (after the DNC problem though) we will never know
anything true about this, not the public, not the prosecutors. They don't have the technical
ability, if anyone has, at this point, to distinguish a real from a fake hack.
I wouldn't be surprised now, if the Russians did the hacking, because they were paid by
the Clintons to do it. Certainly the NSA and GCHQ has it all too.
I certainly believe that many folks would like to use this Russian meddling to advance a
neocon agenda and start a new cold war, but that doesn't invalidate the fact that Russians
might have done this. The US certainly does it (and far worse). Israel certainly meddles in
our elections as do the Saudis, most likely. So does the Supreme Court, as do the Republicans
with their gerrymandering and voter suppression efforts. I believe that is what the Left
should be protesting, not joining in to the belief that this is all some giant frame-up of
Putin and Russia.
I've been a cautious skeptic about this whole collusion issue up to now, but after reading
the latest indictment it seems to me that Mueller is very close to closing the ring on Trump.
Perhaps I'm wrong but I find it hard to believe that Mueller, after a lifetime of mostly very
honorable public service, would join in to such a conspiracy. I find it easy to believe Trump
and Co. would.
I can't comment for others, but frankly I have two reasons for not believing "The Russians
Did It!" boondoggle.
1st: Of Course Russia was using the technology available to them to influence the
election. So was Israel, China, Saudi Arabia, Iran, France, Great Britain, etc. Any major
nation whose intelligence services were not 'hacking' into our system, using Facebook, and
every other claim against Russia was not doing their job. The idea that this was limited to
Russia, and untenable to any other nation is BS on its face. Just like the idea that we
aren't doing it everywhere else is. It is the job of our intelligence community to either
shut down intelligence breeches. I'm amazed at the everyone who looks at the stories put out
about this who doesn't recognize the level of incompetence of the CIA, FBI, NIS, etc.
2nd: The more that has come out about the so-called hacks has made it clear that the DNC
was largely responsible for being an open sieve. And most of the most the items that were
most damaging to Clinton and the Democrats were, well true, and frankly items that our
so-called free press should have been hunting down if they weren't so captured.
3rd: This truly only became a problem when Clinton wasn't running away with the polls. The
breathless announcement with the Bull about the 17 different agencies when it was a
organization that speaks for the 17 agencies that reported it. Once again what was the Coast
Guard intelligence service doing investigating a hack of DNC servers? It was all PR again.
There still wasn't all that much concern on any one's part because no one was really worried
about the actual election. What were the agencies and the DNC doing to secure things?
4th: The hysteria involved in this hit high gear when Clinton lost because she and her
campaign was incompetent. They had to find an excuse besides Clinton being intensely disliked
by almost half the country, her campaign being stupid and the policies of the Democratic
Party being disliked. They didn't lose all those state houses and governorships and both
Houses of Congress because of the Russians, but the Presidency, nope that was because of
interference.
IOW, sure there was interference, interference that no one much cared about until the guy
willing to upset the apple cart got elected. And the interference that everyone recognizes
was the one that supports further Military action beloved by our NeoCon/NeoLiberal political
class and the MIC. Gosh. Recognizing the overwhelming finger of Israel on our political
system (including with Trump) isn't being addressed at all.
It is like not recognizing that Clinton was treated differently for actual illegal
activity regarding her security breeches at State, but pretending she was cleared. All show
and little actual concern for the problems at hand.
There was a preference by Putin and many others, Russians and other nationalities, for
Trump based on, as Putin said, Clinton wanting to start a war (she said she would do a 'no
fly zone' in Syria) and Trump wanting normal relations -- but that was not tampering or
hacking. Also, as Putin said, he would deal with whoever was elected, it could not be
predicted with confidence what either would do when in office, and it is Russian policy not
to interfere with the sovereignty of other countries. Some Russians preferred Trump and some
Clinton, like most everyone in the world. Most everyone would have preferred Sanders if the
primary hadn't been rigged against him.
Just having a preference is not the same as tampering, or everyone who voted could be
accused of tampering or hacking by casting his/her vote. I don't Russia had anything to do
with swaying the election, and it is only just now, going on two years after, that Putin even
let it be known he preferred Trump and normalization of relations over Clinton and war. Putin
is diplomatic but he plays it straight.
Isikoff's responses made me curious so I went and looked it up (PBS has it as well). It's
a bit under 30 pages long and relatively easy to read. I encourage anyone following the story
to do so.
Of all the Russia theories, the bit about the Russians being behind the DNC e-mail hack
has always seemed the most credible to me, if only because they were apparently able to
convince Trump of it when they presented the evidence to him. The indictment is very detailed
and implies the existence of considerable hard evidence that would have been used to create
it. There are names, dates and times, aliases, specific servers and tasks performed on them,
and so on. Either Mueller is going all in on a bluff or he actually has this stuff. The
former would be very risky because there is so much detail in the indictment that he would
rapidly need to put up or shut up in order to maintain any kind of credibility in court. If
he tried to handwave then it would all fall apart like a house of cards. I don't completely
rule it out (especially given that they did exactly that for the Iraq WMDs) but in this case
I think a legal challenge from one of the accused would expose things pretty quickly. It will
be interesting to see whether anyone does that.
So suppose it's true and Mueller has the evidence. That would mean that agents of the
Russian military were involved in the DNC server hacks. That's it. There have to date been no
claims from the intelligence community that the election itself was compromised, and the only
dirt on the Trump campaign was from the discredited Steele dossier. I think this falls within
the realm of things that big countries do all the time (the US probably did something similar
to obtain the evidence referenced in the indictment). It might have been a bit more serious
because it was politically sensitive material during an election campaign, which likely
merited some kind of response (Obama's "I told the Russians to cut it out" would seem
appropriate). "OMG the Russians stole our democracy!" is a hysterical overreaction.
The other thing is that the activities described in the indictment are nothing
particularly special or unusual. There are bad actors out there doing this kind of thing all
the time, and the DNC would be a high value target. Having a robust security policy and
ensuring it was followed would have been enough to thwart pretty much all of it. The real
story here is that DNC security practices were sloppy enough to allow this to happen. The
fact that it was the Russians that ended up doing it (if it was) is almost incidental.
The "real story" behind all the current brouhaha and kayfabe, is that the DNC is a vastly
corrupt, organized mob (sorry, the court said they are a "private club or association), their
candidate was and is an evil POS, and they played not hardball but dirty tricks all the way
through the 2016 campaign. They are the ones who make a mockery of 'democracy," however
loosely it might be defined, and the electoral process. And one little piece of the rot has
fortuitously been uncovered, all those emails and the existence of that "public-private
partnership" server and the rest.
(If it was) the Russians, and not some little person, maybe an unpaid intern, within the
DNC, with a residue of conscience, or just building some credit with the potential
prosecutorial futures Trying to lay it off as just a failure of the DNC to "have a robust
security policy, what do they call it, "gaslighting?"
i value this site and community but you guys have a real blind spot on this russia issue
and i hope you'll own up to it when the truth is known. i hate the current milquetoast dems
as much as anyone but if you can't smell the rot on this story or see that something big is
lurking under the surface, then you are willfully blind in my opinion.
Of course that's always possible (blind spots), but do you have any particular reasons or
evidence you can point to or link to that support your accusation? Is your opinion based on
the "overwhelming detail" in the current indictment? Doesn't it bother you that these
allegations (for they ARE only allegations) will likely never have to be proven since the
possibility of getting the 12 Russians extradited to the US is virtually nil (meaning no
trial where the facts must be presented)? Doesn't the timing of this indictment also strike
you as suspicious?
i don't want to start a scrum but i'll just say i find chait's recent piece, marcy wheeler
and tpm's coverage very convincing. too many "innocent explanations" don't add up when taken
as a whole and trump's behavior surrounding russia is simply troubling. also, too, he's
pretty clearly a money launderer and criminal with ties to russian money. pile on me if you
will but we'll have to agree to disagree until more facts come out
Help me out, please. What has Trump done that is so beneficial to Russia? I'm asking a
serious question and not trolling whatsoever. I can't follow all of the news, and maybe I
have a blind spot and missed where Trump sold us out to the Russians. All these people are
convinced that "Russia has something on Trump". How are they leveraging this something?
What is Trump doing to the benefit of Russia and the detriment of the USA? If it benefits
both, IMHO, then it doesn't necessarily require Russian leverage.
From the get-go there are two questions that I haven't seen anyone address. This is before
you get to any "substantive" bits of the indictment, or of the whole Evil Russian Hacker
scandal.
1. Why GRU. WHY GRU.
GRU is the Russian military intelligence agency reporting to the General Staff. While it
has many different units and functions, the common denominator is that these have something
to do with MILITARY intelligence or activities. Battlefield intelligence, counter-terrorism
units, special forces, saboteurs, et cetera.
Meanwhile, the Russians also have the SVR – "Service of Foreign Intelligence"
– which is what the foreign intelligence departments of the KGB were folded into in the
1990s (the domestic departments went into the FSB – hence creating a CIA-FBI type
duality). Although much of the structure is classified, the SVR does have an entire
department dedicated to "information systems".
In principle, an operation against a political target with the view of affecting a
political process should involve the SVR – not the GRU. It, in fact, makes absolutely
no sense for the GRU to get involved in this, as hacking Podesta's Gmail has no discernible
military intelligence objective. And yet, the only acronym various US publications (and
indictments) have been pushing since 2017 is the GRU while the SVR does not exist?
This continues to perplex me.
2. Technically speaking, the GRU operates under a very heavy classification regime.
Meaning the names of their operatives themselves are classified information. And yet, here we
have an indictment with not less than a dozen names.
Which means that either the US has infiltrated the GRU top to bottom and sideways, and
Mueller is somehow not gun shy to reveal this fact to the world – or someone is making
stuff up. Unless someone wants to point out to me some other explanation for a dozen
classified – top secret and all that – names showing up in a public US
document
-- -
But hey, I am not a professional journalist, so what do I know about asking questions.
My fear is that many on the Left are jumping into a rabbit hole where, as Isikoff
says, "everything the US government says is a lie, or is concocted, or is made up out of
'whole cloth'." Even the Republican Senate Intelligence Committee report blames the Russians
for interference. This from Charles Blow's column in today's NYT:
"In 2016, cyber actors affiliated with the Russian Government conducted an unprecedented,
coordinated cyber campaign against state election infrastructure. Russian actors scanned
databases for vulnerabilities, attempted intrusions, and in a small number of cases
successfully penetrated a voter registration database. This activity was part of a larger
campaign to prepare to undermine confidence in the voting process."
Rather than be distracted with whether Mueller and DOJ and the Intel Community is making
it all up let's wait and see what the special counsel ultimately finds and the evidence he
produces to support it. In the meantime, the Left should be shining the light on our own,
well documented, interference in other countries' elections, our illegal regime change
operations and calling out the neocons and their fellow travelers for trying to start a new
Cold War with Russia.
isikoff has been in on this from the git go. (Remember judy miller?)
He's the one who wrote a "yahoo" article, after talking to christopher steele of dossier
fame, that was cited as "confirmation" of the dossier "evidence" when it was used to get a
fisa warrant on Carter Paige to justify the Trump campaign "wiretapping" that "never
happened."
christopher steele got "fired from the fbi," and isikoff, claiming he didn't do nuthin'
"wrong," apparently got a book deal. He now seems to have decided that his mission in life is
advocating for nuclear war with Russia because john podesta got sucked in by a phishing email
and gave away his password which was, in perfect keeping with the stupidity of it all,
"password."
Scott Ritter is not buying this,: "this indictment would ever go to trial. It simply couldn't survive the discovery to which any
competent defense would subject the government's assertions." This clearly was a political act by neocons.
Rosenstein and Mueller claim that 12 Russians like 12 Spartan manage to keep Hillary from the coronation is questionable
political backstabbing at best, the act of sedition at worst.
Notable quotes:
"... Rosenstein, by the timing and content of the indictment he publicly released Friday, committed an act that undermined the president of the United States' ability to conduct critical affairs of state -- in this case, a summit with a foreign leader the outcome of which could impact global nuclear nonproliferation policy. The hue and cry among the president's political foes for him to cancel the summit with Putin -- or, failing that, to use the summit to confront the Russian leader with the indictment -- is a direct result of Rosenstein's decision to release the Mueller indictment when he did and how he did. Through its content, the indictment was designed to shape public opinion against Russia. ..."
While the impeachment of Rosenstein is highly unlikely and the likelihood
of the FBI being found guilty of its investigations being corrupted by individual bias is equally slim,
in the world of politics, perception creates its own reality and the Mueller investigation had been
taking a public beating for some time. By releasing an indictment predicated upon the operating assertion
that 12 named Russian military intelligence officers orchestrated a series of cyberattacks that resulted
in information being stolen from computer servers belonging to the Democratic Party, and then facilitated
the release of this information in a manner designed to do damage to the candidacy of Clinton, Rosenstein
sought to silence once and for all the voices that have attacked him, along with the Department of
Justice, the FBI and the Mueller investigation, as a participant in a partisan plot against the
president.
There is one major problem with the indictment, however: It doesn't
prove that which it asserts. True, it provides a compelling narrative that reads like a spy novel, and
there is no doubt in my mind that many of the technical details related to the timing and functioning of
the malware described within are accurate. But the leap of logic that takes the reader from the inner
workings of the servers of the Democratic Party to the offices of Russian intelligence officers in Moscow
is not backed up by anything that demonstrates how these connections were made.
That's the point of an indictment, however -- it doesn't exist to provide
evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, but rather to provide only enough information to demonstrate probable
cause. No one would, or could, be convicted at trial from the information contained in the indictment
alone. For that to happen, the government would have to produce the specific evidence linking the hacks
to the named Russians, and provide details on how this evidence was collected, and by whom. In short, the
government would have to be willing to reveal some of the most sensitive sources and methods of
intelligence collection by the U.S. intelligence community and expose, and therefore ruin, the careers of
those who collected this information. This is something the government has never been willing to do, and
there is much doubt that if, for some odd reason, the Russians agreed to send one or more of these named
intelligence officers to the United States to answer the indictment, this indictment would ever go to
trial. It simply couldn't survive the discovery to which any competent defense would subject the
government's assertions.
Robert Mueller knew this when he drafted the indictment, and Rob
Rosenstein knew this when he presented it to the public. The assertions set forth in the indictment,
while cloaked in the trappings of American justice, have nothing to do with actual justice or the rule of
law; they cannot, and will never, be proved in a court of law. However, by releasing them in a manner
that suggests that the government is willing to proceed to trial, a perception is created that implies
that they can withstand the scrutiny necessary to prevail at trial.
And as we know, perception is its own reality.
Despite Rosenstein's assertions to the contrary, the decision to
release the indictment of the 12 named Russian military intelligence officers was an act of partisan
warfare designed to tip the scale of public opinion against the supporters of President Trump, and in
favor of those who oppose him politically, Democrat and Republican alike. Based upon the media coverage
since Rosenstein's press conference, it appears that in this he has been wildly successful.
But is the indictment factually correct? The biggest clue that Mueller
and Rosenstein have crafted a criminal espionage narrative from whole
cloth comes from none other than the very intelligence agency whose work
would preclude Rosenstein's indictment from ever going to trial: the National Security Agency. In June
2017 the online investigative journal The Intercept
referenced a highly classified document
from the NSA titled "Spear-Phishing Campaign TTPs Used Against U.S. And Foreign Government Political
Entities." It's a highly technical document, derived from collection sources and methods the NSA has
classified at the Top Secret/SI (i.e., Special Intelligence) level. This document was meant for internal
consumption, not public release. As such, the drafters could be honest about what they knew and what they
didn't know -- unlike those in the Mueller investigation who drafted the aforementioned indictment.
A cursory comparison of the leaked NSA document and the indictment
presented by Rosenstein suggests that the events described in Count 11 of the indictment pertaining to an
effort to penetrate state and county election offices responsible for administering the 2016 U.S.
presidential election are precisely the events captured in the NSA document. While the indictment links
the identity of a named Russian intelligence officer, Anatoliy Sergeyevich Kovalev, to specific actions
detailed therein, the NSA document is much more circumspect. In a diagram supporting the text report, the
NSA document specifically states that the organizational ties between the unnamed operators involved in
the actions described and
an organizational entity, Unit 74455,
affiliated with Russian military intelligence is a product of the judgment of an analyst and not fact.
If we take this piece of information to its logical conclusion, then
the Mueller indictment has taken detailed data related to hacking operations directed against various
American political entities and shoehorned it into what amounts to little more than the organizational
chart of a military intelligence unit assessed -- but not known -- to have overseen the operations described.
This is a far cry from the kind of incontrovertible proof that Mueller's team suggests exists to support
its indictment of the 12 named Russian intelligence officers.
If this is indeed the case, then the indictment, as presented, is a
politically motivated fraud. Mueller doesn't know the identities of those involved in the hacking
operations he describes -- because the intelligence analysts who put the case together don't know those
names. If this case were to go to trial, the indictment would be dismissed in the preliminary hearing
phase for insufficient evidence, even if the government were willing to lay out the totality of its
case -- which, because of classification reasons, it would never do.
But the purpose of the indictment wasn't to bring to justice the
perpetrators of a crime against the American people; it was to manipulate public opinion.
And therein lies the rub.
The timing of the release of the Mueller indictment unleashed a storm
of political backlash directed at President Trump, and specifically at his scheduled July 16 summit with
Russian President Vladimir Putin in Helsinki. This summit was never popular with the president's
political opponents, given the current state of affairs between Russia and the U.S., dominated as they
are by events in Syria and Ukraine, perceived Russian threats against the northern flank of NATO,
allegations of election meddling in the U.S. and Europe, and Russia's nuclear arsenal. On that last
point, critics claim Russia's arsenal is irresponsibly expanding, operated in violation of existing arms
control agreements, and is being used to underpin foreign policy objectives through the use of nuclear
blackmail.
President Trump has publicly stated that it is his fervent desire that
relations with Russia can be improved and that he views the Helsinki summit as an appropriate venue for
initiating a process that could facilitate such an outcome. It is the president's sole prerogative to
formulate and implement foreign and national security policy on behalf of the American people. While his
political critics are free to criticize this policy, they cannot undermine it without running afoul of
sedition laws.
Rosenstein, by the timing and content of the indictment he publicly
released Friday, committed an act that undermined the president of the United States' ability to conduct
critical affairs of state -- in this case, a summit with a foreign leader the outcome of which could impact
global nuclear nonproliferation policy. The hue and cry among the president's political foes for him to
cancel the summit with Putin -- or, failing that, to use the summit to confront the Russian leader with the
indictment -- is a direct result of Rosenstein's decision to release the Mueller indictment when he did and
how he did. Through its content, the indictment was designed to shape public opinion against Russia.
This indictment, by any other name, is a political act, and should be
treated as such by the American people and the media.
"This isn't about Trump, his personality, or his other policies. It's about
whether a bunch of unelected bureaucrats are going to be granted a veto power over who sits in
that chair in the Oval Office" 7 hours ago | 2,546
75 MORE: Politics If there was ever any doubt
that the Russia-gate hoax is a scheme by the War Party to salvage their bankrupt foreign
policy, and depose a democratically-elected President, then Robert Mueller's
indictment of twelve alleged GRU agents for "interfering" in the 2016 election settles the
matter once and for all. Are we supposed to believe it was just a coincidence that the
indictment was made public just as Trump was about to meet Russian President Vladimir Putin in
Helsinki?
An indictment of twelve individuals who will never contest the charges, and which will not
have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law – to whom is it addressed?
Not to any jury, but to the court of public opinion. It is, in short, pure propaganda, meant to
sabotage Trump's Helsinki peace initiative before it has even convened.
Yet the brazenness of this borderline treason is what makes it so ineffective. The American
people aren't stupid: to the extent that they're paying attention to this Beltway comic opera
they can figure out the motives and meaning of Mueller's accusations without too much
difficulty.
The indictment reads like a fourth-rate spy thriller: we are treated to alleged "real time"
transcripts of Boris and
Natasha in action, draining the DNC's email system as well as our precious bodily fluids.
This material, perhaps supplied by the National Security Agency, contains no evidence that
links either Russia or the named individuals to the actions depicted in the transcripts. We
just have to take Mueller's word for it.
What Mueller is counting on is that the defendants will never show up in court. If they did,
following the example of representatives of the indicted
Internet Research Agency – accused of running Facebook ads on Russia's behalf –
Mueller would have to provide real evidence of the defendant's guilt. In that case, the
indictment would have to be dropped, because the alleged evidence is classified.
Ominously, the indictment points to unnamed US individuals alleged to have collaborated with
supposed Russian agents: Roger Stone has been identified as one of them, and no doubt others
have been targeted by the special prosecutor's office. Anyone who thought the anti-Russian
inquisition would be content with mini-big fish Mike Flynn and Paul Manafort, and the little
tadpoles they'd managed to corral, is about to be proven dead wrong. This fishing expedition
has barely begun.
The whole shoddy affair is meant to distract attention away from the President's ambitious
foreign policy initiatives, the twin diplomatic outreach campaigns to two of our old cold war
enemies. These efforts demonstrate the overarching significance of the President's "America
First" foreign policy: Trump means to abandon the old cold war structures. In their place he
means to build a new so-called international order, one that is not overseen by any one
"superpower" but that is self-regulating, like the market order that has brought unparalleled
prosperity to this country and to the world.
That's the big picture. Focusing in on specifics, what is likely to come out of this summit
is:
· A settlement of the Syrian conflict as a prelude to US withdrawal.
· An agreement to renew and revitalize the INF treaty, which is in danger of being
nullified, and the initiation of new joint efforts to limit nuclear weapons.
· An acknowledgment of the need to normalize Russo-American relations in the interest
of world peace.
I might add that efforts to trace and capture "rogue" nukes, perhaps left over from the
immediate post-Soviet collapse, should also be on the agenda.
The disgusting – and depressing – response of the Democrats to the Helsinki
summit has been a concerted campaign to cancel it. Yes, that's how myopic and in thrall to the
Deep State these flunkies are: world peace, who cares ? Never mind that we're still on
hair-trigger alert, with our nukes aimed at their cities and their nukes targeting ours. The
slightest anomaly could spark a nuclear exchange – the end of the world, the extinction
of human life, and probably of most life, for quite some time to come.
And yet -- what does the survival of the human race matter next to the question of how and
why Hillary Clinton was denied her rightful place in history? I mean, really
!
The American people are not blaming Russia for their problems.
They don't want conflict with the Kremlin, they don't care about Ukraine, and the question of
sanctions never comes up at the dinner table of ordinary Americans. That's why Russia-gate and
the war propaganda coming out of the neocon and liberal thinktanks has had little effect on
public opinion, in marked contrast to its dominance of elite discourse inside the Beltway
bubble.
This latest effort to discredit the President's peace project and sabotage a summit with a
foreign leader underscores the battle lines in this country. On one side is the Deep State,
with its self-interested globalist leadership so invested in our interventionist foreign policy
that even Trump's limited (albeit surprisingly radical) critique poses a deadly threat to their
power. On the other side is Trump, the outsider, who often has to work against and around his
own government in order to pursue his preferred policies.
Yet this isn't about Trump, his personality, or his other policies. It's about whether a
bunch of unelected bureaucrats are going to be granted a veto power over who sits in that chair
in the Oval Office. It's as simple as that.
Debsisdead provides some consideration why the level of Mueller investigation is so low and finding are so pathetic...
Notable quotes:
"... I'm always gobsmacked at the cognitive dissonance of those who on the one hand shout that the American empire is on its last legs but as they do that they also claim that America's dumb as a rock alphabet intelligence agencies are successfully developing incredibly arcane and complicated strategies that would require having foresight to the point of omnipotence to successfully manage the plot/s. ..."
"... All that despite the fact that the known measurable outcomes that these agencies and their 'pointy end' the American military do deliver in conflicts mostly of their design and instigation reveal a miserable success rate of I would say, less than 1 in 10. ..."
"... That nonsense just does not compute. Yes they are violent crooks, but they are stupid violent crooks who cannot succeed at the simplest plan much less the intricate tactics outlined by so many here. ..."
this is all about freako psychopaths and their money, nothing more. lot's of blackmail to
keep the gravy train running
they cannot charge the Russians with what they have actually done due to a lot of these
little deep state sh%$ts would go to jail and possibly branches of government shut down if it
ever came out what the various "kompromats" were that the Russians targeted
the Russians are offensive and no innocents, however the US Gov is just disgusting
I'm always gobsmacked at the cognitive dissonance of those who on the one hand shout that the
American empire is on its last legs but as they do that they also claim that America's dumb
as a rock alphabet intelligence agencies are successfully developing incredibly arcane and
complicated strategies that would require having foresight to the point of omnipotence to
successfully manage the plot/s.
All that despite the fact that the known measurable outcomes that these agencies and their
'pointy end' the American military do deliver in conflicts mostly of their design and
instigation reveal a miserable success rate of I would say, less than 1 in 10.
That nonsense just does not compute. Yes they are violent crooks, but they are stupid
violent crooks who cannot succeed at the simplest plan much less the intricate tactics
outlined by so many here.
Once people begin believing the DC airheads' nonsense posturing , they may as well pack
their bags, throw in the towel and take off for parts unknown because falling for scumbag
tosh indicates an inability to accurately perceive the world - just the same as these DC
derps, but with less naked self interest on display.
"... How much proof would I need to lend my voice to the escalation of tensions between two nuclear superpowers? Mountains. I personally would settle for nothing less than hard proof which can be independently verified by trusted experts like the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. ..."
"... Is that a big ask? Yes. Yes it is. That's what happens when government institutions completely discredit themselves as they did with the false narratives advanced in the manufacturing of support for the Iraq invasion. You don't get to butcher a million Iraqis in a war based on lies, turn around a few years later and say "We need new cold war escalations with a nuclear superpower but we can't prove it because the evidence is secret." That's not a thing. Copious amounts of hard, verifiable proof or GTFO. So far we have no evidence besides the confident-sounding assertions of government insiders and their mass media mouthpieces, which is the same as no evidence. ..."
As
we just discussed , some major news stories have recently dropped about what a horrible horrifying menace the Russian Federation
is to the world , and as always I have nothing to offer the breathless pundits on CNN and MSNBC but my completely unsatisfied skepticism.
My skepticism of the official Russia narrative remains so completely unsatisfied that if mainstream media were my husband I would
already be cheating on it with my yoga instructor.
I do not believe the establishment Russia narrative. I do not believe that Donald Trump colluded with the Russian government to
rig the 2016 election. I do not believe the Russian government did any election rigging for Trump to collude with. This is not because
I believe Vladimir Putin is some kind of blueberry-picking girl scout, and it certainly isn't because I think the Russian government
is unwilling or incapable of meddling in the affairs of other nations to some extent when it suits them. It is simply because I am
aware that the US intelligence community lies constantly as a matter of policy, and because I understand how the burden of proof
works.
At this time, I see no reason to espouse any belief system which embraces as true the assertion that Russia meddled in the 2016
elections in any meaningful way, or that it presents a unique and urgent threat to the world which must be aggressively dealt with.
But all the establishment mouthpieces tell me that I must necessarily embrace these assertions as known, irrefutable fact. Here are
five things that would have to change in order for that to happen:
1. Proof of a hacking conspiracy to elect Trump.
The first step to getting a heretic like myself aboard the Russia hysteria train would be the existence of publicly available
evidence of the claims made about election meddling in 2016, which rises to the level required in a post-Iraq invasion world. So
far, that burden of proof for Russian hacking allegations has not come anywhere remotely close to being met.
How much proof would I need to lend my voice to the escalation of tensions between two nuclear superpowers? Mountains. I personally
would settle for nothing less than hard proof which can be independently verified by trusted experts like the Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity.
Is that a big ask? Yes. Yes it is. That's what happens when government institutions completely discredit themselves as they did
with the false narratives advanced
in the manufacturing of support for the Iraq invasion. You don't get to butcher a million Iraqis in a war based on lies, turn around
a few years later and say "We need new cold war escalations with a nuclear superpower but we can't prove it because the evidence
is secret." That's not a thing. Copious amounts of hard, verifiable proof or GTFO. So far we have no evidence besides the confident-sounding
assertions of government insiders and their mass media mouthpieces, which is the same as no evidence.
2. Proof that election meddling actually influenced the election in a meaningful way.
Even if Russian hackers did exfiltrate Democratic party emails and give them to WikiLeaks, if it didn't affect the election, who
cares? That's a single-day, second-page story at best, meriting nothing beyond a "Hmm, interesting, turns out Russia tried and failed
to influence the US election," followed by a shrug and moving on to something that actually matters.
After it has been thoroughly proven that Russia meddled in the elections in a meaningful way, it must then be established that
that meddling had an actual impact on the election results.
3. Some reason to believe Russian election meddling was unwarranted and unacceptable.
The US government,
by a very wide margin , interferes in the elections of other countries far, far more than any other government on earth does.
The US government's
own
data shows that it has deliberately meddled in the elections of 81 foreign governments between 1946 and 2000,
including Russia in the nineties.
This is public knowledge. A former CIA Director
cracked jokes about it on Fox News earlier this year.
If I'm going to abandon my skepticism and accept the Gospel According to Maddow, after meaningful, concrete election interference
has been clearly established I'm going to need a very convincing reason to believe that it is somehow wrong or improper for a government
to attempt to respond in kind to the undisputed single worst offender of this exact offense. It makes no sense for the United States
to actively create an environment in which election interference is something that governments do to one another, and then cry like
a spanked child when its election is interfered with by one of the very governments whose elections the US recently meddled in.
This is nonsense. America being far and away the worst election meddler on the planet makes it a fair target for election meddling
by not just Russia, but every country in the world. It is very obviously moral and acceptable for any government on earth to interfere
in America's elections as long as it remains the world's worst offender in that area. In order for Russia to be in the wrong if it
interfered in America's elections, some very convincing argument I've not yet heard will have to be made to support that case.
4. Proof that the election meddling went beyond simply giving Americans access to information about their government.
If all the Russians did was simply show Americans
emails of Democratic Party officials talking
to one another and circulate some
MSM articles as claimed in the
ridiculous Russian troll farm allegations , that's nothing to get upset about. If anything, Americans should be upset that they
had to hear about Democratic Party corruption through the grapevine instead of having light shed on it by the American officials
whose job it is to do so. Complaints about election meddling is only valid if that election meddling isn't comprised of truth and
facts.
5. A valid reason to believe escalated tensions between two nuclear superpowers are worthwhile.
After it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Russia did indeed meddle in the US elections in a meaningful way, and
after it has then been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Russia actually influenced election results in a significant way, and
after the case has been clearly made that it was bad and wrong for Russia to do this instead of fair and reasonable, and after it
has been clearly proven that the election meddling went beyond simply telling Americans the truth about their government, the question
then becomes what, if anything, should be done about it?
If you look at the actions that this administration has taken over the last year and a half, the answer to that question appears
to be harsh sanctions, NATO expansionism, selling arms to Ukraine, throwing out diplomats, increasing military presence along Russia's
border, a Nuclear Posture Review which is much more aggressive toward Russia, repeatedly bombing Syria, and just generally creating
more and more opportunities for something to go catastrophically wrong with one of the two nations' aging, outdated nuclear arsenals,
setting off a chain of events from which there is no turning back and no surviving.
And the pundits and politicians keep pushing for more and more escalations, at this very moment braying with one voice that Trump
must aggressively confront Putin about Mueller's indictments or withdraw from the peace talks. But is it worth it? Is it worth risking
the life of every terrestrial organism to, what? What specifically would be gained that makes increasing the risk of nuclear catastrophe
worthwhile? Making sure nobody interferes in America's fake elections? I'd need to see a very clear and specific case made, with
a 'pros' and 'cons' list and "THE POTENTIAL DEATH OF LITERALLY EVERYTHING" written in big red letters at the top of the 'cons' column.
Rallying the world to cut off Russia from the world stage and cripple its economy has been been a goal of the US power establishment
since the collapse of the Soviet Union, so there's no reason to believe that even the people who are making the claims against Russia
actually believe them. The goal is
crippling Russia to handicap China , and ultimately to shore up global hegemony for the US-centralized empire by preventing the
rise of any rival superpowers. The sociopathic alliance of plutocrats and intelligence/defense agencies who control that empire are
willing to threaten nuclear confrontation in order to ensure their continued dominance. All of their actions against Russia since
2016 have had everything to do with establishing long-term planetary dominance and nothing whatsoever to do with election meddling.
Those five things would need to happen before I'd be willing to jump aboard the "Russia! Russia! Russia!" train. Until then I'll
just keep pointing to the total lack of evidence and how very, very far the CIA/CNN Russia narrative is from credibility.
* * *
Internet censorship is getting pretty bad, so the best way to keep seeing the stuff I publish is to get on the mailing list for
my website , which will get you an email notification for everything I
publish. My articles are entirely reader and listener-funded, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking
me on Facebook , following my antics on
Twitter , checking out my
podcast , throwing some money into my hat on
Patreon or
Paypal , or buying my book
Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers .
Both individuals are sociopaths, but Mueller is even less trustworthy than Trump.
Notable quotes:
"... "The most important issue is deciding who is telling the truth: Comey or Trump," Pirro explains. "Bob Mueller is [very close] with Jim Comey. They have spent a lot of years together." ..."
"... Mueller has no oversight from the government as he investigates his close friend's firing. Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself, and the Deputy Attorney General is a witness in the case. ..."
"... Ultimately, the entire debacle around Mueller was a set-up from the beginning. James Comey was dedicated to ousting President Trump, and he has tasked Mueller with finishing the job. ..."
"... Mueller is supposed to be investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election, but his investigation immediately morphed into a witch hunt against President Trump. His only aim is to impeach the president, and this has been the plan from the beginning. ..."
"... Comey forced the Justice Department to hire a special counsel after he broke the law and leaked a government memo accusing President Trump of obstruction of justice. Comey knew this would force Jeff Sessions to appoint a special counsel, and he had Robert Mueller waiting in the wings. ..."
President Trump's lawyers believe Special Counsel Robert Mueller is overstepping his bounds in his investigation into Russian
interference in the election. Now, Trump's lawyers are compiling a list of Mueller's numerous conflicts of interest, The Washington
Post reported.
Judge Jeanine Pirro perfectly explains one of Mueller's largest conflicts of interests–his close relationship with the former
FBI director James Comey.
... ... ...
"The most important issue is deciding who is telling the truth: Comey or Trump," Pirro explains. "Bob Mueller is [very close]
with Jim Comey. They have spent a lot of years together."
As Pirro explained, one of Robert Mueller's primary tasks is to determine whether President Trump obstructed justice when he fired
James Comey.
However, Mueller has no oversight from the government as he investigates his close friend's firing. Attorney General Jeff
Sessions recused himself, and the Deputy Attorney General is a witness in the case.
Ultimately, the entire debacle around Mueller was a set-up from the beginning. James Comey was dedicated to ousting President
Trump, and he has tasked Mueller with finishing the job.
Mueller is supposed to be investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election, but his investigation immediately morphed
into a witch hunt against President Trump. His only aim is to impeach the president, and this has been the plan from the beginning.
Comey forced the Justice Department to hire a special counsel after he broke the law and leaked a government memo accusing
President Trump of obstruction of justice. Comey knew this would force Jeff Sessions to appoint a special counsel, and he had Robert
Mueller waiting in the wings.
Now, Comey's old friend Mueller is taking over the mission Comey started in November–to impeach President Trump.
We cannot let this witch hunt continue. We need to stand with our duly elected President and let him know that he has our trust.
Trump is the first president in a long time to put America first. He is no foreign agent.
EDITOR'S NOTE: This article originally appeared at TomDispatch.com
.
Leaders are routinely confronted with philosophical dilemmas. Here's a classic one for our Trumptopian times: If you make enemies
out of your friends and friends out of your enemies, where does that leave you? What does winning (or losing) really look like? Is
a world in which walls of every sort encircle America's borders a goal worth seeking? And what would be left in a future fragmented
international economic system marked by tit-for-tat tariffs, travel restrictions, and hyper-nationalism? Ultimately, how will such
a world affect regular people? Let's cut through all of this for the moment and ask one crucial question about our present cult-of-personality
era in American politics: Other than accumulating more wealth and influence for himself,
his children
, and the
Trump family empire , what's Donald J. Trump's end game as president? If his goal is to keep this country from being, as he likes
to complain, " the world's
piggy bank ," then his words, threats, and actions are concerning. However bombastic and disdainful of a history he appears to
know little about, he is already making the world a less stable, less affordable, and more fear-driven place. In the end, it's even
possible that, despite the upbeat economic news of the moment, he could almost single-handedly smash that piggy bank himself, as
he has many of his own
business
ventures . Still, give him credit for one thing: Donald Trump has lent remarkable new meaning to the old phrase "the imperial
presidency." The members of his administration, largely a set of aging white men, either conform to his erratic wishes or get fired.
In other words, he's running domestic politics in much the same fashion as he oversaw the boardroom on his reality-TV show The
Apprentice . Now, he's begun running the country's foreign policy in the same personalized, take-no-prisoners, you're-fired
style. From the moment he hit the Oval Office, he's made it clear at home and abroad that it's his way or the highway. If only,
of course, it really was that simple. What he will learn, if "learning process" and "President Trump" can even occupy the same sentence,
is that "firing" Canada, the European Union (EU), or for that matter China has a cost. What the American working and the middle classes
will see (sooner than anyone imagines) is that actions of his sort have unexpected global consequences. They could cost the United
States and the rest of the world big-time. If he were indeed emperor and his subjects (that would be us) grasped where his policies
might be leading, they would be preparing a revolt. In the end, they -- again, that's us -- will be the ones paying the price in
this global chess match.
The Art of Trump's Deals
So far, President Trump has only taken America out of trade deals or threatened to do so if other countries don't behave
in a way that satisfies him. On his
third day in the White House, he honored his campaign promise to remove the United States from the Trans-Pacific Partnership,
a decision that opened space for our allies and competitors, China in particular, to negotiate deals without us. Since that grand
exit, there has, in fact, been a boom in side deals involving China and other Pacific Rim countries that has weakened, not strengthened,
Washington's global bargaining position. Meanwhile, closer to home, the Trump administration has engaged in a barrage of NAFTA-baiting
that is isolating us from our regional partners, Canada and Mexico.
Conversely, the art-of-the-deal aficionado has yet to sign a single new bilateral trade deal. Despite steadfast claims that he
would serve up the best deals ever, we have been left with little so far but various tariffs and an onslaught against American trading
partners. His one claim to bilateral-trade-deal fame was the
renegotiation of a six-year-old
deal with South Korea in March that doubled the number of cars each US manufacturer could export to South Korea (without having to
pass as many safety standards).
As White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders
put
it , when speaking of Kim Jong-un's North Korea, "The President is, I think, the ultimate negotiator and dealmaker when it comes
to any type of conversation." She left out the obvious footnote, however: any type that doesn't involve international trade.
In the past four months, Trump has imposed tariffs, exempting certain countries, only to reimpose them at his whim. If trust were
a coveted commodity, when it came to the present White House, it would now be trading at zero. His supporters undoubtedly see this
approach as the fulfillment of his many campaign promises and part of his
classic method of keeping both friends and enemies guessing until he's ready to go in for the kill. At the heart of this approach,
however, lies a certain global madness, for he now is sparking a set of trade wars that could, in the end,
cost millions of American jobs.
The Allies
On May 31st, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross
confirmed that Canada, Mexico, and the EU would all be hit with 10 percent aluminum and 25 percent steel tariffs that had first
made headlines in March. When it came to those two products, at least, the new tariffs bore no relation to the previous average 3
percent tariff on US-EU traded goods.
In that way, Trump's tariffs, initially supposed to be
aimed at
China (a country whose president he's praised to the skies and whose trade policies he's lashed out at endlessly), went global.
And not surprisingly, America's closest allies weren't taking his maneuver lightly. As the verbal-abuse level rose and what looked
like a possible race to the bottom of international etiquette intensified, they threatened to strike back.
In June, President Trump ordered
that a promised 25 percent tariff on
$50 billion worth of imported
goods from China also be imposed. In response, the Chinese, like the Europeans, the Canadians, and the Mexicans, immediately
promised a massive response in kind. Trump countered by threatening another
$200 billion in tariffs against China. In the meantime, the White House is targeting its initial moves largely against products
related to that country's "
Made in China 2025 " initiative, the Chinese government's strategic plan aimed at making the country a major competitor in advanced
industries and manufacturing.
Meanwhile, Mexico began adopting retaliatory tariffs on American imports. Although it has a far smaller economy than the United
States, it's still the second-largest importer of US products, buying a whopping
$277 billion of them last year. Only Canada buys
more. In a mood of defiance stoked by the president's
hostility to its people, Mexico
executed its own trade gambit, imposing
$3 billion in 15
percent–25 percent tariffs against US exports, including pork, apples, potatoes, bourbon, and cheese.
While those Mexican revenge tariffs still remain limited, covering
just 1 percent
of all exports from north of the border, they do target particular industries hard, especially ones that seem connected to President
Trump's voting "base." Mexico, for instance, is by far the largest buyer of US pork exports, 25 percent of which were sold there
last year. What its 20 percent tariff on pork means, then, is that many US producers will now find themselves unable to compete in
the Mexican market. Other countries may follow suit. The result: a possible loss of up to 110,000 jobs in the pork industry.
Our second North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) partner (for whose prime minister, Justin Trudeau, there is "
a special place in hell ," according to a key Trumpian trade negotiator) plans to invoke tariffs of up to 25 percent on about
$13 billion in US products beginning on July 1st. Items impacted
range "from ballpoint
pens and dishwasher detergent to toilet paper and playing cards sailboats, washing machines, dish washers, and lawn mowers." Across
the Atlantic, the EU has similarly announced retaliatory tariffs of 25 percent on 200 US products, including such American-made classics
as Harley-Davidson motorcycles, blue jeans, and bourbon.
Trump Disses the Former G7
As the explosive Group of Seven, or G7, summit in Quebec showed, the Trump administration is increasingly isolating itself from
its allies in palpable ways and, in the process, significantly impairing the country's negotiating power. If you combine the economies
of what might now be thought of as the G6 and add in the rest of the EU, its economic power is collectively larger than that of the
United States. Under the circumstances, even a small diversion of trade thanks to Trump-induced tariff wars could have costly consequences.
President Trump did try one "all-in" poker move at that summit. With his game face on, he first suggested the possibility of wiping
out all tariffs and trade restrictions between the United States and the rest of the G7, a bluff met with a healthy dose of skepticism.
Before he left for his meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un in Singapore, he even suggested that the G7 leaders "consider
removing every single tariff or trade barrier on American goods." In return, he claimed he would do the same "for products from their
countries." As it turned out, however, that wasn't actually a venture into economic diplomacy, just the carrot before the stick,
and even it was tied to lingering
threats of severe penalties.
The current incipient trade war was actually launched by the Trump administration in March in the name of American "
national security
." What should have been highlighted, however, was the possible "national insecurity" in which it placed the country's (and the
world's) future. After all, a similar isolationist stance in the 1920s and the subsequent market crash of 1929 sparked the global
Great Depression,
opening the way for the utter devastation of World War II.
European Union countries were
incredulous when Trump insisted, as he had many times before, that the "U.S. is a victim of unfair trade practices," citing the
country's trade deficits, especially with
Germany and China. At the G7 summit, European leaders did their best to explain to him that his country isn't actually being
treated unfairly. As French President Emmanuel Macron
explained , "France runs trade
deficits with Germany and the United Kingdom on manufactured goods, even though all three countries are part of the EU single market
and have zero tariffs between them."
"... When Rucker spoke with Strzok, he nodded but was remarkably uninterested in what Rucker had to say, Gohmert said. The DoJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz received a call about it four times and never returned the calls. He's the other DoJ official described as having an impeccable reputation, but he can't seem to find bias when it slaps him in the face. ..."
"... McCullough, hired during the Obama administration, told Fox News's Catherine Herridge he faced intense backlash. In a Clinton administration, he would be one of the first two fired, he was told. ..."
"... Fox News reported ..."
"... John Schindler confirmed the Fox News report. He wrote at The Observor : Discussions with Intelligence Community officials have revealed that Ms. Clinton's "unclassified" emails included Holy Grail items of American espionage. This included the true names of Central Intelligence Agency intelligence officers serving overseas under cover. Worse, some of those exposed are serving under non-official cover. ..."
Rep. Louis Gohmert, a member of the House Committee on the Judiciary, said during a hearing
Thursday that a government watchdog found that nearly all of former Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton's emails were sent to a foreign entity. The FBI, specifically Strzok, did not
follow-up. And, the foreign entity wasn't Russia. The Intelligence Community Inspector General
(ICIG) in 2016 Charles McCullough III found an "anomaly on Hillary Clinton's emails going
through their private server, and when they had done the forensic analysis, they found that her
emails, every single one except four, over 30,000, were going to an address that was not on the
distribution list," Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert of Texas said during a hearing with FBI
official Peter Strzok. "It was going to an unauthorized source that was a foreign
entity unrelated to Russia," he added. According to Gohmert, McCullough sent his ICIG
investigator Frank Rucker to present the findings to Strzok who remembered meeting with him but
nothing else.
Conveniently, Strzok couldn't remember what they talked about.
When Rucker spoke with Strzok, he nodded but was remarkably uninterested in what Rucker
had to say, Gohmert said. The DoJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz received a call about it
four times and never returned the calls. He's the other DoJ official described as having an
impeccable reputation, but he can't seem to find bias when it slaps him in the
face.
In January 2016, in response to an inquiry, Charles McCullough III informed the Republican
leadership on the Senate intelligence and foreign affairs committees that emails beyond the
"Top Secret" level passed through Hillary Clinton's unsecured personal server. Democrats
immediately responded by trying to intimidate McCullough.
Despicable Adam Schiff told Chris Wallace: "I think the inspector general does risk his
reputation. And once you lose that as inspector general, you're not much good to anyone. So I
think the inspector general has to be very careful here."
McCullough, hired during the Obama administration, told
Fox News's Catherine Herridge he faced intense backlash. In a Clinton administration, he
would be one of the first two fired, he was told.
Fox News reported that the emails contained "operational intelligence," which is
information about covert operations to gather intelligence as well as details about the assets
and informants working with the U.S. government.
John Schindler confirmed the Fox News report. He wrote at The Observor :
Discussions with Intelligence Community officials have revealed that Ms. Clinton's
"unclassified" emails included Holy Grail items of American espionage. This included the true
names of Central Intelligence Agency intelligence officers serving overseas under cover. Worse,
some of those exposed are serving under non-official cover.
It appears that the DoJ and FBI like to remain ignorant.
In January, 2016, Robert Gates told Hugh Hewitt that the "odds are pretty high" that Russia,
China, and Iran had compromised Hillary's home-brew server...
So Mueller was a CIA mole in FBI fromthe very beginning. Interesting...
Notable quotes:
"... You could say that Mueller married into the CIA, except that his great uncle was Richard Bissell. So between his family and his wife's family Mueller had two of the three people that Kennedy fired before he was assassinated by a "lone nut", as well as the mayor who hosted the assassination. The third man fired was Allen Dulles, who sat on the Warren Commission and managed to keep the CIA out of the investigation into JFK's murder. Perhaps Dulles was a guest at the wedding. ..."
"... Mueller would invariably land on cases with Deep State intelligence connections. ..."
"... Mueller, who had been appointed Assistant U.S. Prosecutor under GHW Bush, became FBI Director under George W. Bush just in time not to see the CIA fingerprints on 9/11, which should not be surprising considering whom he didn't see when he investigated BCCI. ..."
"... Additionally, Mueller oversaw the anthrax letter case, never investigating Battelle Memorial Corporation, which had a building within a mile of the mailbox where the letters had been mailed. (Battelle Memorial's corporate motto is "It Can Be Done".) Instead, he centered FBI investigations on scientists in government labs in Fort Detrick, Maryland, who had neither the expertise nor the equipment to make the weaponized military grade anthrax found in the letters. One scientist sued and won millions. The other allegedly "committed suicide". Battelle is noteworthy because it handles the US military's anthrax program. Mueller had no interest that two of the targets who received anthrax letters were at the time the most vociferous opponents of the Bush Administration's Patriot Act. ..."
"... Perhaps his greatest accomplishment aiding the Deep State as FBI Director was his shutting down of Operation Green Quest, the FBI's investigation into the funding behind 9/11 and the terrorist network behind it. Names began popping up like Grover Norquist, the Muslim Brotherhood, old Nazis and the royal family of Luxembourg. Nothing to see here. Move along. ..."
"... @detroitmechworks ..."
"... Only thing missing for me was the tie in to Pappy Bush and the rest of the family. Mueller the consigliere of the CIA. Oh man how fucked are we? ..."
"... Great history of how corrupt Mueller has always been and how he has covered up for so many crimes. I'm just stunned by the number of people who have decided that Mueller's history and the history of the CIA, FBI and the other intelligence agencies wasn't that bad after all just because they are going after Trump. This selective amnesia is simply amazing, isn't it? ..."
"... Clinton's role in helping the CIA to smuggle drugs into Arkansas is never talked about either. Or if it is it's called "a right wing attempt to bring them down." ..."
"... that explains why centrist and liberal media have a disturbing tendency to rehabilitate some of the most vile, reactionary forces on the American right simply because they say vaguely negative things about Donald Trump -- a phenomenon we call "Trumpwashing." ..."
"... Just like Mueller, Brennan is one more war criminal whose actions seem to have been forgotten. ..."
"... Improper disclosure would tip foreign intelligence services about how the U.S. operates, which would "allow foreign actors to learn of those techniques and adjust their conduct, thus undermining ongoing and future national security operations," according to the filing. ..."
"... Mueller also accused Concord of "knowingly and intentionally" conspiring to interfere with the election by using social media to disparage Hillary Clinton and support Donald Trump. ..."
"... Improper disclosure would tip foreign intelligence services about how the U.S. operates, which would "allow foreign actors to learn of those techniques and adjust their conduct, thus undermining ongoing and future national security operations," according to the filing. ..."
"... Mueller also accused Concord of "knowingly and intentionally" conspiring to interfere with the election by using social media to disparage Hillary Clinton and support Donald Trump. ..."
"... The seas were calm and the skies were clear." ..."
"... "The reason why the ship went down is because of the massive storm that came out of nowhere." ..."
"... It would appear at first glance this is basically an effort at espionage only ..."
"... as it appears they don't ..."
"... I don't think anyone (including Mueller) anticipated that any of the defendants would appear in court to defend against the charges. ..."
"... Improper disclosure would tip foreign intelligence services about how the U.S. operates, which would "allow foreign actors to learn of those techniques and adjust their conduct, thus undermining ongoing and future national security operations," according to the filing. ..."
"... Mueller also accused Concord of "knowingly and intentionally" conspiring to interfere with the election by using social media to disparage Hillary Clinton and support Donald Trump. ..."
"... Improper disclosure would tip foreign intelligence services about how the U.S. operates, which would "allow foreign actors to learn of those techniques and adjust their conduct, thus undermining ongoing and future national security operations," according to the filing. ..."
"... Mueller also accused Concord of "knowingly and intentionally" conspiring to interfere with the election by using social media to disparage Hillary Clinton and support Donald Trump. ..."
In the 1950s, when the science fiction genre started making itself felt in movies, there was always the pivotal scene where the
protagonist discovers the dark secret but no one will believe him: a flying saucer hidden under the sand in a field, truckloads of
pod people to replace real people, or that the friendly aliens' book "To Serve Man" wasn't a guide to helping humans, but a cookbook.
It's that moment of sudden realization that no one will believe the hero because it sounds too crazy to believe.
Granted, to the uninitiated, coming to a realization so shocking and threatening to your current mental construction of the world
can appear like paranoia. It becomes a question of the discoverer's knowledge and senses over what everyone else believes. Everyone
else seems to be allowing him or herself to be absorbed into the great growing evil.
Today many of us, certainly readers here at Caucus99, are finding ourselves in similar positions. Our political structure is a
lie, the people who are supposed to represent us and our interests don't, our law enforcement protects the property of the rich,
not our lives, and often are in cahoots with the criminals from whom we are supposed to be protected. I am sure that many of our
old friends and acquaintances have been alienated from some of us here when we began talking about Hillary's track record during
the Presidential campaign, for example. In our current pasteboard world, if you are a Republican or Democrat you must assume that
your designated political party, maybe with a couple of exceptions, are there to look after you.
And there that crazy friend goes, yelling about cookbooks.
I suppose my introduction to the corruption of those in power, at thirteen, was the assassination of JFK. Not actually the assassination,
but the murder of Oswald two days later, in the basement of the Dallas police headquarters. I had slept overnight at a friend's and
we came back from shooting basketballs to watch the transfer of Oswald to another facility. That was the moment that I realized all
wasn't what it seemed. But, like most kids my age, the Beatles came along in a month or so and I was swept into the world of rock
and roll, which kept me occupied until I began noticing girls. Until 1968. I was still noticing girls and rock and roll, but I was
also noticing the number of progressives being gunned down by "lone nuts". And I was noticing Vietnam.
I'm not sharing this to explain to you how I became (that loathsome term) a "conspiracy theorist". I just want to explain to you
that the democracy of the United States, and all the characters running across the stage in Washington, D.C., are the cookbook.
I wrote an essay here back in April of 2017 explaining how the Russiagate scandal had been designed to give Hillary Clinton a
casus belli for her future war against Russia, and that what we were seeing since she lost has been a recycling of it to get Trump
in line with the goals of the Deep State. So far nothing much has happened that has moved me from that belief. Now that the Deep
State seems to have persuaded our Dear Leader that he can go on being himself as long as he understands the actual hierarchy and
doesn't get in the way the Deep State, everything seems to be back on track. At least until Donald's next tweet.
But in order to understand the depth of criminality in our system one has to understand how things are done. After World War II
a lot of social awareness began putting pressure on the old system that had driven the world into the Great Depression. FDR had demonstrated
that the government could look out for the poor, could give them jobs when there were no other jobs to be had. The GI Bill sent millions
of vets to college and helped to create the middle class we used to have. Unions had real power in negotiating wages and terms of
service. Government could create a system to help the elderly. The African Americans, coming back home from fighting a war against
fascism, refused go to the coloreds only water fountains. In short, the United States were in for some growing pains.
What happened? As I mentioned above there was a rash of murders of progressive political candidates and leaders in the sixties.
But in order for the forces behind a return to the old rules to keep a lid on any revolutions there had to be something better than
shooting every progressive who raised his head above the lectern. Thus the wave of recruitment of agents and assets in the late sixties
by the CIA, FBI and other agencies. Although I didn't know it directly at the time, arriving on campus in 1968 it was evident that
there was a "presence" of people looking over the shoulders of student activists.
Which brings me to another great revelation. It's not just politicians and political parties that are serving the Deep State.
Any agency that can be corrupted by power will be, eventually.
Which brings us to the courts.
There are certain things that must be preserved for a ruling class to remain legitimate in the eyes of the public. Some people
don't think much beyond the flag. But there are other things. The media is better than ever at keeping uncomfortable truths from
the majority of Americans. But what happens where the criminality of the Deep State collides with our judicial system?
Let me introduce you to the man of the hour in Washington, Robert Swann Mueller III. Robert was born into the upper crust in our
American class system. At one point in his education in private schools John Kerry was a classmate. (Kerry was also a fellow Bonesman
with the Bushes.) Mueller met his eventual bride, Ann Cabell Standish, at one of the dances they attended. They married in 1966,
three years after John Kennedy's assassination. If you have read much about the JFK assassination you would recognize her middle
name. Her grandfather, Charles Cabell, had been second in command at the CIA when John Kennedy was elected President. In the aftermath
of the Bay of Pigs fiasco, Kennedy fired three men from leadership positions at the CIA: Director Allen Dulles, Cabell and Richard
Bissell. Charles Cabell was Ann's grandfather. Her grand uncle, Earle Cabell, was the mayor of Dallas at the time of Kennedy's murder
there. Recently declassified JFK documents revealed that Mayor Cabell was also an asset of the CIA at the time. Small world.
You could say that Mueller married into the CIA, except that his great uncle was Richard Bissell. So between his family and his wife's
family Mueller had two of the three people that Kennedy fired before he was assassinated by a "lone nut", as well as the mayor who
hosted the assassination. The third man fired was Allen Dulles, who sat on the Warren Commission and managed to keep the CIA out
of the investigation into JFK's murder. Perhaps Dulles was a guest at the wedding.
Soon thereafter Mueller decided to go to Vietnam because, he said, a classmate had died there and patriotism and so forth. He
became an officer and eventually ended up as an aide-de-camp for the 3rd Marine Division's commanding general, General William K.
Jones. Something else was going on in Vietnam. The CIA had installed its Phoenix Program. I cannot do justice to the Phoenix Program
and won't considering Doug Valentine's work on it is available for everyone, but the Phoenix Program was the CIA's attempt to totally
control the Vietnamese population. Besides massacres of villages, the program assassinated suspected leaders and spies for the Vietcong,
coerced others into being their agents, and kept up files on all the relevant Vietnamese down to the village level. Like in later
wars, the CIA incorporated torture, murder and psychological techniques in order to control their targets. As an aide-de-camp to
a commanding Marine general, there is no way that Mueller didn't know about the Phoenix Program. He probably saw daily briefings.
When he came back to the US he studied law and quickly became a federal prosecutor.
One of the things to mark his career was to deny a pardon to Patty Hearst for her part in the whole Symbionese Liberation Army's
"terror" campaign. What did the SLA have to do with anything? A short history: Donald DeFreeze, a small-time criminal in Los Angeles
agreed to become an informant for the LAPD in order to stay out of jail. After awhile he got tired of ratting out others and asked
to get out of the program. Instead, DeFreeze was incarcerated at the Vacaville Medical Facility for criminally insane prisoners in
the California penal system. There DeFreeze met Colston Westbrook who gave classes for the "Black Cultural Association", an experimental
behavior modification unit inside the prison. Who was Westbrook? He was a CIA agent, trained in psychological warfare and part of
the Phoenix Program. DeFreeze was modified by Westbrook and company for two years. Soon thereafter, he was transferred to Soledad
Prison, from which he "escaped" and became the infamous "Cinque". Then came the Symbionese Liberation Army, a caricature of a black
militant group filled with mostly white people with military backgrounds. The murder of Marcus Foster, a progressive black leader
in the San Francisco East Bay, was done by white men in blackface, according to eyewitnesses. The SLA claimed credit for it. The
SLA kidnapped Hearst, subjected her to torture, rape, sensory deprivation and mind control tactics, just like the CIA did in the
Phoenix Program in Vietnam. Then came the bank robberies.
I bring up the Patty Hearst case because, in 2000, decades after her prison sentence had been commuted, Mueller still opposed
her pardon. Guess what he didn't notice when he rejected her pardon? This has been his pattern throughout his career. We'll return
to Patty Hearst shortly.
Mueller has presided over many cases where it's been important for the prosecutor to overlook the fingerprints of the CIA. He
prosecuted what was known in the San Francisco Bay Area as the "drug tug" case which had connections to an island in Panama. It was
a drug smuggling case and had tentacles into things like bank frauds in Northern California. He prosecuted Manuel Noriega's drug-smuggling
without noticing Oliver North's drug-smuggling, arms running and money laundering through Panama as a part of Iran-contra.
Mueller would invariably land on cases with Deep State intelligence connections.
For example, he prosecuted Pan Am 103. Initially, and then later confirmed by an insurance investigator's report, the bomb that
brought down the airliner was believed to be placed onboard by baggage handlers working at the Frankfurt Airport. They were given
the bomb by a terrorist cell who in turn got it from one Monzer al-Kassar, who was a very large heroin dealer, estimated at supplying
twenty percent of the US's heroin at the time. A big operator. And, in fact, one of the passengers on the plane was a drug mule for
al-Kassar. Al-Kassar also happened to be a part of the Iran-contra operation, supplying weapons for North's Enterprise. The operation
was, according to the early reports, carried out by a cell of Palestinian terrorists based in Frankfurt, the Palestinian Liberation
Front-General Command, who got the bomb from al-Kassar and put the bomb on that airline.
Mueller, put in charge of the case, pursued an entirely different direction, accusing two Libyans of bombing the plane. At the
time Libya and Khadafy were getting blamed for a lot of terrorist activity, but the case against the two was so weak as to hardly
be circumstantial.
There were other questions arising from Pan Am 103. A top official in the FBI, Oliver "Buck" Revell, rushed onto the tarmac in
London to pull his son and daughter-in-law off of Pan Am 103 before it went on to explode over Lockerbie, Scotland. Also changing
flight plans were South African President Pik Botha and his negotiating team. Apparently, someone that Revell and Pik Botha knew
gave them the warning.
There was one group that didn't get warned. That was the McKee Team, an assembled group of US intelligence agents tasked to investigate
American hostages in Beruit. They allegedly discovered a link between the hostage takers, drug traffickers and the CIA. They were
returning to the US, against orders, presumably to spill the beans. This was essentially a clean-up operation, tying up loose strings
of the Iran-contra operation. So was Noriega's prosecution.
That's why Mueller got the case. He knew where to look and where not to look.
He also prosecuted ancillary Iran-contra cases. He prosecuted John Gotti for dealing cocaine in the New York City area. The cocaine
he sold was part of the the Iran-contra (CIA) plan where Southern Air Transport flew weapons to Latin America for the contras (whom
Congress had voted against aiding) and bringing back cocaine from Latin America on its return flights, to include Mena, Arkansas.
One of the CIA's pilots, Barry Seal, bragged that he had a "get-out-of-jail" letter written for him by then-Governor Bill Clinton.
At the time, Asa Hutchinson was the federal prosecutor for that corner of Arkansas. He also didn't notice all that cocaine. Hutchson
later served as George W. Bush's first "drug czar" before going into politics. How coincidental.
Mueller, who had been appointed Assistant U.S. Prosecutor under GHW Bush, became FBI Director under George W. Bush just in
time not to see the CIA fingerprints on 9/11, which should not be surprising considering whom he didn't see when he investigated
BCCI. As head of our country's biggest law enforcement agency Mueller did not pursue the House of Saud's part in 9/11 even though
fifteen of the nineteen hijackers were from Saudi Arabia and a number of them could be traced to Saudi intelligence, and the money
chain could be traced to Saudis living in the US, some of whom flew out of the US while all other US flights were grounded. He did
not investigate Mohammed Atta's time in Frankfort, Germany, where he was employed by a front company for the BND, West Germany's
equivalent to the CIA. Nor did Mueller investigate Huffman Aviation where Mo Atta and another hijacker matriculated in flying planes
into buildings. Huffman is interesting because while Mo was studying in Huffman's Venice, Florida aviation school a Huffman plane
was busted in Orlando with 43 pounds of heroin. Curiously, the pilot walked away from the DEA without being charged and no one was
prosecuted at Huffman.
Ask Colleen Rowley about Mueller's leadership in the 9/11 investigation.
Additionally, Mueller oversaw the anthrax letter case, never investigating Battelle Memorial Corporation, which had a building
within a mile of the mailbox where the letters had been mailed. (Battelle Memorial's corporate motto is "It Can Be Done".) Instead,
he centered FBI investigations on scientists in government labs in Fort Detrick, Maryland, who had neither the expertise nor the
equipment to make the weaponized military grade anthrax found in the letters. One scientist sued and won millions. The other allegedly
"committed suicide". Battelle is noteworthy because it handles the US military's anthrax program. Mueller had no interest that two
of the targets who received anthrax letters were at the time the most vociferous opponents of the Bush Administration's Patriot Act.
Perhaps his greatest accomplishment aiding the Deep State as FBI Director was his shutting down of Operation Green Quest,
the FBI's investigation into the funding behind 9/11 and the terrorist network behind it. Names began popping up like Grover Norquist,
the Muslim Brotherhood, old Nazis and the royal family of Luxembourg. Nothing to see here. Move along.
A closer examination of Robert Mueller would probably find a lot more of these cases and I encourage others to continue the search.
For example, it's been alleged that Mueller sent innocent men to jail for crimes committed by Whitey Bulger for the benefit of someone
or something within the government and that this allowed Bulger to continue his criminal activities for years.
***
It's been seventy years since the CIA was created, fifty years since JFK was most likely murdered by them. In order to avoid any
consequences for their crimes more and more institutions have had to be infiltrated and corrupted by them. Many of the heroes of
the Left have turned out to be purveyors of "modified limited hangouts" which served the Deep State. Ramsey Clark, who was given
the mantle of "good guy" by the media of the Left, was active as LBJ's Attorney General in blocking Jim Garrison's investigation
into the JFK assassination and was named by Doug Valentine in his THE CIA AS ORGANIZED CRIME as a major proponent of the CIA's OPERATION
CHAOS and the FBI's COINTELPRO. While the media spent a good deal of time talking about how great they were in releasing the Pentagon
Papers to the public, the hero who exposed the military, Daniel Ellsberg, turns out to have been CIA, operating with CIA black ops
in Vietnam. And while the Pentagon Papers exposed our military's great errors in Vietnam the CIA was generally spared. Again. Bob
Woodward, our hero of Watergate, had been a courier for the Office of Naval Intelligence only a few years earlier. Thus, the CIA
and Deep State, which had soured on Nixon, orchestrated that President's departure.
I raise this because Robert Mueller's current task is the investigation of our sitting President. No matter how much you dislike
Trump you can't help but notice that the "evidence" against him conspiring with Putin and Russia is thin gruel. And while Trump,
like most politicians who ascend to the big seat, has a lot of questionable, even indictable business connections around him, the
great dangers of a Putin-Trump conspiracy trumpeted by the media have been fading because, apparently, there was never a there there.
Thus, as Mueller oversees this case, he will find people surrounding Trump who have lied to FBI agents, who have perhaps not registered
as foreign agents, and other crimes that routinely happen out of the public spotlight and aren't prosecuted. What was obvious to
me from the start, that this was a psyop that involved U.S. intelligence, Ukrainian intelligence, Clinton and the DNC, will not be
obvious to Mueller. Thus, as his career has shown, Mueller has been put in place not merely to prosecute those around Trump as a
means of pressure on his administration, but to not see the CIA's hand in it.
When one begins examining high-profile court cases in post-1963 America one sees a cast of people who keep popping up. Prosecutors,
judges, defense attorneys, coroners, witnesses, reporters, authors. This ensemble keeps reappearing in these show trials. We may
not know what Mueller will find, but we know what he won't find.
There was a review at Truthdig back in 2016 of Jeffrey Toobin's book on Patty Hearst, AMERICAN HEIRESS (Toobin himself worked
as an associate counsel to Independent Counsel Lawrence Walsh during the investigation Iran–Contra affair and Oliver North's criminal
trial). In part it reads: "Toobin features the characters who populated the edges of Hearst's story. Robert Shapiro, who would later
work with [F. Lee] Bailey on the O.J. Simpson case, makes a cameo appearance. Lance Ito, the judge in that case, briefly shared a
shooting range with a machine-gun toting SLA member. Reverend Jim Jones offered to help with the food distribution effort; that enterprise
also employed Sara Jane Moore, who served 32 years for attempting to assassinate President Gerald Ford during his 1975 visit to San
Francisco. Congressman Leo Ryan, who represented Randy and Catherine Hearst's district, endorsed the commutation of Patty's sentence.
"Off to Guyana," he wrote Patty in 1978. "See you when I return. Hang in there." Jim Jones' henchmen shot and killed Ryan before
he could board his flight home. Robert Mueller, the U.S. Attorney in San Francisco before taking over as FBI director, strenuously
opposed Hearst's pardon, claiming that her attitude, born of wealth and social position, "has always been that she is a person above
the law.""
When Mueller wrote that line he must have laughed out loud.
That isn't connecting the dots. Its painting a bloody Mona Lisa.
I had no idea how dirty this man was. He is the CIA version of Zelig or Forest Gump. He makes Bill Clinton look like an amateur.
Beginning with the double CIA family ties and proceeding through whitewashing 911, this man is so central to our rotten government
that its a wonder someone hasn't done what you just did a lot sooner.
My hat is off to you. Someone should post this article on our blog.
The one that keeps jumping to mind is the mid 80's game "Paranoia" which was a cartoonish comedy about the drugged citizens
of a complex where the state oversaw everything, and the people were obsessed with celebrities and junk food and oh my goooooodd...
Thanks for pointing to it. I got laughs just reading the wikipedia page.
It sounds like Kafka meets that Russian guy who was simultaneously head of the secret police and leader of the resistance.
LOL.
The one that keeps jumping to mind is the mid 80's game "Paranoia" which was a cartoonish comedy about the drugged citizens
of a complex where the state oversaw everything, and the people were obsessed with celebrities and junk food and oh my goooooodd...
@arendt even
considering they were working from licenses half the time. They ended up essentially creating the universe bibles for Ghostbusters
and the Star Wars EU prior to the reboots.
Unfortunately, that didn't translate into respect. However, I still to this day am amazed at the complexity of thought that
went into many of the rules and the ability they had to match mechanics to maintaining the play feel.
Paranoia in particular was hilarious. Kafka and Three Stooges, and even a little Joseph Heller. Later editions even managed
to work in criticisms of late stage capitalism by having players ALWAYS broke and any unexpected expenses needing to be made up
through crime... which was illegal, to avoid budget shortfalls... which was also illegal...
Bob, thank you. As detailed and extensive as it is, your essay is concise by making it clear exactly what's so wrong with Mueller:
Mueller has presided over many cases where it's been important for the prosecutor to overlook the fingerprints of the CIA...
Mueller would invariably land on cases with Deep State intelligence connections...
Thus, as his career has shown, Mueller has been put in place not merely to prosecute those around Trump as a means of pressure
on his administration, but to not see the CIA's hand in it...
For me, the anthrax case is the most important. Biological weapons are no joke. I believe we learned, from whistle-blowing
scientists, not from the FBI investigation, that the CIA had one of the many illegal biological weapons programs being run with
our tax dollars leading up to the anthrax attack. So whether Battelle was one of the CIA's contractors or yet another cut out,
the investigation by Mueller simply stated those entities, all of them, were eliminated from the investigation.
The chief difference between the despotic and the totalitarian secret police lies in the difference between the "suspect" and
the "objective enemy". The latter is defined by the policy of the government and not by his own desire to overthrow it. He is
never an individual whose dangerous thoughts must be provoked or whose past justifies suspicion, but a "carrier of tendencies"
like a carrier of disease. Practically speaking, the totalitarian ruler behaves like a man who persistently insults another man
until everybody knows that the latter is his enemy, so that he can, with some plausibility, go and kill him in self-defense.
p423-4
"From a legal point of view, even more interesting than the change from the suspect to the objective enemy is the totalitarian
replacement of the suspected offense by the possible crime ...While the suspect is arrested because he is thought to be capable
of committing a crime that more or less fits his personality, the totalitarian possible crime is based on the logical anticipation
of objective developments.
The task of the totalitarian police is not to discover crimes, but to be on hand when the government decides to arrest a certain
category of the population.
"The only rule of which everybody in a totalitarian state may be sure is that the more visible government agencies are, the
less power they carry, and the less is known of the existence of an institution, the more powerful it will ultimately turn out
to be...Real power begins where secrecy begins. (p403)
"The only rule of which everybody in a totalitarian state may be sure is that the more visible government agencies are, the
less power they carry, and the less is known of the existence of an institution, the more powerful it will ultimately turn
out to be...Real power begins where secrecy begins. (p403)
The chief difference between the despotic and the totalitarian secret police lies in the difference between the "suspect"
and the "objective enemy". The latter is defined by the policy of the government and not by his own desire to overthrow it.
He is never an individual whose dangerous thoughts must be provoked or whose past justifies suspicion, but a "carrier of tendencies"
like a carrier of disease. Practically speaking, the totalitarian ruler behaves like a man who persistently insults another
man until everybody knows that the latter is his enemy, so that he can, with some plausibility, go and kill him in self-defense.
p423-4
"From a legal point of view, even more interesting than the change from the suspect to the objective enemy is the totalitarian
replacement of the suspected offense by the possible crime ...While the suspect is arrested because he is thought to be capable
of committing a crime that more or less fits his personality, the totalitarian possible crime is based on the logical anticipation
of objective developments.
The task of the totalitarian police is not to discover crimes, but to be on hand when the government decides to arrest a
certain category of the population.
"The only rule of which everybody in a totalitarian state may be sure is that the more visible government agencies are,
the less power they carry, and the less is known of the existence of an institution, the more powerful it will ultimately turn
out to be...Real power begins where secrecy begins. (p403)
Great history of how corrupt Mueller has always been and how he has covered up for so many crimes. I'm just stunned by
the number of people who have decided that Mueller's history and the history of the CIA, FBI and the other intelligence agencies
wasn't that bad after all just because they are going after Trump. This selective amnesia is simply amazing, isn't it?
Clinton's role in helping the CIA to smuggle drugs into Arkansas is never talked about either. Or if it is it's called
"a right wing attempt to bring them down."
I almost skipped reading this one, assumed at first from the headline it was going to be about the Russia "investigation" which
I've been steadfast in not paying any attention to.
But wow, this is so much better than I'd expected, a fascinating tapestry. A lot to absorb. At this point I'm just feeling
overwhelmed at how little "we the people" in this country have any say in, or even any knowledge about, what is going on.
Thank you for this excellent history and synthesis.
from those who believe the fairy tale of Russia Gate. John
Brennan has also become a darling of the left. Greenwald wrote about him after Obama appointed him to his cabinet.
Joe posted this
linkthat explains why centrist and liberal media have a disturbing tendency to rehabilitate some of the most vile, reactionary
forces on the American right simply because they say vaguely negative things about Donald Trump -- a phenomenon we call "Trumpwashing."
Just like Mueller, Brennan is one more war criminal whose actions seem to have been forgotten.
conclude from this, and correct me if I'm wrong, that the Mueller investigation of "Russiagate" won't get anywhere near the
Oval Office.
Mostly becuz "Deep State" itself is up to its eyebrows in the affair. And also becuz Trump has very little to do with it. I'm
sure they'd Love to bury Hillary in this, but it looks like that won't happen either. A shame.
I think if you charge someone with a crime then they get to see the evidence against them. Mueller charged 3 Russian companies
for their interference with the election, but I guess he didn't think that their lawyers would bother to show up. Oops, they did.
Special Counsel Robert Mueller is scrambling to limit pretrial evidence handed over to a Russian company he indicted in
February over alleged meddling in the 2016 U.S. election.
Mueller asked a Washington federal Judge for a protective order that would prevent the delivery of copious evidence to lawyers
for Concord Management and Consulting, LLC, one of three Russian firms and 13 Russian nationals. The indictment accuses the
firm of producing propaganda, pretending to be U.S. activists online and posting political content on social media in order
to sow discord among American voters.
The special counsel's office argues that the risk of the evidence leaking or falling into the hands of foreign intelligence
services, especially Russia, would assist the Kremlin's active "interference operations" against the United States.
Improper disclosure would tip foreign intelligence services about how the U.S. operates, which would "allow foreign
actors to learn of those techniques and adjust their conduct, thus undermining ongoing and future national security operations,"
according to the filing.
The evidence includes thousands of documents involving U.S. residents not charged with crimes who prosecutors say were
unwittingly recruited by Russian defendants and co-conspirators to engage in political activity in the U.S., prosecutors
Mueller also accused Concord of "knowingly and intentionally" conspiring to interfere with the election by using social
media to disparage Hillary Clinton and support Donald Trump.
Yep. Hillary spent $1-2 billion on her campaign, but it was the $100,000 worth of ads that a Russian advertising agency placed
on Facebook that cost her the election. More than half of the ads were placed after the election though. But people still believe
that the ads were what caused people not to vote for Herheinous!
@snoopydawg@snoopydawg
What the hell? Do these people even know they're on this list, or part of this evidence? Or, are they not even real people, or
are they maybe even govt employees needed to play a role? There's that cookbook again, maybe. Yikes!
The evidence includes thousands of documents involving U.S. residents not charged with crimes who prosecutors say were unwittingly
recruited by Russian defendants and co-conspirators to engage in political activity in the U.S., prosecutors
I think if you charge someone with a crime then they get to see the evidence against them. Mueller charged 3 Russian companies
for their interference with the election, but I guess he didn't think that their lawyers would bother to show up. Oops, they
did.
Special Counsel Robert Mueller is scrambling to limit pretrial evidence handed over to a Russian company he indicted
in February over alleged meddling in the 2016 U.S. election.
Mueller asked a Washington federal Judge for a protective order that would prevent the delivery of copious evidence to
lawyers for Concord Management and Consulting, LLC, one of three Russian firms and 13 Russian nationals. The indictment
accuses the firm of producing propaganda, pretending to be U.S. activists online and posting political content on social
media in order to sow discord among American voters.
The special counsel's office argues that the risk of the evidence leaking or falling into the hands of foreign intelligence
services, especially Russia, would assist the Kremlin's active "interference operations" against the United States.
Improper disclosure would tip foreign intelligence services about how the U.S. operates, which would "allow foreign
actors to learn of those techniques and adjust their conduct, thus undermining ongoing and future national security operations,"
according to the filing.
The evidence includes thousands of documents involving U.S. residents not charged with crimes who prosecutors say
were unwittingly recruited by Russian defendants and co-conspirators to engage in political activity in the U.S., prosecutors
Mueller also accused Concord of "knowingly and intentionally" conspiring to interfere with the election by using social
media to disparage Hillary Clinton and support Donald Trump.
Yep. Hillary spent $1-2 billion on her campaign, but it was the $100,000 worth of ads that a Russian advertising agency
placed on Facebook that cost her the election. More than half of the ads were placed after the election though. But people
still believe that the ads were what caused people not to vote for Herheinous!
It's obvious that the whole damn Russia Gate conspiracy was just made up. It started when Wikileaks said that they were going
to release the emails between Hillary and Podesta that showed how they rigged the primary against Bernie. The reason why they
did it was to keep people from talking about the contents of the emails. And it worked. The media didn't focus on their contents,
but only on how Wikileaks obtained them.
Another reason for the Russian propaganda crap is so people will give their permission for the upcoming war against Russia
that had already been planned for over two years before the election. And they will. I've seen so many comments that says what
Russia (Putin) did and is still doing was an act of war. Today on ToP one person said that "we need to assassinate Putin." Was
that person HRd for promoting violence which is against the site rules? Nope. Those that believe Russia actually did interfere
with the election also think that the republicans are also Putin's puppets and that is why they won't go against Trump. The front
pagers have been pushing lies about Russia's actions it should be obvious to anyone with a working brain. I'll see a definitive
statement like " The seas were calm and the skies were clear." But they will rewrite their statement to "The reason
why the ship went down is because of the massive storm that came out of nowhere." Hopefully you get my drift on how they're
blatantly lying in their statements.
Hillary's BFF, Nuland and McCain were the ones that worked the hardest on overthrowing the Ukraine government. The USA wanted
to put its own puppet government on Russia's border. Plus the USA and NATO have been installing troops into countries that surround
Russia's borders.
The original reason why the Mueller investigation was created was to find evidence that Trump colluded with Putin to win the
election. None of the Mueller indictments have anything to do with that charge. This is why he was taken off guard when the Russian
lawyers showed up to defend their clients. Hope that you read the entire article.
#13#13
What the hell? Do these people even know they're on this list, or part of this evidence? Or, are they not even real people,
or are they maybe even govt employees needed to play a role? There's that cookbook again, maybe. Yikes!
The evidence includes thousands of documents involving U.S. residents not charged with crimes who prosecutors say were
unwittingly recruited by Russian defendants and co-conspirators to engage in political activity in the U.S., prosecutors
This also proves my point above how information is selectively posted over there. Just certain parts of the articles are posted,
but the parts of the articles that show the information in a different light are left out. This is from a comment..
It would appear at first glance this is basically an effort at espionage only , but I'm not much more sure than
you are.
If they don't have a US presence ( as it appears they don't ), I can't understand why they even care that Mueller
has charged them. As you point out, they won't be extradited, so none of this really matters. They could have their lawyers
just play a DVD of them confessing followed by giving Mueller the double birds all around and it wouldn't make any difference,
so the only logical answer for this is to try and pry state secrets out legally via the courts instead of through hacking and
spying.
Oops. From the article ..
I don't think anyone (including Mueller) anticipated that any of the defendants would appear in court to defend against
the charges.
I think if you charge someone with a crime then they get to see the evidence against them. Mueller charged 3 Russian companies
for their interference with the election, but I guess he didn't think that their lawyers would bother to show up. Oops, they
did.
Special Counsel Robert Mueller is scrambling to limit pretrial evidence handed over to a Russian company he indicted
in February over alleged meddling in the 2016 U.S. election.
Mueller asked a Washington federal Judge for a protective order that would prevent the delivery of copious evidence to
lawyers for Concord Management and Consulting, LLC, one of three Russian firms and 13 Russian nationals. The indictment
accuses the firm of producing propaganda, pretending to be U.S. activists online and posting political content on social
media in order to sow discord among American voters.
The special counsel's office argues that the risk of the evidence leaking or falling into the hands of foreign intelligence
services, especially Russia, would assist the Kremlin's active "interference operations" against the United States.
Improper disclosure would tip foreign intelligence services about how the U.S. operates, which would "allow foreign
actors to learn of those techniques and adjust their conduct, thus undermining ongoing and future national security operations,"
according to the filing.
The evidence includes thousands of documents involving U.S. residents not charged with crimes who prosecutors say
were unwittingly recruited by Russian defendants and co-conspirators to engage in political activity in the U.S., prosecutors
Mueller also accused Concord of "knowingly and intentionally" conspiring to interfere with the election by using social
media to disparage Hillary Clinton and support Donald Trump.
Yep. Hillary spent $1-2 billion on her campaign, but it was the $100,000 worth of ads that a Russian advertising agency
placed on Facebook that cost her the election. More than half of the ads were placed after the election though. But people
still believe that the ads were what caused people not to vote for Herheinous!
off the hook. @snoopydawg
Especially Mueller. Finding the 13 Russians guilty that is. Mueller can then claim, "See! The Russians did it," which gives Hillbots
a warm fuzzy and reason to scold BernieBros with a "told ya so!!" AND, no reason to investigate further. Investigation over. Case
closed! Everyone gets what they want. Alas... Their lawyer showed up.
I think if you charge someone with a crime then they get to see the evidence against them. Mueller charged 3 Russian companies
for their interference with the election, but I guess he didn't think that their lawyers would bother to show up. Oops, they
did.
Special Counsel Robert Mueller is scrambling to limit pretrial evidence handed over to a Russian company he indicted
in February over alleged meddling in the 2016 U.S. election.
Mueller asked a Washington federal Judge for a protective order that would prevent the delivery of copious evidence to
lawyers for Concord Management and Consulting, LLC, one of three Russian firms and 13 Russian nationals. The indictment
accuses the firm of producing propaganda, pretending to be U.S. activists online and posting political content on social
media in order to sow discord among American voters.
The special counsel's office argues that the risk of the evidence leaking or falling into the hands of foreign intelligence
services, especially Russia, would assist the Kremlin's active "interference operations" against the United States.
Improper disclosure would tip foreign intelligence services about how the U.S. operates, which would "allow foreign
actors to learn of those techniques and adjust their conduct, thus undermining ongoing and future national security operations,"
according to the filing.
The evidence includes thousands of documents involving U.S. residents not charged with crimes who prosecutors say
were unwittingly recruited by Russian defendants and co-conspirators to engage in political activity in the U.S., prosecutors
Mueller also accused Concord of "knowingly and intentionally" conspiring to interfere with the election by using social
media to disparage Hillary Clinton and support Donald Trump.
Yep. Hillary spent $1-2 billion on her campaign, but it was the $100,000 worth of ads that a Russian advertising agency
placed on Facebook that cost her the election. More than half of the ads were placed after the election though. But people
still believe that the ads were what caused people not to vote for Herheinous!
As Powerline notes, Mueller probably didn't see that coming - and the indictment itself was perhaps nothing more than a PR
stunt to bolster the Russian interference narrative.
I don't think anyone (including Mueller) anticipated that any of the defendants would appear in court to defend against
the charges. Rather, the Mueller prosecutors seem to have obtained the indictment to serve a public relations purpose, laying
out the case for interference as understood by the government and lending a veneer of respectability to the Mueller Switch
Project.
One of the Russian corporate defendants nevertheless hired counsel to contest the charges. In April two Washington-area
attorneys -- Eric Dubelier and Kate Seikaly of the Reed Smith firm -- filed appearances in court on behalf of Concord Management
and Consulting. Josh Gerstein covered that turn of events for Politico here. -Powerline Blog
@snoopydawg
Especially since it's supposed to contain all these names of stooges, duped into participating in US politics by the Kremlin.
It's ridiculous.
As Powerline notes, Mueller probably didn't see that coming - and the indictment itself was perhaps nothing more than
a PR stunt to bolster the Russian interference narrative.
I don't think anyone (including Mueller) anticipated that any of the defendants would appear in court to defend against
the charges. Rather, the Mueller prosecutors seem to have obtained the indictment to serve a public relations purpose, laying
out the case for interference as understood by the government and lending a veneer of respectability to the Mueller Switch
Project.
One of the Russian corporate defendants nevertheless hired counsel to contest the charges. In April two Washington-area
attorneys -- Eric Dubelier and Kate Seikaly of the Reed Smith firm -- filed appearances in court on behalf of Concord Management
and Consulting. Josh Gerstein covered that turn of events for Politico here. -Powerline Blog
I have read here in a long time. While I linked ot our Twitter account last night, I did not have time to read it before I
posted it. I am going to link this again because I think it is such an important essay for others to read.
"... "In my mind, this is a level of panic and desperation unseen in the annals of Washington D.C. coverups...this is a desperate move by Mueller...this does nothing at all to strengthen Mueller's investigation of Trump himself. It actually weakens his mandate as Special Counsel" ..."
"... Tom is a regular contributor not only here at Russia Insider but also at Seeking Alpha and Newsmax . Check out his blog, Gold Goats 'n Guns and please support his work through his Patreon where he also publishes his monthly investment newsletter. ..."
"... isolationist, conspiracy theorist, nativist and racist ..."
"... Please support my work by joining my Patreon. ..."
"In my mind, this is a level of panic and desperation unseen in the annals of Washington
D.C. coverups...this is a desperate move by Mueller...this does nothing at all to strengthen
Mueller's investigation of Trump himself. It actually weakens his mandate as Special Counsel"
Tom is a regular
contributor not only here at Russia Insider but also at Seeking Alpha and Newsmax . Check out his blog, Gold Goats 'n Guns and please support his work through his
Patreon where he also
publishes his monthly investment newsletter.
So, imagine my shock, Special Counsel Robert Mueller indicted twelve Russian intelligence
officers on the eve of a summit between President Trump and Russian President Vladimir
Putin.
Despite his oh-so-earnest protestations to the contrary, Rod Rosenstein, of all people,
knows there are no coincidences in politics.
Trump is on a search and destroy mission all across Europe right now attacking the pillars
of the post-WWII institutional order.
While in Washington, Congress devolved into an episode of Jerry Springer during the Peter
Strzok hearings yesterday. Both Strzok and Rosenstein have literally destroyed their
credibility by stonewalling Congress over the investigations into Hillary Clinton's email
server, which, conveniently Mueller now has enough information to take to the Grand Jury.
In my mind, this is a level of panic and desperation unseen in the annals of Washington D.C.
coverups. Both Strzok and Rosenstein know that Attorney General Jeff Sessions is completely
compromised and can do nothing to stop them from obstructing investigations and turning our
justice system into something worse than farce.
And why do I think this is a desperate move by Mueller? Because the indictments go out of
their way to preclude any Americans having any involvement in these 'hacking events' at
all.
So, this does nothing at all to strengthen Mueller's investigation of Trump himself. It
actually weakens his mandate as Special Counsel.
On the other hand, it does a bang-up job of shifting the news cycle away from Trump's
heavy-handed but effective steam-rolling Germany and the UK over NATO spending, energy policy
and Brexit.
Trump continues, in his circuitous way, to stick a fork in the eye of the globalists whose
water politicians like Angela Merkel and Theresa May have carried for years.
Now with Trump prepared to sit down with Putin and potentially hammer out a major agreement
on many outstanding issues like Syria, arms control, NATO's purpose, energy policy and
terrorism the Deep State/Globalist/Davos Crowd needed something to saddle him with to prevent
this from happening.
The reasoning will be (if not already out there as I write this) that Trump would be a
traitor for sitting down with Putin after these indictments.
These indictments are not of some Russian private citizens Internet trolls like the last
batch. These are Russian military intelligence officers. And the irony of this, of course, is
that the intelligence officers involved in collating and disseminating demonstrably false
information about Trump which led to all this in the first place hail from the country that
Trump is currently visiting, the U.K.
So, the trap is set for the Democrats, Never Trumpers and media to hang Trump next week with
whatever agreement he signs with Putin. In fact, at this point Trump could shoot Putin in the
face with a concealed Derringer and they'd say he killed Putin to shut him
up.
There is no rationality left to this circus. And that's what
these indictments represent.
This is not about right and wrong, it never was. It is, was and always will be about
maintaining power. If this week shows people anything it should show just how far these
powerful people will go to maintain that power, pelf and privilege.
Because winning isn't everything, it's the only thing in politics. Unfortunately, for them,
people all over the West are getting tired of it. And the more they smirk, shuck, jive and cry
"Point of Order!" the angrier the people will get.
As one of my savvy subscribers said to me this morning, the Strzok hearings are brilliant.
They are shifting the Overton Window so far away from the status quo that it will never shift
back to where it was.
I'm sure Mueller, et.al. are thinking they are so smart in doing this today. Just like
Angela Merkel continues to think she's survived the challenge to her power and Theresa May
hers.
They think they've managed these crises.
They haven't. All they are doing is ensuring the next opportunity the people get to rise up
against them at the ballot box the worse it will be for them. And if the ballot box doesn't
work, then pitchforks and torches come out.
It is the way of things. It has happened before and it will happen again.
Those in power and their quislings in the media and the legislatures continue to decry this
growing sense of unfairness as dangerous. Terms like isolationist, conspiracy theorist,
nativist and racist are all used as bludgeons to shame people for feeling outraged at the
corruption they see with their own eyes.
The problem for people like Strzok, Rosenstein and Mueller is that they are simply
expendable pawns. And when the time is right they will be sacrificed to ensure the real
perpetrators walk without a scratch.
"... They also pointed out that it was likely leak not as hack as their copying/transmission speeds of alleged email file transfers were high above those possible to achieve via internet file transfer and hence hinting of local transfer via USB 3.0 or better. ..."
"... That was confirmed by former British diplomat who stated that he received from unidentified person FD copy of those Podesta emails while visiting D.C. in 2016. Assange himself stated that the source of those emails were not Russian at all. ..."
"... So what we got cooked by Mueller here. Allegedly stolen/fake identities, possibly some Bitcoin transactions, maybe some rented laptops, perhaps some rented servers, and probably some phishing,and suspicion of some hacking emails, websites that cannot be ruled out, with absolutely no hint of any connection to Russian government. ..."
"... In fact indictment describes nothing that any computer savvy teenager would not be able to do ..... to do what? RIG US ELECTIONS, not at all as it is clearly stated in this nonsensical indictment, there was no impact of anything listed above on US elections outcome nor any collusion. ..."
"... In other words, completely internet illiterate US grand jury after hearing extremely entangled tech jargon ridden fantastic tale of supposed crime with no hard evidences at all, indicted blindly some shadowy likely made up figures of straight from Russophobia instigated obsession Dream, in last ditch effort to revive long dead corpse of Russia Gate like a drug dealer giving last credit to hurting client out of money. ..."
"... CIA stooges who believe that Russia Gate nonsense mudguards prepare for horrible withdraw symptoms coming soon. ..."
"... n fact Mueller himself deepen the absurd by FBI own admission that alleged crime had no material impact on electoral campaign and election results beyond informing public about never repudiated truth of Dems machinations, which truth if fact was irrelevant to voting outcome as most of those who were exposed to Podesta emails were in states Hillary won while in those critical for Trump voters were largely unaware of them or their content. ..."
"... Mueller who already defrauded US government of $200 millions desperately looking for cover of his own futility and waste of FBI resources as he is ready to make grand jury indict a ham sandwich as long as pig from which the ham came from watch Putin on TV once. ..."
Another conspiracy theory becomes conspiracy fact. I remember when MSM in EU dismissed as
conspiracy theory Assange and Wikileaks claims the secret indictment is being prepared for
Assange and that warrant for Julian would be issued immediately upon arriving in Sweden for
pre trial interview as accused ? No, as a person of interest.
Now, after this recent indictment we know for a fact that Assange was or will be indicted
for treason regardless of fact that statute does not apply to him as non US citizen.
Returning to this phony indictment and baseless accusation contained in it.
The same wild accusation as in 2017 CIA report and the same utter lack of any shred of
evidence whatsoever as pointed out by former CIA, NSA directors and agents whistleblowers who
back then demanded hard evidences of hacking (trace routing log) as these would not in anyway
have disclosed any classified information or methods of collection by doing so.
They also pointed out that it was likely leak not as hack as their
copying/transmission speeds of alleged email file transfers were high above those possible to
achieve via internet file transfer and hence hinting of local transfer via USB 3.0 or
better.
That was confirmed by former British diplomat who stated that he received from
unidentified person FD copy of those Podesta emails while visiting D.C. in 2016. Assange
himself stated that the source of those emails were not Russian at all.
So what we got cooked by Mueller here. Allegedly stolen/fake identities, possibly some
Bitcoin transactions, maybe some rented laptops, perhaps some rented servers, and probably
some phishing,and suspicion of some hacking emails, websites that cannot be ruled out, with
absolutely no hint of any connection to Russian government.
In fact indictment describes nothing that any computer savvy teenager would not be
able to do ..... to do what? RIG US ELECTIONS, not at all as it is clearly stated in this
nonsensical indictment, there was no impact of anything listed above on US elections outcome
nor any collusion.
In other words, completely internet illiterate US grand jury after hearing extremely
entangled tech jargon ridden fantastic tale of supposed crime with no hard evidences at all,
indicted blindly some shadowy likely made up figures of straight from Russophobia instigated
obsession Dream, in last ditch effort to revive long dead corpse of Russia Gate like a drug
dealer giving last credit to hurting client out of money.
CIA stooges who believe that Russia Gate nonsense mudguards prepare for horrible
withdraw symptoms coming soon.
I n fact Mueller himself deepen the absurd by FBI own admission that alleged crime had
no material impact on electoral campaign and election results beyond informing public about
never repudiated truth of Dems machinations, which truth if fact was irrelevant to voting
outcome as most of those who were exposed to Podesta emails were in states Hillary won while
in those critical for Trump voters were largely unaware of them or their content.
Mueller who already defrauded US government of $200 millions desperately looking for
cover of his own futility and waste of FBI resources as he is ready to make grand jury indict
a ham sandwich as long as pig from which the ham came from watch Putin on TV once.
What is going on with the Mueller indictments is open public demonstration of how US court
system is submissive to political control and expediences and serves solely as a political
tool in class war and in this case psychological class warfare aimed exactly in sowing
divisions among population along phony partisan or Identity politics lines exactly what they
accused Putin of doing.
Like Hitler shouting murder while he was murdering Jews , as Israel shouting murder while
IDF is murdering Palestinians, not Mueller shouting treason, collusion, attack on democracy
while while doing the same or worse.
HILLARY CLINTON'S COMPROMISED EMAILS WERE GOING TO A FOREIGN ENTITY – NOT RUSSIA! FBI Agent Ignored Evidence Report from
Decameron
FBI Peter Strzok – the philandering FBI chief investigator who facilitated the FISA surveillance of Trump campaign officials in
2016 – has been exposed for ignoring evidence of major Clinton-related breaches of national security and has been accused of lying
about it.
Hillary Clinton's emails, "every single one except for four, over 30,000 of them, were going to an address that was not on the
distribution l ist," Texas Congressman Louis Gohmert said on Friday. And they went to "an unauthorized source that was a foreign
entity unrelated to Russia." The information came from Intelligence Community Inspector General Chuck McCullough, who sent his
investigator Frank Rucker, along with an ICIG attorney Janette McMillan, to brief Strzok.
Gohmert nailed Strozk at the open Congressional hearing on Friday the 13 th in Washington, but Strzok claimed no recollection.
Gohmert accused him of lying. Maybe Strzok's amnesia about the briefing on Hillary Clinton's email server is nothing but standard
FBI training: i.e., when in doubt, don't recall. It's far more likely that there is a campaign of deliberate obstructing justice,
selective prosecution, and political targeting by top officials embedded in the permanent bureaucracy of the Justice Department,
FBI, and broader IC. Strzok is not alone.
And what "foreign entity" got Hillary's classified emails? Trump haters in British Intelligence and those in Israel who want to
manipulate the US presidency – whatever party prevails – come to mind. Listen closely and you may hear rumors around Washington that
it was Israel, not Russia, that was the foreign power involved in approaching Trump advisers. Time to follow that thread.
Both Representatives Gohmert (TX) and Trey Gowdy (SC) did a great job trying to pierce the veil of denials. But, right after Strzok's
amnesia in Congress, the Justice Department announced the indictment of GRU members. Change of subject. The same foul stench noted
by Publius Tacitus about the GRU indictment filled Congress as Agent Strzok testified.
So, a foreign power (not Russia but "hostile" according to Gohmert) modified internal instructions in HC's server so that a blind
copy went to this other country, all 30,000 e-mails. I wonder what was different about the four that were not so copied. What
are likely countries? The UK, China and Israel would be at the top of my list
So the emails were being bcc-ed or the server was set up to copy all emails passing through it to some foreign server? I am curious
about the mechanics.
It seems that the server was the mechanism. Whether that was by physical access to the server or electronically at a distance.
Her entire system was not secure and could be easily penetrated.
FBI did not have the evidence, as they were pushed aside and not allowed to look into it.
Crowdstrike was hired by DNC (read Clinton family) and handles (or more correctly botched)the investigation. No evidence from
Crowdstrike is probably admissible in court as they are clearly played the role Clinton family pawns. NSA can't have such a detailed
evidence because of encryption. So where did it came from? CIA?
The accusations are worded different this time around. No more of "we assess" like the last time. Direct Le Carre style of fiction
;-)
It is amazing to see the detail with which the US supposedly knows of the names and actions of cyber spy organizations personnel
in Russia. If not the NSA, why not the Mossad cyber units? They have a lot of skill and connections with telecom eqpt and companies.
Are these the only spearfishers to be indicted? And did any go into team Trump?
But don't look at other things like how stupid
team Clinton is with cyber security whether HRC's handling of classified emails with her private server or her campaign's handling
of important matters. And what of the comment of those emails.
Our MSM told us not to look. These things only lead to more uncomfortable
questions and tend to drag us into the morass ... while they do ... what?
"... The rising power of China and Russia has been a threat to US power for some time, no matter if its the US globalists trying their useless hegemon crap to stop them or the US nationalists that have scrapped the old hegemonic empire. The nationalists are more dangerous as their thinking is not confined to the box of the last era. ..."
"... They also pointed out that it was likely leak not as hack as their copying/transmission speeds of alleged email file transfers were high above those possible to achieve via internet file transfer and hence hinting of local transfer via USB 3.0 or better. ..."
"... That was confirmed by former British diplomat who stated that he received from unidentified person FD copy of those Podesta emails while visiting D.C. in 2016. Assange himself stated that the source of those emails were not Russian at all. ..."
"... So what we got cooked by Mueller here. Allegedly stolen/fake identities, possibly some Bitcoin transactions, maybe some rented laptops, perhaps some rented servers, and probably some phishing,and suspicion of some hacking emails, websites that cannot be ruled out, with absolutely no hint of any connection to Russian government. ..."
"... In fact indictment describes nothing that any computer savvy teenager would not be able to do ..... to do what? RIG US ELECTIONS, not at all as it is clearly stated in this nonsensical indictment, there was no impact of anything listed above on US elections outcome nor any collusion. ..."
"... In other words, completely internet illiterate US grand jury after hearing extremely entangled tech jargon ridden fantastic tale of supposed crime with no hard evidences at all, indicted blindly some shadowy likely made up figures of straight from Russophobia instigated obsession Dream, in last ditch effort to revive long dead corpse of Russia Gate like a drug dealer giving last credit to hurting client out of money. ..."
"... CIA stooges who believe that Russia Gate nonsense mudguards prepare for horrible withdraw symptoms coming soon. ..."
"... n fact Mueller himself deepen the absurd by FBI own admission that alleged crime had no material impact on electoral campaign and election results beyond informing public about never repudiated truth of Dems machinations, which truth if fact was irrelevant to voting outcome as most of those who were exposed to Podesta emails were in states Hillary won while in those critical for Trump voters were largely unaware of them or their content. ..."
"... Mueller who already defrauded US government of $200 millions desperately looking for cover of his own futility and waste of FBI resources as he is ready to make grand jury indict a ham sandwich as long as pig from which the ham came from watch Putin on TV once. ..."
The Mueller investigation started with a script allegedly authored by Sergei Skripal;
two tall blonde moscow hotel-room prostitutes peeing on obama's bed; this is genius.
However the hoax unravelled; (the tale was too thin and needed filling out because
Trump
had not even been impeached according to Peter Strozk's dungeon master's original plan.)
The love story of Dawn and Charlie is not Skripal's best work, yet we sense that the
hand
of the master is there somewhere, and look forward to the next episode of his new novela.
In part, this indictment is preparation to drop charges in the Concord Management case, which
will make discovery in the Concord case moot. If they issued these indictments after
dropping the charges in Concord Management, it would be too obvious that this is just a
replacementfor those charges. Won't it be fun if one of the Russians indicted patriotically
volunteers to travel to the use and likewise demands discovery?
Of course, we're all aware that William Binney has analyzed the metadata of the files and
concluded that their transfer was too rapid to have occurred over the internet and must have
been downloaded to a USB drive.
The rising power of China and Russia has been a threat to US power for some time, no matter
if its the US globalists trying their useless hegemon crap to stop them or the US
nationalists that have scrapped the old hegemonic empire. The nationalists are more dangerous
as their thinking is not confined to the box of the last era.
Another conspiracy theory becomes conspiracy fact.
I remember when MSM in EU dismissed as conspiracy theory Assange and Wikileaks claims the
secret indictment is being prepared for Assange and that warrant for Julian would be issued
immediately upon arriving in Sweden for pre trial interview as accused ? No, as a person of
interest.
Now, after this recent indictment we know for a fact that Assange was or will be indicted
for treason regardless of fact that statute does not apply to him as non US citizen.
Returning to this phony indictment and baseless accusation contained in it.
The same wild accusation as in 2017 CIA report and the same utter lack of any shred of
evidence whatsoever as pointed out by former CIA, NSA directors and agents whistleblowers who
back then demanded hard evidences of hacking (trace routing log) as these would not in anyway
have disclosed any classified information or methods of collection by doing so.
They also pointed out that it was likely leak not as hack as their copying/transmission
speeds of alleged email file transfers were high above those possible to achieve via
internet file transfer and hence hinting of local transfer via USB 3.0 or better.
That was confirmed by former British diplomat who stated that he received from
unidentified person FD copy of those Podesta emails while visiting D.C. in 2016. Assange
himself stated that the source of those emails were not Russian at all.
So what we got cooked by Mueller here. Allegedly stolen/fake identities, possibly some
Bitcoin transactions, maybe some rented laptops, perhaps some rented servers, and probably
some phishing,and suspicion of some hacking emails, websites that cannot be ruled out, with
absolutely no hint of any connection to Russian government.
In fact indictment describes nothing that any computer savvy teenager would not be
able to do ..... to do what? RIG US ELECTIONS, not at all as it is clearly stated in this
nonsensical indictment, there was no impact of anything listed above on US elections outcome
nor any collusion.
In other words, completely internet illiterate US grand jury after hearing extremely
entangled tech jargon ridden fantastic tale of supposed crime with no hard evidences at all,
indicted blindly some shadowy likely made up figures of straight from Russophobia instigated
obsession Dream, in last ditch effort to revive long dead corpse of Russia Gate like a drug
dealer giving last credit to hurting client out of money.
CIA stooges who believe that Russia Gate nonsense mudguards prepare for horrible withdraw
symptoms coming soon.
I n fact Mueller himself deepen the absurd by FBI own admission that alleged crime had
no material impact on electoral campaign and election results beyond informing public about
never repudiated truth of Dems machinations, which truth if fact was irrelevant to voting
outcome as most of those who were exposed to Podesta emails were in states Hillary won while
in those critical for Trump voters were largely unaware of them or their content.
Mueller who already defrauded US government of $200 millions desperately looking for
cover of his own futility and waste of FBI resources as he is ready to make grand jury indict
a ham sandwich as long as pig from which the ham came from watch Putin on TV once.
What is going on with the Mueller indictments is open public demonstration of how US court
system is submissive to political control and expediences and serves solely as a political
tool in class war and in this case psychological class warfare aimed exactly in sowing
divisions among population along phony partisan or Identity politics lines exactly what they
accused Putin of doing.
Like Hitler shouting murder while he was murdering Jews , as Israel shouting murder while
IDF is murdering Palestinians, not Mueller shouting treason, collusion, attack on democracy
while while doing the same or worse.
Let's get real here. I don't know if it was part of the original indictment, but there are
now claims that the government, using secret and likely illegal NSA surveillance, _has_ been
able to show a 'trail' from the Russian officers to Guccifer 2.0 and then on to Wikileaks. Is
this true or just more claims without evidence?
U.S. indictments show technical evidence for Russian hacking accusations
Regarding @146, I think I get it now. Mueller can claim anything he wants in this indictment,
including pseudofacts generated through illegal international data collection, because he
knows he will never be asked to present such evidence in a court of law.
Mueller's indictments are not just fraudulent, but easily discoverable as such (as they
are plagiarized). I'm frankly baffled as to why, even if Mueller felt compelled to fabricate
something to blow up Trump's meeting with Putin, he'd go this route.
"... In December, a letter from Senate Homeland Security Committee Chair Ron Johnson (R-WI) revealed that Strzok and other FBI officials effectively "decriminalized" Clinton's behavior through a series of edits to James Comey's original statement. ..."
"... The letter described how outgoing Deputy Director Andrew McCabe exchanged drafts of Comey's statement with senior FBI officials , including Strzok, Strzok's direct supervisor , E.W. "Bill" Priestap, Jonathan Moffa, and an unnamed employee from the Office of General Counsel (identified by Newsweek as DOJ Deputy General Counsel Trisha Anderson) - in a coordinated conspiracy among top FBI brass. ..."
"... In summary; the FBI launched an investigation into Hillary Clinton's private server, ignored evidence it may have been hacked, downgraded the language in Comey's draft to decriminalize her behavior, and then exonerated her by recommending the DOJ not prosecute. ..."
"... Meanwhile, a tip submitted by an Australian diplomat tied to a major Clinton Foundation deal launched the FBI's counterintelligence operation against the Trump campaign - initially spearheaded by the same Peter Strzok who worked so hard to get Hillary off the hook. ..."
FBI counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok reportedly ignored "an irregularity in the
metadata" indicating that Hillary Clinton's server may had been breached, while FBI top brass
made significant edits to former Director James Comey's statement specifically minimizing how
likely it was that hostile actors had gained access.
Sources told
Fox News that Strzok, who sent anti-Trump text messages that got him removed from the
ongoing Special Counsel Robert Mueller's Russia probe, was told about the metadata anomaly in
2016, but Strzok did not support a formal damage assessment. One source said: " Nothing
happened. "
In December, a letter
from Senate Homeland Security Committee Chair Ron Johnson (R-WI) revealed that Strzok and other
FBI officials effectively "decriminalized" Clinton's behavior through a series of edits to
James Comey's original statement.
The letter described how outgoing Deputy Director Andrew McCabe exchanged drafts of Comey's
statement with senior FBI officials , including Strzok, Strzok's direct supervisor , E.W. "Bill" Priestap, Jonathan
Moffa, and an unnamed employee from the Office of General Counsel (identified by Newsweek as DOJ Deputy General Counsel Trisha
Anderson) - in a coordinated conspiracy among top FBI brass.
It was already known that Strzok - who was demoted to the FBI's HR department for sending
anti-Trump text messages to his mistress -
downgraded the language describing Clinton's conduct from the criminal charge of "gross
negligence" to "extremely careless."
Notably, "Gross negligence" is a legal term of art in criminal law often associated with
recklessness. According to Black's Law Dictionary, it is defined as " A severe degree of
negligence taken as reckless disregard ," and " Blatant indifference to one's legal duty,
other's safety, or their rights ." "Extremely careless," on the other hand, is not a legal term
of art.
18 U.S. Code §
793 "Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information" specifically uses the phrase
"gross negligence." Had Comey used the phrase, he would have essentially declared that Hillary
had broken the law.
In order to justify downgrading Clinton's behavior to "extremely careless," however, FBI
officials also needed to minimize the impact of her crimes. As revealed in the letter from Rep.
Johnson, the FBI downgraded the probability that Clinton's server was hacked by hostile actors
from " reasonably likely " to " possible ."
"Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained
access to Secretary Clinton's personal e-mail account," Comey said in his statement.
By doing so, the FBI downgraded Clinton's negligence - thus supporting the "extremely
careless" language.
The FBI also edited Clinton's exoneration letter to remove a reference to the "sheer volume"
of classified material on the private server, which - according to the original draft "supports
an inference that the participants were grossly negligent in their handling of that
information." Furthermore, all references to the Intelligence Community's involvement in
investigating Clinton's private email server were removed as well.
Director Comey's original statement acknowledged the FBI had worked with its partners in the
Intelligence Community to assess potential damage from Secretary Clinton's use of a private
email server. The original statement read:
W]e have done extensive work with the assistance of our colleagues elsewhere in the
Intelligence Community to understand what indications there might be of compromise by hostile
actors in connection with the private email operation.
In summary; the FBI launched an investigation into Hillary Clinton's private server, ignored
evidence it may have been hacked, downgraded the language in Comey's draft to decriminalize her
behavior, and then exonerated her by recommending the DOJ not prosecute.
Meanwhile, a tip submitted by an Australian diplomat tied to a major Clinton Foundation deal
launched the FBI's counterintelligence operation against the Trump campaign - initially
spearheaded by the same Peter Strzok who worked so hard to get Hillary off the hook.
And Strzok still collects a taxpayer-funded paycheck.
MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia's foreign ministry said there was no evidence the 12 people indicted by
the United States on Friday were linked to military intelligence or hacking into the computer
networks of the U.S. Democratic party.
The U.S. indictment named 12 Russian officers and indicted them on charges of hacking the
computer networks of 2016 Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and her party.
The Russian ministry said the indictment was meant to damage the atmosphere before the summit
between the Russian President Vladimir Putin and U.S. President Donald Trump in Helsinki on Monday.
Lee Stranahan, a host on a Radio SPUTNIK Show, and a former reporter for BREITBART, has said
on air that people have told him that the FBI has been questioning them about him. He says he
thinks that it is possible that he may be indicted.
"... Exactly what I was thinking, he can create multiple indictments and nothing will get to court, he's knows that. What this really is, is a giant PSYOP, crazy propaganda going on in front of us. And how many people protest? Nothing but a witch hunt as Trump have pointed out. ..."
"... I am sure Mueller could create a collusion indictment too, there is no stop against these lying neocons. After all, this is the same guy that was part of the Iraq WMD lies, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEqTZF6nyCY ..."
Exactly what I was thinking, he can create multiple indictments and nothing will get
to court, he's knows that. What this really is, is a giant PSYOP, crazy propaganda going on
in front of us. And how many people protest? Nothing but a witch hunt as Trump have pointed
out.
I am sure Mueller could create a collusion indictment too, there is no stop against
these lying neocons. After all, this is the same guy that was part of the Iraq WMD lies,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEqTZF6nyCY
Assistant Attorney General Rosenstein announced a bizarre indictment against Russian military intelligence operatives today that,
rather than confirming the case of "Russian meddling" in the U.S. 2016 Presidential election raises more questions. Here are the
major oddities:
How did the FBI obtain information about activity on the DNC and DCCC servers when the DNC/DCCC refused to give the Feds access
to the servers/computers?
Why does Crowdstrike get credit as being a competent computer security firm when, according to the indictment, they completely
and utterly failed to stop the "hacks?"
Why does the indictment refuse to name Wikileaks by name as the Russian collaborator?
Please go read the indictment ( here ) for yourself.
I have taken the time to put together a timeline based on the indictment and other information already on the public record. Here
is the bottomline--if US officials knew as early as April that Russia was hacking the DNC, why did it take US officials more than
six months to stop the activity? The statement of "facts" contained in the indictment also raise another troubling issue--what is
the source of the information? For example, if the FBI was not given access to the DNC/DCCC servers and computers then how do they
know what happened on specific dates as alleged in the complaint?
Here is the timeline:
18 April 2016--The Russians hacked into the DNC using DCCC computers and installed malware on the network. (p. 10, para 26)
22 April 2016--The GRU (Russian military intelligence) compressed gigabytes of data using X-tunnel and moved it to a GRU computer
located in ILLINOIS. (p. 11, para 26a)
28 April 2016--The Russians stole documents from the DCCC and moved them on to the computer in Illinois. (p. 11, para 26b).
Late April - 5 May 2016--DNC leaders were tipped to the hack in late April. Chief executive Amy Dacey got a call from her operations
chief saying that their information technology team had noticed some unusual network activity. That evening, she spoke with Michael
Sussmann, a DNC lawyer who is a partner with Perkins Coie in Washington. Soon after, Sussmann, a formerfederal prosecutor who handled
computer crime cases, called Henry, whom he has known for many years. (
Ellen Nakashima's 14 June Washington Post article ) (see p. 12, para 32 of th
13 May 2016--The Russians deleted logs and files from a DNC computer. (p. 11, para 31)
25 May - 1 June 2016--the Russians hacked the DNC Microsoft Exchange Server and stole thousands of emails from DNC employees.
(p. 11, para 29).
8 June 2016--DCLeaks.com set up, allegedly by the GRU (no proof offered).
Also created Facebook and Twitter accounts (pp. 13-14, paras. 35, 38, 39)
10 June 2016--Ultimately, the [Crowdstrike] teams decided it was necessary to replace the software on every computer at the DNC.
Until the network was clean, secrecy was vital. On the afternoon of Friday, June 10 , all DNC employees were instructed to leave
their laptops in the office. (
Esquire
Magazine offers a different timeline )
22 June 2016--Wikileaks contacts Guccier 2.0 stating, "send any new material here for us to review and it will have a much higher
impact than what you are doing."
14 July 2016--The GRU, under the guise of Guccifer 2.0, sent Wikileaks an attachment with an encrypted file that explained how
to access an online archive of "stolen" documents.
15 August 2016--Guccifer, alleged to be the GRU, has email exchange with Roger Stone.
22 July 2016--Wikileaks publishes 40,000 plus emails (note, the Indictment INCORRECTLY states that the number was 20,000).
September 2016--The GRU obtained access to a DNC server hosted by a third party and took "data analytics" info. (p. 13, para 34)
October 2016--A functioning Linux-based version of X-agent remained on the DNC server until October. (p. 12, para 32)
Another great curiosity is the timing of the announcement of the indictments. Why today? There was no urgency. No one was on the
verge of fleeing the United States. All of the defendants are in Russia and beyond our reach.
A careful read of the indictment reveals a level of detail that could only have been obtained from intelligence sources (which
means that information would be invalidated if the defendants ever decide to challenge the indictment) or it was provided by an unreliable
third party.
I was shocked to discover, thanks to the indictment, how inept Crowdstrike was in this entire process. Not only did more than
30 days lapse before they attempted to shutdown the Russian hacking by installing new software and issuing new email passwords, but
their so-called security fix left the Russians running an operation until October 2016. How can you be considered a credible cyber
security company yet fail to shutdown the alleged Russian intrusion? It does not make sense.
The most glaring deficit in the indictment is the lack of supporting evidence to back up the charges levied in the indictment.
How do we know that computer files were erased if the FBI did not have access to the computers and the servers? How do we know the
names of the 12 Russian GRU officers? The Russians do not publish directories of secret organizations. Where did this information
come from?
It would appear that the release of the indictment today was a deliberate political act designed to detract and distract from
the Trump visit to the UK and to put pressure on him to confront Vladimir Putin. I have heard from many of my former colleagues who
are hoping that Putin calls the Rosenstein bluff. If forced to reveal the "evidence" behind this indictment because of a challenge
from a defendant, the results will be a disaster for the prosecution.
A report appeared yesterday on the 'True Pundit' site entitled 'Mueller Plagiarizes Right-Wing YouTube Journalist's Lawsuit
Against Podesta in New Russian Indictments; DOJ's Big Splash Appears Fabricated.'
''George Webb sued John Podesta in 2017, along with other elected and public officials including Justice Department personnel
but today, exact language, accusations and content from Webb's suit appeared in the Justice Department's indictment. Beyond
strange.
'Mueller swiped Webb's hacking allegations against Imran Awan and simply flipped them -- almost word for word – and made
the exact allegations against Russian operatives.'
The reference is to a class action brought last November against John Podesta and others by one George Webb Sweigert and
so far anonymous others against John Podesta and others.
It has long seemed to me that it is likely that we have only seen the tip of the iceberg in relation to the activities of
the Awans. However, I do not feel able to take an informed view on whether the 'True Pundit' report and the material presented
by Sweigert reflect accurate information fed by discontented insiders, genuine 'fake news', or some combination of both.
I would be most interested in what others make of this.
Steven Wasserman, Brother of Debbie Wasserman Schultz, to Oversee Awan Family Investigation Jul 27, 2017
https://squawker.org/all/st...
Louie Gohmert, June 5, 2018
"'We need someone assigned to the Awan case that will protect congress from further breaches and from the Awan crime family...
for heavens sake, we need someone in the FBI to step up and do their job'"
In his opening remarks, Gohmert, a former prosecutor, argued that Rosenstein was "disqualified from being able to select
or name" a special counsel because he had counseled Trump on the matter; therefore, Rosenstein would be a material witness.
The truepundit article is fake news IMO. The only 'plagiarism' cited in it is the use of a domain name similar to the Dems
fundraiser site;
actblue.com
. The class action against Podesta alleges the domain was set up by Awan and the DOJ indictment alleges it was set up by the
GRU. Having now read them both, aside from references to 'spearphishing' - a well know hacking technique - I cannot see another
example of significant repeat language.
Thanks for researching! My eyes glaze over whenever I try to read thru generally boring legal docs. Since I had not encountered
Truepundit before, I read some of the other articles on their front page and realized it's a conservative news site. There
are more and more of those lately. Much needed as a balance to the mostly liberal MSM. I put on my "skeptical spectacles" for
both.
My educated guess as to the answer to your three questions is the same as you imply: 1. everything they have they have through
hearsay from Crowdstrike. 2. See #1. 3. Wikileaks is the only party who would actually respond to the indictment and seek discovery,
so leaving them out means they're not in danger of actually having to produce any evidence.
The timing of this announcement illustrates how badly the deep state desires to sabotage Trump's plan to improve US-Russia
relations. Since they have been playing the Russia card for so long with no real results and to the detriment of their credibility,
the urge to try to obstruct Trump at the 11th hour must have been overwhelming.
Between Trumps experience dealing with shady characters in his prior career (esp the casino industry) and what he has no
doubt learned about his enemies in the borg since getting elected, I'm guessing he has contingency plans. And if not, he has
great Road Runner-like instincts :)
I have a sneaking suspicion that Mr. Mueller, Rosenstein and others are a stalking horse for a complete reorganization of the
DOJ and FBI. By that I mean it appears to now be beyond reasonable doubt that the above have demonstrated that they are highly
political organizations, dripping with partisan agendas.
The question then becomes "how can justice be blind in the USA in the face of incontrovertible evidence it ain't?". To me
that sounds like a call to action for President Trump.
I suspect it is more a case of ineptitude than political bias. They were charged with finding meddling, so they are finding
meddling by using imagination rather than evidence. Can you imagine the uproar if they were to conclude a two-year investigation
by saying, "Sorry, we found nothing" at the end? We don't have to imagine, since that's what happened after the Clinton email
investigation.
I think you could be right. If any agreements are made at the Helsinki summit, Trump will have to reign in the deep state to
implement them. I've been wondering why there hasn't been a complete house cleaning at DOJ and FBI yet. Perhaps Trump is waiting
for them to "jump the shark" so blatantly that when it finally comes it will be seen as the end of their long farce by everyone
but the true believers, who by that point will be seen as delusional by the general public. Trump is the master of the game
of perception. If he pulls it off the Democrats get crushed this fall. If not, we get president Pence next spring. Game on.
I think Rosenstein is bucking to be fired by Trump. This will then allow the Democrats, to claim obstruction of justice, justifying
impeachment. ( Assumption being the Democrats win control of Congress and Senate ) He's been deeply provocative giving ample
reason for said dismissal, Trump has resisted up until now. As long as he resists the temptation Congress will eventually impeach
Rosenstein. As this article went to print documents for his impeachment are being drawn up for release on Monday possibly,
of course subject to politics. ( Please edit the link if you feel it's inappropriate )
https://www.zerohedge.com/n...
PT,
Please excuse me if this is a far out idiotic thought re the timing of the indictment, but doesn't this at least possibly give
Putin some power over Trump? Putin could threaten Trump with having one of the accused "confess" to the hacking per a "collusion"
agreement between Russia and the Trump campaign. If that happened, Trump would be promptly impeached. It would be a whirlwind
circus.
Thx for the confirmation. Sometimes I "war game" these things over a couple of Scotches. I come up with all sorts of notions,
but this one seemed reasonable.
1. How did Mueller arrive at his conclusions? There is no exposition of that in the indictment.
2. Has Mueller established a precedent? Wouldn't other countries use this indictment as an example to indict NSA and other
US intelligence personnel for conducting "normal" intelligence activities.
3. Rosenstein in his press conference reiterated what is written in the indictment that no US person was involved, and that
it did not change the outcome of the election. Does that imply that Mueller & the DOJ are stating that there was no collusion
between the Russian government & the Trump campaign? If that is the case what is the remit of the Mueller special counsel?
4. Why is this indictment handed over to DOJ NSD for prosecution rather than Mueller taking it to the court? Isn't the DOJ
NSD implicated in the FISA abuse being investigated by IG Horowitz?
5. The Russian intelligence agents are innocent until convicted by a court. An indictment is only the prosecution's story.
In this case the prosecution has yet to provide the level of evidence required for a conviction.
6. As is the case with the Russian trolls indicted by Mueller, these agents could ostensibly hire counsel and cause Mueller
much embarrassment by requesting evidentiary discovery. Mueller is now backtracking on the Russian troll case as he either
has no evidence to back the indictment or is unwilling to provide defense counsel with the same which means the prosecution
goes no where.
7. Was this indictment primarily a political document for the TDS afflicted media and people at large? Are Mueller and the
Deep Staters assuming that this indictment goes no where as the Russians will not contest the indictment, so it is a cost free,
politically beneficial indictment?
My personal favourite part is this one :"All twelve defendants are members of the GRU, a Russian Federation
intelligence agency within the Main Intelligence Directorate of the
Russian military." Mueller & Co haven't a clue.
For example, if the FBI was not given access to the DNC/DCCC servers and computers then how do they know what happened on
specific dates as alleged in the complaint?
I believe the NSA records and stores metadata for all Internet traffic, so the FBI asked the NSA for whatever the NSA has
for the DNC/DCCC computers then excluded legitimate sources/destinations for the data before analyzing the rest. Once you have
loaded all the data into a database, it's not difficult.
I have heard from many of my former colleagues who are hoping that Putin calls the Rosenstein bluff. If forced to reveal
the "evidence" behind this indictment because of a challenge from a defendant, the results will be a disaster for the prosecution.
The GRU is part of the military so Putin should order one or two "over the top" to "attack" the Mueller organization. Russia
should be able to afford the best defense lawyers in the United States and should be able to circumvent all and any Treasury
Dept. attempts to block any funding.
I thought immediately that Rosentstein's announcement of this indictment was strangely timed. Your analysis indicates it
was put together hurriedly. Therefore, my first thought was that perhaps Rosenstein was attempting to prevent Trump from meeting
with Putin, as many of the opposition media have suggested Trump should not meet with Putin because of the announcement of
the indictment. After all, they say a POTUS should not hang around with the likes of Putin.
However, most anyone who has followed Trump lately would guess that Trump would not change his planned schedule and would
surely keep his schedule and would indeed confront Putin about the indictment.
Then, if that is what they were hoping, it puts Trump in a spot. If Putin denies the entire story and provides Trump with
a plausible denial and Trump then wants to investigate further, Trump could be accused of doing what the opposition has claimed
all along--"colluding." with the baddest Russian of all.
I think Trump would not be stupid enough to accept either Rosensteein's story or Putin's denial without investigating.
It's Rosentstein's word against the Russians' word in that case, and Trump is caught in the middle and in the same place
he's been all along.
I do hope one or all of the accused do ask for a trial. No way, however, would I look forward to that media circus for weeks
and weeks.
I personally felt the story was made up when Grucifer was mentioned and purported to be Russian. I thought it convenient
that the Russians in America who had been first reported as harmlessly trying to meddle while in the U.S. would be back in
Russia and accused just now. Our FBI is truly inept if that is the case. They let the Boston bombers get away with their attack.
They let the Pulse night club jihadist get away with his, and they let the "professional school shooter" fulfill his destiny.
There are so many tangled webs from those who have practiced to deceive that we are faced with never finding the truth in
our lifetimes.
My only hope for relief from this now, strangely,Lisa Page. I do hope she has been burned badly enough by being stupid enough
to become involved with a married co-worker, who is obviously in love with only himself, that she somehow provides us some
answers.
I know that I will surely be happier when this horror story is over.
If the 12 indicted are actually Russian military intelligence officers then wouldn't it be a simple matter for their superior
to order them to front up and demand their day in court?
Sure, there is a risk that they will be convicted, but spooks willingly undertake far more hazardous missions than this.
A promise could be made that if they are found guilty the Russian government will move heaven and earth to arrange a spy-swap
to get them back and a fabulous recompense for their trouble, so the reward is worth the risk.
Honestly, the prosecutor showed terrible judgement when he included Concord Management in a previous indictment, only to
see that company's lawyer calling his bluff. He appears to be under the impression that naming only Russian persons and not
Russian companies will prevent that from happening again.
Thank you PT for your analysis and commentary on this subject.
It seems this indictment is similar to the indictment filed earlier this year against the Russian astroturfers. And in that
instance, one of the companies charged is defending itself in US court. Not only that, it opted to exercise its right to a
speedy trial!!!
From what I've read, the Mueller team was totally caught off guard since it didn't expect any of the Russians to mount a
defense. According to Andrew McCarthy at National Review who's been diligently commenting on the Mueller probe and related
matters, the special counsel's team made the mistake of filing the indictment when it was evidently unprepared to go to trial.
Mueller's team has consequently asked for delays because it can't produce the DISCOVERY that the defendant has a right to review.
I don't know what the latest news is about the case but at one point the Mueller team provided a HUGE cache of internet postings
allegedly made by the defendant BUT THEY WERE IN RUSSIAN. How on earth did that influence American voters?
Overcome by events. They already are, and the event in question hasn't even happened yet. They are also claiming the this indictment
"proves" treason by Trump, even though it does not even suggest that Trump was involved.
They waited TWO YEARS to produce this "evidence" - which is without evidence, merely assertions.? That in itself condemns
it to complete hogwash.
As for the NSA, they could have produced this stuff at any time in the last two years without compromising any "methods
and sources" since we all know since Snowden and Binney how much they capture and retain. Instead, they had only "moderate
confidence" of Russian "meddling" in the January, 2017, "assessment."
They allegedly had to rely on the Dutch to penetrate the hackers? And that story was hogwash from the get-go.
As for how they "know" that certain files were erased, that could have come from the "certified true images" provided by
CrowdStrike to the FBI - but since CrowdStrike is utterly compromised due to the anti-Russian status of its CEO, that's worthless
"evidence."
If Wikileaks was in contact with Guccifer 2.0, then why did James Clapper expend effort trying to shut down the DoJ negotiations
with Assange who offered "technical evidence" that would prove the Russians had nothing to do with the Wikileaks DNC emails?
Sincerely hope Sy Hersh gets his hands on an actual copy of that FBI Seth Rich report, because if he does, the FBI and the
DoJ are going down. Literally everyone in top management of those agencies (and likely at CIA as well, and possibly NSA) will
be up on charges and headed to jail for actual treason.
They have no choice now but to go all in on this stuff because otherwise everyone involved is going to jail.
You missed the obvious corollary: CrowdStrike is obviously a subsidiary of the GRU. Clever moves disguised as bumbling incompetence!
I second the motion to have one of the Russians "volunteer" to come to the US to clear his name, except that the poor guy will
probably end up in Gitmo.
The Witchfinder General has excelled himself this time. Would I be correct in concluding that more sources & methods have
been burnt here? "KOVALEV deleted his search history" for example is intel that has to have come from inside a GRU computer,
assuming it is true of course.
I'd also just like to highlight that a significant part of this indictment is dedicated to the involvement of both Wikileaks
and Bitcoin. It appears to me that a secondary aim here is to bolster Congressional support to outlaw both.
So, the DOJ is operating as a wholly owned subsidiary of the Democratic Party in politicking against the President and Congress
controlled by the other party. Is this correct?
How else is one to read this indictment, its coordination with the Democratic leadership ("he must pull out of the Putin
meeting" squawk), and the "unrelated" matter of attacking Rep. Jordan about 25 year old "abuse" charges dating from his time
at OSU? Who was responsible for those "untraceable" attacks-the MSM, the DOJ, the Democratic Party? Is there any light between
these institutions at this point? The attack seems to have been successfully fought off, and Jordan is now parrying with a
direct attack at Rosenstein.
The pace of all this is dizzying. Is anyone else wondering where it leads to?
By indicting foreign intelligence agents has the USA crossed a line so that now USA intelligence agents are fair game in the
courts of foreign lands?
Looking at this deception over the past few years I have always believed its a game of tit-for-tat where the USA hands are
not clean either and that there was a mutual understanding amongst parties that there is a limit to retribution.
Just saw a would-be meme on my Facebook feed . . . to the general effect that the FBI
still hasn't even looked at the DNC's computer or server, but Mueller's indicted 12 Russians
for 'hacking' them.
Of course, there is that old quote from a New York state judge that a prosecutor could get
a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. (Which also reminds me of a riddle: Why is a ham
sandwich better than perfect happiness? Well, nothing is better than perfect happiness,
right? -- and a ham sandwich is certainly better than nothing. . . .)
The sheer arrogance of the yankee presumption to issue such an indictment is breathtaking.
As soon as the summit is over, why shouldn't Russia issue an indictment of the yankee agents
involved in subverting their country? Italy has already, in the past, under governments more
to the liking of the yankee regime, charged CIA agents for crimes committed in that country.
Since I am sure the yankees favoured those cinque stella and the Lega defeated in the past
election, why shouldn't Italy issue a similar indictment?
The yankees are relying on their hegemony to insulate themselves from the consequences of
their own much more unambiguous much more provable acts of subversion. After the imperium
declines, which is inevitable, this indictment provides an analogous precedent for any of the
former satellites to rise up and smite the yankee aggressors with similar indictments.
Perhaps they should also ignore diplomatic immunity to snag those agents acting within the
country.
The indictment, meanwhile, since it is obviously aimed at preventing the Trump
administration from achieving its foreign policy goals, is arguably an act of treason,
particularly since no real proof is offered and the allegations are trivial and/or absurd.
According to the concepts of the Nuremberg four power trial, since the indictment is intended
to provide support for elements within the yankee regime favouring aggressive war, it also
renders Mueller, Rosenstein and their operatives factually guilty of war crimes.
"... The obvious plan in a potentially so-called 'multipolar' World is to ally with the third power -- it is weaker than the second, and in any case it is more congenial, and ultimately most important! it is Energy-Land rich. ..."
"... IMHO personal interests don't weigh heavily here (as some have suggested) however the Tillerson - Oil axis was and remains a supreme consideration (minus Tillerson.) ..."
"... The blame Russia game is very much a sub-rosa contemp. war between corporate + mafia-like factions for control of parts of the NWO. BOA and power-sharing (in the W) is now very vulnerable, or is even being destroyed, (even NATO is at risk!), everyone is scrambling, therefore the over-the-top moves and fights. ..."
"... Any evidence blaming Russia is good to go - the aim is: a) to convince the public, who will absorb some headlines and 'hate' Russia even more, b) to re-assure the players on the anti-R side, we are doing it, and the public is on our side, etc. having the most powerful propaganda organ(S) is a guarantee of the ultimate 'win' it is said so they make up things out of whole cloth. ..."
IMO Trump isn't trying to achieve anything more than to negotiate an agreement that is
favorable to USA/NATO. The Deep State would be happy if an acceptable agreement could be
reached as it would split Russia from China. Jackrabbit at 13.
I suppose Jackr means achieving 'nothing specific' (e.g. Iran's future role in Syria,
etc.), .. OK. Second part IMHO, Trump was/is trying to organise the New World Order (as the
old order, set up at Bretton Woods, is dead or dying) and he means to ensure or create a
'favorable' position for the US. The obvious plan in a potentially so-called 'multipolar'
World is to ally with the third power -- it is weaker than the second, and in any case it is
more congenial, and ultimately most important! it is Energy-Land rich.
IMHO personal interests don't weigh heavily here (as some have suggested) however the
Tillerson - Oil axis was and remains a supreme consideration (minus Tillerson.)
One reason, not mentioned, for Trump's pro-Russia stance is that his base is pro-R and
détente or even strong cooperation with Russia was a heavily implied electoral
promise. Russians are White and they are Orthodox, Christians of a kind (in the popular US
imagination..) and Putin is seen as a strong, competent and 'savvy' leader. 90% of
evangelicals in the US voted for Trump for ex. (Catch the Boers (white) in S Africa wanting
to emigrate to Russia..see news.) Nothing slant-eyed about the Russkies! (apologies to
sensitive US souls on 'race' issue - i am not up to date re PC speech.)
DT's seeming 'ban' of Muslims (the entry / visa hoopla, hardly an attack that provoked
deaths) also satisfied the base and was a strong and direct jab at the support, payment for
and exploitation of islamists (Muslim brotherhood / mercenary forces / terrorists etc. Killed
off and still feared by Russia on their turf )
Russia always makes positive noises about the presumed / known winner of the US elections.
This worked fine with Bush (remember Georgie glommed Putin's soul), was difficult with Obama
(a secret muslim, not a US citizen, it was said, etc.), link, but a sure fire thing with
Trump, as Putin-Russia knew DT would win (imho.)
The blame Russia game is very much a sub-rosa contemp. war between corporate +
mafia-like factions for control of parts of the NWO. BOA and power-sharing (in the W) is now
very vulnerable, or is even being destroyed, (even NATO is at risk!), everyone is scrambling,
therefore the over-the-top moves and fights.
Any evidence blaming Russia is good to go - the aim is: a) to convince the public, who
will absorb some headlines and 'hate' Russia even more, b) to re-assure the players on the
anti-R side, we are doing it, and the public is on our side, etc. having the most powerful
propaganda organ(S) is a guarantee of the ultimate 'win' it is said so they make up things
out of whole cloth.
- Page 14 and 15: This is hilariously stupid! These Russian super spy agents on June
15, 2016, 4:19 MOSCOW TIME and they DID NOT HACK, BUT LOGGED INTO the DNC server and
spent 37 minutes to search for files or that included words (that is for the techo's out
there, they "grep") for the following words:
* some hundred sheets
* some hundreds of sheets
* dcleaks
* illuminati
* широко
известный
перевод (meaning: widely known translation)
* worldwide known
* think twice about
* company's competence
So what kind of super spies, and super hackers would use "some hundred sheets" and "some
hundreds of sheets" as two separate searches. Every computer geek knows that if you don't
waste time to do virtually two identical searches like those. Who ever did these searches
(after they logged in!) knows nothing about searching. The whole tech. world knows if you are
going to do hacking, you use things like Linux grep/sed tools and you wouldn't waste your
time doing pointless duplicitous searches. Why doesn't FBI state what tools were used, every
is logged, or it should be. Thus this person whom ever it was, was naive.
So here is the big one! Foreign hackers are looking for about people talking about the
Illuminati! ARE YOU KIDDING ME!...BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!
Another stupid one! Russian hackers searching DNC files for RUSSIAN STRINGS This is
turning into a circus.
So you mean to tell me Russian hackers that logged into a computer (that is they didn't
hacked, the FBI stated as much), are looking about for files about nonsensical matter
including Russian Word Strings. You can't even make this stuff up. THE FBI ARE
CLOWNS!!!
So it goes on page 15 and 16, that these search words to comprise the breathtaking proof
that the culprit then was to admit these words:
Worldwide known cyber security company XXXX announced that the DNC servers have been hacked
by "sophisticated" hacker groups. I'm very please the company appreciated my skill highly .
Some hundred sheets! This's a serious case, isn't it?
I guess XXXX Customers should think twice about company's competence.
F*** the illuminati and their conspiracies
And when did this happen? Some 2 hours later, at 7:02pm.
So think about this! They wrote that paragraph AFTER the search! So how do you search for
something in 37 minutes that you don't know it exists, and with such meaningless words to
write a bragging paragraph, that was supposedly ON the DNC server itself! Meaning, the person
who logged in knew it existed and quickly went looking for where it was to extract it, and
then use later as to frame the Russians!
Look at the time line. The FBI only found that it was a DNC employee that logged in,
looking for something that shouldn't exist in anyway on his server, unless of course he wrote
it himself, and that was to use it frame the Russians. Remember that paragraph was ON THE DNC
Server!!!!
The FBI are morons! This indictment will be thrown out quick smart, and the FBI should be
brought up on charges of aiding and abetting a crime!
Dorian 9
Yeah. That part was funny, too. Why would they launch some oddball searches and then later
use those same words in a post at WordPress? It's like they were trying to get caught ...
unless something else is going on.
Rod Rosenstein had a press conference on July 13th, 2018 where he broke the news that 12
Russians were being indicted for hacking into the DNC server. This was all debunked by former
NSA and father of the surveillance state Bill Binney.
So. I just read the 'indictment charges' from Rosenstein. What I can say about it on
its face is that it is NOT concrete proof of any proven act by these people. It is based
on circumstantial anecdote AND an extensive discussion about where these people fit in
their overall Russian government agency operations.
1. It describes attempts to access (through phishing operations) email IDs and
passwords of selected accounts TWO of whom the government STILL refuses to name (Hillary
Clinton and John Podesta). It also alleges these same nefarious 'Rooskie Military
Meddlers" intended (yes, intended to ) release select emails so that it might upset "the
2016 election."
Clearly here, in order to judge whatever 'effect' this may or may not have had on the
election, the GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE FORCED to completely present the actual emails they
feel were problematic. RELEASE ALL THE FECKING EMAILS! Without concrete and complete
information no reasonable assessment can be made using a "bad men do bad things"
accusation coupled with unproven claims. To me, TRUTH if outed isn't "meddling." It is
immutable. SHOW US the damaging emails FIRST!
2. Regarding the abundant and complete description of the Russian Military agency
(right down to names and positions AND who 'hacked' what account, etc. It may not be
clear to a lot of people here but it is clear to me that Rosenstein and whomever is
behind him in this little news-cycle diversion action have almost certainly blown an
embedded source in that unit. I hope it was worth it. Particularly since it is unlikely
the government WILL EVER prove its claims.
This is just a diversion operation by a closet deep-state operative who is the
effective head of the Department of Justice since Sessions has inexplicably washed his
hands of anything that should rightly be his primary duties. Rosenstein was also greatly
assisted by some IC - which one? Could be the FBI, but the asset inside that military
unit is very likely CIA. My guess is FBI and CIA working jointly in a deep-state
diversion. NSA? Reports indicate at least parts of it disagree with the hacking source
assertions.
To me, this is pretty much it. President Trump has to fire sessions and appoint a new
head who will fire Rosenstein. This person should also deadline Mueller on a short leash
and have him put up or shut up - 2 weeks maximum and then he is disbanded. The new AG
also needs to fire Director Wray because he hasn't changed the FBI culture one stinking
bit. Lastly, the clearances of Mueller, Comey, Wray, Rosenstein and the whole cabal need
to be invalidated.
ROD ROSENSTEIN - so looks completely insane. Very similar to Adam Schiff.
Does anybody remember how easy it was for Podesta to hand over his security details,
when spoofed?
Crowd Strike - used old Ukrainian malware. Had the White House Commission, plus, the
DNC allowed Crowdstrike to look at their servers, but, not the FBI. Now why was that?
FISA Judges were also colluding with the FBI in an attempt to unseat Trump.
Lisa Page and Strzok texted about setting up a dinner/cocktail party as a cover to meet
with FISA Judge Rudy Contreras.
Lisa Page has refused to cooperate with the Congressional subpoena to testify.
FISA Judge Rudy Contreras not only signed off on a FISA spying warrant against Trump, he
also sat on the Mueller team to go after General Flynn (he was removed from the Mueller
team with no explanation provided).
---------------------------------
""Rudy is on the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court]!" Page excitedly texted Strzok
on July 25, 2016. "Did you know that? Just appointed two months ago."
"I did," Strzok responded. "I need to get together with him."
"[He] said he'd gotten on a month or two ago at a graduation party we were both
at."
Contreras was appointed to the top surveillance court on May 19, 2016, federal records
show.
The pair even schemed about how to set up a cocktail or dinner party just so
Contreras, Strzok, and Page could speak without arousing suspicion that they were
colluding. Strzok expressed concern that a one-on-one meeting between the two men might
require Contreras' recusal from matters in which Strzok was involved."
http://thefederalist.com/20...
Why is someone like Rod, anywhere near the steering wheel ??? Why are he and the rest
of these political-child-clowns, not in prison ??? Where the hell, are the adults ??? A
spanking is past due !!! These folk are ALL liars and thieves.
Peter Strzok was "out of scope" (lying) during his last Polygraph test in 2016.
Strzok, thus, lost his security clearance to allow his participation with FBI in the
Trump "investigation". So HOW did Strzok participate. Anyone involved in that breach of
security procedure should be immediately arrested.
and the non stop b.s. just flows from Rosendueches mouth.... and of course that
traitor disgrace scumbag McCain has to get his dying words in. Someone put a pillow over
that Rinos' pukehole already.
Seth Rich (DNC database employee) was the likely leaker of the DNC emails (see Assange
and Kim Dot Com).
Awan Bros (Pakistani) were given total access to dozens of Democrat Congressional
computers w/o ANY security clearance. None of the Dem Congressmen questioned that. Awan
Bros seemed to be laundering $$$ through their "car business" called CIA.
-------------------------
"Imran Awan and his family members were congressional IT aides who investigators said
made unauthorized access to the House Democratic Caucus server thousands of times. At the
same time as they worked for and could read all the emails of congressmen who sat on
committees like Intelligence, Homeland Security and Foreign Affairs, they also ran a car
dealership that took money from a Hezbollah-linked fugitive and whose financial books
were indecipherable and business patterns bizarre, according to testimony in court
records."
http://dailycaller.com/2017...
Rosenstein made a pathetic attempt to set the political table to block the scheduled
one-on-one meeting between Trump & Putin. These clowns are so predictable.
Both Chuck Schumer and McCain (Deep State operatives) came out saying that Trump should
not meet with Putin because it would be an insult to our "Democracy".
---------------------------------------------------------------
"Chuck Schumer (D-NY) called for President Trump to cancel his one-on-one meeting with
Russian President Vladimir Putin. "President Trump should cancel his meeting with
Vladimir Putin until Russia takes demonstrable and transparent steps to prove that they
won't interfere in future elections," he wrote in a statement. "Glad-handing with
Vladimir Putin on the heels of these indictments would be an insult to our democracy."
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) also came out against the meeting, writing in a statement that if
Trump "is not prepared to hold Putin accountable, the summit in Helsinki should not move
forward."
https://www.thedailybeast.c...
i like Binney; he's a straight shooter. Glad he's called bs on the MSM and intel
community narrative about the "hacking" of the DNC servers, and the
nonsense/impossibility of the DNC emails being hacked and transmitted from within, as the
data transfer rates were absolutely impossible to perform over the internet; it's why the
likelihood of a dl to a thumb drive or other portable data storage device, a handoff to
an intermediary, and surreptitious delivery to Assange is the MOST likely scenario.
The Liar simply keeps employing the Hitlerian "Big Lie" tactic of her pretending to be
an authority figure, and repeatedly reiterating "Wikileaks Russian hacking," which she
KNOWS is a lie before she opens her face hole and spews the green bile.
Rosensteins failed attempt to sabotage the Trump-Putin summit. Won't happen , I don't
know why this swampie is still in a position to try this. He should be fired, tried and
hung.
"in my remarks I have not identified the victims" (8:27) .....
"we need to work together to hold the perpetrators accountable"(9:21) ... certainly, he
is NOT talking about Peter Strozk, whom DOJ provided an attorney with advice not to
answer Congressional questions.
"what motivation they had, independent of what is required to prove this offense....is
not our responsibility"(10:55)
...apparently a policy change since Comey exhonorated Hillary.
"I only comment on the evidence...without regard to politics, is sufficient..."
(10:15)
The DOJ has selectively chosen what facts to gather and what to zealously avoid: Did not
get the DNC server; Did not get oath for Hillary et al interviews; did not prevent Awan
family computer consultants from fleeing; Did not accurately identify classified
documents marked "c" on Hillary server; FISA judge, Rudolph Contreras, was FORCIBLY
recused from the Michael Flynn Case, after he approved surveillance on Trump campaign
members.
Time to rewrite the rules for DOJ/FBI and/or reorg the entire agencies with better
accountability. Certainly remove auto access to NSA info. Congress needs the power to
indict any current of former federal employee and enforce it through the US Marshals.
Dems are so stupid.
John Podesta's office gave his password to hackers.
Podesta was Hillary's campaign chairman.
"The hack and eventual release of a decade's worth of Hillary Clinton campaign
chairman John Podesta's emails may have been caused by a typo, The New York Times
reported Tuesday in an in-depth piece on Russian cyberattacks.
Last March, Podesta received an email purportedly from Google saying hackers had tried
to infiltrate his Gmail account. When an aide emailed the campaign's IT staff to ask if
the notice was real, Clinton campaign aide Charles Delavan replied that it was "a
legitimate email" and that Podesta should "change his password immediately."
Instead of telling the aide that the email was a threat and that a good response would
be to change his password directly through Google's website, he had inadvertently told
the aide to click on the fraudulent email and give the attackers access to the
account.
http://thehill.com/policy/c...
Delavan told the Times he had intended to type "illegitimate," a typo he still has not
forgiven himself for making.
More importantly: the content of the hacked emails should have been the story not who
hacked or leaked them...........
Thank the Deepstate Project mockingbird media for that....
Rosenstein has the demeanor of a pedophile seducing a child. After listening to this,
I need to take a long, hot shower. Just listening to him makes me feel dirty.
Back to paper ballots. At least the cheating can be done locally!
Timing of this is unbelievable. Deep state really don't want Trump to meet with Putin.
Why?
Putin has some dark secrets Demoncrats don't want Trump to find out? Smells phishy to
me.
All I have to say is that a man that would break his wedding vows is capable of
anything. This man should have lost his FBI Security Clearance the day it was found out
that he was cheating on his wife. Adultery alone is more than enough to remove a security
clearance, and many employers would fire someone that committed adultery.
"Cheating on your spouse can even be grounds for losing your job. This is particularly
true in the military, where adultery has a maximum punishment of a dishonorable discharge
and confinement for one year, according to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. In the
past eight years, 30% of the commanders fired lost their jobs due to sexual misconduct,
including adultery, the Associated Press reports".
We are going full circle now. What this agent is telling us is precisely what we
learned from Alex and from Q. These two are not in contradiction, but they are
complementing each other. They just deal with different aspects of the swamp. It has been
an amazing journey to follow Alex-Q-Fox-Trump. Some uncomfortable details have been
exposed at Strzok's hearing. Some annonymous source exposed RR in connection of Seth
Rich. Trump is about to speak with Russia. All of a sudden RR is feeling the heat under
the pan.He realized he is the frog being cooked in low fire. RR has just raised the white
flag and wants to patch up a nice history that doesn't implicate anybody in America. All
he is praying for is a peaceful resolution of this whole Russia mess. But not so fast, he
still left a knife hanging over Trump's presidency, that is a illegitimate election. RR
still believes in the impeachment depending on the midterm elections.
Who could "plant hundreds of files, containing malicious computer code" on people's
computers. In addition to the Russians, anybody in the world could, after Wikileaks
published the contents of the CIA's "Vault 7" with the exact same code as is known to be
used by foreign governments.
For sure. Look how this psychopathic faced SOB spins as if the Ruskies stole the
entire Electoral College. Let's not also be naive - the US has significantly
(murderously) interfered w/foreign elections past 100 yrs. Then we go about killing those
we select and support - like Noriega, Saddam, Momar (the Shah) and the Assads. Don't buy
this crap. Binney is the most knowledgeable and honest on this matter that I've reviewed.
Look into him and consider trusting his reports.
Dont forget Mossadeq, a dually elected Iranian Prime minister who tried to nationalize
Irans Oil. Installed a minor Grunt by the Name of Reza Shah Pahlavi, whsmgiven Persia on
a Silver platter so long as he was chummy with the Western Oll Barrons. Then the
resulting domino effect with the Islamic Republic of Iran and our current troubles.
Everythiing the Global Deep State touches turns to garbage, they just rape the
resources in all its forms before the Rot goes terminal, oldest tricks are indeed the
best ones.
Another B.S Charge to distract from Strzok, Page Disaster for the Deep State. When the
FBI Lovers turn States Evidence Many of the Top FBI , DOJ Officials will be heading to
Prisons. Rogue FBI has No Credibility any longer after all the Deceit and Corruptions
They engaged in. The reason I Switched from Democrat Voter to Trump Voter is because
Putin called Me at the Last Minute before I sent out My Ballot. He does call me Once in a
While to see If I wanna Go get a Burger at IN N Out and stop and Have a Glass of KGB
Vodka. at a Local Bar in Commiefornia. Just don`t tell the FBI or the Corrupt DemoFreaks
about it. They are so desperate they may come and Bust Me. and Charge Me with Colluding
with the Ruskies.
[RR] has just told America how the DNC was rigging elections ,,,, thanks Rod,
First it was 12 Russians a few months ago with different backgrounds. One of the 12 come
to the USA and demand to see all the evidence against him. Mueller declines and nothing
more is heard about the Russian hacking.
Now its 12 military persons, its a different 12 people but DOJ deep state liars had to
cover for the first set of 12 bs indictments hoping Americans would not remember that
Mueller's indictments go away.
These RR Doj scum bags keep telling lys and they keep getting bigger.
They scumbags picked 12 military people this time because they now the military people
can not com to the USA to ask to see the evidence.
These DOJ traitors are about to have their ass's handed to them, they are so
stupid.
The only thing worse than fake news is, fake indictments.
Rosenstein is dying for credibility, all the while trying to avoid risking prison for
treason.
Rosenstein is J. Edger Hover the second, gathering investigation results to bribe
congressional and federal officials for power and extortion, while shielding criminals
from prosecution.
This creep needs to swing for treason. This isn't why the FBI or DOJ was created. FBI
rank and file and DOJ deserve better.
I'm realizing that in the deep state within the CIA, DOj, and FBI there are a range of
factions. There are RINO factions, progressive factions, and cowboy factions like I think
Rosenstein fits into. Rosenstein may actually be in it for himself, never the less, he is
selling out America, he commits treason.
I'll bet he's even a cross dresser like J Edger was.....
These creeps and clowns share one thing, they have massively abused their power, and
will band together to fight to survive. This is no joke, they may join forces and go to
war against America.
Rosenstein's wife, Lisa Barsoomian, is a protected CIA operative and FOIA shot
blocker....
Barsoomian represented :
Robert Muller three times
James Comey five times
Barack Obama 45 times
Kathleen Sebelius 56 times
Bill Clinton 40 times and
Hillary Clinton 17 times
between 1998 and 2017
She has specialized in opposing Freedom of Information Act requests on behalf of the
intelligence community.
Just saw a would-be meme on my Facebook feed . . . to the general effect that the FBI
still hasn't even looked at the DNC's computer or server, but Mueller's indicted 12 Russians
for 'hacking' them.
Of course, there is that old quote from a New York state judge that a prosecutor could get
a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. (Which also reminds me of a riddle: Why is a ham
sandwich better than perfect happiness? Well, nothing is better than perfect happiness,
right? -- and a ham sandwich is certainly better than nothing. . . .)
"... Yes, this indictment is an obvious poison pill meant to ruin or postpone the summit. Chuck Shumer immediately called for cancelling the summit after Rod Rosenstein made his indictment announcement. ..."
"... Also consider that the House was just about to impeach Rod Rosenstein for obstruction. He has refused to release evidence to Congress regarding the FBI and it's motivations during the Hillary email investigation and also the Russiagate investigation. ..."
"... Item 38 of the Indictment claims that the "Alice Donovan" persona - which as a journalist submitted articles to CounterPunch and other sites - was used by the alleged Conspirators to set up a DCLeaks Facebook page in June 2016. ..."
"... While I anticipate the MSM Russophobes have already declared a slam dunk, the question, in my mind, is whether the "loyal opposition" (various DNC astrotuf) will actually even ATTEMPT to mobilize protests. (I think there may be ongoing Sunday family demonstrations to "attach" to). ..."
"... The DNC "resistance" has promised that if Mueller is fired, there will be thousands in the street ... Forcing Trump to cancel Helsinki would be an impressive wielding of "power" (numbers) they claim to have ... If they make no effort (my guess), well, that would be predictable ... ..."
"... So we're to believe that the Russian CIA does not have any access to English speaking translators and that when it wants to write a fake email in English as part of an elaborate plot against the United States, it uses Google? This sounds much more like the actions of a lone rogue hacker or small group of private hackers than the action of the secret intelligence agency of a major power. ..."
"... ""SERVERS The hackers used a server in AZ but then ran that through a server "overseas." The hackers leased a DCCC computer in Illinois. The use of infrastructure within the US suggests much of the hot air around transfer times -- one of the key attempts to debunk the hack -- is just that, hot air."" https://www.emptywheel.net/2018/07/13/the-russian-hack/ . ..."
"... it would have been impossible had the alleged victims not been idiotically, criminally negligent in handling their email accounts. What's more, it's incredible that US intelligence services and the Dem Party apparatus are willing to reveal how easily their systems were compromised and how helpless they were in reacting to it. ..."
"... Most of the information revealed from the DNC emails was either rather innocuous or confirmed what everyone already knew (that the entire Dem political and media establishment had pre-anointed HRC). Anyone who believes that the "Deep State" is some cabal of demonic masterminds is a giant fool. The best and brightest in DC are cack-handed sociopathic gangsters of middling intelligence and no imagination . ..."
"... It does appear that the whole Russian influence/DNC-Gluccifer/etc. stuff is bullshit. Just like the Trump dossier, White Helmets, Assange rape allegations, Skripal poisoning by Russia, and more. Sickening. ..."
"... It occurred to me that while HRC was Secretary of State, one reason to run her business on private servers was to avoid exposing her mix of private/public activities to open view. The same factor would apply at the DNC. Not that the DOS would have state-of-the-art tech security, but playing outside the field leads to depending on savvy conspirators or naive duds for your operations. So, in order to keep things quiet, Crowdstrike is the provider of cover. I would not want to be the provider of record for the Clinton gang or the DNC. Total fail. Although, Podesta was an idiot to be phished. ..."
"... One side of the current indictment scenario that could play into Trump's upcoming meeting with Putin, is that trashing the opposite party prior to negotiations is Trump's modus operandi. ..."
"... On the other hand, this entire kerfuffle has diverted attention away from those individuals, industries and countries that absolutely did collude with both Candidates, and absolutely did influence not just the election, but also US policies ever since. ..."
Cost $95,000 to pull off this 'conspiracy' to interfere in the 2016 presidential election?
Less than took in by Clinton at a single Wall Street Banker cocktail party. Seriously, you
Russian folks need to understand, it will take at least a billion to rig an election in
America ... we don't come cheap.
Correct, he obviously is fed up with this bs witch hunt, he wont give in to deepstate nor
MSM now even though he will say he raised this issue with Putin and so forth.
Yes, this indictment is an obvious poison pill meant to ruin or postpone the summit.
Chuck Shumer immediately called for cancelling the summit after Rod Rosenstein made his
indictment announcement.
Also consider that the House was just about to impeach Rod Rosenstein for obstruction.
He has refused to release evidence to Congress regarding the FBI and it's motivations during
the Hillary email investigation and also the Russiagate investigation.
Now if the House starts impeachment proceedings they will be seen as trying to impeach a
person that just indicted 12 Russians. In other words, they will be seen as protecting
Russians.
11 - I'd like to see VIPS respond to this line by line, it looks ridiculous from first glance
but I'm not technically knowledgeable enough to comment further. Is there any chance that
Assange could prove the source was an internal leak through a release without losing face? My
immediate reaction is that they really played them selves out on this one, its too flimsy of
a production; but than I said the same thing about every chemical attack in Syria, Skribals,
etc, etc.
Thank you Dorian @9 I loved your rant and can absolutely sympathise with your astonishment.
The FBI is clueless and ridiculous and so it should be. The more I follow this Mueller and
Rosenstein circus, the more I see them as Putin's senior agents in the USA. This latest leak
looks to me to be an attempt to do Putin's bidding to derail any meaningful meeting with the
President of the USA. (Not saying that there can ever be a "meaningful meeting with any USA
President") Who in their right mind wants to meet with a lying, thieving yankee? let alone
make a deal with one!
I say Mueller and Rosenstein are Putin's puppets and the whole damn circus is designed for
ridicule. But then I might be way too far down the rabbit hole to see clearly.
""We must speak with one voice in making clear to Vladimir Putin: 'We will not allow you
to interfere in our democratic processes or those of our allies,'" Sanders wrote in a tweet
on Friday."
Gee, I seem to recall the HRC Campaign and the DNC doing far more proven damage to
the electoral process than anything Russia's allegedly done. Where was Sanders denouncement
of HRC and the DNC then?! Clearly, even more than in 2016, Bernie Sanders is a gigantic
fraud every bit as disgusting as HRC, perhaps even more so given the number of people
deluded by his actions. People like him a big part of the problem and have no part in the
solution.
Item 38 of the Indictment claims that the "Alice Donovan" persona - which as a journalist
submitted articles to CounterPunch and other sites - was used by the alleged Conspirators to
set up a DCLeaks Facebook page in June 2016.
b exclaims: "Note: The indictment reinforces the author's hunch that bitcoin and other
cryptocurrencies are creations and playgrounds of secret services just like Tor and other
'cool' internet 'privacy' stuff are. Its the very reason why one should avoid their use."
YES!
One of the things that rings my irony alarm is that the sort of "right wing" "Liberty
Movement" crowd has been warning for decades now of the One World Government plans for a
"cashless society." They feared that all transactions would be done via computer entries,
which the NWO could manipulate to either prevent a dissident from being able to buy
something, track every purchase, or simply to steal all of anyone's money.
And now, many of those same Liberty Movement voices are out there selling BitCoin, etc....
and selling it HARD.
This same Liberty Movement has been totally freaked out about the "Jack-Booted Thugs" of
the Police State for decades, too. Some USAmericans might even remember G. Gordon Liddy
telling his Radio Show followers to "go for headshots" when the coppers come (because the
police started wearing body armor).
And now, those same folks are cheering on the Pigs cracking skulls of Black Lives Matter
and anti-Trump hysterics. In fact, the LM is upset that more illegal surveillance,
unwarranted searches and extrajudicial killings aren't being done.
It still looks to me like the PTSB are tearing us apart.
While I anticipate the MSM Russophobes have already declared a slam dunk, the question,
in my mind, is whether the "loyal opposition" (various DNC astrotuf) will actually even
ATTEMPT to mobilize protests. (I think there may be ongoing Sunday family demonstrations to
"attach" to).
The DNC "resistance" has promised that if Mueller is fired, there will be thousands in
the street ... Forcing Trump to cancel Helsinki would be an impressive wielding of "power"
(numbers) they claim to have ... If they make no effort (my guess), well, that would be
predictable ...
Does anyone know if these latest charges are still based on that CrowdStrike "report?"
That is, DNC refused to let FBI have access to their servers so that FBI could run their
own forensics. All previous IC claims have been based on CrowdStrike claims.
Did FBI finally get ahold of those servers, and if so, could they possibly still have had
such evidence on them? Weren't they professionally scrubbed years ago?
See Item 41 in the indictment. "On or about June 15th 2016, the 'Conspirators ...' looked up
certain words and phrases on Google Translate, phrases which were later used by "Guccifer
2.0".
So we're to believe that the Russian CIA does not have any access to English speaking
translators and that when it wants to write a fake email in English as part of an elaborate
plot against the United States, it uses Google? This sounds much more like the actions of a
lone rogue hacker or small group of private hackers than the action of the secret
intelligence agency of a major power.
I have read that the indictment says that different offices/locations were targeted, so no.
""SERVERS The hackers used a server in AZ but then ran that through a server
"overseas." The hackers leased a DCCC computer in Illinois. The use of infrastructure
within the US suggests much of the hot air around transfer times -- one of the key attempts
to debunk the hack -- is just that, hot air."" https://www.emptywheel.net/2018/07/13/the-russian-hack/
.
about Crowdstrike:
CROWDSTRIKE
The indictment describes Crowdstrike's efforts to oust the hackers, but notes that a Linux
based version of X-Agent remained on DNC's network until October 2016.
Part of the "big reveal" (with apparent date discrepancies) is that "the hackers" had a
lot of targets over a long period of time.
I still think Trump was joking when he suggested "the Russians" could help him out by
finding the missing (HRC deleted) e-mails not recovered / found during the server
investigation .... poppycock ... but his "joke" was leapt on at the time and (embarassingly)
is claimed to be a "smoking gun" or "trigger" for the hacking.
Yeah, there seems to be very very little there there
I posted the following in response to Debsisdead wondering what was going on at
CounterPunch.
Then there was that whole thing where they were publishing articles written by an avatar
going by the name of Alice Donovan. I don't know what to make that whole thing. I will say
that some of her articles did discuss inconvenient truths that the MSM tries to play up as
"conspiracy theories" (eg. Obama Administration sent weapons to Syria that ISIL received).
But, she also wrote really bizarre stuff indicating she was not whom she claimed to be.
"...the question, in my mind, is whether the "loyal opposition" (various DNC astrotuf)
will actually even ATTEMPT to mobilize protests. (I think there may be ongoing Sunday family
demonstrations to "attach" to)."
I've been assigned to a 'Two Minutes Hate" for Saturday morning. ;-)
Honestly, I wouldn't put it past the ruthless and perfidious Russian intel services to have
actually done this, but it would have been impossible had the alleged victims not been
idiotically, criminally negligent in handling their email accounts. What's more, it's
incredible that US intelligence services and the Dem Party apparatus are willing to reveal
how easily their systems were compromised and how helpless they were in reacting to it.
Most of the information revealed from the DNC emails was either rather innocuous or
confirmed what everyone already knew (that the entire Dem political and media establishment
had pre-anointed HRC). Anyone who believes that the "Deep State" is some cabal of demonic
masterminds is a giant fool. The best and brightest in DC are cack-handed sociopathic
gangsters of middling intelligence and no imagination .
And even if this accusation is true, they have yet to find any actual collusion between
the Trump campaign and Russian government officials, which is the entire (official anyway)
point of the investigation. They have yet to prove that there was any effect on the outcome
of the election. If the Russians are guilty of hacking they will deny, if they are innocent
they will deny. This is Whitewater Redux, where flimsy allegation of criminal activity is
used to dig and dig and dig until they find something juicy that can be used to prosecute.
Ironic!
If Mueller is so sure the 12 intelligence officers are guilty and Putin is so sure they
are innocent, he ought to fly them to DC to stand trial. Professional courtesy from one
secret policeman to another.
The indictment flies in the face of the great research of the meta data carried out by the
Forensicator and Adam Carter. Which practically proves the leaks were a download from the
US.
The article above has many links referring to that research and the backdrop.
I - and everyone else here - agree that this pathetic "indictment" is an act of complete
desperation, designed to fool the foolables.
Re: "The indictment reinforces the author's hunch that bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are
creations and playgrounds of secret services just like Tor and other 'cool' internet
'privacy' stuff are. Its the very reason why one should avoid their use."
It does appear that the whole Russian influence/DNC-Gluccifer/etc. stuff is bullshit.
Just like the Trump dossier, White Helmets, Assange rape allegations, Skripal poisoning by
Russia, and more. Sickening.
To clarify, the following is from Rosenstein's announcement, not the indictment.
"There is no allegation in this indictment that any American citizen committed a crime.
There is no allegation that the conspiracy changed the vote count or affected any election
result. The special counsel's investigation is ongoing and there will be no comments on the
special counsel at this time.""
What's more, it's incredible that US intelligence services and the Dem Party
apparatus are willing to reveal how easily their systems were compromised and how helpless
they were in reacting to it. Most of the information revealed from the DNC emails was
either rather innocuous or confirmed what everyone already knew (that the entire Dem
political and media establishment had pre-anointed HRC)
Exactly. It occurred to me that while HRC was Secretary of State, one reason to run
her business on private servers was to avoid exposing her mix of private/public activities to
open view. The same factor would apply at the DNC. Not that the DOS would have
state-of-the-art tech security, but playing outside the field leads to depending on savvy
conspirators or naive duds for your operations. So, in order to keep things quiet,
Crowdstrike is the provider of cover. I would not want to be the provider of record for the
Clinton gang or the DNC. Total fail. Although, Podesta was an idiot to be phished.
One side of the current indictment scenario that could play into Trump's upcoming
meeting with Putin, is that trashing the opposite party prior to negotiations is Trump's
modus operandi. See his comments re: Brexit a day ago, then the gushing with May over
the special nature of their most special of special relationships. What looks like a dagger
to the back by Rosenstein, while the boss was out of town, will likely get chuckles at the
summit.
Trump knows very well that this "Breaking News" is meant to disrupt the meeting with Putin.
Trump hates Mueller, so I guess he will briefly mentioned the 'crime' to Putin who will ask
for tangible proofs and Trump will throw the request to Mueller and pass to another more
important issue. Trump does care about been criticized for that, he know that he would be
criticized anyway.,
"And even if this accusation is true, they have yet to find any actual collusion between
the Trump campaign and Russian government officials, which is the entire (official anyway)
point of the investigation. They have yet to prove that there was any effect on the outcome
of the election. "
Yep. On the other hand, this entire kerfuffle has diverted attention away from those
individuals, industries and countries that absolutely did collude with both Candidates, and
absolutely did influence not just the election, but also US policies ever since.
Oh look! A squirrel! Gotta go chase that squirrel!
Trump will most likely just let the Russia dunnit garbage run. It doesn't bother him or slow
him down in any way, it is a thorn in the side for Russia, and gives Trump media cover while
setting up energy dominance.
To Trump, Russia is a competitor in the energy business.
So everyone got what they wanted. Trump can claim he has been proven free of collusion with
Russia. Dems and neocons can claim they were right that Russia did it, even though the
indictment lacks any proof of this.
Trump can use indictments to justify his backtracking on his campaign promises to improve
relations with Russia , and justify continued sanctions, increase military spending, push
NATO allies to buy more from American weapons dealers, and push EU members to block Russian
gas lines
Meanwhile the real elephant in the room continues to be ignored and control both parties,
influence elections, dictate foreign policy and economic decisions , disseminate fake news to
alter public perceptions, etc....
Well, heck, the list of defendants is itself proof that Mueller is desperate that this case
never comes before a court.
How do I know that?
Easy. His previous indictment named persons AND companies, which allowed Concord
Management to surprise everyone by demanding its day in court.
This time around he has only indicted individuals.
He pointedly does not indicted any companies.
This means that a Russian individual has to put their freedom at risk by taking up the
challenge, and Mueller obviously believes that nobody will be willing to do that.
I think he is going to be proved wrong yet again.
I predict that one or more of those defendants does, indeed, step foot on US soil and
demands to be put on trial, and this is going to shake the Mueller investigation to its
core.
The reason I am confident that this will happen is that
a) it is likely that at least one of those defendants does indeed work for Russian
intelligence, and
b) Russian intelligence knows full well that Mueller has nothing and is bluffing
So they will take that person aside and say: Boris/Dimitry/Ivan/baby, go over there and
call their bluff. If they fold then you come home and live like a king. If they convict you
then sit tight and we'll arrange a spy-swap, then you come home and live like a king. What do
you say?
Let's not take a look at the U$A's corrupt and horribly broken "election" systems,
suppression of voters, and outright bought and paid for "representatives". That, would be too
much trouble..
George Steele penned many a masterful dossier, some extraordinarily clever counterfeit
handwritten memoirs, and a pot-boiling John LaCarre spin-off cold-war spy-novel or two.
Steel's drinking has paralyzed his brain; he can't think of anything, he lauds
Skripal's
brilliant descriptions of the two russian prostitutes peeing on barak obama's hotel bed.
WHAT does Skripal do for a living? he writes. Sergei sees himself as a new dostoyevski
!
I agree with those who have argued that whole the Skripal meme is Hillary's gang
goofing
on the Brits. This pee-pee dossier is THE evidentiary source of the Mueller investigation
Yeah the Rowdy Lion has blocked and bearded Russia historically, that's why they make
great patsies for the Yankees whose criminal minds can not get over losing that election!
Put yourself in the place of a maniac primed to be a coddled goddess President of the
USA
¿Wouldn't YOU call reliable old insider George Steele (not knowing the man is
ossified)?
Once the gang realized that Steele's brain was fried, they could not let Sergei Skripal
die.
The always sober Prof. Stephen Cohen warned this would happen on the 11/07, and so it came to
pass. He picked these guys like a dirty nose. The Mueller investigation needs to be shut
down, the cloak of what it is pretending to be has fallen off.
***
Summitgate and the Campaign vs. 'Peace'
Not surprisingly, Trump's meetings with NATO and Putin are being portrayed as ominous events
by Russiagaters.
By Stephen F. Cohen
Excerpt
Also not surprisingly, and unlike in the past, mainstream media have found little place for
serious discussion of today's dangerous conflicts between Washington and Moscow: regarding
nuclear-weapons-imitation treaties, cyber-warfare, Syria, Ukraine, Eastern Europe, the
Black Sea region, even Afghanistan. It's easy to imagine how Trump and Putin could agree on
conflict-reduction and cooperation in all of these realms. But considering the traducing by
the Post, Times, and Maddow of a group of senators who visited Moscow around July 4, it's
much harder to see how the defamed Trump could implement such "peace deals." (There is a
long history of sabotaging or attempting to sabotage summits and other détente-like
initiatives. Indeed, a few such attempts have been evident in recent months and more may
lie ahead.)
There is nothing illegal in and of itself about influencing an election in a foreign
country. Unless doing so is in violation of other laws, such as hacking or violating campaign
financing laws.
And it is most certainly illegal for people to collude with foreign nationals to interfere
in an election, and I suspect that Mueller's next step will be to connect these 12 indicted
Russians with members of the Trump campaign.
Mueller is proceeding very slowly and keeping his cards close to his chest, he knows that
any case he presents has to be fully free of flaws or contradictions as it will be attacked
from all sides.
the comments here range from delusional to outright psychotic
Trump has no ability to outsmart anyone let alone Putin.....take a look at north
Korea...where he declared the threat of nuclear war was over....he mouths a few slogans and
fools try to spin and interpret for the masses of fools what he is talking about.
his choice of staff and advisors were so comical they have all been removed and in their
place are the lowest slime of any swamp..reflecting the attitudes and racism of their leader
who seeks only to enrich himself which he has been doing through foreign affairs....now with
Russia where there is still enthusiasm for america....and where he gets a lot of cash...he
seeks to cozy up to Putin at the expense of NATO partners where he deflects his ignorance by
creating distraction.....again relying on others to explain.
if you all don't think Mueller is developing a real case because he doesn't expose it
while seeking indictments...that is your choice...but don't go on from there to assert it
someone makes the idiocy of Trump legitimate...it does not!
"They" really don't want Trump talking to Putin. Since they can't stop it; sabotage the
meeting. This harkens back to the Gary Powers shoot down... That one worked.
It's hilarious really! But also frightening. As Dorian pointed out, nobody doing "hacking"
are that amateurish, and certainly not the Russians or Chinese for that matter. It pobably
the clods in Cheltenham that are responsible, it bears all the marks of failure, so its
probably British.
I think the Russians got me last night! I woke up this morning, with tremors and shaking, not
feeling well at at all. I was not foaming at the mouth, but I did have a greenish tinge to
the skin and i looked bad in the mirror. I am sure it is Novichok.
How did the Russians know that i would buy that particular single malt! They probably
spied, and knew I would get an Oban and they poisoned me. If I do not comment again, know,
that I too have fallen victim to their devious games. In the meantime I will try to self
medicate with a stout or too. Pray for me. Donations accepted BTW.
Forensic evidence has already proven that the data on the DNC server was downloaded on a USB
thump drive. The bombshells in Robert Mueller's indictment of 12 Russian intelligence
officers, hackers of DNC server, put a damper on Trump's one on one visit with Putin.
Well, you start by blurting out a secret about DNC hack: there was no hack, there was a
leak, but the leaker Seth Rich was conveniently killed during "botched robbery". Guess who
ordered this murder? Obviously, it couldn't have been someone low in the food chain, as the
"investigation" of Seth Rich murder is going exactly nowhere in two years. The Dems via
Mueller just keep whipping the dead horse of "Russiagate" out of desperation.
But next you undermine your credibility claiming that Putin installed Trump. Unfortunately
for Putin, he does not have the resources to do that. Ludicrous sums allegedly spent by
mysterious Russians bandied about by Mueller's "investigation" show that Putin did not have
the money to affect the billion-dollar show that the US presidential elections have become.
Of course, corrupt mad witch, who outspent Trump 2:1 and still lost, would like to blame
someone other than herself, but her story is dead in the water. The Dems betrayed their own
electorate, white working-class people, and lost it forever. The fringe groups they gained
cannot offset that loss.
Trump won the elections not because he was so good, but because his opponent was utterly
repulsive. However, in contrast to Obama and the witch, Trump shows some street smarts: he
prefers to make deals with strong competitors, rather than fight them and sustain huge
losses.
BTW, you forgot that Trump's inclination to make deals includes China, which is certainly
not Christian. Basically, his is a common-sense approach that even an average Joe can
understand. Hence the hysterics of establishment-owned Dems and Republicans. So, I'd say God
bless common sense and the people possessing it.
"... Mr. Rucker reported to those of you, the four of you there, in the presence of the ICIG attorney, that they had found this anomaly on Hillary Clinton's emails going through her private server, and when they had done the forensic analysis, they found that her emails, every single one except for four, over 30,000 of them, were going to an address that was not on the distribution list. It was a compartmentalized bit of information that was sending it to an unauthorized source. Do you recall that? ..."
"... you thanked him, you shook his hand. The problem is it was going to an unauthorized source that was a foreign entity unrelated to Russia and from what you've said here, you did nothing more than nod and shake the man's hand when you didn't seem to be all that concerned about our national integrity of our election when it was involving Hillary Clinton. So the forensic examination was done by the ICIG -- and I can document that -- but you were given that information and you did nothing with it." ..."
Regardless of any findings re Russia- Trump -- -I would think a presidential campaign cc-ing
all of its emails to a foreign country, not Russia , needs its own investigation. As Putin
said not long ago 'maybe it was the Jews.
HILLARY CLINTON'S COMPROMISED EMAILS WERE GOING TO A FOREIGN ENTITY – NOT
RUSSIA
(excerpts)
"Hillary Clinton's emails, "every single one except for four, over 30,000 of them, were
going to an address that was not on the distribution list," Texas Congressman Louis Gohmert
said on Friday. And they went to "an unauthorized source that was a foreign entity
unrelated to Russia." The information came from Intelligence Community Inspector General
Chuck McCullough, who sent his investigator Frank Rucker, along with an ICIG attorney Janette
McMillan, to brief Strzok
And what "foreign entity" got Hillary's classified emails? Trump haters in British
Intelligence and those in Israel who want to manipulate the US presidency – whatever
party prevails – come to mind. Listen closely and you may hear rumors around Washington
that it was Israel, not Russia, that was the foreign power involved in approaching Trump
advisers. Time to follow that thread
The Gohmert/Strzok exchange:
Gohmert: You said earlier in this hearing you were concerned about a hostile
foreign power affecting the election. Do you recall the former Intelligence Community
Inspector General Chuck McCullough having an investigation into an anomaly found on Hillary
Clinton's emails?
Strzok: I do not.
Gohmert: Let me refresh your memory. The Intelligence Community Inspector General
Chuck McCullough sent his investigator Frank Rucker along with an IGIC attorney Janette
McMillan to brief you and Dean Chapelle and two other FBI personnel who I won't name at this
time, about an anomaly they had found on Hillary Clinton's emails that were going to and from
the private unauthorized server that you were supposed to be investigating?
Strzok : I remember meeting Mr. Rucker on either one or two occasions. I do not
recall the specific content or discussions.
Gohmert: Well then, I'll help you with that too then. Mr. Rucker reported to
those of you, the four of you there, in the presence of the ICIG attorney, that they had
found this anomaly on Hillary Clinton's emails going through her private server, and when
they had done the forensic analysis, they found that her emails, every single one except for
four, over 30,000 of them, were going to an address that was not on the distribution list. It
was a compartmentalized bit of information that was sending it to an unauthorized source. Do
you recall that?
Strozk: Sir, I don't.
Gohmert: He went on the explain it. And you didn't say anything.
Strzok: No.
Gohmert: you thanked him, you shook his hand. The problem is it was going to an
unauthorized source that was a foreign entity unrelated to Russia and from what you've said
here, you did nothing more than nod and shake the man's hand when you didn't seem to be all
that concerned about our national integrity of our election when it was involving Hillary
Clinton. So the forensic examination was done by the ICIG -- and I can document that -- but
you were given that information and you did nothing with it."
""We must speak with one voice in making clear to Vladimir Putin: 'We will not allow you
to interfere in our democratic processes or those of our allies,'" Sanders wrote in a tweet
on Friday."
Gee, I seem to recall the HRC Campaign and the DNC doing far more proven damage to
the electoral process than anything Russia's allegedly done. Where was Sanders denouncement
of HRC and the DNC then?! Clearly, even more than in 2016, Bernie Sanders is a gigantic
fraud every bit as disgusting as HRC, perhaps even more so given the number of people
deluded by his actions. People like him a big part of the problem and have no part in the
solution.
"... Indictment fuels new calls to cancel Trump-Putin summit ..."
"... Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) demanded substantial changes to the summit saying that complaining to Putin about the indictments needs to be the focus of the entire summit, and that Putin and Trump should never be allowed to be alone in a room during the meeting. ..."
"... Warner was one of the few to not call for the talks to be cancelled outright, with Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) saying the meeting needed to be cancelled "now," and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) saying that even shaking Putin's hand would be "a moment of historic cowardice." ..."
Indictment fuels new calls to cancel Trump-Putin summit
On Friday, special counsel Robert Mueller
has indicted 12 Russian GRU officers.
The 12 are
accused
of conspiring
to hack Hillary Clinton campaign and DNC computers to leak information ahead of the 2016 election.
This was the second substantial set of indictments coming out of the investigation.
In
February, the Justice Department
indicted 13 other "conspirators" claiming that they had stolen the identities
of US citizens to manipulate the campaigns. Russia has denied all the charges.
While indictments aren't surprising, as a chance to try to show that the investigation in progressing, the
timing is extremely unfortunate,
to the point that it must
raise suspicions
. The indictment, after all, comes just days before President Trump is to hold a summit with
Russia's President Vladimir Putin.
Trump was already facing bipartisan opposition to having a summit with Putin at all, based on the allegations
of election meddling. The indictments are adding fuel to the fire, sparking more calls from opponents of diplomacy
to pull out of the summit at the last minute.
Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA)
demanded substantial changes to the summit
saying that complaining to Putin about the indictments needs to be
the focus of the entire summit, and that Putin and Trump should never be allowed to be alone in a room during the
meeting.
Warner was one of the few to not call for the talks to be cancelled outright, with Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY)
saying the meeting needed to be cancelled "now," and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) saying that even shaking Putin's hand
would be "a moment of historic cowardice."
Of course, these lawmakers were all attacking the summit long before these indictments dropped, and this simply
is the new excuse for opposing the plan. With the growing sense that the Mueller investigation is
designed
to just keep going, there is also concern it's going to keep being used as a source of excuses to not
talk to Russia.
No Evidence In Mueller's Indictment Of 12 Russians - Release Now May Sabotage Upcoming
Summit
The Special counsel Robert Mueller issued an indictment (pdf, 29 pages) against 12
Russian people alleged to be officers or personal of the Russian Military Intelligence Service
GRU. The people, claims the indictment, work for an operational (26165) and a technical (74455)
subunit of the GRU.
A Grand Jury in Washington DC issued 11 charges which are described and annotated below. A
short assessment follows.
The first charge is for a "Conspiracy to Commit an Offense Against the United States" by
stealing emails and leaking them. The indictment claims that the GRU units sent spearfishing
emails to the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic Party organizations DNC and DCCC.
They used these to get access to email boxes of John Podesta and other people. They are also
accused of installing spyware (X-agent) on DNC computers and of exfiltrating emails and other
data from them. The emails were distributed and published by the online personas DCLeaks,
Guccifer II and later through Wikileaks. The indictment claims that DCLeaks and Guccifer II
were impersonations by the GRU. Wikileaks, "organization 1" in the indictment, is implicated
but so far not accused.
Note: There is a different Grand Jury for the long brewing case against Julian
Assange and Wikileaks. Assange has denied that the emails he published came from a Russian
source. Craig Murray, a former British ambassador, said that he received the emails on a trip
to Washington DC and transported them to Wikileaks.
The indictment describes in some detail how various rented computers and several domain
names were used to access the DNC and DCCC computers. The description is broadly plausible but
there is little if any supporting evidence.
Charge 2 to 9 of the indictment are about "Aggravated Identity Theft" for using usernames
and passwords for the personal email accounts of others.
Charge 10 is about a "Conspiracy to Launder Money". This was allegedly done "through a web
of transaction structured to capitalize on the perceived anonymity of cryptocurrencies such as
bitcoin". It is alleged that the accused mined bitcoins, channeled these through dozens of
accounts and transactions and then used them to rent servers, virtual private network access
and domain names used in the operation.
Note : The indictment reinforces the author's hunch that bitcoin and other
cryptocurrencies are creations and playgrounds of secret services just like Tor and other
'cool' internet 'privacy' stuff are. Its the very reason why one should avoid their use.
Such a convoluted tale in fact authored by the NSA?. Most of what the Russians are accused of
can be attributed to the NSA activities.
As Putin pointed out when the accusations were first made, no matter who is elected, US
policies remain the same. There is no motivation for RUssia to interfere.
Obviously a desperate move to torpedo the Helsinki meeting. Given that the indicted lot is in
Russia the judicial consequences will be nill.
By the way B, what do you say about the Novi-bottle found in a house surely searched over
and over? What took the searchers about ten days to found it?
One small point. Craig Murray has said he met with one of the individuals who were involved
with the DNC email release. Although he's been somewhat hazy on it, on the Scott Horton radio
show, Murray said the emails were already in the possession of Wikileaks before he met with
the individual involved. https://scotthorton.org/?powerpress_pinw=23500-podcast
Good job by Concord Management to challenge the previous bullshit. That makes it likely these
charges will also be challenged. The best thing you can do when someone living in a glass
house accuses you of doing something is to force them to expose themselves to the entire
world via evidentiary discovery; and as with the first case, it's too late to put the genie
back in the bottle. This ought to be seen as the equivalent of Novichok/Skripal debacle in
UK, which I trust people continue to follow Craig
Murray's reporting .
As we've seen, the number of Big Lies produced that end up driving policy has dramatically
increased since the USSR's disillusion, while trillions of dollars are stolen from taxpayers
and given to the global .01%--OWS clearly aimed at the heart of the beast. The indictment
will further roil domestic chaos within the Outlaw US Empire making solidarity more difficult
to obtain.
Meanwhile in other legal news, Assange has won a court order
demanding he be unmolested as he goes from Ecuadorian Embassy to airport for his flight into
Asylum. Bet the UK doesn't obey this ruling either further making it a Banana Republic.
Same ol' Deep State playbook, preaching to the converted while having little effect on
anything else. This will give Rachel Maddow many hours of profitable air time as she and her
ilk require no evidence.
However, ordinary people with lazy minds will see the headlines and think they're true and
there will be more pressure NOT to have any productive, mutually beneficial discussions with
Russia, so mission accomplished for Mueller, I guess. Anything to keep people from realizing
that Hillary was a horrible, corrupt, dangerous candidate who kept herself from winning the
election (which was easily winnable for the Democrats going in) all on her own.
How much hot and stinking air can an Empire blow before it blows itself out? Sadly, no doubt,
much more.
They have lost the narrative and don't even know it, they go on with Putin the Poisoner
and Russia did it and they keep it up because they have no choice and they live in fear
because we don't believe them any more.
- Page 14 and 15: This is hilariously stupid! These Russian super spy agents on June
15, 2016, 4:19 MOSCOW TIME and they DID NOT HACK, BUT LOGGED INTO the DNC server and
spent 37 minutes to search for files or that included words (that is for the techo's out
there, they "grep") for the following words:
* some hundred sheets
* some hundreds of sheets
* dcleaks
* illuminati
* широко
известный
перевод (meaning: widely known translation)
* worldwide known
* think twice about
* company's competence
So what kind of super spies, and super hackers would use "some hundred sheets" and "some
hundreds of sheets" as two separate searches. Every computer geek knows that if you don't
waste time to do virtually two identical searches like those. Who ever did these searches
(after they logged in!) knows nothing about searching. The whole tech. world knows if you are
going to do hacking, you use things like Linux grep/sed tools and you wouldn't waste your
time doing pointless duplicitous searches. Why doesn't FBI state what tools were used, every
is logged, or it should be. Thus this person whom ever it was, was naive.
So here is the big one! Foreign hackers are looking for about people talking about the
Illuminati! ARE YOU KIDDING ME!...BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!
Another stupid one! Russian hackers searching DNC files for RUSSIAN STRINGS This is
turning into a circus.
So you mean to tell me Russian hackers that logged into a computer (that is they didn't
hacked, the FBI stated as much), are looking about for files about nonsensical matter
including Russian Word Strings. You can't even make this stuff up. THE FBI ARE
CLOWNS!!!
So it goes on page 15 and 16, that these search words to comprise the breathtaking proof
that the culprit then was to admit these words:
Worldwide known cyber security company XXXX announced that the DNC servers have been hacked
by "sophisticated" hacker groups. I'm very please the company appreciated my skill highly .
Some hundred sheets! This's a serious case, isn't it?
I guess XXXX Customers should think twice about company's competence.
F*** the illuminati and their conspiracies
And when did this happen? Some 2 hours later, at 7:02pm.
So think about this! They wrote that paragraph AFTER the search! So how do you search for
something in 37 minutes that you don't know it exists, and with such meaningless words to
write a bragging paragraph, that was supposedly ON the DNC server itself! Meaning, the person
who logged in knew it existed and quickly went looking for where it was to extract it, and
then use later as to frame the Russians!
Look at the time line. The FBI only found that it was a DNC employee that logged in,
looking for something that shouldn't exist in anyway on his server, unless of course he wrote
it himself, and that was to use it frame the Russians. Remember that paragraph was ON THE DNC
Server!!!!
The FBI are morons! This indictment will be thrown out quick smart, and the FBI should be
brought up on charges of aiding and abetting a crime!
So obviously timed to meddle with the Trump-Putin meeting. The United States and its 5 Eyes
partners intercept and store the emails of everyone on the planet, and throws a hissy fit
over the alleged same treatment. No doubt the politicians and media personalities will ascend
their soapboxes to play wounded victims. What a farce. Sad that the public, to a degree, has
now been trained to confuse mere allegations with established fact.
The evidence that the DNC hacks were a local download by someone with legitimate access is
persuasive as shown by the group of former intel professionals who analyzed the metadata.
John Podesta's email was hacked by a phishing email that convinced him to give up his
password. Any half-competent hacker could pull this off, so blaming the Russians is pure
speculation. But, it is consistent with the attempts to blame Russia for the incompetence and
corruption of the Clinton campaign.
The social media efforts by the Internet Research Agency, besides being mostly a
commercial effort as b has shown, are also a rather insignificant portion of the billions of
messages and posts that are posted daily. That these could have had any significant effect is
really stretching the point.
All that being said, I'm still not convinced that Russian intelligence did nothing at all
to attempt to influence the election. Certainly, the US has interfered with many elections
all over the world going back decades, one of the most egregious being our interference in
the Russian elections of 1991. So, there is no logical reason to believe that the Russians
are not doing the same thing.
In addition, I believe that Trump has commercial and financial reasons for being as
friendly as possible with Putin, i.e., Trump Tower Moscow. Trump is not particularly
interested in the politics or diplomacy of detente with Russia (which I would support, in
general), he is purely transactional in his approach and seems to have no interest other than
being the center of attention on media and making as much money as he can.
It is clear that the FBI in an act of desperation, tried to hoodwink the public and the
world, with a false flag operation to blame the Russians for DNC incompetence and criminal
behaviour by Hillary Clinton.
In this attempt of a cover up and foolish attempt of technical miss direction, they have
been caught red handed in gross malfeasance and high crimes.
President Putin should be made immediately aware of this attempt (if he hasn't been
already), and should take Trump to task on these grave crimes and attempts of sedition and
outright treason by US personnel in attempt to trigger a war with Russia.
Under US Code 2381, whomever owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against
them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or
elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death , or shall be imprisoned not
less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be
incapable of holding any office under the United States.
This treasonous behaviour by the FBI and DNC, should be investigated by Military Court.
And those responsible for attempt to start a war, with another super power, should be held to
the fullest account of US Code 2381. Attempting to precipitate a war, is a war crime and
those guilty should face a military court and held to highest punishment available, namely,
execution by firing squad.
High office demands high responsibility. If we do not hold government officials,
especially officials of the Executive Branch of the USA, then we are allowing a government,
like what is happening Washington DC today, to become a rouge nation. These evil merchants of
death, must face prosecution for their hatred, bigotry and lust for war. Warmongers must not
be tolerated in government. And the FBI and DNC have now shown absolutely they are prepared
to lie, however incompetently, to protect the warmongers and evil doers in government.
This act by the FBI is an act of treason: US Code 2381 must now be applied to all those
part of this treason.
b: The detente with Russia which U.S. president Donald Trump tries to achieve will
now be more difficult to implement and to sustain.
-
IMO Trump isn't trying to achieve anything more than to negotiate an agreement that
is favorable to USA/NATO. The Deep State would be happy if an acceptable agreement could be
reached as it would split Russia from China.
AFAICT, the depiction of Trump as pro-Russian is a fantasy concocted by Hillary-Obama and
their deep-state flunkies.
The entire anti-Russia campaign serves two purposes:
1) distraction
- from illegal wars, CIA color revolutions, Syrian occupation, etc.
what has been done is many times worse than temporarily separating families at the border
- from an undemocratic political system
Hillary's collusion with DNC against Sanders and the overall failure of the Democratic
Party to represent the people
2) negotiation
Trump is the 'good cop' to the anti-Russian deep-state 'bad cop'
Yes, this "indictment" is truly pathetic.
1) According to Mueller the "infrastructure" cost "over $95000" obtained by "money
laundering" using bitcoin etc.. Wow. It does not cost much to threaten "US democracy".
2) "Conspirators attempted to delete traces of their presence on the DCCC network using the
computer program Ccleaner". I wonder if they used the free version of CCleaner or the premium
version available for $35. Another dubious if not laughable accusation.
As I understand it the GRU does not do these things -- it's pure military intelligence. The
Russian intelligence services are 1) very (very) good 2) born in real war. So they don't run
little independent operations like hacking US politics just for fun.
That struck me right from the get-go. The hacking would have been done by
Служба
специальной
связи и
информации (Special Service of
Communications and Information ie their NSA/CSE/GCHQ) which is now owned by
Федеральная
служба охраны
(Federal Protection Service). No way would military intelligence have run this.
In Russia int/security organs are not quasi-independent agencies that do what they want.
Exactly, he is going to test the Russian aims to overcome more bullying either in Syria
itself, even after offering to withdraw, or, better, and most probably, in Afghanistan
The whole thing is horrifying, that government agencies can be so inept while having so much
power. It's one thing when they try to apply it to individuals thousands of miles away but to
think they operate this way in regard to US citizens. And it just gets worse...
Sasha
Not much of an offer, the occupation is untenable with Pakistan in the SCO camp.
Trump has no chips to offer except Crimea.Putin/Xi may offer a face saving way out of
Afghanistan and Syria, but even the venue shows who the supplicant is.
You have to be exceptional not to see that is is far more than symbolic that the mountain
has to go to Mohamed.Trump wanted DC or Vienna.
Paragraph 47 of the indictment -- regarding "Organization 1," presumably Wikileaks --
cites intercepted messages showing that Guccifer 2.0 engaged in "failed attempts" to deliver
the docs to Organization 1 "starting in late June 2016." The problem is that Assange had
announced on June 12, 2016 that Wikileaks already had such documents. Given his history, it
is simply beyond belief that Assange would rely on a promise of unvetted docs.
Moreover, that June 12, 2016 announcement was just two days before the Crowstrike news
story of Russian hacking (June 14), followed by the debut of Guccifer 2.0 (June 15).
Independent analysts have long suggested that the latter events were a ploy by partisans
(Clintonites and their national security state supporters) trying to get ahead of the
Wikileaks release by tainting the source of any such documents as Russian.
The greatest threat to mankind is the ability of otherwise intelligent people
to believe unfounded absurd nonsense. Without critical thinking and diversity of opinion the
window to the truth becomes opaque.
The greatest threat to mankind is the ability of otherwise intelligent people to believe
unfounded absurd nonsense. Without critical thinking and diversity of opinion the window to
the truth becomes opaque.
Trump should just refuse to discuss this nonsense with Putin or anyone else. Don't take the
bait. Do your deals with Putin, and ignore the kibitzers. Of course Donald has trouble
keeping his mouth shut.
Mueller messed up the proven information on the illegal access to the DNC (and congressional)
computers by Awan family and the alleged trolling by the alleged Russian spies.
If Mueller has any worries about nationals security, he must investigate Wasserman and
Clinton.
By the way, the Awans were never cleared for having to access the classified information.
Almost 30 congressional computers had been compromised, and the classified information
obtained, by the fraudsters on the US government payroll.
Must laud Dorian for his enthusiasm @12, but any such trial would be conducted in a Federal
Court. Of course, since its inception, the FBI's played both sides of the legality street,
and it's quite obvious that Obama's Justice Department and its FBI agency obstructed justice
with the entire Clinton/Server fiasco in 2016 and has continued to do so.
As for Russia trying to sway a US presidential election, IMO they're telling the truth
that they don't since they can't hope to compete with all the corrupt interests actually
doing so, like AIPAC and the US Chamber of Commerce. Hell, US policy interferes in US
elections when monies sent to Zionistan get recycled into the election cycle through AIPAC or
other sources. What was HRC's Pay-to-Play Foundation if not a method to influence the
election? Dozens of good books are written about the influence of Big Money on US elections
at every level, yet an extremely "conservative" Supreme Court said all that Big Money's just
another form of speech, so say all you want.
Essentially, all levels of US government and elections have become more corrupt annually
since 1866 and the result is today's indictments, providing ever more proof that they're
under Oligarchical control. And unfortunately for the rest of the planet, it's up to the
USA's citizenry to resolve the problem--really, some of us actually do try. Sadly, we lack
the presence of a US Embassy to train and finance our Color Revolution as is done within
every other nation.
You said "Any half-competent hacker could pull this off. "
Don't you mean "any totally incompetent kiddie-scripter could cut/paste a phishing attack
from the dark net, and pull this off , provided the recipient was dumb enough to
respond"?
Imo Trump went into the Prez campaign with his eyes wide open. How else does one explain his
(seemingly premature) drain the Swamp declaration? I understand from the multitude of Trump
docos I've recorded since the campaign began that He had been contemplating the notion of
running for POTUS for at least a decade before he decided to dive in. So he's had at least 10
years to investigate The Swamp, find its flaws and weaknesses, and work out whether he would
be able to find and recruit powerful 'Patriots' willing to lend a hand when (not if) the
going (for a lone wolf) gets tough.
He'll turn this latest slice of Intellectual Pygmy-ism to his advantage. One really
obvious way to do so would be to "prove" that no time should be wasted in getting as close as
possible to 'dangerous' Putin, as soon as possible. And who better to do that than... Ta Da!
MAGA Trump!
Trump seems to have explored every possibility and evolved umpteen solutions to each. The
Swamp is going to regret trying to outsmart him.
"... Here's a more apt headline: "Petulant elites throwing tantrum at prospect of their votes not being 10,000x more powerful than regular peasant votes." ..."
In the face of fervent
opposition from Democratic elites who " think their vote is more
important " than the will of the party's base , the Democratic National
Committee's (DNC) Rules and Bylaws arm
cleared a major hurdle in the fight to curtail the power of superdelegates on Wednesday by
approving a plan that would end their ability to cast votes for the presidential candidate on
the first ballot at the party's convention.
"The activists that have been concerned that superdelegates will overturn the will of the
voters should feel good about this," DNC member Elaine Kamarck said in a statement
.
While the plan to gut the influence of superdelegates -- who have been free since 1984 to
put their weight behind any candidate no matter how the public voted -- has received broad
support from Democrats and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) as an important first step toward making
the party's process more "
open and transparent ," establishment figures who stand to lose power if the plan is
implemented are staging a last-minute " revolt
" to block the rule change.
As investigative reporter Alex Kotch noted in a Twitter thread on
Wednesday, at least two of the Democratic insiders who are clinging desperately to their undue
influence as superdelegates happen to be corporate lobbyists -- a fact that Politico neglected
to mention in its reporting on the party elites' "longshot bid to block the measure."
"They don't realize it but they're proving the point of Sanders and everyone else who's
opposed to superdelegates," Kotch writes. "Many prioritize corporate interests over those of
everyday people and thus automatically support the less progressive candidate."
Two of the three superdelegates who are opposed to the Sanders plan:
One is a health care lobbyist
Another is a former lobbyist
The U.S. Rep quoted in the article who's opposed to the change, Gerry Connolly (Va.),
accepts a bunch of corporate PAC money from good corporate citizens like Northrup Grummon and
AT&T. https://t.co/s7KWJGWEGq
Responding to Politico's story on the superdelegates' last-ditch attempt to undermine the
push to curtail their power, The Humanist Report offered an alternative headline:
Here's a more apt headline: "Petulant elites throwing tantrum at prospect of their
votes not being 10,000x more powerful than regular peasant votes."https://t.co/oUlaXY9jLt
-- The Humanist Report (@HumanistReport) July 11,
2018
Wednesday's vote in favor of the plan to ensure superdelegates cannot overturn the will of
voters on the first ballot of the presidential nomination process was the final step before the
proposal heads to a vote before the full DNC next month. "Any attempt to derail the rules
changes at the summer convention is thought to be a long-shot," concluded Astead Herndon of the
New York Times.
Looks like another Steele dossier and it has Brennan fingertips all over. Looks like another
exercise in creation of a parallel reality. The content of the document implies that malware was
installed in GRU computers and those computers were monitored 24/7 by CIA. The documents
describes both GNU officers and DNC employees as unsophisticated idiots. DNC employees who who
should undergo some basic security training were easily deceived by fishing emails from a foreign
country. And a good practice is to disable hotlinks in emails.
I always suspected that Guccifer 2.0 was a false flag operation to hide the leak of DNC
documents. If this is true this was really sophisticated false flag.
BTW GRU is military intelligence unit, so to hack into civil computers is kind of out of
their main sphere of activities. They also should be aware about NSA capabilities of intercepting
the traffic.
I especially like the following tidbit: "On or about June 1,2016, the Conspirators attempted
to delete traces of their presence on the DCCC network using the computer program CCleaner." This
is how third rate hackers (wannabes) behave.
First of all the investigation of DNC was botched by hiring a private, connected to
Democratic Party security company (Crowdstrike), so no data from it are acceptable in court. FBI
did not have any access to the data.
Which means that Mueller is a patsy of more powerful forces
How about speed of download that proved to be excessive for Internet connection? Nothing is
said about Dmitri
Alperovitch role is all this investigation, which completely discredit all that results? See for example diuscusstion at
Why
Crowdstrike's Russian Hacking Story Fell Apart- Say Hello to Fancy Bear And, again, the question is: Was Guccifer 2.0 in itself a USA false flag operation ?
Looks like Mueller is acting as an operative of Democratic Party. Could not dig up enough
dirt on Trump, so he now saddled his beloved horse, trying to provoke Russia to respond.
And this John Le Carre style details about individuals supposedly involved. Probably were
provided by CIA ;-)
4. By in or around April 2016, the Conspirators also hacked into the computer networks of
the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee ("DCCC") and the Democratic National Committee
("DNC"). The Conspirators covertly monitored the computers of dozens of DCCC and DNC employees,
implanted hundreds of files containing malicious computer code ("malware"), and stole emails
and other documents from the DCCC and DNC.
5. By in or around April 2016, the Conspirators began to plan the release of materials
stolen from the Clinton Campaign, DCCC, and DNC.
6. Beginning in or around June 2016, the Conspirators staged and released tens of thousands
of the stolen emails and documents. They did so using fictitious online personas, including
"DCLeaks" and "Guccifer 2.0."
7. The Conspirators also used the Guccifer 2.0 persona to release additional stolen
documents through a website maintained by an organization ("Organization Iй), that had
previously posted documents stolen from U.S. persons, entities, and the U.S. government The
Conspirators continued their U.S. election-interference operations through in or around
November 2016.
8. To hide their connections to Russia and the Russian government, the Conspirators used
false identities and made false statements about their identities. To further avoid detection,
the Conspirators used a network of computers located across the world, including in the United
States, and paid for this infrastructure using cryptocurrency.
... ... ...
13. Defendant ALEKSEY VIKTOROVICH LUKASHEV
(Лукашсв
Алексей
Викторович) was a Senior Lieutenant
in the Russian military assigned to ANTONOV's department within Unit 26165. LUKASHEV used
various online personas, including "Den Katenberg" and "Yuliana Martynova." In on around 2016,
LUKASHEV sent spcarphisliing emails to members of the Clinton Campaign and affiliated
individuals, including the chairman of the Clinton Campaign.
14. Defendant SERGEY ALEKSANDROVICH MORGACHEV
(Моргачев
Сергей
Александрович)
was a Lieutenant Colonel in the Russian military assigned to Unit 26165. MORGACHEV oversaw a
department within Unit 26165 dedicated to developing and managing malware, including a hacking
tool used by the GRU known as "X-Agent." During the hacking of the DCCC and DNC networks,
MORGACHEV supervised the co-conspirators who developed and monitored the X-Agent malware
implanted on those computers.
15. Defendant NIKOLAY YURYEVICH KOZACHEK (Козачек
Николай
Юрьевич) was a Lieutenant Captain in the Russian
military assigned to MORGACHEV's department within Unit 26165. KOZACHEK used a variety of
monikers, including "kazak" and "blablablal234565 " KOZACHEK developed, customized, and
monitored X-Agent malware used to hack the DCCC and DNC networks beginning in or around April
2016.
16. Defendant PAVEL VYACHESLAVOVICH YERSHOV (Ершов
Павел
Вячеславович) was a
Russian military officer assigned to MORGACHEV's department within Unit 26165. In or around
2016, YERSHOV assisted KOZACHEK and other co-conspirators in testing and customizing X-Agent
malware before actual deployment and use.
17. Defendant ARTEM ANDREYEVICH MALYSHEV (Малышев
Арт е м
Андреевич) was a Second Lieutenant in the
Russian military assigned to MORGACHEV's department within Unit 26165. MALYSIIEV used a variety
of monikers, including "djangomagicdev" and "realblatr." In or around 2016, MALYSHEV monitored
X-Agent malware implanted on the DCCC and DNC networks.
18. Defendant ALEKSANDR VLADIMIROVICH OSADCHUK
(Осадчук
Александр В
ладимирович) was a Colonel in
the Russian military and the commanding officer of Unit 74455. Unit 74455 was located at 22
Kirova Street, Khimki, Moscow, a building referred to within the GRU as the 'Tower." Unit 74455
assisted in the release of stolen documents through the DC Leaks and Guccifer 2.0 personas, the
promotion of those releases, and the publication of anti-Clinton content on social media
accounts operated by the GRU.
19. Defendant ALEKSEY ALEKSANDROVICH POTEMKIN
(Потемкин
Алексей
Александрович)
was an officer in the Russian military assigned to Unit 74455. POTEMKIN was a supervisor in a
department within Unit 7445f responsible for the administration of computer infrastructure used
in cyber operations. Infrastructure and social media accounts administered by POTEMKIN'S
department were used, among other things, to assist in the release of stolen documents through
the DCLeaks and Guccifer 2 0 personas.
21, ANTONOV, BADIN, YKRMAKOV, LUKASHEV, and their co-conspiratore targeted victims using a
technique known as spearphishing to steal victims' passwords or otherwise gain access to their
computers. Beginning by at least March 2016, the Conspirators targeted over 300 individuals
affiliated with the Clinton Campaign, DCCC, and DNC.
a. For example, on or about March 19, 2016, LUKASHEV and his co-conspirators created and
sent a spearphishing email to the chairman of the Clinton Campaign. LUKASHEV used the account
"John356gh" at an online service that abbreviated lengthy website addresses (referred to as a
"URL-shortcning service"). LIJKASHEV used the account to mask a link contained in the
spearphishing email, which directed the recipient to a GRU-created website. LUKASHEV altered
the a security notification from Google (a technique known as "spoofing"), instructing the user
to change his password by clicking the embedded link. Those instructions wore followed. On or
about March 21, 2016, LUKASHEV, YERMAKOV, and their co-conspirators stole the contents of the
chairman's email account, which consisted of over 50,000 emails.
Starting on or about March 19, 2016, LUKASHEV and his co-conspirators sent spearphishing
emails to the personal accounts of other individuals affiliated with the Clinton Campaign,
including its campaign manager and a senior foreign policy advisor. On or about March 25, 2016,
LUKASHEV used the same john356gh account to mask additional links included in spearphishing
emails sent to numerous individuals affiliated with the Clinton Campaign, including Victims 1
and 2. LUKASliEV sent these emails from the Russia-based email account [email protected] that he spoofed to appear to be from
Google. On or about March 28,2016, YERMAKOV researched the names of Victims 1 and 2 and their
association with Clinton on various social media sites. Through their spearphishing operations,
LUKASHEV, YERMAKOV, and their co-conspirators successfully stole email credentials and
thousands of emails from numerous individuals affiliated with the Clinton Campaign. Many of
these stolen emails. Including those from Victims 1 and 2, were later released by the
Conspirators through DCLeaks.
On or about April 6, 2016, the Conspirators created an email account in the name (with a
one-letter deviation from the actual spelling) of a known member of the Clinton Campaign. The
Conspirators then used that account to send spearphishing emails to the work accounts of more
than thirty different Clinton Campaign employees. In the spearphishipg emails, LUKASHEV and his
co-conspirators embedded a link purporting to direct the recipient to a document titled
"hillary-clinton-favorable-rating.xlsx " In fact, this link directed the recipients' computers
to a GRU-crcatcd website.
22. The Conspirators spearphished individuals affiliated with the Clinton Campaign
throughout the summer of 2016. For example, on or about July 27, 2016, the Conspirators
attempted after hours to spearphish for the first time email accounts at a domain hosted by a
third-
party provider and used by Clinton's personal office. At or around the same time, they also
targeted seventy-six email addresses at the domain for the Clinton Campaign.
Hacking into the DCCC Network
23. Beginning in or around March 2016, the Conspirators, in addition to their spearphishing
efforts, researched the DCCC and DNC computer networks to identify technical specifications and
vulnerabilities.
For example, beginning on or about March 15,2016, YERMAKOV ran a technical query for the
DNC's internet protocol configurations to identify connected devices.
On or about the same day, YERMAKOV searched for opcn-source information about the DNC
network, the Democratic Party, and Hillary Clinton.
On or about April 7. 2016. YKRMAKOV ran я technical query for the DNC's internet
protocol configurations to identify connected devices.
24. By in or around April 2016, within days of YERMAKOV's searches regarding the DCCC, the
Conspirators hacked into the DCCC computer network. Once they gained access, they installed and
managed different types of malware to explore the DCCC network and steal data.
a. On or about April 12,2016. the Conspirators used the stolen credentials of a I )CCC On or
about April 12,2016, the Conspirators used the stolen credentials of a DCCC Employee ('"DCCC
Employee 1") to access the DCCC network. DCCC Employee 1 had received a spearphishing email
from the Conspirators on or about April 6,2016, and entered her password after clicking on the
link.
b. Between in or around April 2016 and June 2016, the Conspirators installed multiple
versions of their X-Agent malware on at least ten DCCC computers, which allowed them to monitor
individual employees' computer activity, steal passwords, and maintain access to the DCCC
network.
c. X-Agent malware implanted on the DCCC network transmitted information from the victims'
computers to a GRU-leased server located in Arizona. The Conspirators referred to this server
as their "AMS" panel. KOZACHEK, MALYSHEV, and their со-conspirators logged into the
AMS panel to use X-Agent's keylog and screenshot functions in the course of monitoring and
surveilling activity on the DCCC computers. 'Ibe keylog function allowed the Conspirators to
capture keystrokes entered by DCCC employees. The screenshot function allowed the Conspirators
to take pictures of the DCCC employees' computer screens.
d. For example, on or about April 14, 2016, the Conspirators repeatedly activated X-Agent's
keylog and screensiot functions to surveil DCCC Employee 1's computer activity over the course
of eight hours. During that time, the Conspirators captured DCCC Employee 1 's communications
with co-workers and the passwords she entered while working on fundraising and voter outreach
projects. Similarly, on or about April 22, 2016, the Conspirators activated X-Agcnt's keylog
and screenshot functions to capture the discussions of another DCCC Employee ("DCCC Employee
2") about the DCCC's finances, as well as her individual banking information and other personal
topics.
25. On or about April 19, 2016, KOZAC1IEK, YERSIIOV, and their co-conspirators remotely
configured an overseas computer to relay communications between X-Agent malware and the AMS
panel and then tested X-Agent's ability to connect to this computer. The Conspirators referred
to this computer as a "middle server." The middle server acted as a proxy to obscure the
connection between malware at the DCCC and the Conspirators' AMS panel. On or about April 20,
2016, the Conspirators directed X-Agent malware on the DCCC computers to connect to this middle
server and receive directions from the Conspirators.
Hacking into the DNC Network
26. On or about April 18, 2016, the Conspirators hacked into the DNC's computers through
their access to the DCCC network. The Conspirators then installed and managed different types
of malware (as they did in the DCCC network) to explore the DNC network and steal documents, a.
On or about April 18, 2016, the Conspirators activated X-Agent's keylog and screenshot
functions to steal credentials of a DCCC employee who was authorized
to access the DNC network. The Conspirators hacked into the DNC network from the DCCC network
using stolen credentials. By in or around June 2016, they gained access to approximately
thirty-three DNC computers.
In or around April 2016, the Conspirators installed X Agent malware on tho DNC network,
including the same versions installed on the DCCC network.
MALYSHEV and his co-conspifators monitored the X-Agent malware from the AMS panel and captured
data from the victim computers. The AMS panel collected thousands of keylog and screenshot
results from the DCCC and DNC computers, such as a screenshot and keystroke capture of DCCC
Employee 2 viewing the DCCC's online banking information.
Theft of DCCC and DNC Documents
27. The Conspirators searched for and identified computers within the DCCC and DNC networks
that stored information related to the 2016 U.S. presidential election, for example, on or
about April 15, 2016, the Conspirators searched one hacked DCCC computer for terms that
included "hillary," "cruz," and "trump." The Conspirators also copied select DCCC folders,
including "Benghazi Investigations." The Conspirators targeted computers containing information
such as opposition research and field operation plans for the 2016 elections.
28. To enable them to steal a large number of documents at once without detection, the
Conspirators used a publicly available tool to gather and compress multiple documents on the
DCCC and DNC networks. The Conspirators then used other GRU malware, known as "X-Tunncl," to
move the stolen documents cutside the DCCC and DNC networks through encrypted channels.
a. For example, on or about April 22, 2016, the Conspirators compressed gigabytes of data
from DNC computers, including opposition research. The Conspirators later moved the compressed
DNC data using X-Tunnel to a GRU-leased computer located in Illinois.
b. On or about April 28, 2016, the Conspirators connected to and tested the same computer
located in Illinois. Later that day, the Conspirators used X-Tunnel to connect to that computer
to steal additional documents from the DCCC network.
29. Between on or about May 25, 2016 and June 1, 2016, the Conspirators hacked the DNC
Microsoft Exchange Server and stole thousands of emails from the work accounts of DNC
employees. During that time, YERMAKOV researched PowerShell commands related to accessing and
managing the Microsoft Exchange Server.
30. On or about May 30, 2016, MALYSHEV accessed the AMS panel in order to upgrade custom AMS
software on die server. That day, the AMS panel received updates from approximately thirteen
different X-Agent malware implants on DCCC and DNC computers.
31. During the hacking of the DCCC and DNC networks, the Conspirators covered their tracks
by Intentionally deleting logs and computer flies. For example, on or about May 13, 2016, the
Conspirators cleared the event logs from a DNC computer. On or about June 20, 2016, the
Conspirators deleted logs from the AMS panel that documented their activities on the panel,
including the login history. Efforts to Remain on the X'CC and PNC Networks
32. Despite the Conspirators' efforts to hide their activity, beginning in or around May
2016, both the DCCC and DNC became aware that they had been hacked and hired a security company
("Company 1") to identify the extent of the intrusions. By in or around June 2016, Company 1
took steps to exclude intruders from the networks. Despite these efforts, a Linux-based version
of X-Agent, programmed to communicate with the GRU-registercd domain linuxkml.net, remained on
the DNC network until in or around October 2016.
33. In response to Company Ts efforts, the Conspirators took countermeasures to maintain
access to the DCCC and DNC networks.
a. Oil 01 about May 31, 2016, YERMAKOV searched for opcn-sourcc information about Company 1
and its reporting on X-Agent and X-Tunnel. On or about June 1,2016, the Conspirators attempted
to delete traces of their presence on the DCCC network using the computer program CCleaner.
b. On or about June 14, 2016, the Conspirators registered the domain actblues.com,
which mimicked the domain of a political fundraising platform that included a
DCCC donations page. Shortly thereafter, the Conspirators used stolen DCCC
credentials to modify the DCCC website and redirect visitors to the actblucs.com
On or about June 14, 2016, the Conspirators registered the domain actblues.com,
which mimicked the domain of a political fundraising platform that included a
DCCC donations page. Shortly thereafter, the Conspirators used stolen DCCC
credentials to modify the DCCC website and redirect visitors to the actblucs.com
domain.
On or about June 20, 2016, after Company 1 had disabled X-Agent on the DCCC
network, the Conspirators spent ever seven hours unsuccessfully trying to connect
to X-Agent. The Conspirators also tried to access the DCCC network using
previously stolen credentials.
34. In or around September 2016, the Conspirators also successfully gained access to DNC
computers hosted on a third-party cloud-computing service. These computers contained test
applications related to the DNC's analytics. After conducting reconnaissance, the
Conspirators
gathered data by creating backups, or "snapshots," of the DNC's eloud-based systems using
the
cloud provider's own technology. The Conspirators then moved the snapshots to cloud-based
accounts they had registered with the same service, thereby stealing the data from the DNC.
Stolen Documents Released through DCLcaks
35. More than a month before the release of any documents, the Conspirators constructed the
online persona DCLeaks to release and publicize stolen election-related documents. On or about
April 19, 2016, after attempting to register the domain clcctionleaks.com, the Conspirators
registered the domain dcleaks.com through a service that anonymizcd the registrant. The funds
used to pay for the dcleaks.com domain originated from an online cryptocutrrecy service that
the Conspirators also used to fund the lease of a virtual private server registered with the
operational email account [email protected]. The dirbinsaabol email account was also used
to register the john356gh URL-shortening account used by LUKASHEV to spearphish the Clinton
Campaign chairman and other campaign-related individuals.
36. On or about June 8,2016, the Conspirators launched the public website dcleaks.com, which
they used to release stolen emails. Before it shut down in or around March 2017, the site
received over one million page views. The Conspirators falsely claimed on the site that DCLeaks
was started by a group of "American hacktivists," when in fact it was started by the
Conspirators.
37. Starting in or around June 2016 and continuing through the 2016 U.S. presidential
election, the Conspirators used DCLeaks to release emails stolen from individuals affiliated
with the Clinton Campaign. The Conspirators also released documents they had stolen in other
spearphishing operations, including those they had conducted in 2015 that collected emails from
individuals affiliated with the Republican Party.
38. On or about June 8,2016, and at approximately the same time that the dcleaks.com website
was launched, the Conspirators created a DCLeaks Facebook page using a preexisting social media
account under the fictitious name "Alice Donovan." In addition to the DCLeaks Facebook page,
the Conspirators used other social media accounts in the names of fictitious U.S. persons such
as "Jason Scott" and "Richard Gingrey" to promote the DCLeaks website. The Conspirators
accessed these accounts from computers managed by POTEMKFN and his co-conspirators.
39. On or about June 8, 2016, the Conspirators created the Twitter account @dcleaks_. The
Conspirators operated the @dclcaks_ Twitter account from the same computer used for other
efforts to interfere with the 2016 U.S. presidential election. For example, the Conspirators
used the same computer to operate the Twitter account @BaltimorcIsWhr, through which they
encouraged U.S. audiences to "[j]oin our flash mob" opposing Clinton and to post images with
the hashtag #BlacksAgainstHillary.
Stolen Documents Released through Guccifer 2.0
40. On or about June 14, 2016, the DNC -- through Company 1 -- publicly announced that it
had been hacked by Russian government actors. In response, the Conspirators created the online
persona Guccifer 2.0 and falsely claimed to be a lone Romanian hacker to undermine the
allegations of Russian responsibility for the intrusion.
41. On or about June 15,2016, the Conspirators logged into a Moscow-based server used and
managed by Unit 74455 and, between 4:19 PM and 4:56 PM Moscow Standard Time, searched for
certain words and phrases, including:
Search terms
"some hundred sheets"
"some hundreds of sheets"
dcleaks
illuminati
широко
известный
перевод [widely known translation]
"worldwide known"
"think twice about"
"company's competence"
42. Later that day, at 7:02 PM Moscow Standard Time, the online persona Guccifer 2.0
published its first post on a blog site created through WordPress. Titled "DNC's servers hacked
by a lone hacker," the post used numerous English words and phrases that the Conspirators had
searched for earlier that day (bolded below):
Worldwide known cyber security company [Company 1] announced that the Democratic National
Committee (DNC) servers had been hacked by
"sophisticated" hacker groups.
I'm very pleased the company appreciated my skills so highly))) [...]
Here are just a few docs from many thousands I extracted when hacking
into DNC's network. [...]
Some hundred sheets! This's a serious case, isn't it? [...]
I guess [Company 1] customers should think twice about company's competence.
F[***J the Illuminati and their conspiracies! МШШ F[***]
[Company 1] !!!!!!!!
43. Between in or around June 2016 and October 2016, the Conspirators used Guccifer 2.0 to
release documents through WordPrcss that they had stolen from the DCCC and DNC. The
Conspirators, posing as Guccifer 2.0, also shared stolen documents with certain
individuals.
a. On or about August 15,2016, the Conspirators, posing as Guccifer 2.0, received a request
for stolen documents from a candidate for the U.S. Congress. The Conspirators responded using
the Guccifer 2.0 persona and sent the candidate stolen documents related to the candidate's
opponent. On or about August 22,2016, the Conspirators, posing as Guccifer 2.0, transferred
approximately 2.5 gigabytes of data stolen from the DCCC to a then-registered state lobbyist
and online source of political news. The stolen data included donor records and personal
identifying information for more than 2,000 Democratic donors.
On or about August 22, 2016, the Conspirators, posing as Guccifer 2.0, sent a reporter
stolen documents pertaining to the Black Lives Matter movement. The reporter responded by
discussing when to release the documents and offering to write an article about their
release.
44. The Conspirators, posing as Guccifer 2.0, also communicated with U.S. persons about the
release of stolen documents. On or about August 15, 2016, the Conspirators, posing as Guccifer
2.0, wrote to a person who was in regular contact with senior members of the presidential
campaign of Donald J. TVump, "thank u for writing back... do u find anyt[h]ing interesting in
the docs i posted?" On or about August 17, 2016, the Conspirators added, "please tell me if i
can help u anyhow ... it would be a great pleasure to me." On or about September 9,2016, the
Conspirators, again posing as Guccifer 2.0, referred to a stolen DCCC document posted online
and asked the person, "what do u think of the info on the tunout model for the democrats entire
presidential campaign." The person responded, "[p]retty standard."
45. The Conspirators conducted operations as Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks using overlapping
computer infrastructure and financing.
a. For example, between on or about March 14, 2016 and April 28. 2016, the Conspirators used
the same pool of bitcoin funds to purchase a virtual private network ("VPN") account and to
lease a server in Malaysia. In or around June 2016, the Conspirators used the Malaysian server
to host the dcleaks.com website.
On or about July 6, 2016, the Conspirators used the VPN to log into the @Guccifcr_2 Twitter
account. The Conspirators opened that VPN account from
the same server that was also used to register malicious domains for the hacking of the DCCC
and DNC networks.
On or about June 27, 2016, the Conspirators, posing as Guccifer 2.0, contacted a U.S.
reporter with an offer to provide stolen emails from "Hillary Clinton's staff." The
Conspirators then sent the reporter the password to access a nonpublic, password-protected
portion of dc.eaks.com containing emails stolen from Victim 1 bу LUKASHEV, YERMAKOV, and
thier co-conspirators in or around March 2016.
46. On or about January 12,2017, the Conspirators published a statement on the Guccifer 2.0
WordPrcss blog, falsely claiming that the intrusions and release of stolen documents had
"totally no relation to the Russian government"
Use of Organization 1
47. In order to expand their interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, the
Conspirators transferred many of the documents they stole from the DNC and the chairman of the
Clinton Campaign to Organization 1. The Conspirators posing as Guccifer 2.0, discussed the
release of the stolen documents and the timing of those releases with Organization 1 to
heighten their impact on the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
a. On or about Juno 22, 2016, Organization 1 sent a private message to Guccifer 2.0 to
"[s]end any new material [stolen from the DNC] here for us to review and it will have a much
higher impact than what you are doing." On or about July 6, 2016, Organization 1 added, "if you
have anything hillary related we want it in the next tweo [sic] days prefable [sic] because the
DNC [Democratic National Convention] is approaching and she will solidify bernie supporters
behind her after." The Conspirators responded, "ok... i see." Organization I explained, "we
think trump has only a 25% chance of winning against hillary ... so conflict between bernie and
hillary is interesting "
b After failed attempts to transfer the stolen documents starting in late June 2016, on or
about July 14, 2016, the Conspirators, posing as Guccifer 2.0, sent Organization 1 an email
with an attachment titled "wk dnc linkl.txt.gpg." The Conspirators explained to Organization 1
that the encrypted file contained Instructions on how to access an online archive of stolen DNC
documents. On or about July 18, 2016, Organization 1 confirmed it had "the 1Gb or so archive"
and would make a release of the stolen documents "this week."
48. On or about July 22, 2016, Organization 1 released over 20,000 emails and other
documents stolen from the DNC network by the Conspirators. This release occurred approximately
three days before the start of the Democratic National Convention. Organization 1 did not
disclose Guccifer 2.0's role in providing them. The latest-in-time email released through
Organization 1 was dated on or about May 25,2016, approximately the same day the Conspirators
hacked the DNC Microsoft Exchange Server.
49. On or about October 7, 2016, Organization 1 released the first set of emails from the
chairman of the Clinton Campaign that had been stolen by LUKASHEV and his co-conspirators.
Between on or about October 7, 2016 and November 7, 2016, Organization 1 released approximately
thirty-three tranches of documents mat had been stolen from the chairman of the Clinton
Campaign. In total, over 50,000 stolen documents were released.
Special counsel Robert
Mueller is again asking for a delay in the sentencing of former national security adviser
Michael Flynn, according to court documents filed Friday.
The special counsel and attorneys for Flynn are asking for two more months before scheduling
his sentencing, requesting to file another status report by Aug. 24.
"Due to the status of the Special Counsel's investigation, the parties do not believe that
this matter is ready to be scheduled for a sentencing hearing at this time," states a joint
status report filed in federal court in Washington, D.C., on Friday.
This is the third time that prosecutors have asked to delay sentencing for Flynn, who
pleaded
guilty in December to lying to FBI agents investigating Russian interference in the 2016
election.
Mifsud was most probably MI5 asset. So we can speak about entrapment of people connected to Trump campaign.
The same probably is true for Goldstone.
Notable quotes:
"... The most high-level Trump campaign official to be indicted is Paul Manafort, as well as his former business partner and Trump campaign deputy Rick Gates. The charges, as a Virginia judge observed last month , "manifestly don't have anything to do with the campaign or with Russian collusion." ..."
"... There is widespread supposition that Manafort's dealings in Ukraine make him a prime candidate for collusion with Moscow. But that stems from the mistaken belief that Manafort promoted Kremlin interests during his time in Kiev. The opposite appears to be the case. The New York Times ..."
"... According to his charge sheet , Flynn falsely told agents that he did not request that Russia respond to new US sanctions "in a reciprocal manner" because the incoming Trump team "did not want Russia to escalate the situation." Flynn also hid from FBI agents that, days before that call, he first asked Kislyak to veto a UN Security Council measure condemning Israeli settlement building, which the outgoing Obama administration had decided to let pass (Russia ultimately rebuffed Flynn and supported the measure). ..."
"... The FBI was able to charge Flynn because it had concrete evidence that his statements to them were false: wiretaps of his conversations with Kislyak. But these calls offer nothing on collusion. As The Washington Post ..."
"... Donald Trump Jr. is often faulted for accepting Goldstone's overture to begin with, since it floated damaging information from a foreign power. He is also faulted for initially providing a misleading statement about the meeting to the media. But lying to reporters is not an indictable offense, and neither is showing a willingness to obtain foreign dirt. During the 2016 contest, the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign accepted help from Ukraine and paid for the salacious and outlandish Steele "dossier" from across the pond. ..."
"... By now the details are well known: About $100,000 was spent on Facebook ads, more than half of that after ..."
"... Yet prominent media and political voices have portrayed the ads as a major component of a "sophisticated" Russian interference campaign akin to Pearl Harbor and 9/11. On his current book tour, former national-intelligence director James Clapper has declared that, taken together, the Russian ads and stolen Democratic e-mails handed Trump the presidency . ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... Mueller's indictment reinforces Facebook's initial conclusion. The defendants "used the accounts to receive money from real US persons in exchange for posting promotions and advertisements" on their social-media pages, for a fee of "between 25 and 50 U.S. dollars per post." And not only does Mueller say that the troll farm had no ties to the Trump campaign, he doesn't even allege that it worked with the Russian government ..."
"... One of the indicted firms is challenging the case in court, accusing Mueller of inventing "a make-believe crime" in order to "justify his own existence" and "indict a Russian -- any Russian." Whether the troll farm's indictment is make-believe or not, Mueller has yet to indict anyone -- let alone any Russian -- for Russiagate's underlying crime: the theft of Democratic Party e-mails. And more than a year after they accused the Russian government of carrying it out, intelligence officials have yet to produce a shred of proof. ..."
"... The January 2017 intelligence report begat an endless cycle of innuendo and unverified claims, inculcating the public with fears of a massive Russian interference operation and suspicions of the Trump campaign's complicity. The evidence to date casts doubt on the merits of this national preoccupation, and with it, the judgment of the intelligence, political, and media figures who have elevated it to such prominence. ..."
A year of investigations has led to several guilty pleas, but none of them go to the core of the special counsel's mandate.
The Mueller Indictments Still Don't Add Up to Collusion | The Nation
n just over one year, special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation of the Trump campaign and Russia has generated
five guilty pleas, 20 indictments, and more than 100 charges. None of these have anything to do with Mueller's chief focus: the Russian
government's alleged meddling in the 2016 election and the Trump campaign's suspected involvement.
While it's certainly possible that Mueller will make new indictments that go to the core of his case, what's been revealed so
far does not make a compelling brief for collusion.
The most high-level Trump campaign official to be indicted is Paul Manafort, as well as his former business partner and Trump
campaign deputy Rick Gates. The charges, as a Virginia judge
observed last month
, "manifestly don't have anything to do with the campaign or with Russian collusion." Instead, Manafort and Gates are accused
of financial crimes beginning in 2008, when they worked as political operatives for a Russia-leaning party in Ukraine (and for which
Manafort was previously investigated, but not indicted).
There is widespread supposition that Manafort's dealings in Ukraine make him a prime candidate for collusion with Moscow.
But that stems from the mistaken belief that Manafort promoted Kremlin interests during his time in Kiev. The opposite appears to
be the case. The New York Times recounts that Manafort
"pressed [then–Ukrainian Prime Minister Viktor] Yanukovych to sign an agreement with the European Union that would link the country
closer to the West -- and lobbied for the Americans to support Ukraine's membership." If that picture is accurate, then Manafort's
activities in Ukraine during the period for which he has been indicted were diametrically opposed to the Kremlin's agenda.
Manafort's employment of Konstantin Kilimnik, who was indicted last week on obstruction charges in Manafort's case, is seen as
another Kremlin link. Kilimnik studied as a linguist at a Soviet-era military school and went on to become Manafort's translator
and fixer in Ukraine. According to Mueller, Kilimnik has "ties to Russian intelligence" that were active during the 2016 campaign.
The evidence to support that assertion is sealed. For his part, Kilimnik
denies
being a Russian agent . Ukrainian authorities investigated him in August 2016 but did not bring charges.
According to The Atlantic , "insinuations" that Kilimnik worked for Russian intelligence then "were never backed by
more than a smattering of circumstantial evidence."
While Manafort's alleged offenses (aside from the new obstruction charges) occurred well before the 2016 campaign, those of former
national security adviser Michael Flynn came after. Flynn admitted to making "false statements and omissions" about his conversations
with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak during the transition in December 2016. According to
his charge sheet , Flynn falsely told agents that he
did not request that Russia respond to new US sanctions "in a reciprocal manner" because the incoming Trump team "did not want Russia
to escalate the situation." Flynn also hid from FBI agents that, days before that call, he first asked Kislyak to veto a UN Security
Council measure condemning Israeli settlement building, which the outgoing Obama administration had decided to let pass (Russia ultimately
rebuffed Flynn and supported the measure).
The FBI was able to charge Flynn because it had concrete evidence that his statements to them were false: wiretaps of his
conversations with Kislyak. But these calls offer nothing on collusion. As The Washington Post
reported , FBI agents who "reviewed" the calls with Kislyak had "not found any evidence of wrongdoing or illicit ties to the
Russian government."
Like Flynn, George Papadopoulos has also pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI after the election. Although he is the lowest-level
member of the Trump campaign to be charged, his case has emerged front and center. In the months since Papadopoulos's October indictment,
we have been told that the FBI
launched an investigation , code named "
Crossfire Hurricane ," because of him. We also recently learned that the FBI
enlisted an
informant , Cambridge Professor Stefan
Halper , to make contact with Papadopoulos and two other campaign officials, Carter Page and Sam Clovis, in a bid to pry loose
information on potential campaign ties to Russia.
In charging Papadopoulos, Mueller's team raised the prospect that Papadopoulos was told about stolen Democratic e-mails before
the theft of DNC e-mails was publicly known. According to the Statement of Offense, Maltese professor Joseph Mifsud informed
Papadopoulos that "the Russians" had obtained "thousands of emails" containing "dirt" on Hillary Clinton. The two spoke in April
2016, before the first DNC e-mails were released. Papadopoulos volunteered to agents his information on Mifsud's offer; he pleaded
guilty to misrepresenting the timing of when he spoke to Mifsud. All of this would be more explosive if, as the Mueller team suggested,
Mifsud actually "had substantial connections to Russian government officials," and recently "met with some of those officials in
Moscow."
And yet there were ample reasons to question whether Papadopoulos was a plausible conduit for Trump-Kremlin collusion. He was
an unpaid volunteer known for
embellishing
credentials ; who not only didn't land a job in the Trump administration post-election but couldn't even get his
travel
expenses reimbursed during the campaign.
It is also quite possible that Mifsud was referring to the 30,000 State Department e-mails deleted from Hillary Clinton's private
server, by that point a well-publicized controversy. Papadopoulos's wife, Simona Mangiante,
now says that Papadopoulos believes
that to be the case. She also says that Papadopoulos has no knowledge of collusion and pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI only because
Mueller threatened to charge him for having been an unregistered foreign agent of Israel.
If Papadopoulos offers Mueller nothing on collusion, the other main staple of collusion allegations -- the infamous June 2016
meeting at Trump Tower -- is an unlikely alternative. The music publicist who set up the meeting, Rob Goldstone, e-mailed Donald
Trump Jr. with an offer of "official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia," -- not,
it should be noted, stolen e-mails. But because Goldstone also wrote of "very high level and sensitive information," as "part of
Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump," his message has been quoted endlessly as Exhibit A for a Trump-Russia plot. There
were already reasons to question whether an e-mail sent by a kooky publicist is plausible groundwork for such a high-level conspiracy.
The
recently released transcripts of Goldstone's congressional testimony give us more. Goldstone explains that he set up the meeting
on behalf of Emin Agalarov, a Russian pop singer who employed Goldstone as a publicist, and whose father, Aras Agalarov, is a billionaire
who partnered with Trump on the 2013 Miss Universe pageant in Moscow.
Goldstone recounts that Emin gave him "limited information" -- and that was a problem. Emin had told him that a "well-connected
Russian attorney," Natalia Veselnitskaya, had met with his father and "told him that they had some interesting information that could
potentially be damaging regarding funding by Russians to the Democrats and to its candidate, Hillary Clinton." Goldstone's follow-up
attempts to get "more information" from Emin yielded nothing more. So Goldstone drew upon his professional tools. As he told the
Senate Judiciary Committee: "I had puffed it and used some keywords that I thought would attract Don Jr.'s attention." In his field,
he explained, "publicist puff is how they get meetings."
By his telling, Goldstone was not being a Kremlin intermediary; he was being a good publicist. His Russian pop-star client had
passed on vague information based on what his father had told him about what a Russian lawyer said. His "publicist puff" secured
the meeting. All parties contend that the meeting ended quickly after the assembled Trump representatives struggled to understand
what Veselnitskaya was talking about, which included none of the advertised incriminating information. Veselnitskaya says she tried
to discuss repealing the Magnitsky Act sanctions on Russia, which is not hard to believe given that Veselnitskaya and her client,
Prevazon Holdings, have fought those sanctions for years.
Donald Trump Jr. is often faulted for accepting Goldstone's overture to begin with, since it floated damaging information from
a foreign power. He is also faulted for initially providing a misleading statement about the meeting to the media. But lying to reporters
is not an indictable offense, and neither is showing a willingness to obtain foreign dirt. During the 2016 contest, the Democratic
National Committee and the Clinton campaign
accepted help from Ukraine
and paid for the salacious and outlandish Steele "dossier" from across the pond.
This brings us to the last major indictment, and the first one to include Russian nationals: 13 Russians and three companies accused
of running a US-aimed social media campaign out of the St. Petersburg–based Internet Research Agency (IRA). By now the details are
well known: About $100,000 was spent on Facebook ads, more than half of that after the November 2016 vote. The bulk of the
remaining $46,000 in ads ran during the primaries. The majority of the ads did not even reference the election and got little traction.
Yet prominent media and political voices have portrayed the ads as a major component of a "sophisticated" Russian interference
campaign akin to Pearl Harbor and 9/11. On his current book tour, former national-intelligence director James Clapper has declared
that, taken together, the Russian ads and stolen Democratic e-mails
handed Trump the presidency
.
Now that we can
see all of the ads for ourselves , it is difficult to argue with
Facebook executive Rob Goldman , who said
that "swaying the election was *NOT* the main goal." The main goal, in fact, appears to be exactly what Facebook initially found,
according to The Washington Post , before the social-media giant came under pressure from congressional Democrats:
"A review by the company found that most of the groups behind the problematic pages had clear financial motives, which suggested
that they weren't working for a foreign government."
Mueller's indictment reinforces Facebook's initial conclusion. The defendants "used the accounts to receive money from real
US persons in exchange for posting promotions and advertisements" on their social-media pages, for a fee of "between 25 and 50 U.S.
dollars per post." And not only does Mueller say that the troll farm had no ties to the Trump campaign, he doesn't even allege that
it worked with the Russian government. The IRA's owner, Yevgeny Prigozhin, is said to be close to Putin. But even if the ads
came right from the Kremlin, does anyone think that the bizarre offerings -- from
Buff Bernie to pro-Beyoncé and
anti-Beyoncé to the juvenile
attacks
on
Hillary Clinton
-- impacted the US voters who saw them?
One of the indicted firms is challenging the case in court,
accusing Mueller of inventing "a make-believe crime" in order to "justify his own existence" and "indict a Russian -- any Russian."
Whether the troll farm's indictment is make-believe or not, Mueller has yet to indict anyone -- let alone any Russian -- for Russiagate's
underlying crime: the theft of Democratic Party e-mails. And more than a year after they accused the Russian government of carrying
it out, intelligence officials have yet to produce a shred of proof.
The January 2017 intelligence report begat an endless cycle of innuendo and unverified claims, inculcating the public with
fears of a massive Russian interference operation and suspicions of the Trump campaign's complicity. The evidence to date casts doubt
on the merits of this national preoccupation, and with it, the judgment of the intelligence, political, and media figures who have
elevated it to such prominence.
Are you stupid enough to believe that American voters elected Trump president because
Vladimir Putin influenced them to vote for Russia's candidate? The US Senate Intelligence (sic)
Committee is that stupid. This collection of nitwits actually produced a report that a few ads
allegedly placed online on Putin's instructions, ads that did not cost one-hundredth of one
percent of the huge sum spent by the candidates themselves, both national committees and
everyone else, were decisive in influencing voters who never saw the ads in the first place or
read or responded to tweets.
That a Senate Committee would expect anyone to believe such a far-fetched story shows that
the Senate Intelligence (sic) Committee has no respect whatsoever for the people who elected
President Trump, or, for that matter, for anyone else at home or abroad.
This Senate report is the most incredible bullshit I have every encountered in my life.
There is no evidence whatsoever in the report. Only assertions. And most of these are based on
"open-source" internet postings by trolls and bots financed by the military/security complex
and Democratic Party.
What the report actually tells us is that no member of the Senate Intelligence Committee has
enough intelligence or integrity to serve in the US Senate. It is the Senate Intelligence
Committee that is a disgrace to America and to the entire human race.
If people want to use polls I suggest they use the gold standard WPOP fielded by the Unv
of Maryland instead of polls like Pew which are funded by the Pew Charitable Trust , which is
basically a 'Think Tank" that then presents its polls to congress trying to affect political
decisions on issues. People need to be wary of what is an 'opinion maker' instead of just an
opinion taker.
Here is a more detailed accurate picture ..bear in mind also that evans are only 10% of
the population and other factors like party affiliation affect their views. One also has to
wonder "IF" the evans as well as the other public were exposed to the real story on Israel
and not the slanted version of the US med how that would affect the numbers.
What Americans (especially Evangelicals) think about Israel and the Middle East
Evangicals, International Action, Israel, Middle East / North Africa, Views on
Countries/Regions December 4, 2015,
A new poll shows that in dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict overall, an
overwhelming 77% of Evangelical Republicans want the United States to lean toward
Israel as compared to 29% to Americans overall and 36% of non-Evangelical Republicans.
In contrast 66% of all Americans and 60% of Non-Evangelical Republicans want the United
States to lean toward neither side .
This pattern holds on other aspects of US policy toward the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
If the UN Security Council considers endorsing the establishment of a Palestinian state, only
26% of all Americans and 38% of non-Evangelical Republicans favor the US voting against it.
However six in ten Evangelical Republicans say that the US should vote against it, thus
vetoing the move.
Evangelical Republicans also differ in that they pay far more attention to a candidate's
position on Israel. When considering which candidate to vote for in Congress or for president
just 26% of all Americans and 33% of non-Evangelical Republicans say they consider the
candidates position on Israel a lot. Among Evangelical Republicans 64% say they consider it a
lot.
Views of Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also vary dramatically. Among the general
public just 32 percent have a favorable view of Netanyahu, as do 47 percent of
non-Evangelical Republicans. Favorable views rise to 66% among Evangelicals.
When asked, in an open-ended question, to name a national leader they most admire 22 percent
of Republican Evangelicals chose Netanyahu, far more than any other leader.
Among Non-Evangelical Republicans 9 percent named Netanyahu and 6 percent for the public as a
whole. Evangelical Republicans represent 23% of all Republicans and 10% of the general
population.
"There are of course partisan differences on Middle East policy in American public attitudes,
but what's most striking is that much of the differences between Republicans and the
national total disappears once one sets aside Evangelical Republicans, who constitute 10% of
all Americans " said Shibley Telhami, the poll's principal investigator. "The Israel
issue in American politics is seen to have become principally a Republican issue, but in
fact, our results show, it's principally the issue of Evangelical Republicans."
One possible explanation for Evangelical Republicans' attitudes is their religious views.
Sixty-six percent of Evangelical Republicans say that for the rapture or Second Coming to
occur it is essential for current-day Israel to include all the land they believe was
promised to Biblical Israel in the Old Testament, with 35% holding this view strongly.
The poll was sponsored by the Sadat Chair at the University of Maryland, and conducted in
cooperation with the University's Program for Public Consultation, and released at the
Brookings Institution. It was fielded by Nielsen Scarborough November 4-11, 2015, among a
nationally representative sample of online panelists of 875, plus an oversample of
Evangelicals/Born-Again Christians of 863. The margin of error is 3-4%.
Other Select Findings:
Overall, twice as many Americans say the Israeli government has too much influence (37%) than
say too little influence (18%), while a plurality (44%) say it's the right level. Among
Democrats, about half (49%) say Israel has too much influence, compared with 14% who say
Israel has too little influence, and 36% who say it's the right level; Among Republicans,
slightly more people say that Israel has too much influence (25%) than say it has too little
influence (22%) with a slight majority (52%) saying it's the right level. The percentage of
people who think that Israel has too little influence increases with age: 8% of 18-24 year
olds feel this way in contrast to 17% of 25-44 year olds, 20% of 45-64 year olds, and 22% of
those who are 65 years of age and older.
Given five options to explain the escalation of Israeli-Palestinian violence the largest
number–31%–attributes it to the absence of serious peace diplomacy, while 26%
blame continued Israeli occupation and settlement expansion in the West Bank, and the same
number blame Palestinian extremists. Only 6% each blame Israeli extremists and Palestinian
authority ineffectiveness
Concerns about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are driven more by considerations related to
human right and international law than US interests. Offered five options to explain their
concern, the largest number -- 47%– say human rights or international law, while 32%
say America's interest. Thirteen percent say cite religious beliefs, while 8% express concern
for Israel's interests .
Overall, 37% of Americans (and 49% of Democrats) recommend punitive measures against
Israel over its settlement policy (27% recommend economic sanctions, and 10% recommend taking
more serious action); 31% recommend that the U.S. limits its opposition to words, 27%
recommend that the U.S. do nothing.
American views of Muslims are strikingly partisan. While 67% of Democrats express favorable
views of Muslims, only 41% of Republicans do.
73% of Evangelicals say that world events will turn against Israel the closer we get to the
rapture or end and 78% say that the unfolding violence across the Middle East is a sign that
the end times are nearer.
WHEN IS MUELLER GOING TO INVESTIGATE AIPAC MEDDLING IN EVERY ELECTION?
Thanks for the excellent article, like usual, Mr. Giraldi. Great points. Both parties are
on the payroll of AIPAC. USA is banana republic, of Israel.
It is amazing the fake news network called CNN talks about the fake Russian interference
in the last election the whole day, but AIPAC interferes in every election of virtually every
candidate and virtually every President. When is Mueller going to investigate the biggest
foreign lobby in USA -- AIPAC?
Discussion on another thread of motives Israel might have had for killing JFK included
suggestions that the Kennedy brothers attempts to get Zioniist lobbyists to register as
foreign agents might have been very serious for Israel. Without doing the research which a
lawyer being paid for his opinion would put into it I nonetheless formed a confident view
that the argument had no legs.
No it appears AIPAC isn't a foreign lobby. If you don't like what it does you would say it
is much worse – but untouchable by Mueller.
It is perhaps peripheral to your comment but I suggest that the reality is that the same
rich Americans who have long supported Israel have set up perfectly legal American
organizations that happen to reflect Israeli policy in their lobbying without being legally
controlled or controllable by Israel.
but it's a funny thing that Israeli abuse and even killing of Arab children is not met
with the same opprobrium.
Also the intentional starving of children in Yemen. And the huge pile of dead babies in
Iraq, Libya and Syria. All of them murdered by Imperial Washington.
I much prefer President Trump to any of the candidates he defeated in the primaries and
general election. But I regret that he is a Jew.
In my last post, I mentioned the fake news that suddenly appeared to undermine President
Trump's peace effort with North Korea. I now learn the sole source of this "news" is Ken
Dilanian, the former national security reporter for the Los Angeles Times. He was
fired for having a "collaborative relationship" with the CIA . Ken Dilanian was publicly
fired from a major newspaper for inventing fake news in collaboration with the CIA, yet was
hired by NBC News! Now NBC allows him to write national security articles citing unnamed
intelligence sources! The worst part is that dozens of other corporate news organizations cite
his NBC stories. If they insist on repeating fake news, they should print this disclaimer at
the beginning of his articles:
Warning: This writer was fired by the Los Angeles Times for producing fake news in
secret cooperation with the CIA.
"... I believe the US is a right of center country (with a growing right and far right segment) and has been for most of it's history. ..."
"... The identity of the "Democratic Party" has also been stolen. They are not the FDR-JFK Democratic Party of my childhood. but rather, Neo-Toxoplasma Gondii-ists, the "Mind Invaders". ..."
"... Back in the early 1980s, the NZ Labour Party (of Mickey Savage and Norman Kirk) was taken over by Neo-liberal, Roger Douglas and his henchmen/women. ..."
"A Democrat Party composed of moderate Republicans and democratic socialists will be
divided against itself and will not stand."
I believe the US is a right of center country (with a growing right and far right
segment) and has been for most of it's history. If some of the right of center move to
left of center that may look good as far as "not Republican" but as Lambert points out does
nothing for the progressive movement. I read an article where Noam Chomsky mentioned that
people in the USA who call themselves liberals are more moderates and are not the same as
liberals in Europe. If I remember my reading of Thomas Frank's Listen Liberal, his expose' of
segments of the liberal class was to show that calling yourself liberal does not mean much if
your actions say otherwise, i.e Obama and Hillary.
The sluggish business investment chart just supports what Yves wrote in 2005 about the
Incredible Shrinking Corporation. One thing that jumps out is the increasing size of the
booms and busts since 1980 i.e. the Neoliberal Era compared to 1950-1980. In the late 1980's
I worked at a large medical device company. In 1990 I was laid off as part of a restructuring
after an Merger/Acquisition . I remember when the layoffs were announced the director of our
group said he feared the US was becoming "a short term quarter to quarter economy". Hence
booms and busts or casino capitalism. As we're finding out booms followed by busts, i.e.
instability, leads to severe social consequences: inequality, job loss, breakdown of the
family and communities etc.
I'm reminded of an old acquaintance that headed a forward M&A team. Once told of an
experience in an elevator where some lady asked if he was the same guy that came around at
her last employer. He responded yes. She then tentatively asked if she should start looking
for new employment. His answer was again yes.
This was in little more space than 6 months for the middle aged lady.
This also coincides with the great Calif M&A episode during the late 80s and early
90s. Huge wave of wage earners selling houses and migrating to states on eastern boarders due
to RE affordability and cost of living. Experienced this in the Denver – Boulder CO.
corridor at the time, storage tech et al. Funny thing, took less than 10 years before
everything reverted to the state of affairs which drove them to leave Calif. Which then
promoted me to move to Oz after marrying native wife.
Years ago I got an email from an acquaintance; " . I am deathly sick in a hospital in East
Africa. .please help by ." His identity had been stolen by con artists.
The identity of the "Democratic Party" has also been stolen. They are not the FDR-JFK
Democratic Party of my childhood. but rather, Neo-Toxoplasma Gondii-ists, the "Mind
Invaders".
Back in the early 1980s, the NZ Labour Party (of Mickey Savage and Norman Kirk) was taken
over by Neo-liberal, Roger Douglas and his henchmen/women.
" the New Zealand dollar was floated, corporate practices were introduced to state
services, state assets were sold off, and a swathe of regulations and subsidies were removed.
Douglas's economic policies were regarded as a betrayal of Labour's left-wing policy
platform, and were deeply unpopular "
I believe that the actual political spectrum is an Axis (coalition) of the Neo-Liberals
with the Neo-Conservatives .
Who are (in a perfect World) opposed by The Alliance of Everybody Else.
The Axis (a puny minority) are able to exist because they sow constant discord among the
The Alliance. (What is the definition of "abortion" or "healthcare" or "security" or "love"
..???? Let's scream at each other! That will help!)
In New Zealand, we have a coalition Government of (1) Labour (Unions), (2) NZ First
(populist) and (3) The Greens.
The out-of-power, NZ National Party (Neo-Con/Lib Axis) spend their time trying to conflate
and invent "disagreements" within our Labour Coalition Government.
But, it is like a healthy, extended family. You agree to disagree and ENJOY the lively
discussions. Parties compromise and life goes on.
I was in NZ after Rogernomics made the Kiwi $ plunge to about 35 cents US in the 1980's,
and everything was so cheap, dinners were like US $4, motel rooms US $15, homes in Auckland
US $25k.
I dread seeing the prices now, when we visit next year
If a Democratic Party composed of Romneyfeller Republicans and Democratic Socialists will
not stand, then eventually the two separated fighting halves will fight to the death over
which half gets to keep the name "Democratic Party".
Meanwhile, the Woodrow Wilson quote above gives some evidence as to why some people have
long called Wilson "America's most evil President". His bringing official Jim Crow to the
Federal Workforce in Washington DC might be another piece of evidence. His unleashing of a
vicious and bigoted campaign of anti-germanitic cultural and social pogroms all over America
might be another piece of evidence. The fact that he did this as part of his World War I
program, after having worked with Great Britain to lie and manipulate America into World War
I ( some would say on the wrong side . . . ) is another piece of evidence. His political
"extermination" campaign against the American Left ( Debs in prison, etc) thereby reducing
the Left toward its tiny size of today is another such piece of evidence.
The actions of America's most evil President ( Woodrow Wilson) may help explain why
America is a center-right country today.
Few issues generate a bipartisan response in Washington. President Donald Trump's upcoming
summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin is one.
Democrats who once pressed for détente with the Soviet Union act as if Trump will be
giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Neoconservatives and other Republican hawks are equally
horrified, having pressed for something close to war with Moscow since the latter's annexation
of Crimea in 2014. Both sides act as if the Soviet Union has been reborn and Cold War has
restarted.
Russia's critics present a long bill of requirements to be met before they would relax
sanctions or otherwise improve relations. Putin could save time by agreeing to be an American
vassal.
Topping everyone's list is Russian interference in the 2016 election, which was outrageous.
Protecting the integrity of our democratic system is a vital interest, even if the American
people sometimes treat candidates with contempt. Before joining the administration National
Security Adviser John Bolton even called Russian meddling "a casus belli , a true act of
war."
Yet Washington has promiscuously meddled in other nations' elections. Carnegie Mellon's Dov
H. Levin figured that between 1946 and 2000 the U.S. government interfered with 81 foreign
contests, including the 1996 Russian poll. Retired U.S. intelligence officers freely admit that
Washington has routinely sought to influence other nations' elections.
Yes, of course, Americans are the good guys and favor politicians and parties that the other
peoples would vote for if only they better understood their own interests -- as we naturally
do. Unfortunately, foreign governments don't see Uncle Sam as a Vestal Virgin acting on behalf
of mankind. Indeed, Washington typically promotes outcomes more advantageous to, well,
Washington. Perhaps Trump and Putin could make a bilateral commitment to stay out of other
nations' elections.
Another reason to shun Russia, argued Senator Rob Portman, is because "Russia still occupies
Crimea and continues to fuel a violent conflict in eastern Ukraine." Moscow annexed Crimea
after a U.S.-backed street putsch ousted the elected but highly corrupt Ukrainian President
Viktor Yanukovych. The territory historically was Russian, turned over to Ukraine most likely
as part of a political bargain in the power struggle following Joseph Stalin's death. A
majority of Crimeans probably wanted to return to Russia. However, the annexation was
lawless.
Rather like America's dismemberment of Serbia, detaching Kosovo after mighty NATO entered
the final civil war growing out of the dissolution of Yugoslavia. Naturally, the U.S. again had
right on its side -- it always does! -- which obviously negated any obligations created by
international law. Ever-virtuous Washington even ignored the post-victory ethnic cleansing by
Albanian Kosovars
Still, this makes Washington's complaints about Russia seem just a bit hypocritical: do as
we say, not as we do. In August 2008 John McCain expressed outrage over Russia's war with
Georgia, exclaiming: "In the 21st century, nations don't invade other nations." Apparently he
forgot that five years before the U.S. invaded Iraq, with McCain's passionate support. Here,
too, the two presidents could agree to mutual forbearance.
Worse is the conflict in the Donbas, in eastern Ukraine, between the Ukrainian army and
separatists backed by Russia. Casualty estimates vary widely, but are in the thousands. Moscow
successfully weakened Kiev and prevented its accession to NATO. However, that offers neither
legal nor moral justification for underwriting armed revolt.
Alas, the U.S. again comes to Russia with unclean hands. Washington is supporting the brutal
war by Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates against Yemen. Area specialists agree that the
conflict started as just another violent episode in a country which has suffered civil strife
and war for decades. The Houthis, a tribal/ethnic/religious militia, joined with their
long-time enemy, former President Ali Abdullah Saleh, to oust his successor, Abdrabbuh Mansur
Hadi. Riyadh and Abu Dhabi attacked to reinstall a pliable regime and win economic control. The
U.S. joined the aggressors . At least Russia could claim national security was at stake,
since it feared Ukraine might join NATO.
The "coalition" attack turned the Yemeni conflict into a sectarian fight, forced the Houthis
to seek Iranian aid, and allowed Tehran to bleed its Gulf rivals at little cost. Human rights
groups agree that the vast majority of civilian deaths and bulk of destruction have been caused
by Saudi and Emirati bombing, with Washington's direct assistance. The humanitarian crisis
includes a massive cholera epidemic. The security consequences include empowering al-Qaeda in
the Arabian Peninsula. Perhaps the U.S. and Russian governments could commit to jointly forgo
supporting war for frivolous causes.
Human carnage and physical destruction are widespread in Syria. It will take years to
rebuild homes and communities; the hundreds of thousands of dead can never be replaced. Yet
Moscow has gone all out to keep Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in power. The Heritage
Foundation's Luke Coffey and Alexis Mrachek demand that Moscow end its support for Assad "and
demonstrate a genuine willingness to work with the international community to bring a political
end to the Syrian civil war." The American Enterprise Institute's Leon Aron urged "a true
Russian withdrawal from Syria, specifically ceding control of the Hmeymim airbase and
dismantling recent expansions to the Tartus naval facility."
But the U.S. is in no position to complain. Washington's intervention has been disastrous,
first discouraging a negotiated settlement, then promoting largely non-existent moderate
insurgents, backing radicals, including the al-Qaeda affiliate (remember 9/11!?) against Assad,
simultaneously allying with Kurds and Turks, and taking over the fight against the Islamic
State even though virtually everyone in the Mideast had reason to oppose the group.
At least Russia, invited by the recognized government, had a reason to be there. Moscow's
alliance with Syria dates back to the Cold War and poses no threat to America, which is allied
with Israel, the Gulf States, Turkey, Jordan, and Egypt. Washington also possesses military
facilities in Bahrain, Djibouti, Egypt, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi
Arabia, Turkey, and United Arab Emirates. For most Middle Eastern countries Moscow is primarily
a bargaining chip to extort more benefits from America. Trump could propose that both countries
withdraw from Syria.
Coffey and Mracek also express outrage that Moscow "has weaponized its natural gas exports
to Europe, turning off the tap when countries dare go against its wishes." Russia's customers
should not fear coercion via cut-off. Of course, the U.S. never uses its economic power for
political ends. Other than to routinely impose economic sanctions on a variety of nations on
its naughty list. And to penalize not only American firms, but businesses from every other
nation .
Indeed, the Trump administration is insisting that every company in every country stop doing
business with Iran. The U.S. government will bar violators from the U.S. market or impose
ruinous fines on them. The Trump administration plans to sanction even its European allies,
those most vulnerable to Russian energy politics. Which suggests a modus vivendi that
America's friends likely would applaud: both Washington and Moscow could promise not to take
advantage of other nations' economic vulnerabilities for political ends.
Cyberwar is a variant of economic conflict. Heritage's Mracek cited "the calamitous
cyberattack, NotPetya," as "part of Russia's effort to destabilize Ukraine even further than in
the past." Yes, a criminal act. Of course, much the same could be said of Stuxnet, which was
thought to be a joint American-Israeli assault on Iran's nuclear program. And there are reports
of U.S. attempts to similarly hamper North Korean missile development. Some consider such
direct attacks on other governments to be akin to acts of war. Would Washington join Moscow in
a pledge to become a good cyber citizen?
Virtually everyone challenges Russia on human rights. Moscow falls far short, with Putin's
control of the media, manipulation of the electoral process, and violence against those
perceived as regime enemies. In this regard, at least, America is far better.
But many U.S. allies similarly fail this test. For instance, Turkish President Recep Tayyip
Erdogan has created an authoritarian state retaining merely the forms of democracy. Egypt's
President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi has constructed a tyranny more brutal than that of Hosni
Mubarak. Saudi Arabia's monarchy allows neither religious nor political freedom, and has grown
more repressive under Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman. It is not just Trump who remains
largely silent about such assaults on people's basic liberties. So do many of the president's
critics, who express horror that he would deal with such a man as Putin.
Moscow will not be an easy partner for the U.S. Explaining that "nobody wanted to listen to
us" before he took over, in March Putin declared: "You hear us now!" Compromise is inevitable,
but requires respect for both nations' interests. A starting point could be returning the two
nations' embassies to full strength and addressing arms control, such as the faltering
Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty and soon-expiring Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty. A
larger understanding based on NATO ending alliance expansion in return for Russia withdrawing
from the conflict in the Donbas would be worth pursuing.
Neither the U.S. nor the Russian Federation can afford to allow their relations to
deteriorate into another Cold War. Russia is too important on too many issues, including acting
as a counterweight to China, the most serious geopolitical challenge to the U.S. Hopefully the
upcoming summit will begin the difficult process of rebuilding a working relationship between
Washington and Moscow.
That's all right and indignation is well deserved, but what is the alternative? Is Sanders
program a real alternative or he just served as a sheepdog for Hillary.
The Iron law of oligarchy is a serious constrain that suggest that the socialist system degenerate to oligarchical system
really quick and as such is not a viable option.
The USSR experience tells us a lot about how the process of degeneration of "revolutionary elite" once started logically leads
to neoliberalism
Notable quotes:
"... The elite class secured its stance as British Rule 2.0 by throwing their money behind politicians who they knew would advance their interests, whether those interests are in ensuring that the arms and munitions they manufacture get used frequently, the expansion of predatory trade policies, keeping tax loopholes open and keeping taxes on the wealthiest of the wealthy very low, deregulating corporations and banks, or enabling underhanded Wall Street practices which hurt the many for the benefit of the few. ..."
"... Buckley v. Valeo ..."
"... First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti ..."
"... Citizens United v. FEC ..."
"... So if you've ever wondered why seemingly common sense matters like a living wage and healthcare as a right consistently get shot down by your government, this is why. In order to rule you as King George ruled you, the oligarchs need to make sure most of America is toiling just to keep its head above water. Progressives were able to mount an intimidating insurgency using tiny 27-dollar donations on 2016; imagine what they could do if ordinary working Americans were being paid their fair share of the U.S. economy? ..."
"... The oligarchs can keep that from happening by continually escalating income inequality. They use their massive political power to repress the minimum wage, to undermine the power of unions ..."
"... America is a corporatist oligarchy dressed in drag doing a bad impression of a bipartisan democracy. Sometimes it doesn't even keep its wig on; a recent party at the Hamptons saw Jared Kushner, Ivanka Trump, Kellyanne Conway and Charles Koch mixing it up with Chuck Schumer and George Soros. ..."
"... When they're not dining on champagne and rare fillet together, these people pretend to be locked in a vicious partisan battle that is "tearing the nation apart," but at Lally Weymouth's annual Southampton summer party the act stops and the oligarchs frolic together like children. ..."
"... This commentary was originally published on ..."
"... The Constitution, and the Bill of Rights were NOT inclusive documents. Both of these papers were written by, and for rich landowners. Slavers, in short. The writers did not believe that 'the people' were intelligent enough to contribute to government. The 'Founding Fathers' comprised the original oligarchy. ..."
"... America was formed/founded by White men seeking fame, fortune and power outside the existing European political power structure. From its' beginning, it has been a nation of migrants seeking this kind of fortune ..."
"... You can talk all you want about political systems, which is better or how to corral the oligarchs who rule America, but what I've described is America and the world will never have peace or prosperity until the American Empire ends and the whole world can then celebrate American Independence Day – the Day when the rest of the world is Independent from the Evil Empire. ..."
"... Hard to have a Fourth of July celebration when your Bill of Rights and Constitution have been Trashed. ..."
"... Marxists (and much of the broader. "Left") have always maintained that the capitalist mode of production – and the bourgeois-democratic political superstructure it necessitates – represented an immense revolutionary achievement in the course of human development. ..."
"... Casting aside the last vestiges of the feudal system, particularly hereditary monarchy and titles of nobility, was critical to the eventual move toward a more equitable system of political economy. ..."
"... The reactionary system of corporate rule that we see today is a result of the bourgeoisie and capitalist system having (long) outlived their historically progressive role. However, that does not minimize the fact that in relation to the prior system (I.e. feudalism and monarchy), the US capitalist bourgeois-democratic form of political economy was a great achievement. ..."
"... "Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents." Major General Smedley Butler ..."
"... I can't disagree with this articles premise that capitalism has it's flaws but I also contend that socialism has just as sordid a track record with it's own set of oligarchs. ..."
"... The United States did not win independence from George III. Since 1689 the UK/Great Britain has been a CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY. (Now go look that up to see what it means.) That means that Parliament does not answer to the monarch. Period. ..."
"... George III was America's eighteenth century Putin. Someone they blame for all their problems, but who is not actually responsible for any of them. Americans, like their precious Second Amendment will not grow up and move on. ..."
"... The establishment of the Central Bank in City-of-London in 1694 or thereabouts, when William of Orange crossed the English Chanel, along with his retinue of immigrant Venetian banksters from the Netherlands, is the one pertinent fact worth remembering. ..."
"... Whether one envisages the traditional concept of royalty with precious stones-studded crowns and all the "royal" trapping, pomp and circumstance or multi-billionaire corporate tax-evading mega-moguls, the groups are essentially the same. Wealth inequality on Earth, ironically and sadly, has grown while so-called "royalty" as a visible phenomenon has slowly diminished. The problems associated with record concentration of wealth on Earth have grown in equal proportion, to the point where people are starting to consider newer, potentially more beneficial economic thought and viable alternative systems. ..."
Americans celebrate their independence 242 years ago today from Britain with little
thought it seems about who rules them now, comments Caitlin Johnstone.
Today America celebrates its liberation from the
shackles of the British Crown and the beginning of its transition into corporatist oligarchy,
which is a lot like celebrating your lateral promotion from housekeeping to laundry staff.
Fireworks will be set off, hot dogs will be consumed, and a strange yellow concoction known as
Mountain Dew will be imbibed by patriotic high-fiving Yankees eager to celebrate their
hard-fought freedom to funnel their taxes into corporate welfare instead of to the King.
Spark up a bottle rocket for me, America! In trouncing King George's red-coated goon squad,
you made it possible for the donor class to slowly buy up more and more control of your shiny
new government, allowing for a system of rule determined not by royal bloodlines, but by wealth
bloodlines. Now instead of your national affairs being determined by some gilded schmuck across
the pond, they are determined by the billionaire owners of multinational corporations and
banks. These oligarchs have shored up their rule to such an extent that congressional
candidates who outspend their opponents are almost
certain to win , and a
2014 Princeton study found that ordinary Americans have no influence whatsoever over the
behavior of their government while the will of the wealthy has a direct influence on US policy
and legislation.
The elite class secured its stance as British Rule 2.0 by throwing their money behind
politicians who they knew would advance their interests, whether those interests are in
ensuring that the arms and munitions they manufacture get used frequently, the expansion of
predatory trade policies, keeping tax loopholes open and keeping taxes on the wealthiest of the
wealthy very low, deregulating corporations and banks, or enabling underhanded Wall Street
practices which hurt the many for the benefit of the few. The existence of legalized
bribery and corporate lobbying as illustrated in the video above have enabled the plutocrats to
buy up the Legislative and Executive branches of the US government, and with these in their
pockets they were eventually able to get the Judicial branch as well since justices are
appointed and approved by the other two. Now having secured all three branches in a system of
checks and balances theoretically designed to prevent totalitarian rule, the billionaire class
has successfully secured totalitarian rule.
By tilting the elections of congressmen and presidents in such a way as to install a
corporatist Supreme Court bench, the oligarchs successfully got legislation passed which
further secured and expanded their rule with decisions like 1976's Buckley v. Valeo,
1978's First National
Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, and 2010's Citizens United v. FEC .
This has had the effect of creating a nation wherein money equals power, which has in turn had
the effect of creating a system wherein the ruling class is, in a very real way, incentivized
to try and keep everyone else poor in order to maintain its rule.
George III: Like today's rulers of America, he didn't give up without a fight. (National
Portrait Gallery, London.)
Just as King George didn't give up rule of the New World colonies without a knock-down,
drag-out fight, King George 2.0 has no intention of relinquishing its rule either. The
oligarchs have been fighting to keep their power, and, in the money-equals-power system that
they have built for themselves, this necessarily means keeping you from having money. Just as
King George's kingship would have meant nothing if everybody was King, the oligarchs won't be
oligarchs anymore if ordinary Americans are ever able to secure enough money for themselves to
begin influencing their government within its current money-equals-power paradigm.
So if you've ever wondered why seemingly common sense matters like a living wage and
healthcare as a right consistently get shot down by your government, this is why. In order to
rule you as King George ruled you, the oligarchs need to make sure most of America is toiling
just to keep its head above water. Progressives were able to mount an intimidating insurgency
using tiny 27-dollar donations on 2016; imagine what they could do if ordinary working
Americans were being paid their fair share of the U.S. economy?
The oligarchs can keep that from happening by continually escalating income inequality.
They use their massive political power to repress the minimum wage, to undermine the power of
unions , and to continually pull more and more energy away from socialist programs and
toward the corporate deregulation of neoliberalism. If you don't depend on running the rat race
for some corporate boss in order for your family to have health insurance, you're suddenly free
to innovate, create, and become an economically powerful entrepreneur yourself.
America is a corporatist oligarchy dressed in drag doing a bad impression of a
bipartisan democracy. Sometimes it doesn't even keep its wig on; a recent party at the Hamptons
saw Jared Kushner, Ivanka Trump, Kellyanne Conway and Charles Koch mixing it up with Chuck
Schumer and George Soros.
When they're not dining on champagne and rare fillet together, these people pretend to
be locked in a vicious partisan battle that is "tearing the nation apart," but at Lally
Weymouth's annual Southampton summer party the act stops and the oligarchs frolic together like
children.
1776 turned out to be nothing other than a transition from one form of exploitative rule to
another, but who knows? Maybe a year in the not-too-distant future will see America celebrating
a real Independence Day.
This
commentary was originally published on Medium.
"Just a reminder; Sanders would have won if not for the hated Hillary"
Even if he did, it would not have made a difference; the POTUS does not make laws,
Congress does, at least on paper
Just remember, Bernie did endorse RHC at the DNC. That probably had been the play all
along during the primary. Sanders to woo in all of the "dissenters" and then turn them over
to RHC, under the "unity" umbrella against Trump.
I still "Feel the Burn", the burn of the rigged system, don't you?
rgl , July 5, 2018 at 12:52 pm
The Constitution, and the Bill of Rights were NOT inclusive documents. Both of these
papers were written by, and for rich landowners. Slavers, in short. The writers did not
believe that 'the people' were intelligent enough to contribute to government. The 'Founding
Fathers' comprised the original oligarchy.
Money (land and slaves) was the basis of political power in the 17th century. Funny that.
The more things change the more they stay the same.
Ergo Sum , July 5, 2018 at 7:32 am
@Jean
Just a reminder; Sanders would have won if not for the hated Hillary"
It would not have made any difference, even if he did. The POTUS does not make laws,
Congress does.
You should not forget that Sanders endorsed RHC at the DNC. His purpose during the primary
has been to channel all of democrats with social, economic and political dissatisfaction to
Hillary at the end. "Feel The Burn", the burn of the rigged system. It is another example of
how the rigged system allows minor uprising to flourish for a while, and then crush it at the
end by the perceived front-runner of the movement. The movement is dead, voters are further
disillusioned that enforces the viewpoint of there's nothing that peaceful action can do to
change the system. This results in even less people showing up at the voting booth to cast
their votes, that the rigged system loves; it does not need to disenfranchise voters and
easier to predetermine the outcome any of the upcoming elections.
Happy Birthday America, the home of the free and the brave You are free to rig the system,
if you are brave enough
Tom , July 5, 2018 at 5:58 am
America was formed/founded by White men seeking fame, fortune and power outside the
existing European political power structure. From its' beginning, it has been a nation of
migrants seeking this kind of fortune – bugger those damn savages that get in the way
of this greed and desire to take land, resources and culture away from America's native
inhabitants. And so it began this way and has continued unabated for more than the life of
the nation which began in 1776 – more than 240 years of expansionism, colonization and
subjugation of those less powerful – too take away the land and resources of not just
the native American Indians, but later the peoples of Cuba, Philippines, Japan, China and on
to the World Wars, late 20th century wars in Iraq, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria,
Yemen and on and on an on – continuous warfare and expansionism of the American Empire
to take away land, resources and power of the native inhabitants of every nation the US
targets for regime change or conquest.
You can talk all you want about political systems,
which is better or how to corral the oligarchs who rule America, but what I've described is
America and the world will never have peace or prosperity until the American Empire ends and
the whole world can then celebrate American Independence Day – the Day when the rest of
the world is Independent from the Evil Empire.
Hard to have a Fourth of July celebration when your Bill of Rights and Constitution have
been Trashed.
Anonymous , July 5, 2018 at 3:43 am
Marxists (and much of the broader. "Left") have always maintained that the capitalist mode
of production – and the bourgeois-democratic political superstructure it necessitates
– represented an immense revolutionary achievement in the course of human
development.
Anonymous , July 5, 2018 at 12:25 pm
Casting aside the last vestiges of the feudal system, particularly hereditary monarchy and
titles of nobility, was critical to the eventual move toward a more equitable system of
political economy.
The reactionary system of corporate rule that we see today is a result of the bourgeoisie
and capitalist system having (long) outlived their historically progressive role. However,
that does not minimize the fact that in relation to the prior system (I.e. feudalism and
monarchy), the US capitalist bourgeois-democratic form of political economy was a great
achievement.
"Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to
operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents." Major General Smedley
Butler
Good on you Mukadi for posting this link. PCR did a great analogy of our American war
culture. Joe
It's a knee-jerk celebration, anyway, for the most part. The citizens are told to
celebrate, so they celebrate. Just like Thanksgiving, Christmas, Valentine's Day, the Fourth
of July is a day to generate money. The firecrackers are popping right now, a worship of the
warship that the US has become.
Much of my time is spent reading commentary that I agree with and articles I agree with.
Something to consider for the website, descriptive articles yes but more prescriptive ones.
For example, articles by people who have ideas for change, addressing important policy
questions like taxation, health insurance, technology stuff like robotics and how to spread
its benefits. and of course, reform of the process of selecting and electing our leaders.
Just a thought.
Kenny , July 4, 2018 at 5:43 pm
I can't disagree with this articles premise that capitalism has it's flaws but I also
contend that socialism has just as sordid a track record with it's own set of oligarchs.
Horrendous global economic conditions require new economic thinking that improves the
health and well-being of the most number of people. Economist and author Henry George
(1839-1897) nailed it decades ago in his multi-million copy, bestselling 1879 book "Progress
and Poverty" – the "single tax" or land value tax.
Consortium News would do humanity a great service by bringing the writings of Henry George
economic philosophy advocates to readers and CN's massive group of supporters around the
world. For example, an excellent guest writer suggestion is Henry George expert, confirmed
enthusiast, and author of many books on the subject, Mr. Fred Harrison.
System-wide implementation of Henry George economic principles addresses the real concerns
raised by Caitlin Johnstone and so many others in this time of unprecedented wealth
inequality, faulty economics, the new royals called corporate oligarchs, seeming endless war,
and the great societal problems manifested as a consequence.
Peace.
Drew Hunkins , July 4, 2018 at 4:28 pm
Jefferson was very old when he first saw the fledgling stages of early corporate power,
they called them "moneyed incorporations" or something like that. Jefferson warned that these
new "moneyed incorporations" had the potential power to undermine everything the revolution
accomplished.
John2o2o , July 4, 2018 at 4:18 pm
Sigh. I know I'm probably wasting my time saying this as Caitlin's groupies will not
tolerate criticism of their anointed one.
The United States did not win independence from George III. Since 1689 the UK/Great
Britain has been a CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY. (Now go look that up to see what it means.) That
means that Parliament does not answer to the monarch. Period.
"In the Kingdom of England, the Glorious Revolution of 1688 led to a constitutional
monarchy restricted by laws such as the Bill of Rights 1689 and the Act of Settlement 1701,
although limits on the power of the monarch ('a limited monarchy') are much older than that
(see Magna Carta). At the same time, in Scotland the Convention of Estates enacted the Claim
of Right Act 1689, which placed similar limits on the Scottish monarchy." wikipedia.
George III was America's eighteenth century Putin. Someone they blame for all their
problems, but who is not actually responsible for any of them. Americans, like their precious
Second Amendment will not grow up and move on.
I know it suits some of you to believe that somehow the royals are super powerful, but
they are not. They don't call the shots and haven't done so now for over 300 years.
Joe Lauria , July 4, 2018 at 4:43 pm
"War began in 1775 and was prolonged in 1779, *at the king's insistence,* to prevent
copycat protests elsewhere. The British defeat in 1781 prompted North to resign. In 1783,
North and the prominent Whig politician Fox formed a coalition government. Their plans to
reform the East India Company gave George the chance to regain popularity. He *forced the
bill's defeat* in Parliament, and the two resigned. In their place George *appointed* William
Pitt the Younger."
George blocked legislation and he appointed the first minister, i.e. he had power over
parliament.
The Continental Congress was primarily frustrated with Parliament, a resent that had been
brewing since the conclusion of the Seven Years War. But, at the same time, royalist
enthusiasm had been budding, with an increasing obsession within the colonies of being
faithful servants of the crown. Thus, the Congress styled their petitions to the monarch,
hoping he would quash his evil ministers, with George III being the hoped for "patriot king".
When George attacked the colonies, and began efforts to crackdown on political unrest, the
otherwise unpopular and extreme option of independence became feasible. George was not an
absolute monarch or a tyrant, but he did have significant power, and he could, if he played
parliamentary politics well enough, get his way. The Glorious Revolution did not disempower
the monarchy or firmly establish parliamentary power, both of these phenomena began both
before and after the events of 1688.
Brad Owen , July 5, 2018 at 4:20 am
The establishment of the Central Bank in City-of-London in 1694 or thereabouts, when
William of Orange crossed the English Chanel, along with his retinue of immigrant Venetian
banksters from the Netherlands, is the one pertinent fact worth remembering.
THIS is what the
Founders actually declared their independence from, establishing the National Bank in the
process (which was shut down relatively quickly thereafter, by agents loyal to City-of-London
Central Bank). Independence has been a farce from the beginning and we never had our
Republic, let alone keeping it, as Benjamin Franklin had warned us would be the problem.
We've had a phony Republic based on the model supplied by Venice (and established by Venetian
"Dutch Masters" in The Netherlands in the 17th century) throughout the Medieval/Renaissance
eras. It is the same old, ongoing, Citizens' Republic vs Oligarchs' Empire fight that Western
Civilzation inherited from Roman times.
Whether one envisages the traditional concept of royalty with precious stones-studded
crowns and all the "royal" trapping, pomp and circumstance or multi-billionaire corporate
tax-evading mega-moguls, the groups are essentially the same. Wealth inequality on Earth,
ironically and sadly, has grown while so-called "royalty" as a visible phenomenon has slowly
diminished. The problems associated with record concentration of wealth on Earth have grown
in equal proportion, to the point where people are starting to consider newer, potentially
more beneficial economic thought and viable alternative systems.
The ideas of economist and author of "Progress and Poverty" – HENRY GEORGE
(1839-1897) "Single tax" proponent (or "land value tax") – are both disappointingly
under-discussed and under-appreciated, while offering precisely the economic alternative for
effectively dealing with today's orthodox economy-centric global, societal problems. People
might take the time in researching Henry George's ideas when they understand (only one of
many benefits) that implementation of Georgist economic principles means no more income tax
taken out of their paychecks
Consortium News (CN) is the perfect platform for support of Henry George economic thought
and raising awareness of an idea whose time may just have arrived. We might suggest
Consortium News publish the writings of Henry George expert and author of many books on the
subject Mr. Fred Harrison, who would likely happily provide his impressive writings for
free.
We might also suggest the many millions of men and women from all regions of the Earth
reading Consortium News consider finding out more on Henry George economic thought, do the
researching, then understand the economic philosophy's virtually immeasurable, positive and
transforming potential.
Source information search suggestion: Henry George School of Social Science.
"... The fact of the matter is, if Russia wanted to do, cause lot of difficulty to the American election they could have. Instead, they went and talked privately to us. So when the government says Russia intercepted stuff that was very important to us, I'm being very fuzzy about it, it wasn't about the election. They told us that there were certain people in America doing things that were very deleterious to the War on Terrorism for personal and financial gain, and they could have blown it publicly but they went internally to us." ..."
"... I haven't listened to that particular interview yet, but can say the the HRC emails with Sid Blumenthal show the reason we got in bed with Sarkozy (and Britain) to destroy Libya was: ..."
"... To steal the nationalized oil ..."
"... To steal the hundreds of tons of gold and silver. ..."
"... To prevent Libya from developing a pan-African gold dinar and development bank to complete with the Federal Reserve petrodollar and the IMF. ..."
"... I can also say that Hersh documented that Ambassador Stevens was an arms dealer, smuggling Libyan military weapons into Syria to finish the "regime change" operation still ongoing there. Also, HRC knew her "rebels" were hunting down and murdering any black Libyans they could find even before Gaddafi was anally bayonet raped. ..."
Hello There! I'm curious to know if any readers have comments about a recent Sy Hersh
interview. In response to a question about Russian interference in the last US presidential
election Hersh replied:
"I have been reporting something, I've been watching something since 2011 in Libya, when we
had a secretary of state that later ran for president, and I will tell you: Some stories take
a long time. And I don't know quite how to package it. I don't know how much to say about it.
I assure you that there's no known intelligence that Russia impacted, cut into the DNC,
Podesta e-mails. That did not happen. I can say that.
I can also say Russia learned other things about what was going on in Libya with us and
instead of blowing -- [. . . lots cut out here before returning to the topic . . . ]
The fact of the matter is, if Russia wanted to do, cause lot of difficulty to the
American election they could have. Instead, they went and talked privately to us. So when the
government says Russia intercepted stuff that was very important to us, I'm being very fuzzy
about it, it wasn't about the election. They told us that there were certain people in
America doing things that were very deleterious to the War on Terrorism for personal and
financial gain, and they could have blown it publicly but they went internally to
us."
I haven't listened to that particular interview yet, but can say the the HRC emails with Sid
Blumenthal show the reason we got in bed with Sarkozy (and Britain) to destroy Libya was:
To steal the nationalized oil
To steal the hundreds of tons of gold and silver.
To prevent Libya from developing a pan-African gold dinar and development bank to complete
with the Federal Reserve petrodollar and the IMF.
I can also say that Hersh documented that Ambassador Stevens was an arms dealer, smuggling
Libyan military weapons into Syria to finish the "regime change" operation still ongoing there.
Also, HRC knew her "rebels" were hunting down and murdering any black Libyans they could find
even before Gaddafi was anally bayonet raped.
If I come up with more after listening, I'll post again.
Looks like Brennan abused his power as a head of CIA and should be held accountable for that.
Notable quotes:
"... Did the U.S. "Intelligence Community" judge that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election? ..."
"... it is not that ..."
"... even that is misleading ..."
"... the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence Research did, in fact, have a different opinion but was not allowed to express it ..."
"... The second thing to remember is that reports of the intelligence agencies reflect the views of the heads of the agencies and are not necessarily a consensus of their analysts' views. The heads of both the CIA and FBI are political appointments, while the NSA chief is a military officer; his agency is a collector of intelligence rather than an analyst of its import, except in the fields of cryptography and communications security. ..."
"... Among the assertions are that a persona calling itself "Guccifer 2.0" is an instrument of the GRU, and that it hacked the emails on the Democratic National Committee's computer and conveyed them to Wikileaks. What the report does not explain is that it is easy for a hacker or foreign intelligence service to leave a false trail. In fact, a program developed by CIA with NSA assistance to do just that has been leaked and published. ..."
"... Retired senior NSA technical experts have examined the "Guccifer 2.0" data on the web and have concluded that "Guccifer 2.0's" data did not involve a hack across the web but was locally downloaded. Further, the data had been tampered with and manipulated, leading to the conclusion that "Guccifer 2.0" is a total fabrication. ..."
"... "Disclosures through WikiLeaks did not contain any evident forgeries." ..."
"... DHS [the Department of Homeland Security] assesses that the types of systems Russian actors targeted or compromised were not involved in vote tallying ..."
"... Prominent American journalists and politicians seized upon this shabby, politically motivated, report as proof of "Russian interference" in the U.S. election without even the pretense of due diligence. They have objectively acted as co-conspirators in an effort to block any improvement in relations with Russia, even though cooperation with Russia to deal with common dangers is vital to both countries. ..."
Musings II The "Intelligence Community," "Russian Interference," and Due Diligence
Posted on by JackDid the U.S. "Intelligence Community" judge that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential
election?
Most commentators seem to think so. Every news report I have read of the planned meeting of
Presidents Trump and Putin in July refers to "Russian interference" as a fact and asks whether
the matter will be discussed. Reports that President Putin denied involvement in the election
are scoffed at, usually with a claim that the U.S. "intelligence community" proved Russian
interference. In fact, the U.S. "intelligence community" has not done so. The intelligence
community as a whole has not been tasked to make a judgment and some key members of that
community did not participate in the report that is routinely cited as "proof" of "Russian
interference."
I spent the 35 years of my government service with a "top secret" clearance. When I reached
the rank of ambassador and also worked as Special Assistant to the President for National
Security, I also had clearances for "codeword" material. At that time, intelligence reports to
the president relating to Soviet and European affairs were routed through me for comment. I
developed at that time a "feel" for the strengths and weaknesses of the various American
intelligence agencies. It is with that background that I read the January 6. 2017 report of three
intelligence agencies: the CIA, FBI, and NSA.
This report is labeled "Intelligence Community Assessment," but in fact it is not
that . A report of the intelligence community in my day would include the input of all the
relevant intelligence agencies and would reveal whether all agreed with the conclusions.
Individual agencies did not hesitate to "take a footnote" or explain their position if they
disagreed with a particular assessment. A report would not claim to be that of the
"intelligence community" if any relevant agency was omitted.
The report states that it represents the findings of three intelligence agencies: CIA, FBI,
and NSA, but even that is misleading in that it implies that there was a consensus of
relevant analysts in these three agencies. In fact, the report was prepared by a group of
analysts from the three agencies pre-selected by their directors, with the selection process
generally overseen by James Clapper, then Director of National Intelligence (DNI). Clapper told
the Senate in testimony May 8, 2017, that it was prepared by "two dozen or so analysts --
hand-picked, seasoned experts from each of the contributing agencies." If you can hand-pick the
analysts, you can hand-pick the conclusions. The analysts selected would have understood what
Director Clapper wanted since he made no secret of his views. Why would they endanger their
careers by not delivering?
What should have struck any congressperson or reporter was that the procedure Clapper
followed was the same as that used in 2003 to produce the report falsely claiming that Saddam
Hussein had retained stocks of weapons of mass destruction. That should be worrisome enough to
inspire questions, but that is not the only anomaly.
The DNI has under his aegis a National Intelligence Council whose officers can call any
intelligence agency with relevant expertise to draft community assessments. It was created by
Congress after 9/11 specifically to correct some of the flaws in intelligence collection
revealed by 9/11. Director Clapper chose not to call on the NIC, which is curious since its
duty is "to act as a bridge between the intelligence and policy communities."
During my time in government, a judgment regarding national security would include reports
from, as a minimum, the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), and the Bureau of
Intelligence and Research (INR) of the State Department. The FBI was rarely, if ever, included
unless the principal question concerned law enforcement within the United States. NSA might
have provided some of the intelligence used by the other agencies but normally did not express
an opinion regarding the substance of reports.
What did I notice when I read the January report? There was no mention of INR or DIA! The
exclusion of DIA might be understandable since its mandate deals primarily with military
forces, except that the report attributes some of the Russian activity to the GRU, Russian
military intelligence. DIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, is the U.S. intelligence organ
most expert on the GRU. Did it concur with this attribution? The report doesn't say.
The omission of INR is more glaring since a report on foreign political activity could not
have been that of the U.S. intelligence community without its participation. After all, when it
comes to assessments of foreign intentions and foreign political activity, the State
Department's intelligence service is by far the most knowledgeable and competent. In my day, it
reported accurately on Gorbachev's reforms when the CIA leaders were advising that Gorbachev
had the same aims as his predecessors.
This is where due diligence comes in. The first question responsible journalists and
politicians should have asked is "Why is INR not represented? Does it have a different opinion?
If so, what is that opinion? Most likely the official answer would have been that this is
"classified information." But why should it be classified? If some agency heads come to a
conclusion and choose (or are directed) to announce it publicly, doesn't the public deserve to
know that one of the key agencies has a different opinion?
The second question should have been directed at the CIA, NSA, and FBI: did all their
analysts agree with these conclusions or were they divided in their conclusions? What was the
reason behind hand-picking analysts and departing from the customary practice of enlisting
analysts already in place and already responsible for following the issues involved?
As I was recently informed by a senior official, the State Department's Bureau of
Intelligence Research did, in fact, have a different opinion but was not allowed to express
it . So the January report was not one of the "intelligence community," but rather of
three intelligence agencies, two of which have no responsibility or necessarily any competence
to judge foreign intentions. The job of the FBI is to enforce federal law. The job of NSA is to
intercept the communications of others and to protect ours. It is not staffed to assess the
content of what is intercepted; that task is assumed by others, particularly the CIA, the DIA
(if it is military) or the State Department's INR (if it is political).
The second thing to remember is that reports of the intelligence agencies reflect the views
of the heads of the agencies and are not necessarily a consensus of their analysts' views. The
heads of both the CIA and FBI are political appointments, while the NSA chief is a military
officer; his agency is a collector of intelligence rather than an analyst of its import, except
in the fields of cryptography and communications security.
One striking thing about the press coverage and Congressional discussion of the January
report, and of subsequent statements by CIA, FBI, and NSA heads is that questions were never
posed regarding the position of the State Department's INR, or whether the analysts in the
agencies cited were in total agreement with the conclusions.
Let's put these questions aside for the moment and look at the report itself. On the first
page of text, the following statement leapt to my attention:
We did not make an assessment of the impact that Russian activities had on the outcome of
the 2016 election. The US Intelligence Community is charged with monitoring and assessing the
intentions, capabilities, and actions of foreign actors; it does not analyze US political
processes or US public opinion.
Now, how can one judge whether activity "interfered" with an election without assessing its
impact? After all, if the activity had no impact on the outcome of the election, it could not
be properly termed interference. This disclaimer, however, has not prevented journalists and
politicians from citing the report as proof that "Russia interfered" in the 2016 U.S.
presidential election.
As for particulars, the report is full of assertion, innuendo, and description of
"capabilities" but largely devoid of any evidence to substantiate its assertions. This is
"explained" by claiming that much of the evidence is classified and cannot be disclosed without
revealing sources and methods. The assertions are made with "high confidence" or occasionally,
"moderate confidence." Having read many intelligence reports I can tell you that if there is
irrefutable evidence of something it will be stated as a fact. The use of the term "high
confidence" is what most normal people would call "our best guess." "Moderate confidence" means
"some of our analysts think this might be true."
Among the assertions are that a persona calling itself "Guccifer 2.0" is an instrument of
the GRU, and that it hacked the emails on the Democratic National Committee's computer and
conveyed them to Wikileaks. What the report does not explain is that it is easy for a hacker or
foreign intelligence service to leave a false trail. In fact, a program developed by CIA with
NSA assistance to do just that has been leaked and published.
Retired senior NSA technical experts have examined the "Guccifer 2.0" data on the web and
have concluded that "Guccifer 2.0's" data did not involve a hack across the web but was locally
downloaded. Further, the data had been tampered with and manipulated, leading to the conclusion
that "Guccifer 2.0" is a total fabrication.
The report's assertions regarding the supply of the DNC emails to Wikileaks are dubious, but
its final statement in this regard is important: "Disclosures through WikiLeaks did not
contain any evident forgeries." In other words, what was disclosed was the truth! So,
Russians are accused of "degrading our democracy" by revealing that the DNC was trying to fix
the nomination of a particular candidate rather than allowing the primaries and state caucuses
to run their course. I had always thought that transparency is consistent with democratic
values. Apparently those who think that the truth can degrade democracy have a rather bizarre
-- to put it mildly–concept of democracy.
Most people, hearing that it is a "fact" that "Russia" interfered in our election must think
that Russian government agents hacked into vote counting machines and switched votes to favor a
particular candidate. This, indeed, would be scary, and would justify the most painful
sanctions. But this is the one thing that the "intelligence" report of January 6, 2017, states
did not happen. Here is what it said: " DHS [the Department of Homeland Security] assesses
that the types of systems Russian actors targeted or compromised were not involved in vote
tallying ."
This is an important statement by an agency that is empowered to assess the impact of
foreign activity on the United States. Why was it not consulted regarding other aspects of the
study? Or -- was it in fact consulted and refused to endorse the findings? Another obvious
question any responsible journalist or competent politician should have asked.
Prominent American journalists and politicians seized upon this shabby, politically
motivated, report as proof of "Russian interference" in the U.S. election without even the
pretense of due diligence. They have objectively acted as co-conspirators in an effort to block
any improvement in relations with Russia, even though cooperation with Russia to deal with
common dangers is vital to both countries.
This is only part of the story of how, without good reason, U.S.-Russian relations have
become dangerously confrontational. God willin and the crick don't rise, I'll be musing about
other aspects soon.
Thanks to Ray McGovern and Bill Binney for their research assistance.
Jack F. Matlock, Jr.
Booneville, Tennessee
June 29, 2018
integer @35. Not a fan of George Soros? Ready to peak into the rabbit hole?
Donald Trump has been business partners with George Soros in at least $6 Billion in
properties for more than a decade before his candidacy. They were even codefendants in a RICO
suit (organized crime, as in the Jewish Mafia).
After spending 17 years at Goldman Sachs, Trump's new Treasure Secretary, Steven Mnuchin ran
OneWest Bank in CA. Guess who he worked for? George frigging Soros.
So, Trump is partners with infamous globalist atheist George Soros, Orthodox Jews, Islamic
Extremists, Goldman Sachs and GHW Bush's Carlyle Group.
And one more morsel to ponder. The CEO of CNN (portrayed as rabidly anti-Trump) is one of a
long list of Globalist Zionists who have been Trump supporters for decades.
After Peter Strzok
failed to address the concerns of Republicans by trying to explain away his anti-Trump texts as "just an intimate conversation"
with his mistress (former FBI lawyer Lisa Page) during yesterday's marathon closed-door session, President Trump chimed in this morning
with a tweet claiming that Strzok had been given "poor marks" on the hearing because he "refused to answer many questions."
The president also reaffirmed that there was "no Collusion and the Witch Hunt, headed by 14 Angry Democrats and others who are
totally conflicted, is Rigged!"
The president then turned his attention to the DNC Server, asking once again why the FBI wasn't allowed to closely examine it?
The DNC never furnished an explanation, despite Wikileaks emails revealing that former spy Christopher Steele had once filed a memo
claiming that "
Russian agents within the Democratic party structure itself" were involved with the theft.
This guy. This fucking guy. Still drawing a salary. That's what is incredible here.
The wheels of justice grind slowly and exceedingly fine. As a Marine I sometimes escorted Marines to courts martial hearings.
They were still drawing their pay, still eating in the mess hall, maybe they were sleeping on a bunk in a holding cell. But, they
were still Marines until the sentence was pronounced and any appeals exhausted. Some were still Marines afterwards just a little
poorer and missing some stripes. But, they got what were largely fair hearings for the military. Strzok is going to get his Justice
unless someone a little more impatient splatters his brains all over the sidewalk.
Gregg, yesterday you were raising hell saying the Marines will save the day. I need to tell you and I know it's hard to believe.
There are young Marine social justice warrior communist. I've met them. Not one or two many Marines and Army, vets in general.
So not all of the Marine Corps is right wing conservative. That was the impression you gave and I didn't have time to add the
data of the Marines that I've met who are in the activist movement of the social justice warrior communist. This is a generational
issue, our generation is in conflict with their generation.
I don't blame them because of the high level of corruption in this nation, perhaps the shock of 9/11 being a fraud, I don't
know, but I noticed this back in 2010.
The 9/11 event had a big impact on many young peoples mind, the trust of government issue is big.
And another anecdotal is a young 82nd Airborne soldier who kept asking me at work about what was behind the curtain, like one
world government etc. he wanted to know everything, so young people are not following the line of reasoning we followed and MSM
parrots.
Yes, prior service older vets like you are important to us, but I want to make sure you understand, just because someone is
a Marine or 82nd soldier doesn't mean they're politically reliable for our way of thinking. That's concerning when five police
officer were killed and many wounded in Dallas by a radicalized vet.
That's the danger, and we think the army of vets in this nation will automatically side with us in a race/civil war. The military
skills demonstrated in Dallas was a warning of things to come. The other component, the number of vets still killing themselves
each day is around 30-40 and suicide is increasing, not decreasing in the overall population.
So much for the idea that Strzok is co-operating with the investigation. It's pretty clear that he isn't and that this whole
meme that Priestap, Page, et al are co-operating witnesses is pretty much bullshit, unfortunately.
PS "Texts taken out of context"
PS "While emotional over the election, I conduct myself w/ upmost integrity w/o bias while undertaking any such investigation,
especially a high-profile case against the POTUS."
PS "In hindsight, it was a bad idea to openly discuss my feelings, but, in no way did those feelings impact my ability to conduct
a fair and proper investigation - we followed where the "facts" took us."
PS "I decline to answer that question on advice from counsel."
: When you state "where 'facts' led us" - what 'facts' are you referring to? To date, there has been zero evidence of any such
collusion or connections between the Trump campaign and Russia." In fact, the only facts discovered thus far have been between
the Clinton camp and Russia and other foreign groups ."
PS "On advice of counsel, I decline to answer that question"
PS "Because of the ongoing investigation, such answers may violate the security of such investigations ."
: "Mr S, I believe nobody here is buying what you are selling. I believe there was/is a serious effort on the part of people more
senior than you to remove Mr Trump from office out of fear of what this Administration may uncover. I believe you are being dishonest
in your answers and frankly shocked you agreed to come here today. I believe everyone on this panel (minus those from the other
side of the aisle) knew exactly what your answers would be and if you think we are going to sit here and accept these answers
you would be a foolish. We are also following the facts and once we uncover more (which we will) we will act accordingly. I'm
glad you retained counsel - you'll need one and hopefully they are very good."
.
"... The U.S. was in talks for a deal with Julian Assange but then FBI Director James Comey ordered an end to negotiations after Assange offered to prove Russia was not involved in the DNC leak, as Ray McGovern explains. ..."
"... Special to Consortium News ..."
"... The report does not say what led Comey to intervene to ruin the talks with Assange. But it came after Assange had offered to "provide technical evidence and discussion regarding who did not engage in the DNC releases," Solomon quotes WikiLeaks' intermediary with the government as saying. It would be a safe assumption that Assange was offering to prove that Russia was not WikiLeaks' source of the DNC emails. ..."
"... If that was the reason Comey and Warner ruined the talks, as is likely, it would reveal a cynical decision to put U.S. intelligence agents and highly sophisticated cybertools at risk, rather than allow Assange to at least attempt to prove that Russia was not behind the DNC leak. ..."
"... On March 31, 2017, though, WikiLeaks released the most damaging disclosure up to that point from what it called "Vault 7" -- a treasure trove of CIA cybertools leaked from CIA files. This disclosure featured the tool "Marble Framework," which enabled the CIA to hack into computers, disguise who hacked in, and falsely attribute the hack to someone else by leaving so-called tell-tale signs -- like Cyrillic, for example. The CIA documents also showed that the "Marble" tool had been employed in 2016. ..."
"... In fact, VIPS and independent forensic investigators, have performed what former FBI Director Comey -- at first inexplicably, now not so inexplicably -- failed to do when the so-called "Russian hack" of the DNC was first reported. In July 2017 VIPS published its key findings with supporting data. ..."
"... Why did then FBI Director Comey fail to insist on getting direct access to the DNC computers in order to follow best-practice forensics to discover who intruded into the DNC computers? (Recall, at the time Sen. John McCain and others were calling the "Russian hack" no less than an "act of war.") A 7th grader can now figure that out. ..."
Did Sen. Warner and Comey 'Collude' on Russia-gate? June 27, 2018 •
68 Comments
The U.S. was in talks for a deal with Julian Assange but then FBI Director James Comey
ordered an end to negotiations after Assange offered to prove Russia was not involved in the
DNC leak, as Ray McGovern explains.
By Ray McGovern
Special to Consortium News
An explosive
report by investigative journalist John Solomon on the opinion page of Monday's edition of
The Hill sheds a bright light on how Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) and then-FBI Director
James Comey collaborated to prevent WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange from discussing "technical
evidence ruling out certain parties [read Russia]" in the controversial leak of Democratic
Party emails to WikiLeaks during the 2016 election.
A deal that was being discussed last year between Assange and U.S. government officials
would have given Assange "limited immunity" to allow him to leave the Ecuadorian Embassy in
London, where he has been exiled for six years. In exchange, Assange would agree to limit
through redactions "some classified CIA information he might release in the future," according
to Solomon, who cited "interviews and a trove of internal DOJ documents turned over to Senate
investigators." Solomon even provided a
copy of the draft immunity deal with Assange.
But Comey's intervention to stop the negotiations with Assange ultimately ruined the deal,
Solomon says, quoting "multiple sources." With the prospective agreement thrown into serious
doubt, Assange "unleashed a series of leaks that U.S. officials say damaged their cyber warfare
capabilities for a long time to come." These were the Vault 7 releases, which led then CIA
Director Mike Pompeo to call WikiLeaks "a hostile intelligence service."
Solomon's report provides reasons why Official Washington has now put so much pressure on
Ecuador to keep Assange incommunicado in its embassy in London.
Assange: Came close to a deal with the U.S. (Photo credit: New Media Days / Peter
Erichsen)
The report does not say what led Comey to intervene to ruin the talks with Assange. But it
came after Assange had offered to "provide technical evidence and discussion regarding who did
not engage in the DNC releases," Solomon quotes WikiLeaks' intermediary with the government as
saying. It would be a safe assumption that Assange was offering to prove that Russia was not
WikiLeaks' source of the DNC emails.
If that was the reason Comey and Warner ruined the talks, as is likely, it would reveal a
cynical decision to put U.S. intelligence agents and highly sophisticated cybertools at risk,
rather than allow Assange to at least attempt to prove that Russia was not behind the DNC
leak.
The greater risk to Warner and Comey apparently would have been if Assange provided evidence
that Russia played no role in the 2016 leaks of DNC documents.
Missteps and Stand Down
In mid-February 2017, in a remarkable display of naiveté, Adam Waldman, Assange's pro
bono attorney who acted as the intermediary in the talks, asked Warner if the Senate
Intelligence Committee staff would like any contact with Assange to ask about Russia or other
issues. Waldman was apparently oblivious to Sen. Warner's stoking of Russia-gate.
Warner contacted Comey and, invoking his name, instructed Waldman to "stand down and end the
discussions with Assange," Waldman told Solomon. The "stand down" instruction "did happen,"
according to another of Solomon's sources with good access to Warner. However, Waldman's
counterpart attorney David Laufman , an accomplished federal prosecutor picked by the
Justice Departent to work the government side of the CIA-Assange fledgling deal, told Waldman,
"That's B.S. You're not standing down, and neither am I."
But the damage had been done. When word of the original stand-down order reached WikiLeaks,
trust evaporated, putting an end to two months of what Waldman called "constructive, principled
discussions that included the Department of Justice."
The two sides had come within inches of sealing the deal. Writing to Laufman on March 28,
2017, Waldman gave him Assange's offer to discuss "risk mitigation approaches relating to CIA
documents in WikiLeaks' possession or control, such as the redaction of Agency personnel in
hostile jurisdictions," in return for "an acceptable immunity and safe passage agreement."
On March 31, 2017, though, WikiLeaks released the most damaging disclosure up to that
point from what it called "Vault 7" -- a treasure trove of CIA cybertools leaked from CIA
files. This disclosure featured the tool "Marble Framework," which enabled the CIA to hack into
computers, disguise who hacked in, and falsely attribute the hack to someone else by leaving
so-called tell-tale signs -- like Cyrillic, for example. The CIA documents also showed that the
"Marble" tool had been employed in 2016.
Misfeasance or Malfeasance
Comey: Ordered an end to talks with Assange.
Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, which includes among our members two former
Technical Directors of the National Security Agency, has repeatedly called
attention to its conclusion that the DNC emails were leaked -- not "hacked" by Russia or
anyone else (and, later, our suspicion that someone may have been playing Marbles, so to
speak).
In fact, VIPS and independent forensic investigators, have performed what former FBI
Director Comey -- at first inexplicably, now not so inexplicably -- failed to do when the
so-called "Russian hack" of the DNC was first reported. In July 2017 VIPS published its
key
findings with supporting data.
Two month later , VIPS published the results of
follow-up experiments conducted to test the conclusions reached in July.
Why did then FBI Director Comey fail to insist on getting direct access to the DNC computers
in order to follow best-practice forensics to discover who intruded into the DNC computers?
(Recall, at the time Sen. John McCain and others were calling the "Russian hack" no less than
an "act of war.") A 7th grader can now figure that out.
Asked on January 10, 2017 by Senate Intelligence Committee chair Richard Burr (R-NC) whether
direct access to the servers and devices would have helped the FBI in their investigation,
Comey replied
: "Our forensics folks would always prefer to get access to the original device or server
that's involved, so it's the best evidence."
At that point, Burr and Warner let Comey down easy. Hence, it should come as no surprise
that, according to one of John Solomon's sources, Sen. Warner (who is co-chairman of the Senate
Intelligence Committee) kept Sen. Burr apprised of his intervention into the negotiation with
Assange, leading to its collapse.
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the
Saviour in inner-city Washington. He was an Army Infantry/Intelligence officer and then a CIA
analyst for a total of 30 years and prepared and briefed, one-on-one, the President's Daily
Brief from 1981 to 1985.
If you enjoyed this original article please consider
making a donation to Consortium News so we can bring you more stories like this
one.
Peter Strzok, the FBI counterintelligence agent removed from Special Counsel Robert
Mueller's Russia investigation over anti-Trump bias, appeared before a closed door session in
front of two House committees on Wednesday, where he tried to explain anti-Trump text exchanges
with his FBI mistress as " Just an intimate conversation between intimate friends, "
according to Texas Democrat Sheila Jackson Lee , quoting Strzok's description of the
controversial messages.
While Jackson Lee gladly accepted Strzok's answer, Republican Mark
Meadows of North Carolina wasn't buying it:
While Jackson Lee said she believed Strzok's account that his "intimate" messages didn't
reflect political bias in his work, Republican Representative Mark Meadows said, " None of my
concerns about political bias have been alleviated based on what I've heard so far ." -
Bloomberg
" If you have intimate personal conversations between two people, that normally would show
the intent more so than perhaps something that would be said out in public ," said Meadows.
Meadows said that some of the questions on Wednesday revolved around "who knew what when -
and what was the genesis of the Russia collusion investigation," into Trump's campaign.
Rep Matt Gaetz (R-FL) wasn't buying it either, as Sara Carter details : "
It was a waste -- Strzok is full of it and he kept hiding behind [the] classified information
excuse."
Others had similarly disappointed reactions: Freedom Caucus & Judiciary Committee
member, Matt Gaetz (R-FL) attended today's deposition and reacted to Strzok's testimony,
telling the Sean Hannity Radio Show, that " I am shocked at the lack of curiosity with Robert
Mueller. I mean Sean, if you were in Mueller's shoes, and you had found these text messages, I
would think that you would want to ask whether or not they impacted the investigative decisions
that were made, whether there was bias, whether there was contact with other members of the FBI
regarding the investigation and where it was going and who was making the critical judgment
calls," the Florida Congressman said. " I just cannot believe the lack of curiosity on the part
of Robert Mueller. It was the strongest reaction I had today from Peter Strzok's
testimony."
* * *
Strzok and his paramour Lisa Page - known as the FBI "lovebirds" - harbored extreme
political bias for Hillary Clinton and against Donald Trump while actively involved in cases
against each candidate during the 2016 US election.
Their raging hatred of Donald Trump was discovered in a trove of over 50,000 texts between
Strzok and Page which were discovered by DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz. While Strzok
was relegated to the HR department and marched out of his FBI office in mid-June, Page
tendered her resignation in May.
In one of the most controversial text exchanges - perhaps because the DOJ withheld it until
it came to light in the Inspector Genera's report, Page asks Strzok whether Trump will ever
become President:
Page: "(Trump's) not ever going to become president, right? Right?!"
Strzok: "No. No he's not. We'll stop it. "
After the Inspector Genera's report came out in mid-June, President Trump tweeted: "The IG
Report totally destroys James Comey and all of his minions including the great lovers, Peter
Strzok and Lisa Page, who started the disgraceful Witch Hunt against so many innocent
people."
The Judiciary Committee will be meeting with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and FBI
Director Christopher Wray on Thursday to discuss the OIG report. Moreover, GOP Rep. Jim Jordan
of Ohio is expected to bring a House floor vote demanding that the DOJ turn over documents.
Also Thursday, a Republican resolution demanding that Rosenstein and the Justice
Department turn over more internal documents is expected to be brought to the House floor for
a vote. It will be a test of how widely Republicans back the push by party conservatives to
probe inner workings of the FBI and Justice Department and cast doubt on the legitimacy of
the continuing Russia probe. -
Bloomberg
"All we are asking for are documents we deserve to get -- and they are giving us the
finger," said Jordan.
Meanwhile, every Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee sent a letter to protest Jordan's
resolution on "emergency bias," as they say that it shows the committee "has been hijacked by
its most extreme majority members at the expense of upholding longstanding committee rules and
minority rights."
It was not exactly clear how Congress asking the DOJ to see documents related to a massive
political scandal constitute a hijacking.
No one ever mentions how fucking stupid the FBI idiots must be to have ever text this
stupidity with each other. These people are overpaid clowns. Get rid of them ALL.
The Asians are starting to shift away from the DNC, from what I can see. They built up
some actual wealth, and at this point they no longer receive the same minority protections as
other groups. The minute you are the target of theft, you stop hanging around the
thieves.
Aside from this, I was recently listening to an Asian libertarian who goes by
"Pholosopher" on Youtube, and she explained that as a "normie" she just thought of government
programs as "society helping the little guy." IMO, 80% of Democrats are in this very naive
space. Her mind changed in part because some of her family members were victims of the Khmer
Rouge, and this led to some actual thought about what would possess people to do the things
they did.
IMO, the crazier this gets, the more obvious it is that it is time to re-dedicate our
lives to rebuilding a sound culture, otherwise we will not see any culture rebuilt until we
go through another multi-century Dark Age.
lots of experience....waitree...bartending...."educator"...she is like a bad joke
Ocasio-Cortez graduated from Boston University in 2011, where she majored in economics and
international relations. After college, she moved back to the Bronx and supported her mother
by bartending at Flats Fix taqueria in Union Square, Manhattan, and working
as a waitress. She also got a job as an educator in the nonprofit National Hispanic Institute .
[11][12]
At least she is far cuter than her competition... Democrats need new blood anyway. Its a
party that seems to be going nowhere, has the Clinton mafia running it, and hasn't done
anyone any good since the time Jimmy Carter was president.
Bernie might have done better than Hillary against Trump. Will the kids get out and vote
for a Joe Biden? NO The Dems are going to have to go way way left on a hale mary. But Trump
is much much stronger now than in 2016. They lose. They got nothing and their divisions are
getting worse. We should support and encourage them to move further and further to the left.
We can drive them there.
If you live in an area that is Democrat controlled and your own preference is safe, then
register Democrat and vote for people like her.
If you simply divert all the money from the following socialist programs:
1) ZIRP
2) QE
3) Bank bailouts
4) Farming subsidies
5) Defense contract subsidies
6) Big pharma subsidies
Problem is Americans are too easily fooled that stuff which is to their benefits are
something they should not vote for and vise versa. Like all money channeled to MIC.
"Immigration" has become the dominant issue dividing Europe and the US, yet the most important matter which is driving millions
to emigrate is overlooked is wars.
In this paper we will discuss the reasons behind the massification of immigration, focusing on several issues, namely (1) imperial
wars (2) multi-national corporate expansion (3) the decline of the anti-war movements in the US and Western Europe (4) the weakness
of the trade union and solidarity movements.
We will proceed by identifying the major countries affected by US and EU wars leading to massive immigration, and then turn to
the western powers forcing refugees to 'follow' the flows of profits.
Imperial Wars and Mass Immigration
The US invasions and wars in Afghanistan and Iraq uprooted several million people, destroying their lives, families, livelihood,
housing and communities and undermining there security.
As a result, most victims faced the choice of resistance or flight. Millions chose to flee to the West since the NATO countries
would not bomb their residence in the US or Europe.
Others who fled to neighboring countries in the Middle East or Latin America were persecuted, or resided in countries too poor
to offer them employment or opportunities for a livelihood.
Some Afghans fled to Pakistan or the Middle East but discovered that these regions were also subject to armed attacks from the
West.
Iraqis were devastated by the western sanctions, invasion and occupation and fled to Europe and to a lesser degree the US , the
Gulf states and Iran.
Libya prior to the US-EU invasion was a 'receiver' country accepting and employing millions of Africans, providing them with citizenship
and a decent livelihood. After the US-EU air and sea attack and arming and financing of terrorist gangs, hundreds of thousands of
Sub-Sahara immigrants were forced to flee to Europe. Most crossed the Mediterranean Sea to the west via Italy, Spain, and headed
toward the affluent European countries which had savaged their lives in Libya.
The US-EU financed and armed client terrorist armies which assault the Syrian government and forced millions of Syrians to flee
across the border to Lebanon,Turkey and beyond to Europe, causing the so-called 'immigration crises' and the rise of rightwing anti-immigrant
parties. This led to divisions within the established social democratic and conservative parties,as sectors of the working class
turned anti-immigrant.
Europe is reaping the consequences of its alliance with US militarized imperialism whereby the US uproots millions of people and
the EU spends billions of euros to cover the cost of immigrants fleeing the western wars.
Most of the immigrants' welfare payments fall far short of the losses incurred in their homeland. Their jobs homes, schools, and
civic associations in the EU and US are far less valuable and accommodating then what they possessed in their original communities.
Economic Imperialism and Immigration: Latin America
US wars, military intervention and economic exploitation has forced millions of Latin Americans to immigrate to the US.. Nicaragua,
El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras engaged in popular struggle for socio-economic justice and political democracy between 1960 –
2000. On the verge of victory over the landed oligarchs and multinational corporations, Washington blocked popular insurgents by
spending billions of dollars, arming, training, advising the military and paramilitary forces. Land reform was aborted; trade unionists
were forced into exile and thousands of peasants fled the marauding terror campaigns.
The US-backed oligarchic regimes forced millions of displaced and uprooted pr unemployed and landless workers to flee to the US.
US supported coups and dictators resulted in 50,000 in Nicaragua, 80,000 in El Salvador and 200,000 in Guatemala. President Obama
and Hillary Clinton supported a military coup in Honduras which overthrew Liberal President Zelaya -- which led to the killing and
wounding of thousands of peasant activists and human rights workers, and the return of death squads, resulting in a new wave of immigrants
to the US.
The US promoted free trade agreement (NAFTA) drove hundreds of thousands of Mexican farmers into bankruptcy and into low wage
maquiladoras; others were recruited by drug cartels; but the largest group was forced to immigrate across the Rio Grande. The US
'Plan Colombia' launched by President Clinton established seven US military bases in Colombia and provided 1 billion dollars in military
aid between 2001 – 2010. Plan Colombia doubled the size of the military.
The US backed President Alvaro Uribe, resulting in the assassination of over 200,000 peasants, trade union activists and human
rights workers by Uribe directed narco-death squad.Over two million farmers fled the countryside and immigrated to the cities or
across the border.
US business secured hundreds of thousands of Latin American low wages, agricultural and factory workers almost all without health
insurance or benefits – though they paid taxes.
Immigration doubled profits, undermined collective bargains and lowered US wages. Unscrupulous US 'entrepreneurs' recruited immigrants
into drugs, prostitution, the arms trade and money laundering.
Politicians exploited the immigration issue for political gain – blaming the immigrants for the decline of working class living
standards distracting attention from the real source : wars, invasions, death squads and economic pillage.
Conclusion
Having destroyed the lives of working people overseas and overthrown progressive leaders like Libyan President Gadhafi and Honduran
President Zelaya, millions were forced to become immigrants.
Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Colombia, Mexico witnessed the flight of millions of immigrants -- all victims of US and EU wars. Washington
and Brussels blamed the victims and accused the immigrants of illegality and criminal conduct.
The West debates expulsion, arrest and jail instead of reparations for crimes against humanity and violations of international
law.
To restrain immigration the first step is to end imperial wars, withdraw troops,and to cease financing paramilitary and client
terrorists.
ORDER IT NOW
Secondly, the West should establish a long term multi-billion-dollar fund for reconstruction and recovery of the economies, markets
and infrastructure they bombed The demise of the peace movement allowed the US and EU to launch and prolong serial wars which led
to massive immigration – the so-called refugee crises and the flight to Europe. There is a direct connection between the conversion
of the liberal and social democrats to war -parties and the forced flight of immigrants to the EU.
The decline of the trade unions and worse, their loss of militancy has led to the loss of solidarity with people living in the
midst of imperial wars. Many workers in the imperialist countries have directed their ire to those 'below' – the immigrants – rather
than to the imperialists who directed the wars which created the immigration problem. Immigration, war , the demise of the peace
and workers movements, and left parties has led to the rise of the militarists, and neo-liberals who have taken power throughout
the West. Their anti-immigrant politics, however, has provoked new contradictions within regimes,between business elites and among
popular movements in the EU and the US. The elite and popular struggles can go in at least two directions – toward fascism or radical
social democracy.
No evidence has emerged of Trump-Russia collusion, and Mr. Mueller has yet to bring
collusion-related charges against anyone. Evidence suggests one of his targets, George
Papadopoulos, was lured to London, plied with the prospect of Russian information damaging to
Mrs. Clinton, and taken to dinner, where he drunkenly bragged that he'd heard about such dirt but
never seen it. These circumstances not only fail to suggest Mr. Papadopoulos committed a crime,
they reek of entrapment
Mueller's
Fruit of the Poisonous TreeIt makes no difference how honorable he is. His
investigation is tainted by the bias that attended its origin in 2016. By David B. Rivkin
Jr. and Elizabeth Price Foley June 22, 2018 6:38 p.m. ET Special counsel Robert Mueller's
investigation may face a serious legal obstacle: It is tainted by antecedent political bias.
The June 14 report from Michael Horowitz, the Justice Department's inspector general, unearthed
a pattern of anti-Trump bias by high-ranking officials at the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Some of their communications, the report says, were "not only indicative of a biased state of
mind but imply a willingness to take action to impact a presidential candidate's electoral
prospects." Although Mr. Horowitz could not...
"... The democratic machine in NYC does absolutely everything it can to suppress turnout to protect incumbents so I was happy to see it blow up in their face today. But still pretty grim to see only 25,000 people voting. ..."
"... The interesting question is how the Democrats will react to this. They may try to sabotage her in some other way. The other is the top 10%ers and other upper middle class voters. I would not be surprised if many Establishment Democrats vote for the GOP over a Berniecrat. ..."
But here is the bigger implication, again from Vox:
Ocasio-Cortez's victory is a story of the complacent establishment taking voters for
granted. It's the story of how the Democratic Party is getting pulled to the left. It's also
about how it's not just progressive policies that are reshaping the party, but also people of
color.
Ocasio-Cortez ran decidedly to the left of Crowley, but she also shook up how Democrats go
about getting elected. Until now, Democrats have seen big money in politics as simply a deal
with the devil that had to be made. Democrats are so often outspent by Republican mega-donors
that they viewed courting big-dollar donors and corporations as part of creating a level
playing field.
But if one of Democrats' top fundraisers and likely successor to Nancy Pelosi can be
toppled, perhaps Democrats need to rethink that deal.
What was most exciting for progressives is the degree to which Ocasio-Cortez ran to
Crowley's left. As a member of the DSA, her website is a laundry list of every blue-sky
progressive policy: Medicare-for-all, housing and jobs guarantees, gun control, ending
private prisons, abolishing ICE, and investment in post-hurricane Puerto Rico.
Crowley also had the endorsement of Governor Andrew Cuomo. 'Nuff said.
AstoriaBlowin ,
June 26, 2018 at 11:10 pm
The democratic machine in NYC does absolutely everything it can to suppress turnout to
protect incumbents so I was happy to see it blow up in their face today. But still pretty
grim to see only 25,000 people voting.
I voted against Crowley cause he came out against installing protected bike lanes in
Sunnyside which was none of his business anyway as a federal official. I wrote to him
expressing my disappointment and he actually called me to talk about it! We had a nice
conversation but still once you choose parking over people's lives it's over.
Ocasio has some good talking points but she also comes across as a NIMBY which is not a
good look in a city with a serious housing affordability and availability crisis.
It is certainly a major step forward and will hopefully be the first of many victories.
Ultimately, what we desperately need are politicians that will truly fight for the common
citizen to get into office and in enough numbers as to fundamentally alter the direction of
government from an institution that is co-opted by the rich to one that is for the
people.
The interesting question is how the Democrats will react to this. They may try to
sabotage her in some other way. The other is the top 10%ers and other upper middle class
voters. I would not be surprised if many Establishment Democrats vote for the GOP over a
Berniecrat.
Bottom line – this is a step forward, but we are not out of the woods yet. There is
a lot of work to do and while we should celebrate, the Establishment will fight back. There
also remains the question of how this person will actually govern. The fact that the
Establishment was against her though is very encouraging.
"... In a mature society, it would not matter if someone was black, white, gay, Jewish, young, old, whatever but what policies they bring to the party. This article, going out of its way to label Nixon as LGBT and Sanders as Jewish, really only means that they are letting the other side set the rules and that is never a winning position. Unfortunately we do not live in a mature society. ..."
"... Not until people are done with identity politics will it be really possible to bring a new order into focus. Support Kamala Harris, for example, because she is not white and a woman? Not unless she has policies that the bulk of Americans want and is not just the old party in a new guise. I suspect that this use of the term 'progressive' is just a term to describe what the majority of Americans want out of their governments. People like Clinton, Pelosi, Waters and Albright can not and will not do this so time for them to be pushed aside. I think that the US Presidential election of 2020 will be very telling of how things play out as the results of the 2018 mid-terms are absorbed. ..."
"... I think identity politics has always served as a diversion for elites to play within the neoliberal bandwidth of decreasing public spending. Fake austerity and an unwillingness to use conjured money for public QE are necessary for pursuing neoliberal privatization of public enterprises. Therefore Bernie and his MMT infrastructure are anathema to corporate democrats and their Wall St. benefactors. ..."
"... Moral Monday represents what I deem as people over profit. I would rather be a spoiler than enable corporate sociopaths to.expand mass incarceration, end welfare as we know it, consider the killing of a half-million Iraqi children an acceptable cost, or oversee the first inverted debt jubilee in 2008 to forgive the liabilities of fraudsters by pauperizing debtors. ..."
"... Once you abandon class-based politics, and all parties accept the neoliberal consensus, you still have the problem of attracting support. You can only do that by turning to the politics of identity, as practised in Africa or the Balkans, where you seek to corral entire groups to vote for you, based on ethnicity, skin colour etc. ..."
"... Modern parties of the "Left" have taken over the methods, if not the ideology, of the old Communist parties, which is to say they present themselves as natural leaders, whom the membership should follow and vote for. ..."
"... Readers should examine the recent book Asymmetric Politics. The key point is that the Democratic Party is as described by David in some fair part an identity-based party, so it is supported by, e.g., many African-Americans. The Republican Party, unusual in the Western World, is not an identity based party; it is an idea-based party. It may not be very good at putting its ideas into effect, but it is an idea-based party that anyone can support. ..."
"... The Republicans are an "ideas-based" party? Well, I guess if you consider the interest-motivated "product" of Overclass-funded think tanks to be "idea-based," then OK. Me, I've haven't seen the Republicans as anything other than a class and (white) race-based party since I was a youth half a century ago. ..."
"... As for the cynicism of how the Democrats use identity politics: granted. Nevertheless, African-Americans have some tangible and valid reasons for voting for them, awful as they are. ..."
"... George Phillies didn't say the Republicans had "good" ideas. He just noted that the Republicans have "ideas". A "bad" idea is still an "idea". ..."
"... So Pelosi's final bequest to the public is a corrupt successor? What a world! ..."
"... Pelosi's been quoted a number of times saying, "we lead with our values". You certainly do, Mrs. Speaker! Thanks for making it clear! ..."
"... Come on, folks. By now you should have learned that what politicians say doesn't mean a damn thing -- it's what they do. The establishment is only interested in perpetuating the establishment. ..."
"... As far as I've seen, they trot out identity politics only when it suits their aims and it has nothing to do with what the voters actually want. ..."
"... Identity politics are to Democrats what religious politics are to Republicans: A pious high ground they use whenever they want to denounce anyone opposed to them as corrupt and immoral, but immediately gets shelved the moment it interferes with the money and power. ..."
"... To me, it's a dishonest policy erasure tactic for favoring establishment candidates. If you're against Hillary Clinton, it's must be ..."
"... Of course the most important identity is that of the worker, the person who must sell their labor power in the marketplace to survive. But you will rarely hear the Democrats discuss that identity. You might hear about "working families" and the "middle class" but it really means nothing. The Republicans use the same language and they are just as mendacious. ..."
"... Working families: Groups of people related genetically or by choice, all of whom, regardless of age, have to work to ensure they have food, clothing, and shelter. ..."
"... I can think of a couple of identity-words to offer to see if anyone identifies with them. Ex-middle class. Nouveau poor. ..."
"... Western Democrats focus too much on a minority which has barely any impact on the economy at the expense of the majority which actually dictates the general economic trend and therefore also creates the byproduct welfare/life quality of all the meme minorities to whom it trickles down. That's the issue here. The difference between normal people and minorities is that normal people know they don't matter in the larger picture, while minorities think they matter while at the same time asking to be treated as part of the normal people even though their very mentality is a paradox towards being normal. ..."
"... The West is simply too bankrupt on things that matter in the bigger picture and too involved in things that don't, a complete lack of prioritization. ..."
Eric Holder, former attorney general of the USA under President Obama, has publicly
announced that he is considering a run for the White House in 2020. (Thanks to that
WikiLeaked email awhile back, we know that Citigroup directed a newly elected President Obama
to appoint him to the position of A.G.)
I fervently pray that Eric Holder, of Covington & Burling, declares himself a
candidate!
Only then will the opportunity again present itself to expose Eric Holder -- and Covington
& Burling -- in their involvement with the creation and operation of MERS (Mortgage
Electronic Reporting System) and its connection to the global economic meltdown (2007 --
2009), the greatest illegal wealth transfer and insurance swindle in human history!
How we would welcome such transparency of evil, how BlackRock profited from that economic
meltdown, then oversaw the disbursement of those TARP bailout funds.
Exposure of the network of BlackRock and Vanguard and State Street and Fidelity; exposure
of their major investors. Further exposure of the Blackstone Group and Carlyle Group and
other such PE/LBO giants!
How the InterContinental Exchange (ICE) was involved in nefarious commodity price rigging,
etc., manipulated derivatives dealing and how today they oversee LIBOR rates!
The further exposure of the influence and perfidy of the Group of Thirty (www.group30.org)
and the Bretton Woods Committee (www.brettonwoods.org) -- oh how we'd love to see such
exposure!
Holder for President? Oh boy Mr. Peabody! That's great!
If a critical difference-making margin of non-voting Black non-voters in Milwaukee were
willing to non-vote between Clinton and Trump even at the price of letting Trump take
Wisconsin, that could mean that the Race Card is wearing thin. Who exactly would Mr. Holder
be able to fool in Milwaukee? He would do well in Hyde Park though . . . getting the Guilty
White Privilege Expiation vote. Will that be enough? Will the Madison vote be enough to make
up for the Milwaukee non-vote?
You know who would be a perfect pair? Holder and Harris. Or Holder and Booker. Or some
such. Seriously, if the DemParty nominates Holder, I will vote for Trump all over again. And
at the Senate or Representative level, I would vote for an old legacy New Deal Democrat if
there is one. But if they run a Clintonite, some protest Third Party looks very attractive by
comparison.
In a mature society, it would not matter if someone was black, white, gay, Jewish,
young, old, whatever but what policies they bring to the party. This article, going out of
its way to label Nixon as LGBT and Sanders as Jewish, really only means that they are letting
the other side set the rules and that is never a winning position. Unfortunately we do not
live in a mature society.
If push came to shove you would have to describe both the Republican and Democrat parties
as bastions of neoliberalism and both parties play games with identity politics as it
fractures those who would oppose them and encourages internecine warfare. Like a kaleidoscope
shifting focus, the 2008 crash has started off a shift in how politics is done and the
success of Trump in the US, Brexit in the UK as well as other leaders is this shift in its
first efforts of readjusting.
Not until people are done with identity politics will it be really possible to bring a new
order into focus. Support Kamala Harris, for example, because she is not white and a woman?
Not unless she has policies that the bulk of Americans want and is not just the old party in
a new guise. I suspect that this use of the term 'progressive' is just a term to describe
what the majority of Americans want out of their governments. People like Clinton, Pelosi,
Waters and Albright can not and will not do this so time for them to be pushed aside. I think
that the US Presidential election of 2020 will be very telling of how things play out as the
results of the 2018 mid-terms are absorbed.
I think identity politics has always served as a diversion for elites to play within the
neoliberal bandwidth of decreasing public spending. Fake austerity and an unwillingness to
use conjured money for public QE are necessary for pursuing neoliberal privatization of
public enterprises. Therefore Bernie and his MMT infrastructure are anathema to corporate
democrats and their Wall St. benefactors.
Moral Monday represents what I deem as people over profit. I would rather be a spoiler
than enable corporate sociopaths to.expand mass incarceration, end welfare as we know it,
consider the killing of a half-million Iraqi children an acceptable cost, or oversee the
first inverted debt jubilee in 2008 to forgive the liabilities of fraudsters by pauperizing
debtors.
The obvious answer is "very" and this applies pretty much to every major allegedly leftist
party in the western world.
The fact is that if you want to form a political party and take power, or even make good
careers, you have to find supporters and get them to vote for you. Historically, after the
growth of modern political parties, they differentiated themselves by reference to social and
economic groups. In most countries there was a traditionalist party, often rural, with links
to church and aristocracy and the socially conservative, a middle-class professional/small
business party and a mass working class party often under middle-class leadership. Depending
on the country, this could, in practice, be more than three or less than three distinct
parties.
Once you abandon class-based politics, and all parties accept the neoliberal
consensus, you still have the problem of attracting support. You can only do that by turning
to the politics of identity, as practised in Africa or the Balkans, where you seek to corral
entire groups to vote for you, based on ethnicity, skin colour etc. The problem is that
whilst the old political distinctions were objective, the new ones are much more subjective,
overlapping and sometimes in conflict with each other. After all, you are objectively
employed or unemployed, a shareholder or landowner or not, an employee or an employer, you
have debt or savings, you earn enough to live on or you don't. It's therefore easier to
construct political parties on that basis than on the basis of ascriptive, overlapping and
conflicting subjective identities.
Modern parties of the "Left" have taken over the methods, if not the ideology, of the
old Communist parties, which is to say they present themselves as natural leaders, whom the
membership should follow and vote for. This worked well enough when the markers were
economic, much less well when they are identity based. Trying to herd together middle-class
professional socially-liberal voters, and immigrants from a socially conservative background
afraid of losing their jobs backfired disastrously for the Socialist party in the 2017
elections in France, and effectively destroyed the party. People don't like being instructed
who it is their duty to vote for.
The other very clarifying moment of that election was the complete absence, up and down
the western world, of voices supporting Marine Le Pen for President. Not a single voice was
raised in her support, although her victory would have been epoch-making in terms of French
politics, and certainly not Albright's.
That tells you everything you need to know, really.
Readers should examine the recent book Asymmetric Politics. The key point is that the
Democratic Party is as described by David in some fair part an identity-based party, so it is
supported by, e.g., many African-Americans. The Republican Party, unusual in the Western
World, is not an identity based party; it is an idea-based party. It may not be very good at
putting its ideas into effect, but it is an idea-based party that anyone can support.
Note that many Democrats are totally terrified by the idea that the Republican Party would
become an identity-based party, namely the white people's party, because if the white vote
supported the Republicans nationally the way it already does in the south the Democrats
would, in the immortal words of Donald Trump, be schlonged.
Indeed, that support is now
advancing up through the Appalachians into central Pennsylvania and the Southern Tier of New
York. West Virginia was once heavily Democratic.
And while some Democrats propose that
America is becoming a majority-minority country, others have worked out that, e.g., persons
of Hispanic or Chinese ancestry may over several generations follow the Irish and the
Italians and the Hungarians and the Jews, none of whom were originally viewed* as being
white, by being reclassified in the popular mind as being part of the white majority.
*Some readers will recall that quaint phrase "the colored races of Europe". At the time, a
century and then a fair amount ago, it was meant literally. Anglo-Saxons were a race.
Irishmen were a distinct race.
The Republicans are an "ideas-based" party? Well, I guess if you consider the interest-motivated "product" of Overclass-funded think
tanks to be "idea-based," then OK. Me, I've haven't seen the Republicans as anything other than a class and (white)
race-based party since I was a youth half a century ago.
That Republicans will distract, misdirect and dissemble to mask their class and race-based
identity doesn't change the reality of it.
As for the cynicism of how the Democrats use identity politics: granted. Nevertheless,
African-Americans have some tangible and valid reasons for voting for them, awful as they
are.
Dyson neatly derailed the whole thing with his 'mean white man' line. Could have just been
Fry vs Goldberg too, Peterson talked past the others yhe whole time.
Whole thing deserves a do-over.
I'm really worried about a repeat of 2016 with a heavy dose of voter purges and
reregistrations. Ocasio-Cortez will need a strong GOTV ground game to pull off the upset.
Cuomo may be part of a political dynasty, but I recall that when Mario Cuomo was sending
out feelers about running for president, there was plenty of "Who's the furriner?" I can't
find the quote, but some Southern politician opined that there weren't many Marios and fewer
Cuomos in the South. (And when Geraldine Ferraro was on the ticket with Mondale, journalists
and columnists "miraculously" discovered that her husband was a mafioso.) So there's white
and there's white.
Not that I'd vote for Cuomo. And I certainly agree with Glenn Greenwald. But ethnic
politics cut all different ways.
Come on, folks. By now you should have learned that what politicians say doesn't mean a
damn thing -- it's what they do. The establishment is only interested in perpetuating the
establishment.
Here in Pennsylvania, Republican senator Pat Toomey has stayed in office only because the
Dem establishment here has refused to back Joe Sestak, a terrific but rebellious candidate,
for years. Last time around, it endorsed a woman over Sestak and another fantastic male
candidate–but she was as crappy as they come. As far as I've seen, they trot out
identity politics only when it suits their aims and it has nothing to do with what the voters
actually want.
If Sestak and his supporters started a little Third Party just for Pennsylvania, how many
votes would he get? If he and his supporters called it the Revenge Against Betrayal Party,
how many votes would he get?
Identity politics are to Democrats what religious politics are to Republicans: A pious
high ground they use whenever they want to denounce anyone opposed to them as corrupt and
immoral, but immediately gets shelved the moment it interferes with the money and power.
To me, it's a dishonest policy erasure tactic for favoring establishment candidates. If
you're against Hillary Clinton, it's must be because she's a woman, not because
she's, say, a neoliberal, corporatist warmonger -- it deliberately supplants legitimate
policy differences with identity. Not only is it breathtakingly dopey as a psychological
theory -- because it's pretty obvious that someone could oppose a person based on
those policy differences -- it's also obnoxiously presumptuous: "I'm going to substitute my
statements as to motivation for yours." None of that matters, of course, as long as the work
of erasing policy from the discourse is done.
And while it surely matters who is in congress and who sits in the oval office, possibly
we should all become more focused and engaged with system change rather than just individuals
running for office. (although damn am I impressed with Alexandria's keen appreciation of
democracy), To that end I offer ideas from the brain of Gar Alperovitz https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1-Ss5h9F9k
Thank you, Lee. About a quarter of the way through Gar's talk and may need to take a
little rest to let my soul catch up. For me, in my community which is being hard hit by
gentrification and rents are, for many long-time residents, becoming unaffordable, this might
be the exactly the right ideas at the right time. Tomorrow I will be going to the last
meeting of our neighbourhood food co-op as it dissolves, after 10 years, and I can't decide
whether I am more angry or sad. It was well-intentioned, but just couldn't make it work.
Perhaps a bad plan, or maybe no systematic plan at all. Anyway. I never really expected to
see my $1000 again when I bought that bond 10 years ago.
Meantime, I will listen to Gar finish his talk, and pro'ly get his book from the
library.
So here is Gar talking about the Evergreen Co-ops of Cleveland: "That is a
community-building, wealth-democratizing, decentralized, combination of community and worker
ownership, supported by quasi-public procurement, through a planning system using
quasi-public moneys. That is a planning system. {It} begins with a vision of community which
starts by democratizing as far as you can from the ground up, building capacity at the
national level or the regional level, to purchase and thereby stabilize the system in a form
of economic planning. Now think about those things. Those are ideas in a fragmentary
developmental process as the pain of the system grows and there are no other solutions. "
It is strong stuff, but reading it seems dense and dull, but Gar makes it all make sense
on first hearing. So, in anyone interested in community economic action, do check it out.
Of course the most important identity is that of the worker, the person who must sell
their labor power in the marketplace to survive. But you will rarely hear the Democrats
discuss that identity. You might hear about "working families" and the "middle class" but it
really means nothing. The Republicans use the same language and they are just as
mendacious.
I wouldn't mind the slogans and euphemisms if there was some substance behind them. I get
that Americans generally like to think of themselves as "middle class" whether they are
making minimum wage or millions of dollars but at least put some substance behind your
rhetoric.
Both parties are using identity politics to win elections while avoiding the economic
issues that every poll indicates Americans care about the most. The result is an increasingly
disillusioned and depressed population that hates the entire political system. Almost half of
the eligible electorate stays home during election years. Non-voters tend to be poorer while
the political junkies who are increasingly shrill, angry and unreasonable tend to be
wealthier. These are the people who form the base for identity politics because they have the
luxury to worry about such nonsense.
Working families: Groups of people related genetically or by choice, all of whom,
regardless of age, have to work to ensure they have food, clothing, and shelter.
"It's about the children " Madeline Albright, when asked about 500,000+ dead Iraqi children caused by the sanctions
she promoted said "We think the price was worth it " When will this nauseating hag slink off the public stage?
https://fair.org/extra/we-think-the-price-is-worth-it/
An average person with their limited lifespan can barely manage a quota of about a dozen
people to truly care about and about 70 to be acquainted with. Chances of any of those
belonging to some of those special category people are low to the point of it being
irrelevant and worthless to get acquainted with the categories themselves and their
cultures/language, unless they live in a few congregation capitals on this planet like San
Francisco, capitals which can be numbered on both my hands.
Unless the average person decides for themselves to care, trying to convince them to care
about special identity is tantamount to attempting to rob them of their precious lifespan,
over what? Superficial identities. There are religions which worship the supernatural. Now
there's a religion which worships the superficial called Identity Politics or Social Justice
Evangelism as i like to call it (as usual it has about as much to do with social justice as
Christianity had to do with world peace, and all to do with identity masturbation), arisen
jointly as a result of inflated and growing narcissism and unwarranted sense of
self-importance personality disorders influenced by spending too much time on social media
such as Facebook and Twitter.
Bah. Western Democrats focus too much on a minority which has barely any impact on the
economy at the expense of the majority which actually dictates the general economic trend and
therefore also creates the byproduct welfare/life quality of all the meme minorities to whom
it trickles down. That's the issue here. The difference between normal people and minorities
is that normal people know they don't matter in the larger picture, while minorities think
they matter while at the same time asking to be treated as part of the normal people even
though their very mentality is a paradox towards being normal.
The West is simply too
bankrupt on things that matter in the bigger picture and too involved in things that don't, a
complete lack of prioritization.
Teh author stated: "The story of the Trump collusion plot started with an intelligence
fabrication scheme hatched by US and British Government officials and their agents, including
journalists in Washington, New York and London. This started with the Golden Showers
dossier ; the sequel can be followed here . "
Over weeks and months of last year, Adam Waldman (lead image, left), a Washington lobbyist
with ties to the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton, tried to lure Julian Assange (second
from left) into making incriminating admissions to benefit the Democrats' campaign alleging
Russian collusion in Clinton's defeat by President Donald Trump. Assange tried to use Waldman
for a deal with the US Department of Justice, exchanging an offer to withhold disclosure of
classified Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) documents and trade other secrets, some Russian,
in exchange for a grant of immunity from US prosecution.
At the same time, Oleg Deripaska (third from left), the oligarch in control of the Russian
aluminium industry, paid Waldman to offer US prosecutors information about the Trump election
campaign manager Paul Manafort and others connected to the Trump campaign, including Russians,
in exchange for a US Government promise not to impose sanctions on Deripaska. Last week Luke
Harding (right), a reporter for the Guardian, a London newspaper, sold the story of Waldman's
meetings with Assange and Deripaska as a conspiracy to advance a scheme by President Vladimir
Putin to control the US Government.
Four plotters; more than four schemes; money in Waldman's and Harding's pockets; not a shred
of truth.
The story of the Trump collusion plot started with an intelligence fabrication scheme
hatched by US and British Government officials and their agents, including journalists in
Washington, New York and London. This started with the Golden Showers
dossier ; the sequel can be followed here .
The story of Deripaska's engagement of Waldman as his lobbyist with Hillary Clinton at the
State Department and other officials in the Obama Administration has been running for nine
years. Deripaska's payments to Waldman have averaged half a million dollars a year; that's a
total to date of about $5 million. The failure of every one of Waldman's operations on
Deripaska's behalf can be read at this click .
A semi-annual report of Waldman's lobbying activities for Deripaska is required to be
disclosed by the US Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA); the record is accessible at the
FARA unit of the Justice
Department in Washington. For example, details of which US officials Waldman met and what he
wanted them to do for Deripaska were accessible in the FARA filings for 2011
here .
Since then the filings can be followed at six-monthly intervals through December 15, 2017.
In last December's filing Waldman claimed to the Justice Department that, among the purposes of
Deripaska's engagement, he was being paid for selecting animal welfare charities and promotion
of a Russian vaccine for ebola.
Waldman claims on his company website that "Endeavor acts as a core member of its Client's
[Deripaska] holding company executive team, and is the sole representative of its Client's
myriad interests before the U.S. government." Today the FARA dossier on Waldman's Russian
clients shows this:
Source:
https://efile.fara.gov/ When Waldman registered himself as lobbying for the Russian Foreign
Minister Sergei Lavrov, he was doing Deripaska's bidding; Lavrov usually
does .
This means that Waldman's registration as Deripaska's agent in Washington remains active and
he continues to be paid, even though the US Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control
ordered all US individuals and institutions to cease doing business with Deripaska and his
companies from April 6.
The US Treasury did not sanction Deripaska for supporting animal welfare and an ebola
vaccine. The reasons for Deripaska's sanction, according to the Treasury, were that "having
acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, a senior official of the
Government of the Russian Federation, as well as pursuant to E.O. 13662 for operating in the
energy sector of the Russian Federation economy. Deripaska has said that he does not separate
himself from the Russian state. He has also acknowledged possessing a Russian diplomatic
passport, and claims to have represented the Russian government in other countries. Deripaska
has been investigated for money laundering, and has been accused of threatening the lives of
business rivals, illegally wiretapping a government official, and taking part in extortion and
racketeering. There are also allegations that Deripaska bribed a government official, ordered
the murder of a businessman, and had links to a Russian organized crime group." For more on the
US action against Deripaska, read
this .
Waldman has sidestepped the ban on taking money from Deripaska by changing his registration
from Endeavor Group -- a lobbying company covered by the OFAC sanction – to "Endeavor Law
Firm PC". That's a one-man company whose only employee is Waldman; it isn't mentioned by the
Endeavor Group's website. As a law firm acting for Deripaska, Waldman isn't banned by the new
sanction.
In February of this year the Murdoch media reported that on Deripaska's instructions,
Waldman was attempting to arrange appearances before the US Senate Intelligence Committee for
Deripaska and for Christopher Steele, one of the authors of the Golden Showers dossier. Both of
them wanted the Democratic minority on the committee to issue the invitations and secure
advance undertakings in writing from the Committee, including immunity from
US prosecution .
Waldman's telephone texts were exchanged with Senator Mark Warner, a former governor of
Virginia; Democratic Party runner for president; and at present vice-chairman of the
Intelligence Committee. The messages were leaked by Republicans in Congress to the Murdoch
media, and then confirmed by Warner himself.
Deripaska, Waldman told Warner, was trying to negotiate his testimony at the Intelligence
Committee against Manafort and the Trump presidential campaign in exchange for protection from
US Government sanctions. Exactly what Deripaska told Waldman he was ready to tell the Senate
Committee about Russian Government involvement with Manafort and the Trump election campaign
has not been disclosed because Waldman failed to get any concession for Deripaska from either
the Senators or from the Justice Department officials whom he was lobbying at the same
time.
Interpreting the series, a Fox News reporter claimed: "Over the course of four months
between February and May 2017, Warner and Waldman also exchanged dozens of [telephone] texts
about possible testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee from Deripaska, Waldman's primary
Russian billionaire client .In the dozens of text messages between February 2017 and May 2017,
Waldman also talked to Warner about getting Deripaska to cooperate with the intelligence
committee. There have been reports that Deripaska, who has sued Manafort over a failed business
deal, has information to share about the former Trump aide. In May 2017, the Senate and House
intelligence committees decided not to give Deripaska legal immunity in exchange for testimony
to the panels. The text messages between Warner and Waldman appeared to stop that month." Trump
responded by tweeting: "All tied into Crooked Hillary."
For the full story of Deripaska's relationship with Manafort, read this .
Assange was first mentioned by Waldman in a message to Warner on February 15, 2017. By then,
according to Ecuadorian Embassy meeting logs exposed only now, Waldman had met Assange
three times in January, and was planning to meet him again in March. Waldman told Warner that
for this he was acting "pro bono"; that's to say, Assange wasn't paying Waldman's bill. To
protect himself, Waldman also claimed that if US officials, including Warner, didn't appreciate
the value of Waldman's negotiations with Assange, he would stop them. In retrospect, Waldman
continued meeting Assange for another nine months. Waldman's trips to London and his expenses
there for at least some of those occasions were charged to other clients of Waldman's.
The significance of Waldman's messages about Assange were ignored in the US at the time of
their first release because US reporters were focused on Waldman's Russian connexion, and the
potential for damage the reporters believed this might do to Trump. Likewise, Waldman's reports
of what Assange told him have been ignored in the London media until the Guardian revealed the
Ecuadorian government reports on Assange and the visit logs. The Guardian's purpose, like the
earlier Murdoch media reporting, was to find a Kremlin connection.
In retrospect, the Waldman-Warner texts reveal that it was Assange's intention to use
Waldman to make a connection, not to the Kremlin, but to the US Government, trading Wikileaks
for Assange's freedom. Assange was requesting, so Waldman told Warner, safe passage to
Washington and release from threats of US prosecution in return for information regarding
"future leaks" and a promise not "to do something catastrophic for the dems, Obama, CIA and
national security". Waldman wrote that to Warner on February 16, 2017, adding: "I hope someone
will consider getting him to the US to ameliorate the damage".
On March 7, 2017, Wikileaks released publicly what Assange had already described to Waldman.
This was the start of publication of the CIA's Vault-7 and Vault-8 files. The files, claimed
Wikileaks, were "the largest ever publication of confidential documents by the agency." They
revealed the extent, cost and penetration, inside the US as well as globally, of CIA
cyber-warfare operations of many kinds, including hacker attacks which the CIA created as false
flags, making them appear to originate from Russian sources.
"Since 2001," Wikileaks announced , "the CIA has gained political and budgetary
preeminence over the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA). The CIA found itself building not
just its now infamous drone fleet, but a very different type of covert, globe-spanning force --
its own substantial fleet of hackers. The agency's hacking division freed it from having to
disclose its often controversial operations to the NSA (its primary bureaucratic rival) in
order to draw on the NSA's hacking capacities. By the end of 2016, the CIA's hacking division,
which formally falls under the agency's Center for Cyber Intelligence (CCI), had over 5000
registered users and had produced more than a thousand hacking systems, trojans, viruses, and
other 'weaponized' malware."
Assange was quoted in the Wikileaks release as saying: "There is an extreme proliferation
risk in the development of cyber 'weapons'. Comparisons can be drawn between the uncontrolled
proliferation of such 'weapons', which results from the inability to contain them combined with
their high market value, and the global arms trade. But the significance of 'Year Zero' goes
well beyond the choice between cyberwar and cyberpeace. The disclosure is also exceptional from
a political, legal and forensic perspective."
This was what Assange had told Waldman, days earlier, was the "something catastrophic" he
was planning. But Assange told Waldman more. He was willing to deal if the Justice Department
would agree to a quid pro quo. Waldman's messages to Warner confirm this; they also reveal that
Waldman got no swift response from Justice Department officials, so he asked Warner for his
help. Assange then started his slow release of the Vault-7 archive, one week at a time:
Assange's last publication in the CIA Vault series was on November 9. Waldman's last
meetings with Assange were in the same month.
What exactly were the terms Assange asked Waldman to trade with the Justice Department and
Warner's Intelligence Committee? Was he telling Waldman that he would stop the release of more
CIA Vault-7 documents in return for immunity from prosecution? Did he reveal to Waldman enough
information for the CIA and Justice Department to identify the source of the CIA documents?
Last week, on June 18, the US Attorney's office in Manhattan
announced that it had indicted a former CIA software engineer,
Joshua Schulte (right), as the source of the Wikileaks releases. Read the 14-page indictment
here .
Schulte, 29, had worked in the CIA's Engineering Development Group, which designed the hacking
tools used by its Center for Cyber Intelligence. In late 2016, he left the Agency and moved to
New York to work for Bloomberg. The prosecutors have charged thirteen counts against Schulte;
nine of them relate to the Wikileaks releases, and carry a total of 90 years' imprisonment on
conviction. Schulte has pleaded not guilty.
Bloomberg has
reported Schulte's indictment and court appearance, noting that after he left the CIA in
November 2016 he "worked briefly for Bloomberg LP, the parent company of Bloomberg News,
leaving the company in March 2017." Bloomberg has not been charged with gaining unlawful
advantage from Schulte's expertise. US media reporting the Schulte charges claim his
disclosures were one of the worst losses of classified documents in the CIA's history. Earlier
document releases through Wikileaks by Edward Snowden in 2013 came for the most part from the
National Security Agency (NSA), for which Snowden had been a contractor. He has been charged by
US prosecutors with espionage, and been granted asylum in Russia.
Wikileaks isn't named in the Schulte indictment; instead, it is referred to as
"Organization-1 which posted the Classified Information online". Schulte, the court papers
imply, obtained the classified information during 2016, in the months leading up to his
departure from the CIA in November of that year. Two months later Assange had the files,
because he told Waldman about them during their January meetings.
By the time in March, when Assange started publishing from Vault-7, investigators from the
CIA and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) had already identified Schulte as their
suspect. In last week's court papers it is revealed that Schulte was first interrogated by the
FBI within days of the first Wikileaks publication.
How did the FBI find its way so swiftly to Schulte? Had Waldman's contacts with the Justice
Department in February, relaying what Assange had told him, helped pinpoint Schulte as the
Wikileaks source?
Assange's current barrister in London is Jennifer Robinson of Doughty Street Chambers . She and a press spokesman,
Elina Gibbons-Plowright, were asked to clarify the meetings between Waldman and Assange which
had taken place in 2017. In addition to multiple telephone-calls to their offices, the
questions were recorded on Robinson's answer-phone and emailed. She and Gibbons-Plowright were
initially reluctant to respond.
Julian Assange and Jennifer Robinson during London court proceedings in 2011. Assange
took refuge at the Ecuador Embassy in June 2012; he was granted diplomatic asylum by the
Ecuador Government in August 2012, and Ecuadorian citizenship in December 2017. US threats to
have the UK Government arrest him and extradite him have been renewed by the Schulte indictment
of last week.
Then on Friday Robinson replied by email: "Mr Assange is cut off from phone and internet,
and is only permitted legal visits, so the only way I can put your questions to him is to
physically go into the embassy. I have no scheduled visits until next week. I trust you
understand the difficulties of his current circumstances and the impact of this in terms of
ability to provide comment and will acknowledge this in however you report this story."
I replied: "The Waldman-Assange meetings commenced, with your knowledge and counsel for your
client, more than a year ago. The SMS texts were published four months ago. Consequently, the
questions are for you to answer. You will know that Mr Waldman purports to be the one-man
employee of the Endeavor Law Firm PC, as well as the principal of Endeavor Group, a lobbying
firm. You knew that he and Mr Assange discussed matters of law and proposals for the US
Department of Justice."
The questions for Robinson were: 1. After meeting with Mr Assange in mid-February 2017, Mr
Waldman sent an SMS to Senator Mark Warner saying Mr Assange wanted "safe passage from the USG
to discuss the past and future leaks". Please explain what "safe passage" meant then. 2. In
February Mr Assange told Mr Waldman that he was planning "something catastrophic for the dems,
Obama, CIA and national security" – was that the Vault 7 disclosure? 3. Mr Waldman also
quoted Mr Assange as saying he wanted to go to the US "to ameliorate the damage" – what
did Mr Assange mean by "ameliorate the damage"? 4. Mr Waldman says Mr Assange agreed to
"serious and important concessions" for Mr Waldman to take directly to the US Department of
Justice and discuss with those officials. What were these concessions? 5. Within hours or days
of the first Wikileaks publication of the Vault 7 files, the FBI went to interview Joshua
Schulte. Did Mr Assange give Mr Waldman information or promise information about Mr Schulte to
help the FBI and CIA to identify him as a source for the Vault 7 files?
Robinson has not answered.
In Washington Waldman hides from email and telephone contact. His website contact email
address is secured behind a password barrier set up in Germany. His office telephone number
202-715-0966 provides an extension number 1006 for Waldman, but no message can be left on the
answer-phone. Waldman himself does not pick up during office hours. Neither is there an office
receptionist. The telephone directory number, like the email address, is a blind.
Questions were sent to Waldman's personal email address, which he has used to communicate
with me in the past. Waldman was asked to "clarify what were the client relationships and
purposes you held out to Mr Assange which the latter believed to be in his interest to pursue
as often with you as he appears to have done?" Waldman refuses to answer.
Harding, a Guardian correspondent in Moscow between 2007 and 2011, reported last week that
"US intelligence agencies concluded with 'high confidence' last year, in an unclassified
intelligence assessment, that the Kremlin shared hacked emails with WikiLeaks that undermined
Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign as part of its effort to sway the 2016 election in
favour of Donald Trump." For identification of the faults of the US intelligence agency report,
read
this .
For months after the election in November 2016, Harding has suggested by innuendo, the
visits Waldman made to Assange from January to November 2017 – ten reportedly counted
from secret logs
obtained from the Ecuadorian Government -- indicate that Waldman, Assange and Deripaska
were scheming to advance Russian interests in the defeat of the Democratic Party campaign
against Trump.
"It is not clear why Waldman went to the WikiLeaks founder or whether the meetings had any
connection to the Russian billionaire, who is now subject to US sanctions", Harding reported,
then drawing his own conclusion: "But the disclosure is likely to raise further questions about
the extent and nature of Assange's alleged ties to Russia." This was Harding's cue for the
answer he has already decided – Waldman was Assange's back-channel to the Kremlin. In
November 2017, Harding had published a book with this conclusion in the
title, "Collusion – How Russia [sic] Helped [sic] Trump [sic] Win the White House". The
Latin qualifier has been added to identify the innuendoes for which Harding has reported no
conclusive evidence.
The headline claims the Ecuadorian surveillance reports on Assange count nine visits by
Waldman. In Harding's text, he reports three Waldman visits to Assange in January 2017; two in
March; three in April; and two in November. If accurately counted, they add up to ten. Source:
https://www.theguardian.com/ The Waldman telephone texts to Senator Warner which have been
published start in February 2017, and refer to contact with Assange which Waldman had had
already. In March, when Waldman met Assange twice, he told Warner he had "convinced him to make
serious and important concessions and am discussing those w/DOJ [with US Department of
Justice]."
The web and print displays of the story don't provide evidence for the reported connection
between Deripaska and Assange on which Harding sets store. Assange refused to reply to the
questions Harding had sent him; Waldman and Deripaska likewise.
Harding believes Assange met Waldman as a go-between through Deripaska to Moscow. It did not
occur to Harding that Assange was negotiating with Waldman for a deal with Washington.
Got my Economics Degree in 1971 – when they still taught the stuff. Maybe I
shouldn't, but I still go nuts when educated writers like yourself distort the origins of
Fascism. It was a three legged stool consisting of government, industry and labor. Taking
care of the working class was a key element. Also, being socialist, it was not market
oriented. Neoliberalism is exactly the opposite with it's 'lump of labor' and unregulated
markets. It arose in defense of the crushing fist of western capitalism and, had it not
been taken over by dictators, might have done the world a lot of good. Other than that you
wrote a nice piece. Keep it up
DARAA, Syria – At first glance, all appears calm in this southern Syrian city where
protests first broke out seven years ago. Residents mill around shops in preparation for the
evening Iftar meal when they break their daily fast during the holy month of Ramadan.
But the tension is nonetheless palpable in this now government-controlled city. A few weeks
ago, Russian-brokered reconciliation talks in southern Syria fell apart when Western-backed
militants rejected a negotiated peace.
Whether there will now be a full-on battle for the south or not, visits last week to Syria's
three southern governorates, Daraa, Quneitra, and Suweida, reveal a startling possibility:
al-Qaeda's Syrian franchise -- the Nusra Front -- appears to be deeply entrenched alongside
these U.S.-backed militants in key, strategic towns and villages scattered throughout the
south.
U.S. media and think tanks obfuscate this fact by referring to all opposition fighters as
"rebels" or "moderates." Take a look at their maps and you only see three colors: red for the
Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and its allies, green for opposition forces, black for ISIS.
So then, where is the Nusra Front, long considered by Western pundits to be one of the most
potent fighting forces against the SAA? Have they simply -- and conveniently -- been erased
from the Syrian battle map?
Discussions with Syrian military experts, analysts, and opposition fighters during my trip
revealed that Nusra is alive and kicking in the southern battlefields. The map below
specifically identifies areas in the south controlled by Nusra, but there are many more
locations that do not appear where Nusra is present and shares power with other militants.
Despite its U.S. and UN designation as a terrorist organization, Nusra has been openly
fighting alongside the "Southern Front," a group of 54 opposition militias funded and commanded
by a U.S.-led war room based in Amman, Jordan called the Military Operations Center (MOC).
Specifics about the MOC aren't easy to come by, but sources inside Syria -- both opposition
fighters and Syrian military brass (past and present) -- suggest the command center consists of
the U.S., UK, France, Jordan, Israel, and some Persian Gulf states.
They say the MOC supplies funds, weapons, salaries, intel, and training to the 54 militias,
many of which consist of a mere 200 or so fighters that are further broken down into smaller
groups, some only a few dozen strong.
SAA General Ahmad al-Issa, a commander for the frontline in Daraa, says the MOC is a
U.S.-led operation that controls the movements of Southern Front "terrorists" and is highly
influenced by Israel's strategic goals in the south of Syria -- one of which is to seize
control of its bordering areas to create a "buffer" inside Syrian territories.
How does he know this? Issa says his information comes from a cross-section of sources,
including reconciled/captured militants and intel from the MOC itself. The general cites MOC's
own rulebook for militants as an example of its Israel-centricity: "One, never threaten or
approach any Israeli border in any way. Two, protect the borders with (Israeli-occupied) Golan
so no one can enter Israel."
To illustrate the MOC's control over southern militants, Issa cites further regulations:
"three, never take any military action before clearing with MOC first. Four, if the MOC asks
groups to attack or stop, they must do so."
What happens if these rules are not upheld? "They will get their salaries cut," says
Issa.
The armed opposition groups supported by the MOC are mostly affiliated with the Free Syrian
Army (FSA), itself an ill-defined, highly fungible group of militants who have changed names
and affiliations with frequency during the Syrian conflict.
Over the course of the war, the FSA has fought
alongside the Nusra Front and ISIS -- some have even joined them. Today, despite efforts to
whitewash the FSA and Southern Front as "non-sectarian" and non-extremist , factions
like the Yarmouk Army, Mu'tazz Billah Brigade, Salah al-Din Division, Fajr al-Islam Brigade,
Fallujah al-Houran Brigade, the Bunyan al-Marsous grouping, Saifollah al-Masloul Brigade, and
others are currently occupying keys areas in Daraa in cooperation with the Nusra Front.
None of this is news to American policymakers. Even before the MOC was established in
February 2014, Nusra militants were fronting vital military maneuvers for the FSA. As one Daraa
opposition
activist explains: "The FSA and al-Nusra join together for operations but they have an
agreement to let the FSA lead for public reasons, because they don't want to frighten Jordan or
the West . Operations that were really carried out by al-Nusra are publicly presented by the
FSA as their own."
Efforts to conceal the depth of cooperation between Nusra and the FSA go right to the top.
Says one FSA commander in Daraa: "In many battles, al-Nusra takes part, but we don't tell the
(MOC) operations room about it."
It's highly doubtful that the U.S. military remains unaware of this. The Americans operate
on a "don't ask, don't tell" basis with regard to FSA-Nusra cooperation. In a 2015 interview with this
reporter , CENTCOM spokesman Lieutenant Commander Kyle Raines was quizzed about why
Pentagon-vetted fighters' weapons were showing up in Nusra hands. Raines responded: " We
don't 'command and control' these forces -- we only 'train and enable' them. Who they say
they're allying with, that's their business."
In practice, the U.S. doesn't appear to mind the Nusra affiliation -- regardless of the fact
that the group is a terror organization -- as long as the job gets done.
U.S. arms have been seen in Nusra's possession for many years now, including highly valued
TOW missiles , which were game-changing weapons in the Syrian military theater. When
American weapons end up in al-Qaeda hands during the first or second year of a conflict, one
assumes simple errors in judgment. When the problem persists after seven years, however, it
starts to look like there's a policy in place to look the other way.
It's also not difficult to grasp why U.S. maps patently ignore evidence of Nusra embedded
among U.S.-supported militias. The group, after all, is exempt from ceasefires, viewed as a
fair target for military strikes at all times.
In December 2015, UN
Security Council Resolution 2254 called for "Member States to prevent and suppress
terrorist acts committed specifically by Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, also known
as Da'esh), Al-Nusra Front (ANF), and all other individuals, groups, undertakings, and
entities associated with Al Qaeda or ISIL, and other terrorist groups, as designated by the
Security Council" (emphasis added). Furthermore, the resolution makes clear that ceasefires
"will not apply to offensive or defensive actions against these individuals, groups,
undertakings and entities."
This essentially means that the Syrian army and its allies can tear apart any areas in the
south of Syria where Nusra fighters -- and "entities associated" with it -- are based. In
effect, international law provides a free hand for a Syrian military assault against
U.S.-backed militias co-located with Nusra, and undermines the ability of their foreign
sponsors to take retaliatory measures.
That's why the Nusra Front doesn't show up on U.S. maps.
In an interview last week, Syrian president Bashar al-Assad blamed the sudden breakdown of
southern reconciliation efforts on "Israeli and American interference," which he says "put pressure on the terrorists in that
area in order to prevent reaching any compromise or peaceful resolution."
Today, the Israeli border area with Syria is dotted with
Nusra and ISIS encampments, which Israel clearly
prefers over the Syrian army and its Iranian and Hezbollah allies. The Wall Street
Journal even
reported last year that Israel was secretly providing funding for salaries, food, fuel, and
munitions to militants across its border.
In early June, two former Islamist FSA members (one of them also a former Nusra fighter) in
Beit Jinn -- a strategic area bordering Syria, Lebanon, and Israel -- told me that Israel had
been paying their militia's salaries for a year before a reconciliation deal was struck with
the Syrian government. "Every month Israel would send us $200,000 to keep fighting," one
revealed. "Our leaders were following the outside countries. We were supported by MOC, they
kept supporting us till the last minute," he said.
Earlier that day, in the village of Hadar in the Syrian Golan, members of the Druze
community described a bloody Nusra
attack last November that killed 17: "All the people here saw how Israel helped Nusra
terrorists that day. They covered them with live fire from the hilltops to help Nusra take over
Hadar. And at the end of the fights, Israel takes in the injured Nusra fighters and
provides them with medical services," says Marwan Tawil, a local English teacher.
"The ceasefire line (Syrian-Israeli border) is 65 kilometers between here to Jordan, and
only this area is under the control of the SAA," explains Hadar's mayor. "Sixty kilometers is
with Nusra and Israel and only the other five are under the SAA."
Israel is so heavily vested in keeping Syria and its allies away from its borders, it has
actively
bolstered al-Qaeda and other extremists in Syria's southern theater. As Israeli Defense
Minister Moshe Ya'alon famously explained
in 2016, "In Syria, if the choice is between Iran and the Islamic State, I choose the Islamic
State." To justify their interventions in the battle ahead, the U.S. and Israel claim that
Iranian and Hezbollah forces are present in the south, yet on the ground in Daraa and Quneitra,
there is no visible sight of either.
Multiple sources confirm this in Daraa, and insist that that there are only a handful of
Hezbollah advisors -- not fighters -- in the entire governorate.
So why the spin? "This is a public diplomacy effort to make the West look like they've
forced Iran and Hezbollah out of the south," explains General Issa.
The U.S., Israel, and their allies cannot win this southern fight. They can only prolong the
insecurity for a while before the SAA decides to launch a military campaign against the
54-plus-militias-Nusra occupying the south of Syria. The end result is likely to be a
negotiated settlement peppered with a few "soft battles" to eject the more hardline
militants.
As one SAA soldier on the scene in Daraa tells me: "Fifty-four factions in a small area
shows weakness more than it shows strength." And their cooperation with the Nusra Front just
makes the targets on their backs even larger.
Sharmine Narwani is a commentator and
analyst of Mideast geopolitics based in Beirut.
Credit:
Evan El-Amin/Shutterstock
The United States has adorned its president with extravagance that makes Roman emperors
appear frugal by comparison. And such visible signs of the deification of our president are complemented by legal
doctrines that echo Richard Nixon's once discredited claim to David Frost: "When the president does it, that means it is
not illegal."
These extra-constitutional developments reflect the transformation
of the United States from a republic, whose glory was liberty and whose rule of law was king, to an empire, whose glory
is global dominion and whose president is law. The Constitution's architects would be shocked to learn that contemporary
presidents play prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner to any person on the planet deemed a threat to national
security on the basis of secret, untested evidence known only to the White House.
An empire demands a Caesar and blind obedience from its citizens. World leadership
through the global projection of military force cannot be exercised with checks and balances and a separation of powers
that arrests speed and invites debate. Napoleon lectured: "Nothing in war is more important than unity of command .
Better one bad general than two good ones." And Lord Tennyson, saluting the British Empire, versified in
The Charge of the Light Brigade
:
As justice requires the appearance of justice, a Caesar requires the appearance of a
Caesar. Thus is the president protected by platoons of Secret Service agents. The White House, by closing previously
open avenues through the heart of the capital and shielding the president from citizen detractors, has become a castle.
The White House staff has expanded and aggrandized power at the expense of Cabinet officials confirmed with the advice
and consent of the Senate.
Debate, encouraged by the separation of powers, is superfluous where support for
empire is underwritten by the multi-trillion-dollar military-industrial-counterterrorism complex, as it is in the United
States. The Republican and Democratic parties are unified behind at least seven ongoing unconstitutional presidential
wars and climbing trillion-dollar national security budgets.
Our warfare state has given birth to subsidiary surveillance, crony capitalism, and a
welfare state. Congress and the judicial branch have become largely sound and fury, signifying nothing. The
Constitution's separation of powers is atrophying.
The life of the law is not justice but genuflections to power. It manufactures
doctrines that honor the power principle that the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must. When the
configuration of power changes, the law adapts accordingly. The adaptations may not be instantaneous, but they are
inexorable. This is not surprising. Judges are not born like Athena from the head of Zeus. They are selected through a
political process that vets them for compatibility with the views of their political benefactors. Benjamin Cardozo
observed in
The Nature of the Judicial
Process
:
"The great tides and
currents which engulf the rest of men do not turn aside in their course and pass the judges by."
The United States has become the largest and most actively garrisoned empire in
history, built up by World War II and the 1991 disintegration of the Soviet Union. Our empire has, among other things,
approximately 800 military bases in more than 70 countries, over 240,000 active duty and reserve troops in at least 172
countries and territories
, de facto
or
de jure
commitments to defend 70
countries, and presidential wars as belligerents or co-belligerents in Libya, Somalia, Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Pakistan,
Afghanistan, and against al-Qaeda and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). The president has by necessity become
a Caesar irrespective of whether the occupant of the White House possesses recessive or dominant genes. The law has
adapted accordingly, destroying the Constitution like a wrecking ball.
At present, the president with impunity initiates war in violation of the Declare War
Clause; kills American citizens in violation of the Due Process Clause; engages in indiscriminate surveillance his own
citizens in violation of the Fourth Amendment; substitutes executive agreements for treaties to circumvent the
requirements of Senate ratifications by two-thirds majorities in violation of the Treaty Clause; substitutes executive
orders for legislation in violation of Article I, section 1; issues presidential signing statements indistinguishable
from line-item vetoes in violation of the Presentment Clause; wields vast standard-less delegations of legislative
authority in violation of the Constitution's separation of powers; brandishes a state secrets privilege to block
judicial redress for unconstitutional executive action in violation of due process; refuses submission to congressional
oversight in violation of the congressional power of inquiry; and declines to defend defensible duly enacted laws in
violation of the Take Care Clause.
The Constitution will be reborn only if the American people reject their Empire in
favor of a republic where individual liberty is the summum bonum. The odds of that happening are not good.
Bruce Fein was associate deputy attorney general and general counsel of the Federal Communications Commission
under President Reagan and counsel to the Joint Congressional Committee on Covert Arms Sales to Iran. He is a partner in
the law firm of Fein & DelValle PLLC.
=>
◄
►
◄
❌
►
▲
▼
Remove from Library
B
Show
Comment
Next New Comment
Next
New Reply
Add to Library
Bookmark
Toggle
All
ToC
▲
▼
Search Text
Case
Sensitive
Exact Words
Include Comments
List of Bookmarks
Technically, this is flag desecration--but Olbermann has hate America for years.
Of course, this begs
an obvious question. Traitor to
what?
In an "America" which no longer has a definable culture,
language,
ethnos
, history, identity or rule of law, what is there left to betray?
The open celebration of what any other
generation would have called "treason" reveals how fully self-discrediting is the Russian "interference"
narrative.
John Harington
famously quipped: "Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason? Why, if it prosper,
none dare call it treason." The "Russian interference" narrative is false because the fact it can be loudly
denounced without being shut down for being the equivalent of "racist" or "xenophobic" shows Russia isn't
very powerful within our government and society.
In contrast, our government and media
seem to not only tolerate openly subversive or even hostile actions by foreign governments against the
United States, but celebrate them.
To criticize any of these countries, or
to suggest dual loyalty on the part of their supporters in this country, is political death. Of course, that
is because such dual loyalty is sufficiently strong that it is dangerous to broach the topic.
Indeed, for some in our Congress, dual
loyalty would be a massive improvement.
The only reason we can't call men like
these traitors is because there's no evidence they ever considered themselves Americans in any meaningful
way. What could be more ridiculous than considering
Chuck Schumer
"a fellow American" with some imaginary "common interest" he shares with me?
It's not double loyalty; that would be
giving Maher too much credit. And it's not treason, because Maher just isn't part of my people, by his own
standards. When Bill Maher refers to "us," I know that doesn't include me or my readers, and I know "the
Russians" hate me a lot less than he does.
Of course, there is a Trump associate
who has disturbing ties with a country doing just that. The main focus of the investigation into "Russian
collusion" is focusing on former
National Security Advisor Michael Flynn
. But Flynn's strongest ties to a foreign power seem to be to be
increasingly extreme and anti-European Turkey
of the autocrat Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. Incredibly, Flynn
even wrote an editorial demanding more support for Turkey
on election day itself.
[
Our
ally Turkey is in crisis and needs our support
, by Michael Flynn, The Hill, November 8, 2016]
As Turkey is quite openly facilitating
the migrant invasion of Europe and helping ISIS, there's a far better case to claim our NATO "ally" is a
threat than Russia. And yet Flynn's ties to Turkey go all but unmentioned outside evangelical Christian
websites [
Best-selling
author predicted Flynn's departure
, WND,
February 14, 2017]. The MSM is utterly
indifferent to Flynn's ties to Erdogan, even when they seem to be utterly dedicated to destroying General
Flynn personally.
Part of it simply could be the defense
industry and the
"Deep State"
need an enemy with a powerful conventional military to justify their wealth and power. As
it can't be China (that would be racist), Russia will do.
The real reason Russia is hated is
because it is a
media threat.
Russia is funding, or at least is tied to, several alternative media
sources such as
RT,
possibly
Wikileaks, Sputnik etc.
Contrary to MSM claims,
RT
is hardly friendly to the "Alt-Right," instead promoting progressive hosts such as Thom Hartmann. But there
is at least a slightly different point of view than the monolithic Narrative promoted on every late night
comedy show, network news broadcast, cable news broadcast, newspaper headline, and Establishment website [
The
Hard Road For Putin
,
by Gregory Hood,
Radix,
July 22, 2014].
There is also an undeniable,
and openly articulated
, sense of racial hatred expressed against Russians by Jewish members of the
media. Russians are hated both as a specific
ethnos
and as a white nation which does not seem to be
fully committed to "our values," which, as defined by Weimerica's journalist class, consists of various
forms of degeneracy. [
Welcome
to Weimerica
,
by Ryan Landry,
Daily Caller,
May 5, 2017].
John Winthrop's "City Upon A Hill"
we are not.
It's not just idiotic but obscene that
the same journalists gleefully involved in deconstructing the American identity now demand Middle America
rally round the flag out of some misplaced Cold War nostalgia. Needless to say,
these same journalists loved Russia back when it was Communist
and killing millions of Orthodox
Christians.
For immigration patriots, it's
especially obnoxious because the eradication of the American identity is a result of mass immigration. And
immigration is more important than every other issue for two reasons.
Immigration cuts to the heart of what a country is, of who you mean when you say "my people." Are
Americans still one people? Indeed, it's hard to claim America is even a geographic expression: referring
to the United States shorthand
as "America" is now designated as offensive
. The replacement of existing American citizens is
celebrated
by the media and
funded
by our own government.
And even citizenship means nothing, The
MSM constantly promotes
Jose Antonio Vargas
and his illegal friends or the protesters who parade under foreign flags not just as
"Americans" but as people somehow more American than us.
It's a strange definition of patriotism
where wanting peaceful relations with Russia is "treason" but banning the American flag in public schools
because it might offend Mexicans
is government policy
.
Naturally, Leftist intellectuals and the
reporters who parrot their ideas do have some vague idea of "American" identity -- that of a "proposition" or
"universal" nation which exists only to fight a global struggle for equality [
Superpowers
,
by James Kirkpatrick,
NPI,
June 24, 2013].
But can you betray a "proposition
nation?" How exactly does someone turn against a "universal nation?"
Actually, you can. If you are part of
the historic American nation, one of those European-Americans who actually think of this country as a real
nation with a real culture, you are in a strange way the only people left out of what it means to be a
modern "American." To consider America a particular place with a specific culture and history that not
everyone in the world can join simply by existing is treason to a "universal nation." Everyone in the world
can be an "American," except, you know, actual Americans.
This is why the MSM is insistent that
the governing philosophy of "
America
First
," which should simply be a truism for any rational American government, is instead
something subversive and dangerous
.
The hard truth is that "our" rulers
aren't the guardians of our sovereignty, but the greatest threat to our independence.
And this isn't an unprecedented
circumstance in history. During the Napoleonic occupation of Prussia, Carl von Clausewitz
violated
his king's orders to join the invasion of Russia and instead joined the Tsar's forces in the
hope of someday liberating his own country. After all, it wasn't Tsar Alexander that was occupying Prussia;
it was Napoleon. And in the end, he won, Prussia was restored, and eventually it was Prussia that would
unite all of Germany.
The same situation applies today. Today,
those actively pursuing the destruction of my people, culture and civilization aren't in Moscow. I don't
even concede those are enemies at all.
Our enemies are in New York, Washington,
and Los Angeles, in "our" own media companies, government bureaucracies and intelligence agencies.
The real America is under occupation –
and resistance to collaborators is patriotism to our country. We elected Donald Trump because we thought he
could help disrupt and perhaps even end that occupation so we could have a country once again.
The attempt to destroy the President has
ripped the mask off
the forces behind this occupation
. And we owe no loyalty to the collaborators who are trying to destroy
his administration, dispossess our people, and destroy our country.
Because in the end, "treason" to the
occupation is loyalty to America.
(Republished from
VDare
by permission of author or representative)
I concur completely. The Russians are not our enemies. The Russians have never been our enemies. The Soviet
behemoth may have harnessed the captive Russian bear, but, to paraphrase St. Paul, "Our battle was not with
flesh and blood Russians but with the the powers and principalities of international Jewry and its ugly and
deadly spawn, Judeo-Communism." Once it cast off those chains, Russia became a natural ally of the American
people, but not, of course, of the Atlanticist Zionist empire which the American deep state serves.
Orthodox Christian Russia and the United States had a true compatibility of interests, until the advent of
Roosevelt I and his war party of would be empire builders.
The corporate media is reporting intrepid crusader Robert Mueller is preparing to do a
Pontius Pilate on his special council investigation of Russia and the Trump campaign.
According to WaPo, Mueller has beefed up his team with a number of prosecutors and the job
of prosecuting Russian nationals for supposedly influencing the 2016 election will be fobbed
off on them.
"The Post reports that the new hires are the first indication of Mueller preparing for the
end of his investigation," WaPo reported.
The Trump component is in the process of performing a disappearing act in slow motion. The
investigation petered out months ago. Democrats continued to pound on it. Because it's all they
have. The establishment Resistance run by Pelosi and Schumer is treading water and looking
toward the midterms.
It's like simple math. There is no evidence Trump or his associates colluded with Putin and
the Russians to somehow - through the exaggerated influence of social media - throw the
election in his favor.
This nonsense was dispelled early on.
It's true. Enterprising Russians ran a lucrative clickbait scheme on social media - just
like hundreds of other entrepreneurs. It took the the Democrats - fresh off a humiliating
defeat to a casino and real estate windbag - to make up a fantasy deserving of a novel discount
bin.
Establishment Dems counted on the corporate media to whip up the required hysteria and
frenzy among already hysterical and frenzied liberals. Many apparently sought trauma counseling
after the election.
Even with the media lavishing coverage on the Mueller investigation, it has failed to do
much of anything except get Paul Manafort, Michael Cohen, and others in trouble - not for
working under Putin's direction to get the MAGA candidate elected, but for alleged bank fraud
and violation of campaign finance laws.
This is pretty routine stuff in Washington.
Mueller doesn't have a case and he knows it. Now he will save face by passing off the
investigation to underlings.
Meanwhile, the rest of us get respite - until the next drummed up load of horse manure
masquerading as high crimes and misdemeanors appears on the scene.
Not to worry. There are always stories of political intrigue to fascinate the proles - for
fifteen minutes at least - and distract from the real issues: endless war and a bankster rigged
economy slowly turning America into a third world cesspool.
I am celebrating this decision.
I am celebrating that it will mostly disappear from the news cycle.
I am celebrating petulant Democrats suffering another defeat and also celebrating denying
self-righteous Republicans a chance to climb up on their soapboxes.
Of course, they'll come up with something else, they always do.
The establishment political class is not about to stop rolling out distractions that are
poorly planned political theater stunts that could use better writing and managerial
skills.
Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz confirmed publicly Monday that his
office is investigating James Comey for his handling of classified information as part of memos
he shared documenting discussions with President Trump.
The inspector general's comments confirmed reports dating back to April that the ex-FBI
director was facing scrutiny, amid revelations that at least two of the memos he shared with
his friend, Columbia University Professor Daniel Richman, contained information now deemed
classified.
The confirmation came during Monday's Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, where Horowitz and
FBI Director Christopher Wray testified on the findings in the IG's report on the handling of
the Hillary Clinton email probe.
"We received a referral on that from the FBI," Horowitz said, in response to questioning
from Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, about the Comey memos. "We are
handling that referral and we will issue a report when the matter is complete and consistent
with the law and rules." Comey, back in April, confirmed to Fox News' Bret Baier that the IG's
office had interviewed him with regard to the memos, but downplayed the questions over
classified information as "frivolous" -- saying the real issue was whether he complied with
internal policies.
Grassley, though, told Horowitz on Monday, "I don't happen to think that is frivolous."
Comey, in testimony before Congress last year, acknowledged he shared the memos with the
intention of leaking to the press and spurring the appointment of a special counsel.
In April, Fox News initially learned that Horowitz was looking into whether classified
information was given to unauthorized sources as part of a broader review of Comey's
communications outside the bureau -- including media contact.
Comey, whom Trump fired in May 2017, denied that sharing the memos with his legal team
constituted a leak of classified information. Instead, he compared the process to keeping "a
diary."
"I didn't consider it part of an FBI file," Comey said. "It was my personal aide-memoire I
always thought of it as mine."
In his testimony last year before the Senate Intelligence Committee, Comey said he made the
decision to document the interactions in a way that would not trigger security
classification.
But in seven Comey memos handed over to Congress in April, eight of the 15 pages had
redactions under classified exceptions.
Anthropologist David Vine spent several years visiting and investigating U.S military bases
abroad. To put it mildly, he disapproves of what he found. In his sweeping critique, Base
Nation , Vine concludes that Washington's extensive network of foreign bases -- he claims
there are about 800 of them -- causes friction with erstwhile American allies, costs way too
much money, underwrites dictatorships, pollutes the environment, and morally compromises the
country. Far from providing an important strategic deterrent, the bases actually undermine our
security. To remedy this immense travesty, Vine calls for Washington to bring the troops back
home.
If nothing else, Base Nation is a timely book. The issue of our expensive foreign
commitments has taken center stage in this presidential election. Vine probably finds it ironic
that most of the criticism is coming from Donald Trump.
Our extensive foreign-base network is probably an issue that we can't ignore for long.
Today, there seems more urgency to look at these long-term base commitments and examine what we
are really getting out of them. So, for raising the issue, I say, "Thank you for your service,
Mr. Vine."
But it is a shame that Base Nation , which could have made a strong contribution to
this debate, ends up making a heavy-handed and somewhat unreliable case against and the U.S.
military and U.S. foreign policy in general. His sweeping indictments detract from the
importance of his initial focus, our overextended base network.
There are some positives. Vine stands on firm ground when he details how inefficient the
base system often is. In fact, this is an issue that the federal government has been
addressing, albeit slowly and haltingly. Budget realities are solving the problem; many bases
are being shuttered and their functions consolidated into others. Vine thinks that overseas
bases cost us at least $71 billion a year; maybe closer to $100-200 billion. In one of the more
persuasive sections of the book, he explains how he made these calculations, which follow to
some extent an important 2013 study from the RAND Corporation. That it is difficult coming up
with any precise figures on overseas base spending suggests that we probably need to take a
harder look at how taxpayer money is being used.
Likewise, Vine raises valid criticisms about how many bases were constructed by either
displacing native populations, as the British did for our benefit at the Indian Ocean atoll
Diego Garcia, or by marginalizing the locals, as we allegedly have done at Okinawa in Japan. He
highlights the environmental damage done by U.S. military ordnance, although I think it unfair
that he ignores the more scrupulous attendance to the environment that we find in today's armed
forces. And Vine is right that having many young and bored men based far from home probably
doesn't elevate the morals of the local, host population.
But Vine simply fails to persuade in other parts of his critique. His fundamental distrust
of the military leads him to accept unquestioningly every dubious charge against it. He also
tends to be less than discriminating in some of his sourcing and characterization of events.
These problems undermine the overall credibility of his reporting.
Part of the problem with Base Nation is definitional. Vine's definition of a base --
"any place, facility or installation used regularly for military purposes, of any kind" -- is
far too broad. Even temporary assignments with host governments get defined as "bases." This
leads him to estimate that there are at minimum 686 bases, with 800 being "a good estimate."
Why the need to inflate the numbers?
Vine's foreign-base maps, though compelling to look at, appear a bit suspect in light of his
expanded definition. What's that big star in Greenland? That's Thule Air Station, a Danish
base, where we have about 100 personnel. And the other one in Ascension Island? That's a small
satellite-monitoring station, run by the British. What's that dot in Cairo? Oh, it's a
medical-research facility. These are hardly the footprints of overweening imperialism.
Likewise, he identifies many bases in Africa. To debunk the official position that we have
one permanent base there -- in Djibouti, rented from the French -- plus a few drone sites, Vine
relies on dodgy research from Nick Turse, a noted anti-military critic who thinks that the
Pentagon runs a hidden African empire.
Along similar lines, Vine believes the U.S. maintains an extensive, secret base system in
Latin America. We have one permanent base in the region, Cuba's Guantanamo Bay (GTMO). Once all
the al-Qaeda prisoners are gone, GTMO's main function will return to fleet training and
disaster response for the Caribbean. In addition, we have one arrangement in Soto Cano Air
Field in Honduras, which hosts a squadron of helicopters engaged in counternarcotic operations.
How does this base destabilize Central America, as Vine suggests? You got me.
Soto Cano is featured in one of the more tendentious chapters, which reveals Vine's method.
In discussing the base, he strongly suggests the U.S. military there conspired with the
Honduran Army during the "coup" against President Manuel Zelaya in 2009. He quotes a local
activist insisting the U.S. was behind the coup, and then leaves it at that. In fact, the U.S.
government firmly opposed removing the anti-American Zelaya, slapped sanctions on Honduras, and
negotiated for months to have Zelaya brought back into Honduras. Suggesting the U.S. military
backed the coup is, well, baseless.
Many of Vine's scattershot charges are of a similar nature. He accuses the U.S. Navy of
being in bed with the mob in Naples because, allegedly, it rents housing from landlords who may
have mob connections. He blames the military for the red-light districts around foreign bases,
like in South Korea, as if it directly created them. In another context, he claims, based on
one professor's opinion, that the U.S. Naval Academy fosters a rampant rape culture, and so
on.
Toward the end of the book, Vine challenges those who believe the bases are providing
valuable deterrence to "prove it." I'm not sure I can prove it to his satisfaction, but
regarding Korean-peninsula security, some experts point to our strong presence there as
deterring both sides from overreacting. And regarding Iraq, it seems evident that leaving
without any U.S. military presence destabilized the country. Many of our operations with
foreign militaries in Africa, Latin America, and southeast Asia have a strong humanitarian
focus. It is disconcerting that he dedicates no space to these important, stabilizing missions
that are often enabled by our forward base deployment.
But Vine never demonstrates his main point: that the bases themselves are destabilizing. The
countries with our largest base presence -- Germany, Italy, South Korea, and Japan -- are all
prosperous, peaceful democracies. As for the local protests at our foreign military bases that
occasionally happen, these seem no more problematic than what occurs, certainly more often, at
our many embassies abroad. Should we withdraw our diplomatic missions too?
As for bases destabilizing the developing world, Vine overplays the U.S.-imperialism angle
and fails to appreciate how much control even a weaker government has over its own sovereignty.
Little Honduras could kick us out of Soto Cano tomorrow; we have an agreement that could end at
any time. Ecuador refused to renew our lease at Manta Air Base in 2008; we left without much
fuss. The Philippines in 1992 changed its constitution to prohibit foreign bases, forcing us to
leave Subic Bay. Now Manila, feeling threatened by China over the South China Sea island
disputes, is inviting us back. The Filipinos mustn't feel our presence too destabilizing.
Given Vine's criticism of our large base footprint, you would think he'd approve of the
Pentagon's recent plans on lowering its profile with its "lily pad" strategy -- bilaterally
negotiated, pre-staged locations that might enable a future deployment. Surely this approach
would alleviate the problems of the large, permanent bases Vine so painstakingly sights? But,
somewhat illogically, he objects to this "light footprint" approach as a new sign of
encroaching imperialism, not of gradual U.S. realignment and withdrawal.
Even if he doesn't make a strong case in Base Nation , in the long run, Vine probably
will get his wish. It is hard to imagine that an extensive military base network in Europe and
East Asia, the outcome of our victory in World War II and justified by Cold War strategy, will
still make sense a few decades down the road. Changes are already in the wind. A new strategy
for U.S. foreign policy and military power projection will doubtless be shaped largely by
budget exigencies and shifts in our allies' regional security priorities.
Michael J. Ard, a former naval officer and U.S. government analyst, works in the
security field and lectures on international security at Rice University.
Our critic seems to have some serious cognitive dissonance going on in his avoidance of
recognizing the imperial project that undergirds circling the world with U.S. military power
projection.
Fran Macadam is right. The bases and the problems they create are incidental to the policy
that engendered. Our nation went from a policy of intermittent imperialism after 1898 to one
of permanent imperialism after 1941.
Unless we ditch the empire and return to our correct status as an independent republic, we
will suffer the fate of all previous empires.
If we grant that our global commitments are burdensome, why not take the argument in a
reasonable direction. As we remember from the days of BRAC, closing bases is like pulling eye
teeth, so let's focus on narrowing this argument down to what may be feasible: End NATO,
remove our unwelcome forces from the Middle East, and shutter the bases where we're not
wanted (e.g. AFRICOM, Okinawa) and where leases are due to expire. We need to walk our
projection back from the borders of China & Russia. Even a minimal plan of this sort
would require a decade to accomplish. Ultimately we need a master, strategic foreign policy
vision that walks back our global projection this debate goes nowhere without that.
Unfortunately neither GOP or Democrat parties offer this vision. No need to wring our hands
over a "Close All the Bases" debate until we're back to Constitutional governance and foreign
policy, and are rid of the military-industrial complex. And the odds of that are ?
Our Founding Fathers never wanted or would have allowed foreign military bases. Thomas
Jefferson was adamantly opposed to building a navy but John Adams built a navy and Jefferson
used it to stop muslim barbarians from enslaving the crews of US merchant ships.
I cannot fathom why the US needs basis throughout the world. Id much rather have a strong
Philipines, Japan and Taiwan for us to partner with than vassal states that spend nothing for
their own defense and put the entire burden the their alliance on the US. How many shades is
that from colonialism or parasitism? Not that far in my book.
Europe is a fine example of parasitism. Today Europe expects its protector to be the US,
it has shifted all its resources to social programs and as a result it cannot even defend its
borders from unarmed migrants much less from a hostile aggressor.
So what is the strategy to contain Russia and China by being in Central Asia, to contain
Europe by constraining it with NATO, to constrain Asia via China, Japan, Philipines, Vietnam,
etc.
Im not a fan. The US is spending so much money maintaining these military alliances and
using US money and jobs to bribe compliance that our nation is going bankrupt and our
infrastructure is 3rd world. If these truly are competitor nations the wiser approach would
be to have a strong 1st world infrastructure, a strong economy, strong education and
employment and expansion into Mexico, Central America and South America. Nowhere else in the
world is a nation capable of dominating an entire continent from aggressor competing nations.
Nowhere else in the world is a nation capable of dominating an entire portion of the globe.
Instead of growing North, Central and South America we are constraining the rest of the
globe. Not only is this fiscally irresponsible but one can only shake a bottle of champagne
for so long and expect the bottle to constrain the carbonation. Eventually the cork will pop
and the declining debtor power will be brought down to size with years of animous for holding
others back.
" causes friction with erstwhile American allies, costs way too much money, underwrites
dictatorships, pollutes the environment, and morally compromises the country."
Nowhere in this article is there mention of what I would hope to be the primary purpose of
a forward base.
Does it truly help the US military defend the US (and I would include projections of power
that deter bad actors)?
If yes, then sod off to the wanker David Vine
Our elites run roughshod over other peoples, and the American people can't constrain them
either. At least we know who the "real" Americans are. L'etat, it is them.
It shouldn't be a surprise that others piggyback on our defense spending. Why would they not?
From our point of view, who pays, says, and since we insist on saying wherever we can, we've
got to pay.
I have frequently wondered how costs of this sort of thing are calculated. Do the taxes
military families pay get deducted from the cost? Given at least some of them would be
unemployed in today's economy, do benefits they would have get deducted? Does the money they
spend in local economies in the US when not deployed get factored in some way? What about the
taxes the corporations which provide goods and services to the military pay, and that their
employees pay? It would seem almost impossible to arrive at an accurate cost figure.
"Does it truly help the US military defend the US (and I would include projections of power
that deter bad actors)?
If yes, then sod off to the wanker David Vine"
Using that logic, you wouldn't mind Russia or China setting up a military base in Mexico
or Cuba to deter the US (a proven 'bad actor') right??
Like a Dos Equis ad, Mexico is "keeping it interesante ." On July 1, Andres Manuel
Lopez Obrador, the veteran left-wing politician known as AMLO,
will likely win Mexico's presidential election , to the horror of policy analysts, U.S.
government officials, and the Mexican business community. As head of the upstart National
Regeneration Movement (MORENA, the Spanish acronym, also means "dark skin"), AMLO pledges to
make Mexico self-sufficient on food, halt foreign investment in the oil industry, and grant
amnesty to drug traffickers. AMLO hates the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) --
although he's promised to stay in it for now -- and "the Wall" even more.
Washington's days of having a predictable and compliant partner in Mexico may be over.
This election is likely to radically transform Mexican politics. MORENA is
surging in the polls and may give AMLO a strong legislative bloc. Nationalist-minded
legislators from other parties could also defect to his agenda. That would cause a major
Mexican political realignment, under which for the next six years it could be governed by a
self-described "revolutionary nationalist" ruling coalition. It makes sense: Mexico's
neoliberal era had to end sooner or later. AMLO's longtime critique of an unfair economy and a
complacent and unresponsive political system has finally resonated.
What accounts for this sudden turnaround? Several factors have aligned in AMLO's favor.
Start with AMLO's opponents, who, in a time of change, represent continuity, splitting the
neoliberal vote in Mexico's "winner-take-all" system. The conservative National Action Party
(PAN), his strongest competitor, diluted its solid brand by running in coalition with two
leftist parties. The ruling Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) selected a well-qualified
former finance minister who is out of his depth as a campaigner. That's left the once-powerful
PRI mailing this campaign in, and AMLO siphoning up its traditional voters.
Insecurity and corruption,
according to polls , are the top issues for Mexican voters, and on these AMLO scores well.
Especially on managing corruption and crime, Mexico's political elite have appeared notoriously
inept. The former head of the state oil company PEMEX, a close ally of President Enrique
Peña Nieto, has been credibly accused of taking up to
$10 million in bribes to approve contracts from the corrupt Brazilian construction company
Odebrecht. Several governors have been indicted for racketeering and graft; one
even went on the lam and was arrested in Guatemala. Recently, Mexico's 12-year campaign to
corral drug trafficking organizations fell apart, and violence skyrocketed. Twenty-eight
thousand Mexicans were murdered last year, and political candidates are being physically
attacked. Meanwhile, drug trafficking gangs ("cartels") are placing parts of the country off
limits.
Then there's President Trump, who has treated Mexico as a problem and not as a partner by
insisting that it fund his humiliating border wall. When asked in 2015 by Wall Street
Journal editors if he thought the U.S. should promote stability and economic growth in
Mexico, he replied, "I don't care about Mexico honestly. I really don't care about Mexico."
Trump has bolstered AMLO's long-held view that Mexico has relied on the United States for too
long. On the campaign trail, AMLO has vowed to put Trump "in his place."
Still, these more immediate causes don't entirely explain AMLO's impending success. At a
deeper level, AMLO seems to be Mexico's answer to Samuel Huntington's key "who are we?"
question on national identity. AMLO's MORENA explicitly seeks to revive the abandoned ideals of
the Mexican Revolution (1910-1920): anti-imperialism, defense of national resources, equality,
and the protection of peasant rights. Tellingly, AMLO cites as his heroes two successful
presidents who propelled Mexico forward: Benito Juarez, the black-clad Zapotec Indian who
defeated the French-backed 19th-century "empire," and Lazaro Cardenas, the former revolutionary
general who nationalized the oil industry and built the modern Mexican state.
Despite his populism, AMLO hasn't always been an outsider. He started his political career
during the 1980s, when the PRI was still was Mexico's governing party. But he soon saw the
changes happening in his rural native state of Tabasco, when the oil boom pushed out the
farming and fishing industry. AMLO dissented from the PRI's decision to liberalize the economy
and joined the opposition in 1988.
Led by Carlos Salinas de Gortari, who was president from 1988 to 1994, the country embarked
on a strict neoliberal development path and internationalist agenda, reversing its program of
statist economics and authoritarian governance. Its ruling politicians sold state industries,
embraced market reforms, let the peso float, and joined the North American Free Trade
Agreement. Over the last several years, Mexico City has even permitted greater American
involvement in its war against drug traffickers. Under Peña Nieto, Mexico finally
allowed its oil industry to permit foreign investment.
In truth, these reforms worked well enough: Mexico democratized and developed into a solidly
middle-income country with steady economic growth. Net immigration into the United States has
come to a halt. Security issues were messy, but unlikely to destabilize the country.
These reforms represented a big win for Washington. If American intervention was needed for
the occasional peso crisis or drug trafficker menace, we were happy to oblige. Mexico made a
difficult partner at times, but on the policy side, it was where Washington wanted it to
be.
But the cost of these changes may have been Mexico's identity, its sense of self. Returning
to Huntington, his "The Clash of
Civilizations?" article described Mexico as a state "torn" between its economic future and
political and cultural past. After a top advisor to President Salinas described the sweeping
changes the government was making, Huntington remarked, "It seems to me that basically you want
to change Mexico from a Latin American country into a North American country." Salinas looked
at him with surprise and exclaimed: "Exactly! That's precisely what we are trying to do, but of
course we could never say so publicly."
AMLO and his followers have brooded about these radical changes for years. To this day, he
refers to the arch-neoliberal Salinas simply as El Innombrable -- he that cannot be
named. Neoliberalism launched AMLO not just on a political career but on a personal crusade to
bring the country back to its former ideals.
When AMLO won the Mexico City mayorship in 2000, he built up a national political base and
became a burr in the saddle of President Vicente Fox, who had embraced the liberal reforms of
the formerly ruling PRI. AMLO criticized Fox relentlessly, and in retaliation, Fox attempted to
have him legally prohibited from running for president in 2006.
This clumsy effort failed, giving AMLO a boost. But he narrowly lost the contest to the
PAN's Felipe Calderon, whose campaign linked AMLO with Venezuela's leftist President Hugo
Chavez. Embittered in defeat, AMLO immediately claimed the voting was rigged against him. AMLO
and his raucous followers held protests for months and even formed a parallel government. He
may have lost in 2006, but he solidified his position as the leader of Mexico's alternative
left.
AMLO's anti-system stance has given weight to the claim that he'd be another Chavez. The
comparison seems invidious, as the late comandante of Venezuela, an avowed Marxist and
coup plotter, crushed democratic institutions, set up a socialist economy, and in general drove
what had been a prosperous South American country into the ground. AMLO, an authentic democrat,
appears less megalomaniacal and more rules-focused, more the romantic reactionary than the
revolutionary radical.
Still, many of the same forces that propelled Chavez are driving AMLO now. Like Chavez, AMLO
is coming to power after a period of neoliberal reform and perceived intractable corruption.
Like Chavez, AMLO enjoys an almost mystical bond with his nation's poorer classes. And very
much like Chavez, AMLO is instinctively, but probably not irreversibly, anti-American in
outlook.
How these characteristics will play out with AMLO in power is hard to predict. The two main
parties won't be behind him, but many of their followers might. All of those alienated by
neoliberalism, the perceived kowtowing to Washington, the surrender of economic resources to
foreign companies and the free market, will flock to his banner. It is remarkable how some
former members of the right-of-center National Action Party and the PRI have backed his
campaign.
Some of AMLO's policy proposals seem less the stuff of hard leftism than nostalgic
nationalism. He focuses heavily on national development for industry and agriculture aimed at
self-reliance and reducing imports. He proposes holding referendums on the enacted legislation,
a move to broaden democracy, which would require constitutional reform. He seeks to raise the
minimum wage, but refreshingly pledges "no new taxes."
AMLO loves to wax nostalgic about Mexico's strong state traditions and will almost certainly
attempt to restore the waning power of the Mexican presidency as an anti-corruption pulpit. In
the tradition of newly inaugurated Mexican presidents, he'll probably look to prosecute a node
of corruption in Mexican society: a prominent businessman or politician, rather than a labor
union like his predecessors.
Much of the progress the United States has made with Mexico on security cooperation will
probably be jeopardized. It's hard to believe that AMLO will endorse the close relations that
the DEA, the Pentagon, and the intelligence community have forged with their Mexican
counterparts in the war on drugs. The extradition of the notorious drug kingpin Joaquin el
Chapo Guzman to the U.S. in 2017 will probably be the high watermark in the relationship. It is
doubtful that AMLO will permit more high-profile extraditions. President Trump's disdain for a
close relationship that has taken us decades to build may come back to haunt us.
But a poor relationship between Washington and Mexico City doesn't have
to be inevitable. Despite the rhetoric, the flamboyant American billionaire has much in
common with the austere Mexican populist. Both countries have too many common interests to go
down separate paths. The question is: does AMLO have to build the bomb to get Trump to care
about Mexico?
Michael J. Ard is a former deputy national intelligence officer for the Western
Hemisphere and the author of"An Eternal Struggle: The Role of the National Action
Party in Mexico's Democratic Transition." He teaches international relations at Rice
University's Master of Global Affairs program.
That's just the thing, AMLO isn't "an authentic democrat." He founded MORENA so he could keep
his presidential aspirations going; he's indistinguishable from the party. After losing in
2006, he notoriously said "to hell with institutions." His followers won't admit this, but
his platform is as diluted as the rest: he's taken in suspects of corruption and has allied
himself with both a very "conservative" party (the small, evangelical PES) and Mexico's hard
leftists.
"... In my article for Consortium News I discussed at length the size of the British footprint in the scandal, and the outsized role in it of various British or British connected individuals such as the ex British spy Christopher Steele who compiled the Trump Dossier, the former chief of Britain's NSA equivalent GCHQ Robert Hannigan, the former MI6 chief Sir Richard Dearlove, and the Cambridge based US academic Stefan Halper. ..."
"... I would add that there are now rumours that Professor Joseph Mifsud, the mysterious London based Maltese Professor who also had a big role in the Russiagate affair, may also have had connections to British intelligence. ..."
"... As this article in Zerohedge says, all roads in Russiagate lead to London, not, be it noted, Moscow. ..."
Britain alarmed as John Bolton travels to Moscow to prepare summit...
Days after I discussed rumours of an imminent
Trump-Putin summit , seeming confirmation that such a summit is indeed in the works has been provided with the Kremlin's confirmation
that President Trump's National Security Adviser John Bolton is travelling to Moscow next week apparently to discuss preparations
for the summit.
As far as we know, such a visit is going to take place. This is all we can say for now.
Further suggestions that some sort of easing of tensions between Washington and Moscow may be in the works has been provided by
confirmation that a group of US Republican Senators will shortly be visiting Moscow.
It seems that a combination of the collapse in the credibility of the Russiagate collusion allegations – which I suspect no Republican
member of the House or Senate any longer believes – unease in the US at Russia's breakthrough in hypersonic weapons technology (recently
discussed by Alex Christoforou and myself in this video
), and the failure of the recent sanctions the US Treasury announced against Rusal, has concentrated minds in Washington, and is
giving President Trump the political space he needs to push for the easing of tensions with Russia which he is known to have long
favoured.
One important European capital cannot conceal its dismay.
In a recent article for Consortium News I discussed the
obsessive
quality of the British establishment's paranoia about Russia , and not surprisingly in light of it an article has appeared today
in The Times of London which made clear the British government's alarm as the prospect of a Trump-Putin summit looms.
As is often the way with articles in The Times of London, this article has now been "updated" beyond recognition. However it still
contains comments like these
Mr Trump called for Russia to be readmitted to the G8 this month, wrecking Mrs May's efforts to further isolate Mr Putin after
the Salisbury poisonings. Mr Trump then linked US funding of Nato to the trade dispute with the EU, singling out Germany for special
criticism.
The prospect of a meeting between Mr Trump and Mr Putin appalls British officials. "It's unclear if this meeting is after or
before Nato and the UK visit," a Whitehall official said. "Obviously after would be better for us. It adds another dynamic to
an already colourful week." .
A senior western diplomatic source said that a Trump-Putin meeting before the Nato summit would cause "dismay and alarm", adding:
"It would be a highly negative thing to do."
Nato is due to discuss an escalation of measures to deter Russian aggression. "Everyone is perturbed by what is going on and
is fearing for the future of the alliance," a Whitehall source said.
I will here express my view that the Russiagate scandal was at least in part an attempt by some people in Britain to prevent a
rapprochement between the US and Russia once it became clear that achieving such a rapprochement was a policy priority for Donald
Trump.
In my
article
for Consortium News I discussed at length the size of the British footprint in the scandal, and the outsized role in it of various
British or British connected individuals such as the ex British spy Christopher Steele who compiled the Trump Dossier, the former
chief of Britain's NSA equivalent GCHQ Robert Hannigan, the former MI6 chief Sir Richard Dearlove, and the Cambridge based US academic
Stefan Halper.
I would add that there are now rumours that Professor Joseph Mifsud, the mysterious London based Maltese Professor who also
had a big role in the Russiagate affair, may also have had
connections to British intelligence.
A summit meeting between the US and Russian Presidents inaugurated an improvement in relations between the US and Russia is exactly
the opposite outcome which some people in London want.
"... The attributions of attacks to countries are very shaky. Throw in a couple of Cyrillic letters and voilà, you have associated a certain IP address or a certain piece of code with Russia. Somehow these simpleton arguments are uncritically accepted as proofs by computer security professionals the world over, who, of all people, really should know better. It's as if all the supposedly smart cryptographers and programmers are completely oblivious to the concept of manipulation. ..."
Could someone remind me the amount of country's America have invaded since the last world war
30 - 40 , I here'd. Compared to Russia 5-8 ? Russia is in Syria by invitation to deal with
rebels/terrorist's .America is now threatening both. Despite being there to attempt a regime
change. Just who do they think they are ? The sooner they are stopped the better and the
easier.
Russia intervened nowhere; the USSR intervened in Hungary and Czechoslovakia. In 1993,
Yeltsin's cabal intervened in Russia to preserve Bush's and Clinton's New World Order. USSR
was invited into Afghanistan; Outlaw US Empire wasn't. An incomplete list from William Blum's
Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II . A graphic map based on Blum's
book.
Yesterday, Putin met with UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres. Unfortunately, the Kremlin's recap of
the meeting's currently incomplete, but what is recorded is instructive:
"Of course, we look at the Russian Federation as a founder of the United Nations and as a
permanent member of the Security Council, but I would say that at the present moment we look
at the Russian Federation as an indispensable element of the creation of a new multipolar
world.
"To be entirely frank, these are not easy times for multilateralism and not easy times for
the UN. And I think that after the Cold War and after a short period of unipolar world we are
still struggling to find a way to have a structured, multipolar world with multilateral
governmental institutions that can work. And this is something that worries me a lot and is
something in which, I believe, the Russian Federation has a unique role to play."
Considering many think Guterres just an agent for the Outlaw US Empire, maybe his cited
words will cause a reassessment. I'd like to know what followed. Apparently there was some
discussion about Korea and the
economic initiatives being openly discussed since RoK President Moon will arrive in
Russia tomorrow.
Lavrov met with Guterres today, and his
opening remarks shine a bit more light on what was discussed:
"As emphasised by President Putin, we have invariably supported, support, and will
continue to support the UN, this unique universal organisation. We think highly of your
intention, Mr Secretary-General, to raise the profile of the United Nations in world affairs,
particularly in settling regional conflicts. As you noted yourself at the meeting in the
Kremlin yesterday, this is largely dependent on the general state of the international system
as a whole and the UN member states' readiness to act collectively, jointly, rather than
unilaterally, and to pursue the goals enshrined in the UN Charter rather than
self-centred,[sic] immediate aims.
"We note that you have consistently advocated the pooling of efforts by major players to
deal with world problems. This is the logic of the UN Charter, specifically its clauses on
the creation and powers of the UN Security Council. I hope that based on the values we share
we will be able to successfully continue cooperation in the interests of solving
international problems."
Lots of emphasis on the absolute necessity of making the UN Charter whole again and not
allowing any one nation to make a mockery of it by pursuing its "self-centered, immediate
aims."
Ben @ 14
Thanks Ben. Yep that's what l thought reality would look like, that's my sanity safe for a
while longer. Remember we are not alone!
Zanon @ 12
That is a perfect example of 'fake news' we can spot it here ! Or are we here now msm!
Pantaraxia @ 20
Wow that doubles what I was already shocked about ! And then of course there's the comercal
operations destablising country's using greed as a weapon. Plus the banks, I'm sure South
Africa would have been a real success if they'd kept the banking curuption out. Time for
immoral capitalism to fall.
Also don't you just hate victim blaming.There that's me done. Grrr
@b: I know you're just one man and can't do everything, but it would be wonderful if you
could cover the history of hacking accusations against Russia. No one lays out a sequence of
events better than you.
Just yesterday, another accusation has been leveled against Russia by the head of
Germany's BfV intelligence agency, Hans-Georg Maassen:
German intelligence sees Russia behind hack of energy firms - media report (Reuters).
It's a serious accusation, and one would expect a serious proof. However, no proof has been
given except that "it fits the Russian modus operandi". Also, the fact that the alleged
attack has been named "Berserk Bear" by some unknown Western analyst. Apparently, that's
enough proof by today's standards.
There is a critical lack of independent thinking and skepticism in the international
computer security circles nowadays. The attributions of attacks to countries are very
shaky. Throw in a couple of Cyrillic letters and voilà, you have associated a certain
IP address or a certain piece of code with Russia. Somehow these simpleton arguments are
uncritically accepted as proofs by computer security professionals the world over, who, of
all people, really should know better. It's as if all the supposedly smart cryptographers and
programmers are completely oblivious to the concept of manipulation.
"... Orwell's 1984 is no longer a warning – it's a primer on how to to run your campaign. Use of social media to enforce absolute conformity of opinion, rampant doublethink, teach children to turn in the parents, four fingers equals five fingers – it's all there. ..."
"... Our present cycle of Two-Minutes-Hate seems pretty effective at keeping the Outer Party #Resistance fired up against Donald "Emmanuel Goldstein" Trump. ..."
"... Regular decent folks Democrats really have no idea how far to the Left their party has gone. ..."
"... You can see it in the NY Times. I dropped it recently after reading it for 30 years as I got so sick of their anti-white, gentile, male, heterosexual agenda. I still look at it through a free online subscription from my college, and get disgusted by the pieces in the opinion sections and then log off. ..."
"... I subscribed to the NYT for a number of years. After the recent campaign and the current treatment of our President, Donald Trump, I quit. I am stunned at how these old media properties are being purchased and used for political activism on behalf of their owners and advertisers. They're another example of extreme Left propaganda presented as respectable journalism. ..."
"... The Gray Lady is an old SJW tranny, as far as I can tell.. ..."
"... If a man isn't a committed socialist in 1948, he has no heart. If a man is still a committed socialist in 1984, he has no brain. Orwell was moving to the right, but there are so many "rights" that we can only guess which one he'd have ended up on. Neocon, nationalist, libertarian, who knows. But it's a common arc in one's forties. He didn't make it to 50. ..."
"... Classic satire is often the work of reactionaries: Aristophanes, Juvenal, Swift, Waugh. ..."
"... I have started calling the mass media furies a 'propaganda blitz'. The recent explosion around child separation is a perfect example. It is a combination of major media outlets all going into a froth, the expert use of social media, and the complete shaming of any other viewpoint. They announce a crisis precisely at the time there is movement on an issue, as a means of achieving a purely political objective. Thus, this crisis was timed to coincide with immigration legislation being discussed again. ..."
"... Even small-time progressive players like Russell Moore of the SBC successfully used this recently. They announced a crisis prior to their yearly convention (think voting day for the SBC), used friendly media to spread the word and erupt in hysteria, and used social media to bludgeon their political opponents. It was wicked, but HIGHLY effective. ..."
"... As Steve likes to point out, we need a word for this. I am using 'propaganda blitz', because if you are on the receiving end it is akin to the blitzes over London in WWII, except instead of bombs it is 7-14 days of a brutal, propagandistic news cycle. ..."
From George Orwell's "Inside the Whale," 1940, on the mental atmosphere of English writers
in 1937 (slightly updated):
By 2018 the whole of the intelligentsia was mentally at war. Establishment thought had
narrowed down to 'anti-Trumpism', i.e. to a negative, and a torrent of hate-literature
directed against Russia and the politicians supposedly friendly to Russia was pouring from
the Press. The thing that, to me, was truly frightening about the war in America was not such
Twitter spats as I witnessed, nor even the party feuds on Instagram, but the immediate
reappearance in respectable circles of the mental atmosphere of the McCarthy Era. The very
people who for 65 years had sniggered over their own superiority to Kremlin hysteria were the
ones who rushed straight back into the mental slum of 1950. All the familiar wartime
idiocies, spy-hunting, orthodoxy-sniffing (Sniff, sniff. Are you a good anti-Trumpist?), the
retailing of atrocity stories, came back into vogue as though the intervening years had never
happened.
Of course, people in 1937 or 1950 at least had some justification for their hysteria.
Regular decent folks Democrats really have no idea how far to the Left their party has gone.
Orwell's 1984 is no longer a warning – it's a primer on how to to run your campaign.
Use of social media to enforce absolute conformity of opinion, rampant doublethink, teach
children to turn in the parents, four fingers equals five fingers – it's all there.
Regular decent folks Democrats really have no idea how far to the Left their party has gone.
Orwell's 1984 is no longer a warning – it's a primer on how to to run your campaign.
Use of social media to enforce absolute conformity of opinion, rampant doublethink, teach
children to turn in the parents, four fingers equals five fingers – it's all there.
By 1937 the whole of the intelligentsia was mentally at war. Left-wing thought had
narrowed down to 'anti-Fascism', i.e. to a negative, and a torrent of hate-literature
directed against Germany and the politicians supposedly friendly to Germany was pouring from
the Press. The thing that, to me, was truly frightening about the war in Spain was not such
violence as I witnessed, nor even the party feuds behind the lines, but the immediate
reappearance in left-wing circles of the mental atmosphere of the Great War. The very people
who for twenty years had sniggered over their own superiority to war hysteria were the ones
who rushed straight back into the mental slum of 1915. All the familiar wartime idiocies,
spy-hunting, orthodoxy-sniffing (Sniff, sniff. Are you a good anti-Fascist?), the retailing
of atrocity stories, came back into vogue as though the intervening years had never
happened.
Our present cycle of Two-Minutes-Hate seems pretty effective at keeping the Outer Party
#Resistance fired up against Donald "Emmanuel Goldstein" Trump.
I like the acting ability of the Welsh guy tormenting the English guy from the Burton/Hurt
version of 1984. John Hurt could have done a great O'Brien and Richard Burton could have done
a smashing Winston Smith.
...Orwell and Boxer and Whites Without College Degrees from 2017:
I know what happened to Boxer -- Russian working class -- the work horse in George
Orwell's Animal Farm. Boxer busted his arse building the farm back up to snuff after it had
undergone the revolution and other problems. The pigs -- Stalinists -- rewarded Boxer by
carting him away to the glue factory. Poor Boxer finally realized he was going to the glue
factory while in the truck, but he was so exhausted from his labors in working on the farm
that he didn't have enough strength to kick the truck to pieces to escape.
Whites Without College Degrees(WWCDs) are the new Boxer of the present day. The
Stalinists are now the Globalizers. The Globalizers have decided that all the hard work and
all the soldiering over generations by the WWCDs will be rewarded with deliberate attacks
and sneaky ways to harm them. From mass immigration to de-industrialization to hooking the
WWCDs on drugs, the Globalizer pigs have used every trick in the book to destroy Whites
Without Colllege Degrees. Two academics have described this demographic phenomenom as the
WHITE DEATH.
Regular decent folks Democrats really have no idea how far to the Left their party has
gone.
You can see it in the NY Times. I dropped it recently after reading it for 30 years as I
got so sick of their anti-white, gentile, male, heterosexual agenda. I still look at it
through a free online subscription from my college, and get disgusted by the pieces in the
opinion sections and then log off.
Somehow, though, the Left persuaded itself early on that "1984″ was a prophecy of
the Trump Era. IIRC the book actually saw a jump in sales, and a stage adaptation was mounted
in New York.
I was thinking along your lines (and as yet unaware of the above-mentioned trends) when I
saw someone reading it on a commuter train. I cautiously passed a word to him thinking I
might be making contact with a fellow Rightist; but was quickly disabused of the notion when
he responded with some "resistance" B.S., in the nasally whine typical of the species.
I subscribed to the NYT for a number of years. After the recent campaign and the current
treatment of our President, Donald Trump, I quit. I am stunned at how these old media
properties are being purchased and used for political activism on behalf of their owners and
advertisers. They're another example of extreme Left propaganda presented as respectable
journalism.
The Gray Lady is an old SJW tranny, as far as I can tell..
Yes, most Britons would agree that Orwell needs updating: "That rifle on the wall of the labourer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of
democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there." He sounds awfully American here.
If a man isn't a committed socialist in 1948, he has no heart. If a man is still a
committed socialist in 1984, he has no brain. Orwell was moving to the right, but there are so many "rights" that we can only guess
which one he'd have ended up on. Neocon, nationalist, libertarian, who knows. But it's a
common arc in one's forties. He didn't make it to 50.
Classic satire is often the work of reactionaries: Aristophanes, Juvenal, Swift,
Waugh.
Of course, people in 1937 or 1950 at least had some justification for their
hysteria.
This is true, and then some. Just as today, the mainstream media was in on promoting the
leftist agenda, though maybe to a lesser degree. Here's the New York Times' obituary
(or, more accurately, eulogy) for Joseph Stalin back in 1953. Yes, they acknowledge some of
his murderous tendencies, but it seems hard for them to condemn such a great guy for such a
minor flaw. The headline reads, Stalin Rose From Czarist Oppression to Transform Russia
Into Mighty Socialist State . That's the tone of the the whole article, generally
speaking. It's hard for them to conceal their reverence.
The EU is attempting to surreptitiously ban criticism of the Ruling Class using some
copyright/link tax nonsense that will essentially ban memes and expose anonymous critics. The
mask slips ever more.
If a man isn't a committed socialist in 1948, he has no heart.
Wrong.
Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy,
its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. –Winston Churchill
And just two years later, the anti-fascist rhetoric was completely reversed and became
anti-anti-fascist with the Nazi-Soviet pact. And two years after that, it went back to being
anti-fascist when Hitler broke the pact.
Quite
Orwell was clearly moving to the right being very anti Communist ( and fellow travellers )
but at all times he was first and foremost an English nationalist . Certainly he was no
supporter of Left solidarity
In his time perhaps it was still maybe just possible to consider oneself to be of the left
and to be a nationalist.
That era has long finished.
I have started calling the mass media furies a 'propaganda blitz'. The recent explosion around child separation is a perfect example. It is a combination of
major media outlets all going into a froth, the expert use of social media, and the complete
shaming of any other viewpoint. They announce a crisis precisely at the time there is
movement on an issue, as a means of achieving a purely political objective. Thus, this crisis
was timed to coincide with immigration legislation being discussed again.
The left is getting more skilled at it, too, and is significantly helped by the
suppression of right-wing accounts on social media platforms since November 2016. Trayvon was
an early example of this, and they have only gotten better at using the tactics. The
propaganda is often a mix of true and false components.
Even small-time progressive players like Russell Moore of the SBC successfully used this
recently. They announced a crisis prior to their yearly convention (think voting day for the
SBC), used friendly media to spread the word and erupt in hysteria, and used social media to
bludgeon their political opponents. It was wicked, but HIGHLY effective.
As Steve likes to point out, we need a word for this. I am using 'propaganda blitz',
because if you are on the receiving end it is akin to the blitzes over London in WWII, except
instead of bombs it is 7-14 days of a brutal, propagandistic news cycle.
"... Trump's vision would seem to include protection of core industries, existing demographics and cultural institutions combined with an end of "democratization," which will result in an acceptance of foreign autocratic or non-conforming regimes as long as they do not pose military or economic threats. ..."
"... Sounds good, I countered but there is a space between genius and idiocy and that would be called insanity, best illustrated by impulsive, irrational behavior coupled with acute hypersensitivity over perceived personal insults and a demonstrated inability to comprehend either generally accepted facts or basic norms of personal and group behavior. ..."
"... Trump's basic objections were that Washington is subsidizing the defense of a wealthy Europe and thereby maintaining unnecessarily a relationship that perpetuates a state of no-war no-peace between Russia and the West. ..."
"... And the neoconservatives and globalists are striking back hard to make sure that détente stays in a bottle hidden somewhere on a shelf in the White House cloak room. Always adept at the creation of new front groups, the neocons have now launched something called the Renew Democracy Initiative (RDI), with the goal of "uni[ting] the center-left and the center-right." Its founders include the redoubtable Max Boot, The Washington Post's Anne Appelbaum, the inevitable Bill Kristol, and Richard Hurwitz of Council on Foreign Relations. RDI's website predictably calls for "fresh thinking" and envisions "the best minds from different countries com[ing] together for both broad and discrete projects in the service of liberty and democracy in the West and beyond." It argues that "Liberal democracy is in crisis around the world, besieged by authoritarianism, nationalism, and other illiberal forces. Far-right parties are gaining traction in Europe, Vladimir Putin tightens his grip on Russia and undermines democracy abroad, and America struggles with poisonous threats from the right and left." ..."
"... There are also the internal contradictions in what Trump appears to be doing, suggesting that a brighter future might not be on the horizon even if giving the Europeans a possibly deserved bloody nose over their refusal to spend money defending themselves provides some satisfaction. In the last week alone in Syria the White House has quietly renewed funding for the so-called White Helmets, a terrorist front group. It has also warned that it will take action against the Syrian government for any violation of a "de-escalation zone" in the country's southwest that has been under the control of Washington. That means that the U.S., which is in Syria illegally, is warning that country's legitimate government that it should not attempt to re-establish control over a region that was until recently ruled by terrorists. ..."
"... In Syria there have been two pointless cruise missile attacks and a trap set up to kill Russian mercenaries. Washington's stated intention is to destabilize and replace President Bashar al-Assad while continuing the occupation of the Syrian oil fields. And in Afghanistan there are now more troops on the ground than there were on inauguration day together with no plan to bring them home. It is reported that the Pentagon has a twenty-year plan to finish the job but no one actually believes it will work. ..."
"... The United States is constructing new drone bases in Africa and Asia. It also has a new military base in Israel which will serve as a tripwire for automatic American involvement if Israel goes to war and has given the green light to the Israeli slaughter of Palestinians. ..."
"... And then there are the petty insults that do not behoove a great power. A friend recently attended the Russian National Day celebration at the embassy in Washington. He reported that the U.S. government completely boycotted the event, together with its allies in Western Europe and the anglosphere, resulting in sparse attendance. It is the kind of slight that causes attitudes to shift when the time comes for serious negotiating. It is unnecessary and it is precisely the sort of thing that Russian President Vladimir Putin is referring to when he asks that his country be treated with "respect." The White House could have sent a delegation to attend the national day. Trump could have arranged it with a phone call, but he didn't. ..."
"... Winston Churchill once reportedly said that to "Jaw, jaw, jaw is better than war, war, war." As one of the twentieth century's leading warmongers, he may not have actually meant it, but in principle he was right. So let us hope for the best coming out of Singapore and also for the G-7 or what replaces it in the future. But don't be confused or diverted by presidential grandstanding. Watch what else is going on outside the limelight and, at least for the present, it is not pretty. ..."
"... Phil nails it as usual. Like him, I'm not very optimistic. Whether overall one approves or disapproves of Trump (and count me as a disapprover), it is obvious that most of the government is operating outside his control and this includes many of his own appointees. The continuities of US policy are far deeper than the apparent discontinuities. ..."
I had coffee with a foreign friend a week ago. The subject of Donald Trump inevitably came
up and my friend said that he was torn between describing Trump as a genius or as an idiot, but
was inclined to lean towards genius. He explained that Trump was willy-nilly establishing a new
world order that will succeed the institutionally exhausted post-World War 2 financial and
political arrangements that more-or-less established U.S. hegemony over the "free world." The
Bretton Woods agreement and the founding of the United Nations institutionalized the spread of
liberal democracy and free trade, creating a new, post war international order under the firm
control of the United States with the American dollar as the benchmark currency. Trump is now
rejecting what has become an increasingly dominant global world order in favor of returning to
a nineteenth century style nationalism that has become popular as countries struggle to retain
their cultural and political identifies. Trump's vision would seem to include protection of
core industries, existing demographics and cultural institutions combined with an end of
"democratization," which will result in an acceptance of foreign autocratic or non-conforming
regimes as long as they do not pose military or economic threats.
Sounds good, I countered but there is a space between genius and idiocy and that would be
called insanity, best illustrated by impulsive, irrational behavior coupled with acute
hypersensitivity over perceived personal insults and a demonstrated inability to comprehend
either generally accepted facts or basic norms of personal and group behavior.
Inevitably, I have other friends who follow foreign policy closely that have various
interpretations of the Trump phenomenon. One sees the respectful meeting with Kim Jong-un of
North Korea as a bit of brilliant statesmanship, potentially breaking a sixty-five year logjam
and possibly opening the door to further discussions that might well avert a nuclear war. And
the week also brought a Trump welcome suggestion that Russia should be asked to rejoin the G-7
group of major industrialized democracies, which also has to be seen as a positive step. There
has also been talk of a Russia-U.S. summit similar to that with North Korea to iron out
differences, an initiative that was first suggested by Trump and then agreed to by Russian
President Vladimir Putin. There will inevitably be powerful resistance to such an arrangement
coming primarily from the U.S. media and from Congress, but Donald Trump seems to fancy the
prospect and it just might take place.
One good friend even puts a positive spin on Trump's insulting behavior towards America's
traditional allies at the recent G-7 meeting in Canada. She observes that Trump's basic
objections were that Washington is subsidizing the defense of a wealthy Europe and thereby
maintaining unnecessarily a relationship that perpetuates a state of no-war no-peace between
Russia and the West. And the military costs exacerbate some genuine serious trade imbalances
that damage the U.S. economy. If Trumpism prevails, G-7 will become a forum for discussions of
trade and economic relations and will become less a club of nations aligned military against
Russia and, eventually, China. As she put it, changing its constituency would be a triumph of
"mercantilism" over "imperialism." The now pointless NATO alliance might well find itself
without much support if the members actually have to fully fund it proportionate to their GDPs
and could easily fade away, which would be a blessing for everyone.
My objection to nearly all the arguments being made in favor or opposed to what occurred in
Singapore last week is that the summit is being seen out of context, as is the outreach to
Russia at G-7. Those who are in some cases violently opposed to the outcome of the talks with
North Korea are, to be sure, sufferers from Trump Derangement Syndrome, where they hate
anything he does and spin their responses to cast him in the most negative terms possible. Some
others who choose to see daylight in spite of the essential emptiness of the "agreement" are
perhaps being overly optimistic while likewise ignoring what else is going on.
And the neoconservatives and globalists are striking back hard to make sure that
détente stays in a bottle hidden somewhere on a shelf in the White House cloak room.
Always adept at the creation of new front groups, the neocons have now launched something
called the Renew Democracy Initiative (RDI), with the goal of "uni[ting] the center-left and
the center-right." Its founders include the redoubtable Max Boot, The Washington Post's Anne
Appelbaum, the inevitable Bill Kristol, and Richard Hurwitz of Council on Foreign Relations.
RDI's website predictably calls for "fresh thinking" and envisions "the best minds from
different countries com[ing] together for both broad and discrete projects in the service of
liberty and democracy in the West and beyond." It argues that "Liberal democracy is in crisis
around the world, besieged by authoritarianism, nationalism, and other illiberal forces.
Far-right parties are gaining traction in Europe, Vladimir Putin tightens his grip on Russia
and undermines democracy abroad, and America struggles with poisonous threats from the right
and left."
There are also the internal contradictions in what Trump appears to be doing, suggesting
that a brighter future might not be on the horizon even if giving the Europeans a possibly
deserved bloody nose over their refusal to spend money defending themselves provides some
satisfaction. In the last week alone in Syria the White House has quietly renewed funding for
the so-called White Helmets, a terrorist front group. It has also warned that it will take
action against the Syrian government for any violation of a "de-escalation zone" in the
country's southwest that has been under the control of Washington. That means that the U.S.,
which is in Syria illegally, is warning that country's legitimate government that it should not
attempt to re-establish control over a region that was until recently ruled by
terrorists.
And then there is also Donald Trump's recent renunciation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of
Action (JCPOA), eliminating a successful program that was preventing nuclear proliferation on
the part of Iran and replacing it with nothing whatsoever apart from war as a possible way of
dealing with the potential problem. Indeed, Trump has been prepared to use military force on
impulse, even when there is no clear casus belli. In Syria there have been two pointless
cruise missile attacks and a trap set up to kill Russian mercenaries. Washington's stated
intention is to destabilize and replace President Bashar al-Assad while continuing the
occupation of the Syrian oil fields. And in Afghanistan there are now more troops on the ground
than there were on inauguration day together with no plan to bring them home. It is reported
that the Pentagon has a twenty-year plan to finish the job but no one actually believes it will
work.
The United States is constructing new drone bases in Africa and Asia. It also has a new
military base in Israel which will serve as a tripwire for automatic American involvement if
Israel goes to war and has given the green light to the Israeli slaughter of Palestinians.
In Latin America, Washington has backed off from détente with Cuba and has been
periodically threatening some kind of intervention in Venezuela. In Europe, it is engaged in
aggressive war games on the Russian borders, most recently in Norway and Poland. The
Administration has ordered increased involvement in Somalia and has special ops units operating
– and dying – worldwide. Overall, it is hardly a return to the Garden of Eden.
And then there are the petty insults that do not behoove a great power. A friend recently
attended the Russian National Day celebration at the embassy in Washington. He reported that
the U.S. government completely boycotted the event, together with its allies in Western Europe
and the anglosphere, resulting in sparse attendance. It is the kind of slight that causes
attitudes to shift when the time comes for serious negotiating. It is unnecessary and it is
precisely the sort of thing that Russian President Vladimir Putin is referring to when he asks
that his country be treated with "respect." The White House could have sent a delegation to
attend the national day. Trump could have arranged it with a phone call, but he didn't.
Winston Churchill once reportedly said that to "Jaw, jaw, jaw is better than war, war, war."
As one of the twentieth century's leading warmongers, he may not have actually meant it, but in
principle he was right. So let us hope for the best coming out of Singapore and also for the
G-7 or what replaces it in the future. But don't be confused or diverted by presidential
grandstanding. Watch what else is going on outside the limelight and, at least for the present,
it is not pretty.
The Establishment (which includes both major political parties) is furious that Trump may be
defusing the (very real) nuclear threat from Kim for the price of a few plane tickets and
dinners, while the Establishment was gung-ho for throwing away a few trillion dollars,
hundreds of thousands of innocent lives, and our nation's once-good reputation in the process
of neutralizing Saddam Hussein, who didn't even have any nukes to begin with. Yep, they're
sore all right.
Phil nails it as usual. Like him, I'm not very optimistic. Whether overall one approves or
disapproves of Trump (and count me as a disapprover), it is obvious that most of the
government is operating outside his control and this includes many of his own appointees. The
continuities of US policy are far deeper than the apparent discontinuities.
Re Aaron Mate It's entirely possible he reads you regularly and saw your post when you first published, but
on
2/20/18 :
AARON MATÉ: Let's talk about the indictment, Max. Reading through it, the prosecution
alleges some clear political motives, a preference, basically, for Bernie Sanders and Donald
Trump and a strong distaste for Hillary Clinton, also support for some, also, the
encouragement of Russian trolls to disparage Republicans like Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz.
There
does appear to be some political motives there in whatever the Russians, whatever these
alleged suspects were doing. But also, there's a strong commercial component in the sense
that the accounts that the Russians are accused of creating were used to essentially, as a
scheme in which vendors would pay them money for retweets at sometimes $25 to $50 a pop.
It
seems to me that there is both a commercial motive here as well as a political imperative, as
well. I'm wondering your thoughts on what this indictment tells us.
So your Tweet on 6/5/18 wasn't telling him anything he hadn't already said publicly.
"... "The good news is the Deep State seems less competent than we originally feared" -Well, obviously; or Hillary would be President NOW ..."
"... The Deep State may not have been very competent ( Gee,whudda surprise!)) but– it's still in place. And that fact alone should make all of us uneasy. ..."
"... I'm satisfied that we have the final word on Clinton's guilt and the special treatment she and her staff were given by criminal investigators who believed she was going to win the election. ..."
"... I think a good book to explain what we are seeing is The Fiefdom Syndrome by Robert Herbold. That highlights how various managers set up their own sub organizations in a groups. It focuses on the corporate model yet it can equally apply to any other human organization. ..."
"... Comey took Lynch completely off the hook. She had not recused herself from the case. Prosecution or not was her decision, not Comey's. And even if she had recused herself, the decision would have gone to Yates. Lynch had no good options. If she had said there were no grounds for prosecution, she would have been crucified for partisanship. If she had decided that Clinton should be prosecuted, all hell would have broken loose. Well, there is no way she would have ever made the decision to prosecute, but point is, Comey took her completely off the hook. No wonder Lynch made no big deal about his "insubordination". ..."
"... there were NO pro-Trump factions inside the Bureau. ..."
"... What anti-Clinton faction? Every one of the five agents identified as sending politically biased communications was anti-Trump. As best I can determine every decision by biased decision makers that Horowitz is baffled by, or reports himself "unpersuaded" by the explanations advanced, was anti-Trump. Even when Strzok writes a text message that Horowitz admits is a smoking gun (~"We'll stop Trump") Horowitz says it's no biggie because other decision-makers were involved, "unbiased" ones like, explicitly, Bill Priestap, he of the procedures-violating spy launch against Trump BEFORE any investigation was opened! ..."
"... The real take away is that the Deep State is a reality, far more entrenched than anyone of us knows. Whether it is particularly competent or not ( compared to what? Government in general? ) is irrelevant. No one of any stature in any part of the government bureaucracy will be held accountable ever. They never are. As soon as the media circus moves on, it will be back to business as usual in DC. ..."
"... Speaking of idiocracy, some personal emails between FBI agents were made public this week with the release of the IG report. They give a glimpse into the infantilisation of our ruling "class". It is clear that fatherlessness and the replacement of education with indoctrination have produced a generation of child-men and child-women who view the State as parent, provider, deity (even as lover – supplier of ideologically acceptable bed-mates). ..."
"... jp: "Hard to see how the FBI's mistakes didn't benefit one candidate over the other." That's the standard line from the Clinton campaign. They believe everything begins and ends with Comey causing her to lose. Of course, they never mention why the FBI was investigating her, personally, and key members of her State Dept. staff, not her campaign by the way. ..."
"... The FBI may have hurt her campaign, but only because they were doing their job, albiet badly. She hurt her campaign infinitely by breaking the law and compromising national security, which required a criminal probe into her lawbreaking. ..."
"... Dave: "Peter and Lisa were 2 cops talking about a criminal." Well, that's one more reason not to trust federal law enforcement. I can cite the criminal statutes Hillary Clinton was being personally investigated for. Can anyone cite any criminal statute that Donald Trump was being personally investigated for at the same time? Was he even being personally investigated? A counterintelligence investigation is not a criminal investigation. ..."
"a chaotic cluster of competing pro- and anti- Clinton/Trump factions inside the Bureau"
Which is what the FBI looked like at the time and over the last two years, the
anti-Clinton faction seeming to be centered in New York, and the anti-Trump faction in, what,
D.C.?
This report merely provides more talking points for politicians. And, talk they will.
IG Michael Horowitz had a specific mandate. It was to investigate "violations of criminal
and civil law." It was not to investigate breaches of protocol and bureaucratic
regulations.
This report makes no allegations of criminal activity. As such, it can only be read as
exonerating those under investigation, of same. The ultimate remedy for "breaches of protocol and bureaucratic regulations" is termination
of employment. And, Comey has already been fired. The rest is irrelevant and/or superfluous.
Agreed. the report sheds light on some truly incompetent (and unprofessional, inappropriate
behavior). Disagree – the 'deep state' is behind this. perhaps the most depressing
aspect of this circus is the realization there was incompetence and malfeasance in the Obama
administration. there was incompetence and malfeasance in the Clinton campaign.
There was incompetence and malfeasance in the DoJ, there was incompetence and malfeasance
in the Trump campaign, and there is a whole lot of incompetence and malfeasance in the
current administration. see where this is going? "malfeasance" recognized and leveraged by
"foreign actors" (some other 'deep state' as it were) demonstrates competence in terms of
their job(s).
I am reminded of the Seinfeld episode in which "Puddy" and "Elaine" meet with a priest to
discuss their relationship and its impact on their eternal lives – with Puddy being
Christian and Elaine not. the priest says, "oh that's easy, you're both going to hell "
"It will be too easy, however, to miss the most important conclusion of the report: there is
no longer a way to claim America's internal intelligence agency, the FBI, did not play a role
in the 2016 election."
SO we are expected to believe the FBI, et. al; never played a role before? Spare me
"The good news is the Deep State seems less competent than we originally feared" -Well, obviously; or Hillary would be President NOW
Way funny, this! And all the time we've been looking for enemies abroad-in this case the
Rooshians-the real enemy was right in our own backyard. The Deep State may not have been very
competent ( Gee,whudda surprise!)) but– it's still in place. And that fact alone should
make all of us uneasy.
If you are going to have a deep state, and in a large nation, it does seem necessary, then it
should be a meritocracy. Clearly the system of recruiting high level officials from certain
Ivy League schools does not result in a meritocracy.
Erik: "It was not to investigate breaches of protocol and bureaucratic regulations."
Well, he did, and thank goodness. I'm satisfied that we have the final word on Clinton's guilt and the special treatment she
and her staff were given by criminal investigators who believed she was going to win the
election.
If that's not political bias, then we need another word for it. Political consideration in
the outcome of a criminal probe.
Think about that if it had been a GOP candidate, what would the progressives be saying
about the same behavior?
I think a good book to explain what we are seeing is The Fiefdom Syndrome by Robert Herbold. That highlights how various managers set up
their own sub organizations in a groups. It focuses on the corporate model yet it can equally
apply to any other human organization.
What I find amusing is the emphasis on texts between Strzok and Page. They sure were sloppy
in using govt cell phones for their texting. However, at the end of the day, their texts were
the equivalent of pillow talk. What's the remedy? Everybody wear a wire to bed to trap people
in the act of gossiping? Does anybody think that these casual conversations go on all the
time. There is no group of people more cynical that law enforcement people.
At the end of the day, people did their jobs and prevented their opinions from the proper
execution of their jobs.
Comey took Lynch completely off the hook. She had not recused herself from the case.
Prosecution or not was her decision, not Comey's. And even if she had recused herself, the
decision would have gone to Yates. Lynch had no good options. If she had said there were no
grounds for prosecution, she would have been crucified for partisanship. If she had decided
that Clinton should be prosecuted, all hell would have broken loose. Well, there is no way
she would have ever made the decision to prosecute, but point is, Comey took her completely
off the hook. No wonder Lynch made no big deal about his "insubordination".
H. Clinton squirreled away over 30 thousand emails into a private server. I am reliably
informed that if any other federal employee pulled a move like that they would have been
fired, with loss of pension and possible jail time in as much as this is grand jury fodder.
Not ol' Hillary though.
"There is only to argue which side they favored and whether they meddled via clumsiness, as a
coordinated action, or as a chaotic cluster of competing pro- and anti- Clinton/Trump
factions inside the Bureau. "
More fake news – there were NO pro-Trump factions inside the Bureau.
Michael Kenny
June 15, 2018 at 11:29 am
The important point is that Trump has no need to worry about any of this if he really is as
innocent as he claims. In fact, infiltrated informers, wiretaps etc. are a godsend to Trump
if he's innocent because they prove that innocence. Thus, Trump's making such a fuss about
these things is a tacit admission of guilt.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- –
Yes, of course. Because if someone spied on you looking for a crime of which you were
innocent, you'd be totally ok with it and would keep quiet. Only someone who's guilty of a
crime would speak up being spied upon.
"There is only to argue whether they meddled via clumsiness, as a coordinated action, or as a
chaotic cluster of competing pro- and anti- Clinton/Trump factions inside the Bureau."
What anti-Clinton faction? Every one of the five agents identified as sending politically
biased communications was anti-Trump. As best I can determine every decision by biased
decision makers that Horowitz is baffled by, or reports himself "unpersuaded" by the
explanations advanced, was anti-Trump. Even when Strzok writes a text message that Horowitz
admits is a smoking gun (~"We'll stop Trump") Horowitz says it's no biggie because other
decision-makers were involved, "unbiased" ones like, explicitly, Bill Priestap, he of the
procedures-violating spy launch against Trump BEFORE any investigation was opened!
To believe Horowitz' conclusions about lack of bias in decision making you have to be as
willfully reluctant to connect the dots as he is. And I'm not, nor should you be.
The real take away is that the Deep State is a reality, far more entrenched than anyone of us
knows. Whether it is particularly competent or not ( compared to what? Government in general?
) is irrelevant. No one of any stature in any part of the government bureaucracy will be held
accountable ever. They never are. As soon as the media circus moves on, it will be back to
business as usual in DC.
Those Russians are so clever. They trained agents for a lifetime to master accents of rural
Pennsylvania, Ohio and Wisconsin then duped the bible thumping gun lovers into rejecting her
highness Hillary. The immense Russian powers are extraordinary when one considers the Russian
economy is smaller than Texas.
But seriously, we had eight years of a Democratic president and people had enough and
chose a Republican even though he was outspent. That is the consistent pattern. After Trump
another Democrat will move into the White House.
Speaking of idiocracy, some personal emails between FBI agents were made public this week
with the release of the IG report.
They give a glimpse into the infantilisation of our ruling "class". It is clear that
fatherlessness and the replacement of education with indoctrination have produced a
generation of child-men and child-women who view the State as parent, provider, deity (even
as lover – supplier of ideologically acceptable bed-mates).
A cosmic ignorance radiates from these email exchanges. These agents appear to have been
dropped here from another planet. They not only seem to have been disconnected from or to
have forgotten the Civilisation that gave birth to the society in which they live, but they
seem never to have had any knowledge or awareness of it in the first place.
(Reading between the lines, deducing their "principles" from their mentality, one could
confidently conclude that these adolescents truly believe that State is God and Marx is His
prophet.)
They're going to get away with it with no adequately serious repercussions meaning they're
competent enough, aren't they? That also means they won't be properly deterred and will
simply do it better next time.
jp: "Hard to see how the FBI's mistakes didn't benefit one candidate over the other." That's the standard line from the Clinton campaign. They believe everything begins and
ends with Comey causing her to lose. Of course, they never mention why the FBI was investigating her, personally, and key
members of her State Dept. staff, not her campaign by the way.
The FBI may have hurt her campaign, but only because they were doing their job, albiet
badly. She hurt her campaign infinitely by breaking the law and compromising national security,
which required a criminal probe into her lawbreaking.
If you're going to fault the FBI, you can't then not fault Secretary Clinton. The two go
hand-in-hand, and she comes first in the chain of event.
Case closed. Though she didn't get her just desserts in court, at least she received
political justice. 🙂
Dave: "Peter and Lisa were 2 cops talking about a criminal." Well, that's one more reason not to trust federal law enforcement. I can cite the criminal statutes Hillary Clinton was being personally investigated
for. Can anyone cite any criminal statute that Donald Trump was being personally investigated
for at the same time? Was he even being personally investigated? A counterintelligence investigation is not a criminal investigation.
In a way we now can talk about Intelligence Industrial complex
Notable quotes:
"... The good news is the Deep State seems less competent than we originally feared. ..."
"... In a damning passage , the 568 page report found it "extraordinary and insubordinate for Comey to conceal his intentions from his superiors for the admitted purpose of preventing them from telling him not to make the statement, and to instruct his subordinates in the FBI to do the same. By departing so clearly and dramatically from FBI and department norms, the decisions negatively impacted the perception of the FBI and the department as fair administrators of justice." Comey's drafting of a press release announcing no prosecution for Clinton, written before the full investigation was even completed, is given a light touch though in the report, along the lines of roughly preparing for the conclusion based on early indications. ..."
"... Enough: The DOJ Must Show Its Cards to the American Public A Higher Loyalty is Jim Comey's Revenge, Served Lukewarm ..."
"... Attorney General Loretta Lynch is criticized for not being more sensitive to public perceptions when she agreed to meet privately with Bill Clinton aboard an airplane as the FBI investigation into Hillary unfolded. "Lynch's failure to recognize the appearance problem and to take action to cut the visit short was an error in judgment." Her statements later about her decision not to recuse further "created public confusion and didn't adequately address the situation." ..."
"... Page and Strzok also discussed cutting back the number of investigators present for Clinton's in-person interview in light of the fact she might soon be president, and thus their new boss. Someone identified only as Agent One went on to refer to Clinton as "the President" and in a message told a friend "I'm with her." The FBI also allowed Clinton's lawyers to attend her interview, even though they were also witnesses to a possible crimes committed by Clinton. ..."
"... Page and Strzok were among five FBI officials the report found expressed hostility toward Trump and have been referred to the FBI's internal disciple system. The report otherwise makes only wishy-washy recommendations about things every agent should already know, like "adopting a policy addressing the appropriateness of department employees discussing the conduct of uncharged individuals in public statements." ..."
"... In that sense, the IG just poured a can of jet fuel onto the fires of the 2016 election and walked away to watch it burn. ..."
"... One concrete outcome, however, is to weaken a line of prosecution for Special Counsel Robert Mueller. The chief Russiagate investigator has just seen a key witness degraded -- any defense lawyer will characterize Comey's testimony as tainted now -- and a possible example of obstruction weakened. ..."
"... The report thus underscores one of the stated reasons for Comey's dismissal. Firing someone for incompetence isn't obstructing justice; it's the boss' job. ..."
"... the most important conclusion of the report: there is no longer a way to claim America's internal intelligence agency, the FBI, did not play a role in the 2016 election. There is only to argue which side they favored and whether they meddled via clumsiness, as a coordinated action, or as a chaotic cluster of competing pro- and anti- Clinton/Trump factions inside the Bureau. And that's the tally before anyone brings up the FBI's use of a human informant inside the Trump campaign, the FBI's use of both FISA warrants and pseudo-legal warrantless surveillance against key members of the Trump team, the FBI's use of opposition research from the Steele Dossier , and so on. ..."
June
15, 2018The good news is the Deep State seems less competent than we originally
feared.
It will be easy to miss the most important point amid the partisan bleating over what the
Department of Justice Office of Inspector General report on the FBI's Clinton email
investigation really means.
While each side will find the evidence they want to find proving the FBI, with James Comey
as director, helped/hurt Hillary Clinton and/or maybe Donald Trump, the real takeaway is this:
the FBI influenced the election of a president.
In January 2017 the Inspector General for the Department of Justice, Michael Horowitz (who
previously worked on the 2012 study of "Fast and Furious"), opened his probe into the FBI's
Clinton email investigation, including public statements Comey made at critical moments in the
presidential campaign. Horowitz's focus was always to be on how the FBI did its work, not to
re-litigate the case against Clinton. Nor did the IG plan to look into anything regarding
Russiagate.
In a damning
passage , the 568 page report found it "extraordinary and
insubordinate for Comey to conceal his intentions from his superiors for the admitted purpose
of preventing them from telling him not to make the statement, and to instruct his subordinates
in the FBI to do the same. By departing so clearly and dramatically from FBI and department
norms, the decisions negatively impacted the perception of the FBI and the department as fair
administrators of justice." Comey's drafting of a press release announcing no prosecution for
Clinton, written before the full investigation was even completed, is given a light touch
though in the report, along the lines of roughly preparing for the conclusion based on early
indications.
Attorney General Loretta Lynch is criticized for not being more sensitive to public
perceptions when she agreed to meet privately with Bill Clinton aboard an airplane as the FBI
investigation into Hillary unfolded. "Lynch's failure to recognize the appearance problem and
to take action to cut the visit short was an error in judgment." Her statements later about her
decision not to recuse further "created public confusion and didn't adequately address the
situation."
The report also
criticizes in depth FBI agents Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, who exchanged texts disparaging
Trump before moving from the Clinton email to the Russiagate investigation. Those texts
"brought discredit" to the FBI and sowed public doubt about the investigation, including one
exchange that read, "Page: "[Trump's] not ever going to become president, right? Strzok: "No.
No he's not. We'll stop it." Another Strzok document
stated "we know foreign actors obtained access to some Clinton emails, including at least
one secret message."
Page and Strzok also discussed cutting back the number of investigators present for
Clinton's in-person interview in light of the fact she might soon be president, and thus their
new boss. Someone identified only as Agent One went on to refer to Clinton as "the President"
and in a message told a friend "I'm with her." The FBI also allowed Clinton's lawyers to attend
her interview, even though they were also witnesses to a possible crimes committed by
Clinton.
Page and Strzok were among five FBI officials the report found expressed hostility
toward Trump and have been referred to the FBI's internal disciple system. The report otherwise
makes only wishy-washy recommendations about things every agent should already know, like
"adopting a policy addressing the appropriateness of department employees discussing the
conduct of uncharged individuals in public statements."
But at the end of it all, the details really don't matter, because the report broadly found
no political bias, no purposeful efforts or strategy to sway the election. In aviation disaster
terms, it was all pilot error. Like an accident of sorts, as opposed to the pilot boarding
drunk, but the plane crashed and killed 300 people either way.
The report is already being welcomed by Democrats -- who feel Comey
shattered Clinton's chances of winning the election by reopening the email probe just days
before the election -- and by Republicans, who feel Comey let Clinton off easy. Many are now
celebrating it was only gross incompetence, unethical behavior, serial bad judgment, and
insubordination that led the FBI to help determine the election. No Constitutional crisis.
A lot of details in those 568 pages to yet fully parse, but at first glance there is not
much worthy of prosecution (though Attorney General Jeff Sessions says he will review the
report for possible
prosecutions and IG Horowitz will testify in front of Congress on Monday and may reveal
more information.) Each side will point to the IG's conclusion of "no bias" to shut down calls
for this or that in a tsunami of blaming each other. In that sense, the IG just poured a
can of jet fuel onto the fires of the 2016 election and walked away to watch it burn.
One concrete outcome, however, is to weaken a line of
prosecution for Special Counsel Robert Mueller. The chief Russiagate investigator has just
seen a key witness degraded -- any defense lawyer will characterize Comey's testimony as
tainted now -- and a possible example of obstruction weakened. As justification for firing
Comey, the White House initially pointed to an earlier Justice Department memo criticizing
Comey for many of the same actions now highlighted by the IG (Trump later added concerns about
the handling of Russiagate.) The report thus underscores one of the stated reasons for
Comey's dismissal. Firing someone for incompetence isn't obstructing justice; it's the boss'
job.
It will be too easy, however, to miss the most important conclusion of the report: there
is no longer a way to claim America's internal intelligence agency, the FBI, did not play a
role in the 2016 election. There is only to argue which side they favored and whether they
meddled via clumsiness, as a coordinated action, or as a chaotic cluster of competing pro- and
anti- Clinton/Trump factions inside the Bureau. And that's the tally before anyone brings up
the FBI's use of a human informant inside the Trump campaign, the FBI's use of both FISA
warrants and pseudo-legal
warrantless surveillance against key members of the Trump team, the FBI's use of opposition
research from the
Steele Dossier , and so on.
The good news is the Deep State seems less competent than we originally feared. But even if
one fully accepts the IG report's conclusion that all this -- and there's a lot -- was not
intentional, at a minimum it makes clear to those watching ahead of 2020 what tools are
available and the impact they can have. While we continue to look for the bad guy abroad, we
have already met the enemy and he is us.
Peter Van Buren, a 24-year State Department veteran, is the author of We Meant Well : How I Helped Lose the Battle for the
Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People and Hooper's War : A Novel of WWII Japan. Follow him on Twitter
@WeMeantWell .
...Robert Mueller, who was Director of the FBI from September 4, 2001 to September 4,
2013. In those 12 years as Director, he served as Obama's FBI Director for 5 years, from Jan.
2009 until Sept. 2013. "President Barack Obama gave his original ten-year term
a two-year extension, making him the longest-serving FBI director since J. Edgar Hoover ."
He knows where every unconstitutional skeleton in both Baby Bush and Barack Obama's is
buried...
Democrats can lament all they want, but they did have a very good candidate that they allowed to be thrown under the bus. That
was Bernie Sanders. Despite his "socialist" leanings, (for you conservatives), he was really fresh blood to the Democratic party.
And even though Jimmy Carter is old, he has a very good working mind, better than all that are currently in the Democratic party.
Clinton turned the Democratic party into a Mafia organization, taking orders from her, paving the way for her, knocking
off anyone that looked like potential trouble, like Seth Rich, John Ashe, Joe Montano, Victor Thorn, and Shawn Lucas. All five
of these guys died within 6 weeks of each other. Strange? Not if you are operating an old style mafia organization. Democrats
need to resign the party, and form something new, that has fresh ideas, and people who are not there for self-coronations. The
most honest democrat you have left is Jimmy Carter. Democrats are not honest today.
They need to purge the leadership of the DNC - Perez, Clinton and the gang, they are the ones that shoved Hillary Clinton down
Democrats throats instead letting Bernie Sanders, the real nominee, win the nomination. The DNC fucked over themselves, no one
else is to blame.
Howard Dean is the one that got Obama elected the first time. From 2005 to 2009, he headed the Democratic National Committee
(DNC) and successfully implemented the 50 State Strategy, which aimed for Democrats to be competitive in places considered Republican-dominated
territory. As a result, during the midterms in 2006, Democrats won the House back and gained seats in the Senate. In 2008 Barack
Obama also used the same strategy to win his presidential bid.
Just like the DNC and Democratic bourgeoise fucked over Bernie, they fucked over Howard Dean. Obama didn't select Howard Dean
for his cabinet for Secretary of Health and Human Services - even though he was a successful governor, is a medical doctor, and
was one of the main reasons Obama won in 2008.
Obama has always been about himself. I mean who publishes a memoir about yourself when you're just a nobody? Even Obama knows
a loser when he sees one...the Democratic Party. He did more for the Republican Party than any Republican could ever do. One of
the Greatest Presidents in my lifetime for the conservative movement.
The Dems are caught between a rock and a hard place. The result of losing 1000s of seats nationwide since 2010 means you've
got no farm system to develop politicians/leaders. It's no different than any sports franchise. The successful ones have a deep
bench and prospects to knock off old, overpaid, underachieving veterans. If the Dems trot out Obama, he will be a death sentence
for the Dems' chances in November. Guy is hated by almost everyone. Don't believe the approval ratings from CNN. He got more popular
towards the end when people realized he was finally leaving.
Obama and the Clinton's have DESTROYED the Democrat party!!! Leaders of the current Democratic party apparatchik, Schumer,
Pelosi, Schiff, et al , are fucking idiots!!! I see a Red tsunami wave for the mid-term election!
"... Excellent piece, dexterously explaining the similarity between the IG's dilemma and Mueller's shot at obstruction. If Mueller claims Trump obstructed, and must be prosecuted, Comey must be prosecuted. ..."
James Comey once
described his position in the Clinton investigation as being the victim of a "500-year flood."
The point of the analogy was that he was unwittingly carried away by events rather than
directly causing much of the damage to the FBI. His "500-year flood" just collided with the
500-page report of
the Justice Department inspector general (IG) Michael Horowitz.
The IG sinks Comey's narrative with a finding that he "deviated" from Justice Department
rules and acted in open insubordination.
Rather than portraying Comey as carried away by his
biblical flood, the report finds that he was the destructive force behind the controversy. The
import of the report can be summed up in Comeyesque terms as the distinction between flotsam
and jetsam. Comey portrayed the broken rules as mere flotsam, or debris that floats away after
a shipwreck. The IG report suggests that this was really a case of jetsam, or rules
intentionally tossed over the side by Comey to lighten his load. Comey's jetsam included rules
protecting the integrity and professionalism of his agency, as represented by his public
comments on the Clinton investigation.
The IG report concludes, "While we did not find that these decisions were the result of
political bias on Comey's part, we nevertheless concluded that by departing so clearly and
dramatically from FBI and department norms, the decisions negatively impacted the perception of
the FBI and the department as fair administrators of justice."
The report will leave many unsatisfied and undeterred. Comey went from a persona non grata
to a patron saint for many Clinton supporters. Comey, who has made millions of dollars with a
tell-all book portraying himself as the paragon of "ethical leadership," continues to maintain
that he would take precisely the same actions again.
Ironically, Comey, fired FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe , former FBI agent Peter Strzok and
others, by their actions, just made it more difficult for special counsel Robert Mueller to prosecute Trump for
obstruction. There is now a comprehensive conclusion by career investigators that Comey
violated core agency rules and undermined the integrity of the FBI. In other words, there was
ample reason to fire James Comey.
Had Trump fired Comey immediately upon taking office, there would be little question about
his conduct warranting such termination. Instead, Trump waited to fire him and proceeded to
make damaging statements about how the Russian investigation was on his mind at the time, as
well as telling Russian diplomats the day after that the firing took "pressure off" him.
Nevertheless, Mueller will have to acknowledge that there were solid, if not overwhelming,
grounds to fire Comey.
To use the Comey firing now in an obstruction case, Mueller will have to assume that the
firing of an "insubordinate" official was done for the wrong reason. Horowitz faced precisely
this same problem in his review and refused to make such assumptions about Comey and others.
The IG report found additional emails showing a political bias against Trump and again
featuring the relationship of Strzok and former FBI attorney Lisa Page. In one exchange, Page
again sought reassurance from Strzok, who was a critical player in the investigations of both
Hillary Clinton and
Donald Trump , that Trump
is "not ever going to become president, right? Right?!" Strzok responded, "No. No he won't.
We'll stop it."
The IG noted that some of these shocking emails occurred at that point in October 2016 when
the FBI was dragging its feet on the Clinton email investigation and Strzok was a critical
player in that investigation. The IG concluded that bias was reflected in that part of the
investigation with regard to Strzok and his role. Notably, the IG was in the same position as
Mueller: The IG admits that the Strzok-Page emails "potentially indicated or created the
appearance that investigative decisions were impacted by bias or improper considerations." This
includes the decision by Strzok to prioritize the Russian investigation over the Clinton
investigation. The IG states that "[w]e concluded that we did not have confidence that this
decision by Strzok was free from bias."
However, rather than assume motivations, the IG concluded that it could not "find
documentary or testimonial evidence that improper considerations, including political bias,
directly affected the specific investigative decisions." Thus, there was bias reflected in the
statements of key investigatory figures like Strzok but there were also objective alternative
reasons for the actions taken by the FBI. That is precisely the argument of Trump on the Comey
firing. While he may have harbored animus toward Comey or made disconcerting statements, the
act of firing Comey can be justified on Comey's own misconduct as opposed to assumptions about
his motives.
Many of us who have criticized Comey in the past, including former Republican and Democratic
Justice Department officials, have not alleged a political bias. As noted by the IG report,
Comey's actions did not benefit the FBI or Justice Department but, rather, caused untold harm
to those institutions. The actions benefited Comey as he tried to lighten his load in heading
into a new administration. It was the same motive that led Comey to improperly remove FBI memos
and then leak information to the media after he was fired by Trump. It was jetsam thrown
overboard intentionally by Comey to save himself, not his agency.
The Horowitz report is characteristically balanced. It finds evidence of political bias
among key FBI officials against Trump and criticizes officials in giving the investigation of
Trump priority over the investigation of Clinton. However, it could not find conclusive
evidence that such political bias was the sole reason for the actions taken in the
investigation. The question is whether those supporting the inspector general in reaching such
conclusions would support the same approach by the special counsel when the subject is not
Comey but Trump.
Comey is simply two-legged pond scum. He did what he thought would preserve his privileged
position. No way a POS like him would go against the wishes of Barry, Loretta and Hillary.
The question I have is this: were those three acting in concert to beat Trump or did Barry
direct Jimmy to do in Hillary with that late-stage reopening of the inquiry? Barry would have
hated to have Hillary replace him, because - if she actually lived through it - she would
probably have reduced him to a minor historical footnote. His ego couldn't handle that. Heck,
I wouldn't even exclude the possibility that Bubba's meeting with Loretta, perhaps including
a phone call with Barry, was about keeping Hillary out of the White House. It might have
cramped Bubba's style, being first dude and all and under close scrutiny.
Although damning in many respects, the IG's report falls short in identifying prosecutable
actions on the part of FbI / DoJ officials... There may be some firings, but that's about
it...
Comey will get to skate with the $$$ from his book tour / Trump bashing tour, Stroczk
and Page sail off into the sunset and likely go to work for some Dim think tank, the rank and
file all go back to work thinking, phew, that one was close...
McCabe is going to be the
poster child that gets the stick, while at the same time the underlying bias in these two
agencies will continue unabated...
This report whitewashed the worst crimes.... The OIG reports recommendations and what they
chose to ignore is reminiscing of Comey's now infamous indictment and exoneration of Hillary Clinton from that 2016 press conference.
The FBI takes bribes from the media for secret insider information and used the media
connections for disinformation to twist the narrative for Clinton. Hundreds of interactions
with MSM, bribes being handed out. These jerks must feel their power to be the unnamed
sources, looks like they've dug their own grave. Literally hundreds of contacts, recorded
bribes and an extreme close relation with CNN and New York Times. This is the source of all
the disinformation, lies, rumors and destruction to our nation. The FBI is the enemy with
their unlawful alliance with communist and homosexuals in the media. I wonder how many FBI
agents are communist and homosexuals?
The key in all this is the political slush fund of over a $100 billion which everyone
ignores, the Clinton Foundation will make or break politicians for a corrupt elitist
communist agenda for the next generation. It's being protected from investigation because of
the previous crimes of Mueller, Comey, Rosenstein, and who knows how many others. The Clinton
Foundation was bribed by foreigners for access, favors and the plan to use the money to take
over the US government.
Uranium One is just one covert operation which ensnares all of these opportunist. The
Haitian relief money, remember Bush II sat right next to Clinton stating the reason or his
purpose was to prevent the Haitian money from being stolen. That was on national full
throated MSM. Are there murders connected to the Clinton Foundation? Considering
Congresswoman Wasserman Shultz most likely ordered an FBI agent to look into Seth Rich,
Pakistanis infiltrating the highest level of leadership, Iranian cocaine smuggling network
the FBI was prepared to take down stopped by Obama because it would interfere with the Iran
nuke deal. None of this is being added to the equation, incredible FBI and overall government
corruption.
It's worse than a swamp, it's an army aligned against us with no honor, decency or even
allegiance to this nation, only their gang, allegiance to an organization, a gang covering up
to continue to do the same. Each agency of the federal government is of this culture, the
break down in this country is apart of every aspect of the government.
Excellent piece, dexterously explaining the similarity between the IG's dilemma and
Mueller's shot at obstruction. If Mueller claims Trump obstructed, and must be prosecuted, Comey must be prosecuted.
Slow-walking an investigation resulting in no charges being filed despite clear evidence
of multiple crimes -- I would call THAT clear obstruction. McCabe and Comey have conspired to
try to dump this on Strzok. It would be funny if it weren't so despicable.
What can you expect from Comey, paid $7 million a year by HSBC, the bank that laundered
some $12 billion in narco trafficker (read CIA proxy) narcotic money? Lock him up in SuperMax
in a narrow cell next to jewboy Rosenstein.i
The thing is, Trump was his boss, and if he decided the Russia coup was a waste of FBI
time, he has every right to fire the head of the FBI, for continuing to waist time and money,
purposely trying to undermine the election.
Remember, this is before there was a special counsel, and if after a year of investigating
there's no there there, there sure as shit wasn't anything back then to investigate!
There is nothing illegal about the President telling Comey to knock it off, or else.
He should tell the press what they want to here. Of course the phony Russia scam played a
part in getting Comey fired, rightfully so. Then stand with his fist in the air shouting Fuck
the Prestitutes!
For a year now, they've been in a search for something, anything, to investigate.
He should fire Sessions, Rosenstein, and Mueller, TODAY, and watch their heads
explode!
There is an evil intent in all this, beyond the obvious.
Many believe WWG1WGA means, "Where we go one we go all".
A Ponzi always collapses the minute it stops growing, it's a 100% certainty. From the
start, ~100 years ago, the Oligarchs who gathered on Jekyll Island knew that their debt money
would grow right up to the day it suddenly collapsed, and planned it with all it's allure,
hooks, and traps, to consume everything, before that day, so that all would be in the same
boat when it collapses. They planned it to fail from the start. It's a mutual suicide Trap,
set up to consume the world, consolidate power, then collapse all the Nation's currencies in
one fail swoop!
For in a single hour such fabulous wealth has been destroyed!
They'll have their grand New World Order, and a knew single currency waiting in the wings,
to rescue the useful idiots from the disaster they've planned.
They'll attempt to number us all, track everything, and dictate how you buy and sell -
through them of course. But not just what you buy with, but what you buy, who you buy from,
how much you buy, and how much you will pay!
That is their plan. How far they'll get nobody knows. I suspect they'll fail miserably,
but the truth is, they're already a long way down this road.
It did not just impact perception. It factually altered the FBI protocol. Comey was high on power of co-running the deep state and subverting justice and the
Constitution. This is high treason, covering high crimes and attempting to unseat Trump at every
juncture.
The FBI isn't and you still think J.Edgar was an aberration ? The FBI is the swamps gamekeeper, nurturing the critters, weeding out the weak, until
only the foulest and strongest they can be unleashed on us. Take two red pills and report back in the morning.
During their push to turn public opinion against Mueller, Trump's lawyers, led by Jay Sekulow and Rudy Giuliani, have engaged
in selective leaking, including back in early May when they leaked
a list of 49 questions
purportedly turned. As one lawyer who spoke with Bloomberg pointed out, the ongoing negotiations have turned into "a bit of a
game." Others have claimed that the leak
was intended to pressure Mueller into killing the interview (of course, we all know how that turned out).
"It's a little bit of a game," said Harry Sandick, a former federal prosecutor who's now a partner with law firm Patterson
Belknap Webb & Tyler. "Mueller could subpoena the president but probably doesn't want to. He faces some litigation risk. Trump
could fight the subpoena, but he also faces a political risk."
The interview is key to Mueller's investigation into whether Trump or any of his associates helped Russia interfere in the
2016 U.S. election and whether Trump acted to obstruct the probe, one official said.
Meanwhile, Giuliani claimed late last month that he and Trump have
already been rehearsing for an in-person interview with Mueller after the special counsel summarily rejected the Trump legal
team's request to conduct some of the interview in a written format.
However, since FBI agents raided Trump attorney Michael Cohen's home, office and hotel room and are reportedly preparing to charge
him with a crime, the president has grown increasingly wary of an interview.
One problem for Trump, though, is that if Mueller wins at the Supreme Court, he could compel Trump to sit for a Grand Jury for
as long as he wants, and subject Trump to questions on a range of topics without providing any advanced warning.
"I think the Supreme Court will rule in Mueller's favor, but we don't really know," Sandick said. "If Mueller wins, he can
actually put Trump in the grand jury without his lawyer for as long as he wants and ask about any subject he wants."
Furthermore, if Trump chooses the court battle route, Mueller's probe would encounter further delays, as the ruling likely wouldn't
arrive until October at the earliest, after the Court returns from its summer recess. That would mean the investigation likely wouldn't
wrap up until late this year - or early next year - at the very earliest. It also would open the Republican Party up to a high degree
of political risk, because the Court's final ruling could arrive just before the midterms.
But since the beginning of the probe, the biggest obstacle to a direct interview is Trump. The president's legal team came within
a hair's breadth of an agreement back in January. But as Trump got cold feet, his team sent Mueller a 20-page letter arguing that
Trump isn't entitled to answer Mueller's questions as they invoked Trump's executive privilege.
Regardless of whether the interview happens, Mueller has told Trump's team that he will prepare a report summarizing his findings
that will be turned over to the DOJ and, eventually, Congress. Then it will be up to Congress whether to release the report.
That will ultimately depend on the outcome of the midterm vote.
This is becoming the biggest shit show in the US. There is no evidence of Russian collusion at all Mueller has nothing. There's
nothing to find but it drags on and wastes tax payer dollars.
You can't impeach a President for performing his duties as set out in the Constitution. Firing Comey was perfectly legitimate,
especially now that the facts are coming out that the FBI needs to be completely purged from top to bottom.
Mueller needs to pack his bags and conclude this sucker and admit there was never anything to find, either that or arrest Hillary
for the actual collusion with Russians plus go after her for the hacked email server.
Watched an interview with Rudy tonight. He started going after Weismann and the other corrupt thugs Mueller hired. Always a
plan within and it was tailored for IG report today...I expect Trump to crank it up on this obvious Deep State axis of hitmen
populating DOJ and FBI...Rosenstein was getting pummeled today as well....
In politics, as in professional wrestling, it's always important to have a heel.
Trump understands this.
Hillary was the perfect heel in 2016.
>The lack of a single heel in 2018 was always going to be a challenge for him, but media/Mueller etc are doing an incredible
job of filling that role.
"... By the way, the US provides 22% of NATO funding, a formula which is based on population. Thus, if the European members increased their contributions to NATO, the US contribution would also rise! ..."
"... Donald Trump will remain exasperated because he is fighting the good fight but not really understanding who his adversary's are. ..."
"... Foreign countries aren't taking advantage of the USA. American industrialists are taking advantage of the USA. Why does Apple make its iPhones in China? Why does Ford build so many of its SUVs in Mexico? Not because of the decisions those countries have made. It's because of the decisions American industrial leaders have made. ..."
"... The USA has a trade surplus with Canada. Trump lied about that. ..."
At the G-7 summit in Canada, President Donald Trump described America as "the piggy bank
that everybody is robbing."
After he left Quebec, his director of Trade and Industrial Policy, Peter Navarro, added a
few parting words for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau: "There's a special place in hell for any
foreign leader that engages in bad faith diplomacy with President Donald J. Trump and then
tries to stab him in the back on the way out the door. And that's what weak, dishonest Justin
Trudeau did. And that comes right from Air Force One."
In Singapore, Trump tweeted more about that piggy bank: "Why should I, as President of the
United States, allow countries to continue to make Massive Trade Surpluses, as they have for
decades [while] the U.S. pays close to the entire cost of NATO-protecting many of these same
countries that rip us off on Trade?"
To understand what drives Trump, and explains his exasperation and anger, these remarks are
a good place to begin.
Our elites see America as an "indispensable nation," the premiere world power whose ordained
duty it is to defend democracy, stand up to dictators and aggressors, and uphold a liberal
world order.
They see U.S. wealth and power as splendid tools that fate has given them to shape the
future of the planet.
Trump sees America as a nation being milked by allies who free-ride on our defense efforts
as they engage in trade practices that enrich their own peoples at America's expense.
Where our elites live to play masters of the universe, Trump sees a world laughing behind
America's back, while allies exploit our magnanimity and idealism for their own national
ends.
The numbers are impossible to refute and hard to explain.
Last year, the EU had a $151 billion trade surplus with the U.S. China ran a $376 billion
trade surplus with the U.S., the largest in history. The world sold us $796 billion more in
goods than we sold to the world.
A nation that spends more than it takes in from taxes, and consumes more of the world's
goods than it produces itself for export, year in and year out, is a nation on the way
down.
We are emulating our British cousins of the 19th century.
Trump understands that this situation is not sustainable. His strength is that the people
are still with him on putting America first.
Yet he faces some serious obstacles.
What is his strategy for turning a $796 billion trade deficit into a surplus? Is he prepared
to impose the tariffs and import restrictions that would be required to turn America from the
greatest trade-deficit nation in history to a trade-surplus nation, as we were up until the
mid-1970s?
Americans are indeed carrying the lion's share of the load of the defense of the West, and
of fighting the terrorists and radical Islamists of the Middle East, and of protecting South
Korea and Japan.
But if our NATO and Asian allies refuse to make the increases in defense he demands, is
Trump really willing to cancel our treaty commitments, walk away from our war guarantees, and
let these nations face Russia and China on their own? Could he cut that umbilical cord?
Ike's secretary of state John Foster Dulles spoke of conducting an "agonizing reappraisal"
of U.S. commitments to defend NATO allies if they did not contribute more money and troops.
Dulles died in 1959, and that reappraisal, threatened 60 years ago, never happened. Indeed,
when the Cold War ended, our NATO allies cut defense spending again. Yet we are still
subsidizing NATO in Europe and have taken on even more allies since the Soviet Empire fell.
If Europe refuses to invest the money in defense that Trump demands, or accept the tariffs
America needs to reduce and erase its trade deficits, what does he do? Is he prepared to shut
U.S. bases and pull U.S. troops out of the Baltic republics, Poland, and Germany, and let the
Europeans face Vladimir Putin and Russia themselves?
This is not an academic question. For the crunch that was inevitable when Trump was elected
seems at hand.
Trump promised to negotiate with Putin and improve relations with Russia. He promised to
force our NATO allies to undertake more of their own defense. He pledged to get out and stay
out of Mideast wars and begin to slash the trade deficits that we have run with the world.
That's what America voted for.
Now, after 500 days, he faces formidable opposition to these defining goals of his campaign,
even within his own party.
Putin remains a pariah on Capitol Hill. Our allies are rejecting the tariffs Trump has
imposed and threatening retaliation. Free-trade Republicans reject tariffs that might raise the
cost of the items U.S. companies make abroad and then ships back to the United States.
The decisive battles between Trumpian nationalism and globalism remain ahead of us. Trump's
critical tests have yet to come.
And our exasperated president senses this.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles
That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever. To find out more about Patrick
Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators
website at www.creators.com.
America spends 3 times as much on defense as its allies because it is addicted to military
spending. The solution is not to pressure other countries to acquire the same addiction. The
solution is for America cut its own military spending.
This is just another example of America trying to "export" its domestic issues. Quit
blaming foreigners and deal with your issues.
"A nation that spends more than it takes in from taxes, and consumes more of the world's
goods than it produces itself for export, year in and year out, is a nation on the way down.
We are emulating our British cousins of the 19th century." never imagined I'd say this, but
you are absolutely correct. of course you neglect to acknowledge, Trump himself is an "elite"
and a "globalist". the fact his "game" is real estate, as opposed to governance is more of a
semantic distinction than ideological. debt-fueled consumerism drives real estate just as it
drives globalism. this is nothing new. add to this the pathological narcissism and the
ability to leverage moral bankruptcy as he has the tax codes and bankruptcy laws, and voila,
just another globalist in populist clothing. as I have maintained all along, he is not so
much anti-establishment as he is an establishment of one – he simply thrives in a
different type of swamp and favors a smaller oligarchy/plutocracy. and of course, there is
the big news out of Singapore/Korea, but again, much of the 'spin' or upside cited in a
denuclearized Korean peninsula involves the opportunity for North Korea to join the
globalists at the globalists' table. one can only wonder if there will be Ivanka's handbags
will be made in Panmunjom, and if Kim Jong Un will stay at the Trump hotel in DC? either way,
you are correct he is the candidate the American people, and the globalists "elected".
One problem with Trump's rant: the US enjoys a small trade surplus with Canada.
Would someone please get this president some hard facts and drill him on them for however
long it takes top get them fixed in his mind before he goes off half-cocked with any more
nonsense?
As always, Mr Buchanan sets out his personal agenda and then claims that Trump promised to
implement it if elected. The more Trump backs away from globalised free trade (if that's what
he's really doing), the more that suits the EU. The "core value" of the EU is a large
internal market protected by a high tariff wall. Globalization was rammed down an unwilling
EU's throat by the US in the Reagan years and only the British elite ever really believed in
it. As for NATO, nobody now believes that the US will honor its commitments, no matter how
much Europe pays, so logically, the European members are concentrating their additional
expenditure on an independent European defense system, which, needless to say, the US is
trying to obstruct.
By the way, the US provides 22% of NATO funding, a formula which is based
on population. Thus, if the European members increased their contributions to NATO, the US
contribution would also rise!
Donald Trump will remain exasperated because he is fighting the good fight but not really
understanding who his adversary's are.
Foreign countries aren't taking advantage of the USA. American industrialists are taking
advantage of the USA. Why does Apple make its iPhones in China? Why does Ford build so many
of its SUVs in Mexico? Not because of the decisions those countries have made. It's because
of the decisions American industrial leaders have made.
Secondly, there is absolutely no threat to NATO from Russia or Putin. Europe could slash
its already meager defense budget with only beneficial consequences. The same with Japan and
S. Korea. None of these countries need US military help. There are no real military threats
to these countries. US military spending has never been about defending other countries. It
is about enriching the shareholders of American military contractors.
So here is the real world: The United States has established a "liberal rules-based global
order" that allows wealthy American and European commercial interests to benefit mightily
from trade, and property and resource control in foreign countries. And this order is
maintained by US military power. That is why the US is "the one indispensable nation". We are
the nation that is allowed to break the order, to be the bully, in order for the rules-based
order to even exist. That's why we are beating up on countries that try to live outside of
this order like Iran, NK, Venezuela, Russia and everyone else who don't fall in line.
So Donald Trump is fighting against the power elite of the United States, he just doesn't
understand that. He is fighting against the most powerful people in the world, people who are
well represented by both political parties. He can win this fight if he lets the average
American on to this reality. And then leads them properly to a better, more balanced world.
But I suspect that he would be assassinated if he tried.
In re NATO and other oversea DOD spending, the old saying "who pays, says" has a corollary.
Who wants to say has to pay. The US, since WWII, has wanted, insisted, on being in charge of
everything we touch. This costs a lot, not to mention it often doesn't work the way we want.
It would be easy enough to stop spending all this money. The Pentagon and the
military-industrial complex would have a conniption and those whose defense bills we've been
paying would complain to high heaven, but Trump seems intent on trashing all those alliances
anyway and also on spending more money on defense than even the Pentagon thinks they need.
Trade deficits don't work the way you think they work. In todays economy the traditional
measures of deficits don't actually tell us much about what is going on.
Do you know what China does with that $350b trade surplus? A huge percentage of it is
rolled back immediately into US Treasury bonds because we are the only issuer of credit in
sufficient amounts and of suitable stability for them to buy. All of that deficit spending
Trump and the Republicans in congress passed last year is being financed by the very trade
imbalance that Trump is trying to eliminate.
But trade imbalances really don't tell us much about the flow of money. Most of the
imbalance is created by US companies that have built factories in China to sell goods back to
the US, then repatriate money back to the US in the form of dividends or stock buy backs
(which are not counted in the trade balance at all).
At best trade balances tell us very little meaningful about what is really going on, but
can be wildly deceptive. At worst they are an easy tool, for demogogs who have zero
understanding of what is going on, to inflame other uninformed people to justify trade
wars.
Interesting the things that Buchanan ignores (on purpose?). The USA has a trade surplus with
Canada. Trump lied about that. There's nothing wrong with the USA spending less money to defend other countries. Trump
doesn't have to insult our allies to do that.
"Trump understands that this situation is not sustainable."
You give him more credit than he deserves. What he does understand is that while we're
being the world's piggy bank, the American taxpayer is being the Military-Industrial
Complex's piggy-bank and that's just fine with him. As it is with most members of
Congress.
" our NATO allies cut defense spending again. Yet we are still subsidizing NATO in Europe "
Mr. Buchanan, like Trump, does not understand how NATO is funded. All NATO members have
been paying their dues. In fact, many pay a greater proportion relative to GDP per capita
than the U.S. does. Defense budgets are a different matter entirely.
This entire article seems to reduce complex issues into simple arithmetic. Economics and job
creation is about much more than balance of payments both the author and the US president
don't seem to realise this. Very shallow article.
America has a trade surplus with Canada, but seems determined to rub it in.
Some background. As the glaciers retreated south at the end of the ice age, they scraped
away Canada's topsoil and deposited it in America. Rural Canada has little arable areas; it's
beef and dairy by necessity. Costs are high and there are ten Americans to every Canadian
hence the subsidy. America subsidizes it's agriculture $55 billion annually.
Great, if we're upset about having to protect our allies in the Pacific, let's change the
Japanese constitution to allow them to have a real military again to defend themselves and
give the South Koreans nukes to balance out the power situation between them and the Norks/
Chinese. (Why is it so little is ever said about China being a nuclear power?) This whole
fantasy of denuclearization of the Korean peninsula is so naive it's laughable. If nukes
exist, there will never be any permanent guarantee of anything, and other countries will just
keep getting the bomb without our permission, like Pakistan and China. The genie is out of
the bottle, so time to be brutally realistic about what we face and what can be done. We can
whine all we want to about how it's not our responsibility, but then we expect other
countries to be hobbled and still somehow face enemy powers.
Lets take a look at the growing list of nations shifting to the right (nationalism and
populism)
-The Czech, Slovak and Slovenia Republics Poland, Hungary, Switzerland, the US.
Nations shifting this year to the right (nationalism and populism)
-Austria, Bavaria and Italy
Nations leaning to the right and leaning toward joining the VISEGRAD
-Lithuania, Romania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Serbia and Greece
AS YOU CAN SEE THE PILLARS OF MARXIST / SOCIALIST / COMMUNIST OPEN BORDERS EUROPE/EU ARE
BEING TAKEN DOWN. THE FIGHT WILL BE WITH FRANCE, GERMANY, BELGIUM, NETHERLANDS, BRITAIN,
SWEDEN AND THE UNELECTED EU SUPERSTATE. RIGHT NOW THE FIGHT IS WITH THE POOR SOUTHERN AND
EASTERN EUROPEAN INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS BUT EVENTUALLY IT WILL REACH A TIPPING POINT WHERE IT
BECOMES AN EXISTENTIAL THREAT BUT ITS ONLY AN EXISTENTIAL THREAT FOR THE LEFT AS THE EU
REACHES THE TIPPING POINT AND THE POWER SHIFTS TO THE RIGHT.
Famous story in the FBI. Young Special Agent selected to drive Mr Hoover
from the office to the airport. As the SA opens the door for the Director
he overhears a fragment of the Director and SAC's farewell conversation...
".............I am very angry about too many Left turns in this country".
Later in the day, "standing tall" in front of the SAC's desk he explains
why a normal 45 minute drive turned into a 3 hour fiasco. Not wishing to anger
the Director any further he explained, he plotted a course to the airport which involved only "Right" turns.
Oh it's way more than that.
That is the kind of language Oliver Wendell Holmes would have used back in the
day. It also brings to mind Samuel Clemens. This is a very sharp team indeed.
Mule-er basically drew to an inside straight, and got busted. The Russkies
called his bluff, and his hand is 7-8-10-Jack-four. Sorry, Ereberto,
no nine, just a "nein." Discovery is a bitch! I suspect that further
developments are going to be highly entertaining. Judge: "can we see your
evidence of wrongdoing." Mule-er: "That's highly classified."
In its earliest English uses, "pettifogger" was two separate words: "pettie
fogger." "Pettie" was a variant spelling of "petty," a reasonable inclusion in
a word for someone who is disreputable and small-minded.
Who would have believed decent Americans would ever applaud Russians
kicking the shit out of federal law enforcement? Do I hear "The World
Turned Upside Down" in the distance? Should Mueller change his name
to Cornwallis?
How about "corrupt" shill? Remember, Mueller headed the FBI before and
after the 9/11 attacks. Did Mueller's FBI investigate? No; they covered up
for 9/11 perpetrators. Thanks a lot Mueller.
If I were the judge, I would refuse any motion Mueller makes to avoid
releasing evidence, and if he doesn't do it within a matter of hours, his
entire staff would be getting perp walked for contempt. Let Mueller manage
his investigation from a prison cell, like some drug kingpin.
The US government has already wasted $200 million on this stupid "pettifoggery".
Some one, any one, put an end to this ridiculous dog and pony show.
Mueller, and the Justice Dept. are now the laughing stock of the world. We
need to save a little face, and have this SOB shot for the good of the
nation. This Prick doesn't give two shits for the American people, or the
nation that he is paid to serve.
These guys were likely just pushing click-bait on Facebook. And since it is
election season, it is easy for them to riff off the candidates.
Mueller
giving it any legitimacy shows he is either out of touch with how the internet
works or has his own special case of Trump derangement syndrome.
Accuse others for which you are guilty is in the dnc handbook. The only
illegal activity involved the DNC, team Hillary, and operatives in the FBI,
CIA, DOJ, and the IRS.
This indictment is a total fujkin joke. In Mueller's world he can charge
you with a crime but refuse to show the evidence. Proves that he has no
interest in serving justice. His goals are to defame and bankrupt enemies
of the deep swamp.
When the truth comes out and i was Russian company or individual affected
by this assholes i would sue US for lost business and for defamation and
demand reparations and let THe black Jesus and Clinton Killer Gang and
their lackies pay for it.
Yes, very good links but, this is different in my opinion.
Mueller attempted to bring a criminal
domestic
case
against
international
personas that he is now
unwilling to go through the
discovery process with
(his claim) because of...wait for it...national security.
He never intended or wanted for
this case
to go to trial (but he had to show "something" for
his efforts) it is malpractice (at the American bar level)
and he knew it when he filed it.
When a prosecutor files charges against anyone (here) he
is in essence saying
"We have the evidence to
prosecute your honor and we are going to show it to you."
now he is saying he can't or will not produce that evidence
in the venue he chose to prosecute in.
Probably because he (and his crack Hillary lawyers)
didn't do the homework required until after filing charges
(idiot
fucktard that he and they are...lol)
as Concord's
new CEO is none other than one Dimitry Utkin, founder of the
Wagner Group, a Rodnover, for whatever thats worth ;-)
It's not just embarrassing it's criminal. He wants unlimited scope to
find "something". He indicts Russians knowing they won't show up for
court or so he thought and now he wants to limit the evidence because
he has no hand. Don't interfere with your enemy when he's mucking it
up. Mueller is going to be indicted for all of this, Uranium One
being the least of his problems. If Mr. Mueller wants to question me
the first thing I say is how much money did you give Whitey Bulger?
Muller got caught, tried to make headlines with Real Russians thinking they
would not show up and one did he is now in a PANIC - Muller needs to
produce the evidence or shut up and go away with his band of 13 anti Trump
staff.
"The indictment accuses the firm of producing propaganda, pretending to
be U.S. activists online and posting political content on social media
in order to sow discord among American voters."
Cough cough, none of that is illegal, 1st Amendment, even for
Russians
Special Counsel Robert Mueller is scrambling to limit pretrial evidence handed over to a
Russian company he indicted in February over alleged meddling in the 2016 U.S. election,
according to
Bloomberg .
Mueller asked a Washington federal Judge for a protective order that would prevent the
delivery of copious evidence to lawyers for Concord Management and Consulting, LLC, one of
three Russian firms and 13 Russian nationals. The indictment accuses the firm of producing
propaganda, pretending to be U.S. activists online and posting political content on social
media in order to sow discord among American voters .
The special counsel's office argues that the risk of the evidence leaking or falling into
the hands of foreign intelligence services, especially Russia, would assist the Kremlin's
active "interference operations" against the United States.
"The substance of the government's evidence identifies uncharged individuals and entities
that the government believes are continuing to engage in interference operations like those
charged in the present indictment," prosecutors wrote.
Improper disclosure would tip foreign intelligence services about how the U.S. operates,
which would "allow foreign actors to learn of those techniques and adjust their conduct, thus
undermining ongoing and future national security operations ," according to the filing.
The evidence includes thousands of documents involving U.S. residents not charged with
crimes who prosecutors say were unwittingly recruited by Russian defendants and
co-conspirators to engage in political activity in the U.S., prosecutors wrote. -
Bloomberg
Mueller also accused Concord of "knowingly and intentionally" conspiring to interfere with
the election by using social media to disparage Hillary Clinton and support Donald Trump.
And Concord Management decided to fight it...
As
Powerline notes, Mueller probably didn't see that coming - and the indictment itself was
perhaps nothing more than a PR stunt to bolster the Russian interference narrative.
I don't think anyone (including Mueller) anticipated that any of the defendants would
appear in court to defend against the charges. Rather, the Mueller prosecutors seem to have
obtained the indictment to serve a public relations purpose, laying out the case for
interference as understood by the government and lending a veneer of respectability to the
Mueller Switch Project.
One of the Russian corporate defendants nevertheless hired counsel to contest the charges.
In April two Washington-area attorneys -- Eric Dubelier and Kate Seikaly of the Reed Smith
firm -- filed appearances in court on behalf of Concord Management and Consulting . Josh
Gerstein covered that turn of events for Politico here
. -
Powerline Blog
Politico' s Gerstein notes that by defending against the charges, " Concord could force
prosecutors to turn over discovery about how the case was assembled as well as evidence that
might undermine the prosecution's theories ."
In a mad scramble to put the brakes on the case, Mueller's team tried to delay the trial -
saying that Concord never formally accepted the court summons related to the case , wrapping
themselves in a "cloud of confusion" as Powerline puts it. "Until the Court has an opportunity
to determine if Concord was properly served, it would be inadvisable to conduct an initial
appearance and arraignment at which important rights will be communicated and a plea
entertained."
The Judge, Dabney Friedrich - a Trump appointee, didn't buy it - denying Mueller a delay in
the high-profile trial.
The Russians hit back - filing a
response to let the court know that " [Concord] voluntarily appeared through counsel as
provided for in [the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure], and further intends to enter a plea
of not guilty . [Concord] has not sought a limited appearance nor has it moved to quash the
summons. As such, the briefing sought by the Special Counsel's motion is pettifoggery. "
And the Judge agreed ...
A federal judge has rejected special counsel Robert Mueller's request to delay the first
court hearing in a criminal case charging three Russian companies and 13 Russian citizens
with using social media and other means to foment strife among Americans in advance of the
2016 U.S. presidential election.
In a brief order Saturday evening, U.S. District Court Judge Dabney Friedrich offered no
explanation for her decision to deny a request prosecutors made Friday to put off the
scheduled Wednesday arraignment for Concord Management and Consulting, one of the three firms
charged in the case . -
Politico
In other words, Mueller was denied the opportunity to kick the can down the road, forcing
him to produce the requested evidence or withdraw the indictment , potentially jeopardizing the
PR aspect of the entire "Trump collusion" probe.
And now Mueller is pointing to Russian "interference operations" in a last-ditch effort
.
Of note, Facebook VP of advertising, Rob Goldman, tossed a major hand grenade in the
"pro-Trump" Russian meddling narrative in February when he fired off a series of tweets the day
of the Russian indictments. Most notably, Goldman pointed out that the majority of advertising
purchased by Russians on Facebook occurred after the election, were hardly pro-Trump, and they
was designed to "sow discord and divide Americans", something which Americans have been quite
adept at doing on their own ever since the Fed decided to unleash a record class, wealth,
income divide by keeping capital markets artificially afloat at any cost.
The indictment accuses the firm of producing propaganda, pretending to be U.S. activists
online and posting political content on social media in order to sow discord among American
voters .
...
"knowingly and intentionally" conspiring to interfere with the election by using social
media to disparage Hillary Clinton and support Donald Trump.
Wait a minute, hold on - what exactly is the 'crime' here? Facebook ads that said Clinton
sucks? That's a crime now? I'm missing something obviously - I just don't know what. Anyone
willing and able to shed light on the crime alleged here?
How about CNN and NYT absolutely slanted and biased coverage? [And no - 'the press' in the
1st Amendment meant and means still the written word, not news corporations].
So far as I know "meddling" isn't a crime outside of Scooby Doo cartoons and MSNBC
I believe that Mueller is, rightly, being told to "Put up or shut up"? The discovery phase
should be very interesting and the only way to avoid that is to drop the charges, which will
indeed completely destroy Mueller's PR strategy. And with it, what remains of his
credibility...
I can picture Mueller sitting at the poker table with a huge stack. As he looks over his
hand, with a sly look on his face and a wink, he goes all in. Surprise suprise, they call his
bet. Now we wait for the reveal except that Bobby is screaming, wait, no fair, it was an
accident, I didn't mean to go all in. Turn those machines back on! The dealer then looks him
dead in the eye and says "Tough shit" as he turns over Mueller's losing hand.
mueller, you are so screwed. so supremely and royally screwed. now your investigation is
coming to a crashing halt without POTUS having to step in. all that was ever needed is
transparency. and now the good guys will have the IG report, Session's investigation, the
declassification of spy-gate materials and discovery from your Keystone cop operation all at
once.
best timeline ever.
take it from janus, extracting a troll from the interwebs and thinking you can crush him
IRL ALWAYS blows up in your face.
the only way you can win the game is with the deck stacked like a tower in your favor and
warping the rules to effect a desired outcome. tptb, you are up against superior people with
superior minds animated by an indomitable will. devastating defeat is inevitable.
That is part of the defense's argument. Many are asking "what is the actual crime" being
charged. Mueller charged them with campaign finance violations and failing to register as a
foreign agent. These crimes have a high burden of proof in that they require the state to
prove that the defendant knowingly broke the laws. No foreign corporation has ever been
charged with these crimes before. And the defense argues that there is nothing in the
indictment to show that they knew they were breaking these laws - hence no way to prove the
case against them. They also raise the 1st Amendment as defense saying political speech is
protected.
Did/do these companies have any other function besides buying $500 worth of "I Like Trump"
ads like selling something? So only Americans can have free speech in America, unless you
identify you and your coworkers as foreign free speech speaker-people? It sounds too tricky.
Only a progressive could figure out the legalities involved, as they are the free speech
professionals. The rest of us must get permission first, and then it will only be grafted IF
we say things that are officially approved by the free speech Nazi party.
Just think if these Ruskies could have voted! It would have been 30-40 more Trump votes
and he would have really really won bigly.
Can't Mueller be prosecuted himself if he knows there is no collusion or whatever... No
Russian anything, yet he continues to steal tax payer monies to fabricate false leads? He has
no incentive to be honest or to limit the investigation and if having the case remain open
benefits his party affiliates and he himself financially. If I got hired to do a one day job
and lied to make it a one year job, wouldn't that be theft of services?? The cuss must show
or he must go!
As we await info on Kim-Trump, I think it wise to examine what Trump's outbursts at and
beyond the G6+1 are based upon--his understanding of Economic Nationalism. Fortunately,
we have
an excellent, recent, Valdai Club paper addressing the topic that's not too technical or
lengthy. The author references two important papers by Lavrov and Putin that ought to be read
afterwards. Lavrov's
is the elder and ought to be first. Putin's Belt & Road International Forum
Address, 2017 provides an excellent example of the methods outlined in the first paper.
I
could certainly add more, but IMO these provide an excellent basis for comprehending Trump's
motivations as he's clearly reacting to the Russian and Chinese initiatives. Furthermore, one
can discover why Russia now holds the EU at arms length while
Putin's "I told
you so" reminder had to sting just a bit.
Then to recap it all, I highly suggest reading Pepe Escobar's excellent article I linked to yesterday higher up in the thread.
He was brilliant, but his vanity turned him into a reckless alarmist and a pro-Israeli
partisan.
I encountered the late Bernard Lewis (1916-2018) during the 1990s culture
wars, when historians and educators met full-frontal multiculturalism, a thematic force
beginning to reshape U.S. and world history curricula in schools and colleges.
The two of us shared early, firsthand experience with Islamist disinformation campaigns on
and off campus. Using sympathetic academics, curriculum officers, and educational publishers as
tools, Muslim activists were seeking to rewrite Islamic history in textbooks and state and
national standards.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations, created in 1994, was complaining of anti-Muslim
"bigotry," "racial profiling," "institutional racism," and "fear-mongering," while trying to
popularize the word "Islamophobia," and stoking the spirit of ethnic injustice and prejudice in
Washington politics.
Lewis and I were of different generations, he a charming academic magnifico long associated
with Princeton University and the Institute for Advanced Study. He had just retired from
teaching and was widely regarded as the nation's most influential scholar of Islam. "Islam has
Allah," he said sardonically at the time. "We've got multiculturalism."
Long before I met him, Lewis had alerted those who were listening to rising friction between
the Islamic world and the West. This was, in his mind, the outcome of Islam's centuries-long
decline and failure to embrace modernity. In thinking this way, Lewis had earned the fury of
the professor and Palestinian activist Edward Said at Columbia University, who wrote
Orientalism in 1978.
Said's influential book cast previous Western studies of the Near and Middle East as
Eurocentric, romantic, prejudiced, and racist. For Said, orientalism was an intellectual means
to justify Western conquest and empire. Bernard Lewis's outlook epitomized this approach and
interpretation. Said's line of thought profoundly influenced his undergraduate student Barack
Obama, and would have an immense impact on Obama's Mideast strategies and geopolitics as
president.
For some years, Lewis had warned of the ancient feuds between the West and Islam: in 1990
he'd
forecast a coming "clash of civilizations" in Atlantic magazine, a phrase
subsequently popularized by Harvard professor Samuel E. Huntington.
Throughout his long career, Lewis warned that Western guilt over its conquests and past was
not collateral. "In the Muslim world there are no such inhibitions," Lewis once observed. "They
are very conscious of their identity. They know who they are and what they are and what they
want, a quality which we seem to have lost to a very large extent. This is a source of strength
in the one, of weakness in the other."
Other examples of Lewis's controversial, persuasive observations include:
During the run up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Lewis suddenly gained immense political
influence, love-bombed by White House neocons Richard Cheney, Richard Perle, and other
policymakers to a degree that preyed on the old man's vanity and love of the spotlight.
Anti-war feeling in official Washington then was unpopular. Among Republicans and Democrats
alike, to assert that Israel and oil were parts of the equation appeared uncouth. Insisted the
neocons and White House: the aim of the war was to bring democratic government and regional
order to the Mideast. Rescued from despotism, Iraqis would cheer invasion, Lewis and his allies
claimed, as Afghanis welcomed relief from Taliban fundamentalists.
In 2004 the Wall Street Journal devised
what it called a Lewis Doctrine, which it defined as "seeding democracy in failed Mideast
states to defang terrorism." The Journal clarified that the Lewis Doctrine "in effect,
had become U.S. policy" in 2001. The article also revealed that Lewis had long been politically
involved with Israel and a confidant of successive Israeli prime ministers, including Ariel
Sharon.
"Though never debated in Congress or sanctified by presidential decree, Mr. Lewis's
diagnosis of the Muslim world's malaise, and his call for a U.S. military invasion to seed
democracy in the Mideast, have helped define the boldest shift in U.S. foreign policy in 50
years. The occupation of Iraq is putting the doctrine to the test," the Journal
proclaimed.
And so it has gone. After 15 years of many hard-to-follow shifts in policy and force, with
vast human and materiel costs, some analysts look upon U.S. policy in Iraq and the Mideast as a
geopolitical disaster, still in shambles and not soon to improve.
In other eyes Lewis stands guilty of devising a sophistic rationale to advance Israel's
security at the expense of U.S. national interests. In 2006, Stephen M. Walt and John J. Mearsheimer
accused Lewis of consciously providing intellectual varnish to an Israel-centered policy
group inside the George W. Bush administration that was taking charge of Mideast policies. The
same year, Lewis's reckless alarmism on Iranian nukes on behalf of Israeli interests drew
wide ridicule and contempt.
A committed Zionist, Lewis conceived of Israel as an essential part of Western civilization
and an island of freedom in the Mideast. Though, acutely aware of Islam's nature and history,
he must have had doubts about the capacity to impose democracy through force. Later, he stated
unconvincingly that he had opposed the invasion of Iraq, but the facts of the matter point in
another direction.
Lewis thus leaves a mixed legacy. It is a shame that he shelved his learned critiques and
compromised his scholarly stature late in life to pursue situational geopolitics. With his role
as a government advisor before the Iraq war, academic Arabists widely took to calling Lewis
"the Great Satan," whereas Edward Said's favored position in academic circles is almost
uncontested.
Yet few dispute that Lewis was profoundly knowledgeable of his subject. His view that
Islamic fundamentalism fails all liberal tests of toleration, cross-cultural cooperation,
gender equality, gay rights, and freedom of conscience still holds. Most Islamic authorities
consider separation of church and state either absurd or evil. They seek to punish free
inquiry, blasphemy, and apostasy. Moreover, it is their obligation to do so under holy law.
Wearing multicultural blinders, contemporary European and American progressives pretend none of
this is so. As has been demonstrated since 2015, Europe provides opportunities for territorial
expansion, as do open-borders politics in the U.S. and Canada.
In 1990, long before his Washington adventures, Lewis wrote in the American Scholar
, "We live in a time when great efforts are being made to falsify the record of the past and to
make history a tool of propaganda; when governments, religious movements, political parties,
and sectional groups of every kind are busy rewriting history as they would wish it to have
been."
On and off campus, Islamists today use Western progressive politics and ecumenical dreams to
further their holy struggle.
Lewis would point out that this force is completely understandable; in fact, it is a sacred
duty. What would disturb him more is that in the name of diversity, Western intellectuals and
journalists, government and corporate officials, and even military generals have eagerly
cooperated.
This article is exactly what this so-called intellectual Lewis is:
opinion.
All that's said by this Lewis guy is his opinion and his goal was hatred of Islam, therefore,
he wanted it to then have people follow along with hatred for arabs and Palestinians.
This was, of course, because then, people would keep supporting Israel!
How 'bout that?
Who are we kidding?
When talking about the history of this nation or that religion, Lewis offers mostly his
opinion and takes whatever event out of context to try to prove all this anti-Islam
rubbish. There are nations that have a majority of people of the Moslem religion, that have
different systems of government and so, we have free voting, and had for decades, in Turkey,
Pakistan, Iran, Lebanon and so on.
Pakistan and Turkey had female Prime Ministers decade ago how 'bout that! And so did
Indonesia, the nation most populated by Moslems, in the word, and so did Senegal, in
Africa.
These nations are thousands of miles apart, with different languages and cultures.
What is not pointed out, but I will, since I know, is that whenever there was turmoil in an
election in a mostly Moslem populated nation, why it was the meddling by the U.S. covertly
and with bribes and trouble making.
Like when the CIA did that in Iran in 1953 after a fellow, Mosaddegh was freely elected and
he was stopped and the dictator Shah was put in.
The U.S. constantly either installed or supported anti-democratic leaders in the Middle East
and Asia.
By the way, that's how you put the subject of Edward Said- that he was a professor and a
Palestinian activist? That's it?
How come you didn't tell us readers that he is a Christian?
Lewis knows no more about the makings, origins or history of religions that do many dozens of
thousands of professors in the U.S. alone.
But, he has been is given a lot of media, and still is, because he is liked by the neo-cons.
Also, I know more than Lewis did.
dig what I'm saying
"In 2004 the Wall Street Journal devised what it called a Lewis Doctrine, which it defined
as "seeding democracy in failed Mideast states to defang terrorism." The Journal clarified
that the Lewis Doctrine "in effect, had become U.S. policy" in 2001. The article also
revealed that Lewis had long been politically involved with Israel and a confidant of
successive Israeli prime ministers, including Ariel Sharon."
In laymen's terms, Lewis was an Israeli operative working the academic beat. His American
citizenship meant about as much to him as his earlier British citizenship had, a matter of
convenience, nothing more. Stripped of the spurious Ivy League gloss, his "scholarship" was
tendentious; it served to advance a political agenda and was consistently tainted by his
entanglements with politicians and political institutions. Circa 2018 it reads as badly
dated, often wrong, and generally wrong-headed.
I see he died a few weeks ago. Good riddance. "Intellectual father of the Iraq War" isn't
the epitaph of a decent human being.
The consensus I'm aware of is that Obama's foreign policy was just a continuation of the
foreign policy pursued by Bush during his second term. How does Obama continuing the foreign
policy positions of Bush, who was influenced by Lewis, indicate that Obama's views on the
middle east were influenced by Said? It should similarly be noted that while academics are
practically universal in siding with Said over Lewis, they did not universally support him
against other orientalists. While I'm likely butchering his claims, I seem to recall that
Robert Irwin criticized Said's Orientalism for focusing too much on Bernard Lewis, ignoring
the work of German orientalists who would complicate Said's claims about the West's portrayal
of the middle east.
I admire his spirited defense of the Western canon in literature and culture based upon
Judeo-Christian values. But he lost me when he joined forces with the campaign to blacklist
Professors John Meanshimer and Steven Walt with their book The Israel Lobby. The book
originally was an article that was expanded into their book. But because of the blacklist
against them, they coildn't ge their critique published in America and had to go to The
London Review of Books. And of course the article was smeared as anti-Semitic because it was
critical of the Israeli lobby (namely AIPAC) and its influence over our foreign policy.
"He was brilliant, but his vanity turned him into a reckless alarmist and a pro-Israeli
partisan."
*****************
I'm missing how vanity & supporting Israel are connected?
Islamic "fundamentalism" was rare and insignificant until we funded it, armed it, and trained
it. Our purpose was not to defang Islam but to superfang it, so we could have a new enemy to
justify ever-increasing budgets and power for Deepstate.
Now that we've switched back to Russia as the official enemy, our focus on Islam is
fading.
Saying that Lewis fell prey to vanity is easier than saying he, like the rest of the neocons,
was a hypocritical ethnic chauvinist.
In other words:
"Ethnic chauvinism is a sin and a great evil, or evidence of dangerous mental illness,
except for the Zionists who you need to support uncritically and unconditionally."
One thing to remember about zionists is that many of the christian ones are expecting to
trigger the second coming once certain things come to pass and this includes geography in
that region. I grew up with that. Anyway, to them it's not reckless, it's speeding the
prophecy along to its rightful end.
Lewis' so-called analysis and historiography was politicized and deeply flawed, so much so
that he showed himself to be a bigot against Arabs and Armenians – he was a scholar of
Turkish history, who had been, wined, dined, bought and sold, and corrupted by the Turkish
and Israeli governments to serves as their genocide denialist- and of Islam, and anything
else Middle Eastern, that did not serve Israel's interests. He offered himself to the neocons
as a willing academic and did much damage by 'legitimizing' their bogus 'war on terror'.
He should not be allowed to rest in peace or escape accountability in the judgment of
history.
i guess is the question . . . to decipher the depth and scope that islam poses to the US.
There are just not that many non-Muslims shooting people over cartoons, and insults in the
name of god. I have some very fine relational dynamics with muslims, but on occasion, i can't
help but wonder which one is going take me out because i don't use the term honorable when I
say mohammed's name.
The Nt doesn't even advocate throwing stones at people who steal my coat, I am supposed to
offer up the other.
Islamic "fundamentalism" was rare and insignificant until we funded it, armed it, and
trained it.
Islamic fundamentalism blighted and extinguished the lives of millions of Armenians,
Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists and others in the first half of the 20th century, long before dumb
Westerners funded it or armed it. The fact that people in the West are clueless about this
history does not mean it did not happen.
Obama had an English class with Said as an undergrad at Columbia. So did Leon Wieseltier
years earlier, as did many other Columbia students. Interestingly enough, Wiesaltier remained
an aggressive zionist. The claim that Said had any effect upon Obama's foreign policy ideas;
policies; or actions is profoundly silly.
To support your claim that "Said's line of thought profoundly influenced his undergraduate
student Barack Obama, and would have an immense impact on Obama's Mideast strategies and
geopolitics as president," you need a great deal more evidence. Currently, you have none.
Islamic fundamentalism was created and funded by Israel and the US to compete with the then
Marxist PLO and the Russian invasion of Afghanistan.You thought Marxist terrorism was
problematic,look at Islamic terrorism.
Looks like Trump adopted Victoria Nuland "Fuck the EU" attitude ;-). There might be nasty
surprises down the road as this is uncharted territory: destruction of neoliberal
globalization.
Trump proved to be a really bad negotiator. he reduced the USA to a schoolyard bully who
beats up his gang members because their former victims have grown too big.
As the owner of world reserve currency the USA is able to tax US denominated transactions both via conversion fees and
inflation. As long as the USA has dollar as a reserve currency the USA has so called "exorbitant priviledge" : "In the
Bretton Woods system put in place in
1944, US dollars were convertible to gold. In France, it was called "America's
exorbitant privilege"[219]
as it resulted in an "asymmetric financial system" where foreigners "see themselves supporting American living standards and
subsidizing American multinationals"."... "De Gaulle openly criticised the
United States intervention in Vietnam and the "exorbitant
privilege" of the United States dollar. In his later years, his support for the slogan "Vive
le Québec libre" and his two vetoes of Britain's entry into the
European Economic
Community generated considerable controversy." Charles de Gaulle -
Wikipedia
Notable quotes:
"... Errrr, that so-called "piggy bank' just happens to; ..."
"... have the world's reserve currency ..."
"... dominates the entire planet militarily since the end of the Cold War ..."
"... dictates "regime change" around the world ..."
"... manipulates and controls the world's entire financial system, from the price of a barrel to every financial transaction in the SWIFT system. ..."
"... And Trump has the ignorance, the arrogance and the audacity to be pleading 'poverty?' ..."
"We had productive discussion on having fair and reciprocal" trade and market access.
"We're linked in the great effort to create a more just and prosperous world. And from the
standpoint of trade and creating more prosperous countries, I think they are starting to be
committed to more fair trade. We as a nation lost $870 billion on trade...I blame our leaders
and I congratulate leaders of other countries for taking advantage of our leaders."
"If they retaliate they're making a tremendous mistake because you see we have a
tremendous trade imbalance...the numbers are so much against them, we win that war 1000 times
out of a 1000."
"We're negotiating very hard, tariffs and barriers...the European Union is brutal to the
United States....the gig is up...there's nothing they can say."
"We're like the piggy bank that everybody's robbing."
"I would say the level of relationship is a ten - Angela, Emmanuel and Justin - we have a very good relationship. I won't
blame these people, unless they don't smarten up and make the trades fair."
Trump is now making the 20-hour flight to Singapore, where he will attend a historic summit with North Korea leader Kim Jong
Un. We'll now keep our eye out for the finalized communique from the group. The US is typically a leader in the crafting of the
statement. But this time, it's unclear if the US had any input at all into the statement, as only the leaders from Britain,
Canada, France, Germany, Italy and Japan as well as the presidents of the European Commission and European Council remain at the
meeting. But regardless of who writes it, the statement will probably be of little consequence, as UBS points out:
Several heads of state will be heading off on a taxpayer-financed "mini-break" in Canada today. In all of its incarnations
(over the past four years, we've gone from G-8 to G-6+1) the group hasn't really accomplished much since an initial burst of
enthusiasm with the Plaza Accords and Louvre Accords in the 1980s.
By the way, Trump is right on the tariffs in my view, Europeans should lower their tariffs
and not having the US raising it.
Trump: "We're The Piggy Bank That Everybody's Robbing"
Isn't Trump great in catch phrases? Trump's base will now regurgitate it to death.
Now reconcile Trump's remarks with reality:
Professor Werner: Germany is for instance not even allowed to receive delivery of US
Treasuries that it may have purchased as a result of the dollars earned through its current
account surplus: these Treasuries have to be held in custody by the Federal Reserve Bank of
New York, a privately owned bank: A promise on a promise. At the same time, German influence
over the pyramid structure of such promises has been declining rapidly since the abolition of
the German currency and introduction of the euro, controlled by an unaccountable
supranational international agency that cannot be influenced by any democratic assembly in
the eurozone. As a result, this structure of one-sided outflows of real goods and services
from Germany is likely to persist in the short and medium-term.
To add insult to injury:
Euro-federalists financed by US spy chiefs
The documents show that ACUE financed the European Movement, the most important federalist
organisation in the post-war years. In 1958, for example, it provided 53.5 per cent of the
movement's funds.
Okay, everyone set your "team" aside for a few minutes and let's look at the facts and
reality.
Do you really believe the rest of the world has trade advantages over the US? Well, let's
consider major industries.
Agriculture.....maybe, but only sightly. Our farmers are the richest in the workd....by
far.
Manufacturers.....probably so....because we gave it away to countries with slave labor.
Manufacturers jobs were jobs where people could earn a decent living...and that had to
go..can't be cutting into corporate profits with all that high cost labor.
Defense.....need I go here? We spend more than the next 11 countries combined! We sell
more as well.
Energy.....we rule thus space because we buy it with worthless printed fiat
debt...whenever we want to....and nd if you deny us, we will bomb the hell out of you and
take it.
Technology. ....Apple, Microsoft, Intel, Google, Amazon, Oracle, Dell, Cisco.....who can
touch that line up....not to mention all the on-line outfits like Facebook and Twitter.
Finance.....the best for last. We control the printing press that prints the dollar the
rest of the world needs. We control energy and foreign policy. Don't do what we like and we
will cut you off from SWIFT and devalue the hell out of your currency...and then move in for
the "regime" change to some one who plays ball the way we like it. 85% of all international
trade takes place in dollars everyday. We have the biggest banks, Wall Street, and infest the
world with our virus called the dollar so that we can Jeri their chain at will.
Now I ask you....just where the hell is the "trade imbalances"? Sure there are some
companies or job sectors that get a raw deal because our politicians give some foreigners
unfair trade advantages here and there, but as a whole, we dominate trade by far. The poor in
our country lives like kings compared to 5.5 billion of the world's population. Trump knows
this.....or he is stupid. He is pandering to his sheeple voting base that are easily duped
into believing someone is getting what is their's.
Hey, I am thankful to be an American and enjoy the advantages we have. But I am not going
to stick my head up Trump's ass and agree with this bullshit. It is misdirection (corporate
America and politicians are the problem here, not foreign countries) and a major distraction.
Because all the trade in the world isn't going to pull us out of this debt catastrophe that's
coming.
But, if we cut through all the verbiage, we will arrive at the elephant in the room.
American manufacturing jobs have been off-shored to low wage countries and the jobs which
have replaced them are, for the most part, minium wage service jobs. A man cannot buy a
house, marry and raise a family on a humburger-flippers wage. Even those minimum wage jobs
are often unavailable to Americans because millions of illegal aliens have been allowed into
the country and they are undercutting wages in the service sector. At the same time, the
better paid positions are being given to H-1B visa holders who undercut the American worker
(who is not infrequently forced to train his own replacement in order to access his
unemployment benefits.)
As the above paragraph demonstrates the oligarchs are being permitted to force down
American wages and the fact that we no longer make, but instead import, the things we need,
thus exporting our wealth and damaging our own workers is all the same to them. They grow
richer and they do not care about our country or our people. If they can make us all into
slaves it will suit them perfectly.
We need tariffs to enable our workers to compete against third world wages in countries
where the cost-of-living is less. (American wages may be stagnating or declining but our
cost-of-living is not declining.) We need to deport illegal aliens and to stop the flow of
them over our borders. (Build the wall.) We need to severely limit the H-1B visa programme
which is putting qualified Americans out of work. (When I came to the US in 1967 I was
permitted entry on the basis that I was coming to do a job for which there were not enough
American workers available. Why was that rule ever changed?)
You are making my point. China didn't "off shore" our jobs....our politicians and
corporations did. You can't fix that by going after other countries. You fix that by
penalizing companies for using slave labor workers from other countries. Tariffs are not
going to fix this. They will just raise prices on everyone.
I can't believe you Trumptards can't see this! Once again we will focus on a symptom and
ignore the real problem. Boy, Trump and his buddies from NYC and DC have really suffered
because of unfair trade practices, right? Why can't you people see that "government is the
problem" and misdirection your attention to China, Canada, Germany, Mexico, or whomever is
just that....misdirection.
I would tax the shit out of companies like Apple that make everything overseas with slave
labor and then ship it in here to sell to Americans at ridiculous prices.
Plenty of down votes but no one has proven that I am wrong on one point.
The EU countries have free college, health care, day care and just about everything else.
All paid for because they have no military spending.
It's all on the backs of the US tax payer. Or the fed, if you prefer.
Trump is working both angles. Forcing them to pay for their own defense. Forcing them to
allow US products with no trade disadvantages. Go MAGA and fuck the EU.
"... That did not prevent the "handpicked" authors of that poor excuse for intelligence analysis from expressing "high confidence" that Russian intelligence "relayed material it acquired from the Democratic National Committee to WikiLeaks." Handpicked analysts, of course, say what they are handpicked to say. ..."
"... The June 12, 14, & 15 timing was hardly coincidence. Rather, it was the start of a pre-emptive move to associate Russia with anything WikiLeaks might have been about to publish and to "show" that it came from a Russian hack. ..."
"... "No one has challenged the authenticity of the original documents of Vault 7, which disclosed a vast array of cyber warfare tools developed, probably with help from NSA, by CIA's Engineering Development Group. That Group was part of the sprawling CIA Directorate of Digital Innovation – a growth industry established by John Brennan in 2015. [ (VIPS warned President Obama of some of the dangers of that basic CIA reorganization at the time.] ..."
"... "Scarcely imaginable digital tools – that can take control of your car and make it race over 100 mph, for example, or can enable remote spying through a TV – were described and duly reported in the New York Times and other media throughout March. But the Vault 7, part 3 release on March 31 that exposed the "Marble Framework" program apparently was judged too delicate to qualify as 'news fit to print' and was kept out of the Times at the time, and has never been mentioned since . ..."
"... "More important, the CIA reportedly used Marble during 2016. In her Washington Post report , Nakashima left that out, but did include another significant point made by WikiLeaks; namely, that the obfuscation tool could be used to conduct a 'forensic attribution double game' or false-flag operation because it included test samples in Chinese, Russian, Korean, Arabic and Farsi." ..."
"... The CIA's reaction to the WikiLeaks disclosure of the Marble Framework tool was neuralgic. Then Director Mike Pompeo lashed out two weeks later, calling Assange and his associates "demons," and insisting; "It's time to call out WikiLeaks for what it really is, a non-state hostile intelligence service, often abetted by state actors like Russia."Our July 24 Memorandum continued: "Mr. President, we do not know if CIA's Marble Framework, or tools like it, played some kind of role in the campaign to blame Russia for hacking the DNC. Nor do we know how candid the denizens of CIA's Digital Innovation Directorate have been with you and with Director Pompeo. These are areas that might profit from early White House review. [ President Trump then directed Pompeo to invite Binney, one of the authors of the July 24, 2017 VIPS Memorandum to the President, to discuss all this. Binney and Pompeo spent an hour together at CIA Headquarters on October 24, 2017, during which Binney briefed Pompeo with his customary straightforwardness. ] ..."
"... Another false flag operation? Suddenly false flag operations have become the weapon of choice. Interestingly enough, they are nefariously (always) committed by the US or US allies. MH17 was a false flag with an SU-25 Ukraine jet responsible for downing the passenger jet (to blame Russia). All of the chemical attacks in Syria were false flag operations with the supply of sarin/chlorine made in Turkey or directly given to the "rebels" by the CIA or US allies. The White Helmets were of course in on all of the details. Assad was just simply not capable of doing that to "his" people. Forget that the sarin had the chemical signature of the Assad regime sarin supply. Next it was the snipers who used a false flag operation during the Maidan revolution to shoot protesters and police to oust Yanukovych. Only the neo-Nazis could be capable of shooting the Maidan protesters so they could take power. And then Seth Rich was murdered so he couldn't reveal he was the "real" source of the leak. This was hinted by Assange when he offered a reward to find the killers. ..."
"... The author tosses out that the DNC hack was (potentially) a false flag operation by the CIA obviously to undermine Trump while victimizing Russia. ..."
"... I don't seen any cause to say that any false-flag theory you don't like is merely "tossed out" propaganda. One cannot tell in your comment where you think the accounts are credible and where not. No evidence that the Syria CW attacks "had the chemical signature of the Assad regime sarin supply." ..."
"... There can be no doubt that counterintelligence tools would be pursued by our intelligence agencies as a means to create narratives and false evidence based on the production of false flags which support desired geopolitical outcomes. There would be a need to create false flags using technology to support the geopolitical agenda which would be hard or impossible to trace using the forensic tools used by cyber sleuths. ..."
"... Russia-gate is American Exceptionalism writ large which takes on a more sinister aspect as groups like BLM and others are "linked" to alleged "Russian funding"on one and and Soros funding on another ..."
"... (FWIW, this is a new neoliberal phenomenon when the ultra-rich "liberals" can quietly fund marches on Washington and "grassroots" networking making those neophyte movements too easy targets with questionable robust foundation (color revolutions are possible when anyone is able to foot the cost of 1,000 or 2000 "free" signs or t-shirts -- impecccably designed and printed. ..."
"... Excellent post. Thanks also for reminding me I need to revisit the Vault 7 information as source material. These are incredibly important leaks that help connect the dots of criminal State intelligence activities designed to have remained forever hidden. ..."
"... Actually, both Brennan and Hayden testified to Congress that only 3 agencies signed off on their claim. They also said that they'd "hand picked" a special team to run their "investigation," and no other people were involved. So, people known to be perjurers cherry picked "evidence" to make a claim. Let's invade Iraq again. ..."
"... Mueller is not interested in the truth. He can't handle the truth. His purpose is not to divulge the truth. He has no use for truthtellers including the critical possessors of the truth whom you mentioned. This aversion to the truth is the biggest clue that Mueller's activities are a complete sham. ..."
"... Thanks, Ray, for revealing that the CIA's Digital Innovation Directorate is the likely cause of the Russiagate scams. ..."
"... Your disclaimer is hilarious: "We speak and write without fear or favor. Consequently, any resemblance between what we say and what presidents, politicians and pundits say is purely coincidental." ..."
"... For whatever reason, Ray McGovern chose not to mention the murder of Seth Rich, which pretty clearly points to the real source of the leak being him, as hinted by Assange offering a reward for anyone uncovering his killer. The whole thing stinks of a democratic conspiracy. ..."
"... Ray, from what I have seen in following his writing for years, meticulously only deals in knowns. The Seth Rich issue is not a known, it is speculation still. Yes, it probably is involved, but unless Craig Murray states that Seth Rich was the one who handed him the USB drive, it is not a known. ..."
"... There is a possibility that Seth Rich was not the one who leaked the information, but that the DNC bigwigs THOUGHT he was, in which case, by neither confirming nor denying that Seth Rich was the leaker, it may be that letting the DNC continue to think it was him is being done in protection of the actual leaker. Seth Rich could also have been killed for unrelated reasons, perhaps Imran Awan thought he was on to his doings. ..."
"... Don't forget this Twitter post by Wikileaks on October 30, 2016: Podesta: "I'm definitely for making an example of a suspected leaker whether or not we have any real basis for it." https://www.wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/36082#efmAGSAH- ..."
"... Mueller has nothing and he well knows it. He was willingly roped into this whole pathetic charade and he's left grasping for anything remotely tied to Trump campaign officials and Russians. Even the most tenuous connections and weak relationships are splashed across the mass media in breathless headlines. Meanwhile, NONE of the supposed skulduggery unearthed by Mueller has anything to do with the Kremlin "hacking" the election to favor Trump. Which was the entire raison d'etre behind Rosenstein and Mueller's crusade on behalf of the deplorable DNC and Washington militarist-imperialists. Sure be interesting to see how Mueller and his crew ultimately extricate themselves from this giant fraudulent edifice of deceit. Will they even be able to save the most rudimentary amount of face? ..."
"... If they had had any evidence to inculpate Russia, we would have all seen it by now. They know that by stating that there is an investigation going on: they can blame Russia. The Democratic National Committee is integrated by a pack of liars. ..."
"... My question is simple, when will we concentrate on reading Hillary's many emails? After all wasn't this the reason for the Russian interference mania? Until we do, take apart Hillary's correspondence with her lackeys, nothing will transpire of any worth. I should not be the one saying this, in as much as Bernie Sanders should be the one screaming it for justice from the highest roof tops, but he isn't. So what's up with that? Who all is involved in this scandalous coverup? What do the masters of corruption have on everybody? ..."
If you are wondering why so little is heard these days of accusations that Russia hacked
into the U.S. election in 2016, it could be because those charges could not withstand
close scrutiny . It
could also be because special counsel Robert Mueller appears to have never bothered to
investigate what was once the central alleged crime in Russia-gate as no one associated with
WikiLeaks has ever been questioned by his team.
Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity -- including two "alumni" who were former
National Security Agency technical directors -- have long since concluded that Julian Assange
did not acquire what he called the "emails related to Hillary Clinton" via a "hack" by the
Russians or anyone else. They found, rather, that he got them from someone with physical access
to Democratic National Committee computers who copied the material onto an external storage
device -- probably a thumb drive. In December 2016 VIPS explained
this in some detail in an open Memorandum to President Barack Obama.
On January 18, 2017 President Obama admitted
that the "conclusions" of U.S. intelligence regarding how the alleged Russian hacking got to
WikiLeaks were "inconclusive." Even the vapid FBI/CIA/NSA "Intelligence Community Assessment of
Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent U.S. Elections" of January 6, 2017, which tried to
blame Russian President Vladimir Putin for election interference, contained
no direct evidence of Russian involvement. That did not prevent the "handpicked" authors of
that poor excuse for intelligence analysis from expressing "high confidence" that Russian
intelligence "relayed material it acquired from the Democratic National Committee to
WikiLeaks." Handpicked analysts, of course, say what they are handpicked to say.
Never mind. The FBI/CIA/NSA "assessment" became bible truth for partisans like Rep. Adam Schiff
(D-CA), ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, who was among the first off the
blocks to blame Russia for interfering to help Trump. It simply could not have been that
Hillary Clinton was quite capable of snatching defeat out of victory all by herself. No, it had
to have been the Russians.
Five days into the Trump presidency, I had a chance to
challenge Schiff personally on the gaping disconnect between the Russians and WikiLeaks.
Schiff still "can't share the evidence" with me or with anyone else, because it does not
exist.
WikiLeaks
It was on June 12, 2016, just six weeks before the Democratic National Convention, that
Assange announced the pending publication of "emails related to Hillary Clinton," throwing the
Clinton campaign into panic mode, since the emails would document strong bias in favor of
Clinton and successful attempts to sabotage the campaign of Bernie Sanders. When the emails
were published on July 22, just three days before the convention began, the campaign decided to
create what I call a Magnificent Diversion, drawing attention away from the substance of the
emails by blaming Russia for their release.
Clinton's PR chief Jennifer Palmieri later admitted that she golf-carted around to various
media outlets at the convention with instructions "to get the press to focus on something even
we found difficult to process: the prospect that Russia had not only hacked and stolen emails
from the DNC, but that it had done so to help Donald Trump and hurt Hillary Clinton." The
diversion worked like a charm. Mainstream media kept shouting "The Russians did it," and gave
little, if any, play to the DNC skullduggery revealed in the emails themselves. And like Brer'
Fox, Bernie didn't say nothin'.
Meanwhile, highly sophisticated technical experts, were hard at work fabricating "forensic
facts" to "prove" the Russians did it. Here's how it played out:
June 12, 2016: Assange announces that WikiLeaks is about to publish "emails related to
Hillary Clinton."
June 14, 2016: DNC contractor CrowdStrike, (with a dubious professional record and multiple
conflicts of interest) announces that malware has been found on the DNC server and claims there
is evidence it was injected by Russians.
June 15, 2016: "Guccifer 2.0" affirms the DNC statement; claims responsibility for the
"hack;" claims to be a WikiLeaks source; and posts a document that the forensics show was
synthetically tainted with "Russian fingerprints."
The June 12, 14, & 15 timing was hardly coincidence. Rather, it was the start of a
pre-emptive move to associate Russia with anything WikiLeaks might have been about to publish
and to "show" that it came from a Russian hack.
Enter Independent Investigators
A year ago independent cyber-investigators completed the kind of forensic work that, for
reasons best known to then-FBI Director James Comey, neither he nor the "handpicked analysts"
who wrote the Jan. 6, 2017 assessment bothered to do. The independent investigators found
verifiable evidence from metadata found in the record of an alleged Russian hack of July 5,
2016 showing that the "hack" that day of the DNC by Guccifer 2.0 was not a hack, by Russia or
anyone else.
Rather it originated with a copy (onto an external storage device – a thumb drive, for
example) by an insider -- the same process used by the DNC insider/leaker before June 12, 2016
for an altogether different purpose. (Once the metadata was found and the "fluid dynamics"
principle of physics applied, this was not difficult to
disprove the validity of the claim that Russia was responsible.)
One of these independent investigators publishing under the name of The Forensicator on May
31
published new evidence that
the Guccifer 2.0 persona uploaded a document from the West Coast of the United States, and not
from Russia.
In our July 24, 2017 Memorandum to President Donald Trump we stated ,
"We do not know who or what the murky Guccifer 2.0 is. You may wish to ask the FBI."
Our July 24 Memorandum continued: "Mr. President, the disclosure described below may be
related. Even if it is not, it is something we think you should be made aware of in this
general connection. On March 7, 2017, WikiLeaks began to publish a trove of original CIA
documents that WikiLeaks labeled 'Vault 7.' WikiLeaks said it got the trove from a current or
former CIA contractor and described it as comparable in scale and significance to the
information Edward Snowden gave to reporters in 2013.
"No one has challenged the authenticity of the original documents of Vault 7, which
disclosed a vast array of cyber warfare tools developed, probably with help from NSA, by CIA's
Engineering Development Group. That Group was part of the sprawling CIA Directorate of Digital
Innovation – a growth industry established by John Brennan in 2015. [ (VIPS warned
President Obama of some of the dangers of that basic CIA reorganization at the time.]
Marbled
"Scarcely imaginable digital tools – that can take control of your car and make it
race over 100 mph, for example, or can enable remote spying through a TV – were described
and duly reported in the New York Times and other media throughout March. But the Vault 7, part
3 release on March 31 that exposed the "Marble Framework" program apparently was judged too
delicate to qualify as 'news fit to print' and was kept out of the Times at the time, and has
never been mentioned since .
"The Washington Post's Ellen Nakashima, it seems, 'did not get the memo' in time. Her March
31
article bore the catching (and accurate) headline: 'WikiLeaks' latest release of CIA
cyber-tools could blow the cover on agency hacking operations.'
"The WikiLeaks release indicated that Marble was designed for flexible and easy-to-use
'obfuscation,' and that Marble source code includes a "de-obfuscator" to reverse CIA text
obfuscation.
"More important, the CIA reportedly used Marble during 2016. In her Washington Post
report , Nakashima left that out, but did include another significant point made by
WikiLeaks; namely, that the obfuscation tool could be used to conduct a 'forensic attribution
double game' or false-flag operation because it included test samples in Chinese, Russian,
Korean, Arabic and Farsi."
A few weeks later William Binney, a former NSA technical, and I commented on
Vault 7 Marble, and were able to get a shortened op-ed version
published in The Baltimore Sun
The CIA's reaction to the WikiLeaks disclosure of the Marble Framework tool was
neuralgic. Then Director Mike Pompeo lashed out two weeks later, calling Assange and his
associates "demons," and insisting; "It's time to call out WikiLeaks for what it really is, a
non-state hostile intelligence service, often abetted by state actors like Russia."Our July 24
Memorandum continued: "Mr. President, we do not know if CIA's Marble Framework, or tools like
it, played some kind of role in the campaign to blame Russia for hacking the DNC. Nor do we
know how candid the denizens of CIA's Digital Innovation Directorate have been with you and
with Director Pompeo. These are areas that might profit from early White House review. [
President Trump then directed Pompeo to invite Binney, one of the authors of the July 24, 2017
VIPS Memorandum to the President, to discuss all this. Binney and Pompeo spent an hour together
at CIA Headquarters on October 24, 2017, during which Binney briefed Pompeo with his customary
straightforwardness. ]
We also do not know if you have discussed cyber issues in any detail with President Putin.
In his interview with NBC's Megyn Kelly he seemed quite willing – perhaps even eager
– to address issues related to the kind of cyber tools revealed in the Vault 7
disclosures, if only to indicate he has been briefed on them. Putin pointed out that today's
technology enables hacking to be 'masked and camouflaged to an extent that no one can
understand the origin' [of the hack] And, vice versa, it is possible to set up any entity or
any individual that everyone will think that they are the exact source of that attack.
"'Hackers may be anywhere,' he said. 'There may be hackers, by the way, in the United States
who very craftily and professionally passed the buck to Russia. Can't you imagine such a
scenario? I can.'
New attention has been drawn to these issues after I discussed them in a widely published
16-minute
interview last Friday.
In view of the highly politicized environment surrounding these issues, I believe I must
append here the same notice that VIPS felt compelled to add to our key Memorandum of July 24,
2017:
"Full Disclosure: Over recent decades the ethos of our intelligence profession has eroded in
the public mind to the point that agenda-free analysis is deemed well nigh impossible. Thus, we
add this disclaimer, which applies to everything we in VIPS say and do: We have no political
agenda; our sole purpose is to spread truth around and, when necessary, hold to account our
former intelligence colleagues.
"We speak and write without fear or favor. Consequently, any resemblance between what we say
and what presidents, politicians and pundits say is purely coincidental." The fact we find it
is necessary to include that reminder speaks volumes about these highly politicized times.
Ray McGovern works for Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the
Savior in inner-city Washington. He was an Army infantry/intelligence officer before serving as
a CIA analyst for 27 years. His duties included preparing, and briefing one-on-one, the
President's Daily Brief.
ThomasGilroy , June 9, 2018 at 9:44 am
"More important, the CIA reportedly used Marble during 2016. In her Washington Post
report, Nakashima left that out, but did include another significant point made by
WikiLeaks; namely, that the obfuscation tool could be used to conduct a 'forensic
attribution double game' or false-flag operation because it included test samples in
Chinese, Russian, Korean, Arabic and Farsi."
Another false flag operation? Suddenly false flag operations have become the weapon of
choice. Interestingly enough, they are nefariously (always) committed by the US or US allies.
MH17 was a false flag with an SU-25 Ukraine jet responsible for downing the passenger jet (to
blame Russia). All of the chemical attacks in Syria were false flag operations with the
supply of sarin/chlorine made in Turkey or directly given to the "rebels" by the CIA or US
allies. The White Helmets were of course in on all of the details. Assad was just simply not
capable of doing that to "his" people. Forget that the sarin had the chemical signature of
the Assad regime sarin supply. Next it was the snipers who used a false flag operation during
the Maidan revolution to shoot protesters and police to oust Yanukovych. Only the neo-Nazis
could be capable of shooting the Maidan protesters so they could take power. And then Seth
Rich was murdered so he couldn't reveal he was the "real" source of the leak. This was hinted
by Assange when he offered a reward to find the killers.
The author tosses out that the DNC hack was (potentially) a false flag operation by the
CIA obviously to undermine Trump while victimizing Russia. It must be the Gulf of Tonkin all
over again. While Crowdstrike might have a "dubious professional record and multiple
conflicts of interest", their results were also confirmed by several other cyber-security
firms (Wikipedia):
cybersecurity experts and firms, including CrowdStrike, Fidelis Cybersecurity, Mandiant,
SecureWorks, ThreatConnect, and the editor for Ars Technica, have rejected the claims of
"Guccifer 2.0" and have determined, on the basis of substantial evidence, that the
cyberattacks were committed by two Russian state-sponsored groups (Cozy Bear and Fancy
Bear).
Then there was Papadopoulas who coincidentally was given the information that Russia had
"dirt" on Hillary Clinton in the form of thousands of emails. Obviously, they were illegally
obtained (unless this was another CIA false flag operation). This was before the release of
the emails by WikiLeaks. This was followed by the Trump Tower meeting with Russians with
connections to the Russian government and the release of the emails by WikiLeaks shortly
thereafter. Additionally, Russia had the motive to defeat HRC and elect Trump. Yesterday,
Trump pushed for the reinstatement of Russia at the G-7 summit. What a shock! All known
evidence and motive points the finger directly at Russia.
Calling everything a false flag operation is really the easy way out, but ultimately, it
lets the responsible culprits off of the hook.
anon , June 9, 2018 at 11:28 am
I don't seen any cause to say that any false-flag theory you don't like is merely "tossed
out" propaganda.
One cannot tell in your comment where you think the accounts are credible and where not.
No evidence that the Syria CW attacks "had the chemical signature of the Assad regime sarin
supply."
CitizenOne , June 8, 2018 at 11:40 pm
There can be no doubt that counterintelligence tools would be pursued by our intelligence
agencies as a means to create narratives and false evidence based on the production of false
flags which support desired geopolitical outcomes. There would be a need to create false
flags using technology to support the geopolitical agenda which would be hard or impossible
to trace using the forensic tools used by cyber sleuths.
In pre computer technology days there were also many false flags which were set up to
create real world scenarios which suited the geopolitical agenda. Even today, there are many
examples of tactical false flag operations either organized and orchestrated or utilized by
the intelligence agencies to create the narrative which supports geopolitical objectives.
Examples:
The US loaded munitions in broad daylight visible to German spies onto the passenger ship
Lusitania despite German warnings that they would torpedo any vessels suspected of carrying
munitions. The Lusitania then proceeded to loiter unaccompanied by escorts in an area off the
Ireland coast treading over the same waters until it was spotted by a German U-Boat and was
torpedoed. This was not exactly a false flag since the German U-Boat pulled the trigger but
it was required to gain public support for the entrance of the US into WWI. It worked.
There is evidence that the US was deliberately caught "off guard" in the Pearl Harbor
Attack. Numerous coded communication intercepts were made but somehow the advanced warning
radar on the island of Hawaii was mysteriously turned off in the hours before and during the
Japanese attack which guaranteed that the attack would be successful and also guaranteed that
our population would instantly sign on to the war against Japan. It worked.
There is evidence that the US deliberately ignored the intelligence reports that UBL was
planning to conduct an attack on the US using planes as bombs. The terrorists who carried out
the attacks on the twin towers were "allowed" to conduct them. The result was the war in Iraq
which was sold based on a pack of lies about WMDs and which we used to go to war with
Iraq.
The Tonkin Gulf incident which historians doubt actually happened or believe if it did was
greatly exaggerated by intelligence and military sources was used to justify the war in
Vietnam.
The Spanish American War was ginned up by William Randolph Hearst and his yellow
journalism empire to justify attacking Cuba, Panama and the Philippines. The facts revealed
by forensic analysis of the exploded USS Maine have shown that the cataclysm was caused by a
boiler explosion not an enemy mine. At the time this was also widely believed to not be
caused by a Spanish mine in the harbor but the news sold the story of Spanish treachery and
war was waged.
In each case of physical false flags created on purpose, or allowed to happen or just made
up by fictions based on useful information that could be manipulated and distorted the US was
led to war. Some of these wars were just wars and others were wars of choice but in every
case a false flag was needed to bring the nation into a state where we believed we were under
attack and under the circumstances flocked to war. I will not be the judge of history or
justice here since each of these events had both negative and positive consequences for our
nation. What I will state is that it is obvious that the willingness to allow or create or
just capitalize on the events which have led to war are an essential ingredient. Without a
publicly perceived and publicly supported cause for war there can be no widespread support
for war. I can also say our leaders have always known this.
Enter the age of technology and the computer age with the electronic contraptions which
enable global communication and commerce.
Is it such a stretch to imagine that the governments desire to shape world events based on
military actions would result in a plan to use these modern technologies to once again create
in our minds a cyber scenario in which we are once again as a result of the "cyber" false
flag prepared for us to go to war? Would it be too much of a stretch to imagine that the
government would use the new electronic frontier just as it used the old physical world
events to justify military action?
Again, I will not go on to condemn any action by our military but will focus on how did we
get there and how did we arrive at a place where a majority favored war.
Whether created by physical or cyberspace methods we can conclude that such false flags
will happen for better or worse in any medium available.
susan sunflower , June 8, 2018 at 7:52 pm
I'd like "evidence" and I'd also like "context" since apparently international electoral
"highjinks" and monkey-wrenching and rat-f*cking have a long tradition and history (before
anyone draws a weapon, kills a candidate or sicc's death squads on the citizenry.
The DNC e-mail publication "theft" I suspect represents very small small potatoes for so
many reasons As Dixon at Black Agenda Report put it . Russia-gate is American Exceptionalism
writ large which takes on a more sinister aspect as groups like BLM and others are "linked"
to alleged "Russian funding"on one and and Soros funding on another
(FWIW, this is a new neoliberal phenomenon when the ultra-rich "liberals" can quietly fund
marches on Washington and "grassroots" networking making those neophyte movements too easy
targets with questionable robust foundation (color revolutions are possible when anyone is
able to foot the cost of 1,000 or 2000 "free" signs or t-shirts -- impecccably designed and
printed.
Excellent post. Thanks also for reminding me I need to revisit the Vault 7 information as
source material. These are incredibly important leaks that help connect the dots of criminal
State intelligence activities designed to have remained forever hidden.
Skip Scott , June 8, 2018 at 1:07 pm
I can't think of any single piece of evidence that our MSM is under the very strict
control of our so-called intelligence agencies than how fast and completely the Vault 7
releases got flushed down the memory hole. "Nothing to see here folks, move along."
I don't think anyone can predict whether or not Sanders would have won as a 3rd party
candidate. He ran a remarkable campaign, but when he caved to the Clinton machine he lost a
lot of supporters, including me. If he had stood up at the convention and talked of the DNC
skullduggery exposed by Wikileaks, and said "either I run as a democrat, or I run as a Green,
but I'm running", he would have at least gotten 15 pct to make the TV debates, and who knows
what could have happened after that. 40 pct of registered voters didn't vote. That alone
tells you it is possible he might have won.
Instead he expected us to follow him like he was the f'ing Pied Piper to elect another
Wall St. loving warmonger. That's why he gets no "pass" from me. He (and the Queen of Chaos)
gave us Trump. BTW, Obama doesn't get a "pass" either.
willow , June 8, 2018 at 9:24 pm
It's all about the money. A big motive for the DNC to conjure up Russia-gate was to keep
donors from abandoning any future
Good Ship Hillary or other Blue Dog Democrat campaigns: "Our brand/platform wasn't flawed. It
was the Rooskies."
Vivian O'Blivion , June 8, 2018 at 8:22 am
An earlier time line.
March 14th. Popadopoulos has first encounter with Mifsud.
April 26th. Mifsud tells Popadopoulos that Russians have "dirt" on Clinton, including "thousands of e-mails".
May 4th. Trump last man standing in Republican primary.
May 10th. Popadopoulos gets drunk with London based Australian diplomat and talks about "dirt" but not specifically
e-mails.
June 9th. Don. Jr meets in Trump tower with Russians promising "dirt" but not specifically in form of e-mails.
It all comes down to who Mifsud is, who he is working for and why he has been "off grid" to journalists (but not presumably
Intelligence services) for > 6 months.
Specific points.
On March 14th Popadopoulos knew he was transferring from team Carson to team Trump but this was not announced to the
(presumably underwhelmed) world 'till March 21st. Whoever put Mifsud onto Popadopoulos was very quick on their feet.
The Australian diplomat broke chain of command by reporting the drunken conversation to the State Department as opposed to his
domestic Intelligence service. If Mifsud was a western asset, Australian Intelligence would likely be aware of his status.
If Mifsud was a Russian asset why would demonstrably genuine Russians be trying to dish up the dirt on Clinton in June?
There are missing pieces to this jigsaw puzzle but it's starting to look like a deep state operation to dirty Trump in the
unlikely event that he went on to win.
Realist , June 8, 2018 at 4:28 pm
Ms. Clinton was personally trying to tar Trump with allusions to "Russia" and being
"Putin's puppet" long before he won the presidency, in fact, quite conspicuously during the
two conventions and most pointedly during the debates. She was willing to use that ruse long
before her defeat at the ballot box. It was the straw that she clung to and was willing to
use as a pretext for overturning the election after the unthinkable happened. But, you are
right, smearing Trump through association with Russia was part of her long game going back to
the early primaries, especially since her forces (both in politics and in the media) were
trying mightily to get him the nomination under the assumption that he would be the easiest
(more like the only) Republican candidate that she could defeat come November.
Wcb , June 8, 2018 at 5:25 pm
Steven Halper?
Rob Roy , June 8, 2018 at 1:33 am
I might add to this informative article that the reason why Julian Assange has been
ostracized and isolated from any public appearance, denied a cell phone, internet and
visitors is that he tells the truth, and TPTB don't want him to say yet again that the emails
were leaked from the DNC. I've heard him say it several times. H. Clinton was so shocked and
angry that she didn't become president as she so confidently expected that her, almost
knee-jerk, reaction was to find a reason that was outside of herself on which to blame her
defeat. It's always surprised me that no one talks about what was in those emails which
covered her plans for Iran and Russia (disgusting).
Trump is a sociopath, but the Russians had nothing to do with him becoming elected. I was
please to read here that he or perhaps just Pompeo? met with Binney. That's a good thing,
though Pompeo, too, is unstable and war hungry to follow Israel into bombing yet another
innocent sovereign country. Thank, Mr. McGovern for another excellent coverage of this
story.
MLS , June 7, 2018 at 9:59 pm
"no one associated with WikiLeaks has ever been questioned by his team"
Do tell, Ray: How do you know what the GOP Congress appointed Special Prosecutor's investigation –
with its unlimited budget, wide mandate, and notable paucity of leaks – has and has not
done?
strgr-tgther , June 8, 2018 at 12:14 am
MLS: Thank you! No one stands up for what is right any more. We have 17 Intelligency
agencies that say are election was stolen. And just last week the Republicans Paul Ryan,
Mitch McConnel and Trey Gowdy (who I detest) said the FBI and CIA and NSA were just doing
there jobs the way ALL AMERICANS woudl want them to. And even Adam Schiff, do you think he
will tell any reporter what evidence he does have? #1 It is probably classified and #2 he is
probably saving it for the inpeachment. We did not find out about the Nixon missing 18
minutes until the end anyways. All of these articles sound like the writer just copied Sean
Hannity and wrote everything down he said, and yesterday he told all suspects in the Mueller
investigation to Smash and Bleach there mobile devices, witch is OBSTRUCTION of justice and
witness TAMPERING. A great American there!
Rob Roy , June 8, 2018 at 1:48 am
strgr-tgther:
Sean Hannity??? Ha, ha, ha.
As Mr. McGoven wrote .."any resemblance between what we say and what presidents,
politicians and pundits say is purely coincidental."
John , June 8, 2018 at 5:48 am
Sorry I had to come back and point out the ultimate irony of ANYONE who supports the
Butcher of Libya complaining about having an election stolen from them (after the blatant
rigging of the primary that caused her to take the nomination away from the ONE PERSON who
was polling ahead of Trump beyond the margin of error of the polls.)
It is people like you who gave us Trump. The Pied Piper Candidate promoted by the DNC
machine (as the emails that were LEAKED, not "hacked", as the metadata proves conclusively,
show.)
incontinent reader , June 8, 2018 at 7:14 am
What is this baloney? Seventeen Intelligence agencies DID NOT conclude what you are
alleging, And in fact, Brennan and his cabal avoided using a National intelligence Estimate,
which would have shot down his cherry-picked 'assessment' before it got off the ground
– and it would have been published for all to read.
The NSA has everything on everybody, yet has never released anything remotely indicating
Russian collusion. Do you think the NSA Director, who, as you may recall, did not give a
strong endorsement to the Brennan-Comey assessment, would have held back from the Congress
such information, if it had existed, when he was questioned? Furthermore, former technical
directors of the NSA, Binney, Wiebe and Loomis- the very best of the best- have proven
through forensics that the Wikileaks disclosures were not obtained by hacking the DNC
computers, but by a leak, most likely to a thumb drive on the East Coast of the U.S. How many
times does it have to be laid out for you before you are willing and able to absorb the
facts?
As for Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan, (and Trey Gowdy, who was quite skilled on the
Benghazi and the Clinton private email server investigations- investigations during which
Schiff ran interference for Clinton- but has seemed unwilling to digest the Strozk, Page,
McCabe, et al emails and demand a Bureau housecleaning), who cares what they think or say,
what matters is the evidence.
I suggest you familiarize yourself with the facts- and start by rereading Ray's articles,
and the piece by Joe diGenova posted on Ray's website.
Realist , June 8, 2018 at 4:12 pm
The guy's got Schiff for brains. Everyone who cares about the truth has known since before
Mueller started his charade that the "17 intelligence agency" claim was entirely a ruse,
bald-faced confected propaganda to anger the public to support the coup attempted by Ms.
Clinton and her zombie followers. People are NOT going to support the Democratic party now or
in the future when its tactics include subverting our public institutions, including the
electoral process under the constitution–whether you like the results or not! If the
Democratic party is to be saved, those honest people still in it should endeavor to drain the
septic tank that has become their party before we can all drain the swamp that is the federal
government and its ex-officio manipulators (otherwise known as the "deep state") in
Washington.
Farmer Pete , June 8, 2018 at 7:30 am
"We have 17 Intelligency agencies that say are election was stolen."
You opened up with a talking point that is factually incorrect. The team of hand-picked
spooks that slapped the "high confidence" report together came from 3 agencies. I know, 17
sounds like a lot and very convincing to us peasants. Regardless, it's important to practice
a few ounces of skepticism when it comes to institutions with a long rap sheet of crime and
deception. Taking their word for it as a substitute for actual observable evidence is naive
to say the least. The rest of your hollow argument is filled with "probably(s)". If I were
you, I'd turn off my TV and stop looking for scapegoats for an epically horrible presidential
campaign and candidate.
strgr-tgther , June 8, 2018 at 12:50 pm
/horrible presidential campaign and candidate/ Say you. But we all went to sleep
comfortable the night before the election where 97% of all poles said Clinton was going to be
are next President. And that did not happen! So Robert Mueller is going to find out EXACTLY
why. Stay tuned!!!
irina , June 8, 2018 at 3:40 pm
Not 'all'. I knew she was toast after reading that she had cancelled her election night
fireworks
celebration, early on the morning of Election Day. She must have known it also, too.
And she was toast in my mind after seeing the ridiculous scene of her virtual image
'breaking the glass ceiling' during the Democratic Convention. So expensively stupid.
Realist , June 8, 2018 at 3:50 pm
Mueller is simply orchestrating a dramatic charade to distract you from the obvious reason
why she lost: Trump garnered more electoral votes, even after the popular votes were counted
and recounted. Any evidence of ballot box stuffing in the key states pointed to the
Democrats, so they gave that up. She and her supporters like you have never stopped trying to
hoodwink the public either before or after the election. Too many voters were on to you,
that's why she lost.
Realist , June 8, 2018 at 3:57 pm
Indeed, stop the nonsense which can't be changed short of a coup d'etat, and start
focusing on opposing the bad policy which this administration has been pursuing. I don't see
the Dems doing that even in their incipient campaigns leading up to the November elections.
Fact is, they are not inclined to change the policies, which are the same ones that got them
"shellacked" at the ballot box in 2016. (I think Obama must own lots of stock in the shellack
trade.)
Curious , June 8, 2018 at 6:27 pm
Ignorance of th facts keep showing up in your posts for some unknown reason. Sentence two:
"we have 17 intelligency (sic) agencies that say ". this statement was debunked a long time
ago.
Have you learned nothing yet regarding the hand-picked people out of three agencies after all
this time? Given that set of lies it makes your post impossible to read.
I would suggest a review of what really happened before you perpetuate more myths and this
will benefit all.
Also, a good reading of the Snowden Docs and vault 7 should scare you out of your shell since
our "intelligeny" community can pretend to be Chinese, Russian, Iranian just for starters,
and the blame game can start after hours instead of the needed weeks and/or months to
determine the veracity of a hack and/or leak.
It's past trying to win you over with the actual 'time lines' and truths. Mr McGovern has
re-emphasized in this article the very things you should be reading.
Start with Mr Binney and his technical evaluation of the forensics in the DNC docs and build
out from there This is just a suggestion.
What never ceases to amaze me in your posts is the 'issue' that many of the docs were
bought and paid for by the Clinton team, and yet amnesia has taken over those aspects as
well. Shouldn't you start with the Clintons paying for this dirt before it was ever
attributed to Trump?
Daniel , June 8, 2018 at 6:38 pm
Actually, both Brennan and Hayden testified to Congress that only 3 agencies signed off on
their claim. They also said that they'd "hand picked" a special team to run their
"investigation," and no other people were involved. So, people known to be perjurers cherry
picked "evidence" to make a claim. Let's invade Iraq again.
More than 1/2 of their report was about RT, and even though that was all easily viewable
public record, they got huge claims wrong. Basically, the best they had was that RT covered
Occupy Wall Street and the NO DAPL and BLM protests, and horror of horrors, aired third party
debates! In a democracy! How dare they?
Why didn't FBI subpoena DNC's servers so they could run their own forensics on them? Why
did they just accept the claims of a private company founded by an Atlantic Council board
member? Did you know that CrowdStrike had to backpedal on the exact same claim they made
about the DNC server when Ukraine showed they were completely wrong regarding Ukie
artillery?
Joe Lauria , June 8, 2018 at 2:12 am
Until he went incommunicado Assange stated on several occasions that he was never
questioned by Muellers team. Craig Murray has said the same. And Kim Dotcom has written to
Mueller offering evidence about the source and he says they have never replied to him.
Realist , June 8, 2018 at 3:40 pm
Mueller is not interested in the truth. He can't handle the truth. His purpose is not to
divulge the truth. He has no use for truthtellers including the critical possessors of the
truth whom you mentioned. This aversion to the truth is the biggest clue that Mueller's
activities are a complete sham.
MLS wrote, "How do you know what the GOP Congress appointed Special Prosecutor's
investigation – with its unlimited budget, wide mandate, and notable paucity of leaks
– has and has not done?"
Robert Mueller is NOT a Special Prosecutor appointed by the Congress. He is a special
counsel appointed by the Deputy Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein, and is part of the
Department of Justice.
I know no one who dislikes Trumps wants to hear it. But all Mueller's authority and power
to act is derived from Donald J. Trump's executive authority because he won the 2016
presidential election. Mueller is down the chain of command in the Executive Department.
That's why this is all nonsense. What we basically have is Trump investigating himself.
The framers of the Constitution never intended this. They intended Congress to investigate
the Executive and that's why they gave Congress the power to remove him or her via
impeachment.
As long as we continue with this folly of expecting the Justice Department to somehow
investigate and prosecute a president we end up with two terrible possibilities. Either a
corrupt president will exercise his legitimate authority to end the investigation like Nixon
did -or- we have a Deep State beyond the reach of the elected president that can effectively
investigate and prosecute a corrupt president, but also then has other powers with no
democratic control.
The solution to this dilemma? An empowered Congress elected by the People operating as the
Constitution intended.
As to the rest of your post? It is an example of the "will to believe." Me? I'll not act
as if there is evidence of Russian interference until I'm shown evidence, not act as if it
must be true, because I want to believe that, until it's fully proven that it didn't
happen.
F. G. Sanford , June 7, 2018 at 8:22 pm
There must be some Trump-Russia ties.
Or so claim those CIA spies-
McCabe wants a deal, or else he won't squeal,
He'll dissemble when he testifies!
No one knows what's on Huma's computer.
There's no jury and no prosecutor.
Poor Adam Schiff hopes McCabe takes the fifth,
Special council might someday recruit her!
Assange is still embassy bound.
Mueller's case hasn't quite come unwound.
Wayne Madsen implies that there might be some ties,
To Israelis they haven't yet found!
Halper and Mifsud are players.
John Brennan used cutouts in layers.
If the scheme falls apart and the bureau is smart,
They'll go after them all as betrayers!
They needed historical fiction.
A dossier with salacious depiction!
Some urinous whores could get down on all fours,
They'd accomplish some bed sheet emiction!
Pablo Miller and Skripal were cited.
Sidney Blumenthal might have been slighted.
Christopher Steele offered Sidney a deal,
But the dossier's not copyrighted!
That story about Novichok,
Smells a lot like a very large crock.
But they can't be deposed or the story disclosed,
The Skripals have toxic brain block!
Papadopolis shot off his yap.
He told Downer, that affable chap-
There was dirt to report on the Clinton cohort,
Mifsud hooked him with that honey trap!
She was blond and a bombshell to boot.
Papadopolis thought she was cute.
She worked for Mifsud, a mysterious dude,
Now poor Paps is in grave disrepute!
But the trick was to tie it to Russians.
The Clinton team had some discussions.
Their big email scandal was easy to handle,
They'd blame Vlad for the bad repercussions!
There must have been Russian collusion.
That explained all the vote count confusion.
Guccifer Two made the Trump team come through,
If he won, it was just an illusion!
Lisa Page and Pete Strzok were disgusted
They schemed and they plotted and lusted.
If bald-headed Clapper appealed to Jake Tapper,
Brennan's Tweets might get Donald Trump busted!
There had to be cyber subversion.
It would serve as the perfect perversion.
They would claim it was missed if it didn't exist,
It's a logically perfect diversion!
F.G., you've done it again, and I might add, topped even yourself! Thanks.
KiwiAntz , June 7, 2018 at 7:30 pm
What a joke, America, the most dishonest Country on Earth, has meddled, murdered &
committed coups to overturn other Govts & interfered & continues to do so in just
about every Country on Earth by using Trade sanctions, arming Terrorists & illegal
invasions, has the barefaced cheek to puff out its chest & hypocritcally blame Russia for
something that it does on a daily basis?? And the point with Mueller's investigation is not
to find any Russian collusion evidence, who needs evidence when you can just make it up? The
point is provide the US with a list of unfounded lies & excuses, FIRSTLY to slander &
demonise RUSSIA for something they clearly didn't do! SECONDLY, was to provide a excuse for
the Democrats dismal election loss result to the DONALD & his Trump Party which just
happens to contain some Republicans? THIRDLY, to conduct a soft Coup by trying to get Trump
impeached on "TRUMPED UP CHARGES OF RUSSIAN COLLUSION"? And FOURTLY to divert attention away
from scrutiny & cover up Obama & Hillary Clinton's illegal, money grubbing activities
& her treasonous behaviour with her private email server?? After two years of Russiagate
nonsense with NOTHING to show for it, I think it's about time America owes Russia a public
apology & compensation for its blatant lying & slander of a innocent Country for a
crime they never committed?
Sam F , June 7, 2018 at 7:11 pm
Thanks, Ray, for revealing that the CIA's Digital Innovation Directorate is the likely
cause of the Russiagate scams.
I am sure that they manipulate the digital voting machines directly and indirectly. True
elections are now impossible.
Your disclaimer is hilarious: "We speak and write without fear or favor. Consequently, any
resemblance between what we say and what presidents, politicians and pundits say is purely
coincidental."
Antiwar7 , June 7, 2018 at 6:23 pm
Expecting the evil people running the show to respond to reason is futile, of course. All
of these reports are really addressed to the peanut gallery, where true power lies, if only
they could realize it.
Thanks, Ray and VIPS, for keeping up the good fight.
mike k , June 7, 2018 at 5:55 pm
For whatever reason, Ray McGovern chose not to mention the murder of Seth Rich, which
pretty clearly points to the real source of the leak being him, as hinted by Assange offering
a reward for anyone uncovering his killer. The whole thing stinks of a democratic
conspiracy.
And BTW people have become shy about using the word conspiracy, for fear it will
automatically brand one as a hoaxer. On the contrary, conspiracies are extremely common, the
higher one climbs in the power hierarchy. Like monopolies, conspiracies are central to the
way the oligarchs do business.
John , June 8, 2018 at 5:42 am
Ray, from what I have seen in following his writing for years, meticulously only deals in
knowns. The Seth Rich issue is not a known, it is speculation still. Yes, it probably is
involved, but unless Craig Murray states that Seth Rich was the one who handed him the USB
drive, it is not a known.
There is a possibility that Seth Rich was not the one who leaked the information, but that
the DNC bigwigs THOUGHT he was, in which case, by neither confirming nor denying that Seth
Rich was the leaker, it may be that letting the DNC continue to think it was him is being
done in protection of the actual leaker. Seth Rich could also have been killed for unrelated
reasons, perhaps Imran Awan thought he was on to his doings.
" whether or not"?!! Wow. That's an imperialistic statement.
Drew Hunkins , June 7, 2018 at 5:50 pm
Mueller has nothing and he well knows it. He was willingly roped into this whole pathetic
charade and he's left grasping for anything remotely tied to Trump campaign officials and
Russians. Even the most tenuous connections and weak relationships are splashed across the
mass media in breathless headlines. Meanwhile, NONE of the supposed skulduggery unearthed by
Mueller has anything to do with the Kremlin "hacking" the election to favor Trump. Which was
the entire raison d'etre behind Rosenstein and Mueller's crusade on behalf of the deplorable
DNC and Washington militarist-imperialists. Sure be interesting to see how Mueller and his
crew ultimately extricate themselves from this giant fraudulent edifice of deceit. Will they
even be able to save the most rudimentary amount of face?
So sickening to see the manner in which many DNC sycophants obsequiously genuflect to
their godlike Mueller. A damn prosecutor who was arguably in bed with the Winter Hill
Gang!
jose , June 7, 2018 at 5:13 pm
If they had had any evidence to inculpate Russia, we would have all seen it by now. They
know that by stating that there is an investigation going on: they can blame Russia. The
Democratic National Committee is integrated by a pack of liars.
Jeff , June 7, 2018 at 4:35 pm
Thanx, Ray. The sad news is that everybody now believes that Russia tried to "meddle" in
our election and, since it's a belief, neither facts nor reality will dislodge it. Your
disclaimer should also probably carry the warning – never believe a word a government
official says especially if they are in the CIA, NSA, or FBI unless they provide proof. If
they tell you that it's classified, that they can't divulge it, or anything of that sort, you
know they are lying.
john wilson , June 7, 2018 at 4:09 pm
I suspect the real reason no evidence has been produced is because there isn't any. I know
this is stating the obvious, but if you think about it, as long as the non extent evidence is
supposedly being "investigated" the story remains alive. They know they aren't going to find
anything even remotely plausible that would stand up to any kind of scrutiny, but as long as
they are looking, it has the appearance that there might be something.
Joe Tedesky , June 7, 2018 at 4:08 pm
I first want to thank Ray and the VIPS for their continuing to follow through on this
Russia-Gate story. And it is a story.
My question is simple, when will we concentrate on reading Hillary's many emails? After
all wasn't this the reason for the Russian interference mania? Until we do, take apart
Hillary's correspondence with her lackeys, nothing will transpire of any worth. I should not
be the one saying this, in as much as Bernie Sanders should be the one screaming it for
justice from the highest roof tops, but he isn't. So what's up with that? Who all is involved
in this scandalous coverup? What do the masters of corruption have on everybody?
Now we have Sean Hannity making a strong case against the Clinton's and the FBI's careful
handling of their crimes. What seems out of place, since this should be big news, is that CNN
nor MSNBC seems to be covering this story in the same way Hannity is. I mean isn't this news,
meant to be reported as news? Why avoid reporting on Hillary in such a manner? This must be
that 'fake news' they all talk about boy am I smart.
In the end I have decided to be merely an observer, because there are no good guys or gals
in our nation's capital worth believing. In the end even Hannity's version of what took place
leads back to a guilty Russia. So, the way I see it, the swamp is being drained only to make
more room for more, and new swamp creatures to emerge. Talk about spinning our wheels. When
will good people arrive to finally once and for all drain this freaking swamp, once and for
all?
Realist , June 7, 2018 at 5:25 pm
Ha, ha! Don't you enjoy the magic show being put on by the insiders desperately trying to
hang onto their power even after being voted out of office? Their attempt to distract your
attention from reality whilst feeding you their false illusions is worthy of Penn &
Teller, or David Copperfield (the magician). Who ya gonna believe? Them or your lying
eyes?
Joe Tedesky , June 7, 2018 at 10:00 pm
Realist, You can bet they will investigate everything but what needs investigated, as our
Politico class devolves into survivalist in fighting, the mechanism of war goes
uninterrupted. Joe
F. G. Sanford , June 7, 2018 at 5:34 pm
Joe, speaking of draining the swamp, check out my comment under Ray's June 1 article about
Freddy Fleitz!
Sam F , June 7, 2018 at 6:59 pm
That is just what I was reminded of; here is an antiseptic but less emphatic last
line:
"Swamp draining progresses apace.
It's being accomplished with grace:
They're taking great pains to clean out the drains,"
New swamp creatures will need all that space!
Unfettered Fire , June 8, 2018 at 11:00 am
We must realize that to them, "the Swamp" refers to those in office who still abide by New
Deal policy. Despite the thoroughly discredited neoliberal economic policy, the radical right
are driving the world in the libertarian direction of privatization, austerity, private bank
control of money creation, dismantling the nation-state, contempt for the Constitution,
etc.
"... the Obama administration intelligence agencies worked with Clinton to block " Siberian candidate " Trump. ..."
"... The template was provided by ex-MI6 Director Richard Dearlove , Halper's friend and business partner. Sitting in winged chairs in London's venerable Garrick Club, according to The Washington Post , Dearlove told fellow MI6 veteran Christopher Steele, author of the famous "golden showers" opposition research dossier, that Trump "reminded him of a predicament he had faced years earlier, when he was chief of station for British intelligence in Washington and alerted US authorities to British information that a vice presidential hopeful had once been in communication with the Kremlin." ..."
"... Apparently, one word from the Brits was enough to make the candidate in question step down. When that didn't work with Trump, Dearlove and his colleagues ratcheted up the pressure to make him see the light. A major scandal was thus born – or, rather, a very questionable scandal. Besides Dearlove, Steele, and Halper, a bon-vivant known as "The Walrus" for his impressive girth , other participants include: Robert Hannigan, former director Government Communications Headquarters, GCHQ, UK equivalent of the NSA. Alexander Downer, top Australian diplomat. Andrew Wood, ex-British ambassador to Moscow. Joseph Mifsud, Maltese academic. James Clapper, ex-US Director of National Intelligence. John Brennan, former CIA Director (and now NBC News analyst). ..."
"... Dearlove and Halper are now partners in a private venture calling itself "The Cambridge Security Initiative." Both are connected to another London-based intelligence firm known as Hakluyt & Co. Halper is also connected via two books he wrote with Hakluyt representative Jonathan Clarke and Dearlove has a close personal friendship with Hakluyt founder Mike Reynolds, yet another MI6 vet. Alexander Downer served a half-dozen years on Hakluyt's international advisory board, while Andrew Wood is linked to Steele via Orbis Business Intelligence, the private research firm that Steele helped found, and which produced the anti-Trump dossier, and where Wood now serves as an unpaid advisor . ..."
"... Everyone, in short, seems to know everyone else. But another thing that stands out about this group is its incompetence. Dearlove and Halper appear to be old-school paranoids for whom every Russian is a Boris Badenov or a Natasha Fatale . In February 2014, Halper notified US intelligence that Mike Flynn, Trump's future national security adviser, had grown overly chummy with an Anglo-Russian scholar named Svetlana Lokhova whom Halper suspected of being a spy – suspicions that Lokhova convincingly argues are absurd. ..."
"... As head of Britain's foreign Secret Intelligence Service, as MI6 is formally known, Dearlove played a major role in drumming up support for the 2003 Anglo-American invasion of Iraq even while confessing at a secret Downing Street meeting that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the [regime-change] policy." When the search for weapons of mass destruction turned up dry, Clapper, as then head of the National Imagery and Mapping Agency, argued that the Iraqi military must have smuggled them into neighboring Syria, a charge with absolutely no basis in fact but which helped pave the way for US regime-change efforts in that country too. ..."
"... Brennan was meanwhile a high-level CIA official when the agency was fabricating evidence against Saddam Hussein and covering up Saudi Arabia's role in 9/11. Wood not only continues to defend the Iraqi invasion, but dismisses fears of a rising fascist tide in the Ukraine as nothing more than "a crude political insult" hurled by Vladimir Putin for his own political benefit. Such views now seem distressingly misguided in view of the alt-right torchlight parades and spiraling anti-Semitism that are now a regular feature of life in the Ukraine. ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... describes Mifsud as "an enthusiastic promoter of President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia" and "a regular at meetings of the Valdai Discussion Club, an annual conference held in Sochi, Russia, that Mr. Putin attends," which tried to suggest that he is a Kremlin agent of some sort. ..."
"... But WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange later tweeted photos of Mifsud with British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson and a high-ranking British intelligence official named Claire Smith at a training session for Italian security agents in Rome. Since it's unlikely that British intelligence would rely on a Russian agent in such circumstances, Mifsud's intelligence ties are more likely with the UK. ..."
"... Stefan Halper then infiltrated the Trump campaign on behalf of the FBI as an informant in early July, weeks before the FBI launched its investigation. Halper had 36 years earlier infiltrated the Carter re-election campaign in 1980 using CIA agents to turn information over to the Reagan campaign. Now Halper began to court both Page and Papadopoulous, independently of each other. ..."
"... The rightwing Federalist website speculates that Halper was working with Steele to flesh out a Sept. 14 memo claiming that "Russians do have further 'kompromat' on CLINTON (e-mails) and [are] considering disseminating it." Clovis believes that Halper was trying "to create an audit trail back to those [Clinton] emails from someone in the campaign so they could develop a stronger case for probable cause to continue to issue warrants and to further an investigation." Reports that Halper apparently sought a permanent post in the new administration suggest that the effort was meant to continue after inauguration. ..."
"... Notwithstanding Clovis's nutty rightwing politics , his description of what Halper may have been up to makes sense as does his observation that Halper was trying " to build something that did not exist ." Despite countless hyper-ventilating headlines about mysterious Trump Tower meetings and the like, the sad truth is that Russiagate after all these months is shaping up as even more of a "nothing-burger" than Obama administration veteran Van Jones said it was back in mid-2017. Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller has indicted Papadopoulos and others on procedural grounds, he has indicted former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort for corruption, and he has charged a St. Petersburg company known as the Internet Research Agency with violating US election laws. ..."
"... As The Washington Post noted in an oddly, cool-headed Dec. 2 article , 2, 700 suspected Russian-linked accounts generated just 202,000 tweets in a six-year period ending in August 2017, a drop in a bucket compared to the one billion election-related tweets sent out during the fourteen months leading up to Election Day. ..."
"... Opposition research is intended to mix truths and fiction, to dig up plausible dirt to throw at your opponent, not to produce an intelligence assessment at taxpayer's expense to "protect" the country. And Steele was paid for it by the Democrats, not his government. ..."
"... Although Kramer denies it, The New Yorker ..."
"... But how could Trump think otherwise? As Consortium News founding editor Robert Parry observed a few days later, the maneuver "resembles a tactic out of FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover's playbook on government-style blackmail: I have some very derogatory information about you that I'd sure hate to see end up in the press." ..."
"... It sounds more like CIA paranoia raised to the nth degree. But that's what the intelligence agencies are for, i.e. to spread fear and propaganda in order to stampede the public into supporting their imperial agenda. In this case, their efforts are so effective that they've gotten lost in a fog of their own making. If the corporate press fails to point this out, it's because reporters are too befogged themselves to notice. ..."
"... "Russiagate" continues to attract mounting blowback at Clinton, Obama and the Dems. Might well be they who end up charged with lawbreaking, though I'd be surprised if anyone in authority is ever really punished. https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-06-02/fbi-spying-trump-started-london-earlier-thought-new-texts-implicate-obama-white ..."
"... I've always thought that the great animus between Obama and Trump stemmed from Trump's persistent birtherist attacks on Obama followed by Obama's public ridicule of Trump at the White House Correspondants' Dinner. Without the latter, Trump probably would not have been motivated to run for the presidency. Without the former, Obama would probably not have gotten into the gutter to defeat and embarrass Trump at all costs. Clinton and Obama probably never recruit British spooks to sabotage and provide a pretense for spying on the campaigns of Jeb, Ted or Little Marco. Since these were all warmongers like Hillary and Obama, the issues would have been different, Russia would not have been a factor, and Putin would have had no alleged "puppet." ..."
"... The irony is that Clinton and Obama wanted Trump as her opponent. They cultivated his candidacy via liberal media bias throughout the primaries. (MSNBC and Rachel Maddow were always cutting away to another full length Trump victory speech and rally, including lots of jibber jabber with the faithful supporters.) Why? Because they thought he was the easiest to beat. The polls actually had Hillary losing against the other GOP candidates. The Dems beat themselves with their own choice of candidate and all the intrigue, false narratives and other questionable practices they employed in both the primaries and the general. That's what really happened. ..."
"... I agree that Hillary wanted Trump as an opponent, thought she could easily win. I've underestimated idiot opponents before, always to my detriment. Why is it that they are always the most formidable? The "insiders" are so used to voters rolling over, taking it on the chin. They gave away their jobs, replaced them with the service industry, killed their sons and daughters in wars abroad, and still the American people cast their ballots in their favor. This time was different. The insiders just did not see the sea change, not like Trump did. ..."
"... Long-time CIA asset named as FBI's spy on Trump campaign By Bill Van Auken https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/05/21/poli-m21.html ..."
"... What the MSM really needed was a bait which they could use to lure more dollars just like a horse race where the track owners needed a fast underdog horse to clean up. I believe the term is to be "hustled". The con men of the media hustlers decided they needed a way to cause all of the candidates to squirm uneasily and to then react to the news that Donald Trump was "in the lead". ..."
"... Those clever media folks. What a gift the Supreme Court handed them. But there was one little (or big) problem. The problem was the result of the scam put Trump in the White House. Something that no conservative republican would ever sign onto. Trump had spent years as a democrat, hobnobbed with the Clinton's and was an avowed agnostic who favored the liberal ideology for the most part. ..."
"... The new guy in the White House with his crazy ideas of making friends with Vladimir Putin horrified a national arms industry funded with hundreds of billions of our tax dollars every year propped up by all the neocons with their paranoid beliefs and plans to make America the hegemon of the World. Our foreign allies who use the USA to fight their perceived enemies and entice our government to sell them weapons and who urge us to orchestrate the overthrow of governments were all alarmed by the "not a real republican" peace-nick occupying the White House. ..."
"... It is probable that the casino and hotel owner in the White House posed an very threatening alternate strategy of forming economic ties with former enemies which scared the hell out of the arms industry which built its economy on scaring all of us and justifying its existence based on foreign enemies. ..."
"... So the MSM and the MIC created a new cold war with their friends at the New York Times and the Washington Post which published endless stories about the new Russian threat we faced. It had nothing to do with the 0.02% Twitter and Facebook "influence" that Russia actually had in the election. It was billed as the crime of the century. The real crime was that they committed the crime of the century that they mightily profited from by putting Trump in the White House in the first place with a plan to grab all the election cash they could grab. ..."
As the role of a well-connected group of British and U.S. intelligence agents begins to
emerge, new suspicions are growing about what hand they may have had in weaving the Russia-gate
story, as Daniel Lazare explains.
Special to Consortium News
With the news that a Cambridge academic-cum-spy
named Stefan Halper infiltrated the Trump campaign, the role of the intelligence agencies in
shaping the great Russiagate saga is at last coming into focus.
It's looking more and more massive. The intelligence agencies initiated reports that Donald
Trump was colluding with Russia, they nurtured them and helped them grow, and then they spread
the word to the press and key government officials. Reportedly, they even tried to use these
reports to force Trump to step down prior to his inauguration. Although the corporate press
accuses Trump of conspiring with Russia to stop Hillary Clinton, the reverse now seems to be
the case: the Obama administration intelligence agencies worked with Clinton to block "
Siberian
candidate " Trump.
The template was provided by ex-MI6 Director Richard Dearlove , Halper's friend and business
partner. Sitting in winged chairs in London's venerable Garrick Club, according to The
Washington Post , Dearlove
told fellow MI6 veteran Christopher Steele, author of the famous "golden showers"
opposition research dossier, that Trump "reminded him of a predicament he had faced years
earlier, when he was chief of station for British intelligence in Washington and alerted US
authorities to British information that a vice presidential hopeful had once been in
communication with the Kremlin."
Apparently, one word from the Brits was enough to make the candidate in question step down.
When that didn't work with Trump, Dearlove and his colleagues ratcheted up the pressure to make
him see the light. A major scandal was thus born – or, rather, a very questionable
scandal. Besides Dearlove, Steele, and Halper, a bon-vivant known as "The Walrus" for
his impressive girth , other participants include: Robert Hannigan, former director
Government Communications Headquarters, GCHQ, UK equivalent of the NSA. Alexander Downer, top
Australian diplomat. Andrew Wood, ex-British ambassador to Moscow. Joseph Mifsud, Maltese
academic. James Clapper, ex-US Director of National Intelligence. John Brennan, former CIA
Director (and now NBC News analyst).
In-Bred
A few things stand out about this august group. One is its in-bred quality. After helping to
run an annual confab known as the Cambridge Intelligence Seminar, Dearlove and Halper are now
partners in a private venture calling itself "The Cambridge Security Initiative." Both are
connected to another London-based intelligence firm known as Hakluyt & Co. Halper is also
connected via two books he wrote with Hakluyt representative Jonathan Clarke
and Dearlove has a close personal friendship with Hakluyt founder Mike Reynolds, yet another
MI6 vet. Alexander Downer
served a half-dozen years on Hakluyt's international advisory board, while Andrew Wood is
linked to Steele via Orbis Business Intelligence, the private research firm that Steele helped
found, and which produced the anti-Trump dossier, and where Wood now serves as an
unpaid
advisor .
Everyone, in short, seems to know everyone else. But another thing that stands out about
this group is its incompetence. Dearlove and Halper appear to be old-school paranoids for whom
every Russian is a Boris
Badenov or a Natasha Fatale . In February 2014, Halper notified US intelligence that Mike
Flynn, Trump's future national security adviser, had grown overly chummy with an Anglo-Russian
scholar named Svetlana Lokhova whom Halper suspected of being a spy – suspicions that
Lokhova convincingly
argues are absurd.
Halper: Infiltrated Trump campaign
In December 2016, Halper and Dearlove both resigned from the Cambridge Intelligence Seminar
because they suspected that a company footing some of the costs was tied up with Russian
intelligence – suspicions that Christopher Andrew, former chairman of the Cambridge
history department and the seminar's founder, regards as " absurd " as well.
As head of Britain's foreign Secret Intelligence Service, as MI6 is formally known,
Dearlove played a major role in drumming up support for the 2003 Anglo-American invasion of
Iraq even while confessing at a secret Downing Street meeting that "the intelligence and facts
were being fixed around the [regime-change] policy." When the search for weapons of mass
destruction turned up dry, Clapper, as then head of the National Imagery and Mapping Agency,
argued that the Iraqi
military must have smuggled them into neighboring Syria, a charge with absolutely no basis in
fact but which helped pave the way for US regime-change efforts in that country too.
Brennan was meanwhile a high-level CIA official when the agency was fabricating evidence
against Saddam Hussein and covering up Saudi Arabia's role in 9/11. Wood not only continues to defend
the Iraqi invasion, but dismisses
fears of a rising fascist tide in the Ukraine as nothing more than "a crude political insult"
hurled by Vladimir Putin for his own political benefit. Such views now seem distressingly
misguided in view of the alt-right torchlight parades and
spiraling anti-Semitism that are now a regular feature of life in the Ukraine.
The result is a diplo-espionage gang that is very bad at the facts but very good at public
manipulation – and which therefore decided to use its skill set out to create a public
furor over alleged Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.
It Started Late 2015
The effort began in late 2015 when GCHQ, along with intelligence agencies in Poland,
Estonia, and Germany, began monitoring
what they said were " suspicious 'interactions' between figures connected to Trump and
known or suspected Russian agents."
Since Trump was surging ahead in the polls and scaring the pants off the foreign-policy
establishment by calling for a rapprochement with Moscow, the agencies figured that Russia was
somehow behind it. The pace accelerated in March 2016 when a 30-year-old policy consultant
named George Papadopoulos joined the Trump campaign as a foreign-policy adviser. Traveling in
Italy a week later, he ran into Mifsud, the London-based Maltese academic, who reportedly set
about cultivating him after learning of his position with Trump. Mifsud claimed
to have "substantial connections with Russian government officials," according to prosecutors.
Over breakfast at a London hotel, he told Papadopoulos that he had just returned from Moscow
where he had learned that the Russians had "dirt" on Hillary Clinton in the form of "thousands
of emails."
This was the remark that supposedly triggered an FBI investigation. The New York
Timesdescribes
Mifsud as "an enthusiastic promoter of President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia" and "a regular at
meetings of the Valdai Discussion Club, an annual conference held in Sochi, Russia, that Mr.
Putin attends," which tried to suggest that he is a Kremlin agent of some sort.
But WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange later
tweeted photos of Mifsud with British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson and a high-ranking
British intelligence official named Claire Smith at a training session for Italian security
agents in Rome. Since it's unlikely that British intelligence would rely on a Russian agent in
such circumstances, Mifsud's intelligence ties are more likely with the UK.
After Papadopoulos caused a minor political ruckus by
telling a reporter that Prime Minister David Cameron should apologize for criticizing
Trump's anti-Muslim pronouncements, a friend in the Israeli embassy put him in touch with a
friend in the Australian embassy, who introduced him to Downer, her boss. Over drinks, Downer
advised him to be more diplomatic. After Papadopoulos then passed along Misfud's tip about
Clinton's emails, Downer informed his government, which, in late July, informed the FBI.
Was Papadopoulos Set Up?
Suspicions are unavoidable but evidence is lacking. Other pieces were meanwhile clicking
into place. In late May or early June 2016, Fusion GPS, a private Washington intelligence firm
employed by the Democratic National Committee, hired Steele to look into the Russian angle.
On June 20, he turned in the first of eighteen memos that would eventually comprise
the
Steele dossier , in this instance a three-page document asserting that Putin "has been
cultivating, supporting and assisting TRUMP for at least 5 years" and that Russian intelligence
possessed "kompromat" in the form of a video of prostitutes performing a "golden showers" show
for his benefit at the Moscow Ritz-Carlton. A week or two later, Steele
briefed the FBI on his findings. Around the same time, Robert Hannigan flew to Washington
to brief CIA Director John Brennan about additional material that had come GCHQ's way, material
so sensitive that it could only be handled at "director level."
One player was filling Papadopoulos's head with tales of Russian dirty tricks, another was
telling the FBI, while a third was collecting more information and passing it on to the bureau
as well.
Page: Took Russia's side.
On July 7, 2016 Carter Page delivered a lecture on
U.S.-Russian relations in Moscow in which he complained that " Washington and other western
capitals have impeded potential progress through their often hypocritical focus on ideas such
as democratization, inequality, corruption, and regime change." Washington hawks expressed "
unease " that someone representing the presumptive Republican nominee would take Russia's
side in a growing neo-Cold War.
Stefan Halper then
infiltrated the Trump campaign on behalf of the FBI as an informant in early July, weeks
before the FBI launched its investigation. Halper had 36 years earlier infiltrated the Carter
re-election campaign in 1980 using CIA agents to turn information over to the Reagan campaign.
Now Halper began to court both Page and Papadopoulous, independently of each other.
On July 11, Page showed up at a Cambridge symposium at which Halper and Dearlove both spoke.
In early September, Halper sent Papadopoulos an email offering $3,000 and a paid trip to London
to write a research paper on a disputed gas field in the eastern Mediterranean, his specialty.
"George, you know about hacking the emails from Russia, right?" Halper asked when he got there,
but Papadopoulos said he knew nothing. Halper also sought out Sam Clovis, Trump's national
campaign co-chairman, with whom he chatted about China for an hour or so over coffee in
Washington.
The rightwing Federalist website
speculates that Halper was working with Steele to flesh out a Sept. 14 memo claiming that
"Russians do have further 'kompromat' on CLINTON (e-mails) and [are] considering disseminating
it." Clovis believes
that Halper was trying "to create an audit trail back to those [Clinton] emails from someone in
the campaign so they could develop a stronger case for probable cause to continue to issue
warrants and to further an investigation." Reports that Halper apparently sought
a permanent post in the new administration suggest that the effort was meant to continue
after inauguration.
Notwithstanding Clovis's nutty
rightwing politics , his description of what Halper may have been up to makes sense as does
his observation that Halper was trying " to build something that did not exist ." Despite
countless hyper-ventilating headlines about mysterious Trump Tower meetings and the like, the
sad truth is that Russiagate after all these months is shaping up as even more of a
"nothing-burger" than Obama administration veteran Van Jones said
it was back in mid-2017. Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller has indicted Papadopoulos and others
on procedural grounds, he has indicted former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort for
corruption, and he has charged a St. Petersburg company known as the Internet Research Agency
with violating US election laws.
But the corruption charges have nothing to do with Russian collusion and nothing in the
indictment against IRA indicates that either the Kremlin or the Trump campaign were involved.
Indeed, the activities that got IRA in trouble in the first place are so unimpressive –
just $46,000 worth of Facebook
ads that it purchased prior to election day, some pro-Trump, some anti, and some with
no particular slant
at all – that Mueller probably wouldn't even have bothered if he hadn't been under
intense pressure to come up with anything at all.
The same goes for the army of bots that Russia supposedly deployed on Twitter. As The
Washington Post noted in an oddly, cool-headed Dec. 2
article , 2, 700 suspected Russian-linked accounts generated just 202,000 tweets in a
six-year period ending in August 2017, a drop in a bucket compared to the one
billion election-related tweets sent out during the fourteen months leading up to Election
Day.
The Steele dossier is also underwhelming. It declares on one page that the Kremlin sought to
cultivate Trump by throwing "various lucrative real estate development business deals" his way
but says on another that Trump's efforts to drum up business were unavailing and that he thus
"had to settle for the use of extensive sexual services there from local prostitutes rather
than business success."
Why would Trump turn down business offers when he couldn't generate any on his own? The idea
that Putin would spot a U.S. reality-TV star somewhere around 2011 and conclude that he was
destined for the Oval Office five years later is ludicrous. The fact that the Democratic
National Committee funded the dossier via its law firm Perkins Coie renders it less credible
still, as does the fact that the world has heard nothing more about the alleged video despite
the ongoing deterioration in US-Russian relations. What's the point of making a blackmail tape
if you don't use it?
Steele: Paid for political research, not intelligence.
Even Steele is backing off. In a legal paper filed in response to a libel suit last May, he
said the document "did not represent (and did not purport to represent) verified facts, but
were raw intelligence which had identified a range of allegations that warranted investigation
given their potential national security implications." The fact is that the "dossier" was
opposition research, not an intelligence report. It was neither vetted by Steele nor anyone in
an intelligence agency. Opposition research is intended to mix truths and fiction, to dig
up plausible dirt to throw at your opponent, not to produce an intelligence assessment at
taxpayer's expense to "protect" the country. And Steele was paid for it by the Democrats, not
his government.
Using it Anyway
Nonetheless, the spooks have made the most of such pseudo-evidence. Dearlove and Wood both
advised Steele to take his "findings" to the FBI, while, after the election, Wood pulled
Sen. John McCain aside at a security conference in Halifax, Nova Scotia, to let him know that
the Russians might be blackmailing the president-elect. McCain dispatched long-time aide David
J. Kramer to the UK to discuss the dossier with Steele directly.
Although Kramer denies it, The New Yorker found a former national-security
official who
says he spoke with him at the time and that Kramer's goal was to have McCain confront Trump
with the dossier in the hope that he would resign on the spot. When that didn't happen, Clapper
and Brennan arranged for FBI Director James Comey to confront Trump instead. Comey later
testified that he didn't want Trump to think he was creating "a J. Edgar Hoover-type
situation – I didn't want him thinking I was briefing him on this to sort of hang it over
him in some way."
But how could Trump think otherwise? As Consortium News founding editor Robert Parry
observed a few
days later, the maneuver "resembles a tactic out of FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover's playbook on
government-style blackmail: I have some very derogatory information about you that I'd sure
hate to see end up in the press."
Since then, the Democrats have touted the dossier at every opportunity, TheNew
Yorker
continues to defend it , while Times columnist Michelle Goldberg cites it as well,
saying it's a
"rather obvious possibility that Trump is being blackmailed." CNN, for its part, suggested not
long ago that the dossier may actually be Russian
disinformation designed to throw everyone off base, Republicans and Democrats alike.
It sounds more like CIA paranoia raised to the nth degree. But that's what the
intelligence agencies are for, i.e. to spread fear and propaganda in order to stampede the
public into supporting their imperial agenda. In this case, their efforts are so effective that
they've gotten lost in a fog of their own making. If the corporate press fails to point this
out, it's because reporters are too befogged themselves to notice.
Daniel Lazare is the author of The Frozen Republic: How the Constitution Is Paralyzing
Democracy (Harcourt Brace, 1996) and other books about American politics. He has written for a
wide variety of publications from The Nation to Le Monde Diplomatique , and his articles about
the Middle East, terrorism, Eastern Europe, and other topics appear regularly on such websites
as Jacobin and The American Conservative.
Mueller is trying to omit the normal burden of legal liability, "wilful intent" in his
charges against the St Petersburg, social media operation. In a horrifically complex area
such as tax, campaign contributions or lobbying, a foreign entity can be found guilty of
breaking a law that they cannot reasonably have been expected to have knowledge of.
But the omission or inclusion of "wilful intent" is applied on a selective basis depending on
the advantage to the deep state.
From a practical standpoint, omission of "wilful intent" makes it easier for Mueller to get a
guilty verdict (in adsentia assuming this is legally valid in America). Once the "guilt" of
the St Petersburg staff is established, any communication between an American and them
becomes "collusion".
I've always thought that the great animus between Obama and Trump stemmed from Trump's
persistent birtherist attacks on Obama followed by Obama's public ridicule of Trump at the
White House Correspondants' Dinner. Without the latter, Trump probably would not have been
motivated to run for the presidency. Without the former, Obama would probably not have gotten
into the gutter to defeat and embarrass Trump at all costs. Clinton and Obama probably never
recruit British spooks to sabotage and provide a pretense for spying on the campaigns of Jeb,
Ted or Little Marco. Since these were all warmongers like Hillary and Obama, the issues would
have been different, Russia would not have been a factor, and Putin would have had no alleged
"puppet."
The irony is that Clinton and Obama wanted Trump as her opponent. They cultivated his
candidacy via liberal media bias throughout the primaries. (MSNBC and Rachel Maddow were
always cutting away to another full length Trump victory speech and rally, including lots of
jibber jabber with the faithful supporters.) Why? Because they thought he was the easiest to
beat. The polls actually had Hillary losing against the other GOP candidates. The Dems beat
themselves with their own choice of candidate and all the intrigue, false narratives and
other questionable practices they employed in both the primaries and the general. That's what
really happened.
backwardsevolution , June 3, 2018 at 2:50 pm
Realist – good post. I think what you say is true. Trump got too caught up in the
birther crap, and Obama retaliated. But I think that Trump had been thinking about the
presidency long before Obama came along. He sees the country differently than Obama and
Clinton do. Trump would never have built up China to the point where all American technology
has been given away for free, with millions of jobs lost and a huge trade deficit, and he
would have probably left Russia alone, not ransacked it.
I saw Obama as a somewhat reluctant globalist and Hillary as an eager globalist. They are
both insiders. Trump is not. He's interested in what is best for the U.S., whereas the
Clinton's and the Bush's were interested in what their corporate masters wanted. The
multinationals have been selling the U.S. out, Trump is trying to put a stop to this, and it
is going to be a fight to the death. Trump is playing hardball with China (who ARE U.S.
multinationals), and it is working. Beginning July 1, 2018, China has agreed to reduce its
tariffs:
"Import tariffs for apparel, footwear and headgear, kitchen supplies and fitness products
will be more than halved to an average of 7.1 percent from 15.9 percent, with those on
washing machines and refrigerators slashed to just 8 percent, from 20.5 percent.
Tariffs will also be cut on processed foods such as aquaculture and fishing products and
mineral water, from 15.2 percent to 6.9 percent.
Cosmetics, such as skin and hair products, and some medical and health products, will also
benefit from a tariff cut to 2.9 percent from 8.4 percent.
In particular, tariffs on drugs ranging from penicillin, cephalosporin to insulin will be
slashed to zero from 6 percent before.
In the meantime, temporary tariff rates on 210 imported products from most favored nations
will be scrapped as they are no longer favorable compared with new rates."
Trade with China has been all one way. At least Trump is leveling the playing field. He at
least is trying to bring back jobs, something the "insiders" could care less about.
I agree that Hillary wanted Trump as an opponent, thought she could easily win. I've
underestimated idiot opponents before, always to my detriment. Why is it that they are always
the most formidable? The "insiders" are so used to voters rolling over, taking it on the
chin. They gave away their jobs, replaced them with the service industry, killed their sons
and daughters in wars abroad, and still the American people cast their ballots in their
favor. This time was different. The insiders just did not see the sea change, not like Trump
did.
Abe , June 2, 2018 at 2:20 am
"Pentagon documents indicate that the Department of Defense's shadowy intelligence arm,
the Office of Net Assessment, paid Halper $282,000 in 2016 and $129,000 in 2017. According to
reports, Halper sought to secure Papadopoulos's collaboration by offering him $3,000 and an
all-expenses-paid trip to London, ostensibly to produce a research paper on energy issues in
the eastern Mediterranean.
"The choice of Halper for this spying operation has ominous implications. His deep ties to
the US intelligence apparatus date back decades. His father-in-law was Ray Cline, who headed
the CIA's Directorate of Intelligence at the height of the Cold War. Halper served as an aide
to Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and Alexander Haig in the Nixon and Ford administrations.
"In 1980, as the director of policy coordination for Ronald Reagan's presidential
campaign, Halper oversaw an operation in which CIA officials gave the campaign confidential
information on the Carter administration and its foreign policy. This intelligence was in
turn utilized to further back-channel negotiations between Reagan's campaign manager and
subsequent CIA director William Casey and representatives of Iran to delay the release of the
American embassy hostages until after the election, in order to prevent Carter from scoring a
foreign policy victory on the eve of the November vote.
"Halper subsequently held posts as deputy assistant secretary of state for
political-military affairs and senior adviser to the Pentagon and Justice Department. More
recently, Halper has collaborated with Richard Dearlove, the former head of MI6, the British
intelligence service, in directing the Cambridge Security Initiative (CSi), a security think
tank that lists the US and UK governments as its principal clients.
"Before the 2016 election, Halper had expressed his view – shared by predominant
layers within the intelligence agencies – that Clinton's election would prove 'less
disruptive' than Trump's.
"The revelations of the role played by Halper point to an intervention in the 2016
elections by the US intelligence agencies that far eclipsed anything one could even imagine
the Kremlin attempting."
Sorry for not commenting on other posts as of yet. But I think I have a different
perspective. Russia Gate is not about Hillary Clinton or Putin but it is about Donald Trump.
Specifically an effort to get rid of him by the intelligence agencies and the MSM. The fact
is the MSM created Trump and were chiefly responsible for his election. Trump is their
brainchild starlet used to fleece all the republican campaigns like a huckster fleeces an
audience. It all ties to key Supreme Court rulings eliminating campaign finance regulations
which ushered in the age of dark money.
When billionaires can donate unlimited amounts of money anonymously to the candidate of
their choosing what ends up is a field of fourteen wannabes in a primary race each backed by
their own investor(s). The only way these candidates can win is to convince us to vote. The
only way they can do that is to spend on advertising.
What the MSM dreamed of in a purely capitalistic way was a way to drain the wallets of
every single one of the republican Super PACs. The mission was fraught with potential
checkmates. Foe example, there could be an early leader who snatched up the needed delegates
for the nomination early on which would have stopped the flow of advertising cash flowing to
the MSM. Such possibilities worried the MSM and caused great angst since this might just be
the biggest haul they ever took in during a primary season. How would they prevent a
premature end of the money river. Like financial vampire bats, ticks and leeches they needed
a way to keep the money flowing from the veins of the republican Super PACs until they were
sucked dry.
What the MSM really needed was a bait which they could use to lure more dollars just like
a horse race where the track owners needed a fast underdog horse to clean up. I believe the
term is to be "hustled". The con men of the media hustlers decided they needed a way to cause
all of the candidates to squirm uneasily and to then react to the news that Donald Trump was
"in the lead".
It was a pure stroke of genius and it worked so well that Carl Rove is looking for a job
and Donald Trump is sitting in the White House.
Those clever media folks. What a gift the Supreme Court handed them. But there was one
little (or big) problem. The problem was the result of the scam put Trump in the White House.
Something that no conservative republican would ever sign onto. Trump had spent years as a
democrat, hobnobbed with the Clinton's and was an avowed agnostic who favored the liberal
ideology for the most part.
What to do? Trump was now the Commander in Chief and was spouting nonsense that the
establishment recoiled at such as Trumps plans to form economic ties with Russia rather than
continue to wage a cold war spanning 65 years which the MIC used year after year to spook us
all and guarantee their billions annual increase in funding. Trump directly attacked defense
projects and called for de-funding major initiatives like F35 etc.
The new guy in the White House with his crazy ideas of making friends with Vladimir Putin
horrified a national arms industry funded with hundreds of billions of our tax dollars every
year propped up by all the neocons with their paranoid beliefs and plans to make America the
hegemon of the World. Our foreign allies who use the USA to fight their perceived enemies and
entice our government to sell them weapons and who urge us to orchestrate the overthrow of
governments were all alarmed by the "not a real republican" peace-nick occupying the White
House.
What to do? There was clearly a need to eliminate this bad guy since his avowed policies
were in direct opposition to the game plan that had successfully compromised the former
administration. They felt powerless to dissuade the Administration to continue the course and
form strategies to eliminate Iran, Syria, North Korea, Libya, Ukraine and other vulnerable
targets swaying toward China and Russia. They faced a new threat with the Trump
Administration which seemed hell bent to discontinue the wars in these regions robbing them
of many dollars.
It is probable that the casino and hotel owner in the White House posed an very
threatening alternate strategy of forming economic ties with former enemies which scared the
hell out of the arms industry which built its economy on scaring all of us and justifying its
existence based on foreign enemies.
So the MSM and the MIC created a new cold war with their friends at the New York Times and
the Washington Post which published endless stories about the new Russian threat we faced. It
had nothing to do with the 0.02% Twitter and Facebook "influence" that Russia actually had in
the election. It was billed as the crime of the century. The real crime was that they
committed the crime of the century that they mightily profited from by putting Trump in the
White House in the first place with a plan to grab all the election cash they could grab.
In the interim, they also forgot on purpose to tell anyone about the election campaign
finance fraud that they were the chief beneficiaries of. They also of course forgot to tell
anyone what the fight was about for the Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch. Twenty seven
million dollars in dark money was donated by dark money donors enabled by the Supreme Court's
decisions to eliminate campaign finance regulations which enabled these donors to buy out
Congress and elect and confirm a Supreme Court Justice who would uphold the laws which
eliminate all the election rules and campaign finance regulations dating back to the Tillman
Act of 1907 which was an attempt to eliminate corporate contributions in political campaigns
with associated meager fines as penalties. The law was weak then and has now been
eliminated.
In an era of dark money in politics protected by revisionist judges laying at the top of
our federal judicial branch posing as strict constructionists while being funded by the
corporatocracy that viciously fights over control of the highest court by a panicked
republican party that seeks to tie up their domination in our Congress by any means including
the abdication of the Constitutional authority granted to the citizens of the nation we now
face a new internal enemy.
That enemy is not some foreign nation but our own government which conspires to represent
the wealthy and the powerful and which exalts them and which enacts laws to defend their
control of our nation. Here is a quote:
When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they
create for themselves in the course of time, a legal system that authorizes it and a moral
code that glorifies it.
Frederic Bastiat – (1801-1850) in Economic Sophisms
Realist , June 1, 2018 at 4:32 am
Different journalist covering much the same ground:
"Russiagate" is strictly a contrivance of the Deep State, American & British Spookery,
and the corporate media propagandists. It clearly needs to be genuinely investigated (unlike
the mockery being orchestrated by Herr Mueller from the Ministry of Truth), re-christened
"Intellgate" (after the real perpetrators of crime), pursued until all the guilty traitors
(including Mueller) who really tried to steal our democratic election are tried, convicted
and incarcerated (including probably hundreds complicit from the media) and given its own
lengthy chapter in all the history books about "The Election They Tried to Steal and Blame on
Russia: How America Nearly Lost its Constitution." If not done, America will lose its
constitution, or rather the incipient process will become totally irreversible.
Vivian O'Blivion , June 1, 2018 at 6:25 am
Your timing of events is confused.
The deep state didn't try and steal the election because they were overly complacent that
their woman would win. Remember, they didn't try to use the dodgy, Steele dossier before the
election.
What the deep state has done is reactively try to overcome the election outcome by launching
an investigation into Trump. The egregious element of the investigation is giving it the
title "investigation into collusion" when they in all probability knew that collusion was
unlikely to have taken place. To achieve their aim (removing Trump) they included the line
"and matters arising" in the brief to give them an open ended remit which allowed them to
investigate Trump's business dealings of a Russian / Ukrainian nature (which may venture
uncomfortably close to Semion Mogilevich).
If as you state (and I concur) there was no Russian collusion, then barring fabrication of
evidence by Mueller (and there is little evidence of that to date) you have nothing to worry
about on the collusion front. Remember, to date, Mueller has stuck (almost exclusively) to
meat and potatoes charges like tax evasion and money laundering. If however the investigation
leads to credible evidence that Trump broke substantive laws in the past for financial gain,
then it is not reasonable to cry foul.
Seer , June 1, 2018 at 7:02 am
The Deep State assisted the DNC in knocking out Sanders. THAT was ground zero. Everything
since then has been to cover this up and to discredit Trump (using him as the distraction).
Consider that the Deep State never bothered to investigate the DNC servers/data; reason being
is that they'd (Deep State) be implicated.
Skip Scott , June 1, 2018 at 7:29 am
Very true Seer. That is the real genesis of RussiaGate. It was a diversion tactic to keep
people from looking at the DNC's behavior during the primaries. They are the reason Trump is
president, not the evil Ruskies.
Vivian O'Blivion , June 1, 2018 at 8:13 am
We all seem agreed that the Russia collusion is an exercise in distraction. I can't say I
know enough to comment with authority on whether the DNC would require assistance from the
deep state to trash Bernie. From an outsider perspective it looked more like an application
of massively disproportionate spending and standard, back room dirty tricks.
There is a saying; don't attribute to conspiracy that which can be explained by incompetence.
In this case, try replacing incompetence with MONEY.
dikcheney , June 2, 2018 at 5:09 pm
Totally agree with you Skip and the Mueller performance is there to keep up the
intimidation and distraction by regularly finding turds to throw at Trump. Mueller doesnt
need to find anything, he just needs to create vague intimations of 'guilty Trump' and
suspicious associates so that no one will look at the DNC or the Clinton corruption or the
smashing of the Sanders campaign.
Their actual agenda is to smother analysis and clear thinking. Thankfully there is the
forensicator piecing the jigsaw as well as consortium news.
robjira , June 1, 2018 at 11:55 am
Spot on, Seer.
michael , June 1, 2018 at 4:49 pm
Those servers probably had a lot more pay-to-play secrets from the Clinton Foundation and
ring-kissing from foreign big donors than what was released by Wikileaks, which mostly was
just screwing over Bernie, which the judge ruled was Hillary's prerogative. Some email chains
were probably construed as National Security and were discreetly not leaked.
The 30,000 emails Hillary had bit bleached from her private servers are likely in the hands
of Russians and every other major country, all biding their time for leverage. This was the
carrot the British (who undoubtedly have copies as well) dangled over idiot Popodopolous.
Uncle Bob , June 1, 2018 at 10:33 pm
Seth Rich
anon , June 1, 2018 at 7:42 am
Realist is likely referring to events before the election which involved people with
secret agency connections, such as the opposition research (Steele dossier and Skripal
affair).
Realist , June 1, 2018 at 9:32 am
Realist responded but is being "moderated" as per usual.
Realist , June 1, 2018 at 9:31 am
Hillary herself was a prime force in cooking up the smear against Trump for being "Putin's
puppet." This even before the Democratic convention. Then she used it big time during the
debates. It wasn't something merely reactive after she lost. Certainly she and her
collaborators inside the deep state and the intelligence agencies never imagined that she
would lose and have to distract from what she and her people did by projecting the blame onto
Trump. That part was reactive. The rest of the conspiracy was totally proactive on her part
and that of the DNC, even during the primaries.
Don't forget, the intel agencies led by Clapper, Brennan and Comey were all working for
Obama at the time and were totally acquiescent in spying on the Trump campaign and
"unmasking" the identities and actions of his would-be administration, including individuals
like General Flynn. The cooked up Steele dossier was paid for by money from the Clinton
campaign and used as a pretext for the intel agencies to spy on the Trump campaign. There is
no issue on timing. The establishment was fully behind Clinton by hook or crook from the
moment Trump had the delegates to win the GOP nomination. (OBTW, I am not a Trump supporter
or even a Republican, so I KNOW that I "have nothing to worry about on the collusion front."
I'm a registered Dem, though not a Hillary supporter.)
Moreover, if you think that Mueller (and the other intel chiefs) have been on the
impartial up-and-up, why did the FBI never seize and examine the DNC servers? Why simply
accept the interpretation of events given by the private cybersecurity firm (Crowdstrike)
that the Clinton campaign hired to very likely mastermind a cover-up? That is exceptional
(nay, unheard of!) "professional courtesy." Why has Mueller to this day not deposed Julian
Assange or former British Ambassador Craig Murray, both of whom admit to knowing precisely
who provided the leaked (not hacked) Podesta and DNC emails to Wikileaks? Why has Mueller not
pursued the potential role of the late Seth Rich in the leaking of said emails? Why has
Mueller not pursued the robust theory, based on actual evidence, proposed by VIPS, and
supported by computer experts like Bill Binney and John McAfee, that the emails were not, as
the Dems and the intel agencies would have you believe on NO EVIDENCE, hacked (by the
"Russians" or anyone else) but were downloaded to a flash drive directly from the DNC
servers? Why has Mueller not deposed Binney or Ray McGovern who claim to have evidence to
bear on this and have discussed it freely in the media (to the miniscule extent that the
corporate media will give them an audience)? Is Mueller after the truth, or is this a
kangaroo court he is running? Is the media really independent and impartial or are they part
of a cover-up, perpetrating numerous sins of both commission and omission in their highly
flawed reportage?
I don't see clarity in what has been thus far been propounded by Mueller or any of Trump's
other accusers, but I don't think I am the one who is confused here, Vivian. If you want to
meet a thoroughly confused individual on what transpired leading up to this moment in
American political history, just go read Hillary's book. Absolutely everyone under the sun
shares in the blame but her for the fact that she does not presently reside in the White
House.
Vivian O'Blivion , June 1, 2018 at 1:48 pm
You have presented your case with a great deal more detail and clarity than the original
post that prompted my reply. You are also a great deal more knowledgeable than I on the
details. I think we are 98% in agreement and I wouldn't like to say who's correct on the
remaining 2%.
For clarity, I didn't follow the debates and wouldn't do so now if they were repeated. Much
heat very little light.
The "pretext" that the intel agencies claim launched their actions against Trump was not the
Steele dossier, at least that is what the intel agencies say. Either way your assertion that
it was the dossier that set things off is just that, an assertion. I think this is a minor
point.
On the DNC servers and the FBI we are 100% singing from the same hymn book and it all sticks.
Mueller's apparent disinterest in the question of hack or USB drive does rather taint his
investigation and thanks for pointing this out, I hadn't thought of that angle. I still think
Mueller will stick to tax and money laundering and stay well clear of "collusion", so yes he
may be running a kangaroo court investigation but the charges will be real world.
The MSM as a whole are a sick joke which is why we collectively find ourselves at CN, Craig
Murray's blog, etc. I wouldn't like to attribute "collaboration" to any individual in the
media. It was the reference to hundreds of journalists being sent to jail in your original
post that set me off in the first place. When considering the "culpability" of any individual
journalist you can have any position on a spectrum from; fully cognisant collaborator with a
deep state conspiracy, to; a bit dim and running with the "sexy" story 'cause it's the
biggest thing ever, the bosses can't get enough of it and the overtime is great. If American
journalists are anything like their UK counterparts, 99% will fall into the latter
category.
Don't have any issue with your final point. Hillary on stage and on camera was phoney as
rocking horse s**te and everyone outside her extremely highly remunerated team could see
it.
Sorry for any inconvenience, but your second post makes your points a hell of a lot clearer
than the original.
Realist , June 1, 2018 at 4:26 pm
My purpose for the first post in this thread was to direct readers to the article in Unz
by Mike Whitney, not to compress a full-blown amateur expose' by myself into a three-sentence
paragraph. You would have found much more in the way of facts, analysis and opinion in his
article to which my terse comments did not even serve as an abstract.
Quoting his last paragraph may give you the flavor of this piece, which is definitely not
a one-off by him or other actual journalists who have delved into the issues:
"Let's see if I got this right: Brennan gets his buddies in the UK to feed fake
information on Russia to members of the Trump campaign, after which the FBI uses the
suspicious communications about Russia as a pretext to unmask, wiretap, issue FISA warrants,
and infiltrate the campaign, after which the incriminating evidence that was collected in the
process of entrapping Trump campaign assistants is compiled in a legal case that is used to
remove Trump from office. Is that how it's supposed to work?
It certainly looks like it. But don't expect to read about it in the Times."
backwardsevolution , June 1, 2018 at 4:49 pm
Vivian – 90% of all major media is owned by six corporations. There most definitely
was and IS collusion between some of them to bring down the outsider, Trump.
As far as individual journalists go, yeah, they're trying to pay their mortgage, I get it,
and they're going to spin what their boss bloody well tells them to spin. But there is
evidence coming out that "some" journalists did accept money from either Fusion GPS, Perkins
Coie (sp) or Christopher Steele to leak information, which they did.
Bill Clinton passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that enabled these six media
conglomerates to dominate the news. Of course they're political. They need to be split up,
like yesterday, into a thousand pieces (ditto for the banks). They have purposely and with
intent been feeding lies to the American people. Yes, some SHOULD go to jail.
As Peter Strzok of the FBI said re Trump colluding with Russia, "There was never any
there, there." The collusion has come from the intelligence agencies, in cahoots with Hillary
Clinton, perhaps even as high as Obama, to prevent Trump being elected. When that failed,
they set out to get him impeached on whatever they could find. Of course Mueller is going to
stick with tax and money laundering because he already KNOWS there was never any collusion
with Russia.
This is the Swamp versus the People.
backwardsevolution , June 1, 2018 at 1:52 pm
Realist – another excellent post. "Is Mueller after the truth, or is this a kangaroo
court he is running?" As you rightly point out, Mueller IS being very selective in what he
examines and doesn't examine. He's not after the whole truth, just a particular kind of
truth, one that gets him a very specific result – to take down or severely cripple the
President.
Evidence continues to trickle out. Former and active members of the FBI are now even
begging to testify as they are disgusted with what is being purposely omitted from this
so-called "impartial" investigation. This whole affair is "kangaroo" all the way.
I'm not so much a fan of Trump as I am a fan of the truth. I don't like to see him –
anyone – being railroaded. That bothers me more than anything. But he's right about
what he calls "the Swamp". If these people are not uncovered and brought to justice, then the
country is truly lost.
Realist , June 1, 2018 at 4:38 pm
Precisely. Destroy the man on false pretenses and you destroy our entire system, whether
you like him and his questionable policies or not.
Some people would say it's already gone, but we do what we can to get it back or hold onto
to what's left of it. Besides, all the transparent lies and skullduggery in the service of
politics rather than principles are just making our entire system look as corrupt as
hell.
michael , June 1, 2018 at 5:00 pm
When Mueller arrested slimy Manafort for crimes committed in the Ukraine and gave a pass
to the Podesta Brothers who worked closely with Manafort, it was clear that Russiagate was a
partisan operation.
backwardsevolution , June 1, 2018 at 6:17 pm
Michael – good point!
KiwiAntz , June 1, 2018 at 1:00 am
Its becoming abundantly clear now, that the whole Russiagate charade was had nothibg to do
with Russia & is about a elaborate smokescreen & shellgame coverup designed to divert
attention away from, firstly the Democratic Party's woeful defeat & its lousy Candidate
choice in the corrupt Hillary Clinton? & also the DNC's sabotaging of Bernie Saunders
campaign run! But the most henious & treacherous parts was Obama's, weaponising the
intelligence agencies to spy (Halper) on the imaginary Mancharian Candidate Trump & to
set him up as a Russia stooge? Obama & Hillary Clinton are complicent in this disgraceful
& illegal activity to get dirt on Trump withe goal of ensuring Clinton's election win?
This is bigger than Watergate & more scandalous? But despite the cheating & stacking
of the card deck, she still lost out to the Donald? And this isn't just illegal its
treasonous & willful actions deserving of a lengthy jail incarceration? HRC & her
crooked Clinton foundation's funding of the fraudulent & discredited "Steele Dosier" was
also used to implement Trump & Russia in a made up, pile of fictitious gargage that was
pure offal? Obama & HRC along with their FBI & CIA spys need to be rounded up,
convicted & thrown in jail? Perhaps if Trump could just shut his damn mouuth for once
& get off twitter long enough to be able too get some Justice Dept officials looking into
this, without being distracted by this Russiagate shellgame fakery, then perhaps the real
criminal's like Halpert, Obama,HRC & these corrupt spooks & spies can be rounded up
& held to account for this treasonous behaviour?
Sean Ahern , May 31, 2018 at 7:25 pm
Attention should be paid also to the role of so called progressive media outlets such as
Mother Jones which served as an outlets for the disinformation campaign described in Lazare's
article.
Here from David Corn's Mother Jones 2016 article:
"And a former senior intelligence officer for a Western country who specialized in Russian
counterintelligence tells Mother Jones that in recent months he provided the bureau with
memos, based on his recent interactions with Russian sources, contending the Russian
government has for years tried to co-opt and assist Trump -- and that the FBI requested more
information from him."
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/10/veteran-spy-gave-fbi-info-alleging-russian-operation-cultivate-donald-trump/
Not only was Corn and Mother Jones selected by the spooks as an outlet, but these so
called progressives lauded their 'expose' as a great investigative coup on their part and it
paved the way for Corn's elevation on MSNBC for a while as a 'pundit.'
Paul G. , May 31, 2018 at 8:46 pm
In that vein did the spooks influence Rachel Maddow or is her $30,000. a day salary
adequate to totally compromise her microscopic journalistic integrity.
dikcheney , June 3, 2018 at 6:57 am
Passing around references to Mother Jones is like passing round used toilet paper for
another try. MJ is BS it is entirely controlled fake press.
Abby , May 31, 2018 at 6:23 pm
Stefan Halper was being paid by the Clinton's foundation during the time he was spying on
the Trump campaign. This is further evidence that Hillary Clinton's hands are all over
getting Russia Gate started. Then there's the role that Obama's justice department played in
setting up the spying on people who were working with the Trump campaign. This is worse than
Watergate, IMO.
Rumors are that a few ex FBI agents are going to testify to congress in Comey's role in
covering up Hillary's crimes when she used her private email server to send classified
information to people who did not have clearance to read it. Sydney Bluementhol was working
for Hillary's foundation and sending her classified information that he stole from the
NSA.
Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills were concerned about Obama knowing that Hillary wasn't using
her government email account after he told the press that he only found out about it at the
same time they did. He had been sending and receiving emails from her Clintonone email
address during her whole tenure as SOS.
Obama was also aware of her using her foundation for pay to play which she was told by
both congress and Obama to keep far away from her duties. Why did she use her private email
server? So that Chelsea could know where Hillary was doing business so she could send Bill
there to give his speeches to the same organizations, foreign governments and people who had
just donated to their foundation.
Has any previous Secretary of State in history used their position to enrich their spouses
or their foundations? I think not.
The secrets of how the FBI covered for Hillary are coming out. Whether she is charged for
her crimes is a different matter.
F. G. Sanford , May 31, 2018 at 7:48 pm
If Hillary paid a political operative using Clinton Foundation funds – those are tax
exempt charitable contributions – she would be guilty of tax fraud, charity fraud and
campaign finance violations. Hillary may be evil, but she's not stupid. The U.S.Government
paid Halper, which might be "waste, fraud and abuse", but it doesn't implicate Hillary at
all. Not that she's innocent, mind you
Rob , June 1, 2018 at 2:14 am
I need some references to take any of your multitude of claims seriously. With all due
respect, this sound like something taken from info wars and stylized in smartened up a little
bit.
the idea that Stefan Halper was some sort a of mastermind spy behind the so called
"Russiagate" fiasco
seems very implausible considering what he seems to have spent doing for the past 40
years
going back to the Iran hostage crisis of 1979-1980 and his efforts then.
i think he must have had a fairly peripheral role as to whatever or not was going on
behind the scenes from 2016 election campaign, and the campaign to first stop Trump getting
elected, and secondly, when that failed, to bring down his Presidency.
of course, the moment his name was revealed in recent days, would have shocked or
surprised those of in the general
public, but not certainly amongst those in Government aka FBI/CIA/Military-industrial
circles.
backwardsevolution , May 31, 2018 at 4:36 pm
chris m – Halper is probably one of those people who hide behind their professor (or
other legitimate) jobs, but are there at the ready to serve the Deep State. "I understand.
You want me to set up some dupes in order to make it look like there was or could be actual
Russian meddling. Gotcha." All you've got to do is make it "look like" something nefarious
was going on. This facilitates a "reason" to have a phony investigation, and of course they
make it as open-ended an investigation as possible, hoping to get the target on something,
anything.
Well, they've no doubt looked long and hard for almost two years now, but zip. However, in
their zeal to get rid of their opponent, who they did not think would win the election, they
left themselves open, left a trail of crimes. Whoops!
This is the Swamp that Trump talked about during the election. He's probably not squeaky
clean either, but he pales in comparison to what these guys have done. They have tried to
take down a duly-elected President.
F. G. Sanford , May 31, 2018 at 5:09 pm
His role may have been peripheral, but I seem to recall that the Office of Net Assessments
paid him roughly a million bucks to play it. That office, run from the Pentagon, is about as
deep into the world of "black ops" spookdom as you can get. Hardly "peripheral", I'd say.
backwardsevolution , May 31, 2018 at 7:13 pm
F. G. Sanford – yes, a million bucks implies something more than just a peripheral
involvement, more like something essential to the plot, like the actual setting up of the
plot. Risk of exposure costs money.
ranney , May 31, 2018 at 6:17 pm
Chris, I think the Halper inclusion in this complex tale is simply an example of how these
things work in the ultra paranoid style of spy agencies. As Lazare explains, every one knew
every one else – at least at the start of this, and it just kind of built from there,
and Halper may have been the spark – but the spark landed on a highly combustible pile
of paranoia that caught on fire right away. This is how our and the UK agencies function.
There is an interesting companion piece to this story today at Common Dreams by Robert Kohler
titled The American Way of War. It describes basically the same sort of mind set and action
as this story. I'd link it for you if I knew how, but I'm not very adept at the computer.
(Maybe another reader knows how?)
We (that is the American people who are paying the salaries of these brain blocked, stiff
necked idiots) need to start getting vocal and visible about the destructive path our
politicians, banks and generals have rigidly put us on. Does any average working stiff still
believe that all this hate, death and destruction is to "protect" us?
backwardsevolution , May 31, 2018 at 7:07 pm
ranney – when you are on the page that you want to link to, take your cursor (the
little arrow on your screen) to the top of the page to the address bar (for instance, the
address for this article is:
"https://consortiumnews.com/2018/05/31/spooks-spooking ")
Once your cursor is over the address bar, right click on your mouse. A little menu will
come up. Then position your cursor down to the word "copy" and then left click on your mouse.
This will copy the link.
Then proceed back to the blog (like Consortium) where you want to provide the link in your
post. You might say, "Here is the link for the article I just described above." Then at this
point you would right click on your mouse again, position your cursor over the word "paste",
and then left click on your mouse. Voila, your link magically appears.
If you don't have a mouse and are using a laptop pad, then someone else will have to help
you. That's above my pay grade. Good luck, ranney.
irina , May 31, 2018 at 8:13 pm
If you are using a Mac, either laptop w/touch screen or with a mouse, the copy/paste
function
works similarly. Use either the mouse (no need to 'right click, left click') or the touch
screen
to highlight the address bar once you have the cursor flashing away on the left side of
it.
You may need to scroll right to highlight the whole address. Then go up to Edit (there's
also
a keyboard command you can use, but I don't) in your tool bar at the top of your screen.
Click on 'copy'. Now your address is in memory. Then do the same as described above to
get back to where you want to paste it. Put your cursor where you want it to be 'pasted'.
Go back to 'edit' and click 'paste'. Voila !
This is a very handy function and can be used to copy text, web addresses, whatever you
want.
Explore it a little bit. (Students definitely overuse the 'paste and match style' option,
which allows
a person to 'paste' text into for example an essay and 'match the style' so it looks
seamless, although
unless carefully edited it usually doesn't read seamlessly !)
Remember that whatever is in 'copy' will remain there until you 'copy' something else. (Or
your
computer crashes . . . )
ranney , June 1, 2018 at 3:39 pm
Irina and Backwards Evolution – Thanks guys for the computer advice! I'll try it,
but I think I need someone at my shoulder the first time I try it.
backwardsevolution , June 1, 2018 at 8:53 pm
ranney – you're welcome! Snag one of your kids or a friend, and then do it together.
Sometimes I see people posting things like: "Testing. I'm trying to provide a link, bear with
me." Throw caution to the wind, ranney. I don't worry about embarrassing myself anymore. I do
it every day and the world still goes on.
I heard a good bit of advice once, something I remind my kids: when you're young, you
think everybody is watching you and so you're afraid to step out of line. When you're
middle-aged, you think everybody is watching you, but you don't care. When you're older, you
realize nobody is really watching you because they're more concerned about themselves.
Good luck, ranney.
irina , June 2, 2018 at 10:00 pm
I find it helpful to write down the steps (on an old fashioned piece of paper, with old
fashioned ink)
when learning to use a new computer tool, because while I think I'll remember, it doesn't
usually
'stick' until after using it for quite a while. And yes, definitely recruit a member of the
younger set
or someone familiar with computers. My daughter showed me many years ago how to 'cut &
paste'
and to her credit she was very gracious about it. Remember that you need a place to 'paste'
what-
ever you copied -- either a comment board like this, or a document you are working on, or
(this is
handy) an email where you want to send someone a link to something. Lots of other
possibilities too!
mike , June 1, 2018 at 7:43 pm
No one is presenting Halper as a mastermind spy. He was a tool of the deep state nothing
more.
It seems a mistake to frame the "Russiagate" nonsense as a "Democrat vs Republican"
affair, except at the most surface level of understanding in terms of our political
realities. If one considers that the Bush family has been effectively the Republican Party's
face of the CIA/deep state nexus for decades, as the Clinton/Obama's have been the Democratic
Party's face for decades now, what comes into focus is Trump as a sort of unknown, unexpected
wild card not appropriately tethered to the control structure. Simply noting that the U.S.
and Russia need not be enemies is alone enough to require an operation to get Trump into
line.
This hardly means this is some sort of "partisan" issue as the involvement of McCain and
others demonstrates.
One of the true "you can't make this stuff up" ironies of the Bush/Clinton CIA/deep state
nexus history is worth remembering if one still maintains any illusions about how the CIA
vets potential presidents since they killed JFK. During Iran/Contra we had Bush, the former
CIA director now vice president, running a drugs for arms operation out the White House
through Ollie North, WHILE then unknown Arkansas governor Bill Clinton was busy squashing
Arkansas State Police investigations into said narcotics trafficking. Clinton obviously
proved his bona fides to the CIA/deep state with such service and was appropriately rewarded
as an asset who could function as a reliable president. Here in one operation we had two
future presidents in Bush and Clinton both engaged in THE SAME CIA drug running operation.
You truly can't make this stuff up.
Russiagate seems to be in the end all about keeping deep state policy moving in the "right
direction" and "hating Russia" is the only entree on the menu at this time for the whole
cadre of CIA/deep state, MIC, neocons, Zionists, and all their minions in the MSM. The Obama
White House would have gladly supported Vlad the Impaler as the Republican candidate that
beat Hillary if Vlad were to have the appropriate foaming at the mouth "hate-Russia" vibe
going on.
backwardsevolution , May 31, 2018 at 7:18 pm
Gary – great post.
irina , May 31, 2018 at 8:18 pm
Roger that. I would really like to see an inquiry re-opened into the
teenage boys who died 'on the train tracks' in Arkansas during the
early years of the Clinton-Bush trafficking. Many questions are still
unanswered. Speculation is that they saw something they weren't
supposed to see.
Mark Thomason , May 31, 2018 at 1:12 pm
This all grows out of the failure to clean up the mess revealed by the Iraq fiasco.
Instead, those who did that remained, got away with it, and are doing more of the same.
Babyl-on , May 31, 2018 at 12:46 pm
So, here is my question – Who, ultimately does the
permanent/bureaucratic/deep/Imperial* state finally answer to? Who's interests are they
serving? How do they know what those interests are?
It could be, and increasingly it looks as if, the answer is – no one in particular
– but the Saud family, the Zionist cabal of billionaires, the German industrialist
dynasties, the Japanese oligarchy and never forget the arms dealers, all of them once part of
the Empire now fighting for themselves so we end up with the high level apparatchiks not
knowing what to do or who to follow so they lie outright to Congress and go on TV and babble
more lies for money.
It's a great contradiction that the greatest armed force ever assembled with cutting edge
robotics and AI yet at the same time so weak and pathetic it can not exercise hegemony over
the Middle East as it seems to desire more than anything. Being defeated by forces with less
than 20% of the US spend.
Abby , May 31, 2018 at 6:36 pm
You're right. They answer to no one because they are not just working in this country, but
they think that the whole world is theirs.
To these people there are no borders. They meet at places like the G20, Davos and wherever
the Bilderberg group decides to meet every year. No leader of any country gets to be one
unless they are acceptable to the Deep State. The council of foreign relations is one of the
groups that run the world. How we take them down is a good question.
Abe , May 31, 2018 at 12:43 pm
Following the pattern of mainstream media, Daniel Lazare assiduously avoids mentioning
Israel and pro-Israel Lobby interference in the 2016 presidential election, and the
Israel-gate reality underlying all the Russia-gate fictions.
For example, George Papadopoulos is directly connected to the pro-Israel Lobby, right wing
Israeli political interests, and Israeli government efforts to control regional energy
resources.
Lazare mentions that Papadapoulos had "a friend in the Israeli embassy".
But Lazare conspicuously neglects to mention numerous Israeli and pro-Israel Lobby players
interested in "filling Papadopoulos's head" with "tales of Russian dirty tricks".
Papadopoulos' LinkedIn page lists his association with the right wing Hudson Institute.
The Washington, D.C.-based think tank part of pro-Israel Lobby web of militaristic security
policy institutes that promote Israel-centric U.S. foreign policy.
The Hudson Institute confirmed that Papadopoulos was an intern who left the pro-Israel
neoconservative think tank in 2014.
In 2014, Papadopoulos authored op-ed pieces in Israeli publications.
In an op-ed published in Arutz Sheva, media organ of the right wing Religionist Zionist
movement embraced by the Israeli "settler" movement, Papadopoulos argued that the U.S. should
focus on its "stalwart allies" Israel, Greece, and Cyprus to "contain the newly emergent
Russian fleet".
In another op-ed published in Ha'aretz, Papadopoulos contended that Israel should exploit
its natural gas resources in partnership with Cyprus and Greece rather than Turkey.
In November 2015, Papadapalous participated in a conference in Tel Aviv, discussing the
export of natural gas from Israel with a panel of current and past Israeli government
officials including Ron Adam, a representative of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
and Eran Lerman, a former Israeli Deputy National Security Adviser.
Among Israel's numerous violations of United Nations Resolution 242 was its annexation of
the Syrian Golan Heights in 1981. Recent Israeli threatened military threats against Lebanon
and Syria have a lot to do with control of natural gas resources, both offshore from Gaza and
on land in the occupied Syrian Golan Heights region.
Israeli plans to develop energy resources and expand territorial holdings in the Syrian
Golan are threatened by the Russian military presence in Syria. Russian diplomatic efforts,
and the Russian military intervention that began in September 2015 after an official request
by the Syrian government, have interfered with the Israeli-Saudi-U.S. Axis "dirty war" in
Syria.
Israeli activities and Israel-gate realities are predictably ignored by the mainstream
media, which continues to salivate at every moldy scrap of Russia-gate fiction.
Lazare need no be so circumspect, unless he has somehow been spooked.
"Among Israel's numerous violations of United Nations Resolution 242 was its annexation of
the Syrian Golan Heights in 1981. Recent Israeli threatened military threats against Lebanon
and Syria have a lot to do with control of natural gas resources, both offshore from Gaza and
on land in the occupied Syrian Golan Heights region."
And water. Rating energy and water, what's at the top for Israel. Israel would probably
say both but Israel shielded by the US will take what it wants. That is already true with the
Palestinians.. The last figure I heard is that the Palestinians are allocated one fifth per
capita what is allocated to Israel's
mike k , May 31, 2018 at 11:59 am
A large swamp is actually an ancient and highly organized ecosystem. Only humans could
create a lawless madness like Washington DC.
irina , May 31, 2018 at 8:24 pm
Yes that is a good description of a swamp. BUT, if it loses what sustains it --
water, in the case of a 'real' swamp and money in the case of this swamp --
it changes character very quickly and becomes first a bog, then a meadow.
I am definitely ready for more meadowland ! But the only way to create it
is to voluntarily redirect federal taxes into escrow accounts which stipulate
that the funds are to be used for (fill in the blank) Public Services at the
Local and Regional levels. Much more efficient than filtering them through
the federal bureaucracy !
Sam F , May 31, 2018 at 10:21 pm
But how would one avoid prosecution for nonpayment of taxes?
That seems a very quiet way to be rendered ineffective as a resister.
irina , June 1, 2018 at 2:30 am
The thing is, you don't 'nonpay' them. The way it used to work, through the
Con$cience and Military Tax Campaign Escrow Account, was that you filed
your taxes as usual. (This does require having less withholding than you owe).
BUT instead of paying what is due to the IRS, you send it to the Escrow Account.
You attach a letter to your tax return, explaining where the money is and why it
is there. That is, you want it to be spent on _________________(fill in the blank)
worthy public social service. Then you send your return to the IRS.
When I used to do this, I stated that I wanted my tax dollars to be spent to develop
public health clinics at neighborhood schools. Said clinics would be staffed by nurse
practitioners, would be open 24-7 and nurses would be equipped with vans to make
House Calls. Security would be provided.
So you're not 'nonpaying' your taxes, you are (attempting) to redirect them.
Eventually,
after several rounds of letters back and forth, the IRS would seize the monies from the
escrow account, which would only release them to the IRS upon being told to by the
tax re-director. Unfortunately, not enough people participated to make it a going
concern.
But the potential is still there, and the template has been made and used. It's very
scale-
able, from local to international. And it would not take that many 're-directors' to shift
the
focus of tax liability from the collector to the payor. Because ultimately we are liable
for
how our funds are used !
Bill , June 2, 2018 at 3:19 pm
this was done a lot during the Vietnam conflict, especially by Quakers. the first thing,
if you are a wage earner, is to re-file a W2 with maximum withholdings-that has two effects:
1) it means you owe all your taxes in April. 2) it means the feds are deprived of the hidden
tax in which they use or invest your withholding throughout the year before it's actually
due(and un-owed taxes if you over over-withhold). Pretty sure that if a large number of
people deprive the government of that hidden tax by under-withholding, they will begin to
take notice.
Abe , May 31, 2018 at 11:54 am
Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) is an intelligence agency of the government
and armed forces of the United Kingdom.
In 2013, GCHQ received considerable media attention when the former National Security
Agency contractor Edward Snowden revealed that the agency was in the process of collecting
all online and telephone data in the UK. Snowden's revelations began a spate of ongoing
disclosures of global surveillance and manipulation.
For example, NSA files from the Snowden archive published by Glenn Greenwald reveal
details about GCHQ's Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group (JTRIG) unit, which uses "dirty
trick" tactics to covertly manipulate and control online communities.
In 2017, officials from the UK and Israel made an unprecedented confirmation of the close
relationship between the GCHQ and Israeli intelligence services.
Robert Hannigan, outgoing Director-General of the GCHQ, revealed for the first time that
his organization has a "strong partnership with our Israeli counterparts in signals
intelligence." He claimed the relationship "is protecting people from terrorism not only in
the UK and Israel but in many other countries."
Mark Regev, Israeli ambassador to the UK, commented on the close relationship between
British and Israeli intelligence agencies. During remarks at a Conservative Friends of Israel
reception, Regev opined: "I have no doubt the cooperation between our two democracies is
saving British lives."
Hannigan added that GCHQ was "building on an excellent cyber relationship with a range of
Israeli bodies and the remarkable cyber industry in Be'er Sheva."
The IDF's most important signal intelligence–gathering installation is the Urim
SIGINT Base, a part of Unit 8200, located in the Negev desert approximately 30 km from Be'er
Sheva.
Snowden revealed how Unit 8200 receives raw, unfiltered data of U.S. citizens, as part of
a secret agreement with the U.S. National Security Agency.
After his departure from GCHQ, Hannigan joined BlueteamGlobal, a cybersecurity services
firm, later re-named BlueVoyant.
BlueVoyant's board of directors includes Nadav Zafrir, former Commander of the Israel
Defense Forces' Unit 8200. The senior leadership team at BlueVoyant includes Ron Feler,
formerly Deputy Commander of the IDF's Unit 8200, and Gad Goldstein, who served as a division
head in the Israel Security Agency, Shin Bet, in the rank equivalent to Major General.
In addition to their purported cybersecurity activities, Israeli. American, and British
private companies have enormous access and potential to promote government and military
deception operations.
mike k , May 31, 2018 at 12:23 pm
Thanks Abe. Sounds like a manual for slave owners and con men. What a tangled wed the rich
bastards weave. The simple truth is their sworn enemy.
Sam F , May 31, 2018 at 10:19 pm
Interesting that a foreign power would be given all US communications data, which implies
that the US has seized it all without a warrant and revealed it all in violation of the
Constitution. If extensive, this use of information power amounts to information warfare
against the US by its own secret agencies in collusion with a foreign power, an act of
treason.
Seer , June 1, 2018 at 7:18 am
This has been going on for a LONG time, it's nothing new. I seem to recall 60 Minutes
covering it way back in the 70s(?). UK was allowed to do the snooping in the US (and, likely,
vice versa) and then providing info to the US. This way the US govt could claim that it
didn't spy/snoop on its citizens. Without a doubt Israel has been extensively intercepting
communications in the US..
Secrecy kills.
Sam F , June 1, 2018 at 8:23 am
Yes, but the act of allowing unregulated foreign agencies unwarranted access to US
telecoms is federal crime, and it is treason when it goes so far as to allow them full
access, and even direct US bulk traffic to their spy agencies. If this is so, these people
should be prosecuted for treason.
F. G. Sanford , May 31, 2018 at 11:36 am
To listen to the media coverage of these events, it is tempting to believe that two
entirely different planets are being discussed. Fox comes out and says Mueller was "owned" by
Trump. Then, CNN comes out and says Trump was "owned" by Clapper. Clapper claims the evidence
is "staggering", while video clips of his testimony reveal irrefutable perjury. Some of
President Trump's policies are understandably abhorrent to Democrats, while Clinton's email
server and charity frauds are indisputably violations of Federal statutes. Democrats are
attempting to claim that a "spy" in the Trump campaign was perfectly reasonable to protect
"national security", but evidence seems to indicate that the spy was placed BEFORE there was
a legitimate national security concern. Some analysts note that, while Mueller's team appears
to be Democratic partisan hacks, their native "skill set" is actually expertise in money
laundering investigations. They claim that although Mr. Trump may not be compromised by the
Russian government, he is involved with nefarious Russian organized crime figures. It
follows, according to them, that given time, Mueller will reveal these illicit connections,
and prosecution will become inevitable.
Let's assume, for argument, that both sides are right. That means that our entire
government is irretrievably corrupt. Republicans claim that it could " go all the way to
Obama". Democrats, of course, play the "moral high ground" card, insinuating that the current
administration is so base and immoral that somehow, the "ends justify the means". No matter
how you slice it, the Clinton campaign has a lot more liability on its hands. The problem is,
if prosecutions begin, people will "talk" to save their own skins. The puppet masters can't
really afford that.
"All the way to Obama", you say? I think it could go higher than that. Personally, I think
it could go all the way to Dick Cheney, and the 'powers that be' are in no mood to let that
happen.
Vivian O'Blivion , May 31, 2018 at 12:19 pm
The issue as I see it is that from the start everyone was calling the Mueller probe an
investigation into collusion and not really grasping the catch all nature of his brief.
It's the "any matters arising " that is the real kicker. So any dodgy dealing / possible
criminal activity in the past is fair game. And this is exactly what in happening with
Manafort.
Morally you can apply the Nucky Johnson defence and state that everyone knew Trump was a
crook when they voted for him, but legally this has no value.
There is an unpleasant whiff of deep state interference with the will of the people
(electoral college). Perhaps if most bodies hadn't written Trump's chances off in such an off
hand manner, proper due diligence of his background would have uncovered any liabilities
before the election.
If there is actionable dirt, can't say I am overly sympathetic to Trump. Big prizes sometimes
come with big risks.
David G , May 31, 2018 at 5:14 pm
My own feeling from the start has been that Mueller was never going to track down any
"collusion" or "meddling" (at least not to any significant degree) because the whole,
sprawling Russia-gate narrative – to the extent one can be discerned – is
obviously phony.
But at the same time, there's no way the completely lawless, unethical Trump, along with
his scummy associates, would be able to escape that kind of scrutiny without criminal conduct
being exposed.
So far, on both scores, that still seems to me to be a likely outcome, and for my part I'm
fine with it.
Vivian O'Blivion , June 1, 2018 at 5:29 am
My thoughts exactly. Collusion was never a viable proposition because the Russians aren't
that stupid. Regardless of any personal opinion regarding the intelligence and mental
stability of Donald Snr., the people he surrounds himself with are weapons grade stupid. I
don't see the Russians touching the Trump campaign with a proverbial barge pole.
Bill , June 2, 2018 at 3:26 pm
it just happens that Trump appears to have been involved (wittingly or not), with the
laundering a whole lot of Russian money and so many of his friends seem to be connected with
wealthy Russian oligarchs as well plus they are so stupid, they keep appearing to (and
probably are) obstructing justice. The Cohen thing doesn't get much attention here, but it's
significant that they have all this stuff on a guy who is clearly Trump's bagman.
Steve Naidamast , May 31, 2018 at 3:15 pm
There is also quite an indication that the entire Mueller investigation is a complete
smoke screen to be used as cannon fodder in the mainstream media.
On the one hand, Mueller and his hacks have found nothing of import to link Trump to
anything close to collusion with members of the Russian government. And I am by no means a
Trump supporter by any stretch of the imagination, except as a foil to Clinton. However, even
my minimalist expectations for Trump have not worked out either.
In addition. the Mueller investigation has been spending what appears to be a majority of
its time on ancillary matters that were not within the supposed scope and mandate of this
investigation. Further, a number of indictments have come down against people involved with
such ancillary matters.
The result is that if Mueller is going beyond the scope of his investigatory mandate, this
may come in as a technicality that will allow indicted persons to escape prosecution on
appeal.
Such a mandate, I would think, is the same thing as a police warrant, which can find only
admissible evidence covered by the warrant. Anything else found to be criminally liable must
be found to be as a result of a completely different investigation that has nothing to do
with the original warrant.
In other words, it appears that the Mueller investigation was allowed to commence under a
Republican controlled Congress for the very reason that its intent is simply to go in circles
long enough for Republicans to get their agendas through, which does not appear to be working
all too well as a result of their high levels of internecine party conflicts.
This entire affair is coming to show just how dysfunctional, corrupt, and incompetent the
entirety of the US federal government has become. And to the chagrin of all sincere
activists, no amount of organized protesting and political action will ever rid the country
of this grotesque political quagmire that now engulfs the entirety of our political
infrastructure.
Sam F , May 31, 2018 at 8:48 pm
Very true that the US federal government is now "dysfunctional, corrupt, and
incompetent."
What are your thoughts on forms of action to rid us this political quagmire?
(other than ineffective "organized protesting and political action")
Have you considered new forms of public debate and public information?
Seer , June 1, 2018 at 7:34 am
All of this is blackmail to hold Trump's feet to the fire of the Israel firsters (such
actions pull in all the dark swampy things). By creating the Russia blackmail story they've
effectively redirected away from themselves. The moment Trump balks the Deep State will reel
in some more, airing innuendos to overwhelm Trump. Better believe that Trump has been fully
"briefed" on all of this. John Bolton was able to push out a former OPCW head with threats
(knew where his, the OPCW head's children were). And now John Bolton is sitting right next to
Trump (whispering in his ear that he knows ways in which to oust Trump).
What actual "ideas" were in Trump's head going in to all of this (POTUS run) is hard to
say. But, anything that can be considered a threat to the Deep State has been effectively
nullified now.
Vivian O'Blivion , June 1, 2018 at 8:22 am
Possible, but Manafort already tried to get his charges thrown out as being the outcome of
investigations beyond the remit He failed.
Brendan , May 31, 2018 at 10:26 am
There's no doubt at all that Joseph Mifsud was closely connected with western
intelligence, and with MI6 in particular. His contacts with Russia are insignificant compared
with his long career working amongst the elite of western officials.
Lee Smith of RealClearInvestigations lists some of the places where Mifsud worked, including
two universities:
"he taught at Link Campus University in Rome, ( ) whose lecturers and professors include
senior Western diplomats and intelligence officials from a number of NATO countries,
especially Italy and the United Kingdom.
Mifsud also taught at the University of Stirling in Scotland, and the London Academy of
Diplomacy, which trained diplomats and government officials, some of them sponsored by the
UK's Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the British Council, or by their own governments."
Two former colleagues of Mifsud's, Roh and Pastor, recently interviewed him for a book
they have written. Those authors could very well be biased, but one of them makes a valid
point, similar to one that Daniel Lazare makes above:
"Given the affiliations of Link's faculty and staff, as well as Mifsud's pedigree, Roh thinks
it's impossible that the man he hired as a business development consultant is a Russian
agent."
Politically, Mifsud identifies with the Clintons more than anyone else, and claims to
belong to the Clinton Foundation, which has often been accused of being just a way of
funneling money into Hillary Clinton's campaign.
As Lee Smith says, if Mifsud really is a Russian spy, "Western intelligence services are
looking at one of the largest and most embarrassing breaches in a generation. But none of the
governments or intelligence agencies potentially compromised is acting like there's anything
wrong."
From all that we know about Joseph Mifsud, it's safe to say that he was never a Russian
spy. If not, then what was he doing when he was allegedly feeding stories to George
Papadopoulos about Russians having 'dirt' on Clinton?
I read somewhere that Mifsud had disappeared. Was that true? If so, is he back, or still
missing?
Chet Roman , May 31, 2018 at 6:21 pm
Here are some excerpts that will answer your question from an article by Lee Smith at
Realclearinvestigations, "The Maltese Phantom of Russiagate".
A new book by former colleagues of Mifsud's – Stephan Roh, a 50-year-old
Swiss-German lawyer, and Thierry Pastor, a 35-year-old French political analyst –
reports that he is alive and well. Their account includes a recent interview with him.
Their self-published book, "The Faking of Russia-gate: The Papadopoulos Case, an
Investigative Analysis," includes a recent interview with Mifsud in which he denies saying
anything about Clinton emails to Papadopoulos. Mifsud, they write, stated "vehemently that he
never told anything like this to George Papadopoulos." Mifsud asked rhetorically: "From where
should I have this [information]?"
Mifsud's account seems to be supported by Alexander Downer, the Australian diplomat who
alerted authorities about Papadopoulos. As reported in the Daily Caller, Downer said
Papadopoulos never mentioned emails; he spoke, instead, about the Russians possessing
material that could be damaging to Clinton. This new detail raises the possibility that
Mifsud, Papadopoulos' alleged source for the information, never said anything about
Clinton-related emails either.
In interviews with RealClearInvestigations, Roh and Pastor said Mifsud is anything but a
Russian spy. Rather, he is more likely a Western intelligence asset.
According to the two authors, it was a former Italian intelligence official, Vincenzo
Scotti, a colleague of Mifsud's and onetime interior minister, who told the professor to go
into hiding. "I don't know who was hiding him," said Roh, "but I'm sure it was organized by
someone. And I am sure it will be difficult to get to the bottom of it."
Toby McCrossin , June 1, 2018 at 1:54 am
" The Papadopoulos Case, an Investigative Analysis," includes a recent interview with
Mifsud in which he denies saying anything about Clinton emails to Papadopoulos. Mifsud, they
write, stated "vehemently that he never told anything like this to George Papadopoulos.""
Thank you for providing that explosive piece of information. If true, and I suspect it is,
that's one more nail in the Russiagate narrative. Who, then, is making the claim that Misfud
mentioned emails? The only source for the statement I can find is "court documents".
Sam F , May 31, 2018 at 9:20 am
The election scams serve only to distract from the Israel-gate scandal and the oligarchy
destruction of our former democracy. Mr. Lazare neglects to tell us about that. All of
Hillary's top ten campaign bribers were zionists, and Trump let Goldman-Sachs take over the
economy. KSA and big business also bribed heavily.
We must restrict funding of elections and mass media to limited individual donations, for
democracy is lost.
We must eliminate zionist fascism from our political parties, federal government, and
foreign policy. Obviously that has nothing to do with any ethnic or religious preference.
Otherwise the United States is lost, and our lives have no historical meaning beyond
slavery to oligarchy.
Joe Tedesky , May 31, 2018 at 9:51 am
You are right Sam. Israel does work the fence under the guise of the Breaking News.
Joe
Sam F , May 31, 2018 at 8:18 pm
My response was that Israel massacres at the fence, ignored by the zionist US mass
media.
mike k , May 31, 2018 at 11:48 am
The extreme wealth and privileges of oligarchy depend on the poverty and slavery of
others. Inequality of income is the root cause of most of our ills. Try to imagine what a
world of economic equals would be like. No striving for more and more wealth at the expense
of others. No wars. What would there be to fight over – everyone would be content with
what they already had.
If you automatically think such a world would be impossible, try to state why. You might
discover that the only obstacle to such a world is the greedy bastards who are sitting on top
of everybody, and will do anything to maintain their advantages.
mike k , May 31, 2018 at 11:52 am
How do the oligarchs ensure your slavery? With the little green tickets they have hoarded
that the rest of us need just to eat and have a roof over our heads. The people sleeping in
the streets tell us the penalty for not being good slaves.
Sam F , May 31, 2018 at 12:50 pm
Very true, Mike. Those who say that equality or fairness of income implies breaking the
productivity incentive system are wrong. No matter how much or how little wage incentive we
offer for making an effort in work, we need not have great disparities of income. Those who
can work should have work, and we should all make an effort to do well in our work, but none
of us need the fanciest cars or grand monuments to live in, just to do our best.
Getting rid of oligarchy, and getting money out of mass media and elections, would be the
greatest achievement of our times.
Joe Tedesky , May 31, 2018 at 5:30 pm
An old socialist friend of my dad's generation who claimed to have read the biography of
Andrew Carnegie had told me over a few beers that Carnegie said, "that at a time when he was
paying his workers $5 a week he 'could' have been paying them $50 a day, but then he could
not figure out what kind of life they would lead with all that money". Think about it mike,
if his workers would have had that kind of money it would not be long before Carnegie's
workers became his competition and opened up next door to him the worst case scenario would
be his former workers would sell their steel at a cheaper price, kind of, well no exactly
like what Rockefeller did with oil, or as Carnegie did with steel innovation. How's that
saying go, keep them down on the farm . well. Remember Carnegie was a low level stooge for
the railroads at one time, and rose to the top .mike. Great point to make mike, because there
could be more to go around. Joe
Steve Naidamast , May 31, 2018 at 3:16 pm
"We must restrict funding of elections and mass media to limited individual donations, for
democracy is lost.
We must eliminate zionist fascism from our political parties, federal government, and
foreign policy. Obviously that has nothing to do with any ethnic or religious
preference."
Good luck with that!!!
Sam F , May 31, 2018 at 8:19 pm
Well, you are welcome to make suggestions on how to save the republic.
john wilson , May 31, 2018 at 9:10 am
The depths of the deep state has no limits, but as a UK citizen, I fail to see why the
American "spooks" need any help from we Brits when it comes state criminal activity. Sure, we
are masters at underhand dirty tricks, but the US has a basket full of tricks that 'Trump'
(lol) anything we've got. It was the Russians wot done mantra has been going on for many
decades and is ever good for another turn around the political mulberry tree of corruption
and underhand dealings. Whether the Democrats or the Republicans win its all the same to the
deep state as they are in control whoever is in the White House. Trump was an outsider and
there for election colour and the "ho ho ho" look what a great democracy we are, anyone can
be president. He is in fact the very essence of the 'wild card' and when he actually won
there was total confusion, panic, disbelief and probably terror in the caves and dungeons of
the deep state.
Realist , May 31, 2018 at 9:33 am
I'm sure the result was so unexpected that the shadowy fixers, the IT mavens who could
have "adjusted" the numbers, were totally caught off guard and unable to do "cleanly." Not
that they didn't try to re-jigger the results in the four state recounts that were ordered,
but it was simply too late to effectively cheat at that point, as there were already massive
overvotes detected in key urban precincts. Such a thing will never happen again, I am
sure.
Sam F , May 31, 2018 at 9:36 am
It appears that UK has long had a supply of anti-Russia fearmongers, presumably backed by
its anti-socialist oligarchy as in the US. Perhaps the US oligarchy is the dumbest salesman,
who believes that all customers are even dumber, so that UK can sell Russophobia here thirty
years after the USSR.
Bob Van Noy , May 31, 2018 at 8:49 am
"But how could Trump think otherwise? As Consortium News founding editor Robert Parry
observed a few days later, the maneuver "resembles a tactic out of FBI Director J. Edgar
Hoover's playbook on government-style blackmail: I have some very derogatory information
about you that I'd sure hate to see end up in the press."
Perfect.
Recently, while trying to justify my arguement that a new investigation into the RFK Killing
was necessary, I was asked why I thought that, and my response was "Modus operandi," exactly
what Robert Parry learned by experience, and that is the fundamental similarity to all of the
institutionalized crime that takes place by the IC. Once one realizes the literary approach
to disinformation that was fundamental to Alan Dulles, James Jesus Angleton, even Ian
Fleming, one can easily see the Themes being applied. I suppose that the very feature of
believability offered by propaganda, once recognized, becomes its undoing. That could be our
current reality; the old Lines simply are beginning to appear to be ridiculous
Thank you Daniel Lazar.
Sam F , June 1, 2018 at 8:39 am
The recognition of themes of propaganda as literary themes and modus operandi is helping
to discredit propaganda. The similarities of the CW false-flag operations (Iraq, Syria, and
UK), and the fake assassinations (Skripal and Babchenko) by the anti-Russia crowd help reveal
and persuade on the falsehood of the Iraq WMD, Syria CW, and MH-17 propaganda ops. Just as
the similarities of the JFK/MLK/RFK assassinations persuade us that commonalities exist long
before we see evidence.
Bob Van Noy , June 1, 2018 at 1:11 pm
Many thanks Sam F for recognizing that. As we begin to achieve a resolution of the 60's
Kllings, we can begin to see the general and specific themes utilized to direct the programs
of Assassination. The other aspect is that real investigation Never followed; and that took
Real Power.
In a truly insightful book by author Sally Denton entitled "The Profiteers" she puts
together a very cogent theory that it isn't the Mafia, it's the Syndicate, which means (for
me at least) real, criminal power with somewhat divergent interests ok with one another, to
the extent that they can maintain their Own Turf. I think that's a profound insight
Too, in a similar vain, the Grand Deceptions of American Foreign Policy, "scenarios" are
simply and only that, not a Real possible solution. Always resulting in failure
Sam F , June 1, 2018 at 9:23 pm
Yes, it is difficult to determine the structure of a subculture of gangsterism in power,
which can have many specialized factions in loose cooperation, agreeing on some general
policy points, like benefits for the rich, hatred of socialism, institutionalized bribery of
politicians and judges, militarized policing, destruction of welfare and social security,
deregulation of everything, essentially the neocon/neolib line of the DemReps. The party line
of oligarchy in any form.
Indeed the foreign policy of such gangsters is designed to "fail" because destruction of
cultures, waste, and fragmentation most efficiently exploits the bribery structure available,
and serves the anti-socialist oligarchy. Failure of the declared foreign policy is success,
because that is only propaganda to cover the corruption.
You know, not only Gay Trowdy but even Dracula Napolitano think people like Lazare ,
McGovern, etc. are overblown on this issue.
backwardsevolution , May 31, 2018 at 1:47 pm
SocraticGadfly – Trey Gowdy hasn't even seen the documents yet, so he's hardly in a
position to say anything. The House Intelligence Committee, under Chairman Nunes, are being
stymied by the FBI and the Department of Justice who are refusing to hand over documents.
Refusing! Refusing to disclose documents to the very people who, by law, have oversight.
Nunes is threatening to hit them with Contempt of Congress.
Let's see the documents. Then Trey Gowdy can open his mouth.
What I take from this head spinning article is the paragraph about Carter Page.
"On July 7, 2016 Carter Page delivered a lecture on U.S.-Russian relations in Moscow in
which he complained that "Washington and other western capitals have impeded potential
progress through their often hypocritical focus on ideas such as democratization, inequality,
corruption, and regime change." Washington hawks expressed "unease" that someone representing
the presumptive Republican nominee would take Russia's side in a growing neo-Cold War
Mr. Page hit the nail on the head. There is no greater sin to entrenched power than to
spell out what is going on with Russia. It helps us understand why terms like dupe and
naïve were stuck on Carter Page's back.. Truth to power is not always good for your
health.
Sam F , May 31, 2018 at 10:07 am
The tyrant accuses of disloyalty, all who question the reality of his foreign
monsters.
And so do his monster-fighting agencies, whose budgets depend upon the fiction.
backwardsevolution , May 31, 2018 at 7:25 am
Daniel Lazare – good report. "It sounds more like CIA paranoia raised to the nth
degree." This wasn't a case of paranoia. This was a blatant attempt to bring down a rival
opponent and, failing that, the President of the United States. This was intentional and
required collusion between top officials of the government. They fabricated the phony Steele
dossier (paid for by the Clinton campaign), exonerated Hillary Clinton, and then went to town
on bringing down Trump.
"Was George Popodopolous set up?" Of course he was. Set up a patsy in order to give you
reason to carry out a phony investigation.
"If the corporate press fails to point this out, it's because reporters are too befogged
themselves to notice." They're not befogged; they're following orders (the major television
and newspaper outfits). Without their 24/7 spin and lies, Russiagate would never have been
kept alive.
These guys got the biggest surprise of their life when Hillary Clinton lost the election.
None of this would have come out had she won. During the campaign, as Trump gained in the
polls, she was heard to say, "If they ever find out what we've done, we'll all hang."
I hope they see jail time for what they've done.
backwardsevolution , May 31, 2018 at 7:38 am
Apparently what has come out so far is just the tip of the iceberg. Some are saying this
could lead all the way up to Obama. I hope not, but they have certainly done all they can to
ruin the Trump Presidency.
JohnM , May 31, 2018 at 9:58 am
I'm adjusting my tinfoil hat right now. I'm wondering if Skripal had something to do with
the Steel dossier. The iceberg may be even bigger than thought.
Sam F , May 31, 2018 at 10:18 am
It is known that Skripal's close friend living nearby was an employee of Steele's firm
Orbis.
Chet Roman , May 31, 2018 at 2:58 pm
Exactly, his name is Pablo Miller and he is the MI6 agent who initially recruited Sergei
Skripal. Miller worked for Orbis, Steele's company and listed that in his resume on LinkedIn
but later deleted it. But once it's on the internet it can always be found and it was and it
was published.
robjira , May 31, 2018 at 2:13 pm
John, both Moon Of Alabama and OffGuardian have had excellent coverage of the Skripal
affair. Informed opinions wonder if Sergei Skripal was one of Steele's "Russian sources," and
that he may have been poisoned for the purpose of either a) bolstering the whole "Russia =
evil" narrative, or b) a warning not to ask for more than what he may have conceivably
received for any contribution he may or may not have made to the "dossiere."
mike k , May 31, 2018 at 7:20 am
Interesting details in this article, but we have known this whole Russiagate affair was a
scam from the get go. It all started the day after Trump's unexpected electoral win over
Hillary. The chagrined dems came together and concocted their sore loser alibi – the
Russians did it. They scooped up a lot of pre-election dirt, rolled it into a ball and
directed it at Trump. It is a testament to the media's determination to stick with their
story, that in spite of not a single scrap of real evidence after over a year of digging by a
huge team of democratic hit men and women, this ridiculous story still has supporters.
David G , May 31, 2018 at 10:31 am
"It all started the day after Trump's unexpected electoral win over Hillary."
Not so.
Daniel Lazare's first link in the above piece is to Paul Krugman's July 22, 2016 NY Times
op-ed, "Donald Trump, the Siberian Candidate". (Note how that headline doesn't even bother to
employ a question mark.)
I appreciate that that Krugman column gets pride of place here since I distinctly remember
reading it in my copy of the Times that day, months before the election, and my immediate
reaction to it: nonplussed that such a risible thesis was being aired so prominently, along
with a deep realization that this was only the first shot in what would be a co-ordinated
media disinformation campaign, à la Saddam's WMDs.
Chet Roman , May 31, 2018 at 3:37 pm
Actually, I think the intelligence agencies' (CIA/FBI/DNI) plan started shortly after
Trump gave the names of Page and Papadopoulos to the Washington Post (CIA annex) in a meeting
on March 21, 2016 outlining his foreign policy team.
Carter Page (Naval Academy distinguished graduate and Naval intelligence officer) in 2013
worked as an "under-cover employee" of the FBI in a case that convicted Evgeny Buryakov and
it was reported that he was still an UCE in March of 2016. The FBI never charged or even
hinted that Page was anything but innocent and patriotic. However, in October 2016 the FBI
told the FISA Court that he was a spy to support spying on him. Remember the FISA Court
allows spying on him AND the persons he is in contact, which means almost everyone on the
Trump transition team/administration.
Here is an excerpt from an article by WSJ's Kimberley Strassel:
In "late spring" of 2016, then-FBI Director James Comey briefed White House "National
Security Council Principals" that the FBI had counterintelligence concerns about the Trump
campaign. Carter Page was announced as a campaign adviser on March 21, and Paul Manafort
joined the campaign March 29. The briefing likely referenced both men, since both had
previously been on the radar of law enforcement. But here's what matters: With this briefing,
Mr. Comey officially notified senior political operators on Team Obama that the bureau had
eyes on Donald Trump and Russia. Imagine what might be done in these partisan times with such
explosive information.
And what do you know? Sometime in April, the law firm Perkins Coie (on behalf the Clinton
campaign) hired Fusion GPS, and Fusion turned its attention to Trump-Russia connections.
David G , May 31, 2018 at 4:56 pm
Most interesting, Chet Roman. Thanks.
My understanding is that Trump more or less pulled Page's name out of a hat to show the
WashPost that he had a "foreign policy team", and thus that his campaign wasn't just a hollow
sham, but that at that point he really had had no significant contact at all with Page
– maybe hadn't even met him. It was just a name from his new political world that
sprang to "mind" (or the Trumpian equivalent).
Of course, the Trump campaign *was* just a sham, by conventional Beltway standards: a
ramshackle road show with no actual "foreign policy team", or any other policy team.
So maybe that random piece of B.S. from Trump has caused him a heap of trouble. This is
part of why – no matter how bogus "Russia-gate" is – I just can't bring myself to
feel sorry for old Cheeto Dust.
backwardsevolution , May 31, 2018 at 6:56 am
Kimberly Strassel of the Wall Street Journal had some good advice:
"Mr. Trump has an even quicker way to bring the hostility to an end.
He can – and should – declassify everything possible, letting Congress and the
public see the truth.
That would put an end to the daily spin and conspiracy theories. It would puncture
Democratic arguments that the administration is seeking to gain this information only for
itself, to "undermine" an investigation.
And it would end the Justice Department's campaign of secrecy, which has done such harm to
its reputation with the public and with Congress."
What do you bet he does?
RickD , May 31, 2018 at 6:44 am
I have serious doubts about the article's veracity. There seems to be a thread running
through it indicating an attempt to whitewash any Russian efforts to get Trump elected. To
dismiss all the evidence of such efforts, and , despite this author's words, there is enough
such evidence, seems more than a bit partisan.
What evidence? I've seen none so far. A lot of claims that there is such evidence but no
one seems to ever say what it is.
backwardsevolution , May 31, 2018 at 7:06 am
RickD – thanks for the good laugh before bedtime. I'm with Mr. Merrell and I
actually want to see some evidence. Maybe it was Professor Halper in the kitchen with the
paring knife.
Realist , May 31, 2018 at 9:21 am
Unfortunately, what this guy says is what most Americans still seem to believe. When I ask
people what is the actual hard evidence for "Russiagate" (because I don't know of any that
has been corroborated), I get a response that there have been massive examples of Russian
hacks, Russian posts, tweets and internet adverts–all meant to sabotage Hillary's
candidacy, and very effective, mind you. Putin has been an evil genius worthy of a comic book
villain (to date myself, a regular Lex Luthor). Sez who, ask I? Sez the trustworthy American
media that would never lie to the public, sez they. You know, professional paragons of virtue
like Rachel Maddow and her merry band.
Nobody seems aware of the recent findings about Halpern, none seem to have a realistic
handle on the miniscule scope of the Russian "offenses" against American democracy. Rachel,
the NY Times and WaPo have seen to that with their sins of both commission and omission. Even
the Republican party is doing a half-hearted job of defending its own power base with
rigorous and openly disseminated fact checking. It's like even many of the committee chairs
with long seniority are reluctant to buck the conventional narrative peddled by the media.
Many have chosen to retire rather than fight the media and the Deep State. What's a better
interpretation of events? Or is one to believe that the silent voices, curious retirements
and political heat generated by the Dems, the prosecutors and the media are all independent
variables with no connections? These old pols recognise a good demonizing when they see it,
especially when directed at them.
Personally, I think that not only the GOPers should be fighting like the devil to expose
the truth (which should benefit them in this circumstance) but so should the media and all
the watchdog agencies (ngo's) out there because our democracy WAS hijacked, but it was NOT by
the Russians. Worse than that, it was done by internal domestic enemies of the people who
must be outed and punished to save the constitution and the republic, if it is not too late.
All the misinformation by influential insiders and the purported purveyors of truth
accompanied by the deliberate silence by those who should be chirping like birds suggests it
may well be far too late.
backwardsevolution , May 31, 2018 at 7:53 pm
Realist – a most excellent post! Some poll result I read about the other day
mentioned that well over half of the American public do NOT believe what they are being told
by the media. That was good to hear. But you are right, there are still way too many who
never question anything. If I ever get in trouble, I wouldn't want those types on my jury.
They'd be wide awake during the prosecution's case and fast asleep during my defense.
This is the Swamp at work on both sides of the aisle. Most of the Republicans are hanging
Trump out to dry. They've probably got too much dirt they want to keep hidden themselves, so
retirement looks like a good idea. Get out of Dodge while the going is good, before the real
fighting begins! The Democrats are battling for all they're worth, and I've got to hand it to
them – they're dirty little fighters.
Yes, democracy has been hijacked. Hard to say how long this has been going on –
maybe forever. If there is anything good about Trump's presidency, it's that the Deep State
is being laid out and delivered up on a silver platter for all to see.
There has never been a better chance to take back the country than this. If this
opportunity passes, it will never come again. They will make sure of it.
The greatest thing that Trump could do for the country would be to declassify all
documents. Jeff Sessions is either part of the Deep State or he's been scared off. He's not
going to act. Rosenstein is up to his eyeballs in this mess and he's not going to act. In
fact, he's preventing Nunes from getting documents. It is up to Trump to act. I just hope
he's not being surrounded by a bunch of bad apple lawyers who are giving him bad advice. He
needs to go above the Department of Justice and declassify ALL documents. If he did that, a
lot of these people would probably die of a heart attack within a minute.
mike k , May 31, 2018 at 7:11 am
You sure came out of the woodwork quickly to express your "serious doubts" RickD.
Skip Scott , May 31, 2018 at 8:07 am
Please provide "such evidence". I've yet to see any. The entire prosecution of RussiaGate
has been one big Gish Gallop.
strgr-tgther , May 31, 2018 at 9:39 pm
RickD – Thank you for pointing that out! You were the only one!!! It is a very
strange article leaving Putin and the Russians evidence out and also not a single word about
Stromy Daniels witch is also very strange. I know Hillary would never have approved of any of
this and they don't say that either.
John , June 1, 2018 at 2:26 am
What does Stormy Daniels have to do with RussiaGate?
You know that someone who committed the ultimate war crime by lying us into war to destroy
Libya and re-institute slavery there, and who laughed after watching video of a man that
Nelson Mandela called "The Greatest Living Champion of Human Rights on the Planet" be
sodomized to death with a knife, is somehow too "moral" to do such a thing? Really?
It amazes me how utterly cultish those who support the Red Queen have shown themselves to
be – without apparently realizing that they are obviously on par with the followers of
Jim Jones!
strgr-tgther , June 1, 2018 at 12:17 pm
That is like saying what does income tax have to do with Al Capone. Who went to Alctraz
because he did not pay income tax not for being a gangster. So we know Trump has sexual
relations with Stormy Daniels, then afterward PAID her not to talk about it. So he paid Story
Daniels for sex! That is Prostitution! Same thing. And that is inpeachable, using womens
bodies as objects. If we don't prosecute Trump here then from now on all a John needs to say
to the police is that he was not paying for sex but paying to keep quiet about it. And
Cogress can get Trump for prostitution and disgracing the office of President. Without Russia
investigations we would never have found out about this important fact, so that is what it
has to do with Russia Gate.
"... I don't think anyone can predict whether or not Sanders would have won as a 3rd party candidate. He ran a remarkable campaign, but when he caved to the Clinton machine he lost a lot of supporters, including me. If he had stood up at the convention and talked of the DNC skullduggery exposed by Wikileaks, and said "either I run as a democrat, or I run as a Green, but I'm running", he would have at least gotten 15 pct to make the TV debates, and who knows what could have happened after that. 40 pct of registered voters didn't vote. That alone tells you it is possible he might have won. ..."
"... Instead he expected us to follow him like he was the f'ing Pied Piper to elect another Wall St. loving warmonger. That's why he gets no "pass" from me. He (and the Queen of Chaos) gave us Trump. BTW, Obama doesn't get a "pass" either. ..."
I saw a compelling statistic the other day. Apparently, 12% of Sanders supporters
eventually went on to vote Trump. If true, a very good argument can be made that this is by
far the biggest "upset factor" in the election. So why can't our MSM see that?
My initial reaction to Russia-gate still holds true today: It's an easy way to deflect
self-examination by the Dems on "why" they lost the election, while simultaneously smearing
Trump and the Russians all in the same sentence! I felt that, in a word, Russia-gate was
"bullshit".
Al Pinto , June 8, 2018 at 2:01 pm
Here's a link the referenced voting statistics for SOS (Sell Out Sanders):
"More important, in the three critical states that tipped the election, Sanders-to-Trump
voters ultimately gave Trump the margin he needed to win:
-- In Wisconsin, roughly 51K Sanders voters backed Trump in a state he won by just 22K
votes.
-- In Michigan, roughly 47K Sanders voters backed Trump in a state he won by just 10K
votes.
-- In Pennsylvania, roughly 116K Sanders voters backed Trump in a state he won by just 44K
votes."
Yes, Sanders could have run as independent and probably still won the election over RHC
and DJT, at least in my view
Disclaimer: I've changed my party affiliation just to vote for Sanders in the primary. To
say that I've been disappointed in him to cave in for HRC is an understatement .
mbob , June 8, 2018 at 3:01 pm
Sanders would *not* have won. The US and the media were not ready for a third-party
candidate in 2016. (Yes I know that Ross Perot won 19% of the vote in 1992. Sanders might
have done better, but not enough better to win.)
Given that, he was damned either way. Had he run, your own numbers show he would have
taken more from Clinton than from Trump. Trump would still have won. And Sanders (and his
supporters) would have been blamed. There'd be no Russiagate: there'd be a Sandersgate. Given
the magnitude of the purely made up Russiagate hysteria, can you begin to imagine what the
democrats and the media would have done to Sanders and his supporters?
His political career would be over, but much more importantly, the Sanders-inspired
progressive movements would have been stopped before they could even start. The democratic
party would be even more Clinton-controlled and even more attached to their
neoliberal/globalist agenda. Instead, Sanders is the most popular politician in the US and
his supporters are growing in numbers and in strength. Sanders-inspired candidates and
Sanders-inspired initiatives are making inroads.
Given the failure in 2016 of the two-party system to produce a candidate that the public
wanted, it's even possible the US will be ready for a third-party candidate in 2020. It'd be
terrific if that candidate was Sanders or someone who shares his agenda.
irina , June 8, 2018 at 3:36 pm
Alaska's 2018 race for governor is shaping up to be an actual 3-way race,
after former Senator Mark Begich threw his hat in the ring at the last minute,
filing as a Democratic candidate. Now the incumbent team of Bill Walker and
Byron Mallot are planning to run as Independents (they would have run on the
Democratic ticket if nobody filed). And there are several candidates jostling for
the Republican nomination. This will be an interesting litmus test for 2020 !
Al Pinto , June 8, 2018 at 4:36 pm
You are probably correct and it's been just my wishful thinking
On the other hand, the media had not been ready to accepted DJT for POTUS and yet, he has
been elected. This indicates that people have their own evaluation method, at least a sizable
number of them, instead of listening to the media.
Knowing that the MSM media is owned outright by oligarchs, it's hard to imagine that it
will ever be ready for a third-party candidate. While this might be acceptable on the state
level, the federal level probably requires more time than couple of years.
And even if the MSM will be ready in 2020, I would not vote for Sander. As the old saying
goes, "If you burn me once, shame on you "
Realist , June 8, 2018 at 4:45 pm
You spell out Sander's realistic decision with crystal clarity, something I've not seen
done so lucidly before. Sanders would have destroyed the progressive movement had he bolted
from the Democratic party, which he promised to support when he entered the campaign, thereby
giving the election to Trump. Trump won without any help from Bernie. In fact, all
indications are that Bernie would have won as a Democrat, but not yet as an independent.
Still far too much mindless loyalty (and chits owed) to the party. The Dems screwed
themselves by sabotaging his campaign to secure the nomination for the unpopular acid-tongued
Clinton. Now is when he should become the truthteller and deliver a full broadside against
Pelosi, Schumer, Schiff and the other party insiders who are the actual culprits in
destroying the party's future with their attempted soft coup.
Sam F , June 8, 2018 at 7:56 pm
I suspect that Sanders knows that the DNC would not back him, because he is not pleasing
to their oligarchs. Likely he will continue to sheepdog liberals to the zionist/WallSt/MIC
candidate. So he is not what he seems, which is his job.
mbob , June 8, 2018 at 11:04 pm
Thank you. I agree that Sanders would likely have won had he been the Democratic nominee,
but not otherwise. I understand and share the profound disappointment many have that he's not
our president. But I don't understand the anger directed at him. Given that he wasn't
nominated, he had no choice but to do what he did. He didn't betray anyone. Nor did he cost
Clinton the election.
On the other hand, I *do* think that the Democratic party did betray us. So, after 40+
years of being a registered Democrat, I left the party and registered as Independent.
Lastly, why does Obama get a pass, but not Sanders? Sanders gets criticized in ways Obama
never was. Obama is an admitted globalist and neoliberal. The TPP he pushed so vigorously
would have been a betrayal of all Americans who work. Obama blatantly favored Clinton,
another neoliberal/globalist, as his successor.
Sanders, while admittedly imperfect, was on the right side of the TPP and most other
issues. He's worked with amazing vigor to revive the progressive movement that languished
under Obama. His efforts are receiving tangible results. Obama never did anything of the
sort. Neither did Biden, who may be Democrat's 2020 presidential candidate.
So why so much hostility toward Sanders and so little toward Obama?
Realist , June 9, 2018 at 1:35 am
I'm with you again on your analysis, mbob. I've been a registered Dem myself for fifty
years in three different states. I haven't changed my registration because I want to give
them a message in their primaries that the direction they have been taking is distinctly
wrong and will not be rewarded in the general elections. I don't think I will have much
impact in the coming campaign, however, based on the analysis by Mike Whitney (below) that
the Dems are currently skewing towards hard core military and intelligence agency candidates
and running away from progressives:
"The Democratic Party has made a strategic decision to bypass candidates from its
progressive wing and recruit former members of the military and intelligence agencies to
compete with Republicans in the upcoming midterm elections. The shift away from liberal
politicians to center-right government agents and military personnel is part of a broader
plan to rebuild the party so it better serves the interests of its core constituents, Wall
Street, big business, and the foreign policy establishment. Democrat leaders want to
eliminate left-leaning candidates who think the party should promote issues that are
important to working people and replace them with career bureaucrats who will be more
responsive to the needs of business. The ultimate objective of this organization-remake is to
create a center-right superparty comprised almost entirely of trusted allies from the
national security state who can be depended on to implement the regressive policies required
by their wealthy contributors. Here's more background from Patrick Martin at the World
Socialist Web Site " (Citation attached)
Whitney doesn't give Sanders a pass, basically characterising him as a Judas goat
misleading progressives to vote for neoliberal Wall Street candidates, as SamF says. But
then, he doesn't give Obama or Biden a pass either. Actually, there is a lot of "dislike" out
there for Obama and the whole crew he recruited into his administration, e.g., Biden,
Clinton, Gates, Rice, Power, Carter and Nuland, gangsters all. They campaigned as progressive
peaceniks but proved themselves to be neoliberal warmongers. I will never vote for their ilk
again even if Bernie begs pretty please. I don't follow messiahs or party orders. Bernie
still has the support of his people who are NOT mainstream Dems of this era, but that faction
of the party has little clout regardless of their appeal at the ballot box.
Skip Scott , June 9, 2018 at 7:05 am
Mbob-
I don't think anyone can predict whether or not Sanders would have won as a 3rd party
candidate. He ran a remarkable campaign, but when he caved to the Clinton machine he lost a
lot of supporters, including me. If he had stood up at the convention and talked of the DNC
skullduggery exposed by Wikileaks, and said "either I run as a democrat, or I run as a Green,
but I'm running", he would have at least gotten 15 pct to make the TV debates, and who knows
what could have happened after that. 40 pct of registered voters didn't vote. That alone
tells you it is possible he might have won.
Instead he expected us to follow him like he was the f'ing Pied Piper to elect another
Wall St. loving warmonger. That's why he gets no "pass" from me. He (and the Queen of Chaos)
gave us Trump. BTW, Obama doesn't get a "pass" either.
Much of what liberals say about Donald Trump and the chilling political moment the Trump
presidency represents is true enough.
Trump really is the arch-authoritarian malignant narcissist that liberals say he is. Trump
thinks he deserves to rule the nation like an absolute monarch or some ridiculous Banana
Republic dictator. He believes he's above all the law, consistent with Louis XIV's dictum
L'etat, C'est Moi ("the state is me"). The notion that Trump can pardon himself from any crime
really is the height of imperial arrogance.
Trump really does value nothing but the advancement of his own wealth and image. There is no
person, no principle, no higher loyalty he is not willing to sacrifice on the altar of
self.
Trump really is the almost perfect embodiment of venal malevolence that liberals say he is.
The idiotic military parade Trump has scheduled for the next Veterans Day is an exercise in
proto-fascistic, Mussolini-like imperial-presidential self-adulation.
This racist and sexist beast befouls the nation and world with his ghastly, eco-cidal
presence. The sooner he draws his last undeserved breath, the better for all living things (or
maybe not: Mike Pence could be worse).
The Authoritarian and Inauthentic Opposition
Fine, but why does this despicable, orange-tinted insult to common human decency
occupy the White House? He holds the most powerful office in the world because the Democratic
Party has long been and remains what the late liberal-left Princeton political scientist
Sheldon Wolin called the Inauthentic Opposition. "Should Democrats somehow be elected,"
Wolin prophesied in
early 2008, they would do nothing to "alter significantly the direction of society" or
"substantially revers[e] the drift rightwards. The timidity of a Democratic Party mesmerized by
centrist precepts," Wolin wrote, "points to the crucial fact that for the poor, minorities, the
working class and anti-corporatists there is no opposition party working on their behalf." The
corporatist Democrats would work to "marginalize any possible threat to the corporate allies of
the Republicans."
Wolin called it. A nominal Democrat was elected president along with Democratic majorities
in both houses of Congress in 2008. What followed under
Barack Obama (as under his Democratic presidential predecessor Bill
Clinton ) – a
different and possibly more dangerous kind of malignant narcissist – was the
standard "elite" neoliberal manipulation of campaign populism and identity politics in
service to the reigning big-money bankrollers and their global empire. Wall Street's control of
Washington and the related imperial agenda of the "Pentagon System" were advanced more
effectively by the nation's first Black president than they could have been by stiff and
wealthy white Republicans like John McCain or Mitt Romney. The reigning U.S. system of
corporate and imperial "inverted totalitarianism" (Wolin) was given a deadly, fake-democratic
re-branding. The underlying "rightward drift" sharpened, fed by a widespread and easily
Republican-exploited sense of popular abandonment and betrayal, as the Democrats depressed and
demobilized their own purported popular base.
Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton did nothing to correct that problem. Quite the
opposite. With a colossal campaign finance war-chest fed not just by the usual Wall Street and
Silicon Valley suspects but
also by many traditionally Republican big money donors who were repelled by Trump's faux
"populism," the transparently corporate establishmentarian candidate Clinton could barely deign
to pretend to be a progressive. She ran almost completely on the argument that Trump was too
terrible and unqualified to be president. Making candidate character and qualities her sole
selling point was a critical and historic mistake given the angry and anti-establishment mood
of the electorate and her own epic unpopularity. So was calling Trump's flyover county supporters a "basket
of" racist and sexist " deplorables "
in a sneering comment (one that
accurately reflected her aristocratic
"progressive"-neoliberal world view) to rich Manhattan campaign donors.
Authoritarianism? Single-Payer national health insurance had long been supported by most
U.S.-Americans when Obama ascended to the White House. Who cared? Not the
"radical socialist" Barack Obama. Like the Clintons before him, Obama coldly froze Single
Payer advocates out of the health insurance policy debate. He worked with the leading drug and
insurance corporations and their Wall Street backers to craft a richly corporatist "reform"
that preserved those companies' power to write their super-profits into the obscenely
exaggerated cost of American medical care.
As our greatest intellectual Noam Chomsky noted two
years ago, Obama "punished more whistle-blowers than all previous presidents combined." The
Obama administration repeatedly defended George W. Bush's position on behalf of indefinite
detention, maintaining that prisoners (US-Americans included) in the US global "war on [of]
terror" were not entitled to habeas corpus or protection from torture or execution.
Obama carried overseas assassination (by drone and Special Forces) – execution (even of
U.S. citizens) without trial or even formal charge – to new levels. Regarding Obama's
drone assassination program, Chomsky wrote acidly about how "the [Obama] Justice Department
explained that the constitutional guarantee of due process, tracing to Magna Carta, is now
satisfied by internal deliberations in the executive branch alone. The constitutional lawyer in
the White House agreed. King John (1199-1216) might have nodded with satisfaction."
Hillary Clinton's 2016 Vice Presidential ticket partner, Senator Tim Kaine (D-VA), is
currently a leading sponsor of the " Forever
AUMF 2018" (SJRes 59) (Authority for the Use of Military Force). As the ACLU's
Renee Parsons explains , the measure would " eliminate Congress' sole, inviolate
Constitutional authority 'to declare war.'" It "would remove Congress from its statutory
authority as it transfers 'uninterrupted' authority on 'the use of all necessary and
appropriate force' to one individual." That would garner another thumbs-up from King John.
The Democrats could well have won the 2016 election by running Bernie Sanders. Bernie would
have tapped popular anger from the center-left, advancing a policy agenda and anti-plutocratic
sentiments consistent with longstanding majority-progressive public opinion in the U.S. But so
what? The Democratic nomination process was rigged against Sanders for some very good
ruling-class reasons. As William Kaufman told Barbara Ehrenreich on Facebook last year, "The
Democrats aren't feckless, inept, or stupid, unable to 'learn' what it takes to win. They are
corrupt. They do not want to win with an authentically progressive program because it would
threaten the economic interests of their main corporate donor base The Democrats know exactly
what they're doing. They have a business model: sub-serving the interests of the corporate
elite."
The reigning corporate Democrats would rather lose to the right, even to a proto-fascistic
white nationalist and eco-exterminist right, than lose to the left, even to a mildly
progressive social democratic left within their own party.
Among other things, Russiagate is the Inauthentic Opposition, following its business model,
doing its job, working to cover its tracks by throwing the debacle of its corporatist politics
down Orwell's memory hole and attributing its self-made defeat to Russia's allegedly powerful
interference in our supposed democracy. Russiagate is meant to provide corporate Democrats
cover not only for 2016 but also for 2018 and 2020. It advances a narrative that lets the
Democrats continue nominating business-friendly neoliberal shills and imperialists who pretend
to be progressive while they are owned by the nation's homegrown oligarchs. This year's crop of
Democratic Congressional candidates is loaded with military and intelligence veterans, a
reflection of the Democrats' determination to run as the true party of empire.
"Some Discipline and Pragmatism to the Oval Office"
Under the cover of Russiagate, the pinstripe politicos atop the nation's not-so leftmost
major party seem to have the Sanders wing under control. Clintonite Democratic National
Committee (DNC) chair Tom Perez purged
progressive, Sanders Democrats from leading positions in the DNC last fall. Bernie-endorsed
candidates have flailed in
the Democrats' 2018 Congressional primaries . The not-so "socialist" Sanders' not-so
revolutionary "political [though not social] revolution" seems largely spent, skewered on the
fork of a major party electoral-industrial-complex it falsely promised to transform from
within. In the Iowa Democratic gubernatorial primary last Tuesday, the progressive Democrat
union member and "Our Revolution" candidate Cathy Glasson was trounced by the vapid and
centrist but super-wealthy businessman Fred Hubbell, who self-financed his campaign with
millions of dollars.
I recently watched a "liberal" morning CNN talking head salivate over the prospect of the
Democrats running a billionaire business mogul who "shares the party's world view" –
someone like the just-retired Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz. The latte and cappuccino mogul
recently and absurdly ripped the Democratic Party for " going so far to the left ."
Sounding like a once-traditional Republican, Schultz
elaborated :
"I say to myself, 'How are we going to pay for these things,' in terms of things like
single payer [and] people espousing the fact that the government is going to give everyone a
job. I don't think that's realistic. I think we got to get away from these falsehoods and
start talking about the truth and not false promises I think the greatest threat domestically
to the country is this $21 trillion debt hanging over the cloud of America and future
generations. The only way we're going to get out of that is we've got to grow the economy, in
my view, 4 percent or greater. And then we have to go after entitlements."
How to pay for progressive policies long but irrelevantly
supported by most U.S.-Americans ? With (to mention some other measures that have long been
quaintly and trivially preferred by most U.S. citizens) seriously progressive taxation
including a financial transaction tax and with a long-overdue transfer of taxpayer dollars from
the bloated and monumentally
mass-murderous Pentagon budget. There's nothing remotely mysterious about how we could fund
Single Payer and green jobs programs that would
help save the nation and (oh, by the way) the human race from the actual "greatest threat to
the country" (and to the world): environmental catastrophe , fed by
toxic capitalist "growth" (let's hit "4 percent of higher"!) and with the climate
crisi s ("climate change" does not begin to capture to the gravity of the problem) in the
lead.
Here's the accurate translation for "go after entitlements": (1) slash Social Security and
Medicare further; (2) use the fiscal crisis created by arch-plutocratic tax cuts for the
already absurdly rich and by the persistently gargantuan "defense" (empire) budget as an excuse
to decimate further the already weak U.S. social safety net and to (in what promises to be an
epic windfall for Wall Street) privatize the nation's old age insurance system. The real
entitlement that matters most – the inherited oligarchic class rule and despotism of
capital over workers, citizens, and ever more poisoned commons – remains untouched and is
indeed expanded in coffee baron Schultz's glorious "liberal" agenda,
All of which is fairly consistent with the Wall Street- and corporate-friendly
records and agenda of the Democratic Party during and between the ugly "neoliberal" years
when a Georgia peanut farmer (deregulation leader Jimmy Carter) and two silver-tongued Ivy
League law school graduates (NAFTA champion and public assistance-wrecker Bill Clinton and big
bank bailout champion and Trans Pacific Partnership advocate Barack Obama) occupied the White
House. I expect the dismal Democrats to nominate the longtime centrist politician Joe "Regular
Guy" Biden (who claims he would have kicked Trump's ass
in high school ) or the newly hatched faux-progressive Senator and former longtime
prosecutor Kamala "Obama 2.0" Harris (D-CA), but, hey,
why not go full corporate monty and try to put an actual full-on corporate CEO in the White
House in the name of the Democratic Party's "liberal world view"? As the "liberal"
New
York Timesapprovingly explains :
"The election of Mr. Trump, a real estate developer and reality television personality,
certainly opened that door of opportunity, making it clear that American voters were willing
to elect a president with no prior government experience .American companies -- including
Starbucks -- have become more political in recent years, wading into issues like immigration,
gun rights and climate policy And at a moment when many voters say they are frustrated with
partisan gridlock and ineffective government programs, some believe that an efficiency-minded
business executive might bring some discipline and pragmatism to the Oval Office."
Besides Schultz, other corporate CEOs I've heard and read self-described liberals discuss as
potentially desirable presidential candidates include Oprah Winfrey, Mark Cuban, Disney CEO Bob
Iger, Facebook's spooky cult-leader Mark Zuckerberg, and even the JP Morgan Chase chairman and
CEO Jamie Dimon. What the Hell: why not drop the pretense of independence from the nation's
corporate and financial dictatorship and run an actual corporate or financial chieftain for
president?
That would be an act of oligarchic honesty on the part of the dismal dollar Dems. "I like
the idea of Dimon," one left correspondent writes me: "maybe with him as a candidate people
would finally wake up to the fact that the Democrats are the real problem." Don't hold your
breath. "Because," another comrade tells me, "being a ruthless plutocrat is their world
view."
"Trump is Terrible, So Let's Give Him More Spying and Killing Powers!"
What is the Democrats' leading cry? That the terrible Trump is truly terrible – and a
tool of Russia. And, of course, the "terrible" part is all too terribly true – the Russia
part not so much. But after you've bemoaned the terribleness of Trump for the ten thousandth
time, are you ready to get serious about the systemic and richly bipartisan, oligarchic context
within which Trump has emerged? "The Trump administration ," Chris Hedges reminded us on
Truthdig two weeks ago, "did not rise like Venus on a half shell from the sea. Donald
Trump is the result of a long process of political, cultural and social decay. He is a product
of our failed democracy . The problem is not Trump," writes Hedges. "It is a political system,
dominated by corporate power and the mandarins of the two major political parties, in which
we don't count " (emphasis added).
And if Trump is as much of a dangerous and authoritarian monster as liberal Democrats say he
is (and he is), then why, pray tell, have most Democrats in Congress been willing to grant
him record levels of military funding along with re-authorized and
expanded warrantless surveillance and spying powers ? Why are Tim Kaine and other top
Democrats ready to grant him (and his successors) a freaking "Forever AUMF"? Hello? What does
that say about the not-so leftmost of the two reigning corporate parties? The glaring
schizophrenia ("Trump is a monster, let's give him more war and spying powers!") is yet more
proof that the Democrats are indeed an inauthentic opposition , committed to the same
imperial and police state Trump heads today. They are merely waiting to put one of their
ruling-class own atop the same exact and in fact richly bipartisan structures.
What Goes Around: "Trampling on the Helpless Abroad" Comes Home
A final matter concerns the problem of imperial chickens coming home to roost. Liberals
don't like to hear it, but the ugly, richly documented historical fact of the matter is that
their party of binary and tribal choice has long joined Republicans in backing and indeed
crafting a U.S. foreign policy that has imposed
authoritarian regimes (and profoundly undemocratic interventions including invasions and
occupations) the world over . The roster of authoritarian and often-mass murderous
governments the U.S. military and CIA and allied transnational business interests have backed,
sometimes even helped create, with richly bipartisan support, is long indeed.
Last fall, Illinois Green Party leader Mike Whitney ran some fascinating numbers on the 49
nation-states that the right-wing "human rights" organization Freedom House identified as
"dictatorships" in 2016. Leaving aside Freedom House's problematic inclusion of Russia, Cuba,
and Iran on its list, the most remarkable thing about
Whitney's research was his finding that the U.S. offered military assistance to 76 percent
of these governments. (The only exceptions were Belarus, China, Central African Republic, Cuba,
Equatorial Guinea, Iran, Myanmar, North Korea, Russia, South Sudan, Sudan, and Syria.). "Most
politically aware people," Whitney wrote:
"know of some of the more highly publicized instances examples of [U.S. support for
foreign dictatorships], such as the tens of billions of dollars' worth of US military
assistance provided to the beheading capital of the world, the misogynistic monarchy of Saudi
Arabia, and the repressive military dictatorship now in power in Egypt apologists for our
nation's imperialistic foreign policy try to rationalize such support, arguing that Saudi
Arabia and Egypt are exceptions to the rule. But my survey demonstrates that our
government's support for Saudi Arabia and Egypt are not exceptions to the rule at all. They
are the rule ."
The Pentagon and State Department data Whitney used came from Fiscal Year 2015. It dated
from the next-to-last year of the Obama administration, for which so many liberals recall with
misplaced nostalgia. Freedom House's list should have included Honduras, ruled by a vicious
right-wing government that Obama and his Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton helped install in a June 2009 military coup .
The problem here isn't just liberal hypocrisy and double standards. The deeper issue is
that, as the great American iconoclast Mark Twain knew, you cannot maintain democracy at home
while conducting an authoritarian empire abroad. During the United States' blood-soaked
invasion and occupation of the Philippines, Twain penned an imaginary history of the
twentieth-century United States. "It was impossible," Twain wrote, "to save the Great Republic.
She was rotten to the heart. Lust of conquest had long ago done its work; trampling upon the
helpless abroad had taught her, by a natural process, to endure with apathy the like at
home."
"Just a decade after Twain wrote those prophetic words," the historian
Alfred W. McCoy has observed , "colonial police methods came home to serve as a template
for the creation of an American internal security apparatus in wartime." The nation's first Red
Scare, which crushed left and labor movements during and after World War One, drew heavily on
the lessons and practices of colonial suppression in the Philippines and Cuba. As McCoy shows
in his latest book, In the Shadows of the
American Century: The Rise and Decline of US Global Power , the same basic process
– internal U.S. repression informed and shaped by authoritarian and imperial practices
abroad and justified by alleged external threats to the "homeland" – has recurred ever
since. Today, the rise of an unprecedented global surveillance state overseen by the National
Security Agency has cost the US the trust of many of its top global allies (under Bush43 and
Obama44, not just under Trump45) while undermining civil liberties and democracy within as
beyond the U.S.
"The fetters imposed on liberty at home," James Madison wrote in 1799 , "have ever
been forged out of the weapons provided for defense against real, pretended, or imaginary
dangers abroad." Those are wise words well worth revisiting amidst the current endless
Russiagate madness, calculated among other things to tell us that the FBI, the CIA, and the
rest of the nation's vast and ever more ubiquitous intelligence and surveillance state are on
our side.
"... A lot of water muddying today - and it's being stirred from a lot of seemingly unrelated directions. Distract and confuse, great ploys - now who benefits more is the most likely source of today's leafletting. ..."
DOJ Watchdog Finds Comey "Defied Authority" And Was "Insubordinate"
by Tyler Durden
Wed, 06/06/2018 - 22:44 763 SHARES
The Department of Justice's internal watchdog has found that James Comey defied authority
several times while he was director of the FBI,
according to ABC , citing sources familiar with the draft of a highly anticipated OIG
report on the FBI's conduct during the Clinton email investigation .
One source told ABC News that the draft report explicitly used the word "insubordinate" to
describe Comey's behavior . Another source agreed with that characterization but could not
confirm the use of the term.
In the draft report, Inspector General Michael Horowitz also rebuked former Attorney
General Loretta Lynch for her handling of the federal investigation into Hillary Clinton's
personal email server, the sources said. -
ABC
President Trump complained on Tuesday of "numerous delays" in the release of the Inspector
General's report, which some have accused of being slow
walked or altered to minimize its impact on the FBI and DOJ.
"What is taking so long with the Inspector General's Report on Crooked Hillary and Slippery
James Comey," Trump said on Twitter. "Hope report is not being changed and made weaker!"
"It's been almost a year and a half and it is time that Congress receives the IG report,"
said Congressman Ron DeSantis (R-FL), who has been on the front lines of the battle against
the DOJ and FBI's stonewalling of lawmakers requesting documentation. "This has gone on long
enough and the American people's patience is wearing thin. We need accountability," said
DeSantis.
Another congressional official, who's been fighting to obtain documents from the DOJ and
FBI, said it is no surprise that they are putting pressure on Horowitz. According to the
official, "They continue to slow roll documents, fail to adhere to congressional oversight
and concern is growing that they will wait until summer and then turn over documents that are
heavily redacted."
ABC reports that there is no indication Trump has seen - or will see - the draft of the
report prior to its release. Inspector General Horowitz, however, could revise the draft report
now that current and former officials have offered their responses to the report's conclusions,
according to the sources.
The draft of Horowitz's wide-ranging report specifically called out Comey for ignoring
objections from the Justice Department when he disclosed in a letter to Congress just days
before the 2016 presidential election that FBI agents had reopened the Clinton probe,
according to sources . Clinton has said that letter doomed her campaign.
Before Comey sent the letter to Congress, at least one senior Justice Department official
told the FBI that publicizing the bombshell move so close to an election would violate
longstanding department policy , and it would ignore federal guidelines prohibiting the
disclosure of information related to an ongoing investigation, ABC News was told. -
ABC
During an April interview, Comey was asked by ABC News anchor George Stephanopoulos "If
Attorney General Lynch had ordered you not to send the letter, would you have sent it?"
"No," replied Comey. "I believe in the chain of command."
Deputy Attorney General slammed Comey's letter to congress while recommending that Trump
fire Comey last year - saying it "was wrong" for Comey "to usurp the Attorney General's
authority" when he revealed in July 2016 that he would not be filing charges against Hillary
Clinton or her aides (many of whom were granted immunity).
"It is not the function of the Director to make such an announcement," Rosenstein wrote in a
letter recommending that Comey be fired. "At most, the Director should have said the FBI had
completed its investigation and presented its findings to federal prosecutors."
The draft OIG report dings Comey for not consulting with Lynch and other senior DOJ
officials before making his announcement on national TV. Furthermore, while Comey said there
was no "clear evidence" that Hillary Clinton "intended to violate" the law, he also said that
Hillary Clinton had been "extremely careless" in her "handling of very sensitive, highly
classified information."
And as we now know, Comey's senior counterintelligence team at the FBI made
extensive edits to Clinton's exoneration letter, effectively decriminalizing her behavior
.
"I have not coordinated or reviewed this statement in any way with the Department of Justice
or any other part of the government. They do not know what I am about to say," Comey said on
live TV July 5, 2016.
By then, Lynch had taken the unusual step of publicly declaring she would accept the FBI's
recommendations in the case, after an impromptu meeting with former president Bill Clinton
sparked questions about her impartiality.
Comey has defended his decisions as director, insisting he was trying to protect the FBI
from even further criticism and "didn't see that I had a choice." -
ABC
"The honest answer is I screwed up a couple of things, but ... I think given what I knew at
the time, these were the decisions that were best calculated to preserve the values of the
institutions," Comey told ABC News. " I still think it was the right thing to do. "
Comey is currently on a tour promoting his new book, " A Higher Loyalty."
About that delay...
As many wonder just where the OIG report is after supposedly being "finished" for a while,
the Washington Examiner 's Chief political correspondent, Byron York, offers some keen insight
(tweeted before details of the draft were leaked):
• Byron York
A series of tweets on what to expect from the much-anticipated inspector general report on
DOJ/FBI handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation... 1/
10:42 AM - Jun 6, 2018
• Byron York
First, looks like it might be delayed yet again. Senate Judiciary Committee scheduled a June
5 hearing to discuss IG report.
After delay, had to be rescheduled for next Monday, June 11.
Now looks like might be delayed again.
10:42 AM-Jun 6, 2018
• Byron York
Why delays? Feet are clearly being dragged. There are snags over classified information.
Also, and this is intriguing: appears in last several weeks IG got new information, interviewed
new witnesses. Could have contributed to delay. Don't know what it's about. 3/
10:43 AM-Jun6, 2018
Byron York
@ByronYork
Replying to @ByronYork
So, when IG report is finally released-looking like mid-June -- what will it cover? Don't
know its conclusions, but here are some subjects you can expect to be reading about: 4/
10:43 AM-Jun 6, 2018
• Byron York
Expect discussion of 6/27/16 Loretta Lynch-Bill Clinton meeting on tarmac in Arizona. IG has
done extensive investigation.
What was said? What were the intentions of those involved? Expect it to be covered
carefully. 5/
10:44 AM-Jun 6, 2018
• Byron York
Expect discussion of James Comey's decision to begin drafting an exoneration memo for
Hillary Clinton long before the FBI had even interviewed her, or at least a dozen other key
figures in the case.
Also: Why hand out so much immunity? 6/
10:45 AM-Jun6, 2018
• Byron York
Expect discussion of Comey's intentions when he announced reopening of Clinton investigation
on 10/28/16, shortly before election day. Democrats specifically asked IG to investigate
that.
10:45 AM-Jun 6, 2018
• Byron York
Expect discussion of what Andrew McCabe did when he first learned about existence of Clinton
emails on Anthony Weiner's laptop in early October 2016. Did he sit on information? If so, why?
What did Comey know? 8/
10:46 AM-Jun 6, 2018
• Byron York
Expect discussion on rationale for Comey's controversial 7/5/16 statement announcing no
charges would be filed against Clinton.
To say it was unorthodox would be an understatement. What was he doing? 9/
10:46 AM-Jun 6, 2018
• Byron York
Expect discussion of Lynch's refusal to recuse herself from investigation or to appoint
special counsel. Plus, look for discussion of why McCabe waited so long to recuse himself
even after public reporting of Clinton-related political contributions to his wife. 10/
10:47 AM-Jun6, 2018
• Byron York
Finally, don't expect to learn much new about McCabe 'lack of candor' situation re:
leaks.
Not clear whether IG will reveal much beyond what has already been released in wake of
McCabe firing. End/
10:48 AM-Jun 6, 2018
Also, and this is intriguing: appears in last several weeks IG got new information,
interviewed new witnesses. Could have contributed to delay. Don't know what it's about.
How many more new witnesses with new information will crawl out of the woodwork at the
most opportune moment to delay releasing the report. I'm guessing they interviewed McCabe's
hairdresser at Sport Clips to see which direction he combs.
If the strongest language in this report to describe Comey's actions is merely
"insubordinate" and "defied authority", then it's a big, fat, nothingburger... Not a GD thing
is going to happen, lift rug, sweep vigorously...
If the blue team leaked this, then they're trying to get ahead of damaging
information. If it's the red team, then you're right Keyser and a behind the scenes agreement has been
reached letting both teams off the hook for some unleaked transgression.
"Expect discussion of what Andrew McCabe did when he first learned about existence of
Clinton emails on Anthony Weiner's laptop in early October 2016. Did he sit on
information"
I wouldn't sit on anything related to Weiner or his LAPtop.
A lot of water muddying today - and it's being stirred from a lot of seemingly unrelated
directions. Distract and confuse, great ploys - now who benefits more is the most likely
source of today's leafletting.
Your lips to God's ears! This is ridiculous! Insubordinate? That's it? 90% of the people in DC need a good wearing out with a belt! This politically correct nonsense has to end. Call it what it is you lily-livered pansies!
It's treason and sedition. It's a den of snakes!
You want to see America bounce back as a strong and proud nation? START HANDING OUT REAL
PUNISHMENT! Otherwise, it will be the same old sleazy crap over and over again.
agree...that's why we need to stay diligent and demand the proper dissemination of the
impartial facts...
with McCabe seeking immunity...and Comey playing 'Patriot'...and Brennon being and old
lair...and Clapper portraying all previous actions were 'honorable'...we have to ask
ourselves a question...
Anything I hear/see involving Clapper and Brennan I figure is a fictitious psyop. Brian
Cox and Albert Finney already portrayed them in the Bourne films.
SEVERAL Ex FBI agents and current FBI Agents are BEGGING to be subpoenaed, WHY hasn't this
happened, THEY want this MESS OUT in the open, yet TRUMP does nothing?. I would have Congress
do it asap, under OATH and with Criminal repercussions. Horowitz is a EUNUCH.
Exactly. That's why Lockheed Martin paid him $6 million a year. Does anyone think they hired him for his abilities as an attorney when he lacked any
experience in corporate law? Then he went on to Ray Dalio's Bridgewater associates. Wonder how much they paid him
there. What experience did he have for working as an attorney for a hedge fund?
Then he leaves these extremely lucrative jobs to go back to government at $170,00 a
year.
I'd be insubordinate too if Satan's Slut Hillary was breathing hellfire down my neck.
Comey probably likes living as much as the rest of us. Now that the noose is getting tighter,
will he give up the slut???? Hopefully a few of these pukes will turn on her in unison. The
Magical Homo will be tougher to snare.
The former ever-so-sanctimonious FBI Director, classified document leaker and Clinton
water boy Jimmy Comey was "Insubordinate?" Who could have guessed? But remember, Trump fired
the asswipe in order to "obstruct justice." Jail Jimmy without delay.
While we are on the subject, this shows you the type of "friends" that Saint Mueller
keeps.
If reports are true, then IG Horowitz is fudging Coney-Lynch's real crimes; namely the
events leading up to the July whitewash of Killary which include drafting the exoneration
letter before interviewing Clinton, twisting the facts to decriminalize Clinton's offenses
and pressuring FBI agents to alter reports regarding the Clinton investigation.
If the IG brushes past these matters, whatever else he says is worthless. Just tarnishes
Comey's image a tad bit and will be forgotten.
This sounds like they are trying to decriminalize Comey's actions, not indict him. How the fuck does the headline equate
to a criminal charge? Maybe they (OIG) are trying to let this asshole off the hook? What's he going to get? A severe tongue
lashing because he was insubordinate?
From comments: "Putin, if people would listen, proposes a model that I find acceptable. Respect for
national sovereignty and government institutions. In this model, yes, we would tolerate
authoritarian governments as long as they respect the sovereignty and stability of other
countries." But the problem with this statement is the dynamics of American Imperialism, which would not tolerate any
government which is not a vassal.
Notable quotes:
"... Idealism in foreign policy is, by definition, the pursuit of a dreamy vision of a better world that does not seriously ask whether the ideal is actually compatible with reality. Illusions set idealists up for terrible surprises. Addressing problems through, for example, the lens of Fukuyama-style Hegelian idealism, according to which the world is inexorably progressing toward liberal democratic values, would in today's world be not only absurd but dangerous. ..."
"... When realist thinkers -- from Machiavelli to Kissinger -- prick the bubbles of the dreamers, they incur only wrath. For idealists, it is the height of cynicism and bad manners to point out that cunning and force are what actually dominate world affairs. ..."
"... For Kissinger, peace depends upon "a system of independent states refraining from interference in each other's domestic affairs and checking each other's ambitions through a general equilibrium of power." The Peace of Westphalia and, to some degree, the Congress of Vienna embodied such an arrangement, offering the lesson that balance-of-power theory is indispensable in analyzing world events. ..."
"... However, Kissinger was intellectually astute enough to recognize that, in order to create and maintain this equilibrium of power, something more than a mechanical balance is required: enlightened statesmen. Kissinger states explicitly that balance-of-power "does not in itself secure peace." If world leaders refuse to play by Westphalian rules, the system will break down. He warns of the rise of radical Islamists, for example, who refuse to think in Westphalian terms. ..."
"... Morality in foreign affairs, then, is not found in a set of abstract rules of behavior for nation-states, nor is it found in deploying military power to advance some progressive, idealistic cause. Morality can be found only in the souls of righteous statesmen who, under complex international circumstances, act not out of malice or hatred, nor out of greed or pure self-interest, but who find a path to peace that is compatible not only with the interest of their own nations but that of the others. ..."
"... Just had to correct that one sentence, there. Kissinger had no problem intervening in the affairs of "independent states" that posed little military or political threat to the United States, but perhaps threatened the commercial interests, profits or market share of American companies and capitalists. ..."
"... The record of the foreign policy realists, Republican or Democratic, is drenched in blood, from Afghanistan, Indonesia and Angola to Chile, Nicaragua and Guatemala, not to mention Cambodia from Nixon to Carter to Reagan. And the long-term consequences of their decisions (Iran in 1953, Afghanistan under Carter and Brezinski) can bite the rest of us pretty hard, too. Hell, George H.W. Bush and James Baker brought us the first Iraq War, which should have been left to the Arab League to solve (and, frankly, I give not a whit for the independence of the Emirs of Kuwait). ..."
"... An American imperialist is still, when all is said and done, an American imperialist, and woe be to any small, non-nuclear independent state that gets in the way of said imperialist making the world safe for ExxonMobil, Goldman Sachs or Citibank. ..."
"... What Machiavelli wrote is that statesmen should advocate conventional religious morality as the default position in most circumstances but when faced with an existential emergency they must sacrifice their soul to not do good and use evil but only as an occasion calls for it to protect the nation. ..."
"... Putin, if people would listen, proposes a model that I find acceptable. Respect for national sovereignty and government institutions. In this model, yes, we would tolerate authoritarian governments as long as they respect the sovereignty and stability of other countries. ..."
"... Kissinger is famous for his attachment to the balance of power concept, particularly in relation to the Congress of Vienna, but I always think that he leaves out the main point. The balance of power wasn't an end in itself. It was a means to the end that the European powers wanted to achieve, namely, the restoration of the "ancien régime". The idea of the balance of powers was to prevent the Great Powers getting into fights with each other, leading to mutual destruction, which, indeed, is what ultimately happened in 1914. ..."
"... There are countless examples where realists cherry-picked the facts (variables). ..."
"... Good discussion. Machiavelli's central insight is that a national leader must get their hands dirty, even to the point of committing evil, to protect the nation from disaster, to reform corruption, to remove internal insurrectionists. But using evil for good is limited to only those real (realistic) threats against the nation. According to Machiavelli in his Discourses, glory is reserved for those who are the founders of republics, reformers or religious leaders of a nation, military leaders followed by literature writers and artists who reflect republican virtues. Contra William Smith, foreign policy can not ALWAYS be "just and moral", which is an idealistic a notion. ..."
Great power competition is everywhere these days -- in Syria, Ukraine, the South China Sea,
North Korea. With the rise of China and the rejuvenation of Russian military power, realist
thinking is suddenly back in vogue, as it should be.
Idealism in foreign policy is, by definition, the pursuit of a dreamy vision of a better
world that does not seriously ask whether the ideal is actually compatible with reality.
Illusions set idealists up for terrible surprises. Addressing problems through, for example,
the lens of Fukuyama-style Hegelian idealism, according to which the world is inexorably
progressing toward liberal democratic values, would in today's world be not only absurd but
dangerous. The liberal idea that the UN can foster world order through international
institutions is likewise naïve and perilous. Fantasy lands in art and literature can be
wonderful divertissements , but using them as the basis for great nation's foreign
policy can produce nightmares.
George W. Bush created a dream world in his mind where it seemed plausible for American
military power to end "tyranny in our world." Tyranny, as anyone who has not slipped the bonds
of reality knows, is rooted in the human soul and cannot be "ended." Tyranny can be checked and
mitigated, but only through extraordinary effort and with the help of a rich tradition.
But it is always easier to assign oneself virtue based on self-applauding and unrealistic
notions about world peace. When realist thinkers -- from Machiavelli to Kissinger -- prick the
bubbles of the dreamers, they incur only wrath. For idealists, it is the height of cynicism and
bad manners to point out that cunning and force are what actually dominate world affairs.
Yet for all their sagacity, realist thinkers are not without their problems either. They
tend to deny the moral nature of human beings and the role that this may play in world events.
Because they have seen the great danger of moralistic idealism in foreign policy, they
sometimes don't think morality should be considered at all. Realist theory has a cold, inhumane
quality that makes it inattentive to the moral dimension of human existence.
The failure of realists to incorporate moral considerations into their thinking has made
realism unpopular with the American people, who historically believe that their nation's
foreign policy should have at least some moral content. They, after all, send their own boys
and girls to war, and they would like to think that those sacrifices are not made for some
mechanistic balance of power. They know that statesmen must often make cold calculations in the
national interest, but surely somewhere in there must be right and wrong, as in all human
endeavors.
Because some realists have adopted the philosophically untenable position that morality has
no role in world affairs, many Americans have signed on with the moralists' disastrous crusades
instead. The realists have the stronger policy case, but they have ceded the moral ground to
the idealists.
Ironically, it may be the work of Henry Kissinger that can show realists an intellectual
path toward restoring a sense of morality in foreign policy.
For Kissinger, peace depends upon "a system of independent states refraining from
interference in each other's domestic affairs and checking each other's ambitions through a
general equilibrium of power." The Peace of Westphalia and, to some degree, the Congress of
Vienna embodied such an arrangement, offering the lesson that balance-of-power theory is
indispensable in analyzing world events.
However, Kissinger was intellectually astute enough to recognize that, in order to
create and maintain this equilibrium of power, something more than a mechanical balance is
required: enlightened statesmen. Kissinger states explicitly that balance-of-power "does not in
itself secure peace." If world leaders refuse to play by Westphalian rules, the system will
break down. He warns of the rise of radical Islamists, for example, who refuse to think in
Westphalian terms.
Kissinger also says that enlightened leaders must not only recognize the realities of power
politics and the hard Machiavellian truths of international competition, but possess a certain
moral quality that he calls "restraint." Without a willingness to restrain themselves and to
act dispassionately, world leaders will be incapable of building an international order. When
facing difficult challenges, enlightened diplomats and statesmen must have the moral courage to
accept certain "limits of permissible action." Implicit in Kissinger's thought is that
morality, though of a realistic kind, is essential in foreign policy. Only statesmen of a
certain temperament and moral character can support the Westphalian model.
Morality in foreign affairs, then, is not found in a set of abstract rules of behavior
for nation-states, nor is it found in deploying military power to advance some progressive,
idealistic cause. Morality can be found only in the souls of righteous statesmen who, under
complex international circumstances, act not out of malice or hatred, nor out of greed or pure
self-interest, but who find a path to peace that is compatible not only with the interest of
their own nations but that of the others. Such a policy cannot be sketched out in the
abstract in advance; it can emerge only through the moral leadership of genuine statesmen who
act to find a specific solution in a set of complex, concrete circumstances. This is one of the
great lessons of classical political philosophy: justice is not an abstraction but found
concretely in the soul of the just man.
The answer to the question of what a just and moral foreign policy might look like is that
it's the kind that truly just and moral, but also supremely realistic, statesmen will adopt.
That such statesmen are rare is what has caused the great philosophers to lament that only the
dead have seen the end of war.
William S. Smith is managing director and research fellow at the Center for the Study of
Statesmanship at The Catholic University of America.
Implicit in Kissinger's thought is that morality, though of a realistic kind, is essential
in foreign policy. Only statesmen of a certain temperament and moral character can support
the Westphalian model.
1) In 1971, the government of Pakistan carried out a genocide of its Hindu minority in
what is now Bangladesh (then East Pakistan). Somewhere between 1 and 3 million Hindus were
killed, and many thousands of Bengali Muslim leaders and intellectuals were murdered by the
Pakistani regime.
Kissinger and Nixon supported Yahya Khan's government, and even shipped weapons to
Pakistan while the genocide was going on.
From Gary Bass's article in the New Yorker:
While the slaughter in what would soon become an independent Bangladesh was underway,
the C.I.A. and State Department conservatively estimated that roughly two hundred thousand
people had died (the official Bangladeshi death toll is three million). Some ten million
Bengali refugees fled to India, where untold numbers died in miserable conditions in refugee
camps. Pakistan was a Cold War ally of the United States, and Richard Nixon and his
national-security advisor, Henry Kissinger, resolutely supported its military dictatorship;
they refused to impose pressure on Pakistan's generals to forestall further
atrocities.
2) Kissinger was one of key organizers of the 1973 coup against the democratically elected
Allende government in Chile. When Allende was elected, this moral stalwart told his staff "I
don't see any reason why we should stand around and do nothing when a country goes communist
because of the irresponsibility of its own people."
In the first months after the coup d'état, the military killed thousands of
Chilean leftists, both real and suspected, or forced their "disappearance". The military
imprisoned 40,000 political enemies in the National Stadium of Chile In October 1973, the
Chilean songwriter Víctor Jara, and 70 other political killings were perpetrated by
the death squad, Caravan of Death (Caravana de la Muerte).
The government arrested some 130,000 people in a three-year period; the dead and
disappeared numbered thousands.
****************
Tom Lehrer once said that satire died when Kissinger won the Nobel Peace Prize.
Fortunately William Smith's article about Kissinger's "morality" shows that comedy is not yet
dead, even if the comic relief is inadvertent.
For Kissinger, peace depends upon "a system of MAJOR POWERS refraining from interference in
each other's domestic affairs and checking each other's ambitions through a general
equilibrium of power."
Just had to correct that one sentence, there. Kissinger had no problem intervening in the
affairs of "independent states" that posed little military or political threat to the United
States, but perhaps threatened the commercial interests, profits or market share of American
companies and capitalists.
The record of the foreign policy realists, Republican or Democratic, is drenched in blood,
from Afghanistan, Indonesia and Angola to Chile, Nicaragua and Guatemala, not to mention
Cambodia from Nixon to Carter to Reagan. And the long-term consequences of their decisions
(Iran in 1953, Afghanistan under Carter and Brezinski) can bite the rest of us pretty hard,
too. Hell, George H.W. Bush and James Baker brought us the first Iraq War, which should have
been left to the Arab League to solve (and, frankly, I give not a whit for the independence
of the Emirs of Kuwait).
Would the realists have responded to the 2009 coup in Honduras with any more morality than
Hilary Clinton did? Would the economic war upon Venezuela be any less damaging than it has
been under Bush II, Obama or Trump? Yes, some of the realists would not have launched the
invasion of Iraq, but would they have lifted the sanctions regime on Iraq? Would they have
restrained the Saudis in Yemen?
An American imperialist is still, when all is said and done, an American imperialist, and
woe be to any small, non-nuclear independent state that gets in the way of said imperialist
making the world safe for ExxonMobil, Goldman Sachs or Citibank.
Dr. Smith apparently has a misunderstanding about Machiavelli's realism being devoid of
morality.
What Machiavelli wrote is that statesmen should advocate conventional religious morality
as the default position in most circumstances but when faced with an existential emergency
they must sacrifice their soul to not do good and use evil but only as an occasion calls for
it to protect the nation.
Example: Truman authorizing the dropping on A-bombs on Japan;
Churchill not warning the City of Coventry they were to be bombed by the Luftwaffe in WW II
because to warn them would have revealed that the Brits had cracked the German secret codes;
and Pres. Reagan freeing American hostages in Iran in exchange for drug money to fund the
Contras in Nicaragua.
This is in sharp contrast to statesmen (women) such as Hillary Clinton
who used evil gratuitously by taking bribes from foreign nations to fund her foundation; or
Pres. Bill Clinton who "wagged the dog" by bombing a drug factory in Sudan to divert
attention away from a sex scandal.
Machiavelli was not anti-religious or anti-morality,
contrary to pop explanations by liberal media, novels and academics (read Erica Benner's book
Machiavelli's Ethics).
Henry Kissinger as a moral man? I really wish you had a better example to prove your valid
point. The man who was responsible for the murder of millions in Indo China including the
bombing of non combatant countries like Laos is hardly qualified to talk about morality of
anything.
Im not sure morality is even possible. I wonder if it ever was possible.
Everyone in the west is taught the values of multicultural and diversity while the rest of
the world is still tribal. It is those tribes who we (US) considers allies which are
controlling much of our foreign policy. The other constituency is just as old and its the
monied class or the corporations whose only goal is to maintain and grow revenue.
Thank god we have domestic and international law which constrains our foreign policy to
moral issues.
These terms get murky.
Neocons are idealists but most definitely believe in great power competition and dominance.
U.S. interests can only be protected if authoritarian regimes are replaced by pro-U.S.
Democratic govts which is why we were so aggressive in expanding our influence in Eastern
Europe, often through covert means and by force in the M.E. I never had much use for the term 'realism'.
Putin, if people would listen, proposes a model that I find acceptable. Respect for
national sovereignty and government institutions. In this model, yes, we would tolerate
authoritarian governments as long as they respect the sovereignty and stability of other
countries.
We have been brainwashed to consider him an offender in this model because of Ukraine but
his response was a minimalist response to a crisis on his border. We go on crusades and
experiment on other countries thousands of miles away from our shores.
Kissinger is famous for his attachment to the balance of power concept, particularly in
relation to the Congress of Vienna, but I always think that he leaves out the main point. The
balance of power wasn't an end in itself. It was a means to the end that the European powers
wanted to achieve, namely, the restoration of the "ancien régime". The idea of the
balance of powers was to prevent the Great Powers getting into fights with each other,
leading to mutual destruction, which, indeed, is what ultimately happened in 1914.
Westphalia
was a slightly different situation. A 30-year, on again–off again, triangular German
"civil war" between Catholics, Lutherans and Calvinists, with much foreign interference, had
reached a stalemate, which, in practice, amounted to a Catholic defeat. The only way out was
to let everybody keep what they had and agree not to try to take more. It was forced
forbearance rather than balance.
In Europe, at least, peace certainly depends upon "a system of independent states refraining
from interference in each other's domestic affairs and checking each other's ambitions
through a general equilibrium of power". The European Union is the modern expression of that
principle.
That's why Putin's interferences in Ukraine's domestic affairs and his undisguised
attempts to destroy the EU have set off alarm bells all across Europe and why US
unwillingness to check his ambitions is making the EU the only viable option to ensure peace
in Europe.
Kissinger is an extremely bad person to cite on the subject of morality in a realist foreign
policy. John Quincey Adam's would be better. Coincidentally, TAC printed him on this very
subject --
"Idealism in foreign policy is, by definition, the pursuit of a dreamy vision of a better
world"
It need not be that. The "vision thing" that Bush I famously did not do could well be a
part of our national interest, one of the things coldly evaluated, and contributing to our
strength when done correctly.
Of Wayne Lusvardi's examples of "existential" emergencies for which evil can be done to
"protect the nation," "Truman authorizing the dropping on A-bombs on Japan" is at best
debatable given the evidence that the Japanese were willing to surrender as long as they
could keep their emperor, and especially to keep the Soviets from declaring war on them,
while "Churchill not warning the City of Coventry they were to be bombed by the Luftwaffe in
WW II" is legitimate, in my opinion.
But "Reagan freeing American hostages in Iran in exchange for drug money to fund the
Contras in Nicaragua" is laughable. American pride may have needed protection from the
hostage "crisis," but the American nation certainly did not, as it was not threatened in any
way. American foreign policy continued on its way, funding the Mujahideen in Afghanistan,
backing the Khmer Rouge against the Vietnamese Stalinists who drove them from power in
Cambodia, and buying off Egypt, so you can't even say that America's "standing in the world"
particularly suffered from the hostage "crisis."
And as for "Pres. Bill Clinton who 'wagged the dog' by bombing a drug factory in Sudan to
divert attention away from a sex scandal," I'll trump that shameful episode with Pres. Ronald
Reagan invading Grenada two days after the Beirut barracks bombing.
Our D.I. In basic training in his frustration to turn raw recruits into soldiers would raise
his arms to the sky imploring the aid of the Commander-in-Chief in the heavens and holler,
"Dear Lord, give'em books and all they do is eat'em!" That's the way I viewed William Smith's
essay on the need for an infusion of a reconstituted morality in our foreign policy.
After
basic training, I then served as a medical corpsman in Vietnam, where I was confronted with
the grim and brutal reality of that quagmire and learned that the road to hell is paved with
good intentions. LBJ would come to regret calling South Vietnam President Ndo Dinh Diem the
"Churchill of Asia." There lies the dilemma when idealism confronts reality.
More generally,
I disagree with the centrality of the Westphalian concept of what constitutes a nation in the
post-modern world. Smith mentions the influence of non-actors such as jihadists to alter our
foreign policy goals but overlooks how corporations have also altered that concept with their
doctrine of globalization for profits which undercuts national sovereignty established in
Westphalia. Smith seems to be wandering between two worlds, "one dead / The other peerless to
be born" as Mathew Arnold lamented in his poem "Stanzas from the Grande Chartreuse."
Smith is
trying to promote a revisionist history of the last fifty years just as Niall Ferguson did in
the first volume of his authorized biography of Henry Kissinger as an idealist. Ferguson
notes even Kissinger obviously knew the war was a lost cause after he did two fact-finding
tours in South Vietnam early in the war but thought the war was still necessary to prosecute
to save a vestige of our credibility as policeman to the world. Ken Burns also attempts a
revisionist coup of the Vietnam War when he editorialized in his documentary that our
fearless leaders prosecuted that war with the best intentions. So unfortunately, I view this
essay as a current trend to to promote revisionism in our history of the last fifty years
despite the contrary conclusions of the historical facts.
But as John Adams, a foundering
father, once observed "facts are stubborn things."
I agree-Putin's response to our actions is often not even considered: The biggest flaw with realism that it's like a multivariate experiment
-- with everyone
having different variables they think to be relevant. For instance, Kissinger thought Vietnam would fall under Chinese influence under Communist
NVA, yet he ignored the variable of ethnic rivalries between Chinese and Vietnamese. GWB ignored the variables of Iran -- how it would swoop in and nurture newly Shia Iraq..
There are countless examples where realists cherry-picked the facts (variables).
Vietnam: perhaps the only conflict fought on half of another of but minor, if any real
benefit to the US. That with or without Sec. Kissinger is clear as day. As for quagmires --
it seems that all ward have them. Vietnam was a quagmire because our policy was one of
protect and hold as opposed to invade and conquer -- an unfortunate choice. In the world of a
realist, we should have killed any and all Vietcong, raced up to Hanoi and ended the matter.
'nough said.
I am not sure many here are reading the same article, because my take is that the author
is claiming that Sec Kissinger was a realist -- practical – what needed to be done to
accomplish task A -- morality doesn't enter into it. That explains why he found Pres Nixon's
faith amusing. So all of the comments bemoaning the Sec lack of moral attend, only confirms
the realists perspective.
Nonetheless,
I disagree with your version of the last seventeen years. it has not been orchestrated or
led by realists. Quite the opposite. The rhetoric may be couched in all manner of idealism ,
but so was their application of force.
A realist would not give a lick aboy religious affiliation to the aims of regime chang,
cpital market or democracy creation. The onlu factor that would have mattered is who was on
board, or not in the way -- all challengers regardless of their faith, political agendas,
personality, or concerned about symbols as nonsensical historical artifacts would moved aside
by any means necessary. A realist so engaging such large opposition would decided the matter
-- to utter destruction to complete compliance – period.
In fact, I will contend that these pseudo realists, were thwarted by their own bouts if
idealist moral relativity and were the worst sort for the job at hand.
What a joke of an article, Kissinger as a moralist. He is one of the major war criminals of
the second half of the 20th Century. He has the blood of hundreds of thousands if not
millions on his hands, as others above have details. And not all foreigners. Lest we forget
the part he played in Nixon's great lies about Vietnam that delayed a peace settlement to
help Nixon get elected. 30,000 dead Americans later we got pretty much the same settlement.
The author of this article has entered into the realm of the absurd.
Wow, I thought I wasn't ever going to read anything on economic war on Venezuela! Finally,
even if it is from the comments.
There is an article about not to support/encourage a cup here, but obviously, when it is
about the bad economic situation, only the leftish govenrments are blamed, as if Venezuela
wasn't thoroughly dependet on debt.
Besides of that, even if that mention weren't thre, I agree and thanks most of the
comments in this article.
Good discussion. Machiavelli's central insight is that a national leader must get their
hands dirty, even to the point of committing evil, to protect the nation from disaster, to
reform corruption, to remove internal insurrectionists. But using evil for good is limited to
only those real (realistic) threats against the nation. According to Machiavelli in his
Discourses, glory is reserved for those who are the founders of republics, reformers or
religious leaders of a nation, military leaders followed by literature writers and artists
who reflect republican virtues. Contra William Smith, foreign policy can not ALWAYS be "just
and moral", which is an idealistic a notion.
If, as Samuel Johnson is reputed to have said, "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel"
then using Kissinger as an example of realism is the last refuge of a fantasist.
"... Hopefully that means he'll respond to genuine lines of criticism against him, including his decision to investigate both Hillary Clinton and the Trump campaign during the 2016 election but only discuss one of those investigations in public . ..."
A Higher Loyalty drops on Tuesday, but, in keeping with longstanding publishing tradition, the good bits have already been
selectively leaked to outlets in advance. We've learned that the former FBI director compares Trump to
a mafia boss , that
Trump's "leadership is transactional, ego driven, and about personal loyalty," and that Comey admits that the widespread belief that
Clinton would become president may have
played a role in his decision to announce that the FBI was reopening an investigation into her use of a private email server
less than two weeks before the election.
We also learn that Trump was
obsessed
with the "pee tape," the most salacious allegation in the infamous Steele Dossier. Comey writes that Trump "strongly denied the
allegations, asking -- rhetorically, I assumed -- whether he seemed like a guy who needed the service of prostitutes. He then began
discussing cases where women had accused him of sexual assault, a subject I had not raised. He mentioned a number of women, and seemed
to have memorized their allegations."
Trump took the bait, sending out two tweets attacking Comey on Friday morning.
James Comey is a proven LEAKER & LIAR. Virtually everyone in Washington thought he should be fired for the terrible job he
did-until he was, in fact, fired. He leaked CLASSIFIED information, for which he should be prosecuted. He lied to Congress under
OATH. He is a weak and.....
....untruthful slime ball who was, as time has proven, a terrible Director of the FBI. His handling of the Crooked Hillary
Clinton case, and the events surrounding it, will go down as one of the worst "botch jobs" of history. It was my great honor to
fire James Comey!
But of course, Trump admitted, only days after Comey's dismissal, that he really fired Comey over the Russia investigation.
... ... ...
The Republicans are scared of James Comey.
The Republican National Committee just unveiled a new website, LyinComey.com
, to counter whatever allegations the former FBI director levels against President Donald Trump in his new book, which goes on sale
next week. As CNN reports, the RNC is also buying digital ads and sending talking points sent to GOP politicians. This counter-information
campaign is a sign of how worried Republicans are about Comey's potential to inflict political damage -- and is wholly unconvincing.
For example, the RNC's Comey site says that he "stated under oath that he never posed as an anonymous source to leak information
to the press," then notes that he "later testified that he 'asked a friend of [his] to share the content of the memo with a reporter.'"
The presentation makes these two factual statements seem contradictory when they're not. Comey
testified in a May 3, 2017, congressional hearing that he had never been an anonymous source; he
told lawmakers
the following June that he sent his bombshell memos to The New York Times through an intermediary only after his
May 9 ouster.
Those memos laid the groundwork for allegations that Trump obstructed justice by firing the FBI director. "Comey may use his book
tour to push the phony narrative that President Trump obstructed the Russia investigation," the website warns, citing Comey's testimony
last June in which he said Trump never ordered him to halt the Russia investigation. The framing is somewhat misleading, since legal
experts believe the obstruction question
instead revolves
around Comey's firing itself.
The website's release comes after Comey taped an interview with ABC News that's set to air on Sunday night. Axios
quoted an unnamed source present during the interview who said that Comey "answered every question" posed to him. Hopefully
that means he'll respond to genuine lines of criticism against him, including his decision to investigate both Hillary Clinton and
the Trump campaign during the 2016 election but
only discuss one of those investigations in public .
Writing in The Week on Monday, Ryan Cooper argued that
the Democrats have betrayed their New Deal heritage for a mess of neoliberalism. "Up through
about the early 1970s, it had been a fairly straightforward working-class party, but after a
generation of reform, under Bill Clinton it stood for a muddle of capitalism worship leavened
with means-tested welfare programs," Cooper contended. "At bottom, it was a left-inflected
version of the same neoliberalism that comprises Republican Party doctrine."
Cooper's column provoked a lively Twitter
canoe where some of the most prominent voices in left of center journalism weighed in:
Well, it was a working class party in 1936. Then the Southern Dems figured out that the
black people were in the working class too and also wanted to join unions.
The
New York Times
reported on Monday that federal agents seized "records related to several topics including
payments to a pornographic-film actress," presumably referring to the $130,000 payments Cohen
made to Stephanie Clifford -- who is known professionally as Stormy Daniels -- during the 2016
campaign. According to the Times , the search warrants were obtained by the federal
prosecutor in Manhattan after receiving a referral from special counsel Robert Mueller.
Executing a search warrant against any attorney's office, let alone a personal lawyer for
the president of the United States, is no small matter. Attorney and legal blogger Ken White
noted that
the federal guidelines require prosecutors
to seek approval from the Justice Department's upper echelons before applying for a warrant
targeting a lawyer's office. That DOJ officials approved the raid suggests that the U.S.
attorney's office in Manhattan had an extremely good reason to search Cohen's workplace.
This is the first public indication that Cohen is involved in a federal investigation that's
unrelated to Mueller's inquiry into Russian election meddling. The Washington Post
reported last month that Mueller had
requested documents and other materials related to Russian interference, but added that
there was "no indication" that Cohen is a subject or target of the special counsel's
investigation.
That'll likely come as little relief to Cohen himself as he now faces a federal
investigation of his own. One possible avenue of inquiry for federal prosecutors is whether the
president compensated Cohen for the $130,000 payment to Clifford during the 2016 campaign as
part of a non-disclosure agreement about her alleged past sexual liaisons with Trump. If he
wasn't reimbursed, Cohen may have run
afoul of federal campaign-finance laws, since the payment could be considered an in-kind
donation to Trump's campaign beyond the individual legal limit.
Such a deep provisionalism and burning desire to revive McCarthyism. "Russians under each bed" type of story... To
this guy if you are not CIA agent, then you agent of GRU or FSB. And he does not understand that Manafort essentially pushed
Yanukovich into Joe Biden hands.
If we consider all people who left Ukraine after EuroMaydan as Putin's agents, then it is unclear how EuroMaydan managed to
sucessed with such an wast netwrok of Russian spies.
Also it is unknown to Foer that Yanukovich was a moderate Ukrainian nationalist, who flirted w and supported far right parties
such as Svoboda and organizations, rise of which under his Presidency was the instrumental in his demise.
But
then
, last winter, Robert Mueller described Kostya as a "long-time Russian colleague of Manafort's" with "ties to a
Russian intelligence service." The reference came in a casual aside, buried in a brief arguing that Manafort should be
subjected to stringent bail conditions. It was a strange way to inject such a crucial fact. But Mueller
repeated
the allegation a few months later, as if to remove ambiguity. These ties weren't vestiges of a distant past,
but were said to be active through 2016. In a footnote, Mueller asked for permission to submit evidence substantiating the
charge in a sealed filing.
All the while, Manafort and Kilimnik remained attached to each other. During the past few months, Manafort's
inner circle has collapsed. Rick Gates, his primary American deputy for the past decade, pleaded guilty and began supplying
evidence against him. Manafort's ex-son-in-law also cut a
deal
to cooperate with Mueller. Through it all, Kilimnik has continued to trail after Manafort. When Manafort allegedly
hatched a ploy to tamper with witnesses this past February, Kilimnik seems to have served as his loyal co-conspirator. When
Manafort wanted a dose of positive press, Kilimnik attempted to arrange an op-ed in the
Kyiv Post.
When I recently emailed Kilimnik, he responded quickly. He wanted to let me know that he disapproved of the
media's coverage of Manafort, including my own, which he ascribed to "a hatred against certain people in the US
Government." He told me, "I don't want to play a role in this zoo." I replied and asked Kilimnik about his present
whereabouts, a question he left hanging. In December, Robert Mueller hinted, in passing, that Kostya had relocated to
Russia. When I asked around Kiev, nobody had any evidence to the contrary. It was a prospect that Kostya suggested was a
possibility last year in a
text
to Christopher Miller. "I hope I am able to get out of the country. Before 'patriots' start hunting me down."
Fleeing the accusation of spying for Vladimir Putin, he has apparently taken refuge with him.
Franklin Foer
is a national
correspondent for The Atlantic. He is the former editor of The New Republic and the author of
World Without Mind
.
"... Just because a country is democratic doesn't mean it is self-governing, as America is quickly discovering. ..."
"... John Adams warned that democracy "soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide." ..."
"... James Madison was equally concerned with the pernicious consequences of large-scale democracy, arguing that democracies "have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." ..."
"... Even George Washington had his doubts about whether democracy was consistent with wise government. Democracies are slow to correct their errors, and those who try to guide the public down a wise course frequently become the object of popular hatred ..."
"... What we've got now is the tyranny of the ..."
"... minority . It is not "the people" who govern the nation. Instead, the state is run by permanent civil servants, largely unaccountable to any popular control, and professional politicians who are usually hand-picked by party insiders (Hillary over Bernie, anyone?). This has made it such that the actual 2016 election was more akin to ratifying a foregone conclusion than a substantive choice over the direction of future policy. ..."
"... If you're a student of politics, you've probably heard of the iron law of oligarchy . The phrase was coined by Robert Michels, an early 20th-century social scientist, in his landmark study of political parties. The iron law of oligarchy is simple: minorities rule majorities, because the former are organized and the latter are not. This is true even within democratic institutions. As power was concentrated in the federal government, the complexity of the tasks confronting civil servants and legislators greatly increased. This required a durable, hierarchical set of institutions for coordinating the behavior of political insiders. Durability enabled political insiders to coordinate their plans across time, which was particularly useful in avoiding the pesky constraints posed by regular elections. Hierarchy enabled political insiders to coordinate plans across space, making a permanently larger government both more feasible and more attractive for elites. The result, in retrospect, was predictable: a massive executive branch bureaucracy that's now largely autonomous, and a permissive Congress that's more than happy to serve as an institutionalized rubber stamp. ..."
"... One of the cruel ironies of the political status quo is that democracy is unquestioningly associated with self-governance, yet in practice, the more democratic a polity grows, the less self-governing it remains. ..."
Just because a country is democratic doesn't mean it is self-governing, as America is
quickly discovering.
Something has gone wrong with America's political institutions. While the United States is,
on the whole, competently governed, there are massive problems lurking just beneath the
surface. This became obvious during the 2016 presidential election. Each party's nominee was
odious to a large segment of the public; the only difference seemed to be whether it was an
odious insurgent or an odious careerist. Almost two years on, things show little signs of
improving.
What's to blame? One promising, though unpopular, answer is: democracy itself. When
individuals act collectively in large groups and are not held responsible for the consequences
of their behavior, decisions are unlikely to be reasonable or prudent. This design flaw in
popular government was recognized by several Founding Fathers. John Adams warned that
democracy "soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not
commit suicide."
James Madison was equally concerned with the pernicious consequences of large-scale
democracy, arguing that democracies "have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention;
have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in
general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."
Even George Washington had his doubts about whether democracy was consistent with wise
government. Democracies are slow to correct their errors, and those who try to guide the public
down a wise course frequently become the object of popular hatred : "It is one of the
evils of democratical governments, that the people, not always seeing and frequently misled,
must often feel before they can act right; but then evil of this nature seldom fail to work
their own cure," Washington wrote. "It is to be lamented, nevertheless, that the remedies are
so slow, and that those, who may wish to apply them seasonably are not attended to before they
suffer in person, in interest and in reputation."
Given these opinions, it is unsurprising that the U.S. Constitution contains so many other
mechanisms for ensuring responsible government. Separation of powers and checks and balances
are necessary to protect the people from themselves. To the extent our political institutions
are deteriorating, the Founders' first instinct would be to look for constitutional changes,
whether formal or informal, that have expanded the scope of democracy and entrusted to the
electorate greater power than they can safely wield, and reverse them.
This theory is simple, elegant, and appealing. But it's missing a crucial detail.
American government is largely insulated from the tyranny of the majority. But at least
since the New Deal, we've gone too far in the opposite direction. What we've got now is the
tyranny of theminority . It is not "the people" who govern the nation.
Instead, the state is run by permanent civil servants, largely unaccountable to any popular
control, and professional politicians who are usually hand-picked by party insiders (Hillary
over Bernie, anyone?). This has made it such that the actual 2016 election was more akin to
ratifying a foregone conclusion than a substantive choice over the direction of future
policy.
But now we confront a puzzle: the rise of the permanent government did coincide with
increased democratization. The administrative-managerial state, and its enablers in Congress,
followed from creative reinterpretations of the Constitution that allowed voters to make
decisions that the Ninth and Tenth amendments -- far and away the most ignored portion of the
Bill of Rights -- should have forestalled. As it turns out, not only are both of these
observations correct, they are causally related . Increasing the scope of popular
government results in the loss of popular control.
If you're a student of politics, you've probably heard of the iron law of
oligarchy . The phrase was coined by Robert Michels, an early 20th-century social
scientist, in his landmark study of political parties. The iron law of oligarchy is simple:
minorities rule majorities, because the former are organized and the latter are not. This is
true even within democratic institutions. As power was concentrated in the federal government,
the complexity of the tasks confronting civil servants and legislators greatly increased. This
required a durable, hierarchical set of institutions for coordinating the behavior of political
insiders. Durability enabled political insiders to coordinate their plans across time, which
was particularly useful in avoiding the pesky constraints posed by regular elections. Hierarchy
enabled political insiders to coordinate plans across space, making a permanently larger
government both more feasible and more attractive for elites. The result, in retrospect, was
predictable: a massive executive branch bureaucracy that's now largely autonomous, and a
permissive Congress that's more than happy to serve as an institutionalized rubber
stamp.
The larger the electorate, and the more questions the electorate is asked to decide, the
more important it is for the people who actually govern to take advantage of economies of scale
in government. If the federal government were kept small and simple, there would be little need
for a behemoth public sector. Developing durable and hierarchical procedures for organizing
political projects would be unfeasible for citizen-statesmen. But those same procedures become
essential for technocratic experts and career politicians.
One of the cruel ironies of the political status quo is that democracy is
unquestioningly associated with self-governance, yet in practice, the more democratic a polity
grows, the less self-governing it remains. This is why an upsurge of populism won't cure
what ails the body politic. It will either provoke the permanent and unaccountable government
into tightening its grip, or those who actually hold the power will fan the flames of popular
discontent, channeling that energy towards their continued growth and entrenchment. We have
enough knowledge to make the diagnosis, but not to prescribe the treatment. Perhaps there is
some comfort in knowing what political health looks like. G.K. Chesterton said it best in his
insight about the relationship between democracy and self-governance:
The democratic contention is that government is not something analogous to playing the
church organ, painting on vellum, discovering the North Pole (that insidious habit), looping
the loop, being Astronomer Royal, and so on. For these things we do not wish a man to do at
all unless he does them well. It is, on the contrary, a thing analogous to writing one's own
love-letters or blowing one's own nose. These things we want a man to do for himself, even if
he does them badly . In short, the democratic faith is this: that the most terribly important
things must be left to ordinary men themselves
The first step towards renewed self-governance must be to reject the false dichotomy between
populism and oligarchy. A sober assessment shows that they are one in the same.
Alexander William Salter is an assistant professor in the Rawls College of Business at
Texas Tech University. He is also the Comparative Economics Research Fellow at TTU's Free
Market Institute. See more at his website: www.awsalter.com .
This was going fine until the author decided to blame civil servants for our nation's
problems. How about an electoral system that denies majority rule? A Congress that routinely
votes against things the vast majority want? A system that vastly overpriveleges corporations
and hands them billions while inequality grows to the point where the UN warns that our
country resembles a third world kleptocracy? Nope, sez this guy. It's just because there are
too many bureaucrats.
He avoids the 17th amendment which was one of the barriers to the mob, and the 19th that
removed the power of individual states to set the terms of suffrage.
Susan B Anthony and Elizabeth Katy Stanton could simply have moved to Wyoming.
It might be useful to only have property taxpayers vote.
And the problem is the left. When voters rejected Gay Marriage (57% in California!) or benefits
for illegals, unelected and unaccountable judges reversed the popular will.
I find your use of the word populism interesting. Inasmuch the word is generally used when the
decisions of the populace is different from that which the technocrats or oligarchs would have
made for them. The author being part of the technocratic elite thinks that he and his ilk know
best. This entire article is just a lot of arguments in support of this false and self serving
idea.
Making the federal government "small" will not solve the problems the author describes or
really alludes to. The power vacum left by a receding federal government will just be occupied
by an unaccountable corporate sector. The recent dismantling of Toys R Us by a spawn of Bain
Capital is the most recent manifestation of the twisted and pathological thought process that
calls itself "free market capitalism." A small federal government did not end child labor,
fight the Depression, win WW II or pioneer space exploration. Conservatives love the mythology
of a government "beast" that must be decapitated so that "Liberty" may reign. There are far
more dangerous forces at work in American society that inhibit liberty and tax our personal
treasuries than the federal government.
1) The US is not and never has been a ' democracy ' It is a Democratic Republic ' which is not
the same as a ' democracy ' ( one person -- one vote period ) of which there is only one in the
entire world . Switzerland
2) A large part of what has brought us to this point is the worn out well past its sell by
Electoral College which not only no longer serves its intended purpose .
3) But the major reason why we're here to put it bluntly is the ' Collective Stupidity of
America ' we've volitionally become : addled by celebrity , addicted to entertainment and
consumed by conspiracy theory rather than researching the facts
It's time to end the pretension that we live in a democracy. It maybe useful to claim so
when the US is trying to open markets or control resources in 3rd world countries. It's at that
time that we're 'spreading democracy'. Instead it's like spreading manure.
The managerial state arose to quell the threat of class warfare. Ironically those who sought to
organize the proletariat under a vision of class-based empowerment clamored for the same. The
response over time was fighting fire with fire as the cliche goes becoming what the opposition
has sought but only in a modified form.
If we were able to devise a way for distributive justice apart from building a bloated
bureaucracy then perhaps this emergence of oligarchy could have been averted. What
alternative(s) exist for an equitable distribution of wealth and income to ameliorate poverty?
Openly competitive (so-called) markets? And the charity of faith-based communities? I think
not.
Democracy, like all systems requires maintenace. Bernard Shaw said that the flaw of pragmatism
is that any system that is not completely idiotic will work PROVIDED THAT SOMEONE PUT EFFORT IN
MAKING IT WORK.
We have come to think that Democracy is in automatic pilot, and does not require effort of
our part See how many do not bother to vote or to inform themselves.
Democracy is a fine, shiny package with two caveats in it "Batteries not included" And "Some
assembly required" FAilure to heed those leads to disaster.
I see where you are coming from, but I must disagree. We don't have a democracy in any real
way, so how can it have failed?
Despite massive propaganda of commission and omission, the majority of the American people
don't want to waste trillions of dollars on endless pointless oversees wars. The public be
damned: Trump was quickly beaten into submission and we are back to the status quo. The public
doesn't want to give trillions of dollars to Wall Street while starving Main Street of capital.
The public doesn't want an abusively high rate of immigration whose sole purpose is to flood
the market for labor, driving wages down and profits up. And so on.
Oswald Spengler was right. " in actuality the freedom of public opinion involves the
preparation of public opinion, which costs money; and the freedom of the press brings with it
the question of possession of the press, which again is a matter of money; and with the
franchise comes electioneering, in which he who pays the piper calls the tune."
"If the federal government were kept small and simple, there would be little need for a
behemoth public sector. Developing durable and hierarchical procedures for organizing political
projects would be unfeasible for citizen-statesmen. But those same procedures become essential
for technocratic experts and career politicians."
True, but this implies retarding government power as is will lead to an ultimate solution.
It will not. The sober truth is that a massive centralized national government has been
inevitable since the onset of the second world war or even beforehand with American
intervention in the colonoal Phillippines and the Great War. Becoming an empire requires
extensive power grabbing and becoming and maintaining a position as a world power requires
constant flexing of that power. Maintaining such a large population, military, and foreign
corps requires the massive public-works projects you speak of in order to keep the population
content and foreign powers in check. Failure to do so leads to chaos and tragic disaster that
would lead to such a nation a collapse in all existing institutions due to overcumbersome
responsibilities. These cannot be left to the provinces/states due to the massive amounts of
resources required to maintain such imperial ambitions along with the cold reality of state
infighting and possible seperatist leanings.
If one wishes to end the power of the federal government as is, the goal is not to merely
seek reform. The goal is to dismantle the empire; destroy the military might, isolate certain
diplomatic relations, reduce rates of overseas trade and reduce the economy as a whole, and
then finally disband and/or drastically reduce public security institutions such as the FBI,
CIA, and their affiliates. As you well know, elites and the greater public alike consider these
anathema.
However, if you wish to rush to this goal, keep in mind that dismantling the American empire
will not necessarily lead to the end of oppression and world peace even in the short term. A
power vacuum will open that the other world powers such as the Russian Federation and the PRC
will rush to fill up. As long as the world remains so interconnected and imperialist ambitions
are maintained by old and new world powers, even the smallest and most directly democratic
states will not be able to become self-governing for long.
Well, when, statistically speaking, half of the population has an IQ of less than 100 (probably
more than half now that USA has been invaded by the Third World) then a great number of people
are uninformed and easily manipulated voters. That is one of the great fallacies of democracy.
In an era when the word "democracy" is regarded as one of our deities to worship, this article
is a breath of fresh air. Notice how we accuse the Russians of trying to undermine our hallowed
"democracy." We really don't know what we mean when we use the term democracy, but it is a
shibboleth that has a good, comforting sound. And this idea that we could extend our
"democracy" by increasing the number of voters shows that we don't understand much at all.
Brilliant insights.
I believe we are prisoners of so-called "democracy"
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
July 13, 2017
The Prisoners of "Democracy"
Screwing the masses was the forte of the political establishment. It did not really matter
which political party was in power, or what name it went under, they all had one ruling
instinct, tax, tax, and more taxes. These rapacious politicians had an endless appetite for
taxes, and also an appetite for giving themselves huge raises, pension plans, expenses, and all
kinds of entitlements. In fact one of them famously said, "He was entitled to his
entitlements." Public office was a path to more, and more largesse all paid for by the
compulsory taxes of the masses that were the prisoners of "democracy."
[read more at link below] http://graysinfo.blogspot.com/2017/07/the-prisoners-of-democracy.html
Everything is so convoluted. Sometime I have impression that I am reading depiction of the operations of
Meyer Lansky not a government agency.
Notable quotes:
"... Bill Priestap is cooperating. When you understand how central E.W. "Bill" Priestap was to the entire 2016/2017 ' Russian Conspiracy Operation ', the absence of his name, amid all others, created a curiosity. I wrote a twitter thread about him last year and wrote about him extensively, because it seemed unfathomable his name has not been a part of any of the recent story-lines. ..."
"... So there we have FBI Director James Comey telling congress on March 20th, 2017, that the reason he didn't inform the statutory oversight "Gang of Eight" was because Bill Priestap (Director of Counterintelligence) recommended he didn't do it. Apparently, according to Comey, Bill Priestap carries a great deal of influence if he could get his boss to NOT perform a statutory obligation simply by recommending he doesn't do it. ..."
"... Then again, Comey's blame-casting there is really called creating a "fall guy". FBI Director James Comey was ducking responsibility in March 2017 by blaming FBI Director of Counterintelligence Bill Priestap for not informing congress of the operation that began in July 2016. (9 months prior). ..."
"... In essence, Bill Priestap was James Comey's fall guy . We knew it at the time that Bill Priestap would likely see this the same way. The guy would have too much to lose by allowing James Comey to set him up. ..."
"... Immediately there was motive for Bill Priestap to flip and become the primary source to reveal the hidden machinations. Why should he take the fall for the operation when there were multiple people around the upper-levels of leadership who carried out the operation. ..."
"... Our suspicions were continually confirmed because there was NO MENTION of Bill Priestap in any future revelations of the scheme team, despite his centrality to all of it. ..."
"... Bill Priestap would have needed to authorize Peter Strzok to engage with Christopher Steele over the "Russian Dosssier"; Bill Priestap would have needed to approve of the underlying investigative process used for both FISA applications (June 2016, and Oct 21st 2016). Bill Priestap would be the person to approve of arranging, paying, or reimbursing, Christopher Steele for the Russian Dossier used in their counterintelligence operation and subsequent FISA application. ..."
"... Parallel to Priestap in main justice his peer John P Carlin resigned, Sally Yates fired, Mary McCord quit, Bruce Ohr was busted twice, and most recently Dave Laufman resigned. All of them caught in the investigative net . Only Bill Priestap remained, quietly invisible – still in position. ..."
"... With all of that in mind, there is essentially no-way the participating members inside the small group can escape their accountability with Mr. Bill Priestap cooperating with the investigative authorities. ..."
"... Now it all makes sense. Devin Nunes interviewed Bill Priestap and Jim Rybicki prior to putting the memo process into place. Rybicki quit, Priestap went back to work. ..."
FBI Counterintelligence chief, Bill Priestap, will sit down for a closed-door session with lawmakers on Tuesday, according to
John Solomon of The Hill .
Priestap will be answering questions about the Hillary Clinton email case as well as the counterintelligence operation on the
Trump campaign - both of which he oversaw . Priestap was the direct supervisor of Peter Strzok - the FBI agent whose anti-Trump /
pro-Clinton bias was revealed after 50,000 text messages to his FBI-attorney mistress, Lisa Page, were discovered by the DOJ's Inspector
General, Michael Horowitz.
All accounts say that Priestap is a cooperating witness . In other words, if there's one person who can confirm that the FBI counterintelligence
operation on the Trump campaign was politically motivated - or that malfeasance occurred during the process, it's Bill Priestap.
Note how excited Solomon looks breaking the news of Priestap's testimony...
Solomon: "I think tomorrow is going to be a pivotal day. I think Congress is going to learn a lot of new information tomorrow
during these interviews."
Dobbs: He is going to be speaking candidly about his employer, the FBI, and those who were running the agency during that period.
Solomon: He was very high up. Had a bird's-eye view of everything that went on in both of these investigations.
While the session will be closed-door, we imagine leaks will be forthcoming as seems to be standard operating procedure these
days.
Just who is Bill Priestap really?
The Conservative Treehouse presented an in-depth analysis in February. We recommend reading this before deciding on what size
popcorn to buy:
***
The game is over. The jig is up. Victory is certain... the trench was ignited... the enemy funneled themselves into the valley...
all bait was taken everything from here on out is simply mopping up the details. All suspicions confirmed.
Why has Devin Nunes been so confident? Why did all GOP HPSCI members happily allow the Democrats to create a 10-page narrative?
All questions are answered.
Fughettaboudit.
House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence member
Chris Stewart appeared on Fox News with
Judge Jeanine Pirro, and didn't want to "make news" or spill the beans, but the unstated, between-the-lines, discussion was as subtle
as a brick through a window. Judge Jeannie has been on the cusp of this for a few weeks.
Listen carefully around 2:30 , Judge Jeanine hits the bulls-eye; and listen to how Chris Stewart talks about not wanting to make
news and is unsure what he can say on this...
...Bill Priestap is cooperating. When you understand how central E.W. "Bill" Priestap was to the entire 2016/2017 ' Russian
Conspiracy Operation ', the absence of his name, amid all others, created a curiosity. I wrote a
twitter thread about him last year and wrote
about him extensively, because it seemed unfathomable his name has not been a part of any of the recent story-lines.
E.W. "Bill" Priestap is the head of the FBI Counterintelligence operation. He was FBI Agent Peter Strozk's direct boss. If anyone
in congress really wanted to know if the FBI paid for the Christopher Steele Dossier, Bill Priestap is the guy who would know everything
about everything.
FBI Asst. Director in charge of Counterintelligence Bill Priestap was the immediate supervisor of FBI Counterintelligence Deputy
Peter Strzok.
Bill Priestap is #1. Before getting demoted Peter Strzok was #2.
The investigation into candidate Donald Trump was a counterintelligence operation. That operation began in July 2016. Bill Priestap
would have been in charge of that, along with all other, FBI counterintelligence operations. FBI Deputy Peter Strzok was specifically
in charge of the Trump counterintel op. However, Strzok would be reporting to Bill Priestap on every detail and couldn't (according
to structure anyway) make a move without Priestap approval.
On March 20th 2017 congressional testimony, James Comey was asked why the FBI Director did not inform congressional oversight
about the counterintelligence operation that began in July 2016.
FBI Director Comey said he did not tell congressional oversight he was investigating presidential candidate Donald Trump because
the Director of Counterintelligence suggested he not do so. *Very important detail.* I cannot emphasize this enough. *VERY* important
detail . Again, notice how Comey doesn't use Priestap's actual name, but refers to his position and title. Again, watch [Prompted]
FBI Director James Comey was caught entirely off guard by that first three minutes of that questioning. He simply didn't anticipate
it.
Oversight protocol requires the FBI Director to tell the congressional intelligence "Gang of Eight" of any counterintelligence
operations. The Go8 has oversight into these ops at the highest level of classification. In July 2016 the time the operation began,
oversight was the responsibility of this group, the Gang of Eight: Obviously, based on what we have learned since March 2017, and what has surfaced recently, we can all see why the FBI would want
to keep it hidden that they were running a counterintelligence operation against a presidential candidate. After all, as FBI Agent
Peter Strzok said it in his text messages, it was an "insurance policy".
"I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy's office that there's no way he gets elected – but I'm
afraid we can't take that risk. It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40."
So there we have FBI Director James Comey telling congress on March 20th, 2017, that the reason he didn't inform the statutory
oversight "Gang of Eight" was because Bill Priestap (Director of Counterintelligence) recommended he didn't do it. Apparently,
according to Comey, Bill Priestap carries a great deal of influence if he could get his boss to NOT perform a statutory obligation
simply by recommending he doesn't do it.
Then again, Comey's blame-casting there is really called creating a "fall guy". FBI Director James Comey was ducking responsibility
in March 2017 by blaming FBI Director of Counterintelligence Bill Priestap for not informing congress of the operation that began
in July 2016. (9 months prior).
At that moment, that very specific moment during that March 20th hearing, anyone who watches these hearings closely could see
FBI Director James Comey was attempting to create his own exit from being ensnared in the consequences from the wiretapping and surveillance
operation of candidate Trump, President-elect Trump, and eventually President Donald Trump.
In essence, Bill Priestap was James Comey's fall guy . We knew it at the time that Bill Priestap would likely see this the
same way. The guy would have too much to lose by allowing James Comey to set him up.
Immediately there was motive for Bill Priestap to flip and become the primary source to reveal the hidden machinations. Why
should he take the fall for the operation when there were multiple people around the upper-levels of leadership who carried out the
operation.
Our suspicions were continually confirmed because there was NO MENTION of Bill Priestap in any future revelations of the scheme
team, despite his centrality to all of it.
Bill Priestap would have needed to authorize Peter Strzok to engage with Christopher Steele over the "Russian Dosssier"; Bill
Priestap would have needed to approve of the underlying investigative process used for both FISA applications (June 2016, and Oct
21st 2016). Bill Priestap would be the person to approve of arranging, paying, or reimbursing, Christopher Steele for the Russian
Dossier used in their counterintelligence operation and subsequent FISA application.
Without Bill Priestap involved, approvals, etc. the entire Russian/Trump Counterintelligence operation just doesn't happen. Heck,
James Comey's own March 20th testimony in that regard is concrete evidence of Priestap's importance. Everyone around Bill Priestap, above and below, were caught inside the investigative net.
Above him: James Comey, Andrew McCabe and James Baker.
Below him: Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Jim Rybicki, Trisha Beth Anderson and Mike Kortan.
Parallel to Priestap in main justice his peer John P Carlin resigned, Sally Yates fired, Mary McCord quit, Bruce Ohr was busted
twice, and most recently Dave Laufman resigned. All of them caught in the investigative net . Only Bill Priestap remained, quietly
invisible – still in position.
The reason was obvious. Likely Bill Priestap made the decision after James Comey's testimony on March 20th, 2017, when he realized what was coming. Priestap
is well-off financially; he has too much to lose. He and his wife, Sabina Menschel, live a comfortable life in a $3.8 million DC
home; she comes from a family of money.
While ideologically Bill and Sabina are aligned with Clinton support, and their circle of family and friends likely lean toward
more liberal friends; no-one in his position would willingly allow themselves to be the scape-goat for the unlawful action that was
happening around them. Bill Priestap had too much to lose and for what? With all of that in mind, there is essentially no-way the participating members inside the small group can escape their accountability
with Mr. Bill Priestap cooperating with the investigative authorities.
Now it all makes sense. Devin Nunes interviewed Bill Priestap and Jim Rybicki prior to putting the memo process into place. Rybicki
quit, Priestap went back to work.
Bill Priestap remains the Asst. FBI Director in charge of counterintelligence operations.
It's over.
I don't want to see this guy, or his family, compromised. This is probably the last I am ever going to write about him unless
it's in the media bloodstream. I can't fathom the gauntlet of hatred and threats he is likely to face from the media and his former
political social network if they recognize what's going on. BP is Deep-Throat x infinity nuf said.
The rest of this entire enterprise is just joyfully dragging out the timing of the investigative releases in order to inflict
maximum political pain upon the party of those who will attempt to excuse the inexcusable.
America had dramatically changed since John F. Kennedy seduced voters with the promises of
the New Frontier. A young family, the campaign jingles, the embrace of television, and the
prospect of America's first Catholic president injected a sense of patriotic adrenaline into
the 1960 campaign. There were "high hopes" for Jack and a sense of cultural validation for
Catholics who remembered Al Smith's failed presidential bid in 1928. In 1960, the Everly
Brothers and Bobby Darin crooned through the radio, Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird
proved a national sensation, and Americans flocked to movies like Spartacus in
magnificent downtown theaters.
But the frivolity and innocence, however illusory, were shattered on November 22, 1963.
Kennedy's assassination violently shifted America's cultural fault lines. One afternoon
accelerated the nation's sociological maladies, intensified its political divisions, and
evaporated its black-and-white contentment. Americans proceeded on a Technicolor path of
disruption, one that had transformed the nation by the time of Bobby's announcement on March
16, 1968. It was that year when The Doors and Cream blasted from transistor radios, John
Updike's Couples landed on the cover of Time , and 2001: A Space Odyssey
played in new suburban cinemas. The country had experienced a dervish frenzy, and Bobby was
fully aware of his nation's turbulent course.
The country was rocked by young students protesting a worsening war in Vietnam. Racial
tension exploded and riots destroyed urban neighborhoods. America's political evolution forever
altered its electoral geography. Bobby was embarking on a remarkable campaign that challenged
the incumbent president, a man he despised for many years. But the source of this strife
stemmed from the White House years of Bobby's brother. "While he defined his vision more
concretely and compellingly than Jack had -- from ending a disastrous war and addressing the
crisis in the cities to removing a sadly out-of-touch president -- he failed to point out that
the war, the festering ghettos, and Lyndon Johnson were all part of Jack Kennedy's legacy,"
wrote Larry Tye in his biography of Bobby.
For the 1968 primary, Kennedy metamorphosed into a liberal figure with an economic populist
message. Kennedy's belated entry turned into an audacious crusade, with the candidate
addressing racial injustice, income inequality, and the failure of Vietnam. He balanced this
message with themes touching upon free enterprise and law and order. Kennedy hoped to appeal to
minorities and working-class whites. He quickly became a messianic figure, and the press
embellished his New Democrat image. By late March, Johnson announced that he would not seek
reelection during a televised address. Through his departure, Johnson worked to maintain
control of the party machine by supporting Hubert Humphrey, his devoted Vice President. But in
the following weeks, Kennedy built momentum as he challenged McCarthy in states like Indiana
and Nebraska. His performance in both states, where anti-Catholic sentiments lingered,
testified to Kennedy's favorable electoral position.
In April 4, Kennedy learned that the Rev. King had been assassinated. He relayed the civil
rights leader's death in a black neighborhood in Indianapolis. His words helped spare
Indianapolis from the riots that erupted in cities across the country, ultimately leading to
nearly 40 people killed and over 2,000 injured. MLK's assassination served as an unsettling
reminder to Kennedy's family, friends, campaign aides, and traveling press. During Kennedy's
first campaign stop in Kansas, the press corps stopped at a restaurant where the legendary
columnist Jimmy Breslin asked, "Do you think this guy has the stuff to go all the way?"
"Yes, of course he has the stuff to go all the way," replied Newsweek's John J.
Lindsay. "But he's not going to go all the way. The reason is that somebody is going to shoot
him. I know it and you know it. Just as sure as we're sitting here somebody is going to shoot
him. He's out there now waiting for him. And, please God, I don't think we'll have a country
after it."
Despite what happened in 1963, the Secret Service had yet to provide protection of
presidential and vice presidential candidates and nominees during the 1964 election or the 1968
primary. But all the signs were there that Kennedy needed protection. The frenzied crowds
increased in size, taking a physical toll on the candidate. In one instance, "he was pulled so
hard that he tumbled into the car door, splitting his lip and breaking a front tooth that
required capping," writes Nye. "He ended up on a regimen of vitamins and antibiotics to fight
fatigue and infection For most politicians, the challenge was to attract crowds; for Bobby, it
was to survive them." In California, just 82 days after his announcement, Kennedy met the fate
that so many feared.
♦♦♦
Bobby Kennedy was a complicated figure from a family that continues to engage America's
imagination. In his autobiography, the novelist Philip Roth, who recently passed away,
reflected on Kennedy's assassination:
He was by no means a political figure constructed on anything other than the human
scale, and so, the night of his assassination and for days afterward, one felt witness to the
violent cutting down not of a monumental force for justice and social change like King or the
powerful embodiment of a people's massive misfortunes or a titan of religious potency but
rather of a rival -- of a vital, imperfect, high-strung, egotistical, rivalrous, talented
brother, who could be just as nasty as he was decent. The murder of a boyish politician of
forty-two, a man so nakedly ambitious and virile, was a crime against ordinary human hope as
well as against the claims of robust, independent appetite and, coming after the murders of
President Kennedy at forty-six and Martin Luther King at thirty-nine, evoked the simplest,
most familiar forms of despair.
For those schoolchildren and their parents in June 1968, Kennedy's campaign offered a sense
of nostalgia. They remembered the exuberance of his brother's campaign, the optimism of his
administration, and the possibilities of the 1960s. For the nation's large ethnic Catholic
voting bloc, another Kennedy reminded them of that feeling of validation in the 1960 election.
Of course, it had been a tumultuous decade for these voters. They lived in cities that had
precipitously declined since JFK's campaign visits in 1960. Railroad stations ended passenger
service, theaters closed, factories shuttered, and new highways offered an exodus to suburbia.
As Catholics, they prayed for the conversion of Russia, adapted to Vatican II reforms, and
adjusted to new parishes in the developing outskirts. Young draftees were shipped off to a
catastrophic war, which only intensified their feelings of disillusionment. Their
disenchantment raised questions about their sustained support for Democrats. Kennedy may have
proved formidable for Nixon in the general election, but the Catholic vote was increasingly up
for grabs.
Pat Buchanan understood this electoral opportunity for Republicans. In a 1971 memo, Buchanan
argued that Catholics were the largest bloc of available Democratic voters for the GOP: "The
fellows who join the K.of C. (Knights of Columbus), who make mass and communion every morning,
who go on retreats, who join the Holy Name society, who fight against abortion in their
legislatures, who send their kids to Catholic schools, who work on assembly lines and live in
Polish, Irish, Italian and Catholic communities or who have headed to the suburbs -- these are
the majority of Catholics; they are where our voters are."
In subsequent presidential elections, Catholic voters flocked to Democrats and Republicans.
Their electoral preferences were driven by the issues of the moment and often by location. The
geographical divide of our politics has only intensified. The 2016 presidential election
encapsulated this trend. Voters in Appalachia and the Rust Belt overwhelmingly supported Donald
Trump that year. Many of these voters previously supported Obama in both 2008 and 2012. In
1968, these voters likely appreciated Kennedy's campaign message. But the tragedy of the nation
is now a loss of optimism -- the belief that tomorrow will be a better day. Americans are
overwhelmed by ideological tension and socio-economic angst. The prosperity enjoyed by large
metropolitan regions has not spilled over into the heartland. There is no nostalgia for 1968
because countless Americans understand that the nation has failed to address income inequality,
job displacement, urban decline, and mass poverty. It was so long ago, but America did lose its
innocence on November 22, 1963. Bobby Kennedy's death in 1968 served as a reminder that it
would never return.
Charles F, McElwee III is a writer based in northeastern Pennsylvania. Follow him on
Twitter at @CFMcElwee
.
"... Northern Observer, someday Israel will go the way of Rhodesia if it's lucky. Many believe Israel orchestrated JFK's death; he insisted on inspecting Dimona for nuclear weapon development. ..."
"... If you look at actual evidence in the case you would understand that Sirhan did not and could not have killed Sen. Kennedy. Just look at autopsy report and it says he was killed by bullets fired and virtual point blank range from below and the back of the head. In addition, sound analysis proves that there were 13 shots fired but the alleged murder weapon only held 8 shots. So let's stop this charade. ..."
More troublingly, Robert Kennedy's death occurred within five years of his elder brother's,
and under similar circumstances. It is important to recall how unprecedented their deaths were
to the generation who witnessed them. If time has removed the shock of the assassinations of
the Kennedy brothers, it should not obscure just how anomalous they are. Bad luck may be part
of the mythos of the Kennedy family, but lightning does not strike the same place twice, and
political assassinations are exceedingly rare in American history. Both Kennedy brothers hurled
themselves into the most tumultuous and divisive issues of their time -- Israeli nationalism
and anti-communism -- and both appeared to have paid a heavy price.
In the first place, I don't think that failure of Robert Kennedy had anything to do with a
substantial limitation of the liberal world view, but with another concept, or argument:
The end cannot justify the means because it is the mean, which is a process, which
conditionates the end, in itself only an outcome.
Robert Kennedy supported violence made by the Zionist movement, turned into a State, and
if you ask me, it was that violence which -no pun intended- backfired against him.
Now, about the out balance between loyalty and allegiance homeland/nation, I think it
should be looked at from Sirhan perspective. Yes, he had escaped from what, in his
perspective, was zionist persecution, just to end in a country where that persecution was
supported actively by some high profile politicians. I am not going to say that murder is
right, but some how it had to feel for him as if that anti palestinian israely persecution
had reappeared very near to his home.
From that point of view, he wasn't a refuge anymore; the country where he was living had
become an acomplice of that persecution.
Maybe, if Robert Kennedy had considered a less bellicist way to support Israel, like
sending military support without delivering neither the means nor the command decissions to
the government of Israel, but keeping it in the hand of the U.S., who knows.
This article doesn't quite try to justify Oswald's or Sirhan's actions. But it places them
firmly in a political context rather than a criminal one.
It also suggests that JFK and RFK both went too far – that they "hurled themselves
into the most tumultuous and divisive issues of their time" and thus bear a degree of
responsibility for their own fates.
If we want to debate the merits of arming Israel, or undermining Cuba, then let's have
that debate. But this is altogether the wrong way to frame it. I, for one, don't ever want
the Overton window on such issues to be shifted by the acts, or even the potential acts, of
an assassin.
Israel twice begged Jordan not to join the war that it was already fighting with Egypt and
Syria – a war of aggression and genocide, where Nasser boasted of the impending total
destruction of Israel, Egyptian state media spoke of a road from Tel Aviv to Cairo paved in
Jewish skulls, and Israel's rabbinate consecrated national parks in case they had to be used
for Jewish mass graves.
Sirhan Sirhan's entire identity was wrapped up in the frustrated need for Jewish servitude
and inferiority, the bitterness that a second Holocaust had failed. He was exactly like the
Klan cops in Philadelphia, Mississippi, murdering Freedom Riders who tried to deprive them of
their most cherished resource: assured superiority over their traditional designated victim
group.
Hinted at but ignored is another aspect by which 1968 presaged 2018. In 1968 Bobby Kennedy
waited until after Gene McCarthy had challenged LBJ and LBJ had withdrawn from the race
before entering. For many (most?) McCarthy backers, Kennedy was an opportunistic, privileged
spoiler. In the same way, many of Bernie Sanders' supporters looked upon Hillary Clinton as
the privileged spoiler of a Democratic Party establishment that had tried and failed to move
the party to the right. The McGovern was followed by Carter, who was followed by Mondale, who
was followed by Dukakis, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Obama, and Hillary. For Democrats, then, it's
been fifty years of struggling to find a center, a struggle Republicans pretty much found in
Ronald Reagan.
John Wilkes Booth was wrapped up in bitterness, defeat & a warped loyalty to his
homeland, too.
It's interesting I guess to examine assassins' motives, but to what point?
Northern Observer, someday Israel will go the way of Rhodesia if it's lucky.
Many believe Israel orchestrated JFK's death; he insisted on inspecting Dimona for nuclear
weapon development.
Let the many who criticize TAC for not printing pro Israeli essays read this one. Also, read
the numerous blogs supporting this thrust. The "small nation" phrase was a tip-off to the
author's loyalties. I think this article is more worthy of the New York Times. Let us not
forget June 8, 1967, is another anniversary, when the sophisticated and unmarked aircraft and
PT boats using napalm of the author's "small nation" attacked the USS Liberty in
international water, with complete disregard to the ship's American markings and large US
flag. http://www.gtr5.com/ This event
received scant coverage on P19 of the aforementioned NYT. "Small nation"; indeed!
The only way one can defend Israel's apartheid policies is by demonizing all of their
victims.
Sirhan Sirhan is Jordanian – a nation that was invented specifically to be an
apartheid state with no Jews at all, forever closed to Jewish inhabitation or immigration.
That is his view of normalcy. I'm sorry it's also yours.
This is pure bunk. The idea that Sirhan Sirhan was the assassin of RFK has been categorically
disproven by the analysis of the fatal bullets, which none of came from Sirhan's gun. And RFKs friends and close advisors all knew that he had no love for Israel. Whatever he
said in support of Israel was for the media purposes only.
Having worked in Jordan and watched Israelis do business and as tourists (Jewish shrines)
there, I saw and heard no antisemitism. From my perspective, there seemed to be a positive
relationship. Elat and Aqaba are like sister cities. In fact, there seemed to be high-level
cooperation. Keep looking you will find bigotry to justify your positions.
I completely agree with Steve Naidamast. This article is indeed "pure bunk" because Sirhan
Sirhan is a side story. That's why this article, with such an angle, should simply never have
been published.
If you look at actual evidence in the case you would understand that Sirhan did not and
could not have killed Sen. Kennedy. Just look at autopsy report and it says he was killed by
bullets fired and virtual point blank range from below and the back of the head. In addition,
sound analysis proves that there were 13 shots fired but the alleged murder weapon only held
8 shots. So let's stop this charade.
TTT -- yo weren't just talking about Sirhan. I wasn't talking about him at all. I have no
sympathy for people who practice terrorism, whether it is done by Palestinians, Jordanians,
or the IDF.
All this is an interesting information. But Trump folded long ago. So why they continues so relentlessly pursue him.
Some of the statements are iether naive, or incorrect, or both. For example: ""The Anglo-American response to this development can
be seen in the events in Ukraine, where Obama, the British, and the National Endowment for Democracy staged a coup in February 2014,
overthrowing the government of the duly elected President, Victor Yanukovych, because he refused to turn his country into a western
satrapy to be wielded against Putin's Russia. " also " We know that Paul Manafort was considered practically an enemy combatant in Anglo-American
swamp circles by 2014, because of his Ukraine work with Yanukovych and the Party of the Regions. He apparently chose the wrong side
by fighting against a Nazi coup. The same was true even of Democratic consultants such as Tony Podesta, who worked with Manafort on
Ukraine and were subject to the same reported 2014 FISA surveillance warrant"
Notable quotes:
"... Victoria Nuland, who helped oversee the coup from her perch at Hillary Clinton's State Department, was famously caught on tape dictating the Ukraine succession, after bands of murderous neo-Nazis did the scut-work for the coup. According to Nuland, the price for this handiwork was some $5 billion. ..."
"... The actual "swamp" of the British and their accomplices in the U.S. intelligence community and aligned trans-Atlantic institutions, like NATO, have viewed themselves as being in a state of war against Russia and China since the 2013-2014 events. ..."
"... Flynn had already driven Obama crazy by proposing a determined U.S.-Russian collaboration in the war on terror, and going after the Administration's policy aimed at dismembering Syria. Obama had fired him. ..."
"... Page had already functioned as an FBI informant in a major 2013 New York City FBI case against Russian organized crime figures, and stated on CNN that he briefed both the CIA and FBI regularly on these business dealings in Russia. ..."
"... Was he used as a front to get a FISA warrant directed at the Trump campaign? Was he a spy sent by the FBI both to Russia and into the Trump campaign? The targeting of the alleged activities of the St.Petersburg Internet Research Agency (IRA) in DNI Clapper's January report, again points to the heavy British hand in the coup against the President. ..."
"... Crowdstrike's Dimitri Alperovitch -- the person with sole access to the DNC's allegedly "hacked" computers, whose forensic analysis was adopted wholesale by James Comey's FBI and the U.S. intelligence community -- is a senior fellow in the Atlantic Council's Digital Forensic Service. ..."
"... What exactly was the relationship of the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, and the other black propagandists operating against the President, together with their reporters, with the NED, the Information Warfare Initiative, NATO's Strategic Communications Service, and The Institute for Modern Russia in New York City, or other British or U.S. intelligence agencies during the Obama Administration and subsequently? ..."
"... Steele and Orbis claim that the 17th memo, produced in December 2016, which referenced the salacious and disgusting claim that Trump engaged in perverse sexual activities at a Russian hotel, was solely produced to one David Kramer as a representative of John McCain, Senator John McCain himself, and a representative of the British security services. ..."
"... It has been widely reported that James Comey's FBI was also offering Steele and Orbis $50,000 or more at this point to corroborate aspects of the dodgy dossier smearing the President-elect. ..."
"... David Kramer is the former President of the CIA and NED quango, Freedom House, was a fellow of the neo-conservative Project for a New American Century, held State Department positions dedicated to Project Democracy and soft power coups in Russia and the former East Bloc, and presently serves as Senior Director for Human Rights and Human Freedoms at Senator McCain's Institute for International Leadership in Arizona. ..."
"... Department of Justice concerning four participants in the Trump Tower meeting and others for failure to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act. Browder's complaint claimed that these people were engaged in unregistered Russian lobbying activities, namely, attempting to overturn the Magnitsky Act. Browder renounced his American citizenship in 1989 to become a British subject and has operated at the highest levels of British finance and intelligence. ..."
The Real Story: Issues of War, Peace, and the Future
Beginning with an announcement of President Xi Jinping, at a conference in Kazakhstan in July of 2013, China has set into motion
an entirely new dynamic in the world, a new paradigm of cooperation between nation states, to build vital modern infrastructure allowing
nations in the former "developing sector" to reach their full economic potentials.
Xi Jinping's vision of the New Silk Road or "One Belt, One Road" project has been endorsed by Russia's Vladimir Putin.
Russia and China are joining in projects which will fully develop the Eurasian landmass, creating a "new financial architecture"
in the Asia-Pacific region.
On July 16, 2014, the BRICS group of nations meeting in Fortaleza, Brazil, joined by the Latin American heads of state, agreed
with Xi Jinping's proposal on the creation of an entirely new economic and financial system, representing a fundamental alternative
to the casino economy of the present system of globalization.
The Anglo-American globalist system is based on maximized profit of the few, and the impoverishment of billions of people.
In the new paradigm, financing for joint great projects is to come from development banks, such as the newly created Asian Infrastructure
Investment Bank, ending dependence on such globalist institutions as the IMF or World Bank.
Globalization as administered by the IMF and World Bank is effectively a system of imperial debt slavery, keeping the nations
dependent on their loans in primitive economic conditions, while their raw materials are looted.
As Prime Minister Narenda Modi from India remarked,
"The BRICS is unique as an international institution.
In this first instance, it unifies a group of nations, not on the basis of their existing prosperity or common identities, but
rather their future potentials.
The idea of the BRICS itself is thus aligned with the future.
"
It is not incidental to this remark that Russia, China, and India have set future goals for space exploration, including most
specifically exploration of the Moon and possible exploitation of Helium 3 on the Moon, which has the potential of finally realizing
nuclear fusion power as a primary energy source powering the world.
China has made clear that no small part of this initiative is inspired by the work of Lyndon and Helga LaRouche.
The methods employed echo the ideas of political economy first developed by Alexander Hamilton, and deployed by Abraham Lincoln
and Franklin Roosevelt -- ideas uniquely developed and expanded by Lyndon LaRouche.
Xi Jinping has asked the United States to join this great venture, which could produce thousands of productive jobs and jump-start
infrastructure projects in this country.
Obama adamantly refused Xi's offer, and did everything in his power to block and defeat the Chinese initiative.
President Trump has indicated an openness to the proposition.
These 2013-2014 events were and are a direct challenge to the British imperial system.
They directly challenge the monetary system which is the source of Anglo-American domination of the world.
They directly challenge fundamental British strategic policy extant since the days of Halford Mackinder.
Under the "One Belt, One Road" initiative, joined with Russia's Eurasian Union, Mackinder's "world island" of Eurasia and Africa
will be developed, crisscrossed with new high-speed rail links, new cities, and vital modern infrastructure, based on the mutual
benefit of all of the nation states existing there.
Under the British geopolitical model, this area of the world has been subjected to endless instability, war, and raw materials
looting.
Xi Jinping has also attacked the geopolitical axioms by which the United States and the British have operated.
He proposes instead a model of "win-win" cooperation in which nation states collaborate for development based on the common aims
of mankind.
The Anglo-American response to this development can be seen in the events in Ukraine, where Obama, the British, and the National
Endowment for Democracy staged a coup in February 2014, overthrowing the government of the duly elected President, Victor Yanukovych,
because he refused to turn his country into a western satrapy to be wielded against Putin's Russia.
Victoria Nuland, who helped oversee the coup from her perch at Hillary Clinton's State Department, was famously caught on tape
dictating the Ukraine succession, after bands of murderous neo-Nazis did the scut-work for the coup. According to Nuland, the price for this handiwork was some $5 billion.
The actual "swamp" of the British and their accomplices in the U.S. intelligence community and aligned trans-Atlantic institutions, like NATO, have viewed themselves as being in a state of war against
Russia and China since the 2013-2014 events.
Think about former DNI Clapper's unhinged speech in Australia of June 7, 2017. Clapper ranted that it was in Putin's and Russia's "genes" to attack the United States. Since Trump pursues better relations and shared intelligence with Russia on terrorism, Clapper ranted, Watergate (where Richard
Nixon committed proven crimes) paled in comparison to Russiagate (where both Clapper and Comey have testified that to date the President
has committed no crimes). Clapper told the Aussies also to target China, accusing the Chinese, without any offer of proof, of meddling in Australia's elections.
Former FBI Director James Comey backed Clapper in his testimony on June 8, 2017, attempting to wax eloquent in response to Senator
Joe Manchin, about how Putin exists with one purpose in mind -- to shred and dismember the United States. But China and Russia have completely outflanked these cretins, and the new paradigm is rapidly coming to life with "shovels in
the ground" everywhere.
In response, the Anglo-American elites have absolutely nothing to offer the world except the same dying, decadent globalist "order."
This explains why many in official Washington let loose their inner alien monster every time the President mentions a desire for
better relations with Russia, or evinces his friendship with President Xi Jinping of China.
This is why Hillary Clinton has literally gone insane, raving like Lady Macbeth, and obsessing about Putin's "man-spreading."
That is why, also, they would risk World War III rather than see the "Belt and Road," the New Silk Road, go forward with its "community
of principle" idea of relations among nations.
What Did Trump Do?
Like LaRouche, Trump represents an existential challenge to the post-War British-dictated monetarist and imperial order.
In his campaign platform he called for the reinstitution of Glass-Steagall banking separation.
This would end the casino economy which is about to blow up again -- the real economy never having recovered from the collapse
of 2008.
He wants to build huge modern infrastructure and revitalize the manufacturing sector of the economy with modern manufacturing
techniques.
He wants to return the United States to space exploration and the funding of fundamental science, recognizing the optimistic national
morale which will result from that.
In his public speeches, Trump has repeatedly invoked what he understands as "The American System" of political economy, a concept
developed and elaborated in recent history by only one man, Lyndon LaRouche.
This centers economic systems in nation states, rather than global institutions, and calls for harnessing the resources of the
nation state to develop the economy to higher and higher levels of physical productivity and human culture.
While Trump has features in his version of the American System which LaRouche would not endorse as historically accurate or politically
wise, even the use of the term, invoking Alexander Hamilton and Lincoln's economist Henry Carey, is a direct challenge to the free
trade, small-government nostrums foisted on the United States by a parade of British agents during the Twentieth Century.
The British, up to this point, have been largely successful in burying the actual ideas of Alexander Hamilton and Franklin Roosevelt,
and burying the fundamental advances in these ideas resulting from original discoveries by LaRouche.
Through deliberate miseducation of Americans, the British have made their economic theories and systems, against which Americans
explicitly fought in our Revolution, appear to be universal laws of human behavior.
As his recent speech to the United Nations emphasized, Trump envisions a system of sovereign nations, each striving to develop
and enrich their populations, engaged in cooperative trade relationships, reciprocal in nature and targeted for the benefit of each
party.
His U.N.
speech echoed the foreign policy of John Quincy Adams, a policy which forbade our nation from "going abroad, seeking monsters
to destroy." This is the very opposite of the imperial-gendarme, perpetual-war policy long favored by the British for the United
States.
Trump's positive vision, under present circumstances, requires active collaboration with Russia and China.
To stop the coup, the President's team and his supporters must stop reacting defensively.
He must act on the aspects of his program -- Glass-Steagall, large scale infrastructure development funded by national banking
mechanism devoted to that purpose, space exploration, fusion power development, and joining the "One Belt, One Road" program with
China, which can actually save the economy and produce high paying jobs.
At the same time, they should look at the actual crimes involved in the coup which are already on the public record, investigate
them -- including in the Congress -- and prosecute them.
With respect to Mueller, they should investigate his obstruction of the investigation into the crimes committed on 9/11, together
with a full public unveiling of the Saudi and British role in international terrorism.
In aid of such an effort we present seven crimes implicated in the events in the coup against the President to date.
Seven Actual Crimes
The crimes outlined below make clear that a Special Counsel, not Robert Mueller, should be investigating the U.S.-British response
to China's Belt and Road Initiative, beginning with the illegal coup in Ukraine which has resulted in the targeting of Paul Manafort.
In the British account of the American election, largely published in pieces in the Guardian, they began warning their American
counterparts about the dangers of Donald Trump's accommodating views toward Putin and Russia in 2015.
These warnings were followed by the specific claim that the Democratic National Committee's servers had been hacked by the Russians
as of July of 2015.
According to the British account, their American counterparts were slow to respond, although the FBI says it notified the DNC,
which did nothing about the alleged Russian hack until June of 2016.
The obvious should be stated here.
If the British were developing dossiers on Trump and his associates as early as 2015, Trump and his associates were under surveillance
as of that date or sooner by British GCHQ and/or the NSA.
We know that Paul Manafort was considered practically an enemy combatant in Anglo-American swamp circles by 2014, because of his
Ukraine work with Yanukovych and the Party of the Regions.
He apparently chose the wrong side by fighting against a Nazi coup.
The same was true even of Democratic consultants such as Tony Podesta, who worked with Manafort on Ukraine and were subject to
the same reported 2014 FISA surveillance warrant.
What was the FBI affidavit which justified the 2014 Manafort, Podesta FISA court surveillance warrant, and what was the British
role in obtaining it? What role did the British play, including GCHQ and MI6, in the Manafort counterintelligence investigation?
What were the British "concerns" about Trump communicated to U.S.
intelligence as early as 2015? What was the specific British warning about hacks of the DNC computer in July 2015? By December
of 2015, according to James Clapper's dodgy January, 2017 report on alleged Russian meddling in the election, hundreds of paid Russian
trolls associated with the St.
Petersburg, Russia, Internet Research Agency had begun to advocate for Trump's election.
At the same time, Michael Flynn attended a dinner at RT in Russia, sitting across the table from Putin.
Flynn had already driven Obama crazy by proposing a determined U.S.-Russian collaboration in the war on terror, and going
after the Administration's policy aimed at dismembering Syria. Obama had fired him.
Is this the date when surveillance on Flynn actually began, or did it begin sooner? What was the British role in this surveillance?
Carter Page has also been a subject in Mueller's Russiagate hysteria.
He apparently walked in to volunteer for the Trump campaign without any prior association with the President, and was disavowed
by the campaign soon after.
He went to school in London, had a variety of business dealings in Russia, and had volunteered for the Trump campaign as a foreign
policy advisor by simply walking in the door.
Page had already functioned as an FBI informant in a major 2013 New York City FBI case against Russian organized crime figures,
and stated on CNN that he briefed both the CIA and FBI regularly on these business dealings in Russia.
Was he used as a front to get a FISA warrant directed at the Trump campaign? Was he a spy sent by the FBI both to Russia and
into the Trump campaign? The targeting of the alleged activities of the St.Petersburg Internet Research Agency (IRA) in DNI Clapper's
January report, again points to the heavy British hand in the coup against the President.
According to French journalist Thierry Meyssan, in September 2014, the British government created the 77th Brigade, a unit tasked
with countering foreign propaganda, which worked with the U.S. military in Europe to interfere with websites considered to be distributing
Russian propaganda. This project ultimately morphed into NATO's Strategic Communications Service, tasked with suppressing any news
or person favorable to the Russian position concerning strategic topics, but particularly Ukraine. From its inception, the NATO Strategic
Communications Service incorporated a service of the Atlantic Council, the Digital Forensics Service.
Crowdstrike's Dimitri Alperovitch -- the person with sole access to the DNC's allegedly "hacked" computers, whose forensic
analysis was adopted wholesale by James Comey's FBI and the U.S. intelligence community -- is a senior fellow in the Atlantic Council's
Digital Forensic Service.
News about Russian trolls operating out of the IRA and poisoning the Western mind filled the British press in 2015. In line with
this NATO project is the Information Warfare Initiative in the U.S., centered at the Washington Center for European Policy Analysis
and founded by Washington Post neo-con Anne Applebaum. It is a pseudopod of the National Endowment for Democracy and the U.S. intelligence
community, and has concentrated its attacks on the Russian broadcasters RT and Sputnik.
2
https://www.youtube.com/embed/uc-JTs2BkDw?wmode=opaque&controls=&rel=0
Watch LaRouchePAC's full interview of former CIA Officer Ray McGovern and the VIPS report.
William Binney has insisted from the first reference to Russian hacking as the source of the WikiLeaks Podesta/DNC documents,
that if such an event had occurred, the NSA would have traced it and could say so with certainty. In their report, the VIPS point
out that the CIA's "Marble Framework" program allows for obfuscation of cyberattacks and false flag attribution to other state actors.
WikiLeaks has consistently claimed that the source of its dossier was an inside leak from the DNC, implying that Seth Rich, a DNC
data management staffer who supported Bernie Sanders, was one of its sources.
Rich was murdered in July of 2016 in Washington, D.C., in a crime which remains unsolved at this date.
Congressman Dana Rohrbacher (R-CA) recently met with Julian Assange of WikiLeaks, and states that he has evidence confirming that
the WikiLeaks DNC/John Podesta email trove was the result of a leak, not a Russian hack.
(3). The Trump Tower Meeting -- Entrapping a Presidential Campaign
On June 9, 2016, a meeting took place in Trump Tower involving Donald Trump, Jr., Paul Manafort, at the time the campaign manager
for the Trump Presidential campaign, Jared Kushner, the President's son-in-law, and five other people. As opposed to media accounts,
only one of the participants in the Trump Tower meeting was a Russian, the lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya. By all accounts provided
by participants, the meeting was very short, and involved the Magnitsky Act sanctions imposed by the U.S. Congress on certain Russians.
Many consider these 2012 sanctions to be the opening shot of the New Cold War. This meeting has attracted extensive attention
from Special Counsel Mueller, as the media has painted it as a "smoking gun." The emails setting up the meeting do not reflect
what actually happened at the meeting.
Instead, they bear all the marks of an intelligence-agency entrapment attempt against Donald Trump, Jr., designed to fix the "Manchurian
candidate" label on Trump early in the general election campaign. The emails setting up the meeting specifically offered "dirt" on
Hillary Clinton to be provided by the Russian government itself.
On July 15, 2016, at the same time as the FBI was opening an investigation of the Russians for interfering in the U.S.election
and of the Trump campaign for colluding with them, another British intelligence operative, Bill Browder, was filing a complaint with
the U.S.
Department of Justice concerning four participants in the Trump Tower meeting and others for failure to register under the
Foreign Agents Registration Act. Browder's complaint claimed that these people were engaged in unregistered Russian lobbying activities,
namely, attempting to overturn the Magnitsky Act. Browder renounced his American citizenship in 1989 to become a British subject
and has operated at the highest levels of British finance and intelligence.
Undoubtedly, by the time of the June 9, 2016 Trump Tower meeting, the British government's Trump file already included a full
history of Donald Trump's sponsorship of the 2013 Miss Universe pageant in Moscow and its players, Trump's real estate dealings with
Russians anywhere in the world, all of candidate Trump's conciliatory statements toward Russia, and complaints that campaign advisor
Michael Flynn was soft on Russia, and a rebel against the U.S. intelligence establishment from within that establishment.
The file also included surveillance of Trump's campaign manager, Paul Manafort, who was considered an outright enemy of Anglo-American
interests given his political work for the former President of Ukraine, Victor Yanukovych and his Party of the Regions, and Trump's
relationship with Felix Sater, a Russian-American and high level FBI informant.
3 The official British government file also probably included surveillance of apartments at Trump Tower associated with a then
ongoing investigation of a Russian organized crime ring said to operate there and figures involved in the FIFA corruption investigation
who also lived there. The FIFA investigation was worked by the FBI Eurasian Organized Crime Strike Force and Christopher Steele.
So, even before the Trump Tower meeting, we find following intelligence services in motion and attempting to concoct illicit dirt
about Trump and Putin: British intelligence, Ukrainian intelligence, the DNI and the CIA in the United States, the FBI, and NATO's
Strategic Communications Service and its U.S. offshoots.
But wait, as they say in infomercial sales, that's not even close to all involved. According to Foreign Policy Magazine
and others, on July 11, 2017, a hacker going by the name of "Johnnie Walker" published a trove of emails from the private account
of Lieutenant Robert J.Otto, who is tasked to a secretive unit in the U.S.State Department focused on Russia. Newsweek magazine states
that Otto is the nation's "foremost" intelligence guy concerning Russia. The emails have not been authenticated. However, they contain
an email purported to be on the day of the Trump Tower meeting between Otto and Kyle Parker, of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs,
featuring a picture of Russian attorney Natalia Velselnitskaya's house in Russia.
Parker credits himself as the actual author of the Magnitsky Act sanctions against Russia, and a close friend of Bill Browder.
Velselnitskaya claims that her children have been threatened as a result of her participation in a legal case questioning the bona
fides of Bill Browder and the factual foundations of the Magnitsky Act. The picture of her house in this context suggests another
level of intense surveillance directed at Trump Tower on the day of the meeting, and the possibility that threats to her family were
actually governing Veselnitskaya's behavior.
The Set-Up
On June 3rd, Trump Jr.was emailed by publicist Ron Goldstone, a British national who operates out of the U.S., whose first career
was as a British tabloid journalist. Goldstone's Facebook account appears to indicate that he is presently on a break from his businesses
and on a world tour of gay bathhouses in which the proudly obese Goldstone takes pictures of himself wearing various strange hats
and shirts in the company of young men.
Who is financing this tour apparently outside the reach of Grand Jury subpoenas? Goldstone has also been photographed with Kathy
Griffin, who famously posted a picture of herself with President Trump's severed head. Goldstone emailed Donald Trump, Jr.
that Aras Agalarov wanted Goldstone to set up a meeting with Trump, Jr. in which sensitive Russian government files about Hillary
Clinton's dealings with Russia would be provided to the Trump campaign as a gesture of official Russian government support of the
campaign. Trump Jr. agreed to the meeting. Goldstone is the publicist for Emin Agalarov, an Azerbarjani pop star. Aras Agalarov
and his son Emin partnered with Trump for the 2013 Miss Universe pageant in Moscow. The base of operations for the Agalarov family
is the Moscow regional government, not Putin's Kremlin.
The actual twenty-minute meeting involved Russian attorney Natalia Veselnitskaya, who did most of the speaking by all accounts;
Rinat Akhmetshin, a well-known Washington D.C.-based lobbyist and American citizen; Ike Kaveladze, a U.S. citizen and vice-president
at one of the Agalarov's companies; Ron Goldstone; and the translator for Natalia Veselnitskaya, Anatoli Samochornov. Samochornov
is also an American citizen who worked with Veselnitskaya frequently, since she does not speak English. He has also worked extensively
for the FBI and the U.S. State Department.
Although Akhmetshin has been linked to Russian counterintelligence repeatedly in the news media, that all appears to be based
on his bragging about his two-year stint in the Russian military as a young man.
The topic addressed by Veselnitskaya was the Magnitsky Act sanctions against Russia, which resulted from a campaign conducted
by violently anti-Putin British operative William Browder, allied with Senator John McCain and the D.C. public relations firm Ashcroft
and Glover.
Any sound investigation about this meeting would focus on who, out of the small army of intelligence operatives watching this
meeting, designed and implemented the clear entrapment attempt against Donald Trump, Jr. for later use.
Since it was surveilled and recorded by multiple intelligence agencies tripping all over one another at the time, (you get the
image of Keystone cops), why was it only surfaced as the "smoking gun" recently? Natalia Veselnitskaya had been paroled into the
United States to serve as the Russian lawyer in a legal case in the Southern District of New York based solely on money-laundering
allegations made by Bill Browder against her Russian clients.
At the time of the Trump Tower meeting, however, Veselnitskaya was traveling on a business visa issued by the U.S. Department
of State after having been previously denied such a visa, and after efforts by the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New
York to prevent any free travel by her in the U.S. at all. Immigration attorneys I have spoken to describe this situation as extremely
strange.
(4). Obama's Final Days In Office -- Insurrection Against the President-Elect, Felonious Leaks
In an apparent effort to influence the Electoral College vote following the election, the Obama Administration leaked a preliminary
intelligence community "assessment" that the Russians had hacked the Democrats' computers and otherwise intervened to swing the election
to Donald Trump.
According to the New York Times of March 1, 2017, Obama and his national security colleagues additionally spent the months after
the election and prior to President Trump's inauguration dropping a trail of "leads" in official documents and leaking information,
in the effort to delegitimize Trump and to continue their policies against Russia and China.
Certainly, there is a document trail on this process which appears to be confined to a period of a little over two months.
Evelyn Farkas, formerly of the Defense Department's Russia, Ukraine, Eurasia Desk and the Atlantic Council, virtually admitted
to MSNBC in March that she had participated in this process. This is where the illegal unmasking of names in FISA and E.O. 12333
surveillance occurred, when these crimes were committed. Samantha Power, the U.N. Ambassador, was reportedly involved in 260 unmasking
requests bearing little relationship to her function. Other targets of the House Intelligence Committee concerning illegal unmasking
and leaks include Susan Rice, John Brennan, and Ben Rhodes.
On December 15, 2016, DNI James Clapper signed new procedures allowing the NSA to distribute raw intercept data throughout the
entire intelligence community. These procedures became official on January 3, 2017 when Attorney General Loretta Lynch signed off
on them.
At issue is modification of secret procedures under E.O. 12333, deemed by Edward Snowden and others as the most significant authority
for our present, completely unconstitutional surveillance state. Previously, the NSA was required to filter and redact information
regarding U.S. citizens monitored in foreign counterintelligence activities. DNI Clapper had also implemented a cloud intelligence
data platform accessible by all intelligence agencies, and obliterating many paper and digital access trails and safeguards.
Were these new procedures implemented in any way based on a desire to facilitate leaks and obscure their origin to future investigators?
(5). The January Blackmail/Extortion Attempt
On January 6, 2017, according to James Comey's June 8th Congressional testimony, the intelligence chiefs went to Trump Tower to
present the Obama Administration's report on Russian hacking, hoping to convince the skeptical President-elect to abandon his campaign
promise for better relations with Putin and Russia.
Following that briefing, in a pre-arranged move with the rest of Obama's intelligence directors, Comey cleared the room of everyone
but himself and Trump.
He presented Trump with the Steele dossier's most salacious allegations, namely that Trump had engaged in sexually perverse acts
with Russian prostitutes while visiting Moscow, and Putin had taped it. This is exactly what the infamous J.Edgar Hoover did -- blackmail
Washington politicians with FBI dossiers, assuring them that he could protect them so long as they did as Hoover wished.
In fact, Comey described this as a "J.Edgar Hoover moment" in answers to questions by Senator Susan Collins on June 8th. Dick
Morris describes the entire affair as "just about as close as you can get to a political assassination without holding a gun to the
President's head." Trump appears to have demanded that the entirely fake dossier be investigated, and refused to back down
in efforts to achieve better relations with Russia. In fact, Trump denounced the intelligence community publicly as acting like Nazis.
He also denounced the McCarthyite hysteria they were generating.
While Comey recorded the President-elect's responses on a classified computer moments after leaving him, Buzzfeed, which had frequently
published raw Clinton/Obama "oppo" stories, published the December 2016 British/Clinton dodgy dossier in full.
The U.S.
intelligence community, particularly Obama's ghoulish grand inquisitor, CIA head John Brennan, proceeded to give it credibility
by leaking that both President-elect Trump and President Obama had been briefed on its contents.
Publication of the Trump Russian sex allegations accompanied James Clapper's factless "official intelligence community assessment"
that the Russians hacked the DNC and Podesta, and that they did so to influence the election in favor of Donald Trump.
Put together by analysts "hand-picked" by the CIA's John Brennan, that assessment was backed by no actual evidence.
It has now been thoroughly debunked as "the hack that wasn't" by the analysis presented by the Veteran's Intelligence Professionals
for Sanity.
John Brennan subsequently explained to Congress and the public that he does not "do evidence."
The Democrats, the news media, and their Republican allies led by John McCain and Lindsay Graham, went berserk over the factless
Obama Administration "assessment," demanding special prosecutors and Congressional investigations, and sneering that "other shoes"
were about to drop.
The New York Times' Thomas Friedman, having clearly lost it, claimed that Russia had committed an "act of war," presumably seeking
to invoke Article 5 of the NATO treaty.
(6).
The President Calls Out Comey, Brennan et al.
for Wiretapping Him, They Lie About It To Congress
On March 4, 2017, after General Flynn was fired, and after a deluge of leaks of classified surveillance of members of Trump's
transition and national defense teams, President Trump interrupted the entire fake media narrative by tweeting what had become obvious:
that Obama had him "wiretapped" in Trump Tower prior to the election, and that what was happening to him reeked of McCarthyism.
The media, which had been publishing allegations about FISA warrants and intercepts of Trump or his associates for months, erupted
in what has to be one the most shameless demonstrations of the Big Lie ever known.
They declared that Trump was offering wild claims with no evidence, essentially circling back on their very own reporting and
labeling it, "fake news."
Now it has been revealed that FISA warrants existed on Paul Manafort from 2014 through some period in 2016, and from some period
in 2016 through this year, conveniently omitting the period when he was Trump's campaign manager.
Manafort lives in Trump Tower, and was originally investigated under the Foreign Agents Registration Act for his Ukraine activities.
It is fairly obvious that the June 2016 meeting at Trump Tower was the subject of massive surveillance.
It is also abundantly clear from the leaks which occurred concerning contacts with the Russians by Trump's campaign officials
and supporters, that the Trump Tower offices of his transition were subject to massive surveillance, either as the result of extant
FISA warrants or under E.O.
12333.
James Comey and James Clapper were both asked directly in their appearances before Congressional Committees whether there was
any evidence at all to substantiate the President's wiretapping claims.
Both of them gave emphatic answers that there was not, and went out of their respective ways to paint the President as a paranoid
wacko.
So now, Robert Mueller is investigating the President of the United States for obstruction of justice, because he fired an FBI
Director who lied to Congress.
Really?
(7).
The Comey Firing-Attempted Entrapment of the President
On March 20, 2017, former FBI Director Comey breathed new life into what was, by then, an insurrection which had run out of steam.
People were simply tired of Democrats, like Adam Schiff,
4 Schiff has a watermelon face combining features of the comic Charlie Brown and a Conehead; his personality is like the grasping
and crazy personality of Peanuts cartoon character, Lucy Van Pelt.
As a prosecutor it took him three tries to convict the hapless former FBI agent Richard Miller of espionage despite overwhelming
and salacious evidence. trying on McCarthyite tinfoil hats before TV cameras and pontificating about the outrage du jour.
Comey, in testimony before the House Select Committee on Intelligence, made it officially public, for the first time, that the
FBI had been investigating collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian interference in the election since July of 2016.
He opined that the FBI counterintelligence investigation (which had been leaking like a sieve since its instigation in July, without
producing any verifiable facts about either Russian interference or Trump campaign collusion) could continue for many more months,
if not years.
He refused to say whether the President himself was under investigation, despite the fact that he had told the President that
he was not, and had told Congress the same thing behind closed doors.
Despite the daily press instructions about events which the public must view as scandalous (why scandalous was never explained),
and highly publicized Congressional hearings concerning "Russia! Russia! Russia!" all of President Obama's men, at this late date,
had only managed to arrange the human sacrifice of Michael Flynn for lying to the Vice-President about his conversations with the
Russian ambassador in December.
5 Flynn's scalping itself was the result of the unmasking of Flynn's name and illegal leaks of same to the press as a result
of classified surveillance.
This fact was obliterated by sensational press coverage of the hyperventilated visit of Obama Assistant Attorney General Sally
Yates to the White House to warn, nonsensically, that Flynn had been "compromised" by the Russians because he lied to the Vice-President.
Exactly how this makes any sense at all we have not been told.
As Shakespeare's MacBeth intoned, "it is a tale, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." They had
also generated ethics, foreign intelligence registration, and tax questions about their other Trump campaign targets -- typical of
what happens when an entire life is put under a microscope, in a dedicated search for something, anything, that could be construed
feasibly as wrongdoing.
Ask yourself, what have any of these people allegedly done? Spoken with the Russians? Talked about lifting sanctions imposed because
Putin reacted to a coup Obama ran against the duly elected government of Ukraine? Lobbied on behalf of foreign governments? Really?
The actual testimony of Obama's intelligence officials before Congressional Committees, shorn of the media hype surrounding it,
was that there was absolutely no evidence of any Trump campaign collusion with alleged Russian efforts to interfere in the U.S.
elections.
In fact, on March 15, 2017, Comey himself had told Senators Chuck Grassley and Diane Feinstein behind closed doors, that the President
was not a target of his investigations, despite planted press stories to the contrary.
Comey had otherwise continually stone-walled Grassley concerning the Senator's persistent questions about the FBI's relationship
to British operative Christopher Steele.
While unable to produce any saleable legal goods, the illicit investigations had significantly bogged down the President's political
agenda, while fostering an increasingly toxic and divisive national political environment.
The strategy of official Washington, the Republicans who opposed the President's election, the Obama/Clinton Democratic establishment,
and the intelligence agencies operating on behalf of British strategic policies and axioms is clear -- use complicit Republicans
to trap the President in failed and obnoxious policies, such as the healthcare bill; hope that the President's silent majority remains
exactly that -- silent; hope that some of the smelly stuff they are throwing up against the wall actually sticks; distract, distract,
distract the President, and prevent him from working with Russia and China to develop the world, end wars, and implement the massive
infrastructure and space exploration projects which will actually save our economy.
On May 3, 2017, Comey followed his March drama-queen performance before the House, with even more theatrical speechifying before
the Senate Judiciary Committee.
He bloviated that despite the fact that his unprecedented disclosures and handling of the Clinton email investigation may have
impacted the election, and it made him nauseous, he, Mr.
Eagle Scout and True Crime Detective rolled into one, would do the same thing all over again.
He exaggerated the significance of the Anthony Weiner computer discovery by stating that it contained thousands of new Clinton
emails, not previously produced, some of which were classified -- a statement the FBI had to subsequently correct.
As Assistant Attorney General Rod Rosenstein rightly argued, Comey violated numerous Justice Department regulations and ethical
norms in his outrageous actions in the Clinton email investigation.
It is the Attorney General's job to prosecute cases -- to open and close them -- not that of the FBI.
At the same Senate Judiciary hearing, Comey refused to state publicly that President Trump was not under investigation, despite
repeatedly assuring the President of that fact privately.
He knew this allowed the media and Democratic party "color revolution" to continue.
He refused to confirm that there was any investigation into the torrent of illegal classified leaks at the center of the media
campaign.
On May 9th, President Trump fired Comey, setting the stage for Robert Mueller's appointment as Special Prosecutor.
At the center of Mueller's inquiry will be a conspiracy to obstruct justice charge against the President for firing James Comey,
along with any so-called process crimes he can find during his investigation -- registration offenses under the Foreign Agents Registration
Act, tax offenses, or false statements to FBI agents or Congress.
As he builds his case, Mueller will follow his standard playbook, putting unrelenting psychological pressure on those Trump loyalists
he can implicate in the process crimes.
He will continue to target and investigate the President's family for similar offenses in order to destabilize the President himself.
He will continue the relentless demonization of the President, in order to ensure that neutral officials in Washington who witnessed
key events will testify not according to the truth, but according to what they see as future career prospects.
Following his firing, Comey and friends leaked to the press notes which he had allegedly taken following most of his encounters
with the President.
With each encounter, Comey's leaked account says, he returned to discuss what was said and its implications with a close circle
of his FBI comrades.
He prepared for each encounter with the President based on "murder boards" conducted by his FBI colleagues.
In the course of their meetings, Comey says, the President asked for his loyalty, which Comey portrayed like the request of some
mafia don in a bad Hollywood movie.
If it happened, such a request, in the context of what appeared to be an open insurrection against the President by the intelligence
community, is hardly surprising.
The President denies that it happened.
On the day after the President fired Flynn, according to Comey, the President cleared the room and went one on one with him, expressing
the "hope" that Comey could let the matter of Michael Flynn go.
Comey whines that he took the President's "hope" as an "order," giving rise to concerns about possible obstruction of justice.
This line of reasoning was thoroughly eviscerated by Senator James Risch in the Senate Judicary Committee hearing on June 8, 2017.
Senator Risch forced Comey to admit that Trump never ordered him to let the Flynn matter go, but only expressed a "hope" that
he would do so, and no prosecution that Comey knew of ever went forward, based on someone expressing "hope" for something.
While the President denies he ever asked Comey to let the Flynn matter go, Harvard Law Professor Emeritus and famed trial lawyer
Alan Dershowitz writes that the President would be fully within his legal and constitutional prerogatives to order Comey to back
off Flynn.
He could have simply told Comey, I am going to pardon Flynn.
So, it is clear by James Comey's own account that he was trying to set the President up, to entrap him -- an escapade which was
"crudely" interrupted when the President fired him.
Again, confirming this, Comey told Senator Susan Collins in his testimony, that the reason why he did not stop the President from
improper interactions, if he thought they were such, the reason he concealed the alleged improper and possibly illegal conduct from
his superiors at the Justice Department, and the reason he did not resign, was because his encounters with the President were of
"investigative interest" to the FBI.
Otherwise, Comey's leaks reveal a man so leery of even shaking the President's hand (or being photographed doing it) that once
in January he tried to hide himself in the White House drapes in the hopes that Trump would not see him.
The problem for Robert Mueller's obstruction case, among others, is that both Comey and his Assistant Andrew McCabe have previously
testified, under oath, to Congress that there was no pressure to end the FBI's investigations from anyone in the Trump Administration.
And, Comey confirmed in his testimony that prior to his firing, Trump was not under investigation for collusion with Russia, obstruction,
or any other offense.
Further, Comey has proved that he is willing to violate professional norms and Justice Department regulations, if not laws, by
leaking government documents.
The question is, what else was leaked by Comey and his FBI circle? Finally, we now know that Comey lied to or misled Congress
about the "wiretaps" on Trump Tower -- the Manafort FISA warrants prove the case.
Senator Grassley has asked the FBI: Why, if you were wiretapping a close associate of the President, wouldn't you warn the President
about him as is customarily done? The true answer is that the President himself was and is the target of an unprecedented and illegal
coup-attempt conducted by those sworn to uphold the Constitution and the nation's laws.
Those familiar with the relationship between Comey and Robert Mueller describe them as "joined at the hip," "cut from the same
cloth" (can't help thinking of the Union Jack), close personal friends, and mentor (Mueller) to mentee (Comey).
The problem with this relationship is that Department of Justice conflict guidelines specifically bar prosecutors (Mueller) from
investigating issues where close friends (Comey) have a significant role, such as material witnesses.
Official Washington knows all of this and yet touts this investigation as somehow "independent," "apolitical," and "unconflicted."
Will You Help Us End This Coup?
So, now you know.
Since the election and before, we have been stuck in a very elaborate and dangerous British hoax, gambling the future of our nation
in a cold coup against an elected president.
Actual crimes have been committed -- not by the President -- but against the President and the Constitution.
What has happened is that political differences, ideas, have been criminalized, the very danger most provisions of our Constitution
and its Bill of Rights were explicitly designed to guard against.
We have shown you the prosecutorial robot named Robert Mueller, whom others have always pointed to shoot, and why he has been
deployed to take out the President of the United States.
We have told you the real reasons why the President has been attacked by a foreign power, the British and their allies in our
country.
We have shown you that many of the same people and methods were deployed on a smaller scale to deprive the world of the beautiful
ideas of Lyndon LaRouche.
Now, at a point where this President, freed of Mueller and adequately advised, could join with China's Belt and Road and usher
in a new renaissance for mankind, shouldn't we really, finally, win our future, this time?
The FBI has obtained 'indisputable evidence' that Obama-era CIA officials paid British spies to fabricate the Trump-Russia dossier
in order to justify wiretapping the Trump campaign.
Notable quotes:
"... George Papadopoulos was targeted deliberately by U.K. intel operatives in a plot to trick him. ..."
"... It was Joseph Mifsud, not Papadopoulos, who raised the prospect of meeting with the Russians and introduced the claim that Russia had damaging information about Hillary Clinton. ..."
"... Joeseph Mifsud was a British operative, not a Russian asset. ..."
"... The only entity that could have coordinated the entire operation was the Obama White House. ..."
The U.K.'s Joint Intelligence Committee was the venue used by the CIA and the DNI to share and receive "intelligence" allegedly
linking Trump to Russia.
The sources believe that John Brennan and James Clapper used highly classified intelligence channels to create a trail of fake
evidence linking Trump to Russia.
George Papadopoulos was targeted deliberately by U.K. intel operatives in a plot to trick him.
It was Joseph Mifsud, not Papadopoulos, who raised the prospect of meeting with the Russians and introduced the claim that
Russia had damaging information about Hillary Clinton.
Joeseph Mifsud was a British operative, not a Russian asset.
The only entity that could have coordinated the entire operation was the Obama White House.
"Britain's spy agencies played a crucial role in alerting their counterparts in Washington to contacts between members of Donald
Trump's campaign team and Russian intelligence operatives..
GCHQ first became aware in late 2015 of suspicious 'interactions' between figures connected to Trump and known or suspected
Russian agents, a source close to UK intelligence said. This intelligence was passed to the US as part of a routine exchange of
information, they added."
"Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad."
That saying - often misattributed to Euripides - comes to mind most mornings when I pick
up The New York Times and read the latest "Russiagate" headlines,
which are frequently
featured across two or three columns on the front page above the fold. This is an almost daily
reminder of the hysteria that dominates our Congress and much of our media.
A glaring example, just one of many from recent months, arrived at my door on February 17. My
outrage spiked when I opened to the Times'
lead
editorial
:
"Stop Letting the Russians Get Away With It, Mr. Trump."
I
had to ask myself:
"Did the Times' editors perform even the rudiments of due diligence before they climbed on
their high horse in this long editorial, which excoriated 'Russia' (not individual Russians) for
'interference' in the election and demanded increased sanctions against Russia 'to protect
American democracy'?"
It had never occurred to me that our admittedly dysfunctional political system is so
weak, undeveloped, or diseased that inept internet trolls could damage it. If that is the case, we
better look at a lot of other countries as well, not just Russia!
The New York Times, of course, is not the only offender.
Their editorial
attitude has been duplicated or exaggerated by most other media outlets in the United States,
electronic and print. Unless there is a mass shooting in progress, it can be hard to find a
discussion of anything else on CNN. Increasingly, both in Congress and in our media, it has been
accepted as a fact that "Russia" interfered in the 2016 election.
So what are the facts?
It is a fact that some Russians paid people to act as online trolls and bought
advertisements on Facebook during and after the 2016 presidential campaign. Most of these were
taken from elsewhere, and they comprised a tiny fraction of all the advertisements purchased on
Facebook during this period. This continued after the election and included organizing a
demonstration against President-elect Trump.
It is a fact that e-mails in the memory of the Democratic National Committee's computer were
furnished to Wikileaks. The US intelligence agencies that issued the January 2017 report were
confident that Russians hacked the e-mails and supplied them to Wikileaks, but offered no
evidence to substantiate their claim. Even if one accepts that Russians were the perpetrators,
however, the e-mails were genuine, as the US intelligence report certified. I have always
thought that the truth was supposed to make us free, not degrade our democracy.
It is a fact that the Russian government established a sophisticated television service (RT)
that purveyed entertainment, news, and -- yes -- propaganda to foreign audiences, including those in
the United States. Its audience is several magnitudes smaller than that of Fox News. Basically,
its task is to picture Russia in more favorable light than has been available in Western media.
There has been no analysis of its effect, if any, on voting in the United States. The January
2017 US intelligence report states at the outset, "We did not make an assessment of the impact
that Russian activities had on the outcome of the 2016 election." Nevertheless, that report has
been cited repeatedly by politicians and the media as having done so.
It is a fact that many senior Russian officials (though not all, by any means) expressed a
preference for Trump's candidacy. After all, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had compared
President Putin to Hitler and had urged more active US military intervention abroad, while Trump
had said it would be better to cooperate with Russia than to treat it as an enemy. It should not
require the judgment of professional analysts to understand why many Russians would find Trump's
statements more congenial than Clinton's. On a personal level, most of my Russian friends and
contacts were dubious of Trump, but all resented the Clinton's Russophobic tone, as well as
those made by Obama from 2014 onward. They considered Obama's
public
comment
that "Russia doesn't make anything" a gratuitous insult (which it was), and were
alarmed by Clinton's expressed desire to provide additional military support to the "moderates"
in Syria. But the average Russian, and certainly the typical Putin administration official,
understood Trump's comments as favoring improved relations, which they definitely favored.
There is no evidence that Russian leaders thought Trump would win or that they could have a
direct influence on the outcome. This is an allegation that has not been substantiated. The
January 2017 report from the intelligence community actually states that Russian leaders, like
most others, thought Clinton would be elected.
There is no evidence that Russian activities had any tangible impact on the outcome of the
election. Nobody seems to have done even a superficial study of the effect Russian actions
actually had on the vote. The intelligence-community report, however, states explicitly, "the
types of systems we observed Russian actors targeting or compromising are not involved in vote
tallying." Also both former FBI director James Comey and NSA director Mike Rogers
have
testified
that there is no proof Russian activities had an effect on the vote count.
There is also no evidence that there was direct coordination between the Trump campaign
(hardly a well-organized effort) and Russian officials. The indictments brought by the special
prosecutor so far are either for lying to the FBI or for offenses unrelated to the campaign such
as money laundering or not registering as a foreign agent.
So, what is the most important fact regarding the 2016 US presidential election?
The most important fact, obscured in Russiagate hysteria, is that Americans elected
Trump under the terms set forth in the Constitution.
Americans created the Electoral
College, which allows a candidate with the minority of popular votes to become president. Americans
were those who gerrymandered electoral districts to rig them in favor of a given political party.
The Supreme Court issued the infamous Citizens United decision that allows corporate financing of
candidates for political office. (Hey, money talks and exercises freedom of speech; corporations
are people!) Americans created a Senate that is anything but democratic since it gives
disproportionate representation to states with relatively small populations. It was American
senators who established non-democratic procedures that allow minorities, even sometimes single
senators, to block legislation or confirmation of appointments.
Now, that does not mean that Trump's presidency is good for the country just because Americans
elected him. In my opinion, the 2016 presidential and congressional elections pose an imminent
danger to the republic. They have created potential disasters that will severely try the checks and
balances built into our Constitution. This is especially true since both houses of Congress are
controlled by the Republican Party, which itself represents fewer voters than the opposition party.
I did not personally vote for Trump, but I consider the charges that Russian actions
interfered in the election, or - for that matter - damaged the quality of our democracy ludicrous,
pathetic, and shameful.
"
Ludicrous
" because there is no logical reason to think that anything
that the Russians did affected how people voted. In the past, when Soviet leaders tried to
influence American elections, it backfired -- as foreign interference usually does everywhere. In
1984, Yuri Andropov, the then Soviet leader made preventing Ronald Reagan's reelection the
second-most-important task of the KGB. (The first was to detect US plans for a nuclear strike on
the Soviet Union.) Everything the Soviets did -- in painting Reagan out to be a warmonger while
Andropov refused to negotiate on nuclear weapons -- helped Reagan win 49 out of 50 states.
"
Pathetic
" because it is clear that the Democratic Party lost the
election. Yes, it won the popular vote, but presidents are not elected by popular vote. To blame
someone else for one's own mistakes is a pathetic case of self-deception.
"
Shameful
" because it is an evasion of responsibility. It prevents
the Democrats, and those Republicans who want responsible, fact-based government in Washington,
from concentrating on practical ways to reduce the threat the Trump presidency poses to our
political values and even to our future existence. After all, Trump would not be president if
the Republican Party had not nominated him. He also is most unlikely to have won the Electoral
College if the Democrats had nominated someone -- almost anyone -- other than the candidate they
chose, or if that candidate had run a more competent campaign. I don't argue that any of this
was fair, or rational, but then who is so naive as to assume that American politics are either
fair or rational?
Instead of facing the facts and coping with the current reality, the Russiagate
promoters in both the government and the media, are diverting our attention from the real threats.
I should add "dangerous" to those three adjectives. "Dangerous" because making an enemy of
Russia, the other nuclear superpower -- yes, there are still two -- comes as close to political insanity
as anything I can think of. Denying global warming may rank up there too in the long run, but only
nuclear weapons pose, by their very existence in the quantities that are on station in Russia and
the United States, an immediate threat to mankind -- not just to the United States and Russia and not
just to "civilization." The sad, frequently forgotten fact is that since the creation of nuclear
weapons, mankind has the capacity to destroy itself and join other extinct species.
In their first meeting, President Ronald Reagan and then General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev
agreed that "a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought." Both believed that simple and
obvious truth and their conviction enabled them to set both countries on a course that ended the
Cold War. We should think hard to determine how and why that simple and obvious truth has been
ignored of late by the governments of both countries.
We must desist from our current Russophobic insanity and encourage Presidents Trump and
Putin to restore cooperation in issues of nuclear safety, non-proliferation, control of nuclear
materials, and nuclear-arms reduction. This is in the vital interest of both the United States and
Russia. That is the central issue on which sane governments, and sane publics, would focus their
attention.
Vote up!
8
Vote down!
2
A 20-page confidential letter from President Trump's legal team leaked to the New
York Times argues that President Trump could not have obstructed justice at any point
during his presidency due to his Constitutional authority, and that he cannot be compelled to
testify in front of Special Counsel Robert Mueller due to his Constitutional powers as
President.
The letter, crafted by Trump's legal team, reveals that the White House has been waging a
quiet campaign for several months to prevent Mueller from trying to subpoena the president -
contending that because the Constitution empowers him to "if he wished, terminate the inquiry,
or even exercise his power to pardon," Trump could not have illegally obstucted any aspect of
the investigation into potential collusion between his campaign and Russia during the 2016 US
election.
Mr. Trump's defense is a wide-ranging interpretation of presidential power. In saying he
has the authority to end a law enforcement inquiry or pardon people, his lawyers ambiguously
left open the possibility that they were referring only to the investigation into his former
national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn , which he is accused of pressuring the F.B.I. to
drop -- or perhaps the one Mr. Mueller is pursuing into Mr. Trump himself as well.
Mr. Dowd and Mr. Sekulow outlined 16 areas they said the special counsel was scrutinizing
as part of the obstruction investigation, i ncluding the firings of Mr. Comey and of Mr.
Flynn , and the president's reaction to Attorney General Jeff Sessions's recusal from the
Russia investigation. -NYT
"It remains our position that the president's actions here, by virtue of his position as the
chief law enforcement officer, could neither constitutionally nor legally constitute
obstruction because that would amount to him obstructing himself , and that he could, if he
wished, terminate the inquiry, or even exercise his power to pardon if he so desired," writes
President Trump's former attorney John Dowd, who left the team in March.
The leaked letter effectively reveals Trump's trump card in the event Mueller proceeds with
a subpoena.
"We are reminded of our duty to protect the president and his office," wrote the lawyers,
who stressed that " Ensuring that the office remains sacred and above the fray of shifting
political winds and gamesmanship is of critical importance. "
Translation - this is a clown show, go pound sand.
Mueller's office has told Trump's lawyers they need to speak with the president to determine
whether he criminally obstructed any aspect of the Russia investigation. If Trump refuses to be
questioned, Mueller will be forced to choose whether or not to try and subpoena him - which, as
Trump's lawyers have made abundantly clear, will result in a Constitutional crisis.
They argued that the president holds a special position in the government and is busy
running the country , making it difficult for him to prepare and sit for an interview. They
said that because of those demands on Mr. Trump's time, the special counsel's office should
have to clear a higher bar to get him to talk. Mr. Mueller, the president's attorneys argued,
needs to prove that the president is the only person who can give him the information he
seeks and that he has exhausted all other avenues for getting it. -NYT
" The president's prime function as the chief executive ought not be hampered by requests
for interview ," they wrote. " Having him testify demeans the office of the president before
the world ."
Trump's attorneys also argued that the president did nothing to technically violate
obstruction-of-justice statutes.
"Every action that the president took was taken with full constitutional authority pursuant
to Article II of the United States Constitution," they wrote of the part of the Constitution
that created the executive branch. "As such, these actions cannot constitute obstruction,
whether viewed separately or even as a totality."
According to legal experts cited by the Times , the president wields broad authority to
control the actions of the executive branch, which includes the Department of Justice and the
FBI. The Supreme Court, however, has ruled that Congress can impose some restrictions on that
power, including limiting a president's ability to fire certain officials.
"As a result, it is not clear whether statutes criminalizing obstruction of justice apply to
the president and amount to another legal limit on how he may wield his powers ," notes the
Times .
About that Russia probe...
And while Trump's team works to make the case against testifying, media reports and
Congressional investigations have revealed what appears to be
grave misconduct by the FBI and Department of Justice in order to prevent Trump from
winning the 2016 US election, and then once he won - discredit him with a Russia allegations
fabricated by US Intelligence agencies, UK intelligence assets - in collusion with the Clinton
campaign and the Obama administration.
We now know that Trump campaign aides were likely
fed rumors that Russia had damaging information on Hillary Clinton, and then used as
patsies by Clinton-linked operatives in what appears to have been a set-up, something Trump
once again hinted in his latest tweet, in which he also asked if the Mueller team or the DOJ is
leaking his lawyers' letters to the "Fake News Media."
Trump's attorneys have also attacked the credibility of former FBI Director James Comey,
while also contesting what they believe are Mueller's version of significant facts.
Mr. Giuliani said in an interview that Mr. Trump is telling the truth but that
investigators "have a false version of it, we believe, so you're trapped." And the stakes are
too high to risk being interviewed under those circumstances, he added: "That becomes not
just a prosecutable offense, but an impeachable offense." -NYT
They argue that Trump couldn't have intentionally obstructed justice anyway based on the
fact that he did not know that Mike Flynn was under investigation when Trump spoke to
Comey.
"There could not possibly have been intent to obstruct an 'investigation' that had been
neither confirmed nor denied to White House counsel," the president's lawyers wrote, adding
that FBI investigations generally do not qualify as the type of "proceeding" covered by an
obstruction-of-justice statute.
"Of course, the president of the United States is not above the law, but just as obvious and
equally as true is the fact that the president should not be subjected to strained readings and
forced applications of clearly irrelevant statutes," wrote Mr. Dowd and Mr. Sekulow.
The Times, however, suggests that their argument may be outdated, as a 2002 law passed by
Congress makes it a crime to obstruct proceedings that have not yet begun.
But the lawyers based those arguments on an outdated statute , without
mentioning that Congress passed a broader law in 2002 that makes it a
crime to obstruct proceedings that have not yet started.
Samuel W. Buell, a Duke Law School professor and white-collar criminal law specialist who
was a lead prosecutor for the Justice Department's Enron task force, said the real issue was
whether Mr. Trump obstructed a potential grand jury investigation or trial -- which do count
as proceedings -- even if the F.B.I. investigation had not yet developed into one of those .
He called it inexplicable why the president's legal team was making arguments that were
focused on the wrong obstruction-of-justice statute.
Regardless, it appears Trump's team is going to tell Mueller to take a hike if he tries to
subpoena the president, and that it will simply further embarrass the United States on the
world stage.
"We write to address news reports, purportedly based on leaks, indicating that you may have
begun a preliminary inquiry into whether the president's termination of former FBI Director James Comey
constituted obstruction of justice," the June 2017 memo from Trump attorney Marc Kasowitz to
Mueller reads - while a more recent memo outlines the 16 areas they believe Mueller is focusing
on (via
CBS News )
Former National Security Advisor Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn -- information regarding his
contacts with Ambassador Kislyak about sanctions during the transition process;
Lt. Gen. Flynn's communications with Vice President Mike Pence regarding those
contacts;
Lt. Gen. Flynn's interview with the FBI regarding the same;
Then-Acting Attorney General Sally Yates coming to the White House to discuss same;
The president's meeting on Feb. 14, 2017, with then-Director James Comey;
Any other relevant information regarding former National Security Advisor Michael
Flynn;
The president's awareness of and reaction to investigations by the FBI, the House and the
Senate into possible collusion;
The president's reaction to Attorney General Jeff Sessions' recusal from the Russia
investigation;
The president's reaction to former FBI Director James Comey's testimony on March 20,
2017, before the House Intelligence Committee;
Information related to conversations with intelligence officials generally regarding
ongoing investigations;
Information regarding who the president had had conversations with concerning Mr. Comey's
performance;
Whether or not Mr. Comey's May 3, 2017, testimony lead to his termination;
Information regarding communications with Ambassador Kislyak, Minister Lavrov, and Lester
Holt;
The president's reaction to the appointment of Robert Mueller as Special Counsel;
The president's interaction with Attorney General Sessions as it relates to the
appointment of Special Counsel; and,
The statement of July 8, 2017, concerning Donald Trump, Jr.'s meeting in Trump
Tower.
One interesting fact I don't see mentioned in this article, or the comments so far, is
that this letter from Trump's attorneys to Mueller was written and delivered to Mueller in
January, 2018. 5 months ago. One of the authors has since left the Trump team (Dowd). Mueller
does not appear to have shut up shop and left town.
The only new thing about this letter is that somebody, presumably from Team Trump, has
leaked it to the New York Times. Could easily be Giuliani.
This may very well end up at the Supreme Court. If that happens, I expect a 5-4 decision
to exempt the President of the United States from the rule of law. Won't that be fun when
somebody like Elizabeth Warren becomes President in 2, 6, or however-many years?
A lot of Republicans loved how George W. Bush amassed a lot of King-like powers, and then
bemoaned it when Barack Obama used those powers of the "Unitary Executive." That shoe cramps
badly on the other foot, doesn't it.
Uhm, so what you're saying is the Supreme Court, which IS the rule of law, will likely
interpret the Constitution correctly and UPHOLD the portions of the constitution that speak
to not allowing the President to be encumbered with frivolous, unfounded charges that render
him unable to execute the charge of his office while he is a sitting President, even though
those charges CAN be brought as soon as he steps down. So this RULING OF THE LAW would be
uncomfortable for you? Tough shit, you live in America where the Constitution reigns supreme.
Are you one of those that wants to toss the constitution into the garbage all based upon, but
but but we may not be able to bring our OWN unjustified, frivolous, unfounded charges on
Presidents we don't agree with and are SUPER angry they got elected?
CONGRESS amassed a bunch of King-like powers for Bush and Obama, ignorantly. The Supreme
Court does not give any powers to the President and I have no problem with that court being
the final word.
Mueller is assholes and elbows deep in his own stinky poo poo.
If the IG report is that damning, and a second council is appointed, Mueller should buy an
apple orchard, to feed his horse face, during his incarceration.
Trump should stay "light years" AWAY>from Mueller desperation's<
They remind me of roach nests where the vermin are always nesting cozy cozy together until
an opportunity arises that allows them to bug the s**t out of the rest of us.
And of course they produce nothing, and mooch off everybody else's work.
Except these DC Swamp roaches carry badges and guns.
Only the DC Swamp could produce such freaks.
They are a step below regular six legged roaches.
At least those roaches are better behaved than their DC cousins.
America doesn't need THEIR kind of protections if it requires a handful of people to run
amuck breaking every law they vowed to uphold simply because shits like YOU are so damn
stupid you couldn't even beat a clown like Trump. Why don't you people just admit it. You're
too damn stupid to accomplish anything anymore. You couldn't win what SHOULD have been the
easiest election to win in all of American history. THEN you couldn't even run an
intelligence op "intelligently". On top of THAT you all convict yourselves as you go on "book
tours" and "political commentary" junkets because your greed surpasses your stupidity.
You have no one but yourselves to blame for everything that upsets you.
"This entire case is built on a fake piece of information in the Dossier. Or multiple
pieces of information in a Fake Dossier, I should say to be more precise. Breaking yesterday,
Breanan has insisted that to multiple people by the way, that he didn't know much about the
Dossier. Wait till we play this audio. Get the Chuck Todd one ready Joe."
"This is Devastating audio. But hold on a minute. Why is Breanan doing this? Because
Breanan knows that the Dossier was his case. And, the minute he admits on the record. That as
a Senior Level, powerful member of the Intelligence Community. That John Breanan started a
Political Investigation based on Fake Information he may very well of known was not verified.
John Breanan is going to be in a World of trouble. So he has to run from this thing."
"Now I'll get to this Sberry piece in a second. And, why it's important. But just to show
you that Breanan has run from this Dossier. Despite the fact, we know he knew about it. And,
he Lied about it. Here's him basically telling Chuck Todd....listen to how he emphasizes on
the Dossier played no role, no, no, no role, no, no, no, no, no to the Dossier. Listen to him
with Chuck Todd:"
Chuck Todd Interview 3:30 Mark. Pure Evil War Criminal Treasonous Seditious Psychopath
John Breanan admits the Fake Dossier Played:
"and it did not play any role whatsoever in the Intelligence Community Assessment that was
done. That was presented to then...Pesident Obama & President Elect Trump."
Mueller reminds me of the 'preacher' character in the 'Right Stuff' movie. Death made
visible. A year and a half and the only result has been to damage a freely-elected president.
Mueller's end game is to drag this s - - - out until the midterms when it is hoped the Dems
can regain the House and impeach Trump.
Mueller should be issuing a subpoena to Comey for obstructing justice and the
theft/transference of classified government documents...lol...but of course, it is not in
"Muellers mandate" to pursue justice ;-)
You're correct. I just checked. CNN is hemorrhaging slobbering viewers.
Ow, my Ballz! Is still number one slot followed by Fox.
So the joy of CNN withering only goes so far when the only refuge is FOX and Ow, my
Ballz.
Fox and friends makes me violently ill - it's soooo saccharine sweet. Steve Docey is
tolerable but that dip shit Kilmeade is such a bloodthirsty war mongering chickenhawk and
airhead Ainsley reminds me of Barbies little sister Skipper who thinks every day is Summer
and wonderful. It seriously gives me the trots in the morning. Used to like Greta, super
smart but a face for radio so they ditched her. Still like Tucker but I seriously doubt he
will stay there long term.
The time has never been more ripe for someone to buck up and create a serious media
channel that is a red pilling machine gun. 100% Mockingbird and Sheeny free, too.
"... Brock sees oddities in how the Russia case began. " These types of investigations aren't normally run by assistant directors and deputy directors at headquarters ," he told me. "All that happens normally in a field office, but that isn't the case here and so it becomes a red flag. Congress would have legitimate oversight interests in the conditions and timing of the targeting of a confidential human source against a U.S. person." -The Hill ..."
"... A series of text messages recovered by DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz between FBI lawyer Lisa Page and special agent Peter Strzok reveal political pressure around the same time as the Trump-Russia probe officially opened. ..."
"... "We're not going to withstand the pressure soon," Page texted Strzok on Aug. 3, 2016 - days after Strzok returned from London and opened the official Trump-Russia investigation. ..."
"... John Solomon of The Hill notes, "they were dealing with simultaneous challenges: the wrap-up of the Hillary Clinton email scandal and the start of the Russia-Trump probe." ..."
"... The texts reveal that Strzok and Page were also concerned about someone within the DOJ leaking details of their investigation ("This is MUCH more tasty for one of those DOJ aholes to leak," Strzok texted Page), as well as concerns that the White House was spearheading the investigation. ..."
A new report from John Solomon of
The Hill ties together several loose threads floating around over the genesis of the FBI/DOJ espionage operation against the
Trump campaign, who was involved in the "setup" of campaign aides, and how text messages between FBI employees suggest that the Obama
White House was not only aware of the operation - but possibly directing it .
Not only is the timeline moved up from the summer of 2016 to spring, Solomon provides clarification on early contacts between
the players involved in DOJ/FBI sting and Trump campaign aides.
The bridge to the Russia investigation wasn't erected in Moscow during the summer of the 2016 election.
It originated earlier, 1,700 miles away in London, where foreign figures contacted Trump campaign advisers and provided the
FBI with hearsay allegations of Trump-Russia collusion, bureau documents and interviews of government insiders reveal. These contacts
in spring 2016 -- some from trusted intelligence sources, others from Hillary Clinton supporters -- occurred well before FBI headquarters
authorized an official counterintelligence investigation on July 31, 2016.
The new timeline makes one wonder: Did the FBI follow its rules governing informants? -
The Hill
" The revelation of purposeful contact initiated by alleged confidential human sources prior to any FBI investigation is troublesome
," Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), an ally of President Trump and chairman of a House subcommittee that's taking an increasingly aggressive
oversight role in the scandal, told me. " This new information begs the questions: Who were the informants working for, who were
they reporting to and why has the [Department of Justice] and FBI gone to such great lengths to hide these contacts ? "
Retired assistant FBI director for intelligence Kevin Brock also has questions. Brock supervised an agency update to their longstanding
bureau rules governing the use of sources while working under then-director Robert Mueller. These rules prohibit the FBI from directing
a human source to perform espionage on an American until a formal investigation has been opened - paperwork and all.
Brock sees oddities in how the Russia case began. " These types of investigations aren't normally run by assistant directors
and deputy directors at headquarters ," he told me. "All that happens normally in a field office, but that isn't the case here
and so it becomes a red flag. Congress would have legitimate oversight interests in the conditions and timing of the targeting
of a confidential human source against a U.S. person." -The Hill
The Text Messages
A series of text messages recovered by DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz between FBI lawyer Lisa Page and special agent
Peter Strzok reveal political pressure around the same time as the Trump-Russia probe officially opened.
"We're not going to withstand the pressure soon," Page texted Strzok on Aug. 3, 2016 - days after Strzok returned from London
and opened the official Trump-Russia investigation. At the time, as John Solomon of The Hill notes, "they were dealing with
simultaneous challenges: the wrap-up of the Hillary Clinton email scandal and the start of the Russia-Trump probe."
The texts reveal that Strzok and Page were also concerned about someone within the DOJ leaking details of their investigation
("This is MUCH more tasty for one of those DOJ aholes to leak," Strzok texted Page), as well as concerns that the White House was
spearheading the investigation.
"Went well, best we could have expected," Strzok texted Page after an Aug. 5, 2016, meeting. "Other than Liz quote 'the
White House is running this.' " Page then texted to assure Strzok of a paper trail showing the FBI in charge: "We got emails that
say otherwise."
Federal investigators from the D.C. U.S. Attorney's office recently interviewed former FBI
director James Comey as part of an ongoing probe into whether former FBI #2 Andrew McCabe broke
the law when he lied to federal agents, reports the
Washington Post .
Investigators from the D.C. U.S. Attorney's Office recently interviewed former FBI
director James B. Comey as part of a probe into whether his deputy, Andrew McCabe, broke the
law by lying to federal agents -- an indication the office is seriously considering whether
McCabe should be charged with a crime, a person familiar with the matter said. -
Washington Po st
What makes the interview particularly interesting is that Comey and McCabe have given
conflicting reports over the events leading up to McCabe's firing, with
Comey calling his former deputy a liar in an April appearance on The View .
Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz issued a criminal referral for McCabe
following a months-long probe which found that the former acting FBI Director leaked a
self-serving story to the press and then lied about it under oath. McCabe was fired on March 16
after Horowitz found that he " had made an unauthorized disclosure to the news media and lacked
candor - including under oath - on multiple occasions. "
Specifically, McCabe was fired for lying about authorizing an F.B.I. spokesman and attorney
to tell Devlin Barrett of the Wall St.
Journal - just days before the 2016 election, that the FBI had not put the brakes on a
separate investigation into the Clinton Foundation, at a time in which McCabe was coming under
fire for his wife taking a $467,500 campaign contribution from Clinton proxy pal, Terry
McAuliffe.
New details show that senior law-enforcement officials repeatedly voiced skepticism of the
strength of the evidence in a bureau investigation of the Clinton Foundation, sought to
condense what was at times a sprawling cross-country effort, and, according to some people
familiar with the matter, told agents to limit their pursuit of the case . The probe of the
foundation began more than a year ago to determine whether financial crimes or influence
peddling occurred related to the charity.
...
Some investigators grew frustrated, viewing FBI leadership as uninterested in probing the
charity , these people said. Others involved disagreed sharply, defending FBI bosses and
saying Mr. McCabe in particular was caught between an increasingly acrimonious fight for
control between the Justice Department and FBI agents pursuing the Clinton Foundation case
.
So McCabe was found to have leaked information to the WSJ in order to combat rumors that
Clinton had indirectly bribed him to back off the Clinton Foundation investigation, and then
lied about it four times to the DOJ and FBI, including twice under oath.
McCabe vs. Comey
Investigators from the D.C. U.S. Attorney's office were likely to be keenly interested in
Comey's version of whether or not he knew about McCabe's disclosure.
Comey and McCabe offered varying accounts of who authorized the disclosure for the
article. They discussed the story the day after it was published, and Comey, according to the
inspector general's report, told investigators McCabe "definitely did not tell me that he
authorized" the disclosure . -WaPo
"I have a strong impression he conveyed to me 'it wasn't me boss.' And I don't think that
was by saying those words, I think it was most likely by saying 'I don't know how this s---
gets in the media or why would people talk about this kind of thing,' words that I would fairly
take as 'I, Andy, didn't do it,' " Comey said, according to the inspector general.
During an April appearance on ABC's The View to peddle his new book, A Higher Royalty
Loyalty, where he called McCabe a liar , and said he actually "ordered the [IG] report" which
found McCabe guilty of leaking to the press and then lying under oath about it, several
times.
Comey was asked by host Megan McCain how he thought the public was supposed to have
"confidence" in the FBI amid revelations that McCabe lied about the leak.
" It's not okay. The McCabe case illustrates what an organization committed to the truth
looks like ," Comey said. " I ordered that investigation. "
Comey then appeared to try and frame McCabe as a "good person" despite all the lying.
"Good people lie. I think I'm a good person, where I have lied," Comey said. " I still
believe Andrew McCabe is a good person but the inspector general found he lied, " noting that
there are "severe consequences" within the DOJ for doing so.
Following McCabe's firing, his attorney Michael R. Bromwich (flush with cash from the
disgraced Deputy Director's half-million dollar legal defense GoFundMe
campaign), fired back - claiming that Comey was well aware of the leaks .
" In his comments this week about the McCabe matter, former FBI Director James Comey has
relied on the Inspector Genera's (OIG) conclusions in their report on Mr. McCabe. In fact, the
report fails to adequately address the evidence (including sworn testimony) and documents that
prove that Mr. McCabe advised Director Comey repeatedly that he was working with the Wall
Street Journal on the stories in question..." reads the statement in part.
McCabe vs. the DOJ
McCabe may also find himself at odds with the Department of Justice, as notes he kept
allegedly detailing an interaction with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein raise questions
about a memo Rosenstein wrote justifying Comey's firing. While Rosenstein's memo took aim at
Comey for his mishandling of the Clinton email investigation, McCabe's notes suggest that Trump
told Rosenstein to point to the Russia investigation. Rosenstein's recommendation ultimately
did not mention Russia.
McCabe's interactions with Rosenstein could complicate any potential prosecution of McCabe
because Rosenstein would likely be involved in a final decision on filing charges. McCabe has
argued that the Justice Department's actions against him, including his firing, are
retaliatory for his work on the Russia investigation. -WaPo
As the Washington Post notes, lying to federal investigators can carry a five-year prison
sentence - however McCabe says he did not intentionally mislead anyone. The Post also notes
that while Comey's interview is significant, it does not indicated that prosecutors have
reached any conclusions.
Lying to Comey might not itself be a crime. But the inspector general alleged McCabe
misled investigators three other times.
He told agents from the FBI inspection division on May 9, 2017, that he had not authorized
the disclosure and did not know who had, the inspector general alleged. McCabe similarly told
inspector general investigators on July 28 that he was not aware of one of the FBI officials,
lawyer Lisa Page, having been authorized to speak to reporters, and because he was not in
Washington on the days she did so, he could not say what she was doing. McCabe later admitted
he authorized Page to talk to reporters.
The inspector general also alleged that McCabe lied in a final conversation in November,
claiming that he had told Comey he had authorized the disclosure and that he had not claimed
otherwise to inspection division agents in May.
Michael Bromwich replied in a statement: "A little more than a month ago, we confirmed that
we had been advised that a criminal referral to the U.S. Attorney's Office had been made
regarding Mr. McCabe. We said at that time that we were confident that, unless there is
inappropriate pressure from high levels of the Administration, the U.S. Attorney's Office would
conclude that it should decline to prosecute. Our view has not changed.
He added that " leaks concerning specific investigative steps the US Attorney's Office has
allegedly taken are extremely disturbing ."
Whatever Comey told federal investigators, we suspect it eventually boiled down to "McCabe
didn't tell me," squarely placing responsibility for the leaks - and the lies, on McCabe's
shoulders.
"... Thucydides tells us that war changes the meaning of words . Social media demonstrated this maxim several years ago when " mil-splaining " military-related holidays was all the rage. ..."
"... Increasingly civilians see " soldiers as symbols that allow them to feel good about themselves, and the country" -- but many also see OxyContin that way. ..."
"... A strategy is needed that's rooted in serious analysis of American interests and strengths and a realistic assessment of the world. For nearly a generation, we have failed to align ends, ways, and means . Like " The Weary Titan ," America finds itself unable (or unwilling) to adapt to a changing world. ..."
"... What do we have to show for our expenditures? A divided country, financially exhausted while waging war across the globe against an elusive enemy -- who is, frankly, not a threat remotely approaching the resources we have aligned against him. Beyond the material costs, there's the social. Our military has become a syncretic religion, enjoying the support but not due consideration of the nation. This situation is genuinely tragic . ..."
"... The reason US acts like an empire is because she *IS* an empire. ..."
"... It recently dawned on me that the US' empire status solidified during and after WWII is the biggest reason why it's so easy for America to wage prolonged, deep-involvement wars. NATO, overseas bases, freedom of navigation, etc. ..."
"... But let's be honest: when we "killed" the draft we killed, in part, what is called social cohesion in this country. ..."
"... "This Memorial Day, don't cringe when someone says "Thank you for your service" and proceed to correct them." ..."
"... U.S. policy of perpetual war has been well established since 9/11. Everyone who joins the military is well aware of the job description (kill and destroy) and has free will. ..."
"... The U.S. military is currently providing refueling, logistics and intelligence support to the odious Saudis as they pulverize Yemen to smithereens and starve the population. And those American service people are "defending our freedoms" by doing so? ..."
"... The reason these episodes of introspection are called for is because of the massive propaganda machine (Pentagon, Corporate, MSM) of Military Exceptionalism that is the architect of the pathological incongruence. ..."
"... The 'military-civilian' divide, as the author stated it, is as much a product of a media that no longer holds policymakers accountable for seemingly endless military engagements and, the true effect that our endless military engagements are having on the very fabric of our society and on those engaged in them. ..."
"... With a volunteer military that effectively is at the disposal of whoever happens to be in office, no grass-roots opposition movement to hold politicians accountable, and 95 percent of the population untouched by war, the most veterans will receive is a "thank you for your service" as we go on with our daily lives. ..."
"... In my opinion, Demanding answers and justifications for sending people into harms way is the best expression of respect for our military personnel. ..."
"... " instead of asking 'what' we need to break the stalemate in Afghanistan, could ask 'why' there is a stalemate at all -- and whether American forces can truly ameliorate the structural, cultural, and historical obstacles to achieving desired ends there." ..."
"... Be aware that when you ask why, many people (including, sadly, many veterans) will consider this questioning of government foreign policy as a species of treason. Once, while on active duty with the US Army (1970), I suggested to a fellow officer that sending US troops to fight in Vietnam might not be in nation interest. I was immediately and vigorously condemned as a communist, a fascist, and a traitor. ..."
"... According to this reasoning, once the first soldier dies in battle, any criticism of the war denigrates the sacrifice of the deceased. So, we must continue to pile up the dead to justify those who have already died. This is part of the mechanism of war, and is an important reason why it is always easier to start a war than to stop one. ..."
Thucydides tells us that war
changes the meaning of words . Social media demonstrated this maxim several years ago when
" mil-splaining
" military-related holidays was all the rage. From memes outlining the differences between
Veterans, Armed Forces, and Memorial Day, to Fourth of July "safe space" declarations seemingly
applied to all vets, the trend was everywhere. Thankfully, it seems now to have passed.
Memorial Day is, of course, for remembering the fallen, those who died in service to the
nation. Veterans and their families remember their loved ones in ways they deem appropriate,
and the state remembers, too, in a somber, serious manner.
This remembrance should in no way preclude the typical family barbecue and other customs
associated with the traditional beginning of summer. National holidays are for remembering and
celebrating, not guilt. Shaming those who fail to celebrate a holiday according to one's
expectations is a bit like non-Christians feeling shame for skipping church: it shouldn't
matter because the day means different things to different people. Having a day on the calendar
demonstrates the national consensus about honoring sacrifice; anything more than that is a slow
walk towards superficiality. President Bush stopped golfing during the Iraq war, but it didn't
stop him from continuing it.
Instead, Memorial Day should engender conversation about our military and the gulf between
those who serve and those who don't. The conversation shouldn't just be the military talking at
civilians; it must be reciprocal. Increasingly civilians see " soldiers as symbols
that allow them to feel good about themselves, and the country" --
but many also see OxyContin that way. This situation is lamentable because the
aforementioned "mil-splaining" could only occur in a country so profoundly divided from its
military as to misunderstand basic concepts such as the purpose of holidays. It's also striking
how the most outspoken so-called "patriots" often
have little connection to that which they so outlandishly support. Our "thank you for your
service" culture is anathema to well-functioning civil-military relations.
The public owes its military more consideration, particularly in how the armed forces are
deployed across the globe. Part of this is empathy:
stop treating military members as an abstraction , as something that exists only to serve a
national or increasingly political purpose. Our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines are
deserving of praise and support -- especially considering the burden they've carried -- but
what they need more is an engaged public, one that's even willing to
scrutinize the military . Because scrutiny necessitates engagement and hopefully
understanding and reform.
But the civil-military divide goes
both ways. Military members and veterans owe the public a better relationship as well. This
Memorial Day, don't cringe when someone says "Thank you for your service" and proceed to
correct them. Open a dialogue: you might
build a real connection . Better yet, volunteer to speak at a school or church: partly to
explain your service, sure, but more so to show that military personnel are people, too, not
just
distant abstractions . Veterans are spread across the county and better able to interact
with civilians than our largely cloistered active duty force. They shouldn't go to schools,
churches, and civic organizations for the inevitable praise. They should go to educate, nurture
relationships, and chip away at the civil-military divide.
Perhaps by questioning the fundamentals -- the "why" instead of the so often discussed
"what" in military operations -- the public would be in a better position to demand action from
a Congress that, heretofore, has largely abdicated serious oversight of foreign policy. Perhaps
the public, instead of asking "what" we need to break the
stalemate in Afghanistan , could ask "why" there is a stalemate at all -- and whether
American forces can truly ameliorate the structural, cultural, and historical obstacles to
achieving desired ends there.
A strategy is needed that's rooted in serious analysis of American interests and
strengths and a realistic assessment of the world. For nearly a generation, we
have failed to align ends, ways, and means . Like "
The Weary Titan ," America finds itself unable (or unwilling) to adapt to a changing
world. Consumed by domestic strife and the emergence of nationalism
, American foreign policy has wandered fecklessly since the end of the Cold War. While we can
strike anywhere, this
capability is wasted in search of a lasting peace.
What do we have to show for our expenditures? A divided country, financially exhausted
while waging war across the globe against an elusive enemy -- who is, frankly, not a threat
remotely approaching the resources we have aligned against him. Beyond the material costs,
there's the social. Our military has become a syncretic religion, enjoying the support but not
due consideration of the nation. This situation is
genuinely tragic .
For America to dig its way out of its domestic and foreign troubles it must start with
sobering analysis. For the civil-military dialogue, Memorial Day is as good a place to begin as
any day. So this weekend, civilians should move beyond "Thank you for your service" and ask a
vet about his or her service and lost comrades. Veterans, don't expect praise and don't
lecture; speak with honesty and empathy, talk about what you've done and the conditions you've
seen. You might be surprised what we can learn from each other.
John Q. Bolton is an Army officer who recently returned from Afghanistan. An Army
aviator (AH-64D/E), he is a veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan. He is a 2005 graduate of West
Point. The views presented here are his alone and not representative of the U.S. Army, the
Department of Defense, or the U.S. government.
12 Responses to On Memorial Day,
Getting Beyond 'Thank You For Your Service'
(This reply was intended for an older article
"http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-deep-unfairness-of-americas-all-volunteer-force"
from 2017 but since the topics are kind of related, so )
The reason US acts like an empire is because she *IS* an empire.
It recently dawned on me that the US' empire status solidified during and after WWII
is the biggest reason why it's so easy for America to wage prolonged, deep-involvement wars.
NATO, overseas bases, freedom of navigation, etc. Scrapping/re-constituting these
frameworks would put the US on par with most other countries on earth sporting home-bound
defense forces. Congressional authority/oversight would be reinvigorated, and acting under
the auspices of the UN becomes a procedural impairment (sovereignty concerns and selfishness
notwithstanding). A practical start would be lobbying for more base closures abroad, for
those who feel strongly about this.
But there is a danger: nature abhors a vacuum.
The other thing, I am definitely for professionalism in militaries. Better to have one
dedicated soldier than three squirmish kids dragged into the mud.
Seems to me a universal draft would be the best way to say thank you. Under that scenario
most wars would be avoided or resolved quickly as the cost would be political defeat. An all
volunteer/mercenary force is blatantly unfair as virtually no kids of the wealthy fight,
prohibitively expensive, as recruiting and retaining soldiers in these times is an uphill
challenge, and dangerous as it encourages needless risk since only a tiny percentage of the
voting population pay the price
Sir: Thank you for your timely comments. I am a USN veteran and fully support the idea that
communication has to be a two-way street between civilians and our military women and men.
But let's be honest: when we "killed" the draft we killed, in part, what is called social
cohesion in this country. Not having common experiences makes us all more foreign to one
another which leads to isolation and platitudes such as "Thank you for your service." I have
heard that comment many times, too, and after a while it comes across as: "better you than
me." I know I am being cynical but I am also only human .
Re: "This Memorial Day, don't cringe when someone says "Thank you for your service" and
proceed to correct them."
U.S. policy of perpetual war has been well established since 9/11. Everyone who joins
the military is well aware of the job description (kill and destroy) and has free
will.
Thanking someone for signing up for the War Machine to wreck havoc on natives thousands of
miles from American shores makes little sense.
The U.S. military is currently providing refueling, logistics and intelligence support
to the odious Saudis as they pulverize Yemen to smithereens and starve the population. And
those American service people are "defending our freedoms" by doing so?
The U.S. military slaughters the Syrian army operating in their own country and we are
supposed to thank them for "their service"? Military drone drivers who slaughter Yemeni
wedding parties from comfortable installations in Florida and the operators on U.S. Navy
ships who launch missiles into Syria based on bogus False Flag scenarios are "Warrior
Heroes"?
The veterans we should be thanking are the ones who realized early on that they were being
played for chumps by the war-mongers and got out. If John Q. Bolton has that understanding,
why hasn't he gotten out?
The real "heroes" in America are the young people who get real jobs in the real economy
providing real value to their fellow citizens.
The reason these episodes of introspection are called for is because of the massive
propaganda machine (Pentagon, Corporate, MSM) of Military Exceptionalism that is the
architect of the pathological incongruence.
This is an excellent article. Memorial Day should call upon all Americans to ask some
essential questions.
As an aside, The Washington Post ran an article today about the funeral of Spec. Conde who
recently was killed in Afghanistan. The article spoke of Spec. Conde's motivations for
serving, the events that led to his death, the funeral service, and the effect that his death
at age 21 had and will have on his family and those who knew and loved him.
What struck me most about the article was how remote the funeral service and the family's
grief seem from the rest of what is taking place in America. For example, there was an
oblique reference to a funeral detail for a veteran who committed suicide that apparently no
one attended.
The 'military-civilian' divide, as the author stated it, is as much a product of a
media that no longer holds policymakers accountable for seemingly endless military
engagements and, the true effect that our endless military engagements are having on the very
fabric of our society and on those engaged in them.
The vast majority of the American public go about their daily lives, seemingly insulated
from the effects of our endless engagements. For example, Spec. Conde's death in Afghanistan
did not even make the front page of our major media when it first happened. The death of four
soldiers in Niger has faded from view.
With a volunteer military that effectively is at the disposal of whoever happens to be
in office, no grass-roots opposition movement to hold politicians accountable, and 95 percent
of the population untouched by war, the most veterans will receive is a "thank you for your
service" as we go on with our daily lives.
Thank you, Sir, for articulating my position. In 7 Second Soundbite format, "I Support the
Troops, not the Policy that put them in harms way."
The military should never be deployed for political purposes. As a nation, we have willfully
refused to learn anything from the lessons of Korea and Viet Nam.
Military service preserves the Ultimate Expression of America, "Question Authority!" (I
recognize the Irony of suppressing it within it's ranks.) In my opinion, Demanding
answers and justifications for sending people into harms way is the best expression of
respect for our military personnel.
Accept Officer Bolton's challenge. When you see me kneeling at the National Anthem, ask me
why. [The Answer: I do it to show respect for those that have fallen at the hands of those
who oppose the Values embodied in the American Flag.]
" instead of asking 'what' we need to break the stalemate in Afghanistan, could ask 'why'
there is a stalemate at all -- and whether American forces can truly ameliorate the
structural, cultural, and historical obstacles to achieving desired ends there."
Be aware that when you ask why, many people (including, sadly, many veterans) will
consider this questioning of government foreign policy as a species of treason. Once, while
on active duty with the US Army (1970), I suggested to a fellow officer that sending US
troops to fight in Vietnam might not be in nation interest. I was immediately and vigorously
condemned as a communist, a fascist, and a traitor.
According to this reasoning, once the first soldier dies in battle, any criticism of
the war denigrates the sacrifice of the deceased. So, we must continue to pile up the dead to
justify those who have already died. This is part of the mechanism of war, and is an
important reason why it is always easier to start a war than to stop one.
Perhaps we need "our leaders" to do some war "Service."
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- –
March 9, 2009
"Should We Have War Games for the World's Leaders"?
Yesterday's enemies are today's friends and today's friends are tomorrow's enemies, such
is the way of the world, and wars of the world. All these wars cause enormous bloodshed,
destruction and suffering to those affected. Therefore, would it not be much simpler to have
war games for all of the world's leaders and elites every few years? We have Olympic Games
every four years where the world's athletes from different countries compete. And many of
these countries are hostile to each other, yet they participate in the Olympics. So if
enemies can participate for sport, why not for war games? How could this be arranged? All the
leaders and elites of the world would have to lead by example, instead of leading from their
political platforms, palaces and offshore tax havens, while the ordinary people have to do
the dirty work in wars. The world's leaders and elites would all be in the front lines first.
A venue could be arranged in a deserted area and the people of the world could watch via
satellite TV their courageous leaders and other elites leading the charge in the war games
.
[read more at link below] http://graysinfo.blogspot.ca/2009/03/should-we-have-war-games-for-worlds.html
These findings reminded me of the suggestion in Patrick Deneen's recently released
Why Liberalism Failed that the political ideology of liberalism drives us apart, making us more lonely and polarized
than ever. As Christine Emba
writes in her Washington Post review of Deneen's book:
As liberalism has progressed, it has done so by ever more efficiently liberating each individual from "particular places,
relationships, memberships, and even identities-unless they have been chosen, are worn lightly, and can be revised or
abandoned at will." In the process, it has scoured anything that could hold stable meaning and connection from our modern
landscape-culture has been disintegrated, family bonds devalued, connections to the past cut off, an understanding of the
common good all but disappeared.
likbez
Our political differences are strengthening, with an increasing number of urban Americans moving further left and more than
half of rural voters (54 percent)
There is actually no way to move to the left in the two party system installed in the USA. The Democratic Party is just another
neoliberal party. Bill Clinton sold it to Wall Street long ago.
Neoliberalism uses identity wedge to split the voters into various groups which in turn are corralled into two camps representing
on the federal level two almost identical militaristic, oligarchical parties to eliminate any threat to the status quo.
And they do very skillfully and successfully. Trump is just a minor deviation from the rule (or like Obama is the confirmation
of the rule "change we can believe in" so to speak). And he did capitulate to neocons just two months after inauguration. While
he was from the very beginning a "bastard neoliberal" -- neoliberal that denies the value of implicit coercion of neoliberal globalization
in favor of open bullying of trade partners. Kind of "neoliberalism for a single exceptional country."
The current catfight between different oligarchic groups for power (Russiagate vs. Spygate ) might well be just a smoke screen
for the coming crisis of neoliberalism in the USA, which is unable to lift the standard of living of the lower 80% of population,
and neoliberal propaganda after 40 or so years lost its power, much like communist propaganda in the same time frame.
The tenacity with which Clinton-Obama wing of Democratic Party wants Trump to be removed is just a testament of the political
power of neoliberals and neocons in the USA as they are merged with the "deep state." No deviations from the party line are allowed.
"... Reached by phone on Tuesday, Richman refused to say when his legal representation of Comey began or whether he was personally representing Comey when the former FBI director testified before Congress in June 2017 about his deliberate leaking of the FBI records. ..."
"... The specific timing of the attorney-client relationship is important, because it may shield conversations between Comey and Richman regarding the coordinated leak of FBI records to the media from law enforcement scrutiny. ..."
"... Richman's legal work on behalf of Comey was not known before today, as Comey testified before Congress in 2017 that Richman was merely a friend . "I asked a friend of mine to share the content of the memo with a reporter," Comey testified last June in response to a question from Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine). "Didn't do it myself, for a variety of reasons." "But I asked him to, because I thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel," Comey continued . "And so I asked a close friend of mine to do it." "Who was that?" Collins asked. "A good friend of mine who's a professor at Columbia Law School," Comey responded . ..."
Daniel Richman, the law professor who leaked classified FBI records to the media at Comey's request, refused to disclose
when exactly he became Comey's attorney.
Daniel Richman, a law professor at Columbia University
, told The Federalist via phone on Tuesday afternoon that he was now personally representing Comey.
According to The New York Times
, the line of questioning from the office of special counsel Robert Mueller focused on memos that Comey wrote and later
leaked after he was fired from his job by President Donald Trump.
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), who serves as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, wrote
in a letter to the Department of Justice on January 3 that at least one of the memos Comey provided to his friend was classified.
"My staff has since reviewed these memoranda in a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF) at the FBI, and I reviewed
them in a SCIF at the Office of Senate Security," Grassley
wrote .
"The FBI insisted that these reviews take place in a SCIF because the majority of the memos are classified.
Of the seven memos, four are marked classified at the 'SECRET' or 'CONFIDENTIAL' levels." "If it's true that Professor Richman
had four of the seven memos, then in light of the fact that four of the seven memos the Committee reviewed are classified, it would
appear that at least one memo the former FBI director gave Professor Richman contained classified information," Grassley
noted in the letter.
Reached by phone on Tuesday, Richman refused to say when his legal representation of Comey began or whether he was personally
representing Comey when the former FBI director testified before Congress in June 2017 about his deliberate leaking of the FBI records.
The specific timing of the attorney-client relationship is important, because it may shield conversations between Comey and
Richman regarding the coordinated leak of FBI records to the media from law enforcement scrutiny.
Richman's legal work on behalf of Comey was not known before today, as Comey testified before Congress in 2017 that Richman
was merely a friend . "I asked a friend of mine to share
the content of the memo with a reporter," Comey
testified last June in
response to a question from Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine). "Didn't do it myself, for a variety of reasons." "But I asked him to, because
I thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel," Comey
continued . "And so I
asked a close friend of mine to do it." "Who was that?" Collins asked. "A good friend of mine who's a professor at Columbia Law School,"
Comey responded .
Despite being given multiple opportunities to do so, Comey never characterized Richman as his attorney, nor did he suggest that
his directions to Richman to leak the memos to the media were privileged attorney-client communications.
The news that Richman is now representing Comey raises questions about whether the special counsel may be investigating Comey
and Richman for their roles in leaking classified information to the news media in order to get revenge on Trump for firing Comey.
The tactic of using attorney-client privilege to shield potentially illegal communications from law enforcement scrutiny is not
a new one.
During the FBI investigation of then-secretary of state Hillary Clinton's potential mishandling of classified information, Cheryl
Mills, one of Clinton's top government aides at the State Department, also claimed that she could not testify about her communications
with Clinton on the matter because
she was also serving
as Clinton's personal attorney .
"I have nothing to say about any of this," Richman responded, when asked directly whether attorney-client privilege was being
asserted in order to shield his communications with Comey regarding the deliberate leaking of classified documents to the media.
Richman was first licensed to practice law in the state of New York in 1986, according to
public records , and his current law license in that state is valid through October 2018.
There are, in my judgment, three great novels that explore American military life in the
twentieth century. They are, in order of publication, Guard of Honor (1948) by James
Gould Cozzens, From Here To Eternity (1951) by James Jones, and The Sand Pebbles
(1962) by Richard McKenna.
The first is a book about airmen, set at a stateside air base during World War II. The
second is a soldier's story, its setting Schofield Barracks in the territory of Hawaii on the
eve of Pearl Harbor. In The Sand Pebbles, the focus is on sailors. It takes place in
China during the 1920s when U.S. Navy gunboats patrolled the Yangtze River and its
tributaries.
As far as I can tell, none of the three enjoys much of a following today. Despite winning
the Pulitzer Prize for fiction, Guard of Honor has all but vanished. To the extent that
the other two retain any cultural salience, they do so as movies, superb in the case of From
Here to Eternity , colorful but mediocre in the case of The Sand Pebbles.
Yet for any American seeking an intimate account of military service, all three novels
remain worth reading. Times change, as do uniforms, weapons, and tactics, but certain
fundamentals of military life endure. Leaders and led see matters differently, nurse different
expectations, and respond to different motivations. The perspective back at higher headquarters
(or up on the bridge) differs from the way things look to those dealing with the challenges of
a typical duty day. The biggest difference of all is between inside and outside -- between
those in uniform and the civilians who necessarily inhabit another world. Each in his own way,
Cozzens, Jones, and McKenna unpack those differences with sensitivity and insight.
Of the three, McKenna's novel in particular deserves revival, not only because of its
impressive literary qualities, but because the story it tells has renewed relevance to the
present day. It's a story about the role that foreign powers, including the United States,
played in the emergence of modern China.
Prompted in part by the ostensible North Korean threat, but more broadly by the ongoing rise
of China and uncertainty about China's ultimate ambitions, the American military establishment
will almost inevitably be directing more of its attention toward East Asia in the coming years.
To be sure, the conflict formerly known as the Global War on Terrorism continues and appears
unlikely to conclude anytime soon. Yet the character of that conflict is changing. Having come
up short in its efforts to pacify the Islamic world, the United States is increasingly inclined
to rely on proxies, generously supported by air power, to carry on the jihadist fight in
preference to committing large numbers of U.S. troops. Almost imperceptibly, East Asia is
encroaching upon and will eventually eclipse the Greater Middle East in the Pentagon's
hierarchy of strategic priorities.
It's this reshuffling of Pentagon priorities that endows The Sand Pebbles with
renewed significance. If past is prologue, McKenna's fictionalized account of actual events
that occurred 90 years ago involving U.S. forces in China should provide context for anyone
intent on employing American military power to check China today.
Of course, the armed forces of the United States have a long history of involvement in East
Asia. Ever since 1898, when it liberated, occupied, and subsequently annexed the Philippines,
the United States has maintained an enduring military presence in that part of the world.
To the extent that Americans are even dimly aware of what that presence has entailed, they
probably think in terms of three 20th-century Asian wars: the first in the 1940s against Japan;
the second during the 1950s in Korea; the third from the mid-1960s to the early 1970s in
Vietnam. In each, whether as ally or adversary, China figured prominently.
Yet even before the attack on Pearl Harbor initiated the first of those wars, U.S. air,
land, and naval forces had been active in and around China. Dreams of gaining access to a
lucrative "China Market" numbered among the factors that persuaded the United States to annex
the Philippines in the first place. In 1900, U.S. troops participated in the China Relief
Expedition, a multilateral intervention mounted to suppress the so-called Boxer Rebellion,
which sought to expel foreigners and end outside interference in Chinese affairs. The mission
succeeded and the U.S. military stayed on. Army and Marine Corps units established garrisons in
"treaty ports" such as Shanghai and Tientsin.
Decades earlier, the U.S. Navy had begun making periodic forays into China's inland
waterways. In the early 20th century, employing small shallow-draft vessels captured from Spain
in 1898, this presence became increasingly formalized. As American commercial and missionary
interests in China grew, the Navy inaugurated what it called the Yangtze Patrol, with Congress
appropriating funds to construct a flotilla of purpose-built gunboats for patrolling the river
and its tributaries. Under the direction of COMYANGPAT back in Shanghai, small warships flying
the Stars-and-Stripes sailed up and down the Yangtze's immense length to "protect American
lives and property."
This is the story that McKenna, himself a YANGPAT veteran, recounts, focusing on a single
fictional ship the U.S.S. San Pablo. Known as "Sand Pebbles," the few dozen sailors
comprising the San Pablo's crew are all lifers. A rough bunch, their interests rarely
extend beyond drinking and whoring. In 1920s China, an American sailor's modest paycheck
provides ample funds for both pursuits.
Even afloat, life for the Sand Pebbles is more than agreeable. Onboard the San Pablo,
an unofficial second crew consisting of local Chinese -- "contractors," we would call them
today -- does the dirty work and the heavy lifting. The Americans stay topside, performing
routines and rituals meant to convey an image of power and dominance.
San Pablo is a puny and lightly armed ship. Yet it exists to convey a big impression,
thereby sustaining the privileged position that the United States and the other imperial powers
enjoyed in China.
The revolutionary turmoil engulfing China in the 1920s necessarily challenged this
proposition. Nationalist fervor gripped large parts of the population. Imperial privilege
stoked popular resentment, which made San Pablo 's position increasingly untenable, even
if the Sand Pebbles themselves were blind to what was coming. That their own eminently
comfortable circumstances might be at risk was literally unimaginable.
McKenna's narrative describes how the world of the Sand Pebbles fell apart. His nominal
protagonist is Jake Holman, a machinist mate with a mystical relationship to machinery. Jake
loathes the spit-and-polish routine topside and wants nothing more than to remain below decks
in the engine compartment, performing duties that on San Pablo white American sailors
have long since ceased to do. In the eyes of his shipmates, therefore, Jake represents a threat
to the division of labor that underwrites their comforts.
The ship's captain, one of only two commissioned officers assigned to San Pablo,
likewise sees Jake as a threat to the status quo. To my mind, Lieutenant Collins is McKenna's
most intriguing creation and the novel's true focal point. Although the Sand Pebbles are
oblivious to how they may figure in some larger picture, for Collins the larger picture is a
continuing preoccupation. He sees his little ship, the entire U.S. Navy, America's providential
purpose, and the fate of Western civilization as all of a piece. Serious, sober, and dutiful,
he is also something of a fanatic.
Collins dimly perceives that powerful forces within China pose a direct threat not only to
the existing U.S. position there, but to his own worldview. Yet he considers the prospect of
accommodating those forces as not only intolerable, but inconceivable. So in the book's
culminating episode he leads Jake and several other Sand Pebbles on a symbolic but utterly
futile gesture of resistance. Fancying that he is thereby salvaging his ship's honor (and his
own as well), he succeeds merely in killing his own men.
I interpret McKenna as suggesting that there is no honor in denying reality. Only waste and
needless sacrifice result. Today a national security establishment as blind to reality as
Lieutenant Collins presides over futile gestures far more costly than those inflicted upon the
Sand Pebbles. It's not fiction and it's happening right before our eyes.
So skip the movie. But read McKenna's book. And then reflect on its relevance to the present
day.
So Strzok was involved with this part of the story too. Strzokgate now has distinct British accent and probably was coordinated
by CIA and MI6.
Harper was definitely acted like an "agent provocateur", whose job was to ask leading questions to get Trump campaign advisers to
say things that would corroborate-or seem to corroborate-evidence that the FBI believed it already had in hand. It looks like among
other things Halper was tasked with the attempt elaborate on the claims made in Steele's
September 14 dossier memo: "Russians
do have further 'kompromat' on CLINTON (e-mails) and considering disseminating it."
London was the perfect place for such dirty games -- the territory where the agent knew he could operate safely.
"Halper's fishing expedition therefore came up with nothing to suggest the Steele dossier was true. The real story is therefore
the continuing attempt to assert that the dossier, or key parts of it, are true, after large-scale investigations by the FBI, and now
by special counsel Robert Mueller, have failed to turn up any evidence of a plot hatched between Trump and Vladimir Putin to take over
the White House."
"... So, how many "informants" targeted the Trump campaign? Were they being paid by the U.S. government? What are their names? What were they doing? ..."
Notable quotes:
"... The New York Times' ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... So, how many "informants" targeted the Trump campaign? Were they being paid by the U.S. government? What are their names? What were they doing? ..."
"... Under whose authority were they spying on a political campaign? Did FBI and DOJ leadership sign off? Did FBI director James Comey and Attorney General Loretta Lynch know about it? What about other senior Obama administration officials? CIA Director John Brennan? Did President Obama know the FBI was spying on a presidential campaign? Did Hillary Clinton know? What about Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta? ..."
The New York Times'
4,000-word report last week on the Federal Bureau of Investigation probe of Donald Trump's 2016 campaign's possible ties to Russia
revealed for the first time that the investigation was called "Crossfire Hurricane."
The name, explains the paper, refers to the Rolling Stones lyric "I was born in a crossfire hurricane," from the 1968 hit "Jumpin'
Jack Flash." Mick Jagger, one of the songwriters, said the song was a "metaphor" for psychedelic-drug induced states. The other,
Keith Richards, said it "refers to his being born amid the bombing and air raid sirens of Dartford, England, in 1943 during World
War II."
Investigation names, say senior U.S. law enforcement officials, are designed to refer to facts, ideas, or people related to the
investigation. Sometimes they're explicit, and other times playful or even allusive. So what did the Russia investigation have to
do with World War II, psychedelic drugs, or Keith's childhood?
The answer may be found in the 1986 Penny Marshall film named after the song, "Jumpin' Jack Flash." In the Cold War-era comedy,
a quirky bank officer played by Whoopi Goldberg comes to the aid of Jonathan Pryce, who plays a British spy being chased by the KGB.
The code name "Crossfire Hurricane" is therefore most likely a reference to the former British spy whose allegedly Russian-sourced
reports on the Trump team's alleged ties to Russia were used as evidence to secure a Foreign Intelligence Service Act secret warrant
on Trump adviser Carter Page in October 2016: ex-MI6 agent Christopher Steele.
Helping Spin a New Origin Story
It is hardly surprising that the Times refrained from exploring the meaning of the code name. The paper of record has
apparently joined a campaign, spearheaded by the Department of Justice, FBI, and political operatives pushing the Trump-Russia collusion
story, to minimize Steele's role in the Russia investigation.
After an October news report showed his dossier was funded by the Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee, facts that
further challenged the credibility of Steele's research, the FBI investigation's origin story shifted.
In December, The New York Times
published a "scoop " on the new origin story. In the revised narrative, the probe didn't start with the Steele dossier at all.
Rather, it began with an April 2016 meeting between Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos and a Maltese professor named Joseph
Mifsud. The professor informed him that "he had just learned from high-level Russian officials in Moscow that the Russians had 'dirt'
on Mrs. Clinton in the form of 'thousands of emails.'"
Weeks later, Papadopoulos boasted to the Australian ambassador to London, Alexander Downer, that he was told the Russians had
Clinton-related emails. Two months later, according to the Times , the Australians reported Papadopoulos' boasts to the
FBI, and on July 31, 2016, the bureau began its investigation.
Further reinforcement of the new origin story came from congressional Democrats. A
January 29 memo
written by House Intelligence Committee minority staff under ranking member Rep. Adam Schiff further distances Steele from the opening
of the investigation. "Christopher Steele's raw reporting did not inform the FBI's decision to initiate its counterintelligence investigation
in late July 2016. In fact, the FBI's closely-held investigative team only received Steele's reporting in mid-September."
Last week's major Times article echoes the Schiff memo. Steele's reports, according to the paper, reached the "Crossfire
Hurricane team" "in mid-September."
Yet the new account of how the government spying campaign against Trump started is highly unlikely. According to the thousands
of favorable press reports asserting his credibility, Steele was well-respected at the FBI for his work on a 2015 case that helped
win indictments of more than a dozen officials working for soccer's international governing body, FIFA. In July 2016, Steele met
with the agent he worked with on the FIFA case to show his early findings on the Trump team's ties to Russia.
The FBI took Steele's reporting on Trump's ties to Russia so seriously it was later used as evidence to monitor the electronic
communications of Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. But, according to Schiff and the Times , the FBI somehow lost track
of reports from a "credible" source who claimed to have information showing that the Republican candidate for president was compromised
by a foreign government. That makes no sense.
The code name "Crossfire Hurricane" is further evidence that the FBI's cover story is absurd. A reference to a movie about a British
spy evading Russian spies behind enemy lines suggests the Steele dossier was always the core of the bureau's investigation into the
Trump campaign.
Was Halper an Informant, Spy, Or Agent Provocateur?
Taken together with the other significant revelation from last Times story, the purpose and structure of Crossfire Hurricane
may be coming into clearer focus. According to the Times story: "At least one government informant met several times with
[Trump campaign advisers Carter] Page and [George] Papadopoulos, current and former officials said."
As we now know, the informant is Stefan Halper, a
former classmate of Bill Clinton's at Oxford University who worked in the Nixon, Ford, and Reagan administrations. Halper is
known for his good connections in intelligence circles. His father-in-law
was Ray Cline , former deputy director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Halper
is also reported to have led the 1980 Ronald Reagan campaign team that collected intelligence on sitting U.S. President Jimmy
Carter's foreign policy.
So what was Halper doing in this instance? He wasn't really a spy (a person who is generally tasked with stealing secrets) or
an informant (a person who provides information about criminal activities from the inside). Rather, it seems he was more like an
agent provocateur, whose job was to ask leading questions to get Trump campaign advisers to say things that would corroborate --
or seem to corroborate -- evidence that the bureau believed it already had in hand.
It appears Halper's job was to induce inexperienced Trump campaign figures to say things.
Halper met with at least three Trump campaign advisers: Sam Clovis, Page, and George Papadopoulos. The latter two he met with
in London, where Halper had reason to feel comfortable operating.
Halper's close contacts in the intelligence world weren't limited to the CIA. They also include foreign intelligence officials
like Richard Dearlove , the former head of the United Kingdom's foreign intelligence service, MI6. According to
a Washington Times report , Halper and Dearlove are partners in a UK consulting firm, Cambridge Security Initiative.
Dearlove is also close to Steele. According
to the Washington Post , Dearlove met with Steele in the early fall of 2016, when his former charge shared his "worries"
about what he'd found on the Trump campaign and "asked for his guidance."
London was therefore the perfect place for Halper to spring a trap -- outside the direct purview of the FBI, but on territory
where he knew he could operate safely. It appears Halper's job was to induce inexperienced Trump campaign figures to say things that
corroborated the 35-page series of memos written by Steele -- the centerpiece of the Russiagate investigation -- in order to license
a broader campaign of government spying against Trump and his associates in the middle of a presidential election.
Halper Reached Out to Trump Campaign Members
Chuck Ross's reporting in The Daily Caller provides invaluable details and insight. As Ross
explained in The Daily Caller back
in March, Halper emailed Papadopoulos on September 2, 2016 with an invitation to write a research paper, for which he'd be paid $3,000,
and a paid trip to London. According to Ross, "Papadopoulos and Halper met several times during the London trip," with one meeting
scheduled for September 13 and another two days later.
Ross writes: "According to a source with knowledge of the meeting, Halper asked Papadopoulos: 'George, you know about hacking
the emails from Russia, right?' Papadopoulos told Halper he didn't know anything about emails or Russian hacking." It seems Halper
was looking to elaborate on the claims made in Steele's
September 14 dossier
memo : "Russians do have further 'kompromat' on CLINTON (e-mails) and considering disseminating it."
Halper's fishing expedition therefore came up with nothing to suggest the Steele dossier was true.
Had Papadopoulos confirmed that a shadowy Maltese academic had told him in April about Russians holding Clinton-related emails,
presumably that would have entered the dossier as something like, "Trump campaign adviser PAPADOPOULOS confirms knowledge of Russian
'kompromat.'"
Another Trump campaign adviser Halper contacted was Page. They first met in Cambridge, England at a July 11, 2016 symposium. Halper's
partner Dearlove spoke at the conference, which was held just days after Page had delivered a widely reported speech at the New Economic
School in Moscow. According to another
Ross article reporting on Page and Halper's interactions, the Trump adviser "recalls nothing of substance being discussed other
than Halper's passing mention that he knew then-campaign chairman Paul Manafort."
Page and Manafort both figure prominently in the Steele dossier's July 19 memos. According to
the document ,
Manafort "was using foreign policy advisor, Carter PAGE, and others as intermediaries." Page had also, according to the dossier,
met with senior Kremlin officials -- a charge he later denied in
his November
2, 2017 testimony before the House Intelligence Committee. Evidently, he also gave Halper nothing to use in verifying the charges
made against him.
Halper's fishing expedition therefore came up with nothing to suggest the Steele dossier was true. The real story is therefore
the continuing attempt to assert that the dossier, or key parts of it, are true, after large-scale investigations by the FBI, and
now by special counsel Robert Mueller, have failed to turn up any evidence of a plot hatched between Trump and Vladimir Putin to
take over the White House.
Using Spy Powers on Political Opponents Is a Big Problem
That portions of the American national security apparatus would put their considerable powers -- surveillance, spying, legal pressure
-- at the service of a partisan political campaign is a sign that something very big is broken in Washington. Our Founding Fathers
would not be surprised to learn that the post-9/11 surveillance and spying apparatus built to protect Americans from al-Qaeda has
now become a political tool that targets Americans for partisan purposes. That the rest of us are surprised is a sign that we have
stopped taking the U.S. Constitution as seriously as we should.
The damage done to the American press is equally large. Since the November 2016 presidential election, a financially imperiled
media industry gambled its remaining prestige on Russiagate. Yet after nearly a year and a half filled with thousands of stories
feeding the Trump-Russia collusion conspiracy, last week still represented a landmark moment in American journalism. The New
York Times , which proudly published the Pentagon Papers, provided cover for an espionage operation against a presidential campaign.
The New York Times , which proudly published the Pentagon Papers, provided cover for an espionage operation against a presidential
campaign.
There are significant errors and misrepresentations in the article that the Times could've easily checked, if it weren't
in such a hurry to hide the FBI and DOJ's crimes and abuses. Perhaps most significantly, the Times avoided asking the key
questions that the article raised with its revelation that "at least one government informant" met with Trump campaign figures.
So, how many "informants" targeted the Trump campaign? Were they being paid by the U.S. government? What are their names?
What were they doing?
Under whose authority were they spying on a political campaign? Did FBI and DOJ leadership sign off? Did FBI director James
Comey and Attorney General Loretta Lynch know about it? What about other senior Obama administration officials? CIA Director John
Brennan? Did President Obama know the FBI was spying on a presidential campaign? Did Hillary Clinton know? What about Clinton campaign
chairman John Podesta?
These questions are sure to be asked. What we know already is that the Times reporters did not ask them, because they
do not bother to indicate that the officials interviewed for the story had declined to answer. That they did not ask these questions
is evidence the Times is no longer a newspaper that sees its job as reporting the truth or holding high government officials
responsible for their crimes. Lee Smith is the media columnist at Tablet.
Who knew? Not me. The FBI does not discuss its operations with other agencies
of the US Government. Period. I made liaison with the FBI on many occasions when I was with DIA and they were always careful to make
it clear that whatever you might give them in the way of information they would give you exactly nothing in return. In retirement
from government I have often observed the FBI working in support of DoJ in court cases.
It has always been my understanding that when the FBI investigated you they searched through records, listened to your telephone,
read your E-mail and in the end interviewed you.
Now I learn that they also recruit "confidential sources" to speak to you about the subject of FBI interest WITHOUT bothering
to inform you that they are going to tell the FBI what you said about things. Some of these "confidential sources" are employed by
the FBI for long periods of time. The American professor now teaching at a UK university who was sent by the FBI to talk to several
Trump campaign people was one such. Other "confidential sources" are recruited for a particular case Sometimes they are recruited
from among the existing acquaintances or "friends" of the person targeted by the FBI. In other words if DoJ, the WH, or the Bureau
(FBI) want to know what I, or anyone else, really says about a given topic, they can recruit someone I know using pressure, persuasion
or money to "rat" me out.
Felix Dzerzhinsky would have been proud of their skills if they had been his men. pl
Of course the FBI uses confidential informants. So does the DEA, ICE and every state and local LEA. It's a staple of every TV
crime show and novel dealing with police. Every gangster, crook, drug dealer, pedophile, terrorist and spy is obsessed with the
idea that some snitch is going to rat him out. The rest of us are rightfully incensed that this could possibly happen to us. There
best be a solid paper trail behind every confidential informant used by all the various cops. And these paper trails need to be
examined by IGs or others outside these users of confidential informants.
To those of us in the intelligence field rather than the LE field, the use of US Persons to inform on other US Persons is anathema.
We are specifically prohibited from targeting US Persons without informing them of our USI affiliation except possibly under rare
and specific circumstances. In those circumstances we have to call in the FBI. The NSA once found the targeting of US Persons
to be beyond anathema. It was a mortal sin condemning one's soul to eternal damnation. That certainly changed after 9/11.
As far as the sharing of information with the FBI, CIA and even NSA goes, I had a very different experience than Colonel Lang
when I was in DIA. In digital operations, we shared information on a daily basis. Our operations were often intertwined and interdependent.
However, I doubt this extended beyond digital operations.
https://trevoraaronson.com/... the war on terror, for the FBI has been one giant entrapment free for all, fueled
entirely on informants of dubious trustworthiness at best.
"... C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and satirist based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing (USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23 , is published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. He can reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org . ..."
One of the most complicated and frustrating aspects of operating a global capitalist empire
is maintaining the fiction that it doesn't exist. Virtually every action you take has to be
carefully recontextualized or otherwise spun for public consumption. Every time you want to
bomb or invade some country to further your interests, you have to mount a whole PR campaign.
You can't even appoint a sadistic torture freak to run your own coup-fomenting agency, or shoot
a few thousand unarmed people you've imprisoned in a de facto ghetto, without having to do a
big song and dance about "defending democracy" and "democratic values."
Naked despotism is so much simpler, not to mention more emotionally gratifying. Ruling an
empire as a godlike dictator means never having to say you're sorry. You can torture and kill
anyone you want, and conquer and exploit whichever countries you want, without having to
explain yourself to anyone. Also, you get to have your humongous likeness muraled onto the
walls of buildings, make people swear allegiance to you, and all that other cool dictator
stuff.
Global capitalists do not have this luxury. Generating the simulation of democracy that most
Western consumers desperately need in order to be able to pretend to believe that they are not
just smoothly-functioning cogs in the machinery of a murderous global empire managed by a class
of obscenely wealthy and powerful international elites to whom their lives mean exactly
nothing, although extremely expensive and time-consuming, is essential to maintaining their
monopoly on power. Having conditioned most Westerners into believing they are "free," and not
just glorified peasants with gadgets, the global capitalist ruling classes have no choice but
to keep up this fiction. Without it, their empire would fall apart at the seams.
This is the devil's bargain modern capitalism made back in the 18th Century. In order to
wrest power from the feudal aristocracies that had dominated the West throughout the Middle
Ages, the bourgeoisie needed to sell the concept of "democracy" to the unwashed masses, who
they needed both to staff their factories and, in some cases, to fight revolutionary wars, or
depose and publicly guillotine monarchs. All that gobbledegook about taxes, tariffs, and the
unwieldy structure of the feudal system was not the easiest sell to the peasantry. "Liberty"
and "equality" went over much better. So "democracy" became their rallying cry, and,
eventually, the official narrative of capitalism. The global capitalist ruling classes have
been stuck with "democracy" ever since, or, more accurately, with the simulation of
democracy.
The purpose of this simulation of democracy is not to generate fake democracy and pass it
off as real democracy. Its purpose is to generate the concept of democracy , the only
form in which democracy exists. It does this by casting a magic spell (which I'll do my best to
demystify in a moment) that deceives us into perceiving the capitalist marketplace we
Westerners inhabit, not as a market, but as a society. An essentially democratic society. Not a
fully fledged democratic society, but a society progressing toward "democracy" which it is, and
simultaneously isn't.
Obviously, life under global capitalism is more democratic than under feudal despotism, not
to mention more comfortable and entertaining. Capitalism isn't "evil" or "bad." It's a machine.
Its fundamental function is to eliminate any and all despotic values and replace them with a
single value, i.e., exchange value, determined by the market. This despotic-value-decoding
machine is what freed us from the tyranny of kings and priests, which it did by subjecting us
to the tyranny of capitalists and the meaningless value of the so-called free market, wherein
everything is just another commodity toothpaste, cell phones, healthcare, food, education,
cosmetics, et cetera. Despite that, only an idiot would argue that capitalism is not preferable
to despotism, or that it hasn't increased our measure of freedom. So, yes, we have evolved
toward democracy, if we're comparing modern capitalism to medieval feudalism.
The problem is that capitalism is never going to lead to actual democracy (i.e., government
by and for the people). This is never going to happen. In fact, capitalism has already reached
the limits of the freedom it can safely offer us. This freedom grants us the ability to make an
ever-expanding variety of choices none of which have much to do with democracy. For example,
Western consumers are free to work for whatever corporation they want, and to buy whatever
products they want, and to assume as much debt as the market will allow to purchase a home
wherever they want, and to worship whichever gods they want (as long as they conform their
behavior to the values of capitalism and not their religion), and men can transform themselves
into women, and white people can deem themselves African Americans, or Native Americans, or
whatever they want, and anyone can mock or insult the President or the Queen of England on
Facebook and Twitter, none of which freedoms were even imaginable, much less possible, under
feudal despotism.
But this is as far as our "freedom" goes. The global capitalist ruling classes are never
going to allow us to govern ourselves, not in any meaningful way. In fact, since the mid-1970s,
they've been systematically dismantling the framework of social democracy throughout the West,
and otherwise relentlessly privatizing everything. They've been doing this more slowly in
Europe, where social democracy is more entrenched, but, make no mistake, American "society" is
the model for our dystopian future. The ruling classes and their debt-enslaved servants,
protected from the desperate masses by squads of hyper-militarized police, medicated in their
sanitized enclaves, watching Westworld on Amazon Prime as their shares in private
prisons rise and the forces of democracy defend their freedom by slaughtering men, women, and
children in some faraway country they can't find on a map, and would never visit on vacation
anyway this is where the USA already is, and where the rest of the West is headed.
Which is why it is absolutely crucial to maintain the simulation of democracy, and the
fiction that we're still living in a world where major geopolitical events are determined by
sovereign nations and their leaders, rather than by global corporations and a class of
supranational elites whose primary allegiance is to global capitalism, rather than to any
specific nation, much less to the actual people who live there. The global capitalist ruling
classes need the masses in the West to believe that they live in the United States of America,
the United Kingdom, Germany, France, and so on, and not in a global marketplace. Because, if
it's all one global marketplace, with one big global labor force (which global corporations can
exploit with impunity), and if it's one big global financial system (where the economies of
supposed adversaries like China and the United States, or the European Union and Russia, are
almost totally interdependent), then there is no United States of America, no United Kingdom,
no France, no Germany or not as we're conditioned to perceive them. There is only the global
capitalist empire, divided into "national" market territories, each performing slightly
different administrative functions within the empire and those territories that have not yet
surrendered their sovereignty and been absorbed into it. I think you know which those
territories are.
But getting back to the simulation of democracy (the purpose of which is to prevent us from
perceiving the world as I just suggested above), how that works is, we are all conditioned to
believe we are living in these imperfect democracies, which are inexorably evolving toward
"real" democracy but just haven't managed to get there quite yet. "Real" being the key word
here, because there is no such thing as real democracy. There never has been, except among
relatively small and homogenous groups of people. Like Baudrillard's Disneyland, "Western
democracy" is presented to us as "imperfect" or "unfinished" (in other words, as a replica of
"real democracy") in order to convince us that there exists such a thing as "real democracy,"
which we will achieve someday.
This is how simulations work. The replica does not exist to deceive us into believing it is
the "real" thing. It exists to convince us that there is a "real" thing . In essence, it
invokes the "real" thing by pretending to be a copy of it. Just as the images of God in church
invoke the "god" of which they are copies (if only in the minds of the faithful), our imperfect
replica of democracy invokes the concept of "real democracy" (which does not exist, and has
never existed, beyond the level of tribes and bands).
This is, of course, ceremonial magic but then so is everything else, really. Take out a
twenty dollar bill, or a twenty Euro note, or your driver's license. They are utterly
valueless, except as symbols, but no less powerful for being just symbols. Or look at some
supposedly solid object under an electron microscope. Try this with a tablespoon. As that bald
kid in The Matrix put it, you will "realize that there is no spoon" or, rather, that
there is only the spoon we've created by believing that there is a spoon.
Look, I don't mean to get all spooky. What that kid (among various others throughout
history) was trying to get us to understand is that we create reality, collectively, with
symbols or we allow reality to be created for us. Our collective reality is also our religion,
in that we live our lives and raise our children according to its precepts and values,
regardless of whatever other rituals we may or may not engage in on the weekend. Western
consumers, no matter whether nominally Christians, Jews, Muslims, Atheists, or of any other
faith, live their lives and raise their children according to the values and rules of
capitalism. Capitalism is our religion. Like every religion, it has a cosmology.
In the cosmology of global capitalism, "democracy" is capitalist heaven. We hear it preached
about throughout our lives, we're surrounded by graven images of it, but we don't get to see it
until we're dead. Attempting to storm its pearly gates, or to create the Kingdom of Democracy
on Earth, is heresy, and is punishable by death. Denying its existence is blasphemy, for which
the punishment is excommunication, and consignment to the City of Dis, where the lost souls
shout back and forth at each other across the lower depths of the Internet, their infernal
voices unheard by the faithful but, hey, don't take the word of an apostate like me. Go ahead,
try it, and see what happens.
C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and satirist based in
Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing
(USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23 , is
published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. He can reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org .
Really good, amusing article.
Our replica of democracy is not to deceive us, but to convince us that there really IS
an(unattainable) democracy. The promised land is always just beyond the horizon
"It does this by casting a magic spell that deceives us into perceiving the capitalist
marketplace we Westerners inhabit, not as a market, but as a society."
Yes. Consumer capitalism requires illusion and MK-ULTRA programs to function.
"We create reality, collectively, with symbols "
And those symbols, often repurposed from earlier iterations like the swastika, stem from
ancient sources. Maybe the structure of our reality was designed years ago.
"This is, of course, ceremonial magic but then so is everything else, really."
Yep. The narrow-focused rationalists who have degraded science into a religion will never
accept that there is a sliver of magic and sorcery, originating from Kabbalistic practices,
that operate as a higher level science, the mechanics of which non-initiates can't
quantify.
I agree with much of what this columnist wrote. However this entire globalist criminal
enterprise is rapidly crumbling. This is shown in the rise of patriotic/loyalist and Marxist
parties in Europe and the Far Right and Far Left in the U.S. The globalist elite 0.001%
empire of the banksters, crapitalists and fingerciers and their lackeys, knaves and varlets,
along with their political prostitute puppets, is built on sand. These worthless cretins have
loaded down every nation on earth, and especially in the West, with massive, crushing debt.
Ditto for individuals and businesses. It is not sustainable. In addition they have off shored
much of Western industry into Third World nations and flooded Western nations with Third
World proles to hold down wages and depress living conditions. Reaction among the native
Whites is building stronger by the day. At some point this volcano is going to blow. When it
does all bets are off as to how much destruction will happen.
At this point the super rich and their banks and trans-national corporations can either
gradually give way to democratic change and re-industrialize the West, discount all these
debts, and stop this Third World invasion and begin swift repatriation of these interlopers
and save much of their wealth and power or they will soon face armed revolution and
civil/class/racial war in the streets. These worthless elites have fouled their own nests
since they have left virtually no Western nation untouched by these triple evils of debt,
immigration and de-industrialization. They either never learned the lessons of the French and
Russian revolutions or believe it could not happen in the 21st Century to them. Either way it
makes no difference. Globalism is crumbling and going the way of other evil isms: Fascism,
Communism, Nazism, Imperialism, Colonialism, etc. Its days are numbered and the writing is on
the wall. Meanwhile those nations not controlled by the Western White Collar Mafia, namely
Russia and China, along with Iran and a few other Asian and Middle Eastern nations, are
building up their economies and militaries and increasingly challenging the Western tyrants.
We are definitely in for troubled times ahead. Always remember: Those who make peaceful
change impossible, make violent change inevitable. Globalism has had its evil day and its
black sun is setting. The only questions now are will it go peacefully and quietly or loudly
and violently and what will replace it. I hope and pray something good and true.A new world
order built that that is God and Christ and not man based with peace, prosperity, and justice
for all in a natural order of things.
Free movement of capital, in Europe since 1997, took away power from politicians.
The German Lafontaine made it clear.
He stated that when in Basel a German spoke to the bankers assembled there, blaming them,
they clapped their hands.
One sees it in the terminology used, what in the good old days was called protectionism, a
word suggesting something positive, now is trade war, definitely something bad.
It for me is the same as with privatisation of universal services, water, electricity, etc.,
neither privatising anything is good, also a state economy is not good, as the USSR made
clear.
In the good old days in W European countries we had mixed exonomies, commercial enterprises
for cars and jeans, state enterprise for electricity and public transport.
In my opinion a mixed world economy also is the best option, this means regulation of capital
movement, to mention one thing.
A little snapshot to illustrate the point. Standing in the passport control line at Newark
Airport -- interminably, because of about 24 stations for checking people back in to the
motherland, maybe five were manned. This was in mid-afternoon on a weekday, a time when many
international flights were arriving. The wait was about an hour and a half.
While waiting, you get a superb view through the window of the Manhattan skyline, and
might have occasion to think about all the swells in the financial sector whose ever-growing
prosperity has sucked money not only out of the real economy of goods and services, but out
of government as well, a point Michael Hudson often makes. E.g., cap those property taxes in
California, but drive housing prices in California and interest rates sky high to transfer
wealth out of the hands of home owners and governments, and into finance capital.
You can work yourself up into a pretty good lather thinking about this while you wait your
turn at an under-funded passport control station.
I would recommend this book to unz readers. I read it years ago and its basic premise becomes
more observably true every year .and pertains to the US as well, something Chu didn't
mention.
World on Fire: How Exporting Free Market Democracy Breeds Ethnic Hatred and Global
Instability
By Amy Chua
Category: World Politics | Economics | Management
"Chua shows how in non-Western countries around the globe, free markets have concentrated
starkly disproportionate wealth in the hands of a resented ethnic minority. These
"market-dominant minorities" – Chinese in Southeast Asia, Croatians in the former
Yugoslavia, whites in Latin America and South Africa, Indians in East Africa, Lebanese in
West Africa, Jews in post-communist Russia – become objects of violent hatred. At the same time, democracy empowers the impoverished majority, unleashing ethnic
demagoguery, confiscation, and sometimes genocidal revenge."
So maybe revolutions will be the new way of managing the world,
An ex furniture salesman, now the Prime Minister of Israel would not agree. He thinks
history has ended. Jerusalem is soon to be or already is the capital of the globalist world.
Hate speech laws replace the sanctity of the Monarchs and Churches with the sanctity of
Israel and identity politics. His lackeys have even taken away the freedom to shop via the
criminalisation of BDS. Talpiot program has turned everything into a video game. He is either
a genius or a complete fool. But I hope you are right and he is wrong. Another point.
Democracy real and simulated only became fashionable a hundred years ago.
That's the first I've heard of "progressing towards democracy" as a major feature of the
modern Western worldview (a la USSR progressing towards communism, I suppose). No, I've
encountered such ideas before among pundits, but I don't think most people in America, say,
believe that they currently don't live in a democracy but will later live in a "true"
democracy. That seems like a rather exotic notion outside of very narrow intellectual
circles.
Also, "as long as they conform their behavior to the values of capitalism and not their
religion". But people are free to conform their behaviour to the values of their religion to
a large extent. They're not free to violate the laws of what you'd call capitalist society.
But that is not the same as being forced to conform to its values.
Which is why it is absolutely crucial to maintain the simulation of democracy, and the
fiction that we're still living in a world where major geopolitical events are determined
by sovereign nations and their leaders, rather than by global corporations and a class of
supranational elites whose primary allegiance is to global capitalism, rather than to any
specific nation, much less to the actual people who live there.
But it can go wrong. The simulation was supposed to make Hillary Clinton President –
but, in the event, it veered over to real Democracy and produced Trump.
Equally the Brexit vote was planned to fail – but that also turned in a real
Democratic result with a majority for Brexit.
Simulated Democracy is a difficult process and it's probably due for more failures given
the difficulty of controlling the modern flow of information.
I suppose we are all going to spend the rest of our lives listening to bitter millenials rant
about the evils of capitalism. After all, they could move out of their parent's basement if
the government would force the banks to forgive all their student loans.
It should be obvious by now that all forms of government eventually morph into what we see
all around us today. But let's not confuse free market capitalism (which has never existed)
with the aristocratic fascisms that we call "Communism" or "Democracy."
The only way to really solve the problem of government is make government irrelevant.
Well, CJ, If I were your political science professor, I'd fail your sorry ass for 'communist
jargon' and 'Marxist jingoism' maybe that works fine if you're into looking for strokes when
singing to the choir but it won't build alliances that accomplish anything. But maybe that's
not your point, and the substance of your butt-hurt whining is about "I'm CJ Hopkins!" kinda
like "I'm Rick James!"
Look dude, if you want to get down and dirty with your enemies, hit below the belt, and do
it like this:
The worlds elites have us mind controlled and financially controlled via the Zionist Fed that
creates money out of thin air and then loans this money to our gov and we goyim and charge
interest on this ether created money and there in lies the control for by their control over
the money they control every thing.
In addition the Zionists fastened the IRS on we goyims and this IRS is a off shoot of the
FED and so our money is sent to the Zionist bankers who own the FED to make sure we pay for
the wars that the Zionists have arranged for we Americans and so this is a trap that has been
laid by the central bankers which insures their dominance for ever and ever.
This system of control has been in existence since 1913 when the zionist bankers fastened
the FED and the IRS on to the American people and the author of this article is exactly
right, we are in a financial prison a prison without bars but a prison none the less.
In regards to voting as Stalin said ie it is not who votes that counts but who counts the
votes.
These worthless cretins have loaded down every nation on earth, and especially in the
West, with massive, crushing debt. Ditto for individuals and businesses. It is not
sustainable.
Any given iteration of the capitalism model is unsustainable by its very nature, of
course. Any capitalist instantiation is self-exhausting, as capitalism eventually transfers
all wealth (or some very large fraction) to the wealthy. ALL. At that point, that instance
collapses at some rate determined by its state of monetization.
But not all wealth evaporates. After a financial collapse, a new zero-point establishes at
or near "true value". The capitalism model reasserts, and continues. It may be inherent to
the nature of Man.
'Democracy' is a scam that privatizes power, while socializing responsibility.
Reminds me of Oswald Spengler, though he is better read about than read, IMHO. From
wikipedia: "Spengler asserts that democracy is simply the political weapon of money, and the
media are the means through which money operates a democratic political system."
But one minor quibble: yes, for now, in the West, fake democracy is certainly better than
old-style feudalism. But it doesn't have to be, and it doesn't have to stay that way. In many
nominally capitalist and 'democratic' countries – like India, Bangladesh, etc. –
half the population is chronically malnourished, the physical standard of living well below
that of late medieval europe (!). Now that communism has been vanquished, capitalism has no
need of a bargain of power for a decent standard of living, and the rich are moving towards
dragging the entire world towards the Indian model of cheap-labor serfdom. Yes it can happen
here.
Citizens United isn't helping, brought to you by the corrupt Supreme Court. They're starting
to push putting Ted Cruz in SCOTUS, that would be a huge mistake.
"Democracy" is a sham, the candidates are carefully pre-selected and promoted by the
corrupt media, if that fails, the unelected delegates and super delegates can always void
your vote.
This is why we only get Mitt Romneys, Clintons, Bushes, the same ol dirtbags out of
millions of people.
Americans clearly want the homicidal wars to end, are the wars/occupations ending?
More Americans clearly are turning away from supporting Israel, does it matter?
Most Americans want mass immigration and illegal immigration stopped, is it stopping?
There is a petition to End the Federal Reserve scam, do any of the petitions go anywhere?
Go sign it, lets find out .
The Mexican maid is the answer to our collective misery. What do I mean? Well! The white boys
have given up on rebelling against the Empire (1% + 10% Jews and Whites with a small
sprinkling of non-white goys) and da coloreds (Indians and Chinese) are too wrapped up in
trying to prove their worth to the lost crackas while the niggas (Blacks et al) are simply
too stupid to understand, let alone do anything about improving their lot. Alas, fear not!
The unwelcome army of latinas from Central America, employed as caretakers will prove their
worth by simply poisoning the whole perfidious lot, slowly. So, welcome to America,
Guadalupe!
The suffocating hold that propaganda has on an uncritical public must rank as an historic
coup for the ages. It is the modern version of the allegory of the cave. Simpletons are
willing to die for their puppeteers in wars that serve no other purpose than to enrich their
owners. But die for their masters they will. Yet there is a glaring contradiction in foreign
wars and America's favorite pastime, regime change. The chances of "real" democracy, for
instance, taking root in Saudi Arabia, the Gulf Emirates, Egypt are virtually non-existent.
Worse still, they are simply not allowed. And any other countries that steer an independent
course from American hegemony will suffer consequences -- regime change, economic sanctions
or direct military action. Yet it is the public sold on its exceptionalism, living in a
"real" democracy (confused with rampant consumerism and hedonism) that has so utterly failed
to see -- and act, on these contradictions. Although the notion of "inching" toward "real"
democracy may serve to pacify the public, with the ever growing militarization of the deep
police state, true democracy will simply not be allowed to flourish. It is the only credible
threat to rampant capitalism. What is significant is that the lumpen proletariat firmly
believe that they live in a democracy. So change is rendered redundant in such a scenario.
Best expression of capitalism, religion, democracy as a Weltanschauung.
To fuse the totalitarian, univeral concept that paires so well to 98% of the world
population we suggest consumerism.
Do not take for granted that our de facto global elites, and the mercenary middle-classes
have a clear understandig where they are heading. There is cognitive dissonance in idea,
method and projection of their in-group opportunism. Ethics being nothing more then superior
opportunism. Smart, but ailing and failing a religion. In fact the theory proves the
cognitive capacity of the authors.
The ongoing debunking of the sacred yet impossible '6M Jews' is what is really driving so
called "hate speech laws". What your told is merely the pretext.
Below is where free speech on the impossible 'holocaust' storyline is illegal, violators
go to prison for Thought Crimes.
An obvious admission that the storyline doesn't stand up to scientific, logical, &
rational scrutiny.
And coming to your neighborhood.
The 'holocaust' storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived.
That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist,
& privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship. What sort of truth is it that
denies free speech and the freedom to seek the truth? Truth needs no protection from
scrutiny.
This is an elegant fleshing out of fashionable despair. Yes, self-rule is a myth. What does
Hopkins recommend to replace it with? Is the aspiration of a democratic republic the problem,
or is it money, media, and the subversion of power?
As flawed as our belief in democracy is, I haven't heard the better alternative. Just as
some say we must go to Mars because we are destroying earth, I think we should take care of
this earth as repairing and caring for it might be within our means. Instead of throwing
democracy out, we should try and make it work.
For example, been reading about the rise of antibiotic resistant germs and industrial
farming. The problem was long known, but there was no political will to do anything about it
because the industry could lobby and also control regulators. In theory, the government
worked for the greater good of all the people, but in practice it auctions us all to special
interest.
Capitalists defend the current system by saying it's not really capitalism. Well, whatever
it is, it came about because democracy was not actual but rather an ongoing auction of
national interest to special interest.
It's a good article and makes a good case, but you will have to wait just a bit longer
until us believers die off as you will not pry this democracy, our heritage and our best
chance, from my cold hands.
similar experience coming through Atlanta.
Want to create jobs? Coulda created 50 there. At least. And prevented missed flight
connections. Obama time.
I shall proudly call myself an idiot then, as I believe capitalism and democracy are both
bad.
The only system capable of inspiring passion and loyalty is some form of feudalism –
personal loyalty to a lord is a beautiful thing, noblesse oblige a beautiful thing, sacred
kingship is a beautiful thing, the tradition of beautiful craftsmanship that arises when
economic considerations are not uppermost is a beautiful thing, the standards of excellence
that are natural to a system that recognizes hierarchy and inequality is a beautiful
thing.
I also think personal freedom, and tolerance for eccentricity is far greater when the
social system is firmly grounded. In a democracy where nothing is secure conformity of
opinion and personality become urgent – to maintain even minimum stability.
Japan has retained elements of feudalism to this day yet is economically far more
egalitarian than America – because when economics is the sole standard of value, the
ambitious will gather all wealth into their hands.
Seeing the Japanese bow to each other – such a beautiful gesture.
Yeah, I suppose I could have half tried but the self-righteous indignation (tone) puts me
off. It's like Tom Englehardt, get people all tied up in some hopeless, helpless outrage that
accomplishes precisely nothing, no solutions, no pointing to a direction that might get
something done. In any case CJ is in Berlin but I bet he wouldn't give a New York second's
thought to risking his butt and work to put the German politicians nuts in a vise, but Hey!
you never know, here's his chance, he can promote this:
Of my five years exile in Germany, two of those years were in Berlin and I can assure you
the German political animal is an authentic coward, and Gregor Gysi of Die Linke is no
exception, he'd go after CJ before he'd go after the NATO war criminals is my best bet. Maybe
CJ has the balls to risk it?
Marxist twaddle about "democracy", lol. As if the founders didn't warn us so strenuously
about the tyranny of the majority.
Our government was formed not so that we could vote on what I am allowed to eat, but so
that others would have no say in it.
The centralization of power and conformity across previously sovereign states now
prohibits people from voting with their feet. The globalists are the next extension of the
same tyranny.
We don't have limited governments and free markets. We have big brother government and a
captured regulatory apparatus ensuring only large corporations can survive. Regulatory law is
nowhere in the constitution and they dictate over subjects also not in the constitution.
I knew it was over when the US electorate was swooned over Iraqis having purple fingers
voting "secret ballots". The candidates names were secret. But all you need to tell the
sheeple is that they voted.
This piece is typical Marxist sleight of hand. To have a government of the people, by the
people, and for the people, you limit what the government can do. Then you have liberty.
Self-rule.
Mr. Hopkins' article is an effective, accurate description of why and how things have
declined into a sort of soft fascism during the last 40 years or so in particular.
Democracy can easily be done on the individual level. There are plenty of resources for this.
I am not my brother's keeper anyway. don't tell me there is no democracy – just people
who want others to give it to them. Go all Thoreau on the world. Go off the grid, or Alaska,
or an island somewhere. Democracy is not for pansies.
no solutions, no pointing to a direction that might get something done
Preceding "solution" is description, and descriptive explanation. The article is not
intended as a set of solutions. It is a description and explanation.
Excellent article with much needed humor. We no longer have a word for an economic system
that supports human life. Hunting and gathering was early agriculture. Moving some rocks and
dirt out of the way to get some obsidian was mining. Knocking rocks against the obsidian was
early manufacturing. The excess from farms, mines and factories is what WAS called capital.
We are supposed to believe that a farmer can't plant a seed without a loan! We are in the
last stages of financialism. Since the word capitalism is useless how about "real stuffism"?
I'm a physical scientist and I can guarantee that math and the physical world always ends
financialism.
That line got me to laughing a lot harder than the rest of your bullshit, so I had to stop
reading. Your comments are now relegated to the "Duuuuuuuhhhhhh .MARXISM!!!" bin.
You could open up the scope of this post's valid point and say that it's not just democracy
that's simulated here. Rights and rule of law are simulated too. Democracy, fetishized though
it is, in degenerate ritual form, is a very small part of rights and rule of law
(specifically, ICCPR Article 25, one article of one of nine core human rights instruments or
about 100 total instruments in world-standard customary and conventional international law.
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/UniversalHumanRightsInstruments.aspx
)
This exchange is a really good catch. Latching on to the term deep state allows CIA to bat
away a puffball question that avoids the real question. Their scripted answer to the scripted
easy question: employees 'aimed at' the president's objectives and Amerca's objectives. This
is clever first of all because it says objectives and not orders. It's a weaker formulation
that the Pike-Committee era line, CIA works for the president. CIA is trying to evade the US
commitment to command responsibility in the Geneva Conventions and the Convention Against
Torture. Secondly, the DCI purports to interpret the president's objectives and proclaim
America's objectives. Used to be State or NSC did that, subject to presidential directives or
decision documents. Pompeo says CIA works for him. We're at the point Frank Zappa told us to
expect: CIA's removing the stage set so we're sitting looking at the brick wall. Pompeo's
telling you that CIA's in charge.
The hard question is: Does CIA have impunity in municipal law? The answer is yes, of
course it does. It's there in black and white in the Central Intelligence Agency Act, the
Houston memo, the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, the operational files exemption,
and the political questions doctrine. If the DCI had no impunity the new DCI would be in
prison. CIA is obligated to prosecute or extradite its torturers and murderers. Na ga happen.
CIA has the arbitrary life-and-death power of a totalitarian state. CIA is beyond criminal.
Its arbitrary suspension of non-derogable rights and jus cogens says, Law? Fuck law.
I agree that the US is the ultimate expression of materialism.
The original Pilgrim Fathers were looking for religious freedom, but later waves of
immigrants came for economic opportunity, and the US was the first place that "Citizens"
morphed into "Consumers".
Congressmen are bought and sold, and they're probably OK with that, along the lines that
their vote has value, and they'll support whoever bids the highest (which isn't the electors
back home).
Like AaronB says, the US (and West in general) has no spiritual foundation, and is just a
cynical game of exploitation and corruption pretending to be "Democratic" . Real Democracy
does exist, but it's not something that Americans would want to be involved with – it
requires a high level of personal commitment and responsibility (probably obligatory),
regular local public meetings, investment in studying issues, and the primacy of local
decision making and voting over Federal power ( i.e. power residing at the lowest level
possible – which in the US would be the County and State). In other words it's hard and
time consuming work.
To take a parallel, the late Roman Empire was also a sink of absolute corruption and self
interest that couldn't defend its frontiers and finally collapsed, first socially, then
economically.
The spiritual Phoenix that rose out of its ashes was Christianity, with the barbarian
invaders converting and building Christendom in Europe (Rome) and also in the Middle East
(Byzantium). The early Christian communities in the Late Roman Empire were heavily persecuted
but still recognized for their high level of morality, work ethic and "respectability", and
in its last days (too late), the Empire actually adopted to Christianity through the
conversion of Constantine.
It should be obvious by now that all forms of government eventually morph into what we
see all around us today. But let's not confuse free market capitalism (which has never
existed) with the aristocratic fascisms that we call "Communism" or "Democracy."
You are on the right path, good observations.
Thinking people are aware of the fact that Moderns have permission not freedom.
What a surprise another commie writer on economic issues on Unz! These economic pos articles
resemble what you read in the NY times. Sheesh.
"Western consumers are free to buy whatever products they want"
Pure crap. Depending on the state you live in, think for a moment of all the restrictions,
taxes and permission you must go through to own a car, buy gass, freon, herbicide. Pharmacy
products, illegal drugs guns etc. A list a mile long. Anyone who describes the USA as a free
market is plain wrong and has no idea about the problems we face.
Liberty and the free market are not part of the problem. They are part of the
solution.
Switzerland, Singapore, and old Hong Kong to name a few examples are some of the
wealthiest in the world because of low to no taxes and max economic freedom. Two of the three
were crushed by ww2. Came back stronger than ever in 40 yrs or so.
You only discuss democracy as some monolithic idea, with some idealised notion that 'real'
democracy can only be tribal or small scale. This is not true.
Representative democracy = evolutionary autocracy and the right to shout. Laws and
regulations, being made by representatives – and only representatives – remain
purely autocratic in their creation and destruction.
Direct democracy – those tribes. Doesn't work for a society that has a huge
population and needs a 'directing mind' as Aurelius likened the individuals' equivalent.
Semi-direct democracy – a combination of the power to create or strike law by both
representatives (elected or selected), and the electorate. Switzerland has it (to a degree
because of its media, just check the June 10th banking referendum propaganda machine), China
approximates it because it polls its population on every level, decision and preference.
At the very least, the electorate should have power to strike laws made by representatives
and rescind previously struck laws by representatives. This is only fair – people
should have a process for declaring directly what laws they want to abide by. Representatives
may not like it, but society is society, it should be able to make these choices, for good or
bad.
Representative democracy – democracy in the spirit of the law, and autocracy in the
letter of the law – is for the most part an autocracy, with a progressive dumbing down,
frustration, and marginalisation of the electorate due to their practical lack of true power
to change society.
Then there's the question of education and media, as you need a smart and well informed
public with semi-direct much more than with representative. And preferably constitutionally
enforced armed military neutrality, as herd behaviour often tends to violence.
Finally – revolutionary democracy: revolts against systems can often be democratic,
if bloody, so build an effective system that considers the opinions and worries of the
masses.
Three sentences and I was done; and a play wright living in Berlin. Berrrrlin Dude, lets do
some history, Socialism sucks. But I do agree that my vote has been diluted to zero, by
design.
"... "Russiagate" was clearly a confabulation by Hillary herself, first to stop bleeding at the polls, later to explain away her loss at the ballot box. ..."
"... Trump received the "Liberty Award" for his contributions to US-Israel relations at a 3 February 2015 gala hosted by The Algemeiner Journal, a New York-based newspaper, covering American and international Jewish and Israel-related news. ..."
"... "We love Israel. We will fight for Israel 100 percent, 1000 percent." [VIDEO minutes 2:15-8:06] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiwBwBw7R-U ..."
"... Candidate Trump's purported break with GOP orthodoxy, questioning of Israel's commitment to peace, calls for even treatment in Israeli-Palestinian deal-making, refusal to call for Jerusalem to be Israel's undivided capital, view of the war in Syria, and attitude about relations with Russia, were all stage-managed for the campaign. Cheap theatrics notwithstanding, the Netanyahu regime in Israel has received unconditional support from the Trump regime. 1000-percent Israel Firster Trump's purported erratic behavior is a managed propaganda script, as is the response from the loyal opposition. ..."
Russia-gate distractions are perpetuated to divert attention from the reality of Israel's
interference in American electoral politics and U.S. foreign policy.
Of urgent concern is Trump's decision the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)
agreement on the nuclear program of Iran, which provokes a situation of extreme danger not
only for the Middle East.
To understand the implications of such decision, taken under pressure by Israel that
describes the agreement as "the surrender of the West to the axis of evil led by Iran", we
must start from a precise fact: Israel has the Bomb, not Iran.
In "The Art of War" series for independent Pandora TV, political scientist Manlio Dinucci
examines the threat posed by the Israeli nuclear arsenal
For over fifty years, Israel has been producing nuclear weapons at the Dimona plant, built
with the help mainly of France and the United States. It is not subject to inspections
because Israel, the only nuclear power in the Middle East, does not adhere to the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty, which Iran signed fifty years ago.
Dinucci notes that Israeli nuclear forces are integrated into the NATO electronic system,
within the framework of the "Individual Cooperation Program" with Israel, a country which,
although not a member of the Alliance, has a permanent mission to NATO headquarters in
Brussels.
According to the plan tested in the US-Israel Juniper Cobra 2018 exercise, US and NATO
forces would come from Europe (especially from the bases in Italy) to support Israel in a war
against Iran.
Trump was a total political naif before the campaign with no record or experience in
cheating at that game, let alone with the Russians (who are also pikers in comparison to
American meddlers)! "Russiagate" was clearly a confabulation by Hillary herself, first to
stop bleeding at the polls, later to explain away her loss at the ballot box.
If your mechanism for nailing his hide to the wall is to prove that he has been a master
criminal in money laundering, extortion, fraud, tax evasion and other proscribed activities
in the business world, why, for the love of god, did you anti-Trumpsters not begin
investigations on such things years ago? Mueller easily caught Manafort in his shady dealings
with the Ukrainians, and found no connection to Trump. And why, in spite of your furious
activity after the election, do your wells keep coming up dry? It's because your whole
premise, based on Hillary's desperate accusations, is strictly ad hoc, without a real history
or logical rationale.
Abe , May 19, 2018 at 12:06 pm
Trump received the "Liberty Award" for his contributions to US-Israel relations at a 3
February 2015 gala hosted by The Algemeiner Journal, a New York-based newspaper, covering
American and international Jewish and Israel-related news.
After the event, Trump did not renew his television contract for The Apprentice, which
raised speculation about a Trump bid for the presidency. Trump announced his candidacy in
June 2015.
Candidate Trump's purported break with GOP orthodoxy, questioning of Israel's
commitment to peace, calls for even treatment in Israeli-Palestinian deal-making, refusal to
call for Jerusalem to be Israel's undivided capital, view of the war in Syria, and attitude
about relations with Russia, were all stage-managed for the campaign. Cheap theatrics
notwithstanding, the Netanyahu regime in Israel has received unconditional support from the
Trump regime. 1000-percent Israel Firster Trump's purported erratic behavior is a managed
propaganda script, as is the response from the loyal opposition.
I would think it is quite obvious why Mueller doesn't want to step on Israel's toes. They
own us! Look at the power of people like Bill Browder, and what they are capable of
accomplishing through Congress. I was able to view Nekrasov's film "The Magnitsky Act, Behind
the Scenes", and it was a big eye opener. If you're interested let me know. It takes a while
to pursue, but is well worth the effort.
AIPAC is a HUGE player as well.
Drew Hunkins , May 19, 2018 at 5:11 pm
I'm so proud of Consortiumnews and 95% of the fine folks who post on this website. We were
correct all along, the establishment that ridiculed, mocked or ignored us was wrong, period.
We saw through the charade. Of course we all fully realize we'll never get a mea culpa.
I'm proud that during the initial hysteria way back in November/Dec. of 2016 the Milwaukee
Journal-Sentinel newspaper published the following letter of mine:
Dear editor: The absurd propaganda over Russia purportedly "hacking the election" is now
reaching a fevered pitch. It's this type of group think that ultimately hardens into
orthodoxy after it's repeated ad nauseam by all the "smart and most important people" in
Washington and the mass media.
This hysteria we're witnessing is genuinely disconcerting. Like him or not, Donald Trump's
recent riposte that 'these are the same hucksters who assured you that Iraq had weapons of
mass destruction' was right on target. I'm certainly no fan of Trump, but right here he's
spot-on.
On one side is the small group of critical thinking citizens who haven't been brainwashed
along with Trump and members of his administration and Julian Assange; while on the other
side sits the entire mainstream press along with the Marco Rubio types, Mitch McConnell,
Barack Obama, the Democratic National Committee, Rachel Maddow, and much of the CIA who are
peddling this outlandish notion that the Kremlin hacked the election.
What we're witnessing is a squalid demonstration of where intelligent critical thinking is
among the public and Washington intelligentsia. That so many otherwise peace-loving and
intelligent people are being manipulated on this issue has the potential to spiral out of
control.
Drew Hunkins
Madison, WI
Then recently in Feb 2018 I had the following letter published in the Madison Capital
Times and Wisconsin State Journal newspapers:
Dear Editor: Since we all know -- at least the few of us who haven't drunk the Kool-Aid
and are astute observers of the politico-economic scene -- that there's absolutely no
credible evidence whatsoever pointing to the Kremlin hacking or interfering in the 2016
presidential election to favor Trump, this indicates there must be a faction of our elites
that's wholly intent on propagating all this group think about Russia-gate.
I believe I've identified two of the key elements of our ruling class that are committed
to this alarming Russophobic narrative:
1) The biggest purveyors and prevaricators are the establishment DNC along with Rachel
Maddow, Masha Gessen (the nauseating intellectual muscle behind much of this) and the DNC
sycophants at MSNBC, CNN, NY Times, NPR and WaPo. They simply cannot accept that they ran a
repellent Wall Street warmongering candidate who lost to the deplorable Trump, of all people.
Ergo, they must discredit and delegitimize the Trump election and presidency at all
costs.
2) The careerist Washington militarists (both public and private entities) who make their
promotions and budgets off the vilification of Putin and Moscow. These dangerous sociopaths
were genuinely terrified when Trump advocated a rapprochement of sorts with Russia. One of
the very, very few issues Trump actually got right.
That these two groups are coalescing on this fraudulent Russiagate baloney is putting the
world on the brink of nuclear war. How long will Moscow continue to be a stoic punching bag
in the face of all the Western disinformation and provocations?
Drew Hunkins
Madison
Very gratifying to be on the record. And I'm so happy that so many fellow CN enthusiasts
were also on the record a long time ago.
Let's keep up the good fight.
Realist , May 20, 2018 at 2:54 am
That the newspapers actually printed them is the most remarkable thing. Most of us
expressing Drew's point of view can't even get a post up on "mainstream" newspaper forums,
since everything is now instantaneously moderated.
Yes, Wisconsin is a "liberal" blue state, but it also displays uncommon deviance from the
herd when pressed by fantastical narratives, hence the abandonment of Clinton's candidacy. If
the cheeseheads simply did as expected, Madam President would be leading the war effort right
now and domestic turmoil might even be greater than it is. What a special prosecutor would be
subpoenaing now would, in fact, be the emails of John Podesta and the DNC. The corruption of
ALL the major players in American politics is so blatant it is just out there in plain
sight.
Al Pinto , May 20, 2018 at 8:44 am
@Realist
"That the newspapers actually printed them is the most remarkable thing. Most of us
expressing Drew's point of view can't even get a post up on "mainstream" newspaper forums,
since everything is now instantaneously moderated."
In my view, the article pretty much summarizes why HRC lost the election; nor, it's not
the Russians:
"The frustrated, disillusioned Americans who voted for President Trump committed the
ultimate act of rejecting the meritocrats – epitomized by the hardworking, always
prepared, Yale Law – educated Hillary Clinton – in favor of an inexperienced,
never-prepared, shoot-from-the-hip heir to a real estate fortune whose businesses had
declared bankruptcy six times. He would "drain the swamp" in Washington, he promised. He
would take the coal industry back to the greatness it had enjoyed 80 years before. He would
rebuild the cities, block immigrants with a great wall, provide health care for all and make
the country's infrastructure the envy of the world, while cutting everyone's taxes. Forty-six
percent of those who voted figured that things were so bad, they might as well let him
try."
"The FBI thus made the classic methodological error of allowing its investigation to be
contaminated by its preconceived beliefs. Objectivity fell by the wayside."
This part I cannot agree with, though. I do not think for one second that the FBI made an
"error". The whole lot of them conspired to get Hillary Clinton exonerated of her email
crimes, and then get her elected. They set out purposely and with intent to infiltrate
Trump's campaign, spy on him, leak information and disparage him as much as humanely
possible. Once he did get elected, they set out to impeach him any way they could. The media
has been on side.
This was all done with "intent". They knew from the get-go that there was no Russian
collusion. They made it up. Hillary Clinton's campaign paid for the phony Steele dossier,
although this information was not made apparent to the FISA Court.
This has all been an attempted coup to unseat the President of the United States. Criminal
referrals have been made by Horowitz (the Inspector General). Heads are going to roll.
To paraphrase what Hillary said during the campaign: "If they find out what we've done,
we'll all hang."
andy--s , May 23, 2018 at 12:29 am
Further more Conservatives and a leftie, (me) are convinced that the bad actors got busted
using the NSA database in April 2016(look up Admiral Rodgers) and they needed a cover to keep
spying on Trump and retro activly legitimize the NSA query abuse.
Read 70 page summary of FISA abust from judge Collier. .
backwardsevolution , May 19, 2018 at 4:01 pm
Tucker Carlson's three-minute interview with Don Di Genova, former U.S. attorney:
"We know that Hillary Clinton was illegally exonerated. We knew that a year ago. We know
that there was a substantial effort to frame the current President of the United States with
crimes by infiltrating his campaign and then his administration with spies that the FBI had
set upon them. We have learned that the crimes were committed by the FBI, senior members of
the Department of Justice, John Brennan, Mr. Clapper, Mr. Comey and others associated with
the Democratic Party, and that Donald Trump and his associates committed no crimes. [ ]
As of today, I understand that a referral for criminal prosecution has been made by Mr.
Horowitz [Inspector General] to Mr. Huber, who is investigating the FISA leaks, the
unmasking, the leaks of the unmasking, and everything we described tonight. Criminal
referrals have already been made.
l suggest that Mr. Brennan, who loves to make comment about the process, get himself a
good lawyer, not a good writer. [ ]
Yes, NBC News' consultant, the former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, the
most partisan hack leader of the CIA in history, needs a very, very good lawyer. [ ] Yes, a
criminal lawyer. He doesn't need a 'slip and fall' lawyer, although he's going to slip and
fall. He's going to be in front of a Grand Jury shortly."
Forces which launched color revolution against Trump were trying to save neoliberalism, which
was collapsing int he USA -- and defeat of Hillary is a clear sign of the collapse.
They succeeded into turning him into a puppet (he folded just two months after inaguration)
and kept him oh a short leash sinse then, but they want to get rid of him completely as they feel
that he can change sides again.
Russiagate is a smoke screen to hide internal problem which now are evident in the USA
sociery and first of all huge level of unequlity. the latter is nagatively correlated with the
political stability. This is essentially a neo-McCarthyism campaign, when the fact that the USA
"imported" a lot of Nazi criminals was hidden by witch hunt for communists in the government.
Which also help to destroy the US left for the next 60 years by branding them as Communists. Not
that communists were saints (far form that), but this was pretty nasty trick.
Notable quotes:
"... As months turn into nearly two years and no slid evidence emerges to nail Russia for nabbing Election 2016, some big Russia-gate cheerleaders are starting to cover their tracks, as Daniel Lazare explains. ..."
"... Page was not a spy pace the Times, but a government informant as ex-federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy has pointed out – in other words, a good guy, as the Times would undoubtedly see it, helping the catch a couple of baddies. ..."
"... Andrew McCarthy, who has done a masterful job of reconstructing the sequence, notes that in late July 2016, Page mentioned an article she had come across on a liberal web site discussing Trump's alleged Russia ties. Strzok texted back that he's "partial to any women sending articles about nasty the Russians are." Page replied that the Russians "are probably the worst. Very little I finding redeeming about this. Even in history. Couple of good writers and artists I guess." Strzok heartily agreed: "f***ing conniving cheating savages. At statecraft, athletics, you name it. I'm glad I'm on Team USA." ..."
As months turn into nearly two years and no slid evidence emerges to nail Russia for
nabbing Election 2016, some big Russia-gate cheerleaders are starting to cover their tracks, as
Daniel Lazare explains.
The best evidence that Russia-gate is sinking
beneath the waves is the way those pushing the pseudo-scandal are now busily covering their
tracks. The Guardian
complains that " as the inquiry has expanded and dominated the news agenda over the last
year, the real issues of people's lives are in danger of being drowned out by obsessive cable
television coverage of the Russia investigation" – as if The Guardian 's own
coverage hasn't been every bit as obsessive as anything CNN has come up with.
The Washington Post , second to none when it comes to painting Putin as a real-life
Lord Voldemort , now
says that Special counsel Robert Mueller "faces a particular challenge maintaining the
confidence of the citizenry" as his investigation enters its second year – although it's
sticking to its guns that the problem is not the inquiry itself, but "the regular attacks he
faces from President Trump, who has decried the probe as a 'witch hunt.'"
And then there's The New York Times , which this week devoted a 3,600-word
front-page article to explain why the FBI had no choice but to launch an investigation into
Trump's alleged Russian links and how, if anything, the inquiry wasn't aggressive enough. As
the article puts it, "In terviews with a dozen current and former government officials and a
review of documents show that the FBI was even more circumspect in that case than has been
previously known."
It's Nobody's Fault
The result is a late-breaking media chorus to the effect that it's not the fault of the FBI
that the investigation has dragged on with so little to show for it; it's not the fault of
Mueller either, and, most of all, it's not the fault of the corporate press, even though it's
done little over the last two years than scream about Russia. It's not anyone's fault,
evidently, but simply how the system works.
This is nonsense, and the gaping holes in the Times article show why.
The piece, written by Matt Apuzzo, Adam Goldman, and Nicholas Fandos and entitled " Code
Name Crossfire Hurricane: The Secret Origins of the Trump Investigation," is pretty much like
everything else the Times has written on the subject, i.e. biased, misleading, and incomplete.
Its main argument is that the FBI had no option but to step in because four Trump campaign
aides had "obvious or suspected Russian ties."
' At Putin's Arm'
One was Michael Flynn, who would briefly serve as Donald Trump's national security adviser
and who, according to the Times, "was paid $45,000 by the Russian government's media arm for a
2015 speech and dined at the arm of the Russian president, Vladimir V. Putin." Another was P
aul Manafort, who briefly served as Trump's campaign chairman and was a source of concern
because he had "lobbied for pro-Russia interests in Ukraine and worked with an associate who
has been identified as having connections to Russian intelligence." A third was Carter Page, a
Trump foreign-policy adviser who "was well known to the FBI" because "[h]e had previously been
recruited by Russian spies and was suspected of meeting one in Moscow during the campaign."
The fourth was George Papadopoulos, a "young and inexperienced campaign aide whose
wine-fueled conversation with the Australian ambassador set off the investigation. Before
hacked Democratic emails appeared online, he had seemed to know that Russia had political dirt
on Mrs. Clinton."
Seems incriminating, eh? But in each case the connection was more tenuous than the
Times lets on. Flynn, for example, didn't dine "at the arm of the Russian president" at
a now-famous December 2015 Moscow banquet honoring the Russian media outlet RT. He was merely
at a table at which Putin happened to sit down for "m aybe five minutes, maybe twenty, tops,"
according to Green Party presidential candidate Jill
Stein who was just a few chairs away. No words were exchanged, Stein says, and "[n]obody
introduced anybody to anybody. There was no translator. The Russians spoke Russian. The four
people who spoke English spoke English."
The Manafort associate with the supposed Russian intelligence links turns out to be a
Russian-Ukrainian translator named Konstantin Kilimnik who studied English at a Soviet military
school and who
vehemently denies any such connection . It seems that the Ukrainian authorities did
investigate the allegations at one point but declined to
press charges . So the connection is unproven.
Page Was No Spy
The same goes for Carter Page, who was not "recruited" by Russian intelligence, but, rather,
approached by what he thought were Russian trade representatives at a January 2013 energy
symposium in New York. When the FBI informed him five or six months later that it believed the
men were intelligence agents, Page appears to have cooperated fully based on a federal
indictment filed with the Southern District of New York. Thus, Page was not a spy
pace the Times, but a government informant as ex-federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy
has pointed out – in other words, a good guy, as the Times would undoubtedly see it,
helping the catch a couple of baddies.
As for Papadopoulos, who the Times suggests somehow got advance word that WikiLeaks was
about to dump a treasure trove of Hillary Clinton emails, the article fails to mention that at
the time the conversation with the Australian ambassador took place, the Clinton communications
in the news were the 30,000 State Department emails that she had improperly stored on her
private computer. These were the emails that "the American people are sick and tired of hearing
about," as Bernie Sanders put it . Instead of spilling the beans about a data breach yet to
come, it's more likely that Papadopoulos was referring to emails that were already in the news
– a possibility the Times fails to discuss.
FBI 'Perplexed'
One could go on. But not only does the Times article get the details wrong, it paints
the big picture in misleading tones as well. It says that the FBI was "perplexed" by such Trump
antics as calling on Russia to release still more Clinton emails after WikiLeaks went public
with its disclosure. The word suggests a disinterested observer who can't figure out what's
going on. But it ignores how poisonous the atmosphere had become by that point and how
everyone's mind was seemingly made up.
By July 2016, Clinton was
striking out at Trump at every opportunity about his Russian ties – not because they
were true, but because a candidate who had struggled to come up with a winning slogan had at
last come across an issue that seemed to resonate with her fan base. Consequently, an
intelligence report that Russia was responsible for hacking the Democratic National Committee
"was a godsend," wrote Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes in Shattered, their best-selling account of the Clinton campaign, because it
was "hard evidence upon which Hillary could start to really build the case that Trump was
actually in league with Moscow."
Not only did Clinton believe this, but her followers did as well, as did the corporate media
and, evidently, the FBI. This is the takeaway from text messages that FBI counterintelligence
chief Peter Strzok exchanged with FBI staff attorney Lisa Page.
Andrew McCarthy, who has done a masterful job of reconstructing the sequence, notes
that in late July 2016, Page mentioned an article she had
come across on a liberal web site discussing Trump's alleged Russia ties. Strzok texted back
that he's "partial to any women sending articles about nasty the Russians are." Page replied
that the Russians "are probably the worst. Very little I finding redeeming about this. Even in
history. Couple of good writers and artists I guess." Strzok heartily agreed: "f***ing
conniving cheating savages. At statecraft, athletics, you name it. I'm glad I'm on Team
USA."
The F'ing Russian 'Savages'
This is the institutional bias that the Times doesn't dare mention. An agency whose
top officials believe that "f***ing conniving cheating savages" are breaking down the door is
one that is fairly guaranteed to construe evidence in the most negative, anti-Russian way
possible while ignoring anything to the contrary. So what if Carter Page had cooperated with
the FBI? What's important is that he had had contact with Russian intelligence at all, which
was enough to render him suspicious in the bureau's eyes. Ditto Konstantin Kilimnik. So what if
the Ukrainian authorities had declined to press charges? The fact that they had even looked was
damning enough.
The FBI thus made the classic methodological error of allowing its investigation to be
contaminated by its preconceived beliefs. Objectivity fell by the wayside. The Times says that
Christopher Steele, the ex-MI6 agent whose infamous, DNC and Clinton camp paid-for opposition
research dossier turned "golden showers" into a household term, struck the FBI as " highly
credible" because he had "helped agents unravel complicated cases" in the past. Perhaps. But
the real reason is that he told agents what they wanted to hear, which is that the "Russian
regime has been cultivating, supporting and assisting TRUMP for at least 5 years" with the
"[a]im, endorsed by PUTIN, [of] encourage[ing] splits and divisions in [the] western alliance"
(which can be construed as a shrewd defensive move against a Western alliance massing troops on
Russian borders.)
What else would one expect of people as "nasty" as these? In fact, the Steele dossier should
have caused alarm bells to go off. How could Putin have possibly known five years before that
Trump would be a viable presidential candidate? Why would high-level Kremlin officials share
inside information with an ex-intelligence official thousands of miles away? Why would the
dossier declare
on one page that the Kremlin has offered Trump "various lucrative real estate development
business deals" but then say on another that Trump's efforts to drum up business had gone
nowhere and that he therefore "had had to settle for the use of extensive sexual services there
from local prostitutes rather than business success"? Given that the dossier was little more
than "oppo research" commissioned and funded by the Democratic National Committee and the
Clinton campaign, why was it worthy of consideration at all?
The Rush to Believe
But all such questions disappeared amid the general rush to believe. The Times is
right that the FBI slow-walked the investigation until Election Day. This is because agents
assumed that Trump would lose and that therefore there was no need to rush. But when he didn't,
the mood turned to one of panic and fury.
Without offering a shred of evidence, the FBI, CIA, NSA, and Director of National
Intelligence James Clapper issued a formal assessment on Jan. 6, 2017,
that " Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election [in
order] to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and
harm her electability and potential presidency." The "assessment" contains this disclaimer:
"Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact.
Assessments are based on collected information, which is often incomplete or fragmentary, as
well as logic, argumentation, and precedents."
The New Yorker
reports that an ex-aide to John McCain hoped to persuade the senator to use the Steele
dossier to force Trump to resign even before taking office. (The ex-aide denies that this was
the case.)
When FBI Director James Comey personally confronted Trump with news of the dossier two weeks
prior to inauguration, the Times says he " feared making this conversation a 'J. Edgar
Hoover-type situation,' with the FBI presenting embarrassing information "to lord over a
president-elect."
But that is precisely what happened. When someone – most likely CIA Director John
Brennan, now a commentator with NBC News – leaked word of the meeting and Buzzfeed
published the dossier four days later, the corporate media went wild. Trump was gravely
wounded, while Adam Schiff, Democratic point man on the House Intelligence Committee, would
subsequently trumpet the Steele dossier as the unvarnished truth .
According to the Times account, Trump was unpersuaded by Comey's assurances that he was there
to help. "Hours earlier," the paper says, " he debuted what would quickly become a favorite
phrase: 'This is a political witch hunt.'"
The Times clearly regards the idea as preposterous on its face. But while Trump is
wrong about many things, on this one subject he happens to be right. The press, the
intelligence community, and the Democrats have all gone off the deep end in search of a Russia
connection that doesn't exist. They misled their readers, they made fools of themselves, and
they committed a crime against journalism. And now they're trying to dodge the blame.
Daniel Lazare is the author of The Frozen Republic: How the Constitution Is Paralyzing
Democracy (Harcourt Brace, 1996) and other books about American politics. He has written for a
wide variety of publications from The Nation to Le Monde Diplomatique, and his articles about
the Middle East, terrorism, Eastern Europe, and other topics appear regularly on such websites
as Jacobin and The American Conservative.
andy--s , May 22, 2018 at 6:30 pm
rewind just a little .
If the FBI felt the clinton private server was a monumental nothing burger, then why was
it necessary to open a counterintellegence investigation upon Papadopoulos using a National
security letter(july 31 2016), and NOT investigate or bother even questioning the person who
claimed to have access to Clinton emails until 9 months later?
News outlets inform us that the FBI 'informant' acted properly in their case, but fail to
disclose that the FBI inherited a political investigation from fusion GPS, which only
targeted Trump members whom they were interested in to find out whether Trump had them or
knew someone who did. Chris Steele set up a honey pot for papadopoulos.
ANy news media that ommits the inheritance aspect and/or the down-playing of the hillary's
emails prior to the possibility of Trump getting them is not telling the whole story.
When did it become the duty of the FBI to protect Hillary from blackmail if her emails
were of no 'national security' value, as demonstrated by the conclusion of the server
investigation.
Den Lille Abe , May 21, 2018 at 2:46 pm
American politics and media mostly resembles an asylum for rabid wild animals. Its even
beyond psychopathy.
I wonder if some of these beings DNA wise classify as human beings.
If the US political media elite believe (as they claim they do) that meddling in the
domestic politics of another country is wrong, illegal, an act of war, when will we see
investigations into US meddling in the domestic politics of other countries. When will there
be an investigation into the US conspiracy with the Ukrainian neo-Nazis to overthrow the
elected government? Or the US support for jihadis in Syria? Or any of the many, many other
cases of US meddling?
Arioch , May 22, 2018 at 7:11 am
US ruling elits are infected with exceptionalism=nazism.
They genuinely believe they can run subhuman nations as they wish and that is their "white
burden".
They equally sincerely believe that the said subhuman nations dare not resist their America
1% masters guidance, in particular they dare not influence those masters as a mean to have a
say in what the masters impose upon them
eric , May 22, 2018 at 7:00 pm
Could we all write our congressman and bring our troops home unyil we can understand
what's been going on for more than the last twenty years .
Great article and comments. I find some satisfaction in seeing the MSM "making excuses" as
it at least represents a tacit admission of their guilt in misinforming the public on this
subject. A weak one , as even tacit admissions go , but more than we've seen for past abuses
– Libya , Ukraine , Syria , 9/11 , etc.
Aside from that , just a short administrative note for Stranger Together : Please add me
to your "de-friend" list. I assure you , I fully qualify. Thanks.
Robert , May 20, 2018 at 6:44 pm
What a pathetic waste of time and money (20,000,000) trying to perpetuate the rissiagate
lie. Even worse, the powers that be are guilty of the very election meddling of many
sovereign nations.
Russigate is nothing but a deep state distraction deflection strategy to provide cover for
their own election meddling crimes.
Rule of thumb: when you hear the DS media complex incessantly demonizing a foreign leader
or country, it's just an exposition of its own guilt.
KiwiAntz , May 20, 2018 at 7:23 am
The really sad thing about all this Russiagate nonsense is that there will be no apologies
given to either Putin or Russia, once its confirmed that no evidence has been found of
Russian interference & then this story will quietly disappear beneath the waves, as it
seems to be starting now, before being confined to the scrap heap of History?
These scumbags who pushed this narrative get away scott free, without suffering any
consequences from their falsehoods, having slandered & dragged Russia's reputation
through the mud, permanently & maliciously destroying it & ramping up global tensions
in the process? All because the out of touch Democratic Party & a evil, shameful woman
called Hillary Clinton lost the election? Also, no apologies will be given to the American
people as well, who have, for 12 mths, been subjected too a 24hr, 24/7, constant, MSM &
Political, psychological operation of brainwashing propaganda & gaslighting, to promote
cognitive dissonance in these citizens so that they question their own sanity, values &
belief systems?
As many people have commented here, their real concerns such as inadequate healthcare,
putting food on the table etc have been drowned out by all this Russiagate garbage!
That's the two real tragedies & outcome from these blantant, orchestrated lies by the
Dems, to demonise Russia & apportion blame to others rather than looking at yourselves in
the mirror?
Joe Tedesky , May 20, 2018 at 9:37 am
Great analogy KiwiAntz. You know a lot about how our American politics works, no doubt
about it. You are right the real tragedy is to how no one will suffer any consequences for
taking the American public down this road of international disruption, and on top of that for
defaming a head of state of a foreign government. In fact if the Democrats get their way
Mueller will receive a medal. This will be another moment in time where Washington will
instill it's vision onto all that's good and right, as worldleaders and the American people
will be ignored. There will be nothing to apologize for, as once again the DC Masters will
set the narrative, and the world will roll it's eyes and go back to work. Arrogance becomes a
virtue, and believe you me Washington has enough of that disgusting defect and more to go
around to conduct hundreds of investigation and think nothing of it. Joe
Dave P. , May 20, 2018 at 4:56 pm
KiwiAntz, Joe – Great posts.
"The really sad thing about all this Russiagate nonsense is that there will be no
apologies given to either Putin or Russia, once its confirmed that no evidence has been found
of Russian interference & then this story will quietly disappear beneath the waves, as it
seems to be starting now, before being confined to the scrap heap of History?"
I don't believe this Russia Gate nonsense or similar malign fabrications against Russia
are going to end unless The West's goal of complete domination of the world led by U.S. is
abandoned, which – looking at what has been in play since 1991 – I don't think
will happen.
"Also, no apologies will be given to the American people as well, who have, for 12 months,
been subjected too a 24hr, 24/7, constant, MSM & Political, psychological operation of
brainwashing propaganda & gaslighting, to promote cognitive dissonance in these citizens
so that they question their own sanity, values & belief systems? "
This cognitive dissonance in a significant segment of population is going to be long
lasting, and that is what I think its purpose was. The great damage done during the 1950's by
McCarthyism and nuclear scare drum beating was very visible when I arrived here during mid
1960's. This time, with this constant 24/7 demonizing of Russia and Putin depicting them as
evil enemies, with all these fabrications, lies, and other such garbage, for many years now,
has done far more damage to the gullible American public than during 1950's.
I think this whole show going on in Washington is being orchestrated by the same
Puppet-master, keeping the public in suspense deliberately. Both sides are in collusion. One
day Trump makes a tweet like "We are going to withdraw from Syria", and public like us gets
all optimistic for peace to prevail in the World. Next day the bombs, missiles are falling
over Syria, Yemen or in Afghanistan. Both sides are beating up Russia, from different angles.
Trump has fallen in line. He had no choice.
There was several articles some months ago about Central Asia. The link for one of these
articles in Strategic Culture is below:
Joe, it seems like there is not goingto be peace in the World as some us always keep
wishing for. But I still want to keep my optimism about a peaceful World.
Anna , May 20, 2018 at 5:33 pm
Don't forget the Skripal affair that -- surprise! -- made bare a connection between
Skripal and the infamous Mr. Christopher Steele (and the M16). The stupidity of the affair
can be explained only in the context of the aggression against Syria, a destruction of which
is one of the goals of Oded Yinon plan for Geater Israel.
The Skripal affair in the UK and the White Helmets fraud in Douma have the same root. The
puppet-masters exposed their life-size marionettes in the European Union countries when the
marionettes have collectively risen to expel Russian diplomats. That was a geat Novichok
story for the future historians!
KiwiAntz , May 20, 2018 at 6:29 pm
Great comments as usual Joe & Dave you may be right in that this Russiagate nonsense
may not end exactly, but it's certainly winding down as the article has noted? I'm of the
belief that everything that has a beginning, has & a ending, which maybe naive, but even
McCathyism had a beginning an a ending as a comparison? You can't maintain BS &
falsehoods indefinitely, its a proven fact! The Powers, who masterminded this operation know
that this false narrative has a shelf life & that the Public can only stomach this BS, up
to a point? The American people have reached that saturation point & hell, even the
Fakestream media & their commentators have had a gutsful of this & going off script
saying enough is enough & that too much time has been wasted on this crap? But then
unapologetically, never acknowledging their complicity & role in publishing these
falsehoods! One enormous positive can be taken out of all of this nonsense & that is, the
American people are not as stupid as "THEY" (Deepstate & cronies) like to think they are
& are extremely strong & resilient to the cognitive dissonance that have been
subjected too? US Citizens & people of the World are waking up to what's really going on,
thanks to the brutish presidency of D.Trump & the thuggish activities of the MIC &
Intelligence States?
Funny that. A few days ago you were claiming that all United States of A**holes citizens
were brainwashed. Now you are changing your mind I see. Now we all are "extremely strong
& resilient to the cognitive dissonance that (we) have been subjected too". Or maybe you
just enjoy ranting on comment boards! LOL
Joe Tedesky , May 20, 2018 at 7:07 pm
Dennis take it easy KiwiAntz always puts a context to his narrative. I've read some of
those last comments of his, and if anything KiwiAntz sounds like a disgruntled American. Like
most of us on this board. So when KiwiAntz does say something good about the American
citizens let's not slap him down. You can say whatever you'd like Dennis it's a free country
(kind of), but don't be to hard on KiwiAntz because he's one of us. Joe
Joe Tedesky , May 20, 2018 at 6:40 pm
Dave among the great comments made here today I suggest you scroll down and read
CitizenOne, for CitizenOne captured the essence of our times fairly well, no change that to
extremely well.
I'm a tad burned out, and throughly up to here, with this RussiaGate story. Although if we
didn't have Russian interference to talk about, then who would we Americans blame for our
declining empire? This is a result of a Washington where no one is held accountable, and
where talking points are only meant to be a distraction away from what we should be
discussing at length.
This obsession with Russia is self made, and is aimed at not only hurting Russia, or
better said Putin, as its aim is to take our eyes off of who really is at fault for all of
our debt, and wars of choice. This is how you cover up a lie, by using another lie in it's
place. Like my mother always warned me Dave, 'one lie only leads to another lie until the
truth jumps up and bites you in the ass'. In fact my mother distrusted almost all
politicians.
So Dave while we pull our hair out of our heads, while hearing the MSM everyday breakdown
into excruciating blabber another Presidential Tweet, or we hear words of encouragement
(sarcasm here) of how Mueller is still valiantly pushing ahead with the Investigation, we
hear very little about what else is going on with in regard to our planet. If peace did
breakout, why would we even know it Dave?
Even sadder Dave are the American citizens who don't know, or research, the truth. This is
the most dangerous element of all to consider, and that is an uninformed public votes in the
person to run the most powerful nation on this once proud green earth with the biggest ever
military apparatus the world has ever seen. Talk about the patients taking over the asylum.
Seriously who in America isn't on meds, and getting their news from our corrupted MSM?
The MSM should be proud of themselves, for they have totally buffaloed the American public
into oblivion.
Joe, there is no "reply' button on your comment of 7.07pm. I guess why I don't take
KiwiAntz comments seriously is that he just has a grab bag of cliches and generalizations
that he strings together and thrashes out on his keyboard ad nausea. Mostly naive. Maybe he
is disgruntled, and maybe he is an American. But I doubt it. More likely he sits in his
mothers basement in a far away Isle reading rubbish on the internet.
His knowledge of Americans surely doesn't come from living and working in American
communities, and interacting with everyday Americans. I am a Kiwi who has lived in Seattle
for 45-years. My job has taken me to Alaska, California, Florida, Hawaii and The Bahamas.
I have got to kinda' understand "America" and Americans" from first hand experience. Until
you have done that your knowledge of the American psyche is superficial and academic. As I
judge KiwiAntz's to be.
He also reminds me of the old saying.."Everybody knows how to run the ship but the
Captain." I can tell you you from hard experience, once you get to be the Captain, things
things turn out to be a whole lot more complex and one learns humility real fast.
Yes, in this respect the Mueller investigation has done it's job perfectly. They just yank
on Trump's leash whenever necessary. What will be interesting is how they manage to quash the
referral for prosecution of Deep State players by I.G. Horowitz. Nunes has been a rogue
player as well, and will need to be corralled. We hear nothings but "crickets" from the MSM
regarding this with the exception of Fox, which is telling; but it has me wondering how and
why Fox has gotten away with it.
Skip Scott , May 20, 2018 at 7:44 am
ranney-
I think Mueller has "slow walked" this thing because he has to be careful of stepping on
the wrong toes. As Abe has pointed out, a lot of RussiaGate is actually IsraelGate. His
questionable business dealings were with duel Russian/Israeli citizens. My guess is Mueller
will have to settle for Trump's paying hush money to a porn star.
michael , May 20, 2018 at 10:05 am
While others in this thread have noted that the "Russian Investigation" is mostly for
keeping Trump in line with the the neolib/ neocon agenda for WWIII, the pure partisanship of
the Investigation (which would be more interesting and effective if not solely focused on
Trump but rather any Americans interacting with Russia) suggests that Mueller's slow walking
is to keep this issue out in front of the Public until the Midterm Elections.
The big question is whether the tone-deaf MSM will trash and demean Trump to the point
that there is backlash, much as put him in office in the first place.
ranney , May 20, 2018 at 5:40 pm
Skip and Michael,
Thanks for your responses. Maybe you're right. Maybe Muller doesn't want to step on Israeli
toes, but why not? And maybe the idea is to keep people worked up so they'll vote against
Republicans in the 2018 elections, but I find it hard to think that Muller is that partisan
for Democrats.
I wonder if the prevailing plan of the "dark state" is to keep Trump in, but with no power,
since a Pence presidency could be worse than Trump – though at this point it's hard to
see how. Whatever the plan and whatever we think we see going on is probably not what is
actually happening. Hopefully we'll see a glimmer of the truth in six months.
"... FUsion GPS arranged the meeting at trump tower. ..."
"... IF Misfud told papaD that he had access to Hillary's emails, why did they not bother looking for him for 9 months and then let him walk free? Because he was a set up. ..."
'Collusion' would mean actively conspiring with a foreign government. To this day there is no evidence that the Russian lawyer
was working for the Russian government (I have seen some media simply assert that she has Kremlin 'connections', whatever that's
supposed to mean). Also, why exactly would the Trump campaign have any need to meet with someone promising dirt if, as the Steele
Dossier claims, Trump had been a Russian agent for 5 years? The Kremlin would surely have already been providing any possible
dirt, and more besides.
And is this really where we are now? Is this what we've come to? Russia is a country of 144 million people. Is simply being
Russian, or talking to a Russian, now a crime? Because that's what our current atmosphere seems to think. It's shocking to see
so many people, especially supposedly tolerant and multicultural liberals, ignore any distinction between a government and private
citizens, and engage in what can only be called bigotry about 'Russians'. Replace 'Russian' with 'Jew', or a slur like 'Jap',
and how incredibly ugly the atmosphere has become in the last 18 months or so becomes obvious.
That Trump is comically corrupt is a given. But the two central claims of Russiagate were that a. Trump is a Russian agent
(or at least being blackmailed by Russia), and that b. Russia in some way hacked or interfered in the election to get Trump elected.
There is, to this day, exactly zero evidence for either.
No, his son meeting with a Russian citizen promising political dirt (even if dirt had been exchanged, which it wasn't because
she was lying and just wanted to get a meeting to lobby for some business interests), doesn't constitute 'collusion', or interference
by a foreign government.
Nor does some St. Petersburg company spending a paltry amount of money to run a clickbait ad revenue scheme on Facebook. Nor
do Macedonian teenagers running troll accounts (Macedonia isn't even in Russia, and to this day I've never seen any evidence that
any Russian, much less the Russian government, is behind their activities).
The above two are especially damning, because they make it painfully obvious that Russiagate has exactly nothing. In the absence
of any evidence that Russia hacked the election, proponents have been forced to venture far and wide to find something, anything,
they can remotely pin on Russia. A few hundred thousand dollars spent on social media ads, including ads for Clinton and Sanders,
many of which were seen by literally no one, and half of which didn't run until AFTER the election? Are you freaking kidding me?
As for 'shady Russian money', maybe Trump has taken some. It certainly wouldn't surprise me that he's done something like launder
money for Russian oligarchs. Now prove to me took money from the Russian government. Because, again, those are two very different
prospects. And if you think the Kremlin and Russian oligarchs are interchangeable or in lockstep with each other, you clearly
don't know much about recent Russian history.
The Russiagate claim wasn't that Trump is skeevy and corrupt. Of course he is. The claim is that he is corrupt in very specific
ways, ways that constitute treason.
Vivian O'Blivion , May 21, 2018 at 6:30 am
Marasmus.
Difficult to argue with any of your points.
Mueller has filed charges against some of the staff in the St Petersburg operation, if you can connect Trump to this entity
then cooperation becomes criminal collusion. As charges have already been filed it matters not whether the St Petersburg staff
are private or state employees.
The fact that America has laws prohibiting foreign interference in its elections is I guess understandable, but hypocritical
and exceptionalist in the extreme given the cart blanch attitude America takes to interfering in the internal affairs of other
nations.
The Donald Jr meeting with Russians is just a rats nest of conflicting stupidities. If as many others state (and I don't disagree)
everyone tries to get dirt on the opposition and foreign sources of information are regularly tapped, then the secret is not to
get caught. The Democrats have a plausible cut out (or two) in place between the Russian sources for the Steele dossier and themselves.
As Steve Bannon has stated, meeting directly with the Russians was weapons grade stupid, but hey it's Don Jr. and Jared Kushner
we're talking about.
The really odd part is that the Russians would attend given that they must have known that their names would be logged by the
Secret Service detail providing security for the Republican candidate. To me, this does not suggest an attempt to help Trump as
"their man", but rather to dirty by association a candidate that could become President. This interpretation would concur with
analysis of the activities of the St Petersburg operation, which was to sow chaos into American social and political discourse.
andy--s , May 23, 2018 at 12:13 am
Heres the problem with that. FUsion GPS arranged the meeting at trump tower. The Russians paid them to connect with the trump campaign in order to
discuss the magnitsky act. They did not come to the meeting with any notion of DIRT. Trump Jr was told they had DIRT.
THe problem the FBI has, is that they never investigated the Russian contacts to the extent that they investigated the Americans
being contacted. Dig? :) IF Misfud told papaD that he had access to Hillary's emails, why did they not bother looking for
him for 9 months and then let him walk free? Because he was a set up.
PapaD got nailed for not being able to remember if the meeting was the tuesday prior or after joing the trump Campaign. It
doesnt make sense unless the FBI was looking to spy
Let's all assume for one second that all the fantasies of Russia gate are true. That every Russian that Trump and his associates/family
ever had any contact with are directed by Putin himself. Who believes for one second that this collusion has had more of a negative
impact 2016 election then the collusion that occured between Clinton and the DNC to subvert Sanders, Clinton and the media to
1st subvert Sanders and then Trump (side note, why doesn't Clinton/MSM collusion against Trump balance with the Trump/Russian
collusion for Trump?) How about the collusion between Wall Street and the DNC to such an extent that Citi Group was exposed as
having picked Obama's cabinet. And then let's remember that the Trump collusion with Kremlin has alot of guilt by association
through 6 degrees of separation and the Clinton/DNC/MSM/Wall Street collusion was proven in black and white through the publication
of Clinton/DNC/Podesta emails in Wikileaks.
That this point gets ignored by the MSM, is proof to me that they have lost all objectivity.
andy--s , May 23, 2018 at 12:16 am
MOre so.. Homer If Clintons personal server was a nothing burger not worthy of a single indictment, then why was it a national
security issue when some stranger offered the emails to Papadopoulos? They didnt bother investigating the stranger. they investigated
Papadopoulos!
Nobody will touch that with a ten foot poll in the main stream media.
strngr
You cite quite a number of examples, presumably without detailed knowledge of few, if any. I
will not fall into the same trap.
The Brexit vote was an outbreak of mass hysteria amongst English and Welsh working class
voters. The sentiment that powered the grass roots "rebellion" against the perceived wisdom
of the ruling elite was understandable frustration at social and economic neglect. My guess
is that in this regard it was a mirror of the rise of Trumpism. Interestingly Scotland voted
to remain in the EU by a substantially stronger margin than England voted to leave, because
there was already established a vivid, informed, grass roots political discourse mainly based
on Scottish social media. The Brexit outcome was influenced by some pretty underhand digital
media manipulation, but those doing the manipulation were domestic and hard right wing, not
Russian. The Guardian cannot be considered a source of untainted information, it is
increasingly Atlantasist and Zionist.
The Scottish independence vote in 2014 was heavily influenced by digital media but it was
entirely indigenous and grass roots. There was no credible claim of Russian interference then
or since. The Daily Express is a far right rag owned at the time of the article you cite by a
pornographer, and deeply unpleasant Zionist.
Over to a more general discussion.
Is there on any level a Russian state programme using a digital platform to influence
politics and social cohesion in other states? Frankly I would be astonished if there
wasn't.
The UK has had the British Council working out of its embassies since the beginning of
time.
The American State Department has been creating and financing Atlantasist think tanks and
associations for decades to skew British politics to meet American ends.
I doubt there is a country on the planet that has not felt the malign influence of the
State Department or CIA.
In the circumstances, Russia would be entirely justified in operating troll factories and
similar vehicles.
Next, what would the objectives of a Russian cyber operation be in the run up to the
American Presidential election? All academic evaluation of content believed to originate in
Russia and to be presented as domestic American input, suggests that the goal of the
intervention was to sew discord and chaos in society. That is to say that the Kremlin did not
have a favoured candidate.
How effective would the efforts of the St Petersburg troll factory be in exasperating
social divisions? My guess is that it would have been analogous with taking a hair dryer
outside in a category 5 hurricane.
Let us consider the Trump Tower meeting with the Russian delegation. As Steve Bannon
stated, meeting with the Russians at a venue under Secret Service control was monumentally
stupid. Monumentally stupid is entirely believable of Donald Jr., Jared Kushner and possibly
Manafort, but the Russians can't have been that dumb. By meeting at a venue where their names
would be openly logged by the State, they would be sabotaging any serious attempt to "get
their man into the White House", if that was their true goal. Taking this into account, the
object of the meeting from a Russian perspective can only have been to generate chaos.
Seventeen months on in the new administration and if I were them I would be awarding myself
an A+.
Try this though experiment and subdue your moral indignation at Russian interference for a
minute. In the circumstances is Russia entitled to do that which it you accuse it of? I will
not offer an answer to the question I pose, I am genuinely asking that you try and project to
see an alternative perspective.
"... " . . . Nevertheless, their work is done. The poison seeds of their lies have been planted in millions of unquestioning U.S. brains, from the high and mighty to the average consumer of "news" and will continue to sprout and spread. More lies are needed to cover up the first lies and on and on and on it goes. . ." ..."
"... A lot of accusations that are not backed up by any evidence ..."
"... " personally i blame clinton" Personally I blame AIPAC, BIS, and the Shadow Masters Clinton is just another scapegoat-puppet. ..."
"... It was British Intelligence which first sounded the alarm wrt pre-candidate Trump due to his stated intention to establish a positive relationship with Putin and Russia, thus overturning the basis for the entire post-war paradigm based on the division of the world into East and West. ..."
"... In my view, the purpose of the congress authorized investigation is not to impeach POTUS. That would provide a precedent that neither the democrats, nor the republican would accept. Instead, the investigation is intended to discredit the president and by proxy, the republicans for the upcoming elections. ..."
Since day one, I felt the entire Russia-gate fiasco was horse excrement. It just never
passed the smell test. My suspicions were confirmed day by day as Mueller came up with
nothing. To my amazement, the MSM pushed the story to the limit with no objectivity, agenda
driven, politically motivated, journalistic suicide. They've shown themselves as the
propaganda outlets they always were, but we were loath to admit.
Robert Emmett , May 19, 2018 at 8:43 am
"They misled their readers, they made fools of themselves, and they committed a crime
against journalism. And now they're trying to dodge the blame."
That may well be. And Robert Parry meticulously documented such a case. Nevertheless,
their work is done. The poison seeds of their lies have been planted in millions of
unquestioning U.S. brains, from the high and mighty to the average consumer of "news" and
will continue to sprout and spread. More lies are needed to cover up the first lies and on
and on and on it goes. That's the nature of a infectious culture of lies. The cultured medium
explodes, escapes the lab and runs rampant, leaving those who initiated the whole mess to
scramble in a mad attempt to "save face". It wouldn't surprise me if the H-ill-re eventually
becomes the first, and last, U.S. woman CEO to drop the big one. If you sometimes hear a
faint glug-glug-glug pulsing in your ears, that's the sound of U.S. circling the drain.
mike k , May 19, 2018 at 10:03 am
Very well stated Robert. I like the virus metaphor for propaganda. It's like gossip --
spreading, infecting the gullible with lies .
Rob , May 19, 2018 at 1:51 pm
Excellent point. As you say, their work is done. The Russiagate meme is now firmly
implanted in the minds of tens of millions of Americans, and nothing short of a public
confession by the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton that they fabricated the story and
fanned the flames in the media will dislodge it. I cannot envision any other means of killing
this particular virus. All contrary facts and logic will be brushed aside as fake news
created by Russian agents or stooges.
Dave P. , May 19, 2018 at 2:26 pm
Robert Emmet,
" . . . Nevertheless, their work is done. The poison seeds of their lies have been
planted in millions of unquestioning U.S. brains, from the high and mighty to the average
consumer of "news" and will continue to sprout and spread. More lies are needed to cover up
the first lies and on and on and on it goes. . ."
Yes. You have summarized it very well. That is how it is in our home too. My wife had been
listening to this for some time, Russia, Russia, Russia, and Putin , Putin, evil Putin
destroying our democracy, and so on on TV and in Newspapers, that it has gone into the
subconscious now. And I read that they, the Ruling Power Structures have done the same to
people in Western Europe too.
j. D. D. , May 19, 2018 at 7:54 am
While many of the particulars are correct regaring the paucity of evidence against
associates of the President, the author misses two key points, upon which the entire Mueller
coup operation rests. First, that the campaign against Trump started not in the Clinton
campaign or anywhere related, but rather in London with British intelligence, as the Guardian
itself has boasted. Not only did MI6's Steele prepare the document that formed the basis of
the allegations of "collusion" but it is well known that GCHQ's Hannigan met personally with
Brennan in the summer of 2016 to sound the alarm with a "not yet with it" US intel community.
Second, the basis of the investigation itself hinges on the alleged "hacking" of the
Clinton/DNC emailswhich showed her to be a craven puppet of Wall Street, released just prior
to the Democratic Convention. That entire scenario, that the source of the infamous emails
were a result of "Russian hacking," was conclusively and repeatedly demolished on this
website by fomer top NSA analyst William Binney, and his cohorts at the Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).
mike k , May 19, 2018 at 10:07 am
The Clinton campaign paid Steele to do his thing. Their operation against Trump began the
day after his surprise victory.
backwardsevolution , May 19, 2018 at 9:16 pm
Their operation began long before Trump's victory. It began in earnest just a few days
after Hillary Clinton was wrongfully exonerated, way back in July of 2016.
voza0db , May 19, 2018 at 6:29 am
The funniest part of all this nonsense is that the democrats are going to keep this
Illusion of RUSSIAGATE alive until the next elections!
So after the next loss in the upcoming elections we all know who to blame for another
democratic loss, right?!
RnM , May 19, 2018 at 3:34 am
You paint a nearly hopeless picture, Mike.
Let us all trust that Mr. Trump, who, despite the intentions of the Totalitarians outed in
Daniel Lazare's fine summary article, is the DULY ELECTED POTUS (by the common folk -- no one
has made a serious demonstration of vote counting fraud, from my recollections), continues in
office.
The American Experiment (in enlightened governance of, by, and for the governed) is in grave
jeopardy. The enemy of the Enlightenment's fine accomplishment is Monotheism, which is the
philosophical parent of Monarchy, which is the civic governing manifestation of said
religious thought patterns.
Sam F , May 19, 2018 at 8:52 am
I'll suggest that the "American Experiment" is threatened by money power, more than
religion, although many fundamentalists are deluded to support zionism. Religion is a problem
where it rationalizes simplistic political views, but the root causes are ignorance and
selfishness. Monotheism is not really the problem now that there are few monarchies. The
Enlightenment, and enlightenment of individuals, has many enemies.
mike k , May 19, 2018 at 10:12 am
The enemies of good government are the greedy and powerful oligarchs who hate democracy,
and do everything to distort and destroy it. No need to drag monotheism into it.
RnM , May 19, 2018 at 4:25 pm
My career was spent working with local rural politics. Good governance is by far imperiled
by corrupt locals on the take.
Also, Stalin did his purging by setting up secret local committees of three, who fed him
names through a beaurocratic pipeline. The Big Guy gets the blame (or credit), but the little
fellas do the dirty work.
Sam F , May 20, 2018 at 4:21 pm
You are very right about local government corruption, which may have factions based upon
tribal loyalties, but is caused by poor moral standards throughout our society. Most local
officials are elected with little or no public knowledge of who they are, and as a result are
mere low-end power-seekers who will abuse whatever power they can get.
David G , May 19, 2018 at 2:50 am
"[The NY Times] article fails to mention that at the time the conversation with the
Australian ambassador took place, the Clinton communications in the news were the 30,000
State Department emails that she had improperly stored on her private computer. Instead of
spilling the beans about a data breach yet to come, it's more likely that Papadopoulos was
referring to emails that were already in the news -- a possibility the Times fails to
discuss."
I've been shouting just this at my TV set (oddly, to little effect). And the same goes for
other allegedly damning references to "Clinton emails" in connection with the infamous Trump
Tower meeting and probably elsewhere.
But unfortunately, there are many people who don't care about evidence and rational
inquiry, and they prefer believing in evidencefree conspiracy theories that match their
prejudices. One accusation that is not backed up by any evidence is used to making other
accusations that are not based on evidence look more likely.
voza0db , May 19, 2018 at 6:49 am
:lol: " A lot of accusations that are not backed up by any evidence " the good
old PROPAGANDA ! It's alive and kicking
voza0db , May 19, 2018 at 6:47 am
Russia is in fact the only REAL EMPIRE in this world!
They hack and manipulate everything and everyone
Anna , May 19, 2018 at 8:26 am
Have you checked the number of US overseas military bases recently?
Do you know why the US Congress is called "Israel-occupied territory?"
Don't you love -- love! -- MSM.
voza0db , May 19, 2018 at 3:35 pm
Hello Anna!
I know that my written sarcasm is very bad sorry about that! And yes I do love MainShitMedia! Their the best.
Sam F , May 19, 2018 at 7:08 am
Try defining "hacking an election." The term pretends that a few techies tampered
machines.
In the US the election machine makers do that, no doubt, but not likely elsewhere. The US has a very long history of manipulating elections throughout the world and in the
US.
Even while it pretends to be "promoting democracy" it is installing dictators and faking
elections.
The ultimate election hack is allowing big money to control mass media and political
campaigns, as in the US.
Only when we restrict funding of mass media and elections to limited contributions will we
restore democracy.
Realist , May 20, 2018 at 4:21 am
Washington and its media tools have hacked this guy's brain is what it amounts to.
They could tell the American public anything and have it believed, like, for instance,
that the ideal gas law does not apply to inflated footballs in cold weather.
Realist , May 21, 2018 at 3:32 am
Correction: All your unfounded assertions are bogus. Just read this one simple piece that just came out for the accurate course of events.
While I am fully on board with rubbishing Russia-gate as malignant nonsense, I do think it
may be a mistake to rely too much on there turning out to be no nefarious nexus between Trump
and Russia.
In Trump we have someone devoid of knowledge, sense, or character, an almost altogether
wrong guy -- very much including his views on U.S. foreign policy -- who for some reason has
a positive and constructive attitude toward Russia and Putin (though, of course, he has
mostly gone along with the anti-Russia Beltway consensus in his actions as president when
pressured).
It's possibly it's just an isolated, unexplained instance of Trumpian sanity, but to me
it's at least as likely to be the result of greed or fear, based on some grubby link to
Russia that is as yet undisclosed.
J. Decker , May 19, 2018 at 7:43 am
"who for some reason has a positive and constructive attitude toward Russia and
Putin".
Maybe the reason is that Putin is one of history's penultimate statesman who presents the
strongest opposition to the global war/banking beast and last bastion of hope? Time
magazine's Most Powerful Man of the Year (or something like that as I wouldn't be caught dead
reading it.
So does that make Trump a puppet for Russia or a keen observer?
David G , May 19, 2018 at 11:54 am
Do you think Cheeto Dust really capable of appreciating Putin for the reasons you
cite?
"Keen" isn't a word that springs to my mind when I think of Trump.
backwardsevolution , May 20, 2018 at 2:32 am
David G -- maybe you need to oil your springs. When you're trying to navigate your way
through the swamp, you tend to notice capable players who are doing it and admire them for
it.
Anna , May 19, 2018 at 8:28 am
Let's begin with Uranium One and the $500.000 fee for a half-hour speech by Bill.
Mike From Jersey , May 19, 2018 at 1:59 pm
I am also a Green voter. When the choice became Hillary vs Donald that -- for me -- was
the last straw. I de-registered as a Democrat and registered as a Green.
Skip Scott , May 21, 2018 at 7:32 am
Good for you Mike. I refuse to be a part of the "lesser of two evils" gambit any longer.
Let's hope we can build a movement.
andrew , May 18, 2018 at 10:40 pm
the core accusations are
1. that the russians hacked the dnc, there is no evidence and no basis for this accusation.
none.
2. that the russians spread a deadly fake news virus that was incredibly damaging to
hillary's campaign. there is no evidence of this and it is a completely ridiculous idea if
one just stops for a moment to contemplate the astronomical amount of fake news available at
all times on the internet and television. what was the fake news lie that was so supremely
effective? nobody knows. there wasn't one. there was for hillary unfortunately a real news
truth about the dnc released by wikileaks but that was not from russians or a lie.
3. that the russians hacked the election. again absolutely no proof or evidence of this has
been offered.
it is in fact a political witch hunt that has been incredibly destructive. it has
distracted energy and attention away from real things that have happened. it has instigated
proxy warfare with russia in syria. it has discredited journalism. it has made an honest man
out of trump.
personally i blame clinton. this mendacious , self defeating , and bizarre ruse is so in
keeping with so many of her and bill's greatest hits. these two people continue to damage the
progressive movement . they won't go away it would seem. i hope after russiagate sputters to
a stop the clintons will finally be finished.
David G , May 19, 2018 at 1:59 am
well said, andrew
RnM , May 19, 2018 at 4:37 am
A Witch Hunt, alright! Not FOR a witch, but BY a witch.
J. Decker , May 19, 2018 at 7:51 am
" personally i blame clinton"
Personally I blame AIPAC, BIS, and the Shadow Masters Clinton is just another
scapegoat-puppet.
j. D. D. , May 19, 2018 at 11:41 am
Yes, all true but you fail to identify the cause, which goes well beyond naming Russia as
an excuse for Hillary's defeat. It was British Intelligence which first sounded the alarm wrt
pre-candidate Trump due to his stated intention to establish a positive relationship with
Putin and Russia, thus overturning the basis for the entire post-war paradigm based on the
division of the world into East and West.
Jeff , May 19, 2018 at 11:59 am
Thanx, Andrew. You wrote the comment I was going to write. I do, however, have one nit.
Russia-gate has not made an honest man out of Trump. Nothing could make an honest man out of
Trump. He is nothing but an incompetent con artist whose real skill was getting people to
lend him money after he had blown it all on bad deals and lousy management. I personally
suspect that the connection between Trump and Russia is not with the Russian government but
with the Russian oligarchs who are laundering their ill-gotten gains looting Russian state
enterprises through Trump.
mike k , May 18, 2018 at 10:28 pm
The slimy rats always indulge in phony alibis for their criminal tricks. They should be
investigated and charged with falsely accusing an elected President, in order to unseat him.
Anyone who votes for a "democrat" in the future is just a simple clueless idiot. Trump is a
horrible President, but this does not justify the criminal conspiracy to unseat him through
slander and innuendo lacking any evidence whatever. The appointment of a "special council"
was meant to change the result of the presidential election, and nothing else.
mike k , May 18, 2018 at 10:32 pm
If Trump were to be impeached on the basis of this phony witch hunt, it would be the end
of whatever semblance we have of a democracy forever. The whole affair reminds me of the
criminal removal of the President of Brazil recently.
Al Pinto , May 19, 2018 at 11:01 am
In my view, the purpose of the congress authorized investigation is not to impeach POTUS.
That would provide a precedent that neither the democrats, nor the republican would accept.
Instead, the investigation is intended to discredit the president and by proxy, the
republicans for the upcoming elections.
The results of the investigations, actual and/or
fabricated, will be invaluable campaign material for the democrats. Especially with the help
of the main stream media, it's going to very effective headlines to grab the limited
attention that most people in the US have for politics
Sam F , May 18, 2018 at 10:10 pm
The Russia-gate hysteria worked fine as a distraction from Israel-gate.
All of Hillary's top ten donors were zionists, and Trump appointed Goldman Sachs to run the
economy.
Not that KSA, the MIC, or WallSt et al lost any bribery chances.
Russia-gate also pressured Trump into the zionist camp. Just what Israel ordered.
Of course the US mass media are almost entirely owned by zionists.
Mission accomplished; time to backtrack; we never really said that.
"... Back in 1973 there was a feeling of inevitability as the Watergate investigation progressed, every week more incriminating details that we know now came from inside the FBI. The Mueller probe, on the contrary, seems to be stumbling forward and not really getting anywhere as it goes fishing for info and issues like Stormy's accusations take over the news. ..."
"... Joe -- Russiagate was made up, fashioned out of nothing. If we want to talk about collusion, we need to talk about Uranium One. Now there's where some serious money changed hands, and the Clinton's hands are all over it. ..."
"... I think RussiaGate was invented also. I also think it's pretty obvious that Hillary gets a free get out of jail card when it comes to any FBI investigation over her. I also believe that if Trump were in cahoots with Putin, that Mueller by now would have revealed it, as Democrates would be whooping it up better than a homeless person hitting the super multi-million dollar lotto. ..."
"... The Empire is falling, and the Empire is blaming all it's idiotic decisions on the Russians. Our MSM which was always a subject of debate, has gone off the rails with this 24/7 anti-Trump, anti-Russian, news business. I'm suffering from all this hate aimed at Russia, and I'm believing that our MSM is winning on that front. Like I said, both Hillary and Donald's past practices may need investigated, but when will we Americans start discussing the many other issues of our day, is all I'm asking? ..."
"... No backwardsevolution the Empire is in trouble, and we are watching it make an ass out of itself while it goes down the drain. I'm sorry at this point in time I don't see any good guys, or gals. ..."
It also seems that Yahoo also has the total (if not enthusiastic) support of Putin these
days. Pretty tough to buck Israel and achieve peace in the Middle East when it has the full
support of both the American Zionist oligarchs and the Russian Zionist oligarchs (who harbor
most of their wealth in the West and represent the Atlanticist faction in Russia, in other
words play for team USA) who probably comprise the largest and most influential power
factions in both countries. No wonder AIPAC is the most powerful lobby whose existence is
vehemently denied. If it comes to pass, World War III may essentially be fought because of
perceived grievances by thin-skinned megalomaniacs like Adelson and Browder and their ability
to wrap politicians around their pinkies using their billions in wealth. I think the Russians
especially dislike being played by con-men like Browder, who gets full support from the
bought-off American Congress.
Excellent in the facts and your conclusions. It is difficult to imagine what you have done
in so few words -- summarize so clearly what became a maze of groundless speculation early on
only to end as major byzantine monument to almost nothing but empty accusation, political
invective, widespread loose talk and media posturing/gossiping. You described, in the end, a
failed circus of second-rate illusions.
Mike From Jersey , May 19, 2018 at 10:07 am
The Times used to be a credible source of information. Now, I won't even read Times
article unless it is on an issue in which I am very well versed. I simply don't want to be
propagandized. And when I read an article in a matter in which I am well versed, I am often
outraged at the slants and selective omissions.
Joe Tedesky , May 19, 2018 at 9:22 am
I have come to the conclusion that they are all bad, and that this constant pounding of
Russia interference in our American political establishments is nonsense.
Whether it be Russia-Gate or Uranium One scandals, it always leads back to Russian
collusion, or how Putin is hell bent on subverting American democracy. It's like the word
come down from a Bilderberg high echelon get together where the supreme elite said, 'now you
political puppies go fight amongst yourselves but remember Putin is our target'. After all
Putin's handling of the Rothschild oligarchs is enough to get even the most least powerful
leaders into hot water, let a lone the world's other nuclear super power. So Putin must
go.
So while Palestinians this week died protesting their confinement, N Korea was insulted
away from the negotiating table over a Gaddafi inspired threat, as Europeans looked for
another currency to replace the U.S. Dollar, our American news media gave little time to
those news stories, as it stayed stuck on Russia-Gate, or as FOX is attempting to do with
their trying to launch a Hillary investigation into her poor use of computer servers added to
her selling off uranium stock, we Americans are isolated by what really should matter. Please
keep your eyes on the center ring, for what's around it doesn't matter, is the mantra.
What I'm saying, is that these scandals are in house fights, and that the MSM's
circumventing of any real news, is just another way to dumb us Americans down. Not to say
that investigating political chicanery isn't a priority, but should these investigations be
so overwhelmingly reported over any or all other news? If you answered no to that, then
should we next begin to wonder to what we are not being told, is exactly the very news we
should be talking about?
Back in 1973 there was a feeling of inevitability as the Watergate investigation
progressed, every week more incriminating details that we know now came from inside the FBI.
The Mueller probe, on the contrary, seems to be stumbling forward and not really getting
anywhere as it goes fishing for info and issues like Stormy's accusations take over the news.
It's possible, I suppose, that Mueller will come up with something before November, but
there's no sense of inevitability. How could there be? Sixty three American citizens voted
for Trump. Bad news for the country, bad news for Clinton, bad news for the MSM, bad news for
the Deep State. Ironies abound.
Joe Tedesky , May 19, 2018 at 2:58 pm
The one comparison between 1973 and 2018, is that they have the exact same calendar dates.
In my mind, the only thing WaterGate has in common with Russia-Gate is that the MSM likes to
say that the two scandals are the same. And why not, when you are huckstering the news to
sell insurance and pharmaceutical commercials?
WaterGate was of course a break in, and finding Nixon's involvement was key. Russia-Gate
wasn't a break in, and as Mueller's Investigation is struggling to find Russian collusion,
Mueller gives the impression that he's on to something, when eventually we find out he has
nothing. I mean the WaterGate investigation started out with the knowledge that there was a
break in, but the Russia-Gate investigation began with lots of allegations with no proof to
be found. WaterGate didn't, at least in my opinion, start out as a fishing expedition, but
the Russia-Gate Investigation was not only a fishing expedition in as much as it has been a
deep sea fishing trip at its best.
You pointed out the voter support of Trump phillip but might I reference you to the many
who didn't vote, or at least the bunches of voters who left the presidential pick a blank?
America is broken phillip, every institution and every agency which operates inside of it is
too. In my estimation to make it right we Americans will need to go back to starting from
scratch. Let it begin!
backwardsevolution , May 19, 2018 at 8:05 pm
Joe -- Russiagate was made up, fashioned out of nothing. If we want to talk about
collusion, we need to talk about Uranium One. Now there's where some serious money changed
hands, and the Clinton's hands are all over it.
What is comparable to Watergate, but a hundred times worse, is what is trickling out now
and what the media have gone out of their way to cover up -- the plot by James Comey and
other members of the FBI, John Brennan and others in the CIA, Clapper, the Department of
Justice (Rod Rosenstein, Sally Yates, Loretta Lynch, Hillary Clinton) to overthrow a
duly-elected President.
The Inspector General's report on the FBI and the Department of Justice's role in all of
this is apparently damning. Some of these people may end up in jail.
I think Russiagate was invented because, as Hillary said, "If they find out what we've
done, we'll all hang." She was trading favors with foreign governments in exchange for cash
into the Clinton Foundation. That's why she was using a private server. She didn't want to
use the government servers as they would have a back-up of her files, and when you're intent
on stealing, the last thing you want is a "back-up" of your dirty dealings.
All of this Russiagate insanity has been one great big deflection away from the true
crimes.
It looks like all of them are going to have a date with a Grand Jury.
Joe Tedesky , May 19, 2018 at 9:03 pm
I think RussiaGate was invented also. I also think it's pretty obvious that Hillary gets a
free get out of jail card when it comes to any FBI investigation over her. I also believe
that if Trump were in cahoots with Putin, that Mueller by now would have revealed it, as
Democrates would be whooping it up better than a homeless person hitting the super
multi-million dollar lotto.
The Empire is falling, and the Empire is blaming all it's idiotic decisions on the
Russians. Our MSM which was always a subject of debate, has gone off the rails with this 24/7
anti-Trump, anti-Russian, news business. I'm suffering from all this hate aimed at Russia,
and I'm believing that our MSM is winning on that front. Like I said, both Hillary and
Donald's past practices may need investigated, but when will we Americans start discussing
the many other issues of our day, is all I'm asking?
I'm tired of the constant insinuating that Trump is a Putin puppet, as I'm also
experiencing fatigue over Hillary's being continually left off the hook. Although even more
so, I'm sick of all of them, I'm just venting over our sad state of us citizens being well
informed.
Good to hear from you backwardsevolution. Joe
backwardsevolution , May 19, 2018 at 9:48 pm
Joe Tedesky -- "Like I said, both Hillary and Donald's past practices may need
investigated, but when will we Americans start discussing the many other issues of our day,
is all I'm asking?"
Yes, you are so right, Joe, because those other issues are what the average American
really cares about: the price of health care and housing, and whether they're going to be
able to put food on the table.
Of course, had Donald Trump been colluding with the Russians, that certainly would have
been of importance to the country, but they've been looking under every rock for almost two
years now and haven't found anything. Well, Stormy Daniels did pop up, but, hey, Trump never
professed to be an angel. All they've done is tied him up in knots and prevented him from
dealing with the important issues. They have also left far too many Americans with the
impression that he's a traitor when he's not, and by holding these charges above his head,
they've probably pushed him into doing things that he wouldn't ordinarily have done.
If what I'm hearing about the Inspector General's report is anything close to the truth,
then these people (the Deep State people I mentioned above) tried to overthrow a sitting
President. These people are running a parallel government. That is very dangerous and will
have to be dealt with severely, with criminal charges.
Hey, Joe, on that happy note, you have a good night.
Joe Tedesky , May 19, 2018 at 10:37 pm
I'm suffering from RussiaGate fatigue, like I said. I never bought into the Russian
collusion thing. I'm more bothered by the forever nonsense the MSM has us on, where there is
no closure. I mean you sit and listen to people like Rachel go through their hysterics and
after 20 minutes per monologue she gives you nothing.
The Hillary crimes are frustrating because nothing comes of her getting to meet the hard
justice she deserves. Seriously this evil witch starts a civil war withinside of our
governments bureaucracy, and yet no one hears that much about it the way it's going down. On
the other hand Donald Trump for mostly the bad of it, gets news coverage beyond what any
America politician ever gets, and we're suppose to believe we are operating on normal.
No backwardsevolution the Empire is in trouble, and we are watching it make an ass out of
itself while it goes down the drain. I'm sorry at this point in time I don't see any good
guys, or gals.
I might add Trump's Middle East policies among his other hard nosed geopolitical endeavors
leaves me exhausted trying to figure him out. Hillary should no doubt be in jail, but here we
are still on the down low and nothing seems to be working as it should.
Thanks, I do value your opinion. Joe
backwardsevolution , May 19, 2018 at 11:38 pm
Joe Tedesky -- "I'm sorry at this point in time I don't see any good guys, or gals."
Yes, I agree. One good thing about Trump's presidency is that it has exposed the Deep
State actors. These are the people who run the government, not the President, and it doesn't
matter who is elected. If you don't play along, you're Kennedy'd! That's why so few good
people ever vie for top positions; you get hammered.
Joe, the World Cup is coming and all is well! I'm going to knock off, watch some old
videos, and get myself psyched up. Good talking to you, Joe, as always.
Realist , May 20, 2018 at 4:06 am
Watergate was focussed. Iran-Contra was focussed. Underlings were convicted in both on
charges directly related to the main issues. Nixon resigned and Reagan retired, the Congress
not having the will to impeach him, which would have been politically unpopular.
"Out-of-the-loop" Bushdaddy saved himself from later impeachment by pardoning some key
cabinet members under Reagan (most notably Caspar Weinberger). In contrast, Whitewater
blossomed into a full-blown fishing expedition, as has so-called Russiagate. Ken Starr didn't
just investigate a land deal or management of the White House travel office, but went over
the lives of both Clinton's with a fine tooth comb, eventually precipitating impeachment
charges over a stained blue dress. Now, I suppose, the Clinton's and their Democratic
adherents feel that turnabout is fair play, though it is undoubtedly just as divisive and
destructive to the country as their go round. The woman has obviously been traumatized during
her years in the public arena and in the aftermath of the election, but she does the country
a great disservice by pushing her vendetta.
Joe Tedesky , May 20, 2018 at 9:09 am
The Clinton pass was always going to be a problem, and many people knew that going into
the 2016 Presidential Election Campaign. This didn't stop Hillary though. Why, many here on
this comment board wrote with good reason why the Clintons should remain in retirement, but
oh no Hillary was going to run come hell or high water. Only a sociopath would overlook so
many good reasons of why not to run.
Great perspective Realist. One would think you had a scientific mind . oh wait you do.
Joe
As I'm sure others commenters on this site will note, those guilty of trying to create a
lynch mob and encourage hysteria, will as with Iraq WMD's, emerge unscathed, even more
honored for their service to America. And with and increasing number of Americans, we will
feel more and more that you cant believe anything anymore and that is a disastrous position
to be in for a nation.
mike k , May 19, 2018 at 9:59 am
Herman, it has always been a mistake to rely on belief without careful examination. Plato
said that the unexamined life is not worth living. Discerning the truth is intellectual work
-- something our false educational system does not teach us to do. Those who learn to sort
things out and demand the real truth are mostly self-educated. To wake others up who have
been taught to conform and accept authorities, is a lengthy and often thankless task. The
tenacity with which many hold onto their false beliefs, is a formidable obstacle to creating
a new and better society. I wish I knew a way to accomplish this awakening of our fellows,
but I do not. We are left with the option of shortcuts, which are no better than new forms of
propaganda to compete with those our subjects have already incorporated in their thinking and
character. Following a new leader or movement seems the most one can expect from our
brainwashed brothers and sisters
"... In the case of the fabricated Russia Gate narrative the results of the Trump election and widespread public distrust of the election process was turned into a new cold war with Russia which benefited major defense contractors and resulted in sanctions against Russia and huge windfalls for the Military Industrial Complex as the US ponied up to fund our national defense industry. ..."
"... We should by now be educated that major failures of our economy and political processes precipitated by government deregulation or corrupted elections will be used by the main stream media to create fictional enemies of our nation to turn public anger into a public movement to blame a target of opportunity which will benefit the wealth and power structures which is based on fiction and contrived plots to benefit the very powerful and wealthy organizations such as big banks and the military. ..."
"... The root cause of this is that they (the MSM) own the microphone. They have the ability to lie without rebuttal because they own that single megaphone to tell lies. They have the ability to create fictions and fantasies which go unchallenged because they own the megaphone. ..."
"... From our history: The creation of the Tea Party was a watershed moment where the big banks turned their bailout by the US government into a political movement which was manufactured by the press as a new and never heard about new political party (The Tea Party) into a political movement aimed to grant the big banks and wealthy Americans tax breaks which resulted in a 3.5 trillion bailout we are now on the hook for. ..."
"... How many news corporations supported the lies about WMDs and Iraq's secret stockpiles of Uranium and chemical weapons? The NY Times and the Washington Post were among the most fervent supporters of those lies and they have never acknowledged their errors. ..."
"... So it is with the Trump administration and the media's aim to turn our attention away from the real reasons our election system is corrupted by dark money by creating fake facts to convince us that Russia is a war monger which stole the election and must be countered by more massive military spending and a renewal of the old Cold War. ..."
"... The NY Times got it wrong in Iraq. They got it wrong in Ukraine. They got it wrong in the last election. They got it wrong on savings and loan deregulation under Reagan. They got it wrong on banking deregulation under Clinton. They got it wrong with Russia Gate. They have gotten it wrong so many times that the statement "they got it wrong" is a testament of their ability to fool us all. ..."
"... Yes, I continually read that the government was "in error", they "didn't understand", or "their models were incorrect". Yeah, sure, whatever you say. ..."
"... It's all just one big "Fleece the Sheep" game, except they can't let the sheep know they're being fleeced. Errors and omissions are all part of the game, and the media act to call the sheep to the starting line. ..."
"... Dan if Robert Blum had had his way the CIA would have been privately funded by secret donations. CIA got caught laundering money in the middle to late 60″s and as always CIA makes investigations go away. A recount of the episode can be found in Jane Mayers book Dark Money. The CIA wrote the book on laundering money. Then the ICIJ and the Paradise Papers expose how large the off shore industry is. ..."
"... I was convinced that Russiagate was a complete fabrication after reading the following penned by Caitling Johnstone:" this administration has already killed Russians in Syria, greatly escalated nuclear tensions with Russia, allowed the sale of arms to Ukraine, established a permanent military presence in Syria with the goal of effecting regime change, forced RT and Sputnik to register as foreign agents, expanded NATO with the addition of Montenegro, assigned Russia hawk Kurt Volker as special representative to Ukraine, shut down a Russian consulate in San Francisco and expelled Russian diplomats " ..."
"... Trump is a thug and a money laundering crook, not a machievelian plotter. His total ignorance of world politics is dangerously leading us to armagedden. ..."
The diversion of Russia Gate is a continuation of former diversions such as the Tea Party which
was invented by the banksters to turn public anger over the big banking collapse and the resulting recession into a movement to gain
more deregulation for tax breaks for the wealthy.
In the case of the fabricated Russia Gate narrative the results of the Trump election and widespread public distrust of the election
process was turned into a new cold war with Russia which benefited major defense contractors and resulted in sanctions against Russia
and huge windfalls for the Military Industrial Complex as the US ponied up to fund our national defense industry.
We should by now be educated that major failures of our economy and political processes precipitated by government deregulation
or corrupted elections will be used by the main stream media to create fictional enemies of our nation to turn public anger into
a public movement to blame a target of opportunity which will benefit the wealth and power structures which is based on fiction and
contrived plots to benefit the very powerful and wealthy organizations such as big banks and the military.
Trump won because the media cleaned up big time by playing the Super PACs for suckers just as deregulation of the big banks enabled
them to clean up by merging savings banks with investment banks which moved all the savings banks deposits into risky investments.
There is a clear and present danger born out and evidenced by former economic collapses that the media and the big financial institutions
will create public relations campaigns based on the mantra of deregulation to swindle Americans even further. They have a proven
ability to use their power to persuade Americans that some other reason is responsible for the latest swindle.
The root cause of this is that they (the MSM) own the microphone. They have the ability to lie without rebuttal because they own
that single megaphone to tell lies. They have the ability to create fictions and fantasies which go unchallenged because they own
the megaphone.
From our history: The creation of the Tea Party was a watershed moment where the big banks turned their bailout by the US government
into a political movement which was manufactured by the press as a new and never heard about new political party (The Tea Party)
into a political movement aimed to grant the big banks and wealthy Americans tax breaks which resulted in a 3.5 trillion bailout
we are now on the hook for.
How many media/news organizations signed onto the Tea Party after the implosion of the banking industry and beat the drums to
grant tax breaks for billionaires? All of them.
How many of the media corporations beat the drums to blame Russia for the election results which resulted in sanctions against
Russia and a new Cold War with Russia which resulted in windfall profits for the defense industry? All of them.
How many news corporations supported the lies about WMDs and Iraq's secret stockpiles of Uranium and chemical weapons? The NY
Times and the Washington Post were among the most fervent supporters of those lies and they have never acknowledged their errors.
The facts are clear in all of these major failures of our free press to get it right. In every case the media have conspired to
fool most of the people into believing the lies of the government and the financial sectors published by main stream press as facts
which are giant falsehoods.
The result of this collaboration between the press and the wealth in our nation has been to deceive us and to lead us down paths
that twist our understanding to a new understanding that benefits the wealthy in times of prosperity and in times of crisis.
So it is with the Trump administration and the media's aim to turn our attention away from the real reasons our election system
is corrupted by dark money by creating fake facts to convince us that Russia is a war monger which stole the election and must be
countered by more massive military spending and a renewal of the old Cold War.
The NY Times got it wrong in Iraq. They got it wrong in Ukraine. They got it wrong in the last election. They got it wrong on
savings and loan deregulation under Reagan. They got it wrong on banking deregulation under Clinton. They got it wrong with Russia
Gate. They have gotten it wrong so many times that the statement "they got it wrong" is a testament of their ability to fool us all.
CitizenOne – "'They got it wrong' is a testament of their ability to fool us."
Yes, I continually read that the government was "in error", they "didn't understand", or "their models were incorrect". Yeah,
sure, whatever you say. They can't come out and inform us that they lied from the get-go because that would prove intent to deceive,
so they cover up their tracks by saying they made an "error" whenever things fall apart, as they knew they would.
It's all just one big "Fleece the Sheep" game, except they can't let the sheep know they're being fleeced. Errors and omissions
are all part of the game, and the media act to call the sheep to the starting line.
Dave P. , May 20, 2018 at 11:49 pm
Citizen One – Excellent post. Very informed comments indeed.
Skip Scott , May 21, 2018 at 7:15 am
Citizen One-
Great post. It reminded me of a joke I saw the other day:
"A unionized public employee, a member of the Tea Party, and a CEO are sitting at a table. In the middle of the table there
is a plate with a dozen cookies on it. The CEO reaches across and takes 11 cookies, looks at the Tea Partier and says, "look out
for that union guy, he wants a piece of your cookie."
munchma quchi , May 19, 2018 at 11:51 pm
re: "Without offering a shred of evidence, the FBI, CIA, NSA, and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper issued a
formal assessment on Jan. 6, 2017, that "Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election [in
order] to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential
presidency." The "assessment" contains this disclaimer: " [You (the author) did not include a disclaimer. please remedy this.]
F. G. Sanford , May 20, 2018 at 9:39 am
Ms. Quchi,
I think the disclaimer said that intelligence assessments are based on sources, methods and interpretations and rely on raw data.
It's raw, so it has to be properly marinated until it's fit for consumption. Addenda to the disclaimer indicate that the Intelligence
Community will not accept outrageous conspiracy theories, noting specifically that, "They hate us for our freedom, and those weapons
of mass destruction must be here somewhere." It's the standard "release from liability" which accompanies all official narratives.
Kinda like eating tuna fish: It's pretty good once you get past the smell.
Chet Roman , May 20, 2018 at 11:35 am
Page 13 of the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) of Jan. 6, 2017
explains: "High confidence does not imply that the assessment is a fact or a certainty; such judgments might be wrong. Judgments
are not intended to imply that we have proof that show something to be a fact. Assessments are based on collected information,
which is often incomplete or fragmentary, as well as logic, argumentation, and precedents."
robert e williamson jr , May 19, 2018 at 7:35 pm
Dan I really can not disagree with much you have to say here. Except there are a few things about this whole affair that bug
the hell out of me. For instance the fact that the village idiot from new york spent over $400 million in cash the last 9 years
before he ran for president.
Your effort here sounds quite a lot like whining about having nothing to report. Calm down these things take time. If Russia
isn't to blame fine but Mueller is not talking and seems to be conducting himself very professionally.
Dan if Robert Blum had had his way the CIA would have been privately funded by secret donations. CIA got caught laundering
money in the middle to late 60″s and as always CIA makes investigations go away. A recount of the episode can be found in Jane
Mayers book Dark Money. The CIA wrote the book on laundering money. Then the ICIJ and the Paradise Papers expose how large the
off shore industry is.
Trump like doing business with Russians during a time when Russian oligarchs were hiding the money they pulled from the Soviet
coffers. I think it has gotten him in trouble.
Also interesting is the accounts of what has happen with the Inslaw / PROMIS case and Bill Hamilton. Was this software and
early version of what CIA and NSA use to monitor the world now?
One last thing in your last paragraph here you claim the Dimocraps have gone off the deep end with the Russian Connection thing.
Dan the dimocraps went off the deep end with their undying allegiance to Israel. And they do little damned else.
When this is finished if CIA allows the release of the Dogdamned files maybe we will learn what happened. Chill my brotha !
kntlt , May 20, 2018 at 6:14 pm
Listen to this man.
drC , May 19, 2018 at 7:27 pm
"The press, the intelligence community, and the Democrats" have committed FAR MORE than a mere "crime against journalism".
For kryssakes, this isn't a debating society at Yale! They have provoked international tensions, suspicions and distrust that
have pushed the world far closer to the brink of a third world war, damaging national economies across the globe & negatively
impacting the lives of millions.
jose , May 19, 2018 at 6:30 pm
I was convinced that Russiagate was a complete fabrication after reading the following penned by Caitling Johnstone:" this
administration has already killed Russians in Syria, greatly escalated nuclear tensions with Russia, allowed the sale of arms
to Ukraine, established a permanent military presence in Syria with the goal of effecting regime change, forced RT and Sputnik
to register as foreign agents, expanded NATO with the addition of Montenegro, assigned Russia hawk Kurt Volker as special representative
to Ukraine, shut down a Russian consulate in San Francisco and expelled Russian diplomats "
Since the US national media have been
aware of the lack of solid evidence against Russia allege meddling case, they now want to pretend it has not been their fault.
Their sheer dishonesty underscores their deviant reporting.
ranney , May 19, 2018 at 5:54 pm
Joe, Abe, Andrew, Sam, Mike,
You are all correct in blaming the MSM for ignoring Israel in all this and whitewashing the main cause of our problems in the
middle east. I agree that Russia has not been interfering in our politics any more than virtually all the other countries in the
world who have embassys here and things they want to "lobby" for. I believe spying is universal and the US does it more than most,
but everyone does it including Russia (and UK, France Germany Israel, Ukraine and on and on for everyone on the map).
What I find increasingly strange is the fact that the MSM and just about everyone else is ignoring the fact that Trump did indeed
have business with Russia. He was trying to get permission and financial backing for a Trump tower to be built in Moscow. and
he had been trying for a while before he even thought of running for president. THAT is what his now indicted lawyer was doing
initially, along with others in Trump's employ. That is why there is indeed evidence of contact with Russians during the pre-
campaign and during the campaign as well. Trump didn't want to lose this lucrative deal which, also involves money laundering
and other illegal, and/or shady dealings.
I can't figure out why Muller hasn't subpoenaed or somehow got hold of Trump's tax returns. I'm pretty sure he'd find all the
crimes we need to impeach him.
Trump is a thug and a money laundering crook, not a machievelian plotter. His total ignorance of
world politics is dangerously leading us to armagedden. And I can't help but wonder why Muller is slow walking this whole investigation.
I'm pretty sure he can see what I can see. Trump is a crooked, money launderer, ultra con man with his Trump towers and other
ploys, and too dumb and ignorant of history and science to understand how dangerous the game he plays is to the world when he
has the power of the presidency. But Muller knows that! So what else is really going on that explains why he has moved at snails
pace to stop the damage?
Does anyone have a good guess at that? I'd really like to read it.
Several FBI agents would like Congress to subpoena them so that they can step forward and
reveal dirt on former FBI Director James Comey and his Deputy Andrew McCabe, reports the
Daily Caller , citing three active field agents and former federal prosecutor Joe
DiGenova.
" There are agents all over this country who love the bureau and are sickened by [James]
Comey's behavior and [Andrew] McCabe and [Eric] Holder and [Loretta] Lynch and the thugs like
[John] Brennan –who despise the fact that the bureau was used as a tool of political
intelligence by the Obama administration thugs," former federal prosecutor Joe DiGenova told
The Daily Caller Tuesday.
" They are just waiting for a chance to come forward and testify ."
DiGenova - a veteran D.C. attorney who President Trump initially wanted to hire to represent
him in the Mueller probe - only to have to step aside
due to conflicts , has maintained contact with "rank and file" FBI agents as well as a
counterintelligence consultant who interviewed an active special agent in the FBI's Washington
Field Office (WFO) - producing a transcript reviewed by The Caller .
These agents prefer to be subpoenaed to becoming an official government whistleblower ,
since they fear political and professional backlash, the former Trump administration official
explained to TheDC.
The subpoena is preferred, said diGenova, " because when you are subpoenaed, Congress then
pays for your legal counsel and the subpoena protects [the agent] from any organizational
retaliation . they are on their own as whistleblowers, they get no legal protection and there
will be organizational retaliation against them."
DiGenova and his wife Victoria Toensing have long represented government whistleblowers.
Most recently, Toensing became council for William D. Campbell, the former CIA and FBI
operative that was
deeply embedded in the Russian uranium industry - only to be smeared by the Obama
administration when he gathered evidence of two related bribery schemes involving Russian
nuclear officials, an American trucking company, and efforts to route money to the Clinton
Global Initiative (CGI) through an American lobbying firm in order to overcome regulatory
hurdles, according to reports by The Hill and Circa .
diGenova told the Daily Caller that asking for a Congressional subpoena is "an intelligent
approach to the situation given the vindictive nature of the bureau under Comey and McCabe . I
have no idea how to read Chris Ray who is not a leader and who has disappeared from the public
eye during this entire crisis. You know he may be cleaning house but if he's doing so, he's
doing it very quietly."
"I don't blame them," added diGenova. " I don't blame the agents one bit. I think that the
FBI is in a freefall . James Comey has destroyed the institution he claims to love. And it is
beyond a doubt that it is going to take a decade to restore public confidence because of Comey
and Clapper and Brennan and Obama and Lynch."
Meanwhile, the agent from the Washington field office says that rank and file FBI agents are
"fed up" and desperately want the DOJ to take action, according to transcripts of the
interview.
"Every special agent I have spoken to in the Washington Field Office wants to see McCabe
prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. They feel the same way about Comey," said the
agent.
"The administrations are so politicized that any time a Special Agent comes forward as a
whistleblower, they can expect to be thrown under the bus by leadership . Go against the Muslim
Brotherhood, you're crushed. Go against the Clintons, you're crushed. The FBI has long been
politicized to the detriment of national security and law enforcement."
The special agent added, " Activity that Congress is investigating is being stonewalled by
leadership and rank-and-file FBI employees in the periphery are just doing their jobs . All
Congress needs to do is subpoena involved personnel and they will tell you what they know.
These are honest people. Leadership cannot stop anyone from responding to a subpoena. Those
subpoenaed also get legal counsel provided by the government to represent them."
Meanwhile, the former Trump administration official who spoke with The Caller explained that
the FBI's problems go way beyond Comey and McCabe.
" They know that it wasn't just Comey and McCabe in this case. That's too narrow a net to
cast over these guys. There's a much broader corruption that seeped into the seventh floor at
the bureau ."
" They ruined the credibility of the bureau and the technical ability of the bureau, so
systemically, over the past several years, they're worried about their organizational
reputation and their professional careers."
Was Rosenstein-Comey-Mueller gambit so called "insurance" about which Strzok told Lisa Page ? It looks more and more
likely that it was. So Trump was declared illegitimate president by intelligence community even before he was elected. And
actions against him were actins typically done during color revolutions by the State Department and CIA. Role of FBI
in "regime change" efforts was to implement directives from those agencies. It is doubtful that FBI acted as an independent
player.
Notable quotes:
"... The regulations require that such an appointment recite the facts justifying the conclusion that a federal crime was committed, and specify the crime. However, the initial appointment of Robert Mueller did neither, referring instead to a national security investigation that a special counsel has no authority to pursue. Although Rosenstein apparently tried to correct his mistake in a new appointment memo, he has thus far refused to disclose, even to a federal judge, a complete copy of it. ..."
"Stopping Robert Mueller to protect us all" [Mark Penn (!), The
Hill ]. "Rather than a fair, limited and impartial investigation, the Mueller investigation
became a partisan, open-ended inquisition that, by its precedent, is a threat to all those who
ever want to participate in a national campaign or an administration again. Its prosecutions
have all been principally to pressure witnesses with unrelated charges and threats to family,
or just for a public relations effect, like the indictment of Russian internet trolls.
Unfortunately, just like the Doomsday Machine in 'Dr. Strangelove; that was supposed to save
the world but instead destroys it, the Mueller investigation comes with no 'off' switch: You
can't fire Mueller. He needs to be defeated, like Ken Starr, the independent counsel who
investigated President Clinton. Finding the 'off' switch will not be easy. Step one here is for
the Justice Department inspector general report to knock Comey out of the witness box. Next,
the full origins of the investigation and its lack of any real intelligence needs to come out
in the open." ( Penn was a
chief strategist and pollster for the 2008 Clinton campaign .)
"End Robert Mueller's investigation: Michael Mukasey" [
USA Today ]. "Recall that the investigation was begun to learn whether the Trump campaign
had gotten help unlawfully from Russia . Because Attorney General Jeff Sessions had worked on
the Trump campaign, he recused himself from the matter, and so the deputy -- Rod Rosenstein --
took the decision to appoint a special counsel. The regulations require that such an
appointment recite the facts justifying the conclusion that a federal crime was committed, and
specify the crime. However, the initial appointment of Robert Mueller did neither, referring
instead to a national security investigation that a special counsel has no authority to pursue.
Although Rosenstein apparently tried to correct his mistake in a new appointment memo, he has
thus far refused to disclose, even to a federal judge, a complete copy of it.
In other investigations supposedly implicating a president -- Watergate and Whitewater
come to mind -- we were told what the crime was and what facts justified the investigation. Not
here . Nor have any of the charges filed in the Mueller investigation disclosed the Trump
campaign's criminal acceptance or solicitation of help from the Russians." I missed that detail
about the lettre
de cachet aspect of the appointment memo
"The FBI Informant Who Wasn't Spying" [Editorial Board,
Wall Street Journal ]. "Could a Trump FBI task agents to look into the foreign ties of
advisers to the Bernie Sanders presidential campaign in 2020?"
"Hayden: The Intel Community and Presidents -- Facts vs. Vision" [
RealClearPolitics ]. Hayden on Presidential transitions and the intelligence community:
"HAYDEN : We knew that if it were to be a President Trump this [transition] would be a big
speed bump because these attributes I described over here, I think the creator gave him an
extra measure. He is inherently instinctive, spontaneous, not very reflective, prone to
action, has an almost preternatural view of his own preternatural confidence in his own a
priori narrative of how things work. So we well, this one's gonna be tough. To your point, it
is a national tragedy and a perfect storm that the first time we had to do that with the new
president, we knew it's always tough but it was gonna be especially tough with this one,
through no one's fault, it was on an issue as you described. An issue that other
Americans, not the intel guys, other Americans were using to challenge his legitimacy of
President of the United States ."
The larger problem with Thiessen's "analysis" is that it fails to grasp that North Korea's
government won't accept the "offer" Trump is making because accepting it means giving up the
one thing that does more to guarantee the regime's security than any promise that the U.S.
could ever make. Trump talked about giving Kim "very strong protections" if he agreed to get
rid of the nuclear weapons, but there are no protections that the U.S. could offer that would
be any stronger than the ones he currently possesses. Kim is coming to the summit as the leader
of a nuclear-weapons state conducting talks at the highest level with the global superpower,
and he isn't going to agree to give up that status in exchange for obviously worthless promises
from Donald Trump. The more that the Trump administration and its boosters delude themselves
into thinking that they have North Korea on the defensive, the worse the summit will go for the
U.S. and its allies.
" The more that the Trump administration and its boosters delude themselves into thinking
that they have North Korea on the defensive, the worse the summit will go for the U.S. and
its allies."
This summit can really only go one way. Trump, ever the fool, will swagger in, offer
nothing, bluster, and in the end be handed his hat. I don't think there's anyway to spin this
as anything other than the poop storm that it is. No Nobel is Trump's future. Sad.
"giving up the one thing that does more to guarantee the regime's security than any promise
that the U.S. could ever make"
It could be argued at this point that nuclear proliferation in a world of unipolar
aggression might well be stabilizing not only whichever regimes the US decides to destabilize
on a given day, but also the international order and even peace. Certainly, China's modest
arsenal of minimum means of reprisal and Russia's outsized arsenal matching US folly warhead
for warhead and warhead for interceptor demonstrate that US impunitivism is not even deterred
by that. But Iraq was attacked precisely because Bush and his cronies were certain Saddam had
no effective WMD deterrent – no nukes, everything else a desirable post-hoc
justification.
Trump has the EU "cornered", and only fools will believe that this is to the benefit of
the world, or even the US – unless the EU finally recognizes the magnitude of its
"ally" problem, and their captive populations elect politicians that, for good or ill, will
break with the US.
Trump has zero leverage over Iran and North Korea, not only because he is already
committed to acts of aggression including all-out economical warfare and soon naval blockade,
but also because both nations – and their backers in China and Russia – have long
realized that any possible "appeasement" on their part will have as much impact on US conduct
as EU "consultations" or South Korean "coordination" – now with a US theater commander
as "ambassador". The Moon government has relegated itself to the bleachers as the welfare of
South Korea is at stake because, just like the EU3, it does not dare question the unilateral
"alliance" it has acquiesced to over decades.
We live in the age of a nation unhinged. But Guatemala, Paraguay and Romania are following
from ahead, demonstrating that the US might be acting unilaterally, but not alone, and this
"coalition of the unseemly eager" is, in terms of outcomes, no different from posturing
collaborators in Germany, France and the UK, or the hapless hostages in South Korea.
Surely, Thiessen and Trump have the world outnumbered and surrounded. What could possibly
go wrong, with leaders of such sparkling brilliance in charge?
The most pathetic display here is the establishment biparty published opinion applauding
Trump for pursuing the purest expression of Godfather Diplomacy, turned into farce. America's
sickening fascination with and glorification of organized crime and racketeering aside
– prosperity gospel wins – it is quite obvious that we cannot make "offers they
cannot refuse" by putting a horse's ass on a pillow.
America's sickening fascination with and glorification of organized crime and
racketeering aside – prosperity gospel wins – it is quite obvious that we cannot
make "offers they cannot refuse" by putting a horse's ass on a pillow.
Actually b., that was a horse's head on a pillow in "The Godfather." Were you
thinking of Trump or Bolton when you wrote that?
"... House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes appeared on "Fox & Friends" Tuesday, where he provided a potentially explosive hint at what's driving his demand to see documents related to the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Trump-Russia probe. "If the campaign was somehow set up," he told the hosts, "I think that would be a problem." ..."
"... government "officials" acknowledged that the bureau had used "at least one" human "informant" to spy on both Carter Page and George Papadopoulos. ..."
"... Think of the 2016 Trump-Russia narrative as two parallel strands -- one politics, one law enforcement. The political side involves the actions of Fusion GPS, the Hillary Clinton campaign and Obama officials -- all of whom were focused on destroying Donald Trump. The law-enforcement strand involves the FBI -- and what methods and evidence it used in its Trump investigation. At some point these strands intersected -- and one crucial question is how early that happened. ..."
"... Which brings us to timing. It's long been known that Mr. Steele went to the FBI in early July to talk about the dossier, and that's the first known intersection of the strands. But given the oddity and timing of those U.K. interactions concerning Messrs. Page and Papadopoulos, and given the history of some of the people involved in arranging them, some wonder if the two strands were converging earlier than anyone has admitted. The Intelligence Committee subpoena is designed to sort all this out: Who was pulling the strings, and what was the goal? Information? Or entrapment? ..."
"... Whatever the answer-whether it is straightforward, or whether it involves political chicanery-Congress and the public have a right to know. And a Justice Department willing to leak details of its "top secret" source to friendly media can have no excuse for not sharing with the duly elected members of Congress. ..."
"... Thanks for stopping by, Bob. Before you ask me your questions I need you to answer a few of mine: ..."
"... You have had a full year to investigate the allegations that my campaign colluded with the Russian government to meddle in our election. Has anyone obstructed you from doing this job to the best of your ability? If so, who have you notified of this and what corrective action have you taken or requested be taken? ..."
"... Have you found any evidence that I personally committed any crime involving collusion with the Russians to interfere with the election? ..."
"... Have you found any evidence that any member of my campaign committed any crime involving collusion with the Russians to interfere with the election? ..."
Earlier in the week, with Trump now calling out the debacle as
"possible bigger than Watergate," Strassel tweet-stormed some key points that everyone -
leftist and right - should consider ... (that's wishful thinking)...
1. So a few important points on that new NYT "Hurricane Crossfire" piece. A story that,
BTW, all of us following this knew had to be coming. This is DOJ/FBI leakers' attempt to get
in front of the facts Nunes is forcing out, to make it not sound so bad. Don't buy it. It's
bad.
2. Biggest takeaway: Govt "sources" admit that, indeed, the Obama DOJ and FBI spied on the
Trump campaign. Spied . (Tho NYT kindly calls spy an "informant.") NYT slips in confirmation
far down in story, and makes it out like it isn't a big deal. It is a very big deal.
3. In self-serving desire to get a sympathetic story about its actions, DOJ/FBI leakers
are willing to provide yet more details about that "top secret" source (namely, that spying
was aimed at Page/Papadopoulos) -- making all more likely/certain source will be outed.
That's on them
4. DOJ/FBI (and its leakers) have shredded what little credibility they have in claiming
they cannot comply with subpoena . They are willing to provide details to friendly media, but
not Congress? Willing to risk very source they claim to need to protect?
5. Back in Dec., NYT assured us it was the Papadopoulos-Downer convo that inspired FBI to
launch official counterintelligence operation on July 31, 2016. Which was convenient, since
it diminished the role of the dossier. However . . .
6. Now NYT tells us FBI didn't debrief Downer until August 2nd. And Nunes says no
"official intelligence" from allies was delivered to FBI about that convo prior to July 31.
So how did FBI get Downer details? (Political actors?) And what really did inspire the CI
investigation?
7. As for whether to believe line that FBI operated soberly/carefully/judiciously in 2016,
a main source for this judgment is, um . . .uh . . . Sally Yates. Who was in middle of it
all. A bit like asking Putin to reassure that Russia didn't meddle in our election.
8. On that, if u r wondering who narrated this story, note paragraphs that assure
everybody that hardly anybody in DOJ knew about probe. Oh, and Comey also was given few
details. Nobody knew nothin'! (Cuz when u require whole story saying u behaved, it means u
know you didn't.)
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes appeared on "Fox & Friends" Tuesday,
where he provided a potentially explosive hint at what's driving his demand to see documents
related to the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Trump-Russia probe. "If the campaign was
somehow set up," he told the hosts, "I think that would be a problem."
Or an understatement.
Mr. Nunes is still getting stiff-armed by the Justice Department over his subpoena, but this
week his efforts did force the stunning admission that the FBI had indeed spied on the Trump
campaign. This came in the form of a Thursday New York Times apologia in which government
"officials" acknowledged that the bureau had used "at least one" human "informant" to spy on
both Carter Page and George Papadopoulos. The Times slipped this mind-bending fact into the
middle of an otherwise glowing profile of the noble bureau -- and dismissed it as no big deal.
But there's more to be revealed here, and Mr. Nunes's "set up" comment points in a certain
direction. Getting to the conclusion requires thinking more broadly about events beyond the
FBI's actions.
Think of the 2016 Trump-Russia narrative as two parallel strands -- one politics, one law
enforcement. The political side involves the actions of Fusion GPS, the Hillary Clinton
campaign and Obama officials -- all of whom were focused on destroying Donald Trump. The
law-enforcement strand involves the FBI -- and what methods and evidence it used in its Trump
investigation. At some point these strands intersected -- and one crucial question is how early
that happened.
What may well have kicked off both, however, is a key if overlooked moment detailed in the
House Intelligence Committee's recent Russia report .
In "late spring" of 2016, then-FBI Director James Comey briefed White House "National
Security Council Principals" that the FBI had counterintelligence concerns about the Trump
campaign. Carter Page was announced as a campaign adviser on March 21, and Paul Manafort joined
the campaign March 29. The briefing likely referenced both men, since both had previously been
on the radar of law enforcement. But here's what matters: With this briefing, Mr. Comey
officially notified senior political operators on Team Obama that the bureau had eyes on Donald
Trump and Russia. Imagine what might be done in these partisan times with such explosive
information.
And what do you know? Sometime in April, the law firm Perkins Coie (on behalf the Clinton
campaign) hired Fusion GPS, and Fusion turned its attention to Trump-Russia connections. The
job of any good swamp operator is to gin up a fatal October surprise for the opposition
candidate. And what could be more devastating than to paint a picture of Trump-Russia collusion
that would provoke a full-fledged FBI investigation?
We already know of at least one way Fusion went about that project, with wild success. It
hired former British spy Christopher Steele to compile that infamous dossier. In July, Mr.
Steele wrote a memo that leveled spectacular conspiracy theories against two particular Trump
campaign members -- Messrs. Manafort and Page. For an FBI that already had suspicions about the
duo, those allegations might prove huge -- right? That is, if the FBI were to ever see them.
Though, lucky for Mrs. Clinton, July is when the Fusion team decided it was a matter of urgent
national security for Mr. Steele to play off his credentials and to take this political
opposition research to the FBI.
The question Mr. Nunes's committee seems to be investigating is what other moments -- if any
-- were engineered in the spring, summer or fall of 2016 to cast suspicion on Team Trump. The
conservative press has produced some intriguing stories about a handful of odd invitations and
meetings that were arranged for Messrs. Page and Papadopoulos starting in the spring -- all
emanating from the United Kingdom. On one hand, that country is home to the well-connected Mr.
Steele, which could mean the political actors with whom he was working were involved. On the
other hand, the Justice Department has admitted it was spying on both men, which could mean
government was involved. Or maybe . . . both.
Which brings us to timing. It's long been known that Mr. Steele went to the FBI in early
July to talk about the dossier, and that's the first known intersection of the strands. But
given the oddity and timing of those U.K. interactions concerning Messrs. Page and
Papadopoulos, and given the history of some of the people involved in arranging them, some
wonder if the two strands were converging earlier than anyone has admitted. The Intelligence
Committee subpoena is designed to sort all this out: Who was pulling the strings, and what was
the goal? Information? Or entrapment?
Whatever the answer-whether it is straightforward, or whether it involves political chicanery-Congress and the public
have a right to know. And a Justice Department willing to leak details of its "top secret" source to friendly media can have no
excuse for not sharing with the duly elected members of Congress.
Thanks for stopping by, Bob. Before you ask me your questions I need
you to answer a few of mine:
You have had a full year to investigate the allegations that my
campaign colluded with the Russian government to meddle in our election.
Has anyone obstructed you from doing this job to the best of your
ability? If so, who have you notified of this and what corrective action
have you taken or requested be taken?
Have you found any evidence that I personally committed any crime
involving collusion with the Russians to interfere with the election?
Have you found any evidence that any member of my campaign
committed any crime involving collusion with the Russians to interfere
with the election?
Assuming the answers to all 3 are "No" (which they likely are or such
evidence would have already leaked to CNN via Clapper) or if he refuses to
answer, inform Muller the meeting and his investigation are over. He is
will be escorted to his office to turn over all records gathered in the
investigation to the appropriate DOJ officials, debrief them on his
findings and then is fired and all security clearances revoked.
Let the MSM and Dems bitch and cry all they want. You had a year to
find evidence for your phony allegations with your top investigator on the
job, access to millions of documents and millions of taxpayer dollars.
You failed because there was no crime committed. Time to move on.
Of course this is assuming the Mueller investigation is actually what
it is purported to be which I have serious doubts about. I think it's
more likely Mueller cut an immunity deal for himself when he met with
Trump the day before being appointed as SC and this whole thing was
nothing but a charade to keep Trump's enemies believing Mueller is their
guy. This way they put all their attention and energy into this
investigation only to have it blow up in their faces just before the
midterms when Trump is fully vindicated by the guy all his enemies said
was above reproach. If that happens watch how fast they all turn on
Mueller and every MSM outlet starts running hit pieces on him the next
morning.
The First Rule
bowie28
Permalink
"... On July 27, 2017 the House Judiciary Committee called on the DOJ to appoint a Special Counsel, detailing their concerns in 14 questions pertaining to "actions taken by previously public figures like Attorney General Loretta Lynch, FBI Director James Comey, and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton." ..."
"... On September 26, 2017 , The House Judiciary Committee repeated their call to the DOJ for a special counsel, pointing out that former FBI Director James Comey lied to Congress when he said that he decided not to recommend criminal charges against Hillary Clinton until after she was interviewed, when in fact Comey had drafted her exoneration before said interview. ..."
"... And now, the OIG report can tie all of this together - as it will solidify requests by Congressional committees, while also satisfying a legal requirement for the Department of Justice to impartially appoint a Special Counsel. ..."
"... Who cares how many task forces, special prosecutors, grand juries, commissions, or other crap they throw at this black hole of corruption? We all know the score. The best we can hope for is that the liberals and neo-cons are embarrassed enough to crawl under a rock for awhile, and it slows down implementation of their Orwellian agenda for a few years. ..."
As we reported on
Thursday , a long-awaited report by the Department of Justice's internal watchdog into the Hillary Clinton email investigation
has moved into its final phase, as the DOJ notified multiple subjects mentioned in the document that they can privately review it
by week's end, and will have a "few days" to craft any response to criticism contained within the report, according to the
Wall Street Journal .
Those invited to review the report were told they would have to sign nondisclosure agreements in order to read it , people
familiar with the matter said. They are expected to have a few days to craft a response to any criticism in the report, which
will then be incorporated in the final version to be released in coming weeks . -
WSJ
Now, journalist Paul Sperry reports that " IG Horowitz has found "reasonable grounds" for believing there has been a violation
of federal criminal law in the FBI/DOJ's handling of the Clinton investigation/s and has referred his findings of potential criminal
misconduct to Huber for possible criminal prosecution ."
Who is Huber?
As we
reported
in March , Attorney General Jeff Sessions appointed John Huber - Utah's top federal prosecutor, to be paired with IG Horowitz
to investigate the multitude of accusations of FBI misconduct surrounding the 2016 U.S. presidential election. The announcement came
one day after Inspector General Michael Horowitz confirmed that he will also be investigating allegations of FBI FISA abuse .
While Huber's appointment fell short of the second special counsel demanded by Congressional investigators and concerned citizens
alike, his appointment and subsequent pairing with Horowitz is notable - as many have pointed out that the Inspector General is significantly
limited in his abilities to investigate. Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) noted in March " the IG's office does not have authority to compel
witness interviews, including from past employees, so its investigation will be limited in scope in comparison to a Special Counsel
investigation ,"
Sessions' pairing of Horowitz with Huber keeps the investigation under the DOJ's roof and out of the hands of an independent investigator
.
***
Who is Horowitz?
In January, we profiled Michael Horowitz based on thorough research assembled by independent investigators. For those who think
the upcoming OIG report is just going to be "all part of the show" - take pause; there's a good chance this is an actual happening,
so you may want to read up on the man whose year-long investigation may lead to criminal charges against those involved.
Horowitz was appointed head of the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) in April, 2012 - after the Obama administration hobbled
the OIG's investigative powers in 2011 during the "Fast and Furious" scandal. The changes forced the various Inspectors General for
all government agencies to request information while conducting investigations, as opposed to the authority to demand it. This allowed
Holder (and other agency heads) to bog down OIG requests in bureaucratic red tape, and in some cases, deny them outright.
What did Horowitz do? As one twitter commentators puts it,
he went to war ...
In March of 2015, Horowitz's office
prepared
a report for Congress titled Open and Unimplemented IG Recommendations . It laid the Obama Admin bare before Congress - illustrating
among other things how the administration was wasting tens-of-billions of dollars by ignoring the recommendations made by the OIG.
After several attempts by congress to restore the OIG's investigative powers, Rep. Jason Chaffetz successfully introduced H.R.6450
- the Inspector General Empowerment Act of 2016 - signed by a defeated lame duck President Obama into law on
December 16th, 2016 , cementing an alliance between Horrowitz and both houses of Congress .
1) Due to the Inspector General Empowerment Act of 2016, the OIG has access to all of the information that the target agency
possesses. This not only includes their internal documentation and data, but also that which the agency externally collected and
documented.
See here for a complete overview of the
OIG's new and restored powers. And while the public won't get to see classified details of the OIG report, Mr. Horowitz is also big
on public disclosure:
Horowitz's efforts to roll back Eric Holder's restrictions on the OIG sealed the working relationship between Congress and the
Inspector General's ofice, and they most certainly appear to be on the same page. Moreover, FBI Director Christopher Wray seems to
be on the same page
Which brings us back to the OIG report
expected by Congress a week from Monday.
On January 12 of last year, Inspector Horowitz announced an OIG investigation based on " requests from numerous Chairmen and Ranking
Members of Congressional oversight committees, various organizations (such as Judicial Watch?), and members of the public ."
The initial focus ranged from the FBI's handling of the Clinton email investigation, to whether or not Deputy FBI Director Andrew
McCabe should have been recused from the investigation (ostensibly over
$700,000 his wife's campaign took from Clinton crony Terry McAuliffe around the time of the email investigation), to potential
collusion with the Clinton campaign and the timing of various FOIA releases. Which brings us back to the
OIG report expected by Congress a week from
Monday.
On July 27, 2017 the House Judiciary Committee called on the DOJ to appoint a Special Counsel, detailing their concerns in
14 questions pertaining to "actions taken by previously public figures like Attorney General Loretta Lynch, FBI Director James Comey,
and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton."
The questions range from Loretta Lynch directing Mr. Comey to mislead the American people on the nature of the Clinton investigation,
Secretary Clinton's mishandling of classified information and the (mis)handling of her email investigation by the FBI, the DOJ's
failure to empanel a grand jury to investigate Clinton, and questions about the Clinton Foundation, Uranium One, and whether the
FBI relied on the "Trump-Russia" dossier created by Fusion GPS.
On September 26, 2017 , The House Judiciary Committee repeated their call to the DOJ for a special counsel, pointing out that
former FBI Director James Comey lied to Congress when he said that he decided not to recommend criminal charges against Hillary Clinton
until after she was interviewed, when in fact Comey had drafted her exoneration before said interview.
And now, the OIG report can tie all of this together - as it will solidify requests by Congressional committees, while also
satisfying a legal requirement for the Department of Justice to impartially appoint a Special Counsel.
As illustrated below by TrumpSoldier , the report will go from the Office of the Inspector General to both investigative committees
of Congress, along with Attorney General Jeff Sessions, and is expected within weeks .
Once congress has reviewed the OIG report, the House and Senate Judiciary Committees will use it to supplement their investigations
, which will result in hearings with the end goal of requesting or demanding a Special Counsel investigation. The DOJ can appoint
a Special Counsel at any point, or wait for Congress to demand one. If a request for a Special Counsel is ignored, Congress can pass
legislation to force an the appointment.
And while the DOJ could act on the OIG report and investigate / prosecute themselves without a Special Counsel, it is highly unlikely
that Congress would stand for that given the subjects of the investigation.
After the report's completion, the DOJ will weigh in on it. Their comments are key. As TrumpSoldier points out in his analysis,
the DOJ can take various actions regarding " Policy, personnel, procedures, and re-opening of investigations. In short, just about
everything (Immunity agreements can also be rescinded). "
Meanwhile, recent events appear to correspond with bullet points in both the original OIG investigation letter and the 7/27/2017
letter forwarded to the Inspector General:
... ... ...
With the wheels set in motion last week seemingly align with Congressional requests and the OIG mandate, and the upcoming OIG
report likely to serve as a foundational opinion, the DOJ will finally be empowered to move forward with an impartially appointed
Special Counsel.
"To save his presidency, Trump must expose a host of criminally cunning Deep State political operatives as enemies to the Constitution,
including John Brennan, Eric Holder, Loretta Lynch, James Comey and Robert Mueller - as well as Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton."
Killing the Deep State , Dr Jerome Corsi, PhD., p xi
I've been more than upfront about my philosophy. I have said on more than one occasion that progs will rue the day they drove
a New Yorker like Trump even further to the right.
Now you see it in his actions from the judiciary to bureaucracy destruction to (pick any) and...as I often cite... some old
dead white guy once said ..."First they came for the ___ and I did not speak out. Then they came for..."
Now I advocate for progs to swim in their own deadly juices, without a moment's hesitation on my part, without any furtive
look back, without remorse or any compassion whatsover.
Forward! ...I think is what they said, welcome to the Death Star ;-)
There have been (and are) plenty on "our side"...Boehner, Cantor, McCain, Romney and the thinly disguised "social democrat"
Bill Kristol just to name several off the top of my head but the thing is, they always have to hide what they really are from
us until rooted out.
That's what I try to point out to "our friends" on the left all the time, for example, there was never any doubt that Chris
Dodd, Bwaney Fwank and Chuck Schumer were (and are) in Wall Streets back pocket. But for any prog to openly admit that is to sign
some sort of personal death warrant, to be ostracized, blacklisted and harassed out of "the liberal community" so, they bite their
tongue & say nothing...knowing what the truth really is.
Hell, they even named a "financial reform bill" after Dodd & Frank...LMAO!!!
It's just the dripping hypocrisy that gets me.
For another example, they knew what was going on with Weinstein, Lauer, Spacey, Rose etal but as long as the cash flowed and
they towed-the-prog-BS-line outwardly, they gladly looked the other way and in the end...The Oprah...gives a speech in front of
them (as they bark & clap like trained seals) about...Jim Crow?
Jim Crow?!...lol...one has nothing to do with the other Oprah! The perps & enablers are sitting right there in front of you!
"After the report's completion, the DOJ will weigh in on it. Their comments are key. As TrumpSoldier points out in his analysis,
the DOJ can take various actions regarding " Policy, personnel, procedures, and re-opening of investigations. In short, just about
everything (Immunity agreements can also be rescinded). "
Rescind Immunity, absolutely damn right, put them ALL under oath and on the stand! This is huge! Indeed this goes all the way
to the top, would like to see Obama and the 'career criminal' testify under oath explaining how their tribe conspired to frame
Trump and the American people.
Hell, put them on trial in a military court for Treason, what's the punishment for Treason these days???
Also would like to see Kerry get fried under the 'Logan Act'!
As are half of their fellow travelers in the GOP. Neocon liars. Talk small constitutional govt then vote for war. Those two
are direct opposites, war and small govt. The liars must be exposed and removed. The Never Trumpers have outed themselves but
many are hiding in plain sight proclaiming they support the President. It appears they have manipulated Trump into an aggressive
stance against Russia with their anti Russia hysteria. Time will tell. The bank and armament industries must be removed from any
kind of influence within our govt. Most of these are run by big govt collectivists aka communists/globalists.
Who cares how many task forces, special prosecutors, grand juries, commissions, or other crap they throw at this black
hole of corruption? We all know the score. The best we can hope for is that the liberals and neo-cons are embarrassed enough to
crawl under a rock for awhile, and it slows down implementation of their Orwellian agenda for a few years.
"... In my opinion the key points are: - Obama spied on Trump and many other Senator's Congressmen, Judges, and the press without warrants they only did Trump warrants well after they started spying. ..."
"... This was to cover their a$$ because they had no warrants when the spying started. ..."
"... Obama spied using our allies (GCHQ) 5 eyes etc. and DOJ, IRS, FBI, CIA, Treasury and all the Alphabet Obamagate will be 10,000 x worse than Watergate, ..."
"... They're covering up an attempted coup. ..."
"... essions (via his absurd recusal) and Rosenstein allowed the Statute of Limitations to run out against Clapper without filing a perjury charge. ..."
"... It's a bit ironic that Comey has been the focus of so much ire from the Trump people. Brennan and Clapper, not Comey, were the Obama political hacks who were pushing the Russian collusion angle. ..."
"... They forced the FBI to open a Trump/Russia investigation, even though Strzok and Comey were skeptical that any real evidence existed. ..."
"... It's hard to believe that Clapper and Brennan (and Lynch, Yates, and Ohr from DoJ) cooked-up the scheme without the approval/direction of Obama. In fact, the sheer political evil genius of the Trump/Russia collusion plot, including how it "explained" the DNC hack, reeks of the only person capable of inventing it: that 'ol silver fox himself, Bill Clinton. ..."
"... I think it is Comey's sanctimonious self-righteousness that brings that reaction. It always does. No matter who the parties are or what event it is. Even though their crimes are greater, it is easier to tolerate the obviously slimy swamp critters like Clapper and Brennan than it is the pious hypocrite like Comey. ..."
"... The DNC was caught in the act of rigging the Primaries. Fact. ..."
"... And someone inside hacked their computers for all those emails, too. That's why they didn't turn over their computers to the F.B.I. because it would bear that out. ..."
"... Brennan and Clapper may have been the puppetmasters, with Comey, McCabe, Stzrok, Page, Ohr and Yates dancing to their tune, but Rogers didn't play nice and they didn't even invite the Defense Intelligence Agency to play. ..."
"... Rogers is a white hat in a sea of black hats who tried to fire him for being a patriot. Rogers is a true American hero, without whom the extent of this coup and treasonous plot may never have been fully uncovered. The big ugly awaits the traitors and hopefully, the great awakening begins. ..."
"... I believe the name you're looking for is "Seth Rich." ..."
"... Aside from the obvious crimes of espionage and certainly extortion and fraud, why was Imran Awan trying to flee the country just after Seth Rich's assassination? Was Rich spilling the beans about Debbie Schultz's Pakistani mole and not just the Hillary scam? ..."
"... Brennan and Clapper are dirty as can be. They are both corrupt deep state agents, and should go to prison for their lies and corruption. Adm. Rogers looks like the only straight-shooter in the bunch. ..."
"... There are 2 sets of Laws in America. One for the elite, power political people and one for the Joe Sixpacks ..."
"... Former FBI Director James Comey has a long history of involvement in Department of Justice actions that arguably ended up favorable to the Clintons. ..."
"... FBI has had its ups and downs, certainly, but usually it found those low times due to some mishap or bad policy decisions based on matters of process by its upper management. But despite some of the worst 1970s conspiracy theories, rarely has the FBI been considered a bald-faced political actor until Director James Comey tarnished the shield by becoming a member of the Hillary Clinton's election campaign. ..."
"... If these yokels better knew history, they would better understand the dangers of fomenting revolution. ..."
Former CIA Director John Brennan's insistence that the salacious and unverified Steele
dossier was not part of the official Intelligence Community Assessment on Russian interference in the 2016 election is being
contradicted by two top former officials.
Recently retired National Security Agency Director Michael Rogers stated in a classified letter to Congress that the Clinton campaign-funded
memos did factor into the ICA . And James Clapper,
Director of National Intelligence under President Obama, conceded in a recent CNN interview that the assessment was based on "some
of the substantive content of the dossier." Without elaborating, he maintained that "we were able to corroborate" certain allegations.
In a March 5, 2018, letter to House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, Adm. Rogers informed the committee that a two-page
summary of the dossier -- described as "the Christopher Steele information" -- was "added" as an "appendix to the ICA draft," and
that consideration of that appendix was "part of the overall ICA review/approval process."
His skepticism of the dossier may explain why the NSA parted company with other intelligence agencies and cast doubt on one of
its crucial conclusions: that Vladimir Putin personally ordered a cyberattack on Hillary Clinton's campaign to help Donald Trump
win the White House.
Rogers
has testified that while he was sure the Russians wanted to hurt Clinton, he wasn't as confident as CIA and FBI officials that
their actions were designed to help Trump, explaining that such as assessment "didn't have the same level of sourcing and the same
level of multiple sources."
Here and in photo at top, from left, the National Security Agency Director, Adm. Michael Rogers; FBI Director James Comey; Director
of National Intelligence James Clapper; CIA Director John Brennan; and the Defense Intelligence Agency Director, Lt. Gen. Vincent
Stewart, testifying before the
The dossier, which is made up of 16 opposition research-style memos on Trump underwritten by the Democratic National Committee
and Clinton's own campaign, is based mostly on uncorroborated third-hand sources. Still, the ICA has been viewed by much of the Washington
establishment as the unimpeachable consensus of the U.S. intelligence community. Its conclusions that "Vladimir Putin ordered" the
hacking and leaking of Clinton campaign emails "to help Trump's chances of victory" have driven the "Russia collusion" narrative
and subsequent investigations besieging the Trump presidency.
Except that the ICA did not reflect the consensus of the intelligence community. Clapper broke with tradition and decided not
to put the assessment out to all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies for review. Instead, he limited input to a couple dozen chosen analysts
from just three agencies -- the CIA, NSA and FBI. Agencies with relevant expertise on Russia, such as the Department of Homeland
Security, Defense Intelligence Agency and the State Department's intelligence bureau, were excluded from the process.
While faulting Clapper for not following intelligence community tradecraft standards that
Clapper himself ordered
in 2015, the House Intelligence Committee's
250-page report
also found that the ICA did not properly describe the "quality and credibility of underlying sources" and was not "independent of
political considerations."
In another departure from custom, the report is missing any dissenting views or an annex with evaluations of the conclusions from
outside reviewers. "Traditionally, controversial intelligence community assessments like this include dissenting views and the views
of an outside review group," said Fred Fleitz, who worked as a CIA analyst for 19 years and helped draft national intelligence estimates
at Langley. "It also should have been thoroughly vetted with all relevant IC agencies," he added. "Why were DHS and DIA excluded?"
Fleitz suggests that the Obama administration limited the number of players involved in the analysis to skew the results. He believes
the process was "manipulated" to reach a "predetermined political conclusion" that the incoming Republican president was compromised
by the Russians.
"I've never viewed the ICA as credible," the CIA veteran added.
A source close to the House investigation said Brennan himself selected the CIA and FBI analysts who worked on the ICA, and that
they included former FBI counterespionage chief Peter Strzok.
"Strzok was the intermediary between Brennan and [former FBI Director James] Comey, and he was one of the authors of the ICA,"
according to the source.
Last year, Strzok was reassigned to another department and removed from Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation after anti-Trump
and pro-Clinton text messages he wrote to another investigator during the 2016 campaign were discovered by the Justice Department's
inspector general. Strzok remains under IG investigation, along with other senior FBI officials, for possible misconduct.
Strzok led the FBI's investigation of Trump campaign ties to Russia during 2016, including obtaining electronic surveillance warrants
on Carter Page and other campaign advisers. The Page warrant relied heavily on unverified allegations contained in the Democratic
Party-funded dossier.
Brennan has sworn the dossier was not "in any way" used as a basis for the ICA. He explains he heard snippets of the dossier from
the press in the summer of 2016, but insists he did not see it or read it for himself until late 2016. "Brennan's claims are impossible
to believe," Fleitz asserted.
"Brennan was pushing the Trump collusion line in mid-2016 and claimed to start the FBI collusion investigation in August 2016,"
he said. "It's impossible to believe Brennan was pushing for this investigation without having read the dossier."
He also pointed out that the key findings of the ICA match the central allegations in the dossier. The House Intelligence Committee
concluded that Brennan, who previously worked in the White House as Obama's deputy national security adviser, created a "fusion cell"
on Russian election interference made up of analysts from the CIA, FBI and NSA, who produced a series of related papers for the White
House during the 2016 campaign.
Less than a month after Trump won the election, Obama directed Brennan to conduct a review of all intelligence relating to Russian
involvement in the 2016 election and produce a single, comprehensive assessment. Obama was briefed on the findings, along with President-elect
Trump, in early January.
"Brennan put some of the dossier material into the PDB [presidential daily briefing] for Obama and described it as coming from
a 'credible source,' which is how they viewed Steele," said the source familiar with the House investigation. "But they never corroborated
his sources."
Attempts to reach Brennan for comment were unsuccessful. Several prominent Washington news outlets had access to the dossier during
the 2016 campaign -- or at least portions of it -- but also could not confirm Steele's allegations. So they shied away from covering
them. All that changed in early January 2017, after CNN and The Washington Post learned through Obama administration leaks that the
CIA had briefed the president and president-elect about them. Then the allegations became a media feeding frenzy. On Jan. 11, 2017,
within days of the dossier briefings and release of the declassified ICA report, BuzzFeed published virtually all of the dossier
memos on its website.
The House committee found "significant leaks" of classified information around the time of the ICA -- and "many of these leaks
were likely from senior officials within the IC." Its recently released report points to Clapper as the main source of leaks about
the presidential briefings involving the dossier. It also suggests that during his July 17, 2017, testimony behind closed doors in
executive session, he misled House investigators.
When first asked about leaks related to the ICA in July 2017, Clapper flatly denied "discuss[ing] the dossier or any other intelligence
related to Russia hacking of the 2016 election with journalists." But he subsequently acknowledged discussing the "dossier with CNN
journalist Jake Tapper," and admitted he might have spoken with other journalists about the same issue.
On Jan. 10, 2017, CNN published an
article by Tapper
and others about the dossier briefings sourced to "multiple U.S. officials with direct knowledge of the briefings." Tapper shared
a byline with lead writer Evan Perez, a close friend of the founders of Fusion GPS, which hired Steele as a subcontractor on the
dossier project.
The next day, Clapper expressed his "profound dismay at the leaks that have been appearing in the press," while stressing that
"I do not believe the leaks came from within the IC." A month after his misleading testimony to House investigators, Clapper joined
CNN as a "national security analyst."
Attempts to reach Clapper for comment were unsuccessful.
Tom JonesLeader 3d
My, My, My.....what a tangled web they weave. Interesting that both Rogers and Clapper indicated the dossier was part of the assessment
and Brennan does not. All while Obama was assuring the public that in no way could Russia impact our elections. With the recent
allegations of a plant in the Trump campaign organization and the continued reluctance of the DOJ to release documents, it's becoming
more evident by the day of significant irregularities that took place. Certainly, one would hope that only under the most severe
probabilities would a President allow his intelligence agencies to spy on an opponents campaign....but it's looking more and more
like it was an intended political operation rather than a national security issue. And if so, it's a direct threat to our democracy
and should be addressed with the full power and legal impact of our judicial system. If it was political, EVERYONE involved should
be prosecuted to the fullest extend of the law and they should spend significant time behind bars.
magic_worker 1d
In my opinion the key points are: - Obama spied on Trump and many other Senator's Congressmen, Judges, and the press without
warrants they only did Trump warrants well after they started spying.
This was to cover their a$$ because they had no warrants when the spying started. Did it start the second a billionaire
stepped on the escalator or before? - Obama spied using our allies (GCHQ) 5 eyes etc. and DOJ, IRS, FBI, CIA, Treasury and
all the Alphabet Obamagate will be 10,000 x worse than Watergate, Don't fall for the golly gee Obama knew nothing Schultz
defense. - Awan's were hired by Obama to run the DNC server, you really don't think Debbie hired them do you? ... See more
Rosa1984 Leader 3d
They're covering up an attempted coup. What we've witnessed the past 15 months is HORRIFIC, Deeply Disturbing, and a
Threat to the U.S. We CANNOT allow Democrats and Deep State to get away with this.
NoBS NoSpam Influencer 3d Edited
Did you know the President was in Nevada and Las Vegas during the Mandalay Assassination? Err, I mean the mass shooting by an
FBI informant, of course. We assume Trump is free to govern. Why? If the Deep State owns the FBI, CIA, NSA and the most powerful
weapon on Earth, the IRS. Martial Law of all Security clearance holders who are still alive "off" the books or not. Operative
word is "Ex" spooks and their active psychopath cousins in the Military Industrial Complex.
Peps Leader 3d
All of which means precisely nothing, because Sessions (via his absurd recusal) and Rosenstein allowed the Statute of Limitations
to run out against Clapper without filing a perjury charge. So, once again, if you are a high-ranking DC insider, you can
commit a felony for which any average citizen would be arrested, prosecuted and jailed, and do so with absolute, arrogant impunity,
regardless of which party is technically in charge of the Department of Justice.
KathyMcP 3d
What is the limitation period for a perjury charge???
carolinaswampfox Leader 3d
What is the limitations period for sedition, treason, conspiring to interfere with a presidential election, conspiring to overturn
the results of an American presidential election, obstruction of justice, illegal abuse of the FISA process, perjury in sworn
testimony and in the FISA process, etc.
Sam Hyde Leader 3d Edited
Mr. Clapper, did you leak any information on the briefings that took place with the President and President-elect? Clapper: Not
wittingly. How many times has this guy committed perjury and gotten away with it? lol
Carolinatarheel Leader 3d
Obama lowered the bar substantially for ethical standards and telling the truth! Our FBI is corrupt and dangerous! Mueller and
Comey are dirty cops! ...
chris_zzz Leader 3d
It's a bit ironic that Comey has been the focus of so much ire from the Trump people. Brennan and Clapper, not Comey, were
the Obama political hacks who were pushing the Russian collusion angle.
They forced the FBI to open a Trump/Russia investigation, even though Strzok and Comey were skeptical that any real evidence
existed. Congressional investigators as well as the relevant IGs need to look at whether Obama himself, as well as the White
House staff, engineered the Trump/Russia collusion hocus-pocus. It's hard to believe that Clapper and Brennan (and Lynch,
Yates, and Ohr from DoJ) cooked-up the scheme without the approval/direction of Obama. In fact, the sheer political evil genius
of the Trump/Russia collusion plot, including how it "explained" the DNC hack, reeks of the only person capable of inventing it:
that 'ol silver fox himself, Bill Clinton.
Greg Bed 2d
I think it is Comey's sanctimonious self-righteousness that brings that reaction. It always does. No matter who the parties
are or what event it is. Even though their crimes are greater, it is easier to tolerate the obviously slimy swamp critters like
Clapper and Brennan than it is the pious hypocrite like Comey.
GameTime68 Leader 3d
How much more of this are we going to have to read about before someone with authority begins investigating this entire sordid
mess? Until someone is indicated and charged with something, there is no incentive for the truth - just more media stories about
conflicting congressional testimony, colleague disagreements on the veracity of statements, and so forth. Those of us who sat
through Watergate were not naive enough to think it was a one-off. What is Sessions doing? Where is the special investigator for
Dossiergate?
NoBS NoSpam Influencer 3d
The DNC was caught in the act of rigging the Primaries. Fact. Do we really think they stopped at only the level of the
DNC Primaries? I wish to be that naive so my love for America was still alive and not dead like Seth Rich. The low lives could
not even cheat well, but not from lack of trying.
GameTime68 Leader span 3d
And someone inside hacked their computers for all those emails, too. That's why they didn't turn over their computers to the
F.B.I. because it would bear that out.
Old Paratrooper Contributor 3d
Brennan and Clapper may have been the puppetmasters, with Comey, McCabe, Stzrok, Page, Ohr and Yates dancing to their tune,
but Rogers didn't play nice and they didn't even invite the Defense Intelligence Agency to play. But I suspect the conspiracy
went to the White House. Didn't Page say that the President "wanted to know everything we do"? And I suspect that Susan Rice,
Valarie Jarrett and Ben Rhodes left fingerprints all over this crime.
chris_zzz Leader span oper 3d
The NSA director at the time, Adm. Rogers, reportedly visited Trump (without Clapper's authorization) during the transition to
inform Trump about the FBI's surveillance of his operation. The next day Trump tweeted that Obama was wiretapping Trump Tower.
carolinaswampfox Leader 3d
Rogers is a white hat in a sea of black hats who tried to fire him for being a patriot. Rogers is a true American hero, without
whom the extent of this coup and treasonous plot may never have been fully uncovered. The big ugly awaits the traitors and hopefully,
the great awakening begins.
carolinaswampfox Leader span oper 3d
--and BHO communicated with Hillary at her private email address. The computers were smashed and bleach bit and Comey and company
obstructed justice in whitewashing the Clinton investigation because all roads lead to BHO.
Right-Here; Right Now ! Influencer 3d
The cogent fact is that none of that matters since the entire premise is that the Russians hacked the emails.....the ENTIRE Russia
collusion theory collapses without the hacking of emails. And of course the Russians did not hack the DNC emails (time stamps
on the meta data PROVE that they were copied at speeds too fast for any internet hack) ....they were downloaded on site on to
a portable storage devise. We Know that the DNC denied law enforcement access to its server, (why would any "victim," of a crime
refuse to cooperate with investigators?) Even more remarkable, experts determined that the files released by Guccifer 2.0 have
been "run, via ordinary cut and paste, through a template that effectively immersed them in what could plausibly be cast as Russian
fingerprints." Brennan Clapper and Comey ALL testified to congress that the CIA...and many others.. had this capability to leave
"fingerprints" of whomever they wished to implicate. Moreover, for what it is worth, Julian Assange has repeatedly denied that
Russia "or any state actor" was the source of the stolen DNC data published by WikiLeaks...but rather a staffer who passed a portable
drive on the Mall in DC I think its safe to assume that the downloading was done by Imran Awan who we KNOW had access and we KNOW
downloaded material and we KNOW used unauthorized methods to access unauthorized areas of Congressional servers and TOTAL ...
See more
James Fitzpatrick Influencer span Right Now ! 3d Edited
I believe the name you're looking for is "Seth Rich." This is a case that requires a bull dog, not Droopy Dog. It's got
murder, blackmail, extortion, Deep State conspiracy, high treason, low-level corruption, perverted sex cults... c'mon! Why are
we still hearing about how a Senator met a Russian Ambassador at a meet-and-greet?! This is real drama!
NoBS NoSpam Influencer span atrick 3d
They are mocking Seth Rich as the Russian Hacker. They keep dragging this kids hard work through the mud!
JayTeigh Leader span Right Now ! 3d
I think you're right about Awan being the hacker. I now wonder if the somehow sold the emails to someone who sent them to Assange.
James Fitzpatrick Influencer 3d
Here are some things that need investigation:
Aside from the obvious crimes of espionage and certainly extortion and fraud, why was Imran Awan trying to flee the
country just after Seth Rich's assassination? Was Rich spilling the beans about Debbie Schultz's Pakistani mole and not just
the Hillary scam?
Russia expert Nellie Ohr was hired by FusionGPS during the launch of the Steele scam. But she was CIA. Was Fusion itself
a rogue CIA shell org? And nobody seems to get the connection to the CIA OpenSource hackers' toolbox that was leaked into the
wild, just as the "resist" people were expressing concern that THEY would lose access to these spying malware products and
could no longer spy on Trump. And who worked for the OpenSource project? Why, Nellie Ohr, of course. Funny.
pmidas span atrick 3d
Didn't Nellie state in some format that "i am going to be purchasing short-wave radios for our communications going forward"....?
James Fitzpatrick Influencer 3d
Yes. One of many attempts to dodge a trail for investigators, oversight and FOIA.
BorisBadinov Leader 3d
Brennan and Clapper are dirty as can be. They are both corrupt deep state agents, and should go to prison for their lies and
corruption. Adm. Rogers looks like the only straight-shooter in the bunch.
NoBS NoSpam Influencer span v 3d
General Flynn was the main crusader for our children's dignity. The son of a b*censured*ich is still fighting for them!
Grandmother of 7 Contributor 3d
May Brennan and all his cohorts, including Obama, rot from the inside out because I doubt anything we could punish them with would
be enough. They did more damage to the Republic than Osama bin Laden and his ilk ever could.
Mcgovern72 Leader 3d
The Clap-Man and Jimmy the B continue to be the best sources of intrigue on the whole collusion confusion, huh? Their legacy tarnished
by all the lies, they now get to spew it on 'fake news', further tarnishing the credibility of 'faux news'. Brilliant!!
Sam Hyde Leader span 3d Edited
DNI Clapper doing what DNI Clapper does best. I can see him rubbing his greasy egg head right now for not having his story straight.
dadling 3d
There are 2 sets of Laws in America. One for the elite, power political people and one for the Joe Sixpacks.....there
is NO Law in America...the people are still asleep and have yet to be roused. However, when they do wake up, pitchforks, tar &
feathers will be the order of the day for these criminals.
dawg1234 3d
Ouch! Quite a scathing article from Real Clear! Impressive! Brennan? Brennan? Calling Mister, John, Brennan! LOL, this is getting
fun!
cjones1 Leader 3d
The plot thickens!
leestauf4 Leader 2d
The democrats accuse Trump of colluding with the Russians to get elected, have ZERO proof of it after two years of trying to invent
it, and yet it is a proven fact that Hillary and the DNC, through the middlemen Fusion GPS and Steele, COLLUDED with and paid
high level Russian officials millions of dollars to produce the "salacious and completely unverified dossier" (Comey's words),
in an attempt to throw our election like they did in their own primary, and to then try to impeach a constitutionally elected
president with the same Russian supplied lies when that failed! So where was the actual collusion with the enemy? And why is Mueller
completely ignoring those facts?
jrc_mrc 2d
Former FBI Director James Comey has a long history of involvement in Department of Justice actions that arguably ended up
favorable to the Clintons. In 2001, following the original 9/11 mass murder by the Muslim jihadists, President Bush asked
the FBI to track the movements of likely Muslim jihadists; Comey and Mueller refused that request on the basis that such tracking
would be "un-American". The jihadist mass murders of Americans in Boston, Chattanooga, Orlando, Fort Hood, and San Bernardino
are therefore the direct result of that irresponsible refusal. In 2004 Comey, then serving as a deputy attorney general in the
Justice Department, apparently limited the scope of the criminal investigation of Sandy Berger, which left out former Clinton
administration officials who may have coordinated with Berger in his removal and destruction of classified records from the National
Archives. The documents were relevant to the accusations that the Clinton administration was negligent in the build-up to the
9/11 terrorist attack. Back a year or two ago, FBI director Comey announced that despite the evidence of "extreme negligence"
by Hillary Clinton and her top aides regarding the handling of classified information through her unprotected private email server,
the FBI would not refer criminal charges to Attorney General Loretta Lynch and the Justice Department since it was just a case
of innocent negligence.
jrc_mrc 2d
FBI has had its ups and downs, certainly, but usually it found those low times due to some mishap or bad policy decisions
based on matters of process by its upper management. But despite some of the worst 1970s conspiracy theories, rarely has the FBI
been considered a bald-faced political actor until Director James Comey tarnished the shield by becoming a member of the Hillary
Clinton's election campaign.
The FBI is no longer a legitimate or competent law enforcement agency. The FBI has become nothing more than a bunch of goons
for the DNC and the Democrat Party. The FBI should now be considered a domestic corrupt terrorist organization. Due to the FBI's
corruption and political affiliation with the Democrat Party, they should no longer have jurisdiction over a single American citizen.
Comey is now guilty of treason by default and association. He has violated his sworn oath and must be removed. "Yes – Hillary
Clinton is guilty but we will not recommend prosecution" – he declared to the congressional inquiry with a straight face. In other
words, and for all practical purposes our FBI had become the American KGB.
KenPittman 2d
Clapper, Brennan and Comey have al likely retained legal counsel as Nunes has brilliantly followed the trail methodically backwards
to the source. The Ohr couple, the intercepts of Strzok and the common denominators linking Stefan Halper are going to rock the
Deep State to its foundation. Thankfully there are enough patriots in Washington to continue to outflank the framing of the POTUS.
johnmike 2d
The butts of Brennan, Clapper, and Comey should be hauled before a Grand Jury by John Huber, the US Attorney, as stated by Joe
DiGenova. I believe all three are enemies of the US and the biggest threats to our constitutional republic. Brennan once voted
for a communist. All three are pathological liars...it's scary that these three scumbags held the highest and most critical intelligence
and law enforcement positions in the nation.
Ralph Lynch Contributor 1d
If these yokels better knew history, they would better understand the dangers of fomenting revolution.
In a March 5, 2018, letter to House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, Adm. Rogers
informed the committee that a two-page summary of the dossier -- described as "the Christopher
Steele information" -- was "added" as an "appendix to the ICA draft," and that consideration of
that appendix was "part of the overall ICA review/approval process."
A source close to the House investigation said Brennan himself selected the CIA and FBI
analysts who worked on the ICA, and that they included former FBI counterespionage chief Peter
Strzok.
"Strzok was the intermediary between Brennan and [former FBI Director James] Comey, and he
was one of the authors of the ICA," according to the source.
Clapper's Assessment Report was the third in series of reports – each building on the
other.
The first report, an assessment of Russian Intervention, was made in an October 7, 2016,
Joint Statement from the Department of Homeland Security and the Office of the Director of
National Intelligence noting the Intelligence Community was confident of Russian involvement in
our election.
Later testimony by our various Intelligence Directors confirmed that Russia is always
involved in Presidential elections.
This report was meant to directly tie Russian hacking to the election.
What the report actually did was use technical language to describe a generalized hacking
process – and the means by which hacking and phishing can be generally prevented.
I strongly encourage you to read the report. Its lack of actual detail is eye-opening.
3. John Brennan, James Clapper and Admiral Rogers stage-managed a paper in January, 2017
that asserted that the Intelligence Community believed various things about Russian government
tinkering with the US election (much as the US does in other countries' elections). The
paper was represented to be an IC wide opinion (like an NIE).
Clapper gave it his imprimatur as Director of National Intelligence but Admiral
Rogers at the National Security Agency could not get his people to express more than limited
confidence in the document. DIA, State Department INR, the Army, Navy, Air Force and other
agencies were either not consulted or did not deign to "sign on." Donald J Trump thinks this is
a "rum deal," a phony politically motivated procedure run by a group of "hacks". Why would he
not think that? The reaction of the Left is to excoriate him for his lack of "respect", for the
people who "cooked up" this document. We should remember that the people who "cooked" the
document have no legal or constitutional existence outside the framework of the Executive
Branch. Any president, in any circumstance could dismiss them all at will. No president is
under any obligation at all to accept their opinion or that of anyone in the Executive Branch
on anything. They are his advisers and subordinates, tools in his kit box, and that is all they
are.
Questionable but interesting. "Trump's "policy" is simply a reflection of his character as a narcissistic, arrogant
bully.
To "make America great again" means for him "make America the Global Bully" again." Trump really believe like a typical bully.
In case of tough resistance he folds and appologize. Otherwise he tries to press opooneent into complete submission.
Notable quotes:
"... The underlying assumption of Trump's strategic thinking is that 'power works': the more intransigent his posture, the greater his belief in a unipolar world based on US power. As a corollary, Trump interprets any ally, adversary, competitor who seeks negotiations, reciprocity or concessions is 'weak' and should be pressured or forced to concede greater concessions and further retreats and sacrifices, up to the ultimate goal of surrender and submission. ..."
"... Trump views President Rohani as a rug seller not a military strategist. Trump believes that an economic squeeze will lead President Rohani to sacrifice his allies in Syria, Lebanon (Hezbollah), Yemen (Houthi), Palestine (Hamas) and Iraq (Shia)and to dismantle its ICBM defense strategy. ..."
"... Trump pursues the strategic goal of weakening Iran and preparing a regime change, reverting Iran into a client state – as it was prior to the 1979 revolution under the Shah. ..."
"... Trump recognizes and submits to Zionist-Israeli dictates because they have unprecedented power in the media, real estate, finance and insurance (FIRE). Trump recognizes the ZPC's power to buy Congressional votes, control both political parties and secure appointments in the executive branch. ..."
"... Trump is the typical authoritarian: at the throat of the weak, citizens, allies and adversaries and on his knees before the powerful ZPC, the military and Wall Street. ..."
"... Trump's unilateral declaration of a trade war against China accompanied his belief that military threats led to North Korea's "capitulation" – its promise to end its nuclear program. ..."
"... Is Trump playing the Nixon-Kissinger 'madman' tactic, in which the Secretary of State tells adversaries to accept his 'reasonable' demands or face the worst from the President? I don't think so. ..."
"... China got Trumps to waiver ZTE ruling, with Huawei declared no longer a threat to US security. ..."
"... "Speaking to soon-to-be graduates of the Virginia Military Institute on Wednesday, Tillerson dropped this truth bomb: "If our leaders seek to conceal the truth, or we as people become accepting of alternative realities that are no longer grounded in facts, then we as American citizens are on a pathway to relinquishing our freedom." Woof. ..."
For some time, critics of President Trump's policies have attributed them to a mental
disorder; uncontrolled manic-depression, narcissus bullying and other pathologies. The question
of Trump's mental health raises a deeper question: why do his pathologies take a specific
political direction? Moreover, Trump's decisions have a political history and background, and
follow from a logic and belief in the reason and logic of imperial power.
We will examine the reason why Trump has embraced three strategic decisions which have
world-historic consequences, namely: Trump's reneging the nuclear accord with Iran ;Trump's
declaration of a trade war with China; and Trump's meeting with North Korea.
In brief we will explore the political reasons for his decisions; what he expects to gain;
and what is his game plan if he fails to secure his expected outcome and his adversaries take
reprisals.
Trump's Strategic Framework
The underlying assumption of Trump's strategic thinking is that 'power works': the more
intransigent his posture, the greater his belief in a unipolar world based on US power. As a
corollary, Trump interprets any ally, adversary, competitor who seeks negotiations, reciprocity
or concessions is 'weak' and should be pressured or forced to concede greater concessions and
further retreats and sacrifices, up to the ultimate goal of surrender and submission. In
other words, Trump's politics of force only recognizes counter-force: limitations in Trump's
policies will only result when tangible economic and military losses and costs in US lives
would undermine US imperial rule.
Reasons Why Trump Broke the Peace Accord with Iran
Trump broke the accord with Iran because the original agreement was based on retaining US
sanctions against Iran; the total dismantling of its nuclear program and calling into question
Iran's limited role on behalf of possible allies in the Middle East.
Iran's one-sided concessions; trading military defense for market opportunities encouraged
Trump to believe that he could intimidate Iran militarily by closing all its markets.
Trump views President Rohani as a rug seller not a military strategist. Trump believes
that an economic squeeze will lead President Rohani to sacrifice his allies in Syria, Lebanon
(Hezbollah), Yemen (Houthi), Palestine (Hamas) and Iraq (Shia)and to dismantle its ICBM defense
strategy.
Trump pursues the strategic goal of weakening Iran and preparing a regime change,
reverting Iran into a client state – as it was prior to the 1979 revolution under the
Shah.
The second reason for Trump's policy is to strengthen Israel's military power in the Middle
East. The Trump regime is deeply influenced by the Zionist power configuration (ZPC) in the US,
dubbed 'the Lobby'.
Trump recognizes and submits to Zionist-Israeli dictates because they have unprecedented
power in the media, real estate, finance and insurance (FIRE). Trump recognizes the ZPC's power
to buy Congressional votes, control both political parties and secure appointments in the
executive branch.
Trump is the typical authoritarian: at the throat of the weak, citizens, allies and
adversaries and on his knees before the powerful ZPC, the military and Wall Street.
Trump's submission to Zionist power reinforces and even dictates his decision to break the
peace accord with Iran and his willingness to pressure. France, Germany, the UK and Russia to
sacrifice billion-dollar trade agreements with Iran and to pursue a policy of pressuring
Teheran to accept part of Trump's agenda of unilateral disarmament and isolation. Trump
believes he can force the EU multi-nationals to disobey their governments and abide by
sanctions.
Reasons for Trump's Trade War with China
Prior to Trump's presidency, especially under President Obama, the US launched a trade war
and 'military pivot' to China. Obama proposed the Trans-Pacific Pact to exclude China and
directed an air and naval armada to the South China Sea. Obama established a high-powered
surveillance system in South Korea and supported war exercises on North Korea's border. Trump's
policy deepened and radicalized Obama's policies.
Trump extended Obama's bellicose policy toward North Korea, demanding the de-nuclearization
of its defense program. President Kim of North Korea and President Moon of South Korea reached
an agreement to open negotiations toward a peace accord ending nearly 60 years of
hostility.
However, President Trump joined the conversation on the presumption that North Korea's peace
overtures were due to his threats of war and intimidation. He insisted that any peace
settlement and end of economic sanctions would only be achieved by unilateral nuclear
disarmament, the maintenance of US forces on the peninsula and supervision by US approved
inspectors.
Trump's unilateral declaration of a trade war against China accompanied his belief that
military threats led to North Korea's "capitulation" – its promise to end its nuclear
program.
Trump slapped a trade tariff on over $100 billion dollars of Chinese exports in order to
reduce its trade imbalance by $200 billion over two years. He demanded China unilaterally end
industrial 'espionage', technological 'theft' (all phony accusations) and China's compliance
monitored quarterly by the US. Trump demanded that China not retaliate with tariffs or restrictions or face bigger
sanctions. Trump threatened to respond to any reciprocal tariff by Beijing, with greater tariffs, and
restrictions on Chinese goods and services.
Trump's goals seek to convert North Korea into a military satellite encroaching on China's
northern border; and a trade war that drives China into an economic crisis. Trump believes that as China declines as a world economic power, the US will grow and
dominate the Asian and world economy.
Trump believes a successful trade war will lead to a successful military war. Trump believes
that a submissive China, based on its isolation from the 'dynamic' US market, will enhance
Washington's quest for uncontested world domination.
Trump's Ten Erroneous Thesis
Trump's political agenda is deeply flawed! Breaking the nuclear agreement and imposing harsh
sanctions has isolated Trump from his European and Asian allies. His military intervention will
inflame a regional war that would destroy the Saudi oil fields. He will force Iran to pursue a
nuclear shield against US-Israeli aggression and lead to a prolonged, costly and ultimately
losing war.
Trump's policies will unify all Iranians, liberals and nationalist, and undermine US
collaborators. The entire Muslim world will unify forces and carry the conflict throughout
Asia, Africa and the Middle East, Tel Aviv's bombing [of Iran] will lead to counter-attacks
in Israel.
Oil prices will skyrocket, financial markets will collapse, industries will go bankrupt.
Trump's sanctions and military aggression against Iran will lead to mutual economic
destruction.
Trump's trade war with China will lead to the disruption of the supply chain which sustains
the US economy and especially the 500 US multi-nationals who depend on the Chinese economy for
exports to the US. China will increase domestic consumption, diversify its markets and trading
partners and reinforce its military alliance with Russia. China has greater resilience and
capacity to overcome short-term disruption and regain its dominant role as a global economic
power house.
Wall Street will suffer a catastrophic financial collapse and send the US into a world
depression.
Trump's negotiations with North Korea will go nowhere as long as he demands unilateral
nuclear disarmament, US military control over the peninsula and political isolation from
China.
Kim will insist on the end of sanctions, and a mutual defense treaty with China. Kim will
offer to end nuclear testing but not nuclear weapons. After Trump's reneged on the Iran deal,
Kim will recognize that agreements with the US are not trustworthy.
Conclusion
Trump's loud, threatening gestures are a real danger to world peace and justice. But his
assumptions about the consequences of his policy are deeply flawed. There is no basis to think
his sanctions will topple the Iranian regime; that Israel will survive unscathed from a war
with Iran: that an oil war will not undermine the US economy; that Europe will allow its
companies to be frozen out of the Iran market.
Trump's trade war with China is dead in the water. He cannot find alternative production
sites for US multi-nationals. He cannot freeze China out of the world market, since they have
links with five continents. Trump cannot dominate North Korea and force it to sacrifice its
sovereignty on the basis of empty economic promises to lift sanctions. Trump is heading for
defeats on all counts. But he may take the American people into the nuclear abyss in the
process.
Epilogue
Are Trump's threats of war part of a strategy of bluff and bombast designed to intimidate,
in order to secure political advantages? Is Trump playing the Nixon-Kissinger 'madman'
tactic, in which the Secretary of State tells adversaries to accept his 'reasonable' demands or
face the worst from the President? I don't think so.
Nixon unlike Trump was not led by the nose by Israel. Nixon unlike Trump was not led by
pro-nuclear war advisers. Nixon in contrast to Trump opened the US to trade with China and
signed nuclear reduction agreements with Russia. Nixon successfully promoted peaceful
co-existence.
"Trump's sanctions and military aggression against Iran will lead to mutual economic
destruction."
indeed they will, and sadly it well deserved after the last 20yrs off US terrorism.
the US hubris will soon meet karma, and we all know karma is a bitch..
You didn't have to be genius to see this coming. In fact, NK played Trump as
expected. Anything else would have been gross negligence by their diplomatic
negotiators. Getting Trump to speculate about a prospective Nobel (for himself) for bringing nuclear
peace to the Pacific was baiting the hook nicely.
The US is now dealing from a position of weakness. Let's see what NK can extract in terms of
keeping their weapons and gaining economic assistance in return for getting the meetings back
on track.
This theory is the opposite of what I suppose is the right explanation, the explanation also
given by prof Laslo Maracs, UVA Amsterdam, that Trump and his rich friends understand that
the USA can to longer control the world, conquering the rest of the world totally out of the
question.
The end of the British empire began before 1914, when the twe fleet standard had to lowered
to one fleet.
Obama had to do something similar, the USA capability of fighting two wars at the time was
lowered to one and half.
What half a war accomplishes we see in Syria.
In the thirties the British, some of them, knew quite well they could no longer defend their
empire, at the time this meant controlling the Meditarranean and the Far East.
Lawrence R. Pratt, 'East of Malta, West of Suez', London, 1975
The British guarantees to Poland and countries bordering on the Med lighted the fuse to the
powder keg that had been standing for a long time.
Churchill won, the British thought, and some of them think it still, WWII.
But shortly after WWII some British understood 'we won the war, but lost the peace'.
I still have the idea that Trump has no intention of losing the peace, but time will tell.
I suppose Trump just is buying time against Deep State and Netanyahu.
The fool Netanyahu is happy with having got Jerusalem, he does not see the cost in increased
hatred among Muslims, and Israel having won the Eurovision Song Festival.
Trump's "policy" is simply a reflection of his character as a narcissistic, arrogant
bully.
To "make America great again" means for him "make America the Global Bully" again.
However, behind the facade of all his bravado hides a puppet of the Jewish Power Structure,
which is even more dangerous than Trump himself. "Make Zion Great Again" would be a more
apposite slogan.
Wall Street collapsing will not cause a world depression, but will reflect the very real
depression that will arise from huge disruptions to the US supply chain and energy costs and
the knock-on effect that will have on the global economy.
A strike on Iran won't by itself be enough to cripple the US economy, but the loss of a
single aircraft carrier might be enough of a pull on a thread that unravels the magical
mantle of military force that currently holds the empire together and keeps the vassal-states
in line to cause things to go pear-shaped quickly.
Nobody can accuse Donald of not being obedient executioner of tasks given by his Masters.
You don't have to be dark skinned to reside in Masters quarters, orange haired and white is
ok too..
Overall a good analysis, but as far as his support of Israel is concerned, his family
connections with the most ultra-Zionist factions should not be overlooked.
Trump believes that as China declines as a world economic power, the US will grow and
dominate the Asian and world economy.
On what basis does the author say that? Trump is smart enough to know that China is
growing as an economic and military power, not declining.
A fairly poorly (and likely hastily) written article.
Trump is under the control of Zionists just as is the U.S. gov with Zionist dual citizens in
control of every facet and has been since 1913 when the Zionists created the FED and the IRS.
Trump is like the Roman emperor Caligula and is a Trojan Horse for the Zionist agenda of a
NWO and is continuing the tradition of the U.S. gov breaking its word about everything, just
ask the native American Indians.
The nuke agreement with Iran was a sham. Iran lied about what they were doing. The agreement
had never been submitted to the Senate and so was never ratified. Our "allies" in Europe and
Asia knew that and their reaction has not been nearly as negative as the author of this
column has claimed.
I continue to admire President Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, and Xi of China. WHY? .because
RESULTS matter more than opinions on internet websites, T.V., or in printed publications.
N. Korea has stopped performing ICBM or nuke tests, a less extremist regime change "coup"
took place in Saudi Arabia, financing/ weapons flows / intelligence to Syrian terrorists has
dried up with resulting collapse of ISIS, Iran is threatening to release the names of
European & American politicians who previously made millions / billions off the Iran nuke
deal if it is dropped, Harvey Weinstein, Allison Mack, and "Weiner" were untouchable before
Trump, the list just goes on and continues to get bigger.
A major reason for admiration of Putin is that the Mainstream Media (MSM) can't stop
demonizing him. So of course I'm logically led to believe that he is mostly a good guy since
the MSM has proven itself repeatedly to distort the Truth. Putin also largely ended the
oligarchs power, doubled Russian citizens income, used an tiny Russian military in Syria to
gradually reverse ISIS expansion there, improved Russia's internal manufacturing,
agricultural, mining, and technological research/ development, intellectually crushed
international debate opponents repeated using only logic and facts (You should watch the
videos!), built / rebuilt over 10 thousand churches, has patriotic Muslims (Crimea) fighting
for Russia in Syria, etc. etc.
Xi of China has pretty impressive creditials but this post is
overly long anyway.
RESULTS COUNT MORE THAN WORDS!
Of course they do this, they would be stupid if they didn't.
• Agree: CalDre
I like your frankness. Every countries is into this at different degree, with ZUS the
apex. But been leading in most tech area currently & lazy to produce any useful things,
ZUS is very unhappy that their esponage net result is negative, hence the continuous
whining.
When tide reverse with China leading in most tech, ZUS will complaint about complex patent
system as been flawed in exploitating & suppressing of weaker country innovation, juz as
it did for WTO & Globalization now.
Of course any moronic comments about only China is espionaging US IPR & rise purely due
to US FDI & Tech transfer will resonate CalDre into high chime.
Well, he is not meeting with North Korea either, since Kim didn't chicken out, and is not
that stupid as to offer his head on the plate! Bolton made sure of that.
Hastily written article cobbled by bits of public info here & there without deep
analysis.
1. Today NK declared they have indefinitely terminate all high level exchange with SK. If
Trumps insisted on another Libya & Iraq defank & ending model advocate by Bolton,
meeting with Trumps will be cancelled. Trumps needs the Korea peace credit to get his Nobel
Prize, so as to booster his coming Nov election win. Kim has baited Trumps to put him in
tight corner now, hence WH still insisting to go ahead prepare for the meeting.
If venue does changed to Beijing from Trumps' choice of Spore (Kim's cargo plane can't fly
his limousine so far, also a risk of him as Spore is US vassal), we will see Kim has K.O.
Trumps in another round. Kim will get to keep its nuke weapon until USM remove its Korea
present, clear all sanctions, with UNSC guaranteed its safety. If Trumps has the meeting
cancelled, then China can roll out its own play book as unchallenged leader in solving Korea
crisis. Either way, Trumps will lost influence to China.
2. Trade war with China has exposed ZUS deep weakness in its brinkmanship when china
retaliated with no compromise. Four most senior trade & treasury secs scrambled 10,000
miles to Beijing to seek detente, but return empty handed in 2 days with their ridiculous
demands in hubris. Still China got Trumps to waiver ZTE ruling, with Huawei declared no
longer a threat to US security.
Btw, this author has wrongly written about the $100B trade tariff, its only $50B so far.
Another additional $100B is only a empty threat ZUS dare not release to avoid China
retaliation.
3. JCPOA cancelling is godsend move.
First, EU with Germany & France having huge investments in Iran is crying loud that they
have to be free from been ZUS vassal. If they caved in to ZUS sanction threat, then EU bosses – Macron & Merkel will
face revolt from Europe business sector. China & Russia will be happy to pick up whatever
investments in fire sales.
If EU decided to rebel & chart its own destiny with a little spine, then ZUS has lost
its tight clutch over EU. EU has juz announced to trade Iran oil in Euro, hasten
de-dollarization. The geopolitical game is changing tide. In either way of EU decision, China
& Russia win.
Now Iran will continue to enjoy free trades with everyone except ZUS that it dislike most,
& win moral high ground in international standing by keeping to JCPOA.
ZUS has juz ordered Trumps to shoot its own foot. It pay the high price of losing every
credibility in international agreement, forced EU into seeking independency, have EU trade in
Euro, with Iran, China & Russia all smiling.
Of course, but I just wanted to make a point not write a book or even a PhD thesis. thanks
for the supplementary material though. Your comments about oil are spot on as you know. The wars were about smashing some real
competition.
Somebody has to shovel the BS occasionally, to keep the smell down here. I guess it's my
turn today, sigh.
The nuke agreement with Iran was a sham. Iran lied about what they were doing.
Then the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and many of the major European
countries must also be lying when they say that Iran is fully complying with the JCPOA.
The agreement had never been submitted to the Senate and so was never ratified.
The United Nations Security Council endorsed the JCPOA; see UNSC resolution 2231.
According to the UN treaty, UNSC resolutions are automatically the law of the land,
even in the USA -- no Senate ratification needed.
Have you ever made a comment that was other than your mere and clearly biased opinion? Try
it sometime; it would be interesting to see what evidence you provide to support such
transparently erroneous ideas.
Trump's only strategy is to do what Israel orders him to do. The Neocon Jews and their friends including the Jew In Chief of
the White House Jared Kushner are running the show. You can easily see this in ... Niki Haley's presentation before the UN including
walking out before the Palestinian Rep had a chance to speak.
Trump is up to his arms in shady deals with Jewish financiers of his properties and they
will get what they want from him politically. It's Israel against the world and the US is
nothing more than their war whore. More people will die for this strategy that comes from
formerly Tel Aviv and now from the Magic Jewish Capital called Jerusalem.
New York City's Hip Hop station Hot 97's morning show, "Ebro in the Morning," dedicated an
entire segment to yesterday's demonstration in Gaza where the two blasted Israel and
President Donald Trump http://pic.twitter.com/43XIqhKFWZ
-- Gigi Hadid (@GiGiHadid) May 15, 2018
Hadid posted screen shots of Al Jazeera's coverage alongside an image of the Nakba with text
written by a relative,
"Almost One Million Palestinians were violently forced out of their country and never allowed
back to Palestine. The Hadid family was amongst them and they fled in fear to Syria where
they became refugees."
Why are these important? Because they have millions of followers on social media .because
their audience and followers are the coming voter and leadership force .for better or worse
..and for Israel its the 'worse'.
Gigi Hadid for instance has 9 million followers on twitter.
Giuliani: Mueller's team told Trump's lawyers they can't indict a president
This true. BUT ..'if' any criminal wrong doing by Trump before he was president is revealed in the
course of the Russia investigation he can be indicted for that after he is out of office. IN ADDITION ..'if' any criminal wrong doing is revealed in Trump's businesses then any
persons involved in it within his businesses including his sons or daughter can be indicted. And now, as they have no presidential protection.
imo .this is what Trump is most afraid of ..some criminal business like money laundering
being exposed. not that Mueller will find Russian election collusion.
"Speaking to soon-to-be graduates of the Virginia Military Institute on Wednesday,
Tillerson dropped this truth bomb:
"If our leaders seek to conceal the truth, or we as people become accepting of alternative
realities that are no longer grounded in facts, then we as American citizens are on a pathway
to relinquishing our freedom."
Woof.
..
Why is this important? Because the graduating class of VMI selects its speakers so that
tells you where the minds of the elite military schools are on Trumpism.
The 2016 Trump Tower meeting set up to reveal dirt on Hillary Clinton "infuriated" Jared
Kushner, was a "waste of time" and had nothing to do with Clinton, according to transcripts of
interviews with the meeting's participants. The US Senate Judiciary Committee has released more
than 1,800 pages of transcripts, which provide new insight into the controversial meeting
during which Donald Trump Jr, along with Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner and then campaign
chairman Paul Manafort, was expecting to receive "dirt" on Hillary Clinton from
Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya.
Overall, the newly-released documents seem to indicate that a short 20-minute meeting
resulted in hours of interviews and thousands of pages of documents for little reason.
In the transcripts, Trump Jr. said that he was skeptical that Rob Goldstone, the publicist
who had been the first to contact him about a meeting, had colleagues who possessed
incriminating information about Clinton, but said felt he should at least "hear them
out." Read more 'Wasting taxpayers'
money': Lawyer Veselnitskaya talks Trump's dossier & Fusion GPS
He also said that it was important to note that when he accepted the invitation to go to the
meeting there was "no focus on Russian activities" surrounding the campaign and
claimed that Goldstone had not even confirmed the names of the attendees who would join them at
the meeting.
Goldstone had set up the meeting on behalf of Russian musical artist Emin Agaralov, the son
of a wealthy Russian businessman, but revealed in his interview that he later told Agaralov
that the meeting was "the most embarrassing thing you've ever asked me to do" given
that it ended up having nothing to do with Clinton. Goldstone also revealed that
Veselnitskaya's apparently Clinton-free presentation in the meeting had "infuriated"
Kushner.
In another indication that the meeting was not supposed to be a top-secret attempt for the
Trump campaign to collude with Russia, Goldstone also revealed that he "checked in" to
Trump Tower on Facebook when he arrived.
In a supplemental interview, Goldstone also told investigators that Russian President
Vladimir Putin was not able to meet Trump during the 2013 Miss Universe pageant in Moscow, but
invited him through a phone call with his spokesman Dmitry Peskov, organized by Agaralov, to
attend the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi instead. According to Goldstone, Peskov said Putin
would be happy to meet him there -- but that meeting did not end up happening.
Anatoli Samochornov, a Russian translator who attended the meeting, said that no one present
had said the Russian government either supported Trump or opposed Clinton for president. He
also said there were no offers from the Russian side to release hacked emails, hack voting
totals or anything else.
The other translator present, Ike Kaveladze, said he spoke to Agaralov about two hours after
the meeting and told him it was a "complete loss of time" and a "useless"
meeting.
The committee released the thousands of pages of transcripts along with hundreds of
additional pages of related material, including the interviews with Goldstone, Russian-American
lobbyist Rinat Akhmetshin and translators Samochornov and Kaveladze.
The meeting has been the subject of controversy, particularly the question of whether
then-candidate Trump knew about it. Special Counsel Robert Mueller has looked closely at the
meeting as part of his investigation into alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 election, which
has not yet turned up any evidence of collusion between Trump and Russia.
Following the publication of the documents, Trump Jr. said they showed that he "answered
every question asked" by the committee.
"I appreciate the opportunity to have assisted the Judiciary Committee in its
inquiry," he said in a statement. "The public can now see that for over five hours I
answered every question asked and was candid and forthright with the Committee."
Note how NYT try to hide the fact that the meeting was most probably yet another a false flag operation (along with Steele
dossier) to implicate
Russia staged with the help of a person connected to British intelligence service, Mr. Goldstone,
a British music promoter. That in an interesting fact in additional to CIA mode within Trump campaign.
Notable quotes:
"... The intermediary, Rob Goldstone, told the committee that he proposed a second meeting between the lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya, and members of Mr. Trump's team in November 2016. He said he contacted Mr. Trump's longtime executive assistant at the behest of Aras Agalarov, a Russia-based billionaire who knows Mr. Putin. ..."
Most of the participants in the meeting have already publicly described their version of
events. Nonetheless, the records reveal some new details about the players involved and what
happened after the meeting was reported
by The New York Times last summer.
Among them: Six months after the Trump
Tower meeting , an intermediary contacted Donald J. Trump's office asking for a follow-up,
the newly released documents showed.
The intermediary, Rob Goldstone, told the committee that he proposed a second meeting
between the lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya, and members of Mr. Trump's team in November 2016. He
said he contacted Mr. Trump's longtime executive assistant at the behest of Aras Agalarov, a
Russia-based billionaire who knows Mr. Putin.
The second session never took place. But the invitation shows the determination of Russians
with close Kremlin connections to convince the Trump team that the Magnitsky Act, which imposed
sanctions on a host of Russian officials for human rights abuses, was a mistake. The 2012 law,
which froze the bank accounts of some Russian officials and barred them from entering the
United States, infuriated Mr. Putin.
In a late November 2016 email to Mr. Trump's assistant, Mr. Goldstone, a British music
promoter, attached a three-page document marked "confidential" that called for "the launch of a
congressional investigation into the circumstances of passing the Magnitsky Act." He wrote that
Mr. Agalarov hoped the document would be delivered to "the appropriate team." Ms. Veselnitskaya
also attacked the
law in the June meeting.
The transcripts also highlight how lawyers for the Trump Organization tried to manage
the fallout by coordinating the statements of Mr. Goldstone and others.
In testimony, Donald Trump Jr. acknowledged that his father may have helped draft the
statement that he put out to the press after the meeting became public, but he said that they
had not discussed the meeting when it happened.
"... According to Giuliani, setting up shell companies is a trick people of wealth learned from either the Israeli Mafia or the CIA. Though it could be the other way around. ..."
"... Rhetorical question: What could somebody do with $250,000? Answer: pay off two prostitutes! ..."
Donald
Trump's sex life is nobody's business but his own. And maybe Melania's, if her Pre-Nuptial
Agreement (PNA) stipulates that she can sue his fat ass for divorce and receive a huge
percentage of his rumored wealth if he cheats on her, too often.
Like the Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) Trump's fixer, Michael Cohen, signed with porn star
Stormy Daniels (who had a quickie with Trump in 2006), prenups and private goon squads are
standard fare for people of wealth.
But is Trump wealthy? And if so, where did he get his cash?
Some people say he laundered about $400 million in drug money for the Israeli Mafia's
Russian franchise back in the early 1990's, in exchange for everything he ever wanted. I don't
know if that's a fact. That's what I hear. People say it. Maybe somebody like Robert Mueller
should investigate?
Fox News says the president isn't mobbed up, that everyone in New York City has to work with
the Mafia if they want a hotel constructed on time. And that could be true.
But what is Truth? It's impossible to tell anymore.
The Truth could be that either the Deep State or the Israeli Mafia is forcing Trump to do
many terrible things he doesn't really want to do. Like deep-sixing the Iran deal. Somebody's
fingerprints are all over that baby's behind. Maybe Michael Cohen knows? Somebody should ask
him.
Trump is obviously a victim of either the Deep State or the Israeli Mafia and its American
franchise. You choose. But consider this: On the same day Trump scrapped the Iran deal, someone
said that Russian billionaire Victor Vekselberg (who just happens to be Putin's BFF) wired
$500,000 into a bank account that hatchet man Cohen (who doubles as Trump's real estate broker)
set up for the purpose of issuing the $130,000 hush payment to Stormy Daniels.
I don't know if that's true. Sean Hannity says it isn't true. Rudy Giuliani says it might be
true, and that it doesn't matter even if it is True, because people of wealth often set up
shell companies to hide their business dealings from the Public Eye, which is their right as
people of wealth.
According to Giuliani, setting up shell companies is a trick people of wealth learned from
either the Israeli Mafia or the CIA. Though it could be the other way around.
Another one of Trump's prerogatives as a person of wealth is the right to charge people
money to play with him. Trump's business consultant, Michael Cohen (who may work for the
Israeli Mafia, I don't know), funnels such "pay to play" money into the same bank accounts he,
Cohen, uses to pay off the women Trump has casual and unsatisfactory (for them ) sex with.
BTW, I forgot to mention it, but Vekselberg's cousin, American citizen Andrew Intrater,
donated $250,000 to Trump's inauguration fund.
Rhetorical question: What could somebody do with $250,000? Answer: pay off two
prostitutes!
Somebody in the Deep State (which, according to Hannity, is the code name for the Justice
Department) knows about this, but let's it happen, because Trump is, after all, a person of
wealth with certain rights to privacy.
... ... ...
Stormy, who whipped Trump's fat ass with a copy of Trump Magazine back in 2006, is an
eyewitness to The Thing. When asked by Penthouse to compare his penis size to "his fingers,"
Daniels said, "I don't want to shame anybody."
Former NSA and CIA head Michael Hayden's new book The Assault on Intelligence: American
National Security in an Age of Lies wants to be the manifesto behind an intelligence
community coup. It ends up reading like outtakes from Dr. Strangelove .
Trump cannot discern truth from falsehood, Hayden says, and is the product of too much
fact-free thinking, especially on social media ("computational propaganda" where people can
"publish without credentials") where lies are deployed by the Russians to destroy the United
States. Instead Hayden calls for artificial intelligence and a media truth-rating system to
"purify our discourse" and help "defend it against inauthentic stimulation."
Hayden believes in the "fragility of civilization" as clearly as he believes there is a
"FOX/Trump/RT" alliance in place to exploit it. Under Trump, "post-truth is pre-fascism, and to
abandon facts is to abandon freedom." Hayden claims Trump has a "glandular aversion" to even
thinking about how "Russia has been actively seeking to damage the fabric of American
democracy."
Salvation, it would seem, depends on the intelligence community. Hayden makes clear,
ominously quoting conversations with anonymous IC officers, that no one else is protecting
America from these online threats to our precious bodily fluids .
He warns that "the structures we rely on to prevent civil war and societal collapse are
under stress." The IC on the other hand "pursues Enlightenment values [and] is essential
not just to American safety but to American liberty."
Hayden recalls how he reminded a lad fresh to the IC to "protect yourself. And above all
protect the institution. American still needs it." He has a bit of advice about the CIA: "We
are accustomed to relying on their truth to protect us from foreign enemies. Now we may need
their truth to save us from ourselves." The relationship between Trump and the IC, Hayden
threatens, is "contentious, divisive, and unpredictable" in these "uncharted waters for the
Republic."
Simply put, Hayden's book is blowing 10 dog whistles at once. Arise ye patriots [of
neoliberalism] of Langley and Fort Meade!
Yet for all his emphasis on truth, Hayden is curiously lax in presenting actual evidence of
the apocalypse. You are left to believe because Hayden says you must: paternalism at its best.
Plus, to disbelieve is to side with Putin. The best we get are executive summary-like
statements along the lines of "There is clear evidence of what I would call convergence, the
convergence of a mutually reinforcing swirl of Presidential tweets and statements, Russian
influenced social media, alt right websites and talk radio, Russian 'white' press like RT and
even mainstream U.S. media like Fox News."
With that established, Hayden informs us that when the IC tried to warn Trump of the Russian
plot, he "rejected a fact-based intel assessment because it was inconsistent with a preexisting
world view or because it was politically inconvenient, the stuff of ideological
authoritarianism not pragmatic democracy." Comrade, er, Candidate Trump, says Hayden
matter-of-factly, "did sound a lot like Vladimir Putin." The two men, he declaims, are "Russian
soulmates."
Hayden figures that if you've read this far into his polemic, he might as well just splurge
the rest of his notes on you. Trump is "uninformed, lazy, dishonest, off the charts, rejects
the premise objective reality even existed." He's fueled by Russian money (no evidence of this
is presented in the book, Hayden says, because it's hidden in the tax returns, as if Line 42 on
Trump's 1040 would read "Putin Black Funds $5 mil," and the IRS, which does have the returns,
overlooked that).
Trump is an "unwitting agent" of Putin, which Hayden tells us in Russian is polezni
durak , so you can see he knows his Cold War lingo. We hear how Wikileaks worked with the
Russkies, how Trump Jr. worked with the Russkies, how the Russkies wormed their way into Tower
so they could see the Big Board, how the whole brouhaha over #TakeAKnee was Russian meddling,
and how Jill Stein existed to "bleed off votes from Clinton" -- every Mueller fan-fiction trope
tumbling from the pages like crumbs left over from an earlier reader.
That's why The Assault on Intelligence: American National Security in an Age of Lies
reads like as a polemic. But it also fails as a book.
There are pages of filler, jumbled blog post-like chapters about substate actors and global
tectonics. Hayden writes in a recognizable style that might be called Bad Military, where
everything must eventually be tied to some Big Idea, preferably with classical references
Googled-up to add gravitas.
So it is not enough for Hayden to state Trump is a liar. He has to blame Trump for usurping
the entire body of Western thought: "We are in a post-truth world, a world in which decisions
are far more based upon emotion and preference. And that's an overturning of the Western way of
thought since the Enlightenment." Bad things are Hobbesian; good things Jeffersonian,
Madisonian, or Hamiltonian. People Hayden agrees with get adjectival modifiers before their
names: the perceptive scholar ____, the iconic journalist ____, the legendary case officer
____. It makes for tiresome reading, like it's Sunday night edging 4 a.m. and you still have
nine undergrad papers on the causes of the Civil War to grade.
Hayden is openly contemptuous of the American people, seeing them as brutes who need to be
led around, either by the Russians, as he sees it now, or by the IC, as he wishes it to be.
Proof of how dumb we are? Hayden cites a poll showing 83 percent of Republicans and 27 percent
of Democrats don't believe the IC analysis that Russia meddled in the 2016 election when they
damn well should. Further proof? Russian bots at work on Twitter influencing conservative minds
by using the hashtags #God and #Benghazi.
In our odd times, Hayden is a Hero of the Resistance. Seemingly forgotten is that, as head
of the NSA, he implemented blanket surveillance of American citizens in a rape of the Fourth
Amendment, itself a product of the Enlightenment, justifying his unconstitutional actions with
a mishmash of post-truth platitudes and still-secret legal findings. Hayden also supported
torture during the War on Terror, but whatever.
This book-length swipe right for the IC leaves out the slam dunk work those agencies did on
Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Any concern about political motives inside the IC is swept
away as "baseless." Gina
Haspel , who oversaw the torture program, is an "inspired choice" to head CIA. Hayden
writes for the rubes, proclaiming that the IC produces facts when in reality even good intel
can only be assessments and ambiguous conclusions.
That people so readily overlook Hayden's sins simply because he rolls off snark against
Trump speaks to our naiveté. That men like Hayden retain their security clearances while
serving as authors and paid commentators to outlets like CNN speaks to how deep the roots of
the Deep State reach. That some troubled Jack D. Ripper squirreled inside the IC might
take this pablum seriously is frightening.
Peter Van Buren, a 24-year State Department veteran, is the author of We Meant Well : How I Helped Lose the Battle for the
Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People and Hooper's War : A Novel of WWII Japan. Follow him on Twitter
@WeMeantWell .
He's not blinded by hate. If you actually read the book, he describes his issues with Obama,
Clinton and everyone else. The fact remains he outlined the truth: Trump is a bumbling fool
who cannot distinguish truth fro fiction and is the most corrupt president ever to inhabit
the oval office, and has no idea what he's doing.
This interesting article states:
Gina Haspel, who oversaw the torture program, is an 'inspired choice' to head CIA. Really, torture is used by gangsters and other underworld villains. Therefore, I ask based
on the evidence against governments. "Are We Seeing Government by Gangsters"?
http://graysinfo.blogspot.ca/2018/03/are-we-seeing-government-by-gangsters.html
The guy sounds like a certain Senator from Wisconsin:
"The reason why we find ourselves in a position of impotency is not because the enemy has
sent men to invade our shores, but rather because of the traitorous actions of those who have
had all the benefits that the wealthiest nation on earth has had to offer – the finest
homes, the finest college educations, and the finest jobs in Government we can give."
Peter Van Buren reminds us all: "Seemingly forgotten is that, as head of the NSA, he
implemented blanket surveillance of American citizens in a rape of the Fourth Amendment "
The 4th Amendment to the US Constitution:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against
unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but
upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place
to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
The shadow of 9/11 hangs over Mueller. The Deep State keeps him by the balls and wants
results. And that means impeachment.
CIA-democrats which now is the ruling wing of Democratic Party wants to get to power but they
have no that many viable candidates for midterm elections. If they overplay their hand then the
attempt to cover betrayal of ordinary Americans with former military CIA candidates might
backfire.
Notable quotes:
"... By now, witnesses have testified in ways that contradict what Trump has said. This, plus Trump's impulsiveness, propensity to exaggerate, and often rash responses to hostile questions, would make him easy prey for the perjury traps prosecutors set up when they cannot convict their targets on the evidence. Mueller and his team are the ones who need this interrogation. ..."
"... For, after almost two years, their Russiagate investigation has produced no conclusive proof of the foundational charge: that Trump's team colluded with Vladimir Putin's Russia to hack and thieve the emails of the Clinton campaign and DNC. ..."
"... Having failed, Mueller & Co. now seek to prove that, even if Trump did not collude with the Russians, he interfered with their investigation. How did Trump obstruct justice? ..."
"... Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, ..."
"... . To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators website at www.creators.com. ..."
Should Mueller subpoena him, as he has threatened to do, Trump should ignore the subpoena
and frame it for viewing in Trump Tower.
If Mueller goes to the Supreme Court and wins an order for Trump to comply and testify
before a grand jury, Trump should defy the Court.
The only institution that is empowered to prosecute a president is Congress. If charges
against Trump are to be brought, this is the arena, this is the forum, where the battle should
be fought and the fate and future of the Trump presidency decided.
The goal of Mueller's prosecutors is to take down Trump on the cheap. If they can get him
behind closed doors and make him respond in detail to questions -- to which they already know
the answers -- any misstep by Trump could be converted into a perjury charge.
Trump has to score 100 on a test to which Mueller's team has all the answers in advance
while he must rely upon memory.
Why take this risk?
By now, witnesses have testified in ways that contradict what Trump has said. This, plus
Trump's impulsiveness, propensity to exaggerate, and often rash responses to hostile questions,
would make him easy prey for the perjury traps prosecutors set up when they cannot convict
their targets on the evidence. Mueller and his team are the ones who need this
interrogation.
For, after almost two years, their Russiagate investigation has produced no conclusive
proof of the foundational charge: that Trump's team colluded with Vladimir Putin's Russia to
hack and thieve the emails of the Clinton campaign and DNC.
Having failed, Mueller & Co. now seek to prove that, even if Trump did not collude
with the Russians, he interfered with their investigation. How did Trump obstruct
justice?
Did he suggest that fired national security advisor General Mike Flynn might get a pardon?
What was his motive in sacking FBI director James Comey? Did Trump edit the Air Force One
explanation of the meeting in June 2016 between his campaign officials and Russians? Did he
pressure Attorney General Jeff Sessions to fire Mueller?
Mueller's problem: These questions and more have all been aired and argued endlessly in the
public square. Yet no national consensus has formed that Trump committed an offense to justify
his removal. Even Democrats are backing away from talk of impeachment.
Trump's lawyers should tell Mueller to wrap up his work, as Trump will not be testifying, no
matter what subpoena he draws up or what the courts say he must do. And if Congress threatens
impeachment for defying a court order, Trump should tell them: impeach me and be damned.
Would a new Congress really impeach and convict an elected president?
An impeachment battle would be a titanic struggle between a capital that detests Trump and a
vast slice of Middle America that voted to repudiate that capital's elite, trusts Trump, and
will stand by him to the end.
And in any impeachment debate before Congress and the cameras of the world, not one but two
narratives will be heard.
The first is that Trump colluded with the Russians to defeat Hillary Clinton and then sought
to obstruct an investigation of his collusion.
The second is the story of how an FBI cabal went into the tank on an investigation of
Clinton to save her campaign. Then it used the product of a Clinton-DNC dirt-diving operation,
created by a British spy with Russian contacts, to attempt to destroy the Trump candidacy. Now,
failing that, it's looking to overthrow the elected president of the United States.
In short, the second narrative is that the "deep state" and its media auxiliaries are
colluding to overturn the results of the 2016 election.
Unlike Watergate, with Russiagate, the investigators will be on trial as well.
Trump needs to shift the struggle out of the legal arena, where Mueller and his men have
superior weapons, and into the political arena, where he can bring his populous forces to bear
on the decision as to his fate.
This is the terrain on which Trump can win: an us-vs-them fight, before Congress and
country, where not only the alleged crimes of Trump are aired but also the actual crimes
committed to destroy him and to overturn his victory.
Trump is a nationalist who puts America first both in trade and securing her frontiers
against an historic invasion from the South. If he is overthrown, and the agenda for which
America voted is trashed as well, it may be Middle America in the streets this time.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, Nixon's White House Wars: The
Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever . To find out more
about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the
Creators website at www.creators.com.
Pat is correct, Trump should try to avoid answering any questions as he is incapable of
keeping his lies straight. He can't even keep then straight in two consecutive sentences. A
couple of hours of answering questions will result in a incoherent transcript that will take
many teams of layers years to decipher.
"Trump's lawyers should tell Mueller to wrap up his work, as Trump will not be testifying,
no matter what subpoena he draws up or what the courts say he must do. And if Congress
threatens impeachment for defying a court order, Trump should tell them: impeach me and be
damned."
The Deep State, the mainstream media, Establishment Democrats, and (yes) Establishment
Republicans have been conspiring to overturn the results of the 2016 presidential election
since the early hours of Nov. 9, 2016.
But we're not going to let that happen!
You're right, Pat, that "Trump is a nationalist who puts America first both in trade and
securing her frontiers against an historic invasion from the South. If he is overthrown, and
the agenda for which America voted is trashed as well, it may be Middle America in the
streets this time."
Yes! If we have to go into the streets to protect our duly-elected President and our
country, then we will take the fight into the streets.
If we don't stand and fight now, we'll lose our country! It's that simple!
Pat is right: "The goal of Mueller's prosecutors is to take down Trump on the cheap."
A good example of this came this morning at the Paul Manafort trial in federal court in
Virginia, where Judge T.S. Ellis III scolded Mueller's prosecuters:
"You don't really care about Mr. Manafort's bank fraud. You really care about getting
information Mr. Manafort can give you that would reflect on Mr. Trump and lead to his
prosecution or impeachment I don't see what relationship this indictment [against Manafort]
has with anything the special counsel is authorized to investigate."
Because Mueller's entire team consists of Democrats, who are presumptively partisan, his
investigation lacks even *prima facie* credibility.
It would be nice if Trump's team makes this point. Rudy G. could explain to dimwitted
journos, "That means 'on its face.' The point being, what kind of charade is this
investigation, and what kind of person doesn't think it's inevitably a charade?"
The longer the left pursues this impeachment strategy the bigger hole they are digging for
themselves. They never come forth with our Obama replacement or a plan.
FBI monitored phone calls of Trump's personal lawyer
Notable quotes:
"... US prosecutors, according to news reports, have also been covertly reading Cohen's emails. ..."
"... Spying on a lawyer's phone calls and Internet communications is considered highly unusual, given the principle of lawyer-client privilege. However, the Daily Beast ..."
"... Indeed, Trump's enemies within the ruling elite and the state apparatus know with whom they are dealing. The billionaire president is a representative of the criminal American financial oligarchy, a product of the New York real estate, casino gambling and reality TV milieu. His election expressed the degradation of American bourgeois politics and the entire political system. ..."
"... That being said, the methods being employed by Trump's factional opponents within the ruling elite are profoundly anti-democratic. The Mueller investigation itself is based on concocted and unsubstantiated allegations of Russian "meddling" in the elections and collusion by the Trump campaign in Moscow's supposed efforts to swing the election in his favor. ..."
"... This narrative, which has dominated US politics for nearly two years, has been used by the Democratic Party and most of the corporate media to attempt to whip up a war hysteria against Russia and force Trump to more rapidly escalate Washington's wars in the Middle East. It is also the pretext for the expanding campaign to censor the Internet and criminalize political dissent in the name of combating foreign-inspired "fake news." ..."
"... The context for the latest revelations is a sharpening of the conflict between the Trump White House and Mueller. Over the past several weeks, Trump has reshuffled the legal team handling his dealings with the special counsel to pursue a more aggressive legal response to the investigation. Last month, Trump named former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani to head the team, following the resignation of John Dowd in March. ..."
"... This week, the White House announced the resignation of Ty Cobb, who had counseled Trump to adopt a cooperative posture toward Mueller, advising that such a course would lead to a more rapid conclusion to the investigation. Not only has that not occurred, but Mueller has increased pressure on Trump to agree to an interview with his investigators. ..."
"... Flood has been described in the press as a "wartime consigliere." His appointment is seen as increasing the possibility of a legal fight to block an interview with Mueller that could ultimately go to the US Supreme Court. ..."
"... In a Wednesday night television interview with Fox News' Sean Hannity, Giuliani excoriated former FBI Director James Comey, whom Trump fired last May after Comey announced that the FBI was investigating possible Trump campaign collusion with Russia. Giuliani called him "a disgraceful liar" and said he should be indicted for leaking "confidential FBI information." He called the Mueller probe "a completely tainted investigation" and denounced the FBI raid on Cohen as a "storm trooper" operation. ..."
Multiple media reports on Thursday revealed that the Federal Bureau of Investigation monitored and logged the phone calls of President
Donald Trump's personal lawyer and confidante, Michael Cohen, in the period leading up to the FBI raid on Cohen's office and residences
in April.
According to NBC News, at least one of the calls that were tracked was between Cohen and Trump.
The extraordinary fact that the federal government's chief police agency, an integral part of the country's intelligence network,
is monitoring telephone communications between the president and his self-described "fixer" points to the explosive level of conflict
within the American ruling class and its state.
The revelation comes a month after the FBI, based on a referral from Robert Mueller, the special counsel who is investigating
alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election and possible collusion by the Trump campaign, raided Cohen's office and residences
as part of a criminal probe into his business dealings. FBI agents seized Cohen's financial records, computer hard drive, cell phones
and taped recordings of conversations. Ostensibly, the main concern of federal prosecutors is Cohen's involvement in hush-money payoffs
to two women, a porn star and a former Playboy playmate, who claim to have had sexual relations with Trump.
US prosecutors, according to news reports, have also been covertly reading Cohen's emails.
Spying on a lawyer's phone calls and Internet communications is considered highly unusual, given the principle of lawyer-client
privilege. However, the Daily Beast quoted Ken White, a former federal prosecutor, as saying, "That sort of thing happens
all the time if you're dealing with mob wiretaps."
Indeed, Trump's enemies within the ruling elite and the state apparatus know with whom they are dealing. The billionaire president
is a representative of the criminal American financial oligarchy, a product of the New York real estate, casino gambling and reality
TV milieu. His election expressed the degradation of American bourgeois politics and the entire political system.
There is little doubt that the FBI and Mueller have seized more than enough evidence of wrong-doing in Trump's business dealings
to bring down an indictment, either to attempt a criminal prosecution -- never before carried out against a sitting president --
or force Trump to resign. Alternately, an indictment could become part of an impeachment effort should the Democrats win control
of the House of Representatives in the November midterm elections.
No one is more aware of the threat posed by these developments than Trump himself.
That being said, the methods being employed by Trump's factional opponents within the ruling elite are profoundly anti-democratic.
The Mueller investigation itself is based on concocted and unsubstantiated allegations of Russian "meddling" in the elections and
collusion by the Trump campaign in Moscow's supposed efforts to swing the election in his favor.
This narrative, which has dominated US politics for nearly two years, has been used by the Democratic Party and most of the corporate
media to attempt to whip up a war hysteria against Russia and force Trump to more rapidly escalate Washington's wars in the Middle
East. It is also the pretext for the expanding campaign to censor the Internet and criminalize political dissent in the name of combating
foreign-inspired "fake news."
These are the methods of palace coup, without the slightest democratic or progressive content. Should Trump be removed as a result
of such a campaign, the result would be to shift the political system even further to the right.
The context for the latest revelations is a sharpening of the conflict between the Trump White House and Mueller. Over the past
several weeks, Trump has reshuffled the legal team handling his dealings with the special counsel to pursue a more aggressive legal
response to the investigation. Last month, Trump named former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani to head the team, following the resignation
of John Dowd in March.
This week, the White House announced the resignation of Ty Cobb, who had counseled Trump to adopt a cooperative posture toward
Mueller, advising that such a course would lead to a more rapid conclusion to the investigation. Not only has that not occurred,
but Mueller has increased pressure on Trump to agree to an interview with his investigators.
This week, it was reported that in discussions with Trump's lawyers in March, Mueller threatened to subpoena Trump to appear before
a grand jury if he did not voluntarily agree to an interview. On Wednesday, it was announced that Emmet Flood, a Republican who served
as one of Bill Clinton's lawyers during the House of Representatives impeachment process in 1998, would replace Cobb.
Flood has been described in the press as a "wartime consigliere." His appointment is seen as increasing the possibility of a legal
fight to block an interview with Mueller that could ultimately go to the US Supreme Court.
In a Wednesday night television interview with Fox News' Sean Hannity, Giuliani excoriated former FBI Director James Comey, whom
Trump fired last May after Comey announced that the FBI was investigating possible Trump campaign collusion with Russia. Giuliani
called him "a disgraceful liar" and said he should be indicted for leaking "confidential FBI information." He called the Mueller
probe "a completely tainted investigation" and denounced the FBI raid on Cohen as a "storm trooper" operation.
He cited a list of 49 questions for Trump prepared by Trump's lawyers on the basis of an oral presentation by Mueller's investigators
and called the wide-ranging queries concerning links to Russians and potential obstruction of justice, including the firing of Comey,
a "perjury trap." The questions were leaked and published earlier this week by the New York Times . The Times ,
along with the Washington Post , have been in the forefront of the media witch hunt against Russia.
On the question of Trump agreeing to be interviewed by Mueller, Giuliani said, "Right now, the odds are against it."
Most of the media commentary on the interview has focused on Giuliani's statement that Trump reimbursed Cohen for the $130,000
in hush money he paid to porn star Stormy Daniels shortly before the 2016 election. Cohen has said he paid the money from his own
funds and without Trump's knowledge, and last month Trump told reporters that he had no knowledge of the payoff.
It is striking that despite the media obsession with Trump and Russia, and the single-minded focus of the Democratic Party on
this reactionary campaign, the public remains skeptical, if not hostile, to the entire matter. The Democrats have said virtually
nothing about Trump's war on immigrants, including the barbaric treatment of the Central American caravan of refugees forced to camp
out at the US border and the denial of their right to asylum. The Democratic Party has dropped its phony opposition to Trump's tax
cut for corporations and the rich and barely noted the mounting assault on social programs, from Medicaid to food stamps to housing
subsidies for the poor.
This is reflected in recent polls, which show Trump's approval rating actually increasing and the Democrats' edge in the coming
midterm elections cut in half since the beginning of the year.
There is mass opposition in the working class and among young people to Trump and his chauvinist, militarist and pro-corporate
policies. It is reflected in the upsurge of teachers' strikes and protests in defiance of the corporatist unions, which the unions
and the Democrats are doing everything they can to isolate and suppress.
This emerging movement of the working class in the US and internationally is intensifying the warfare within the American ruling
class and state. The crisis is being fueled not only by sharp differences over foreign policy -- including tactical differences over
Trump's threat to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal and his trade war measures -- but also by a general loss of confidence in Trump's
ability to manage either the global affairs of US imperialism or the tense internal social and political situation.
The independent social and political struggle of the working class is the only basis for a progressive solution to the crisis
of American capitalism. The opposition of workers to Trump can find no progressive outlet within the framework of the capitalist
two-party system. Both factions in the current political wars, notwithstanding their bitter differences, agree on a strategy of expanding
war abroad and austerity and repression at home.
Attention
Hookers : Special Counsel urgently needs your stories. We pay top dollar. Big tits, role-play,
and lying required. Television experience preferred. No drug screening. No background check.
Transportation included.
Call 1-800-George-Soros or contact the Law Offices of Wray, Mueller, and Rosenstein,
LLC.
Investigators stopped the Russian oligarch Viktor Vekselberg at a New York-area airport
after he stepped off a private plane, according to the Times. They proceeded to search his
electronic devices and question him.
There is no indication that Vekselberg is suspected of wrongdoing. But the search and
interview suggests that Mueller's team is homing in on the Trump campaign and inauguration
committee's potential ties with Russians.
"... Rep. Todd Rokita who is in a heated three-way primary in Indiana, appears to be the first Republican Senate candidate to include Mueller in a TV spot, telling GOP voters he will "fight the Mueller witch hunt" if he wins. ..."
"... they are using "fake news to try to destroy our president." ..."
Special counsel Robert
Mueller 's investigation is emerging as a new litmus test in key Republican Senate
primaries.
GOP hopefuls locked in nasty primary fights are increasingly denouncing the Russia probe as
they try to position themselves as the candidate aligned closest with President Trump
The volleys against the special counsel -- who has been investigating potential collusion
between Moscow and the Trump campaign for nearly a year -- come at a time when elections in
several battleground states have entered a crucial stretch.
Rep. Todd Rokita who
is in a heated three-way primary in Indiana, appears to be the first Republican Senate
candidate to include Mueller in a TV spot, telling GOP voters he will "fight the Mueller witch
hunt" if he wins.
The ad unfavorably compares the former FBI director, who is widely respected in the Beltway,
to House Minority Leader Nancy
Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Democratic Sen. Joe Donnelly , saying they are using "fake
news to try to destroy our president."
Judge Mulls Dismissal Of Manafort Charges, "Sharply Questioned" Mueller Overreach
by Tyler Durden
Fri, 05/04/2018 - 11:39 4.1K SHARES
Like most motions to dismiss, Paul Manafort's was initially viewed as a long-shot bid to win
the political operative his freedom and get out from under the thumb of Special Counsel Robert
Mueller.
But after today's hearing on a motion to dismiss filed by Manafort's lawyers, it's looking
increasingly likely that Manafort could escape his charges - and be free of his ankle bracelets
- because in a surprising rebuke of Mueller's "overreach", Eastern District of Virginia Judge
T.S. Ellis, a Reagan appointee, said Mueller shouldn't have "unfettered power" to prosecute
over charges that have nothing to do with collusion between the Trump campaign and the
Russians.
Ellis said he's concerned Mueller is only pursuing charges against Manafort (and presumably
other individuals) to pressure them into turning on Trump. The Judge added that the charges
brought against Manafort didn't appear to stem from Mueller's collusion probe. Instead, they
appeared to be the work of an older investigation into Manafort that was eventually
dropped.
"I don't see how this indictment has anything to do with anything the special prosecutor is
authorized to investigate," Ellis said at a hearing in federal court in Alexandria, Virginia,
concerning a motion by Manafort to dismiss the case.
It got better: Ellis also slammed prosecutors saying it appeared they were using the
indictment of Manafort to pressure him to cooperate against Trump. Manafort, 69, has pleaded
not guilty and disputes Mueller's assertion that he violated U.S. laws when he worked for a
decade as a political consultant for pro-Russian groups in Ukraine.
"You don't really care about Mr. Manafort's bank fraud," Ellis said. "You really care about
what information he might give you about Mr. Trump and what might lead to his impeachment or
prosecution. "
According to Bloomberg, Ellis is overseeing one of two indictments against Manafort.
Manafort is also charged in Washington with money laundering and failing to register as a
foreign agent of Ukraine.
* * *
Manafort's lawyers had asked the judge in the Virginia case to dismiss an indictment filed
against him in what was their third effort to beat back criminal charges by attacking Mueller's
authority. The judge also questioned why Manafort's case there could not be handled by the U.S.
attorney's office in Virginia, rather than the special counsel's office, as it is not
Russia-related . A question many others have asked, as well.
Ellis has given prosecutors two weeks to show what evidence they have that Manafort was
complicit in colluding with the Russians. If they can't come up with any, he may, presumably,
dismiss the case. Ellis also asked the special counsel's office to share privately with him a
copy of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosentein's August 2017 memo elaborating on the scope of
Mueller's Russia probe. He said the current version he has been heavily redacted.
At that point, should nothing change materially, Manafort may be a free man; needless to
say, a dismissal would set precedent and be nothing short of groundbreaking by potentially
making it much harder for Mueller to turn other witnesses against the president.
"... Republicans have repeatedly accused Rosenstein of being unnecessarily slow in providing the documents they say are necessary for carrying out several parallel congressional investigations into FBI decision-making. Some of them have suggested the Justice Department is biased against Trump and now seeking to hide the evidence. ..."
"... The seventh and eighth articles of impeachment in the draft document charge Rosenstein of "knowingly and intentionally prevented the production of all documents and information" related to potential abuses of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and the federal government's initial investigation into possible ties between the Trump campaign and Russia. ..."
"... It was Rosenstein who authored the memo criticizing former FBI Director James Comey , which the White House ultimately used to justify his firing. Trump later indicated that he removed Comey in part because of the Russia investigation, which helped open him up to charges of obstruction of justice. ..."
"... After Comey's firing, it was Rosenstein who decided to appoint Mueller, a former FBI director who is widely respected for his prosecutorial skill and independence, as special counsel to handle the Russia probe. ..."
"... Since then, Rosenstein has given Mueller a broad mandat e to investigate any criminal activity uncovered by his work, angering the president and his allies. ..."
"... In addition, Rosenstein reportedly signed off on the FBI's raid of Michael Cohen, Trump's long-time personal attorney, fueling widespread speculation that the president might fire him. Rosenstein has privately told allies that he is prepared for the possibility of being dismissed, according to NBC News , but his appearance Tuesday made clear he has no intention of caving to outside pressure. ..."
"... He described a process in which a career federal law enforcement officer swears on an affidavit that the information they presented in a FISA application is both "true and correct" to the best of his or her knowledge and belief. While mistakes do happen and there are consequences for those who erred, he said, the agency employs "people who are accountable." ..."
"... "If the focus is Rod Rosenstein and whether he has done something or failed to do something that could remotely warrant impeachment, I think it's just groundless," said Jack Sharman, a former special counsel to Congress during the Whitewater investigations. ..."
Rosenstein defiant as impeachment talk rises By Olivia Beavers and Morgan Chalfant - 05/03/18 06:00 AM EDT
2,577 63 Ex-doctor says Trump dictated letter claiming he would be 'healthiest' president ever Trump- South Korean president
gives us all the credit Rosenstein knocks Republicans who want to impeach him: 'They can't even resist leaking their own drafts'
White House dodges on Mueller questions Sanders: White House tries to 'never be concerned' with Adam Schiff White House talking to
Waffle House hero about Trump meeting White House says Trump is 'very happy' with chief of staff White House: Jackson no longer serving
as Trump's lead physician Chaplain controversy shifts spotlight to rising GOP star Pruitt's head of security resigns Trump’s
ex-doctor says Trump associates 'raided' his office Romney praises Trump's first year in office: It's similar to things 'I'd have
done' WHCD host: Sarah Sanders lies Netanyahu: iran deal flawed, based on lies WHCD host: Trump is not rich Conservative House lawmakers
draft articles of impeachment against Rosenstein List reveals questions Mueller wants to ask Trump: report NBC: White House chief
of staff told aides women 'more emotional' than men McCain torches Trump in new book: He prioritizes appearance of toughness over
American values White House chief of staff denies report he called Trump an idiot Trump: Threats to pull out of Iran deal 'sends
the right message' Trump: We don't want to be the policemen of the world Trump campaign covered some of Cohen's legal costs: report
Democrats losing support of millennials: poll Cruz again questioning McConnell’s strategies Ex-Bush ethics official to run
for Franken's former Senate seat as Dem: report Parkland survivor calls out NRA for banning guns at convention Michelle Wolf pushes
back on criticism of Sarah Sanders jokes 7 targets Michelle Wolf took aim at during the White House correspondents’ dinner
Trump: If Dems win in 2018 midterms, they'll impeach me WHCD host calls Trump ‘cowardly’ for skipping event again Trump
threatens to 'close down the country' over funding for border wall GOP chairman 'doesn't have a problem' with Tester's handling of
Jackson allegations Election forecaster: Nunes seat no longer ‘safe’ Republican Washington’s heavy-drinking ways
in spotlight Stars of 'Veep,' 'West Wing' to lobby lawmakers ahead of White House correspondents' dinner Republican worries 'assassination
risk' prompting lawmaker resignations Gillibrand unveils bill to offer banking services at post offices Meehan resigns with promise
to pay back alleged sexual harassment claim Rosenstein knocks Republicans who want to impeach him: 'They can't even resist leaking
their own drafts'
On Tuesday, the deputy attorney general
rebuked the nascent conservative effort to impeach him, likely exacerbating tensions with conservatives in the House. House Republicans
are demanding access to classified documents related to special counsel
Robert Mueller's investigation, including a heavily redacted
memo that spells out the scope of the investigation.
"There is really nothing to comment on there, but just give me the documents. The bottom line is, he needs to be give me the documents,"
Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) said during an interview with
The Hill on Wednesday when asked about his response to Rosenstein.
"I have one goal in mind, and that is not somebody's job or the termination of somebody's job, it is getting the documents and
making sure we can do proper oversight," he said, adding that there are "no current plans to introduce an impeachment resolution."
Republican lawmakers led by Meadows, chairman of the House Freedom Caucus one of
President Trump's top allies in Congress, have
drafted eight articles of impeachment against Rosenstein. The articles make a series of charges against Rosenstein and question
his credibility, reputation and fitness to serve.
Conservatives have called the impeachment articles a last resort. Rosenstein dismissed the impeachment threat and went a step
further by suggesting the Justice Department's independence is being threatened. "There have been people who have been making threats
privately and publicly against me for quite some time, and I think they should understand by now the Department of Justice is not
going to be extorted," Rosenstein said during an appearance at the Newseum. "I just don't have anything to say about documents like
that that nobody has the courage to put their name on and they leak in that way," he continued, after quipping earlier that the lawmakers
"can't even resist leaking their own drafts."
Rosenstein, a career Justice Department official, is widely respected in legal circles. He has been praised for his work leading
the U.S. attorney's office in Maryland, a position to which he was appointed by President George W. Bush and served in for 12 years,
spanning Republican and Democratic administrations. Rosenstein's years of service at the department came through in his public remarks,
lawyers say.
"With a guy like Rosenstein, you can't underestimate the deep connection that many career -- not all -- but many career Justice
Department officials have to the department," said Steven Cash, a lawyer at Day Pitney. "It defines their self image as participating
in ensuring the rule of law in a way you often don't see in other departments -- they are very, very proud of their association with
the department, its traditions, history and independence."
But Rosenstein has plenty of critics on Capitol Hill, where some Republicans accuse him of hindering legitimate oversight.
Republicans have repeatedly accused Rosenstein of being unnecessarily slow in providing the documents they say are necessary
for carrying out several parallel congressional investigations into FBI decision-making. Some of them have suggested the Justice
Department is biased against Trump and now seeking to hide the evidence.
The seventh and eighth articles of impeachment
in the draft document charge Rosenstein of "knowingly and intentionally prevented the production of all documents and information"
related to potential abuses of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and the federal government's initial investigation
into possible ties between the Trump campaign and Russia.
The charges appear to have caught the attention of the president, who threatened to get involved on Wednesday morning.
"A Rigged System -- They don't want to turn over Documents to Congress. What are they afraid of? Why so much redacting? Why such
unequal 'justice?' At some point I will have no choice but to use the powers granted to the Presidency and get involved," Trump tweeted.
Since Trump appointed Rosenstein to serve as deputy attorney general, he has become a key player in the drama surrounding the
Mueller investigation.
It was Rosenstein who authored the memo criticizing former FBI Director
James Comey, which the White House ultimately used to justify
his firing. Trump later indicated that he removed Comey in part because of the Russia investigation, which helped open him up to
charges of obstruction of justice.
Rosenstein has defended the memo on Comey, pointing to criticism from both parties about Comey's handling of the investigation
into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton 's use of
a private email server before the 2016 presidential election.
After Comey's firing, it was Rosenstein
who decided to appoint Mueller, a former FBI director who is widely respected for his prosecutorial skill and independence, as
special counsel to handle the Russia probe.
Since then, Rosenstein has given Mueller a
broad mandat e to investigate any criminal activity uncovered by his work, angering the president and his allies.
In addition, Rosenstein
reportedly signed off on the FBI's raid of Michael Cohen, Trump's long-time personal attorney, fueling widespread speculation
that the president might fire him. Rosenstein has privately told allies that he is prepared for the possibility of being dismissed,
according to NBC News , but his appearance Tuesday made clear he has no intention of caving to outside pressure.
Rosenstein took issue with allegations detailed in the impeachment draft, including the charge that he failed to properly supervise
surveillance applications.
He described a process in which a career federal law enforcement officer swears on an affidavit that the information they
presented in a FISA application is both "true and correct" to the best of his or her knowledge and belief. While mistakes do happen
and there are consequences for those who erred, he said, the agency employs "people who are accountable."
It's unclear yet whether an impeachment push will gain traction among rank-and-file Republicans; GOP leaders have remained silent
on the matter. AshLee Strong, a spokeswoman for Speaker Paul Ryan
(R-Wis.), indicated Wednesday that he sees no reason to fire Rosenstein, as he said earlier this year. Some GOP lawmakers in
recent weeks have also said they've seen improvement from the Justice Department in responding to documents requests.
"If the focus is Rod Rosenstein and whether he has done something or failed to do something that could remotely warrant impeachment,
I think it's just groundless," said Jack Sharman, a former special counsel to Congress during the Whitewater investigations.
Still, Rosenstein's remarks are sure to ramp up tensions between two sides. Ford O'Connell, a Republican strategist, said Rosenstein
came off as "cagey" in his defense and raised questions about what he may be trying to hide. "Everyone knows that this is heating
up and both sides are gearing up for a fight," O'Connell told The Hill.
Barker points out that Marx was correct that "capitalism has an inbuilt tendency to destroy
itself." I would add that Marx's view that capitalism was heretofore the most revolutionary
force in human history is also true. From the Communist
Manifesto :
The bourgeoisie, historically, has played a most revolutionary part.
The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal,
patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that
bound man to his "natural superiors", and has left remaining no other nexus between man and
man than naked self-interest, than callous "cash payment". It has drowned the most heavenly
ecstasies of religious fervour, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in
the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value,
and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single,
unconscionable freedom -- Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and
political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation.
The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honoured and looked up
to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the
man of science, into its paid wage labourers.
The bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the
family relation to a mere money relation.
The bourgeoisie has disclosed how it came to pass that the brutal display of vigour in the
Middle Ages, which reactionaries so much admire, found its fitting complement in the most
slothful indolence. It has been the first to show what man's activity can bring about. It has
accomplished wonders far surpassing Egyptian pyramids, Roman aqueducts, and Gothic
cathedrals; it has conducted expeditions that put in the shade all former Exoduses of nations
and crusades.
The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionising the instruments of
production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of
society. Conservation of the old modes of production in unaltered form, was, on the contrary,
the first condition of existence for all earlier industrial classes. Constant revolutionising
of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty
and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast-frozen
relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away,
all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into
air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his
real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind.
The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the
entire surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish
connexions everywhere.
You see what he means here. Capitalism -- for Marx, the merchant class (the "bourgeoisie")
were the carriers of capitalism -- turns everything into a market. Capitalism is a
revolutionary force that disrupts and desacralizes all things. All that talk in The Benedict Option about "liquid modernity"? That's based in Marx, actually.
Zygmunt Bauman, the late sociologist from whom I took the idea, was a Marxist.
Look, most of us conservatives in the West are to some degree supporters of the free market.
What we missed for a very long time was that it is hard to support a fully free market while at
the same time expecting our social institutions -- the family, the church, and so forth -- to
remain stable. This is an insight of Marx's that we conservatives -- and even conservative
Christians -- ought to absorb. I write about this a lot, though not in specific Marxist
terms.
The thing is, Christian Democratic parties throughout Western Europe have largely absorbed
this truth. Catholic social teaching is based in these insights as well. They aren't
necessarily against the free market, but rather say that the market must be tempered
for the common good.
That wasn't Marx's view, obviously. Marx thought the free market was itself wicked, and
ought to be totally controlled by the state. We know where that all ended up: with a hundred
million dead, and entire economies and societies destroyed.
But we can agree that Marx was right to diagnose the revolutionary nature of capitalism, if
catastrophically wrong about the cure for capitalism's excesses. If that was as far as Jason
Barker went, that would be fine. But he doesn't -- and this is the warning. Barker
continues:
The key factor in Marx's intellectual legacy in our present-day society is not
"philosophy" but "critique," or what he described in 1843 as "the ruthless criticism of all
that exists: ruthless both in the sense of not being afraid of the results it arrives at and
in the sense of being just as little afraid of conflict with the powers that be." "The
philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it," he
wrote in 1845.
Racial and sexual oppression have been added to the dynamic of class exploitation. Social
justice movements like Black Lives Matter and #MeToo, owe something of an unspoken debt to
Marx through their unapologetic targeting of the "eternal truths" of our age. Such movements
recognize, as did Marx, that the ideas that rule every society are those of its ruling class
and that overturning those ideas is fundamental to true revolutionary progress.
We have become used to the go-getting mantra that to effect social change we first have to
change ourselves. But enlightened or rational thinking is not enough, since the norms of
thinking are already skewed by the structures of male privilege and social hierarchy, even
down to the language we use. Changing those norms entails changing the very foundations of
society.
There it is, reader. There is the "cultural Marxism" that you hear so much about, and that
so many on the left deny. It is in the Marxist principle that there is no such thing as truth;
there is only power.
Lenin understood this well. This is the meaning of his famous dictum, "Who, whom?" In Lenin's view,
co-existence with capitalism was not possible. The only question was whether or not the
communists will smash the capitalists first, or the other way around. One way of interpreting
this is to say that the moral value of an action depends on who is doing it to
whom .
This is why it is pointless for us conservatives and old-school liberals to stand around
identifying contradictions and hypocrisies in how the progressives behave. They don't care!
They aren't trying to apply universal standards of justice. They believe that "universal
standards of justice" is a cant phrase to disguise white heterosexist patriarchal supremacy.
They believe that justice is achieving power for their group, and therefore disempowering other
groups. This is why it's not racist, in their view, to favor non-whites over whites in the
distribution of power. This is why they don't consider it unfair to discriminate against men,
heterosexuals, and other out-groups.
They will use things like "dialogue" as a tactic to serve the long-term strategy of
acquiring total power. Resisting them on liberal grounds is like bringing a knife to a gun
fight. The neoreactionaries have seen this clearly, while conservatives like me, who can't
quite let go of old-fashioned liberalism, have resisted it.
I have resisted it because I really would like to live in a world where we can negotiate our
differences while allowing individuals and groups maximum autonomy in the private sphere. I
want to be left alone, and want to leave others alone. This, I fear, is a pipe dream. Absent a
shared cultural ethos, I can't see how this is possible. I hate to say it -- seriously, I do --
but I think that today's conservatives (including me) are going to end up as neoreactionaries,
just as today's old-school liberals are going to end up as progressives, because the forces
pulling us to these extremes are stronger than any centrism.
For example, check this out:
I'm running into irreligious people who think that a religious person violating their
deeply held principles is just a matter of choice, that they don't truly have any genuine
beliefs.
We can't even converse any more b/c we're not speaking the same language.
This is our country -- and this is the danger we religious people are facing, and are going
to face much more intensely. Many non-religious people simply cannot understand why we see the
world the way we do, and assume that it can only be out of irrationality and bigotry.
I invite you to read
this blog post from three years ago, based on my interview with "Prof. Kingsfield", a
closeted Christian teaching at an elite law school. This excerpt:
"Alasdair Macintyre is right," he said. "It's like a nuclear bomb went off, but in slow
motion." What he meant by this is that our culture has lost the ability to reason together,
because too many of us want and believe radically incompatible things.
But only one side has the power. When I asked Kingsfield what most people outside elite
legal and academic circles don't understand about the way elites think, he said "there's this
radical incomprehension of religion."
"They think religion is all about being happy-clappy and nice, or should be, so they don't
see any legitimate grounds for the clash," he said. "They make so many errors, but they don't
want to listen."
To elites in his circles, Kingsfield continued, "at best religion is something consenting
adult should do behind closed doors. They don't really understand that there's a link between
Sister Helen Prejean's faith and the work she does on the death penalty. There's a lot of
looking down on flyover country, one middle America.
"The sad thing," he said, "is that the old ways of aspiring to truth, seeing all knowledge
as part of learning about the nature of reality, they don't hold. It's all about power.
They've got cultural power, and think they should use it for good, but their idea of good is
not anchored in anything. They've got a lot of power in courts and in politics and in
education. Their job is to challenge people to think critically, but thinking critically
means thinking like them. They really do think that they know so much more than anybody did
before, and there is no point in listening to anybody else, because they have all the
answers, and believe that they are good."
This is a small part of a larger struggle.
Many on the left deny that cultural Marxism exists, but you have in The New York
Times a column by a Marxist professor saying that yes it does, and it's a good thing, too.
His final line:
On that basis, we are destined to keep citing him and testing his ideas until the kind of
society that he struggled to bring about, and that increasing numbers of us now desire, is
finally realized.
Marx didn't come from nowhere. The world of 1848 (when the Communist Manifesto appeared) is
a lot like our own world; re-read the section above from that document and see how familiar it
sounds. He was more or less right in his diagnosis of the revolutionary nature of capitalism,
but his materialism and its relationship to human nature was catastrophically wrong. His
thought may have resulted in mass murder, but it is clearly not dead; it is simply turned
against culture, not the means of production.
Therefore, I'll end here with this excerpt from Carlo Lancellotti's recent
Commonweal essay about Marx, culture, and Catholicism. Excerpt:
Contra the "Catholic Left," which tended to regard Marx's atheism as accidental, and tried
to rescue his socio-political analysis from his religious views, Del Noce concluded that what
Marx proposed was not just a new theory of history or a new program of political economy, but
a new anthropology , one completely different from the Christian tradition. (Louis
Dupré had made a similar argument in the pages of Commonweal ; see "Marx and Religion: An
Impossible Marriage," April 26, 1968.) Marx viewed humans as "social beings" entirely
determined by historical and material circumstances rather than by their relationship with
God. He viewed human reason as purely instrumental -- a tool of production and social
organization rather than the capacity to contemplate the truth and participate in the divine
wisdom. Finally, Marx viewed liberation as the fruit of political action, not as a personal
process of conversion aided by grace. Marxist politics was not guided by fixed and absolute
ethical principles, because ethics, along with philosophy, was absorbed into politics. Del
Noce concluded that there was no way to rescue Marx's politics from his atheism, which had as
much to do with his view of man as with his view of God.
Nonetheless, after World War II Marxism experienced a resurgence in Western Europe, not
only among intellectuals and politicians but also in mainstream culture. But Del Noce noticed
that at the same time society was moving in a very different direction from what Marx had
predicted: capitalism kept expanding, people were eagerly embracing consumerism, and the
prospect of a Communist revolution seemed more and more remote. To Del Noce, this
simultaneous success and defeat of Marxism pointed to a deep contradiction. On the
one hand, Marx had taught historical materialism, the doctrine that metaphysical and ethical
ideas are just ideological covers for economic and political interests. On the other hand, he
had prophesied that the expansion of capitalism would inevitably lead to revolution, followed
by the "new man," the "classless society," the "reign of freedom." But what if the revolution
did not arrive, if the "new man" never materialized?
In that case, Del Noce realized, Marxist historical materialism would degenerate into a
form of radical relativism -- into the idea that philosophical and moral concepts are just
reflections of historical and economic circumstances and have no permanent validity. This
would have to include the concept of injustice, without which a critique of capitalism would
be hard, if not impossible, to uphold. A post-Marxist culture -- one that kept Marx's radical
materialism and denial of religious transcendence, while dispensing with his confident
predictions about the self-destruction of capitalism -- would naturally tend to be
radically bourgeois. By that, Del Noce meant a society that views "everything as an
object of trade" and "as an instrument" to be used in the pursuit of individualized
"well-being." Such bourgeois society would be highly individualistic, because it could not
recognize any cultural or religious "common good." In the Communist Manifesto, Marx
and Engels described the power of the bourgeois worldview to dissolve all cultural and
religious allegiances into a universal market. Now, ironically, Marxist ideas (which Del Noce
viewed as a much larger and more influential phenomenon than political Marxism in a strict
sense) had helped bring that process to completion. At a conference in Rome in 1968, Del Noce
looked back at recent history and concluded that the post-Marxist culture would be "a society
that accepts all of Marxism's negations against contemplative thought, religion, and
metaphysics; that accepts, therefore, the Marxist reduction of ideas to instruments of
production. But which, on the other hand, rejects the revolutionary-messianic aspects of
Marxism, and thus all the religious elements that remain within the revolutionary idea. In
this regard, it truly represents the bourgeois spirit in its pure state, the bourgeois spirit
triumphant over its two traditional adversaries, transcendent religion and revolutionary
thought."
If Del Noce is correct, we may not have to worry about the cultural Marxists of our time
taking total power, as consumer capitalism and its comforts will compromise their revolutionary
spirit. When and if university presidents start kicking these bumptious brats out of college,
the revolution will sputter like Occupy Wall Street did. But before it's all over, they may end
up destroying the institutions and ways of life that make life stable and meaningful. Then
again, unrestrained capitalism has done the same thing. The problem with Marxism is that it
burns the boats so that nobody can return, and calls the resulting fire enlightenment.
The warning is twofold: First, that cultural Marxism is a real thing willing and capable of
doing real damage, and that you cannot negotiate with these people; and second, that unless
capitalists figure out how to ameliorate the excesses of market and technological change on
society, they are tempting fate, just as their 19th and early 20th century forebears did.
UPDATE: Reader Dave:
The bigger problem with the NYT piece that you either missed or didn't feel added to your
thesis is the irony that Marx's critiques are seen as a good and carrying that forward
cultural Marxist critiques are good, unless you are critiquing those critiques. You aren't
allowed to critique arguments from BLM or La Raza or LGBTQXYZ groups or etc because taking a
critical eye to those groups is just hateful bigoted nonsense. Never mind that those groups'
manifestos generally don't hold up to scrutiny, just accept it as a means to an end (even if
that end isn't really where we should like to be). In a world where there is no objective
truth and all individuals' "truths" are valid there is no basis culture or society. But you
can't bring that up, lest you be labeled an insensitive bigot who should be burned at the
stake. My guess is if Marx were revived today he would be ashamed more of the intellectual
rot his philosophy has spawned than he would over the millions of innocents dead.
Significantly left of center, "hard left", may only describe 20-25% of the U.S.
population, but in certain geographic areas, they control virtually all of the political
levers of government. Seattle for instance.
Seattle. Right. The domain of corporate liberalism on steroids. Hard left. Uh-huh. I won't
ask what you've been smoking, because I think its congenital.
should read "Goldman bankers aren't interested in funding class consciousness"
Much better and more accurate than removing "not" from the original. Thank you.
Marx was a smart guy, but too smart. It was really really weird the older I got and the more
I found out about recurring class struggles and sometimes riots and even revolutions, again
and again, in ancient Greece and Rome. There's so much documentation, over centuries, that it
seems pretty obvious to me that there's nothing significantly new about Marxism at all, it's
just a slightly more complex manifestation of a permanent phenomenon: inequality. Can
anything be done about it? Nothing, you just have to idealize "equality" and KNOW inequality.
The dramatic rise fo the number of CIA-democrats as candidates from Democratic Party is not assedental. As regular clintonites
are discredited those guys can still appeal to patriotism to get elected.
Notable quotes:
"... Bernie continuously forcing Hillary to appear apologetic about her campaign funding from big financial interests. She tries hard to persuade the public that she will not serve specific interests. Her anxiety can be identified in many cases and it was very clear at the moment when she accused Bernie of attacking her, concerning this funding. Hillary was forced to respond with a deeply irrational argument: anyone who takes money from big interests doesn't mean that he/she will vote for policies in favor of these interests! ..."
"... Bernie drives the discussion towards fundamental ideological issues. He forced Hillary to defend her "progressiveness". She was forced to speak even about economic interests by names. A few years ago, this would be nearly a taboo in any debate between any primaries. ..."
"... After the disastrous defeat by Trump in 2016 election, the corporate Democrats realized that the progressive movement, supported mostly by the American youth, would not retreat and vanish. On the contrary, Bernie Sanders' popularity still goes up and there is a wave of progressive candidates who appear to be a real threat to the DNC establishment and the Clintonian empire. ..."
"... It seems that the empire has upgraded its dirty tactics beyond Hillary's false relocation to the Left. Seeing the big threat from the real progressives, the empire seeks to "plant" its own agents, masked as progressives, inside the electoral process, to disorientate voters and steal the popular vote. ..."
"... This is a Master's class in blatant historical revisionism and outright dishonesty. Beals was not a soldier unwillingly drafted into service, but an intelligence officer who voluntarily accepted an influential and critically important post for the Bush Administration in its ever-expanding crime against humanity in Iraq. ..."
During the 2016 Democratic party primaries we wrote that
what Bernie achieved, is to bring back the real political discussion in America, at least concerning the Democratic camp. Bernie
smartly "drags" his primary rival, Hillary Clinton, into the heart of the politics. Up until a few years ago, you could not observe
too much difference between the Democrats and the Republicans, who were just following the pro-establishment "politics as usual",
probably with a few, occasional exceptions. The "politics as usual" so far, was "you can't touch the Wall Street", for example.
Bernie continuously forcing Hillary to appear apologetic about her campaign funding from big financial interests. She tries hard
to persuade the public that she will not serve specific interests. Her anxiety can be identified in many cases and it was very clear
at the moment when she accused Bernie of attacking her, concerning this funding. Hillary was forced to respond with a deeply irrational
argument: anyone who takes money from big interests doesn't mean that he/she will vote for policies in favor of these interests!
Bernie drives the discussion towards fundamental ideological issues. He forced Hillary to defend her "progressiveness". She was
forced to speak even about economic interests by names. A few years ago, this would be nearly a taboo in any debate between any primaries.
After the disastrous defeat by Trump in 2016 election, the corporate Democrats realized that the progressive movement, supported
mostly by the American youth, would not retreat and vanish. On the contrary, Bernie Sanders' popularity still goes up and there is
a wave of progressive candidates who appear to be a real threat to the DNC establishment and the Clintonian empire.
It seems that the empire has upgraded its dirty tactics beyond Hillary's false relocation to the Left. Seeing the big threat from
the real progressives, the empire seeks to "plant" its own agents, masked as progressives, inside the electoral process, to disorientate
voters and steal the popular vote.
Eric Draitser gives us valuable information for such a type of candidate. Key points:
One candidate currently generating some buzz in the race is Jeff Beals, a self-identified "Bernie democrat" whose campaign website
homepage describes him as a " local teacher and former U.S. diplomat endorsed by the national organization of former Bernie Sanders
staffers, the Justice Democrats. " And indeed, Beals centers his progressive bona fides to brand himself as one of the inheritors
of the progressive torch lit by Sanders in 2016. A smart political move, to be sure. But is it true?
Beals describes himself as a "former U.S. diplomat," touting his expertise on international issues born of his experience overseas.
In an email interview with CounterPunch, Beals describes his campaign as a " movement for diplomacy and peace in foreign affairs
and an end to militarism my experience as a U.S. diplomat is what drives it and gives this movement such force. " OK, sounds
good, a very progressive sounding answer. But what did Beals actually do during his time overseas?
By his own admission, Beals' overseas career began as an intelligence officer with the CIA. His fluency in Arabic and knowledge
of the region made him an obvious choice to be an intelligence spook during the latter stages of the Clinton Administration.
Beals shrewdly attempts to portray himself as an opponent of neocon imperialism in Iraq. In his interview with CounterPunch, Beals
argued that " The State Department was sidelined as the Bush administration and a neoconservative cabal plunged America into the
tragic Iraq War. As a U.S. diplomat fluent in Arabic and posted in Jerusalem at the time, I was called over a year into the war to
help our country find a way out. "
This is a Master's class in blatant historical revisionism and outright dishonesty. Beals was not a soldier unwillingly drafted
into service, but an intelligence officer who voluntarily accepted an influential and critically important post for the Bush Administration
in its ever-expanding crime against humanity in Iraq.
Moreover, no one who knows anything about the Iraq War could possibly swallow the tripe that CIA/State Department officials in
Iraq were " looking to help our country find a way out " a year into the war. A year into the war, the bloodletting was only
just beginning, and Halliburton, Exxon-Mobil, and the other corporate vultures had yet to fully exploit the country and make billions
off it. So, unfortunately for Beals, the historical memory of the anti-war Left is not that short.
It is self-evident that Beals has a laundry list of things in his past that he must answer for. For those of us, especially Millennials,
who cut our activist teeth demonstrating and organizing against the Iraq War, Beals' distortions about his role in Iraq go down like
hemlock tea. But it is the associations Beals maintains today that really should give any progressive serious pause.
When asked by CounterPunch whether he has any connections to either Bernie Sanders and his surrogates or Hillary Clinton and hers,
Beals responded by stating: " I am endorsed by Justice Democrats, a group of former Bernie Sanders staffers who are pledged to
electing progressives nationwide. I am also endorsed for the Greene County chapter of the New York Progressive Action Network, formerly
the Bernie Sanders network. My first hire was a former Sanders field coordinator who worked here in NY-19. "
However, conveniently missing from that response is the fact that Beals' campaign has been, and continues to be, directly managed
in nearly every respect by Bennett Ratcliff, a longtime friend and ally of Hillary Clinton. Ratcliff is not mentioned in any publicly
available documents as a campaign manager, though the most recent FEC filings show that as of April 1, 2018, Ratcliff was still on
the payroll of the Beals campaign. And in the video of Beals' campaign kickoff rally, Ratcliff introduces Beals, while only being
described as a member of the Onteora School Board in Ulster County . This is sort of like referring to Donald Trump as an avid
golfer.
Beals has studiously, and rather intelligently, avoided mentioning Ratcliff, or the presence of Clinton's inner circle on his
campaign. However, according to internal campaign documents and emails obtained by CounterPunch, Ratcliff manages nearly every aspect
of the campaign, acting as a sort of éminence grise behind the artifice of a progressive campaign fronted by a highly educated and
photogenic political novice.
By his own admission, Ratcliff's role on the campaign is strategy, message, and management. Sounds like a rather textbook description
of a campaign manager. Indeed, Ratcliff has been intimately involved in "guiding" Beals on nearly every important campaign decision,
especially those involving fundraising .
And it is in the realm of fundraising that Ratcliff really shines, but not in the way one would traditionally think. Rather than
focusing on large donations and powerful interests, Ratcliff is using the Beals campaign as a laboratory for his strategy of winning
elections without raising millions of dollars.
In fact, leaked campaign documents show that Ratcliff has explicitly instructed Beals and his staffers not to spend money on
food, decorations, and other standard campaign expenses in hopes of presenting the illusion of a grassroots, people-powered campaign
with no connections to big time donors or financial elites .
It seems that Ratcliff is the wizard behind the curtain, leveraging his decades of contact building and close ties to the Democratic
Party establishment while at the same time manufacturing an astroturfed progressive campaign using a front man in Beals .
One of Ratcliff's most infamous, and indefensible, acts of fealty to the Clinton machine came in 2009 when he and longtime Clinton
attorney and lobbyist, Lanny Davis, stumped around Washington to garner support for the illegal right-wing coup in Honduras, which
ousted the democratically elected President Manuel Zelaya in favor of the right-wing oligarchs who control the country today. Although
the UN, and even U.S. diplomats on the ground in Honduras, openly stated that the coup was illegal, Clinton was adamant to actively
keep Zelaya out.
Essentially then, Ratcliff is a chief architect of the right-wing government in Honduras – the same government assassinating feminist
and indigenous activists like Berta Cáceres, Margarita Murillo, and others, and forcibly displacing and ethnically cleansing Afro-indigenous
communities to make way for Carribbean resorts and golf courses.
And this Washington insider lobbyist and apologist for war criminals and crimes against humanity is the guy who's on a crusade
to reform campaign finance and fix Washington? This is the guy masquerading as a progressive? This is the guy working to elect an
"anti-war progressive"?
In a twisted way it makes sense. Ratcliff has the blood of tens of thousands of Hondurans (among others) on his hands, while Beals
is a creature of Langley, a CIA boy whose exceptional work in the service of Bush and Clinton administration war criminals is touted
as some kind of merit badge on his resume.
What also becomes clear after establishing the Ratcliff-Beals connection is the fact that Ratcliff's purported concern with
campaign financing and "taking back the Republic" is really just a pretext for attempting to provide a "proof of concept," as it
were, that neoliberal Democrats shouldn't fear and subvert the progressive wing of the party, but rather that they should co-opt
it with a phony grassroots facade all while maintaining links to U.S. intelligence, Wall Street, and the power brokers of the Democratic
Party .
Mueller's proposed questions to Trump show that Trump remains Mueller's ultimate target
Notable quotes:
"... (1) Robert Mueller is in possession of no facts which have not previously been made public. ..."
"... (2) Donald Trump continues to be Robert Mueller's target ..."
"... Frankly they do not look like the sort of questions an investigator asks if he searching for the truth. Rather they look like cross examination by prosecuting Counsel. ..."
"... (3) Obstruction of Justice has replaced collusion with Russia as the focus of the Mueller probe ..."
"... the Russiagate investigation did become a criminal inquiry and not just a counterespionage inquiry. ..."
"... When he finished, I said that I agreed very much that it was terrible that his calls with foreign leaders leaked. I said they were classified and he needed to be able to speak to foreign leaders in confidence ..."
"... The memo shows Trump putting pressure on Comey to investigate the leaks and Comey resisting doing so. Whilst Comey purported to agree with Trump that the leaks were terrible and that the leakers should be punished, he resisted Trump's suggestion that the most effective way to go after the leakers was to go after the reporters they were leaking to. ..."
"... The reason Trump brought up the subject of Flynn was because his case was a particularly egregious example of a career that had been destroyed by unauthorised and illegal leaking. ..."
"... In addition Mueller wants to ask Trump questions about his thoughts about Comey and his reasons for dismissing Comey, all of which suggest an attempt to catch Trump in some sort of obstruction of justice charge in relation to the circumstances of Comey's dismissal, about which however see above. ..."
"... (4) The collusion narrative has collapsed ..."
"... The lawyer, Natalia V. Veselnitskaya, duped Don Jr. into setting up the meeting by claiming to have dirt on Hillary Clinton. In fact, the meeting was a bait and switch. It turned out the lawyer had no meaningful information to offer on Mrs. Clinton. Rather, she wanted to interest the Trump team in a Moscow initiative to allow American families to adopt Russian children. ..."
"... In contrast, Hillary Clinton's campaign actually helped pay for a dossier of almost entirely false accusations about Mr. Trump , some of which a British former intelligence official obtained from Russian contacts. ..."
"... Donald Trump has repeatedly referred to Mueller's investigation as a witch-hunt, and he is right. The questions Mueller is seeking to ask Trump confirm as much. ..."
(1) Robert Mueller is in possession of no facts which have not previously been made
public.
Every single one of the questions is obviously drawn on information which has already been
made public and which has been widely discussed.
... ... ...
(2) Donald Trump continues to be Robert Mueller's target
Recently there have been media reports that Robert Mueller's investigators have informed
Donald Trump that he is not a target of the Mueller investigation.
The highly aggressive questions Mueller wants to ask Trump however tell a very different
story. The consistent theme behind them is of a Donald Trump who is very much at the centre of
all sorts of nefarious activities. Frankly they do not look like the sort of questions an
investigator asks if he searching for the truth. Rather they look like cross examination by
prosecuting Counsel.
In light of this Trump's hesitation in submitting himself to an interview by Mueller in
which these sort of questions are asked is fully understandable.
I suspect his lawyers are advising him against it.
(3) Obstruction of Justice has replaced collusion with Russia as the focus of the
Mueller probe
When around the time of former FBI Director James Comey's admittedly botched dismissal the
issue of obstruction of justice first arose, it seemed to me so farfetched that I could not
bring myself to believe that Mueller or anyone else would seriously entertain it.
As I pointed out at the time the Russiagate investigation was at that point in time still a
counterespionage inquiry rather than a crime inquiry, as had recently been confirmed by no less
a person than James Comey himself in his March 2017 testimony to the House Intelligence
Committee.
As it happens it is a moot point when exactly the Russiagate investigation did become a
criminal inquiry and not just a counterespionage inquiry.
My guess is that no such formal decision was ever taken, but that Mueller himself simply
decided as soon as he was appointed Special Counsel that he was conducting a criminal inquiry
as well as a counterespionage inquiry. The point is apparently being pursued by Paul Manafort's
lawyers in the case Mueller has brought against him. It will be interesting to see what comes
of it. Irrespective of this, the fact that the Russiagate investigation was apparently still a
counterespionage inquiry as opposed to a criminal inquiry when Comey was sacked made it
impossible for me to see how
Comey's sacking could amount to an obstruction of justice.
What I was of course at that time completely unaware of was of the discussions which had
previously passed between Trump and Comey about General Flynn.
A memo Comey wrote up after one of these discussions has been seized on by Trump's critics
as evidence that he attempted to block the FBI's investigation into whether or not General
Flynn had committed an offence under the Logan Act by talking whilst a member of the Trump
transition team to Russian ambassador Kislyak, and that this amounts to an obstruction of
justice.
When early accounts of the contents of this memo appeared I expressed my strong doubt that its contents as
they were being reported showed that there had been any obstruction of justice by Donald Trump
of the investigation of General Flynn
..since Comey's note shows Trump neither instructing Comey nor requesting Comey to drop
the investigation against Flynn, nor of Trump putting pressure on Comey to do so, but merely
shows Trump expressing the "hope" Comey would do so, in any sane world no charge of
obstructing
justice or of perverting the course of
justice brought upon it could possibly stick.
The redacted text of this
and of Comey's other memos has now been published, and the relevant sections of the memo read
as follows
He [Donald Trump – AM] began by saying he "wanted to talk about Mike Flynn". He then
said that although Flynn "hadn't done anything wrong" in his call with the Russians (a point
he made at least two more times in the conversation), he had to let him go because he misled
the Vice-President and, in any event, he had concerns about Flynn, and had a great guy coming
in, so he had to let Flynn go ..
..He then referred at length to the leaks relating to Mike Flynn's call with the Russians,
which he stressed was not wrong in any way ("he made lots of calls"), but that the leaks were
terrible.
I tried to interject several times to agree with him about the leaks being terrible, but
was unsuccessful. When he finished, I said that I agreed very much that it was terrible
that his calls with foreign leaders leaked. I said they were classified and he needed to be
able to speak to foreign leaders in confidence ..
He then returned to the subject of Mike Flynn, saying that Flynn is a good guy, and has
been through a lot. He misled the Vice-President but he didn't do anything wrong in the call.
He said, "I hope you can see your way to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good
guy. I hope you can let this go." I replied by saying, "I agree he is a good guy", but said
no more.
(bold italics added)
The entirety of the memo in fact shows that the main subject of the conversation and Donald
Trump's major concern as of the time when the conversation took place was not General Flynn or
the case against him but the systematic campaign of leaks which were undermining his
administration.
The memo shows Trump putting pressure on Comey to investigate the leaks and Comey
resisting doing so. Whilst Comey purported to agree with Trump that the leaks were terrible and
that the leakers should be punished, he resisted Trump's suggestion that the most effective way
to go after the leakers was to go after the reporters they were leaking
to.
The reason Trump brought up the subject of Flynn was because his case was a particularly
egregious example of a career that had been destroyed by unauthorised and illegal
leaking.
In this Trump was undoubtedly right.
Over the course of this discussion – and obviously so as to emphasise the point -Trump
made the further point – which is no longer disputed by anyone – that Flynn had
done nothing wrong in his conversations with Kislyak, and had done nothing to deserve having
his career and reputation destroyed by illegal leaking.
The memo shows that it was in the context of these observations about the way Flynn was
brought down by illegal leaking that Trump made his comments about the investigation of
Flynn.
Trump's point was that the investigation of Flynn for committing an offence under the Logan
Act (initiated by former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates). coming on top of the illegal
leaks which had destroyed his career, was tough on Flynn given that he had done nothing
wrong.
Accordingly Trump said to Comey that he hoped Comey would be able to find a way to "letting
[the case against Flynn] go".
It was a minor aside and it is unlikely Trump gave much thought to it. Certainly it was not
intended as any sort of instruction to Comey to drop the inquiry, and the entirety of the text
of the memo shows that Comey never thought it was.
In fact the memo shows that Comey agreed with Trump.
The words in the memo which I have highlighted ("I agreed very much that it was terrible
that his calls with foreign leaders leaked. I said they were classified and he needed to be
able to speak to foreign leaders in confidence") have attracted remarkably little attention.
However they show clearly that Comey also thought that Flynn's conversation with Kislyak was
lawful.
No other explanation for his words as he himself has reported them in his memo – "he
needed to be able to speak to foreign leaders in confidence" – is possible.
In other words the memo shows that not only did Trump not instruct or request Comey to drop
the investigation of Flynn or put pressure on Comey to do so, but on the contrary he and Comey
had what was essentially a consensual conversation in which they both agreed with each other
that (1) leaks are terrible; (2) Flynn had been appallingly treated by having his career and
reputation destroyed by leaks; and (3) in his conversation with Kislyak Flynn had done nothing
wrong.
Given that this is so it is simply impossible to see how an obstruction of justice charge
can be put together from this material.
Nonetheless the drift of Mueller's questions to Trump suggests that this is still what
Mueller is trying to do.
A disproportionate number of Mueller's questions concern Trump's various interactions with
Comey. These include but are not limited to Trump's interactions with Comey which concerned
Flynn.
In addition Mueller wants to ask Trump questions about his thoughts about Comey and his
reasons for dismissing Comey, all of which suggest an attempt to catch Trump in some sort of
obstruction of justice charge in relation to the circumstances of Comey's dismissal, about
which however see above.
There is also a number of questions concerning Trump's sometimes fraught relationship with
Attorney General Jeff Sessions, the clear implication of which is that Trump's widely known and
publicly expressed anger about Sessions's decision to recuse himself from the Russiagate
inquiry stems from anger that Sessions would no longer be able to protect Trump from it.
Even if that is so – which it probably is – I cannot see how it amounts to
obstruction of justice. Anger that Sessions had recused himself from the Russiagate inquiry and
would no longer be able to protect the President is surely no more than a thought crime even if it were true, which
it probably is.
Last I heard thought crimes are not actionable in America. However,judging from his
questions, Mueller still seems intent on pursuing this one.
(4) The collusion narrative has collapsed
By comparison with the disproportionate number of questions devoted to the obstruction of
justice allegations, the questions about the alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and
Russia – the investigation of which was supposed to be the object of the Mueller inquiry
– look threadbare.
All of them cover old ground, in which all the facts are known.
The first two questions concern the now notorious meeting in Trump Tower in June 2016
between Donald Trump Junior and the Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya. The lack of substance
to this meeting, and the extent to which it is truly a non-story, has been brilliantly
explained by Ronald Kessler in The Washington
Times
When it comes to President Trump and the question of
collusion with Russia , there is indeed a smoking gun.
But it's not the June 2016 meeting that Donald Trump Jr. , along with
campaign chairman Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner,
held in Trump
Tower with a Russian lawyer.
The lawyer, Natalia V. Veselnitskaya, duped Don Jr. into setting up the meeting by
claiming to have dirt on Hillary Clinton. In fact, the meeting was a bait and switch. It
turned out the lawyer had no meaningful information to offer on Mrs. Clinton. Rather, she
wanted to interest the Trump team in a Moscow initiative to allow American families to adopt
Russian children.
The meeting, which lasted 20 minutes, was the sort any political campaign or media outlet
would have agreed to. Like investigative reporters, political operatives want to obtain tips,
even if most of the time the proffered information turns out to be of no value. In this case,
nothing came of the meeting. In contrast, Hillary Clinton's campaign actually helped pay
for a dossier of almost entirely false accusations about Mr. Trump , some of which a
British former intelligence official obtained from Russian contacts.
According to journalistic standards that existed decades ago, the fact that such a meeting
took place would not have even been a story. The pretext for the meeting was a hoax, and
nothing resulted from it. To suggest by running a story that there was something nefarious
about it was unfair. But in today's politically charged media world, the meeting became an
immediate sensation as part of a narrative -- pushed by the media and Democrats -- suggesting
that the Trump campaign illegally colluded with Russia .
I have nothing to add to this masterful analysis save to say that the fact that Mueller is
continuing to ask questions about a meeting at which exactly nothing happened is testimony to
the hollowness of the whole collusion narrative the investigation of which Mueller's inquiry is
supposed to be about.
Summary
When Robert Mueller was appointed Special Counsel I welcomed his appointment. What I had
heard about Mueller suggested that he would be a safe pair of hands who would put the whole
preposterous Russiagate conspiracy theory to bed. It is with frank embarrassment that
I
repeat what I wrote about him at the time of his appointment
.it is essential that with Comey gone the Russiagate investigation is put in the charge of
a safe pair of hands, and of someone who will not be seen as the President's defender, and
whose eventual findings are accepted, and Mueller seems by most accounts to be the sort of
person to do that ..
Mueller appears to be a good choice for the job. He was a well regarded FBI director,
staying in post from 2001 – when he was appointed by George W. Bush – until his
retirement in 2013, when Comey replaced him. During that period he resisted the George W.
Bush administration's attempts to introduce interrogation methods since characterised as
torture as part of the so-called 'war on terror'. As someone well known to the staff of the
FBI, he looks like the obvious person to do the job, and to steady the ship, and –
hopefully – to bring some sanity to this investigation.
Mueller's job will now be to bring order to the mess Comey has created, and to bring the
various investigations into Russiagate that Obama's Justice Department initiated to a proper
close. If he does his job properly – and if he is left alone to do it – it should
all be over by the summer.
It has long since become clear that far from Mueller being the safe pair of hands I took him
for, he is someone who sees his task as protecting the Justice Department and the FBI (which he
largely built up) from someone who he obviously considers to be an angry and potentially
vengeful President. His proposed questions show that he still has the President in his sights,
and that Mueller is pulling out all the stops to bring him down.
Donald Trump has repeatedly referred to Mueller's investigation as a witch-hunt, and he
is right. The questions Mueller is seeking to ask Trump confirm as much.
Comey, who was FBI chief from 2013 to 2017, was quoting a line reputedly uttered by
Martin Luther in 1521, when he told Holy Roman Emperor Charles V that he would not recan t his sweeping criticisms of the Catholic
Church. Comey's quotation of himself quoting the father of the Reformation is par for the self-reverence of his new memoir, A Higher
Loyalty: Truth, Lies, and Leadership .
MSNBC host Chris Matthews recently declared,
"James Comey made his bones by standing up against torture. He was a made man before Trump came along."
Washington Post columnist Fareed Zakaria , in a column declaring that Americans should be "deeply grateful" to lawyers like Comey,
declared, "The Bush administration wanted to claim that its 'enhanced interrogation techniques' were lawful. Comey believed they
were not... So Comey pushed back as much as he could."
Martin Luther risked death to fight against what he considered the heresies of his time. Comey, a top Bush administration policymaker,
found a safer way to oppose the worldwide secret U.S. torture regime widely considered a heresy against American values. Comey
approved brutal practices and then wrote some memos and emails fretting about the optics.
Rather than ending the abuses, Comey repudiated the memo. Speaking to the media in a not-for-attribution session on June 22, 2004,
Comey declared that
the 2002 memo was "overbroad," "abstract academic theory," and "legally unnecessary ." Comey helped oversee crafting a new memo
with different legal footing to justify the same interrogation methods.
In 2014, the Senate Intelligence Committee finally released a massive report, Americans learned grisly details of the CIA torture
regime that Comey helped legally sanctify - including
death via hypothermia, rape-like rectal feeding of detainees, compelling detainees to stand long periods on broken legs, and dozens
of cases of innocent people pointlessly brutalized. Psychologists aided the torture regime, offering hints on how to destroy
the will and resistance of prisoners. The only CIA official to go to prison for the torture scandal was courageous whistleblower
John Kiriakou.
If Comey had resigned in 2004 or 2005 to protest the torture techniques he now claims to abhor, he would deserve some of the praise
he is now receiving. Instead, he remained in the Bush administration but wrote an email summarizing his objections, declaring that
"it was my job to protect the department
and the A.G. [Attorney General] and that I could not agree to this because it was wrong." A 2009 New York Times analysis noted
that Comey and two colleagues "have largely escaped criticism [for approving torture] because
they raised questions about interrogation
and the law." In Washington, writing emails is "close enough for government work" to convey sainthood.
Fl*ck Comey. OMG. I've been wanting to puke into a wastebasket over all of Comey's crap lately. Actually, wanting to puke is
one of my best bullshit barometers. He's a lying sack of shit, strutting his sanctimonious arrogance all over the tee-vee. Meanwhile
back home his family of women wear pink hats to protest Trump. Wonder if James the Great told his family members he approved torture?
4) When Obama was President, he was kept in line by the "Birthers".
His cabinet was handpicked by Citibank! He didn't need to be "kept in line" at all.
Sanders was arguably a moderate populist hoping to ameliorate the bad effects of
capitalism by addressing its more obvious social consequences of its logic in a way that has
already been done by every other developed nation. In all these nations he is a somewhat
hawkish centrist. But he did raise a TON of money without needing to take donations from mega
super PACs and oligarchs; hence his candidacy was a threat to the oligarchy's total ownership
of US politics. This ownership is what enables the Israel lobby and others to take hold so
easily in the first place, and so it was never going to end well for Sanders -- even assuming
he was not just a sheep dog.
I could live in a country where actual left leaning and right leaning people worked out
their differences via the democratic process. I am left leaning--well, way left leaning--but
I am perfectly willing to engage right leaning people in the procedures of political
compromise. But there is no such compromise available because the US is not a democratic
representative republic but an oligarchy, pure and simple.
"... disgusting how anti-war pre-president trump becomes military pandering trumpanyahoo after election...his handlers, knowing he will need them in the near future, set him to constantly stroke the military every opportunity he has... ..."
"... The Western globalist billionaires and elites are ultimately responsible for any aggression coming from Israel. If they can conquer and control Iran and take over its oil and gas reserves, risking the fate of the millions of people in Iran, Syria and in Israel, then the losses to them will be incidental. ..."
"... I'm sure I'm missing some of the many "dots" but it logic suggests that both Obama and Trump are faux populists that - at least in foreign policy (where Presidential powers are greatest) - are greatly influenced by foreign(albeit "allied") interests. ..."
"... IMO Apologists for the faux populists also play an important part. They respond voraciously to the "crazy opposition" and thereby keep alive faith in the faux hero. ..."
"... Faux populist leaders seem to be a natural fit for our inverted totalitarian form of government. Perhaps any Empire will naturally gravitate to such a compromised government? Funny thing is, most Americans would say that USA is NOT an Empire. ..."
Not that there was much doubt who was behind it, but two days after "enemy" warplanes
attacked a Syrian military base near Hama on Sunday, killing at least 11 Iranians and dozens of others, and nobody had yet "claimed
responsibility" the attack, US officials
told
NBC that it was indeed Israeli F-15 fighter jets that struck the base,
NBC News
reported .
Ominously, the officials said Israel appears to be preparing for open warfare with Iran and is seeking U.S. help and support .
"On the list of the potentials for most likely live hostility around the world, the battle between Israel and Iran in Syria is
at the top of the list right now," said one senior U.S. official.
The US officials
told
NBC that Israeli F-15s hit Hama after Iran delivered weapons to a base that houses Iran's 47th Brigade, including surface-to-air
missiles. In addition to killing two dozen troops, including officers, the strike wounded three dozen others. The report adds that
the U.S. officials believe the shipments were intended for Iranian ground forces that would attack Israel.
Meanwhile, as we reported yesterday, the Syrian army said early on Monday that "enemy" rockets struck military bases belonging
to Syrian President Bashar Assad's regime. According to several outlets, the strikes targeted the 47th Brigade base in the southern
Hama district, a military facility in northwestern Hama and a facility north of the Aleppo International Airport.
Meanwhile, Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman said on Tuesday that Israel on Tuesday morning had four problems, one more than
the day before: "Iran, Iran, Iran and hypocrisy." The comment came one day after Israel PM Benjamin Netanyahu "revealed" a cache
of documents the Mossad stole from Iran detailing the country's nuclear program, which however critics said were i) old and ii) not
indicative of Iran's current plans.
"This is the same Iran that cracks down on freedom of expression and on minorities. The same Iran that tried to develop nuclear
weapons and entered the [nuclear] deal for economic benefits," Lieberman said.
"The same Iran is trying to hide its weapons while everyone ignores it. The state of Israel cannot ignore Iran's threats, Iran,
whose senior officials promise to wipe out Israel," he said. "They are trying to harm us, and we'll have a response.
Iran's Defense Minister Amir Khatami threatened Israel on Tuesday, saying it should stop its "dangerous behavior" and vowing that
the "Iranian response will be surprising and you will regret it." Khatami's remarks came Following Netanyahu's speech which Khatami
described as Israeli "provocative actions," and two days after the strikes in Syria.
* * *
Meanwhile, in a potential hint at the upcoming conflict,
Haaretz writes that two and a half weeks after the bombing in which seven members of Iran's Revolutionary Guards were killed
at the T4 base in Syria, Israel is bracing for an Iranian retaliation for the Syrian strikes (and if one isn't forthcoming, well
that's what false flags are for).
As Haaretz writes, the Iranians' response, despite their frequent threats of revenge, is being postponed, screwing up Iran's war
planning. It's also possible that as time passes, Tehran is becoming more aware of the possible complex consequences of any action.
Still, the working assumption of Israeli defense officials remains that such a response is highly probable.
The Iranians appear to have many options. Revenge could come on the Syrian border, from the Lebanese border via Hezbollah,
directly from Iran by the launch of long-range missiles, or against an Israeli target abroad. In past decades Iran and Hezbollah
took part, separately and together, in two attacks in Argentina, a suicide attack in Bulgaria and attempts to strike at Israeli
diplomats and tourists in countries including India, Thailand and Azerbaijan.
In any case, Lebanon seems all but out of bounds until the country's May 6 parliamentary elections, and amid Hezbollah's fear
of being portrayed as an Iranian puppet. The firing of missiles from Iran would exacerbate the claims about Tehran's missile project
a moment before a possible U.S. decision on May 12 to abandon the nuclear agreement. Also, a strike at a target far from the Middle
East would require long preparation.
* * *
For now, an Israeli war with Iran in Syria is far from inevitable: the clash of intentions is clear: Iran is establishing itself
militarily in Syria and Israel has declared that it will prevent that by force. The question, of course, is whether this unstable
equilibrium will devolve into a lethal escalation, or if it will somehow be resolved through peaceful negotiation. Unfortunately,
in the context of recent events, and the upcoming breakdown of the Iran nuclear deal, the former is looking like the most likely
outcome.
disgusting how anti-war pre-president trump becomes military pandering trumpanyahoo after election...his handlers, knowing
he will need them in the near future, set him to constantly stroke the military every opportunity he has...
The Western globalist billionaires and elites are ultimately responsible for any aggression coming from Israel. If they
can conquer and control Iran and take over its oil and gas reserves, risking the fate of the millions of people in Iran, Syria
and in Israel, then the losses to them will be incidental. The Western-globalist-Zio-hawk Axis no doubt feels it has to act
now against Iran in case everything settles down in the ME with the Syrian war cooling off. Any expansion of Israeli turf or getting
control of resources to the north would be stymied with further waiting and allowing both Syrian and Iranian defense systems to
be further fortified. The Israelis appear to be completely confident that if they can instigate a war with Iran that it will be
backed by the US, the UK, France and other NATO nations.
That confidence could only come from the Western elites running things. However, after their last fizzled false-flag poison-gas
attack in Syria, the support by many NATO nations for more Axis aggression may not be that solid. So what does the Israeli tough
talk and threats mean at this time? Perhaps it means that Israel is in the process of concocting a massive and much more sophisticated
false-flag attack, like the taking out of a US war ship and blaming Iran for starting the war.
Remember Five points:
Isreal will fight to the very last American Soldiers Death.
The Zionist screams in Pain as he Stikes you.
The Yinon Plan.
Operation TALPIOT.
Qatari Pipeline Petro Dollar Vs. Russia / China Petro Yaun.
One bright aspect is the Anti-Isreal / Jew Zionist movement is gaining steam. More & more Individuals are speaking openly against
Israel's War Crimes, False Flag involvements, The Yinon Plan along with Pro Zionist immigrantion policy of migrating Muslim's
& Arabs to the EU & US without fear of retribution. Pro migration policy which supports territory boarder expansion via the Yinon
Plan & ethnic cleansing & migration of Arabs & Muslim's.
Not to mention the Billions in US foreign aid, AIPAC, ZioNeoConFascist NGO's & dual Israeli Citizen's which hold Political
Office in CONgress. Which must be outlawed.
As people become more disillusioned with Trump I think it's worthwhile to spend a moment to take stock of what happened in th
2016 election.
1) The US President is the primary determinant of US foreign and military power. The President is much weaker when addressing
domestic policy / internal affairs. Any small, paranoid nation with ambitious plans in its neighborhood would want ensure that
they have the President's ear ( or his balls). Too much at stake to take chances. And political influence is even easier when
you've developed close relation with an oil-rich ally (Saudis) with deep pockets.
2) US democracy is money-driven and no real populist stands much of a chance.
3) Despite a groundswell of discontent on both the left and the right, here were only two populists that ran in the election
(note: I'm not counting Rand Paul's because he didn't make an outright populist appeal - he merely spoke in a sensible way.
4) When Obama was President, he was kept in line by the "Birthers". Trump is kept in line by the allegation of Russian interference.
5) "Never Trump-ers" were mainly Jewish (AFAIK) and almost certainly pro-Israel. The Never Trump campaign began in earnest
with Kagan's Op-Ed in February 2016 ( some might date it to Bloomberg's public statement in January 2016 that neither Sanders
or Trump could be allowed to win).
6) AFAIK Pro-Israel oligarchs (like Saban, Soros, Bloomberg) are big donors to Democratic Party. Hillarry and DNC are known
to have colluded against 'sheep-dog' Sanders. Wouldn't Hillary just as easily collide FOR Trump (the Cinton's And Trump's are
known to have had close ties - and their daughters are still close).
I'm sure I'm missing some of the many "dots" but it logic suggests that both Obama and Trump are faux populists that -
at least in foreign policy (where Presidential powers are greatest) - are greatly influenced by foreign(albeit "allied") interests.
IMO Apologists for the faux populists also play an important part. They respond voraciously to the "crazy opposition" and
thereby keep alive faith in the faux hero.
Faux populist leaders seem to be a natural fit for our inverted totalitarian form of government. Perhaps any Empire will
naturally gravitate to such a compromised government? Funny thing is, most Americans would say that USA is NOT an Empire.
I should point out that "kept in line" (point #4) appears to be a convenience needed to excuse the faux populist's betrayals.
Both Obama and Trump seem more than willing to do as they are told.
And don't bother citing Obama's Iran deal as "proof" that Obama was independent. IMO That deal was made simply to buy time
because regime-change in Syria was taking longer than expected. It is foolish to think that Obama did everything the establishment
wanted but refused IN THAT ONE MATTER.
Saturday's White House Correspondents' Association dinner, billed as a celebration of the
First Amendment and a tribute to journalists who "speak truth to power," has to be the worst
advertisement in memory for our national press corps.
Comedian Michelle Wolf, the guest speaker, recited one filthy joke after another at the
expense of President Trump and his people, using words that would have gotten her kicked out of
school not so long ago.
Media critic Howard Kurtz said he had "never seen a performance like that," adding that Wolf
"was not only nasty but dropping F-bombs on live television." Some of her stuff was grungier
than that.
The anti-Trump media at the black-tie dinner laughed and whooped it up, and occasionally
"oohed" as Wolf went too far even for them, lending confirmation to Trump's depiction of who
and what they are.
While the journalistic elite at the black-tie dinner was reveling in the raw sewage served
up by Wolf, Trump had just wrapped up a rally in Michigan.
The contrast between the two assemblies could not have been more stark. We are truly two
Americas now.
"Why would I want to be stuck in a room with a bunch of fake-news liberals who hate me?"
said Trump in an email to supporters, adding that he would much rather "spend the evening with
my favorite deplorables who love our movement and love America."
The Deep State is still going after Trump, after all his concession to neocons. amazing
staff. This is a clear attempt of entrapment, similar to one that worked in Flynn case
Notable quotes:
"... Read the full list here . ..."
"... This article has been updated with more details on the questions and Trump's changing legal team. ..."
Special counsel Robert Mueller hopes to ask President
Donald Trump
dozens of open-ended questions as part of his inquiry into Russian meddling in the 2016
election.
Many of those
questions , which were published by The New York Times on Monday, focus on determining if
Trump obstructed justice through his firings of FBI Director James Comey and national security
adviser Michael Flynn, or his attempts to fire Mueller himself, among other events. "What
efforts were made to reach out to Mr. Flynn about seeking immunity or possible pardon?" reads
one of the queries supplied to the Times by an unnamed official separate from the president's
legal team. "What consideration and discussions did you have regarding terminating the special
counsel in June of 2017?" another asks. Read the full list
here . The questions shed light on what's been a tight-lipped investigation and show
Mueller is homing in on the president's behavior in office. Some of the inquiries hope to shed
light on Trump's interactions, if there are any, with Russian officials or those connected to
the Kremlin during the campaign. Trump himself has publicly said he'd be willing to talk with
Mueller and has vehemently denied there was any collusion with the Russians during the
campaign. He said in January he was "
looking forward " to speaking with the special counsel. But the president's lawyers have
cautioned against the interview and have sought to strictly limit the terms of any sit-down,
worried that Trump could go off-script and end up making false statements. The Times noted that
four people in the president's orbit have already
pleaded guilty to lying to federal investigators. The questions obtained by the Times are
said to be the result of months of negotiations between the special counsel and Trump's
squadron of lawyers. The Times noted that the back and forth led to Mueller providing his ideal
list to Trump's former lead lawyer in the Russia inquiry, John Dowd, in March. Dowd, who had
urged Trump to reject any request for an interview in the investigation, was reportedly even
more wary about a meeting after seeing the list. But the
lawyer resigned later in March amid reports that his
relationship with the president had frayed and that Trump planned to ignore his advice.
Dowd was replaced last week by former New York City Mayor
Rudy Giuliani . Trump has ramped up his criticism of the special counsel's office in recent
weeks following
FBI raids at the home and offices of his longtime personal attorney Michael Cohen. "It's a
total witch-hunt . I've been saying it for a long time," Trump said at the time. The
president, however, has since moved to distance himself from Cohen, saying on "Fox &
Friends" last week that the lawyer handled only a " tiny,
tiny little fraction " of his overall legal work. Mueller's list of questions also includes
some involving Cohen's business deals in Moscow, according to the Times. This article has
been updated with more details on the questions and Trump's changing legal team.
Stormy Daniels' legal team - led by lawyer Michael Avenatti - must be getting bored since a federal judge in Los Angeles
ordered a 90-day delay of her lawsuit against President Trump and his former personal attorney Mike Cohen (who has promised to
plead the fifth during the proceedings). Because Stormy has filed another defamation lawsuit, this time exclusively against
President Trump, as
Reuters
reports.
The lawsuit, which was filed in federal court in New York on Monday, seeks damages from Trump for a
tweet he sent earlier this month where he criticized a composite sketch that, Daniels said,
depicted a man who had threatened her in 2011. He reportedly demanded that she stay quiet about her
sexual encounter with Trump. That would've been around the time she gave an interview about her
affair with Trump to In Touch magazine which wasn't published until recently.
Her previous lawsuit, filed in Los Angeles, sought to have her released from an NDA she signed
shortly before the 2016 vote where she also accepted a $130,000 "hush money" payment from Cohen.
"A sketch years later about a nonexistent man. A total con job,
playing the Fake News Media for Fools (but they know it)!," Trump
said.
According to the filing, cited by the
Associate Press
and Reuters, the tweet was "false and defamatory"
arguing that Trump knew what he was saying out Daniels' claim was
false and also disparaging.
The lawsuit also claims Daniels has been exposed to death threats
and other threats of "physical violence."
Daniels, whose given name is Stephanie Clifford, is seeking a jury
trial and unspecified damages.
"We intend on teaching Mr. Trump that you cannot simply make
things up about someone and disseminate them without serious
consequences," Avenatti said.
As the
Associated Press
points out, Daniels, aided by Avenatti, has
sought to keep her case in the public eye. She revealed the sketch
that Trump mocked during an appearance on the View earlier this
month. Trump is facing another defamation lawsuit in New York, this
one filed by Summer Zervos, a former "The Apprentice" contestant who
says Trump made unwanted sexual contact with her in 2007. She sued
him after Trump dismissed her claims.
0
" Now, that your tastes at this time should incline
towards the juvenile is understandable; but for you to marry
that boy would be a disaster. Because there's two kinds of
women. There are two kinds of women and you, as we well
know, are not the first kind. You, my dear, are a slut. "
"We intend on teaching Mr. Trump that you cannot simply make things up about
someone and disseminate them without serious consequences," Avenatti said.
"We intend on teaching
THE PRESS
that you cannot simply make
things up about someone and disseminate them without serious consequences,"
Avenatti said.
"... "He doesn't even understand what DACA is. He's an idiot," Kelly said in one meeting, according to two officials who were present. "We've got to save him from himself." ..."
"... According to NBC's sources, Kelly has been hiding behind his public image as a four-star, while in truth operating in an "undisciplined and indiscreet" manner. "The private manner aides describe may shed new light on why Kelly now finds himself -- just nine months into the job -- grappling with diminished influence and a drumbeat of questions about how long he'll remain at the White House . ..."
Update 2: President Trump has now responded directly, blasting the "fake news making up
false stories" as "totally unhinged."
Update 1 : Bloomberg's White House correspondent Jennifer Jacobs reports that John Kelly has responded to MSNBC's claim he calls Trump an "idiot.
"I spend more time with the president than anyone else and we have an incredibly candid
and strong relationship.
He always knows where I stand and he and I both know this story is total BS. I am
committed to the president, his agenda, and our country."
"This is another pathetic attempt to smear people close to President Trump..."
* * *
White House chief of staff John Kelly has reportedly been undermining morale in the West
Wing in recent months - commenting to aides that President Trump is an idiot, while touting
himself as the "savior of the country,"
reports NBC News , citing "eight current and former White House officials."
The officials said Kelly portrays himself to Trump administration aides as the lone
bulwark against catastrophe , curbing the erratic urges of a president who has a questionable
grasp on policy issues and the functions of government. He has referred to Trump as "an
idiot" multiple times to underscore his point , according to four officials who say they've
witnessed the comments. -
NBC News
NBC notes that three White House spokespeople say the "idiot" thing just isn't true, and he
may have spoken in jest about saving the country.
In one heated exchange between the two men before February's Winter Olympics in South
Korea, Kelly strongly -- and successfully -- dissuaded Trump from ordering the withdrawal of
all U.S. troops from the Korean peninsula , according to two officials.
For Kelly, the exchange underscored the reasoning behind one of his common refrains, which
multiple officials described as some version of " I'm the one saving the country. "
"The strong implication being ' if I weren't here we would've entered WWIII or the
president would have been impeached ,'" one former senior White House official said. - NBC
News
"He doesn't even understand what DACA is. He's an idiot," Kelly said in one meeting,
according to two officials who were present. "We've got to save him from himself."
According to NBC's sources, Kelly has been hiding behind his public image as a four-star,
while in truth operating in an "undisciplined and indiscreet" manner. "The private manner aides
describe may shed new light on why Kelly now finds himself -- just nine months into the job --
grappling with diminished influence and a drumbeat of questions about how long he'll remain at
the White House ."
"He says stuff you can't believe," one senior White House official tells NBC News . " He'll
say it and you think, 'That is not what you should be saying. '"
According to presidential historian Michael Beschloss, Kelly's comments about Trump vs.
prior White House chiefs of "suggest a lack of respect for the sitting president of a kind that
we haven't seen before," adding that the closest would have to be President Ronald Reagan's
chief of staff, Don Regan, who "somewhat looked down on" The Gipper, and eventually lost
Reagan's support - having been replaced after two years by Howard Baker.
Meanwhile, insults or not, Trump is said to have soured on Kelly - and is aware of some,
"though not all" of Kelly's comments. And as NBC News points out, " The last time it became
public that one of Trump's top advisers insulted his intelligence behind his back, it didn't go
over well with the president . White House aides have said Trump never got over former
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson calling him a "moron" in front of colleagues , which was first
reported by NBC News. Trump later challenged Tillerson to an IQ test and fired him several
months after the remark became public."
Current and former White House officials said Kelly has at times made remarks that have
rattled female staffers . Kelly has told aides multiple times that women are more emotional
than men , including at least once in front of the president, four current and former
officials said.
And during a firestorm in February over accusations of domestic abuse against then-White
House staff secretary Rob Porter, Kelly wondered aloud how much more Porter would have to
endure before his honor could be restored , according to three officials who were present for
the comments. He also questioned why Porter's ex-wives wouldn't just move on based on the
information he said he had about his marriages, the officials said.
So in addition to Kelly allegedly calling Trump an idiot, he's also a misogynist, according
to NBC.
Kelly is expected to leave by July - his one-year mark, according to sources, however others
say it's anyone's guess. That said, "what's clear is both Trump and Kelly seem to have tired of
each other."
" Kelly appears to be less engaged, which may be to the president's detriment ," a second
senior White House official said. If NBC is correct, we're about to once again play White House
Musical Chairs.
That said, when reached for comment, Kelly that it's all more fake news:
"He and I both know this story is total BS. I am committed to the president, his agenda,
and our country. This is another pathetic attempt to smear people close to President Trump...
"
One hopes that is the case, then again one also remembers the Rex Tillerson incident...
Key figures on anti-trump color revolution including Mueller, Rosenstein and Comey are closely connected with Clinton foundation
Notable quotes:
"... Guess who took over this investigation in 2002? Bet you can't guess. No other than James Comey. ..."
"... Guess who ran the Tax Division inside the Department of Injustice from 2001 to 2005? No other than the Assistant Attorney General of the United States, Rod Rosenstein. ..."
"... Guess who was the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation during this time frame??? I know, it's a miracle, just a coincidence, just an anomaly in statistics and chances: Robert Mueller. ..."
"... Then of all surprises, in April 2016, James Comey drafts an exoneration letter of Hillary Rodham Clinton, meanwhile the DOJ is handing out immunity deals like candy on Halloween. ..."
"... The DOJ didn't even convene a Grand Jury. Like a lightning bolt of statistical impossibility, like a miracle from God himself, like the true "Gangsta" Homey is, James steps out into the cameras of an awaiting press conference on July the 8th of 2016 and exonerates the Hillary from any wrongdoing. ..."
"... It goes on and on, Rosenstein becomes Asst. Attorney General, Comey gets fired based upon a letter by Rosenstein, Comey leaks government information to the press, Mueller is assigned to the Russian Investigation witch hunt by Rosenstein to provide cover for decades of malfeasance within the FBI and DOJ and the story continues. ..."
I'm on the other side of the planet but a friend in the Mid-West sent me this and I thought I'd ask if anyone else had seen
it?
Is there corruption in DC?
From 2001 to 2005 there was an ongoing investigation into the Clinton Foundation. A Grand Jury had been empaneled. The investigation
was triggered by the pardon of Marc Rich ..
Governments from around the world had donated to the "Charity". Yet, from 2001 to 2003 none of those "Donations" to the Clinton
Foundation were declared.
Guess who took over this investigation in 2002? Bet you can't guess. No other than James Comey.
Guess who was transferred in to the Internal Revenue Service to run the Tax Exemption Branch of the IRS? Your friend and mine,
Lois "Be on The Look Out" (BOLO) Lerner.
It gets better, well not really, but this is all just a series of strange coincidences, right?
Guess who ran the Tax Division inside the Department of Injustice from 2001 to 2005? No other than the Assistant Attorney
General of the United States, Rod Rosenstein.
Guess who was the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation during this time frame??? I know, it's a miracle, just
a coincidence, just an anomaly in statistics and chances: Robert Mueller.
What do all four casting characters have in common? They all were briefed and were front line investigators into the Clinton
Foundation Investigation.
Now that's just a coincidence, right? Ok, lets chalk the last one up to mere chance.
Let's fast forward to 2009. James Comey leaves the Justice Department to go and cash-in at Lockheed Martin.
Hillary Clinton is running the State Department, on her own personal email server.
The Uranium One "issue" comes to the attention of the Hillary. Like all good public servants do, you know looking out for America's
best interest, she decides to support the decision and approve the sale of 20% of US Uranium to no other than, the Russians.
Now you would think that this is a fairly straight up deal, except it wasn't, I question what did the People get out of it??
Oddly enough, prior to the sales approval, Bill Clinton goes to Moscow, gets paid 500K for a one-hour speech then meets with Vladimir
Putin at his home for a few hours.
Ok, no big deal right? Well, not so fast, the FBI had a mole inside this scheme.
Guess who was the FBI Director during this time frame? Yep, Robert Mueller. He requested the State Department allow himself
to deliver a Uranium Sample to Moscow in 2009, under the guise of a "sting" operation -- (see leaked secret cable 09STATE38943)..
while it is never clear if Mueller did deliver the sample, the "implication" is there ..
Guess who was handling that case within the Justice Department out of the US Attorney's Office in Maryland ?? No other than,
Rod Rosenstein.
Remember the "informant" inside the FBI -- - Guess what happened to the informant? Department of Justice placed a GAG order
on him and threatened to lock him up if he spoke about the Uranium Deal. Personally, I have to question how does 20% of the most
strategic asset of the United States of America end up in Russian hands??? The FBI had an informant, a mole providing inside information
to the FBI on the criminal enterprise and NOTHING happens, except to the informant -- Strange !!
Guess what happened soon after the sale was approved? 145 million dollars in "donations" made their way into the Clinton Foundation
from entities directly connected to the Uranium One deal.
Guess who was still at the Internal Revenue Service working the Charitable Division?
No other than, Lois Lerner. Ok, that's all just another series of coincidences, nothing to see here, right? Let's fast forward
to 2015.
Due to a series of tragic events in Benghazi and after the nine "investigations" the House, Senate and at State Department,
Trey Gowdy who was running the 10th investigation as Chairman of the Select Committee on Benghazi, discovers that the Hillary
ran the State Department on an unclassified, unauthorized, outlaw personal email server.
He also discovered that none of those emails had been turned over when she departed her "Public Service" as Secretary of State
which was required by law.
He also discovered that there was Top Secret information contained within her personally archived email. Sparing you the State
Departments cover up, the nostrums they floated, the delay tactics that were employed and the outright lies that were spewed forth
from the necks of the Kerry State Department, they did everything humanly possible to cover for Hillary.
Guess who became FBI Director in 2013? Guess who secured 17 no bid contracts for his employer (Lockheed Martin) with the State
Department and was rewarded with a six million dollar thank you present when he departed his employer. No other than James Comey.
Folks if I did this when I worked for the government, I would have been locked up -- The State Department didn't even comply with
the EEO and small business requirements the government places on all Request For Proposals (RFP) on contracts -- It amazes me
how all those no-bids just went right through at State -- simply amazing and no Inspector General investigation !!
Next after leaving the private sector Comey is the FBI Director in charge of the "Clinton Email Investigation" after of course
his FBI Investigates the Lois Lerner "Matter" at the Internal Revenue Service and exonerates her. Nope couldn't find any crimes
there. Nothing here to report --
Then of all surprises, in April 2016, James Comey drafts an exoneration letter of Hillary Rodham Clinton, meanwhile the
DOJ is handing out immunity deals like candy on Halloween.
The DOJ didn't even convene a Grand Jury. Like a lightning bolt of statistical impossibility, like a miracle from God himself,
like the true "Gangsta" Homey is, James steps out into the cameras of an awaiting press conference on July the 8th of 2016 and
exonerates the Hillary from any wrongdoing. As I've said many times, July 8, 2016 is the date that will live in infamy of
the American Justice System ..
Can you see the pattern?
It goes on and on, Rosenstein becomes Asst. Attorney General, Comey gets fired based upon a letter by Rosenstein, Comey
leaks government information to the press, Mueller is assigned to the Russian Investigation witch hunt by Rosenstein to provide
cover for decades of malfeasance within the FBI and DOJ and the story continues.
FISA Abuse, political espionage .. pick a crime, any crime, chances are this group and a few others did it. All the same players.
All compromised and conflicted. All working fervently to NOT go to jail themselves. All connected in one way or another to the
Clinton's. They are like battery acid, they corrode and corrupt everything they touch. How many lives have the Clinton's destroyed?
As of this writing, the Clinton Foundation, in its 20+ years of operation of being the largest International Charity Fraud
in the history of mankind, has never been audited by the Internal Revenue Service.
Let us not forget that Comey's brother works for DLA Piper, the law firm that does the Clinton Foundation's taxes.
An interesting new term is used in this discussion: "CIA democrats". Probably originated in Patrick Martin March 7, 2018
article at WSWS The CIA Democrats Part one - World Socialist Web
Site but I would not draw an equivalence between military and intelligence agencies.
"f the Democrats capture a majority in the House of Representatives on November 6, as widely predicted, candidates drawn from
the military-intelligence apparatus will comprise as many as half of the new Democratic members of Congress."
Notable quotes:
"... @leveymg ..."
"... @CS in AZ ..."
"... @CS in AZ ..."
"... @CS in AZ ..."
"... "I was truly fired up about Bernie Sanders at that time. I've come a very long ways since then." ..."
The left has never been welcome in the Republican party; and since the neoliberal Clinton machine showed up, they have not
been welcome in the Democratic party either. As Clinton debauched the historical, FDR/JFK/LBJ meaning of the word "liberal",
the left started calling itself "progressives". The left had long been the grassroots of the Democratic party; and after being
left in the lurch by John Kerry (no lawsuits against Ohio fraud), lied to by Barack Obama, and browbeaten by the increasingly
neocon Clintonite DNC, they enthusiastically coalesced around Bernie Sanders.
If our political system were honest, Bernie Sanders would have been the Democratic nominee; and Hillary Clinton and Debbie
W-S (of Aman Brothers infamy) would be on trial for violating national security and corrupting the DNC. But, our political
system isn't honest. Our political system, including the Democratic party, is completely bought and
paid for. And, unfortunately, Bernie Sanders - despite being a victim of that corruption - continues to refuse to make that point.
He refused to join the lawsuit (complete with dead process server and suspicious phone call from DWS's office) against the DNC.
All in the name of working within a party he does not even belong to.
After the 2016 election, the DNC, continuing its corrupt ways, blatantly favored Tom Perez over the "progressive" Keith Ellison,
smearing Ellison as a Moslem lover. Bernie's reaction to this continuing manipulation was muted. On foreign policy, Bernie continues
to be either AWOL or pro-MIC (F-35 plant in VT)/pro-Israel. These are not progressive positiions. AFAIAC, Bernie is half a leftist.
He is left on economics and social policy; but he is rightwing on the MIC, foreign policy, and Israel. There is very little democracy
left in this country, and I am not going to waste my time supporting Bernie, who has shown himself to be a sheepdog. That's my
take on the 2018 version of Bernie. I will always treasure the early 2016 version of Bernie, the only political candidate in my
life that I gave serious money to.
Neither will I waste my time pretending that honest, inside-the-system efforts can take the Democratic party back from the
plutocrats who own it, lock, stock, and checkbook. You might think there is a chance to work inside the system. You might think
the DNC is vulnerable because it learned nothing from the 2016 debacle; but you would be wrong. After the Hillary debacle, they
have learned how to manufacture more credible fake progressives.
------
For it seems that progressive candidates aren't the only ones who learned the lesson of Bernie Sanders in 2016; the neoliberal
Clintonites have too. So, while left-wing campaigns crop up in every corner of the country, so too do astroturf faux-progressive
campaigns. And it is for us on the left to parse through it all and separate the authentic from the frauds.
One candidate currently generating some buzz in the race is Jeff Beals, a self-identified "Bernie democrat"
whose campaign website homepage describes him as a "local teacher and former U.S. diplomat endorsed by the national organization
of former Bernie Sanders staffers, the Justice Democrats." And indeed, Beals centers his progressive bona fides to brand himself
as one of the inheritors of the progressive torch lit by Sanders in 2016. A smart political move, to be sure. But is it true?
By his own admission, Beals' overseas career began as an intelligence officer with the CIA. His fluency
in Arabic and knowledge of the region made him an obvious choice to be an intelligence spook during the latter stages of the
Clinton Administration.
Beals was not a soldier unwillingly drafted into service, but an intelligence officer who voluntarily accepted an
influential and critically important post for the Bush Administration in its ever-expanding crime against humanity
in Iraq.
Moreover, no one who knows anything about the Iraq War could possibly swallow the tripe that CIA/State Department officials
in Iraq were "looking to help our country find a way out" a year into the war. A year into the war, the bloodletting was only
just beginning, and Halliburton, Exxon-Mobil, and the other corporate vultures had yet to fully exploit the country and make
billions off it. So, unfortunately for Beals, the historical memory of the anti-war Left is not that short.
The takeaway here is that many of these self-declared "Bernie Democrats" are, in reality, the "CIA Democrats" that we have
been warned about. And Bernie has not called them out. Another thing he has not called out is the fact that the
party leadership is still blatantly sabotaging even modestly "progressive" candidates in the primaries.
In the latest striking example of how the Democratic Party resorts to cronyism (and perhaps corruption) to ensure that its
favored candidates beat back progressive challengers in local races, a candidate for Colorado's 6th Congressional District
has leaked a recording of a conversation with Minority Leader Steny Hoyer to The Intercept which published it overnight. In
it, Hoyer can be heard essentially lecturing the candidate about why he should step aside and let the Democratic Party
bosses - who of course have a better idea about which candidate will prevail over a popular Republican in the general
election - continue pulling the strings.
The candidate, Levi Tillemann, is hardly a party outsider. Tillemann had grandparents on both sides of his family who were
elected Democratic representatives, and his family is essentially Democratic Party royalty.
Still, the party's campaign arm - the notorious Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (better known as the DCCC, or
D-trip) - refused to provide Tillemann with access to party campaign data or any of the other resources he requested.
Here is yet another thing that Bernie has not called out: The DNC, which is reportedly badly behind in fundraising, is nevertheless
willing to spend obscene amounts of money in primaries just to keep progressives out of races - even Red district races that are
guaranteed losses for Democrats.
Dan Feehan has successfully bought the Democratic nomination for Minnesota's first congressional district (MN-CD1). Dan,
having lived outside the state since the age of 14, has allegedly misled the public on his FEC form, claiming residence at
his cousin's address. Here is Dan's FEC filing form. One can see that it his cousin who lives at this address...
Mr. Feehan has no chance to win in November. While nobody likes a candidate from Washington D.C., people
hate Washington money even more. To be fair to Dan he hasn't taken super PAC money, somehow. But he
has raised 565,000 dollars, an outrageous sum for a congressional race. 94% of this money has come from outside the district,
and 79% from outside the state. Where does this money come from? Well, according to the campaign, from people around
the country who want to keep Minnesota blue. If this was the case, why not wait to give money until Minnesota voted
for a candidate in the primary and then donate? And who on earth has this much money to pour into an obscure race outside of
their state?
Dan Feehan is of the same breed that most post-Trump Democrats are. Clean cut, military experience,
stern, anti-gun, anti-crazy Orange monsters, anti-negativity, and anti-discrimination of rich people who fall under a marginalized
group. What are they for? No one knows. If pushed they want "good" education, health care, jobs, environment,
etc. But they want Big money too for various reasons, but the ones cited are: because that is the only way to win,
because rich people are smart and poor people are dumb, and because money is speech. So they cannot and will not make
any concrete commitments. Hence energy becomes "all inclusive", as if balancing clean and dirty energy was a college admissions
department diversity issue, rather than a question of life or death for the entire planet. Healthcare becomes not a right,
but a requirement with a giant handout to insurance companies. Near full employment (with the near being very important, when
we consider leverage) comes with part-time, short-term, and low paying work.
The Clintonite Democrats and their spawn are postmodern progressives. In their world, there is no way to test if one is progressive.
Within the world of the Democratic party, there is no relativity. It is merely a universe that exists only to clash with (but
mostly submit to) the parallel Republican universe. Whoever proves to be the victor should be united behind without a thought
given to their place within the political spectrum of Democrat voters. They believe, if I were to paraphrase René Descartes:
"I Democrat, therefore I progressive."
Tell me again why I must be a loyal Democrat, why I must support candidates who are corporate/MIC shills, why I must submit
to the constant harassment and sabotage of progressive efforts. Tell me again how Bernie is fighting the party leadership. (That
is, explain away all the non-activity related to the items posted above.)
I'm with Chris Hedges. Formal democracy is dead in the US; all we have left are actions in the streets (and those are being
slowly made illegal). The only people in this country who deserve my support are: 1) the striking teachers, many of them non-unionized,
2) the oil pipeline protestors, who are being crushed by police state tactics, 3) the fighters for $15 minimum wage, again non-unionized.
The Democratic Party used to stand for unions. It doesn't any more. It doesn't stand for anything except getting more money from
the 1% to sell out the 99% with fake progressive CIA candidates. Oh, and it stands for pussy hats.
Anyone who tells me to get in line behind Bernie is either a naive pollyana or a disingenuous purity troll.
leveymg on Sat, 04/28/2018 - 9:44am
We have all been here before. 1948.
That was the year that the clawback of the Democratic Party and the purge of the Left was formalized. It really dates to the engineered
hijacking of the nomination of Henry Wallace at the 1944 Democratic Convention. History does repeat itself for those who didn't
learn or weren't adequately taught it.
however tragic it is. Instead of a true leftwinger, we got Harry Truman, a naive wardheeler from corrupt Kansas City. He was
led by the nose to create the CIA.
I do take your point; but the question is, can anything be done? If democracy has become meaningless kabuki, and the neocon
warmongers are in charge no matter whom we "elect", what is there to do besides build that bomb shelter?
That is why I say that only genuine issues will galvanize the public; and even then, they can run a hybrid war against the
left. They have created this ludicrous Identity Politics boogeyman that energizes the right and makes the postmodern progressives
look stupid. No matter what tactic I think of, TPTB have already covered that base. The problem is that the left has absolutely
no base in the U.S. today.
How will the pseudo-progressives be able to justify being both "progressive" and pro-war?
Talk about cognitive dissonance. But wait. Democraps of any stripe, don't cogitate, hence no dissonance.
zoebear on Sat, 04/28/2018 - 10:12am
Appreciate you posting this essay This
is only one of the many troubling signs which convince me he is being controlled by my enemy.
The takeaway here is that many of these self-declared "Bernie Democrats" are, in reality, the "CIA Democrats" that we have
been warned about. And Bernie has not called them out.
CS in AZ on Sat, 04/28/2018 - 11:12am
Thanks for the essay, arendt I came
to this site in the great purge at daily kos, and I was truly fired up about Bernie Sanders at that time. I've come a very long
ways since then. Thanks to the people here.
And to kos, who now rather infamously said "if you think Hillary Clinton can't beat Donald Trump, you're a fucking moron. Seriously,
you're dumb as rocks." And he said if you're not going to cheerlead for democrats, "go the fuck away. This is not your place."
True words!!
So this site was here and Bernie supporters flocked here. Including me. But over this time I have seen the mistakes I made.
Such a lot of wasted time and energy.
Still searching for answers myself, but I know what doesn't work, and how important for the status quo to keep the illusion
of democracy alive. But more and more people are not buying it anymore. I suspect that a few more crumbs will be forthcoming on
some issues. That's the very best way to keep the show going. And the show must go on.
Pulling back the curtain is really the first and most important weapon we have. Thank you for doing that.
zoebear on Sat, 04/28/2018 - 11:45am zoebear on Sat, 04/28/2018 - 11:45am
Countered with Russia, Russia, Russia. God he was such a prick.
I came to this site in the great purge at daily kos, and I was truly fired up about Bernie Sanders at that time. I've come
a very long ways since then. Thanks to the people here.
And to kos, who now rather infamously said "if you think Hillary Clinton can't beat Donald Trump, you're a fucking moron.
Seriously, you're dumb as rocks." And he said if you're not going to cheerlead for democrats, "go the fuck away. This is not
your place." True words!!
So this site was here and Bernie supporters flocked here. Including me. But over this time I have seen the mistakes I made.
Such a lot of wasted time and energy.
Still searching for answers myself, but I know what doesn't work, and how important for the status quo to keep the illusion
of democracy alive. But more and more people are not buying it anymore. I suspect that a few more crumbs will be forthcoming
on some issues. That's the very best way to keep the show going. And the show must go on.
Pulling back the curtain is really the first and most important weapon we have. Thank you for doing that.
That's how I feel about it. I've been suckered one time too many. The 2016 election was a complete farce. Bernie was sabotaged.
The DNC and Hillary broke their own rules to do it. But Bernie, with a perfect opportunity and lots of support, just walked away
from the fight that he had promised his people.
Sheep dog.
TPTB want the political "fight" to be between slightly different flavors of neoliberal looting/neocon warmongering. They want
unions, teachers, environmentalists, and minorities to, in the words of a UK asshole, "shut up and go away".
The CIA literally paid $600M to the Washington Post, whose purchase price was only $300M. Bezos made 200% of his money back
in a month. The media is completely corporatized; and they are coming for the internet with censorship. Where is Bernie on this?
Haven't heard a word.
Sheep dog.
As TPTB simply buy what is left of the Democratic party, they will enforce this kabuki politics. Any deviation will be labeled
Putin-loving, Assad-loving, China-loving, etc.
You can't have a democracy when free speech is instantly labeled fake news or enemy propaganda.
"I was truly fired up about Bernie Sanders at that time. I've come a very long ways since then."
This is how I see the way some people feel about him. This same thing happened after I voted for Obama. I thought that he would
do what "I heard him say that he would", but he let me down by not even bothering to try doing anything.
What soured me on Bernie was his saying that Her won the election fair and square after everything we saw happen. Even after
learning how the primary was rigged against him. And now he has jumped on the Russian interference propaganda train when he knows
that Russia had no hand with Trump beating Her out the presidency.
Bottom line is that I no longer believe that Bernie is being up front with me. I know that others feel differently, but remember
how people changed their minds on Obama and never accepted Herheinous! People should be free here to say how they feel.
Isn't making it "easier" for them to cheat when they are already doing that. What participating in their corruption does do
is keep the illusion of democracy alive for their benefit. Easier? They're already achieving their end game. Controlling us, electing
their candidates, and collecting our taxes.
Frankly we've been participating in their potemkin village passing as democracy for decades with no effect.
First, a boycott is not "ignoring" voting. It's an organized protest against fake elections. It's actually not that uncommon
for people in other countries to call for election boycotts in protest when a significant portion of people feel the election
is staged or rigged with a predetermined outcome, or where all of the candidates are chosen by the elite so none represent the
will of the people.
In that type of situation, boycotting the election -- and obviously that means saying why, and making a protest out of it --
is really the only recourse people have. It may not be effective at stopping the fake election, but it lets the world know the
vote was fake.
If you line up to go obediently cast your vote anyway, then you are the one who is empowering the enemy, by giving the illusion
of legitimacy to the fake vote.
Now about this big worry about what "they" will say... first, look at what they already say about third party voters.
In the media and political world, third party voters are a joke, useful idiots, who can be simultaneously written off as "fringe"
wackos who can and should be ignored, and also childish spoilers who can be scapegoated and blamed for eternity for election loses.
Witness Ralph Nader and Jill Stein. Of course people should still vote third party if there's someone that truly represents them,
and if they believe the election process is genuine. Because you don't let your voting choices be dictated by what the powers
that be say about it!
For those of us who believe the election process is a sham and a scam, voting is playing into their hands, giving legitimacy
to their show. That is what makes it easier for them to keep the status quo firmly in place, and is literally helping them do
it.
As has been pointed out, if an organized protest/boycott that called the elections fake were to take root and grow, they would
not be able to say we don't care. That's a big if, obviously, but it's better than playing your assigned role in The Voting Show.
Because that show is what everyone points to as proof that the American people want this fucked up warmongering government we
keep voting back into power every two years.
Enough is enough. One of Bernie's slogans, which I still agree with.
Working-class white people may claim to be against identity politics, but they actually
crave identity politics.
I think they probably see it more of a "if you can't beat them, join them" scenario. They
see the way the wind is blowing and decide if they want representation, they have to play the
game, even if they don't really like the rules.
They know enough about the EU to know that it isn't one of their patrons and sponsors.
They also know that Westminster have been systematically misrepresenting the EU for their own
purposes for decades, and they can use the same approach.
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards . Replies may
also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs .
Not a fool and I don't hate anyone at 55 I have 1.2M in investments, I make 165k a year and
pay 40k+ a year in taxes. I to come across people who live off of we everyday and expect to
free load. I am not a blowhard just an engineer who pays for sloth.
I've met many fools like you in my over 50 years on the planet, blowhards parading their
ignorance as a badge of pride, thinking that their hatred of anyone not exactly like them is
normal, mistaking what some cretin says on the far right radio for fact.
You people would be comical if not for the toxicity that your stupidity engenders.
Al Jazeera tries to do a better job, at least providing a spectrum of opinion and a lot of
depth in quite a few issues, something most other networks fail to do these days.
Don't fall into the associated trap either, of the false equation between STATED and ACTUAL
goals.
Fox and Hunt are fully aware that to actually admit their actual goal, would be (probably)
just about the only thing which would provoke an electoral backlash which would sweep the
Conservatives from office. The NHS is proverbially "the nearest thing the English have, to a
religion" and is a profoundly dangerous subject for debate.
Fox and Hunt may be weaving an incomprehensible web of sophistry and misdirection, but no
part of it is accidental.
Please, please don't make the unfounded assumption that people like Fox, Johnson, Cameron et
al are as stupid as they sometimes appear.
Fox and Hunt, in particular, know exactly what they are engaged in - a hard-right coup
designed to destroy government control over the NHS and route its enormous cash flows into
the pockets of their private, mostly American sponsors. It isn't necessary to look far, to
discover their connections and patronage from this source.
Johnson is consumed by ambition, as was Cameron before him; like Cameron, he makes much of
his self-presumed fitness for the role, whilst producing no supporting evidence of any
description.
Brexit, as defined by its advocates, CANNOT be discussed precisely because no rational
debate exists. It hinges upon the Conservative Party's only fear, that of disunity leading to
Opposition. They see that Labour are 50-odd seats short of a majority, and that's ALL they
see.
What in God's green world are you talking about? Did you read that before pressing "Post"?
It's obvious that you have no knowledge whatsoever of the subject.
The "race riots" of the 1940s and 1950s were essentially about employment protection (the
first, regarding the importation of Yemeni seamen into the North-East of England). The mostly
Pakistani influx into the North-West of England was an attempt to cut labour costs and prop
up a dying, obsolete industry, mortally wounded by the loss of its business model in the
aftermath of Empire; an industry whose very bricks and mortar are long since gone, but the
imported labour and their descendants remain... the influx of Caribbean labour into London
and the South-East was focussed around the railways and Underground, to bolster the local
labour force which had little interest in dead-end shift-work jobs in the last days of steam
traction and the increasingly run-down Underground.
Labour, in those days, was strongly anti-immigration precisely because it saw no value in
it, to their unionised, heavy-industry voter base.
Regarding the ideological, anti-British, anti-democratic nature of Labour's conversion to
mass immigration, you need only read the writings and speeches of prominent figures of the
day such as Roy Hattersley and Harriet Harman, who say exactly this, quite clearly and in
considerable detail. Their ideological heirs, figures like Diane Abbot (who is stridently
anti-white and anti-British), Andrew Neather and Hazel Blears, can speak for themselves.
I was recently struck by this part of the Guardian obituary of Lady Farrington of Ribbleton:
' she possessed the important defining characteristic that, above others, wins admiration
across all the red leather benches in the House of Lords: she knew what she was talking
about'
Too often these days we are governed by people who don't know what they are talking about.
Never has this been truer than the likes of Fox, Davis, Johnson, and other Brexiteers.
But this doesn't seem to matter much anymore. At times it seems that anyone can make
generised assertions about something, without having to back them up with evidence, and then
wave away questions about their veracity.
Opinion now trumps evidence regularly, even on the BBC where Brexit ideology is often now
given a free pass. The problem for those of us who value expertise is that with the likes of
Trump, and some EU Leavers, we are up against a bigotry which is evangelical in nature. A
gospel that cannot be questioned, a creed that allows no other thinking.
The best you can do is complain about "this?" This WHAT? Try a noun. You're being an
embarrassment to troglodytes everywhere. Don't just point and leap up and down. Your
forefathers died in bringing you a language. Be an expressive hominid and name the thing that
hurts.
It seems at the moment the Guardian also suffers from a glut of experts without expertise.
Not a day goes by that my jaw doesn't drop at some inane claim made by what seems to be a
retinue of contributors who have neither good writing skills nor a particularly wide look on
things. An example today: "Unlike Hillary Clinton, I never wanted to be someone's wife". How
extraordinary. Who says she ever 'wanted to be someone's wife'? Maybe she fell in love with
someone all those years ago and they decided to get married? Who knows. But sweeping
statements like that do not endear you to quite a few of your once very loyal readers. It's
annoying.
I think this posits an overriding explanation for people's actions that doesn't exist. Even
the idea that immigration is a new liberal plot. Take the wind rush generation of immigrants
while there was a Tory government at the time I think the idea this was an attempt to
undermine white working class gains is provably nonsensical
The problem with this article, and the numerous other similar pieces which appear in the
various editions of the Guardian on a "regular-and-often" basis, is that it completely avoids
a very basic point, because it has no answer to it.
It is this.
The white British (and by extension, Western) populations never wanted mass immigration
because they knew from the outset, that its purpose was to undermine the social and political
gains they had wrested from the political and financial elite after 1945. They cared not at
all for the fratricidal conflicts between alien religions and cultures, of which they knew
little and regarded what they did know as unacceptable.
The US achieved a huge economic boom without it. Australia and New Zealand, Canada and the
USA were popular destinations for the British population whose goal and mantra was "no return
to the thirties" and who emigrated in large numbers.
White semi-skilled and unskilled (and increasingly, lower middle class) populations
everywhere reject, and have always rejected third world mass immigration (and more recently,
in some areas, mass emigration from the former Soviet Union) for the simple, and sufficient
reason that they have no possible reason or incentive to support or embrace it. It offers
them nothing, and its impact on their lives is wholly negative in practical terms - which is
how a social group which lives with limited or no margins between income and outgoings,
necessarily
perceives life.
Identity politics has no roots amongst them, because they correctly perceive that whatever
answer it might produce, there is no possible outcome in which the preferred answer will be a
semi-skilled, white family man. They inevitably pick up a certain level of the constant blare
of "racist bigot, homophobe, Islsmophobia" from its sheer inescapability, but they aren't
COMPLETELY stupid.
Contextualizing the deputy attorney general's memorandum on the former FBI director
In a surprising move on Tuesday, President Trump abruptly fired James Comey, the director of the FBI and the official leading
the investigation into whether Trump aides colluded with Russia to sway the U.S. presidential election. In
his letter dismissing Comey , Trump told him: "While I greatly appreciate you informing me, on three separate occasions, that
I am not under investigation, I nevertheless concur with the judgment of the Department of Justice that you are not able to effectively
lead the bureau."
The White House said that Trump
acted on the recommendations of Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. The longest letter
released was a memorandum to Sessions from Rosenstein laying out the case for Comey's dismissal. In the memo, Rosenstein criticizes
Comey for his handling of the investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's private email server, and offers examples
of bipartisan condemnation of Comey's actions.
For context, we've annotated Rosenstein's letter below.
May 9, 2017
MEMORANDUM FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
FROM: ROD J. ROSENSTEIN
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
SUBJECT: RESTORING PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN THE FBI
The Federal Bureau of Investigation has long been regarded as our nation's premier federal investigative agency. Over the past
year, however, the FBI's reputation and credibility have suffered substantial damage, and it has affected the entire Department
of Justice. That is deeply troubling to many Department employees and veterans, legislators and citizens.
The current FBI Director is an articulate and persuasive speaker about leadership and the immutable principles of the Department
of Justice. He deserves our appreciation for his public service. As you and I have discussed, however, I cannot defend the Director's
handling of the conclusion of the investigation of Secretary Clinton's emails, and I do not understand his refusal to accept the
nearly universal judgment that he was mistaken.
Almost everyone
agrees that the Director made serious mistakes; it is one of the few issues that unites people of diverse perspectives. Discussions
of James Comey's decisions leading up to the 2016 presidential election have been playing out since July. The Atlantic's
David A. Graham
and
Adam
Serwer both weighed in on that debate.
The director was wrong to usurp the Attorney General's authority on July 5, 2016, and
announce his
conclusion that the case should be closed without prosecution. A
New York Times
report from July summarized the announcement: "Mr. Comey's 15-minute announcement, delivered with no advance warning only
three days after his investigators interviewed Mrs. Clinton in the case, riveted official Washington and is likely to reverberate
for the rest of the campaign. In offices across the capital, all eyes turned to television screens to hear the outcome of a yearlong
investigation that could have thrown the 2016 presidential election into disarray and changed history."
It is not the function of the Director to make such an announcement. At most, the Director should have said the FBI had completed
its investigation and presented its findings to federal prosecutors. The Director now defends his decision by asserting that he
believed attorney General Loretta Lynch had a conflict. But the FBI Director is never empowered to supplant federal prosecutors
and assume command of the Justice Department. There is a well-established process for other officials to step in when a conflict
requires the recusal of the Attorney General. On July 5, however, the Director announced his own conclusions about the nation's
most sensitive criminal investigation, without the authorization of duly appointed Justice Department leaders.
Compounding
the error, the Director ignored another longstanding principle: we do not hold press conferences to release derogatory information
about the subject of a declined criminal investigation. The above
New York Times
story continues: "Mr. Comey's announcement was believed to be the first time that the F.B.I. had ever publicly disclosed
its recommendations to the Justice Department about whether to charge someone in any high-profile case, let alone a presidential
candidate. His decision to announce the results of the investigation was made before the uproar over Ms. [Loretta] Lynch's meeting
with Mr. Clinton, according to a law enforcement official. He decided to make his findings public, the official said, because
he wanted to make the F.B.I.'s position clear before referring the case to the Justice Department." Derogatory information sometimes
is disclosed in the course of criminal investigations and prosecutions, but we never release it gratuitously. The Director laid
out his version of the facts for the news media as if it were a closing argument, but without a trial. It is a textbook example
of what federal prosecutors and agents are taught not to do.
Comey trying to blackmail President using Steele dossier. Comey was also key figure in appointment of the Special Prosecutor.
Mueller investigation is an impeachment investigation with Comey and Rosenstein as key players.
Notable quotes:
"... We know that the authors of the fix were John Podesta, Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Hillary Clinton herself, the targets of the leak. ..."
"... We know that the DNC and the Democrats were careless with usernames and passwords. We know that any halfwit IT or DATABASE worker understands how to access the Outlook folder, and copy the *.pst files to a flash drive. MSNBC sticks to their flat earth conspiracy theories and Russian Collusion narrative like a flat-earth creationist. In the words of Carl Sagan, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. ..."
MSNBC' Chuck Todd keeps insinuating that Russia hacked the DNC emails without evidence to
back up. He has no idea who leaked the emails to Wikileaks. There were also many in the DNC
who were pissed off that citizens were sending hard earned campaign donations for Bernie
Sanders, and knew that the Clinton financed DNC was rigging the primaries.
We know that the
authors of the fix were John Podesta, Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Hillary Clinton herself,
the targets of the leak.
We know that the DNC and the Democrats were careless with usernames
and passwords. We know that any halfwit IT or DATABASE worker understands how to access the
Outlook folder, and copy the *.pst files to a flash drive. MSNBC sticks to their flat earth
conspiracy theories and Russian Collusion narrative like a flat-earth creationist. In the
words of Carl Sagan, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Jan Wallace
Don't forget the Tarmac meeting...Lynch the AG, and Clinton mixing it up that is obviously not really about golf or
kids...She tells Comey to call it a "Matter" that is collusion.
George Stone
I just read that Dem's filed suit alleging that Russia, Trump & Wikileaks interfered with the 2016 campaign. I guess Dem's
haven't got the memo, There IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THEIR CLAIMS. Adam Schiff hasn't presented any evidence, James Comey
hasn't provided any supporting evidence, neither has the FBI or DOJ.
Why is anyone surprised Comey is a consummate phoney? You didn't think he gained his
position by being the best at what he does do you? Work at any large firm long enough and
you'll see his type. Working behind the scenes, lying, playing political games for advantage.
Eventually that person is promoted and proceeds to wreck the company that promoted him.
Comey's only talent IS being a weasel.
The Democrats are obstructing Democracy. There are also members of congress who have
leaked sensitive, if not classified information to the media to aid in this obstruction and
the DOJ needs to investigate these members to see if crimes have been committed. If the
Democrats believe that the President is not above the law then they too should be subject to
this same standards and scrutiny. A special council should be appointed to investigate them
and look into all their financial dealings both domestic and off shore.
I've been saying from the beginning Comey displays a very unhealthy level of infantile
behaviour. How someone like that ever managed to manoeuvre himself so far up, let alone in a
law enforcement agency, completely baffles the mind. He gives much credit to his wife. I'd
bet a lot she coached him through much of the process. He's not leadership material. On the
other side, more importantly even, if I were law enforcement in the USA I'd be taking a very
good look at this man's life when the lights go off.
It is amazing to hear Comey talk of himself and others rules of integrity. He should have
actually done some of those things he would have done a better job.
It is amazing to hear Comey talk of himself and others rules of integrity. He should have
actually done some of those things he would have done a better job.
Comey career was damaged by his treatment of Hillary email scandal and derailing Sanders;
clearly the political role the FBI assumed. So this is a memoir of a politician who happened to
work in law enforcement, and should be treated as such.
An investigation of real Comey role in derailing Sanders and electing Trump still is a matter of the future.
"... Comey is more than willing on several occasions to make misguided decisions because of his uncompromising loyalty to the FBI. Loyalty to the FBI is ever bit as dangerous as loyalty to the president. ..."
"... I am not a fan of James Comey and to this day I have never seen an answer to why it would be ok for the FBI director to hold a press conference for what seemed to be injecting his own political thoughts and opinions far too close to an election to not have known it would have an effect. ..."
"... Comey goes on to say that "in mid June the Russian Government began dumping emails stolen from the institutions associated with the Democratic Party." Here he is implying that Wikileaks is the Russian Government without any evidence to back it up. ..."
"... Is Comey saying Russia in order to protect Clinton?, its possible. Comey has said in his Book he has been investigating the Clintons since the Clinton administration. Each of those investigations he has let the Clintons walk free and has stop the investigations unexpectedly even when evidence appears to pile up, he does admit that Hillary Clinton destroyed evidence even after receiving a subpoena .Comey investigated a suicide in the clintons white house. Comey was behind an investigation of Bill clinton in January 2002. ..."
"... Comey tries to imply if you did not go along with Hillary Clinton during the 2016 election and not supported her or made no positive comments about her as "associating or working with the Russians". I believe this mindset is very dangerous to suggest if you did not support Hillary Clinton for president as if working with the Russians. ..."
"... He says that "Candidate Clinton herself was talking about the Russian effort to elect her opponent.", well we do know that she was who paid for the slanderous "dossier" which is why she knew about what was in the dossier before the "Dossier" was publish by Buzzfeed and CNN. ..."
"... Before the election Comey said he did his job as if Hillary was already President and as if working for Her even though the election was weeks to come. He says " I was making decisions in an environment where Hillary Clinton was sure to be the next President" ..."
"... Comey expected Trump to curse Russia based on what the suppose "evidence" or the DNC funded "dossier". We do know that the Clinton campaign was running the DNC before Hillary was nominated based on Donna Brazile latest book where she implies that Hillary Clinton cheated Bernie Sanders. ..."
"... Yet Comey fails to mention that he signed a FISA warrant based on the "Dossier" paid by Hillary Clinton and the DNC. He said the Dossier was "salacious and unverified". The Dossier was politically crafted much of it has been proven to be false yet Comey use it to get a FISA warrant. ..."
"... Finishing, Comey goes on to slander president Trump of undermining public confidence in law enforcement institutions when this enforcement institutions have been caught lying, protecting politicians like Hillary Clinton having a double standard when it comes to investigating certain politicians and letting them walk free before finishing an investigation. ..."
"... Comey had his issues with the Justice Department, especially Loretta Lynch although he never says that she had sinister intent. ..."
James Comey is articulate and makes his case in an interesting and effective manner. He
seems competent and well intentioned. Problem is he, like many, considers lying about a crime
a greater crime than the crime. It is not the case. If someone commits murder, is lying about
it worse than the murder?
He rightfully seems horrified that Trump demands loyalty, but Comey is more than willing on
several occasions to make misguided decisions because of his uncompromising loyalty to the
FBI. Loyalty to the FBI is ever bit as dangerous as loyalty to the president.
A justification of the Clinton email server investigation and a nonpartisan critique of
Trump's erosion of norms
A skillfully written and affecting memoir. Comey shares formative experiences: suffering a
random attack by a serial home invader as a teenager, being bullied and then bullying, losing
an infant son. There's a lot of detail about his decision to announce the reopening of the
investigation into Hillary Clinton's private email server right before the election. Given
that situation as he described it, had I been in his shoes, I can't say for sure what I would
have done. He means to reveal the ethical complexity and he does it well.
He speaks positively of working for President George W. Bush and then for President Obama,
but he has no such appreciation for President Trump. Contradicting longstanding norms of U.S.
government, Trump demanded loyalty from Comey in his nonpartisan, ten-year term as the FBI
Director, and when Comey did not give it unconditionally and did not halt the investigation
into Russian interference in the 2016 election, Trump fired him. "We had that thing, you
know," Trump said to Comey, referring to the previous conversation in which he had asked for
loyalty. Comey's knowledge of La Cosa Nostra ("that thing of ours," the Mafia's name for
itself) adds a layer of meaning. Comey knows what Mafia guys are like, and he does not live
like them; he is not swayed by appeals to loyalty. That's how he became FBI Director and
that's also how he lost his job under Trump.
"I say this as someone who has worked in law enforcement for most of my life, and served
presidents of both parties. What is happening now," he warns from his new position as a
private citizen, "is not normal. It is not fake news. It is not okay." For those who support
Trump's policy agenda because they believe it will benefit them personally somehow, Comey
delivers a reminder that "the core of our nation is our commitment to a set of shared values
that began with George Washington -- to restraint and integrity and balance and transparency
and truth. If that slides away from us, only a fool would be consoled by a tax cut or a
different immigration policy."
I am not a fan of James Comey and to this day I have never seen an answer to why it would
be ok for the FBI director to hold a press conference for what seemed to be injecting his own
political thoughts and opinions far too close to an election to not have known it would have
an effect.
If you watch the news at all or read the 1 star reviews by people who appear not
to have read the book you will be led to believe this is a book about Trump, and bashing him,
or outing him as unfit in some way.
Especially if you know that the RNC has gone out of their
way to create a website just ahead of the book release for the sole purpose of Comey bashing.
So let me bust that myth. This is not a book about Trump. There are no big jaw dropping Trump
secrets here.
This is a book about James Comey, from his early childhood until the here and
now. Comey touches on childhood memories, being bullied, later on participating or at least
turning a blind eye to bullyng himself. He speaks on his experience being home alone with his
brother when the "Ramsey Rapist" broke into his house. He tells you how and why he decided to
pursue law as a career instead of becoming a doctor. There are humorous anecdotes about his
first job in the grocery store and yes some about his final days as FBI director. You do not
have to be a fan of Comey or any of his decisions to enjoy this book. You may or may not be
satisfied with his explanation of why he decided to make such public announcements on
Hilary's emails, but that is a small part of this book. Personally I was not satisfied and he
does admit that others may have handled it differently. If you are only looking for
bombshells this book is not for you. By the time it gets to the visit to alert Trump to the
salacious allegations the book is 70% over, because as I said this is not a book about
Trump.
Even if I do not agree with Comey's decisions to publicly give his opinion on one candidate
while withholding the fact that there is an investigation surrounding the other even with the
"classified info" that he says we still do not know about I was still able to enjoy this
book. I agree with his assessment in the last televised interview he gave, that if Comey is
an idiot he is at least an honest idiot.
Just finished reading 100% of the book. James Comey
Just finished reading 100% of the book. James Comey starts with sharing an experience of a
time his house was broken in by a robber while his parents were away and he was alone with
Pete. James Comey recounts his investigations of the Mafia. James Comey talks about having
Malaria and thanks his wife Patrice for taking him on the back of her motorcycle to the
Hospital. He mentions his family life and his new born son Collin who passed away in the
hospital after Doctors failed to give Collin treatment while Collin was already showing
abnormal behavior.
Comey goes on to talk about his role as FBI director during the Obama Administration.
He talks about Micheal Brown and how fake news caused a big up roar and hatred on police
by their distortion on what happened in Ferguson and thus caused great divisions.
Comey tries to justify the outcome of not prosecuting what clinton did with her private
email server which had classified government data by saying that even if her actions were bad
though a statute was broken and had lied to FBI officials about having classified information
but she did so carelessly.
He says that the Clinton campaign was calling the criminal investigation surrounding
Hillary Clinton a "matter" and he says that Attorney General Loretta Lynch was strangely
telling him to do the same when confronting the media.
When Attorney General Loretta Lynch met with Bill Clinton privately on a tarmac he saw it not
as a big deal, though it was after this private meeting that the decision of not prosecuting
Secretary Hillary Clinton was decided . So this shows that the Clinton campaign had influence
on the outcome of the investigation concerning Clinton.
Comey goes on to say that "in mid June the Russian Government began dumping emails stolen
from the institutions associated with the Democratic Party." Here he is implying that
Wikileaks is the Russian Government without any evidence to back it up. Though Wikileaks has
already said that it was not Russia but someone living in the United States who sent the
emails to Wikileaks.
Is Comey saying Russia in order to protect Clinton?, its possible. Comey
has said in his Book he has been investigating the Clintons since the Clinton administration.
Each of those investigations he has let the Clintons walk free and has stop the
investigations unexpectedly even when evidence appears to pile up, he does admit that Hillary
Clinton destroyed evidence even after receiving a subpoena .Comey investigated a suicide in
the clintons white house. Comey was behind an investigation of Bill clinton in January
2002.
Comey mentions the piss dossier as evidence "strongly suggesting that the Russian
government was trying to interfere in the election in 3 ways." He later admits the suppose
"evidence" as "unverifiable", this is the same "dossier" that was used to grant a FISA
warrant to spy on Clinton opponent Donald Trump which was paid by Hillary Clinton and her
campaign.
Comey tries to imply if you did not go along with Hillary Clinton during the 2016 election
and not supported her or made no positive comments about her as "associating or working with
the Russians". I believe this mindset is very dangerous to suggest if you did not support
Hillary Clinton for president as if working with the Russians. Again this is all based on the
"unverifiable dossier" , even though the suggested "evidence" is unverifiable a tyrant
Government can use this to justify in going after ANYONE who speaks against the corruption
going within former director James Comey FBI.
He says that "Candidate Clinton herself was talking about the Russian effort to elect her
opponent.", well we do know that she was who paid for the slanderous "dossier" which is why
she knew about what was in the dossier before the "Dossier" was publish by Buzzfeed and
CNN.
He says that his family were Hillary supporters and that they attended the "Woman's March"
which was more of a rally in protest to President Trump presidency. Before the election Comey
said he did his job as if Hillary was already President and as if working for Her even though
the election was weeks to come. He says " I was making decisions in an environment where
Hillary Clinton was sure to be the next President"
Comey goes on to talk about Donald Trump inauguration and as FBI director fails to talk
about the riots and protestors blocking the entrance to the inauguration where they set a
limousine on fire, stores were broken in including a Starbucks. He compares Trump inauguration
to Obama but Obama had no rioters.
Comey expected Trump to curse Russia based on what the suppose "evidence" or the DNC
funded "dossier". We do know that the Clinton campaign was running the DNC before Hillary was
nominated based on Donna Brazile latest book where she implies that Hillary Clinton cheated
Bernie Sanders.
Yet Comey fails to mention that he signed a FISA warrant based on the
"Dossier" paid by Hillary Clinton and the DNC. He said the Dossier was "salacious and
unverified". The Dossier was politically crafted much of it has been proven to be false yet
Comey use it to get a FISA warrant.
Finishing, Comey goes on to slander president Trump of undermining public confidence in law
enforcement institutions when this enforcement institutions have been caught lying,
protecting politicians like Hillary Clinton having a double standard when it comes to
investigating certain politicians and letting them walk free before finishing an
investigation.
A better title would have been " An American's Highest Loyalty"
This memoir is an important piece in the analysis of turn of the century politics in the
United States. It is unfortunate that the media hype for this book has been about the more
recent turmoil in James Comey's service to his country. True, the Trump administration is
different and in many ways dysfunctional. But it is only in the part of the book, that he
deals with it's dysfunction.
If one reads carefully, President Trump is only a more obvious
and verbal and transparent figure in his disdain for the judiciary and the justice
department. Dick Cheney and others in the Bush 43 administration are portrayed as far more
sinister in their actions to sublimate justice after 9/11.
His admiration for President Obama
is evident and little discussed in the media.
Comey had his issues with the Justice
Department, especially Loretta Lynch although he never says that she had sinister intent. His
dealings with the Clinton email controversy is well outlined. His dilemma with his
communication regarding his investigation and its reopening was inadequately described in the
book and his naivety that its reopening would not influence the election is remarkable. He
supposes that the average American voter understands how the investigative system and justice
system works.
His demeaning comments about President Trump's physical flaws add nothing to the book. I
can understand why he wrote them in as these kinds of notations sell books. They added
nothing to the story he had to tell. He should have left them out.
I appreciate that he does not give loyalty to a person. What makes America great is that
we are loyal to an idea. Even if we disagree on the interpretation of the Constitution, we
can all be American. His loyalty seems to be to honesty and integrity which is admirable.
However the highest loyalty should be to one's reading of the Constitution. I just wished he
had said it.
"... Because Comey revealed that he is either a world class liar or a total moron. Actually, he may be both. I also think that he earned the title of "sanctimonious twit." ..."
"... This exchange should leave you slack jawed by the audacity of Comey's lies. We are asked to believe that Jim Comey is a boy scout. Honest to a fault. Just a humble man trying to do the right thing. Oh yeah, he also is supposed to be really smart. He is a lawyer don't cha know. ..."
"... Put yourself in Jim Comey's large shoes. Would you get such a letter and then file it away at the bottom of your burn bag? Or, would you demand immediate action from your senior staff, including a briefing from the CIA liaison officer posted to FBI Headquarters? Call me crazy, but I am betting that someone as smart and honorable and conscientious (you get the drift) as Jimmy Comey would go for the latter. He would want a briefing and want to know what was told to Senator Reid and other key members of Congress. ..."
"... Comey also wants us to assume that he is a total idiot. Who else catches a briefing laying out sordid and salacious details about Donald Trump and members of his crew romping around Moscow and other formerly commie nooks and crannies and does not have even a wee bit of curiosity to ask, "Who is the source?" or "How did the source come to have this info?" ..."
"... 'Litvinenko used to say: They are total retards in the UK, they believe everything we are telling them about Russia.' It is important here that the 'we' clearly refers to the circle around Berezovsky. Of this, a very large part – Alex Goldfarb, Yuri Shvets, Yuri Felshtinsky, for example – were based on your side of the Atlantic. ..."
"... 'Litvinenko said interesting things about the British judiciary system. He was thrilled, he loved it, that in Britain you could prove anything, really. He used to say: "You can't imagine, you can simply raise your hand, tell the judge whatever, and they will believe you! They will believe you!" And in this respect, a Russia to totally different things, so for a Russian person it is all available and beneficial.' ..."
"... 'I want to stress this thought, the one I mentioned in my statement. I quote – Litvinenko used to say: You can't imagine what idiots they are and they believe everything we are telling them. I stress that.' ..."
"... this seems to me clearly to reflect Lugovoi's considered judgment as to the intellectual quality of British intelligence and law enforcement people, and it is also clear to me that Owen's conduct of his Inquiry is only one item among a mass of material vindicating his contempt. ..."
"... No competent intelligence agency would employ a man like Steele, let alone appoint him as head of its Russia Desk. ..."
"... A more plausible scenario, it increasingly appears, is that crucial strings were pulled by Berezovsky when alive, and are still being pulled by his ghost, after his death. As with Ahmed Chalabi, a somewhat similar figure, both in my country and ours we are going to have to live with the consequences of our credulity in the face of conmen, for a very long time. ..."
"... Another way of looking at it is that they're not really stupid, just completely uninterested in the truth. All they're interested in is gathering the 'evidence' that fits the party line--that's how careers are advanced in the Decadent West now. ..."
"... I tend to agree with RaisingMac below. Or perhaps as Publius says, it's a case of both stupidity and mendacity. I may have mentioned before that most Presidents are perfectly happy to go on national TV and state complete and utter lies that they would have to be more than retarded to actually believe. People used to talk about George Bush as if his speech impediments were related to his intelligence. I always thought it was just a case of he just didn't give a damn what he said because he KNEW he would never pay any consequence for anything he said. And that was true about Obama and it's true about Trump. ..."
"... Yes. I cringed every time Obama repeated the reason we were fighting in Afghanistan. "We are denying them space in which to plan their attacks." At least he used good grammar. ..."
"... Just what were Daniel Richman's duties as a "special government employee"? Who worked, according to Richman, "for no pay". Serve as the official leaker of FBI documents? What other documents has Richman seen and by whose authority? ..."
"... No collusion here, nothing to see here, just normal business amongst FBI leaders. Happens all the time, like Attorney General tarmac meetings with spouses of people being investigated by the FBI. ..."
"... Comey was part of the cabal to bring Trump down....pure and simple.. ..."
"... Just another so-called "smartest guy in the room." Does swimming in the swamp destroy brain cells or does the swamp just naturally attract the dimwitted among us? ..."
"... Plenty smart enough to cope with a TV interview, to the average observer with little grasp of the background. Observing from that position myself I can report that Mr Comey's performance would have been more than adequately convincing for most. After I'd watched the interview I had to re-read PT's article carefully to see where Mr Comey had been skating on thin ice. So yes, smart enough. ..."
"... Smart enough to cope with the considerably sharper and more persistent questioning of a hostile lawyer in a Court? Judging by that uneasy manner of shifting in his jacket from time to time even under such undemanding questioning as this, I'd imagine Mr Comey would do better to devote his ingenuity to avoiding such a test. ..."
Lordy, Lordy, Lordy (to quote James Comey liberally). He was interviewed tonight (Thursday, 26 April 2018) by Bret Baier on the Fox
6pm news show and it was shocking. Why? Because Comey revealed that he is either a world class liar or a total moron. Actually, he
may be both. I also think that he earned the title of "sanctimonious twit."
I want to direct you to look at the exchange that starts at 8:30 into the interview. It concerns the so-called Steele Dossier.
This exchange should leave you slack jawed by the audacity of Comey's lies. We are asked to believe that Jim Comey is a boy scout.
Honest to a fault. Just a humble man trying to do the right thing. Oh yeah, he also is supposed to be really smart. He is a lawyer
don't cha know.
So here is the scenario. He claims he is briefed sometime in September or October on parts of the Steele documents. He is not
sure. This really smart guy just cannot remember.
Well, let's see if this helps jog the faltering brain cells of choir boy. There was a letter from Senator Harry Reid, whose panties
were in a bunch after being briefed by someone from the Intelligence Community (probably CIA Director John Brennan)
that there was:
. . . evidence of a direct connection between the Russian government and Donald Trump's presidential campaign continues to mount
and has led Michael Morrell, the former Acting Central Intelligence Director, to call Trump an "unwitting agent" of Russia and
the Kremlin. The prospect of a hostile government actively seeking to undermine our free and fair elections represents one of
the gravest threats to our democracy since the Cold War and it is critical for the Federal Bureau of lnvestigation to use every
resource available to investigate this matter thoroughly and in a timely fashion. The American people deserve to have a full understanding
of the facts from a completed investigation before they vote this November.
Put yourself in Jim Comey's large shoes. Would you get such a letter and then file it away at the bottom of your burn bag?
Or, would you demand immediate action from your senior staff, including a briefing from the CIA liaison officer posted to FBI Headquarters?
Call me crazy, but I am betting that someone as smart and honorable and conscientious (you get the drift) as Jimmy Comey would go
for the latter. He would want a briefing and want to know what was told to Senator Reid and other key members of Congress.
But Comey now wants us to believe that he does not remember anything about the specifics of this Dossier and the information contained
in it. Are we to suppose that Comey was getting so many letters and reports about Trump and the Rooskies collaborating on stealing
the election that it was just something routine? I doubt that.
Comey also wants us to assume that he is a total idiot. Who else catches a briefing laying out sordid and salacious details
about Donald Trump and members of his crew romping around Moscow and other formerly commie nooks and crannies and does not have even
a wee bit of curiosity to ask, "Who is the source?" or "How did the source come to have this info?"
Nope. Not Jimmy Comey. Asking such basic, factual questions apparently eluded his razor sharp mind. He concedes that it came from
a foreign intelligence officer (Steele) and, rather than wonder about any possible counter intelligence concerns, says that he took
that fact as validation of the reliability of these fantastical reports.
There was a time when I respected James Comey. No longer. Trump called him a liar today. I think President Trump has it right.
Comey is a liar. What is shocking to me is that someone who is supposedly so smart can be so downright stupid. His interview above
seals that fact for me.
"He concedes that it came from a foreign intelligence officer (Steele) and, rather than wonder about any possible counter intelligence
concerns, says that he took that fact as validation of the reliability of these fantastical reports."
As I have noted in earlier exchanges on these matters, in the press conference where he responded to the British request for
his extradition, the man Steele et al framed over the death of Alexander Litvinenko, Andrei Lugovoi, made the following claim
about what his supposed victim really thought of people like the man Comey appears so happy to believe:
'Litvinenko used to say: They are total retards in the UK, they believe everything we are telling them about Russia.' It
is important here that the 'we' clearly refers to the circle around Berezovsky. Of this, a very large part – Alex Goldfarb, Yuri
Shvets, Yuri Felshtinsky, for example – were based on your side of the Atlantic.
In the appearance on Russian primetime television where Litvinenko's father embraced Lugovoi, in addition to making the quite
implausible claim that Goldfarb had assassinated his son, he made the to my mind not implausible suggestion that the figure who
he was, in his turn, framing, was working for the CIA.
In the Q&A at the press conference, Lugovoi's supposed partner-in-crime, Dmitri Kovtun, made a claim parallel to Lugovoi's,
about British law enforcement, clearly referring to the supposed plot to assassinate Berezovsky with a 'poison pen', which back
in 2003 MI6 had used to frustrate Russian attempts to have the oligarch extradited.
(In this, I think it likely that the Russian Prosecutor-General's Office are quite correct to claim that Goldfarb and Litvinenko
played crucial roles.)
According to Kovtun:
'Litvinenko said interesting things about the British judiciary system. He was thrilled, he loved it, that in Britain
you could prove anything, really. He used to say: "You can't imagine, you can simply raise your hand, tell the judge whatever,
and they will believe you! They will believe you!" And in this respect, a Russia to totally different things, so for a Russian
person it is all available and beneficial.'
Also in the Q&A, Lugovoi returned to his earlier claim about Litvinenko's contempt for people like Steele:
'I want to stress this thought, the one I mentioned in my statement. I quote – Litvinenko used to say: You can't imagine
what idiots they are and they believe everything we are telling them. I stress that.'
(For the press conference, follow the link INQ001886 on the 'Evidence page' on the archived website of the inquiry presided
over by Sir Robert Owen, which is at
http://webarchive.nationala... .)
Whether or not Litvinenko made the remarks attributed to him – and I think it most likely that he did – this seems to me
clearly to reflect Lugovoi's considered judgment as to the intellectual quality of British intelligence and law enforcement people,
and it is also clear to me that Owen's conduct of his Inquiry is only one item among a mass of material vindicating his contempt.
As it happens, the type to which Steele, and also our embarrassment of a Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson, patently belongs
– the worst kind of superannuated Oxbridge student politician – is one with which I have quite extensive knowledge, which even
if I had not followed the antics of Steele and Owen, would strongly incline me to think that Lugovoi's judgments were accurate.
No competent intelligence agency would employ a man like Steele, let alone appoint him as head of its Russia Desk.
If people take a 'retard' seriously, then the natural inference is that they are themselves 'retards.'
I have largely lost count of the number of the people in the United States who appear to have taken Steele seriously. But it
seems clear that your intelligence, foreign affairs and law enforcement bureaucracies are as infested by 'retards' as are ours.
The notion of Putin as the sinister puppet master, pulling the 'strings' which caused people to vote for 'Leave' in the Brexit
campaign, or to support Trump, has always been BS.
A more plausible scenario, it increasingly appears, is that crucial strings were pulled by Berezovsky when alive, and are
still being pulled by his ghost, after his death. As with Ahmed Chalabi, a somewhat similar figure, both in my country and ours
we are going to have to live with the consequences of our credulity in the face of conmen, for a very long time.
Another way of looking at it is that they're not really stupid, just completely uninterested in the truth. All they're interested
in is gathering the 'evidence' that fits the party line--that's how careers are advanced in the Decadent West now.
I tend to agree with RaisingMac below. Or perhaps as Publius says, it's a case of both stupidity and mendacity. I may have
mentioned before that most Presidents are perfectly happy to go on national TV and state complete and utter lies that they would
have to be more than retarded to actually believe. People used to talk about George Bush as if his speech impediments were related
to his intelligence. I always thought it was just a case of he just didn't give a damn what he said because he KNEW he would never
pay any consequence for anything he said. And that was true about Obama and it's true about Trump.
This is the nature of
people in power - they don't care what you think about what they said, so they say anything they want as long as it isn't something
so absurd as to make them look like fools directly - in the minds of the rest of the fools listening to them as if what they said
really mattered.
Parsing what these people say is a complete waste of time. What matters is what did they DO and what were the consequences
to the rest of us.
Yes. I cringed every time Obama repeated the reason we were fighting in Afghanistan. "We are denying them space in which to
plan their attacks." At least he used good grammar.
Yes! But i think you really should have said highly convenient credulity. That is why an intelligence agency employs a man like
Steele. That is the key competancy they saw when recruiting. That "flexibility" with the truth is such an asset in the civil service.
I dont believe all players were idiots. I believe they were "fooled" like John Scarlett was fooled about WMD.
The criminal laws in the United States are broad and far-reaching enough that an aggressive prosecutor will always have a pretext
to bring charges against anyone. This is entirely intentional. Those whom the establishment want punished are punished.
At the same time, because everybody and anybody can be made into a criminal whenever convenient, the converse is that violating
the law is considered blameless, praiseworthy even, when doing so aligns with consensus establishment goals.
This does not mean that a shadowy cabal have secret meeting and take a ballot on whom we will persecute today. Rather, it refers
to people of influence and authority, and prosecutors, being, depending on how you look at it, glorified or perhaps degraded politicians,
are exquisitely sensitive to such things.
I deal with attorneys on a weekly basis. The percentage of them which are simply unqualified to wake up in the morning and charge
people for advice is mind boggling.
I am giggling still after reading your comments about our little Jimmy C. I watched the interview yesterday and came away feeling
that somehow I must be losing my marbles, so to speak, because I just could not make myself believe that this person had reached
the level of authority in our government that he had reached before deservedly being fired at last.
When the whole Clinton email situation was at its peak in the news cycle, I finally decided that Jimmy was a prime example
of the Peter Principle. He had reached his level of incompetence. But after watching the interview yesterday, I decided that he
had reached that level of incompetence long before becoming the Director of the FBI. Perhaps all the really intelligent, competent
people just didn't want to go into some sort of bureaucratic swampy environment that taking a management position would mean.
Maybe they all just kept pushing him up the ladder to keep him from going out into the field to do the real work of the FBI. Who
knows? One person--I forget who it was--did call him a malignant narcissist. And that he is. So, I hope he ends up in a federal
prison with his fellow malignant narcissists, though they tend more to violence than he does. I pity his daughters. They have
no hope of growing up to live rational lives.
I then thought the round table discussion afterward was a bit surreal. It's not that I thought the people weren't stating good
points. It was just that I thought they would all be laughing so hard and holding their sides and rolling on the floor laughing
at him.
God save our country if there are many more like Jimmy in high positions. I will have to pray extra hard at church this Sunday.
Just what were Daniel Richman's duties as a "special government employee"? Who worked, according to Richman, "for no pay".
Serve as the official leaker of FBI documents? What other documents has Richman seen and by whose authority?
Does anyone else find it convenient that Comey is now paying him as his attorney, thus giving him "attorney client
privilege". That being the thing Mueller's raid on Cohen's home and office voided for Trump.
No collusion here, nothing to see here, just normal business amongst FBI leaders. Happens all the time, like Attorney General
tarmac meetings with spouses of people being investigated by the FBI.
Just what were Daniel Richman's duties as a "special government employee". Who worked, according to Richman, "for no pay"? Serve
as the official leaker of FBI documents? Does anyone else find it convenient that Comey is now paying him as his attorney, thus
giving him "attorney client privilege". That would be the thing Mueller's raid on Cohen's home and office voided for Trump.
It seems that there is more than meets the eye here. It is becoming more evident that the allegations of the Trump campaign colluding
with the Russian government was actually a cover for the far more insidious collusion of top officials in the Obama administration
including possibly Obama himself to use the resources and capabilities of the federal government to destroy a major party presidential
candidate from the opposing party.
Clapper once again being accused of lying to Congress and being a leaker of classified information. Brennan sure looks very
concerned. Let's see if the rule of law applies to high officials in government. I'm not holding my breath.
Those terms are not mutually exclusive. He looks like both a liar and fool to many of us.
Not surprisingly, there are many great political cartoons to be found on Comey over the past couple of years. It was hard to
limit myself to sharing 3 of them, but I didn't want to end up in the spam bin.
are any Americans in cahoots with the foreign intelligence of an adversary nation
Since when does the Director of the FBI get to decide American foreign policy and does he really understand the principles
of democracy? Donald Trump was clear throughout his campaign that he wanted better relations with Russia so the people who elected
him however flawed the process had an expectation that there would be better relations with Russia. People in the executive might
disagree with this as a policy but in a democracy they should not actively frustrate the will of the people; Trump should call
on anybody who has done so to resign as a matter of principle.
Just another so-called "smartest guy in the room." Does swimming in the swamp destroy brain cells or does the swamp just naturally
attract the dimwitted among us?
Plenty smart enough to cope with a TV interview, to the average observer with little grasp of the background. Observing from
that position myself I can report that Mr Comey's performance would have been more than adequately convincing for most. After
I'd watched the interview I had to re-read PT's article carefully to see where Mr Comey had been skating on thin ice. So yes,
smart enough.
It reminded me of similar awkward interviews here, from Mr Blair in the distant past to Boris Johnson's recent DW interview:
enough ingenuity to convince the most of us and too few of the unconvinced to matter. After all for such people, or I'd guess
in the environment Mr Comey has so far prospered in, there's no call for cast iron explanations. The plausible, as long as it
has some colour of reason, will carry the day.
Smart enough to cope with the considerably sharper and more persistent questioning of a hostile lawyer in a Court? Judging
by that uneasy manner of shifting in his jacket from time to time even under such undemanding questioning as this, I'd imagine
Mr Comey would do better to devote his ingenuity to avoiding such a test.
PT, I vaguely, very, very vaguely (not much) followed up on Fred's book alert on Comey and his book. I stumbled across a young
man's review (as old lady), whose name I had never heard before. Touched old chords somehow. Not sure if I may link here to--of
all possible places--Rolling Stone? And Garrett M. Graff, that is: James Comey's 'A Higher Loyalty' Is a Study in Contradictions,
Inside and Out. The former FBI director's memoir is about life, leadership and undoing all of the above
"... Mr. McCabe then instructed the email investigators to talk to the Weiner investigators and see whether the laptop's contents could be relevant to the Clinton email probe, these people said. After the investigators spoke, the agents agreed it was potentially relevant. ..."
"... Mr. Comey was given an update, decided to go forward with the case and notified Congress on Friday (28 October 2016), with explosive results. ..."
"... In February of this year (2016), Mr. McCabe ascended from the No. 3 position at the FBI to the deputy director post. When he assumed that role, officials say, he started overseeing the probe into Mrs. Clinton's use of a private email server for government work when she was secretary of state. ..."
"... The Mueller probe in many ways has become a parody. They have financially ruined and destroyed Gen. Flynn for having a legitimate discussion with the Russian ambassador. Of course he has pled guilty to lying. The leaking of this conversation seems to be a felony but that has yet to be prosecuted. ..."
"... Mueller has not uncovered any collusion with the Russians by the Trump campaign but is targeting Manafort for financial irregularities that took place well before he joined the Trump campaign. Additionally, he referred Trump's personal attorney Michael Cohen to the FBI for possible criminal activity that had nothing to do with Russia or collusion, who then raided his home and office. ..."
My current piece will be focused almost exclusively on Andy McCabe. He was fired, there was grumbling that this was unfair political
payback. And then we got a look at the Department of Justice Inspector General's report. Liar, liar pants on fire. Although the OIG
report is very poorly written (as you read through the 39 pages you'll feel like a young Yeshiva student pouring over some tendentious
exegesis by an elderly Hasidic Rabbi), it contains damning evidence of malfeasance on the part of McCabe. So let me simplify it for
you.
McCabe was fired because he lied about his role in leaking information in late October 2016 to Wall Street Journal reporter, Devlin
Barrett, who authored the article,
FBI in Internal Feud Over Hillary Clinton Probe . Barrett's article is not much better than the IG report in terms of simplicity
and clarity. It lacks both. It is poorly written and requires a compass and advanced land navigation skills to map out the story.
This is the bottom line of the article--Andy McCabe is accused of ordering FBI Agents to not investigate the Clinton Foundation because
his wife got money from Virginia Governor and Clinton confidant, Terry McAuliffe. Here are the salient points from that article:
The surprise disclosure that agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation are taking a new look at Hillary Clinton's email
use lays bare, just days before the election, tensions inside the bureau and the Justice Department over how to investigate the
Democratic presidential nominee.
The latest development began in early October when New York-based FBI officials notified Andrew McCabe, the bureau's second-in-command,
that
while investigating Mr. Weiner for possibly sending sexually charged
messages to a teenage minor , they had recovered a laptop.
Mr. McCabe then instructed the email investigators to talk to the Weiner investigators and see whether the laptop's contents
could be relevant to the Clinton email probe, these people said. After the investigators spoke, the agents agreed it was potentially
relevant.
Mr. Comey was given an update, decided to go forward with the case
and notified Congress on Friday (28
October 2016), with explosive results.
Senior Justice Department officials had warned the FBI that telling Congress would violate policies against overt actions
that could affect an election, and some within the FBI have been unhappy at Mr. Comey's repeated public statements on the probe,
going back to his
press conference on the subject in July.
The Wall
Street Journal reported last week that Mr. McCabe's wife, Jill McCabe, received $467,500 in campaign funds in late 2015 from
the political-action committee of Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, a longtime ally of the Clintons and, until he was elected governor
in November 2013, a Clinton Foundation board member.
In February of this year (2016), Mr. McCabe ascended from the No. 3 position at the FBI to the deputy director post. When
he assumed that role, officials say, he started overseeing the probe into Mrs. Clinton's use of a private email server for government
work when she was secretary of state.
According to a person familiar with the probes, on Aug. 12, a senior Justice Department official (
Matthew Axelrod according to Zero Hedge) called Mr. McCabe to voice his displeasure at finding that New York FBI agents were
still openly pursuing the Clinton Foundation probe during the election season. . . .The Justice Department official was "very
pissed off," according to one person close to Mr. McCabe, and pressed him to explain why the FBI was still chasing a matter the
department considered dormant.
For Mr. McCabe's defenders, the exchange showed how he was stuck between an FBI office eager to pour more resources into a
case and Justice Department prosecutors who didn't think much of the case, one person said.
When agents questioned why they weren't allowed to take more aggressive steps, they said they were told the order had come
from the deputy director -- Mr. McCabe.
Some FBI agents were dissatisfied with that answer, and asked for permission to make a similar request to federal prosecutors
in Manhattan, according to people familiar with the matter. Mr. McCabe, these people said, told them no and added that they couldn't
"go prosecutor-shopping."
This article triggered the investigation by the FBI's Inspection Division aka INSD, which then led to the 31 August 2017 investigation
by the Department of Justice's Office of the Inspector General aka OIG. These are the critical facts/findings by the OIG:
Prior to the 30 October 2016 Devlin Barrett article, the FBI had neither confirmed nor denied that there was an investigation
of the Clinton Foundation.
On 23 October 2016 the WSJ's Barrett reported that McCabe's wife had received $675,000 from Virginia Democrats linked to Clinton.
This article sparked a public debate over whether McCabe should have any role whatsoever with investigations that touched on Hillary
Clinton or the Clinton Foundation.
25 October 2016, McCabe learns that Barret (WSJ reporter) is working on a follow up to the 23 October piece. McCabe then authorized
the Special Counsel (some say it was Lisa Page, not confirmed) and the Assistant Director of the Office of Public Affairs aka
AD/OPA (Michael Kortan) to talk to Barrett.
27 October 2016, McCabe is excluded from a meeting/conference call regarding a search warrant for a set of Clinton-related
emails.
On the same day the Special Counsel and the AD/OPA met with Barrett who informed the two FBI officials that his sources claimed
McCabe wanted to shut down the Clinton Foundation investigation for "improper reasons."
On the same day the Special Counsel, after receiving guidance from McCabe, spoke with Barrett of the WSJ and informed him
of McCabe's 12 August conversation with the DOJ Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General, which was very acrimonious and left
McCabe "pissed off."
Barrett's article about the battle between the FBI and DOJ over the Clinton Foundation was published online on Sunday, 30
October 2016 at 3:34 pm.
On the same day, shortly after the WSJ article hit the internet, McCabe made an angry call to the senior FBI Executives at
the Washington and New York Field Divisions to voice his outrage at the leaks and ordered those Executives "to get their houses
in order." McCabe did not disclose to either person that he had authorized the FBI Special Counsel to disclose that information.
31 October 2016, FBI Director Comey voiced his concerns about the leak to senior FBI staffers, which included McCabe.
May 2017 FBI INSD (i.e., the Inspection Division) opens investigation into the 30 October 2016 leak.
9 May 2017 McCabe is interviewed under oath by INSD and shown the 30 October 2016 WSJ article and specifically directed to
the report of the acrimonious exchange between McCabe and a senior DOJ official. McCabe said the report was accurate but that
he had no idea where the leak about the 12 August 2016 phone call with the PADAG at Justice came from.
Three days later (i.e., 12 May 2017), INSD emailed McCabe the draft Signed Sworn Statement for his review and signature. McCabe,
according to the OIG report, did nothing with the statement until three months later (18 August 2017).
Two months later, on 28 July 2017, the OIG interviewed McCabe under oath regarding "various FBI and Department actions in
advance of the 2016 Election," and was asked specifically if the Special Counsel had been authorized to speak to the Wall Street
Journal reporter who wrote the 30 October 2016 article. McCabe said, "Not that I'm aware of."
Four days later, 1 August 2017, McCabe called the Assistant Inspector General and stated, "he may have authorized the Special
Counsel to work with the AD/OPA and speak to Devlin Barrett."
7 August 2017, the Special Counsel was interviewed by INSD (the FBI) about the 30 October 2016 Barrett article. She admitted,
under oath, that she gave the information to Barrett but was authorized to do so by Andy McCabe.
Eleven days later (18 August 2017), INSD reinterviewed Andy McCabe about the 30 October 2016 article. McCabe admitted that
his sworn testimony from May was wrong and conceded that he had authorized the disclosure.
Andy McCabe was reinterviewed by the OIG on 29 November 2017 and admitted to the following:
he authorized the leak to the WSJ for the 30 October article;
he did not recall discussing the disclosure with Comey in advance;
he told Comey after the 30 October article that he had authorized the leak;
that other FBI executive managers knew he had authorized the leak
claimed he had not purposefully made previous false statements to INSD and OIG investigators.
There is still a big case of he said/she said to come that will pit McCabe against Comey. McCabe, under oath, insists he told
Comey, at least after the fact, and that Comey was okay with the leak. Comey is on the record, also under oath, saying that is not
true. Someone is lying. It is an appalling situation to be in a position of having to choose between the former number two guy in
the FBI and the former number one. They were supposed to be better than this.
Puts the whole case against Flynn in a new light. He has had his entire life ruined for saying something to the FBI that may not
have been true, but was not a statement under oath. Most Americans understand double standards and cheaters. America's premiere law
enforcement agency is now appearing to be worse than a crooked casino. Only house favorites win.
There is a private online forum where retired FBI Special Agents gather to discuss FBI related matters. The topics used to
be FBI health insurance, retirements, death notices, local newspaper articles, and ....well you get the idea. It is only a subset
of the entire retired population and the great majority of members are lurkers who do not actively participate. Still, it is the
best, if not only measure, of sentiment in this group. Unfortunately the matters you write about now dominate the discussions.
You may be interested to know that from my reading of it over the past 18 months, the overwhelming majority, by avalanche proportions,
possibly close to unanimity [previously unheard of in this organization in my generation on any topic] share your point of view
about the recent top Bu leadership. There is shock, disbelief, shame, and a great deal of anger at the recent/current top leadership
who got us into this situation. [as a point of reference, to measure seriousness, when I entered on duty a really serious matter
was "Bu agent, in Bu car, with Bu Steno (female employee), drunk"] [the penalty for which was usually fire the steno for lack
of moral character, and transfer agent to the New York office,] The good news is that this recent rot exists/existed only at the
very upper levels [maybe 10-20 people] of the HQ staff [approx 800]. The other 30,000 or so FBI employees were not involved.
That is not to say they won't be impacted; the last 18 months of drip by drip criticism must make work by the operational personnel
much more difficult. This is not a good thing as after all is said the FBI is still out there every day trying to catch corrupt
politicians, brutal policemen, kidnappers, bank robbers, terrorists,cyber criminals, organized crime members, and about 1000 other
types of criminals. I encourage you to make a distinction in your writing between the villains at the top and the rank and file
of the FBI.
Ah, but Nightsticker this is not a new phenomena, didn't the LDS faction always play by their own rules. I saw the careers destroyed
of those who chose to stand up to the Salt Lake City crowd, and didn't that bring us Waco and some humiliating revelations about
the Laboratory Division?
I would completely agree that the Steno's, the Ident clerks, and the Brick Agents were the hardest working of all Government
employees but there was always an element that operated purely for their own designs. Remember the old pound on the desk and shout
"No FBI Agent has ever been turned", whenever someone questioned the Bureau? Did they still say that after Whitey Bolger?
While your point that a distinction should be made between the rank & file and the villains at the top is well taken, there
have been several high profile cases of misconduct in the field offices. The Bundy case in Nevada being a recent one, where a
judge threw out the DOJ/FBI prosecution with prejudice for prosecutorial misconduct.
Considering how much these types of misconduct and malfeasance gets hidden from the public under the rubric of "classified
information", it seems there are many more cases of such misconduct that has come out in the recent past. One has to feel sympathetic
towards the ordinary citizen when the full force of the DOJ/FBI are brought to bear against them, especially in a climate where
national security "concerns" trumps liberty and due process.
Do you think the character of the agents & prosecutors as well as the "command climate" have changed due to institutional pressures
over the last couple decades?
Do you believe this all took place without anyone lower in the hierarchy knowing about it or participating in it? Can secrets
be kept in such a large organization where most don't know what the bosses are up to?
In your point #3, the Special Counsel is Lisa Page, who was legal counsel to McCabe. With the criminal referral from the IG
we'll have to see if and when he's indicted.
The Mueller probe in many ways has become a parody. They have financially ruined and destroyed Gen. Flynn for having a
legitimate discussion with the Russian ambassador. Of course he has pled guilty to lying. The leaking of this conversation seems
to be a felony but that has yet to be prosecuted.
Mueller has not uncovered any collusion with the Russians by the Trump campaign but is targeting Manafort for financial
irregularities that took place well before he joined the Trump campaign. Additionally, he referred Trump's personal attorney Michael
Cohen to the FBI for possible criminal activity that had nothing to do with Russia or collusion, who then raided his home and
office.
In this context it will be interesting to see if the DOJ indicts McCabe. There's now increasing pieces of the puzzle being
uncovered that sheds more light on the incredible conspiracy among Brennan, Clapper, Loretta Lynch, Comey, McCabe, Sally Yates,
Susan Rice - essentially the top brass in the Obama administration who ran the intelligence, law enforcement and national security
apparatus who used their offices for political purposes to interfere and manipulate an election campaign and when that failed
to attempt a coup.
The foreign interference were these guys working with the British and Estonian intelligence to fabricate reports to launch
a fraudulent investigation on candidate Trump and his campaign.
The genie is out of the bottle. It will only be a matter of time when a GOP administration will use the intelligence and law
enforcement capabilities of an administration to play dirty tricks on the Democrats. The Democrats have made sure that the FBI,
CIA, ODNI, & DOJ have now become tools for vicious political fights.
Thanks for your ice clear update. Corporate media mostly ignores the "Pay to Play" governance that has enveloped Washington
DC with the decision in 2008 by the Obama Administration to foam the runways for Wall Street and not jail corporate crooks. The
FBI could not do a full investigation. The DOJ would never indict Hillary Clinton. Both James Comey and General Michael Flynn
should have kept their mouths shut. Yet, they rose near the top of the cess pool. I assume they simply couldn't acknowledge to
themselves the criminal sewer they were swimming in. An addition note on the sewer overflow; the President's Physician's nomination
to head the VA is in trouble due to drinking on the job and pushing pills.
Reports like these are our only hope of the restoration of a government of the people, by the people, for the people.
It's not just the leadership at the FBI. It is the whole kit and kaboodle when Brennan, Clapper, Lynch, Yates, and the ladies
Rice, Powers, Farkas all had a hand in this. I'm a Depression Era baby and I've seen many a scandal in government but I can't
recall another time when an existing administration of a major party used the intelligence and law enforcement agencies to actively
do opposition research on the other major party candidate. And then conspire to influence and manipulate a presidential election
and frame that candidate as an agent of a foreign power considered an enemy in many quarters. This is beyond the pale even if
one abhors the candidate. You read about stuff like this happening in banana republics. But in the USA. I can't believe our institutions
have sunk so low just in my lifetime.
Two friends get arrested for murder. One of them had to have done it. They both finger the other guy - and they both get off because
nobody can prove beyond a reasonable doubt who did it. How convenient.
At this point it is hard to discern which of our institutions haven't been corrupted by power-mad philosopher kings.
There is an entire corner of [conservative] Twitter following the Borg political shitshow (and particularly the upcoming DOJ
OIG report) pretty closely and have been for some time. A lot of it seemed pretty far out there when I first came across them
(and may still be, there's no way to know for sure until there's a lot more clarity on some of these issues) but they have increasingly
tracked with a lot of what you have written about here and have generally been on the mark, if not superficially clairvoyant.
They're decidedly very pro-Trump but if you're interested (and use Twitter) here's a few of these characters: @_VachelLindsay_
, @drawandstrike , and @TheLastRefuge2.
Thank you. For us in the general public, who have to try to get through the day following the news, it's becoming a stomach-turning
activity. I've recently found myself thinking that only a bad script writer could have come up with all that is being broadcast
on the supposed "news" channels--especially those that do report much of what you have just summarized. I have felt so sorry for
Flynn and others caught up in this total dysfunctional system.
With the top people in the FBI acting so politically, it makes me wonder at some of the other events we've had to read about
regarding the FBI, such as the handling of information regarding the killer in the Florida Pulse nightclub, the dropping of the
ball, so to speak, in regard to the Boston Marathon bombers, the lack of interest in following up on the call to the FBI regarding
the school killer in Florida. And now I question the decision to give the guns back to the father of the shooter in Tennessee
at the Waffle House. Are the everyday working procedures now totally tained by politics also?
My inclination is to think that the regular FBI agents have their hands tied by politically motivated rules set at the top
that do not allow agents to do what they know is right.
Every time I hear Comey speak, I go into a state of cognitive dissonance because it seems as if somehow a ninth-grade student
with absolutely no ability to think logically was somehow promoted to the top office of the FBI.
"... Clapper and Brennan are perjurers, so it seems is Comey. Lynch tanked the prosecution by not reminding FBI that its up to the DOJ, not FBI, to decide to prosecute or not ((how has that gotten lost in all this))... its crooks all the way down to the dark corners of the Shadow State, where drug sales, murder, and terror are the red blood cells of the beast. ..."
"... Strzok and Page are sacrificial pigs who have apparently only convicted themselves of gross stupidity. There is no evidence of crimes being committed in emails. That is why both are still employed. No evidence either one was having an affair, either. Going to lunch is not a crime. ..."
Jim Comey DOES get to arbitrarily judge
what is and what is not classified! As
the head of the FBI, he clearly has the
role of 'Originating Authority' on
determining classification of ANY
document. What it says is, that if
there's ANY doubt, whether it is
classified or not, it shall be
SAFEGUARDED at the higher level of
classification. And the ultimate
authority, is the President of the
United States, if the Originator is
Comey. So Comey took it upon himself
to declassify, classified documents
without the permission of the President
of the United States, who happens to be
his boss.
(c)
If there is
reasonable doubt about the need to
classify information, it shall be
safeguarded as if it were classified
pending a determination by an original
classification authority, who shall
make this determination within thirty
(30) days. If there is
reasonable doubt about the appropriate
level of classification, it shall be
safeguarded at the higher level of
classification pending a determination
by an original classification authority
,
who shall make this determination
within thirty (30) days.
Executive Order
12356--National security information
Source:
The
provisions of Executive Order 12356
of Apr. 2, 1982, appear at 47 FR
14874 and 15557, 3 CFR, 1982 Comp.,
p. 166, unless otherwise noted.
10) other categories of
information that are related to the
national security and that require
protection against unauthorized
disclosure as determined by the
President or by agency heads or
other officials who have been
delegated original classification
authority
by the President
.
Any
determination made under
this subsection shall be reported
promptly to the Director of the
Information Security Oversight
Office
.
(b) Information that is
determined to concern one or more
of the categories in Section
1.3(a
) shall be
classified when an original
classification authority also
determines that its unauthorized
disclosure, either by itself or
in the context of other
information, reasonably could be
expected to cause damage to the
national security.
(c) Unauthorized disclosure
of foreign government
information, the identity of a
confidential foreign source, or
intelligence sources or methods
is presumed to cause damage to
the national security.
(d)
Information classified
in accordance with Section 1.3
shall not be declassified
automatically as a result of any
unofficial publication or
inadvertent or unauthorized
disclosure in the United States
or abroad of identical or similar
information.
[!!!!!!]
Comey is no different than any of those low lifes
you used to see get busted on Cops. He's a
confidence man. A crack head, high on his own
power. He's worse in fact because he betrayed his
fellow Americans en masse.
What nails him is over
confidence. Obama has it, Clinton has it. They all
think that they they're winners at the table and
that it's gonna go on forever. They are the worse
type because they think they deserve it. There is
not a gram of humility in the lot. Prisons are full
of these guys.
Interestingly enough, all these these players
use the same excuses those addicts with smack in
the center console use as they were getting cuffed.
"What? We were just talkin"
"I had no idea that was there"
"I don't remember"
"Some guy told me it was okay"
"I don't know"
"The other guy started it"
"That's my personal stuff. You got no right"
"Those aren't mine"
"Wasn't me"
"I'm not me I'm my younger brother" (nod to Ike
Turner for that one)
It's the sheer weight of these tired old answers
that makes it so obvious that Comey is scum. He has
an answer for everything. Put them all together and
you get a figure eight. He's a punk in the first
order and a henchman of a crime family. I'm hoping
he ends up somebody's punk when this is over.
Hey Cornholius, When you say "these pigs are as dirty as
they get" are you talking about Jeff "Reefer Madness"
Sessions? Because, if you are, I will agree with you.
I'm talking about all the fucknuts who steal the
fruits of your labor and claim to be "serving the
public". Sessions is definitely one of those pigs.
Taxpayers enable and support his behaviour.
This is a constitutional republic. They like
"democracy" because they can claim their crimes
legitimate as "mandates". Their actions are
unconstitutional. That is the law. Be nice if the
next time the military conducts exercises in a
domestic population center the local militia takes
them all prisoner. Train for this.
Maybe ideologically it is a constitutional
republic, but since March 9, 1933 when FDR
signed the Emergency Banking Act the United
States has been a private institution managed by
foreign investors.
"Since March 9, 1933 The
United States has been in a state of Declared
National Emergency ... Under the powers
delegated by these statutes the President may:
seize property, organize and control the means
of production, seize commodities, order military
forces abroad, institute martial law, seize and
control all transportation and communication,
regulate the operation of private enterprise,
restrict travel, and in a plethora of ways
control the lives of American citizens. ... A
majority of the people in the United States have
lived all of their lives under emergency rule.
For forty years, freedoms and governmental
procedure guaranteed by the Constitution have in
varying degrees been abridged by laws brought
into force by national emergency." In Reg. US
Senate report No. 93-549 dated 11/19/73
Why Trump allows this, I can't figure out...either it's
part of a bigger plan, he's a dumb-ass, or he's being
forced to allow this shit-show to go into it's second
season.
Clapper and Brennan are perjurers, so it seems is Comey. Lynch tanked the
prosecution by not reminding FBI that its up to the DOJ, not FBI, to decide to
prosecute or not ((how has that gotten lost in all this))... its crooks all
the way down to the dark corners of the Shadow State, where drug sales,
murder, and terror are the red blood cells of the beast.
And of course Hillary... decades of lies, murders, theft, and the
deliberate arming of terrorists in Syria, per her emails, to 'help Israel.'
These people aren't merely criminals, but domestic terrorists and traitors.
Trump and Sessions' failure to indict these people merits your attention
regardless of what you think of Trump these days.
The lack of prosecutions means a DOJ afraid of what dark secrets may be
revealed in the harsh light of investigation and prosecution.
We would likely, even as cynics, absolutely marvel at the thoroughness of
Washington's corruption if we saw it.
Maybe we'd think about treating DC as a zio/globalist occupied territory
that presents a clear and present danger to the several States.
Strzok
and Page are sacrificial
pigs who have apparently
only convicted
themselves of gross
stupidity. There is no
evidence of crimes being
committed in emails.
That is why both are
still employed. No
evidence either one was
having an affair,
either. Going to lunch
is not a crime.
The real action is
who and what else is
being concealed from the
world.......
FBI are all a bunch
of depraved FUCKS.
If FBI secrets were
to come out for everyone
to see, every criminal
prosecution in which FBI
Fucks were involved
could be dismissed,
overturned, reversed, or
withdrawn from Fed
Court. Gov does not have
enough $$$$$$ to pay the
damages.
So we all get fucked
and FBI cunts stay
employed.
Sso corrupt it is
UNIMAGINABLE !!!!
Close down the FBI
!!!! End the fucking
contest. Do it NOW !!!
Did his crack legal team tell him to shut the fuck up? He's basically cross
examining himself in a public forum.
The Clinton email thing is still
amazing. It's de jure illegal to handle the information the way they did
regardless of intent. No interview was necessary. No immunity to an
unnecessary interview needed to happen either. This is a miscarriage at its
most benign.
Only a boob would believe this "aw schucks" nonesense.
It is amazing he ran the FBI. He is completely delusional. Has no sense of the
rule of law or how to apply it. Has no sense of how the law applies to him. He
cannot see the consequences of his actions on people or how they would
interpret it. Complete narcissist that lacks any empathy. Truly a psychopath.
The level of absurdity of the former head of the nation's purportedly premiere
law enforcement agency giving unlimited interviews to promote a tell-all book
on still active investigations in which he was involved is so high that it
would it wouldn't even be fodder for satire. Sanctimonious "Cardinal" Comey
has become a caricature of himself. He is either bringing shame and disgrace
to the FBI that he purportedly loves, or conclusively demonstrating that it is
more politically corrupt than under Hoover; but without the competency it
displayed under Hooveresque directors. People like Comey, McCabe, Strzok and
Page sent scores of people to prison, ruining untold lives. How many of these
people would have been found guilty if even a fraction of this information had
been available to defense attorneys as exculpatory evidence? Manafort's
lawyers are going to have a field day with all of this (at least in the DC
case where Judge Berman Jackson - a former defense lawyer and ostensibly fair
jurist - is presiding; I pity Manafort's lawyers in front of Judge Ellis in
Alexandria). Every time that Comey opens his mouth, he is making multiple
inconsistent statements of varying degrees. His narcissism and greed are so
monumental that he doesn't even see the damage that he did, is and will
continue to do to his credibility. I do, however, have to end by commending
him for appearing on Fox, though I think that it was more his inability to
turn down a forum for self-promotion than out of any particular
bravery.
Comey said, "it was unlikely to end in a case that the prosecutors at DOJ
would bring."
That doesn't mean the hundred-plus FBI agents who actually
worked the case didn't believe Clinton should be prosecuted. Comey betrayed
FBI agents by not supporting them. Instead, he sided with politicize
prosecutors, including Attorney General Lynch, who weren't going to indict
Clinton no matter what the evidence showed. Comey is a limpid coward and a
disgrace to law enforcement officers throughout the land.
Does Bezos have Comey's book "Riding My High Horse" at number one on
Amazon, like he did with Clinton's book "What The Fuck Happened?" even
though it had only sold 62 copies?
Classified is classified, unless you work for a Clinton.
SO if you put classified information in your book, it is no longer
classified??????
Shit, a whole lot of ex CIA guys need to write books. How about, "Well
we knew that the most murderous and despicable Nazi was in Argentina all
along and lived there for 30 years after WWII but we never went and got
him, because he really didn't do most of the things we claimed he did."
forget the dossier. forget that she destroyed evidence. forget that she
fleeced world leaders for her little foundation. forget the outrageous
speaking fees of her disgraced ex president husband. forget the meeting on
the tarmac with the AG. forget that her campaign was laundering
contributions.
SHE SET UP A FUCKING ILLEGAL EMAIL SERVER IN HER HOME AND
REDIRECTED GOVERNMENT TOP SECRET EMAIL TO THAT SERVER IN AN ATTEMPT TO HIDE
ALL HER CRIMES.
God these people are dirtier than a small time local politician. Jail
em all.
I have learned that there is a gaping deep and wide crevasse between a
'fact' and a 'truth'.
A 'truth' is, e.g., That tall oak out there is a
tree.
A 'fact' is, that depending on where you are standing, you can attest to
seeing less than a half of a tree, (unless you have developed the ability
to see around bends).
So when someone like the weasel Comey is says something is a fact, you
have every reason to doubt that he is telling you a truth.
I have a larcenous heart. I regret that I did not get into government,
seeing how much money can be made and how risk free the jobs are. Few----
compared to the many millions who have literally gotten away with murder,
gathered immense fortunes, and awesome behind the scenes power that is
invisible----have ever been arrested let alone accused, prosecuted and sent
to jail. You can count them on your fingers and toes.
So I have no objections to people buying his pack of lies and him making
some serious money on the advances, the book, and the eventual movie,
starring George Clooney as the hero, Comey.
The Department of "Justice", lost its way long ago. To persist in
calling it the DOJ when it is nothing of the sort, just another
disreputable, bureaucratic fuckup of a government agency, is a total lie.
Comey lies in the interview exposed plus the new Peter Strzok and Lisa
Page emails. Even what must be a very tiny percentage of their emails
during the covered time span have some very revealing contents which the
censors missed:
Interestingly, Comey said Republicans financed the Steele dossier before
Democrats. What if he's telling the truth? Trump is an Independent with an
"R" next to his name-Trump isn't their "Boy". Many Lifer Republicans in
fact are leaving office including House Speaker Ryan. If a Republican is
responsible for financing the dossier, my guess for one is Senator John
McCain.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-mccain-associate-subpoena
I could not watch more than 25% of the first video without projectile
vomiting. This fucker should be shot for treason, as all the rest of the
swamp leaders. The one sailor went to jail for accidentally releasing a
pic in an engine room, and Petras went to prison for so much less.
It's time to water the tree of Liberty with the blood of traitors to the
Republic...
"... As Orwell taught us in, Animal Farm , "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." So no charges against Comey, Hillary, McCabe etc. They simply can't allow a jury to decide if they broke the law. ..."
"... And as Bastiat writes in, The Law , today in the USA, the law has been perverted to the point where its only purpose is to legalize plunder. ..."
"... This guy wants to be a politician SOOO bad. He just doesn't have the chops for it. This is EXACTLY the kind of guy the Clintons would throw under the bus to (once again) save their own asses. ..."
"... look at the exchange that starts at 8:30 into the interview. It concerns the so-called Steele Dossier. This exchange should leave you slack jawed by the audacity of Comey's lies. We are asked to believe that Jim Comey is a boy scout. Honest to a fault. Just a humble man trying to do the right thing. Oh yeah, he also is supposed to be really smart. He is a lawyer don't cha know. ..."
"... So here is the scenario. He claims he is briefed sometime in September or October on parts of the Steele documents. He is not sure. This really smart guy just cannot remember. ..."
"... Comey also wants us to assume that he is a total idiot. Who else catches a briefing laying out sordid and salacious details about Donald Trump and members of his crew romping around Moscow and other formerly commie nooks and crannies and does not have even a wee bit of curiosity to ask, "Who is the source?" or "How did the source come to have this info?" ..."
Fox News host Bret Baier and James Comey sat down for a one-on-one interview Thursday night, in perhaps the most serious and direct
conversations with the former FBI Director to date.
Baier held Comey's feet to the fire on a wide variety of controversial topics - including the FBI's decision to exonerate Hillary
Clinton before interviewing her, what Comey knew about the "Steele Dossier" used to obtain a surveillance warrant on a Trump campaign
aide, and the memos Comey leaked to his friend which he hoped would lead to a special counsel investigation.
Clinton Exoneration
After starting the interview off with a joke about how Comey must find it "a little tougher to get around town without a motorcade,"
Baier pulled no punches - launching straight into asking the former FBI Director if it was true that his team decided to exonerate
Hillary Clinton before interviewing her .
In response, Comey said that because of all the prior investigative work the FBI had done on the Clinton email case, investigators
said "it looks like it's not going to get to a place where the prosecutors will bring it," and that it's "fairly typical" for white
collar investigations to save interviews for last.
Comey: I started to see that their view was, it was unlikely to end in a case that the prosecutors at DOJ would bring .
Baier: Before the interview?
Sure, yeah, because they had spent ten months digging around, reading all of the emails, putting everything together, interviewing
everybody who set up her system. They weren't certain of that result, but they said "Look boss, on the current course and speed,
looks like it's not going to get to a place where the prosecutor will bring it ."
On the topic of Peter Strzok - the anti-Trump counterintelligence agent deeply involved in both the Clinton and Trump investigations
along with his FBI attorney mistress, Lisa Page, Comey said he never witnessed evidence of bias working with the pair, but that he
was " deeply disappointed" when he saw some of the text messages exchanged between them.
"I can tell you this: When I saw the texts, I was deeply disappointed in them," Comey told Baier. " But I never saw any bias,
any reflection of any kind of animus towards anybody, including me . I'm sure I'm badmouthed in those texts, I'm just not going to
read them all. Never saw it."
Comey said that if he had been aware of the level of hatred Strzok and Page had for Trump, he "would have removed both of them
from any contact with significant investigations."
The "leaked" memos
When it comes to the leaked memos that kickstarted the Mueller probe, Comey maintains that the memos he created to document his
interactions with President Trump, seven in all and four of which have been deemed classified; two marked "confidential" and two
marked "secret."
Comey also admitted that he leaked the memos to two other people who he said were members of his "legal team," including David
Kelly and former U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald.
"I gave the memos to my legal team after I gave them to Dan Richman -- after I asked him to get it out to the media," said Comey,
who likened the memos to his "diaries."
" I didn't consider it part of an FBI file... It was my personal aide-memoire ," Comey said, adding "I always thought of it as
mine, like a diary"
Trump "just wrong"
Responding to a Fox & Friends interview in which President Trump said "Comey is a leaker and he's a liar. He's been leaking for
years," the former FBI Director responded " He's just wrong. Facts really do matter." Comey then claimed that because the FBI approved
the inclusion of the memos in his book, A Higher Loyalty , they are therefore not classified.
Byron York of the Washington Examiner provides an excellent breakdown of Comey's semantic absurdity
here .
The "Steele Dossier" and who paid for it
Baier asked Comey why the FBI used the Steele Dossier compiled by former UK spy Christopher Steele to obtain a FISA warrant on
a Trump campaign aide if it was "salacious," to which Comey replied that the dossier was part of a " broader mosaic of facts " used
to support the application.
And when it comes to who funded the dossier used in the FISA application, Comey claims he still has no idea whether Hillary Clinton
and the DNC funded it.
" When did you learn that the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign had funded Christopher Steele's work? " Baier asked.
" Yeah I still don't know that for a fact ," Comey responded.
"What do you mean?" Baier replied.
" I've only seen it in the media, I never knew exactly which Democrats had funded ," Comey explained, "I knew it was funded
first by Republicans."
Baier quickly corrected Comey, noting that while conservative website Free Beacon had Fusion GPS on "a kind of retainer," they
"did not fund the Christopher Steele memo or the dossier," adding " That was initiated by Democrats ."
"Is everybody believing what is going on. James Comey can't define what a leak is. He illegally leaked CLASSIFIED INFORMATION
but doesn't understand what he did or how serious it is. He lied all over the place to cover it up. He's either very sick or very
dumb. Remember sailor!"
...two marked "confidential" and two marked "secret."
Comey also admitted that he leaked the memos...
As Orwell taught us in,
Animal Farm
, "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." So no charges against Comey, Hillary, McCabe etc. They
simply can't allow a jury to decide if they broke the law.
And as Bastiat writes in,
The Law , today
in the USA, the law has been perverted to the point where its only purpose is to legalize plunder.
This guy wants to be a politician SOOO bad. He just doesn't have the chops for it. This is EXACTLY the kind of guy the
Clintons would throw under the bus to (once again) save their own asses.
The recipe for a Nothing Burger, as created by the DoJ. Peddling bullshit like this on a daily basis must be soul destroying
for any of these weasel cunts that had a soul in the first place.
The really juicy ones are redacted to hell and gone, or text corrupted in all the right places.
" I didn't consider it part of an FBI file... It was my personal aide-memoire ," Comey said, adding "I always thought of it
as mine, like a diary"
IDIOT. Those memos are a work product created while he worked for the FBI. HE does NOT get to arbitrarily judge what is and
is not classified. What HE considers personal is irrelevant.
Arrogant self-righteous douchebag. He should get at LEAST a deserved stay at a Club Fed for this.
"Comey revealed that he is either a world class liar or a total moron. Actually, he may be both. I also think that he earned
the title of "sanctimonious twit."
...
look at the exchange that starts at 8:30 into the interview. It concerns the so-called Steele Dossier. This exchange should
leave you slack jawed by the audacity of Comey's lies. We are asked to believe that Jim Comey is a boy scout. Honest to a fault.
Just a humble man trying to do the right thing. Oh yeah, he also is supposed to be really smart. He is a lawyer don't cha know.
So here is the scenario. He claims he is briefed sometime in September or October on parts of the Steele documents. He
is not sure. This really smart guy just cannot remember.
Well, let's see if this helps jog the faltering brain cells of choir boy. There was a letter from Senator Harry Reid, whose
panties were in a bunch after being briefed by someone from the Intelligence Community (probably CIA Director John Brennan)
that there
was :
. . . evidence of a direct connection between the Russian government and Donald Trump's presidential campaign continues to
mount and has led Michael Morrell, the former Acting Central Intelligence Director, to call Trump an "unwitting agent" of Russia
and the Kremlin. The prospect of a hostile government actively seeking to undermine our free and fair elections represents one
of the gravest threats to our democracy since the Cold War and it is critical for the Federal Bureau of lnvestigation to use every
resource available to investigate this matter thoroughly and in a timely fashion. The American people deserve to have a full understanding
of the facts from a completed investigation before they vote this November.
Put yourself in Jim Comey's large shoes. Would you get such a letter and then file it away at the bottom of your burn bag?
Or, would you demand immediate action from your senior staff, including a briefing from the CIA liaison officer posted to FBI
Headquarters? Call me crazy, but I am betting that someone as smart and honorable and conscientious (you get the drift) as Jimmy
Comey would go for the latter. He would want a briefing and want to know what was told to Senator Reid and other key members of
Congress.
But Comey now wants us to believe that he does not remember anything about the specifics of this Dossier and the information
contained in it. Are we to suppose that Comey was getting so many letters and reports about Trump and the Rooskies collaborating
on stealing the election that it was just something routine? I doubt that.
Comey also wants us to assume that he is a total idiot. Who else catches a briefing laying out sordid and salacious details
about Donald Trump and members of his crew romping around Moscow and other formerly commie nooks and crannies and does not have
even a wee bit of curiosity to ask, "Who is the source?" or "How did the source come to have this info?"
Nope. Not Jimmy Comey. Asking such basic, factual questions apparently eluded his razor sharp mind. He concedes that it came
from a foreign intelligence officer (Steele) and, rather than wonder about any possible counter intelligence concerns, says that
he took that fact as validation of the reliability of these fantastical reports.
Jim Comey DOES get to arbitrarily judge what is and what is not classified! As the head of the FBI, he clearly has the role
of 'Originating Authority' on determining classification of ANY document. What it says is, that if there's ANY doubt, whether
it is classified or not, it shall be SAFEGUARDED at the higher level of classification. And the ultimate authority, is the President
of the United States, if the Originator is Comey. So Comey took it upon himself to declassify, classified documents without the
permission of the President of the United States, who happens to be his boss.
(c) If there is reasonable doubt about the need to classify information, it shall be safeguarded as if it were classified pending
a determination by an original classification authority, who shall make this determination within thirty (30) days. If there is
reasonable doubt about the appropriate level of classification, it shall be safeguarded at the higher level of classification
pending a determination by an original classification authority , who shall make this determination within thirty (30) days.
"... The U.S. military presence in Syria is illegal, and the same would be true of any occupying force provided by U.S. clients. Instead of looking for a substitute occupation force or maintaining one of our own, the U.S. should accept that controlling any part of Syria is not worth the costs and risks that go along with it. ..."
The Trump administration is struggling to assemble a coalition of Arab military forces to
replace U.S. troops battling Islamic State militants in eastern Syria, a roadblock that could
indefinitely delay President Trump's goal of pulling American forces out of the country, U.S.
officials said.
Allies in the region are deeply skeptical about sending their troops -- and many are even
reluctant to contribute funds -- to help stabilize cities and towns liberated from Islamic
State, according to senior U.S. officials, if the United States intends to pull out, as Trump
has threatened.
It comes as no surprise that these governments have no interest in taking Trump up on this
offer. Each of them has other more pressing concerns than policing parts of Syria, some have no
interest in opposing the Syrian government, all of them are ill-equipped for the task at hand,
and it would be a terrible mistake to invite these governments to occupy Syrian territory in
any case. That doesn't mean that the U.S. has to keep its forces in Syria, but it should remind
us how useless our clients are to the U.S.
The U.S. military presence in Syria is illegal, and the same would be true of any
occupying force provided by U.S. clients. Instead of looking for a substitute occupation force
or maintaining one of our own, the U.S. should accept that controlling any part of Syria is not
worth the costs and risks that go along with it. The U.S. has no business fighting in
Syria, and it has no authority to keep its forces there, so a complete withdrawal from Syria is
the only appropriate and legal course of action open to the U.S.
"... However the declining U.S. with massive debt, a hollowed out manufacturing capability, an unsustainable health care model and a Ponzi scheme financial engineering Levithan that generates nothing of actual tangible value is still a very dangerous animal. ..."
"... Because it still has only superior capability, it's War Machine. And the big danger to the planet is the parasitic and deluded Power Elite franchise in Washington that militarizes EVERY element of foreign policy activity. The U.S. response to concerted and coordinated economic activity by China and its Eurasian partners can only be war-mongering. Because other than that, the U.S. will have no other leverage. ..."
Remove the North Korea crisis from Asia and the Trump administration has the needed
bandwidth to contain Beijing's aspirations.
Fat chance. China will continue with its BRI and AIIB initiatives. It will continue to
lash-up with Russia and its EAEU to create a pan-Eurasian economic architecture in which the
U.S. is largely economically irrelevant. Especially when hard asset pricing is decoupled from
the dollar.
And China now has a huge supply of highly trained (many in the U.S.) scientists and
engineers. Russia and Europe also have highly skilled technologists making Eurasia
self-sufficient in both natural resources and technology development.
The U.S. will be eventually shut out. Because dealing with the Global Cop Gorilla in any
context is more trouble than it's worth.
However the declining U.S. with massive debt, a hollowed out manufacturing capability, an
unsustainable health care model and a Ponzi scheme financial engineering Levithan that
generates nothing of actual tangible value is still a very dangerous animal.
Because it still has only superior capability, it's War Machine. And the big danger to the
planet is the parasitic and deluded Power Elite franchise in Washington that militarizes
EVERY element of foreign policy activity. The U.S. response to concerted and coordinated
economic activity by China and its Eurasian partners can only be war-mongering. Because other
than that, the U.S. will have no other leverage.
The U.S. driven into the ditch by the Power Elite Parasites and Neocon War-mongers will
get its clocked cleaned in the next 10 years no matter what. North Korea is merely background
noise.
If you ever wanted a condensed example of the kind of blithe solipsism and wish-thinking that
passes for thinking among our "international relations" "scholars", I don't think you could
do much worse than this silly paragraph:
In many respects, nothing should scare China more, as America, and specifically the
Trump administration, has never been fully capable of taking on the challenges presented by
Beijing thanks to Pyongyang and its growing nuclear arsenal. China has taken full advantage
of Washington's wandering eye, putting itself in position to dominate the South China Sea,
further subjugate Taiwan, and try to develop a stronger position in the East China
Sea.
All you saps who think that China's greater prominence might be a consequence of its
culture, its history, its recent extraordinary economic growth -- wrong! Turns out it all
hangs on North Korea and its mighty Brooklyn-size GDP! And that means .
Remove the North Korea crisis from Asia and the Trump administration has the needed
bandwidth to contain Beijing's aspirations.
All this, and daffodils will cover the meadows again, once Pyonyang comes around, gets its
mind right. Simple!
It should surprise absolutely nobody that the guy who wrote this inanity is behind "The
National Interest", which daily publishes all kinds of sophistry generally aimed at getting
Americans to wade into the "crisis" du jour . Sooner or later Trump will be a bad
memory, but Kazianis and his ilk will still be there, as firmly embedded in the Beltway veins
as any tick.
"... "Since the WTO was created in the mid-90s, the U.S. has run $12 trillion in trade deficits, and among the organization's biggest beneficiaries -- the EU." ..."
"Together," President Macron instructed President Trump, "we can resist the rise of
aggressive nationalisms that deny our history and divide the world."
In an address before Congress on Wednesday, France's Macron denounced "extreme nationalism,"
invoked the UN, NATO, WTO, and Paris climate accord, and implored Trump's America to come home
to the New World Order.
"The United States is the one who invented this multilateralism," Macron went on, "you are
the one now who has to help preserve and reinvent it."
His visit was hailed and his views cheered, but on reflection, the ideas of Emmanuel Macron
seem to be less about tomorrow than yesterday.
For the world he celebrates is receding into history.
The America of 2018 is coming to see NATO as having evolved into an endless U.S. commitment
to go to war with Russia on behalf of a rich Europe that resolutely refuses to provide for its
own defense.
Since the WTO was created in the mid-90s, the U.S. has run $12 trillion in trade deficits,
and among the organization's biggest beneficiaries -- the EU.
Under the Paris climate accord, environmental restrictions are put upon the United States
from which China is exempt.
As for the UN, is that sinkhole of anti-Americanism, the General Assembly, really worth the
scores of billions we have plunged into it?
"Aggressive nationalism" is a term that might well fit Napoleon Bonaparte, whose Arc de
Triomphe sits on the Champs-Elysees. But does it really fit the Hungarians, Poles, Brits,
Scots, Catalans, and other indigenous peoples of Europe who are now using democratic methods
and means to preserve their national homes?
And the United States would seem an odd place to go about venting on "aggressive
nationalisms that deny our history."
Did Macron not learn at the Lycee Henri IV in Paris or the Ecole Nationale d'Administration
how the Americans acquired all that land?
General Washington, at whose Mount Vernon home Macron dined, was a nationalist who fought
for six years to sever America's ties to the nation under which he was born.
How does Macron think Andrew Jackson acquired Florida from Spain, Sam Houston acquired Texas
from Mexico, and Winfield Scott and Zachary Taylor acquired the Southwest? By bartering?
Aggressive nationalism is a good synonym for the Manifest Destiny of a republic that went
about relieving Spain of Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines.
How does Macron think the "New World" was conquered and colonized if not by aggressive
British, French, and Spanish nationalists determined to impose their rule upon weaker
indigenous tribes?
Was it not nationalism that broke up the USSR into 15 nations?
Was not the Zionist movement that resurrected Israel in 1948, and in 1967 captured the West
Bank and then annexed East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, a manifestation of aggressive
nationalism?
Macron is an echo of George H.W. Bush who in Kiev in 1991 warned Ukrainians against the
"suicidal nationalism" of declaring independence from the Russian Federation.
"Aggressive nationalisms divide the world," warns Macron.
Well, yes, they do, which is why we have now 194 members of the U.N., rather than the
original 50. Is this a problem?
"Together," said Macron, "we will build a new, strong multilateralism that defends pluralism
and democracy in the face of ill winds."
Macron belongs to a political class that sees open borders and free trade thickening and
tightening the ties of dependency, and eventually creating a One Europe whose destiny his crowd
will forever control.
But if his idea of pluralism is multiracial, multiethnic, and multicultural nations, with a
multilateral EU overlord, he is describing a future that tens of millions of Europeans believe
means the deaths of the nations that give meaning to their lives.
And they will not go gently into that good night.
In America, too, millions have come to recognize that there is a method to the seeming
madness of open borders. Name of the game: dispossessing the deplorables of the country they
love.
With open borders and mass migration of over a million people a year into the USA, almost
all of them from third-world countries that vote 70 to 90 percent Democratic, the left is
foreclosing the future. They're converting the greatest country of the West into what Teddy
Roosevelt called a "polyglot boarding house for the world." And in that boarding house the left
will have a lock on the presidency.
With the collaboration of co-conspirators in the media, progressives throw a cloak of
altruism over the cynical seizure of permanent power.
For, as the millions of immigrants here legally and illegally register, and the vote is
extended to prison inmates, ex-cons, and 16-year-olds, the political complexion of America will
come to resemble San Francisco.
End goal: ensure that what happened in 2016, when the nation rose up and threw out a
despised establishment, never happens again.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles
That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever. To find out more about Patrick
Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators
website at www.creators.com.
Let's remember, it was nationalism that led German, Japan and Italy into the two world wars.
Like everything, nationalism is not absolutely good or absolutely bad.
European nationalism that led them to colonize other weaker countries was not a good
thing. Nationalism that led the colonized countries to fight for independence was a good
thing.
The current rising of nationalism is not a good thing because it is often bound up with
white nationalism, a belief that the non-whites are inferior people undeserving of care and
happiness.
While I understand the anxiety of White people for losing their power of dominance,
multiculturalism is a future that can't be rolled back no matter how much they long for the
past white homogeneity. Because technology that made our world smaller and flatter can't be
uninvented.
I agree the West can't absorb all the immigrants who want to find new life in the West.
The solution is not to shun the immigrants and pretend they don't exist. The solution is to
acknowledge their suffering and their need for a stable home and help them build that at
their home countries.
Biologically, it is known that our genes get stronger with more diversity, that community
gets weaker with too much in breeding. So is our strength as a people, culturally,
philosophically, spiritually and creatively.
Another nice notion on the mis/abuse of the world nationalism from Mr. Buchanan. From a
Central European perspective, however Macron's alleged multilateralism as presented in
Washington is just a pretence peddled for the media – teaming up with Angela Merkel
(more specifically, with Germany's economic strength), Macron pretty much insists on reining
in the rebellious Visegrad 4 politically, without the slightest interest in reaching a
mutually beneficial compromise with them.
Pat points to Macron's globalist trade babble to Congress answers:
"Since the WTO was created in the mid-90s, the U.S. has run $12 trillion in trade
deficits, and among the organization's biggest beneficiaries -- the EU."
President Trump's economic nationalist/fair trade agenda can fix this problem.
It strikes me that both France and Germany have large enough populations, economies and
technical know-how to produce effective modern fighting forces. Second, given the size of EU,
it is clear that the EU, if it could get its act together, would be capable of projecting
force in the world on an equal playing field with the United States.
The European Leaders appeals to Trump to pursue European interests in American foreign
policy are simply pathetic. If Europe has foreign interests, they will only be able to
protect and insure them if they retake their sovereignty and independence on the world
stage.
Europe can, and I suspect Europe will, because their problem is not just Trump and whether
he is impeached or re-elected, it is that European interests are being held hostage to the
American Electorate, which can and will return a Cowboy to the Presidency long after Trump is
gone.
I don't see how, given the developments with the Iran Deal, as well as other frictions,
that the NATO alliance can remain standing. None of the above reflections are particularly
ideological, and it seems impossible that Merkel and Macron couldn't entertain such
thoughts.
Europe can, and inevitably will, declare independence from the Americans, and I see NATO
unraveling and a new dawn of European "multilateralism" taking its place.
Nationalism and Multiculturalism cannot coexist separately, they're in tendsion as we all try
to balance the scales.
Without the benefit of nationalism, the Koreas would not have done what they just did. My
own "ethnic people" are the minority of 1.2 million Hungarians who live in Romania, who have
lived there for centuries and will not leave their homeland except many of them do, like my
parents did, and many of my other relatives and friends–the number was 1.5 million not
too long ago, and I was estimating 1.8, but man, we are dwindling. Only 1.2 million! That
shocks me. Nationalism keeps us alive. But if that's all we had, then the Romanians would be
totally nationalistic too, and they will forcefully seek to curtail minority rights,
language, culture, and slowly choke us out. That's the nationalist philosophy on
minorities.
That's your philosophy, and you're saying what will happen here is liberals will slowly
turn the country into San Francisco. You make the same error as my friend in another thread.
You cannot compare a city and its politics to a province or a country, or to any territory
that contains vast farmlands.
Pat, you are saying that it's possible for the entire Byzantine Empire to take on the
precise political complexion of the walled city of Constantinople. That city cannot feed
itself, it's not a self-contained social or political entity.
The roiling cities of San Francisco/Bay Area and glorious Constantinople are and were
completely and totally dependent on the countryside, and thus, on the politics the rurals
tend to practice. The rurals need to feel the effects of city politics too.
No city anywhere is self-contained, and most cities are more liberal than their
hinterlands, so should we do away with cities?
You can see it as symbiotic or some kind of yin and yang tension, however you prefer. But
one is good and the other is evil? I don't buy that.
I'm pretty sure I should say ALL cities are more liberal then the surrounding countrysides
which feed them. After all, the city is really just the most commonly known major local
market, which the villages eventually form organically. One village in particular stands out,
and the neighbors start flocking more and more to its market, some decide to move there and
contribute even more to the good energy, and voila, the first city is soon born.
Then it takes on pride, and starts thinking it's superior to the "rubes." It isn't. I was
lucky enough to get my foundations in a village, I know its incredible efficiency and
_conservative_ values and lifestyle, but trust me, there's plenty of drunkenness and scandal,
even among the sainted rubes who raised me.
Keep slapping down the cities, Pat, but don't exaggerate the threat, no self-supporting
society on Earth could live the way those freaks live in San Francisco, or Constantinople,
that's a fact.
My apologies, I know I go on a little long sometimes:
I am an American now, and America is my "us," I don't have mixed political allegiances,
just cultural ones. I don't live in my original homeland anymore. The choice to leave wasn't
mine, though.
If I had a choice to leave my country of origin, the land I was raised in and find
familiar–and I have been in America since age twelve, so I do see it as home and very
familiar–I would be daunted. Speaking as an average American adult, I know that moving
to another English-speaking and equally advanced country is complicated enough for the
average American. Imagine uprooting and going to a foreign land whose language you don't know
yet, where everything is a lot more expensive. Try getting a job there. Let's say you have no
college degree. Try it. I wouldn't want to.
Immigrants are tough as nails, I'm sorry to say. You have no chance against them,
actually. You cannot even conceive of the willpower and trials by fire. Most people quite
understandably can't fathom it, unless they actually try it or see it with their own
eyes.
"... But even before that there was the first Iraq war in 1991, justified in part by the story of Iraqi soldiers reportedly dumping babies out of incubators to die in a Kuwaiti hospital. The 15-year-old daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador cleverly lied to a set-up congressional committee. The Christian Science Monitor ..."
Official Washington and those associated with it have misrepresented the facts numerous
times in the service of military actions that might not otherwise have taken place. In the
Middle East, these interventions have killed hundreds of thousands of innocent Arab civilians,
brought chaos to Iraq and Libya, and led to the expulsion of a million Christians from
communities where they have lived since biblical times.
The most famous of these episodes, of course, was the U.S. government's assurance to the
world that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, which formed the basis for the 2003
U.S. invasion of Iraq. The government also insisted Saddam had ties to al-Qaeda, bolstering the
call to war. Of course neither was true.
But even before that there was the first Iraq war in 1991, justified in part by the story of
Iraqi soldiers reportedly dumping babies out of incubators to die in a Kuwaiti hospital. The
15-year-old daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador cleverly lied to a set-up congressional
committee. The Christian Science Monitor
detailed this bizarre episode in 2002.
There were also the lies about the Iraqi army being
poised to invade Saudi Arabia. That was the ostensible reason for the U.S. sending troops
to Kuwait -- to defend Saudi Arabia. Writing in the the Los
Angeles Times in 2003, Independent Institute fellow Victor Marshall pointed out that
neither the CIA nor the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency viewed an Iraqi attack on Saudi
Arabia as probable, and said the administration's Iraqi troop estimates were "grossly
exaggerated." In fact, the administration's claim that it had aerial photographs proving its
assertions was never verified because, as we later learned, the photos never existed. The
Christian
Science Monitor also reported on this in 2002 ahead of the second Iraq war.
America attacked Iraq in 1991, bombing and destroying that nation's irrigation, sanitation,
and electricity plants. (See here regarding Washington's knowledge of and
planning for the horrific mass contamination of Iraqi drinking water.) Then we blockaded
reconstruction supplies for nine years while some half-million children died of disease and
starvation. We blamed it all on Saddam, although we controlled Iraq's money flows through the
UN food-for-oil program. Fortunately, we have a rare admission by Madeleine Albright on 60
Minutes about what was done.
Before that, there was the Kosovo war when America attacked Serbia on the basis of
lies that 100,000 Kosovans had been
massacred by Serbs in suppressing their civil war. This led to massive American bombing,
brutally
destroying much of that nation's civilian infrastructure and factories, including most of
the bridges in the country, and all but one of those over the Danube River. The Americans
imposed peace, then expelled most Serbs out of their former province. Subsequently there was
the mass destruction of hundreds of ancient Christian churches and the creation of a European
enclave now filled with Saudi money that sponsors Wahhabi education, with its rote memorization
of the Koran and its 13th-century hatred of Christians.
More recently there was the British, French, and American attack on Libya in response to
lies that Moammar Gaddafi was planning to massacre civilians in Benghazi. The U.S. destroyed
his armed forces and helped to overthrow him. Widespread looting of his weaponry subsequently
filled black markets in Asia and Africa and contributed to the ability of Boko Haram terrorists to sow chaos in
Nigeria and parts of Northern Africa. Masses of African refugees have been flooding Western
Europe ever since, traveling through Libya. Some of those weapons also made their way into the
hands of the Islamic State, which overran parts of Iraq and Syria.
Most recently we had cable news inundating us with stories of a new poison gas attack in
Syria. The "news" came from rebel sources. TheAmerican Conservative
has published a detailed analysis by former arms inspector Scott Ritter questioning the
evidence, or lack of it, that the Assad regime initiated the attack. The former British
ambassador to Syria also cast doubts on the poison gas attack and its sources from rebel
organizations.
It doesn't make sense that Assad would use poison gas just as Trump was saying that he
wanted to withdraw U.S. troops from Syria. It does make sense for the rebels to have staged a
set up to get America to stay and attack Assad. This happened before in the summer of 2014 when
President Obama nearly went to war over similar accusations. Only after asking Congress to vote
on the matter did he decide against the attack because Congress wasn't interested. Some
congressmen's mail was running 100-to-one against bombing. It was a welcome reminder of why
Washington doesn't want actual votes on starting wars: because most Americans don't want more
Washington wars.
After all the hundreds of thousands of innocents abroad killed by America and the human
misery caused because of clever U.S. and foreign manipulations, one would think we might pause
before attacking Syria and running the risk of killing Russians who are advising the Syrians.
That could ignite an entirely new kind of war with a nuclear-armed Russia -- all without
congressional approval.
Obama, whose policies were predicated on the view that Assad must go, seemed to think
Syrians would live happily after in some magically sprouting democracy. To believe this one
would have to ignore the prior examples of Iraq and Libya. Nor do these war party advocates
seem in the least concerned about the 10 percent of Syria's population who are Christians, many
of whom would surely by massacred after any overthrow of Assad.
Further, the so-called Free Syrian
Army is a hodgepodge of rebel groups that include many Islamist radicals. With funding from
fundamentalist Saudis and Turkey, they took over from more liberal forces early on. It's worth
noting also that Turkey provided the black market for ISIS to sell Syria's captured oil.
Going back a hundred years there were the clever British lies that helped coax America into
joining the Allies in World War I. England controlled the trans-Atlantic cables and most of our
"news" about the war. That intervention resulted in the Treaty of Versailles instead of a
compromise peace between Germany and England/France that would have prevented the wreckage of
Europe out of which came the rise of communism and Nazism.
For an analysis of the risks of accidental nuclear war, see my 2017 January
Publisher's Report , in which I once wrote about how Osama bin Laden's ultimate aim was to
get Russia and America to destroy each other. It still could happen, triggered by false
atrocity stories, cable TV's 24-hour hyping of any and every threat, and Washington's
propensity to believe lies -- and sometimes perpetrate them -- to promote wars.
Jon Basil Utley is publisher of The American Conservative .
Lies can be fun, especially the ones I tell myself, and they're also a lot of fun to
discover, just like your lies. The worst bummer, however, is that the lies we tell each other
very quickly do get tiresome and repetitive, if not downright frustrating:
"Oh My God, It's Still The Same Lies. That Makes It Worse."
Apparently–and this is tragic–it looks like we're just too selfish to come up
with new ones: Say what, you want me to lie the country into war in some fascinating novel
way, just for your entertainment? I don't think so. It's easier to stick to the routine, and
I'm lazy, so I'll just do as you do, I'll keep telling you the same old lies, which explains
why you are bored as well–meanwhile, I spend my quality time investigating all the ways
I hide things from myself.
Wars are little more than armed robberies on an industrial scale.
Wars are begun, to take what belongs to someone else.
The sheer magnitude of a crime transforms it into heroic achievement – at least, in
historical perspective, for the winners, as long as they retain power. In the long run, the
consequences are malignantly pernicious.
The United States isn't being manipulated into war.
The only manipulation is of American public opinion- fortunately for the War Party,i.e. the
US government, there's enough blind nationalism & tribal loyalty on both sides of the
political divide for their propaganda to (usually) succeed.
Look at any public figure. Their salary is less than $190K. BUT, They are worth $10 Million
or more. That is why we go to war. Foreign influence (Saudi and Israel) as well as the
Military Industrial Complex. (Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, )Our Leaders are paid off!
Now that the war profiteering classes and their retainee camp followers are running into the
problem that more and more citizens are prepared to doubt, if not outright dismiss – if
just on principle – their claims and anonymous trickyleaks regarding "secret evidence"
and elusive "proof", the Democratic Party has become an eager handmaiden to the neolibcon con
of projecting all that justified and overdue doubt and dissent – distrust to
unaccountable power – and the citizens' frustration with their corrupt representative
and dysfunctional institutions – on, you know it Russia!
So now that we stop accepting government claims by default – something no reasonable
citizen should ever do, on principle – we are denounced as "gullible" –
projection at its best – and as "useful idiots" of some Kremlin mirage that happens to
be a mirror image of our own government's betrayals at its worst. Once dissent has been
"discredited" by claiming it could not possible have any other cause except uninformed and
misled voters – see the published responses to Sanders and Trump supporters – and
could, of course, not have any merit, the next step is to make sure that our "democracy" is
safeguarded even more against "populists" – those that speak truth to power, not those
that lie blatantly to claim power for themselves – and the unruly mob in the streets
that questions the establishment, the wholly owned elites, and the oligarchic owners of our
very own autocratic franchise.
That is the progression – from being lied into war, whether we believe the BS or
not, to being denounced as useful idiots or traitors if we dare to doubt the BS we are being
fed, to being disenfranchised under the pretext of protecting the franchise.
The biggest obstacle to establishing a precedents under international law to obtain UN
General Assembly consensus for intervention in the inner affairs of a nation- in response
crimes committed by the government of that nation – is the US, because the US has acted
as a rogue nation for decades, and has eroded the international order to the point where the
"allied" governments of Germany and other EU states think nothing of "supporting" those acts
of aggression, and post-colonial wannabe powers like the UK and France have joined the US
"coalition of the willing". That "international order" will fall unless the US finally leads
by example and commits itself to uphold the UN Charter – and its own Constitution
– in letter and spirit. Until then, there is nothing we can do to help those that
suffer under the yoke of what are, under our current international order, legitimate
governments of sovereign nation.
The US cannot assert and pursue primacy and unipolar super-sovereignty over every other
nation on this planet and at the same time claim to uphold the principles of sovereign
states, and nobody will be able to redefine or constrain the rule of sovereign states within
the existing international order as long as what little order we have claim to is being set
aside and ignored wholesale by any nation that can get away with it, with the US and the
so-called "West" in the lead.
We cannot lie our way to life, liberty and justice, not for ourselves, and certainly not
on behalf of others, especially if we do not hesitate at all to make those we claim to help
and "protect" pay the ultimate price for our acts of aggression. These are indeed the most
dishonest and offensive words in the English language: "We are from the US government, and we
are here to help." The "responsibility to protect" is nothing but another attempt to address
the necessity to pretend.
"because most Americans don't want more Washington wars."
I wish this was true. But I doubt it. The citizens must be held partially responsible for our
era of permanent war.
" most Americans don't want more Washington wars."
Actually, most Americans don't care, really. Oh, you ask one if he likes war, and he will
say, "No". But ask him if Uncle Joe should lose his job at Boeing, and what will he say?
Wars are, of course, a jobs program on a massive scale. And if some dark-skinned civilians
die, Americans aren't concerned.
My own theory of hawkishness is that voters are much more comfortable with putting
national defense in the hands of someone far more hawkish then themselves, than in the hands
of someone slightly less hawkish.
See, for example, how people who theoretically wan lower taxes, smaller government, and a
balanced budget, keep electing GOP leadership that always attacks their Democratic opponents
on gutting defense spending (even when defense spending has been going up), and always
equates larger DOD budgets with more "security" for Americans.
Until voters are willing to accept a US President saying "bad stuff happens in other parts
of the world – we can't control everything" we'll keep getting more and more wars.
"because most Americans don't want more Washington wars."
I wish this was true. But I doubt it. The citizens must be held partially responsible for our
era of permanent war."
I've found my elderly mother is very enthusiastic about our overseas wars. I believe it is
because she somehow projects America's ability to bully the rest of the world onto herself.
She is a small woman and she recently purchased a pickup. She raves about how she can
tailgate people and they will get out of her way.
" my elderly mother is a small woman and she recently purchased a pickup. She raves about how
she can tailgate people and they will get out of her way."
What a great country! Where else do you have elderly drivers with poor eyesight and slow
reflexes trying to navigate 5000 pound trucks while harassing other drivers at 50mph?
"Where else do you have elderly drivers with poor eyesight and slow reflexes trying to
navigate 5000 pound trucks while harassing other drivers at 50mph?"
I can say from experience and the related stories of others, one very recent and sad
--
cyclists don't stand a chance.
-- -- -- -- -- -
"Until voters are willing to accept a US President saying "bad stuff happens in other
parts of the world – we can't control everything" we'll keep getting more and more
wars."
World gone wrong when we agree -- things must be really be SNAFU.
Echoing Professor Nerd & balconesfault & Kent. It's certainly true that Lockheed
Martin, the Israel lobby, our Saudi "friends", et al have a ton of influence, and use
it for ends that I'd call malign. But for at least the last 20 years we've been living in a
world in which it's effortless to find information contrary to the latest war marketing PR
campaign. When Bush the Lesser was getting ready for his war, did any of his
hysterical claims last even a week before it was discredited? But off to war we went.
It'd be nice if we could blame all of our lousy decisions on those wily Zionists and Arabs
and Russians, but the causes seem to lie a little closer to home .
"... The media campaign alleging Russian intervention in the 2016 US elections has been based entirely on handouts from the CIA, NSA and FBI, transmitted by reporters who are either unwitting stooges or conscious agents of the military-intelligence apparatus. This has been accompanied by the recruitment of a cadre of top CIA and military officials to serve as highly paid "experts" and "analysts" for the television networks ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... The CIA operation in 2018 is unlike its overseas activities in one major respect: it is not covert. On the contrary, the military-intelligence operatives running in the Democratic primaries boast of their careers as spies and special ops warriors. Those with combat experience invariably feature photographs of themselves in desert fatigues or other uniforms on their websites. And they are welcomed and given preferred positions, with Democratic Party officials frequently clearing the field for their candidacies. ..."
"... the Democratic Party has opened its doors to a "friendly takeover" by the intelligence agencies. ..."
"... The incredible power of the military-intelligence agencies over the entire government is an expression of the breakdown of American democracy. The central cause of this breakdown is the extreme concentration of wealth in the hands of a tiny elite, whose interests the state apparatus and its "bodies of armed men" serve. Confronted by an angry and hostile working class, the ruling class is resorting to ever more overt forms of authoritarian rule. ..."
"... But it is impossible to carry out this fight through the "axis of evil" that connects the Democratic Party, the bulk of the corporate media, and the CIA. The influx of military-intelligence candidates puts paid to the longstanding myth, peddled by the trade unions and pseudo-left groups, that the Democrats represent a "lesser evil." On the contrary, working people must confront the fact that within the framework of the corporate-controlled two-party system, they face two equally reactionary evils. ..."
In a three-part series published last week,
the World Socialist Web Site documented an unprecedented influx of intelligence and military operatives into the Democratic
Party. More than 50 such military-intelligence candidates are seeking the Democratic nomination in the 102 districts identified by
the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee as its targets for 2018. These include both vacant seats and those with Republican
incumbents considered vulnerable in the event of a significant swing to the Democrats.
... ... ...
The media campaign alleging Russian intervention in the 2016 US elections has been based entirely on handouts from the CIA,
NSA and FBI, transmitted by reporters who are either unwitting stooges or conscious agents of the military-intelligence apparatus.
This has been accompanied by the recruitment of a cadre of top CIA and military officials to serve as highly paid "experts" and "analysts"
for the television networks .
In centering its opposition to Trump on the bogus allegations of Russian interference, while essentially ignoring Trump's attacks
on immigrants and democratic rights, his alignment with ultra-right and white supremacist groups, his attacks on social programs
like Medicaid and food stamps, and his militarism and threats of nuclear war, the Democratic Party has embraced the agenda of the
military-intelligence apparatus and sought to become its main political voice.
This process was well under way in the administration of Barack Obama, which endorsed and expanded the various operations of the
intelligence agencies abroad and within the United States. Obama's endorsed successor, Hillary Clinton, ran openly as the chosen
candidate of the Pentagon and CIA, touting her toughness as a future commander-in-chief and pledging to escalate the confrontation
with Russia, both in Syria and Ukraine.
The CIA has spearheaded the anti-Russia campaign against Trump in large part because of resentment over the disruption of its
operations in Syria, and it has successfully used the campaign to force a shift in the policy of the Trump administration on that
score. A chorus of media backers -- Nicholas Kristof and Roger Cohen of the New York Times , the entire editorial board
of the Washington Post , most of the television networks -- are part of the campaign to pollute public opinion and whip
up support on alleged "human rights" grounds for an expansion of the US war in Syria.
The 2018 election campaign marks a new stage: for the first time, military-intelligence operatives are moving in large numbers
to take over a political party and seize a major role in Congress. The dozens of CIA and military veterans running in the Democratic
Party primaries are "former" agents of the military-intelligence apparatus. This "retired" status is, however, purely nominal. Joining
the CIA or the Army Rangers or the Navy SEALs is like joining the Mafia: no one ever actually leaves; they just move on to new assignments.
The CIA operation in 2018 is unlike its overseas activities in one major respect: it is not covert. On the contrary, the military-intelligence
operatives running in the Democratic primaries boast of their careers as spies and special ops warriors. Those with combat experience
invariably feature photographs of themselves in desert fatigues or other uniforms on their websites. And they are welcomed and given
preferred positions, with Democratic Party officials frequently clearing the field for their candidacies.
The working class is confronted with an extraordinary political situation. On the one hand, the Republican Trump administration
has more military generals in top posts than any other previous government. On the other hand, the Democratic Party has opened
its doors to a "friendly takeover" by the intelligence agencies.
The incredible power of the military-intelligence agencies over the entire government is an expression of the breakdown of
American democracy. The central cause of this breakdown is the extreme concentration of wealth in the hands of a tiny elite, whose
interests the state apparatus and its "bodies of armed men" serve. Confronted by an angry and hostile working class, the ruling class
is resorting to ever more overt forms of authoritarian rule.
Millions of working people want to fight the Trump administration and its ultra-right policies. But it is impossible to carry
out this fight through the "axis of evil" that connects the Democratic Party, the bulk of the corporate media, and the CIA. The influx
of military-intelligence candidates puts paid to the longstanding myth, peddled by the trade unions and pseudo-left groups, that
the Democrats represent a "lesser evil." On the contrary, working people must confront the fact that within the framework of the
corporate-controlled two-party system, they face two equally reactionary evils.
"Brennan/CIA democrats" can't talk about about anything else because they sold themselves under Bill Clinton to Financial oligarchy.
And stay sold since then.
Notable quotes:
"... do they honestly think that people that were just laid off another shift at the car plant in my home county give a shit about Russia when they don't have a frickin' job? ..."
Democrats in midwestern battleground states want the Democratic National Committee (DNC) to back off the Trump-Russia rhetoric,
as state-level leaders worry it's turning off voters.
"The DNC is doing a good job of winning New York and California," said Mahoning, OH Democratic county party chair David Betras.
"I'm not saying it's not important -- of course it's important -- but do they honestly think that people that were just
laid off another shift at the car plant in my home county give a shit about Russia when they don't have a frickin' job? "
Betras says that Trump and Russia is the "only piece they've been doing since 2016. [ Trump ] keeps talking about jobs and the
economy, and we talk about Russia. "
The Democratic infighting comes on the heels of a multimillion-dollar lawsuit filed by the DNC against the Trump campaign, Wikileaks
and several other parties including the Russian government, alleging an illegal conspiracy to disrupt the 2016 election in a "brazen
attack on American Democracy."
Many midwestern Democrats, however, are rolling their eyes.
"I'm going to be honest; I don't understand why they're doing it," one Midwestern campaign strategist told BuzzFeed. "My sense
was it was a move meant to gin up the donor base, not our voters. But it was the biggest news they've made in a while."
The strategist added "I wouldn't want to see something like this coming out of the DNC in October."
Another Midwest strategist said that the suit was "politically unhelpful" and that they havent seen "a single piece of data that
says voters want Democrats to relitigate 2016. ... The only ones who want to do this are Democratic activists who are already voting
Democratic."
Perhaps Midwestern Democrats aren't idiots, and realize that a two-year counterintelligence operation against Donald Trump which
appears to have been a coordinated "insurance policy" against a Trump win, might not be so great for optics, considering that criminal
referrals have been submitted to the DOJ for individuals involved in the alleged scheme to rig the election in favor of Hillary Clinton.
As the FBI's investigation into the Clinton Foundation pressed on during the 2016 election,
a senior official with the Obama justice department, identified as Matthew Axelrod, called
former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe - who thought the DOJ was pressuring him to shut down
the investigation, according to the recently released inspector general's (OIG) report.
The official was "very pissed off" at the FBI , the report says, and demanded to know why
the FBI was still pursuing the Clinton Foundation when the Justice Department considered the
case dormant. -
Washington Times
The OIG issued a criminal referral for McCabe based on findings that the former Deputy
Director "made an unauthorized disclosure to the news media and lacked candor - including under
oath - on multiple occasions."
McCabe authorized a self-serving leak to the New York Times claiming that the FBI had not
put the brakes on the Clinton Foundation investigation, during a period in which he was coming
under fire over a $467,500 campaign donation his wife Jill took from Clinton pal Terry
McAuliffe.
" It is bizarre -- and that word can't be used enough -- to have the Justice Department call
the FBI's deputy director and try to influence the outcome of an active corruption
investigation ," said James Wedick - a former FBI official who conducted corruption
investigations at the bureau. " They can have some input, but they shouldn't be operationally
in control like it appears they were from this call ."
Wedick said he's never fielded a call from the Justice Department about any of his cases
during his 35 years there - which suggests an attempt at interference by the Obama
administration .
As the
Washington Times Jeff Mordock points out, Although the inspector general's report did not
identify the caller, former FBI and Justice Department officials said it was Matthew Axelrod ,
who was the principal associate deputy attorney general -- the title the IG report did use.
Mr. McCabe thought the call was out of bounds.
He told the inspector general that during the Aug. 12, 2016, call the principal associate
deputy attorney general expressed concerns about FBI agents taking overt steps in the Clinton
Foundation investigation during the presidential campaign. -
Washington Times
"According to McCabe, he pushed back, asking ' are you telling me that I need to shut down a
validly predicated investigation? '" the report reads. " McCabe told us that the conversation
was 'very dramatic' and he never had a similar confrontation like the PADAG call with a
high-level department official in his entire FBI career ."
The Inspector General said in a footnote that the Justice official (identified separately as
Matthew Alexrod) agreed to the description of the call, but objected to seeing that "the Bureau
was trying to spin this conversation as some evidence of political interference, which was
totally unfair."
Axelrod quit the Justice Department on January 30, 2017, the same day his boss, Deputy AG
Sally Q. Yates was fired by President Trump for failing to defend his travel ban executive
order. He is now an attorney in the D.C. office of British law firm Linklaters LLP.
Axelrod told the New York Times he left the department earlier than planned.
" It was always anticipated that we would stay on for only a short period ," said Alexrod of
himself and Yates. "For the first week we managed, but the ban was a surprise. As soon as the
travel ban was announced there were people being detained and the department was asked to
defend the ban."
The Washington Times notes that those familiar with DOJ procedures say it is unlikely
Axelrod would have made the call to McCabe without Yates' direct approval.
"In my experience these calls are rarely made in a vacuum," said Bradley Schlozman, who
worked as counsel to the PADAG during the Bush administration. " The notion that the principle
deputy would have made such a decision and issued a directive without the knowledge and consent
of the deputy attorney general is highly unlikely ."
Given that Andrew McCabe may now be in a legal battle with the Trump DOJ, the Obama DOJ and
former FBI Director James Comey - who says McCabe never told him about the leaks which resulted
in the former Deputy Director's firing, it looks like he's really going to need that new legal
defense fund
"... The common good "cannot be reduced to the goods of individual private parties, and cannot be deduced from them. Just as the sum of the parts does not make up the whole, in the same way the sum of private interests may sometimes work even against itself it is the state that represents the common good." Isn't this something we can learn from in the West today? ..."
"... Russia's "[Christian] Orthodox spirit and the ethic of solidarity ..."
"... Like the Catholic Church, the Russian Orthodox Church has recently forged its own Social Concept of the ROC, which fleshes out this call for fairness as an aspect of human dignity. ..."
"... The City of Man ..."
"... Among Russia's virtues, it must be emphasized, is a far greater freedom of speech than it is typically given credit for. Russian participants in the Kaliningrad conference demonstrated a boldness of imagination, a variety and depth of thought on alternate futures for their country that is by no means always evident in political speech even in the United States. ..."
"... The author would like to thank Dr. Adrian Walker, Matthew Cooper and especially Dr. Matthew Dal Santo for their valuable suggestions and comments on an earlier draft. ..."
"... Paul Grenier is an essayist and translator who writes regularly on political-philosophical issues. ..."
A
staunchly traditional society grapples with modernity's disruptions, seeking conservatisms far
beyond Putinism.
It's a truism that America is a liberal place. Americans emphasize the importance of the
individual and tend to reject notions of hierarchy and authority. Russia by contrast is known
to be a more conservative society, one where the interests of the group come ahead of those of
the individual; and where, for centuries, respect for hierarchy and authority has usually been
the norm.
All the same, the "news" of Russia's return to conservatism has hit many observers in the
West like the proverbial ton of bricks. The typical response has been to
blame the Russian president for steering Russia away from the liberal path, the path of
becoming a "
normal country" with "Western values."
Others have sought to understand Russian political culture on its own terms. A recent
analysis ("The New Eurasians," Times Literary Supplement , May 13, 2015) stands out
from the crowd by making a serious effort to read present-day Russian conservatism in its
historical context. Lesley Chamberlain dismisses the glib reduction of Russia to its
present-day leader. Russia, she writes, is not ruled by Vladimir Putin: to the contrary, "the
power that rules Russia is tradition." Far from it being the case that a benighted Russian
public is being led to conservatism artificially by its government, the reverse is the case:
the vast majority of Russians, perhaps eighty percent "are intensely conservative."
Like most in the commentariat, Chamberlain finds cause for alarm in Russia's return to type.
She worries about a Russia seeking to create "an alternative version of the contemporary
Christian, or post-Christian, world, contiguous with but distinct from the West."
Chamberlain reduces today's incarnation of Russian conservatism to the more or less vague
bundle of geographic and neo-imperial notions that goes by the name Eurasianism, often linked
with the name of Alexander Dugin.
To be sure, anti-Western Eurasianism is part of contemporary Russian conservatism.
But it is only one part. Excessive focus on this angle has created the impression that
Dugin-esque Eurasianism is the only game in town when it comes to Russian conservatism. It
isn't. It's not even the only version of what might be called the 'Russian national greatness'
school of conservatism.
If we wish to understand Russia in something like its true complexity, we have to take the
trouble to listen to it, to let it speak in its own voice instead of constantly projecting onto
it all our own worst fears. Precisely because Eurasianism has already hogged all the attention,
I won't deal with it here.
... ... ...
Liberal Conservatism
Some participants straddled several categories of conservatism at once. In other cases, for
example that of the above-mentioned Makarenko, their thought fit neatly within a single
category -- in his case, that of liberal conservatism.
For Makarenko, modern Russian political practice has far too utilitarian an attitude toward
rule of law and democracy. If it can be demonstrated that the latter support state sovereignty,
then all is well and good; but whenever either are perceived as a threat to the state -- then
democracy and rule of law are always the ones that have to suffer. From his perspective, Russia
would do better to learn from Burke, who looked not so much to the sovereignty of the
state as to the sovereignty of the parliament .
Matveichev, no doubt the most eclectic thinker in the group, on certain subjects occupied
the liberal end of the spectrum. For example, in an essay on corruption and the state, he
approvingly cites the work of Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto to make the point that rule
of law -- as it is practiced, nota bene , in the United States -- is the sine qua
non of economic prosperity. What I found fascinating about Matveichev's position is that
he then takes his argument in a Hegelian and Platonic direction.
It is the state -- not the market on its own -- that provides these all important
forms , and bad as the corruption of state institutions may be, a bad form is
nonetheless better than no form at all -- including for business. The common good "cannot
be reduced to the goods of individual private parties, and cannot be deduced from them. Just as
the sum of the parts does not make up the whole, in the same way the sum of private interests
may sometimes work even against itself it is the state that represents the common good." Isn't
this something we can learn from in the West today?
Left Conservatism
The "left conservatives" at the conference -- represented most prominently by Dr. Alexander
Schipkov, an expert on Church-state relations -- are critical of liberal capitalism
and indeed are also critical of the current Russian state to the extent that its "conservatism"
is reducible merely to "family values" without including the all-important component of
economic fairness. His views are close to that of Catholic Distributists as well as to those of
"radical orthodox" theologians like William Cavanaugh and John Milbank.
According to Schipkov, Russians of various backgrounds (left and right, secular and
religious, red and white) need to forge a common ethic. But in truth, Russia already
has such an ethic, one that unifies all the disparate phases in its often tragic and
contradictory history. Consciously playing off of Weber, Schipkov refers to Russia's
"[Christian] Orthodox spirit and the ethic of solidarity ." In a fascinating essay on
this same subject, Schipkov makes clear that his concept of solidarity owes much to the
writings of the early 20th century German philosopher Max Scheler, who likewise had such a big
impact on the thought of Pope John Paul II.
Though the Russian Church continues to play a defining role in the ethical formation of the
nation -- no other pre-1917 institution, after all, still exists -- over time it will be
replaced by other institutions, according to Schipkov. Like the Catholic Church, the
Russian Orthodox Church has recently forged its own Social Concept of the ROC, which fleshes
out this call for fairness as an aspect of human dignity.
Creative Conservatism
Because it tends to evoke the disastrous social and economic effects of "liberalisation"
during the 1990s, the term "liberal" has become something of a swear word in today's Russia.
But what, exactly, does this much reviled "liberalism" consist in? In my own presentation
(English translation forthcoming at SolidarityHall.org ) I suggested that Russians need to define
liberalism -- and conservatism -- more carefully, while distinguishing both from their
ideological perversions.
To his credit, Oleg Matveichev has taken the trouble to craft a precise definition of the
liberal doctrine of human nature in terms worthy of a Pierre Manent ( The City of Man
). According to Matveichev, liberalism reconceives the very essence of man as freedom,
self-sufficiency, and self-definition. Seen through this liberal prism, the goal of our
existence becomes self-emancipation from the chains of the past and the dead weight of
tradition.
Having redefined the meaning of history, Matveichev continues, the "liberals" then set about
condemning those who would thwart its "progress," dismissing them as "conservatives" and
"reactionaries." Is it not time, Matveichev asks, to throw off the chains of this label
invented for us by our adversaries? Why define ourselves as mere "conservatives"? Why not
creatively reimagine an alternative 'meaning of history" ourselves?
Can conservatism be "creative?" And if so, how? Mikhail Remizov, president of the National
Strategy Institute, answered, in effect, "how can it be anything else?" Critics on the left
sometimes attack conservatism by saying, that conservatives do not preserve tradition, they
invent it. Remizov dismisses the implied insult, because it demonstrates a misunderstanding of
how traditions work: (re)invention " is the normal, creative approach to tradition." Remizov
agrees with Hans-Georg Gadamer that sharply contrasting tradition and modernity is a silly and
flat-footed way of looking at tradition, because the latter is always in any case a complex
creative task of making adjustments and dialectical zig-zags. Such an understanding of culture
and tradition as creativity fits, of course, quite nicely with the philosophy of
Nicholas Berdyaev. It is hard to think of another thinker for whom creativity plays a more
central role.
Alexei Kozyrev, associate dean of the philosophy department at Moscow State University,
illustrated the same creative conservative principle when he spoke of the Russian Orthodox
Church's Social Concept. The task of modern man, according to that document, is to find
creative ways to retrieve the thought of the Church Fathers, for example that of Gregory of
Nyssa, who counseled demonstrating our human dignity "not by domination of the natural world
but by caring for and preserving it." The Social Concept likewise calls for defending the
dignity of the unborn embryo and of the mentally ill. Here, in an unexpected twist, the Western
environmental movement meets the pro-Life movement, challenging perhaps our own ideological
boundaries.
... ...
Dialogue with Russia?
Lesley Chamberlain claimed that Russia is not a puzzle. In fact that is precisely what it
is. As should be clear even from the above very partial survey, Russian conservatism, like
Russia itself, embraces a contradictory collection of flaws and virtues. Both the flaws and the
virtues are large.
Among Russia's virtues, it must be emphasized, is a far greater freedom of speech than
it is typically given credit for. Russian participants in the Kaliningrad conference
demonstrated a boldness of imagination, a variety and depth of thought on alternate futures for
their country that is by no means always evident in political speech even in the United
States.
For Western liberals, it is tempting to present Russian conservatism as always intrinsically
dangerous. But I believe the loss is ours. Russian conservatism -- or at any rate important
elements of it -- contains something potentially valuable to the West as it seeks to forge a
strategy for dealing with the growing disorder in the world. What justifies engagement with
Russia is before all else its ability to contribute to solving the problem that all of us face:
how to devise a softer version of western modernity, one which allows for the preservation of
tradition while simultaneously retaining what is most valuable in the liberal
tradition.
The author would like to thank Dr. Adrian Walker, Matthew Cooper and especially Dr.
Matthew Dal Santo for their valuable suggestions and comments on an earlier draft.
Paul Grenier is an essayist and translator who writes regularly on
political-philosophical issues.
The presumption amongst Russian conservatives is not that Russia is perfect as it is but
that Russia's foundational values are good. This is something they have in common with
American conservatives, British Conservatives like Peter Hitchens, and probably most
conservatives in most societies. They would also lament their social ills.
I am not going to accuse you of not having read the article, but that comment of yours
could easily have been made by someone who simply read the title and jumped to the comments
section.
The author's point on free speech is an important one – there is a lot of very deep and
open discussion in Russia at the moment about the country's direction (including even
television debates with ten times the intellectual content of what we find in the States).
Putinism is not a clear ideological system, and for the most part there is no official
orthodoxy being pressed on scholars or the public, many currents exist. Most of the major
viable currents, as this article suggests, are variants of conservatism; Western-style
liberal democracy has (at the moment) lost nearly all it's appeal to the intelligentsia and
the average person alike.
Re: Jon F's comment – unfortunately, in my view he is right. We shouldn't believe
that Russia is a place of thriving family values simply because they say it more often and
louder. Statistics are not the best way to see this – I personally believe (from
experience in the capital and the provinces) that if Russians divorce less, they cheat more.
If they have fewer abortions, they have more children born into undesirable childhoods.
Russian conservatism does have its virtues and the country must to admire, but respect for
women and children are far from a given.
The tendency to see Russia in black/white only, with a pre-imposed bias is no different than
the tendency to see the US (and sometimes the west) and its values in similar manichean
perspectives. Adding depth and colour to the other takes work, and especially the willingness
to empathise, even for a little while, in order to gain more understanding, before employing
a critical eye. And from this perspective I think the article does a good job.
W. Burns: I don't recall that specific issue raised at the conference, but the Revolution and
subsequent experience is much debated, including in other writings by the participants, e.g.
by Shchipkov (his preferred spelling btw, not my Schipkov), whose take is much like that of
Berdyaev: the communist experience is in partial continuity with aspects of Russia's
tradition, e.g. of economic 'fairness' (equalizing plots on the peasant commune, etc.) and
privileging the group over the individual. I started with the analysis by L. Chamberlain in
part because her wide lens-perspective helps make sense of that experience.
David Naas and Cornel Lencar: I wish there were more who shared your perspective. Thanks.
Regarding Russian values vs. practice, aspirations vs. real-world problems. Who among us is
without sin? Is U.S. practice so pristine that we should disdain talking to the Russian side?
That is the material point.
Since the conference I have continued reading the work of these (and other conference)
attendees meant for a Russian audience. They are very, very far from smug about their
internal problems; quite the contrary.
Dave P.: As far as I know, the conference Proceedings so far are only in Russian, but there
are pretty detailed English-language abstracts. Try contacting ISEPR (their site, ISEPR.ru,
also has an English-language version).
The lawsuit filed by the Democratic National Committee (DNC), naming WikiLeaks and its
founder Julian Assange as co-conspirators with Russia and the Trump campaign in a criminal
effort to steal the 2016 US presidential election, is a frontal assault on democratic rights.
It tramples on the First Amendment to the US Constitution, which establishes freedom of the
press and freedom of speech as fundamental rights.
Neither the Democratic Party lawsuit nor the media commentaries on it acknowledge that
WikiLeaks is engaged in journalism, not espionage; that its work consists of publishing
material supplied to it by whistleblowers seeking to expose the crimes of governments, giant
corporations and other powerful organizations; and that this courageous campaign of exposure
has made both the website and its founder and publisher the targets of state repression all
over the world.
Assange himself has been effectively imprisoned in the Ecuadorian embassy in London for
the past six years, since he fled there to escape efforts by the British, Swedish and
American governments to engineer his extradition to the United States, where a secret grand
jury has reportedly indicted him on espionage and treason charges that could bring the death
penalty. Since the end of March, the Ecuadorian government, responding to increasing pressure
from US and British imperialism, has cut off all outside communication with him.
The reason for the indictment and persecution of Assange is that WikiLeaks published
secret military documents, supplied by whistleblower Chelsea Manning, revealing US war crimes
in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as diplomatic cables embarrassing to the US State Department
because they detailed US attempts to manipulate and subvert governments around the world.
The Democratic National Committee on Friday filed a 66-page complaint that reeks of
McCarthyism, with overtones of the Wisconsin senator's demagogy about "a conspiracy so vast"
when he was spearheading the anticommunist witch hunts more than 70 years ago. After
detailing a long list of supposed conspirators, ranging from the Russian government and its
military intelligence agency GRU to the Trump campaign and Julian Assange, the complaint
declares: "The conspiracy constituted an act of previously unimaginable treachery: the
campaign of the presidential nominee of a major party in league with a hostile foreign power
to bolster its own chance to win the Presidency."
Such language has had no place in official American public life since the right-wing
political gangster McCarthy left the scene in the late 1950s. Ultra-right groups like the
John Birch Society kept alive such smear tactics in ensuing decades, but they were relegated
to the fringes of the political system. Now the Democratic Party has sought to revive these
methods as the central focus of its bid for power in the 2018 elections.
In the targeting of WikiLeaks, the antidemocratic content of this campaign finds its
foulest expression. The DNC suit asserts, without the slightest evidence, that "WikiLeaks and
Assange directed, induced, urged, and/or encouraged Russia and the GRU to engage in this
conduct and/or to provide WikiLeaks and Assange with DNC's trade secrets, with the
expectation that WikiLeaks and Assange would disseminate those secrets and increase the Trump
Campaign's chance of winning the election."
According to Assange and WikiLeaks, however, the material from the DNC and from Clinton
campaign Chairman John Podesta that it made public in 2016 was provided by an anonymous
whistleblower whose identity WikiLeaks does not know because it observed its normal security
practices to preserve secrecy and protect its sources. Not a shred of evidence has been
presented to prove otherwise.
The DNC legal complaint cites the negative consequences of the WikiLeaks revelations in
passages worth quoting:
135. The illegal conspiracy inflicted profound damage upon the DNC. The timing and
selective release of the stolen materials prevented the DNC from communicating with the
electorate on its own terms. These selective releases of stolen material reached a peak
immediately before the Democratic National Convention and continued through the general
election.
136. The timing and selective release of stolen materials was designed to and had the
effect of driving a wedge between the DNC and Democratic voters. The release of stolen
materials also impaired the DNC's ability to support Democratic candidates in the general
election.
But the DNC lawsuit does not explain why the WikiLeaks material was so damaging.
On the contrary, it says nothing about the actual content of what was leaked, other than
claiming that it included "trade secrets" and other proprietary information of the Democratic
Party leadership.
The material published by WikiLeaks about the Democrats fell into two main categories.
First were internal emails and documents of the DNC showing that DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman
Schultz and her top aides were engaged in a systematic effort to block Clinton's challenger
Bernie Sanders and make sure Clinton received the Democratic nomination. In other words,
while complaining that Russia was engaged in rigging the 2016 campaign, the DNC was seeking
to rig the outcome of the Democratic primary contest.
The second batch of documents came from Clinton campaign Chairman John Podesta and
included the transcripts of speeches delivered by Hillary Clinton to financial industry
groups for fees as high as $300,000 per appearance. In these remarks, she reassured the
bankers that they need not be alarmed by any campaign rhetoric about punishing them for the
financial skullduggery that triggered the 2008 Wall Street crash and destroyed the jobs and
living standards of millions of working people. She made clear that a Clinton government
would continue the pro-Wall Street policies of the Obama administration.
The DNC suit is a deepening of the effort by the Democratic Party to become the premier
party of the CIA and the military-intelligence apparatus as a whole. In targeting WikiLeaks
and Assange, the Democrats are embracing the smear by CIA Director Mike Pompeo -- now Trump's
choice for secretary of state -- that WikiLeaks is a "non-state hostile intelligence
service," allegedly allied with Moscow.
If, moreover, Assange is a traitor because he exposes the lies and crimes of the US
government, then by implication all those publications, websites and individuals who defend
him and challenge the government propaganda disseminated by the corporate media are
themselves complicit in treason and should be dealt with accordingly.
As the World Socialist Web Site has previously explained, the anti-Russia
campaign mounted by the Democrats is a reactionary concoction, backed by no factual evidence,
aimed at pushing the Trump administration to sharply escalate the war in Syria and adopt a
more aggressive policy against Russia. At the same time, it has been used as the
justification for a massive and coordinated campaign to censor the Internet. The manipulation
of search and news feed algorithms by Google and Facebook will be followed by more direct
efforts at the suppression of left-wing, anti-war and socialist publications.
The campaign has also served to position the Democrats as the party that stands up for the
"intelligence community" in its conflict with the Trump White House. This is now being
supplemented, in advance of the November midterm elections, by an influx of candidates for
Democratic congressional nominations in competitive districts drawn heavily from the ranks of
the CIA, the military, the National Security Council and the State Department (see: "
The CIA
Democrats ").
The conduct of the DNC demonstrates the reactionary and bankrupt character of the claims
by liberal and pseudo-left groups -- all of whom have maintained a complete silence on the
isolation and persecution of Assange -- that the election of a Democratic-controlled Congress
is the way to fight back against Trump and the Republicans. The truth is that the working
class confronts in these parties two implacable political enemies committed to war, austerity
and repression.
"... "Some are asking, though, 'Why wouldn't smashing of cellphones and destruction of thousands of emails during an investigation clearly be obstruction of justice ..."
"... Although mainstream media outlets, liberal pundits, and lawmakers have been obsessing over possible obstruction of justice charges and anticipating impeachment for Trump as a result, these same individuals showed a marked lack of interest in whether or not Clinton and her team obstructed justice. ..."
"... "But if you smash your cellphone knowing that investigators want it and that they've got a subpoena for it, for example, that is a different thing and can be obstruction of justice." ..."
"... Jones followed up, asking, "The law requires intent?" ..."
Comey Claims Nobody Asked About Clinton Obstruction Before Today on Sun, 04/22/2018 - 9:27pm
From the
' you can't make this shit up ' files. Hillary had been involved in government long enough to know and understand the rules
of what she needed to do with her emails after her tenure was over. As well as the rules for handling classified information with
an email account. But I guess she thought that rules only applied to everyone else but her. And why wouldn't she think that she could
do whatever she wanted to? Because she and Bill had been getting away with doing whatever they wanted their entire political careers
with no repercussions.
Using a private email server that would be a way around the freedom of information act would have also allowed her to put her
foundation's business on it so that Chelsea and others could have access to it even though it was tied into her state department
business and the people who did didn't have the proper security clearances to read the emails. (Sydney Bluementhal) Tut, tut ..
When WTOP's Joan Jones asked former FBI Director James Comey on Wednesday if the "smashing of cellphones and destruction of
thousands of emails" during the investigation into Hillary Clinton was "obstruction of justice," Comey said that he had never
been asked that question before.
"You have raised the specter of obstruction of justice charges with the president of the United States," Jones said to Comey
concerning his new book, "A Higher Loyalty: Truth, Lies, and Leadership." The book was released earlier this week.
"Some are asking, though, 'Why wouldn't smashing of cellphones and destruction of thousands of emails during an investigation
clearly be obstruction of justice ?'" Jones asked Comey.
Comey replied, "Now that's a great question. That's the first time I've been asked that."
Although mainstream media outlets, liberal pundits, and lawmakers have been obsessing over possible obstruction of justice
charges and anticipating impeachment for Trump as a result, these same individuals showed a marked lack of interest in whether or
not Clinton and her team obstructed justice.
There's that word intent again.
"And the answer is, it would depend upon what the intent of the people doing it was," Comey said. "It's the reason I can't
say when people ask me, 'Did Donald Trump committee obstruction of justice?' My answer is, 'I don't know. It could be. It would
depend upon, is there evidence to establish that he took actions with corrupt intent ?'"
"So if you smash a cellphone, lots of people smash their cellphones so they're not resold on the secondary market and your
personal stuff ends up in somebody else's hands," Comey continued. "But if you smash your cellphone knowing that investigators
want it and that they've got a subpoena for it, for example, that is a different thing and can be obstruction of justice."
What about deleting ones emails after being told to turn them over to congress after they found out that you didn't do it when
your job was done. Is this considered obstruction of justice, James? I think that answer is yes. How about backing up your emails
on someone else's computer when some of them were found to be classified?
Jones followed up, asking, "The law requires intent?"
"Yes. It requires not just intent , but the prosecutors demonstrate corrupt intent , which is a special kind of intent
that you were taking actions with the intention of defeating and obstructing an investigation you knew was going on," Comey replied.
Did he just change the rules there? Now it's not just intent, but corrupt intent. This is exactly what Hillary
did, James! She deliberately destroyed her emails after she was told to turn them over to congress, so if you didn't have the chance
to see them l, then how do you know that the ones that she destroyed weren't classified? I would say that qualifies as intent.
But we know that you had a job to protect her from being prosecuted. This is why when the wording was changed from " grossly negligent
" to "extremely careless". you went with the new ones!
BTW, James. Why wasn't Hillary under oath when she was questioned by the other FBI agents? Why didn't you question her
or look at her other computers and cell phones she had at her home? I'd think that they might have shown you something that she didn't
want you to see? One more question, James. Did you ask the NSA to find the deleted emails that she destroyed because she said that
they were just personal ones about Chelsea's wedding? Do you really think that it took 30,000 emails to plan a wedding? Okay, one
more. Did you even think that those emails might have had something to do with her foundation that might have had some incriminating
evidence of either classified information on them or even possible proof of her "pay to play" shenanigans that she was told not to
do during her tenure as SOS? This thought never crossed your mind?
Last question I promise. Did you really do due diligence on investigating her use of her private email server or were you still
covering for her like you have been since she started getting investigated?
This amazing comment came from a person on Common Dreams. It shows the history of
One source told the news outlet that electronic records reveal that Strzok changed the language from " grossly negligent
" to " extremely careless ," scrubbing a key word that could have had legal ramifications for Clinton. An individual
who mishandled classified material could be prosecuted under federal law for "gross negligence."
What would have happened if Comey had found Hillary guilty of mishandling classified information on her private email server?
She couldn't have become president of course because her security clearances would have been revoked. This makes it kinda hard to
be one if she couldn't have access to top secret information, now wouldn't it?
Have you seen this statement by people who don't think that what Hillary did when she used her private email server was wrong
and that's why some people didn't vote for her and Trump became president because of it?
Paul has made reclaiming Congress' role in matters of war one of his signature issues.
Pompeo testified before the Foreign Relations Committee that he doesn't think the president
needs Congressional authorization to order attacks on other states. Trump's nominee thinks that
the president can start wars on his own authority, so Paul should be voting against his
nomination for that reason alone. Voting to confirm Pompeo is an effective endorsement of the
very illegal and unauthorized warfare that Paul normally condemns.
"Instead, Paul will get nothing except widespread derision for caving to pressure. "
Depressing. I thought he'd have more guts. Perhaps he's keeping his ammunition dry for
some important purpose, and maybe the White House IOU he now holds has value. We'll see.
I have disliked Sen. Paul ever since the British Petroleum disaster, when he bemoaned that
making BP pay for damages was "anti-business" as if seafood fisheries, motels, and
restaurants were not businesses too.
"... The Democrats are incredulous, one might suppose. They cannot seem to get over the fact that President Trump is simply not like they are. After all, their party rigged their own primary in 2016 to make sure that Hillary Rodham Clinton was to be the nominee. The Party threw their very popular candidate, Bernie Sanders, completely under the bus. Of course, he also opted to join them, despite his own campaign rhetoric being in stark contradiction with much of what Hillary's campaign was about. ..."
"... The suit's flamboyant charges made headlines, but that only served to obscure the real meaning. Namely, that top Dems are giving up their fantasies that special counsel Robert Mueller will deliver them from political purgatory by getting the goods on Trump. ..."
"... The trashy suit is their way of trying to keep impeachment and Russia, Russia, Russia alive for the midterms in case Mueller's probe comes up empty. ..."
Recent move by Democrat Party to sue Trump, Russia and Wikileaks symptomatic as President
Trump's campaign shows up clean
The Democrats are incredulous, one might suppose. They cannot seem to get over the fact
that President Trump is simply not like they are. After all, their party rigged their own
primary in 2016 to make sure that Hillary Rodham Clinton was to be the nominee. The Party threw
their very popular candidate, Bernie Sanders, completely under the bus. Of course, he also
opted to join them, despite his own campaign rhetoric being in stark contradiction with much of
what Hillary's campaign was about.
The only thing they shared in common was a (D) by their name as candidate.
In Michael
Goodwin's piece in the New York Post ,, the reason for the Democrat despair is given:
Mueller is simply not finding anything wrong with President Trump's election campaign, no signs
of collusion with Russian agencies or anything else. Mueller's bizarre and unbridled
investigation is reeling along from person to person, looking for something but coming up empty
save for minor process crimes which are themselves largely driven into existence by Mueller's
questioning, a.k.a. interrogation techniques.
The suit's flamboyant charges made headlines, but that only served to obscure the real
meaning. Namely, that top Dems are giving up their fantasies that special counsel Robert
Mueller will deliver them from political purgatory by getting the goods on Trump.
The trashy suit is their way of trying to keep impeachment and Russia, Russia, Russia
alive for the midterms in case Mueller's probe comes up empty.
Truth be told, party leaders are right to be disheartened by setbacks in the War against
Trump. For the second time, the president was told he is not a target of Mueller, this time
by Rod Rosenstein, the deputy assistant attorney general who created Mueller.
While Trump could still become a target, the odds of that happening decline by the
day.
Unlike almost every modern book in the self-help genre, happiness is a not a major theme here, and to Peterson it is not
necessarily even a primary goal.
His book in part is about accepting the ubiquity of human suffering. No wonder reviewers don't get it.
Notable quotes:
"... Pain is its one incontrovertible fact (he remarks at one point that it is a miracle that anything in the world gets done at all: such is the ubiquity of human suffering) ..."
"... You will suffer. Accept that, and shift your focus to the one thing that is within your control: your attitude. ..."
His book in part is about accepting the ubiquity of human suffering. No wonder reviewers
don't get it.
"Aphorisms," wrote James Geary, "are like particle accelerators for the
mind." When particles collide inside an accelerator, new ones are formed as the energy of the
crash is converted into matter. Inside an aphorism, it is minds that collide, and what spins
out is that most slippery of things, wisdom.
... ... ...
These reviewers have done a disservice to their readers. In large measure, they have failed
to engage with a work that is complex, challenging, and novel. Peterson is sketching out a
draft for how we can survive, look in the mirror, and deal with psychological pain.
To understand his message, the first task is not to be distracted by the title or genre, and
look for the metaphorical glue that binds it all together. 12 Rules sets out an
interesting and complex model for humanity, and it really has nothing to do with petting a cat
or taking your tablets or being kind to lobsters. It is about strength, courage,
responsibility, and suffering, but it is deep and difficult, and it is not easy to pigeonhole.
In a sense, 12 Rules contains a number of hidden structures and hidden processes, and
confusingly, these are not always made explicit in the text.
The first of these is Deep Time.
We are biological creatures, evolved beings who can only be truly understood through a model
that encapsulates the notion of geological time. The concept of Deep Time is very recent: just
a few generations ago science thought that the earth was a few thousand years old. The
realization that the planet has been around for billions of years and that life itself not much
younger has brought about a shift in the story of ourselves and our place in the world. We are
the products of processes that are old, old, old. We stretch back across unfathomable reaches,
incomprehensible spans, but we carry that history within us.
... ... ..
Unlike almost every modern book in the self-help genre, happiness is a not a major theme
here, and to Peterson it is not necessarily even a primary goal. Like Freud, Peterson sees life
as suffering. Pain is its one incontrovertible fact (he remarks at one point that it is a
miracle that anything in the world gets done at all: such is the ubiquity of human suffering). 12 Rules is not about the pursuit of pleasure, and indeed parts of his message are
pure Stoicism. Resistance to life's depredations is futile. You will suffer. Accept that, and
shift your focus to the one thing that is within your control: your attitude.
...
His much-derided directive to "tidy your room" makes sense at every level. Indeed, if your room
is too big, start with "tidy your desk," and then move forward. Find meaning in the tiniest
acts of kindness, and push on from there. Concede the transience of pleasure and the
inevitability of death. This isn't happiness, but it is a step closer to the Good Life, and
contra the reviewers, readers are responding. Active, purposeful "Being in the World" is the
dominant theme, and much of the book is taken up with exploring the whys and wherefores of
this. Courage and strength and kindness, yes, to be sure, but importantly, courage "in spite
of" and kindness "in spite of."
Following Carl Rogers, meaning is to be found in active
engagement in a wondrous and hazardous world, and here there is no shirking the "hazardous." It
seems to me that Peterson is calling for a return to ataraxia , that imperturbability
and equanimity that has been out of fashion amongst the intelligentsia (at least in the West)
for a century or more.
The underlying political philosophy is conservative, without question. As Christian Gonzalez
identified in TheAmerican Conservative , Peterson's closest contemporary
equivalent is Roger Scruton. "We have learned to live together and organize our complex
societies slowly and incrementally, over vast stretches of time," he writes, "and we do not
understand with sufficient exactitude why what we are doing works."
Peterson on the American
culture wars sounds like Scruton on the English Common Law: we are "from the soil," we need
time, it is senseless to break what we barely understand. Each person's private trouble cannot
be solved by a social revolution, because revolutions are destabilizing and dangerous. Those
left-leaning critics who see "just another reactionary" have failed to understand the
complexity. What permeates this project is an implicit biopsychosocial model of the
human condition (Peterson spares the reader that dread term but it is the only description I
know for his integrative model).
... ... ...
Tim Rogers is a consultant psychiatrist in Edinburgh. He's written for Encounter
magazine, and has published in both Quillette and Areo .
Devin Nunes said today that after reviewing the electronic communication that launched the
counter intelligence investigation of Trump there was no evidence that warranted this
investigation. It is also interesting that Comey memorialized his discussions with Trump but
did not do that with others. His memos note that he only informed Trump on the salacious part
of the FusionGPS dossier and not the other parts. It looks like the conspiracy around the
smearing of Trump by the Obama administration is slowly coming out.
"An article in the Guardian last week provides more confirmation that John Brennan was the
American progenitor of political espionage aimed at defeating Donald Trump. One side did
collude with foreign powers to tip the election -- Hillary's."
"... give the Orange One some credit: he was a wrecking ball to the stagnant, hideous Clinton and Bush dynasties. He has also driven the DC establishment and media insane. Pure schadenfreude. ..."
They are also non-democratic, authoritarian regimes.
"By contrast, Trump is a loon, ignorant of practically everything, mentally chaotic, and
easily modified."
That's all true, especially the last bit. But give the Orange One some credit: he was a
wrecking ball to the stagnant, hideous Clinton and Bush dynasties. He has also driven the DC
establishment and media insane. Pure schadenfreude.
"... Putting aside his partisan motivations, House Intelligence Committee Chair Devin Nunes (R-CA) was unusually blunt two months ago in warning of legal consequences for officials who misled the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in order to enable surveillance on Trump and his associates. Nunes's words are likely to have sent chills down the spine of those with lots to hide: "If they need to be put on trial, we will put them on trial," he said ."The reason Congress exists is to oversee these agencies that we created." ..."
"... The media will be key to whether this Constitutional issue is resolved. Largely because of Trump's own well earned reputation for lying, most Americans are susceptible to slanted headlines like this recent one -- "Trump escalates attacks on FBI " -- from an article in The Washington Post , commiserating with the treatment accorded fired-before-retired prevaricator McCabe and the FBI he ( dis)served . ..."
"... What motivated the characters now criminally "referred" is clear enough from a wide variety of sources, including the text messages exchange between Strzok and Page. Many, however, have been unable to understand how these law enforcement officials thought they could get away with taking such major liberties with the law. ..."
"... None of the leaking, unmasking, surveillance, "opposition research," or other activities directed against the Trump campaign can be properly understood, if one does not bear in mind that it was considered a sure thing that Secretary Clinton would become President, at which point illegal and extralegal activities undertaken to help her win would garner praise, not prison. The activities were hardly considered high-risk, because candidate Clinton was sure to win. ..."
"... Comey admits, "It is entirely possible that, because I was making decisions in an environment where Hillary Clinton was sure to be the next president, my concern about making her an illegitimate president by concealing the re-started investigation bore greater weight than it would have if the election appeared closer or if Donald Trump were ahead in the polls." ..."
"... The key point is not Comey's tortured reasoning, but rather that Clinton was "sure to be the next president." This would, of course, confer automatic immunity on those now criminally referred to the Department of Justice. Ah, the best laid plans of mice and men -- even very tall men. One wag claimed that the "Higher" in "A Higher Loyalty" refers simply to the very tall body that houses an outsized ego. ..."
"... "Hope springs eternal" would be the cynical folk wisdom. FYI we haven't had a functioning constitution since the National Security Act of 1947 brought this nation under color of law, but the IC types wouldn't have you know that. Too tough to square the idea you'd never have had your CIA career in a world where the FISA court couldn't exist either. ..."
"... there is concrete evidence that the Democratic party/Clinton manipulated the primaries to destroy Clinton's challanger. That the DOJ, FBI & other alphabet agencies conspired with Clinton to equally, destroy Trump's campaign. ..."
"... We saw the same nonsense with Obama, the "peace president". Obama a man who never saw a Muslim he did not want to bomb or a Jew he did not want to bail out ..."
"... The best thing about this referral is that it also demands deputy AG Rod Rosenstein the weasel to recluse himself from this case. Rosenstein is the pinnacle of corruption by the deep state. ..."
"... Former CIA Director John Brennan is the prime mover behind the ongoing coup attempt against Trump. He gathered his deep state allies at DOJ and the FBI to join him in this endeavor. Brennan's allies -- McCabe, Lynch, Strzok, Yates, ect., may or may not be aware of Brennan's true motive behind creating all the noise and distraction since the 2016 election. It could be they're just partisan hacks; or they're on board with Brennan to keep secret what was revealed in the hack of the Podesta emails. ..."
"... I noticed Comey tried to pull a J Edgar-style subtle blackmail on Trump by the way he brought up the so-called "dossier" ..."
"... Bill Clinton got recruited into CIA by Cord Meyer, who bragged of it himself in his cups. ..."
"... Hillary cut her teeth on CIA's Watergate purge of Nixon. (If it's news to anyone that the Watergate cast of characters was straight out of CIA central casting, Russ Baker has conclusively tied the elaborate ratfeck to the intelligence community.) ..."
"... Obama was son of spooks, grandson of spooks, greased in to Harvard by Alwaleed bin-Talal's bagman. ..."
Wednesday's criminal referral by 11 House Republicans of former Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton as well as several former and serving top FBI and Department of Justice (DOJ) officials
is a giant step toward a Constitutional crisis.
Named in the referral to the DOJ for possible violations of federal law are: Clinton, former
FBI Director James Comey; former Attorney General Loretta Lynch; former Acting FBI Director
Andrew McCabe; FBI Agent Peter Strzok; FBI Counsel Lisa Page; and those DOJ and FBI personnel
"connected to" work on the "Steele Dossier," including former Acting Attorney General Sally
Yates and former Acting Deputy Attorney General Dana Boente.
With no attention from corporate media, the referral was sent to Attorney General Jeff
Sessions, FBI Director Christopher Wray, and U.S. Attorney for the District of Utah John Huber.
Sessions appointed Huber months ago to assist DOJ Inspector General (IG) Michael Horowitz. By
most accounts, Horowitz is doing a thoroughly professional job. As IG, however, Horowitz lacks
the authority to prosecute; he needs a U.S. Attorney for that. And this has to be disturbing to
the alleged perps.
This is no law-school case-study exercise, no arcane disputation over the fine points of
this or that law. Rather, as we say in the inner-city, "It has now hit the fan." Criminal
referrals can lead to serious jail time. Granted, the upper-crust luminaries criminally
"referred" enjoy very powerful support. And that will come especially from the mainstream
media, which will find it hard to retool and switch from Russia-gate to the much more delicate
and much less welcome "FBI-gate."
As of this writing, a full day has gone by since the letter/referral was reported, with
total silence so far from T he New York Times and The Washington Post and other
big media as they grapple with how to spin this major development. News of the criminal
referral also slipped by Amy Goodman's non-mainstream DemocracyNow!, as well as many
alternative websites.
The 11 House members chose to include the following egalitarian observation in the first
paragraph of the
letter conveying the criminal referral: "Because we believe that those in positions of high
authority should be treated the same as every other American, we want to be sure that the
potential violations of law outlined below are vetted appropriately." If this uncommon attitude
is allowed to prevail at DOJ, it would, in effect, revoke the de facto "David Petraeus
exemption" for the be-riboned, be-medaled, and well-heeled.
Stonewalling
Meanwhile, the patience of the chairmen of House committees investigating abuses at DOJ and
the FBI is wearing thin at the slow-rolling they are encountering in response to requests for
key documents from the FBI. This in-your-face intransigence is all the more odd, since several
committee members have already had access to the documents in question, and are hardly likely
to forget the content of those they know about. (Moreover, there seems to be a good chance that
a patriotic whistleblower or two will tip them off to key documents being withheld.)
The DOJ IG, whose purview includes the FBI, has been cooperative in responding to committee
requests for information, but those requests can hardly include documents of which the
committees are unaware.
Putting aside his partisan motivations, House Intelligence Committee Chair Devin Nunes
(R-CA) was unusually blunt two months ago in warning of legal consequences for officials who
misled the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in order to enable surveillance on Trump and
his associates. Nunes's words are likely to have sent chills down the spine of those with lots
to hide: "If they need to be put on trial, we will put them on trial," he said
."The reason Congress exists is to oversee these agencies that we created."
Whether the House will succeed in overcoming the resistance of those criminally referred and
their many accomplices and will prove able to exercise its Constitutional prerogative of
oversight is, of course, another matter -- a matter that matters.
And Nothing Matters More Than the Media
The media will be key to whether this Constitutional issue is resolved. Largely because of
Trump's own well earned reputation for lying, most Americans are susceptible to slanted
headlines like this recent one -- "Trump escalates attacks on FBI " -- from an
article in The Washington Post , commiserating with the treatment accorded
fired-before-retired prevaricator McCabe and the FBI he ( dis)served
.
Nor is the Post above issuing transparently clever warnings -- like this one in a
lead
article on March 17: "Some Trump allies say they worry he is playing with fire by taunting
the FBI. 'This is open, all-out war. And guess what? The FBI's going to win,' said one ally,
who spoke on the condition of anonymity to be candid. 'You can't fight the FBI. They're going
to torch him.'" [sic]
Mind-Boggling Criminal Activity
What motivated the characters now criminally "referred" is clear enough from a wide variety
of sources, including the text messages exchange between Strzok and Page. Many, however, have
been unable to understand how these law enforcement officials thought they could get away with
taking such major liberties with the law.
None of the leaking, unmasking, surveillance, "opposition research," or other activities
directed against the Trump campaign can be properly understood, if one does not bear in mind
that it was considered a sure thing that Secretary Clinton would become President, at which
point illegal and extralegal activities undertaken to help her win would garner praise, not
prison. The activities were hardly considered high-risk, because candidate Clinton was sure to
win.
But she lost.
Comey himself gives this away in the embarrassingly puerile book he has been hawking, "A
Higher Loyalty" -- which
amounts to a pre-emptive move motivated mostly by loyalty-to-self, in order to obtain a
Stay-Out-of-Jail card. Hat tip to Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone for a key observation, in his
recent article
, "James Comey, the Would-Be J. Edgar Hoover," about what Taibbi deems the book's most damning
passage, where Comey discusses his decision to make public the re-opening of the Hillary
Clinton email investigation.
Comey admits, "It is entirely possible that, because I was making decisions in an
environment where Hillary Clinton was sure to be the next president, my concern about making
her an illegitimate president by concealing the re-started investigation bore greater weight
than it would have if the election appeared closer or if Donald Trump were ahead in the
polls."
The key point is not Comey's tortured reasoning, but rather that Clinton was "sure to be the
next president." This would, of course, confer automatic immunity on those now criminally
referred to the Department of Justice. Ah, the best laid plans of mice and men -- even very
tall men. One wag claimed that the "Higher" in "A Higher Loyalty" refers simply to the very
tall body that houses an outsized ego.
I think it can be said that readers of Consortiumnews.com may be unusually well equipped to
understand the anatomy of FBI-gate as well as Russia-gate. Listed below chronologically are
several links that might be viewed as a kind of "whiteboard" to refresh memories. You may wish
to refer them to any friends who may still be confused.
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of
the Saviour in inner-city Washington. He served as an Army Infantry/Intelligence officer and
then a CIA analyst for a total of 30 years. In retirement, he co-created Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).
A weird country, the USA.
Reading the article I'm reminded of the 1946 Senate investigation into Pearl Harbour, where,
in my opinion, the truth was unearthed.
At the same time, this truth hardly ever reached the wider public, no articles, the book, ed.
Harry Elmer Barnes, never reviewed.
Will McCabe wind up in jail? Will Comey? Will Hillary face justice? Fingers crossed!
The short answer is NO. McCabe might, but not Comey and the Killer Queen, they've both served Satan, uh I mean the
Deep State too long and too well.Satan and the banksters–who really run the show–take care of their own and
apex predators like Hillary won't go to jail. But it does keep the rubes entertained while the banksters continue to loot, pillage and
plunder and Israel keeps getting Congress to fight their wars.
"Hope springs eternal" would be the cynical folk wisdom. FYI we haven't had a functioning
constitution since the National Security Act of 1947 brought this nation under color of law,
but the IC types wouldn't have you know that. Too tough to square the idea you'd never have
had your CIA career in a world where the FISA court couldn't exist either.
Consortium News many sops tossed to 'realpolitik' where false narrative is attacked with
alternative false narrative, example given, drunk Ukrainian soldiers supposedly downing MH 17
with a BUK as opposed to Kiev's Interior Ministry behind the Ukrainian combat jet that
actually brought down MH 17, poisons everything (trust issues) spewed from that news
service.
The realpolitik 'face saving' exit/offer implied in the Consortium News narrative where
Russia doesn't have to confront the West with Ukraine's (and by implication the western
intelligence agencies) premeditated murder of 300 innocents does truth no favors.
Time to grow up and face reality. Realpolitik is dead; the caliber of 'statesman' required
for these finessed geopolitical lies to function no longer exist on the Western side, and the
Russians (I believe) are beginning to understand there is no agreement can be made behind
closed doors that will hold up; as opposed to experiencing a backstabbing (like NATO not
moving east.)
Back on topic; the National Security Act of 1947 and the USA's constitution are mutually
exclusive concepts, where you have a Chief Justice appoints members of our FISA Court, er,
nix that, let's call a spade a spade, it's a Star Chamber. There is no constitution to
uphold, no matter well intended self deceits. There will be no constitutional crisis, only a
workaround to pretend a constitution still exists:
To comprehend the internal machinations s of US politics one needs a mind capable of high
level yoga or of squaring a circle.
On the one hand there is a multimillion, full throttle investigation into – at best
– nebulus, inconsequential links between trump/ his campaign & Russia.
On the other there is concrete evidence that the Democratic party/Clinton manipulated the
primaries to destroy Clinton's challanger. That the DOJ, FBI & other alphabet agencies
conspired with Clinton to equally, destroy Trump's campaign.
Naturally, its this 2nd conspiracy which is retarded.
Imagine, a mere agency of a dept, the FBI, is widely considered untouchable by The President
! Indeed, they will "torch" him. AND the "the third estate" ie: the msm will support them the
whole way!
As a script the "The Twilight Zone" would have rejected all this as too ludicrous, too
psychotic for even its broad minded viewers.
And that will come especially from the mainstream media
I quit reading right there. Use of that term indicates mental laziness at best. What's mainstream about it? Please
refer to corporate media in proper terms, such as PCR's "presstitute" media. Speaking of PCR, it's too bad he doesn't allow comments.
The MSM is controlled by Zionists as is the U.S. gov and the banks, so it is no surprise that
the MSM protects the ones destroying America, this is what they do. Nothing of consequence will be done to any of the ones involved, it will all be covered
up, as usual.
What utter nonsense. These people are ALL actors, no one will go to jail, because everything
they do is contrived, no consequence for doing as your Zionist owners command.
There is no there there. This is nothing but another distraction, something o feed the
dual narratives, that Clinton and her ilk are out to get Trump, and the "liberal media" will
cover it up. This narrative feeds very nicely into the primary goal of driving
Republicans/conservatives to support Trump, even as Trump does everything they elected him
NOT TO DO!
We saw the same nonsense with Obama, the "peace president". Obama a man who never saw a
Muslim he did not want to bomb or a Jew he did not want to bail out
Yet even while Obama did the work of the Zionist money machine, the media played up the
fake battle between those who thought he was not born in America, "birthers" and his blind
supporters.
Nothing came of any of it, just like Monica Lewinsky, nothing but theater, fill the air
waves, divide the people, while America is driven insane.
The best thing about this referral is that it also demands deputy AG Rod Rosenstein the
weasel to recluse himself from this case. Rosenstein is the pinnacle of corruption by the deep
state. It's seriously way pass time for Jeff Sessions to grow a pair, put on his big boy
pants, unrecuse himself from the Russian collusion bullshit case, fire Rosenstein and Mueller
and end the case once and for all. These two traitors are in danger of completely derailing
the Trump agenda and toppling the Republican majority in November, yet Jeff Sessions is still
busy arresting people for marijuana, talk about missing the forest for the trees.
As far as where this referral will go from here, my guess is, nowhere. Not as long as Jeff
Sessions the pussy is the AG. It's good to hear that Giuliani has now been recruited by Trump
to be on his legal team. What Trump really needs to do is replace Jeff Sessions with
Giuliani, or even Chris Christie, and let them do what a real AG should be doing, which is
clean house in the DOJ, and prosecute the Clintons for their pay-to-play scheme with their
foundation. Not only is the Clinton corruption case the biggest corruption case in US
history, but this might be the only way to save the GOP from losing their majority in
November.
But it does keep the rubes entertained while the banksters continue to loot, pillage and
plunder and Israel keeps getting Congress to fight their wars.
Sadly I think you're right. Things might be different if we had a real AG, but Jeff
Sessions is not the man I thought he was. He's been swallowed by the deep state just like
Trump. At least Trump is putting up a fight, Sessions just threw in the towel and recused
himself from Day 1. Truly pathetic. Some patriot he is.
" He's ferreted out more than a few and probably has a lot better idea who his friends are
he certainly knows the enemies by now."
He failed to ferret out Haley, Pompeo, or Sessions and he just recently appointed John
Bolton, so I don't agree with your assessment. If his friends include those three, that says
enough about Trump to make any of his earlier supporters drop him.
Anyway, not having a ready made team, or at least a solid short list of key appointees
shows that he was just too clueless to have even been a serious candidate. It looks more as
though Trump is doing now what he intended to do all along. That means he was bullshitting
everybody during his campaign.
So, maybe the neocons really have been his friends all along.
" America is a very crooked country, nothing suprises me".
Every country on this insane planet is "crooked" to a greater or lesser degree, when to a
lesser degree, this is simply because they, the PTB, have not yet figured out how to
accelerate, how to increase their corruption and thereby how to increase their unearned
monetary holdings.
Money is the most potent singular factor which causes humans to lose their minds, and all
of their ethics and decency.
And within the confines of a "socialist" system, "money" is replaced by rubber-stamps, which
then wield, exactly in the manner of "wealth", the power of life or death, over the unwashed
masses.
Authenticjazzman "Mensa" qualified since 1973, airborne trained US Army vet, and pro jazz
musician.
BTW Jeff Sessions is a fraternal brother of Pence (a member of the same club, same
[recently deceased] guru) and is no friend of Trump.
That would explain why Sessions reclused himself from the start, and refused to appoint a
special council to investigate the Clintons. He's in on this with Pence.
Just as it looks like the Comey memos will further exonerate Trump, we now have this farce
extended by the DNC with this latest lawsuit on the "Trump campaign". The Democrats are now
the most pathetic sore losers in history, they are hell bent on dragging the whole country
down the pit of hell just because they can't handle a loss.
Wishful thinking that anything will come of this, just like when the Nunes memo was released.
Nothing will happen as long as Jeff Sessions is AG. Trump needs to fire either Sessions or
Rosenstein ASAP, before he gets dragged down by this whole Russian collusion bullshit case.
Former CIA Director John Brennan is the prime mover behind the ongoing coup attempt against
Trump. He gathered his deep state allies at DOJ and the FBI to join him in this endeavor.
Brennan's allies -- McCabe, Lynch, Strzok, Yates, ect., may or may not be aware of Brennan's
true motive behind creating all the noise and distraction since the 2016 election. It could
be they're just partisan hacks; or they're on board with Brennan to keep secret what was
revealed in the hack of the Podesta emails.
John Podesta, in addition to being a top Democrat/DC lobbyist and a criminal deviant, is
also a long-time CIA asset running a blackmail/influence operation that utilized his
deviancy: the sexual exploitation of children.
What kind of "physical proof" could Assange have? A thumb drive that was provably
American, or something? Rohrabacher only got Red Pilled on Russia because he had one very
determined (and well heeled) constituent. But he did cosponsor one of Tulsi Gabbard's "Stop
Funding Terrorists" bills, which he figured out on his own. Nevertheless, a bit of a loose
cannon and an eff'd up hawk on Iran He's probably an 'ISIS now, Assad later' on Syria.
I noticed Comey tried to pull a J Edgar-style subtle blackmail on Trump by the way he brought
up the so-called "dossier". Anyone could see it was absurd but he played his hand with it,
pretending it was being looked at. I would say Trump could see through this sleazy game Comey
was trying to play and sized him up. Comey is about as slimy as they get even as he parades
around trying to look noble. What a corrupt bunch.
"The culprit has swayed with the immediate need for a villain "
[What follows is excerpted from an article headlined Robert Mueller's Questionable Past
that appeared yesterday on the American Free Press website:]
During his tenure with the Justice Department under President George H W Bush, Mueller
supervised the prosecutions of Panamanian leader Manuel Noriega, the Lockerbie bombing (Pan
Am Flight 103) case, and Gambino crime boss John Gotti. In the Noriega case, Mueller ignored
the ties to the Bush family that Victor Thorn illustrated in Hillary (and Bill): The Drugs
Volume: Part Two of the Clinton Trilogy. Noriega had long been associated with CIA operations
that involved drug smuggling, money laundering, and arms running. Thorn significantly links
Noriega to Bush family involvement in the Iran-Contra scandal.
Regarding Pan Am Flight 103, the culprit has swayed with the immediate need for a villain.
Pro-Palestinian activists, Libyans, and Iranians have all officially been blamed when US
intelligence and the mainstream mass media needed to paint each as the antagonist to American
freedom. Mueller toed the line, publicly ignoring rumors that agents onboard were said to
have learned that a CIA drug-smuggling operation was afoot in conjunction with Pan Am
flights. According to the theory, the agents were going to take their questions to Congress
upon landing. The flight blew up over Lockerbie, Scotland.
There has been some former high flyers going to jail recently. Sarkozy is facing a hard
time at the moment. If it can happen to a former president of France it can happen to
Hillary.
Am I a Christian? Well, no. I had some exposure to Christianity but it never took hold. On
the other hand, I do believe there was a historical Jesus that was a remarkable man, but
there is a world (or universe) of difference between the man and the mythology. Here's some
of my thoughts on the matter:
Nothing uncanny about it. There's a frenetic Democratic cottage industry inferring magical
emotional charisma powers that explain the outsized influence of those three. The fact is
very simple. All three are CIA nomenklatura.
(1.) Bill Clinton got recruited into CIA by Cord Meyer, who bragged of it himself in his
cups.
(2.) Hillary cut her teeth on CIA's Watergate purge of Nixon. (If it's news to anyone that
the Watergate cast of characters was straight out of CIA central casting, Russ Baker has
conclusively tied the elaborate ratfeck to the intelligence community.)
(3.) Obama was son of spooks, grandson of spooks, greased in to Harvard by Alwaleed
bin-Talal's bagman. While he was vocationally wet behind the ears he not only got into
Pakistan, no mean feat at the time, but he went to a falconry outing with the future acting
president of Pakistan. And is there anyone alive who wasn't flabbergasted at the instant
universal acclaim for some empty suit who made a speech at the convention? Like Bill Clinton,
successor to DCI Bush, Obama was blatantly, derisively installed in the president slot of the
CIA org chart.
Excellent post and quite accurate information, however my point being that the irrational
fear harbored by the individuals who could actually begin to rope these scumbags in, is just
that : Irrational, as they seem to think or have been lead/brainwashed to believe that these
dissolute turds are somehow endowed with supernatural, otherworldy powers and options, and
that they are capable of unholy , merciless vengeance : VF, SR, etc.
And the truth is as soon as they finally start to go after them they, they will fall apart at
the seams, such as with all cowards, and this is the bottom line : They, the BC/HC/BO clique,
they are nothing more than consumate cowards, who can only operate in such perfidious manners
when left unchallenged.
Authenticjazzman "Mensa" qualified since 1973, airborne trained US Army vet, and pro Jazz
artist.
A massive battle is brewing between former FBI Director James Comey, and his deputy Andy
McCabe - as first noted a few weeks
ago by the Daily Caller 's Chuck Ross - over exactly who is lying about Comey knowing that
McCabe had been leaking self-serving information to the Wall Street Journal .
Comey stopped
by ABC's The View to peddle his new book, A Higher Royalty Loyalty, where he called his
former Deputy Andrew McCabe a liar , and admitted that he "ordered the report" which found
McCabe guilty of leaking to the press and then lying under oath about it, several times.
Comey was asked by host Megan McCain how he thought the public was supposed to have
"confidence" in the FBI amid revelations that McCabe lied about the leak.
" It's not okay. The McCabe case illustrates what an organization committed to the truth
looks like ," Comey said. " I ordered that investigation. "
Comey then appeared to try and frame McCabe as a "good person" despite all the lying.
"Good people lie. I think I'm a good person, where I have lied," Comey said. " I still
believe Andrew McCabe is a good person but the inspector general found he lied, " noting that
there are "severe consequences" within the DOJ for doing so. As a reminder, the Justice
Department's internal watchdog, Inspector General Michael Horowitz, released a report last week
detailing his conclusions from the months-long probe of McCabe, which found that the former
acting FBI Director leaked a self-serving story to the press and then lied about it under oath
.
In response, McCabe's attorney, Michael R. Bromwich (flush with cash from the disgraced
Deputy Director's half-million dollar legal defense GoFundMe
campaign), fired back - claiming that Comey was well aware of the leaks .
" In his comments this week about the McCabe matter, former FBI Director James Comey has
relied on the Inspector Genera's (OIG) conclusions in their report on Mr. McCabe. In fact, the
report fails to adequately address the evidence (including sworn testimony) and documents that
prove that Mr. McCabe advised Director Comey repeatedly that he was working with the Wall
Street Journal on the stories in question..." reads the statement in part.
So to review , McCabe was fired when it was uncovered that he authorized an F.B.I.
spokesman and attorney to tell Devlin Barrett of the Wall St. Journal , just days before the 2016 election, that the
FBI had not put the brakes on a separate investigation into the Clinton Foundation - at a time
in which McCabe was coming under fire for his wife taking a $467,500 campaign contribution from
Clinton proxy pal, Terry McAuliffe.
New details show that senior law-enforcement officials repeatedly voiced skepticism of the
strength of the evidence in a bureau investigation of the Clinton Foundation, sought to
condense what was at times a sprawling cross-country effort, and, according to some people
familiar with the matter, told agents to limit their pursuit of the case . The probe of the
foundation began more than a year ago to determine whether financial crimes or influence
peddling occurred related to the charity.
...
Some investigators grew frustrated, viewing FBI leadership as uninterested in probing the
charity , these people said. Others involved disagreed sharply, defending FBI bosses and
saying Mr. McCabe in particular was caught between an increasingly acrimonious fight for
control between the Justice Department and FBI agents pursuing the Clinton Foundation case
.
So McCabe leaked information to the WSJ in order to combat rumors that Clinton had
indirectly bribed him to back off the Clinton Foundation investigation, and then lied about it
four times to the DOJ and FBI, including twice under oath.
Trump's actions have not matched his election rhetoric. Just like faux populist Obama. Obama also "caved" to pressure, and
even set himself up for failure by emphasing "bipartisanship".
That is how the political mechanism of faux populism works.
Obama: Change you can believe in
Trump: Make America Great Again
Obama: Most transparent administration ever
Trump: Drain the Swamp
Obama: Deceiver: "Man of Peace" engaging in covert ops
Trump: Distractor: twitter, personal vendettas
Weakened by claims of unpatriotic inclinations:
Obama: Birthers (led by Trump who was close to Clinton's) - "Muslim socialist"!
Trump: Russia influence (pushed by 'NeverTrump' Clinton loyalists) - Putin's bitch!
Ed Schultz: I was fired from MSNBC because I supported Bernie SandersThe
former anchor claims the network was in the tank for Hillary Clinton
MSNBC anchor-turned-Russia Today host, Ed Schultz, told National Review Monday that he believes
he was fired from the left-leaning cable news network because he openly supported Bernie
Sanders in the Democratic presidential primary. The network, he claims, was in the tank for
Hillary Clinton.
The interview itself is fascinating and a shocking look at the inner workings of MSNBC, even if
Schultz isn't exactly a reliable narrator. Schultz claims that MSNBC took a heavy hand in
dictating what went on air, and that he was often pushed in the direction of a story by
higher-ups, even if he felt his audience wouldn't be interested.
Schultz says his trouble at MSNBC started when he informed his bosses that he planned to cover
Bernie Sanders' campaign announcement live from Vermont, and that he would be airing the first,
exclusive, cable network interview with the progressive presidential candidate. They objected,
and even went so far as to tell Schultz to drop the story.
He refused. And was forced to cover a boring news story in Texas, he says.
Schultz is clear on whom he blames: Hillary Clinton.
" I think the Clintons were connected to [NBC's] Andy Lack, connected at the hip, "
Schultz told NRO host Jamie Weinstein. " I think that they didn't want anybody in their
primetime or anywhere in their lineup supporting Bernie Sanders. I think that they were in the
tank for Hillary Clinton, and I think that it was managed, and 45 days later I was out at
MSNBC. "
Schultz's stint at MSNBC came to a screeching halt in July 2015, just as the Democratic
primaries were heating up. That same week, the network also axed other underperforming shows,
but Schultz maintains that he was given the boot because they didn't want him speaking out
against Clinton in the heat of the primaries.
Now the color revolution against Trump just does not make any sense. We got to the point
where Trump=Hillary. Muller should embrace and kiss Trump and go home... Nobody care if Trump is impeached anymore.
Donald Trump's far-right loyal fans must be really pissed off right now after permanently
switching himself to pro-war mode with that evil,
warmongering triplet in charge and the second bombing against Syria. Even worse,
this time he has done it together with Theresa May and the neoliberal globalist Emmanuel
Macron.
We can tell that by watching the mind-blowing reactions of one of his most fanatic alt-right
media supporters: Alex Jones. Jones nearly cried(!) in front of the camera, feeling betrayed
from his 'anti-establishment', 'anti-interventionist' idol and declared that he won't support
Trump anymore. Well, what did you expect, Alex? expect, Alex?
A
year before the 2016 US national elections, the blog already warned that Trump is a pure
product of the neoliberal barbarism , stating that the rhetoric of extreme cynicism
used by Trump goes back to the Thatcherian cynicism and the division of people between
"capable" and "useless".
Right after the elections, we supported that the US
establishment gave a brilliant performance by putting its reserve, Donald Trump, in
power, against the only candidate that the same establishment identified as a real threat:
Bernie Sanders. Right after the elections, we supported that the US
establishment gave a brilliant performance by putting its reserve, Donald Trump, in
power, against the only candidate that the same establishment identified as a real threat:
Bernie Sanders.
The only hope that has been left, was to resist against starting a war with Russia, as the US
deep state (and Hillary of course) wanted. Well, it was proven to be only a hope too. Last
year, Trump bombed Syria under the same pretext resembling the lies that led us to the Iraq war
disaster. Despite the fact that the US Tomahawk missile attack had zero value in operational
level (the United States allegedly warned Russia and Syria, while the targeted airport was
operating normally just hours after the attack), Trump sent a clear message to the US deep
state that he is prepared to meet all its demands - and especially the escalation of
confrontation with Russia. Indeed, a year later, Trump already built a pro-war team that
includes the most bloodthirsty, hawkish triplet.
And then, Donnie ordered a second airstrike against Syria, together with his neo-colonial
friends.
It seems that neither this strike was a serious attempt against the Syrian army and its allies.
Yet, Donnie probably won't dare to escalate tension in the Syrian battlefield before the next
US national elections. That's because many of his supporters are already pissed off with him
and therefore, he wants to go with good chances for a second term.
Although we really hope that we are are wrong this time, we guess that, surrounded by all these
warmongering hawks, Donnie, in a potential second term, will be pushed to open another war
front in Syria and probably in Iran, defying the Russians and the consequent danger for a
WWIII.
Poor Alex et al: we told you about Trump from the beginning. You didn't listen ...
Trump became a despicable warmonger. That true. And undisputable after the recent attack on
Syria ("operation Stormy Daniels"). But was it War Party that coerced him or were other processes
involved?
The main weakness of Buchanan hypothecs is that it is unclear wether Trump was coerced by War
Party, or he was "Republican Obama" from the very beginning performing classic "bait and switch"
operation on gullible electorate (as in "change we can believe in") . The second hypothesis is
now strong then the fist and supported by more fact. just look at the "troika" of
Haley-Bolton-Pompeo -- all three were voluntarily selected by the President and all three are
rabid neocons. So it looks liek no or little coercion from the War Party was necessary.
Notable quotes:
"... Wall Street Journal ..."
"... Defense Secretary James Mattis called the U.S.-British-French attack a "one-shot" deal. British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson appears to agree: "The rest of the Syrian war must proceed as it will." ..."
"... Clearly, with the U.S. fighting in six countries, Commander in Chief Trump does not want any new wars, or to widen any existing wars in the Middle East. But he is being pushed into becoming a war president to advance the agenda of foreign policy elites who, almost to a man, opposed his election. ..."
"... We have a reluctant president being pushed into a war he does not want to fight. This is a formula for a strategic disaster not unlike Vietnam or George W. Bush's war to strip Iraq of nonexistent WMDs. ..."
"... The assumption of the War Party seems to be that if we launch larger and more lethal strikes in Syria, inflicting casualties on Russians, Iranians, Hezbollah, and the Syrian army, they will yield to our demands. ..."
"... As for Trump's statement Friday, "No amount of American blood and treasure can produce lasting peace in the Middle East," the Washington Post ..."
April
16, 2018, 9:55 PM "Ten days ago, President Trump was saying 'the United States should
withdraw from Syria.' We convinced him it was necessary to stay."
Thus boasted French President Emmanuel Macron on Saturday, adding, "We convinced him it was
necessary to stay for the long term."
Is the U.S. indeed in the Syrian Civil War "for the long term"?
If so, who made that fateful decision for this republic?
U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley confirmed Sunday there would be no drawdown of the 2,000 U.S.
troops in Syria, until three objectives were reached. We must fully defeat ISIS, ensure
chemical weapons will not again be used by Bashar al-Assad and maintain the ability to watch
Iran.
Translation: whatever Trump says, America is not coming out of Syria. We are going deeper
in. Trump's commitment to extricate us from these bankrupting and blood-soaked Middle East wars
and to seek a new rapprochement with Russia is "inoperative."
The War Party that Trump routed in the primaries is capturing and crafting his foreign
policy. Monday's Wall Street Journal editorial page fairly blossomed with war
plans:
The better U.S. strategy is to turn Syria into the Ayatollah's Vietnam. Only when Russia
and Iran began to pay a larger price in Syria will they have any incentive to negotiate an
end to the war or even contemplate a peace based on dividing the country into ethnic-based
enclaves.
Apparently, we are to bleed Syria, Russia, Hezbollah, and Iran until they cannot stand the
pain and submit to subdividing Syria the way we want.
But suppose that, as in our Civil War of 1861-1865, the Spanish Civil War of 1936-1939, and
the Chinese Civil War of 1945-1949, Assad and his Russian, Iranian, and Shiite militia allies
go all out to win and reunite the nation.
Suppose they choose to fight to consolidate the victory they have won after seven years of
war. Where do we find the troops to take back the territory our rebels lost? Or do we just bomb
mercilessly?
The British and French say they will back us in future attacks if chemical weapons are used,
but they are not plunging into Syria.
Defense Secretary James Mattis called the U.S.-British-French attack a "one-shot" deal.
British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson appears to agree: "The rest of the Syrian war must
proceed as it will."
The Journal 's op-ed page Monday was turned over to former U.S. ambassador to Syria
Ryan Crocker and Brookings Institute senior fellow Michael O'Hanlon: "Next time the U.S. could
up the ante, going after military command and control, political leadership, and perhaps even
Assad himself. The U.S. could also pledge to take out much of his air force. Targets within
Iran should not be off limits."
And when did Congress authorize U.S. acts of war against Syria, its air force, or political
leadership? When did Congress authorize the killing of the president of Syria whose country has
not attacked us?
Can the U.S. also attack Iran and kill the ayatollah without consulting Congress?
Clearly, with the U.S. fighting in six countries, Commander in Chief Trump does not want
any new wars, or to widen any existing wars in the Middle East. But he is being pushed into
becoming a war president to advance the agenda of foreign policy elites who, almost to a man,
opposed his election.
We have a reluctant president being pushed into a war he does not want to fight. This is
a formula for a strategic disaster not unlike Vietnam or George W. Bush's war to strip Iraq of
nonexistent WMDs.
The assumption of the War Party seems to be that if we launch larger and more lethal
strikes in Syria, inflicting casualties on Russians, Iranians, Hezbollah, and the Syrian army,
they will yield to our demands.
But where is the evidence for this?
What reason is there to believe these forces will surrender what they have paid in blood to
win? And if they choose to fight and widen the war to the larger Middle East, are we prepared
for that?
As for Trump's statement Friday, "No amount of American blood and treasure can produce
lasting peace in the Middle East," the Washington Post on Sunday dismissed this as
"fatalistic" and "misguided." We have a vital interest, says the Post , in preventing
Iran from establishing a "land corridor" across Syria.
Yet consider how Iran acquired this "land corridor." The Shiites in 1979 overthrew a shah
our CIA installed in 1953. The Shiites control Iraq because President Bush invaded and
overthrew Saddam and his Sunni Baath Party, disbanded his Sunni-led army, and let the Shiite
majority take control of the country. The Shiites are dominant in Lebanon because they rose up
and ran out the Israelis, who invaded in 1982 to run out the PLO.
How many American dead will it take to reverse this history?
How long will we have to stay in the Middle East to assure the permanent hegemony of Sunni
over Shiite?
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles
That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever. To find out more about Patrick
Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators
website at www.creators.com.
"... Prior to becoming the DNC's most wanted, Comey and his team notoriously let Hillary Clinton off the hook for her private server and mishandling of classified information - having begun drafting Clinton's exoneration before even interviewing her, something which appears to have been "forgotten" in his book. ..."
"... You left out the fact that he was instrumental in the formation of the Clinton Foundation. ..."
Current and former FBI agents are furious after former Director James Comey gave his first interview
since President Trump fired him last year to ABC's George Stephanopoulos on Sunday night, reports the
Daily Beast
- which was privy to a play-by-play flurry of text messages and other
communications detailing their reactions.
Seven current or former FBI agents and officials spoke throughout and immediately after the
broadcast.
There was a lot of anger, frustration, and even more emojis -- featuring the
thumbs-down, frowny face, middle finger, and a whole lot of green vomit faces
.
One former FBI official sent a bourbon emoji as it began; another sent the beers cheers-ing
emoji.
The responses became increasingly angry and despondent as the hourlong interview
played out.
-
Daily
Beast
"
Hoover is spinning in his grave
," said a former FBI official. "
Making
money from total failure
," in reference to Comey plugging his book,
A Higher Loyalty
.
Jana Winter of
The Beast
adds that when a promo aired between segments advertising Comey's
upcoming appearance with
The View
, the official "grew angrier." "
Good lord, what a self-serving self-centered jackass
," the official said. "
True
to form he thinks he's the smartest guy around
."
... ... ...
Comey was fired by President Trump on May 9, 2017, after which he
leaked memos he claims
document conversations with Trump
to the
New York Times,
kicking off the special
counsel investigation headed by Robert Mueller - whose team started out looking at Russian influence
in the 2016 election, and is now investigating the President's alleged decade-old extramarital affairs
with at least two women. Truly looking out for national security there Bob...
... ... ...
Prior to becoming the DNC's most wanted, Comey and his team notoriously let Hillary Clinton off the
hook for her private server and mishandling of classified information - having begun
drafting Clinton's exoneration
before even interviewing her, something which appears to have been
"forgotten" in his book.
I would rather have RP if he had the
charisma/gusto and also tactical genius of
DT. However, I worry that Ron, as a guy that
delivered babies and educated people on
nonagression, as opposed to running a
something-billion dollar cutthroat RE empire,
might be more at risk of A) being unable to
overcome political roadblocks and
destabilization, and B) something bad
happening to him.
Comey was always the most enigmatic figure to me in this
sad, troubling series of events involving the FBI.
THE
GOOD NEWS: Everyone hates him now. The Rs hate him, the Ds
hate him. Who's Christmas party did he get invited to last
year? I'm guessing the invitations were few. His own ego
has turned him into plutonium. And he deserves even worse
than that.
Every agency has a Jim Comey in it... you know the guy.
Their CV just has an implied "team skills and natural
ability to get a deep brown nose" at the very top of it.
Comey was the FBI Director when warrants
were issued to spy on Trump and his associates. Warrants
gained in part or in whole by, false evidence (the Steele
dossier) presented to a FISA court judge(s), gathered by,
a foreign national former spy (Steele) who was in contact
with his old Kremlin pals, who (Steele) was then paid by
the DNC, Fusion GPS via Perkins Coie to give Hillary
Rodham Clinton (affectionately known here as The Bitch of
Benghazi) some distance from the fake "evidence".
Now besides Comey knowing the source of "the dossier"
one of his deputies (McCabe) was at the same time
"colluding" with a couple FBI agents (Strzok & Page) in a
"counter-intel operation" (on the taxpayers dime) to
gather dirt on candidate Trump. McCabe's wife (we might
recall) got a sizable "donation" from Terry McAuliffe
(another Klinton sleezebag) for her political run in
Virginia.
And we haven't even touched on Comey's theft of
government documents or his turning over those documents
to his friend so the friend could turn them over to the
Alinsky NYT's for the purposes of...getting his mentor
Grand Inquisitor Mueller a gig as "special prosecutor"
(as he admitted to under oath).
Mueller's investigation is tainted with fruit of the
poisonous tree and the entirety of seized evidence
will be unceremoniously thrown out by a 5-4 US Supreme
Court.
There is only one thing keeping Comey out of Prison:
Jeff Sessions.
If we someday get a real AG, who is willing to man
up and appoint a second special prosecutor, Comey is
finished. But for the moment, Mr. Magoo is saving his ass.
Don't hold your breath. The clock on the statute of
limitations is ticking away. I wish someone could
provide me with an honest rational as to why Trump
hasn't fired Jeff Sessions.
Problem is that a sizable portion of the US population
view Comey's actions in the 'if you could go back in
time and kill baby Hitler...' perspective. Yes it's
illegal, yes it's unconstitutional...but was trying to
save the 'World' so it's justified.
I think you
framed it similar...this is the same as injecting
bleach into our veins in the hope in clears up a
pimple on our nose.
"... "This is clientism," the senior military officer with whom I spoke explains. "All of these guys have served together and trust each other. And, you know, this is the way it works. The U.S. Central Command has the Middle East as a client and the European Command has the Europeans and Turkey as clients. But if you take a look at Mattis and the people around him, well, you know, it's all Centcom. ..."
"... Erdogan emphasized three growing concerns he has that America's temporary and "transactional" support for the YPG is becoming permanent. This same official went on to note that, in his opinion, it's not a coincidence that Trump floated the idea of withdrawing U.S. troops from Syria ("I want to get out," he said. "I want to bring our troops home") -- a suggestion that did not go over well with Centcom partisans at the Pentagon. ..."
In fact, just how "ugly" the relationship has become is fast becoming a matter of public
debate. During his March visit, Scaparrotti appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee
to give testimony on the challenges facing his command. While most members focused on Russia
and cyberwar issues, Virginia Senator Tim Kaine explored the U.S.-Turkey dust-up, hinting that
it might be time for the U.S. to dampen its YPG ties. Scaparrotti didn't disagree, while
soft-pedaling the disagreements over the issue that he's had with Votel and Centcom. "Where do
we want to be in a year, two years and five years?" he asked. "With a close NATO ally like
Turkey, we know that we want to maintain and strengthen our relationship. So that's the
long-term objective and if we look at the long-term objective, it can begin to inform what
we're doing today with respect to NATO." The senior military officer with whom I spoke proved a
willing translator: "What Scaparrotti is saying is that the real marriage here is between the
U.S. and Turkey. The YPG is just a fling."
But convincing James Mattis of that is proving difficult, in part because Scaparrotti is
outgunned. Every defense secretary surrounds himself with people he can count on and who he
listens to. But for Mattis almost all of them have had experience in the Middle East -- and at
Centcom. There's Mattis himself (a former Centcom commander), JCS Chairman Joseph Dunford (who
served with Mattis in Iraq), Joint Staff Director Lieutenant General Kenneth McKenzie, Jr. (a
Marine who served in both Afghanistan and Iraq), retired Rear Admiral Kevin M. Sweeney (the
former Centcom executive officer), Rear Admiral Craig S. Faller (a Mattis advisor, and a Navy
commander during both the Afghan and Iraq wars), and current Centcom commander General Joseph
Votel -- the former commander of the U.S. Special Operation Command ("a trigger puller," as he
was described to me by a currently serving officer). Votel is the most outspoken YPG supporter
of any of them, and because he's the combatant commander, his support carries weight.
"This is clientism," the senior military officer with whom I spoke explains. "All of
these guys have served together and trust each other. And, you know, this is the way it works.
The U.S. Central Command has the Middle East as a client and the European Command has the
Europeans and Turkey as clients. But if you take a look at Mattis and the people around him,
well, you know, it's all Centcom. So Scaparrotti is worried, and he ought to be. We don't
want to be sitting around 30 years from now reading historical pieces with titles like 'Who
Lost Turkey?'"
Even someone as careful in his public utterances as Admiral James Stavridis, who once held
Scaparrotti's command and is now the dean of the Fletcher School at Tufts University, is
raising concerns. While he waves off the "who lost Turkey" formulation as "a trope that is
moving around the Internet," he told me in an email exchange that "it would be a mistake of
epic proportions to allow Turkey to drift out of the transatlantic orbit" -- a repeat of the
warning issued by Scaparrotti to Mattis in March. But like Scaparrotti, Staviridis is
slow-rolling his disagreement. "This is a distinction without a difference," the senior officer
and NATO partisan with whom we spoke says. "By drifting out of NATO, Stavridis means leaving.
He's as worried as anyone else."
Concerns over Turkey are probably a surprise in the White House, given its almost daily
crisis over the looming Russia-gate investigation, but they shouldn't be. The president has had
extended telephone exchanges with Turkish President Tayyip Erodogan twice in the last three
weeks. While the White House has refused to give details of these conversations, the Turkish
official with whom we spoke told TAC that in both conversations (on March 23 and again
on April 11), Erdogan emphasized three growing concerns he has that America's temporary and
"transactional" support for the YPG is becoming permanent. This same official went on to note
that, in his opinion, it's not a coincidence that Trump floated the idea of withdrawing U.S.
troops from Syria ("I want to get out," he said. "I want to bring our troops home") -- a
suggestion that did not go over well with Centcom partisans at the Pentagon.
On April 3, the same day Trump issued his let's-get-out statement, Joseph Votel and Brett
McGurk appeared at the U.S. Institute of Peace, arguing that the U.S. needed to stay in. "The
hard part, I think, is in front of us," Votel said, "and that is stabilizing these areas,
consolidating our gains, getting back to their homes. There is a military role in this," he
went on to say. "Certainly in the stabilization phase."
The Votel appearance was exasperating for those worried about NATO's future, and for those
concerned that the endless conflicts in the region are draining the defense budget of badly
needed funds to rebuild U.S. military readiness. For them, a group that now includes a growing
number of very senior and influential military officers, "stabilization" is not only a codeword
for "nation building," it signals support for a mission that is endangering the future of NATO,
the institution that has guaranteed peace in Europe for three generations.
"It's not worth it," the senior military commander who spoke with TAC concludes. "On
top of everything else, it puts us on the wrong side of the political equation. This whole
thing about how the enemy of my enemy is my friend is a bunch of bullshit. The enemy of my
enemy is now making an enemy of our friend. I don't know who we think we're fooling, but it
sure as hell isn't Turkey. And it isn't the American people either."
Mark Perry is a foreign policy analyst, a contributing editor to The American
Conservative, and the author of The
Pentagon's Wars (2017).
"The Democratic Party is better than the Republican Party in the way that manslaughter is
slightly better than murder: It might seem like a lesser crime, but the victim can't really
tell the difference." -- Michael Harriot
In reality Trump proved again that POTUS does not matter and presidential elections matter very little. In was he is like
drunk Obama, reckelss and jingoistic to the extreme. Both foreign and domestic policy is determined by forces, and are outside POTUS control, with very little input
possible. But the "deep state"
fully control the POTUS, no matter who he/she are.
Notable quotes:
"... To Trump apologists: Trump is the Republican Obama. The follow the same model of government: faux populist leader dogged by crazy critics that want to derail a righteous agenda. ..."
"... Obamabots gave similar excuses. Real populists simply don't get have a chance of being elected in US money-driven elections. ..."
"... Why was there only two populists running for President in 2016? Sanders, Hillay's sheepdog, destroyed the movement that would been the best check on the establishment and the rush to war. That movement was never going to be allowed to take root. Trump, a friend of the Clinton's was probably meant to prevail. ..."
To Trump apologists: Trump is the Republican Obama. The follow the same model of government: faux populist leader
dogged by crazy critics that want to derail a righteous agenda.
Obamabots gave similar excuses. Real populists simply don't get have a chance of being
elected in US money-driven elections.
Why was there only two populists running for President in 2016? Sanders, Hillay's sheepdog, destroyed the movement that would been the best check on the
establishment and the rush to war. That movement was never going to be allowed to take root.
Trump, a friend of the Clinton's was probably meant to prevail.
Rome had bread and circuses. We've got crumbs and tweets.
From what I can make of Trump, he wants to return the US to its general prosperity that it
has enjoyed in the past, a country with world leading infrastructure, were average workers
are better of than workers of other countries. He is not interested in wars that are
detrimental or costly to the US. If a war is profitable for the US, he may be interested.
Like Erdogan in Turkey, Trump is heading for the multi-polar world. Personally I don't
like the US culture of full blown capitalism and privatization that is US culture and gave
rise to the neo-cons, but that is not the point. Trump wants the capitalism of the likes of
Henry Ford whose innovation? of production line produced good quality cheap products but paid
workers two to three times the going rate.
The neo-cons, with their never ending wars for total dominance are destroying the world
and the US. It is starting to look like they will also destroy Trump.
Considering Trump kick out Tillerson and so forth and added many neocons one can't deny the reality of what is going on. Trump knows perfectly well what he is doing and did in
Syria. He isn't pushed by anyone.
The photographs of Trump with his arms folded and the general look. Defensive or beaten type
look.
In Trump's book, Art of the Deal, what he respects most is people that deliver what they
promise. He uses hyperbole to sell a product, but above all he must deliver what the people
want.
He campaigned on pulling US out of foreign entanglements and useless expensive wars.
The choreographed attack on Shayrat airbase preempted the neocons and took the wind out of
their sails. This latest strike, rather than being pre-emptive, was forced on him. He has not
been able to deliver the product he promised and what people bought when they elected
him.
The reaction of the likes of Alan Jones and other Trump supporters on Twitter and elsewhere
is evidence of that failure.
With the country's attention focused on James Comey's book publicity gala interview
with ABC at 10pm ET, the former FBI Director has thrown former President Obama and his Attorney
General Loretta Lynch under the bus, claiming they "jeopardized" the Hillary Clinton email
investigation.
Comey called out Obama and Lynch in his new book, A Higher Loyalty , set to come out on
Tuesday. In it, he defends the FBI's top brass and counterintelligence investigators charged
with probing Clinton's use of a private email server and mishandling of classified information,
reports the
Washington Examiner , which received an advanced copy.
" I never heard anyone on our team -- not one -- take a position that seemed driven by their
personal political motivations . And more than that: I never heard an argument or observation I
thought came from a political bias. Never ... Instead we debated, argued, listened, reflected,
agonized, played devil's advocate, and even found opportunities to laugh as we hashed out major
decisions .
Comey says that multiple public statements made by Obama about the investigation
"jeopardized" the credibility of the FBI investigation - seemingly absolving Clinton of any
crime before FBI investigators were able to complete their work .
" Contributing to this problem, regrettably, was President Obama . He had jeopardized the
Department of Justice's credibility in the investigation by saying in a 60 Minutes interview
on Oct. 11, 2015, that Clinton's email use was "a mistake" that had not endangered national
security," Comey writes. "Then on Fox News on April 10, 2016, he said that Clinton may have
been careless but did not do anything to intentionally harm national security, suggesting
that the case involved overclassification of material in the government."
" President Obama is a very smart man who understands the law very well . To this day, I
don't know why he spoke about the case publicly and seemed to absolve her before a final
determination was made. If the president had already decided the matter, an outside observer
could reasonably wonder, how on earth could his Department of Justice do anything other than
follow his lead." -
Washington Examiner
Of course, Comey had already begun
drafting Clinton's exoneration before even interviewing her, something which appears to
have been "forgotten" in his book.
" The truth was that the president -- as far as I knew, anyway -- he had only as much
information as anyone following it in the media . He had not been briefed on our work at all.
And if he was following the media, he knew nothing, because there had been no leaks at all up
until that point. But, his comments still set all of us up for corrosive attacks if the case
were completed with no charges brought."
"Matter" not "Investigation"
Comey also describes a September 2015 meeting with AG Lynch in which she asked him to
describe the Clinton email investigation as a "matter" instead of an investigation.
"It occurred to me in the moment that this issue of semantics was strikingly similar to the
fight the Clinton campaign had waged against The New York Times in July. Ever since then, the
Clinton team had been employing a variety of euphemisms to avoid using the word
'investigation,'" Comey writes.
" The attorney general seemed to be directing me to align with the Clinton campaign strategy
. Her "just do it" response to my question indicated that she had no legal or procedural
justification for her request, at least not one grounded in our practices or traditions.
Otherwise, I assume, she would have said so.
Comey said others present in the meeting with Lynch thought her request was odd and
political as well - including one of the DOJ's senior leaders.
" I know the FBI attendees at our meeting saw her request as overtly political when we
talked about it afterward . So did at least one of Lynch's senior leaders. George Toscas, then
the number-three person in the department's National Security Division and someone I liked,
smiled at the FBI team as we filed out, saying sarcastically, ' Well you are the Federal Bureau
of Matters ,'" Comey recalled.
That said, Comey "didn't see any instance when Attorney General Lynch interfered with the
conduct of the investigation," writing "Though I had been concerned about her direction to me
at that point, I saw no indication afterward that she had any contact with the investigators or
prosecutors on the case."
In response, Loretta Lynch promptly issued a statement in which she said that if James Comey
" had any concerns regarding the email investigation, classified or not, he had ample
opportunities to raise them with me both privately and in meetings. He never did."
"Monica styles"... Trump is fighting fore survival with Tomahawks trying to solve his problem
with junfoism.
Notable quotes:
"... "[I]f this president can decide unilaterally to bomb Syria, I worry that he can make the same decision about North Korea or Iran or other nations. And these decisions are not supposed to be made without consultation and voting by Congress." Unfortunately, Congressional leaders have shown no signs of wanting to hold a debate or have a vote before the attack takes place. ..."
"... The Trump administration has not offered a public legal justification for last year's strikes, and it seems unlikely to offer one this time. That is probably because there is no plausible interpretation of the law that permits the president to initiate hostilities against foreign governments on his own when the U.S. has not been attacked. ..."
"... Daniel Larison is a senior editor at ..."
"... where he also keeps a solo blog . He has been published in the ..."
"... Front Porch Republic, and ..."
"... . He holds a PhD in history from the University of Chicago. Follow him on Twitter . ..."
One year since the U.S. illegally launched 59 cruise missiles at Syrian government forces in
response to an alleged chemical weapons attack, the Trump administration is preparing to take
similar military action despite an increased risk of escalation that could lead to the start of
a wider war.
The U.S., France, and Britain have been
preparing to strike the Syrian government over the last several days, and Syria's Russian
patron has threatened the "gravest consequences" in response to an attack. Russia didn't
respond to last year's one-off airstrikes, but Moscow isn't likely to tolerate a larger U.S.
attack carried out with other governments. Syria's government and its allies seem more willing
to
fight back than they were a year ago, and that should give the Trump administration and our
European allies pause. There is a greater risk of great power conflict erupting in Syria than
there has been at any time since the end of the Cold War, and if Russian military personnel are
killed by U.S. or allied strikes there is no telling how quickly things could deteriorate there
and in other parts of the world.
President Trump's public statements have strongly suggested that an attack will be happening
soon, going so far as to
taunt Russia on Twitter that they should "get ready" for the "new" and "smart" missiles
that the U.S. would be using. Some members of Congress have insisted that the president lacks
the legal authority to launch an attack on Syria without their authorization. As Sen. Tim Kaine
(D-Virginia)
put it , "[I]f this president can decide unilaterally to bomb Syria, I worry that he
can make the same decision about North Korea or Iran or other nations. And these decisions are
not supposed to be made without consultation and voting by Congress." Unfortunately,
Congressional leaders have shown no signs of wanting to hold a debate or have a vote before the
attack takes place.
The Trump administration has not offered a public legal justification for last year's
strikes, and it seems unlikely to offer one this time. That is probably because there is no
plausible interpretation of the law that permits the president to initiate hostilities against
foreign governments on his own when the U.S. has not been attacked. There is no provision
in international law that allows a U.S. attack on another government without explicit Security
Council authorization, and we know that this authorization that will never be forthcoming in
this case because of Russia's veto. While the attack is being sold as the enforcement of a norm
against chemical weapons use, it isn't possible to uphold an international norm while violating
the most fundamental rule of international law.
To date, the U.S. and its allies have presented no definitive evidence to support their
claims against the Syrian government. It is entirely plausible that the Syrian government is
guilty of using chlorine or sarin against its enemies and the civilian population, but there
has been no real effort on the part of the U.S. and its allies to prove their accusation before
deciding to act as executioners. Regardless, the U.S. and its allies have no authority to
punish the Syrian government, and in doing so they may do significant harm to international
peace and security.
A U.S.-led attack on the Syrian government could lead to war with Russia or Iran or both at
once, and there is also a danger that it could help set off a war between Israel and Iran.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
said earlier this week that Israel would not "allow" an Iranian military presence to be
established in Syria. The prime minister's threat came on the heels of Israeli strikes inside
Syria that reportedly killed seven Iranians serving alongside the Syrian regime's forces. Iran
has threatened retaliation for the attack, and it has the ability through Hizbullah to make
good on that threat if Israel carries out additional strikes. Israel might use a U.S.-led
attack on Iran's allies in Syria as an excuse to strike more Iranian targets, and Iran might
then respond in kind with missile attacks on Israel. Lebanese, Syrian, and Israeli civilians
would all suffer if that happened, and it would make an already chaotic international situation
even worse.
It is a measure of how divorced from U.S. and allied security our Syria policy has become
that our government is seriously preparing to launch another illegal attack on a government
that hasn't attacked us and doesn't threaten us or our allies. Attacking the Syrian government
won't make the U.S. or any other country more secure, and it will likely weaken the government
just enough to prolong Syria's civil war and add to the suffering of the civilian population.
It is a perfect example of a military intervention that is being done for its own sake with no
connection to any discernible interests or strategy. No one stands to gain from such an attack
except for the ideologues that have incessantly demanded deeper U.S. involvement in Syria for
the last six years.
Daniel Larison is a senior editor at TAC, where he also keeps a solo blog . He has been published
in the New York Times Book Review, Dallas Morning News, Front Porch Republic, and
The Week . He holds a PhD in history from the University of Chicago. Follow him on
Twitter .
Yet here is the even more unexplainable part of this sorry episode that amounts to the Deep
State waging the Donald. The remaining rebels capitulated on Sunday and the government re-upped
the evacuation deal. That is, the remnants of Jaish al-Islam are now all dead or have boarded
busses--along with their families---and are already in Idlib province.
That's right. There is no opposition left in Douma and it has been liberated by the Syrian
army, including release of the 3,200 pro-government hostages who had been paraded around the
town in cages by the Saudi Arabia funded warriors of Islam who had terrorized it.
According to the Syrian government, no traces of chemicals or even bodies have been found.
They could be lying, of course, but with the OPCW investigators on the way to Douma who in
their right mind would not wait for an assessment of what actually happened last Saturday?
That is, if you are not caught up in the anti-Russian hysteria that has engulfed official
Washington and the mainstream media. Indeed, the Syrian government has now even welcomed the
international community to come to Douma, where the Russians claim there is absolutely nothing
to see:
Speaking with EuroNews, Russia's ambassador to the EU, Vladimir Chizov, said "Russian
military specialists have visited this region, walked on those streets, entered those houses,
talked to local doctors and visited the only functioning hospital in Douma, including its
basement where reportedly the mountains of corpses pile up. There was not a single corpse and
even not a single person who came in for treatment after the attack."
"But we've seen them on the video!" responds EuroNews correspondent Andrei Beketov.
"There was no chemical attack in Douma, pure and simple," responds Chizov. "We've seen
another staged event. There are personnel, specifically trained - and you can guess by whom -
amongst the so-called White Helmets, who were already caught in the act with staged
videos."
In short, if they are lying, it would not be hard to ascertain. Presumably, the Donald could
even send Jared Kushner--flack jacket and all---to investigate what actually happened at
Douma.
Alas, the Donald has apparently opted for war instead in a desperate maneuver to keep the
Deep State at bay.
Either way, we think he's about done, and in Part 2 we will explore why what's about to
happen next should be known to the history books, if there are any, as "Mueller's War".
"... Cohen acknowledged that he paid porn star "Stormy Daniels" $130,000 two weeks before the 2016 election in exchange for her staying silent about her 2006 affair with Trump. No one pays for silence unless there is something to hide. The payment was made 10 years after the alleged dalliance. ..."
"... The obvious purpose was to influence the outcome of the election by concealing damaging information about Mr. Trump's character. That made Mr. Cohen's payment an undisclosed campaign "contribution" to Mr. Trump vastly exceeding the individual statutory limit of $2,700. ..."
"... Maybe you should have picked an example where the defendant wasn't acquitted. It's easy to see how an expansive definition of the term "campaign contribution" could be dangerous. ..."
So what of these charges against Cohen and could they really hurt the president?
Federal election laws define a campaign contribution as "anything of value given to
influence a Federal election." It is common knowledge that Mr. Cohen acknowledged that he paid
porn star "Stormy Daniels" $130,000 two weeks before the 2016 election in exchange for her
staying silent about her 2006 affair with Trump. No one pays for silence unless there is
something to hide. The payment was made 10 years after the alleged dalliance.
The obvious
purpose was to influence the outcome of the election by concealing damaging information about
Mr. Trump's character. That made Mr. Cohen's payment an undisclosed campaign "contribution" to
Mr. Trump
vastly exceeding the individual statutory limit of $2,700.
Similarly, Democrat John Edwards was prosecuted (later acquitted) for soliciting and
spending nearly $1 million in his 2008 presidential campaign to conceal his affair with Rielle
Hunter, so this is not a crime normally brushed under the rug. The public record also
establishes probable cause to believe Cohen was behind the payment of $150,000 to Playboy Bunny
Karen McDougall to kill her story about a protracted extramarital relationship with Mr. Trump
that could have torpedoed his presidential ambitions. The question remains, of course, how much
this will implicate and hurt Trump, who has denied the affair with Daniels and any other
"wrongdoing." Cohen said he paid Daniels out of his own pocket and was not reimbursed by Trump
or the campaign.
John Edwards was acquited on one charge and a mistrial on five others w/o retrial. So there
was no conviction there, these actions are not business as usual, and the DOJ lesson from
that case should have been to cease such abusive prosecutorial misconduct, not to repeat it.
These examples show why campaign finance restrictions are an unconstitutional burden on
freedom of association. Trump is a rich man, so could afford to pay the hush money if he
believed it necessary without it being a crime. As it appears, Cohen believed it important to
pay w/o asking Trump, thinking he's helping a friend. Now what of Edwards? Maybe Edwards
couldn't afford to pay hush money, so he needed and solicited help from friends. By making it
a crime for friends to help him, the law favors rich candidates like Trump that can afford to
do things others can't without breaking the law.
There is zero chance of a jury conviction here, so DOJ shouldn't have pursued it given the
incendiary effect of conducting raids on someone's attorney. Furthermore, there's zero chance
of Muller getting jury convictions on the pile of horse manure prosecutions he's pursuing.
The only convictions Muller is getting is from people buckling under the fiduciary extortion
inherent in his tactics and copping a plea even though a jury would never convict them.
Similarly, Democrat John Edwards was prosecuted for soliciting and spending nearly $1
million in his 2008 presidential campaign to conceal his affair with Rielle Hunter, so this
is not a crime normally brushed under the rug.
Maybe you should have picked an example where the defendant wasn't acquitted. It's
easy to see how an expansive definition of the term "campaign contribution" could be
dangerous.
"... Bill Clinton attacked Yugoslavia, blithely violating Internal Law. George Bush Jr. did the same by attacking Iraq, and Barack Obama by attacking Libya and Syria. As for Donald Trump, he has never hidden his distrust of supra-national rules. ..."
"... " Globalisation ", in other words the " globalisation of Anglo-Saxon values ", has created a class society between states. ..."
"... " Communication ", a new name for " propaganda ", has become the imperative in international relations. From the US Secretary of State brandishing a phial of pseudo-anthrax to the British Minister for Foreign Affairs lying about the origin of Novitchok in the Salisbury affair, lies have become the substitute for respect, and cause general mistrust. ..."
"... Russia is wondering today about the possible desire of the Western powers to block the United Nations. If this is so, it would create an alternative institution, but there would no longer be a forum which would enable the two blocks to discuss matters. ..."
o the Western powers hope to put an end to the constraints of International Law? That is the
question asked by the Russian Minister for Foreign Affairs, Sergueï Lavrov, at the Moscow
conference on International Security [ 1 ].
Over the last few years, Washington has been promoting the concept of " unilateralism ".
International Law and the United Nations are supposed to bow to the power of the United
States.
This concept of political life is born of the History of the United States - the colonists
who came to the Americas intended to live as they chose and make a fortune there. Each
community developed its own laws and refused the intervention of a central government in local
affairs. The President and the Federal Congress are charged with Defense and Foreign Affairs,
but like the citizens themselves, they refused to accept an authority above their own.
Bill Clinton attacked Yugoslavia, blithely violating Internal Law. George Bush Jr. did
the same by attacking Iraq, and Barack Obama by attacking Libya and Syria. As for Donald Trump,
he has never hidden his distrust of supra-national rules.
Making an allusion to the Cebrowski-Barnett doctrine [ 2 ], Sergueï Lavrov declared: " We
have the clear impression that the United States seek to maintain a state of controlled chaos
in this immense geopolitical area [the Near East], hoping to use it to justify the military
presence of the USA in the region, without any time limit, in order to promote their own agenda
".
The United Kingdom also seem to feel quite comfortable with breaking the Law. Last month, it
accused Moscow in the " Skripal affair ", without the slightest proof, and attempted to unite a
majority of the General Assembly of the UN to exclude Russia from the Security Council. It
would of course be easier for the Anglo-Saxons to unilaterally rewrite the Law without having
to take notice of the opinions of their opponents.
Moscow does not believe that London took this initiative. It considers that Washington is
calling the shots.
" Globalisation ", in other words the " globalisation of Anglo-Saxon values ", has
created a class society between states. But we should not confuse this new problem with
the existence of the right to a veto. Of course, the UNO, while it declares equality between
states whatever their size, distinguishes, within the Security Council, five permanent members
who have a veto. This Directorate, composed of the main victors of the Second World War, is a
necessity for them to accept the principle of supra-national Law. However, when this
Directorate fails to embody the Law, the General Assembly may take its place. At least in
theory, because the smaller states which vote against a greater state are obliged to suffer
retaliatory measures.
La " globalisation of Anglo-Saxon values " ignores honour and highlights profit, so that the
weight of the propositions by any state will be measured only by the economic development of
its country. However, over the years, three states have managed to gain an audience to the
foundations of their propositions, and not in function of their economy – they are the
Iran of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (today under house arrest in his own country), the Venezuela of
Hugo Chávez, and the Holy See.
The confusion engendered by Anglo-Saxon values has led to the financing of intergovernmental
organisations with private money. As one thing leads to another, the member states of the
International Telecommunication Union (ITU), for example, have progressively abandoned their
propositional power to the profit of private telecom operators, who are united in a "
consultative committee ".
" Communication ", a new name for " propaganda ", has become the imperative in
international relations. From the US Secretary of State brandishing a phial of pseudo-anthrax
to the British Minister for Foreign Affairs lying about the origin of Novitchok in the
Salisbury affair, lies have become the substitute for respect, and cause general
mistrust.
During the first years of its creation, the UNO attempted to forbid " war propaganda ", but
today, it is the permanent members of the Security Council who indulge in it.
The worst occurred in 2012, when Washington managed to obtain the nomination of one of its
worst war-hawks, Jeffrey Feltman, as the number 2 of the UNO [ 3 ]. From that date onward, wars have
been orchestrated in New York by the very institution that is supposed to prevent them.
Russia is wondering today about the possible desire of the Western powers to block the
United Nations. If this is so, it would create an alternative institution, but there would no
longer be a forum which would enable the two blocks to discuss matters.
Just as a society which falls into chaos, where men are wolves for men when deprived of the
Law, so the world will become a battle-field if it abandons International Law. Thierry Meyssan
History repeats itself. An investigation motivated by some alleged abuse deploys drift nets,
finds nothing so it changes the focus to the sexual history of the target. Hush money for
consensual sex is legal as far as I know -- I do not know the law, but it became known and
studiously ignored by the special prosecutor. So he tries to discover any possible past deal
that is somehow illegal, and recorded as illegal? A bit of a fat chance.
Trump became really deranged. For a world leader to behave in such a way is unexcusable. Now
even Trump supporters think that he should be removed
But the goal of the USA in Syria is establishing Saudi-friendly Sunni theocracy remains unchanged, since Obama unleashed this
war using Libyan weapons and Islamic mercenaries/volunteers They want to compensate with Syria the fact that Iraq now went to Iran
sphere of influence instead being a countervailing force during Saddam rein.
Notable quotes:
"... This latest Trump-Tweet about "Russia to be ready for new, smart missiles raining down on Syria" is also a negotiating ploy and to save face. Stock markets, even in this volatile times, have hardly budged, and the gold price is where it has been for the past year. ..."
It is long passed the time when any thinking person took Trump-Tweets seriously. Trump,
himself doesn't take them seriously and considers them as 'negotiating tactics'. Remember the
tweets: "Fire & Fury the World has Never Seen Before", "Little Rocket Man" and "Bigger
Nuclear Button", which then ushered in the prospect of a meeting between Trump and Kim Jong
Un?
This latest Trump-Tweet about "Russia to be ready for new, smart missiles raining down
on Syria" is also a negotiating ploy and to save face. Stock markets, even in this volatile
times, have hardly budged, and the gold price is where it has been for the past
year.
There will probably be a well-restricted cruise missile attack on some Syrian-Iranian base
with Russia pre-warned. The long-promised meeting between Trump and Putin will emerge in the
news to discuss the future of Syria. Trump's desire to pull out of Syria will then come about
naturally and as the result of consultations with Putin.
President Trump, Vice President Pence, and Defense
Secretary Mattis. (DoD) On Sunday, President Trump
announced his intention to make those responsible for an alleged chemical weapons attack on
Douma, including the Syrian government and its Russian and Iranian allies, pay a "big price"
for their continued disregard for international law. The next day U.S. Ambassador to the United
Nations Nikki Haley declared
that "The United States is determined to see the monster who dropped chemical weapons on
the Syrian people held to account."
President
Trump reinforced his call for action on Monday, noting that the United States would not sit
back in the face of the alleged use of chemical weapons by Syria. "It will be met, and it will
be met forcefully," the president said, adding that those responsible for the attack will be
held accountable, whether it was Syria, Russia, Iran or "all of them together."
Trump noted that a decision to use military force would be made "over the next 24 to 48
hours."
The pronouncements of imminent military action by the United States are not made in a
vacuum. Russia, which has considerable military forces deployed inside Syria, including
advanced military aircraft and anti-aircraft missile batteries,
has rejected the allegations of chemical weapons use by Syria as a "fabrication," and
promised that any attack on Syria would result in "serious repercussions." Russian forces
inside Syria have reportedly been placed on "full alert" as American naval
vessels capable of launching cruise missiles have arrived off the Syrian coast.
The United States and Russia appear to be heading toward a direct military confrontation
that, depending on the level of force used and the number, if any, casualties incurred by
either side, carries with it the risk of a broader conflict. While Russian (and Syrian) claims
of innocence regarding the alleged chemical weapons attack cannot be accepted at face value,
the fact that the United States has not backed up its own claims with anything other than a
recitation of accusations made by rebel groups opposed to the regime of Bashar al-Assad is
problematic insofar as it shows a rush to judgement on matters of war. Given the potentially
devastating consequences of any U.S.-Russian military clash over Syria, it would be better for
all parties involved to wait for a full and thorough investigation of the alleged attack before
any final decision on the use of force in response is made.
There are two versions of what happened in Douma, a suburb of Damascus home to between
80,000 and 150,000 people. The one relied upon by the United States is provided by rebel forces
opposed to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. According to the Violations Documentation Center (VDC), a non-profit organization
comprised of various Syrian opposition groups funded by the Asfari Foundation and George Soros' Open Societies Foundation , at
approximately
12 p.m. the Syrian Air Force attacked the vicinity of the Saada Bakery using munitions
believed to contain "poisonous gas." The VDC cited eyewitness accounts from members of the
Syrian Civil Defense, or "White
Helmets," who described the smell of chlorine and the presence of numerous bodies assessed
to have succumbed from gas sourced to a Syrian "rocket." Later, at 7 p.m., a second air strike
struck an area near Martyr's Square, again using munitions assessed by eyewitnesses to contain
"poisonous gas." Doctors from the Syrian
American Medical Society (SAMS) described symptoms that indicated that a nerve agent had
been used. Images of victims in the locations allegedly attacked were released by a
rebel-affiliated social media entity known as the "Douma Revolution" and the "White
Helmets."
Douma is part of a larger district known as Eastern Ghouta which has, since 2012, been under
the control of various militant organizations opposed to the regime of Syrian President Bashar
al-Assad. In early February 2018, the Syrian Army, supported by the Russian Air Force, began
operations to recapture the Eastern Ghouta district. The joint Syrian-Russian offensive was as
brutal as it was effective -- by March, Eastern Ghouta had been split into three pockets of
resistance at a cost of more than 1,600 civilian dead. Two of the pockets capitulated under
terms which had the opposition fighters and their families evacuated to rebel-held territory in
the northern Syrian province of Idlib. Only Douma held out, where Salafist fighters from the
"Army of Islam" (Jaish al-Islam) refused to surrender. On April 5, the situation had
deteriorated inside Douma to the point that the rebel defenders had agreed to negotiations that
would lead to their evacuation of Douma; the very next day, however, these discussions had
broken down, and the Syrian military resumed its offensive. The air attacks described by the
VDC occurred on the second day of the resumption of hostilities.
There is a competing
narrative , however, provided by the Russian government and those sympathetic to its
position. After the breakdown of negotiations between the Douma rebels and the Russian
government on April 6, the story goes, the Syrian government offensive to liberate Douma
resumed. The Douma rebels, faced with imminent defeat, fabricated the allegations of a chemical
attack. Russia had warned of such a
provocation back in March 2018, claiming the rebels were working in coordination with the
United States to create the conditions for a massive American air attack against Syrian
government infrastructure.
Shortly after the Syrian government resumed its offensive against Douma (and after the
opposition forces publicized their allegations of Syrian government chemical weapons attacks),
the rebel resistance inside Douma collapsed, with the fighters agreeing to be evacuated to
Idlib. The
Russian military was able to dispatch units to the sites of the alleged chemical weapons
attacks and conduct a survey. According to the state-run Russian news, no evidence of a
chemical weapons attack was discovered. Representatives of the Syrian Red Crescent who claim to have
worked in Douma stated that they have seen no evidence of any chemical weapons use there,
either.
Beyond providing a competing narrative, however, Russia has offered to
open up Douma to inspectors from the Organization for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons , or OPCW, for
a full investigation. This offer was
echoed by the Syrian government , which extended an official invitation for the OPCW to
come to Douma. On April 10, the
OPCW announced that it would be dispatching an inspection team "shortly" to carry out this
work. The forensic technical investigatory capabilities of an OPCW inspection team are such
that it would be able to detect the presence of any chemical agent used in Douma. While the
investigation itself would take days to conduct and weeks to process, its conclusions would,
under these circumstances, be conclusive as to the presence of any prohibited substance.
One major drawback to any OPCW investigation is its inability to assess responsibility for
the presence of any banned substances detected. In prior investigations inside Syria, the OPCW
was able to operate as part of the United Nations Joint Investigative Mechanism
(JIM) , an entity specifically empowered by Security Council resolution to make such
determinations. The
mandate of the JIM was not extended , however, after Russia expressed its displeasure over
what it deemed to be the inaccurate and politicized findings regarding previous allegations of
chemical weapons use by the Syrian government. The United States has submitted a resolution to
the Security Council demanding that a new investigatory body be formed that would be able to
provide attribution for any chemical weapons attack inside Syria; whether Russia would veto
such a resolution or allow it to be passed has yet to be seen.
The bottom line, however, is that the United States is threatening to go to war in Syria
over allegations of chemical weapons usage for which no factual evidence has been provided.
This act is occurring even as the possibility remains that verifiable forensic investigations
would, at a minimum, confirm the presence of chemical weapons (thereby contradicting the
Russian claims that no such evidence was detected by its troops), and if the Security Council
passes a resolution allowing for a properly mandated investigation team, actual attribution
could be assigned.
Moreover, President Trump's rush to judgment on Syrian guilt is being done in a highly
politicized environment, coming as it does on the heels of
an FBI raid on the offices of the president's personal attorney . In times such as this, a
president is often attracted by the prospect of "looking presidential" in order to offset
personal problems (one only need to look at President Clinton's decision in August 1998 , at
the height of the Lewinsky scandal, to launch cruise missile attacks on Afghanistan and
Sudan.)
If America is to place its military in harm's way, it needs to be in support of a cause
worthy of the sacrifice being asked of those who serve. Giving the OPCW time to carry out its
investigation in Syria would allow a fact-based case to be made whether military force was
justified or not, as well as support a determination of whether or not the risks associated
with the use of force were warranted. Pulling the trigger void of such information, especially
when Trump is distracted by personal political issues, is not something the American people,
nor their representatives in Congress, should tolerate.
Scott Ritter is a former Marine Corps intelligence officer who served in the former
Soviet Union implementing arms control treaties, in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert
Storm, and in Iraq overseeing the disarmament of WMD. He is the author ofDeal of the Century: How Iran Blocked the West's Road to
War .
Looks like Rosenstein is after Trump. he authorized this action.
Notable quotes:
"... Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein, who personally approved the move to seek a search warrant for Cohen's records, which included raids Monday on his home and office, according to two people with knowledge of the investigation. ..."
Federal prosecutors investigating President Trump's personal attorney, Michael D. Cohen, are seeking records
related to two women who received payments in 2016 after alleging affairs with Trump years ago -- adult-film star
Stormy Daniels and ex-Playboy model Karen McDougal, according to a person familiar with the matter.
The interest in both Daniels and McDougal indicates that federal investigators are trying to determine whether
there was a broader pattern or strategy among Trump associates to buy the silence of women whose accounts could harm
the president's electoral chances and whether any crimes were committed in doing so, the person said.
... ... ...
The high stakes of the case were underscored by the involvement of Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein, who
personally approved the move to seek a search warrant for Cohen's records, which included raids Monday on his home
and office, according to two people with knowledge of the investigation.
Rosenstein's role has infuriated Trump, who was left "stunned" and "livid" by the aggressive move by prosecutors
Monday, according to an outside adviser in frequent touch with the White House.
Cohen, Trump's longtime attorney, is under federal investigation for possible bank fraud, wire fraud and campaign
finance violations, The Washington Post
reported
Monday.
The president also faced unsurprising pushback
from his national security team, forcing him to clarify this week that the 2,000 troops there
now will stay only until the mission to defeat ISIS, which is "coming to a rapid end," is
finished. Of course his military advisors and many of his aides disagree.
A Pentagon spokesman has warned that ISIS is looking for " any opportunity to regain momentum
." Anonymous military officers speak of fumbling the ball "
on the two yard line ." Officials tell reporters that while the group is "almost completely
defeated," a string of renewed ISIS attacks could signal a resurgence.
Regardless of the outcome in Washington, Trump's instincts on Syria deserve discussion.
Unlike Afghanistan and Iraq, the operation in Syria has cost us very little blood and
treasure, at least so far. Special operations forces (SOF) and "other government agencies" ably
partnered with our largely Kurdish proxies to break the back of ISIS's nascent state. The
group's conventional military power has been destroyed. Howev er menacing officials make it
sound, it's been estimated that the Islamic State has fewer than 1,000 fighters left on the
battlefield. Mosul, its largest city, was retaken by Iraqi security forces, while its de facto
capital Raqqa was conquered by the Kurds. Palmyra and Deir ez-Zor are back in government hands.
Areas of ISIS control are tough to
even find on a map of the Syrian conflict.
For all these successes, however, we have been walking a knife's edge in Syria ever since
openly intervening there in 2014. Deconfliction with Russia has not been flawless: Turkey shot
down a Russian plane in 2015 and U.S. firepower reportedly killed hundreds of Russian
mercenaries earlier this year. That knife's edge has only gotten sharper over the past two
months, as Turkish troops invaded the Afrin region of northern Syria. Turkey's "Operation Olive
Branch" exposed the elephant in the room: America's only successful proxy, the Syrian Kurds,
are linked to Turkey's PKK, which Turkey, the European Union, and the U.S. have declared a
terrorist group. Our NATO ally is now openly at war with our Kurdish partner, as American
advisors do their best to stay off the frontline. In 2008, Vice President-Elect Joe Biden
bluntly told Afghanistan's Hamid Karzai: "Pakistan is 50 times
more important for the United States than Afghanistan." The same obvious wisdom applies in
spades to Turkey and Syria respectively.
What of the Kurds? If recent reports are to be believed, American Special Forces are
incensed they are being told to abandon a valiant, reliable battlefield ally. Squeezed
between a revanchist Turkey and a stabilized Syrian state, Syria's Kurds are not likely to keep
their independent project of Rojava. The United States declined to intervene to protect Iraq's
Kurds last year, when Iraqi forces quickly seized the Kurdish "Jerusalem," oil-rich Kirkuk,
after an abortive independence referendum. To pretend we have a greater will or ability to
protect Syria's Kurds is folly.
The Kurds should ask Vietnam's Montagnards how they fared as an American proxy, or question
the Palestinians about what they've gained from an American mediator .
Loathe though we may be to admit it, America has been a fickle friend for the majority of small
nations and peoples that have looked to her as a protector. Even many of our Afghan
interpreters who served in American uniforms and cashed American paychecks have been
abandoned to their enemies . Like a serial philanderer we can pretend that this time will
be different, but the reality is that America seldom has the patience or stomach for sustained
non-existential military intervention outside our hemisphere, particularly when casualties
mount. The victims of pretending otherwise are seldom Americans; they are Vietnamese, Somalis,
Iraqi Marsh Arabs, and many others. The current state of political polarization in Washington
and the primacy of the 24-hour news cycle have only hardened this long-standing reality.
Left to their own devices, Syria's Kurds can probably work out a modus vivendi with Assad's
government, which has other battles to fight and foreign backers of its own who would like to
draw down their commitments. Battles between the Kurdish-dominated Syrian Democratic Forces and
Assad's Syrian Arab Army have been few. Turkey has tolerated a Kurdish autonomous region on its
border with Iraq -- but it will not do so with Kurds who remain affiliated with the PKK.
Regardless of Rojava's fate, ISIS may well regenerate. It already has the local ties and
financial network
to thrive as an insurgency in western Iraq. That, however, is a governance and security problem
for Iraqis and Syrians, not Americans. The United States maintains an unparalleled ability to
project military power and destroy targets around the world, both with standoff firepower and
by putting troops into battle via air and sea. Should ISIS or another Salafist successor build
any real base of power again in the Levant we can rapidly deploy combat power to destroy it.
But staying there any longer remains a fool's errand.
Gil Barndollar served as a Marine infantry officer from 2009 to 2016. His writing has
appeared in the Marine Corps Gazette , the Journal of Military Operations , and the Michigan
War Studies Review .
"I don't like "abandoning an ally" like this, but that alliance was never going to be long
lasting, and the Kurds have to have known that."
Yes. As a parting gesture, we could round up some of the louder-mouthed neocons and ship
them over to "independent Kurdistan" to spend a few quiet hours with their erstwhile heroes.
Let the Kurds vent their entirely understandable anger out on those who lied to and
manipulated them with the same glib ease that they once lied to America about Iraq's
WMDs.
'Mosul, its largest city, was retaken by Iraqi security forces, while its de facto capital
Raqqa was conquered by the Kurds. Palmyra and Deir ez-Zor are back in government hands.'
I'd like to correct a couple of things, ISIS was destroyed in Syria, by the Syrian Arab
Army, and by Russia, Iran and Hezbollah. Mosuls and Raqqa were not 'retaken' or 'conquered'.
They were utterly destroyed by aerial bombardment, which is about the only thing we are good
at doing.
"... Trump's statement is a particularly stupid piece of revisionism on his part. Trump was opposed to Obama's threatened attack in 2013 , and then as president Trump ordered an illegal military attack on the Syrian government one year ago to punish it for an alleged chemical weapons attack. ..."
"... The danger in having an ongoing illegal military presence in Syria is that it exposes U.S. forces to unacceptable and unnecessary risks and creates the possibility of escalation with the Syrian government and its allies. If Trump orders another illegal attack on the Syrian government or the forces of any of its supporters, it could easily trigger a larger conflict. Russia has given an explicit warning against a U.S. attack this time, saying that it could trigger "the gravest consequences." Even if it doesn't lead to a larger conflict with a nuclear-armed major power, it isn't worth taking the risk for the sake of policing the conduct of a foreign civil war. ..."
"... If Trump were really interested in extricating the U.S. from war in Syria, he would not be engaged in mindless saber-rattling against the Syrian government and its allies. Unfortunately, Trump's bellicosity always seems to take over in these situations. That is what we get from Trump's anti-restraint foreign policy. ..."
"... But the odd thing is, the most stable and invested country in the region is Iran. Crazy as it might sound to an Iran-hater-dead-ender, the country we should be chatting with about Syria is Iran. If we genuinely cared about anything humanitarian. The two countries with the most likely influence over Bashar with the aim of mitigating his violence would likely be Iran and Russia. If we wanted to actually accomplish something we could quietly and diplomatically arrange that chat and encourage some beneficial influence there. ..."
"... If Assad is really the brute that the West portrays him to be he would have been toppled by now. That the Syrian population by and large has stood by him in 6 years of war should tell you something. I make a point to get most of the news about Syria from Christian organisations who live there – and they are all unequivocal. They are now beyond livid of what the US and its allies has allowed and even facilitated to happen there. Tthankfully for them they still have the Syrian Arab Army and Russia to protect them unlike their brethren in Iraq, one of the oldest Christian communities in existence which has been practically wiped out thanks to America's intervention. ..."
"... Clinton ignored the Russian objections to the West's unilateral recognition of Balkan breakaways. Bush, Saakashvili and the usual entourage of the neocon meddler travelling circus that nowadays haunts the Ukraine dismissed both the Russian warnings and the Russian military response. The result was utter failure. ..."
"... Putin might never see an opportunity for a similarly deadly and promising "play" in the circle jerk of Syria free-for-all invasions – Gulf states, Turkey, US, Israel – but if he should ever see an opening, I would expect him to seek another object lesson. His hand might not be strong, but he appears to play it well. ..."
"... Meanwhile, the Kurdish YPG and Syrian government troops ally against NATO partner Turkey, and the US military has repeatedly attacked Syrian regular military and boasts – by leak – about massacring Russian "private military contractors". ..."
"... Iran demonstrated in Iraq that US ineptitude combined with impunitivism provides many openings to stabilize, in a sense, the region. ..."
Trump's statement is a particularly stupid piece of revisionism on his part. Trump was
opposed to
Obama's threatened attack in 2013 , and then as president Trump ordered an illegal military
attack on the Syrian government one year ago to punish it for an alleged chemical weapons
attack. He had no authority to do this, the attack was a flagrant breach of the U.N. Charter,
and it apparently failed to discourage the Syrian government from carrying out similar attacks
later on. The president ordered the "unbelievably small attack" that Obama administration
threatened to launch in 2013, and it made no meaningful difference to the course of the war or
the regime's behavior.
Trump tweeted out earlierin the day that
"President Putin, Russia and Iran are responsible for backing Animal Assad. Big price to pay."
He didn't say what that "big price" was or how it will be "paid," but the fact that he thinks
it is a good idea to make threats against the Syrian government's patrons bodes ill for the
future of U.S. policy in Syria. The foreign policy establishment was beside itself last week
when they thought that Trump wanted to withdraw from Syria, but they should be much more
worried that he will launch an illegal attack and plunge the U.S. in even deeper.
The danger in having an ongoing illegal military presence in Syria is that it exposes
U.S. forces to unacceptable and unnecessary risks and creates the possibility of escalation
with the Syrian government and its allies. If Trump orders another illegal attack on the Syrian
government or the forces of any of its supporters, it could easily trigger a larger conflict.
Russia has given an explicit warning against a U.S.
attack this time, saying that it could trigger "the gravest consequences." Even if it doesn't
lead to a larger conflict with a nuclear-armed major power, it isn't worth taking the risk for
the sake of policing the conduct of a foreign civil war.
If Trump were really interested in extricating the U.S. from war in Syria, he would not be
engaged in mindless saber-rattling against the Syrian government and its allies. Unfortunately,
Trump's bellicosity always seems to take over in these situations. That is what we get from
Trump's anti-restraint foreign policy.
It's true that I'm no genius, but after reading as much as I can and thinking it over I still
don't know who is the right horse to back, or what is the right side to be on in Syria. Assad
is a brute, Isis are brutes, the other parties of opposition are useless, and etc., and none
of it has anything to do with us anyway. To Daniel's point, we're keeping an army hanging
around in a volatile and illegal situation for no discernible point.
Except to hate Iran.
The longterm on Syria doesn't look good for anyone. I'm guessing, because of his long
history of ignorance and incoherence, Trump has no plan.
But the odd thing is, the most stable and invested country in the region is Iran.
Crazy as it might sound to an Iran-hater-dead-ender, the country we should be chatting with
about Syria is Iran. If we genuinely cared about anything humanitarian. The two countries
with the most likely influence over Bashar with the aim of mitigating his violence would
likely be Iran and Russia. If we wanted to actually accomplish something we could quietly and
diplomatically arrange that chat and encourage some beneficial influence there.
If Assad is really the brute that the West portrays him to be he would have been
toppled by now. That the Syrian population by and large has stood by him in 6 years of war
should tell you something. I make a point to get most of the news about Syria from Christian
organisations who live there – and they are all unequivocal. They are now beyond livid
of what the US and its allies has allowed and even facilitated to happen there. Tthankfully
for them they still have the Syrian Arab Army and Russia to protect them unlike their
brethren in Iraq, one of the oldest Christian communities in existence which has been
practically wiped out thanks to America's intervention.
"If President Obama had crossed his stated Red Line "
Interesting view. Obama imagined he drew a "red line" that Assad was not to cross, and
allegedly did. Trump's tongue apparently wore a Freudian slip when he rubi-conned this phrase
into twitter.
To make this a turn worthy of Croesumpus, let us just say that if Trump crosses that red
line of his own, a great war criminal will be destroyed.
"In early March 2008, Abkhazia and South Ossetia submitted formal requests for their
recognition to Russia's parliament shortly after the West's recognition of Kosovo to which
Russia was opposed. [The] Russian ambassador to NATO, warned that Georgia's NATO membership
aspirations would cause Russia to support the independence of Abkhazia and South
Ossetia."
Clinton ignored the Russian objections to the West's unilateral recognition of Balkan
breakaways. Bush, Saakashvili and the usual entourage of the neocon meddler travelling circus
that nowadays haunts the Ukraine dismissed both the Russian warnings and the Russian military
response. The result was utter failure.
Putin might never see an opportunity for a similarly deadly and promising "play" in the
circle jerk of Syria free-for-all invasions – Gulf states, Turkey, US, Israel –
but if he should ever see an opening, I would expect him to seek another object lesson. His
hand might not be strong, but he appears to play it well.
Meanwhile, the Kurdish YPG and Syrian government troops ally against NATO partner
Turkey, and the US military has repeatedly attacked Syrian regular military and boasts
– by leak – about massacring Russian "private military contractors".
Iran demonstrated in Iraq that US ineptitude combined with impunitivism provides many
openings to stabilize, in a sense, the region.
Special Counsel Robert Mueller charged Paul Manafort, President Trump's former Campaign Manager, for
working with former Ukrainian Presidnet Viktor Yanukovych in 2013.
Mueller failed to mention that he also worked with Yanukovych in 2013 six months before John Brennan,
John McCain, Victoria Nuland, and their EU partners, lead a bloody neo-nazi coup to overthrow the Yanukovych
government.
Last week a
memo
was released
showing Assistant Attorney General Rod Rosenstein directing the Mueller investigation to
look into allegations that Paul Manafort
"Committed a crime or crimes arising out of payments he received from the Ukrainian government before
and during the tenure of President Viktor Yanukovych."
According to the
The Gateway Pundit
, in the memo there is no indication that Rosenstein or Mueller offered that
Mueller interacted with the former Ukrainian President as well. But then again, Rosenstein and Mueller have
so
many conflicts
of interest in this case that it is accurately labeled a "witch hunt".
Jack Posobiec tweeted out over night the link between Mueller and Yanukovych
Robert Mueller is prosecuting Manfort for doing work in Ukraine for Viktor
Yanukovych back in 2013
Here is Robert Mueller hanging out in Ukraine with Viktor Yanukovych back in 2013
The Ukrainian Embassy in the United States
shared
on Facebook
a picture of Robert Mueller with the President Yanukovych in 2013. The post was dated June
6, 2013
"We are grateful to American side for support of our efforts aimed at settlement of frozen conflicts,
ensuring control over conventional arms in Europe and combating trafficking. We count on further support
and cooperation with USA within the OSCE in order to enhance stability and security in the area which is
under jurisdiction of the given organization," the President said at the meeting with FBI Director Robert
Mueller.
The Head of State reminded that since the beginning of 2013, Ukraine had been presiding in the OSCE.
"We determined priorities of our presidency in close cooperation with member-states of the OSCE. I am
pleased to note that we have a constructive cooperation with Washington in this sphere," the President
emphasized.
"Ukrainian-American cooperation efficiently develops in many spheres of mutual interest. Your visit is
very interesting for Ukraine and relations between our law enforcement bodies have established good
traditions of cooperation and communication in the course of 20 years. I am confident that there is a
potential for further broadening of cooperation," Viktor Yanukovych said.
He stressed that Ukraine paid particular attention to the issue of combating terrorism. We have
adopted a number of documents aimed at increasing the efficiency of such work.
"The level of cooperation between central executive governmental bodies involved in anti-terrorist
actions is pretty high. The Security Service elaborated respective documents, they were reviewed and
approved by respective Presidential Decree," the Head of State noted.
The President emphasized that
Ukraine is very close to signing the Association Agreement with
the EU
in November. "There are
some preparations left but I hope that we will fulfill
everything
and sign the Agreement," he said.
In his turn, FBI Director Robert Mueller expressed gratitude to the President of Ukraine for the
assistance provided after the explosions in Boston. "I would like to focus on the most important issue
for us – the issue of combating terrorism. I would like to say thank you for the assistance provided to
us after the Boston Marathon," he noted.
FBI Director also informed that in the course of his meetings in Ukraine,
he planned to
discuss a number of issues of mutual interest.
Who only knows what the issues of mutual interest were!
This is
not
the first interaction Mueller
had with the Russians. In 2009 Mueller hand delivered uranium to the
Russians on an airport tarmac per the request of Hillary Clinton. Mueller also was Head of the FBI when
the Obama Administration sold 20% of US uranium to the Russians in the Uranium One deal.
Trump doesn't have any instincts. He's just playing the old DC game. Pretend that you want to
do something, then act shocked after you didn't do it. Each party plays the game against the
other party, each house of Congress plays the game against the other house, Presidents play
it against Congress and the "courts".
===
This game wouldn't work in real life.
Example:
I shout to everyone in the house, "I'm going to the store to get groceries."
One hour later, after sitting in the living room watching TV, making no move toward the
car, I shout again:
"See what happens? I tried, but these evil other-party spirits wouldn't let me. You need
to vote these evil other-party spirits out of the house so we can have food!"
Huh you elect someone who says his military strategy will always be "listen to the Generals",
and are then surprised when the Generals want to keep fighting?
Of course Trump will accede. He has no coherent and consistent policy just Fox News
buzzwords spinning in his head. Now add John Bolton as his guiding light.
Mr. Buchanan is correct the U.S. is: "in a country where we have no right to be "
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -
The U.S. is in Syria illegally, and what is even worse it is reportedly supporting
terrorists.
This is surely a crime, yet no charges have been laid. Why?
"Under U.S. law it is illegal for any American to provide money or assistance to al-Qaeda,
ISIS or other terrorist groups. If you or I gave money, weapons or support to al-Qaeda or
ISIS, we would be thrown in jail. Yet the U.S. government has been violating this law for
years, quietly supporting allies and partners of al-Qaeda, ISIL, Jabhat Fateh al Sham and
other terrorist groups with money, weapons, and intelligence support, in their fight to
overthrow the Syrian government.[i] Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, December 8, 2016,Press Release.
https://gabbard.house.gov/news/press-releases/video-rep-tulsi-gabbard-introduces-legislation-stop-arming-terrorists
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -
Much more evidence on this and other matters at link below. http://graysinfo.blogspot.ca/2016/10/the-evidence-of-planning-of-wars.html
The important point in Syria is that Putin is irreversibly bogged down there. He sinks or
swims with Assad, which means, sooner or later, sinks. He's a sitting duck who can do nothing
but sit there and wait until the US chooses to attack him. So there's no harm in leaving him
to stew. John Bolton's bête noire has always been Iran, which is supposed to be Putin's
ally. Going after Iran will put Putin on the spot. He has to decide whether to back his
"ally" or leave Iran in the lurch. Thus, putting Syria on the back burner and concentrating
on Iran forces Putin either to discredit himself by abandoning his "ally" or to bog himself
down in yet another conflict. Heads, Ukraine wins, tails, Putin loses!
"Yes, folks, your tax dollars are going to support Islamist crazies in Syria. The same
people who attacked Paris are being aided and abetted by the US – and if that isn't a
criminal act, then there is no justice in this world." Justin Raimondo, November 25, 2015 http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2015/11/24/turkeys-stab-in-the-back/
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
The USA has hundreds of military bases overseas. We should close most of them. Trump is
saying the right thing, unfortunately, we all know he doesn't follow through (that NRA thing,
that DACA thing, that wall thing, that coal thing, that lock-her-up thing, etc. etc).
It seems that the failure in Syria is related to the classical policy verse strategy
conflict. The military is once again put in a difficult position when the civilian leadership
tries to use a military solution to solve a diplomatic problem. The military was given the
task to destroy ISIS but that goal will be impossible without Turkey's cooperation and the
leader of that country has chosen a path toward appeasement by the United States or
confrontation.
There seems to be credible evidence of Turkey's support for ISIS in the flow of combatants
and military logistics into Syria as well as profiting from the sale and transport of ISIS
controlled Syrian oil through Turkey. Now we are seeing Turkey invading Syria and ethnically
cleansing our Kurdish allies from Syria's Northern Boarder. We still don't know what the
Obama/Clinton CIA and State Department was up to in Benghazi, but it did seem to involve the
flow of arms from Libya, and I have read reports that members of the Turkish government were
meeting with the killed ambassador before the attack.
In Syria is appears that the Assad, Iranian and Russian alliance was more focused upon the
rebels attempting to overthrow the government; rather than destroying ISIS. Once the United
States leaves there may be greater tolerance for ISIS as long as the government is not
threatened and ISIS may even be allowed to join that alliance to get some revenge against the
Kurds who were allied with the U.S.
We saw the recent Russian test of US resolve using mercenaries with disastrous
consequences. As long as the US remains in Syria there will be similar tests and what if is
Turkey decides to test the resolve of US forces?
Our NATO partner Turkey seems to have become more of an enemy than a friend, and also more
of a liability than an asset. Removing U.S. military assets from Turkey may be prudent,
followed by its expulsion from NATO. Expelling Turkish citizens from other NATO countries and
economic sanctions may be another strategy to make Turkey reconsider its continued
belligerence.
I don't recall anyone forcing Trump to appoint to top positions people who flat out refuse
his orders and block him from carrying out policy he campaigned on. There is a limit on how
much sincerity you can attribute to a man who says one thing, does the exact opposite, and
defend him as fighting some Don Quixotic struggle tilting at windmills.
Twelve days
after 9/11, on the night of September 23, 2001, the CIA's Islamabad station chief, Robert Grenier, received a telephone
call from his boss, Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet. "Listen, Bob," Tenet said, "we're meeting tomorrow at
Camp David to discuss our war strategy in Afghanistan. How should we begin? What targets do we hit? How do we sequence our
actions?"
Grenier later wrote in his book,
88 Days to
Kandahar
, that while he was surprised by the call he'd been thinking about these
same questions -- "mulling them over and over and over," as he later told me -- so he was ready. President George Bush's address
to the U.S. Congress just a few days before, Grenier told Tenet, was a good start: demand that Afghanistan's Taliban ruler,
Mullah Omar, turn bin Laden over to the United States. If he refused, the U.S. should launch a campaign to oust him.
Grenier had thought through the plan, but before going into its details with Tenet he abruptly stopped the conversation.
"Mr. Director," he said, "this isn't going to work. I need to write this all down clearly." Tenet agreed.
Grenier set to work, and over the next three hours he laid out the battle for
Afghanistan. Included in the paper was a detailed program of how the CIA could deploy undercover teams to recruit bin
Laden's enemies among Afghanistan's northern Tajik and Uzbek tribes (an uneasy coalition of ethnic militias operating as
the Northern Alliance), supply them with cash and weapons, and use them in a rolling offensive that would oust the Taliban
in Kabul. With U.S. help, which included deploying American Special Forces teams (under CIA leadership) coupled with
American airpower, the Northern Alliance (more properly, the United Islamic Front for the Salvation of Afghanistan) would
start from its Panjshir Valley enclave in Afghanistan's far northeast and, recruiting support from anti-Taliban forces
along the way, roll all the way into Kabul.
Grenier gave the eight-page draft paper to his staff to review, then sent it to Tenet in
Washington, who passed it through the deputies committee (the second-in-command of each of the major national security
agencies), then presented it to Bush. "I regard that cable," Grenier wrote, "as the best three hours of work I ever did in
my twenty-seven-year career."
Three days after the Tenet-Grenier telephone conversation, on September 26, the CIA
landed a covert-operations team in Afghanistan to recruit local allies in the hunt for bin Laden. The quick action was
impressive, but then events slowed to a crawl. It wasn't until October 20 that the first U.S. Special Forces team linked up
with anti-Taliban rebels, and it took another week for U.S. units to land in strength. But by early November al Qaeda was
on the run and the Taliban's grip on the country was slipping away. On November 13, militias of the Northern Alliance
seized Kabul. The Taliban was defeated, its badly mauled units fleeing south and east (its last bastion, in the south, fell
on December 6), and into nearby Pakistan, while what remained of al Qaeda holed up in a series of cave complexes in the
Spin Ghar mountain range of eastern Afghanistan.
By almost any measure, the CIA-led anti-al Qaeda and anti-Taliban offensive (dubbed
Operation Enduring Freedom by George Bush) marked a decisive victory in the war on terror. The U.S. had set out a plan,
marshaled the forces to carry it out, and then seen it to completion.
But this triumph came with problems. The first was that the offensive was hampered by
Washington infighting that pitted the CIA against a puzzlingly recalcitrant U.S. military and a carping Donald Rumsfeld,
who questioned George Tenet's leadership of the effort. This bureaucratic squabbling, focused on just who was responsible
for what (and who exactly was running the Afghanistan war), would remain a hallmark of American efforts well into the Obama
administration. The second problem was that Afghanistan's southern Pashtun tribes were only marginally included in the
effort, and they remained suspicious of their northern non-Pashtun counterparts. The mistrust, CIA officers believed, would
almost certainly plant the seeds of an endless inter-tribal Afghan conflict, embroiling the United States in an effort to
prop up an unpopular Kabul government. The third problem was Pakistan -- or, more precisely, Pakistan's Inter-Services
Intelligence agency, the ISI, and the ISI's "Directorate S," responsible for covertly supplying, training, and arming
Pakistan's Islamist allies, including the Pashtun-dominated Taliban.
♦♦♦
The intractability of these variables, and America's 17-year effort (sometimes focused
but often feckless) to resolve them, form the basis of Steve Coll's
Directorate S
,
a thick but eminently readable account of America's Afghanistan misadventure. While
Directorate S
stands alone as a comprehensive
exposition of the Afghanistan conflict dating from 9/11, it's actually a follow-on of
Ghost Wars
, Coll's Pulitzer Prize-winning 2004
narrative of America's efforts to oust the Soviets from Afghanistan following their invasion in December 1979. Given the
breadth of Coll's dual treatments and the depth of his research, it's likely that these books will remain the standard
exposition of the period for years to come.
While the focus of
Directorate S
is on Pakistan and its shady intelligence services, each of the obstacles that confronted the United States in Afghanistan
from the moment the Taliban abandoned Kabul is embraced in detail. These obstacles included America's post-9/11 attention
deficit disorder (the pivot away from al Qaeda to Iraq was being considered in Washington even as the Northern Alliance
cleared the Afghan capital) and the deeply embedded antipathy toward the new Kabul government among Pakistani-supported
southern tribesman. Thus, after the United States ousted al Qaeda and its Taliban supporters, it embarked on a program to
strengthen the new Kabul government, anointing Hamid Karzai as Afghanistan's president and pledging billions in
reconstruction aid. And so, or so it seemed, everything had gone as planned. The Taliban was routed; al Qaeda was on the
run; a new anti-terrorism government was in place in Kabul; and the United States had signed Pakistan on as a willing
accomplice. On May 1, 2003, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld declared an end to major combat operations in Afghanistan. The war
was over. Won.
But of course it wasn't.
Coll's account provides a disturbing catalogue of the U.S. mistakes in the wake of the
Taliban defeat. Almost all of them are well known: Hamid Karzai, the consensus choice of a grand assembly (a loya jirga) as
Afghanistan's interim president, proved to be a weak leader. The monies appropriated for Afghanistan's postwar
reconstruction were woefully inadequate for the task -- "laughable," as one U.S. official put it. American soldiers
responsible for countering the Taliban's return (and hunting al Qaeda terrorist cells) were thinly and poorly deployed
(and, after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, of secondary importance in the Pentagon). Tentative Taliban efforts to engage the
United States in political talks were summarily and unwisely spurned. Allegations of prisoner abuse at U.S. detention
facilities consistently undermined U.S. legitimacy. American funds were funneled into Afghan ministries laced with corrupt
officials. Afghani poppy production increased, despite faint-hearted U.S. eradication efforts. And U.S. counter-terrorism
actions proved ham-handed and caused preventable civilian casualties, pushing Afghanis into a resurgent anti-Kabul
resistance.
More crucially, Pakistan's unstinting support for America's Afghanistan efforts proved to
be anything but unstinting. The reason for this was not only entirely predictable but was actually the unintended result of
the American victory. When the Northern Alliance and U.S. airpower pushed what remained of the Taliban (along with the
remnants of al Qaeda) out of Afghanistan, they pushed them into Pakistan, creating conditions that, as Coll tells us,
"deepened resentment among Pakistan's generals, who would come to see their country's rising violence as a price of
American folly . . ." Put simply, for the United States to seal the Operation Enduring Freedom victory, it had to ensure
that its effects did not spill over into the one nation that could ensure that its victory would, in fact, be enduring.
That didn't happen. The result was that the Taliban was able to rebuild and rearm its networks not only in Pakistan, and
under the eyes of the ISI, but also in Afghanistan.
It might have been otherwise. During a series of discussions I had about America's
intervention in Afghanistan in the months immediately following 9/11, a number of currently serving and former senior U.S.
officials told me they believed that, given enough time, the Taliban might well have handed bin Laden over to the
Americans, obviating the need for a full-on invasion. One of these officials was Milton Bearden, a famed CIA officer (his
close friends refer to him as "Uncle Milty") who, during his time as a station chief in Pakistan, had helped to head up the
CIA's war against the Soviets in the mid 1980s.
♦♦♦
After 9/11, Bearden recharged his Pakistan and Afghanistan networks in an effort to
convince the Taliban that turning bin Laden over to the Americans was a better option than the one they were facing. All
the while, Bearden kept senior U.S. officials apprised of what he was doing, even as he was attempting to head off their
rush to war. Bearden told me that, while his efforts had not reached fruition by the time the Bush White House had decided
on a course of action, he believes the United States had not fully explored all of its options -- or thought through the
long-term impact of its intervention. "I don't know what would have happened, I don't know," he says wistfully, "but I
think we have a handhold in history. We should have seen what was coming." He notes that Alexander the Great "took one look
at Afghanistan's mountains and decided against it. He thought his whole army could get swallowed up in there, and he wasn't
going to take that chance. So, well, you tell me if I'm wrong, but Alexander was no slouch, right?"
Not everyone agrees with this, of course. The dissenters include Robert Grenier, the
first drafter of what became the American war plan. Taliban leader Mullah Omar, he told me, was committed to his pledge to
protect Osama bin Laden; he viewed it as a blood oath that could not be broken. Moreover, argues Grenier, "Omar viewed
himself as a kind of world historical figure, a person on whom the axis of history would turn." One result was that he
believed his fight against the Americans would be epochal.
That said, Grenier believes America's foray into Afghanistan, and the mistakes that
followed, might at least have been dampened by a more diligent focus on the inherent divisions of Afghan society. "We [at
the CIA]," he told me several months ago, "were very aware that the march of the Northern Alliance into Kabul would likely
create real difficulties in the south. And we tried to slow it, precisely for this reason. But events overtook us, and it
just wasn't possible. So, yes, things might have been otherwise, but in truth we just don't know."
The value in Coll's
Directorate S
comes not from the elegant telling of a story not fully known, but from the dawning realization that Afghanistan is the
kind of lock for which there is no key. There is no reason to believe that a different outcome would have ensued if other
events had intruded -- for example, more personnel, money, focused diplomacy, or robust and disciplined enemy-defeating and
nation building; or that our war there and the occupation that followed would have yielded the same results that we
realized in, say, Japan after 1945. The real hubris here is not that we tried and failed but that we thought we could
actually succeed. Afghanistan is simply not that kind of place.
There is a term of art for this in the military, which found its first usage in Iraq in
2009, when U.S. commanders adopted it as an appreciation of what could and could not be accomplished. Instead of focusing
on defeating corruption, inefficiency, disunity, and poor leadership, the focus shifted almost exclusively to dampening
violence, to keeping the doors to Iraq open even as its factions battled for its control. More importantly, the adoption of
the phrase marked the abandonment of high expectations and an embrace of realism. The United States would have to yield the
business of replicating a Western-style democracy on the banks of the Euphrates. That goal, if it was going to be
accomplished at all, would have to be realized by the Iraqis.
Analyst Anthony Cordesman, one of America's premier military thinkers, adopted the phrase
and applied to Afghanistan in 2012 in an essay he entitled, "Time to Focus on 'Afghan Good Enough.'" His plan was simply
stated but had all the elegance of actually working: keep the Taliban out of Kabul and the major cities, preserve the
central and provincial government even in the face of endemic corruption, and work to provide security to large numbers of
Afghanis. Cordesman conceded that this was not the kind of victory that Americans had hoped for on September 12. And it was
difficult to describe the outcome as even vaguely passable -- or "good." But it was far better than adopting goals that could
not be realized or embracing an illusion that disappeared even as it was grasped. For the time being at least, it would
have to be "good enough."
Mark Perry is a foreign policy analyst, a contributing editor to
The American Conservative
and the author of
The Pentagon's Wars
.
Over the last few months, Professor Joseph Mifsud has become a feather in the cap for those pushing the Trump-Russia narrative.
He is characterized as a "Russian" intelligence asset in mainstream press, despite his declarations to the contrary. However, evidence
has surfaced that suggests Mifsud was anything but a Russian spy, and may have actually worked for British intelligence. This new
evidence culminates in the ground-breaking conclusion that the UK and its intelligence apparatus may be responsible for the invention
of key pillars of the Trump-Russia scandal. If true, this would essentially turn the entire RussiaGate debacle on its head.
To give an idea of the scope of this report, a few central points showing the UK connections with the central pillars of the Trump-Russia
claims are included here, in the order of discussion in this article:
Mifsud allegedly discussed that Russia has
'dirt' on Clinton in the form of 'thousands of emails' with George Papadopoulos in London in April 2016.
The following month, Papadopoulos spoke with
Alexander Downer, Australia's ambassador to the UK, about the alleged Russian dirt on Clinton while they were drinking at
a swanky Kensington bar, according to The Times. In late July 2016, Downer shared his tip with Australian intelligence officials
who forwarded it to the FBI.
Robert Goldstone, a key figure in the 'Trump Tower' part of the RussiaGate narrative, sent Donald Trump Jr. an email claiming
Russia wanted to help the Trump campaign. He is a British music promoter.
Christopher Steele, ex-MI6, who worked as an MI6 agent in Moscow until 1993 and ran the Russia desk at MI6 HQ in London between
2006 and 2009. He produced the totally unsubstantiated 'Steele Dossier' of Trump-Russia allegations, with funding from the Clinton
campaign and the DNC.
Robert Hannigan, the head of British spy agency GCHQ, flew to Washington DC to share 'director-to-director' level intelligence
with then-CIA Chief John Brennan.
Each of these strands of UK-tied elements of the Russiagate narrative can be substantially dismantled on close inspection. This
untangling process leads to the surprising conclusion that UK intelligence services fabricated evidence of collusion in order to
create the appearance of a Trump-Russia connection.
This trend begins with Joseph Mifsud, a Maltese scholar with an eclectic academic history who
Quartz described as an "enigma," while legacy press has enthusiastically characterized
him as a central personality in the Trump-Russia scandal.
The New York Times described Mifsud as an "enthusiastic
promoter of President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia", citing his regular involvement in the annual meetings of the
Valdai Discussion Club , a Russian-based think-tank,
as well as three short articles he wrote in support
of Russian policies.
Mifsud strongly denied claims that he was associated with Russian intelligence, telling
Italian newspaper Repubblica that he was a member
of the European Council on Foreign Relations and the Clinton Foundation, adding that his political outlook was "left-leaning." Last
month, Slate reported Mifsud had 'disappeared', as did some of the other figures
linking the UK to the Trump-Russia scandal. This aspect will be discussed in more detail below.
To contextualize Mifsud's eclectic academic career in terms of intelligence service, it is helpful to note that research undertaken
by this author and Suzie Dawson as part of the Decipher You project has repeatedly
shown the close ties – an outright merger in many cases – between the intelligence community and academia. This enmeshment also takes
place with think-tanks, NGOs, and in the corporate sphere. In this light, Mifsud's brand of 'scholarship' becomes far less mysterious.
Mifsud's alleged links to Russian intelligence are summarily debunked by his close working relationship with Claire Smith, a major
figure in the upper echelons of British intelligence. A number of Twitter users
recently observed that Joseph Mifsud had been photographed standing next to Claire Smith of the UK Joint Intelligence Committee
at Mifsud's LINK campus in Rome . Newsmax and
Buzzfeed later reported that the professor's name and biography had been removed
from the campus' website, writing that the mysterious removal took place after Mifsud had served the institution for "years."
WikiLeaks Editor-in-Chief Julian Assange likewise noted the connection between Mifsud and Smith in a
Twitter thread, additionally pointing out
his connections with Saudi intelligence: "[Mifsud] and Claire Smith of the UK Joint Intelligence Committee and eight-year member
of the UK Security Vetting panel both trained Italian security services at the Link University in Rome and appear to both be present
in this [photo]."
The photograph in question originated on Geodiplomatics.com
, where it specified that Joseph Mifsud is indeed standing next to Claire Smith, who was attending a: " Training program on International
Security which was organised by Link Campus University and London Academy of Diplomacy ." The event is listed as taking place in
October, 2012. This is highly significant for a number of reasons.
First, the training program Smith attended with high-ranking members of the Italian military was organized by the London Academy
of Diplomacy , where Joseph Mifsud served as Director, as noted by
The Washington Post. That Claire Smith was training
military and law enforcement officials alongside Mifsud in 2012 during her tenure as a member of the UK Cabinet Office Security Vetting
Appeals Panel , which oversees the vetting process for UK intelligence placement, strongly suggests that Mifsud has been incorrectly
characterized as a Russian intelligence asset. It is extremely unlikely that Claire Smith's role in vetting UK intelligence personnel
would lead to her accidentally working with a Russian agent.
The connection between Mifsud and Smith does not end at bumped elbows in a photograph. Mifsud's
LinkedIn profile lists the University of Stirling
as a place of occupation in connection with his service as Director of the London Academy of Diplomacy (LAD), where Claire Smith
served as a visiting professor from 2013-2014 according to her
LinkedIn profile . This adds yet another verifiable connection
between a man who is at the center of already-flimsy Trump-Russia allegations and a high-ranking British intelligence figure.
Claire Smith also hosted a seminar titled " Making Sense of Intelligence
" at the University of Stirling. The event registration form describes her career, including her service as Deputy Chief of Assessments
Staff in the Cabinet Office, as a member of the UK Joint Intelligence Committee and her completion of an eight-year term as a member
of the UK Security Vetting and Appeals Panel.
A particularly compelling factor indicating that Mifsud's working relationship with Claire Smith suggests his direct connection
with UK intelligence is Smith's membership of the UK's
Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) , a supervisory body overseeing all UK intelligence agencies. The JIC is part of the Cabinet
Office and reports directly to the Prime Minister. The Committee also sets the collection and analysis priorities for all of the
agencies it supervises. Claire Smith also served as a member of the UK's Cabinet Office.
In summary, Mifsud's appearance with Claire Smith at the LINK campus, in addition to her discussion on intelligence at yet another
university where Mifsud was also employed, as well as her long-standing role in UK intelligence vetting and her position as a member
of the UK Joint Intelligence Committee, would suggest that the roving scholar
is not a Russian agent, but is actually a UK intelligence asset. The possibility that such a high-ranking member of this extremely
powerful intelligence supervisory group was photographed standing next to a "Russian" asset unknowingly is patently absurd. This
finding knocks the first pillar out from under the edifice of the Trump-Russia allegations. It provides an initial suggestion of
the UK's involvement in procuring the 'evidence' that fueled the debacle.
Claire Smith is not the only British official associated with Mifsud. He was a speaker at an event by the
Central European Initiative alongside
former British diplomat Charles Crawford, whose postings included Moscow, Sarajevo, Belgrade and Warsaw. Crawford is listed as a
visiting Professor with the same London Academy of Diplomacy (LAD) where Mifsud served as Director, associated with Stirling University.
This adds more weight to the idea that Mifsud is a familiar figure among the upper echelons of the UK intelligence and foreign policy
establishment.
The final nail in the coffin of the theory that Mifsud is a Russian spy is this photograph of Mifsud standing next to Boris Johnson,
the UK Foreign Secretary, as reported by The Guardian. The photograph, taken
in October 2017 – nearly a full year after the US Presidential election and nine months after Mifsud's name appeared in newspaper
headlines worldwide as allegedly involved in Russian meddling in that election – is either highly embarrassing for the hapless Mr
Johnson, or it's not, because Joseph Mifsud is actually a valued and security-vetted asset to the United Kingdom.
Another aspect of the RussiaGate claims tied to the UK includes the reported conversation between
George Papadopoulos and Alexander Downer, Australia's
High Commissioner to the UK who was based in London. The pair reportedly spoke about the alleged Russian 'dirt' on Hillary Clinton
while they were drinking at a swanky bar in London. According to Lifezette
, Downer is closely tied with The Clinton Foundation via his role in securing $25 million in aid from his country to help the Clinton
Foundation fight AIDS.
He is also a member of the advisory board of London-based
Hakluyt & Co , an opposition research and intelligence firm set up in 1995 by three former UK intelligence officials and described
as " a retirement home for ex-MI6 [British foreign
intelligence] officers , but it now also recruits from the worlds of management consultancy and banking". Whereas opposition
research group Fusion GPS has received all the media attention so far, Lifezette states that Hakluyt is "a second, even more powerful
and mysterious opposition research and intelligence firm with significant political and financial links to former Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton and her 2016 campaign".
Yet another UK link to a central pillar of the Trump-Russia narrative is British music promoter Robert Goldstone, who was
reported to have organized a meeting between Donald Trump Jr. and Russian
nationals in June 2016. In the email chain setting up the Trump Tower meeting, both before and after the meeting, the only real 'evidence'
of collusion with Russia come from Goldstone's own emails; none-too-subtle heavy hints about 'Russian help' dropped by Goldstone
but later – after the emails became public – walked back by him as "
hyping the message and using hot-button language to
puff up the information I had been given."
Some have speculated that Goldstone was also involved with British or US
intelligence efforts to concoct the RussiaGate narrative. As soon as his name emerged in the press, Goldstone – like Christopher
Steele and Joseph Mifsud – went into 'hiding'. Multiple press reports claimed he had done so out of fear for his safety, a claim also made
about Christopher Steele when his name first became public. Indeed, the
UK government issued a DA Notice (a press
suppression advisory notice) to the British press to suppress the ex-spy Steele's name. It is notable that, of all the people swept
up into the ever-burgeoning RussiaGate investigation, it is only the UK-linked witnesses – Mifsud, Steele, Goldstone – who have felt
the need to go into hiding when their role has been exposed.
The New York Times summed up the contents of Christopher
Steele's dossier: "Mr. Steele produced a series of memos that alleged a broad conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russian
government to influence the 2016 election on behalf of Mr. Trump. The memos also contained unsubstantiated accounts of encounters
between Mr. Trump and Russian prostitutes, and real estate deals that were intended as bribes."
Press reports also relate that Steele was ordered
by an English court to appear for a videotaped deposition in London as part of an ongoing civil litigation against Buzzfeed for publishing
the unverified dossier, for which Steele was paid $168,000 by Glenn Simpson's company Fusion GPS, who were in turn paid by Mark Elias
of law firm Perkins Coie, lawyers to both the Hillary Clinton campaign and the DNC.
In his thread on the role of UK intelligence interference in the 2016 US Presidential race,
Assange also noted how Christopher Steele
used another former UK ambassador to Moscow, Sir Andrew Wood, to funnel the dossier to Senator John McCain in a way that moved the
handover out of London, to Canada. It's often said that no one ever really leaves the UK security services when they retire – many
'former' MI6 or MI5 officers' private intelligence businesses are dependent on maintaining good contacts among their ex-colleagues
– so it is interesting to note that Sir Andrew Wood says he was
"instructed" -- by former British spy Christopher
Steele -- to reach out to the senior Republican, whom Wood called "a good man," about the unverified document.
Lastly, Robert Hannigan, former head of British intelligence agency GCHQ, is another personality of note in the formation of the
RussiaGate narrative and its surprisingly deep links to the UK. The
Guardian noted that Hannigan announced he would
step down from his leadership position with the agency just three days after the inauguration of President Trump, on 23 January 2017.
Jane Mayer in her profile of Christopher Steele published in the
New Yorker also noted that Hannigan had flown
to Washington D.C. to personally brief the then-CIA Director John Brennan on alleged communications between the Trump campaign and
Moscow. What is so curious about this briefing "deemed
so sensitive it was handled at director-level" is why Hannigan was talking director-to-director to the CIA and not Mike Rogers
at the NSA, GCHQ's Five Eyes intelligence-sharing partner.
The central supporting pillars of the RussiaGate allegations hinge on figures with close ties to British intelligence and UK nationals.
Even establishment media like The Guardian reported that British spies from
GCHQ were the first to alert US authorities to so-called Russian interference. Did the entire narrative originate with UK intelligence
groups in an effort to create the appearance of Russian collusion with the Trump Presidential campaign, much as the Guccifer 2.0
persona was used in the US to discredit WikiLeaks' publication of the DNC emails?
If it was not Russia at the heart of a complex operation to topple the Clinton campaign in 2016, then was British Intelligence
responsible for creating false narratives and mirage-like 'evidence' on which the Trump-Russia scandal could hinge?
Put another way, if UK intelligence is responsible for manufacturing the Trump-Russia allegations, it suggests that the UK's efforts
formed an international arm running concurrently with domestic US 'Deep State' efforts to sabotage Trump's presidential campaign
and/or oust him once he had been elected.
Is British intelligence involvement in RussiaGate, as outlined above, the international version of CrowdStrike and former FBI
figures manufacturing the Guccifer 2.0 persona specifically to smear WikiLeaks via false allegations of a Russian hack of the DNC?
Have we been looking in the wrong place – at the wrong country – to unearth the so-called 'foreign meddling' in the 2016 US election
all along?
New thread from Craig Murray. Interesting conclusion re conversation.
Update: I have just listened to the released alleged phone conversation between Yulia Skripal in Salisbury Hospital and her
cousin Viktoria, which deepens the mystery further. I should say that in Russian the conversation sounds perfectly natural to
me. My concern is after the 30 seconds mark where Viktoria tells Yulia she is applying for a British visa to come and see Yulia.
Yulia replies "nobody will give you a visa". Viktoria then tells Yulia that if she is asked if she wants Viktoria to visit,
she should say yes. Yulia's reply to this is along the lines of "that will not happen in this situation", meaning she would not
be allowed by the British to see Viktoria. I apologise my Russian is very rusty for a Kremlinbot, and someone might give a better
translation, but this key response from Yulia is missing from all the transcripts I have seen.
What is there about Yulia's situation that makes her feel a meeting between her and her cousin will be prevented by the British
government? And why would Yulia believe the British government will not give her cousin a visa in the circumstance of these extreme
family illnesses?
The hypocrisy of foreign "election meddling" accusations should blow everyone away. Obama did it, the USA does it, the UK does
it, Russia does it, any entity with money and clout does it.
How about the very well documented and obvious Collusion Crime:
1. Rosenstein is named assistant AG after Sessions recussed himself from getting involved with any Trump campaign related investigations
- here comes Trump campaign related investigations.
2. Rosenstein recommends that Comey be fired.
3. Trump fires Comey.
4. Rosenstein recommends Wray, good buddy of Comey & Mueller, to be new FBI director.
4. Comey testifies that he leaked a memo of stuff he made up that he knew would trigger a special council to investigate the Trump
campaign for Russia collusion.
5. Rosenstein appoints Mueller (good friend of Rosenstein & Comey) as the special prosecutor with open authority to investigate
a suspected activity that was not a crime if it did exist.
6. Wray stonewalls congressional investigations into DOJ & FBI criminality.
7. Sessions refuses to appoint special council to investigate Hitlary and DOJ & FBI criminality.
Conclusion: Sessions, Rosenstein, Comey, Wray and Mueller colluded to assist the "Soros-Clinton-Obama Resistance" to thwart
all efforts to indict Clintons or Obama and expose the corruption at the FBI, DOJ and State Dept.
Russian TV Releases Phone Call Of 'Poisoned' Yulia Skripal Saying Her And Her Father Are 'Fine'
"Everything's ok. He's resting now, having a sleep. Everyone's health is fine, there's nothing that can't be put right.
I'll be discharged soon. Everything is ok."
But... Trump has leverage on Mueller... Uranium 1 maybe? Mueller is a former Marine, who's duty is to protect the President.
Trump meets with Mueller for an interview for a job Mueller can even take, day before Rosensteins appoints him, and makes a deal.
Mueller then spends over a year collecting all the date needed to put Session, Rosenstein, Comey, Wray, Clinton, Obama and any
other corrupt PoS away for good? Don't me wake up... this is a good dream.
Mueller covered up the controlled demolition of the WTC buildings on nine eleven. Trump knows the buildings were blown up.
Those are the goods Trump has on Mueller.
. . . the UK's efforts formed an international arm running concurrently with domestic US 'Deep State' efforts to sabotage Trump's
presidential campaign and/or oust him once he had been elected.
Of course the UK efforts to derail Trump ran/are running concurrently with US' deep state efforts! That's because the "Deep
State" is really an international cabal and is not simply a group of shadow brokers running the US behind the scenes . . . the
entire thing is headed by the Rothschild and Rockefeller clans (and likely others we've never heard of). Their reach knows no
international boundaries, that's for sure.
I agree the hypocrisy shows anyone upset about the insignificant actions of a Russian firm paying trolls to publish their thoughts,
isn't following the Golden Rule. If they object to speech from Russians about our election, they should be upset first about Obama
and our government spending money in other country's elections. I'd bet most of these people chose to say nothing when Obama spent
$350,000 to OneVoice in Israel to help Netanyahu's opponent.
The choice of words "election meddling" conflates free speech with vote rigging. We, and everyone else in the world, should
be free to say who they want to win elections. After all, only the citizens involved can vote.
On the other hand, I object to the US government spending any money to influence ANY election, foreign or domestic. That's
tyranny, in forcing taxpayers to support politicians they often don't support.
Is anyone certain that the "Yulia" in this phone conversation really exists? Or are the Skripals a fantasy dreamed up for some
reason by "the government" - whoever that is. Why not allow a consular visit? Why not allow a family visit? Why are the "Skripals"
being detained like hardened criminals? Why is there no live footage of these people? If Julia is recovering and can speak, why
not a short live interview?
awww, a little girl blaming both trump, the trump hair lookalike, and tight brexites and big vestesses on russia. poor girl.
go get a tanning bed, maybe you can grow up to be a a big boob orange jew yourself. till then, shake your weewee rockstar.
the usa now has carte blache to meddle in every uk election from now on. we can start by investigating may on trumped up charges
backed by phony evidence. she's a real cunt anyway.
plan red was a war plan written up in '28 about a war between the US and britain.
a couple years later our stock market crashed and in the late '30s, with britain being bombed by gerry, and churchill's speech
before congress, we have a unique relationship.
my ass.
if it were up to me, hitler present day, would still be bombing london.
But it's ok, they just did a company health screening around here (thank you Obama, you fag) and one of my 20something 6'1"
co-workers with washboard abs was declared obese.
Yes, the world has gone insane but it's now normal ;-)
Dan Bongino has a nice timeline among others. Bruce Ohr the number three at Justice wife worked for FUSION GPS and has extensive
Russian and CIA background....this entire Fake Russia Collusion was run like a classic CIA operation as the Dossier was written
in distinct chapters as the players were introduced to various Trump campaign people...It is obvious that all of these people
are connected and none of it was a coincidence...Of course The ringleader was Brennan and his British counterparts....It's laughable
a counter-intel was started on a drunk campaign volunteer in a bar...but FBI agent Strzok who started it was involved from the
get go...
I could only imagine if some comic genius could produce a movie in some style like "Monty Python" or the "Marx Brothes" depicting
this pathetic deep state nonsense. Mel Brooks also comes to mind...the appropriate title would be a sequel to "High Anxiety",
El-Viral does DC :/
Wonder where Priestap has gone. Not one word about him for quite some time and he was in charge of counter intelligence for
the FBI. Still hasn't been either demoted or removed.
Russiagate was a British Operation from the very start, run in collusion with Obama DoJ Execs... the evidence is sitting there...
The Brit Oligarchy is engineering a cold coup in the US to nullify the 2016 Elections... When Drump says he wants out of Syria,
and bad trade deals that deindustrialize the US, or is defusing WW III with Russia, you understand why the British Led Liberal
Deep State is frantic.
Personally I pretty much (but not totally) detest Donald Trump and what he stands for... namely parasitic, rentier capital...
BUT, my loyalty is to the Constitution of the US and admiration for my fellow citizens, the voters (even though I haven't bothered
with that empty ritual for decades)...
I deeply oppose the Liberal Deep State Cold Coup launched in tandem with the odious remnants of the British Empire... just
as I opposed the coup against Bill Clinton... No honest, patriotic American can allow the President and the US government taken
down by the permanent Deep State... no matter how repugnant the President might be... So that's why I support the President in
opposing the Liberal, Deep State coup launched against him and the USA by evil forces.
Robert Jervis and Mira Rapp-Hooper
warn about the dangers that come from misperception on both sides of the standoff with
North Korea:
If any U.S. strategy toward North Korea is to have a chance of succeeding (or even of just
averting catastrophe), it must be guided by an accurate sense of how Kim's regime thinks,
what it values, and how it judges its options. Washington must understand not just North
Korean objectives but also how North Korean officials understand U.S. objectives and whether
they consider U.S. statements credible.
Unfortunately, the U.S. is remarkably bad at understanding these things accurately. This is
not just a Trump administration failing. Most American politicians and policymakers routinely
misjudge the intentions and goals of our adversaries, and they often invent a fantasy version
of the regime in question that leads them astray again and again. One reason for this is that
it is simply easier to project our assumptions about what a regime must want than it is to make
the effort to see things as they do. Another reason is that many of our politicians and
policymakers mistakenly think that if they try to understand an adversary's views that must
somehow mean that they sympathize with the adversary or condone its behavior. Instead of trying
to know their enemy, our leaders would prefer not to for fear of being "tainted" by the
experience. This lack of knowledge is compounded in some cases by the absence of normal
diplomatic relations with the adversary. Our leaders are encouraged to take this self-defeating
approach to international problems by a political culture that rewards the people that strike
tough-sounding-but-ignorant poses about a problem and marginalizes those that seek to
understand it as fully as possible.
The first step in correcting these failings is to accept that some of these regimes regard
the U.S. as an "existential threat" and therefore view all U.S. actions with at least much
suspicion and fear as our government views theirs. The next step would be to recognize that the
main goal of any regime is its own preservation. We should be very wary of any explanation of
their actions that claims that an adversary is irrationally suicidal. Another step would be to
acknowledge that regime behavior that we regard as purely aggressive is very often the result
of the adversary's belief that it needs to deter our aggression against them. Our politicians
often talk about North Korea threatening the entire world with its nuclear weapons, but this
misses that in their relative isolation and paranoia the North Korean regime sees the rest of
the world, and especially the U.S., as a threat that needs to be defended against. Recognizing
these things doesn't make their acquisition of nuclear weapons desirable and it doesn't mean
that we approve of it, but it does make it understandable.
Our government's frequent inability to understand how an adversary thinks and what an
adversary wants is usually bound up with our government's overestimation of its own power and a
denial of the other state's agency. If many of our policymakers invent a fantasy version of the
regime to serve as a foil, they come up with unrealistic demands that they think the U.S. can
force the adversary to accept. Because we fail to understand what the adversary is trying to
do, we make demands that we ought to know will never be accepted. Because our government fails
to take the other side's agency into account, our policies are often crafted solely to punish
and compel and rarely to give them an incentive to cooperate or compromise. We then claim to be
surprised when this approach yields only intransigence and more of the behavior that we want
the other state to stop.
Why do you think it would be absurd to think our highest government officials are that
ignorant? Did our Presidents, who never have to prove merit, only popularity, ever appoint
people based on reliably tested knowledge of their field? No. They tend to appoint their
cabinet based on political calculation. Sometimes political calculation will raise up
knowledgeable people, more often not.
Welp, this is certainly a different kettle of fish from WWII, where the US government hired
ethnologists like Ruth Benedict to analyze Japanese culture and thought patterns (resulting
in her book "The Chrysanthemum and the Sword.")
I really believe it would be absurd to think our highest government officials are that
ignorant
Our highest officials are by design more ignorant than the rank and file. During the Iraq
war aftermath, Arabic speakers were actively rejected from jobs within the Coalition
Provisional Authority, because it was assumed their knowledge of the region would prejudice
them against the W adninistration's vision for the Middle East, and they didn't want nay
sayers telling them what they didn't want to hear.
This mindset is persistent, especially in republican administrations, and mirrors the
Soviet Union -- people are selected on the basis of their willingness to toe the ideological
line rather than their expertise.
They are not ignorant, the politicians support these policies because their donors benefit..
They have sold out to greed over country.. I assume that some do it for the easy wealth that
can be had, some of the wealthy ones for fame and never losing elections, but they have their
reasons, our country is not high on that list.
The one exception to this would be Obama's approach to Iran. He had no illusions about the
mullahs and IRGC, but he knew that it was simply impossible to perpetually diplomatically
isolate and militarily surround a nation of 80 million in its own region. The nuke deal was a
tradeoff – Iran gives up its nukes in exchange for being reintegrated with the world.
Of course, this is the last thing that Israel or Saudi Arabia want.
Knowledge of History and Language would help enormously, but the US is so arrogant it expects
other countries to merely accept US assertions and to speak in English, on the basis of its
supposed Exceptionalism.
Vermont Senator says business model of Democratic Party has been a failure for 15
years
Bernie Sanders has triggered a backlash by making comments interpreted as an attack on [Wall
Street/CIA troll] Barack Obama on the 50th anniversary of the assassination of Martin Luther
King. The senator for Vermont appeared to criticise the first black US President as he branded
the Democratic Party a "failure".
Speaking in Jackson, Mississippi, he said Democrats had lost a record number of legislative
seats. "The business model, if you like, of the Democratic Party for the last 15 years or so
has been a failure,'' said the Vermont Senator...Mr Sanders's comments were quickly branded
"patronising" and "deplorable".
"... Frankly, Saker reads too much into this Chinese article. It is not about Russia. It is not because Skrypal hoax dialed ritual Russophobia over eleven. It just is a coincidence. Yet before loosing the elections Hillary was promising military war with Russia. Yet before winning the elections Trump was promising economic war with China. ..."
"... Russia`s biggest weakness is the incompetent, useless leaders they had from the 80`s to Yeltsin. The mess that the USSR left behind with unstable states on its borders with no treaty to prevent NATO expansion was a huge gift to the US that just keeps giving!! ..."
"... I`ll go as far as saying this gift to the US might lead to Russia`s end as a country in its present form. You can hardly blame the US I mean in 1990 Russia agreed to basically throw the towel in and live in a US dominated world in practice. Whatever they say about promises at the time that lasted for as long as their breath was warm ..."
"... the problem right now is the Imperial US (ruled from Israel). If it succeeds in destroying Russia, then the Chinese are irrelevant, and have nothing to say about anything. ..."
"... The US public are irretrievably useless and are going to have to go the whole way, with WW3 and/or an economic collapse, with the best bet being on WW3 (which they may well lose). ..."
"That tells you all you need to know about the difference between modern Britain and
the government of Vladimir Putin. They make Novichok, we make light sabers. One a hideous
weapon that is specifically intended for assassination. The other an implausible theatrical
prop with a mysterious buzz. But which of those two weapons is really more effective in the
world of today?".
(Boris Johnson)
Let's begin this discussion with a few, basic questions.
Question one: does anybody
sincerely believe that "Putin" (the collective name for the Russian Mordor) really attempted to
kill a man which "Putin" himself had released in the past, who presented no interest for Russia
whatsoever who,
like Berezovsky , wanted to
return back to Russia , and that to do the deed "Putin" used a binary nerve agent? Question
two: does anybody sincerely believe that the British have presented their "allies" (I will be
polite here and use that euphemism) with incontrovertible or, at least, very strong evidence
that "Putin" indeed did such a thing? Question three: does anybody sincerely believe that the
mass expulsion of Russian diplomats will somehow make Russia more compliant to western demands
(for our purposes, it does not matter what demands we are talking about)? Question four: does
anybody sincerely believe that after this latest episode, the tensions will somehow abate or
even diminish and that things will get better? Question five: does anybody sincerely believe
that the current sharp rise in tensions between the AngloZionist Empire (aka the "West") does
not place the Empire and Russia on collision course which could result in war,
probably/possibly nuclear war, maybe not deliberately, but as the result of an escalation of
incidents?
If in the zombified world of the ideological
drones who actually remain in the dull trance induced by the corporate media there are most
definitely those who answer "yes" to some or even all of the questions above, I submit that not
a single major western decision maker sincerely believes any of that nonsense. In reality,
everybody who matters knows that the Russians had nothing to do with the Skripal incident, that
the Brits have shown no evidence, that the expulsion of Russian diplomats will only harden the
Russian resolve, that all this anti-Russian hysteria will only get worse and that this all puts
at least Europe and the USA, if not the entire planet, in great danger.
And yet what just happened is absolutely amazing: instead of using fundamental principles of
western law (innocent until proven guilty by at least a preponderance of evidence or even
beyond reasonable doubt), basic rules of civilized behavior (do not attack somebody you know is
innocent), universally accepted ethical norms (the truth of the matter is more important than
political expediency) or even primordial self-preservation instincts (I don't want to die for
your cause), the vast majority of western leaders chose a new decision-making paradigm which
can be summarized in two words:
"highly likely" "solidarity"
This is truly absolutely crucial and marks a fundamental change in the way the AngloZionist
Empire will act from now on. Let's look at the assumptions and implications of these two
concepts.
First, "highly likely". While "highly likely" does sound like a simplified version of
"preponderance of evidence" what it really means is something very different and circular:
"Putin" is bad, poisoning is bad, therefore it is "highly likely" that "Putin" did it. How do
we know that the premise "Putin is bad" is true? Well -- he does poison people, does he
not?
You think I am joking?
Check out this wonderful chart presented to the public by "Her Majesty's government"
entitled "A long pattern of Russian malign activity":
In the 12 events listed as evidence of a "pattern of Russian malign activity" one is
demonstratively false (2008 invasion of Georgia), one conflates two different accusations
(occupation of Crimea and destabilization of the Ukraine), one is circular (assassination of
Skripal) and all others are completely unproven accusations. All that is missing here is the
mass rape of baby penguins by drunken Russian sailors in the south pole or the use of a secret
"weather weapon" to send hurricanes towards the USA. You don't need a law degree to see that,
all you need is an IQ above room temperature and a basic understanding of logic. For all my
contempt for western leaders, even I wouldn't make the claim that they all lack these. So here
is where "solidarity" kicks-in:
"Solidarity" in this context is simply a "conceptual placeholder" for Stephen Decatur 's famous " my
country, right or wrong " applied to the entire Empire. The precedent of Meine Ehre
heißt Treue just slightly rephrased into Meine Ehre heißt
Solidarität also comes to mind.
Solidarity simply means that the comprador ruling elites of the West will say and do
whatever the hell the AngloZionists tell them to. If tomorrow the UK or US leaders proclaim
that Putin eats babies for breakfast or that the West needs to send a strong message to "Putin"
that a Russian invasion of Vanuatu shall not be tolerated, then so be it: the entire
AngloZionist nomenklatura will sing the song in full
unison and to hell with facts, logic or even decency!
Solemnly proclaiming lies is hardly something new in politics, there is nothing new here.
What is new are two far more recent developments: first, now everybody knows that these are
lies and, second, nobody challenges or debunks them. Welcome to the AngloZionist New World
Order indeed!
Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a
murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth because there is no truth in him.
When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar and the father of
it.
(John 8:44)
ORDER IT NOW
Over the past weeks I have observed something which I find quite interesting: both on
Russian TV channels and in the English speaking media there is a specific type of anti-Putin
individual who actually takes a great deal of pride in the fact that the Empire has embarked on
a truly unprecedented campaign of lies against Russia. These people view lies as just another
tool in a type of "political toolkit" which can be used like any other political technique. As
I have mentioned in the past, the western indifference to the truth is something very ancient
coming, as it does, from the Middle-Ages: roughly when the spiritual successors of the Franks
in Rome decided that their own, original brand of "Christianity" had no use for 1000 years of
Consensus Patrum .
Scholasticism and an insatiable thrust for worldly, secular, power produced both moral
relativism and colonialism (with the Pope's imprimatur in the form of the Treaty of Tordesillas
). The Reformation (with its very pronounced Judaic influence) produced the bases of modern
capitalism which, as Lenin correctly diagnosed, has imperialism as its highest stage. Now that
the West is losing its grip on the planet (imagine that, some SOB nations dare resist!), all of
the ideological justifications have been tossed away and we are left with the true, honest,
bare-bones impulses of the leaders of the Empire: messianic hubris (essentially self-worship),
violence and, above all, a massive reliance on deception and lies on every single level of
society, from the commercial advertisements targeted at children to Colin Powell shaking some
laundry detergent at the UNSC to justify yet another war of aggression.
Self-worship and a total reliance on brute force and falsehoods -- these are the real
"Western values" today. Not the rule of law, not the scientific method, not critical thought,
not pluralism and most definitely not freedom. We are back, full circle, to the kind of
illiterate thuggery the Franks so perfectly embodied and which made them so infamous in the
(then) civilized world (the south and eastern Mediterranean). The agenda, by the way, is also
the same one as the Franks had 1000 years ago: either submit to us and accept our dominion, or
die, and the way to accept our dominion is to let us plunder all your riches. Again, not much
difference here between the sack of the First Rome in 410, the sack of the Second Rome in 1204
and the sack of the Third Rome in 1991. As psychologists well know, the best predictor of
future behavior is past behavior.
Interestingly, the Chinese saw straight through this strategic psyop and they are now
sounding the alarm in their very official Global Times : (emphasis added)
The accusations that Western countries have hurled at Russia are based on ulterior
motives, similar to how the Chinese use the expression "perhaps it's true" to seize upon the
desired opportunity. From a third-person perspective, the principles and diplomatic logic
behind such drastic efforts are flawed, not to mention that expelling Russian diplomats
almost simultaneously is a crude form of behavior. Such actions make little impact other than
increasing hostility and hatred between Russia and their Western counterparts ( ) The fact
that major Western powers can gang up and "sentence" a foreign country without following the
same procedures other countries abide by and according to the basic tenets of international
law is chilling. During the Cold War, not one Western nation would have dared to make such a
provocation and yet today it is carried out with unrestrained ease. Such actions are nothing
more than a form of Western bullying that threatens global peace and justice. ( ) It is
beyond outrageous how the US and Europe have treated Russia. Their actions represent a
frivolity and recklessness that has grown to characterize Western hegemony that only knows
how to contaminate international relations. Right now is the perfect time for non-Western
nations to strengthen unity and collaborative efforts among one another. These nations need
to establish a level of independence outside the reach of Western influence while breaking
the chains of monopolization declarations, predetermined adjudications and come to value
their own judgment abilities. ( ) The West is only a small fraction of the world and is
nowhere near the global representative it once thought it was. The silenced minorities within
the international community need to realize this and prove just how deep their understanding
is of such a realization by proving it to the world through action.
As the French say " à bon entendeur, salut! ": the Chinese position is crystal
clear, as is the warning. I would summarize it as so: if the West is an AngloZionist doormat,
then the East is most definitely not.
[Sidebar: I know that there are some countries in Europe who have, so far, shown the courage
to resist the AngloZionist Diktat . Good for them. I will wait to see how long they can
resist the pressure before giving them a standing ovation]
The decision, therefore, lies here in the East; here must the Russian enemy, this
people numbering two hundred million Russians, be destroyed on the battlefield and person by
person, and made to bleed to death
(Reichsführer Heinrich Himmler)
Still, none of that explain why the leaders of the Empire have decided to engage in a
desperate game of "nuclear chicken" to try to, yet again, force Russia to comply with its
demands to "go away and shut up". This is counter-intuitive and I get several emails each week
telling me that there is absolutely no way the leaders of the AngloZionist Empire would want a
war with Russia, especially not a nuclear-armed one. The truth is that while western leaders
are most definitely psychopaths, they are neither stupid nor suicidal, and neither were
Napoleon or Hitler! And, yes, they probably don't really want a full-scale war with Russia. The
problem is that these rulers are also desperate, and for good cause.
Let's look at the situation just a few months ago. The US was defeated in Syria, ridiculed
in the DPRK, Trump was hated in Europe, the Russians and the Germans were working on North
Stream, the British leaders forced to at least pretend to work on Brexit, the entire
"Ukrainian" project had faceplanted, the sanctions against Russia had failed, Putin was more
popular than ever and the hysterical anti-Trump campaign was still in full swing inside the
USA. The next move by the AngloZionist elites was nothing short of brilliant: by organizing a
really crude false flag in the UK the Empire achieved the following results:
The Europeans
have been forced right back into the Anglosphere's fold ("solidarity", remember?) The Brexiting
Brits are now something like the (im-)moral leaders of Europe again. The Russians are now
demonized to such a degree that any accusation, no matter how stupid, will stick. In the
Middle-East, the US and Israel now have free reign to start any war they want because the
(purely theoretical) European capability to object to anything the Anglos want has now
evaporated, especially now that the Russians have become "known chemical-criminals" from Ghouta
to Salisbury At the very least, the World Cup in Russia will be sabotaged by a massive
anti-Russian campaign. If that campaign is really successful, there is still the hope that the
Germans will finally cave in and, if maybe not outright cancel, then at least very much delay
North Stream thereby forcing the Europeans to accept, what else, US gas.
This is an ambitious plan and, barring an unexpected development, it sure looks like it
might work. The problem with this strategy is that it falls short of getting Russia to truly
"go away and shut up". Neocons are particularly fond of humiliating their enemies (look at how
they are still gunning for Trump even though by now the poor man has become their most
subservient servant) and there is a lot of prestige at stake here. Russia, therefore, must be
humiliated, truly humiliated, not just by sabotaging her participation in Olympic games or by
expelling Russian diplomats, but by something far more tangible like, say, an attack on the
very small and vulnerable Russian task force in Syria. Herein lies the biggest risk.
The Russian task force in Syria is tiny, at least compared to the immense capabilities of
CENTCOM+NATO. The Russians have warned that if they are attacked, they will shoot down not only
the attacking missiles but also their launchers. Since the Americans are not dumb enough to
expose their aircraft to Russian air defenses, they will use air power only outside the range
of Russian air defenses and they will use only cruise missiles to strike targets inside the
"protection cone" of the Russians air defenses. The truth is that I doubt that the Russians
will have the opportunity to shoot down many US aircraft, at least not with their long-range
S-300/S-400 SAMs. Their ubiquitous and formidable combined short to medium range surface-to-air
missile and anti-aircraft artillery weapon system, the Pantsir, might have a better chance
simply because it's location is impossible to predict. But the real question is this: will the
Russians shoot back at the USN ships if they launch cruise missiles at Syria?
My strictly personal guess is that they won't unless Khmeimim, Tartus or another large
Russian objective (official Russian compounds in Damascus) are hit. Striking a USN ship would
be tantamount to an act of war and that is just not something the Russians will do if they can
avoid it. The problem with that is this restraint will, yet again, be interpreted as a sign of
weakness, not civilization, by the "modern Franks" (visualize a Neanderthal with a nuclear club
in his fist). Should the Russians decide to act à la American and use violence to
"send a message", the Empire will immediately perceive that as a loss of face and a reason to
immediately escalate further to reestablish the "appropriate" hierarchy between the
"indispensable nation" and the "gas station masquerading as a country". So here is the dynamic
at work
Russia limits herself to words of protests ==>> the Empire sees that as a sign of
weakness and escalates
Russia responds in kind with real actions==>> The Empire feels humiliated and
escalates
Now look at this from a Russian point of view for a second and ask yourself what you would
do in this situation?
The answer, I think, is obvious: you try to win as much time as possible and you prepare for
war. The Russians have been doing exactly that since at least early 2015.
For Russia this is really nothing new: been there, done that, and remember it very, very
well, by the way. The "western project" for Russia has always been the same since the
Middle-Ages, the only difference today is the consequences of war. With each passing century
the human cost of the various western crusades against Russia got worse and worse and now we
are not only looking at the very real possibility of another Borodino or Kursk, and not even at
another Hiroshima, but at something which we can't even really imagine: hundreds of millions of
people die in the course of just a few hours.
How do we stop that?
Is the West even capable of acting in a different way?
There is one actor which might, perhaps, stop the current skid towards Armageddon: China.
Right now, the Chinese have officially declared that they have what they call a "
comprehensive strategic partnership of cooperation " later shortened to " strategic
partnership ". This is a very apt expression as it does not speak of an "alliance": two
countries of the size of Russia and China cannot have an alliance in the traditional sense --
they are too big and different for that. They are, however, in a symbiotic relationship, that
both sides understand perfectly (see this
White Paper for details). What this means in very simple terms is this: the Chinese cannot
let Russia be defeated by the Empire because once Russia is gone, they will be left one on one
with a united, triumphal and infinitely arrogant West (likewise I would argue that Russia
cannot afford to have Iran defeated by the Empire for exactly the same reasons, and neither can
Iran let the Israelis destroy Hezbollah). Of course, in terms of military power, China is a
dwarf compared to Russia, but in terms of economic power Russia is the dwarf when compared to
China in this "strategic community of interests". Thus, China cannot assist Russia militarily.
But remember that Russia does not need this if only because military assistance is what you
need to win a war. Russia does not want to win a war, Russia desperately needs to avoid a war!
And here is where China can make a huge difference: psychologically.
Yes, the Empire is currently taking on both Russia and China, but everybody, from its
leaders to its zombified population, seems to think that these are two, different and separate
foes. [We can use this opportunity to most sincerely thank Donald Trump for so "perfectly"
timing his trade war with China.] They are not: not only are Russia and China symbionts who
share the same vision of a prosperous and peaceful Eurasia united by a common future centered
around the OBOR and, crucially, free from the US dollar or, for that matter, from any type of
major US role, but Russia and China also stand for exactly the same notion of a post-hegemonic
world order: a multi-polar world of different and truly sovereign nations living together under
the rules of international law. If the AngloZionists have their way, this will never happen.
Instead, we will have the New World Order promised by Bush, dominated by the Anglosphere
countries (basically the ECHELON members, aka the "Five Eyes") and, on top of that pyramid, the
global Zionist overlord. This is something China cannot, and will not allow. Neither can China
allow a US-Russian war, especially not a nuclear one because China, like Russia, also needs
peace.
I don't see what Russia could do to convince the Empire to change its current course: the US
leaders are delusional and the Europeans are their silent, submissive servants. As shown above,
whatever Russia does it always invites further escalation from the Empire. Of course, Russia
can turn the West into a pile of smoldering radioactive ashes. This is hardly a solution since,
in the inevitable exchange, Russia herself will also be turned into a similar pile of
smoldering radioactive ashes by the Empire. In spite of that, the Russian people have most
clearly indicated by their recent vote that they have absolutely no intention of caving in to
the latest western crusade against them. As for the Empire, it will never accept the fact that
Russia refuses to submit. It therefore seems to me that the only thing which can stop
Armageddon would be for the Chinese to ceaselessly continue to repeat to the rulers of the
Empire and the people of the West what the wrote in the article quoted above: that " The
West is only a small fraction of the world and is nowhere near the global representative it
once thought it was" and "the silenced minorities within the international
community need to realize this and prove just how deep their understanding is of such a
realization by proving it to the world through action."
History teaches us that the West only strikes against those opponents it sees as defenseless
or, at least, weaker. The fact that the Popes, Napoleon or Hitler were wrong in their
evaluation of the strength of Russia does not change this truism. In fact, the Neocons today
are making exactly the same mistake. So telling them about the fact that Russia is much
stronger than what the western propaganda says and which, apparently, many western rulers
believe (you always end up believing your own propaganda), does not help. Russian "reminders of
reality" will do no good simply because the West is out of touch with reality and lacks the
ability to understand its own limitations and weaknesses. But if China stepped in and conveyed
that crucial message " The West is only a small fraction of the world " and that the
rest of the world will prove this " through action " then other countries will step in
and a war can be averted because even the current delusion-based "solidarity" will collapse in
the face of a united Eurasia.
Russia alone cannot continue to carry the burden of stopping the messianic psychopaths
ruling the Empire.
The rest of the world, led by China, now needs to step in to avert the war.
This plan for global dominance has been over 100 years in the making and has already cost
over 100 million lives so far. How likely is it for them to back off now? The Chinese are far
from stupid so it will be interesting to see how they view the situation and act.
I've stated previously that the people who really can put a halt to it are Americans
themselves but it won't be easy. The ideal situation would be a mass mutiny of US military
personnel and the line, The Empire: by way of deception thou shalt do war should probably
read, The Israeli Empire: by way of deception thou shalt do war. It would be useful to repeat
this ad nauseam until it truly sinks in for US military personnel that the US is a supplicant
to Israel and to understand who they will be fighting and dying for. A mass mutiny would be
the best way to save their families and future.
Again, not much difference here between the sack of the First Rome in 410, the sack of the
Second Rome in 1204 and the sack of the Third Rome in 1991. As psychologists well know, the
best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.
But all three Romes were empires too filled with lies.
But I think that if stupid westerners won't wake up, -- nobody will help. China is big and
possibly can think that in world where no Russia, no Europe nor US/Canada are exist, some
place will still be for China.
It's "higly posssible" a mistake, but if silly westerners will continue to munch their MSM
grass their shadows will be printed on the walls of history.
Actually they deserve to be.
"Solidarity" in this context is simply a "conceptual placeholder" for Stephen Decatur's
famous "my country, right or wrong" applied to the entire Empire.
Kind of disappointed in the Saker here. Just like liberals, he omits the rest of Decatur's
famous toast: "Our country -- in her intercourse with foreign nations, may she always be
in the right , and always successful, right or wrong. [ Emphasis mine. ]" Decatur
was not trying to encourage amoral behavior, such as that which we now see with the
AngloZionists running Washington.
By the way, I've heard the Russians are now telling a joke about Boris Johnson: they're
saying he was poisoned with durachok (bonehead)!
China has deep ties to the western empire. Russians would be drinking too deeply from their
own propaganda to miss this fact. Indeed, the latest crippling of Trumpist reform was lead by
heavily Chinese invested men Ryan and McConnell. Israel has a strong grip on US foreign
policy for obvious reasons, but Israel has no reason to see Russia bullied into submission.
China does.
It should be plain to any objective observer of global politics that the west is
internally incoherent and will wane in power by the crush weight of demographic change alone.
China observes this and realizes the only long-term competitor to their ascendant position,
one generation hence, is an independent Russia. Far better for the Chinese that Russia is
mortally wounded or harried into Chinese vassal status before the west breaks down into a
third world non-entity.
The real reasons for the expulsions is the revelation of Russia's next generation war
weapons. It was taken up as an invitation to fight, not to make peace, and making it as hard
as possible for Russians to either influence opinion or gather information.
Somebody wanted Skripal dead, and while it may be a useful false flag provocation, with
his involvement with the Steele Dossier a possible trigger, it could be serving more than one
purpose. As usual, we are assigning to the Russkies both more omnipotence and stupidity than
is merited. I supoose it is our own elites who believe their omniscience in surveilling all
of us means they are also smarter than the rest of us. Maybe
Well said and accurate. There is no consensus among the hoipolloi with the neocon push for
war. This will never come about. The west is desperate, no doubt, and will continue to beat
its chest, much to its own detriment. If the west intended on war, it would have come about.
Time is not on their side. The neocons have backed themselves into a corner and, therefore,
must create chaos, camouflage, obfuscation, in order to bamboozle the world until they can
safely go back into their holes. Most likely, they are looking for concessions. Remember the
Wasserman-Schuiltz spy scandal? Remember the many deadly false flags being exposed to the
public for what they are?
Frankly, Saker reads too much into this Chinese article. It is not about Russia. It is
not because Skrypal hoax dialed ritual Russophobia over eleven. It just is a coincidence. Yet
before loosing the elections Hillary was promising military war with Russia. Yet before
winning the elections Trump was promising economic war with China.
USA ruling 1% was making a strategic choice year ago.
When Trump got elected he inherited the raging war. He could not stop it, obviously. Then
he turned it overboard. He started demanding so many wars at once that US Army got
overstretched and paralyzed. Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Itan, Yemen, Korea, new European
garrisons . Trump send Army to prepare to war everywhere and now Pentagon can not scratch
together enough forces to attack anywhere specifically.
By his "clumsy and incompetent bravado" Trump neutralized the army, made and exposed it as
incapable pretend-force.
Now Trump can switch to his programme -- economic war with China.
And that is why Chinese diplomats and media run crazy. Now it is their war, not Russia's.
Now their tails are on the line. Now Russia mostly can move to backlines to lick wounds while
China would exchange blows and collect bruises.
This turned recent Chinese statements so bald and pushing. This, and not a concern for
Russia.
something the Russians might consider -- immediately cutting off all gas to Europe and
restoring such service for payment only in gold or the new "petrol yuan" . Europe depends
heavily on that Russian Gas, and such a move would re-align some European thinking. Replacing
it with US provided LPG would take far too long and be much more expensive having to be
shipped by sea
In fact, maybe if Russia, China, the other brics and aligned countries suddenly cut off
all ties to the west, it would hasten the coming economic collapse of the EU and US, and that
dreamed of multipolar world would arise from the ashes.
Better that than the ashes of a nuclear exchange I would think.
China is too smart to show its hand yet, they are building their economic & military
strength quietly, they don't want to scare the westerners yet with threats.
Russia`s biggest weakness is the incompetent, useless leaders they had from the 80`s
to Yeltsin. The mess that the USSR left behind with unstable states on its borders with no
treaty to prevent NATO expansion was a huge gift to the US that just keeps giving!!
I`ll go as far as saying this gift to the US might lead to Russia`s end as a country
in its present form. You can hardly blame the US I mean in 1990 Russia agreed to basically
throw the towel in and live in a US dominated world in practice. Whatever they say about
promises at the time that lasted for as long as their breath was warm .
A couple centuries ago the phrase "The White Man's Burden" was used to explain why
citizens of Western nations must devote resources to civilize the world. Gore Vidal used "The
Yellow Man's Burden" to explain why citizens of Asian nations were devoting so much wealth to
keep the USA and much of Europe wealthy. If our citizens suddenly lost 30% of their annual
income due to tax increases and spending cuts needed to truly balance our national budgets,
they would be outraged. They might learn that this was the result of "free trade", which
might result in revolution and wars. Those who have profited off "free trade" by selling out
their citizens know its best to let the working class learn this truth slowly.
_____________________
Trump's proclamation to pull out of Syria may be good news, but probably not. He hired
psychopath Bolton, so we can assume the US military is just consolidating forces in Iraq to
hold off attacks whilst they bomb, bomb, bomb Iran. The Iraqis aren't our allies, they just
act to get free stuff, and they will know we are not bombing Iran to save Iranians. It might
be wise to get our troops out of Iraq too!
____________________________
To answer:
Let's begin this discussion with a few, basic questions.
Question one (thru five): does anybody sincerely believe
Yes, this bimbo does, and she's the State Department spokesman. The State Department is
still infected with Clinton-hysteria and uses sexy women to spin lies so the foreign press
doesn't laugh and scorn absurd BS too loudly. The American press are just stenographers and
eagerly copy her lies. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dL9UxED4uuI
The problem is that Russia/USSR submitted once and the West think it can be achieved again.
Hence everything must be made clear. No partners word should be used and the West must be
clearly warned that violence of unimaginable level will be used if they dare and what will
follow if Russian force anywhere attacked and that any use of nukes against Russia means the
end of humanity.
Unfortunately acting adequately and carefully Russia never was able to avoid war. It is in
the books. Right now bets are life on earth hence being too careful and being perceived as
weak is a bad thing. Russia IMHO must act boldly. Respond to USA and UK harassment by cutting
diplomatic relations and giving straight terse warning.
I think what disturbs China about this whole situation regarding the ENTIRE Western world
(US, Canada, Western Europe, Australia) is not simply that it is an overreaction to Russia,
but the whole idea that one particular people -- the Russian people -- have once again been
SINGLED OUT for collective intimidation and eventually for possible dismemberment.
China has very long and very bitter experience of this itself. In the 19th century, the
imperial powers, for some reason, ganged up on China.
In other parts of the world, the experience of other backward peoples was with but ONE
particular Empire (ex. only the Americans vs the Amerinds, only the Spanish in South America,
only Great Britain in India and Australia, only Russians in Central Asia and Siberia, and
only Japanese in Korea. The British, French, Germans, Italians and Belgians each had separate
RIVAL spheres in Africa, and ditto for South-East Asia.
But when it came to China, ALL these competing powers set aside their differences. It's as
if they said to each other "Hey, China is so enormous and juicy, we should not fight among
ourselves, there's enough for everyone!" Unbelievably vicious.
And now, we see the same pattern. the whole Western world against Russia. I think in this
instance, the Han don't need anyone to tell them what to think -- it is 100% certain they do
not approve of what the collective West is doing.
But if China stepped in and conveyed that crucial message "The West is only a small
fraction of the world"
They can do better than this, and explicitly state that a nuclear war with Russia is a
nuclear war with China -- just to make it clear -- and let the US do some more realistic
calculations.
"war is a path of deceit. When you are strong -- pretend weak ."
Am familiar with Sun-tzu a well. But what are you saying here? That the UK is stronger
than Russia. I would definitely have to disagree with that proposition!
It should be plain to any objective observer of global politics that the west is
internally incoherent and will wane in power by the crush weight of demographic change
alone. China observes this and realizes the only long-term competitor to their ascendant
position, one generation hence, is an independent Russia.
Maybe, but the problem right now is the Imperial US (ruled from Israel). If it
succeeds in destroying Russia, then the Chinese are irrelevant, and have nothing to say about
anything.
The recent THREATENED tariffs have an INTERESTING TIMING to them. It is being used by
Washington to convince China to stay passive as the West takes down Russia. Conversely, if
China "bends the knee", then the West promises that the threats won't materialize. (The West
loves worthless promises). Washington calculates that the mere threat of tariffs will make
China stand by as a neighbor is destroyed. Any turmoil in your neighbor's house, spills over
into yours whether you want it to or not. A neighbor is a neighbor, period.
And THAT, IMHO, is why the protectionist threats are happening NOW. Don't get me wrong,
the tariffs were going to happen anyway, eventually. China, whatever it does, cannot escape
them.
But to threaten a trade war RIGHT NOW with the one power guaranteed to be Russia's
economic lifeline (we know that China couldn't care less what Russia does in its backyard, in
the Ukraine) while preparing to attack Russia itself? Well, the whole thing is WAY TOO
OBVIOUS.
And if someone like me can see, so can a lot of other people in Moscow and Beijing.
Washington thinks its being "smart", but they are so ridiculously easy to read.
No, not that UK is really stronger than Russia but appears weaker. It's that the West is
actually not capable of defeating Russia but loudly shouts that it CAN defeat them easily,
and tries to look powerful and intimidating to Russia. In this situation, the
weaker-positioned West pretends to Russia that we are stronger, and we want Russia to believe
us. That way, it won't come to actual war, and we think Russia will back down. It's an
extremely risky plan.
That could, perhaps, take minds of US citizens from shopping and social media to,
perhaps, more serious matters.
Won't hold my breath.
Taking everything into account, I think the you're right. The US public are
irretrievably useless and are going to have to go the whole way, with WW3 and/or an economic
collapse, with the best bet being on WW3 (which they may well lose).
In fact, it's very possible RUSSIA is NOT, at this time, the target of Western aggression.
Sure, the West shall SURELY try to destroy Russia, but the urgency is not there YET. Maybe
the real target right now is CHINA, shortly to have the world's largest economy in absolute
terms. They must be destroyed NOW! The West is trying to cut a deal with Russia: "Stab China
in the back, and bow down to us. You can live A LITTLE LONGER, before we come for you.
Otherwise we get pissed and kill you TODAY".
An entirely plausible master-plan from Washington, London and Paris. Also a pretty
transparent one, if it's the case. The problem with this "Divide and Conquer" plan, aside
from being easy to read, is that it counts on both Russia and China to be dumb enough to
believe they are not BOTH in the cross-hairs. How stupid does the West think China and Russia
are?
It would have a psychological effect, at most. Russia has 5,000 warheads, China only
admits to having around 500 or 600 strategic city-killers. They may have more, but if you
don't admit something it doesn't count for deterrence. Maybe a decade from now, as China
builds its arsenal, the statement could be much more effective.
No, the Chinese are surely disgusted with this bullying behavior of the West (even many
Europeans are, just read the comments to the news in the different media outlets) but China
cannot seriously confront the West. That would make them lose trillions of dollars in exports
and investments and put an abrupt end to their miraculous but still ongoing economic
development. Not gonna happen anytime soon.
The situation will continue to deteriorate until some sort of modus vivendi is reached
(like at the beginning of the first Cold War). Or perhaps it's just been too long since the
last World War and the time is ripe for the next one.
As for the Skripal murder attempt, it's hard to imagine Putin ordering it at this time and
in that manner but it's not that hard to imagine someone from the Kremlin sewers being behind
it.
In the somewhat less likely scenario of a false flag operation, I would consider an
Israeli asymmetrical response to the recent downing of their jet by the Syrians with obvious
help from the Russians. They have plenty of experience in extraterritorial assassinations and
more than enough knowledge to fabricate a Russian-like nerve agent.
I respect and value Saker as a commentator on Russian and military affairs. Those are his
areas of expertise and professional experience. I do not value him as a historian, because
there enters into his writing a clear bias. I respect the fact of his commitment to his
Orthodox faith, but I don't appreciate being almost hammerlocked into having to take a side
in his prejudices.
He has a way of lumping 1,000 years of exceedingly complex history into what amounts
practically to silly formulas that remind one of adolescent pique. West is characterized by
"thuggery," whereas the "East," is presumably the source -- and is possibly the monopoly --
of the virtues Saker has in mind, while Western-like manifestations of military violence and
conquest are unknown there.
And there is this pearl: "Scholasticism and an insatiable thrust for worldly, secular,
power produced both moral relativism and colonialism " This is downright embarrassing in its
silliness. Of course, after deep study of Aquinas or Bonaventure the light comes on: moral
relativism! Clearly, subtlety and essential distinctions are not the Saker's strong points,
to say the least, when it comes to registering his annoyance and bitterness in his 1000 year
view of "the West," whereas sweeping and frankly spectacularly inept generalizations are. One
is really tempted to accuse him of a lack of intellectual integrity when it comes to these
matters.
At root, Saker is a highly emotional and touchy "rooter" for Orthodoxy. Fine, that's his
right, but he is no scholar. One looks in vain either for impartiality, for breadth and depth
of understanding and sympathy, and hence for generosity of spirit. Thankfully, there are many
great scholars of history, East and West.
In the 19th century, the imperial powers, for some reason, ganged up on
China.
That's the opposite of reality. If they had ganged up on China, each would have taken
large piece for itself. In reality, they were overawed by China, and tried to preserve it
much as they tried to preserve Ottoman rule against both breakup and dismemberment by Russia.
The Ottomans were too far gone, so they failed in both respects. But they did manage to
prevent China's breakup while failing to keep Russia from annexing a large chunk of Chinese
territory.
Heck, they even helped China defeat the millenarian Taiping rebels who racked up a large
body count during their rebellion. Note that when the Jurchens detected internal rebellion
during the Ming dynasty, they waited until the imperial armies were occupied with rebel
suppression before delivering the coup de grace to the Ming dynasty. The Western powers were
too tied up competing with each other to really cooperate in anything more than avenging the
honor of their envoys and getting trading posts set up on Chinese territory.
By "ganging up" I refer to the way in which China was COLLECTIVELY FORCED to extend any
and all concessions granted any single Imperial Power to ALL Imperial powers. And all the
Imperial powers were on-board with this policy , again as a unified group.
For example, if Russia forced a railroad treaty on China, China by unequal, at-gun-point
"Treaty" with the Eight Powers (at the time Great Britain, France, Japan, Germany, Russia,
The United States, Austria-Hungary and Italy) would also have to grant EVERYONE railroad
concessions in their respective zones.
Or say if China was forced to open trade relations by America, China would automatically
be forced to open trade to EVERYONE ELSE , and even the instigators in that case, the United
States, would force China to do it. All in the name of the relevant Treaties, of course.
Also by mutual agreement among the imperial powers, they would not support China in any
efforts to get better terms in any negotiation with any other power . So Russia refused to,
say provide support for Chinese efforts to fend off the Japanese, though normally it might
have done so. This was because, both being part of the Imperial Powers grouping, Russia and
Japan had agreed to co-exist in mutual exploitation of China.
It was all designed so that China would have no ability to shift its favor diplomatically
from one power to another, but had to negotiate from a position of deliberately imposed
weakness. Diplomacy was the only tool available to China in that execrably weak state,
pathetic as that tool was. By collective agreement among the Empires, that tool was taken
away.
In effect, exploitation of China became a COOPERATIVE project between such disparate
rivals as Britain, France and Germany, or United States, Japan and Russia. Such a thing, of a
coordinated desire to apportion one country among many, was not seen anywhere else in the
Colonial Age .
That is my meaning when I referred to the Empires "ganging up" on China.
How absurd. The foremost producer of virtually all modern goods is irrelevant without
Russia? A weakened Russia is a boon to Chinese expansion into their desired role as Eurasian
leader state. The only irrelevant nations are in the West as their post-national suicide
becomes all the more certain.
Ridiculous, China needs Russia as Russia is a perfect complement to Chinas weaknesses. In
fact, neither China nor Russia could have picked a better strategic partner than each other
as neither country could confront the West on it's own but together the West cannot topple
either nation. No other combination between countries would provide near as much
synergies.
China is not looking to expand into Russia. Why would they when they have a shrinking
population. They are expanding into the SCS in order to keep their oil lines free.
The real strategic advantage Russia and China have with each other is the OBOR. This is
key to everything and is the reason why the West is targeting Russia so aggressively.
If Mackinder's Heartland theory is at play, and you want to cut China off from Europe,
taking down Russia would seem to be an enormous effort to accomplish that. There are much
easier ways. Why not just lobby your European "allies" not to trade at all with China?
Mission accomplished, and no war with Russia as a bonus. If the EU won't follow the Empire's
orders, you need to take out not only Russia, but probably Pakistan, and all the Central
Asian nations, plus Iran and Turkey. If not, and you only destroy one or a few of these,
China's One Belt One Road reaches Europe anyway.
Also don't forget the outright blockade of China's maritime trade to be conducted by the
U.S. Navy -- kind of an act of war in itself.
Seems far easier, if you want to slow China down, to just ORDER America's NATO allies to
stop all trade with China. The rest of the world all together won't be able to fill the gap,
not any time soon.
Voila, you lower China's GDP growth by some significant percentage, using just strong-arm
diplomacy in Europe.
Buys America another full decade as number one economy, maybe.
In the fevered dreams of Western strategists, they hope for Russia and China to turn on each
other, sparing the Atlantic powers the trouble. Then, they come in and pick up the pieces.
They hope to replicate the success of Britain in playing off France against Germany pre-World
War One. The problem is they have in fact encouraged the Sino-Russian strategic alignment,
not hindered it.
No matter, after all, there can never be such a thing, thought the British, of a long-term
common interest between France and Germany -- a "European Union" will never come about.
French and Germans naturally hate each other! Right?
And how did Britain make out with that thinking? How will America make out in coming
decades? In geopolitics, not that well. Not as long as we are short-sighted.
Those with the power, and the happily ruled, have always needed synonyms for "obedience."
Solidarity is a choice in line with our social-mediatic times and the related
communication standards.
I mean, like i said above, Johnson and other western politicians are not "boneheads"
(intellectually weak) as you said, no, they are smart (intellectually strong) and pretending,
faking their intellectual weakness (appearance of stupidity)
Answers:-
One and two. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean there is no chance of a
mistake, and the standard necessary for thinking Putin responsible is less than what would be
needed for finding him guilty in a court of law. He cannot hide behind his country and
diplomatic immunity while claiming the protection of British Law for evidence necessary to
convict someone on trial for a capital offence.
Three. We want nothing from Russia , for indeed they have nothing to offer. To go away and
shut up is the most they can do, and that is why are sending the worst of the Russian goons
back were they came from, whether they want to go back or not (they would love to stay in
London*).
Four. Punishment is essential, otherwise they will see weakness.
Five. No chance of nuclear war or any other kind or war. Russia is destined to become the
lonely old man of Europe. It has nothing anyone wants at the price of being treated like an
imbecile, and our diplomats dislike living there*).
Oh, we have a copypaste contest? Okay then, i'd copy here my reply at saker's blog
too.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[MORE]
> China will be blackmailed into submission.
Wooop! Then it is not "existential threat" for China.
Clash for power, clash for sovereignty, clash fo prosperity -- but not for survival.
> Russia & China are working closely
Which does not mean China's role is making harsh diplomatic statements in favor of Russia.
At least it was not so before today. So i think it is not today either. Also remember that
Chinese social mindset is build upon idea of "indebting with gifts and aids" and then
requesting payback when they need it. Which means Russia should be very wary about accepting
any help from China unless it wishes to be seen by China as a deeply indebted beggar
incapable of sustaining itself. And since diplomatic situation for Russia is not deadly
critical I do not think Russia needed that newspaper article. If Russia would request China's
support of the kind -- it would be in official diplomatic venues like UN.
> Russia needs to save Syria for its own skin
> Iran needs to save its skin
But is it so for China? Is China in critical need of sovereign and friendly Syria? I doubt
it.
> China has been backing up with big cheque book for last few years, signing hundreds
of billions deal with upfront payments to prop Russia economy for prolong war.
Which is very important, but is not diplomatic statements nor Chinese newspaper
articles.
That is exactly the Chinese role in this fight like i said many times before -- economic
and financial warfare is Chinese responsibility, while military and diplomatic warfare is
Russian's.
> Global times news mostly reflected the China think tank policy that they wish to
propagate to English speaking world.
And here we are getting back to the topic. Why such a harsh, explicitly worded article did
appeared today? Was it because of Russia or of China itself? Was that article reaction to
some new threat to Syria, to russia, or to China itself?
And i believe in the latter option. This article is not linked to any recent events around
Russia, it is caused by Sino-American relations shift.
> China has sensed West is tightened noose around Russia to cut it off from world,
seeing from Olympic & now the Skirpal circus
Skripal affair is much less than Olympics was. Even European states many did not jumped
Skripal wagon. Additionally, if Russia would be "cut off from Western world" -- what the West
did not dared to do even in 2014 on the height of Crimea and MH17 accusations and on the
hopes of "gas station" imminent and fast collapse, so would hardly dare now just because some
Skripal -- but if Russia would somehow gets politically isolated from the West, what bad is
it for China? Russia would become more dependent on China, like many of the trade with West
would had to go through Chinese "laundry". China gets more influence over Russia. Russia gets
much more limited in its options. Good (for China) development, why hurry to cancel it before
Russia even asked for ?
> Trade war will be too bloody for the world
Yes, but the said trade war is not having Russia as primary adversary -- Russian economy i
not that significant to the western world, and for USA in particular it has but zero
significance. The trade war we see igniting -- is the war against China. China can no more be
"wise monkey up the trees", when USA moved their chaingun aim from Russia onto China. Now
China is being shot at, and the article is Chinese response to China being attacked. Not to
anything around Russia.
> You are silly self center viewer
Frankly, it is exactly the opposite here. It is you who claim Russia being behind that
article in Global Time. It is me who claims Russia has no any relation to the timing and
wording of that article.
> China special force is operating in Syria.
Maybe it is, but seems no one ever saw those operations.
> Lot of weapons supply to SAA.
Maybe they are, but can you name those Chinese weapons and show me where SAA is employing
it?
> Lot of money pump in to sustain Syria war,
If they are, then China does it part of the fight, good. Like USA supplied money and
material to fighting European states during WW2. However that has no relation with the Global
Times article being discussed.
> always throwing allies under bus whenever possible,
.because Putin is evil and just enjoys every opportunity to do bad thing. Always. I wish i
would hear somethign remotely creative from you.
> hence Russia deserve to be raped by West like 1990 is natural.
Oh, i see. Yet another russophobic preaching that "Russians should repent and repay,
repay, and repent", then frustrated when Russia shrugs this lecture off.
And, as you said, the west has many ways of neutralizing China.
Don't forget that China has an enormous internal market too, which in time should be
larger than the U.S. and EU combined. European countries that stay out of this vast and
rapidly growing market will be cutting their own throats. Good luck convincing them to do
that.
"... I wanted to investigate whether the growing volume of criticism toward Russia, sometimes by people who could hardly claim to be knowledgeable about the country, concealed a political agenda. ..."
"... I discovered evidence of Russophobia shared by different circles within the American political class and promoted through programs and conferences at various think tanks, congressional testimonies, activities of NGOs, and the media. Russophobia is not merely a critique of Russia, but a critique beyond any sense of proportion, waged with the purpose of undermining the nation's political reputation. ..."
"... To these individuals, Russophobia is merely a means to pressure the Kremlin into submitting to the United States in the execution of its grand plans to control the world's most precious resources and geostrategic sites. In the meantime, Russia has grown increasingly resentful, and the war in the Caucasus in August 2008 has demonstrated that Russia is prepared to act unilaterally to stop what it views as US unilateralism in the former Soviet region. ..."
"... Anti-American attitudes are strongly present in Russian media and cultural products, as a response to the US policies of nuclear, energy, and military supremacy in the world. Extreme hegemonic policies tend to provoke an extreme response, and Russian nationalist movements and often commentators react harshly to what they view as unilateral encroachment on Russia's political system and foreign policy interests. Russia's reactions to these policies by the United States are highly negative and frequently inadequate, but hardly more extreme than the American hegemonic and imperial discourse. ..."
"... The central objective of the Lobby has been to preserve and strengthen America's power in the post-Cold War world through imperial or hegemonic policies. The Lobby has viewed Russia with its formidable nuclear power, energy reserves, and important geostrategic location as a major obstacle in achieving this objective. Even during the 1990s, when Russia looked more like a failing state3 than one capable of projecting power, some members of the American political class were worried about the future revival of the Eurasian giant as a revisionist power. In their percep- tion, it was essential to keep Russia in a state of military and economic weakness-not so much out of emotional hatred for the Russian people and their culture, but to preserve American security and promote its val- ues across the world. To many within the Lobby, Russophobia became a useful device for exerting pressures on Russia and controlling its policies. Although to some the idea of undermining and, possibly, dismembering Russia was personal, to others it was a necessity of power dictated by the realities of international politics. ..."
"... According to this dominant vision, there was simply no place in this "New American Century" for power competitors, and America was destined eventually to assume control over potentially threatening military capabilities and energy reserves of others. As the two founders of the Project for the New' American Century (PNAC), William Kristol and Robert Kagan, asserted when referring to the large military forces of Russia and China, "American statesmen today ought to recognize that their charge is not to await the arrival of the next great threat, but rather to shape the international environment to prevent such a threat from arising in the first place."4 ..."
"... Russia was either to agree to assist the United States in preserving its world-power status or be forced to agree. It had to either follow the U.S. interpretation of world affairs and develop a political and economic system sufficiently open to American influences or live as a pariah state, smeared by accusations of pernicious behavior, and in constant fear for its survival in the America-centered world. As far as the U.S. hegemonic elites were concerned, no other choice was available. ..."
"... This hegemonic mood was largely consistent with mainstream ideas within the American establishment immediately following the end of the Cold War. For example, 1989 saw the unification of Germany and the further meltdown of the Soviet Union, which some characterized as "the best period of U.S. foreign policy ever."5 President Jimmy Carter's former national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski envisioned the upcoming victory of the West by celebrating the Soviet Union's "grand failure."6 ..."
"... Charles Krauthammer, went as far as to proclaim the arrival of the United States' "unipolar moment," a period in which only one super- power, the United States, would stand above the rest of the world in its military, economic, and ideological capacity ..."
"... The mid-1990s saw the emergence of post-Soviet Russophobia. The Lobby's ideology was not principally new, as it still contained the three central myths of Sovietophobia left over from the Cold War era: Russia is inherently imperialist, autocratic, and anti-Western. This ideology now had to be modified to the new conditions and promoted politically, which required a tightening of the Lobby's unity, winning new allies within the establishment, and gaining public support.15 ..."
"... During the period of 2003-2008, Vice President Richard Dick Cheney formed a cohesive and bipartisan group of Russia critics, who pushed for a more confrontational approach with the Kremlin. ..."
"... Cheney could not tolerate opposition to what he saw as a critical step in establishing worldwide US hegemony. He was also harboring the idea of controlling Russia's energy reserves.91 ..."
"... In Russia, however, the Cold War story has been mainly about sovereignty and independence, rather than Western-style liberalism. To many Russians it is a story of freedom from colonization by the West and of preserving important attributes of sovereign statehood. ..."
"... In a world where neocolonialism and cultural imperialism are potent forces, the idea of freedom as independence continues to have strong international appeal and remains a powerful alternative to the notion of liberal democracy. ..."
"... The West's unwillingness to recognize the importance of this legitimizing myth in the role of communist ideology has served as a key reason for the Cold War.5 Like their Western counterparts, the Soviets were debating over methods but not the larger assumptions that defined their struggle. ..."
"... Yet another analyst wrote "at the Cold War's end, the United States was given one of the great opportunities of history: to embrace Russia, the largest nation on earth, as partner, friend, ally. Our mutual interests meshed almost perfectly. There was no ideological, territorial, his- toric or economic quarrel between us, once communist ideology was interred. We blew it. We moved NATO onto Russia's front porch, ignored her valid interests and concerns, and, with our 'indispensable-nation' arrogance, treated her as a defeated power, as France treated Weimar Germany after Versailles."114 ..."
It was during the spring of 2006 that I began this project. I wanted
to investigate whether the growing volume of criticism toward Russia, sometimes
by people who could hardly claim to be knowledgeable about the country, concealed
a political agenda.
As I researched the subject, I discovered evidence of Russophobia shared
by different circles within the American political class and promoted through
programs and conferences at various think tanks, congressional testimonies,
activities of NGOs, and the media. Russophobia is not merely a critique of Russia,
but a critique beyond any sense of proportion, waged with the purpose of undermining
the nation's political reputation.
... ... ....
Although a critical analysis of Russia and its political system is entirely
legitimate, the issue is the balance of such analysis. Russia's role in the
world is growing, yet many U.S. politicians feel that Russia doesn't matter
in the global arena. Preoccupied with international issues, such as Iraq and
Afghanistan, they find it difficult to accept that they now have to nego- tiate
and coordinate their international policies with a nation that only yesterday
seemed so weak, introspective, and dependent on the West. To these individuals,
Russophobia is merely a means to pressure the Kremlin into submitting to the
United States in the execution of its grand plans to control the world's most
precious resources and geostrategic sites. In the meantime, Russia has grown
increasingly resentful, and the war in the Caucasus in August 2008 has demonstrated
that Russia is prepared to act unilaterally to stop what it views as US unilateralism
in the former Soviet region.
And some in Moscow are tempted to provoke a much greater confrontation with
Western states. The attitude of ignorance and self-righteousness toward Russia
tells us volumes about the United States' lack of preparation for the twenty-first
century's central challenges that include political instability, weapons proliferation,
and energy insecurity. Despite the dislike of Russia by a considerable number
of American elites, this attitude is far from universally shared. Many Americans
understand that Russia has gone a long way from communism and that the overwhelming
support for Putin's policies at home cannot be adequately explained by high
oil prices and the Kremlin's manipulation of the public-despite the frequent
assertions of Russophobic observers.
Balanced analysts are also aware that many Russian problems are typical difficulties
that nations encounter with state-building, and should not be presented as indicative
of Russia's "inherent drive" to autocracy or empire. As the United States and
Russia move further to the twenty-first century, it will be increasingly important
to redefine the relationship between the two nations in a mutually enriching
way.
Political and cultural phobias are, of course, not limited to those of an
anti-Russian nature. For instance, Russia has its share of America-phobia --
a phenomenon that I have partly researched in my book Whose World Order (Notre
Dame, 2004) and in several articles. Anti-American attitudes are strongly
present in Russian media and cultural products, as a response to the US policies
of nuclear, energy, and military supremacy in the world. Extreme hegemonic policies
tend to provoke an extreme response, and Russian nationalist movements and often
commentators react harshly to what they view as unilateral encroachment on Russia's
political system and foreign policy interests. Russia's reactions to these policies
by the United States are highly negative and frequently inadequate, but hardly
more extreme than the American hegemonic and imperial discourse.
The Anti-Russian Lobby
When the facile optimism was disappointed, Western euphoria faded, and
Russophobia returned ... The new Russophobia was expressed not by the
governments, but in the statements of out-of-office politicians, the
publications of academic experts, the sensational writings of jour-
nalists, and the products of the entertainment industry. (Rodric Braithwaite,
Across the Moscow River, 2002)1
....
Russophobia is not a myth, not an invention of the Red-Brovvns, but
a real phenomenon of political thought in the main political think tanks
in the West . .. [T]he Yeltsin-Kozyrev's pro-U.S. "giveaway game" was
approved across the ocean. There is reason to say that the period in
ques- tion left the West with the illusion that Russia's role was to
serve Washington's interests and that it would remain such in the future.
(Sergei Mikoyati, International Affairs /October 2006j)2
This chapter formulates a theory of Russophobia and the anti-Russian lobby's
influence on the U.S. Russia policy. 1 discuss the Lobby's objec- tives, its
tactics to achieve them, the history of its formation and rise to prominence,
and the conditions that preserved its influence in the after- math of 9/11.1
argue that Russophobia has been important to American hegemonic elites in pressuring
Russia for economic and political conces- sions in the post-Cold War era.
1. Goals and Means
Objectives
The central objective of the Lobby has been to preserve and strengthen
America's power in the post-Cold War world through imperial or hegemonic policies.
The Lobby has viewed Russia with its formidable nuclear power, energy reserves,
and important geostrategic location as a major obstacle in achieving this objective.
Even during the 1990s, when Russia looked more like a failing state3 than one
capable of projecting power, some members of the American political class were
worried about the future revival of the Eurasian giant as a revisionist power.
In their percep- tion, it was essential to keep Russia in a state of military
and economic weakness-not so much out of emotional hatred for the Russian people
and their culture, but to preserve American security and promote its val- ues
across the world. To many within the Lobby, Russophobia became a useful device
for exerting pressures on Russia and controlling its policies. Although to some
the idea of undermining and, possibly, dismembering Russia was personal, to
others it was a necessity of power dictated by the realities of international
politics.
According to this dominant vision, there was simply no place in this
"New American Century" for power competitors, and America was destined eventually
to assume control over potentially threatening military capabilities and energy
reserves of others. As the two founders of the Project for the New' American
Century (PNAC), William Kristol and Robert Kagan, asserted when referring to
the large military forces of Russia and China, "American statesmen today ought
to recognize that their charge is not to await the arrival of the next great
threat, but rather to shape the international environment to prevent such a
threat from arising in the first place."4
Russia was either to agree to assist the United States in preserving
its world-power status or be forced to agree. It had to either follow the U.S.
interpretation of world affairs and develop a political and economic system
sufficiently open to American influences or live as a pariah state, smeared
by accusations of pernicious behavior, and in constant fear for its survival
in the America-centered world. As far as the U.S. hegemonic elites were concerned,
no other choice was available.
This hegemonic mood was largely consistent with mainstream ideas within
the American establishment immediately following the end of the Cold War. For
example, 1989 saw the unification of Germany and the further meltdown of the
Soviet Union, which some characterized as "the best period of U.S. foreign policy
ever."5 President Jimmy Carter's former national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski
envisioned the upcoming victory of the West by celebrating the Soviet Union's
"grand failure."6
In his view, the Soviet "totalitarian" state was incapable of reform. Communism's
decline was therefore irreversible and inevitable. It would have made the system's
"practice and its dogma largely irrelevant to the human conditions," and communism
would be remembered as the twentieth century's "political and intellectual aberration."7
Other com- mentators argued the case for a global spread of Western values.
In 1990 Francis Fukuyama first formulated his triumphalist "end of history"
thesis, arguing a global ascendancy of the Western-style market democracy.®
... ... ...
Marc Plattner declared the emergence of a "world with one dominant principle
of legitimacy, democracy."9 When the Soviet system had indeed disintegrated,
the leading establishment journal Foreign Affairs pronounced that "the Soviet
system collapsed because of what it was, or more exactly, because of what it
was not. The West 'won' because of what the democracies were-because they were
free, prosperous and successful, because they did justice, or convincingly tried
to do so."10 Still others, such as Charles Krauthammer, went as far as to
proclaim the arrival of the United States' "unipolar moment," a period in which
only one super- power, the United States, would stand above the rest of the
world in its military, economic, and ideological capacity.11
In this context of U.S. triumphalism, at least some Russophobes expected
Russia to follow the American agenda. Still, they were worried that Russia may
still have surprises to offer and would recover as an enemy.12
Soon after the Soviet disintegration, Russia indeed surprised many, although
not quite in the sense of presenting a power challenge to the United States.
Rather, the surprise was the unexpectedly high degree of corruption, social
and economic decay, and the rapid disappointment of pro-Western reforms inside
Russia. By late 1992, the domestic economic situation was much worsened, as
the failure of Western-style shock ther- apy reform put most of the population
on the verge of poverty. Russia was preoccupied not with the projection of power
but with survival, as poverty, crime, and corruption degraded it from the status
of the indus- trialized country it once was. In the meantime, the economy was
largely controlled by and divided among former high-ranking party and state
officials and their associates. The so-called oligarchs, or a group of extremely
wealthy individuals, played the role of the new post-Soviet nomenklatura; they
influenced many key decisions of the state and suc- cessfully blocked the development
of small- and medium-sized business in the country.13 Under these conditions,
the Russophobes warned that the conditions in Russia may soon be ripe for the
rise of an anti-Western nationalist regime and that Russia was not fit for any
partnership with the United States.14
The mid-1990s saw the emergence of post-Soviet Russophobia. The Lobby's
ideology was not principally new, as it still contained the three central myths
of Sovietophobia left over from the Cold War era: Russia is inherently imperialist,
autocratic, and anti-Western. This ideology now had to be modified to the new
conditions and promoted politically, which required a tightening of the Lobby's
unity, winning new allies within the establishment, and gaining public support.15
... ... ...
The impact of structural and institutional factors is further reinforced
by policy factors, such as the divide within the policy community and the lack
of presidential leadership. Not infrequently, politicians tend to defend their
personal and corporate interests, and lobbying makes a difference in the absence
of firm policy commitments.
Experts recognize that the community of Russia watchers is split and that
the split, which goes all the way to the White House, has been responsible for
the absence of a coherent policy toward the country. During the period of
2003-2008, Vice President Richard Dick Cheney formed a cohesive and bipartisan
group of Russia critics, who pushed for a more confrontational approach with
the Kremlin. The brain behind the invasion of Iraq, Cheney could not
tolerate opposition to what he saw as a critical step in establishing worldwide
US hegemony. He was also harboring the idea of controlling Russia's energy reserves.91
Since November 2004, when the administration launched a review of its policy
on Russia,92 Cheney became a critically important voice in whom the Lobby found
its advocate. Secretaries of State Condoleezza Rice and, until November 2004,
Colin Powell opposed the vice president's approach, arguing for a softer and
more accommodating style in relations with Moscow.
President Bush generally sided with Rice and Powell, but he proved unable
to form a consistent Russia policy. Because of America's involvement in the
Middle East, Bush failed to provide the leadership committed to devising mutually
acceptable rules in relations with Russia that could have prevented the deterioration
in their relationship. Since the end of 2003, he also became doubtful about
the direction of Russia's domestic transformation.93 As a result, the promising
post-9/11 cooperation never materialized. The new cold war and the American
Sense of History
It's time we start thinking of Vladimir Putin's Russia as an enemy of the
United States. (Bret Stephens, "Russia: The Enemy," The Wall Street Journal,
November 28, 2006)
If today's reality of Russian politics continues ... then there is the real
risk that Russia's leadership will be seen, externally and internally, as illegitimate.
(John Edwards and Jack Kemp, "We Need to Be Tough with Russia," International
Herald Tribune, July 12, 2006)
On Iran, Kosovo, U.S. missile defense, Iraq, the Caucasus and Caspian basin,
Ukraine-the list goes on-Russia puts itself in conflict with the U.S. and its
allies . . . here are worse models than the united Western stand that won the
Cold War the first time around.
("Putin Institutionalized," The Wall Street Journal, November 19, 2007) In
order to derail the U.S.-Russia partnership, the Lobby has sought to revive
the image of Russias as an enemy of the United States. The Russophobic groups
have exploited important differences between the two countries' historical self-perceptions,
presenting those differences as incompatible.
1. Contested History
Two versions of history
The story of the Cold War as told from the U.S. perspective is about American
ideas of Western-style democracy as rescued from the Soviet threat of totalitarian
communism. Although scholars and politicians disagreed over the methods of responding
to the Soviet threat, they rarely questioned their underlying assumptions about
history and freedom.' It therefore should not come as surprise that many in
the United States have interpreted the end of the Cold War as a victory of the
Western freedom narrative. Celebrating the Soviet Union's "grand failure"-as
Zbigniew Brzezinski put it2-the American discourse assumed that from now on
there would be little resistance to freedom's worldwide progression. When Francis
Fukuyama offered his bold summary of these optimistic feelings and asserted
in a famous passage that "what we may be witnessing is not just the end of the
Cold War... but the end of history as such,"3 he meant to convey the disappearance
of an alternative to the familiar idea of free- dom, or "the universalization
of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government."4
In Russia, however, the Cold War story has been mainly about sovereignty
and independence, rather than Western-style liberalism. To many Russians it
is a story of freedom from colonization by the West and of preserving important
attributes of sovereign statehood.
In a world where neocolonialism and cultural imperialism are potent forces,
the idea of freedom as independence continues to have strong international appeal
and remains a powerful alternative to the notion of liberal democracy.
Russians formulated the narrative of independence centuries ago, as they successfully
withstood external invasions from Napoleon to Hitler. The defeat of the Nazi
regime was important to the Soviets because it legitimized their claims to continue
with the tradition of freedom as independence.
The West's unwillingness to recognize the importance of this legitimizing
myth in the role of communist ideology has served as a key reason for the Cold
War.5 Like their Western counterparts, the Soviets were debating over methods
but not the larger assumptions that defined their struggle.
This helps to understand why Russians could never agree with the Western
interpretation of the end of the Cold War. What they find missing from the U.S.
narrative is the tribute to Russia's ability to defend its freedom from expansionist
ambitions of larger powers. The Cold War too is viewed by many Russians as a
necessarily defensive response to the West's policies, and it is important that
even while occupying Eastern Europe, the Soviets never celebrated the occupation,
emphasizing instead the war vic- tory.6 The Russians officially admitted "moral
responsibility" and apolo- gized for the Soviet invasions of Hungary and Czechoslovakia.7
They may be prepared to fully recognize the postwar occupation of Eastern Europe,
but only in the context of the two sides' responsibility for the Cold War. Russians
also find it offensive that Western VE Day celebrations ignore the crucial contribution
of Soviet troops, even though none of the Allies, as one historian put it, "paid
dearer than the Soviet Union for the victory. Forty Private Ivans fell in battle
to every Private Ryan."8 Victory over Nazi Germany constitutes, as another Russian
wrote, "the only undisputable foundation of the national myth."9
If the two sides are to build foundations for a future partnership, the two
historical narratives must be bridged. First, it is important to recognize the
difficulty of negotiating a common meaning of freedom and accept that the idea
of freedom may vary greatly across nations. The urge for freedom may be universal,
but its social content is a specific product of national his- tories and local
circumstances. For instance, the American vision of democracy initially downplayed
the role of elections and emphasized selection by merit or meritocracy. Under
the influence of the Great Depression, the notion of democracy incorporated
a strong egalitarian and poverty-fighting component, and it was not until the
Cold War- and not without its influence-that democracy has become associated
with elections and pluralistic institutions.10 Second, it is essential to acknowledge
the two nations' mutual respon- sibility for the misunderstanding that has resulted
in the Cold War. A historically sensitive account will recognize that both sides
were thinking in terms of expanding a territorial space to protect their visions
of security. While the Soviets wanted to create a buffer zone to prevent a future
attack from Germany, the Americans believed in reconstructing the European continent
in accordance with their ideas of security and democracy. A mutual mistrust
of the two countries' leaders exacerbated the situation, making it ever more
difficult to prevent a full-fledged political confronta- tion. Western leaders
had reason to be suspicious of Stalin, who, in his turn, was driven by the perception
of the West's greed and by betrayals from the dubious Treaty of Versailles to
the appeasement of Hitler in Munich. Arrangements for the post-World War II
world made by Britain, the USSR, and the United States proved insufficient to
address these deep-seated suspicions.
In addition, most Eastern European states created as a result of the Versailles
Treaty were neither free nor democratic and collaborated with Nazi Germany in
its racist and expansionist policies. The European post-World War 1 security
system was not working properly, and it was only a matter of time before it
would have to be transformed.
Third, if an agreeable historical account is to emerge, it would have to
accept that the end of the Cold War was a product of mutually beneficial a second
Cold War, "it also does not want the reversal of the U.S. geopolitical gains
that it made in the decade or so after the end of the Cold War."112 Another
expert asked, "What possible explanation is there for the fact that today-at
a moment when both the U.S. and Russia face the common enemy of Islamist terrorism-hard-liners
within the Bush administration, and especially in the office of Vice President
Dick Cheney, are arguing for a new tough line against Moscow along the lines
of a scaled-down Cold War?"113
Yet another analyst wrote "at the Cold War's end, the United States was
given one of the great opportunities of history: to embrace Russia, the largest
nation on earth, as partner, friend, ally. Our mutual interests meshed almost
perfectly. There was no ideological, territorial, his- toric or economic quarrel
between us, once communist ideology was interred. We blew it. We moved NATO
onto Russia's front porch, ignored her valid interests and concerns, and, with
our 'indispensable-nation' arrogance, treated her as a defeated power, as France
treated Weimar Germany after Versailles."114
"... The roots of Russophobia's emotional appeal to the left seem clear: It comes as a huge mental relief to the ultrasensitive liberal mind to be able to hate an outside group with impunity, and even to appear virtuous in the process . Of course, the object of that animus is a Christian and European nation that stubbornly refuses to be postmodernized, or become gripped by self-hate and morbid introspection; a nation not ashamed of its past and unwilling to surrender its future to alien multitudes; a nation where nobody obsesses over transgender bathrooms, microaggressions, and other "issues" indicative of a society's moral and intellectual decrepitude. ..."
"... The liberals' ideological and emotional Russophobia has blended seamlessly with the bread-and-butter hostility to Russia shared by Deep State operatives in the intelligence and national-security apparatus, in the military-industrial complex, and in the congressional duopoly. ..."
"... The late Anna Politkovskaya thus wrote in the Los Angeles Times 12 years ago that "it is common knowledge that the Russian people are irrational by nature." It is impossible to imagine a mainstream publication publishing a similar statement about Jews or Muslims. ..."
"... Cheesepopes be gaslighting ..."
"... Nothing give a NYC Wall Street banker more of a wet dream than the possibility of war between the goy. Oil, white slaves, truly a banker's dream come true. ..."
by Srdja Trifkovic via The Strategic Culture Foundation,
There is a paranoid, hysterical quality to the public discourse on Russia and all things Russian
in today's America. The corporate media machine and its Deep State handlers have abdicated reason
and common decency in favor of raw hate and fear-mongering. We have not seen anything like it before,
even in the darkest days of the Cold War.
The roots of Russophobia's emotional appeal to the left seem clear: It comes as a huge mental
relief to the ultrasensitive liberal mind to be able to hate an outside group with impunity, and
even to appear virtuous in the process . Of course, the object of that animus is a Christian and
European nation that stubbornly refuses to be postmodernized, or become gripped by self-hate and
morbid introspection; a nation not ashamed of its past and unwilling to surrender its future to alien
multitudes; a nation where nobody obsesses over transgender bathrooms, microaggressions, and other
"issues" indicative of a society's moral and intellectual decrepitude.
The liberals' ideological and emotional Russophobia has blended seamlessly with the bread-and-butter
hostility to Russia shared by Deep State operatives in the intelligence and national-security apparatus,
in the military-industrial complex, and in the congressional duopoly. The result is a surreal narrative
that mixes supposedly unprovoked "Russian aggression" in Ukraine, hostile intent in the Baltics,
serial war crimes in Syria, political destabilization in Western Europe, and gross interference in
America's "democratic process". The result is an altogether fictitious "existential threat," which
has made President Trump's intended détente with Moscow impossible. He may have been serious about
turning over a new leaf, but the Deep State counterpressure proved just too great. A solid rejection
front emerged, left and right, conservative and liberal, which extends even into his own team and
finally inhibited him from making moves that could have appeared too friendly to Putin.
The Russophobes' narrative is unrelated to Russia's actual policies. It reflects a deep odium
of the elite class toward Russia-as-such. That animosity has been developing in its current form
since roughly the time of the Crimean War, when in his Letters From Russia the Marquis de Custine
said that the country's "veneer of European civilization was too thin to be credible."
"No human beings, black, yellow or white, could be quite as untruthful, as insincere, as arrogant-in
short, as untrustworthy in every way-as the Russians," President Theodore Roosevelt wrote in 1905.
John Maynard Keynes, after a trip to the Soviet Union in 1925, wondered whether the "mood of oppression"
might be "the fruit of some beastliness in the Russian nature." J. Robert Oppenheimer opined in 1951
that, in Russia, "We are coping with a barbarous, backward people." More recently, Sen. John McCain
declared that "Russia is a gas station masquerading as a country." "Russia is an anti-Western power
with a different, darker vision of global politics," Slate wrote in early 2014, even before the Ukrainian
crisis reached its climax.
This narrative has two key pillars. In terms of geopolitics, we see the striving of maritime empires-Britain
before World War II, and the United States after - to "contain" and if possible control the Eurasian
heartland, the core of which is of course Russia. Equally important is the already noted cultural
antipathy, the desire not merely to influence Russian policies and behavior but to effect an irreversible
transformation of Russia's identity. Some of the most viscerally Russophobic stereotypes come from
Russia herself, from those members of Moscow's "intelligentsia" who feel more at home in New York
or London than anywhere in their own country. The late Anna Politkovskaya thus wrote in the Los Angeles
Times 12 years ago that "it is common knowledge that the Russian people are irrational by nature."
It is impossible to imagine a mainstream publication publishing a similar statement about Jews or
Muslims.
The Russophobic frenzy comes at a cost. It further devalues the quality of public discourse on
world affairs in the United States, which is already dismally low. It has already undermined the
prospects for a mutually beneficial new chapter in U.S.-Russian relations, based on a realist assessment
that those two powers have no "existential" differences - and share many actual and potential commonalities.
It perpetrates the arrogant delusion that there is a superior, "Western" model of social and cultural
thought and action that can and should be imposed everywhere, but especially in Russia.
Saddest of all, Russophobic mania prolongs the European civil war that exploded in July 1914,
continued in 1939, and has never properly ended - not even with the fall of the Berlin Wall. It would
be in the American interest, as well as Russia's and Europe's, for that conflict to end, so that
the existential challenge common to all- that of resurgent jihad and Europe's demographic crisis
- can be properly addressed.
Nothing give a NYC Wall Street banker more of a wet dream than the possibility of war between
the goy. Oil, white slaves, truly a banker's dream come true.
..it seems like our foreign policy is like an angry poor, innocent "motorist", whacked out
on amphetamines, speeding over 100 mph and destined to drown in his liberal negro lottery swimming
pool.
The United States is closely watching a recent increase in piracy off the coast of Somalia,
a senior U.S. military official said on Sunday as Defense Secretary Jim Mattis visited an important
military base in Djibouti.
If I ignore your bullshit "but at the maximum..." implication:
So what do you conclude from that. Is it a bad thing to have rivals? Should we strive to turn
every remaining rival into a vassal? Is there a limit on methods allowed toward a rival?
I'll give you a green arrow to make up for the narrow-mindedness of the simpletons who all
gave you red arrows.
We don't need a war with Russia, and the US won't instigate one, either. The juice wouldn't
be worth the squeeze.
With all of that being said, Russia is a rival to the US in other parts of the world. The US
isn't the only country with a desire for influence around the world.
As much as there is a "Russo-phobia" being perpetuated in the US, you can bet a buck that there
is an "Ameri-phobia" being perpetuated out there.
The big difference is that in Russia, they don't have message boards full of people sh*tting
on their own country.
Well, that is kind of how major powers compete for influence. It takes two to tango. We can't
exactly engage in war by proxy if the Russians aren't involved in it, too.
I hate to say it but the so called "elites", in charge of our beloved deep state controlling
everything, are quite stupid -- This continuous news hysteria, against whatever subject du jour
our intelligentsia decides to float publicly, proves beyond any reasonable doubt that said "elites"
suffer from a combination of low IQ, partial education (at best !), and high self-delusion...
We might get to witness nuclear war, just because our "elites" are too idiotic to realize what
a nuclear war really is...
They stick their hook nose into everything because they want to own the whole 4th rock from
the sun. These people are ill, very ill and as I read these comments it's obvious that some just
don't get it yet.
All of this B.S. Russophobia evolved from a convenient distraction from the CONTENT of the
leaked DNC emails, and has been amplified because of the symbiosis with Neoconservative/Globalist
strategies.
What amazes me is how well the propaganda seems to be working. There's a bunch of old farts
(not that I'm really young!) at the gym every morning talking about how awesome it is that we
bombed Syria and it'll show that bastard Putin we're tough and mean business. "America, Fuck yeh!"
I wanted to ask them if they were mentally defective or just fucking retards...
Pretty much. Society has opted to run on emotion rather than fact, emotional manipulation being
the key part of the most popular forms of entertainment. Sadly this bleeds into our dealings with
each other which are increasingly emotional or insulting. Most of human behaviour and attitudes
are due to fear, particularly the egoic fear of inadequacy. As a control mechanism, fear is a
formidable tool. But fear is also a choice.
The Strategic Culture Foundation who published this piece has an evil agenda, and they are
not even friends of Putin. They are very subtle warmongers. You will see when the time comes.
Putin was duped by Iran in Syria, Iran got Syria, not Putin. Trump and Saudi can give Russia
what it needs to survive, if Putin stops being duped by deceptive hegemonial Iran.
This reminds me of when the ZerroHedge owners mentioned that Bloomberg article several months
back that involved an interview of a former Zero Hedge writer blowing the lid off this place.
He mentioned how pro-Russia the ZH owners were. This article suggests that he may have been right
after all!
Yea, we shouldn't be afraid of a country with nukes, that invades it's neigbours, has an uber
crony economy the size of Italy's, dominated by oligarchs in mining and the obligation to keep
friendly with the Kremlin or risk being put in jail and have your assets taken away on trumped
up charges. The country that murders it's opponents and critics with nasty stuff like Polonium,
even abroad, that interferes in others elections with misinformation campaigns and troll factories,
that is on the side of the ayatolla's of Iran and the mass murderer in Syria, helping him by bombing
hospitals and refugees, only to be "recognized as a player again on the world stage" A coutry
of alcoholics with one of the lowest life expectancy in the developed world. Really, a model state.
As Paul Graig Roberts, the inhouse idiot here noted, Putin for the Nobel peace price!
Wikileaks has disclosed the tactic to blame Russia for the election results, Trump's collusion,
etc. back to spring of 2016 --- I remember when they started making those "Russia" comments. They
wanted to start the thoughts about him/his staff being in collusion with the Russians. That was
to hopefully make more decide not to vote for him and in case he won, use it to prove election
fraud, treason and somehow impeach him.
Those who know about the Globalists NWO agenda, Deep State, Neocons, etc. realize we've all
been lied to about Russia (among all the other lies) since the end of the Cold War. for "their"
agenda purposes - need for continuous wars for MIC, etc. also. Putin is not as portrayed at all.
Russia is not the "big bad Commie" beast that wants to take over the world as they want us to
believe to "justify" another war.
Putin is an Eastern Orthodox Chrsitian who protects Christians, hates and fights terrorists
and Globalism. He is not a Globalist. We have those goals in common and Pres. Trump and Putin
would be a fantastic duo that when united, terrorism and Globalism would finally be dealt death
blows,
Our enemies within know that and therefore they're trying to do everything they can to hurt
that relationship and not let it happen because it would mean finally - the end of their evil
world order plan.
Amount of pressure applied commensurate to strength of a country in question. For some of them
all it takes is a stern talk from the ambassador, Russia right now is safely beyond the US ability
to apply the required pressure, including the threat of Nuclear War. What is happening instead
is that world being interconnected the way it is, applying pressure at hardened point that is
Russia is also increasing pressure at other weaker points as well, pretty much all over the world.
EU and NATO are posturing against Russia in display of lunacy that is symptomatic for the West,
it seems that God is taking away humans ability to reason. Day 1, Russia announces indefinite
cuts of gas supplies to Europe, stocks crater, world economy craters, Russia and China who were
hoarding gold watch the West collapse like a house of cards while passing the popcorn. The End.
Afghanistan is about to go full retard again, as taliban cuts ussa out of heroin billions---
as our afghan troops turn their weapons on their masters[1]
The Jewish media has been obsessed with this business about Russia allegedly influencing the
recent 2016 U.S. election. This obsession has concealed the real problem with foreign influence
over the American electoral system. It isn't Russian influence that's the problem, it is Israeli
influence that's the problem.
Below is a list of stories showing how Israelis or Jews substantively connected to Israel have
been subverting the American electoral process.
You know we will have turned the corner when Donald Trump gives the American people a "Fireside
Chat" and tells the public the real reasons the media spearheads a constant barrage of hate filled
anti-Russian LYING PROPAGANDA filled rhetoric... BECAUSE
A) THEY ARE THE WORLDS LEADER IN OIL PRODUCTION B) HAVE NO DEBT C) HAVE THERE OWN BALANCE OF
PAYMENT CREDIT SYSTEM MIR THAT WILL REPLACE THE WESTERN CENTRAL BANK(S) SYSTEM "SWIFT"
And after he delivers that truthful message he will NEVER BE ALLOWED TO EVER AGAIN... He will
probably be shot like HOWARD BEALE in the movie NETWORK... Or WWWIII will be LAUNCHED!!!
The Never Trump cabal can now claim total victory. Unsuccessful at preventing Trump from
winning the nomination or the general election, they have instead co-opted his presidency for
their own policies and programs.
With the nomination of John Bolton, Never Trump interventionists have installed one of the
unrepentant architects of the catastrophic Iraq War to head the National Security Council.
In recent months, ignoring and rejecting his own party's convention platform, Trump has
agreed to send lethal weapons to Ukraine. Besides accelerating the deaths of Ukrainians and
ethnic Russians while laying waste to the civilian population of the Donbas, what advantage to
the people of the United States does this military escalation provide?
Last summer, in one of the strangest speeches in American history, President Trump announced
he would surge troop levels in Afghanistan -- and then in the same breath admitted it was a
mistake and something he didn't really want to do. That should show the conflict here: Trump's
instincts versus the establishment sorts around him.
Never Trumpers are not so secretly celebrating. They got the president they thought they
didn't want. And now, pretending they still don't want him, they can hardly believe their good
fortune.
Achieving their foreign policy goals is just the icing on the cake. They also got the
president to implement the entire Wall Street agenda: lowering taxes on the super rich;
advancing huge subsidies to the medical insurance industry; keeping the Export-Import Bank
funded; re-authorizing the ivory trade; shrinking the size of national monuments so that
multi-national corporations can turn our wilderness areas into strip mines and clear-cut
wastelands.
Then, just this week, in a reckless act of generational theft, Trump endorsed the second
biggest budget in U.S. history, caving in to every demand and desire of the UniParty and the K
Street lobbyists whom they serve.
In the 18th century, the cry went "Millions for defense, but not one penny for tribute!"
Trump's cry is "Billions for defense, but not one penny for a wall!"
Trump justifies his signature on the omnibus bill by claiming it was necessary for national
security. But that claim rings hollow when comparatively little is allocated for the protection
of America's own borders and the defense of its homeland. Americans intuitively know that the
real danger to their safety is not along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border; it's along the
U.S.-Mexico border. But Trump's own laudable instincts have been neutered by the globalist,
interventionist generals and policy wonks who now populate powerful positions at the White
House and the departments of State and Defense.
Many reading this might now protest: what's wrong with passing the omnibus? Isn't it
providing the funds necessary for making America great again? But Donald Trump did not run for
office on a platform of bloating spending; he ran on opposition to massive debt increases and
specifically to many of the programs they pay for. The budget can be summed up in a paraphrase
of a Broadway musical hit tune: whatever crony wants, crony gets.
Has there been a fiercer critic of the Iraq war than Donald Trump? Yet he promotes to the
head of the NSC perhaps that conflict's most vociferous apologist. Trump promised he would end
the wars of choice, that he would refrain from taking sides in other nation's internal
conflicts. He called for a reasonable rapprochement with Russia with the goal of making America
and Americans safer. He specifically said he would wind down the military commitment in
Afghanistan as quickly and safely as possible.
His only bellicose pledge concerned ISIS, which he promised to destroy. As we have seen,
that was one of the few promises he kept. In most other policy areas he has reversed his
campaign pledges. His foreign policy is no longer America First; it's evolved into the same,
old, dangerous, meddling, interventionist program of the last quarter century. Trump has
deepened U.S. involvement in Yemen, Syria, Ukraine, and Afghanistan without clearly defining
the missions, the goals, and the risks. If voters had wanted this, they would have elected
Hillary Clinton, not Donald Trump.
Yet of all the betrayals, the war on nature is the most grievous and shocking. As someone
who supported Trump from day one in June 2015, who has seen virtually every one of his
speeches, interviews, and tweets, I cannot recall a single word about the national parks or
monuments.
Had Trump forecast during the campaign how he would govern on environmental issues, would he
have been elected? Could those narrow margins of victory in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin,
and Iowa have gone the other way? With his appointment of Ryan Zinke to the Department of the
Interior, Trump needlessly and recklessly alienated tens of thousands of voters who might
otherwise have supported him and who may indeed have voted for him in 2016. Although its hard
to discern exactly why the president's poll numbers are as low as they are, it would be a
mistake to discount the animus engendered by the unexpected assault on wilderness, open space,
endangered species, and America's magnificent national monuments.
The only national monument that Trump has failed to shrink is the Beltway swamp. In fact,
judging from the continuing spread of McMansions in Potomac, Maryland and Falls Church,
Virginia, he has effectively widened its borders. It's as if the chants from all those packed
stadiums during that long ago presidential campaign were "Fill that swamp! Fill that
swamp!"
It is now abundantly clear why the Never Trumpers are tittering over their cocktails. Trump
has staffed most departments of his government with establishment cronies and neoconservative
zealots. He now presides over the implementation of their agenda. In effect, we're
getting a variation on what could be called the third Bush presidency -- minus the decorum.
Trump's is also the all-talk presidency: talk tough on illegal immigration, but fail to
build the wall; talk tough on sanctuary cities, but fail to cut federal subsidies; talk tough
on illegal immigration, then push for the biggest amnesty since 1986; talk tough against the
Export-Import Bank, then fund it; talk tough on Obamacare, then fund big insurance to keep the
subsidies flowing; talk tough on reducing taxes, then screw millions of homeowners across
America by actually raising their taxes; talk tough on trade, then tiptoe around
Mexico and Canada on everything that really matters; talk tough on the deficit, then sign the
second biggest boondoggle spending bill in U.S. history.
Still, it cannot be denied: President Trump has accomplished much -- for the establishment
and their K Street lobbyists. They write the bills, Paul Ryan guides them through the House
amendment-free, and Trump signs them in to law.
For those who packed those campaign rallies, who wore those red "Make America Great Again"
caps, and for the rest of us mere plebs, Donald Trump's presidency is best summed up by The
Bard: "Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
Ron Maxwell wrote and directed the Civil War motion-pictures Gettysburg ,
Gods & Generals , and Copperhead .
This is probably the most vicious attack on Trump trangressions that i encountered so far...
Notable quotes:
"... The problem for Trump is that what his accusers are saying puts him in legal and political jeopardy. They are claiming, in effect, that he has committed a variety of unlawful and impeachable offenses – from obstruction of justice to violations of campaign finance laws. ..."
"... The Clinton-Lewinsky dalliance led to a series of events that prevented Clinton from doing even more harm to our feeble welfare state institutions than he would otherwise have done. ..."
There is no doubt about it: Stormy Daniels is a formidable woman. Karen McDougal is no slouch either, though she is hard to admire
after that riff, in her Anderson Cooper interview, about how religious and Republican she is; she even said that she used to love
the Donald. Stormy Daniels is better than that.
How wonderfully appropriate it would be if she were to become the proverbial straw that breaks the camel's back.
Even in a world as topsy-turvy as ours has become, there has to be a final straw.
To be sure, evidence of Trump's vileness, incompetence, and mental instability is accumulating at breakneck speed, and there are
polls now that show support for him holding fast or even slightly rising. Trump's hardcore "base" seems more determined than ever
to stand by their man.
But even people as benighted as they are bound to realize eventually that they have been had. Many of them already do, but don't
care; they hate Clinton Democrats that much. This is understandable, but foolish; so foolish, in fact, that they can hardly keep
it up indefinitely.
To think otherwise is to despair for the human race.
What, if anything, can bring them to their senses in time for the 2018 election?
Stormy Daniels says she only wants to tell her story, not bring Trump down. But her political instincts seem decent, and she is
one shrewd lady. Therefore, I would not be the least surprised if that is not quite true. It hardly matters, though, what her intentions
are; I'd put my money on her.
A recession might also do the trick. A recession is long overdue, and Trump's tax cut for the rich and his tariffs are sure to
make its consequences worse when it happens.
To turn significant portions of Trump's base against him, a major military conflagration might also do -- not the kind Barack
Obama favored, fought far away and out of public view, but a real war, televised on CNN, and waged against an enemy state like North
Korea or Iran. It would have to go quickly and disastrously wrong, though, in ways that even willfully blind, terminally obtuse Trump
supporters could not fail to see.
Or the gods could smile upon us, causing Trump's exercise regimen (sitting in golf carts) and his fat-ridden, cholesterol rich
diet to catch up with him, as it would with most other sedentary septuagenarians. The only downside would be that a heart attack
or stroke might elicit sympathy for the poor bastard. No sane person could or should hope for a calamitous economic downturn or for
yet another devastating, pointless, and manifestly unjust war, especially one that could become a war to end all wars (along with
everything else), on the off-chance that some good might come of it. And if the best we can do is hope that cheeseburgers with fries
will save us, we are grasping at straws.
These are compelling reasons to hope that the accusations made by Daniels and McDougal and Summer Zervos – and other consensual
and non-consensual Trump victims and "playmates" – gain traction. If the several defamation lawsuits now in the works can get the
president deposed, this is not out of the question.
The problem for Trump is not that his accusers' revelations will cause his base to defect; no matter how salacious their stories
and no matter how believable they may be. Trump's moral turpitude is taken for granted in their circles; and they do not care about
the myriad ways his words and deeds offend the dignity of the office he holds or embarrass the country he purports to put "first."
If any of that mattered to them, they would have jumped ship long ago.
Except perhaps for unreconstructed racists and certifiable sociopaths, white evangelicals are Trump's strongest supporters. What
a despicable bunch of hypocrites they are! As long as Trump delivers on their agendas, his salacious escapades don't faze them at
all. Godly folk have evidently changed a good deal since the Cotton Mather days.
What has not changed is their seemingly limitless ability to believe nonsense.
And in case light somehow does manage to shine through, Trump has shown them how to restore the darkness they crave. When cognitive
dissonance threatens, all they need do is scream "fake news."
The problem for Trump is that what his accusers are saying puts him in legal and political jeopardy. They are claiming, in
effect, that he has committed a variety of unlawful and impeachable offenses – from obstruction of justice to violations of campaign
finance laws.
In this case as in so many others, it is the cover-up, not the underlying "crime," that could lead to his undoing – especially
if the stories Daniels and the others are telling shed light upon or otherwise connect with or meld into Robert Mueller's investigation
of (alleged) Russian "meddling" in the 2016 election.
Trump could and probably will survive their charges. His base is such a preternaturally obdurate lot that there may ultimately
be no last straw for them. We may have no choice, in the end, but to despair for a sizeable chunk of the human race.
Stormy Daniels would not be any less admirable on that account. She took Trump on and came out on top. For all the world (minus
the willfully blind) to see, she, the porn star, is a strong woman who has her life together, while he, the president, is a discombobulated
sleaze ball who is leading himself and his country to ruin.
***
It was different with Monica Lewinsky, another presidential paramour who, almost two decades ago, also held the world's attention.
There was nothing sleazy or venal about Lewinsky's involvement with Bill Clinton; and, for all I know, unless chastity counts,
she is as good and virtuous a person as can be. But personal qualities are not what made her affair with our forty-second president
as historically significant as it turned out to be.
It would be fair to say that of all the women who have ever had intimate knowledge of that old horn dog's private parts, there
is no one who did more good for her country. If only for that, if there were a heaven, there would be special place in it just for
her.
The Clinton-Lewinsky dalliance led to a series of events that prevented Clinton from doing even more harm to our feeble welfare
state institutions than he would otherwise have done.
Who knows how much progress he would have turned back had he and Monica never done the deed or at least not been found out. Building
on groundwork laid down by Ronald Reagan and the first George Bush, he and his wife had already terminated Aid to Families With Dependent
Children, one of the main government programs aimed at relieving poverty. This was to be just the first step in "ending welfare as
we know it."
With their "donors" pushing for more austerity, those two neoliberal pioneers were itching to begin privatizing other, more widely
supported social programs, including even Social Security, the so-called "third rail" of American politics.
The "Lewinsky matter" put the kybosh on that idea, leaving the American people forever in Monica's debt.
Back in the Kennedy days, Mel Brook's two-thousand year old man got it right when he said: presidents "gotta do it," to which
he added – " because if they don't do it to their wives and girlfriends, they do it to the nation."
Stormy Daniels made much the same point ten years ago, while flirting with the idea of running against Louisiana Senator David
Vitter. Vitter's political career had been almost ruined when his name turned up in the phone records of the infamous "DC Madam,"
Deborah Jeane Palfrey. Daniels told voters that, unlike Vitter, she would "screw (them) honestly."
What then are we to make of the fact that Trump screws both the nation and his wife (maybe) and his girlfriends (or whatever they
are)?
Blame it on arrested development, on the fact that despite his more than seventy-one years, Trump still has the mind of a teenage
boy, one with money and power enough to live out his fantasies.
The contrast with Bill Clinton is stark. Clinton is a philanderer with eclectic tastes, a charming rascal with a broad and mischievous
mind. Honkytonk women from Arkansas appeal to him as much as zaftig MOTs from the 90210 area code.
Trump, on the other hand, goes for super-models, Playboy centerfolds, and aspiring beauty queens -- standard teenage
fantasy fare.
He seems to have had little trouble living his dreams – not thanks to his magnetic face, form and figure, and certainly not to
his refinement, wit or charm, but to his inherited and otherwise ill-gotten wealth.
It is money and the power that follows from it that draws women to his net.
Henry Kissinger understood; recall his musings on the aphrodisiacal properties of power. Even in his prime, that still unindicted
war criminal (and later-day Hillary Clinton advisor) was even more repellent than Trump. But that never kept him from having to fight
the ladies off.
This fact of life puts a heavy responsibility on the women with whom presidents hook up.
Consider Melania. She made a Faustian bargain when she agreed to become Trump's trophy bride; in return for riches and a soft
life in a gilded tower, she sold her soul. She might have thought better of it had she taken the burdens she would incur as First
Lady into account, but why would she? The prospect was too improbable.
She has, it seems, a very practical, old world view of marriage, and is therefore tolerant of her husband's womanizing. At the
same time, as a mother and daughter, she is, like most immigrants, a strong proponent of old world "family values."
Too much of a proponent perhaps; insofar as her idea was to "chain migrate" her parents out of Slovenia and onto Easy Street,
or to raise a kid who would never want for anything, there were less onerous ways of going about it. After all, there are plenty
of rich Americans lusting after supermodels out there, and it is a good bet that many of them are less repellent than Trump.
She was irresponsible as well. She ought to have realized that the man she married had already spawned two idiot sons, along with
other fruit from the poisonous tree, and that four bad apples in one generation are enough.
And so now she finds herself a single mother – not in theory, of course, but very definitely in practice. Unlike most women in
that position, she is not wanting for resources. But it must be a hard slog, even so. To her credit, Melania seems to be handling
the burden well. More power to her!
She also deserves credit for her body language when the Donald is around; the contempt she shows for him is wonderful to behold.
Best of all is her sense of the absurd. The way she plagiarized from Michelle Obama had obvious comic validity, and making childhood
bullying her First Lady cause – all First Ladies have causes -- was a stroke of genius.
On balance, therefore, it is hard not to feel sorry for her. Of all the women in Trump's ambit, she deserves humiliation the least.
The rumor mill has it that with all the publicity about Daniels and the others , she has finally had enough. This may
be the case; the old world ethos requires discretion and a concern with appearances. That is not the Donald's way, however, and now
she is paying the price.
What a magnificent humiliation it would be if she and Trump were to split up on that account. This could happen soon. I would
expect, though, that through a combination of carrots and sticks, Trump and his fixers will find a way to minimize the political
effects. More likely still, they will channel Joe Kennedy and Jackie O, and figure out a way to head the problem off.
Then there is poor forgotten Tiffany. Her Wikipedia entry lists her as both a law student and a "socialite." I hope her studious
side wins out and that, despite the genes from her father's side, she is at least somewhat decent and smart.
I'd be more confident of that if she would do what Ronald Reagan's daughter, Patti, did: use her mother's, not her father's, name.
Unless she is a sleaze ball too, a Trump in the Eric and Don Junior mold, that would be a fine way to make a political point.
It would also pay back over the years. With the Trump administration on its current trajectory, who, in a few years' time, would
take a Tiffany Trump seriously? A Tiffany Maples would stand a better chance.
Her half-sister, the peerless Ivanka, the Great Blonde Hope, is, of course, her father's sweetie. Let's not go there, however.
Her marriage to Jared Kushner is already enough to process.
What a pair those two make; and what a glorious day it will be when the law finally catches up with Jared, as it did with his
Trump-like father, Charles. Perhaps he will take Ivanka down a notch or two with him. Despite an almost complete lack of qualifications,
Trump made his son-in-law his minister of almost everything; a pretty good gig for a feckless, airhead rich kid. Among other things,
Trump enabled him to become Benjamin Netanyahu's ace in the hole. Netanyahu is a Kushner family friend. Netanyahu has more than his
share of legal troubles too. Let them all go down together!
Ivanka and Jared are well matched – they share a "business model." It has them exploiting their daddies' connections and money.
Jared peddles real estate; his efforts have gotten his family into serious debt, while putting him in solid with Russian and Eastern
European oligarchs, Gulf state emirs, and Mohammad bin Salman – people in comparison with whom his father-in-law seems almost virtuous.
Ivanka sells trinkets and schmatas to people who think the Trump name is cool. There actually are such people; at two
hundred grand a pop, Mar-a-Lago is full of them. Ivanka's demographic is made up mostly of their younger set.
Two other presidential women bare mention: Hope Hicks and Nikki Haley. Surely, they both have tales to tell, but it looks, for
now, as if their stories would be of little or no prurient interest. Neither of them appear to have been propositioned or groped.
Even though Hicks is said to be like a daughter to the Donald – we know what that could mean! – it is a safe bet that there was
nothing of a romantic nature going on between them. For one thing, Hicks seems too close to Ivanka; for another, she is known to
have dallied with two Trump subordinates, Corey Lewandowski and Rob Porter. The don is hardly the type to let his underlings have
at his women.
Haley had to quash a spate of rumors that flared up thanks to some suggestive remarks Michael Wolff made while hawking Fire
and Fury . The rumor caught on because people who hadn't yet fully realized what a piece of work Trump is, imagined that something
had to be awry inasmuch as her main qualification for representing the United States at the United Nations was an undergraduate degree
in accounting. Abject servility to the Israel lobby also helped.
But the Trump administration is full of ambitious miscreants whose views on Israel and Palestine are as abject and servile as
hers, and compared to many others in Trump's cabinet she is, if anything, over qualified. Think of neurosurgeon Ben Carson heading
the Department of Housing and Urban Development. He is qualified because, as a child, he lived in public housing.
With the exception of Stormy Daniels, Karen McDougal, Summer Zervos and whoever else comes forward with a juicy and credible tale
to tell, the women currently in the president's ambit, though good for gossip and interesting in the ways that characters on reality
TV shows can be, are of little or no political consequence.
This could change if any of them decides to "go rogue," to use an expression from the Sarah Palin days. But, while neither Melania
nor Tiffany can yet be judged hopeless, it would be foolish to expect much of anything good to come from either of them.
Stormy, Karen, Summer, and whoever else steps forward are a better bet. They are the only ones with any chance of doing as much
for their country and the world as Monica Lewinsky did a generation ago.
Among the president's women, they are a breed apart. This is plainly the case with Stormy Daniels; it is already clear that she
deserves what all Trump's money can never buy – honor and esteem. To the extent that the others turn out to be similarly courageous,
they will too.
"... Running against what she (wrongly) perceived (along with most election prognosticators) as a doomed and feckless opponent and as the clear preferred candidate of Wall Street and the intimately related U.S foreign policy elite , including many leading Neoconservatives put off by Trump's isolationist and anti-interventionist rhetoric, the "lying neoliberal warmonger" Hillary Clinton arrogantly figured that she could garner enough votes to win without having to ruffle any ruling-class feathers. ..."
"... Smart Wall Street and K Street Democratic Party bankrollers have long understood that Democratic candidates have to cloak their dollar-drenched corporatism in the deceptive campaign discourse of progressive- and even populist-sounding policy promise to win elections. ..."
"... Trump trailed well behind Clinton in contributions from defense and aerospace – a lack of support extraordinary for a Republican presidential hopeful late in the race. ..."
"... one fateful consequence of trying to appeal to so many conservative business interests was strategic silence about most important matters of public policy. Given the candidate's steady lead in the polls, there seemed to be no point to rocking the boat with any more policy pronouncements than necessary ..."
"... Misgivings of major contributors who worried that the Clinton campaign message lacked real attractions for ordinary Americans were rebuffed. The campaign sought to capitalize on the angst within business by vigorously courting the doubtful and undecideds there, not in the electorate ..."
"... Of course, Bill and Hillary helped trail-blaze that plutocratic "New Democrat" turn in Arkansas during the late 1970s and 1980s. The rest, as they say, was history – an ugly corporate-neoliberal, imperial, and racist history that I and others have written about at great length. ..."
"... My Turn: Hillary Clinton Targets the Presidency ..."
"... Queen of Chaos: The Misadventures of Hillary Clinton ..."
"... The Condemnation of Little B: New Age Racism in America ..."
"... Still, Trump's success was no less tied to big money than was Hillary's failure. Candidate Trump ran strangely outside the longstanding neoliberal Washington Consensus, as an economic nationalist and isolationist. His raucous rallies were laced with dripping denunciations of Wall Street, Goldman Sachs, and globalization, mockery of George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq, rejection of the New Cold War with Russia, and pledges of allegiance to the "forgotten" American "working-class." He was no normal Republican One Percent candidate. ..."
"... Globalization has made the financial elite who donate to politicians very wealthy. But it has left millions of our workers with nothing but poverty and heartache ..."
"... "In a frontal assault on the American establishment, the Republican standard bearer proclaimed 'America First.' Mocking the Bush administration's appeal to 'weapons of mass destruction' as a pretext for invading Iraq, he broke dramatically with two generations of GOP orthodoxy and spoke out in favor of more cooperation with Russia . He even criticized the 'carried interest' tax break beloved by high finance" (emphasis added). ..."
"... "What happened in the final weeks of the campaign was extraordinary. Firstly, a giant wave of dark money poured into Trump's own campaign – one that towered over anything in 2016 or even Mitt Romney's munificently financed 2012 effort – to say nothing of any Russian Facebook experiments [Then] another gigantic wave of money flowed in from alarmed business interests, including the Kochs and their allies Officially the money was for Senate races, but late-stage campaigning for down-ballot offices often spills over on to candidates for the party at large." ..."
"... "In a harbinger of things to come, additional money came from firms and industries that appear to have been attracted by Trump's talk of tariffs, including steel and companies making machinery of various types [a] vast wave of new money flowed into the campaign from some of America's biggest businesses and most famous investors. Sheldon Adelson and many others in the casino industry delivered in grand style for its old colleague. Adelson now delivered more than $11 million in his own name, while his wife and other employees of his Las Vegas Sands casino gave another $20 million. ..."
"... Peter Theil contributed more than a million dollars, while large sums also rolled in from other parts of Silicon Valley, including almost two million dollars from executives at Microsoft and just over two million from executives at Cisco Systems. ..."
"... Among those were Nelson Peltz and Carl Icahn (who had both contributed to Trump before, but now made much bigger new contributions). In the end, along with oil, chemicals, mining and a handful of other industries, large private equity firms would become one of the few segments of American business – and the only part of Wall Street – where support for Trump was truly heavy the sudden influx of money from private equity and hedge funds clearly began with the Convention but turned into a torrent " ..."
"... The critical late wave came after Trump moved to rescue his flagging campaign by handing its direction over to the clever, class-attuned, far-right white- and economic- nationalist "populist" and Breitbart executive Steve Bannon, who advocated what proved to be a winning, Koch brothers-approved "populist" strategy: appeal to economically and culturally frustrated working- and middle-class whites in key battleground states, where the bloodless neoliberal and professional class centrism and snooty metropolitan multiculturalism of the Obama presidency and Clinton campaign was certain to depress the Democratic "base" vote ..."
"... Neither turnout nor the partisan division of the vote at any level looks all that different from other recent elections 2016's alterations in voting behavior are so minute that the pattern is only barely differentiated from 2012." ..."
"... An interesting part of FJC's study (no quick or easy read) takes a close look at the pro-Trump and anti-Hillary Internet activism that the Democrats and their many corporate media allies are so insistently eager to blame on Russia and for Hillary's defeat. FJC find that Russian Internet interventions were of tiny significance compared to those of homegrown U.S. corporate and right-wing cyber forces: ..."
"... By 2016, the Republican right had developed internet outreach and political advertising into a fine art and on a massive scale quite on its own. ..."
"... Breitbart and other organizations were in fact going global, opening offices abroad and establishing contacts with like-minded groups elsewhere. Whatever the Russians were up to, they could hardly hope to add much value to the vast Made in America bombardment already underway. Nobody sows chaos like Breitbart or the Drudge Report ." ..."
"... no support from Big Business ..."
"... Sanders pushed Hillary the Goldman candidate to the wall, calling out the Democrats' capture by Wall Street, forcing her to rely on a rigged party, convention, and primary system to defeat him. The small-donor "socialist" Sanders challenge represented something Ferguson and his colleagues describe as "without precedent in American politics not just since the New Deal, but across virtually the whole of American history a major presidential candidate waging a strong, highly competitive campaign whose support from big business is essentially zero ." ..."
"... American Oligarchy ..."
"... teleSur English ..."
"... we had no great electoral democracy to subvert in 2016 ..."
"... Only candidates and positions that can be financed can be presented to voters. As a result, in countries like the US and, increasingly, Western Europe, political parties are first of all bank accounts . With certain qualifications, one must pay to play. Understanding any given election, therefore, requires a financial X-ray of the power blocs that dominate the major parties, with both inter- and intra- industrial analysis of their constituent elements." ..."
"... Elections alone are no guarantee of democracy, as U.S. policymakers and pundits know very well when they rip on rigged elections (often fixed with the assistance of U.S. government and private-sector agents and firms) in countries they don't like ..."
"... Majority opinion is regularly trumped by a deadly complex of forces in the U.S. ..."
"... Trump is a bit of an anomaly – a sign of an elections and party system in crisis and an empire in decline. He wasn't pre-approved or vetted by the usual U.S. " deep state " corporate, financial, and imperial gatekeepers. The ruling-class had been trying to figure out what the Hell to do with him ever since he shocked even himself (though not Steve Bannon) by pre-empting the coronation of the "Queen of Chaos." ..."
"... His lethally racist, sexist, nativist, nuclear-weapons-brandishing, and (last but not at all least) eco-cidal rise to the nominal CEO position atop the U.S.-imperial oligarchy is no less a reflection of the dominant role of big U.S. capitalist money and homegrown plutocracy in U.S. politics than a more classically establishment Hillary ascendancy would have been. It's got little to do with Russia, Russia, Russia – the great diversion that fills U.S. political airwaves and newsprint as the world careens ever closer to oligarchy-imposed geocide and to a thermonuclear conflagration that the RussiaGate gambit is recklessly encouraging. ..."
On the Friday after the Chicago Cubs won the World Series and prior to the Tuesday on which
the vicious racist and sexist Donald Trump was elected President of the United States, Bernie
Sanders spoke to a surprisingly small crowd in Iowa City on behalf of Hillary Clinton. As I
learned months later, Sanders told one of his Iowa City friends that day that Mrs. Clinton was
in trouble. The reason, Sanders reported, was that Hillary wasn't discussing issues or
advancing real solutions. "She doesn't have any policy positions," Sanders said.
The first time I heard this, I found it hard to believe. How, I wondered, could anyone run
seriously for the presidency without putting issues and policy front and center? Wouldn't any
serious campaign want a strong set of issue and policy positions to attract voters and fall
back on in case and times of adversity?
Sanders wasn't lying. As the esteemed political scientist and money-politics expert Thomas
Ferguson and his colleagues Paul Jorgensen and Jie Chen note in an important study released by
the Institute for New Economic Thinking two months ago, the Clinton campaign "emphasized
candidate and personal issues and avoided policy discussions to a degree without precedent in
any previous election for which measurements exist .it stressed candidate qualifications [and]
deliberately deemphasized issues in favor of concentrating on what the campaign regarded as
[Donald] Trump's obvious personal weaknesses as a candidate."
Strange as it might have seemed, the reality television star and presidential pre-apprentice
Donald Trump had a lot more to say about policy than the former First Lady, U.S. Senator, and
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, a wonkish Yale Law graduate.
"Courting the Undecideds in Business, not in the Electorate"
What was that about? My first suspicion was that Hillary's policy silence was about the
money. It must have reflected her success in building a Wall Street-filled campaign funding
war-chest so daunting that she saw little reason to raise capitalist election investor concerns
by giving voice to the standard fake-progressive "hope" and "change" campaign and policy
rhetoric Democratic presidential contenders typically deploy against their One Percent
Republican opponents. Running against what she (wrongly) perceived (along with most election
prognosticators) as a doomed and feckless opponent and as the clear preferred candidate of
Wall
Street and the intimately related U.S foreign policy elite , including many leading
Neoconservatives put off by Trump's isolationist and anti-interventionist rhetoric, the
"lying
neoliberal warmonger" Hillary Clinton arrogantly figured that she could garner enough votes
to win without having to ruffle any ruling-class feathers. She would cruise into the White
House with no hurt plutocrat feelings simply by playing up the ill-prepared awfulness of her
Republican opponent.
If Ferguson, Jorgensen, and Chen (hereafter "JFC") are right, I was on to something but not
the whole money and politics story. Smart Wall Street and K Street Democratic Party bankrollers
have long understood that Democratic candidates have to cloak their dollar-drenched corporatism
in the deceptive campaign discourse of progressive- and even populist-sounding policy promise
to win elections. Sophisticated funders get it that the Democratic candidates' need to
manipulate the electorate with phony pledges of democratic transformation. The big
money backers know it's "just politics" on the part of candidates who can be trusted to
serve elite interests (like Bill
Clinton 1993-2001 and Barack
Obama 2009-2017 ) after they gain office.
What stopped Hillary from playing the usual game – the "manipulation of populism by
elitism" that Christopher
Hitchens once called "the essence of American politics" – in 2016, a year when the
electorate was in a particularly angry and populist mood? FJC's study is titled "
Industrial Structure and Party Competition in an Age of Hunger Games : Donald Trump and the
2016 Presidential Election." It performs heroic empirical work with difficult campaign finance
data to show that Hillary's campaign funding success went beyond her party's usual corporate
and financial backers to include normally Republican-affiliated capitalist sectors less
disposed than their more liberal counterparts to abide the standard progressive-sounding policy
rhetoric of Democratic Party candidates. FJC hypothesize that (along with the determination
that Trump was too weak to be taken all that seriously) Hillary's desire get and keep on board
normally Republican election investors led her to keep quiet on issues and policy concerns that
mattered to everyday people. As FJC note:
"Trump trailed well behind Clinton in contributions from defense and aerospace – a
lack of support extraordinary for a Republican presidential hopeful late in the race. For
Clinton's campaign the temptation was irresistible: Over time it slipped into a variant of
the strategy [Democrat] Lyndon Johnson pursued in 1964 in the face of another [Republican]
candidate [Barry Goldwater] who seemed too far out of the mainstream to win: Go for a grand
coalition with most of big business . one fateful consequence of trying to appeal to so
many conservative business interests was strategic silence about most important matters of
public policy. Given the candidate's steady lead in the polls, there seemed to be no point to
rocking the boat with any more policy pronouncements than necessary . Misgivings of
major contributors who worried that the Clinton campaign message lacked real attractions for
ordinary Americans were rebuffed. The campaign sought to capitalize on the angst within
business by vigorously courting the doubtful and undecideds there, not in the electorate
" (emphasis added). Hillary
Happened
FJC may well be right that a wish not to antagonize off right-wing campaign funders is what
led Hillary to muzzle herself on important policy matters, but who really knows? An alternative
theory I would not rule out is that Mrs. Clinton's own deep inner conservatism was sufficient
to spark her to gladly dispense with the usual progressive-sounding campaign boilerplate. Since
FJC bring up the Johnson-Goldwater election, it is perhaps worth mentioning that 18-year old
Hillary was a "Goldwater Girl" who worked for the arch-reactionary Republican presidential
candidate in 1964. Asked about that episode on National
Public Radio (NPR) in 1996 , then First Lady Hillary said "That's right. And I feel like my
political beliefs are rooted in the conservatism that I was raised with. I don't recognize this
new brand of Republicanism that is afoot now, which I consider to be very reactionary, not
conservative in many respects. I am very proud that I was a Goldwater girl."
It was a revealing reflection. The right-wing Democrat Hillary acknowledged that her
ideological world view was still rooted in the conservatism of her family of origin. Her
problem with the reactionary Republicanism afoot in the U.S. during the middle 1990s was that
it was "not conservative in many respects." Her problem with the far-right Republican
Congressional leaders Newt Gingrich and Tom DeLay was that they were betraying true
conservatism – "the conservatism [Hillary] was raised with." This was worse even than the
language of the Democratic Leadership Conference (DLC) – the right-wing Eisenhower
Republican (at leftmost) tendency that worked to push the Democratic Party further to the Big
Business-friendly right and away from its working-class and progressive base.
What happened? Horrid corporate Hillary happened. And she's still happening. The "lying
neoliberal warmonger" recently went to India to double down on her
"progressive neoliberal" contempt for the "basket of deplorables" (more on that phrase
below) that considers poor stupid and backwards middle America to be by
saying this : "If you look at the map of the United States, there's all that red in the
middle where Trump won. I win the coasts. But what the map doesn't show you is that I won the
places that represent two-thirds of America's gross domestic product (GDP). So I won the places
that are optimistic, diverse, dynamic, moving forward" (emphasis added).
That was Hillary Goldman Sachs-Council on Foreign Relations-Clinton saying "go to Hell" to
working- and middle-class people in Iowa, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Missouri,
Indiana, and West Virginia. It was a raised middle and oligarchic finger from a super-wealthy
arch-global-corporatist to all the supposedly pessimistic, slow-witted, and retrograde losers
stuck between those glorious enclaves (led by Wall Street, Yale, and Harvard on the East coast
and Silicon Valley and Hollywood on the West coast) of human progress and variety (and GDP!) on
the imperial shorelines. Senate Minority Leader Dick
Durbin had to go on television to say that Hillary was "wrong" to write off most of the
nation as a festering cesspool of pathetic, ass-backwards, lottery-playing, and opioid-addicted
white-trash has-beens. It's hard for the Inauthentic Opposition Party (as the late Sheldon Wolin reasonably called
the Democrats ) to pose as an authentic opposition party when its' last big-money
presidential candidate goes off-fake-progressive script with an openly elitist rant like
that.
Historic Mistakes
Whatever the source of her strange policy silence in the 2016 campaign, that hush was "a
miscalculation of historic proportion" (FJC). It was a critical mistake given what Ferguson and
his colleagues call the "Hunger Games" misery and insecurity imposed on tens of millions of
ordinary working- and middle-class middle-Americans by decades of neoliberal capitalist
austerity , deeply exacerbated by the Wall Street-instigated Great Recession and the weak
Obama recovery. The electorate was in a populist, anti-establishment mood – hardly a
state of mind favorable to a wooden, richly globalist, Goldman-gilded candidate, a long-time
Washington-Wall Street establishment ("swamp") creature like Hillary Clinton.
In the end, FJC note, the billionaire Trump's ironic, fake-populist "outreach to blue collar
workers" would help him win "more than half of all voters with a high school education or less
(including 61% of white women with no college), almost two thirds of those who believed life
for the next generation of Americans would be worse than now, and seventy-seven percent of
voters who reported their personal financial situation had worsened since four years ago."
Trump's popularity with "heartland" rural and working-class whites even provoked Hillary
into a major campaign mistake: getting caught on video telling elite Manhattan election
investors that half of Trump's supporters were a "basket
of deplorables." There was a hauntingly strong parallel between Wall Street Hillary's
"deplorables" blooper and the super-rich Republican candidate Mitt Romney's
infamous 2012 gaffe : telling his own affluent backers saying that 47% of the population
were a bunch of lazy welfare cheats. This time, though, it was the Democrat – with a
campaign finance profile closer to Romney's than Obama's in 2012 – and not the Republican
making the ugly plutocratic and establishment faux pas .
"A Frontal Assault on the American Establishment"
Still, Trump's success was no less tied to big money than was Hillary's failure. Candidate
Trump ran strangely outside the longstanding neoliberal Washington Consensus, as an economic
nationalist and isolationist. His raucous rallies were laced with dripping denunciations of
Wall Street, Goldman Sachs, and globalization, mockery of George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq,
rejection of the New Cold War with Russia, and pledges of allegiance to the "forgotten"
American "working-class." He was no normal Republican One Percent candidate. As FJC
explain:
"In 2016 the Republicans nominated yet another super-rich candidate – indeed,
someone on the Forbes 400 list of wealthiest Americans. Like legions of conservative
Republicans before him, he trash-talked Hispanics, immigrants, and women virtually non-stop,
though with a verve uniquely his own. He laced his campaign with barely coded racial appeals
and in the final days, ran an ad widely denounced as subtly anti-Semitic. But in striking
contrast to every other Republican presidential nominee since 1936, he attacked
globalization, free trade, international financiers, Wall Street, and even Goldman Sachs. '
Globalization has made the financial elite who donate to politicians very wealthy. But it
has left millions of our workers with nothing but poverty and heartache . When
subsidized foreign steel is dumped into our markets, threatening our factories, the
politicians do nothing. For years, they watched on the sidelines as our jobs vanished and our
communities were plunged into depression-level unemployment.'"
"In a frontal assault on the American establishment, the Republican standard bearer
proclaimed 'America First.' Mocking the Bush administration's appeal to 'weapons of mass
destruction' as a pretext for invading Iraq, he broke dramatically with two generations of GOP
orthodoxy and spoke out in favor of more cooperation with Russia . He even criticized
the 'carried interest' tax break beloved by high finance" (emphasis added).
Big Dark Money and Trump: His Own and Others'
This cost Trump much of the corporate and Wall Street financial support that Republican
presidential candidates usually get. The thing was, however, that much of Trump's "populist"
rhetoric was popular with a big part of the Republican electorate, thanks to the "Hunger Games"
insecurity of the transparently bipartisan New Gilded Age. And Trump's personal fortune
permitted him to tap that popular anger while leaping insultingly over the heads of his less
wealthy if corporate and Wall Street-backed competitors ("low energy" Jeb Bush and "little
Marco" Rubio most notably) in the crowded Republican primary race.
A Republican candidate
dependent on the usual elite bankrollers would never have been able to get away with Trump's
crowd-pleasing (and CNN and FOX News rating-boosting) antics. Thanks to his own wealth, the
faux-populist anti-establishment Trump was ironically inoculated against pre-emption in the
Republican primaries by the American campaign finance "wealth
primary," which renders electorally unviable candidates who lack vast financial resources
or access to them.
Things were different after Trump won the Republican nomination, however. He could no longer
go it alone after the primaries. During the Republican National Convention and "then again in
the late summer of 2016," FJC show, Trump's "solo campaign had to be rescued by major
industries plainly hoping for tariff relief, waves of other billionaires from the far, far
right of the already far right Republican Party, and the most disruption-exalting corners of
Wall Street." By FJC's account:
"What happened in the final weeks of the campaign was extraordinary. Firstly, a giant wave
of dark money poured into Trump's own campaign – one that towered over anything in 2016
or even Mitt Romney's munificently financed 2012 effort – to say nothing of any Russian
Facebook experiments [Then] another gigantic wave of money flowed in from alarmed business
interests, including the Kochs and their allies Officially the money was for Senate races,
but late-stage campaigning for down-ballot offices often spills over on to candidates for the
party at large."
"The run up to the Convention brought in substantial new money, including, for the first
time, significant contributions from big business. Mining, especially coal mining; Big Pharma
(which was certainly worried by tough talk from the Democrats, including Hillary Clinton,
about regulating drug prices); tobacco, chemical companies, and oil (including substantial
sums from executives at Chevron, Exxon, and many medium sized firms); and telecommunications
(notably AT&T, which had a major merge merger pending) all weighed in. Money from
executives at the big banks also began streaming in, including Bank of America, J. P. Morgan
Chase, Morgan Stanley, and Wells Fargo. Parts of Silicon Valley also started coming in from
the cold."
"In a harbinger of things to come, additional money came from firms and industries that
appear to have been attracted by Trump's talk of tariffs, including steel and companies
making machinery of various types [a] vast wave of new money flowed into the campaign from
some of America's biggest businesses and most famous investors. Sheldon Adelson and many
others in the casino industry delivered in grand style for its old colleague. Adelson now
delivered more than $11 million in his own name, while his wife and other employees of his
Las Vegas Sands casino gave another $20 million.
Peter Theil contributed more than a million
dollars, while large sums also rolled in from other parts of Silicon Valley, including almost
two million dollars from executives at Microsoft and just over two million from executives at
Cisco Systems. A wave of new money swept in from large private equity firms, the part of Wall
Street which had long championed hostile takeovers as a way of disciplining what they mocked
as bloated and inefficient 'big business.' Virtual pariahs to main-line firms in the Business
Roundtable and the rest of Wall Street, some of these figures had actually gotten their start
working with Drexel Burnham Lambert and that firm's dominant partner, Michael Milkin.
Among
those were Nelson Peltz and Carl Icahn (who had both contributed to Trump before, but now
made much bigger new contributions). In the end, along with oil, chemicals, mining and a
handful of other industries, large private equity firms would become one of the few segments
of American business – and the only part of Wall Street – where support for Trump
was truly heavy the sudden influx of money from private equity and hedge funds clearly began
with the Convention but turned into a torrent "
The critical late wave came after Trump moved to rescue his flagging campaign by handing its
direction over to the clever, class-attuned, far-right white- and economic- nationalist
"populist" and Breitbart executive Steve Bannon, who advocated what proved to be a winning,
Koch brothers-approved "populist" strategy: appeal to economically and culturally frustrated
working- and middle-class whites in key battleground states, where the bloodless neoliberal and
professional class centrism and snooty metropolitan multiculturalism of the Obama presidency
and Clinton campaign was certain to depress the
Democratic "base" vote. Along with the racist voter suppression carried out by Republican
state governments (JFC rightly chide Russia-obsessed political reporters and commentators for
absurdly ignoring this important factor) and (JFC intriguingly suggest) major anti-union
offensives conducted by employers in some battleground states, this major late-season influx of
big right-wing political money tilted the election Trump's way.
The Myth of Potent Russian Cyber-Subversion
As FJC show, there is little empirical evidence to support the Clinton and corporate
Democrats' self-interested and diversionary efforts to explain Mrs. Clinton's epic fail and
Trump's jaw-dropping upset victory as the result of (i) Russian interference, (ii), then FBI
Director James Comey's October Surprise revelation that his agency was not done investigating
Hillary's emails, and/or (iii) some imagined big wave of white working-class racism, nativism,
and sexism brought to the surface by the noxious Orange Hulk. The impacts of both (i) and (ii)
were infinitesimal in comparison to the role that big campaign money played both in silencing
Hillary and funding Trump.
The blame-the-deplorable-racist-white-working-class narrative is
belied by basic underlying continuities in white working class voting patterns. As FJC note: "
Neither turnout nor the partisan division of the vote at any level looks all that different
from other recent elections 2016's alterations in voting behavior are so minute that the
pattern is only barely differentiated from 2012." It was about the money – the big
establishment money that the Clinton campaign took (as FJC at least plausibly argue) to
recommend policy silence and the different, right-wing big money that approved Trump's
comparative right-populist policy boisterousness.
An interesting part of FJC's study (no quick or easy read) takes a close look at the
pro-Trump and anti-Hillary Internet activism that the Democrats and their many corporate media
allies are so insistently eager to blame on Russia and for Hillary's defeat. FJC find that
Russian Internet interventions were of tiny significance compared to those of homegrown U.S.
corporate and right-wing cyber forces:
"The real masters of these black arts are American or Anglo-American firms. These compete
directly with Silicon Valley and leading advertising firms for programmers and personnel.
They rely almost entirely on data purchased from Google, Facebook, or other suppliers,
not Russia . American regulators do next to nothing to protect the privacy of voters
and citizens, and, as we have shown in several studies, leading telecom firms are major
political actors and giant political contributors. As a result, data on the habits and
preferences of individual internet users are commercially available in astounding detail and
quantities for relatively modest prices – even details of individual credit card
purchases. The American giants for sure harbor abundant data on the constellation of bots,
I.P. addresses, and messages that streamed to the electorate "
" stories hyping 'the sophistication of an influence campaign slickly crafted to mimic and
infiltrate U.S. political discourse while also seeking to heighten tensions between groups
already wary of one another by the Russians miss the mark.' By 2016, the Republican right had
developed internet outreach and political advertising into a fine art and on a massive scale
quite on its own. Large numbers of conservative websites, including many that that tolerated
or actively encouraged white supremacy and contempt for immigrants, African-Americans,
Hispanics, Jews, or the aspirations of women had been hard at work for years stoking up
'tensions between groups already wary of one another.' Breitbart and other organizations were
in fact going global, opening offices abroad and establishing contacts with like-minded
groups elsewhere. Whatever the Russians were up to, they could hardly hope to add much value
to the vast Made in America bombardment already underway. Nobody sows chaos like Breitbart or
the Drudge Report ."
" the evidence revealed thus far does not support strong claims about the likely success
of Russian efforts, though of course the public outrage at outside meddling is easy to
understand. The speculative character of many accounts even in the mainstream media is
obvious. Several, such as widely circulated declaration by the Department of Homeland
Security that 21 state election systems had been hacked during the election, have collapsed
within days of being put forward when state electoral officials strongly disputed them,
though some mainstream press accounts continue to repeat them. Other tales about Macedonian
troll factories churning out stories at the instigation of the Kremlin, are clearly
exaggerated."
The Sanders Tease: "He Couldn't Have Done a Thing"
Perhaps the most remarkable finding in FJC's study is that Sanders came tantalizingly close
to winning the Democratic presidential nomination against the corporately super-funded Clinton
campaign with no support from Big Business . Running explicitly against the "Hunger
Games" economy and the corporate-financial plutocracy that created it, Sanders pushed Hillary
the Goldman candidate to the wall, calling out the Democrats' capture by Wall Street, forcing
her to rely on a rigged party, convention, and primary system to defeat him. The small-donor
"socialist" Sanders challenge represented something Ferguson and his colleagues describe as
"without precedent in American politics not just since the New Deal, but across virtually the
whole of American history a major presidential candidate waging a strong, highly
competitive campaign whose support from big business is essentially zero ."
Sanders pulled this off, FJC might have added, by running in (imagine) accord with
majority-progressive left-of-center U.S. public opinion. But for the Clintons' corrupt advance-
control of the Democratic National Committee and convention delegates, Ferguson et al might
further have noted, Sanders might well have been the Democratic presidential nominee, curiously
enough in the arch-state-capitalist and oligarchic United States
Could Sanders have defeated the billionaire and right-wing billionaire-backed Trump in the
general election? There's no way to know, of course. Sanders consistently out-performed Hillary
Clinton in one-on-one match -up polls vis a vis Donald Trump during the primary season, but
much of the big money (and, perhaps much of the corporate media) that backed Hillary would have
gone over to Trump had the supposedly
"radical" Sanders been the Democratic nominee.
Even if Sanders has been elected president, moreover, Noam Chomsky is certainly correct in
his recent judgement that Sanders would have been able to achieve very little in the White
House. As Chomsky told Lynn Parramore two weeks ago, in
an interview conducted for the Institute for New Economic Thinking, the same think-tank
that published FJC's remarkable study:
"His campaign [was] a break with over a century of American political history. No
corporate support, no financial wealth, he was unknown, no media support. The media simply
either ignored or denigrated him. And he came pretty close -- he probably could have won the
nomination, maybe the election. But suppose he'd been elected? He couldn't have done a thing.
Nobody in Congress, no governors, no legislatures, none of the big economic powers, which
have an enormous effect on policy. All opposed to him. In order for him to do anything, he
would have to have a substantial, functioning party apparatus, which would have to grow from
the grass roots. It would have to be locally organized, it would have to operate at local
levels, state levels, Congress, the bureaucracy -- you have to build the whole system from
the bottom."
As Chomsky might have added, Sanders oligarchy-imposed "failures" would have been great
fodder for the disparagement and smearing of "socialism" and progressive, majority-backed
policy change. "See? We tried all that and it was a disaster!"
I would note further that the Sanders phenomenon's policy promise was plagued by its
standard bearer's persistent loyalty to the giant and absurdly expensive U.S.-imperial Pentagon
System, which each year eats up hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars required to implement
the progressive, majority-supported policy agenda that Bernie F-35 Sanders ran
on.
"A Very Destructive Ideology"
The Sanders challenge was equally afflicted by its candidate-centered electoralism. This
diverted energy away from the real and more urgent politics of building people's movements
– grassroots power to shake the society to its foundations and change policy from the
bottom up (Dr. Martin Luther King's preferred strategy at the end of his life just barely short
of 50 years ago, on April 4 th , 1968) – and into the narrow, rigidly
time-staggered grooves of a party and spectacle-elections crafted by and for the wealthy Few
and the American
Oligarchy 's "permanent political class" (historian Ron Formisano). As Chomsky explained on the eve of the 2004
elections:
"Americans may be encouraged to vote, but not to participate more meaningfully in the
political arena. Essentially the election is a method of marginalizing the population. A huge
propaganda campaign is mounted to get people to focus on these personalized quadrennial
extravaganzas and to think, 'That's politics.' But it isn't. It's only a small part of
politics The urgency is for popular progressive groups to grow and become strong enough so
that centers of power can't ignore them. Forces for change that have come up from the grass
roots and shaken the society to its core include the labor movement, the civil rights
movement, the peace movement, the women's movement and others, cultivated by steady,
dedicated work at all levels, every day, not just once every four years sensible [electoral]
choices have to be made. But they are secondary to serious political action."
"The only thing that's going to ever bring about any meaningful change," Chomsky told Abby Martin on teleSur
English in the fall of 2015, "is ongoing, dedicated, popular movements that don't pay
attention to the election cycle." Under the American religion of voting,
Chomsky told Dan Falcone and Saul Isaacson in the spring of 2016, "Citizenship means every
four years you put a mark somewhere and you go home and let other guys run the world. It's a
very destructive ideology basically, a way of making people passive, submissive objects [we]
ought to teach kids that elections take place but that's not politics."
For all his talk of standing atop a great "movement" for "revolution," Sanders was and
remains all about this stunted and crippling definition of citizenship and politics as making
some marks on ballots and then returning to our domiciles while rich people and their
agents (not just any "other guys") "run [ruin?-P.S.] the world [into the ground-P.S.]."
It will take much more in the way of Dr. King's politics of "who' sitting in the streets,"
not "who's sitting in the White House" (to use Howard Zinn's
excellent dichotomy ), to get us an elections and party system worthy of passionate citizen
engagement. We don't have such a system in the U.S. today, which is why the number of eligible
voters who passively boycotted the 2016 presidential election is larger than both the number
who voted for big money Hillary and the number who voted for big money Trump.
(If U.S. progressives really want to consider undertaking the epic lift involved in passing
a U.S. Constitutional Amendment, they might want to focus on this instead of calling for a
repeal of the Second Amendment. I'd recommend starting with a positive Democracy Amendment that
fundamentally overhauls the nation's political and elections set-up in accord with elementary
principles and practices of popular sovereignty. Clauses would include but not be limited to
full public financing of elections and the introduction of proportional representation for
legislative races – not to mention the abolition of the Electoral College, Senate
apportionment on the basis of total state population, and the outlawing of gerrymandering.)
Ecocide Trumped by Russia
Meanwhile, back in real history, we have the remarkable continuation of a bizarre
right-wing, pre-fascist presidency not in normal ruling-class hands, subject to the weird whims
and tweets of a malignant narcissist who doesn't read memorandums or intelligence briefings.
Wild policy zig-zags and record-setting White House personnel turnover are par for the course
under the dodgy reign of the orange-tinted beast's latest brain spasms. Orange Caligula spends
his mornings getting his information from FOX News and his evenings complaining to and seeking
advice from a small club of right-wing American oligarchs.
Trump poses grave environmental and nuclear risks to human survival. A consistent Trump
belief is that climate change is not a problem and that it's perfectly fine – "great" and
"amazing," in fact – for the White House to do everything it can to escalate the
Greenhouse Gassing-to-Death of Life on Earth. The nuclear threat is rising now that he has
appointed a frothing right-wing uber-warmonger – a longtime advocate of bombing Iran and
North Korea who led the charge for the arch-criminal U.S. invasion of Iraq – as his top
"National Security" adviser and as he been convinced to expel dozens of Russian diplomats.
Thanks, liberal and other Democratic Party RussiaGaters!
The Clinton-Obama neoliberal Democrats have spent more than a year running with the
preposterous narrative that Trump is a Kremlin puppet who owes his presence in the White House
to Russia's subversion of our democratic elections. The climate crisis holds little
for the Trump and Russia-obsessed corporate media. The fact that the world stands at the eve of
the ecological self-destruction, with the Trump White House in the lead, elicits barely a
whisper in the reigning commercial news media. Unlike Stormy Daniels, for example, that little
story – the biggest issue of our or any time – is not good for television ratings
and newspaper sales.
Sanders, by the way, is curiously invisible in the dominant commercial media, despite his
quiet survey status as the nation's "most popular politician." That is precisely what you would
expect in a corporate and financial oligarchy buttressed by a powerful corporate, so-called
"mainstream" media oligopoly.
Political Parties as "Bank Accounts"
One of the many problems with the obsessive Blame-Russia narrative that a fair portion of
the dominant U.S. media is running with is that we had no great electoral democracy to
subvert in 2016 . Saying that Russia has "undermined [U.S.-] American democracy" is like
me – middle-aged, five-foot nine, and unblessed with jumping ability – saying that
the Brooklyn Nets' Russian-born center Timofy Mozgof subverted my career as a starting player
in the National Basketball Association. In state-capitalist societies marked by the toxic and
interrelated combination of weak popular organization, expensive politics, and highly
concentrated wealth – all highly evident in the New Gilded Age United States –
electoral contests and outcomes boil down above all and in the end to big investor class cash.
As Thomas Ferguson and his colleagues explain:
"Where investment and organization by average citizens is weak, however, power passes by
default to major investor groups, which can far more easily bear the costs of contending for
control of the state. In most modern market-dominated societies (those celebrated recently as
enjoying the 'end of History'), levels of effective popular organization are generally low,
while the costs of political action, in terms of both information and transactional
obstacles, are high. The result is that conflicts within the business community normally
dominate contests within and between political parties – the exact opposite of what
many earlier social theorists expected, who imagined 'business' and 'labor' confronting each
other in separate parties Only candidates and positions that can be financed can be presented
to voters. As a result, in countries like the US and, increasingly, Western Europe, political parties are first of all bank accounts . With certain qualifications, one
must pay to play. Understanding any given election, therefore, requires a financial X-ray of
the power blocs that dominate the major parties, with both inter- and intra- industrial
analysis of their constituent elements."
Here Ferguson might have said "corporate-dominated" instead of "market-dominated" for the
modern managerial corporations emerged as the "visible hand" master of the "free market" more
than a century ago.
We get to vote? Big deal.
People get to vote in Rwanda, Russia, the Congo and countless
other autocratic states as well. Elections alone are no guarantee of democracy, as U.S.
policymakers and pundits know very well when they rip on rigged elections (often fixed with the
assistance of U.S. government and private-sector agents and firms) in countries they don't
like, which includes any country that dares to "question the basic principle that the United
States effectively owns the world by right and is by definition a force for good" ( Chomsky,
2016 ).
Majority opinion is regularly trumped by a deadly complex of forces in the U.S. The
list of interrelated and mutually reinforcing culprits behind this oligarchic defeat of popular
sentiment in the U.S. is extensive. It includes but is not limited to: the campaign finance,
candidate-selection, lobbying, and policy agenda-setting power of wealthy individuals,
corporations, and interest groups; the special primary election influence of full-time party
activists; the disproportionately affluent, white, and older composition of the active (voting)
electorate; the manipulation of voter turnout; the widespread dissemination of false,
confusing, distracting, and misleading information; absurdly and explicitly unrepresentative
political institutions like the Electoral College, the unelected Supreme Court, the
over-representation of the predominantly white rural population in the U.S. Senate; one-party
rule in the House of "Representatives"; the fragmentation of authority in government; and
corporate ownership of the reigning media, which frames current events in accord with the
wishes and world view of the nation's real owners.
Yes, we get to vote. Super. Big deal. Mammon reigns nonetheless in the United States, where,
as the leading liberal
political scientists Benjamin Page and Martin Gilens find , "government policy reflects the
wishes of those with money, not the wishes of the millions of ordinary citizens who turn out
every two years to choose among the preapproved, money-vetted candidates for federal office."
Trump is a bit of an anomaly – a sign of an elections and party system in crisis and an
empire in decline. He wasn't pre-approved or vetted by the usual U.S. "
deep state " corporate, financial, and imperial gatekeepers. The ruling-class had been
trying to figure out what the Hell to do with him ever since he shocked even himself
(though not Steve Bannon) by pre-empting the coronation of the "Queen of Chaos."
He is a
homegrown capitalist oligarch nonetheless, a real estate mogul of vast and parasitic wealth who
is no more likely to fulfill his populist-sounding campaign pledges than any previous POTUS of
the neoliberal era.
His lethally racist, sexist, nativist, nuclear-weapons-brandishing, and
(last but not at all least) eco-cidal rise to the nominal CEO position atop the U.S.-imperial
oligarchy is no less a reflection of the dominant role of big U.S. capitalist money and
homegrown plutocracy in U.S. politics than a more classically establishment Hillary ascendancy
would have been. It's got little to do with Russia, Russia, Russia – the great diversion
that fills U.S. political airwaves and newsprint as the world careens ever closer to
oligarchy-imposed geocide and to a thermonuclear conflagration that the RussiaGate gambit is
recklessly encouraging.
The furor is all about the "illegitimate" victories of Brexit and Trump's campaign. Does the average user care if s/he is micro-targetted
by political advertisements based on what they already believe?
No, because they already believe they're right, so what's wrong with a little confirmation bias? Most of us spend significant
amounts of energy seeking out sources of information confirming what we already believe; micro-targetting just makes our lives
that little bit less effortful.
It took a long time before the 2001 US anthrax attacks were solved. (The initial attribution
was totally wrong.) The ultimate explanation was that an anthrax scientist (Bruce Ivins) was
worried that funding for his research would be cut back. A similar motive cannot be excluded
out of hand for Skripals, especially given proximity of Porton Downs. Already, there has been a
huge infusion of cash into Porton Downs, as there was into anthrax research after Ivins'
attack. A quote from
https://www.wcpo.com/news/our-community/from-the-vault/from-the-vault-local-scientists-hatred-for-uc-sorority-led-to-national-panic-terror-attack.
FBI Director at the time, Robert Mueller -- yes, that Robert Mueller -- said Ivins'
livelihood was in jeopardy when the Department of Defense wanted to end anthrax vaccinations
because of side effects later called "Gulf War Syndrome." And when the U.S. was attacked on
Sept. 11, Ivins capitalized on the paralyzing fear sweeping the nation.
"The anthrax vaccine program to which he had devoted his entire career was failing,"
according to the "Amerithrax" report from the Justice Department. "Short of some major
breakthrough or intervention, he feared that the vaccine research program was going to be
discontinued."
After the anthrax attacks in 2001, however, Ivins' program experienced a rebirth.
b comments that the case against Ivins (yes, made by Mueller, that Mueller) was all bullshit.
At the time I too looked into the case that they had against him. What was completely wrong
was that Ivins had prepared the Anthrax spores in his personal lab. I too read the FBI report
that described the equipment in that lab. Having experience in this field, I found it was
very close to impossible for him to have prepared the samples that were used in the anthrax
attacks. However, the facilities at Fort Dietrick do have that capacity. If Ivins used those
facilities it would not have been possible for him to use them without accomplices or at the
least without witnesses to his use of those facilities.
That is what the Mueller report covered up at the very least. It remains quite possible
that Ivins was not involved at all.
B. and others have already noted that the official conclusion that Bruce Ivins committed
suicide is, in a word, bogus.
But I can't resist adding the piquant detail that the authorities claimed that he killed
himself with an overdose of Tylenol with codeine. Despite the presence of some codeine,
Tylenol is a truly odd choice for suicide. It is potentially toxic, and overdoses
cause liver damage that can be eventually fatal-- but overdoses are reportedly painful to
endure, and are by no means sure to be fatal.
We're expected to believe that Ivins was so distraught and irrational that he "chose" this
means because he wanted to "sleep", and was either oblivious or indifferent to the
above-cited drawbacks.
Yet, Ivins was a microbiologist, vaccinologist, and senior biodefense researcher at the
United States Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases. He presumably had, or
could easily acquire, an understanding of the effects of Tylenol-- and he had a laboratory
full of ultra-lethal toxins to boot. Yet when the moment of truth came, he reached for a
bottle of... Tylenol?
It's déjà vu all over again. How many "other ones" do Western authorities
think we have to pull?
b @20. Thanks for setting the record straight on the UNSOLVED Anthrax terrorist attack in the
US. FBI Director Mueller testified to Congress that Saddam Hussein was responsible! That was
Mueller's role in selling the "intelligence" to invade Iraq. Once it became known that the
anthrax came from the US Army, he tried to pin it on an innocent man and then closed and
buried the case.
This is not very plausible hypothesis... But the fact that Steele indeed was "curator" of
Skripal in Moscow (and later at MI6 Russian desk) is true.
Notable quotes:
"... Important to note, too, this report says, is that absolutely no one in the West is even bothering to ask why Russia would break the first cardinal rule of "spy etiquette" in targeting a spy involved in a spy-swap -- which neither the Soviet Union or Russia has done even once in over 70 years ..."
"... Professor Anthony Glees, the director of the Center for Security and Intelligence Studies at the University of Buckingham, points out by correctly stating that if the Russia did, indeed, poison Skripal, "no one will ever do a swap with them again" -- and who asks the logical question: "If Russia had really wanted to kill Skripal, why didn't they execute him when they had him in custody?" ..."
"... With Michel Chossudovsky, the award-winning author, Professor of Economics (emeritus) at the University of Ottawa, having just warned that "the entire Western world is insane, and that the Western politicians, and presstitutes who serve them, are driving the world to extinction", this report concludes, among the handful of experts left to explain where this current Russia hysteria in the West is leading to is the former President Ronald Reagan administration official Paul Craig Roberts -- and whose warning issued, just days ago, is both simple and dire: "World War III Is Approaching". ..."
Though the specifics of the offer made to the FSB by Sergei Skripal in order to secure his
returning home to Russia remain more highly classified than this general report allows, it does
confirm that Yulia Skripal was discussing this issue with her father, on 4 March, when they
were both attacked and left in critical condition -- with the Telegraph news service in London
then
documenting that all internet links between Sergei Skripaland Christopher Steele's Orbis
Business Intelligence were being taken down.
At the same time all the internet links between Sergei Skripal and the creators of the fake
"Trump Dossier" were being scrubbed from existence, this report continues, the British
government suddenly began blaming Russia for the nerve gas attack on him and his daughter --
but when Russia asked for evidence proving this, the British outright refused to produce it as the Chemical
Weapons Convention, that the UK has signed, along with Russia, demands they do -- and when
questioned in the British Parliament by Labor Leader Jeremy Corbyn as to why this was so, saw
Prime Minister Teresa May's forces jeer and shout him down -- followed by British Defence
Secretary Gavin Williamson saying "Russia should go away
and shut up".
With President Putin stating in the Security Council meeting that he was " extremely
concerned " by the destructive and provocative stance of the UK, this report continues, the
British government, nevertheless, has continued to ratchet up it hysteria by blocking a United Nations Security
Council draft sponsored by Russia calling for an "urgent and civilized investigation"
incident in line with international standards -- and that led Russian Senator Sergey
Kalashnikov to warn:
The West has launched a massive operation in order to kick Russia out of the UN Security
Council Russia is now a very inconvenient player for the Western nations and this explains all
the recent attacks on our country.
Important to note, too, this report says, is that absolutely no one in the West is even
bothering to ask why Russia would break the first cardinal rule of "spy etiquette" in targeting
a spy involved in a spy-swap -- which neither the Soviet Union or Russia has done even once in
over 70 years -- and as Professor Anthony Glees, the director of the Center for Security and
Intelligence Studies at the University of Buckingham, points
out by correctly stating that if the Russia did, indeed, poison Skripal, "no one will ever
do a swap with them again" -- and who asks the logical question: "If Russia had really wanted
to kill Skripal, why didn't they execute him when they had him in custody?"
Other logical questions about this supposed nerve gas attack on Sergei Skripal and his
daughter Yulia being suppressed in the West, this report notes, are those such as:
Did Skripal help Steele to make up the "dossier" about Trump?
Were Skripal's old connections used to contact other people in Russia to ask about Trump
dirt?
Did Skripal threaten to talk about this?
Was the lonely old man Sergei Skripal preparing to go back to his homeland
Russia?
Did he offer some kind of "gift" as apology to the Russian government that his trusted
daughter would take to Moscow?
Did someone find out and stop the transfer?
With Michel Chossudovsky, the award-winning author, Professor of Economics (emeritus) at the
University of Ottawa, having just warned that "the entire
Western world is insane, and that the Western politicians, and presstitutes who serve them, are
driving the world to extinction", this report concludes, among the handful of experts left to
explain where this current Russia hysteria in the West is leading to is the former President
Ronald Reagan administration official Paul Craig Roberts -- and whose warning issued, just
days ago, is both simple and dire: "World War III Is Approaching".
"... Still, George McGovern was a humble man who carried the burden, and honor, of his military service with grace. Though proud of his service, he was never constrained by it. When he saw a foolish war, an immoral war -- like Vietnam -- he stood ready to dissent. He was an unapologetic liberal and unwavering in his antiwar stance. These days, his kind is an endangered species on Capitol Hill and in the Democratic National Committee. McGovern died in 2012. His party, and the United States, are lesser for his absence. ..."
"... Today's Democrats are mostly avid hawks, probably to the right of Richard Nixon on foreign policy. ..."
"... Heck, even Gen. David "Generational War" Petraeus , once found himself in some hot water when -- in a rare moment of candor -- he admitted that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict "foments anti-American sentiment, due to a perception of US favoritism for Israel." Translation: US policy toward Israel (and, no doubt, the foolhardy 2003 invasion of Iraq) make American soldiers less safe. ..."
"... So does the basic post-9/11 American policy of sovereignty violation and expansive military intervention whenever and wherever Washington feels like it -- so long as it's in the name of fighting (you guessed it) "terrorism." ..."
"... George McGovern -- a true patriot, a man who knew war but loved peace -- wouldn't recognize the likes of Klobuchar, Clinton, Schumer and company. He'd be rightfully embarrassed by their supplication to the national warfare state. ..."
"... In 1972, McGovern's presidential campaign (as, to some extent, Bernie's did) reached out to impassioned youth in the "New Left," and formed a rainbow coalition with African-Americans and other minority groups. His Democrats were no longer the party of Cold War consensus, no longer the party of LBJ and Vietnam. No, McGovern's signature issue was peace, and opposition to that disastrous war. ..."
"... His campaign distributed pins and T-shirts bearing white doves . Could you even imagine a mainstream Democrat getting within 1,000 meters of such a symbol today? Of course not. ..."
He knew war well -- well enough to know he hated it.
George McGovern was a senator from South Dakota, and he was a Democrat true liberals could admire. Though remembered as a staunch
liberal and foreign policy dove, McGovern was no stranger to combat. He
flew 35 missions
as a B-24 pilot in Italy during World War II. He even earned the Distinguished Flying Cross for executing a heroic emergency crash
landing after his bomber was damaged by German anti-aircraft fire.
Still, George McGovern was a humble man who carried the burden, and honor, of his military service with grace. Though proud
of his service, he was never constrained by it. When he saw a foolish war, an immoral war -- like Vietnam -- he stood ready to dissent.
He was an unapologetic liberal and unwavering in his antiwar stance. These days, his kind is an endangered species on Capitol Hill
and in the Democratic National Committee. McGovern died in 2012. His party, and the United States, are lesser for his absence.
Today's Democrats are mostly avid hawks, probably to the right of Richard Nixon on foreign policy. They dutifully
voted for Bush's Iraq war . Then, they won back
the White House and promptly expanded an unwinnable Afghan
war . Soon, they again lost the presidency -- to a reality TV star -- and raised hardly a peep as Donald Trump expanded
America's aimless wars
into the realm of the absurd.
I've long known this, but most liberals -- deeply ensconced (or distracted) by hyper-identity politics -- hardly notice. Still,
every once in a while something reminds me of how lost the Democrats truly are.
I nearly spit up my food the other day. Watching on C-SPAN as Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., gleefully
attended a panel at the
American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference, I couldn't help but wonder what has happened to the Democratic Party.
The worst part is I like her, mostly. Look, I agree with Sen. Klobuchar on most domestic issues: health care, taxes and
more. But she -- a supposed liberal -- and her mainstream Democratic colleagues are complicit in the perpetuation of America's warfare
state and neo-imperial interventionism. Sen. Klobuchar and other Democrats' reflexive support for Israel is but a symptom of a larger
disease in the party -- tacit militarism.
AIPAC is a lobbying clique almost as savvy and definitely as effective as the NRA. Its meetings -- well attended by mainstream
Democrats and Republicans alike -- serve as little more than an opportunity for Washington pols to kiss Benjamin Netanyahu's ring
and swear fealty to Israel. Most of the time, participants don't dare utter the word "Palestinian." That'd be untoward -- Palestinians
are the unacknowledged
elephants in the room .
The far right-wing Israeli government of Netanyahu, who is little more than a co-conspirator and enabler for America's failed
project in the Middle East, should be the last group "liberals" pander to. That said, the state of Israel is a fact. Its people --
just like the Palestinians -- deserve security and liberty. Love it or hate it, Israel will continue to exist. The question is: Can
Israel remain both exclusively Jewish and democratic? I'm less certain about that. For 50 years now, the Israeli military has divided,
occupied and enabled the illegal settlement of sovereign
Palestinian territory , keeping Arabs in limbo without citizenship or meaningful civil rights.
This is, so far as international law is concerned, a war crime. As such, unflinching American support for Israeli policy irreversibly
damages the U.S. military's reputation on the "Arab street." I've seen it firsthand. In Iraq and Afghanistan, hundreds and thousands
of miles away from Jerusalem, captured prisoners and hospitable families alike constantly pointed to unfettered US support for Israel
and the plight of Palestinians when answering that naive and ubiquitous American question: "Why do they hate us?"
Heck, even
Gen. David
"Generational War" Petraeus , once found himself in
some hot water when
-- in a rare moment of candor -- he admitted that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict "foments anti-American sentiment, due to a perception
of US favoritism for Israel." Translation: US policy toward Israel (and, no doubt, the foolhardy 2003 invasion of Iraq) make American
soldiers less safe.
So does the basic post-9/11 American policy of sovereignty violation and expansive military intervention whenever and wherever
Washington feels like it -- so long as it's in the name of fighting (you guessed it) "terrorism." So, which "liberals" are raising
hell and ringing the alarm bells for their constituents about Israeli occupation and America's strategic overreach? Sen. Klobuchar?
Hardly. She, and all but four Democrats, voted for
the latest bloated Pentagon budget with few questions asked. Almost as many Republicans voted against the bill. So, which is
the antiwar party these days? It's hard to know.
Besides, the Dems mustered fewer than 30 votes in support of the
Rand Paul amendment and
his modest call to repeal and replace America's outdated, vague Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF). All Sen. Paul,
a libertarian Republican, wanted to do was force a vote -- in six months -- to revisit the AUMF. This wasn't radical stuff by any
means. The failure of Paul's amendment, when paired with the absolute dearth of Democratic dissent on contemporary foreign policy,
proves one thing conclusively: There is no longer an antiwar constituency in a major American political party. The two-party system
has failed what's left of the antiwar movement.
By no means is Amy Klobuchar alone in her forever-war complicity. Long before she graced the halls of the Senate, her prominent
precursors -- Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer (to name just a few) --
rubber-stamped a war of aggression in Iraq and
mostly acquiesced as one president after another (including Barack Obama) gradually expanded America's post-9/11 wars. When will
it end? No one knows, really, but so far, the US military has deployed advisers or commandos to
70 percent
of the world's countries and is actively
bombing at least seven . That's the problem with waging clandestine wars with professional soldiers while asking nothing of an
apathetic public: These conflicts tend to grow and grow, until, one day -- which passed long ago -- hardly anyone realizes we're
now at war with most everyone.
So where are the doves now? On the fringe, that's where. Screaming from the distant corners of the libertarian right and extreme
left. No one cares, no one is listening, and they can hardly get a hearing on either MSNBC or Fox. It's the one thing both networks
agree on: endless, unquestioned war. Hooray for 21st century bipartisanship.
Still, Americans deserve more from the Democrats, once (however briefly) the party of McGovern. These days, the Dems hate Trump
more than they like anything. To be a principled national party, they've got to be more than just anti-Trump. They need to provide
a substantive alternative and present a better foreign policy offer. How about a do-less strategy: For starters, some modesty and
prudent caution would go a long way.
George McGovern -- a true patriot, a man who knew war but loved peace -- wouldn't recognize the likes of Klobuchar, Clinton,
Schumer and company. He'd be rightfully embarrassed by their supplication to the national warfare state.
In 1972, McGovern's presidential campaign (as, to some extent, Bernie's did) reached out to impassioned youth in the "New
Left," and formed a rainbow coalition with African-Americans and other minority groups. His Democrats were no longer the party of
Cold War consensus, no longer the party of LBJ and Vietnam. No, McGovern's signature issue was peace, and opposition to that disastrous
war.
His campaign distributed pins and T-shirts bearing
white doves . Could you even imagine a mainstream Democrat getting within 1,000 meters of such a symbol today? Of course not.
Today's Dems are too frightened, fearful of being labeled "soft" (note the sexual innuendo) on "terror," and have thus ceded foreign
policy preeminence to the unhinged, uber-hawk Republicans. We live, today, with the results of that cowardly concession.
The thing about McGovern is that he lost the 1972 election, by a landslide. And maybe that's the point. Today's Democrats would
rather win than be right. Somewhere along the way, they lost their souls. Worse still, they aren't any good at winning, either.
Sure, they and everybody else "support the troops." Essentially, that means the Dems will at least fight for veterans' health
care and immigration rights when vets return from battle. That's admirable enough. What they won't countenance, or even consider,
is a more comprehensive, and ethical, solution: to end these aimless wars and stop making new veterans that need "saving."
Major Danny Sjursen, anAntiwar.comregular, is a U.S. Army
officer and former history instructor at West Point. He served tours with reconnaissance units in Iraq and Afghanistan. He has written
a memoir and critical analysis of the Iraq War,Ghost Riders of Baghdad: Soldiers, Civilians,
and the Myth of the Surge. He lives with his wife and four sons in Lawrence, Kansas. Follow him on Twitter at@SkepticalVetand check out his new podcast"Fortress on a Hill,"co-hosted with fellow vet Chris 'Henri' Henrikson.
[ Note: The views expressed in this article are those of the author, expressed in an unofficial capacity, and do not reflect
the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. government.]
This is a fight to save Us led global neoliberal empire. Nothing more nothing less. Cohen is
right about connections between Skripal case and Russiagate. Skripal case is a British attempt to
save Russiagate.
Notable quotes:
"... Diplomacy kept the nuclear peace during the preceding Cold War, but the mass expulsions -- even pending the Kremlin's response -- seriously undermines the diplomatic process. They even criminalize it, as illustrated by denunciations of Trump's phone conversation with Putin and by widespread political-media demands after he expelled a large number of Russia's diplomats that he do "more" -- such demands ranging from more sanctions on Russia to more military responses in Syria, Ukraine, and elsewhere -- to prove he is not under Putin's control. ..."
"... Identifying all expelled diplomats as "intelligence officers" is also misleading. Posting intelligence officers as diplomats has long been a mutual de facto arrangement tacitly, if not explicitly, agreed upon and known by both sides. Moreover, the designation might apply to embassy officials who study the other country's economic, social, cultural, or political life. They gather and report "information." ..."
"... Recently, US-backed proxies apparently killed a number of Russian citizens also operating there. The Kremlin, through its Ministry of Defense, issued an ominous warning: If this happens again, Moscow will strike militarily not only at the proxies but also at US forces in the region who provided the weapons and launched the missiles. The same razor's edge could easily occur where the United States and Russia are also eyeball-to-eyeball, as in Ukraine or the Baltic region. (Again, as Trump is being crippled to the extent that he probably could not negotiate a crisis the way President Kennedy did the 1962 Cuban missile crisis.) ..."
"... the extreme demonization of Putin and growing Russophobia in the United States are elevating today's small, less formidable Russia into a threat even graver than was the Soviet Union, against which US nuclear weapons were developed and intended. And this, again, in the context of diminished diplomacy and Trump's diminished capacity to negotiate. ..."
"Russiagate" and the Skirpal affair have escalated dangers inherent in the new Cold
War beyond those of the preceding one.
1. "Russiagate" and the attempted killing of Sergei and Yulia
Skripal in the UK have two aspects in common. Both blame Putin personally. And no actual facts
have yet been made public.
§ Having discussed the fallacies of "Russiagate" often and at length, Cohen focuses on
the Skripal affair. Putin had no conceivable motive, especially considering the upcoming World
Cup Games in Russia, which both the government and the people consider to be very prestigious
and thus important for the nation. No forensic or other evidence has yet been presented as to
the nature of the purported nerve agent used or whether Russia still possesses it; or, even if
so, whether Russia really is the only state whose agents did so; or when, where, and how it was
inflicted on Skripal and his daughter; or why they and many others said to have been affected
by this "lethal" agent are still alive. Nonetheless, even before the Organization for the
Prohibition of Chemical Weapons has issued its obligatory tests, and while refusing to give the
Russian government a required sample to test, the British leaders declared that it was "highly
likely" Putin's Kremlin had ordered the attack.
§ Nonetheless, on this flimsy basis, Western governments, led by the UK and reluctantly
by the Trump administration, rushed to expel 100 or more Russian diplomats -- the greatest
number ever in this long history of such episodes.
§ It should be noted, however, that not all European governments did so, and a few
others in only a token way, thereby again revealing European divisions over Russia policy.
2. This episode increases the risk of nuclear war between the United States and
Russia.
§ Ever since the onset of the Atomic Age, the doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction
has kept the nuclear peace. This may have changed in 2002. when the Bush administration
unilaterally withdrew from, thereby abrogating, the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Since
then, the United States and NATO have developed 30 or more anti-missile defense installments on
land and sea, several very close to Russia. For Moscow, this was an American attempt to obtain
a first-strike capability without mutual destruction. The Kremlin made this concern known to
Moscow many times since 2002, proposing instead a mutual US-Russian developed anti-missile
system, but was repeatedly rebuffed.
§ On March 1, Putin announced that Russia had developed nuclear weapons capable of
eluding any anti-missile system, described it as a restoration of strategic parity, and called
for new nuclear-weapons negotiations.
§ American mainstream political and media elites derided Putin's announcement.
Following the evaluation of several American nuclear experts, four Democratic senators appealed
to (now former) Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to (in effect) respond positively to Putin's
appeal. Nothing came of it. Shortly after the Russian presidential election on March 18,
President Trump himself, in a congratulatory call to Putin, proposed that they meet soon to
discuss the "new nuclear arms race." Trump was widely traduced as having revealed further
evidence that he was "colluding" with Putin, perhaps
§ The result has been, reflected in the mass expulsion of
Russian diplomats, even more fraught US-Russian relations and with them, of course, the
increased risk of nuclear war.
3. Many Americans, including political and media elites who shape public opinion, have
been deluded into thinking, especially since the pseudo–"American-Russian friendship" of
the Clinton 1990s, that nuclear war now really is "unthinkable." That the mass expulsion of
diplomats was merely "symbolic" and of no real lasting consequence. In reality, it has become
more thinkable.
§ Diplomacy kept the nuclear peace during the preceding Cold War, but the mass
expulsions -- even pending the Kremlin's response -- seriously undermines the diplomatic
process. They even criminalize it, as illustrated by denunciations of Trump's phone
conversation with Putin and by widespread political-media demands after he expelled a large
number of Russia's diplomats that he do "more" -- such demands ranging from more sanctions on
Russia to more military responses in Syria, Ukraine, and elsewhere -- to prove he is not under
Putin's control.
( Identifying all expelled diplomats as "intelligence officers" is also misleading.
Posting intelligence officers as diplomats has long been a mutual de facto arrangement tacitly,
if not explicitly, agreed upon and known by both sides. Moreover, the designation might apply
to embassy officials who study the other country's economic, social, cultural, or political
life. They gather and report "information." )
§ In this connection, historians remind us of how the great powers gradually "slipped"
into World War I. The lesson is the crucial role of diplomacy, now being undermined. Consider,
for example, Syria. Recently, US-backed proxies apparently killed a number of Russian
citizens also operating there. The Kremlin, through its Ministry of Defense, issued an ominous
warning: If this happens again, Moscow will strike militarily not only at the proxies but also
at US forces in the region who provided the weapons and launched the missiles. The same razor's
edge could easily occur where the United States and Russia are also eyeball-to-eyeball, as in
Ukraine or the Baltic region. (Again, as Trump is being crippled to the extent that he probably
could not negotiate a crisis the way President Kennedy did the 1962 Cuban missile
crisis.)
4. The causes of the new risks of nuclear war are not "symbolic" but real and primarily
political.
§ As diplomacy is diminished, the militarization of US-Russian relations increases.
§ Every weapon developed as extensively as have been nuclear weapons have eventually
been used. Washington dropped two atomic bombs, genetic predecessors of their nuclear
offspring, on Japan in 1945. (Before 1914, some people thought gas, the new weapon of mass
destruction, would never be widely used in warfare.)
§ On both sides today, but especially in Washington, there is talk of developing "more
precise nuclear warheads" that could be usable. Use of even a "small, precise" nuclear weapon
would cross the Rubicon of apocalypse.
§ Meanwhile, the extreme demonization of Putin and growing Russophobia in the
United States are elevating today's small, less formidable Russia into a threat even graver
than was the Soviet Union, against which US nuclear weapons were developed and intended. And
this, again, in the context of diminished diplomacy and Trump's diminished capacity to
negotiate.
Stephen F. Cohen, professor emeritus of Russian Studies and Politics at NYU and
Princeton
"... This 6-paged PDF is a powerful evidence of another intellectual low of British propaganda machine. Open it and you can tell that substantially it makes only two assertions on the Skripal case, and both are false ..."
"... The fifth version is a rather more elaborate development of the previous point. There is circumstantial evidence, a version outlined by the Daily Telegraph , that Skripal may have had a hand in devising Christopher Steele's 'Trump Dossier'. ..."
"... The authors of this "report" mixed up a very strange cocktail of multitype allegations, none of which have ever been proven or recognized by any responsible entity ..."
The UK government's presentation on the Salisbury incident, which was repeatedly
cited
in recent days as an "ultimate proof" of Russia's involvement into Skripal's assassination attempt, was
made public earlier today.
This 6-paged PDF is a powerful evidence of another intellectual low of British propaganda machine. Open it and you can tell
that substantially it makes only two assertions on the Skripal case, and both are false:
First.
Novichok is a group of agents developed only by Russia and not declared under the CWC " – a false statement .
Novichok was originally developed in the USSR (Nukus Lab,
today in Uzbekistan, site completely decommissioned according to the US-Uzbekistan agreement by 2002). One of its key developers,
Vil Mirzayanov , defected to the United States in 1990s,
its chemical formula and technology were openly published in a number of chemical journals outside Russia. Former top-ranking British
foreign service officer Craig Murray specifically
noted
this point on March 17:
Craig Murray
I have now been sent the vital information that in late 2016, Iranian scientists set out to study whether novichoks really could
be produced from commercially available ingredients.
Iran succeeded
in synthesizing a number of novichoks. Iran did this in full cooperation with the OPCW and immediately reported
the results to the OPCW so they could be added to the chemical weapons database.
This makes complete nonsense of the Theresa May's "of a type developed by Russia" line, used to parliament and the UN Security
Council. This explains why Porton Down has refused to cave in to governmental pressure to say the nerve agent was Russian. If Iran
can make a novichok, so can a significant number of states .
Second.
" We are without doubt that Russia is responsible. No country bar Russia has combined capability, intent and motive. There
is no plausible alternative explanation " – an outstanding example of self-hypnosis. None of the previous items could even remotedly
lead to this conclusion. The prominent British academician from the University of Kent Prof. Richard Sakwa has
elaborated on this on March 23 the following
way:
Rather than just the two possibilities outlined by Theresa May, in fact there are at least six, possibly seven. The first is that
this was a state-sponsored, and possibly Putin-ordered, killing This version simply does not make sense, and until concrete evidence
emerges, it should be discounted
The second version is rather more plausible, that the authorities had lost control of its stocks of chemical weapons. In the early
1990s Russian facilities were notoriously lax, but since the 2000s strict control over stocks were re-imposed, until their final
destruction in 2017. It is quite possible that some person or persons unknown secreted material, and then conducted some sort of
vigilante operation
Third.
The third version is the exact opposite: some sort of anti-Putin action by those trying to force his policy choices
Forth
The fourth version is similar, but this time the anti-Putinists are not home-grown but outsiders. Here the list of people who
would allegedly benefit by discrediting Russia is a long one. If Novichok or its formula has proliferated, then it would not be that
hard to organise some sort of false flag operation. The list of countries mentioned in social media in this respect is a long one.
Obviously, Ukraine comes top of the list, not only because of motivation, but also because of possible access to the material, as
a post-Soviet state with historical links to the Russian chemical weapons programme. Israel has a large chemical weapon inventory
and is not a party to the OPCW; but it has no motivation for such an attack (unless some inadvertent leak occurred here). Another
version is that the UK itself provoked the incident, as a way of elevating its status as a country 'punching above its weight'. The
British chemical weapons establishment, Porton Down, is only 12 kilometres from Salisbury. While superficially plausible, there is
absolutely no evidence that this is a credible version, and should be discounted.
Fifth.
The fifth version is a rather more elaborate development of the previous point. There is circumstantial evidence,
a version outlined by the Daily Telegraph
, that Skripal may have had a hand in devising Christopher Steele's 'Trump Dossier'.
The British agent who originally recruited Skripal, Pablo Miller, lives in Salisbury, and also has connections with Orbis International,
Steele's agency in London. In this version, Skripal is still working in one way or another with MI6, and fed stories to Steele, who
then intervenes massively in US politics, effectively preventing the much-desired rapprochement between Trump and Putin. Deep anger
at the malevolent results of the Steele and British intervention in international politics and US domestic affairs prompts a revenge
killing, with the demonstration effect achieved by using such a bizarre assassination weapon.
Sixth.
The sixth version is the involvement of certain criminal elements, who for reasons best known to themselves were smuggling the
material, and released it by accident. In this version, the Skripals are the accidental and not intended victims. There are various
elaborations of this version, including the activities of anti-Putin mobsters. One may add a seventh version here, in which Islamic
State or some other Islamist group seeks to provoke turmoil in Europe.
Do you wish to know our refutations of any other substantial "hard evidence" against Russia in the UK paper? Sorry, but that
is all. The primitive information warriors in what used to be the heart of a brilliant empire, today are incapable of designing
an even slightly plausible (they love this word, right?) document on a super-politicized case.
What follows is even more depressing. Slide 3 is dedicated to some sort of anatomy lesson:
Slide 4 seemingly represents a real "honey trap". Just look at it:
The authors of this "report" mixed up a very strange cocktail of multitype allegations, none of which have ever been proven or
recognized by any responsible entity (like legal court or dedicated official international organization). Of course we are not committed
to argue on every cell, but taking e.g. " August 2008 Invasion of Georgia " we actually can't understand why the
EU-acknowledged Saakashvili's aggression
against South Ossetia is exposed here as an example of "Russian malign activity"
Have you totally lost your minds, ladies & gentlemen from the Downing Street?
Sebastian Rotella reports
on how many of the people that worked with Bolton remember his tendency to distort intelligence
and ignore facts that contradicted his assumptions:
"Anyone who is so cavalier not just with intelligence, but with facts, and so
ideologically driven, is unfit to be national security adviser," said Robert Hutchings, who
dealt extensively with Bolton as head of the National Intelligence Council, a high-level
agency that synthesizes analysis from across the intelligence community to produce strategic
assessments for policymakers. "He's impervious to information that goes against his
preconceived ideological views." [bold mine-DL]
That assessment lines up with what I understood about Bolton, and it points to one of the
biggest problems with his appointment. I wrote this shortly
before Trump announced that he was choosing Bolton:
The real danger is that he is such an ideologue that he would keep information from the
president that contradicts his views and prevent Trump from getting the best available
advice. Trump is poorly informed to begin with, and having Bolton as his main adviser on
matters of national security and foreign policy would make sure that he stays that way.
Trump is especially susceptible to being manipulated by his advisers into endorsing the
policies they want because he knows so little and responds so favorably to flattery, and he has
shown that he is already more than willing to select a more aggressive option when he is told
that it is the "presidential" thing to do. We should expect that Bolton will feed Trump bad or
incomplete information, present aggressive options in the most favorable light while dismissing
alternatives, and praise Trump's leadership to get him to go along with the hard-line policies
Bolton wants. Bolton will run a very distorted policy process and he will be the opposite of an
honest broker. That won't serve Trump well, and it will be terrible for our foreign policy.
The US has been cracking down on protected First Amendment rights for years now. Just heard
that someone was kicked off the post office lawn last week for protesting, so FIrday's peace
vigil may be at risk again.We haven't had any problems with the police harassing us for
probably 12 years, but that may be raising its head again.
The US government has a lot to answer for in terms of press freedom and its reaction to
organized protest. One only need remember the clusterfuck at Standing Rock during the final
months of Obama's presidency to see that this country has major problems with racism,
violence, liberty, equality, fraternity. The US is by no means a "functioning democracy with
proper rule of law". More like a corrupt plutocracy riding full-speed into overt fascism,
where who you know and who you blow makes the most difference if you wind up in trouble with
the law.
I never take First Amendment rights for granted. I am totally aware that if you don't use
your rights, and often, you lose them. I have never had an account on Facebook, but sometimes
I cruise other people's pages to the extent that Zuckerburg will allow without gathering my
information(or maybe they can get it if you just look at a page). Always thought it was a
supremely wrong idea to allow your identity to be taken away by some fat cat with a clever
idea.
"... Tyranny Comes Home: The Domestic Fate of U.S. Militarism, Christopher J. Coyne and Abigail R. Hall, Stanford University Press 2018, 280 pages ..."
Millennials and members of Generation Z have spent much of if not their entire lives at war.
As I've noted in these
pages and elsewhere , the
Afghan conflict is now in its 17th year, with
more than 6,000 days having gone by, making it the longest war in American history. I was
12 years old when that war began in 2001; I'm now a month out from my 29th birthday. Beginning
next year, the newly enlisted 18-year-olds who are deployed to Afghanistan will be younger than
the war they are fighting.
The Iraq war began in 2003, saw a major troop withdrawal in 2011, and then was re-escalated
by former President Obama in 2014. American forces remain there today to aid in the fight
against the Islamic State, despite an agreement
with the Iraqis that was supposed to begin a troop drawdown. An American-led regime change
intervention turned Libya into a failed state. And we have blanketed countries such as Pakistan
and Yemen with drone warfare, so much so that
drones now haunt their citizens' dreams . U.S. Special Forces were on
the ground conducting activities in 149 countries as of 2017.
This kind of foreign policy adventurism is hardly unique to the present day. America has
been aggressively deploying its military on foreign soil since the late 19th century. As
Stephen Kinzer shows in his book Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to
Iraq, we got our foot in the door of the regime change business all the way
back in 1893 with our acquisition of Hawaii.
Living in a post-9/11 world has shattered any inclination to view domestic life as separate
from and unaffected by foreign policy, particularly since the 2013 publication of classified
NSA documents leaked to the press by Edward Snowden. Snowden's revelations threw back the
curtain on an omnipresent surveillance apparatus under which very few aspects of our digital
lives were left unmonitored -- all in the name of national security and the global war on
terror.
The Snowden leaks demonstrate how an adventurous foreign policy can have negative
consequences for liberty at home. Now, political economists Christopher Coyne and Abigail Hall
have documented this phenomenon in their important new book, Tyranny Comes Home: The Domestic Fate of U.S. Militarism .
In their words, "coercive foreign intervention creates opportunities to develop and refine
methods and technologies of social control."
Coyne and Hall, economists at George Mason University and the University of Tampa
respectively, introduce a concept for understanding this phenomenon called the "boomerang
effect." It works like this: the constraints on the activities of the U.S. government in the
realm of foreign policy are generally weak, which enables those involved in foreign
interventions to engage in practices abroad that would meet some institutional resistance on
the home front. Eventually, though, interventions end, the interveners come home, and the
practices employed on foreign soil are imported for use against the domestic population.
This importation happens along three separate channels. First, there is the development of
human capital -- the skills, knowledge, and other characteristics that contribute to one's
productive capacity. All companies, organizations, and agencies have goals they seek to
accomplish, so they hire people with the right kind of human capital to execute said goals.
Foreign intervention is no different.
Among the characteristics necessary for interveners include extreme confidence in their
ability to solve complex problems in other countries, a sense of superiority and righteousness,
comfort with pushing the ethical envelope, limited compassion and sympathy for the targeted
population, and the association of state order with control. Interventionists, as Coyne and
Hall put it, treat "society as a grand science project that can be rationalized and improved on
by enlightened and well-intentioned engineers."
The second phase occurs when the interventionists come home. Some may retire, but many go to
work in various public- and private-sector jobs. The skills and mentalities that served them
well abroad don't disappear, so they begin employing their unique human capital domestically.
Those who land in the public sector are able to influence domestic policy, where they see
threats to liberty becoming manifest. Because of the relative lack of constraints when
operating in a foreign theater, tactics that would otherwise cross the line domestically are
seen as standard operating procedure.
Finally, physical capital plays a significant role in bringing methods of foreign
intervention back home. Technological innovation "allows governments to use lower-cost methods
of social control with a greater reach." The federal government spends billions annually on
research and development, which buys a variety of different capabilities. These technologies,
many originally intended for foreign populations, can be used domestically. One example the
authors point to are the surveillance methods originally used in the Iraq war that found their
way to the Baltimore Police Department for routine use.
The implication of the boomerang effect for policing doesn't end with surveillance. It can
also help explain police militarization, the origins of which lie in the foreign interventions
of the Progressive Era, specifically in the Philippines.
In the wake of the Spanish-American War, Spain ceded its colonial territories to the United
States. This led to the Philippine-American War, a bloody conflict
that directly and indirectly caused the deaths of 200,000 Filipino civilians, and which
ended in 1902.
As veterans returned home from the Philippines, many sought careers in law enforcement where
they were able to implement practices inspired by their days in the military. The effect of
this was to "establish precedents whereby military personnel and tactics not only would be
considered legitimate but welcomed" by police administrations. Police militarization wouldn't
kick into high gear until the latter half of the 20th century, with the introduction of SWAT
teams and the federalization of law enforcement during the LBJ and Nixon years. The men behind
the development of SWAT were veterans of the Vietnam War.
What ultimately creates the conditions for this boomerang effect to take place? One factor,
Coyne and Hall argue, is fear. Fear and crisis, both perceived and real, creates "space for
government to expand the scope of its powers and adopt the techniques of state-produced social
control that it has developed and honed abroad." Fear can lead people to seek assurances from
authorities, which goads them into tolerating and even demanding expansions of state powers --
powers that in less fearful times they would not accept.
Once accumulated, that power becomes a normal part of life, and isn't easily given up, as
the great economic historian Robert Higgs shows in his classic work Crisis and Leviathan . Anyone who has gone through airport
security over the last 17 years understands this, as the fear of terror attacks after 9/11 has
led to ratcheted up airline security measures by the TSA. This has resulted in some fairly
egregious violations of person and privacy, despite very
little evidence that they work.
Coyne's and Hall's book is a great, conceptually holistic investigation into how the state
can threaten our liberty. Economists regularly recognize the unintended consequences of
domestic policy; Coyne and Hall have explained the unintended consequences of foreign policy,
and their costs. It's particularly timely, as President Trump's tenure has seen decision-making
authority at the Pentagon pushed down the chain of command, leaving the United States'
war-making capabilities even less accountable and transparent. This book is an incisive
elucidation of what writer Randolph Bourne recognized a century ago and of which we could use a
perpetual reminder: war truly is the health of the state.
Jerrod A. Laber is a writer and Free Society Fellow with Young Voices. He is a
contributor to the Washington Examiner , and his work has appeared in Real Clear
Defense , Quillette , and the Columbus Dispatch , among others.
Journalists are always "soldiers of the party". You just need to understand what party.
Notable quotes:
"... 'Fair and balanced' was a mid-20th century marketing tool and really, a confabulation of the times. ..."
"... The great Joseph Pulitzer largely founded his namesake prize for the same motives as Alfred Nobel, when the latter tried to make up for the incalculable injuries and deaths caused by the explosives he invented by endowing a Peace Prize. Pulitzer was attempting to atone for the "yellow journalism" sins of his own papers -- and even more, those of his arch rival, William Randolph "Citizen Kane" Hearst -- when he launched the prize that bears his name. ..."
"... To put it bluntly, as Frances McDormand's professor-mother in Almost Famous might have said, "Objective Journalism" was as much a marketing tool as anything else. It took off not because news neutrality was always enshrined in American journalistic ethics, but because of how rare it actually was. ..."
"... the Ochs-Sulzbergers of New York, the Meyer-Grahams of Washington, and the Chandlers of Los Angeles -- made a conscious decision to brand their newspapers as being truly fair and balanced to differentiate them from the competition. ..."
"... And even then, "objectivity" only went as far as the eyes and ears of the beholder. ..."
"... National Review ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... Whether it's MSNBC on the left or Fox News on the right, the editorial decisions of how to spin a piece, where and how often to broadcast it, what kind of panelists you invite to "debate" a story, which anchors should be promoted and which ones will forever remain mere worker bees -- all these decisions are anything but "objective" or "unbiased." ..."
'Fair and balanced' was a mid-20th century marketing tool and really, a confabulation of the times.
"The Yellow Press", by L. M. Glackens, portrays newspaper magnate William Randolph Hearst as a jester distributing sensational stories
in 1910. (Library of Congress/Public Domain) What the Greatest, Silent, and Boomer generations always regarded as the ideal of "objective
journalism" was actually the exception, not the rule. That was true from the time of Gutenberg until that of Franklin Roosevelt.
The great Joseph Pulitzer largely founded his namesake prize for the same motives as Alfred Nobel, when the latter tried to
make up for the incalculable injuries and deaths caused by the explosives he invented by endowing a Peace Prize. Pulitzer was attempting
to atone for the "yellow journalism" sins of his own papers -- and even more, those of his arch rival, William Randolph "Citizen
Kane" Hearst -- when he launched the prize that bears his name.
And if Pulitzer repented of his past, Hearst never did -- he went full speed ahead well into the 1920s and beyond, normalizing
Nazi science,
openly endorsing eugenics and white superiority, and promoting "Birth of a Nation"-like racism against African Americans, Latinos,
and Native Americans. His dehumanizing attacks against so-called
sneaking and treacherous "Japs" and "Chinks" -- well before Pearl Harbor, the Korean War, and communist China -- were even uglier.
To put it bluntly, as Frances McDormand's professor-mother in Almost Famous might have said, "Objective Journalism"
was as much a marketing tool as anything else. It took off not because news neutrality was always enshrined in American journalistic
ethics, but because of how rare it actually was. High-minded notions of "fairness" and "objective journalism" came to
the print media largely because the visionary first families of the papers that finally succeeded the Hearsts and Pulitzers in clout
and cache -- the Ochs-Sulzbergers of New York, the Meyer-Grahams of Washington, and the Chandlers of Los Angeles -- made a conscious
decision to brand their newspapers as being truly fair and balanced to differentiate them from the competition.
Meanwhile, the broadcast media (which didn't exist until the rise of radio and "talking pictures" in the late 1920s, followed
by TV after World War II) labored under the New Deal's famed Fairness Doctrine.
And even then, "objectivity" only went as far as the eyes and ears of the beholder. The fairness flag was fraying when
Spiro Agnew and Pat Buchanan took "liberal media elites" to task a generation ago during the Vietnam and civil rights era, while
Tom Wolfe made good, unclean fun out of the "radical chic" conceits of Manhattan and Hollywood limousine liberals.
What today's controversies illustrate is that a so-called "Fairness Doctrine" and "objective" newspaper reporting could only have
existed in a conformist Mad Men world where societal norms of what was (and wasn't) acceptable in the postwar Great Society
operated by consensus. That is to say, an America where moderate, respectable, white male centrist Republicans like Thomas Dewey,
Dwight Eisenhower, Nelson Rockefeller, and Gerald Ford "debated" moderate, respectable, white male centrist Democrats like Harry
Truman, Adlai Stevenson, Hubert Humphrey, and Jimmy Carter.
Now contrast that with today. On November 25, the New York Times made a now-notorious attempt to
understand the Nazi next door,
running a profile of young suburban white supremacist, Tony Hovater. Transgender social media superstar Charlotte Clymer spoke for
her fellow liberals when she savagely satirized the Times with a
tweet-storm that included things like:
Bob is a vegan. He believes we should protect the environment. He likes "Big Bang Theory". He pays taxes. He served in the
military.
He's a serial killer who has tortured and murdered 14 people. He dissolved their bodies in acid at a remote site. He made
them beg for their lives as he tortured them.
He attends PTA meetings. He DVR's episodes of his wife's fave shows when she's late at work.
The moral of the fable being (as Miss Clymer put it): "Bob is a mass-murdering f***head. STOP GIVING BOB NUANCE!"
When the Times followed their neo-Nazi profile by turning an entire op-ed column over to Donald Trump supporters in mid-January,
the Resistance went to red alert. And after Ross Douthat penned a column in defense of (Jewish) anti-immigration hardliner Stephen
Miller on Holocaust Memorial Day in January,
they went full DEFCON.
"F*** you @nytimes for publishing this article on #HolocaustMemorialDay from me & from those in my family whose voices were silenced
during the Holocaust. Shame on you!" said Nadine Vander Velde on Twitter. London left-wing journalist Sarah Kendzior agreed that
"The NYT is now a white supremacist paper. The multiple Nazi puff pieces, constant pro-Trump PR, and praise for Miller on today of
all days is not exceptional – it's [now] the guiding ideology of the paper."
And the current furor over The Atlantic
's hiring of National Review firebrand Kevin D. Williamson only underscores that it isn't just campus leftists or Tea Partiers
who are hitting the censor button.
But revealingly, it wasn't just the usual left-wing snowflakes who have needed a trigger warning of late. Just six weeks into
the new year, the Washington Post and CNN ran a series of tabloidy, Inside Edition -style stories glamorizing Kim Yo-jong,
the sister of North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un. The Washington Post even went so far as to call Ms. Yo-jong North Korea's
answer to Ivanka Trump (just ignore the fact she is the DPRK's assistant head of the Ministry of Propaganda and Agitation). That
led Bethany Mandel of the New York Post to wonder
what
was up with all the "perverse fawning over brutal Kim Jong-un's sister at the Olympics?"
Additionally, some of the most provocative critiques of "journalistic objectivity" have come from liberal polemicists like Matt
Taibbi and Sam Adler-Bell, who argue that before we go on blathering about untrammeled First Amendment freedom and "objectivity,"
the first question that must be asked is who has the balance of power and whose hands are on deck in the editing room. (And they're
not wrong to ask that question -- it was the same one that Pat Buchanan asked 50 years ago and Ann Coulter asked 20 years ago from
the opposite side of the newsroom.)
Whether it's MSNBC on the left or Fox News on the right, the editorial decisions of how to spin a piece, where and how often
to broadcast it, what kind of panelists you invite to "debate" a story, which anchors should be promoted and which ones will forever
remain mere worker bees -- all these decisions are anything but "objective" or "unbiased."
Let's face it: the supposedly more civilized, serious ecosystem of the pre-social media past would come across to identity-conscious
Millennials today as nothing more than stale white bread dominated by stale white men. Even among the campus leftists who protest
and violently riot to shut down and silence "hate speech," most of them would probably rather live in a world where Steve Bannon
and Richard Spencer anchored the nightly news on one channel -- so long as there was a hijab-wearing Muslim or a transgendered man
on another, equally highly-rated one.
What would be totally unacceptable to today's young consumer is any kind of return to the mid-century world where "the
news" was whatever Ben Bradlee, Johnny Apple, Robert Novak, and The Chancellor/Brinkley Nightly News said it was -- in essence,
the world where Punch Sulzberger, Otis Chandler, Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, and Tom Brokaw white-mansplained "facts" through their
own elite establishment filters, de facto ignoring everyone else.
Meanwhile, the beat goes on. From the left, conservative Sinclair Media
is accused of "forcing" its local anchors to read "pro-Trump propaganda." The Nation stalwart Eric Alterman
says that "When one side is
fascist, there's no need to show Both Sides." As for the right -- just ask your Fox-watching or Limbaugh-listening friends and families
what they think of the "mainstream media," the "Communist News Network," or the "opinion cartel."
The great Joan Didion once said "We tell ourselves stories in order to live." Maybe "objective journalism" was always just a little
social white lie we in the media told ourselves to make ourselves feel better -- fairer, kinder, gentler, more "professional." But
if there's one lesson that Barack Obama, the Tea Party, Bernie Sanders, Antifa, Donald Trump, and the Great Recession have taught
us over the past decade, it isn't just that the mythical "center" will no longer hold. It's that there may no longer be a center
for any of us to hold on to.
Telly Davidson is the author of a new book on the politics and pop culture of the '90s,Culture War : How the 90's Made Us Who We Are Today (Like it Or Not). He has written on culture for ATTN, FrumForum, All About Jazz, FilmStew, and Guitar Player ,andworked
on the Emmy-nominated PBS series "Pioneers of Television."
As the porn star's allegations show, discourse in Washington is shifting to something more
tawdry and celebrity-oriented
... The idea of a porn star appearing on network television to share details of a sexual
encounter with the US commander in chief would have been intellectually confounding at any
other moment in time. Instead, the interview, which took place only few days after
a former Playboy playmate, Karen McDougal , talked about her affair with Trump, seemed a
part of the everyday political landscape in 2018.
... Trump may seem like an aberration but instead he may be an inflection point. It's
possible that after over two centuries of presidential campaigns with governors, senators and
the occasional general, American politics is shifting to something more tawdry and more
celebrity-oriented. The often spoken and rarely met ideal in the United States is that
political debates should be about issues. But, after a political campaign where candidates
debated penis size on a debate stage, it may be the legacy of Trump that politics has
permanently descended to locker-room talk.
"... It's impossible to overstate the significance of the survey. The data suggest that representative democracy is a largely a fraud, that congressmen and senators are mostly sock-puppets who do the bidding of wealthy powerbrokers, and that the entire system is impervious to the will of the people. These are pretty damning results and a clear indication of how corrupt the system really is. ..."
"... So, along with the fact, that most Americans think democracy is a pipe-dream, a clear majority also believe that the country has changed into a frightening, lock-down police state in which government agents gather all-manner of electronic communications on everyone without the slightest suspicion of wrongdoing. ..."
"... There's no doubt in my mind that the relentless attacks on Donald Trump have reinforced the public's belief that the country is controlled by an invisible group of elites whose agents in the bureaucracy follow their diktats ..."
"... Brennan says "America will triumph over you." But whose America is he talking about? The American people elected Trump, he is the legitimate president of the United States. Many people may not like his policies, but they respect the system that put him in office. ..."
"... Brennan and his cadres of rogue agents have been at war with Trump since Day 1. Brennan does not accept the results of the election because it did not produce the outcome that he and his powerful constituents wanted. Brennan wants to destroy Trump. He even admits as much in his statement. ..."
"... And why do Brennan and his fatcat allies hate Trump so much? They don't. Because it's not really about Trump. It's about the presidency, the highest office in the land. The US Plutocrat Class honestly believe that they are entitled to govern the country that they physically own. It's theirs, they own it and they are taking it back. That's what this is all about ..."
On Monday, the Monmouth University Polling Institute released the results of a survey that
found that "a large bipartisan majority feel that national policy is being manipulated or
directed by a 'Deep State' of unelected government officials ..
[1] Public Troubled By Deep State, Monmouth University Polling Institute
The Monmouth University Poll was conducted by telephone from March 2 to 5, 2018
with 803 adults in the United States. The results in this release have a margin of error of +/-
3.5 percent. The poll was conducted by the Monmouth University Polling Institute in West Long
Branch, NJ.
According to the survey:" 6-in-10 Americans (60%) feel that unelected or appointed
government officials have too much influence in determining federal policy. Just 26% say the
right balance of power exists between elected and unelected officials in determining policy.
Democrats (59%), Republicans (59%) and independents (62%) agree that appointed officials hold
too much sway in the federal government. ("Public Troubled by 'Deep State", Monmouth.edu)
The survey appears to confirm that democracy in the United States is largely a sham. Our
elected representatives are not the agents of political change, but cogs in a vast bureaucratic
machine that operates mainly in the interests of the behemoth corporations and banks.
Surprisingly, most Americans have not been taken in by the media's promotional hoopla about
elections and democracy. They have a fairly-decent grasp of how the system works and who
ultimately benefits from it. Check it out:
" Few Americans (13%) are very familiar with the term "Deep State ;" another 24%
are somewhat familiar, while 63% say they are not familiar with this term. However, when
the term is described as a group of unelected government and military officials who secretly
manipulate or direct national policy, nearly 3-in-4 (74%) say they believe this type of
apparatus exists in Washington. Only 1-in-5 say it does not exist." Belief in the
probable existence of a Deep State comes from more than 7-in-10 Americans in each partisan
group "
So while the cable news channels dismiss anyone who believes in the "Deep State" as a
conspiracy theorist, it's clear that the majority of people think that's how the system really
works, that is, "a group of unelected government and military officials secretly manipulate or
direct national policy."
It's impossible to overstate the significance of the survey. The data suggest that
representative democracy is a largely a fraud, that congressmen and senators are mostly
sock-puppets who do the bidding of wealthy powerbrokers, and that the entire system is
impervious to the will of the people. These are pretty damning results and a clear indication
of how corrupt the system really is.
The Monmouth survey also found that "A majority of the American public believe that the U.S.
government engages in widespread monitoring of its own citizens and worry that the U.S.
government could be invading their own privacy." .
"Fully 8-in-10 believe that the U.S. government currently monitors or spies on the
activities of American citizens, including a majority (53%)who say this activity is
widespread Few Americans (18%) say government monitoring or spying on U.S. citizens is
usually justified, with most (53%) saying it is only sometimes justified. Another 28% say
this activity is rarely or never justified ." ("Public Troubled by 'Deep State",
Monmouth.edu)
So, along with the fact, that most Americans think democracy is a pipe-dream, a clear
majority also believe that the country has changed into a frightening, lock-down police state
in which government agents gather all-manner of electronic communications on everyone without
the slightest suspicion of wrongdoing. Once again, the data suggests that the American people
know what is going on, know that the US has gone from a reasonably free country where civil
liberties were protected under the law, to a state-of-the-art surveillance state ruled by
invisible elites who see the American people as an obstacle to their global ambitions–but
their awareness has not evolved into an organized movement for change. In any event, the public
seems to understand that the USG is not as committed to human rights and civil liberties as the
media would have one believe. That's a start.
There's no doubt in my mind that the relentless attacks on Donald Trump have reinforced the
public's belief that the country is controlled by an invisible group of elites whose agents in
the bureaucracy follow their diktats. From the time Trump became the GOP presidential nominee
more than 18 months ago, a powerful faction of the Intelligence Community, law enforcement
(FBI) and even elements form the Obama DOJ, have vigorously tried to sabotage his presidency,
his credibility and his agenda. Without a scintilla of hard evidence to make their case, this
same group and their dissembling allies in the media, have cast Trump as a disloyal
collaborator who conspired to win the election by colluding with a foreign government. The
magnitude of this fabrication is beyond anything we've seen before in American political
history, and the absence of any verifiable proof makes it all the more alarming. As it happens,
the Deep State is so powerful it can wage a full-blown assault on the highest elected office in
the country without even showing probable cause. In other words, the president of the United
States is not even accorded the same rights as a common crook. How does that happen?
Over the weekend, former CIA Director and "Russia-gate" ringleader John Brennan fired off an
angry salvo at Trump on his Twitter account. Here's what he said:
"When the full extent of your venality, moral turpitude, and political corruption becomes
known, you will take your rightful place as a disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history.
You may scapegoat Andy McCabe, but you will not destroy America America will triumph over
you."
Doesn't Brennan's statement help to reinforce the public's belief in the Deep State? How
does a career bureaucrat who has never been elected to public office decide that it is
appropriate to use the credibility of his former office to conduct a pitch-battle with the
President of the United States?
Brennan says "America will triumph over you." But whose America is he talking about? The
American people elected Trump, he is the legitimate president of the United States. Many people
may not like his policies, but they respect the system that put him in office.
Not so, Brennan. Brennan and his cadres of rogue agents have been at war with Trump since
Day 1. Brennan does not accept the results of the election because it did not produce the
outcome that he and his powerful constituents wanted. Brennan wants to destroy Trump. He even
admits as much in his statement.
And Brennan has been given a platform on the cable news channels so he can continue his
assault on the presidency, not because he can prove that Trump is guilty of collusion or
obstruction or whatever, but because the people who own the media have mobilized their deep
state agents to carry out their vendetta to remove Trump from office by any means possible.
This is the "America" of which Brennan speaks. Not my America, but deep state America.
And why do Brennan and his fatcat allies hate Trump so much? They don't. Because it's not really about Trump. It's about the presidency, the highest office in the land. The US Plutocrat
Class honestly believe that they are entitled to govern the country that they physically own. It's theirs, they own it and they
are taking it back. That's what this is all about
Former Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz
spells out what the nuclear deal with Iran does and what withdrawing from it would
mean:
Conversely, if Trump withdraws the United States from the agreement, with Iran complying
and with our allies clearly committed to its continuation, he will have compromised the most
stringent nuclear verification standard ever achieved, with no credible prospect for
restoring or improving it [bold mine-DL]. Such a move would hand Iran a political "wedge"
dividing the international community, and undercut vital arguments for verification of any
agreement reached with North Korea.
Opponents of the deal often claim to be against it because it isn't "tough" enough, but as
Moniz explains the deal contains the "most robust verification measures the world has ever
known." Withdrawing from the deal means throwing that away for no good reason. If Trump follows
through on his threat to withdraw, he will confirm that his complaints about the agreement were
made in bad faith. Reneging on the deal just because some of its restrictions expire after a
decade or more gives the game away. It gives Iran the excuse to ignore some or all of the
deal's restrictions immediately instead of having some of them lifted in the 2020s or 2030s.
We're supposed to believe that the gradual expiration of some restrictions is so intolerable
that we should throw away all of the restrictions right away. It's a completely irrational
position, and so it's obviously just a bad excuse for killing an agreement that Iran hawks
never wanted.
If Iran is supposed to ratify the Additional
Protocol that it is currently implementing voluntarily. Ratification will make these
verification measures permanent, and that will make ensuring that Iran abides by its NPT
obligations much easier. Blowing up the deal now would give Iran an excuse to stop voluntarily
complying with the Additional Protocol years before they have to ratify it. Sina Azodi
suggests that this is how Iran might respond to a U.S. withdrawal:
One possible response to a US withdrawal would be for Iran to declare that it will no
longer implement the Additional Protocol of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. This
supplementary protocol significantly enhances the ability of the International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA) to monitor and verify Iran's compliance with the JCPOA.
Under the agreement, Iran is required to implement the protocol and to ratify it within
eight years of the January 2016 implementation of the JCPOA. If the deal collapses, Iran will
no longer feel obliged to allow the intrusive inspections required by the protocol or to
ratify it. This would significantly reduce the IAEA's ability to monitor Iran's nuclear
activities. However, this seems to be a relatively safe option for Iran, since implementation
of the protocol is on a voluntary basis.
As Azodi explains, this is the least provocative response available to Iran, and it allows
Iran to further divide the U.S. and our European allies, who remain committed to honoring the
agreement. It's also quite possible that Iran will follow the U.S. out of the deal to protest
the resumption of U.S. sanctions. Either way, the verification measures that make the JCPOA
such a strong nonproliferation agreement will be lost.
The verification measures in the deal were so stringent because of the fear that Iran
wouldn't keep its side of the bargain, but if the deal dies it won't be because of Iranian
cheating. Opponents of the deal have shown that the one truly fatal flaw of the deal was that
it contained no provision to make sure that the U.S. fulfills its obligations. Posted in
foreign
policy , politics . Tagged
Iran ,
IAEA ,
Donald Trump ,
JCPOA
, Sina Azodi , Ernest
Moniz .
The "60 Minutes" broadcast on Sunday night, devoted to rehashing allegations of sexual
impropriety and bullying against Donald Trump, marked a new level of degradation for the US
political system. For nearly half an hour, an audience of 23 million people tuned in to a
discussion of a brief sexual encounter between Trump and adult film star Stormy Daniels
(Stephanie Clifford) in 2006.
Trump was then a near-bankrupt real estate and casino mogul, best known for reinventing
himself as a television personality. By her account, the proffer of a possible guest appearance
on Celebrity Apprentice was the only attraction the 60-year-old Trump had for Daniels,
then 27. Trump made promises, but as usual did not deliver.
Earlier in the week, the same interviewer, Anderson Cooper, appearing on CNN instead of CBS,
held an hour-long discussion with Karen McDougal, a former Playboy magazine
centerfold, who described a year-long relationship with Trump, also in 2006, the year after his
marriage to Melania Knauss.
White House officials flatly denied both accounts, but Trump himself has been conspicuously
and unusually silent, even on Twitter. His lawyers filed papers with a Los Angeles court, in
advance of the "60 Minutes" broadcast, claiming that Daniels was in violation of a
confidentiality agreement and could be liable for damages of up to $20 million.
Last Tuesday, a New York state judge turned down a motion by lawyers acting for Trump and
refused to dismiss the lawsuit for defamation brought against him by Summer Zervos, a former
contestant on another Trump "reality" show, The Apprentice . One of nearly a dozen
women who made public charges of sexual harassment against Trump during the final weeks of the
2016 campaign, Zervos alone has sued Trump over his repeated public claims that the women were
all liars.
There is little doubt that the accounts by Zervos, McDougal and Daniels are substantially
true. Trump has already demonstrated this by attempting to suppress their stories, either
through legal action or by purchasing their silence, directly or indirectly. A Trump ally,
David Pecker, owner of the National Enquirer tabloid, bought the rights to McDougal's
account of her relationship with Trump in 2016 for $150,000, in order not to publish it.
Trump's personal attorney, Michael Cohen, admitted last month that he had paid $130,000 to
Daniels in October 2016, only weeks before the election, to guarantee her silence.
The bullying tactics of Cohen and other Trump allies add credibility to the claim by
Daniels, during her "60 Minutes" interview, that a thug, presumably sent by Cohen, had
threatened her with violence in 2011, when she first sought to sell her story about Trump to
the media. Daniels offered no evidence to back her claim, but her attorney Michael Avenatti
dropped broad hints that Daniels would be able to corroborate much of her account.
Cohen may himself face some legal jeopardy due to his public declaration that he paid
Daniels out of his own funds. Given the proximity of the payment to the election, this could
well be construed as a cash contribution to the Trump campaign far beyond the $3,500 legal
limit for an individual.
The Zervos suit, however, may present the most immediate legal threat, since the next step,
after New York Supreme Court Justice Jennifer G. Schecter rejected Trump's claim that he has
presidential immunity, is to take discovery. In other words, Trump and his closest aides could
be required to give sworn depositions about his actions in relation to Zervos and many of the
other women.
Justice Schecter cited the precedent of the Paula Jones case against President Bill Clinton,
in which the US Supreme Court held that a US president had no immunity from lawsuits over his
private actions. While cloaked in democratic rhetoric at the time ("No one is above the law"),
that decision actually gave a green light to an anti-democratic conspiracy by ultra-right
forces who used the Jones lawsuit to trap Clinton into lying about his relationship with Monica
Lewinsky.
Unlike the 1998-1999 conflict over impeachment, there is no issue of democratic rights
involved in the sexual allegations against Trump. Some of the same legal tactics (using sworn
depositions to set a perjury trap), are being employed as weapons in an increasingly bitter
conflict within the US ruling elite, in which both factions are equally reactionary.
Trump is a representative of the underworld of real estate, casino gambling and reality
television, elevated to the presidency because he had the good fortune to run against a deeply
unpopular and reactionary shill for Wall Street and the military-intelligence agencies, Hillary
Clinton. Under conditions of mounting discontent among working people with the Democratic
Party, after eight years of the Obama administration, Trump was able to eke out a narrow
victory in the Electoral College.
The Democratic "opposition" to Trump is focused not on his vicious attacks on immigrants,
his promotion of racist and neo-fascist elements, his deregulation of business and passage of
the biggest tax cut for the wealthy in decades, or his increasingly violent and unhinged
foreign policy pronouncements. The Democrats have sought to attack Trump from the right,
particularly on the question of US-Russian relations, making use of the investigation into
alleged Russian interference in the 2016 elections, headed by former FBI Director Robert
Mueller.
Trump has sought to mollify his critics within the US national security establishment with
measures such as a more aggressive US intervention in Syria, the elevation of Gina Haspel, the
CIA's chief torturer, to head the agency, and, most recently, the expulsion of dozens of
Russian diplomats as part a NATO-wide campaign aimed at whipping up a war fever against
Moscow.
As Trump has made concessions on foreign policy, his opponents have shifted their ground,
attacking his behavior towards women. They have sought to link these exposures with the broader
#MeToo campaign, which is aimed at creating a witch-hunt atmosphere in Hollywood, the US
political system, and more generally throughout American society, in which gender issues are
brought forward to conceal and suppress more fundamental class questions.
In both the Russia investigation and now the allegations of sexual misconduct, the Democrats
have sought to hide their real political agenda, which is just as reactionary and dangerous as
that of Trump and the Republicans. While Trump is pushing towards war with North Korea or Iran,
and behind them China, the Democrats and their allies in the national security apparatus seek
to maintain the focus on Russia that was developed during the second term of the Obama
administration, particularly in Syria, Ukraine and Eastern Europe as a whole, posing the danger
of a war between the world's two main nuclear powers.
Beyond the immediate foreign policy issues, the whipping up of sexual scandals is invariably
a hallmark of reactionary politics. Such methods appeal to social backwardness, Puritanical
prejudices or prurient interest. They contribute nothing to the political education of working
people and youth, who must come to understand the fundamental class forces underlying all
political phenomena. The political basis for a struggle against Trump is not in designating him
as a sexual predator, but in understanding his class role as a front man for the American
financial oligarchy, which treats the entire working class, including the female half, as
objects of exploitation.
1
5 0 On Monday, a number of European countries, as well as the United States and Canada,
announced they were expelling Russian diplomats over the Skripal case. Radio Sputnik discussed
the significance of the diplomatic response by the Western powers with Srdja Trifkovic, a US
journalist and writer on international affairs. Sputnik: What is your overall assessment about
what has happened with this diplomatic response by so many countries? How significant is it?
Srdja Trifkovic: The overall impression is that
rational discourse has given way to collective hysteria and that it is indeed remarkable.
The extent to which the bandwagon has successfully started rolling while we don't even have
elementary answers to the questions concerning the case itself.
The second important and discouraging aspect is that continental European countries have
followed the Anglo-American lead in Russophobia and this represents a further trial of the
Atlanticist domination over Europe. It is indeed remarkable when both Germany and France, the
putative leaders of independent European foreign policy, have been reduced to the status of
automatic followers of the lead supported by Washington especially when we bear in mind that
the initial round of sanctions in 2014 against Russia was dictated by the United States which
had nothing to lose in the proceedings and to the detriments of Europeans' interests.
So overall I think that, one we have the hysterical phase of Russophobic
discourse in the West which is not amenable to any rational arguments and two, we have a
successful degradation of European diplomacy to the status of pliant satellites comparable to
East Germany and Bulgaria vis-à-vis Brezhnev.
Sputnik: Do you think there was some classified evidence that was presented that proves
beyond a shadow of doubt that Russia was involved or do you think that the fact that there are
11 countries who have not joined in the protest perhaps hints at the fact that this was not the
case?
Srdja Trifkovic: Well, first of all, I would say that President Putin, Foreign Minister
Lavrov and others would not have made such categorical denials of Russian involvement if there
was any possibility of a smoking gun which could effectively show to the world that they were
not telling the truth.
And secondly, it is always possible to present some equivocal
evidence in the form that even if that indicates the modus operandi of intelligence
agencies nevertheless does not disclose outright state secrets. In fact, we've seen that in the
past and I don't think that it would be possible for such confidential information to be
disclosed to the diplomats and foreign ministers of EU countries as divergent as the 27 are,
without risking these very sources.
So I really believe that if you look at the countries which have taken measures against
Russia, they almost read like who is who of those who are prepared to follow the US lead and if
you look at those reluctant to do so, including Austria, Hungary, Cyprus, Greece, we are
looking at those who actually have a more independent foreign policy. So I don't think it's a
reflection of the quality of possible intelligence, it is simply a reflection of the
determination of decision-makers of those countries to preserve a modicum of independence.
Sputnik: What would you say about the level to which the actions that were actually taken by
individual countries? What can you say about the numbers game that's being played? What do you
think determined the number of diplomats?
Srdja Trifkovic: Some of these countries are absolutely insignificant countries like the
Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, which also expelled one Russian and it's just a pathetic
non country. On the other hand in the United States obviously it is a matter of regret that
President Trump's initially stated intention to have detente with Russia has been subverted by
the deep state, it is a long story but now we have really reached the end of the road with the
appointment of Pompeo to State Department and Bolton as the national security adviser.
So we can really look at Trump as the would-be drainer of the swamp who has been swallowed
by the swamp. And I think that we are in for a long haul. I was in Moscow two weeks ago and
coming again next week and sometimes I am surprised that some of my Russian interlocutors are
insufficiently aware of the animosity or end of the rule Russophobic sentiment that currently
prevails among the Western elites, both political and academic and media. It's almost pathetic
when some Russians still use the term "our Western partners," because for partnership you need
to have a modicum of mutual respect and trust and these people really seriously want to destroy
Russia.
They want to delegitimize the Russian political system and process as we have seen with the
public commentary on President Putin's re-election and they want nothing short of regime
change, which would then lead to a permanent and irreversible change of Russia's national
character and possibly the country's partition along the lines allocated by Zbigniew
Brzezinski. With these people partnership is impossible and Russia needs to be prepared for a
long and sustained
period of confrontation .
The views and opinions expressed by Srdja Trifkovic are those of the speaker and do not
necessarily reflect those of Sputnik.
"... "[Sergei Skripal] was handed in to Britain as a result of an exchange. So, why should Russia hand in a man that is of any importance or that is of any value? It's unimaginable. If he's handed in – so Russia quits with him. He's of zero value or zero importance," ..."
"... "America stands ready to help Poland and other European nations diversify their energy supplies so that you can never be held hostage to a single supplier," ..."
"... "If we want to have the United States' LNG supplies in Central Europe, we also want to see the United States getting tough on Nord Stream 2, which means getting tough on Russia," ..."
"... "getting tough on Russia." ..."
"... "The draft law makes clear that they're pursuing economic interests and we think that's not acceptable," ..."
"... "Aggressively combining foreign policy issues with American economic interests and saying: 'We want to drive Russian gas out of the European market so we can sell American gas there is definitely not something we can accept.'" ..."
"... "We are determined to maintain open channels of dialogue with Russia," ..."
Once again, the West has tossed out the democratic baby with the bath water, scapegoating
Russia for a mysterious crime on UK territory without a shred of evidence. To understand why,
just follow the money. Any hope that Western capitals would come to their democratic senses and
demand that PM Theresa May provide some proof that Russia was behind an alleged assassination
attempt on Sergei Skripal, a former Russian intelligence officer turned British spy, were
dashed on Monday. Sixteen EU states fell in lockstep behind the US
and UK, taking the dramatic measure of banishing Russian diplomats.
Breaking: US to expel 48 Russian embassy workers in Washington, D.C. and 12 at the Russian
mission to the U.N. U.S. says they were intel officers using diplo status as cover.
pic.twitter.com/mRuwY8Tes6
Meanwhile, back in the land of the free, Trump enthusiastically joined the inquisition,
saying he would expel 60 Russian diplomats 'personae non grata,' and shut down the Seattle
consulate. Good to see that the American leader practices cool-headed moderation in times of
uncertainty.
Short of an actual military conflict with Russia, it would be hard to imagine the situation
getting any worse. Most worrisome is the peddling of pulp-fiction conspiracy theories against
Russia, which compels Western officials to compensate for their wild imaginations with
hysterical, inflammatory outbursts that border on sheer madness.
How else to explain the comment by UK Defense Secretary Gavin Williamson, who spoke like a
kid at the playground when he said Russia "should go away
and shut up;" or that of Boris Johnson, the British foreign minister, who had the audacity
and historical ignorance to compare Russia's hosting
of this year's World Cup to the 1936 Olympics in Nazi Germany.
So, what is motivating self-satisfied Western countries, like the US and Britain, to forward
such slanderous claims against Russia without a hint of legal due process? After all, it cannot
be denied that Russia would have stood to gain nothing from targeting Skripal.
"[Sergei Skripal] was handed in to Britain as a result of an exchange. So, why should
Russia hand in a man that is of any importance or that is of any value? It's unimaginable. If
he's handed in – so Russia quits with him. He's of zero value or zero importance,"
Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said in an exclusive
interview with RT.
When we ask the question, 'Cui bono' – who stands to benefit the most from an
assassination attempt on a man of absolutely no consequence to Moscow – the most credible
answer always comes back to 'Russia's accusers.'
Follow the money
Since Washington has taken by far the severest steps against Russia over the Skripal
fallout, it would be fair to ask if the US stands to gain anything from the wave of Russophobia
now sweeping the West, which got its start, incidentally, as a direct result of
'Russiagate.'
Against the backdrop of the Skripal scandal are extremely lucrative gas contracts with EU
countries that Russia has dutifully fulfilled since the Soviet heydays. Today, Russia supplies
about 40 percent of Europe's gas. The US, however, with its fracking-backed liquefied natural
gas (LNG) program, is anxious to get a piece of the pie.
In July, Donald Trump paid a visit to Poland, where he pledged to boost exports of LNG to
Central Europe, as well as challenge Russia's market on energy supplies.
"America stands ready to help Poland and other European nations diversify their energy
supplies so that you can never be held hostage to a single supplier," Trump told
reporters after talks with Polish President Andrzej Duda.
The comment was odd since, even at the height of the Cold War, Europe never froze due to its
gas being turned off in the middle of the night by Moscow.
Marek Matraszek, founder of the lobby firm CEC Government Relations, offered a very
disturbing comment about Washington's push to supply LNG to Europe.
"If we want to have the United States' LNG supplies in Central Europe, we also want to
see the United States getting tough on Nord Stream 2, which means getting tough on
Russia," Matraszek said
.
I am very curious to know exactly what Matraszek had in mind when he spoke about
"getting tough on Russia." Would he approve of the current bilateral breakdown between
the nuclear powers? I certainly hope not.
In light of the massive prospects for gross profit on the European continent, would Western
capitals not be tempted – tempted, at the very least – to deny Moscow the benefit
of the doubt whenever highly suspicious criminal cases arise, like the present one regarding
Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia?
In an effort to slander Russia and push it out of lucrative markets, they may be tempted to
milk the situation for all its worth – which is exactly what is happening now. To doubt
that possibility would require a deep misunderstanding of the geopolitical realities as they
have played out over the course of the last decade, complete with a massive propaganda campaign
aimed at everything related to Russia – from the Olympic Games to anti-terrorist
operations in Syria to criminal cases in
foreign lands.
Meanwhile, as the showdown between the US and Russia over EU gas supplies festers,
especially in light of Nord Stream 2, the German-Russia venture that would double direct Russia
gas supplies, the ongoing US sanction regime against Russia is beginning to look suspect.
Commenting on Trump's passage in August of brand new sanctions against Russia, then German
Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel was brave enough to mention the elephant in the room.
"The draft law makes clear that they're pursuing economic interests and we think that's
not acceptable," he
said .
"Aggressively combining foreign policy issues with American economic interests and
saying: 'We want to drive Russian gas out of the European market so we can sell American gas
there is definitely not something we can accept.'"
Meanwhile, it is not only in the energy sector where the United States - and to a lesser
degree the UK - stands to gain from wrecked relations with Russia, but in the defense sector as
well.
The UK regularly
ranks as Europe's leading weapons exporter, behind the United States globally, which
remains the world's leading arms exporter. Much of the expenditure comes from NATO member
states, which were just put on notice by Trump to keep their military spending at 2 percent of
GDP, at the very same time Washington was going out of its way to portray
Russia as a belligerent nation, when it has been the West that has been hell-bent on fomenting
regime change around the world. Now that's certainly an interesting sales strategy.
Romanian Prime Minister @VioricaDancila said that the
government decisions to purchase #HIMARS missile
systems and multirole corvettes were important steps in improving the capability of the
Romanian armed forces as a @NATO and EU member #defencepic.twitter.com/EEYk4Sk5MR
Can this propaganda campaign against Russia work? I believe the answer is no, for many
reasons. First, it is not just the Russians who understand that they are being played by major
powers in a conspicuous attempt to gain geopolitical and economic advantage.
Thus far, nearly half of the EU's member states have refrained from
committing a gesture of "solidarity" with London, deciding not to expel Russian diplomats.
Those 'conscientious objectors' are: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, Luxembourg,
Malta, Portugal, Slovakia and Slovenia.
"We are determined to maintain open channels of dialogue with Russia," Austrian
government spokesperson Peter Launsky-Tieffenthal told RIA Novosti.
In many ways, this represents a victory for Russia – albeit a bittersweet one –
that London failed to get so many countries on board its anti-Russia juggernaut.
This needs to be emphasized. The majority of the EU countries did not join in this mass
expulsion. As for those that did, expulsions were mostly pro forma, undertaken in order to
keep the British happy. Why then the wildly disproportionate response from Trump? https://t.co/4FldvIS80W
Second, Russia is actively diversifying its economy away from Western markets in preparation
for a worse-case scenario. For example, the "$55bn Power of Siberia pipeline will start
carrying gas 3,000km to China next year. The company is also spending $13bn on a pipeline to
Turkey," the Financial Times reported.
Finally, as Russia understands that they are up against some very dishonest players, the
country has made tremendous inroads to producing many of the things it once depended upon
imports to have, and we are not just talking about cheese. The Russian authorities have even
prepared a backup plan in the
event that Russia is terminated from the SWIFT international payment system. Although, of
course, Russia would prefer not to have to take such drastic steps, the unfortunate situation
in many Western capitals, where otherwise intelligent people are pointing fingers and hurling
unfounded accusations at Russia, without critical evidence or due process – once
hallmarks of the Western judicial system – make such steps absolutely vital.
All things considered, Russia will survive this storm, as it has done so many other times in
the past against far graver enemies, and stronger than ever.
"The happy song of the US media accompanies another oddly totalitarian trend, the constant
blaming of discontent on foreign powers. In the aftermath of the school shooting in
Florida, Russia was blamed for allegedly fomenting what was already probably the biggest
political gap among the US public, the question of gun ownership and the 2nd Amendment. Russia
was accused of both opposing and promoting gun ownership, in order to sew confusion among the
public."
" the US [MSM] ... accuses those who disagree at home of being Russian bots"
Notable quotes:
"... the commercially-owned mainstream American press has always had another role: crafting public opinion. A huge amount of US government funds are devoted to handling and managing the media. The government and the political establishment is deeply worried about making sure that the US public thinks in ways that are conducive to their overall goals and strategies. The CIA's project mockingbird, and the cozy relationship between reporters, newspaper owners, and various Presidential administrations is the most blatant example. US Military intelligence agencies have sponsored over 1,800 hollywood films. School textbooks in California and Texas have their academic standards set in a highly politicized process. ..."
"... it also serves a political purpose as a public relations wing of the American elite, a recent trend in US mainstream mass media should be quite disturbing, when carefully analyzed. ..."
"... A dull "everything is OK, calm down" message is suddenly being put forth in an American media that has nothing to gain from it in terms of ratings or newspaper sales. A lengthy article in the Wall Street Journal Weekend Review by Harvard Psychology Professor Steven Pinker criticized both the political left-wing and right-wing in the USA for their pessimism, and argued in terms of "the big picture" across centuries, that the western liberal democratic capitalist system has proved itself to be very successful. ..."
"... Not only is the US media singing a happy song, but it is now demanding, along with elected officials, that everyone else do the same thing. Russia isn't accused of putting out a particular position, but rather of simply "sewing discord." ..."
"... the US whistles a happy tune, and accuses those who disagree at home of being Russian bots ..."
"... In our high tech world, framing international economic policies as a zero sum game cannot be be expected to have fruitful results. ..."
"... Caleb Maupin is a political analyst and activist based in New York. He studied political science at Baldwin-Wallace College and was inspired and involved in the Occupy Wall Street movement, especially for the online magazine "New Eastern Outlook" . ..."
The understanding that the American press, both TV and print media, thrives on negativity is
deeply embedded in the culture, so much so that the theme music to the popular 1990s American
TV sit-com "Family Matters" began with the couplet:
Its a rare condition this day and age,
to read any good news on a newspaper page
The US media is a for-profit industry. TV outlets depend on advertising revenue, the value
of which depends on ratings. The drive of mainstream American TV news networks is to increase
ratings, and make profits. Bad news, scandal, and sensationalism is a way to do that.
However, the commercially-owned mainstream American press has always had another role:
crafting public opinion. A huge amount of US government funds are devoted to handling and
managing the media. The government and the political establishment is deeply worried about
making sure that the US public thinks in ways that are conducive to their overall goals and
strategies. The CIA's project mockingbird, and the cozy relationship between reporters,
newspaper owners, and various Presidential administrations is the most blatant example. US
Military intelligence agencies have sponsored over 1,800 hollywood films. School textbooks in
California and Texas have their academic standards set in a highly politicized
process.
So, with the understanding that negativity and sensationalism are US media's focus, while
it also serves a political purpose as a public relations wing of the American elite, a
recent trend in US mainstream mass media should be quite disturbing, when carefully
analyzed.
The US media, long known for its negativity intended to grab ratings, is suddenly printing
articles, publishing widely circulated books, and featuring commentators all echoing the
message: "Don't worry, everything is going to be OK."
This uncharacteristic behavior of American media almost perfectly fits the stereotypical
portrayal of government propaganda in supposedly "totalitarian states." Many dystopian science
fiction films feature some dark, high tech police state where the controlled press harps on
with the message: "Things are going very well, don't worry, just obey."
A dull "everything is OK, calm down" message is suddenly being put forth in an American
media that has nothing to gain from it in terms of ratings or newspaper sales. A lengthy
article in the Wall Street Journal Weekend Review by Harvard Psychology Professor Steven Pinker
criticized both the political left-wing and right-wing in the USA for their pessimism, and
argued in terms of "the big picture" across centuries, that the western liberal democratic
capitalist system has proved itself to be very successful.
Meanwhile, on February 20th, Public Affairs Books has released a text by Gregg Easterbrook
entitled "Its Better Than It Looks." The book has been widely reviewed by the US press. The
text assures us that we need to be more positive in our assessment of world events. National
Public Radio described the book's message: "Between threats of nuclear war, devastating natural
disasters, violence and political division at home, it might feel like things are really bad
right now. But not necessarily so, says Gregg Easterbrook. He argues that by a lot of important
measures, the United States and the world are on an upward trajectory."
Similar messages have been dancing across American TV screens and radio waves in recent
weeks, in a pattern that any careful observer would find peculiar.
A Growing Economic Bubble
Meanwhile, economic news continues to be selectively reported. For example, retail stores
across the USA are closing. While US media was previously reporting on the decline of suburban
malls and the elimination of retail jobs, suddenly the press is reporting about a rise in
retail profits, and hope for the retail sector.
However, all the reports saying that the retail sector is doing well admit that the increase
in retail purchases is not taking place at stores, but rather in online sales. The glowing
reports about an increase in retail spending all point toward facts that have no bearing on
saving the jobs of retail workers, as stores continue to close down. Despite all the talk of a
retail boom (on the internet), stores continue to close across the USA, the latest being
H&M clothing which closed scores of outlets across the country. Thousands of retail workers
have lost their jobs.
Household debt is at record levels, and a lot of purchasing now taking place in the retail
market is being done with credit cards. Furthermore, student debt is rising, and with a number
of students unable to repay their debt. The student debt markets now face a specter of a
potential crash.
Positive numbers on the stock market are certainly a good economic indicator, however, as
the stock numbers rise, the population is not seeing an overall rise in its spending power. If
Wall Street and Main Street are not rising together, a rise on the stock market simply
indicates that the gap between the financialized, fictional Wall Street Casino, and the actual
economy is getting larger.
Real economic growth involves the financial sector getting stronger as the population gets
richer along with it. The USA hasn't experienced real, sustainable financial growth since the
1950s. "Jobless Recoveries" and other peculiar anomalies show the extent to which Wall Street
has insulated itself from the actual conditions of the American people. The result has been the
gap between the financial and the real economy expanding for much longer than in the natural
boom-bust cycle, making downturns far larger and dramatic.
Artificial growth only lasts so long, and these bubbles tend to burst. As Trump deregulates
Wall Street, and rolls back government oversight of the financial sector, all while lowering
taxes on corporations, another financial bubble is emerging.
The tone of the press, echoing the mantra of "everything is alright" is oddly reminiscent of
2007 and 2008 as the US economy was moving toward catastrophe. Desperate attempts by the press,
politicians, and others to assure us that the economy is fine, while urging us to keep spending
money we do not have, should have millions of Americans shouting "We've seen this movie
before!"
Blaming Russia for Dissent
The happy song of the US media accompanies another oddly totalitarian trend, the constant
blaming of discontent on foreign powers. In the aftermath of the school shooting in Florida,
Russia was blamed for allegedly fomenting what was already probably the biggest political gap
among the US public, the question of gun ownership and the 2nd Amendment. Russia was accused of
both opposing and promoting gun ownership, in order to sew confusion among the public.
Not only is the US media singing a happy song, but it is now demanding, along with
elected officials, that everyone else do the same thing. Russia isn't accused of putting out a
particular position, but rather of simply "sewing discord." The message behind the endless
talk of "bots" and "trolls" is that it is disloyalty and treason to hold dissident or negative
assessments of the US political or economic situation. Doing so is allegedly aiding the
Russians efforts to harm loyalty and confidence. The insinuation is that all nay-saying and
complaint can be traced, somehow, back to Moscow. In order to be a good American, one is
expected to simply repeat the media's upbeat and positive message.
Meanwhile, the US media is giving voice to oddly pointed FBI announcements that Americans
shouldn't buy Chinese cellphones, and should be suspicious of Chinese University students as
potential spies. While China is establishing strong economic ties with France and other
countries, the United States is imposing steel tariffs and increasingly cutting itself off from
the second largest economy in the world.
At the UN Security Council, the USA and its allies are desperately attempting to prevent the
Syrian government from reclaiming the city of Eastern Ghouta. This enclave of Islamic
extremists is very near the capital city of Damascus, which is densely populated with
pro-government Syrians, many of whom have fled from other parts of the country.
Now that ISIS has been driven from Syria, there is a real fear that the government could win
the war, and the longstanding US regime change operation could end in defeat.
As the US whistles a happy tune, and accuses those who disagree at home of being Russian
bots , those they deem competitors on the global stage are getting stronger.
The Chinese state controlled machinery of production is marching ahead. Oil prices, a key
factor in securing state revenue in Russia, Iran, Venezuela, Angola and Ecuador, are
rising.
Political Fallout of a Potential Crash?
If a new financial crisis erupts, as is likely based on indicators, the political
implications most likely would mean the demise of the Trump administration. Trump would be
voted out of office in 2020, or perhaps even impeached, blamed for the mismanagement that
created the fallout.
However, the slim possibility remains that Trump could make such a catastrophic economic
situation work in his favor. If Trump were to respond to a financial crash by swiftly pushing
his base of supporters into action, pushing forward his proposals for infrastructure, and
giving a free hand to his allies in the policing agencies, as he often publicly advocates, the
results could be a very swift resolution of the crisis.
In the event of a financial crash, a combination of street authoritarianism and economic
arm-twisting, both of which Trump clearly does not oppose, could ultimately let him come out of
the rubble looking like a savior. Trump could utilize a crash to become a figure like France's
Louis Bonaparte and his "Party of Order" who seized power in 1851.
Regardless of hypotheticals, the "don't be afraid, everything is alright" tone in American
media is not a good sign. It indicates that we should all be concerned about what will happen
in the coming months.
Meanwhile, the absence of China's concept of "win-win" relations in global trade, and human
centered development is deeply disturbing. In our high tech world, framing international
economic policies as a zero sum game cannot be be expected to have fruitful results.
Caleb Maupin is a political analyst and activist based in New York. He studied political
science at Baldwin-Wallace College and was inspired and involved in the Occupy Wall Street
movement, especially for the online magazine "New Eastern Outlook" .
Sources close to the couple
told the New York Times
that Melania was "blindsided" by the reports of her husband's supposed
cover-up -- which included $130,000 in hush money, paid out to Daniels on the eve of the 2016 election.
She has been trying to stay out of the public eye ever since, the sources said.
Trump's alleged tryst with Daniels, if true, would have taken place just months after Melania gave
birth to their son, Barron, in March 2006.
It was first reported by the Wall Street Journal
on Jan. 18. In Touch magazine published a follow-up
piece a day later, featuring an interview with the porn vixen from 2011, in which she confessed to the
hookup.
Since then, Melania has canceled an overseas trip with the president, made an unplanned visit to the
Holocaust Memorial Museum and even enjoyed some R&R at Mar-a-Lago.
The first lady was reportedly in Florida on Friday while Trump was in Davos, Switzerland, for the
World Economic Forum. The impromptu stop in the Sunshine State wound up costing taxpayers about $64,000,
according to the Times.
Her spokeswoman, Stephanie Grisham, blasted the affair allegations, saying, "The laundry list of
salacious & flat-out false reporting about Mrs. Trump by tabloid publications & TV shows has seeped into
'main stream media' reporting She is focused on her family & role as FLOTUS -- not the unrealistic
scenarios being peddled daily by the fake news."
The first lady is expected to reappear alongside her husband Tuesday during his State of the Union
address.
diGenova has been on of Trump's most ardent defenders - speaking in January of a "
Brazen
plot
" by the deep state to exonerate Hillary Clinton and frame Donald Trump.
The FBI used to spy on Russians. This time they spied on us
. what this story is
about - a brazen plot to exonerate Hillary Clinton from a clear violation of the law with regard to
the way she handled classified information with her classified server.
Absolutely a crime,
absolutely a felony.
It's about finding out why - as the Inspector General is doing at the
department of justice -
why Comey and the senior DOJ officials conducted a fake criminal
investigation of Hillary Clinton. Followed none of the regular rules, gave her every break in the
book, immunized all kinds of people, allowed the destruction of evidence, no grand jury, no
subpoenas, no search warrant. That's not an investigation, that's a Potemkin village. It's a
farce.
-Joe diGenova via
Daily Caller
Does Mueller realize he is now doing more harm to the country than
any foe? His 10 month investigation of "got cha" is dividing us
and has uncovered little stuff the DOJ could have found without
the continuous spotlight of his "specialness counsel". It is time
he turns his findings over to DOJ and cease this unfortunate,
seemingly now, self-serving hunt. The nation is facing more
daunting task.
In the court of public opinion, treason is better.
Let Mueller argue the difference once Trump starts
using his name in the same tweet with treason. That
will be amusing.
Plus, with Mueller, it may well
be treason. Can you say Uranium One? That is the
deal he has to worry about. First, there is the I.G.
report due soon. Then, there is the real possibility
of another special investigation into the
investigators of the entire FBI/Clinton affair, and
Mueller will for sure be in the cross hairs. What a
great time to be a lawyer in DC.
This is a battle between 2 giants. One is going
down bigly, or maybe both.....or, Mueller has already
copped a plea, and is actually part of the I.G.'s investigation
of the FBI. Who knows? Right now, just about
anything is possible.
I believe it is actually sedition.
Treason would
involve another country.
Regardless Mueller is known for acting like a petulant
child.
I also note the budget just passed looks like a war
budget, so all this may not matter much into the future.
If you step back and try to look at the bigger picture you
have a better chance in seeing what is really going on. It
is clear that from the beginning, there was never any real
substance to the Russia collusion thing. Anyone with any
common sense could see that all of it was being orchestrated
by the deep state with the amplification and BS of the MSM
using the DNC and various hack politicians to keep things
going. The only relevant question was why?
To
impeach Trump? No. They knew from the get go there was no real substance
to the allegations.
To destabilize Trump's governance by keeping
him on the defensive with their constant MSM BS
collusion allegations?
Only a partial reason, because the groundless and totally
farfetched allegations were eventually bound to discredit
the perpetrators.
Mainly to bash Russia to prolong any attempts
by the new administration from a rapprochement with Moscow?
Again only a partial reason and clearly not enough to
justify the prolonged flogging of the dead horse
of Russian-collusion. Within the first few months we saw
Trump doing the bidding of the US-Zio deep state,
by appointing neocon pro-Israel, anti-Russian, anti-Iran,
anti-Syrian deep-state war hawks to his cabinet; ordering
a missile attack on a Syrian government installation;
threatening Iran; increasing economic sanctions
against Russia; deploying more US forces and military
equipment to Russian borders, etc. etc.
Mainly to discredit Russia
and
to divert American attention from the major hot spot in the
world - Syria?
Most likely. As long as the US deep state can keep
focusing its hostility towards Russia as separate as
possible from their own wrongdoings and aggression in Syria,
they can more easily continue with their escalation efforts
to fragment and partition that nation. Hence, the deep-state
efforts to distract the US and Western populations with fake
allegations of election interference, poisoning ex spies,
and whatever other false flags or vilifications against
Russia, or the Syrian government are to come. The last
thing the US deep state wants at the present time and
especially before the midterm elections is to make the US
support for their war against Syria a major political issue,
leading to an uncontrollable electorate directly opposing
their war effort. Russia is the backbone of the Syrian
defence. Constantly vilifying Russia with false allegations
and false flags deflects attention from the heinous
wrongdoings of Israel, the US, the UK, and NATO forces and
their terrorists and mercenary proxies in Syria.
Presently, US deep state operatives from the military and
the intelligence agencies are filling in slots in the
Democratic party to be candidates for the upcoming midterm
elections. This is clearly an indication that the US is
preparing for war, not only for an escalation in Syria but
more likely for some much greater conflict against Iran and
Russia. The sociopathic US deep state will no doubt not be
satisfied until they try out all their toys no matter how
much blood they shed and destruction they cause. That is
their history and they are a scourge against the entire
world.
Your first three observations are correct. Unfortunately,
the 4th premise being massaged merely by "The Deep
State." The US financial/military hegemony is faltering.
It stands up only because the central banks are in
collusion with each other. Those and Wall Street
manipulate and massage the financial markets in trying to
maintain their own hegemony.
But, many honest
economic/financial experts know it's only a matter of
time before the American empire cracks. Happens every
time throughout history. In this case it's China who is
moving away from the US$ and linking its trade/currency
with 50% of the world's population found in Asia/Eurasia,
and Latin American. A laborious exercise, for sure, but
watch carefully as the US continues its toxic downfall
via the military budget and the corrupt world of
finance/currency. It's only a matter of time.
Trump Unable To Hire diGenova, Toensing Over Conflicts, Mueller Strategy In
Limbo
My response
: This development is a disappointment.
I was looking for some honorable people to go into Washington DC and kick
some MUELLER BUTT and END the SPECIAL COUNSEL CHARADE that has been going
on for over a year.
Where the HELL is "OBOZO" these days? This circus in Washington DC needs
to be shutdown.
Amazing that they(diGenova & Toensing) admit to conflicts of interest but then
nearly the entire Mueller team is rife with people showing bias and COI and
they're still at it a year later. Hell, the bulk of the FBI top tier is
littered with biased assholes. If you went in and tried to clean house it'd be
like shooting fish in a barrel...with an RPG
.
but also why is this President & his team being help to a far
superior standard than the last. The conflicts in Muellers' team are too
innumerable to count, Sessions recusal, Rosenstein appointing special counsel,
Trump's clan being stymied with piss ant caught mis remembering lying to FBI
charges. diGenova is the shit as his wife too, since when have lawyers ever
given a rat's ass about conflict or even integrity, Gloria Aldridge comes to
mind. Is anyone tired of winning yet? Seems all by design. We are constantly
told it's 4D chess and yet Schumer gets 60 Billion for a tunnel and Donald
"the art of the deal" Trump get 1.6 B for paint & maintenance and specific
language prohibiting a wall. Tired of winning yet?
You do
realize that whoever
Trump names to
replace him REQUIRES
Senate
Confirmation....which
can be slow walked
for months.
Meanwhile the assy
AtG---Rosenstein with
be the ACTING ATTNY
GEN"
ANSWER: Not if
he puts someone from
a different cabinet
position who's
already been
confirmed in (aka
Scott Pruitt).
Pruitt can take
Sessions place, and
he wouldn't be
recused; which means
he takes over the
investigation from
that crooked Deep
Date scumbag
Rosenstein. Mueller
can then be fired
(and not a damn thing
Congress can do about
it other than b!tch
and whine to Libtard
news media).
Better still,
Pruitt can appoint a
second special
counsel to go after
the Deep State.
Mind you, there
are Mountains and
Mountains of evidence
of all the crimes
these Deep State
people committed.
All its going to take
is a second special
council, and its game
over.
Thanks to Barron Trump his parents are not heading for divorce just yet.
When the news broke that U.S. President Donald Trump had an affair with adult star Stormy
Daniels, many people assumed that his wife, first lady Melania Trump was going to divorce him.
The FLOTUS has been noticed for allegedly refusing to hold her husband's hand in public. Others
also spotted her rolling her eyes while the POTUS was greeting a few cheerleaders during the
Super Bowl party on February 4. However, the Slovenia native is far from divorcing her husband
of 13 years while he is still in the presidential seat for a good reason.
An insider close to Melania Trump recently told Hollywood Life that she is not
thinking about making a move to divorce her husband while he is in office because of
their son Barron .
According to the source, the 47-year-old former model wants to focus only on the young boy
and his well-being. She doesn't want to get distracted with the alleged affair between the
POTUS and Stormy Daniels. She apparently wants her family intact for the sake of her
11-year-old son.
... ... ...
Because
of her recent actions that didn't go unnoticed, many people believe that Melania Trump is only
trying to save her marriage for her son and not just because of being the first lady of the
United States. The alleged extramarital affair of her husband and Daniels in 2006 may have
caused their marriage to hit a snag. The adult star, though, has been inconsistent with her
statements, which is one reason that some Republicans are not convinced that the president had
an affair with the 38-year-old Louisiana native.
An alleged statement from Daniels surfaced on January 30 with her signature, saying that she
denies the affair. Howbeit, during her interview during Jimmy Kimmel Live , the adult
film star said that she is not aware of the denial statement that
surfaced earlier that day.
A porn star, a playmate and a contestant who washed out on his reality TV show have become exemplars for doing battle with a president
for whom practically nothing is out of bounds. They are showing that the most effective way to deal with him is on his own terms.
The three --
Stormy Daniels
,
Karen McDougal
and
Summer Zervos
-- are suing for the right to tell their stories about him. The headaches and unforeseeable turns that these legal
fights present would be well understood by a man who,
according to a USA Today
tally, has filed at least 3,500 lawsuits of his own, for grievances real and imagined. When Trump goes
low, go low - The Washington Post
Adult entertainer Daniels has outmaneuvered the president and his inept lawyer Michael Cohen at nearly every turn. They apparently
believed they had bought her silence about the year-long extramarital affair she claims to have had with the future president a decade
ago.
But it turns out they had only rented it. When Trump goes low, go low - The Washington Post
When Daniels signed a nondisclosure agreement in the weeks before the 2016 election, hardly anyone thought Trump had much chance
of winning, especially after the furor over comments he had made about women on the now-famous
"Access Hollywood" tape
. So $130,000 to stay quiet must have looked too good for Daniels to pass up. (Cohen said the money came
from his personal home equity line of credit.)
With her alleged paramour in the Oval Office, however, there is surely much more to be gained from her account, so she is trying
to slip free from the agreement on the technicality that Trump never signed it.
Backing out of a deal if there's a better one to be had? Trump did it for decades. "I've made a fortune by using debt, and if
things don't work out I renegotiate the debt. I mean, that's a smart thing, not a stupid thing," he
boasted to CBS
during his presidential
campaign. As president, he has reversed himself so many times that his befuddled allies on Capitol Hill are never sure where or if
he will land on most issues.
Now, instead of Daniels, it is Trump who is remaining silent -- conspicuously so. No tweets, no vicious nicknames, no threats.
She, meanwhile, is going on "60 Minutes," where viewership is likely to be some of its highest ever. Count that as another blow to
a president who measures the import of every event by its television ratings.
Daniels seems to be having a great time. She has become a ninja master in Trump's own medium, smiting trolls on Twitter with
a verve that my colleague Monica Hesse
compared to "a very smart cat batting off a series of very dumb mice, who come at her
under the delusion that the relationship is reversed." When one man tweeted that she was a "scank," she responded by correcting his
spelling.
McDougal, who was Playboy's 1998 Playmate of the Year, claims to have had an affair with Trump around the same time as Daniels.
But in her case, the arrangement that she is trying to escape is the one she made with the National Enquirer's parent company, whose
chief executive, David Pecker, is close to Trump. In her lawsuit, McDougal claims American Media was working secretly with Cohen
to keep her quiet; the company says it contacted Trump's lawyer only to vet her story.
A takedown by a former playmate would be a sour endnote indeed, given how assiduously Trump styled himself as Playboy's ideal
of libidinous masculinity. In 1990, the magazine's cover featured the married real-estate developer posing with another playmate,
Brandi Brandt. She wore only his tuxedo jacket.
When Trump goes low, go low - The Washington Post
He hung a framed copy of that Playboy in his Trump Tower office. "I was one of the few men in the history of Playboy to be on
the cover," Trump once
boasted
to a Post reporter.
Zervos, a former contestant from "The Apprentice," presents a different kind of threat, and potentially the most serious one.
She is one of more than a dozen women who have accused the president of unwanted sexual advances, in her case that he kissed her
and groped her breasts when she met with him to discuss a job. During his presidential campaign, Trump called them all liars, and
threatened to sue.
But Trump never did, empty threats being another of his favorite tactics. It was Zervos who went to court, charging defamation.
On Tuesday, the same day McDougal filed her lawsuit, a New York judge
ruled
that Zervos's case can go forward. It was lost on no one that the precedent cited was the one in the sexual harassment
lawsuit that ultimately led to the
impeachment of Bill
Clinton
.
The Zervos lawsuit opens the possibility that Trump's other accusers, and maybe even more women, will return to tell their stories
under oath. And that the president himself will have to as well.
When Zervos was on the fifth season of "The Apprentice," Trump
fired her
because she interrupted him. It turns out she
may get in a last word after all.
xxx
Scratch #2 is the playmate lawsuit. Scratch #3 is Summer Zervos.
xxx
What's up with powerful men who can't keep it in their pants? Then they lie... What cowards!
xxx
The blame must be shared evenly... if the men cant keep it in their pants, why are women allowing it to happen? Are they being
forced against their will? If so, call the police!
xxx
Wow! What a savage piece! And very well written.
xxx
Yawwwwnn..
Why even bother with this. It just makes everyone look bad. Daniels is a low-life. The media lowers its standards by reporting
it. Nobody believes Trump didn't have sex with Daniels but nobody cares. It's actually expected of someone like Trump to have
an affair now and then.
You might find it unfortunate that a guy named Cohen was involved. I suggest its also unfortunate that a guy named Cohen got
stuck reporting this.
xxx
Trump is a dirtbag, but the last time I checked, having an affair was not criminal offense. I don't care who he slept with, but
I do care who he is screwing - which in this case is 99% of the American people. The other 1% are doing well thanks to him.
xxx
(Edited) What has stormy Daniels done for America????? Just some porn movies for money for herself and now she is blackmailing
the US president. And these readers actually enjoy it????? Trump must be protected. He is our President.
xxx
Now any hooker can come and sue any guy she has slept with for money.......is this what men want???? I dont think so.
xxx
People can't arbitrarily sue people for no reason. His lawyer paid her $130,000. She obviously has something on him. And most
sane men want her to win so Trump can be impeached and sent out to spend the rest of his life in solitary confinement... in Antarctica.
xxx
Cant believe men are siding with adult porn actor......... a hooker.... Daniels.........who is out to make money by hook or crook.
Men in America are doomed.
xxx 4 days ago
If the U.S. is such that this horrifically warped man and his monstrously greedy and incompetent cabinet are taken down by
a stupid sex scandal rather than being judiciously removed by responsible people for being criminals, then the U.S. is in even
more serious trouble than even rational thinkers would want to believe.
"[Trump] deducted somebody else's losses," said John L. Buckley, who served as the chief of staff for Congress's Joint
Committee on Taxation in 1993 and 1994. Since the [stiffed] bondholders were likely declaring losses for tax purposes, Trump
shouldn't be able to as well. "He is double dipping big time," Buckley told the Times.
Surely, the IRS can't be too happy about multiple taxpayers taking the same ~$1 billion-loss deduction? I therefore look
forward to Mueller's audit of Trump's tax returns.
And now the Dumpster finds his yacht "Trumpy!" is caught in "Stormy Weather" off the Seychelles -- LOL
But, never fear Dumpsters, we all know that the usual rules don't and never have applied to the "bouffanted buffoon" -- or so he
thinks! -- LOL
Doubtless, the results of Mueller's investigations into Trump's various activities will make this crass, arrogant charlatan
(and his family/associates) sorely regret he ever threw his "bouffanted hairpiece" into the political ring. Hopefully, he will
ultimately be indicted and convicted for egregious financial/taxation crimes and the courts will penalize him to the extent
that all of his and his family's ill-gotten assets will be expropriated, and he'll get to wear one of those ill-fitting orange
jump suits too
Still, the thought of the Rev. Pence becoming POTUS fills me with equal dread.
A man who claimed without evidence that he had sex with former President Barack Obama says the
media is showing a "sickening" double standard with coverage of an alleged affair between
President Trump and porn star Stormy Daniels.
Larry Sinclair's allegations involving Obama, cocaine, and a limo -- set in 1999, when Obama
was a state senator -- failed to gain broad coverage for a variety of reasons, including lack
of corroboration and Sinclair's record of crimes involving deceit.
But Sinclair says the media is giving too much attention and too little skepticism to claims
of a 2006 affair between Daniels and Trump.
"Stormy Daniels is being pimped and pimping the media now and it's lining her pockets,"
Sinclair told the Washington Examine r. "I believe she had sex with him. Do I believe
she's trying to twist and add to it to benefit her interests? You're damn right I do."
An interview with Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, is set to air Sunday on
the CBS program "60 Minutes." The performer staging a national strip club tour has given other
recent interviews, including to "Inside Edition" and "Jimmy Kimmel Live!"
Sinclair said he views Daniels' coyness about details -- as she sues to invalidate a
$130,000 nondisclosure agreement -- as well as her attempt to sidestep the deal, as reasons to
doubt her truthfulness. He said he watched with suspicion as she declined to say if a signature
was hers.
"I do believe that there are enough contradictions by Ms. Daniels to justify questioning her
motive and truthfulness," Sinclair said, citing "her statements or nonstatements in subsequent
interviews implying that her signature was not her signature [and] her back-and-forth on
whether Trump paid her."
"I find this whole double standard sickening, and no I am not a bigger supporter of Trump,
but I am a supporter of fair and unbiased media coverage," he said. "I find the whole NDA and
accepting money and then later coming back and using a completely legal incident for political
and personal gain questionable."
Michael Avenatti, an attorney for Daniels, declined to address Sinclair's suggestion that
the media be more skeptical of her claims.
"Is this a joke? Am I being punked?" Avenatti wrote in an email.
Sinclair -- who runs a neighborhood revitalization nonprofit in Cocoa, Fla., where he's
considering a run for mayor -- said he believes the media also gives too much credence to
affair claims by ex-Playboy bunny Karen McDougal and women alleging misconduct by Trump.
There are many distinctions between the allegations made by Sinclair and those made by
Clifford and McDougal. For example, Sinclair lacks a photo of himself with Obama, who was
married to future first lady Michelle Obama at the time of the alleged two-day
relationship.
Trump has denied cheating on first lady Melania Trump, but he did pose for photos with
Daniels and McDougal.
Daniels passed a polygraph in 2011, her team said this week. Sinclair allegedly failed a
polygraph in 2008, but he says the tests don't mean much.
Daniels told her story to some journalists, including from Slate and In Touch magazine,
before signing the October 2016 NDA, though neither published her account. She and McDougal do
have a degree of corroboration from friends who attest to contemporaneous
conversations or, in the case of McDougal, provided the media with a letter she allegedly wrote
documenting the claims.
Sinclair's allegations, by contrast, lack documentary evidence or corroboration from third
parties. And whereas Trump has a decadeslong history of romantic relationships with women,
Sinclair's gender does not match Obama's reported preference.
"It seems to me that there is a world of difference between the two stories and that there
is no double standard," said Joel Kaplan, associate dean for professional graduate studies at
the Newhouse School of Public Communications at Syracuse University.
"Sinclair is making a singular allegation without any support," Kaplan said. "Ms. Daniels'
allegation is backed up by the fact that there was a settlement and a nondisclosure agreement,
which certainly lends credibility to her allegations. If Mr. Sinclair was just one of 14 men
making these allegations against President Obama that would be one thing and probably worthy of
a story. In President Trump's case, there are multiple women who came forward. So, no I see no
double standard."
The high point of Sinclair's press exposure came when he rented a room at the National Press
Club in June 2008, prompting an unsuccessful campaign to block the event by journalists fearful
that the venue would lend credibility to his claims.
A dueling press conference was planned by Whitehouse.com, then a pornographic website whose
owner Dan Parisi had paid Sinclair $20,000 to take the polygraph that Sinclair allegedly
failed. Parisi later sued Sinclair unsuccessfully for libel for saying the results were
doctored.
"It wasn't until after the fact I was told the Whitehouse.com press conference didn't take
place," Sinclair said, recalling that police arrested him at the press club and sent him to
Delaware to face theft charges. He also had an open warrant for his arrest in Colorado for
allegedly signing someone else's tax return check.
Sinclair said the Delaware and Colorado cases were misunderstandings, but admits he was
convicted in Arizona for forgery in 1981, then in Florida for using a friend's credit card
before getting a 16-year sentence in Colorado in the late '80s in a similar case. He was
released in 1999, the same year he allegedly met Obama through a limo driver in Chicago.
In one similarity between Sinclair's allegations and those made by Daniels and McDougal,
significant amounts of money changed hands, resulting in legal action and claims of wrongful
gagging of the accuser.
Sinclair negotiated a deal in which he ultimately was paid $20,000 by Parisi to consent to a
polygraph. A copy of the check is an exhibit in the libel case Parisi brought against Sinclair.
At one point, another $10,000 was supposed to be split between two charities.
Daniels is suing to get out of nondisclosure agreement prepared by Trump lawyer Michael
Cohen, who like the president says Daniels is lying about an affair, and McDougal is suing to
get out of an NDA in which she was paid $150,000 for the rights to her story by the company
that publishes the Trump-friendly National Enquirer, which didn't print the claims.
Sinclair said his Whitehouse.com deal required that he give exclusive rights for
polygraphing to the company for a period of four weeks during the 2008 campaign, a claim that
appears to be consistent with an email cited in court documents, and he suggests Parisi may not
have acted independently in the libel lawsuit, which was dismissed by a federal judge in
2012.
Sinclair said he lost money on his 2009 book Barack Obama & Larry Sinclair: Cocaine,
Sex, Lies & Murder? in which he associates a Chicago-area killing with his affair
claims.
"To journalists I would say take your time, compare statements and call out contradictions
in statements and previous interviews," Sinclair said. "When it comes to polygraphs be very
sure you vet the examiners conducting them and always ask for the computer scoring results as
well as the examiners findings."
Parisi did not respond to a request for comment, nor did Obama's office.
A
former Playboy model who says she had an affair with President Trump is suing the National
Enquirer's parent company, American Media, so that she can be released from a legal agreement
barring her from discussing the relationship.
Karen McDougal filed the suit in Los Angeles Superior Court, according to the New
York Times , after she claims the Enquirer paid her $150,000 for the story of her
nine-month-long affair between 2006 and 2007, but did not publish it when she gave the account
in August 2016, several months before the 2016 U.S. election.
McDougal says that Trump's personal attorney, Michael D. Cohen, was secretly involved in her
negotiations with A.M.I., and that both the media company and her lawyer at the time misled her
about the arrangement. After speaking with The New Yorker last month after it obtained notes
she kept on her alleged affair, McDougal said she was warned by A.M.I. that " any further
disclosures would breach Karen's contract," and "cause considerable monetary damages ."
Cohen reportedly
paid another Trump accuser, adult film actress Stephanie Clifford (aka Stormy Daniels),
$130,000 in exchange for signing an NDA barring her from discussing her experiences with
Trump.
Trump joined a legal effort last week suing Clifford for $20 million over what they claim is
a breach of her NDA. Meanwhile, both women's claims against Trump are being construed by
federal watchdog group Common Cause as illegal campaign contributions - arguing that they could
constitute in-kind contributions to the Trump campaign.
Ms. Clifford and Ms. McDougal tell strikingly similar stories about their experiences with
Mr. Trump, which included alleged trysts at the same Lake Tahoe golf tournament in 2006,
dates at the same Beverly Hills hotel and promises of apartments as gifts.
Their stories first surfaced in the The Wall Street Journal four days before the election
, but got little traction in the swirl of news that followed Mr. Trump's victory. The women
even shared the same Los Angeles lawyer, Keith Davidson, who has long worked for clients who
sell their stories to the tabloids . - NYT
"The lawsuit filed today aims to restore her right to her own voice," McDougal's attorney,
Peter K Stris told the Times . "We intend to invalidate the so-called contract that American
Media Inc. imposed on Karen so she can move forward with the private life she deserves ."
As the Wall Street Journal reported in November, 2016;
The tabloid-newspaper publisher reached an agreement in early August with Karen McDougal,
the 1998 Playmate of the Year. American Media Inc., which owns the Enquirer, hasn't published
anything about what she has told friends was a consensual romantic relationship she had with
Mr. Trump in 2006. At the time, Mr. Trump was married to his current wife, Melania.
Quashing stories that way is known in the tabloid world as "catch and kill." - WSJ
In a written statement, American Media Inc. claims it wasn't buying McDougal's story for
$150,000 - rather, they were buying two years' worth of her fitness columns, magazine covers
and exclusive life rights to any relationship she has had with a then-married man. "AMI has not
paid people to kill damaging stories about Mr. Trump," reads the statement.
American Media Inc. CEO David J. Pecker is a long-standing friend of President Trump.
It was just a little thing, a scratch, that he failed to treat and gangrene set in and it
was killing him. They were on safari, in Africa, and their truck had broken down and the rescue plane was never going
to make it in time. This is the way Harry died in Ernest Hemingway's "
The
Snows of Kilimanjaro
." I reread it the other day because of President Trump. I think of him as Harry. Stormy
Daniels is the scratch.
The saga of the adult-film star and the juvenile president has become a rollicking affair. Each step of the way,
Daniels has out-Trumped Trump. She is as shameless as he, a publicity hound who adheres to the secular American
religion that, to be famous, even for nothing much, is to be rich. By and large, that's not true, but then there is
Kim Kardashian to prove otherwise.
Daniels alleges she and Trump
had an affair
beginning in 2006. The president's lawyer and his press secretary allege that the allegations are
not true. The lawyer, Michael Cohen, does admit to
paying Daniels $130,000
, apparently to keep her silent about an affair that, according to Cohen, did not happen.
To do this, Cohen set up a
private Delaware company
and concocted false names for everyone involved -- the allegation-maker and the
allegation-denier. Only the name Delaware is legit.
Stormy Daniels was "truthful about having unprotected vaginal intercourse with Donald Trump in July 2006," according to a polygraph
test report from 2011.
The report states that the "probability of deception was measured to be less than 1%." It was given to CNN by Michael Avenatti,
Daniels' attorney, and contains three pertinent questions: "Around July 2006, did you have vaginal intercourse with Donald Trump?,"
"Around July 2006, did you have unprotected sex with Donald Trump?" and "Did Trump say you would get on 'The Apprentice'?"
Another
Trump attorney involved in Stormy Daniels case Daniels replied yes to all three questions. The first two were analyzed to be
truthful and the third question was "inconclusive," according to the polygraph examiner, Ronald Slay. Polygraphs are generally inadmissible
in court.
The polygraph was performed at the request of Bauer Publishing, which owns Life & Style and InTouch magazines, according to the reporter
who interviewed Daniels in 2011. Reporter Jordi Lippe-McGraw initially interviewed Daniels for Life & Style magazine. The interview
was not published at the time, but Bauer Publishing released it in InTouch magazine earlier this year.
Avenatti confirmed to CNN that he purchased the video and file of the polygraph test for $25,000. "We did so to ensure that it
would be maintained and kept safely during the litigation and not be altered or destroyed," Avenatti said in a statement. "We did
so after learning that various parties, including mainstream media organization, were attempting to acquire the video and the file
and either destroy it or use it for nefarious means."
RELATED: The shaky science
of lie detectors Daniels tweeted about the encounter Tuesday afternoon following the release of the polygraph, defending herself
and saying she's "not going anywhere."
"Technically I didn't sleep with the POTUS 12 years ago. There was no sleeping (hehe) and he was just a goofy reality TV star.
But I digress...People DO care that he lied about it, had me bullied, broke laws to cover it up, etc.
And PS...I am NOT going anywhere. xoxoxo," she wrote.
Technically I didn't sleep with the POTUS 12 years ago. There was no sleeping (hehe) and he was just a goofy reality TV star.
But I digress...People DO care that he lied about it, had me bullied, broke laws to cover it up, etc.
Lippe-McGraw told CNN on Tuesday that Daniels passed the test in a broader sense. "Based off of the interview, we had her take the
polygraph test to confirm the details of what she was telling us. There wasn't much in the way of physical evidence, per se," Lippe-McGraw
said, adding that the big-picture question they wanted to confirm was that the affair happened, and that Daniels passed.
Lippe-McGraw said that Daniels told her she had unprotected sex with Trump, because Daniels is allergic to latex and didn't have
condoms at the time. Earlier Tuesday, Avenatti tweeted out a photograph of Daniels being administered the test.
The Wall Street Journal
first released the details of the polygraph questions and answers. Also on Tuesday, Daniels' friend Alana Evans told CNN's Brooke
Baldwin that she and Daniels have received threats over the allegations from people who had previously been in the adult industry.
"I have not been made aware that Cohen had physically threatened her. I know in the last few weeks, and the last couple of months,
that Stormy and myself have received threats from people in the outside world completely trying to defend Trump and Cohen and calling
us liars and threatening us with physical harm, so I wouldn't be surprised if it's stemming from there as well," Evans said. Evans
said this included threatening emails, threats to their families and their safety, and threats to release private information.
NYT became a yellow publication. And their hate of Trump is really visceral (Not that Trump
is an ideal President). Which is strange because Trump folded and with hiring of Bolton now is
really Hillary in foreign policy (the only difference is sex, but that can be fixed with the sex
change operation)
They write about this prostitute with such a sympathy that I suspect that they are involved
in the industry too.
She is the actress in pornographic films who is suing a sitting
president , with whom she said she had a consensual affair, in order to be released from a
nondisclosure agreement she reached with his lawyer just before the 2016 election. Over the
past two months, she has guided the story of her alleged relationship with President Trump --
and the $130,000 she was paid to keep silent -- into a full-fledged scandal. If Ms. Clifford's
court case proceeds, Mr. Trump may have to testify in depositions, and her suit could provide
evidence of campaign spending violations. She is scheduled to appear on "60 Minutes" on
Sunday.
And if her name has seemed ubiquitous -- repeated on cable television and in the White House
briefing room, and plastered on signs outside nightclubs, where her appearance fees have
multiplied -- there is this to consider: Unlike most perceived presidential adversaries, about
whom Mr. Trump is rarely shy, Ms. Clifford has not been the subject of a single tweet.
To many in the capital, Ms. Clifford, 39, has become an unexpected force. It is she, some in
Washington now joke, and not the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, who could topple Mr.
Trump.
... ... ...
The false-start campaign coincided with a turbulent moment in her personal life, exposing
her to scrutiny in the mainstream press. In July 2009, Ms. Clifford was arrested on a
misdemeanor charge of domestic violence after hitting her husband, a performer in the industry,
and throwing a potted plant during a fight about laundry and unpaid bills, according to police
records. The husband, Michael Mosny, was not injured, and the charge was later dropped. Ms.
Clifford had previously been married to another pornographic actor.
She has since married another colleague in the business, Brendon Miller, the father of her
now 7-year-old daughter. He is also a drummer and has composed music for her films.
... ... ...
Ms. Clifford has not shown up at competitions since news broke in January that she accepted
a
financial settlement in October 2016 -- weeks before the election -- agreeing to keep
quiet about her alleged intimate relationship with Mr. Trump. She has said the affair,
which representatives of Mr. Trump have denied, began in 2006 and extended into 2007, the year
she married Mr. Mosny.
Earlier this month, she escalated public attention by filing suit, calling the 2016 contract
meaningless given that Mr. Trump had never signed it and revealing that the president's
personal lawyer had taken further secret legal action to keep her silent this year.
Stormy Daniels, an adult entertainer who's considering running
for Senate from Louisiana, was arrested Saturday on a domestic violence charge in Tampa, Fla.
Daniels was charged with battery after she allegedly hit her husband, Michael Mosny, over
the head with her hands. According to the police report , she
was angry about a bill Mosny hadn't paid and about the way his father had done the laundry. She
broke a flower pot and a few glass candle holders, threw their wedding album on the floor and
allegedly hit her husband while struggling to get the car keys from him. She denied hitting him
intentionally.
Neither
Mosny nor Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, were injured. Daniels was held
overnight and released on $1,000 bond.
The porn star
formed an exploratory committee in May, the first step in a possible Senate run against
Sen. David Vitter (R-LA), whose social conservative reputation was tarnished by the D.C. Madam
prostitution scandal.
The masses don't care about Stormy Daniels. Of course, Trump used his "art of the deal" to
score with likely a hundred of bimbos. Who cares? It preceded him being Prez.
Is like the Facebook article about privacy... most people know the truth and don't need
the media view. We know Trump cheated. We know FB is corrupt. By far, Trump is better than
the corrupt criminal Clinton's.
Melania
Trump has spent a number of nights at a posh D.C. hotel away from President Trump following
allegations of a fling with porn star Stormy Daniels, White House sources told
DailyMail.com.
On Thursday, the former Playboy Playmate sat down with Anderson Cooper at 6 Columbus Hotel
and poured her heart out in a detailed account of what she says was a 10-month fling with the
President.
His reps have denied the affair.
McDougal said in the interview that she and Trump had been in love -- and that she now
deeply regrets helping him cheat on his wife.
When cameras stopped rolling, she was asked how she felt about the confessional.
"Well, aside from the fact I have a headache and a cold -- I'm my own worst critic -- I
think I came across as credible," she said, according to a source. "But I'm not an
attorney."
When assured by her handlers that she'd done a great job, a source who was present said
McDougal argued she could have been more succinct in explaining why she decided to come forward
more than a decade later.
"A friend of mine leaked the story and now that it's out I want to tell my side," she
explained.
McDougal also wasn't expecting a marathon grilling.
"I thought this was going to be 20 minutes, I didn't know it would be over an hour," she
admitted.
McDougal and her team watched a playback of the interview, which featured an old photo of
her that was taken prior to her breast implant removal in January. The model told People
magazine in February that the implants were causing her illness.
"That's me on the end," she pointed. "That's when I had breasts."
McDougal cried when watching the part of the interview where Cooper asked what she'd say to
Melania, sources told The News. "I'm sorry," she told Cooper. "I wouldn't want it done to me."
Tears turned to laughter when a member of the production asked McDougal if she was aware that
Hillary Clinton taped an interview in the same hotel suite.
"I didn't know that, but I can tell you I didn't have the questions in advance," she
joked.
One member of the production crew asked McDougal if she'd met porn star Stormy Daniels, who
also claims she had an affair with the President and is hoping to be released from a
confidentiality agreement that could see her punished for speaking up. She said that she has
not, nor does she plan to.
Melania , 47, is
terrified that more women could emerge with tales of her husband's infidelity. "Melania is
unprepared for more women to come forward with allegations of affairs with Donald. Melania
wants to leave, but she is paralyzed with fear. She is bracing the worst and is unsure how to
move forward," a Washington D.C. insider tells HollywoodLife.com EXCLUSIVELY. Barron , now 11.
"Melania feels stuck with a sinking presidency and she wants to get out before Trump's house
of cards comes crashing down around her. She fears what embarrassing revelations Stormy might
reveal in her 60 Minutes interview and Melania's greater worries is what impact the
revelations may have on the presidency," our source reveals.
...
Trump himself crudely joked about Melania being the
next person to leave the White House during a speech at the Gridiron Club Dinner on March
3. Unfortunately, divorcing a sitting president would be unheard of and history making.
Melania's pretty much stuck with him as long as he's in the White House, and she still fears he
could be cheating on her to this day! "Melania has wanted to divorce Donald, over fidelity
issues, since before they landed in the White House. She has long suspected that he has used,
and continues to use, Mar-a-Lago as a rendezvous spot for his secret affairs. The Florida
location is completely under Donald's control, he is always there, and it is much easier for
him to enjoy private meetings at the resort rather than try to meet his mistresses at the White
House or around DC or NYC. Melania has pleaded with Donald to stay away
from his many trips to Mar-a-Lago , disguised as golfing holidays, but he refuses to give
in to her requests," our insider adds.
For the time being, Trump's lack of impulse control and self-discipline may frustrate his
strongman tendencies at home, but that's cold comfort, given the damage he can do with U.S.
military might. In "the most powerful office in the world,"
impulsive, ignorant incompetence can be just as dangerous as sinister purpose -- but it
represents a different set of threats than the ones that most concern Frum.
"Trumpocracy has left Americans less safe against foreign dangers," Frum charges, by which
he seems to mean mainly Russian cybermeddling. He spends an order of magnitude more time on
that subject than on the foreign dangers Trump has gratuitously stoked with brinksmanship on
North Korea.
In the near term, what's to be most feared is the president lumbering into a major conflict
with either (or both?) of the two remaining "Axis
of Evil" members. Uncertain plans for a North Korean summit aside, that risk may be
increasing. As the New York Times 's Maggie Haberman recently explained , Trump "was
terrified of the job the first six months, and now feels like he has a command of it" -- a
terrifying thought in itself. Newly emboldened, the president wants unrepentant uber-hawks John
Bolton and Mike Pompeo for national security advisor and secretary of state, respectively. "Let
Trump be Trump" looks a lot like letting Trump be Bush-era Frum .
In fairness, Frum does seem queasy about all this, but he's
awkwardly positioned to sound the alarm. The author who declared that it's
"victory or holocaust" in the war on terror and lauded George W. Bush as The Right
Man may not be the right man to guide us through the particular dangers of this moment
in history.
We may yet avoid a disaster on the scale of the Iraq war, aided by what Frum terms "the
surge in civic spirit that has moved Americans since the ominous night of November 8, 2016" --
or God's special affection for fools, drunks, and the United States of America. Perhaps, in
hindsight, the Trump years will look more like a Great Beclowning than a Long National
Nightmare. If so, we may look back on this period and say, as "43" apparently did of Trump's
First Inaugural: "that was
some weird shit " -- and give thanks that Trump wasn't as competent as Bush.
This is about American Imperialism and MIC. Neocons are just well-laid MIC lobbyists. Some
like Bolton are pretty talented guys. Some like Max Boot are simply stupid.
Notable quotes:
"... What sort of political system allows someone with his views to serve in high office, where he helps talk the country into a disastrous war, never expresses a moment's regret for his errors, continues to advocate for more of the same for the next decade, and then gets a second chance to make the same mistakes again? [bold mine-DL] ..."
"... So by all means worry. But the real problem isn't Bolton -- it's a system that permits people like him to screw up and move up again and again. ..."
The conclusion of Stephen Walt's column on
John Bolton is exactly right:
Don't get me wrong: I'm not trying to "normalize" this appointment or suggest that it
shouldn't concern you. Rather, I'm suggesting that if you are worried about Bolton, you
should ask yourself the following question: What sort of political system allows someone
with his views to serve in high office, where he helps talk the country into a disastrous
war, never expresses a moment's regret for his errors, continues to advocate for more of the
same for the next decade, and then gets a second chance to make the same mistakes again?
[bold mine-DL]
So by all means worry. But the real problem isn't Bolton -- it's a system that permits
people like him to screw up and move up again and again.
There is a strong bias in our foreign policy debates in favor of "action," no matter how
stupid or destructive that action proves to be. That is one reason why reflexive supporters of
an activist foreign policy will never have to face the consequences of the policies they
support. Bolton has thrived as an advocate of hard-line policies precisely because he fills the
assigned role of the fanatical warmonger, and there is always a demand for someone to fill that
role. His fanaticism doesn't discredit him, because it is eminently useful to his somewhat less
fanatical colleagues. That is how he can hang around long enough until there is a president
ignorant enough to think that he is qualified to be a top adviser.
Bolton will also have reliable supporters in the conservative movement that will make
excuses for the inexcusable. National Review recently published an article by
David French in defense of Bolton whose conclusion was that we should "give a hawk a chance."
Besides being evasive and dishonest about just how fanatical Bolton is, the article was an
effort to pretend that Iraq war supporters should be given another chance to wreck U.S. foreign
policy again. It may be true that Bolton's views are "in the mainstream of conservative
foreign-policy thought," but that is an indictment of the so-called "mainstream" that is being
represented. Bolton has been wrong about every major foreign policy issue of the last twenty
years. If that doesn't disqualify you from holding a high-ranking government position, what
does?
Hawks have been given a chance to run our foreign policy every day for decades on end, and
they have failed numerous times at exorbitant cost. Generic hawks don't deserve a second chance
after the last sixteen-plus years of failure and disaster, and fanatical hard-liners like
Bolton never deserved a first chance.
French asserts that Bolton is "not extreme," but that raises the obvious question: compared
to what?Bolton has publicly, repeatedly urged the U.S. government to launch illegal preventive
wars against Iran and North Korea, and that just scratches the surface of his fanaticism. That
strikes me as rather extreme, and that is why so many people are disturbed by the Bolton
appointment. If he isn't "extreme" even by contemporary movement conservative standards, who
is? How psychopathic would one need to be to be considered extreme in French's eyes? If
movement conservatives can't see why Bolton is an unacceptable and outrageous choice for
National Security Advisor, they are so far gone that there is nothing to be done for them and
no point in listening to anything they have to say.
"... The US congress has carried out two probes into "Russiagate" without much to show for their laborious endeavors. A special counsel headed up by former FBI chief Robert Mueller has spent millions of taxpayer dollars to produce a flimsy indictment list of 19 Russian individuals who are said to have run influence campaigns out of a nondescript "troll farm" in St Petersburg. ..."
Now, at last, a real "election influence" scandal -- and, laughably, it's got nothing to do
with Russia. The protagonists are none other than the "all-American" US social media giant
Facebook and a British data consultancy firm with the academic-sounding name Cambridge
Analytica.
Facebook's chief executive Mark Zuckerberg is being called upon by British and European
parliamentarians to explain his company's role in a data-mining
scandal in which up to 50 million users of the social media platform appear to have had
their private information exploited for electioneering purposes.
Exploited, that is, without their consent or knowledge. Facebook is being investigated by US
federal authorities for alleged breach of privacy and, possibly, electoral laws. Meanwhile,
Cambridge Analytica looks less an academic outfit and more like a cheap marketing scam.
Zuckerberg has professed "shock" that his company may have unwittingly been involved in
betraying the privacy of its users. Some two billion people worldwide are estimated to use the
social media networking site to share personal data, photos, family news and so on, with
"friends".
Now it transpires that at least one firm, London-based Cambridge Analytica, ran a profitable
business by harvesting the publicly available data on Facebook for electioneering purposes for
which it was contracted to do. The harvested information was then used to help target election
campaigning.
Cambridge Analytica was reportedly contracted by the Trump campaign for the 2016
presidential election. It was also used during the Brexit referendum campaign in 2016 when
Britons voted to leave the European Union.
This week the British news outlet Channel 4 broadcast
a stunning investigation in which chief executives at Cambridge Analytica were filmed secretly
boasting about how their firm helped win the US presidential election for Donald Trump.
More criminally, the data company boss, Alexander Nix, also revealed that they were prepared
to gather information which could be used for blackmailing and bribing politicians, including
with the use of online sex traps.
The repercussions from the scandal have been torrid. Following the Channel 4 broadcast,
Cambridge Analytica has suspended its chief executive pending further investigation. British
authorities have sought a warrant to search the company's computer servers.
Moreover, Zuckerberg's Facebook has seen $50 billion wiped of its stock value in a matter of
days. What is at issue is the loss of confidence among its ordinary citizen-users about how
their personal data is vulnerable to third party exploitation without their consent.
Cambridge Analytica is just the tip of an iceberg. The issue has raised concerns that other
third parties, including criminal identity-theft gangs, are also mining Facebook as a mammoth
marketing resource. A resource that is free to exploit because of the way that ordinary users
willingly publish their personal profiles.
The open, seemingly innocent nature of Facebook connecting millions of people -- a "place
where friends meet" as its advertising jingle goes -- could turn out to be an ethical nightmare
over privacy abuse.
Other social media companies like Amazon, Google, WhatsApp and Twitter are reportedly
apprehensive about the consequences of widespread loss of confidence among consumers in privacy
security. One of the biggest economic growth areas over the past decade -- social media --
could turn out to be another digital bubble that bursts spectacularly due to the latest
Facebook scandal.
But one other, perhaps more, significant fallout from the scandal is the realistic
perspective it provides on the so-called "Russiagate" debacle.
For well over a year now, the US and European corporate news media have been peddling claims
about how Russian state agents allegedly "interfered" in several national elections.
The Russian authorities have consistently rejected the alleged "influence campaigns" as
nothing but a fabrication to slander Russia. Moscow has repeatedly asked for evidence to verify
the relentless claims -- and none has been presented.
The US congress has carried out two probes into "Russiagate" without much to show for
their laborious endeavors. A special counsel headed up by former FBI chief Robert Mueller has
spent millions of taxpayer dollars to produce a flimsy indictment list of 19 Russian
individuals who are said to have run influence campaigns out of a nondescript "troll farm" in
St Petersburg.
It still remains unclear and unconvincing how, or if, the supposed Russian hackers were
linked to the Russian state, and how they had any impact on the voting intentions of millions
of Americans.
Alternatively, there is plausible reason to believe that the so-called Russian troll farm in
St Petersburg, the Internet Research Agency, may have been nothing other than a dingy marketing
vehicle, trying to use the internet like thousands of other firms around the world hustling for
advertising business. Firms like Cambridge Analytica.
The whole Russiagate affair has been a storm in a teacup, and Mueller seems to be desperate
to produce some, indeed any, result for his inquisitorial extravaganza.
The amazing thing to behold is how the alleged Russian "influence campaign" narrative has
become an accepted truth, propagated and repeated by Western governments and media without
question.
Pentagon defense strategy papers, European Union policy documents, NATO military planning,
among others, have all cited alleged "Russian interference" in American and European elections
as "evidence" of Moscow's "malign" geopolitical agenda.
The purported Russiagate allegations have led to a grave deepening of Cold War tensions
between Western states and Russia to the point where an all-out war is at risk of breaking
out.
Last week, the Trump administration slapped more sanctions on Russian individuals and state
security services for "election meddling".
No proof or plausible explanation has ever been provided to substantiate the allegations of
a Russian state "influence campaign'. The concept largely revolves around innuendo and a
deplorable prejudice against Russia based on irrational Cold War-style Russophobia.
However, one possible beneficial outcome from the latest revelations of an actual worldwide
Facebook election-influence campaign, driven by an ever-so British data consultancy, is that
the scandal puts the claims against Russia into stark, corrective perspective.
A perspective which shows that the heap of official Western claims against Russia of
"influencing elections" is in actual fact negligible if not wholly ridiculous.
It's a mountain versus a hill of beans. A tornado versus a storm in a teacup. Time to get
real on how Western citizens are being really manipulated by their own consumer-capitalist
cultures.
Media promotion of old Trump affairs in full swing. Part of the demonization campaign which
is essential for color revolution. What you can expect with Brennan hired as analyst for NBC
?
On Thursday, CNN's Anderson Cooper had an exclusive interview with former Playboy model
Karen McDougal, who claims that she had a 10-month relationship with Donald Trump a decade
before he became President.
CNN, which is always anxious to paint Trump in the worst possible light, most likely did not
get quite the response they were looking for from McDougal. While affairs cannot and should not
be ever cast in a positive light, it is worth noting that McDougal spoke highly about the way
Trump treated her and her friends noticed the same thing.
Speaking of Trump's "Access Hollywood" tape, McDougal said, "I had not seen that in him at
all... [that's] not the man that I knew." McDougal said that her friends would tell her how
they were impressed with how respectful he was toward her when they were out in public.
On the issue of whether or not she is coming out to hurt Trump, McDougal said, "I voted for
Donald. Why would I want to damage him? That's my party, Republican Party. That's my president.
I did not want to damage him or hurt him in any way, shape, or form but I also didn't want to
put out the story because I didn't want my reputation to be damaged."
McDougal suggested that the reason she came forward is, according to her
lawsuit , because she claims she was paid off to keep quiet and was given a "false promise
to jumpstart her career as a health and fitness model."
WATCH:
"I voted for Donald. Why would I want to damage him?" Former Playboy model Karen McDougal
says her intention in telling her story isn't to damage President Trump https://t.co/fpLyorn15Cpic.twitter.com/V6tLUOVDkw
The main problem for Melania is Trump. Not so much attacks by the media.
Notable quotes:
"... "What can you say except I'm sorry?" [McDougal] told CNN's Anderson Cooper , apologizing for the alleged affair to Melania Trump. "I'm sorry. I wouldn't want it done to me." ..."
"... McDougal admitted that she knew Donald Trump was married during the alleged affair, saying she was reluctant to bring it up because "she felt guilty." ..."
"... She also said that Donald Trump offered to pay her after they had been intimate for the first time in 2006 and that it made her cry. ..."
"... "After we had been intimate, he tried to pay me, and I actually didn't know how to take that," McDougal said. "I've never been offered money like that. I looked at him and said, 'I'm not that type of girl." ..."
"... "And he said, 'Oh,' and he said, 'You're really special,'" McDougal said, adding: "It hurt me that he saw me in that light." ..."
"... According to McDougal, the relationship lasted for about 10 months. She says she broke it off in April 2007 because she felt guilty. She recalled traveling to meet Trump at his properties in New York, New Jersey and California and said she had sex with him "many dozens of times." ..."
"... McDougal had feelings for Trump, but the affair was "just tearing me apart," she said. "There was a real relationship there. There were real feelings," she added. "He would call me baby or he would call me beautiful Karen." ..."
"... quite simply efforts to publicly humiliate and shame of Melania, not to mention attacking the very essence of her marriage to her husband itself. ..."
"... Oh, wait. Isn't that also media bullying? ..."
"... I am well aware that people are skeptical of me discussing this topic. I have been criticized for my commitment to tackling this issue, and I know that will continue. But it will not stop me from doing what I know is right. I am here with one goal: helping children and our next generation." ..."
Media sets double standards for itself as it tries to condemn the First Lady for
standing up against bullying, all the while bullying her and her husband through infidelity
allegations
... ... ...
In seemingly unrelated stories through the rest of the week attack pieces were printed by
various women who claimed to have had extramarital affairs with the President during the time
of his marriage to Melania. The headlines are anything from accusatory to salacious. Here are
some examples:
The attack is the basest sort of hit possible, as these pieces highlight the accusation and
"apology" offered by former Playmate model Karen McDougal. In the pieces this lady offers an
apology to Melania for the affair with her husband, with the core of the story essentially as
shown here (this is from the USA Today version):
"What can you say except I'm sorry?" [McDougal] told CNN's
Anderson Cooper , apologizing for the alleged affair to Melania Trump. "I'm sorry. I
wouldn't want it done to me."
McDougal admitted that she knew Donald Trump was married during the alleged affair,
saying she was reluctant to bring it up because "she felt guilty."
She also said that Donald Trump offered to pay her after they had been intimate for
the first time in 2006 and that it made her cry.
"After we had been intimate, he tried to pay me, and I actually didn't know how to
take that," McDougal said. "I've never been offered money like that. I looked at him and
said, 'I'm not that type of girl."
"And he said, 'Oh,' and he said, 'You're really special,'" McDougal said, adding: "It
hurt me that he saw me in that light."
According to McDougal, the relationship lasted for about 10 months. She says she broke
it off in April 2007 because she felt guilty. She recalled traveling to meet Trump at his
properties in New York, New Jersey and California and said she had sex with him "many dozens
of times."
McDougal had feelings for Trump, but the affair was "just tearing me apart," she said.
"There was a real relationship there. There were real feelings," she added. "He would call me
baby or he would call me beautiful Karen."
Okay, so here we have a great way to humiliate a devout Slovenian Roman Catholic, who is
actually quite a traditional woman, even while she was a red-hot model, by making "apologies"
that are not apologies at all, but quite simply efforts to publicly humiliate and shame of
Melania, not to mention attacking the very essence of her marriage to her husband
itself.
Oh, wait. Isn't that also media bullying?
It would seem so. And on Tuesday, Mrs. Trump wasn't having it. She fought back with her own
gifts, those being her characteristic elegance, but with her amazing personal strength.
But, praise aside, this is what the First Lady had to say:
I am well aware that people are skeptical of me discussing this topic. I have been
criticized for my commitment to tackling this issue, and I know that will continue. But it
will not stop me from doing what I know is right. I am here with one goal: helping children
and our next generation."
For the greater part of a decade the US, the UK and the EU have been carrying out a
campaign to undermine and overthrow the Russian government and in particular to oust President
Putin. Fundamental issues are at stake including the real possibility of a nuclear war. "
Why do the Western regimes now feel Russia is a greater threat then in the past? Do they
believe Russia is more vulnerable to Western threats or attacks? Why do the Western military
leaders seek to undermine Russia's defenses? Do the US economic elites believe it is possible
to provoke an economic crisis and the demise of President Putin's government? What is the
strategic goal of Western policymakers? Why has the UK regime taken the lead in the
anti-Russian crusade via the fake toxin accusations at this time?
Notable quotes:
"... For the greater part of a decade the US, the UK and the EU have been carrying out a campaign to undermine and overthrow the Russian government and in particular to oust President Putin. Fundamental issues are at stake including the real possibility of a nuclear war. ..."
"... First and foremost, during the 1990's the US degraded Russia, reducing it to a vassal state, and imposing itself as a unipolar state. ..."
"... Secondly, Western elites pillaged the Russian economy, seizing and laundering hundreds of billions of dollars. ..."
"... Thirdly, the US seized and took control of the Russian electoral process, and secured the fraudulent "election" of Yeltsin. ..."
"... With the collapse of the Yeltsin regime and the election of President Putin, Russia regained its sovereignty, its economy recovered, its armed forces and scientific institutes were rebuilt and strengthened. Poverty was sharply reduced and Western backed gangster capitalists were constrained, jailed or fled mostly to the UK and the US. ..."
"... As the entire US unipolar fantasy dissolved it provoked deep resentment, animosity and a systematic counter-attack. The US's costly and failed war on terror became a dress rehearsal for the economic and ideological war against the Kremlin ..Russia's historical recovery and defeat of Western rollback intensified the ideological and economic war. ..."
"... Russia is not a threat to the West: it is recovering its sovereignty in order to further a multi-polar world. President Putin is not an "aggressor" but he refuses to allow Russia to return to vassalage. ..."
"... The Western regimes recognize that Russia is a threat to their global dominance; they know that Russia is no threat to invade the EU, North America or their vassals. ..."
"... Western regimes believe they can topple Russia via economic warfare including sanctions. In fact Russia has become more self-reliant and has diversified its trading partners, especially China, and even includes Saudi Arabia and other Western allies. ..."
For the greater part of a decade the US, the UK and the EU have been carrying out a
campaign to undermine and overthrow the Russian government and in particular to oust President
Putin. Fundamental issues are at stake including the real possibility of a nuclear
war.
The most recent western propaganda campaign and one of the most virulent is the charge
launched by the UK regime of Prime Minister Theresa May . The Brits have claimed that Russian
secret agents conspired to poison a former Russian double-agent and his daughter in England ,
threatening the sovereignty and safety of the British people. No evidence has ever been
presented. Instead the UK expelled Russian diplomats and demands harsher sanctions, to increase
tensions. The UK and its US and EU patrons are moving toward a break in relations and a
military build-up.
A number of fundamental questions arise regarding the origins and growing intensity of this
anti-Russian animus.
Why do the Western regimes now feel Russia is a greater threat then in the past? Do they
believe Russia is more vulnerable to Western threats or attacks? Why do the Western military
leaders seek to undermine Russia's defenses? Do the US economic elites believe it is possible
to provoke an economic crisis and the demise of President Putin's government? What is the
strategic goal of Western policymakers? Why has the UK regime taken the lead in the
anti-Russian crusade via the fake toxin accusations at this time?
This paper is directed at providing key elements to address these questions.
The Historical Context for Western Aggression
Several fundamental historical factors dating back to the 1990's account for the current
surge in Western hostility to Russia.
First and foremost, during the 1990's the US degraded Russia, reducing it to a vassal
state, and imposing itself as a unipolar state.Secondly, Western elites pillaged
the Russian economy, seizing and laundering hundreds of billions of dollars. Wall Street
and City of London banks and overseas tax havens were the main beneficiaries Thirdly, the
US seized and took control of the Russian electoral process, and secured the fraudulent
"election" of Yeltsin. Fourthly, the West degraded Russia's military and scientific
institutions and advanced their armed forces to Russia's borders. Fifthly, the West insured
that Russia was unable to support its allies and independent governments throughout Europe,
Asia, Africa and Latin America. Russia was unable to aid its allies in the Ukraine, Cuba,
North Korea, Libya etc.
With the collapse of the Yeltsin regime and the election of President Putin, Russia
regained its sovereignty, its economy recovered, its armed forces and scientific institutes
were rebuilt and strengthened. Poverty was sharply reduced and Western backed gangster
capitalists were constrained, jailed or fled mostly to the UK and the US.
Russia's historic recovery under President Putin and its gradual international influence
shattered US pretense to rule over unipolar world. Russia's recovery and control of its
economic resources lessened US dominance, especially of its oil and gas fields.
As Russia consolidated its sovereignty and advanced economically, socially, politically and
militarily, the West increased its hostility in an effort to roll-back Russia to the Dark Ages
of the 1990's. The US launched numerous coups and military intervention and fraudulent
elections to surround and isolate Russia . The Ukraine, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen and Russian
allies in Central Asia were targeted. NATO military bases proliferated.
Russia's economy was targeted : sanctions were directed at its imports and exports.
President Putin was subject to a virulent Western media propaganda campaign. US NGO's funded
opposition parties and politicians.
As the entire US unipolar fantasy dissolved it provoked deep resentment, animosity and a
systematic counter-attack. The US's costly and failed war on terror became a dress rehearsal
for the economic and ideological war against the Kremlin ..Russia's historical recovery and
defeat of Western rollback intensified the ideological and economic war.
The UK poison plot was concocted to heighten economic tensions and prepare the western
public for heightened military confrontations.
Russia is not a threat to the West: it is recovering its sovereignty in order to further
a multi-polar world. President Putin is not an "aggressor" but he refuses to allow Russia to
return to vassalage.
President Putin is immensely popular in Russia and hated by the US precisely because he is
the opposition of Yeltsin -- he has created a flourishing economy; he resists sanctions and
defends Russia's borders and allies.
Conclusion
In a summary response to the opening questions.
The Western regimes recognize that
Russia is a threat to their global dominance; they know that Russia is no threat to invade the
EU, North America or their vassals.Western regimes believe they can topple Russia via
economic warfare including sanctions. In fact Russia has become more self-reliant and has
diversified its trading partners, especially China, and even includes Saudi Arabia and other
Western allies.
The Western propaganda campaign has failed to turn Russian voters against Putin. In the
March 19, 2018 Presidential election voter participation increased to 67% . .Vladimir Putin
secured a record 77% majority. President Putin is politically stronger than ever.
Russia's display of advanced nuclear and other advanced weaponry has had a major deterrent
effect especially among US military leaders, making it clear that Russia is not vulnerable to
attack.
The UK has attempted to unify and gain importance with the EU and the US via the launch of
its anti-Russia toxic conspiracy. Prime Minister May has failed. Brexit will force the UK to
break with the EU.
President Trump will not replace the EU as a substitute trading partner. While the EU and
Washington may back the UK crusade against Russia they will pursue their own trade agenda;
which do not include the UK.
In a word, the UK, the EU and the US are ganging-up on Russia, for diverse historic and
contemporary reasons. The UK exploitation of the anti-Russian conspiracy is a temporary ploy to
join the gang but will not change its inevitable global decline and the break-up of the UK.
Russia will remain a global power. It will continue under the leadership of President Putin.
The Western powers will divide and bugger their neighbors -- and decide it is their better
judgment to accept and work within a multi-polar world.
*
Prof. James Petras is a Research Associate of the CRG.
The idea the Russians " "had the strategic purpose of sowing political discord in the
United States" which in reality in the result of deep crisis on neoliberalism, which started
in 2008 is a typical scapegoating. The essence of neo-McCarthyism if you wish.
"... But the indictments themselves suggest that Mueller's narrative is wrong. The objective
was not to influence the election, but make money by getting viewers to "click on"
advertisements. Check it out: ..."
"... It's worth noting, that if Mueller really wanted to get to the bottom of the Russia-gate
allegations, he would interview the people who have first-hand knowledge what actually happened.
He would question Julian Assange (WikiLeaks) and Craig Murray, both of whom have stated publicly
that they know who stole the Podesta emails. ..."
"... Mueller hasn't done that, nor has he contacted the VIPs (Ray McGovern, William Binney,
Skip Folden, etc) who did extensive forensic investigation of the "hacking" allegations and
proved that the emails were not hacked but leaked. Mueller has not pursued that line of inquiry
either. ..."
"... The above statement helps to prove my point that the indictments are not a vehicle for
criminal prosecution, but part of a politically-motivated information campaign to damage Trump
and vilify Russia. No one seriously believes that Mueller would ever try to prosecute this case
based on the spurious and looney claims of a criminal conspiracy. The whole idea is laughable.
..."
"... We found it interesting that Rob Goldman, who is the Vice President of Facebook Ads,
tweeted this revealing disclaimer on Monday which Trump posted on Twitter: ..."
"... Bottom line: The indictments were very good news for Donald Trump, but very bad news for
Robert Mueller who appears to have run into a brick wall. But has he? Has Mueller abandoned the
attacks on Trump or is there something else going on just below the surface? ..."
"... I can only guess at the answer, but it looks to me like Trump may have made a deal to
support the attacks on Russia provided he is acquitted on charges of collusion. That's what he's
wanted from the beginning, so, maybe he won this round? Here's one of his recent tweets that
helps to support my theory: ..."
"... What's wrong with that? If Trump's enemies want to provide him with a
Get-Outta-Jail-Free card, then why shouldn't he snatch it up and put this whole goofy probe
behind him? That's what most people would do. ..."
"... The problem is that Trump's biggest supporters want him to continue struggle against
"The Swamp". They want him to fight for their interests and expose the crooked goings-on behind
the Russiagate scandal. They want him to lift up the rock that conceals the activities of the
National Security State so everyone can see the maggots squirming below. That's what they want, a
modern-day Samson who shakes the temple's pillars and brings the whole crooked system crashing
down around him. ..."
"... These same people are hopeful that the Nunes memo and the Grassley-Graham "criminal
referral" are just the tip of the iceberg that will inevitably lead to the bigger fish involved
in this deep-state conspiracy, namely former CIA Director John Brennan, former Director of
National Intelligence James Clapper, Former FBI Director James Comey, and very likely, Barack
Hussein Obama himself. What role did these men play in spying on the Trump campaign? Were they
actively trying to sabotage the elections by giving Hillary an edge? Should a second Special
Counsel be appointed to investigate whether crimes were committed in their targeting of the Trump
team? ..."
"... There is no crime called "collusion". So Trump cannot be "acquitted", let alone be
charged with something that is not a crime. Apparently the deep state and media's repetition of
"collusion" has duped not just the public, but this author with thinking it is some kind of
crime. ..."
"... Trump needs the swamp to produce politicized intel for his campaigns against Iran and
Venezuela (plus a dozen other countries which don't threaten the US). He needs the hated MSM (not
much more than the swamp's media branch) to sell the Iran war to his voters, who are supposed to
pay for it. He needs his shady relatives to stay OUT of prison, where several of them seem to
belong (of course, papa Kushner has already spent time inside). So appeasement it is. ..."
"... Sorry, but on the whole Trump voters are too dumb to pose much of an obstacle. They like
the campaigns against Iran because of religion, and against Venezuela because of "socialism".
They didn't raise a peep when it became clear that THEIR money would all go to the Armies of
Mordor. That this is "Saddam-WMD-9/11″ all over again just hasn't registered with them, and
never will. Just like Trump winning his primary running against outside money, and immediately
afterwards selling out for Adelson's shekels–it exceeds the deplorables' attention span, so
it never happened. Keep harping on immigrants and it's all good; razzle-dazzle them, as it was
called in the Chicago movie. ..."
"... So on the whole, yes, already since his inauguration it has been clear that The Donald
is mostly playing along, as long as he'll be allowed to stay president ..."
"... So Trump is not opposed to demonizing Russia, he's just opposed to demonizing Donald
John Trump. That's where he draws the line. ..."
"... Well guys, if there's anyone here who still abides by the '5-D chess' theory, I think
it's time to face facts: Trump has thrown us all under the bust to save himself. Expect a war in
Syria, or Ukraine, or maybe both. ..."
"... The indictments have no legal merit, they are a form of domestic propaganda and
disinformation. The real target is the American people. ..."
"... That's pretty much what this banana republic's government is all about. One way or
another, everything they do is designed to ultimately squeeze something out of us dumb 'Merkin
proles and peasants ..."
"... I was expecting more of a profile in courage under the tutelage of someone smarter than
Trump; instead we are seeing another profile in venality and stupidity. ..."
"... US has too many laws that are ambiguous beyond belief, almost anything can be declared a
'crime'. Plus you have limited disclosure due to national security ('methods and sources
subterfuge always works). Volunteering for a political show trial doesn't work. ..."
"... Pentagon vs neoliberal CIA for upper hand at the White House with Bibi (via AIPAC)
solidly on the side of Pence, probably not if, but much more likely when, Trump is taken down.
..."
"... The RussiaGate affairs and collusion charge are the obvious "Banksters United" coup run
with a stunning degree of incompetence. Russia must be demonized because of her mineral
resources, which are still not available for free, and because of her "wrong" behavior in Syria.
Bansksters need this war. Arm producers and dealers need this war. Only the apparent danger of
suicide by nuclear answer stops the banksters and other war profiteers from an immediate attack
against Russian Federation. ..."
"... The FBI and the CIA are the hired gangster organizations for the banksters. If the FBI
and the CIA cared about national security, the US would not suffer the infamy of Awan affair,
CrowdStrike "conclusions," and the US support for Daesh/ISIS/Al Qaida in the Middle East, as well
as the US support for neo-Nazis in Ukraine. The US taxpayers have been financing both ISIS and
neo-Nazis because banksters decided so. ..."
Notable quotes:
"... But the indictments themselves suggest that Mueller's narrative is wrong. The objective was not to influence the election, but make money by getting viewers to "click on" advertisements. Check it out: ..."
"... It's worth noting, that if Mueller really wanted to get to the bottom of the Russia-gate allegations, he would interview the people who have first-hand knowledge what actually happened. He would question Julian Assange (WikiLeaks) and Craig Murray, both of whom have stated publicly that they know who stole the Podesta emails. ..."
"... Mueller hasn't done that, nor has he contacted the VIPs (Ray McGovern, William Binney, Skip Folden, etc) who did extensive forensic investigation of the "hacking" allegations and proved that the emails were not hacked but leaked. Mueller has not pursued that line of inquiry either. ..."
"... The indictment states that the organization that employed the trolls "had the strategic purpose of sowing political discord in the United States." This seems to be a recurrent theme that has popped up frequently in the media as well. The implication is that the Russians are the source of the widening divisions in the US that are actually the result of growing public angst over the lopsided distribution of wealth that naturally emerges in late-stage capitalism. ..."
"... The above statement helps to prove my point that the indictments are not a vehicle for criminal prosecution, but part of a politically-motivated information campaign to damage Trump and vilify Russia. No one seriously believes that Mueller would ever try to prosecute this case based on the spurious and looney claims of a criminal conspiracy. The whole idea is laughable. ..."
"... We found it interesting that Rob Goldman, who is the Vice President of Facebook Ads, tweeted this revealing disclaimer on Monday which Trump posted on Twitter: ..."
"... Bottom line: The indictments were very good news for Donald Trump, but very bad news for Robert Mueller who appears to have run into a brick wall. But has he? Has Mueller abandoned the attacks on Trump or is there something else going on just below the surface? ..."
"... I can only guess at the answer, but it looks to me like Trump may have made a deal to support the attacks on Russia provided he is acquitted on charges of collusion. That's what he's wanted from the beginning, so, maybe he won this round? Here's one of his recent tweets that helps to support my theory: ..."
"... Hmmm? So Trump now Trump is okay with blaming Russia as long as he's not included too? Is that what he's saying? ..."
"... Okay, so now Trump is turning the tables and saying, 'Yeah, maybe Russia has been 'sowing discord', but the Democrats are the ones you should be blaming not me.'So Trump is not opposed to demonizing Russia, he's just opposed to demonizing Donald John Trump. That's where he draws the line. ..."
"... The problem is that Trump's biggest supporters want him to continue struggle against "The Swamp". They want him to fight for their interests and expose the crooked goings-on behind the Russiagate scandal. They want him to lift up the rock that conceals the activities of the National Security State so everyone can see the maggots squirming below. That's what they want, a modern-day Samson who shakes the temple's pillars and brings the whole crooked system crashing down around him. ..."
"... These same people are hopeful that the Nunes memo and the Grassley-Graham "criminal referral" are just the tip of the iceberg that will inevitably lead to the bigger fish involved in this deep-state conspiracy, namely former CIA Director John Brennan, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, Former FBI Director James Comey, and very likely, Barack Hussein Obama himself. What role did these men play in spying on the Trump campaign? Were they actively trying to sabotage the elections by giving Hillary an edge? Should a second Special Counsel be appointed to investigate whether crimes were committed in their targeting of the Trump team? ..."
"... Trump's backers hope that he is principled and pugnacious enough to go nose-to-nose with these Intel agency serpents and give them the bloody whooping they so richly deserve. Unfortunately, I don't see any evidence that that's what he has in mind ..."
"... Goldman, an executive at Zucc's Book, displayed evidence at a House Committee hearing of Russian bots trolling the US by portraying Sanders as 'sexy' and Trump as a hero. These memes were generally amusing but largely ineffectual. The idea of election meddling by Russia to elect Trump has largely been debunked, and both the Left and the Right now see it as a distraction to the real issue: Deep State malfeasance. ..."
"... Trump has to realize that he would be neutered by the continuance of the Mueller witchhunt, so I think that if it is a deal, it is tactical for the present. ..."
"... in my view, the Democrats overplayed their hand by calling this clickbait scam the "equivalent of Pearl Harbor" and make pushback more likely. ..."
"... Whitney can't bring himself to say Mueller has been, for decades, 'historically, criminally corrupt with longtime habit of maintaining a DoJ cover for CIA.' As well, why does Mike exclude mentioning Seymour Hersh and Kim Dotcom concerning the proposed fact Seth Rich leaked the DNC mails? He sticks with a weak 'we really don't know' line of bs. ..."
"... Grassley wants the DoJ personalities to fall on their swords while Feinstein is besides herself, going crazy, as the investigation into President Skunk implodes around the Steele Dossier. It's like an exclusive 'serial-killers only' swingers' club where everybody is tired of the limited opportunity at couplings, yet their sex addiction requires everyone screwing everyone out of habit and everyone hates everyone's guts. At some point, the entire crew will resort to some new mass murder, like allowing war in Korea, to get it all back on track ..."
"... There is no crime called "collusion". So Trump cannot be "acquitted", let alone be charged with something that is not a crime. Apparently the deep state and media's repetition of "collusion" has duped not just the public, but this author with thinking it is some kind of crime. ..."
"... Trump needs the swamp to produce politicized intel for his campaigns against Iran and Venezuela (plus a dozen other countries which don't threaten the US). He needs the hated MSM (not much more than the swamp's media branch) to sell the Iran war to his voters, who are supposed to pay for it. He needs his shady relatives to stay OUT of prison, where several of them seem to belong (of course, papa Kushner has already spent time inside). So appeasement it is. ..."
"... Sorry, but on the whole Trump voters are too dumb to pose much of an obstacle. They like the campaigns against Iran because of religion, and against Venezuela because of "socialism". They didn't raise a peep when it became clear that THEIR money would all go to the Armies of Mordor. That this is "Saddam-WMD-9/11″ all over again just hasn't registered with them, and never will. Just like Trump winning his primary running against outside money, and immediately afterwards selling out for Adelson's shekels–it exceeds the deplorables' attention span, so it never happened. Keep harping on immigrants and it's all good; razzle-dazzle them, as it was called in the Chicago movie. ..."
"... So on the whole, yes, already since his inauguration it has been clear that The Donald is mostly playing along, as long as he'll be allowed to stay president ..."
"... So Trump is not opposed to demonizing Russia, he's just opposed to demonizing Donald John Trump. That's where he draws the line. ..."
"... Well guys, if there's anyone here who still abides by the '5-D chess' theory, I think it's time to face facts: Trump has thrown us all under the bust to save himself. Expect a war in Syria, or Ukraine, or maybe both. ..."
"... The indictments have no legal merit, they are a form of domestic propaganda and disinformation. The real target is the American people. ..."
"... That's pretty much what this banana republic's government is all about. One way or another, everything they do is designed to ultimately squeeze something out of us dumb 'Merkin proles and peasants ..."
"... I was expecting more of a profile in courage under the tutelage of someone smarter than Trump; instead we are seeing another profile in venality and stupidity. ..."
"... US has too many laws that are ambiguous beyond belief, almost anything can be declared a 'crime'. Plus you have limited disclosure due to national security ('methods and sources subterfuge always works). Volunteering for a political show trial doesn't work. ..."
"... Pentagon vs neoliberal CIA for upper hand at the White House with Bibi (via AIPAC) solidly on the side of Pence, probably not if, but much more likely when, Trump is taken down. ..."
"... The RussiaGate affairs and collusion charge are the obvious "Banksters United" coup run with a stunning degree of incompetence. Russia must be demonized because of her mineral resources, which are still not available for free, and because of her "wrong" behavior in Syria. Bansksters need this war. Arm producers and dealers need this war. Only the apparent danger of suicide by nuclear answer stops the banksters and other war profiteers from an immediate attack against Russian Federation. ..."
"... The FBI and the CIA are the hired gangster organizations for the banksters. If the FBI and the CIA cared about national security, the US would not suffer the infamy of Awan affair, CrowdStrike "conclusions," and the US support for Daesh/ISIS/Al Qaida in the Middle East, as well as the US support for neo-Nazis in Ukraine. The US taxpayers have been financing both ISIS and neo-Nazis because banksters decided so. ..."
Here's your legal koan for the day: When is an indictment not an indictment?
Answer– When there is no intention of initiating a criminal case against the accused.
In the case of the 13 Russian trolls who have just been indicted by Special Counsel Robert
Mueller, there is neither the intention nor the ability to prosecute a case against them. (They
are all foreign nationals who will not face extradition.)
But, if that's the case, than why would Mueller waste time and money compiling a 37-page
document alleging all-manner of nefarious conduct when he knew for certain that the alleged
perpetrators would never be prosecuted? Why?
Isn't is because the indictments are not really a vehicle for criminal prosecution, but a
vehicle for political grandstanding? Isn't that the real purpose of the indictments, to add
another layer of dirt to the mountain of unreliable, uncorroborated, unproven allegations of
Russian meddling. Mueller is not acting in his capacity as Special Counsel, he is acting in his
role of deep state hatchet-man whose job is to gather scalps by any means necessary.
Keep in mind, the subjects of the indictment will never be apprehended, never hire an
attorney, never be in a position to defend themselves or refute the charges, and never have
their case presented before and judge or a jury. They will be denied due process of law and the
presumption of innocence. Mueller's ominous-sounding claims, which were the centerpiece of his
obscene media extravaganza, made sure of that. In most people's minds, the trolls are guilty of
foreign espionage and that's all there is to it. Case closed.
But the indictments themselves suggest that Mueller's narrative is wrong. The objective
was not to influence the election, but make money by getting viewers to "click on"
advertisements. Check it out:
"Defendants and their co-conspirators also used the accounts to receive money from real
U.S. persons in exchange for posting promotions and advertisements on the
ORGANIZATION-controlled social media pages. Defendants and their co-conspirators typically
charged certain U.S. merchants and U.S. social media sites between 25 and 50 U.S. dollars per
post for promotional content on their popular false U.S. persona accounts, including Being
Patriotic, Defend the 2nd, and Blacktivist."
That sounds like a money-making scheme to me not an attempt to subvert US democracy. So why
is Mueller in such a lather? Isn't this all just an attempt to divert attention from the fact
that the Nunes' investigation has produced proof that senior-level officials at the FBI and DOJ
were "improperly obtaining" FISA warrants to spy on members of the Trump Campaign? Isn't that
what's really going on?
If we can agree that the indictments were not intended to bring the "accused" to justice,
then don't we also have to agree that there must have been an ulterior motive for issuing them?
And what might that ulterior motive be? What are the real objectives of the investigation, to
cast a shadow on an election that did not produce the results that powerful members of the
entrenched bureaucracy wanted, to make it look like Donald Trump did not beat Hillary Clinton
fair and square, and to further demonize a geopolitical rival that has blocked Washington's
imperial ambitions in Syria and Ukraine? Which of these is the real driving force behind
Russiagate or is it 'all of the above?'
Nothing will come of the indictments because the indictments were not designed reveal the
truth or bring the accused to justice. They were written to shape public perceptions and to
persuade the American people that Trump cheated in the elections and that Russia poses a
serious threat to US national security. The indictments have no legal merit, they are a form of
domestic propaganda and disinformation. The real target is the American people.
It's worth noting, that if Mueller really wanted to get to the bottom of the Russia-gate
allegations, he would interview the people who have first-hand knowledge what actually
happened. He would question Julian Assange (WikiLeaks) and Craig Murray, both of whom have
stated publicly that they know who stole the Podesta emails.
Mueller hasn't done that, nor has he contacted the VIPs (Ray McGovern, William Binney,
Skip Folden, etc) who did extensive forensic investigation of the "hacking" allegations and
proved that the emails were not hacked but leaked. Mueller has not pursued that line of inquiry
either. Nor has he interviewed California Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, who met with
Assange personally and who has suggested that Assange may reveal the name (of the DNC "leaker")
under the right conditions. Instead of questioning witnesses, Mueller has spent a great deal of
time probing the online activities Russian trolls who were engaged in a money-making scheme
that was in no way connected to the Russian government, in no way connected to the Trump
campaign, and in no way supportive of the claims of hacking or collusion. None of this reflects
well on Mueller who, by any stretch, appears to be either woefully incompetent or irredeemably
biased.
The indictment states that the organization that employed the trolls "had the strategic
purpose of sowing political discord in the United States." This seems to be a recurrent theme
that has popped up frequently in the media as well. The implication is that the Russians are
the source of the widening divisions in the US that are actually the result of growing public
angst over the lopsided distribution of wealth that naturally emerges in late-stage
capitalism. Moscow has become the convenient scapegoat for the accelerated parasitism that
has seen 95% of the nation's wealth go to a sliver of people at the top of the foodchain, the 1
percent. (But that's another story altogether.) Here's a brief clip from the
portentous-sounding indictment:
"The general conspiracy statute creates an offense "[i]f two or more persons conspire
either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or
any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose .
The intent required for a conspiracy to defraud the government is that the defendant
possessed the intent (a) to defraud, (b) to make false statements or representations to the
government or its agencies in order to obtain property of the government, or that the
defendant performed acts or made statements that he/she knew to be false, fraudulent or
deceitful to a government agency, which disrupted the functions of the agency or of the
government. It is sufficient for the government to prove that the defendant knew the
statements were false or fraudulent when made."
The above statement helps to prove my point that the indictments are not a vehicle for
criminal prosecution, but part of a politically-motivated information campaign to damage Trump
and vilify Russia. No one seriously believes that Mueller would ever try to prosecute this case
based on the spurious and looney claims of a criminal conspiracy. The whole idea is
laughable.
There are a couple interesting twists and turns regarding the indictments that could be
significant, but, then again, maybe not. We found it interesting that Rob Goldman, who is
the Vice President of Facebook Ads, tweeted this revealing disclaimer on Monday which Trump
posted on Twitter:
"I have seen all of the Russian ads and I can say very definitively that swaying the
election was *NOT* the main goal."
Then there are the puzzling comments by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein who said on
Friday:
"There's no allegation in this indictment that any American had any knowledge. And the
nature of the scheme was the defendants took extraordinary steps to make it appear that they
were ordinary American political activists, even going so far as to base their activities on
a virtual private network here in the United States so, if anybody traced it back to that
first jump, they appeared to be Americans ."
Do you notice anything unusual about Rosenstein's remarks? There's no mention of Trump at
all, which is a striking omission since all of previous public announcements have been used to
strengthen the case against Trump. Now that's changed. Why? Naturally, Trump picked up on
Rosenstein's omission and blasted this triumphant message on Twitter:
"Deputy A.G. Rod Rosenstein stated at the News Conference: "There is no allegation in the
indictment that any American was a knowing participant in this illegal activity. There is no
allegation in the indictment that the charged conduct altered the outcome of the 2016
election." Donald Trump
So, what's going on here? Mueller and Rosenstein are smart guys. They must have known that
Trump would use the dates and the absence of anything remotely suggesting collusion as
vindication. Was that the purpose, to let Trump off the hook while the broader propaganda
campaign on Russia continues?
This is the great mystery surrounding the indictments, far from helping to establish
Trump's culpability, they appear to imply his innocence. Why would Mueller and his allies
want to do that? Are the Intel agencies and the FBI looking for a way to end this political
cage-match before a second Special Counsel is appointed and he starts digging up embarrassing
information about the involvement of other agencies (and perhaps, the White House) in the
Russiagate fiasco?
Just think about it for a minute: There is nothing in the indictments that suggests that
Trump or anyone in his campaign was involved with the Russian trolls. There is nothing in the
indictments that suggests Trump was acting as a Russian agent. And there's nothing in the
indictments that suggests the Russian government helped Trump win the election. Also, the
timeline of events seems to favor Trump as does Rosenstein's claim that the online activity
did not have "any effect on the outcome of the election."
Bottom line: The indictments were very good news for Donald Trump, but very bad news for
Robert Mueller who appears to have run into a brick wall. But has he? Has Mueller abandoned the
attacks on Trump or is there something else going on just below the surface?
I can only guess at the answer, but it looks to me like Trump may have made a deal to
support the attacks on Russia provided he is acquitted on charges of collusion. That's what
he's wanted from the beginning, so, maybe he won this round? Here's one of his recent tweets
that helps to support my theory:
"I never said Russia did not meddle in the election, I said "it may be Russia, or China or
another country or group, or it may be a 400 pound genius sitting in bed and playing with his
computer." The Russian "hoax" was that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia – it never
did!" Donald Trump
Hmmm? So Trump now Trump is okay with blaming Russia as long as he's not included too?
Is that what he's saying? Here's more in the same vein:
"If it was the GOAL of Russia to create discord, disruption and chaos within the U.S.
then, with all of the Committee Hearings, Investigations and Party hatred, they have
succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. They are laughing their asses off in Moscow. Get smart
America!" Donald Trump
Okay, so now Trump is turning the tables and saying, 'Yeah, maybe Russia has been
'sowing discord', but the Democrats are the ones you should be blaming not me.'So Trump is not
opposed to demonizing Russia, he's just opposed to demonizing Donald John Trump. That's where
he draws the line.
What's wrong with that? If Trump's enemies want to provide him with a Get-Outta-Jail-Free
card, then why shouldn't he snatch it up and put this whole goofy probe behind him? That's what
most people would do.
The problem is that Trump's biggest supporters want him to continue struggle against
"The Swamp". They want him to fight for their interests and expose the crooked goings-on behind
the Russiagate scandal. They want him to lift up the rock that conceals the activities of the
National Security State so everyone can see the maggots squirming below. That's what they want,
a modern-day Samson who shakes the temple's pillars and brings the whole crooked system
crashing down around him.
These same people are hopeful that the Nunes memo and the Grassley-Graham "criminal
referral" are just the tip of the iceberg that will inevitably lead to the bigger fish involved
in this deep-state conspiracy, namely former CIA Director John Brennan, former Director of
National Intelligence James Clapper, Former FBI Director James Comey, and very likely, Barack
Hussein Obama himself. What role did these men play in spying on the Trump campaign? Were they
actively trying to sabotage the elections by giving Hillary an edge? Should a second Special
Counsel be appointed to investigate whether crimes were committed in their targeting of the
Trump team?
All of these questions need to be answered in order to clear the air, hold the guilty
parties accountable and restore confidence in the government. Trump's backers hope that he
is principled and pugnacious enough to go nose-to-nose with these Intel agency serpents and
give them the bloody whooping they so richly deserve. Unfortunately, I don't see any evidence
that that's what he has in mind . We'll see.
Goldman, an executive at Zucc's Book, displayed evidence at a House Committee hearing of
Russian bots trolling the US by portraying Sanders as 'sexy' and Trump as a hero. These memes
were generally amusing but largely ineffectual. The idea of election meddling by Russia to
elect Trump has largely been debunked, and both the Left and the Right now see it as a
distraction to the real issue: Deep State malfeasance.
Those Never Trumpers in the Dems and McCain camps are now left disgraced and humiliated
and their only allies are WaPo, NYT, CNN and a few other fake news outlets. The test for
Trump will be whether he can take a wrecking ball to the FBI and Department of State and to
truly cleanse the bureaucracy of ne'er-do-wells who have constantly been undermining him from
the beginning.
I think the author is correct in his assumptions. One area of hope, though, is that the
allegations are so ridiculous and others have pointed out, for instance, that the Australian
Labor party sent operatives to the US to help defeat Trump, and Trump has to realize that
he would be neutered by the continuance of the Mueller witchhunt, so I think that if it is a
deal, it is tactical for the present.
As the article indicates, Trump would lose a lot of his support if he follows through on
the deal. Also, pro-Trump websites are continuing on with the drumbeat against Mueller, and
in my view, the Democrats overplayed their hand by calling this clickbait scam the
"equivalent of Pearl Harbor" and make pushback more likely.
I think that one thing the indictment has accomplished is to reveal to anybody not paid to
think otherwise that the yankee imperium entered the post-legal era years ago, and that the
legitimacy of the yankee state has totally evaporated.
Isn't is because the indictments are not really a vehicle for criminal prosecution, but
a vehicle for political grandstanding? Isn't that the real purpose of the indictments, to
add another layer of dirt to the mountain of unreliable, uncorroborated, unproven
allegations of Russian meddling. Mueller is not acting in his capacity as Special Counsel,
he is acting in his role of deep state hatchet-man whose job is to gather scalps by any
means necessary [...] It's worth noting, that if Mueller really wanted to get to the bottom
of the Russia-gate allegations, he would interview the people who have first-hand knowledge
what actually happened. He would question Julian Assange (WikiLeaks) and Craig Murray, both
of whom have stated publicly that they know who stole the Podesta emails.[sic][...] None of
this reflects well on Mueller who, by any stretch, appears to be either woefully
incompetent or irredeemably biased
Misdirection here by Mike Whitney. Whitney can't bring himself to say Mueller has
been, for decades, 'historically, criminally corrupt with longtime habit of maintaining a DoJ
cover for CIA.' As well, why does Mike exclude mentioning Seymour Hersh and Kim Dotcom
concerning the proposed fact Seth Rich leaked the DNC mails? He sticks with a weak 'we
really don't know' line of bs.
These same people are hopeful that the Nunes memo and the Grassley-Graham "criminal
referral" are just the tip of the iceberg that will inevitably lead to the bigger fish
involved in this deep-state conspiracy, namely former CIA Director John Brennan, former
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, Former FBI Director James Comey, and very
likely, Barack Hussein Obama himself. What role did these men play in spying on the Trump
campaign? Were they actively trying to sabotage the elections by giving Hillary an edge?
Should a second Special Counsel be appointed to investigate whether crimes were committed
in their targeting of the Trump team?
Yeah, well Mike, 'hope springs eternal' is the apropos folk wisdom. Why not look at this
instead:
"Of course, none of this will be brought out by the Congressional intelligence
committees, to collapse the credibility of 'three amigos' Special Counsel Mueller, fired
Director Comey & present FBI boss Wray to help kill the 'Russia collusion' farce;
because all parties are complicit and tainted in the cover-up.Grassley wants the
DoJ personalities to fall on their swords while Feinstein is besides herself, going crazy,
as the investigation into President Skunk implodes around the Steele Dossier. It's like an
exclusive 'serial-killers only' swingers' club where everybody is tired of the limited
opportunity at couplings, yet their sex addiction requires everyone screwing everyone out
of habit and everyone hates everyone's guts. At some point, the entire crew will resort to
some new mass murder, like allowing war in Korea, to get it all back on track"
(See second link, preceding.)
There is no crime called "collusion". So Trump cannot be "acquitted", let alone be
charged with something that is not a crime. Apparently the deep state and media's repetition
of "collusion" has duped not just the public, but this author with thinking it is some kind
of crime.
That's the purpose of endlessly repeating this vague term in pejorative rhetoric, without
ever referencing a criminal statute like the Foreign Agent Registration Act or whatever.
This gigantic diversionary twaddle has worked because the seditionists have still not been
stopped. I'm not real optimistic about it, but there are some positive developments. There is
a big disappointment in the offing with the Inspector General report coming out soon.
Horowitz is a deep state operative who has covered for the Clintons in the past. They have to
do something, so expect a limited hangout or partial whitewash. That way the drug and weapons
ratlines can continue to fund our unconscionable acts across the globe.
Trump needs the swamp to produce politicized intel for his campaigns against Iran and
Venezuela (plus a dozen other countries which don't threaten the US). He needs the hated MSM
(not much more than the swamp's media branch) to sell the Iran war to his voters, who are
supposed to pay for it. He needs his shady relatives to stay OUT of prison, where several of
them seem to belong (of course, papa Kushner has already spent time inside). So appeasement
it is.
Sorry, but on the whole Trump voters are too dumb to pose much of an obstacle. They
like the campaigns against Iran because of religion, and against Venezuela because of
"socialism". They didn't raise a peep when it became clear that THEIR money would all go to
the Armies of Mordor. That this is "Saddam-WMD-9/11″ all over again just hasn't
registered with them, and never will. Just like Trump winning his primary running against
outside money, and immediately afterwards selling out for Adelson's shekels–it exceeds
the deplorables' attention span, so it never happened. Keep harping on immigrants and it's
all good; razzle-dazzle them, as it was called in the Chicago movie.
So on the whole, yes, already since his inauguration it has been clear that The Donald
is mostly playing along, as long as he'll be allowed to stay president . The question
remains if (just like Putin in Syria) he isn't trying to appease something which won't be
appeased–maybe Trump thinks he has a deal, but his enemies, while technically backing
off from the collusion claim, will still squeeze his relatives so hard on their finances and
other shenanigans that something breaks. I say: would serve Trump right for sleeping with the
dogs.
Intriguing if these 13 Russians turned up at US District Court for a chat with a Federal
Prosecutor with the International press in tow. It would be lovely to have Vlad present his
people for investigation and trial. Mueller set these 13 up, again, 'knowing' he would never
have to prove a damned thing and so, there are many embellishments. Mueller 'knows' he'll
never try them, but he also 'knew', as they ALL did, that Hillary was getting in and so these
crimes would never come to light.
Love to have Putin blow up yet another thing these folks thought they 'knew'. I'd
contribute to the GoFundMe for the best lawyers there are..
So Trump is not opposed to demonizing Russia, he's just opposed to demonizing Donald
John Trump. That's where he draws the line.
Bingo. Well guys, if there's anyone here who still abides by the '5-D chess' theory, I
think it's time to face facts: Trump has thrown us all under the bust to save himself. Expect
a war in Syria, or Ukraine, or maybe both.
It's all up to Nunes now. Let's hope he doesn't sell us out, too:
The indictments have no legal merit, they are a form of domestic propaganda and
disinformation. The real target is the American people.
That's pretty much what this banana republic's government is all about. One way or
another, everything they do is designed to ultimately squeeze something out of us dumb
'Merkin proles and peasants , especially us stupid goyim.
The rest is mere detail. Understanding that saves a lot of time and energy.
"The test for Trump will be whether he can take a wrecking ball to the FBI and
Department of State "
He could have done that a year ago. Trump has left more people loyal to Obama in their
jobs than would have thought possible. His advisors are all seemingly pushing their own
agendas and haven't clued him in on the fact that he has Obama's bureaucracy snapping at his
ankles and he needs to go on a firing rampage.
I doubt that he even knows who he can fire outright and who would have to be moved into
another department.
According to the author, this troll farm had 90 employees assigned to the American market
who designed clickbait ads using titles that would attract doofuses wanting to read articles
on their favorite subjects related to the election.
If you surf the net without a good adblocker, you'll see all these clickbait ads with
titles like "Defeat Trump with one weird trick", or "What Trump said to Hillary off stage
will astonish you" in an attempt to get the reader to go to their site and buy something.
That's what these trolls were doing, and it had nothing to do with influencing voters.
Bingo. Well guys, if there's anyone here who still abides by the '5-D chess' theory, I
think it's time to face facts: Trump has thrown us all under the bust to save himself.
Expect a war in Syria, or Ukraine, or maybe both.
It does really look like this is true. I was expecting more of a profile in courage
under the tutelage of someone smarter than Trump; instead we are seeing another profile in
venality and stupidity.
there have been thousands of such people in Balkans, Macedonia, Bulgaria, Romania, Greece,
who set up web pages and made money on advertising, who used the presidential election, as
honey pot. Mueller is such an idiot, that he does not know it. Sorry, he is so clever, to go
only after russian trace. you can start here:
send a couple of the indictees over to stand trial, and hire some lefty-lawyer like
Dershowitz to defend them
That was my initial reaction. But that assumes that a Washington court would not be a show
trial with emphasis on process minutia, e.g. 'identity theft' and some financial violations.
With media in overdrive proving their hyper-patriotism.
US has too many laws that are ambiguous beyond belief, almost anything can be declared
a 'crime'. Plus you have limited disclosure due to national security ('methods and sources
subterfuge always works). Volunteering for a political show trial doesn't work.
We just have to let it go, it is now a 'crime' for foreigners to criticise US politicians
without first registering with Washington. Quite a beacon of freedom for the world.
Indicting foreign election interference trolls sets a precedent for prosecuting domestic
election interference trolls. The domestic election interference trolls spent hundreds of
millions and left very prolific financial and digital footprints. Jim Messina shouldn't be
sleeping easy.
Trump's failure to fire people by the truckload during the first week of his presidency is
a topic worth exploring. Probably we won't know why he failed to do this until after his
presidency sometime, but it is a curious choice given how widespread and intense was the
hatred of him.
We can know why now. Trump was kneecapped from day one in the Oval Office and he's
surrounded by treasonous people who'll either keep him in line or step out of the way of
Trump's political enemies. Pence and his ideologically (theologically, actually) aligned
Christian Zionist generals have it under control:
Meanwhile Trump is the perfect idiot to take the heat and end up holding the bag. The
momentary big, inside fight, is fundamentalist Christian Pentagon vs neoliberal CIA for
upper hand at the White House with Bibi (via AIPAC) solidly on the side of Pence, probably
not if, but much more likely when, Trump is taken down.
That fool actually believed he would be allowed to become President. Well, he was wrong.
He got the title, he gets the heat, but he'll never be allowed to exercise the power.
Trump belongs to the Ruling Class. If he didn't, the rulers never would have selected him
as president. I thought the producers had brought in the Trump character to change the
direction of the play. But no, still the same old Empire first, the rich second, and
everything else later. How much did the Trump family save from the new tax law? That's
another story all together.
Back in the day, when knights were bold, prosecutors for real, laws were understood by
all , they laid their turds beside the road, and walked away contented!
Sheesh anyhow, This Comey, and his side kick Mueller are doing pretty good job of what
they are charged with, (to do that is charged with a task.) of charging Russians, those dirty
Boris's and Natashia's over there in the dark forrest somewhere.
A ticket a tasket, the case is in a basket, (basket case, of course) and Comey and Mueller
are excellent in their roles, playing to a tough crowd, masterful impressions of Lerch and
Herman Munster.
What is the real job? could it be to extend childhood and adelescence (strike that) wrong
thought . dupdada here it is: could it be that the real job is to extend the election process
FOOD FIGHT, indeterminately, thus displacing the expectations normally accruing to a change
of administrations. That is a serious sounding term for adults, not for the kids.
ADMINISTRATION suit wearing mthfrkrs all around, all dry fake talk masking every possible
meaning and to what end?
That boat left the pier now the population is only to be amused, more of the same Food
Fight please!
You have an evolution of pollution of the process of regress into the
abstraction/distraction. Mad Hatter's Tea Party, now the new norm, and it seems to work,
We've grown too cynical for the likes of Columbo, or Perry Mason, etc.
The investigation like the Sword of Damocles may indeed get Pres Trump to further compromise
his agenda as per the campaign. However, those who lost the election have no intention of of
giving an inch. if at all possible, they intend to get rid of Pres Trump because he waylaid
there plans. Unfortunately they are incorrect, it was Pres Trump, it was their agenda and and
a solid opposition to it that defeated them during the election.
Since the attempt to remove him includes the Russia investigation and it various tentacles
I intend to defend the current President as much possible.
Major Sjursen and Dr. Bacivich – ya ya ya I know . . . he's a this and a that . . .
) seem to have reached the same conclusion – once in it's "heck to fight" the
preordained agenda.
The RussiaGate affairs and collusion charge are the obvious "Banksters United" coup
run with a stunning degree of incompetence. Russia must be demonized because of her mineral
resources, which are still not available for free, and because of her "wrong" behavior in
Syria. Bansksters need this war. Arm producers and dealers need this war. Only the apparent
danger of suicide by nuclear answer stops the banksters and other war profiteers from an
immediate attack against Russian Federation.
The moneyed and powerful psychopaths-in-charge are enraged that the wealth of other
nations is still outside their reach becasue of Russian "stubborness." The US/UK banking
section is the main engine behind the supreme crimes of aggression in the Middle East and
Ukraine (the ongoing civil war there had been initiated on the CIA instructions in 2014; see
Brennan "secret" visit to Kiev on the eve of military actions against the civilian
populations of Eastern Ukraine:
https://themoscowtimes.com/news/russian-media-report-cia-director-held-secret-consultations-in-kiev-33897
).
The FBI and the CIA are the hired gangster organizations for the banksters. If the FBI
and the CIA cared about national security, the US would not suffer the infamy of Awan affair,
CrowdStrike "conclusions," and the US support for Daesh/ISIS/Al Qaida in the Middle East, as
well as the US support for neo-Nazis in Ukraine. The US taxpayers have been financing both
ISIS and neo-Nazis because banksters decided so.
Germany invested a lot in the US project for the Middle East (the strategy of the
destruction of societies and states, conceived by Admiral Arthur Cebrowski, but noticeably
less in the British-US project for the " Arab Springs ". Since the Cold War, it has housed
and supported several headquarters for the Muslim Brotherhood, including that of the Syrians
in Aix-la-Chapelle. Germany took a part in the assassination of ex-Prime Minister of Lebanon,
Rafic Hariri. In 2012, it co-wrote the Feltman plan for the total and unconditional
capitulation of Syria. At present, Volker Perthes, director of the Stiftung Wissenschaft und
Politik, the state think-tank, is advisor to Jeffrey Feltman at the UNO. [Jeffrey David
Feltman is the United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs. Feltman was born
to Jewish parents in the US he speaks Hebrew, English, Arabic, French, and Hungarian.]
For several years, the internal documents of the European External Action Service (EEAS)
are copied and pasted from Volker Perthes' notes for the German government. Volker Perthes
was at Munich with Jeffrey Feltman and their friends, Lakdhar Brahimi, Ramzi Ramzi, Steffan
de Mistura, Generals David Petraeus (the KKR was also represented by Christian Ollig) and
John Allen (Brookings Institution), as well as Nasser al-Hariri, the President of the High
Authority for Negotiations (pro-Saudi Syrian opposition), Raed al-Saleh, director of the
White Helmets (Al-Qaïda)and their Qatari sponsors, including Emir
Thamim."
There were also "three bosses – German BND (Bruno Kahl), British MI6 (Alex Younger)
and the French DGSE (Bernard Emié), who explained in a private room, in front of an
audience chosen for their naïveté, how nervous they were about the Turkish
operation in Syria. The three men pretended to believe that the combatants of the YPG
constitute the safest barrier against Daesh. Yet they were supposed to create the Frontier
Security Force with certain ex-members of Daesh . It's clear that the job of these three
super-spies is to know to whom they owe the truth, and to whom they can lie. Sustaining their
momentum, they hinted that the Syrian Arab Army uses chemical weapons – profiting from
the absence in the room of the US Secretary for Defence, Jim Mattis, who had testified a few
days earlier that proof of this claim is inexistent."
-- Lies, obfuscations, and crimes. The "three bosses" [of national security services] are
in service to Banksters, corporations, and arm dealers and producers. On the public dime, of
course And is not it touching that Jeffrey Feltman [a veritable Israel-firster] designs the
US military support for ISIS/Daesh in Syria?
The Government exists for the rich to control the slaves. The rich choose one of their own
to be President. The patriotic slaves, aka zombie morons left and right, vote for the slave
masters every four years. And argue over their merits. Oh, the Trump has a much nicer touch
with the lash than Obama.
The DNC data was leaked by an insider -- some say by the murdered Seth Rich. The Podesta
emails were hacked. And what that hack revealed was a network of wealthy pedophiles that
included both Podesta brothers, John and Tony, and other D.C. notables like Maeve Luzzatto
and James Alefantis. It's true that the PizzaGate conspiracy theory has been promoted by
Twitter nutcases, but that doesn't mean there isn't truth in it.
Obama CIA Director James Brennan's heavy involvement in the Russia/election conspiracy
theory might be a clue that the D.C. pedophile network might be a CIA blackmail operation,
much as Jeffrey Epstein's private Caribbean island was used as a Mossad honey trap.
"No greater friend of the Zionists than the fundamentalist Christians."
True. And thanks for using the term "Zionist" because not all Jews are Zionists and not
all Zionists are Jews. Most American Jews, while supportive of Israel, are not Zionists. Most
American Jews are a benefit to the communities they call home. Zionism is a globalist cult
that must be unmasked and destroyed.
"... Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, ..."
"... . To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators website at www.creators.com. ..."
Consider. To cut through the Russophobia rampant here, Trump decided to make
a direct phone call to Vladimir Putin. And in that call, Trump, like Angela Merkel,
congratulated Putin on his re-election victory.
Instantly, the briefing paper for the president's call was leaked to the Post . In
bold letters it read "DO NOT CONGRATULATE."
Whereupon the Beltway went ballistic.
How could Trump congratulate Putin, whose election was a sham? Why did he not charge Putin
with the Salisbury poisoning? Why did he not denounce Putin for interfering with "our
democracy"?
Amazing. A disloyal White House staffer betrays his trust and leaks a confidential paper to
sabotage the foreign policy of a duly elected president, and he is celebrated in this capital
city.
If you wish to see the deep state at work, this is it: anti-Trump journalists using First
Amendment immunities to collude with and cover up the identities of bureaucratic snakes out to
damage or destroy a president they despise. No wonder democracy is a declining stock
worldwide.
And, yes, they give out Pulitzers for criminal collusion like this.
The New York Times got a Pulitzer and the Post got a Hollywood movie
starring Meryl Streep for publishing stolen secret papers from the Pentagon of JFK and LBJ --
to sabotage the Vietnam War policy of Richard Nixon.
Why? Because the hated Nixon was succeeding in extricating us with honor from a war that the
presidents for whom the Times and Post hauled water could not win or end.
Not only have journalists given up any pretense of neutrality in this campaign to bring down
the president, ex-national security officers of the highest rank are starting to sound like
resisters.
Ex-CIA director John Brennan openly speculated Tuesday that the president may have been
compromised by Moscow and become an asset of the Kremlin.
"I think he's afraid of the president of Russia," Brennan said of Trump and Putin. "The
Russians, I think, have had long experience with Mr. Trump and may have things they could
expose."
If Brennan has evidence Trump is compromised, he should relay it to Robert Mueller. If he
does not, this is speculation of an especially ugly variety for someone once entrusted with
America's highest secrets.
What's going on in this city is an American version of the "color revolutions" we have
employed to knock over governments in places like Georgia and Ukraine.
The goal is to break Trump's presidency, remove him, discredit his election as contaminated
by Kremlin collusion, upend the democratic verdict of 2016, and ash-can Trump's agenda of
populist conservatism. Then America can return to the open borders, free trade,
democracy-crusading Bushite globalism beloved by our Beltway elites.
Trump, in a way, is the indispensable man of the populist right.
In the 2016 primaries, no other Republican candidate shared his determination to secure the
border, bring back manufacturing, or end the endless wars in the Middle East that have so bled
and bankrupted our nation.
Whether the Assads rule in Damascus, the Chinese fortify Scarborough Shoal, or the Taliban
return to Kabul, none are existential threats to the United States.
But if the borders of our country are not secured, as Reagan warned, in a generation,
America will not even be a country.
Trump seems now to recognize that the special counsel's office of Robert Mueller, which this
city sees as the instrument of its deliverance, is a mortal threat to his presidency.
Mueller's team wishes to do to Trump what Archibald Cox's team sought to do to Nixon: drive
him out of office or set him up for the kill by a Democratic Congress in 2019.
Trump appears to recognize that the struggle with Mueller is now a political struggle -- to
the death.
Hence Trump's hiring of Joe diGenova and the departure of John Dowd from his legal team. In
the elegant phrase of Michael Corleone, diGenova is a wartime consigliere.
He believes Trump is the target of a conspiracy, under which Jim Comey's FBI put in the fix
to prevent Hillary's prosecution and then fabricated a crime of collusion with Russia to take
down the new president the American people had elected.
The Trump White House is behaving as if it were the prospective target of a coup d'etat. And
it is not wrong for them to think so.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, Nixon's White House Wars: The
Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever . To find out more
about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the
Creators website at www.creators.com.
"... I think that in much of the world The World Cup is a bigger deal than the Olympics. I knew some athletes here in Canada who had their athletic careers ended by our boycott of the 1980 Olympics (after years and years of hard work). I'm surprised western intelligence agencies have not done more to undermine Russia's world cup. They may yet. ..."
"... Outside of North America the World Cup is definitely a much bigger event than the Olympics. ..."
"... I just thought we would see the same nonsense we saw to undermine the Sochi Olympics, this just seems much more than just derogatory media coverage, or officials boycotting attending the event. I was interested to see Professor Richard Sakwa, his book on the Ukraine crisis is probably the best out there, interviewed on RT regarding this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcKQ-4Qqel0 ..."
I think that in much of the world The World Cup is a bigger deal than the Olympics. I
knew some athletes here in Canada who had their athletic careers ended by our boycott of the
1980 Olympics (after years and years of hard work). I'm surprised western intelligence
agencies have not done more to undermine Russia's world cup. They may yet.
Outside of North America the World Cup is definitely a much bigger event than the
Olympics. I already have my tickets for England v Panama in Nizhny Novgorod, as well as
a second round match in Moscow.
I don't care much for the Olympics, although I do like the Winter Olympics. I just
thought we would see the same nonsense we saw to undermine the Sochi Olympics, this just
seems much more than just derogatory media coverage, or officials boycotting attending the
event. I was interested to see Professor Richard Sakwa, his book on the Ukraine crisis is
probably the best out there, interviewed on RT regarding this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcKQ-4Qqel0
In order for him [Sanders] to do anything, he would have to have a substantial,
functioning party apparatus, which would have to grow from the grass roots. It would have
to be locally organized, it would have to operate at local levels, state levels, Congress,
the bureaucracy -- you have to build the whole system from the bottom.
Hours after the
resignation of John Dowd , President Trump's lead attorney handling the special counsel
investigation, Trump said he "would like to" testify in Robert Mueller's ongoing probe - a move
panned by some, including Fox's Judge Napolitano, as a
bad move .
The President's 180 comes after the White House legal team had reportedly been considering
ways that President Trump might be able to testify - including giving written answers - with
Trump's attorneys reportedly having been split on the terms of such a deal, reported the
Wall Street Journal earlier this
month.
But that's not Trump's style... After bringing on former federal prosecutor Joe diGenova on
Monday - a former Special Counsel himself who went after both the Teamsters and former NY
Governor Elliot Spitzer, Trump is reportedly taking the gloves off according to Vanity
Fair 's Gabriel Sherman.
Earlier this month, Mueller crossed one of Trump's stated "red lines" when he subpoenaed
Trump Organization business records. According to four Republicans in regular contact with
the White House, the move spurred Trump to lose patience with his team of feuding lawyers.
"Trump hit the roof," one source said. Today, Trump's personal lawyer John Dowd resigned
under pressure from Trump.
diGenova - who
said in January that the Obama administration engaged in a " brazen plot to exonerate
Hillary Clinton " and " frame an incoming president with a false Russian conspiracy, " is
married to Victoria Toensing - who, as we've mentioned, is a former Reagan Justice Department
official and former chief counsel of the Senate Intelligence Committee.
"She's a killer," one Republican who knows the couple told Sherman.
Toensing also happens to represent FBI whistleblower
William D. Campbell - who claims to have gathered evidence of a Russian "uranium dominance
strategy" which included millions of dollars routed to a Clinton charity. Campbell testified
before three Congressional committees in February.
The Campbell connection makes it all the more interesting since Trump is reportedly
considering adding Toensing to his legal team. In other words, Trump would be teaming up with
two veteran bulldog D.C. attorneys - one of whom ostensibly has evidence in the Uranium One
scandal. As Sherman points out in Vanity Fair , " The hiring of Toensing would be a sign that
Trump wants to flip the script and investigate his investigators . Appearing on Fox News,
Toensing has called for a second special prosecutor to investigate Mueller, the logic being
that he was F.B.I. director at the time that the Uranium One acquisition was approved. "
Following Mueller's subpoena of the Trump organization, Trump has been fuming. Last weekend,
Trump encouraged John Dowd to call for an end to the Russia probe, according to Sherman. "On
Sunday, Trump blasted Mueller as partisan, tweeting: " Why does the Mueller team have 13
hardened Democrats, some big Crooked Hillary supporters, and Zero Republicans ?""
And with the hire of Joe diGenova - it's obvious that Trump is bringing out the big guns for
a direct confrontation with Mueller , after souring on his legal team's more diplomatic
strategy:
Trump's new offensive is a sign that he's unilaterally abandoning the go-along, get-along
strategy advocated by Dowd and Ty Cobb , the White House lawyer overseeing the response to
Mueller. Cobb's standing with Trump has been falling for months, after Cobb made the
now-infamous prediction that the Russia probe would be over by Thanksgiving 2017. Dowd
assured Trump that he had a "great relationship with Mueller" and could manage him ,
according to sources. That obviously hasn't happened. " Trump just wants something to change
and nothing was changing, " the outside adviser said. The genial and mustachioed Cobb has
always been somewhat of an odd fit for Trump, whose mental picture of a lawyer is Roy Cohn,
his early mentor. Sources said Trump reluctantly conceded to allow Cobb to play good cop .
"Trump is looking at this saying, I did it your way for months, now I'm fucking doing it my
way ," a former West Wing official said. (The White House did not respond to a request for
comment.) - Vanity Fair
diGenova was reportedly recommended to Trump by Dave Bossie and Jeanine Piro - both of whom
are outside advisors to Trump. That said, Fox News Senior Judicial Analyst Judge Napolitano
thinks Dowd's resignation and the decision to put Trump in front of Mueller's team would be a
"disaster" for the President.
Another chickenhawk in Trump administration. Sad...
Notable quotes:
"... Bolton's high-profile advocacy of war with Iran is well known. What is not at all well known is that, when he was under secretary of state for arms control and international security, he executed a complex and devious strategy aimed at creating the justification for a U.S. attack on Iran. Bolton sought to convict the Islamic Republic in the court of international public opinion of having a covert nuclear weapons program using a combination of diplomatic pressure, crude propaganda, and fabricated evidence. ..."
"... Despite the fact that Bolton was technically under the supervision of Secretary of State Colin Powell, his actual boss in devising and carrying out that strategy was Vice President Dick Cheney. Bolton was also the administration's main point of contact with the Israeli government, and with Cheney's backing, he was able to flout normal State Department rules by taking a series of trips to Israel in 2003 and 2004 without having the required clearance from the State Department's Bureau for Near Eastern Affairs. ..."
"... During multiple trips to Israel, Bolton had unannounced meetings, including with the head of Mossad, Meir Dagan, without the usual reporting cable to the secretary of state and other relevant offices. Judging from that report on an early Bolton visit, those meetings clearly dealt with a joint strategy on how to bring about political conditions for an eventual U.S. strike against Iran. ..."
"... Unfortunately, John Bolton is not just your typical neocon pathological liar and warmonger. Even by their abysmal standards he's pretty unhinged. He is one of the most dangerous people around these days. ..."
"... Bolton, Gen. Jack Keane, Lt. Col. Ralph Peters and the whole warmongering crowd that frequent the air waves at FOX will not rest until they have us at war with Iran and Russia. ..."
"... So Trump is thinking of hiring a loudmouthed incompetent who is a known conduit for botched Israeli spy service forgeries used to gin up war with Iran. What a sick farce. ..."
"... Bolton is a cancer for the US. As a warmonger, he thrives in hostile environnements so no wonder Bolton wants to create them with no regards for consequences. ..."
"... I doubt anyone will be surprised to learn that Bolton was duped by Israeli forgers (very droll story, by the way). You'd think that no serious person would consider giving him a National Security Council post, particularly given the current level of concern about "foreign meddling". ..."
"... I do not agree that Iran could prevent a conventional bombing/invasion of their country. But they could make it sooo expensive, the dollar ceases to be the world reserve currency, and if they do that, they will have done mankind a favor. ..."
"... But after the conquest, imagine the guerrilla war! The US basically had to fight an insurgency from amongst 5 million Sunni Arabs in Iraq. Iran is much more ethnically homogeneous. So even if you get some minorities to turncoat and work for the occupiers, you are still left with about 60 million ethnically Persian Shiites. That is a 12 times larger insurgency than what you had in Iraq. ..."
"... Bolton and Cheney must have been livid about Stuxnet, for all the wrong reasons ..."
"... Hiring a ghoul like Bolton will mark a new low even for the Trump administration. And that's saying something. These chickenhawk bastards should all be required to fight on the front lines of the wars they push. That was true, I'll guarantee you Bolton would shut up in a hurry. ..."
"... Gareth Porter is an investigative reporter and regular contributor to ..."
John Bolton (Gage Skidmore/Flikr)
In my reporting on U.S.-Israeli policy, I have tracked numerous episodes in which the
United States and/or Israel made moves that seemed to indicate preparations for war against Iran. Each time -- in
2007
,
in
2008,
and again in 2011
-- those moves, presented in corporate media as presaging
attacks on Tehran, were actually bluffs aimed at putting pressure on the Iranian government.
But the strong likelihood that Donald Trump will now choose John Bolton as his next
national security advisor creates a prospect of war with Iran that is very real. Bolton is no ordinary neoconservative
hawk. He has been obsessed for many years with going to war against the Islamic Republic, calling repeatedly for bombing
Iran in his regular appearances on Fox News, without the slightest indication that he understands the consequences of
such a policy.
His is not merely a rhetorical stance: Bolton actively conspired during his tenure as
the Bush administration's policymaker on Iran from 2002 through 2004 to establish the political conditions necessary for
the administration to carry out military action.
More than anyone else inside or outside the Trump administration, Bolton has already
influenced Trump to tear up the Iran nuclear deal. Bolton parlayed his connection with the primary financier behind both
Benjamin Netanyahu and Donald Trump himself -- the militantly Zionist casino magnate Sheldon Adelson -- to get Trump's ear
last October, just as the president was preparing to announce his policy on the Iran nuclear agreement, the Joint
Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). He spoke with Trump by phone from Las Vegas after
meeting
with Adelson
.
It was Bolton who
persuaded
Trump
to commit to specific language pledging to pull out of the JCPOA if
Congress and America's European allies did not go along with demands for major changes that were clearly calculated to
ensure the deal would fall apart.
Although Bolton was passed over for the job of secretary of state, he now appears to
have had the inside track for national security advisor.
Trump
met with Bolton on March 6
and told him, "We need you here, John," according
to a Bolton associate. Bolton said he would only take secretary of state or national security advisor, whereupon Trump
promised, "I'll call you really soon." Trump then replaced Secretary of State Rex Tillerson with former CIA director
Mike Pompeo, after which White House sources
leaked
to the media
Trump's intention to replace H.R. McMaster within a matter of
weeks.
The only other possible candidate for the position
mentioned
in media accounts
is Keith Kellogg, a retired lieutenant general who was
acting national security advisor after General Michael Flynn was ousted in February 2017.
Bolton's high-profile advocacy of war with Iran is well known. What is not at all well
known is that, when he was under secretary of state for arms control and international security, he executed a complex
and devious strategy aimed at creating the justification for a U.S. attack on Iran. Bolton sought to convict the Islamic
Republic in the court of international public opinion of having a covert nuclear weapons program using a combination of
diplomatic pressure, crude propaganda, and fabricated evidence.
Despite the fact that Bolton was technically under the supervision of Secretary of
State Colin Powell, his actual boss in devising and carrying out that strategy was Vice President Dick Cheney. Bolton
was also the administration's main point of contact with the Israeli government, and with Cheney's backing, he was able
to
flout
normal State Department rules
by taking a series of trips to Israel in 2003
and 2004 without having the required clearance from the State Department's Bureau for Near Eastern Affairs.
Thus, at the very moment that Powell was saying administration policy was not to
attack Iran, Bolton was working with the Israelis to lay the groundwork for just such a war. During a February 2003
visit, Bolton
assured Israeli
officials in private meetings
that he had no doubt the United States would
attack Iraq, and that after taking down Saddam, it would deal with Iran, too, as well as Syria.
During multiple trips to Israel, Bolton had
unannounced
meetings, including with the head of Mossad,
Meir Dagan, without the usual
reporting cable to the secretary of state and other relevant offices. Judging from that report on an early Bolton visit,
those meetings clearly dealt with a joint strategy on how to bring about political conditions for an eventual U.S.
strike against Iran.
Mossad played a very aggressive role in influencing world opinion on the Iranian
nuclear program. In the summer of 2003, according to journalists Douglas Frantz and Catherine Collins in their book
The
Nuclear Jihadist
, Meir Dagan created a new Mossad office tasked with
briefing the world's press on alleged Iranian efforts to achieve a nuclear weapons capability. The new unit's
responsibilities included circulating documents from inside Iran as well from outside, according to Frantz and Collins.
Bolton's role in a joint U.S.-Israeli strategy, as he
outlines
in his own 2007 memoir
, was to ensure that the Iran nuclear issue would be
moved out of the International Atomic Energy Agency and into the United Nations Security Council.
He
was determined to prevent IAEA director general Mohamed ElBaradei from reaching an agreement with Iran that would make
it more difficult for the Bush administration to demonize Tehran as posing a nuclear weapons threat.
Bolton began accusing Iran of having a covert nuclear weapons program in mid-2003, but
encountered resistance not only from ElBaradei and non-aligned states, but from Britain, France, and Germany as well.
Bolton's strategy was based on the claim that Iran was hiding its military nuclear
program from the IAEA, and in early 2004, he came up with a dramatic propaganda ploy: he sent a set of satellite images
to the IAEA showing sites at the Iranian military reservation at Parchin that he claimed were being used for tests to
simulate nuclear weapons. Bolton demanded that the IAEA request access to inspect those sites and leaked his demand to
the Associated Press in September 2004. In fact, the satellite images showed nothing more than bunkers and buildings for
conventional explosives testing.
Bolton was apparently hoping the Iranian military would not agree to any IAEA
inspections based on such bogus claims, thus playing into his propaganda theme of Iran's "intransigence" in refusing to
answer questions about its nuclear program. But in 2005 Iran allowed the inspectors into those sites and even let them
choose several more sites to inspect. The inspectors found no evidence of any nuclear-related activities.
The U.S.-Israeli strategy would later hit the jackpot, however, when a large cache of
documents supposedly from a covert source within Iran's nuclear weapons program surfaced in autumn 2004. The documents,
allegedly found on the laptop computer of one of the participants, included technical drawings of a series of efforts to
redesign Iran's Shahab-3 missile to carry what appeared to be a nuclear weapon.
But the whole story of the so-called "laptop documents" was a fabrication. In 2013, a
former senior German official
revealed
the true story
to this writer: the documents had been given to German
intelligence by the Mujahedin E Khalq, the anti-Iran armed group that was well known to have been used by Mossad to
"launder" information the Israelis did not want attributed to themselves. Furthermore, the drawings showing the redesign
that were cited as proof of a nuclear weapons program were clearly done by someone who didn't know that Iran
had
already abandoned the Shahab-3's nose cone
for an entirely different design.
Mossad had clearly been working on those documents in 2003 and 2004 when Bolton was
meeting with Meir Dagan. Whether Bolton knew the Israelis were preparing fake documents or not, it was the Israeli
contribution towards establishing the political basis for an American attack on Iran for which he was the point man.
Bolton reveals in his memoirs that this Cheney-directed strategy took its cues from the Israelis, who told Bolton that
the Iranians were getting close to "the point of no return." That was point, Bolton wrote, at which "we could not stop
their progress without using force."
Cheney and Bolton based their war strategy on the premise that the U.S. military would
be able to consolidate control over Iraq quickly. Instead the U.S. occupation bogged down and never fully recovered.
Cheney proposed taking advantage of a high-casualty event in Iraq that could be blamed on Iran to
attack
an IRGC base in Iran in the summer of 2007.
But the risk that pro-Iranian
Shiite militias in Iraq would retaliate against U.S. troops was a key argument against the proposal.
The Pentagon and the Joint Chiefs of Staff were also well aware that Iran had the
capability to retaliate directly against U.S. forces in the region, including against warships in the Strait of Hormuz.
They had no patience for Cheney's wild ideas about more war.
That Pentagon caution remains unchanged. But two minds in the White House unhinged
from reality could challenge that wariness -- and push the United States closer towards a dangerous war with Iran.
I believe "War With Iran" is on the agenda.
I wrote the article below some time ago.
"Will There Be War With Iran"?
Is it now Iran's turn to be subjected to the planned and hellish wars that have already engulfed Iraq, Libya,
Syria, Yemen and Afghanistan and other countries? Will, the gates of hell be further opened to include an attack
on Iran?
Unfortunately, John Bolton is not just your typical neocon pathological liar and warmonger. Even by their abysmal
standards he's pretty unhinged. He is one of the most dangerous people around these days.
The re-emergence of Bolton is the result of Trump's electoral victory, a phenomenon that resembles the upheavals
that followed when an unhinged hereditary ruler would take the reins of power in bygone empires.
There's a big difference between the wars with Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, and Somalia, and a war with Iran. The
difference is, this is a war the United States could lose. And lose very, very badly. As Pompeo remarked, it would
take "only" 2000 airstrikes to eliminate the Iranian nuclear facilities. But what will it take to land 20,000
marines on the northern coast of the Persian Gulf to secure the straits, and there fend off 1.7 million Iranian
regulars and militia on the ground? How will the navy cope with hundreds and hundreds of supersonic cruise
missiles fired in volleys? What about the S-300 missiles that are by now fully operational in Iran?
A look at
the map shows that this is a war that the US simply cannot win.
Unless it uses nuclear weapons and simply sets out to kill every last man, woman, and child in Iran, all 80
million of them.
Which I suppose is not out of the question. As all options are sure to be on the table.
"Everyone worshipped the dragon because he had given his authority to the beast. They worshipped the beast also,
saying, 'Who is like the beast? Who can fight against it?'" Revelation 13:4
Who can fight against the U.S/NATO?
Bolton, Gen. Jack Keane, Lt. Col. Ralph Peters and the whole warmongering crowd that frequent the air waves at
FOX will not rest until they have us at war with Iran and Russia.
So Trump is thinking of hiring a loudmouthed incompetent who is a known conduit for botched Israeli spy service
forgeries used to gin up war with Iran. What a sick farce.
Bolton is a cancer for the US. As a warmonger, he thrives in hostile environnements so no wonder Bolton wants to
create them with no regards for consequences.
Well, we need the John Bolton's of this world for times in which a uncompromising use of force is required.
But I don't need background to know that advocating for wars that serve little in the way of US interests
because we simply are not in any "clear and present danger".
Odd that so many "old schoolers" have abandoned some general cliche's that serve as sound guide.
Just when you think you've heard the last of the various catastrophes, blunders, and odd capering about involving
Bolton, you hear that voice from the old late night gadget commercials barking "wait,
there's more
!!"
I
doubt anyone will be surprised to learn that Bolton was duped by Israeli forgers (very droll story, by the way). You'd think that no serious person would consider giving him a National Security Council post, particularly
given the current level of concern about "foreign meddling".
"The Boltons, Frums, and Boots of the world never have to fight the wars they start."
Hey now, Bolton's service
in the Maryland National Guard made sure the North Vietnamese never landed in Baltimore. Can you imagine the
horror if the Russians had captured our supply of soft shell crab?
John Bolton a 75 year old loser, a has Never-been, which is the mouth piece of the Zionists who keep him on the
pay roll. He likes to hear his own voice and to feel important because he wants war with Iran or all the Middle
East. He's actions and speeches are all emotional and lack logic and reasoning.
So, what is he good for?!
Re: "Well, we need the John Bolton's of this world for times in which a uncompromising use of force is required."
Not sure about that. We definitely need Roosevelts and Lincolns, Grants and Shermans and Eisenhowers and Pattons.
I'm not clear on what function the likes of Bolton serve.
I do not agree that Iran could prevent a conventional bombing/invasion of their country. But they could make it
sooo expensive, the dollar ceases to be the world reserve currency, and if they do that, they will have done
mankind a favor.
But after the conquest, imagine the guerrilla war! The US basically had to fight an insurgency
from amongst 5 million Sunni Arabs in Iraq. Iran is much more ethnically homogeneous. So even if you get some
minorities to turncoat and work for the occupiers, you are still left with about 60 million ethnically Persian
Shiites. That is a 12 times larger insurgency than what you had in Iraq.
And if the Iranians had any sense RIGHT NOW, they would make sure every family had a stock of 10 powerful
anti-vehicle mines, REALLY powerful mines. Make sure all are safely buried with locations memorized. And make sure
everyone had the training to use them, even older children (who will be the front-line guerrillas in 5 years).
So if that devil Bolton gets his way, his own country will pay a price too, and deservedly too. I want my
country to be peaceful and friendly to the world like the Germans are now. But it may take the same type of "WWII
treatment" to get my hateful war-loving countrymen to walk away from their sin.
The guerrilla war in Iraq was fought against only 5 million Sunni Arabs, the US occupiers having successfully
pealed away the Kurds and Shia to be collaborators, or at least stay uninvolved with the insurgency.
But Iran is
not just bigger than Iraq, but much more ethnically and religiously homogeneous. Imagine what kind of insurgency
you might get from 60 million ethnically Persian Shiites?
My advice to the Iranians RIGHT NOW is to mass-produce the most lethal anti-vehicle mines possible and
distribute them to the entire civilian population. Train everyone how to use them, then once trained, bury maybe
20 mines per family, all in known but hidden locations.
THAT will stop the Bolton/Zionist plan dead in its tracks.
Maybe it was a career-enhancing move. It is a legitimate question, along
with "follow the money"? Regardless of why sociopaths like Keith Payne or John Bolton become obsessed with
"winning nuclear war" or "bombing Iran" . How do they make a living? Who would bankroll somebody – over many decades – to not just consider or plan, but actively provoke illegal
acts of aggressive war, against declared policy of the government and the demands of the Constitution they have
sworn an oath to uphold?
It is also educational to see that the fabrications and other "war-program related activities" in regards to
Iran resemble the same stovepipelines that provide the Iraq 2003 pretexts – with Powell reprising his role as
useful idiot – which clashes badly with the "blunder" narrative that anybody in the US government actually
believed Iraq had WMD – was beyond "the point of no return".
This also bodes ill for a Bolton-formulated policy on Korea, and any "National Security Advice" he would see
fit to fabricate and feed to the Bomber In Chief.
Furthermore, we learn just how unhinged Cheney et.al. really were – expecting Iraq to be a mere stepping stone
along their adventures on the "Axis of Evil" trail. If these are our gamblers, nobody would suspect them of
counting cards.
We must look into our very national soul and ask why are we entertaining a war with Iran? The answer is clear. It
is to further the goals of a fanatical, right-wing, group of Zionists. When a truthful history is written about
this era of endless wars, the errant and disgraceful behavior of this group will be clearly identified and they
will not have anywhere to hide. You may fool some of the folks, some of the time, but not all the folks, all of
the time.
Hiring a ghoul like Bolton will mark a new low even for the Trump administration. And that's saying something.
These chickenhawk bastards should all be required to fight on the front lines of the wars they push. That was
true, I'll guarantee you Bolton would shut up in a hurry.
Israel and the Zionists are exactly the "foreign entanglements" that George Washington warned us about. Bolton is
a neocon-Zionist who wants the United States blood and taxes to ensure Israel's dominance of the Middle East.
So Gareth Porter cites his own Truthout article as authority for the assertion that the "laptop documents" are
fabrications. Most of the cited article seems to be devoted to "Curveball", the impeached source of Iraqi
intelligence, in order to prop up the bona fides of the German who claims the Iranian intelligence is a forgery.
Any other sourcing for this allegation available?
Judging from a quick look at what else Truthout has on offer,
I'm not sure about the credibility of Mr. Porter.
Thank you Mr. Porter for your insightful and intelligent articles, being that I am from Iran Originally brings
tears to my eyes to even imagine such tragedy, I pray this will never happen. Having lived in America more than
half of my life and having children that are Americans makes these thoughts even more horrifying . I am however
thankful to read all the comments from so many intelligent , decent and true Americans and that gives me hope that
such disaster will not take place. The people of Iran are decent and kind and cultured , I am hopeful that they
will find their way and bring about a true democracy soon and again become a positive force to the humanity.
MUNICH -- Just hours after the Justice Department indicted 13 Russians in what it charged
was a broad conspiracy to alter the 2016 election, President Trump's national security adviser,
Lt. Gen. H. R. McMaster, accused Moscow of engaging in a campaign of "disinformation,
subversion and espionage" that he said Washington would continue to expose.
The evidence of a Russian effort to interfere in the election "is now incontrovertible,"
General McMaster said at the Munich Security Conference, an annual meeting of European and
American diplomats and security experts, including several senior Russian officials. On Friday,
just hours before the indictment, the top White House official for cyberissues accused Russia
of "the most destructive cyberattack in human history," against Ukraine last summer.
Taken together, the statements appeared to mark a major turn in the administration's
willingness to directly confront the government of President Vladimir V. Putin. Defense
Secretary Jim Mattis and C.I.A. Director Mike Pompeo also attended the Munich conference, and
while they did not speak publicly, in private meetings with others here they reiterated similar
statements.
The comments highlighted a sharp division inside the administration about how to talk about
the Russian covert efforts, with only Mr. Trump and a few of his close advisers holding back
from acknowledging the Russian role or talking about a larger strategy to deter future
attacks.
The indictment characterized the cyberattacks and social media fraud as part of a larger
effort by Russia to undermine the United States. A senior administration official called the
effort to confront Russia "a significant point of contention" within the administration.
After the indictment on Friday Mr. Trump declared in a Twitter post that "the results of the
election were not impacted. The Trump campaign did nothing wrong -- no collusion!" He made no
mention of Russia as a "revisionist power," the description used in his own National Security
Strategy, or of the elaborate $1.2 million-a-month effort that the indictment indicated
Russia's Internet Research Agency spent in an effort to discredit the election system and
ultimately to support his candidacy.
Vice President Mike Pence, speaking this past week in Washington, misstated American
intelligence conclusions about the election hacking, arguing "it is the universal conclusion of
our intelligence communities that none of those efforts had any effect on the outcome of the
2016 election." The intelligence chiefs have said they have not, and cannot, reach such a
conclusion.
Sergey V. Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, cited Mr. Pence's comments during the
session here Saturday to make the case that Russia did nothing wrong. "So until we see the
facts, everything else is just blabber," he said.
The man who served as the Russian ambassador to the United States during the period covered
by the indictments, Sergey I. Kislyak, picked up on a favorite theme of Mr. Trump's:
questioning the credibility of the F.B.I. and intelligence agency assessments.
"I have seen so many indictments and accusations against Russians," Mr. Kislyak said on
Saturday afternoon. "I am not sure I can trust American law enforcement to be the most truthful
source against Russians." He added, "The allegations being mounted against us are simply
fantasies."
Mr. Kislyak, who has been caught up in the investigation because of meetings with Trump
campaign officials during his time as ambassador, went on to cite a study, which he said he was
keeping in his briefcase, that proved the "main source of computer attacks in the world is not
Russia. It is the United States."
"... It is an open secret that the CIA has been leaking like the proverbial sieve over the last two years or so to its favorite stenographers at the New York Times ..."
"... Washington Post. ..."
"... Wall Street Journal ..."
"... On April 6, 2017 I attended a panel discussion on "Russia's interference in our democracy" at the Clinton/Podesta Center for American Progress Fund. In my subsequent write-up I noted that panelist Palmieri had inadvertently dropped tidbits of evidence that I suggested "could get some former officials in deep kimchi -- if a serious investigation of leaking, for example, were to be conducted." ..."
"... Palmieri was asked to comment on "what was actually going on in late summer/early fall [2016]." She answered: "It was a surreal experience so I did appreciate that for the press to absorb the idea that behind the stage that the Trump campaign was coordinating with Russia to defeat Hillary Clinton was too fantastic for people to, um, for the press to process, to absorb . ..."
"... But she lost. And a month ago, House Intelligence Committee Chair Devin Nunes (R-CA) threw down the gauntlet, indicating that there could be legal consequences, for example, for officials who misled the FISA court in order to enable surveillance on Trump and associates. ..."
"... John Brennan is widely reported to be Nunes's next target. Does one collect a full pension in jail? ..."
"... Unmasking: Senior national security officials are permitted to ask the National Security Agency to unmask the names of Americans in intercepted communications for national security reasons -- not for domestic political purposes. ..."
"... Brennan's words and attitude are a not-so-subtle reminder of the heavy influence and confidence of the deep state, including the media -- exercised to a fare-thee-well over the past two years. ..."
"... Meanwhile, the Washington Post ..."
"... The Post, incidentally, waited until paragraph 41 of 44 to inform readers that it was the FBI's own Office of Professional Responsibility and the Inspector General of the Department of Justice that found McCabe guilty, and that the charge was against McCabe, not the FBI. A quite different impression was conveyed by the large headline "Trump escalates attacks on FBI" as well as the first 40 paragraphs of Sunday's lead article. ..."
"... "Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you," Schumer told Maddow. "So even for a practical, supposedly hard-nosed businessman, he's being really dumb to do this." Did Maddow ask Schumer if he was saying President of the United States should be afraid of the intelligence community? No, she let Schumer's theorem stand. ..."
With former CIA Director John Brennan accusing President Donald Trump of "moral turpitude"
for his "scapegoating" of Andy McCabe, it remains to be seen whether a constitutional crisis
will be averted, writes Ray McGovern.
What prompted former CIA Director John Brennan on Saturday to accuse President Donald Trump
of "moral turpitude" and to predict, with an alliterative flourish, that Trump will end up "as
a disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history"? The answer shines through the next sentence
in Brennan's threatening tweet : "You
may scapegoat Andy McCabe [former FBI Deputy Director fired Friday night] but you will not
destroy America America will triumph over you."
It is easy to see why Brennan lost it. The Attorney General fired McCabe, denying him full
retirement benefits, because McCabe "had made an unauthorized disclosure to the news media and
lacked candor -- including under oath -- on multiple occasions." There but for the grace of God
go I, Brennan must have thought, whose stock in trade has been unauthorized disclosures.
In fact, Brennan can take but small, short-lived consolation in the fact that he succeeded
in leaving with a full government pension. His own unauthorized disclosures and leaks probably
dwarf in number, importance, and sensitivity those of McCabe. And many of those leaks appear to
have been based on sensitive intercepted conversations from which the names of American
citizens were unmasked for political purposes. Not to mention the leaks of faux intelligence
like that contained in the dubious "dossier" cobbled together for the Democrats by British
ex-spy Christopher Steele.
It is an open secret that the CIA has been leaking like the proverbial sieve over the
last two years or so to its favorite stenographers at the New York Times and
Washington Post. (At one point, the obvious whispering reached the point that the
Wall Street Journal saw fit to complain that it was being neglected.) The leaking can
be traced way back -- at least as far as the Clinton campaign's decision to blame the Russians
for the publication of very damning DNC emails by WikiLeaks just three days before the
Democratic National Convention.
This blame game turned out to be a hugely successful effort to divert attention from the
content of the emails, which showed in bas relief the dirty tricks the DNC
played on Bernie Sanders. The media readily fell in line, and all attention was deflected from
the substance of the DNC emails to the question as to why the Russians supposedly
"hacked into the DNC and gave the emails to WikiLeaks."
This media operation worked like a charm, but even Secretary Clinton's PR person, Jennifer
Palmieri, conceded later that at first it strained credulity that the Russians would be doing
what they were being accused of doing.
Magnificent Diversion
On April 6, 2017 I attended a panel discussion on "Russia's interference in our
democracy" at the Clinton/Podesta Center for American Progress Fund. In my subsequent write-up I noted that panelist
Palmieri had inadvertently dropped tidbits of evidence that I suggested "could get some former
officials in deep kimchi -- if a serious investigation of leaking, for example, were to be
conducted." (That time seems to be coming soon.)
Palmieri was asked to comment on "what was actually going on in late summer/early fall
[2016]." She answered: "It was a surreal experience so I did appreciate that for the press to
absorb the idea that behind the stage that the Trump campaign was coordinating with Russia to
defeat Hillary Clinton was too fantastic for people to, um, for the press to process, to absorb
.
"But then we go back to Brooklyn [Clinton headquarters] and heard from the -- mostly our
sources were other intelligence, with the press who work in the intelligence sphere, and that's
where we heard things and that's where we learned about the dossier and the other story lines
that were swirling about; and how to process And along the way the administration started
confirming various pieces of what they were concerned about what Russia was doing. So I do
think that the answer for the Democrats now in both the House and the Senate is to talk about
it more and make it more real."
So the leaking had an early start, and went on steroids during the months following the
Democratic Convention up to the election -- and beyond.
As a Reminder
None of the leaking, unmasking, surveillance, or other activities directed against the Trump
campaign can be properly understood, if one does not bear in mind that it was considered a sure
thing that Secretary Clinton would become President, at which point illegal and extralegal
activities undertaken to help her win would garner praise, not prison.
But she lost. And a month ago, House Intelligence Committee Chair Devin Nunes (R-CA)
threw down the gauntlet, indicating
that there could be legal consequences, for example, for officials who misled the FISA court in
order to enable surveillance on Trump and associates. His words are likely to have sent
chills down the spine of yet other miscreants. "If they need to be put on trial, we will put
them on trial," he said. "The reason Congress exists is to oversee these agencies that we
created."
John Brennan is widely reported to be Nunes's next target. Does one collect a full
pension in jail?
Unmasking: Senior national security officials are permitted to ask the National Security
Agency to unmask the names of Americans in intercepted communications for national security
reasons -- not for domestic political purposes. Congressional committees have questioned
why Obama's UN ambassador Samantha Power (as well as his national security adviser Susan Rice)
made so many unmasking requests. Power is reported to have requested the unmasking of more than
260 Americans, most of them in the final days of the administration, including the names of
Trump associates.
Deep State Intimidation
Back to John Brennan's bizarre tweet Saturday telling the President, "You may scapegoat Andy
McCabe but you will not destroy America America will triumph over you." Unmasking the word
"America," so to speak, one can readily discern the name "Brennan" underneath. Brennan's
words and attitude are a not-so-subtle reminder of the heavy influence and confidence of the
deep state, including the media -- exercised to a fare-thee-well over the past two
years.
Later on Saturday, Samantha Power, with similar equities at stake, put an exclamation point
behind what Brennan had tweeted earlier in the day. Power also saw fit to remind Trump where
the power lies, so to speak. She warned him publicly that it is "not a good idea to piss off
John Brennan."
Meanwhile, the Washington Post is dutifully playing its part in the deep-state
game of intimidation. The following excerpt from Sunday's lead article conveys the intended
message: "Some Trump allies say they worry he is playing with fire by taunting the FBI. 'This
is open, all-out war. And guess what? The FBI's going to win,' said one ally, who spoke on the
condition of anonymity to be candid. 'You can't fight the FBI. They're going to torch him.'"
[sic]
The Post, incidentally, waited until paragraph 41 of 44 to inform readers that it was
the FBI's own Office of Professional Responsibility and the Inspector General of the Department
of Justice that found McCabe guilty, and that the charge was against McCabe, not the FBI. A
quite different impression was conveyed by the
large headline "Trump escalates attacks on FBI" as well as the first 40 paragraphs of Sunday's
lead article.
Putting Down a Marker
It isn't as though Donald Trump wasn't warned, as are all incoming presidents, of the power
of the Deep State that he needs to play ball with -- or else. Recall that just three days
before President-elect Trump was visited by National Intelligence Director James Clapper, FBI
Director James Comey, CIA Director John Brennan, and NSA Director Michael Rogers, Trump was put
on notice by none other than the Minority Leader of the Senate, Chuck Schumer. Schumer has been
around and knows the ropes; he is a veteran of 18 years in the House, and is in his 20th year
in the Senate.
On Jan. 3, 2017 Schumer said it all, when he told MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, that
President-elect Trump is "being really dumb" by taking on the intelligence community and its
assessments on Russia's cyber activities:
"Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday
at getting back at you," Schumer told Maddow. "So even for a practical, supposedly hard-nosed
businessman, he's being really dumb to do this." Did Maddow ask Schumer if he was saying
President of the United States should be afraid of the intelligence community? No, she let
Schumer's theorem stand.
With gauntlets now thrown down by both sides, we may not have to wait very long to see if
Schumer is correct in his blithe prediction as to how the present constitutional crisis will be
resolved.
Ray McGovern works for Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the
Saviour in inner-city Washington. He served as a CIA analyst under seven Presidents and nine
CIA directors and is now on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
(VIPS).
"... An antidote to all my Dem liberal Clinton-supporting "friends" on FB who insanely slaver for Russiagate nonsense because they hate Trump. Nevermind that his impeachment would get us Pence. They pat themselves on the back for being good, liberal Trump-hating, Russia-gate believers. ..."
"... Nary a word from them while Obama cowardly ducked prosecuting torturers or banksters -- or started new illegal wars and drone-murdered so many innocent people. Much less the bogus ACA handout to Big Insurance. So much for American Values. ..."
"... They all believe in all this nonsense about Russia-Gate which is being fed nonstop on major networks; and also this latest incident in U.K. I was the only one who was questioning it and it can become unpleasant. ..."
"... It is sad to see all this happening. It is very dangerous. Newspapers, L.A. Times here, keep the public completely in the dark about the consequences that it may accidentally or knowingly lead to nuclear war with Russia. ..."
Thanks for that link, Joe. The article's authors, Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers, are
long-time political activists, codirectors of PopularResistance.org. https://popularresistance.org/ That organization seems
to be taking a very determined approach to social change, supplying not only articles tightly
focused on issues but also organizing resources for activists.
I've been watching the group closely because I'm seeing signs that its anti-war work just
may become the tip of the spear of a revitalized anti-war movement. (It's been a very long
time since the anti-war movement in the U.S. had effective leadership.)
Kevin knows how to play the long game. He was for at least two decades director of NORML
and can now watch his earlier work come to fruition as state after state legalizes
marijuana.
Typingperson , March 20, 2018 at 12:36 am
Thanks, Paul, for flagging that Kevin Zeese is the former head of NORML. I remember him
well from this role -- and how effective he was.
I will check out PopularResistance.org.
An antidote to all my Dem liberal Clinton-supporting "friends" on FB who insanely
slaver for Russiagate nonsense because they hate Trump. Nevermind that his impeachment would
get us Pence. They pat themselves on the back for being good, liberal Trump-hating,
Russia-gate believers.
Nary a word from them while Obama cowardly ducked prosecuting torturers or banksters
-- or started new illegal wars and drone-murdered so many innocent people. Much less the
bogus ACA handout to Big Insurance. So much for American Values.
Dave P. , March 20, 2018 at 2:29 am
Joe, you are right. I do not have to go too far to see what it has done to the citizens of
this country, I just look in my own home. This soap opera as you called it, is going on
almost two years now; and it has completely messed up the people. We had a visitor, somebody
very close to me, a week before this weekend, and invited some other friends. They all
believe in all this nonsense about Russia-Gate which is being fed nonstop on major networks;
and also this latest incident in U.K. I was the only one who was questioning it and it can
become unpleasant.
It is sad to see all this happening. It is very dangerous. Newspapers, L.A. Times
here, keep the public completely in the dark about the consequences that it may accidentally
or knowingly lead to nuclear war with Russia.
" As far as we all know now are quite hard times to Russia and to the world as a whole.
"
Why do we have these hard times ?
Could it be globalisation, western greed, and western aggression ?
Well, probably it can be more clear for those who are attacking and humiliating Russia in
all directions? The West-ZUS-UK
But I think it's just an agony of Empire seeing the world order is about to change. And
yes it's "western greed" which have a "western aggression" as a consequence.
The "globalisation" actually IS that world order which the West trying to
establish. Russia in all times in all its internal structure was a subject of annexation and
submission. But we never agreed and never will do it, until alive. The West is too stupid to
get that simple thing to know and leave us to live as we are about to.
"... Well, the party lime is pretty different: "Treat Russia Like the Terrorist It Is. Whether the Skripal poisoning can be conclusively pinned on Moscow is beside the point." https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-03-09/u-k-spy-poisoning-treat-russia-like-the-terrorist-it-is ..."
"... The fact that neither Putin personally nor Russia benefits from the death of Skripal is obvious to any sane person. ..."
"... In addition, statements that gas called "Novichok could be made only in Russia is a known lie. This poison was created forty years ago in the USSR, so to have this gas can, at a minimum, all countries of the former Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact. The inventor of the gas has fled to the US, and the chemical composition of the gas is known and now it can be manufactured it any relatively developed country. ..."
"... It would be possible not to poison Skripal by gas, but simply to strike on the head by the bust of Dzerzhinsky. It would be the same level of evidence, of the guilt of the FSB, the KGB successor of the successor of the VChK. ..."
"... Basically, we have a political elite who needs an enemy to distract their own people from what they are doing and oh, do they miss the Soviet Union. ..."
I'm a socialist. I don't understand how a conservative is getting this so right! There is a mad
rush to judgment and anyone who wants to ask questions is getting accused of being unpatriotic.
Quite a sensible article. The fact that neither Putin personally nor Russia benefits from
the death of Skripal is obvious to any sane person.
In addition, statements that gas called "Novichok could be made only in Russia is a
known lie. This poison was created forty years ago in the USSR, so to have this gas can, at a
minimum, all countries of the former Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact. The inventor of the gas
has fled to the US, and the chemical composition of the gas is known and now it can be
manufactured it any relatively developed country.
It would be possible not to poison Skripal by gas, but simply to strike on the head by
the bust of Dzerzhinsky. It would be the same level of evidence, of the guilt of the FSB, the
KGB successor of the successor of the VChK.
At the end of 1980s there was a project started by KGB supposed (1) to detect possible channels
of security leakage, and (2) to begin spreading misinformation to potential adversaries.
Different names were used to test different security leaks. The name "NOVICHOK" used to
identify misinformation given to one of suspects, Vil Mirzayanov who was not chemist but rather
a clerk. Very soon this security leakage was detected, and tons of other misinformation
supplied to Mirzayanov, who was immediately secretly discharged from access to any real
project. Mirzayanov was allowed to publish this fake info in NYT (around 1992-95?), and then to
escape from Russia in 1995.
Since that time NATO has spent about $10 billions to develop protection tools against this
fake "NOVICHOK"
P.S. The Russian word NOVICHOK stands for "a newbie"; from Russian grammar point of view,
there is no chance such word to be assigned to any chemical weapon. It was assigned to
Mirzayanov who was "a newbie" to this sort of projects at that time.
Cui bono: every murder of a Russian dissident/defector/oligarch/critical journalist, cannot
possibly have happened on Putin's orders or with his tacit approval, because it reflects badly
on Russia.
So, we have two possible explanations: some Western intelligence agency is murdering those
people, probably without the knowledge of their own government (you'd have think that someone
in elected office would have stopped such a programme by now); or the Russian Putin opposition
is killing its own people, both in Russia and abroad. If the goal of such an operation is the
destabilization of the Putin regime through Western sanctions, it is obviously not working.
You say cui bono, I say Occam's razor. Putin takes out those who might threaten him, raises
his popularity, the sanctions are used to cover up his own disastrous economical policies, and
in the end nothing changes.
We *knew* Iraq had no nukes, and we knew that the Bush administration lied, and we knew that
"WMD" is the kind of BS we make up when there are no nukes.
Buchanan is not arguing in good faith. What Maine, Tonkin and WMD are about is *lies*, lies
in service of criminal acts of aggression, lies to facilitate a premeditated violation of the
Constitution as well as international law.
That is frankly a more important issue than the – justified and necessary –
doubts regarding the attempted Skripal assassination and the motives behind it.
This is also true of an ongoing campaign employing drones – some controlled by CIA
illegal combatants – and kill teams to implement collective punishment and ideological
cleansing by means of sustained assassination – based on "signatures" provided by the
likes of Google or Booz Allen. The US has no standing to judge the assassination attempts of
others, just as our government can no longer meaningfully speak out on aggressive acts of war,
collective punishment, and torture. A house divided cannot stand for anything.
You say that the burden of proof is on the accused? That works in many parts of the world,
but I hope that we here in the US have had a better standard of Justice. The burden of proof
falls upon the accuser, in this case Britain. There is no ther standard that America should
accept if we are to remain true to American principals. Not that I expect that our current
oligarchy will care about principals.
Exactly. Putin's long term strategy is an integrated Pan-Eurasian economic architecture in
which Europe would be a major customer segment. That is why the EAEU was stood up by Russia and
the BRI stood up by China. With supporting investment platforms like the AIIB to enable the
initiatives.
Given that objective, why would Russia/Putin seek to totally wreck its relationship with
Europe? More importantly what would be the motive and objectives for Russia to attack Poland
and the Baltic Republics – the fear-monger threats du jour? When an overrun of Poland
would create 30+ million subversive malcontents that Russia would have to govern, and when
there are only minority ethnic Russian populations in the Baltics?
The driving force behind the illogical and incoherent demonization of Russia is the
Washington War Party that froths up the political environment with the militarized
fear-mongering. Because as Fran Macadam notes, there's Big Money in it. And the Neocon
war-monger mouthpieces need some Big Enemies to keep themselves relevant, busy and living very
large on the $200K – $600K salaries they collect at the bought off Think
Pimp Tanks.
A crazed U.S. foreign policy that has been completely militarized is a train wreck waiting
to happen. And us taxpayers will yet again be stuck with the bills to clean up the
wreckage.
Sovietologists? Now this, more than anything else, explains the reflexive anti-Russia
hysteria. Who cares what historians dealing with the twentieth century Soviet Union think about
current events? Historians provide useful insight, yes, but that does not mean they are
conversant with current events. What you are doing is throwing in a fear laden buzzword.
Basically, we have a political elite who needs an enemy to distract their own people from
what they are doing and oh, do they miss the Soviet Union.
Our leaders are enthusiastic about being aggressive with the Russians, but the America Empire
has a problem attracting enough volunteers to join the military.
For example, the Air Force has a shortage of 2,000 pilots and the Navy has a shortage of
mechanics that they need to work on their on their aircraft.
The U.S. and Britain showed more respect to Joseph Stalin, the Butcher, than it has shown to
Putin. The demonization of Putin in all the mainstream media outlets is the tip-off to me that
Putin must be a pretty good guy doing some good things for Russia.
"If the world hates you know that it has hated me first. If the world loves you it is
because you belong to the world." -- Jesus Christ
>>Given the poison used it means one to two things -- either it was Russian secret
services or the Russians have lost control over their poisons. Either one is a nasty thought.
Why? It was presumably created 40 years ago. Pretty much to time for information to spread
around.
E.g., Kim's brother was presumably (again) poisoned by VX. Does it mean that it was MI-6? It's
a British invention after all.
In any case, this story stinks, pardon for a word pun. A 'military grade agent' and no
casualties. How could it be?
>>Why do it? To prove they can. To prove that no matter where you go they can get
you -- that there is no safety.
Safety from what? This guy was non-entity, nobody knew him. More importantly, he has been
already punished and pardoned, so double no sense.
>>I am sure Gary Kasparov is feeling a bit worried right now and Bill Browder is
thinking of moving somewhere new.
Well, I'd suspect that Rodchenko and Khodorkovskiy are more evident sacrificial targets.
Pat asks important questions. Unless we ever see the "evidence" to which Boris Johnson refers,
or other direct evidence that this hit (and others) in Britain was directed by the Kremlin,
it's worth continuing to ask them.
"Who benefits?" Indeed, it could be rogue Russian agents or Western agents attempting to
further drive a wedge between the West and Russia.
But it could also be Putin signalling that the Russia which held onto traitorous spies
between 2006 and 2010 is over.
It could be him simply trying to show that he can reach people inside the West, a pure flexing
of muscle, a warning to future would-be traitors and Western governments. It could be to
make America's allies nervous about Putin's relationship with his American puppet, Trumpolini.
It could be just Putin sowing chaos and attempting to create discord among Western
governments.
Skepticism about the latest pronouncements is valid, but Occam's Razor still applies. If it
growls like a Russian bear and kills like a Russian bear
Who could be so phillistine as to suggest, on the eve of the World Cup, that Premier Andropov's
KGB protege', Major Putin, would one day stoop to whacking a traitorous defector from the Party
Line ?
>>Skepticism about the latest pronouncements is valid, but Occam's Razor still
applies. If it growls like a Russian bear and kills like a Russian bear
Occam's Razor, my backside. Some guys from MI-5 tried to kill him like they killed David
Kelly and Gareth Williams before. It's as credible as it gets, exactly the same amount of
evidence.
First of all British did have the poison they detected. Otherwise they would be unable to
detect "Novichok" (if there was such substance and this is not just a myth).
Notable quotes:
"... Pat asks, Cui bono? I would say rogue players in the deep state right here in the US along with their brethren in the military/industrial/intelligence complex. ..."
"... Of course, that makes me a conspiracy theorist. But I actually saw war as a young man based upon lies. By the way, in the lead-up to the illegal invasion of Iraq, I told people at work that this war would eventually rival the military blunder in Vietnam. The propaganda reminded me so much of the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. They all laughed at me and essentially said I was an old Vietnam veteran living in the past. They aren't laughing now. ..."
I served as a medical corpsman in Vietnam and ever since then I have been a card-carrying
skeptic of my own country. But I saw the human face of a war based upon lies and propaganda
that became the worst foreign policy debacle in our nation's history. If we would get into a
shooting war over this affair, we would have to bring back the draft to prosecute this war
against Russia. Then the proverbial "merde" would definitely hit the fan.
And when Kim Sung Un assassinated his half-brother in Malaysia, the VX nerve agent was used.
The UK invented this agent in the 1950s at its government laboratory. But not one nation blamed
Great Britain as the culprit.
Pat asks, Cui bono? I would say rogue players in the deep state right here in the US
along with their brethren in the military/industrial/intelligence complex.
Of course, that makes me a conspiracy theorist. But I actually saw war as a young man
based upon lies. By the way, in the lead-up to the illegal invasion of Iraq, I told people at
work that this war would eventually rival the military blunder in Vietnam. The propaganda
reminded me so much of the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. They all laughed at me and essentially
said I was an old Vietnam veteran living in the past. They aren't laughing now.
The rapid rise of oligarchy and wealth and income inequality is the great moral, economic, and political issue of our time. Yet,
it gets almost no coverage from the corporate media.
How often do network newscasts report on the 40 million Americans living in poverty, or that we have the highest rate of childhood
poverty of almost any major nation on earth? How often does the media discuss the reality that our society today is more unequal
than at any time since the 1920s with the top 0.1% now owning almost as much wealth as the bottom 90%? How often have you heard the
media report the stories of millions of people who today are working longer hours for lower wages than was the case some 40 years
ago?
How often has ABC, CBS or NBC discussed the role that the
Koch brothers and other billionaires play in creating
a political system which allows the rich and the powerful to significantly control elections and the legislative process in Congress?
We need to ask the hard questions that the corporate media fails to ask
Sadly, the answer to these questions is: almost never. The corporate media has failed to let the American people fully understand
the economic forces shaping their lives and causing many of them to work two or three jobs, while CEOs make hundreds of times more
than they do. Instead, day after day, 24/7, we're inundated with the relentless dramas of the Trump White House, Stormy Daniels,
and the latest piece of political gossip.
We urgently need to discuss the reality of today's economy and political system, and fight to create an economy that works for
everyone and not just the one percent.
We need to ask the hard questions that the corporate media fails to ask: who owns America, and who has the political power? Why,
in the richest country in the history of the world are so many Americans living in poverty? What are the forces that have caused
the American middle class, once the envy of the world, to decline precipitously? What can we learn from countries that have succeeded
in reducing income and wealth inequality, creating a strong and vibrant middle class, and providing basic human services to everyone?
We need to hear from struggling Americans whose stories are rarely told in newspapers or television. Unless we understand the
reality of life in America for working families, we're never going to change that reality.
Until we understand that the rightwing Koch brothers are more politically powerful than the Republican National Committee, and
that big banks, pharmaceutical companies, and multinational corporations are spending unlimited sums of money to rig the political
process, we won't be able to overturn the disastrous US supreme court decision on Citizens United, move to the public funding of
elections and end corporate greed.
Until we understand that the US federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour is a starvation wage and that people cannot make it on $9
or $10 an hour, we're not going to be able to pass a living wage of at least $15 an hour.
Until we understand that multinational corporations have been writing our trade and tax policies for the past 40 years to allow
them to throw American workers out on the street and move to low-wage countries, we're not going to be able to enact fair laws ending
the race to the bottom and making the wealthy and the powerful pay their fair share.
Until we understand that we live in a highly competitive global economy and that it is counterproductive that millions of our
people cannot afford a higher education or leave school deeply in debt, we will not be able to make public colleges and universities
tuition free.
Until we understand that we are the only major country on earth not to guarantee healthcare to all and that we spend far more
per capita on healthcare than does any other country, we're not going to be able to pass a Medicare for all, single-payer program.
Until we understand that the US pays, by far, the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs because pharmaceutical companies
can charge whatever price they want for life-saving medicine, we're not going to be able to lower the outrageous price of these drugs.
Until we understand that climate change is real, caused by humans, and causing devastating problems around the world, especially
for poor people, we're not going to be able to transform our energy system away from fossil fuel and into sustainable forms of energy.
We need to raise political consciousness in America and help us move forward with a progressive agenda that meets the needs of
our working families. It's up to us all to join the conversation -- it's just the beginning.
Barely a day after President Trump outraged his political opponents by calling out Special
Counsel Robert Mueller by name in a series of angry tweets,
the Washington Post is reporting that the president's legal team has provided written
descriptions of certain key moments to the Mueller probe as they push to limit the scope of a
presidential interview, should they agree to one.
According to the
report, Trump has reportedly told aides that he's "champing at the bit" to sit for an
interview. But his lawyers, who are carefully negotiating terms, have sought to restrain the
president, worried he might inadvertently perjure himself or - worse - accidentally walk into a
perjury trap.
Given the time-sensitive nature of the investigation (Trump and his allies would like it to
end as swiftly as possible) Trump on Monday
added storied Washington lawyer Joseph diGenova, the husband of former Reagan Justice
Department official and former Senate Intelligence Committee chief counsel Victoria Toensing,
to his legal team.
"... It says that the United States is always virtuous even when it tortures, when it bombs towns, villages, cities in the name of "freedom or installs dictators, military governments, trains torturers, and, yes, rapes and loots in the name of "democracy." ..."
American Exceptionalism is perhaps the most toxic ideology since Nazism and Stalinism. It says that the United States is
always virtuous even when it tortures, when it bombs towns, villages, cities in the name of "freedom or installs dictators,
military governments, trains torturers, and, yes, rapes and loots in the name of "democracy."
At least this appointment along with the election of Trump shows the true face of the
United States in international affairs. When we face the fact we are (a) an oligarchy and (b)
a brutal Empire we might have a chance to return to something more human. Few readers, even
of TAC, will want to look at our recent history of stunning brutality and lack of interest in
even being in the neighborhood of following international law.
Seriously...I think these 'conspiracy theorists' have been watching too many Hollywood movies.
This is what I want to SCREAM every time I hear this shit...Why the HELL would Russia, or anyone else, bother to use such a
messy, traceable and complicated method to kill this guy? Especially when there are SO MANY WAYS it could have been done that
wouldn't have garnered all the attention, and that would have left no traces? They could have sent someone to shove him in front
of a train or something, or staged a 'botched robbery'.
Reminds me of the stupid assassination methods the CIA wanted to use on Castro...poisoning his beard? Really? Well, aside from
the fact that it is just too 'Wile E. Coyote' to be taken seriously, did anyone ask, if such an assassin could get close enough
to poison his beard, why he wouldn't go with a more dependable method?
I blame the wildly dumbed down and complicit media here in the US and in our "allies" abroad. They spit out whatever the government
feeds to them without a single ounce of effort to validate the stories they frantically preach to the ignorant public. Damn, I
can't believe how many times people will be duped into trillion dollar wars and they still are die hard believers in the ethics
and truthfulness of the US gov't. Morons---
It makes little sense that Russia would assassinate someone using a technique that would immediately implicate them. I'm surprised
they didn't happen to "find" the assassin's Russian passport lying on the ground next to the victims! <
I disagree. If a government is going to terminate a spy they don't botch the job by letting him get to a hospital. In Putin's
Russia they know how to terminate most efficiently. I may be wrong but this is a pretext for something more aggressive/dangerous.
"... Iran yielded a great deal, but they were never going to give up their entire nuclear program. That is not just because Iran is permitted to have such a program under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), but also because Iran had already invested so many resources at significant cost that retaining some part of it was a matter of national pride. ..."
Uri Friedman reviews
Mike Pompeo's hard-line foreign policy views. Here he quotes Pompeo's criticism of the
negotiations leading up to the nuclear deal with Iran:
The Obama administration failed to take "advantage of crushing economic sanctions to end
Iran's nuclear program," he declared when the deal was struck. "That's not foreign policy;
it's surrender."
Pompeo's statement is ridiculous, but it does provide us with a useful window into how he
understands foreign policy issues. Like many other Iran hawks, he opposes the nuclear deal
because it "failed" to bring an end to Iran's nuclear program. He dubs Iran's major concessions
on the nuclear issue as "surrender" by the U.S. because they were not forced to give up
absolutely everything. That reflects the absurd all-or-nothing view of diplomacy that prevails
among hard-line critics of the JCPOA.
Iran yielded a great deal, but they were never going to give up their entire nuclear
program. That is not just because Iran is permitted to have such a program under the
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), but also because Iran had already invested so many resources at
significant cost that retaining some part of it was a matter of national pride. If the Obama
administration had insisted on the elimination of Iran's nuclear program, the negotiations
would have failed and the restrictions on that problem that are now in place would not exist.
There would have been no nuclear deal if the U.S. had insisted on maximalist demands. What Pompeo calls surrender is what sane people call compromise. Putting someone so inflexible and
allergic to compromise in charge of the State Department is the act of a president who has
nothing but disdain for diplomacy, and Pompeo's all-or-nothing view of the nuclear deal bodes
ill for talks with North Korea.
Robert Bartley, the late editorial page editor of The Wall Street Journal, was a free trade
zealot who for decades championed a five-word amendment to the Constitution: "There shall be
open borders."
Bartley accepted what the erasure of America's borders and an endless influx or foreign
peoples and goods would mean for his country.
Said Bartley, "I think the nation-state is finished."
His vision and ideology had a long pedigree.
This free trade, open borders cult first flowered in 18th-century Britain. The St. Paul of
this post-Christian faith was Richard Cobden, who mesmerized elites with the grandeur of his
vision and the power of his rhetoric.
In Free Trade Hall in Manchester, Jan. 15, 1846, the crowd was so immense the seats had to
be removed. There, Cobden thundered:
"I look farther; I see in the Free Trade principle that which shall act on the moral world
as the principle of gravitation in the universe -- drawing men together, thrusting aside the
antagonisms of race, and creed, and language, and uniting us in the bonds of eternal
peace."
Britain converted to this utopian faith and threw open her markets to the world. Across the
Atlantic, however, another system, that would be known as the "American System," had been
embraced.
The second bill signed by President Washington was the Tariff Act of 1789. Said the Founding
Father of his country in his first address to Congress: "A free people should promote such
manufactures as tend to make them independent on others for essential, particularly military
supplies."
In his 1791 "Report on Manufactures," Alexander Hamilton wrote, "Every nation ought to
endeavor to possess within itself all the essentials of national supply. These comprise the
means of subsistence, habitat, clothing and defence."
This was wisdom born of experience.
At Yorktown, Americans had to rely on French muskets and ships to win their independence.
They were determined to erect a system that would end our reliance on Europe for the
necessities of our national life, and establish new bonds of mutual dependency -- among
Americans.
Britain's folly became manifest in World War I, as a self-reliant America stayed out, while
selling to an import-dependent England the food, supplies and arms she needed to survive but
could not produce.
America's own first major steps toward free trade, open borders and globalism came with
JFK's Trade Expansion Act and LBJ's Immigration Act of 1965.
By the end of the Cold War, however, a reaction had set in, and a great awakening begun.
U.S. trade deficits in goods were surging into the hundreds of billions, and more than a
million legal and illegal immigrants were flooding in yearly, visibly altering the character of
the country.
Americans were coming to realize that free trade was gutting the nation's manufacturing base
and open borders meant losing the country in which they grew up. And on this earth there is no
greater loss.
The new resistance of Western man to the globalist agenda is now everywhere manifest.
We see it in Trump's hostility to NAFTA, his tariffs, his border wall.
We see it in England's declaration of independence from the EU in Brexit. We see it in the
political triumphs of Polish, Hungarian and Czech nationalists, in anti-EU parties rising
across Europe, in the secessionist movements in Scotland and Catalonia and Ukraine, and in the
admiration for Russian nationalist Vladimir Putin.
Europeans have begun to see themselves as indigenous peoples whose Old Continent is mortally
imperiled by the hundreds of millions of invaders wading across the Med and desperate come and
occupy their homelands.
Who owns the future? Who will decide the fate of the West?
The problem of the internationalists is that the vision they have on offer -- a world of
free trade, open borders and global government -- are constructs of the mind that do not engage
the heart.
Men will fight for family, faith and country. But how many will lay down their lives for
pluralism and diversity?
Who will fight and die for the Eurozone and EU?
On Aug. 4, 1914, the anti-militarist German Social Democrats, the oldest and greatest
socialist party in Europe, voted the credits needed for the Kaiser to wage war on France and
Russia. With the German army on the march, the German socialists were Germans first.
Patriotism trumps ideology.
In "Present at the Creation," Dean Acheson wrote of the postwar world and institutions born
in the years he served FDR and Truman in the Department of State: The U.N., IMF, World Bank,
Marshall Plan, and with the split between East and West, NATO.
We are present now at the end of all that.
And our transnational elites have a seemingly insoluble problem.
To rising millions in the West, the open borders and free trade globalism they cherish and
champion is not a glorious future, but an existential threat to the sovereignty, independence
and identity of the countries they love. And they will not go gentle into that good night.
Neoliberalism as social system tend to self-destruct. Much like Bolshevism (neoliberalism actually can be viewed as Trotskyism
for the rich with the same dream of "world revolution" as the central part of the religion and a slightly modified Marxism slogan
-- "financial elites of the world unite" ).
"This week, Congressional
Democrats released a detailed tax hike plan that they
promised to implement if given majority control of the House and Senate after the 2018
midterm elections. So much for the crocodile tears about the deficit--
Democrats want to raise taxes not to reduce the debt, but rather to spend that tax hike
money on boondoggle projects.
OK. That will work. (irony) So, they will raise both corporate and personal income taxes if
they gain control of the congress. That will work as a political program (irony). The
California state government will probably back that. (no irony)
Well, there is always Stormy Daniels to fall back on as an issue. She was interviewed
outside a strip joint yesterday where she was to perform. "You call me a whore? she said. I
tell you I am a successful whore." I suppose the idea is to alienate Trump's evangelical base
from him. Oh, well, this theme rings a bit hollow. Trump's base knew what they were voting for
... pl
in fairness to our friends the democrats, the Dems. are proposing an infrastructure plan
that is woefully inadequate, and propose to rescind the recent tax cuts.
Personally, I am just not feeling the electoral excitement.
Of course those suffering TDS (trump derangement syndrome) will applaud undoing Trump
agenda, but then again, they were going to vote Democrat anyway and cut a check, which IMO is
the real point. Funny how now they want to do infrastructure, but not during the Obama
years.
Personally, wrt the tax cuts, I am ambivalent. Anyone who pays anywhere near the official
rate needs to hire a good tax accountant. Net effect on businesses that already take all
available deductions will be a percent or two on gross. A 2% weaker dollar would have a far
bigger benefit for businesses (but worse for the banks).
ISL
the only reason the individual tax rate is important is the effect on LLCs and S corps.
Nevertheless, the corporate tax rate cut is the more important. pl
Have you seen the movie "Wind River" yet? It is the best depiction I've seen of the USA
descending into tribalism due to the loss of jobs, the drug epidemic and environmental
exploitation.
NBC News daily has Kumbaya propaganda to facilitate importing of cheap labor and goods.
But, what good is a service economy if there is no service? Just like Soviet propaganda,
corporate media today is in service of the oligarch owners and sold out party elite. It tries
to avoid the truth. Although, NBC did report on the astronomical rise in cost of ambulance
service. A couple thousand dollars for mile and half trip to the hospital. They said it was
due to the 2008 recession and the cutting of local volunteer emergency services to save tax
money.
Rather than tax the wealthy and corporations, the middle class is going into debt to pay
for education, medical bills, and $40 Northern Virginia one-way tolls. Federal taxes on the
middle class support the endless wars.
I agree the Democrats shot themselves in the foot because they are unconcerned for the
bottom 80% except for their identity issues. They serve their paymasters. The recent Italian
election documents the complete collapse of left leaning parties that ignored the plight of
the workers in the West. To me, to win, the left in America must write off student debt,
implement Medicare for All, end the forever wars and tax George Soros, Jeff Bezos, Bill
Gates, Warren Buffet, Pierre Omidyar, the Koch Brothers and the Walton Family to pay for it.
To work, criminal bankers need to be jailed and corporate boards required to manage for long
term profits that benefit society not just quarterly and themselves only.
Well that settles it. I thought that maybe the Dems were just acting delusional to coddle
their base. This settles it. They actually ARE delusional.
So in addition to replacing us with an infinite number of illiterate third worlders,
taking our guns and jailing us for using the wrong pronoun out of an ever evolving list of
hundreds they are going to take more of our hard earned money. Yeah, how can they not sweep
the 2018 elections with a platform like that. Sheesh.
I never did support the Trump tax cuts. I regard them as being mainly mainstream Republican
tax cuts. President Trump supports them and signed them for all the economic benefits reasons
he cited and cites. But the Republicans' main reason for seeking them remains their long term
goal of destroying Social Security and privatizing the Social Security money . . . the money
I and everyone else have been pre-paying double for ever since the Great Reagan Rescue of
1983. They sought these tax cuts in order to increase vastly the deficit and the debt. Their
expectation is that the next inevitable recession
will make the debt so-nearly-unpayable as to give them another opportunity to accuse Social
Security of causing the debt and of being unaffordable.
So I would support cancellation of the Republican tax cuts for that reason. I would be
defending my Social Security against longstanding Republican efforts to destroy it and
retro-steal all the money I have been paying ( and will keep paying) every since 1983.
(Actually, since 1980 when I worked at half the rate of FICA taxation as after 1983). But
then, I have said years ago in comments that I would like to see taxes re-raised against the
Bush's Base class to recover all the Social Security pre-payment money which was
future-looted-from to give the Bush's Base class a tax cut instead. A tax cut which President
Obama supported and ratified when he conspired with Boehner and McConnell to make the
self-sunsetting Bush Tax cuts into permanent tax cuts. That's why I now call them the
Bushobama Tax cuts now.
There is boondoggle and there is needed repair. The "high speed railway" proposed and
haltingly begun in California is a boondoggle. Fixing all the rotting and decaying bridges
and all the potholes is needed repair. ( Come to Michigan to see some impressive potcraters).
The present and future space program is an investment in possible futures and in
technological advances. Government spending can be a boondoggle but it doesn't have to
be.
At least some of the Democrats have decided to run on something specific instead of vague
emotional appeals only. Something specific can either be voted "for" or "against".
(The Democrats should remember that "tax restoration" may not be enough to get all the
votes they think they are due. There are enough bitter berners out here who remain convinced
that applying political chemotherapy against the malignant metastatic clintonoma and the
Yersiniobama pestis plague infection afflicting the Democratic Party is more important right
now than "more democrats". There is, and will be, a growing effort to defeat every piece of
Clintonite scum and Obamazoid filth which dares to call itself a "Democrat" in every election
that one of these things runs in. The Democratic Party has to be made into a New Deal Party
again, and that means purging and burning every trace of Clinton and Obama out of the Party.
If any DLC/Third Way/Hamilton Project/ Pink Pussy Hat/ Rainbow Oligarchy Democrats are
reading this, they should consider themselves warned.)
If Trump's evangelical base was willing to ignore the p-grabber tape, I doubt this will do
much to change their minds. Don't tell CNN, they were running the story 24/7 even as the
Senate, including many Democrats such as the odious Mark Warner, was voting to roll back the
fairly toothless restrictions on the big banks passed after the 2008 financial crash.
This is the REAL reason Trump will not be removed even if impeached--he's too valuable to
the political class as a never ending media freak show that allows them to get away with
whatever they want while the idiot public is distracted.
Exactly, Sir, it is the corporate tax cut that is the big deal because it starts to level the
playing field for small businesses. The largest corporations hardly pay any tax anyway
because they have the armies of tax lawyers and accountants to leverage all the
The Secretary of Defense has
written to Congressional leaders to express his opposition to S.J.Res. 54, the resolution
that would end U.S. involvement in the war on Yemen:
In a letter sent to congressional leaders Wednesday and obtained by The Washington Post,
Mattis wrote that restricting military support the United States is providing to the
Saudi-led coalition "could increase civilian casualties, jeopardize cooperation with our
partners on counterterrorism, and reduce our influence with the Saudis -- all of which would
further exacerbate the situation and humanitarian crisis."
He urged Congress not to impose restrictions on the "noncombat," "limited U.S. military
support" being provided to Saudi Arabia, which is "engaging in operations in its legitimate
exercise of self-defense."
The Pentagon has been putting forward very weak legal
arguments against S.J.Res. 54, and Mattis'
statement of the policy arguments against the resolution are not any better. The Saudi-led
coalition would have great difficulty continuing their war without U.S. military assistance.
U.S. refueling allows coalition planes to carry out more attacks than they otherwise could, so
it is extremely unlikely that ending it could possibly result in more civilian casualties than
the bombing campaign causes now. Mattis is taking for granted that U.S. military assistance
somehow makes coalition bombing more accurate and less likely to result in civilian casualties,
but that is hard to credit when coalition forces routinely target civilian structures on
purpose and when the military
admits that it doesn't keep track of what happens after it refuels coalition planes.
Secretary Mattis says that cutting off support could jeopardize cooperation on
counter-terrorism, but the flip side of this is that continuing to enable the Saudi-led war
creates the conditions for Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and the local ISIS affiliate to
flourish. The coalition's war has made AQAP stronger than it was before, and AQAP members have
sometimes even fought alongside coalition forces on the ground. Instead of worrying about
whether the U.S. is jeopardizing cooperation with these states, we should be asking whether
that cooperation is worth very much in Yemen.
He claims that the Saudis and their allies are engaged in "a legitimate exercise of
self-defense," and this is simply not true. The Saudis and their allies were not attacked and
were not threatened with attack prior to their intervention. Saudi territory now comes under
attack because the coalition has been bombing Yemen for years, but that doesn't make continuing
the war self-defense. If an aggressor launches an attack against a neighboring country, it is
the neighbor that is engaged in self-defense against the state(s) attacking them.
Mattis also warns that ending support for the Saudi-led coalition would have other
undesirable consequences:
As Mattis put it in his letter to congressional leaders Wednesday, "withdrawing U.S.
support would embolden Iran to increase its support to the Houthis, enabling further
ballistic missile strikes on Saudi Arabia and threatening vital shipping lanes in the Red
Sea, thereby raising the risk of a regional conflict."
These claims also don't hold water. Iranian support for the Houthis remains limited, but it
has increased as a direct result of the war. The longer that the war goes on, the greater the
incentive the Houthis and Iran will have to cooperate. The absurdity of this intervention is
that it was dishonestly sold as a war against Iranian "expansionism" and yet it has done more
to aid Iran than anything Iran's government could have done on its own. Missile strikes on
Saudi Arabia wouldn't be happening if the Saudis and their allies weren't regularly bombing
Yemeni cities. If the coalition halted its bombing, the missile strikes would almost certainly
cease as well. Continuing the war is a guarantee that those attacks will continue, and U.S.
military assistance ensures that the war will continue. Every reason Mattis gives here for
continuing U.S. support for the war is actually a reason to end it.
Shipping lanes weren't threatened before the intervention and won't be threatened after it
ends. Yemenis have every incentive to leave shipping lanes alone, since these are their
country's lifeline. Meanwhile, the cruel coalition blockade is slowly starving millions of
Yemenis to death by keeping out essential commercial goods from the main ports that serve the
vast majority of the population. Mattis is warning about potential threats to shipping from
Yemen while completely ignoring that the main cause of the humanitarian disaster is the
interruption of commercial shipping into Yemen by the Saudi-led blockade. The regional conflict
that Mattis warns about is already here. It is called the Saudi-led war on Yemen. If one wants
to prevent the region from being destabilized further, one would want to put an end to that war
as quickly as possible.
Mattis mentions that the U.S. role in the war is a "noncombat" and "limited" one, but for
the purposes of the debate on Sanders-Lee resolution that is irrelevant. It doesn't matter that
the military assistance the U.S. is providing doesn't put Americans in combat. That is not the
only way that U.S. forces can be introduced into hostilities. According to the War Powers Resolution
, the U.S. has introduced its armed forces into hostilities under these circumstances:
For purposes of this joint resolution, the term "introduction of United States Armed
Forces" includes the assignment of member of such armed forces to command, coordinate,
participate in the movement of, or accompany [bold mine-DL] the regular or irregular military
forces of any foreign country or government when such military forces are engaged, or there
exists an imminent threat that such forces will become engaged, in hostilities.
Any fair reading of this definition has to apply to the regular U.S. refueling of coalition
planes that are engaged in an ongoing bombing campaign. The U.S. is obviously participating in
the "movement" of coalition forces when it provides their planes with fuel. Indeed, our forces
are making the movement of their forces possible through refueling. U.S. involvement in the war
on Yemen clearly counts as introducing U.S. forces into hostilities under the WPR, and neither
administration has sought or received authorization to do this. No president is permitted to do
this unless there is "(1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a
national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or
its armed forces." There has obviously been no action from Congress that authorizes this, and
there is certainly no emergency or attack that justifies it. U.S. involvement in the war on
Yemen is illegal, and the Senate should pass S.J.Res. 54 to end it.
"Mattis wrote that restricting military support the United States is providing to the
Saudi-led coalition "could increase civilian casualties, jeopardize cooperation with our
partners on counterterrorism, and reduce our influence with the Saudis -- all of which would
further exacerbate the situation and humanitarian crisis.""
Wow. So MBS is blackmailing us. He's threatening to kill more civilians, to stop
anti-terror cooperation, and to shut us out of other Saudi regional security decisions if we
don't help him starve and wreck Yemen.
Maybe the situation is a little clearer, but how can anyone take Trump seriously after
this embarrassing confession by Mattis?
We may assume that Trump has no self-respect, but doesn't he have any respect for his
office? Is he really going to let this disgusting little torture freak jerk him around like
this? When it implicates all Americans in Saudi war crimes?
Re: "Mattis' Weak Case for Supporting the War on Yemen"
Unfortunately, in this day of warped Military Exceptionalism as the civic religion, a
4-Star pedigree fronting weak arguments makes them essentially unassailable. No matter how
immoral, idiotic or costly to the taxpayers.
Mad Dog Mattis got a free ride with his logically incoherent, hyper-belligerent
pronouncements related to the National Security Strategy. Expect no different response to his
perverse rationalizations of the Yemen catastrophe.
Generals and Admirals now pop off stupid and dangerous opinions right and left and are
never challenged by an MSM that is bedazzled by anyone wearing stars on their shoulders.
Mattis' case for Yemen is not only weak, it's pathetic. Too bad the co-opted and seduced
MSM will never suggest that to the public at large deluded by the omnipresent propaganda of
the National Security State.
Nothing will change until the undeserved fawning adoration of the War Machine Elite is
substantially attenuated.
The neocons will stop at nothing to bring down anyone they suspect of threatening Israel or
U.S. military hegemony in the Middle East.
First, they lied about WMDs in Iraq and started a completely illegal war, killing millions
and devastating that country for generations. That led directly to the creation of ISIS and
the havoc it has wrought on both Iraq and Syria (and increasingly in other countries).
Then under Obama and Sec. Clinton, they allowed the military takeover of Egypt by the
murderous and oppressive El-Sisi and launched an aggressive war of regime change in Libya,
throwing both North African countries into turmoil.
Then they supported the brutal and savage ongoing Saudi war against Yemen to curb
non-existent Iranian influence, followed by politically isolating Qatar for its supposed
chumminess with Iran.
The neocons will do absolutely anything to bring down the Iranian regime, no matter how
many foreign and American lives and destroyed to achieve that end.
The details of Mattis' letter of indulgence do not matter as much as the fact that he is
willing to defend the indefensible. Even if his professed concerns were not only genuine, but
actually reflected reality, he also has to know better than anybody else within the
administration about the consequences of the US-backed Saudi/UAE invasion of Yemen.
Mattis has joined Graham and Albright in the "worth it" campaign to sustain and extend
perfectly predictable atrocities.
If he wants to make the case that we cannot accept uncertainty with respect to an alleged
Iranian aggression towards Saudi Arabia – and with even more unlikely acquiescence by
the Houthi to let Iran use them the way the US uses the Kurds – or even assuming that
Mattis wants to misrepresent possible Houthi blowback against Saudi Arabia as "Iranian" just
for convenience – then it should be clear that he is claimng we can easily accept
uncertainty with respect to Yemeni blowback against the US – blowback that he also uses
to justify the US campaign inside Yemen, and that fueled Obama's pathological obsession with
ideological cleansing in Yemen and other prospective "safe harbors".
Mattis is proving the validity of the actual Powell Doctrine – if you join it, you
own it – both with respect to US co-belligerence in Yemen, and with respect to Mattis
personally. He is also proving the observation that anybody who is willing to join an
administration as criminal as that of Bush, Obama or Trump is unlikely to do any good –
by their voluntary association they have irredeemably tainted themselves.
We do not want to get in the middle of this Sunni vs. Shiite war. The Saudis want to destroy
the Shiites in Yemen and we are fools at best and criminals at worst to help them. The people
of Yemen are no threat to the US and for theAmerican Government to cooperate with the Saudis
in the murderof Yemeni women and children is revolting.
Americans have heard for years that supporting "democracy" and popular uprisings throughout
the Middle East are in our national interests, the basis being that oppressed people are more
likely to resort to terrorism.
Yet in the cases of Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and now Yemen popular revolutions of Shias
demanding equal rights are actually deemed a threat to our national security.
The neocons have gotten so deep in the Gulf/Israel v. Iran conflict that they're not even
keeping to the ostensible reasons for interventionism.
Can Donald Trump be taken down? Life in Donald's America gets more farcical every day. We
cannot dump the Donald despite our collective desire to. At this point most Americans would
welcome any replacement. We are caught in a dangerous storm and we would trust near any
neighbor to take us in. Even one as creepy as Mike Pence. Who will give us shelter from the
storm? Lately it appears to be an aptly named porn star, Stormy Daniels. Porn is also the apt
comparison for the Donald saga. Absurd, painful and relentlessly climatic. Meanwhile on CNN and
more surreptitious browsers, porn rumbles on.
Leigh Raven and Riley Nixon released a YouTube video detailing some of the abuse they have
taken at the hands of the porn industry. Just weeks ago we learned of Donald Trump's affair
with porn star Stormy Daniels. Stormy has become the liberal media's latest sweetheart, perhaps
second only to FBI man Bob Mueller. The real storms and droughts that are ravaging the natural
world take a back seat to all scandalous details. Stopping the dismantling of environmental
protections by Donald Trump could in theory make all frivolous investigations worth it. That is
assuming that Mike Pence, Paul Ryan and co. are any better. I'd say don't count on it. With a
smoother operator in town Democrats would be even more hapless in fighting for the environment.
The Republican Party's libertarian commitment to dismantling the protections of the state would
continue. The only sort of protection the rich want are protections from the people. This is
done through militarizing the cops in poor communities. It is also done through taking away
impediments to profit. Who needs safety regulations or environmental protections when they
impede on the profits of the rich?
The mainstream media has paid little attention to Trump's war on the environment and has
instead focused on abstract values, most namely a "liberal democracy." Too often democracy,
especially a liberal democracy, is equated with capitalism. Freedom is defined by the
individual's right to make a profit and to form an identity from this profit. This freedom is
gained at expense of the earth and the people of the Global South. Global trade deals that
abuse workers of poor countries and strip protections from the environment are seen as an
expression of the never been freer global market. The right to find one's passion and voice is
seen as the greatest freedom here in America. The people of other countries and the earth we
stand upon get no voice. For every new invention and new expansion comes new exploitation and
new destruction of the earth.
At the same time the value of democracy is being questioned by the elites because the poor
supposedly brought us Donald Trump. The rich want to correct the mistakes of the poor through
unelected bureaucrats like Bob Mueller. The rich fail to understand that in our society money
means representation. The rich get the policies and politicians they want and the poor do not.
The concerns about campaign finance reform and inequality brought up by the Bernie Sanders
campaign and Occupy Wall St. are swept under the rug.
The dismissal of Sanders, Occupy and the like are part of a broader dismissal of young
people. Millennials are cast off as lazy when they don't come out to vote for hopeless
Democrats or heartless Republicans. On the contrary, I see the lack of young people voting as a
sign of hope. We understand that our liberal capitalist democracy is not working, regardless of
who runs the show. How we create a new world is a much more difficult question. I see denial of
the old one as a fine first step.
The mainstream media is so out of touch with young people it has become a joke to even
engage with the high brow liberal outlets, even the ones who are potentially quite thoughtful.
Take this recent New Yorker article with an intriguing title: "Donald Trump and the Stress Test
of Liberal Democracy". The author David Remnick quotes Yascha Mounk: "Mounk, who teaches
government at Harvard, points out that one reason for the increasing indifference to democratic
rule and the rising enthusiasm for authoritarian alternatives, particularly among young people,
is the widening historical distance from any direct experience of the horrors of German Fascism
or Soviet Communism." Huh? It has been the old people who are mislabeling Trump a fascist and
Obama a communist. The young people see that both men are capitalists. It is the old people who
are questioning the value of democracy. They are right to call Trump undemocratic in his
actions. But they get really confused when they try to explain his success. How did he do it
without the endorsement of established undemocratic American institutions they ask. They
naturally just blame the dumb people who elected Trump rather than the capitalists who took
away their education, jobs, and economic security.
To the author's point though I think that young people are seeing the limits of a an unequal
liberal democracy. We have elections and free speech, which is awesome. But we have no time or
money or long term security. The politicians answer overwhelmingly to corporate interests. How
are we supposed to become politically involved?
The broader question we are asking is: how valuable is a society that liberates the
individual at the expense of the society? This is the ideology of neoliberalism. Basically all
actions are done with the word "liberal" in mine. Liberate the markets through stripping
protections for workers and the planet. Liberate the Other in a distant land through military
intervention. Liberate each person so they can make a profit off of people if they work hard
enough or play dirty enough.
My only criticism of the millennial generation is that we have chosen to interact through
self-focused and inherently isolating social media, internet, and entertainment platforms. It
is very easy to construct a world of one's own online. Making a world that works for all of us
must be done away from our phones, laptops and headphones.
The porn industry is seen as one of the ways our society is more liberated than ever before.
Like other industries of consumption the conditions of the workers are ignored. If a product is
cheap for the consumer it is seen as liberating. They say we have never had so many options to
buy and consume things, which is true. But what about the people who make these things? What
about the people who cannot get jobs because of this newfound efficiency? What about the
resources we take from the earth as we consume? To each their own, the liberal democracy
answers.
There was some justified horror about the death threats that porn star Mia Khalifa received
from ISIS. ISIS is a child of the liberating American Empire but their actions are always
blamed on the Muslim community. We are told that the East hates women and that the West loves
women. We are told that "our" women are sexually free while "their" women are sexually
oppressed. We are told that porn is a way for women to empower themselves. Like all
relationships under the free market, the relationship between women and men are assumed to be
"free and equal."
What then to make of this latest story from Leigh Raven and Riley Nixon? They were forced to
eat apples to induce vomit from the blow jobs they were to give. The blow job induced choking
and despite signals from the actors, the man in the scene would not let up. Raven says: "I got
in trouble and was beat vigorously with the largest, strongest hands you can imagine," "I
proceeded to get slapped in the face, I proceeded to be slapped on my ass, my thighs, my inner
thighs, and at this point I begin to cry and now I'm not just crying because I'm deep-throating
a dick." ."He recognized the fact that my legs were shaking and he found it funny and he made
me sit up higher, which made it hurt a lot more," "I was being penetrated extremely, extremely
deep" "I was squeezing his leg, his left thigh, I think, as hard as I could while pushing away
and wincing in pain and tears coming down my face, and he would smack my hand away, say some
sort of 'dumb white bitch' comment." ."I'm pretty sure, like, the first thing that happens in
the intro video with Rico is he comes in and just slaps me across the face really hard, like
really hard." ."I couldn't breathe, it went black, I saw stars, I was stunned. Near
unconscious."
Why didn't they leave? Because they needed to pay rent. They feared repercussions, perhaps
sexual ones, from their superiors. This is not so uncommon now for millennials, as sex for rent
is something demanded by landlords too. As internet hero Jimmy McMillan tells us: the rent is
just too damn high.
What the rich do not realize is that to survive under capitalism one must do whatever it
takes to pay the bills. Incarcerating drug dealers who have no other way to make a living is
one prevalent example of the punishing of the poor in an unequal society. Ultimately these
stories are a result of the failure of the state to provide the basic needs for the individual.
Now is the time for a Universal Basic Income. No one should have to live like this to
survive.
Stormy Daniels is the latest beacon of hope for the liberals looking to take down Trump.
Let's hope she succeeds. But just as Bob Mueller was paraded through the headlines everyday
without a mention of the evils of the FBI, Stormy is brought up everyday without a mention of
the cruelty of the porn industry. There is no mention of the negative implications of watching
porn either. One would think there could be some links drawn between porn and the violence
against women exposed through the #MeToo movement. Although as I have noted before, domestic
violence remains an untouchable subject for the media. The toxic nature of porn has been
well-documented by many feminists, most notably, Andrea Dworkin. Porn tells us that it is a
freedom to be cruel to other people. Could anything better fit the mentality of Donald
Trump?
Don't look for the defenders of a free market democracy to help us either. As nice as it may
sound as a principle, the implications of such a self-centered society have been deadly. There
are few left in the mainstream who question the ultimate freedom that capitalism brings to us.
Stormy Daniels, Russia, or any other scandal may ultimately give us shelter from the storm of
Donald Trump. The rent for this shelter unfortunately still depends on the benevolence of those
with the freedom to exploit us under capitalism. Regardless of whether we survive Hurricane
Donald, liberal democracy has a leaky roof. It will be up to those of us interested in a
collective society to build something more durable.
"... If the Democrats capture a majority in the House of Representatives on November 6, as widely predicted, candidates drawn from the military-intelligence apparatus will comprise as many as half of the new Democratic members of Congress. They will hold the balance of power in the lower chamber of Congress. ..."
"... Both push and pull are at work here. Democratic Party leaders are actively recruiting candidates with a military or intelligence background for competitive seats where there is the best chance of ousting an incumbent Republican or filling a vacancy, frequently clearing the field for a favored "star" recruit. ..."
"... The Democratic leaders are promoting CIA agents and Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans. At the same time, such people are choosing the Democratic Party as their preferred political vehicle. ..."
An extraordinary number of former intelligence and military operatives from the CIA,
Pentagon, National Security Council and State Department are seeking nomination as Democratic
candidates for Congress in the 2018 midterm elections. The potential influx of
military-intelligence personnel into the legislature has no precedent in US political
history.
If the Democrats capture a majority in the House of Representatives on November 6, as widely
predicted, candidates drawn from the military-intelligence apparatus will comprise as many as
half of the new Democratic members of Congress. They will hold the balance of power in the
lower chamber of Congress.
Both push and pull are at work here. Democratic Party leaders are actively recruiting
candidates with a military or intelligence background for competitive seats where there is the
best chance of ousting an incumbent Republican or filling a vacancy, frequently clearing the
field for a favored "star" recruit.
A case in point is Elissa Slotkin, a former CIA operative with three tours in Iraq, who
worked as Iraq director for the National Security Council in the Obama White House and as a top
aide to John Negroponte, the first director of national intelligence. After her deep
involvement in US war crimes in Iraq, Slotkin moved to the Pentagon, where, as a principal
deputy assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs, her areas of
responsibility included drone warfare, "homeland defense" and cyber warfare.
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) has designated Slotkin as one of its
top candidates, part of the so-called "Red to Blue" program targeting the most vulnerable
Republican-held seats -- in this case, the Eighth Congressional District of Michigan, which
includes Lansing and Brighton. The House seat for the district is now held by two-term
Republican Representative Mike Bishop.
The Democratic leaders are promoting CIA agents and Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans. At
the same time, such people are choosing the Democratic Party as their preferred political
vehicle. There are far more former spies and soldiers seeking the nomination of the Democratic
Party than of the Republican Party. There are so many that there is a subset of Democratic
primary campaigns that, with a nod to Mad magazine, one might call "spy vs. spy."
"... If on November 6 the Democratic Party makes the net gain of 24 seats needed to win control of the House of Representatives, former CIA agents, military commanders, and State Department officials will provide the margin of victory and hold the balance of power in Congress. ..."
"... Since its establishment in 1947 -- under the administration of Democratic President Harry Truman -- the CIA has been legally barred from carrying out within the United States the activities which were its mission overseas: spying, infiltration, political provocation, assassination. These prohibitions were given official lip service but ignored in practice. ..."
"... The Church Committee in particular featured the exposure of CIA assassination plots against foreign leaders like Fidel Castro, Patrice Lumumba in the Congo, General Rene Schneider in Chile, and many others. More horrors were uncovered: MK-Ultra, in which the CIA secretly subjected unwitting victims to experimentation with drugs like LSD; ..."
"... Operation Mockingbird, in which the CIA recruited journalists to plant stories and smear opponents; Operation Chaos, an effort to spy on the antiwar movement and sow disruption; Operation Shamrock, under which the telecommunications companies shared traffic with the NSA for more than a quarter century. ..."
"... The Church and Pike committee exposures, despite their limitations, had a devastating political effect. The CIA and its allied intelligence organizations in the Pentagon and NSA became political lepers, reviled as the enemies of democratic rights. The CIA in particular was widely viewed as "Murder Incorporated." ..."
"... The last 15 years have seen a massive expansion of the CIA and other intelligence agencies, backed by an avalanche of media propaganda, with endless television programs and movies glorifying American spies and assassins ..."
"... The media campaign alleging Russian intervention in the 2016 US elections has been based entirely on handouts from the CIA, NSA and FBI, transmitted by reporters who are either unwitting stooges or conscious agents of the military-intelligence apparatus. This has been accompanied by the recruitment of a cadre of top CIA and military officials to serve as highly paid "experts" and "analysts" for the television networks . ..."
"... This process was well under way in the administration of Barack Obama, which endorsed and expanded the various operations of the intelligence agencies abroad and within the United States. Obama's endorsed successor, Hillary Clinton, ran openly as the chosen candidate of the Pentagon and CIA, touting her toughness as a future commander-in-chief and pledging to escalate the confrontation with Russia, both in Syria and Ukraine. ..."
"... The CIA has spearheaded the anti-Russia campaign against Trump in large part because of resentment over the disruption of its operations in Syria, and it has successfully used the campaign to force a shift in the policy of the Trump administration on that score. ..."
"... The 2018 election campaign marks a new stage: for the first time, military-intelligence operatives are moving in large numbers to take over a political party and seize a major role in Congress. The dozens of CIA and military veterans running in the Democratic Party primaries are "former" agents of the military-intelligence apparatus. This "retired" status is, however, purely nominal. Joining the CIA or the Army Rangers or the Navy SEALs is like joining the Mafia: no one ever actually leaves; they just move on to new assignments. ..."
In a three-part series published last week, the
World Socialist Web Site documented an unprecedented influx of intelligence and
military operatives into the Democratic Party. More than 50 such military-intelligence
candidates are seeking the Democratic nomination in the 102 districts identified by the
Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee as its targets for 2018. These include both vacant
seats and those with Republican incumbents considered vulnerable in the event of a significant
swing to the Democrats.
If on November 6 the Democratic Party makes the net gain of 24 seats needed to win control
of the House of Representatives, former CIA agents, military commanders, and State Department
officials will provide the margin of victory and hold the balance of power in Congress. The
presence of so many representatives of the military-intelligence apparatus in the legislature
is a situation without precedent in the history of the United States.
Since its establishment in 1947 -- under the administration of Democratic President Harry
Truman -- the CIA has been legally barred from carrying out within the United States the
activities which were its mission overseas: spying, infiltration, political provocation,
assassination. These prohibitions were given official lip service but ignored in practice.
In the wake of the Watergate crisis and the forced resignation of President Richard Nixon,
reporter Seymour Hersh published the first devastating exposure of the CIA domestic spying, in
an investigative report for the New York Times on December 22, 1974. This report
triggered the establishment of the Rockefeller Commission, a White House effort at damage
control, and Senate and House select committees, named after their chairmen, Senator Frank
Church and Representative Otis Pike, which conducted hearings and made serious attempts to
investigate and expose the crimes of the CIA, FBI and National Security Agency.
The Church Committee in particular featured the exposure of CIA assassination plots against
foreign leaders like Fidel Castro, Patrice Lumumba in the Congo, General Rene Schneider in
Chile, and many others. More horrors were uncovered: MK-Ultra, in which the CIA secretly
subjected unwitting victims to experimentation with drugs like LSD;
Operation Mockingbird, in
which the CIA recruited journalists to plant stories and smear opponents; Operation Chaos, an
effort to spy on the antiwar movement and sow disruption; Operation Shamrock, under which the
telecommunications companies shared traffic with the NSA for more than a quarter century.
The Church and Pike committee exposures, despite their limitations, had a devastating
political effect. The CIA and its allied intelligence organizations in the Pentagon and NSA
became political lepers, reviled as the enemies of democratic rights. The CIA in particular was
widely viewed as "Murder Incorporated."
In that period, it would have been unthinkable either for dozens of "former"
military-intelligence operatives to participate openly in electoral politics, or for them to be
welcomed and even recruited by the two corporate-controlled parties. The Democrats and
Republicans sought to distance themselves, at least for public relations purposes, from the spy
apparatus, while the CIA publicly declared that it would no longer recruit or pay American
journalists to publish material originating in Langley, Virginia. Even in the 1980s, the
Iran-Contra scandal involved the exposure of the illegal operations of the Reagan
administration's CIA director, William Casey.
How times have changed. One of the main functions of the "war on terror," launched in the
wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, has been to
rehabilitate the US spy apparatus and give it a public relations makeover as the supposed
protector of the American people against terrorism.
This meant disregarding the well-known connections between Osama bin Laden and other Al
Qaeda leaders and the CIA, which recruited them for the anti-Soviet guerrilla war in
Afghanistan, waged from 1979 to 1989, as well as the still unexplained role of the US
intelligence agencies in facilitating the 9/11 attacks themselves.
The last 15 years have seen a massive expansion of the CIA and other intelligence agencies,
backed by an avalanche of media propaganda, with endless television programs and movies
glorifying American spies and assassins ( 24 , Homeland , Zero Dark
Thirty , etc.)
The American media has been directly recruited to this effort. Judith Miller of the New
York Times , with her reports on "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq, is only the most
notorious of the stable of "plugged-in" intelligence-connected journalists at the
Times , the Washington Post , and the major television networks. More
recently, the Times has installed as its editorial page editor James Bennet, brother
of a Democratic senator and son of the former administrator of the Agency for International
Development, which has been accused of working as a front for the operations of the Central
Intelligence Agency.
The media campaign alleging Russian intervention in the 2016 US elections has been based
entirely on handouts from the CIA, NSA and FBI, transmitted by reporters who are either
unwitting stooges or conscious agents of the military-intelligence apparatus. This has been
accompanied by the recruitment of a cadre of top CIA and military officials to serve as highly
paid "experts" and "analysts" for the television networks .
In centering its opposition to Trump on the bogus allegations of Russian interference, while
essentially ignoring Trump's attacks on immigrants and democratic rights, his alignment with
ultra-right and white supremacist groups, his attacks on social programs like Medicaid and food
stamps, and his militarism and threats of nuclear war, the Democratic Party has embraced the
agenda of the military-intelligence apparatus and sought to become its main political
voice.
This process was well under way in the administration of Barack Obama, which endorsed and
expanded the various operations of the intelligence agencies abroad and within the United
States. Obama's endorsed successor, Hillary Clinton, ran openly as the chosen candidate of the
Pentagon and CIA, touting her toughness as a future commander-in-chief and pledging to escalate
the confrontation with Russia, both in Syria and Ukraine.
The CIA has spearheaded the anti-Russia campaign against Trump in large part because of
resentment over the disruption of its operations in Syria, and it has successfully used the
campaign to force a shift in the policy of the Trump administration on that score. A chorus of
media backers -- Nicholas Kristof and Roger Cohen of the New York Times , the entire
editorial board of the Washington Post , most of the television networks -- are part
of the campaign to pollute public opinion and whip up support on alleged "human rights" grounds
for an expansion of the US war in Syria.
The 2018 election campaign marks a new stage: for the first time, military-intelligence
operatives are moving in large numbers to take over a political party and seize a major role in
Congress. The dozens of CIA and military veterans running in the Democratic Party primaries are
"former" agents of the military-intelligence apparatus. This "retired" status is, however,
purely nominal. Joining the CIA or the Army Rangers or the Navy SEALs is like joining the
Mafia: no one ever actually leaves; they just move on to new assignments.
The CIA operation in 2018 is unlike its overseas activities in one major respect: it is not
covert. On the contrary, the military-intelligence operatives running in the Democratic
primaries boast of their careers as spies and special ops warriors. Those with combat
experience invariably feature photographs of themselves in desert fatigues or other uniforms on
their websites. And they are welcomed and given preferred positions, with Democratic Party
officials frequently clearing the field for their candidacies.
The working class is confronted with an extraordinary political situation. On the one hand,
the Republican Trump administration has more military generals in top posts than any other
previous government. On the other hand, the Democratic Party has opened its doors to a
"friendly takeover" by the intelligence agencies.
The incredible power of the military-intelligence agencies over the entire government is an
expression of the breakdown of American democracy. The central cause of this breakdown is the
extreme concentration of wealth in the hands of a tiny elite, whose interests the state
apparatus and its "bodies of armed men" serve. Confronted by an angry and hostile working
class, the ruling class is resorting to ever more overt forms of authoritarian rule.
Millions of working people want to fight the Trump administration and its ultra-right
policies. But it is impossible to carry out this fight through the "axis of evil" that connects
the Democratic Party, the bulk of the corporate media, and the CIA. The influx of
military-intelligence candidates puts paid to the longstanding myth, peddled by the trade
unions and pseudo-left groups, that the Democrats represent a "lesser evil." On the contrary,
working people must confront the fact that within the framework of the corporate-controlled
two-party system, they face two equally reactionary evils.
Posted on
March 10, 2018 by Yves Smith Yves here. As depressing and
predictable as it is to see Democrats yet again prostituting themselves to financiers, payback
may finally be coming. From Lambert in Water Cooler
yesterday :
Senate: Poll: Five Senate Dems would lose to GOP challenger if elections held today" [
The Hill ]. "New polls published Thursday morning in Axios show Sens. Claire McCaskill
(D-Mo.), Jon Tester (D-Mont.), Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.) and Heidi
Heitkamp (D-N.D.) would all lose reelection to GOP challengers if voters were heading to the
polls this week." Blue Dogs all. Why vote for a fake Republican when you can vote for a real
one?
So these Blue Dogs who are gutting the already underwhelming Dodd Frank may not be with us
much longer, at least politically. And even though the party is remarkably insistent on
adhering to a strategy of corporate toadying that has led it to hemorrhage seats at all levels
of government, if these seats all go red, it might be a message even the Democrats might not be
able to ignore.
By Marshall Auerback is a market analyst and commentator. Originally published at
Alternet
This act of regulatory vandalism highlights everything that is corrupt about our
political system.
As if to maximize the possibility of another major financial crisis, the Trump
administration and the GOP have recently been busy undercutting the limited safeguards
established a decade ago via Dodd-Frank. The latest example of this stealth attack on Wall
Street reform is the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act,
appropriately sponsored by Republican Senator Mike Crapo of Idaho, chairman of the Senate
Banking Committee. Appropriate, because this is literally a "crapo" bill. It provides a few
"technical tweaks" to Dodd-Frank in the same way in which protection payouts to organized crime
provide businesses with "insurance" against property damage. In reality, it is an act of
regulatory vandalism, which highlights everything that is corrupt about our political
system.
We have grown to expect no less from the GOP, whose sole r aison d'etre these days
seems to be filling the trough from which America's fat cats can perpetually gorge themselves.
What is truly disturbing, however, is that the Republican effort is being given bipartisan
cover by more than a dozen Democratic senators: Doug Jones (Ala.), Joe Donnelly (Ind.), Heidi
Heitkamp (N.D.), Jon Tester (Mont.), Mark Warner and Tim Kaine (both from Va.), Claire
McCaskill (Mo.), Joe Manchin (W.Va.), Gary Peters (Mich.), Michael Bennet (Colo.), Chris Coons
(Del.), and Tom Carper of Delaware. To this esteemed group, we should also add Senator Angus
King (ME), an Independent who regularly caucuses with the Democrats. So, in reality, it's a
filibuster-proof "Baker's Dirty Dozen." Digging into the details, perhaps this is what Senator
Mitch McConnell had in mind when he predicted
more bipartisanship in Congress this year . In co-sponsoring this bill, the 13 senators are
providing cover for the GOP when the inevitable fallout comes, dissipating the Democrats'
political capital with the electorate in the process.
Yes, we get it: some of these senator incumbents are in red states that voted heavily for
Donald Trump in the last election. And
the latest polls suggest many are vulnerable in this year's elections. But the last time we
checked, there didn't seem to be an overwhelming wave of populist protest demanding regulatory
relief for banks. All 50 states -- red and blue -- suffered from the last financial crisis, and
it's hard to believe voters in Montana, West Virginia, North Dakota, Indiana or Missouri would
be more likely to support Senators Tester, Manchin, Heitkamp, Donnelly or McCaskill because
they backed a bank deregulation bill (which in reality goes well beyond helping small community
banks). Nor do the 2018 races factor as far as Senators Warner, Coons, or Bennet are concerned,
given that none are up for re-election this year.
No, the more likely answer is money, plain and simple. The numbers aren't in for 2017, but
an analysis of the Federal Election Commission data from the 2016 election appears to explain
what is driving this newfound solicitousness toward the banks. The
Center for Responsive Politics (CRP) points out that "nine of the twelve Democrats
supporting the deregulatory measure count the financial industry as either their biggest or
second-biggest donor." (At least now we have a better understanding as to why Hillary Clinton's
" responsibility
gene " induced her to select running mate Tim Kaine, who
received "large contributions from Big Law partners that represent Wall Street," as opposed
to a genuine finance reformer, such as Senator Elizabeth Warren. Senator Warren is vigorously
opposing the new bill.)
"included among his 20 largest donors the mega Wall Street banks Goldman Sachs and
JPMorgan Chase. Goldman's employees and PACs gave Warner's campaign $71,600 while JPMorgan
Chase gave the Warner campaign committees $50,566 Senator Heidi Heitkamp is also up for
reelection this year and her number one contributor at present is employees and/or PACs of
Goldman Sachs which have contributed $79,500 thus far."
Naturally, all of the senators claim their motives are pure. With no hint of irony, a
spokesman
for Tim Kaine suggested that , "Campaign contributions do not influence Senator Kaine's
policy positions." Likewise, an aide for Mark Warner vigorously
contested the idea that campaign donations from Wall Street ever influenced the Virginia
senator's decision-making on policy matters. Sure, and it was shocking to find out that
gambling took place in Rick's Café.
It is true, as Senator Jon Tester (another co-sponsor)
notes , that the proposed changes introduced in the Crapo bill (notably the increase in the
asset size from $50 billion to $250 billion of those banks that are considered "systemically
important" and therefore subject to greater oversight and tighter rules) do not affect the
likes of Wall Street banks such as Citigroup, JP MorganChase, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs
and Morgan Stanley, all of which are still covered by the most stringent oversight provisions
of Dodd-Frank. But the increased asset threshold does exempt the U.S. bank holding companies of
systemically significant foreign banks: Deutsche Bank, UBS and Credit Suisse, all of whom were
implicated in multiple violations of both American and international banking laws in the
aftermath of the 2008 crisis.
Deutsche Bank alone has paid billions of dollars for its role in perpetuating mortgage
fraud,
money-laundering and interest rate manipulation (the LIBOR scandal), which ideally should
invite more regulatory scrutiny, not less. Instead, a new law ostensibly crafted to provide a
few "technical fixes" for Dodd-Frank is now reducing the regulatory oversight of a bank that
has been
cited in an IMF report as one of Germany's "global systemically important financial
institutions." Translating the couched-IMF-speak, the report suggests that Deutsche Bank on its
own has the potential to set off a new global contagion, given the scale of its derivatives
exposure. Not only too big to fail, but evidently too big to regulate properly either, aided
and abetted by members of a party who claim to be appalled at the level of corruption in the
Trump administration.
Another side-effect of raising the regulatory threshold to $250 billion in assets is that it
diminishes the chance of obtaining an early warning detection signal from somewhat smaller
financial institutions. As the experience of Lehman Brothers or Bear Stearns illustrated,
smaller problems that remain hidden in the shadows can ultimately metastasize if left alone,
and become much bigger -- and more systemically dangerous -- later.
So when Senator Kaine nobly suggests
that he is merely providing relief for "small community banks and credit unions" in his home
state, or Jon Tester argues that he is only helping local banks suffering from Dodd-Frank's
regulatory overkill, both are being extraordinarily disingenuous. The reality is that
increasing the oversight threshold by 500 percent does not just help a few "small community
banks and credit unions" crawl out from a thicket of onerous and costly regulation. Even former
Fed Chairman Paul Volcker, who favored some regulatory relief for community banks, felt that
$250 billion threshold
was excessive ly lax.
In fact, (
per the Americans for Financial Reform ), the increase "removes the most severe mandate for
25 of the 38 largest banks," which
together "account for over $3.5 trillion in banking assets, more than one-sixth of the U.S.
total." Additionally, as Pat Garofalo
writes : "The bill also includes an exemption from capital standards -- essentially the
amount of money that banks need to have on hand in case things go south -- that benefits some
big financial firms, and even more are lobbying to be included." In other words, this isn't
just George Bailey's friendly neighborhood bank that is getting some regulatory relief
here.
All of this newfound regulatory laxity comes at a time when many of the largest Wall Street
banks have again resurrected the same practices that almost destroyed them a decade ago. Bank
credit analyst Chris Whalen
observes : "The leader of this effort is none other than Citigroup (NYSE:C), which has
surpassed JP MorganChase (NYSE:JPM) to become the largest derivatives shop in the world. Citi
has embraced the most notorious product of the roaring 2000s, the synthetic collateralized debt
obligation or 'CDO' security, a product that fraudulently leverages the real world and
literally caused the bank to fail a decade ago."
Another example: Trump and his henchman, Mick Mulvaney, have also joined the big banks in
attacking the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which by virtue of the Crapo act, will be
blocked "from collecting key data showing when and where families of color are being
overcharged for home loans or steered into predatory products."
Let's be honest here: even in its original form, Dodd-Frank was the bare minimum the
government could have done in the wake of the 2008 disaster. But lobbyists, paid-for
politicians and co-opted bank-friendly regulators have been busy "applying technical fixes" to
the bill virtually from the moment it was passed a decade ago. The upshot is that the
much-trumpeted Wall Street reform is a joke when compared to the comprehensive legislation
passed in the aftermath of the Great Depression (which set the stage for decades of relative
financial stability). Under Dodd, the banks are purportedly subject to "meaningful stress
tests" (
in the words of Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell ), but the tests are neither
particularly stressful, nor do they adequately reflect today's twin dangers of off-balance
sheet leverage and the concentration of big banks' on-balance sheet assets in relatively
low-return loans.
What should have been done after the global financial crisis? Professors Eric Tymoigne and
Randall Wray
proposed the following :
"Any of the 'too big to fail' financial institutions that needed funding should have been
required to submit to Fed oversight. Top management should have been required to proffer
resignations as a condition of lending (with the Fed or Treasury holding the letters until
they could decide which should be accepted -- this is how Jessie Jones resolved the bank
crisis in the 1930s). Short-term lending against the best collateral should have been
provided, at penalty rates. A comprehensive 'cease and desist' order should have been
enforced to stop all trading, all lending, all asset sales, and all bonus payments until an
assessment of bank solvency could have been completed. The FDIC should have been called-in
(in the case of institutions with insured deposits), but in any case, the critically
undercapitalized institutions should have been dissolved according to existing law: at the
least cost to the Treasury and to avoid increasing concentration in the financial
sector."
A number of conclusions can be drawn from this whole sordid episode. An obvious one is that
our model of campaign finance is completely broken. While it is encouraging to see some
Democratic politicians increasingly adopting the Sanders model of fundraising,
swearing off large corporate donations , not enough are doing so. Democrats are united in
their concern pertaining to foreign threats that pose risks to the integrity of U.S. elections,
but the vigorous opposition to Vladimir Putin and the Russians isn't extended to the domestic
oligarchs destroying American democracy (and the economy) from within.
The whole history behind Senator Crapo's bill shows how quickly bank lobbyists can
routinely exploit their financial muscle to turn a seemingly innocuous bill into something
which pokes yet more holes into the Swiss Cheese-like rules already in place for Dodd. The
Baker's Dirty Dozen have accepted donations from Wall Street that not only constrain their
ability to implement genuine reforms in finance (and other areas) but also discourage the
mobilization of voters, who see this legislative horror show, and consequently opt out of
showing up to vote at elections because they know that the system is rigged and dominated by
corporate cash (making their votes irrelevant).
Ironically, no less a figure than Donald Trump exploited that voter cynicism in 2016. In
striking contrast to every other Republican presidential nominee since 1936, he attacked
globalization, free trade, international financiers, and Wall Street (and made effective
mockery of Hillary Clinton's ties to Goldman Sachs) and thereby mobilized blue-collar voters in
marginal Rust Belt states, giving him his path to the presidency. Of course, we now know that
this was all bait-and-switch politics, likely facilitated by forces outside the U.S., along
with large corporation donations from domestic elites. We've probably reached the endgame as
far as this "
investment approach to politics " as it disintegrates into a cesspool of corruption and
further financial fragility. It may take another crash before this problem is truly fixed.
In the meantime, this bipartisan subversion of Wall Street reform not only risks making the
next crisis at least as bad as 2008, but also reinforces the notion that both parties are
equally corrupt,
catalyzing the collapse of the American political order . In a further sick twist of fate,
the twin corrosive forces of "golden rule politics" (i.e., he who has the gold rules) and a
rapidly deflating "bubble-ized" economy could all come to a head under the watch of Donald the
Unready. But he won't own this disaster alone, thanks to the help of compromised Wall Street
Democrats.
Jen
Senators Jeanne Shaheen and Maggie Hassan from my deep purple state of NH both, voted to allow the bill
to proceed. And of course my esteemed congress critter, Annie Kuster, did her bit in congress. Only 968
days until I can exact my retribution on Shaheen at the polls, first and foremost for her vote in favor of
fast track, but damned if she doesn't give me another good reason on almost a daily basis.
The US State Department is spending millions of dollars spreading its own disinformation and
propping up NGOs to destroy any individual or organization that does not toe the official US
government line on the US global military empire. Through its "Global Engagement Center" the
State Department establishes in fact -- in the open -- what it accuses the Russian government
of doing without any evidence. Social media companies are colluding with the US government to
make organizations who oppose the US global military empire disappear.
RPI's Daniel McAdams joins the
Corbett Report to discuss the neocon/Washington war on dissent in America:
"... This,,,"Russia appears lost, a global menace, a moral vacuum, a far greater threat than it ever was during the cold war." Should be changed to "The Guardian appears lost, a global menace, a moral vacuum, a far greater threat than it ever was during the cold war." ..."
"... The Guardian has consistently propagandised for regime changes inspired by Washington NeoCons, those of Libya, Syria, Ukraine and is ramping up their propaganda machine toward North Korea, Venezuela and now Russia itself having promoted destabilisation on its borders in Ukraine. ..."
"... On top of what I said yesterday, if Russian oligarchs do pull all their money out of Britain, the British economy would crash, it being highly dependent on the services sector (constituting 80% of Britain's GDP in 2016 according to Wikipedia) and the financial services industry in particular. So if all those Russian billions swirling through Britain's financial system are "dodgy", that's because the system itself encouraged those inflows. ..."
"... "Poor little Britain" which actually spends on par with Russia in terms of its military budget, despite the fact that a) it's a much smaller country to defend and is surrounded by water, and b) it's part of NATO with the US as its staunch defender so it really doesn't need a standalone military anyway. ..."
"... From what's emerging now, it seems there simply were no assassins wandering round Salisbury. Instead, it appears Mr Skripal for some reason has a house full of nerve gas, or enough of it at least to take out himself, his daughter and a policeman who inspected the premises. ..."
"... There is one key element that proves that the Russians didn't do it: The Russians aren't so clumsy as to poison over a dozen other people at the same time. ..."
"... The whole piece is an emotionally charged rant, bordering on hysteria, based on a transparent tissue of lies, distortions and absolutely stunning hypocrisy; and this coming from the 'liberal' 'left of centre' Guardian! ..."
Mark Rice-Oxley,
Guardian columnist and the first in line to fight in WWIII.
The alleged poisoning of ex-MI6 agent Sergei Skripal has caused the Russophobic MSM to go into overdrive. Nowhere is the desperation
with which the Skripal case has been seized more obvious than the Guardian. Luke Harding is spluttering incoherently about a
weapons lab that might not even exist anymore . Simon Jenkins gamely takes up his position as the only rational person left at
the Guardian, before being heckled in the comments and dismissed as a contrarian by Michael White on twitter. More and more the media
are becoming a home for dangerous, aggressive, confrontational rhetoric that has no place in sensible, adult newspapers.
Oh, Russia! Even before we point fingers over poison and speculate about secret agents and spy swaps and pub food in Salisbury,
one thing has become clear: Russia appears lost, a global menace, a moral vacuum, a far greater threat than it ever was during
the cold war.
Read this. It's from a respected "unbiased", liberal news outlet. It is the worst, most partisan political language I have ever
heard, more heated and emotionally charged than even the most fraught moments of the Cold War. It is dangerous to the whole planet,
and has no place in our media.
If everything he said in the following article were true, if he had nothing but noble intentions and right on his side, this would
still be needlessly polarizing and war-like language.
To make it worse, everything he proceeds to say is a complete lie.
Usually we would entitle these pieces "fact checks", but this goes beyond that. This? This is a reality check.
Its agents pop over for murder and shopping
FALSE: There's no proof any of this ever happened. There has been no trial in the Litvinenko case. The
"public
inquiry" was a farce, with no cross-examination of witnesses, evidence given in secret and anonymous witnesses. All of which
contravene British law regarding a fair trial.
even while its crooks use Britain as a 24/7 laundromat for their ill-gotten billions, stolen from compatriots.
TRUE sort of: Russian billionaires do come to London, Paris, and Switzerland to launder their (stolen) money. Rice-Oxley is too
busy with his 2 minutes of hate to interrogate this issue. The reason oligarchs launder their money here is that WE let them. Oligarchs
have been fleeing Russia for over a decade. Why? Because, in Russia, Putin's government has jailed billionaires for tax evasion and
embezzling, stripped them of illegally acquired assets and demanded they pay their taxes. That's why you have wanted criminals like
Sergei Pugachev doing interviews with Luke Harding, complaining he's down to
his
"last 270 million" .
When was the last time a British billionaire was prosecuted for financial crimes? Mega-Corporations owe
literally billions in tax , and our government lets them
get away with it.
Its digital natives use their skills not for solving Russia's own considerable internal problems but to subvert the prosperous
adversaries that it secretly envies.
FALSE: Russiagate is a farce,
anyone with an open-mind can see that . The reference to Russians envying the west is childish and insulting. The 13, just thirteen,
Russians who were indicted by Mueller have no connection to the Russian government, a
nd allegedly
campaigned for many candidates , and both for and against Trump. They are a PR firm, nothing more.
It bought a World Cup,
FALSE: The World Cup bids are voted on, and after years and years of investigation the US/UK teams have found so little evidence
of corruption in the Russia bid that they simply stopped talking about it. If the FBI had found even the slightest hint of financial
malpractice, would we ever have stopped hearing about it?
Regarding the second "neighbour": Ukraine. Ukraine and Russia are not at war. Ukraine has claimed to have been "invaded" by Russia
many times but has never declared war. Why? Because they rely on Russian gas to live, and because they know that if Russia were to
ever REALLY invade, the war would last only just a big longer than the Georgian one. The
"anti-terrorist operation" in Ukraine was started by the coup government in 2014. Since that time over 10,000 people have died.
The vast majority killed by the governments mercenaries and far-right militias many of whom
espouse outright fascism
.
bombed children to save a butcher in the Middle East.
MISLEADING: The statement is trying to paint Russia/Assad as deliberately targeting children, which is clearly untrue. Russia
is operating in Syria in full compliance with international law. Unlike literally everybody else bar Iran. When Russia entered the
conflict, at the invitation of the legitimate Syrian government, Jihadists were winning the war. ISIS had huge swathes of territory,
al-Qaeda affiliates had strongholds in all of Syria's major cities. Syria was on the brink of collapse. Rice-Oxley is unclear whether
or not he thinks this is a good thing.
Today, ISIS is obliterated, Aleppo is free
and the war is almost over. Apparently Syria becoming another Libya is preferable to a secular government winning a war against terrorists
and US-backed mercenaries.
And now it wants to start a new nuclear arms race.
FALSE: America started the arms race when they pulled out of the anti-ballistic missile treaty.
Putin warned at the time it was a dangerous move . America then moved their
AEGIS "defense
shield" into Eastern Europe . Giving them the possibility of first-strike without retaliation. This is an untennable position
for any country.
Putin warned, at the time, that Russia would have to respond. They have responded. Mr Rice-Oxley should take this up with Bush
and Cheney if he has a problem with it.
And before the whataboutists say, "America does some of that stuff too", that may be true, but just because the US is occasionally
awful it doesn't mean that Russia isn't.
MISLEADING: America doesn't do "some of that stuff". No, America aren't "occasionally awful". They do ALL of that stuff, and have
been the biggest destructive force on the planet for over 70 years. Since Putin came to power America has carried out aggressive
military operations against Pakistan, Libya, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Lebanon and Syria. They have sanctioned and threatened
and carried out coups against North Korea, Ukraine, Iran, Honduras, Venezuela and Cuba. All that time, the US has also claimed the
right to extradite and torture foreign nationals with impunity. The war crimes of American forces and agencies are beyond measure
and count.
We are so used to American crimes we just don't see them anymore. Imagine Putin, at one his epic four-hour Q&A sessions, off-handedly
admitting to torturing people in illegal prison camps .
Would we ever hear the end of it?
Even if you cede the utterly false claim that Russia has "invaded two neighbours", the scale of destruction just does not compare.
Invert the scale of destruction and casualties of Georgia and Iraq. Imagine Putin's government had killed 500,000 people in Georgia
alone, whilst routinely condemning the US for a week-long war in Iraq that killed less than 600 people. Imagine Russia kidnapped
foreign nationals and tortured them, whilst lambasting America's human rights record.
The double-think employed here is literally insane.
Note to Rice-Oxley and his peers, pointing out your near-delusional hypocrisy is not "whataboutism". It's a standard rhetorical
appeal to fairness. If you believe the world shouldn't be fair, fine, but don't expect other people not to point out your double
standards.
As for poor little Britain, it seems to take this brazen bullying like a whipping boy in the playground who has wet himself.
Boycott the World Cup? That'll teach them!
FALSE: Rice-Oxley is trying to paint a picture of false weakness in order to promote calls for action. Britain has been anything
but cooperative with Russia. British forces operate illegally in
Syria , they arm and train rebels. They refused to let Russian authorities see the evidence in the Litvinenko case, and refused
to let Russian lawyers cross-examine witnesses. Britain's attitude to Russia has been needlessly, provocatively antagonistic for
years.
Russians have complained that the portrayal of their nation in dramas such as McMafia is cartoonish and unhelpful, a lazy smear
casting an entire nation as a ludicrous two-dimensional pantomime villain with a pocketful of poisonous potions .Of course, the
vast majority of Russians are indeed misrepresented by such portrayals, because they are largely innocent in these antics.
TRUE: Russians do complain about this, which is entirely justifiable. The western representation of Russians is ignorant and racist
almost without exception. It is an effort, just like Rice-Oxley's column, to demonize an entire people and whip up hatred of Russia
so that people will support US-UK warmongering.
Most ordinary Russians are in fact also victims of the power system in their country, which requires ideas such as individual
comfort, aspiration, dignity, prosperity and hope to be subjugated to the wanton reflexes of the state
FALSE: Putin's government has decreased poverty by
over 66% in 17 years . They have increased life-expectancy, decreased crime, and increased public health. Pensions, social security
and infrastructure have all been rebuilt. These are not controversial or debated claims. The Guardian published them itself just
a few years ago. That is hardly a state where hope and aspiration are put aside.
Why is Russian power like this: cynical, destructive, zero-sum, determined to bring everything down to a base level where everyone
thinks the worst of each other and behaves accordingly?
MISLEADING FALLACY: This is simply projection. There is no logical basis for this statement. He is simply employing the old rhetorical
trick of asking WHY something exists, as a way of establishing its existence. This allows the (dishonest) author to sell his own
agenda as if it solves a riddle. Before you can explain something, you need to establish an explanandum something which requires
explaining. This is the basic logical process that our dear author is attempting to circumvent. We don't NEED to explain why
Russian power is like this, because he hasn't yet established that it is .
I think there are two reasons. The most powerful political idea in Russia is restoration. A decade of humiliation – economic,
social and geopolitical – that followed its rebirth in 1991 became the defining narrative of the new nation.
MISLEADING LANGUAGE: Describing the absolute destruction caused by the fall of the USSR as "rebirth" is an absurd joke. People
sold their medals, furniture and keepsakes for food, people froze to death in the streets.
At times, even the continued existence of the Russian Federation appeared under threat.
TRUE: This is true. Russia was in danger of Balkanisation. The possibility of dozens of anarchic microstates, many with access
to nuclear weapons, was very real. Most rational people would consider this a bad thing. The achievement of Putin's government in
pulling Russia back from the brink should be applauded. Especially when compared with our Western governments who can barely even
maintain the functional social security states created by their predecessors. Compare the NHS now with the NHS in 2000, compare Russia's
health service now to 17 years ago. Who do you think is really in trouble?
The second reason is that the parlous internal state of Russia – absurdist justice, a threadbare social safety net, a pyramid
society in which a very few get very rich and the rest languish – creates moral ambivalence.
PROJECTION: he actually makes this statement without even a hint of irony. The Tory government has killed people by slashing their
benefits, and homeless people froze to death during the recent blizzards. The overall trend of British social structure has been
down, for decades.
Poverty is increasing all the time ,
food banks are opening and people are increasingly desperate. We are trending down. 20%, one in five British people,
now live in poverty .
In that same time, as stated above, Russia's poverty has gone down and down. 13% of Russians live in poverty, almost half the
UK rate. In 2014, before we sanctioned Russia, it was only 10%. Even the briefest research would show this. Columnists like Rice-Oxley
go out of their way to avoid inconvenient facts.
What is to be done? I wouldn't respond with empty threats, Boris Johnson. No one cares.
Here we come to the centre of the shrubbery maze, up until now the column was just build up. Establishing a "problem" so he can
pitch us a "solution".
There are only two weaknesses in this bully's defences. The first is his money. Britain needs to do something about the dodgy
Russian billions swilling through its financial system. Make it really hard for Kremlin-connected money to buy football clubs
or businesses or establish dodgy limited partnerships; stop oligarchs from raising capital on the London stock exchange. Don't
bother with sanctions. Just say: "No thanks, we don't want your business."
FALSE: This shows not even the most basic understanding of the way money works. Money being made in Russia and spent in London
is bad fo Russia. Sending billionaires back to Russia would inject money INTO the Russian economy. Either Rice-Oxley is actually
a moron, or he is being deliberately dishonest.
What he REALLY means is that we should put pressure on the oligarchs, not to the hurt the Russian economy, but in the hopes the
oligarchs will turn on Putin and remove him by undemocratic means.
He is pushing for backdoor regime change. And if you think I'm reading too much into this, then here
The second is public opinion. The imminent presidential election is a foregone conclusion, but the mood in Russia can turn
suddenly, as we saw in 1991, 1993 and 2011-2012.
Notice how quickly he dismisses the democratic will of the Russian people. Poor, stupid, "envious" Russians aren't equipped to
make their own decisions. We need to step in. "Public opinion" turning means a colour revolution. It means US backed regime change
in a nuclear armed super-power. Backed by the cyberwarriors paid to spread Western propaganda online.
Maybe it's time to try some new digital hearts-and-minds operation. In the internet age, Russians have already shown how public
opinion can be manipulated. Perhaps our own secret digital marvels can embark on the kind of information counter-offensive to
win over the many millions of Russians who share our values. Perhaps they already are.
The hypocrisy is mind-blowing, when I read this paragraph I was dumb-founded. Speechless. For months we've been hearing about
how terrible Russia is for allegedly interfering in the American election. Damaging democracy with reporting true news out of context
and some well placed memes.
Our response? Our defense of our "values"? Use the armies of online propagandists our governments employ –
their existence
was reported in the
Guardian – in order to undermine, or undo the democratic will of the Russian people. Rice-Oxley is positing this with a straight
face.
Russia is such a destabilising threat to "our democratic values", such a moral vacuum, that we must use subterfuge to undermine
their elections and remove their popular head of state.
Rice-Oxley wants to push and prod and provoke and antagonise a nuclear armed power that, at worst, is guilty of nothing but playing
our game by our rules and winning. He wants to build a case for war with Russia, and he's doing it on bedrock of cynical lies.
It's all incredibly dangerous. Hopefully they'll realise that before it's too late. For all our sakes.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, Putin's 10 year plan for the future of Russia. Putin is a builder, like Peter the Great. He
is a seeker after excellence, like Catherine the Great. If his 10 year plan can achieve the half of what he set out in his recent
speech, the name Putin will go down in history with the same sobriquet.
The most important part of Putin's March 1st speech:
And on the village level, because that's where most of the real work of the world is done, a snippet BTL from Auslander who
lives in the Crimea: "the first implications of anti corruption efforts are obvious in our little village. We'll see how it pans
out but everyone can, and should, assist in this task. The proof will be in the pudding when The West starts screaming about certain
kind, gentle and innocent 'businessmen' who end up counting trees [in Siberia?] for a decade or three."
I wonder how much longer the general readership over there will cotton on to the pro-war and propaganda agenda of the Guardian
and leave it en masse? It's as dishonest as The Sun.
"Poor little Britain", with half the population, a much smaller territory ,and being part of the largest military alliance in
the world, spends only 10 billions less than Russia in "defense". One of those "defense" strategies included in the budget, one
that all those commentators vilifying Russia conveniently ignore, is to blow up weddings, funerals and entire villages with missiles
fired from drones. No trial, no public kill list, no record of people killed, no accountability. That is sanctioned, extra-judicial
murder of suspects and everyone around them. And these progressive commentators, eager to spread prosperity by any mean, seem
to be ok with it.
Update: as I was writing this I noticed that The Guardian has a piece by (of all people!), Simon Jenkins, which, yes, takes
for granted that the assassination attempt was carried out by the Russians, but asks if there is a moral difference between that
and killing suspects with drone strikes. For that, he has been labeled an useful idiot and "an apologist for attempted mass murder
on British soil". Highly amusing if you ask me, but also a terrifying example of how straying if only a little bit from the official
line ("yes, the Russians tried to kill this guy, they are the worst, but maybe we should have a look at ourselves and our (kind
of) inappropriate tendency to murder everyone we want") has to be punished. There are no ifs or buts while at the two minutes
of hate. Now even the pieces that are there to give a semblance of balance have to be torn apart by those liberal, prosperity
loving persons that can´t seem to be able to condemn the murder of children at will. Now it is time to express hatred towards
Goldstein, I mean, of course, Putin and everything Russia.
This,,,"Russia appears lost, a global menace, a moral vacuum, a far greater threat than it ever was during the cold war."
Should be changed to "The Guardian appears lost, a global menace, a moral vacuum, a far greater threat than it ever was during
the cold war."
All suffering from PTDS AKA Putin-Trump Derangement Syndrome.
The Russophobes over at the Guardian (and the rest of the corporate media) would be well advised to review the trial of Julius
Streicher at the Nuremberg Tribunal.
The Guardian has consistently propagandised for regime changes inspired by Washington NeoCons, those of Libya, Syria, Ukraine
and is ramping up their propaganda machine toward North Korea, Venezuela and now Russia itself having promoted destabilisation
on its borders in Ukraine.
I find it the ultimate paradox that a publication purporting to be 'liberal' acts so enthusiastically
for deadly regime changes from this once Trotskyist but now extreme Right Wing group. There is nothing 'liberal', 'humanitarian',
or moral about promotion of deadly regime changes that have destroyed previously peaceful nations and murdered hundreds of thousands
in the process. Guardian for the geopolitical goals of the self-declared 'exceptional' Empire, the new 'master race' that of the
US.
One final observation on the Skripal case (for now): this stuff is so toxic. We don't know what the stuff is: nevertheless,
we know it is so toxic, can only be made by a state, and needs careful expert handling. We know this because every paper
and TV channel has by now emphasised that this stuff is so toxic, etc. If we missed the "nerve agents and what they do
to you" coverage: we can ascertain for ourselves from the men in the hazmat suits, the this stuff must be so toxic. The
Army have now been deployed: on hand after completing the largest CW exercise ever held, 'Toxic Dagger'; they are now employing
their specialist skills to carry out "Sensitive Site Operations" because this stuff is you get it by now. In another piece of
pure theater: police in hazmat suits were examining the grave of Alexander and Liudmila Skripal because even after a year or more
buried underground, you can't be too careful, because this stuff is A woman from the office next to Zizzi was taken ill (maybe
she had the risotto con pesce) because even after a week, and next door, traces of this stuff can still be
11 (or 16) people were hospitalised from the effects of 'this stuff': the first attending officer, Nick Bailey, is only just
out of ICU and lucky to be alive. The Skripal's are not so lucky: and on "palliative care" according to H de Bretton-Gordon. Yet
the eye-witness calling himself 'Jamie Paine' was close enough to get coughed on; and the unnamed passing doctor and nurse that
attended the Skripals at the scene, clearing their airways, are all fine (despite being hospitalised). Yet PC Bailey nearly died?
Funny that?
When first you practice to deceive: someone in the propaganda department must have noticed this glaring inconsistency. Enter,
stage right, former Met Chief Ian (now Lord) Blair (guess who was leading the Met when Litvinenko was poisoned?): to clarify that
PC Bailey was contaminated when he was the first officer to enter the Skripal's home – not attend them in Salisbury. This allowed
the Torygraph and Fox to speculate that Yulia brought a contaminated present for her father (which she kept in a drawer for a
week, because this stuff is so toxic?). The Torygraph's previous spin: that Skripal was poisoned for his contributions
to the Pissgate dossier were torpedoed by Orbis (Steele's company). Speaking on Radio 4: after pushing the Buzzfeed "14 other
deaths" dodgy dossier; Blair said "So there maybe some clues floating around in here." Yes, clues that you are lying? This is
pure theater: only it is more Morecambe and Wise than Shakespeare.
Check out the report from
C4News (mute the sound).
Two guys plodding around in fluorescent breather suits, another couple with gas masks, but behind them firemen in normal uniform
and no gas masks and the reporter 20 feet in front, in civvies wih no protective gear at all.
Virulent nerve agent threat? Theatre, and not very convincing at that.
Flaxgirl: a bit OT, but not too much as this event does not seem to have too much basis in reality: on the question of fabrication
the UK Home Office held an event this week – Security and Policing 2018 – where the "Live Demo Area" was sponsored by Crisis Cast.
I though you might interested? Are they providing critical incident training: or the critical incidents themselves is a legitimate
question after the events in Salisbury?
I suppose by now we should be used to the nauseating, self-righteous bluster dished out on a daily basis by the Anglo-Zionist
media. The two minutes hate by the flabby 'left' liberals who now have apparently joined forces with the demented US neo-cons
in openly baying for a war against Russia. How, exactly did these people expect Russia to react to the abrogation of the ABM agreement,
marching NATO right up to Russia's doorstep, staging coups in the Ukraine and Georgia, having the US sixth fleet swanning around
in the Black Sea? Of course, Russia reacted as any other self-respecting state would react to such blatant provocations. And this
includes the US during the Cuba crisis and its self-proclaimed right to intervene in its sphere of influence – Latin America –
and for that matter anywhere else on the planet. And it does so A L'outrance.
But I was foregetting, the Anglo-Zionist axis has a divine mission mandated by the deity to reconfigure the world and bring
democracy and freedom to those "Lesser breeds without the Law" (Kipling). Of course, this updated version of 'taking up the white
man's burden' by the 'exceptional people' may involve mass murder, mayhem, destruction and chaos, unfortunately necessary in the
short(ish) run. But these benighted peoples should realise it is for their own good, and if this means starving to death 500,000
Iraqi children through sanctions, well, it was 'worth it' according to the lovely Madeline Albright. This is the language and
methodology of a totalitarian imperialism. As someone has remarked the Anglo-zionist empire is not on the wrong side of history,
it is the wrong side of history.
The arrogance, ignorance and crass venality of these people is manifest to the point of parody.
I agree with Mark Rice-Oxley that Russian oligarchs should pull their money out of Britain and return it to Russia to invest in
businesses there. That would be the ethical thing for them to do, to fulfill their proper tax obligations and stop using Britain
as a tax haven.
I hear that Russia has had another bumper wheat harvest and is now poised to take over from Australia as the major wheat exporter
to Egypt and Indonesia, the world's biggest buyers of wheat. So if Russian oligarchs are wondering where to put their money in,
wheat production, research into improving wheat yields and the conditions wheat is grown in are just a few areas they can invest
in.
Be careful what you wish for, Mr Rice-Oxley – your wish might come true bigger than you realise!
On top of what I said yesterday, if Russian oligarchs do pull all their money out of Britain, the British economy would crash,
it being highly dependent on the services sector (constituting 80% of Britain's GDP in 2016 according to Wikipedia) and the financial
services industry in particular. So if all those Russian billions swirling through Britain's financial system are "dodgy", that's
because the system itself encouraged those inflows.
"Poor little Britain" which actually spends on par with Russia in terms of its military budget, despite the fact that a) it's
a much smaller country to defend and is surrounded by water, and b) it's part of NATO with the US as its staunch defender so it
really doesn't need a standalone military anyway.
"It's them, over there, they are evil. We must stop them. They are coming for us, they will take our children and steal our i
phones !!! Arrgh!!!" "I'll have another strong short black thanks"
Their world is falling apart- in Korea and the Middle East the Empire is on the verge of eviction. All the certitudes of yesteryear
are dissolving. Even the Turks, who, famously, held the line in Korea when the PLA attacked and the US Eighth Army fled south,
are now on the other side. The same Turks who hosted US nuclear armed strategic missiles so openly that the USSR sent missiles
of its own to Cuba.
As to the UK, the economy is contracting and the economic infrastructure is cracking up- living standards are plummeting and the
only recourse of those responsible for the mess-the officers on the bridge- is propaganda. Like the Empire the British Establishment
has been living on the fruits of its own propaganda for so long that, when it is exposed as merely empty bullying, there is nothing
left but to resort to more lies in the hope that they will obscure raw and looming reality.
In The Guardian newsroom the water
is three feet deep and rising inexorably, the ship is sinking and all hands are required to bail or the screens will go black.
There is no time to wait for developments, for investigations to be completed, for evidence- every ounce of strength must be thrown
into the defiance of nature, the shocking nakedness of reality.
There is something very significant about the way that simultaneous attacks of impotent russophobic dementia are eating away
the brains of the rulers on both sides of the Atlantic.
The game, which has been going the same way for about 500 years, is up. The maritime empire is becoming marginal and the force
that it has used, throughout these centuries, no longer overwhelms. The cruisers and carriers no longer work except to intimidate
those not worth frightening.
There is only one thing left for the Empire and its hundreds of thousands of apparatchiki-from cops to pundits, from Professors
to jailers- either they adjust to a new dispensation because the Times are Changing or they blow themselves and the whole planet
up.
From what's emerging now, it seems there simply were no assassins wandering round Salisbury. Instead, it appears Mr Skripal
for some reason has a house full of nerve gas, or enough of it at least to take out himself, his daughter and a policeman who
inspected the premises.
Cleary the Guardian was swallowed up by England's fascist regime controlled by the City of London when it surrendered its hard
drives to the regime for examination and/or destruction in the wake of the Snowden revelations.
The Guardian ownerships also sold their souls -- although the Guardian had already been in decline before they nabbed Glenn
Greenwald. When he left, the Guardian lost ALL presumptive credibility.
Now The Guardian is just an organ of regime propaganda like the BBC (thank GOd for OffGuardian) and here is the island nation
AGAIN asserting its dominance over the whole world, but this time on behalf of his brawnier brother, the EUSE, aka Exceptional
US Empire.
One wonders how much longer the Russians will put up with this now that it is CLEAR that -- for the first time ever -- the
Russians have complete military and nuclear superiority over "The West."
I'll bet Putin won't invade Ukraine, Germany, France, Brussels and England from the North and from the sea in the wintertime.
The Big Problem Is YThat Americans are afraid -- frightened -- but they are NOT afraid or frightened of a particular tbhing
-- it is a generic fright. So they are no longer afraid of nuclear war. Trotsky said A'meria was the strongest nation but also
the most terrified' and nothing has changed except military and nuclear superiority along with economic clout has shifted to Russia
and China. Were Americans afraid of nuclear war -- or say, of an invasion from Saskatchewan or Tamaulipas -- there might be hope.
But somewhere along the time beginning with Clinton, Americans didn't worry their pretty little heads about nuclear war or
American wars on everybody anywhere any longer so long as it didn't disturb their creature comforts and shopping and lattes by
coming to the homeland. The Nuclear Freeze movement was, after all, a direct response to Reagan's "evil empire" military buildup
in the 1980s and then voila he and Gorbachev negotiated away a whole class of nuclear weapoms and Old Bush promised NAto wouldn;t
expand. Hope. Then that sneaky little bastard Clinton started expanding Nato on behalf of the Pentagon / CKIA / NSA / miklitary
/congressional industyrial complex.
Maybe it's time to try some new digital hearts-and-minds operation. In the internet age, Russians have already shown
how public opinion can be manipulated. Perhaps our own secret digital marvels can embark on the kind of information counter-offensive
to win over the many millions of Russians who share our values. Perhaps they already are.
He really is taking Russians for idiots and fools!
There is one key element that proves that the Russians didn't do it: The Russians aren't so clumsy as to poison over a dozen
other people at the same time.
The whole piece is an emotionally charged rant, bordering on hysteria, based on a transparent tissue of lies, distortions
and absolutely stunning hypocrisy; and this coming from the 'liberal' 'left of centre' Guardian!
It's rather scary. The Guardian screaming for a crusade aimed at toppling the Russian system and replacing it with something
else, something closer to 'our values.' The moralizing is shocking and grotesque. I really wish the ground would just open up
and swallow the Guardian whole. We'd be far better off with out it.
Are powerful intelligence agencies compatible even with limited neoliberal democracy, or
democracy for top 10 or 1%?
Notable quotes:
"... I recall during the George II administration someone in congress advocating for he return of debtor's prisons during the 'debat' over ending access to bankruptcy ..."
"... Soros, like the Koch brothers, heads an organization. He has lots of "people" who do what he demands of them. ..."
"... Let's give these guys (and gals, too, let's not forget the Pritzkers and DeVoses and the Walton Family, just among us Norte Americanos) full credit for all the hard work they are putting in, and money too, of course, to buy a world the way they want it -- one which us mopes have only slave roles to play... ..."
You have a good point, but I often think that, a the machinery of surveillance and repression
becomes so well oiled and refined, the ruling oligarchs will soon stop even paying lip
service to 'American workers', or the "American middle class" and go full authoritarian. Karl
Rove's dream to return the economy to the late 19th Century standard.
The Clintonoid project seems set on taking it to the late 16th century. Probably with a
return of chattel slavery. I recall during the George II administration someone in congress
advocating for he return of debtor's prisons during the 'debat' over ending access to
bankruptcy
Soros, like the Koch brothers, heads an organization. He has lots of "people" who do what he
demands of them.
Do you really contend that Soros and the Koch brothers, and people like Adelson, aren't busily "undermining American democracy," whatever that is, via their
organizations (like ALEC and such) in favor of their oligarchic kleptocratic interests, and
going at it 24/7?
The phrase "reductio ad absurdam" comes to mind, for some reason...
Let's give these guys (and gals, too, let's not forget the Pritzkers and DeVoses and the
Walton Family, just among us Norte Americanos) full credit for all the hard work they are
putting in, and money too, of course, to buy a world the way they want it -- one which us
mopes have only slave roles to play...
Loss of legitimacy of neoliberal elite reminds loss of legitimacy of Nomenklatura in the USSR.
This descent "into tribalism due to the loss of jobs, the drug epidemic and environmental exploitation " also reminds epidemic
of alcoholism due to lack of persepdtives both in job environment and housing crisis, where young families did not
have a space to live in the USSR.
The logical end on the US empire might well be the USSR style crisis. which might eventually lead to the disintegration of the country.
Notable quotes:
"... NBC News daily has Kumbaya propaganda to facilitate importing of cheap labor and goods. But, what good is a service economy if there is no service? Just like Soviet propaganda, corporate media today is in service of the oligarch owners and sold out party elite. It tries to avoid the truth. Although, NBC did report on the astronomical rise in cost of ambulance service. A couple thousand dollars for mile and half trip to the hospital. They said it was due to the 2008 recession and the cutting of local volunteer emergency services to save tax money. ..."
"... I agree the Democrats shot themselves in the foot because they are unconcerned for the bottom 80% except for their identity issues. They serve their paymasters. ..."
"... The recent Italian election documents the complete collapse of left leaning parties that ignored the plight of the workers in the West. To me, to win, the left in America must write off student debt, implement Medicare for All, end the forever wars and tax George Soros, Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Pierre Omidyar, the Koch Brothers and the Walton Family to pay for it. To work, criminal bankers need to be jailed and corporate boards required to manage for long term profits that benefit society not just quarterly and themselves only. ..."
Have you seen the movie "Wind River" yet? It is the best depiction I've seen of the USA
descending into tribalism due to the loss of jobs, the drug epidemic and environmental
exploitation.
NBC News daily has Kumbaya propaganda to facilitate importing of cheap labor and
goods. But, what good is a service economy if there is no service? Just like Soviet
propaganda, corporate media today is in service of the oligarch owners and sold out party
elite. It tries to avoid the truth. Although, NBC did report on the astronomical rise in cost
of ambulance service. A couple thousand dollars for mile and half trip to the hospital. They
said it was due to the 2008 recession and the cutting of local volunteer emergency services
to save tax money.
Rather than tax the wealthy and corporations, the middle class is going into debt to pay
for education, medical bills, and $40 Northern Virginia one-way tolls. Federal taxes on the
middle class support the endless wars.
I agree the Democrats shot themselves in the foot because they are unconcerned for the
bottom 80% except for their identity issues. They serve their paymasters.
The recent Italian election documents the complete collapse of left leaning parties
that ignored the plight of the workers in the West. To me, to win, the left in America must
write off student debt, implement Medicare for All, end the forever wars and tax George
Soros, Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Pierre Omidyar, the Koch Brothers and the
Walton Family to pay for it. To work, criminal bankers need to be jailed and corporate boards
required to manage for long term profits that benefit society not just quarterly and
themselves only.
"... the four largest banks in America are on average 80% bigger today than they were before we bailed them out because they were "too big to fail". Incredibly, the six largest banks in America have over 10 trillion dollars in assets, equivalent to 54% of the GDP of this nation . This is wealth, this is power, this is who owns America. ..."
"... Very conservative, anti-regulatory people hold the White House and key positions in the House and the Senate, and the first thing the industry does is gut regulation. Why? Because it makes the CEOs so wealthy to run these frauds and predation. It's not necessarily good for the banking industry, but it is extremely good for the most senior leaders and they are the ones, of course, who hire and fire the lawyers and the lobbyists, and effectively hire and fire key members of Congress. ..."
"... Apparently, our memories are indeed so short that we have learned nothing from the 2008 Wall Street crash. Bernie Sanders (and probably Elizabeth Warren to some extend), are left alone again to fight against the Wall Street mafia because, apparently, the rest of the US political class has been bought from it. ..."
The six largest banks in America have over 10 trillion dollars in assets,
equivalent to 54% of the GDP of this nation. This is wealth, this is power, this is who owns
America.
Ten years after the big crash of 2007-08, caused by the Wall Street mafia, sending waves of
financial destruction around the globe, the awful Trump administration that literally put the
Goldman Sachs banksters in charge of the US economy, wants to reset the clock bomb of another
financial disaster by deregulating the financial sector! And guess what: the corporate
Democrats followed again!
Putting aside that Russiagate fiasco, Bernie Sanders was one more time the only voice of
resistance against the Wall Street mafia in a hypnotized by the banking-corporate money US
senate.
As Bernie stated:
Just ten years ago, as a result of greed, recklessness and illegal behavior on Wall Street,
this country was plunged into the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.
The official unemployment rate soared up to 10% and the real unemployment rate jumped to over
17%. At the height of the financial crisis more than 27 million Americans were unemployed,
underemployed or stopped working altogether because they could not find employment. 15 million
families - as a result of that financial crisis - lost their homes to foreclosure, as more and
more people could not afford to pay their mortgages. As a result of the illegal behavior of
Wall Street, American households lost over 13 trillion dollars in savings. That is what Wall
Street did 10 years ago.
Believe it or not - and of course we are not going to hear any discussion of this at all -- the four largest banks in America are on average 80% bigger today than they were before we
bailed them out because they were "too big to fail". Incredibly, the six largest banks in
America have over 10 trillion dollars in assets, equivalent to 54% of the GDP of this
nation . This is wealth, this is power, this is who owns America.
If any of these financial institutions were to get into a financial trouble again, there is no
doubt that, once again, the taxpayers of this country will be asked to bail them out. Except
this time, the bail out might even be larger than it was in 2008.
Bernie is right, the facts are all there, except that, again, he is the only one who speaks
about it.
Recall that according to chapter 20 conclusions of the US Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, "As a result of the rescues and consolidation of financial institutions through failures
and mergers during the crisis, the U.S. financial sector is now more concentrated than ever in
the hands of a few very large, systemically significant institutions."
Recall
also that in December 1, 2010, the Fed was forced to release details of 21,000 funding
transactions it made during the financial crisis, naming names and dollar amounts. Disclosure
was due to a provision sparked by Bernie Sanders. The voluminous data dump from the notoriously
secret Fed shows just how deeply the Federal Reserve stepped into the shoes of Wall Street and,
as the crisis grew and the normal channels of lending froze, the Fed effectively replaced Wall
Street and money centers banks in terms of financing. The Fed has thus far reported, without
even disclosing specifics of its lending from its discount window, that it supplied, in
total, more than $9 trillion to Wall Street firms, commercial banks, foreign banks,
corporations and some highly questionable off balance sheet entities. (Much smaller amounts
were outstanding at any one time.)
Bill Black, Associate Professor of Economics and Law at the University of Missouri, states:
In the savings loan debacle, a Nobel Laureate in Economics, George Akerlof and Paul Romer, who
until recently was Chief Economist to the World Bank, wrote that economists didn't realize -
because they lacked any theory of fraud - that deregulation was bound to create widespread
fraud and a crisis. Now, we know better if we learn the lessons of this crisis, we need not
recreate it.
Very conservative, anti-regulatory people hold the White House and key positions in the House
and the Senate, and the first thing the industry does is gut regulation. Why? Because it makes
the CEOs so wealthy to run these frauds and predation. It's not necessarily good for the
banking industry, but it is extremely good for the most senior leaders and they are the ones,
of course, who hire and fire the lawyers and the lobbyists, and effectively hire and fire key
members of Congress.
Apparently, our memories are indeed so short that we have learned nothing from the 2008 Wall
Street crash. Bernie Sanders (and probably Elizabeth Warren to some extend), are left alone
again to fight against the Wall Street mafia because, apparently, the rest of the US political
class has been bought from it.
"... If Mueller's probe drags on and fails to produce a "smoking gun," the whole affair may end up seeming so complex, muddy, and partisan that most of the public would prefer to move on, eager to talk about something else . ..."
"... In 1996, Republican presidential nominee Bob Dole decided to take a hard line on China -- portraying the nation as a growing economic and geopolitical threat to the United States and a violator of international rules and norms. In response, China tried to leverage its extensive diplomatic , intelligence , and financial networks in the United States in order to sway the election in favor of Dole's rival, Democrat Bill Clinton. ..."
"... This is not a theory, it is historical fact: there was a major Congressional investigation . In the end, several prominent Democratic fundraisers, including close Clinton associates, were found to be complicit in the Chinese meddling efforts and pled guilty to various charges of violating campaign finance and disclosure laws (most notably James T. Riady , Johnny Chung , John Huang , and Charlie Trie ). Several others fled the country to escape U.S. jurisdiction as the probe got underway. The Democratic National Committee was forced to return millions of dollars in ill-gotten funds (although by that point, of course, their candidate had already won). ..."
"... Clinton authorized a series of controversial defense contracts with China as well -- despite Department of Justice objections . Federal investigators were concerned that the contractors seemed to be passing highly sensitive and classified information to the Chinese. And indeed, the companies in question were eventually found to have violated the law by giving cutting-edge missile technology to China, and paid unprecedented fines related to the Arms Export Control Act during the administration of George W. Bush. But they were inexplicably approved in the Bill Clinton years. ..."
A president can be reelected despite corruption, foreign meddling, and sex
scandals Bill Clinton was reelected with help from China. / The Baffler Imagine for a
moment that special counsel Robert Mueller is unable to establish direct and intentional
collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign. Or, suppose he proves collusion by a few
former campaign aides but finds nothing directly implicating the president himself. In either
event -- or in just about any other imaginable scenario -- it seems improbable that Congress
will have the votes to impeach Trump or otherwise hold him accountable prior to 2020.
In other words, Russiagate could well continue to distract and infuriate Trump without
breaking his hold on power.
Is it shocking to think evidence of Russian chicanery could be shrugged off? Don't be
shocked. After all, the last major case of foreign meddling and collusion in a U.S.
presidential race didn't exactly end up rocking the republic.
In 1996, Republican presidential nominee Bob Dole decided to
take a hard line on China -- portraying the nation as a growing economic and geopolitical
threat to the United States and a violator of international rules and norms. In response, China
tried to leverage its extensive diplomatic
, intelligence
, and financial
networks in the United States in order to sway the election in favor of Dole's rival, Democrat
Bill Clinton.
This is not a theory, it is historical fact: there was a major
Congressional investigation . In the end, several prominent Democratic fundraisers,
including close Clinton associates, were found to be complicit in the Chinese meddling efforts
and pled guilty to various charges of violating campaign finance and disclosure laws (most
notably James
T. Riady , Johnny Chung , John Huang , and
Charlie Trie ). Several others fled
the country to escape U.S. jurisdiction as the probe got underway. The Democratic National
Committee was forced to return millions of dollars
in ill-gotten funds (although by that point, of course, their candidate had already won).
It was a scandal that persisted after the election in no small part because many of
Clinton's own policies in his second term seemed to lend credence to insinuations of
collusion.
Several prominent Democratic fundraisers, including close Clinton associates, were found
to be complicit in Chinese meddling efforts and pled guilty to campaign finance
violations.
Rather than attempting to punish the meddling country for undermining the bedrock of our
democracy, Bill Clinton worked to ease sanctions and
normalize relations with Beijing -- even as the U.S. ratcheted up sanctions against Cuba,
Iran, and Iraq. By the end of his term, he signed a series of sweeping trade deals that
radically expanded China's economic and geopolitical clout -- even though some in
his administration
forecast that this would come at the expense of key American industries and U.S.
manufacturing workers.
Clinton authorized a series of controversial defense contracts with China as well --
despite Department of Justice objections . Federal investigators were concerned that the
contractors seemed to be passing highly sensitive and classified information to the Chinese.
And indeed, the companies in question were eventually
found to have violated the law by giving cutting-edge missile technology to China, and paid
unprecedented fines related to the Arms Export Control Act during the administration of George
W. Bush. But they were inexplicably approved in the Bill Clinton years.
For a while, polls showed that the public found the president's posture on China to be so
disconcerting that most supported appointing an independent
counsel (a la Mueller) to investigate whether the Clinton Administration had essentially been "
bought ."
Law enforcement officials shared these concerns: FBI director Louis Freeh (whom Clinton
could not get rid of, having just
fired his predecessor ) publically called
for the appointment of an independent counsel. So did the chief prosecutor charged with
investigating Chinese meddling, Charles La
Bella . However, they were blocked at every turn by Clinton's Attorney General, Janet Reno
-- eventually leading La Bella to resign in protest of the AG's
apparent obstruction.
The 1996 Chinese collusion story, much like the 2016 Russian collusion story, dragged on for
nearly two years -- hounding Clinton at every turn. That is, until it was discovered that the
president had been having an affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky.
The 1996 Chinese collusion story dragged on for nearly two years -- hounding Clinton at
every turn. That is, until the Monica Lewinsky scandal came along.
This was Bill Clinton's second known extra-marital
affair with a subordinate : in the lead-up to his 1992 election it was also discovered that
Clinton had been involved in a long-running affair with Gennifer Flowers -- an employee of the
State of Arkansas during Bill's governorship there,
appointed as a result of Clinton's intercession on her behalf.
The drama of the inquiry into Bill Clinton's myriad alleged sexual improprieties, the
President's invocation of executive
privilege to prevent his aides from having to testify against him, Clinton's perjury ,
subsequent
impeachment by the House,
acquittal in the Senate, and eventual
plea-bargain deal -- these sucked the oxygen away from virtually all other stories related
to the president.
Indeed, few today seem to remember that the Chinese meddling occurred at all. This despite
continuing China-related financial improprieties involving both
the Clintons and the DNC Chairman who presided over the 1996 debacle,
Terry McAuliffe -- and despite the fact that the intended target of the current
foreign meddling attempt just so happens to be married to the intended beneficiary of
the last.
And the irony in this, of course, is that not only do we find ourselves reliving an
apparently ill-fated collusion investigation, but the foreign meddling story is once again
competing with a presidential sex scandal -- this time involving actual porn stars. (Gennifer
Flowers and Paula Jones both
posed for Penthouseafter their involvement with Clinton surfaced.
Stormy Daniels and Karen
McDougal are well-established in the industry.)
Much like Bill Clinton, our current president has a long pattern of accusations of
infidelity, sexual harassment and even assault. However all of Trump's alleged sexual
misconduct incidents occurred before he'd assumed any public office. Therefore,
although some Democrats hope to provide Trump's accusers an opportunity to
testify before Congress if their party manages to retake the House in 2018, the
legal impact of these accounts is likely to be nil. The political significance of such
theater is likely being overestimated as well.
The danger for Democrats in all this is that they could get lulled into the notion that
Trump's liabilities -- the Mueller probe, the alleged affairs, and whatever new scandals and
outrages Trump generates in the next two years -- will be sufficient to energize and mobilize
their base in 2020. Democratic insiders and fatcats are likely to think they can put forward
the same sort of unpalatable candidate and platform they did last cycle -- only this time,
they'll win! A strong showing in 2018 could even reinforce this sense of complacency -- leading
to another debacle in the race for the White House in 2020.
Democrats consistently snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by believing they've got some
kind of lock. Remember the " Emerging Democratic Majority
" thesis? Remember Hillary Clinton's alleged 2016 " Electoral Firewall ?"
What have the Democrats learned from 2016? The answer is, very little if they believe the
essential problem was just James Comey and the Russians.
Here's one lesson Democrats would do well to internalize:
The party has won by running charismatic people against Republican cornflake candidates (see
Clinton v. Bush I or Dole, or Obama v. McCain or Romney). Yet whenever Democrats find
themselves squaring off against a faux-populist who plays to voters' base instincts, the party
always make the same move: running a wonky technocrat with an impressive resume, detailed
policy proposals, and little else.
Does it succeed in drawing a sharp contrast? Pretty much always. Does it succeed at winning
the White House? Pretty much never: Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, Kerry, and now Clinton.
Democrats could be headed for trouble if they are counting on the Mueller investigation to
bring Trump down.
Democrats rely heavily on irregular voters to win elections; negative partisanship races
tend to depress turnout for these constituents. More broadly, if left with a choice between a
"lesser of two evils" the public
tends to stick with the "devil they know." In short: precisely what Democrats
don't need in 2020 is a negative partisanship race.
A referendum on Trump might not play out the way Democrats expect. Against all odds, it
looks like the president will even have
an actual record to run on . He should not be underestimated.
Clinton-style triangulation is also likely to backfire. Contemporary research suggests there
just aren't a lot of " floating voters " up for grabs
these days. Rather than winning over disaffected Republicans, this approach would likely just
alienate the Democratic base.
The party's best bet is to instead focus on
mobilizing the left by articulating a compelling positive message for why Americans should
vote for them (rather than just against Trump). They will need to respond to Trump
with
a populist of their own -- someone who can credibly appeal to people in former Obama
districts that
Hillary Clinton lost . And they need to activate those who
sat the last election out -- for instance by delivering for elements of their base that the
party has largely taken for granted in recent cycles.
If the Democratic National Committee wants to spend its time talking about Russia and sex
scandals instead of tending to these priorities, then we should all brace for another humiliating
"black swan" defeat for the party in 2020.
But, you say, isn't Trump the
least popular president ever after one year in office? Guess whose year-one
(un)popularity is closest to Trump's? Ronald Reagan. He was under 50 percent in approval
ratings at the end of his first year; but he went on to win reelection in an historic
landslide. Barack Obama was barely breaking
even after year one but won reelection comfortably. Bill Clinton was only slightly above 50
percent after his first year.
You know who else had the lowest approval rating in a quarter-century after Trump's first
year in office? The
Democratic Party.
Musa al-Gharbi is a Paul F. Lazarsfeld Fellow in Sociology at
Columbia University. Readers can connect to his research and social media via his website .
"... A recent Gallup poll found that while 84% of Americans see media as "critical" or "very important" to democracy, only 28% see the corporatist mainstream news media (MSM) as actually supporting democracy. They're right on both counts of course. The quality of a democracy is only as good as the information people have to make informed judgments about public policy and politicians. ..."
"... Even as the mainstream news media continue to lose street cred, they persist in a rumor-saturated full court press against the "Trump-Putin presidency," which only further exposes their lack of professionalism and increasing vulgarity. ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... But it's not a new game, because despite their "free press" claims, American major news media have long been instruments of state propaganda. In the 1970s, Carl Bernstein exposed the fact that the overseas branches of US MSM had long served as eyes and ears of the CIA's "Operation Mockingbird," and it's very likely than many amongst their ranks remain agency assets. ..."
"... During the GW Bush presidency, the Pentagon recruited over 75 military generals to spread propaganda in the mass media, fed in camera ..."
"... In February 2018, former CIA director John Brennan, the man who fed the Russian "hacking" story to the House Intelligence Committee, became a senior national security and intelligence analyst for NBC and MSNBC in what has become standard revolving door practice between government and the corporate world. ..."
"... And he certainly knows something about hacking, as he was forced to admit, after first lying about it, that his CIA hacked the computers of Senate staffers who were investigating the agency's role in torturing prisoners. A man the MSM apparently regard as having impeccable credentials for truth telling. ..."
"... Facebook's vice president for advertising Rob Goldman said that in fact most of the total Russian ad buys occurred after ..."
"... The Peacemaker, The Saint, Rambo III, Red Dawn, Red Heat, the James Bond flicks, and the 2018 Oscar for documentaries, Icarus. ..."
"... There are a few signs of life in mainstream journalism. New York Times ..."
"... pledge to be truthful ..."
"... Consortium News ..."
"... The intelligence agencies "have been playing games with us. There is no factual evidence to back up any charge of hacking here." It was likely no more than a USB transfer, he said. ..."
"... Leslie Moonves, CEO of CBS, spoke for the media establishment: "It may not be good for America, but it's damn good for CBS . The money's rolling in . It's a terrible thing to say. But bring it on, Donald." ..."
"... Gerald Sussman is professor of urban studies and international and global studies at Portland State University. He is the author and editor of several books, including The Propaganda Society: Promotional Culture and Politics in Global Context (2011). ..."
Despite all the smoke and mirrors, most Americans seem to see where the stenographers of
corporate capitalism are taking us. A recent Gallup poll found that while 84% of Americans
see media as "critical" or "very important" to democracy, only 28% see the corporatist
mainstream news media (MSM) as actually supporting democracy. They're right on both counts of
course. The quality of a democracy is only as good as the information people have to make
informed judgments about public policy and politicians.
Even as the mainstream news media continue to lose street cred, they persist in a
rumor-saturated full court press against the "Trump-Putin presidency," which only further
exposes their lack of professionalism and increasing vulgarity. MSM management and their
boardroom bosses have long understood that as long as they spice up their "nothing burger"
news, ratings and advertising rates will keep them in business and please their commercial and
government clients. Tabloid journalism, which can describe most American mainstream media these
days, even when wrapped up as "all the news that's fit to print," is in constant search of
sensation, scandal, gossip, and profit – and only occasionally in public-oriented
investigative integrity.
What else does the citizenry have to say? A mere 18% have "a lot" of trust in the MSM, while
74% see them as "biased" (Pew Research, July 2016). A study by the Harvard-Harris polling
organization in May 2017 confirmed this, finding that 65 percent of Americans consider the
so-called "free press" biased, obsessed with scandal, and full of "fake news" and therefore
cannot be trusted. Among the concurring are a majority of both Democrats (53%) and Independents
(60%) as well as 80% of Republicans. Amongst the "informed public," trust in American
institutions in general, that is, the government, business, NGOs, and the MSM, is
going through the worst crisis in recorded history, according to the marketing firm Edelman in
2018. The US is the lowest rated of the 28 countries surveyed by the firm on this measure. This
is not consistent with the image of a serious "democracy."
On the MSM coverage of national politics, Americans are equally skeptical. A June 2017
Rasmussen survey of likely American voters indicated that 50% think most reporters are
prejudiced against the president, and only 4% believe most reporters are biased in Trump's
favor. Although this is weighted by the 76% of Republicans who support this view, the study
also found that 51% of independent voters and even 24% of Democrats also agree. Aided by the
billions of dollars of free, almost all negative, publicity the MSM provided, with apparent
reverse effect during the presidential campaign, Trump's standing is also supported by the 47
million American shock troops that faithfully follow him on Twitter.
On January 27, 2018, the Washington Post editorial board issued this statement: "A
foreign power interfered in the 2016 presidential election. U.S. law enforcement is trying to
get to the bottom of that story. Congress should be doing everything possible to make sure the
investigation can take place." Obviously referring to Russia, the Post's declaration,
as the late investigative journalist Robert Parry and many other independent and respected
writers have pointed out, was and remains without a shred of evidence. It's WMD time all over
again, only this time the propaganda is being trumpeted mainly by the Democrats. It would
better serve the cause of democracy to investigate the Post for its covert coalition
and collusion with the deep state and the Clinton (right) wing of the Democratic Party. The
Post and the rest of their pack have constructed a wicked Russia foil in order to
undermine Moscow's presumed ally Trump and boost bigger Pentagon budgets. It's an extremely
dangerous game that is headed toward military confrontation and massive annihilation by the
yahoos in government and the liberal media.
But it's not a new game, because despite their "free press" claims, American major news
media have long been instruments of state propaganda. In the 1970s, Carl Bernstein exposed the
fact that the overseas branches of US MSM had long served as eyes and ears of the CIA's
"Operation Mockingbird," and it's very likely than many amongst their ranks remain agency
assets. Back then, Philip Graham, publisher of the Post , ran the agency's media
industry operations, a fact not mentioned in the currently showing eponymous film. During
the GW Bush presidency, the Pentagon recruited over 75 military generals to spread propaganda
in the mass media, fed in camera by leaders at the Defense Department, the State
Department, the Justice Department, and the White House. Their responsibilities included their
employment as "objective" foreign policy and war analysts for major network and cable news
channels, many of them concurrently receiving pay by military contracting firms. The Pentagon
referred to the on-air military propagandists as "surrogates" and "message force
multipliers."
The Russians are Coming
In February 2018, former CIA director John Brennan, the man who fed the Russian
"hacking" story to the House Intelligence Committee, became a senior national security and
intelligence analyst for NBC and MSNBC in what has become standard revolving door practice
between government and the corporate world. Brennan was a well-known advocate for the
CIA's rendition and torture program, spying on its critics, and its use of drone bombings and
assassinations in the Middle East. And he certainly knows something about hacking, as he
was forced to admit, after first lying about it, that his CIA hacked the computers of Senate
staffers who were investigating the agency's role in torturing prisoners. A man the MSM
apparently regard as having impeccable credentials for truth telling.
If the Russia "hacking" story has no legs, the more interesting piece of news is the
organized efforts of the Democrats and some Republicans to bring down Trump and turn over the
White House to theocrat Mike Pence. Mainstream pundits and reporters are churning out
unsubstantiated speculations about Russia and Trump by the hour. A number of Democrats,
military brass, and mercenary journalist (and former country club caddy) Thomas Friedman have
characterized alleged Russian intervention as a new "Pearl Harbor" or "9/11," thereby building
a case for war and for treason against the president. There's no downside to making even the
most absurd claims about Russia and Trump, no penalty for fabrications, misrepresentations, or
getting facts wrong. If they were honest, their ledes might read: "This fictional news report
is loosely based on a true story." Or: "Any resemblance in this story to real people and events
is merely coincidental."
There's room in the inferno for the Democrats' deep state allies. Starting in mid-2015,
Peter Strzok, the FBI's H. Clinton personal email scandal investigator before taking the lead
in the probe of Russian election interference, sent emails to his lover, FBI lawyer Lisa Page,
which clearly revealed that both of them were actively working for the Clinton campaign to
undermine Trump in any way possible. The pair also exchanged references to a "secret society"
that was operating within the Department of Justice and the FBI to block a Trump victory. Until
their exposure, Strzok had been Robert Mueller's right hand man on the Trump-Russia
investigation.
Meanwhile, two years later, the hunt for the smoking Kalashnikov continues. The best the MSM
have come up with is that a St. Petersburg outfit called Internet Research Agency (IRA) placed
$100,000 in ads on Facebook (compared to the $81 million Facebook ad spending by the Trump and
Clinton campaigns), some of the Russian ads actually directed against Trump. As Jeffrey St.
Clair pointed out in the pages of CounterPunch, in the key states where Clinton lost the
election, the traditional Democrat strongholds of Michigan ($832 spent on token IRA buy ads),
Pennsylvania ($300), and Wisconsin ($1,979), all but $54 of this amount was spent
before the party primaries even started.
Facebook's vice president for advertising Rob Goldman said that in fact most of the
total Russian ad buys occurred after the presidential election. "We shared that fact,"
he tweeted, "but very few [news] outlets have covered it because it doesn't align with the main
media narrative" about Trump's election victory. Winning the election for Trump was simply
not the Russian objective, Goldman says. Alex Stamos, Facebook chief security officer,
concurred. The ads, he said, were more about sowing discord, with messages about guns,
immigrants, and racial strife, than on pushing a particular candidate. Think about all the
blockbuster American (and British) movies that portray Russians as sinister, violent, and
criminal. For starters, remember über-teutonic Ivan Drago, Sgt. Yushin, the many sadistic
"Russian" mafia nogoodniks, along with the Cold War-for-children cartoon characters, Boris
Badanov and Natasha Fatale? Among the many Russophobic films and TV shows over the decades:
The Americans , Air Force One , The Peacemaker, The Saint, Rambo III, Red
Dawn, Red Heat, the James Bond flicks, and the 2018 Oscar for documentaries, Icarus.
Soviet and Russia-era films, not well tutored in ethnic caricatures, have no comparable
stereotypical American counterparts.
There are a few signs of life in mainstream journalism. New York Times
correspondent Scott Shane was one of the few journalists who happened to notice that the US
intelligence agency (the CIA, NSA, and FBI) report of January 6, 2017 on Russian "hacking"
actually offered no evidence. "Instead," he said, "the message from the agencies essentially
amounts to 'trust us.'" It took the mainstream media 6 months before they acknowledged that the
Obama administration claim that 17 intelligence agencies backed the hacking claim was false,
the real number was only 3, and even the NSA had only "moderate confidence" in the finding.
Last January, the NSA made a significant alteration in its mission statement: it removed the
words "honesty" and the pledge to be truthful from its list of priorities.
Even if there were genuine evidence that Russian officials had hacked the Democratic
National Committee and Clinton campaign manager John Podesta emails, as originally claimed by
the intelligence agencies, one should put this in context of the long history of the CIA's
efforts to overthrow many democratically elected leaders who had the temerity to stand up to
the superpower. These would include Allende, Arbenz, Mossadeq, Lumumba, Chavez, Goulart,
Ortega, and others. The list of US interventions in foreign elections just since 1948 (Italy)
is voluminous. Do the mainstream media suffer amnesia about Victoria Nuland and John McCain's
presence in the Maidan, egging on the coup against Yanukovych or her infamous leaked phone call
to the US ambassador in Kiev in which she dictated the ousted president's successors? And is it
reasonable to expect Russia to be passive about a hostile NATO putting troops along its borders
and reacting to efforts to install an anti-Russian regime next door in the Ukraine? In this
recent historical context, US accusations of Russian political interference smack of complete
hypocrisy.
A study by Carnegie Mellon professor Dov Levin found that between 1946 and 2000 alone, the
US intervened in foreign elections 81 times, which does not include its invasions, blockades,
sanctions, assassination attempts, and other regime change initiatives. "The U.S. is no
stranger to interfering in the elections of other countries," he wrote. In 1996, the US
intervened in the Russian election to prevent the Communist Party from returning to power. Have
the MSM also forgotten the lies the government and the CIA told about Saddam Hussein's WMD and
connections to terrorist movements? Or that, thanks to Edward Snowden's exposés, we know
that Obama's NSA bugged the phones of 35 foreign political leaders?
If the MSM are still confused, perhaps they should listen to former CIA director James
Woolsey. Interviewed by Fox News' Laura Ingraham, Woolsey was asked directly whether the US
ever interfered with other countries' elections. He initially said, "probably, but it was for
the good of the system in order to avoid the communists from taking over." Ingraham followed up
with the question, "We don't do that now?" To this Woolsey responded, "nyum, nyum, nyum, nyum,
nyum, only for a very good cause," a rather frank admission that merely amused Ingraham, who
failed to follow up with this obvious statement of US double standards. After leaving the CIA,
Woolsey became chairman of Freedom House, a right-wing government-supported private NGO that
putatively supports human rights causes and has been active in regime change operations around
the world – far more actively than merely doing Facebook postings.
William Binney, formerly with NSA as a high-level intelligence operative, subsequently
becoming a whistleblower on the agency's illegal surveillance operations, called the alleged
Russian attacks on the DNC "a charade." Speaking to Daniel Bernstein at Consortium
News , Binney said that had any bulk transmissions come from across the Atlantic, the NSA
would have known about it, as they tap every communication from abroad. The data from "Guccifer
2.0," was a download "not a transfer across the Web," which "won't manage such high
speed." The intelligence agencies "have been playing games with us. There is no factual
evidence to back up any charge of hacking here." It was likely no more than a USB transfer, he
said.
Is there any hope for the mainstream media to change? It would take a revolution to get the
MSM to become more democratic. A Harvard Shorenstein Center report found that media coverage of
the 2016 US party conventions contained almost no discussion of policy issues and instead
concentrated on polling data, scandals, campaign tactics, and Trump and Russia bashing.
Leslie Moonves, CEO of CBS, spoke for the media establishment: "It may not be good for
America, but it's damn good for CBS . The money's rolling in . It's a terrible thing to say.
But bring it on, Donald."
"... Especially, once American policy-makers who saw and experienced war (Ike, George Marshall's generation) departed things started to roll down hill with Reagan bringing on board a whole collection of neocons. ..."
"... Unawareness is always dangerous, a complete blackout in relations between two nuclear powers is more than dangerous--it is completely reckless. Again, the way CW 1.0 is perceived in the current US "elites" it becomes extremely tempting to repeat it. Electing Hillary was another step in unleashing CW 2.0 by people who have no understanding of what they were doing. ..."
"... Obama started crushing US-Russian relations before any campaigns were launched and before Trump was even seriously considered a GOP nominee, let alone a real contender. New confrontation hinged on HRC being elected. In fact, she was one of the major driving forces behind a serious of geopolitical anti-Russian moves. Visceral Russo-phobia became a feature in HRC campaign long before any Steele's Dossier. This was a program. ..."
- If they have read the important books at all... The ongoing scandal has been revealing a stunning incompetence of the "deciders."
Too often they look comical, ridiculous, undignified. This is dangerous, considering their power.
My coming book is precisely about that. Especially, once American policy-makers who saw and experienced war (Ike, George
Marshall's generation) departed things started to roll down hill with Reagan bringing on board a whole collection of neocons.
Unawareness is always dangerous, a complete blackout in relations between two nuclear powers is more than dangerous--it
is completely reckless. Again, the way CW 1.0 is perceived in the current US "elites" it becomes extremely tempting to repeat
it. Electing Hillary was another step in unleashing CW 2.0 by people who have no understanding of what they were doing.
Obama started crushing US-Russian relations before any campaigns were launched and before Trump was even seriously considered
a GOP nominee, let alone a real contender. New confrontation hinged on HRC being elected. In fact, she was one of the major driving
forces behind a serious of geopolitical anti-Russian moves. Visceral Russo-phobia became a feature in HRC campaign long before
any Steele's Dossier. This was a program.
John McCain is a war veteran and a policy maker, who has seen war closer than Marshal or Ike
still he will shy away from any war even with nuclear Russia.
While McCain is a war veteran, his career was not in any way distinguished - rather he pretty
clearly was given "hall pass" after "hall pass" given his father and grandfather. It also
seems pretty clear his time as a POW has probably significantly influenced his view of the
world.
"The Nightingale's Song" has an excellent treatment of his Naval Academy and service time,
along with and in contrast to Ollie North, Jim Webb, admiral Poindexter and Bud MacFarlane.
Not a pretty picture..
John McCain is a war veteran and a policy maker, who has seen war closer than Marshal or
Ike still he will shy away from any war even with nuclear Russia.
Seeing generations of your close and remote relatives killed and your property destroyed
as a result of war is usually a very sobering collective experience. McCain, apart from being
a rather exceptional warmonger, doesn't know what it is, despite experiencing some serious
trials while being a POW. Ike saw, for starters, concentration camps and, unlike, McCain was
mostly on the ground. This is a crucial distinction.
"It also seems pretty clear his time as a POW has probably significantly influenced his view
of the world."
I agree, and, that was the point I tried to make, not all veterans are necessary qualified
MINDS for deciding future of the coming generations. I have the same suspicion for General
Kelly, having lost a son in Afghanistan and having power to influence the war in Afghanistan,
I think is this situation, like judges, one has to recuse him/herself to be part of planers.
"... Just think about who can go down with Trump is such a case. It's not only Bill and Hillary. It is also a very dangerous thing to open this can of worms as "the people" might learn something that neoliberal elite does not want them to know -- specifically the USA and intelligence agencies role in creating Russian mafia and oligarchs after the dissolution of the USSR. Do you, by any chance, know such a name as Andrei Shleifer and such a term as "Harvard Mafia" ? Please Google those if you do not. ..."
My understanding is Fusion GPS does research for both sides. Soros giving them money is
entirely plausible but assuming that money equals control is a bit of a leap.
It appears to be some Russians seeking to discredit the investigation with clever
BS/truthiness.
I suspect a few absurdly wealthy Russians harbor a deep fear of Mueller. They may believe
he is primarily after them and they may be right. I see Mueller as an old-school lawman, and
suspect he is using all this as a golden opportunity to put the hurt on some Russian
mobsters, particularly in their money laundering. It would not surprise me if he hopes he
will not be forced to nail Trump himself to the wall, which would drag all kinds of political
noise into the trials, some of the people around Trump will be bad enough. Using some of
them, at least for the moment, is unavoidable, it's the politics is the source of his mission
and resources.
If only our press had the bandwidth necessary to distinguish those few Russians from ALL
Russians...
"I suspect a few absurdly wealthy Russians harbor a deep fear of Mueller."
"I see Mueller as an old-school lawman, and suspect he is using all this as a golden
opportunity to put the hurt on some Russian mobsters"
Thank you ! You have such a refreshing level of naivety that I really enjoyed your
posts.
How one in his sound mind can call Mueller "an old-school lawman" if one remember
Mueller's role in 9/11 and anthrax investigations.
And FYI those "absurdly wealthy Russians" represents the US fifth column in Russia (as
guarantors and protectors of neoliberalism in Russia; Google such a name as Chubais
https://www.rusjournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Yeltsin_Putin.pdf
) and to destroy them might not be in best USA interests. Moreover, such a move actually will
be do Putin a huge favor, strengthening his hand.
As for "a golden opportunity to put the hurt on some Russian mobsters" the danger of such
a brilliant move is to reveal criminal connections with Russian oligarchs (and financial
oligarchs in general as you never know where the oligarch ends and the mafia boss starts) and
the Democratic Party.
Just think about who can go down with Trump is such a case. It's not only Bill and
Hillary. It is also a very dangerous thing to open this can of worms as "the people" might
learn something that neoliberal elite does not want them to know -- specifically the USA and
intelligence agencies role in creating Russian mafia and oligarchs after the dissolution of
the USSR. Do you, by any chance, know such a name as Andrei Shleifer and such a term as
"Harvard Mafia" ? Please Google those if you do not.
FYI Bill Clinton took a huge bribe in the form of speech fee from people very close to
"Russian Mobsters" (organized crime figures should probably more correctly be called "the
informal neoliberals" ;-)
There was an interesting discussion in Quora in 2016 on this topic:
Soros might well be a front company for an intelligence agency.
Notable quotes:
"... a former FBI investigator, Feinstein staffer and now a Fusion GPS operative ..."
"... This is quite plausible. Silicon Valley billionaires are definitely "investing" in their PC propaganda agenda. The Seattle billionaire and now the world's wealthiest man owns the neocon rag published from our nation's capital. He's also got lucrative contracts from our IC. Alexa is quite happy to listen into all your private conversations at home. ..."
"... "This funding is critical to ensuring that we continue an aggressive response to malign influence and disinformation and that we can leverage deeper partnerships with our allies, Silicon Valley, and other partners in this fight," said Steve Goldstein, undersecretary of state for public diplomacy and public affairs." ..."
"... I have often wondered if Soros is not a front company for an intelligence agency. ..."
"... i think it was the open Russia foundation that was funded by Soros, but i see former owner of yukos - Mikhail Khodorkovsky has his name attached to it... ..."
"... It seems the Magnitsky Act is a critical juncture in all the developments towards singling out russia for everything.. ..."
"... i don't know soros or khodorkovskys connection to bill browder in all of this, but would be curious to know. it seems they are all operating to bring down russia, in some way, shape or form.. ..."
"... My understanding is that Mr. Soros has funded, participated and closely associated himself with US' IC community, for various regime change and copes mostly Eastern Europe in past decades. We know that US IC community has the agenda ( a hard on) for discrediting and removing legally elected president of US from his office. We know US Democratic Party has paid and hired members of foreign intelligence for connecting presidential campaign of DT to Russians, for a possible killing of 2 birds with one shot. We know the cheassy silicon billionaires, are no other than the same old Move on Organization which to the bone are clintonian DLC, or the latter day Obamachies. We know Mr. Soros an Easter European migrant like Zbig is totally and fiercely anti anti Russian. ..."
"... When all facts put to gather, sounds like all these elements, entities, and personalities share a common motif and goal, which centers on anti Trump and anti Puttin Russia. When put together, makes a villain's marriage in haven. ..."
"In a Daily Caller op-ed calling the Russian meddling narrative a "
false public manipulation ," Russian billionaire Oleg Deripaska claims that Daniel Jones -
a former FBI investigator, Feinstein staffer and now a
Fusion GPS operative - told the Russian Oligarch's lawyer in March, 2017 that Fusion
GPS was funded by " a group of Silicon Valley billionaires and George Soros. "" Zerohedge
------------
Now, this is something different. I have no idea what the relative truthiness of this may
be, but... pl
This is quite plausible. Silicon Valley billionaires are definitely "investing" in their
PC propaganda agenda. The Seattle billionaire and now the world's wealthiest man owns the
neocon rag published from our nation's capital. He's also got lucrative contracts from our
IC. Alexa is quite happy to listen into all your private conversations at home.
I appreciate your use of the phrase ' relative truthiness', and I suggest this latest
truthiness is just part of the movie, and a great movie it is.
Still, it's about time Soros
showed up and he's in good company too, along with this week's poisoned Russian spy and a
paid prostitute with a Trump story to tell. Next ?
We're probably due for a
Clinton/Russia-related Julian Assange document dump, some Russian intel officer arrests in DC
and....a new Steele-equivalent originator offering a more respectable document since after
all any evidence is good evidence.
Anything to keep the show going and the audience enthralled !
As for Soros himself, I suggest that there are plenty of Soros's with plenty of attached
money trails, but George has the watch.
All he is missing is the white cat on his lap.
"This funding is critical to ensuring that we continue an aggressive response to malign
influence and disinformation and that we can leverage deeper partnerships with our allies,
Silicon Valley, and other partners in this fight," said Steve Goldstein, undersecretary of
state for public diplomacy and public affairs."
Soros? All NGO's that apear in MSM articles, I look up their funding. Most funding traces
back to State Dep NED and Soros, along with other older money 'philanthropist' type
foundations.
I have often wondered if Soros is not a front company for an intelligence agency.
i think it was the open Russia foundation that was funded by Soros, but i see former owner
of yukos - Mikhail Khodorkovsky has his name attached to it...
It seems the Magnitsky Act is a critical juncture in all the developments towards
singling out russia for everything..
i don't know soros or khodorkovskys connection to bill browder in all of this, but would
be curious to know. it seems they are all operating to bring down russia, in some way, shape
or form..
My understanding is that Mr. Soros has funded, participated and closely associated
himself with US' IC community, for various regime change and copes mostly Eastern Europe in
past decades. We know that US IC community has the agenda ( a hard on) for discrediting and
removing legally elected president of US from his office. We know US Democratic Party has
paid and hired members of foreign intelligence for connecting presidential campaign of DT to
Russians, for a possible killing of 2 birds with one shot. We know the cheassy silicon
billionaires, are no other than the same old Move on Organization which to the bone are
clintonian DLC, or the latter day Obamachies. We know Mr. Soros an Easter European migrant
like Zbig is totally and fiercely anti anti Russian.
When all facts put to gather, sounds like all these elements, entities, and
personalities share a common motif and goal, which centers on anti Trump and anti Puttin
Russia. When put together, makes a villain's marriage in haven.
Interesting that a former staffer from Senator Feinstein is implicated in the mess. How many
others are there who have been doing the same thing? I wonder if Congresswoman Debbie
Wasserman-Schultt's IT staffer Mr. Arwan was accessing any relevant information while he was
on her payroll and for whom?
It is interesting that US tax payer dollars fund an agency that executes foreign policy, with no controls, which is the responsibility
of the federal government according to the US constitution.
Notable quotes:
"... Mueller has had 18 months and has proceeded to reveal exactly nothing related to either Trump "collusion" with Russia nor Russia as a state actually doing anything remotely described as "meddling." ..."
"... It's a witch hunt, nothing more. People holding their breath for the "slam dunk" are going to pass out soon if they haven't already. ..."
"... Pointing out that the legal basis for the entire Mueller dog and pony show was based on a fraud, well lets not do that ..."
"... "We don't have the evidence yet because Mueller hasn't found it yet!" is a classic argument from ignorance, in that is assumes without evidence (there's that pesky word again!) that there is something to be found. ..."
"... That said, I have no doubt that Mueller will find *something*, simply because an aggressive and determined prosecutor can always find *something*, especially if the target is engaged in higher level business or politics. A form unfiled, an irregularity in an official document, and overly optimistic tax position. ..."
"... If nothing else works, there's always the good old standby of asking question after question until the target makes a statement that can be construed as perjury or lying to investigators. ..."
The "17 intelligence agencies" statement was undoubtedly hype, but it's old news now. The reasonable position now is to
wait and see what facts Mueller reveals. All else is partisan spinning, by all sides.
Mueller has had 18 months and has proceeded to reveal exactly nothing related to either Trump "collusion" with Russia nor
Russia as a state actually doing anything remotely described as "meddling."
His expected indictment of some Russians for the DNC hack is going to be more of the same in all likelihood. I predict there
will be next to zero evidence produced either that the Russians named are in fact members of APT28 or APT29 or that they had any
direct connection with either the alleged DNC hack or Wikileaks or the Russian government.
It's a witch hunt, nothing more. People holding their breath for the "slam dunk" are going to pass out soon if they haven't
already.
Pointing out that the legal basis for the entire Mueller dog and pony show was based on a fraud, well lets not do that;
We should by all means just sit back and let the narrative unfold as those who are trying to unseat the elected president continue
unopposed to craft public opinion, just in time for mid-term elections.
Using the same legal logic there is "probable cause" for the FBI to investigate every member of the House and Senate as well
because they have all have met some guy who is connected to somebody who is corrupt, a foreign agent, or some other kind of crook
or some drunk in a bar is saying they have. The only people above reproach are the senior agents committing adultery; failing
to inform their bosses of conflicts of interests due to their wives working for the very people who are witnesses in the investigation
they are conducting; or are omitting important facts from submissions to court for warrants. Even mentioning those is just
further evidence that something really did happen. I for one don't want the professional bureaucracy running the candidate
selection process in the Republic or keeping the elected representatives "in line" by making "some people sweat their future freedom
and wealth". But that statement alone would make me a suspect too.
"We don't have the evidence yet because Mueller hasn't found it yet!" is a classic argument from ignorance, in that is
assumes without evidence (there's that pesky word again!) that there is something to be found.
That said, I have no doubt that Mueller will find *something*, simply because an aggressive and determined prosecutor can
always find *something*, especially if the target is engaged in higher level business or politics. A form unfiled, an irregularity
in an official document, and overly optimistic tax position.
If nothing else works, there's always the good old standby of asking question after question until the target makes a statement
that can be construed as perjury or lying to investigators.
"The "17 intelligence agencies" statement was undoubtedly hype, but it's old news now."
that is true.. however, what is not new, is the fact that lies or exaggeration is going on non stop still! perhaps you got
a chance to read this article 'cult of authority' which i think is applicable here... https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/03/07/the-cult-of-authority/
"... To be precise, CrowdStrike did provide the FBI with allegedly "certified true images" of the DNC servers allegedly involved in the alleged "hack." They also allegedly provided these images to FireEye and Mandiant, IIRC ..."
"... Of course, given the CrowdStrike itself is a massively compromised organization due to its founder and CEO, those "certified true images" are themselves tainted evidence. ..."
"... In addition, regardless of whether the images were true or not, the evidence allegedly contained therein is painfully inadequate to confirm that APT28 or APT29 were involved, nor that the Russian government was involved, or even that there was a real hack involved, and even less evidence that any emails that might have been exfiltrated were given to Wikileaks as opposed to another leak such as that alleged by Sy Hersh to have been done by Seth Rich. ..."
Re this: " In the case of Russian meddling there is no forensic evidence available to the IC
because the Democratic National Committee did not permit the FBI to investigate and examine
the computers and the network that was allegedly attacked."
To be precise, CrowdStrike did provide the FBI with allegedly "certified true images"
of the DNC servers allegedly involved in the alleged "hack." They also allegedly provided
these images to FireEye and Mandiant, IIRC .
All three allegedly examined those images and concurred with CrowdStrike's analysis.
Of course, given the CrowdStrike itself is a massively compromised organization due to
its founder and CEO, those "certified true images" are themselves tainted evidence.
In addition, regardless of whether the images were true or not, the evidence allegedly
contained therein is painfully inadequate to confirm that APT28 or APT29 were involved, nor
that the Russian government was involved, or even that there was a real hack involved, and
even less evidence that any emails that might have been exfiltrated were given to Wikileaks
as opposed to another leak such as that alleged by Sy Hersh to have been done by Seth
Rich.
The "assessment" that Putin ordered any of this is pure mind-reading and can be utterly
dismissed absent any of the other evidence Publius points out as necessary.
The same applies to any "estimate" that the Russian government preferred Trump or wished
to denigrate Clinton. Based on what I read in pro-Russian news outlets, Russian officials
took great pains to not pick sides and Putin's comments were similarly very restrained. The
main quote from Putin about Trump that emerged was mistranslated as approval whereas it was
more an observation of Trump's personality. At no time did Putin ever say he favored Trump
over Clinton, even though that was a likely probability given Clinton's "Hitler"
comparison.
As an aside, I also recommend Scott Ritter's trashing of the ICA. Ritter is familiar with
intelligence estimates and their reliability based on his previous service as a UN weapons
inspector in Iraq and in Russia implementing arms control treaties.
The sad but reasonable conclusion from all those Russiagate events is that an influential part of the US elite wants to
balance on the edge of war with Russia to ensure profits and flow of taxpayer money. that part of the elite include top
honchos on the US intelligence community and Pentagon (surprise, surprise)
The other logical conclusion is that intelligence agencies now determine the US foreign policy and control all major political
players (there were widespread suspicions that Clinton, Bush II and Obama were actually closely connected to CIA). Which neatly fits
into hypotheses about the "deep state".
This "can of worms" that the US political scene now represents is very dangerous for the future on mankind indeed.
Notable quotes:
"... Most objective observers would concede that the DNI has been a miserable failure and nothing more than a bureaucratic boondoggle. ..."
"... "The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow -- the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these activities." ..."
"... More telling was the absence of any written document issued from the Office of the DNI that detailed the supposed intel backing up this judgment. Notice the weasel language in this release ..."
"... If there was actual evidence/intelligence, such as an intercepted conversation between Vladimir Putin and a subordinate ordering them to hack the DNC or even a human source report claiming such an activity, then it would have and should have been referenced in the Clapper/Johnson document. It was not because such intel did not exist. ..."
"... "We have 17 intelligence agencies, civilian and military, who have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyberattacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin, and they are designed to influence our election," Clinton said. "I find that deeply disturbing." ..."
"... The basic job of an analyst is to collect as much relevant information as possible on the subject or topic that is their responsibility. There are analysts at the CIA, the NSA, the DIA and State INR that have the job of knowing about Russian cyber activity and capabilities. That is certain. But we are not talking about hundreds of people. ..."
"... Let us move from the hypothetical to the actual. In January of 2017, DNI Jim Clapper release a report entitled, " Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections " (please see here ). In subsequent testimony before the Congress, Clapper claimed that he handpicked two dozen analysts to draft the document . That is not likely. There may have been as many as two dozen analysts who read the final document and commented on it, but there would never be that many involved in in drafting such a document. In any event, only analysts from the CIA, the NSA and the FBI were involved ..."
"... This report includes an analytic assessment drafted and coordinated among The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and The National Security Agency (NSA), which draws on intelligence information collected and disseminated by those three agencies. ..."
"... That is how the process is supposed to work. But the document produced in January 2017 was not a genuine work reflecting the views of the "Intelligence Community." It only represented the supposed thinking (and I use that term generously) of CIA, NSA and FBI analysts. In other words, only three of 16 agencies cleared on the document that presented four conclusions ..."
"... Russian efforts to influence the 2016 US presidential election represent the most recent expression of Moscow's longstanding desire to undermine the US-led liberal democratic order, but these activities demonstrated a significant escalation in directness, level of activity, and scope of effort compared to previous operations. ..."
"... We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia's goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. ..."
"... We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. ..."
"... We assess Moscow will apply lessons learned from its Putin-ordered campaign aimed at the US presidential election to future influence efforts worldwide, including against US allies and their election processes. ..."
"... It is genuinely shocking that DNI Jim Clapper, with the acquiescence of the CIA, the FBI and NSA, would produce a document devoid of any solid intelligence. There is a way to publicly release sensitive intelligence without comprising a the original source. But such sourcing is absent in this document. ..."
"... The Intelligence Community was used as a tool to misinform the public and persuade them that Russia was guilty of something they did not do. That lie remains unchallenged. ..."
"... "The Intelligence Community was used as a tool to misinform the public and persuade them that Russia was guilty of something they did not do. That lie remains unchallenged.'" Yes it was and so remains the lie unchallenged. ..."
"... Conjectural garbage appears first to have been washed through the FBI, headquarters no less, then probably it picked up a Triple A rating at the CIA, and then when the garbage got to Clapper, it was bombs away - we experts all agree. There were leaks, but they weren't sufficient to satisfy Steele so he just delivered the garbage whole to the Media in order to make it a sure thing. The garbage was placed securely out there in the public domain with a Triple A rating because the FBI wouldn't concern itself with garbage, would it? ..."
"... Contrast this trajectory with what the Russian policy establishment did when it concluded that the US had done something in the Ukraine that Russia found significantly actionable: it released the taped evidence of Nuland and our Ambassador finishing off the coup. ..."
"... To be precise, CrowdStrike did provide the FBI with allegedly "certified true images" of the DNC servers allegedly involved in the alleged "hack." They also allegedly provided these images to FireEye and Mandiant, IIRC ..."
"... Of course, given the CrowdStrike itself is a massively compromised organization due to its founder and CEO, those "certified true images" are themselves tainted evidence. ..."
"... In addition, regardless of whether the images were true or not, the evidence allegedly contained therein is painfully inadequate to confirm that APT28 or APT29 were involved, nor that the Russian government was involved, or even that there was a real hack involved, and even less evidence that any emails that might have been exfiltrated were given to Wikileaks as opposed to another leak such as that alleged by Sy Hersh to have been done by Seth Rich. ..."
"... My interpretation is: In 1990 +- Bush 41 sold us the 1st Iraq war using fudged intelligence, then Bush 43 sold us the second Iraq war using fabricated intelligence. And now the Obama Administration tried to sell us fake intelligence in regard to Russia in order to get Clinton elected ..."
"... Mueller has had 18 months and has proceeded to reveal exactly nothing related to either Trump "collusion" with Russia nor Russia as a state actually doing anything remotely described as "meddling." ..."
"... His expected indictment of some Russians for the DNC hack is going to be more of the same in all likelihood. I predict there will be next to zero evidence produced either that the Russians named are in fact members of APT28 or APT29 or that they had any direct connection with either the alleged DNC hack or Wikileaks or the Russian government. ..."
"... It's a witch hunt, nothing more. People holding their breath for the "slam dunk" are going to pass out soon if they haven't already. ..."
"... Mueller is investigating some aspects. But there is another aspect - the conspiracy inside law enforcement and the IC. That is also being investigated. There are Congressional committees in particular Nunes, Goodlatte and Grassley. Then there is the DOJ IG. And today AG Sessions confirms there is a DOJ prosecutor outside Washington investigating. ..."
"... But such evidence (corroborating the Steele dossier) was not forthcoming. If it had existed than Jim Comey could have claimed in his June 2017 testimony before Congress that the parts of the "Dossier" had been verified. He did not do so. Testifying under oath Comey described the "Dossier" as "salacious and unverified." ..."
"... ... was UK Intelligence, or an ex-UK intelligence officer, used to get material through the US evaluation process, material that would not have got through that US evaluation process had it originated within the US itself?" I would say yes and especially yes if the contact for this piece of data was conducted at the highest level within the context of the already tight liaison between the US IC and Mi-6/GCHQ ..."
"... Was it Hitler or Stalin who said "show me the man and I will find his crime?" As I have said before, Trumps greatest vulnerability lies in his previous business life as an entrepreneurial hustler. ..."
"... Re 'baby adoption' meeting between Trump, Jr. and Veselnitskaya, I recall a comment here linking to an article speculating the email initiating the meeting originated in Europe, was set up by the playboy son of a European diplomat, and contained words to trip data-gathering monitors which would have enabled a FISA request to have Trump, Jr. come under surveillance. ..."
"... "We don't have the evidence yet because Mueller hasn't found it yet!" is a classic argument from ignorance, in that is assumes without evidence (there's that pesky word again!) that there is something to be found. ..."
"... The fact is Flynn has pled guilty to perjury. Nothing else like collusion with the Russians. ..."
"... Manafort has been indicted for money laundering, wire fraud, etc for activities well before the election campaign. Sure, it is good that these corrupt individuals should be investigated and prosecuted. However, this corruption is widespread in DC. How come none of these cheering Mueller on to destroy Trump care about all the foreign money flowing to K Street? Why aren't they calling for investigations of the Clinton Foundation or the Podesta brothers where probable cause exist of foreign money and influence? What about Ben Cardin and all those recipients of foreign zionist money and influence? It would be nice if there were wide ranging investigations on all those engaged in foreign influence peddling. But it seems many just want a witch hunt to hobble Trump. It's going to be very difficult to get the Senate to convict him for obstruction of justice or tax evasion or some charge like that. ..."
"... What does "hacking our elections" mean? Does it means breaking into voting systems and changing the outcome by altering votes? Or does it mean information operations to change US voters' minds about for whom they would vote? ..."
"... As for McMasters, I am unimpressed with him. He displays all the symptoms of Russophobia. He has special information? Information can be interpreted many ways depending on one's purpose. pl ..."
"... IMO the perpetrators in the Steel Memo case are and were merely hiding behind claims of sources and methods protection in order to protect themselve. ..."
"... So now we are supposed to believe unquestioningly the word of torturers, perjurers and entrapment artists, all talking about alleged evidence that we are not allowed to see? Did you learn nothing from the "Iraqi WMD" fiasco or the "ZOMG! Assad gassed his own peoples ZOMG!" debacle? Funny how in each of these instances, the intelligence community's lies just happened to coincide with the agenda of empire. ..."
Americans tend to be a trusting lot. When they hear a high level government official, like former Director of National Intelligence
Jim Clapper, state that Russia's Vladimir ordered and monitored a Russian cyber attack on the 2016 Presidential election, those trusting
souls believe him. For experienced intelligence professionals, who know how the process of gathering and analyzing intelligence works,
they detect a troubling omission in Clapper's presentation and, upon examining the so-called "Intelligence Community Assessment,"
discover that document is a deceptive fraud. It lacks actual evidence that Putin and the Russians did what they are accused of doing.
More troubling -- and this is inside baseball -- is the fact that two critical members of the Intelligence Community -- the DIA and
State INR -- were not asked to coordinate/clear on the assessment.
You should not feel stupid if you do not understand or appreciate the last point. That is something only people who actually have
produced a Community Assessment would understand. I need to take you behind the scenes and ensure you understand what is intelligence
and how analysts assess and process that intelligence. Once you understand that then you will be able to see the flaws and inadequacies
in the report released by Jim Clapper in January 2017.
The first thing you need to understand is the meaning of the term, the "Intelligence Community" aka IC. Comedians are not far off
the mark in touting this phrase as the original oxymoron. On paper the IC currently is comprised of 17 agencies/departments:
Air Force Intelligence,
Army Intelligence,
Central Intelligence Agency aka CIA,
Coast Guard Intelligence,
Defense Intelligence Agency aka DIA,
Energy Department aka DOE,
Homeland Security Department,
State Department aka INR,
Treasury Department,
Drug Enforcement Administration aka DEA,
Federal Bureau of Investigation aka FBI,
Marine Corps Intelligence,
National Geospatial Intelligence Agency aka NGIA or NGA,
National Reconnaissance Office aka NRO,
National Security Agency aka NSA,
Navy Intelligence
The Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
But not all of these are "national security" agencies -- i.e., those that collect raw intelligence, which subsequently is packaged
and distributed to other agencies on a need to know basis. Only six of these agencies take an active role in collecting raw foreign
intelligence. The remainder are consumers of that intelligence product. In other words, the information does not originate with them.
They are like a subscriber to the New York Times. They get the paper everyday and, based upon what they read, decide what is going
on in their particular world. The gatherers of intelligence are:
The CIA collects and disseminates intelligence from human sources, i.e., foreigners who have been recruited to spy for us.
The DIA collects and disseminates intelligence on the activities and composition of foreign militaries and rely primarily
on human sources but also collect documentary material.
The State Department messages between the Secretary of State and the our embassies constitutes the intelligence reviewed and
analyzed by other agencies.
NGIA collects collects, analyzes, and distributes geospatial intelligence (GEOINT) in support of national security. NGA was
known as the National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA) until 2003. In other words, maps and photographs.
NRO designs, builds, and operates the reconnaissance satellites of the U.S. federal government, and provides satellite intelligence
to several government agencies, particularly signals intelligence (SIGINT) to the NSA, imagery intelligence (IMINT) to the NGA,
and measurement and signature intelligence (MASINT) to the DIA.
NSA analyzes signal intelligence, including phone conversations and emails.
Nine of the other agencies/departments are consumers. They do not collect and package original info. They are the passive recipients.
The analysts in those agencies will base their conclusions on information generated by other agencies, principally the CIA and the
NSA.
The astute among you, I am sure, will insist my list is deficient and will ask, "What about the FBI and DEA?" It is true that
those two organizations produce a type of human intelligence -- i.e., they recruit informants and those informants provide those
agencies with information that the average person understandably would categorize as "intelligence." But there is an important difference
between human intelligence collected by the CIA and the human source intelligence gathered by the FBI or the DEA. The latter two
are law enforcement agencies. No one from the CIA or the NSA has the power to arrest someone. The FBI and the DEA do.
Their authority as law enforcement agents, however, comes with limitations, especially in collecting so-called intelligence. The
FBI and the DEA face egal constraints on what information they can collect and store. The FBI cannot decide on its own that skinheads
represent a threat and then start gathering information identifying skinhead leaders. There has to be an allegation of criminal activity.
When such "human" information is being gathered under the umbrella of law enforcement authorities, it is being handled as potential
evidence that may be used to prosecute someone. This means that such information cannot be shared with anyone else, especially intelligence
agencies like the CIA and the NSA.
The "17th" member of the IC is the Director of National Intelligence aka DNI. This agency was created in the wake of the September
11, 2001 terrorist attacks for the ostensible purpose of coordinating the activities and products of the IC. In theory it is the
organization that is supposed to coordinate what the IC collects and the products the IC produces. Most objective observers would
concede that the DNI has been a miserable failure and nothing more than a bureaucratic boondoggle.
An important, but little understood point, is that these agencies each have a different focus. They are not looking at the same
things. In fact, most are highly specialized and narrowly focused. Take the Coast Guard, for instance. Their intelligence operations
primarily hone in on maritime threats and activities in U.S. territorial waters, such as narcotic interdictions. They are not responsible
for monitoring what the Russians are doing in the Black Sea and they have no significant expertise in the cyber activities of the
Russian Army military intelligence organization aka the GRU.
In looking back at the events of 2016 surrounding the U.S. Presidential campaign, most people will recall that Hillary Clinton,
along with several high level Obama national security officials, pushed the lie that the U.S. Intelligence agreed that Russia had
unleashed a cyber war on the United States. The initial lie came from DNI Jim Clapper and Homeland Security Chief, Jeb Johnson, who
released the following memo to the press on
7 October 2016 :
"The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails
from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on
sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed
efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow
-- the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there.
We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these
activities."
This was a deliberate deceptive message. It implied that the all 16 intelligence agencies agreed with the premise and "evidence
of Russian meddling. Yet not a single bit of proof was offered. More telling was the absence of any written document issued from
the Office of the DNI that detailed the supposed intel backing up this judgment. Notice the weasel language in this release:
"The USIC is confident . . ."
"We believe . . ."
If there was actual evidence/intelligence, such as an intercepted conversation between Vladimir Putin and a subordinate ordering
them to hack the DNC or even a human source report claiming such an activity, then it would have and should have been referenced
in the Clapper/Johnson document. It was not because such intel did not exist.
Hillary Clinton helped perpetuate this myth during the late October debate with Donald Trump, when she declared as fact that:
"We have 17 intelligence agencies, civilian and military, who have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyberattacks,
come from the highest levels of the Kremlin, and they are designed to influence our election," Clinton said. "I find that deeply
disturbing."
What is shocking is that there was so little pushback to this nonsense. Hardly anyone asked why would the DEA, Coast Guard, the
Marines or DOE have any technical expertise to make a judgment about Russian hacking of U.S. election systems. And no one of any
importance asked the obvious -- where was the written memo or National Intelligence Estimate laying out what the IC supposedly knew
and believed? There was nothing.
It is natural for the average American citizen to believe that something given the imprimatur of the Intelligence Community must
reflect solid intelligence and real expertise. Expertise is supposed to be the cornerstone of intelligence analysis and the coordination
that occurs within the IC. That means that only those analysts (and the agencies they represent) will be asked to contribute or comment
on a particular intelligence issue. When it comes to the question of whether Russia had launched a full out cyber attack on the Democrats
and the U.S. electoral system, only analysts from agencies with access to the intelligence and the expertise to analyze that intelligence
would be asked to write or contribute to an intelligence memorandum.
Who would that be? The answer is simple -- the CIA, the DIA, the NSA, State INR and the FBI. (One could make the case that there
are some analysts within Homeland Security that might have expertise, but they would not necessarily have access to the classified
information produced by the CIA or the NSA.) The task of figuring out what the Russians were doing and planned to do fell to five
agencies and only three of the five (the CIA, the DIA and NSA) would have had the ability to collect intelligence that could inform
the work of analysts.
Before I can explain to you how an analyst work this issue it is essential for you to understand the type of intelligence that
would be required to "prove" Russian meddling. There are four possible sources -- 1) a human source who had direct access to the
Russians who directed the operation or carried it out; 2) a signal intercept of a conversation or cyber activity that was traced
to Russian operatives; 3) a document that discloses the plan or activity observed; or 4) forensic evidence from the computer network
that allegedly was attacked.
Getting human source intel is primarily the job of CIA. It also is possible that the DIA or the FBI had human sources that could
have contributed relevant intelligence.
Signal intercepts are collected and analyzed by the NSA.
Documentary evidence, which normally is obtained from a human source but can also be picked up by NSA intercepts or even an old-fashioned
theft.
Finally there is the forensic evidence . In the case of Russian meddling there is no forensic evidence available to the IC because
the Democratic National Committee did not permit the FBI to investigate and examine the computers and the network that was allegedly
attacked.
What Do Analysts Do?
Whenever there is a "judgment" or "consensus" claimed on behalf to the IC, it means that one or more analysts have written a document
that details the evidence and presents conclusions based on that evidence. On a daily basis the average analyst confronts a flood
of classified information (normally referred to as "cables" or "messages"). When I was on the job in the 1980s I had to wade through
more than 1200 messages -- i.e., human source reports from the CIA, State Department messages with embassies around the world, NSA
intercepts, DIA reports from their officers based overseas (most in US embassies) and open source press reports. Today, thanks to
the internet, the average analyst must scan through upwards of 3000 messages. It is humanly impossible.
The basic job of an analyst is to collect as much relevant information as possible on the subject or topic that is their responsibility.
There are analysts at the CIA, the NSA, the DIA and State INR that have the job of knowing about Russian cyber activity and capabilities.
That is certain. But we are not talking about hundreds of people.
Let us move from the hypothetical to the actual. In January of 2017, DNI Jim Clapper release a report entitled, "
Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent
US Elections " (please see
here ). In subsequent testimony before the Congress, Clapper claimed that he handpicked
two dozen analysts to draft the document . That is not likely. There may have been as many as two dozen analysts who read the
final document and commented on it, but there would never be that many involved in in drafting such a document. In any event, only
analysts from the CIA, the NSA and the FBI were involved :
This report includes an analytic assessment drafted and coordinated among The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), The Federal
Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and The National Security Agency (NSA), which draws on intelligence information collected and disseminated
by those three agencies.
Limiting the drafting and clearance on this document to only the CIA, the NSA and the FBI is highly unusual because one of the
key analytical conclusions in the document identifies the Russian military intelligence organization, the GRU, as one of the perpetrators
of the cyber attack. DIA's analysts are experts on the GRU and there also are analysts in State Department's Bureau of INR who should
have been consulted. Instead, they were excluded.
Here is how the process should have worked in producing this document:
One or more analysts are asked to do a preliminary draft. It is customary in such a document for the analyst to cite specific
intelligence, using phrases such as: "According to a reliable source of proven access," when citing a CIA document or "According
to an intercept of a conversation between knowledgeable sources with access," when referencing something collected by the NSA.
The analyst does more than repeat what is claimed in the intel reports, he or she also has the job of explaining what these facts
mean or do not mean.
There always is an analyst leading the effort who has the job of integrating the contributions of the other analysts into
a coherent document. Once the document is completed in draft it is handed over to Branch Chief and then Division Chief for editing.
We do not know who had the lead, but it was either the FBI, the CIA or the NSA.
At the same time the document is being edited at originating agency, it is supposed to be sent to the other clearing agencies,
i.e. those agencies that either provided the intelligence cited in the draft (i.e., CIA, NSA, DIA, or State) or that have expertise
on the subject. As noted previously, it is highly unusual to exclude the DIA and INR.
Once all the relevant agencies clear on the content of the document, it is sent into the bowels of the DNI where it is put
into final form.
That is how the process is supposed to work. But the document produced in January 2017 was not a genuine work reflecting the views
of the "Intelligence Community." It only represented the supposed thinking (and I use that term generously) of CIA, NSA and FBI analysts.
In other words, only three of 16 agencies cleared on the document that presented four conclusions:
Russian efforts to influence the 2016 US presidential election represent the most recent expression of Moscow's longstanding
desire to undermine the US-led liberal democratic order, but these activities demonstrated a significant escalation in directness,
level of activity, and scope of effort compared to previous operations.
We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election.
Russia's goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability
and potential presidency.
We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump.
We assess Moscow will apply lessons learned from its Putin-ordered campaign aimed at the US presidential election to future
influence efforts worldwide, including against US allies and their election processes.
Sounds pretty ominous, but the language used tells a different story. The conclusions are based on assumptions and judgments.
There was nor is any actual evidence from intelligence sources showing that Vladimir Putin ordered up anything or that his government
preferred Trump over Clinton.
How do I know this? If such evidence existed -- either documentary or human source or signal intercept -- it would have been cited
in this document. Not only that. Such evidence would have corroborated the claims presented in the Steele dossier. But such evidence
was not forthcoming. If it had existed than Jim Comey could have claimed in his June 2017 testimony before Congress that the parts
of the "Dossier" had been verified. He did not do so. Testifying under oath Comey described the "Dossier" as "salacious and unverified."
It is genuinely shocking that DNI Jim Clapper, with the acquiescence of the CIA, the FBI and NSA, would produce a document devoid
of any solid intelligence. There is a way to publicly release sensitive intelligence without comprising a the original source. But
such sourcing is absent in this document.
That simple fact should tell you all you need to know. The Intelligence Community was used as a tool to misinform the public and
persuade them that Russia was guilty of something they did not do. That lie remains unchallenged.
Good summary argument, PT. Thanks. Helpful reminder.
But, makes me feel uncomfortable. Cynical scenario. I'd prefer them to be both drivers and driven, somehow stumbling into the
chronology of events. They didn't hack the DNC, after all. Crowdstrike? Steele? ...
********
But yes, all the 17 agencies Clinton alluded to in her 3rd encounter with Trump was a startling experience:
One other point on which Tacitus and I differ is the quality of the analysts in the "minors." The "bigs" often recruit analysts
from the "minors" so they can't be all that bad. And the analysts in all these agencies receive much the same data feed electronically
every day. There are exceptions to this but it is generally true. I, too, read hundreds of documents every day to keep up with
the knowledge base of the analysts whom I interrogated continuously. "How do you know that?" would have been typical. pl
"The Intelligence Community was used as a tool to misinform the public and persuade them that Russia was guilty of something they
did not do. That lie remains unchallenged.'"
Yes it was and so remains the lie unchallenged.
Conjectural garbage appears first to have been washed through the FBI, headquarters no less, then probably it picked up a Triple
A rating at the CIA, and then when the garbage got to Clapper, it was bombs away - we experts all agree. There were leaks, but
they weren't sufficient to satisfy Steele so he just delivered the garbage whole to the Media in order to make it a sure thing.
The garbage was placed securely out there in the public domain with a Triple A rating because the FBI wouldn't concern itself
with garbage, would it?
Contrast this trajectory with what the Russian policy establishment did when it concluded that the US had done something in the
Ukraine that Russia found significantly actionable: it released the taped evidence of Nuland and our Ambassador finishing off
the coup.
The whole sequence reminds me in some ways of the sub prime mortgage bond fiasco: garbage risk progressively bundled, repackaged,
rebranded and resold by big name institutions that should have known better.
I have only two questions: was it misfeasance, malfeasance, or some ugly combination of the two? And are they going to get away
with it?
Re this: " In the case of Russian meddling there is no forensic evidence available to the IC because the Democratic National Committee
did not permit the FBI to investigate and examine the computers and the network that was allegedly attacked."
To be precise, CrowdStrike did provide the FBI with allegedly "certified true images" of the DNC servers allegedly involved
in the alleged "hack." They also allegedly provided these images to FireEye and Mandiant, IIRC.
All three allegedly examined those images and concurred with CrowdStrike's analysis.
Of course, given the CrowdStrike itself is a massively compromised organization due to its founder and CEO, those "certified
true images" are themselves tainted evidence.
In addition, regardless of whether the images were true or not, the evidence allegedly contained therein is painfully inadequate
to confirm that APT28 or APT29 were involved, nor that the Russian government was involved, or even that there was a real hack
involved, and even less evidence that any emails that might have been exfiltrated were given to Wikileaks as opposed to another
leak such as that alleged by Sy Hersh to have been done by Seth Rich.
The "assessment" that Putin ordered any of this is pure mind-reading and can be utterly dismissed absent any of the other evidence
Publius points out as necessary.
The same applies to any "estimate" that the Russian government preferred Trump or wished to denigrate Clinton. Based on what
I read in pro-Russian news outlets, Russian officials took great pains to not pick sides and Putin's comments were similarly very
restrained. The main quote from Putin about Trump that emerged was mistranslated as approval whereas it was more an observation
of Trump's personality. At no time did Putin ever say he favored Trump over Clinton, even though that was a likely probability
given Clinton's "Hitler" comparison.
As an aside, I also recommend Scott Ritter's trashing of the ICA. Ritter is familiar with intelligence estimates and their
reliability based on his previous service as a UN weapons inspector in Iraq and in Russia implementing arms control treaties.
This is a wonderful explanation of the intelligence community. And I thank you for the explanation. My interpretation is: In 1990
+- Bush 41 sold us the 1st Iraq war using fudged intelligence, then Bush 43 sold us the second Iraq war using fabricated intelligence.
And now the Obama Administration tried to sell us fake intelligence in regard to Russia in order to get Clinton elected. However
inadequate my summary is it looks like the Democrats are less skilled in propaganda than the Repubs. And what else is the difference?
Mueller has had 18 months and has proceeded to reveal exactly nothing related to either Trump "collusion" with Russia nor Russia
as a state actually doing anything remotely described as "meddling."
His expected indictment of some Russians for the DNC hack is going to be more of the same in all likelihood. I predict there
will be next to zero evidence produced either that the Russians named are in fact members of APT28 or APT29 or that they had any
direct connection with either the alleged DNC hack or Wikileaks or the Russian government.
It's a witch hunt, nothing more. People holding their breath for the "slam dunk" are going to pass out soon if they haven't
already.
Mueller is investigating some aspects. But there is another aspect - the conspiracy inside law enforcement and the IC. That is also being investigated. There are
Congressional committees in particular Nunes, Goodlatte and Grassley. Then there is the DOJ IG. And today AG Sessions confirms
there is a DOJ prosecutor outside Washington investigating.
IMO, the conspiracy is significantly larger in scale and scope than anything the Russians did.
Yes, indeed we'll have to wait and see what facts Mueller reveals. But also what facts these other investigations reveal.
Thank you for setting out the geography and workings of this complex world.
Might I ask how liaison with other Intelligence Communities fits in? Is intelligence information from non-US sources such as
UK intelligence sources subject to the same process of verification and evaluation?
I ask because of the passage in your article -
"But such evidence (corroborating the Steele dossier) was not forthcoming. If it had existed than Jim Comey could have claimed
in his June 2017 testimony before Congress that the parts of the "Dossier" had been verified. He did not do so. Testifying under
oath Comey described the "Dossier" as "salacious and unverified." "
Does this leave room for the assertion that although the "Dossier" was unverified in the US it was accepted as good information
because it had been verified by UK Intelligence or by persons warranted by the UK? In other words, was UK Intelligence, or an ex-UK intelligence officer, used to get material through the US evaluation process,
material that would not have got through that US evaluation process had it originated within the US itself?
" ... was UK Intelligence, or an ex-UK intelligence officer, used to get material through the US evaluation process, material
that would not have got through that US evaluation process had it originated within the US itself?" I would say yes and especially
yes if the contact for this piece of data was conducted at the highest level within the context of the already tight liaison
between the US IC and Mi-6/GCHQ. PT may think differently. pl
Was it Hitler or Stalin who said "show me the man and I will find his crime?" As I have said before, Trumps greatest vulnerability
lies in his previous business life as an entrepreneurial hustler. If he is anything like the many like him whom I observed in
my ten business years, then he has cut corners legally somewhere in international business. they pretty much all do that. Kooshy,
a successful businessman confirmed that here a while back. These other guys were all business hustlers including Flynn and their
activities have made them vulnerable to Mueller. IMO you have to ask yourself how much you want to be governed by political hacks
and how much by hustlers. pl
hy this socialist pub would fing it surprising that former public servants seek elected office is a mystery to me. BTW, in
re all the discussion here of the IC, there are many levels in these essentially hierarchical structures and one's knowledge of
them is conditioned by the perspective from which you viewed them. pl
Re 'baby adoption' meeting between Trump, Jr. and Veselnitskaya, I recall a comment here linking to an article speculating the
email initiating the meeting originated in Europe, was set up by the playboy son of a European diplomat, and contained words to
trip data-gathering monitors which would have enabled a FISA request to have Trump, Jr. come under surveillance.
Also, the Seymour Hersh tape certainly seems authentic as far as Seth Rich being implicated in the DNC dump.
You insist (I guess you rely on MSNBC as your fact source) that Manafort, Page, etc. all "have connections to Russia or Assange."
You are using smear and guilt by association. Flynn's so-called connection to Russia was that he accepted an invite to deliver
a speech at an RT sponsored event and was paid. So what? Nothing wrong with that. Just ask Bill Clinton. Or perhaps you are referring
to the fact that Flynn also spoke to the Russian Ambassador to the US after the election in his capacity as designated National
Security Advisor. Zero justification for investigation.
Stone? He left the campaign before there had even been a primary and only had text exchanges with Assange.
Your blind hatred of Trump makes you incapable of thinking logically.
The most sarcastic irony was intended. This is what the real left looks like, its very different from Clintonite Liberals, not that I agree with their ideological
program, though I believe parts have their place.
And to your second comment, yes I agree about the complexity of institutions and how situationally constrained individual experiences
are, if that was the point.
I'll also concede my brief comments generalize very broadly, but it's hard to frame things more specific comments without direct
knowledge, such as the invaluable correspondents here. I try to avoid confirmation bias by reading broadly and try to provide
outside perspectives. My apologies if they're too far outside.
I suppose it would be interesting to see a side by side comparison of how many former IC self affiliated with which party in
choosing to run. I'm just guessing but I'll bet there's more CIA in the D column and more DIA among the Rs.
"We don't have the evidence yet because Mueller hasn't found it yet!" is a classic argument from ignorance, in that is assumes
without evidence (there's that pesky word again!) that there is something to be found.
That said, I have no doubt that Mueller will find *something*, simply because an aggressive and determined prosecutor can always
find *something*, especially if the target is engaged in higher level business or politics. A form unfiled, an irregularity in
an official document, and overly optimistic tax position.
If nothing else works, there's always the good old standby of asking question after question until the target makes a statement
that can be construed as perjury or lying to investigators.
My perspective, after reading that linked article by the WSWS, is that both, the IC and the DoD, are trying to take over the
whole US political spectrum, in fact, militarizing de facto the US political life....
Now, tell me that this is not an
intend by the MIC ( where all the former IC or DoD people finally end when they leave official positions )to take over the
government ( if more was needed after what has happened with Trump´s ) to guarantee their profit rate in a moment where
everything is crimbling....
Btw, have you read the recently released paper, "WorldWide Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community" by Daniel R.
Coats ( DNI )? You smell fear from the four corners....do not you?
Those immortal words are attributed to Lavrentiy Beria, Colonel and you are not the first to draw the comparison re Mueller's
investigation. For those who do not know Beria was head of the NKVD under Stalin.
The BBC reported this morning that a police officer who was amongst the earliest responders to the "nerve gas" poisoning of Col.
Skripal is also being treated for symptoms. How was it that many "White Helmets" who were filmed where the sarin gas was dropped
on Khan Sheikhoun last April suffered no symptoms?
That's a good way to present it political hacks vs hustlers. The fact is Flynn has pled guilty to perjury. Nothing else like collusion with the Russians.
And his sentencing is on hold
now as the judge has ordered Mueller to hand over any exculpatory evidence. Clearly something is going on his case for the judge
to do that.
Manafort has been indicted for money laundering, wire fraud, etc for activities well before the election campaign. Sure, it is good that these corrupt individuals should be investigated and prosecuted. However, this corruption is widespread
in DC. How come none of these cheering Mueller on to destroy Trump care about all the foreign money flowing to K Street? Why aren't
they calling for investigations of the Clinton Foundation or the Podesta brothers where probable cause exist of foreign money
and influence? What about Ben Cardin and all those recipients of foreign zionist money and influence? It would be nice if there
were wide ranging investigations on all those engaged in foreign influence peddling. But it seems many just want a witch hunt
to hobble Trump. It's going to be very difficult to get the Senate to convict him for obstruction of justice or tax evasion or
some charge like that.
The select group of several dozen analysts from CIA, NSA and FBI who produced the January 2017 ICA are very likely the same group
of analysts assembled by Brenner in August 2016 to form a task force examining "L'Affaire Russe" at the same time Brennan brought
that closely held report to Obama of Putin's specific instructions on an operation to damage Clinton and help Trump. I've seen
these interagency task forces set up several times to address particular info ops or cyberattack issues. Access to the work of
these task forces was usually heavily restricted. I don't know if this kind of thing has become more prevalent throughout the
IC.
I am also puzzled by the absence of DIA in the mix. When I was still working, there were a few DIA analysts who were acknowledged
throughout the IC as subject matter experts and analytical leaders in this field. On the operational side, there was never great
enthusiasm for things cyber or info ops. There were only a few lonely voices in the darkness. Meanwhile, CIA, FBI and NSA embraced
the field wholeheartedly. Perhaps those DIA analytical experts retired or moved on to CYBERCOM, NSA or CIA's Information Operations
Center.
I predict there will be next to zero evidence produced either that the Russians named are in fact members of APT28 or APT29
...
Richard, over here the type of software is categorized under Advanced Persistent Threat, and beyond that specifically labeled
the "Sofacy Group". ... I seem to prefer the more neutral description 'Advanced Persistent Threat' by Kaspersky. Yes, they seem
to be suspicious lately in the US. But I am a rather constant consumer, never mind the occasional troubles over the years.
APT: Helps to not get confused by all the respective naming patterns in the economic field over national borders. APT 1 to
29 ...? Strictly, What's the precise history of the 'Bear' label and or the specific, I assume, group of APT? ...
Ever used a datebase checking a file online? Would have made you aware of the multitude of naming patterns.
******
More ad-hoc concerning one item in your argument above. To what extend does a standard back-up system leave relevant forensic
traces? Beyond the respective image in the present? Do you know?
Admittedly, I have no knowledge about matters beyond purely private struggles. But yes, they seemed enough to get a vague glimpse
of categories in the field of attribution. Regarding suspected state actors vs the larger cybercrime scene that is.
Even mentioning those is just further evidence that something really did happen.
I appreciate you are riding our partially shared hobby horse, Fred. ;)
But admittedly this reminds me of something that felt like a debate-shift, I may be no doubt misguided here. Nitwit! In other
words I may well have some type of ideological-knot in the relevant section dealing with memory in my brain as long-term undisciplined
observer of SST.
But back on topic: the argument seemed to be that "important facts" were omitted. In other words vs earlier times were are
now centrally dealing with omission as evidence. No?
General McMaster has seen the evidence and says the fact of Russian meddling can no longer be credibly denied.
That doesn't stop the right-wing extremists from spinning fairy tales.
The right wing (re: Hannity and Limbaugh) have been trying mightily to discredit this investigation by smearing Mueller's reputation,
even though he is a conservative republican.
They are doing this so that if Mueller's report is damning, they can call it a "witch hunt."
I would think that if Trump is innocent, he would cooperate with this investigation fully.
You are insinuating that McMaster is a liar even though he has access to information that you don't.
"omission as evidence. " Incorrect. Among the omissions was the fact that the dossier was paid for by a political campaign
and that the wife of a senior DOJ lawyer's wife was working for Fusion GPS. Then there's the rest of the political motivations
left out.
If you have seen the classified information that would be necessary to back up your conclusions, it should not be discussed in
this forum. As you are well aware sources and methods cannot be made public so I fail to see how you believe this should have
been publically done. Having said that, I pretty much agree with your conclusion except for the indication that the analysts lied.
What does "hacking our elections" mean? Does it means breaking into voting systems and changing the outcome by altering votes?
Or does it mean information operations to change US voters' minds about for whom they would vote?
If the latter you must know
that we (the US) have done this many times in foreign elections, including Russian elections, Israeli elections, Italian elections,
German elections, etc., or perhaps you think that a different criterion should be applied to people who are not American.
As for
McMasters, I am unimpressed with him. He displays all the symptoms of Russophobia. He has special information? Information can
be interpreted many ways depending on one's purpose. pl
PT does not have access to the classified information underlying but your argument that "As you are well aware sources and
methods cannot be made public so I fail to see how you believe this should have been publicly done." doesn't hold water for me
since I have seen sources and methods disclosed by the government of the US many times when it felt that necessary. One example
that I have mentioned before was that of the trial of Jeffrey Sterling (merlin) for which I was an expert witness and adviser
to the federal court for four years.
In that one the CIA and DoJ forced the court to allow them to de-classify the CIA DO's operational
files on the case and read them into the record in open court. I had read all these files when they were classified at the SCI
level. IMO the perpetrators in the Steel Memo case are and were merely hiding behind claims of sources and methods protection
in order to protect themselve. pl
Mueller cleared his ridiculous indictment relating to the Russian troll farm, a requirement that at one time would have been
SOP for any FBI Office or USAtty Office bringing an indictment of this kind.
Not aware of this. Can you help me out?
No doubt vaguely familiar with public lore, in limited ways. As always.
So now we are supposed to believe unquestioningly the word of torturers, perjurers and entrapment artists, all talking about alleged
evidence that we are not allowed to see?
Did you learn nothing from the "Iraqi WMD" fiasco or the "ZOMG! Assad gassed his own peoples ZOMG!" debacle? Funny how in each of these instances, the intelligence community's lies just happened to coincide with the agenda of empire.
Ok, true. I forgot 'Steele'* was used as 'evidence'. Strictly, Pat may have helped me out considering my 'felt' "debate-shift". Indirectly. I do recall, I hesitated to try to clarify
matters for myself.
Depends on what crime the "hack" committed. Fudging on taxes or cutting corners? Big whoop. Laundering $500 mil for a buddy of
Vlad's? Now you got my attention and should have the voters' attention.
This is a political process in the end game. Clinton lied about sex in the oval Office and was tried for it. Why don't we exercise
patience in the process and see if this President should be tried?
I ain't a lawyer but don't prosecutors hold their cards (evidence) close to their chests until the court has a criminal charge
and sets a date for discovery?
Linda,
You betray your ignorance on this subject. You clearly have not understood nor comprehended what I have written. So i will put
it in CAPS for you. Please read slowly.
THIS TYPE OF DOCUMENT, IF IT HAD A SOURCE OR SOURCES BEHIND IT, WOULD REFERENCE THOSE SOURCES. AN ANALYST WOULD NOT WRITE "WE
ASSESS." IF YOU HAVE A RELIABLE HUMAN SOURCE OR A RELIABLE PIECE OF SIGINT THE YOU DO NOT HAVE TO ASSESS. YOU SIMPLY STATE, ACCORDING
TO A KNOWLEDGEABLE AND RELIABLE SOURCE.
GOT IT. And don't come back with nonsense that the sources are so sensitive that they cannot be disclose. News flash genius--the
very fact that Clapper put out this piece of dreck would have exposed the sources if they existed (but they do not). In any event,
there would be reference to sources that provided the evidence that such activity took place at the direction of Putin.
I notice other Intelligence Community Assessments also use the term "we assess" liberally. For example, the 2018 Worldwide
Threat Assessment and the 2012 ICA on Global Water Security use the "we assess" phrase throughout the documents. I hazard to guess
that is why they call these things assessments.
The 2017 ICA on Russian Interference released to the public clearly states: "This report is a declassified version of a highly
classified assessment. This document's conclusions are identical to the highly classified assessment, but this document does not
include the full supporting information, including specific intelligence on key elements of the influence campaign. Given the
redactions, we made minor edits purely for readability and flow."
I would hazard another guess that those minor edits for readability and flow are the reason that specific intelligence reports
and sources, which were left out of the unclassified ICA, are not cited in that ICA.
As far as I know, no one has reliably claimed that election systems, as in vote tallies, were ever breached. No votes were
changed after they were cast. The integrity of our election system and the 2016 election itself was maintained. Having said that,
there is plenty of evidence of Russian meddling as an influence op. I suggest you and others take a gander at the research of
someone going by the handle of @UsHadrons and several others. They are compiling a collection of FaceBook, twitter and other media
postings that emanated from the IRA and other Russian sources. The breadth of these postings is quite wide and supports the assessment
that enhancing the divides that already existed in US society was a primary Russian goal.
I pointed this stuff out to Eric Newhill a while back in one of our conversations. He jokingly noted that he may have assisted
in spreading a few of these memes. I bet a lot of people will recognize some of the stuff in this collection. That's nothing.
Recently we all learned that Michael Moore did a lot more than unwittingly repost a Russian meme. He took part in a NYC protest
march organized and pushed by Russians. This stuff is open source proof of Russian meddling.
TTG
Nice try, but that is bullshit just because recent assessments come out with sloppy language is no excuse. Go back and look at
the assessment was done for iraq to justify the war in 2003. Many sources cited because it was considered something Required to
justify going to war. As we have been told by many in the media that the Russians meddling was worse or as bad as the attack on
Pearl Harbor and 9-11. With something so serious do you want to argue that they would downplay the sourcing?
"... So the net effect is that Mueller's office is conducting our Russian foreign policy. Authority without either responsibility or expertise is not a desirable thing when it comes to forging correct relations with a nuclear power. ..."
It will be interesting to see why the interviewing FBI Agents to whom Flynn has admitted to
the Mueller Op telling a lie, or lies, did not avail Flynn the opportunity of the 'lie
circumstantial."
From what I think I know about the case, the answers to the questions put to Flynn were
already known to the Agents from wire overhears; and their substance did not constitute a
crime in any case.
Why would not the Agents interviewing Flynn have said "If you're telling me this, we have
reason to think that you're mistaken?"
If I'm correct in my understanding, in my opinion, the Agents conducted themselves in a
very chickenshit fashion and I would suspect an Agenda was in play.
Making a more general observation regarding the Mueller Op, it seems to me that not the least
reprehensible effect of its existence is that de facto it has usurped the authority of the
White House and the State Department to conduct Foreign Policy vis a vis Russia.
For example, I doubt very much whether Mueller cleared his ridiculous indictment relating
to the Russian troll farm, a requirement that at one time would have been SOP for any FBI
Office or USAtty Office bringing an indictment of this kind. And even if Mueller did, what
would, what could the WH or State response have been given the mishapen political climate and
the track record of outrageous leaking that so far have gone on without consequence to the
leaker.
So the net effect is that Mueller's office is conducting our Russian foreign policy.
Authority without either responsibility or expertise is not a desirable thing when it comes
to forging correct relations with a nuclear power.
Is it so difficult to understand that there are strong incentives to create the "Russia
Threat" to hide the crisis of neoliberalism in the USA. The current can of political worms
and infighting in Washington, DC between POTUS and intelligence agencies factions supporting
anti-trump color revolution clearly demonstrate that this crisis is systemic in nature. In
this sense, we can talk about the transformation of the US political system into something
new.
One feature of this new system is that the US foreign policy now is influenced, if not
controlled by intelligence agencies. The latter also proved to be capable of acting as the
kingmakers in the US Presidential elections (this time with side effects: derailing Sanders
eventually led to the election of Trump; that's why efforts to depose Trump commenced
immediately.)
A large part of the US elite is willing to create the situation of balancing on the edge
of nuclear war because it allows them to swipe the dirt under the carpet and unite the nation
on bogus premises, suppressing the crisis of confidence in the neoliberal elite.
Neo-McCarthyism witch hunt serves exactly this purpose.
Also now it is clear that the intelligence agencies and Pentagon, play active, and maybe
even decisive part in determining the US foreign policy, US population and elected POTUS be
damned.
Secretary of Defense Ash Carter and his staff showed this new arrangement in Syria in July
2017. And the fact that he was not fired on the spot might well signify the change in
political power between the "deep state" and the "surface state". With the latter one step
closer to being just a Potemkin Village.
So now we are supposed to believe unquestioningly the word of torturers, perjurers and
entrapment artists, all talking about alleged evidence that we are not allowed to see?
Did you learn nothing from the "Iraqi WMD" fiasco or the "ZOMG! Assad gassed his own
peoples ZOMG!" debacle?
Funny how in each of these instances, the intelligence community's lies just happened to
coincide with the agenda of empire.
It will be interesting to see why the interviewing FBI Agents to whom Flynn has admitted to
the Mueller Op telling a lie, or lies, did not avail Flynn the opportunity of the 'lie
circumstantial." From what I think I know about the case, the answers to the questions put to
Flynn were already known to the Agents from wire overhears; and their substance did not
constitute a crime in any case. Why would not the Agents interviewing Flynn have said "If
you're telling me this, we have reason to think that you're mistaken?" If I'm correct in my
understanding, in my opinion, the Agents conducted themselves in a very chickenshit fashion
and I would suspect an Agenda was in play.
Making a more general observation regarding the Mueller Op, it seems to me that not the
least reprehensible effect of its existence is that de facto it has usurped the authority of
the White House and the State Department to conduct Foreign Policy vis a vis Russia. For
example, I doubt very much whether Mueller cleared his ridiculous indictment relating to the
Russian troll farm, a requirement that at one time would have been SOP for any FBI Office or
USAtty Office bringing an indictment of this kind. And even if Mueller did, what would, what
could the WH or State response have been given the mishapen political climate and the track
record of outrageous leaking that so far have gone on without consequence to the leaker.
So the net effect is that Mueller's office is conducting our Russian foreign policy.
Authority without either responsibility or expertise is not a desirable thing when it comes
to forging correct relations with a nuclear power.
"... We're keeping our eyes out for another report confirming that Hick's account had been hacked (by shadowy Russia-affiliated hackers, no doubt). ..."
As
NBC News pointed out, Hicks' hacking claim raises questions about who hacked the account and why. But the committee wasn't able
to pursue those questions because Hicks, like many other members of the White House staff who have appeared before the House Intel
Committee, has refused to answer questions about her time at the White House or her experiences during the transition -- and also
because she was appearing voluntarily and not under a subpoena for her testimony.
It is standard practice for lawmakers to ask witnesses about phone numbers and email accounts. However, it is uncommon, according
to people familiar with the committee process, for a witness to tell lawmakers that he or she no longer has access to past accounts.
Special Counsel Robert Mueller has famously been pursuing the emails of Trump associates and other records from the campaign period,
transition and the Trump administration.
Mueller recently sent a subpoena to former Trump aide Sam Nunberg ordering Nunberg to turn over documents relating in any way
to 10 current and former Trump associates, including Hicks.
As
NBC points out, Corey Lewandowski, Trump's first campaign manager (who reportedly dated Hicks during the campaign while he was
married to another woman), is slated to testify before the committee on Thursday.
We're keeping our eyes out for another report confirming that Hick's account had been hacked (by shadowy Russia-affiliated hackers,
no doubt).
What is always a mystery to me is why these email servers are attached and available to the public Internet. Any script kiddie
with a version of "crack" can eventually guess a password that is composed of regular words or favorite clichés. Not to mention
some inherently hackable OSs.
Are your email accounts all hosted on servers not attached to the internet?
Email servers, even ones attached to the internet, can be protected. Not perfectly, but well enough. Throw in proper use of
non-trivial passwords and you become even safer in a relatively private environment such as a corporation or campaign committee
might set up. When email services are offered freely to everyone you are always at risk, because the hosts will have full access
to whatever you send and receive.
One more thing: make certain you can trust those running your servers. Then you won't have to hire someone to kill them when
they steal stuff via direct access to the servers. Think Seth Rich.
"... he Dems disgust me with their neo-McCarthyism and the Repubs disgust me because of the way they are playing out their hand right now as well. Games within corrupt games, and yet normal behavior especially in waning empires (or other types of polities, including powerful int'l corporations). ..."
"... Chapter 14 of Guns, Germs and Steel is titled "From Egalitarianism to Kleptocracy" and it used to be available online but my old link is dead and I couldn't find a new one. But a basic definition should suffice: "Kleptocracy, alternatively cleptocracy or kleptarchy, is a form of political and government corruption where the government exists to increase the personal wealth and political power of its officials and the ruling class at the expense of the wider population, often without pretense of honest service." I have no idea how one turns this around and I doubt it's even possible. ..."
"... The Real Reason Establishment Frauds Hate Trump and Obsess About Russia https://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2018/02/20/the-real-reason-establishment-frauds-hate-trump-and-obsess-about-russia/ ..."
"... Blaming Russia for all the nation's problems serves several key purposes for various defenders of the status quo. For discredited neocons and neoliberals who never met a failed war based on lies they didn't support, it provides an opportunity to rehabilitate their torched reputations by masquerading as fierce patriots against the latest existential enemy. Similarly, for those who lived in denial about who Obama really was for eight years, latching on to the Russia narrative allows them to reassure themselves that everything really was fine before Trump and Russia came along and ruined the party. ..."
jsn @16 & 40, in complete agreement with you. Great comments! T he Dems disgust me
with their neo-McCarthyism and the Repubs disgust me because of the way they are playing out
their hand right now as well. Games within corrupt games, and yet normal behavior especially in
waning empires (or other types of polities, including powerful int'l corporations).
Chapter 14 of Guns, Germs and Steel is titled "From Egalitarianism to Kleptocracy" and
it used to be available online but my old link is dead and I couldn't find a new one. But a
basic definition should suffice: "Kleptocracy, alternatively cleptocracy or kleptarchy, is a
form of political and government corruption where the government exists to increase the
personal wealth and political power of its officials and the ruling class at the expense of the
wider population, often without pretense of honest service." I have no idea how one turns this
around and I doubt it's even possible.
Back when I used to subscribe to STRATFOR, founder George Friedman always made a point of
evaluating the elites of whatever country he was analyzing and how they operated amongst
themselves and relative to the people and how effective they were or were not in governing a
country. But he never did that for the US. I would have paid extra for that report! But of
course he could not stay in business if he did such a thing as those people are his
clients.
I think Mike Krieger over at Liberty Blitzkrieg nails it from another perspective with this
post:
Blaming Russia for all the nation's problems serves several key purposes for various
defenders of the status quo. For discredited neocons and neoliberals who never met a failed war
based on lies they didn't support, it provides an opportunity to rehabilitate their torched
reputations by masquerading as fierce patriots against the latest existential enemy. Similarly,
for those who lived in denial about who Obama really was for eight years, latching on to the
Russia narrative allows them to reassure themselves that everything really was fine before
Trump and Russia came along and ruined the party.
By throwing every problem in Putin's lap, the entrenched bipartisan status quo can tell
themselves (and everybody else) that it wasn't really them and their policies that voters
rejected in 2016, rather, the American public was tricked by cunning, nefarious Russians.
Ridiculous for sure, but never underestimate the instinctive human desire to deny
accountability for one's own failures. It's always easier to blame than to accept
responsibility.
That said, there's a much bigger game afoot beyond the motivations of individuals looking to
save face. The main reason much of the highest echelons of American power are united against
Trump has nothing to do with his actual policies. Instead, they're terrified that -- unlike
Obama -- he's a really bad salesman for empire. This sort of Presidential instability threatens
the continuance of their well oiled and exceedingly corrupt gravy train. Hillary Clinton was a
sure thing, Donald Trump remains an unpredictable wildcard.
... Obama said all the right things while methodically doing the bidding of oligarchy. He
captured the imagination of millions, if not billions, around the world with his soaring
rhetoric, yet rarely skipped a beat when it came to the advancement of imperial policies. He
made bailing out Wall Street, droning civilians and cracking down on journalists seem
progressive. He said one thing, did another, and people ate it up. This is an extraordinarily
valuable quality when it comes to a vicious and unelected deep state that wants to keep a
corrupt empire together.
Trump has the exact opposite effect. Sure, he also frequently says one thing and then does
another, but he doesn't provide the same feel good quality to empire that Obama did. He's
simply not the warm and fuzzy salesman for oligarchy and empire Obama was, thus his inability
to sugarcoat state-sanctioned murder forces a lot of people to confront the uncomfortable
hypocrisies in our society that many would prefer not to admit.
------------
I can't stand Kushner's smirky face and got a good chuckle from this prince's fall as I am
not a fan of his passion for Israel. But I don't think he's a stupid idiot either. He's
probably very smart in business, but he seems to have no feel for politics. Trump is much
better at it than Kushner. Of course they are going after Kushner as a way to attack and
disadvantage Trump. Politics is a form of warfare after all.
My take is that Trump survives but mostly contained by the Borg
There is a Russian term for the political condition into which the USA political establishment has arrived: The USA
became "nedogovorosposobniy" -- a derogatory term for people who are iether mentally incapacitated or are such crooks that
nobody can't be rely on signed by them treaties and who can break any promises given and signed in writing with ease.
After painful months of negotiation with the US, Sergei Lavrov regretfully announced that the Americans were such. There are
rules, and the Americans do not know how to observe them. There are boundaries, but no-one has taught them to the Americans. In this
sense, the Russians, the Chinese, and the Iranians are grown-ups. It is possible to do business with them without risking the
survival of the species.'
That's a sign of a "failed state"
Notable quotes:
"... He described the Western sanctions over Crimea and the insurgency in eastern Ukraine as part of "illegitimate and unfair" efforts to contain Russia, adding that "we will win in the long run." He added that "those who serve us with poison will eventually swallow it and poison themselves." ..."
Putin then ... vented his frustration with the U.S. political system saying "
it has demonstrated
its inefficiency and has been eating itself up."
"
It's quite difficult to interact with such a system, because it's unpredictable
,"
Putin said.
Russian hopes for a detente and better ties with Washington have been dashed by the ongoing
congressional and FBI investigations into allegations of collusion between Trump's campaign and Russia.
Speaking about the bitter tensions in Russia-West relations, Putin said they have been rooted in Western
efforts to contain and weaken Russia.
"We are a great power, and no one likes competition," he said.
Turning his attention to a particularly sensitive topic, Putin said he was dismayed by what he
described as the U.S. role in the ouster of Ukraine's Russia-friendly president in February 2014 amid
massive protests.
Putin charged that the U.S. had asked Russia to help persuade then-President Viktor Yanukovych not to
use force against protesters and then "rudely and blatantly" cheated Russia,
sponsoring what he
called a "coup.
" Russia responded by rushing through a referendum in Ukraine's Crimean
Peninsula, whose result was an overwhelming majority voting to join Russia.
"
Few expected us to act so quickly and so resolutely, not to say daringly
," Putin
said.
He described the Western sanctions over Crimea and the insurgency in eastern Ukraine as part of
"illegitimate and unfair" efforts to contain Russia, adding that "we will win in the long run." He added
that "those who serve us with poison will eventually swallow it and poison themselves."
Responding to a question about Russia's growing global leverage, Putin responded: "If we play
strongly with weak cards, it means the others are just poor players, they aren't as strong as it seemed,
they must be lacking something."
* * *
Finally, Putin, who presented a sweeping array of new Russian
nuclear weapons last week
, voiced hope that nuclear weapons will never be used --
but warned
that Russia will retaliate in kind if it comes under a nuclear attack.
"The decision to use nuclear weapons can only be made if our early warning system not only detects a
missile launch but clearly forecasts its flight path and the time when warheads reach the Russian
territory," he said. "If someone makes a decision to destroy Russia, then we have a legitimate right to
respond."
He concluded ominously:
"Yes, it will mean a global catastrophe for mankind, for the entire
world. But as a citizen of Russia and the head of Russian state I would ask: What is such a world for, if
there were no Russia?"
Tags
War Conflict
Politics
"Yes, it will mean a global catastrophe for mankind, for the entire
world. But as a citizen of Russia and the head of Russian state I would ask: What
is such a world for, if there were no Russia?"
Many Americans are angry that Soviet socialists threw their communist
comrades out. Putin, a better capitalist than most US presidents in
recent decades, hates communists as much as everyone else does.
Well. It was obvious for some time that a corrupt gov will lead
unfortunately to capitalism going rogue and eating itself up.
Don't get me wrong, is not the capitalism failure is the failure
of the ones who supposedly had to ensure the existence of a true
free but balanced market, and that's the gov, so as in the former
Soviet bloc this proves again that too big and powerful gov
naturally evolves into an oligarchy which drives the system to
self cannibalize.
Ever since Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 US presidential
election , the Democratic Party establishment has held tightly to the belief that her shock
defeat was not the result of her and their shortcomings, but rather due to a nefarious Russian
plot to "hack" the election in "collusion" with the winner.
Instead of examining why Donald Trump was able to connect with voters in economically
distressed parts of the country in a way that Democrats failed to do, adherents of the
Russiagate narrative hoped that investigations would quickly find a smoking gun, leading to
Trump's impeachment and undoing an election result they consider aberrant and unjust.
On Friday, I spoke at a conference in Washington, DC, titled The Israel Lobby and American Policy , sponsored
by The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs and IRmep , a group that researches the lobby's influence.
As I note in my talk, a handful of journalists – especially Max Blumenthal and
Aaron Maté of The Real News – have consistently debunked the wild, exaggerated
and sometimes fabricated claims of Russian interference made by members of the self-styled but
woefully ineffectual "Resistance" to Trump.
Watch the video above.
True, over the course of the last year, special counsel Robert Mueller has made a number of
indictments, but none of those cases – including the recent
indictment of 13 Russians linked to a St. Petersburg troll farm – substantiates the
heavily hyped claim that Russia helped Trump win the White House.
Perhaps the most high-profile indictment of someone in Trump's inner circle, the president's
first national security adviser Michael Flynn , actually shows that
rather than colluding with Russia, senior members of Trump's team were really
working with Israel to
advanceits agenda.
And while no one has pinpointed evidence of Trump auctioning off his foreign policy to any
Russian oligarchs, he has definitely
tailored his policy toward Israel to the demands of casino billionaire Sheldon Adelson , his biggest campaign
donor .
Adelson's immediate priority was securing US recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital
and moving the American embassy there – and Trump duly
obliged .
New censorship helps Israel
In my talk I consider how the Russiagate narrative is actually helping Israel and its lobby
in particular ways.
I point out that the Russiagate hysteria being adopted by many liberals is legitimizing
censorship that helps Israel clamp down on free speech and a free press.
Last year, the Russian-funded network RT was forced to register under the Foreign Agents
Registration Act (FARA).
As Maté has noted, free speech advocates and journalists were largely
silent about it , perhaps thinking this tool of government control over the media would
never be used against them.
But now, Israel's supporters in Congress –
including Senator Ted Cruz – are demanding
that Al Jazeera be investigated by the Department of Justice and forced to register as an agent
of Qatar. They are explicitly citing the US government crackdown on RT as their precedent.
Al Jazeera's transgression is that it produced an undercover documentary on the workings of
the Israel lobby in the US.
Qatar has come under intense pressure from that lobby to make sure the documentary is never
aired. Five months after the network's head of investigations Clayton Swisher
announced it would be released "very soon," the film has yet to be broadcast.
According to a source who has seen it, the film identifies a number of lobby groups as
working with Israel to spy on American citizens using sophisticated data gathering techniques.
It is also said to cast light on covert efforts to smear and intimidate Americans seen as too
critical of Israel.
True, FARA is being used only against foreign networks, but the point is that these outlets
– whatever their flaws – are providing space for discussion and dissent that docile
US mainstream media keep closed.
It's simply impossible to imagine CNN, ABC – or for that matter the BBC –
showing true independence and taking on the power of the Israel lobby.
While organizers diligently informed media about the Washington conference, the only outlets
that invited me on to talk about the Israel lobby were the The Real News and RT. I know that
other speakers were shut out of mainstream media as well.
And besides, there are other forms of high-tech censorship that are being used to stifle or
stigmatize dissent in domestic media: Partly as an outgrowth of Russiagate, Silicon Valley
giants Google and
Facebook have succumbed to political
pressure to effectively
throttle the exposure
of independent outlets in the name of fighting extremism, "fake news" and alleged foreign
interference.
The perverse effect has been to reassert state and elite control over media and erode the
freedom that those of us shut out of mainstream outlets rely on. Nothing could suit Israel and
its lobby better.
Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, who served as chief of staff to Colin Powell when he was
secretary of state in the run-up to the 2003 US invasion of Iraq, issued a stark warning that the US ramping up its
military presence in Syria may be a prelude to launching a war on Iran on behalf of Israel.
Wilkerson said that Israel and its ally Saudi Arabia are encouraging the US to fight a
regime-change war against Tehran that they would be incapable of mounting on their own.
"We've already done Iraq, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan," Wilkerson said, "so we'd just be seen
as continuing the trend."
He warned that an Israeli confrontation and war with Lebanon – perhaps on the pretext
of disputed gas fields in the Mediterranean – could provide the pretext.
In an ominous parallel, he likened the current situation to 1914, the eve of World War I
– any spark could generate a broad regional or even global conflagration.
Wilkerson singled out the role of the neoconservative think tank Foundation for Defense of
Democracies as leading the campaign for war on behalf of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu and his defense minister Avigdor Lieberman.
Notably, the source who spoke to The Electronic Intifada about Al Jazeera's suppressed
Israel lobby film said that the documentary reveals that the same think tank may be acting as
an agent for Israel in its covert efforts to undermine support for Palestinian rights in the
US.
In spite of Wilkerson's worrying thesis, it must be said that, however powerful, the Israel
lobby cannot alone force the US to undertake foreign military conquests. For one thing, US
elites have never needed encouragement from anyone to wage devastating wars around the
world.
When the US establishment sees a critical interest at stake, it pursues it regardless of
what the lobby may want. That is why the US signed the 2015 Iran nuclear agreement despite
all of Israel's efforts to sabotage it. Of course whether that deal survives the Trump
administration
remains to be seen .
In his keynote
address , Haaretz journalist Gideon Levy stated that Israel's
military rule over Palestinians "is today one of the most brutal, cruel tyrannies on
Earth."
He asserted that the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement for Palestinian rights
is a "legitimate tool" and the "only game in town" to force Israel to end this injustice.
"... According to Mayer, Trump defenders argue that Steele is "a dishonest Clinton apparatchik who had collaborated with American intelligence and law enforcement officials to fabricate false charges against Trump and his associates, in a dastardly (sic) attempt to nullify the 2016 election. According to this story line, it was not the President who needed to be investigated, but the investigators themselves." ..."
"... I could not help but think that Mayer wrote her piece some months ago and that she and her editors might have missed more recent documentary evidence that gives considerable support to that "dastardly" story line. But seriously, it should be possible to suspect Steele of misfeasance or malfeasance – or simply telling his contractors what he knows they want to hear – without being labeled a "Trump supporter." I, for example, am no Trump supporter. I am, however, a former intelligence officer and I have long since concluded that what Steele served up is garbage. ..."
"... Mayer reports that Richard Dearlove, head of MI6 from 1999 to 2004, described Steele as "superb." Personally, I would shun any "recommendation" from that charlatan. Are memories so short? Dearlove was the intelligence chief who briefed Prime Minister Tony Blair on July 23, 2002 after a quick trip to Washington. The official minutes of that meeting were leaked to the London Times and published on May 1, 2005. ..."
"... Worse still, he displays a distinct inclination toward the remarkable view of former National Intelligence Director James Clapper, who has said that Russians are "typically, almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever." If Mayer wanted to find some ostensibly authoritative figure to endorse the kind of material in Steele's dossier, she surely picked a good one in Sipher. ..."
"... Mayer notes, "It's too early to make a final judgment about how much of Steele's dossier will be proved wrong, but a number of Steele's major claims have been backed up by subsequent disclosures. She includes, as flat fact, his claim that the Kremlin and WikiLeaks were working together to release the DNC's emails, but provides no evidence. ..."
"... It was, of course, WikiLeaks that published the very damaging Democratic information, for example, on the DNC's dirty tricks that marginalized Sen. Bernie Sanders and ensured that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would win the Democratic nomination. What remained to be demonstrated was that it was "the Russians" who gave those emails to WikiLeaks. And that is what the U.S. intelligence community could not honestly say. ..."
'Progressive' Journalists Jump the Shark on Russiagate March 7, 2018
A lack of skepticism has characterized much of the reporting on Russiagate, with undue
credibility being given to questionable sources like the Steele dossier, and now progressives
like Jane Mayer and Cenk Uygur are joining the bandwagon, Ray McGovern observes.
By Ray McGovern
Russiagate reporting has increasingly taken on a tabloidish and sensationalist
character.
Jane Mayer of The New Yorker and Cenk Uygur of The Young Turks are the latest
progressives to jump on the anti-Trump, pro-Russiagate bandwagon. They have made it crystal
clear that, in Mayer's words, they are not going to let Republicans, or anyone else, "take down
the whole intelligence community," by God.
Odd? Nothing is too odd when it comes to spinning and dyeing the yarn of Russiagate;
especially now that some strands are unraveling from the thin material of the "Steele
dossier."
Before the 2016 election, British ex-spy Christopher Steele was contracted (through a couple
of cutouts) by the Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee to dig up dirt on
candidate Donald Trump. They paid him $168,000. They should ask for their money back.
Mayer and Uygur have now joined with other Trump-despisers and new "progressive" fans of the
FBI and CIA – among them Amy Goodman and her go-to, lost-in-the-trees journalist, Marcy
Wheeler of Emptywheel.net. All of them (well, maybe not Cenk) are staying up nights with needle
and thread trying to sew a silk purse out of the sow's-ear dossier of Steele allegations and
then dye it red for danger.
Monday brought a new low, with a truly extraordinary one-two punch
by Mayer and Uygur .
A Damning Picture?
Mayer does her part in a New Yorker article, in which she – intentionally or
not – cannot seem to see the forest for the trees.
In her article, Mayer explains up front that the Steele dossier "painted a damning picture
of collusion between Trump and Russia," and then goes on to portray him as a paragon of virtue
with praise that is fulsome, in the full meaning of that word. For example, a friend of Steele
told Mayer that regarding Steele, "Fairness, integrity, and truth, for him, trump any
ideology."
Now, if one refuses to accept this portrait on faith, then you are what Mayer describes as a
"Trump defender." According to Mayer, Trump defenders argue that Steele is "a dishonest Clinton
apparatchik who had collaborated with American intelligence and law enforcement officials to
fabricate false charges against Trump and his associates, in a dastardly (sic) attempt to
nullify the 2016 election. According to this story line, it was not the President who needed to
be investigated, but the investigators themselves."
Can you imagine!
I could not help but think that Mayer wrote her piece some months ago and that she and her
editors might have missed more recent documentary evidence that gives considerable support to
that "dastardly" story line. But seriously, it should be possible to suspect Steele of
misfeasance or malfeasance – or simply telling his contractors what he knows they want to
hear – without being labeled a "Trump supporter." I, for example, am no Trump supporter.
I am, however, a former intelligence officer and I have long since concluded that what Steele
served up is garbage.
Character References
Mayer reports that Richard Dearlove, head of MI6 from 1999 to 2004, described Steele as
"superb." Personally, I would shun any "recommendation" from that charlatan. Are memories so
short? Dearlove was the intelligence chief who briefed Prime Minister Tony Blair on July 23,
2002 after a quick trip to Washington. The official minutes of that meeting were leaked to the
London Times and published on May 1, 2005.
Dearlove explained to Blair that President George W. Bush had decided to attack Iraq for
regime change and that the war was to be "justified by the conjunction of terrorism and weapons
of mass destruction." Dearlove added matter-of-factly, "The intelligence and facts are being
fixed around the policy."
Another character reference Mayer gives for Steele is former CIA Deputy Director John
McLaughlin (from 2000 to 2004) who, with his boss George Tenet, did the fixing of intelligence
to "justify" the war on Iraq. State Department intelligence director at the time, Carl Ford,
told the authors of "Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq
War" that both McLaughlin and Tenet "should have been shot" for what they did.
And then there is CIA veteran spy John Sipher who, Mayer says, "ran the Agency's Russia
program before retiring, in 2014." Sipher tells her he thinks the Steele dossier is "generally
credible" in "saying what Russia might be up to." Sipher may be a good case officer but he has
shown himself to be
something of a cipher on substance.
Worse still, he displays a distinct inclination toward the remarkable view of former
National Intelligence Director James Clapper, who has said that Russians are "typically, almost
genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever." If Mayer wanted to find some
ostensibly authoritative figure to endorse the kind of material in Steele's dossier, she surely
picked a good one in Sipher.
Mayer notes, "It's too early to make a final judgment about how much of Steele's dossier
will be proved wrong, but a number of Steele's major claims have been backed up by subsequent
disclosures. She includes, as flat fact, his claim that the Kremlin and WikiLeaks were working
together to release the DNC's emails, but provides no evidence.
Major Holes
Mayer, however, should know better. There have been lots of holes in the accusation that the
Russians hacked the DNC and gave the material to WikiLeaks to publish. Here's one major gap
we reported
on Jan. 20, 2017: President Barack Obama told his last press conference on Jan. 18, that the
U.S. intelligence community had no idea how the Democratic emails reached WikiLeaks.
Using lawyerly language, Obama admitted that "the conclusions of the intelligence community
with respect to the Russian hacking were not conclusive as to whether WikiLeaks was witting or
not in being the conduit through which we heard about the DNC e-mails that were leaked."
It is necessary to carefully parse Obama's words since he prides himself in his oratorical
constructs. He offered a similarly designed comment at a Dec. 16, 2016 press conference when he
said: "based on uniform intelligence assessments, the Russians were responsible for hacking the
DNC. the information was in the hands of WikiLeaks."
Note the disconnect between the confidence about hacking and the stark declarative sentence
about the information ending up at WikiLeaks. Obama does not bridge the gap because to do so
would be a bald-faced lie, which some honest intelligence officer might call him on. So, he
simply presented the two sides of the chasm – implies a connection – but leaves it
to the listener to make the leap.
It was, of course, WikiLeaks that published the very damaging Democratic information, for
example, on the DNC's dirty tricks that marginalized Sen. Bernie Sanders and ensured that
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would win the Democratic nomination. What remained to be
demonstrated was that it was "the Russians" who gave those emails to WikiLeaks. And that is
what the U.S. intelligence community could not honestly say.
Saying it now, without evidence, does not make it true.
Cenk Also in Sync
Cenk Uygur of The Young Turks at once picked up , big time, on
the part of Mayer's article that homes in on an "astonishing" report from Steele in late
November 2016 quoting one "senior Russian official." According to that official, "The Kremlin
had intervened to block Trump's initial choice for secretary of state, Mitt Romney." Steele's
late November memo alleged that the Kremlin had asked Trump to appoint someone who would be
prepared to lift Ukraine-related sanctions and cooperate on security issues like Syria.
Mayer commented, "As fantastical as the memo sounds, subsequent events could be said to
support it." Fantastical or not, Uygur decided to run with it. His amazing 12-minute video is
titled: "New Steele Dossier: Putin PICKED Trump's Secretary of State." Uygur asks: "Who does
Tillerson work for; and that also goes for the President."
Return to Sanity
As an antidote to all the above, let me offer this
cogent piece on the views of Joseph E. diGenova, who speaks out of his unique experience,
including as Counsel to the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (the Church
Committee). The article is entitled: "The Politicization of the FBI."
"Over the past year," diGenova wrote, "facts have emerged that suggest there was a plot by
high-ranking FBI and Department of Justice (DOJ) officials in the Obama administration, acting
under color of law, to exonerate Hillary Clinton of federal crimes and then, if she lost the
election, to frame Donald Trump and his campaign for colluding with Russia to steal the
presidency."
He pointed out that nearly half of Americans, according to a CBS poll, believe that
Mueller's Trump-Russia collusion probe is "politically motivated." And, he noted, 63 percent of
polled voters in a Harvard CAPS-Harris Poll believe that the FBI withheld vital information
from Congress about the Clinton and Russia collusion investigations.
This skepticism is entirely warranted, as diGenova explains, with the Russiagate probe being
characterized by overreach from the beginning.
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the
Saviour in inner-city Washington. He served in Army and CIA intelligence analysis for 30 years
and, after retiring, co-founded Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).
"... The deep state (the oligarchs, MIC, and intelligence community, which controls the media and most politicians) whether or not it actually helped Trump by harming Hillary is immaterial. The election is over and there was never any real resolve in the deep state to impeach Trump or to jail Hillary and their never will be. The reason should be obvious. ..."
"... The only thing consistent in the Russian collusion and election rigging nonsense is the groundless and unrelenting vilification of Russia, blaming Putin for everything. Just as we see grandiose deep state theatrics for the US to obtain access to strategic rare-earth resources in North Korea, we see the similar deep state orchestrated theatrics falsely alleging that Russians rigged or interfered in the US Presidential election. Russia's Putin is the main obstacle to the Western bankster-corporate cabal obtaining resource and geopolitical hegemony over the entire planet. That is the main fact. It is the main reason to subject that nation to constant vilification, sanctions, and military aggression and provocation. ..."
"... The deep state cabal will likely spend tens, if not hundreds, of billions of US dollars interfering in the Russian election. Presently they are most likely bribing, blackmailing, and intimidating thousands of people to swing and rig the election to ensure Putin does not win. "You did it to us." Will be their justification when Putin complains. ..."
Well of course there are. We've been told repeatedly that the Obama administration was on the job and focused like a laser
on Russia collusion and meddling.
Unfortunately, the hard drive all that was stored on crashed and it was all lost.
If we really want the truth then we have to stop relying on what people say just because we like them, or we think they are
on our side, and instead we have to examine the interests of the various sources. Only then we can make better decisions. At this
stage of the game the deep state can no longer blame with any credibility Russian hacking as the source of the alleged leak. The
know it came directly from the DNC. However, the deep state has a priority (a very strong interest) to keep the heat on Russia.
The deep state (the oligarchs, MIC, and intelligence community, which controls the media and most politicians) whether
or not it actually helped Trump by harming Hillary is immaterial. The election is over and there was never any real resolve in
the deep state to impeach Trump or to jail Hillary and their never will be. The reason should be obvious.
The only thing consistent in the Russian collusion and election rigging nonsense is the groundless and unrelenting vilification
of Russia, blaming Putin for everything. Just as we see grandiose deep state theatrics for the US to obtain access to strategic
rare-earth resources in North Korea, we see the similar deep state orchestrated theatrics falsely alleging that Russians rigged
or interfered in the US Presidential election. Russia's Putin is the main obstacle to the Western bankster-corporate cabal obtaining
resource and geopolitical hegemony over the entire planet. That is the main fact. It is the main reason to subject that nation
to constant vilification, sanctions, and military aggression and provocation.
The disproportionate ongoing emphasis on the fake story that Russia meddled in the US election, not only serves to stir up
suspicions and fears regarding Russia in the generally brain-numbed population, but mainly at this stage, and by the sheer fact
that the deep state has carried this rouse so far down the field, the only rational conclusion one can make is that the deep state
is going to interfere in the Russian elections in a very major way to ensure that Putin and his cronies - those wicked oil and
gas nationalizers, those heinous enemies of the Rothschild banksters and their plans for an expanded US Fed to the auspices of
their proposed One World Bank; those upstart renegades who support nations which choose to trade oil without US petrodollars;
those evil monsters who oppose globalism and defend their own nation's sovereignty and other nations like Syria which call for
help.
The deep state cabal will likely spend tens, if not hundreds, of billions of US dollars interfering in the Russian election.
Presently they are most likely bribing, blackmailing, and intimidating thousands of people to swing and rig the election to ensure
Putin does not win. "You did it to us." Will be their justification when Putin complains.
"... " Incidental collection " is the claimed inadvertent or accidental monitoring of Americans' communications under Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act. Incidental collection exists alongside court-approved warranted surveillance authorized on a specific individual. But for incidental collection, no probable cause is needed, no warrant is needed, and no court or judge is involved. It just gets vacuumed up. ..."
"... While exactly how many Americans have their communications monitored this way is unknown , we know these Republican Trump supporters and staffers were caught up in surveillance authorized by a Democratic administration (no evidence of incidental surveillance of the Clinton campaign exists). Election-time claims that the Obama administration wasn't " wiretapping " Trump were disingenuous. They in fact gathered an unprecedented level of inside information. How was it used? ..."
"... Incidental collection nailed Michael Flynn : the NSA was ostensibly not surveilling Flynn, just listening in on the Russian ambassador as the two spoke. The embarrassing intercept formed the basis for Flynn's firing as Trump's national security advisor, his guilty plea for perjury, and very possibly his "game-changing" testimony against others. ..."
A significant number of Trump's people were electronically monitored by
a Democratic administration -- many "by accident." We now know that a significant number of
people affiliated with Donald Trump were surveilled during and after the 2016 campaign, some
under warrants, some via "inadvertent" or accidental surveillance. That surveillance is now
being used against these individuals in perjury cases, particularly to press them to testify
against others, and will likely form the basis of Robert Mueller's eventual action against the
president himself.
How did the surveillance state become so fully entrenched in the American political process?
Better yet, how did we let it happen?
The role pervasive surveillance plays in politics today has been grossly underreported. Set
aside what you think about the Trump presidency for a moment and focus instead on the new
paradigm for how politics and justice work inside the surveillance state.
" Incidental
collection " is the claimed inadvertent or accidental monitoring of Americans'
communications under Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act. Incidental collection exists
alongside court-approved warranted surveillance authorized on a specific individual. But for
incidental collection, no probable
cause is needed, no
warrant is needed, and no court or judge is involved. It just gets vacuumed up.
While exactly how many Americans have their communications monitored this way is
unknown , we know these Republican Trump supporters and staffers were caught up in
surveillance authorized by a Democratic administration (no evidence of incidental surveillance
of the Clinton campaign exists). Election-time claims that the Obama administration wasn't "
wiretapping
" Trump were disingenuous. They in fact gathered an unprecedented level of inside information.
How was it used?
Incidental collection nailed Michael
Flynn : the NSA was ostensibly not surveilling Flynn, just listening in on the Russian
ambassador as the two spoke. The embarrassing intercept formed the basis for Flynn's firing as
Trump's national security advisor, his guilty plea for perjury, and very possibly his
"game-changing" testimony against others.
Jeff Sessions was similarly incidentally surveilled, as was former White House chief
strategist Steve
Bannon , whose conversations were picked
up as part of a FISA warrant issued against Trump associate
Carter Page .
Paul Manafort and
Richard Gates were also the subjects of FISA-warranted surveillance: they were surveilled
in 2014, the case was dropped for lack of evidence, and then they were re-surveilled after they
joined the Trump team and became more interesting to the state.
Officials on the National Security Council revealed that
Trump himself may also have been swept up in the surveillance of foreign targets. Devin
Nunes, chair of the House Intelligence Committee, claims multiple communications by Trump
transition
staff were inadvertently picked up.
Trump officials were monitored by British
GCHQ with the information shared with their NSA partners. Some reports
claim that after a criminal warrant was denied to look into
whether or not Trump Tower servers
were communicating with a Russian bank, a FISA warrant was issued.
How much information the White House may have acquired on Trump's political strategy, as
well as the full story of what might have been done with that information, will never be known.
We do know that the director of national intelligence Dan Coats saw enough after he took office
to
specify that the "intelligence community may not engage in political activity, including
dissemination of U.S. person identities to the White House, for the purpose of affecting the
political process of the United States."
Coats likely had in mind the use of unmasking by the Obama administration. Identities of
U.S. persons picked up inadvertently by surveillance are supposed to be masked, hidden from
most users of the data. However, a select group of officials, including political appointees in
the White House, can unmask and include names if they believe it is important to understanding
the intelligence, or to show evidence of a crime.
Former Obama national security advisor Susan Rice
told House investigators in at least one instance she unmasked the identities of Michael
Flynn,
Jared Kushner , and Steve Bannon. Obama's ambassador to the United Nations,
Samantha Power , also made a number of unmasking requests
in her final year in office.
But no one knows who unmasked Flynn in his conversations with the Russian ambassador. That
and the subsequent leaking of what was said were used not only to snare Flynn in a perjury
trap, but also to force him out of government. Prior to the leak that took Flynn down, Obama
holdover and then-acting attorney general Sally Yates warned Trump that Flynn could be
blackmailed by Moscow for lying about his calls. When Trump didn't immediately fire Flynn, the
unmasked surveillance was leaked by a "senior government official" (likely
Yates ) to the
Washington Post . The disclosure pressured the administration to dump Flynn.
Similar leaks were used to try to pressure Attorney General
Jeff Sessions to resign, though they only resulted in him recusing himself from the
Russiagate investigation. Following James Comey's firing, that recusal ultimately opened the
door for the appointment of Special Counsel Mueller.
A highly classified leak was used to help marginalize Jared Kushner. The Washington
Post ,
based on leaked intercepts, claimed foreign officials' from four countries spoke of
exploiting Kushner's economic vulnerabilities to push him into acting against the United
States. If the story is true, the leakers passed on data revealing sources and methods; those
foreign officials now know that, however they communicated their thoughts about Kushner, the
NSA was listening. Access to that level of information and the power to expose it is not a
rank-and-file action. One analyst
described the matter as "the Deep State takes out the White House's Dark Clown Prince."
Pervasive surveillance has shown its power perhaps most significantly in creating
perjury traps to manufacture indictments to pressure people to testify against others.
Trump associate George
Papadopoulos lied to the FBI about several meetings concerning Clinton's emails. The FBI
knew about the meetings, "
propelled in part by intelligence from other friendly governments, including the British
and Dutch." The feds asked him questions solely in the hope that Papadopoulos would commit
perjury, even though there was nothing shown to be criminal about the meetings themselves. Now
guilty of a crime, the FBI will use the promise of a light punishment to press Papadopoulos into
testifying against others.
There is a common thread here of using surveillance to create a process crime out of a
non-material lie (the FBI already knew) where no underlying crime of turpitude exists (the
meetings were legal). That this is then used to press someone to testify in an investigation
that will have a significant political impact seems undemocratic -- yet it appears to be a
primary tool Mueller is using.
This is a far cry from a traditional plea deal, giving someone a light sentence for actual
crimes so that they will testify against others. Mueller should know. He famously allowed Mafia
hitman Sammy the Bull to escape more serious punishment for 19 first-degree
murders in return for testimony against John Gotti. No need to manufacture a perjury trap;
the pile of bodies that never saw justice did the trick.
Don't be lured into thinking the ends justify the means, that whatever it takes to purge
Trump is acceptable. Say what you want about Flynn, Kushner, et al, what matters most is the
dark process being used. The arrival of pervasive surveillance as a political weapon is a
harbinger that should chill Americans to their cores.
Peter Van Buren, a 24-year State Department veteran, is the author ofWe Meant Well : How I Helped Lose the Battle for the
Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People andHooper's War : A Novel of WWII Japan. He tweets@WeMeantWell.MORE FROM THIS
AUTHOR
Pervasive surveillance has shown its power perhaps most significantly in creating
perjury traps to manufacture indictments to pressure people to testify against others.
Key advice: Never talk to a cop. Never trust an agent of the Security State. They may still wreck your life, but at least you won't make it easy for them.
Are you really arguing that using surveillance on foreign agents and spies to catch and
compel traders to testify against each other is bad????? Isn't that the way it is usually
done?
It is extremely easy to avoid a perjury trap: don't tell lies. And don't tell me the
government has no right to investigate what could be treason by the president and his staff.
I know how you love Trump and Russia.
I voted for Trump but now I'm completely disgusted with his failures and betrayals and won't
vote for him again.
Setting that aside, it's starting to look to me like the Hillary campaign and allies in
the Obama federal bureaucracy were spying on the Trump campaign.
They fully expected Hillary to win and therefore to be able to cover up what they were
doing.
But then they lost, and now they're ginning up the Russia/national security angle to blow
smoke over what's starting to look like the worst campaign skullduggery since Nixon and
Watergate.
It needs to be investigated, and if there's any fire there, vigorously prosecuted. I don't
give a damn about Trump anymore, but I give a damn about our democracy and system of
government, and if it turns out that some government filth was spying on Trump's campaign, I
want them arrested, prosecuted, and thrown in the darkest, dirtiest hole in our prison
system. We can't have that kind of s***.
If I see one more variation on "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" in a
comment my brain will explode. Anyone who writes that kind of thing ("Well maybe they
shouldn't lie") is missing the point: our political process was surveilled and no one can
control what happens to information gathered. Even if you think it good to "take down" Trump,
the process will exist past him to be aimed at a future candidate you support.
"It is extremely easy to avoid a perjury trap: don't tell lies."
Even if true, do you think it is fair for Flynn to be hit with felony charges for his
"less than candid answers" with regard to politically and diplomatically sensitive phone
calls to the Russian ambassador after the elections were over?
Republicans created this mess in their desire to make "security" a partisan issue after 9/11.
If they now regret it and wish to undo the mess, more power to them!
Peter: "If I see one more variation on 'if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear'
in a comment my brain will explode."
The Left used to be vociferously in favor of privacy rights. I took note during the Obama
years that it really only mattered for abortion and library books, nothing beyond that.
But a thought experiment: How many progressives, for that matter how many Black and
Hispanic Americans would be comfortable with the following government requirements:
– Federal, state, and local law enforcement have your name and current address on
file at all times.
– Federal, state, and local law enforcement have a key to your home at all times.
– Federal, state, and local law enforcement have a tracking device on your car or your
person at all times.
If you have nothing to hide, you should have no objections to any of those
requirements.
[[It is extremely easy to avoid a perjury trap: don't tell lies.]]
Even easier: Be a Democrat, preferably the Party's presidential candidate, and then it
doesn't matter whether you tell lies or commit felonies because the corrupt Deep
State-lib-Dem-media alliance will hold you safely above the law.
Even in the midst of all of this, the ongoing ability to continue to spy on our own citizens
was recently voted on and passed overwhelmingly, with large bipartisan support. Save your
crocodile tears now.
Russia is not an enemy of the United States despite all the hoopla about how eeeevil they
are, we are not at war. Treason is not on the table unless you, you know, amend the
constitution, or abandon it, or something.
@MM: apart from the key to your house (and even that might be questionable if you have
certain "smart" appliances), you are describing Facebook, Google, Amazon, Apple, and/or
Microsoft. Adding Federal Government to that list isn't as much of a jump as you seem to
believe.
"The arrival of pervasive surveillance as a political weapon is a harbinger that should chill
Americans to their cores."
Thankfully J. Edgar Hoover practiced his job with restraint.
That being said, while there is certainly a need for improvement of the FISA program (sadly,
the 'principled' Devin Nunes, Trey Gowdy, Matt Gaetz, et al., missed their opportunity in
January when they voted for reauthorization), those individuals caught in the web "by
accident" were regularly communicating with targets of legitimately obtained warrants. It was
their choice to subsequently lie.
With respect to their "unmasking", it doesn't seem unreasonable that policy makers in the
White House should have knowledge of their identity (even in the politicized environment of a
presidential campaign), especially when there's the taint of influence of an adversarial
government and/or organized crime on a potential POTUS.
It is amazing how many law and order Conservatives start screaming about abuses of power, and
targeting specific people when they are the ones at the receiving end.
As a rule, if they did defended the police when the subject was racial profiling, they get
to shut up on the subject now.
(Maybe they SHOULD team up with Black Lives Matter..)
We have come a long way from the reactionary and authoritarian chants of "if you have done
nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide" in the lead-up and then wake of the sarcastically
name PATRIOT Act.
Surveillance and monitoring are, like all other "national securities" spending, primarily
profit extraction driven public-private "partnerships", but the major point here always was
"if you build it, they will use it".
That, too, is the foundational criticism driving Global Zero and the insistence that
Article IV of the Non-Proliferation Treaty be honored by all signatory nuclear powers.
The basic principle of any evolutionary stable open society based on checks and balances
is that no self-inflating institutions and power centers are permissible – whether that
is inbred, networked multi-generational wealth, incorporated power such as financial
institutions, or specific government institutions, such as the military, the "intelligence"
agencies etc.
Of course, the whole idea of having secret courts applying secret law in secret decisions
without adversary parties, and no mandatory disclosure after the fact, is also fundamentally
incompatible with the idea of transparency and accountability, without which free speech and
elections are little more than a travelling circus and a vehicle for advertising profit.
mark_be: Sorry, I meant to include fingerprints and DNA samples in that list of items for all
levels of law enforcement to retain on file on every American.
Any government whose interests clash with ours must be considered a potential enemy
– not enough to go to war, of course, but to be wary of what steps they may take to
protect their interests and thwart ours.
As for Russia, alas, she is known for playing very dirty. Before there was a KGB, there
was an Okhrana, among whose achievements was the writing and disemination of the Protocols of
the Elders of Zion. Anyone who thinks that because they are no longer communists they
Russians are nice guys lives in a fool's paradise
YKW: "As a rule, if they did defended the police when the subject was racial profiling, they
get to shut up on the subject now."
There is no such rule in a free society. People are within their rights to be as
hypocritical and inconsistent as they like.
But if there were such a rule, where are the civil libertarians in the Democratic Party?
Why aren't they castigating DOJ abuse of power in the previous administration?
Why are neoconservatives and Bush era creeps like Brennan, Clapper, and Hayden darlings of
the Left?
"... Instead, Mueller, who micromanaged the anthrax case and fell in love with the dubious dog evidence, personally assured Ashcroft and presumably George W. Bush that in Steven Hatfill the bureau had its man. Comey, in turn, was asked by a skeptical Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz if Hatfill was another Richard Jewell -- the security guard wrongly accused of the Atlanta Olympics bombing. Comey replied that he was "absolutely certain" they weren't making a mistake. ..."
"... Such certitude seems to be Comey's default position in his professional life. Mueller didn't exactly distinguish himself with contrition, either. In 2008, after Ivins committed suicide as he was about to be apprehended for his crimes, and the Justice Department had formally exonerated Hatfill -- and paid him $5.82 million in a legal settlement -- Mueller could not be bothered to walk across the street to attend the press conference announcing the case's resolution. When reporters did ask him about it, Mueller was graceless. "I do not apologize for any aspect of the investigation," he said, adding that it would be erroneous "to say there were mistakes." ..."
"... Does this mean Comey and Mueller are bad guys? I'm not saying that. Mueller, for one, answered his country's call and enlisted in the U.S. Marine Corps when many others of his generation were avoiding combat service in Vietnam. Both men have forsaken millions of dollars in salary at private law firms for public service. Neither has ever had a hint of personal scandal. ..."
"... Connolly said he thought Comey was a "decent guy" who was legitimately fooled by that business with the dogs. And while Willman and I were discussing whether Mueller's reputation for competence was deserved, the reporter volunteered that he did not question the man's integrity. Fair enough. I would, however, pose this query to the keepers of official Washington's agreed-upon narrative. ..."
"... Having lived inside the Beltway for years getting my first graduate degree, and having returned there repeatedly in the course of a couple decades of federal service, I can tell you that there are no heroes there, and damn few honorable men. ..."
"... That night I saw them partying together in a Georgetown bar with their hands up the skirts of a couple Senate pages. Not interns, PAGES who were only high school age. But nobody was going to refuse to over serve a couple of senators nor even their too young to be in the bar (or legally consent to what was going on, even if they had been older) "dates." ..."
First, Jim Comey and Bob Mueller have a long history as professional allies. For Mueller to be brought in to investigate the behavior
of the guy who sacked Comey seems a conflict of interest. Perhaps this is the wrong way to look at it, and Mueller's professionalism
will supersede any personal loyalty. OK, but here's a second reason: These two guys, working in tandem, have a track record of bureaucratic
infighting -- with another Republican White House as their shared adversary -- that belies their reputations for being above political
intrigue. This is not news. Some of the positive coverage in the last few days highlighted that episode. It's a long and convoluted
story, but the story line that took hold in Washington went like this:
In March 2004, Comey, then deputy attorney general, sped with sirens blazing to the hospital bedside of his boss, John Ashcroft,
who was recovering from gallbladder surgery. At the time, the Justice Department was being pressured by White House counsel Alberto
Gonzales and Chief of Staff Andrew Card to sign papers reauthorizing a secret anti-terrorism domestic surveillance program initiated
after 9/11. The clock was running out and the papers had to be signed or the program would lapse. But Comey, who had a dim view of
the program's constitutionality, wouldn't do it. When he heard Gonzales and Card were on their way to the hospital, Comey rushed
there, too, to stop them.
Comey had enlisted Bob Mueller, then FBI director, as an ally. Both men apparently told George W. Bush privately they'd quit rather
than extend the program. "Here I stand, I can do no other," Comey told Bush. That's Martin Luther's iconic line, and although in
2016 Hillary Clinton would come to see Comey as more akin to Judas than Luther, one thing is apparent: Jim Comey is a government
appointee who thinks of himself in a manner many people find grandiose. Bush backed down in the face of the Comey-Mueller insurrection,
but three years later Comey told his dramatic Ashcroft hospital bed story in a congressional hearing that eviscerated Gonzales, who
was attorney general by then.
The third and most important factor tempering my enthusiasm for the new special prosecutor is that Comey and Mueller badly bungled
the biggest case they ever handled. They botched the investigation of the 2001 anthrax letter attacks that took five lives and infected
17 other people, shut down the U.S. Capitol and Washington's mail system, solidified the Bush administration's antipathy for Iraq,
and eventually, when the facts finally came out, made the FBI look feckless, incompetent, and easily manipulated by outside political
pressure.
This, too, was an enormously complex case. But here are some facts: Despite the jihadist slogans accompanying the mailed anthrax,
it had nothing to do with Saddam Hussein or any foreign element; the FBI ignored a 2002 tip from a scientific colleague of the actual
anthrax killer, who turned out to be a Fort Detrick scientist named Bruce Edwards Ivins; the reason is that they had quickly obsessed
on an innocent man named Steven Hatfill; the bureau was bullied into focusing on the government scientist by Democratic Sen. Patrick
Leahy (whose office, along with that of Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, was targeted by an anthrax-laced letter) and was duped
into focusing on Hatfill by two sources -- a conspiracy-minded college professor with a political agenda who'd never met Hatfill
and by Nicholas Kristof, who put her conspiracy theories in the paper while mocking the FBI for not arresting Hatfill.
In truth, Hatfill was an implausible suspect from the outset. He was a virologist who never handled anthrax, which is a bacterium.
(Ivins, by contrast, shared ownership of anthrax patents, was diagnosed as having paranoid personality disorder, and had a habit
of stalking and threatening people with anonymous letters -- including the woman who provided the long-ignored tip to the FBI).
So what evidence did the FBI have against Hatfill? There was none, so the agency did a Hail Mary, importing two bloodhounds from
California whose handlers claimed could sniff the scent of the killer on the anthrax-tainted letters. These dogs were shown to Hatfill,
who promptly petted them. When the dogs responded favorably, their handlers told the FBI that they'd "alerted" on Hatfill and that
he must be the killer.
You'd think that any good FBI agent would have kicked these quacks in the fanny and found their dogs a good home. Or at least
checked news accounts of criminal cases in California where these same dogs had been used against defendants who'd been convicted
-- and later exonerated. As Pulitzer Prize-winning Los Angeles Times investigative reporter David Willman detailed in his authoritative
book on the case, a California judge who'd tossed out a murder conviction based on these sketchy canines called the prosecution's
dog handler "as biased as any witness that this court has ever seen."
Instead, Mueller, who micromanaged the anthrax case and fell in love with the dubious dog evidence, personally assured Ashcroft
and presumably George W. Bush that in Steven Hatfill the bureau had its man. Comey, in turn, was asked by a skeptical Deputy Secretary
of Defense Paul Wolfowitz if Hatfill was another Richard Jewell -- the security guard wrongly accused of the Atlanta Olympics bombing.
Comey replied that he was "absolutely certain" they weren't making a mistake.
Such certitude seems to be Comey's default position in his professional life. Mueller didn't exactly distinguish himself with
contrition, either. In 2008, after Ivins committed suicide as he was about to be apprehended for his crimes, and the Justice Department
had formally exonerated Hatfill -- and paid him $5.82 million in a legal settlement -- Mueller could not be bothered to walk across
the street to attend the press conference announcing the case's resolution. When reporters did ask him about it, Mueller was graceless.
"I do not apologize for any aspect of the investigation," he said, adding that it would be erroneous "to say there were mistakes."
Does this mean Comey and Mueller are bad guys? I'm not saying that. Mueller, for one, answered his country's call and enlisted
in the U.S. Marine Corps when many others of his generation were avoiding combat service in Vietnam. Both men have forsaken millions
of dollars in salary at private law firms for public service. Neither has ever had a hint of personal scandal.
I know Steven Hatfill's attorney, Thomas Connolly, well, and David Willman, a former newsroom colleague, even better -- and I
spoke to them last week about these events. Connolly said he thought Comey was a "decent guy" who was legitimately fooled by
that business with the dogs. And while Willman and I were discussing whether Mueller's reputation for competence was deserved, the
reporter volunteered that he did not question the man's integrity. Fair enough. I would, however, pose this query to the keepers
of official Washington's agreed-upon narrative.
While running for president, Donald Trump promised to "drain the swamp." He won enough votes, in the right states, to make him
president. So here's the question: How does official Washington, which clearly does not want to be drained, think the 63 million
people who voted for Trump will feel about an investigation run by D.C. insiders with a history of grandstanding -- an investigation
that some Democrats and commentators are saying aloud they hope will end in impeachment? And what will those Trump voters think of
uncritical media coverage of this effort by a self-righteous press corps that has suddenly rediscovered its investigative-reporting
impulses, and which behaves as if little of this relevant context is even worth mentioning? .
Carl M. Cannon is executive editor and Washington Bureau chief of RealClearPolitics.
Having lived inside the Beltway for years getting my first graduate degree, and having returned there repeatedly in the
course of a couple decades of federal service, I can tell you that there are no heroes there, and damn few honorable men.
I recall sitting in the senate gallery once, doing a little studying somewhere warm while waiting for my bus (security was
pretty lax in those days) watching Ted Kennedy and Jesse Helms going at it like the sergeant at arms was going to have to physically
restrain them from killing one another. It was all Kabuki theater.
That night I saw them partying together in a Georgetown bar with their hands up the skirts of a couple Senate pages. Not
interns, PAGES who were only high school age. But nobody was going to refuse to over serve a couple of senators nor even their
too young to be in the bar (or legally consent to what was going on, even if they had been older) "dates."
And over the next four or five decades, the place has changed little, and that mainly for the worse. No, if you are expecting
to find people of honor, don't waste your time looking at those who have spent their careers inside the beltway.
"... Another new point in the Mayer piece, not in the above list, is an alleged meeting between the head of the British spy service GCHQ and the head of the CIA John Brennan in which GCHQ briefs Brennan about alleged interceptions of communication between Trump campaign associates and Russia. This is curious because the usual contact for such a case should have been the FBI, not the CIA. ..."
"... But some have suggested that the Brennan came up with the idea or at least directed the campaign of smearing Trump over made-up connections with Russia. For legal reasons and deniability the affair the creation of "evidence" was outsourced to the British partners. As Pat Lang, who has led large intelligence spying and counter-intelligence operations, opines : ..."
"... An unnamed, unknown, unvetted "government official" source is reported by, say, WP, which is then reported by the Times (? since when did competing newspapers use each other as confirmation?), so that official government spokespeople now report "as confirmed by multiple newspaper stories..." ..."
"... Use big words to conceal nonsense and say nothing. ..."
"... Robert Hannigan, head of GCHQ, resigned for "personal reasons" on Jan. 23 2017, a week after Trump's inauguration. ..."
Chuck Ross of the Daily Caller (yes, I know it is not deemed reputable) looked into some
claims Mayer makes in her piece which, if true, contain new morsels on the issue. They support
the standpoint that the whole dossier is fake. These points are:
Steele likely knew who funded the dossier
Steele used dozens of paid confidential 'collectors', not unpaid ones
Steele may have earlier worked for a Kremlin-connected oligarch
The salacious claims in the dossier were based on secondhand information
Steele briefed Jane Mayer during the campaign
A John McCain associate wanted to use dossier to force Trump to resign
Another new point in the Mayer piece, not in the above list, is an alleged meeting
between the head of the British spy service GCHQ and the head of the CIA John Brennan in which
GCHQ briefs Brennan about alleged interceptions of communication between Trump campaign
associates and Russia. This is curious because the usual contact for such a case should have
been the FBI, not the CIA.
But some have suggested that the Brennan came up with the idea or at least directed the
campaign of smearing Trump over made-up connections with Russia. For legal reasons and
deniability the affair the creation of "evidence" was outsourced to the British partners. As
Pat Lang, who has led large intelligence spying and counter-intelligence operations,
opines :
IMO there was a criminal conspiracy among various parts of the government, the Clinton
Campaign and the MSM to rig the election against Trump, and it continues. pl
Posted by b on March 6, 2018 at 05:12 AM |
Permalink
Nicely written piece. It just leaves you shaking your head in disbelief sometimes, the brazen
repetition of utter nonsense and total lies in hopes that it will eventually start to stick.
And I had also noticed some time back the rampant circular citations bootstrapped into being
called evidence. An unnamed, unknown, unvetted "government official" source is reported by,
say, WP, which is then reported by the Times (? since when did competing newspapers use each
other as confirmation?), so that official government spokespeople now report "as confirmed by
multiple newspaper stories..."
No wonder the New Yorker and their ilk stick to print rather than video...with AV media,
you would be able to hear the heavy breathing and wiki-wiki-wiki sounds of turd polishing in
the background.
And of course this one assertion by Steele is used by the Hannity's of the world to assert
that Trump was the victim of a Russian misinformation campaign ...
"In the reports Steele had collected, the names of the sources were omitted, but they were
described as "a former top-level Russian intelligence officer still active inside the
Kremlin,""
The beauty of it is that this alleged source never has to be revealed because it would
endanger the source so we have to take this Boy Scouts word for it.
How about the report graun had today; The Russians had poisoned their ex-spy? Another made up
crap.
The NYer is another web of deceit, the web of zionism. All of msm is.
@22
The possible poisoned spy case is now being used by Boris Johnson for a possible boycott of
the Moscow World Cup. It is obvious bullshit and a rerun of the litvinenko affair some years
ago.
Also an Mi6 setup in my opinion. The Russians provided a shipload of LNG to alleviate gas
shortages in Britain. Boris Johnson is an ungrateful sack of S--t
Max Blumenthal has observed that much of what is in the "dossier" was available in the public
sphere. The dossier is touted as being deep revelation totally missed a figure like
Papadopoulos, who only appeared to the public after the dossier was published. Strange that.
What seems strange is that so many people in Russia were willing to divulge what would
have been closely held secrets like the golden showers tape. Putin is described in the
Western press as somebody who would disappear you if you even criticized his shoe laces.
"... The evidence is damning. And the silence underscores the arrogance. ..."
"... More than seven weeks after a devastating report from the media watch group FAIR, top executives and prime-time anchors at MSNBC still refuse to discuss how the network's obsession with Russia has thrown minimal journalistic standards out the window. ..."
The evidence is damning. And the silence underscores the arrogance.
More than seven weeks after a devastating report from the media watch group FAIR, top executives and prime-time anchors at
MSNBC still refuse to discuss how the network's obsession with Russia has thrown minimal journalistic standards out the window.
"An analysis by FAIR has found that the leading liberal cable network did not run a single segment devoted specifically to
Yemen in the second half of 2017. And in these latter roughly six months of the year, MSNBC ran nearly 5,000 percent more segments
that mentioned Russia than segments that mentioned Yemen."
"Moreover, in all of 2017, MSNBC only aired one broadcast on the U.S.-backed Saudi airstrikes that have killed thousands of
Yemeni civilians. And it never mentioned the impoverished nation's colossal cholera epidemic, which infected more than 1 million
Yemenis in the
largest outbreak in recorded history ."
"All of this is despite the fact that the U.S. government has played a leading role in the 33-month war that has devastated
Yemen, selling
many billions
of dollars of weapons to Saudi Arabia, refueling Saudi warplanes as they relentlessly bomb civilian areas and providing
intelligence
and military assistance to the Saudi air force."
Meanwhile, MSNBC's incessant "Russiagate" coverage has put the network at the media forefront of overheated hyperbole about the
Kremlin. And continually piling up the dry tinder of hostility toward Russia boosts the odds of a cataclysmic blowup between the
world's two nuclear superpowers.
In effect, the programming on MSNBC follows a thin blue party line, breathlessly conforming to Democratic leaders' refrains about
Russia as a mortal threat to American democracy and freedom across the globe. But hey -- MSNBC's ratings have climbed upward during
its monochrome reporting, so why worry about whether coverage is neglecting dozens of other crucial stories? Or why worry if the
anti-Russia drumbeat is worsening the risks of a global conflagration?
FAIR's report, written by journalist Ben Norton and published on Jan. 8, certainly merited a serious response from MSNBC and the
anchors most identified by the study, Rachel Maddow and Chris Hayes . Yet no response has come from them or network executives. (Full
disclosure: I'm a longtime associate of FAIR.)
In the aftermath of the FAIR study, a petition gathered 22,784 signers and 4,474 individual comments -- asking MSNBC to remedy
its extreme imbalance of news coverage. But the network and its prime-time luminaries Maddow and Hayes refused to respond despite
repeated requests for a reply.
The petition was submitted in late January to Maddow and Hayes via their producers, as well as to MSNBC senior vice president
Errol Cockfield and to the network's senior manager in charge of media relations for "The Rachel Maddow Show" and "All In with Chris
Hayes."
Signers responded to outreach from three organizations -- Just Foreign Policy, RootsAction.org (which I coordinate), and World
Beyond War -- calling for concerned individuals to "urge Rachel Maddow, Chris Hayes, and MSNBC to correct their failure to report
on the humanitarian catastrophe in Yemen and the direct U.S. military role in causing the catastrophe by signing our petition." (The
petition
is still gathering signers.)
As the cable news network most trusted by Democrats as a liberal beacon, MSNBC plays a special role in fueling rage among progressive-minded
viewers toward Russia's "attack on our democracy" that is somehow deemed more sinister and newsworthy than corporate dominance of
American politicians (including Democrats), racist voter suppression, gerrymandering and many other U.S. electoral defects all put
together.
At the same time, the anti-Russia mania also services the engines of the current militaristic machinery.
It's what happens when nationalism and partisan zeal overcome something that could be called journalism.
"The U.S. media's approach to Russia is now virtually 100 percent propaganda," the independent journalist Robert Parry
wrote at the end of 2017 , in
the last article published before his death. "Does any sentient human being read the New York Times' or the Washington Post's
coverage of Russia and think that he or she is getting a neutral or unbiased treatment of the facts?"
Parry added that
"to even suggest that there is another side to the story makes you a 'Putin apologist' or 'Kremlin stooge.' Western journalists
now apparently see it as their patriotic duty to hide key facts that otherwise would undermine the demonizing of Putin and Russia.
Ironically, many 'liberals' who cut their teeth on skepticism about the Cold War and the bogus justifications for the Vietnam
War now insist that we must all accept whatever the U.S. intelligence community feeds us, even if we're told to accept the assertions
on faith."
Across a U.S. media landscape where depicting Russia as a fully villainous enemy is now routine, MSNBC is a standout. The most
profound dangers from what Rachel Maddow and company are doing is what they least want to talk about -- how the cumulative effects
and momentum of their work are increasing the likelihood that tensions between Washington and Moscow will escalate into a horrendous
military conflict.
Even at the height of the Cold War during the 1960s, when Soviet Communists ruled Russians with zero freedom of speech or press,
most U.S. political and media elites recognized the vital need for détente. They applauded the "
Spirit of Glassboro
" when the top leadership of the United States and Russia met at length. Now, across most of the U.S. media spectrum, no such overtures
to the Kremlin are to be tolerated.
The U.S. government's recently released "
Nuclear Posture Review "
underscores just how unhinged the situation has become.
Consider the assessment from the head of a first-rate research organization in the nuclear weapons field, the Los Alamos Study
Group. Its executive director,
Greg Mello,
said :
"What is most 'missing in action' in this document is civilian leadership. Trump is not supplying that. In part the fault for
this comes from Democrats -- who, allied with the intelligence community and other military-industrial interests, insist that
the U.S. must have an adversarial relationship with Russia. There is no organized senior-level opposition to the new Cold War,
which is intensifying week by week. This document reflects, and is just one of many policies embodying, the new and very dangerous
Cold War."
But -- with everyone's survival at stake
-- none of that seems to matter much to those who call the shots at MSNBC.
*
Norman Solomon is the coordinator of the online activist group RootsAction.org.
"... Therefore, if we must see this in terms of conflict, we see a dramatically less powerful and dramatically poorer but essentially unified Russia facing up to a threat from a West that is far superior militarily and economically but that is divided in itself and slipping further into decline. ..."
"... This does of course lead to the unstable world you say we are faced with. Dangerously unstable. But I do not believe you are admitting to yourself that it is an instability we in the West are causing. ..."
I don't understand the last three paragraphs of your comment so I may be missing
your central point. However, I believe this sentence taken in isolation could do with
qualifying:-
"No doubt there is a lot of noise, but the reality is that economically Russia is a basket
case and the US is rapidly joining them."
The picture one gets of Russia is of a country slowly digging itself out of the
disintegrative corruption of the 90's. Putin's recent remarks indicate how slowly.
President Carter's characterisation of the US as now being an oligarchy shows the US
slowly going the other way. Even including Germany that is the general picture in the
West.
Some recent remarks and examples from DH show the Russian people, or rather a substantial
number of them, soberly and consciously preparing to address the threat from the West. Unless
it's all Russian PR there is a sense of national unity there, at least for many, and that is
reflected by the Russian leadership.
I'm afraid our host is correct when he characterises the current anti-Russian sentiment in
the West as hysterical. That, however, is I believe largely top down. It is a product of PR
from the media and from the Western politicians. Behind it is no deep sense of unity or
national resolve. In fact we see the reverse - most Western countries are deeply divided
within themselves.
The Russians seem also to have escaped the demoralising effects of the more far out social
trends in the US and other Western countries.
Therefore, if we must see this in terms of conflict, we see a dramatically less
powerful and dramatically poorer but essentially unified Russia facing up to a threat from a
West that is far superior militarily and economically but that is divided in itself and
slipping further into decline.
This does of course lead to the unstable world you say we are faced with. Dangerously
unstable. But I do not believe you are admitting to yourself that it is an instability we in
the West are causing.
"... Mystery surrounds Robert Mueller and his investigation into Russia and President Trump. Some think he is the ultimate professional, others that he is a Democrat lackey, still others maintain he is working on Trump's side. ..."
"... The anthrax letters began just a week after the 9/11 attack. While planning the airplane hijackings, Al-Qaeda had been weaponizing anthrax , setting up a lab in Afghanistan manned by Yazid Sufaat, the same man who housed two of the 9/11 hijackers . Two hijackers later sought medical help due to conditions consistent with infection via anthrax : Al Haznawi went to the emergency room for a skin lesion which he claimed was from "bumping into a suitcase," and ringleader Mohamed Atta needed medicine for "skin irritation." A team of bioterrorism experts from John Hopkins confirmed that anthrax was the most likely cause of the lesion. Meanwhile, the 9/11 hijackers were also trying to obtain crop-dusting airplanes . ..."
"... A former FBI official involved in the investigation sued the FBI , alleging the FBI concealed evidence exculpatory to Ivins. ..."
"... Mueller made his position known, saying, "I do not apologize for any aspect of this investigation," and stated that the FBI had made no mistakes. ..."
Mystery surrounds Robert Mueller and his investigation into Russia and President Trump. Some
think he is the ultimate professional, others that he is a Democrat lackey, still others
maintain he is working on Trump's side.
We can see how he works if we look at how Mueller ran his second-most important
investigation as FBI Director. In September of 2001, an entity began mailing anthrax through
the US Postal system, hitting such prominent targets as NBC and Senator Daschle's office. The
terrorist attacks killed five and left others hospitalized. The
world panicked .
Under Mueller's management, the FBI launched an investigation lasting ten years. They now
brag about
spending "hundreds of thousands of investigator hours on this case." Let's take a closer look
at Mueller's response to understand the context of the investigation -- who his people
investigated, targeted, and found guilty.
The anthrax letters began just a week after the 9/11 attack. While planning the airplane
hijackings, Al-Qaeda had been weaponizing
anthrax , setting up a lab in Afghanistan manned by Yazid Sufaat, the same man who
housed
two of the 9/11 hijackers . Two hijackers later sought medical help due to conditions
consistent with
infection via anthrax : Al Haznawi went to the emergency room for a skin lesion which he
claimed was from "bumping into a suitcase," and ringleader Mohamed Atta needed medicine for
"skin irritation." A team of bioterrorism experts from John Hopkins confirmed that anthrax was
the most likely cause of the lesion. Meanwhile, the 9/11 hijackers were also trying to obtain crop-dusting
airplanes .
So how did Mueller's investigative team handle the case?
Mueller issued a
statement in October of 2001, while anthrax victims were still dying: the FBI had found "no
direct link to organized terrorism." The John Hopkins team of experts was mistaken, the
FBI continued , Al Haznawi never had an anthrax infection. The crop-dusting airplanes they
needed was possibly for a separate and unrelated anthrax attack.
A few weeks later, the FBI released a
remarkable profile of the attacker. FBI experts eschewed analysis of the content of the
letters, where it was written in bold block letters, "Death to America, Death to Israel, Allah
is Great." Instead, they focused on a "linguistic analysis," stating that the letter's writer
was atypical in many respects and not "comfortable or practiced in writing in lower case
lettering." The FBI therefore concluded that it was likely a disgruntled
American with bad personal skills.
The investigators hypothesized that the attacker was a lonely American who had wanted to
kill people with anthrax for some undefined time period, but then became "mission oriented"
following 9/11 and immediately prepared and mailed the deadly spores while pretending to be a
Muslim.
Mueller's FBI honed in on Steven Hatfill as the culprit -- a "flag-waving"
American, who had served in the Army, then dedicated himself to protecting America from
bioterrorist threats by working in the United States Army Medical Research Institute of
Infectious Diseases.
There was no direct link
from Hatfill to the attacks, by the FBI's own admission, and the bureau never charged Hatfill.
The FBI did however spy on, follow, and harass him non-stop for years. The Department of
Justice also publicly outed Hatfill as the possible terrorist.
While Hatfill's dignity and life was being trampled on by America's secret police, Mueller
took a stand. But on a different topic. He made front page news for threatening President Bush he would
resign over NSA policy. All while his own team was trampling on the rights of an
American in the FBI's largest-ever investigation.
Hatfill successfully sued the government for its unlawful actions. He won almost $6 million
dollars.
After the Hatfill investigation blew up in the FBI's face, they moved on to Bruce Ivins,
another Army researcher who had actually volunteered to help the FBI investigate this case, and
had been doing so for years. It wasn't until five years after the attack that Mueller's men
decided
Ivins was a target .
The FBI case against Ivins, once again, was based on circumstantial evidence.
The prosecution stated Ivins purposefully gave a misleading sample of anthrax spore, but
Frontline documented
this was not true. Ivins was "familiar" with the area from which the anthrax letters were
mailed, the FBI said, but Pulitzer Prize winning ProPublica lays out the accepted facts of the
case showing it was impossible
for Ivins to make the trip to mail the letters .
The spores used in the attacks were a similar type to the laboratory spores where Ivins
worked, but that ignored the fact that the anthrax letters had a unique additive -- so
sophisticated and dangerous a scientist commented
, "This is not your mother's anthrax" -- that was likely produced by a nation state or
Al-Qaeda.
Ivins was never indicted, just given the Hatfill treatment. His house was raided, and he was
threatened with a death sentence, or as his lawyer put it, put under "
relentless pressure of accusation and innuendo ." He committed suicide.
One week later, U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Taylor
stated Ivins was guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt," and they were "confident that Dr.
Ivins was the only person responsible for these attacks."
Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy, one of the intended victims of the anthrax terror attacks,
did not
believe that Ivins was the sole actor . Mueller ordered an independent audit of the FBI's
case by the National Academy of Science, then formally closed the case in 2010, sticking with
the conclusion that Ivins, and Ivins alone, committed the terror attack. One year later the NAS
released their results and confirmed what many scientists had been repeating for years: the
FBI's science and conclusions were not solid .
A former FBI official involved in the investigation
sued the FBI , alleging the FBI concealed evidence exculpatory to Ivins.
Mueller made his position known,
saying, "I do not apologize for any aspect of this investigation," and stated that the FBI had
made no mistakes.
The investigation was an unmitigated disaster for America. Mueller didn't go after al-Qaida
for the anthrax letters because he couldn't find a direct link. But then he targeted American
citizens without showing a direct link. For his deeds, he had the second longest tenure as FBI
Director ever, and was roundly applauded by nearly everyone ( except Republican
Rep. Louie Gohmert ).
Now he's running the Trump-Russia investigation. Daniel Ashman is the author of two books,
"Dominate No-Limit Hold'em" and "Secrets of Short-Handed No Limit Hold'em," that have been
published worldwide and translated into four languages. Follow him at @dashman76 .
Obama was a CIA protégé. At least in his young years. How CIA protégé can ask for 911 investigation, or release of some
materials? That's unrealistic.
Mueller was Bush II appointee. That tells us a lot, because it was Cheney who vetted all candidates.
Notable quotes:
"... President Bush did not want the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia investigated. President Bush has deep ties to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and its royal family and only wanted to protect the Kingdom. President Bush wanted to go to war in Iraq -- not Saudi Arabia. So, 29 full pages that said "Saudi" and "Bandar" instead of "Hussein" and "Iraq" was a huge problem for President Bush. ..."
"... Notwithstanding the lack of cooperation from the FBI and the pressure from the Bush Administration to thwart any investigation of the Saudis, the Joint Inquiry was still able to write 29 full pages regarding Saudi complicity in the 9/11 attacks. No other nation is given such singular prominence in the Joint Inquiry's Final Report. Not Iraq. Not Iran. Not Syria. Not Sudan. Not even Afghanistan or Pakistan. ..."
"... The 29 pages have been kept secret and suppressed from the American public for fifteen years -- not for matters of genuine national security -- but for matters of convenience, embarrassment, and cover-up. Executive Order 13526 makes that a crime. Neither James Clapper nor Barack Obama want to release a statement about that ..."
"... The only thing James Clapper and Barack Obama are willing to say about the delayed release of the 29 pages is that they stand by the investigation of the 9/11 Commission. This punt by President Barack Obama is repulsive. President Obama's deference to the 9/11 Commission -- who themselves admit that they were unable to fully investigate the Saudi role in the 9/11 attacks -- depicts Obama's utter lack of interest, engagement, or support of the 9/11 families. ..."
"... Four months after Khallad bin Attash met with the two 9/11 hijackers in Los Angeles, the USS Cole was bombed and seventeen U.S. sailors were killed. Khallad bin Attash, Khalid al Mihdhar and Nawaf al Hazmi were all named as co-conspirators in the bombing of the USS Cole. ..."
First and foremost, here is what you need to know when you listen to any member of our
government state that the newly released 29 pages are no smoking gun -- THEY ARE LYING.
Our government's relationship to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is no different than an
addict's relationship to heroin. Much like a heroin addict who will lie, cheat, and steal to
feed their vice, certain members of our government will lie, cheat, and steal to continue their
dysfunctional and deadly relationship with the KSA -- a relationship that is rotting this
nation and its leaders from the inside out.
When CIA Director John Brennan states that he believes the 29 pages prove that the
government of Saudi Arabia had no involvement in the 9/11 attacks, recognize that John Brennan
is not a man living in reality -- he is delusional by design, feeding and protecting his Saudi
vice.
When Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, Anne W. Patterson, testifies --
under oath -- that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is an ally that does everything they can to help
us fight against Islamic terrorism, recognize that her deep, steep Saudi pandering serves and
protects only her Saudi vice.
Do not let any person in our government deny the damning
reality of the 29 pages.
And as you read the 29 pages remember that they were written during 2002 and 2003.
President Bush did not want the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia investigated. President Bush has
deep ties to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and its royal family and only wanted to protect the
Kingdom. President Bush wanted to go to war in Iraq -- not Saudi Arabia. So, 29 full pages that
said "Saudi" and "Bandar" instead of "Hussein" and "Iraq" was a huge problem for President
Bush.
It is well documented that the Joint Inquiry received enormous push-back against its
investigation into the Saudis. In fact, former FBI Director Mueller acknowledges that much of
the information implicating the Saudis that the Inquiry investigators ultimately uncovered was
unknown to him. Why does Mueller say this? Mostly because Mueller and other FBI officials had
purposely tried to keep any incriminating information specifically surrounding the Saudis out
of the Inquiry's investigative hands. To repeat, there was a concerted effort by the FBI and
the Bush Administration to keep incriminating Saudi evidence out of the Inquiry's
investigation. And for the exception of the 29 full pages, they succeeded in their effort.
Notwithstanding the lack of cooperation from the FBI and the pressure from the Bush
Administration to thwart any investigation of the Saudis, the Joint Inquiry was still able to
write 29 full pages regarding Saudi complicity in the 9/11 attacks. No other nation is given
such singular prominence in the Joint Inquiry's Final Report. Not Iraq. Not Iran. Not Syria.
Not Sudan. Not even Afghanistan or Pakistan.
The 29 pages have been kept secret and suppressed from the American public for fifteen years
-- not for matters of genuine national security -- but for matters of convenience,
embarrassment, and cover-up. Executive Order 13526 makes that a crime. Neither James Clapper
nor Barack Obama want to release a statement about that .
The only thing James Clapper and Barack Obama are willing to say about the delayed release
of the 29 pages is that they stand by the investigation of the 9/11 Commission. This punt by
President Barack Obama is repulsive. President Obama's deference to the 9/11 Commission -- who
themselves admit that they were unable to fully investigate the Saudi role in the 9/11 attacks
-- depicts Obama's utter lack of interest, engagement, or support of the 9/11 families.
Frankly, it re-victimizes the 9/11 families by not acknowledging the truth, blocking our path
to justice, and the very vital assignment of accountability to those who should be held
responsible. Most alarmingly, Obama's silence keeps us unsafe because instead of calling for an
emergency session of Congress to immediately name the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia as a State
Sponsor of Terrorism, President Obama continues to downplay, belittle, and ignore the truth
leaving us vulnerable to terrorist attacks that are still to this very day being funded by our
"ally" the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
To be clear, the 9/11 Commission did NOT fully investigate the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Staff Director Philip Zelikow blocked any investigation into the Saudis. Zelikow even went so
far as to fire an investigator who had been brought over from the Joint Inquiry to specifically
follow-up on the Saudi leads and information uncovered in the Joint Inquiry. I will repeat --
the investigator was fired. In addition, Zelikow re-wrote the 9/11 Commission's entire section
regarding the Saudi's and their connection to the 9/11 attacks. Former 9/11 Commissioners John
Lehman, Bob Kerrey, and Tim Roemer have all acknowledged that the Saudis were not adequately
investigated by the 9/11 Commission. Thus, for any government official to hang their hat on the
9/11 Commission's Final Report -- when Commissioners, themselves, have admitted that the Saudis
were not fully investigated, is absurd and disgraceful.
For example, one glaring piece of information was not mentioned in either the 9/11
Commission or the Joint Inquiry's 29 pages -- the information regarding Fahad Thumairy and
Khallad bin Attash found in both an FBI
report and a CIA
report -- that are now declassified. Both reports indicate that Fahad Thumairy -- a Saudi
Consulate official -- helped bring Khallad bin Attash into the United States in June of 2000 so
he could meet with two of the 9/11 hijackers, Khalid al Mihdhar and Nawaf al Hazmi. Thumairy
escorted bin Attash -- a known al Qaeda operative -- through INS and Customs at LAX evading
security and any possible alarm bells. Again, this information is found in both a CIA and FBI
report.
Four months after Khallad bin Attash met with the two 9/11 hijackers in Los Angeles, the USS
Cole was bombed and seventeen U.S. sailors were killed. Khallad bin Attash, Khalid al Mihdhar
and Nawaf al Hazmi were all named as co-conspirators in the bombing of the USS Cole.
Where is the information regarding bin Attash and Thumairy? Has it ever been investigated?
Had our intelligence agencies capitalized on the known connection between Thumairy and bin
Attash, they would have been able to thwart the bombing of the USS Cole. In addition, they
would have had access and the ability to weave together nearly all the pieces of the 9/11
attacks -- more than nine months before the 9/11 attacks happened.
But as history shows, Saudi Consulate official Fahad Thumairy was not investigated and 17
sailors in addition to 3,000 others were killed.
I'm sure that Barack Obama, John Brennan, Anne Patterson, and Philip Zelikow would all
consider Thumairy's operational and financial support of Attash, Mihdhar, and Hazmi as within
the threshold of being an "ally" of the United States. I, and the rest of America, would
not.
I know summer is a busy time. I know that next week is the Republican Convention. I know
that Congress is out of session for two months. And I know that ISIS attacks continue in Nice,
Orlando, San Bernardino, Belgium, Paris, and more. Just like I know that Donald Trump picked
Mike Pence as his running mate and that there was a coup in Turkey. For an Administration
looking to dump some insanely incriminating evidence and have nobody take notice -- doing it
yesterday when Congress was leaving for their two month summer recess was probably the best day
anyone could have imagined.
But, the world is an unstable, crazy place. And, while I used to think I was safe because my
government was looking out for me and making decisions that were in my best interests and that
of other citizens, I now know better. For fifteen long years, I have fought to get information
regarding the killing of my husband from the U.S. government. I have fought, pleaded, and
begged for the truth, transparency, justice, and accountability because my husband and 3,000
others were brutally slaughtered in broad daylight. And our government has done nothing but
block, thwart, impede, and obstruct that path to truth, transparency, accountability, and
justice. Even going so far as to gaslight us to this very day by denying the plain truth
written on the plain paper of the 29 pages.
Please read the 29 pages. Look at the facts and evidence. And then watch the venal way
various members of our government and media play spin-master on those facts -- telling you to
deny the very harsh, sobering reality found within those 29 pages. I hope their gaslighting
disgusts you as much as it disgusts me.
Note that these 29 pages merely detail the Saudi connection to the 9/11 attacks in San
Diego . They briefly touch on the Phoenix information, as well. Though more notably, the
29 pages do not include information found in the more than 80,000 documents that are currently
being reviewed by a federal judge in Florida -- 80,000 documents that neither the 9/11
Commission, the Joint Inquiry, the Clinton, Bush, or Obama White House, nor the Kingdom of
Saudi Arabia wants us to know about.
More than anything, please know this: The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia provided operational and
financial support to the 9/11 hijackers. That is a fact. And, the U.S. government has been
covering up that fact for fifteen years -- even to this very day. And that is a crime.
Corruption, greed, and vice, specifically as it pertains to protecting the Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia, is not a one-party problem. It spans both democratic and republican administrations.
Blame President Clinton, President Bush, and President Obama -- as well as, all of their
officials and appointees. They are ALL to blame for failing to prevent the 9/11 attacks,
helping to facilitate the 9/11 attacks through their own abject negligence, using the 9/11
attacks to further ill-begotten gains and goals, and covering-up the 9/11 attacks by not coming
clean with the American public for fifteen years.
(9/11 widows Monica Gabrielle, Mindy Kleinberg, Lorie Van Auken, and Patty Casazza all sign
their names to this blog)
"... I actually had a chance to meet Director Mueller personally the night before I testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee [he was] trying to get us on his side, on the FBI side, so that we wouldn't say anything terribly embarrassing. ..."
"... When you had the lead-up to the Iraq War Mueller and, of course, the CIA and all the other directors, saluted smartly and went along with what Bush wanted, which was to gin up the intelligence to make a pretext for the Iraq War. ..."
"... For instance, in the case of the FBI, they actually had a receipt, and other documentary proof, that one of the hijackers, Mohamed Atta, had not been in Prague, as Dick Cheney was alleging. And yet those directors more or less kept quiet. That included CIA, FBI, Mueller, and it included also the deputy attorney general at the time, James Comey ..."
"... Rowley also noted that Mueller presided over "the 'post 9-11 round-up' of innocent immigrants, the anthrax investigation fiasco, as well as going along with a form of martial law (made possible via secret OLC [Office of Legal Counsel] memos written by John Yoo etc. predicated upon Yoo's theories of absolute 'imperial presidency' or 'war presidency' powers that the Bush administration was making [Attorney General John] Ashcroft sign off on) ..."
"... While not the worst of the bunch, neither Comey nor Mueller deserve their Jimmy Stewart 'G-man' reputations for absolute integrity but have merely been, along the lines of George 'Slam Dunk' Tenet, capable and flexible politicized sycophants to power, that enmeshed them in numerous wrongful abuses of power along with presiding over plain official incompetence. It's sad that political partisanship is so blinding and that so few people remember the actual sordid history. ..."
Rowley, a former FBI special agent and division counsel whose May 2002 memo to then-FBI Director Robert Mueller exposed some of
the FBI's pre-9/11 failures, was named one of TIME magazine's "Persons of the Year" in 2002. She just appeared on The Real
News report "
Special
Counsel Investigating Trump Campaign Has Deep Ties to the Deep State ," about Mueller being appointed to investigate the Trump
campaign's ties to Russia.
While Mueller has been widely described as being of impeccable character by much of official Washington, Rowley said today: "The
truth is that Robert Mueller (and James Comey as deputy attorney general -- see my
New York Times op-ed
on day of Comey's confirmation hearing ) presided over a cover-up "
In her interview, Rowley noted: "The FBI and all the other officials claimed that there were no clues, that they had no warning
[about 9/11] etc., and that was not the case. There had been all kinds of memos and intelligence coming in. I actually had a
chance to meet Director Mueller personally the night before I testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee [he was] trying to get
us on his side, on the FBI side, so that we wouldn't say anything terribly embarrassing.
"When you had the lead-up to the Iraq War Mueller and, of course, the CIA and all the other directors, saluted smartly and
went along with what Bush wanted, which was to gin up the intelligence to make a pretext for the Iraq War.
For instance, in the case of the FBI, they actually had a receipt, and other documentary proof, that one of the hijackers,
Mohamed Atta, had not been in Prague, as Dick Cheney was alleging. And yet those directors more or less kept quiet. That included
CIA, FBI, Mueller, and it included also the deputy attorney general at the time, James Comey."
Rowley also noted that Mueller presided over "the 'post 9-11 round-up' of innocent immigrants, the anthrax investigation fiasco,
as well as going along with a form of martial law (made possible via secret OLC [Office of Legal Counsel] memos written by John Yoo
etc. predicated upon Yoo's theories of absolute 'imperial presidency' or 'war presidency' powers that the Bush administration was
making [Attorney General John] Ashcroft sign off on)."
"While not the worst of the bunch, neither Comey nor Mueller deserve their Jimmy Stewart 'G-man' reputations for absolute
integrity but have merely been, along the lines of George 'Slam Dunk' Tenet, capable and flexible politicized sycophants to power,
that enmeshed them in numerous wrongful abuses of power along with presiding over plain official incompetence. It's sad that political
partisanship is so blinding and that so few people remember the actual sordid history."
Trump +247: Mueller, the 9/11 Cover-up and the DNC Crisis
Robert Mueller is
considered to be a man of integrity, of impeccable credentials and character. His appointment
to investigate Russian involvement in the 2016 election was lauded by the Establishment
political class, media and a great deal of the public. And yet the same media is utterly
failing to connect his name to the recent Saudi scandal that's been quietly making the news. It
seems the media would rather this story just went away. For years some of the families
associated with the victims of 9/11 have been dissatisfied with the official investigation.
With good reason they view it as insufficient, truncated and even corrupt.
Many angles of the 9/11 story were not investigated and many more received only a surface
level consideration. The Saudi angle as some would have it has not been sufficiently considered
and as the years have gone by numerous investigations and inquiries seem to point to Riyadh
playing no small role in the attacks. Many believed this to be the case even in the fall of
2001. Saudi politics have always been confusing and the relationship of the extensive royal
family with jihadist groups has always been a present danger but murky and difficult to grasp.
On the one hand there's a real antagonism between the House of Saud and groups like al Qaeda.
On the other hand the Saudis have provided extensive funding for the spread of Wahhabism and
they certainly played no small part in funding some of the Mujahideen groups in 1980's
Afghanistan. Some of these same figures (including but not limited to bin Laden) would be
instrumental in the founding of al Qaeda. This part of the story isn't all that controversial.
Where it becomes problematic for many is that the US and all too often Israel have been right
there, right alongside Riyadh in backing these various projects. US intelligence continues to
struggle in distancing itself from the founders and initial characters surrounding the founding
of al Qaeda and even some of the important figures that later affiliated with the Taliban. You
can be sure the media has done all it can to facilitate the re-crafting of the narrative. The
so-called 9/11 families were always suspicious of Riyadh. It's understandable considering the
fact that 15 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. Investigations have shown that Saudi
diplomats and intelligence were in contact with some of these men and even high ranking figures
like Ambassador Prince Bandar were involved in funding them. The thing is, the connections
point not only to the Saudis but to American intelligence... both the FBI and the CIA. These
terrorists were facilitated. The story of their entry and surveillance is more than a little
remarkable. There were agents that were on to them but they were silenced and set aside. The
scale of the 9/11 cover-up ranges far beyond some Saudi connections to the hijackers. Some
believe this is all about money, the connections between the Bush family and the House of Saud.
Michael Moore and others have intimated as much. But that can't be the whole story. That might
explain some of the cover-up, though such an explanation is hardly sufficient. It does not
explain the way in which these men were facilitated by the FBI in the days leading up to 9/11.
The CIA angle is also worth looking into and is potentially vast and certainly more than a
little suspicious.
Mueller as head of the FBI played a leading role in the suppression of the 9/11 investigation.
If there is a cover-up, as indeed I and many others believe there to be, then Mueller is one of
the chief perpetrators. Mueller at this point must be reckoned a top figure (or more likely an
actor/agent) within the Deep State. His task vis-à-vis the 9/11 investigation was to
obscure the hijacker's connections to US intelligence and to deflect any investigation of the
Saudi's. For those that have sought to peel back the layers of deception surrounding 9/11 and
its cover-up, Mueller is undoubtedly reckoned one of the great villains of the whole affair. To
reckon him a man of integrity is laughable... if such things can be laughed at. The fact that
he was selected to investigate supposed Russian manipulation of the US election is more than a
little interesting. The ironic part is this... those who question 9/11 are deemed conspiracy
theorists. And yet the whole Putin/Trump/Wikileaks narrative which Mueller will supposedly
uncover is... a conspiracy theory and yet one without merit. All too often conspiracy theories
are rooted in conjecture and inference based on circumstantial evidence. That they all too
often err does not discount the reality of a conspiracy. It's simply that there are too many
gaps in knowledge or often false assumptions driving the inference. The Ockham's Razor
reductionist method of focusing purely on so-called brute facts also proves insufficient to
postulate unifying theories and in fact is often hostile to the attempt. For a conspiracy
theory to be plausible the inference has to make sense in light of the larger context and what
can hopefully be described as overwhelming circumstantial evidence. It's akin to and often is
criminal in nature. There has to be motive and intent. There has to be some benefit in terms of
the outcome. These questions do not guarantee a correct answer or an accurate interpretation of
events but they are at the very least necessary to employ the inference that is at the heart of
all such inquiries and investigations. The Russian narrative with regard to the 2016 US
presidential election fails this most basic of tests. The motives and outcome of the supposed
conspiracists fails on all fronts.
I'm speaking politically at this point. Profits and dirty
business deals (of which there is some evidence) cannot be entirely divorced from politics, but
the motives, means and desired outcome are often quite different. There a host of narratives
being spun about Trump and the nature of his administration. Once again I would argue the
proper way to understand these events is in terms of an Establishment internecine battle. The
present political struggle is not about an embattled Establishment at war with an insurgent
rogue power. Rather I view it as a battle of intramural factions and yet undoubtedly some of
those factions view this struggle as existential... or it is in their tactical interest to cast
it thus. The DNC is in a state of crisis. It has turned to the media, to Hollywood and
entertainment figures and to conspiracy theories to explain the election. The results of the
2016 election have discredited their narrative about the United States, what it is and what
direction it is heading. Are they that different from Trump? The answer is a resounding 'no'
and while they grandstand for the cameras in decrying his thuggish buffoonery they have offered
little political resistance to his agenda.
Hillary Clinton is trying to salvage her legacy. Her
defeat in 2016 discredited her life-narrative and historical legacy. She was to go down in
history as the great pioneer in modern American politics. Obama stole some of her thunder. Her
subsequent defeat at the hands of Donald Trump has completely discredited her. Corrupt, plastic
and probably self-deceived she has turned in desperation to a grand conspiracy theory in order
to justify her loss. As she sees it, she is not a defeated politician but the victim of a
crime. It would seem that in her distorted mind she is only one tier below the assassinated
Kennedy brothers. Hers is a great administration stolen, a tragic 'what if' that will haunt
American political history. But it's all nonsense of course as are the often contrived Kennedy
narratives. The two slain brothers are intriguing figures to be sure, complicated and yet
hardly the virtuous paragons they are often made out to be. They represented possibility and
yet the change in their character came too late. Clinton has also changed and shifted in her
outlook but in quite the opposite direction.
She is not the 'liberal' woman many took her to be
in the 1990s. And yet she has only grown more deeply entrenched and tied to the US
Establishment. She ranks high on the list of corrupt politicians and she utterly lacks the
charm and personal connection that many colourful political figures have possessed. She can't
even compete with her husband.
Odious to be sure he is nevertheless a masterful politician. The
dirty secret of modern democracy is that it has little to do with objective consideration of
issues. Some people vote for tribal factions and some vote on the basis of personality. The
latter are the folks who are most easily manipulated by the Madison Avenue types and the
camera-work of television producers and directors. The Democrats who were once perceived to
have stood for the working class have been exposed. Generations of betrayal and the breaking of
the trade unions have destroyed that old base that helped put them into office for several
decades. They still command a great deal of the minority vote but their grip is not as solid as
it once was and social disintegration has led to a great deal of apathy. Figures like Hillary
Clinton are not capable of stirring the disengaged masses to participation. The truth is that
Hillary Clinton has long been hated by a huge section of the electorate.
The DNC has lost vast
portions of its base. The Democrats have embraced sexual perversion and identity politics and
yet have done so while moving to the Right in terms of economics and militarism. The Left is
beginning to peel off and the Right has moved even farther to the Right leaving no Centrists or
working class sector who would still vote democratic or possible consider swinging that
direction in a tight contest. We are left with two Right-wing parties...a Centre-Right and a
Far Right. The US Establishment has been concerned with the direction the Far Right has headed.
It has clearly taken the government into a position of being unable to govern. It is generating
too much chaos and dysfunctionality. In 2016 the bulk of the US Establishment was invested in
the DNC and Hillary Clinton. Please understand the bulk of the Establishment is really above
the political factions. Much of that is just theatre for the masses.
The pseudo-political war
between the Red and the Blue also spawns vast sums of money and creates occasions to generate
and launder even more. The Clinton defeat created a crisis because it signalled that many
assumptions that have dominated for more than a generation have collapsed. The Trump victory
signalled not just a crisis for the 2016-2020 political cycle, but a looming threat of social
unrest. The Establishment fears the masses and if the working class starts to unite they are in
trouble. Seeds of distrust and fear must be sown. Identity politics divides the populist
street. Discrediting Trump will not only hinder his agenda and ability to be effective but it
will keep the street divided. People will focus on events like Charlottesville and Trump's
foolish comments rather than the real issues that place this society, even this civilisation in
danger. The Establishment is banking on the fact that the generals can restrain him from
disastrous war.
Mueller's task will be to expose enough of the obvious corruption within his
family and organisation to leave him paralysed. Mueller is the Establishment's Sword of
Damocles, an ever present threat. Like Kenneth Starr, he will continue to dig and gather dirt,
whether related or not. With Trump the pile of refuse will be all but endless and he will
likely generate as many problems in trying to cover up his deeds as the actual acts and
problems themselves. Mueller's placement remains an ongoing threat to Trump... and yet it's one
that may not work as Trump seems all too often divorced from reality. Obstruction of justice is
as likely to bring him down as anything else. His own hubris and attempts to cover his tracks
will further destroy what little integrity he has left. Eventually someone like Mueller will be
able to issue a report and say almost whatever he wants. The political class will believe it,
because they want to. If they can restrain him... good. If he self-destructs... that's okay
too. If he wages war that's also a fine thing. No one in ruling circles has a problem with US
militarism. What they don't like it was it's done unilaterally and without utilising the proper
mechanisms that proved plausibility, cover and a right narrative. I am certain there are some
that are very concerned about what's happening with regard to North Korea and rightly so.
They
are not opposed to war but how it is being set up and prosecuted. In the meantime the
Establishment will continue to spin out the narrative that the country was undermined by dark
foreign influences. A new Cold War, a new age of McCarthyism is upon us. Censorship, often
voluntary has returned with a vengeance. The corrupt moguls who dominate the media and the
neo-media centers of Silicon Valley are part of this re-tooling of American society. Even the
Trump interlude is being used to re-shape the Internet and to bolster the surveillance state.
It's not that hard when millions are apparently more than willing to not only to reject any
notions of privacy but are eager to give up their biometric data to the realm of cyberspace and
its corrupt and incompetent guardians. Mueller is no man of integrity. He is a shill for the
powers that be. His evident lack of virtue and honesty has no power to render judgment as to
what Trump is or is not. These are all evil people. Some seem to be fooled into thinking that
there are some 'good' folks who make it into these positions of power. Mueller will investigate Manafort who is obviously a corrupt businessman if not something else. He actually looks more
like a CIA connected figure to me. His history and placement within the Trump campaign raises
some very interesting questions... as does the timing of his departure. Yet thus far the
evidence surrounding Manafort seems to actually exonerate Trump and his campaign, a point the
media seems unwilling to acknowledge.
Did Trump's people go after dirt on the Clinton's? Of
course they did and so did the Clinton's. Are they tied in with corrupt business people in
Ukraine and Russia? Yes. So are the Clinton's. Are these people tied in with the political
powers within Ukraine and Russia? Of course. But once again the notion that the Putin
collaborated with Trump and Assange and that it was these leaks and some ads taken out on
social media that somehow stole the election and led to Clinton's loss... is absurd. The
evidence is not there and thus far the policies of the Trump administration do not support
this. If this were the case then Putin must be seething. It's a betrayal on the order of the
Kennedy double-cross of Sam Giancana and the mafia. But I doubt anyone wants to revisit that
chapter of history. In a way Mueller's position is both interesting and ironic. All the events
of the present, the discussions about leaks, media, wars, politics, Russia etc.... all rest on
the foundation created by 9/11. And so now the investigator of corruption is one of the
guardians who continues to protect that fortress of lies upon which the new order has been
built. For if 9/11 were to come undone the Orwellian regime wed to the War on Terror narrative
would collapse. It is therefore appropriate that Mueller continues in his role as guardian and
the media will do all it can to make him out as a man of integrity.
When in reality he is
already known as one who is utterly lacking character, an obstructor and facilitator of mass
murder. He can claim no moral superiority vis-à-vis someone like Trump...and you can be
sure Trump knows it.
As part of what Donald Trump has dubbed an ongoing "witch hunt", Special Counsel Robert Mueller has subpoenaed longtime Donald
Trump associate and former aide Sam Nunberg. requesting he appear before a grand jury investigating Russian interference in the 2016
elections. Nunberg, however,
told Bloomberg he has no intention of cooperating with Mueller's subpoena.
"I'm not going to cooperate with Mueller. It's a fishing expedition ," Nunberg
told Bloomberg News . " They want me in there for a grand jury for testimony about Roger Stone. He didn't do anything. What is
he going to do? His investigation is BS. Trump did not collude with Putin. It's a joke."
Nunberg was on Trump's payroll from mid-2011 to August 2015 when he was fired from Trump's campaign shortly after it emerged that
he had posted racially charged Facebook posts. In July 2016, Trump sued him for violating a confidentiality agreement, however the
suit was dropped the following month.
. "What's he going to do? He's so tough - let's see what they do. I'm not going to spend 40 hours going over emails. I have a
life."
Nunberg told Bloomberg he expects one line of questioning before the grand jury to be related to Stone, who Nunberg worked with
closely over the years.
In a somewhat surreal interview, Nunberg also spoke with NBC's Katy Tur on Monday afternoon, reiterating that he was not going
to comply with the subpoena while stating his belief that his onetime boss may be guilty of collusion with the Russians.
After admitting to host Katy Tur that he'd been interviewed by Mueller's investigators, the host asked Nunberg if he believes
the special counsel "has anything" on Trump.
"I think they may," the ex-aide responded. "I think he may have done something during the election. But I don't know that for
sure."
This isn't the first time Nunberg's given a rambling MSNBC interview. Last week, he called presidential adviser and son-in-law
Jared Kushner a "weak link" who has done "nefarious things," and earlier this year, called Trump an "idiot" and a "complete pain
in the ass to work for." In the latter interview, which was conducted by host Joy Ann Reid, many noted that Nunberg appeared to be
intoxicated.
... ... ...
In the subpoena dated Feb. 27, Bloomberg reports that Nunberg was also asked to turn over emails, texts and other communications
with 10 campaign associates, including Trump, former campaign manager Corey Lewandoski and outgoing White House communications director
Hope Hicks starting in November 2015 and running through the present.
Another possible line of questioning could be related to Trump's activities in Moscow in 2013 during the Miss Universe pageant,
which the president once owned. The book by author Michael Wolff, "Fire and Fury," quotes Nunberg extensively describing the early
months of the Trump administration. Wolff said the former adviser was "generally regarded as the man who understood Trump's whims
and impulses best" and a Bannon associate. Mueller's team interviewed Bannon earlier this month.
Incidentally, when asked if Nunberg was correct that Trump "may have done something during the election", Press Sec. Sanders dnied,
saying that "He's incorrect...I certainly can't speak to him or the lack of knowledge that he clearly has."
Seriously, what about Trump's Hotels? Do they employ any Russians? I think that black jack dealer looked Russian.
I am not a big fan of OJ, but Jesus Christ this Mueller investigation acts like our QA department. Non-stop making you do retarded
shit just because someone, somewhere might not fully get exactly what you did because they are retarded.
Mueller better just close up shop before the people supporting him give him the hook. Russian Troll farm? Really? Shitposting
is now a national security issue. omg.
The longer this goes on, the more I think that our government just needs to go away. Total loss of all credibility. And when
he does find something HUGE, if it isn't related to Trump (Uranium One) he just passes it by.
We are now past the point of absurd. Trump will next be guilty of having a bottle of Stoli at his house.
Kudos to this guy for calling this for what it is. Just downright stupid.
I took Russian as my foreign language elective in college and sometimes even understand some of it. I also read RT from time
to time and donated to the Trump campaign.
So someone that worked for Trump says that he doesn't know for sure if Trump did something bad and it is headline news? Give
me a break! What click-bait garbage this article is.
I love the liberal delusion that the Trump-Russia evidence is going to show up any day now while they continue to ignore the
fact that Hillary paid for Kremlin help in the election.
How Ex-Spy Christopher Steele Compiled His Explosive Trump-Russia Dossier
Source A -- to use the careful nomenclature of his dossier -- was "a senior Russian Foreign Ministry figure." Source B was
"a former top level intelligence officer still active in the Kremlin."
Maybe this is the guy who stops pretending? He already sounds like would call Mueller for what he is. I bet Mueller is sitting
there in his psychosis thinking that because this guy said what he did he is the one really holding all the dirt.
Someone should go and testify and just start dropping bombs.
I think all witnesses should do the same. Then when they are forced to testify under penalty of contempt, they should plead
the 5th amendment and force Mueller to grant them immunity. This is all total BS. Any witness who cooperates and appears before
a grand jury runs the risk of some bogus perjury or obstruction of justice charges. Mueller is a piece of human vermin.
Mueller has already committed a crime he lied to the Senate, if there was any law and order in this Country Mueller would have
been locked up a long time ago.
I don't know anything about this guy but glad to see someone is calling bullshit on this ongoing witch hunt. And there are
plenty of idiots thinking it is a real thing when basically nothing has been uncovered in a year and a half related to Trump/Putin.
Meanwhile gigantic conflicts on the Hillary side are going totally uninvestigated..
Mueller is not looking for anything Russia-related because he knows no such evidence exists. Instead, he is looking to file
completely unrelated charges against other people such as Paul Manafort, who can then be pressured into making false accusations
against Trump. "Special Counsel" Mule-er is nothing but the leader of a star chamber packed with (((Democrat))) loyalists who
have no interest in serving justice. This entire ruse is nothing but a seditious attempt to overthrow a Constitutionally elected
president because the Deep State and its cronies remain in a state of apoplexy over the 2016 election results. More than anything,
this reminds me of some kind of Stalinist NKVD secret police operation from the 1930s: false charges supported by fraudulent evidence
followed by show trials that delivered the expected results. Truth and justice be damned. Of course, we know (((who))) was calling
the shots in the Soviet Secret Police, don't we?
I don't think he's actually investigating anything. Once in awhile, he pops up with serious-sounding garbage, that really means
nothing.
He's intended to be a shark in the waters around this administration, nothing more. A "potential" threat he might "find" something.
He's had his time at the "Russian collusion" plate, and he needs to be outta pitches.
Meanwhile, the country's business isn't getting done, and Trump's time in office isn't open-ended.
Business like infrastructure, the BloCare repeal, the wall, sanctuary city crackdowns, trade deal overhauls (not simply tariffs,
but new deals or no deals at all), and much more.
His supporters really DO need to rise mightily and force these issues to the front and center.
The Bolshevik fascists are stymieing this president, as they bide their time toward the midterms.
Only in Americana, the deep State mother fuckers, can go over the president like never before, and undermine his authority,
take down his staff and stall his presidency... and basically place him in a corner for the kill.
Trump since his inauguration, wasn't able to get anything done because of these fuckers... they are enemies of the people!
Why are these freaks being allowed to make a mockery of Trump presidency using bs excuses? How stupid people can be to believe
on this shit! Where are the good politicians if any left in Washington? Is there any political decency left in the States? WTFIGO?
Most veterans and folks on the service that I know of are ashamed of these debacle!
The President needs to set a deadline for Mueller - end of summer would be good - either present evidence of collusion with
Russia to Congress - or you're fired. Otherwise this investigation will still be ongoing when Ivanka is sworn in as the 46th.
president January 20, 2025.
He is setting up a trap for Mueller. Get Mueller to go balls to the wall and make a misstep and blow his whole investigation
up by being retarded. Stone created an art of being a provocateur. This guy learned from Stone. Mueller will see that conversation
and think " WE got the President dig dig dig send subpoenas, do raids. " Thing is doing raids on innocent people catches up to
you very fast. You never know who knows who and who is connected to who. This will get Mueller to spend more money and he will
for sure go over the line and cut his own throat. Keystone cops tend to die by their own gun.
Muller was in charge of 9/11 investigation. So he is the perfect prosecutor for the "deep
state." Proven in action. Everything is possible with him being the Grand inquisitor for
Trump.
One insightful comment that re4flect my sentiments about Mueller investigation as well :
"Honestly don't care about Trump's personal fate, but I despise the [neo]libs and their clubby
parody of justice typified by Holder, Lynch, Comey, Mueller et al. It's probably too much to ask
for, yet what would really be fun is to see Mueller's probe shut down before he can bring
charges. Just as the Dems are about to splurge in celebration....conspiratus interruptus!"
Meanwhile, liberal legal scholar Alan Dershowitz disagrees:
" You cannot charge a president with obstruction of justice for exercising his
constitutional power to fire Comey and his constitutional authority to tell the Justice
Department who to investigate, who not to investigate, " said Dershowitz last December.
"That's what Thomas Jefferson did, that's what Lincoln did, that's what Roosevelt did. We
have precedents that clearly establish that."
The controversy over whether or not Trump obstructed justice was one of the primary drivers
behind Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein's appointment of Robert Mueller as Special
Counsel following Comey's dismissal. Notably, Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself
from all things related to the Russia investigation - frustrating many who say he's simply been
sitting on his hands while Mueller and his fleet of trump-hating Democrat investigators gun for
the President.
"I don't want to get into loyalty, but I will tell you that, I will say this: Holder
protected President Obama. Totally protected him," Trump told the New York Times. " When you
look at the things that they did, and Holder protected the president. And I have great respect
for that, I'll be honest. "
Holder shot back fast and furiously on Real Time with Bill Maher - stating " The difference
between me and Jeff Sessions is that I had a president I didn't have to protect ." Perhaps he
forgot about the selective targeting of conservative groups by the IRS, lying about the cause
of Benghazi, Obama's knowledge of Hillary's private server, the Solyndra green energy and
similar crony capitalism scams, spying on journalists, the Secret Service hooker scandal, and
of course Fast and Furious.
Holder thinks Sessions should resign in the wake of President Trump openly criticizing him.
"At some point, though, you would hope that you would have the intestinal fortitude or the
pride to simply say, you know, 'I wanted this job all my life, but it's not worth it, and I'm
not going to take that kind of abuse, and I'm simply going to tell you, you know, go screw
yourself, and I'm out,'" Holder told Maher.
And this from the only AG in the history of the country to be held in contempt of
Congress... Come on Holder, you can do better than this weak effort, especially when they
drag your ass to jail for sedition...
This is William Binney discussing the magnitude of the corruption of the FBI, the secret
FISA courts, and how it affects us all.
One of the NSA's top code breakers Bill Binney explains how the FBI works.
Secret, unconstitutional courts...
"Law enforcement" agents who lie as a matter of course.
Evidence falsified daily.
That's just another day at the office at the FBI.
34:57 https://www.brasscheck.com/video/about-the-fbi/
Comey has already Been caught in several major lies, some of them indictable... no one
with a brain believes anything that sewer roach says...
Holder is an old pro when it comes to obstruction... and lying... and sedition... and,
probably... gobbling Barry's joint... and why hasn't that Contempt Citation this maggot got
ever been prosecuted... or perhaps accessory to MURDER, in Terry's death?
Holder let HSBC get away with crimes of laundering money for drug dealers and terrorists
and gave them (HSBC) subsequent immunities not even available to the President of the United
States.
Starts at 12:18 (Interview with John Titus who produced All the Plenary's Men, which
describes HSBC's exoneration)
Report: Holder Blocked HSBC Trial On Drug Cartel Money Laundering Scandal
" Former Attorney General Eric Holder overruled Department of Justice (DOJ) lawyers who
said British banking giant HSBC should be prosecuted for missing hundreds of millions of
dollars in money laundering by drug cartels, a congressional
committee report said Monday"
" Attorney General Holder misled Congress concerning DOJ's reasons for not bringing a
criminal prosecution against HSBC," the committee report said."
Thanks, Eric Holder, because several months ago I thought that Trump firing Comey was
obstruction of justice. The other curious incident to me is why Trump thought that Barack
Obama "hacked" Trump in Trump Tower, NYC. It's going to be interesting to read about someday
exactly what made Trump think that. Of all the people in the world, if anyone wanted to
remain anonymous, it would be the POTUS. I can imagine someone trolling Trump and signing
Barack Obama's name to it, and Trump falling for it.
Appreciated also the Holder comment "because I never had to protect President Obama from
anything." LOL well said.
Honestly don't care about Trump's personal fate, but I despise the libs and their clubby
parody of justice typified by Holder, Lynch, Comey, Mueller et al.
It's probably too much to ask for, yet what would really be fun is to see Mueller's probe
shut down before he can bring charges. Just as the Dems are about to splooge in
celebration.... conspiratus interruptus!
"... Prior to the convention, Manafort was involved in the successful fight to remove language from the party's platform which called for providing lethal weapons to the Poroshenko government, allegedly to fight against "Russian subversion." Manafort had the backing of Trump for this, as Trump had campaigned for an end to U.S. support for regime change wars, such as the Obama-neocon coup in Ukraine. ..."
"... (Manafort was also instrumental in including a plank supporting restoration of Glass Steagall banking separation, something vehemently opposed by Wall Street and the City of London financial institutions.) ..."
"... It was also in June that CIA Director John Brennan was briefed by GCHQ Director Hannigan, on "evidence" compiled by his agency, of "suspicious" activity they had picked up on Russian activity with Trump. GCHQ is Britain's cyber security intelligence agency, which works directly with MI5 and MI6. Brennan then pulled together an inter-agency task force to investigate the British charges of Russian activity. Among those in the FBI unit which was part of this task force were the now-famous duo, Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, whose extensive text messaging shows that they were engaged in creating the fake narrative of "Russian meddling and Trump collusion". One text spoke of developing the Russiagate narrative to either defeat Trump in November, or provide an "insurance policy" against him, if he won. ..."
"... Beginning in 2013, Steele drafted more than 100 memos on Ukraine and Russia, and passed these on to Winer, who was then a special assistant to Kerry on Libya, which had been destroyed in a Clinton-Obama regime change operation. Winer admitted, in an oped in the Washington Post on February 8, 2018, that he passed these on to Victoria Nuland, who asked that he continue to bring them to her. Note that these were written at the time of, and the immediate aftermath of the coup in Ukraine. The Washington Post Deep State conduit, James Rosen, wrote that Nuland found these reports "informative and sometimes helpful", and asked Winer to keep them coming. ..."
"... When asked about the Steele memos on Ukraine in an interview with CBS on February 4 -- four days before Winer's oped was published -- Nuland lied, denying that she had used the Steele memos. ..."
"... Nunes and Grassley are both investigating the Steele-Winer-Nuland connection to see what this means as far as Obama administration direct involvement in running the Russiagate coup. ..."
"... The new indictments against Manafort come from squeezing his former partner, Rick Gates. Using a prosecutor's set of tools, Mueller went after Gates on his weak flank, the threat to him and his family of bankruptcy, were he to fight the charges. In entering his guilty plea, Gates told the court, "Despite my initial desire to vigorously defend myself, I have had a change of heart. The reality of how long this legal process will likely take, the cost, and the circus-like atmosphere of an anticipated trial are too much. I will better serve my family moving forward by exiting this process." ..."
"... On the new charges against Manafort on money laundering, a well-informed insider said he's astonished at the lengths to which Mueller is going. He noted the irony that, when Mueller and Comey were FBI Directors, they never made a criminal case against leading banks which engaged in billions of dollars in money laundering, much of it proceeds from drug and arms-trafficking. ..."
"... One of the banks given a repeated pass was the notorious HSBC, which while being fined repeatedly for money laundering, never faced criminal prosecution. Among those arguing against criminal charges was the British Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, who said a criminal proceeding against a "systemically important" bank, such as HSBC, would risk "global financial disaster." Obama's Attorney General Holder shared this view, as he refused to file any criminal charges against "Too Big to Fail" banks. ..."
"... Until his appointment by Obama as Director of the FBI, James Comey served on the Board of Directors of HSBC! ..."
"... From this review of the significance of Ukraine in the whole Russiagate process, it becomes clear that the perversion of justice it represents is surpassed only by the danger which flows from the anti-Russia theme it serves. Unless there is an intervention to shut down this witch hunt, as there was to end the hysterical red-baiting charges of the infamous Senator Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s, the threshold for a possible nuclear confrontation with Russia is being dramatically reduced. It was Trump's campaign pledge to cooperate with Russia, rather than prepare for war, which is the reason for the Russiagate fraud. ..."
"... With the Ukraine tensions heightened by recent developments, full exposure of Steele's dirty role, and that of his collaborators, has become an essential component of a war-avoidance strategy. ..."
What is not generally known, however, due to the lying coverage in the Transatlantic "Fake
News" media, is that included in this unholy alliance of coup plotters were armed militia units
made up of neo-Nazis, who were responsible for the bloodshed on Maidan Square in Kiev, and
which threatened the ethnic Russians, which constitute the majority of the population in the
eastern Ukraine regions of Donetsk and Luhansk.
The lie that there was no neo-Nazi involvement has been maintained, despite ample evidence
to the contrary, including interviews with militants pronouncing admiration for Hitler's
collaborators in the Bandera movement in Ukraine during World War II, when Ukrainian units
murdered ethnic Poles, Russians, and other "non-Ukrainians", including Ukrainian Jews. The
armed "Banderistas" and related thugs have been incorporated into the security apparatus of the
Kiev regime, and continue to march in the halls of Parliament and on the streets, under banners
with pictures of Bandera, the Nazi collaborator, and symbols going back to their alliance with
the Nazi SS.
The coup provoked a chain of events which the U.S., London and NATO used as justification to
impose punitive sanctions against Russia, while demonizing Russia's President Putin, asserting
that the he was engaged in military operations in Crimea and eastern Ukraine, to reverse the
coup. Efforts to stop the fighting between the regime's armed forces and ethnic Russian rebels
in eastern Ukraine led to the Minsk Accord in 2015, which included a cease fire and the
granting of autonomy for Donetsk and Luhansk. The Minsk Accord was brokered by France, Germany
and Russia.
On January 18, 2018, the Ukrainian Parliament ripped up the Minsk Accord, referring to the
two republics as "temporarily occupied" by an "aggressor country," that is, Russia, and vowed
to reintegrate them, by military force if necessary. This bill, which received the full support
of Ukraine's President Poroshenko, has been described by the Russian Foreign Ministry as "a
preparation for a new war." It occurs simultaneously with an outburst of war-like propaganda
from western neocons, typified by a report from the Center for Strategic and International
Studies (CSIS), released on February 20 with the title, "Coping with Surprise in Great Power
Conflicts." The report charges that both Russia and China are preparing for war against the
U.S., and that the Russians are deploying forces and artillery to overrun the Baltic states in
a lightning strike, to reincorporate them into a new Russian empire!
THE CASE OF PAUL MANAFORT
This background is necessary to understand the vicious hostility behind the targeting of
Paul Manafort, a long-time U.S. political operative, by the "amoral legal assassin", special
counsel Robert Mueller. Manafort, who served as Donald Trump's campaign manager at a key moment
in his fight to secure the Republican nomination, from May to August 2016, was indicted by
Mueller on October 27, 2017, charged with numerous counts of money laundering, tax fraud, not
registering as an agent of a foreign government, and of making false statements to the FBI.
Mueller filed a revised indictment on February 28, 2018, following his "turning" of Manafort's
partner Rick Gates, who filed a guilty plea to a single count on February 22. While awaiting
trial in September, Manafort is confined to house arrest.
None of the charges against Manafort are related to the initial mandate given to Mueller, by
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, to investigate the allegations of Russian hacking and
sundry meddling in the 2016 election, and whether Donald Trump had "colluded" with the
Russians. However, they are directly related to the geopolitical manipulations against Russia,
which have been sharply criticized by Trump, both as a candidate and as President.
Manafort was first placed under surveillance following a FISA Court order in 2014. FISA, the
super-secret court set up as part of the post-9/11 apparat to spy on potential terrorists,
granted the surveillance order as part of an investigation into alleged illegal lobbying on
behalf of the Yanukovych government of Ukraine by Manafort and others. Note that the timing of
the court order coincided with the 2014 coup in Ukraine. Manafort had been working for several
years as an adviser to the Party of the Regions, which was the party of President Yanukovych,
who was overthrown by the regime change coup.
The original FISA warrant targeting Manafort
was subsequently not renewed, for lack of evidence. A second order, however, was approved by
the FISA Court for surveillance of Manafort sometime during 2016 -- the exact date of the order
has not been released -- likely around the time Manafort took over the reins of the Trump
campaign. Manafort played a key role in holding the Trump coalition together heading into the
Republican convention July 18-21, as Bush-directed "Never-Trumpers" were attempting to steal
the nomination away from him.
Prior to the convention, Manafort was involved in the successful fight to remove
language from the party's platform which called for providing lethal weapons to the Poroshenko
government, allegedly to fight against "Russian subversion." Manafort had the backing of Trump
for this, as Trump had campaigned for an end to U.S. support for regime change wars, such as
the Obama-neocon coup in Ukraine.
Democratic Senator Ben Cardin, a leading campaigner for tougher sanctions against Russia --
he was one of the authors of the initial anti-Russia sanctions, in the Magnitsky Act -- accused
Trump and Manafort of changing the platform to benefit Russia, which he accused of robbing
Ukraine of sovereignty! It is now reported that Manafort's role in changing the language in the
platform is "under investigation" by Mueller!
(Manafort was also instrumental in including a plank supporting restoration of Glass
Steagall banking separation, something vehemently opposed by Wall Street and the City of London
financial institutions.)
It was during this same time period, June and July, once it was evident that, barring some
unforeseen event, Trump would be the Republican nominee, that the anti-Trump activities of the
"Deep State" went into high gear. While the "Never Trumpers" were unsuccessfully plotting to
prevent his nomination at the convention, Christopher Steele began churning out memos, paid for
by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee, which included wild claims about
Putin's secret service filming Trump in compromising sexual activity during the 2013 Miss
Universe contest in Moscow. His first memo was written on June 20, 2016, and he met for the
first time with an FBI official on July 5, 2016.
It was also in June that CIA Director
John Brennan was briefed by GCHQ Director Hannigan, on "evidence" compiled by his agency, of
"suspicious" activity they had picked up on Russian activity with Trump. GCHQ is Britain's
cyber security intelligence agency, which works directly with MI5 and MI6. Brennan then pulled
together an inter-agency task force to investigate the British charges of Russian activity.
Among those in the FBI unit which was part of this task force were the now-famous duo, Peter
Strzok and Lisa Page, whose extensive text messaging shows that they were engaged in creating
the fake narrative of "Russian meddling and Trump collusion". One text spoke of developing the
Russiagate narrative to either defeat Trump in November, or provide an "insurance policy"
against him, if he won.
This incriminating text describes the meeting as taking place in "Andy's office", a
reference to the now-fired Deputy Director of the FBI, Andrew McCabe, who told a Congressional
hearing that there would have been no surveillance warrant issued by the FISA court in October
2016 against Trump campaign volunteer Carter Page, had it not been for the Steele dossier.
Nunes has sent a list of ten questions regarding how the Steele's dossier shaped the
anti-Trump mobilization of Obama's intelligence agencies. Among those receiving the list of ten
questions are James Comey, the former FBI director fired by Trump, Obama's Director of National
Intelligence Clapper, Brennan and Victoria Nuland. They are given until March 2 to answer, or
they will face subpoenas. What Nunes is looking for is answers as to when the Steele dossier
was brought to their attention, by whom, what actions were taken in response to it, its role in
the submission to the FISA Court, and whether President Obama was briefed on what the dossier
contained. They lay the basis for possible indictments against those receiving the questions,
and for Steele. Senators Grassley and Graham have already stated they believe charges should be
filed against Steele, who has thus far been protected by Her Majesty's government, which has
acted to prevent Steele from being brought before a court of law.
STEELE AND THE UKRAINIAN CONNECTION
But Steele's role in shaping U.S. policy predates the setting up of the Get Trump task
force. Both Nunes and Grassley are investigating Steele's connections with the U.S. State
Department, including with the notorious Nuland. They are looking into the role of Jonathan
Winer, a former assistant Secretary of State who served as a long-time aide to former Secretary
of State John Kerry. Winer befriended Steele in 2009, when they were collaborating on
investigations of Russian "corruption".
Beginning in 2013, Steele drafted more than 100
memos on Ukraine and Russia, and passed these on to Winer, who was then a special assistant to
Kerry on Libya, which had been destroyed in a Clinton-Obama regime change operation. Winer
admitted, in an oped in the Washington Post on February 8, 2018, that he passed these on to
Victoria Nuland, who asked that he continue to bring them to her. Note that these were written
at the time of, and the immediate aftermath of the coup in Ukraine. The Washington Post Deep
State conduit, James Rosen, wrote that Nuland found these reports "informative and sometimes
helpful", and asked Winer to keep them coming.
When asked about the Steele memos on Ukraine in an interview with CBS on February 4 --
four days before Winer's oped was published -- Nuland lied, denying that she had used the
Steele memos.
But the Steele-Winer connection continued. In September 2016, Winer met with Steele, who
presented to Winer his anti-Trump dossier. Winer drafted a two-page summary of the dossier,
which he gave to Nuland. She told him to present this to Kerry. Later in the month, Winer met
with Hillary Clinton confidante Sidney Blumenthal, who showed him another specious anti-Trump
dossier, compiled by Clinton operative Cody Shearer. Winer then shared this who Steele, who
then claimed it confirmed the charges he made in his dossier, though coming from different
"sources."
Nunes and Grassley are both investigating the Steele-Winer-Nuland connection to see what
this means as far as Obama administration direct involvement in running the Russiagate
coup. Among those calling for a full criminal investigation into Brennan, Clapper, Comey
and Hillary Clinton, which would reach Obama as well, is former Washington, D.C. U.S. Attorney
Joseph DiGenova, who said it's very likely they could all be indicted.
YET BRITISH HITMAN MUELLER PROCEEDS!
The new indictments against Manafort come from squeezing his former partner, Rick Gates.
Using a prosecutor's set of tools, Mueller went after Gates on his weak flank, the threat to
him and his family of bankruptcy, were he to fight the charges. In entering his guilty plea,
Gates told the court, "Despite my initial desire to vigorously defend myself, I have had a
change of heart. The reality of how long this legal process will likely take, the cost, and the
circus-like atmosphere of an anticipated trial are too much. I will better serve my family
moving forward by exiting this process."
On the new charges against Manafort on money laundering, a well-informed insider said he's
astonished at the lengths to which Mueller is going. He noted the irony that, when Mueller and
Comey were FBI Directors, they never made a criminal case against leading banks which engaged
in billions of dollars in money laundering, much of it proceeds from drug and arms-trafficking.
One of the banks given a repeated pass was the notorious HSBC, which while being fined
repeatedly for money laundering, never faced criminal prosecution. Among those arguing against
criminal charges was the British Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, who said a
criminal proceeding against a "systemically important" bank, such as HSBC, would risk "global
financial disaster." Obama's Attorney General Holder shared this view, as he refused to file
any criminal charges against "Too Big to Fail" banks.
Until his appointment by Obama as Director of the FBI, James Comey served on the Board of
Directors of HSBC!
From this review of the significance of Ukraine in the whole Russiagate process, it becomes
clear that the perversion of justice it represents is surpassed only by the danger which flows
from the anti-Russia theme it serves. Unless there is an intervention to shut down this witch
hunt, as there was to end the hysterical red-baiting charges of the infamous Senator Joseph
McCarthy in the 1950s, the threshold for a possible nuclear confrontation with Russia is being
dramatically reduced. It was Trump's campaign pledge to cooperate with Russia, rather than
prepare for war, which is the reason for the Russiagate fraud.
With the Ukraine tensions heightened by recent developments, full exposure of Steele's dirty
role, and that of his collaborators, has become an essential component of a war-avoidance
strategy.
"... So, you and I don't agree on a lot of issues but I think we share the same concern about this story, and that is that American journalists are being manipulated for whatever reason by the intelligence community in the United States, and I'm wondering why after years of having this happen to American journalists, they are allowing this to happen again. ..."
"... Well, that's the thing I would refrain that a little bit. I don't actually think so much that journalists are the victims in the sense of that formulation that they're being manipulated. I think at best what you can say for them is they are willingly and eagerly being manipulated. ..."
"... Because what you see is over and over they publish really inflammatory stories that turn out to be totally false and what happens in those cases? Nothing. They get enormous benefits when they publish recklessly. They get applause on social media from their peers, they get zillions of re-tweets, huge amounts of traffic, they end up on TV. They get applauded across the spectrum because people are so giddy and eager to hear more about this Russia and Trump story. ..."
Tucker
Carlson interviews Green Greenwald of The Intercept about journalists "willingly" being
taken advantage of by the intelligence community on stories about Russia to reap the benefits,
even when they know what they are publishing is "totally false."
From Tuesday's broadcast of Tucker Carlson Tonight on the FOX News Channel:
TUCKER CARLSON: So, Glenn, just to get to the facts of this story, it is conclusively shown
that the story about the 21 voting systems being hacked is untrue, correct?
GLENN GREENWALD, JOURNALIST: It's false in two ways, one is that several of the states
included in the list, such as Wisconsin, California, and Texas, said that the websites that
the Homeland Security Department cited had nothing to do with voting systems, they are
entirely unrelated.
And it's false in a second way, which is a lot of the stories, in fact, most of them said
that Russia tried to hack into the voting systems when in fact even Homeland Security, it can
only show that what they did was scan those computer systems, which is basically casing
something to say for vulnerabilities and made no attempts to actually hack into them. So, it
was false on various levels.
CARLSON: So, you and I don't agree on a lot of issues but I think we share the same
concern about this story, and that is that American journalists are being manipulated for
whatever reason by the intelligence community in the United States, and I'm wondering why
after years of having this happen to American journalists, they are allowing this to happen
again.
GREENWALD: Well, that's the thing I would refrain that a little bit. I don't actually
think so much that journalists are the victims in the sense of that formulation that they're
being manipulated. I think at best what you can say for them is they are willingly and
eagerly being manipulated.
(LAUGHTER)
Because what you see is over and over they publish really inflammatory stories that turn
out to be totally false and what happens in those cases? Nothing. They get enormous benefits
when they publish recklessly. They get applause on social media from their peers, they get
zillions of re-tweets, huge amounts of traffic, they end up on TV. They get applauded across the spectrum
because people are so giddy and eager to hear more about this Russia and Trump story.
And when their stories get completely debunked, it just kind of, everybody agrees to
ignore it and everyone moves on and they pay no price. At the same time, they are feeling and
pleasing their sources by publishing these sources that their sources want them to publish.
And so, there is huge amounts of career benefits and reputational benefits and very little
cost when they publish stories that end up being debunked because the narrative they are
serving is a popular one, at least within their peer circles.
CARLSON: Gosh! That is so dishonest. I mean, I think all of us and journalism have gotten
things wrong, I certainly have. If you feel bad about it, I mean, you really do and there's a
consequence. Do you really think there's that level of dishonesty in the American press?
GREENWALD: I think what it is more than dishonesty is a really warped incentive scheme
bolstered by this very severe groupthink that social media is fostering in ways that we don't
yet fully understand.
CARLSON: Yes.
GREENWALD: Most journalists these days are in Congressional Committees or at zoning board
meetings or using -- they're sitting on Twitter talking to one another and this produces this
extreme groupthink where these orthodoxies arise in deviating from them or questioning them
or challenging, believe me, results in all kinds of recrimination and scorn. And embracing
them produces this sort of in group mentality where you are rewarded, and I think a lot of it
is about that kind of behavior.
CARLSON: That is really deep. I mean, you live in a foreign country, I'm not on social
media, so maybe we have a little bit of distance from this, where do you think the story is
going? What's the next incarnation of it?
GREENWALD: Well, the odd part about it, and about the inpatients that journalists have in
trying to just jump to the finish line is that there are numerous investigations underway in
the city, including by credible investigators, including Senator Burr and Warner and the
Senate Intelligence Committee, which most people seem to trust and certainly Robert Mueller
who is armed with subpoena power, and everyone is really eager to lavish with praise.
So, we are going to find out presumably one way or the other soon enough. I guess that one
thing that is so odd to me Tucker, is that, this has been going on now for a year, this
accusation that the Trump administration or the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians to
hack the DNC and John Podesta's email and we know that there are huge numbers of people
inside the government who are willing to leak, even at the expense of committing crimes in
order to undermine Trump and yet, there has been no leaks so far showing any evidence of that
kind of collusion leading one to wonder why that is.
So, I hope that everybody is willing to wait until the actual investigation reveals
finally the real answers. But it doesn't seem that will be the case.
CARLSON: Bravery is when you disagree in public with your peers. And by that definition,
you are a very brave man. Glenn Greenwald, thanks for joining us tonight. I appreciate
it.
I had an experience witnessing Mueller at the Metropolitan Club about 25 years ago. My first and only impression was that he
exuded a high level political corruption.
He hasn't changed a bit. His looks come from central casting. Underneath is a dangerous man. He is only now revealing the depths
that he is willing to go to maintain the worst kinds of corruption. He has to be this corrupt to keep himself out of prison for
his role in the Uranium One scandal. As can plainly be seen he is a Javert type in his willingness to go to the end of the plank
- a really ruthless son of a bitch protected by so many ion Washington.
With few exceptions, all of them have dirt on each other. They are preselected based on whether they are blackmailable or not.
How can we know this? By their behavior. These are not stupid people. They know what we know when it comes to the guilt of people
like Hillary. But they refuse to act because the smell in their closet reeks of little boy's underwear.
I keep seeing all these stupid articles. The answer is simple. .... The rule of law is dead...Our ruling class does what they
want. Who is going after any of them?. ... Nobody...Well why not? Because too many people know where all the bodies are buried.
There is enough "dirt" on people to do 2000 long length movies (greater than 3 hours) about all the scandalous materials. No one
wants to stick their nose out because they will get what Seth got - a bullet in the back...
From the book Shattered: Russian hacking was the excuse Pizzaboy Podesta and
Robby Mook came up with to paper over their rank incompetence in losing to a
blowhard like Trump
So this pro-Hillary bastion of Neoliberal innuentndo -- Guardian -- does not not like Hicks.
As onecommneter noted " The poisonous Guardian which is so toxic I would advise folks not to use
it even as an ass wipe, did not allow comments as is their custom now."
Source
What is despicable pressitute is this guy: "The Washington Post has
found that "members of the Trump campaign interacted with Russians at least 31 times
throughout the campaign" in "at least 19 known meetings"."
Hicks, 29, had the high-pressure job last summer of
crafting , with the president, an explanation for his son Donald Trump Jr's secret
meeting with Russians at Trump Tower in New York in 2016 – an explanation later
revealed as false. More recently, Hicks was said to have run the botched White House response
to domestic abuse allegations
against former aide Rob Porter, with whom she has been linked romantically.
... ... ...
Hicks aggressively defended the president-elect and his team against charges of
inappropriate ties to Russian figures.
"The campaign had no contact with Russian officials," she said. Two days after the
election, she said: "We are not aware of any campaign representatives that were in touch with
any foreign entities before yesterday, when Mr Trump spoke with many world leaders."
The Washington Post has
found that "members of the Trump campaign interacted with Russians at least 31 times
throughout the campaign" in "at least 19 known meetings".
Discrepancies such as those have perhaps accelerated Hicks' political education. On
Tuesday, the House intelligence committee questioned her for close to nine hours about the
campaign's Russia ties.
Hicks refused to answer some of the most sensitive questions, including about the
explanation for Trump Jr's meeting with Russians, according to House Democrat Adam
Schiff.
But Hicks was said to have made one concession, admitting to having told, on an
unspecified number of occasions, certain "white lies" on the president's behalf.
In the darkest days of World War II, Hollywood went to bat for Russia -- our ally then -- by
adapting Soviet propaganda films for the American audience and making some of its own on their
behalf. This amazing documentary, a paean to the heroism of the Russian people and the Red
Army, was shot before, during, and after Hitler's siege of Moscow. Filmed between October 1941
and January 1942 during a time of invasion, privation, agony and death in the depths of the
Russian winter, Moscow Strikes Back (Russian version
here ) may be a
little hard to take in spots, but is well worth an hour of your time. Should the following
video start in the middle, rewind by dragging the red button all the way to the left. Makes me
think: wouldn't it be nice to be able to rewind America away from the right?
... ... ...
Hollywood's famous tough guy (also fine art collector and philanthropist)
Edward G. Robinson narrates over a sound track featuring spirited scores by Russian composers.
Directed by Leonid Varlamov and Ilya Kopalin, it won the 1942 Academy Award for Best
Documentary. Then, as soon as the war ended, along with thousands of government and private
employees, Hollywood directors and screenwriters were purged for suspect loyalties. Robinson was among
those who paid a steep price's for their idealism and activism.
Now fascism is back in fashion. Who has the temerity advocate for Russian-American
solidarity, given that Russia is once again on our rulers' shit list and World War III wish
list? We aren't allowed to say good things about it or even that our countries once worked
together, however mistrustfully. Thanks to several generations of hawkish propagandists, few of
our countrymen remember or appreciate what the Russian people suffered in that war and how
thankful they were for the goods the US shipped to them that helped them struggle through it,
but it was their own fortitude that won the day. That and a regime that took civil defense
seriously and directed the public's efforts.
As Nazi forces encircled Moscow, Marshal Zhukov mobilized Moscow's women to fortify the
city. According to the WWII Multimedia Database , the women had to
slog and dig through freezing muck to excavate their redoubts. With little more than shovels
and wheelbarrows, they "emplaced or dug 201 miles (323.4 kilometers) of anti-tank obstacles and
ditches, 158 miles (254.2 kilometers) of anti-infantry obstacles, and laid minefields. 3,800
prepared bunkers and fire bases were built. 37,500 metal 'hedgehogs' were set up to stop
vehicles." I hope they at least got medals.
Could today's Americans match Russia's Greatest Generation or even our own? Take it on the
chin and go on to collectively mobilize ourselves to prevail? We have sufficient tools and
wealth, but have we enough will and leadership? Anesthetized by the H-Bomb, our government let
preparedness and civil defense institutions wither. Lacking action plans for what to do in an
extreme emergency, we're apparently expected to tough it out (use firearms responsibly and no
looting, please). Of course, the government stocks bunkers for top officials and members of
Congress, and our moneyed elites will repair to their hideaways and lock the gates at the first
sign of mortal danger. Those of us who aren't armed preppers will go first. As civil society
collapses, militias will battle over whatever resources are left. And then, depopulated,
America will be great again.
But I digress. Back to Eddy Robinson's
politics . In 1952, HUAC (the House Un-American Activities Committee) plunged into ignominy
Edward Goldenberg Robinson for being duped by fifth-columnists into assailing fascism and
advocating peace and cooperation among the great powers. The anti-fascist Jewish Romanian
immigrant film star had served in two world wars. Fluent in six languages, he narrated Allied
propaganda broadcasts for which the American Legion honored him. His anti-fascist bona fides,
left-wing Hollywood connections, and support and advocacy for several hundred civic, cultural,
philanthropic, and political organizations only served to target him as postwar red-baiting and
housecleaning proceeded apace.
On April 30, 1952, Robinson sat before HUAC for the third time. He hadn't been subpoenaed;
just harassed until he decided the time had come to clear his name. Through 20
pages of testimony (plaintext here ),
he states his opposition to communism over and over:
My conscience is clear. My loyalty to this Nation I know to be absolute. No one has ever
been willing to confront me under oath free from immunity and unequivocally charge me with
membership in the Communist Party or any other subversive organization. No one can honestly
do so. I now realize that some organizations which I permitted to use my name were, in fact,
Communist fronts. But their ostensible purposes were good, and it was for such purposes that
I allowed use of my name and even made numerous financial contributions. The hidden purposes
of the Communists, in such groups, was not known to me. Had I known the truth, I would not
have associated with such persons, although I would have and intend to continue to help to
the extent of my ability in worth-while causes, honestly calculated to help underprivileged
or oppressed people, including those oppressed by Communist tyranny.
Robinson closed his prepared testimony by saying:
Anyone who understands the history of the political activity in Hollywood will appreciate
the fact that innocent, sincere persons were used by the Communists to whom honesty and
sincerity are as foreign as the Soviet Union is to America. I was duped and used. I was lied
to. But, I repeat, I acted from good motives, and I have never knowingly aided Communists or
any Communist cause.
I wish to thank the committee for this opportunity to appear and clarify my position. I
have been slow to realize that persons I thought sincere were Communists. I am glad, for the
sake of myself and the Nation, that they have been exposed by your committee.
While you have been, exposing Communists, I have been fighting them and their ideology in
my own way. I just finished appearing in close to 250 performances of "Darkness at Noon" all
over the country. It is, perhaps, the strongest indictment of communism ever presented. I am
sure it had a profound and lasting effect on all who saw it.
During questioning, he doubled down on his anti-communism:
To me, communism is abhorrent. Certainly I supported Russia during the war but, as an
ally, and no more than as an ally. What I did for Russia was relatively negligible, compared
to what I did for our other allies.
Upon being pressed, he named film industry colleagues he had come to believe were
communists: Albert Maltz; Dalton Trumbo; John Howard Lawson; Donald Ogden Stewart. This of
course was not news to anyone, but as he had "named names," the witch-hunters refrained from
branding him with the Red Star label. But when Robinson asked members of the committee why they
shouldn't certify him as a loyal American, the best he could get was Rep. Morgan Molder (R-MO)
telling him:
Mr. [Donald L.] Jackson [R-CA16] has made the statement that this committee is not in a
position to exonerate or to vindicate any person who has been wrongfully accused of being a
Communist or who has been smeared as a result of such false accusations. I will agree with
him to a certain extent. However, I believe that when, as a result of any proceedings or
functions of this committee, someone has been unjustly smeared or injured it is our duty to
aid that person and give that person an opportunity to appear before the committee to explain
and defend himself as you have done.
In other words, he was potentially guilty until proven innocent, which the committee refused
to do. Instead, they treated him like a student in a dunce cap scratching out "I will not be a
commie dupe" over and over. His penitence extended to publishing "How the Reds Made a Sucker
Out of Me," in American Legion Magazine (October 1952), paraphrased in 2011 by USC historian
Steven J. Ross:
Robinson told readers that while he had "never paid much attention to communism in the
past," he now knew how they went about duping loyal Americans. "They do not reveal themselves
as communists," but pose "as fine American citizens who are for 'peace,' or 'decent working
conditions,' or 'against intolerance.' " These were lies; their real aim was "world domination,
oppression, and slavery for the working people and the minorities they profess to love." The
contrite actor ended by swearing, "I am not a communist, I have never been, I never will be
– I am an American ."
It must have been soul-crushing for someone so allergic to fascism to prostrate himself
before that jingoist tribunal. Thank Mother of Mercy, that wasn't the end of Rico . Robinson
returned to the stage for several years and then went on to act in more than 40 films. Somehow
befittingly, his last role came in the cult classic b-movie Soylent Green ( 1973 ). He died soon after in Mount Sinai
Hospital and was buried in Brooklyn. He was 79.
In that article,
Little Caesar and the McCarthyist Mob , Ross observes, "The internationalist pronouncements
of Robinson and other Hollywood activists soon came to haunt them as HUAC began portraying
anti-fascists as the allies of Communists bent on destroying America." And so it is today as
anti-Russia hysteria paves the way to a fascist-style America-first militarism, cheered on by
compliant corporate media and political opportunists from both sides of the aisle. Whoever
objects to the gathering storm is apt to be fingered as soft on Putin and entered into watch
lists.
Meanwhile, the corporate takeover of the Federal Government and more than several states is
nearly a fait accompli . Our elections are rigged, not by Russian trolls but minions
of the GOP. The First Family mixes governing with business and pleasure and the Bozo-in-Chief
can't get his wealth-addled mind around anything for more than a New York minute. Generals and
billionaires have been placed in charge of arming and corrupting the republic, respectively.
Democrats won't take on the Electoral College or Republican stratagems to rig elections, even
though reforms would be win-win for them.
We're going down folks, and if Edward G. were around and still in the game he would
understand where we're heading. The old anti-fascist would be plunging right in to keep America
safe for democracy. Since he can't, I reckon we've got to.
Bonus Feature
Another pro-Soviet propaganda production from 1942, this one all-American, is Miss V from Moscow .
Directed by Albert Herman and starring Lola Lane and Noel Madison, it is regarded as one of the
cheesiest spy films ever to grace the silver screen. Lane plays Vera Marova, an untrained
Soviet spy apparently fluent in German, French, and English. She slips into occupied France
pretending to be a dead German spy whom she closely resembles. In an absurd sequence of
implausible events, she and Steve Worth, a downed American airman, hook up and collaborate with
Free French partisans in Paris. After she romances a Gestapo Captain and worms war plans from
him, they send secret radio messages to Moscow from the back room of a bistro that enable
American convoys bound for Russia to elude German submarines. As the film ends, instead of
having Vera and her plucky American comrade Steve romantically embrace (that would be a bit too
much bilateral solidarity) we get to cheer on American supply ships steaming through the Baltic
to deliver the goods.
Geoff Dutton is an ex-geek turned writer and editor. He hails from Boston and writes
about whatever distortions of reality strike his fancy. Currently, he's pedaling a novel
chronicling the lives and times of members of a cell of terrorists in Europe, completing a
collection of essays on high technology delusions, and can be found barking at
progressivepilgrim.review.
"... Sheldon Richman , author of America's Counter-Revolution: The Constitution Revisited , keeps the blog Free Association and is a senior fellow and chair of the trustees of the Center for a Stateless Society , and a contributing editor at Antiwar.com . He is also the Executive Editor of The Libertarian Institute. ..."
Closely observing the grammar of the Official Russiagate Narrative is revealing and
instructive. It provides clues to the (language-)game being played.
Consider what I call the insidious article, the . In the public prints and official
pronouncements, it's not enough to say Russians tried to muck around in the American
election. It's almost always the Russians . This is a subtle way to convey the idea
that Vladimir Putin and his intel agencies were responsible. If a
second-tier Russian oligarch who wishes to help Putin hires, on his own initiative, "a
bunch of subliterate-in-English trolls," in
Masha Gessen's words, and pays them the minimum wage to (again Gessen) "post[] mostly
static and sort of absurd advertising," that is treated as the equivalent of Putin's executing
a plan to destroy the American political system.
There's a big difference between Russians and the Russians , even if the
grammar seems inconsequential.
Then there's the similar case of synecdoche , "a figure of speech in which a part
is made to represent the whole or vice versa." This is one of the few things I learned in
college that I actually remember. (Thank you Mark Isaacs, professor of journalism at Temple
University, who also introduced me to the work of H. L. Mencken.)
When you read in the newspaper or hear it said on CNN that Russia or
Moscow or the Kremlin did such and such, you should call out, "Who exactly?"
Countries, cities, and citadels cannot act. Only individuals do. Moreover, there's a big
difference between the GRU (Glavnoje Razvedyvatel'noje Upravlenije) and the IRA (Internet
Research Institute), between Vladimir Putin and Yevgeny Prigozhin. But their acts are equally
attributed to Russia . St. Petersburg (where the IRA is located) even becomes
subsumed by Moscow . The Kremlin could refer to someone directly ordered by
Putin or a rogue actor. But those distinctions are of little interest to those formulating or
promulgating the Official Narrative.
Finally, let's turn to the word alleged . I can't stress how important this word
figured in my journalism training in the 1960s and 70s, both in school and on the job. It was
drilled into me by teachers and editors that an allegation is just an allegation until it is
confirmed. And to drive this home, my teachers' favorite line was, "If your mother says she
loves you, check it out."
Alleged was the obligatory qualifier before murderer , thief,
rapist , kidnapper , etc. -- until the suspect was convicted or his guilty plea
was accepted by a judge. We'd never dream of not using it before that point. News
organization were of course protecting themselves from libel actions, but it was more than
that, namely, fairness and acknowledgment of the presumption of innocent/burden of proof. Even
an initial confession was not proof of guilt: people sometimes confess to offenses they did not
commit, and sometimes people think their actions are illegal when they are not.
At least one young newsman either learned the lesson about alleged too well or
thought it would be fun to mock the obsession with the word. Don Folsom, a rookie Buffalo, NY,
radio newscaster in the 1960s began
his Easter morning report thus: "Today millions of Christians around the world are
celebrating the alleged resurrection of Jesus Christ." He was fired.
The word alleged seems almost completely lacking in the Russiagate conversation.
The New York Times and other major news outlets have many times referred merely to
"Russian interference in the 2016 election." No alleged ? Have those reporters
actually seen the evidence the general public has been denied? If so, they haven't said
informed us of that fact. Remember, the infamous January 2017 National Intelligence Assessment
contained no evidence, as the same Times explicitly acknowledged at the time. In his
Jan. 6, 2017, article, "Russian Intervention in American Election Was No One-Off,"
Times reporter Scott Shane wrote
:
What is missing from the public report is what many Americans most eagerly anticipated:
hard evidence to back up the agencies' claims that the Russian government engineered the
election attack. This is a significant omission .
Instead, the message from the agencies amounts to "trust us."
I thought reporters weren't supposed to trust even their own mothers! Why are they trusting
the lying James Clapper's "handpicked" intel personnel who made this assessment? Do they not
remember the Big Lie about Iraqi WMDs, not to mention the entire lying history of the U.S.
intel complex?
The Times and the other major news companies have forgotten what Shane reported
more than a year ago: that the government has not disclosed the evidence again Putin and
the Russians . If you think the indictment of 13 Russians patched up this hole, reread
this column. Note also that the IRA is not charged with hacking the DNC and Podesta email
accounts and giving the authentic contents to Wikileaks, which is how the big fuss got
started.
So there you go. I can only conclude that the mainstream media were so traumatized by
Trump's win (a traumatizing event, to be sure) and by Hillary Clinton's loss (not so much) that
they have dropped the grammar of detached reporting and embraced the grammar of those who seek
confrontation with Russia.
Leaked: Secret Documents From Russia's Election Trolls
An online auction gone awry reveals substantial new details on Kremlin-backed troll farm efforts to stir up real protests and
target specific Americans to push their propaganda.
The Kremlin-backed troll farm at the center of Russia's interference in the 2016 U.S. election has quietly suffered a catastrophic
security breach, The Daily Beast has confirmed, in a leak that spilled new details of its operations onto obscure corners of the
internet.
The Russian "information exchange" Joker.Buzz, which auctions off often stolen or confidential information, advertised a leak
for a large cache of the
Internet Research Agency's (IRA) internal documents. It includes names of Americans, activists in particular, whom the organization
specifically targeted; American-based proxies used to
access Reddit
and the viral meme site 9Gag; and login information for troll farm accounts.
Even the advertisement for the document dump provides a trove of previously unknown information about the breadth of Russia's
disinformation effort in the United States, including rallies pushed by IRA social media accounts that turned violent.
While special counsel Robert Mueller's recent
conspiracy
indictment against the IRA showed a sophisticated organization aimed at targeting U.S. voters with disinformation, the seller
appears not to have understood the implications of the auction.
The listing was titled "
Savushkina 55
," the physical address in St. Petersburg from which the troll farm used to operate. The date on the auction is listed as
Feb. 10, 2017 -- seven months before Facebook and Twitter identified and pulled down Internet Research Agency accounts from Twitter.
It received no bids. The seller, "AlexDA," has not posted any other listings, and was unable to be reached. In Russian, the listing
promised "working data from the department focused on the United States."
"The leaks show that Russian imposter accounts targeted activists for specific causes the Kremlin-backed troll farm wanted
promoted. On the target list: the daughter of one of Martin Luther King's lieutenants."
While the date of the auction could not be independently confirmed, the authenticity of the leak can. The leaked documents
list screen names connected to a number of American citizens who were used as unwitting proxies by the Russians. The Daily Beast
was able to track down four of those citizens, whose names have not been previously revealed. The leak contains precise dates
in 2016 in which the IRA-created account Blacktivist reached out to those U.S. citizens, plus a short description of the conversations.
The Daily Beast spoke to those citizens, and confirmed they interacted with the Blacktivist account in the ways described by the
IRA in the document. In one case, the American even provided screenshots of his interactions with the Russian troll trying to
dupe him.
In short, the leaked document contains details of the Russian disinformation campaign that have not been previously made public
-- details which The Daily Beast was able to confirm. .....
"... So, you and I don't agree on a lot of issues but I think we share the same concern about this story, and that is that American journalists are being manipulated for whatever reason by the intelligence community in the United States, and I'm wondering why after years of having this happen to American journalists, they are allowing this to happen again. ..."
"... Well, that's the thing I would refrain that a little bit. I don't actually think so much that journalists are the victims in the sense of that formulation that they're being manipulated. I think at best what you can say for them is they are willingly and eagerly being manipulated. ..."
"... Because what you see is over and over they publish really inflammatory stories that turn out to be totally false and what happens in those cases? Nothing. They get enormous benefits when they publish recklessly. They get applause on social media from their peers, they get zillions of re-tweets, huge amounts of traffic, they end up on TV. They get applauded across the spectrum because people are so giddy and eager to hear more about this Russia and Trump story. ..."
Tucker
Carlson interviews Green Greenwald of The Intercept about journalists "willingly" being
taken advantage of by the intelligence community on stories about Russia to reap the benefits,
even when they know what they are publishing is "totally false."
From Tuesday's broadcast of Tucker Carlson Tonight on the FOX News Channel:
TUCKER CARLSON: So, Glenn, just to get to the facts of this story, it is conclusively shown
that the story about the 21 voting systems being hacked is untrue, correct?
GLENN GREENWALD, JOURNALIST: It's false in two ways, one is that several of the states
included in the list, such as Wisconsin, California, and Texas, said that the websites that
the Homeland Security Department cited had nothing to do with voting systems, they are
entirely unrelated.
And it's false in a second way, which is a lot of the stories, in fact, most of them said
that Russia tried to hack into the voting systems when in fact even Homeland Security, it can
only show that what they did was scan those computer systems, which is basically casing
something to say for vulnerabilities and made no attempts to actually hack into them. So, it
was false on various levels.
CARLSON: So, you and I don't agree on a lot of issues but I think we share the same
concern about this story, and that is that American journalists are being manipulated for
whatever reason by the intelligence community in the United States, and I'm wondering why
after years of having this happen to American journalists, they are allowing this to happen
again.
GREENWALD: Well, that's the thing I would refrain that a little bit. I don't actually
think so much that journalists are the victims in the sense of that formulation that they're
being manipulated. I think at best what you can say for them is they are willingly and
eagerly being manipulated.
(LAUGHTER)
Because what you see is over and over they publish really inflammatory stories that turn
out to be totally false and what happens in those cases? Nothing. They get enormous benefits
when they publish recklessly. They get applause on social media from their peers, they get
zillions of re-tweets, huge amounts of traffic, they end up on TV. They get applauded across the spectrum
because people are so giddy and eager to hear more about this Russia and Trump story.
And when their stories get completely debunked, it just kind of, everybody agrees to
ignore it and everyone moves on and they pay no price. At the same time, they are feeling and
pleasing their sources by publishing these sources that their sources want them to publish.
And so, there is huge amounts of career benefits and reputational benefits and very little
cost when they publish stories that end up being debunked because the narrative they are
serving is a popular one, at least within their peer circles.
CARLSON: Gosh! That is so dishonest. I mean, I think all of us and journalism have gotten
things wrong, I certainly have. If you feel bad about it, I mean, you really do and there's a
consequence. Do you really think there's that level of dishonesty in the American press?
GREENWALD: I think what it is more than dishonesty is a really warped incentive scheme
bolstered by this very severe groupthink that social media is fostering in ways that we don't
yet fully understand.
CARLSON: Yes.
GREENWALD: Most journalists these days are in Congressional Committees or at zoning board
meetings or using -- they're sitting on Twitter talking to one another and this produces this
extreme groupthink where these orthodoxies arise in deviating from them or questioning them
or challenging, believe me, results in all kinds of recrimination and scorn. And embracing
them produces this sort of in group mentality where you are rewarded, and I think a lot of it
is about that kind of behavior.
CARLSON: That is really deep. I mean, you live in a foreign country, I'm not on social
media, so maybe we have a little bit of distance from this, where do you think the story is
going? What's the next incarnation of it?
GREENWALD: Well, the odd part about it, and about the inpatients that journalists have in
trying to just jump to the finish line is that there are numerous investigations underway in
the city, including by credible investigators, including Senator Burr and Warner and the
Senate Intelligence Committee, which most people seem to trust and certainly Robert Mueller
who is armed with subpoena power, and everyone is really eager to lavish with praise.
So, we are going to find out presumably one way or the other soon enough. I guess that one
thing that is so odd to me Tucker, is that, this has been going on now for a year, this
accusation that the Trump administration or the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians to
hack the DNC and John Podesta's email and we know that there are huge numbers of people
inside the government who are willing to leak, even at the expense of committing crimes in
order to undermine Trump and yet, there has been no leaks so far showing any evidence of that
kind of collusion leading one to wonder why that is.
So, I hope that everybody is willing to wait until the actual investigation reveals
finally the real answers. But it doesn't seem that will be the case.
CARLSON: Bravery is when you disagree in public with your peers. And by that definition,
you are a very brave man. Glenn Greenwald, thanks for joining us tonight. I appreciate
it.
"... he Dems disgust me with their neo-McCarthyism and the Repubs disgust me because of the way they are playing out their hand right now as well. Games within corrupt games, and yet normal behavior especially in waning empires (or other types of polities, including powerful int'l corporations). ..."
"... Chapter 14 of Guns, Germs and Steel is titled "From Egalitarianism to Kleptocracy" and it used to be available online but my old link is dead and I couldn't find a new one. But a basic definition should suffice: "Kleptocracy, alternatively cleptocracy or kleptarchy, is a form of political and government corruption where the government exists to increase the personal wealth and political power of its officials and the ruling class at the expense of the wider population, often without pretense of honest service." I have no idea how one turns this around and I doubt it's even possible. ..."
"... The Real Reason Establishment Frauds Hate Trump and Obsess About Russia https://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2018/02/20/the-real-reason-establishment-frauds-hate-trump-and-obsess-about-russia/ ..."
"... Blaming Russia for all the nation's problems serves several key purposes for various defenders of the status quo. For discredited neocons and neoliberals who never met a failed war based on lies they didn't support, it provides an opportunity to rehabilitate their torched reputations by masquerading as fierce patriots against the latest existential enemy. Similarly, for those who lived in denial about who Obama really was for eight years, latching on to the Russia narrative allows them to reassure themselves that everything really was fine before Trump and Russia came along and ruined the party. ..."
"... he doesn't provide the same feel good quality to empire that Obama did. He's simply not the warm and fuzzy salesman for oligarchy and empire Obama was, thus his inability to sugarcoat state-sanctioned murder forces a lot of people to confront the uncomfortable hypocrisies in our society that many would prefer not to admit. ..."
"... I can't stand Kushner's smirky face and got a good chuckle from this prince's fall as I am not a fan of his passion for Israel. But I don't think he's a stupid idiot either. He's probably very smart in business, but he seems to have no feel for politics. Trump is much better at it than Kushner. Of course they are going after Kushner as a way to attack and disadvantage Trump. Politics is a form of warfare after all. ..."
"... My take is that Trump survives but mostly contained by the Borg ..."
jsn @16 & 40, in complete agreement with you. Great comments! T he Dems disgust me
with their neo-McCarthyism and the Repubs disgust me because of the way they are playing out
their hand right now as well. Games within corrupt games, and yet normal behavior especially
in waning empires (or other types of polities, including powerful int'l corporations).
Chapter 14 of Guns, Germs and Steel is titled "From Egalitarianism to Kleptocracy" and
it used to be available online but my old link is dead and I couldn't find a new one. But a
basic definition should suffice: "Kleptocracy, alternatively cleptocracy or kleptarchy, is a
form of political and government corruption where the government exists to increase the
personal wealth and political power of its officials and the ruling class at the expense of
the wider population, often without pretense of honest service." I have no idea how one turns
this around and I doubt it's even possible.
Back when I used to subscribe to STRATFOR, founder George Friedman always made a point of
evaluating the elites of whatever country he was analyzing and how they operated amongst
themselves and relative to the people and how effective they were or were not in governing a
country. But he never did that for the US. I would have paid extra for that report! But of
course he could not stay in business if he did such a thing as those people are his
clients.
I think Mike Krieger over at Liberty Blitzkrieg nails it from another perspective with
this post:
Blaming Russia for all the nation's problems serves several key purposes for various
defenders of the status quo. For discredited neocons and neoliberals who never met a failed
war based on lies they didn't support, it provides an opportunity to rehabilitate their
torched reputations by masquerading as fierce patriots against the latest existential enemy.
Similarly, for those who lived in denial about who Obama really was for eight years, latching
on to the Russia narrative allows them to reassure themselves that everything really was fine
before Trump and Russia came along and ruined the party.
By throwing every problem in Putin's lap, the entrenched bipartisan status quo can tell
themselves (and everybody else) that it wasn't really them and their policies that voters
rejected in 2016, rather, the American public was tricked by cunning, nefarious Russians.
Ridiculous for sure, but never underestimate the instinctive human desire to deny
accountability for one's own failures. It's always easier to blame than to accept
responsibility.
That said, there's a much bigger game afoot beyond the motivations of individuals looking
to save face. The main reason much of the highest echelons of American power are united
against Trump has nothing to do with his actual policies. Instead, they're terrified that --
unlike Obama -- he's a really bad salesman for empire. This sort of Presidential instability
threatens the continuance of their well oiled and exceedingly corrupt gravy train. Hillary
Clinton was a sure thing, Donald Trump remains an unpredictable wildcard.
... Obama said all the right things while methodically doing the bidding of oligarchy. He
captured the imagination of millions, if not billions, around the world with his soaring
rhetoric, yet rarely skipped a beat when it came to the advancement of imperial policies. He
made bailing out Wall Street, droning civilians and cracking down on journalists seem
progressive. He said one thing, did another, and people ate it up. This is an extraordinarily
valuable quality when it comes to a vicious and unelected deep state that wants to keep a
corrupt empire together.
Trump has the exact opposite effect. Sure, he also frequently says one thing and then does
another, but he doesn't provide the same feel good quality to empire that Obama did. He's
simply not the warm and fuzzy salesman for oligarchy and empire Obama was, thus his inability
to sugarcoat state-sanctioned murder forces a lot of people to confront the uncomfortable
hypocrisies in our society that many would prefer not to admit.
------------
I can't stand Kushner's smirky face and got a good chuckle from this prince's fall as
I am not a fan of his passion for Israel. But I don't think he's a stupid idiot either. He's
probably very smart in business, but he seems to have no feel for politics. Trump is much
better at it than Kushner. Of course they are going after Kushner as a way to attack and
disadvantage Trump. Politics is a form of warfare after all.
My take is that Trump survives but mostly contained by the Borg
But Trump himself was quickly neutered (in just three month) and now does not represents
"Trumpism" (rejection of neoliberal globalization, unrestricted immigration for suppression of
wages, rejection of elimination of jobs via outsourcing and offshoring of manufacturing,
rejection of wars for enlargement and sustaining of neoliberal empire, especially NATO role as
global policemen and wars for Washington client Israel in Middle east, detente with Russia etc)
in any meaningful way. He is just an aging Narcissist in power.
Looks like Trump became a variant of Hillary minus sex change operation.
Notable quotes:
"... He supports same sex relations and marriage of the same. ..."
"... He is by nature a situational leader -- not typically a conservatives methodology of leadership ..."
"... . He mistakes support and loyalty for agreement. ..."
"... He seems too weak to stand his ground on key issues. Syria, (missile attack) ..."
"... His willingness to ignore -- Israel-US problematic relationship. ..."
"... I am leary of anyone who says tough things about immigration, but quietly backpedals or openly does the same -- DACA. ..."
it's easy to come away from CPAC energy and enthusiasm thinking your headline is an accurate
description of what is happening in the GOP. I am more conservative thankfully in my views
than most members at CPAC. And while I may not be the typical voter. I can say categorically,
that :trumoing" is not in my blood. Let's look what a consevative had to consider when
evaluating Pres Trump:
3. He supports same sex relations and marriage of the same.
... ... ...
5. He is by nature a situational leader -- not typically a conservatives methodology
of leadership
... ... ...
8 . He mistakes support and loyalty for agreement.
9. He seems too weak to stand his ground on key issues. Syria, (missile
attack)
10. His willingness to ignore -- Israel-US problematic relationship.
11. He thinks that Keynesian policy is a substitute for economic growth. monetary
policy.
12. I am leary of anyone who says tough things about immigration, but quietly
backpedals or openly does the same -- DACA.
"Note about Miss Mona Charin: the two agree on so many points on foreign policy, especially
Israel, it's hard to see her disdain. I think she rejects his troublesome demeanor and attitude.
Presidential decorum is a big deal to many."
Notable quotes:
"... The sixty plus millions of people who voted Trump are politically diverse. They have one thing in common. They were not persuaded by the loud, continuous and shameless lying of the corporate media. Rather they were motivated by it. ..."
Now his other supporters might say, considered against all the other candidates -- he's
better. Hmmmm, well, that's why I voted for him.
Thank you. My bullet points would differ from yours but in the end I also voted for Trump.
The sixty plus millions of people who voted Trump are politically diverse. They have one
thing in common. They were not persuaded by the loud, continuous and shameless lying of the
corporate media. Rather they were motivated by it.
The deplorables, having found one another, need to hang together until we find real
leadership. Trump, whatever he is, is not a leader.
"... Based on historical evidence, to believe that Trump (with his party - Republican control of House and Senate) will change our course is naive. By contrast, Obama D had both houses also - we got WAR, cash for clunkers, foreclosures, bank bailouts and health care by AHIP with runaway costs. ..."
In fifty years, very little has been done by US Federal Government which benefits the common citizen. A great deal has been done
to facilitate the degradation of the common citizen by the global one percent. We have a new world order as called for by GHW
Bush.
Based on historical evidence, to believe that Trump (with his party - Republican control of House and Senate) will change
our course is naive. By contrast, Obama D had both houses also - we got WAR, cash for clunkers, foreclosures, bank bailouts and
health care by AHIP with runaway costs.
Trump is and has been carrying out his own policies to enrich those that already have everything and to repeal any regulations
that were put into place to protect the people. Have you not noticed that he lined his cabinet with Goldman Sachs (which he blasted
HRC for associating her self with.
Like I said he and his gang are doing what they want to help enrich themselves on the backs of the rest of us. Wake up and
quit upholding these lying pieces of excrement they are no different than the ones before them.
Trump is a dirty businessman the things that he is doing are to benefit him and his family and to screw the rest of us and
tell us how great it is for us. You my man have drank from the Trump cup and think that anything that speaks against him is "fake
news" when in reality Trump and the likes of Breitbart are the "fake news" a little truth but a bunch of spin
At the core of Trumpism is the rejection of neoliberalism
Pat Buchanan does not understand neoliberalism well and mixes apples with oranges, but the key idea expressed here stands: " Consider
this crazed ideology of free trade globalism with its roots in the scribblings of 19th-century idiot savants, not one of whom ever built
a great nation. Adhering religiously to free trade dogma, we have run up $12 trillion in trade deficits since Bush I. Our cities have
been gutted by the loss of plants and factories. Workers' wages have stagnated. The economic independence Hamilton sought and Republican
presidents from Lincoln to McKinley achieved is history."
Notable quotes:
"... Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, "Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever." ..."
"I walk through this world with greater courage and hope when I find myself in a relation of friendship and intimacy with this
great man, whose fame has gone out not only over all Russia, but the world. We regard Marshal Stalin's life as most precious to the
hopes and hearts of all of us."
Returning home, Churchill assured a skeptical Parliament, "I know of no Government which stands to its obligations, even in its
own despite, more solidly than the Russian Soviet Government."
George W. Bush, with the U.S. establishment united behind him, invaded Iraq with the goal of creating a Vermont in the Middle
East that would be a beacon of democracy to the Arab and Islamic world.
Ex-Director of the NSA Gen. William Odom correctly called the U.S. invasion the greatest strategic blunder in American history.
But Bush, un-chastened, went on to preach a crusade for democracy with the goal of "ending tyranny in our world."
... ... ...
After our victory in the Cold War, we not only plunged into the Middle East to remake it in our image, we issued war guarantees
to every ex-member state of the Warsaw Pact, and threatened Russia with war if she ever intervened again in the Baltic Republics.
No Cold War president would have dreamed of issuing such an in-your-face challenge to a great nuclear power like Russia. If Putin's
Russia does not become the pacifist nation it has never been, these guarantees will one day be called. And America will either back
down -- or face a nuclear confrontation. Why would we risk something like this?
Consider this crazed ideology of free trade globalism with its roots in the scribblings of 19th-century idiot savants, not one
of whom ever built a great nation. Adhering religiously to free trade dogma, we have run up $12 trillion in trade deficits since
Bush I. Our cities have been gutted by the loss of plants and factories. Workers' wages have stagnated. The economic independence
Hamilton sought and Republican presidents from Lincoln to McKinley achieved is history.
But the greatest risk we are taking, based on utopianism, is the annual importation of well over a million legal and illegal immigrants,
many from the failed states of the Third World, in the belief we can create a united, peaceful and harmonious land of 400 million,
composed of every race, religion, ethnicity, tribe, creed, culture and language on earth.
Where is the historic evidence for the success of this experiment, the failure of which could mean the end of America as one nation
and one people?
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, "Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and
Divided America Forever."
Pat Buchanan does not understand neoliberalism well and mixes apples with oranges, but the key idea expressed here stands:
" Consider this crazed ideology of free trade globalism with its roots in the scribblings of 19th-century idiot savants,
not one of whom ever built a great nation. Adhering religiously to free trade dogma, we have run up $12 trillion in trade deficits
since Bush I. Our cities have been gutted by the loss of plants and factories. Workers' wages have stagnated. The economic
independence Hamilton sought and Republican presidents from Lincoln to McKinley achieved is history."
The truth is that now Trump does not represent "Trumpism" -- the movement that he created which includes the following:
– rejection of neoliberal globalization;
– rejection of unrestricted immigration;
– fight against suppression of wages by multinationals via cheap imported labor;
– fight against the elimination of meaningful, well-paying jobs via outsourcing and offshoring of manufacturing;
– rejection of wars for enlargement and sustaining of neoliberal empire, especially NATO role as global policemen and wars for
Washington client Israel in the Middle East;
– détente with Russia;
– more pragmatic relations with Israel and suppression of Israeli agents of influence;
– revision of relations with China and addressing the problem of trade deficit.
– rejection of total surveillance on all citizens;
– the cut of military expenses to one third or less of the current level and concentrating on revival on national infrastructure,
education, and science.
– abandonment of maintenance of the "sole superpower" status and global neoliberal empire for more practical and less costly "semi-isolationist"
foreign policy; closing of unnecessary foreign military bases and cutting aid to the current clients.
Of course, the notion of "Trumpism" is fuzzy and different people might include some additional issues and disagree with some
listed here, but the core probably remains.
Of course, Trump is under relentless attack (coup d'état or, more precisely, a color revolution) of neoliberal fifth column,
which includes Clinton gang, fifth column elements within his administration (Rosenstein, etc) as well from remnants of Obama
administration (Brennan, Comey, Clapper) and associated elements within corresponding intelligence agencies. He probably was forced
into some compromises just to survive. He also has members of the neoliberal fifth column within his family (Ivanka and Kushner).
So the movement now is in deep need of a new leader.
That's a good summary of what the public voted for and didn't get.
And whether Trump has sold out, or was blackmailed or was a cynical manipulative liar for the beginning is really irrelevant.
The fact is that he is not doing it – so he is just blocking the way.
At some point the US public are going to have to forget about their "representatives" (Trump and Congress and the rest of
them) and get out onto the street to make themselves heard. The population of the US is 323 million people and if just 1/2
of 1% (1,6 million) of them decided to visit Congress directly the US administration might get the message.
pyrrhus, March 3, 2018 at 2:15 am GMT
@anon
Finally, Pat understands that the American [Neoliberal] Empire and habit of intervention all over the world is a disaster.
In this state the current war between factions of the US elite reminds Stalin fight against "globalists" like Trotsky, who were
hell-bent of the idea of world revolution.
Notable quotes:
"... I would define Trump_vs_deep_state as "bastard neoliberalism" which tries to combine domestic "100% pure" neoliberalism with the rejection of neoliberal globalization as well as partial rejection of expensive effort for expansion of US led neoliberal empire via color revolutions and military invasions, especially in the Middle East. ..."
"... That makes screams of "soft neoliberals" from Democratic Party at "hard neoliberals" at Republican Party really funny indeed. Both are essentially "latter-day Trotskyites", yet they scream at each other, especially Obama/Clinton supporters ;-) ..."
"... But in reality Democratic sheeple are just a different type of wolfs -- wolfs in sheep clothing. And Hillary was an old, worn "classic neoliberal" shoe, which nobody really wants to wear. ..."
"... Trump does not intend to change the neoliberal consensus of what government should do domestically, and what should be the relationship between US government and business community. ..."
I would define Trump_vs_deep_state as "bastard neoliberalism" which tries
to combine domestic "100% pure" neoliberalism with the rejection of neoliberal globalization as well
as partial rejection of expensive effort for expansion of US led neoliberal empire via color revolutions
and military invasions, especially in the Middle East.
That's what seems to be the key difference of Trump_vs_deep_state from "classic neoliberalism" or as Sklar
called it "corporate liberalism".
From Reagan to Obama all US governments pray to the altar of classic neoliberalism. Now we have
a slight deviation.
That makes screams of "soft neoliberals" from Democratic Party at "hard neoliberals" at Republican
Party really funny indeed. Both are essentially "latter-day Trotskyites", yet they scream at each
other, especially Obama/Clinton supporters ;-)
In this sense Krugman recent writings are really pathetic and signify his complete detachment
from reality, or more correctly attempt to create an "artificial reality" in which bad wolf Trump
is going to eat Democratic sheeple. And in which media, FBI, and Putin are responsible entirely for
Hillary's loss.
But in reality Democratic sheeple are just a different type of wolfs -- wolfs in sheep clothing.
And Hillary was an old, worn "classic neoliberal" shoe, which nobody really wants to wear.
Trump does not intend to change the neoliberal consensus of what government should do domestically,
and what should be the relationship between US government and business community.
But the far right movement that he created and led has different ideas.
This past September, in one of his regular interviews with the newspaper Parlamentní Listy, retired Czech Major General
Hynek Blaško commented on the possibility of a conflict between Russia and NATO with a following anecdote:
"I have seen a popular joke on the Internet about Obama and his generals in the Pentagon debating on the best timing to
attack Russia. They couldn't come to any agreement, so they decided to ask their allies.
The French said: " We do not know, but certainly not in the winter. This will end badly. "
The Germans responded: "We do not know, either, but definitely not in a summer. We have already tried."
Someone in Obama's war room had a brilliant idea to ask China, on the basis that China is developing and always has new
ideas.
The Chinese answered: "The best time for this is right now. Russia is building the Power of Siberia pipeline, the North
Stream Pipeline, Vostochny Cosmodrome Spaceport, the MegaProject bridge to Crimea; also Russian is upgrading the Trans-Siberian
railroad with a new railway bridge across Lena River and the Amur-Yakutsk Mainline. Russia is also building new sports facilities
for the World Cup and athletics, and has in development over 150 production projects in the Arctic Well, now they really need
as many POWs as possible!"
the problem with the clain that "Bernie is a fraud and Trump is the only real opposition to
the entrenched neocon thieves and murderers in Washington"this that Trump quickly became neocon
in foreign policy.
While Bernie of course proved to be not a fighter and he just gave Hillary the top spot
without any fighting. I started to suspect that he is a "corral dog" from the moment he dismissed
"private email server" scandal. Moreover he tried to crush the fighting that his supporters
intent to launch. In this sense he is still a fraud.
But Trump himself was quickly neutered (in just three month) and now does not represents "Trumpism" (rejection of neoliberal
globalization, unrestricted immigration for suppression of wages, rejection of elimination of jobs via outsourcing and offshoring
of manufacturing, rejection of wars for enlargement and sustaining of neoliberal empire, especially NATO role as global policemen
and wars for Washington client Israel in Middle east, detente with Russia etc) in any meaningful way. He is just an aging
Narcissist in power.
CPAC shows the conservative grassroots are with the president and that the Beltway
elites are cowed.
I was good with Kucinich and Nader. I'm neither Conservative nor Republican. I voted for
McGovern. Yet I am a card carrying deplorable. Bernie is a fraud and Trump is the only real
opposition to the entrenched thieves and murderers in Washington. Your Conservative grass
roots have a significant cohort of fellow travelers. Trump could not have won the upper
midwest without us.
I thought Trump's offer of amnesty in exchange for moving toward a sane immigration policy
WAS leadership. It's easier to stop immigration than to reverse it. And he exposed the
Democrats. They have lost the dreamers as a political tool.
Where Trump is losing me is with his stupid and dangerous foreign policy. That's where I
would like to see some leadership.
Paul Craig Roberts' invective against the "riggers:"
https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/03/01/washington-sufficiently-intelligent-trusted-independent-foreign-policy/
"The stupid Samantha Vinograd [who served as a staffer on Obama's National Security Council]
repeats the lie that Russiagate was Putin's plot "to destabilize the United States." So, how is
the US a superpower when Russia controls US elections? Doesn't this mean that Americans are of
no relevance whatsoever in the world? ... With intelligence levels this low on Obama's National
Security Council, no wonder the neoonservatives were able to run over the Obama regime and
resurrect the Cold War, thus returning the world to a high chance of nuclear Armageddon."
The "riggers" have exposed their incompetence again and again and again...
Muller was the guy who buried 911 investigation. That's probably why he was hired for Russiagate investigation too.
Notable quotes:
"... retired U.S. Navy admiral James A. Lyons, Jr. asks a simple, yet monumentally significant question: Why haven't Congressional
Investigators or Special Counsel Robert Mueller addressed the murder of DNC staffer Seth Rich - who multiple people have claimed was
Wikileaks' source of emails leaked during the 2016 U.S. presidential election? ..."
"... Mueller has been incredibly thorough in his ongoing investigations -- however he won't even respond to Kim Dotcom, the New
Zealand entrepreneur who clearly knew about the hacked emails long before they were released, claims that Seth Rich obtained them with
a memory stick , and has offered to provide proof to the Special Counsel investigation. ..."
"... In addition to several odd facts surrounding Rich's still unsolved murder - which officials have deemed a "botched robbery,"
forensic technical evidence has emerged which contradicts the Crowdstrike report. The Irvine, CA company partially funded by Google
, was the only entity allowed to analyze the DNC servers in relation to claims of election hacking: ..."
"... Notably, Crowdstrike has been considered by many to be discredited over their revision and retraction of a report over Russian
hacking of Ukrainian military equipment - a report which the government of Ukraine said was fake news. ..."
"... Also notable is that Crowdstrike founder and anti-Putin Russian expat Dimitri Alperovitch sits on the Atlantic Council - which
is funded by the US State Department, NATO, Latvia, Lithuania, and Ukranian Oligarch Victor Pinchuk. Who else is on the Atlantic Council?
Evelyn Farkas - who slipped up during an MSNBC interview with Mika Brzezinski and disclosed that the Obama administration had been spying
on the Trump campaign: ..."
"... "The facts that we know of in the murder of the DNC staffer, Seth Rich, was that he was gunned down blocks from his home on
July 10, 2016. Washington Metro police detectives claim that Mr. Rich was a robbery victim, which is strange since after being shot
twice in the back, he was still wearing a $2,000 gold necklace and watch. He still had his wallet, key and phone. Clearly, he was not
a victim of robbery, " writes Lyons. ..."
"... Another unexplained fact muddying the Rich case is that of a stolen 40 caliber Glock 22 handguns stolen from an FBI agent's
car the same day Rich was murdered. D.C. Metro police said that the theft occurred between 5 and 7 a.m., while the FBI said two weeks
later that the theft had occurred between Midnight and 2 a.m. - fueling speculation that the FBI gun was used in Rich's murder ..."
"... Perhaps the most stunning audio evidence, however, comes from leaked audio of a recorded conversation between Ed Butowsky and
Pulitzer Prize winning investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, who told him of a " purported FBI report establishing that Seth Rich
sent emails to WikiLeaks ." ..."
"... Hersh also told Butowsky that the DNC made up the Russian hacking story as a disinformation campaign – directly pointing a
finger at former CIA director (and now MSNBC/NBC contributor ) John Brennan as the architect. ..."
As rumors swirl that Special Counsel Robert Mueller is
preparing a case against Russians who are alleged to have hacked Democrats during the 2016 election -- a conclusion based solely
on the analysis of cybersecurity firm Crowdstrike, a Friday op-ed in the
Washington Times by retired
U.S. Navy admiral James A. Lyons, Jr. asks a simple, yet monumentally significant question: Why haven't Congressional Investigators
or Special Counsel Robert Mueller addressed the murder of DNC staffer Seth Rich - who multiple people have claimed was Wikileaks'
source of emails leaked during the 2016 U.S. presidential election?
Mueller has been incredibly thorough in his ongoing investigations -- however he won't even respond to Kim Dotcom, the New
Zealand entrepreneur who
clearly knew about the hacked emails long before they were released, claims that Seth Rich obtained them with a
memory
stick , and has offered to provide proof to the Special Counsel investigation.
On May 18, 2017, Dotcom proposed that if Congress includes the Seth Rich investigation in their Russia probe, he would provide
written testimony with evidence that Seth Rich was WikiLeaks' source.
In addition to several odd facts surrounding Rich's still unsolved murder - which officials have deemed a "botched robbery,"
forensic technical evidence has emerged which contradicts the Crowdstrike report. The Irvine, CA company
partially
funded by Google , was the
only
entity allowed to analyze the DNC servers in relation to claims of election hacking:
Notably, Crowdstrike has been considered by many to be discredited over their revision and retraction of a report over Russian
hacking of Ukrainian military equipment - a report which the government of Ukraine said was fake news.
In connection with the emergence in some media reports which stated that the alleged "80% howitzer D-30 Armed Forces of Ukraine
removed through scrapping Russian Ukrainian hackers software gunners," Land Forces Command of the Armed Forces of Ukraine informs
that the said information is incorrect .
Ministry of Defence of Ukraine asks journalists to publish only verified information received from the competent official sources.
Spreading false information leads to increased social tension in society and undermines public confidence in the Armed Forces
of Ukraine. –mil.gov.ua (translated) (1.6.2017)
In fact, several respected journalists have cast serious doubt on CrowdStrike's report on the DNC servers:
Pay attention, because Mueller is likely to use the Crowdstrike report to support the rumored upcoming charges against Russian
hackers.
Also notable is that Crowdstrike founder and anti-Putin Russian expat Dimitri Alperovitch sits on the Atlantic Council - which
is funded by the US State Department, NATO, Latvia, Lithuania, and
Ukranian Oligarch Victor Pinchuk.
Who else is on the Atlantic Council?
Evelyn Farkas - who slipped up during an MSNBC interview with Mika Brzezinski and disclosed that the Obama administration had
been spying on the Trump campaign:
The Trump folks, if they found out how we knew what we knew about the Trump staff dealing with Russians, that they would try
to compromise those sources and methods , meaning we would not longer have access to that intelligence. - Evelyn Farkas
Odd facts surrounding the murder of Seth Rich
"The facts that we know of in the murder of the DNC staffer, Seth Rich, was that he was gunned down blocks from his home on
July 10, 2016. Washington Metro police detectives claim that Mr. Rich was a robbery victim, which is strange since after being shot
twice in the back, he was still wearing a $2,000 gold necklace and watch. He still had his wallet, key and phone. Clearly, he was
not a victim of robbery, " writes Lyons.
Another unexplained fact muddying the Rich case is that of a stolen 40 caliber Glock 22 handguns stolen from an FBI agent's
car the same day Rich was murdered. D.C. Metro police said that the theft occurred between 5 and 7 a.m., while the FBI said two weeks
later that the theft had occurred between Midnight and 2 a.m. - fueling speculation that the FBI gun was used in Rich's murder.
Furthermore, two men working with the Rich family - private investigator and former D.C. Police detective Rod Wheeler and family
acquaintance Ed Butowsky, have previously stated that Rich had contacts with WikiLeaks before his death.
"According to Ed Butowsky, an acquaintance of the family, in his discussions with Joel and Mary Rich, they confirmed that their
son transmitted the DNC emails to Wikileaks ," writes Lyons.
While Wheeler initially told TV station Fox5 that proof of Rich's contact with WikiLeaks lies on the murdered IT staffer's laptop,
he later walked
the claim back - though he maintained that there was "some communication between Seth Rich and WikiLeaks."
Wheeler also claimed in recently leaked audio that Seth Rich's
brother, Aaron – a Northrup Grumman employee, blocked him from looking at Seth's computer and stonewalled his investigation.
Wheeler said that brother Aaron Rich tried to block Wheeler from looking at Seth's computer, even though there could be evidence
on it. "He said no, he said I have his computer, meaning him," Wheeler said. "I said, well can I look at it? He said, what are
you looking for? I said anything that could indicate if Seth was having problems with someone. He said no, I already checked it.
Don't worry about it."
Aaron also blocked Wheeler from finding out about who was at a party Seth attended the night of the murder.
"All I want you to do is work on the botched robbery theory and that's it," Aaron told Wheeler -
Big League Politics
Perhaps the most stunning audio evidence, however, comes from leaked audio of a recorded conversation between Ed Butowsky
and Pulitzer Prize winning investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, who told him of a " purported FBI report establishing that Seth
Rich sent emails to WikiLeaks ."
As transcribed and exclusively reported on by journalist Cassandra Fairbanks last year:
What the report says is that some time in late Spring he makes contact with WikiLeaks, that's in his computer," he says. "
Anyway, they found what he had done is that he had submitted a series of documents -- of emails, of juicy emails, from the DNC."
Hersh explains that it was unclear how the negotiations went, but that WikiLeaks did obtain access to a password protected
DropBox where Rich had put the files.
" All I know is that he offered a sample, an extensive sample, I'm sure dozens of emails, and said 'I want money.' Later, WikiLeaks
did get the password, he had a DropBox, a protected DropBox," he said. They got access to the DropBox."
Hersh also states that Rich had concerns about something happening to him, and had
"The word was passed, according to the NSA report, he also shared this DropBox with a couple of friends, so that 'if anything
happens to me it's not going to solve your problems,'" he added. "WikiLeaks got access before he was killed."
Brennan and Russian disinformation
Hersh also told Butowsky that the DNC made up the Russian hacking story as a disinformation campaign – directly pointing a
finger at former CIA director (and now
MSNBC/NBC contributor
) John Brennan as the architect.
I have a narrative of how that whole f*cking thing began. It's a Brennan operation, it was an American disinformation , and
the fu*kin' President, at one point, they even started telling the press – they were backfeeding the Press, the head of the NSA
was going and telling the press, fu*king c*cksucker Rogers, was telling the press that we even know who in the Russian military
intelligence service leaked it.
(full transcription here and extended audio of the Hersh conversation
here )
Hersh denied that he told Butowsky anything before the leaked audio emerged , telling NPR " I hear gossip [Butowsky] took two
and two and made 45 out of it. "
Technical Evidence
As we mentioned last week, Dotcom's assertion is backed up by an analysis done last year by a researcher who goes by the name
Forensicator , who determined that the DNC files were copied at
22.6 MB/s - a speed virtually impossible to achieve from halfway around the world, much less over a local network - yet a speed
typical of file transfers to a memory stick.
The big hint
Last but not least, let's not forget that Julian Assange heavily implied Seth Rich was a source:
Given that a) the Russian hacking narrative hinges on Crowdstrikes's questionable reporting , and b) a mountain of evidence pointing
to Seth Rich as the source of the leaked emails - it stands to reason that Congressional investigators and Special Counsel Robert
Mueller should at minimum explore these leads.
As retired U.S. Navy admiral James A. Lyons, Jr. asks: why aren't they?
Something all of us here already know, if Mueller gets away from the delusion of Trump-Russia collusion then it will be his
ass in the frying pan. So he won't go after the Clintons, Obama, Comey or anyone else. Hitlery could show up with a gun in her
hand and tell Mueller she shot Seth and he would ignore it.
And, sadly, there ain't nobody gonna do anything about it unless and until a Special Prosecutor from outside DC is hired. Right
now a snowball in hell has a better chance.
Why don't the Democrats scream about the exploitation of his murder against them like they do with every minor accusation? It's as if they want his death to disappear from the public view...wonder why?
I think it is mostly because they know so much of their world hangs in the secrecy. If they let the Seth Rich story get out,
the Uranium One story gets out. If the Uranium One story gets out, the Awans' stolen cars with diplomatic cover for guns to Syria
in return for heroin to America comes out. If that story comes out, then the ISI Pakistani doctors with fake medical degrees pushing
pharma opiods in America comes out. And finally, Pizzagate, Pedogate, call it what you want, it comes out too. And then all of
these dirty sons of bitches go to jail.
And that's why you aren't hearing any of it. Especially from Mueller. I think he got hoodwinked too. They sold him this job
as a slam dunk to get Trump out of the White House. It really is the shits when the best laid plans of mice go south.
One of Trumps big problems is that as an outsider he did not have people both qualified and loyal to appoint to critical offices
in the deep state. That is why he wound up with a cipher like Sessions, a guy naive and gullible enough to believe the justice
department was filled with honorable and trustworthy people or at least men who played by some set of rules. Having found out
the hard way that he screwed up Trump is groping for a way out, trying to use a knife in a gun fight. The other side is too ruthless
and i suspect they will take him down in the end.
"All I know is that he offered a sample, an extensive sample, I'm sure dozens of emails, and said 'I want money.'
Later, WikiLeaks did get the password, he had a DropBox, a protected DropBox," he said. They got access to the
DropBox."
Why has no one followed the money on this yet? This introduces an interesting angle - did Seth Rich get paid by WikiLeaks?
And if so, can we find evidence of the payoff? How did he afford his expensive watch and necklace?
Report a crime, yet don't allow law enforcement access to evidence to help them solve the case.
Sounds like a case in Illinois. A 1 1/2 year old went missing, yet the parent wouldn't let the authorities search the house.
I don't remember if there was a warrant or what finally happened that the police were allowed to search the home, but they did,
and found the baby, dead, under the sofa.
The other key is Rod Rosenstein's post-indictment presser. At the very end, he gave away the game by admitting there was no
collusion, no Americans were involved, and nothing allegedly done by the Russians affected the election's outcome. BOOM. Stick
a fork in Mueller's ham sandwich indictment.
The one bit of evidence that pushes me over from the possible to probably is the gun, what are the odds of this gun being stolen
from the FBI, not just some random joe, but the FBI themselves. If that was the same gun used in the murder than the odds of it
happening to turn up immediately in a robbery where nothing was stolen in an area where no one commits crimes is so small as to
be near zero. It is vague above, what do ballistics say?
If Trump really wants to drain his swamp then this would be the way in, however if they did murder Seth then they'll murder
Trump's family too so he is neutralized unless they can go in and get everyone involved in one go. Otherwise I'd expect the job
to be handed over to someone ready to die, thinking here a retired general/admiral with no family might be the one to do it.
it's easy to come away from CPAC energy and enthusiasm thinking your headline is an accurate
description of what is happening in the GOP. I am more conservative thankfully in my views
than most members at CPAC. And while I may not be the typical voter. I can say categorically,
that :trumoing" is not in my blood. Let's look what a consevative had to consider when
evaluating Pres Trump:
1. He has spent most of his life supporting the murder of children.
2. He supports a national healthcare policy
3. He supports same sex relations and marriage of the same.
4. He ha absolutely little or n o knowledge about scripture or its intent in practice.
5. He is by nature a situational leader -- not typically a conservatives methodology of
leadership
6. He can't reconcile historical criticism from deciphering a realistic image of the
country.
7. He thinks that the country has disadvantaged whites and the previous executive that
indication.
8. He mistakes support and loyalty for agreement.
9. He seems too weak to stand his ground on key issues. Syria, (missile attack)
10. His willingness to ignore – Israel-US problematic relationship.
11. He thinks that Keynesian policy is a substitute for economic growth. monetary
policy.
12. I am leary of anyone who says tough things about immigration, but quietly backpedals
or openly does the same -- DACA.
Now his other supporters might say, considered against all the other candidates -- he's
better. Hmmmm, well, that's why I voted for him. But that vote is not unconditional or
inconsiderate of where this executive and my conservative principles part company. On a
personal note -- someone who does not grasp celibacy in theory and practice -- is probably
not going to have a conservative bone in his core. There's one aspect of Pres. trump that
makes me leary -- but I will bite my tongue. What I have noted is on the record.
The fact that he says things that amount to standing up to democrats and liberals is one
thing, but what he engages in as to policy in many respects may not be that far off from
their own. Laugh -- he does think someone should stand up for people of faith -- that's a
relief.
Note about Miss Mona Charin: the two agree on so many points on foreign policy, especially
Israel, it's hard to see her disdain. I think she rejects his troublesome demeanor and
attitude. Presidential decorum is a big deal to many.
It wasn' t Trump who back pedaled on DACA. He issued the executive order that would
rescind it. But in accord with Marbury vs Madison 1804, just 2 low level judges, one in
Hawaii and one in Brooklyn NYC overturned the executive order.
The DoJ appealed it went to the Supreme court last week. The Supreme Court refused to hear
it.
So the rulings of just 2 low level judges prevailed over the executive order of an elected
president.
It wasn't Trump who back pedaled. It was our ridiculous judicial supremacy legal system
that ruled that the DACAs can stay. It's nothing new, it's been that way since 1804.
Only 2 presidents defied a Supreme Court ruling: Jackson in his order to expell Indians
and Lincon's Suspending haveas corpus for the 4 years of the civil war.
Face it, this country has been ruled by judges from the beginnning.
Abortion? If it were not for abortion the black criminal affirmative action neighborhood
and school destroying demographic would be at least 25 percent of the population instead of
12 percent.
No city or school has been able to withstand more than about a 10 percent black
population. 25 percent is totally destructive.
The anti homosexual thing is in the Jewish part of the Bible, not the Christian part. I
for one can't understand why so called Christians are so obsessed with the sex rape polygamy
lie cheat steal and massacre Jewish part of the Bible.
The 2 parts are total opposites. One is kill slay massacre lie cheat and steal. The other
is be good and generous sexually chaste virtuous and avoid war and massacring a defeated
enemy.
Don't blame Trump for losing on DACA. Blame our judicial supremacy system of
government
He backpedaled on DACA by not rescinding it on his first day in office like he promised.
He did so by creating a deadline and asking Congress do fix it rather than just take it apart
like he promised.
This district court judges do not have the power to tell a President that he must maintain
a clearly unconstitutional program that was created with nothing but the stroke of the
President's pen. He can and should simply ignore the lower courts ruling and force the
Supreme Court to get off their butts and reign in these lower courts that think they have the
power to make law.
The only reason the courts think they have this power is because everybody defers to them.
It is one thing for the court to rule that some law is unconstitutional but quite another for
courts to determine how those laws are implemented and what powers the executive has –
even when they have nothing to do with those enumerated in the Constitution.
The framers of the Constitution expected men, with all their lust for power, to jealously
guard their power and in so doing make it hard for any one part of the governmnt to get too
strong. However, now we have cowards in Congress ceding their power to the President so they
don't have to make tough decisions that they will be hels accountable for on election day and
we have weak Presidents hiding behind ridiculous rulings from unelected judges.
The betrayal has absolutely with a court ruling. His offered compromise is the issue and make
no mistake that was no compromise.
I could get in to some other choices the Pres could have chosen on the law created by DHS.
But we'd be having a discussion issues pertaining the use of government agencies to in effect
make laws without Congressional approval or the consent by the executive. Clearly with the
DACA memo, it's clear that its existence rests on the discretion of the executive's
enforcement of the law.
But as with most people, I get the excuse but the courts made me do it or wouldn't let me
do it. government. He could have issues his memo for his current DHS head to amend the
document, period. But I am dipping my toe where it need not be dipped to remain where I came
in -- this president caved as he has on several issues. His supposed deal is exemplary of his
choice to lob missiles and send troops into Syria.
He gets convinced he is being a "good guy". His hand ringing about a situation he himself
created is further indication of his willingness to betray principles come as to why people
like myself voted for him.
I have gone to bat for this executive even at the expense of my own moral codes for the
sake of fairness. No. His offerings were a betrayal with or without the cover of a court
ruling.
What Washington really haptes about Putin is that he has refused to comply with their diktats and has openly rejected their
model of a "unipolar" world order.
Notable quotes:
"... The attacks on Putin began sometime in 2006 during Putin's second term when it became apparent that Russia was going to resist the looting and exploitation the US requires of its vassal states. ..."
"... That's right, Russia was thrown under the bus because they wanted to control their own oil and their own destiny. ..."
"... John Edwards and Jack Kemp were appointed to lead a CFR task force which concocted the absurd pretext that that Putin was "rolling back democracy" in Russia. ..."
"... What Washington really despises about Putin is that he has refused to comply with their diktats and has openly rejected their model of a "unipolar" world order. ..."
"... Despite Russia's efforts to assist the US in its War On Terror, Washington has continued to regard Putin as an emerging rival that would eventually have to be confronted. The conflict in Ukraine added more gas to the fire by pitting the two superpowers against each other in a hot war that remains unresolved to this day. ..."
"... But Syria was the straw that broke the camel's back. Russia's intervention in the Syrian War in September 2015 proved to be the turning point in the 7 year-long conflagration. By rolling back the CIA-trained militants, Putin bloodied Washington's nose and forced the Pentagon to adopt a backup plan that relied heavily on Kurdish proxies east of the Euphrates. ..."
"... The Syria humiliation precipitated the Russia-gate Information Operation (IO) which is the propaganda component of the current war on Russia. The scandal has been an effective way to poison public perceptions and to make it look like the perpetrator of aggression is really the victim. ..."
"... Putin clearly blames the United States for the rise of ISIS and the surge in global terrorism. He also condemns Washington's strategy to use terrorist organizations to achieve its own narrow strategic objectives. (regime change) More important, he uses his platform at the United Nations to explain why he has deployed the Russian Air-force to bases in Syria where it will it will be used to conduct a war against Washington's jihadist proxies on the ground. ..."
"... The only place where people have a negative view of Putin is in the United States (14 percent) and EU (28 percent), the two locations where he is relentlessly savaged by the media and excoriated by the political class. ..."
"... The problem is that the propaganda power structure behind the yankee imperium is probably too powerful for rationality to triumph, so we are in for serious trouble. ..."
"... After having spent 36 years in the West and having seen Westerners vote for the likes of Blair, Sarkozy or Macron, I have a very low opinion of Western intelligence, and Western moral relativism and indifference with regards to the crimes their elected leaders committed abroad. ..."
"... China is a rival but an odd kind of rival. Let's not forget that the US, over the last 30 whatever years has enthusiastically facilitated China's rise. China has become the world's factory because the US and other countries Co's want CHEAP labour. ..."
"... American liberals support lifting living standards and ending poverty? You mean, the same American liberals who support 'free' trade and importing unlimited amounts of scab labor? You must have us confused with some other country, Mike. ..."
"... not like he had a choice. dc was about to have it's hands on his throat and he finally reacted. That was ukraine. syria was him trying to protect another one of his naval bases. the bear simply reacted to attempts at cutting off it's legs. ..."
"... Putin inherited a broken Russia in 2000. A Russia on the verge of collapse due to misrule of drunkard Yeltsin and body blows administered by US/NATO. A broken down military; economy in shambles; demographic collapse. During his presidency US/EU/NATO engineered a collapse of oil prices and assaults on ruble: what exactly was Putin supposed to non-passively do to counter the collapse of world oil prices, for example? ..."
"... Putin was wise enough and cautious enough not to go head-to-head with US/NATO until his military and economy were in good enough shape to do and make a difference, as in Syria for example. It would have been very bad for Russia to act prematurely and get bled dry, which warmongering US Neocons were hoping for. ..."
"... Obviously Putin knows the strengths and weaknesses of Russia better than any of us here. He is butting heads with the combined military industrial might of US+EU: that block has a lot of human resources, wealth, worldwide financial and political influence. Also Putin has to – has to – improve the living standards of citizens of RF, so he cannot afford to get into an expensive arms race with the West. Putin is doing very well with what he has, as far as human and military-industrial resources Russia has. ..."
"... When asked by a Germany-based academic where Russia had most seriously gone wrong in the past decade and a half, Putin said he had too readily laid his trust in the West, which he then accused of having abused its relationship with Moscow to further its own interests." ..."
"... America is in a very ugly spot and getting worse everyday. Living here I can sense it. Americans are going crazy. Pathetic how they are trying and build hate for Russia/Putin mainly because America got triple fucked across the ME and especially in Syria. Very sad. ..."
"... America's greatest historical truth: in foreign policy the USA just cannot learn from experience. We keep making the same mistakes. Stupid, idiotic, nation building b/s. ..."
"... In my opinion, the USA, until now, could afford to conduct foreign policy for internal reasons ..."
"... The reason why the US empire will follow the British empire into the graveyard is because they are based on the same model – trying to prevent others from becoming equal to them instead of trying to get better than the competitors. ..."
"... GB was preoccupied with preventing Germany from surpassing them – and guess what? They succeeded. And where is the British empire now? ..."
"... US is on a similar path of self-destruction. First they made China an economic superpower and now they want to contain them militarily. Good luck with that. ..."
"... The money that the US spent on military misadventures – they could have bribed with far lesser amount of money the various "dictatorships" that they were so democratically inclined to topple – and would have achieved better results. Instead of using those money to make US better – for their citizens, they are trying to prevent the world from catching up with them – British style. ..."
"It is essential to provide conditions for creative labor and economic growth at a pace that would put an end to the division
of the world into permanent winners and permanent losers. The rules of the game should give the developing economies at least
a chance to catch up with those we know as developed economies. We should work to level out the pace of economic development,
and brace up backward countries and regions so as to make the fruit of economic growth and technological progress accessible to
all. Particularly, this would help to put an end to poverty, one of the worst contemporary problems." Vladimir Putin, President
Russian Federation, Meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club
Putin wants to end poverty? Putin wants to stimulate economic growth in developing countries? Putin wants to change the system
that divides the world into "permanent winners and losers"? But, how can that be, after all, Putin is bad, Putin is a "KGB thug",
Putin is the "new Hitler"?
American liberals would be surprised to know that Putin actually supports many of the same social issues that they support. For
example, the Russian President is not only committed to lifting living standards and ending poverty, he's also a big believer in
universal healthcare which is free under the current Russian Constitution. Naturally, the Russian system has its shortcomings, but
there has been significant progress under Putin who has dramatically increased the budget, improved treatment and widened accessibility.
Putin believes that healthcare should be a universal human right. Here's what he said at the annual meeting of the Valdai International
Discussion Club:
"Another priority is global healthcare . All people in the world, not only the elite, should have the right to healthy, long
and full lives. This is a noble goal. In short, we should build the foundation for the future world today by investing in all
priority areas of human development." (Vladimir Putin, President Russian Federation, Meeting of the Valdai International Discussion
Club)
How many "liberal" politicians in the US would support a recommendation like Putin's? Not very many. The Democrats are much more
partial to market-based reforms like Obamacare that guarantee an ever-increasing slice of the pie goes to the giant HMOs and the
voracious pharmaceutical companies. The Dems no longer make any attempt to promote universal healthcare as a basic human right. They've
simply thrown in the towel and moved on to other issues.
Many Americans would find Putin's views on climate change equally surprising. Here's another clip from the Valdai speech:
"Ladies and gentlemen, one more issue that shall affect the future of the entire humankind is climate change. I suggest that
we take a broader look at the issue .What we need is an essentially different approach, one that would involve introducing new,
groundbreaking, nature-like technologies that would not damage the environment, but rather work in harmony with it, enabling us
to restore the balance between the biosphere and technology upset by human activities.
It is indeed a challenge of global proportions. And I am confident that humanity does have the necessary intellectual capacity
to respond to it. We need to join our efforts, primarily engaging countries that possess strong research and development capabilities,
and have made significant advances in fundamental research. We propose convening a special forum under the auspices of the UN
to comprehensively address issues related to the depletion of natural resources, habitat destruction, and climate change. Russia
is willing to co-sponsor such a forum .." Valdai)
Most people would never suspect that Putin supports a global effort to address climate change. And, how would they know, after
all, bits of information like that– that help to soften Putin's image and make him seem like a rational human being– are scrubbed
from the media's coverage in order to cast him in the worst possible light. The media doesn't want people to know that Putin is a
reflective and modest man who has worked tirelessly to make Russia and the world a better place. No, they want them to believe that
he's is a scheming tyrannical despot who's obsessive hatred for America poses a very real threat to US national security. But it's
not true.
Putin is not the ghoulish caricature the media makes him out to be nor does he hate America, that's just more propaganda from
the corporate echo-chamber. The truth is Putin has been good for Russia, good for regional stability, and good for global security.
He pulled the Russian Federation back from the brink of annihilation in 2000, and has had the country moving in a positive direction
ever since. His impact on the Russian economy has been particularly impressive. According to Wikipedia:
"Between 2000 and 2012 Russia's energy exports fueled a rapid growth in living standards, with real disposable income rising
by 160%. In dollar-denominated terms this amounted to a more than sevenfold increase in disposable incomes since 2000. In the
same period, unemployment and poverty more than halved and Russians' self-assessed life satisfaction also rose significantly."
Inequality is a problem in Russia just like it is in the US, but the vast majority of working people have benefited greatly from
Putin's reforms and a system of distribution that –judging by steady uptick in disposable incomes – is significantly superior to that
in the United States where wages have flatlined for over 2 decades and where virtually all of the nation's wealth trickles upward
to the parasitic 1 percent.
Since Putin took office in 2000, workers have seen across-the-board increase in wages, benefits, healthcare and pensions. Poverty
and unemployment have been reduced by more than half while foreign investment has experienced steady growth. Onerous IMF loans have
been repaid in full, capital flight has all-but ceased, hundreds in billions in reserves have been accumulated, personal and corporate
taxes have been slashed, and technology has experienced an unprecedented renaissance. The notorious Russian oligarchs still have
a stranglehold on many privately-owned industries, but their grip has begun to loosen and the "kleptocracy has begun to fade."
Things are far from perfect, but the Russian economy has flourished under Putin and, generally speaking, the people are appreciative.
This helps to explain why Putin's public approval ratings are typically in the stratosphere. (70 to 80 percent) Simply put: Putin
the most popular Russian president of all time. And his popularity is not limited to Russia either, in fact, he typically ranks at
the top of most global leadership polls such as the recent Gallup International End of Year Survey (EoY) where Putin came in third
(43 percent positive rating) behind Germany's Angela Merkel (49 percent) and French President Emmanuel Macron. (45 percent) According
to Gallup: "Putin has gone from one in three (33 percent) viewing him favourably to 43 percent, a significant increase over two years."
The only place where people have a negative view of Putin is in the United States (14 percent) and EU (28 percent), the two locations
where he is relentlessly savaged by the media and excoriated by the political class. This should come as no surprise to Americans
who know that the chances of stumbling across an article that treats Putin with even minimal objectivity is about as likely as finding
a copper coin at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean. The consensus view of the western media is that Putin is a maniacal autocrat who
kills journalists and political opponents (no proof), who meddles in US elections to "sow discord" and destroy our precious democracy
(no proof), and who is conducting a secret and sinister cyberwar against the United States. (no proof). It's a pathetic litany of
libels and fabrications, but its impact on the brainwashed American people has been quite impressive as Gallup's results indicate.
Bottom line: Propaganda works.
The attacks on Putin began sometime in 2006 during Putin's second term when it became apparent that Russia was going to resist
the looting and exploitation the US requires of its vassal states. This is when the powerful Council on Foreign Relations funded
a report titled "Russia's Wrong Direction" that suggested that Russia's increasingly independent foreign policy and insistence that
it control its own vast oil and natural gas resources meant that "the very idea of a 'strategic partnership' no longer seems realistic."
That's right, Russia was thrown under the bus because they wanted to control their own oil and their own destiny.
John Edwards and Jack Kemp were appointed to lead a CFR task force which concocted the absurd pretext that that Putin was "rolling
back democracy" in Russia. They claimed that the government had become increasingly authoritarian and that the society was growing
less "open and pluralistic". Kemp and Edwards provided the ideological foundation upon which the entire public relations campaign
against Putin has been built. Twelve years later, the same charges are still being leveled at Putin along with the additional allegations
that he meddled in the 2016 presidential elections.
Needless to say, none of the nation's newspapers, magazines or broadcast media ever publish anything that deviates even slightly
from the prevailing, propagandistic narrative about Putin. One can only assume that the MSM's views on Putin are either universally
accepted by all 325 million Americans or that the so-called "free press" is a wretched farce that conceals an authoritarian corporate
machine that censors all opinions that don't promote their own malign political agenda.
What Washington really despises about Putin is that he has refused to comply with their diktats and has openly rejected their
model of a "unipolar" world order. As he said at the annual Security Conference at Munich in 2007:
"The unipolar world refers to a world in which there is one master, one sovereign; one center of authority, one center of force,
one center of decision-making. At the end of the day this is pernicious not only for all those within this system, but also for
the sovereign itself because it destroys itself from within."
Despite Russia's efforts to assist the US in its War On Terror, Washington has continued to regard Putin as an emerging rival
that would eventually have to be confronted. The conflict in Ukraine added more gas to the fire by pitting the two superpowers against
each other in a hot war that remains unresolved to this day.
But Syria was the straw that broke the camel's back. Russia's intervention in the Syrian War in September 2015 proved to be the
turning point in the 7 year-long conflagration. By rolling back the CIA-trained militants, Putin bloodied Washington's nose and forced
the Pentagon to adopt a backup plan that relied heavily on Kurdish proxies east of the Euphrates. At present, US Special Forces and
their allies are clinging to a strip of arid wasteland in the Syrian outback hoping that the Pentagon brass can settle on a forward-operating
strategy that reverses their fortunes or brings the war to a swift end.
The Syria humiliation precipitated the Russia-gate Information Operation (IO) which is the propaganda component of the current
war on Russia. The scandal has been an effective way to poison public perceptions and to make it look like the perpetrator of aggression
is really the victim. More important, failure in Syria has led to a reevaluation of how Washington conducts its wars abroad. The
War on Terror pretext has been jettisoned for a more direct approach laid out in the Trump administration's National Defense Strategy.
The focus going forward will be on "Great Power Competition", that is, the US is subordinating its covert proxy operations to more
flagrant displays of military force particularly in regards to the "growing threat from revisionist powers", Russia and China. In
short, the gloves are coming off and Washington is ramping up for a land war.
Putin has become an obstacle to Washington's imperial ambitions which is why he's has been elevated to Public Enemy Number 1.
It has nothing to do with the fictitious meddling in the 2016 elections or the nonsensical "rolling back democracy" in Russia. It's
all about power. In the United States the group with the tightest grip on power is the foreign policy establishment. These are the
towering mandarins who dictate the policy, tailor the politics to fit their strategic vision, and dispatch their lackeys in the media
to shape the narrative. These are the people who decided that Putin must be demonized to pave the way for more foreign interventions,
more regime change wars, more bloody aggression against sovereign states.
Putin has repeatedly warned Washington that Russia would not stand by while the US destroyed one country after the other in its
lust for global domination. He reiterated his claim that Washington's "uncontained hyper-use of force" was creating "new centers
of tension", exacerbating regional conflicts, undermining international relations, and "plunging the world into an abyss of permanent
conflicts." He has pointed out how the US routinely displayed its contempt for international law and "overstepped its national borders
in every way." As a result of Washington's aggressive behavior, public confidence in international law and global security has steadily
eroded and "No one feels safe. I want to emphasize this," Putin thundered in Munich. "No one feels safe."
On September 28, 2015 Putin finally threw down the gauntlet in a speech he delivered at the 70th session of the UN General Assembly
in New York. After reiterating his commitment to international law, the UN, and state sovereignty, he provided a brief but disturbing
account of recent events in the Middle East, all of which have gotten significantly worse due to Washington's use of force. Here's
Putin:
"Just look at the situation in the Middle East and Northern Africa Instead of bringing about reforms, aggressive intervention
destroyed government institutions and the local way of life. Instead of democracy and progress, there is now violence, poverty,
social disasters and total disregard for human rights, including even the right to life
The power vacuum in some countries in the Middle East and Northern Africa obviously resulted in the emergence of areas of anarchy,
which were quickly filled with extremists and terrorists. The so-called Islamic State has tens of thousands of militants fighting
for it, including former Iraqi soldiers who were left on the street after the 2003 invasion. Many recruits come from Libya whose
statehood was destroyed as a result of a gross violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1973 ."
US interventions have decimated Iraq, Libya, Syria and beyond. Over a million people have been killed while tens of millions
have been forced to flee their homes and their countries. The refugee spillover has added to social tensions across the EU where
anti-immigrant sentiment has precipitated the explosive growth in right wing groups and political organizations. From Northern
Africa, across the Middle East, and into Central Asia, global security has steadily deteriorated under Washington's ruthless stewardship.
Here's more from Putin:
"The Islamic State itself did not come out of nowhere. It was initially developed as a weapon against undesirable secular regimes.
Having established control over parts of Syria and Iraq, Islamic State now aggressively expands into other regions .It is irresponsible
to manipulate extremist groups and use them to achieve your political goals, hoping that later you'll find a way to get rid of
them or somehow eliminate them ."
Putin clearly blames the United States for the rise of ISIS and the surge in global terrorism. He also condemns Washington's strategy
to use terrorist organizations to achieve its own narrow strategic objectives. (regime change) More important, he uses his platform
at the United Nations to explain why he has deployed the Russian Air-force to bases in Syria where it will it will be used to conduct
a war against Washington's jihadist proxies on the ground.
Putin: "We can no longer tolerate the current state of affairs in the world."
Less than 48 hours after these words were uttered, Russian warplanes began pounding militant targets in Syria.
Putin again: "Dear colleagues, relying on international law, we must join efforts to address the problems that all of us are
facing, and create a genuinely broad international coalition against terrorism .Russia is confident of the United Nations' enormous
potential, which should help us avoid a new confrontation and embrace a strategy of cooperation. Hand in hand with other nations,
we will consistently work to strengthen the UN's central, coordinating role. I am convinced that by working together, we will make
the world stable and safe, and provide an enabling environment for the development of all nations and peoples."
So, here's the question: Is Putin "evil" for opposing Washington's regime change wars, for stopping the spread of terrorism, and
for rejecting the idea that one unipolar world power should rule the world? Is that why he's evil, because he won't click his heels
and do as he's told by the global hegemon?
The dumbest thing about the US focus on Russia and Putin is that it leaves China, our actual rival, free to continue its march
to overwhelming mastery of the entire Eastern Hemisphere. Without firing a shot or wasting a bullet China has moved into a position
of influence the US has dreamed of for a century.
The next war, if it comes, will be over something like Cobalt. The future lies in big and plentiful electric batteries and China
and Russia between them control almost 50% of the known supply of Cobalt, while the US has none. Stand by and wait, folks.
The only place where people have a negative view of Putin is in the United States (14 percent) and EU (28 percent), the
two locations where he is relentlessly savaged by the media and excoriated by the political class.
I would be staggered is only 14 percent of Americans had a negative view of Putin – almost everybody I have spoken to
has completely swallowed the media line. In Europe UK in particular has been brainwashed against him – southern Europe far less
so. The 28 percent is more realistic.
Is China trying to trash our constitution? Is China invading other countries, killing people with missiles and bombs all over
the world, staging "color revolutions" and subverting legitimate governments in the "West"? Is China patrolling the Gulf of Mexico
and putting missiles in Mexico and Canada? China hasn't done anything bad to me or to anyone I know, so please explain how China
is "our" "rival"?
This is a great article. The problem is that the propaganda power structure behind the yankee imperium is probably too powerful
for rationality to triumph, so we are in for serious trouble.
There's a simple reason why Putin is talking sense. He's doing nothing more than stating customary international law. Those
economic quotes have been set out in a series of UN resolutions including A/RES/41/128 on the right to development. This is the
acquis of the civilized world. No country in the world opposes it – except the USA. The US votes alone against it every time it
comes up, even though customary international law is US federal and state common law under the Supreme Court decision, The Paquete
Habana.
Mr. Whitney has accepted the official framing that it's all about Putin. That clever decision makes his article more provocative.
Calm appraisal of the current official foreign devil is inherently inflammatory. However, this has nothing to do with Putin. Rigid
legalist that he is, his hands are tied. Russia has ratified the ICESCR.
Russia has ratified the ICESCR. The USA has not. Here are some of the rights Russians have that you do not:
OHCHR has a convenient compilation showing how each government meets its legal obligations and commitments. The synoptic heatmap
below shows the US deep down in the shithole with Wahhabi headchoppers and neocolonial African presidents-for-life.
The exhaustively documented fact here is, the Russian state meets world standards. The US government does not. The Russian
government respects, protects, and fulfils human rights. The US government fights tooth and nail to keep them out of your reach,
and negates your incomplete half-assed constitutional rights with statist red tape. Russians get a better deal than you do. Merely
by reciting the law as he does, Putin would win a fair election here with Roosevelt-scale majorities, again and again. That's
why he drives the US government up the wall.
Where is it the propaganda campaign going? We have seen this before as preparation for a war or a regime change. In Russia both
are unlikely to succeed. That leaves an ever increasing propaganda bombast in the West, people brainwashed to the point where
outright racism against anything 'Russian' will become widespread. Then what? Move movies with white Russian villains, as if that
is what threatens West the most?
Russia can neither be isolated, nor 'collapsed' economically, nor ignored. It is too resource rich and powerful. Russia could
possibly be checked in a second tier conflict (Syria?), but that would be of minimal consequence. Ukraine could be escalated,
but there Russia has an enormous local logistics advantage, it would be a disaster for Kiev. And Russia is on friendly terms with
China, its only potential military threat on land.
Propaganda by itself does nothing, it is only means to an end. West is in no position to go beyond propaganda, so we might
experience a bizarre example of a mindless propaganda that goes on and on. As with all propaganda the main target is the domestic
population – in other words it is the common people in the West who are being propagandised and in effect made more stupid, less
capable of making rational decisions.
Even a slight u-turn is at this point unthinkable, almost all elites have too visibly engaged in the evil-Russia talk, how
could they let go of it? We are stuck, we might get saved by an unrelated 'big event' somewhere else. If not, this could just
be fatal, after all this belligerent talk we could perish because somebody dared to call Clinton a satan on Facebook. And they
didn't use their real name – the horror .
My own view is that Putin is probably as trustworthy and honest as any other ex-KGB man. On the other hand he does come across
as intelligent, cautious, and calm. Especially when compared to the crook Hillary or the oaf Trump.
The site could be temporarily unavailable or too busy. Try again in a few moments.
If you are unable to load any pages, check your computer's network connection.
If your computer or network is protected by a firewall or proxy, make sure that Firefox is permitted to access the Web.
This is starting to bother me. Stuff is disappearing from the web. Look at the link below to an Al Jazeera documentary which
has disappeared from YouTube and the web.
Si1ver1ock, interesting problems you're having. I had no problem with the links, but then the magic of Tor means I'm reaching
them from the Netherlands. State censorship is harder when you can access suppressed URLs from a couple dozen different countries.
Please do respond, and in good faith, to the reply of commenter Harold Smith. I share his apparent concern that you may be
conflating the interests of the American people with the imperial ambitions of their Uncle Sam.
I feel we have a problem with the term 'rival' here. All the negatives you describe represent a rivalry that I in no way imply
in my statements. Rivalry can be strictly limited to trade and business and not in the war-making processes you are citing. I
tried to point out that we as a nation miss the mark in constantly demonizing Russia, who is certainly no rival in trade and business,
while China certainly is.
Our zealous attacking of rivals has a long history and is not easily abandoned. However, I am afraid our national focus in this
unproductive way will cause us as a people to not be aware of where our serious competition is actually coming from and be able
to deal with it in a timely fashion.
"I feel we have a problem with the term 'rival' here. All the negatives you describe represent a rivalry that I in no way imply
in my statements. Rivalry can be strictly limited to trade and business and not in the war-making processes you are citing."
In your original comment you said:
"The dumbest thing about the US focus on Russia and Putin is that it leaves China, our actual rival, free to continue its march
to overwhelming mastery of the entire Eastern Hemisphere. Without firing a shot or wasting a bullet China has moved into a position
of influence the US has dreamed of for a century."
Since a big part of the U.S. "focus" on Russia is military encirclement, confrontation by proxy, the threat of direct conflict
even nuclear war, etc., this statement clearly suggests a "military solution" to "contain" an economically "rising" China, IMO.
(After all, when the only tool the U.S. "government" has is a hammer, everything looks like a nail).
But so what if China has some kind of "mastery" of the Eastern hemisphere? To the extent that's true, at least they didn't
do it by way of lawless imperial treachery.
The U.S. is losing influence all over the world because it's making itself hated; it's imposing itself everywhere and squandering
everything of value on the hopeless pursuit of world domination and control.
"I tried to point out that we as a nation miss the mark in constantly demonizing Russia, who is certainly no rival in trade
and business, while China certainly is."
The thing is "we" don't demonize Russia "as a nation"; rather, it's done by the Satanic ruling class that hates Russia – not
for any rational reason, but for the same reason that Cain hated Abel: because "evil" hates a "good" example.
"Our zealous attacking of rivals has a long history and is not easily abandoned."
Unless you're going change the definition of "rival" again, I should point out that the U.S. "government" doesn't generally
attack "rivals" but deems any country that asserts its sovereign independence and refuses to take orders an "enemy", subject to
economic, political and military attack.
"However, I am afraid our national focus in this unproductive way will cause us as a people to not be aware of where our serious
competition is actually coming from and be able to deal with it in a timely fashion."
You seem to be conflating "us as a people" with the U.S. "government" which has by now lost even the pretense of moral and
constitutional legitimacy, and thus has nothing remotely to do with what's in the best interests of "us as a people".
Here is the explanation. China is economic rival to US. That is not only inconvenient, rival, it is the most efficient and
most dangerous rival, because who is wining the economic competition is pushing out the opponent from world markets.
That people in the West believe the lies that TPTB concoct for their consumption, I can conceive, though only after a convoluted
intellectual effort, for given all the now exposed deceit, one is left in wonder as to why the masses still believe proven liars.
After having spent 36 years in the West and having seen Westerners vote for the likes of Blair, Sarkozy or Macron, I have a very
low opinion of Western intelligence, and Western moral relativism and indifference with regards to the crimes their elected leaders
committed abroad.
Still, I can't figure out if TPTB believe their own narrative. It takes a very peculiar mindset to be able to live in permanent
lies. Contrary to truth which can exist per se and is therefore essentially cost-free, lies demand permanent maintenance and have
high maintenance cost.
So, TPTB of the West are either delusional in thinking they can maintain their lies ad vitam aeternam, or they are mythomaniacs.
Either way, just think what happens when lies cannot be maintained any more and the liars don't want to relinquish power.
Bear in mind that lying being effectively irrational, they cannot be considered as rational actors. Prepare your shelters folks.
Very seldom, I've read such a realistic article on President Putin and his policy. I've been following not only his administration
but also that of the US Empire, and I'm always flabbergasted about the US elites demonization of this leader. He belongs to the
few leaders who got their act together compared to the political exorcists in Washington. The real thugs and psychopaths are the
members of the American political elite and their cheerleaders in the fawning US mainstream media. Following their analysis, I
often think they stem from lunatics who are coming from outer space.
Yes, China is a rival but an odd kind of rival. Let's not forget that the US, over the last 30 whatever years has enthusiastically
facilitated China's rise. China has become the world's factory because the US and other countries Co's want CHEAP labour.
So -- Dr Frankenstein is now scared of his own monster. Oh the irony !
In the last two weeks a virtual book burning has begun on YouTube. Scores of independent truth seeking channels have been deleted.
Some were pretty amateur and sensationalist, many were good, top notch investigative fact checking in nature. Many had large numbers
of subscribers, a few had 100,000s subscribers.
Common denominator seemed to question official mainstream media narrative on mass shootings, 9/11, war on terror, human sex
trafficking, Clinton Foundation corruption, and even UFO coverups. One channel was a woman skilled at body language commenting
on videos of people like John Podesta being interviewed as to whether he was lying.
None of these channels advocated violence, quite the contrary. Most couched opinion alongside probable facts by asking deductive
and inductive questions. The YouTube virtual book burning appears to have gathered pace in last week.
So much for free speech in the fake but very slickly fake Western democracies. Where the geopolitical narrative is uniformly
uniform.
American liberals would be surprised to know that Putin actually supports many of the same social issues that they support.
For example, the Russian President is not only committed to lifting living standards and ending poverty, he's also a big believer
in universal healthcare which is free under the current Russian Constitution.
American liberals support lifting living standards and ending poverty? You mean, the same American liberals who support 'free'
trade and importing unlimited amounts of scab labor? You must have us confused with some other country, Mike.
"I suggest that we take a broader look at the issue .What we need is an essentially different approach, one that would involve
introducing new, groundbreaking, nature-like technologies that would not damage the environment, but rather work in harmony
with it "
I note that he says nothing about 'cap and trade,' or any other Western bankster-scam. I have nothing against renewable energy–whether
or not global warming is real.
not like he had a choice. dc was about to have it's hands on his throat and he finally reacted. That was ukraine. syria was him
trying to protect another one of his naval bases. the bear simply reacted to attempts at cutting off it's legs.
"China has become the world's factory because the US and other countries Co's want CHEAP labour. "
We all know the drill here. China makes stuff cheap so that WalMart can undercut competitors and grow rich. Therefore, alas,
what can be done?
Except that WalMart has over four hundred stores IN CHINA and plans to build forty more! So what's our excuse now for not being
able to compete?
Putin inherited a broken Russia in 2000. A Russia on the verge of collapse due to misrule of drunkard Yeltsin and body blows
administered by US/NATO.
A broken down military; economy in shambles; demographic collapse. During his presidency US/EU/NATO engineered a collapse of oil prices and assaults on ruble: what exactly was Putin supposed
to non-passively do to counter the collapse of world oil prices, for example?
Putin was wise enough and cautious enough not to go head-to-head with US/NATO until his military and economy were in good enough
shape to do and make a difference, as in Syria for example.
It would have been very bad for Russia to act prematurely and get bled dry, which warmongering US Neocons were hoping for.
Obviously Putin knows the strengths and weaknesses of Russia better than any of us here. He is butting heads with the combined
military industrial might of US+EU: that block has a lot of human resources, wealth, worldwide financial and political influence.
Also Putin has to – has to – improve the living standards of citizens of RF, so he cannot afford to get into an expensive arms
race with the West. Putin is doing very well with what he has, as far as human and military-industrial resources Russia has.
Alden, sounds like you stopped with the maps and didn't read any of the underlying documents because of the preconceptions you
wear on your sleeve: "idealistic pie in the sky by and by UN treaties impossible to effect." Those preconceptions happen to coincide
with the residual message of one persistent strand of US statist propaganda.
Have you ever read, in any US institution or medium, criticism as comprehensive and incisive as this?
IGs can't do this. Courts can't begin to do this. Congress wouldn't dare do this. Media would never do it if they could. The
recommendations are legally binding and the US government knows it. Each review is videoed. You haven't lived until you've seen
State and Justice bureaucrats crawling and sniveling and tying themselves in logical knots, making fools of themselves in the
most public forum in the world. You get to watch the US regime bleeding influence and standing and 'soft power.' It's public disgrace
in front of the 96% of the world outside the US iron curtain. You may not want to watch impartial legal experts make a laughingstock
of the USG, but everybody else in the world watches with amusement, so you might as well know.
Treaty body review has driven more reforms than Congress ever did. You know perfectly well how bad your government sucks, what
a useless parasite it is. The treaty bodies and charter bodies give you more say than either state-controlled political party.
Face it, human rights review is all you got. When your government sucks, you go over its head to the world.
"During a policy talk at the Valdai Discussion Club, the Russian leader spoke on a number of issues, especially criticizing
U.S. foreign policy moves across the globe and lauding Russia's increasingly relevant role as a world power. When asked by a Germany-based
academic where Russia had most seriously gone wrong in the past decade and a half, Putin said he had too readily laid his trust
in the West, which he then accused of having abused its relationship with Moscow to further its own interests."
Well maybe you can make Vladimir Putin feel better about this. You can tell him that blindly trusting the corrupt "West" (in
the face of shamelessly obvious provocations) was actually not a mistake at all, since Russia couldn't have done a single thing
about it anyway, right?
This is a ridiculous statement. When Putin came aboard, there was no Russian economy to speak of. Now it's grown strong enough
to withstand the events in Ukraine, sanctions and what not and even derive benefits from these challenges. I am not saying everything's
coming up roses but it could hardly be expected considering the deep hole Russia dug itself into in the 1990s.
the entire region is upset with Putin's behavior as they have seen Putin's behavior in Crimea and the Donbas.
The entire region, it you mean our Eastern European neighbors, can like it or lump it. They, Poland in particular, participated
very willingly and actively in the coup in Ukraine. Crimea and Donbass are direct, and perfectly predictable, consequences of
that coup. If they forgot the law of physics that every action has a reaction, this is just as good a reminder as any.
the thing is, because of the recent study by J. Leroy Hulsey, Putin could still do it, but I predict that he unfortunately
will do nothing of the kind.
blindly trusting the corrupt "West" (in the face of shamelessly obvious provocations) was actually not a mistake at all,
since Russia couldn't have done a single thing about it anyway, right?
Actually, it could've done a lot. Right at the beginning, Russia could've refused to trust in the word of the West's leaders
about the NATO expansion and demand guarantees. A formal treaty plus a couple of remaining military bases, say, in Poland and
East Germany, would've sufficed. This likely would've saved Yugoslavia as well.
Russia could've refrained from stopping the development of many weapon system and from destroying others. It could've also
kept its own industry (civil aviation comes to mind) instead of relying on cooperation with the West. It could've refrained from
allowing the US troops to use the Russia territory to move supplies to Afghanistan. Even recently it did occur to someone exceedingly
smart to order aircraft carriers in France – speaking about trust! I do hope they learned their lesson, finally.
America is in a very ugly spot and getting worse everyday. Living here I can sense it. Americans are going crazy. Pathetic
how they are trying and build hate for Russia/Putin mainly because America got triple fucked across the ME and especially in Syria.
Very sad.
America's greatest historical truth: in foreign policy the USA just cannot learn from experience. We keep making the same mistakes.
Stupid, idiotic, nation building b/s. Come on dudes !
This is just a phase, we will turn it around and make America great again ( as opposed to israel which was never great anyway).
It is just a question of how long it will take.
It will start the day when we'll tell that terrorist, shit-hole country called israel to go the hell, fight your own wars,
pay for your own wars.
In my opinion, the USA, until now, could afford to conduct foreign policy for internal reasons.
Because of this the Sept 11 shock, while in reality it meant very little, as USA citizens working in the Netherlands soon afterwards
said 'we have 30.000 traffic deaths each year'.
Good comeback there that was one of the best ones in a while!
I'm sorry, but no we're not. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but we here in the "West" are living under a Satanic judeo-communist
dictatorship, bent on world domination and control at any cost.
The difference between corporate state, and totalitarian state like old Soviet system is getting blurier all the time. Like
planned economies of command systems, now they just create money for the cronies, who might as well be commies, and they don't
give a care about what's true or honest, they lie and that's, like you mentioned, (Satanic), the truth isn't in 'em.
' I note that he says nothing about 'cap and trade,' or any other Western bankster-scam. I have nothing against renewable
energy–whether or not global warming is real '
Good comment however the environment is about more than just 'global warming' which may or may not be man-caused there is no
scientific certainty but certainly what looks like a concerted push by certain quarters
But there is also habitat loss the toxins introduced through pollution industrial farming and the problems it causes with erosion,
bad food etc
Putin's comments and Mike's citation of them reflect a thoughtful and realistic approach to at least start looking at these
problems
Anon from TN
The author is painting Putin as larger-than-life figure, which he isn't. Just like the Soviet Union was not defeated by the US,
but actually collapsed due to internal problems, regime change rampage is over largely because the United States pushed their
luck and overextended themselves, and not just thanks to Putin. Throughout history, all dominant empires lose their grip and eventually
crumble (remember Roman or British), and now it's the turn of the US Empire. Fortunately or unfortunately, the next will be the
Chinese Empire, not Russian. (PS. Muslims missed the train. Again)
It's not like he used the term 'enemy,' which too many unfortunately resort to in these discussions. During Cold War 1.0, a
lot of us referred to the Sovs as the 'Adversary' because it was a less loaded term than enemy, though many equate the two. Are
the Chinese rivals? Sure. Are they adversaries? You bet, especially when we keep stepping into their back yard. Are they enemies?
The will be if we keep stepping into their back yard and telling them how to behave with their next door neighbours. All of this
applies to Russia as well.
The reason why the US empire will follow the British empire into the graveyard is because they are based on the same model – trying
to prevent others from becoming equal to them instead of trying to get better than the competitors.
GB was preoccupied with preventing Germany from surpassing them – and guess what? They succeeded. And where is the British
empire now?
From an empire on which the sun never sets, pretty soon they'll be a country where the sun never rises – thanks to their stupid
immigration policies and preoccupations with Russia (still!), like they (the British) are still even a factor in the global power
games.
US is on a similar path of self-destruction. First they made China an economic superpower and now they want to contain them
militarily. Good luck with that.
The money that the US spent on military misadventures – they could have bribed with far lesser amount of money the various
"dictatorships" that they were so democratically inclined to topple – and would have achieved better results. Instead of using
those money to make US better – for their citizens, they are trying to prevent the world from catching up with them – British
style.
If anything the British military record was at least better than US's, at least they used to win wars – they pretty much went
down undefeated – but they did went down and US military doesn't have the same success rate and even if they did, they will not
accomplish holding the world back – same as Britain didn't.
American liberals would be surprised to know that Putin actually supports many of the same social issues that they support.
For example, the Russian President is not only committed to lifting living standards and ending poverty, he's also a big believer
in universal healthcare which is free under the current Russian Constitution
I do not see anything 'liberal' in Putin's ideas, certainly not as in the liberal agendas in the US.
I see him advocating Balance . creating a better order for the needs of populations and interactions between nations
. therefore preserving nations, people and earth. Balance is not rocket science .nature is the ultimate example of balance, when it is tampered with all species eventually suffer.
The neocons were/are Zionist in essence and mainly Jewish in thought leadership – this is inarguable.
Also inarguable, though I am not aware of very many well-written essays on the topic, is that under Yeltsin, brought to power
in no small part by US meddling, there was a fire sale of Russian assets – something arranged very largely by Jewish economists
and Jewish bureaucrats. And the new 'oligarchs?' Why 6 of 7 of the most enriches were Jews in a nation <3% Jewish.
Ukraine was largely a coup by Nuland, Pyatt, Feltman ato help Jewish oligarchs in Ukraine who suddenly found themselves in
the very top of the new govt. Jewish names pop up inordinately as to authors and editors of unhinged Russophobic articles. At what point do we say that the mideast wars are driven by Jews, so, disproportionately (maybe even mainly as to the media)
is the aggression and disinfo on Russia.
The Jewish Problem is to be taken seriously. We need to find a way to discuss it, rescued from Zionists and bona fide Judeophobes. Our lives may well depend on it.
Looks like Mueller investigation was a part of color revolution to depose Trump, using
consequentialism slogan widely attributed to
Machiavelli's The Prince "the end justifies
the means".
Mueller witch hunt is a part of neoliberalism counterattack on forces that are against neoliberal globalization, dropping
standard of living of common people and offshoring of manufacturing. That means tiny greedy elite against the majority of the USA
population. We read about such situations in history books, did not we?
Notable quotes:
"... The full force of the U.S. intelligence community has been looking for evidence of Russian government (not just "some Russians") interference in the election for 18 months (the recently released Schiff memo reveals five Trump campaign officials were under investigation as of September 2016, including Flynn), with the aim of finding proof of Trump's collusion with Russia in the same caper for about a year. ..."
"... It is reasonable to conclude they do not have definitive intelligence, no tape of a Team Trump official cutting a deal with a Russian spy. The same goes for the Steele dossier and its salacious accusations . If a tape existed or if there was proof the dossier was true, we'd watching impeachment hearings. ..."
"... What's left is the battle cry of Trump's opponents since Election Day: "Just you wait." They exhibit a scary, gleeful certainty that Trump worked with the Russians, because how else could he have won? ..."
"... It's not enough. Mueller is charged with nothing less than proving the president knowingly worked with a foreign government, receiving help in the election in return for some quid pro quo, an act that can be demonstrated so clearly to the American people as to overturn an election probably a full two years after it was decided. ..."
"... Given the stakes -- a Kremlin-controlled man in the Oval Office -- you'd think every person in government would be on this 24/7 to save the nation, not a relatively small staff of prosecutors leisurely filing indictments that so far have little to do with their core charge in the hope that someone will join their felony hunt and testify to crimes that may not have been committed. ..."
So here's what Mueller has: evidence of unrelated-to-Trump financial crimes by Paul Manafort and others, based mostly from FISA
surveillance on Manafort dating back to
2014
. The FBI's earlier investigation was dropped for lack of evidence, and it appears Mueller revived it now in part so the information
could be repurposed to press Manafort to testify. The role pervasive surveillance has played in setting perjury traps to manufacture
indictments to pressure people to testify against others has been grossly underreported. We'll see more of it, unfortunately, a new
tool of justice in a surveillance state.
Flynn and Papadopoulos are currently charged with relatively minor offenses whose connections to Russiagate are tenuous. Flynn's
contact with the Russian ambassador can be seen as a lot of uncomplimentary things, but it does not appear to have been a crime.
With Papadopoulos there may be a conspiracy charge in there with some shady lawyering, but little more. Further offstage, Carter
Page, a key actor in the
Steele dossier and the
subject of
FISA warrants, has not been charged with anything.
Here's what Mueller is missing. The full force of the U.S. intelligence community has been looking for evidence of Russian government
(not just "some Russians") interference in the election for 18 months (the recently released Schiff
memo reveals
five Trump campaign officials were under investigation as of September 2016, including Flynn), with the aim of finding proof of Trump's
collusion with Russia in the same caper for about a year.
It is reasonable to conclude they do not have definitive intelligence,
no tape of a Team Trump official cutting a deal with a Russian spy. The same goes for the Steele
dossier and its salacious
accusations . If a tape existed or if there was proof the dossier was true, we'd watching impeachment hearings.
What's left is the battle cry of Trump's opponents since Election Day: "Just you wait." They exhibit a scary, gleeful certainty
that Trump worked with the Russians, because how else could he have won?
But so far the booked charges against Flynn and Papadopoulos and the guilty pleas of others point towards relatively minor sentences
to bargain over -- assuming they have game-changing information to share in the first place. These are process crimes, not ones of
turpitude. Manafort says he'll go to court and defend himself, lips sealed.
It's not enough. Mueller is charged with nothing less than proving the president knowingly worked with a foreign government, receiving
help in the election in return for some quid pro quo, an act that can be demonstrated so clearly to the American people as to overturn
an election probably a full two years after it was decided.
Given the stakes -- a Kremlin-controlled man in the Oval Office -- you'd think every person in government would be on this 24/7
to save the nation, not a relatively small staff of prosecutors leisurely filing indictments that so far have little to do with their
core charge in the hope that someone will join their felony hunt and testify to crimes that may not have been committed.
A limping-to-the-finish line conclusion to Mueller's work just ahead of the midterms alleging Trump technically obstructed justice,
or a "conspiracy to commit something" charge without a finding of an underlying crime, will risk tearing the nation apart. Mueller
holds a lot in his hands, and he needs soon to produce the conclusive report to Congress he was charged to write. Until then, absent
evidence, skepticism remains a healthy stance.
Peter Van Buren, a 24-year State Department veteran, is the author of
We Meant Well : How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People andHooper's War : A Novel of WWII Japan. He Tweets
@WeMeantWell.
If Muellers witch hunt is still ongoing in June, the impact on the mid-year elections will be
sever. Mueller's plan is to keep this going as long as possible leaving the "Sword of
Damocles" hanging over President Trump and his administration. So far the Manafort
indictments for acts years before the election are all about "guilt by association" of the
Trump team. Muellers endless investigation is clearly theater of the absurd. Russian
collusion is only manifested in the Manafort indictments for things that had nothing to do
with Trump or the election. The anti-Trump forces will play this tune for as long as Trump
lets them.
Reply to John A. Maher – Good catch (and obvious / the best way to hide something is in
the open). The Democratic memo admits "they spied on Trump", (and they were right to spy on
his [the Trump] campaign). And now we see the reaction to all this build up – NO ONE
CARES. Now it is just a debate whether is was done properly (not illegally, but properly) and
that can be argued for years.
Valerie was not the puppeteer. Obummer wore the tiara and waved, had the wife, children and
dog assessoiries Val was the gett'er done person who took the phone calls from the real boss.
She organized and carried out the plans but I don't think she came up with them all on her
own. She took orders. The same someone or small group is still issuing orders and trying to
keep everyone in line.
They won't give up as they have more to lose by doing so than to gain.
It's really depressing watching Mueller continue to do what he wants too. Mueller is the deep
state. When all is said and done, Mueller will probably have a few more indictments
associated with Manafort and Gates and will come out and say the fbi and doj had every right
to do what they did because Trump did have Manafort in his campaign and Manafort is a really
bad guy. Mueller was appointed for the special council to cover up everything and to protect
the fbi. He will not get Trump, but he will save himself and all the black hats from
indictments.
"... "This funding is critical to ensuring that we continue an aggressive response to malign influence and disinformation and that we can leverage deeper partnerships with our allies, Silicon Valley, and other partners in this fight," said Under Secretary Goldstein. "It is not merely a defensive posture that we should take, we also need to be on the offensive. ..."
"... Israel is long known for such information operations in which its paid trolls not only comment on issues on social media but actively manipulate Wikipedia entries. Such astroturfing has since become a common tool in commercial marketing campaigns. ..."
"... With regard to the larger issue, it seems that the US is getting more and more like its allies Ukraine (drives out any press concerned with printing the truth, relies on a bombastic and entirely false narrative to try and convince its hapless citizens that all is great and everything is Russia's fault) and Israel (an early leader in manipulating online info as b states). ..."
"... If it sounds like a PR monkey banging away on a regurgitated theme, it probably is. For example, the endless repetition in US media about "Syrian chemical weapons attacks" with no on-the-ground supporting evidence is typical of a Rendon Group disinformation campaign; so then they hire a hundred trolls to post outraged comments about 'Syrian chemical weapons use' in comment sections and on twitter; then they hire some State Department intern to write a book about the horrors of the Assad regime, and at the end they collect their $10 million paycheck. ..."
"... The hypocrisy of the U$A continues to be staggering.. If the collective IQ's of the general public approached double digits, the disinformation and propaganda afoot, couldn't gain much traction. As comedian Richard Pryor once said, " Who you gonna' believe, the propagandists, or your lying eyes." ..."
"... money for propaganda... that was back in 1984 - we have progressed from Orwell's version of reality to a new one where reality is what you make of it... meanwhile there will be more dead people that the sponsors of these troll farms, could care less about... although they will frame it - 180% of that... ..."
The U.S. State Department will increase its online trolling capabilities and up its support
for meddling in other countries. The Hill
reports :
The State Department is launching a $40 million initiative to crack down on foreign
propaganda and disinformation amid widespread concerns about future Russian efforts to
interfere in elections.
The department announced Monday that it signed a deal with the Pentagon to transfer $40
million from the Defense Department's coffers to bolster the Global Engagement Center, an
office set up at State during the Obama years to expose and counter foreign propaganda and
disinformation.
The professed reason for the new funding is the alleged but unproven "Russian meddling" in
the U.S. election campaign. U.S. Special Counsel Mueller indicted 13 Russians for what is
claimed to be interference but which
is likely mere commercial activity.
The announcement by the State Department
explains that this new money will not only be used for measures against foreign trolling but to
actively meddle in countries abroad:
Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Steve Goldstein said the
transfer of funds announced today reiterates the United States' commitment to the fight.
"This funding is critical to ensuring that we continue an aggressive response to
malign influence and disinformation and that we can leverage deeper partnerships with our
allies, Silicon Valley, and other partners in this fight," said Under Secretary Goldstein.
"It is not merely a defensive posture that we should take, we also need to be on the
offensive. "
The mentioning of Silicon Valley is of interest. The big Silicon Valley companies Google,
Facebook and Twitter were heavily involved in the U.S. election campaign. The companies
embedded
people within the campaigns to advise them how to reach a maximum trolling effect:
While the companies call it standard practice to work hand-in-hand with high-spending
advertisers like political campaigns, the new research details how the staffers assigned to
the 2016 candidates frequently acted more like political operatives, doing things like
suggesting methods to target difficult-to-reach voters online, helping to tee up responses to
likely lines of attack during debates, and scanning candidate calendars to recommend ad
pushes around upcoming speeches.
Hillary Clinton's well-heeled backers have opened a new frontier in digital campaigning, one
that seems to have been inspired by some of the Internet's worst instincts. Correct the
Record, a super PAC coordinating with Clinton's campaign, is spending some $1 million to find
and confront social media users who post unflattering messages about the Democratic
front-runner.
In effect, the effort aims to spend a large sum of money to increase the amount of
trolling that already exists online.
Clinton is quite experienced in such issues. In 2009, during protests in Iran, then
Secretary of State Clinton pushed Twitter to defer
maintenance of its system to "help" the protesters. In 2010 USAid, under the State Department
set up a
Twitter-like service to meddle in Cuba.
The foreign policy advisor of Hillery Clinton's campaign, Laura Rosenberger,
initiated and runs the Hamilton68 project which
falsely explains any mentioning of issues disliked by its neo-conservative backers as the
result of nefarious "Russian meddling".
The State Department can build on that and other experience.
Since at least 2011
the U.S. military is manipulating social media via sock puppets and trolls:
A Californian corporation has been awarded a contract with United States Central Command
(Centcom), which oversees US armed operations in the Middle East and Central Asia, to develop
what is described as an "online persona management service" that will allow one US serviceman
or woman to control up to 10 separate identities based all over the world.
...
The Centcom contract stipulates that each fake online persona must have a convincing
background, history and supporting details, and that up to 50 US-based controllers should be
able to operate false identities from their workstations "without fear of being discovered by
sophisticated adversaries".
It was then wisely predicted that other countries would follow up:
The discovery that the US military is developing false online personalities – known to
users of social media as "sock puppets" – could also encourage other governments,
private companies and non-government organisations to do the same.
Israel is long known for such information
operations in which its paid trolls not only comment on issues on social media but
actively
manipulate Wikipedia entries. Such astroturfing has since become a common tool in
commercial marketing campaigns.
With the new money the State Department will expand its Global Engagement Center
(GEC) which is running "public diplomacy", aka propaganda, abroad:
The Fund will be a key part of the GEC's partnerships with local civil society organizations,
NGOs, media providers, and content creators to counter propaganda and disinformation. The
Fund will also drive the use of innovative messaging and data science techniques.
Separately, the GEC will initiate a series of pilot projects developed with the Department
of Defense that are designed to counter propaganda and disinformation. Those projects will be
supported by Department of Defense funding.
This money will be in addition to the large funds the CIA
traditionally spends on manipulating foreign media:
"We've been doing this kind of thing since the C.I.A. was created in 1947," said Mr. Johnson,
now at the University of Georgia. "We've used posters, pamphlets, mailers, banners -- you
name it. We've planted false information in foreign newspapers. We've used what the British
call 'King George's cavalry': suitcases of cash."
...
C.I.A. officials told Mr. Johnson in the late 1980s that "insertions" of information into
foreign news media, mostly accurate but sometimes false, were running at 70 to 80 a day.
Part of the new State Department money will be used to provide grants. If online trolling or
sock puppetry is your thing, you may want to apply now.
Posted by b on February 26, 2018 at 02:02 PM |
Permalink
"to find and confront social media users who post unflattering messages about the Democratic
front-runner"
I call these social media watchers rather than trolls. Rather than simply trying to
disrupt any and all social media threads they don't like, social media watchers look for
comments or comment threads that are disparaging or damaging to their employer.
#2 @Peter AU 1 - I would say the language "to find and CONFRONT" sounds pretty much like
troll behavior.
With regard to the larger issue, it seems that the US is getting more and more like its
allies Ukraine (drives out any press concerned with printing the truth, relies on a bombastic
and entirely false narrative to try and convince its hapless citizens that all is great and
everything is Russia's fault) and Israel (an early leader in manipulating online info as b
states).
That $40 million will probably be pissed away on a couple sweetheart contracts to Tillerson
friends and nobody will see a difference. US State Department propaganda programs, labeled as
"public diplomacy" and other monikers, have been around for a long time but haven't been
executed very well.
From the State Dept. historian office, 2013: . .(excerpt):
Public Diplomacy Is Still in Its Adolescent Stage in the State Department , etc.
. . . The process of convergence has been evolutionary. Secretary Powell grasped the power
of the information revolution, reallocated positions and resources from traditional
diplomatic posting to new areas and recognized the power of satellite television to move
publics and constrain governments even in authoritarian regimes. Secretary Rice forwarded
this reconceptualization under the rubric of "Transformational Diplomacy," which sought to
help people transform their own lives and the relationship between state and society.
Secretary Clinton continued the theme under the concept of "Smart Power." "Person-to-person
diplomacy in today's work is as important as what we do in official meetings in national
capitals across the globe," Clinton said in 2010.The work done by PD officials in Arab
Spring countries beginning in 2011 was as much about capacity-building as advocating U.S.
policies or directly trying to explain American culture. . . here
Prior efforts were targeted more at traditional news outlets, this is just an expansion into
social media along the lines of previous work, example A being the Rendon Group in Iraq,
etc. https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Rendon_Group
If it sounds like a PR monkey banging away on a regurgitated theme, it probably is. For
example, the endless repetition in US media about "Syrian chemical weapons attacks" with no
on-the-ground supporting evidence is typical of a Rendon Group disinformation campaign; so
then they hire a hundred trolls to post outraged comments about 'Syrian chemical weapons use'
in comment sections and on twitter; then they hire some State Department intern to write a
book about the horrors of the Assad regime, and at the end they collect their $10 million
paycheck.
Media watchers target specific comments or comment threads, in the case stated by b, those
disparaging or damaging to Clinton.
What I term trolls target blogs or social media accounts that are considered targets, no
matter the content of a particular article or comment thread. Social media media watchers are
a little more specialized than trolls and look for specific content.
P.S. it's funny that you can find out what these clowns are up to by looking for job listings
and salary reports:
The Rendon Group Social Media Specialist Salary | Glassdoor
Average [monthly] salaries for The Rendon Group Social Media Specialist: $2,520. The Rendon
Group salary trends based on salaries posted anonymously by The Rendon Group employees.
Talk about a soul-destroying job. Right up there with Wikipedia page editor.
I see what you are alluding to, but the only problem with it is that, irrespective of the
differing definitions, at heart, these infiltrators are a disrupting force on the message
boards, whether paid to be or not. Their medium is disruption and obfuscation. I tried to
wade into the neoliberal viper's den at slate.com un the past to post "alt-right" stuff and
was quickly attacked by multiple avatars.
In essence, one troll disrupts because he has a need for recognition, and the latter
disrupts for money. Both are netgain for the troll and loss for the rest of us.
The hypocrisy of the U$A continues to be staggering.. If the collective IQ's of the general public approached double digits, the disinformation
and propaganda afoot, couldn't gain much traction. As comedian Richard Pryor once said, " Who you gonna' believe, the propagandists, or your
lying eyes."
thanks b... troll farms looks like a good name for it... farming for the empire.. they could
call it that too.. russia as trend setter, lol.. i don't think so!
speaking of troll farms, i see max Blumenthal came out with some 'about time' comments on
the sad kettle of fish called 'democracy now'... here is his tweet - "If @democracynow is
going to push the neocon project of regime change in Syria so relentlessly and without
debate, it should drop the high minded literary NPR aesthetic and just host Nikki Haley for a
friendly one-on-one #EstablishmentNow https://twitter.com/democracynow/status/967123918237655041
7:07 AM - Feb 25, 2018 "
money for propaganda... that was back in 1984 - we have progressed from Orwell's version of
reality to a new one where reality is what you make of it... meanwhile there will be more
dead people that the sponsors of these troll farms, could care less about... although they
will frame it - 180% of that...
The silver lining here is that the state dept. is in a sense admitting that there is nothing
"in the pipe" relating to outright censorship whether through nefarious agreements between
ISP providers and the IC via the repeal of net neutrality.
$40 mil is a lot for liberal college graduates however.
Nonsense Factory @ 8, Peter AU 1 @ 9: There are plenty of communities in rural Australia
who'd be glad to have troll farms paying that sort of money (even as Australian dollars - 1
Australian dollar being worth about US$0.76 at this time of posting) a month. Real farmers
could do trolling on the side during slow seasons of the year and make some money.
What we need are some Mole Trolls, or maybe that's Troll Moles--double agents if you will
that work for 6-12 months recording 100% of all they do then reveal it all in an expose.
Getting ready for mid-terms. It's going to be interesting to see if the Democrats get wiped
off the map. They should be able to hire quite a few people for $40 million. Don't be
surprised if they deploy AI in the first wave, then follow up with a real person.
ben @13:
Turn off your I phones, and think a little.
ROFL After wandering aimlessly in the mall with Her Majesty over the weekend, I'm not sure
if that's even possible now.
"The big Silicon Valley companies Google, Facebook and Twitter were heavily involved in the
U.S. election campaign. The companies embedded people within the campaigns to advise them how
to reach a maximum trolling effect:"
It went much further than that . Google actually tweaked its algorithms to alter search
recommendations in favor of the Clinton campaign. A comparative analysis of search engines
Google, Bing and Yahoo showed that Google differed significantly from the other two in
producing search recommendations relevant to Clinton.
The entire U.S. MSM is a F'ing troll farm, disinformation, Orwellian world on steroids. The
U.S. public is fed a constant never ending stream of complete Bull sh**, self serving crap.
How to stop it is the only question, to stop the impunity with which these criminals like
Bush and Trump and Obama and Mattis et.al. lie with their pants on fire and .....they all
suck .01% dick.
It's surprising to see the NYT admit the US does it, too. The alt media has been all over
this including Corbett's recent video with the Woolsey interview with Fox News where he
laughs it off and then says it was for a good cause.
Two days before 9/11, Condoleeza Rice received the draft of a formal National Security
Presidential Directive that Bush was expected to sign immediately. The directive contained
a comprehensive plan to launch a
global war on al-Qaeda , including an "imminent" invasion of Afghanistan to topple the
Taliban. The directive was approved by the highest levels of the White House and officials
of the National Security Council, including of course Rice and Rumsfeld. The same NSC
officials were simultaneously running the Dhabol Working Group to secure the Indian power
plant deal for Enron's Trans-Afghan pipeline project. The next day, one day before 9/11,
the Bush administration formally agreed on the
plan to attack the Taliban.
The Highlands Forum has thus played a leading role in defining the Pentagon's entire
conceptualization of the 'war on terror.' Irving Wladawsky-Berger, a retired IMB vice
president who co-chaired the President's Information Technology Advisory Committee from 1997
to 2001, described his experience of
one 2007 Forum meeting in telling terms:
"Then there is the War on Terror, which DoD has started to refer to as the Long War, a term
that I first heard at the Forum. It seems very appropriate to describe the overall conflict
in which we now find ourselves. This is a truly global conflict the conflicts we are now in
have much more of the feel of a battle of civilizations or cultures trying to destroy our
very way of life and impose their own."
Yeah well since the writer of the 'quiz' exposes themself as bein a troll of the worst
sort there is nothing to be said. I'm currently attempting to ingest only those newstories
where the publisher provides space for feedback from readers since if a story is truthful it
should be able to withstand challenge. yeah riight cos that means there's bugger all out
there anymore. The biggest 'win' populism has had this far is in driving all feedback off all
sites with a readership of more than a few hundred. Many of those that do allow feedback only
permit humans with credentialed facebook or google accounts to indulge and the comments are
only visible to similarly logged in types. That tells us a lot about the lack of faith the
corporate media actually have in the nonsense they publish.
Of course 'trolls' are the ones held to be the guilty for causing this but if you actually
watch what happens in a feedback column such as the rare occasions when the graun still
permits CIF comments it isn't the deliberately offensive arseholes spouting the usual cliches
who get deleted, it is those who put forward a considered argument which details why the
original writer has reached a faulty conclusion.
We all know this yet it seems as though none of us are prepared to confront it properly as
the censorship it is.
IMO media outlets which continually lie or at least distort the truth to advance a particular
agenda need to be called to account.
Massed pickets outside newsrooms would be a good way cos as much as media hate us loudmouths
who won't swallow their bromides, they like their competition even less. A decently organised
picket of NYT, WaPo or the Graun would be news in every other spineless, propagandising &
slug-featured media entity.
Said troll was published in Richmond and God only knows who else picked it up. I refuted
it in the comments as best I could, also excerpting MOA. Regardless:
Among Rendon's activities was the creation of Ahmed Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress (INC)
on behalf of the CIA, a group of Iraqi exiles tasked with disseminating propaganda,
including much of the false intelligence about WMD . That process
had begun concertedly under the administration of George H W. Bush, then rumbled along
under Clinton with little fanfare, before escalating after 9/11 under George W. Bush.
Rendon thus played a large role in the manufacture of inaccurate and false news stories
relating to Iraq under lucrative CIA and Pentagon contracts -- and he did so
in the period running up to the 2003 invasion as an advisor to Bush's National
Security Council: the same NSC, of course, that planned the invasions of Afghanistan and
Iraq, achieved with input from Enron executives who were simultaneously engaging the
Pentagon Highlands Forum.
Mass surveillance and data-mining also now has a distinctive operational purpose in
assisting with the lethal execution of special operations, selecting targets for the CIA's
drone strike kill lists via dubious algorithms, for instance, along with providing
geospatial and other information for combatant commanders on land, air and sea, among many
other functions. A single social media post on Twitter or Facebook is enough to trigger
being placed on secret terrorism watch-lists solely due to a vaguely defined hunch or
suspicion; and can potentially even land a suspect on a kill list.
In 2011, the Forum hosted two DARPA-funded scientists, Antonio and Hanna Damasio, who are
principal investigators in the 'Neurobiology of Narrative Framing' project at the
University of Southern California. Evoking Zalman's emphasis on the need for Pentagon
psychological operations to deploy "empathetic influence," the new DARPA-backed project
aims to investigate how narratives often appeal "to strong, sacred values in order to evoke
an emotional response," but in different ways across different cultures
This goes a long way toward explaining what is occurring in Hollywood and Nashville.
Carter Page FISA warrant does much, much more than surveille Page himself -- it
permits surveillance of most of the Trump campaign.
Notable quotes:
"... The whole Memo discussion above concerns the FBI's data manipulations to cast Carter Page as a spy worthy of an Article 1 warrant by the FISC. As I explained above, once Admiral Rogers closed the FBI's access to the NSA mega-file, the Bureau developed several work-arounds to explain how the FBI had data from the mega-file that they were mining through our Ambassador to the UN. ..."
"... Fusion GPS immediately hired the wife of FBI manager Bruce Ohr, Nellie, and Christopher Steele. Bruce handed material to Nellie, Nellie to Christopher. He repackaged the material claiming it was provided by very personal "Russian contacts" and the FBI then handed that laundered Steele material to the FISC. ..."
"... This laundering operation was exposed with a mistake concerning Trump's lawyer Michael Cohen. Michael Cohen was actually attending a family celebration and a ball game here in the US when he supposedly met Steele's "Russian contacts" in Prague. Steele's contacts, who exist only in his mind, dutifully confirmed that the meeting took place in Prague. ..."
"... Bill Binney, on Jimmy Dore show, said that FISA warrant enabled "two hop" surveillance. If so, then Carter Page FISA warrant does much, much more than surveille Page himself -- it permits surveillance of most of the Trump campaign. ..."
"... My "dog that didn't bark" question about Carter Page - if Carter Page was such a known danger, why didn't the FBI warn the Trump Campaign against letting him become involved in the campaign? ..."
"... The dog that didn't bark - if the Schiff Memo were so powerful, such a slam dunk, every MSM outlet in the western world would be trumpeting it to the skies and talking about nothing but. They seem to be barely able to acknowledge the existence of the Memo. ..."
"... As it happens, I think the suggestion that Steele's role may have been, in very substantial measure, to give the impression that material from other source was the product of a high-quality 'humint' investigation merits being taken extremely seriously. ..."
"... Schiff's defence sounded so, pardon the pun, shifty and did nothing to really counter the main point Nunes made when he released his memo. ..."
"... Schiff's memo was basically a vendetta against persons. Page and Papadopolis (sp?) are obviously the unpopular kids in the minds of the "mean girl" Democrats because they had links to Trump, the real threat to the popular girl Democrats. ..."
"... Funnily enough the question raised in your excerpt is exactly what I've been thinking since reading a post by TTG about Carter Page being an important FBI informant and state witness to the prosecution of Russian espionage. ..."
"... If the FBI believed Page had become a Russian spy it would have been easy due to their prior relationship with him to interview him and if he lied, to prosecute him for the process crime of perjury. That is such a slam dunk that the fact they didn't do that makes it seem there's something fishy there. ..."
"... And they never verified Steele's allegation that Page met with Sechin and Divyekin which would have been easy to do and now it seems was pure fabrication. Instead the FBI and DOJ lied and misrepresented to FISC to get a surveillance warrant on Page. This seems rather fishy. I speculate they did that to gain incidental collection on members of the Trump campaign. ..."
"... I note that Page hasn't been charged by the DOJ for any crime. ..."
"... Instead of working hard to protect national security, the FBI/CIA/DOJ' senior-idiots (accustomed to comfort and hefty checks) have been politicking and meddling in the electoral process. Meanwhile, the foreign nationals were left free to surf congressional computers – for years! (See Awan affair) and the "natives" like Clinton et al have been making a lot of money by getting huge bribes from Russians and Saudis (see Uranium One, involving Mueller for all other people). ..."
"... Carter Page during his period of cooperation with the FBI, almost certainly was handled by Agents assigned to a field office. I wonder what they had to say, assuming they even knew, about HQ opening a CI case targeting their former cooperating witness for FISA coverage. It will be very interesting to see who handled Steele. Strzok? ..."
"... What was the compelling evidence and who furnished it to turn a US Naval Academy graduate, and presumably a Naval Officer with a readily accessible track record in service, into the targeted subject of an espionage investigation. Did he even have any current access to classified information? This is not looking good. ..."
"... Carter Page is indeed a puzzlement. I don't see any account of him being an FBI informant, but he was a witness in the investigation and trial of the three SVR officers who tried to recruit him in 2013. ..."
"... Obama claimed something to the effect that, it turns out I am pretty good at killing people. This was in reference to the drone program and assume I don't need to footnote. Perhaps he got the notion that his administration was pretty good at intelligence. ..."
Devin
Nunes and his team have saved me the effort of pointing out the problems with the Schiff
rebuttal. I am presenting that in full. Here is the bottomline--we now know that Christopher
Steele was not a "one-time Charlie." He had a longstanding covert relationship as an FBI
intelligence asset. The Democrat memo does nothing to dispute that fact.
It also is clear that DOJ and FBI personnel engaged in unprofessional (and possibly illegal)
conduct with respect to making representations to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court
(FISC). Three key points on this front--1: The so-called Steele dossier was proffered as
evidence to the FISC without fully disclosing that Steele was a covert asset being paid for his
work and that Democrat political operatives were also paying him; 2: Senior DOJ officials,
particularly Bruce Our, were totally comprised yet continued to be involved in the process; and
3: The Democrats insist that Carter Page is a bad guy and deserves to be investigated. Yet, no
charges have been filed against him and the allegations leveled in the Steele dossier were
dismissed by former FBI Director Comey as "salacious and unverified."
Anyway, here are the main points from the Democrat memo and the Republican response.
"George Papadopoulos revealed [redacted] that individuals linked to Russia, who took
interest in Papadopoulos as a Trump campaign foreign policy adviser, informed him in late
April 2016 that Russia [two lines redacted]. Papadopoulos's disclosure, moreover, occurred
against the backdrop of Russia's aggressive covert campaign to influence our elections, which
the FBI was already monitoring. We would later learn in Papadopoulos's plea that the
information the Russians could assist by anonymously releasing were thousands of Hillary
Clinton emails."
my problem with this is wikileaks released the e mails via a search-able archive on march
16th 2016...
i still don't see how anything papadopolous said is relevant time wise.. what am i missing
here, other then the obvious fact papadopolous looks like a lousy liar.. apparently he got
this from Joseph Mifsud who as it turns out was 'director of the London Academy of Diplomacy'
and etc - according to the nyt here -
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/31/world/europe/russia-us-election-joseph-mifsud.html
and from the nyt article "Mr. Papadopoulos has pleaded guilty to lying to the F.B.I. about
his conversations with the "professor." Mr. Mifsud is referred to in the papers only as "the
professor," based in London, but a Senate aide familiar with emails involving Mr. Mifsud --
lawmakers in both the Senate and the House are investigating Russia's role in the election --
confirmed that he was the person cited."
the whole thing of russia influencing the usa election seems built on via a number of
sketchy characters at best..
at any rate - this is what emptywheel thinks is relevant in an otherwise irrelevant memo
from schiff... i don't get how it is!
The whole Memo discussion above concerns the FBI's data manipulations to cast Carter Page
as a spy worthy of an Article 1 warrant by the FISC. As I explained above, once Admiral
Rogers closed the FBI's access to the NSA mega-file, the Bureau developed several
work-arounds to explain how the FBI had data from the mega-file that they were mining through
our Ambassador to the UN.
Fusion GPS immediately hired the wife of FBI manager Bruce Ohr, Nellie, and Christopher
Steele. Bruce handed material to Nellie, Nellie to Christopher. He repackaged the material
claiming it was provided by very personal "Russian contacts" and the FBI then handed that
laundered Steele material to the FISC.
This laundering operation was exposed with a mistake concerning Trump's lawyer Michael
Cohen. Michael Cohen was actually attending a family celebration and a ball game here in the
US when he supposedly met Steele's "Russian contacts" in Prague. Steele's contacts, who exist
only in his mind, dutifully confirmed that the meeting took place in Prague.
I wish I might be a sock-puppet, but too many of my condo neighbors know otherwise. My
favorite hobby in retirement is writing films for children, in which white hats succeed and
black hats don't.
Bill Binney, on Jimmy Dore show, said that FISA warrant enabled "two hop" surveillance. If
so, then Carter Page FISA warrant does much, much more than surveille Page himself -- it
permits surveillance of most of the Trump campaign.
In some ways, being a sock-puppet and napping, in a bureau drawer (?), between soliloquies
would be rather peaceful. Alas, too many of my condo neighbors know me to be otherwise !
Do check out sites such as The Conservative Treehouse and you will discover that Admiral
Rogers' closing the NSA mega-file to the FBI led to Nellie Ohr's & Christopher Steele's
information laundering operation. Other sites yet will introduce you to FISC Chief Judge
Rosemary Collyer's 99-page rebuke of the FBI for their defalcations.
At a minimum, you won't be surprised when a plethora of FBI / DOJ / State Department
employees are found guilty and sent to prison.
My "dog that didn't bark" question about Carter Page - if Carter Page was such a known
danger, why didn't the FBI warn the Trump Campaign against letting him become involved in the
campaign?
The memo does note that "the FBI also interviewed Page multiple times about his Russian
intelligence contacts." Apparently, these interviews stretch back to 2013. The memo also
lets slip that there was at least one more interview with Page in March 2016, before the
counterintelligence investigation began. We must assume that Page was a truthful
informant since his information was used in a prosecution against Russian spies and Page
himself has never been accused of lying to the FBI .
So . . . here's the question: When Steele brought the FBI his unverified allegations
that Page had met with Sechin and Divyekin, why didn't the FBI call Page in for an
interview rather than subject him to FISA surveillance? Lest you wonder, this is not an
instance of me second-guessing the Bureau with an investigative plan I think would have
been better. It is a requirement of FISA law.
When the FBI and DOJ apply for a FISA warrant, they must convince the court that
surveillance -- a highly intrusive tactic by which the government monitors all of an
American citizen's electronic communications -- is necessary because the
foreign-intelligence information the government seeks "cannot reasonably be obtained by
normal investigative techniques." (See FISA, Section 1804(a)(6)(C) of Title 50, U.S. Code.)
Normal investigative techniques include interviewing the subject. There are, of course,
situations in which such alternative investigative techniques will inevitably fail -- a
mafia don or a jihadist is not likely to sit down with FBI agents and tell them everything
he knows. But Carter Page was not only likely to do so, he had a documented
history of providing information to the FBI .
There's a reason why Nunes, Goodlatte and Grassley are focused on the Clinton commissioned
Fusion GPS dossier, Christopher Steele and the FISA Title 1 warrant on Carter Page. It is the
simplest path to the conspiracy at the Obama administration.
My, street sense, and experience as a lawyer tells me that -- "tips, confessions.." from
informants is true Steve. But the bar for going after a drug dealer, or fence, or kiddie porn
type, is supposed -- one assumes -- to be a hell of a lot lower than going after the nominee for
President of a major political party.
Welcome to the criminal defense world. Everyday, hundreds of warrants based on the statements
of criminals, paid informers, bitter ex-girlfriends, lying cops, and even non-existent
"confidential informants" are issued. With all but the most blatant provably false
affidavits, questionable searches are upheld by judges.
At this point I'm just waiting for Mueller's final indictments and the report. The facts
will be there, or they won't.
If they are, try arguing a Motion to Suppress Evidence in the impeachment trial. That'll
get you far . . .
The dog that didn't bark - if the Schiff Memo were so powerful, such a slam dunk, every MSM
outlet in the western world would be trumpeting it to the skies and talking about nothing
but.
They seem to be barely able to acknowledge the existence of the Memo.
It really does help if, when you make claims, you link to the source so that others can
evaluate them. In the case of the claims you are making, the source is clearly a post two days ago by
'sundance' on the 'Conservative Treehouse' site entitled 'Tying All The Loose Threads
Together – DOJ, FBI, DoS, White House: "Operation Latitude" '
As it happens, I think the suggestion that Steele's role may have been, in very
substantial measure, to give the impression that material from other source was the product
of a high-quality 'humint' investigation merits being taken extremely seriously.
However, to repeat claims by 'sundance', while not taking the – rather minimal
– amount of trouble required to provide the link which allows others to evaluate them,
simply puts people's backs up and makes them less likely to take what you are suggesting
seriously.
In the words of Emily Dickinson, I'm nobody. So., I come here to test my reaction when I
read what the Democrats wrote -- though it was hard to get any continuity while reading because
of all the big black lines--I was completely underwhelmed. I hate it when someone claims that
what he/she is going to say will be something that will change my entire Weltanschauung and
it turns out to be a nothing burger, in today's parance.
So thank you for confirming my opinion of the memo and thanks to others who have commented
and who have way more experience and knowledge about how our Swam works (or doesn't
work?).
My first reaction before I even tried to read the memo was correct. My first instinct was
to judge on the basis of personality, which I know is not often logical. I felt that nothing
put out under Schiff's authority could change my mind about the point Nunes made when he put
out his mamo. Schiff's defence sounded so, pardon the pun, shifty and did nothing to really
counter the main point Nunes made when he released his memo.
Schiff's memo was basically a vendetta against persons. Page and Papadopolis (sp?) are
obviously the unpopular kids in the minds of the "mean girl" Democrats because they had links
to Trump, the real threat to the popular girl Democrats. All we have to do is hear their
names and we should automatically decide that if we want to be popular, we should malign them
also so as to malign Trump and gain our entrance into the popular group in the cafeteria.
Funnily enough the question raised in your excerpt is exactly what I've been thinking
since reading a post by TTG about Carter Page being an important FBI informant and state
witness to the prosecution of Russian espionage.
If the FBI believed Page had become a Russian spy it would have been easy due to their
prior relationship with him to interview him and if he lied, to prosecute him for the process
crime of perjury. That is such a slam dunk that the fact they didn't do that makes it seem
there's something fishy there.
And they never verified Steele's allegation that Page met with Sechin and Divyekin which
would have been easy to do and now it seems was pure fabrication. Instead the FBI and DOJ
lied and misrepresented to FISC to get a surveillance warrant on Page. This seems rather
fishy. I speculate they did that to gain incidental collection on members of the Trump
campaign.
I note that Page hasn't been charged by the DOJ for any crime. I agree with you that the
investigation of the "conspiracy" is moving along well despite the roadblocks by the DOJ. Goodlatte who has seen the FISA application has now requested all the DOJ testimony from
FISC. In a recent interview Rep. Ratcliffe who has also seen the FISA application made an
interesting point that since in a FISC proceeding the accused has no ability to challenge the
prosecution's claims, the prosecution has an affirmative obligation under FISA to present all
the evidence, which the DOJ did not do but instead knowingly mislead the court.
It looks like we're heading towards another special counsel to investigate law enforcement
and the IC regarding both the Trump and Clinton counter-intelligence investigations as well
as the IC and media propaganda efforts to build hysteria around the meme of collusion of the
Trump campaign with the Russian government. That investigation could lead all the way into
the Obama White House.
See post No 14: "...the FBI also interviewed Page multiple times about his Russian
intelligence contacts." Apparently, these interviews stretch back to 2013. The memo also lets
slip that there was at least one more interview with Page in March 2016, before the
counterintelligence investigation began. We must assume that Page was a truthful informant
since his information was used in a prosecution against Russian spies and Page himself has
never been accused of lying to the FBI."
The case is not closed – it is closing on the high-placed violators of the US
Constitution --as well as on their lack of professionalism, sheer incompetence and
promiscuous opportunism
Instead of working hard to protect national security, the FBI/CIA/DOJ' senior-idiots
(accustomed to comfort and hefty checks) have been politicking and meddling in the electoral
process. Meanwhile, the foreign nationals were left free to surf congressional computers
– for years! (See Awan affair) and the "natives" like Clinton et al have been making a
lot of money by getting huge bribes from Russians and Saudis (see Uranium One, involving
Mueller for all other people).
There is another big Q: To what extend both the FBI and the CIA have been infiltrated by
Israel-firsters that are loyal to Zion, and how extensive is the damage inflicted by the
"duals" on the US.
Most unusual, I would say, for an Agent in an upper management position in FBI HQ to open a
counter intelligence case and then for all intents and purposes assign it to himself. Cases
are normally worked and directly supervised in field offices.
Carter Page during his period of cooperation with the FBI, almost certainly was handled by
Agents assigned to a field office. I wonder what they had to say, assuming they even knew,
about HQ opening a CI case targeting their former cooperating witness for FISA coverage.
It will be very interesting to see who handled Steele. Strzok?
What was the compelling evidence and who furnished it to turn a US Naval Academy graduate,
and presumably a Naval Officer with a readily accessible track record in service, into the
targeted subject of an espionage investigation. Did he even have any current access to
classified information?
This is not looking good.
Carter Page is indeed a puzzlement. I don't see any account of him being an FBI informant,
but he was a witness in the investigation and trial of the three SVR officers who tried to
recruit him in 2013.
If he was an informant, the FBI would not have had to obtain a FISA
warrant to surveil him in 2014. That also raises doubts about how cooperative he was during
that investigation and the 2015 Russian spy trial.
Obviously he didn't obstruct the
investigation or prosecution or he would have been charged for that long ago. I get the
impression he is a lot more wily than most people give him credit for.
Obama claimed something to the effect that, it turns out I am pretty good at killing people.
This was in reference to the drone program and assume I don't need to footnote.
Perhaps he got the notion that his administration was pretty good at intelligence.
Looks like neoliberals decided to equate widespread anti-neoliberalism and anti-globalization sentiment with pro-Russian
propaganda. A very clever and very dirty trick.
What is funny is that Steele dossier and FBI Mayberry Machiavellians machinations actually deprived Sanders a chance to
represent Democratic Party. nt that he wanted this badly, he folded eve without major pressure (many be under behind the scenes
intimidation due to business dealing of his wife)
Notable quotes:
"... Instead of standing up to the crazies – by which I mean the Democratic party Establishment – and saying that the whole Russia-phobic campaign is based on nothing but hot air and fantasy, he's kowtowing to the very people who are trying to smear him as a Russian agent. Here he is signing on to the Clintonite canon of faith that poor Hillary " had to run against the Russian government " as well as Trump. ..."
"... This is laughable: there's no evidence for this other than Mueller's comical "indictment," which shows that something called the "Internet Research Agency," run by an out-of-work chef, spent a grand total of $100,000 – mostly after the election – on Facebook ads that were both anti-Clinton and anti-Trump. Michael Moore attended one "Russian-sponsored" event – a rally of thousands targeting Trump Tower, and, by the way, the only successful "Russian" event (the pro-Trump events were flops). ..."
"... Not only is Bernie buying into Russia-gate, now that the case for it is collapsing – nearly two years later and there's still no evidence of "collusion" – but he's calling for a full-fledged witch-hunt: ..."
"... Sanders' followers have taken up the hate-on-Russia battle cry with alacrity, with material by the fraudulent fanatic Luke Harding all over the web site of the Democratic Socialists of America. And being the left edge of the Democratic party, DSA will be supporting the very Democratic officeholders and officials who are shouting the loudest about Russia. ..."
"... Oh, he's got money-laundering charges on Paul Manafort and associates, but that has nothing to do with the Trump campaign: it all happened years before Trump ran. He's got Carter Page pleading guilty to lying to the FBI – but it's not clear what this means, exactly, since he's not been charged with a crime after all this time. ..."
"... So no matter what you may think of Trump and his policies, the real question is: will the Deep State and their allies in the media succeed in their bid for power? Will they oust a sitting President and institute a new era in our politics, one in which the political class can exercise its veto over the democratic will of the people? ..."
"... A SPECIAL NOTE : Yes, our matching funds have arrived: a group of donors has gotten together and pledged $30,000 – but there's a catch. We have to match that amount in smaller donations. So now it's up to you. We need your support so we can get back to doing our job – exposing the lies of the War Party. But we can't do it without your tax-deductible donations. ..."
One by one, the plaster gods fall,
cracked and crumbled on the ground: the latest is Bernie Sanders, the Great Pinko Hope of the
(very few) remaining Democrats with a modicum of sense who reject the "Russia! Russia! Russia!"
paranoia of Rep. Adam Schiff and what I call the party's California Crazies. The official
Democratic leadership seems to have no real commitment to anything other than fealty to a few
well-known oligarchs, who provide the party with needed cash, a burning hatred of Russia
– an issue no ordinary voter outside of the Sunshine State loony bin and Washington, D.C.
cares about – and exotic issues of interest only to the upper class virtue-signalers who
are now their main constituency (e.g., where will trans people go to the bathroom?). Overlaying
this potpourri of nothingness, the glue holding it all together, is pure unadulterated hatred:
of President Trump, of Trump voters, of Middle America in general, and, of course, fear and
loathing of Russia and all things Russian.
And now the one supposedly bright spot in this pit of abysmal darkness has flickered out,
with Bernie Sanders, the Ron Paul of the Reds, jumping
on the Russia-did-it bandwagon and cowering in the wake of Robert Mueller's laughable
"indictment," in which the special prosecutor avers that $100,000 in Facebook ads were designed
to throw the election to Trump – and to help Bernie!
Oh no, says Bernie, from his place of exile in the wilds of Vermont, where the
Russians
did not take over the electrical grid: It wasn't me!
Instead of standing up to the crazies – by which I mean the Democratic party
Establishment – and saying that the whole Russia-phobic campaign is based on nothing but
hot air and fantasy, he's kowtowing to the very people who are trying to smear him as a Russian
agent. Here he is signing on to the Clintonite canon of faith that poor Hillary " had to run against
the Russian government " as well as Trump.
This is laughable: there's no evidence for this other than Mueller's comical
"indictment," which shows that something called the "Internet Research Agency," run by an
out-of-work chef, spent a grand total of $100,000 – mostly after the election – on
Facebook ads that were both anti-Clinton and anti-Trump.
Michael Moore attended one "Russian-sponsored" event – a rally of thousands targeting
Trump Tower, and, by the way, the only successful "Russian" event (the pro-Trump events were
flops).
Not only is Bernie buying into Russia-gate, now that the case for it is collapsing –
nearly two years later and there's still no evidence of "collusion" – but he's calling for a
full-fledged witch-hunt:
"The key issues now are: 1) How we prevent the unwitting manipulation of our electoral
and political system by foreign governments. 2) Exposing who was actively consorting with the
Russian government's attack on our democracy."
This is the real goal of anti-Trump groups like the "
Alliance for Securing Democracy " and their "Hamilton dashboard," which purports to track
"pro-Russian" sentiment online: it's the explicit intention of #TheResistance to censor the
media with the cooperation of the tech oligarchs like Google, Twitter, and Facebook. It's back
to the 1950s, folks, only this time the Thought Police are "liberals," and "socialists" like
Bernie and the Bernie Bros.
Sanders' followers have taken up the hate-on-Russia battle cry with alacrity, with material
by the fraudulent fanatic
Luke Harding all over the web site
of the Democratic Socialists of America. And being the left edge of the Democratic party, DSA
will be supporting the very Democratic officeholders and officials who are shouting the loudest
about Russia.
Coming soon: a congressional "investigation" into "pro-Russian" Americans using the
"Hamilton dashboard" and the Southern Poverty Law Center as templates. Remember the House
UnAmerican Activities Committee? Well, it's coming back. That's always been in the cards, and
now those cards are about to be dealt.
I'll tell you one thing: I would have colluded with the Klingon Empire to prevent Hillary
and her band of authoritarian statists and warmongering nutcases from taking the White House.
If only the Russians had intervened, they'd have been doing this country – and the
world – a great service. Alas, there's not one lick of solid evidence – forensic,
documentary, witness testimony – that shows this. Which is what the Mueller investigation
is all about: the Democrats are claiming there was interference, and Mueller is out to find
corroboration. Except it's been over a year and he's come up with nothing.
Oh, he's got money-laundering charges on Paul Manafort and associates, but that has nothing
to do with the Trump campaign: it all happened years before Trump ran. He's got Carter Page
pleading guilty to lying to the FBI – but it's not clear what this means, exactly, since
he's not been charged with a crime after all this time.
The Deep State's bid for power has hit several roadblocks recently, but it could yet
succeed. First, Mueller could indict the President for "obstruction of justice" – a
charge derived not from any real criminal activity, but from the investigation itself. I think
this is the most probable outcome of all this.
Barring that, however, there is one road they could and probably would go down, given the
intensity of their hatred for this President and their overweening power lust. Having gone this
far in an attempt to overthrow a sitting President, they can't just stop halfway to their goal.
They have to go all the way, or else suffer the consequences – public exposure, and
possible criminal charges. In short, if they fail to get Trump on some semi-legal basis, I
think they'd welcome his assassination.
The Deep State cannot allow the Trump administration to stand for a number of reasons, the
chief one being that the coup is already in progress and there's no stopping it now. The
President's enemies are legion, they are powerful, and they are abroad as well as here on
American shores. They cannot allow his brand of "America First" nationalism to succeed, or seem
to succeed: it conflicts too violently with their globalist vision of a borderless
America-centric empire ruled by a coalition of oligarchs, technocrats, and Deep State
operatives who've been shaping world events from the shadows for generations.
So no matter what you may think of Trump and his policies, the real question is: will the
Deep State and their allies in the media succeed in their bid for power? Will they oust a
sitting President and institute a new era in our politics, one in which the political class can
exercise its veto over the democratic will of the people?
That's the issue at hand and that's why I spend so much time writing about Trump and his
enemies' efforts to destroy him. Because if the Deep State succeeds, the America we knew and
loved will be no more. Something else will take its place – and believe me, it won't be
pretty.
A SPECIAL NOTE : Yes, our matching funds have arrived: a group of donors has gotten
together and pledged $30,000 – but there's a catch. We have to match that amount in
smaller donations. So now it's up to you. We need your support so we can get back to doing our job –
exposing the lies of the War Party. But we can't do it without your tax-deductible
donations.
If we all get together and make that final push we can make our goal. Every donation counts,
no matter the amount. This is how we'll finally win the battle for peace: by uniting, despite
superficial differences, to support the institutions that are in the front lines of the
struggle for a rational foreign policy. And leading the charge is Antiwar.com.
You can check out my Twitter feed by going here . But please note that my tweets are sometimes
deliberately provocative, often made in jest, and largely consist of me thinking out loud.
@The
AlarmistAre Putin et al going to go into hyperventilation-mode about American meddling in the Russian elections before or after the election?
Maybe they can indict some bigwigs at Google, FaceBag and Twitter for taking long lunches to conspire against Russia on behalf
of the Empire.
Anon from TN
I strongly suspect that the Russians prefer to leave the honor of making yourself look really stupid to the US. Therefore, Russia would
not do anything nearing the level of self-harm inflicted by the US elites.
Perry, a member of the Homeland Security subcommittee on cyber security, said Tuesday that the House Office of Inspector General
tracked the network usage of Awan and his associates on House servers and found that a "massive" amount of data was flowing from the
networks.
Notable quotes:
"... Attorneys for the Plaintiffs in the case, Jared and Elizabeth Beck, and appears to argue that if the Democratic Party did cheat Sanders in the 2016 Presidential primary race, then that action was protected under the first amendment. Twitter users were quick to respond to the brief, expressing outrage and disgust at the claims made by representatives of the DNC and Debbie Wasserman Schultz. ..."
"... This author was shocked to find that despite the characterization of the Becks as peddlers of conspiracy theory, the defense counsel failed to mention the motion for protection filed by the Becks earlier in the litigation process. They also failed to note the voice-modulated phone calls received by the law offices of the Becks which contained a caller-ID corresponding to the law offices of Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a defendant in the case. In light of this context, the Becks hardly appear to be peddlers of conspiracy theory. ..."
"... It appears that the defendants in the DNC Fraud Lawsuit are attempting to argue that cheating a candidate in the primary process is protected under the first amendment. ..."
"... If all that weren't enough, DNC representatives argued that the Democratic National Committee had no established fiduciary duty "to the Plaintiffs or the classes of donors and registered voters they seek to represent." ..."
"... It seems here that the DNC is arguing for its right to appoint candidates at its own discretion while simultaneously denying any "fiduciary duty" to represent the voters who donated to the Democratic Party under the belief that the DNC would act impartially towards the candidates involved. ..."
"... If Wikileaks' publication of DNC emails are found to be similarly admissible in a United States court of law, then the contents of the leaked emails could be used to argue that, contrary to the defendant's latest brief, the DNC did favor the campaign of Hillary Clinton over Senator Sanders and that they acted to sabotage Sanders' campaign. ..."
"... Seth Rich murder and DHS investigation into 2016 election tampering soon to expose this party's contempt for the law, and all other forms of ethical conduct. ..."
"... Bernie is more than happy to yammer on about Russian bots swarming Facebook and other social media platforms in some insidious plot to rig the election -- and yet he fails to say a word about the actual attempts to rig the election by the DNA and Hillary. ..."
"... Don't forget in their twisted minds that the lies they tell to support their corrupt agenda are "protected free speech". There are no further examples one needs to show that these fuckers are nothing but malignant sociopaths. The death of the Rule of Law is why sociopaths flourish. ..."
"... They are without shame, without remorse, without ethics or morals, feeling or caring. Yet they still try to defend their indefensible actions where contrition and humbleness would be much better long term..."politically". The rank & file snowflakes would eat up a simple apology because they have been brought up to think thats all it takes to right wrongs. ..."
The ongoing litigation of the DNC Fraud Lawsuit and the appeal regarding its dismissal took a stunning turn yesterday. The defendants
in the case, including the DNC and former DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, filed a response brief that left many observers
of the case at a loss for words. The
document , provided by the
law offices of the Attorneys for the Plaintiffs in the case, Jared and Elizabeth Beck, and appears to argue that if the Democratic
Party did cheat Sanders in the 2016 Presidential primary race, then that action was protected under the first amendment.
Twitter users were quick to respond to the brief, expressing outrage and disgust
at the claims made by representatives of the DNC and Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
The Defense counsel also argued that because of Jared Beck's outspoken twitter posts, the plaintiffs were using the litigation
process for political purposes: "For example, Plaintiffs' counsel Jared Beck repeatedly refers to the DNC as "shi*bags" on Twitter
and uses other degrading language in reference to Defendants." Fascinatingly, no mention is made regarding the importance of First
Amendment at this point in the document.
The defense counsel also took issue with Jared Beck for what they termed as: " Repeatedly promoted patently false and deeply offensive
conspiracy theories about the deaths of a former DNC staffer and Plaintiffs' process server in an attempt to bolster attention for
this lawsuit."
This author was shocked to find that despite the characterization of the Becks as peddlers of conspiracy theory, the defense
counsel failed to mention the motion for protection filed by the Becks earlier in the litigation process. They also failed to note
the voice-modulated phone calls received by the law offices of the Becks which contained a caller-ID corresponding to the law offices
of Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a defendant in the case. In light of this context, the Becks hardly appear to be peddlers of conspiracy
theory.
The DNC defense lawyers then argued that: " There is no legitimate basis for this litigation, which is, at its most basic, an
improper attempt to forge the federal courts into a political weapon to be used by individuals who are unhappy with how a political
party selected its candidate in a presidential campaign ."
The brief continued: " To recognize any of the causes of action that Plaintiffs allege based on their animating theory would run
directly contrary to long-standing Supreme Court precedent recognizing the central and critical First Amendment rights enjoyed by
political parties, especially when it comes to selecting the party's nominee for public office. "
It appears that the defendants in the DNC Fraud Lawsuit are attempting to argue that cheating a candidate in the primary process
is protected under the first amendment.
If all that weren't enough, DNC representatives argued that the Democratic National Committee had no established fiduciary duty
"to the Plaintiffs or the classes of donors and registered voters they seek to represent."
It seems here that the DNC is arguing for its right to appoint candidates at its own discretion while simultaneously denying
any "fiduciary duty" to represent the voters who donated to the Democratic Party under the belief that the DNC would act impartially
towards the candidates involved.
Adding to the latest news regarding the DNC Fraud Lawsuit was the recent
finding by the UK Supreme Court, which stated
that Wikileaks Cables were admissible as evidence in legal proceedings.
If Wikileaks' publication of DNC emails are found to be similarly admissible in a United States court of law, then the contents
of the leaked emails could be used to argue that, contrary to the defendant's latest brief, the DNC did favor the campaign of Hillary
Clinton over Senator Sanders and that they acted to sabotage Sanders' campaign.
The outcome of the appeal of the DNC Fraud Lawsuit remains to be seen. Disobedient Media will continue to report on this important
story as it unfolds.
Even on a practical level, beyond the "fraud is free speech" argument, they don't seem to have considered that this argument
is a lose/lose proposition. Even if they (DNC) win legally, they are going to lose as people turn away from the finger they're
giving them.
Notice this is a civil suit brought by a citizen. The Bern is silent and not suing anybody although he was the target
of the scam, or maybe a party to it. The DOJ is silent and not looking to put anybody in jail for what appears to be an
obvious violation of criminal law.
Nothing to see here. Move along.
- - Jeff Sessions
Not so for murder, and rigging the general election. Seth Rich murder and DHS investigation into 2016 election tampering
soon to expose this party's contempt for the law, and all other forms of ethical conduct.
What is the difference? There is no any justice in America. It is all gone.
The US people are polarized and, thanks to Hollywood and mainstream media, with the culture of lawless, violence, and hatred
of everybody. America is a very sick country with a fake President and the utterly corrupt US Congress. It will not end good or
bloodless.
The US military reliance on super-technology is poorly thought of since these high-tech military systems require very highly-educated
and intelligent people to operate these systems while the US educational system being a total failure cannot produce.
Bernie is more than happy to yammer on about Russian bots swarming Facebook and other social media platforms in some insidious
plot to rig the election -- and yet he fails to say a word about the actual attempts to rig the election by the DNA and Hillary.
But, hey, if he can shave a few hundred dollars off of my monthly health insurance premiums he can call for a first-strike nuclear
attack on Russia!
Clearly we have laws for little people while the owners do whatever the fuck they want.
... the State Department completed its review and determined that 2,115 of the 30,490 emails contain information that is presently
classified Out of these 2,115 emails, the State Department determined that 2,028 emails contain information classified at the
Confidential level; 65 contain information classified at the Secret level; and 22 contain information classified at the Top Secret
level....
I think this is the exact reason election boards exists. They should be suing the DNC over this as well, but are full of party
officials. If there was any sane form of democracy, the DNC would be bared from campaigning in most states.
It's a sewer, the whole fucking system is just a cesspool filled with the most reprehensible, self-serving people in the country
outside of Wall Street. But everybody just keeps playing along.
Don't forget in their twisted minds that the lies they tell to support their corrupt agenda are "protected free speech". There
are no further examples one needs to show that these fuckers are nothing but malignant sociopaths. The death of the Rule of Law
is why sociopaths flourish.
They don't live in the same reality as us and never have.
They are without shame, without remorse, without ethics or morals, feeling or caring. Yet they still try to defend their indefensible
actions where contrition and humbleness would be much better long term..."politically". The rank & file snowflakes would eat up
a simple apology because they have been brought up to think thats all it takes to right wrongs.
My take was Bernie was supposed to cat herd the millennials to the Hillary camp but that blew up in their face when the millennials
decided to put down their cell phones and proceeded to give Hillary the bird.
Wouldn't doubt a large majority still ended up voting for but they probably won't admit it.
Doesn't this make the whole candidate selection process, and all the rules and regulations governing a party's whole nomination
process meaningless? If what DEMS did within their own party to Bernie is moot, then what Trump may have done via his "Russian
collusion" is mooted also. Can't have it both ways.
They used the same argument before the appeal... and the corrupt judge agreed with "The Crooks" and closed the case. NOT ONE media outlet covered the fact they actually said in open court that the DNC had no legal obligation to be fair.
"... The Russian independent TV Rain, also known as Dozhd, found (Russian, machine translation ) that one management person of the IRA was missing in the Mueller indictment. That women, Agata Burdonova, has recently moved with her husband to the United States. She had run the "translator" department of the IRA that created English language social marketing campaigns. She has now applied for a U.S. Social Security number. ..."
"... On June 15, 2017, Dmitry Fyodorov says he received an employment offer from Facebook. On August 8, 2017 Fyodorov marries Burdonova. Employer (presumably, Facebook) sponsors both of their visas -- prob. H1B. ..."
"... On December 7 2017 both moved to Bellevue, Washington. Two month later Mueller indicts the alleged IRA owner and management, but not Burdonova. This smells of a deal made by some US agency to get insight into the IRA. In return, an opportunity to move to the US was offered. ..."
Automated Twitter accounts, or trolls, repeated a tweet about a MoA piece
on Muller's indictment of "Russian trolls" . Funny but not really important. There is
interesting news though related to the original Muller indictment. Mueller accused with little
evidence 13 persons involved in the private Russian Internet Research Agency (IRA) of meddling
with the U.S. election campaign.
The Russian independent TV Rain, also known as Dozhd,
found (Russian,
machine translation ) that one management person of the IRA was missing in the Mueller
indictment. That women, Agata Burdonova, has recently moved with her husband to the United
States. She had run the "translator" department of the IRA that created English language social
marketing campaigns. She has now applied for a U.S. Social Security number.
On June 15, 2017, Dmitry Fyodorov says he received an employment offer from Facebook. On
August 8, 2017 Fyodorov marries Burdonova. Employer (presumably, Facebook) sponsors both of
their visas -- prob. H1B.
On December 7 2017 both moved to Bellevue, Washington. Two month later Mueller indicts the
alleged IRA owner and management, but not Burdonova. This smells of a deal made by some US
agency to get insight into the IRA. In return, an opportunity to move to the US was
offered.
" Democracy is not under stress – it's under aggressive attack, as
unconstrained financial greed overrides public accountability ."
I request a lessatorium* on the term 'democracy', because there aren't any democracies.
Rather than redefine the term, why not use a more accurate one, like 'plutocracy', or
'corporatocracy'.
-- -- -- -
* It's like a moratorium, you just do less of it.
This was written in March 7 2016 or two year ago. It still remains fresh insight even today, although Trump election promises
now were betrayed and deflated.
Notable quotes:
"... Yet still we cannot bring ourselves to look the thing in the eyes. We cannot admit that we liberals bear some of the blame for its emergence, for the frustration of the working-class millions, for their blighted cities and their downward spiraling lives. So much easier to scold them for their twisted racist souls, to close our eyes to the obvious reality of which Trump_vs_deep_state is just a crude and ugly expression: that neoliberalism has well and truly failed. ..."
"... The only thing more ludicrous than voting for Donald Trump would be to vote for Hilary Clinton. Whilst Trump is evidently crude, vulgar, bombastic, xenophobic, racist and misogynistic, his manifest personality flaws pale into insignificance when compared to the the meglomaniacal, prevaricating, misandristic, puff adder, who is likely to oppose him! ..."
"... Clinton is the archetypal political parasite, who has spent a lifetime with her arrogant snout wedged firmly in the public trough. Like Obama, Bush, et al, Clinton is just another elitist Bilderberger sock puppet, a conniving conspirator in the venal kleptocracy, located in Washington D.C, otherwise known as the U.S. federal government. ..."
"... Trump at least is not in thrall to the system and thus, by default, can be perceived by the average blue-collar American as being an outsider to the systemic corruption that pervades the whole American political process. A horrible choice, but the lesser of two evils. ..."
"... Both Clintons exemplify Democratic politicians who've utterly ignored the working class while pander to and serving only the executive class of America. Ronald Reagan would be proud of both Bill and Hillary Clinton's devotion to the 'trickle down' theory of economics. ..."
"... One thing that's important to consider, too, is how voting for politicians who claim to have your back on wedge issues is really shooting yourself in the foot economically. Wedge issues are the crumbs the Establishment allows the electorate to feast on while they (the Establishment) rob the Treasury blind, have their crimes decriminalized, start wars to profiteer from, write policy, off-shore jobs, suppress wedges, evade taxes, degrade the environment, monopolize markets, bankrupt emerging markets, and generally hoard all the economic growth for themselves. ..."
"... Friends don't let friends vote for neo-liberalists! ..."
"... Politicians in the U.S. are inherently corrupt, both figuratively and literally (they just hide it better as perks and campaign contributions). Politicians in the U.S. make promises, but ultimately it is just rhetoric and nothing ever gets delivered on. Once elected, they revert to the Status Quo of doing nothing – or they vote for the bills of the interest groups that supported them during the election. ..."
"... As far as racism is concerned, why is it racist to want to send undocumented people out of a country that they entered illegally in the first place? This seems to be the general accusation levied against Europeans and Americans (i.e. whites). We seem to have the obligation to take in refugees from all over the world otherwise we are seen as racists. ..."
"... What a brilliant article. It seems no one wants to talk about anything other than vilifying Trump supporters because their vested interests are all about grind working people into the dust so the high end of town can make every more money. No wonder Trump is cutting through. ..."
"... And "service industry" jobs are also being offshored to call centers and the like. When was the last time you heard a US accent when you called tech support or any other call center? ..."
"... Progressives may be surprised to hear that Japan is a wonderful country, not only free from imported terrorism but also mind-boggling safe. I mean "leave your laptop on the street all day and it won't get stolen" safe. They also have cool anime and Pokemon and toilets which are like the Space Shuttle. ..."
"... The Democratic Party partly abandoned its core constituencies after the so-called Reagan Revolution, thinking that to become more like the Republicans was the ticket with an electorate that had just angrily voted them out of power. ..."
"... Most of the Republicans are little more than cheerleaders for a system they understand only in a cartoonish form. ..."
"... US squanders the money in other fruitless pursuits like a $3 trillion war in Iraq, campaigns in Afghanistan, trillions of subsidies to too big to fail banks, an inefficient, overpriced and underperforming health care system, $160 billion in dubious disability benefits, billions of overpayment for medical drugs, more than $60 billion in medicare fraud. ..."
"... Only a certifiable imbecile would call Cruz an outsider. ..."
"... A company moving from Pennsylvania to Tennessee is ok, but moving a bit further to Mexico is treason? This seems arbitrary. Why are national borders a sacred limit? ..."
"... Manufacturing boom in China has lifted more people out of poverty than there are people in the United states! ..."
"... Regarding your last point, China lifted people out of poverty because others could afford to buy their goods. Not so much anymore, as today's news is that Chinese exports have dropped 25%. ..."
"... As to your initial point, it is natural for people to be worried about their jobs in a globalised world. For generations, the standard of living in America went up with each generation and this is no longer true. ..."
"... Cheap wages, etc. might be good for those at the top but not so for ordinary workers. ..."
"... You 'progressives'.... How much 'progress' will it take before you realise you have been wrong about absolutely everything ever? This is a serious question. ..."
"... Neo-liberalism outsources your job to India or Mexico. Liberalism calls you a racist when you complain about it. Two sides of the same coin. ..."
"... I find it very hard to believe that 'Donald J Trump' is not committed to corporatism and neo-liberalism. He just knows how to play to his audience. If you don't like neo-liberalism, turning to a divisive demagogue who made his money from the neo-liberal system and is whipping up your anger against other victims of neo-liberalism is not the answer. ..."
"... The Military and Pharma deals are highlighted here and with good reason. Lobbyists from both sectors have ensured that the US taxpayer has paid handsomely for hardware and drugs. These lobbyists have effectively bought Washington DC and handed the bill to taxpayer. The American taxpayer just wants value for money and Washington isn't delivering, so just like any other business that fails it's customer base it gets sacked or goes out of business. Hence the rise of Trump and Sanders. ..."
"... I would suggest that this exactly where all demagogues of the right get their votes: the small bourgeoisie and settled working class,, who have a lot to lose, or so they think, and are constantly afraid. It is the same with Farange and Le Pen, and Berlusconi etc. ..."
"... Neoliberalism has failed- or rather run its course, in the same whay that Keynsian social democracy had run its course in teh late 1970s. But! In the same that Keynsian social democracy brought the NHS and higher wages and public space and cultural investment etc, neoliberalism brought millions of people out of poverty, or at least out of the abject poverty that they lived in, in the 1980s. I wouldn't want to be a garment worker in Bangladesh, but we have to remember and celebrate that all those women do now have a choice other than prostitution. ..."
"... Xenophobia (much more useful term here, racism is meaningless ... when in France, for instance the issue is the supposed 'Muslim' invasion) provides a context, a kind of comfortable emotional zone, but more often than not people vote for reasons that they believe are based on logic. ..."
"... Yes, there is plenty of racism and bluster on other subjects but Trump stands for the anti-Neoliberal view. People on the left will vote for him because they know full well that the "trade" deals are enriching the "transnational elite" in historically unprecedented amounts while the hoy polly are barely making it if at all. People on the left ignore the wall and vote Trump because the wall can be dealt with later but the oppression of Neoliberal ideology is killing them today. People on the right will ignore abortion and vote Trump because that is a lower priority to them than the economic devastation in their lives - and they know the "trade" deals are sending them directly to Bangladesh living standards. Their adult children are still living at home, there are no descent jobs, their opportunities have been foreclosed by a Neoliberal establishment which governs for the "transnational elite" and the corporations they own and the hoy polly can be damned. ..."
"... It out there now Trump even if he never wins another state has put the lies of the Iraq war on the table but most impotently he has put the "trade" deals on the table which frightens the Neoliberals more than anything else. These issues will not go away just by eliminating Trump for the race now - it's too late the news is out - Neoliberalism is a dangerous ideology of extremism in the support of authoritarian corporate power and dynastic wealth. ..."
"... the working class aren't politically homogenous and are capable of making their own conscious and intelligent decisions (usually dismissed as false consciousness if they don't accord with the 'right' views). ..."
"... Orwell correctly identified that "only the lower classes are never, even temporarily, successful in achieving their aims" ..."
"... "To answer this question one must take a hard look at what is generally represented as "left" politics in the United States. ..."
"... Official "left" politics is constituted by the Democratic Party, which is-no less (and in some respects even more) than the Republican Party-the political instrument of Wall Street and substantial sections of military and intelligence strategists. The Obama administration, which entered the White House promising "change you can believe in," continued and expanded the policies of the Bush administration. Its economic policies have been dedicated entirely to the rescue and enrichment of Wall Street. Its signature social initiative was the restructuring of health care in a manner designed to massively expand the power and boost the profits of the insurance industry. Obama's administration has institutionalized assassinations as a central instrument of American foreign policy and overseen a dramatic escalation of attacks on democratic rights. ..."
"... Oh that is familiar, HR is the art of kicking a man in the balls in such a way he looks like an arsehole if he complains about it. My workplace likes to go about positive thinking and zen while loading the staff with unpaid overtime. ..."
"... In my view, Trump, Farage, Wilders, etc. are the only Western politicians who are committed to the idea of nation-states - with the idea of control over national borders and the sense of a unique national identity. Now, when epithets like 'rascist' or 'bigot' are used, it is often to attack the sentiments that follow from the belief in a nation-state. ..."
"... Now, let us stop and smell the perversity. Left parties the world over were founded to advance the fortunes of working people. But our left party in America – one of our two monopoly parties – chose long ago to turn its back on these people's concerns, making itself instead into the tribune of the enlightened professional class, a "creative class" that makes innovative things like derivative securities and smartphone apps. The working people that the party used to care about, Democrats figured, had nowhere else to go, in the famous Clinton-era expression. The party just didn't need to listen to them any longer. ..."
"... while both sides embraced neo liberalism, while globalization appeared successful, while you entrenched mums and dads in the stock market, both sides of politics wrote off critics as uneducated and bigoted. didn't listen to a word, didn't include them in YOUR democracy ..."
"... Much better than the average article on Trump. He makes a good point about the problems of the academic echo chamber, with experts all quoting each other, rather than real blue-collar workers. ..."
"... To be honest Trump is right on one very key issue as an American, and as a progressive who still would not vote for any Republican. I mean a vote for the Republican party would have disastrous consequences in terms of death and financial ruin as it always has in recent years. But Trump is right on free trade. ..."
"... Globalism is dead. Trump is the messenger. It will be every country for itself. The global elite will get on the isolationist bus or they will be replaced. It has ever been so. ..."
"... I wish it were so, but they spent too much time and money on this and wont let the people toss their ambitions to the side.. ..."
"... "Privilege checking," etc. is becoming a way of not talking about the colossal damage wrought by neoliberal capitalism. Clinton is a case in point. ..."
"... Americans mock Australia's political system, where you vote for a party, and the party picks the Prime Minister, but at least it allowed us to get rid of OUR version of Trump = Tony Abbott after just 2 years of leadership. The absurdities, mistakes, outrageous actions, obvious lies and extreme damage to Australia's reputation just got too much, and he was removed by his own party, ensuring he returned to being a political joke, a piece of amusing satire. ..."
"... Those who still cling to this idiotic explanation at some point would have to realize that many of the people who now vote for Trump 8 years ago voted for Obama. Now there is a puzzle they will never be able to solve. ..."
...the Republican frontrunner is hammering home a powerful message about free trade and its victims
....because the working-class white people who make up the bulk of Trump's fan base show up in amazing numbers for the candidate,
filling stadiums and airport hangars, but their views, by and large, do not appear in our prestige newspapers. On their opinion pages,
these publications take care to represent demographic categories of nearly every kind, but "blue-collar" is one they persistently
overlook. The views of working-class people are so foreign to that universe that when New York Times columnist Nick Kristof wanted
to "engage" a Trump supporter last week, he made one up, along with this imaginary person's responses to his questions.
When members of the professional class wish to understand the working-class Other, they traditionally consult experts on the subject.
And when these authorities are asked to explain the Trump movement, they always seem to zero in on one main accusation: bigotry.
Only racism, they tell us, is capable of powering a movement like Trump's, which is blowing through the inherited structure of the
Republican party like a tornado through a cluster of McMansions.
... ... ...
Yes, Donald Trump talked about trade. In fact, to judge by how much time he spent talking about it, trade may be his single biggest
concern – not white supremacy. Not even his plan to build a wall along the Mexican border, the issue that first won him political
fame. He did it again during the debate on 3 March: asked about his
political excommunication by Mitt Romney, he chose to pivot and talk about ... trade.
It seems to obsess him: the destructive free-trade deals our leaders have made, the many companies that have moved their production
facilities to other lands, the phone calls he will make to those companies' CEOs in order to threaten them with steep tariffs unless
they move back to the US.
Trump embellished this vision with another favorite left-wing idea: under his leadership, the government would "start competitive
bidding in the drug industry." ("We don't competitively bid!" he marveled – another true fact, a
legendary
boondoggle brought to you by the George W Bush administration.) Trump extended the critique to the military-industrial complex,
describing how the government is forced to buy
lousy but expensive airplanes thanks to the power of industry lobbyists.
... ... ...
Trade is an issue that polarizes Americans by socio-economic status. To the professional class, which encompasses the vast majority
of our media figures, economists, Washington officials and Democratic power brokers, what they call "free trade" is something so
obviously good and noble it doesn't require explanation or inquiry or even thought. Republican and Democratic leaders alike agree
on this, and no amount of facts can move them from their Econ 101 dream.
To the remaining 80 or 90% of America, trade means something very different. There's a video going around on the internet these
days that shows a room full of workers at a Carrier air conditioning plant in Indiana being told by an officer of the company that
the factory is being moved to Monterrey, Mexico and that they're all going to lose their jobs.
As I watched it, I thought of all the arguments over trade that we've had in this country since the early 1990s, all the sweet
words from our economists about the scientifically proven benevolence of free trade, all the ways in which our newspapers mock people
who say that treaties like the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement allow companies to move jobs to Mexico.
Well, here is a video of a company moving its jobs to Mexico, courtesy of Nafta. This is what it looks like. The Carrier executive
talks in that familiar and highly professional HR language about the need to "stay competitive" and "the extremely price-sensitive
marketplace." A worker shouts "Fuck you!" at the executive. The executive asks people to please be quiet so he can "share" his "information".
His information about all of them losing their jobs.
But there is another way to interpret the Trump phenomenon. A map of his support may coordinate with racist Google searches, but
it coordinates even better with deindustrialization and despair, with the zones of economic misery that 30 years of Washington's
free-market consensus have brought the rest of America.
Advertisement
It is worth noting that Trump is making a point of assailing that Indiana air conditioning company from the video in his speeches.
What this suggests is that he's telling a tale as much about economic outrage as it is tale of racism on the march. Many of Trump's
followers are bigots, no doubt, but many more are probably excited by the prospect of a president who seems to mean it when he denounces
our trade agreements and promises to bring the hammer down on the CEO that fired you and wrecked your town, unlike Barack Obama and
Hillary Clinton.
Here is the most salient supporting fact: when people talk to white, working-class Trump supporters, instead of simply imagining
what they might say, they find that what most concerns these people is the economy and their place in it. I am referring to a study
just published by Working America, a political-action auxiliary of the AFL-CIO, which interviewed some 1,600 white working-class
voters in the suburbs of Cleveland and Pittsburgh in December and January.
Support for Donald Trump, the group found, ran strong among these people, even among self-identified Democrats, but not because
they are all pining for a racist in the White House. Their favorite aspect of Trump was his "attitude," the blunt and forthright
way he talks. As far as issues are concerned, "immigration" placed third among the matters such voters care about, far behind their
number one concern: "good jobs / the economy."
"People are much more frightened than they are bigoted," is how the findings were described to me by Karen Nussbaum, the executive
director of Working America. The survey "confirmed what we heard all the time: people are fed up, people are hurting, they are very
distressed about the fact that their kids don't have a future" and that "there still hasn't been a recovery from the recession, that
every family still suffers from it in one way or another."
Tom Lewandowski, the president of the Northeast Indiana Central Labor Council in Fort Wayne, puts it even more bluntly when I
asked him about working-class Trump fans. "These people aren't racist, not any more than anybody else is," he says of Trump supporters
he knows. "When Trump talks about trade, we think about the Clinton administration, first with Nafta and then with [Permanent Normal
Trade Relations] China, and here in Northeast Indiana, we hemorrhaged jobs."
"They look at that, and here's Trump talking about trade, in a ham-handed way, but at least he's representing emotionally. We've
had all the political establishment standing behind every trade deal, and we endorsed some of these people, and then we've had to
fight them to get them to represent us."
Now, let us stop and smell the perversity. Left parties the world over were founded to advance the fortunes of working people.
But our left party in America – one of our two monopoly parties – chose long ago to turn its back on these people's concerns, making
itself instead into the tribune of the enlightened professional class, a "creative class" that makes innovative things like derivative
securities and smartphone apps. The working people that the party used to care about, Democrats figured, had nowhere else to go,
in the famous Clinton-era expression. The party just didn't need to listen to them any longer.
What Lewandowski and Nussbaum are saying, then, should be obvious to anyone who's dipped a toe outside the prosperous enclaves
on the two coasts. Ill-considered trade deals and generous bank bailouts and guaranteed profits for insurance companies but no recovery
for average people, ever – these policies have taken their toll. As Trump says, "we have rebuilt China and yet our country is falling
apart. Our infrastructure is falling apart. . . . Our airports are, like, Third World."
Trump's words articulate the populist backlash against [neo]liberalism that has been building slowly for decades and may very
well occupy the White House itself, whereupon the entire world will be required to take seriously its demented ideas.
Yet still we cannot bring ourselves to look the thing in the eyes. We cannot admit that we liberals bear some of the blame
for its emergence, for the frustration of the working-class millions, for their blighted cities and their downward spiraling lives.
So much easier to scold them for their twisted racist souls, to close our eyes to the obvious reality of which Trump_vs_deep_state
is just a crude and ugly expression: that neoliberalism has well and truly failed.
Below is a letter that General Jonathan Wainwright sent to Soldiers discharged from the military, following their service in
World War II. As our military downsizes and many choose to leave the service, I think this letter reminds us of the charge to
continue to reflect the values of our individual services and be examples within our communities.
To: All Personnel being Discharged from the Army of the United States.
You are being discharged from the Army today- from your Army. It is your Army because your skill, patriotism, labor, courage
and devotion have been some of the factors which make it great. You have been a member of the finest military team in history.
You have accomplished miracles in battle and supply. Your country is proud of you and you have every right to be proud of yourselves.
You have seen, in the lands where you worked and fought and where many of your comrades died, what happens when the people
of a nation lose interest in their government. You have seen what happens when they follow false leaders. You have seen what
happens when a nation accepts hate and intolerance.
We are all determined that what happened in Europe and in Asia must not happen to our country. Back in civilian life you
will find that your generation will be called upon to guide our country's destiny. Opportunity for leadership is yours. The
responsibility is yours. The nation which depended on your courage and stamina to protect it from its enemies now expects you
as individuals to claim your right to leadership, a right you earned honorably and which is well deserved.
Start being a leader as soon as you put on your civilian clothes. If you see intolerance and hate, speak out against them.
Make your individual voices heard, not for selfish things, but for honor and decency among men, for the rights of all people.
Remember too, that No American can afford to be disinterested in any part of his government, whether it is county, city,
state or nation.
Choose your leaders wisely- that is the way to keep ours the country for which you fought. Make sure that those leaders
are determined to maintain peace throughout the world. You know what war is. You know that we must not have another. As individuals
you can prevent it if you give to the task which lies ahead the same spirit which you displayed in uniform.
Accept and trust the challenge which it carries. I know that the people of American are counting on you. I know that you
will not let them down.
Goodbye to each an every one of you and to each and every one of you, good luck!
J.M. WAINWRIGHT
General, U.S. Army
Commanding
Albert Matchett
Why Americans are supporting him begins to make sense. A lot like here in the UK, our politicians have reduced amount of money
that people have available to spent. And can not understand why sales turnovers keeps going down. No money, No sale. Companies
say made abroad equals higher profits but Not if the goods made can not be sold, Because we have to many unemployed or minimum
hours contracts or low income people.
matt88008
The only thing more ludicrous than voting for Donald Trump would be to vote for Hilary Clinton. Whilst Trump is evidently
crude, vulgar, bombastic, xenophobic, racist and misogynistic, his manifest personality flaws pale into insignificance when compared
to the the meglomaniacal, prevaricating, misandristic, puff adder, who is likely to oppose him!
Clinton is the archetypal political parasite, who has spent a lifetime with her arrogant snout wedged firmly in the public
trough. Like Obama, Bush, et al, Clinton is just another elitist Bilderberger sock puppet, a conniving conspirator in the venal
kleptocracy, located in Washington D.C, otherwise known as the U.S. federal government.
Trump at least is not in thrall to the system and thus, by default, can be perceived by the average blue-collar American
as being an outsider to the systemic corruption that pervades the whole American political process. A horrible choice, but the
lesser of two evils.
Trump was always a Democrat, before now and so were a lot of other Americans. America is watching how the Democrat Party is destroying
America. The race card is a low blow to Trump supporters. Illegal immigration is a legitimate issue in the US. It has nothing
to do with racism.
Protecting America from potential terrorists entering the county is a real issue. We can look what happened
in Paris and Cologne. These are concerns of the people of America and they want protection and solutions. It has nothing to do
with racism. The biggest reason people support Trump is because they trust his financial aptitude. They honestly feel he can bring
America back to greatness. I personally don't care for his personality and don't completely trust him but I may have to vote for
him, considering my other choices. As soon as Rubio and Kasich drop out, Cruz will take off. Rubio, if he truly hates Trump, as
he acts, may want to drop out sooner than later.
British capitalism grew because of two things cheap coal that made using the new steam engine and the protected monopoly markets
offered by the empire which also provided monopoly access to the resources of those countries. American capitalism grew up behind
high tariff walls, ditto Chinese capitalism now.
British capitalism went into relative decline from the mid nineteenth century because of the opening up those monopoly markets
to overseas competition.
TTIP will be used by big capital both here in Europe and in the US to drive down the wages and working conditions of workers
in Europe and the US, and that is why the EU is solely a bosses agenda and workers here in Britain have more to gain by leaving
the EU, an EU that has crucified workers in Greece just so German bankers don't lose.
If the soft left and that includes much of what passes for the left in the PLP continues to pander to the interests of big
capital then the working classes will continue to be alienated from the Labour party.
To the middle class soft left choose a side, there are only two, labour or capital . If you choose capital you
personally maybe ok for a while, but capitalist expansion is now threatening the environment and with it food and water security.
Capitalism rests on continuous expansion but is now pushing against natural limits and when capitalist states come under too many
restrictions to their expansion you have the perfect recipe for war and in 2016 a war between the largest capitalist states has
the risk of going nuclear.
I'll just bet that if you were to look a little closer, you might find that there are a lot of different races voting for Trump,
so stop trying to brand him as racist. That is just another trick the opposition wants you to fall for. The corporations are fearful
that they might have to actually give a high paying job to an American, tsk, tsk.
It's ironic that a billionaire is leading the inter-class revolution.
I don't completely buy into the premise (last paragraph) that most liberals are well educated and well off and that it's liberals
-- speaking of the electorate -- that have turned their backs on blue collar workers. There are many working-class Democrats --
that's part of Bernie Sanders' base, the youth of America is very liberal and very under-employed, non-Evangelical Black people
tend to vote liberal/Democrat -- at least according to the GOP, the Clinton campaign & the polls -- so to state that it's liberals
who've turned their backs on the blue collar class is folly.
Now, the statement that liberal politicians have turned their backs on their working-class base, as well as the working-class
Republicans, is very true, and that's a result of too much money in politics. Pandering to lobbyists while ignoring the electorate.
What I don't understand about the liberal electorate is why so freakin' many low-income voters choose Hillary Clinton over
Bernie Sanders. Why so many, supposed, educated people (at least smarter than the rank-&-file Republican voter, goes the legend)
would vote against their best interests and support a lying, flip-flopping, war-mongering, say-anything-get-elected, establishment
crony is beyond comprehension.
If it comes down to it, at least with Trump you know where his money came from. How, exactly, is it that the Clintons went
from being broke as hell after leaving the White House to having a net worth of over $111M in just 16 years? Since Slick Willy
left office, except for the past four years, hasn't Hillary always been a government employee? Except, you know, when she's campaigning.
She's worth $35M, herself, is there that much money in selling books? If not, then she got paid -- bribed -- quite handsomely
to speak at private functions.
Both Clintons exemplify Democratic politicians who've utterly ignored the working class while pander to and serving only
the executive class of America. Ronald Reagan would be proud of both Bill and Hillary Clinton's devotion to the 'trickle down'
theory of economics.
One thing that's important to consider, too, is how voting for politicians who claim to have your back on wedge issues
is really shooting yourself in the foot economically. Wedge issues are the crumbs the Establishment allows the electorate to feast
on while they (the Establishment) rob the Treasury blind, have their crimes decriminalized, start wars to profiteer from, write
policy, off-shore jobs, suppress wedges, evade taxes, degrade the environment, monopolize markets, bankrupt emerging markets,
and generally hoard all the economic growth for themselves.
Friends don't let friends vote for neo-liberalists!
Politicians in the U.S. are inherently corrupt, both figuratively and literally (they just hide it better as perks and campaign
contributions). Politicians in the U.S. make promises, but ultimately it is just rhetoric and nothing ever gets delivered on.
Once elected, they revert to the Status Quo of doing nothing – or they vote for the bills of the interest groups that supported
them during the election.
As far as racism is concerned, why is it racist to want to send undocumented people out of a country that they entered
illegally in the first place? This seems to be the general accusation levied against Europeans and Americans (i.e. whites). We
seem to have the obligation to take in refugees from all over the world otherwise we are seen as racists. Yet, I see no effort
by the Gulf States, Saudi or any other Muslim country taking some of the Syrians. This would make a lot more sense since they
have the commonality of language, religion and culture. But nobody deems them to be racists.
What a brilliant article. It seems no one wants to talk about anything other than vilifying Trump supporters because their
vested interests are all about grind working people into the dust so the high end of town can make every more money. No wonder
Trump is cutting through. The whole world has been watching our leaders sell us down the river in these deals.
This is probably the first article I've read that gives a clear-eyed account of exactly why Trump is gaining so much support.
More of this and less of the sneery pieces would be much more enlightening to those of us who have been baffled by his continuing
success.
People had the opportunity to elect Ross Perot who focused on Trade without using racism, back in 92. Perot, also a billionaire
predicted all the catastrophic impact due to free trade and kept warning everybody. The majority decided otherwise...
I think this assessment gives far too much credit to the average Trump supporter. It's unlikely that any of his followers have
a clue about trade or NAFTA or anything beyond Trump's fame as a brash television celebrity.
You're in no position to know, yet still arrogant enough to spout a baseless claim without evidence. That pretty well sums up
Trump and his supporters.
Correct. Ross Perot tried to explain to them NAFTA and Free Trade dangers to no avail. Maybe he should have seasoned his dull
speeches with racism and hate...
Correct! Even Obama won't use the words "working class"...they are now ' dirty words'..
The working class are fed up being ignored, patronized, lied to, and manipulated with words by politicians in both the US and
Australia.
Politicians think that all they have to do is 'look good' and say the right thing. Then wait a bit, change the words and continue
to manipulate things from backrooms.
Trump doesn't do that-and that is why people are voting for him...
However, if he got into power he would have to do exactly the same as the others to survive
The working class tens of millions have the votes and if need be, the guns. Thank you, second amendment. Essentially they're presented
with the prospect of their kids spending their working lives slaving at $10-$20 an hour, or to die trying to alter the future
of that elite-orchestrated course of events. What would an American choose?
Almost all of Trump's proposals, as well as those of other candidates, cannot be implemented without the concurrence of Congress.
Tariffs must pass both houses, while ratification of treaties requires a 2/3 supermajority in the Senate. A question for each
of the so-called debates ought to concern how each candidate intends to convince congress to pass his/her most contentious proposal.
Trump is awful but he taps into passion, fear and real concerns. If these corrupt phony political parties can't help real people
then this is what we get -- Trump, Hillary Clinton and fake revolutionary Bernie Sanders who promised to support the evil Clinton
when she wins the rigged nomination. Trump is no worse than the other fake chumps pretending to be our friends.
"We liberals..." You disgust me. While you defend Trumps supporters as not entirely consumed with racism as much as fear, as people
who actually may have interests in the economy and in trade, as workers who, just maybe, SHOULD have the right to work in an airconditioning
factory that ISN'T in Mexico, or China, or Indonesia.... while you defend these not-really-not-totally-racist working class people
you excoriate them and continue on your merry little way trashing Trump. Staying safe, staying disgusted with the man, and walking
the Party Line like a good little establishment "liberal." The true liberal doesn't exist anymore. Your article sucks. If anyone
other than Crass Mr. Trump gets elected to the presidency of this country we will continue down the same road of useless wars
for the MIC and Banking Scum, the 1%, whatever you wish to call them and it will be more painful than it is now. Because what's
really important is the correct opinion on everything. Not that things change radically and that the working classes of all colors
and creeds begin to see some fair shakes, which would happen under Trump.
I happen to know someone who worked in his company, who didn't even know the man but was on his payroll. It got around to him
that this employee had exhausted his health benefits with the company he chose (he had leukemia) and he was hitting up other employees
for money to pay his cancer care bills so he could continue treatment. Trump got word of this and didn't even know this person
only that he worked for his company - and sent word to the hospital that he guaranteed payment and that the hospital should take
care of him as well as possible and he would be responsible. He told the family to keep it a secret, but of course a few people
got wind of it. THAT is exactly the opposite of what Mr. Clean Romney did letting an employee drop dead for lack of health insurance,
but he'd be SUCH a better president, sooooo caring. Trump is the only one who isn't bought and paid for on the Hill of Vipers
and that's what attracts us racist, white, gun-toting, immigrant-hating, blah blah blah fill-in-the-blanks-you-liberal-twit people
towards Trump. And those pulling out all the stops to "Stop Trump" are just making it more clear than ever that the presidency
is and has been hand picked and cleared as willing to dance on the puppeteer's strings and do the insiders and oligarchy's bidding.
Thomas Frank is often right, but not this time. If working class white Americans of a certain type wanted to support a candidate
who is against all this neo-liberal free-trade nonsense, they could easily support Bernie Sanders. He's an outsider like Trump
as far as the American political class goes, but has actually done good things as a Senator and stands up for workers. It's interesting
that it's not just NAFTA and job losses that these Trump supporters are interested in, it's the xenophobia as well, the anti-Muslim
hysteria, and the thuggish behavior of beating down protesters at the Trump rallies. Frank just can't blame the media class for
all that...it exists and happens and Trump fans the flames. Trump could care LESS about working class Americans, he cares ONLY
about himself - the classic demagogue.
Free trade has undoubted winners and losers, but historically attempts to 'protect' or 'control' a nation's economy have ended
badly in stagnation and political authoritarianism. Obvious case in point, the Soviet Union in the latter half of the twentieth
century. Conversely opening up the economy to competition seems to do exactly the opposite, eg the Chinese 'economic miracle'.
A controlled economy might count as 'left-wing' but its the kind of example of Socialism gone bad that socialists feel embarrassed
about.
As for racism, its not hard to pick up the racist signals from Trump, genuine or not, so anyone supporting him has a nose-holding
ability which those with moral sensibilities will find difficult. Perhaps 'he/she's a racist but ...' is not such an uncommon
stance, yet when it comes to the head of state, its that much harder to turn a blind eye. Of course lots of Germans did it very
successfully in the 1930s and 40s.
Bullshit. Europe is doing better than both America and China. Free trade plus corruption does not equal prosperity. A little less
"free trade" and a little less corrupt elites goes a long way towards prosperity.
Free trade isn't free. It has cost millions of Americans their jobs, even their homes and hopes for the future. Both parties have
taken American workers for granted even worse than the Democrats have taken Blacks for granted lately. The Republicans have kept
most blue collar laborers in their party because they appeal to their bigotry and their religious snobbery. Republicans have made
few offers to even attempts to help US because they don't have to and they don't want to. Current Democrats are almost as bad,
but at least they have a past track record of helping create a vibrant middle class. What we need is a Labor party to represent
those of US who have to work to earn a living, as opposed to those who were born wealthy, or gained their wealth through stock
manipulation/dividends and fraud. It is the working people who actually create new wealth. Trump's bigotry does not bother white
blue collar workers because they mostly agree and hate and fear Blacks. The Venn diagram of bigots, white laborers and the south
overlap almost 100%.
I believe the KISS principle is popular in America, is that why things go so well for Trump?
Have I applied the KISS principle Keep It Simple, Stupid. Don't be afraid to ask questions, relax yourself and all else by
calling yourself a simple, stupid, snail; I'll try to get there, but you'll have to be pedagogic and it will take enough time,
preferably I want to sleep a night on the matter (sound judgement depends (but not only necessary but not sufficient) on considering
and weighing the significantly complete set of related aspects, and this complete set may take considerable time to bring to the
table another tip; in strong or new intellectual or emotional states keep calm and imagine filter words with your palms covering
your ears). Prestige and vanity of own relative worth can be very expensive. If you do a wrong, more or less, try to neutralize
the wrong, rather than have the prestigious attitude that direct or implied admittance of wrong is hurting your vain surface,
since with accountability and a degree of transparency will ultimately have consequences of the wrong, and by not swiftly correcting
them you are accountable for this reluctance too.
Part of the KISS principle is to remind you of assumptions, explicit and emotional, as well as remind you of what's hidden.
To be aware of what you do not know is a way of making emotional assumptions explicit which help in explicit risk assessment.
An emotional assumption such as "everything feels fine" can turn into "I assume there is no hidden nearby hostile crocodiles in
the Zambezi river we're about to pass into."
So Trump's success is all about trade imbalance and its negative impact on the American working class, which the author perceives
as predominantly white. This is far from the truth: many if not most workers in agricultural, custodial, fast food, landscaping,
road maintenance...are Africa-American, Hispanics, or undocumented workers. Does Trump also speak for those people who work in
jobs that have been turned down by the white working class? Would he stand up for them by, for example, calling to raise the minimum
wage to $14 an hour?
Taibbi in the latest Rolling Stone says the same thing. Taibbi went to listen to Trump's speeches. Trump pillories Big Pharma,
unemployment and trade deals and Wall Street. He's less warlike than Clinton.
So it is very possible Clinton will be hit from the LEFT by Trump. That is how bad the Democratis really are.
Actually, Trump's is a very optimistic picture of the USA.
And 'change' – I.e more globalism, means less and less job security: economic security slipping away at a unprecedented rate.
Transnational interests basically rule America, not to mention the mainstream media, whose job it is to attack Trump. Many millions
have seen through this facade.
Democrat or Republican, the incestuous political establishment is being exposed like never before.
I think his denouncing trade deals is what made the Republicans, (aka, Corporatist Party of which Hillary should clearly be a
part of-but save for another day) go bonkers. They cannot control this guy and he's making sense in the trade department. It's
not as if suddenly the Republican party has grown a set of morals.
The question of course is how serious is he? Is he true or co-opting Bernie's message?
One thing's for certain, he's against increasing the minimum wage.
"But, taxes too high, wages too high, we're not going to be able to compete against the world. I hate to say it, but we
have to leave it the way it is," he told debate moderator Neil Cavuto when asked if he would raise wages. "People have to go out,
they have to work really hard and have to get into that upper stratum. But we cannot do this if we are going to compete with the
rest of the world. We just can't do it." Politico, 11/12/15
Brilliant, brilliant column! I will add, because no one else calls him on these things, that Obama is still pushing TPP, has increased
the number of H1B Visa holders in the US, and is now giving the spouses of H1B Visa holders the right to work, meaning they, too
can take a job that might have gone to a US citizen, and Obama has essentially cut the retirement benefits working class seniors
have paid for all their lives. Yet no one calls him on these things, except Trump.
Where did this general theme of insulting voters come from? Calling Trump supporters racists idiots is no way to win their votes.
You can not win an election by being an insulting troller.
The same people who attack Trump engage in even worse behavior. No wonder Trump will win the election.
What is your take on free trade? What is your take on protectionism? Well the real question is "What is best for our country?"
Work, services and manufacturing of goods, is a dynamic thing. At some times there is lots of work for most people, at some times
hardly any work is available.
The amount of work available is a factor of 3 things, 1. Initiatives to work. 2. Financing of these initiatives. 3 Law and
order. Either individuals start their own business through an initiative and if people with money believe in that individual and
initiative they get financed as long as there is law and order so that the financing gives a return of investment. Or existing
business start their own initiatives with their own money, investors' money or loans.
When people sit on their money out of fear, lack of quality initiatives or qualified abilities, the economy hurts and people
are going to be out of work. It works like a downward spiral, when people have no income, they cannot buy services and goods,
and the business can therefore not sell, more people lose their jobs, less people buy and so on.
On the other hand, if people are hired, more people get money and purchase things from businesses, demand increases, businesses
hire more people to meet demand, more people get money, and purchase more things from the businesses. The economy goes in a thriving
upward spiral.
What about trade between nations? Well as you have understood, there is a dynamic component of the economy of a nation. There
is an infrastructure, not only roads, electric grids, water and sewage piping, but a business infrastructure. Institutions such
as schools, universities, private companies providing education to train the workforce. A network of companies that provide tools,
knowledge, material, so that a boss simply can purchase a turn-key solution from the market, after minimal organising, after the
financing has been made. These turn-key solutions to provide goods and services to the market and thus make money for the initiative
makers and provide both jobs and functions as an equalising of resources. Equalising if the initiative makers take patents, keep
business secrets and have abilities that are more competitive than the rich AND do not sell their money-making opportunity to
the rich but fight in the market.
In other words, if you sit on a good initiative and notice you are expanding in the market (and thus other players are declining
in their market share, including the rich), don't be stupid.
Now a hostile nation to your nation, knows about this infrastructure. This infrastructure takes time to build up. One way to
fight nations is to destroy their infrastructure by outcompeting them with low prices. All businesses in a sector is out-sourced.
But the thing is, if a nation tries to do this, and if you have floating currencies (and thus you have your own currency, which
is very important to a nation), your own currency will fall in relative value. (e.g. businesses in China gets dollars for sold
goods to USA, sell them (the dollars they got) and buy yuan (the currency in China), this increased sell pressure will cause the
dollar to drop in value) If you import more than you export. Therefore your nation's business will have an easier time to sell
and export. Thus there is a natural balance.
But, if your nation borrows money from the hostile nation, then this correction of currency value will not occur. The difference
in export and import will be balanced by borrowing money and the currency value will stay the same.
Thus all your manufacturing businesses and thus the infrastructure can be destroyed within a nation because of imports are
more than exports and the nation borrows money.
Then when the nation is weak and dependent on the industry of the hostile nation a decisive stab in can occur and your nation
will be destroyed and taken over by the hostile nation.
Free trade naturally includes the purchasing of land and property. Thus while we exchange perishable goods for hard land and
property, there is a slow over taking of the nation's long term resources, all masked off under the parole of free trade. Like
a drug addict we crave for the easy way out buying cheap perishable goods while the land is taken over by foreign owners protected
by our own ownership laws. The only way out of this is replacing free trade with regulated trade. In our nation's own interest.
Thus free trade can be very destructive. It really is a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Trump is a disruptor -- and this moribund political economic system deserves disruption. The feeble Democrats could only come
up with Sanders (who cringingly promised to support Hillary once she overwhelms him in the rigged system) is not in the same class.
Bigoted clown in some ways he expresses the anger millions feel. Get used to it.
Im sorry. No matter how smart you like to appear when you commenting on the Guardian after saying things like "Trump is far and
away the smartest, brainiest, most intelligent candidate running on either side" how can anyone take your views serious?
Yeah maybe not all voters are racists. Sure. But most of them still are. Most Trump voters are also extremely uneducated, ignorant
and filled with right wing media false fact anger. "To make America great again" I have never laughed so hard in my life before.
America isn't in bad shape right now. There are always problems but building a wall (which is hysterical) to save us from immigrants
for example is just plain crazy.
Trump of course inserts real issues like Veterans. Trade. Ok. Its easy to say one thing but when you look at his past, he's
ruined various businesses and is currently under investigation for fraud.
To say that that DT is smart is crazy. The guy cannot articulate anything to save his life and when you look at how protesters
get (mis)handled at his rallies how can you even come on here and say the things you do. YOu should be ashamed of yourself. But
sure have a President that's ignoring Climate change and you will see where Florida will be in a few years. Ironically they vote
for Trump so the joke in the end will be on them.
This article may have some good points but still, Donald Trump is nothing more but
an opportunist. He doesn't really give a shit about you, the little white class. He's not intelligent or even capable to LEAD
a country like ours. Europe is laughing at us already. The circus was fun for a while but I think its time to get realistic and
stop this monkey show for good.
Trump/Cruz are monsters who have plans for the take-over of the US. Trump will be like his friend Carl Icahn. He will take all
he can in profit. Sell off parts cheap off-shore. Ignore the ex-workers living under a bridge. Cruz the Domionionist Evangelical
will say Armageddon is in the Bible as he creates it in the Middle East. Neither man should be running for President, but the
system has been captured by the likes of Rupert Murdoch who is drilling for oil in Syria with his friends Cheney and the Rothschilds.
The Koch Brothers Father set up the John Birch Society. Jeb Bush from a family of many generations who supported Hitler too. We
are seeing the bad karma of the West in bright lights including the poor whites who thought being a white male meant something.
They flock to any help they think they can get from the master-con-man Trump or the Bible man Cruz.
Yes. The US was systematically gutted by people like Romney and friends who made fortunes for themselves. One of Trump's best
friends, Carl Icahn, the hostile take-over artist, knows exactly how the game is run. It begins by doing and saying anything to
get control. Americans are now chum for the sharks and they know it. Following a cheap imitation of Hitler is not the answer.
Nor is the Evangelical Armageddon Cruz promised his Father.
What this article fails to understand is that racism was always an essential feature of Reaganomics. Reagan told the mostly poorer
white voters of the south and midwest to vote tax cuts for the 1% on the theory this would increase general prosperity. When that
prosperity failed to materialize, the Republicans always blamed minorities: welfare queens, mexican rapists, etc. Racism was essentially
a feature of their economic model.
Now look at Trump's economic model. It's a neoliberal's dream. He doesn't have a meaningful critique of the system - that's
Bernie Sanders. Instead, Trump picks fights with the Chinese and Mexicans, to further stoke the racism of his base under the guise
of an economic critique. That's just more of the same. It's what Republicans have been doing for three decades.
The only way in which any of this is new is that Trump fronts the racism instead of hiding it. That has less to do with Trump
than with the slightly deranged mindset of white Republicans after 7 years of a black President. You think it's a coincidence
these people are lining up for King Birther?
Sorry, Thomas Frank - this is all about race. There are many flavors of neoliberal critique; Trump has chosen the most flagrantly
racist one. His entire appeal begins and largely ends with race. It's the RACISM, stupid. That and little else.
You don't know what you are talking about. You are the one who is stupid. Obama is pushing bills that destroy US jobs. Maybe you
don't depend on a paycheck to live, but millions of people do. Too bad you are so removed from reality that you can't empathize.
'Neoliberalism' is a tired cliche , a revanchist term designed to help pseudo-intellectual millenials sound and feel quasi-intelligent
about themselves as they grope, blindly towards a worldview they feel safe about endorsing.
One must also look at the anti-Trump brigade to find many of his audience. Below in no particular order are major reasons why
he has millions of supporters.
The Anti-Trump Brigade
1. GOP
2. Tea Party
3. Politicians, elected officials in DC all parties.
4. DC media from TV to internet
5. Romney, Gingrich, Scarborough, Beck and other assorted losers.
One thing in common they all have very high negatives, particularly the politicians and media outlets.
Yes! I got on the Trump train after seeing Fox News CEO Ailes' horrible press release insulting Trump the day before Fox News
was to moderate a GOP debate.
The lack of journalistic ethics was so egregious... and then when not one other media outlet called Fox on their bullshit,
not even NPR... I said hey, it is essential to democracy to treat candidates fairly. they are not treating him fairly! The media
hates democracy!?
Good article focusing in on what should really concern us - trade. In particular our inability to make goods rather than provide
services. This is one of the reasons for the slide in lower middle class lifestyles which is fueling support for Trump
Protectionism can be very destructive. Japan forced Detroit to improve the quality of its cars. Before Toyota and Honda did it,
why would GM and Ford want to make a car that lasted 200,000 miles? Cheap foreign labor was only one of the reasons for the decline
of US manufacturing.
When I tell one of my sons that globalization has shafted the European working an d middle class, he says" yes, but what about
its creation of a Chinese and Indian middle class". I reply that I care as much about them as they care about me.
And "service industry" jobs are also being offshored to call centers and the like. When was the last time you heard a US accent
when you called tech support or any other call center?
because ultimately, I feel based upon listening to my family members who are working class white folks, they feel that Bernie
is a communist, not a socialist, and they don't trust that (or likely really know the difference). So unfortunately for Da Bern,
he will never be able to attract most of these votes, even though he and The great Hair have (in general) some of the same policies.
The real question is why will the left not turn to the Hair, and get 70% of what they want, having to listen to bragado and
Trump_vs_deep_states as the trade off?
He wants to deport millions upon millions of undocumented immigrants.
I have to say this doesn't seem wildly outrageous - many of them will be working in the black economy, and helping to further
undercut wages in the US. Actually seems quite reasonable. Trump is still a buffoon, but why throw this at him, when there is
soo much else to go at?
The weakness of Labour under Blair has caused the same problems. They abandoned the working classes in favour of grabbing middle
class votes and relied on working class voters continuing to support them, because they had "nowhere else to go". It worked for
"New Labour" for a while, then us peasants got fed up with the Hampstead Set running the show for their own class and we started
voting UKIP or, as in my case, despairing and not voting at all. Thank God Jeremy Corbyn has put Labour back on track & pushed
the snobbish elements of the people's party back to the margins!
This reminded me of something I heard on NPR this weekend: Charles Evers, Medgar Evers' brother and a prominent civil rights activist
since the 50's, is endorsing Trump.
The reason is because the media and most of the people are involved in character debates about him and that's just a game. You
support "your guy" and try to denigrate "their guy". It's a game of insults and no-one ever won an argument by insulting their
opponent.
Trump policies show that he wants a trade war, that he wants to build a wall, which will do little or nothing, at great cost,
and he wants to exclude Muslims, when Americans have experienced more attacks from Christian Terrorists, and American civilians
are still 25 times more likely to die falling out of bed than in a terrorist attack.
He wants to abolish corporate tax entirely, without saying where the money will come from instead (that means you).
He wants to cut spending on education. But hasn't said if that's because he wants someone else to do the job, or because
he wants a stupid electorate. The Federal Government spends 1.3% of it's budget on education - how much can actually be saved
and doesn't the 4.3% spent on national debt interest indicate somewhere where more can be saved ?
He opposes democracy in the Middle East & prefers the stability of dictators (despite the chaos that existed in the US,
right after independence).
He wants more sanctions on Iran - proving his detachment from reality. The Iran nuclear deal was pragmatic. it was agreed
when we knew Russia, China and India were preparing to lift their own sanctions, leaving the world with no real leverage to
get a better deal.
He supports gun rights, saying they save lives, even though more people die from accidental shootings, than are saved when
used defensively. I am a gun owner in favor of more gun control, because I want to see the balance shifted to give law-abiding
citizens a greater advantage over criminals. (at this point, the gun nuts jump in saying "criminals don't obey the law". Yes
they do when in jail. If we abolished any law that was ever broken....we would have NO LAWS).
He wants fewer vaccinations for children, to avoid the (discredited) problems with autism.
He wants a more isolationist diplomatic approach & more military.
He focuses on the criminal activity of illegal aliens, even though crime rates are lower in their communities than in the
general population.
He doesn't want the minimum wage raised, he wants more minimum wage jobs - even though people on minimum wage often require
state and federal financial assistance, just to live.
Interestingly you have raised issues that are all very complex -- and that is just the problem. We have become a society that
promotes complexity and then does not want to discuss and analyze those complex issues, but wants to oversimplify and fight and
make the "other side" be a devil. Are we all getting dumbed down to slogans and cliches?
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our
community standards . Replies may also be deleted.
For more detail see our FAQs .
and who signed the job-crushing NAFTA legislation that allowed companies to move jobs offshore? Bill Clinton........ the Republican
in Democrat clothing.
The working people that the party used to care about, Democrats figured, had nowhere else to go, in the famous Clinton-era
expression. The party just didn't need to listen to them any longer.
"Noe-Liberalism" was given an impetus push with the waning days of the Carter administration when de-regulation became a policy.....escalated
tremendously during Reagan and the rest is history......participated in by both major US political parties. They never looked
back and never looked deep into the consequences for the average folk.
Famously said, "You can't put the toothpaste back into
the tube", applies to global trade also. The toothpaste is out of the tube. Any real change will be regressive, brutal and probably
bring about more wars around the globe.
What has to change and can is the political attitude of the upcoming political leaders and the publics willingness to focus
more on what a, "progressive" society should be. To totally eliminate the abject greed inherent in the "free economies" (an oxymoron
if ever) that is crushing most of the working classes around the world under "global free trade (agreements)" will be impossible.
A re-focus on what is meant by the "commons" would help enormously. And an explanation that would appeal to the common folk
by pointing out the natural opportunities to all of us (with the exception of the true elites) by developed intellectuals and
common folk leaders would also benefit all.
By the "commons" I mean:
General benefit to most common working class people which would include the "class" definition of "middle classes"....which
are in too many cases floundering in the current economic climate.
Universal health care.
An expansion of production "co-ops".
Universal education through at least 2-4 years of "college".
A general overhaul of our Military/Industrial/Intelligence etc./Complex.
A re-allocation of our collected tax priorities (applies to the above).
A "commons" focus on a total rebuilding of our rusted, commercially destroyed environments all across this country (and
across the world).
Capitalism is a game. There needs to be a firewall between the free flows of rabid global capital and the true needs of a progressive
society. The game of capitalism needs rules and referees to back up those rules. There has to be political/public will to back
up those rules and referees with force of law.
We need a total new vision for the globe. Without it we will succumb to total social/economic chaos. We here in the US have
no true progressive vision exhibited by any candidate. Bernie Sanders comes close but no cigar. Hillary C. is trying to exert
the vision of seeking the presidency as a kind of, "family business."
Trump is appealing to many who have been trashed by globalization.......
Continuous warfare is not a foreign policy. Greed and narcissism is not a national one. We continue to fail in history lessons.
As I would expect, Thomas (The Wrecking Crew: How Conservatives Rule; What's the Matter With Kansas?) Frank offers insights that
Clintonites can ignore at their peril. As the widow of a hardworking man who was twice the victim of "outsourcing" to Malaysia
and India, and whose prolonged illness brought with it savings-decimating drug costs, I can well see how Trump's appeal goes beyond
xenophobia and racism. But no, I could never vote for him.
Everybody knows that Trump sends jobs overseas and employs illegals, even his devotees. This destroys Frank's argument that people
adore Trump because he sympathizes with their pain and actively wants to help them.
Frank did not write that "people adore Trump because he sympathizes with their pain and actively wants to help them."
As Tom Lewandowski, the president of the Northeast Indiana Central Labor Council in Fort Wayne, said, "We've had all the political
establishment standing behind every trade deal, and we endorsed some of these people, and then we've had to fight them to get
them to represent us."
Ill-considered trade deals (NAFTA ended a million jobs) and generous bank bailouts and guaranteed profits for insurance companies
but no recovery for average people, ever – these policies have taken their toll.
Trump is saying that NAFTA and neo-liberalism have failed the American people.
You could be describing Hillary and Bill the fraudulent guy who "feels your pain". Liars and in the pockets of bankers, that couple
is not your friend.
Frank's argument is on what his followers believe to be true. Frank admits that their beliefs may be naive. He is writing on the
reasons for Trump's popularity.
Beyond who or what i vote for, It is nice to see a news article focusing on issues and platforms instead of one of the many attacks
or other issues seperating politics from legislation. I want news on candidates positions, ideas, plans. This circus of he said
she said and the other junk used to sway votes or up ratings is beyond dumb.
Free trade is like all other good ideas, it only works if it is kept in balance.
Understanding the internal structure of the Atom is a good idea. Proliferating Hydrogen bombs, the same idea taken way too far..
And as for bad human ideas, well just the worst thing on the planet.
People support Trump and the very different Corbyn because they can see that that our current version of Free trade is hopelessly
inefficient and screws everybody except the very rich.
They care about power. Progressives don't give a sod about the minorities or supposedly oppressed groups they bang on about. They
want power and they are getting lots of it. When the West burns, those progressives who acquired enough power will be safe inside
their walled fortresses with their bodyguards.
Its' a sad truth that corporations have used trade deals to increase profits by shipping jobs to areas where pay is sometimes
1/10 of pay in US. Sanders is the only other politician voicing concern. In fact Sanders is responsible for the stall on the next
trade deal with China and Japan. Japan and China uses devaluation s a trade barrier and World Trade does nothing. we are constrained
in our ability to devalue our currency because of the effect on the stock market. many Americans rely on money invested into stocks
and bonds. I don't see a true value to trade if it involves loss of jobs and lowered pay. I do see value in fair trade where we
receive somewhat equal return , like 60/40, like in China and Japan where the return is more like 80 for them 20 for us.
Yes, Trump does talk about jobs/economy but let us not forget that the Third Reich also promised to end runaway inflation and
unemployment. To a large extent, they did low unemployment levels. However, racism was an important galvanizing factor. In the
Middle Ages, racism was a galvanizing factor in the Crusades. Muslims dominated Mediterranean trade and stop it, European monarchy
used racism against Moors/Saracens/Turks to garner support against the Muslims at that time. So, for history,s sake, let,s just
call a spade a spade..........Trump is racist and so are his supporters (among other things).
While I'm no fan of big corporations or NAFTA (which was negotiated by Bush #1 and Brian Mulroney, both conservatives), no one
seems to be talking about the other side of the equation - demand. Perhaps jobs are going to Mexico, China etc. in part because
consumers won't pay the cost of a product manufactured in rich nations. Small example - a big outdoors co-op here in Canada used
to sell paniers and other bike bags made by a company in Canada. Consumers would not buy them because they cost more, so the firm
closed down and that co-op's bike equipment now comes from Viet Nam. If Trump foces Apple or Ford to return jobs to the US, will
the products they make be too expensive for the consumers? If a tariff wall goes up around the US, will the notoriously frugal
American shoppers start to get annoyed because, while they have t-shirt factories in wherever state, the products they want cost
more than what they want (or can) pay for? I don't have any special insight into the effects on consumer prices of tariffs, but
I do think it's at least prudent to include that in the discussion before starting a trade war.
Hilarious.. talk about "I love the uneducated!" Yeah because everything he rants about with free trade he has benefited from..
let us not forget MADE IN CHINA Trump suits.
The Guardian's incessant Trump bashing disguises, unfortunately, how similarly repugnant Cruz(particularly) and Rubio are. Clinton
is better, not by far, and Sanders though wonderfully idealist and full of integrity, will be able to accomplish nothing with
the Republicans controlling Congress.
I stopped reading part way through. I constantly hear about Trump's opinions on trade and free trade deals. It doesn't get as
much coverage as his most spectacular statements, but it gets plenty of coverage.
I'm living in Japan, where in the past decade they have taken in 11 refugees. That's not 11 million or even 11 thousand. I mean
11.
Progressives may be surprised to hear that Japan is a wonderful country, not only free from imported terrorism but also mind-boggling
safe. I mean "leave your laptop on the street all day and it won't get stolen" safe. They also have cool anime and Pokemon and
toilets which are like the Space Shuttle.
And guess what, they are not racist. They have borders and they are not racist. I know this is a hard concept for progressives
to get their heads around, but believe it or not it is possible.
By the way, they think Europeans are absolute INSANE to let in these touchy-feely economic migrants. They're right, and Europe
is going to pay one hell of a pric
bobmacy
Its' a sad truth that corporations have used trade deals to increase profits by shipping jobs to areas where pay is sometimes
1/10 of pay in US. Sanders is the only other politician voicing concern. In fact Sanders is responsible for the stall on the next
trade deal with China and Japan. Japan and China uses devaluation s a trade barrier and World Trade does nothing. we are constrained
in our ability to devalue our currency because of the effect on the stock market. many Americans rely on money invested into stocks
and bonds.
I don't see a true value to trade if it involves loss of jobs and lowered pay. I do see value in fair trade where we receive
somewhat equal return , like 60/40, like in China and Japan where the return is more like 80 for them 20 for us.
Pseudaletia
While I'm no fan of big corporations or NAFTA (which was negotiated by Bush #1 and Brian Mulroney, both conservatives), no
one seems to be talking about the other side of the equation - demand. Perhaps jobs are going to Mexico, China etc. in part because
consumers won't pay the cost of a product manufactured in rich nations.
Small example - a big outdoors co-op here in Canada used to sell paniers and other bike bags made by a company in Canada. Consumers
would not buy them because they cost more, so the firm closed down and that co-op's bike equipment now comes from Viet Nam.
If Trump foces Apple or Ford to return jobs to the US, will the products they make be too expensive for the consumers? If a
tariff wall goes up around the US, will the notoriously frugal American shoppers start to get annoyed because, while they have
t-shirt factories in wherever state, the products they want cost more than what they want (or can) pay for? I don't have any special
insight into the effects on consumer prices of tariffs, but I do think it's at least prudent to include that in the discussion
before starting a trade war.
ID8031074
I'm living in Japan, where in the past decade they have taken in 11 refugees. That's not 11 million or even 11 thousand. I
mean 11.
Progressives may be surprised to hear that Japan is a wonderful country, not only free from imported terrorism but also
mind-boggling safe. I mean "leave your laptop on the street all day and it won't get stolen" safe. They also have cool anime and
Pokemon and toilets which are like the Space Shuttle.
And guess what, they are not racist. They have borders and they are not racist. I know this is a hard concept for progressives
to get their heads around, but believe it or not it is possible.
By the way, they think Europeans are absolute INSANE to let in these touchy-feely economic migrants. They're right, and Europe
is going to pay one hell of a pric
US media eliminated a "fair and balanced" rule before Rupert Murdoch bought much of it to create a propaganda machine based on
the values of the old South: white supremacy, radical Evangelicals, guns, power in the control of a few rich men. FOX Nation created
the fascist character played by Trump who puts the US in danger.
Great story except that have you noticed that the media is exceeding 'progressive' left these days? If Rupert did all this to
made the whites into the master race he did a bloody poor job, since the media all over the world absolutely hates Trump. The
amazing thing is that finally people are ignoring the exceedingly biased media and are using their brains to vote.
Big businesses need to be policed in respects to damaging the economy which will hurt the working class. The current trade policies
are ridiculous. Companies move jobs abroad, taking jobs out of the country: which lessens tax revenue for federal and local government
(forcing people to get on assistance, increasing our debt), pay next to nothing wages abroad, then import those same products
back here for free. After all that is done the American people that are on assistance use those funds given to them by the government
to purchase these products. Big business is using the government as a subsidy in so many ways.
As despicable as Trump is, I found this to be very good article. But please be careful with the "liberal" designation. They are
Neo-Liberals. Better known as 60's-70's moderate republicans like Hillary.
The systematic attack on the working class in the U.S.A. by the corporate elites has resulted in a largely uneducated proletariat
that knows very little about politics. The working class has been buffeted with so much right wing propaganda over the years,
that a labour-oriented analysis has been taboo. Red-baiting and Christian fundamentalism have made simple things like government
health insurance, investment in infra-structure, decent labour and environmental laws, the right to form unions, public education,
etc., seem like commie schemes.
Into this void comes Trump. Make no mistake, the points made in this article are valid. The de-industrialization of the USA
is part of the problem. However, part of the reaction of an uniformed, under-educated proletariat is to turn to bigotry and xenophobia.
There is precedent for such a population opting for a rabble-rousing, blustering, strong-man with bad taste in hairdos.
Of course, the other idiots running for the Republicans are nearly equally odious.
Trump's concern for the working class is all good. But just by imposing tariffs and building barriers to free trade are not going
to bring jobs back. Skill levels are lost. Cost of manufacturing can go ten times or more higher than overseas manufacturing.
If the blue collar works are willing to earn the same wages as the Chinese and Mexicans then it would be profitable for the industry
to return.
Quality control is another issue. American workforce has poor quality standards compared to those in Asian countries. These
people can build a multistoried building in a month like ants. There are lot of safety and environmental regulations that are
absent in those countries. So big businesses can get things done there than in the US. Trump has to take into account all these
factors.
One can force jobs to return to the US. But companies will fold, being unable to compete. Too much water has flowed under the
bridge since the Reagan/Bush/Clinton times. The US economy has been tremendously weakened.
Corporations have gotten much more greedy than ever before. They will arm twist the Congressmen to block any move by President
Trump to impose tariffs and build walls. Those who don't like Mexicans still employ them to do dishes in their restaurants and
mow their lawns.
For Trump's plan to work a major disaster has to happen in the other countries either in the form of massive wars or economic
collapse that will force the businesses to rush back to the US to keep their manufacturing going.
The new generation of Americans lack the vocational skills of those who lost their jobs to the Chinese, Koreans and Mexicans
in the 80s and 90s.
So Trump can say all the emotional things he wants and it will resonate with the worker class. But he won't be able to keep
his promise. They will expect him to deliver and he simply will not be able to. It is a mighty mountain to climb with excess baggage
on the back.
This article makes the most sense of anything I have read about the spread of Trump_vs_deep_state and why Trump is in the position
he is in. Certainly, having been involved in 'downsizing' I can attest to the bitter (and justified) feelings of folk who were
let go from jobs after 10+ years of service, and cast out to rot in a stagnant job market. This could well be a backlash from
those times. The problem is - OK now Donald is the POTUS, what does he do about it? His supposed skills of doing deals never had
to take into account the Congress, the House and intransigency on both sides of the aisle. I think he will be well out of his
depth and will make a mighty mess of the whole thing, perhaps worsening the situation for Americans everywhere. I wish that his
followers would consider this, but theirs is an emotional, knee jerk response, as opposed to logically looking at what is happening.
So this race continues on its trajectory for better or worse. We shall see.
The Democratic Party partly abandoned its core constituencies after the so-called Reagan Revolution, thinking that to become
more like the Republicans was the ticket with an electorate that had just angrily voted them out of power.
Part of the difficulty here is that capitalism itself perpetuates systemic inequalities and injustices, and both parties support
that economic system, which (to be fair) we seem to be stuck with for some time to come. I would suggest that for Democrats, it's
high time to get back to being the party that stands for sensible management of our economic order to minimize the harm it does
and maximize the good it can do. Most of the Republicans are little more than cheerleaders for a system they understand only
in a cartoonish form. Trump, rascal though he is, speaks the language of populism and does not come across as simply a cheerleader
for capitalism -- he is the one in the GOP race who hammers dubious trade deals and insists that he'll bring American manufacturing
back. I think the author is right to say that is what so many ordinary people are hearing and supporting and that we aren't simply
witnessing the power of racism, sexism, etc. Still, people look for scapegoats to pin complex forces on, and in that sense racism
surely comes into play. It's easy to see that Trump has stoked this need to identify alleged "threats" in an embodied form: as
in, Latin-American immigrants and Muslims.
The deep irony in all of this is that with Trump, the people would have direct oligarchy/plutocracy rather than at one remove:
he isn't an outsider, he IS the system -- or at least he's exactly the sort of fellow that our current socioeconomic order has
been shaped to benefit.
On the Democratic side, Bernie Sanders is the candidate who most obviously speaks to the economic issues that Trump has put
his finger on. I have also heard Hillary Clinton say the Democrats are the party that wants to "save capitalism from its excesses"
(close paraphrase), and she's right to suggest that as a guiding philosophy, but it's understandable if people find her a somewhat
odd bearer for such a message, given her connection to the New Democrat Nineties.
My hope is that in the end, the sheer ugliness of Trump's campaign will drag him down to defeat, whether the Democratic nominee
is Hillary or Bernie, though I also think that Hillary, as a strong political "operator," would be more capable of dealing with
the vicious general election campaign Trump is almost certain to wage.
bobmacy -> simpledino
This s why union members ignore their democratic leaders and vote republican. The values of Clinton are not the values of union
members. Sanders would receive a lot of Trump supporters in a general election.
1) Go to any Home Depot in America and watch white men in pickup trucks drive up and hire undocumented workers for day labor.
2) A joke that Stephen Colbert told: "My Grandfather didn't come over here from Ireland to see the place overrun by immigrants!
No, he came over because he killed a guy."
America is not like a European nation. It has had open borders for centuries, and despite the moaning and bitching, that will
likely continue to be the case.
Hey, all you lot in the Trumpenproletariat who are whining about having to compete for jobs: how about you grow a pair and
learn some useful skills, eh? I work in computers with a lot of great lads and lasses from the sub-continent. They seem to be
able to find a job. And if you can't program a computer, then just go down to Home Depot and get in line, like everybody else.
I was washing dishes in my 40's and it didn't do me any harm; maybe some good, honest work would be good for you lot.
Thanks for having no compassion what so ever for your fellow citizens. Americans are not hired for programming jobs because of
those teenagers from the "sub continent" that you are so hot for took all the jobs. They are imported H1B Visa holders who were
hired to destroy the lives of Americans who DO have programming skills but are over 40. People over 40 aren't going to be great
at construction work, either, btw and won't be hired for it. Especially not if everyone else on the construction team speaks only
Spanish. Thanks for insulting your fellow citizens who have been betrayed. People like you are the reason Trump is so popular.
Americans are not hired for programming jobs because of those teenagers from the "sub continent" that you are so hot for
took all the jobs.
Crap on a stick. My company HAS to spend money and go to India to find qualified programmers because Americans are too damn
cheap to fund public education. I used to be a teacher in GA, so go pull the other one. Our generation has utterly failed young
people by doing f**k all to help prepare them for the future we all saw coming.
People over 40 aren't going to be great at construction work
Then do what I did and wash dishes. I worked for several years at it in GA. I did indeed learn a bit of Spanish in the process,
so that's another plus.
Of course, what America needs are more good-paying, middle-class manufacturing jobs. Duh. Like the ones that Obama saved in
his auto bailout in the mid-West. Like we have here in Seattle with the Boeing assembly lines.
But cutting off trade with other nations is not the answer. Not only do we export billions in manufactured goods, foreign companies
like BMW, Toyota, and Airbus (to name three) have build production facilities in TN, SC, and AL. And blaming recent immigrants
for our self-inflicted economic woes is just stupid and childish; which explains Trump in two words.
I actually blame two things for the rise of Trump:
1) The greed of the CEO class, who've manged to give most of the productivity gains and consequent profits to themselves and
their shareholders rather than the workers. Hence the appalling unfairness of stagnant wages for the best part of three decades
for vast swathes of the American public.
2) A corrupt political system openly run by corporate lobbies. The hope that Trump already has tons of money and so can't be
bribed is a logical one, even if the reality will prove sadly different.
I have it on good authority that inside the "Make America Great Again" baseball caps the label says "Made In China".
Americans have known for a long time that their products - right up there the iPhone - are made in China. This fact doesn't
really stop them from buying. I dispute that trade deals are really "sexy" enough to get most people's goat.
More likely is good old fashioned opportunistic manipulation:
Is free trade really to blame for the deindustrialization of the US? Why is no one talking about misallocation of capital? Infrastructure
has not been maintained in the past 20 years because the US squanders the money in other fruitless pursuits like a $3 trillion
war in Iraq, campaigns in Afghanistan, trillions of subsidies to too big to fail banks, an inefficient, overpriced and underperforming
health care system, $160 billion in dubious disability benefits, billions of overpayment for medical drugs, more than $60 billion
in medicare fraud.
Most of the jobs are made redundant because of technological changes and not free trade. Coal miners lost their jobs when Natural
gas prices declined and generating electricity from nat gas became cheaper. Imports are only 5% of GDP so they can't be responsible
for 100% of the problems. The US deficit wth China is only 2% of GDP.
China is facing same issues as the US has faced in the past 30 years. China has at least 5 million people working in state-owned
entities (SOEs) who are deemed redundant. The SOEs are mainly in the coal and steel industry, industries suffering from overcapacity.
Instead of shutting down the SOEs and firing 4 million people, China is handling the problem slowly and carefully and thinking
of ways to place the people in new jobs. They plan to give the SOEs enough time to transition the workers to new industries and
train them for new jobs. Compare that to the typical US companies like Carrier, IBM, Coal and Steel who will fire thousands of
workers in a second with no plan to help the workers transition and the minimal severance pay they can get away with. Workers
have no support mechanism to help them transition to new industries and no serious retraining programmes. The education system
lacks professional training programs that can help the workers compete globally.
The US is going from bubble to bubble, proof that the people in charge of allocating capital and making investment decisions are
not very good. In the meantime, the 80 to 90% of the workers that depend on the good judgement of the capital allocators suffers
from falling living standards.
Trump's words articulate the populist backlash against neo liberalism that has been building slowly for decades ...
neo liberals bear some of the blame for its emergence, for the frustration of the working-class millions, for their
blighted cities and their downward spiraling lives.
A small prefix, but it makes a world of difference.
Ford Motor Company, Carrier Corporation, Nabisco just three of the companies he has called out on the national media stage for
moving operations to foreign countries. No one else does this .. He is calling major American Corporations out . The racism is
just a bait to get u to listen to the show. This guy is calculating and he is correct in what he says about trade issues.
I loved it when he stated that u have to be a neutral party in the Israel and Palestinian issue. He is right. U have to be
neutral to come up with a proper deal. This guy is on the money. No wonder the Republican establishment is shitting their pants.
He is radical in so many ways. He is on to something that the Democrats are closing watching. He does not speak with fork tongue
like the other white establishment candidates spew.
Our infrastructure is falling apart because no one wants another cent of tax. The federal gas tax hasn't been raised in more than
20 years. Up it 2 cents and watch the jobs and the repairs that follow.
Bringing back manufacturing jobs is all well and good so long as everyone is fine with the price of the goods that are made in
the USA.
I believe someone once said, "You can't have your cake and eat it too".
That said, I'll take Bernie.
Markus Fiske
Our infrastructure is falling apart because no one wants another cent of tax. The federal gas tax hasn't been raised in more
than 20 years. Up it 2 cents and watch the jobs and the repairs that follow.
Bringing back manufacturing jobs is all well and good so long as everyone is fine with the price of the goods that are made
in the USA.
I believe someone once said, "You can't have your cake and eat it too".
As Trump says, "we have rebuilt China and yet our country is falling apart. Our infrastructure is falling apart. . . . Our
airports are, like, Third World."
Who rebuilt China? This is a new one on me. What are the figures for this?
What is the infrastructure that is falling apart. Americans are obsessed by cars to the extent of neglecting everything else
except air travel. Even so, their airports are apparently "3rd world standard". That isn't my experience of their airports which
are the same as everywhere else in the "West", i.e. shopping centres and junk-food purveyors for the masses and luxury "gated"
environments for the rich (of which Trump is one). Perhaps it's the sight of Latino, Asian and Black people travelling that bothers
him. Still, he doesn't have to sit with too many of them in the first-class lounge.
At last a reasoned and balanced account of what lies behind the Trump phenomenon and that is not to support in any way his more
lurid utterances against Mexicans and Muslims. Indeed, how refreshing to see it published in the Guardian, the house Journal of
the British Liberal elite. In the US as in the UK the white working class are now the most maligned and downtrodden section of
society. Mocked as chavs in Britain and as rednecks in the US, put out of work, as businesses relocate abroad and very often put
out on the street as housing becomes more and more unaffordable, it seems that in the US at least, the worm is beginning to turn.
Who should we blame for this? Thatcher, Reagan, Bush and Cameron? No, we might expect it from them. The real blame lies with the
Blairs and the Clintons and their middle class Liberal supporters. These beautiful people abandoned a group no longer fashionable
in their polite salons, as they went in search of fresh noble savages. In their desire to rule they have also sown the seeds of
division. How long before the chickens come home to roost in UK politics as is now happening Stateside?
If what Mr.Frank writes is true (and he makes a pretty convincing argument) why is that Bernie Sanders isn't slaughtering Hillary,
who's untrustworthy and sold out to big business years ago? I suppose it's because Americans, even those at the bottom of the
heap, have been indoctrinated into believing in the American Dream/nightmare, which means believing in unbridled capitalism, so
too many recoil from Bernie's socialism.
It's rather comical that instead they see their salvation in Trump, very much part of the 1% that gets ever richer while they
get poorer.
You asked a sensible question then responded with your own silly prejudices.
A more sensible answer to "why is [it] that Bernie Sanders isn't slaughtering Hillary, who's untrustworthy and sold out to
big business years ago?" would be:
Because it's only declared Democratic Party voters who are voting in the Bernie-vs-Hillary race. Bernie is indeed slaughtering
Hillary in many of the same groups that Trump is dominating, but Hillary has a lot of die-hard fans in the Democratic Party. The
black vote is solidly hers. There are lots of activists who have campaigned for The Clintons for decades and see themselves as
firmly aligned with them. She does well with other minority voters and there are plenty of women who will vote for her too (although
plenty of women hate her guts). And then the "pro-business" types in the party are with her too - not to mention the superdelegate
vote-rigging that the DNC will certainly not want to renounce given what the RNC is currently dealing with. Long story short,
it looks like Hillary has just enough "firmly with her" people among Democratic voters to clinch the nomination. Does that mean
she is more popular in America than Bernie Sanders? Not necessarily.
I just watched Hannity interview Cruz on Fox News. Hannity was highlighting how much the establishment and Washington hate Cruz
because he is an outsider.
That's like saying how much the Conservative party hates the Queen because she is an outsider.
The whole Mitt Romney ploy of running again is just an establishment way to portray Cruz as anti-establishment because it gives
him a vehicle to attack their decision. It gives Cruz a needed platform to condemn the establishment for its arrogance and grab
some of Trump's thunder. Only a certifiable imbecile would call Cruz an outsider.
A company moving from Pennsylvania to Tennessee is ok, but moving a bit further to Mexico is treason? This seems arbitrary.
Why are national borders a sacred limit? The anti-trade protectionism (which didn't work before..) of Trump and Sanders in
my opinion show a disregard for the poor in other countries, in favor of people (relatively) better off in the US who have offers
of retraining and other opportunities.
Manufacturing boom in China has lifted more people out of poverty than there are people in the United states!
Regarding your last point, China lifted people out of poverty because others could afford to buy their goods. Not so much
anymore, as today's news is that Chinese exports have dropped 25%.
As to your initial point, it is natural for people to be worried about their jobs in a globalised world. For generations,
the standard of living in America went up with each generation and this is no longer true.
Cheap wages, etc. might be good for those at the top but not so for ordinary workers. Maybe one way to resolve the
above and address currency manipulation is to have one currency in the world?
I hate to use the analogy but Hitler made sense too, amid all the 'nasty' stuff there were elements of truth that were enough
to seduce the masses and create a power base. Potent stuff.
Trump is not like Hitler. Only a neo-progressive could compare Hitler (a former tramp who seized power through force and wrote
a book ranting about how he would exterminate all the Jews) to Trump (a billionaire business man and celebrity who seeks democratic
election and wants to enforce immigration rules properly).
You 'progressives'.... How much 'progress' will it take before you realise you have been wrong about absolutely everything
ever? This is a serious question.
Well, the Chinese working class is doing much better than 20 years ago. Same is true for Eastern Europe. And India. And Indonesia.
And Singapore.
Global free trade, mixed with under-regulated global finance, spreads wealth to global elites, and poverty to Western working
classes. What Trump is advocating is plunging the 3rd world middle classes into poverty again, so our middle classes are better
off again. I don't necessarily disagree with the sentiment, but let's face, it' not exactly left-wing to say that the poor should
be somewhere else. It's left-wing to say that there shouldn't be poverty at all. That's not possible with finite resources and
no global social state. Hence, the (perhaps right and certainly right-wing) answer is: let's ge back to oppressing and plundering
the poor countries to make sure we stay rich and cozy.
I am not at all sure this can work in a world with almost unlimited access to information and transport because people cannot
be stopped from migrating to where they can hope for for life in dignity, safety and (usually modest) prosperity.
You explain neo-liberalism as the cause of average people's distress - then blame liberals. Don't blame liberalism - blame neo-liberalism.
They aren't one and the same.
I find it very hard to believe that 'Donald J Trump' is not committed to corporatism and neo-liberalism. He just knows how
to play to his audience. If you don't like neo-liberalism, turning to a divisive demagogue who made his money from the neo-liberal
system and is whipping up your anger against other victims of neo-liberalism is not the answer.
Good piece, but I'm afraid liberals are right - Trump's movement would not be what it is without bigotry and stupidity, which
is why his support does not come from the broad spectrum of American society. He said it himself 'I love the poorly educated!'
Thankfully there are plenty of working class Americans who are also concerned about neo-liberalism who are not buying what he
is selling.
But, if he did ever did get to the White House, he would a) fail to act on his promises b) hide behind policies which take
as much as they give c) try and act on his promises but be undermined by Congress and the Senate even more comprehensively than
Obama was, an eventuality which he will have expected all along, and can hide behind.
At least America's liberals have tried a little to ameliorate the worst excesses of neo-liberalism with policies which, ironically,
those people who now make up Trump's base have consistently railed against!
A reasonable article about the Trump phenomenon. Still can't entirely discard the accusations of racism. Trump is not a racist
period. Anyone who believes so does so because he or she fell fro propaganda or because they believe this cheap propaganda trick
will work in this election. The great thing so far is that it doesn't work.
I have long been more disgusted with the disdain and hate urban privileged elites have for ordinary people.
Nick Kristof is a prime example. He loves to patronize to poor people abroad but has nothing but contempt left for the losers
of globalization in this country.
What the author said needed to be said, that Trump (and Sanders) are at least willing to talk about what brought the US (and the
developed world) to its knees, economically - neo-con corporate trade deals with 2nd and 3rd world countries. All of the other
candidates are corporatists who represent big money and the 1%.
These trade deals cut both ways. Poor Mexican farmers were had their livelihood's plowed under by cheap imported American corn.
This led them to head north, not only to jobs in American but jobs in the new billion dollar factories being built on their side
of the border. These new billion dollar factories paid them so little than they were forced to live in cardboard and corrugated
tin shacks they build around the factories. Many of the women (many times young girls in actuality) were sexually abused by their
bosses who could simply fire them if they complained. The situation also gave rise to the brutal narco gangs that have killed
tens of thousands over the intervening years. If any good has come from Bill Clinton's signing of the NAFTA accords one would
be hard pressed to know what it is. The other trade agreements has resulted in similar situations.
Very interesting and very good article! I like these two parts best:
>>Ill-considered trade deals and generous bank bailouts and guaranteed profits for insurance companies but no recovery for
average people, ever – these policies have taken their toll. <<
>>We liberals bear some of the blame [...] for the frustration of the working-class millions, for their blighted cities
and their downward spiraling lives. So much easier [...] to close our eyes to the obvious reality [...]: that neoliberalism has
well and truly failed.<<
Finally we might remember the winning slogan of some Bill Clinton 1992: " It the economy, stupid! "
Yes, too many academics, politicians and business people have FREE TRADE as their only religion. It serves them well, evidently.
And they don't care about the "left-behinds", not a bit. Not in their home country (if they have one, which is doubtful when it
come to big money) nor in the countries with which they do trade.
The Military and Pharma deals are highlighted here and with good reason. Lobbyists from both sectors have ensured that the
US taxpayer has paid handsomely for hardware and drugs. These lobbyists have effectively bought Washington DC and handed the bill
to taxpayer. The American taxpayer just wants value for money and Washington isn't delivering, so just like any other business
that fails it's customer base it gets sacked or goes out of business. Hence the rise of Trump and Sanders.
If the American taxpayer wants to wrestle back control and get value for money out of its tax dollar, then they now have
two very different options that have promised to deliver this, which of these very routes they choose is up to them.
Another piece which seeks to actually understand Trumps's support, as opposed to just shriek uncomprehendingly at it, is
this,
from Rolling Stone recently. Cracking writing too:
'Backlash against liberalism' nails it, I think. Both economic and social liberalism have created a vast class of unrepresented
people who, when they speak up, are shot at by middle class grandstanders too busy obsessing over identity politics to have noticed
that a great chunk of their population is on the breadline. It'll only grow.
I don't support Trump. However, I do get it.
He thinks Bush lied: check
He thinks the Iraq was a mistake: check.
He thinks DC is bought and paid for: check.
He things immigration has been a game for Dems and GOPers: check.
He thinks corporatists like HRC have sold America out: check.
These are powerful messages. And to hear about the GOP/Apple/Google/corporatists trying to subvert the election (again) makes
me want to support him. I just can't, however.
I would add the following:
He doesn't focus on abortion
He doesn't focus on the 2nd amendment
He doesn't focus on about Israel
He doesn't focus on about increasing military spending to "protect" us
He doesn't think Iran is out biggest threat (e.g., Romney who could not distinguish between the US and Israel)
In short, he isn't following the same old Republican mantra that has only led us to economic and social quagmires.
"The man is an insult clown who has systematically gone down the list of American ethnic groups and offended them each in turn.
He wants to deport millions upon millions of undocumented immigrants. "
Excuse me, but why are you condoning people who break the law? If they are undocumented immigrants, they have broken the law
and are continuing to break the law until they leave the United States. Basically, you think that the USA (and all of Europe)
should be borderless. The thing is my dear 'progressives', a lot of people disagree with you and are genuinely and reasonably
alarmed by this idea. And, believe it or not they are not all 'racists'. They are in fact sensible law-abiding people who think
that borders are a damn good idea and that immigration laws should be enforced.
Sirs, please stop telling us sensible people we are racist. You don't need to be working class, racist or stupid to vote for
Trump. All we need is some common sense and a bit of foresight.
This is a great analysis. I'm an educated 39 year old American who believes in domestic industry support and protection and a
strong welfare state. The problem is, nearly my entire life both the Republican and Democratic parties have been doing their utmost
to dismantle both of these pillars of middle class success (which largely means blue collar, success). The Clintons have been
among the most successful cheerleaders for the destruction of these two pillars of blue collar economic security. Their records
of public "service" have sadly been a net negative for most Americans; while being quite lucrative for a smaller, but influential
minority (some shareholders/wall street/national security interests or the professional class as Mr. Frank dubs it above).
I'm voting for Sanders if I have a chance. If not, I'm really tempted to vote for Trump, because as repellent as some of his
statements (and his general demeanor) are, a vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote for more of the same. At least a vote for Trump
potentially keeps some of these ideas in the forefront; unlike I might add where under Obama where progressive groups were expressly
told to shut up and go along with the President as soon as he was elected.
You don't need to be working class, racist or stupid to vote for Trump.
Apparently working class people everywhere supported billionaire racists because they think they are "anti establishment and
non elitist" just like us?
I'm neither working class, anti-establishment (except in so far as it has been hijacked by neo-progressive lunatics) or elitist.
I'm also fairly sure I am not more than averagely stupid. I am think I am not racist, since I'm surrounded by foreigners all day
in my job and manage to control my racist rage reasonably well. In spite of all this inability to fit into the cosy box the Guardian
has prepared for me, I would still vote for Trump in a heartbeat. The man has common sense. He speaks his mind instead of some
watered-down politically correct silage such as oozes out of the mouth of Hillary Clinton or any of our British politicians (except
Nigel). I hope to God that this man gets elected and that Britain leaves the EU. If both these things come true, maybe just maybe
there is some hope left for the Western world.
As with nearly all the large media outlets, it's easy pickings to label a group racist, bigot, uneducated or the one started by
CNN - low information. These are great terms to malign and suppress a large swath of people who have watched the parties sell
America down the river; their hard earned money (taxes) used against them - healthcare, schools, welfare and jobs given to illegals
in the form of H1b, or no enforcement of the borders. We just call them racists and bigots because they aren't onboard with paying
the tab. And they watch the give alway trade deals, corporations using lobbiests, PACS, other nations natural resources and finally
Supreme Court (citizens United) as tools to suck away their economic stability. And at each election cycle, the candidates for
office are suddenly concerned - for a moment.
Yes this certainly makes a lot of sense and kudos for writing the article is deserved. I would just add though that the Trump
voters he's talking about are still incredibly gullible/thick. Trump is the man to deliver? He was born into wealth, had the great
fortune to be heavily leveraged into property during the great 70's property boom, understands and exploits the role of the state
in bailing out his bankruptcies so ensuring the privileged retain their privileges in perpetuity and people think this is all
well and good. As I recall reading on a blog only yesterday, people [so called left leaning working people] are endorsing something
akin to feudalism! Not as left as the author would have it.
If Trump was some ragged trousered philanthropist from the rust belt the argument would be that he is too uneducated or lacking
in worldly experience to be president.
Basically the argument boils down to only members of a recognised elite being suitable for high office.
This is dangerously antidemocratic. These are public elected officials, not members of some sort of aristocracy.
Yes this certainly makes a lot of sense and kudos for writing the article is deserved. I would just add though that the Trump
voters he's talking about are still incredibly gullible/thick. Trump is the man to deliver? He was born into wealth, had the great
fortune to be heavily leveraged into property during the great 70's property boom, understands and exploits the role of the state
in bailing out his bankruptcies so ensuring the privileged retain their privileges in perpetuity and people think this is all
well and good. As I recall reading on a blog only yesterday, people [so called left leaning working people] are endorsing something
akin to feudalism! Not as left as the author would have it.
If Trump was some ragged trousered philanthropist from the rust belt the argument would be that he is too uneducated or lacking
in worldly experience to be president.
Basically the argument boils down to only members of a recognised elite being suitable for high office.
This is dangerously antidemocratic. These are public elected officials, not members of some sort of aristocracy.
This article is disengenuous: I seem to recall reading quite a few articles about the Trump supporters being the lower white middle
class and the white working class- the so-called 'losers'of globalisation, and that the hopelessness of their lives and views
was why they supported Trump- or indeed why they seem to be
killing themselves
Of course, that then was shouted down as being condescending: these people were not losers in any sense of the word, they weren't
afraid and angry , they were hopeful and happy about Trump. We didn't understand that the trade thing was just embellishment-
it was al about making America great again and morning in America- and selecting one for Spannish and two for English, etc. The
whole Trump supporters are bigots is something of the beginning of his run, when he claimed that Mexico was sending rapists over
the border, and of the last few weeks, especially following his not-denouncing, but denouncing (Hang it all, Robert Brown) of
David Duke.
I would suggest that this exactly where all demagogues of the right get their votes: the small bourgeoisie and settled
working class,, who have a lot to lose, or so they think, and are constantly afraid. It is the same with Farange and Le Pen, and
Berlusconi etc.
Neoliberalism has failed- or rather run its course, in the same whay that Keynsian social democracy had run its course
in teh late 1970s. But! In the same that Keynsian social democracy brought the NHS and higher wages and public space and cultural
investment etc, neoliberalism brought millions of people out of poverty, or at least out of the abject poverty that they lived
in, in the 1980s. I wouldn't want to be a garment worker in Bangladesh, but we have to remember and celebrate that all those women
do now have a choice other than prostitution.
"People are much more frightened than they are bigoted..." "...people are fed up, people are hurting, they are very distressed
about the fact that their kids don't have a future"
Isn't this the standard way the right wing operates - they tap into your fear from the other and for your children. I can see
at least two other examples of free-driven electorate. You can see it in Europe now against immigrants. And in India where the
current PM came to power on the back of all this - fed up people, frightened, wanting a better life, trying to ignore his right
wing creds - no matter that some of these power hungry candidates go out of their way to stir up fear and hatred.
Trump goes to the small rural areas that draw these viewers and disparages the very issues they see played out on their tv and
think is real...He is selling a pig in a poke to pig farmers...This is the death knell for the GOP for decades.
The problem is though that beneath all the rhetoric and bluster Trump is just as much the member of an elite class as any metropolitan
liberal. And more importantly his economic philosophy is responsible for the very disenfranchisement of his supporters. He is
not outside the ideological norm, just a panto-dame, populist exaggeration of it.
There was another article like this about sneering middle-class dismissal of Brexiters by John Harris, who thoughtfully - and
to some extent rightly - argued that we should try to understand where poor, dis-empowered and frightened people are coming from.
But at the same time this narrative of political establishment versus 'ordinary people' places adverse limits on national political
discussions. You now have to tip-toe round people's ignorance and prejudice for fear of being labelled a condescending liberal
elitist, or, perish the thought an expert who' knows best'.
The fact of the matter is that some of these people have been mislead/are ignorant/uneducated/bigoted and, indeed racist. It
is ludicrous to suggest that there is not a significant number of Trumps supporters who are either casually or fundamentally racist.
The answer should be a UK and US High school mandatory course in politics, economics and critical thinking. If you don't understand
these things you are vulnerable to exploitation by demagogues and political thugs. Sorry, but that's just a fact.
I've been waiting to read an article like this on Trump's steady rise. I don't understand why they are so rare: even though
the critics love to lampoon supporters of far-right/populist politicians as stupid and racist, this is very rarely the sole motivating
factor for their support.
Xenophobia (much more useful term here, racism is meaningless ... when in France, for instance the issue is the supposed
'Muslim' invasion) provides a context, a kind of comfortable emotional zone, but more often than not people vote for reasons that
they believe are based on logic.
This or that politician will improve my economic circumstances and my family. They may be 'wrong' - either in reality or in
perception - but it is extremely important for people to stop judging these voters and labelling them, as in the end as their
views and platforms become more and more mainstream those same critics will be 'shocked' etc.
Unaware that it was their own laziness and lack of interest that allowed these ideas to go unchallenged, for years beforehand.
Besides, racism and xenophobia is hardly limited to the supporters of populist parties, believe me; such emotional reactions
can be widespread and again unexpressed and ignored until they have become entrenched in a culture.
(I've seen this happen twice: in my native Australia and France, in a different way ...)
1. An epidemic of homeschooling
2. Generations (old and younger) voters addicted to reality TV and TMZification of the news
3. Fox News debasement of the political public sphere and its level of discourse
4. Right-wing talk radio
5. A deep strain of homophobic, anti-women's rights, anti-black, and anti-latino beliefs among conservative Republicans
At long last after 1001 obsurdly ignorant editorials all over the place one that actually has some truth to it.
Yes, there is plenty of racism and bluster on other subjects but Trump stands for the anti-Neoliberal view. People on the
left will vote for him because they know full well that the "trade" deals are enriching the "transnational elite" in historically
unprecedented amounts while the hoy polly are barely making it if at all. People on the left ignore the wall and vote Trump because
the wall can be dealt with later but the oppression of Neoliberal ideology is killing them today. People on the right will ignore
abortion and vote Trump because that is a lower priority to them than the economic devastation in their lives - and they know
the "trade" deals are sending them directly to Bangladesh living standards. Their adult children are still living at home, there
are no descent jobs, their opportunities have been foreclosed by a Neoliberal establishment which governs for the "transnational
elite" and the corporations they own and the hoy polly can be damned.
In some sense Trump is a movement not just a presidential candidate.
People are also tired of politicians who claim moral high ground and speak condescending and self righteous tones about how
good they are and have only their best interests in mind while supporting "trade" deals which are nothing of the kind they are
transfers of government power to corporations.
In that narrow sense, Trump represents a movement and not just a presidential candidate.
It out there now Trump even if he never wins another state has put the lies of the Iraq war on the table but most impotently
he has put the "trade" deals on the table which frightens the Neoliberals more than anything else. These issues will not go away
just by eliminating Trump for the race now - it's too late the news is out - Neoliberalism is a dangerous ideology of extremism
in the support of authoritarian corporate power and dynastic wealth.
An excellent article. Can I hope we may have a similar one taking a look at the real motives of UKIPpers and 'Brexiters'
at some point?
Left parties the world over were founded to advance the fortunes of working people. But our left party in America – one
of our two monopoly parties – chose long ago to turn its back on these people's concerns, making itself instead into the tribune
of the enlightened professional class, a "creative class" that makes innovative things like derivative securities and smartphone
apps. The working people that the party used to care about, Democrats figured, had nowhere else to go, in the famous Clinton-era
expression. The party just didn't need to listen to them any longer.
Swap 'Britain' for 'America' and 'Labour' for 'Democrats' and that sums up the mainstream 'left' over here in a nutshell. Then
they wonder why so few people bother to vote for them.
It's not the working class. The working class is dying in America, in Europe and in Australia. What we are witnessing is the appeal
of right wing populism to the "precariat"class. This is a new class that has been emerging over the past 30 years. These are the
casualised, zero-hours contract workers who were raised with traditional working class values that are no longer relevant to what
their lives have become. They are confused and angry. I would suggest that you read Professor Guy Standing's book, "The Precariat:
The New Dangerous Class".
Same people who believe Jesus will come down from heaven & save them, a higher power will always intervene & all will be well
again. He promises a return to a strong America, a dream, a land which maybe never has existed. When was America truly "strong"
... maybe the 1950´s ? All the assembly jobs went south & east 20 years ago, there is nothing left for blue collar workers but
the service sector, and as usual the middle class are squeezed into paying for everything while Trumps peers get richer & richer
& pay hardly any taxes. Perhaps he appears to be more optimistic than others?
" there is nothing left for blue collar workers but the service sector , and as usual the middle class are squeezed
into paying for everything while Trumps peers get richer & richer & pay hardly any taxes. Perhaps he appears to be more optimistic
than others?"
This creep is moving upwards into lower and middle management. Just as technology decimated many blue collar jobs, technology
will move into management as well.
It's funny listening to the Democrats promote more education and then have the newly minted graduates compete against lower
cost HB1 visa holders. The Democrats won't touch this issue because, well, because, well it would be racist.
The Democrat Party wants Silicon Valley money, so they will assure a steady supply of HB1 visa holders and illegals. No matter
what Bernie says or Hillary says, poverty will be the future of many Americans. An oversupply of any skill guarantees low wages
just as a over supply of untrained workers kept wages low in many low skill industries.
Trump aims straight at the belly of the beast. He doesn't need Silicon Valley money, the Democrats do. Keep this in mind when
you listen to Sanders or Clinton (yes, Sanders will have to take Silicon Valley money for the good of the greater Democratic Party).
Over 200,000 jobs were created every month last year. There are 50,000, 3-year limit H1B visas per YEAR. And tech workers are
still in demand. How are they taking a noticeable number of jobs?
And sponsoring a visa costs quite a bit and can only stay a few years, I don't see how they would be much cheaper. Training
can take a year or more for high tech jobs so this seems like a poor strategy.
The new "Weimar republic" has lasted longer than expected. We can fully expect little versions of Hitler popping up everywhere
now. Either that or the elite get very worried about events. Their ill gotten gains will then look very fragile with an exploding
population. Perhaps they might start to think of a little culling....just a little you understand!
The Trump phenomenon, as well as similar phenomena in other western world countries, are not due to a failure of the peoples
but due to a failure of the western elites to solve the problems of their countries and give people real hope for the future.
I particularly enjoyed the following parts of this good article that high-light these failures:
"To the professional class, which encompasses the vast majority of our media figures, economists, Washington officials and
Democratic power brokers, what they call "free trade" is something so obviously good and noble it doesn't require explanation
or inquiry or even thought. Republican and Democratic leaders alike agree on this, and no amount of facts can move them from their
Econ 101 dream."
"Left parties the world over were founded to advance the fortunes of working people. But our left party in America – one of
our two monopoly parties – chose long ago to turn its back on these people's concerns, making itself instead into the tribune
of the enlightened professional class, a "creative class" that makes innovative things like derivative securities and smartphone
apps."
(emphasis added).
If the mainstream politicians want to take control back from the Trumps and LePens – and I hope they do – then they should
urgently listen to their electorate and start addressing their problems. After all they are not elected to promote abstract economic
philosophies but to produce real, tangible results.
western elites don't want to solve the problems of their countries, they want to extract more economic wealth and power... there
is no desire to end anxiety and misery as long as they can be profited from...
There is a corollary to that ...without the underclass rising up against them. The gains of the early 20th century in working
rights, pay and conditions were made only because the ruling class were terrified that there would be revolution.
Free trade is what made the US great and what made other western countries prosperous. But free trade is global, it didn't just
affect western countries, it had an enormous influence on non-western countries that were forced to open up their economies as
well. And that influence wasn't all positive. Take Jakarta, an Indonesian city that had a population of six hundred thousand in
1945, and that has a population of over ten million now. Free trade blew up the city, it made a handful of people in it filthy
rich, but it also produced a large underclass, an underclass of people who left their families and villages for the big city only
to end up as cheap labor. There's five thousand people that live on a landfill, living off the rubbish Jakarta produces. Indonesia
has seen a brain drain, educated people have left the city because they can make a better living in some western country in Europe,
the US or Australia. In Indonesia, economic -and social- liberalism has ripped the fabric of society apart.
The negative, corrupting and destabilizing effects of global free trade have always been visible in non-western countries,
but it didn't matter to westerners as these were seen as developing countries. But it mattered to the people who lived there,
and it has been responsible for anti-western sentiments, sentiments that radical islamists have been able to exploit. The main
reason radical islam isn't more succesful in Indonesia, is because most people are too busy surviving to care about revolution.
The problem with Trump is he denies this global interconnectedness. Instead he tries to maintain the fantasy of American Exceptionalism.
What Trump sells is the fantasy that American prosperity wasn't based on global free trade, but on it's hard working population.
Poor countries on the other hand were poor because they were uncivilized, backwards and/or lazy. The American Dream was corrupted
by this outside influence, and if you want to make America great again, you have to keep all bad influences outside of the borders.
It's a myopic view that's not gonna cut it in the 21st century, because the countries outside of the western world will no
longer accept it.
idk, he talks about this global interconnectedness. Currency devaluations, negotiating trade deals (notice, NOT imposing trade
deals, negotiating is his constant theme).
And how "free" is free trade anyway. Only the goods can move, not the labor. The environmental laws are nowhere near the same,
so China is exporting costs like pollution. Etc.
A good article that identifies the causes of rising populism correctly not only in the US but everywhere in the western world:
- People simply do not believe anymore that the less extreme political elites are capable of or - even more significantly -
willing to solve their problems.
- People have the feeling that their elites - political and other - do not even bother to listen to them.
That is true for the whole political spectrum:
- The right has elevated a certain economic thinking to almost religious dogma and can not shake off the suspicion that
they do not really care for the average citizen.
- The left, as detached from reality as ever, is preoccupied with things like identity politics and political correctness
and can not persuade that they can change something in the things that really matter.
- The center gives the impression of a shameless opportunist, speaking left rhetoric but adopting right policies - or
bad copies of them.
And I do not believe it has to do with "blue collar" only. The middle classes, professionals etc. also sense the above. They
are just too "politically correct" to endorse somebody like Trump openly.
Under these circumstances the Trumps and LePens of this world can certainly be rubbing their hands in satisfaction.
Do you know who's opposing Donald Trump in Florida, right now? The anti-Trump attack ads I'm seeing are funded by the American
Future Fund, a front organization for the Center to Protect Patient Rights, itself, in turn, yet another front organization for
Charles and David Koch. Maybe Trump supporters, with whom I find little else on which to agree, believe that the enemy (Trump)
of their enemies (the Kochs) is their friend. (?)
At any rate, this would imply that the ideologically hard-right and mega-polluting Kochs are now the Republican "establishment."
That's probably not a good thing.
My purely anecdotal survey of these comments suggests that maybe one-third of the commentators get Frank's piece--the other two
thirds clearly do not, and making Frank's case for him. A bit alarming.
It's pretty typical on this forum. Look at the comments below Nick Cohen's latest article. He compared the reactions of the establishments
of the Republican and the British Labour parties to the takeover by an "extreme" outsider. I estimate that 80% thought he was
comparing Corbyn to Trump!
Its about time that somebody pointed out what has been quite obvious to many for several weeks. Trump is succeeding to gather
all round support with his message, the Democrats might have managed to diminish Sanders's chances but they have alienated many
people that want to punish the old guard on Wall Street and in Washington.
At last. But it took an outsider at the Guardian to write an intelligent article on Trump and his supporters. How many who would
never be caught dead secretly agreeing with Trump will be voting for him comes Election Day.
If one look past the racism and rhetoric, the one truly legitimate and credible thing Donald Drumpf talk about is certainly trade
policies. As far as he's concern, that is the cause of all problems in the American economy and he is not entirely wrong.
First consider the following: of all the people in USA, which particular class of people had the most to gain before the crisis
of '08? The answer is the white working class. This particularly class was supposed to be the backbone of the American economy
whereas minorities were never expected to receive the same privilege of economic positions - i.e. nationally American .
When the white majorities realized that they're nothing special compared to their supposed inferior minorities, a certain animosity
is borne. From that animosity, what was a subconscious consideration would mass-inspire a whole class of people against their
supposed inferiors - a.k.a. racism!
What people tend to casually overlook is the fact that racism is not the cause of Drumpf political success, it was the result.
(Either this was something he might never have intended or this was exactly what he anticipated).
At this point, it is safe to say that he has realized this, that his base are the "uneducated white working class" who expected
privileges above other minorities, not to be thrown in with them. And at this realization, Drumpf should have walked away from
the presidency, but unfortunately, he's Donald Drumpf. This does not mean that the racist deserve our sympathies, but they do
deserve our consideration. One does not simply call out a racist and ignore everything they might have to say - that is, in itself,
racism. One must realized that these are not just racist, but desperate racists .
There is a reason why Donald Drumpf is constantly compared to a certain German despot whose name I'd like to avoid. During
the '20s and '30s, Germany had just lost a humiliating war and is economically in the dump. The whitest Germans were made to live
on the streets, even the despot had to live under a bridge, at one point. A sub-conscious hatred against any privilege people,
especially those who were not white-German, was born, but it was not yet fashionable. This despot then feed on this hatred and
tries to prove it on a genocidal scale... and failed!
The reason why Drumpf pick on Mexicans, Muslims and Chinese is simply because they appeal to his base followers - the Muslims
threaten their lives, the Mexicans threaten their jobs and social standing and the Chinese threaten their economy. And if his
base followers believe whatever he has to say about bringing their jobs back (a socialism of sorts), they're going to believer
everything else he says and Drumpf knows this - it is easier to inspire with hate than to educate, especially when it comes to
power. That is his ultimate goal because the white working class makes up majority of voters turn-out. After he gets elected,
if, then whatever he said prior to his election could be easily dismissed as Trumspeak - the art of promising his followers
riches without conveying a 'how' or 'when,' if ever...
The real irony is that Bernie Sanders promises socialism which could be seen as a subconscious hatred against the super-rich
yet deservedly so. After all, what else could you call bailing out the bankers besides "SOCIALISM FOR THE RICH" ? Sanders
neither resort to such slander nor feed on such hatred which could be the reason he might not win.
This is a perceptive piece, and makes a good case for why Trump - if he can curb his excesses - could be a dangerous opponent
in November if he makes it past the Republican Party's efforts to nobble him. I think the Democrats are going to be particularly
concerned about their vulnerability to Trump in parts of the midwest - Ohio, Iowa, Pennsylvania, for sure, and maybe even Wisconsin,
Minnesota and Michigan if he really catches fire. It would still be an uphill battle for him, and there's a good case to be made
that the anti-Trump forces will also come out in force and cause problems for him in more diverse states such as Florida. But
I wouldn't dismiss him or laugh him off - the Republicans did that for a long time and look where it's got them. To be honest
I would much rather be up against Cruz and find it quite ironic that in their desperation to have a not-Trump some Republican
grandees are even portraying Cruz as acceptable. He's a religious nutjob who'll crash and burn outside the red states, a guaranteed
general election disaster.
But there is another way to interpret the Trump phenomenon. A map of his support may coordinate with racist Google searches,
but it coordinates even better with deindustrialization and despair, with the zones of economic misery that 30 years of Washington's
free-market consensus have brought the rest of America.
Sounds a lot like Europe and the successful populists there too. They also use bigotry, and use migrants as the scapegoat,
but their voters are just as concerned with their economic future - and global "free" trade has a far bigger impact than migration
(naturally, as it involves competition with hundreds/thousands of times' more workers).
The age of global "free" trade we live in is relatively recent - only since the 1990s - but I'm not sure if it even stands
up to its own theory: many of the economies that outcompete us use massive state power as part of their comparative advantage
(we know that China manipulates its currency and censors/suppresses attempts to improve working conditions). So how can this be
justified as "free" trade?
Now, maybe there's a security argument for wanting to tie China into world trade, but if so I would like to hear it used openly
rather than covered up with empty rhetoric about "free" trade. And if so, don't the people paying the price for this global security
deserve some compensation?
You are certainly right, Thomas Frank, about the failure of neo-liberalism, but...how do you explain the working-class white people
not supporting Bernie Sanders? Sanders has spoken out about the free trade deals, exporting of jobs, etc., as well. But Sanders
does not have a Sanders line of clothing made by poor people in Bangladesh and elsewhere. Trump does. But those white folks still
back Trump. They are racist and they are ignorant. That's what binds them to Trump. Like Trump, they are Trumps (Neanderthals).
Great article. The left in the UK has a similar issue with the working class - constantly banging on about championing it but
rarely willing to get to grips with the fact that the working class aren't politically homogenous and are capable of making
their own conscious and intelligent decisions (usually dismissed as false consciousness if they don't accord with the 'right'
views).
Here, the part of the left represented by Jeremy Corbyn has never been able to grasp the reason why so many working class voters
supported Thatcher. They blame Murdoch, Tory lies, 'popularism'... anything other than think about why someone might have made
that conscious decision.
Blair understood that what mattered to the working class is what matters to the vast majority of voters - their own and their
family's economic prospects. Whatever the failings of the reality of his policies, he clearly got that just not being affluent
didn't magically endow anyone with a liberal/progressive/collectivist view of society and also that that absence didn't reflect
a defect in the voter.
While I personally doubt Trump will deliver much, I have understood that people are angry for a long time now. in fact it's sort
of obvious if you talk to any blue collar person as the writer has pointed out. What he needs to point out is this 'free trade',
is often relying on semi-slave working conditions often trashing the environment and is inefficient only being competitive through
externalizing it's costs. think about it' that cheap shit for $4.90 relys on some one working in toxic conditions, no workplace
safety trashes the environment and some how gets thousands of miles to you. It's not technology doing it, it's exploitation
I quite agree the question must be asked why hasn't "ordinary working people" been drawn to the left?
"To answer this question one must take a hard look at what is generally represented as "left" politics in the United
States.
Official "left" politics is constituted by the Democratic Party, which is-no less (and in some respects even more) than
the Republican Party-the political instrument of Wall Street and substantial sections of military and intelligence strategists.
The Obama administration, which entered the White House promising "change you can believe in," continued and expanded the policies
of the Bush administration. Its economic policies have been dedicated entirely to the rescue and enrichment of Wall Street. Its
signature social initiative was the restructuring of health care in a manner designed to massively expand the power and boost
the profits of the insurance industry. Obama's administration has institutionalized assassinations as a central instrument of
American foreign policy and overseen a dramatic escalation of attacks on democratic rights.
Of what, then, does the "leftism" of the Democratic Party consist? Its "left" coloration is defined by its patronage of various
forms of identity politics-fixated on race, ethnicity, gender and sexual preference-promoted by a broad swathe of political organizations
and groupings that represent the interests of affluent sections of the middle class. They have no interest in any substantial
change in the existing economic structure of society, beyond achieving a more agreeable distribution of wealth among the richest
10 percent of the population.
The essential characteristics of this political milieu are complacency, self-absorption and, above all, contempt for the working
class. In particular, the affluent "left" organizations-or, to describe them more accurately, the "pseudo-left"-make little effort
to suppress their disdain for the white working class, for which they can find no place within the framework of identity politics.
A vast segment of American workers is written off as "reactionary." Their essential class interests-decent jobs and a safe workplace,
a livable income, a secure retirement, affordable health care, inviolable democratic rights, peace-are ignored". See
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/03/03/pers-m03.html
Well this is a slightly different type of article about Donald Trump.
And I agree; yes its always about Jobs, Money to raise a family, to be able to pay for education for your kids and healthcare.
Who really believes that Hillary Clinton or any other Dynasty Family really cares about the average working families who are struggling
to get by? The author mentioned that he thinks that it may be the attitude of Donald Trump that is actually appealing to voters;
and this could be an interesting observation. He's his own man to a certain degree; but he is also part of the establishment to
a certain degree as well. He has made financial contributions to both Republican and Democratic politics. IF, IF he was to somehow
become the President it would be interesting to see how much his actions differ from his promises that he is making while on the
campaign trail. I suspect there would be quite a bit of difference. But its debatable if any President actually has the influence
to change or stop the Free Trade Agreements that are currently being put in place between the US, the EU and other Worldwide Regions.
But this de-industralisation of the manufacturing industries, this race to the lower wage economies outside the EU and the US
is only going to cause a lot of social unrest, and eventually there has to be a breaking point. And before it does I suspect the
Political System will suffer the most in terms of right wing politics becoming more popular again, both within the EU and the
US. We all know that there are substantial amounts of eligible voters who actually don't bother to vote. I believe that this is
no doubt due to a present unhappiness on the part of these voters with the present Political Elite. But the danger with this continued
behavior is that sooner or later an individual will come along who will link directly into this voter anger and fear of how things
are at present in our World Economy. And while Donald Trump may not be that person as such, due to his own attachments to his
business empire; somebody somewhere may be taking note of this Trump Campaign and realise that there now exists (or perhaps in
the near future) the ideal conditions for a powerful and influential individual, or individuals to stage a take over of our Political
Systems and to achieve access to Power and Influence of society and people.
I have a feeling based on scientific data that the whole world is not only violently racist but also has a deep and abiding visceral
hatred for anyone who is the slightest bit different from what is perceived to be the norm.
That's why people vote for Trump. He gives respectability to their innate nastiness. They are saying to themselves look at
Trump he could be President one day - therefore my views must be acceptable for they are the same as his views and nobody but
nobody stops Trump from saying how much he hates other people who are not like him.
It's a common phenomenon that is replicated in this country as well and is one that has kept surfacing throughout history.
Any extension of Trump's views and his mindset would lead to mass slaughter of those who has decided to hate because they simply
do not firt into his view of the world.
Muslims are not the enemy of the human race.
Women are not there to be fucked.
People who have sex with their own gender are admirable people who make wonderful contributions to the human race.
America is not a great country. And it is not entitled to kill those it perceives to be its enemies.
Until human beings stop hating each other people like Trump will flourish. He feeds off vileness, lies, hypocrisy and hatred
.
He hates everything and everyone that is not part of himsewlf.
Most commentator do not seem to have grasped what Thomas Frank is saying.
The article is not really about Trump, but rather the motives of those who are not exactly living the American dream, and why
they might support Trump's views about trade and the US economy.
Thomas Frank asks questions about Americas working class, why they are being fucked over, and why self-appointed arbiters of
the country's social conscience seems more concerned with demonising them, forever referring to them as racists or bigots, rather
than understanding why this strata might feel so afraid and powerless.
TF says, "here is a video of a company moving its jobs to Mexico, courtesy of Nafta. This is what it looks like. The Carrier
executive talks in that familiar and highly professional HR language about the need to "stay competitive" and "the extremely price-sensitive
marketplace." A worker shouts "Fuck you!" at the executive. The executive asks people to please be quiet so he can "share" his
"information". His information about all of them losing their jobs."
The commentariat seem to despise the working class in many western countries (the UK is exactly the same) accept for those
occasions when a curiously sanctimonious tone is adopted to attack a social ill, and even then it is not really because there
is any genuine identification with the working class but rather because they are being used as a vehicle to attack another group
that is even more despised (such as landlords, or corporations)
It will be a cold day in hell before anybody outside of the working class really gets it, or as one very wise women said -
the only people who can improve conditions for the working class are the working class themselves
Well, here is a video of a company moving its jobs to Mexico, courtesy of Nafta. This is what it looks like. The Carrier
executive talks in that familiar and highly professional HR language about the need to "stay competitive" and "the extremely
price-sensitive marketplace." A worker shouts "Fuck you!" at the executive. The executive asks people to please be quiet so
he can "share" his "information". His information about all of them losing their jobs
Oh that is familiar, HR is the art of kicking a man in the balls in such a way he looks like an arsehole if he complains
about it. My workplace likes to go about positive thinking and zen while loading the staff with unpaid overtime.
As for your wider point, free trade works fine in an economist's textbook, but those textbook models are worthless for modelling
the real real. They make absurd assumptions like perfect information and rational economic actors.
The reality is Western workers cannot compete with countries that have sod all environmental standards and worker protections.
Free trade benefits the rich and requires a sea of debt to keep it working. The only way they can sell to first world economies
that have been hollowed out is if those economies are kept alive with debt.
Free trade wouldn't work if everyone played by the rules, and we know countries like China don't. They rig their currency and
subsidise their industry. I can see why an anti-free trade message would play well.
As much as I respect Thomas Frank, there's a big hole in his "they're not really racist" theory. If these working class whites,
mostly males, were really PRIMARILY interested in trade/jobs/economy, they'd be at BERNIE'S rallies, whooping and cheering. The
truth is that a primary motivator for their Trump_vs_deep_state is that they feel that "those people" are getting free stuff all
day long while they, the Trumpettes, are laboring for an ever-decreasing slice of the pie. And that's what Trump's pounding away
at. The fuel in Trump's fire is definitely racism, xenophobia, & sexism, and that's what's propelling his followers.
I love Bernie for his sensitivity to people and social issues, but he has no chance to bring the US a return of manufacturing
and higher paid full-time jobs as Trump does. Blind to say otherwise IMO.
In my view, Trump, Farage, Wilders, etc. are the only Western politicians who are committed to the idea of nation-states -
with the idea of control over national borders and the sense of a unique national identity. Now, when epithets like 'rascist'
or 'bigot' are used, it is often to attack the sentiments that follow from the belief in a nation-state.
Take this from the text above:
[Trump is] 'an insult clown who has systematically gone down the list of American ethnic groups and offended them each in turn.
He wants to deport millions upon millions of undocumented immigrants. He wants to bar Muslims from visiting the United States.
He admires various foreign strongmen and dictators'.
Can't see how Trump can have offended each US ethnic group in turn AND have wide support; and be racist AND admire foreign
strongmen. And I can't see why deporting illegal immigrants (which every nation-state must do if it wishes to survive) is such
an outrageous proposition.
I'm not a fan of Trump, but the PC insults hurled against him have had the opposite effect on me: I see that he must at least
have some courage, to face down PC ideology - which in my view constitutes an actual threat to our liberties, while Trump only
represents a possible threat.
Trumps disregard for PR and the media which controls every word and action of the other candidates is refreshing. Clinton's posey
stance with well rehearsed looks and movements and well honed speeches is pure artifice. Nothing is sincere about her. Working
people like Trump,warts and all, unfettered by the need to suck up to business and their slaves in the press. He is disgusting
for some of his views but he says what many people actually think.
Where have you been? This analysis has been ongoing since 1989. Michael Moore - Roger and Me. The trouble with journalism is that
it automatically equates the white working class with racism. The problem lies in your camp, not in Trump's followers. Just listen
to one of his speeches on trade and you get it straight off the bat. It's the same in the UK with UKIP - all UKIP followers are
racist. I feel it prudent to put in a qualification here before some holier-than-thou white middle class socialist accuses me
of being a kipper. I, too, am a white middle class socialist. I just have greater faith in the working classes than the knuckle-dragger
epithet they usually attract from white middle class socialists.
Why didn't these blue-collar Trump supporters vote for Bernie Sanders then? Sanders has been a vocal opponent of the excesses
of free trade, opposing the TPP and all recent agreements. He has also consistently stated that China has been responsible for
costing millions of American jobs. Trump still has companies with factories in China and, when exposed, can only bluster that
he will do something about it soon. What a joke! Trump knows what is going to be popular and pulls all of the levers to satisfy
the predominantly foolish people who support him - the poor who can't afford Medicare yet who are against 'obamacare'; the unemployed
who prefer to blame immigrants for taking their jobs than the billionaire businessmen like Trump; and the evangelicals whose faith
justifies their racism, envy and greed. There also appears to be a genuine smattering of radicals who hope that supporting Trump
will lead to a change in American politics that will eventually prove to be beneficial.
Things were going along all hunky dory; Hillary Clinton would be the Democratic candidate to continue their royal line and
Jeb could sustain the Bush Dynasty. Elite life was good. Record numbers of the millionaire caste growing exponentially while blue
collar drubs' wages slumped without a peep from them. How could things be any better? All that was needed is to maintain status
quo and rake in the loot.
To be honest, until June of 2015, I was a Bernie Sanders supporter. I'm old and poor so there is not much hope for me. We may
as well beat out of the rich all we can get because they are not going to part with a dime otherwise. The Republican Party, to
me, was on it's deathbed. McCain, Palin and that stuffed shirt Romney with magic underwear were only the nails in their coffin.
***KABOOOMM***!!!! WTF, Donald Trump comes along. He talks about "the wall". And Mexico is going to pay? Well, I thought, his
goose is cooked. To make a long story short, I turned on the news and Trump's comment was not suicidal. That was interesting.
Next, Trump talks bringing the jobs back and how China is screwing us and I'm thinking, Pat Buchanan talked about slapping
a tariff on China long ago and little old me also thinks that would be a great way to bring the jobs and the money home to roost.
Globalist-Elite economist propaganda be damned, I'm tired of living in a country of losers. We haven't won a war since 1945 and
everyone takes advantage of us and scoffs at us.
Now, I'm watching Trump rallys, interviews, speeches and victory celebrations from all over the country on YouTube. His message
is pretty much the same, but I like it. I'm a very intelligent person, but I know that you have to pound people of mediocre intelligence
with a message over and over until it finally sinks in, so I understand where he is coming from and that repetition is a necessary
evil of mass media politics.
OMG, it's Super Tuesday and now Trump is winning delegates from state after state. The bodies are stacking up; Christy, Paul,
Fiorina, Carson to name a few. Wow! Jeb Bush, the fair-haired boy of the Elites is blown out of the water as Trump mocks him at
the debates and runs him out of the playground like a schoolyard bully! That was a watershed moment. The death of a dynasty. What
a spectacle as the Elite's anointed candidate for the highest office on the planet and with a $150,000,000 war chest fades into
the dark to wimpishly retire and sulk. Geeez, gimme some more a dat.
The Elites are reeling now! All this was unexpected. We thought we were going to have a bunch of suits talk policy, act presidential
and try not to fart. But Trump turned the Republican nomination into a circus and the Elites are going to start playing dirty
now, after all, this IS American politics.
Trump a racist?
As for "Black Lives Matter," I'm sure others may see them differently, but to me they are stupid. For example, they crash a
Bernie Sanders rally, take over his mic and Bernie slinks off a foolish disgrace to the background of the PC leftist milieu. Bernie
Sanders of all people! He's as far left as you can possibly get in the U.S. short of a communist and they are making trouble for
him? Another example, BLM posts instructions on how to prepare for protests at the upcoming conventions. In Arabic??? That is
sure one great way to win the hearts and minds of the American people! Trump kicked BLM the hell out.
In modern America, the word "racism" is a sacred and powerful word/weapon that progressives use to brutally bludgeon someone
who disagrees with you. It doesn't have to be a race matter per se. For example, criticizing Hispanics or Muslims can be called
racism even though they are not races by the main definition of the word. Trump's opponents are sweating bullets now and throwing
everything at him; bigot, nazi, white supremacist, pedophile etc. any slur that comes to mind that stirs strong negative emotion
to attack him. Is it any wonder that the KKK thinks he's "one of them" if lefties are shrieking "RACIST" at Trump?
I could go on, but let me conclude...
Your article touched on many salient points of the Trump nomination except for one thing: Donald Trump is shaking up the world!!
He is the only man in this time and place who can stand up to the Elites that run this world. It won't be easy. They will probably
kill him by "lone nut" or a "Texas Suicide," but Trump threatens those bastards and I hope he kicks the crap out of 'em.
I find it interesting and alarming that many comments find this article a revelation. it's someone has finally written it but
the idea can't be that surprising...can it?
but it is because the professional class have dismissed anything that doesn't fit their worldview as not true. there is no
true, just opinion, and there's is skewed.
the left has embraced neo liberalism and the capitalists agenda so wholeheartedly they had nothing to do but push a political
correctness, this has just added to trumps appeal, people aren't racist or bigots for pointing out the bleeding obvious yet they're
belittled vehemently.talking nice isn't everyones forte, or priority, the left has lost their supporters by being snobs, kinda
ironic.
I'd never vote trump, saunders is the man, but trumps appeal is hardly mysterious for the those outside the bubble
ydobon
14h ago
11 12
Another point: illegal immigration (indeed, mass immigration in general) hurts blue-collar workers economically (or why do
you think Wall Street loves it so much?), meaning that a desire to have immigration laws enforced doesn't necessarily rest on
'racism' or bigotry per se. (That's quite apart from the question of why wanting one's own nation to retain its cultural/ethnic
continuity is indeed 'bigoted' in any real sense - are Mexicans, Japanese or others bigoted and racist for having strict laws
about maintaining their existing ethnic fabric?)
WOW!!
***
It's a bit unusual for an online newspaper article to go viral on the internet--but if Mr. Frank's remarks come even close to
to gaining traction, then I would have to agree with, of all people, Bernie Sanders(!), that not only is a revolution in order,
it may already be underway--
-
...And NOBODY SEEMS TO KNOW IT...
***
***
In college, I was nurtured in New Deal Economics [my major], which gives an idea of how dated I am
But I swear by my grade-point average, that Mr. Frank's revelations are very old news indeed-old news that is become BIG NEWS,
that is due to hit the front page again, after three quarters of a century.
***
...During the Great Depression of the 1930's, the anthem of the working class was, "Brother, Can You Spare a Dime...?"
The New Deal fixed all that; or at least we like to think so.
And guess what FDR and all his friends were called? Socialists! Communists! Enemies of the American Dream.
-
But blue collar workers didn't see it that way-the ones who built Hoover Dam and our National Parks during 1930's, when any job
was a gift from heaven!
-
And now it's all come back
The Great "Recession" [who are we kidding?] followed by eight going on twelve years of continuing blight for blue collar workers-
And with the emergence of Donald Trump of all people(!), the hungry howls of the millions of working poor are heard once again,
echoing back and forth across the land.
AND THEY ARE ANGRY
***
A relative once asked me about Carl Marks, who he called, "the Father of Communism."
I replied that Marx was an economist, whose primarily interest was studying the impact of rapid industrialization in the West,
along with what he supposed might be its **political** consequences.
His ideas gained remarkable amounts of traction, predicting [but probably not promoting] the many communist revolutions that followed.
[Rather his ideas were used to **underwrite** the actions of the promoters.]
***
So now we witness the arrival of Donald Trump, whose rise, as Mr. Frank mentioned, is indicative of continuing economic trends
in America that are not necessarily new, but could indeed lead to historically documented political consequences. Big ones-
Remarkably, these trends have apparently been overlooked, misinterpreted, or maybe just ignored both by members of the academic
community as well as members of the Establishment
But things are shaping up. Fast.
***
***
Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders are strange bedfellows indeed! But their fingers seem to point in the same direction. And even
though their words don't "sound" the same, their message **is** the same-
" BETTER START PAYING A LOT MORE ATTENTION TO THE WORKING CLASS " [my caption]
-
Woe unto those who brush them aside !!
The working class have been being brushed aside for many years now, politicians only talk to the blue collar workers when they
want their vote after the vote they can be safely ignored, because the rich talk louder and pay the politicians after they have
been in office (sometimes apparently before they leave office as well) so the politicians do as they are bid by the rich. even
labour in this country the party that was supposed to be for the working classes ignore the working classes once in power or opposition.
it has to change and it looks to the working classes of America that trump may be the man to change it.
So a journalist has woken up at last to the real problems for the majority of ordinary humans, in this case in the US but prevent
throughout the world.
The Neoconservatives in all major parties and the lobby groups who influence them have been extremely successful in feathering
their own nests at the expense of working class people and their hopes ever since Thatcher and Reagan came to office fourty years
ago.
The fact that many working class people are not particularly well educated (see cuts to public ed) or are often not very well
able to articulate an argument often ends with people focusing their anger and frustration at those that the "shock jocks"and
spin doctors rant about to deflect real critical thought about the actual causes of their insecurity and fear which is rooted
in irresponsible government policy.
Yes, I think that Trump is a selfserving blowhard, straw man and bigot not unlike many of his peers who have better skills
or more discretion in hiding their real beliefs, as are many of the blue collar people who follow him but that does not negate
the real driving force behind the fear, insecurity and anger that is at the root of Trump's success in campaigning.
'Anti-Fragile' author and risk expert Nassim Nicholas Taleb thinks Trump would actually be the most risk averse and pragmatic
candidate. Trump isn't beholden to oligarch donors who have an ideological agenda to pursue 'regime change' in the Middle East,
or neo-liberal economic policies.
Trump has spoken about trade and manufacturing for decades, as well as questioning US military involvement overseas. This is
why 'neo-con's like Romney want to stop him.
I'm a Trump Supporter - I'm not White, I'm a minority & I'm not in the "working class"
I support Trump because he's literally the only politician that at least talks about issues that the "professional class" likes
to pretend aren't happening.
You guys cover up Islamic violence & anyone who talks about it is immediately called an Islamophobe & a Racist (For telling
the truth!)
Trade deals - Who was talking about it before Trump & Sanders? Not the politicians, and certainly not the media.
The wall is racist? - Why don't you talk about all the Americans that PROTESTED the border surge because of the huge strain
having people from across the border was having on their taxes & communities? Or the fact that Obama didn't care that Americans
didn't want them there & just did what he wanted (which is unconstitutional). So if Trump's a bully, what would that make the
media & the Obama administration?
Trump Supporters are AMERICANS voting for an AMERICAN GOVERNMENT not racists, not bigots, just Americans who have watched this
country be destroyed by corporate greed.
This article laboured the point a bit, but it was refreshing in that it sought out an explanation for Trump's success, rather
than just making assumptions about it based on the writer's own prejudices. Though I think illegal immigration is as much a part
of Trump's popularity as his stance on trade.
Re the latter, though, what evidence is there that free trade deals have actually had the effects that their critics, from
Sanders to Trump, claim they have? Certainly, the years post-NAFTA were practically economic golden years for the USA. Correlation
is not causation, of course, but it is better than mere dogmatic rhetoric.
And what would Trump or Bernie (Bumpie?) actually do to reverse any alleged losses to free trade. Are we talking about putting
up tariff trade barriers, making goods more expensive for American consumers? How would that improve their living standards?
A lot of these "professional" classes have no clothes and the core of Trump supporters see through your rubbish. Half of you would
be on the scrap heap begging for a job at McDonalds if it weren't for quantitative easing, the complete perversion of the financial
system, mass immigration, the high taxes used to fund bloated, inane and superflous government departments, and for the Chinese
to make your shitty product for $2 an hour if you do work for a company that makes something tangible.
The media is bleeding, not even your own supporters want to pay for your bloviated propaganda.
If it's racist to not want open borders and just a reasonable amount of immigration that the west had through out most of the
late 20th century then I am "racist" and proud of it.
Oh and according to Bernie white people can't know poverty, we're sick and tired of the racism towards white people and the
blatant double standards.
But here's the rub. Where are you hearing Donald Trump say "I wont do free trade agreements anymore?"
Where have we heard Trump say "Im going to remove all those Investor State Dispute Settlement clauses from all our bilateral
and multilateral trade agreements because they are anti democratic and contrary to the rule of law"?
All Trump is promising is that the deals he will make will somehow be more favourable to America than the TPP that is already
heavily tilted in favour of US multinationals.
That though some magical thinking he will achieve a better deal than the best and brightest in the State Department, or their
expsensive private sector consultants.
Trump is talking a big game about doing things differently, but there is no detail to his platform.
When push comes to shove, Trump wont be able to change the course of global capital.
Multinationals have Congress on a short leash. Trump cant overturn Citizens United. He wont even try.
Is Trump seriously suggesting he will get the US Congress to ratify some new type of trade agreement that protects American
workers?
Its bullshit. When push comes to shove, does anyone really think Trump is going to stand up for American workers and take sides
against the people he plays golf with?
For fucks sake Trump benefits from globalisation every single day. He benefits from intellectual property laws that enforce
his trademarks. He benefits from business migration that helps him secure foreign workers for his building projects and resorts.
He said as much when discussing the need for seasonal foreign labour at his resort in Florida.
Donald Trump raging against globalisation is like ISIS raging against the West while wearing Nikes, using iphones and drinking
RedBull.
Its theatre. But his working class power base havent the education to pick it. They're being played for suckers. He's turning
their downward envy into votes. He wont do jack shit for them other than quicken their blood pressure while blaming the foreign
investors that he needs to sustain his own wealth.
Now, let us stop and smell the perversity. Left parties the world over were founded to advance the fortunes of working
people. But our left party in America – one of our two monopoly parties – chose long ago to turn its back on these people's
concerns, making itself instead into the tribune of the enlightened professional class, a "creative class" that makes innovative
things like derivative securities and smartphone apps. The working people that the party used to care about, Democrats figured,
had nowhere else to go, in the famous Clinton-era expression. The party just didn't need to listen to them any longer.
Its no surprise that working class white people in the US scapegoat racial minorities and are vulnerable to politicians who encourage
them in this direction. To actually focus on the CAUSES of their persistent poverty and unemployment would require the courage
to face up to the very powerful American corporate elite. What makes this sad is that this elite is itself the principle beneficiary
of the Republican party's economic and socially regressive (unfair) policies.
We don't actually scapegoat racial minorities. You're scapegoating us by saying that.
We scapegoat the actual problem, which is the political elite, and it isn't just the Republicans. The Democrats too (Hillary)
are in bed with the same corporate interests that are fighting hard against Trump. It has literally nothing to do with race. Zero.
while both sides embraced neo liberalism, while globalization appeared successful, while you entrenched mums and dads in
the stock market, both sides of politics wrote off critics as uneducated and bigoted. didn't listen to a word, didn't include
them in YOUR democracy
well the shtick is up, the taxpayer funded bank bail out didn't work. all that public money went to the people with money that
fucked it initially, the immigration ponzi scheme didn't work, the exporting jobs didn't work, it worked for a while but you didn't
even take us with you for the short ride.
the whole system is broken and all the professional class do is continue name calling the workers. write them off all you want
your plan has not worked
Much better than the average article on Trump. He makes a good point about the problems of the academic echo chamber, with
experts all quoting each other, rather than real blue-collar workers.
Ill-considered trade deals and generous bank bailouts and guaranteed profits for insurance companies but no recovery for
average people, ever – these policies have taken their toll.
As good a summary as exists of the problems with the two major parties: they just don't get it.
I understood intellectually why various governments around the world went and implemented bailouts for their banks, etc during
the GFC. Without banks the finance system grinds to a halt and everybody suffers because both business and individuals aren't
able to get credit, etc.
However, my problem with what happened is that these bailouts left mostly the same senior people in charge of these same banks,
insurance companies, etc. What should have happened is that the price of the rescue was that the top couple of levels of any financial
organization relying on rescue funding should have been sacked and had much of their bonuses made off the financial risk taking
clawed back - the philosophy being you created the mess by taking way too much risk so you now take responsibility for that mess.
Unfortunately it didn't happen, hardly anybody was held responsible, it was mostly people with no connection to financial industry
who received the pain and then our various reserve banks started pumping out almost free money to the same industry as caused
the GFC in the first place through their stupid risk taking.
To be honest Trump is right on one very key issue as an American, and as a progressive who still would not vote for any Republican.
I mean a vote for the Republican party would have disastrous consequences in terms of death and financial ruin as it always has
in recent years. But Trump is right on free trade. Americans were never told that tens of thousands of plants would close
in America and in fact were told that the plant jobs that left would be replaced by new and better jobs. That never happened,
the new and better jobs went from often Union and high priced labor with good benefits, to non-union service sector menial work.
At least for the high school trained American worker. Globalized free trade has decimated the industrial base of the western world.
In effect a multinational today pays his workers in rupees, pesos, and yuan while selling his good for dollars and euros; meanwhile
they open a polluting sweatshop in Asia. to add insult to injury. In short we are taking a double hit of losing the high paying
work while having our air and water poisoned for personal profit. Actually, more accurate to say we are getting triple screwed
because then the multinational neither pays a reasonable tariff to enter our market nor does that corporation ever pay tax in
the US, instead they pay it in the Cayman Islands or Dubai. This is the rigged economy.
"Yet still we cannot bring ourselves to look the thing in the eyes. We cannot admit that we liberals bear some of the blame for
its emergence, for the frustration of the working-class millions, for their blighted cities and their downward spiraling lives.
So much easier to scold them for their twisted racist souls, to close our eyes to the obvious reality of which Trump_vs_deep_state
is just a crude and ugly expression: that neoliberalism has well and truly failed."
This bears repeating over and over again! I, too, find Trump to be quite distasteful but hearing him lay into the likes of
Carrier and Ford for packing up and moving to Mexico- and seeing so many Republican voters and conservative leaning independents
get excited about it- makes me suspect he is performing a greater service than many of us think. The race to the bottom has got
to stop, and that's not going to happen until the ordinary men & women in both parties refute the globalist, neo-liberal dogma.
Trump has, stunningly, managed to get many Republicans to openly shun 'free trade'. We can either engage with these voters in
a way that actually speaks to their very real concerns or we can dismiss them with the kind of false consciousness crap that Democrats
have been pushing for years, a strategy that pushes them to conclude that the 'left' has no solutions and doesn't care about them
anyway. A surefire way to strengthen the far right if I've ever seen one.
Thank you, Thomas Frank, for another stellar piece!
If he's helping to destroy the party that seriously claimed that George W. Bush was suitable for the presidency, Trump is definitely
doing a real service to America.
I hope Sanders is doing something similar to the wheezing relic that calls itself the Democratic Party.
yes. as is Bernie on trade. theres another message as well: relative isolationism on foreign policy. thats not an impotent rage
thing btw. thats the result of an objective view: Syria and Libya show that the gig is up. thats why Romney defending George W
is so pointless. Trump is not the war monger ideologue. Cruz and Rubio are at least in order to make their case to the establishment.
the electorate is far wittier and nuanced than the geniuses are. thank god for democracy.
It's non-interventionism. The US should let other countries sort their problems. The US does not need middle east oil and should
not be responsible for middle east stability or security. Europe should take more responsibility for its neighborhood.
Globalism is dead. Trump is the messenger. It will be every country for itself. The global elite will get on the isolationist
bus or they will be replaced. It has ever been so.
I believe "they" will have little choice in whether it holds together as it is now: the massive debt bubble used to prop up an
economy having just experienced one of the largest bubble bursts of all time, the mortgage securities bubble/non-scandal, will
require a massive contraction, as there will never be sufficient growth to cover the truly astounding amount of debt owed.
Something will have to give, eventually if not very soon, and it will not be a pretty sight. I sense many of us know this,
but are choosing to place our heads in the sand in the face of knowing there is nothing any of us can do about it.
Notably it takes someone not on the payroll, Thomas Frank, to write something sensible about the Trump phenomenon. He is able
to do this because he has, in the language of an earlier time, a class analysis.
Increasingly, a view that touts itself as diverse and anti-racist-- one ostensibly rooted in indispensable values such as dignity,
tolerance, and egalitarianism-- is being used as ideological cover.
"Privilege checking," etc. is becoming a way of not talking about the colossal damage wrought by neoliberal capitalism.
Clinton is a case in point.
Her anti-racist credentials-- largely gifted to her by an affluent and empowered Black political Establishment-- are supposed
to deflect attention from her support for economic policies that are crippling working people of all races.
Americans mock Australia's political system, where you vote for a party, and the party picks the Prime Minister, but at least
it allowed us to get rid of OUR version of Trump = Tony Abbott after just 2 years of leadership. The absurdities, mistakes, outrageous
actions, obvious lies and extreme damage to Australia's reputation just got too much, and he was removed by his own party, ensuring
he returned to being a political joke, a piece of amusing satire.
If the US votes Trump in, he remains in place a lot longer and can do a LOT more damage to the country than our incompetent
joker ever did.
Yet both the ALP and the LNP sing the same song on privatisation and neoliberalism. Free trade is great and good, government run
services should be subcontracted out or outright privatized and there is no alternative they both say.
Australia has also been with an almost hung parliament through two governments now such is the public dissatisfaction with
the political mainstream. If you think the hard left and the hard right won't affect Australia's fortunes you haven't been paying
attention.
And when these authorities are asked to explain the Trump movement, they always seem to zero in on one main accusation:
bigotry.
Those who still cling to this idiotic explanation at some point would have to realize that many of the people who now vote
for Trump 8 years ago voted for Obama. Now there is a puzzle they will never be able to solve.
MASHA GESSEN: So, I am really fascinated with what it tells us about our imagination about
the Russian imagination. So, Russia imagines America and the American political system as like
this unassailable monolith that they are throwing stuff at just to try to make a dent, whereas
the United States is starting increasingly to imagine Russia as all-powerful, as incredibly
sophisticated, as capable of, you know, sending out some really absurd tweets, in sub-literate
English, and somehow changing the outcome of the election. And that projects such a belief in
the fragility of the system and the basic instability of it and in the gullibility of voters
who read something that's not even comprehensible English and suddenly change their vote. I
mean, the working theory of the investigation -- right? -- is that Russians influenced the
election by influencing American public opinion. And so, we're asked to believe that a
significant impact on American public opinion could be produced by, you know, the Bernie the
Superman coloring book tweet.
"... The sad thing is, by admitting that Trump had no connection to the 13 accused 'election hackers,' his accusers are offering him an easy out–with the expectation that he will pay them back by turning against Russia. ..."
"... Trump has already acquiesced in new arms shipments to Ukraine, and he doesn't seem to have any problem with the Pentagon randomly attacking (among others) Russian soldiers and contractors in Syria ..."
"... Well this was always the ultimate point. Not getting Trump, but making sure Trump falls in line with the insane plan to get Russia. ..."
The sad thing is, by admitting that Trump had no connection to the 13
accused 'election hackers,' his accusers are offering him an easy out–with the
expectation that he will pay them back by turning against Russia.
Trump has already acquiesced
in new arms shipments to Ukraine, and he doesn't seem to have any problem with the Pentagon
randomly attacking (among others) Russian soldiers and contractors in Syria. If there were ever
any doubt, it now seems obvious that "the swamp" has successfully drained Trump. Start digging
your bomb shelters, people
Well this was always the ultimate point. Not getting Trump, but making sure Trump falls in
line with the insane plan to get Russia.
It's hard to see how this ends. Like the Terminator they absolutely will not stop. Ever.
Until they are physically incapable of moving another step. But will the world survive long
enough for that to happen? Or will Russia cave rather than risk war? Without Putin at the
helm I think 'compromises' will start and then pretty soon Russia is back in the fold with a
token president and the IMF running the show. Like the rest of us.
The whole election-meddling distraction is remarkable in both comic and tragic ways. The
tragedy can be summed up in three words: New Cold War. At a time when the U.S. and Russian
governments ought to be working toward nuclear disarmament, relations are deteriorating
dangerously. As the estimable Australian writer Caitlin Johnstone,
notes , despite Donald Trump's campaign promise of détente with Russia,
We are
already at an extremely dangerous point in the ongoing trend of continuous escalations with
a country that is armed with thousands of nuclear warheads. [Johnstone's links.]
Would Trump have done these things without the pressure of Russiagate? I don't know, but
Russiagate hasn't helped. And what more would Hillary Clinton have done by this point?
Johnstone argues that Russiagate is all about putting Russia in its place and securing the
American ruling elite's geopolitical and economic interests -- not about getting Trump:
America's unelected power establishment doesn't care about impeaching Trump, it cares
about hobbling Russia in order to prevent the rise of a potential rival superpower in its ally
China. All this lunacy makes perfect sense when you realize this. The US deep state is using
the hysterical cult of anti-Trumpism to manufacture support for increasing escalations with
Russia, and the anti-Trumpists are playing right along under the delusion that pushing for
moves against Russia will hurt Trump.
Of course, removing Trump from office would be a cherry on top. If the drivers of Russiagate
can't have that, at least they can leave the impression that Hillary Clinton would be president
today were it not for the diabolically cunning Vladimir Putin and the inherently depraved
Russia in cahoots with their tool, Donald Trump. ( Putin's
opponents in Russia are irritated that Americans portray Putin as virtually omnipotent.)
Russiagate promoters in the Democratic Party deny they intend to right the wrong of 2016, but I
don't believe them. Surely they are trying to delegitimate the election on the grounds that
Trump and Putin stole it from its rightful owner. (For the record, I think all elections are
illegitimate but not because of foreign involvement.)
The anti-Russia campaign has certainly gone well beyond overboard. Former Director of
National Intelligence James (Yeah, I
lied . What you gonna do about?) Clapper, on "Meet the Press," said
the Russians "are "typically, almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor,
whatever, which is a typical Russian technique." (Beg your pardon, I linked to RT. Here's an American
site for anyone concerned about having RT in their browser history.) Johnstone
points out that Clapper has said such things before, including: "But as far as our being
intimate allies, trusting buds with the Russians that is just not going to happen. It is in
their genes to be opposed, diametrically opposed to the United States and to Western
democracies." As I recall, former CIA Director John Brennan said something similar.
On the comic side, Russiagate is a new theater of the absurd, featuring Americans running
around with their hair on fire over alleged official Russian actions that amount to
nothing significant: it was an act of war -- another Pearl Harbor -- no wait, another 9/11!
Let's assume -- purely for the sake of discussion since no evidence has been made public --
that the Russians did it. Note, first, that the "it" looks like the product of the gang that
couldn't shoot straight. I'm not going to do what Johnstone, Glenn Greenwald, Aaron
Maté, and the late Robert Parry have done so well so many times, namely, catalog all the
inane acts the Putin-guided Russian intel agencies are said to have committed in order to bring
down America. (Start here .)
Suffice it to say that if that's the best Putin can come up with, we have little to
worry about. Of course, the very inanity of this so-called campaign to destroy America -- the
ridiculous discrepancy between means and alleged end, the sheer clownish ineptitude --
furnishes sufficient grounds for skepticism, at least, about the Russiagate narrative. (See
David Stockman's
explanation of the ineptitude. SPOILER ALERT: It wasn't a Russian Intel operation. The man
who we are to believe sought to subvert America's democracy is a freelance pro-Putin Russian
food-industry oligarch employing a bunch of minimum-wage keyboard jockeys who didn't pay
attention to the United States until the 2014 U.S.-sponsored coup in Ukraine, i.e., before
there was a Trump campaign.)
Americans generally do not know the nefarious things "their" government has done over many,
many years. This is partly due to what Bryan Caplan in The Myth of the Rational Voter calls "rational irrationalism." Americans embrace a
nationalism that is impervious to facts. Even vivid accounts of the systematic wholesale
slaughter of the Indians wouldn't shake it. People generally don't like to venture outside
their comfort zones to shake up their worldview, and even if they did so, what would change?
Each person has only one vote, and the chance that one vote will make a difference is close to
zero. So why not indulge one's nationalist biases? It's not as though there's an opportunity
cost to doing so.
On the other hand, politicians and pundits do have some idea of America's long record of
intervening in other countries. (Maybe I'm being too charitable.) What's their excuse for being
so offended by even the possibility of meddling in an U.S. election? One explanation is the
"exceptional nation" dogma of the American creed, or what I call the American chosen-people
complex. Even secular American nationalists believe America has been anointed -- by history if
not by a deity -- to lead the world. (This goes back to the founding generation, by the way.
It's no post-World War II phenomenon. See America's Counter-Revolution: The Constitution Revisited .)
Thus, we have a moral inequivalence on our hands. It's okay if we do it to "them" (whoever),
but it's not okay if "they" do it to us. Moreover,
we can do it to ourselves , but if anyone else tries it, there'll be hell to pay.
Any way you look at it, Russiagate is ridiculous. Of course it serves some people's
interests. But it harms the rest of us, most of all by bringing us closer to conflict with
Russia, perhaps even to nuclear war.
The reality of Russiagate is that the corrupt neoliberal system and its institutions were laid bare in an
unprecedented way. The Democratic Party is toast. The Republican Party is a vile sham. And the MSM has exposed itself as attack
dogs of intelligence agencies like never before. People are waking up to the corrupt
and useless system in place. The reality of the system was exposed in magnifying Russiagate lens. That's probably the only
good thing about it
Notable quotes:
"... John Sipher (ha ha) starts out by re-asserting the lie that Russians "hacked" the DNC ..."
"... Why are the people who work for this guy trying to sell opinions being called trolls? This is just another way to give credence to the FBI narrative that trolls tried to sway the election. If anyone was a troll, ..."
"... And Rachel? Quit lying to yourself and others. My gawd! You have come a long way from your time at Air America that I don't even recognize you anymore. You are creating hysteria and you have become a raving lunatic. Enjoy your $30,000/day, $7 million a month salary for selling out to the people who you used to despise. I despise you! ..."
"... He retorts that 'there's enough hot spots -- Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, China' -- but fails to acknowledge that for example, the Iraq invasion and subsequent insurgency/civil war/rise-of-ISIS is all about what Aaron pointed to, the ginning up intelligence to create the Iraq invasion - which then spilled over into Syria. The role that the US is playing in all the other place he mentions, they have constantly resorted to lethal force and refused negotiation. ..."
"... The establishment media leaves out the essential context: The US is on a single superpower, Pax Americana global empire gambit; with everyone else playing for time while building their defences. ..."
"... And 'Russian Doctrine' is just recycled Soviet Doctrine - but the US always lead arms escalations during the old cold war - the so called soviet doctrine was in fact defence against US pressure and aggression. ..."
"... The Democratic Party is toast. The Republican Party is a vile sham. And the main stream media has exposed itself like never before. People are waking up to the corrupt and useless system in place. The reality of the system is being laid bare in an unprecedented way. As bad as things seem, this is a good thing, if we can keep those in power from destroying the earth before we can recover it. ..."
"... Unless something more comes of this, the Dems and their media cohorts will do a repeat of the Repubs and that same media when the WMD failed to materialize in Iraq. The wonderful thing about The Homeland, though, is that being wrong, all the time, in no way disqualifies you for remaining an important and serious person. ..."
"... Black Lives Matter ..."
"... Bernie Sanders ..."
"... Yeah, I think the point of this is not to change opinions, the point was to try to either suppress voters on one side, or to get people to hardened opinions, and get people to come out to vote, and we've even seen the same troll farm, looks like they're doing this now around the Parkland shooting in Florida. They were going around Black Lives Matter, they're trying to spin up divisions to get us working against each other, as much as electing Jill Stein or Bernie Sanders. ..."
AARON MATÉ: Now, Maddow makes at least one error here. The indictment does say that
the operation had a monthly budget of $1.25 million dollars, but that was for its entire global
operations, of which the U.S. was only a part. And more importantly, can we say conclusively
that this was the work of Russian intelligence? Well, joining me is John Sipher, national
security analyst with Cipher Brief, and a former member of the CIA's clandestine service.
John Sipher (@john_sipher) is a former Chief of Station for the C.I.A. He worked for
over 27 years in Russia, Europe and Asia and now writes for various publications and works as a
consultant with CrossLead and New Media Frontier.
Here's what Mr CIA guy 'Sipher' is selling: The indicted 13 Russian trollers
interfered w the 2016 POTUS election- NOT by hacking US voting machines & flipping
votes to Repug Trump, but by sowing discord among the US electorate which even 'Sipher'
admits already existed. Most of the Face-Book posts by these alleged Russian trollers
were either posted AFTER Nov 8, 2016 &/or were seen by virtually NO-One, thus
'Sipher' effectively admits he now ilk in the US intel biz can even assess how much
alleged impact these alleged Russian trollers had on the 2016 POTUS election -But- I can:
Virtually ZERO!!
Now compare that to the US' notorious track-record of nefariously 'meddling' in other
countries' political processes- Mainly by Mr CIA guy 'Sipher's' so-called 'ex'
employer:
- In 1996 the US actively & blatantly interfered in Russia's presidential election to
get Slick Willy's pal & chum(p) that drunk Boris Yeltsin guy elected, & even
openly bragged about it. And then orchestrated a fire-sale of Russia's resources, that
resulted in great hardship to the Russian people.
In 2014 while Putin's attention was on the Winter-Olympics in Sochi, Killary Clinton's
protege' Vikky Nuland actively stoked a Neo-NAZI coup vs Ukraine's democratically elected
president -- In an blatant attempt to push NATO right up into Russia's face / west-flank
& to try to grab Russia's naval base in Crimea [which up till the 1950s was actually
officially Russian territory].
In 1953 the CIA in tandem w MI6 actively worked to overthrow Iran's democratically
selected leader Mosadeq, in an out-right COUP, that brought that notorious dictator the
Shah of Iran to power!
In 1954 the CIA actively worked to overthrow Guatemala's democratically elected leader
Arbenz, in an out-right COUP!
In 1960-61 the CIA in tandem w the Belgiums [& even the UN] actively worked to
overthrow Congo's democratically elected leader Patrice Lumuba, in an out-right COUP the
resulted in Lumumba's DEATH [w the OK of Ike Eisenhower's & Alan Dulles' CIA]! A coup
that brought the notorious despot Mobutu to power.
In 1961 Dulles' & 'Tricky Dick' Nixon's CIA talked JFK into allowing the CIA to
try to over-throw Castro in Cuba, in the 'Bay of Pigs' fiasco.
In 1966 LBJ's CIA helped to overthrow Ghanaian leader Kwame' Nkruma in a military
coup.
In 1973 Nixon's & Kissinger's CIA helped to overthrow the democratically elected
leader of Chile' Allende' in an out-Right coup, the resulted in Allende's DEATH! And
brought the notoriously murderous military regime of Pinochet to power!!
In 1991 Mr CIA POTUS Bush Sr OKed an out-right Coup vs the democratically elected
leader of Haiti Aristide. And Bush Sr's son, Bush Jr would do a repeat vs Aristide yet
again in 2004- Which was Haiti's bicentennial anniversary of its independence from
Napoleon's France [in 1804] as France's notorious [ex] slave-colony. The US & France
have been causing misery in Haiti ever since!!
In 2002 the US [likely spear-headed by the CIA] tried to pull a coup vs Venezuela's
democratically elected leader Hugo Chavez, which failed. But the US has been actively
meddling in Venezuela ever since, & is apparently plotting a coup vs Chavez'
democratically elected successor Maduro.
In 2003 the Bush-Cheney-Bliar nexus used false intel from Mr 'Sipher's' CIA, launched
that disastrous Iraq Attack Pt2 based on LIES, which resulted in over 1 Million Iraqis'
death, in an nefarious Neo-CONian / Neo-Liberal regime-change scheme!! This CIA backed
disaster directly resulted in the rise of AL-CIAeda in Iraq & then ISIS!!
In 2009 under Dim Obama & Billary HRC as his Sec of State, the US OKed a coup vs
Honduras' democratically elected leader Zelaya. And Honduras remains in turmoil to this
day!
In 2011 Dim OBomber & Killary [I came,. I saw, He died, Ha, ha, ha- Yes!] Clinton
in combo w France's Sarkozy, the UK's Cameron & those 'bastions of democracy' the
Saudi-GCC oil monarchs- actively overthrew Libya's leader Col Khadaffi via FUK-US NATO's
relentless 9 month 'R2P' bombing assault in yet another notorious Neo-CONian / NeoLiberal
regime-change scheme [based on LIES yet again]- Resulting in Khadaffi's brutal murder
[that KIllary openly called for just a few days before & then hideously cackled over
afterwards] mass chaos in what was Africa's most prosperous country, & brought to
power a regime that's directly linked to AL-CIAeda & even ISIS, & who are now
openly selling Black Libyans & African immigrants on Libyan SLAVE-Markets!!
In 2012 the US under then Sec of State Billary HRC tried to interfere in Russia's
elections [yet again] to block Putin's regaining Russia's presidency.
In 2011 the US under Slick Willy Clinton [as the UN's Gov of Haiti] & wife Billary
HRC as Sec of State, actively interfered in Haiti's elections yet again to bring that
neo-Duvalier guy Martelli to power, while outlawing Aristide's political party which is
the most popular party in Haiti.
In 2015 the US covertly backed a 'parliamentary coup' vs Brazil's democratically
elected leader Delma Roussef!
And oh let's NOT forget the US' & it allies [UK, the Saudis, the Turks, the IAF,
etc] actively involvement in the on-going Syrian disaster- In yet another Neo-CONian /
Neo-Liberal nefarious regime-change scheme!! And how Mr CIA guy Sipher's CIA & other
intel' agencies have been trying to bait first Dim OBomber & now Repug Trump into an
all out attack on Syria to accomplish it, using dubious 'intel' ala 'WMD redux'!!
I mean seriously Mr CIA guy 'Sipher' & all you other Russia-Gaters [IE: Rachael
Mad-cow & even Bernie]?? All this BS hype over 13 Russians trolling click-bait on
Face-Book, vs all that I've outlined above [just a short-list] that the CIA & even
so-called 'liberal' Dims have actively supported, w DISASTROUS results- Literally
destroying MILLIONS of lives in the process!! PLEASE!!
John Sipher (ha ha) starts out by re-asserting the lie that Russians "hacked" the DNC.
Everything that follows is just blah, blah,blah....Why is TRN interviewing this
buffoon?
No, sorry. I have great respect for Aaron, but TRN is not doing us any favors by
helping spread this noxious propaganda. They legitimize it by acknowledging it.
Meanwhile, there is other news they could be giving us.Check this out:
http://bit.ly/2EMOl4S Sad we have to depend upon comedians to give us the
news....
BTW. Why are the people who work for this guy trying to sell opinions being called
trolls? This is just another way to give credence to the FBI narrative that trolls tried
to sway the election. If anyone was a troll,
I'd say it was the Correct the Record folks
who were the trolls. Hillary's campaign paid over a million dollars for people to go into
websites and if anyone was being critical of Hillary, they tried to get them to change
their minds. How is that not election interference? And was that even legal? It was
unethical if not against campaign finance laws.
It arose inside the country, though Hillary is, without a doubt, scum. Hillbots were
actual 'Murkins, a lot of them still suffering from Hillbotulism. Elections featuring two
absolutely unacceptable candidates are a real drag, and, unfortunately, probably the
OFFICIAL end of the United States (though in reality, the US died in March 2003).
Unbelievable. Aaron: I don't believe that the Mueller investigation has delivered
solid proof that Russia did anything against the country.
Sipher:
Well I think that he and the FBI are reputable sources and I'm going to
believe them and what they tell me. Even if they haven't proven anything, we know that
Putin is a bad man and he wants to sow divisions here and besides he's using chemical
weapons in Syria (even though that's so totally off topic) and when I go to bed at night
I see Putin in my dreams and yackity, yack, yack! So there. I'm a poopy head and you're
not.
Good grief, how can people believe anything by this time? And Rachel? Quit lying to
yourself and others. My gawd! You have come a long way from your time at Air America that
I don't even recognize you anymore. You are creating hysteria and you have become a
raving lunatic. Enjoy your $30,000/day, $7 million a month salary for selling out to the
people who you used to despise. I despise you!
This guys arguments are so weak he must be interacting the very ignorant audience most
of the time (I think the great majority of Americans don't pay attention to what their
own foreign policy is -- and MSM the vast majority of the time offers nothing but safe
softball foreign policy questions).
He retorts that 'there's enough hot spots -- Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, China' -- but
fails to acknowledge that for example, the Iraq invasion and subsequent insurgency/civil
war/rise-of-ISIS is all about what Aaron pointed to, the ginning up intelligence to
create the Iraq invasion - which then spilled over into Syria. The role that the US is
playing in all the other place he mentions, they have constantly resorted to lethal force
and refused negotiation.
The establishment media leaves out the essential context: The US is on a single
superpower, Pax Americana global empire gambit; with everyone else playing for time while
building their defences.
And 'Russian Doctrine' is just recycled Soviet Doctrine - but the US always lead arms
escalations during the old cold war - the so called soviet doctrine was in fact defence
against US pressure and aggression.
MoonofAlabama gives a good analysis of the marketing scheme aspect of these
"meddlings". Max Blumenthal mentions it in his discussion with Mate from earlier in the
week, but this is a very detailed look into the matter:
http://www.moonofalabama.or...
I suppose it is ok for Aaron to interview guys like this CIA agent but the agent
clearly doesn't understand the validity of an indictment. An indictment doesn't prove
anything; If it did, we wouldn't need trial courts.
The Department of Justice could
indict a ham sandwich if they wanted.
The DOJ knows that this case will never go to trial
and they will never have to prove anything. It is depressing that the Democrats and MSNBC
have lost all credibility. We are very lucky to have Aaron and Max looking at this sutff.
The Democratic Party is toast. The Republican Party is a vile sham. And the main
stream media has exposed itself like never before. People are waking up to the corrupt
and useless system in place. The reality of the system is being laid bare in an
unprecedented way. As bad as things seem, this is a good thing, if we can keep those in
power from destroying the earth before we can recover it.
I just got done reading the Mueller indictment. For the MSM and the Dems to continue
their pathetic witch hunt is a true indictment of the corruption at the heart of this
country's political and media elites. No doubt there was an attempt, weak as it was, to
influence Americans, but for anyone to think this is the smoking gun that proves it was
decisive in determining the 2016 election, or that the Russian government definitely
orchestrated it, or that Trump, whom I despise as much as anyone else, colluded with
them, reveals a startling lack of intellectual honesty.
The effort put forth by the Russians involved seemed to have two objectives; first to
take advantage of the tribalization of American society to advance the Trump campaign,
and secondly, to make money off it.
Worst of all, if nothing more comes out of this, then the Dems, as corrupt as they are
incompetent, will have added more fuel to the Trump charges of fake news and will have
served only to weaken any resistance they claim to represent as this clown leads this
country on an ever accelerating demise.
I take issue with advancing the Trump campaign as an objective. Some ads, etc., were
anti-Trump and some were about kittens. I haven't seen any predominant political message,
at all, in that "effort". Also, it was so paltry that they had to know that it would have
no effect, at all, and never could have any effect. Implying otherwise is part of what
makes the whole story look like a bumbling, comedic farce to most thinking people.
If you read the Mueller indictment, it's clearly stated that they did contact various
American groups working for Trump, locally, that is, and arranged events, paid for
various materials, even someone to dress up as HRC and be in a jail, and also travel to
the states to do some first hand research, but as you say, the effort was minor, at best,
and was no factor in Trump winning, especially compared to the billions of $ of free air
time he got when running in the Repub primary, he was a cash cow for the networks, after
all, and the DNC advancing his cause during those same primaries, thinking he was an
easier opponent than Cruz or Rubio.
Unless something more comes of this, the Dems and
their media cohorts will do a repeat of the Repubs and that same media when the WMD
failed to materialize in Iraq. The wonderful thing about The Homeland, though, is that
being wrong, all the time, in no way disqualifies you for remaining an important and
serious person.
I haven't seen ANY evidence of traveling to the US for "first hand research". WHERE
does this crap come from? It comes from people desperate to keep the war budget higher
than any war budget in the history of planet earth. I still see nothing in that
"indictment" that serves as any real evidence that Trump colluded with any Russians, much
less any Russians definitively working for the Government of Russia, or any evidence that
the campaign was affected or that Russians were trying to create "discord" in the US.
If they bothered to look at the same types of activities and even direct money given
to candidates by Israeli, Saudi, UK, and other nationals, I think it would dwarf anything
Russian citizens used to fund or further any campaign. They won't look elsewhere, though,
because nothing perpetrates the fraud on the American people that is the Defense budget
like the word "Russians" and most of the "defense" (i.e., war) budget is completely
unnecessary. They should be cut by a third right now, with further cuts pending.
The indictment gives the names and dates of two Russians who made it here for a few
days; a third was unable to secure a visa. There are dates and places named in the
indictment, but nothing that could of had any influence on the election. If the Dems are
so worked up over having lost two elections this century even though their candidate had
more popular votes, you'd think they'd be screaming for a change in determining the
presidential election. We all know the Repubs would.
We are in total agreement as to what really mattered and matters regarding this issue
and the reasons behind the Dems sudden embrace of McCarthyism and their overall need to
point to Russia or anyone else to maintain the unmaintainable American empire. If you
haven't read the indictment, it's not that long, 37 short pages, several of which can be
skipped because they simply list names or laws broken.
If the dems really cared, they would be calling for publicly funded elections, cuts of
a quarter or more of the war budget (i.e., "defense"), and public health care and
education, and jobs programs with benefits. They care about nothing but their own
butts.
Aaron Mate is an excellent, intelligent, sincere, and questioning journalist--in
short, what everything one would expect from a real journalist. So, what is it the
naysayers don't like about him? Is it because he does not support their narrative. Is it
his laid back style? What in particular?
Glen Ford penetrates all the BS and gets right down to the real agenda, Black or
otherwise. He called out Obama back in 2007, when nearly everyone else on the so called
left were coming in their pants over that fake.
CIA staff exhibit two qualities in abundance: 1) Suspicious incredulity regarding all
apparent statements, actions and motivations of subjects in the field, and 2) Studied,
refined, and highly purposeful public mendacity regarding their and their government's
apparent statements, actions and motivations.
Mr Sipher is lying and the tell is his amazing degree of credulity regarding numerous
US entities paired with across the board mistrust and outright defamation of numerous
non-US entities. Virtually every accusation Sipher made against Russia, Putin and the
indicted, is a menu item on standard CIA operational plans for disrupting the elections
of foreign nations and has been practiced continuously for several decades, technology
permitting.
As a companion to this interview it might be nice to solicit an interview with a CIA
antagonist who knows how to expose--point by point, in policy, practice and
tradition--one of the most destructive covert entities in world history.
Mr. Sipher is throwing everything at the wall to see what might stick, attempting to
conflate what he laughably refers to as the "Russian Black Arts" with the Parkland
shooting. He talks in circles; on one hand acknowledging pre-existing social
"hyperpartisan", "tribal", divisions", while on the other hand dismissing genuine
political movements Black Lives Matter , Democratic Socialism ( Bernie
Sanders ), and the Environmental Movement ( Jill Stein ) as products of
Russian propaganda that is at once both sophisticated and simple.
JOHN SIPHER: Yeah, I think the point of this is not to change opinions, the point
was to try to either suppress voters on one side, or to get people to hardened
opinions, and get people to come out to vote, and we've even seen the same troll farm,
looks like they're doing this now around the Parkland shooting in Florida. They were
going around Black Lives Matter, they're trying to spin up divisions to get us working
against each other, as much as electing Jill Stein or Bernie Sanders.
His assessment lacks any measure of self/social-awareness or self/social-consciousness
that should be a pre-requisite before laying out criticism of another. It seems to me Mr.
Sipher might be protecting his CIA pension.
Hey there Munk! True believers will lay down their lives for their preferred criminal
syndicate because they are of one body; pensions are just icing. Your observations among
others are exactly why I said Sipher is lying.
Bill Binney, Ray McGovern and John Kiriakou are the first three that come to mind as
potential contrarians, although I am sure there are others as well. Perhaps the Clapper
lyings will come up in part two?
A few months ago, while waiting for wifey to come out of Target, I saw a preteen kid
wearing a T shirt that said, "I speak fluent sarcasm." I want one of those.
Muhammad Ali used rope a dope to defeat George Foreman; Mate let's these idiots expose
themselves with their own words; nothing is more effective than letting a fool speak.
This migration to truthful analysis of the situation to FOx is paradoxically true
phenomenon.
Greenwald definition of Rachel Maddow transformation is really brilliant: " "I used to be
really good friends with Rachel Maddow," Greenwald told
New York magazine. "And I've seen her devolution from this really interesting, really smart,
independent thinker into this utterly scripted, intellectually dishonest, partisan hack."
Notable quotes:
"... The Nation, Counterpunch, Consortium News ..."
Greenwald
has emerged as one of the prominent skeptics of the investigation into collaboration between
the Trump campaign and the Russians. Once a fixture in the progressive media for his dissection
of the national security state, he is now more frequently cited by the far right in its efforts
to discredit the investigation run by Robert Mueller. The journalist used to chat regularly
with MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, but now he's more likely to appear with Tucker Carlson on Fox News.
"I used to be really good friends with Rachel Maddow," Greenwald told
New York magazine. "And I've seen her devolution from this really interesting, really smart,
independent thinker into this utterly scripted, intellectually dishonest, partisan hack."
Wow, that's harsh.
Greenwald is not alone. You can find skeptical articles about Russiagate at The Nation,
Counterpunch, Consortium News , and many other progressive outlets. And these articles can
be equally scathing about the journalists, mainstream or otherwise, that take the investigation
seriously.
Over at The Nation , Russia specialist Stephen Cohen regularly challenges the
emerging narrative, most recently suggesting that
the intelligence community essentially fabricated Russiagate, which has generated in turn a
different scandal -- he calls it "Intelgate" -- even larger than Watergate.
The size of funds that Democrats and Republicans operated were in billions. And , IRA
staffers purchased just $100,000 worth of Facebook ads, 56% of which ran after Election
Day. So only $44K was spent during election campaign.
There author is wrong about color revolution against Trump. It is progressing.
One interesting side effect will be ruthless suppression of the US influence in Russian
elections. Bismark famously remarked that "the Russians are slow to saddle up, but ride fast."
Here media dogs also are off leash and there will be innocent victims, blamed in treason and
other nefarious activities just to voicing dissent. Russiagate discredited neoliberal fifth
column in Russia, making them all "enemies of the people".
Notable quotes:
"... After nine months of labor, Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller thus brought forth a mouse. Even if all the charges are true – something we'll probably never know since it's unlikely that any of the accused will be brought to trial -- the indictment tells us virtually nothing that's new. ..."
"... Yes, they persuaded someone in Florida to dress up as Hillary Clinton in a prison uniform and stand inside a cage mounted on a flatbed truck. And, yes, they also got another "real U.S. person," as the indictment terms it, to stand in front of the White House with a sign saying, "Happy 55th Birthday Dear Boss," a tribute, apparently, to IRA founder Yevgeniy Prigozhin, the convicted robber turned caterer whose birthday was three days away. Instead of a super-sophisticated spying operation, the indictment depicts a bumbling freelance operation that is still giving Putin heartburn months after the fact. ..."
"... Not that this has stopped the media from whipping itself into a frenzy. "Russia is at war with our democracy," screamed a headline in the Washington Post. "Trump is ignoring the worst attack on America since 9/11," blared another. " Russia is engaged in a virtual war against the United States through 21st-century tools of disinformation and propaganda," declared the New York Times, while Daily Beast columnist Jonathan Alter tweeted that the IRA's activities amounted to nothing less than a "tech Pearl Harbor." ..."
"... This makes the Dems seem crass, unscrupulous, and none too democratic. But then Mudde gave the knife a twist. The real trouble with the strategy, he said, is that it isn't working: ..."
"... No collusion means no impeachment and hence no anti-Trump "color revolution" of the sort that was so effective in Georgia or the Ukraine. Moreover, while 53 percent of Americans believe that investigating Russiagate should be a top or at least an important priority according to a recent poll , figures for a half-dozen other issues ranging from Medicare and Social Security reform to tax policy, healthcare, infrastructure, and immigration are actually a good deal higher – 67 percent, 72 percent, or even more. ..."
"... " the Russia-Trump collusion story might be the talk of the town in Washington, but this is not the case in much of the rest of the country." Out in flyover country, rather, Americans can't figure out why the political elite is more concerned with a nonexistent scandal than with things that really count, i.e. de-industrialization, infrastructure decay, the opioid epidemic, and school shootings. As society disintegrates, the only thing Democrats have accomplished with all their blathering about Russkis under the bed is to demonstrate just how cut off from the real world they are. ..."
"... But Russiagate is not just about regime change, but other things as well. One is repression. Where once Democrats would have laughed off Russian trolls and the like, they're now obsessed with making a mountain out of a molehill in order to enforce mainstream opinion and marginalize ideas and opinions suspected of being un-American and hence pro-Russian. If the RT (Russia Today) news network is now suspect -- the Times described it not long ago as "the slickly produced heart of a broad, often covert disinformation campaign designed to sow doubt about democratic institutions and destabilize the West" – then why not the BBC or Agence France-Presse? How long until foreign books are banned or foreign musicians? ..."
"... "I'm actually surprised I haven't been indicted," tweets Bloomberg columnist Leonid Bershidsky. "I'm Russian, I was in the U.S. in 2016 and I published columns critical of both Clinton and Trump w/o registering as a foreign agent." When the Times complains that Facebook "still sees itself as the bank that got robbed, rather than the architect who designed a bank with no safes, and no alarms or locks on the doors, and then acted surprised when burglars struck," then it's clear that the goal is to force Facebook to rein in its activities or stand by and watch as others do so instead. ..."
"... But Russiagate is about something else as well: war. As National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster warns that the "time is now" to act against Iran, the New York Times slams Trump for not imposing sanctions on Moscow, and a spooky "Nuclear Posture Review" suggests that the US might someday respond to a cyber attack with atomic weapons, it's plain that Washington is itching for a showdown that will somehow undo the mistakes of the previous administration. The more Trump drags his feet, the more Democrats conclude that a war drive is the best way to bring him to his knees. ..."
"... Thus, low-grade political interference is elevated into a casus belli while Vladimir Putin is portrayed as a supernatural villain straight out of Harry Potter. But where does it stop? Libya has been set back decades, Syria, the subject of yet another US regime-change effort, has been all but destroyed, while Yemen – which America helps Saudi Arabia bomb virtually around the clock – is now a disaster area with some 9,000 people killed, 50,000 injured, a million-plus cholera cases, and more than half of all hospitals and clinics destroyed. ..."
"... The more Democrats pound the war drums, the more death and destruction will ensue. The process is well underway in Syria, the victim of Israeli bombings and a US-Turkish invasion, and it will undoubtedly spread as Dems turn up the heat. If the pathetic pseudo-scandal known as Russiagate really is collapsing under its own weight, then it's not a moment too soon. ..."
"... The Frozen Republic: How the Constitution Is Paralyzing Democracy ..."
"... A minor quibble was how at the end the author kept referring to how the "U.S" or "Washington" were the forces for the regime changes or flat-out destruction of nations Israel wants destroyed. The crappy little pesthole has been the barely-concealed mastermind of all the "Wars For Israel" which have turned the US of A into a bankrupt laughingstock. ..."
"... As ludicrous as Russiagate became, it was no joke, and became a real amplifier of the threat of nuclear war, and the relentlessly increasing militarization of America. Without the enthusiastic help of the corporate media, the whole phony narrative would never have got off the ground. Of course the criminals we call the intelligence community did all they could to give it legs, as well. We can only pray that it fades away now, and is not replaced with something else like a shooting war. But that hope is fading now on several fronts ..."
"... That was NOT to remove Trump, which was always a long shot and would only produce Pence and angry motivated Trump voters in the next election. ..."
"... The Trump derangement syndrome had a calculated purpose to keep donors giving after they were outraged by the waste of their donations. They'd been acting like a donor-strike was in progress. This cured that. ..."
"... This fed off the Stages of Grief reactions of those who'd so confidently expected a Hillary win. That helped do it, but was not the real motive. Those who initiated and shaped it were more directed, and aimed at the money. That is why the more likely things to blame, like Comey, were set aside in favor of the easy target of a foreign enemy which was familiar from recent Cold War. ..."
"... Having only as reference my own personal take on our news media the infamous MSM, is that these journalistic bandits are only in the game of twisting the news for the ratings, and to promote their own opportunistic careers. The corporate owned media has replaced responsible reporting with salaisuus promotions of often tragic events in a way that tends to in my eyes be a mere exploitation of these tragedies, as we viewers become glued to our TV screens. ..."
Fads and scandals often follow a set trajectory. They grow big, bigger, and then, finally,
too big, at which point they topple over and collapse under the weight of their own internal
contradictions. This was the fate of the "Me too" campaign, which started out as an
exposé of serial abuser Harvey Weinstein but then went too far when Babe.net published a
story about one
woman's bad date with comedian Aziz Ansari. Suddenly, it became clear that different types of
behavior were being lumped together in a dangerous way, and a once-explosive movement began to
fizzle.
So, too, with Russiagate. After dominating the news for more than a year, the scandal may
have at last reached a tipping point with last week's indictment of thirteen Russian
individuals and three Russian corporations on charges of illegal interference in the 2016
presidential campaign. But the indictment landed with a decided thud for three reasons:
It
failed to connect the Internet Research Agency (IRA), the alleged St. Petersburg troll factory
accused of political meddling, with Vladimir Putin, the all-purpose evil-doer who the corporate
media say is out to destroy American democracy. It similarly failed to establish a connection
with the Trump campaign and indeed went out of its way to describe contacts with the Russians
as "unwitting." It described the meddling itself as even more inept and amateurish than many
had suspected.
After nine months of labor, Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller thus brought forth a
mouse. Even if all the charges are true – something we'll probably never know since it's
unlikely that any of the accused will be brought to trial -- the indictment tells us virtually
nothing that's new.
Yes, IRA staffers purchased $100,000 worth of Facebook ads, 56 percent of which ran
after Election Day. Yes, they persuaded someone in Florida to dress up as Hillary
Clinton in a prison uniform and stand inside a cage mounted on a flatbed truck. And, yes, they
also got another "real U.S. person," as the indictment terms it, to stand in front of the White
House with a sign saying, "Happy 55th Birthday Dear Boss," a tribute, apparently, to IRA
founder Yevgeniy Prigozhin, the convicted robber turned caterer whose birthday was three days
away. Instead of a super-sophisticated spying operation, the indictment depicts a bumbling
freelance operation that is still giving Putin heartburn months after the fact.
Not that this has stopped the media from whipping itself into a frenzy. "Russia is at
war with our democracy,"
screamed a headline in the Washington Post. "Trump is ignoring the worst attack on America
since 9/11,"
blared another. " Russia is engaged in a virtual war against the United States through
21st-century tools of disinformation and propaganda," declared the New York
Times, while Daily Beast columnist Jonathan Alter tweeted that the IRA's
activities amounted to nothing less than a "tech Pearl Harbor."
All of which merely demonstrates, in proper backhanded fashion, how grievously Mueller has
fallen short. Proof that the scandal had at last overstayed its welcome came five days later
when the Guardian, a website that had previously flogged Russiagate even more vigorously than
the Post, the Times, or CNN, published a
news analysis by Cas Mudde, an associate professor at the University of Georgia, admitting
that it was all a farce – and a particularly self-defeating one at that.
Mudde's article made short work of hollow pieties about a neutral and objective
investigation. Rather than an effort to get at the truth, Russiagate was a thinly-veiled effort
at regime change. "[I]n the end," he wrote, "the only question everyone really seems to care
about is whether Donald Trump was involved – and can therefore be impeached for
treason.
With last week's indictment, the article went on, "Democratic party leaders once again
reassured their followers that this was the next logical step in the inevitable downfall of
Trump." The more Democrats play the Russiagate card, in other words, the nearer they will come
to their goal of riding the Orange-Haired One out of town on a rail.
This makes the Dems seem crass, unscrupulous, and none too democratic. But then Mudde
gave the knife a twist. The real trouble with the strategy, he said, is that it isn't
working:
"While there is no doubt that the Trump camp was, and still is, filled with amoral and
fraudulent people, and was very happy to take the Russians help during the elections, even
encouraging it on the campaign, I do not think Mueller will be able to find conclusive evidence
that Donald Trump
himself colluded with Putin's Russia to win the elections. And that is the only thing that will
lead to his impeachment as the Republican party is not risking political suicide for anything
less."
Other Objectives of "Russiagate"
No collusion means no impeachment and hence no anti-Trump "color revolution" of the sort
that was so effective in Georgia or the Ukraine. Moreover, while 53 percent of Americans
believe that investigating Russiagate should be a top or at least an important priority
according to a recent poll ,
figures for a half-dozen other issues ranging from Medicare and Social Security reform to tax
policy, healthcare, infrastructure, and immigration are actually a good deal higher – 67
percent, 72 percent, or even more.
Summed up Mudde: " the Russia-Trump collusion story might be the talk of the town in
Washington, but this is not the case in much of the rest of the country." Out in flyover
country, rather, Americans can't figure out why the political elite is more concerned with a
nonexistent scandal than with things that really count, i.e. de-industrialization,
infrastructure decay, the opioid epidemic, and school shootings. As society disintegrates, the
only thing Democrats have accomplished with all their blathering about Russkis under the bed is
to demonstrate just how cut off from the real world they are.
But Russiagate is not just about regime change, but other things as well. One is
repression. Where once Democrats would have laughed off Russian trolls and the like, they're
now obsessed with making a mountain out of a molehill in order to enforce mainstream opinion
and marginalize ideas and opinions suspected of being un-American and hence pro-Russian. If the
RT (Russia Today) news network is now suspect -- the Times
described it not long ago as "the slickly produced heart of a broad, often covert
disinformation campaign designed to sow doubt about democratic institutions and destabilize the
West" – then why not the BBC or Agence France-Presse? How long until foreign books are
banned or foreign musicians?
"I'm actually surprised I haven't been indicted," tweets Bloomberg columnist
Leonid Bershidsky. "I'm Russian, I was in the U.S. in 2016 and I published columns critical of
both Clinton and Trump w/o registering as a foreign agent." When the Times complains
that Facebook "still sees itself as the bank that got robbed, rather than the architect who
designed a bank with no safes, and no alarms or locks on the doors, and then acted surprised
when burglars struck," then it's clear that the goal is to force Facebook to rein in its
activities or stand by and watch as others do so instead.
Add to this the classic moral panic promoted by #MeToo – to believe charges of sexual
harassment and assault without first demanding evidence "is to disbelieve, and deny due process
to, the accused,"
notes Judith Levine in the Boston Review – and it's clear that a powerful wave of
cultural conservatism is crashing down on the United States, much of it originating in a
classic neoliberal-Hillaryite milieu. Formerly the liberal alternative, the Democratic Party is
now passing the Republicans on the right.
But Russiagate is about something else as well: war. As National Security Adviser H.R.
McMaster warns
that the "time is now" to act against Iran, the New York Times slams
Trump for not imposing sanctions on Moscow, and a spooky "Nuclear Posture Review"
suggests that the US might someday respond to a cyber attack with atomic weapons, it's
plain that Washington is itching for a showdown that will somehow undo the mistakes of the
previous administration. The more Trump drags his feet, the more Democrats conclude that a war
drive is the best way to bring him to his knees.
Thus, low-grade political interference is elevated into a casus belli while
Vladimir Putin is portrayed as a supernatural villain straight out of Harry Potter. But
where does it stop? Libya has been set back decades, Syria, the subject of yet another US
regime-change effort, has been all but destroyed, while Yemen – which America helps Saudi
Arabia bomb virtually around the clock – is now
a disaster area with some 9,000 people killed, 50,000 injured, a million-plus cholera
cases, and more than half of all hospitals and clinics destroyed.
The more Democrats pound the war drums, the more death and destruction will ensue. The
process is well underway in Syria, the victim of Israeli bombings and a US-Turkish invasion,
and it will undoubtedly spread as Dems turn up the heat. If the pathetic pseudo-scandal known
as Russiagate really is collapsing under its own weight, then it's not a moment too
soon.
Daniel Lazare is the author of several books including The Frozen Republic: How the
Constitution Is Paralyzing Democracy (Harcourt Brace).
Zachary Smith , February 24, 2018 at 1:25 pm
First thing I checked before reading this was to check for instances of misuse of the term
"liberal". When I found none at all, the piece suddenly looked very promising. And it
was a fine essay!
A minor quibble was how at the end the author kept referring to how the "U.S" or
"Washington" were the forces for the regime changes or flat-out destruction of nations Israel
wants destroyed. The crappy little pesthole has been the barely-concealed mastermind of all
the "Wars For Israel" which have turned the US of A into a bankrupt laughingstock.
With that small objection on record, I will declare this was great.
Zachary, I wouldn't get too hung up on words like "liberal" which have been used and
abused to become almost meaningless but yes, "the Democratic Party is now passing the
Republicans on the right." Somehow I think they believe they can pick up enough "moderate"
Republicans in the midterms to make up for the "angry white males"(& intellectuals) they
lost in the last election the same losing strategy.
mike k , February 24, 2018 at 1:41 pm
As ludicrous as Russiagate became, it was no joke, and became a real amplifier of the
threat of nuclear war, and the relentlessly increasing militarization of America. Without the
enthusiastic help of the corporate media, the whole phony narrative would never have got off
the ground. Of course the criminals we call the intelligence community did all they could to
give it legs, as well. We can only pray that it fades away now, and is not replaced with
something else like a shooting war. But that hope is fading now on several fronts
Mark Thomason , February 24, 2018 at 1:41 pm
From its first moment, this was a Team Hillary exercise, decided on by her in the days
right after the election and promoted through her media contracts that had been an extension
of her campaign.
Why? At first they seemed to imagine it possible to reverse the election outcome.
Then it shifted to Trump hate. Why?
That was NOT to remove Trump, which was always a long shot and would only produce Pence
and angry motivated Trump voters in the next election.
The Trump derangement syndrome had a calculated purpose to keep donors giving after they
were outraged by the waste of their donations. They'd been acting like a donor-strike was in
progress. This cured that.
This fed off the Stages of Grief reactions of those who'd so confidently expected a
Hillary win. That helped do it, but was not the real motive. Those who initiated and shaped
it were more directed, and aimed at the money. That is why the more likely things to blame,
like Comey, were set aside in favor of the easy target of a foreign enemy which was familiar
from recent Cold War.
It was completely cynical, guided by the same greed that had produced the candidacy of
Hillary and run it the whole time, doing fund raising in friendly places instead of
campaigning in swing states.
JDQ , February 24, 2018 at 2:00 pm
..please do read this. It gives Liberals more a bashing than Conservatives
Joe Tedesky , February 24, 2018 at 2:40 pm
Having only as reference my own personal take on our news media the infamous MSM, is that
these journalistic bandits are only in the game of twisting the news for the ratings, and to
promote their own opportunistic careers. The corporate owned media has replaced responsible
reporting with salaisuus promotions of often tragic events in a way that tends to in my eyes
be a mere exploitation of these tragedies, as we viewers become glued to our TV screens.
This
is the way the MSM sell too many needless pharmaceutical products, and their drugs are
products, to insurance ad's and somehow make commercial space for the MIC defense
contractors. This is how the MSM makes real money, as they forfeited our learning of anything
worthwhile, as to pave the way for more exploitation of our country's struggles with
everything and anything, but all forfeited simply to make the MSM more money.
It goes without saying that we the American public aren't necessarily as fooled, and
tricked, as our masters would like to believe we are. So to explain away the Empire's
failings certain forces from within our nation's Beltway are hard at work trying to blame all
of their misgivings on another, and that another is Vladimir Putin and his American
engineered misunderstood Russians. For this reason our MSM hardly ever put the real Putin on
our television screens. No never, these American media producers always when describing
Putin, use a prop, or a slimy squinty eyed shirtless Russian stereotype instead. For our MSM
ever to air a speech of Putin, or do as Oliver Stone did, is beyond question, so don't wait
up kids to see ever steady Vladimir on our American TV sets because it just isn't going to
happen.
So now our MSM is exploiting the Florida mass shooting, and it is with their slants and
predisposed opinions where I lose faith in anything our media does. Even as terrible as this
Florida school shooting was, our MSM must politicize and adhere left right slants to this
story as in their daff journalistic heads this is what they must do. Like I said this is my
opinion taken from my own experiences, so take my comment for what it is, and not from any
references I happened upon.
That's a good question: why now. Where was all those immense power of NSA, CIA and FBI during election. Why that calmly
observed that Russian are destroying American democracy :-). Something is really fishy here.
Another interesting tidbit is connection of Mr. Mueller to 911 cover-up.
Yet another interesting tidbit is the story of the USA interference in the Russian election s of 2011-2012. As Caitlin
Johnstone observes the US's long history in meddling in other countries' elections is not "whataboutism," but rather a highly
germane point to understanding the context for the allegations of Russian meddling
Notable quotes:
"... f the purpose of all the warrantless spying -- in direct contravention of the Constitution, no less -- is to keep the country safe from foreign assault, whether by bombs in a subway or by guns in an office building or by hacking into computers, why didn't our 60,000 domestic, and God only knows how many foreign, spies catch this Russian interference? ..."
"... "the Russians ran unchecked through our computer systems and the American marketplaces of ideas." You see, kids, the First Amendment is no longer prophylactic, something to prevent government from violating your natural rights to speak, hear, and think. Instead, things such as what I'm doing right now are like food stamps, political privileges redeemable only at Uncle Sam's Club. ..."
"... Muller indicted foreigners knowing they could not be extradicted to stand trial in the US. These indictments are "guerrilla theater" designed to justify Mueller's investigation. ..."
"... Why are so few people laughing at the microminiature level of this so-called meddling? These guys were run-of-the-mill internet trolls, engaging people in idiotic quarrels like trolls everywhere do. ..."
"... Meanwhile, how many American military bases sit on foreign soil where our people with guns and jets meddle for a living? How many countries get our ridiculously misnamed "foreign aid" where we tax America's middle class to bribe foreigners' rich people to do our bidding? ..."
"... All of MSM is owned by one foreign entity with one anti-American agenda. They interfere in every election, hell they hand pick the candidates, make em sign a pledge/oath to the foreign nation. Will Mueller be going after any of these traitors? Why isn't Mueller in prison for 9/11 cover up Mr. Sessions? ..."
Why didn't the CIA or the NSA or the FBI pick this up?
That is the $64,000 question that the indictment does not address, and we may never know the
answer to it. If the purpose of all the warrantless spying -- in direct contravention of the
Constitution, no less -- is to keep the country safe from foreign assault, whether by bombs in
a subway or by guns in an office building or by hacking into computers, why didn't our 60,000
domestic, and God only knows how many foreign, spies catch this Russian interference?
One answer is information overload. By spying on everyone all the time, the spies have too
much data through which to sift, and they miss the evidence of coming terror -- just as they
did with the killings in Orlando, in San Bernardino, at the Boston Marathon, on a New York bike
path and even recently at a school in Florida, all of which were preceded by internet chatter
that would have tipped off a trained listener to the plans of the killers.
Well, shucks. No Russophobic dirk to look for this week in the folds of his robe -- Mr.
Napolitano is finally full on, swinging the Establishment sword at "the Kremlin" and "its
indicted spies." And he's doing it to scare the American people.
"It is a felony for foreign nationals to participate in American federal elections, and it
is a felony for any Americans knowingly to assist them." No citation of the statute(s), or of
the particular acts among all "Judge" has mentioned within the scope of the subject
indictment. He is endorsing the notion that, under the Constitution he pretends to cherish, a
non-US citizen and any American "assistant" can be criminally convicted for "phony web posts"
or "aggressively revealing embarrassing data about Clinton," i.e., publishing anything deemed
relevant to a federal election on the internet. If you suggested after Sunday School there in
Nebraska that your friend check out those documents at Wikileaks, then will Mr. Mueller come
for you? Well, that depends:
"The other reason for the indictment is to smoke out any American collaborators. He has
identified American collaborators, but not by proper name, and the Department of Justice has
said -- not in the indictment, in which case it would be bound by what it says, but in a
press statement, which binds no one -- that the American collaborators were unwitting dupes
of the Russians. My guess is that Mueller's American targets are under electronic and visual
surveillance and that he is listening to their (premature) sighs of relief."
So don't worry, Big Brother most likely still loves you, or at least won't send you to
your room. As long as you were only an "unwitting dupe," and have stopped playing with the
bad kids.
Until Mr. Mueller could get here on his white horse, "the Russians ran unchecked through
our computer systems and the American marketplaces of ideas." You see, kids, the First
Amendment is no longer prophylactic, something to prevent government from violating your
natural rights to speak, hear, and think. Instead, things such as what I'm doing right now
are like food stamps, political privileges redeemable only at Uncle Sam's Club.
I hope there's no gentlemen's agreement that precludes some of the other writers published
on this website from confronting Mr. Napolitano on this vile column.
Muller indicted foreigners knowing they could not be extradicted to stand trial in the US.
These indictments are "guerrilla theater" designed to justify Mueller's investigation.
What would Mueller do if Putin gets tough and: sends one Russian to the US; with say $100
million for his legal defense?
Or if Putin offers to try the Russians in Moscow, in a Russian court, with Mueller
prosecuting them?
Though an indictment is a charge only, it presumably relies on hard evidence of a wide
and deep Russian project -- so wide and so deep that it could only have been approved and
paid for by the Kremlin.
Why are so few people laughing at the microminiature level of this so-called meddling? These
guys were run-of-the-mill internet trolls, engaging people in idiotic quarrels like trolls everywhere do.
Meanwhile, how many American military bases sit on foreign soil where our people with guns
and jets meddle for a living? How many countries get our ridiculously misnamed "foreign aid"
where we tax America's middle class to bribe foreigners' rich people to do our bidding?
To call this flapdoodle about Russian net trolling a joke is far too kind.
All of MSM is owned by one foreign entity with one anti-American agenda. They interfere in
every election, hell they hand pick the candidates, make em sign a pledge/oath to the foreign
nation.
Will Mueller be going after any of these traitors?
Why isn't Mueller in prison for 9/11 cover up Mr. Sessions?
We all know it wasn't Muslims caught celebrating the attack, or busted with explosives inside
of a van leaving New York. Why act like it isn't common knowledge, you're making the FBI look
pretty stoopid Mr. Mueller .look even Faux News messed up and reported it
"... Rachel Maddow feeds the left's appetite for bot conspiracy nonsense. But in 2013, MSNBC personalities, including Maddow, were being promoted by Chinese bots. Does that mean Maddow is a Chinese spy? Bots are ads that pretend to be people. Tracking how they're deployed can be interesting, but it's dangerous to read too much into that. ..."
"... The bot paranoia is being used to delegitimize real stories and candidates. If you can connect bots to a point of view you don't like, then no one really believes it. Link it to a candidate you don't like and he was never really elected. Hook it up to a serial predator in the Senate and you can ignore his victims. ..."
"... But if you believe that, then MSNBC must be a Chinese informational warfare operations. ..."
"... Mad Cow disease. ..."
"... Give me a fucking break, they think bots are going to swing big things. Bots are not very advanced, only annoying. They cannot craft intelligent or persuasive arguments. Yet the establishment is freaking out about them. It goes to show how far down the drain things stand if such lowly, unpersuasive, spamming shittery is deemed a threat to the narrative. ..."
"... That's what democracy is all about - steering the public discourse and manipulating the lowest common denominator, which isn't that hard to do if you own big media. The challenge is in deprogramming all the lies and deceptions, which takes effort initially, after which it just becomes a never ending tragicomic episode. ..."
"... Who the fuck needs bots in North America, U.K. and EU when you have bull dyke's like Rachel "Mad Cow" that still have viewers that actually listen to "him" ..."
The Internet Research Agency indictment accuses a troll bot farm of trying to influence the election in what the media claims
is the worst attack on America since Pearl Harbor. 9/11 need not apply.
Bots are everywhere.
"Bots Are Trying to Help Populists Win Italy's Election," claims Bloomberg. "Russian Bots Are Using 2016 Tactics to Hijack the
Gun Debate," shrieks Vanity Fair. ABC spins that bots are trying to make Black Panther look bad. "Rampaging Twitter 'bots' bred in
Suffolk farmhouse," the London Times asserts.
This media madness might make you think that bots are some sort of new and advanced technology. But you can see them in the comments
and they've been around forever. Automated programs that log into social media accounts are not a new technology. Internet users
of a bygone era remember seeing them in chat rooms and on bulletin boards without ever rampaging around Suffolk farmhouses.
Bots have become a convenient media scapegoat. The new formula is "Bots + Thing We Disagree With = Proof We're Right". That's
why there are stories claiming that Russian bots are tweeting against gun control or Islamic migration. And it explains the "Russian
Bots Rigged the Election for Trump" meme.
Bots are an informational technique. Media spin reverse engineers the technique to discredit the idea. Not only is that a fallacy,
but bots just piggyback on popular trends to gain influence. Russian bots don't tweet about gun control because they care about guns,
but because they get retweeted. The same was true of the bots promoting Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. There are a million brands
doing the same thing with bots and influencers. But that's okay because they push politically correct messages.
And that's the bot double standard. When Russian bots and trolls push Black Lives Matter, Bernie Sanders or Dakota Access Pipeline
protests, their programmed actions don't reflect on leftist causes, organizations and politicians. But the revelation that Russian
bots and trolls tweeted about the Bill of Rights, Islamic migration or Trump is spun by the media into a conspiracy that indicts
the ideas and discredits the previous election.
The latest example of the Big Bot Conspiracy is a bizarre Newsweek article by Nina Burleigh blaming Senator Franken's problems
on bots. Some might have thought that Franken had been forced to resign for groping women across America. But according to Burleigh,
it was the fault of the Japanese bots.
The feminist activist was already infamous for putting her allegiance to Democrats ahead of sisterhood.
"I would be happy to give him a b_____ just to thank him for keeping abortion legal," Nina Burleigh had said of Bill Clinton.
"I think American women should be lining up with their Presidential kneepads on to show their gratitude." Now Burleigh has brought
her kneepads to the raided offices of Newsweek.
Nina Burleigh's article blames Franken's problems on "fake news sites, an army of Twitter bots and other cyber tricks". The Democrat
Senator's original accuser is dismissed as a "Hooters pinup girl and lad-mag model". So there was either nothing wrong with groping
her or no reason to believe her.
That's what leftists denounce as 'slut-shaming', but, as with Bill Clinton, it's okay when Democrats do it.
Burleigh mentions the "release of a picture of a Tweeden and Franken" (editors are one of the casualties of Newsweek's troubles),
but neglects to mention that it's a picture of Franken groping Tweeden. None of the other many accusers rate a mention from this
feminist Franken activist.
There was the feminist choir member and book editor who accused Franken of groping her at the Women's Political Caucus. It's really
hard to write her off as a "right-wing plant" or a "lad-mag model".
Especially since she then voted for Senator Franken.
Another accuser was groped at the Loft Literary Center in Minneapolis and claimed that Franken wanted to join her in the bathroom.
Nina Burleigh would have probably told her to go along and bring her senatorial kneepads in gratitude for his support of Planned
Parenthood.
A Democrat congressional aide remembers Franken trying to give her an open mouth kiss while he was still a radio host with Air
America. "It's my right as an entertainer," she recalls Franken telling her.
An Army vet on a USO tour described being groped by Franken during the Iraq War. "When he put his arm around me, he groped my
right breast. He kept his hand all the way over on my breast."
Jezebel, a hard left feminist site, offered an account from a liberal "former elected official in New England" who remembers Franken
trying to plant a "wet, open-mouthed kiss" on her, on stage.
Instead of addressing the many accounts of Franken's liberal accusers who supported him and, many of whom indicated they didn't
want him to quit, Burleigh, like most Frankentruthers from Tom Arnold to Richard Silverstein, smears Leeann Tweeden while ignoring
Franken's numerous other accusers.
After silencing the women who came out against Franken, Nina Burleigh surreally claims that the Franken accusations had served
to "silence the testimonies of eight former female staffers who defended the Minnesota Democrat".
Presenting testimonies from the few women you didn't grope is not considered a compelling argument.
But instead of talking about any of this, Burleigh talks about bots. A "bot army" made the Franken accusations go viral. And then
there was "a developer named Atsufumi Otsuka" who "registered a web domain in Japan" that hosted "Japanese-registered fake-news sites".
But, "by November 17, the trending of 'Al Franken' was officially also a Russian intelligence operation."
The Japanese and the Russians had teamed up against the Minnesota groper. This wasn't just worse than Pearl Harbor. It was WW2
and the Cold War combined in one hashtag.
"Researchers have found that each bot account had 30 to 60 followers, all Japanese. The first follower for each account was either
Japanese or Russian," Burleigh breathlessly relates.
Now that the Russian and Japanese bots had teamed up, all hope for humanity was lost.
Burleigh's article has more international locations than a Tom Clancy novel. It also completely ignores the question of whether
Franken groped his victims to discuss the bots who tweeted about it.
That's not accidental. Burleigh doesn't want to talk about whether Franken is guilty; she wants to write a progressive thriller
in which international bots caused the problem by talking about it. And if it can be shown that bots amplified a scandal, then the
facts somehow no longer matter. In the same way that if it can be shown that bots amplified Trump's message, the 2016 election results
were illegitimate.
But shooting the messenger bot doesn't tell us anything the truth of the inconvenient message.
Since the election, these types of articles are everywhere. They rely on the work of "researchers" who are usually partisan activists,
often amateurs with no actual technical training, to spread conspiracy theories. These conspiracy theories confuse correlation and
causation. If a foreign bot retweets Trump, he works for the bot's masters. If a bot tweets any conservative story, it's a right-wing
global bot plot.
Anyone who knows anything about how the internet works knows that this is nonsense.
Bots imitate to amplify. In this comments section, a bot will show up sooner or later, it will copy a comment that someone else
made and post it in order to get likes so that it resembles a real account. For every stupid bot telling you how much it makes by
working online, there's a smarter bot leaving legitimate comments to blend in. And so bots tweet, comment and chat about everything
popular.
If there's a trending topic, the bots will quickly show up. And everyone uses them.
Rachel Maddow feeds the left's appetite for bot conspiracy nonsense. But in 2013, MSNBC personalities, including Maddow, were
being promoted by Chinese bots. Does that mean Maddow is a Chinese spy? Bots are ads that pretend to be people. Tracking how they're
deployed can be interesting, but it's dangerous to read too much into that.
Correlating bots with narratives isn't actually causation.
The bot paranoia is being used to delegitimize real stories and candidates. If you can connect bots to a point of view you
don't like, then no one really believes it. Link it to a candidate you don't like and he was never really elected. Hook it up to
a serial predator in the Senate and you can ignore his victims.
But if you believe that, then MSNBC must be a Chinese informational warfare operations.
Give me a fucking break, they think bots are going to swing big things. Bots are not very advanced, only annoying. They
cannot craft intelligent or persuasive arguments. Yet the establishment is freaking out about them. It goes to show how far down
the drain things stand if such lowly, unpersuasive, spamming shittery is deemed a threat to the narrative.
Yeah, I can't imagine reading CNN balls deep or other garbage groupthink mouthpieces that apparently alot of zombies take as
gospel. I go to CNN only to dip my feet in the water and see how fucking stupid its all becoming. Other than that, its a brain
killer.
That's what democracy is all about - steering the public discourse and manipulating the lowest common denominator, which isn't
that hard to do if you own big media. The challenge is in deprogramming all the lies and deceptions, which takes effort initially,
after which it just becomes a never ending tragicomic episode.
Who the fuck needs bots in North America, U.K. and EU when you have bull dyke's like Rachel "Mad Cow" that still have viewers
that actually listen to "him"?!!!
The "Russian troll" farm was a marketing/spam business.
Wikileaks founder Julian Assange weighed in on Special Counsel Robert Mueller's "13 Russian troll" indictment noting that the
Russians bots from The Internet Research Agency, spent thousands of dollars on Facebook ads to grow their audiences something
that is very common and encouraged by Facebook.
Mueller "troll farm" indictment today
– explicitly states no collusion
– does not mention WikiLeaks
– states trolls intent to support Trump & Sanders, oppose Clinton, Cruz
– states trolls intent on anti-Trump AND pro-Trump rallies post electionhttps://t.co/uMxBAwOeOY
The Russian ads mentioned in Mueller's indictment were already released by the House Intelligence Committee in November 2017.
Facebook previously announced the Russian ads comprised .004% of their advertising during the election.
Assange tweeted all this out on Friday, but of course the mainstream media failed to note any of this while reporting its propaganda
to those who naively listen and believe in the nonsense (courtesy
The Gateway Pundit)
Buried in the Mueller astro-turfing indictment is something that we have long suspected. The Internet Research
Agency's "troll farm" is geared to develop audience in socially active communities (e.g through aligned memes), in order to spam
them on behalf of anyone willing to pay: pic.twitter.com/sms0YAKB3j
Julian Assange: Buried in the Mueller astro-turfing indictment is something that we have long suspected. The
Internet Research Agency's "troll farm" is geared to develop audience in socially active communities (e.g through aligned memes),
in order to spam them on behalf of anyone willing to pay.
Before advertising networks can advertise they must build audience. How much of IRA's activities were simply
trying to build audience by gaining followers using tweets and memes likely to be shared in those communities?
Julian Assange: Before advertising networks can advertise they must build audience. How much of IRA's activities
were simply trying to build audience by gaining followers using tweets and memes likely to be shared in those communities?
IRA allegedly also ran kitten appreciation groups. Are we also to believe that these kittens were also
a plot to divide America? To not distinguish between audience building and customer advertising payload is sketchy.
Julian Assange: IRA allegedly also ran kitten appreciation groups. Are we also to believe that these kittens
were also a plot to divide America? To not distinguish between audience building and customer advertising payload is sketchy.
The US has 320 million people with a trillion dollar media and cultural sector that employees over a million
people. I do not assess that it is possible whatsoever to divide America by trying to "heighten the differences" with a hundred
trolls.
Julian Assange: The US has 320 million people with a trillion dollar media and cultural sector that employees
over a million people. I do not assess that it is possible whatsoever to divide America by trying to "heighten the differences" with
a hundred trolls.
Re-enforcing audience bias is exactly what Facebook & Google have been doing at a vast scale by algorithmically
preying on people's existing biases to increase engagement. In a more traditional manner, FOX, MSNBC, CNN, NYTimes, WaPO etc,
are doing the same thing.
Julian Assange: Re-enforcing audience bias is exactly what Facebook & Google have been doing at a vast scale
by algorithmically preying on people's existing biases to increase engagement. In a more traditional manner, FOX, MSNBC, CNN, NYTimes,
WaPO etc, are doing the same thing.
Regardless of whether IRA's activities were audience building through pandering to communities or whether
a hare-brained Russian government plan to "heighten the differences" existed, its activities are clearly strategically insignificant
compared to the other forces at play.
Julian Assange: Regardless of whether IRA's activities were audience building through pandering to communities
or whether a hare-brained Russian government plan to "heighten the differences" existed, its activities are clearly strategically
insignificant compared to the other forces at play.
Jimmy Dore did catch on to Assange's explanation as to what exactly was happening at IRA's HQ in St, Petersburg, which
can be summed up as just another social media spam business, which had the misfortune of operating in Russia at a time when
American swamp creatures are trying to find any scintilla of evidence to demonize Russia, and drag on a falling apart "Trump-Russia"
collusion investigation.
"... The bipartisan support Mueller's appointment received is even more telling given that he is the definition of a Washington insider. The power elites across the political spectrum seemed to trust him to, above all, protect their position at the head of the table. ..."
"... McAdams noted that the indictment was especially helpful to the " entire political class in Washington, " which may now " continue with its Cold War 2.0 project " without interference from anyone in favor of normalizing U.S.-Russian relations. In addition, McAdams warned that the recent indictment is likely to have a " chilling effect on the First Amendment, " also a boon to those elements of the political elite that seek to limit the acceptable range of debate on U.S. foreign policy. ..."
The bipartisan
support Mueller's appointment received is even more telling given that he is the definition of
a Washington insider. The power elites across the political spectrum seemed to trust him to,
above all, protect their position at the head of the table.
Part 1
Last Friday, depending on which side of the partisan divide one was watching from, President
Trump was either vindicated or his treachery was confirmed. The impetus for these seemingly
disparate reactions was Robert Mueller's indictment against 13 Russian nationals, the latest
and largest indictment to result from his investigation into alleged collusion between the
Trump campaign and the Russian government.
However, over the nine months that Mueller's investigation has been active, it has continuously
grown from its original purpose of investigating Russian collusion, expanding to include the
business dealings of Trump and his inner circle with countries ranging from Qatar to China,
meaning that the probe is no longer expressly about Russian collusion.
The drift of focus from its original purpose -- as well as its failure to produce any
connection between the Trump campaign, the Russian government, and the leaks of DNC and John
Podesta's emails -- has led critics who place themselves outside of the left-right paradigm to
treat this latest indictment with skepticism. Not only that, but concerns have been raised that
the real purpose of Mueller's probe is much more subtle and nefarious than publicly admitted
and that it may itself be a threat to American democracy.
One such critic is Daniel McAdams, political analyst and executive director of the Ron Paul
Institute for Peace and Prosperity. McAdams, in an interview with MintPress News, stated that
the Mueller indictment " has something for everybody, " explaining the strikingly
different reactions from the establishment left and right.
However, McAdams noted that the indictment was especially helpful to the " entire political
class in Washington, " which may now " continue with its Cold War 2.0 project "
without interference from anyone in favor of normalizing U.S.-Russian relations. In addition,
McAdams warned that the recent indictment is likely to have a " chilling effect on the First
Amendment, " also a boon to those elements of the political elite that seek to limit the
acceptable range of debate on U.S. foreign policy.
Like every single hotly publicized Russiagate "bombshell" that has broken since this
nonsense began, Mueller's indictment of 13 Russian social media trolls was paraded around as
proof of something hugely significant (
an "act of war" in this case), but on closer examination turns out to be empty. The always
excellent 'Moon of Alabama' recently
made a solid argument that has also been advanced by Russiagate skeptics like TYT's
Michael
Tracey and Max Blumenthal of The Real
News, pointing out that there is in fact no evidence that the troll farming operation was an
attempt to manipulate the US election, nor indeed that it had any ties to the Russian
government at all, nor indeed that it was anything other than a crafty Russian civilian's money
making scheme.
The notion that a few Russian trolls committed a "conspiracy to defraud the United States"
by "sowing discord" with a bunch of wildly contradictory posts endorsing all different
ideologies sounds completely ridiculous in a country whose mainstream media spends all its time
actively creating political division anyway, but when you look at it as a civilian operation to
attract social media followers to sock puppet accounts with the goal of selling promoted posts
for profit, it makes perfect sense. James Corbett of The Corbett Report has a great
video about how absolutely bizarre it is that public dialogue is ignoring the fact that
these trolls overwhelmingly used mainstream media like the Washington Post in their shares
instead of outlets like RT and Infowars. As a scheme to acquire followers, it makes perfect
sense. As a scheme to subvert America, it's nonsensical.
There is currently no evidence that the Russian government interfered in the US election.
But it is worth pointing out that if they did they had every right to.
"Whataboutism" is the word of the day . At some
point it was decreed by the internet forum gods that adding "-ism" to a description of
something that someone is doing makes for a devastating argument in and of itself, and people
have hastened to use this tactic as a bludgeon to silence anyone who points out the extremely
obvious and significant fact that America interferes in elections more than any other
government on earth.
"Okay, so America isn't perfect and we've meddled a few times," the argument goes. "So what?
You're saying just because we've done it that makes it okay for Russia to do it?"
Actually, yes. Of course it does. Clearly. That isn't a "whataboutism", it's an observation
that is completely devastating to the mainstream Russia narrative. If it's okay for the CIA to
continuously interfere in the elections of other countries up to and including modern times, it
is okay for other countries to interfere in theirs. Only in the most warped American
supremacist reality tunnel is that not abundantly obvious.
It amazes me that more people aren't willing to call this like it is. No, it would not be
wrong for Russia to interfere in America's elections. Yes, what America did to Russia
absolutely would make a proportionate retaliation okay. Of course it would.
Imagine this:
A guy in a cowboy hat runs into a bar and starts punching people. Most of them just rub
their sore jaws and hunch over their drinks hoping to avoid any trouble, but one guy in a fur
cap sets down his vodka and shoves the man in the cowboy hat.
The man in the cowboy hat begins shrieking like a little girl. All his friends rush to his
side to comfort him and begin angrily shaking their fists at the man in the fur cap.
"Hey, he punched me!" says the man in the fur cap.
"That's a whataboutism!" sobs the man in the cowboy hat.
Can you imagine anything more ridiculous?
Seriously, how do people think this is a thing? How does anyone think it's legitimate to
respond to
my article about a former CIA Director openly admitting that the US still to this day
interferes with elections around the world babbling about "whataboutisms" ?
What a doofy, indefensible monkey wrench to throw into the gears of political discourse.
Yes, obviously by asserting that it is acceptable for the CIA to meddle in other countries'
elections, the US has created an environment where that sort of thing is acceptable. If
Americans just want to embrace their American supremacist bigotry and say "Yeah we can do that
to you but you can't do it to us cuz we have big guns and we said so," that's at least a
logically consistent position. Crying like little bitches and behaving as though they've been
victimized by some egregious immorality is not.
Channel 4 News reported on the research of the Institute for Politics and Strategy at
Carnegie Mellon University's Don Levin back in November, writing the following:
Dov Levin, an academic from the Institute for Politics and Strategy at Carnegie Mellon
University, has calculated the vast scale of election interventions by both the US and
Russia.
According to his research
, there were 117 "partisan electoral interventions" between 1946 and 2000. That's around one
of every nine competitive elections held since Second World War.
The majority of these – almost 70 per cent – were cases of US interference.
And these are not all from the Cold War era; 21 such interventions took place between 1990
and 2000, of which 18 were by the US.
If Americans don't like election meddling, they need to demand that their government stops
doing it. As long as it remains the very worst offender in that department, the US is entitled
to nothing other than the entire world meddling in its elections.
I shouldn't even have to say this. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Don't
dish it out if you can't take it.
This is a very weak argumentation which is based of very questionable sources (such as Fontanka rag).
Notable quotes:
"... For the evidence Mueller has revealed of incompetence in the Russian campaign, the waste of money expended, and the failure of the campaign's objectives, there are calls in Moscow for Peskov to be sacked. ..."
"... The Christopher Steele dossier accused Peskov of arranging negative media against Hillary Clinton during 2016; for an analysis of the veracity of that claim, read this . For a painstaking analysis of how the Mueller indictment discredits the Steele dossier, read Alexander Mercouris's account . ..."
Feb 18, 2018
The three types of power which decide the fate of regimes are force, fraud and subversion; that's to say, arms, money, media.
The Roman Empire was good at using small armies to take on much bigger ones; by adeptly concentrating their force they managed
to rule much larger large territories than the legions could cover.
The Byzantine Empire excelled at using bribery of locals to stay loyal; the pre-requisite for that was the intelligence to identify
who to pay, how much, and how often. The British Empire used subversion to divide and rule most of their colonial targets, but if
the British were matched for firepower and intelligence, they failed and were defeated – by the American colonists, the Maoris, the
Boers, the Germans, the Japanese.
The American Empire excels
at subversion on the home front. But abroad it usually combines fraud with subversion. When these two fail to preserve or topple
regimes, US-made wars have been a consistent failure. The Russians are better than Americans at force and fraud. Schemes of subversion
like the US plots to promote Boris Yeltsin, Anatoly Chubais, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, and Alexei Navalny to rule the Kremlin, are not
winners with Russians; they are judged successful only by foreigners who read the Washington Post and London Times.
The Kremlin official responsible for Russian media involvement in the US presidential election of 2016 was Dmitry Peskov (2nd
image, left); he doubles as spokesman for President Vladimir Putin. For Peskov's intention to employ social media he has not been
indicted nor identified as a co-conspirator by Special Prosecutor Robert S. Mueller III ( right). For the evidence Mueller has
revealed of incompetence in the Russian campaign, the waste of money expended, and the failure of the campaign's objectives, there
are calls in Moscow for Peskov to be sacked.
He has so far avoided responding. "We have not yet familiarized ourselves [with the Mueller indictment], " he told Reuters.
The 37-page indictment, dated February 16 and signed personally by Mueller, can be read in full
here .
Mueller's indictment reveals how much evidence was gathered from the internet server companies and social media platforms, Facebook,
YouTube-Google, Twitter and Instagram, together with their banks and the PayPal payment service. But this is circumstantial evidence;
the corpus delicti is absent.
Missing from the charge sheet is identification of the victims of the crime alleged, the numbers of victims, and the money spent
to subvert or defraud them, as Mueller charges. The indictment alleges that "significant numbers of Americans" were targeted, "significant
funds spent", and "thousands of US dollars [paid for advertising] every month"; but no evidence is presented of these numbers. No
witness has come forward to testify to having suffered; no alleged perpetrator or conspirator to substantiate criminal intention.
Also, these aren't the crimes formally charged against the accused Russians.
THE FIVE-CHARGE ALLEGATION, BUT ONLY TWO CRIMINAL COUNTS CHARGED
In short, the Russians are accused of violating the US law on registering as foreign agents, as well as the crimes of stealing
identity data from real Americans and fabricating false identities to open and operate US bank accounts, credit cards and the PayPal
system. Although "interfer[ence] in US political and electoral processes" is alleged, it's an orphan -- no such crime is charged
in the indictment.
Another orphan is the charge of obtaining visas "through false and fraudulent statements" and "false pretenses in order to collect
intelligence for their interference operations". Mueller alleges this offence was committed in 2014, when three of the thirteen Russians
named in the indictment visited the US briefly. However, the "intelligence" they are alleged to have gathered at the time wasn't
used, according to the indictment, until two years later. What this "intelligence" by "false pretenses" might have been isn't provided
in the evidence because Muller and his grand jury don't charge anyone with visa fraud.
Fourteen weeks before last Friday's indictment, executives of Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Google testified in open congressional
hearings on the same set of allegations as Mueller
presented
to his grand jury behind closed doors.
The media company witnesses started by identifying very small numbers of accounts, advertising messages, reader clicks, and bots
(automated relayed messages). Subsequently, these numbers have been multiplied in US media commentaries by estimates of audience
reach, although reach is not a measure of actual
exposure. Still, compared with the aggregate volumes of internet traffic associated with the presidential election but unconnected
to Russian sources, the numbers for Russian-source material amounted to minuscule fractions of one percent. The media companies weren't
asked for, and volunteered no report of how much money they had received from their Russian content
sources .
In his indictment Mueller provided less precision than the rules of evidence and the defendants' rights require under the US Constitution;
Mueller is not expecting to try the thirteen named defendants in a court of law. In one example of an "overt act" of the alleged
Russian crime (Par. 71), Facebook is reported as publishing an advertisement on August 4, 2016, for a "Florida Goes Trump" rally.
Facebook charged the Russians for audience reach of 53,000, according to Mueller. But only 8,300 clicked on the ad (14%). Although
the allegation is that this audience was then "routed to the ORGANIZATION's 'Being Patriotic' page", Mueller withholds his count
of how many – more likely, how few readers followed the route. The Russians were still paying to advertise the same rally on Instagram
two weeks later, on August 16, but no evidence is presented by Mueller that it happened at all. No route, no rally, no American victims,
no evidence of Russian intention to commit a crime of election interference.
Four bank accounts have been identified at six banks "in order to receive and send money into and out [sic] of the United States
to support the ORGANIZATION's operations in the United States and for self-enrichment". These banks, as well as the US dollar-clearing
banks in New York, have provided Mueller with details of the originating banks for the transactions. The indictment identifies fourteen
Russian company names as holding these bank accounts. The Russian company names are mentioned in evidence, but not the originating
banks. If they were Russian state banks under US and European Union sanctions since 2014 (Gazprombank, for example), Mueller's indictment
doesn't say so; noone has intimated that the Russian money was anything but lawfully earned and then legally transferred from source.
Details of fake or stolen names, driver's licences or social security numbers have been reported by Mueller to substantiate the
count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and bank fraud. But this was a fraud with a twist. No sum of money is identified in the
evidence as having been taken from an unwitting victim; all of it, however much or little, was sent to the US bank accounts from
the alleged Russian conspirators and their companies, and spent on social media placements. As for enrichment – again, no sum reported
in the indictment – this appears to have been earned by the US media companies and the US banks. Lawfully, according to Mueller.
The only losers were the Russians, but the accused haven't been complaining of not getting their money's worth.
The criminal counts set out in the indictment turn out to be crimes without victims – that's to say, no American victim, according
to the charge sheet.
Mueller's indictment is precise about the names of the Russian companies established by the principal defendant Yevgeny Prigozhin,
allegedly "for operations to interfere with elections and political processes". Mueller also claims that the only link he could find
to the Russian government was the official registration of the "ORGANIZATION [Internet Research Agency] as a Russian corporate entity"
"in or around July 2013." Although the allegation is that Prigozhin's organization had an "annual budget [of] the equivalent of millions
of US dollars", there is no evidence, nor even an allegation that this money came from a Russian government source. Instead, other
companies operated by Prigozhin are reported to have had "various Russian government contracts".
Prigozhin's parent company called Concord is alleged to have funded "the ORGANIZATION as part of a larger CONCORD-funded interference
operation it referred to as 'Project Lakhta'."
... ... ...
Mueller noted in passing that Project Lakhta wasn't targeted only in the US. The indictment alleges that by September 2016 it
was working on a budget exceeding Rb73 million ($1.25 million) per month, with bonus payments to its Russian employees of Rb1 million
(1.4%). The money was being spent, according to Mueller, on "multiple components, some involving domestic audiences within the Russian
Federation, and others targeting foreign audiences in various countries, including the United States".
This is another clue to Prigozhin's real line of business, and the reason for the multiplicity of company names and functional
departments through which he operated; and for an employment roll Mueller counted as "more than eighty" in Project Lakta alone. Russian
sources believe Prigozhin's organization has contracted for domestic Russian operations paid for by Russian corporations and local
politicians. Some of the operations are believed to be conventional positive advertising of events, products, campaigns, and ideas.
Some reportedly involve the circulation of kompromat against business and election rivals; some to defend against botnet and denial
of service attacks on corporate websites and communication systems; some to attack the websites of business adversaries or investigative
journalists, Russia-based or Russia-related.
Investigations by Russian media and government regulators have been reporting for some time allegations that Prigozhin has been
diverting money from state procurement contracts for himself, and for clandestine purposes approved by state officials and state
company executives. For a sample of the details, start in 2014 with the St. Petersburg website Fontanka's investigation of Mikhail
Bystrov and Mikhail Burchik, the second and third defendants in the Mueller indictment.
Fontanka said it had uncovered evidence that paying clients
of the Prigozhin, Bystrov and Burchik organization included a youth group of the Russian Orthodox Church, the St. Petersburg municipal
authorities, and a Gazprom media promotion company. The payroll of the organization was reported in mid-2014 to be Rb180,000 per
month (about $5,500).
In December 2016 Prigozhin was listed on the US Treasury's sanctions list, the evidence for which appears to have been cribbed
from Fontanka and other Russian press
reports . Prigozhin was accused
of,
"having materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services in
support of, senior officials of the Russian Federation. Prigozhin has extensive business dealings with the Russian Federation
Ministry of Defense, and a company with significant ties to him holds a contract to build a military base near the Russian Federation
border with Ukraine. Russia has been building additional military bases near the Ukrainian border and has used these bases as
staging points for deploying soldiers into Ukraine."
Mueller's indictment fails to mention this Treasury charge or its Russian media sources. Mueller claims the reason for the multitude
of Russian corporate names used by Prigozhin in Project Lakhta was to "obscure its conduct" and conceal the Russian source of funds
from the US media and US regulators. For much longer, however, Russian investigators have been reporting that Prigozhin has created
corporate chains of this type to conceal personal enrichment schemes from Russian regulators and commercial competitors.
Prigozhin has replied publicly to the US prosecutor's charges, not to the Russian ones. "The Americans are very impressionable
people; they see what they want to see," he is quoted by a state news agency as saying last Friday. "I have a lot of respect for
them. I am not upset at all that I ended up on this list. If they want to see the devil, let them see him."
Russian sources believe Prigozhin's Project Lakhta was ordered by someone in a position to exercise a call on Prigozhin's cashflow.
They exclude Russian officials on the Kremlin Security Council -- Sergei Ivanov, Sergei Lavrov, Sergei Shoigu, Anton Vaino, Nikolai
Patrushev, Sergei Naryshkin – and dismiss the possibility that Project Lakhta had either President Putin's or Russian intelligence
service support.
The suspicion of Russian sources is that the American campaign element in Project Lakhta was "so hare-brained there is only one
official who could have considered Prigozhin's project worth the money and the attempt – Dmitry Peskov". Peskov is officially titled
Deputy Chief of the Presidential Executive Office and Presidential Press Secretary. From the Kremlin he
supervises
the budgets for the state television broadcaster RT, the state news agency Sputnik, and special US-targeted propaganda programmes,
such as the Valdai Discussion Club for academics and the Oliver Stone films.
The Christopher Steele dossier accused Peskov of arranging negative media against Hillary Clinton during 2016; for an analysis
of the veracity of that claim, read
this . For a painstaking analysis of how the Mueller indictment discredits the Steele dossier, read Alexander Mercouris's
account .
Russian experts charge that the Russian targeting of Americans through social media, as described by Mueller, was a colossal mistake
because the US audience for social media was young and overwhelmingly committed to Clinton. Between their intention to vote and the
vote they cast, the social media made next to no difference.
... ... ...
Brookings , the Washington think-tank most supportive of Clinton, reached the conclusion that her defeat was caused by "blowback"
among older voters. In other words, Clinton's defeat, Trump's victory came from voting by older Americans. They were not the ones
targeted by the Russian social media campaign; they didn't see the advertisements and tweets the Mueller indictment is now reporting
as a criminal conspiracy to "defraud the United States by impairing, obstructing and defeating the lawful functions of the government."
Official Russian reaction to the indictment has been to ridicule the election interference allegation but avoid addressing the
foreign registration and false identity charges. "Thirteen people interfered in the US elections?!"
responded the Foreign Ministry
spokesman Maria Zakharova.
"13 against an intelligence services budget of billions? Against intelligence and counterintelligence, against the latest developments
and technologies? Absurd? Yes."
Her minister Sergei Lavrov
claimed
: "unless we see the facts, all the rest will be just twaddle, I am sorry for my not so diplomatic expression."
The unofficial Russian reaction towards Prigozhin's activities in the US is more quizzical, and under the American pressure, more
private. It acknowledges that Prigozhin is a commercial operator, and for every outlay he has a paying client. Who that client was
for Project Lakhta is the object of speculation so far unreported in the Russian press.
To Russian lawyers the facts presented in the Mueller indictment suggest the big crime in the affair may have been a Russian one.
If Mueller's small numbers are correct, then Prigozhin may have spent much less money, and to lesser effect and purpose than he had
led his client to believe and pay for. If there's a difference between what Prigozhin was paid and what the Mueller indictment suggests
he spent, Prigozhin may have a case for fraud to answer to Russian prosecutors – and his client, the charge of abuse of authority.
"If the US prosecutor makes it a crime for a Russian to pretend to be an American," commented a Moscow lawyer, "will the [Russian]
General Prosecutor investigate Prigozhin for the crime of spending such money with the pretence of having brains?"
in
Analysis
,
Latest
Russiagate-Trump Gets Solved by Giant of
American Investigative Journalism
Some people's greed, apparently, knows
no limits -- not even when it could produce a world-ending nuclear war.
"... Since the end of the first Cold War and the collapse of the USSR the US has treated Russia with overbearing contempt and hostility. The Russians appealed to the US to be allowed a more open role in European affairs. The response was to drive the borders of NATO far to the east, to the borders of what is but a rump of the Russian Empire before WW1. ..."
Since the end of the first Cold War and the collapse of the USSR the US has treated
Russia with overbearing contempt and hostility. The Russians appealed to the US to be allowed
a more open role in European affairs. The response was to drive the borders of NATO far to
the east, to the borders of what is but a rump of the Russian Empire before WW1.
The Russian response is to use what they see as a legitimate instrument of statecraft against
us. This instrument seeks the weakening of enemies through exploitation of their own defects.
Our response to this is to adopt a high handed attitude that speaks volumes about us. We
admit that we do the same things to others even as we claim an absolute right to do this
because we are the future of humanity, the dwellers in the "city on the hill."...
At the Defense Intelligence Agency, Lang was the Defense Intelligence Officer (DIO) for
the Middle East, South Asia and counter-terrorism, and later, the first Director of the
Defense Humint Service. At the DIA, he was a member of the Defense Senior Executive Service.
He participated in the drafting of National Intelligence Estimates. From 1992 to 1994, all
the U.S. military attachés worldwide reported to him. During that period, he also
briefed President George H. W. Bush at the White House, as he had during Operation Desert
Storm.
He was also the head of intelligence analysis for the Middle East for seven or eight years
at that institution. He was the head of all the Middle East and South Asia analysis in DIA
for counter-terrorism for seven years. For his service in the DIA, Lang received the
Presidential Rank Award of Distinguished Executive. -- Wikipedia
"... I don't care about USA hypocrisy, I care about the stupidity of thinking that elections are somehow tainted for no other reason than that spurious points of view were expressed by somebody somewhere. ..."
"... Looking at the lefty dupes who actually fell for this trolling, I surmise that (1) the disinformation only confirmed the choices they already made, and (2) the stupidity of those sky-screaming dupes will never be good for success of a democracy, whether they are trolled or not. ..."
I don't care about USA hypocrisy, I care about the stupidity of thinking that
elections are somehow tainted for no other reason than that spurious points of view were
expressed by somebody somewhere.
Act of war? Dangerous balderdash! Most of the information available to voters is
always a mish-mash of lies, myth and spin. It's the voters' responsibility, as in
all areas of life, to assess incoming info with skepticism and individual research. You can
not hold an election if you insist on invalidating it afterwards whenever a lie is
discovered in the petabytes of hype that support it.
Looking at the lefty dupes who actually fell for this trolling, I surmise that (1)
the disinformation only confirmed the choices they already made, and (2) the stupidity of
those sky-screaming dupes will never be good for success of a democracy, whether they are
trolled or not.
Looks like securityboulevard.com
is peddling disinformation. But like in all such cases you never know... Colonel Lang is a very
respectable blogger and if he quoted this garbage there might something behind it.
My impression is that if Russians wanted to disrupt the US elections (the good question is
why, because the consensus in Russia is that it is just a political show that does not affect the
US foreign policy one bit; in other words Russians as believers in "deep stat" hypothesis) they
would use much more sophisticated approaches. Those internet trolls are far from the the level of
Russian professionals in the area of "active measures" ;-)
BTW commenters trashed his post mercilessly.
Notable quotes:
"... Since the end of the first Cold War and the collapse of the USSR the US has treated Russia with overbearing contempt and hostility. The Russians appealed to the US to be allowed a more open role in European affairs. The response was to drive the borders of NATO far to the east, to the borders of what is but a rump of the Russian Empire before WW1. ..."
"... The Russian response is to use what they see as a legitimate instrument of statecraft against us. This instrument seeks the weakening of enemies through exploitation of their own defects. ..."
"... Our response to this is to adopt a high handed attitude that speaks volumes about us. We admit that we do the same things to others even as we claim an absolute right to do this because we are the future of humanity, the dwellers in the "city on the hill." ..."
"... Our political parties far surpass any Russian effort "to create, publish and repeat divisive messages." Proof? Just look at all the attack ads aired in before any important election. Lots of the ads come from dark money sources, so who can tell who's behind them. Maybe Mueller should be investigating that, too...if the integrity of US elections is really the goal, not just opportunistic Russia-bashing. ..."
"... Was the Organization (Internet Research Agency) acting on behalf of the Russian government, or was it a commercial marketing operation with no operational ties to the Russian government? ..."
"... It seems the notion of "sowing discord" or creating chaos within the American body politic is arrived as a means of explaining the lack of internal consistency in the Organization's methods, but such analysis is predicated on the assumption this was a Russian government operation. ..."
"... Evidence for that assumption is obviously lacking, although that has not prevented such assumption from being presented as flat fact by many. ..."
"... It's a circus, a distraction against the Nunes Memo and investigation by Mueller, a compromised individual, if every there was one. ..."
"... Mueller is in it for the $$$millions in fees he gets for his office. Period. ..."
"... No one who actually tried to skew the election will ever be indicted. That includes, Clinton herself, and her husband, the DNC, and the media. ..."
"... Never mind the same Obama administration brought down the Brazilian President through leaking "Panama Papers". Unfortunately a clean politician was replaced by a corrupt politician in that country. Thanks ..."
"... When we compare these trolls to the New York Times, which admitted it intentionally kept news of Bush's illegal electronic spying from the American people during the Bush/Kerry election, specifically so it would not be an election issue, the trolls were doing exactly what our founding fathers wanted the press to do, while the NYT was not. ..."
"... I believe that these Russian trolls were merely parts of a private profit making Internet advertising firm that had zero to do with election interference and everything to do with generating the most eyeballs for its customers' advertisements, However, the claim that these trolls were a Russian government operation intended to create "divisiveness" is based on the assumption that opposing Hillary Clinton was somehow divisive. Since when did criticism of a US politician become devisive? ..."
"... We don't need the Russians to "sow discord" among our polity. We do it rather well ourselves. TDS, Birtherism, BLM, #MeToo, pro-choice/pro-life, safe spaces, and all the PCness and identity politics is just that, more grist for the discord mill. ..."
"... The hysteria over the Russian trolling shows how far into madness we've fallen. My personal hunch however is that Russiagate is a giant smokescreen to obfuscate a conspiracy at the highest levels of the Obama administration to interfere in the elections in a partisan manner and when the electorate chose otherwise to discredit a duly elected POTUS. Russia just happened to be roadkill in that plot. ..."
"... It shouldn't take long before Russian are blamed for 9-11 and Great Depression. A complete dehumanization of Russia and Russians is gaining a full steam. ..."
"... And while the outcome, regardless of who funded this operation, has contributed to US political disarray, it seems this outcome has primarily been driven by HRL's loss, plausible (but not yet proven) DOJ, FBI and White House illegal election and post-election interventions and the desperate efforts by Democratic party types and their tribal supporters to believe that HRC was robbed of her rightful Presidency. ..."
"... How do we know this wasn't some cockamamie propaganda exercise drawn up in some CIA office? the whole thing is small potatoes.. Mueller has nothing of relevance here, other catching some advertising agency trying to make a buck off social networks... and it was chump change in terms of $... if 100, grand a month could affect the direction of an election - i am sure many others would happily pay some troll farm based in st. petersburg for that kind of success.. ..."
"... This organisation has been well known and received coverage in the western press for years so I assume the relevant people have poked around their, likely poorly protected, systems. Two things to remember is Russia is a pretty anarchic place with different factions and people doing their own thing. ..."
"... Others would be a better judge of whether this smacks of an organised Russian intelligence operation, or just one of Russia's many incompetent private companies ..."
"We will use the key performance indicators (KPIs) we created in November to measure the
level of success enjoyed by the Russian intelligence active measures campaign. The plethora
of examples within the indictment serves to confirm much of our analysis, but also shows
their successes were more robust than previous analysis had concluded.
KPI 1 – Shape the U.S. election discourse and feed divisiveness into the
United States. The efforts in the creation of thousands of online accounts to create,
publish and repeat divisive messages, creating slightly nuanced content and otherwise pushing
themes that would be most inflammatory has now been documented in the indictment. The DoJ
shared an example: "The Russians organized one rally in support of the President-elect and
another rally to oppose him, both in New York, and on the same day."
KPI 2 – Framing the dialogue via ads and fictitious persons. This is
where the Russians invested heavily -- not only millions in funds which they funneled to
social media accounts including Twitter and Facebook, but also in online search ads with
Google and Bing. Additionally, their use of email and assuming the identities of real U.S.
citizens to infiltrate and provide direct support to various political entities is now
well-documented." securituboulevard.com
-------------
I have no idea what or who "Security Boulevard" may be but I needed a mission statement for
Project Lakhta. A number of people are saying that Lakhta just wasn't professional enough for
them to give it much credit. I disagree. the program may have been run by Putin's Caterer
billionaire friend with a few ex-SVR as cadre and the rest enthusiastic geeks, but IMO the
results speak for themselves. If the goal was to further aggravate divisiveness in the US, this
project certainly contributed to US political disarray.
The image of Michael Moore marching in a Project Lakhta anti-Trumo demonstration is just
too, too delicious.
The question arises of actual motive on the part of the Russians. Much of the usual drivel
is circulating about Russian hatred of democracy as a commodity.
IMO that is not the root of their behavior in this matter and in all the other IO operations
that they seem to be continuing against the US. No, I think the objective is simply to weaken
the US as a self-declared adversary that wishes to see Russia reduced to the status of a
mid-sized regional player subject to US oversight and control.
Since the end of the first Cold War and the collapse of the USSR the US has treated
Russia with overbearing contempt and hostility. The Russians appealed to the US to be allowed a
more open role in European affairs. The response was to drive the borders of NATO far to the
east, to the borders of what is but a rump of the Russian Empire before WW1.
The Russian response is to use what they see as a legitimate instrument of statecraft
against us. This instrument seeks the weakening of enemies through exploitation of their own
defects.
Our response to this is to adopt a high handed attitude that speaks volumes about us. We
admit that we do the same things to others even as we claim an absolute right to do this
because we are the future of humanity, the dwellers in the "city on the hill."
Our political parties far surpass any Russian effort "to create, publish and repeat
divisive messages." Proof? Just look at all the attack ads aired in before any important
election. Lots of the ads come from dark money sources, so who can tell who's behind them.
Maybe Mueller should be investigating that, too...if the integrity of US elections is really
the goal, not just opportunistic Russia-bashing.
Was the Organization (Internet Research Agency) acting on behalf of the Russian
government, or was it a commercial marketing operation with no operational ties to the
Russian government?
It seems the notion of "sowing discord" or creating chaos within the
American body politic is arrived as a means of explaining the lack of internal consistency in
the Organization's methods, but such analysis is predicated on the assumption this was a
Russian government operation.
Evidence for that assumption is obviously lacking, although
that has not prevented such assumption from being presented as flat fact by many.
The Story was broken and published in 2015. It found the perps were using bots to get
advert revenues........ period. The indictments are of Russian Nationals for activities and
actions taken within Russia. Neither Mueller nor the US have jurisdiction.
It's a circus, a distraction against the Nunes Memo and investigation by Mueller, a
compromised individual, if every there was one.
Mueller is in it for the $$$millions in
fees he gets for his office. Period.
No one who actually tried to skew the election will ever be indicted. That includes,
Clinton herself, and her husband, the DNC, and the media.
Colonel I totally agree with your analysis, we seem to forget about our adventures in
promoting democracy else where. What I think is that the Russians exposed our own corrupt
politicians (I can still hear Obama's preaching about wikileaks and Clinton emails "Never
mind the content of those emails, it is a fact they stole our documents, and attacked our
democracy). Never mind the same Obama administration brought down the Brazilian President
through leaking "Panama Papers". Unfortunately a clean politician was replaced by a corrupt
politician in that country. Thanks
The entire purpose of the First Amendment is to allow for a vigorous public debate. The flaw
in the above reasoning is that if the alleged goal of the supposed Russian "interference" was
to "aggravate divisiveness" then that Russian troll farm was doing exactly what our founding
fathers wanted the press to do, provoke a public debate about issues during an election.
When we compare these trolls to the New York Times, which admitted it intentionally
kept news of Bush's illegal electronic spying from the American people during the Bush/Kerry
election, specifically so it would not be an election issue, the trolls were doing exactly
what our founding fathers wanted the press to do, while the NYT was not.
I believe that these Russian trolls were merely parts of a private profit making
Internet advertising firm that had zero to do with election interference and everything to do
with generating the most eyeballs for its customers' advertisements, However, the claim that
these trolls were a Russian government operation intended to create "divisiveness" is based
on the assumption that opposing Hillary Clinton was somehow divisive. Since when did
criticism of a US politician become devisive?
This is the part I don't understand. The devisiveness stick can be swung against anyone
and anything. My comments here can be seen by some as devisive. Same with the post I'm
commenting on, this entire blog and every other person or group exercising their First
Amendment rights by debating an issue. So while I believe the whole Russian thing is complete
bullshit, the thing I worry about most is that it is being used to demand conformity and
squelch our First Amendment rights. Vigorous debate, no matter who or what is sponsoring that
debate, doesn't weaken our country. It only makes it stronger. What is really weakening our
country is the current demonizing of free speech via evidence free claims that such speech is
hurting the US and helping a supposed enemy country.
"If the goal was to further aggravate divisiveness in the US, this project certainly
contributed to US political disarray."
So you're saying that because a commercial fake ad campaign was seized upon by a US
government Russian witch-hunt that therefore the fake ad campaign contributed to US political
disarray? As opposed to the witch-hunt itself?
I believe that's putting the cart before the horse.
We have Facebook's head of ads explicitly saying that he's seen all the ads and they
definitely had nothing to do with swaying the election - before he's forced to recant that
statement by Facebook management on the excuse that it insults Mueller.
In other words, everyone views this as a commercial marketing operation which used the US
elections as a vehicle to make money by supporting and denouncing both Trump and Clinton, but
you're convinced it was a real Russian government disinformation operation.
Based on what? The fact that it had zero impact on the election? Or the fact that by
definition it couldn't possibly have had any significant impact on US divisiveness by
comparison with the US media and social media themselves - other than by having been put up
by Mueller's witch hunt as significant? The fact that this operation has zero connections to
the Russian government except for this "chef" having some vague connections with Putin?
Not buying it. This operation in my view had zilch to do with weakening the US in any way,
shape or form - except to extract some money from it.
Scott Adams
does a white board presentation where he compares the theory of Russians helping Trump with
the theory of Russians as someone else who wanted anybody but Hillary.
Scott has been right about quite a few things before and has written the book "How to win
biggly in a world where facts don't matter" explaining trumps style and persuasion
methods.
We don't need the Russians to "sow discord" among our polity. We do it rather well
ourselves. TDS, Birtherism, BLM, #MeToo, pro-choice/pro-life, safe spaces, and all the PCness
and identity politics is just that, more grist for the discord mill.
The hysteria over the Russian trolling shows how far into madness we've fallen. My
personal hunch however is that Russiagate is a giant smokescreen to obfuscate a conspiracy at
the highest levels of the Obama administration to interfere in the elections in a partisan
manner and when the electorate chose otherwise to discredit a duly elected POTUS. Russia just
happened to be roadkill in that plot.
A lot of you armchair sleuths are creating your own reality on an unwarranted basis
proceeding from a desire to think that because Mueller is embarked on a voyage to Gulliver's
various lands, all his results are false. This is a fallacy. The first amendment? The framers
never intended that it should protect people acting either directly or indirectly on behalf
of a foreign power. Their reaction to the Citizen Genet case shows that clearly. The British
did things like this on a sustained basis for the purpose of luring the US into WW2. Why do
you think they made that effort a covert campaign?
A covert political action on behalf of a
foreign power would never have been thought by the framers to deserve first amendment
protection.
A commercial venture? Once again, you don't know what you are talking about. If
you had ever written a business plan for a new venture you would know that a competent
entrepreneur would have looked at the "pro forma" financial projections in the plan and
decided that the trivial possible revenues would never recover the capital invested in the
scheme and would have decided against proceeding. Have you never watched "Shark Tank?"
Some
of the operatives involved did travel to the US to work some of the street demonstration
capers. The indictment says that in September of last year, they concluded that the FBI was
closing in on them and left the country rather than be apprehended. pl
With Col Lang's forbearance on posting an except in this case, the following excerpt from
John Helmer's current blog post (johnhelmer.net) provides some insight into that has been
driving the "Organizations" activities:
"Russian sources believe Prigozhin's organization has contracted for domestic Russian
operations paid for by Russian corporations and local politicians. Some of the operations are
believed to be conventional positive advertising of events, products, campaigns, and ideas.
Some reportedly involve the circulation of kompromat against business and election rivals;
some to defend against botnet and denial of service attacks on corporate websites and
communication systems; some to attack the websites of business adversaries or investigative
journalists, Russia-based or Russia-related.
Investigations by Russian media and government regulators have been reporting for some
time allegations that Prigozhin has been diverting money from state procurement contracts for
himself, and for clandestine purposes approved by state officials and state company
executives. For a sample of the details, start in 2014 with the St. Petersburg website
Fontanka's investigation of Mikhail Bystrov and Mikhail Burchik, the second and third
defendants in the Mueller indictment. Fontanka said it had uncovered evidence that paying
clients of the Prigozhin, Bystrov and Burchik organization included a youth group of the
Russian Orthodox Church, the St. Petersburg municipal authorities, and a Gazprom media
promotion company. The payroll of the organization was reported in mid-2014 to be Rb180,000
per month (about $5,500).
Russian sources believe Prigozhin's Project Lakhta was ordered by someone in a position to
exercise a call on Prigozhin's cashflow. They exclude Russian officials on the Kremlin
Security Council -- Sergei Ivanov, Sergei Lavrov, Sergei Shoigu, Anton Vaino, Nikolai
Patrushev, Sergei Naryshkin – and dismiss the possibility that Project Lakhta had
either President Putin's or Russian intelligence service support.
The suspicion of Russian sources is that the American campaign element in Project Lakhta
was "so hare-brained there is only one official who could have considered Prigozhin's project
worth the money and the attempt – Dmitry Peskov". Peskov is officially titled Deputy
Chief of the Presidential Executive Office and Presidential Press Secretary. From the Kremlin
he supervises the budgets for the state television broadcaster RT, the state news agency
Sputnik, and special US-targeted propaganda programmes, such as the Valdai Discussion Club
for academics and the Oliver Stone films"
So this appears to me to be primarily a "commercial for hire to make something happen
through the web" model for arrange of potential corporation and political clients. I find it
interesting that the one possible "sufficiently hare-brained" suspect is Peskov who oversees
the budgets of Russia's state owned "open" US-targeted information programs..
The piece in NYT certainly broke through the bottom. But then again, I learned today from
Adam Schiff that Russians love 2nd Amendment because they love nothing more than Americans
killing each-other. It shouldn't take long before Russian are blamed for 9-11 and Great
Depression. A complete dehumanization of Russia and Russians is gaining a full steam.
"The Russian response is to use what they see as a legitimate instrument of statecraft
against us. This instrument seeks the weakening of enemies through exploitation of their own
defects. "
I have always thought that this makes sense. It would have been incredibly passive and an
abdication of responsibility for the Russians to not respond. You can argue about the
particulars on exactly what they did or did not do, but it never made sense to think that
they were not acting in their own best self-interests in response to provocation.
I think the following excerpt from Helmer's piece is more relevant here:
The unofficial Russian reaction towards Prigozhin's activities in the US is more quizzical,
and under the American pressure, more private. It acknowledges that Prigozhin is a
commercial operator, and for every outlay he has a paying client. Who that client was for
Project Lakhta is the object of speculation so far unreported in the Russian press.
So finding the client would seem to be critical to both the 'Russian government
involvement' and 'Trump team colluded' allegations.
It is noted that Prigozhin had previously tried to take another Russian Company - Yandex
(Equivalent of Google for Russia) to Court to have his Name removed from Search Results that
connected his Name with [this] Search Query, before eventually backing down....
This points out an obvious Dilemma to many Critiques of Russia, the all Powerful Russian
Government whom between apparently personally controlling all Business, nor does it allow a
free Press neither forced Yandexs Hand in having those results Removed, nor did it prevent
RBC/RBK from publishing their Report on the 'Troll Farm' which if to be believed was a vital
Part of their Political Interference...
Which way does it go? Do they suddenly have to admit that Press is maybe the more Free than
imagined? Or does the Government simply not extend any interest in hiding its 'Operation and
Assets'... Or is it that simply - It has no Hand in this and thus no interest?
All of this goes back to the Points others have clearly made very well above - That of
this being about Commercial Interests and Motivations not a super Secret Plot that clearly is
not being hidden..
To add one more Aspect to what I mean by 'Commercial Interests' - This does not have to mean
Directly... Favorable Patronage if the right People are pleased with you can leverage Profits
through further Contracts and Opportunities..
I am not pushing Peskov and basically agreeing with jjc's post that evidence that this was
a Russian government is lacking (at least so far).
And while the outcome, regardless of who funded this operation, has contributed to US
political disarray, it seems this outcome has primarily been driven by HRL's loss, plausible
(but not yet proven) DOJ, FBI and White House illegal election and post-election
interventions and the desperate efforts by Democratic party types and their tribal supporters
to believe that HRC was robbed of her rightful Presidency. Absent this context - which was
clearly not created by the IRA operation - it is hard to see that this operation would be
getting any attention.
Sir:
An Alternate to your thesis is that the object of Lakhta is to make Russia Great Again.
It appears with every US inspired sanction Russia recovers after a brief pause, and advances
her economy far beyond what was foreseen but a few years ago:
1., agriculture -greatest wheat exporter in 2017, rather than importer.
2., replacing slowly all the software from the west with either homegrown
product or Chinese goods
3., the famous Kremlin List might force lot of offshore Russian wealth to go home, lest it be
expropriated by the US Treasury.
4., you, Sir, can add other observations based on facts of Russia's recovery since the
sanctions started.
How do we know this wasn't some cockamamie propaganda exercise drawn up in some CIA office?
the whole thing is small potatoes.. Mueller has nothing of relevance here, other catching
some advertising agency trying to make a buck off social networks... and it was chump change
in terms of $... if 100, grand a month could affect the direction of an election - i am sure
many others would happily pay some troll farm based in st. petersburg for that kind of
success..
sorry - cold war 2 / mccarthyism 2 - all on tap and who benefits from that? that is the
question i would like to hear an answer to.. thanks..
Re the KPI's to "measure the level of success enjoyed by the Russian intelligence active
measures campaign":
I was taught that performance measures are meaningless unless they can quantify a
commodity which equates to 'success'. The examples given here seem to fall well within that
category IMHO. Discord and divisiveness may be a valid goal, but how much was sown? There was
plenty around, but it is surely next to impossible to assess the impact of Lakhta in a
meaningful way. So Moore went to a Lakhta rally, rather than what, perhaps a different anti
Trump rally? Is the net effect better or worse and by how much?
The second KPI is not even a KPI - how is dialog framing a valid goal? The text describes
the significant investment made (the other side of the equation) and the methods used - this
is meaningless re any assessment of supposed 'success'.
Average salary in St Pete would be around USD1000 a month so the costs are not much, maybe
more if they had English language skills. Wouldn't be many fixed/startup costs at all. Also
not just click bait advertising but the opportunity to take a contract to run a PR campaign.
I am still undecided. This organisation has been well known and received coverage in the
western press for years so I assume the relevant people have poked around their, likely
poorly protected, systems. Two things to remember is Russia is a pretty anarchic place with
different factions and people doing their own thing.
Generally Russians can still be pretty
incompetent at things, these guys seem to be a good example of that. Others would be a better
judge of whether this smacks of an organised Russian intelligence operation, or just one of
Russia's many incompetent private companies. Creating a little mischief can be fun as well. I
can't be bothered to look fully in to everything but actual real examples of attempts to
cause mischief are too few, and the evidence sufficient to convict has not been
presented.
As for British activities before WWII, I have always been of the opinion the success of
that was due to important power centres, the people Lindbergh listed in his Des Moines
speech, although I would include white Southerners, in the US consciously turning a blind
eye. The inference would be that this was so insignificant and ineffectual that it wasn't
picked up, or dismissed if it was.
Security Boulevard is an aggregation of cyber-security bloggers. Christopher Burgess, the
author of this article, retired from the CIA in 2005 with 30+ years. He worked as a security
advisor for Cisco and in several other security related companies. I don't remember ever
hearing about him. I looked at some of his writing about the Russia thing going back to
before the election. Our views largely coincide and I recognize the terminology he uses. I
chalk that up to his background. He certainly was aware of some of the same experiences in
foreign cyber-espionage and IO that I dealt with. These key performance indicators are from
an article he did back in November 2017.
It is not in the interests, to say the least, of Russia to weaken the US. And Putin, above
most, knows this. Maybe tweak us a bit...but weaken us? Why? He is going to need us against
China. We have no natural geopolitical antipathy (hostility) with Russia. We may thrust
ourselves into that position, at times, in Eastern Europe or the Middle East. However it is
not organic to our relationship. On the other hand, such antipathy (hostility) does exist
between China and Russia. And it is not just , organic, geopolitical, but racial was well.
Although we're not supposed to talk like that anymore. Putin might not talk it...but he is
thinking it.
YOU may not have any antipathy toward Russia but Washington and New York and the media
drip with it and our actions since the fall of the USSR would not look like friendship to any
neutral observer. pl
The thing about British activities in the US before WW2 is laughable and rather
self-serving. So, you think that 1.25 million US a month was trivial, eh? Have you ever
funded a business? pl
"I was taught that performance measures are meaningless unless they can quantify a
commodity which equates to 'success'. " You were taught poorly. Nothing in international
policy operations can be meaningfully quantified. Only social science idiots thank that this
is possible. pl
You have CIA on the brain, something like water on the knew and have seen too many movies.
you have no idea how difficult it would be to construct an operation like this in a police
state like Russia if you were foreign. pl
And then there were a few British capers like the Zimmerman telegram and the BS about
German atrocities in Belgium in WW1. Oh, yes and the lies told about the Boers in the S.
Africa War. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Security_Co-ordination
pl
He seems not to be using KPI in the traditional way, but it could be a terminology
difference between intelligence and business uses. Substitute the word "goal" and you're
fine.
pat - b did a post to break down this us .25 million a month b.s..
here is the quote for you - "(Some U.S. media today made the false claim that $1.25
million per month were spend by the company for its U.S. campaign. But Point 11 of the
indictment says that the company ran a number of such projects directed at a Russian audience
while only the one described in 10d above is aimed at an U.S. audience. All these projects
together had a monthly budget of $1.25 million.)
as memory serves they had at least 10 different projects going... - 100 grand a month is a
better guesstimate... chump change...
Do you really think that Russia sees its relations with the US as other than a zero sum
game? How could they see it any other way given the way the US has acted toward them? pl
I didn't say the Russian project created the aura of animosity. The US is falling apart
politically. The Russian project originators perceived this and sought to exacerbate it, and
succeeded. pl
So, you think this project was put up on "spec" like building something in the hope that
someone will buy it and redeem your costs. Have you ever done that? pl
I concur on Burgess. The graphic in the article you cite is pretty good, though it doesn't
mention the "seeding and feeding" use of bots and commenters in blog and media platform
threads to influence the discussion. But I think that's inferred by the use of the term
"computational propaganda." I've never seen that before, but I like it. In psychology, it is
called the "availability heuristic." The idea is that if you make the same claim or idea
appear again and again, people will eventually become convinced it's true. So if you can
swarm the Internet with many instances of the same falsehood or argument, people will come to
believe it's true.
In case anyone's curious, this is the same tactic employed by GEICO in the US.
With respect Colonel, my point was that the use of KPI's in this context is indeed
meaningless. Thus the authors are discredited in my view by using & abusing the term.
This report reads no different to many others to me - allegations that the mission was to
sow discord. So is this a new Pearl Harbor or a laughably tiny contribution to the immense
discord extant already. My own gut feel is that it is likely well towards the latter end of
the scale.
"... "to publicly document and expose Vladimir Putin's ongoing efforts to subvert democracy in the United States and Europe." That's pretty rich, coming from a country and from people who actually genuinely, and in proven ways, have subverted democracy in Europe since the late 1940s - Italy being one of the clearest cases. ..."
"... For the life of me I cannot figure why Americans want a war/conflict with Russia. I can't believe it has to do with the economy. There's got to be a far better nefarious reason. Even during the real cold war we tried to avoid conflict. Absolute insanity. ..."
"... The cleverest trick used in propaganda against a specific country is to accuse it of what the accuser itself is doing. ..."
"... Clearly, this entire psyop was premeditated and its design was hastily done contemporaneously with Russia's Syria intervention. NSA/CIA/FBI knew of HRC's security breeches and rightly assumed their contents would find their way into the election, so the general plan was ready to go prior to WikiLeaks publications. b has uncovered much, and I hope he's planning to publish a book about the entire affair. ..."
"... Ken @ 4: There doesn't necessarily need to be One Major Reason for going to war. There may be several reasons all feeding and reinforcing one another and creating a psychological climate in which Going To War is seen as the only solution and is inevitable. The reasons are not just economic and political but cultural and historical. ..."
"... In some countries allied with the US, the politicians in power are the ideological descendants of those who collaborated with Nazi Germany - so in a sense they are committed to "correcting" what they see as wrong. In the case of current Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, he is the grandson of a former prime minister who once served in General Tojo's World War II cabinet. https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2012/12/26/national/formed-in-childhood-roots-of-abes-conservatism-go-deep/#.WoyZCG9uaUk ..."
"... The idea is to keep piling the pressure on to countries like Iran and Russia in the hope that their populations will rise up and demand the freedoms that we enjoy in the West....things like uncensored wardrobe malfunctions and transgender washrooms. ..."
"... Media have long agitated for War in US History. Nothing sells newspapers like a good ole war! Demonizing is a way to achieve it. What is sure is that this is a one way street. Once over the cliff, there is no turning back. ..."
"... In that The Narrative is tightly controlled in the corporate media, not matter how strong the proofs or arguments about the falsity of these propaganda campaigns are, little or no circulation of those proofs or arguments wlll reach the general public. ..."
"... Thanks Jen. It still makes no sense. As a veteran of the Vietnam fiasco, I was pretty much government oriented until McNamara outed the whole thing whining about haw sorry he was. 59,000 dead and he's sorry. They were able to hide the Gulf of Tonkin BS until then. After that I researched the reasons for each war/conflict the USA started and could find no logical reasons except hunger for power. But the little sandbox wars won't destroy the world like a major war/conflict with Russia and it goes nuclear. ..."
"... The warmongering is not intended to make any sense - not many people are trained in critical thinking and logic, and even when they are, they can be swamped by their own emotions or other people's emotions. Propaganda is intended to appeal to people's emotions and fears. You can try reading works by Edward Bernays - "Crystallizing Public Opinion" (1923) and "Propaganda" (1928) - to see how he uses his uncle Sigmund Freud's theories of the mind to create strategies for manipulating public opinion. https://archive.org/details/EdwardL.BernaysPropaganda ..."
"Russian bots" - How An Anti-Russian Lobby Creates Fake News
The U.S. mainstream media are going nuts. They now make up and report stories based on the
uncritical acceptance of the outcome of an algorithm they do not understand and which is know
to produce fake results.
SAN FRANCISCO -- One hour after news broke about the school shooting in Florida last week,
Twitter accounts suspected of having links to Russia released hundreds of posts taking up the
gun control debate.
The accounts addressed the news with the speed of a cable news network. Some adopted the
hashtag #guncontrolnow. Others used #gunreformnow and #Parklandshooting. Earlier on
Wednesday, before the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland,
Fla., many of those accounts had been focused on the investigation by the special counsel
Robert S. Mueller III into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election.
In other words - the "Twitter accounts suspected of having links to Russia" were following
the current news just as cable news networks do. When a new sensational event happened they
immediately jumped onto it. But the NYT authors go to length to claim that there is some
nefarious Russian scheme behind this that uses automated accounts to spread divisive
issues.
Those claims are based on this propaganda project:
Last year, the Alliance for Securing Democracy, in conjunction with the German Marshall Fund,
a public policy research group in Washington, created a website that tracks hundreds of
Twitter accounts of human users and suspected bots that they have linked to a Russian
influence campaign.
The "Alliance for Securing Democracy" is run by military lobbyists, CIA
minions and neocons. Its claimed task is:
... to publicly document and expose Vladimir Putin's ongoing efforts to subvert democracy in
the United States and Europe.
There is no evidence that Vladimir Putin made or makes such efforts.
The ASD "Hamilton 68" website shows graphics with rankings of "top items"
and "trending items" allegedly used by Russian bots or influence agents. There is nothing
complicate behind it. It simply tracks the tweets of 600 Twitter users and aggregates the
hashtags they use. It does not say which Twitter accounts its algorithms follows. It claims
that the 600 were selected by one of three criteria: 1. People who often tweet news that also
appears on RT (Russia Today) and Sputnik News , two general news sites
sponsored by the Russian government; 2. People who "openly profess to be pro-Russian"; 3.
accounts that "appear to use automation" to boost the same themes that people in group 1 and 2
tweet about.
Nowhere does the group say how many of the 600 accounts it claims to track belong to which
group. Are their 10 assumed bots or 590 in the surveyed 600 accounts? And how please does one
"openly profess" to be pro-Russian? We don't know and the ASD won't say.
On December 25 2017 the "Russian influence" agents or bots who, according to NYT, want to
sow divisiveness, wished everyone a
Merry Christmas.
The real method the Hamilton 68 group used to select the 600 accounts it tracks is unknown.
The group does not say or show how it made it up. Despite that the NYT reporters, Sheera
Frenkel and Daisuke Wakabayashi, continue with the false assumptions that most or all the
accounts are automated, have something to do with Russia and are presumably nefarious:
Russian-linked bots have rallied around other divisive issues, often ones that President
Trump has tweeted about. They promoted Twitter hashtags like #boycottnfl, #standforouranthem
and #takeaknee after some National Football League players started kneeling during the
national anthem to protest racial injustice.
The automated Twitter accounts helped popularize the #releasethememo hashtag , ...
The Daily Beast reported earlier that the emphasized claim is definitely
false :
Twitter's internal analysis has thus far found that authentic American accounts, and not
Russian imposters or automated bots, are driving #ReleaseTheMemo. There are no preliminary
indications that the Twitter activity either driving the hashtag or engaging with it is
either predominantly Russian.
The same is presumably true for the other hashtags.
The Dutch IT specialist and blogger Marcel van den Berg was wondering how Dutch keywords
and hashtags showed up in on the Hamilton 68 "Russian bots" dashboard. He found (
Dutch ,
English auto translation) that the dashboard is a total fraud:
In recent weeks, I have been keeping a close eye on Hamilton 68. Every time a Dutch hashtag
was shown on the website, I made a screenshot. Then I noted what was playing at that moment
and I watched the Tweets with this hashtag. Again I could not find any Tweet that seemed to
be from a Russian troll.
In all cases, the hash tags that Hamilton 68 reported were trending topics in the
Netherlands. In all cases there was much to do around the subject of the hashtag in the
Netherlands. Many people were angry or shared their opinion on the subject on Twitter. And
even if there were a few tweets with Russian connections between them, the effect is zero.
Because they do not stand out among the many other, authentic Tweets.
Van den Berg lists a dozen examples he analyzed in depth.
The anti-Russian Bellingcat group around couch blogger Eliot Higgins is sponsored
by the NATO propaganda shop Atlantic Council . It sniffs through open source stuff to
blame Russia or Syria wherever possible. Bellingcat were recently a victim of the
"Russian bots" - or rather of the ASD website. On February 10 the hashtag #bellingcat trended
to rank
2 of the dashboard.
Bellingcat was thus, according to the Hamilton 68 claims, under assault of hordes
of nefarious Russian government sponsored bots.
The Bellingcat folks looked into the issue and found
that only six people on Twitter, none of
them an automated account, had used the #bellingcat hashtag in the last 48 hours. Some of the
six may have opinions that may be "pro Russian", but as Higgins himself says :
[I]n my opinion, it's extremely unlikely the people listed are Russian agents
The pro-NATO propaganda shop Bellingcat thus debunked the pro NATO propaganda shop
Alliance for Securing Democracy.
The fraudsters who created the Hamilton 68 crap seem to have filled their database with
rather normal people who's opinions they personally dislike. Those then are the "Russian bots"
who spread "Russian influence" and divisiveness.
Moreover - what is the value of its information when six normal people out of millions of
active Twitter users can push a hashtag with a handful of tweets to the top of the
dashboard?
But the U.S. media writes long gushing stories about the dashboard and how it somehow shows
automated Russian propaganda. They go to length to explain that this shows "Russian influence"
and a "Russian" attempt to sow "divisiveness" into people's minds.
This is nuts.
Last August, when the Hamilton 68 project was first released, the Nation was the
only site critical of it. It
predicted :
The import of GMF's project is clear: Reporting on anything that might put the US in a bad
light is now tantamount to spreading Russian propaganda.
It is now even worse than that. The top ranking of the #merrychristmas hashtag shows that
the algorithm does not even care about good or bad news. The tracked twitter accounts are
normal people.
The whole project is just a means to push fake stories about alleged "Russian influence"
into U.S. medias. Whenever some issue creeps up on its dashboard that somehow fits its false
"Russian bots" and "divisiveness" narrative the Alliance for Securing Democracy
contacts the media to spread its poison. The U.S. media, - CNN, Wired, the New York Times - are
by now obviously devoid of thinking journalists and fact checkers. They simple re-package the
venom and spread it to the public.
How long will it take until people die from it?
Posted by b on February 20, 2018 at 03:15 PM |
Permalink
Rufus T. Firefly: I'd be unworthy of the high trust that's been placed in me if I didn't
do everything in my power to keep our beloved Freedonia in peace with the world. I'd be only
too happy to meet with Ambassador Trentino, and offer him on behalf of my country the right
hand of good fellowship. And I feel sure he will accept this gesture in the spirit of which
it is offered. But suppose he doesn't. A fine thing that'll be. I hold out my hand and he
refuses to accept. That'll add a lot to my prestige, won't it? Me, the head of a country,
snubbed by a foreign ambassador. Who does he think he is, that he can come here, and make a
sap of me in front of all my people? Think of it - I hold out my hand and that hyena refuses
to accept. Why, the cheap four-flushing swine, he'll never get away with it I tell you, he'll
never get away with it.
[Trentino enters]
Rufus T. Firefly: So, you refuse to shake hands with me, eh?
[slaps Trentino with his glove]
Ambassador Trentino: Mrs. Teasdale, this is the last straw. There's no turning back now!
This means war!
Rufus T. Firefly: Then it's war! Then it's war! Gather the forces. Harness the horses.
Then it's war!
"to publicly document and expose Vladimir Putin's ongoing efforts to subvert democracy in
the United States and Europe." That's pretty rich, coming from a country and from people who
actually genuinely, and in proven ways, have subverted democracy in Europe since the late
1940s - Italy being one of the clearest cases.
For the life of me I cannot figure why Americans want a war/conflict with Russia. I can't
believe it has to do with the economy. There's got to be a far better nefarious reason. Even
during the real cold war we tried to avoid conflict. Absolute insanity.
Gee, what could go wrong formulating policy founded upon a series of Big Lies? Kim Dotcom says he has
important info the FBI refuses to hear. At the Munich
Security Conference , neocon Nicholas Burns, former US Ambassador to NATO, details my
assertion's factual basis that current policy is being formed on a series of Big Lies: "Will
NATO strengthen itself to contain Russian power in Eastern Europe giving what Russian
[sic] has done illegally in Crimea, in the Donbass, and in Georgia ?" [Bolded text are
the Big Lies.]
Clearly, this entire psyop was premeditated and its design was hastily done
contemporaneously with Russia's Syria intervention. NSA/CIA/FBI knew of HRC's security
breeches and rightly assumed their contents would find their way into the election, so the
general plan was ready to go prior to WikiLeaks publications. b has uncovered much, and I
hope he's planning to publish a book about the entire affair.
Ken @ 4: There doesn't necessarily need to be One Major Reason for going to war. There
may be several reasons all feeding and reinforcing one another and creating a psychological
climate in which Going To War is seen as the only solution and is inevitable. The reasons are
not just economic and political but cultural and historical.
In some countries allied with the US, the politicians in power are the ideological
descendants of those who collaborated with Nazi Germany - so in a sense they are committed to
"correcting" what they see as wrong. In the case of current Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo
Abe, he is the grandson of a former prime minister who once served in General Tojo's World
War II cabinet.
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2012/12/26/national/formed-in-childhood-roots-of-abes-conservatism-go-deep/#.WoyZCG9uaUk
That's why pinning down the reason for wanting a war against Russia is so difficult.
Since the FBI never inspected the DNC's computers first-hand, the only evidence comes from
an Irvine, California, cyber-security firm known as CrowdStrike whose chief technical
officer, Dmitri Alperovitch, a well-known Putin-phobe, is a fellow at the Atlantic Council,
a Washington think tank that is also vehemently anti-Russian as well as a close Hillary
Clinton ally.
Thus, Putin-basher Clinton hired Putin-basher Alperovitch to investigate an alleged
electronic heist, and to absolutely no one's surprise, his company concluded that guilty
party was Vladimir Putin. Amazing! Since then, a small army of internet critics has chipped
away at CrowdStrike for praising the hackers as among the best in the business yet
declaring in the same breath that they gave themselves away by uploading a document in the
name of "Felix Edmundovich," i.e. Felix E. Dzerzhinsky, founder of the Soviet secret
police.
As noted cyber-security expert Jeffrey Carr observed with regard to Russia's two main
intelligence agencies: "Raise your hand if you think that a GRU or FSB officer would add
Iron Felix's name to the metadata of a stolen document before he released it to the world
while pretending to be a Romanian hacker. Someone clearly had a wicked sense of humor."
muddy waters.. paid for propaganda.... look at all the russian bots, lol... cold war 2 /
mccarthyism 2 is in effect... the historic parallels are marked. thank you neo cons! it's
working... the ordinary person in the usa can't be this stupid can they? when does ww3 kick
in? is that really what these idiots want? or is it just to prolong the huge defense
budget?
This is about conditioning voters in Europe and the United States for a long war with Russia
and China. In other words, a return to the 1950s. It is not working and becoming increasingly
hysterical because societies are not nearly as cohesive as they once were, and the mainstream
political parties, while better funded and more top-down organized, are basically hollow. The
collapse is coming. Four years or ten, take your pick.
@4 "For the life of me I cannot figure why Americans want a war/conflict with Russia."
Most Americans probably don't. Just the chosen few with the deepest fall-out shelters.
The idea is to keep piling the pressure on to countries like Iran and Russia in the hope
that their populations will rise up and demand the freedoms that we enjoy in the
West....things like uncensored wardrobe malfunctions and transgender washrooms.
let's imagine that we have the pyramid of evilness, by which we measure bestiality of one
regime and its constituency. my firm belief is that us would be on the top of that pyramid.
Only dilemma would be between Zionist entity and the US.
"How could the masses be made to desire their own repression?" was the question Wilhelm
Reich famously asked in the wake of the Reichstagsbrandverordnung (Reichstag Fire Decree,
February 28, 1933), which suspended the civil rights protections afforded by the Weimar
Republic's democratic constitution.Hitler had been appointed chancellor on January 30, 1933
and Reich was trying to grapple with the fact that the German people had apparently chosen
the authoritarian politics promoted by National Socialism against their own political
interests. Ever since, the question of fascism, or rather the question of why might people
vote for their own oppression, has never ceased to haunt political philosophy.2 With Trump
openly campaigning for less democracy in America -- and with the continued electoral
success of far-right antiliberal movements across Europe -- this question has again become
a pressing one.
An American people is in perfect harmony with its regime.
Media have long agitated for War in US History. Nothing sells newspapers like a good
ole war! Demonizing is a way to achieve it. What is sure is that this is a one way street.
Once over the cliff, there is no turning back.
How do you tell people that, at the flick of your magic switch, Putin is in fact a swell
guy and wonderful human being? Once love is gone who goes back to the filthy, abhorrent and
estranged spouse?
Surely the US establishment is playing with fire thinking they will successfully ride out
any conflict and come out on top secure in their newly reestablished hegemony on the
smoldering ruins of Humanity.
Make no mistake, we are all on the road to hell. Better enjoy todays peace as tomorrow
word will be filled with the sweet music of cemeteries.
@15 "An American people is in perfect harmony with its regime."
I'm not so sure. I think there are many Americans who deeply distrust their government.
But of course they don't want to appear unpatriotic. There are also many who are apathetic
and many simply don't know how to change things.
It's horrible I know to quote a Nazi, but Goring had this right:
Göring: Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm
want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his
farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in
England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all,
it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to
drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or
a Communist dictatorship.
Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter
through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare
wars.
Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always
be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they
are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country
to danger. It works the same way in any country.
American media has graduated from simply repeating the lies of "unnamed government sources"
to repeating the lies of any organization unofficially blessed by the powers that be. The
skills required to repeat the text verbatim serve them well in both cases. Skepticism is only
reserved to anyone who tries to introduce logic or facts into the equation--such as when Jill
Stein was interviewed on MSNBC recently. How dare Ms. Stein try to bring FACTS into the
discussion!
In that The Narrative is tightly controlled in the corporate media, not matter how strong
the proofs or arguments about the falsity of these propaganda campaigns are, little or no
circulation of those proofs or arguments wlll reach the general public.
Thanks Jen. It still makes no sense. As a veteran of the Vietnam fiasco, I was pretty
much government oriented until McNamara outed the whole thing whining about haw sorry he was.
59,000 dead and he's sorry. They were able to hide the Gulf of Tonkin BS until then. After
that I researched the reasons for each war/conflict the USA started and could find no logical
reasons except hunger for power. But the little sandbox wars won't destroy the world like a
major war/conflict with Russia and it goes nuclear. Almost every politician, and major
news organizations are pushing for a war/conflict with Russia. This is insanity as no one
will win a war like this and I am sure they know that,,, but they keep the war drums beating
anyhow. It simply doesn't make sense. But Thanks again.
Same for dh, #14. Things are soooo stupid, your joking may be closer to the truth than you
know. :-)
Thank you for the post. I will save it and use it liberally, with proper attributions.
When one challenges the tribe on places like Twitter, it is hard to tell who is a real idiot
and who is a bot. How do you know? Maybe that the bots go away fairly quickly and the idiots
hang around to argue ad infinitum.
The thing that bothers me, is the fact that the MICGlobalists dont care what we think or how
poor their deceptions are. The public perception that "russia did it!!" continues to rise. I
wonder what the public acceptance level needs to be for them to execute a MAJOR false flag
event. They seem to think they are still on target, and its just a short matter or time...
They are going to do this when the perception management is complete...
We really do not need another one of their disasters
The bully pushes and pushes until stopped by the first serious push back. The dynamic of the
west and the neocon/Zionists at the core is essentially that of the bully. Nations like
Venezuela and the Philippines have started to push back, and I hope and feel fairly confident
that they will both survive the rage of the US. In some part, they have begun to show the
actual powerlessness of the bully.
But the really killer nations - Russia and China - are holding their water as they
strengthen their force. I believe that one very serious push back from either of them in the
right circumstances will stop the bully. And yet, as they bide their time, we see a curious
phenomenon wherein the US is destroying itself from the inside.
It's as if all of the forces that exist to control the country - the lockstep media, the
fully rigged markets, the hysterical military, the bought legislature and the crooked courts
- are all acting far more strongly than should be necessary. The entire system is
over-reacting, over-reaching, over-boiling. And in the course of this, the US is actually
shedding power, and at an amazing rate. But not from the action of Russia but from its
non-action, the empty space that that allows the bully's dynamic to over-reach, all the way
to complete failure.
Is it possible that deep in the security states of Russia and China there's even a study
and a model for this? Is the collapse of the US actually being gamed by Russia and China -
and through the totally counter-intuitive action of non-action?
Hey b,
Just wanted to let you know that Joe Lauria mentioned your blog and the article you wrote on
the indictment of the 13 Russians. He was on Loud and Clear (Sputnik Radio, Washington DC)
today and brought you up at the start of the program.
Glad to see you get some recognition for all the great work you've been doing :)
Ken @ 24: The warmongering is not intended to make any sense - not many people are
trained in critical thinking and logic, and even when they are, they can be swamped by their
own emotions or other people's emotions. Propaganda is intended to appeal to people's
emotions and fears. You can try reading works by Edward Bernays - "Crystallizing Public
Opinion" (1923) and "Propaganda" (1928) - to see how he uses his uncle Sigmund Freud's
theories of the mind to create strategies for manipulating public opinion. https://archive.org/details/EdwardL.BernaysPropaganda
Bernays' books influenced Nazi and Soviet propaganda and Bernays himself was hired by the
US government to justify in the public mind the 1954 US invasion of Guatemala.
You may be aware that Rupert Murdoch, head of News Corporation which owns the Wall Street
Journal, FOX News and 20th Century Fox studios, is also on the Board of Directors of Genie
Energy which owns a subsidiary firm that was granted a licence by an Israeli court to explore
and drill for oil and natural gas in Syria's (and Israeli-occupied) Golan Heights.
Many of my thoughts as well.The U.S.'s greatest fault is its tacit misunderstanding of
just what russia is in fact. They utterly fail to understand the Russian character; forged
over 800 years culminating with the defeat of Nazi Germany, absorbing horrific losses; the
U.S. fails to understand the effect upon the then Soviets, become todays Russians. Even the
god's have abandoned the west...
@4 "For the life of me I cannot figure why Americans want a war/conflict with Russia."
Ever since US Crude Oil peaked its production in 1970, the US has known that at some point
the oil majors would have their profitability damaged, "assets" downgraded, and borrowing
capacity destroyed. At this point their shares would become worthless and they would become
bankrupt. The contagion from this would spread to transport businesses, plastics manufacture,
herbicides and pesticide production and a total collapse of Industrial Civilisation.
In anticipation of increasing Crude Oil imports, Nixon stopped the convertibility of
Dollars into Gold, thus making the Dollar entirely fiat, allowing them to print as much of
the currency as they needed.
They also began a system of obscuring oil production data, involving the DoE's EIA and the
OECD's IEA, by inventing an ever-increasing category of Undiscovered Oilfields in their
predictions, and combining Crude Oil and Condensate (from gas fields) into one category (C+C)
as if they were the same thing. As well the support of the ethanol-from-corn industry began,
even though it was uneconomic. The Global Warming problem had to be debunked, despite its
sound scientific basis. Energy-intensive manufacturing work was off-shored to cheap
labour+energy countries, and Just-in-Time delivery systems were honed.
In 2004 the price of Crude Oil rose from $28 /barrel up to $143 /b in mid-2008. This
demonstrated that there is a limit to how much business can pay for oil (around $100 /b).
Fracking became marginally economic at these prices, but the frackers never made a profit as
over-production meant prices fell to about $60 /b. The Government encourages this destructive
industry despite the fact it doesn't make any money, because the alternative is the end of
Industrial Civilisation.
Eventually though, there must come a time when there is not enough oil to power all the
cars and trucks, bulldozers, farm tractors, airplanes and ships, as well as manufacture all
the wind turbines and solar panels and electric vehicles, as well as the upgraded
transmission grid. At that point, the game will be up, and it will be time for WW3. So we
need to line up some really big enemies, and develop lots of reasons to hate them.
Thus you see the demonisation of Russia, China, Iran and Venezuela for reasons that don't
make sense from a normal perspective.
I watched bbc news this am in the hope that I would get to see the most awful creature at the
2018 olympics cry her croc tears (long story - a speed skater who cuts off the opposition but
has been found out so now when she swoops in front of the others they either skate over her
leading to tearful whines from perp about having been 'pushed', or gets disqualified for
barging. Last night she got disqualified so as part of my study on whether types like this
believe their own bullshit I thought I'd tune in but didn't get that far into the beebs
lies)
The bulk of the bulletin was devoted to a 'lets hate Russia' session which featured a
quisling who works for the russian arm of BBC (prolly just like cold war days staffed
exclusively by MI6/SIS types). This chap, using almost unintelligible english, claimed he had
proof at least 50 Russian Mercenaries (question - why are amerikan guns for hire called
contractors [remember the Fallujah massacre of 100,000 civilians because amerikan contractors
were stupid] yet Russian contractors are called mercenaries by the media?) had been killed in
Syria last week. The bloke had evidence of one contractor's death not 50 - the proof was a
letter from the Russian government to the guy's mother telling her he didn't qualify for any
honours because he wasn't in the Russian military.
The quisling (likely a Ukranian I would say) went on to rabbit about the bloke having also
fought in Donbass under contract - to which the 'interviewer (don't ya love it when media
'interview' their own journos - a sure sign that a snippet of toxic nonsense is being
delivered) led about how the deceitful Russians had claimed the only Russians fighting in
Donbass were contractors - yeah well this bloke was a contractor surely that proves the
Russians were telling the truth.
It's not what these propagandists say; they adopt a tone and the audience is meant to hate
based on that even when the facts as stated conflict with the media outlet's point of view.
Remember the childhood trick of saying "bad dog" ter yer mutt in loving tones - the dog comes
to ya tail wagging & licks yer hand. This is that.
The next item was more Syria lies - white helmets footage (altho the beeb is now mostly
giving them an alternative name to dodge the facts about white helmets) of bandaged children
with flour tipped on their heads.
The evil Syrians and Russians are bombarding Gouta - nary a word about the continuous
artillery barrage Gouta has subjected the citizens of Damascus to for the past 4 years, or
that the Syrians have repeatedly offered truces and safe passage for civilians. Any injured
children need to ask their parents why they weren't allowed to take advantage of the frequent
offers of transport out. Maybe the parents are worried 'the resistance' will do its usual and
blow up the busloads of children after luring them over with candy.
Anyway I switched off after that so never did learn if little miss cheat had a cry.
Following Special Counsel Robert Mueller's indictment of 13 Russian nationals and three entities
behind a Russian "troll farm" said to have meddled in the 2016 U.S. election (admittedly, with
zero impact
), two people familiar with both the
ads
purchased
by Russians on Facebook, and the "troll farm" in question have refuted Mueller's
narrative over the course of four days. Indeed, things don't seem to be going well for the Russia
investigation, which started out with serious claims of Collusion between the Trump campaign and the
Kremlin, and has been reduced to CNN
diving through the garbage
of a Russian troll farm.
About that troll farm...
Adrian Chen, staff writer for
The New Yorker -
who first profiled
the indicted Russian troll farm in 2015,
sat down with MSNBC's Chris Hayes, where he
proceeded to deflate Mueller's big scary indictment to nothing.
"Tried to tamp down the troll farm panic on @chrislhayes show last night,"
Adrian Chen tweeted
. "
It's
90 people with a shaky grasp of English and a rudimentary understanding of U.S. politics shitposting
on Facebook.
"
Chen then responded to a tweet saying the IRA has 300-400 individuals. "That was the entire
Internet Research Agency," Chen wrote."
The American department had ~90 people
,
according to the Russian journalists who did the most in-depth investigation."
Chen links to a Washington Post article which profiles Russian journalists who
also
investigated
said troll farm.
The former director of the FBI has assembled a "dream team" of investigators for his Special
Counsel probe and concluded that 13 Russians and 3 entities tried to meddle in the election after
an entire year of investigation.
Those efforts had zero impact on the election
Facebook's VP of ads is on record saying "I have seen all of the Russian ads and I can say very
definitively that swaying the election was *NOT* the main goal
The same FB Exec noted that most of the ads were purchased after the election.
Suggesting that the real, underlying narrative is one of
US media
propaganda, he was
then made to walk back his comments and apologize for his "
uncleared
thoughts
"
CNN is rooting around in the trash outside the troll farm.
And for all of this, Obama and Congress slapped sanctions on Russia, evicted two diplomatic
compounds, and launched several Congressional investigations over.
But at least the US Military Industrial Complex is happy, while the stock of Boeing has never been
higher.
The United
States, through a Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) called The
National Endowment for Democracy has spent over $27,000,000 since 2013
in Russia to "promote democracy".
The National Endowment for Democracy (NED) is a U.S. non-profit soft
power organization that was founded in 1983 with the stated goal of
promoting democracy abroad. It is funded primarily through an annual
allocation from the U.S. Congress in the form of a grant awarded through
the United States Information Agency (USIA).
NED was banned in Russia as an undesirable international NGO in for
"using Russian commercial and noncommercial organizations under its
control... to declare the results of election campaigns illegitimate,
organize political actions intended to influence decisions made by the
authorities, and discredit service in Russia's armed forces.
Former Congressman Ron Paul also argued against NED funding
stating that NED has "very little to do with democracy. It is an
organization that uses US tax money to actually subvert democracy, by
showering funding on favored political parties or movements overseas. It
underwrites color-coded 'people's revolutions' overseas that look more
like pages out of Lenin's writings on stealing power than genuine
indigenous democratic movements."
Investigative reporter and editor of Consortiumnews Robert Parry has
characterized NED as a "neocon slush fund," whose founding was the
brainchild of Reagan Administration CIA Director William Casey and its
leading propagandist Walter Raymond Jr., then on the staff of the
National Security Council. The idea was to set up an organization funded
by the U.S. Congress to take over CIA programs that attempted to
influence foreign elections by promoting the selection of candidates who
supported U.S. policy and would "do what the U.S. government tells them
to do.
NED's Statement of Principles and Objectives, adopted in 1984,
asserts that "No Endowment funds may be used to finance the campaigns of
candidates for public office." But the ways to circumvent the spirit of
such a prohibition are not difficult to come up with; as with American
elections, there's "hard money" and there's "soft money".
As described in the "Elections" and "Interventions" chapters, NED
successfully manipulated elections in Nicaragua in 1990 and Mongolia in
1996; helped to overthrow democratically elected governments in Bulgaria
in 1990 and Albania in 1991 and 1992; and worked to defeat the candidate
for prime minister of Slovakia in 2002 who was out of favor in
Washington. And from 1999 to 2004, NED heavily funded members of the
opposition to President Hugo Chavez in Venezuela to subvert his rule and
to support a referendum to unseat him.
Additionally, in the 1990s and afterward, NED supported a coalition
of groups in Haiti known as the Democratic Convergence, who were united
in their opposition to Jean-Bertrand Aristide and his progressive
ideology, while he was in and out of the office of the president.
The Endowment has made its weight felt in the
electoral-political process in numerous other countries.
The United States has continued democracy programs despite
local prohibitions.
Nevertheless, USAID and the NED have continued to fund organizations,
even where that's against the local country's laws. In Venezuela, for
example, the United States has
openly
continued
funding civil society organizations, even listing that in
its annual budgets, albeit without naming recipients.
USAID and the NED are undoubtedly keeping their plans in the country
secret. However, the NED and its leaders
continue
to
openly counter Russian ideological efforts throughout Eurasia.
For instance, when NED President Carl Gershman
testified
before
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in June 2016, he said
that one of the NED's five main focuses includes pushing back against
"an information offensive by Russia and other authoritarian regimes."
MSM has a story to run for 3 nights on "Russian meddling" - the sheeple bleat - go
to work, pay bills, pay taxes, invest in their "retirement", and send their kids off
to die in pointless wars.
The other funny thing about the indictments is that the speech of these Russian
nationals if they ran ads as alleged, is protected by the First Amendment, which
does not limit itself to US citizens. "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the
freedom of speech ...". The indictments claim that one must register as a foreign
lobbyist if they want to engage in political speech in the United States. For very
important reasons, the Constitution does not limit its protections to citizens,
including and especially where speech and religion are concerned.
Let's use a little math here. Even FB admits that only 1 in 23,000 images on
their site during this time period were paid for by the trolls. The vast
majority of FB users would never even have seen this content. If they were in
the .0004 of users who stumbled upon "troll speech," the message would no
doubt be drained out by all the other hundreds or thousands of messages they
did notice (mostly pictures of friends' babies). And, believe it or not, a
whole lot of voters don't even use Facebook. So only a minute fraction of FB
users could have conceivably seen one random, lonely impression, which would
have been drowned out by thousands of other non-troll impressions, posts made
by people who actually speak English and made by people the FB users actually
know.
Finally, if you were in the subgroup that found one of the five golden
tickets (stumbled upon a real Russian troll post), who is to say the dang post
wasn't 100 percent accurate.
I know I'm supposed to panic over all of this, but I'm not gonna do it.
Not. Gonna. Do. It.
The FBof
Matters apparently have exposed their MSM
strategy...they stole it from the Chocolate Factory...(((super secret FIB
methods)))...
Oomph Loompa doompadee doo, I've got another puzzle for
you. Ooompa Loompa doompadah dee, If you are wise you'll listen to me." I
suppose Mueller and associates have their heads so far up their asses they
actually believe they're in Wonka's Chocolate Factory...Oh look!!! Another
pristine Passport!!!
Let's use a little math here. Even FB admits that only 1 in 23,000 images on
their site during this time period were paid for by the trolls. The vast
majority of FB users would never even have seen this content. If they were in
the .0004 of users who stumbled upon "troll speech," the message would no
doubt be drained out by all the other hundreds or thousands of messages they
did notice (mostly pictures of friends' babies). And, believe it or not, a
whole lot of voters don't even use Facebook. So only a minute fraction of FB
users could have conceivably seen one random, lonely impression, which would
have been drowned out by thousands of other non-troll impressions, posts made
by people who actually speak English and made by people the FB users actually
know.
Finally, if you were in the subgroup that found one of the five golden
tickets (stumbled upon a real Russian troll post), who is to say the dang post
wasn't 100 percent accurate.
I know I'm supposed to panic over all of this, but I'm not gonna do it.
Not. Gonna. Do. It.
The FBof
Matters apparently have exposed their MSM
strategy...they stole it from the Chocolate Factory...(((super secret FIB
methods)))...
Oomph Loompa doompadee doo, I've got another puzzle for
you. Ooompa Loompa doompadah dee, If you are wise you'll listen to me." I
suppose Mueller and associates have their heads so far up their asses they
actually believe they're in Wonka's Chocolate Factory...Oh look!!! Another
pristine Passport!!!
The trolls were allegedly trying to "sow discord." The MSM - working closely with
the FBI and the Establishment in Washington - are trying to "spread panic."
For
once, the fear-mongering isn't playing in Peoria.
If Obama hadn't slapped sanctions on Russia, what were the Oval Office conspirators
going to leak to media about Flynn's conversations with the Russian ambassador?
What was Sally Yates going to assert could be a violation of the Logan Act, and also
a possible way for Russia to blackmail Flynn? What was the FBI going to question
Flynn about? So McCabe could change their 302s. So there
had
to be
sanctions. And there
had
to be trolls.
The Saker gives a few findings to those who understand what might be happening:
The best way to get information is to make it up.
Everything what we know now about the so-called "Kremlin trolls from the Internet
Research Agency paid by Putin's favorite chef," came from one source, a group of CIA
spies that used the mascot of Shaltay-Boltay, or Humpty-Dumpty, for their collective
online persona.
Just think about this working scheme: Shaltay-Boltay with a group of
anti-government "activists" created the "Internet Research Agency," they and some
"activists" created 470 FaceBook accounts used to post comments that looked
unmistakably "trollish."
After that other, CIA affiliated entities, like the entire Western Media, claimed
the "Russian interference in the US election." Finally, the ODNI published a report
lacking any evidence in it."
"... "Mr. Mueller, due to his direct involvement as former FBI Director and his role in covering up and protecting Gulen Networks' criminal operations within the United States, by shutting down pertinent FBI investigative operations and by transferring certain terrorism related Gulen files to the counterintelligence division, has a major conflict of interest as Special Counsel targeting Flynn's case as it pertains to exposing the Gulen network and his relationship with Turkish entities sharing the same interest in exposing and extraditing Fethullah Gulen. Thus, Mr. Mueller must step down from his position as Special Counsel in this case- a case targeting and probing Lt. General Michael Flynn." ..."
"Mr. Mueller, due to his direct involvement as former FBI Director and his role in
covering up and protecting Gulen Networks' criminal operations within the United States, by
shutting down pertinent FBI investigative operations and by transferring certain terrorism
related Gulen files to the counterintelligence division, has a major conflict of interest as
Special Counsel targeting Flynn's case as it pertains to exposing the Gulen network and his
relationship with Turkish entities sharing the same interest in exposing and extraditing
Fethullah Gulen. Thus, Mr. Mueller must step down from his position as Special Counsel in
this case- a case targeting and probing Lt. General Michael Flynn."
"... I turned in a blank ballot in November 2016. A choice between the Devil's Sister and the Devil's Jester wasn't a choice that sober grownups would make. I didn't need 13 Russians's help to arrive at that conclusion. ..."
"... My God, what a confession it is to believe that 13 non-billionaires could influence an American election: "Horosho! Now that election goes to Trump, next we get Moose and Squirrel!" Seriously?! ..."
"... "Is the Great Republic about to fall because a bunch of trolls tweeted in our election?" The Deep State folks want us to think so. Is there any way to turn the tables on them? ..."
"... If career lawyers at DOJ told Jeff Sessions that he should probably recuse himself because of X, Y, and Z, then they are presumptively guilty of bad faith, and Sessions need not necessarily feel bound to stay recused. ..."
"... Sessions was under no legal compulsion to recuse himself, as Andrew C. McCarthy has demonstrated. Arguably, the A.G. can point to any such bad faith as a reason for taking back his recusal. "The rule of law!" the Deep State will scream. But bad faith of the kind in question is ipso facto a negation of the rule of law. ..."
"... The rule of law only demands that a reversal of a recusal bear an extremely heavy burden of proof for its justification. No problem if Sessions relied on bad-faith actors at DOJ–reversing his recusal would be justified. ..."
Cue the resident amoral neocon scumbags to tell us that darn it, it's DIFFERENT when we do it. Sure our "allies" might be neonazis,
slave traders, people who bomb churches, behead priests, kidnap nuns, and enslave Christians .but you know .Putin.
The insanity that is engulfing the USA is no longer just a joke, that these lunatics have nuclear weapons is now a very serious
threat to the rest of the world – that is hopefully not as insane. Bombing foreign nations is not considered an act of war (kinetic
action in Syria, Libya, Niger, Somalia, etc), however making online comments is an act of war?!?
I have made online comments against America, I suggest I also get added on that list as an act of war.
I don't think if I were a "resident amoral neocon scumbag" I would dare to reply after VikingLS' opening comment.
The title sounds silly: "acts of war" in the real world are defined by people who want to go to war.
And BTW, Pat's language is slippery when talking about the Chilean coup. Maybe the White House had "deniability" but State
and the CIA left fingerprints everywhere. If you want to see an obviously lying Kissinger, read the section on the coup in "White
House Years."
I turned in a blank ballot in November 2016. A choice between the Devil's Sister and the Devil's Jester wasn't a choice that
sober grownups would make. I didn't need 13 Russians's help to arrive at that conclusion.
My God, what a confession it is to believe that 13 non-billionaires could influence an American election: "Horosho! Now
that election goes to Trump, next we get Moose and Squirrel!" Seriously?!
I tell my kids all the time that half the people in this country are, by definition, below average in intelligence.
"Is the Great Republic about to fall because a bunch of trolls tweeted in our election?" The Deep State folks want us to think
so. Is there any way to turn the tables on them?
If career lawyers at DOJ told Jeff Sessions that he should probably recuse himself because of X, Y, and Z, then they are
presumptively guilty of bad faith, and Sessions need not necessarily feel bound to stay recused.
Sessions was under no legal compulsion to recuse himself, as Andrew C. McCarthy has demonstrated. Arguably, the A.G. can
point to any such bad faith as a reason for taking back his recusal. "The rule of law!" the Deep State will scream. But bad faith
of the kind in question is ipso facto a negation of the rule of law.
The rule of law only demands that a reversal of a recusal bear an extremely heavy burden of proof for its justification.
No problem if Sessions relied on bad-faith actors at DOJ–reversing his recusal would be justified.
Career lawyers at DOJ, especially in the Office of Legal Counsel, would clearly have known that Sessions was under no legal
compulsion or professional obligation to recuse himself. If they left him with a different impression and advised that it would
be best for him to recuse himself, their actions couldn't realistically be attributed to incompetence. Only bad faith could explain
such advice.
This is true even if they deliberately neglected to inform the A.G. of the legal non-necessity for recusal and played up the
alleged political necessity for recusal. It would still be bad faith.
If that's correct, it doesn't mean Sessions should immediately take back his recusal. Weeks or months of preparation might
be needed for educating the public and injecting a spine-stiffening drug in a number of Republican senators–call your office,
Lindsey Graham. But it does allow for a stronger attack right now on Robert Mueller, who needs to get out from under his own shadow
of bad faith before he ends up earning the nickname "Bad Faith Bob."
"Russian bots" - How An Anti-Russian Lobby Creates Fake News
The U.S. mainstream media are going nuts. They now make up and report stories based on the
uncritical acceptance of the outcome of an algorithm they do not understand and which is know
to produce fake results.
SAN FRANCISCO -- One hour after news broke about the school shooting in Florida last week,
Twitter accounts suspected of having links to Russia released hundreds of posts taking up the
gun control debate.
The accounts addressed the news with the speed of a cable news network. Some adopted the
hashtag #guncontrolnow. Others used #gunreformnow and #Parklandshooting. Earlier on
Wednesday, before the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland,
Fla., many of those accounts had been focused on the investigation by the special counsel
Robert S. Mueller III into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election.
In other words - the "Twitter accounts suspected of having links to Russia" were following
the current news just as cable news networks do. When a new sensational event happened they
immediately jumped onto it. But the NYT authors go to length to claim that there is some
nefarious Russian scheme behind this that uses automated accounts to spread divisive
issues.
Those claims are based on this propaganda project:
Last year, the Alliance for Securing Democracy, in conjunction with the German Marshall Fund,
a public policy research group in Washington, created a website that tracks hundreds of
Twitter accounts of human users and suspected bots that they have linked to a Russian
influence campaign.
The "Alliance for Securing Democracy" is run by military lobbyists, CIA
minions and neocons. Its claimed task is:
... to publicly document and expose Vladimir Putin's ongoing efforts to subvert democracy in
the United States and Europe.
There is no evidence that Vladimir Putin made or makes such efforts.
The ASD "Hamilton 68" website shows graphics with rankings of "top items"
and "trending items" allegedly used by Russian bots or influence agents. There is nothing
complicate behind it. It simply tracks the tweets of 600 Twitter users and aggregates the
hashtags they use. It does not say which Twitter accounts its algorithms follows. It claims
that the 600 were selected by one of three criteria: 1. People who often tweet news that also
appears on RT (Russia Today) and Sputnik News , two general news sites
sponsored by the Russian government; 2. People who "openly profess to be pro-Russian"; 3.
accounts that "appear to use automation" to boost the same themes that people in group 1 and 2
tweet about.
Nowhere does the group say how many of the 600 accounts it claims to track belong to which
group. Are their 10 assumed bots or 590 in the surveyed 600 accounts? And how please does one
"openly profess" to be pro-Russian? We don't know and the ASD won't say.
On December 25 2017 the "Russian influence" agents or bots who, according to NYT, want to
sow divisiveness, wished everyone a
Merry Christmas.
The real method the Hamilton 68 group used to select the 600 accounts it tracks is unknown.
The group does not say or show how it made it up. Despite that the NYT reporters, Sheera
Frenkel and Daisuke Wakabayashi, continue with the false assumptions that most or all the
accounts are automated, have something to do with Russia and are presumably nefarious:
Russian-linked bots have rallied around other divisive issues, often ones that President
Trump has tweeted about. They promoted Twitter hashtags like #boycottnfl, #standforouranthem
and #takeaknee after some National Football League players started kneeling during the
national anthem to protest racial injustice.
The automated Twitter accounts helped popularize the #releasethememo hashtag , ...
The Daily Beast reported earlier that the emphasized claim is definitely
false :
Twitter's internal analysis has thus far found that authentic American accounts, and not
Russian imposters or automated bots, are driving #ReleaseTheMemo. There are no preliminary
indications that the Twitter activity either driving the hashtag or engaging with it is
either predominantly Russian.
The same is presumably true for the other hashtags.
The Dutch IT specialist and blogger Marcel van den Berg was wondering how Dutch keywords
and hashtags showed up in on the Hamilton 68 "Russian bots" dashboard. He found (
Dutch ,
English auto translation) that the dashboard is a total fraud:
In recent weeks, I have been keeping a close eye on Hamilton 68. Every time a Dutch hashtag
was shown on the website, I made a screenshot. Then I noted what was playing at that moment
and I watched the Tweets with this hashtag. Again I could not find any Tweet that seemed to
be from a Russian troll.
In all cases, the hash tags that Hamilton 68 reported were trending topics in the
Netherlands. In all cases there was much to do around the subject of the hashtag in the
Netherlands. Many people were angry or shared their opinion on the subject on Twitter. And
even if there were a few tweets with Russian connections between them, the effect is zero.
Because they do not stand out among the many other, authentic Tweets.
Van den Berg lists a dozen examples he analyzed in depth.
The anti-Russian Bellingcat group around couch blogger Eliot Higgins is sponsored
by the NATO propaganda shop Atlantic Council . It sniffs through open source stuff to
blame Russia or Syria wherever possible. Bellingcat were recently a victim of the
"Russian bots" - or rather of the ASD website. On February 10 the hashtag #bellingcat trended
to rank
2 of the dashboard.
Bellingcat was thus, according to the Hamilton 68 claims, under assault of hordes
of nefarious Russian government sponsored bots.
The Bellingcat folks looked into the issue and found
that only six people on Twitter, none of
them an automated account, had used the #bellingcat hashtag in the last 48 hours. Some of the
six may have opinions that may be "pro Russian", but as Higgins himself says :
[I]n my opinion, it's extremely unlikely the people listed are Russian agents
The pro-NATO propaganda shop Bellingcat thus debunked the pro NATO propaganda shop
Alliance for Securing Democracy.
The fraudsters who created the Hamilton 68 crap seem to have filled their database with
rather normal people who's opinions they personally dislike. Those then are the "Russian bots"
who spread "Russian influence" and divisiveness.
Moreover - what is the value of its information when six normal people out of millions of
active Twitter users can push a hashtag with a handful of tweets to the top of the
dashboard?
But the U.S. media writes long gushing stories about the dashboard and how it somehow shows
automated Russian propaganda. They go to length to explain that this shows "Russian influence"
and a "Russian" attempt to sow "divisiveness" into people's minds.
This is nuts.
Last August, when the Hamilton 68 project was first released, the Nation was the
only site critical of it. It
predicted :
The import of GMF's project is clear: Reporting on anything that might put the US in a bad
light is now tantamount to spreading Russian propaganda.
It is now even worse than that. The top ranking of the #merrychristmas hashtag shows that
the algorithm does not even care about good or bad news. The tracked twitter accounts are
normal people.
The whole project is just a means to push fake stories about alleged "Russian influence"
into U.S. medias. Whenever some issue creeps up on its dashboard that somehow fits its false
"Russian bots" and "divisiveness" narrative the Alliance for Securing Democracy
contacts the media to spread its poison. The U.S. media, - CNN, Wired, the New York Times - are
by now obviously devoid of thinking journalists and fact checkers. They simple re-package the
venom and spread it to the public.
How long will it take until people die from it?
Posted by b on February 20, 2018 at 03:15 PM |
Permalink
Rufus T. Firefly: I'd be unworthy of the high trust that's been placed in me if I didn't
do everything in my power to keep our beloved Freedonia in peace with the world. I'd be only
too happy to meet with Ambassador Trentino, and offer him on behalf of my country the right
hand of good fellowship. And I feel sure he will accept this gesture in the spirit of which
it is offered. But suppose he doesn't. A fine thing that'll be. I hold out my hand and he
refuses to accept. That'll add a lot to my prestige, won't it? Me, the head of a country,
snubbed by a foreign ambassador. Who does he think he is, that he can come here, and make a
sap of me in front of all my people? Think of it - I hold out my hand and that hyena refuses
to accept. Why, the cheap four-flushing swine, he'll never get away with it I tell you, he'll
never get away with it.
[Trentino enters]
Rufus T. Firefly: So, you refuse to shake hands with me, eh?
[slaps Trentino with his glove]
Ambassador Trentino: Mrs. Teasdale, this is the last straw. There's no turning back now!
This means war!
Rufus T. Firefly: Then it's war! Then it's war! Gather the forces. Harness the horses.
Then it's war!
"to publicly document and expose Vladimir Putin's ongoing efforts to subvert democracy in the
United States and Europe."
That's pretty rich, coming from a country and from people who actually genuinely, and in
proven ways, have subverted democracy in Europe since the late 1940s - Italy being one of the
clearest cases.
For the life of me I cannot figure why Americans want a war/conflict with Russia. I can't
believe it has to do with the economy. There's got to be a far better nefarious reason. Even
during the real cold war we tried to avoid conflict. Absolute insanity.
How much time might the "Alliance for Securing Democracy" spend on uncovering voter
suppression and purges, dis-enfrancisement of felons, the closing of polling places,
restrictions of early voting, the influence of billionaires, gerrymandering and so on?
Gee, what could go wrong formulating policy founded upon a series of Big Lies? Kim Dotcom says he has
important info the FBI refuses to hear. At the Munich
Security Conference , neocon Nicholas Burns, former US Ambassador to NATO, details my
assertion's factual basis that current policy is being formed on a series of Big Lies: "Will
NATO strengthen itself to contain Russian power in Eastern Europe giving what Russian
[sic] has done illegally in Crimea, in the Donbass, and in Georgia ?" [Bolded text are
the Big Lies.]
Clearly, this entire psyop was premeditated and its design was hastily done
contemporaneously with Russia's Syria intervention. NSA/CIA/FBI knew of HRC's security
breeches and rightly assumed their contents would find their way into the election, so the
general plan was ready to go prior to WikiLeaks publications. b has uncovered much, and I
hope he's planning to publish a book about the entire affair.
Ken @ 4: There doesn't necessarily need to be One Major Reason for going to war. There may be
several reasons all feeding and reinforcing one another and creating a psychological climate
in which Going To War is seen as the only solution and is inevitable. The reasons are not
just economic and political but cultural and historical.
In some countries allied with the US, the politicians in power are the ideological
descendants of those who collaborated with Nazi Germany - so in a sense they are committed to
"correcting" what they see as wrong. In the case of current Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo
Abe, he is the grandson of a former prime minister who once served in General Tojo's World
War II cabinet.
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2012/12/26/national/formed-in-childhood-roots-of-abes-conservatism-go-deep/#.WoyZCG9uaUk
That's why pinning down the reason for wanting a war against Russia is so difficult.
Since the FBI never inspected the DNC's computers first-hand, the only evidence comes from
an Irvine, California, cyber-security firm known as CrowdStrike whose chief technical
officer, Dmitri Alperovitch, a well-known Putin-phobe, is a fellow at the Atlantic Council,
a Washington think tank that is also vehemently anti-Russian as well as a close Hillary
Clinton ally.
Thus, Putin-basher Clinton hired Putin-basher Alperovitch to investigate an alleged
electronic heist, and to absolutely no one's surprise, his company concluded that guilty
party was Vladimir Putin. Amazing! Since then, a small army of internet critics has chipped
away at CrowdStrike for praising the hackers as among the best in the business yet
declaring in the same breath that they gave themselves away by uploading a document in the
name of "Felix Edmundovich," i.e. Felix E. Dzerzhinsky, founder of the Soviet secret
police.
As noted cyber-security expert Jeffrey Carr observed with regard to Russia's two main
intelligence agencies: "Raise your hand if you think that a GRU or FSB officer would add
Iron Felix's name to the metadata of a stolen document before he released it to the world
while pretending to be a Romanian hacker. Someone clearly had a wicked sense of humor."
This is about conditioning voters in Europe and the United States for a long war with Russia
and China. In other words, a return to the 1950s. It is not working and becoming increasingly
hysterical because societies are not nearly as cohesive as they once were, and the mainstream
political parties, while better funded and more top-down organized, are basically hollow. The
collapse is coming. Four years or ten, take your pick.
@4 "For the life of me I cannot figure why Americans want a war/conflict with Russia."
Most Americans probably don't. Just the chosen few with the deepest fall-out shelters. The
idea is to keep piling the pressure on to countries like Iran and Russia in the hope that
their populations will rise up and demand the freedoms that we enjoy in the West....things
like uncensored wardrobe malfunctions and transgender washrooms.
let's imagine that we have the pyramid of evilness, by which we measure bestiality of one
regime and its constituency. my firm belief is that us would be on the top of that pyramid.
Only dilemma would be between Zionist entity and the US.
"How could the masses be made to desire their own repression?" was the question Wilhelm
Reich famously asked in the wake of the Reichstagsbrandverordnung (Reichstag Fire Decree,
February 28, 1933), which suspended the civil rights protections afforded by the Weimar
Republic's democratic constitution.Hitler had been appointed chancellor on January 30, 1933
and Reich was trying to grapple with the fact that the German people had apparently chosen
the authoritarian politics promoted by National Socialism against their own political
interests. Ever since, the question of fascism, or rather the question of why might people
vote for their own oppression, has never ceased to haunt political philosophy.2 With Trump
openly campaigning for less democracy in America -- and with the continued electoral
success of far-right antiliberal movements across Europe -- this question has again become
a pressing one.
An American people is in perfect harmony with its regime.
Media have long agitated for War in US History. Nothing sells newspapers
like a good ole war!
Demonizing is a way to achieve it. What is sure is that this is a one way street.
Once over the cliff, there is no turning back.
How do you tell people that, at the flick of your magic switch, Putin is in fact
a swell guy and wonderful human being? Once love is gone who goes back
to the filthy, abhorrent and estranged spouse?
Surely the US establishment is playing with fire thinking they will successfully
ride out any conflict and come out on top secure in their newly reestablished
hegemony on the smoldering ruins of Humanity.
Make no mistake, we are all on the road to hell. Better enjoy todays peace as
tomorrow word will be filled with the sweet music of cemeteries.
@15 "An American people is in perfect harmony with its regime."
I'm not so sure. I think there are many Americans who deeply distrust their government.
But of course they don't want to appear unpatriotic. There are also many who are apathetic
and many simply don't know how to change things.
It's horrible I know to quote a Nazi, but Goring had this right:
Göring: Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm
want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his
farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in
England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all,
it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to
drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or
a Communist dictatorship.
Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter
through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare
wars.
Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always
be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they
are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country
to danger. It works the same way in any country.
American media has graduated from simply repeating the lies of "unnamed government sources"
to repeating the lies of any organization unofficially blessed by the powers that be. The
skills required to repeat the text verbatim serve them well in both cases. Skepticism is only
reserved to anyone who tries to introduce logic or facts into the equation--such as when Jill
Stein was interviewed on MSNBC recently. How dare Ms. Stein try to bring FACTS into the
discussion!
In that The Narrative is tightly controlled in the corporate media, not matter how strong the
proofs or arguments about the falsity of these propaganda campaigns are, little or no
circulation of those proofs or arguments wlll reach the general public.
Thanks Jen. It still makes no sense. As a veteran of the Vietnam fiasco, I was pretty much
government oriented until McNamara outed the whole thing whining about haw sorry he was.
59,000 dead and he's sorry. They were able to hide the Gulf of Tonkin BS until then. After
that I researched the reasons for each war/conflict the USA started and could find no logical
reasons except hunger for power. But the little sandbox wars won't destroy the world like a
major war/conflict with Russia and it goes nuclear. Almost every politician, and major news
organizations are pushing for a war/conflict with Russia. This is insanity as no one will win
a war like this and I am sure they know that,,, but they keep the war drums beating anyhow.
It simply doesn't make sense. But Thanks again.
Same for dh, #14. Things are soooo stupid, your joking may be closer to the truth than you
know. :-)
Thank you for the post. I will save it and use it liberally, with proper attributions.
When one challenges the tribe on places like Twitter, it is hard to tell who is a real idiot
and who is a bot. How do you know? Maybe that the bots go away fairly quickly and the idiots
hang around to argue ad infinitum.
The thing that bothers me, is the fact that the MICGlobalists dont care what we think or how
poor their deceptions are. The public perception that "russia did it!!" continues to rise. I
wonder what the public acceptance level needs to be for them to execute a MAJOR false flag
event. They seem to think they are still on target, and its just a short matter or time...
They are going to do this when the perception management is complete...
We really do not need another one of their disasters
The bully pushes and pushes until stopped by the first serious push back. The dynamic of the
west and the neocon/Zionists at the core is essentially that of the bully. Nations like
Venezuela and the Philippines have started to push back, and I hope and feel fairly confident
that they will both survive the rage of the US. In some part, they have begun to show the
actual powerlessness of the bully.
But the really killer nations - Russia and China - are holding their water as they
strengthen their force. I believe that one very serious push back from either of them in the
right circumstances will stop the bully. And yet, as they bide their time, we see a curious
phenomenon wherein the US is destroying itself from the inside.
It's as if all of the forces that exist to control the country - the lockstep media, the
fully rigged markets, the hysterical military, the bought legislature and the crooked courts
- are all acting far more strongly than should be necessary. The entire system is
over-reacting, over-reaching, over-boiling. And in the course of this, the US is actually
shedding power, and at an amazing rate. But not from the action of Russia but from its
non-action, the empty space that that allows the bully's dynamic to over-reach, all the way
to complete failure.
Is it possible that deep in the security states of Russia and China there's even a study
and a model for this? Is the collapse of the US actually being gamed by Russia and China -
and through the totally counter-intuitive action of non-action?
Hey b,
Just wanted to let you know that Joe Lauria mentioned your blog and the article you wrote on
the indictment of the 13 Russians. He was on Loud and Clear (Sputnik Radio, Washington DC)
today and brought you up at the start of the program.
Glad to see you get some recognition for all the great work you've been doing :)
Ken @ 24: The warmongering is not intended to make any sense - not many people are trained in
critical thinking and logic, and even when they are, they can be swamped by their own
emotions or other people's emotions. Propaganda is intended to appeal to people's emotions
and fears. You can try reading works by Edward Bernays - "Crystallizing Public Opinion"
(1923) and "Propaganda" (1928) - to see how he uses his uncle Sigmund Freud's theories of the
mind to create strategies for manipulating public opinion. https://archive.org/details/EdwardL.BernaysPropaganda
Bernays' books influenced Nazi and Soviet propaganda and Bernays himself was hired by the
US government to justify in the public mind the 1954 US invasion of Guatemala.
You may be aware that Rupert Murdoch, head of News Corporation which owns the Wall Street
Journal, FOX News and 20th Century Fox studios, is also on the Board of Directors of Genie
Energy which owns a subsidiary firm that was granted a licence by an Israeli court to explore
and drill for oil and natural gas in Syria's (and Israeli-occupied) Golan Heights.
Many of my thoughts as well.
The U.S.'s greatest fault is its tacit misunderstanding of just what russia is in fact.
They utterly fail to understand the Russian character; forged over 800 years culminating with
the defeat of Nazi Germany, absorbing horrific losses; the U.S. fails to understand the
effect upon the then Soviets, become todays Russians.
Even the god's have abandoned the west...
@4 "For the life of me I cannot figure why Americans want a war/conflict with Russia."
Ever since US Crude Oil peaked its production in 1970, the US has known that at some point
the oil majors would have their profitability damaged, "assets" downgraded, and borrowing
capacity destroyed. At this point their shares would become worthless and they would become
bankrupt. The contagion from this would spread to transport businesses, plastics manufacture,
herbicides and pesticide production and a total collapse of Industrial Civilisation.
In anticipation of increasing Crude Oil imports, Nixon stopped the convertibility of
Dollars into Gold, thus making the Dollar entirely fiat, allowing them to print as much of
the currency as they needed.
They also began a system of obscuring oil production data, involving the DoE's EIA and the
OECD's IEA, by inventing an ever-increasing category of Undiscovered Oilfields in their
predictions, and combining Crude Oil and Condensate (from gas fields) into one category (C+C)
as if they were the same thing. As well the support of the ethanol-from-corn industry began,
even though it was uneconomic. The Global Warming problem had to be debunked, despite its
sound scientific basis. Energy-intensive manufacturing work was off-shored to cheap
labour+energy countries, and Just-in-Time delivery systems were honed.
In 2004 the price of Crude Oil rose from $28 /barrel up to $143 /b in mid-2008. This
demonstrated that there is a limit to how much business can pay for oil (around $100 /b).
Fracking became marginally economic at these prices, but the frackers never made a profit as
over-production meant prices fell to about $60 /b. The Government encourages this destructive
industry despite the fact it doesn't make any money, because the alternative is the end of
Industrial Civilisation.
Eventually though, there must come a time when there is not enough oil to power all the
cars and trucks, bulldozers, farm tractors, airplanes and ships, as well as manufacture all
the wind turbines and solar panels and electric vehicles, as well as the upgraded
transmission grid. At that point, the game will be up, and it will be time for WW3. So we
need to line up some really big enemies, and develop lots of reasons to hate them.
Thus you see the demonisation of Russia, China, Iran and Venezuela for reasons that don't
make sense from a normal perspective.
I watched bbc news this am in the hope that I would get to see the most awful creature at the
2018 olympics cry her croc tears (long story - a speed skater who cuts off the opposition but
has been found out so now when she swoops in front of the others they either skate over her
leading to tearful whines from perp about having been 'pushed', or gets disqualified for
barging. Last night she got disqualified so as part of my study on whether types like this
believe their own bullshit I thought I'd tune in but didn't get that far into the beebs
lies)
The bulk of the bulletin was devoted to a 'lets hate Russia' session which featured a
quisling who works for the russian arm of BBC (prolly just like cold war days staffed
exclusively by MI6/SIS types). This chap, using almost unintelligible english, claimed he had
proof at least 50 Russian Mercenaries (question - why are amerikan guns for hire called
contractors [remember the Fallujah massacre of 100,000 civilians because amerikan contractors
were stupid] yet Russian contractors are called mercenaries by the media?) had been killed in
Syria last week. The bloke had evidence of one contractor's death not 50 - the proof was a
letter from the Russian government to the guy's mother telling her he didn't qualify for any
honours because he wasn't in the Russian military.
The quisling (likely a Ukranian I would say) went on to rabbit about the bloke having also
fought in Donbass under contract - to which the 'interviewer (don't ya love it when media
'interview' their own journos - a sure sign that a snippet of toxic nonsense is being
delivered) led about how the deceitful Russians had claimed the only Russians fighting in
Donbass were contractors - yeah well this bloke was a contractor surely that proves the
Russians were telling the truth.
It's not what these propagandists say; they adopt a tone and the audience is meant to hate
based on that even when the facts as stated conflict with the media outlet's point of view.
Remember the childhood trick of saying "bad dog" ter yer mutt in loving tones - the dog comes
to ya tail wagging & licks yer hand. This is that.
The next item was more Syria lies - white helmets footage (altho the beeb is now mostly
giving them an alternative name to dodge the facts about white helmets) of bandaged children
with flour tipped on their heads.
The evil Syrians and Russians are bombarding Gouta - nary a word about the continuous
artillery barrage Gouta has subjected the citizens of Damascus to for the past 4 years, or
that the Syrians have repeatedly offered truces and safe passage for civilians. Any injured
children need to ask their parents why they weren't allowed to take advantage of the frequent
offers of transport out. Maybe the parents are worried 'the resistance' will do its usual and
blow up the busloads of children after luring them over with candy.
Anyway I switched off after that so never did learn if little miss cheat had a cry.
"... The whole of American politics is nothing but 'sowing discord'. The only thing that holds the two parties together is the hatred shared for the 'other party'. ..."
"... Again, if election laws were broken, arrest, try, convict and imprison the perpetrators. Lots of money gets spent sowing discord during the elections. I'm not concerned one bit about the drop in the bucket spent by the Russians ..."
"... She had over a billion dollars to tell me that she was for universal health care. ..."
"... So, if I have a heart attack, based on my obesity, poor diet and alcoholism, I should immediately blame the background radiation in my basement? ..."
"... A classic case of misdirection, served up and serving the converging interests of a variety of players: neo-cons and defense contractors wet for a new Cold War with Russia, the Clinton/Obama wing of the Democratic Party desperate to use this to distract from their catastrophic political negligence, and factions in the National Security State looking to be rehabilitated in the eyes of media and liberal elites. ..."
"... What Russian government? It was a commercial operation posting click bait, of all sorts, to sell ads. And yes, that's the explanation that fits the facts best. If Putin was really bankrolling it, no evidence so far, he was wasting his money. From our point of view, a good thing. ..."
"... A foreign government employed copy editors to sow dissent in American politics by way of Twitter, Facebook, online advertising and a network of blogs. ..."
"... Google files patent for robot that writes your Facebook posts, emails and tweets ..."
"... All Russian bot claims appear to originate from the same group of warmongers and their highly flawed Hamilton 68 Dashboard project: McCarthyism Inc.: Terror Cranks Sold America the Russia Panic Truthdig ..."
"... [The Alliance for Securing Democracy's] researchers and advisors have become go-to pundits for mainstream reporters seeking expert opinions on Russian online meddling. They have been endorsed by John Podesta, the founder of the Center for American Progress and chief of staff for Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign. Julia Ioffe, the Atlantic's Russia correspondent, has also weighed in to promote the ASD's efforts. Both highlighted the ASD's Hamilton 68 Dashboard as a scientific barometer of Kremlin influence over the American social media landscape ..."
"... Bill Kristol, among others, is on the so-called Alliance for Securing Democracy's board of advisors. ..."
"... And "b" at Moon of Alabama thinks that they've deliberately indicted a bunch of people they don't expect to prosecute (they're all in Russia) in order to have the above "message" on the books for as long as it takes for someone to stage a legal test of it. ..."
"... Until then it is simple intimidation. ..."
"... If the Russian government actually funded this sort of thing, they must be pretty simple-minded. ..."
"... Anyway, do we even know that it was Russian "government" money financing these things? It was some oligarch who had "ties" to Putin. By the standards used so far in Russiagate reporting, that basically means that he and Putin are both Russian. ..."
"... The Russian Federation is very much against neo-Nazi and white supremacy movements due to what it suffered from Nazi Germany during WWII. Now Russia sees this on it's boarders in Ukraine. But Russia is branded with this because white folk live there. What about all the Muslims in Russia, many of which have come from Central Asia? What about all the Asians in Eastern Russia? The quoted statement is born of either ignorance, misinformation or disinformation. ..."
"... Unfortunately for Soros (and fortunately for the entire planet) the Russian government realised the cancerous nature of Soros backed NGOs, and took the proper preventative measures which in hindsight, and after reviewing the DC Leaks memos, proved to be a very wise move. ..."
"... Crowdstrike is the only source of evidence of Russian hacking of DNC. And Crowdstrike had to walk it back when they used the exact same evidence to claim that Russia had hacked Ukraine's artillery. That is likely why DNC refused to let FBI run forensics on their servers. ..."
"... negotiable convictions ..."
"... This is the mental equivalent of the sunk cost fallacy. At this point the media, the Dems and legions of David Brock led trolls have invested so much time and energy into "Muh Russia" that they can't write off their investment. ..."
"... Keep going. You're doing fine. It's down there somewhere. You can endure another season of Persist, the payoff is right around the corner. There is nothing more important right now than ignoring inconvenient facts. ..."
"... Domain Keys Identified Mail, or DKIM, is a highly regarded email security system that can be used to independently authenticate the contents and sender of an email that uses it. ..."
"... argumentum ad ignorantium ..."
"... argumentum ad ignorantiam ..."
"... Feffer says that progressives don't take Russiagate as seriously as they should. I think critical thinkers are taking it very seriously, because of potential censorship of dissenting voices that favor peace over war, and that favor productive social spending over wasteful military spending. ..."
"... Even absent such concerns, the Russiagate hysteria is obviously a partisan power struggle that sucks the air out of the room for productive political discourse to address real social, economic, and environmental problems. ..."
"... So, the 13 incitements, in addition to keeps the Russian narrative alive for another few weeks, is providing political cover for the establishment to clean house as it were, and clear out the Progressive infestation threatening to cripple the money train the establishment has become accustomed too. ..."
"... democracy in the USA is broken. ..."
"... when 10s of thousands of soldiers would be sent somewhere for an extended period ..."
"... Historically speaking, America peaked at the moon landing. ..."
I find this question, in light of Real News (quite missing from the American landscape)
and Real History (likewise), rather tedious and specious.
Did America (via John Negroponte and Frank Wisner, Jr., and their Franco-American
Foundation's creation of false political scandals against his competitor) do conceivably
worse in France to get Sarkozy elected the first time?
Did America do worse to support the overthrow of democratically elected Honduran
president, Manuel Zelaya?
Did America do worse to support the overthrow of democratically elected president of the
Ukraine (cost to American taxpayers: $5 billion)?
Did America do worse to support the overthrow of democratically elected and farsighted
Chilean president, Salvador Allende, with the subsequent torture/murders of over 30,000
Chileans as well as American citizens?
Time doesn't allow me to go on for more pages, plus this site has a word limit.
The whole of American politics is nothing but 'sowing discord'. The only thing that holds
the two parties together is the hatred shared for the 'other party'.
Again, if election laws were broken, arrest, try, convict and imprison the
perpetrators. Lots of money gets spent sowing discord during the elections. I'm not concerned one bit
about the drop in the bucket spent by the Russians
So this is more about Americans and their political intelligence than Russia and its
intelligence. Trolls bringing down the Merican political system is theatre of the absurd. How
many people died, again?
What I find truly amazing is that Hillary Clinton had over a billion dollars to provide me
with reasons to vote for her. I was searching for anything.
She had over a billion dollars to tell me that she was for universal health care.
She had over a billion dollars to tell me that she would expand social security.
She had over a billion dollars to tell me that she would make college free or at least
dramatically less expensive.
She had a billion dollars to tell me that she and her crazed neo-con advisors wouldn't start
WWIII. Threatening to shoot down Russian planes doesn't inspire confidence.
Over a billion dollars to explain to us in detail on numerous platforms how she was going to
make our lives better.
It was obvious to every one that she was a hard-core neo-liberal and hard-core
neo-conservative. All she offered was "America is already great!!!" A billion dollars and all
she could provide was insults and paranoia.
And people still don't know that as Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, she attended those
rightwing prayer breakfasts at the Bush White House; belonged to rightwing,
imperialistic/military organizations, and had an uncle, Wade Rodham, who was a member of the
US Secret Service's presidential protection unit during the Kennedy Administration.
Not to mention those fundraisers thrown by Lady Rothschild at Martha's Vineyard for
HRC.
This is not about Clinton. It's about Russia and the Trump campaign. Hillary lost and
thank God. We should ban any spouses, children or grandchildren from holding elected office
of any kind.
But turning this into a Democrat or Hillary thing is wrong. If there is something there, then
the investigation might find it. If not, we have already grabbed up some arch-criminals in
the persons of Gates and Manafort. So that is a already justification enough. Frankly, all
the talk of costs is also a lie. Manafort's milllions will be seized. Russiagate will turn
out to be profitable!
So, if I have a heart attack, based on my obesity, poor diet and alcoholism, I should
immediately blame the background radiation in my basement?
Most of the "attacks" Lobel referred to were traditional white propaganda by the likes of
RT, which are invariably conflated with, first, Trump/Putin collusion, and since that puppy
died, Russian "attacks" on our exceptional democracy.
Assume every hyper-ventilating charge by Mueller to be true, and magnify it fifty-fold;
it's still bupkis in the toxic and corrupt stew that is US politics.
A classic case of misdirection, served up and serving the converging interests of a
variety of players: neo-cons and defense contractors wet for a new Cold War with Russia, the
Clinton/Obama wing of the Democratic Party desperate to use this to distract from their
catastrophic political negligence, and factions in the National Security State looking to be
rehabilitated in the eyes of media and liberal elites.
This entire tempest (in a teapot) only gained legs because Hillary Clinton is congenitally
unable to accept responsibility for her own mistakes.
What started out as merely a convenient way to distract the public from the embarrassing
and politically crippling *leak* of her own internal emails (the actual content of which no
one in Clintonland or the media ever protested) has, over the last 18 months, devolved into a
swampland of denial and fantasy which has engulfed the Democrats.
So you must be the one who has the actual evidence that any of this was financed by the
Russian government. Please do post it and enlighten us all. Then please forward it to the DNC – if they know the type of bang for their buck
they can get for just $1000 maybe they'll stop sending the rest of us so many emails begging
for money.
Kevin-it seems to me you presume your conclusion when you say 'This is not the case. A
foreign..'
What's your source? What long history, the internet came around in early 90's, I'm old but
that's not that long ago. And seriously, millions of impressions when Trump rallies were
chanting "lock her up" you don't think word had gotten around or you don't think any
Americans would think of that without foreign assistance.
The World Wide Web went live in 1991. The "internet" has become a catchall term for the
WWW, but there were previous proto-internets including the Internet. "Kevin" isn't on the ball clearly. "Sow dissent" is pretty much code for how upset he was
that "Dear Mother" didn't have a coronation.
"A foreign government employed copy editors to sow dissent in American politics by way of
Twitter, Facebook, online advertising and a network of blogs." Er, citation? I read the indictment. It doesn't say that.
Can you possibly explain this? If the political system can suffer from a few internet
memes, the problem is the state of American politics.
Is the country really this childish? The whole country is founded on dissent. Have you
ever seen those bumper stickers about "Well behaved women not making history"? Do you not see
the problem with your issue.
We aren't discussing arming paramilitary groups or rousing violence. We are discussing a
social media click bait farm in an indictment presented by Bob Mueller, who's greatest hits
include torture, lying about WMDs in Iraq, rounding up Muslims, entrapment, and the Anthrax
farce. I would probably start with a prosecutor with a shred of credibility outside of the
circles where Joe Scarborough is respected.
The worst part is the "OMG Russia" frauds are going to shout so much that nothing will be
done about gun control or any other calamity, but I bet the Pentagon will get more money for
another failed weapon system.
What Russian government? It was a commercial operation posting click bait, of all sorts,
to sell ads. And yes, that's the explanation that fits the facts best. If Putin was really bankrolling
it, no evidence so far, he was wasting his money. From our point of view, a good thing.
A foreign government employed copy editors to sow dissent in American politics by way
of Twitter, Facebook, online advertising and a network of blogs.
There is no proof that this troll farm was acting on behalf of any government.
In one example, for a mere $1000 or so, Russians were able to get American citizens to
build a fake jail cell on a trailer complete with actors to play Hillary, Bill and
Trump.
Right, no republican ever made an offensive parade float before the Russians came
along.
I fear Lambert is right and that the DNC will hyjack the Florida High School students
anti-gun movement and make it serve their purposes. Not Russians bots to fear.
Actually saw someone (somebot? sometroll?) get called out on twitter today for doing the
Russia! thing and not the US people who actually believe whatever the issue was. I think it's
the first time I've seen that. Maybe the last too, but still for a moment there
[The Alliance for Securing Democracy's] researchers and advisors have become go-to
pundits for mainstream reporters seeking expert opinions on Russian online meddling. They
have been endorsed by John Podesta, the founder of the Center for American Progress and
chief of staff for Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign. Julia Ioffe, the
Atlantic's Russia correspondent, has also weighed in to promote the ASD's efforts. Both
highlighted the ASD's Hamilton 68 Dashboard as a scientific barometer of Kremlin influence
over the American social media landscape
However, an investigation by AlterNet's Grayzone Project has yielded a series of
disturbing findings at odds with the established depiction. The researchers behind the
ASD's "dashboard" are no Russia experts, but rather a collection of cranks, counterterror
retreads, online harassers and paranoiacs operating with support from some of the most
prominent figures operating within the American national security apparatus.
Bill Kristol, among others, is on the so-called Alliance for Securing Democracy's board of
advisors.
Our current Powers That Be have never been happy with the legacy of "free speech." It's
now, demonstrably, an indictable offense for non-US citizens to engage in it in the US.
And "b" at
Moon of Alabama thinks that they've deliberately indicted a bunch of people they don't
expect to prosecute (they're all in Russia) in order to have the above "message" on the books
for as long as it takes for someone to stage a legal test of it.
If the Russian government actually funded this sort of thing, they must be pretty
simple-minded.
For not the first time in recent days, I am reminded of a Dave Barry joke from many years
ago, perhaps even before the collapse of the Soviet Union. I don't remember what the column
was about; it might have been about comic strips in general, which were his favorites and
which ones he didn't care for, etc. He mentioned the strip Nancy and said something
like it "was the product of a 70-year Soviet government experimental project to produce a
joke."
Anyway, do we even know that it was Russian "government" money financing these things? It
was some oligarch who had "ties" to Putin. By the standards used so far in Russiagate
reporting, that basically means that he and Putin are both Russian.
It's easy to be skeptical of Russigate. For over a year now the MSM have breathlessly
published a steady stream of "evidence" only to have it fall apart. When "progressive
skeptics" point this out they're accused of going too far? I think we can all assume the
Russian government hasn't been sleeping through the relentless pressure put on it by the
West, but hasnt it been obvious that Russiagate is a politically motivated project?
Toward the end of the book Shattered , there's a passage describing how the
Russia! Russia! Russia! narrative was planned. This happened in a room full of Shake Shack
containers and it involved people from the Clinton campaign.
"It's not a surprise that neo-Nazi groups and white supremacy groups have identified
Russia as one of their key allies, in part because Russia is home to so many white people,
and that the Putin government has identified these movements of key allies as well."
This is an absolutely ridiculous statement. The Russian Federation is very much against
neo-Nazi and white supremacy movements due to what it suffered from Nazi Germany during WWII.
Now Russia sees this on it's boarders in Ukraine. But Russia is branded with this because
white folk live there. What about all the Muslims in Russia, many of which have come from
Central Asia? What about all the Asians in Eastern Russia? The quoted statement is born of
either ignorance, misinformation or disinformation.
The 'net says there are maybe 40,000 "blacks" living in Russia. Also reports a wide
variety of experiences and opinions on what it's like to be a black (actually, of course,
various shades of skin tones from dark olive to golden russety shades of brown, to near
obsidian with hints of blue, but lumped together as "black," like I am a "white" even though
my skin tones range from pinky yellow [soles and palms] to a light tannish cream [most of the
rest]), living and traveling in Russia. One bit of the discourse:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/15/black-in-the-ussr-whats-life-like-for-a-russian-of-colour
I'm reminded of Dick Gregory's observation on America, that as to whites and blacks, "Down
South, they don't care how close you (African-Americans) get, as long as you don't get too
big. Up North, they don't care how big you get, as long as you don't get too close."
Russia is a big place, with some 143 million people living within the geographic
boundaries. Nativism and related notions seem present in any population anywhere, whether
deeply held convictions or convenient ladder rungs to political and economic power. It's so
hard to develop any completeness and accuracy in understanding what's really shakin' and
doin' in the world when people revert to simplisticated personifications as actual important
functional categories. "Russia" is getting the full treatment. Too bad us USians don't use
the same lenses and mirrors to examine our own linty navels
Absolutely right. Russia's dead in WW2 – 20 million (*) is the accepted estimate. I don't think any
other nation suffered as badly (+). If anyone on earth knows the evil consequences of
fascism, neo-Nazism, racial purism the Russians do. That one single line in Feffer's argument comes squeaky close to invalidating the whole
thing.
(*) Strictly the USSR.
(+) Query: Maybe the brutality of the Japanese invasion of Manchuria ?
It is estimated that the total deaths in the Soviet Union under Stalin range from 9 to 50
million (book-keeping was their forte), including famines but not including death by the
Germans.
Mao's policies are believed to have resulted in 40 to 70 million deaths in China.
Not really. The German sympathizers and later defectors who just wanted out couldn't all
claim to be rocket scientists. A factory worker who just wanted to drive a big car and live
in McClean has to come up with a story worth paying for.
There was a cottage industry of tall tales for Stalin's personal use/entertainment. I
don't think the later defectors are an issue, but powerful people helped facilitate the
arrival of too many people with missing records and German accents who weren't in a rush to
go to Israel to not be a political problem.
The former Canadian foreign minister's grandfather was a collaborator. How did he get to
the West? He probably told a tall enough tale. Someone could make their career with that kind
of information coup. What happens if its discovered it was a run of the mill Nazi that was
helped by a now powerful person?
The U.S. actually sent out people to look for Hitler in South America, not escaped war
criminals but Adolph, himself. The U.S. is a paranoid society. Someone was giving tips, and
reason would pretty much dictate the Soviets weren't stopping until they finished the
job.
Its similar to how many people Caesar killed in Gaul, not that he didn't kill a great deal
of people, but after a while, it comes back to there not being that many people.
Here is a Rigorous Intuition post about the CIA's importation of Nazis into post WWII
America . . . . more about the reasons for it than a lot of details about the whole scope of
all the operations . . . all the ratlines, all the paperclips, all the etc.
And here is another, this one about Allen Dulles's persistent sympathy for German Fascism
with perhaps a little of the smelliest Nazism pressure-washed off of it. It talks about his
negotations through various go-betweens with German interlocutors during the early WWII
period.
A combination of ignorance and arrogance is annoying and more dangerous than Russian troll
farms. I can't believe his stupidity about Russians being Nazis. And of Putin being an
Imperialist. If you read Putin's speeches, he is very much a nationalist or patriot. The Bear
is in defense mode and trying to protect its huge borders. Putin' s Speech to the UN in 2015
was about "sovereign democracy" i.e. self -determination of a nation. He said they learned
from the USSR that you can't and shouldn't spread ideology. Feffer could have a permanent gig
on Morning Joe for all the "bafflegab" he spouts.
It's not a particularly well-supported or well-worded statement but it's not ridiculous
nor is it without merit. Muslims are a minority group in Russia and not a very popular one.
Some particularly barbarous acts of terrorism by various aggrieved groups has done nothing to
improve their standing in Russian society. Vladimir Putin's government has actively
cultivated various domestic ethno-nationalist astro-turf movements with fascist predilections
for some time. It is believed that Putin sees these groups as a bulwark against liberal,
western ideology that can be weaponized as CIA sponsored color revolutions or MeToo# type
identity politic movements. Knowing what I know about the United States and post-Cold War US
political meddling, I can't say I blame Putin for wanting a bulwark.
I remember years ago watching a documentary about a state-funded ultra-nationalist Putin
youth group called "Nashi". They staged pro-Putin rallies, hosted summer camps and would
organize free skin-head metal concerts with complimentary vodka and private tents for
appropriately "Russian" ( not muslim and definitely not brown) couples to patriotically
procreate in the service of the fatherland. You can call these state-sponsored groups of
young Russian ethno-nationalists whatever you want, but neo-nazi doesn't seem too unfair if
you're familiar with the ideological history and psychological undercurrents of National
Socialism.
I don't believe Russia hacked any DNC servers, hijacked our elections or flipped any
votes, but I don't doubt for a minute that Russia is actively sowing discord and
disinformation among the American body politic. I believe the ultimate goal is the political
disintegration, or at least paralysis of the United States as payback for the disintegration
of the USSR and Warsaw Pact. I've heard Putin make sly statements over the years where if you
read between the lines this goal is discernible through his thinly veiled remarks and his
smoldering anger at the US for it's continued aggression against Russian influence and
territory post-1989. Years before the 2016 election I remember reading reporting of how the
modern Texas secessionist movement was nothing more than Moscow funded astro-turf. I have no
doubts the "Cal-Exit" campaign that sprung up right after the election (and ironically
supported by the exact same people most worried about Russian influence) was chiefly
organized and funded by professional Russian propagandists as well.
I don't believe the hysterical, McCarthyist media narrative concerning the election and
Russia, but I am also skeptical of absolutist, overarching narratives to the contrary. Putin
is no dummy, he's not a pacifist, and he definitely views the US as a threat/adversary. None
of that means Russian needs to be treated as an enemy or that diplomacy could not result in a
mutually beneficial accommodation for both countries. The world is complicated and becoming
emotionally invested in overly simplistic narratives, even contrarian ones, is unwise.
my major concern is its support for far right-wing nationalist and frankly,
racist movements around the world, including here in the United States.
What does he think Ms. Nuland and her friends were up to in Ukraine? Other than a few bits like that, Feffer does seem to be at least somewhat grounded in
reality (contrast his comments with the quote from Dan Coats). He thinks Russiagate had
little to do with Trump, for example, and was just targeted at spreading confusion in
general. That alone would get him branded as a heretic by the true believers.
I quit reading shortly after that. TV/Video is just awful at policy discussions. The
stupid factoid barrages. I feel dumber just for reading this conversation, I suppose that's
the point.
Great examples of how to fill up newspaper columns without doing any real reporting and
without rocking any important boats.
Also, from 2013:
For decades, a so-called anti-propaganda law prevented the U.S. government's mammoth
broadcasting arm from delivering programming to American audiences. But on July 2, that came
silently to an end with the implementation of a new reform passed in January. The result: an
unleashing of thousands of hours per week of government-funded radio and TV programs for
domestic U.S. consumption in a reform initially criticized as a green light for U.S. domestic
propaganda efforts.
I just started a website to organize all these scattered articles I read on the various
sites I visit I need to find where I put the link to an article that outlines the planting of
CIA paid journalist in major newspapers
Given the "resistance" and other self-described "progressive" voices who have lost their
minds over the election of Donald Trump, one should not be surprised by Feffer's credulity.
He may do a better job at hiding it, with his oh-so-civil language, but the desperation
coming from partisan believers, who rightly see Trump as dangerous but refuse to go after him
for real reasons (first-strike policy in retaliation for cyber attacks, for instance –
has a single Democrat gone on record saying how utterly wrong that is? Oh wait, didn't
Hillary herself campaign on refusing to rule out the first strike option?) is palpable.
And who can blame them for being desperate?
But I find the notion that Russian "meddling" successfully increased the amount of discord
among USians to be.ridiculous. We don't need any help from Russia to be dissatisfied with our
polity and the false choices it constantly gives us.
Mate was far too kind. Some people and some ideas don't deserve the benefit of rational
debate.
The "#TheResistance" don't care about Trump's genuine dangers. They care about how he
prevented their Jonestown Priestess Clinton from getting coronated Empress as they were all
expecting.
There are millions and millions of Jonestown Clintonites. They are a deadly threat and a
menace to political improvement in this country. You can get a sample of what they smell like
by reading Riverdaughter's blog "The Confluence" and its threads. Put your nose close to the
screen and you can smell the Jonestown Punch.
Not since German security services sent VI Lenin back on a sealed train to Petrograd, has
one nation fractured the politics of another with cynical support for the deranged.
Nice. If the Russian Empire wasn't on the verge of falling apart, it wouldn't have taken
the one Lenin domino to topple it all. If the US is on the verge of falling apart people will
be blamed, but not the American people, the people who are actually responsible for this
sociopathy.
Caitlin Johnstone made a three-part Debunking Russiagate series back in June 2017. Here
are all three. I think they hold up pretty well. (They were noted at NC.)
.From the outside, Americans screaming about this look like a bully screaming, "How dare
you do to me what I do to everyone else. I'm going to bury you!" This does not induce sympathy.
Still, we can make a strong case that countries shouldn't interfere in other countries'
internal political affairs, including–especially including–elections.
I think that the Russians might be willing to agree to that.
So the sane method of dealing with this issue, to which which virtually everyone will
agree, would be to begin negotiations towards that end.
Americans and Russians get together and have frank talks, which amount to a peace
treaty: We won't do it to you, if you don't do it to us.
They might even extend that to not doing it to other countries.
This is the actual road out, though it seems laughable because it's really impossible to
imagine. Both the US and Russia have been interfering in many countries for a long time,
though America is the champion of the last 30 years or so, and by a wide margin.
Russia has been arguing for just that -- a cyberwar peace treaty -- for almost a decade
now. Here's a 2009 write-up , which is really
quite interesting in a hindsight-y way.
"We really believe it's defense, defense, defense," said the State Department official,
who asked not to be identified because authorization had not been given to speak on the
record. "They [the Russians] want to constrain offense. We needed to be able to
criminalize these horrible 50,000 attacks we were getting a day."
I find the narrative that's been put forward to be honestly more convincing than the
counter narrative
We're supposed to be convinced because he's convinced. It's a gut feeling. Appeals to
actual evidence bounce right off. Guess I don't get out much but had to look up who John
Feffer even is.
The latest M of A–linked here the other day–is a great takedown of Mueller's
troll farm allegation. Some of us prefer a little evidence prior to being "convinced."
Russia is Soros' white whale a creature he has been trying to capture and kill-off for
nearly a decade.
Unfortunately for Soros (and fortunately for the entire planet) the Russian government
realised the cancerous nature of Soros backed NGOs, and took the proper preventative
measures which in hindsight, and after reviewing the DC Leaks memos, proved to be a very
wise move.
Crowdstrike is the only source of evidence of Russian hacking of DNC. And Crowdstrike
had to walk it back when they used the exact same evidence to claim that Russia had hacked
Ukraine's artillery. That is likely why DNC refused to let FBI run forensics on their
servers.
Feffer claims to oppose Cold War II, but is actively promoting it. Russiagate is being
used to silence progressives. Note that both Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein are named in
Mueller's indictment as beneficiaries of the alleged "Russian meddling" in our election.
BTW: Feffer is a Fellow at Open Society, a NGO financed by George Soros who also funds the
Atlantic Council, whose board includes the owner of Crowdstrike. So Feffer and Crowdstrike
are both funded by the same oligarch.
The Soviets and now the Russians have been messing about with the US for 70 years. Nothing
new about it. Read "The Sword and the Shield" which is sourced from the KGB archives when
they were briefly opened to the west after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Things are just easier now than then. "The World Was Going Our Way: The KGB and the Battle
for the the Third World" is also sourced from the KGB archives has details about what they
did then.
The US messed with the Soviet Union and Russia when they could. See the stories about
Yeltsin's reelection. Or the Ukraine in 2014.
this was reportedly a commercial venture. still awaiting evidence that the election was in
any way affected by some online scam that may have originated in russia. the us has
interfered, as you point out, much more effectively in russia. other countries do it to us,
but there is no evidence that russia effected clinton's loss to trump, or colluded in
effecting it.
A commercial venture, as opposed to David Brock's pro-Clinton paid trolls which was
definitely not a commercial venture and designed solely to influence the election. Also
illegal by the way but he's a Murican so who cares?
This is the mental equivalent of the sunk cost fallacy. At this point the media, the Dems
and legions of David Brock led trolls have invested so much time and energy into "Muh Russia"
that they can't write off their investment.
Keep going. You're doing fine. It's down there somewhere. You can endure another season of
Persist, the payoff is right around the corner. There is nothing more important right now
than ignoring inconvenient facts.
I might suggest that things would go faster if you give up just a little more of your
critical thinking skills. To be honest they just get in the way at times like these when the
narrative gets tenuous.
No one outside of the Dem party faithful really cares about the Russiagate nonsense. The
rest of the world has watched the US meddle in and outright rig elections in more countries
than I have the time to list for decades, a list with very ironically includes Russia in
1996. If a troll factory is the best they have, it's a straight up joke. They better have
more to go along with it, because as it stands now buying a few ads and paying people to post
online, standard PR practice, is incredibly weak. At this stage in the game, it feels kind of
pathetic, an attempt by a party elite still unable to admit they lost, grasping at straws and
still in this late hour desperately trying to make it seem like Hillary was the rightful
winner.
It also, not coincidentally, works to taint the criticism of anyone, right or left, who
disagrees. Not only that, it further casts doubt on all news sources which aren't the
Democrat party approved corporate sources, another bonus. One could make a good case this was
the goal all along: absolve themselves for bungling the 2016 election and discredit any
information sources they don't control lock, stock, and barrel.
'The rest of the world has watched the US meddle in and outright rig elections in more
countries than I have the time to list.'
Not only has the US been hollering "regime change" since the infamous neocon Project for a
New American Century began in 1997, it actually invaded and plundered several countries --
Iraq, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan -- for the express purpose of replacing their governments
with US-backed ones.
Check out ex-CIA douchebag James Woolsey making weird barnyard noises when MSM anchorette
Laura Ingraham asks him whether "we" still meddle in other countries' elections, before
admitting on the record that it's "only for a very good cause" [yuk, yuk]
With waving arms and hair on fire, Rep. Jerrold Nadler claimed on MSNBC that the Russian
troll farm is "the equivalent of Pearl Harbor." If special snowflake America's democracy is
so fragile that a bunch of amateurish Boris & Natasha trolls can bring it down, then
let it bleed [and share the Stoli, comrades].
" If special snowflake America's democracy is so fragile that a bunch of amateurish Boris
& Natasha trolls can bring it down, then let it bleed [and share the Stoli,
comrades]."
Your second paragraph is I think all that matters at this point. The Russian trolls (who
are probably still active online, albeit with less vigor) are pikers compared to the native
manipulators who swarm the 'liberal' ring of our 2-ring media circus. The latter are devoted
to squelching dissent, and unconcerned about sounding like idiots while they do it. Of course
the only people they are aiming to shame are waverers on their 'own side'. Republican flyover
types are unpeople in their eyes; their target audience is pretty select -- mainly those who
don't want to be out of place among the youthful hipster elite. I.e. former Sanderistas who
might pay attention to establishment Democrat perfidy if the noise machine stops howling for
a second.
I'd love to know where these frantic fellows were when the New York Times comments
sections were overtaken by Correct the Record trolls 2 years ago. That Brockian anti-Sanders
effort was more effective and Orwellian than anything they've since tagged as
Russia-generated. So much of the furor now seems to be coming from men who fear they may be
getting bested at their own game!
"Tainting the criticism" of anyone who disagrees is the primary mid-range goal of the
Russiagate Information Operation. The long range goal is to pass Patriot Act type laws to
suppress and control all expression on all media; digital, analog or other.
feffer keeps saying "who hacked the dnc" but there is no evidence anybody did. it's like
the repeated assertions made about saddam's "wmd's" in the runup to iraq 2.
Timestamps on the DNC data show the files were copied locally, not over a network. That
means they were leaked. Not hacked. Leaked by someone with physical access to the data. This
came out
back in July . Maybe Mate isn't "convinced" but I haven't seen anything, ever, that
convincingly refutes the analysis.
So if someone wants me to believe in Russiagate they need to show me some damn evidence.
I'm not going to believe something simply because every flexian apparatchik in the press
parrots it 24/7 (90% of whom were in the tank for Hillary and personally devastated when she
lost and more than happy to blame evil foreigners for how they called the election wrong).
What we're seeing is a serious mental breakdown on the part of Democrats. What happened to
these people? Back when GWB was in office they were supposedly the party of reality, the
rational people who didn't make things up to justify a convenient war. It appears that only
lasted as long as elections went in their favor. Now we see them for the dishonest hysterical
fantasists they really are. Just like Republicans.
So where does that leave us? At the dawn of a Second Cold War with a psychopathic party on
either side. Well, that's just awesome.
How do we know that the time stamps where created on the DNC's computer and not some other
computer later on? It's easy to change the date backwards and make those time stamps be
anything.
I had occasion to view a Podesta email recently:
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/11409 Big banner across the top: This email has also been verified by Google DKIM 2048-bit RSA key. Like a blockchain transaction, this DKIM algo was designed to prove cryptographically that
you are viewing what existed when the user clicked send.
Click on the DKIM link in that banner for a full explanation.
Domain Keys Identified Mail, or DKIM, is a highly regarded email security system that can
be used to independently authenticate the contents and sender of an email that uses
it.
Some folks just can't keep themselves from pushing the Narrative. I wonder how many of
those people have been involved in "interfering with elections," as part of the Great
American Enterprise
Yves Smith: You yourself have written that extraordinary claims require extraordinary
evidence. What we are getting is flimsy hearsay and calls for war. It is all Remember the
Maine (and don't remember that the Democrats, in particular, brought this on themselves).
Feffer's typical in not being able to keep control of the simplest of facts:
"It's not a surprise that neo-Nazi groups and white supremacy groups have identified Russia
as one of their key allies, in part because Russia is home to so many white people, and that
the Putin government has identified these movements of key allies as well."
So now Russia is the international source of white people? What can this possibly mean?
And don't tell the Volga Tatars or the Mari or the Yakuts or any of the many peoples who
aren't "white" by U.S. standards. (Many of the Mari are among the last pagan Europeans.) The
comment is worthy of Sarah Palin, well-known foreign-policy expert and Chunky Monkey shoes
fancier.
I am reminded of the Watergate crisis. By all means, let's have indictments for real
crimes (besides lying to the FBI) of people who are living within American jurisdictions or
can be extradited. Then have a trial(s) with a judge of the quality of John Sirica.
But that isn't what the powerful want, particularly because establishment figures soon
will be dragged in. They want confrontation, more looting, and more war. And if we are all
suddenly worried about Putin being morally stinky, what should we do with Erdogan, Netanyahu,
Viktor Orban of Hungary, Brazilian President Temer, and Aung San Suu Kyi, all of whom are
considered "friends" of the U S of A?
And as to sowing discord: Someone should have noticed that 50 years ago with Nixon and the
Southern Strategy.
Seems to me that Maté did just fine. I'm not sure of what else you can do with
someone like Feffer. When presented with good reasons for doubting his purported evidence,
Feffer pretty much concedes the point every time. But then he insists that he finds the
evidence convincing. In other words, he insists that he's going to go on treating it as good
evidence, drawing the relevant conclusions, and asserting as much. That means he's a gullible
person, and rather dogmatic to boot. Arguing with such people won't get you very far.
I did find Feffer's repeated demand for a counter-narrative interesting. This seems to be
a way of simultaneously lowering the bar for knowledge and raising the bar for doubt. He's
trying to say that doubt is only reasonable if the skeptic can produce a better theory than
the believer. Absent such a theory, doubt isn't reasonable and everyone should believe. In
other words, having conceded that the evidence isn't very good by ordinary epistemic
standards, he's decided to switch to extra-ordinary standards. Roughly, I think the ordinary
standard for doubt goes something like this: I can correctly say I doubt something when I can
explain why the supposed evidence doesn't provide sufficient support for the claim in
question. I'm not required, as a skeptic, to produce a superior argument for a different,
incompatible claim about the same issue.
And now, having written that, it looks to me like Feffer is just engaging in a bit of
argumentum ad ignorantium , a fallacy so old they named it in Latin.
The counter-narrative, IMO, is this: The avaricious and foolhardy Trump wanted to build
more onanistic monuments to himself in Moscow, to slurp oysters there and cavort with Russian
women. He threatened to upset decades of planning by both Dems and Republicans alike to
encircle Russia, expand NATO, and SELL BILLIONS AND BILLIONS WORTH OF ARMS, often to
dictators, with kickbacks on the side (legal and illegal) to ours truly. The powers that be
in the CIA and FBI decided that intervention was needed, even if the cost was democracy
itself. Trump has enough irons in the fire with Russia, enough outstanding loans and dirty
dealings, that such a clear-eyed narrative may never get its head above water, but that is as
close as we may come to nutshelling it.
"That means he's a gullible person, and rather dogmatic to boot. Arguing with such people
won't get you very far."
Which also means, surely, that his demand that others who refuse to endorse his gullible
dogmatism must meet "extra-ordinary epistemic demands" is – at best – mere
sounding off. For who could be a worse pick for assessing both the required standards and
their being met?
I think the kindest thing to say here, epistemically, is that the man is in a terrible
mess. It is a sad thing to see. But then there are a lot of sad things to see in the
"progressive reality-based community" today.
Makes me wonder what's to be done about it. When I hit upon the idea that he's just
arguing from ignorance, I started thinking about informal logic courses, the ones called
Critical Thinking hereabouts. Perhaps more of those would help.
By the way, I was talking with a colleague who does Ancient yesterday, specifically the
philosophy of Socrates, and I mentioned the question you raised about the Noble Lie. He told
me that it's quite similar to a myth recounted by Hesiod. That was news to me. He also said
that Greek colonists, prior to departure, would settle on a constitution for the new city
together with a founding myth. As for the bit about the whole of one's childhood having been
a dream, he guessed that this was a story that was intended to be told repeatedly, to
successive generations. Now, the first generation was unlikely to believe, granted. But later
generations would believe it of the first , the founding generation. He noted that this would
be quite similar to what a number of native American peoples believed about the first of
their kind. Oh, and one more thing occurred to me: earth mother goddess myths were common to
the region back then, dating back at least to the Minoan civilization. Altogether, to me this
makes the Myth of Metals seem a good deal more plausible relative to the people for whom it
was intended.
This also makes me think that education in the humanities could be part of the solution to
widespread credulity and dogmatism. Studying Plato can, for instance, inoculate against myth,
something which is still with us. Knowing myth when you see it, it's possible to appreciate
it without being taken in. There's much to be gained, too, from thinking like Thucydides from
time to time. It's good to recall that both Sparta and Athens claimed to be fighting for
freedom. And every time I hear about how we're going to use better, more powerful tools to
finally vanquish the things we find most threatening, whether those things are "enemy" states
or tactics (terrorism) or catastrophic ecological processes that we have ourselves set in
motion, I can't help but recall Lucretius' account of what happened when bulls and boars and
lions were trained up for war and loosed upon the enemy. "Don't believe what I've just told
you about all this," he says, "for no one would be so foolish as to think they could ever
really control such beasts." I don't often use the word, but there's wisdom here, or so it
seems to me. We'd profit from knowing it. But, by and large, we don't.
If I take my young kids and have an easter egg hunt with those plastic eggs and tell them
that there's candy inside, and they keep finding them, opening them and there's just candy
wrappers with no candy, then my kids are going to quickly grow tired of looking for the eggs
since they're not delivering the promised candy.
This is what Russiagate feels like. We keep finding eggs, getting excited, then, no candy.
But we're told to keep at it .eventually SOME of those eggs will have some candy. Other
people who are really good at finding eggs have said they found some eggs with candy in them,
even though we know they're habitual liars.
Feffer and the others who believe in this story are going to need some SERIOUS F-ING CANDY
at this point to justify this unshakable belief they have that THERE IS CANDY SOMEWHERE IN
THESE STUPID, PLASTIC EASTER EGGS!?!?!?!
It reminds me of that iceberg that broke off Antarctica last year. The enormity and extent
of the hypocrisy and global delusion it represents.
If anyone wants to understand the level of breakdown, consider the amount of debt being
issued today. That is the real source of cognitive dissonance.
I certainly agree. When politics gets this chaotic and confusing there is some far more
important hidden agenda being guarded by a "bodyguard of lies." The turn of this century will
go down in history as the beginning of the energy wars. When the stakes are this high
everybody pretends to be innocent. My knowledge is scant – I assume Russia's lifeblood
is natural gas and LNG and they want to sell it to Europe. We claim Europe as our URally and
do not want this to happen. Unless we can strong arm our way into some of the action. To that
end we have been pushing US natural gas/LNG exports regardless of the expense and short
returns of fracking. The dead silence on global warming and the energy crisis should be the
first give-away.
A hugely important point which is seldom ever if ever covered in the media here (umm
scratching his head, I wonder if it could be for any particular reason) -- Europe is highly
dependent on natural gas from Russia. We're forecast to have a
big, late cold sna p and suddenly everyone starts getting a little twitchy about energy
security.
Of course, us gas consumers here (well, our governments, anyway) resent their dependence
and the self-loathing which it engenders. But that dependence in fact increases geopolitical
security because neither "side" wants to do anything which upsets the energy apple cart.
Shale gas and LNG exports from the US threatens this equilibrium. But there's no economic
(cost of production) advantage for US shale gas over pipeable Russian gas. Wouldn't it be
nice for the US shale gas industry if, oh, I don't know, there were some shenanigans which
gave a voice to anti-Russia sentiment and a clamour for, maybe eventually, economic
sanctions?
And during the last cold snap in the US, several tankers full of Russian LNG made port
here to make up a shortage. So, having prohibited Europe from buying Russian gas in favor of
importing the US version, we ended up not having enough for our own people and got it from
Russia.
>We have the report from the intelligence community here in the United States that
provides at least a trail. It's been challenged, but I find the narrative that's been put
forward to be honestly more convincing than the counter narrative.
I agree that the 'Russia hacked the DNC' theory is more likely to be true than
any other individual theory, although there still isn't any hard proof available to the
public. But that's hardly a good defense of 'Russiagate'. Not having a better suspect isn't
really a justification for sanctioning Russia (or more, if the Russiagaters get their
way).
I disagree that the report provides a trail. It lists a number of APTs that conducted the
hacking, and states that they are tied to Russia. However, it provides zero underlying
evidence that the hacking was conducted by those APTs, and that they were related to Russia
in any way.
Another possibility is that, yes, Russia did hack the DNC for intelligence-gathering
purposes, but didn't provide the emails to WikiLeaks. It's entirely possible that more than
one entity hacked into them (if anyone did at all). As flimsy as the narrative is with Russia
doing the hack, it's even thinner when it comes to transmitting the emails to Russia.
thanks for this summary. just more assertions sans evidence from the people that brought
you the iraq war (republicans and democrats, working together like the harlem
globetrotters and the washington (hmm) generals.
That's like saying the most popular theory is correct, on the basis that it's the most
popular. Truth doesn't work that way. Supply some evidence. Otherwise you're operating on the
basis of what feels true. "Truthiness", not truth.
Why did the FBI never examine the server?
Why do the timestamps show the data was copied locally by someone with physical access to the
machine?
Why did the NSA decline to back the whitepaper when we know they have every single network
intercept and can literally prove what happened?
All we have is a bunch of handwaving and people who don't know much about computers
repeating things they heard from people with a track record of lying.
I think it's worth looking at the Russia-gate believers, on this. If they all agreed on
one narrative, that'd be something, but they don't even agree among themselves, which I'd
argue is actually really problematic.
Marcy Wheeler says collusion is there, Steele doc is garbage, and the social media stuff
is just fluff. I think she says crowdstrike is garbage, too, but might have had some good
bits.
Some in corp media says Steele doc is unquestionably awesome and should be believed.
Cenk Uygur says it's not about the hacking of the DNC, it's about money-laundering and not
collusion to rig election.
Feffer says crowdstrike is legit report, even though they're Dem Party hack consultants.
Feffer also says Russia wants to sow discord and the social media stuff matters. He says
they're hacking European elections, too, even though those reports have been knocked down. He
also says Trump was an imperfect vehicle for Russia's agenda.
Luke Harding and Steele say Trump and Russia have been besties for years and planned this
all along.
I may be off on one or more of the details above, but all of these "serious" believers in
Russia-gate don't even agree with one another.
I'm growing increasingly tired of watching Aaron Mate disembowel these people one-by-one
but I'd agree it needs to be done because this story just .won't .go .away .
Climate change is real, but not caused by humans .not real ..real, but caused by solar
activity .real, but planet is getting colder and risking new ice age .maybe real, but don't
have enough evidence .
almost like it's an organized campaign to spread DIS-information?!?!?!?
If anyone has a fun link to someone trying to tackle where the secret volcanoes spewing
CO2 are, I'd appreciate it. Because it's become a meme-earworm to me: "Which
volcanoes?!?"
The people you've mentioned are not perfectly mainstream. At least they were not until
quite recently. They are members of the (formerly) 'left' wing blogosphere. A group that
contains many natural contrarians, who each have cultivated slightly different views of
things over the years.
Although they sure seem pretty lockstep now, on this matter, don't they? I suspect most of
them cannot not allow themselves to accept why it is that a skank like Trump was elected. The
'left' blogosphere was completely neutered over the past decade, and it's leading lights now
have little value to add to anyone's thinking on current affairs.
Feffer says that progressives don't take Russiagate as seriously as they should. I think
critical thinkers are taking it very seriously, because of potential censorship of dissenting
voices that favor peace over war, and that favor productive social spending over wasteful
military spending.
Even absent such concerns, the Russiagate hysteria is obviously a partisan power struggle
that sucks the air out of the room for productive political discourse to address real social,
economic, and environmental problems.
How seriously to take Russiagate is a separate question from skepticism over evidence we
have yet to be shown. The bigger question that Feffer doesn't address is "So what?" Even if
the facts stated in the 3-agency report and the DOJ indictment are true, do they really
justify all this hysteria?
If the Russian state is actually interfering in our elections, then quietly take measures
to stop it. Instead, over the past 15 years, the federal government has promoted hackable
computers and voting systems.
Moreover, even if the Russian state did interfere for geopolitical goals, treat it as the
actions of an adversary and quietly take countermeasures. This should not be a political
issue.
The Russiagate narrative has gone far beyond authentic reaction to Russia's actions, which
many experts such as Cohen and Mearsheimer consider to be reactions to NATO actions.
Feffer's concern is that Putin and Trump are colluding to promote white supremacy. That's
his big picture, and would be concerning if true. However, even if true that doesn't address
the concerns I raise above.
Would recommend a recently published book by investigative journalist, Michele McPhee: Maximum Harm: The Tsarnaev Brothers, the FBI, and the Road to the Marathon Bombing. Highly recommended
All good points, Dwight. We need to separate the discussion/investigation of Russian
influence from the ridiculous and dangerous hyperbolic reaction to it. We need to take steps
to make the election process fair and transparent and un-hackable as far as possible (paper
ballots, hand-counted) as much or more for domestic reasons. I care far more about
voter suppression (legal and illegal) and about domestic players monkeying around with
electronic voting systems than I care about a tiny amount of crude ads and trolling on social
media.
Democrats have just strangled the "Blue wave" in the cradle. Political tides are turning, and the Democratic Establishment is starting to feel the
pressure from Progressive primary challengers. And evidence is mounting that Progressives win
elections, even in "red districts" while corporate Democrats still manage to lose even in
blue ones. And on the horizon, is a Sanders run in 2020.
So, the 13 incitements, in addition to keeps the Russian narrative alive for another few
weeks, is providing political cover for the establishment to clean house as it were, and
clear out the Progressive infestation threatening to cripple the money train the
establishment has become accustomed too.
The "Do Russia-gate skeptics go too far" is a part of that narrative. Interesting to note
that "Russia-gate skeptics" don't actually get much air-time to challenge the narrative. So,
the notion that they have gone "too far" is a bit laudable. No, the point here is to justify
further squelching independent media and to silence the few individuals out there who still
dare to speak out over watercoolers.
Already, more assertive smears have been made against Jill Stine and Birney Sanders as
receiving "Russian aid" in their campaigns. The end game is to knock them out of the running
in 2020, justifying even more extreme steps.
Democratic Establishment being challenged in primaries will start to invoke a kind of
"don't change horses" privileges for their primaries in response to this new "9-11". They
might even go so far as to accuse the primary challengers as receiving "aid from Russia."
This will cripple their primary efforts. And failing that, justifies simply locking them out
of the primary all together in the name of "election integrity."
Their thinking is that if they lock out the progressives, then the establishment can rise
the wave for another cycle. But in so doing, they squelch the issues progressives are trying
to represent, and makes Russia-gate more prominent in the 2018 strategy.
It plays right into the hands of the Republicans. Giving them the intellectual high ground
when it comes to rallying around the president. While at the same time de-mobilizing the
progressive vote, ending the blue wave before it gets started.
The Dem-establishment are finished, they just don't know it yet. It's just a mater of time
before they fade away completely. What remains undecided is whether a progressive moment will
take their place, either by taking over the Democratic Party or forming a new third party to
take its place. Or weather America becomes a single party state under Republican Rule.
yes, i think it's a twofer, clean house in the democratic party to preserve their control
and maintain their grift, and support the neocons who haven't had enough wars lately.
The answer is to defeat every single mainstream Democrat in every single race, every
single time. Loss by loss, the Mainstream Democrats can be exterminated from political
existence.
The Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee helped fund research
that resulted in a now-famous dossier containing allegations about President Trump's
connections to Russia and possible coordination between his campaign and the Kremlin,
people familiar with the matter said.
How good were these sources? Consider what Steele would write in the memos he filed with
Simpson: Source A -- to use the careful nomenclature of his dossier -- was " a senior
Russian Foreign Ministry figure. " Source B was " a former top level intelligence
officer still active in the Kremlin. " And both of these insiders, after "speaking to a
trusted compatriot," would claim that the Kremlin had spent years getting its hooks into
Donald Trump.
The Washington-based Campaign Legal Center (CLC) said in a Wednesday complaint to the
Federal Election Commission (FEC) that Hillary for America and the Democratic National
Committee (DNC) broke campaign finance law by trying to hide payments related to the
dossier, which included graphic, unproven claims about the current president's sexual
habits.
The FBI last year used a dossier of allegations of Russian ties to Donald Trump's
campaign as part of the justification to win approval to secretly monitor a Trump
associate, according to US officials briefed on the investigation.
Thanks to the Podesta Emails available on Wikileaks, we can have a clear view of what
research and polling was done to try to come up with a good strategy for the Clinton
campaign.
Secretary Clinton's top vulnerability tested in this poll is the attack that claims as
Secretary of State she signed off on a deal that gave the Russian government control over
20% of America's uranium production, after investors in the deal donated over $140
million to the Clinton Foundation. Half of all likely voters (53%) are less likely to
support Clinton after hearing that statement and 17% are much less likely to support her
after that statement.
Before the Obama administration approved a controversial deal in 2010 giving Moscow
control of a large swath of American uranium, the FBI had gathered substantial evidence
that Russian nuclear industry officials were engaged in bribery, kickbacks, extortion and
money laundering designed to grow Vladimir Putin's atomic energy business inside the United
States, according to government documents and interviews.
The connections to the current Russia case are many. The Mikerin probe began in 2009
when Robert Mueller , now the special counsel in charge of the Trump case, was still
FBI director. And it ended in late 2015 under the direction of then-FBI Director James
Comey , whom Trump fired earlier this year.
I found the intelligence agency report on the DNC hacking to be rather flimsy. I think the
tell for me was that roughly half of it consisted of some very generic, boilerplate
cybersecurity tips – the kind that you'll find in your agency's annual security
refresher training. The only thing that would've made it more obvious, I think, is if they
had changed around the font size and margins, in order to drive up the page count. What does
that say about their confidence in the rest of the report, that they felt the need to add
fluff to it?
You have no chain of evidence to convict anyone in a court of law for the hack. The FBI
was called in months later, and the already deemed guilty party just so happened to collude
with her election opponent.
I often get called a supporter of "fake news" for ignoring any and all reports on Russian
election interference and Russian twitter bots as profoundly not interesting or important. No
evidence has ever surfaced that votes were changed, fabricated or deleted. The electoral
process itself was untouched. The candidates were not bribed (for a given value of 'bribed'
-- i.e. 'quid pro quo'). Thus, there was no interference.
I was especially ridiculed for claiming that the recent four-alarm fire at Wired
about Russian Twitter posts following the Parkland school shooting was crisis exploitation at
its most disgusting. I do not dispute that posts by Russian government employees exist. I
just fail to see them as a threat or even a meaningful fact to report about.
Why would Putin prefer Trump to Clinton? SABOTAGE.
The term sabotage derives from the practice of throwing "sabots" (clogs) into machines to
break them. It's Luddites 101. Tossing Trump into the machinery of Democracy has clearly
achieved precisely the same thing. Since Trump, many headlines continue to assert that
democracy in the USA is broken.
To Putin, the beauty of it is that he did it so easily and for so little money.
clinton sabotaging the primaries broke our democracy, and so did the supreme ct in
citizens united. are the justices and clinton controlled by putin, too? i understand clinton
has a higher price tag than the average russian troll.
Yeah, sorry, but if we lost our 'democracy', we lost it some good number of years before
Trump. Perhaps when George W Bush beat Gore, if not before that. Trump is just the latest
right wing sh*tlord president we have had in succession, including supposed leftists Obama
and Clinton. The only reason Democrats hate Trump more than they hated Bush (whose image by
the way has since been rehabilitated by the Democratic establishment!) is that he is rude and
goes against social norms.
Also, do you really think a few hundred thousand dollars worth of shitty advertisements
comparing Hillary to the Devil is really enough to actually affect the election in any
significant way?
yeah love it when shrub is now getting brought back into the fold, assuming their disdain
for him ever was real. and ronnie was often complimented by obama.
The extent of the hysteria is mind boggling-do people believe this? another pearl harbor,
worst atk sincie 9-11?
The head of these 13 people, yes just 13, was a former hot dog vendor in St Pete. The $1.2
mil also covered ads to internal Russian markets. Moon over alabama says it was a commercial
exercise-VP of Facbook says most ot the russian sourced ads were place after the
election.
i agree with kuntzler that the us has collectively lost its mind-it really is beyond
hysteria, it goes to "can you top this." I think "worst atk since 9-11" gets us close to the
top but I have never credited scarborough with any ability to think-just keep repeated the
mantra. I do not know where this will wind up but clearly the neo cons have won big time and
america has embarassed itself beyond what anyone could conceiveably imagine. I hold my head
and try not to completely dispair.
It's the blatant in your face lies and it's the ludicrousness of the lies. I recently saw
Dr.Strangelove at the theater, and what do you do when confronted with people who are crazed
or possessed by something? To say things in all seriousness that would make you spit your
drink out in laughter. There's got to be something going on for this many people in "serious"
media outlets to be saying the most lunatic and bizarre things in unison.
i'm afraid it's a push for another war, syria, iran, russia, you name it. it's just about
as bad as the extended propaganda campaign before we attacked iraq for nonexistent (and very
obviously nonexistent, as hans blix and mohammed elbarridei shot down each and every report
of wmd's) weapons. i just hope and pray to the gods of randomness that this one doesn't work
as well.
A few thoughts: Cord cutting. Who watches cable news? In the end people who are older and
towards the more comfortable end of the spectrum, the last eight or sixteen years, weren't
terrible. Trump might be more upsetting to them that the Iraq War, hence the new found
admiration for Shrub.
We should remember the rightward shift of the media in the 90's to chase after the
audience being lost to cable news and talk radio. Rush harped endlessly on the liberal media.
It was grossly inaccurate, but newspapers shifted right in response as conservatives stopped
buying newspapers.
Who is the most likely to be a cable news viewer of the next few years? A kid who went to
an Occupy rally? No, I don't think so. The networks have been furiously fear mongering to
keep the election viewership watching because in the long term they won't pick up new people.
After all, what does Maddow do in an hour (imagine she never went full Glenn Beck) that you
couldn't read in under five minutes? They are pulling out all of FoxNews tricks to win old
people over. Look at the graphics on MSNBC and CNN. In years past, the three cable networks
had different acts, but they look almost interchangeable. Everything, even opinion pieces,
get the "breaking news" chyron. Turn on MSNBC. I guarantee you, you will see "breaking news"
in a frightening form over something entirely trivial.
Senior citizens viewership. Anathema to advertisers. Seniors even the ones with money
already have loyalty to brands. Ads are a waste on them.
Then of course, there is the basic problem with "access journalism." The msm "press"
revolves around the need for "interviews" and access to subjects. For example, Trump and the
NYT have the strangest relationship. The snipe at each other non-stop, and then hold weird
public love fests when Trump does an interview. Instead of "following the money," the media
looks for Deep Throat to provide answers. The Bush and Clinton courtiers dominate Washington
(Obama just kept whoever was around in power), but going forward, what good is a useless
Clinton lackey to a corporate board? A Bush family endorsement? They are still in Washington,
but they desperately need for the paymasters to believe the Clinton/Bush apparatus are still
marketable. They provide the press with a story, and their story of "OMG Russia" excuses
their own losses. Lets not forget $125 million Jeb lit on fire and promises of how Trump
couldn't down to Bush Country and defeat Jeb after the Southern Dandy's endorsement in
SC.
At the end of the day, it still goes back to "What Happened?" The political elites in this
country are so effed up that they allowed Jeb vs. Hillary to be a real possibility. The
future of the GOP is a clownshow, and the Democrats have Bernie Sanders and a drooling
Kennedy or whoever their desperate attempt to block a candidate having to make promises is.
Who is at fault? It can't be "Mother." It can't be people with fancy titles. No, its
foreigners.
To cap things off, CNN, yes that CNN, dispatched one of their reporters to St Pete to go
through the garbage of the troll farm; he tried to enter the building and was asked to
leave.
I think the most recent Mueller indictments are more dangerous than many people realize.
Claims that Bernie was supported by 'Russian bots' in the primaries are already being used
against him. Assuming most Democratic primary voters still believe in Russiagate in 2020, it
would be very easy for Trump to use the Russia conspiracy against Bernie or another
progressive that had a good chance of beating him. His intel heads are all Russia hawks who
have vowed to help prevent 'Russian interference in our elections'. There's guaranteed to be
at least a few Russian internet trolls supporting the campaign, or some minor official with
some vague connection to Russia, so all they have to do is open an investigation, and leak
that investigation to the press.
I was just at a talk and Q&A session given by NH senior Sen. Jeanne Shaheen. There
will be an article in the local paper tomorrow that I'll post, but in the meantime I will do
my best to write up the highlights here today, so please bear with me. I was scribbling
furiously. Unfortunately it was not videotaped.
She gave a 15-20 minute talk at a podium and then the rest was Q&A with the crowd and
a professor moderated it. There were 168 chairs set out but from a quick head count only a
little over 100 people attended- most were retirees, and then students made up the rest. It
was at 11am, so not a very good time of day for normal people.
Okay so for her talk: she said she looks at the cybersecurity threat through a lens of
global security, and that the Kremlin has used these tactics versus Ukraine and in the lead
up to Brexit. She said this isn't a new Cold War because technology has rendered countries
borderless, and only recently has the US become aware that it's been targeted by
cyberattacks, especially spread through social media. She said our efforts in Syria were
damaged by these cyberattacks. She kept mentioning Kaspersky over and over again, how he's a
major buddy of Putin and does his bidding, said Kaspersky Labs is Kremlin-linked, and that
under Russian law it is required to have all servers located in Moscow available/all info
shared with the FSB. She used the term "Russia's hybrid warfare" at least a few times, and
said that our government has to "protect Americans from threats". She wants to establish a
clear command structure for cybersecurity at the federal government level. And that it's
crucial for younger generations to be taught how to identify fake news and
disinformation.
She thinks Putin is doing this to manipulate our open media in order to turn Americans
against each other, and reiterated that all 17 intel agencies have incontrovertible evidence
of Russian interference. She brought up that Dan Coates repeated Pompeo's statement that the
US is under attack. Sanctions against Russia were brought up and she repeated how the bill
was bipartisan, and it sends a strong message to the Kremlin and that Trump won't okay these
sanctions. She said there have been partisan attacks on Mueller, the DoJ, and FBI in order to
undermine the investigations, and that this would help achieve the Kremlin's goal of turning
Americans against each other. She said elections here in the US and "all across Europe" have
been threatened.
The "misleading" Nunez memo was mentioned and she said trolls and bots using facebord and
twitter led to its release, that the Russians are pushing the deep state narrative along with
anti-Obama messages in order to enflame social divisions in the US, and that the Russians are
pushing messaging about Ukraine and Syria. She said "a hostile foreign power interfered in
our election", that the Russians are trying to undermine American democracy, that we have to
fight back because "It's about Patriotism"(yeah, she actually said this-it was all I could do
to not throw up at that point), and how important the independence of the FBI is and that the
Mueller MUST be allowed to complete his investigation. She said the US is being eroded from
within and trotted out a JFK quote about defending freedom "against Putin's methods". Unity
unity unity! Felt like I was in the Twilight Zone.
She accused the Russians of building up their military might and extending it to Ukraine
and Syria, that they caused the Brexit vote result, fomented and stirred up Catalonia's
secessionist movement the other month, and caused a certain Czech leader to be elected(I'm
not up on Czech politics).
She brought up the idea of using paper ballots again and admitted there had been no hacks
to voting machines. She said the Russians were trying to undermine people's(not just
Americans) faith in democracy, getting folks to think elections are rigged, and that their
vote doesn't count (yeah yeah I know, right?!).
During the Q&A session, she said how they were talking to Treasury and others to find
out ways to force the sanctions through, brought up the Magnitsky Act(and his murder in
jail). Someone asked about the Korea troubles and she said how she completely believes
McMaster and other military leaders that the bloody nose strategy isn't on the table even
though "Trump has pleaded for it". She stated that she thinks an AUMF from Congress is
only necessary when 10s of thousands of soldiers would be sent somewhere for an
extended period , and she mentioned how the Syria situation deteriorated because Obama
drew a red line and then didn't back it up.
She thinks the Russians are trying to undermine The West in order to create a new Russian
Empire. She actually said this out loud. A student called out the US's efforts influencing
the elections of other countries(he brought up a recent Carnegie Mellon paper about how the
US meddled in 80 countries), coups, propping up dictators, etc and you could hear a pin drop.
I think she looked like a deer in headlights and then she spurted out she thinks we shouldn't
be doing that. It was awesome and I thanked the kid on the way out.
Anyway, sorry for the super long post, but that's how it went down. She seemed not very
intelligent, like she was just mindlessly repeating what someone above had told her to say,
kept repeating certain terms and statements like Russian hybrid warfare, etc. She sounded
like a crackpot, to be honest with you-I couldn't believe some of the stuff she was saying.
It was very concerning-this is a US senator and there must be a lot more like her, and they
are leading the Dems. She seemed very uncomfortable and not very knowledgeable talking about
this stuff, even though that's why she was here and it's supposed to be her thing. It's like
for example when you didn't actually do the work but you're talking about it-you memorize the
answers or what you're supposed to say and that's it-no depth, just repeat certain terms over
and over. I got the feeling she doesn't know much geography or history, too. It was scary.
These are the people in control and driving this agenda. Cheers.
Thanks for the report.
The public gutlessness and corresponding stupidity of most senior US elected officials
regarding relations with major competitive powers is like a bizarre form of patriotic
observance in which the speaker proudly announces the sacrifice of their critical faculties
in the service of the nation. It's as though there are no constituents who will reward
analytic honesty and the corresponding lives and resources saved. One wonders if her
interactions with staff on these matters amount to anything more than a selection of
camouflage statements that allow her position to become indistinguishable from the modal
patriotic dimwit her fellow elected officials aspire to be. It's like watching high schoolers
try out team cheers.
After today, I'm not confident she knows what the Twitter actually is. And bots this, bots
that, bots bots bots. It was a lot to digest, and makes me appreciate Lambert and his yellow
waders even more. I tried to write down as much as I could word for word what she said,
especially the Russian Empire thing. It seemed like she really thinks the Russians are trying
to take over the whole world to create a new Russian Empire with Tsar Putin at the helm, and
that this supposed meddling is truly an act of war. It's scary. Walking out of there, I felt
like a (family blog) genius. What she said about congressional authorisation needed only when
10,000s of troops are being sent for an extended period, my head exploded. Like I said
before, caught in a Twilight Zone episode.
The D party is pushing this Russia! thing whole hog-this is what they're going with for
the long haul instead of focusing on real issues. They are 100% sure Mueller's going to find
something that takes down Trump. That's their whole plan.
So I must have missed a page in my notebook earlier, sorry-just remembered how she made a
point to crow about forcing the Kremlin-backed and very well-funded RT to register as a
foreign agent, and talked about how if RT's on in a hotel in the US and you watch a few
minutes of it, it's very subtly biased(those sneaky Russians!) and the delivery is a little
different than on CNN and other mainstream US news stations and this is in order trick
American viewers and to subtly sow discord amongst the American public. It was epic stuff
today, so much to try to keep track of and remember.
John Feffer, "the reason we take it seriously is twofold." (What do you mean we , kemo
sabe?)
"One, because we're worried about our U.S. democracy and whether it can function in a fair
way." (We live in a Republic which by design favors the moneyed classes primarily through the
Senate and Electoral College. Fairness has been in retreat since Buckley v. Valeo and
Citizens United v. FEC.)
"And the threats to U.S. democracy, by the way, are not, you know, specific to Russia."
(I'm afraid and you should be, too.)
It sure doesn't help cybersecurity when top US officials (e.g. a former 2016 POTUS
candidate) do not even bother to follow basic government cybersecurity protocols.
i just did something fun. Google 'Evidence of Russian meddling', or 'Why can't Google find
evidence of Russian meddling?'. One gets links to GWB and McMaster's claims of 'clear
evidence' and 'incontrovertible', but no actual evidence.
The American electoral system has always been open to the corrupt current flavor of the
day. George Washington passed out free whiskey,poll taxes, Jim Crow, voter suppression,
gerrymandering, Citizens United, secret money, hackable computerization and so on. We leave
the barn door open and are surprised when stuff happens.
I would be shocked if the Russians did not try to stick a toe in the door and create a little
chaos if for nothing else than our hypocritic and insufferable claims to exceptionalism,
freedom fries and all things bright and beautiful. Especially using a tool as perfect as the
web and social media the Americans own creation.
We have lost all sense of racketeering though sort of on the books, it is not really a crime
any more in this country. I think Russia and the USA are organized as competing racketeering
oligarchies. The cold war was about the commies and the commissars. This is just about your
basic Sicilian mob activity.
Very muddled and gray.
Average Americans do not understand cultures where the lie is the first response in most
discourse. We are working on it, but we are not really there in comparison to the older
cultures.
So while I am certain that elements within Russia have been sowing chaos wherever possible
and that there is some truth in Russia Gate I also recognize that it mirrors the chaos that
the US has sowed throughout the world. Mostly motivated by an ideology of greed and naked
power on both sides.
Donald Trump was for sure laundering money in New York real estate and saved by mob money in
everyone of his bankruptcies. We know Sheldon Adelson was in collusion with the Chinese mob
and got a "cost of doing business" penalty from the government. Grrr. Rant.
corrupt.corrupt.corrupt
Did the finagling around the election have any effect on the outcome? As far as I can see,
no it did not. Worse than Pearl Harbor? Worse than 9/11? Of course not. The hysterical
posturing became tedious long ago. Wake me if you find anything.
Why is Trump trumpeting? I would follow the money.
A minor point but perhaps someone could point out to Feffer that Nazis (both the
ur-example and those currently U.S. favored Ukranian ones) consider Russians to be
sub-human?
I get labeled a Trump supporter by decrying Russiagate.
Frankly I couldn't care less what Mueller does to Trump. This bothers me on several
different fronts.
1. This is demonstrably a McCarthyite witch hunt with goals at clear divergence from what
Mueller was originally appointed for, which was to investigate "collusion" (whatever that
means) between Putin and Trump. We know because of one Adam Schiff (D-McCarthy) and similar
Democrats and their Russian demagoguing anyone who dares to disagree with them.
2. These indictments are clearly exaggerated in their impact on the American system. Why?
I can think of one major effect of the witch hunt: The attempt by the establishment to roll
up dissent of any kind. We now have this media fueled hysteria going on by proven liars in
the establishment to suppress what they call "fake news". We saw efforts such as the infamous
"PropOrNot" anonymous troll cavalcade to try to censor sites. Now Google and Facebook are
doing the censoring for them by ranking non-establishment sources as somehow untrustworthy --
as if the establishment press was ever trustworthy.
3. The hypocrisy. No one in the corporate media establishment ever seems to note that this
cyber behavior and other types of regime undermining is completely typical of the U.S., which
mere hypocrisy might not be so bad, except it leads directly to #4:
4. The warmongering. People have openly talked about Russia engaged in acts of war (as if
the U.S. is pure as a crystal snowflake in this regard). This exaggeration and hypocrisy are
a direct threat to world peace and my own personal survival as a human being.
These are the things I fear: Being silenced by authoritarians who call themselves
"liberal" and getting nuked. That's it. People who accuse everyone of being "Russian dupes"
or "supporting Trump" are IMHO engaged in sheer demagoguery. The influence of the Russians on
the American system, whatever you call it, can be described as ephemeral at best, but the
censorship and warmongering are very real and dangerous.
That our politicians and media are being grossly irresponsible in a supposed effort to get
Trump (the real effort is much more than that) is an understatement.
That the US is hypocritical is not news. But that we should call this a witch hunt because
we are guilty of tampering and worse is not fair to either our constitution or the American
people.
The costs of this investigation are small in the grand scheme and tiny compared to the
principles it purports to protect. Mueller is far from done. Writing this off now smacks of
partisanship. If there is something there, then it will out. If not, then a few will hang
anyway. I, for one, am quite happy that the likes of Manafort and Gates got caught. I think
hillary should swing as well, so don't tar me with a red or blue brush. But the Republicans
had their chance to investigate her and never did, so that tells me something.
Remember that this is a 100% Republican administration carrying out this investigation.
Everyone involved is Republican from Potus to Congress to Mueller.
Frankly, if this keeps Trump from doing too many stupid things, it's time and money well
spent.
I may be wrong, but I seem to recall they investigated her AND Bill many, many times over
the years, starting when he was governor of Arkansas, and never found any evidence they could
take to a prosecutor. Do you happen to recall how many discrete investigations of Benghazi
there were?
"Robert Mueller has indicted 13 Russian nationals and three Russian organizations for
allegedly using social media to sow discord in the U.S. and support the candidacy of Donald
Trump"
The 13 Russian national stooges social media talking points show is all smoke and mirrors
to distract from the DNC and Clinton campaign tactics that did intentionally interfere with a
presidential election. Considering the enormous amount of actual evidence in the complicity
of the DNC, a foreign ex-spook national- Christopher Steele is fed 'info-mation' by Clinton
buddies Trey Gowdy and Sidney Blumenthal, Fusion GPS, Hillary Clinton campaign, FBI
surveillance and FISA memo to spy on the opposing presidential candidate (Trump) is the real
show. All based upon a dubious paid for foreign dossier filled with hearsay of anonymous
sources used to undermine and destroy an american presidential candidate during an election
year is the real crime of complicity Mueller is trying to avoid.
Throwing a ruskie sheet over the 800lb elephant sitting in the middle of the room doesn't
hide the facts and more than likely brings into question the Clinton campaign influences and
connections with the NSA.
Onto more relevant news: Lucky Charms has added marshmallow unicorns to its cereal.
This actually makes me a little sad. I am only skimming the transcript so far and I don't
think I could stand to watch the video, even though I really like Aaron Maté. I didn't
care when he took apart that Luke Harding fool, but John Feffer always seemed like a pretty
smart guy and a good writer. I was dismayed a few days ago when he went off in this direction
in one of his posts. If Aaron is holding back, maybe he feels a little sorry about him,
too.
John Feffer, one more decent person lost to the McCarthyite pod people, for whom I can no
longer have a shred of respect. Is that going too far?
I could have gotten the same exact "depth" of analysis from watching CNN. Or MSNBC. Or
what have you.
Even the interviewer was off the ball – by the time he identified KASPERSKY as a
"Russian hacker" I was essentially howling with laughter. And by the time the interviewee
started insinuating that Russia is supporting far-right neo-nazi type groups in the West
yeah. No. Incidentally, the West [i]is[/i] doing just that in specific places, but that is a
different conversation.
Finally the stamement: "So I don't think anybody, much less Vladimir Putin, could have
predicted the turn U.S.-Russian relations would take " pretty much discredits the interviewee
as any kind of analyst or expert on the subject. Because on every single US-Russia flashpoint
2017 was a direct continuation of 2016 (and 2015, and 2014 ) – and that was pretty much
the "base case" to begin with, since it is silly to imagine that either nation will just
"surrender" and stop pursuing its policies whether in Europe, Asia or the Middle East. The
"Trump == unpredictable-loose-cannon-maverick" talking point, much as it has been bandied
about, applies mainly to Trump's twitter account and decidedly not the ACTUAL foreign policy
steps taken by the US.
And so I reiterate the point – why is this blog suddenly carrying MSNBC-level
content? Because that's why we come here in the first place?
Sometimes when this whole things goes several shades of crazy you have to pull back and
try to look at it from a historical level. I try to imagine what people will be saying some
20 years from now when there is a new generation in place. What will their text books say
about what is happening now. And I realize that we are going to be mocked but hard by them.
Can you imagine what comedians routines on us will say? It will be embarrassing. So, getting
back to the present, I pull up the news this morning and I find a CNN reporter checking out
trash dumpsters next to the 'troll farm' in Russia – which is no longer even there. Uh,
OK.
Maybe some people in government and the media should go back on their meds again and have
a nice warm cup of shut-the-xxxx-up. Just because Trump won the election does not mean that
the 'establishment' gets to have an epic triggering – and take the rest of the country
with it. Are there criminal charges to be laid against certain people? Absolutely. Thing is,
they don't have Russian addresses but more likely American ones and I think that a lot of
people are starting to realize this which may partially explain the increasing support for
the GOP. You can only keep up evidence free accusations so long until somebody shout
"Call!".
If you want to know about election meddling, ask the Russians ( https://www.rt.com/op-ed/419371-election-meddling-us-russia/
) as they have much experience here. And that story doesn't cover even half of what went on.
Getting back to seeing things from a historical level, my own idea is that what we are seeing
is a power that has dominated the world for decades now finding itself with peer competitors
arising and the people in charge are unable to deal with this. There are far too many careers
at stake. Too many lucrative contracts at risk. Too many rice bowls to be broken. It's too
many powerful people not being able to get their way – and being unable to handle it.
This is what I think that we are seeing.
Foreign interference in the U.S. is nothing new. Its why we are so divided.
"The division of the United States into federations of equal force was decided long before
the Civil War by the high financial powers of Europe. These bankers were afraid that the
United States, if they remained in one block and as one nation, would attain economic and
financial independence, which would upset their financial domination over the world. The
voice of the Rothschilds prevailed Therefore they sent their emissaries into the field to
exploit the question of slavery and to open an abyss between the two sections of the
Union."
Otto von Bismarck, German chancellor, 1865
This is a great example of why I think I've gone crazy. This guy Feffer seems more
reasonable than most of the Russiagaters I see on other blogs, but when Mate points out the
lack of evidence he acknowledges that and then goes right on as if he had refuted it. He
acknowledges that the Dutch "revelation" is unsupported, and regrets that, and then goes
right ahead as if that is irrelevant. His whole method of argument seems to be, "Well, we
have a pattern of other Russian involvement, " and then cites speeches by Putin that probably
are not relevant to the case. I mean, supporting white nationalism? This is something you
want to blame Russia for? Spreading divisiveness? Undermining confidence? Kill me now.
Jerrold Lewis Nadler is an American attorney and politician who serves as the US
Representative from New York's 10th congressional district. So it is reasonable to assume that this guy is a stooge of financial
oligarchy and as such died in the wool globalist
When Congressman Jerrold Nadler equated Internet Trolls with Pearl Harbor that does not mean
that his a paranoiac. That means that he is a sleazy opportunist, for whom Party line is more
important then truth. That's why he repeated DemoRats Party like in the color revolution against
Trump. In which NeoMcCartyism is a fundamental component, creating the necessary prerequisites
for the witch hunt on Trump conducted by Mueller. He just can' deviate from the story.
"Have you no decency left, sir? At long last, have you no decency left?" applies
This "slash and burn" style of internal politician debates is another sign of the deep crisis
of neoliberalism in the USA. The crisis that led to election of Trump.
Tactically all this noise is a preemptive move to save Strzokgate participants scalps by putting a smoke screen on Nunes memo as well as
the forthcoming report of Inspector General.
Notable quotes:
"... When MSNBC's Chris Hayes pressed, Nadler doubled down: The Russians "are destroying our democratic process." While the Russian trolling may not equal Pearl Harbor in its violence, said Nadler, in its "seriousness, it is very much on a par" with Japan's surprise attack. Trump's reaction to the hysteria that broke out after the Russian indictments: "They are laughing their (expletives) off in Moscow." ..."
"... While Mueller's indictments confirm that Russians meddled in the U.S. election, what explains the shock and the fear for "our democracy"? Is the Great Republic about to fall because a bunch of trolls tweeted in our election? Is this generation ignorant of its own history? Before and after World War II, we had Stalinists and Soviet spies at the highest levels of American culture and government. ..."
"... As for Russian trolling in our election, do we really have clean hands when it comes to meddling in elections and the internal politics of regimes we dislike? ..."
"... Sen. John McCain and Victoria Nuland of State egged on the Maidan Square crowds in Kiev that overthrew the elected government of Ukraine. ..."
"... "Have we ever tried to meddle in other countries' elections?" Laura Ingraham asked former CIA Director James Woolsey this weekend. With a grin, Woolsey replied, "Oh, probably." "We don't do that anymore though?" Ingraham interrupted. "We don't mess around in other people's elections, Jim?" "Well," Woolsey said with a smile. "Only for a very good cause." Indeed, what is the National Endowment for Democracy all about, if not aiding the pro-American side in foreign nations and their elections? ..."
"... "One cannot observe democracy objectively without being impressed by its curious distrust of itself -- it's apparent ineradicable tendency to abandon its philosophy at the first sign of strain. I need not point to what invariably happens in democratic states when the national safety is menaced. All the great tribunes of democracy, on such occasions, convert themselves into instant despots of an almost fabulous ferocity." H.L. Mencken ..."
According to the indictment by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, Russian trolls, operating out
of St. Petersburg, took American identities on social media and became players in our 2016
election. On divisive racial and religious issues, the trolls took both sides. In the
presidential election, the trolls favored Bernie Sanders, Jill Stein and Donald Trump, and
almost never Hillary Clinton.
One imaginative Russian troll urged Trumpsters to dress up a female volunteer in an orange
prison jump suit, put her in a cage on a flatbed truck, then append the slogan, "Lock Her
Up!"
How grave a matter is this?
This Russian troll farm is "the equivalent (of) Pearl Harbor," says Cong. Jerrold Nadler,
who would head up the House Judiciary Committee, handling any impeachment, if Democrats retake
the House.
When MSNBC's Chris Hayes pressed, Nadler doubled down: The Russians "are destroying our
democratic process." While the Russian trolling may not equal Pearl Harbor in its violence,
said Nadler, in its "seriousness, it is very much on a par" with Japan's surprise attack.
Trump's reaction to the hysteria that broke out after the Russian indictments: "They are
laughing their (expletives) off in Moscow."
According to Sunday's Washington Post, the troll story is old news in Russia, where
reporters uncovered it last year and it was no big deal.
While Mueller's indictments confirm that Russians meddled in the U.S. election, what
explains the shock and the fear for "our democracy"? Is the Great Republic about to fall
because a bunch of trolls tweeted in our election? Is this generation ignorant of its own
history? Before and after World War II, we had Stalinists and Soviet spies at the highest
levels of American culture and government.
The Hollywood Ten, who went to prison for contempt of Congress, were secret members of a
Communist Party that, directed from Moscow, controlled the Progressive Party in Philadelphia in
1948 that nominated former Vice President Henry Wallace to run against Harry Truman.
Soviet spies infiltrated the U.S. atom bomb project and shortened the time Stalin needed to
explode a Soviet bomb in 1949.
As for Russian trolling in our election, do we really have clean hands when it comes to
meddling in elections and the internal politics of regimes we dislike?
Sen. John McCain and Victoria Nuland of State egged on the Maidan Square crowds in Kiev
that overthrew the elected government of Ukraine. When the democratically elected regime
of Mohammed Morsi was overthrown, the U.S. readily accepted the coup as a victory for our side
and continued aid to Egypt as tens of thousands of Muslim Brotherhood members were
imprisoned.
Are the CIA and National Endowment for Democracy under orders not to try to influence the
outcome of elections in nations in whose ruling regimes we believe we have a stake?
"Have we ever tried to meddle in other countries' elections?" Laura Ingraham asked
former CIA Director James Woolsey this weekend. With a grin, Woolsey replied, "Oh, probably."
"We don't do that anymore though?" Ingraham interrupted. "We don't mess around in other
people's elections, Jim?" "Well," Woolsey said with a smile. "Only for a very good cause."
Indeed, what is the National Endowment for Democracy all about, if not aiding the pro-American
side in foreign nations and their elections?
Did America have no active role in the "color-coded revolutions" that have changed regimes
from Serbia to Ukraine to Georgia?
When Republicans discuss Iran on Capitol Hill, the phrase "regime change" is frequently
heard. When the "Green Revolution" took to the streets of Tehran to protest massively the
re-election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2009, Republicans denounced President Obama for
not intervening more energetically to alter the outcome.
When China, Russia and Egypt expel NGOs, are their suspicions that some have been seeded
with U.S. agents merely marks of paranoia?
The U.S. role in the overthrow of Premier Mossadegh in Iran in 1953, and of Jacobo Arbenz in
Guatemala in 1954, and of President Ngo Dinh Diem in Saigon in 1963 are established facts.
This "hysteria" as Buchanan accurately describes it is very characteristically American, in
its sheer hypocritical dishonesty.
The US has made a regular practice for a century or more of pushing and attacking others,
via political interference, subversion, diplomacy or outright military aggression, until they
respond, and then screaming hysterically about "unprovoked aggression" against America.
Of several factual mistakes in your piece, Pat, why do you slip in crap like this
"Yet we do have evidence that a senior British spy and Trump hater, Christopher Steele,
paid by the Hillary Clinton campaign and DNC to dig up dirt on Trump, colluded with Kremlin
agents to produce a dossier of scurrilous and unsubstantiated charges, to destroy the
candidacy of Donald Trump"
bs claiming 'Kremlin agents' when it would appear the entire hit job on Trump originated
with s ** t made up on the USA end, and Steele was little more than a cut-out to give the
USA's DoJ (and more likely CIA) cover? Isn't that more than just a bit like playing the
insider game? If you"re going to take a shot at Hillary, why not bring up the actual Russia
collusion concerning uranium?
And pushing the 'hack' line
"What do these indictments of Russians tell us? After 18 months, the James Comey-Robert
Mueller FBI investigation into the hacking of the DNC and John Podesta emails has yet to
produce evidence of collusion"
giving cover to the 'Russians did it' hack bs when it is clear the DNC 'hack' was actually
an insider leak? You're no better than yellow rag Marcy Wheeler's 'empty wheel' blog:
Destroying the democratic process? A president was shot dead in full view of the nation and
it was never properly investigated, the same goes for 9/11. Endless and unconstitutional wars
that have bankrupted the nation. I'd say that it was destroyed a long time ago and all that
remains is nostalgia. Buckle up my colonial cousins!
Addendum, lifted from comment (#3) of Ronald Thomas West:
"What do these indictments of Russians tell us? After 18 months, the James Comey-Robert
Mueller FBI investigation into the hacking of the DNC and John Podesta emails has yet to
produce evidence of collusion." Are you still unaware of the forensic evidence and credible
analysis of people like Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity that the DNC emails
were leaked, not hacked?
Columnists like Pat Buchanan and Andrew Napolitano may help people find this website, but
week in and week out they show themselves as sloppy, at best. There may be something to be
said for putting them up here, where they can be compared to Dinh, Giraldi, Hopkins, Sailer,
Whitney, et al.
I read their columns closely when it comes to Russia, and comment when I see them serving
the Establishment line. It has become apparent that "Judge" is purposeful in his Eastasia
bulls ** t. I am reaching the same conclusion about Mr. Buchanan.
And it's still going on under the guise of NGOs. So if Russians tweeting stuff is an act
of war, then the US is already at war with a bunch of countries.
Before and after World War II, we had Stalinists and Soviet spies at the highest levels
of American culture and government.
During WW2, too.
They were running some of the biggest banks and corporations, too. It was fashionable for
the trust fund kiddies and some of the money bags "upper crust" to play commie as well. Still
is, apparently.
Famous names, Vanderbilt, Lamont, Whitney, Morgan, mingled with those of communist
leaders. The Russian Institute was so respectable that it was allowed to give in-service
courses to New York City schoolteachers for credit.
When MSNBC's Chris Hayes pressed, Nadler doubled down: The Russians "are destroying our
democratic process." While the Russian trolling may not equal Pearl Harbor in its violence,
said Nadler, in its "seriousness, it is very much on a par" with Japan's surprise
attack.
"One cannot observe democracy objectively without being impressed by its curious
distrust of itself -- it's apparent ineradicable tendency to abandon its philosophy at the
first sign of strain. I need not point to what invariably happens in democratic states when
the national safety is menaced. All the great tribunes of democracy, on such occasions,
convert themselves into instant despots of an almost fabulous ferocity." H.L.
Mencken
This is an excellent article summarizing the major issues presented. Though I have views
which vary somewhat about the postwar witchhunt in the US which sort of sets the beginning
precedent for this one the fact situation described is correct. As for whether it is an act
of war, I say that it is, but not by the Russians. It is an act of war by out of control
extra-legal yankee authorities against any individual, foreign or domestic, who would choose
to resist them in any fashion, including those just trying to make money like the Russians in
this case from farming US internet subscribers.
Russiagate is a starched and stuffed empty suit. Buchanan is right to demean its
significance. And yes, there is the shameful fact of rank US hypocrisy in all this. No doubt.
But the relatively modest impact of Russian 'meddling' in the last US election, coupled with
the moral emptiness within the entire Russiagate investigation, is what's most revealing.
Indeed, not only does the US routinely interfere (and even overthrow) other sovereign
states, but Russian machinations in America pales besides other extranational interference,
particularly Israel's.
When it comes to pushing around Washington and shaping US public opinion, Israel is in a
class by itself. You haven't noticed?
Not only do crypto-Israelis own or supervise most American mass media (including hard
news) but hundreds of young, paid Jewish/Israeli trolls regularly clog US social media sites,
American internet news comments sections, and Wikipedia entries.
Israelis (and their US-based cousins) are the masters of political chicanery. No one else
comes close.
Then there's the overbearing influence of AIPAC, the ADL, and dozens of other
crypto-Israeli pressure groups. These highfalutin lobbies have managed to buy their way into
the halls of Congress, the White House, and onto national TV. It's a continuous phenomena.
But we're not supposed to notice or be concerned. After all, they're our best friends!
By comparison, Russian access and interference in American life is infantesimal.
Does this shock you? It shouldn't. It's been this way in America for decades.
Incredibly, it's publicly examining, discussing, and criticizing this odd situation that
becomes 'shocking' (and career-ending). That's the scary part.
Crypto-Israelis have dominated, and continue to dominate, a vast swath of American
culture; especially news and entertainment.
Henry Ford, Charles Lindburgh, and Marlon Brando all complained about this unique and
dangerous situation. And conditions have not improved since they did. If anything, Zionist
power in America has only hardened.
This makes far-away Russia even more of a bit player in our corrupt political circus. And
this is why Russiagate is such a farce.
In Hollywood, on Wall Street, as well as in Washington, the top dog (and most sacred
cause) involves Israel. Every US politician recognizes this unpublicized fact. Just read
their speeches. See how they vote. And those public servants who don't recognize Israel's
unique status in Washington tend to fade rapidly into oblivion. This is Jewish power.
Zio-Americans helped steer Washington into its preemptive and criminal annihilation of
Libya and Iraq and, if they have their way again, there will be additional American wars
fought on behalf of the Jewish state.
Due in large part to Zionist dictates, Assad's Syria is being targeted by Washington right
now. Iran is next. All foes of Israel end up in Washington's crosshairs.
America has been quietly captured and domesticated by Zionists.
Sadly, even referring to the overriding impact of Zionist power in America is taboo.
Buchanan and others have learned this lesson the hard way. But this explosive fact ultimately
renders the entire Russiagate 'scandal' little more than a contrived distraction.
Call it Jewish political theater if you like. But it's mostly a charade.
Mr. Buchanan is correct, of course, that we interfere in other countries. But defending
foreign hostility to America by pointing to America's own misdeeds is a traditional leftist
line.
It's not a "leftist line" (at least in this case), it's one that's basic to human nature
– don't dish it out if you can't take it in turn, and don't whine like a hypocritical
two year old when you do get some back. Nothing "left wing" about that.
There's nothing wrong with us taking our own country's side.
No, not if you don't mind being a hypocrite.
But hypocrisy is a very American thing – throughout your history you've been
manipulated into wars by the very weakness you adhere to here. "We can do it but if anyone
does it back to us that's unacceptable, because we're special" has been pretty much the way
the US has been kept interfering around the world for decades.
The answer is to stop doing it yourself, then complain about other people doing it.
But that isn't going to happen, is it? Your lords and masters are going to keep poking their
noses into other countries' affairs all over the world, and people like you are going to
complain like bitches if you get any back, and those complaints will justify further
aggression in response to supposedly unacceptable foreign "unprovoked"
aggression/interference against your country.
And I write that while being pretty much the very opposite of anything that could be
described as "left wing", just as a foreigner weighing US behaviour.
'Yet we do have evidence that a senior British spy and Trump hater, Christopher Steele, paid
by the Hillary Clinton campaign and DNC to dig up dirt on Trump, colluded with Kremlin agents
to produce a dossier of scurrilous and unsubstantiated charges, to destroy the candidacy of
Donald Trump. And the FBI used this disinformation to get FISA Court warrants to surveil and
wiretap the Trump campaign.'
Correct except for 'Kremlin agents' Steele hadn't been to Russia in more than 20 years.
The 'dossier' is full of ridiculous mistakes about Russia. It's just as likely he made the
whole thing up, or was fed stuff by the CIA, not the Kremlin.
When Napoleon Bonaparte executed the Duc d'Enghien in 1804 for what seemed like trumped-up
treason charges, the implications extended far beyond questions of French justice and even
beyond the borders of France. European leaders were shocked, and the episode helped crystallize
anti-Bonaparte sentiment throughout the Continent and in Britain. The famous French diplomat
Charles de Talleyrand captured the moment when he said: "It was worse than a crime; it was a
blunder."
That might well be said now about the Russian effort to manipulate the 2016 presidential
election by using social media to undermine Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, promote the
candidacy of Donald Trump, and generally sow discord throughout the American body politic.
Three Russian companies and 13 Russian citizens were indicted by U.S. authorities Friday on
charges of engaging in a three-year, multimillion-dollar effort to interfere in the election.
Americans naturally are shocked at this brazen effort to unravel the political fabric of their
country.
But it isn't really all that shocking. To understand why it was more of a blunder than a
crime -- and a blunder with likely tragic consequences -- it is important to absorb five
fundamental realities surrounding this important development in U.S.-Russian relations.
First, countries have been doing this sort of thing for centuries. It is a fundamental part
of tradecraft -- the use of covert actions to undermine the internal workings of rival nations.
No country likes being on the receiving end, but few refrain from such activity when they think
it will thwart national security threats.
Second, no nation has been more aggressive than the United States in pursuing efforts,
covert and even overt, to destabilize other regimes. In part that's because, as the leading
global power since World War II, the Unites States has had more at stake in events of
significance throughout the world. In part also, it's because America has had the greatest
capacity for bringing the latest technology and the greatest covert capabilities to meet the
challenge.
In any event, the U.S. record in this area is beyond dispute. A New York Times
piece by Scott Shane over the weekend quoted a University of Georgia professor named Loch
Johnson as saying, "We've been doing this kind of thing since the CIA was created in '47. We've
used posters, pamphlets, mailers, banners -- you name it." Among other things, he adds, the
United States has planted false information in foreign newspapers and distributed "suitcases of
cash" to influence foreign elections. Steven L. Hall, a 30-year CIA veteran (now retired) with
extensive experience leading the Russia desk, told Shane that the United States "absolutely"
engaged in such activities, "and I hope we keep doing it."
Shane cites a study by Dov H. Levin of Carnegie Mellon that sought to quantify "election
influence operations" by the United States and the Soviet Union/Russia between 1946 and 2000.
He counts 81 by the United States and 36 by the Soviet Union or Russia (though he figures there
were more ops initiated from Russian soil than we know about).
Beyond that, there is what has become known as the "democracy industry" -- legions of U.S.
NGOs, many funded with federal money, that fan out through the world to remake regimes they
consider insufficiently imbued with Western values. Writer and thinker David Rieff, writing in
The National Interest a few years ago, attacked these democracy promotion adherents as
people who "will not or cannot acknowledge either the ideological or the revolutionary
character of their enterprise." He likened the democracy promoters in propaganda terms to
Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev's 1956 boast to America that "we will bury you."
Third, the greatest interference in the internal affairs of foreign nations, aside from
invasion, is regime change, and here the United States is by far the leader in the post-World
War II era. We know of major efforts -- covert or overt, successful or not -- by America to
upend regimes in Iran, Guatemala, South Vietnam, Chile, Nicaragua, Grenada, Serbia, Iraq,
Libya, Syria, and Ukraine.
Leaving aside the case-by-case merits, this is a powerful record, and it has implications
far beyond U.S. domestic politics. Like Bonaparte's execution of the Duc d'Enghien, it
generates concerns and fears among foreign leaders. In the case of America's regime change
zest, it sends chills down the spines of leaders fearful that they may be next on the list of
U.S. regime change targets. Certainly the resolve of North Korea's Kim Jong-un to develop
nuclear weapons with a delivery capacity to the United States is partly a product of such
fears.
Fourth, America and its allies bear by far the greater share of the blame for the current
tensions between the West and Russia. It was all predictable back in 1998 when NATO fashioned
its policy of aggressive eastward expansion toward the Russian border. George F. Kennan, the
highly respected U.S. diplomat and Russia expert, predicted the outcome in particularly stark
terms. He called it "the beginning of a new cold war a tragic mistake." He foresaw that of
course the Russians would react badly, as any nation would, and then the NATO expansionists
would say, see, we always said the Russians were aggressive and couldn't be trusted. "This is
just wrong," Kennan warned.
But if NATO expansion was a provocative policy destined to elicit a strong Russian response,
the provocation was heightened hugely when America helped perpetrate a regime change initiative
in Ukraine, which is not only next door to Russia but has been a crucial part of Russia's
sphere of influence going back to the mid-17th century. Further, Russia lies vulnerable to
invasion. The unremitting grassy steppes of the nation, extending from Europe all the way to
the Far East, with hardly a mountain range or seashore or major forest to hinder encroachment
by army or horde, has fostered a national obsession over the need to control territory as a
hedge against incursion. Such incursions from the West occurred three times in the 19th and
20th centuries.
Ukraine is crucial in this Russian sense of territorial imperative. It's a tragically split
country, with part tilting toward the West and part facing eastward toward Russia. That makes
for a delicate political and geopolitical situation, but for centuries that delicate political
and geopolitical situation has been overseen by Russia. Now the West wants to end that.
Upending a duly elected (though corrupt) Ukrainian president was part of the plan. Getting
Ukraine into NATO is the endgame.
Note that the Ukrainian revolution occurred in 2014, which just happened to be the year,
according to the U.S. indictments, that Russia initiated its grand program to influence
America's 2016 elections. Kennan was right: Russia inevitably would react badly to the NATO
encirclement policy, and then America's anti-Russian cadres would cite that as evidence that
the encirclement was necessary all along. That's precisely what's happening now.
Which brings us to the fifth and final fundamental reality surrounding the revelation of
Russia's grand effort to influence the U.S. election. It was an incredible blunder. Given all
that's happened in U.S.-Russian relations this century, there probably wasn't much prospect
that those relations could ever be normalized, much less made cordial. But that is now utterly
impossible.
Donald Trump campaigned on a platform of seeking better relations with Russia. After getting
elected he repeatedly asserted in his first news conference that it would be "positive,"
"good," or "great" if "we could get along with Russia." Unlike most of America's elites, he
vowed to seek Moscow's cooperation on global issues, accepted some U.S. share of blame for the
two countries' sour relations, and acknowledged "the right of all nations to put their
interests first."
This suggested a possible dramatic turn in U.S.-Russian relations -- an end to the
encirclement push, curtailment of the hostile rhetoric, a pullback on economic sanctions, and
serious efforts to work with Russia on such nettlesome matters as Syria and Ukraine. That was
largely put on hold with the narrative of Russian meddling in the U.S. election and vague
allegations of campaign "collusion" with Russia on behalf of Trump's presidential
ambitions.
It doesn't appear likely that investigators will turn up any evidence of collusion that
rises to any kind of criminality. But it doesn't matter now, in terms of U.S.-Russian
relations, because these indictments will cement the anti-Russian sentiment of Americans for
the foreseeable future. No overtures of the kind envisioned by Trump will be possible for any
president for a long time. It won't matter that every nation does it or that America in
particular has done it or that the West's aggressive encirclement contributed to the Russian
actions. The U.S.-Russian hostility is set. Where it leads is impossible to predict, but it
won't be good. It could be tragic.
Robert W. Merry, longtime Washington, D.C., journalist and publishing executive, is
editor of The American Conservative . His latest book,President McKinley: Architect of the American Century, was
released in September.
I'm disgusted that people are taking this garbage indictment seriously A bunch of Russian
private citizens working for a privately-funded NGO (allegedly funded by an owner of a
restaurant chain) using faked social media accounts to carry out political activism, and no
evidence of Russian government involvement, and this clown Mueller thinks this is some
evidence for "Russian meddling" in elections? It wouldn't be so laughable except that the US
spook agencies do this sort of thing as a routine .
This is just Mueller doing as he was told to do by his Establishment leash-holders, and
come up with any old steaming pile of garbage to be packaged as "evidence" to support this
Cold War 2 paranoia mindset and promote the unfounded allegation of Trumps "collusion" with
Russians in order to undermine his Presidency.
The US continues to disappoint me This country seems to be utterly incapable of getting
things into perspective or acting rationally. A nation run by amoral psychopaths who are
completely obsessed with power and wealth and control, and who will stoop to anything in
order to achieve their unspoken power agendas.
The sad fact is the Mr. Merry is probably right. The die is cast. Enmity is almost certainly
now permanent, with the increasingly likely result indeed tragic.
With this latest indictment, the bogus "Russian collusion" charge has finally achieved its
primary goal -- which was not to remove Trump (that's 3; goal 2 was to elect Hillary), but to
ensure unchangeable hostility towards Russia. The fact that Trump even now controverts what
H.R. McMaster calls "incontrovertible" is nice but irrelevant. It hardly matters what the
president thinks at all. (Besides, for whom does McMaster work, Trump or Mueller?)
Everybody now agrees that "Romney was right." There's nothing Trump can do about it.
Ruthenia delenda est. The madness may now become terminal – for everybody.
Notice too how everyone, including Trump's cheering section at Fox News, has immediately
lost sight of the REAL collusion within the US government (with a little help from "hands
across the water"): Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, James Comey, Bruce Ohr, Andrew McCabe, Rod
Rosenstein (remember, he signed one of the FISA requests to spy on the Trump team), John O.
Brennan, Christopher Steele, Andrew Wood (former British ambassador to Russia who peddled the
Steele dossier), Loretta Lynch, Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton, and of course Barack Obama.
They'll all skate. No surprise there.
All that said, it would have been nice to explain who "the Russians" are we're talking
about. This looks less like a government op than a clickbait scam of the sort hundreds of
firms in dozens of countries engage in:
Donald Trump campaigned on having better relations with Russia(?). Ok, why? A) Is he a deep
well read strategic thinker on Russian US relations and envisioned better relations as a
positive step towards world peace or B) he admires Putin for being a white right nationalist
that he is coupled with his deep business ties to Russian oligarchs which have the potential
of being un earthed by that Witcher hunter himself Robert Mueller?
This is a good article, but I feel that it would have been stronger if Mr. Merry had
elaborated on the reasons why elevated hostility between Russia and the West represents a
tragedy for both parties.
The geopolitical argument for a modus vivendi between America and Russia can be summarised
with a single phrase: 'the rise of China'. As an immense body of commentators have argued for
years, the #1 geostrategic imperative for the U.S. in the foreseeable future is thwarting
Chinese ambitions to become the military, political, and economic hegemon of Asia. China also
threatens to displace Russia's influence in Central Asia, and menaces the security of its
hold on the thinly populated territories of Siberia. So it would seem that there is a common
interest to build on.
Unfortunately, Russia will always value the security of its western lands above all other
priorities, and so Eastern Europe remains an enduring sticking point in its relations with
the U.S.A. Regardless of whether or not the expansion of NATO back in the 1990s was wise or
not, America cannot let go of its commitments there without incurring an unacceptable loss in
prestige and credibility. An adversarial relationship appears to be locked in on both
sides.
Even if Russia hadn't attempted to influence the 2016 election, I suspect that attempts to
forge a new detente would have proven unavailing – just like the infamous 'reset'
attempted by Obama. What neither Obama or Trump seem to have understood is the first rule of
successful diplomatic resets: 'Only Nixon can go to China'. It takes a leader with genuine
credibility on the issue to make such a thing stick. Otherwise the whole thing collapses as
soon as the political cycle rotates.
"Which brings us to the fifth and final fundamental reality surrounding the revelation of
Russia's grand effort to influence the U.S. election. It was an incredible blunder."
_________________________________
I'm not all sure what we are talking about here in the grand effort: the troll army,
thefacebook/twitter "massive" campaign, the DNC "hacking" which by all accounts did not
happen?
I fear that we are falling into the trap of actually believing the press and the
hysterical democrats.
My sense is that it was a minor effort in terms of financial expenditures and people
involved-I am very skeptical that any votes were influenced to any degree.
So where is the there in all of this smoke and hoopala?
There is a worst outcome of these events, never mind the massive hypocrisy of the US
establishment. It will not be possible to have another Bernie Sanders, or even Trump movement
in the US, because such movements will be blamed on Russia.
Pro-social ideas and more political diversity in the US are dead and the country will be
even more overtly move towards a corporatism, militarist regime.
The time will come that even TAC and likes of Daniel Larson will be accused of being
Russian puppets.
My Grandfather (God rest his soul) was born in 1910 and was a brutally honest (and frank) man
who never shied away from giving you his opinion on anything. When I was a teenager in the
mid 1990's we'd watch the CBS evening news together. Him on his recliner and me on the couch
we'd watch the CBS Evening News with Dan Rather and he'd turn to me and say, "You know why
every other country hates America?". Of course I'd say I didn't know and he'd say to me,
"it's because we've got our nose up everybody's ass. We should mind our own Goddamn
business!". That was my Grandfather's take on foreign policy. Most might try to dismiss it
out of simplicity but his opinion on the matter was not without wisdom. My Grandfather lived
through two World Wars (and served in the US Navy during WWII and the Korean War) and worked
for the VA hospital during the Vietnam War. Had Washington followed my Grandfather's advice
(which has been echoed here at TAC by Patrick J. Buchanan and the rest of the gang for almost
two decades now) then there wouldn't be a New Cold War with Russia or China.
Trump's constant assertions of "nothing to see here" are certainly the acts of someone
guilty. Hard to believe there is nothing there. Too many around him have been shown to have
ties to Russia, Trump wasn't even in office yet when he promised to remove sanctions on
Russia, and his loyalty to Russia over the US in the election meddling is telling. If large
numbers of Republicans want to be useful idiots, that's their business, but ducks that quack
and walk, and all that
Was the Russian election meddling a blunder? It was certainly successful. It has fractured
our society. I believe we will come back stronger from this, but it showed the rot in
society, in our religious institutions, and our political institutions. You have to identify
the rot to get in there and clean it out, so the Russians gave us that advantage, but it has
brought us to the brink.
Again, a blunder? Were we really going to get closer to Russia? I don't think so. Trump
tried his best and it didn't work. Not being politically minded, he had to have personal gain
as a motivation to promote closer ties with Russia. So if the odds politically of having
better ties with Russia were next to nothing at this time, again, Russia won with their troll
campaign. While the duped continue to refuse to admit they were duped, Russian influence
remains strong, and the duped can be duped again.
This article trots out the usual inaccuracies about NATO expansion and Eastern European
history. There is no conceivable scenario in which the Eastern European countries admitted to
NATO threaten Russia. Estonia has no invasion plans. NATO does not war game invading Russia
and has no capacity to do so. Russia is not by any reasonable measure encircled by anyone.
She is the largest country in the world and has managed to survive with Turkey as a NATO
member at its doorstep for years.
It's also absurd to make the case that having been invaded three times in the past two
centuries makes Russia especially sensitive to invasion. Many European countries have had
that experience and aren't annexing bits and bobs of their neighbors if things don't go their
way. The Baltic States were invaded three times in FIVE years in World War II, twice by
Russia. Now, they have cause for paranoia.
For that matter, Russia hasn't been invaded three times in the 19th and 20th century. In WWI,
Russia invaded East Prussia. Most of the war took place in what is now Poland and Belarus,
not Russia.
Please stop trying to buttress your commitment to a non-aligned US with dubious statements
about Eastern Europe.
Why can't we trade and exchange with Russia and just get along? Why so much hostility to a
country that did the heavy lifting in WW2? Why not call out Isreal (mainly) and Saudi Arabia
for trying to manipulate us as their attack dog on a very short and disciplined leash? Recall
when Netanyahu addressed the full U.S.Congress (screaming and yelling like rabid fans at a
Beatles concert) and a sitting president was forced to watch on TV? Recall how Johnson let
Israel attack the USS Liberty for hours and would not let our planes splash the aggressors?
What has happened to our values of democracy, dignity, international human rights and above
all national independence, especially from relatively client states? P.T. Barnum's "You can
fool some of the people some of the time, but not all the people all of the time will take
hold." Enough dying and resource wasting on designer wars, not in our interest.
Post WW 2 we have a history of cozing up to Dictators or questionable regimes, then turning
on them. Our adversaries especially China and Russia understand this very well.
Excellent analysis of America's foolish and perhaps fateful policy of encirclement,
encroachment and permanent alienation of Russia. Buy why expect Russia to remain passive?
Surely they could be forgiven for picking out Trump as a possible source of a more rational
and peaceable policy, and saying: let's help this guy get elected. And doing it with their
usual clumsiness. Why would they stand by and let the warmongering Hillary push the policy to
its ultimate conclusion: war?
Mr. Merry does a brilliant job–the best I have read–of contextualizing the Russia
election interference story. But his analysis is also telling, and typical, in what it omits:
any consideration of what in fact the Russians did, and how and to what extent it mattered.
And this for a reason that says everything that does matter in our time: the truth of the
allegations is irrelevant. Everything is the "narrative".
So, he is correct. Relations will be poisoned for decades. We may even go to war. And the
underlying cause will be something that may or may not have happened and, if it did,
was–relative to the actual presidential election–inconsequential.
I would only add that in a world more than ever shaped and driven by contesting
narratives, the question should be: who benefits most from the Russia indictments,
evidence-based or not?
The answer is the dominance of American hawkishness and interventionism, which can now
accelerate and expand, unopposed, out to infinity.
@Terrence Maloney. Expansion of NATO to the Baltics puts OUR troops on Russia's border.
The Washington Post put out an article yesterday interviews a Russian journalist who
published a detailed report on the Russian troll factory back in October.
"Zakharov (the journalist) explained how it was a strange feeling seeing something he had
so closely investigated become a major issue in the United States, when it had not been a
"bombshell" when he published his report at home."
You would think the major news organizations like NYT and WaPo would have the resources to
constantly research foreign publications. Evidently not, because if the MSM thinks that an
indictment of 13 Russian trolls is a bombshell, surely they would think 90 Russian Trolls, as
described in the Russian news report and $2M would be an even bigger bombshell. And yet it
was never picked up on in this country. It goes to show our big media are navel gazers.
But in any event its NOT a bombshell at all. 90 trolls with $2M in a multi-billion
election? I believe what really upsets our self-proclaimed adults, is that the vast unwashed
masses' opinions can be changed by comments on facebook or any other outlets where they
cannot control the message.
This whole "Russia ate our homework" thing is to divert attention from the corrupt use of
the Justice Department and intelligence agencies to spy on political opponents.
@Terrence Moloney, it's not an issue of Latvia invading Russia it's an issue of those
countries being used as missile platforms and choke points against their navy.
The game goes like this, the U.S. keeps encircling Russia with NATO expansion. If Russia
doesn't resist, great, it continues. If Russia resists then that is evidence of 'aggression'
that justifies a military buildup on existing NATO countries.
Russia lost an area the size of the United States when the Soviet Union collapsed 1991.
After an earthquake there are after shocks.
Crimea never wanted to be part of Ukraine. In 1992 they created their own constitution
only to have it nullified by Ukraine. Ossetia declared independence from Georgia in 1992. Is
1992 early enough for you? You act like Moses created these boundaries.
Putin has stated that Russia will not invade the Baltics or Kiev. That it is wrong to try
to rule over an unwilling population, that Russia has more than enough land for their people.
The premise behind the Crimean annexation was that it was the population's will.
So Democrats are suppose to simply turn a blind eye towards the Trump campaign then? After
years of Benghazi! and Birtherism during Obama. And do you think Russians would have been as
effective with Marco Rubio running? Or how the Russian activity started against Democrats
Congress in the late election?
Or how the Republican fought against Obama on announcing this activity to the country?
2016 was a God-awful election and conservative have been incredibly smug on their slight
victory. And President Trump is DOING NOTHING on this activity so I assume he is hoping for
their assistance in 2018. (And notice how much they were active they were on the David Nune
memo.)
13 Russians illegally volunteered for Trump's campaign?
So what!
The establishment is straining at a gnat while swallowing a camel.
Hundreds of thousands of Mexicans illegally voted for Hillary Clinton.
Worse, billionaires whose first loyalty is to Israel, such as Haim Shaban and Paul Singer,
exercise immense influence over American foreign policy.
Immense resources are being devoted to investigating minuscule Russian activity. Why?
1. Because the establishment wants to overturn the results of the 2016 Presidential
election.
2. They also hope to find some connection between the Russian government and the American
hard right (via Dugin) which can be used to jail the leading figures of the American hard
right, thus doing what the ADL, SPLC and Antifa have failed to do – nullify the First
Amendment.
This is arguably the most serious assault ever on the Constitution of the United
States.
Putin requires hostility with the west in order to remain in power. He doesn't want a war, he
just needs Russian citizens to feel aggrieved against outsiders so that they don't react to
the kleptocrats running the country. It's classic 'strong man' strategy.
"Which brings us to the fifth and final fundamental reality surrounding the revelation of
Russia's grand effort to influence the U.S. election. It was an incredible blunder."
What a second. You call that a "grand effort?" A few Facebook accounts and some organized
trolling? That is anything but a "grand effort" and I question why anyone would characterize
it as such. Especially in the context of what we Americans have done and do (which you touch
on).
At some point the US needs to turn away from it's "Do as we say, not as we do" mentality.
Only thing it's gotten us is a world that doesn't trust us anymore. Unfortunately that day
won't come until the day the American Empire collapses and America returns to it's roots as a
Republic.
The Ukrainian president wasn't toppled; he fled,doubting the loyalty of his own security
forces and despite an agreement with the opposition to stay in power pending a new election
within 10 months.
@celery "Was the Russian election meddling a blunder? It was certainly successful. It has
fractured our society. I believe we will come back stronger from this, but it showed the rot
in society, in our religious institutions, and our political institutions. You have to
identify the rot to get in there and clean it out, so the Russians gave us that advantage,
but it has brought us to the brink. "
An apt comment. And in this connection it's crucially important that henceforth we hold
other countries to the standards we're holding Russia.
I'm thinking of Israel in particular, which has meddled in and distorted American politics
to a degree that the Russians can only dream of. One need say only "Sheldon Adelson" to
suggest its corrupting, distorting influence. What if a Russian oligarch came here and did
for Russia what Adelson and so many others do for Israel? Would we have American politicians
grovelling for the millions that a Russian oligarch could lavish on those who promise to do
Putin's bidding – as they already do for Adelson and Netanyahu?
If the end result of this "Russian meddling" case is criminalization of this behavior (or
even just reinvigorated enforcement of existing laws, like FARA and the Espionage Act), and
if that serves to end Israeli meddling in our political process, then all to the good.
Meddling by foreign countries in our political process is indeed "rot", as you put it –
and as George Washington urgently warned in his Farewell Address. It must be stopped at all
costs, for reasons so obvious that we shouldn't even have to discuss them.
Sorry, there is still no 'Russian Meddling' of any kind. The indictments were against a
commercial marketing scheme, using clickbait to build reputations that could be used to sell
ads. That is why the posts have no coherence. Some are for Trump, some against, some for
Hillary, some against, and of course there is the post that is definitely for, puppies.
Again, there is nothing here, about 'Russia'. Even Mueller's team of liars did not claim
any involvement by the Russian government.
What these indictments mean is that being a foreigner, and posting opinions during an
election, without registering as a foreign agent, means you can be indicted for 'defrauding'
the US.
Since Washington is rolling in a slush fund of billions in foreign lobbying money from
countries overwhelmingly not Russia, why is this influence peddling not the real issue? One
guy with a million bucks has more influence with Washington than a million guys with one
buck, and there are thousands of former elected and unelected government officials flush with
their cash doing the bidding of well moneyed foreign states other than Russia, not that of
the hundreds of millions of ordinary Americans.
Now we have the chimera of an indictment against 13 ham sandwiches with Russian dressing
which can never be eaten – there will be no actual trials as the people accused are
people in a foreign country. So, as has become the new standard for public belief in this and
other politicized matters, such findings of fact are unnecessary – accusations become
the same as proof, the very definition of witch hunt hysterias, from McCarthy to McMartin
preschool.
Far from benign foreign influences with far more effective and vast resources were bent on
running interference to make sure that Hillary Clinton was elected, since they believed her
ascendancy was in their best interests. Because millions of Americans knew that her policy
predilections were not in their own best interests, does that make them unwitting tools of a
Russian conspiracy? It's a witch hunt by powerful domestic forces not acting in Americans'
best interests, but those of elites who feel threatened by their own country's heartland and
its increasingly dispossessed.
This, I assume, is the latest pro-Putin propaganda line. With Putin openly interfering in the
Italian election in favour of the Lega Nord, it is now impossible to deny his interference in
the US election. So now the interference is admitted but of course it couldn't possibly be
nice Mr Putin's fault. It was just a blunder and, as we've come to expect, it was all
provoked anyway by the ever dastardly US! The rest is just a re-has of the "let Putin win in
Ukraine" pretexts that we've all heard a thousand times.
I'll say it again. One of the oldest tricks any regime uses when it begins to feel insecure
is to create an enemy for its people to focus on. Our oligarchy has chosen Russia, probably
because China makes them too much money.
Who, specifically, was indicted? Let's hear some names! From whom did they get their marching
orders? How did they "meddle" in the election? Examples please. And, most importantly, where
are they? If ( as rumor has it) they are in Russia then those indictments aren't worth the
paper they're written on.
Yes, please stop the Russian meddling! And please stop all the other foreign meddling while
you're at it. We're sick of doing the spending, fighting, and dying for foreign countries.
An American here. How can I think the Russians for interfering in American elections? I trust
Putin more than our own so-called "leaders." I say, interfere away (and let Hungary and
Poland join in)! Maybe then Americans will have the chance to break free of the chains of the
two-party sham, neocon foreign policy, and corporate globalism.
Interesting how the Trumpeteers have gone so swiftly from "Fake News" to "So What!". (I guess
Oceania has Always been at war with Eurasia.)
What people are missing, including the NeverTrumpers and the ForeverTrumpers is this even
betting there was no collusion (because not even ham-fisted Ruskies would cozy up too close
with such a band of inept jerks as the Trump Campaign) it shows Trump is a Chump.
Donnie the Strong Man is a clueless loser who was USED by the Russian troll factory
because he would be pliable (ie easily manipulated) to give them what they wanted.
Trump has SUCKER written all over his face. He should go play a round of golf and tweet
out pathetic insults to everyone. What else has he left.
For those who have projected their own agenda onto Trump's blatherings (just like the
Lefties did with Obama's vague platitudes), when will it occur to you that if you have to
keep making excuses and attacking those who point out the obvious, you have backed the wrong
horse's ***.
I know he can put on his Admiral-General uniform and review the troops, just like the
Ruskie leadership. Tanks, rocket launchers, ICBMs and goose-stepping soldiery (just like the
Russians). That will Prove he has *large hands*. "I'll Show You!"
Putin got elected because Russians were tired of Western rapacious capitalists trying to use
the broken Soviet Union to make money.. Putin then used his KGB thugs to turn the Russian
government into a mafioso.. The chosen, Putin enablers, looted the country.. The looters want
to free their stolen money to buy things in the west, cause who wants old soviet crap..
Western capitalists who dont care are more than willing to take their cut.. This is Trump,
who could not get a loan in this country.. This article is repugnant, it reduces the USA to
the level of these thieves in Russia.. God help us all.
"All that said, it would have been nice to explain who 'the Russians' are we're talking
about."
Bingo! I'd like to see names, who their bosses were (if they had any), places from which
they did their deeds. I'd like more specifics on exactly "what" they did and how. Most
importantly, and to paraphrase the Fermi (UFO) Paradox, "where are they?" Rumor has it
they're in Rooshia. If so, fuggedaboudit! We ain't EVER gonna seem them.
Indictment! As the saying goes "you can indict a ham sandwich."
"All that said, it would have been nice to explain who "the Russians" are we're talking
about. This looks less like a government op than a clickbait scam of the sort hundreds of
firms in dozens of countries engage in:"
Russia has very tight control of net communications within its borders. This could not
have happened without their support, or at least their tacit approval.
This is falling right into the trap of the neocon and neoliberal warmongerers.
1) No I don't believe Russia wants to reconstitute either the Russian Empire or the Soviet
Empire. Its about territorial integrity and relevancy on the world stage.
2) The US and EU backed Russia into the corner with the tug of war in Ukrainian elections
between pro-Russian candidates and pro-EU candidates then threatening Ukraine to take Crimea
away from the Russian navy. A clear threat to Russian territorial integrity and Russia would
be irrelevant without its warm water port in the Black Sea.
3) US and EU and Israel spy and influence elections around the world. Its concerning yes, but
does the US and EU expect Russia not to reciprocate?
4) I don't care what anyone says, everyone in the US owes Russia a debt of gratitude. I will
thank any nation that tried to tell the US citizenry what an evil, shrill, bipolar,
incompetent, traitorous woman Hillary Clinton was and still is! Hillary and Obama and their
administration should be in jail for murder, corruption and collusion.
This blunder will force a further deterioration between the US and Russia when both the US
and EU need friendly relations with Russia now more than ever. There are threats in this
world far greater than Russia like terrorism and nuclear proliferation and radical islam etc.
This means the US will have to tackle these issues without the help of Russia because it will
be punishing Russia. Mr. Trump, we need a master negotiator now more than ever to get Russia
out past this scandal and build a better relationship with them.
What is distressing is not that it happened. We are an open society (and I use that term in a
general sense, not teh Karl Popper sense). So it is easy to do so.
What is distressing to me is that it may have worked.
One of the strangest things about this whole matter is that it was just a few years ago that
Obama and Clinton were talking about trying to have a "reset" in our relations with Russia,
and the Right was apoplectic that they would even consider trying to talk to the implacable
enemy that was just waiting for the chance to destroy us. Now, with clear evidence that
Russia has in fact caused us harm, those exact same people are the ones saying "No problem,
nothing to see here. We trust Putin implicitly, he would never do anything to hurt us."
A very timely article indeed- one only needs the most basic outline of Russian history of the
last millennium to understand that their foreign policy has always been primarily
defensive.
One thing, though, needs to be corrected: The next president will indeed have an opportunity
to demonstrate a broad understanding of the situation and stretch out a cautiously friendly
hand.
This can't happen with Trump for two reasons- he hasn't demonstrated any understanding of the
context of the issue, and he has thoroughly poisoned the well by only seeing recent events in
terms of his own personal repuatation, not of the nation that he was hired to represent.
"... Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is www.councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected]. ..."
inter alia allegedly later ran a clandestine operation seeking to influence opinion
in the United States regarding the candidates in the 2016 election in which it favored Donald
Trump and denigrated Hillary Clinton. The Russians identified by name are all back in Russia
and cannot be extradited to the U.S., so the indictment is, to a certain extent, political
theater as the accused's defense will never be heard.
In presenting the document, Rod Rosenstein, Deputy Attorney General, stressed that there was
no evidence to
suggest that the alleged Russian activity actually changed the result of the 2016
presidential election or that any actual votes were altered or tampered with. Nor was there any
direct link to either the Russian government or its officials or to the Donald Trump campaign
developed as a result of the nine-month long investigation. There was also lacking any mention
in the indictment of the Democratic National Committee, Hillary Clinton and Panetta e-mails, so
it is to be presumed that the activity described in the document was unrelated to the WikiLeaks
disclosures.
Those of the "okay, there's smoke but where's the fire" school of thought immediately noted
the significant elephant in the room, namely that the document did not include any suggestion
that there had been collusion between Team Trump and Moscow. As that narrative has become the
very raison d'etre driving the Mueller investigation, its omission is noteworthy.
Meanwhile, those who see more substance in what was revealed by the evidence provided in the
indictment and who, for political reasons, would like to see Trump damaged, will surely be
encouraged by their belief that the noose is tightening around the president.
Assuming the indictment is accurate, I would agree that the activity of the Internet
Research Agency does indeed have some of the hallmarks of a covert action intelligence
operation in terms how it used some spying tradecraft to support its organization, targeting
and activity. But its employees also displayed considerable amateur behavior, suggesting that
they were not professional spies, supporting the argument that it was not a government
intelligence operation or an initiative under Kremlin control. And beyond that, so what? Even
on a worst-case basis, stirring things up is what intelligence agencies do, and
no one is more active in interfering in foreign governments and elections than the United
States of America, most notably in Russia for the election of Boris Yeltsin in 1996, which was
arranged by Washington, and more recently in Ukraine in 2014. From my own experience I can cite
Italy's 1976 national election in which the CIA went all out to keep the communists out of
government. Couriers were discreetly dispatched to the headquarters of all the Italian right
wing parties dropping off bags of money for "expenses" while the Italian newspapers were full
of articles written by Agency-paid hacks warning of the dangers of communism. And this all went
on clandestinely even though Italy was a democracy, an ally and NATO member.
Does that mean that Washington should do nothing in response? No, not at all. Russia, if the
indictment is accurate, may have run an influencing operation and gotten caught with its hand
in the cookie jar. Or maybe not. And Washington might also actually have information suggesting
that Russia is preparing to engage in further interference in the 2018 and 2020 elections,
as claimed by the heads of the intelligence agencies, though, as usual, evidence for the
claim is lacking. There has to be bilateral, confidential discussion of such activity between
Washington and Moscow and a warning given that such behavior will not be tolerated in the
future, but only based on irrefutable, solid evidence. The leadership in both countries should
be made to understand very clearly that there are more compelling reasons to maintain good
bilateral working relations than not.
With that in mind, it is important not to overreact and to base any U.S. response on the
actual damage that was inflicted. The indictment suggests that Russia is out to destroy
American democracy by promoting "distrust" of government as well as sowing "discord" in the
U.S. political system while also encouraging "divisiveness" among the American people. I would
suggest in Russia's defense that the U.S. political system is already doing a good job at
self-destructing and the difficult-to-prove accusations being hurled at Moscow are the type one
flings when there is not really anything important to say.
I would suggest that Moscow might well want to destroy American democracy but there is no
evidence in the indictment to support that hypothesis. I particularly note that the document
makes a number of assumptions which appear to be purely speculative for which it provides no
evidence. It describes the Russian company Internet Research Agency as "engaged in operations
to interfere with elections and political processes." Its employees were involved in
"interference operations targeting the United States. From in or around 2014 to the
present, Defendants knowingly and intentionally conspired with each other (and with persons
known and unknown to the Grand Jury) to defraud the United States by impairing, obstructing,
and defeating the lawful functions of the government through fraud and deceit for the purpose
of interfering with the U.S. political and electoral processes, including the presidential
election of 2016."
The theme of Russian subversion is repeated throughout the indictment without any compelling
evidence to explain how Mueller knows what he asserts to be true, suggesting either that the
document would have benefited from a good editor or that whoever drafted it was making things
up. Internet Research Agency allegedly "conduct[ed] what it called 'information warfare against
the United States of America' through fictitious U.S. personas on social media platforms and
other Internet-based media." The indictment goes on to assert that
"By in or around May 2014, the ORGANIZATION's strategy included interfering with the 2016
U.S. presidential election, with the stated goal of 'spread[ing] distrust towards the
candidates and the political system in general'"
with a
"strategic goal to sow discord in the U.S. political system, including the 2016 U.S.
presidential election. Defendants posted derogatory information about a number of candidates,
and by early to mid-2016, Defendants' operations included supporting the presidential
campaign of then-candidate Donald J. Trump ("Trump Campaign") and disparaging Hillary
Clinton. Defendants made various expenditures to carry out those activities, including buying
political advertisements on social media in the name of U.S. persons and entities. Defendants
also staged political rallies inside the United States, and while posing as U.S. grassroots
entities and U.S. persons, and without revealing their Russian identities and ORGANIZATION
affiliation, solicited and compensated real U.S. persons to promote or disparage candidates.
Some Defendants, posing as U.S. persons and without revealing their Russian association,
communicated with unwitting individuals associated with the Trump Campaign and with other
political activists to seek to coordinate political activities."
Two company associates
"traveled in and around the United States, including stops in Nevada, California, New
Mexico, Colorado, Illinois, Michigan, Louisiana, Texas, and New York to gather intelligence.
After the trip, [they] exchanged an intelligence report regarding the trip. The conspiracy
had as its object the opening of accounts under false names at U.S. financial institutions
and a digital payments company in order to receive and send money into and out of the United
States to support the ORGANIZATION's operations in the United States and for
self-enrichment . Defendants and their co-conspirators also used the accounts to
receive money from real U.S. persons in exchange for posting promotions and advertisements on
the ORGANIZATION-controlled social media pages. Defendants and their co-conspirators
typically charged certain U.S. merchants and U.S. social media sites between 25 and 50 U.S.
dollars per post for promotional content on their popular false U.S. persona accounts,
including Being Patriotic, Defend the 2nd, and Blacktivist. All in violation of Title 18,
United States Code, Section 1349."
Note particularly the money laundering and for-profit aspects of the Internet Research
scheme, something that would be eschewed if it were an actual intelligence operation. There is
some speculation that it all might have been what is referred to as a click-bait commercial
marketing scheme set up to make money from advertising fees. Also note how small the entire
operation was. It focused on limited social media activity while spending an estimated $1
million on the entire venture, with Facebook admitting to a total of $100,000 in total ad buys,
only half of which were before the election. It doesn't smell like a major foreign government
intelligence/influence initiative intended to "overthrow democracy." And who attended the phony
political rallies? How many votes did the whole thing cause to change? Impossible to know, but
given a campaign in which billions were spent and both fake and real news were flying in all
directions, one would have to assume that the Russian effort was largely a waste of time if it
indeed was even as described or serious in the first place.
And apart from the money laundering aspect of the alleged campaign was it even illegal apart
from the allegations of possible visa fraud and money laundering? If the Russians involved were
getting their financial support from the Moscow government then it would be necessary to
register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) of 1938, but if not, they would be
protected by the Constitution and have the same First Amendment right to express their opinions
of Hillary Clinton on blogs and websites while also associating with others politically as do
all other residents of the United States. Many of the commenters on this Unz site are foreign
and are not required either by law or custom to state where they come from.
And, of course, there is one other thing. There always is. One major media outlet
is already suggesting that there could be consequences for American citizens who wittingly
or unwittingly helped the Russians, identified in the indictment as "persons known and
unknown." A former federal prosecutor put it another way, saying "While they went to great
pains to say they are not indicting any Americans today, if I was an American and I did
cooperate with Russians I would be extremely frightened " Politico
speculates that "Now, a legal framework exists for criminal charges against Americans " and
cites a former U.S. district attorney's observation that "Think of a conspiracy indicting
parties ' known and unknown' as a Matroyshka doll. There are many more layers to be
successively revealed over time."
Under normal circumstances, an American citizen colluding with a foreign country would have
to be convicted of engaging in an illegal conspiracy, which would require being aware that the
foreigners were involved in criminal behavior and knowingly aiding them. But today's overheated
atmosphere in Washington is anything but normal. Russia's two major media outlets that operate
in the U.S., Sputnik and RT America, have been forced to register under FARA. Does that mean
that the hundreds of American citizens who appeared on their programs prior to the 2016
election to talk about national politics will be next in line for punishment? Stay tuned.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National
Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation that seeks a more interests-based
U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is www.councilforthenationalinterest.org,
address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected].
This is an old method to unite the nation against external enemy. Carnage (with so much oil and gas) needs to be
destroyed. And it's working only partially with the major divisions between Trump and Hillary supporters remaining
open and unaffected by Russiagate witch hunt.
Notable quotes:
"... It is an age-old statecraft technique to seek unity within a state by depicting an external enemy or threat. Russia is the bête noire again, as it was during the Cold War years as part of the Soviet Union. ..."
"... Russophobia -- "blame it all on Russia" -- is a short-term, futile ploy to stave off the day of reckoning when furious and informed Western citizens will demand democratic restitution for their legitimate grievances. ..."
"... The dominant "official" narrative, from the US to Europe, is that "malicious" Russia is "sowing division;""eroding democratic institutions;" and "undermining public trust" in systems of governance, credibility of established political parties, and the news media. ..."
"... A particularly instructive presentation of this trope was given in a recent commentary by Texan Republican Representative Will Hurd. In his piece headlined, "Russia is our adversary" , he claims: "Russia is eroding our democracy by exploiting the nation's divisions. To save it, Americans need to begin working together." ..."
"... He contends: "When the public loses trust in the media, the Russians are winning. When the press is hyper-critical of Congress the Russians are winning. When Congress and the general public disagree the Russians are winning. When there is friction between Congress and the executive branch [the president] resulting in further erosion of trust in our democratic institutions, the Russians are winning." ..."
"... The endless, criminal wars that the US and its European NATO allies have been waging across the planet over the past two decades is one cogent reason why the public has lost faith in grandiose official claims about respecting democracy and international law. ..."
"... The US and European media have shown reprehensible dereliction of duty to inform the public accurately about their governments' warmongering intrigues. Take the example of Syria. When does the average Western citizen ever read in the corporate Western media about how the US and its NATO allies have covertly ransacked that country through weaponizing terrorist proxies? ..."
"... The destabilizing impact on societies from oppressive economic conditions is a far more plausible cause for grievance than outlandish claims made by the political class about alleged "Russian interference". ..."
"... Finian Cunningham (born 1963) has written extensively on international affairs, with articles published in several languages. Originally from Belfast, Northern Ireland, he is a Master's graduate in Agricultural Chemistry and worked as a scientific editor for the Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, England, before pursuing a career in newspaper journalism. For over 20 years he worked as an editor and writer in major news media organizations, including The Mirror, Irish Times and Independent. Now a freelance journalist based in East Africa, his columns appear on RT, Sputnik, Strategic Culture Foundation and Press TV. ..."
Russophobia - "blame it all on Russia" - is a short-term, futile ploy to stave off the day of reckoning when furious
and informed Western citizens will demand democratic restitution for their legitimate grievances
It is an age-old statecraft technique to seek unity within a state by depicting an external
enemy or threat. Russia is the bête noire again, as it was during the Cold War years as
part of the Soviet Union.
But the truth is Western states are challenged by internal problems. Ironically, by denying their own internal democratic challenges, Western authorities are
only hastening their institutional demise.
Russophobia -- "blame it all on Russia" -- is a short-term, futile ploy to stave off the day
of reckoning when furious and informed Western citizens will demand democratic restitution for
their legitimate grievances.
The dominant "official" narrative, from the US to Europe, is that "malicious" Russia is
"sowing division;""eroding democratic institutions;" and "undermining public trust" in systems
of governance, credibility of established political parties, and the news media.
This narrative has shifted up a gear since the election of Donald Trump to the White House
in 2016, with accusations that the Kremlin somehow ran "influence operations" to help get him
into office. This outlandish yarn defies common sense. It is also running out of thread to keep
spinning.
Paradoxically, even though President Trump has rightly rebuffed such dubious claims of
"Russiagate" interference as "fake news", he has at other times undermined himself by
subscribing to the notion that Moscow is projecting a campaign of "subversion against the US
and its European allies." See for example the National Security Strategy he signed off in
December.
Pathetically, it's become indoctrinated belief among the Western political class that
"devious Russians" are out to "collapse" Western democracies by
"weaponizing disinformation" and spreading "fake news" through Russia-based
news outlets like RT and Sputnik.
Totalitarian-like, there seems no room for intelligent dissent among political or media
figures.
British Prime Minister Theresa May has chimed in to
accuse Moscow of "sowing division;" Dutch state intelligence claim Russia
destabilized the US presidential election; the European Union commissioner for security, Sir
Julian King, casually lampoons Russian news media as "Kremlin-orchestrated
disinformation" to destabilize the 28-nation bloc; CIA chief Mike Pompeo recently warned
that Russia is stepping up its efforts to tarnish the Congressional mid-term elections later
this year.
On and on goes the narrative that Western states are essentially victims of a nefarious
Russian assault to bring about collapse.
A particularly instructive presentation of this trope was given in a recent commentary by Texan
Republican Representative Will Hurd. In his piece headlined, "Russia is our adversary"
, he claims: "Russia is eroding our democracy by exploiting the nation's divisions. To save
it, Americans need to begin working together."
Congressman Hurd asserts: "Russia has one simple goal: to erode trust in our democratic
institutions It has weaponized disinformation to achieve this goal for decades in Eastern and
Central Europe; in 2016, Western Europe and America were aggressively targeted as
well."
Lamentably, all these claims above are made with scant, or no, verifiable evidence. It is
simply a Big Lie technique of relentless repetition transforming itself into "fact"
.
It's instructive to follow Congressman Hurd's thought-process a bit further.
He contends: "When the public loses trust in the media, the Russians are winning. When
the press is hyper-critical of Congress the Russians are winning. When Congress and the general
public disagree the Russians are winning. When there is friction between Congress and the
executive branch [the president] resulting in further erosion of trust in our democratic
institutions, the Russians are winning."
As a putative solution, Representative Hurd calls for "a national counter-disinformation
strategy" against Russian "influence operations" , adding, "Americans must
stop contributing to a corrosive political environment".
The latter is a chilling advocacy of uniformity tantamount to a police state whereby any
dissent or criticism is a "thought-crime."
It is, however, such anti-democratic and paranoid thinking by Western politicians -- aided
and abetted by dutiful media -- that is killing democracy from within, not some supposed
foreign enemy.
There is evidently a foreboding sense of demise in authority and legitimacy among Western
states, even if the real cause for the demise is ignored or denied. Systems of governance,
politicians of all stripes, and institutions like the established media and intelligence
services are increasingly held in contempt and distrust by the public.
Whose fault is that loss of political and moral authority? Western governments and
institutions need to take a look in the mirror.
The endless, criminal wars that the US and its European NATO allies have been waging across
the planet over the past two decades is one cogent reason why the public has lost faith in
grandiose official claims about respecting democracy and international law.
The US and European media have shown reprehensible dereliction of duty to inform the public
accurately about their governments' warmongering intrigues. Take the example of Syria. When
does the average Western citizen ever read in the corporate Western media about how the US and
its NATO allies have covertly ransacked that country through weaponizing terrorist proxies?
How then can properly informed citizens be expected to have respect for such criminal
government policies and the complicit news media covering up for their crimes?
Western public disaffection with governments, politicians and media surely stems also from
the grotesque gulf in social inequality and poverty among citizens from slavish adherence to
economic policies that enrich the wealthy while consigning the vast majority to unrelenting
austerity.
The destabilizing impact on societies from oppressive economic conditions is a far more
plausible cause for grievance than outlandish claims made by the political class about alleged
"Russian interference".
Yet the Western media indulge this fantastical "Russiagate" escapism instead of campaigning
on real social problems facing ordinary citizens. No wonder such media are then viewed with
disdain and distrust. Adding insult to injury, these media want the public to believe Russia is
the enemy?
Instead of acknowledging and addressing real threats to citizens: economic insecurity,
eroding education and health services, lost career opportunities for future generations, the
looming dangers of ecological adversity, wars prompted by Western governments trashing
international and diplomacy, and so on -- the Western public is insultingly plied with corny
tales of Russia's "malign influence" and "assault on democracy."
Just think of the disproportionate amount of media attention and public resources wasted on
the Russiagate scandal over the past year. And now gradually emerging is the real scandal that
the American FBI probably colluded with the Obama administration to corrupt the democratic
process against Trump.
Again, is there any wonder the public has sheer contempt and distrust for "authorities" that
have been lying through their teeth and playing them for fools?
The collapsing state of Western democracies has got nothing to do with Russia. The
Russophobia of blaming Russia for the demise of Western institutions is an attempt at
scapegoating for the very real problems facing governments and institutions like the news
media. Those problems are inherent and wholly owned by these governments owing to chronic
anti-democratic functioning, as well as systematic violation of international law in their
pursuit of criminal wars and other subterfuges for regime-change objectives.
Finian Cunningham (born 1963) has written extensively on international affairs, with articles published in several
languages. Originally from Belfast, Northern Ireland, he is a Master's graduate in Agricultural Chemistry and worked as a
scientific editor for the Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, England, before pursuing a career in newspaper journalism. For
over 20 years he worked as an editor and writer in major news media organizations, including The Mirror, Irish Times and
Independent. Now a freelance journalist based in East Africa, his columns appear on RT, Sputnik, Strategic Culture Foundation
and Press TV.
Nunes chances to bring perpetrators to justice are close to zero. The Deep State controls the Washington, DC and can
withstand sporadic attacks.
It is an extremly courageous of Devin Nunes to give this interview.
Notable quotes:
"... Throwing down the gauntlet on alleged abuse of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) by the Department of Justice and the FBI, House Intelligence Committee Chair Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) stated that there could be legal consequences for officials who may have misled the FISA court. "If they need to be put on trial, we will put them on trial," he said. "The reason Congress exists is to oversee these agencies that we created." ..."
"... Nunes took this highly unusual, no-holds-barred stance during an interview with Emmy-award winning investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson , which aired on Sunday. ..."
"... He unapologetically averred that, yes, a criminal trial might well be the outcome. "DOJ and FBI are not above the law," he stated emphatically. "If they are committing abuse before a secret court getting warrants on American citizens, you're darn right that we're going to put them on trial." ..."
"... The stakes are very high. Current and former senior officials -- and not only from DOJ and FBI, but from other agencies like the CIA and NSA, whom documents and testimony show were involved in providing faulty information to justify a FISA warrant to monitor former Trump campaign official Carter Page -- may suddenly find themselves in considerable legal jeopardy. Like, felony territory. ..."
"... On the other hand, the presumptive perps have not run into a chairman like Nunes in four decades, since Congressmen Lucien Nedzi (D-Mich.), Otis Pike (D-NY), and Sen. Frank Church (D-Idaho) ran tough, explosive hearings on the abuses of a previous generation deep state, including massive domestic spying revealed by quintessential investigative reporter Seymour Hersh in December 1974. (Actually, this is largely why the congressional intelligence oversight committees were later established, and why the FISA law was passed in 1978.) ..."
"... At this point, one is tempted to say plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose ..."
"... One glaring sign of the media's unwillingness to displease corporate masters and Official Washington is the harsh reality that Hersh's most recent explosive investigations, using his large array of government sources to explore front-burner issues, have not been able to find a home in any English-speaking newspaper or journal. ..."
"... On this point, Nunes said, "In the last administration they were unmasking hundreds, and hundreds, and hundreds of Americans' names. They were unmasking for what I would say, for lack of a better definition, were for political purposes." ..."
"... It is real courageous of Devin Nunes to give this interview. It is not only the accountability to law that is at stake in U.S., but the Whole World is imperiled with what happens in Washington. But as many have written before in comments about this complete moral collapse of the Entire West, I am afraid, it is all going to be swept under the rug. We have to just keep the fingers crossed. ..."
"... I have never seen such media bias against a sitting president in my lifetime, not even against Richard Nixon when they at least practiced decorum and feigned objectivity even if they were secretly cheering on his demise. I will reiterate here that I do not champion the man but rather due process under our constitution, which has been made a travesty from the moment of Clinton's loss at the polls. ..."
"... I completely agree with you Realist. I am not Trump's fan or supporter of his agenda, in fact, in many things quite the opposite of it. However, he raised some very valid points about the the domestic economy and other issues, and about the need to stop interventions in foreign countries, and getting along Russia, and the need to rebuild country's manufacturing system again. He was duly elected by the people, and he should have been given the support to pursue what he promised. But it did not happen. ..."
"... Although it's being done for the wrong reasons, I am nevertheless looking forward to seeing our out-of-control intelligence agencies being put in their place. If I were president and my party controlled both houses of Congress, you'd better believe I'd be looking to dismantle the national surveillance state and reduce the military budget to a "mere" $250 billion annually. ..."
"... The post 9-11 wars of aggression, massive surveillance, torture and other war crimes were sold to the American public as only to be inflicted on foreigners, i.e. "we fight them over there so we don't fight them here." But the blowback has now turned America's schools, malls, workplaces, concerts and churches into war zones and little by little, the disinformation ops, "regime change" know-how and other accoutrements of perpetual war (the fool's errand of gaining full spectrum dominance over the rest of the world) have been turned inward on the American people, including powerful American officials themselves. So it would seem to be a good thing that some politicians like Nunes have finally seen the light exactly as Frank Church did -- only when they themselves began to reap the negative consequences of what they thought would only negatively impact other, lesser people. ..."
"... But there is more to it, as some have pointed out in comments above, there are some intra-party quarrels going on in Washington to take the upper hand. Regarding foreign policy, National Security State and surveillance, and other such issues, both parties are joined at the hip. ..."
"... It is instructive to read the comments on any NYT article on this subject. The comments are clearly written by intelligent, well-educated individuals – who parrot the Deep State's anti-Russian propaganda as if they were the dumbest of the "Better dead than Red!" 50s McCarthyites. ..."
"... The new McCarthyites are actually stupider and more authoritarian than their sad fore-bearers, because they could pierce the Deep States lies with 30 minutes of online research, but they prefer tribalism and ignorance, instead. ..."
"... Trump started going head to head with the intel folks, but has backed down a lot now. Let's hope Nunes et al hang in there and keep the pressure on these despicable criminals who hide behind governmental powers. ..."
"... Somehow I don't think Nunes or his committee is capable of reigning in Frankenstein. His "constitutuents"" are not likely to allow it and although the monster was pieced together from many body parts its instincts for self-preservation are formidable. Nevertheless, I would applaud anyone who makes the effort. ..."
"... Note that after saying the Russians are indicted for interfering in the election, and spending 5 minutes on this, at the 5 minute 20 second mark Rosenstein says there is no evidence that the Russians had any affect [sic] on the election! So what we have is the Deputy Attorney General of the United States announcing an indictment for which he says there is no evidence! ..."
"... In the world of cypher espionage I have no knowledge, but if Russia does hang out in it well then I'm sure the U.S. is already there to do what it must to defend it's cypher security. So that's a wash, but this insane Russia-Gate distraction was originally a way to deflect attention from Hillary & Debbie's putting the screws to Socialist Sanders . then Russia-Gate became a MSM driven coup to oust Trump from his Electoral won presidential office. ..."
"... Impossible to get the whole Gorgon's head, anyway, in such a corrupt system as we have ..."
"... Ray, do you think Trump has made a deal: he'll allow escalations against Russia, and in return the Deep State will leave him alone? If so, does that portend that this will fizzle out? ..."
"... While the shiny ball, smoke and mirrors psychological operation known as "Russiagate" has begun running on fumes before the gas tank finally runs dry, the major revelation of the Clinton WikiLeaks emails describing Saudi/Qatari financing of ISIS drops further down the memory hole. There's nothing like success ..."
House Intelligence Committee Chair Devin Nunes has stated that "DOJ and FBI are not above
the law," and could face legal consequences for alleged abuses of the FISA court, reports Ray
McGovern.
Throwing down the gauntlet on alleged abuse of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
(FISA) by the Department of Justice and the FBI, House Intelligence Committee Chair Devin Nunes
(R-Calif.) stated that there could be legal consequences for officials who may have misled the
FISA court. "If they need to be put on trial, we will put them on trial," he said. "The reason
Congress exists is to oversee these agencies that we created."
Attkisson said she had invited both Nunes and House Intelligence Committee Ranking Member
Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) but that only Nunes agreed. She asked him about Schiff's charge that
Nunes' goal was "to put the FBI and DOJ on trial." What followed was very atypical bluntness --
candor normally considered quite unacceptable in polite circles of the Washington
Establishment.
Rather than play the diplomat and disavow what Schiff contended was Nunes' goal, Nunes said,
in effect, let the chips fall where they may. He unapologetically averred that, yes, a
criminal trial might well be the outcome. "DOJ and FBI are not above the law," he stated
emphatically. "If they are committing abuse before a secret court getting warrants on American
citizens, you're darn right that we're going to put them on trial."
Die Is Cast
The stakes are very high. Current and former senior officials -- and not only from DOJ
and FBI, but from other agencies like the CIA and NSA, whom documents and testimony show were
involved in providing faulty information to justify a FISA warrant to monitor former Trump
campaign official Carter Page -- may suddenly find themselves in considerable legal jeopardy.
Like, felony territory.
This was not supposed to happen. Mrs. Clinton was a shoo-in, remember? Back when the FISA
surveillance warrant of Page was obtained, just weeks before the November 2016 election, there
seemed to be no need to hide tracks, because, even if these extracurricular activities were
discovered, the perps would have looked forward to award certificates rather than legal
problems under a Trump presidency.
Thus, the knives will be coming out. Mostly because the mainstream media will make a major
effort -- together with Schiff-mates in the Democratic Party -- to marginalize Nunes, those who
find themselves in jeopardy can be expected to push back strongly.
If past is precedent, they will be confident that, with their powerful allies within the
FBI/DOJ/CIA "Deep State" they will be able to counter Nunes and show him and the other
congressional investigation committee chairs, where the power lies. The conventional wisdom is
that Nunes and the others have bit off far more than they can chew. And the odds do not favor
folks, including oversight committee chairs, who buck the system.
Staying Power
On the other hand, the presumptive perps have not run into a chairman like Nunes in four
decades, since Congressmen Lucien Nedzi (D-Mich.), Otis Pike (D-NY), and Sen. Frank Church
(D-Idaho) ran tough, explosive hearings on the abuses of a previous generation deep state,
including massive domestic spying revealed by quintessential investigative reporter Seymour
Hersh in December 1974. (Actually, this is largely why the congressional intelligence oversight
committees were later established, and why the FISA law was passed in 1978.)
At this point, one is tempted to say plus ça change, plus c'est la même
chose -- or the more things change, the more they stay the same -- but that would be only
half correct in this context. Yes, scoundrels will always take liberties with the law to spy on
others. But the huge difference today is that mainstream media have no room for those who
uncover government crimes and abuse. And this will be a major impediment to efforts by Nunes
and other committee chairs to inform the public.
One glaring sign of the media's unwillingness to displease corporate masters and
Official Washington is the harsh reality that Hersh's most recent explosive investigations,
using his large array of government sources to explore front-burner issues, have not been able
to find a home in any English-speaking newspaper or journal. In a sense, this provides
what might be called a "confidence-building" factor, giving some assurance to deep-state perps
that they will be able to ride this out, and that congressional committee chairs will once
again learn to know their (subservient) place.
Much will depend on whether top DOJ and FBI officials can bring themselves to reverse course
and give priority to the oath they took to support and defend the Constitution of the United
States against all enemies foreign and domestic. This should not be too much to hope for, but
it will require uncommon courage in facing up honestly to the major misdeeds appear to have
occurred -- and letting the chips fall where they may. Besides, it would be the right thing to
do.
Nunes is projecting calm confidence that once he and Trey Gowdey (R-Tenn.), chair of the
House Oversight Committee, release documentary evidence showing what their investigations have
turned up, it will be hard for DOJ and FBI officials to dissimulate.
In Other News
In the interview with Attkisson, Nunes covered a number of other significant issues:
The
committee is closing down its investigation into possible collusion between Moscow and the
Trump campaign; no evidence of collusion was found. The apparently widespread practice of
"unmasking" the identities of Americans under surveillance. On this point, Nunes said, "In
the last administration they were unmasking hundreds, and hundreds, and hundreds of Americans'
names. They were unmasking for what I would say, for lack of a better definition, were for
political purposes." Asked about Schiff's criticism that Nunes behaved improperly on what
he called the "midnight run to the White House," Nunes responded that the stories were untrue.
"Well, most of the time I ignore political nonsense in this town," he said. "What I will say is
that all of those stories were totally fake from the beginning."
Not since Watergate has there been so high a degree of political tension here in Washington
but the stakes for our Republic are even higher this time. Assuming abuse of FISA court
procedures is documented and those responsible for playing fast and loose with the required
justification for legal warrants are not held to account, the division of powers enshrined in
the Constitution will be in peril.
A denouement of some kind can be expected in the coming months. Stay tuned.
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of
the Savior in inner-city Washington. He was a CIA analyst for 27 years and is co-founder of
Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).
Skip Scott , February 19, 2018 at 9:38 am
Thanks Ray for another great article. One can only hope that Nunes is successful. However,
like you say, the MSM is now complicit with the "Deep State", so the fight for justice
becomes much harder. One also has to remember Schumer's "six ways from Sunday" applies
equally to the congress as it does to the president. I hardly ever watch TV news, but
recently I've been subjected to it, and I've seen a deluge of fluff pieces on our so-called
Intelligence Agencies. I would love to see Trump give a speech (instead of a tweet) directly
to the American people letting them know what rascals like Brennan, Clapper, et al have been
up to.
Bob Van Noy , February 19, 2018 at 12:51 pm
This may be the best broadcast tv journalism in many years, read Sharyl Attkisson's story,
"Stonewalled" (I will link the commentary page to that book for thorough readers). And thank
you Nat, Ray McGovern & CN
An excellent and very timely article by Ray McGovern. Lawlessness, greed, complete
subservience to Wall Street Finance and other Powers, insanity, and utter inhumanity prevails
in present day Ruling Establishment in Washington. Obama, "the hope and change" Con Artist
for whose election, being democrats we worked so hard in 2008 turned to be the biggest
perpetrator of this lawlessness and responsible for fanning the flames still further in
starting a new Cold War.
It is real courageous of Devin Nunes to give this interview. It is not only the
accountability to law that is at stake in U.S., but the Whole World is imperiled with what
happens in Washington. But as many have written before in comments about this complete moral
collapse of the Entire West, I am afraid, it is all going to be swept under the rug. We have
to just keep the fingers crossed.
Howard Dean just said yesterday that Nunes and people like him belong in jail. Now can you
believe it, how low these so called liberal democrats have come to? Looking at the pictures
of Adam Schiff, Howard Dean, and others in their company, I literally feel sick in the
stomach. And one asks the essential question: "did not their parents teach them any honesty
or moral principles in young age?".
Abbybwood , February 19, 2018 at 3:54 pm
But what he said is very confusing. First he says that Congress has no way to prosecute the DOJ/FBI for wrong doing then at
the end he says Congress will need to prosecute the DOJ/FBI if necessary. Either Congress has the ability to prosecute the DOJ/FBI and issue indictments and set up
Grand Juries or they don't.
Somebody needs to find out, Constitutionally, what the solution is when the DOJ/FBI at the
highest levels become the criminals. WHO has the power to indict/convict these individuals??
Sam F , February 19, 2018 at 10:36 pm
A special prosecutor (Mueller's position) is appointed by the Pres or AG.
Annie , February 19, 2018 at 3:20 pm
From what I've heard expressed by a few FBI people, you don't come before a court, but a
judge, one person, and they are known to rubber stamp almost everything. So they should be
investigated too.
Realist , February 19, 2018 at 5:02 pm
I have never seen such media bias against a sitting president in my lifetime, not even
against Richard Nixon when they at least practiced decorum and feigned objectivity even if
they were secretly cheering on his demise. I will reiterate here that I do not champion the
man but rather due process under our constitution, which has been made a travesty from the
moment of Clinton's loss at the polls.
Dave P. , February 19, 2018 at 7:56 pm
I completely agree with you Realist. I am not Trump's fan or supporter of his agenda, in
fact, in many things quite the opposite of it. However, he raised some very valid points
about the the domestic economy and other issues, and about the need to stop interventions in
foreign countries, and getting along Russia, and the need to rebuild country's manufacturing
system again. He was duly elected by the people, and he should have been given the support to
pursue what he promised. But it did not happen. We would not know now what he actually wanted
to accomplish.
Sam F , February 19, 2018 at 10:41 pm
Yes, neither party nor the mass media shows concern for the Constitution or for the
people. As the propaganda agency, the mass media are primarily responsible. The
zionist/WallSt/MIC oligarchy have consolidated control over mass media, secret agencies, and
elections, but not without factions.
Although it's being done for the wrong reasons, I am nevertheless looking forward to
seeing our out-of-control intelligence agencies being put in their place. If I were president
and my party controlled both houses of Congress, you'd better believe I'd be looking to
dismantle the national surveillance state and reduce the military budget to a "mere" $250
billion annually.
Joe Tedesky , February 19, 2018 at 11:09 am
Michael I hear ya. Yes, there is a civil war of sorts going on in DC, and yes it would be
a wonderful thing to rid our bureaucracy of all the slim that is in it, but taking Jiminy
Cricket's good advice to heart would be so much more fruitful to if you and I would only
sing;
'When you wish upon a star
Makes no difference who you are
Anything your heart desires will come to you"
Now that song will be stuck in my head all day .got any Journey? Joe
Coleen Rowley , February 19, 2018 at 3:27 pm
It's true that people generally do not care when bad practices, policies or violence is
inflicted on others and not on themselves. Of course that's stupid because it's just a matter
of time before "blowback" occurs (as the CIA euphemistically labeled how doing unto others
eventually boomerangs back on perpetrators). Going back to the Church Committee and how that
bit of accountability finally happened, it only got off the ground when Frank Church and
other Senators found THEMSELVES in the crosshairs of FBI Cointelpro; CIA's "CHAOS" and NSA's
"Minaret" surveillance.
http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/09/25/secret-cold-war-documents-reveal-nsa-spied-on-senators/
(To this day, only 7 of the 1000 or so Americans targeted by the NSA during the Vietnam War
have been discovered but their identities are telling.)
The post 9-11 wars of aggression, massive surveillance, torture and other war crimes were
sold to the American public as only to be inflicted on foreigners, i.e. "we fight them over
there so we don't fight them here." But the blowback has now turned America's schools, malls,
workplaces, concerts and churches into war zones and little by little, the disinformation
ops, "regime change" know-how and other accoutrements of perpetual war (the fool's errand of
gaining full spectrum dominance over the rest of the world) have been turned inward on the
American people, including powerful American officials themselves. So it would seem to be a
good thing that some politicians like Nunes have finally seen the light exactly as Frank
Church did -- only when they themselves began to reap the negative consequences of what they
thought would only negatively impact other, lesser people.
BobS , February 19, 2018 at 4:50 pm
" the blowback has now turned America's schools, malls, workplaces, concerts and churches
into war zones"
"blowback" is doing a lot of work in that sentence, if you're referring specifically to
"post 9-11 wars of aggression, massive surveillance, torture and other war crimes". Whenever
the incidents have had a political agenda attached, it's more often than not been of the
domestic right-wing variety. And of course, all of them have been facilitated by easy
civilian access to hardware that was originally developed by the military (ours and the
Soviets) to efficiently kill/incapacitate large numbers of enemy fighters.
Gregory Herr , February 19, 2018 at 7:30 pm
BobS fails to understand that blowback encapsulates more than "revenge". "Forever war" and
all Colleen mentions that goes with it has had societal impact because violence is glorified
as a "solution" and feelings of suspicion and antagonism become part of the dark
undertow.
Sam F , February 19, 2018 at 10:54 pm
Well said, Colleen. Let us hope that Nunes is not merely acting the part. I wonder whether
the greatest secrets of domestic spying are now so compartmentalized and controlled that only
those most dependent upon their agency could blow the whistle.
Annie , February 19, 2018 at 4:23 pm
This is not to be compared to spying on citizens, which is unacceptable, but they tried to
undermine a presidency, whether you like Trump or not, and at the same time it allowed them
to push their cold war agenda. I remember Clinton's campaign manager coming out right after
the e-mail dump that said the Russians did it. And didn't Obama send a lot of those Russian
ambassadors packing? They should be investigated, as should the FISA court itself. Perhaps if
Trump didn't have this charge of colluding with Russia he might have been able to be more
diplomatic on that score. Now, they made sure he would never be getting along with Russia.
What they have now is a bunch of Russians acting on their own that allegedly interfered in
our elections and created political discord, which is absurd, since the democrats are mainly
responsible for this nonsense, as is the FBI and DOJ. I was a democrat, but no more.
Dave P. , February 19, 2018 at 4:52 pm
Annie, you are right on that. However, Coleen Rowely has also made some very good
observations in her comments. But there is more to it, as some have pointed out in comments
above, there are some intra-party quarrels going on in Washington to take the upper hand.
Regarding foreign policy, National Security State and surveillance, and other such issues,
both parties are joined at the hip.
Gregory Herr , February 19, 2018 at 7:42 pm
I wouldn't completely discount the idea that Nunes' sense of responsibility has been
activated by being a close witness to what is blatant wrongdoing. But then my cynicism is
still tempered by the belief that sometimes people are compelled to do what's right just
because it's what's right. Silly me.
Virginia , February 19, 2018 at 10:34 am
Me, too, Michael, to " dismantle the national surveillance state and reduce the military
budget to a 'mere' $250 billion annually."
Thanks to Ray McGovern for another good article with link to interview. Good to hear they
will finally be closing the Mueller investigation (Nunes was straightforward about that, no
there there) and will likely be investigating the FBI and DOJ.
Applause goes to David Nunes. Keep up the good work.
Abbybwood , February 19, 2018 at 4:03 pm
But I see where Trump asked for nearly one TRILLION dollars for the military and got
it.
Pandas4peace , February 19, 2018 at 10:24 am
Where can we get access to Seymour Hersh's "recent explosive investigations" even if they
are written in German?
"On June 25th 2017 the German newspaper, Welt, published the latest piece by Seymour
Hersh, countering the "mainstream" narrative around the April 4th 2017 Khan Sheikhoun
chemical attack in Syria."
Consortiumnews.com publishes and comments on everything Pulitzer Prize winning Sy Hersh
does. The problem is that he is BANNED from English-language pubs -- simply banned and even
kept off erstwhile "liberal" TV and radio programs. Amy Goodman, for example, has ALWAYS had
Sy on when he had a new story until this one. She would not touch it; these days prefers to
go with the "White Helmets" of this world. O Tempora, O Mores. Sad.
So, in sum, the problem is a very basic one. Sy does not publish until he has nailed down
every significant detail and, since he is so well plugged in with many longtime, trusted
sources to sift through, that takes a while for a bit story -- as all of them are. And when
he is ready to publish, he hears folks whisper "Leper" as he gets close to an editorial
office. It really IS that bad. We owe the op-ed editor at die Welt our thanks.
Btw: The Consortiumnews.com main page has a SEARCH button that I find very handy. Try to
search on Seymour Hersh. Same goes for easily searchable raymcgovern.com, my website.
Ray
David Otness , February 19, 2018 at 5:37 pm
The London Review of Books has been publishing Hersh's work. That's one source.
The ostracizing of Sy Hersh is a major -- if highly depressing -- story in and of itself.
But he is irrepressible. I do not think he is going to silently steal away any time soon.
Ray McGovern
Kim Dixon , February 19, 2018 at 10:32 am
Can anyone imagine the Neocon WashPo, or the NYT (or CBS, or CNN, or ) committing actual
journalism, as this story progresses?
That, and the DNC's commitment to the DNC to the Russia Did It!™ canard, will ensure
that real revelations go nowhere.
It is instructive to read the comments on any NYT article on this subject. The comments
are clearly written by intelligent, well-educated individuals – who parrot the Deep
State's anti-Russian propaganda as if they were the dumbest of the "Better dead than Red!"
50s McCarthyites.
The new McCarthyites are actually stupider and more authoritarian than their sad
fore-bearers, because they could pierce the Deep States lies with 30 minutes of online
research, but they prefer tribalism and ignorance, instead.
Lois Gagnon , February 19, 2018 at 1:01 pm
You got that right! I live in the 5 college area in Massachusetts. Plenty of those types
around here playing activists. They fit your description. I can't stand to be in the same
room with any of them. They may as well be from Mars.
Nancy , February 19, 2018 at 2:47 pm
I agree. The average working person has more common sense than the so-called intelligent,
educated class. I suspect their views reflect the fact that they are very comfortable,
financially, with the status quo, and don't want any real change.
mike k , February 19, 2018 at 10:35 am
Trump started going head to head with the intel folks, but has backed down a lot now.
Let's hope Nunes et al hang in there and keep the pressure on these despicable criminals who
hide behind governmental powers. When you allow people to do whatever they want in secret
with no oversight, you can expect them to abuse their power. The basic question all this
leads to is "who is running this country and making crucial decisions about war and peace, or
fascism and democracy"?
Somehow I don't think Nunes or his committee is capable of reigning in Frankenstein. His
"constitutuents"" are not likely to allow it and although the monster was pieced together
from many body parts its instincts for self-preservation are formidable. Nevertheless, I
would applaud anyone who makes the effort.
Thanks BobH, that's an excellent rant, thanks for passing it along.
Joe Tedesky , February 19, 2018 at 10:58 am
The only way any trail that Nunes could even begin to make magically appear to happen
before our weary eyes will happen only, and I say only, will appear because it will be good
for tv ratings. Enforcing Constitutional law, I mean who does that anymore? Why today in our
nation's capital we have congressional people asking the opposite of what Ben Franklin warned
us good citizens about as the swamp critters are saying, 'Constitution how can we lose it'.
You know this Ray that these crooks and crookettes in DC think that the U.S. Constitution is
so passé and so anciently colonial that they hear Jefferson saying, 'ignore this
stupid document, I was drunk with Adams and Franklin when I wrote it. It was all a big
mistake.' Or something like that, but Constitutional law we don't need no stink'n
Constitutional law, now get back to your part time work. (Whip cracking sound)
Hey Ray this whole fiasco does what is most important in this new American century, this
fiasco is entertaining and the ratings are going through the roof so with that what more
could a red blooded good American ask for now pass the tv remote.
Note that after saying the Russians are indicted for interfering in the
election, and spending 5 minutes on this, at the 5 minute 20 second mark Rosenstein says
there is no evidence that the Russians had any affect [sic] on the election! So what
we have is the Deputy Attorney General of the United States announcing an indictment for
which he says there is no evidence!
If we take Roberts' statement at face value, he may have inadvertenly mischaracterized
Rosenstein's statement. According to Roberts, Rosenstein said there is no evidence of an
effect on the election, but it does not follow from that that Rosenstein is saying that there
is no evidence of interference. There may have been "interference" that had no impact. And,
of course, there is the question, just what is meant by "interference" in this context?
I share the frustration many commenters have about the entire "Russiagate" narrative, but
I think it is important to be careful in how we evaluate these statements. It may all be a
"nothinburger," but it is important to describe things carefully and correctly. Otherwise,
one ends up inadvertently setting up a straw man for someone else to knock down.
Joe Tedesky , February 19, 2018 at 10:25 pm
I share the stress you do blimblax that you and all who stay on this Russia-Gate pay-ops
suffer, but the way this crooked nail investigation has been going, mostly distorted by the
press coverage, your argument about the interpretation of Rosenstein's words to the general
public will be like splitting hairs with bald people . they just won't get it, and why,
because I'm not sure the vast amount of Americans get it now. They got turned off along time
ago back when the FBI didn't produce Trump performing his much heard about Steele Dossier
acclaimed Water Sports in his Moscow Obama's Presidential Suite sick, yes, but it's the
truth. No pictures, no believe you.
Personally I have never doubted any Russian influence in the way of statements, or essays,
but this contribution of opinion is to be expected from any well thinking country, or nation
if you'd rather of the world. Plus the Russians spending wasn't even close to any real
fraction of what both U.S. Presidential candidate spend on their campaigns, get real.
In the world of cypher espionage I have no knowledge, but if Russia does hang out in it
well then I'm sure the U.S. is already there to do what it must to defend it's cypher
security. So that's a wash, but this insane Russia-Gate distraction was originally a way to
deflect attention from Hillary & Debbie's putting the screws to Socialist Sanders . then
Russia-Gate became a MSM driven coup to oust Trump from his Electoral won presidential
office.
We could argue to how Trump,should be questioned, or even brought up on impeachment
charges, but not for this particular Russia interference into our so well guarded American
democracy. In fact we Americans don't need any Russian help at bringing our American
democracy down, because we Americans already did that with the Patriot Act as among a few
many other things. Joe
Somehow many Democrats are convinced that the FBI/DOJ did nothing wrong with regards to
the FISA warrants. And they're still convinced that Trump colluded with Putin. Nothing will
change their minds, it's hopeless.
Lois Gagnon , February 19, 2018 at 4:17 pm
It is indeed surreal to watch people who classify themselves as the left undermining the
left by supporting the very agencies whose sole purpose from their inception is to destroy
the left.
As David William Pear put it at OpEd News, "I don't think even Orwell has a scene like
this: anti-authoritarian dissidents endorse more authoritarian means to weed out
authoritarians resulting in authoritarians having more control to weed out dissidents."
The Deep State is very, very deep, and we're "Knee Deep in the Big Muddy" (Pete Seeger).
Anybody knows the US Deep State was thoroughly entrenched by Reagan's time. It's overdue not
to let this deep state corruption harden to concrete. I support neither party until there is
a course correction, and Nunes makes valid points in support of a correction. Thanks,
Ray.
BobS , February 19, 2018 at 11:58 am
Thin skinned too, eh Ray?
You're right, of course- Russia analysts at the CIA did stellar work in the 1980s.
Joe Tedesky , February 19, 2018 at 12:01 pm
No BobS it's you with your thickhead that doesn't get it. Keep it up BobS, because
eventually you are going to say something funny. Take care. Joe
Will Nunes or any conservative go after the thousands of illegal acts perpetrated by
conservatives??? NO! Nunes, along with every conservative traitor in America (republican or
democrat) needs to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. The conservative agenda is
not moral or constitutional.
BobS , February 19, 2018 at 1:09 pm
Considering their disregard for law as well as their worship of authoritarianism
(exercised against the proper targets, of course), I'd say it's more than "self-enrichment"
that drives conservatives, both ancient and modern.
Deniz , February 19, 2018 at 1:58 pm
Perhaps that is an issue, but I am unclear precisely what is wrong in Nunes position that
he is relying on Gowdy, an undeniably sharp, precise, prosecutor, to review the examined
material. Watching both Nunes and Gowdy in sessions, I would have probably, and gladly, made
the same decision. It also make sense politically that they cover for each other, one person
is expendable and takes the heat – Nunes, while the other – Gowdy, an upward star
of the party, who probably ran the whole investigation anyway, keeps his hands clean.
BobS , February 19, 2018 at 2:09 pm
The always partisan "upward star" Trey 'BENGHAZI!!!' Gowdy announced his retirement from
congress last month due to his being "sick of hyper-partisanship".
And let me show you this bridge I'm selling
Deniz , February 19, 2018 at 2:32 pm
In fact, I would greatly enjoy a discussion on weapons transfers from Libya to Erdogan to
Al – Qaeda via Clinton. This is actually one of my favorite topics. So have it.
Deniz , February 19, 2018 at 5:34 pm
So what is your argument, that we should be loyal to our crime family and not theirs?
Or do you think Hillary, "We came, we saw, he died" or Mueller, of nothing to see here on
9/11 notoriety are the sort of people we should be defending.
Impossible to get the whole Gorgon's head, anyway, in such a corrupt system as we have.
Why else are we in such a mess? Both GOP and Democrats have not served the people, so we
should therefore give up trying to address any abuse?
Antiwar7 , February 19, 2018 at 12:35 pm
Ray, do you think Trump has made a deal: he'll allow escalations against Russia, and in
return the Deep State will leave him alone? If so, does that portend that this will fizzle
out?
Gregory Herr , February 19, 2018 at 8:14 pm
So you are privy to the briefings in question. Just because Reagan bloated the military
budget doesn't mean he was being fed false intelligence by McGovern.
On the other hand, it is well publicized that Cheney twisted arms at Langley and Tenet
obliged and Rummy worked the Iraq angle as well. We also had the Downing Street Memo and the
Powell fiasco and Valerie Plame. Ray was right to be indignant.
While the shiny ball, smoke and mirrors psychological operation known as "Russiagate" has
begun running on fumes before the gas tank finally runs dry, the major revelation of the
Clinton WikiLeaks emails describing Saudi/Qatari financing of ISIS drops further down the
memory hole. There's nothing like success
Drew Hunkins , February 19, 2018 at 3:59 pm
Good point Mr. Alatalo. The Saudi-Zio Terror Network gets away with murder, literally and
figuratively and of course the Saudi-Zio Terror Network NEVER, EVER interferes in ANY
elections in the United States, no never.
Thank you Paul E. Merrell, J.D. I have been convinced from the beginning of all of this
that this was the line to Wikileaks. Now if we could only get a real investigation into
Seth's murder.
Stop Bush and Clinton , February 19, 2018 at 7:34 pm
"We found that they broke a vast number of laws, did surveillance of a competitor with a
warrant based on fake evidence, all adding up to treason worse than Watergate. But we think
that no reasonable prosecutor would file charges .."
-- The FBI
Mueller was the person responsible for investigation of 911. That fact alone tells you all as for what we can
expect.
Notable quotes:
"... NO actual physical proof has been presented to the public to substantiate claims that Russia hacked the DNC ..."
"... There is NO proof (only allegations) of collusion between Trump's campaign and the Kremlin ..."
"... Social media efforts by Russian trolls to influence the election were minimal in the extreme, laughably amateurish and completely ineffective ..."
"... Glenn Greenwald has spent the past year documenting in detail the large volume of fake anti-Russian "news" generated by the MSM (see GG at The Intercept) ..."
"... There is NO connection between the Russian government and the 13 private citizens recently indicted for their pathetic and ineffectual activity as part of a troll farm ..."
"... Thanks to the paranoid, xenophobic, Russia-bashing nationalistic propaganda that is being promoted by our military-industrial-intelligence-media complex, the U.S. now believes it is acceptable to launch a first strike nuclear attack in retaliation for breeches of cyber security ..."
"... Trump won't be impeached over Russiagate for the simple reason that Russiagate is nothing but a psyops perpetrated against the American people by the national-security bureaucracy (and their corporate media propagandists) for the purposes of reigniting a second Cold War and maintaining U.S. global hegemony. ..."
"... Thanks to the hysterical McCarthyism now rampant among Democrats - and that is being used to great effect by Washington's bipartisan neocon warmongers - we may just end up in a nuclear war. The good news: it will be a short war and the Democrats will never have to accept responsibility for Clinton's loss. ..."
"... How about that Clinton got the CIA to partner with neo-Nazis in Ukraine to stage a coup, kick out Putin's friend, and install a billionaire capitalist as President? - something the media never mentions. ..."
"... Ultimately, I see the Russia story as getting its legs from the efforts of the dominant Hillary wing of the Democratic party, backed by big media, to continue to assert that Hillary really won the presidency in 2016, and that their wing should continue to have control of the party. ..."
"... That an immensely dangerous war fever is being whipped up in the process is of no importance to them. And, by no means incidentally, they are ignoring all of the real atrocities being committed by the Trump administration against the American people and the earth's environment. ..."
"... It has been thus since the creep moved into the White House. Dreyfuss, perky Rachel Maddow, Colbert, Maher, and many others have been the true "useful idiots". ..."
"... This same media never gave Sanders any media exposure during the primary. ..."
"... I would add that the election manipulations which the Clinton forces engaged in to defeat Sanders during the Democratic primaries dwarfs, by orders of magnitude, anything alleged against the Russians by even the most hawkish backers of the Russia probe. ..."
"... tweet by Peter Van Buren, former US foreign intelligence officer "Just did a quick read of the '13 Russian' indictment. Missing are a) any connections between the 13 and the Russian government and/or Trump campaign; b) any discussion of the impact (if any) their social media efforts had. It describes them buying Facebook ads, but nothing about if it affected votes; c) no connection shown between any of this and DNC, Wikileaks, hacking of emails; d) no discussion of motive; e) assumption that anything anti-Clinton was defacto pro-Bernie and/or pro-Trump. And all indicted persons are Russians, and outside the U.S., so highly unlikely this is going anywhere further legally. ..."
"... BTW, today the media put up that scumbag Podesta as a spokesperson for the Democrats. ..."
"... Seems that the end justifies the means. No matter what is the truth. In the mean-time, they're actually harming the opposition to Trump. I suppose nobody asked Podesta why the DNC never offered their computers for FBI forensics. ..."
"... The MSM never asks the hard questions anymore. It seems all pre-scripted and sanitized for corporate media. ..."
"... It's been a year since Mueller went to work and what's he got? A couple of Republican political operatives being political operatives. Their crime was not reporting to the USG that they were working for Ukraine. Now we're down to social media posts. You're probably one of those people who say, I saw it on the internet so it must be true. If the government is going to be upset about crap they see on social media from foreign parties, they need to start by telling said social media that they can't solicit advertising from foreign entities with political overtones as facebook did of RT. ..."
"... So we are going to limit global free speech by spending $Trillions more on building a nuclear arsenal - total madness - driven by [un] Democratic whining. ..."
"... Apparently, it comes down to trolls who planted various "fake news" stories. Stipulate to all of that; the worst of it. How does THAT begin to stack–up against the murderous coup that the USA OPENLY fomented in the Ukraine a couple of years earlier by bankrolling dozens of Non-governmental organizations whose sole purpose was "regime change"? ..."
"... Maybe come back to me about all of this when the FBI can convincingly prove that the Russian government armed and funded a Neo–nazi para–military group that assaulted and burned–down the North Carolina State House. ..."
"... You mean like Clinton and the CIA did in Ukraine, for economic domination over Russia, don't you? ..."
"... Tell me, as soon as you can, when having skepticism on the Russia/Election Meddling story is finally permitted. I heard tell, we've lately dropped the "Treason" narration. Now the spin du jour is that Trump & Co were all duped by them clever Ruskies. Whatever floats your boat. ..."
"... Stephen Cohen's take on Russiagate makes a lot of sense, to me. I've followed Russia/soviet/US relations very closely since Gorbachev. Open your eyes, Mattis has labeled Russia our mortal enemy, we just upped defense spending to an obscene level that shall keep our schools, hospitals, social services, and infrastructure in their bad state. ..."
NO actual physical proof has been presented to the public to substantiate claims that
Russia hacked the DNC
There is NO proof (only allegations) of collusion between Trump's campaign and the
Kremlin
Social media efforts by Russian trolls to influence the election were minimal in the
extreme, laughably amateurish and completely ineffective
Glenn Greenwald has spent the past year documenting in detail the large volume of fake
anti-Russian "news" generated by the MSM (see GG at The Intercept)
There is NO connection between the Russian government and the 13 private citizens recently
indicted for their pathetic and ineffectual activity as part of a troll farm
Thanks to the paranoid, xenophobic, Russia-bashing nationalistic propaganda that is being
promoted by our military-industrial-intelligence-media complex, the U.S. now believes it is
acceptable to launch a first strike nuclear attack in retaliation for breeches of cyber
security
Read number six again and think about it. The U.S. is ready and willing to launch a
preemptive nuclear attack against any nation it accuses of undermining our cyber security -
no proof necessary. The Democratic establishment, which has spent the past year engaging in
baseless Kremlin-baiting (and very little else), is directly responsible for this
insanity.
Trump won't be impeached over Russiagate for the simple reason that Russiagate is nothing
but a psyops perpetrated against the American people by the national-security bureaucracy
(and their corporate media propagandists) for the purposes of reigniting a second Cold War
and maintaining U.S. global hegemony.
Thanks to the hysterical McCarthyism now rampant among
Democrats - and that is being used to great effect by Washington's bipartisan neocon
warmongers - we may just end up in a nuclear war. The good news: it will be a short war and
the Democrats will never have to accept responsibility for Clinton's loss.
Fred Caruso says: February 18, 2018 at 9:30 pm
Who gives a shit really?
How about that Clinton got the CIA to partner with neo-Nazis in Ukraine to stage a coup,
kick out Putin's friend, and install a billionaire capitalist as President? - something the
media never mentions.
Caleb Melamed says: February 18, 2018 at 9:12 am
As I open the online edition of The Nation this morning, there are two lead stories. One
of them tells how Trump is planning to evict 5 million poor people from public housing. A
very important story.
The second story by Bob Dreyfuss is probably the 10,000th one I've seen about the Russia
probe. The public housing story is obviously much more important and substantial, yet the
Democrats have been focusing almost exclusively on the flimsy Russia probe. Not even the
pressing need to regulate assault rifles has really grabbed their full attention, even in the
wake of the latest dreadful Florida high school massacre. In perusing the news stories this
Sunday morning, the Russia probe continues to hold first place in coverage by a big
margin.
Ultimately, I see the Russia story as getting its legs from the efforts of the dominant
Hillary wing of the Democratic party, backed by big media, to continue to assert that Hillary
really won the presidency in 2016, and that their wing should continue to have control of the
party.
That an immensely dangerous war fever is being whipped up in the process is of no
importance to them. And, by no means incidentally, they are ignoring all of the real
atrocities being committed by the Trump administration against the American people and the
earth's environment.
Clark M Shanahan says: February 18, 2018 at 9:52 am
Amen, Caleb It has been thus since the creep moved into the White House.
Dreyfuss, perky Rachel Maddow, Colbert, Maher, and many others have been the true "useful
idiots".
Fred Caruso says: February 18, 2018 at 9:33 pm
This same media never gave Sanders any media exposure during the primary.
Caleb Melamed says: February 18, 2018 at 9:42 am
I would add that the election manipulations which the Clinton forces engaged in to defeat
Sanders during the Democratic primaries dwarfs, by orders of magnitude, anything alleged
against the Russians by even the most hawkish backers of the Russia probe.
Clark M Shanahan says: February 18, 2018 at 8:24 am
FYI tweet by Peter Van Buren,
former US foreign intelligence officer "Just did a quick read of the '13 Russian' indictment. Missing are a) any connections
between the 13 and the Russian government and/or Trump campaign; b) any discussion of the
impact (if any) their social media efforts had. It describes them buying Facebook ads, but
nothing about if it affected votes; c) no connection shown between any of this and DNC,
Wikileaks, hacking of emails; d) no discussion of motive; e) assumption that anything
anti-Clinton was defacto pro-Bernie and/or pro-Trump. And all indicted persons are Russians,
and outside the U.S., so highly unlikely this is going anywhere further legally.
Fred Caruso says: February 18, 2018 at 9:37 pm
There is nothing illegal or unethical about any individual of government supporting one
candidate over another. BTW, today the media put up that scumbag Podesta as a spokesperson for the Democrats.
Clark M Shanahan says: February 19, 2018 at 9:02 am
Seems that the end justifies the means.
No matter what is the truth.
In the mean-time, they're actually harming the opposition to Trump. I suppose nobody asked Podesta why the DNC never offered
their computers for FBI forensics.
Fred Caruso says: February 19, 2018 at 12:31 pm
The MSM never asks the hard questions anymore. It seems all pre-scripted and sanitized for
corporate media.
Richard Phelps says: February 18, 2018 at 2:52 am
There is one issue that no media is talking about regarding the "memos". Trump is clearly
a "person of interest", if not a suspect in some parts of the investigation. Given Trump's
entanglement how is it not an absolute conflict of interest for Trump being the person who
decides what memos get to be public and what redactions must be made.
Imagine a judge being a suspect in a crime or a major stockholder in a corporate civil
suit. S/he would never be allowed to make any rulings on what evidence the jury gets to see
or anything about the case. Some non-interested 3rd party needs to make those decisions.
Fred Caruso says: February 18, 2018 at 9:38 pm
Quit feeding this beast.
Jeffrey Harrison says: February 16, 2018 at 8:15 pm
The other interesting and fun fact not mentioned anywhere. Three Names won by 3 million
votes. Crafty Ruskis.
Carla Skidmore says: February 16, 2018 at 7:33 pm
This investigation by Mueller is just beginning. In other words, and to use the
vernacular, "We "ain't seen nothing," yet."
Fred Caruso says: February 18, 2018 at 9:40 pm
You are right. This is nothing but bullshit and it may be just the beginning. The
Democrats have an endless supply of donkey-shit.
Jeffrey Harrison says: February 16, 2018 at 6:08 pm
It's interesting that the Russians set this all up to boost Trump and disparage Three
Names before Trump even announced he was running. The basic set up for this was going on in
2014 whereas Trump announced in 2015.
Carla Skidmore says: February 16, 2018 at 7:29 pm
No, not really. Trump was making gestures of interest in the presidency in 2012
Clark M Shanahan says: February 18, 2018 at 10:28 am
Since when have you been so trusting of our FBI & CIA, Carla?
From what we've experienced together from the Gulf of Tonkin onward, I'm a wee-tad taken
aback.
Please read the ex-foreign intelligence officer's twitter posting that I posted above.
Jeffrey Harrison says: February 16, 2018 at 8:30 pm
Pfui. He also made noises about running in the 2012 election. People don't set up
organizations to do stuff just on the off chance that some politician or wannabe is going to
run. These guys ain't got nothin'. It's been a year since Mueller went to work and what's he
got? A couple of Republican political operatives being political operatives. Their crime was
not reporting to the USG that they were working for Ukraine. Now we're down to social media
posts. You're probably one of those people who say, I saw it on the internet so it must be
true. If the government is going to be upset about crap they see on social media from foreign
parties, they need to start by telling said social media that they can't solicit advertising
from foreign entities with political overtones as facebook did of RT.
Fred Caruso says: February 19, 2018 at 3:35 pm
So we are going to limit global free speech by spending $Trillions more on building a
nuclear arsenal - total madness - driven by [un] Democratic whining.
Francis Louis Szot says: February 16, 2018 at 6:05 pm
Apparently, it comes down to trolls who planted
various "fake news" stories. Stipulate to all of that; the worst of it. How does THAT begin to stack–up against the
murderous coup that the USA OPENLY fomented
in the Ukraine a couple of years earlier by bankrolling
dozens of Non-governmental organizations whose
sole purpose was "regime change"?
Maybe come back to me about all of this when the FBI
can convincingly prove that the Russian government
armed and funded a Neo–nazi para–military group
that assaulted and burned–down the North Carolina State House.
Fred Caruso says: February 19, 2018 at 3:37 pm
You mean like Clinton and the CIA did in Ukraine, for economic domination over Russia,
don't you?
Clark M Shanahan says: February 16, 2018 at 3:44 pm
I'm hoping the hush-money passed on to two of Trump's romantic caprices, during the election, gets traction.
Tell me, as soon as you can, when having skepticism on the Russia/Election Meddling story is finally permitted. I heard
tell, we've lately dropped the "Treason" narration. Now the spin du jour is that Trump & Co were all duped by them clever
Ruskies. Whatever floats your boat.
Clark M Shanahan says: February 17, 2018 at 10:13 am
Yes David, I'm still a skeptic.
In fact, I think this move to indict 13 suspects, that have a snowball in Hell's chance of
ever being tried, is simply a dog and pony show to placate the public.
Debrief yourself, read Binney's report and listen to Stephen F Cohen's latest, here on the
Nation.
Clark M Shanahan says: February 17, 2018 at 5:25 pm
Stephen Cohen's take on Russiagate makes a lot of sense, to me. I've followed Russia/soviet/US relations very closely
since Gorbachev.
Open your eyes, Mattis has labeled Russia our mortal enemy, we just upped defense spending to
an obscene level that shall keep our schools, hospitals, social services, and infrastructure
in their bad state.
As if Hill, who stole the primaries actually ran a competent campaign.
The original piece is about an internet marketing scheme that is supposed to have influenced
U.S. elections. It is thus amusing that the retweeting bots are part of an internet marketing
scheme that is supposed to influence U.S. elections.
But why do they use the line "Omg. Fish is priceless"?
1. The first retweet shown above, which introduced the 'fish' line, is from a real person.
Debbie Lusigman, the @saneprogessive , who has her own video channel
with lots of legit content. The other tweets though are copies (not regular retweets) of the
first retweet.
(h/t
oldandyoung and
integer )
2. The other personalities are likely bots that may well be run by one Scott Dworkin , a grifter who runs the
fundraising campaign Democratic Coalition and channels most of
the funds to a company he owns. Geoff Miamifound the connection and
reported on it at Progressive Army .
(h/t
Demeter )
Posted by b on February 19, 2018 at 07:36 AM | Permalink
@saneprogressive is a real account; the rest appear to be bots. The bots RT some posts and
appropriate others as their own. For instance, another one of @saneprogressives posts was
also posted by @SenWarren2020 as its own yesterday. These are simple bots that attach
themselves to certain accounts that have been deemed to be in the right ideological sphere,
one suspects.
I know those bots. @GeoffMiami has called them
out as accounts controlled by Scott Dowrkin (@funder) and his "resistance organization" The
Dem Coalition (@TheDemCoalition). "They hope to grift off Bernie supporters by using
Bernie-themed bot accounts to push their propaganda."
Dworkin's Super PAC promotes fear through a repeating cycle of Russian-based propaganda,
which garners donations, which pay consultants that generate those stories over and over
again, garnering yet more donations. As to what purpose his Super PAC actually serves, it
appears to be little more than a Möbius strip of self-serving opportunism.
@Bobby Mueller @6
"because they are not re-tweeting your post from MOA - they are re-tweeting
@saneprogressive's re-tweet of your MOA post."
No - the 2nd to 8th account are not "retweeting" the 1st. They copied and reposted its
content.
If those were legit one click "retweets" a la normal Twitter it would says so (XYZ retweeted
ABC) and lock different. The form they used as shown above would require several clicks to 1.
go to my original tweet, 2. retweet that with comment, 3. type (or copy) the fish line, 4.
send.
I am not sure that I have taken enough of the right drugs but here goes
1. The retweets are secret messages from "saneprogressive" that bots are trained to
retweet so others know to read your posting as it is priceless
2. The retweets are NSA manipulation to deprecate and make light of your posting by making
it unserious
3. Twitter/NSA has developed bots behind the scene to manipulate public focus and it is
just coming out of Beta testing
4. Some blogs have weekly cat pictures but this is clear evidence that MoA needs to have
at least weekly sock puppet pictures.
5. All this focus on sock puppets and fish on America's president's day is unpatriotic and
taking focus away from the current president's tweets which cannot be tolerated.
6. If this fish is so priceless, why is it stealing focus from humanity's more pressing
problems like determining if this persons G in OMG is the same as that persons G in their
OMG
It is just at freezing in Portland OR with a light dusting of snow from last night on all
but the roads and the sun is shining.....Happy day/life to all!
I updated the piece above with the information provided by oldandyoung, integer, and
Demeter.
Thanks folks!
Sebastian Dangerfield , Feb 19, 2018 1:57:44 PM |
30
This is an absolutely hilarious illustration of your argument. While I don't think the
argument that the Internet Research Agency was a marketing endeavor is conclusive, it
certainly is a compelling explanation, especially given the ridiculous nature of the content
that it produced. It's like everyone simply ignored the fact that there are gazillions of
these click-harvesting schemes and that the 2016 election, being a perpetual internet outrage
machine, was especially fertile ground for them. They all (probably deliberately) ignored the
reporting about, say, the Macedonian bullshit farm, which was generating mostly pro-Trump
posts in order to harvest clicks.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman/how-macedonia-became-a-global-hub-for-pro-trump-misinfo?utm_term=.ynwo9nn2#.rvBVyoo3
The sock puppet does look a bit like a fish and maybe Debbie Lusignan saw a pun in there that
is lost on the bots retweeting her Tweet.
"Fish" is good for "fishing" and "phishing" = collecting clicks (and possibly personal
information attached to metadata generated by clicks) to forward on to third parties willing
to pay for that information.
I have been tweeting your article, not the fish picture, frequently, as I am tired of even
supporters of Trump spouting a false narrative. #IamnotaRussianbot or bot of any sort, just a
human who wants to pass on the excellent info you wrote. I hope it gets new followers to your
blog!
I've been following Debbie Lusignan since early in the 2015/2016 Primaries. She was a Bernie
supporter who documented the election fraud better than any other source. She has since come
to see Bernie as a sell-out at least, if not a sheep dog from the start. And her focus since
has been on discarding the "right/left paradigm" and joining in common causes against the
global, plutocratic, warmongering powers.
I've posted links to MoA articles on her sites several times, so maybe her following b is
my fault. ;-)
The fact that Mueller politicized the action of Russian Internet scammers (who are at best petty criminals) suggest that
he has nothing more significant to offer hungry US Russophobes.
At this point Mueller turned his investigation into pure political propaganda
Notable quotes:
"... My impression has been that the "fake news" of dubious sources that circulates on social media is much better at generating money through clicks and shares in appealing to existing bias than it is at changing opinions. ..."
"... information that is true & irrefutable can hardly be considered harmful to the function of democracy, no matter the self-interested motive of the source: the electorate will consider it with their own self-interest in mind. And if any meaningful number of the American electorate – reaching up, say, to triple or even quadruple digits – was duped into texting their vote instead of going to their precinct then we need to resolve to get wise to this trick and not get fooled again. ..."
"... Poor Russia cant get a break, neither can Americans get a break from this USA 'get Russia' monkey circus. The monkeys now reach back a year ago to get Russia on a cyber attack. ..."
"... This a great article: it summarizes the poverty of the entire "Russians done it" meme. Let's not forget: this is another BIG LIE, on par, if not worse than the Iraq fiasco LIES ..."
"... "U.S. law bans foreign nationals from making certain expenditures or financial disbursements for the purpose of influencing federal elections. U.S. law also bars agents of any foreign entity from engaging in political activities within the United States without first registering with the Attorney General." When are we going to indict Israeli nationals for the above-mentioned crimes? When are we going to single out Bibi as a foreign national who engages with childlike enthusiasm in political activities within the United States? ..."
"... It's even more depressing than that. The indictments are against what is probably just (one of a million) commercial marketing scams. That is why the posts have no coherence. Some are for Trump, some against, some are for Hillary and some against, and of course there is the post that is for puppies. These are clickbait to establish the trolls as leaders so they can get advertisers to purchase ads. ..."
"... The word Lügenpresse has has entered German dictionaries, 'lying press', I hope a similar expression will enter USA dictionaries soon. In Germany this expression also is used with regard to TV. ..."
"... How creepy these pyschopaths are is hard for most people to understand, but gradually they are. Also, Trump has powerful opponents, one of which is the inability of most people to politically wake up quickly. He is the front man for a Military, Political, and Scientific Alliance making war against entrenched elitist, sociopathic, self-centered, control freak cabals that almost seized complete power in our country. Give him some slack okay. He's / they are doing pretty good considering the incredibly dangerous situation they took over. Keep writing Mike Whitney! ..."
"... It appears that Mueller is intent on prolonging his little fishing trip. My own cynicism suggests to me that his motive is, at least partially, financial. Sure, the media has said that he's being paid what will amount to only $200k or so per year for his "service" and that he has given up a position that pays him closer to $3 million for the same amount of time in order to act as Special Counsel. ..."
"... This indictment has publicised for the whole world that US has a 'law' that prohibits free speech by foreigners in foreign countries if they dare to speak disparagingly of US politicians. That is a PR disaster. People will be laughing about this for decades. Why do something so obviously stupid? ..."
"... Many countries have bad laws – in Thailand people can go to jail for offending the king. But to apply it to free speech by foreign people living abroad is self-destructive. To my best knowledge no country has ever attempted to charge people living abroad with 'disparaging comments' about their politicians. By that standard, literally millions of people are daily breaking the 'law' – e.g. all the bad stuff people say about Trump. During 2016 election there were literally millions of people in foreign countries who expressed 'disparaging' views about Trump. And some about Clinton. ..."
"... Doing nothing would had been better than becoming a laughing stock. How is Washington going to preach freedom of speech and internet after this self-inflicted fiasco? What if Russia starts 'indicting' millions of people who expressed negative comments about Putin? ..."
Robert Mueller's Friday night indictment-spree, is a flagrant and infuriating attempt to
divert attention from the damning revelations in the Nunes memo (and the Graham-Grassley
"criminal referral") which prove that senior-level officials at the FBI and DOJ were engaged in
an expansive conspiracy to subvert the presidential elections by spying on members of the Trump
campaign. The evidence that the FBI and DOJ "improperly obtained" FISA warrants to spy on Trump
campaign affiliate, Carter Page, has now been overshadowed by the tragic massacre in Parkland,
Florida and the obfuscating indictments of 13 Internet "trolls" who have not been linked to the
Russian government and who are being used to conceal the fact that the 18 month-long witch hunt
has not yet produced even one scintilla of hard evidence related to the original claims of
"hacking or collusion".
Think about what's Mueller is really up to: He's not just moving the goalposts, he's loading
them onto a spaceship and putting them on another planet. Where's the evidence that Russia
hacked the DNC computers and stole their emails? Where's the proof that members of the Trump
campaign colluded with Russia? That's what we want to know, not whether some goofy Russian
troll was spreading false information on Facebook. That has nothing to do with the original
charges. It's just politically-motivated gibberish that proves Mueller has nothing to support
his case. After a full year, the investigation has failed to produce anything but a big goose
egg.
According to the indictment, the alleged Russian trolls "posted derogatory information about
a number of candidates" and its "operations included supporting the presidential campaign of
then-candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaging Clinton."
Big whoop. If people are so malleable that they can be brainwashed by some suggestive
posting on Facebook, then maybe we should abandon democracy altogether. But that's not what
this is really about, is it? Because if it was, Mueller would have posted the contents of those
nefarious Russian comments in the indictment WHICH HE DIDN'T because he knows it's all
obfuscating bullsh** designed to make the sheeple think evil Putin is dabbling in our precious
elections.
Oh, and here's a little tidbit the MSM managed to overlook in their typically-hysterical
coverage. This is from journalist Alexander Mercouris at the pro-Russia website, The Duran: (If
you think your delicate mind might be brainwashed by Russian propaganda, please, shield your
eyes!)
"The third thing to say about the indictment – and a point which has been almost
universally overlooked in all the feverish commentary about it – is that it makes no
claim that the Russian government was in any way involved in any of the activities of the
persons indicted.
Nowhere in the indictment is the Russian government or any official of the Russian
government or any agency of the Russian government mentioned at all. Nor at any point in the
indictment is it suggested that any of the persons indicted were employed by the Russian
government or were acting under its instructions or on its behalf ." (The Duran, Alexander
Mercouris)
No Ruskis involved? But how can that be? We were assured that diabolical Russia is behind
everything bad that happens in America. Has evil Putin been sleeping on the job??
Yes, it's true that the Internet Research Agency, LLC, is in fact located in St. Petersburg
but–as yet–there is no known connection between the company and the government.
And, if there was, you can bet that Mueller would have exploited it for all it's worth.
By the way, Mueller's presumption that the hackers were trying to influence the election, is
just that, a presumption. It has no basis in fact whatsoever. It is mere speculation like the
rest of the claptrap he's come up with. The more reasonable explanation is that the hackers
were trying to make a little dough on "pageviews or clicks" rather than trying to persuade
voters to vote for one candidate or the other. Here's more from the indictment:
" Defendants and their co-conspirators began to track and study groups on U.S. social
media sites dedicated to U.S. politics and social issues. In order to gauge the performance
of various groups on social media sites, the organization tracked certain metrics like the
group's size, the frequency of content placed by the group, and the level of audience
engagement with that content, such as the average number of comments or responses to a
post."
WTF! Isn't this what everyone is doing, including the Intel agencies, advertisers, media and
corporations? So now it's a crime? Give me a break!
Here's a blurb from the comments-line at Sic Semper Tyrannis:
"The "conspiracy" started in 2014, and cost a whopping $1.2 MILLION, which includes
salaries, tech support, and bonuses. The indictment includes info that the Russians ran ads
supporting Black Lives Matter, Muslims, Jill Stein, Ted Cruz, Rubio, and Trump. They also
organized rallies in support of, and in opposition to Trump and Hillary Clinton. They
continued their activities up into 2017, still organizing pro-Clinton and pro-Trump rallies.
At one point, the indictment says that the Russians ran an ad that reached 59,000 people,
which is laughable, people with a camera in their kitchen get more views than that.
Essentially, after about 1.5 years of investigating "Russian collusion" this is all they've
come up with." –London Bob, Sic Semper Tyrannis
And here's more from the indictment:
"U.S. law bans foreign nationals from making certain expenditures or financial
disbursements for the purpose of influencing federal elections. U.S. law also bars agents of
any foreign entity from engaging in political activities within the United States without
first registering with the Attorney General."
This is mind-numbingly stupid. Does Mueller really think he can cobble together a case
against 13 foreign-born defendants based on the thin gruel of Russian support for "Black Lives
Matter, Jill Stein and Donald Trump?" Good luck with that, Bob.
Political analyst Paul Craig Roberts summarizes how absurd the indictments are in a Friday
article tiled "The Result of Mueller's Investigation: Nothing":
"How did the 13 Russians go about sowing discord? Are you ready for this? They held
political rallies posing as Americans and they paid one person (unidentified) to build a cage
aboard a flatbed pickup truck and another person to wear a costume portraying Hillary in
prison clothes ."
The whole thing is ridiculous and anyone with half a brain knows it's ridiculous. The only
reason this fiasco continues to drag on, is because the mandarins in the US National Security
State run everything in America and they've decided that they can invent whatever reality suits
their foreign policy agenda and the rest of us will simply accept it in silence or be denounced
as "Putin apologists" or "Kremlin stooges". Fortunately, facts and reason appear to be getting
the upper hand which why the deep state powerbrokers are getting so desperate. They're now
genuinely concerned about what might "come out" and who might be exposed.
Do the names John Brennan or Barack Obama ring a bell?
Indeed. I'm sure both names would factor quite large in any seriously impartial and thorough
investigation of the Russiagate conspiracy.
One last thing for all you supporters of Donald Trump. I suggest you carefully examine his
latest tweet on the topic. Here it is:
"Russia started their anti-US campaign in 2014, long before I announced that I would run
for President. The results of the election were not impacted. The Trump campaign did nothing
wrong – no collusion!" Donald Trump, Twitter
As I expected, Trump is going to save his own skin, but allow the "Bigger Lie" to persist.
It looks to me that Trump may have cut a deal with his deep state antagonists to support their
spurious claims of Russian meddling as long as they exonerate him on the charges of collusion.
That means, he will NOT use his power as President to try to uncover the roots of Russia-gate
fabrication. (that would probably expose the former Directors of the CIA and NSA and, perhaps,
even the former president of the United States, who likely gave Brennan the greenlight to set
the wheels in motion.) All of these suspects will go uninvestigated, unindicted, and unpunished
just like the perpetrators of the Iraq War, just like the perpetrators of the Financial
Meltdown, and just like the perpetrators of all the major crimes against the American people.
As always, it is complete and total immunity for Parasite Class while the rest of us have to
play by the rules. But you probably already knew that.
Trump will get off the hook while the rest of us languish in permanent ignorance of how the
shadow government really works. You heard it first here.
After all of the concern expressed in the abstract I'd like to see some concrete examples of
the material used to change opinions of American voters. My impression has been that the
"fake news" of dubious sources that circulates on social media is much better at generating
money through clicks and shares in appealing to existing bias than it is at changing
opinions.
In any event, in this new environment – absent some form of censorship as
with authoritarian states – any interested party such as a foreign government may
introduce anonymously, by way of levels of remove, political content intended to change
opinion. Of course, information that is true & irrefutable can hardly be considered
harmful to the function of democracy, no matter the self-interested motive of the source: the
electorate will consider it with their own self-interest in mind. And if any meaningful
number of the American electorate – reaching up, say, to triple or even quadruple
digits – was duped into texting their vote instead of going to their precinct then we
need to resolve to get wise to this trick and not get fooled again.
Now, if this Mueller investigation would set out anew with a determination to find some
Russian government involvement in fomenting the red hot molten lava of Identity Politics
bubbling out of our universities – the obscene notion that a "patriarchy" of white
males, acting as some kind of an informal fraternity in favoring themselves in the economy to
the detriment of the outsiders, needs to get taken down in status in order to make America
great – then they'd be cooking with gas toward the concern of harming the bonds of our
civil union.
Poor Russia cant get a break, neither can Americans get a break from this USA 'get Russia'
monkey circus. The monkeys now reach back a year ago to get Russia on a cyber attack.
White House blames Russia for 'reckless' NotPetya cyber attack
3 days ago – WASHINGTON/LONDON (Reuters) – The White House on Thursday blamed
Russia for the devastating 'NotPetya' cyber attack last year , joining the British
government in condemning Moscow for unleashing a virus that crippled parts of Ukraine's
infrastructure and damaged computers in countries across the
Best advice for Americans believe nothing, trust nothing that issues from a
government.
The experts:
John McAfee, founder of an anti-virus firm, said:
"When the FBI or when any other agency says the Russians did it or the Chinese did something
or the Iranians did something – that's a fallacy," said McAfee.
"Any hacker capable of breaking into something is extraordinarily capable of hiding their
tracks. If I were the Chinese and I wanted to make it look like the Russians did it I would
use Russian language within the code. "I would use Russian techniques of breaking into
organisations so there is simply no way to assign a source for any attack – this is a
fallacy."
I can promise you – if it looks like the Russians did it, then I can guarantee you
it was not the Russians."
Wikileaks has released a number of CIA cyber tools it had obtained. These included
software specifically designed to create false attributions.
Per the preceding, my own observation would be, when your lead investigator/special
prosecutor's known history is framing people for crimes they didn't commit, sandbagging &
sinking criminal investigations into international narcotics & arms trafficking,
protecting related money laundering & hired killers, and providing cover for the
perpetrators (intelligence agencies), we know why any reasonably honest & intelligent
person wouldn't give two cents credibility to, and possess a rat's ass level of sympathy for,
'special' counsel Robert Mueller. The real question is, why the Boyd Cathy and Mike Whitney
types don't go after these guys at the level the deserve; pointing to their established
international criminal mafioso (read intelligence agency) crimes sprees and history of
impunity:
From a different Anonymous ..Mr. Whitney I can see the point of Donald Trump doing the kind
of deal you suggest if there was enough for him to fear as you suggest but do not
demonstrate. Why shouldn't we believe that it's all over, the indictments show there's
nothing to be concrrned about?
Before your suggestion of the deal I had already concluded that you had not made a case
against the indictments. Are you in fact willing to say that they should not have been
instituted? If so, why?
Are they so completely hopeless in law, or as a matter of practicality in terms of their
ever being got to court that it is an abuse if Mueller's position to support them? And if, as
seems likely, nothing will come of them (certainly Russia won't help with extradition), is
there not a case for using these indictments to clear the air on the law and, possibly, by
the courts throwing the cases out on weakness of the matters of fact alleged? Could there
even be a Machiavellian desire to have arguments put which would embarrass the Israel
Lobby?
This should not be allowed either. CNN . 'Israel has 200,000 eligible American voters, according to the non-partisan organization
IVoteIsrael, which registers American Israelis to vote.
Mike Whitney. Do you think Mueller should have avoided bringing the indictments even though
US law appears to make what was done illegal? If so, why?
Could Mueller be justified by thinking it could help to sort out a bad law, especially if
lawyers appear for the named defendants and move for the dismissal of the case on the facts
alleged. Or, as has also been suggested, ia this a move which might allow the defendant's
case to embarrass the Lobby? Would Mueller or the FBI be upset by that.
"Revealed: US spy operation that manipulates social media
"Military's 'sock puppet' software creates fake online identities to spread pro-American
propaganda
"Jeff Jarvis: Washington shows the morals of a clumsy spammer"
This a great article: it summarizes the poverty of the entire "Russians done it" meme.
Let's not forget: this is another BIG LIE, on par, if not worse than the Iraq fiasco
LIES.
Nor is it, per se, about Trump. This is about State &political actors using State
agencies & the MSM to prevent/ bring down an elected president. Its a plain unadorned
assault on what's left of US democracy. (The fact that the vast majority of DNC voters can't
-- WONT see this demonstrates how successful Elites have been in morally &
psychologically corrupting the US public.
How many BIG LIE narratives can a State take ? Or do we just whistle & say " oh, but we
live in a post truth age" as if that's not somehow morally equivalent to being a Moloch
worshipper out for sunny day icecream.
"U.S. law bans foreign nationals from making certain expenditures or financial disbursements
for the purpose of influencing federal elections. U.S. law also bars agents of any foreign
entity from engaging in political activities within the United States without first
registering with the Attorney General."
When are we going to indict Israeli nationals for the above-mentioned crimes? When are we
going to single out Bibi as a foreign national who engages with childlike enthusiasm in
political activities within the United States?
Law enforcement of course doesn't bring every case which meets the definition of a crime.
If it did, nearly everyone would be involved in the criminal justice system.
Discretion is used. And here, the evidence points directly to Mueller's discretion being
used to protect the asses of the FBI and security state.
This indictment will not see the light of day. It's a bit like declaring faux victory in
Iraq and leaving (what should have been done in that case). No lawyer will have the
opportunity to refute th bull shit.
This is also why Meuller just indicted Gates, to strengthen the Manafort case. The only
thing of note that will come out of this debacle of an investigation. He's giving up on
Russia and going after Manafort, the low hanging fruit.
This is all nonsense, The very idea that Trump, or Clinton is being attacked by the FBI or
CIA, or "Deep State", while doing exactly what he was hired to do, is ludicrous.
Trump is a PRODUCT, just like Obama, and Clinton, all paid whores of the Zionist money
machine.
The CIA and FBI are merely players in this game of distraction. The whole Russia gate BS
was a cleaver rouse to further Zionists goals: Distract Americans from the real foreign
interference by Zionist Jews, and to further demonize Christian Russia to the left, opening
up the support for war with Russia.
Washington, Trump, Congress all lie, the media all lies, yet time and time again I see
their lies playing as truth. Are you just stupid or part of the problem? Nothing comes form
any of this, just distraction and divide and conquer. Trump continues to ACT like an Israeli
firster while he TALKS about Ameirca first, and idiots keep focusing on his words and NOT HIS
ACTIONS!
Trump ran on anti-immigration, building a wall, and getting out of conflicts. Yet, Trump is pushing for AMNESTY FOR DREAMERS, is building no wall, and is pushing
conflict in the Middle East. Seems to me, this should be the ONLY topics of conversation. Trump is a wolf in sheep's
clothing, a Zionist traitor, and these FBI/Russia/Clinton back and forth accusations are just
the Zionist Jews giving Trump cover.
This is all theater, the Zionists rule DC, 9/11 was the culmination of their control over
DC, and now they play is like a Hollywood movie, full of intrigue and misdirection. None of
this amounts to anything, yet, time and again it is front page news, while TRUMP's TREASON,
HIS AMNESTY GO IGNORED???!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It seems there is very little Zionist money cannot buy
Does the writer want us to believe that a bunch of private Russians, with no connection to
the government, decided for their own amusement to spend millions of dollars to play games
with American voters' heads?
It's even more depressing than that. The indictments are against what is probably just (one
of a million) commercial marketing scams. That is why the posts have no coherence. Some are
for Trump, some against, some are for Hillary and some against, and of course there is the
post that is for puppies. These are clickbait to establish the trolls as leaders so they can
get advertisers to purchase ads.
I think and hope that USA citizens have not lost their minds, but are using it, maybe just
for the second time.
The first time then was when the USA refused to ratify Versailles, after USA citizens had
discovered that their sons had die overseas for JP Morgan and British imperialism.
The word Lügenpresse has has entered German dictionaries, 'lying press', I hope a
similar expression will enter USA dictionaries soon.
In Germany this expression also is used with regard to TV.
Here in the Netherlands our Minister of Foreign Affairs Halbe Zijlstra had to resign after
the newspaper Volkskrant, in very unusual opening a can of worms, publicised that Zijlstra
never had been in Putin's dacha where Putin had explained what 'greater Russia' was:
including White Russia, Ukraine, Baltic states and Khazakstan.
USA press, this time hitting the mark, called him 'the lying Dutchman'.
Zijlstra's friend, prime minister Rutte, already for years has the nickname Pinochio, his
lies are well known.
Rutte must have known that Zijlstra lied at his party's congress, VVD, in 2016.
A poll now seems to show that more than half the Dutch have had enough with Rutte.
This seems to be the era in which nothing is trusted any more, politicians, media,
experts, and so on.
For me one of the greatest nations on this earth is small insignificant Denmark.
It does not wage wars far from home, it does not allow foreigners to buy houses or land, it
has an excellent pension system and social security system, and an excellent health care
system.
It does not welcome large numbers of migrants, has a very low crime rate.
There may be very rich Danes, but they do not display their wealth.
The only thing I blame Denmark for is the oversized and luxurious post offices.
The country side is not impressive, nor what farmers produce, sugar beets.
And so the Danes are the happiest people on earth, surveys conclude.
"According to the indictment, the alleged Russian trolls "posted derogatory information about
a number of candidates" and its "operations included supporting the presidential campaign of
then-candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaging Clinton."
This is straight out of the Stalin and/or Mao playbook: those people thought bad thoughts
and said some things that did not support us, which proves they are EVIL and must be
destroyed for the good of all.
Jewish money 'bought' Oliver Cromwell, the chief epitome of WASP culture, not because it
was an impossible offer to resist, but because Anglo-Saxon Puritanism was a Judiaizing
heresy, and Cromwell naturally saw Jews as the best allies for WASPs.
You cannot solve the Jewish problem without also solving the WASP problem.
Good article and thank you for keeping your presentation a reasonable length. Unreasonable
length is a problem for many authors and preachers!
The Florida school massacre, can be orchestrated by simply ignoring significant warnings. For
instance, a rogue FBI leadership intentionally ignores warnings from many different locations
on the likely danger, and just waits for it to happen. When it does happen the rogue FBI cell
can claim plausible deniability, claiming incompetence or stupidity, instead of intention.
Then tens of millions of Americans are distracted from recently released information exposing
the rogue FBI cell.
How creepy these pyschopaths are is hard for most people to understand,
but gradually they are. Also, Trump has powerful opponents, one of which is the inability of
most people to politically wake up quickly. He is the front man for a Military, Political,
and Scientific Alliance making war against entrenched elitist, sociopathic, self-centered,
control freak cabals that almost seized complete power in our country. Give him some slack
okay. He's / they are doing pretty good considering the incredibly dangerous situation they
took over. Keep writing Mike Whitney!
It's wide open, your packets are shooting all over the place, nice n' secure. Hail
Fatherland Security! When you read propaganda, they know all about you and what you're
reading in advance. Us, them, Russians – to the farm junior!
It appears that Mueller is intent on prolonging his little fishing trip. My own cynicism
suggests to me that his motive is, at least partially, financial. Sure, the media has said
that he's being paid what will amount to only $200k or so per year for his "service" and that
he has given up a position that pays him closer to $3 million for the same amount of time in
order to act as Special Counsel.
Still, the total cost of his exploration has been over $6.5 million so far. This, I would
have to guess, is all in legal costs, fees paid to attorneys he has selected to do the
investigative work. That amount of money is in excess of what he is supposedly giving up in
order to conduct this investigation.
Looking at his motivation from this angle, it would make sense that a lawyer, especially a
greedy, power hungry lawyer, would set up a system of kickbacks for attorneys he appoints to
do the work. Mueller may be suspected of ensuring himself an equal income to what he is
supposed to have given up.
Any time his fishing trip comes under fire for failing to catch any fish big enough for a
meal, he issues indictments. This time he has indicted some foreign nationals who will
probably never even be arrested, let alone prosecuted. Still, he's allowed to keep
fishing.
All true. Good comment. Also, Denmark appears to have a genetic advantage when it comes to
happiness, its lousy weather notwithstanding! See "National Happiness and Genetic Distance: A
Cautious Exploration," by
Eugenio Proto and Andrew J. Oswald, University of Warwick.
Abstract
This paper studies a famous unsolved puzzle in quantitative social science. Why do
some nations report such high levels of mental well-being? Denmark, for instance,
regularly tops the league table of rich countries' happiness; Britain and the US enter
further down; some nations do unexpectedly poorly. The explanation for the long observed
ranking -- one that holds after adjustment for GDP and other socioeconomic
variables -- is currently unknown. Using data on 131 countries, the paper cautiously
explores a new approach. It documents three forms of evidence consistent with the
hypothesis that some nations may have a genetic advantage in well-being.
Anon from TN
People who generated lies have vested interest in perpetuating them. They will gladly use new
lies to "confirm" the old ones. Even Trump figured that the red herring of Russian
interference in the elections made the US a laughing stock in Russia. That's an
understatement, though: this red herring made the US a laughing stock of 90% of the world
population (the remaining 10% have no sense of humor).
Where are the indictments of the foreign nationals in California, who openly attacked Trump
supporters in San Jose? They attempted to affect the election through criminal assaults and
batteries, much more than a simple Facebook post. This is the newly unveiled America, the
citizens are not running anything, we are bought and paid for by interests that Gen.
Washington would have deemed treasonous.
How do US Courts have jurisdiction to prosecute speech originating in another country?
If is was said here out in public, fine, but saying something on the internet in another
country does not seem to be prosecutable. Some countries have speech laws, and I would hate
to find myself in their court system for something I say here that violates their deal.
Do you think Mueller should have avoided bringing the indictments even though US law
appears to make what was done illegal?
This indictment has publicised for the whole world that US has a 'law' that prohibits free
speech by foreigners in foreign countries if they dare to speak disparagingly of US
politicians. That is a PR disaster. People will be laughing about this for decades. Why do
something so obviously stupid?
Many countries have bad laws – in Thailand people can go to jail for offending the
king. But to apply it to free speech by foreign people living abroad is self-destructive. To
my best knowledge no country has ever attempted to charge people living abroad with
'disparaging comments' about their politicians. By that standard, literally millions of
people are daily breaking the 'law' – e.g. all the bad stuff people say about Trump.
During 2016 election there were literally millions of people in foreign countries who
expressed 'disparaging' views about Trump. And some about Clinton.
Doing nothing would had been better than becoming a laughing stock. How is Washington
going to preach freedom of speech and internet after this self-inflicted fiasco? What if
Russia starts 'indicting' millions of people who expressed negative comments about Putin?
More seriously. The Russkies, e.g. Zakharova and Lavrov have said that the USA has gone
mad, is in the grip of a crazed delusional hysteria (or words to that effect.) Why the
hype?
Are we to see all this nonsense as merely an internal US matter, with the Dems planning
an attack on Trump before he was elected, and subsequently promoting Russia as a blanket
external enemy - as they can't accuse the Republicans, Banks or Big Corps, need an outside
bogey, though they have post hoc also blamed the electorate, not smart.
Neatly fitting with that Trump did propose 'good' ( ) relations with Russia, in an attempt
to actually conserve some, or even a major part, of US hegemony in the new 'multipolar'
world. (Trump wanted to control and 'annex' the weaker partner, not a bad calculation.)
>> Russia is merely a mythical figure, breathing fire and red-clawed, in the wings,
invisible, serving as a prop for the major contestants.
Naturally, ordinary US citizens are of no account beyond their role as potentially duped
followers, adherents, minions, serfs, ciphers on a page, etc. Influencing opinion(s) the most
efficiently is part of the competition, actualised through media, TV, internet, etc. etc.
The USA is *for real* gearing up for a meltdown war, against Russia in first place, and
all the Media hype is aimed at getting US, NATO citizens to support it, or at least sleep in
front of the TV and not object, and/or be controlled by various entities. The US PTB will
never accept its loss of power/status and will destroy the world in a nukulear storm before
it gives up.
"... The Deep State (Oligarchs and the MIC) is totally fucking loving this: they have Trump and the GOP giving them everything they ever wanted and they have the optics and distraction of an "embattled" president that claims to be against or a victim of the "deep state" and a base that rally's, circles the wagons around him, and falls for the narrative. ..."
"... They know exactly who it was with the memory stick, there is always video of one form or another either in the data center or near the premises that can indicate who it was. They either have a video of Seth Rich putting the stick into the server directly, or they at least have a video of his car entering and leaving the vicinity of the ex-filtration. ..."
"... This would have been an open and shut case if shillary was not involved. Since it was involved, you can all chalk it up to the Clinton body count. I pray that it gets justice. It and the country, the world - needs justice. ..."
Kim Dotcom has once again chimed in on the DNC hack, following a Sunday morning tweet from President Trump clarifying his previous
comments on Russian meddling in the 2016 election.
In response, Dotcom tweeted " Let me assure you, the DNC hack wasn't even a hack. It was an insider with a memory stick. I know
this because I know who did it and why," adding "Special Counsel Mueller is not interested in my evidence. My lawyers wrote to him
twice. He never replied. 360 pounds! " alluding of course to Trump's "400 pound genius" comment.
Dotcom's assertion is backed up by an analysis done last year by a researcher who goes by the name Forensicator , who determined
that the DNC files were copied at
22.6 MB/s - a speed virtually impossible to achieve from halfway around the world, much less over a local network - yet a speed
typical of file transfers to a memory stick.
The local transfer theory of course blows the Russian hacking narrative out of the water, lending credibility to the theory that
the DNC "hack" was in fact an inside job, potentially implicating late DNC IT staffer, Seth Rich.
John Podesta's email was allegely successfully "hacked" (he fell victim to a
phishing scam
) in March 2016, while the DNC reported suspicious activity (the suspected Seth Rich file transfer) in late April, 2016 according
to the
Washington Post.
On May 18, 2017, Dotcom proposed that if Congress includes the Seth Rich investigation in their Russia probe, he would provide
written testimony with evidence that Seth Rich was WikiLeaks' source.
On May 19 2017 Dotcom tweeted "I knew Seth Rich. I was involved"
Three days later, Dotcom again released a guarded statement saying "I KNOW THAT SETH RICH WAS INVOLVED IN THE DNC LEAK," adding:
"I have consulted with my lawyers. I accept that my full statement should be provided to the authorities and I am prepared
to do that so that there can be a full investigation. My lawyers will speak with the authorities regarding the proper process.
If my evidence is required to be given in the United States I would be prepared to do so if appropriate arrangements are made.
I would need a guarantee from Special Counsel Mueller, on behalf of the United States, of safe passage from New Zealand to the
United States and back. In the coming days we will be communicating with the appropriate authorities to make the necessary arrangements.
In the meantime, I will make no further comment."
Dotcom knew.
While one could simply write off Dotcom's claims as an attention seeking stunt, he made several comments and a series of tweets
hinting at the upcoming email releases prior to both the WikiLeaks dumps as well as the publication of the hacked DNC emails to a
website known as "DCLeaks."
In a May 14, 2015
Bloomberg article entitled "Kim Dotcom: Julian Assange Will Be Hillary Clinton's Worst Nightmare In 2016 ": "I have to say it's
probably more Julian," who threatens Hillary, Dotcom said. " But I'm aware of some of the things that are going to be roadblocks
for her ."
Two days later, Dotcom tweeted this:
Around two months later, Kim asks a provocative question
Two weeks after that, Dotcom then tweeted "Mishandling classified info is a crime. When Hillary's emails eventually pop up on
the internet who's going to jail?"
It should thus be fairly obvious to anyone that Dotcom was somehow involved, and therefore any evidence he claims to have, should
be taken seriously as part of Mueller's investigation. Instead, as Dotcom tweeted, "Special Counsel Mueller is not interested in
my evidence. My lawyers wrote to him twice. He never replied. "
The Deep State (Oligarchs and the MIC) is totally fucking loving this: they have Trump and the GOP giving them everything
they ever wanted and they have the optics and distraction of an "embattled" president that claims to be against or a victim of
the "deep state" and a base that rally's, circles the wagons around him, and falls for the narrative.
Meanwhile they keep enacting the most Pro Deep State/MIC/Police State/Zionist/Wall Street agenda possible. And they call it
#winning
"Had to be a Russian mole with a computer stick. MSM, DNC and Muller say so."
They know exactly who it was with the memory stick, there is always video of one form or another either in the data center
or near the premises that can indicate who it was. They either have a video of Seth Rich putting the stick into the server directly,
or they at least have a video of his car entering and leaving the vicinity of the ex-filtration.
This would have been an open and shut case if shillary was not involved. Since it was involved, you can all chalk it up
to the Clinton body count. I pray that it gets justice. It and the country, the world - needs justice.
Kim is great, Assange is great. Kim is playing a double game. He wants immunity from the US GUmmint overreach that destroyed
his company and made him a prisoner in NZ.
Good on ya Kim.
His name was Seth Rich...and he will reach out from the grave and bury Killary who murdered him.
There are so many nuances to this and all are getting mentioned but the one that also stands out is that in an age of demands
for gun control by the Dems, Seth Rich is never, ever mentioned. He should be the poster child for gun control. Young man, draped
in a American flag, helping democracy, gunned down...it writes itself.
They either are afraid of the possible racial issues should it turn out to be a black man killing a white man (but why should
that matter in a gun control debate?) or they just don't want people looking at this case. I go for #2.
Funny that George Webb can figure it out, but Trump, Leader of the Free World, is sitting there with his dick in his hand waiting
for someone to save him.
Whatever he might turn out to be, this much is clear: Trump is a spineless weakling. He might be able to fuck starlets, but
he hasn't got the balls to defend either himself or the Republic.
Webb's research is also...managed. But a lot of it was/is really good (don't follow it anymore) and I agree re: SR piece of
it.
I think SR is such an interesting case. It's not really an anomaly because SO many Bush-CFR-related hits end the same way and
his had typical signatures. But his also squeels of a job done w/out much prior planning because I think SR surprised everyone.
If, in fact, that was when he was killed. Everything regarding the family's demeanor suggests no.
MANY patterns in shootings: failure in law enforcement/intelligence who were notified of problem individuals ahead of time,
ARs, mental health and SSRIs, and ongoing resistance to gun control in DC ----these are NOT coincidences. Nor are distractions
in MSM's version of events w/ controlled propaganda.
Children will stop being killed when America wakes the
fuck up and starts asking the right questions, making the right demands. It's time.
I don't think you know how these hackers have nearly ALL been intercepted by CIA--for decades now. DS has had backdoor access
to just about all of them. I agree that Kim is great, brilliant and was sabotaged but he's also cooperating. Otherwise he'd be
dead.
Bes is either "disinfo plant" or energy draining pessimist. Result is the same - to deflate your power to create a new future.
Trump saw the goal of the Fed Reserve banksters decades ago and spoke often about it. Like Prez Kennedy he wants to return
USA economy to silver or gold backed dollar then transition to new system away from the Black Magic fed reserve/ tax natl debt
machine.
The Globalist Cabal has been working to destroy the US economy ever since they income tax April 15th Lincoln at the Ford theater.
125 years. But Bes claims because Trump cannot reverse 125 years of history in one year that it is kabuki.
"... Rosbalt said that when Anikeyev's business reached national levels, he started using new techniques. For example, Anikeyev would go to restaurants and cafes popular among officials, and with the help of sophisticated equipment he created fake Wi-Fi and mobile phone connections. ..."
"... Unsuspecting officials would connect to the network through the channel created by the hacker and he would have access to the information on their devices. ..."
"... Through the Looking Glass, ..."
"... The Anonymous International website was opened in 2013 and content stolen from the phones and emails of Russian politicians immediately started appearing on it. According to Life News , only the correspondence of the public officials and businessmen who refused to pay was published. At the same time members of Shaltai-Boltai positioned themselves as people with an active civil stance. ..."
"... Mikhailov tracked down Anonymous International at the beginning of 2016 and decided to take it under his control, as well as make some money from blackmail along the way. According to Life News , there is another theory - that Mikhailov had been managing the Shaltai-Boltai business from the start. ..."
"... Whatever the truth, Mikhailov and Dokuchayev have now been charged with treason. Anikeyev and Stoyanov will be prosecuted under a different charge - "unauthorized access to computer information." According to Rosbalt , the treason charges against Mikhailov and Dokuchayev are to do with Anonymous International's involvement in leaking to Ukraine the private correspondence of presidential aide Vladislav Surkov. ..."
"... Shaltai-Boltai's website has not been updated since Nov. 26 and its Twitter account since Dec. 12. The group's remaining members, who are believed to live in Thailand and the Baltic States, have been put on an FSB wanted list. ..."
The alleged leader of the Anonymous International hacker group, also known as
Shaltai-Boltai, has been arrested along with important officials in the security services who
collaborated with the group. For several years Shaltai-Boltai terrorized state officials,
businessmen and media figures by hacking their emails and telephones, and threatening to post
their private information online unless blackmail payments were made. "The price tag for our
work starts at several tens of thousands of dollars, and I am not going to talk about the upper
limit," said a man who calls himself Lewis during an interview with the news website,
Meduza ,
in January 2015.
Lewis, whose name pays hommage to the author Lewis Carroll, is the leader of Anonymous
International, the hacker group specializing in hacking the accounts of officials and
businessmen. Another name for Anonymous International is
Shaltai-Boltai, Russian for "Humpty-Dumpty."
Several years ago Lewis and his colleagues prospered thanks to extortion. They offered their
victims the chance to pay a handsome price to buy back their personal information that had been
stolen. Otherwise their information would be sold to third persons and even posted online. In
the end, Russian law-enforcement tracked down Lewis, and in November he was arrested and
now awaits trial . His real
name is Vladimir Anikeyev.
Shaltai-Boltai's founding father
"One's own success is good but other people's failure is not bad either," said the profile
quote on Vladimir Anikeyev's page on VKontakte , Russia's most popular social network.
Vladimir Anikeyev / Photo: anikeevv/vk.com
Rosbalt news website said that in the 1990s Lewis worked as a journalist in St. Petersburg
and specialized in collecting information through various methods, including dubious ones. "He
could go for a drink with someone or have an affair with someone's secretary or bribe people,"
Rosbalt's
source said.
In the 2000s Anikeyev switched to collecting kompromat (compromising material).
Using his connections, he would find the personal email addresses of officials and
entrepreneurs and break into them using hackers in St. Petersburg, and then blackmail the
victims. They had to pay to prevent their personal information from ending up on the
Internet.
Fake Wi-Fi
Rosbalt said that when Anikeyev's business reached national levels, he started using new
techniques. For example, Anikeyev would go to restaurants and cafes popular among officials,
and with the help of sophisticated equipment he created fake Wi-Fi and mobile phone
connections.
Unsuspecting officials would connect to the network through the channel created by the
hacker and he would have access to the information on their devices.
In the beginning Anikeyev was personally involved in the theft of information but later he
created a network of agents.
The business grew quickly; enormous amounts of information were at Anikeyev's disposal that
had to be sorted and selected for suitability as material for blackmail. In the end, according
to Rosbalt, Anonymous International arose as a handy tool for downloading the obtained
information.
Trying to change the world
The second name of the group refers to the works of Lewis Carroll, according to Shaltai-Boltai members. The crazy world of
Through the Looking Glass, with its inverted logic, is the most apt metaphor for
Russian political life. Apart from Lewis Anikeyev, the team has several other members: Alice;
Shaltai, Boltai (these two acted as press secretaries, and as a result of a mix-up, the media
started calling the whole project, Shaltai-Boltai); and several others, including
"technicians," or specialist hackers.
The Anonymous International website was opened in 2013 and content stolen from the
phones and emails of Russian politicians immediately started appearing on it. According to
Life News , only the correspondence of the public officials and businessmen who refused to
pay was published. At the same time members of Shaltai-Boltai positioned themselves as people
with an active civil stance.
"We can be called campaigners. We are trying to change the world. To change it for the
better," Shaltai told the Apparat website. In interviews members of the group
repeatedly complained about Russian officials who restricted Internet freedom, the country's
foreign policy and barriers to participation in elections.
Hacker exploits
Shaltai-Boltai's most notorious hack was of an explicitly political nature and not about
making money. It hacked Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev's Twitter account. On Aug. 14,
2014 tweets were
posted on the account saying that Medvedev was resigning because he was ashamed of the
government's actions. The `prime minister' also had time to write that Putin was wrong, that
the government had problems with common sense, and that the authorities were taking the
country back to the past.
On the same day Anonymous International posted part of the prime minister's
stolen archive, admitting that, "there is nothing particularly interesting in it."
"The posted material was provided by a certain highly-placed reptilian of our acquaintance,"
the hackers joked
.
Medvedev is far from being Shaltai-Boltai's only victim. The hackers published the private
correspondence of officials in the presidential administration: Yevgeny Prigozhin, a
businessman close to Vladimir Putin; Aram Gabrelyanov, head of the pro-Kremlin News Media
holding company; and of Igor Strelkov, one of the leaders of the uprising in east Ukraine.
Lewis, however, insisted that only material that had failed to sell ended up on the
Internet.
Law-enforcement links
Anikeyev was detained in November, and the following month Sergei Mikhailov, head of the 2nd
operations directorate of the FSB Information Security Center, was also arrested. According to
Kommersant , Mikhailov was a
major figure in the security services who, "was essentially overseeing the country's entire
internet business."
Mikhailov's aide, FSB Major Dmitry Dokuchayev, and a former hacker known as Forb, was also
arrested. Shortly after, Ruslan Stoyanov, head of the department for investigating cybercrime
at the antivirus software company Kaspersky Lab, was also detained. Stoyanov also worked
closely with the secret services.
According to Rosbalt , Anikeyev revealed
information about the FSB officers and the Kaspersky Lab computer expert and their close
involvement with Shaltai-Boltai.
Mikhailov tracked down Anonymous International at the beginning of 2016 and decided to
take it under his control, as well as make some money from blackmail along the way. According
to
Life News , there is another theory - that Mikhailov had been managing the Shaltai-Boltai
business from the start.
Shaltai-Boltai had a big fall
Whatever the truth, Mikhailov and Dokuchayev have now been charged with treason.
Anikeyev and Stoyanov will be prosecuted under a different charge - "unauthorized access to
computer information." According to Rosbalt , the treason charges
against Mikhailov and Dokuchayev are to do with Anonymous International's involvement in
leaking to Ukraine the private correspondence of presidential aide Vladislav
Surkov.
Shaltai-Boltai's website has not been updated since Nov. 26 and its Twitter account
since Dec. 12. The group's remaining members, who are believed to live in Thailand and the
Baltic States, have been put on an FSB wanted
list.
Anyway, Shaltai-Boltai anticipated this outcome. "What awaits us if we are uncovered?
Criminal charges and most likely a prison sentence. Each member of the team is aware of the
risks," they said dispassionately in the interview with Apparat in 2015.
"... Anikeev immediately began to cooperate with the investigation and provide detailed evidence, which repeatedly mentioned Mikhailov as being associated with the Shaltai-Boltai's team," said the source of Rosbalt. And in December 2016, Mikhailov and his "right hand," another official of the Information Security Center, Dmitry Dokuchaev, were arrested. The Court took a decision on their arrest. Another ISC official was also detained, but after questioning, no preventive measures involving deprivation of liberty were applied to him. ..."
"... After the summer, Shaltai-Boltai began to work exclusively with the content given to it by the curator. ..."
"... later it switched to civil servants' email that contained information that could bring serious trouble. When it became known that Surkov's correspondence "leaked" to Ukraine, it broke the camel's back. "Mikhailov's a magnificent expert. Best in his business. One can say that the ISC is Mikhailov.. But he crossed all possible borders," told a source of Rosbalt. ..."
The story around the arrest of a high-ranking ISC official, Sergey Mikhailov, is
becoming an actual thriller.
The creator of Shaltai-Boltai (Humpty Dumpty) website, which containted the correspondence
of officials, journalist Vladimir Anikeev, better known in some circles as Lewis, was arrested
on arrival from Ukraine, where he is supposed to have been involved in the publishing on a
local site of presidential aide Vladislav Surkov's correspondence. In his testimony, Lewis said
about the employee of the Information Security Center, Mikhailov.
As a source familiar with the situation told Rosbalt, Vladimir Anikeev was detained by the
FSB officers at the end of October 2016, when he arrived in St. Petersburg from Ukraine. "The
operation was the result of a long work. There was a complicated operative combination with the
aim to lure Lewis from Ukraine, which he didn't indend to leave," said the source to the news
agency. Anikeev was taken to Moscow, where the Investigation department of the FSB charged him
under Article 272 of the Criminal Code (Illegal access to computer information).
First and foremost the counterintelligence was interested in the situation with the
"leakage" of Vladislav Surkov's correspondence: by the time it was known that it was in the
hands of the Shaltai-Boltai's team. Since it was e-mail with from the .gov domain, the
situation caused great concern in theFSO. As a result of this, the correspondence was published
on the website of a Ukrainian association of hackers called Cyber-Junta. In reality, it is
suspected that Anikeev was involved in that affair. He'd been constantly visiting this country,
his girlfriend lived there, and, according to available data, he was not going to return to
Russia. Lewis was also asked about other officials' correspondence, which already appeared on
the Shaltai-Boltai website.
" Anikeev immediately began to cooperate with the investigation and provide detailed
evidence, which repeatedly mentioned Mikhailov as being associated with the Shaltai-Boltai's
team," said the source of Rosbalt. And in December 2016, Mikhailov and his "right hand,"
another official of the Information Security Center, Dmitry Dokuchaev, were arrested. The Court
took a decision on their arrest. Another ISC official was also detained, but after questioning,
no preventive measures involving deprivation of liberty were applied to him.
According to the version of the agency's source, the situation developed as follows. At the
beginning of 2016, the department headed by Mikhailov received an order to "work" with
Shaltai-Boltai's website, which published the correspondence of civil servants. The immediate
executor was Dokuchaev. Officers of the ISC were able to find out the team of Shaltai-Boltai,
which participants nicknamed themselves after Lewis Carroll's "Alice in Wonderland": Alice, the
March Hare, etc. The website creator and organizer, Anikeev, was nicknamed Lewis. In the summer
there were searching raids in St. Petersburg, although formally for other reasons.
According to the Rosbalt's source, just after the summer attack the team of Shaltai-Boltai
appeared to have the owner, or, to be exact, the curator. According to the source, it could be
Sergey Mikhailov. As the result, the working methods of the Lewis's team also changed, just as
the objects whose correspondence was being published for public access. Previously, Lewis's
people figured out objects in places where mobile phone was used. They were given access to the
phone contents by means of a false cell (when it came to mobile internet) or using a
false-Wi-FI (if the person was connected to Wi-FI). Then the downloaded content was sent to
member of the Lewis's team, residing in Estonia. He analyzed to to select what's to be put in
the open access and what's to be sold for Bitcoins. The whole financial part of the
Shaltai-Boltai involved a few people living in Thailand. These Bitcoins were cashed in Ukraine.
Occasionally the Lewis published emails previously stolen by other hackers.
After the summer, Shaltai-Boltai began to work exclusively with the content given to it
by the curator. Earlier, it published correspondence of rather an "entertaining"
character, as well as officials whose "secrets" would do no special harm; but later it
switched to civil servants' email that contained information that could bring serious trouble.
When it became known that Surkov's correspondence "leaked" to Ukraine, it broke the camel's
back. "Mikhailov's a magnificent expert. Best in his business. One can say that the ISC is
Mikhailov.. But he crossed all possible borders," told a source of Rosbalt.
At the time of their arrests in December, Sergei Mikhailov and Dmitry Dokuchayev were
officers with the FSB's Center for Information Security, a leading unit within the FSB involved
in cyberactivities.
Pavlov confirmed to RFE/RL the arrest of Mikhailov and Dokuchayev, along with Ruslan
Stoyanov, a former employee of the Interior Ministry who had worked for Kaspersky Labs, a
well-known private cyber-research company, which announced Stoyanov's arrest last month.
The newspaper Kommersant reported that Mikhailov was arrested at a meeting of FSB officers
and was taken from the meeting after a sack was put on his head.
The independent newspaper Novaya Gazeta, meanwhile, said that a total of six suspects --
including Mikhailov, Dokuchayev, and Stoyanov -- had been arrested. The state news agency TASS
reported on February 1 that two men associated with a well-known hacking group had also been
arrested in November, but it wasn't immediately clear if those arrests were related to the FSB
case.
There has been no public detail as to the nature of the treason charges against Mikhailov,
Dokuchayev, and Stoyanov. The Interfax news agency on January 31 quoted "sources familiar with
the situation" as saying that Mikhailov and Dokuchayev were suspected of relaying confidential
information to the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).
Pavlov told RFE/RL the individuals were suspected of passing on classified information to
U.S. intelligence, but not necessarily the CIA.
Trump has a point: "If it was the GOAL of Russia to create discord, disruption and chaos within the U.S. then, with all of the
Committee Hearings, Investigations and Party hatred, they have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams..."
Trump is still better than Hillary but the margin is shrinking fast...
excoriating the FBI for failing to act on multiple tips
about "professional school shooter"
Nikolas Cruz's murderous intentions, and criticizing National Security Adviser HR McMaster over his
Russia collusion comments, President Donald Trump shifted his focus toward one of his favorite
targets, House Intelligence Committee ranking member Adam Schiff, whom he "congratulated" for finally
acknowledging that the Obama administration is responsible for any attempted interference by Russia
during the 2016 election.
In one of his more memorable turns of phrase, Trump lauded "
Liddle
Adam Schiff
", whom he branded the "
leakin monster of no control
", for
finally "
blaming the Obama Administration for Russian meddling in the 2016 Election. He is finally
right about something. Obama was President, knew of the threat, and did nothing. Thank you Adam!"
Trump also expressed his amazement that nobody in federal law enforcement or Congress tried to stop
the Obama administration from handing over nearly $2 billion in cash to Iran. The cash transfers were
first reported by
the Wall Street Journal
in September 2016. The administration defended its actions by saying it
was merely returning the money, which belonged to Iranian entities, but had been frozen because of
sanctions.
... ... ...
Putting it all together, given the hysteria surrounding Russian interference during the 2016 election, the multiple
investigations and countless public resources wasted, if it was Russia's intention to create chaos in the US, then they've
"succeeded beyond their wildest dreams", Trump claimed."They're probably "
laughing their asses off in Moscow,"
he added.
1. Pardon Edward Snowden and Julian Assange as a sign he
WELCOMES whistle blowers and putting the PEOPLE'S business
in the LIGHT
2. Begin to revoke the fed's charter by putting Ron Paul
in charge of a special investigation of fed malfeasance and
destruction of the currency
3. Immediately suspend weapon sales to ANY country or
organization involved in a current conflict
4. Revoke israel's special exemption from foreign
lobbying registration and fully audit AIPAC with an
intention to uncover bribery and espionage
5. Immediately indict Bill and Hillary Clinton and others
from the Clinton Foundation on charges of corruption,
espionage, and theft
6. Rescind all future payments/allotments to the saudi
arabia and israel until they are in compliance with
international law and human rights standards
7. Cease saber rattling against Iran and Russia and work
toward peaceful, complementary accommodations
8. Draw down the 600 plus U.S. military bases around the
world and bring the Americans HOME
9. Initially shift 30% of the current military budget to
domestic infrastructure needs with a mandate of further
reductions of 10% per yea
If it was the GOAL of Russia to create discord,
disruption and chaos within the U.S. then, with all of
the Committee Hearings, Investigations and Party hatred,
they have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. They are
laughing their asses off in Moscow.
Trump is
right about the Russians laughing their asses off. But he
still foolishly drinks the koolaid handed to him by his
fellow swampsters that this was all a Russian plot.
Hubris does that. The swamp is full of it. And Trump
is well over 50% in the swamp.
It is true that Russians, the intelligence agencies of
every other nation and fat guys in their basement all
hack and troll the Internet. That simple fact was
blown up into a fake Trump-Russia collusion narrative.
Trump's latest tweets straighten that all out pretty
well.
1. Sessions has two investigations going on into Hillary. The heavy
hitters in Military Int. are taking the lead so Sessions has no reason to
dig deeper. the big boys are taking her down. So he did not flip. Clean
up on aisle 6 is happening, albeit slowly.
2. Same thing, you'll see the Military Tribunals start in a few months.
again, he did not flip... have you missed the fact that because of the
ongoing investigations that about 30 congresspersons / Senators are not
going up for re election? Most of the senior Staff in State dept is gone.
Coney, out, Lynch, holder, Rice and a slew of others currently under
investigation.
3. Is Trump supposed to be Assanges nanny or something?
4.That's more Tillersons mess and State dept. Most senior officials
quit en mass months ago from State dept. Trump stopped all CIA funding
going into Syria...
5. Easier said than done... I'm sure he didn't flip....but his priority
now is the counter coup.
6. He took a round about approach in his Dec 21st EO. Blocked Soros
dozens of bullshit non profit orgs...antifa funding...etc...
7. Flipped? Or did not get to it? Did he specifically SAY he was FOR
term limits? Got a link?
Looney I love you but you need to sit back and actually analyze the
situation.
1. He extended an olive branch because of how crazy the divide
was. She balked and he ramped up his rhetoric on investigating her.
2. WTF are you talking about?? He is pushing congress to investigate and
push out publications on the corruption. He can't do shit on his own and
expect people in the middle or left to believe it.
3. That is due to Britain putting out an arrest warrant. Has nothing to
do with Trump.
4. The same Intel agencies you criticized in the past are giving him
info. If they say Syria used chem weapons, he doesn't have any different
information. With the info he had, he did the best option...gut the Airbase
in question and not fully invade.
5. He got all the countries in question to up their spending, which was
the biggest thing he gripped about.
6. I don't know anything about this point so I won't refute it.
7. That requires congress and a possible Constitutional Amendment. Give
it time and we will see.
8. That requires congress and he has had a shit time with both Dems and
RINOs. Give it time and we will see.
People like you seem to think Trump can just wave a magic wand and POOF,
fait accompli. Should he just declare himself Dictator, have a coup d'etat
with the White Hat Military and we can go on from there? Do you have ANY
idea the depth and breadth of the pollution and toxic information that if
it was released at one time the created Zombie American public would
literally implode and strike out at any and all, innocent or not? Trump
has had to get himself into a powerful enough position to have a reason
that the Zombies will accept even if they don't like it to rid himself of
planted people NOT White Hats. Do you think he can just tell Goldman Sucks
to F*** Off? What's wrong with you people? Look at what he's accomplished
in one year AND HE HASN'T BEEN ASSASSINATED which in and of itself tells
you how astute he is.
Mostly, I am disappointed in the war agenda and the continued kissing of
Netanyaoo ass (although that was apparently going to happen throughout
the campaign and election process.) With that said I do believe that
getting his campaign promises all taken care of will be quite a chore
and aren't going to happen in the short term. After 8 years of Obama, 8
years of Bush, I'm going to give Trump some more time before I try to
fool some people that I've got a crystal ball. MAGA!
You are a greedy son of a bitch. He did the single thing that forever
saved us from another Clinton fiasco.
You either are a liar and did
not vote for him, or you are an ignoramus about Presidential campaign
promises, or you could be a DNC operative, attempting to infiltrate a
friendly Trump website and sow seeds of discontent.
No matter what I still wake up every morning knowing that 61,000,000
of us destroyed 63,000,000 assholes' aspirations for corrupt criminal,
turned Hollyweird ultra liberal predators in bowls of quivering jelly,
and made Chris, Oliver, Colbert, Kimmel, most jews, nearly all of both
coasts talking heads into blithering idiotic fools.
1Gave you the biggest tax cut in history
2 Put an end to the TPP
3 Pulled us out of the NWO Paris climate accord
4 Rolled back regulations
5 Eliminated the obamacare mandate forcing you to buy communist
insurance
6 Exposed more corruption in the intelligence, FBI, and DOJ than any
other human being living or dead
7 Got rid of net neutrality
etc, etc, etc
The guy has made enormous progress toward his agenda within one year
of taking office. What the hell do you want? You're no Trump voter, you
lying SOS.
You'd have to be VERY naive to think that Trump could just walk in and
change everything. What do you think he has some magic button or
something? He's in a very precarious situation and perhaps during his
campaign he thought he would be able to easily make the changes that
America so badly needs but the Deep State had another plans...and
unfortunately, they have a lot of power. He has to play both-sides in
order to ease his way into what needs to be done for the country and
he's doing it. Think about it! North Korea and South Korea are starting
to talk, he prevented WW3, he stopped the money that was flowing to the
rebels in Syria, he hasn't changed his mind about NATO or the gun-free
zones but what can he do now? You know Trump is actually not in charge
of the military don't you? The military is a money machine and they
don't want it to stop. Creating an enemy like Russia fits right into
their hands. This goes for everything else you mentioned...as Trump is
not entirely on the side of the Deep State they make it hard for him to
do anything. You can't be so naive that you can't see the whole
picture!
Geez, the guy is 1 year in office and you've got sparks going off in
your brain already?
Your impatience and lack of thinking depth is
showing very strongly. One cannot come in and start slashing things
with his sword, JFK tried that, they took him out. Now Trump wrote a
little famous book called "The ART of the Deal", perhaps you may want to
read it to understand how he works before you pass judgment. It takes
great skill and TIME to be able to drain a swamp artfully.
Why don't you mention any of his great accomplishments he's made
within first year as president you impatient fool?
The hammer comes down with the IG report, wait for it. Sessions may
be a bumbling old fool or he may be playing the long game here. Since
Sessions is Trumps political appointee, the optics of him going after
all of these assholes from the Obama administration before the
general public is aware of the corruption would doom the clean up.
We'd have months/years of the MSM screaming about political payback,
etc. So these guys are just taking baby steps to out the corruption.
If the IG report is as damning as it is being touted as, even the MSM
will be forced to cover it and Horowitz is not a Trump appointee, he
will be considered above the fray. He has to be the guy on point.
Then Sessions can act without it being seen as political. They (MSM,
Deep state) can play that card, but it won't carry much weight and
just further discredit the MSM.
The IG needs to lay it out so that the MSM can't spin it to look
like a Trump operation to deflect attention from the Russia collusion
story which just took a massive torpedo from the Mueller/Rosenstein
indictment, which exonerated Trump.
The narrative is being laid out right now and Trump is helping it
along with these tweets. When the truth finally comes out about this
massive effort to overturn the election using the intelligence
community, FBI, DOJ and State Dept, even the most libtarded Dem will
be clamoring for heads to roll and this sedition/treason leads all
the way through Clinton and into the White House. It's going to be
epic!
"... Bottom line if Hillary was not such an abysmal candidate the Russians couldn't have affected anything. Any traction any narrative gained was a reflection of the dismal status of maybe the most corrupt candidate in American political history. ..."
"... This Russian gambit is to forestall prosecutions of Treason. Hillary was engaged in a Conspiracy to defraud a Federal election. Her campaign gave money to foreign nationals against the law. Conspiracy not collusion. From Brennan and Clapper and Comey in down you have obvious perjury. ..."
"... The Schiffs and the Warners have committed Treason by promulgating this patently false fairy tale to the detriment of the American people. ..."
So "Russian interference" in our elections are some Facebook trolls? Are you freakin'
kiddin' me? After 18 months of investigation not one shred of evidence has been presented.
Has even one voting machine been hacked?
I seem to remember Nuland and McBraintumor on the barricades in the Ukraine.
These Russian
trolls are exercising what used to be called Political speech. Good or bad I don't think you
will be able to stop it.
Bottom line if Hillary was not such an abysmal candidate the
Russians couldn't have affected anything. Any traction any narrative gained was a reflection
of the dismal status of maybe the most corrupt candidate in American political history.
This Russian gambit is to forestall prosecutions of Treason. Hillary was engaged in a
Conspiracy to defraud a Federal election. Her campaign gave money to foreign nationals
against the law. Conspiracy not collusion. From Brennan and Clapper and Comey in down you
have obvious perjury.
The Schiffs and the Warners have committed Treason by promulgating this patently false
fairy tale to the detriment of the American people.
If one needed proof that Mueller's investigation was an utter farce, they were
in for a treat this morning when the Deputy Attorney General announced the indictment of indicted 13
"Russian trolls," for allegedly interfering in the 2016 Presidential election by posting on social
media accounts.
Laying Mueller's disregard of the First Amendment aside, the indictment is blatantly hypocritical
in light of active social media intervention by pro-Clinton David Brock and his multi-million dollar
efforts to 'Correct The Record.'
Julian Assange
tweeted on the matter:
The
indictment
alleges that: "Beginning
in or around June 2014, the ORGANIZATION obscured its conduct by operating through a number of Russian
entities, including Internet Research LLC, MediaSintez LLC, GlavSet LLC, MixInfo LLC, Azimut LLC, and
NovInfo LLC."
The indictment further
alleges
that:
"The ORGANIZATION sought, in part, to conduct what it called information warfare against the United
States of America through fictitious U.S. personas on social media platforms and other Internet-based
media."
According to the indictment, the co-conspirators "engaged in operations primarily intended to
communicate derogatory information about Hillary Clinton, to denigrate other candidates such as Ted
Cruz and Marco Rubio, and to support Bernie Sanders and then-candidate Donald Trump."
The indictment represents the latest mutation of Russian interference allegations that have dragged
on for over a year. As
this
author previously noted
, the definition of Russian interference has shifted from unsubstantiated
claims of Russian hacking, to Russian collusion, and finally to Russian social media trolling.
Wikileaks
tweeted on the
subject:
The
Washington Post
reported in 2015 that David Brock's Correct The Record would work directly with
the Clinton Campaign, "testing the legal limits" of campaign finance in the process. How did Correct
The Record skirt campaign finance law?
The
Washington Post
tells us: "by relying on a 2006 Federal Election Commission regulation that
declared that content posted online for free, such as blogs, is off-limits from regulation." And post
online, Brock's PAC did: "disseminating information about Clinton on its Web site and through its
Facebook and Twitter accounts, officials said."
Time
reported the opinion of a lawyer at the Campaign Legal Center who characterized Correct The
Record as: "creating new ways to undermine campaign regulation." Meanwhile,
The
New York Times
detailed the "outrage machine" that Brock and fellow Clinton supporter Peter Daou
had created:
"Peter Daou sat with his team at a long wooden table last week, pushing the buttons that
activate Mrs. Clinton's outrage machine. Mr. Daou's operation, called
Shareblue
,
had published the article on Mr. Trump's comment on its website and created the accompanying
hashtag. "They will put that pressure right on the media outlets in a very intense way," Mr. Daou,
the chief executive of Shareblue, said of the Twitter army he had galvanized. "By the thousands."
Going further, the
New
York Times
details fervently the $2 million budget of Daou's Shareblue and admits that the intent
of the entire operation is interference in the outcome of the 2016 Presidential election in favor of
Hillary Clinton: "Beyond creating a boisterous echo chamber, the real metric of success for Shareblue,
which Mr. Brock said has a budget of $2 million supplied by his political donors, is getting Mrs.
Clinton elected. Mr. Daou's role is deploying a band of committed, outraged followers to harangue Mrs.
Clinton's opponents."
The
New York Daily News
put
the matter most bluntly: "Hillary Clinton camp now paying online trolls to attack anyone who
disparages her online."
The
LA Times
described the active election interference: "It is meant to appear to be coming
organically from people and their social media networks in a groundswell of activism, when in fact it
is highly paid and highly tactical."
Despite the millions of dollars poured into a pro-Clinton 'outrage machine' bent on her support,
Clinton inexplicably lost the election to Donald Trump, a fact which still seems not to have sunk in
for the former First Lady and Secretary of State.
But why bring up this apparently old news, in the face of Mueller's latest mockery of the
American judicial process and the First Amendment? Because it reveals in the words of the legacy press
that by definition Mueller's circus has zero interest in campaign or election integrity and is solely
interested in getting scalps for Clinton and for the unelected powers she represented.
Despite obvious hypocrisy given the actions of Shareblue and David Brock's Correct The Record,
corporate media ignored all double standards and attempted to report on "Russian twitter trolling"
with a straight face.
Business
Insider
wrote: "Russian Twitter Trolls Tried To Bury Or Spin Negative Trump News Just Before
Election," as if that wasn't what Correct The Record spent millions on doing for the benefit of
Clinton.
The double standards applied to Clinton for her benefit goes beyond hypocrisy. Many have claimed
that constantly metamorphosing allegations of Russian interference represents an insidious effort to
silence dissent and anti-establishment political discourse: for example, by turning third-party,
anti-establishment or conservative voices into "Russians" by proxy of their opposition to Clinton.
By converting legitimate American free speech into insidious "Russian bots," a pretext is created
to silence dissent across the board. Without the Russian interference circus, the efforts to breach
the First Amendment would be overtly authoritarian and would be inexcusable even by the most corrupt
establishment media standards.
The results of such a clamp-down on free and effective speech have manifested in censorship
crackdowns across large social media platforms including
Twitter
,
Youtube,
and
Facebook
,
with Twitter admitting to actively censoring roughly 48% of tweets that included the "#DNCEmails"
hashtag. It seems anyone with an opinion the establishment doesn't like is liable to be memory-holed.
"The ORGANIZATION sought, in part, to conduct what it
called information warfare against the United States of
America through fictitious U.S. personas on social media
platforms and other Internet-based media."
What in the statement hasn't been going on since the
internet came into existence? The social internet was
founded on bullshit personas. When you can open a Faecesbook
account, and become an internet sensation as a fucking dog,
what about the above doesn't look patently ridiculous?
These twats are living in La La Land, and its getting
beyond disturbing.
And another thing, from what I understand Grand
Inquisitor Mueller indicted these 13 Russian
internet trolls for being "foreign agents" trying
to affect the outcome of the 2016 election.
So
when is he going to indict
Christopher
Steele
for being
an actual
bonafide foreign agent
trying to affect
the outcome of the 2016 election? ;-)
None of them will be hopping on a
plane to come here and I doubt very seriously
that Vlad will play along with this kind of
stupidity...although it would be a fun trial
to have...lol.
Defense counsel opening statement: "My
clients have voluntarily come here to America
to assert their universal free speech rights
in much the same way that Hillary crony David
Brocks "Correct the Record" paid internet
troll army from India did and we look forward
to exposing all of Hillary's and Obama's
astroturfing paid bots in this venue.
Grand Inquisitor Mueller: "Ahem. Your
honor, may we approach the bench?"
And the rest as they say, would be
jurisprudence history.
It was nothing but a contrived media ploy
by Mueller to say he
had found...RUSSIANS!...(insert audible gasp
here) "somewhere" and surprisingly enough, he
found them, in of all places, Russia...lol.
Its stupid to the tenth power...he's
losing. Badly ;-)
Well, I don't run my life trying to keep up
with the comings & goings of Jews and what
they may want or don't want but...
Weinstein raised money for Hillary.
This crooked as a dogs hind leg Weissmann is
Muellers lead attack dog and Rosenstein
appointed Mueller.
On the other hand, Trumps son-in-law is
Jewish so really to me this is more about
left vs right...statists vs individuals.
Now I'm sure someone more consumed with
"Just what the hell are (((they))) up
to today?!"
(lol) can pick
my statement apart and call me a rabbi or
hasbra troll or any other damned thing they
want but I just don't live in that Catholic
vs Protestant vs Black vs White vs Aryan vs
Slav etc Balkanized world.
Not to the degree they do anyways.
It's clear to me a gross miscarriage of
justice is happening
(and has been
happening)
and those are just the
facts, regardless of any skulking Israeli
or Russian supermen others may see hiding
behind every blade of grass who seem to
"control everything" because clearly they do
not or we wouldn't be having this
conversation ;-)
"... In addition, financial capital leads to inequality, and that inequality, as you've seen in the United States and in Europe and many other places, it increases. And suddenly, not suddenly, but bit by bit, people begin to realize that they aren't getting their share and that means that the government, to protect capitalism, must use force to maintain the order of financial capital. And I think Trump is the fulfillment of that, and I think there are other examples too which I can go into. So, basically, my argument is that with the rise of finance and its unproductive activities, you've got the decline in living standards of the vast majority, and in order to maintain order in such a system where people no longer think that they're sort of getting their share, and so justice doesn't become, a just distribution doesn't become the reason why people support this system, increasingly it has to be done through force. ..."
"... I think that as The Real News has pointed out, that many of Trump's policies appear just to be more extreme versions of things that George Bush did, and in some cases not that much different from what Barack Obama did. ..."
"... The difference with Trump is, he has complete contempt for all of those constraints. That is, he is an authoritarian. I don't think he's a fascist, not yet, but he is an authoritarian. He does not accept that there are constraints which he should respect. There are constraints which bother him, and he wants to get rid of them, and he actually takes steps to do so. ..."
"... Erdoğan so infamously said? "Democracy is like a train. You take it to where you want to go and then you get off." No. Progressive view is that democracy is what it's all about. Democracy is the way that we build the present and we build a future. ..."
"... I think that the struggle in the United States is extremely difficult because of the role of the big money and the media, which you know more about than I do. But it is a struggle which we have to keep at, and we have to be optimistic about it. It's a good bit easier over here, but as we saw, and you reported, during the last presidential election, a progressive came very close to being President of the United States. That, I don't think was a one-off event, not to be repeated. I think it lays the basis for hope in the future. ..."
"... The democratic nation-state basically operates like a criminal cartel, forcing honest citizens to surrender large portions of their wealth to pay for stuff like roads and hospitals and schools. ..."
"... Any hierarchic system will be exploited by intelligent sociopaths. Systems will not save us. ..."
"... What I gleaned from my quick Wikiread was the apparent pattern of economic inequality causing the masses to huddle in fear & loathing to one corner – desperation, and then some clever autocrat subverts the energy from their F&L into political power by demonizing various minorities and other non-causal perps. ..."
"... Like nearly every past fascism emergence in history, US Trumpismo is capitalizing on inequality, and fear & loathing (his capital if you will) to seize power. That brings us to Today – to Trump, and an era (brief I hope) of US flirtation with fascism. Thank God Trump is crippled by a narcissism that fuels F&L within his own regime. Otherwise, I might be joining a survivalist group or something. :-) ..."
Yves here. This Real News Network interview with professor emeritus John Weeks discussed how economic ideology has weakened or
eliminated public accountability of institutions like the Fed and promote neo[neo]liberal policies that undermine democracy.
SHARMINI PERIES: It's The Real News Network. I'm Sharmini Peries coming to you from Baltimore. The concept of the [neo]liberal democracy
is generally based on capitalistic markets along with respect for individual freedoms and human rights and equality in the face of
the law. The rise of financial capital and its efforts to deregulate financial markets, however, raises the question whether [neo]liberal
democracy is a sustainable form of government. Sooner or later, democratic institutions make way for the interests of large capital
to supersede.
Political economist John Weeks recently gave this year's David Gordon Memorial Lecture at the meeting of the American Economic
Association in Philadelphia where he addressed these issues with a talk titled, Free Markets and the Decline of Democracy. Joining
us now is John Weeks. He joins us from London to discuss the issues raised in his lecture. You can find a link to this lecture just
below the player, and John is, as you know, Professor Emeritus of the University of London School of Oriental and African Studies
and author of Economics of the 1%: How Mainstream Economics Serves the Rich, Obscures Reality and Distorts Policy. John, good to
have you back on The Real News.
JOHN WEEKS: Thank you very much for having me.
SHARMINI PERIES: John, let me start with your talk. Your talk describes a struggle between efforts to create a democratic
control over the economy and the interest of capital, which seeks to subjugate government to the interest, its own interest. In your
assessment, it looks like this is a losing battle for democracy. Explain this further.
JOHN WEEKS: Yeah, so I think that Marx in Capital, in the first volume of Capital, refers to a concept called bourgeois
right, by which he meant that, you said it in the introduction, that in a capitalist society there is a form of equality that mimics
the relationship of exchange. Every commodity looks equal in exchange and there is a system of ownership that you might say is the
shadow of that. I think more important, in the early stages of development of capitalism, of development of factories, that those
institutions or those factories prompted the growth of trade unions and workers' struggles in general. Those workers' struggles were
key to the development, or further development of democracy, freedom of speech, a whole range of rights, the right to vote.
However, with the development of finance capital, you've got quite a different dynamic within the capitalist system. Let me say,
I don't want to romanticize the early period of capitalism, but you did have struggles, mass struggles for rights. Finance capital
produces nothing productive, it doesn't do anything productive. So, what finance capital does basically is it redistributes the income,
the wealth, the, what Marx would call the surplus value, from other sectors of society to itself. And it employs relatively few people,
so that dynamic of the capital, industrial capital, generating its antithesis So, that a labor movement doesn't occur under financial
capital.
In addition, financial capital leads to inequality, and that inequality, as you've seen in the United States and in Europe
and many other places, it increases. And suddenly, not suddenly, but bit by bit, people begin to realize that they aren't getting
their share and that means that the government, to protect capitalism, must use force to maintain the order of financial capital.
And I think Trump is the fulfillment of that, and I think there are other examples too which I can go into. So, basically, my argument
is that with the rise of finance and its unproductive activities, you've got the decline in living standards of the vast majority,
and in order to maintain order in such a system where people no longer think that they're sort of getting their share, and so justice
doesn't become, a just distribution doesn't become the reason why people support this system, increasingly it has to be done through
force.
SHARMINI PERIES: All right, John. Before we get further into the relationship between neo[neo]liberalism and democracy, give
us a brief summary of what you mean by neo[neo]liberalism. You say that it's not really about deregulation, as most people usually conceive
of it. If that's not what it's about, what is it, then?
JOHN WEEKS: I think that if you think about the movements in the United States, and as much as I can, I will take examples
from the United States because most of your listeners will be familiar with those, beginning in the early part of the twentieth century,
in the United States you have reform movements, the breaking up of the large monopolies, tobacco monopoly, a whole range of Standard
Oil, all of that. And then of course under Roosevelt you began to get the regulation of capital in the interests of the majority,
much of that driven by Roosevelt's trade union support. So, that was moving from a system where capital was relatively unregulated
to where it was being regulated in the interests of the vast majority. I also would say, though, I won't go into detail, to a certain
extent it was regulated in the interest of capital itself to moderate competition and therefore, I'd say, ensure a relatively tranquil
market environment.
Neo[neo]liberalism involves not the deregulation of the capitalist system, but the reregulation of it in the interest of capital. So,
it involves moving from a system in which capital is regulated in the interests of stability and the many to regulation in a way
that enhances capital. These regulations, to get specific about them, restrictions on trade unions, as you, on Real News, a number
of people have talked about this. The United States now have many restrictions on the organizing of trade unions which were not present
50 or 60 years ago, making it harder to have a mass movement of labor against capital, restrictions on the right to demonstrate,
a whole range of things. Then within capital itself, the regulations on the movement of capital that facilitate speculation in international
markets. We have a capitalism in which the form of regulation is shifted from the regulation of capital in the interest of labor
to regulation of capital in the interest of capital.
SHARMINI PERIES: John, give us a brief summary of the ways in which neo[neo]liberalism undermines democracy.
JOHN WEEKS: Well, I think that there are many examples, but I'm going to focus on economic policy. For an obvious case
is the role of the Central Bank, in the case of the United States' Federal Reserve System, in which reducing its accountability to
the public, one way you can do that is by assigning goals to it, such as fighting inflation, which then override other goals. Originally,
the Federal Reserve System, its charter, or I'll say its terms of reference, if you want me to use that phrase, included full employment
and a stable economy. Those have been overridden in more recent legislation, which puts a great emphasis on the control of inflation.
Control of inflation basically means maintaining an economy at a relatively high level of unemployment or part-time employment, or
flexible employment, where people have relatively few rights at work. And that the Central Bank becomes a vehicle for enforcing a
neo[neo]liberal economic policy.
Second of all, probably most of your viewers will not remember the days when we had fixed exchange rates. We had a world of fixed
exchange rates in those days that represented the policy, which government could use to affect its trade and also affect its domestic
policy. There have been deregulation of that. We now have floating exchange rates. That takes away a tool, an instrument of economic
policy. And in fiscal policy, there the, here it's more ideology than laws, though there are also laws. There's a law requiring that
the government balance its budget, but more important than that, the introduction into the public consciousness, I'd say grinding
into the public consciousness, the idea that deficits are a bad thing, government debt is a bad thing, and that's a completely neo[neo]liberal
ideology.
In summary, one way that the democracy has been undermined is to take away economic policy from the public realm and move it to
the realm of experts. So, we have certain allegedly expert guidelines that we have to follow. Inflation should be low. We should
not run deficits. The national debt should be small. These are things that are just made up ideologically. There is no technical
basis to them. And so, in doing that, you might say, the term I like to use is, you decommission the democratic process and economic
policy.
SHARMINI PERIES: John, speaking of ideology, in your talk you refer to the challenge that fascism posed or poses to neo[neo]liberal
democracies. Now, it is interesting when you take Europe into consideration and National Socialist in Germany, for example, appeal
mostly to the working class, as does contemporary far-right leaders in Poland and Hungary, that they support more explicit neo[neo]liberal
agendas. Why would people support a neo[neo]liberal agenda that exasperate inequalities and harm public services that they depend on,
including jobs?
JOHN WEEKS: I think that to a great extent it is country-specific, but I can make generalizations. First of all, I'm talking
about Europe, because you raised a case in some European countries, and then I'll make some comments about the United States and
Trump, if you want me to. I think in Europe, a combination of three things resulted in the rise of fascism and authoritarian movements
which are verging on fascism. One is that the European integration project, which let me say that I have supported, and I would still
prefer Britain not to leave the European Union, but nevertheless, the European Union integration project has been a project run by
elites.
It has not been a bottom-up process. It has been a process very much run by elite politicians, in which they get together in closed
door, and they make policies which they subsequently announce, and many of the decisions they come to being extremely, the meaning
of them being extremely opaque. So, therefore, you have the development in Europe of the European Union which, not from the bottom
up, but very much from the top down. You might suggest from the top, but I'm not sure how much goes down. That's one.
The second key factor, I would say, for about 20 years in European integration, it was relatively benign elitism because it was social
democratic, it had the support of the working class, or the trade unions, at any rate. Then, increasingly, it began to become neo[neo]liberal.
So, you have an elite project which was turning into a neo[neo]liberal project. Specifically, what I mean by neo[neo]liberal is where they're
generating flexibility rules for the labor market, austerity policies, bank, balanced budgets, low inflation, the things I was talking
about before.
Then the third element, toxic, the most toxic of them, but the other, they're volatile, is the legacy of fascism in Europe. Every
European country, with the exception of Britain, had a substantial fascist movement in the 1920s and 1930s. I can go into why Britain
didn't sometime. It had to do with the particular class struggle of the, I mean, class structure of Britain. Poland, ironically enough,
though, is one of them. It was overrun by the Nazis, and occupied, and incorporated into the German Reich. Ironically, it had a very
right-wing government with a lot of sympathies towards fascism when it was invaded in the late summer of 1939.
France had a strong fascist movement. Of course, Italy had a fascist government, and Hungary, where now you have a right-wing
government, a very strong fascist movement. The incorporation of these countries into the Soviet sphere of influence, or the empire,
as it were, did not destroy that fascism. It certainly suppressed it, but it didn't destroy it. So, as soon as the European project
began to transform into a neo[neo]liberal project, and that gathered strength in the early 1990s, I mean, the neo[neo]liberal aspect of the
European Union gathered strength in the early 1990s, exactly when you were getting the "liberation" of many countries from Soviet
rule. And so, when you put those together, it led to, It was a rise of fascism waiting to happen and now it is happening.
SHARMINI PERIES: John, earlier, you said you'll factor in Trump. How does Trump fit into this phenomena?
JOHN WEEKS: I think that as The Real News has pointed out, that many of Trump's policies appear just to be more extreme
versions of things that George Bush did, and in some cases not that much different from what Barack Obama did. Now, though I
wouldn't go too deeply into that, I think that that is the most serious offenses by Obama that have been carried on by Trump have
to do with the use of drones and the military. But at any rate, but there's a big difference from Trump. For the most part, the previous
Republican presidents, and Democratic presidents, accepted the framework of, the formal framework of [neo]liberal democracy in the United
States. That is, formally accepted the constraints imposed by the Constitution.
Now, of course, they probably didn't do it out of the goodness of their heart. They did it because they saw that the things that
they wanted to achieve, the neo[neo]liberal goals that they wanted to achieve were perfectly consistent with the Constitution's framework
and guarantees of rights and so on, that most of those rights are guaranteed in a way that's so weak that you didn't have to repeal
the first 10 Amendments of the Constitution in order to have repressive policies.
The difference with Trump is, he has complete contempt for all of those constraints. That is, he is an authoritarian. I don't
think he's a fascist, not yet, but he is an authoritarian. He does not accept that there are constraints which he should respect.
There are constraints which bother him, and he wants to get rid of them, and he actually takes steps to do so. What you have
in Trump, I think, is a sea change. You have a, we've had right-wing presidents before, certainly. What the difference with Trump
is, he is a right-wing president that sees no reason to respect the institutions of democratic government, or even, you might say,
the institution of representative government. I won't even use a term as strong as "democratic." That lays the basis for an explicitly
authoritarian United States, and I'd say that we're beginning to see the vehicle by which this will occur, the restriction on voting
rights. Of course, that was going on before Trump, it does in a more aggressive way. I think the, soon, we will have a Supreme Court
that will be quite lenient with his tendency towards authoritarian rule.
SHARMINI PERIES: All right, John. Let's end this segment with what can be done. I mean, what must be done to prevent neo[neo]liberal
interests from undermining democracy? And who do you believe is leading the struggle for democracy now, and what is the right strategy
that people should be fighting for?
JOHN WEEKS: Well, one thing, I think, where I'd begin is that I think progressives, as The Real News represents, and Bernie
Sanders, and all the people that support him, and Jeremy Corbyn over here, I'll come back to talk about a bit about Jeremy. We must
be explicit that we view democracy, by which we mean the participation of people at the grassroots, their participation in the government,
we view that as a goal. It's not merely a technique, or a tool which, what was it that Erdoğan so infamously said? "Democracy
is like a train. You take it to where you want to go and then you get off." No. Progressive view is that democracy is what it's all
about. Democracy is the way that we build the present and we build a future.
I'm quite fortunate in that I live in perhaps the only large country in the world where there's imminent possibility of a progressive,
left-wing, anti-authoritarian government. I think that is the monumental importance of Jeremy Corbyn and his second-in-command, John
McDonnell, and others like Emily Thornberry, who is the Foreign Secretary. These people are committed to democracy. In the United
States, Bernie Sanders is committed to a democracy, and a lot of other people are too, Elizabeth Warren. So, I think that the
struggle in the United States is extremely difficult because of the role of the big money and the media, which you know more about
than I do. But it is a struggle which we have to keep at, and we have to be optimistic about it. It's a good bit easier over here,
but as we saw, and you reported, during the last presidential election, a progressive came very close to being President of the United
States. That, I don't think was a one-off event, not to be repeated. I think it lays the basis for hope in the future.
"A lot of money" in those days- Some say JI "bought land" with the shekels. An early form of asset swap? A precursor to current
financialist activities?
Good article. If it were any bleaker, I'd suspect Chris Hedges having a hand in writing it.
The democratic nation-state basically operates like a criminal cartel, forcing honest citizens to surrender large portions
of their wealth to pay for stuff like roads and hospitals and schools.
There it is, the Gorgon Thiel, surrounded by terror and rout.
"Altman felt that OpenAI's mission was to babysit its wunderkind until it was ready to be adopted by the world. He'd been reading
James Madison's notes on the Constitutional Convention for guidance in managing the transition. 'We're planning a way to allow
wide swaths of the world to elect representatives to a new governance board,' he said."
I was having trouble choosing which of the passages in this article to provide a mad quote from. Some other choices were
Altman's going to work with the Department of Defense, then help defend the world from them.
Or:
OpenAI's going to take over from humans, but don't worry because they're going to make it (somehow) so OpenAI can only terminate
bad people. Before releasing it to the world.
Or:
Altman says 'add a 0 to whatever you're doing but never more than that.'
But if this sort of wisdom (somehow) doesn't work out well for everybody and the world collapses, he's flying with Peter Thiel
in the private jet to the New Zealand's south island to wait out the Zombie Apocalypse on a converted sheep farm. (Before returning
to the Valley work with more startups?)
I think it's revealing that the only type of democracy discussed, in spite of the title, is "[neo]liberal democracy", which the
host describes as "based on capitalistic markets along with respect for individual freedoms and human rights and equality in the
face of the law."
I've always argued that [neo]liberal democracy is a contradiction in terms, and you can see why from that quotation. [neo]liberalism (leaving
aside special uses of the term in the US) is about individuals exercising their personal economic freedom and personal
autonomy as much as they can, with as little control by government as possible.
But given massive imbalances in economic power, the influence
of media-backed single issue campaigns and the growth of professional political parties, policy is decided by the interventions
of powerful and well-organised groups, without ordinary people being consulted. At the end, Weeks does start to talk of grassroots
participation, but seems to have no more in mind than a campaign to get people to vote for Sanders in 2020, which hardly addresses
the problem. The answer, if there is one, is a system of direct democracy, involving referendums and popular assemblies chosen
at random.
This has been much talked about, but since you would have the entire political class against you, it's not going to
happen. In the meantime, we are stuck with [neo]liberal democracy, whose contradictions, I'm afraid are becoming ever more obvious.
"Contradictions?" One question for me at least would be whether the features and motions of the current regime are best characterized
as "contradictions." If so, to what? And implicit in the use of the word is some kind of resolution, via actual class conflict
or something, leading to "better" or at least "different." All I see from my front porch is more of the same, and worse. "The
Matrix" in that myth gave some comforting illusions to the mopery. I think the political economy/collapsed planet portrayed in
"Soylent Green" is a lot closer to the likely endpoints.
At least in the movie fable, the C-Suite-er of the Soylent Corp. as the lede in the film, was sickened of what he was helping
to maintain, and bethought himself to blow his tiny little personal whistle that nobody would really hear, and got axed for his
disloyalty to the ruling collective. I doubt the ranks of corporatists of MonsantoDuPont and LockheedMartin and the rest include
any significant numbers of folks sickened by "the contradictions" that get them their perks and bennies and power (as long as
they color inside the lines.)
I hope I am way off the mark, but within that genre & in terms of where we could be heading, the film " Snowpiercer " sums
it up best for me- a dystopian world society illustrated through the passengers on one long train.
Thanks for the Real News Network for covering issues that never see the light of day on the corporate media and never mentioned
by the Rachel Maddow's of the "news" shows.
I actually like the term and find it useful, insofar as it describes an ideology -- as oposed a real political-economic arrangement.
The presence of "free markets" may not be a characteristic of the neo[neo]liberal phase, but the belief in them sure is.
(Which is not to say there aren't people who don't believe in free markets but do invoke them rhetorically for
other ends. That's a feature of many if not most successful ideologies.)
' Originally, the Federal Reserve charter included full employment and a stable economy. Those have been overridden in more
recent legislation, which puts a great emphasis on the control of inflation.
Eh, this is fractured history. The Fed was set up in 1913 as a lender of last resort -- a discounter of government and private
bills.
In late 1978 Jimmy Carter signed the Humphrey Hawkins Act instructing the Fed to pursue three goals: stable prices, maximum
employment, and moderate long-term interest rates, though the latter is rarely mentioned now and the Fed is widely viewed as having
a dual mandate.
The Fed's two percent inflation target it simply adopted at its own initiative -- it's not enshrined in no Perpetual Inflation
Act.
' We had a world of fixed exchange rates which government could use to affect its trade and also affect its domestic policy.
We now have floating exchange rates. That takes away a tool. '
LOL! This is totally inverted and flat wrong. The Bretton Woods fixed exchange rate system prevented radical monetary experiments
such as QE which would have broken the peg. Nixon unilaterally suspended fixed exchange rates in 1971 because he was unwilling
to take the political hit of formally devaluing the dollar (or even more unlikely, sweating out Vietnam War inflation with falling
prices to maintain the peg).
Floating rates are a new and potentially lethal monetary tool which have produced a number of sad examples of "governments
gone wild" with radical monetary experiments and currency swings. Bad boys Japan & Switzerland come readily to mind.
To render history accurately requires getting hands dirty with dusty old books. Icky, I know. :-(
Yes but globalisation meant that all central banks and finance ministers had to act concertedly as in G-20 and similar meetings.
While we may talk of floating exchange rates, each country fixes its interest rate to maintain parity with the others. Isn't that
so?
I think that the key piece of info is that the Federal Reserve was created on December 23rd, 1913. That sounds like that it
was slipped in the legislative back door when everybody was going away for the Christmas holidays.
===== quote =====
Second of all, probably most of your viewers will not remember the days when we had fixed exchange rates. We had a world of fixed
exchange rates in those days that represented the policy, which government could use to affect its trade and also affect its domestic
policy. There have been deregulation of that. We now have floating exchange rates. That takes away a tool, an instrument of economic
policy. And in fiscal policy, there the, here it's more ideology than laws, though there are also laws. There's a law requiring
that the government balance its budget, but more important than that, the introduction into the public consciousness, I'd say
grinding into the public consciousness, the idea that deficits are a bad thing, government debt is a bad thing, and that's a completely
neo[neo]liberal ideology.
===== /quote =====
This makes absolutely no sense and seems to have the case exactly backward. Our federal government has no rule that the budget
must be balanced. Fixed exchange rates were not a tool that could be used to affect trade and domestic policy in a good way.
I enjoyed John Weeks' point of view. He's the first person I've read who refers to the usefulness of a fixed exchange rate.
Useful for a sovereign government with a social spending agenda. We have always been a sovereign government with a military agenda
which is at odds with a social agenda.
Guns and butter are a dangerous combination if you are dedicated to at least maintaining
the illusion of a "strong dollar." That's basically what Nixon finessed. John Conally told him not to worry, we could go off the
gold standard and it wasn't our problem since we were the reserve currency – it was everybody else's problem and we promptly exported
our inflation all around the world. And now it has come home to roost because it was fudging and it couldn't last forever.
Much
better to concede to some fix for the currency and maintain the sovereign power to devalue the dollar as necessary to maintain
proper social spending. I don't understand why sovereign governments cannot see that a deficit is just the mirror image of a healthy
social economy (Stephanie Kelton).
And to that end "fix" an exchange rate that maintains a reasonable purchasing power of the
currency by pegging it to the long term health of the economy. What we do now is peg the dollar to a "basket of goods and services"-
Ben Bernanke. That "basket" is effectively "the market" and has very little to do with good social policy.
There's no reason we
can't dispense with the market and simply fiat the value of our currency based on the social return estimated for our social investments.
Etc. Keeping the dollar stubbornly strong is just tyranny favoring those few who benefit from extreme inequality.
" Democracy is not under stress – it's under aggressive attack, as unconstrained financial greed overrides public accountability
."
I request a lessatorium* on the term 'democracy', because there aren't any democracies. Rather than redefine the term, why
not use a more accurate one, like 'plutocracy', or 'corporatocracy'.
-- -- -- -
* It's like a moratorium, you just do less of it.
I had not given much thought to "Fascist" until the term was challenged as a synonym for "bully." So, I started reading Wikipedia's
take on Fascismo. What I discovered was the foremost, my USA education did not teach jack s -- about Fascism – and I went to elite
high school in libr'l Chicago.
Is Fascism right or left? Does it matter? What goes around comes around.
What I gleaned from my quick Wikiread was the apparent pattern of economic inequality causing the masses to huddle in fear
& loathing to one corner – desperation, and then some clever autocrat subverts the energy from their F&L into political power
by demonizing various minorities and other non-causal perps.
Like nearly every past fascism emergence in history, US Trumpismo is capitalizing on inequality, and fear & loathing (his capital
if you will) to seize power. That brings us to Today – to Trump, and an era (brief I hope) of US flirtation with fascism. Thank
God Trump is crippled by a narcissism that fuels F&L within his own regime. Otherwise, I might be joining a survivalist group
or something. :-)
Neoliberalism involves not the deregulation of the capitalist system, but the reregulation of it in the interest of capital.
So, it involves moving from a system in which capital is regulated in the interests of stability and the many to regulation in
a way that enhances capital.
Prominent politicians in the US and UK have spent their entire political careers representing neoliberalism's agenda at the
expense of representing the voters' issues. The voters are tired of the conservative and [neo]liberal political establishments' focus
on neoliberal policy. This is also true in Germany as well France and Italy. The West's current political establishments see the
way forward as "staying the neoliberal course." Voters are saying "change course." See:
'German Politics Enters an Era of Instability' – Der Speigel
Very weak analysis The authors completely missed the point. Susceptibility to rumors (now
called "fake new" which more correctly should be called "improvised news") and high level of
distrust to "official MSM" (of which popularity of alternative news site is only tip of the
iceberg) is a sign of the crisis and tearing down of the the social fabric that hold the so
social groups together. This first of all demonstrated with the de-legitimization of the
neoliberal elite.
As such attempt to patch this discord and unite the US society of fake premises of Russiagate
and anti-Russian hysteria look very problematic. The effect might be quite opposite as the story
with Steele dossier, which really undermined credibility of Justice Department and destroyed the
credibility o FBI can teach us.
In this case claims that "The claim that, for example, Mrs. Clinton's victory might aid Satan
" are just s a sign of rejection of neoliberalism by voters. Nothing more nothing less.
Notable quotes:
"... It has infected the American political system, weakening the body politic and leaving it vulnerable to manipulation. Russian misinformation seems to have exacerbated the symptoms, but laced throughout the indictment are reminders that the underlying disease, arguably far more damaging, is all American-made. ..."
"... A recent study found that the people most likely to consume fake news were already hyperpartisan and close followers of politics, and that false stories were only a small fraction of their media consumption. ..."
That these efforts might have actually made a difference, or at least were intended to,
highlights a force that was already destabilizing American democracy far more than any
Russian-made fake news post: partisan polarization.
"Partisanship can even alter memory, implicit evaluation, and even perceptual judgment," the
political scientists Jay J. Van Bavel and Andrea Pereira wrote in a recent paper . "The human attraction to fake and
untrustworthy news" -- a danger cited by political scientists far more frequently than
orchestrated meddling -- "poses a serious problem for healthy democratic functioning."
It has infected the American political system, weakening the body politic and leaving it
vulnerable to manipulation. Russian misinformation seems to have exacerbated the symptoms, but
laced throughout the indictment are reminders that the underlying disease, arguably far more
damaging, is all American-made.
... ... ...
A recent study found
that the people most likely to consume fake news were already hyperpartisan and close followers
of politics, and that false stories were only a small fraction of their media
consumption.
Americans, it said, sought out stories that reflected their already-formed partisan view of
reality. This suggests that these Russians efforts are indicators -- not drivers -- of how
widely Americans had polarized.
That distinction matters for how the indictment is read: Though Americans have seen it as
highlighting a foreign threat, it also illustrates the perhaps graver threats from
within.
An Especially Toxic Form of Partisanship
... ... ...
"Compromise is the core of democracy," she said. "It's the only way we can govern." But, she
said, "when you make people feel threatened, nobody compromises with evil."
The claim that, for example, Mrs. Clinton's victory might aid Satan is in many ways just a
faint echo of the partisan anger and fear already dominating American politics.
Those emotions undermine a key norm that all sides are served by honoring democratic
processes; instead, they justify, or even seem to mandate, extreme steps against the other
side.
In taking this approach, the Russians were merely riding a trend that has been building for
decades.
Since the 1980s , surveys have found that Republicans and Democrats' feelings toward the
opposing party have been growing more and more negative. Voters are animated more by distrust
of the other side than support for their own.
This highlights a problem that Lilliana Mason, a University of Maryland political scientist,
said had left American democracy dangerously vulnerable. But it's a problem driven primarily by
American politicians and media outlets, which have far louder megaphones than any Russian-made
Facebook posts.
"Compromise is the core of democracy," she said. "It's the only way we can govern." But, she
said, "when you make people feel threatened, nobody compromises with evil."
The claim that, for example, Mrs. Clinton's victory might aid Satan is in many ways just a
faint echo of the partisan anger and fear already dominating American politics.
Those emotions undermine a key norm that all sides are served by honoring democratic
processes; instead, they justify, or even seem to mandate, extreme steps against the other
side.
"Very sad that the FBI missed all of
the many signals sent out by the Florida school shooter. This is not acceptable. They are
spending too much time trying to prove Russian collusion with the Trump campaign - there is no
collusion. Get back to the basics and make us all proud!" Trump tweeted.
His comment comes
after the FBI said Friday that it had failed to follow "protocols" when it received a tip
earlier this year about 19-year old Nikolas Cruz, the alleged shooter who went on a rampage at
Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla on Wednesday.
Russia is a perfect scapegoat which ensure lucrative levels of funding for both intelligence
agencies and MIC. "Though this be madness, yet there is method in't"
Notable quotes:
"... "Turns out, there've been 13 people, in the opinion of the US Justice Department. 13 people interfered in the US elections? 13 against billions budgets of special agencies? Against intelligence and counterespionage, against the newest technologies? Absurd? – Yes." ..."
"... The indictment, however, is the "modern American political reality," Zakharova added, jokingly suggesting that the number 13 was picked due to its negative associations. ..."
"... "The Americans are very emotional people, they see what they want to see. I have great respect for them. I am not at all upset that I am on this list. If they want to see the devil, let them," ..."
"... "supporting the presidential campaign of then-candidate Donald J. Trump...and disparaging Hillary Clinton." ..."
"... "no allegations" ..."
"... On Friday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that supporting Donald Trump has never been an official Russian policy, even if some Russians did express their backing of the new US leader. ..."
"... "It's a pity that under Donald Trump, for more than a year of his presidency, our relations have not improved compared to the period of the Democratic administration. Even worsened to a certain extent," ..."
"Turns out, there've been 13 people, in the opinion of the US Justice Department. 13
people interfered in the US elections? 13 against billions budgets of special agencies? Against
intelligence and counterespionage, against the newest technologies? Absurd? – Yes."
Zakharova said in a Facebook post
.
The indictment, however, is the "modern American political reality," Zakharova added,
jokingly suggesting that the number 13 was picked due to its negative associations.
One of the indicted, Russian businessman Evgeny Prigozhin, said he was not really upset by
the accusations.
"The Americans are very emotional people, they see what they want to see. I have great
respect for them. I am not at all upset that I am on this list. If they want to see the devil,
let them," Prigozhin told RIA Novosti.
The entities and individuals were indicted by a US federal grand jury on Friday of
"supporting the presidential campaign of then-candidate Donald J. Trump...and disparaging
Hillary Clinton."
However, there are "no allegations" that the suspected activities of the Russian
nationals somehow affected the polls, according to the US Deputy Attorney General Rod
Rosenstein.
On Friday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that supporting Donald Trump has
never been an official Russian policy, even if some Russians did express their backing of the
new US leader.
The Minister has expressed his discontent with the apparently continuing nosedive in the
US-Russia relations. "It's a pity that under Donald Trump, for more than a year of his
presidency, our relations have not improved compared to the period of the Democratic
administration. Even worsened to a certain extent," Lavrov told Euronews.
The indictment of 13 Russians is the latest twist in the "meddling saga," which has
persisted in the US politics and media for over a year. The illicit activities attributed to
Russia include, but are not limited to, "hacking" into Democratic National Committee
(DNC) computers during the 2016 elections campaign, maliciously leaking emails filled with
unsavory revelations, meddling through media coverage and fake social media accounts. However,
no solid evidence to back the numerous allegations has been presented yet.
"... Mikhailov tracked down Anonymous International at the beginning of 2016 and decided to take it under his control, as well as make some money from blackmail along the way. According to Life News , there is another theory - that Mikhailov had been managing the Shaltai-Boltai business from the start. ..."
"... Whatever the truth, Mikhailov and Dokuchayev have now been charged with treason. Anikeyev and Stoyanov will be prosecuted under a different charge - "unauthorized access to computer information." According to Rosbalt , the treason charges against Mikhailov and Dokuchayev are to do with Anonymous International's involvement in leaking to Ukraine the private correspondence of presidential aide Vladislav Surkov. ..."
"... Shaltai-Boltai's website has not been updated since Nov. 26 and its Twitter account since Dec. 12. The group's remaining members, who are believed to live in Thailand and the Baltic States, have been put on an FSB wanted list. ..."
The alleged leader of the Anonymous International hacker group, also known as
Shaltai-Boltai, has been arrested along with important officials in the security services who
collaborated with the group. For several years Shaltai-Boltai terrorized state officials,
businessmen and media figures by hacking their emails and telephones, and threatening to post
their private information online unless blackmail payments were made. "The price tag for our
work starts at several tens of thousands of dollars, and I am not going to talk about the upper
limit," said a man who calls himself Lewis during an interview with the news website,
Meduza ,
in January 2015.
Lewis, whose name pays hommage to the author Lewis Carroll, is the leader of Anonymous
International, the hacker group specializing in hacking the accounts of officials and
businessmen. Another name for Anonymous International is
Shaltai-Boltai, Russian for "Humpty-Dumpty."
Several years ago Lewis and his colleagues prospered thanks to extortion. They offered their
victims the chance to pay a handsome price to buy back their personal information that had been
stolen. Otherwise their information would be sold to third persons and even posted online. In
the end, Russian law-enforcement tracked down Lewis, and in November he was arrested and
now awaits trial . His real
name is Vladimir Anikeyev.
Shaltai-Boltai's founding father
"One's own success is good but other people's failure is not bad either," said the profile
quote on Vladimir Anikeyev's page on VKontakte , Russia's most popular social network.
Vladimir Anikeyev /
Photo: anikeevv/vk.com
Rosbalt news website said that in the 1990s Lewis worked as a journalist in St. Petersburg
and specialized in collecting information through various methods, including dubious ones. "He
could go for a drink with someone or have an affair with someone's secretary or bribe people,"
Rosbalt's
source said.
In the 2000s Anikeyev switched to collecting kompromat (compromising material).
Using his connections, he would find the personal email addresses of officials and
entrepreneurs and break into them using hackers in St. Petersburg, and then blackmail the
victims. They had to pay to prevent their personal information from ending up on the
Internet.
Fake Wi-Fi
Rosbalt said that when Anikeyev's business reached national levels, he started using new
techniques. For example, Anikeyev would go to restaurants and cafes popular among officials,
and with the help of sophisticated equipment he created fake Wi-Fi and mobile phone
connections.
Unsuspecting officials would connect to the network through the channel created by the
hacker and he would have access to the information on their devices.
In the beginning Anikeyev was personally involved in the theft of information but later he
created a network of agents.
The business grew quickly; enormous amounts of information were at Anikeyev's disposal that
had to be sorted and selected for suitability as material for blackmail. In the end, according
to Rosbalt, Anonymous International arose as a handy tool for downloading the obtained
information.
Trying to change the world
The second name of the group refers to the works of Lewis Carroll, according to Shaltai-Boltai members. The crazy world of
Through the Looking Glass, with its inverted logic, is the most apt metaphor for
Russian political life. Apart from Lewis Anikeyev, the team has several other members: Alice;
Shaltai, Boltai (these two acted as press secretaries, and as a result of a mix-up, the media
started calling the whole project, Shaltai-Boltai); and several others, including
"technicians," or specialist hackers.
The Anonymous International website was opened in 2013 and content stolen from the phones
and emails of Russian politicians immediately started appearing on it. According to
Life News , only the correspondence of the public officials and businessmen who refused to
pay was published. At the same time members of Shaltai-Boltai positioned themselves as people
with an active civil stance.
"We can be called campaigners. We are trying to change the world. To change it for the
better," Shaltai told the Apparat website. In interviews members of the group
repeatedly complained about Russian officials who restricted Internet freedom, the country's
foreign policy and barriers to participation in elections.
Hacker exploits
Shaltai-Boltai's most notorious hack was of an explicitly political nature and not about
making money. It hacked Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev's Twitter account. On Aug. 14,
2014 tweets were
posted on the account saying that Medvedev was resigning because he was ashamed of the
government's actions. The `prime minister' also had time to write that Putin was wrong, that
the government had problems with common sense, and that the authorities were taking the
country back to the past.
On the same day Anonymous International posted part of the prime minister's
stolen archive, admitting that, "there is nothing particularly interesting in it."
"The posted material was provided by a certain highly-placed reptilian of our acquaintance,"
the hackers joked
.
Medvedev is far from being Shaltai-Boltai's only victim. The hackers published the private
correspondence of officials in the presidential administration: Yevgeny Prigozhin, a
businessman close to Vladimir Putin; Aram Gabrelyanov, head of the pro-Kremlin News Media
holding company; and of Igor Strelkov, one of the leaders of the uprising in east Ukraine.
Lewis, however, insisted that only material that had failed to sell ended up on the
Internet.
Law-enforcement links
Anikeyev was detained in November, and the following month Sergei Mikhailov, head of the 2nd
operations directorate of the FSB Information Security Center, was also arrested. According to
Kommersant , Mikhailov was a
major figure in the security services who, "was essentially overseeing the country's entire
internet business."
Mikhailov's aide, FSB Major Dmitry Dokuchayev, and a former hacker known as Forb, was also
arrested. Shortly after, Ruslan Stoyanov, head of the department for investigating cybercrime
at the antivirus software company Kaspersky Lab, was also detained. Stoyanov also worked
closely with the secret services.
According to Rosbalt , Anikeyev revealed
information about the FSB officers and the Kaspersky Lab computer expert and their close
involvement with Shaltai-Boltai.
Mikhailov tracked down Anonymous International at the beginning of 2016 and decided to
take it under his control, as well as make some money from blackmail along the way. According
to
Life News , there is another theory - that Mikhailov had been managing the Shaltai-Boltai
business from the start.
Shaltai-Boltai had a big fall
Whatever the truth, Mikhailov and Dokuchayev have now been charged with treason.
Anikeyev and Stoyanov will be prosecuted under a different charge - "unauthorized access to
computer information." According to Rosbalt , the treason charges
against Mikhailov and Dokuchayev are to do with Anonymous International's involvement in
leaking to Ukraine the private correspondence of presidential aide Vladislav
Surkov.
Shaltai-Boltai's website has not been updated since Nov. 26 and its Twitter account
since Dec. 12. The group's remaining members, who are believed to live in Thailand and the
Baltic States, have been put on an FSB wanted
list.
Anyway, Shaltai-Boltai anticipated this outcome. "What awaits us if we are uncovered?
Criminal charges and most likely a prison sentence. Each member of the team is aware of the
risks," they said dispassionately in the interview with Apparat in 2015.
"... A Moscow court has sentenced two Russian hackers to three years in prison each for breaking into the e-mail accounts of top Russian officials and leaking them. ..."
"... The 2016 arrests of the Shaltai-Boltai hackers became known only after Russian media reported that two officials of the Federal Security Service's cybercrime unit had been arrested on treason charges. ..."
A Moscow court has sentenced two Russian hackers to three years in prison each for breaking
into the e-mail accounts of top Russian officials and leaking them.
Konstantin Teplyakov and Aleksandr Filinov were members of the Shaltai-Boltai (Humpty Dumpty
in Russian) collective believed to be behind the hacking of high-profile accounts, including
the Twitter account of Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev.
The two were found guilty of illegally accessing computer data in collusion with a criminal
group.
Earlier in July, Shaltai-Boltai leader Vladimir Anikeyev was handed a two-year sentence
after striking a plea bargain and agreeing to cooperate with the authorities.
The 2016 arrests of the Shaltai-Boltai hackers became known only after Russian media
reported that two officials of the Federal Security Service's cybercrime unit had been arrested
on treason charges.
Russian media reports suggested the officials had connections to the hacker group or had
tried to control it.
A notorious Russian hacker whose exploits and later arrest gave glimpses into the
intersection of computer crime and Russian law enforcement has been sentenced to two years in
prison.
The Moscow City Court issued its ruling July 6 against Vladimir Anikeyev in a decision made
behind closed doors, one indication of the sensitivity of his case.
"... The stories implicating Mikhailov gained credence when Russian businessman Pavel Vrublevsky made similar accusations. He asserted that Mikhailov leaked details of Russian hacking capabilities to U.S. intelligence agencies. ..."
In January, the Kremlin-linked media outlet Kommersant suggested that the heads of Russia's
Information Security Center (TsIB) were under investigation and would soon leave their posts.
The TsIB is a shadowy unit that manages computer security investigations for the Interior
Ministry and the FSB. It is thought to be Russia's largest inspectorate when it comes to
domestic and foreign cyber capabilities, including hacking. It oversees security matters
related to credit theft, financial information, personal data, social networks and reportedly
election data -- or as some have claimed in the Russian media, "election rigging." Beyond its
investigative role, it is presumed that the TsIB is fully capable of planning and directing
cyber operations. A week after the initial Kommersant report surfaced, Andrei Gerasimov, the
longtime TsIB director, resigned.
Not long after Gerasimov's resignation at the end of January, reports emerged from numerous
Kremlin-linked media outlets in what appeared to be a coordinated flood of information and
disinformation about the arrests of senior TsIB officers. One of the cyber unit's operational
directors, Sergei Mikhailov, was arrested toward the end of last year along with his deputy,
Dmitri Dokuchaev, and charged with treason. Also arrested around the same time was Ruslan
Stoyanov, the chief investigator for Kaspersky Lab, which is the primary cybersecurity
contractor for the TsIB. There is much conjecture, but Mikhailov was apparently forcibly
removed from a meeting with fellow FSB officers -- escorted out with a bag over his head, so
the story goes -- and arrested. This is thought to have taken place some time around Dec. 5.
His deputy, a well-respected computer hacker recruited by the FSB, was reportedly last seen in
November. Kaspersky Lab's Stoyanov was a career cybersecurity professional, previously working
for the Indrik computer crime investigation firm and the Interior Ministry's computer crime
unit. Novaya Gazeta, a Kremlin-linked media outlet, reported that two other unnamed FSB
computer security officers were also detained. Theories, Accusations and Rumors
Since the initial reports surfaced, Russian media have been flooded with conflicting
theories about the arrests; about Mikhailov, Dokuchaev and Stoyanov; and about the accusations
levied against them. Because the charges are treason, the case is considered "classified" by
the state, meaning no official explanation or evidence will be released. An ultranationalist
news network called Tsargrad TV reported that Mikhailov had tipped U.S. intelligence to the
King Servers firm, which the FBI has accused of being the nexus of FSB hacking and intelligence
operations in the United States. (It should be noted that Tsargrad TV tends toward
sensationalism and has been used as a conduit for propaganda in the past.) The media outlet
also claimed that the Russian officer's cooperation is what enabled the United States to
publicly
accuse Moscow of sponsoring election-related hacking with "high confidence."
The stories implicating Mikhailov gained credence when Russian businessman Pavel
Vrublevsky made similar accusations. He asserted that Mikhailov leaked details of Russian
hacking capabilities to U.S. intelligence agencies. Vrublevsky, however, had previously
been the target of hacking accusations leveled by Mikhailov and his team, so it is possible
that he has a personal ax to grind. To further complicate matters, a business partner of
Vrublevsky, Vladimir Fomenko, runs King Servers, which the United States shut down in the wake
of the hacking scandal.
This article is almost a year old but contains interesting information about possible involvement of Shaltai Boltai in
framing Russia in interference in the USA elections.
Notable quotes:
"... Also called Anonymous International, Shaltai-Boltai was responsible for leaking early copies of Putin's New Year speech and for selling off "lots" of emails stolen from Russian officials such as Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev ..."
"... Later media reports said that the group's leader, Vladimir Anikeyev, had recently been arrested by the FSB and had informed on Mikhailov, Dokuchaev and Stoyanov. ..."
The FBI just indicted a Russian official for hacking. But why did Russia charge him with treason? - The Washington Post
But what is less clear is why one of the men has been arrested and
charged with treason in Russia. Dmitry Dokuchaev, an agent for the cyberinvestigative arm of the FSB, was arrested in
Moscow in December. He's accused by the FBI of "handling" the hackers, paying "bounties" for breaking into email
accounts held by Russian officials, opposition politicians and journalists, as well as foreign officials and business
executives. The Russian targets included an Interior Ministry officer and physical trainer in a regional Ministry of
Sports. (The full text of the indictment, which has a full list of the targets and some curious typos, is
here
.)
Reading this hackers indictment. I'm pretty sure there is no such position as the "deputy
chairman of the Russian Federation"
pic.twitter.com/DOWXYNoWjZ
Dokuchaev's case is part of a larger and mysterious spate of arrests of Russian cyber officials and experts. His
superior, Sergei Mikhailov, deputy chief of the FSB's Center for Information Security, was also arrested in December and
charged with treason. According to Russian reports, the arrest came during a plenum of FSB officers, where Mikhailov had
a bag placed over his head and was taken in handcuffs from the room. Ruslan Stoyanov, a manager at the Russian
cybersecurity company Kaspersky Lab, was also arrested that month. Stoyanov helped coordinate investigations between the
company and law enforcement, a person who used to work at the company said.
Below are some of the theories behind the Russian arrests. Lawyers for some of the accused have told The Washington
Post that they can't reveal details of the case and, because of the secrecy afforded to treason cases, they don't have
access to all the documents.
None of the theories below has been confirmed, nor are they mutually exclusive.
1. Links to U.S. election hacking
: With attention focused on the hacking attacks against the U.S.
Democratic National Committee allegedly ordered by Russian President Vladimir Putin, some Russian and U.S. media
suggested that Dokuchaev and Mikhailov leaked information implicating Russia in the hack to the United States. The
Russian Interfax news agency, which regularly cites government officials as sources, reported that "Sergei Mikhailov and
his deputy, Dmitry Dokuchaev, are accused of betraying their oath and working with the CIA." Novaya Gazeta, a liberal,
respected Russian publication, citing sources, wrote that Mikhailov had tipped off U.S. intelligence about King Servers,
the hosting service used to support hacking attacks on targeted voter registration systems in Illinois and Arizona in
June. That had followed reports in the New York Times, citing one current and one former government official, that
"human sources in Russia did play a crucial role in proving who was responsible for the hacking."
Nakashima wrote yesterday that "the [FBI] charges are unrelated to the hacking of the Democratic National Committee
and the FBI's investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential campaign. But the move reflects the U.S.
government's increasing desire to hold foreign governments accountable for malicious acts in cyberspace."
2. A shadowy hacking collective called Shaltai-Boltai (Humpty-Dumpty)
:
Also called
Anonymous International, Shaltai-Boltai was responsible for leaking early copies of Putin's New Year speech and for
selling off "lots" of emails stolen from Russian officials such as Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev. In a theory first
reported by the pro-Kremlin, conservative Orthodox media company Tsargrad, Mikhailov had taken control
of Shaltai-Boltai, "curating and supervising" the group in selecting hacking targets. Later media reports said that the
group's leader, Vladimir Anikeyev, had recently been arrested by the FSB and had informed on Mikhailov, Dokuchaev and
Stoyanov. A member of the group who fled to Estonia told the Russian media agency Fontanka that they had recently
acquired an FSB "coordinator," although he could not say whether it was Mikhailov. None of the hacks mentioned in the
FBI indictment could immediately be confirmed as those carried out by Shaltai-Boltai.
Lawyers contacted by The Post said that in documents they had seen, there was no link to Shaltai-Boltai in the case.
3.
A grudge with a cybercriminal
: A Russian businessman who had specialized in spam and malware had
claimed for years that Mikhailov was trading information on cybercriminals with the West. Mikhailov had reportedly
testified in the case of Pavel Vrublevsky, the former head of the payment services company Chronopay, who was imprisoned
in 2013 for ordering a denial of service attack on the website of Aeroflot, the Russian national airline. Vrublevsky
claimed then that Mikhailov began exchanging information about Russian cybercriminals with Western intelligence
agencies, including documents about Chronopay. Brian Krebs, an American journalist who investigates cybercrime and
received access to Vrublevsky's emails,
wrote in January
: "Based on
how long Vrublevsky has been
trying
to sell this narrative
, it seems he may have
finally found a buyer
."
4.
Infighting at the FSB:
The Russian government is not monolithic, and infighting between and
within the powerful law enforcement agencies is common. The Russian business publication RBC had written that Mikhailov
and Dokuchaev's Center for Information Security had been in conflict with another department with similar
responsibilities, the FSB's Center for Information Protection and Special Communications. The conflict may have led to
the initiation of a criminal case, the paper's sources said.
As Leonid Bershidsky, founding editor of the Russian business daily publication Vedomosti,
wrote in January, the dramatic arrests of two high-level FSB officers -- Sergei Mikhailov , the deputy head of the FSB's
Information Security Center, and Major Dmitry
Dokuchaev , a highly skilled hacker who had been recruited by the FSB -- on treason charges
in December offers a glimpse into "how security agencies generally operate in Putin's
Russia."
At the time of their arrest, Dokuchaev (who was one of the Russian officials indicted for
the Yahoo breach) and Mikhailov had been trying to cultivate a Russian hacking group known as
"Shaltai Boltai" -- or "Humpty Dumpty" -- that had been publishing stolen emails from Russian
officials' inboxes, according to Russian media reports.
"The FSB team reportedly uncovered the identities of the group's members -- but, instead of
arresting and indicting them, Mikhailov's team tried to run the group, apparently for profit or
political gain," Bershidsky wrote. Shaltai Boltai complied, Bershidsky wrote, because it wanted
to stay afloat, and didn't mind taking orders from "government structures."
"We get orders from government structures and from private individuals," Shaltai Boltai's
alleged leader said in a 2015
interview. "But we say we are an independent team. It's just that often it's impossible to
tell who the client is. Sometimes we get information for intermediaries, without knowing who
the end client is."
It appears that Dokuchaev and Mikhailov got caught running this side project with Shaltai
Boltai -- which was still targeting high-level Russian officials -- when the FSB began
surveilling Mikhailov. Officials targeted Mikhailov after receiving a tip that he might have
been leaking information about Russian cyber activities to the FBI, according to the
Novaya Gazeta.
Short of working against Russian interests, hackers "can pursue whatever projects they want,
as long as their targets are outside of Russia and they follow orders from the top when
needed," said Bremmer, of Eurasia Group. The same goes for FSB officers, who are tactically
allowed to "run private security operations involving blackmail and protection," according to
Bershidsky.
US intelligence agencies have concluded that the hack on the Democratic National Committee
during the 2016 election was likely one such "order from the top" -- a directive issued by
Russian President Vladimir Putin and carried out by hackers hired by the GRU and the FSB.
It is still unclear if the Yahoo breach was directed by FSB officials at the instruction of
the Kremlin, like the DNC hack, or if it was one of those "private security operations"
Bershidsky alluded to that some Russian intelligence officers do on the side.
Bremmer said that it's possible the Yahoo breach was not done for state ends, especially
given the involvement of Dokuchaev, who was already caught up in Shaltai Baltai's operations to
steal and sell information for personal financial gain.
"... As the days since Mueller's latest indictment have passed, the failure of his investigation to make any claim of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia has begun to sink in, even amongst some of Donald Trump's most bitter enemies. ..."
"... Even the Guardian – arguably the most fervid of Donald Trump's British media critics, and the most vocal supporter of the Russiagate conspiracy theory – has grudgingly admitted that Special Counsel Robert Mueller has "once again failed to nail Donald Trump" ..."
"... In fact the latest indictment when considered properly is a further huge nail in the coffin of the Russiagate conspiracy theory and in the already disintegrating credibility of the Trump Dossier, which is the foundation document for that theory ..."
"... Notwithstanding claims to the contrary, the Russiagate conspiracy theory is laid out in its most classic form in the Trump Dossier, and it is the Trump Dossier which remains the primary and indeed so far the only 'evidence' for it ..."
"... This theory holds that Donald Trump was compromised by the Russians in 2013 when he was filmed by Russian intelligence performing an orgy in a hotel room in Moscow, and he and his associates Paul Manafort, Carter Page and Michael Cohen subsequently engaged in a massive criminal conspiracy with Russian intelligence to steal the election from Hillary Clinton by having John Podesta's and the DNC's emails stolen by Russian intelligence and passed on by them for publication by Wikileaks. ..."
"... The Trump Dossier never mentions Jared Kushner's four conversations with Russian ambassador Kislyak, including the famous meeting between Kislyak and Kushner in Trump Tower on 1st December 2016 (which Michael Flynn also attended) over the course of which the setting up of a backchannel to discuss the crisis in Syria is supposed to have been discussed (Kushner denies that it was). ..."
"... The last entry of the Trump Dossier is dated 13th December 2016 ie. twelve days after this meeting took place, and given its high level a genuinely well-informed Russian source familiar with the private ongoing discussions in the Kremlin might have been expected to know about it. ..."
"... Nor does the Trump Dossier mention the now famous meeting in Trump Tower between the Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya and Donald Trump Junior – which Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner also attended – which took place on 9th June 2016. ..."
"... Now Special Counsel Mueller has provided further details in his latest indictment of actual albeit unknowing contacts between members of the Trump campaign and various Russian employees of Yevgeny Prigozhin's Internet Research Agency, LLC, apparently both in person and online. ..."
"... The Trump Dossier has however nothing to say about these contacts either, just as it has nothing to say about the Internet Research Agency, LLC, Yevgeny Prigozhin, or the entire social media campaign set out in such painstaking detail by Special Counsel Mueller in his indictment. ..."
"... I only remembered Helmer's 18th January 2017 article about the Trump Dossier after I wrote my article about Senator Grassley's and Senator Lindsey Graham's memorandum to the Justice Department on 6th February 2018. ..."
"... This is most unfortunate, not only because Grassley's and Lindsey Graham's memorandum resoundingly vindicates Helmer's reporting, but because it shows that a genuine expert about Russia like Helmer was able to spot immediately the holes in the Trump Dossier, which only now – a whole year and months of exhaustive investigations later – are starting to be officially admitted. ..."
"... Heroic efforts to elevate Papadopoulos's case and the meeting between Donald Trump Junior and the Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya into 'evidence' of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia which exists supposedly independently of the Trump Dossier fail because as I have discussed extensively elsewhere (see here and here ) they in fact do no such thing. ..."
"... With the Trump Dossier – the lynchpin of the whole collusion case – not just unverified and discredited but proved repeatedly to have been completely uninformed about events which were actually going on, why do some people persist in pretending that there is still a collusion case to investigate? ..."
As the days since Mueller's latest indictment
have passed, the failure of his investigation to make any claim of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia has begun to sink
in, even amongst some of Donald Trump's most bitter enemies.
Even the Guardian – arguably the most fervid of Donald Trump's British media critics, and the most vocal supporter of the
Russiagate conspiracy theory – has grudgingly
admitted that Special Counsel Robert Mueller has "once again failed to nail Donald Trump"
There will be understandable disappointment in many quarters that the latest indictments delivered by Robert Mueller, the special
counsel investigating Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential election, once again failed to nail Donald Trump. Although
the charges levelled against 13 Russians and three Russian entities are extraordinarily serious, they do not directly support
the central claim that Trump and senior campaign aides colluded with Moscow to rig the vote.
The Times of London meanwhile has
admitted
that the latest indictment contains "no smoking gun"
The Department of Justice, however, offered no confirmation to those still smarting from the election in November 2016, who
believe that, in the absence of Russian interference, Hillary Clinton would be in the White House today. Friday's allegations
offered no evidence that the outcome had been affected. Sir John Sawers, former head of MI6, said yesterday that Donald Trump's
victories in the key swing states were his own.
There was further comfort for Mr Trump, which he was quick to celebrate with a tweet. The investigation uncovered no evidence
"that any American was a knowing participant in the alleged unlawful activity". That includes, so far, anybody involved in the
Trump campaign. If there is a smoking gun it has yet to emerge, though Robert Mueller's investigation will grind on. President
Vladimir Putin is a malign and dangerous mischief maker. It has not been proved that he is an evil genius with the ability to
swing a US election.
In fact the latest indictment when considered properly is a further huge nail in the coffin of the Russiagate conspiracy theory
and in the already disintegrating credibility of the Trump Dossier, which is the foundation document for that theory.
Notwithstanding claims to the contrary, the Russiagate conspiracy theory is laid out in its most classic form in the Trump
Dossier, and it is the Trump Dossier which remains the primary and indeed so far the only 'evidence' for it
This theory holds that Donald Trump was compromised by the Russians in 2013 when he was filmed by Russian intelligence performing
an orgy in a hotel room in Moscow, and he and his associates Paul Manafort, Carter Page and Michael Cohen subsequently engaged in
a massive criminal conspiracy with Russian intelligence to steal the election from Hillary Clinton by having John Podesta's and the
DNC's emails stolen by Russian intelligence and passed on by them for publication by Wikileaks.
Belief in this conspiracy dies hard, and an interesting
article in the Financial Times by Edward
Luce provides a fascinating example of the dogged determination of some people to believe in it. Writing about Mueller's latest indictment
Luce has this to say
Mr Mueller's report hints at more dramatic possibilities by corroborating contents of the "Steele dossier", which was compiled
in mid-2016 by the former British intelligence officer, Christopher Steele -- long before the US intelligence agencies warned
of Russian interference. Mr Steele, who is in hiding, alleged that the Russians were using "active measures" to support the campaigns
of Mr Trump, Bernie Sanders, the Democratic runner-up to Hillary Clinton, and Jill Stein, the Green party nominee. Mr Mueller's
indictment confirms that account.
Likewise, Mr Mueller's indictment confirms the Steele dossier's claim that Russia wished to "sow discord" in the US election
by backing leftwing as well as rightwing groups. Among the entities run by the IRA were groups with names such as "Secured Borders",
"Blacktivists", "United Muslims of America" and "Army of Jesus".
What is fascinating about these words is that none of them are true.
Christopher Steele is not in hiding.
The actua l
Trump Dossier does
not allege "that the Russians were using "active measures" to support the campaigns of Mr Trump, Bernie Sanders, the Democratic
runner-up to Hillary Clinton, and Jill Stein, the Green party nominee".
Bernie Sanders is mentioned by the Trump Dossier only in passing. By the time the Trump Dossier's first entries were written Bernie
Sanders's campaign was all but over and it was already clear that Hillary Clinton would be the Democratic Party's candidate for the
Presidency.
Jill Stein is mentioned – again in passing – only once, in a brief mention which refers to her now infamous visit to Russia where
she attended the same dinner with President Putin as Michael Flynn.
Nor does the Trump Dossier anywhere claim that "Russia wished to "sow discord" in the US election by backing leftwing as well
as rightwing groups".
On the contrary the Trump Dossier is focused – exclusively and obsessively – on documenting at fantastic length the alleged conspiracy
between the Russian government and the campaign of the supposedly compromised Donald Trump to get him elected US President.
Supporters of the Russiagate conspiracy theory need to start facing up to the hard truth about the Trump Dossier.
At the time the Trump Dossier was published in January 2017 little was known publicly about the contacts which actually took place
between members of Donald Trump's campaign and tranisiton teams and the Russians during and after the election.
Today – a full year later and after months of exhaustive investigation – we know far more about those contacts.
What Is striking about those contacts is how ignorant the supposedly high level Russian sources of the Trump Dossier were about
them.
Thus the Trump Dossier never mentions Jeff Sessions's two meetings with Russian ambassador Kislyak, or the various conversations
Michael Flynn is known to have had with Russian ambassador Kislyak, some of which apparently took place before Donald Trump won the
election.
The Trump Dossier never mentions Jared Kushner's four conversations with Russian ambassador Kislyak, including the famous
meeting between Kislyak and Kushner in Trump Tower on 1st December 2016 (which Michael Flynn also attended) over the course of which
the setting up of a backchannel to discuss the crisis in Syria is supposed to have been discussed (Kushner denies that it was).
The last entry of the Trump Dossier is dated 13th December 2016 ie. twelve days after this meeting took place, and given its
high level a genuinely well-informed Russian source familiar with the private ongoing discussions in the Kremlin might have been
expected to know about it.
Nor does the Trump Dossier mention the now famous meeting in Trump Tower between the Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya
and Donald Trump Junior – which Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner also attended – which took place on 9th June 2016.
This despite the fact that the Trump Dossier's first entry is dated 20th June 2016 i.e. eleven days later, so that if this meeting
really was intended to set the stage for collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia – as believers in the Russiagate conspiracy
theory insist – a well informed Russian source with access to information from the Kremlin would be expected to know about it.
Nor does the Trump Dossier have anything to say about George Papadopoulos, the Trump campaign aide who had the most extensive
contacts with the Russians, and whose drunken bragging in a London bar is now claimed by the FBI to have been its reason for starting
the Russiagate inquiry.
In fact George Papadopoulos is not mentioned in the Trump Dossier at all.
This despite the fact that members of Russia's high powered Valdai Discussion Club were Papadopoulos's main interlocutors in his
discussions with the Russians, and Igor Ivanov – Russia's former foreign minister, and a senior albeit retired official genuinely
known to Putin – was informed about the discussions also, making it at least possible that high level people in the Russian Foreign
Ministry and conceivably in the Russian government and in the Kremlin were kept informed about the discussions with Papadopoulos,
so that a genuinely well-informed Russian source might be expected to know about them.
By contrast none of the secret meetings between Carter Page and Michael Cohen and the Russians discussed at such extraordinary
length in the Trump Dossier have ever been proved to have taken place.
Now Special Counsel Mueller has provided further details in his latest indictment of actual albeit unknowing contacts between
members of the Trump campaign and various Russian employees of Yevgeny Prigozhin's Internet Research Agency, LLC, apparently both
in person and online.
The Trump Dossier has however nothing to say about these contacts either, just as it has nothing to say about the Internet
Research Agency, LLC, Yevgeny Prigozhin, or the entire social media campaign set out in such painstaking detail by Special Counsel
Mueller in his indictment.
The only conclusion possible is that if the Trump Dossier's Russian sources actually exist (about which I am starting to
have doubts) then they were extraordinarily ignorant of what was actually going on.
That of course is consistent with the fact – recently revealed in the heavily redacted memorandum sent to the Justice Department
by Senators Grassley and Lindsey Graham – that many of the sources of the Trump Dossier were not actually Russian but were American.
John Helmer – the most experienced journalist covering Russia, and a person who has a genuine and profound knowledge of the country
– made that very point – that many of the Trump Dossier's sources were American rather than Russian – in an
article he published on 18th January 2017, ie. just days after the Trump Dossier was published.
In that same
article Helmer also made this very valid point about the Trump Dossier's compiler Christopher Steele
Steele's career in Russian intelligence at MI6 had hit the rocks in 2006, and never recovered. That was the year in which the
Russian Security Service (FSB) publicly exposed an MI6 operation in Moscow. Russian informants recruited by the British were passed
messages and money, and dropped their information in containers fabricated to look like fake rocks in a public park. Steele was
on the MI6 desk in London when the operation was blown. Although the FSB announcement was denied in London at the time, the British
prime ministry confirmed its veracity in 2012.Read more on Steele's fake rock operation
here , and the attempt by the Financial Times to cover it up by blaming
Putin for fabricating the story.
Given that Steele was outed by Russian intelligence in 2006, with his intelligence operation in Russia dismantled by the FSB that
year, it beggars belief that ten years later in 2016 he still had access to high level secrets in the Kremlin.
What we now know in fact proves that he did not.
I only remembered Helmer's 18th January 2017 article about the Trump Dossier after I wrote my
article
about Senator Grassley's and Senator Lindsey Graham's memorandum to the Justice Department on 6th February 2018.
This is most unfortunate, not only because Grassley's and Lindsey Graham's memorandum resoundingly vindicates Helmer's reporting,
but because it shows that a genuine expert about Russia like Helmer was able to spot immediately the holes in the Trump Dossier,
which only now – a whole year and months of exhaustive investigations later – are starting to be officially admitted.
For my part I owe Helmer an apology for not referencing his 18th January 2017 article in my article of 6th February 2018. I should
have done so and I am very sorry that I didn't.
I have spent some time discussing the Trump Dossier because despite denials it remains the lynchpin of the whole Russiagate scandal
and of the claims of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.
Heroic efforts to elevate Papadopoulos's case and the meeting between Donald Trump Junior and the Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya
into 'evidence' of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia which exists supposedly independently of the Trump Dossier fail
because as I have discussed extensively elsewhere (see
here and
here ) they in fact do no
such thing.
Despite Edward Luce's desperate efforts to argue otherwise, Mueller's latest indictment far from corroborating the Trump Dossier,
has done the opposite.
With the Trump Dossier – the lynchpin of the whole collusion case – not just unverified and discredited but proved repeatedly
to have been completely uninformed about events which were actually going on, why do some people persist in pretending that there
is still a collusion case to investigate?
Trump has a point: "If it was the GOAL of Russia to create discord, disruption and chaos within the U.S. then, with all of the
Committee Hearings, Investigations and Party hatred, they have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams..."
excoriating the FBI for failing to act on multiple tips
about "professional school shooter"
Nikolas Cruz's murderous intentions, and criticizing National Security Adviser HR McMaster over his
Russia collusion comments, President Donald Trump shifted his focus toward one of his favorite
targets, House Intelligence Committee ranking member Adam Schiff, whom he "congratulated" for finally
acknowledging that the Obama administration is responsible for any attempted interference by Russia
during the 2016 election.
In one of his more memorable turns of phrase, Trump lauded "
Liddle
Adam Schiff
", whom he branded the "
leakin monster of no control
", for
finally "
blaming the Obama Administration for Russian meddling in the 2016 Election. He is finally
right about something. Obama was President, knew of the threat, and did nothing. Thank you Adam!"
Trump also expressed his amazement that nobody in federal law enforcement or Congress tried to stop
the Obama administration from handing over nearly $2 billion in cash to Iran. The cash transfers were
first reported by
the Wall Street Journal
in September 2016. The administration defended its actions by saying it
was merely returning the money, which belonged to Iranian entities, but had been frozen because of
sanctions.
... ... ...
Putting it all together, given the hysteria surrounding Russian interference during the 2016 election, the multiple
investigations and countless public resources wasted, if it was Russia's intention to create chaos in the US, then they've
"succeeded beyond their wildest dreams", Trump claimed."They're probably "
laughing their asses off in Moscow,"
he added.
1. Pardon Edward Snowden and Julian Assange as a sign he
WELCOMES whistle blowers and putting the PEOPLE'S business
in the LIGHT
2. Begin to revoke the fed's charter by putting Ron Paul
in charge of a special investigation of fed malfeasance and
destruction of the currency
3. Immediately suspend weapon sales to ANY country or
organization involved in a current conflict
4. Revoke israel's special exemption from foreign
lobbying registration and fully audit AIPAC with an
intention to uncover bribery and espionage
5. Immediately indict Bill and Hillary Clinton and others
from the Clinton Foundation on charges of corruption,
espionage, and theft
6. Rescind all future payments/allotments to the saudi
arabia and israel until they are in compliance with
international law and human rights standards
7. Cease saber rattling against Iran and Russia and work
toward peaceful, complementary accommodations
8. Draw down the 600 plus U.S. military bases around the
world and bring the Americans HOME
9. Initially shift 30% of the current military budget to
domestic infrastructure needs with a mandate of further
reductions of 10% per yea
If it was the GOAL of Russia to create discord,
disruption and chaos within the U.S. then, with all of
the Committee Hearings, Investigations and Party hatred,
they have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. They are
laughing their asses off in Moscow.
Trump is
right about the Russians laughing their asses off. But he
still foolishly drinks the koolaid handed to him by his
fellow swampsters that this was all a Russian plot.
Hubris does that. The swamp is full of it. And Trump
is well over 50% in the swamp.
It is true that Russians, the intelligence agencies of
every other nation and fat guys in their basement all
hack and troll the Internet. That simple fact was
blown up into a fake Trump-Russia collusion narrative.
Trump's latest tweets straighten that all out pretty
well.
Internet Research Agency: Russian journalist who uncovered election interference left confounded by Mueller - The
Washington Post
A
37-page
indictment
issued by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III's team on Friday brings fresh American attention to one
of the strangest elements of alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election: The Internet Research Agency (IRA), a
state-sponsored "troll factory" in St. Petersburg.
But much of the information Mueller published on Friday about the
agency's efforts to influence the election had already been published last October -- in an article by a Russian business
magazine, RBC.
In a 4,500-word report titled "
How the 'troll
factory' worked the U.S. elections,
" journalists Polina Rusyaeva and Andrey Zakharov offered the fullest picture yet
of how the "American department" of the IRA used Facebook, Twitter and other tactics to inflame tensions ahead of the
2016 vote. The article also looked at the staffing structure of the organization and revealed details about its budget
and salaries.
Zakharov agreed to answer some questions for WorldViews about his reaction to the details about the IRA in Mueller's
indictments (Rusyaeva left journalism after the story came out, although she stresses she did not do so because of a
reaction to the story). Zakharov explained how it was a strange feeling seeing something he had so closely investigated
become a major issue in the United States, when it had not been a "bombshell" when he published his report at home.
"... Situation goes up and down based on money paid. Look at Saudi, things starts to go wrong the moment they try challenge US. Same goes for Israel too. But once the account is filled back up, every problem disappear. ..."
"... Russia stopped payment to Deep State and even dared to try expose Clinton their candidate. Of course Russians got to pay.... ..."
"... All you need to see to know the MSM is fake and biased is to look at the front page the last two weeks. Congressional memo detailing FBI malfeasance in obtaining secret warrants for surveillance of US citizens, two paragraphs on page 13. Mueller indicts random Russian internet trolls that will never be arrested or extradited, front page headline, all caps. ..."
"... We live at a time when every honest and decent person who can and wants to think on his own, automatically receives a label of a supporter of Russia and Putin personally. ..."
"... If 13 Internet trolls are really able to influence the choice of the president in a certain country, then this is a third world country. Or the fourth world. Thus, Mueller publicly recognized America, a third world country. Or the country of the fourth world. ..."
There is no double standards, It is always the same for everyone. Saudi paid good money to meddle in US elections, immigration policies among others. Israel arranges payback thru their countless organizations operating and manipulating US. Hey even the lightweight Ukraine paid good money.
Situation goes up and down based on money paid. Look at Saudi, things starts to go wrong the moment they try challenge US.
Same goes for Israel too. But once the account is filled back up, every problem disappear.
Russia stopped payment to Deep State and even dared to try expose Clinton their candidate. Of course Russians got to pay....
All you need to see to know the MSM is fake and biased is to look at the front page the last two weeks. Congressional memo
detailing FBI malfeasance in obtaining secret warrants for surveillance of US citizens, two paragraphs on page 13. Mueller indicts
random Russian internet trolls that will never be arrested or extradited, front page headline, all caps. Flynn gets charged with
lying to the FBI about something that had nothing to do with the investigation, and has resulted in no indictments, front page
headline, all caps. Manafort indicted for errors in financial paperwork that happened before he even joined the campaign, and
had nothing to do with Russia, front page, all caps.
We live at a time when every honest and decent person who can and wants
to think on his own, automatically receives a label of a supporter of
Russia and Putin personally.
That is, if a person has reason,
conscience and his own opinion different from the opinion of the Faux
news and CNN, such a person will always receive accusations as a "secret
agent of the Kremlin,"
regardless of his citizenship and
nationality.
If 13 Internet trolls are really able to influence the choice of the
president in a certain country, then this is a third world country. Or
the fourth world.
Thus, Mueller publicly recognized America, a third world
country.
Or the country of the fourth world.
But every honest and decent person is realizing since 2008 the whole
economy is a ponzi and in fact with ZIRP on pension growth the future
looks like poverty on a massive scale.
World will go to rat shit
now, as they try to raise rates on their centrally planned NIRP
economy destroying the economy more when the economy is really
calling out for NIRP across the board to make money cheap once again.
Mueller needs to keep spinning his tune for a long time as
when the music stops the war starts.
Or he could be waiting for the economic implosion to kick it off.
It's possible. If the economy crashes to depression levels while
Trump is in office, which wouldn't shock most of us, what better
time to try and impeach him than when he's got his own party
gunning for him? That's the reason they went after him so
quickly. They were trying to grab what they thought was
low-hanging fruit, only to find nothing there, and now Trump's
numbers are up, and Republicans have fallen in line, making
impeachment impossible without a major smoking gun. Their only
hope now is that the economy tanks. Hence all the wooden faces
during the SotU speech, when Trump told them about how well the
Democrat voting demographics were doing financially
Facebook VP of advertising, Rob Goldman, tossed a hand grenade in the Russian meddling
narrative in a string of tweets responding to Mueller's indictment of
13 Russian nationals running a "bot farm" which, according to Mueller (via Deputy AG Rod
Rosenstein), was unsuccessful at influencing the 2016 election.
... ... ...
Notably, Goldman points out that the majority of advertising purchased by Russians on
Facebook occurred after the election - and was designed to "sow discord and divide Americans",
something which Americans have been quite adept at doing on their own ever since the Fed
decided to unleash a record class, wealth, income divide by keeping capital markets
artificially afloat at any cost.
This is a very good overview that presents convincing hypothesis why Mueller made himself a
joke. Along with desire to preserve his franchise they needed a smoke screen to distract people
from the evidence of a color revolution against Trump, a palace coup d'état which involved
two dozens or so highly placed officials in Obama administration, including CIA (Brennan), FBI
(Comey, McCabe, Strzok, James A. Baker, etc) and Justice Department (Loretta Lynch, Bruce Ohr to
name a few . In other words this is nothing more then " a well-timed effort to distract
Americans' attention from the real collusion rotting the core of our public life by shifting
attention to a foreign enemy. Many of the people behind it are the very officials who are
themselves complicit in the rot. But the sad fact is that it will probably work."
Notable quotes:
"... And yet, "collusion" still lives! But while there is no actual allegation (much less evidence) that any American, much less anyone on the Trump team, "colluded" with the indicted Russians, the indictment makes it clear that Moscow sought to support Trump and disparage Hillary. ..."
"... Any and every Russian equals Putin. Incredibly, nothing in the indictment points to any connection of those indicted to the Russian government! ..."
"... Are you reading this commentary? ..."
"... The Mueller indictment against the Russians is a well-timed effort to distract Americans' attention from the real collusion rotting the core of our public life by shifting attention to a foreign enemy. Many of the people behind it are the very officials who are themselves complicit in the rot. But the sad fact is that it will probably work. ..."
For weeks the unfolding story in Washington has been how a cabal of conspirators in the
heart of the American federal law enforcement and intelligence apparat colluded to
ensure the election of Hillary Clinton and, when that failed, to undermine the nascent
presidency of Donald Trump. Agencies tainted by this corruption include not only the FBI and
the Department of Justice (DOJ) but the Obama White House, the State Department, the NSA, and
the CIA,
plus their British sister organizations MI6 and GCHQ , possibly along with the British
Foreign Office (with the involvement of former
British ambassador to Russia Andrew Wood ) and even Number 10 Downing Street.
Those implicated form a regular rogue's gallery of the Deep State: Peter Strzok (formerly
Chief of the FBI's Counterespionage Section, then Deputy Assistant Director of the
Counterintelligence Division; busy bee Strzok is implicated not only in exonerating Hillary
from her email server crimes but initiating the Russiagate investigation in the first place,
securing a FISA warrant using the dodgy "Steele Dossier," and nailing erstwhile National
Security Adviser General Mike Flynn on a
bogus charge of "lying to the FBI "); Lisa Page (Strzok's paramour and a DOJ lawyer
formerly assigned to the all-star Democrat lineup on the Robert Mueller Russigate inquisition);
former FBI Director James Comey, former Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr, former
Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, and – let's not forget – current Deputy Attorney
General Rod Rosenstein,
himself implicated by having signed at least one of the dubious FISA warrant requests .
Finally, there's reason to believe that former CIA Director John O.
Brennan may have been the mastermind behind the whole operation .
Not to be overlooked is the possible implication of a pack of former Democratic
administration officials, including former Attorney General Loretta Lynch,
former National Security Adviser Susan Rice , and President Barack Obama himself, who
according to text communications between Strzok and Page "wants to know everything we're
doing." Also involved is the DNC, the Clinton campaign, and Clinton operatives Sidney
Blumenthal and Cody Shearer – rendering the ignorance of Hillary herself totally
implausible.
On the British side we have "former" (suuure . . . ) MI6 spook Christopher Steele, diplomat
Wood, former GCHQ chief Robert Hannigan (who resigned a
year ago under mysterious circumstances ), and whoever they answered to in the Prime
Minister's office.
The growing sense of panic was palpable. Oh my – this is a curtain that just cannot be
allowed to be pulled back!
What to do, what to do . . .
Ah, here's the ticket – come out swinging against the main enemy. That's not even
Donald Trump. It's Russia and Vladimir Putin. Russia! Russia! Russia!
Hence the unveiling of an indictment against 13 Russian citizens
and three companies for alleged meddling in U.S. elections and various ancillary crimes.
For the sake of discussion, let's assume all the allegations in the indictment are true,
however unlikely that is to be the case. (While that would be the American legal rule for a
complaint in a civil case, this is a criminal indictment, where there is supposedly a
presumption of innocence. Rosenstein even mentioned that in his press conference, pretending
not to notice that that presumption doesn't apply to Russian Untermenschen – certainly not to
Olympic athletes and really not to Russians at all, who are presumed guilty on "genetic"
grounds .)
Based on the public announcement of the indictment by Rosenstein – who is effectively
the Attorney General in place of the pro forma holder of that office, Jeff Sessions
(R-Recused) – and on an initial examination of the indictment, and we can already draw a
few conclusions:
Finally, "collusion" is dead! If Mueller and the anti-constitutional cabal had any
hint that anyone on the Trump team cooperated with those indicted, they would have included
it. They didn't. That means that after months and months of "investigation" – or
really, setting "perjury traps" and trying to nail people on unrelated accusations, like Paul
Manafort's alleged circumvention of lobbying and financial reporting laws – and wasting
however many millions of dollars, Mueller and his merry band got nothing. Zip. Zilch. Bupkes.
Nada.The fake charge that Trump colluded with the Russians is exposed as the fraud it always
was.
And yet, "collusion" still lives! But while there is no actual allegation (much
less evidence) that any American, much less anyone on the Trump team, "colluded" with the
indicted Russians, the indictment makes it clear that Moscow sought to support Trump and
disparage Hillary. Thus, Trump is guilty of being favored by Russia even if there
was no actual cooperation. It's a kind of zombie walking dead collusion, collusion by intent
(of someone else) absent actual collusion. Its purpose in the indictment is to discredit
Trump as a Russian puppet, albeit an unwitting one. The indictment says the Russian
desperados supported
Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein too – so they're also Putin's dupes.
Any and every Russian equals Putin. Incredibly, nothing in the indictment points
to any connection of those indicted to the Russian government! This is on a par with
the hysteria over social media placements by "Russian interests" on account of which
hysterical Senators
demanded that tech giants impose content controls , or dimwit
CIA agents getting bilked out of $100,000 by a Russian scam artist in Berlin in exchange
for – well, pretty much nothing. ( The CIA denies it , which
leads one to suspect it is true.) Paragraph 95 of the indictment points to what amounted to a
click-bait scam to fleece American merchants and social media sites from between $25 and $50
per post for promotional content. Paragraph 88 refers to "self-enrichment" as one motive of
the alleged operation. That makes a lot more sense than the bone-headed claim in the
indictment that the Russian goal was to "sow discord in the U.S. political system" by posting
content on "divisive U.S. political and social issues." What! Americans disagree about stuff?
The Russians are setting us against each other! In announcing the indictment,
Rosenstein said the Russians wanted to "promote discord in the United States and
undermine public confidence in democracy. We must not allow them to succeed." (He wagged his
finger with resolve at that point.) It evidently doesn't occur to Rosenstein that he and his
pals have undermined public confidence in our institutions by perverting them for political
ends.
Demonizing dissent. Those indicted allegedly sought to attract Americans'
attention to their diabolical machinations through appeal to hot-button issues (immigration,
Black Lives Matter, religion, etc.) and popular hashtags (#Trump2016, #TrumpTrain, #MAGA,
#Hillary4Prison). Have you taken a stand on divisive issues, Dear Reader? Have you used any
of these hashtags? Are you reading this commentary? You too might be an unwitting
Russian stooge! Vladimir Putin is inside your head! Hopefully DOJ will set up a hotline where
patriotic citizens influenced without their knowledge can now report themselves, now that
they've been alerted. Are you a thought criminal, comrade ?
An amateurish, penny-ante scheme with no results – compared to what the U.S.
does. At worst, even if all the allegations in the indictment are true – a big
"if" – it would still amount to the kind of garden-variety kicking each other under the
table that a lot of countries routinely engage in. As described in the indictment this
gargantuan Russian scheme was (as reported
by Politico ) an "expensive [sic] effort that cost millions of dollars and
employed as many as hundreds of people." Millions of dollars! Hundreds of
people! How did the American republic manage to survive the onslaught? Rosenstein was keen to
point out for the umpteenth time that nothing the Russians are alleged to have done (never
mind what they actually might have done, which is far less) had any impact on the election.
That stands in sharp contrast to the lavishly funded, multifaceted, global political
influence and meddling operations the U.S. conducts in nations around the world under the
guise of "democracy promotion." The National Endowment for Democracy (NED), along with its
Democratic and Republican sub-organizations, can be considered the flagship of a community of
ostensibly private but government-funded or subsidized organizations that provides the soft
compliment to American hard military power. The various governmental, quasi-governmental, and
nongovernmental components of this network – sometimes called the " Demintern " in
analogy to the Comintern , an organization
comparable in global ambition if differing in ideology and methods – are also
coordinated
internationally at the official level through the less-well-known " Community of Democracies ." It is often
difficult to know where the "official" entities (CIA, NATO, the State Department,
Pentagon, USAID) divide from ostensibly nongovernmental but tax dollar-supported groups (NED,
Freedom House, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty) and privately funded organizations that
cooperate with them towards common goals (especially the Open Society organizations funded by
billionaire George Soros). Among the specialties of this network are often
successful "
color revolutions " targeting leaders and governments disfavored by Washington for regime
change – a far cry from the pathetic Russian operation alleged in the indictment.
"
Mitt Romney was right." Already many of Trump's supporters are not only
crowing with satisfaction that the indictment proves there was no collusion but refocusing
their gaze from the domestic culprits within the FBI, DOJ, etc., to a bogus foreign
threat. "This whole saga just brings back the 2012 election, and the fact that Mitt
Romney was right" for "suggesting that Russia is our greatest geopolitical foe," is
the new GOP meme . To the extent that Russiagate was less about Trump than ensuring that
enmity with
Russia will be permanent and will continue to deepen , this latest Mueller indictment is
a smashing success already.
The Mueller indictment against the Russians is a well-timed effort to distract
Americans' attention from the real collusion rotting the core of our public life by shifting
attention to a foreign enemy. Many of the people behind it are the very officials who are
themselves complicit in the rot. But the sad fact is that it will probably work.
So "Russian interference" in our elections are some Facebook trolls? Are you freakin'
kiddin' me? After 18 months of investigation not one shred of evidence has been presented.
Has even one voting machine been hacked?
I seem to remember Nuland and McBraintumor on the barricades in the Ukraine. These Russian
trolls are exercising what used to be called Political speech. Good or bad I don't think you
will be able to stop it. Bottom line if Hillary was not such an abysmal candidate the
Russians couldn't have affected anything. Any traction any narrative gained was a reflection
of the dismal status of maybe the most corrupt candidate in American political history.
This Russian gambit is to forestall prosecutions of Treason. Hillary was engaged in a
Conspiracy to defraud a Federal election. Her campaign gave money to foreign nationals
against the law. Conspiracy not collusion. From Brennan and Clapper and Comey in down you
have obvious perjury.
The Schiffs and the Warners have committed Treason by promulgating this patently false
fairy tale to the detriment of the American people.
The irony of this indictment is so thick that it is overwhelming.
The US has as far back as I can recall, as an political aware person, say 1973, been implicated in regime change or meddling.
In Europe less violent than the rest of the world, but never the less they were there, as was the USSR. Spending money, influencing,
subverting, coercing and in some cases resorting to violence, in order to get their government of choice. Italy and Greece
were places that were sought out because of the strong left. And things did get violent from both sides. Those not old enough
, look it up, there is plenty of evidence, declassified documents available. Northern Ireland was another place they meddled
quite openly.
In the rest of the world, especially in South America, it was far, far more violent and less covert, almost all South American
countries suffered.
It is blatantly hysterical, mind boggling hysterical, that Israel's influence and is silently accepted, but Israeli influence
is so huge that opposition can be suppressed.
To counter foreign "meddling" the US is quietly regulating the Internet, introducing the Great US Firewall. What a pathetic
nation, what a joke....
For hundred times it is all provocation against Russia, psyop that intensified since Putin
returned to power and started rebuilding Russian military after another western provocation
in Georgia and later in Moldova, it became exponential after Ukrainian putsch in 2014.
Ultimately removal and Putin and now Xi who will follow Putin to be elected four times
breaking the western imposed rotation of CIA agents in the Chinese and Russian leadership is
the ultimate goal of the Western globalists to be replaced by oth Chinese and Russian
oligarchs with more consmopolitan autlooke devoid of notions of nation states but rather
global imperial provinces of US western emporium.
These are neocons sick dreams but as we see they will not be stopped without real bottom
up anti oligarchic revolution and instead escalate into preprogrammed chaos and global
conflict among people while harmony among oligarchy.
@liburl @20 - "Could you comment on this. All things being equal the marketing scheme would
have spread
their positive and derogatory posts equally to any given candidate, yet Mueller says
Hillary was under attack."
Aside from the "Russian influence" there were commercial fake-news site created and run
from Macedonia. These were widely reported about. for example by Wired: Inside the Macedonian
Fake-News Complex .
The people running these sites did not care who would win the election. But they found
that stories about Trump generated MORE TRAFFIC than pro Clinton stories. (BTW: U.S. main
stream media found the same and was therefore full of Trump stories.) More traffic/followers
is their sole point.
What Veles produced, though, was something more extreme still: an enterprise of cool, pure
amorality, free not only of ideology but of any concern or feeling about the substance of
the election. These Macedonians on Facebook didn't care if Trump won or lost the White
House.
...
Trump groups seemed to have hundreds of thousands more members than Clinton groups,
which made it simpler to propel an article into virality. (For a week in July, he
experimented with fake news extolling Bernie Sanders. "Bernie Sanders supporters are among
the smartest people I've seen," he says. "They don't believe anything. The post must have
proof for them to believe it.") He posted under his own name but also under the guise of
one of 200 or so bogus Facebook profiles that he'd purchased for this purpose. (A fake
profile with a Russian name cost about 10 cents; for an American name, the price went up to
50 cents.)
"... The sole point of creating a diverse army of sock-puppets with large following crowds
was to sell the 'eyeballs' of the followers to the paying customers of the marketing company
[Concord Catering] ..."
In other words, what Prigozhin's company is doing is hardly much different from what
Facebook originally was set up to do: sell its followers, their details and their behaviours
to paying customers, be they marketing organisations or the US government.
No Russian influence-just more fake news, more lies, more manipulation, more of the same
pantomime politics starring puppet politicians and directed by the dangerous psychopaths who
rule us and who are rushing us down a one way street to extinction... https://www.amazon.com/dp/B078L8K9H3
"... Any country that would allow a traitor (or even a suspected traitor) to compete for the highest office in the land is not a country that is serious about "sovereignty" or "democracy" and should quite rightly be considered a failed state. ..."
"... As for the red-baiting and blatantly obvious attempts by the FVEYs to get Russia to throw a first punch -- so we can then jump in with all we've got and pin down the victory we thought we had back in 1998 (the big one that got away) -- I think we should all re-read that open letter signed by Dmitry Orlov, the Saker, and others which was posted in May of 2016 (yeah: right around the time this whole Russia narrative was being cooked up): https://cluborlov.blogspot.ca/2016/05/a-russian-warning.html ..."
"... Let's all just hope the warmongers end up exposing themselves as being the belligerent, immature a**holes that they are so everyone else can laugh and point and get back to building the peaceful, prosperous world that we want to live in. ..."
no evidence is added to cohesively tie the establishment Russia narrative together
Right.
It's all been gossip and innuendo.
If there HAD been any evidence of "collusion", "treason", or an "attack" by foreign state
actors, the intelligence and law-enforcement agencies would not have been playing games
leaking to the press, but pressing forward with serious measures to harden the country's
security system and neutralize the threat(s). Had there been any genuine evidence of
malfeasance by the Trump campaign (outside of widely practiced and generally accepted
instances of corruption), Donald Trump would have been pulled from the roster of presidential
candidates by October 2016 at the latest.
Any country that would allow a traitor (or even a suspected traitor) to compete for
the highest office in the land is not a country that is serious about "sovereignty" or
"democracy" and should quite rightly be considered a failed state.
As for the red-baiting and blatantly obvious attempts by the FVEYs to get Russia to
throw a first punch -- so we can then jump in with all we've got and pin down the victory we
thought we had back in 1998 (the big one that got away) -- I think we should all re-read that
open letter signed by Dmitry Orlov, the Saker, and others which was posted in May of 2016
(yeah: right around the time this whole Russia narrative was being cooked up): https://cluborlov.blogspot.ca/2016/05/a-russian-warning.html
Let's all just hope the warmongers end up exposing themselves as being the
belligerent, immature a**holes that they are so everyone else can laugh and point and get
back to building the peaceful, prosperous world that we want to live in.
Wow. Good one, Joe. Beautifully written. Thanks for the link. The comments were
interesting, too.
Joe Tedesky , February 17, 2018 at 1:55 pm
Your welcome, and you are right about the comments. Let's read the very first one, as I'm
also leaving off the commenters name which may be seen on the original comment board.
"As an American who has spent a lifetime studying his nation, I can tell you for a fact
that America was never cool. At the end of WWI, American soldiers came home to lynch
African-Americans in record numbers because they had gotten "uppity" in the soldiers'
absence. After WWII, America protected Nazi war criminals and immediately attacked the real
saviour of mankind (the Soviet Union), actually attacking Soviet citizens and starving the
Soviet state of reconstruction monies. In the 1950s, America took over the British and French
empires and became a National Security State with the growth of the CIA. Sixty-five years
later, it is estimated by scholarly demographic studies that The United States is directly
responsible for 40 million deaths. Even Nazi Germany, had it been victorious in WWII, could
have not outstripped that record of carnage. Think about that! The world was saved from the
Nazi conquest only to suffer the US conquest. And the latter was worse -- simply because the
US was larger and richer and therefore more powerful and violent. You and your friends should
never have been entranced. The Soviet Union provided its citizens with employment, housing,
education, health-care, recreation, great art, science. The United States provided its
citizens with job insecurity, homelessness, brainwashing, obesity, stress leading to mass
killings, crap art, and laughable pseudo-science. I rather wonder what it might have been
like for myself if I had been born on the USSR rather than the USA. I'd feel less rage and
guilt, forty million fewer iota of rage and guilt; that is for certain. That would have been
cooler."
What a great comment, and made with such historical accuracy. Joe
Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller's indictment of 13 alleged members of a Russian troll farm
is leading to calls for escalation with Russia, exacerbating tensions that are already at
historic – and dangerous – lows, observes Caitlin Johnstone.
By Caitlin Johnstone
U.S. empire loyalists are so close to telling the truth when they babble about "Russian
propaganda." They are openly admitting that it is wrong to use media to manipulate the ways
that Americans think and vote. Now all we need is for them to admit that they themselves
do this constantly , and we'll be on the right track.
St. Petersburg's Internet Research Agency building, the alleged Russian troll factory that
has sown discord in U.S. politics, according to Robert Mueller's indictment.
The word "Russians" is America's top
trend on Twitter at the time of this writing because of a Mueller indictment of 13 alleged
members of a Russian troll farm, those nefarious supervillains who posted pictures of puppies and
promoted Bernie Sanders to "sow discord in the U.S. political system, including the 2016
U.S. election."
Predictably, no evidence is added to cohesively tie the establishment Russia narrative
together with allegations of Russia hacking the Democratic Party and giving their emails to
WikiLeaks, meeting with Donald Trump, Jr. at Trump Tower, any shenanigans with well-hydrated
Russian prostitutes, or indeed anything tying the troll farm to Trump or the Russian government
at all.
The focus instead is on people disguising their identities to troll Americans on social
media, which we
have now learned constitutes a "conspiracy to defraud the United States." As Disobedient
Media's Elizabeth Lea Vos
rightly points out , it is also behavior that the Hillary Clinton campaign is known to have
funded and engaged in extensively.
We are
already at an extremely dangerous point in the ongoing trend of continuous escalations with
a country that is armed with thousands of nuclear warheads. And these deranged lunatics want
more.
"Special Counsel Mueller's indictments are further proof that Vladimir Putin directed a
campaign to interfere with our elections, with the goal of tipping the outcome," tweeted Senate
Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. "Given these indictments, @realDonaldTrump should implement the
sanctions that Congress passed immediately."
Steven Schmidt, MSNBC analyst and former strategist for George W. Bush and John McCain,
said that the word
"meddling" is not a sufficiently inflammatory word, because "What Russia did is ATTACK the
United States. Trump and the Corrupted GOP majority refuse to defend the sovereignty of the
country from this outside THREAT from a hostile state actor."
Congressmen Ted Lieu and Adam Schiff , Senator
Bernie
Sanders , popular commentators Preet Bharara and Joe Walsh have
all joined in the pile-on, along with many, many others, all demanding that the president do
more to escalate tensions with Russia even further than he already has.
This is exactly what renowned U.S.-Russian relations expert Stephen Cohen
has been warning of : an extremely dangerous mixture of continually escalating Cold War
tensions coexisting with hot proxy wars between two nuclear superpowers, with a president
facing immense political pressures to keep advancing and never, ever back down. A narcissist in
the White House being baited by his political enemies into a game of nuclear "chicken," without
the ability to swerve when necessary.
Meanwhile what are Republicans talking about? Why, they're all crowing about the fact that
these Russia revelations began on Obama's watch and don't show collusion, of course.
Do you see what is happening here? There is never, ever going to be any proof of
Trump-Russia collusion, because that has never been what this is about. We've
talked about this before : America's unelected power establishment doesn't care about
impeaching Trump, it cares about hobbling Russia in order to prevent the rise of a potential
rival superpower in its ally China. All this lunacy makes perfect sense when you realize this.
The U.S. deep state is using the hysterical cult of anti-Trumpism to manufacture support for
increasing escalations with Russia, and the anti-Trumpists are playing right along under the
delusion that pushing for moves against Russia will hurt Trump.
Well they will not hurt Trump, because there has never been any Trump-Russia collusion. If
there had been it would have been picked up by America's sprawling surveillance networks and
leaked to the Washington Post before the end of 2016, and if Trump were a Putin puppet he
wouldn't be continually escalating toward direct conflict with Russia in ways his predecessor
Obama never would have dreamed of doing. They aren't hurting Trump with these loud cries for
increased sanctions and hawkishness, they're imperiling us all.
Democrats, it is time to stop letting them bait you into calling for even more escalations
with a nuclear superpower and start calling for detente instead. Republicans, it is time for
you to stop putting partisan politics ahead of the survival of our species and start pushing
against these dangerous escalations that your president has been playing right along with.
These escalations are extremely dangerous and getting ever more so, and in the name of all that
is holy I implore you to stop before the unthinkable happens.
On my knees I beg you all to stop this madness, for the sake of my children and yours. You
lunatics on both sides of the political divide are going to get us all killed. In God's name,
stop. Please.
"... Besides that Rosenstein did his duty, as to redirect our attention from those nasty FISA court accusations, made by the Nunes Memo how conveniently timed. Although, Mueller's fantastic work (not my words but Rachel's) did not implicate any Russian involvement, and to the disappointment of many Democrates Mueller didn't imply that Vladimir Putin gave his permission to flip Hillary's win, but all the same .the Russians are up to no good, period. ..."
"... Mueller's Russia investigation is the le creme de le crumb of FBI investigations ..."
"... Fox news was thrilled, and patted themselves on the back for knowing it was a lie all along, at least the part where Russia helped Trump get elected. However they continued with their anti-Russia rhetoric and repeatedly brought up Hillary's sale of Uranium to Russia. Now Trump is out there acknowledging, yes Russia interfered in our elections. Our interventionism on a world wide scale makes this all quite nauseating. ..."
"... Those Russians created discord, well, they really didn't have to bother since Americans were so good at it, they didn't need any outside help. I haven't had the stomach to see how CNN, and MSNBC are going to handle this since they were such proponents of Russia-gate. ..."
"... Annie I'm glad you bring up the predictable timing of Rosenstein's release of the Mueller Russia-gate investigation, for these new allegations of Russian interference could replace the news of that awful shooting down in Florida ..."
"... I am now convinced that the indictment is a fraud upon the court deserving of sanctions being imposed on Mueller by the Court. ..."
"... The Mueller indictment is a highly unusual document. It's extraordinarily verbose for an indictment. Coupled with the fact that Mueller knew there was no way he would ever be required to prove what was charged (the U.S. has no extradition treaty with Russia), the indictment is not in reality addressed to a judge or jury; it's fodder for propaganda purposes and as discussed below, is intended to protect the indictment's entire subject matter from Freedom of Information Act requests. ..."
"... The document is overflowing with information that would be filed under seal if it was not fictional. A host of classified intelligence sources and methods would be on full display if the information in the indictment was factual. E.g., we get internal Russian company documents and private emails. Those records would have to be authenticated at trial with admissible proof of how DoJ and the FBI acquired them (sources and methods) if the indictment was intended for a judge and jury. But we get a 37-page detailed document without a single redaction for classified information. Are we to seriously believe that the Deep State is willing to burn the identities of private actor spies in Russia so they can testify that they stole company documents and emails in a foreign country? Or are we to believe that the FISA Court issued search warrants for FBI or NSA to penetrate the company's networks for a criminal rather than foreign intelligence purpose? ..."
"... Since we are purportedly dealing with Russians, one would also expect at least most of the quotes to be in Russian, requiring translation to English, yes? But we have here perfect English language smoking gun quotes and lots of them, without any indication that they have been translated from Russian as would be required if they had been. And they all speak for themselves, without need for interpretation. Even one such quote would be rare in criminal cases. But to have a bunch of them, all in English? It beggars belief. ..."
This Mueller revelation of 13 Russians flipping a combined campaign amount of 6.9 billion
dollars spent by both American presidential candidates, is awl inspiring, and convinces me to
if I were to run for public office I would do myself well to get these 13 Russians to work
for my campaign utterly amazing, these Russian trolls could flip such an overly expensive
long term election with so little.
Besides that Rosenstein did his duty, as to redirect our attention from those nasty FISA
court accusations, made by the Nunes Memo how conveniently timed. Although, Mueller's
fantastic work (not my words but Rachel's) did not implicate any Russian involvement, and to
the disappointment of many Democrates Mueller didn't imply that Vladimir Putin gave his
permission to flip Hillary's win, but all the same .the Russians are up to no good,
period.
This story barely tops the exclusion of Russian athletes from the Olympics for drug
doping, but Mueller's Russia investigation is the le creme de le crumb of FBI investigations
. Florida 19 year old shooter, not so much.
In the end, this will just be another day in an America life, while Mueller and company
wind this thing down, and with the hopes the open sore FISA court insinuation goes away.
Joe, you do have to ask yourself why Mueller came out with their non-findings on Friday
when everyone's attention was drawn to the school shootings in Florida where the FBI was
given warnings, but neglected to pay attention, and the governor of Florida is calling for
Wray's resignation, and heads to roll.
Fox news was thrilled, and patted themselves on the back for knowing it was a lie all
along, at least the part where Russia helped Trump get elected. However they continued with
their anti-Russia rhetoric and repeatedly brought up Hillary's sale of Uranium to Russia. Now
Trump is out there acknowledging, yes Russia interfered in our elections. Our interventionism
on a world wide scale makes this all quite nauseating.
Those Russians created discord, well, they really didn't have to bother since Americans
were so good at it, they didn't need any outside help. I haven't had the stomach to see how
CNN, and MSNBC are going to handle this since they were such proponents of Russia-gate.
Joe Tedesky , February 17, 2018 at 3:10 pm
Annie I'm glad you bring up the predictable timing of Rosenstein's release of the Mueller
Russia-gate investigation, for these new allegations of Russian interference could replace
the news of that awful shooting down in Florida.
I actually picture Mueller & Rosenstein as planning this long before the shooting, and
I can just see them figuring out that during the next mass shooting on a Friday before a
weekend news cycle, that bringing up the Russia thing would not only distract our attention
away from how the FBI dropped the ball on catching a 19 year old shooter who had tons of red
flags surrounding him, while adding some new life to all that is bad about Russians, was the
go to point.
I'm not surprised, although disappointed, that FOX is on the anti-Russian band wagon. This
keeping Russia in the dog house has been discussed, and written about on this comment board,
so keeping Russia & especially Putin in the spot light of all that is evil, to me comes
as no surprise.
It would appear that the U.S. is eventually going to go to war with Russia, or do we dare?
Neocon's are good at dropping bombs on far away places, but will they be any good at ducking
them when the bombs drop here?
And yes we Americans don't need any help from any Russians in order to screw up our
democracy, we are perfectly great at doing that ourselves. Joe
I am now convinced that the indictment is a fraud upon the court deserving of sanctions
being imposed on Mueller by the Court. I'll add some reasons for believing that in my
follow-up comment.
Joe Tedesky , February 18, 2018 at 1:33 am
Paul that was the best so far of anything I read, or learned, about this
Mueller/Rosenstein travesty. Joe
john wilson , February 18, 2018 at 6:04 am
Also Paul, did you know that the vice chairman of Face book has just announced that most
of the Russian advertising spend happened AFTER the election. Read it for yourself on the
zero hedge site.
Yes, Joe. I'd really like to see VIPS dive into what b presented.
The Mueller indictment is a highly unusual document. It's extraordinarily verbose for an indictment. Coupled with the fact that Mueller knew
there was no way he would ever be required to prove what was charged (the U.S. has no
extradition treaty with Russia), the indictment is not in reality addressed to a judge or
jury; it's fodder for propaganda purposes and as discussed below, is intended to protect the
indictment's entire subject matter from Freedom of Information Act requests.
As further indications that the document is a work of fiction not intended for a judge or
jury:
1. The document is overflowing with information that would be filed under seal if it was
not fictional. A host of classified intelligence sources and methods would be on full display
if the information in the indictment was factual. E.g., we get internal Russian company
documents and private emails. Those records would have to be authenticated at trial with
admissible proof of how DoJ and the FBI acquired them (sources and methods) if the indictment
was intended for a judge and jury. But we get a 37-page detailed document without a single
redaction for classified information. Are we to seriously believe that the Deep State is
willing to burn the identities of private actor spies in Russia so they can testify that they
stole company documents and emails in a foreign country? Or are we to believe that the FISA
Court issued search warrants for FBI or NSA to penetrate the company's networks for a
criminal rather than foreign intelligence purpose?
2. There are way too many perfect smoking gun English language quotes. It's rare to get
smoking gun quotes from defendants and they almost always require context to interpret them.
Since we are purportedly dealing with Russians, one would also expect at least most of the
quotes to be in Russian, requiring translation to English, yes? But we have here perfect
English language smoking gun quotes and lots of them, without any indication that they have
been translated from Russian as would be required if they had been. And they all speak for
themselves, without need for interpretation. Even one such quote would be rare in criminal
cases. But to have a bunch of them, all in English? It beggars belief.
3. In a normal criminal case, an indictment's allegations would be tested at a public
trial and the public would then learn what the evidence actually is. But with a case where
the defendants will never be extradited to stand trial, the entire case file is exempt from
public disclosure under the law enforcement records Freedom of Information Act exemption so
long as the investigation is ongoing. By vastly increasing the level of detail beyond what is
required for an indictment, Mueller sweeps far more evidence into what is clearly exempt from
public disclosure.
4. Grand jury procedure permits what bernard describes, although it is highly unethical
and violates a lawyer's duty of candor to the grand jury and the court. In a grand jury, the
prosecution is not required to show any evidence tending to establish the defendants'
innocence. Just enough evidence for the grand jury to find that the prosecution can present a
prima facie case of guilt. That means Mueller did not have to show the grand jury any of the
Internet communications that favored Hillary Clinton rather than Trump. But we know from
bernard's October article and from MSM reports when the Facebook ads were disclosed to
Congress that the pro-Clinton communications exist too. In other words, Mueller apparently
cherry picked the evidence to support his charge that the communications all favored Trump
instead of Clinton.
5.The indictment presents a wacky theory that the defendants conspired to defraud the
United States that is riddled with First Amendment issues. Conspiracy to commit wire and mail
fraud, that's not obviously a bad argument. But that fraud conspiracy claim smells like a
very long distance stretch to me (caveat, I have not yet researched it thoroughly). But
what's fraudulent about reports you never filed with the FEC and DoJ? Why not just charge
them with not filing the reports? Is it just so you can trumpet "conspiracy to commit fraud
on the United States?"
There's more but those are the major points I've got so far.
"The U.S. deep state is using the hysterical cult of anti-Trumpism to manufacture support
for increasing escalations with Russia, and the anti-Trumpists are playing right along under
the delusion that pushing for moves against Russia will hurt Trump."
On the mark, but the strategy goes beyond the deep state which I take to mean actors
within our government. Cui bono, and that includes suspects that make no pretense of what
they are after. The problems with their plans is that it assumes they have their hand on the
switch that can turn this putsch on and off and somewhere in between.
Absolutely, politics is mostly theater, as nonsense factory stated. Tom Welsh and mike k,
what a great exchange on humans as stupid as sand fleas! The western nations are floundering
because of their slavish dependence on money and military might, and the US is set for
economic collapse soon with $20tn debt and unbelievable deficit and continuing to rise to aid
oligarchs; meanwhile with desperate masses, many of whom can't even put a roof over their
heads without help. The Goldman has Sacked US. Notice how Goldman Sachs has been in charge of
the gold since Bill Clinton? These fiends are using displacement because they have made the
bloodiest mess of American society so they blame Russia for what they do, they're
psychopathic. We've got to call them on it. Do read that article at The Saker, "A Brief
History of the Kremlin Trolls". The imprint of CIA is all over this.
jaycee , February 17, 2018 at 6:01 pm
The Mueller indictment describes a common clickbait operation through a most hysterical
and paranoid lens. Absurd madness. It's "commies are poisoning our vital bodily fluids" level
stuff. Imposing controls on the internet is one endgame here.
Gregory Herr , February 17, 2018 at 8:42 pm
I put myself through the excruciation of watching a bit of Chris Hayes tonight talking
with Nadler (D-NY) and some guy from the Clinton campaign who were both calling the so-called
"interference" an "attack" tantamount to Pearl Harbor. Hayes played the straight man and
poohed the comparison a bit, but they were insistent and Hayes suggested the logical
conclusion of what they were demanding in response was war. Nadler stopped short of that but
said the Russians must pay a heavy price (more sanctions) and the other guy said the new war
would be of the cyber variety. I think you are right that "imposing controls on the internet
is one endgame here".
David G , February 17, 2018 at 9:30 pm
The rhetorical slippery slope started with "hacking the DNC" (not that I'm conceding the
reality of that), and slid rapidly through:
"hacking the election" to
"hacking our democracy" to
"attacking our democracy" to
"attacking our country",
and now what you saw on MSNBC, Gregory Herr, is the norm.
I've seen: What is the difference between what the Russians did here and if they'd
occupied the Aleutian Islands?
How to rationally engage with argle-bargle paranoia like that?
David G , February 17, 2018 at 9:19 pm
jaycee, I think that is actually a key point that should be foregrounded in commentary on
this nonsense: the psychological drivers are concerns about *purity* and *contamination*.
I've read about studies that show such preoccupations correlate with right-wing, or
"conservative", political orientation, which absolutely describes the Russia-gate construct,
despite its demographic base on the Dem-partisan, allegedly liberal, side of the
aisle/populace.
KiwiAntz , February 17, 2018 at 6:26 pm
I'm from NZ so I'm going to use a Lord of the Rings analogy? America & it's Deepstate
is the evil "Sauron" of the World"? Sauron (like the US) is a cowardly bully who wants to
dominate all life on earth using his Ork minions (MIC) & one ring (nuclear weapons) to
rule them all? What did it take to stop Sauron (& what will it take to stop the US?) A
last alliance of men, elves & all the other people's of middle earth (planet earth)
uniting & standing together as one to confront this grave threat to life on earth?? JRR
Toiken understood the situation only to well I think? Simplistic solution,but a time is
coming when all Nations of the Earth are going to have to stand up too & destroy the
greatest existential threat too life on Earth, that has ever been, which is the American
Empire & USA? A greater threat than Nazi Germany ever was? The survival of the human race
is at stake as your lunatic leaders are leading us to permanent destruction! You'd be
surprised at the amount of rich Americans, think Peter Thiel for one example, buying end
times, survival prepper, bolt holes in my Country of NZ as they can see what your insane,
hysterical Nation is leading us too? When the rich start abandoning the Country, like rats
leaving a sinking ship, ITS TIME TO TAKE NOTICE? Just as one small hobbit, the most
unlikeliest of hero's changed the outcome & the fate of middle earth, it set a precedent
that ordinary people or small people of the World could stand up to & unite against EVIL
& become the most unlikeliest of heroes in order to SAVE our Earth? God help us all?
mike k , February 17, 2018 at 6:53 pm
Well said!
Joe Tedesky , February 17, 2018 at 7:12 pm
My dying last warning to you KiwiAntz while I'm stuck here on the USA mainland is when
those rich creeps of ours do come to your beloved New Zealand .immediately arrest them, and
put then in jail. Since I'm not big on capital punishment that's the best advice I can give
you, but if you would rather I could hand this over to my cousins in Jersey, because their
good at making things disappear. Be careful, watch yourself KiwiAntz. Joe
Good one, KiwiAntz! I agree with you and I also think that Mother Earth is sending
messages to humans, too. Too many people allowing (mis)leaders to lead us over a cliff.
mike k , February 17, 2018 at 7:00 pm
"Worse than Hitler" hits Uncle Sam right on the head. Our leaders learned a lot from
Hitler and his gang, but they have gone far beyond what Hitler accomplished. Racism, power
lust, torture, fiendish weapons, mass murder – we have the whole package now in
spades.
Marko , February 18, 2018 at 8:26 am
Worse , indeed , but what bothers me most is that we ( the American people ) have allowed
the situation to get this bad.
I used to wonder : " How could the German people have allowed Hitler to obtain and
maintain his power ? Were they blind , or were they just as evil as he was ? " Now I don't
have to wonder any more – I'm experiencing the phenomenon first-hand , in real time. If
the Guiness Book of World Records ever comes up with a category called " Nation With the Most
Irresponsible Populace " , Germany no longer has to fear being named the record-holder ,
thanks to us.
To say that what the Russians did had any effect on the election is like claiming it was
the fly fart in the tornado that blew the roof off.
Zachary Smith , February 17, 2018 at 7:45 pm
Lately I've seen some quips which are really memorable. "Fly fart in a tornado" is great,
and the one by mike k the other day also made my day:
Voting in a crooked system is like pissing in the ocean – it's OK if you have
nothing better to do .
jose , February 17, 2018 at 8:32 pm
You are correct when you assert that : "It's all been gossip and innuendo" Somebody ought
to tell Mr. Mueller " clay, clay, clay for without it, I cannot make bricks" I have not seen
anything remotely resembling hard evidence. This entire Russia debacle reminds me of the 2007
movie of Batman in which at the end the joker states the following: "Madness as you know is
like gravity, all it takes is a little push" The worse part in all this is that millions of
Americans believe this Russia meddeling as a given without demanding any solid prove. The
grip of the American doctrinal system is very powerful, indeed.
Everything written here by Caitlin Johnstone makes sense except that you can't beg a
psychopath to stop what they're doing. Like asking a serial killer not to kill you.
MLS , February 17, 2018 at 11:25 pm
The more I see the same commenters congratulating themselves on their respective
confident, cognitive bias-laden assertions, the more painfully obvious it becomes that while
posters here may know what they have read and heard, none have any clue what is going on.
Where exactly is the factual basis, for example, for this stunning paragraph:
"Well they will not hurt Trump, because there has never been any Trump-Russia collusion.
If there had been it would have been picked up by America's sprawling surveillance networks
and leaked to the Washington Post before the end of 2016, and if Trump were a Putin puppet he
wouldn't be continually escalating toward direct conflict with Russia in ways his predecessor
Obama never would have dreamed of doing. They aren't hurting Trump with these loud cries for
increased sanctions and hawkishness, they're imperiling us all."
?
Because Caitlin said so? If/then theoreticals? Please.
The great Robert Parry did research. Journalistic legwork.
The cynicism olympics of small-time blogsylvania is no substitute.
BobS , February 18, 2018 at 12:11 am
Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown.
backwardsevolution , February 18, 2018 at 4:35 am
MLS – well, where's the evidence? Please enlighten us.
My question is, is the American public wittingly or nonwittingly going along for the ride
on this Russia-gate bus to no where?
nonsense factory , February 17, 2018 at 4:00 pm
Based on what looks, at first glance, as widespread censorship of comment sections on this
story in the corporate media across the English-speaking world, I'm guessing that the general
public is not really buying it, outside the hardcore center of wealthy Clinton-Blair
supporters and MIC insiders. That's just my impression, though.
When empires begin to collapse, the centers of wealth and power draw inwards and set up
walls in a desperate bid to retain control; but the harder they try to grasp it the more
slips through their fingers. They also tend to blame external forces for their own
incompetence and Byzantine corruption, which is why all the finger-pointing at Russia. That's
what I'm seeing, anyway.
Prophecy is never to be trusted; who knows how this will turn out? But it sure doesn't
look good for the status quo of the Clinton-Bush-Obama era; those days are likely gone
forever. Trump is ramping up wealth inequality with his massive tax cuts and huge
military-industrial budget – again, much like the end days of the Soviet Union, when
the apparatchiks had their Black Sea villas while the rest of the country lived in
poverty.
Joe Tedesky , February 17, 2018 at 4:06 pm
I'm growing to like hearing from you nonsense factory, thanks for your input. Joe
nonsense factory , February 17, 2018 at 8:24 pm
Thans Joe, I have used a wide variety of outlets to post my samizdat commentary but
Consortium is one of the few places where both the publishers and the commentariat seem to be
honest people, not playing some manipulative game.
Joe Tedesky , February 18, 2018 at 1:36 am
That's great, and you fit right in. Stay with us, we all might learn something. Joe
Earlier in February, according to various Fox and Neoconservative pundits, Deputy Attorney
General Rod Rosenstein was close to being labeled "the devil incarnate," the man responsible
for naming Robert Mueller as Special Counsel (and who had basically given him carte
blanche to engage in a slow-burn campaign, an ideological investigative war, based on a
spurious made-up dossier, against President Trump). Calls went out that Rosenstein should be
replaced, even fired.
Now, a few days later -- and thirteen indictments from one of Mueller's grand juries,
announced by the very same Rosenstein, specifically against more "Russian players" who
reportedly "meddled" in the 2016 American elections, but without any connivance by the
Trump campaign -- and Rosenstein is feted as a veritable savior of the republic by those
same commenters. Those Neocons who now selectively support the president and those
bitterly anti-Russian Fox pundits (with the possible exception of Tucker Carlson) are
absolutely giddy with delight! For too long, in their defense of President Trump against the
charge of collusion, they had found themselves in the extremely uncomfortable situation (for
them) of having to mount an attempt to exculpate the Russians, or at least lessen their
culpability.
But now, Rosenstein has presented them with one of those exquisite "Aha!" moments: at last,
the onerous burden of disputing Russian connections with the Trump campaign has been lifted,
but they can still, with more reason, keep those evil Russkies in the cross hairs as the
supreme enemy of America!
And this fits to a tee their ideological predispositions. For the Neocons (and most of the
Fox punditry) -- who are the dominant voice of the so-called contemporary "conservative
movement" and the intellectual brain trust for much of the GOP -- are inveterate Russophobes.
It makes no difference to them that Russia in 2018 is definitely not Russia of the old Soviet
days; it makes little difference to them that since 1991 Russia has emerged as the leading
global power in opposition to the secularist New World Order, and that its political and
cultural trajectory is, if anything, more conservative and traditionalist. They ignore the fact
that Gorbachev voluntarily agreed with George H. W. Bush to dissolve the Warsaw Pact (which he
did), ending the Communist control of Eastern Europe, on condition that the United
States not advance NATO further east (which is exactly what the United States then proceeded to
do). They have repeatedly ignored and rejected Russian overtures for partnership, collaboration
and cooperation (not the subinfeudation and subjection that Paul Wolfowitz and Charles
Krauthammer demanded). They rip out of context Putin's statement that the dissolution of the
old Soviet Union was "a monumental catastrophe" for Russia, failing to understand that his
comments dealt specifically with the radical and disastrous ethnic and political
consequences of the break up, with millions of ethnic Russians now in regions that were always
part of Russia, now separated from the Mother Country, economically adrift and incapable of
true independence.
Back on February 6 , in an effort to briefly explain some of the background for this
zealous Russophobia, I wrote the following in a column:
"The Neocons, of course, owe their intellectual origin decades ago to that other major
stream of Marxist thought, identified with Leon Trotsky and his zealous internationalism.
Early on for those intellectual descendants of Trotsky their opposition to Soviet Communism
was just as much a hatred for Russia, which they saw as anti-Semitic (e.g., the infamous
"doctors' plot") and "reactionary," as it was for what they perceived as Stalin's (and
Brezhnev's) perversion of the original "humanist" and "democratic core" of Marxist theory.
Thus, even with the daily revelations, the reports and all the accounts of skulduggery by
agents of the Deep State that seem to seep out, the narrative of "the Russians Did It!" must
be maintained, by both Progressivists AND the Neocons. Either the Russians and that "new
Hitler" (to use Neocon Max Boot's ill-chosen comparison) Putin were somehow directing Donald
Trump like a puppet master controls a stick puppet, or the Russians and that "new Hitler"
were working with Hillary and the DNC to blacken Donald Trump's good name and unseat him.
Either way "the Russians Did It!"
So, now we hear the news from Rosenstein that thirteen individual Russians and Russian
organizations, beginning back in 2014, two years prior to the 2016 elections (and before
Donald Trump was even mentioned as a real candidate), are charged with "attempted meddling" in
our national elections using mainly the Internet and social media (Facebook, Twitter, etc.).
But no American citizens were compromised, and there was no collusion with the Trump
campaign.
Duh. So? This is news? That a major world power spent a paltry million dollars (in a
campaign in which a total of billions of dollars were spent) in some rather uniformly
unsuccessful attempts to "meddle" here?
You would think that the Japs had bombed Pearl Harbor or that Putin's Cossacks had landed
and seized Miami Beach! This story has nearly displaced the tragedy of the school shooting in
Broward County, at least on Fox. With obvious satisfaction, Laura Ingraham (whom I do like on
occasion), intoned on her Fox program: "I've been warning about the Russians for years!" But
when she asked her guest former CIA director Admiral R. James Woolsey if we ever
"meddled" in other countries' elections and governments, he simply laughed a bit nervously and
attempted to avoid answering. (The answer is of course we do and have done so for
decades : Guatemala, Iran, the Kennedy-approved assassination of President Diem, the recent
Ukrainian coup against a popularly-elected but pro-Russian president, our funding of candidates
subservient to our interests -- the list is endless.)
Another Fox pundit, Tucker Carlson on his program, briefly mentioned the "meddling" of
Chinese operatives and organizations in the United States (where literally billions of dollars
have been spent to shape American opinion and a major percentage of American commerce is now
controlled by Beijing). Where is the Special Counsel investigating Chinese "meddling" and
influence on American elections? Where are the congressional committees examining the
extraordinary control by the Chinese of American business?
And what about Mexico which, using its various consulates scattered across the United
States, helped engineer the registration of Mexican voters who would vote in the 2016
American elections? How many of those were -- are -- illegals? Except for such groups as
ALIPAC, NumbersUSA, NC Listen, FAIR, VDare.com, and a few others, not a word and certainly, no
congressional hearings.
Then, there is Saudi Arabia and the billions of oil-based petrodollars that have found their
way into the coffers of American political leaders. When was the last time that you heard a
serious critique of the Saudis (or their virtual, if remote responsibility for much of the
Islamic extremism in the Middle East)?
And, lastly, and most significantly -- and this is the white elephant in the room -- what
about the incredible influence of Israel in American politics? Okay, I recognize that you're
not supposed to notice this, at least not mention it, lest you be labeled an "anti-semite" --
an accusation, a stain, like the charge of racism that is difficult, if not impossible, to
expunge. Yet, can anyone rationally deny the immense influence of Israel -- and its "meddling"
-- in our elections and politics?
I will make no judgments here whether the issues advanced by Israel and its supporters, the
positions pushed, are good or bad, whether they are in our national interest or not. Israel has
been an ally since its foundation in 1948, and the cultural and political bonds between our two
nations have been and are very strong. But that doesn't change the facts: Israel is a major
player in our politics, and such extremely powerful lobbying/public interest groups like AIPAC
(American Israel Public Affairs Committee) and the ADL (Anti-Defamation League) generally serve
the interests of the State of Israel and attempt to identify them with American interests.
"Meddling" is an understatement when it comes to Israel. Remember the Jonathan Pollard
espionage case? Pollard was a major American Israeli spy, whose spying and pilfering of top
American secrets on behalf of Israel got him life imprisonment. And, politically, we only need
to cast a brief glance to the past -- to the defeat of Senators J. William Fulbright (Arkansas)
and Chuck Percy (Illinois), and Congressman Paul Findley (Illinois), and the attempted defeat
of Representative Walter Jones Jr. more recently in North Carolina (e.g, Bill Kristol's
million-dollar campaigns to defeat Jones in GOP primaries) -- all of whom refused to go along
with unquestioning support of a pro-Israeli American agenda, or who raised some embarrassing
questions, even in the most respectful and mildest manner.
Years ago, when working with the founder of the older conservative movement, Dr. Russell
Kirk in Michigan, I met Dr. Alfred Lilienthal, a thoughtful Jewish opponent of Zionism and of
the kind of international entanglements that he sincerely believed gave the Jewish state and
Jews universally a negative reputation. Later on he presented me with copies of his major
documented study on the topic, The Zionist Connection (original edition, 1978, and
revised, 1982), which were revelatory for me.
More recently, Dr. Stephen J. Sniegoski's impressively documented, The Transparent Cabal:
The Neoconservative Agenda, War in the Middle East, and the National Interest of Israel
(2008), and Drs. John Mearsheimer's and Stephen Walt's The Israel Lobby and U. S. Foreign
Policy (2007) have deepened aspects of Dr. Lilienthal analysis. And additional research and
discussion by such writers as Philip Giraldi ( "Are America's Jews
Driving America's Wars," 2017), and such distinguished authors of Jewish descent as
Professors Walter Block ( "Is It Permissible to
Criticize Jews?" January 2018) and Paul Gottfried ( his review of Neil Jumonville's
The New York Intellectuals , 2008, on the relationship between Russian Jewish emigres
centered in New York and their powerful influence in American culture and politics), have
raised questions that should be examined calmly and rationally, but probably won't.
The shadowy Russians purportedly spent a million dollars to "meddle" and "sow confusion" in
American politics, beginning two years before the 2016 elections. And the Neocon narrative, the
template that indicts Russia, is preserved, and that is all you need to know. An anti-Trump
"demonstration" in New York with forty-five sullen attendees, some fake ads on Facebook (which
is literally filled with millions of other fake ads), some cyber interference, some phony URLs
-- and the Russophobes go literally wild.
And all the while the major players in meddling and espionage and influence here in the US
-- they skate, are ignored with a wink-and-a-smile, dollar signs in the eyes of the supposed
guardians of the Republic!
Never mind, Mueller can now further boost his pension prospects by taking a leaf out of
Kenneth Starr's book and start investigating Trumpian payoffs to bimbos, and consider
indictments for adultery. That should give him another couple of years of pensionable Deep
State service.
"I swear that Russiagate is nothing more than trying to cover up the blatant corruption of
the DNC, Hillary Clinton, the FBI, CIA and The Department of Justice. Keep everybody busy with
Russiagate and don't allow the corruption (with the help of the press) to see the light of day.
Otherwise, people in high places would be going to jail.
Notable quotes:
"... As many commentators have pointed out, we are a country of completely brain washed people now. Schiff, Schumer, Sanders . . . they are all cut from the same cloth. There is not one politician left in the country who will challenge the The Ruling Power Structure's narrative. Even in Russia, there are lot of opposition leadership voices who are making noises against the System they disagree with. ..."
"... They can't make "hacking" stick 'cause it's false. They can't make "Trump is a Putin puppet" stick 'cause it's false. So now the whole damn dumb show–regurgitated by either shameless war profiteers or straight-faced useful idiots–comes down to so-called Russian social media trolls exercising the same "speech" that we are supposedly so proud to call "free" in this country. ..."
"... The Thought Police use surveillance and psychological monitoring to find and eliminate members of society who challenge the party's authority and ideology. ..."
"... Anyone who has questioned the intelligence agencies narrative that Russians and Trump colluded to win the election are viewed with suspicion as potential enemies of the state. ..."
"... What is the end goal? The end goal is to prop up a long in the tooth multi-decade cold war with Russia to justify massive military spending. Do you want to know the answer to your question of whether or not the US defense industry and our intelligence agencies are trying to spark a war with Russia? ..."
"... The answer is yes they are. As crazy as that sounds, the hungry defense industry with its insatiable appetite for more weapons has decided to go for the ultimate win the lottery strategy and foment war with Russia. It had been happening under Obama and now it is happening under Trump. They are trying to box him into a corner where he will feel enough pressure to go against Russia. Perhaps they can goad him into attacking Russia which is what I believe they want to do. Our national media plays along and is in bed with the intelligence agencies as much as ever just like they spouted the lies of Chalabi in Iraq War II falsely believing his claims that Saddam Hussein had nuclear and chemical and biological weapons. ..."
"... "Yet still they want more as Caitlin Johnstone pointed out. What they want now to do is to do the same thing they have been doing under Obama and enlist Trump on the grandest military adventure of all. War with Russia." ..."
"... The Russiagate affair has been going on for almost a year and I would think Mueller is under a lot of pressure to find something to stick. This indictment may be it. ..."
"... Once again, Russia's reputation will be taken down a few notches and made to suffer another humiliation. And the US will move on to the next allegation, "UK and US blame Russia for the malicious NotPetya cyberattack" (headline on BBC). ..."
Essentially, all Mueller did yesterday was to indict a bunch of private Russian citizens
for expressing their opinions about the candidates in the last presidential election via
public media (mainly Facedbook and Twitter), and the individual Russians contacted by the
press about it did not deny doing so. Mueller made no links to the Russian government, Putin,
the FSB or even their alleged puppet Donald Trump. Just private individuals being persecuted
for expressing an opinion on American politics in public because they are foreigners. Doesn't
matter whether the opinions were true, false, complementary or disparaging because they were
subjective just like anyone else's opinions (you know, opinions are like a-holes, everybody's
got one).
So, if that move by Mueller is allowed to stand and serve as a precedent in American
jurisprudence, doesn't that mean that journalists from foreign lands, like Caitlin herself,
are at risk of being indicated at any moment by the US Justice Department if they express
opinions that the insiders in the Deep State do not like? And, what about all the foreign
nationals who post here in this forum on this blog? I daresay most offer opinions not
complementary of the US government and its political menagerie. And, to be honest, many do so
in order to either change minds or solidify shared beliefs with others, including great
swirling drifts of snowflake Americans.
This free exchange of thoughts is now to be verboten because someone other than Uncle Sam
may have an influence or even change the mind of a precious American citizen? This is
madness. That the most educated and articulate amongst us do not see this, but rather
participate in the feeding frenzy upon the carcass of what is left of our liberal democracy
is absolutely stupifying. As I have been saying for some time now, someone or some force must
be imposing a form of mass hypnosis upon the population and only a few of us (including most
here) seem to be immune to its effects. Maybe something we consume acts as an antidote.
Perhaps your Italian grandma's muffalettas or calzones, Joe? Or my mother's German
rouladen?
Dave P. , February 17, 2018 at 5:01 pm
Realist –
"As I have been saying for some time now, someone or some force must be imposing a form of
mass hypnosis upon the population and only a few of us (including most here) seem to be
immune to its effects."
You are dead right on that. My wife was yelling and screaming last night that why I was
not watching this "Russia trolls" show with her on CNN, MSNBC, and PBS; to learn how the
Russians have destroyed our beautiful democracy. She had seen the World too, mostly for fun
and experiences; she taught English in Malaysia – British colony until 1957 – as
a peace Corps volunteer during 1960's. There you have it. As many commentators have pointed
out, we are a country of completely brain washed people now. Schiff, Schumer, Sanders . . .
they are all cut from the same cloth. There is not one politician left in the country who
will challenge the The Ruling Power Structure's narrative. Even in Russia, there are lot of
opposition leadership voices who are making noises against the System they disagree with.
Gregory Herr , February 17, 2018 at 6:21 pm
They can't make "hacking" stick 'cause it's false. They can't make "Trump is a Putin
puppet" stick 'cause it's false. So now the whole damn dumb show–regurgitated by either
shameless war profiteers or straight-faced useful idiots–comes down to so-called
Russian social media trolls exercising the same "speech" that we are supposedly so proud to
call "free" in this country. They not only take us for moronic fools, but they can't even see
that that they are insulting us further by insinuating that our voting decisions are
completely unsophisticated and easily swayed to the point that 13 Russians could have an
impact amidst a sea of election season campaign "propaganda" from both major parties and an
array of special interest influence peddling. Like the Clinton campaign didn't hire Facebook
trolls!
Bye Bye First Amendment no one in the halls of power takes it seriously enough to defend it
unless you're spouting groupthink right Bernie?
Zachary Smith , February 17, 2018 at 8:00 pm
Essentially, all Mueller did yesterday was to indict a bunch of private Russian citizens
for expressing their opinions about the candidates in the last presidential election via
public media (mainly Facedbook and Twitter), and the individual Russians contacted by the
press about it did not deny doing so.
I'll echo Drew Hunkins in calling this a brilliant condensation of the issue. What worries
me is what the morons-in-charge might have in mind as a follow-up to this lunacy.
CitizenOne , February 18, 2018 at 2:31 am
Perhaps we are entering into the Orwellian dawn of Thought Crimes which are any feelings
or thinking a Citizen has which are counter to the State Propaganda put out by the Ministry
of Truth. The Thought Police (thinkpol in Newspeak) are the secret police of the novel
Nineteen Eighty-Four. It is their job to uncover and punish thoughtcrime. The Thought Police
use surveillance and psychological monitoring to find and eliminate members of society who
challenge the party's authority and ideology.
Anyone who has questioned the intelligence agencies narrative that Russians and Trump
colluded to win the election are viewed with suspicion as potential enemies of the state.
It would appear to be allegations of thought crime because 15 foreign nationals posted
things on social media. We have been under the perception that social media is a free forum
for discourse but now, like China, we are seeing the formation of a witch hunt for foreign
devils who have infiltrated the social mediascape and are on trial for the results of a
national election.
We are literally burning some innocent teenager for the calamity we are convinced was not
of our own making. We need to find a witch to brew some witchcraft to explain how our current
situation has arisen.
Not sure if anyone alive today believes the Salem Witch Trials served justice and created
a restoration of civil harmony. I'm fairly sure that everyone looks at those dark days as a
travesty of justice.
Yes we are living in a time of universal deceit and the act of telling the truth has
become a revolutionary act just as Orwell portrayed in his novel.
Thought crimes are fairly scary and they imply that our government is willing to indict
the thoughts of whoever it deems to be an enemy of the state and bring the thinkers of
thought crime as defined by the state as anyone who questions the official fake narrative of
Russia Gate to "justice".
What is the end goal? The end goal is to prop up a long in the tooth multi-decade cold war
with Russia to justify massive military spending. Do you want to know the answer to your
question of whether or not the US defense industry and our intelligence agencies are trying
to spark a war with Russia?
The answer is yes they are. As crazy as that sounds, the hungry defense industry with its
insatiable appetite for more weapons has decided to go for the ultimate win the lottery
strategy and foment war with Russia. It had been happening under Obama and now it is
happening under Trump. They are trying to box him into a corner where he will feel enough
pressure to go against Russia. Perhaps they can goad him into attacking Russia which is what
I believe they want to do. Our national media plays along and is in bed with the intelligence
agencies as much as ever just like they spouted the lies of Chalabi in Iraq War II falsely
believing his claims that Saddam Hussein had nuclear and chemical and biological weapons.
Even the analysis on North Korea which opines that NK will use all weapons first as a
first strike in a scenario the USA has called the "Use it or Lose it" fell short and was
proved a false scenario or that there were really no actual WMDs in Iraq as the UN
claimed.
Either way, the likely outcomes of a WMD armed Iraqi leader facing imminent demise which
would cause him to use all available weapons at his disposal did not happen. There are only
two conclusions to the outcome. Saddam did not have these weapons or the likely scenario of
"Use it or Lose it" is all wrong.
Either way the premise of the war was shown to be false.
Unfortunately in the aftermath of that war there was no US counterpart to the British
Chilcot Report and the US went on to engage in regime change in other nations like Ukraine,
Syria, Libya and elsewhere.
There is no sense to it other than to destabilize nations, foment violence and create
international tensions which have the effect of causing our elected leaders to pony up more
money for defense to combat the new enemies we just created.
Yet still they want more as Caitlin Johnstone pointed out. What they want now to do is to
do the same thing they have been doing under Obama and enlist Trump on the grandest military
adventure of all. War with Russia.
I agree with her assessment that this is crazy. This is the most irresponsible thing yet
but it has been enabled by a fake news press just as it was enabled by the fake news media
all the times before.
I agree with you Joe that a form of mass hypnosis has gripped our democrat officials and a
large segment of our population. We have been handed a leader they don't like and they are
ready and able to make hay with the election outcome to persuade us by force to support more
military adventures.
Dave P. , February 18, 2018 at 3:53 am
Citizen One –
"Yet still they want more as Caitlin Johnstone pointed out. What they want now to do is to
do the same thing they have been doing under Obama and enlist Trump on the grandest military
adventure of all. War with Russia."
I agree with her assessment that this is crazy. This is the most irresponsible thing yet
but it has been enabled by a fake news press just as it was enabled by the fake news media
all the times before."
Yes. This scenario is getting more and more likely. All steps point to that direction.
Skeptigal , February 17, 2018 at 11:10 pm
Unfortunately I'm not as confident. Here is the complete indictment at http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43091945
. There are three counts (with almost 70 allegations): 1. Conspiracy to Defraud the United
States 2. Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud And Bank Fraud and 3. Aggravated Identity Theft. It
ends with a forfeiture allegation seeking property, real or personal from the defendants.
The Russiagate affair has been going on for almost a year and I would think Mueller is
under a lot of pressure to find something to stick. This indictment may be it. Mueller will
be the hero; Trump may be saved as the interference started in 2014, before his campaign
began; the Hillary emails and Nunes memo will be cast aside; and the USA can say to the world
"see I told you so."
Once again, Russia's reputation will be taken down a few notches and made to suffer
another humiliation. And the US will move on to the next allegation, "UK and US blame Russia
for the malicious NotPetya cyberattack" (headline on BBC).
Martin - Swedish citizen , February 18, 2018 at 1:15 am
If the allegations are true, they need to be put in perspective:
– what might be the rational behind? Eg tit-for-tat for Western meddling, arms
race,
– do other nations engage in similar projects? What are the scale of those?
Starting in 2014 could it have been triggered by the Kiev coup and Nuland's was it five
billion?
"... That "faction" is the trump regime (cough) justice department. They are who indicted the 13. Do the math. The trump regime is the "deep state". ..."
"... The 13 indictments were brought by Special Prosecutor Mueller. Due to Jeff Sessions recusal, he is answerable only to Deep State Globalist, Asst. AG Rod Rosenstein. 0% Trump involvement. ..."
"... The indictments are so sketchy they are almost certain to collapse. https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/02/16/asst-attorney-general-rod-rosenstein-announces-robert-muellers-russian-election-interference-indictments/ ..."
On a related note . it is now apparently illegal to have opposed the Deep State's candidacy
of Hillary for President. 13 people indicted by the US prosecutors for "supporting the
presidential campaign of then-candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaging Hillary Clinton."
The faction in the USA that seems to desperately want a nuclear war is now prosecuting
people who opposed their candidate who virtually promised that nuclear war as a part of her
campaign platform. Trying to save humanity is no defence apparently against charges that one
interfered with the Deep State's plans for nuclear war.
Note, that this is not an isolated ruling. The people like priests and nuns who've
protested against America's nuclear arsenal have had judges rule in court that arguments
about the illegality of such programs (in violation of nuclear non-proliferation treaty) nor
the immorality of planning to kill every living human and wipe out the human race are not
permissible defenses to make against the charges filed against them.
Apparently one is now free to either die in a nuclear holocaust or to spend probably years
in a US prison. The land of the free!
"The faction in the USA that seems to desperately want a nuclear war is now prosecuting
people who opposed their candidate who virtually promised that nuclear war as a part of her
campaign platform."
That "faction" is the trump regime (cough) justice department. They are who indicted
the 13. Do the math. The trump regime is the "deep state".
The 13 indictments were brought by Special Prosecutor Mueller. Due to Jeff Sessions
recusal, he is answerable only to Deep State Globalist, Asst. AG Rod Rosenstein. 0% Trump
involvement.
Russia became a standard punch ball in the US political games. As in "Russia dog eat my homework."
Notable quotes:
"... This article is very important and outlines the destructive effort being done to Russia by the USA. It should be noted and clearly displayed by the psychopathic nature of USA meddling in Russian affairs. ..."
"... "With the current uproar about Russia interfering in the USA elections. It has to be noted that the Kremlin is very silent on this subject." ..."
"... It is extremely difficult and time consuming for an ordinary person to find the truth in the millions of pages on the Internet, the ordinary mushroom knowing that the MSM only serves you sh't and keeps you in the dark. ..."
"... Yea, just a common internet malpractice called spoofing, that any IT professional, especially one working in IT security, knows about. I suspected all along that most or all of this "Russian Hacking" and "Russians did it" was exactly that. ..."
With the current uproar about Russia interfering in the USA elections. It has to be noted that the Kremlin is very silent on this
subject. It is more important now than ever to bring forth information from Russia in exposing how serious the problem is from
the USA interfering in not only Russian affairs but how the intelligence community continues unabated in interfering in most countries.
This article is very important and outlines the destructive effort being done to Russia by the USA. It should be noted and
clearly displayed by the psychopathic nature of USA meddling in Russian affairs.
One has to wonder why people cannot see how the current government of the USA is totally out of control around the world.
Everything has its cycle of life and the USA is no exception to this theory. When humanity is controlled in such a fashion,
by that I mean that the USA is supported by the four pillars consisting of GREED, CORRUPTION, POWER and CONTROL. They are sitting
on the top of these structures and are desperately trying to maintain their grip over the world.
Perhaps the purpose is to "open Russia" to debunk those silly "Kremlin hacking" claims and give Empire more important information
inside Russia. E.g how to go deep through military security defense line.
Empire actually don't know what Russia don't know or do know. Is this chess where you have to sacrifice pawn or two or even
knight to secure queen and king? Or why to shoot fly with cannon?
"One has to wonder why people cannot see how the current government of the USA is totally out of control around the world." end
quote.
It is extremely difficult and time consuming for an ordinary person to find the truth in the millions of pages on the Internet,
the ordinary mushroom knowing that the MSM only serves you sh't and keeps you in the dark. The most reliable method (not
100 % though) is the "Follow the money" method, who has to gain by this or that development, but even that can lead to false conclusions.
Always count on that everyone has a hidden agenda, but watch out you are not gripped by paranoia.
Yea, just a common internet malpractice called spoofing, that any IT professional, especially one working in IT security,
knows about. I suspected all along that most or all of this "Russian Hacking" and "Russians did it" was exactly that.
What a pathetic waste of time. American society and government are really getting very low.
And, of course, reality is actually defined as "what you cannot change by speaking about it". You can change reality, a very
little bit at a time, by doing honest physical work.
"... Much later, in mid-2013, the idea of Shaltay-Boltay appeared. ..."
"... Anikeev had sources of information, the information itself, important and interesting one. Anikeev decided to leave the information and analytical structure for which he had been working, and start his own project. ..."
"... His role has been greatly exaggerated. He's just our mutual old friend. When we were getting significant numbers of files that had to be processed, we would ask Teplyakov to help, for a fee. We knew him and trusted him. ..."
"... Just then, I was beginning to get annoyed with the country, I decided to go to Thailand. When I started discussing this project with Anikeev, it seemed okay: you could engage in an interesting and promising business from home. What did I expect in financial terms? Definitely not the sale of arrays of information. I was rather thinking about advertising or administration fee. Lite-version. ..."
"... All the information came from Anikeev. I published the received information, perhaps, by illegal means, but I have nothing to do with how it was obtained. Yesterday, I sent a letter to the former President of Estonia Toomas Hendrik Ilves. I think by our actions, especially in 2014, when we were working on the idea, I deserved asylum in Estonia. So far no response was received. ..."
"... The Anonymous International published a lot of information from the correspondence of officials and businessmen between 2014 and 2016. Among the disclosed information was Dmitry Medvedev's hacked Twitter, and e-mail, Facebook, iPhone and iPad of owner of NewsMedia Holding Aram Gabrellyanov; e-mail and WhatsApp of TV host Dmitry Kiselev, official correspondence between the employees of "Prosecutor's Office" and the "Ministry of State Security" of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People's Republic, and a lot of other, equally interesting information. ..."
"... Before Anikeev's detention, Shaltay-Boltay also obtained the correspondence of the presidential assistant Vladislav Surkov. ..."
St. Petersburg programmer Alexander Glazastikov, who was hiding under the mask of Shaltay-Boltay (Humpty Dumpty), hoping for a
political asylum reached out to the former President of Estonia. He is the only member of Anonymous International who remains at
large.
Fontanka has been chasing the last Shaltay-Boltay member for a week. One member of the mysterious hacker group, which has been
leaking e-mails of businessmen and officials for three years was found in Estonia, but shied away from a direct talk.
After the news came that Anonymous International members Vladimir Anikeev, Konstantin Teplyakov, and Filinov were arrested, it
was not difficult to single out their colleague Alexander Glazastikov. The 'scary hackers' themselves, as it turned out, were quite
unrestrained on social networks and left striking marks on the Internet.
Five days ago, Alexander Glazastikov gave an evasive answer to the straight question sent by Fontanka via e-mail. Three days ago,
he admitted to being one of the Anonymous International on condition of anonymity. Then, he agreed to an interview saying "Come to
Estonia".
When, on the arranged day, a Fontanka reporter arrived to Tartu, Alexander dropped a bombshell: "I'm on my way to Tallinn: already
twenty kilometers away from Tartu." He suggested: "I can wait at the gas station Valmaotsa. Drive up, let's go together." It was
the offer, from which one cannot refuse. A taxi was found quickly.
When the meeting took place, the Shaltay-Boltay member, who was easily recognizable due to the photos from the web, surprised
the journalist once again: he silently passed him the ignition keys from the SUV. After a question, he explained: "You will have
to drive, I was drinking beer while waiting." There wasn't much of a choice, and the correspondent of Fontanka drove the hackers
group member to Tallinn to meet with the crew of Dozhd TV-channel and Ksenia Sobchak. 180 kilometers and two hours of time was enough
to have a decent conversation.
- Alexander, you are probably the only member of the Anonymous International who managed to remain at large. You're in Estonia,
the Russian justice is far away, can I call you by your name and surname?
- Perhaps, you can. Anyway, tomorrow or the day after, I will officially reach out to the authorities for a political asylum.
The FSB already knows my name.
- They know the surname. And who are you in the Anonymous International: Shaltay or Boltay?
- Shaltay, Boltay ... what a mess. Initially, when starting this project, Shaltay-Boltay was supposed to be a spokesman for the
Anonymous International. Mainly, I was doing this job. Then, Anikeev started introducing himself to the reporters as Lewis and got
everyone confused.
- How many people initiated the Anonymous International?
- Me, Anikeev. Teplyakov helped with some things, but purely technical aspects.
- Who is Filinov, whose arrest was reported in connection with Shaltay-Boltay?
- I don't know the man. He was not involved in the creation of the Anonymous International. I think this is Anikeev's acquaintance,
who accidentally got under the press. I've heard his name for the first time, when the media wrote about his arrest.
- Have you known Anikeev and Teplyakov for a long time?
- For a long time... There was a resource called Damochka.ru. When basically no social networks existed, and VKontakte only began
to emerge, everyone was on this website, it was one of the most fun projects. In the real world, meetings of the website users were
held, some users just organized those parties – Dima Gryzlov, Nikolai Bondarik, and Anikeev. That's how we met. Much later, in
mid-2013, the idea of Shaltay-Boltay appeared.
- How? Did you just decide that you would steal e-mails of bad people?
- Anikeev had sources of information, the information itself, important and interesting one. Anikeev decided to leave the
information and analytical structure for which he had been working, and start his own project.
- Could this project be called a business?
- It depends It was assumed that the project will bring substantial financial result, but initially it was made partly out of
ideological considerations.
- But Anikeev is not a hacker at all, judging by the stories of his former colleagues.
- True. If he needed to install any software on the computer, he would usually ask me to do it.
- But Teplyakov is a programmer.
- His role has been greatly exaggerated. He's just our mutual old friend. When we were getting significant numbers of files
that had to be processed, we would ask Teplyakov to help, for a fee. We knew him and trusted him.
- And why did you join this project?
- Just then, I was beginning to get annoyed with the country, I decided to go to Thailand. When I started discussing this
project with Anikeev, it seemed okay: you could engage in an interesting and promising business from home. What did I expect in financial
terms? Definitely not the sale of arrays of information. I was rather thinking about advertising or administration fee. Lite-version.
- With a reference to the investigation, there was information that Shaltay-Boltay has a whole network of agents with special
equipment, who, at places popular among local officials, steal information by creating fake Wi-Fi connections. Do you have a network?
- Complete nonsense. There were discussions about getting to know technical possibilities like this. As far as I know, and I know
a lot, in fact, we didn't have it.
- Where did you get the information from, then?
- From specialized hacking sites, one can order hacking someone else's e-mail box for a few thousand rubles.
- It worked successfully. If you remember 2014 was the most fruitful year. Serious stories, serious figures, and no commerce.
Strelkov, Prigozhin...
- Out of the three years that the project existed, 2014 was the most significant. I am proud of that year.
- But, from 2015, the Anonymous International has become almost a purely commercial project. How much money did you manage
to earn?
- Only one or two million dollars.
- So, you are now a rich man?
- No. Most of the money was spent on operating expenses, so to speak. There were about fifty boxes in the work. Plus, there were
variants in which a transaction was made not via bitcoins, but with the help of Anikeev's friends; these intermediaries could ask
for two thirds of the whole amount.
- Was there anyone above you and Anikeev? For several years, people have been wondering who Shaltay-Boltay works for?
- Funny. Everyone is looking for conspiracy, but, in fact, it was a 'quick and dirty' project made by me and Anikeev. However,
at some point, in the summer or in the spring of 2016, Anikeev said that some person from the FSB found us, he knew our names. Allegedly,
military counterintelligence was looking for us, but the FSB found our meadow attractive and decided to take control of our petty
pranks. They, supposedly, were uninterested in the commercial part of the project: the scale was much bigger, but they wanted to
supervise the project and to have the veto right. Mikhailov's name was not voiced, in fact, no one's was. Nothing, actually, happened:
no one used the veto right and no one leaked any information. If these mysterious people existed at all. And who turned whom in:
they – Anikeev or Anikeev – them, or even third force got them all, I do not know.
- How quickly did you find out about Anikeev's arrest?
- The next morning. He sent me a selfie from Pulkovo Airport, wrote that he checked in and flies to Minsk. The next morning, it
was reported that he was arrested and transported to Moscow. Given the subsequent events, it could be the game of the FSB. Then,
he contacted me, convinced that he solved all the issues and now works under the control of the FSB, called in me to Russia, but
I didn't believe him for some reason.
- Did Teplyakov believe?
- Teplyakov, in the summer of 2016, moved from Thailand to Kiev. He had no permanent earnings, he depended on Anikeev. When the
game was on, and it was claimed that the project would continue, but he needs to come to Russia and work there under supervision,
for safety reasons, as well, Teplyakov didn't have much of a choice. He went to Russia.
- Is there somewhere a chest with Shaltay-Boltay's information?
- Good question. I need to think how to respond. Well no, not really. What was sold and purchased by the clients was deleted.
What was sold was fairly deleted and this information doesn't exist anymore. Perhaps, some of our customers are now concerned about
this question, but what was declared, was implemented. Some operative material that we had been working on, I also deleted. Maybe
a couple of screenshots were left in the trash bin, but nothing more.
- Alexander, you're going to submit a request for a political asylum. Aren't you afraid that Estonians will simply put you
in a cell? In this country, they are very sensitive to computer security, and the specificity of computer crimes lies in the fact
that, for committing them, one can be prosecuted in almost any country?
- My position is that I was not personally involved in the cracking of passwords and sending malicious links. To me all that information
was already delivered in an open form. Yes, it was, probably, stolen...
- So were you ordering its thefts or not?
- No.
- Who did, then?
- All the information came from Anikeev. I published the received information, perhaps, by illegal means, but I have nothing
to do with how it was obtained. Yesterday, I sent a letter to the former President of Estonia Toomas Hendrik Ilves. I think by our
actions, especially in 2014, when we were working on the idea, I deserved asylum in Estonia. So far no response was received.
We drove to Tallinn. More and more texts came to Alexander's telephonefrom Dozhd TV journalists, who were preparing
to shoot with Ksenia Sobchak. After leaving the car in the parking lot, we said goodbye. Alexander Glazastikov promised to inform
when he receives a reply from the Estonian government.
It is to be recalled that Glazastikov's colleagues from the Anonymous International are awaiting trial in a predetention center.
The law enforcement agencies arrested Vladimir Anikeev and his two probable accomplices: Konstantin Teplyakov and Alexander Filinov.
The latter two were arrested as early as November 2016, and, on February 1, the judge of the Lefortovo District Court of Moscow extended
their detention until April. The alleged leader of the Anonymous International, who was acting under the nickname Lewis, was arrested
on January 28 after a short time spent in the company of police officers; he confessed.
All three are charged with the crimes stipulated under part 3 of Art. 272 of the Russian Criminal Code (Illegal access to legally-protected
computer information, which caused a major damage or has been committed because of vested interest or committed by a group of persons
by previous concert through his/her official position).
Initially, the media associated their criminal case with the investigation on the FSB staff and the manager of the Kaspersky Lab,
who were accused of treason, but later, the lawyer of one of the defendants denied this information.
The Anonymous International published a lot of information from the correspondence of officials and businessmen between 2014
and 2016. Among the disclosed information was Dmitry Medvedev's hacked Twitter, and e-mail, Facebook, iPhone and iPad of owner of
NewsMedia Holding Aram Gabrellyanov; e-mail and WhatsApp of TV host Dmitry Kiselev, official correspondence between the employees
of "Prosecutor's Office" and the "Ministry of State Security" of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People's Republic, and a lot of other,
equally interesting information.
Before Anikeev's detention, Shaltay-Boltay also obtained the correspondence of the presidential assistant Vladislav Surkov.
Taking oil price to 30th or 40th is a strategic goal of the USA in relation to Russia. Listen at 3:30.
Notable quotes:
"... Appeasing interview with a shockingly cheap incompetent former CIA head Woolsey. If this man seriously represents the intellectual level of the CIA, then the USA will implode even faster than in ten years. ..."
"... You are exactly right. U$ politicians are uninformed, stupid, detached from reality, selfish and they think like schoolyard kids do. ..."
"... They are the product of the US society as a whole. ..."
"... Craig Murray nailed this issue stone dead for all time a few years ago, when he wrote:"[neo]liberal interventionism, the theory that bombing brown people is good for them". ..."
"... In the former The Ukraine, the Jewish Quisling oligarch dictator, Poroshenko, has been appointing foreigners to positions of power (SackOfShvilli is but one). He supported this by stating: "Ukrainians are too corrupt to rule themselves." When will we in America hear such a statement from our leaders to justify the appointment of Jews and paid Judaeophiles to all positions of power? ..."
"... I'm just waiting for Yevgeny Prigozhin to hold a press conference in Russia to claim that Hillary Clinton paid him to run the Internet Research Agency to besmirch her opponent- watch the fireworks :) It's all a hall of mirrors. ..."
"... The Internet Research Agency couldn't have possibly been more ineffective, which points to it's main purpose being to besmirch Trump (more more likely it was just an unimportant hobby of Prigozhin). ..."
"... Sure the United States has, they have been doing it since 1953 with the overthrow of Iran, to as recently as 2012 Russian Election, 2014 Ukraine Election, the UK referendum on 23 June 2016 on Brexit and currently trying to overthrow it this year. These are just a few and there is a very long list of other countries also. The United States in now in Russia and Hungry today meddling it their elections. Got to get the right people in office so they will cow-tow to the United States. ..."
"... What an admission! trump doesn't want more drilling for oil to Americans to use. It is for export and for foreign interference ..."
"... and if the price of oil would go down to 30/40$ that would make a unhappy input and so would be the saudis and you fracking industry would go down the toilet and thy will drag the banks with them. What a moron. And US oil companies would like that alot too ..."
Another tiresome, butthurt yank/wank? Between the new One Belt, One Road Chinese initiative, the Russians taking control of
ME oil production and the fact that america has NO answers to help it's declining empire, it would seem to the non-partisan observer
that america is well and truly f***ed. You must be talking about their debt expansionism, $20 TRILLION and rising by the second.
Thank you Mario......let's not forget Ukraine, Kosovo, Bosnia, the entirety of eastern Europe, the entirety of northern Africa,
Rwanda, the Congo, Venezuela, Chili, Guatemala, Panama, Jeeeeeeeze etc......
Russia condemned and defined as the enemy of America with laughably little evidence (effing Facebook posts being about the
extent of it) .... not a word about JEWISH MONEY controlling the entire political system in the USA. When Netanyahu gets 29 standing
ovations from Congress should that not have triggered an FBI "Investigation"? Nah ... nothing happening there. It is breathtaking
that THIS is the Alice-In-Wonderland world we inhabit.
Appeasing interview with a shockingly cheap incompetent former CIA head Woolsey. If this man seriously represents the intellectual
level of the CIA, then the USA will implode even faster than in ten years.
Craig Murray nailed this issue stone dead for all time a few years ago, when he wrote:"[neo]liberal interventionism, the theory that bombing brown people is good for them".
Yeah, that's hilarious. Join the murdering creep in a giggle, Laura, that's cute. Here's a global criminal who should have
been hung years ago for crimes against humanity. No one in their right mind would treat this creep with anything but contempt
and horror, let alone find him funny.
In the former The Ukraine, the Jewish Quisling oligarch dictator, Poroshenko, has been appointing foreigners to positions of
power (SackOfShvilli is but one). He supported this by stating: "Ukrainians are too corrupt to rule themselves." When will we
in America hear such a statement from our leaders to justify the appointment of Jews and paid Judaeophiles to all positions of
power?
My profound and sincere condolences. You are getting the 'Democracy Treatment' by the West. I hope some of you survive to tell
the tale and take revenge.
Are those ears or bat-wings? WOW! Yet another Jewe, pretending not be be. I guess he would say that the USA murdered all the
Indians and enslaved Africans 'for their own good' as well.
Talmudo-Satanism is the pernicious underlying ideology of the people who have taken over, not just the USA, but, lets face it,
the entire West.
Lets not forget that the U.$.A. meddled in Australia's election of the Whitlam Government. (And several governments there after
as soon as they realised they could get away with it an nothing would happen to them). The United States are a bunch of sick puppies;
really sick puppies the way they have treated Australia.
So much for being allies. With allies like the United States you don't need enemies (Unless the U.$. doctors them up for you
to force you to pay them more money for weapons and protection).
And it makes me sick that so many 'naive' people around the world keep falling for the SH*T that comes out of their mouths.
When dealing with the United States there are a few rules to follow. (Apologies to the innocent Americans out there but 'they'
allow their government to do some unspeakable horrors to the world.)
Rule One: If an American politician is speaking, then they are lying to you.
Rule Two: If an American Politician is quiet, they they want you to believe a lie.
Rule Three: If you have relations with the United States, you will be lied to.
And that goes for the entire planet no matter who the United States is speaking to.
Worst part is the our Gov can't think ahead, if they keep antagonising China on behalf of the Seppo's China will eventually
pull their mineral imports and our economy will crash overnight.
Yes, nobody doubts that the US interferes with elections in other countries - we're the good guys, so this is ok :)
I'm just waiting for Yevgeny Prigozhin to hold a press conference in Russia to claim that Hillary Clinton paid him to run the
Internet Research Agency to besmirch her opponent- watch the fireworks :) It's all a hall of mirrors.
The Internet Research Agency couldn't have possibly been more ineffective, which points to it's main purpose being to besmirch
Trump (more more likely it was just an unimportant hobby of Prigozhin).
Sure the United States has, they have been doing it since 1953 with the overthrow of Iran, to as recently as 2012 Russian Election,
2014 Ukraine Election, the UK referendum on 23 June 2016 on Brexit and currently trying to overthrow it this year. These are just
a few and there is a very long list of other countries also. The United States in now in Russia and Hungry today meddling it their
elections. Got to get the right people in office so they will cow-tow to the United States.
Frederick the Great concluded that to allow governments to be dominated by the majority would be
disastrous: "A democracy, to survive, must be, like other governments a minority persuading a majority to let itself be led by
a minority."
and if the price of oil would go down to 30/40$ that would make a unhappy input and so would be the saudis and you fracking
industry would go down the toilet and thy will drag the banks with them. What a moron. And US oil companies would like that alot too
...and the US bombed half of the world's countries for their own good too. US made Libya a slave market for humanity's good
as well. Oboomer even got the Nobel Peace Prize for it.
"... . As usual, the most appropriate response amounts to contemptuous, refined amusement ..."
"... It's not as though we have a lack of ludicrous, ridiculous material. As the inventor of this site once described, how did the people in the late-era Soviet Union fight their declining regime? Jokes. ..."
Frankly, I don't really see too big a problem with people swallowing the hogwash about "Kremlin disinformation trolls" working
to undermine the West's irrepressible belief in itself. As usual, the most appropriate response amounts to contemptuous,
refined amusement:
"They seem to know indeed what they are talking about -- well worth their salary for doing
honest work."
If you cannot change the Weltanschau of Ziomedia addicts, then at least you're fully
entitled to have some fun at the slobs' expense.
Absolutely, humor is one of the best weapons around. The more pompous a person is, the more
they hate being dropped down to size. Pop goes the balloon of hot air.
Humor has probably
woken more people up than any other method.
It's not as though we have a lack of ludicrous,
ridiculous material. As the inventor of this site once described, how did the people in the
late-era Soviet Union fight their declining regime? Jokes.
"... What this guy did (who is not "Putin's Chef", a term that uses the ever-favorite smear of putting something next to Putin to make people think there is guilt among both parties) is what every sleazy purveyor of fake profiles and fake likes does. If you have done any work in marketing or social platforms, you will have seen dozens of the same outfits. ..."
"... They're also happy to sell you ads that will target these fake people, pocketing the cash without achieving any results for the business owner buying the ads. Meanwhile, the US Cointelpro operation continues, masquerading as an actual investigatio ..."
"... Of course the New York Times and Washington Post have reacted to this like US Cavalry coming to the rescue in the last reel of a 1950's B-movie by demanding that Trump apologizes and accepts that their stories about Russian interference in the elections, were true and had nothing to do with 'fake news.' How convenient for them! After all this time, this is what Mueller can come up with, give me a break! ..."
"... Maybe they should sue Mueller for libel, go on the offensive? So Mueller's accusations are 'free', cause he knows the Russians can't really reply. It's a kind of smear. ..."
"... And what about conflating 'Russians' with 'Russia' all the time? A hacker or troll living in Russia doesn't represent 'Russia.' There's this ghastly wave of hysteria sweeping the United States and it's dangerous. ..."
"... With this indictment: Rod Rosenstein has come clean and delivered on solemn oath that the entire Russiagate farrago is baseless and evidence free. The only thing he has truly indicted is the obvious and continually developing disassociation of the American ruling class psyche from reality. ..."
"... "'We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality." ..."
"... An empire of unreality that can no longer be connected to the experiential, discernible and true. Such men are the architects of the demise of the dominant culture of lies? ..."
"... "a grand jury would 'indict a ham sandwich,' if that's what you wanted." – Sol Wachtler ..."
"... Well, they (Cocaine Importing Authority) do have history ..."
"... I personally know almost all pro-Russian English-speakers that have an influence on English language alternative and social media. None of them are Russians. If they ever were, they emigrated decades ago. There is no one that can translate Russian talking points from Russian society and media into the English speaking world. ..."
"... When will we discover who in Britain gave Steele authority to send his Dossier to the Clinton campaign? He needed that approval because the information was gleaned when in post as the Head of the Russian Desk of MI6 in quite recent times, apart from the normal requirements of the Official Secrets Act. Given that MI6 are an Intelligence Agency it's fair to assume they knew the Dossier's destination and the purpose to which it was to be put. Wasn't that interfering in the US election? ..."
"... The absurdity is that America spends billions on doing exactly these sort of things. $5 billion on Ukraine before pulling off the coup, according to Nuland. But that's just a crumb of the total mis-information cake. It's what the CIA spends most of its time doing! ..."
"... Since 1992, the government has spent about $5.1 billion to support democracy-building programs in Ukraine, Thompson said, with money flowing mostly from the Department of State via U.S. Agency for International Development, as well as the departments of Defense, Energy, Agriculture and others. The United States does this with hundreds of other countries. ..."
"... About $2.4 billion went to programs promoting peace and security, which could include military assistance, border security, human trafficking issues, international narcotics abatement and law enforcement interdiction, Thompson said. More money went to categories with the objectives of "governing justly and democratically" ($800 million), "investing in people" ($400 million), economic growth ($1.1 billion), and humanitarian assistance ($300 million). ..."
"... The descriptions are a bit vague, which could lead people to think the money was used for some clandestine purpose. ..."
"... But let's be clear, by "democracy building programs" they mean sending in NGOs to promote the "values" of austerity and debt, and they mean funding candidates for elections approved by the IMF because they have agreed to promote austerity and debt. They aren't promoting democracy, they are promoting the western political belief system. They are also acting to disenfranchise and discredit people who don't support this system. Just as Yeltsin in Russia, so Yarushenko, Yatseniuk & Poroshenko in Ukraine – men prepare to tank the standard of living for ordinary people and asset-strip the country. ..."
"... An indictment is simply an accusation. Since all 13 (what a magical number) of these people are in Russia, and there's no extradition agreement with Russia, they will never be able to get a trial to exonerate themselves. ..."
"... Meanwhile, Clinton was running a fraudulent charity and accepted 145 million dollars in "donations" from Russian Banks. ..."
What this guy did (who is not "Putin's Chef", a
term that uses the ever-favorite smear of putting something next to Putin to make people
think there is guilt among both parties) is what every sleazy purveyor of fake profiles and
fake likes does. If you have done any work in marketing or social platforms, you will have
seen dozens of the same outfits.
I've even seen them in operation, delivering tons of fake
followers and such. The goal is straight up sleazy commerce, and it should be noted that ALL
the social platforms, especially Facebook, not only tolerate this but turn a blind eye as it
makes their platform appear to have more users than it actually does.
They're also happy to
sell you ads that will target these fake people, pocketing the cash without achieving any
results for the business owner buying the ads. Meanwhile, the US Cointelpro operation
continues, masquerading as an actual investigation.
It's a really awful sign of the times we live in, when the Guardian, supposedly a
beacon of truth and true liberal, left-of-centre values, is so eager to swallow stuff like
this latest report from Mueller on face value alone without any examination of the wider
internal US context; the people and forces Mueller represent.
Of course the New York Times and Washington Post have reacted to this like US Cavalry
coming to the rescue in the last reel of a 1950's B-movie by demanding that Trump apologizes
and accepts that their stories about Russian interference in the elections, were true and had
nothing to do with 'fake news.' How convenient for them! After all this time, this is what
Mueller can come up with, give me a break!
It's all so pathetic. There's no way these Russians will receive a fair trial in the
US, even if they decided to turn up for a hearing. Maybe they should sue Mueller for libel,
go on the offensive? So Mueller's accusations are 'free', cause he knows the Russians can't
really reply. It's a kind of smear.
And what about conflating 'Russians' with 'Russia' all the time? A hacker or troll
living in Russia doesn't represent 'Russia.' There's this ghastly wave of hysteria sweeping
the United States and it's dangerous. What's appalling is how the left/liberal press,
typified by the ghastly Guardian, goes along with it all, without a murmur of protest,
criticism or real searching analysis.
The title and description of the linked article is right from the Time Magazine web
site:
(( Yanks to the Rescue: the Secret Story of How American Advisors Helped Yeltsin Win
))
article description from Time's site –
"THE SECRET STORY OF HOW FOUR U.S. ADVISERS USED POLLS, FOCUS GROUPS, NEGATIVE ADS AND
ALL THE OTHER TECHNIQUES OF AMERICAN CAMPAIGNING TO HELP BORIS YELTSIN WIN"
What we do 'in secret' we must expect to be secretly arraigned against us, and the
knowledge that we do such thinks enforces the conviction the 'Other' is a deceiver, whatever
they say or do. Because such is our own false witness.
With this indictment: Rod Rosenstein has come clean and delivered on solemn oath that the
entire Russiagate farrago is baseless and evidence free. The only thing he has truly indicted
is the obvious and continually developing disassociation of the American ruling class psyche
from reality.
"'We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality."
An empire of unreality that can no longer be connected to the experiential, discernible
and true. Such men are the architects of the demise of the dominant culture of lies?
Well the fact you find it per se impossible the CIA would run a fake "Russian troll"
outfit says more about your utter naivety than anything else. I'm not completely convinced
that is what is going on in Savushkina Street. I think MoA is closer in pointing out it's
just a slightly dodgy internet marketing outfit who are paid to say nice or nasty things
about a whole range of things, mostly non-political.
Well we had Goldman Sachs CEO splashed all over the BBC website demanding UK remain in EU.
After the Referendum. We had The Black Dude threatening to send us to the back of the queue
if we were not subservient little vassals voting Remain. That was Headline News too. None of
us asked the Black Dude to interfere in Our Referendum, but he did it anyway, because America
does what it wants and everyone else gets indicted if they do the same thing back.
Just ask yourselves this: if you had a mad dog fascist HillaryBilly campaigning for US
President saying: ' NUKE (insert your nation's name HERE)!', you would just sit by and say,
'Oh, none of my business'.
Basic lesson to subnormal, cretinous Yanks: as soon as your election campaigns on
foreign wars, foreign blockades, foreign threats to nation state sovereignty, it is no longer
just your business. Any politician eho says otherwise, in fact any Yank who says otherwise,
has lost all right to human rights. Why? Because you have said that the right to safety
within a doctrine of self-determination for the rest of the world does not exist without
kissing America's ass .
Stop treating Americans as anything other than violent, psychopathic cretins who should
be incarcerated for the safety of the world.
It is pointless treating them as human beings when they never behave like human beings
..
I treat others as I would in truth be treated, not as a result of any set of rules of
'deservability' made in my mind or acquired from any other, but because such is a core sanity
of being that does not give worthship to hate and thereby become the think it hates.
Oh I can feel hateful feelings – but these are MINE. and as mine they are in my power
to release, rather than be defined and driven by.
So I appreciate your points, but not your personal result.
The elites operate on this sort of thinking:
"It is pointless treating them as human beings when they never behave like human beings
."
WHO defines what is a human being and how they 'should' behave?
A set of rules?
I agree that cause and consequence belong together – for only in recognising and
accepting consequence can we reconnect with true cause – and so cause a different life
than an attempt to deny and displace consequence to 'others' deemed unlike our self.
Power class operates (manipulates) its population while people use others (manipulate)
to evade their own responsibilities ie they give power away in exchange for what they get, or
believe they have got rid of. For example, they have got rid of guilt by assigning blame to
others who failed to act as their 'rules' required. Except the results of guilt are still
active in their own minds and bodies and not in those who 'fail us'.
Manipulation in a pure sense would be for example holding a tool correctly so as to
attain the desired result, but in the sense of manipulative deceit, it holds the
consciousness in distortion so as to achieve a wished for result.
Manipulative thinking – not Americans – runs the global agenda – and
whatever agencies serve purpose, including the USA. It does so while conferring some sense of
power and protection, in self specialness.
If you are too angry to read and consider, that's ok. But to assign it to a blanket
blaming of Americans as unworthy of their humanity is playing the 'god' of vengeance. Perhaps
this 'god' is the nature of the Beast.
Playing 'god' is the attempt to make reality be as your own Word defines. The lack of
support, encountered rejection and sense of betrayal that follows is the 'wound' of a terror
that generates the 'god' of rage as power and protection.
With regard to 'headline news', what ISN'T a psyop?
Whilst I fully appreciate the wisdom in removing the log from your own eye before you
touch the splinter in someone else's eye, there comes a time when you have to take the f***er
out.
Mueller's indictment rests on the false claim that the suspended 'Russia-connected'
Twitter and Facebook accounts were controlled by a non-existent company and 13
Russian individuals in Saint Petersburg. The only thing that connects the anonymous U.S.
accounts to Russia or the hoax " Internet Research
Agency " is that they may have used some Russian VPN service to hide their identities
from NSA and FBI spies.
Twitter and Facebook self suspended the accounts based on some connection to Russia,
including use of Russian IP addresses or Cyrillic letters in administrator names. They had no
way of knowing if all accounts were controlled from a single "troll factory" or if that troll
factory was operated by a company named "Internet Research Agency". (If they had such
information, they would have said so.)
The whole thing is hoax. It is impossible for Russians to impersonate American internet
personalities, when they are unable to speak up in English under their own names. Russia does
not have the people and skills needed to maintain English language accounts that would
influence and resonate among the American audience and electorate – yet alone do this
at a minimum wage in a "troll factory" sweatshop.
I personally know almost all pro-Russian English-speakers that have an influence on
English language alternative and social media. None of them are Russians. If they ever were,
they emigrated decades ago. There is no one that can translate Russian talking points from
Russian society and media into the English speaking world.
The amerikans will be relying on the Russians never getting their day in an open court.
Can't have a repetition of the George Galloway business see here now can we?
The 'grand' jury process is even more corrupt deceitful and one sided than so called senate
inquiries. At least with shit hurled from the hill, a bloke does eventually get the
opportunity to speak against the allegations – albeit in a controlled environment where
the accuser chairs the meeting, but a Grand Jury, which is similarly controlled by the
prosecutor, provides no room for a defense argument.
The carefully hand selected 'jurors' unlike amerika's senators, most of whom are graduates of
amerika's prestigious law schools, lack any legal training.
The law they are charged with investigating breaches of, is complex, riven with contradictory
precedents and completely outside any retired contractor's area of expertise. So they rely on
the prosecutor to tell em what's what.
amerikans are forthright in their condemnation of everyone else's legal system but the
amerikan one has to be the most corrupt power serving travesty known to man.
Ask J. Assange who lives under the shadow of a so-called 'sealed indictment' which he's not
even meant to know exists, much less what is contained in it and what deceits have been told
by alleged 'co-conspirators' aka jailhouse snitches.
Assange will find out should he ever be kidnapped and abducted to amerika and held in
solitary isolation under the 1917 espionage act – otherwise like many others including
hundreds who have never even set foot in that arsehole of the universe, the us, also stitched
up by grand jury, he must live in ignorance of the accusations and with no right of
reply.
Thank you for the link to George Galloway's interrogation. He sure told them in no
uncertain terms. The US justice system seems to be corrupt beyond redemption. So glad I don't
live there and feel sorry for the ones that do to be honest.
When will we discover who in Britain gave Steele authority to send his Dossier to the
Clinton campaign? He needed that approval because the information was gleaned when in post as
the Head of the Russian Desk of MI6 in quite recent times, apart from the normal requirements
of the Official Secrets Act. Given that MI6 are an Intelligence Agency it's fair to assume
they knew the Dossier's destination and the purpose to which it was to be put. Wasn't that
interfering in the US election?
Former intel analyst and regular UK Column guest, Alex Thomson, named Sir Richard Dearlove
(he of dodgy dossier No1, seems to have had a hand in dodgy dossier N02?) However, I can't
find the exact day or time for reference.
The absurdity is that America spends billions on doing exactly these sort of things. $5
billion on Ukraine before pulling off the coup, according to Nuland. But that's just a crumb
of the total mis-information cake. It's what the CIA spends most of its time doing!
Politifact directly asked the State Department and looked at public information
released by the U.S. government since 2009 to sample what the money was spent on:
Since 1992, the government has spent about $5.1 billion to support democracy-building
programs in Ukraine, Thompson said, with money flowing mostly from the Department of State
via U.S. Agency for International Development, as well as the departments of Defense, Energy,
Agriculture and others. The United States does this with hundreds of other countries.
About $2.4 billion went to programs promoting peace and security, which could include
military assistance, border security, human trafficking issues, international narcotics
abatement and law enforcement interdiction, Thompson said. More money went to categories with
the objectives of "governing justly and democratically" ($800 million), "investing in people"
($400 million), economic growth ($1.1 billion), and humanitarian assistance ($300
million).
The descriptions are a bit vague, which could lead people to think the money was used
for some clandestine purpose.
But even if it that were so, the money in question was spent over more than 20 years.
Yanukovych was elected in 2010. So any connection between the protests and the $5 billion is
inaccurate.
The State Department created ForeignAssistance.gov to help taxpayers, journalists and
others find out where the money is going, but the data is limited in the number of years
available and not reported by all agencies.
From that website, we calculated the United States spent $456.4 million in Ukraine
since 2009. Again, that's an incomplete picture based on incomplete data reporting.
Some examples? The United States spent about $20 million on Peace Corps programs in
Ukraine over the past four years. It spent about $40 million through U.S. AID on health
programs in the countries since 2010 -- fighting HIV/AIDs, malaria and providing for maternal
and child health. The United States spent an additional $80 million or so working on projects
related to weapons of mass destruction , according to ForeignAssistance.gov.
Since 1992, the government has spent about $5.1 billion to support democracy-building
programs in Ukraine .
But let's be clear, by "democracy building programs" they mean sending in NGOs to
promote the "values" of austerity and debt, and they mean funding candidates for elections
approved by the IMF because they have agreed to promote austerity and debt. They aren't
promoting democracy, they are promoting the western political belief system. They are also
acting to disenfranchise and discredit people who don't support this system. Just as Yeltsin
in Russia, so Yarushenko, Yatseniuk & Poroshenko in Ukraine – men prepare to tank
the standard of living for ordinary people and asset-strip the country.
Whether that $5 billion was spent over ten years or twenty the result has been the
same.
The United States spent about $20 million on Peace Corps programs in Ukraine over the
past four years. It spent about $40 million through U.S. AID on health programs in the
countries since 2010 -- fighting HIV/AIDs, malaria and providing for maternal and child
health. The United States spent an additional $80 million or so working on projects related
to weapons of mass destruction, according to ForeignAssistance.gov.
Have you noticed how whatever money is allegedly spent on this worthy projects the
countries receiving never seem to improve? They all become debt-slaves, they all end up
exporting cheap goods to western countries and letting the IMF tell them how to run
things.
An indictment is simply an accusation. Since all 13 (what a magical number) of these
people are in Russia, and there's no extradition agreement with Russia, they will never be
able to get a trial to exonerate themselves.
Meanwhile, Clinton was running a fraudulent charity and accepted 145 million dollars in
"donations" from Russian Banks..
"... There is no possibility that any of the Russians named in the indictment will ever be extradited to the US to stand trial there. Special Counsel Mueller cannot therefore obtain convictions against these people, which begs the question of why an indictment was issued at all. ..."
"... The short answer is that the indictment is intended to give credence to the claim of 'Russian meddling' in the US election, which has been made both privately and publicly ever since campaigning in the US began in 2015. ..."
"... Presumably, by giving that claim credence, more reasons can now be offered for keeping Special Counsel Mueller in his job. ..."
"... Nowhere in the indictment is the Russian government or any official of the Russian government or any agency of the Russian government mentioned at all. Nor at any point in the indictment is it suggested that any of the persons indicted were employed by the Russian government or were acting under its instructions or on its behalf. ..."
"... I would add that the indictment shows that US intelligence has successfully hacked the Internet Research Agency, LCC, a fact which by the way suggests that its internal security systems are very weak. The result is that US intelligence is very well informed about its structure, funding, personnel and activities. ..."
Indictment describes botched and
amateur attempt to use social media, but no one in the Trump Campaign was involved
A recurring pattern of the Russiagate investigation is that whenever pressure increases on the FBI and on
Special Counsel Mueller an indictment appears.
This happened in October when following the FBI's admission that the Trump Dossier – the keystone in the
"evidence" of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia – could not be verified and the Wall Street
Journal called for Special Counsel Mueller to resign, indictments against Paul Manafort, Rick Gates and
George Papadopoulos appeared.
It happened again in December when growing demands from Congress – from Senator Lindsey Graham in
particular – for another Special Counsel to be appointed were followed by the indictment of Michael Flynn.
It has now happened again.
Hot on the heels of the publication of the GOP memorandum, which catalogued a succession of breaches of
due process by the Justice Department and the FBI in seeking surveillance warrants against Carter Page, we
have a new indictment, this time against 13 Russian nationals and three Russian entities.
In every case the indictment is received with rapture by the Russiagate conspiracy theorists.
In every case the indictment appears to be intended to give the impression that progress in the
Russiagate investigation is being made, presumably so as to justify keeping Special Counsel Mueller in his
job.
In every case it turns out that the indictment is a damp squib, taking the whole Russiagate conspiracy
theory no further forward.
The latest
indictment
against 13 Russian citizens and three Russian entities is a case in point.
The first thing to say about this indictment is that it is entirely declamatory.
There is no possibility that any of the Russians named in the indictment will ever be extradited to the
US to stand trial there. Special Counsel Mueller cannot therefore obtain convictions against these people,
which begs the question of why an indictment was issued at all.
The short answer is that the indictment is intended to give credence to the claim of 'Russian meddling'
in the US election, which has been made both privately and publicly ever since campaigning in the US began
in 2015.
Presumably, by giving that claim credence, more reasons can now be offered for keeping Special Counsel
Mueller in his job.
The second thing to say about the indictment is that as even Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein has
admitted
, it makes no claim that any US citizen or any member of the Trump campaign in any way colluded
with Russia or with any of the persons named in the indictment either before or after the election.
Rosenstein was very clear about this in the
press conference
he held directly following the publication of the indictment
Now, there is no allegation in this indictment that any American was a knowing participant in this
illegal activity. There is no allegation in the indictment that the charged conduct altered the outcome
of the 2016 election ..
QUESTION: On page 4 of the indictment, paragraph 6, it specifically talks about the Trump campaign,
saying that defendants communicated with unwitting individuals associated with the Trump campaign.
My question is, later in the indictment, campaign officials are referenced, not by their name; by
"campaign official 1" or "2" or "3." Were campaign officials cooperative, or were they duped? What is
their relationship with this?
ROSENSTEIN: Again, there's no allegation in this indictment that any American had any knowledge. And
the nature of the scheme was the defendants took extraordinary steps to make it appear that they were
ordinary American political activists, even going so far as to base their activities on a virtual private
network here in the United States so, if anybody traced it back to that first jump, they appeared to be
Americans.
President Trump is treating this admission as further confirmation that there was no collusion between
his campaign and Russia, and he is right.
Russia started their anti-US campaign in 2014, long before I announced that I
would run for President. The results of the election were not impacted. The Trump campaign did nothing
wrong – no collusion!
The third thing to say about the indictment – and a point which has been almost universally overlooked in
all the feverish commentary about it – is that it makes
no
claim that the Russian
government was in any way involved in any of the activities of the persons indicted.
Nowhere in the indictment is the Russian government or any official of the Russian government or any
agency of the Russian government mentioned at all. Nor at any point in the indictment is it suggested that
any of the persons indicted were employed by the Russian government or were acting under its instructions or
on its behalf.
Again Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein's
press conference
is most revealing about this, with him speaking of the persons named in the indictment
as if they were private persons
The indictment charges 13 Russian nationals and three Russian companies for committing federal crimes
while seeking to interfere in the United States political system, including the 2016 presidential
election.
The defendants allegedly conducted what they called information warfare against the United States,
with the stated goal of spreading distrust towards the candidates and the political system in general.
According to the allegations in the indictment, 12 of the individual defendants worked, at various
times, for a company called Internet Research Agency, LLC, a Russian company based in St. Petersburg.
The other individual defendant, Yevgeny Viktorovich Prigozhin, funded the conspiracy through companies
known as Concord Management and Consulting, LLC; Concord Catering; and many affiliates and subsidiaries.
The conspiracy was part of a larger operation called Project Lakhta. Project Lakhta included multiple
components, some involving domestic audiences within the Russian Federation, and others targeting foreign
audiences in multiple countries.
Internet Research Agency allegedly operated through Russian shell companies. It employed hundreds of
people in its online operations, ranging from creators of fictitious personas, to technical and
administrative support personnel, with an annual budget of millions of dollars.
Internet Research Agency was a structured organization headed by a management group and arranged into
departments, including graphics, search engine optimization, information technology and finance
departments.
In 2014, the company established a translator project focused on the United States. In July of 2016,
more than 80 employees were assigned to the translator project. Two of the defendants allegedly traveled
to the United States in 2014 to collect intelligence for their American influence operations.
Note that there is nothing here that ties any of the individuals or entities named by Rosenstein to the
Russian government.
The arch conspirator is said to be a Russian businessman called Yevgeny Prigozhin, who is alleged to have
masterminded and funded the whole project.
Prigozhin has in fact long been identified in Russia as the owner of the notorious Internet Research
Agency, LLC, the supposed Russian "troll farm" operating out of a nondescript building in St. Petersburg
(shown in caption photograph).
It has moreover often been suggested in Russia that Internet Research Agency, LLC, is Prigozhin's own
personal project.
Certainly no public information linking the Internet Research Agency, LLC, to the Russian government or
to any Russian state institution has ever come to light.
Perhaps Rosenstein and Mueller have information that Prigozhin was indeed acting at the behest and on
behalf of the Russian government. Perhaps they may have some reason for not disclosing the fact in their
indictment.
However, for what it's worth, the indictment lends support to the theory that the Internet Research
Agency, LLC, is indeed Prigozhin's own personal project, and that the Russian government is not involved in
it.
I would add that the indictment shows that US intelligence has successfully hacked the Internet Research
Agency, LCC, a fact which by the way suggests that its internal security systems are very weak. The result
is that US intelligence is very well informed about its structure, funding, personnel and activities.
That suggests that if there really was some connection between the Internet Research Agency, LLC, and the
Russian government the US authorities would be well informed about it.
The fact that neither the indictment nor Rosenstein in his press conference had anything to say about
such a connection rather suggests that no evidence for a connection has been discovered, probably because it
does not exist.
I would add – though this will be fiercely denied by some people – that it would be a grave mistake to
think that it is impossible for an agency like the Internet Research Agency, LLC, to be set up in Russia on
someone's private initiative. On the contrary, those genuinely familiar with the country know that such
things go on there all the time.
The fourth thing to say about the indictment is that it centres exclusively on the social media
activities about which so much has been said in the last few months as the evidence of collusion between the
Trump campaign and Russia has failed to appear.
I have said very little about this aspect of the Russiagate affair up to now because I have felt that
this aspect of the affair was not in any way important.
This is because the social media activities of which the Internet Research Agency, LLC, and its employees
have been accused of have looked both astonishingly incoherent (witness that the indictment says that they
were promoting both pro- and anti-Trump rallies on the same day) and quantitatively insignificant, making
their impact on the election inconsequential.
The indictment gives no reason to change that view.
The highest number of followers of any of the bogus social media accounts that were set up is alleged by
the indictment to have been in the hundreds of thousands, whereas social media activity on any given day
runs into the tens of millions.
The social media advertisements mentioned in the indictment appear to have been par for the course during
the election, and to have attracted no special interest.
The indictment fails to give numbers for any of the rallies which the persons who have been indicted
allegedly tried to organise via social media; that suggests that the number of persons who attended these
rallies was insignificant.
That even some of those involved were not taking the project wholly seriously is shown by this frivolous
episode solemnly recorded in paragraphs 12 (a) and (b) of the indictment
a.PRIGOZHIN approved and supported the ORGANIZATION's operations, and Defendants and their
co-conspirators were aware of PRIGOZHIN's role.
b.For example, on or about May 29, 2016, Defendants and their co-conspirators, through an
ORGANIZATION-controlled social media account, arranged for a real U.S. person to stand in front of the
White House in the District of Columbia under false pretenses and hold a sign that read "Happy 55th
Birthday Dear Boss." Defendants and their co-conspirators informed the real U.S. person that the sign was
for someone who "is a leader here and our boss our funder." PRIGOZHIN's Russian passport identifies his
date of birth as June 1, 1961.
This silly stunt provides more reason for thinking Prigozhin was the author of the whole project.
I do not wish to trivialise what happened.
Assuming that the claims made in the indictment are true – as I believe they are – then multiple serious
crimes were committed.
These included cruel deceptions of innocent people, as well as cases of identity theft. The latter
especially is a very serious crime, the impact or seriousness of which should not be minimised.
However I cannot believe that any of this activity – which looks like a botched and amateur attempt by
Prigozhin to copy some of the highly professional 'colour revolution' activities carried out around the
world by various US and Western NGOs – had any conceivable bearing on the outcome of the US election.
No less a person than Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein has moreover said as much
There is no allegation in the indictment that the charged conduct altered the outcome of the 2016
election
QUESTION: Jack, is there concern that this -- the (ph) indictment undermines the outcome of the
election?
ROSENSTEIN: Well, haven't I (ph) identified for you the allegations in the indictment? There's no
allegation in the indictment of any effect on the outcome of the election.
In summary, the latest indictment to have come from Special Counsel Mueller's team, far from causing
problems for President Trump, actually helps him.
In the one part of the Russiagate conspiracy theory in which some evidence of Russian activity exists –
the part relating to social media – it turns out that President Trump's campaign was not involved, and those
members of his campaign who got drawn into the activities of Prigozhin and his people were completely
innocent dupes.
As for the activity itself, the indictment shows that it was carried out on far too small a scale and in
far too amateur and disorganised a way for it to have had any impact on the election, and the US authorities
do not claim that it did.
It is also my personal view that what we are looking at is a private project cooked up by Yevgeny
Prigozhin, who appears to fancy himself a sort of Russian anti-Soros.
If I am right about that then it is clear that Prigozhin has neither the high level backing nor the skill
to play that role successfully, and his clumsy attempts to do so have instead simply caused Russia
embarrassment and trouble.
I accept that the latter view will be disputed by many – though the evidence in my opinion supports it –
but even if I am wrong about that, it does not detract from the fundamental fact that no evidence of
collusion between anyone in the Trump campaign and Russia appears in the latest indictment, and that the
activities catalogued in the indictment can have had no effect on the outcome of the election, and the US
authorities do not say that they did.
How is this "news"? The US has been meddling in foreign elections for hundreds of years. When we can't change the results,
we change the leader. We have assassinated foreign leaders. We have organized revolutions. We have carried out false flag "terrorist"
attacks to destabilize countries.
Russia has paid for a few Facebook trolls. Boo hoo. Better that than the typical US method of kidnapping and torturing opposition
leaders we don't like. Fuck America and it's brutish hypocrisy.
Woolsey is one of many profiles in the "machine" that turns out the worst socio/psychopaths called Langley!... Much like the
Department of Defense they train them to believe they are the most highly intelligent and capable in espionage even when they
"lose" and lose "badly"!
They look at themselves as superior beings in every way that deserve and expect no restraint. And are repeatedly rewarded with
pay and responsibility even when failure on missions includes the worst "blowback"!
If there ever was a government agency alongside the DOD that deserves the honorary title of total betrayal to their motto "
And You Shall Know The Truth And It Shall Set You Free "... that has economically and politically SINGLE HANDEDLY done the opposite
of EVERYTHING DEMOCRACY STANDS FOR in it's TOTAL DESTRUCTION -- this agency is the personification without equal and "without
question"!
"... Is this all he has to show for millions of dollars and how many damned months of investigation? How about all the NGOs that get foreign donations? When the hell are they going to get investigated for "defrauding" the United States? Better not ask, that would violate the narrative . God help us. ..."
"... And then there was a pink-pussy D.C. riot and the DisruptJ20 protest group riot against Trump. Have Mueller and Rosenstein had a sudden onset of dementia and forgotten the mass protests? ..."
In the Mueller indictment it also notes (page 23) that "Trump is Not my President" NYC,
November 12 2016, was a Russian idea. So by Mueller logic the Resistance is a Russian idea.
How many members of congress should get expelled over being Putin's puppets?
Is this all he has to show for millions of dollars and how many damned months of
investigation? How about all the NGOs that get foreign donations? When the hell are they
going to get investigated for "defrauding" the United States? Better not ask, that would
violate the narrative . God help us.
"Defendant ORGANIZATION had a strategic goal to sow discord in the U.S. political system,
including the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Defendants posted derogatory information about
a number of candidates, and by early to mid-2016, Defendants' operations included supporting
the presidential campaign of then-candidate Donald J. Trump ("Trump Campaign") and
disparaging Hillary Clinton."
-- Really? Somehow the righteous Mueller and Rosenstein have missed very important
Intel:
Comment section: "Sixteen thousand Facebook users said that they planned to attend a Trump
protest on Nov. 12, 2016, organized by the Facebook page for BlackMattersUS, a Russian-linked
group [?!!] that sought to capitalize on racial tensions between black and white Americans.
The event was shared with 61,000 users. As many as 5,000 to 10,000 protesters actually
convened at Manhattan's Union Square. They then marched to Trump Tower, according to media
reports at the time. ... The group's protest was the fourth [4th!] consecutive anti-Trump
rally in New York following election night, and one of many across the country."
http://thehill.com/policy/technology/358025-thousands-attended-protest-organized-by-russians-on-facebook
It sounds like the indictment makes 13 Russian trolls into felons. How many trolls do we
have? Where do they work, will other governments decide they are felons as well? This isn't a
"nothingburger", it's a "veginothingburger". Hasn't President Trump now been exonerated as
well, "unwittings" versus "colluders"?
Back during the Cold War we were told that the USSR would try to block or jam VoA/RFE
broadcasts from reaching their citizens.
So, my very sincere question is: Just how did U.S. efforts to influence the population of
the USSR via the broadcasts of VoA/RFE differ from the alleged efforts of Russia to support
what the media calls far-right parties and policies in the U.S. and Europe?
So these 13 Russians are accused of trolling and planting rumors?
Since the same thing is being done by Americans and, yes, Israelis, it seems ludicrous to
suggest this is really "meddling" in the election. More like "feeding red meat to grey dogs"
in the sense of stoking the fires of internecine culture wars already ongoing in this
country.
If we actually end up arresting any of these individuals there will be tit for tat since
there are still American financed NGOs operating in Russia whose personnel can be easily
arrested on similar charges of promoting chaos and discord. Maybe the Germans can rent us
that famous Berlin Bridge where "spies" were exchanged in various cold war movies.
See my comment in TTG's thread about who these "Internet Research Agency" people actually
are. Scott Humor over at The Saker dug deep into these people and determined that they are
actually anti-Russian Russians who were allegedly proven in court to be CIA spies!
I link to Scott's piece in the TTG thread. Hell, might as well link it here, too:
This is a clever move on Mueller's part -- indict a bunch of Russians who (some) already
have been arrested by the Russians and therefore are in no position to defend themselves
against a US indictment.
I suppose Brennan doesn't care that a bunch of Russians recruited as CIA assets get dumped
on their own resources. Good luck recruiting any more Russians to help you!
It's a measure of Mueller's desperation, nothing more.
PT, if I understand you correctly you think the 2017 IC "assessment" that Russia meddled does
not really reflect an IC consensus. If that is your view, how do you reconcile it with these
statements:
To summarize: in 2014, 13 Russians launched a campaign to interfere with the US political
system by "disparaging" candidates. This continued until ultimately Trump was elected,
meanwhile, "there is no allegation in this indictment that any American was a knowing
participant in this illegal activity. There is no allegation in the indictment that the
[Russians'] conduct altered the outcome of the 2016 election."
----------------
How nice and simple and tidy. '13 Russians'... has nice ring to it... will make a great
propaganda movie.
Seriously though, will this face saving result in any way encourage the Dems to pick a new
strategy for "success" the Republicans? Or will they simply triple down on dumb?
Aren't the economic sanctions imposed upon Russia due to Russian meddling in our elections?
Might it not be prudent for Putin to round the 13 yokels up and put them on the next flight
to NY (with lots of publicity)?
During the campaign any voter using social media could come across literally hundreds of
posts effectively proclaiming "Hillary is trash" and "Trump is trash".
Or for that matter the voters could see much the same by reading the campaign literature
in their mailboxes, or listening to speeches on television.
Yet, somehow, a few Russian trolls posting online claims that were indistinguishable from
most of the "normal" election rhetoric is a threat to our democracy.
Imho, a far bigger threat to our elections is the massive amounts of money involved, and
the funding of candidates by oligarchs. But the msm seems confortable with that.
And it goes without saying that one of the most immediate threats to our democracy
generated by Russiagate are the ongoing attempts to silence alternative dissent to the
status-quo and label it as coming from Russianbots.
"anyone who was disparaging Clinton, may have "unwittingly" been a collaborator of the 13
Russian "specialists" who cost Hillary the election"
Sounds even more desperate than simply dumb to me. Comey and his kins seem so pressed by
(the lack of) facts and the overall incoherence of their ludicrous tale that they finally see
no other choice than resorting to the ultimate weapon in store : direct scolding and shaming
of ordinary citizen bold enough to object HRC's wrongdoings, past, present and future.
I this vein, I also read in earlier comment threads speculations regarding a new, very
cunning objective of the putative Russian attackers : getting willfully spotted in order to
spread chaos within the US politics and doubt within the heart of citizen. Frankly this
sounds a wee bit far-fetched, like machiavelous 2.3 with Putin and the Kremlin gang upgrading
to 4-D chess politics. Wouldn't it have been bold enough for them to bet on the universally
predicted loser Trump? What sense does it make to interfere ostenteously when precisely their
vowed nemesis is bound to win? How would that have tarnished her victory if she had won
despite their meddling? Doesn't hold any water to me, but desperation stimulates imagination,
and truly, confusion. Contenders of this view seem well engaged in a perillous intellectual
twister game.
Besides, such an account shows very little appreciation for the intelligence and critical
thinking of American voters. I bet that if many came to distrust their institutions, it is
out of their own experience and reflexion rather than out of foreign engineering.
Delusion, desperation, confusion, stupidity, whatever. But for sure the seams are
creaking.
The funny thing is that it looks like the Russian government jailed several people from IRA
last year. It would be prudent to look into it and try to figure out what is going on for
real.
You say: "Harry Reid was briefed by John Brennan on 25 August 2016, according to a 6 April
2017 NY Times piece by Eric Lichtblau.
Well, now that's pretty convenient timing, don't you think? After all, Trump didn't become
the GOP candidate for prez until the GOP convention on July 16, 2016. That gave the scheming
Brennan a month to make up this dumb story and start passing it around Capitol Hill.
Regarding your claim that Mueller concluded "unwittingly collaborated":
According to the text of the indictment that our host, Pat Lang, posted Mueller made no
such conclusion. I note you did not put it within quotation marks.
Is there a separate indictment floating around out there with those conclusions?
Well it is an organisation that has received a lot of publicity in the West for awhile so it
is an odd choice, I would have thought they would want a less public organisation for any IO.
Comey was telling the truth: he was still in the delusional belief he could weasel out of
it and continue on as FBI chief.
PT, in the latest, US indictment against a number of Russians, as its only example, cites a
US placard holder on the birthday of JFK as evidence of "Russian interference". Jeez, JFK was
a Russian? What a friggin shambles the empire has become.
Yes indeed. As I said before in another thread. If the election is "disrupted" by voters
altering their votes due to Russians posting on Facebook, then the problem is not that
Russians are posting on Facebook, the problem is that voters are altering their votes based
on posts they read on Facebook. There is little point in correcting the former problem
without correcting the latter and vastly more serious problem.
The indictment accuses Russia of attempting to "diminish the public's faith in
democracy," or some such thing. I really don't think our own voting public needs Russia's
help in doing that.
Nope, our crooked Politicians AND Intelligence/Law Enforcement entities are doing a good job
of diminishing the public's faith. I don't know how many of my fellow Americans I have talked
to have said to round them all the crooked politicians/intelligence/law enforcement and
eradicate them from the earth permanently. That is why we see more and more the crooked
politicians/intelligence/law enforcement understanding well their simmering public anger, and
because of their fear of the angry public that they have created the surveillance grids (has
nothing to do with misnomer terrorism), their legislation/laws that further restrict the
public's ability to fight back against their crooked ways.
Diminished public faith, that's putting it mildly.
The Democrats remember how well the Republicans ( with help from Truman and others)
made Loyalty Oathism and HUACism and McCarthyism work for them. So the Democrats have decided
to try making their own 2.0 version of Loyalty Oathism and HUACism and McCarthyism work for
them. They will spend the next several-to-many years running their Reverse McCarthyism 2.0
operation.
They will accuse any Bitter Berners rejectful of yet-one-more-Clintonite of witless
dupe-ness. If that doesn't win us over, they will accuse us of Russian subversive
Fellow-Traveller-ism. If that doesn't win us over, they will accuse us of being Russian
agents.
Of course they will try doing this to Republicans as well. If the Republicans complain,
the Democrats will say such complaints are proof of Republican secret-Russian-agent
subversionism; while quietly thinking to themselves " payback time for
McCarthy and HUAC").
I have no connection to intelligence agencies. I'm a mere citizen. I've been spending the
last few days making cold calls to registered party members here in CO, trying to get them
interested in the caucuses that are coming up. Remember how the caucuses became an issue when
Trump was running?
Almost no one responded that they were going to attend. Several said they were so sick of
politics they would definitely not attend. I'm beginning to believe that I and our precinct
captain and her husband will be the only ones there.
What a sad state our country is in. Your last line is true, to a great extent, but I have
to add to it. Yes, we need God to help American. And, yes, many Americans seem to have lost
their mind. But what makes me sadder is that most of us who have not lost our minds are
losing our belief that we could ever make a difference, to make things better.
"... I did read the indictment of the Russians and to my non-lawyer eyes, it read more like a political document rather than a criminal indictment. ..."
"... The charges seem very silly to me. And if ever there is a trial with these defendants challenging the prosecution I can see how they can win. But of course no one would pay any attention to the trial as the indictment is the desired endpoint that the media and the Democrats want. In comparison to the foreign money and influence operations of the zionists, the Saudis and of course many British politicians and their media during the last election, the operation by these Russians charged was more nonsensical. It would be absurd on the face of it that a bunch of Russian trolls could influence the election in any meaningful way. ..."
"... With respect to the potential conspiracy at the FBI, DOJ, and the IC, can Mueller really investigate his own colleagues and personal friends? I think he is a card carrying member of the Borg elite ..."
I agree with you that the questions you posed should be answered.
An interesting point in all this high stakes drama is that a federal judge has ordered
Mueller to hand over all related documents to Flynn. If there is exculpatory evidence then
Flynn could withdraw his plea and Mueller censured.
I did read the indictment of the Russians and to my non-lawyer eyes, it read more like a
political document rather than a criminal indictment. Mueller provided both sides
reinforcement of their talking points. Hillary and the Democrats can confirm she lost the
election due to a bunch of Russian trolls who spent a few million dollars and upended her
billion dollar campaign war chest. Trump gets to confirm that there was no collusion.
The
charges seem very silly to me. And if ever there is a trial with these defendants challenging
the prosecution I can see how they can win. But of course no one would pay any attention to
the trial as the indictment is the desired endpoint that the media and the Democrats want. In
comparison to the foreign money and influence operations of the zionists, the Saudis and of
course many British politicians and their media during the last election, the operation by
these Russians charged was more nonsensical. It would be absurd on the face of it that a
bunch of Russian trolls could influence the election in any meaningful way.
With respect to the potential conspiracy at the FBI, DOJ, and the IC, can Mueller really
investigate his own colleagues and personal friends? I think he is a card carrying member of
the Borg elite.
"... How about Brazil, Argentina, and South Africa? Fuck Allen Dulles, Mike Pompeo, and everybody in-between! ..."
"... BTW, Victoria Noodles will be very disappointed Ukraine didn't make the list after all of her hard work. ..."
"... Victoria "F*ck the EU" Nuland and the CIA were all over the Ukrainian "coup", but of course no mention of that on "Fair and Balanced". Laura Ingram is a typical Fox News Zio-Nazi bitch, hiding behind a cross, who apparently believes her own BS, and along others like Hannity have blood on their hands. ..."
"... You can always spot a psychopathic liar by their predisposition to smile or laugh at questions that are not humorous. Laura Ingraham is a neocon mouth-peice for the establishment. ..."
Former CIA chief James Woolsey appeared on Fox News to push the narrative of how dastardly 'dem Russkies' are in their meddling
with the sacred soul of America's democracy.
Woolsey did his patriotic deep-state-duty and proclaimed the evils of "expansionist Russia" and dropped 'facts' like "Russia has
a larger cyber-army than its standing army," before he moved on to China and its existential threats.
But then, beginning at around 4:30 , the real debacle of the conversation begins as Ingraham asks Woolsey,
"Have we ever tried to meddle in other countries' elections?"
Hes responds, surprisingly frankly...
"Oh probably... but it was for the good of the system..."
To which Ingraham follows up...
"We don't do that now though? We don't mess around in other people's elections?"
Prompting this extraordinary sentence from a former CIA chief...
"Well...hhhmmm, numm numm numm numm... only for a very good cause...in the interests of democracy"
So just to clarify - yes, the CIA chief admitted that Democracy-spreading 'Murica meddled in the Democratic elections of other
nations "in the interests of democracy."
In case you wondered which ones he was referring to, here's a brief selection since 1948...
2016: UK (verbal intervention against Brexit)
2014: Afghanistan (effectively re-writing Afghan constitution)
2014: UK (verbal intervention against Scottish independence)
2011: Libya (providing support to overthrow Colonel Gaddafi)
2009: Honduras (ousting President Zelaya)
2006: Palestine (providing support to oust Prime Minister Haniyeh)
2005: Syria (providing support against President al-Assad)
2003: Iran (providing support against President Khatami)-
2003: Iraq (ousting of President Hussein)
2002: Venezuela (providing support to attempt an overthrow of President Chavez)
1999: Yugoslavia (removing Yugoslav forces from Kosovo)
1994: Iraq (attempted overthrow of President Hussein)
1991: Haiti (ousting President Aristide)
1991: Kuwait (removing Iraqi forces from Kuwait)
1989: Panama (ousting General Noriega)
1983: Grenada (ousting General Austin's Marxist forces)
1982: Nicaragua (providing support
1971: Chile (ousting President Allende)
1967: Indonesia (ousting President Sukarno)
1964: Brazil (ousting President Goulart)
1964: Chile (providing support against Salvador Allende)
1961: Congo (assassination of leader Lumumba)
1958: Lebanon (providing support to Christian political parties)
1954: Guatemala (ousting President Arbenz)
1953: Iran (ousting Prime Minister Mossadegh)
1953: Philippines (providing support to the President Magsaysay campaign)
1948: Italy (providing support to the Christian Democrats campaign)
This Russia bullshit has gotta stop. For the love of God, it's been like two and a a half years now. If Vladimir Putin was
as twice as evil as we're told, he still wouldn't be half as evil as the Clintons are on any given Thursday.
Democracy? Annnnnnnd it's gone! No wonder the rest of the world thinks we've collectively lost our minds. BTW, Victoria
Noodles will be very disappointed Ukraine didn't make the list after all of her hard work.
Victoria "F*ck the EU" Nuland and the CIA were all over the Ukrainian "coup", but of course no mention of that on "Fair
and Balanced". Laura Ingram is a typical Fox News Zio-Nazi bitch, hiding behind a cross, who apparently believes her own BS, and
along others like Hannity have blood on their hands.
The whole purpose of the Mueller indictment was to give the mainstream outlets something to report so idiot Americans will
believe the crap put out about Russia since the Winter Olympics in Sochi and set the tone to justify a military conflict with
Russia that won't end well for anyone, IMO
mary, just a touch catty tonight, don't cha' think?
Zio-Nazi? How dat work?
Whole purpose of the Mueller indictments is to give the folks a show to prove that their money hasn't been wasted on a Trump
collusion charge for collusion that started in 2014 when Trump was prolly out schlongin' some playmate or other..
I kinda wondered why they missed that one, too. I've seen that list on here before. I guess messing with Israel's elections
doesn't fit the ZH narrative?
No way he believes it. One thing about people who lack human empathy is that they would NEVER fall for the same tricks that
the empathy having population does. They will always see the angle. It's what their brain is devoted to. All the capacity that
we use to be reflective, emotional or caring all goes to angling for advantage with them. He knows exactly why people are tortured
and couldn't give a shit less. You are either shark or mutilated gold fish as far as he is concerned.
Woolsey is an evil man, for a certainty. But, au contraire, I bet he does believe it is for their own good. Whoever "they"
are that he's doin' shit to. Like the Jesuits in Andalusia, purging the non-believers.
You can always spot a psychopathic liar by their predisposition to smile or laugh at questions that are not humorous. Laura
Ingraham is a neocon mouth-peice for the establishment.
It really would be a new dawn for this country if the entire Deep State were outed, and publicly executed. I know that sounds
like tinfoil hat talk, but hey, I'm sure the NSA is all over me right about now. Too bad they can't seem to find serial killers
that say they're going to shoot up a school online. Too busy trying to shut up those that don't like the Deep State.
They have always done this and every single other accusation that they have levied against other "tyrants". The crazy train
continues to pick up speed.
Ummm, Fidel Castro, Cuba, 1962 ? Leading up to Dallas? Which led to LBJ and ramp up of Indochina. If you look closely you will
see that there was a huge little war going on in Laos, lots of bombing of the Ho Chi Minh trail from fighter bombers based in
Thailand.
Also, Australia. The 1972 Whitlam dismissal was a bloodless coup d'état. Whitlam recognized North Vietnam which pissed off
a bunch of people in Langley. The pilots were on strike and they couldn't fly parts and crew into Alice Springs (Pine Gap Satellite
facility). The Aussies have long memories and it will be a cold day in hell before they trust the Yanks like before. This is a
country with a strong sense of injustice. The Aussies still talk about the "bodyline" cricket scandal with the Brits, and that
happened in the 1930's....
"... We need a separate, really non-partisan investigation for the rest of the list. I think it would be possible to find competent investigators outside of the more politicized agencies who could be vetted for any political bias before being assigned. Investigation is investigation - you just need a place to start and a list of people to talk to. Facts then shake out. ..."
"... If Mueller does not look sufficiently into the "rolling Soft-Coup" aspects of all this, let us hope that the Congress and the Administration together can force into existence a Special Counsel with all of the powers and staff and funding that Mueller currently has/ will have. . . . to look into the "rolling Soft-Coup" aspects of all this. ..."
"... If such a counsel would look into the "letting Clinton off the e-mail hook" aspects of all this and esPECially into the "who shot Seth Rich" and "e-mails . . . hacked or leaked?" aspects of all this, so much the better. ..."
I agree that the list should be investigated - especially the DNC "hack" hoax as that
involves screwing with the investigation of a Federal crime and has counterintelligence
implications and could lead to lots of indictments.
However, as someone else pointed out in the last thread, Mueller's only remit was to find
evidence of Russian government "meddling" in the election and/or "collusion" with Trump and
the Trump campaign - which he has not found yet and is highly unlikely to find. The 13
indictments are a joke in that regard.
We need a separate, really non-partisan investigation for the rest of the list. I think it
would be possible to find competent investigators outside of the more politicized agencies
who could be vetted for any political bias before being assigned. Investigation is
investigation - you just need a place to start and a list of people to talk to. Facts then
shake out.
If Mueller does not look sufficiently into the "rolling Soft-Coup" aspects of all this,
let us hope that the Congress and the Administration together can force into existence a
Special Counsel with all of the powers and staff and funding that Mueller currently has/ will
have. . . . to look into the "rolling Soft-Coup" aspects of all this.
If such a counsel would look into the "letting Clinton off the e-mail hook" aspects of
all this and esPECially into the "who shot Seth Rich" and "e-mails . . . hacked or leaked?"
aspects of all this, so much the better.
All very good questions and one more either related to, or subsumed within #s 3 and 6 is
whether Steele/MI6 are "targetable" for having meddled in the 2016 election.
Rosenstein unaccountably failed to mention yesterday Mueller's having landed a really,
really big fish on February 2, the unwitting colluder and witless Ricard Pinedo (age 28), a
small town scammer who operates a fake ID business out of Santa Paula, CA, a 80% Hispanic
farm worker town in boondocks California. Pinedo plead guilty to one count of identify fraud
and had, apparently, profited to the extent of some $10,000 or so from the sale of identify
and banking information on-line with only a minimal amount sourced from any of the 13
defendants in the indictments.
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-richard-pinedo-mueller-investigation-20180216-story.html.
The MSM, apparently, like Mr. Mueller has decided not to make a big deal out of the Pinedo
indictment for reasons which remain the subject of speculation.
Building a cage on a flatbed track with Hillary in prison uniform played by an actor inside is directly from Gene Sharp
playbook and could be
Otpor!
activity ;-) No that bad idea for a
anti-Hillary rally actually :-)
"... Mueller alleged that Russian operatives "communicated with unwitting individuals associated with the Trump campaign", but the indictment did not address the question of whether anyone else in Trump's team had knowingly colluded. ..."
"... Rod Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general, said at a press conference in Washington: "There is no allegation in this indictment that any American had any knowledge." Rosenstein added that the charges did not mean the Russian activity had an effect on the outcome of the election. ..."
"... In a statement on Friday, Trump suggested that what he called "outlandish partisan attacks, wild and false allegations, and far-fetched theories" relating to possible collusion were serving to further the Russian agenda. ..."
"... "This indictment serves as a reminder that people are not always who they appear to be on the internet," said Rosenstein. He alleged that the Russians had "worked to promote discord in the United States and undermine public confidence in democracy," adding: "We must not allow them to succeed." ..."
"... Prigozhin, who has also been linked to the Wagner Group, a shadowy Kremlin-linked private military contractor believed to be operating in Syria, -> was included on a US sanctions list in July . ..."
"... Speaking to the RIA Novosti state news agency on Friday, Prigozhin said: "The Americans are really impressionable people, they see what they want to see. I have great respect for them. If they want to see the devil -- let them see him." ..."
"... Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova called the allegations "absurd". "Thirteen people carried out interference in the US elections? Thirteen people against special services with a budgets of billions?" she wrote in a Facebook post. ..."
A 37-page indictment alleged that the Russians' operations "included supporting the presidential campaign of
then-candidate Donald J Trump ... and disparaging Hillary Clinton," his Democratic opponent.
Mueller alleged that Russian operatives "communicated with unwitting individuals associated with the Trump
campaign", but the indictment did not address the question of whether anyone else in Trump's team had knowingly
colluded.
Rod Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general, said at a press conference in Washington: "There is no allegation
in this indictment that any American had any knowledge." Rosenstein added that the charges did not mean the
Russian activity had an effect on the outcome of the election.
Trump
and the White House seized on Rosenstein's remarks to falsely claim that the indictment proved there had
been no collusion and that the election result had definitely not been impacted.
In a statement on Friday, Trump suggested that what he called "outlandish partisan attacks, wild and false
allegations, and far-fetched theories" relating to possible collusion were serving to further the Russian agenda.
The Russians allegedly posed as Americans to operate bogus social media accounts, buy advertisements and stage
political rallies. They stole the identities of real people in the US to post online and built computer systems in
the US to hide the Russian origin of their activity, according prosecutors.
"This indictment serves as a reminder that people are not always who they appear to be on the internet," said
Rosenstein. He alleged that the Russians had "worked to promote discord in the United States and undermine public
confidence in democracy," adding: "We must not allow them to succeed."
The charges state that from as far back as 2014, the defendants conspired together to defraud the US by
"impairing, obstructing, and defeating the lawful functions of government" through interference with the American
political and electoral processes.
One defendant, Yevgeniy Prigozhin, is accused of using companies he controlled – including Concord Management
and Consulting, and Concord Catering – to finance the operations against the US. The operation at one stage had a
monthly budget of $1.25m,
according to Mueller, which paid for
operatives' salaries and bonuses.
Events were organised by Russians posing as Trump supporters and
as groups opposed to Trump such as Black Lives Matter
, according to prosecutors. One advertisement shortly
before the election promoted the Green party candidate Jill Stein, who is blamed by some Clinton backers for
splitting the anti-Trump vote.
In August 2016, Russian operatives communicated with Trump campaign staff in Florida through their "@donaldtrump.com"
email addresses to coordinate a series of pro-Trump rallies in the state, according to Mueller, and then bought
advertisements on social media to promote the events.
At one rally in West Palm Beach, a Russian operative is even alleged to have paid Americans to build a cage on
a flatbed truck and to have an actor posing as Clinton in a prison uniform stand inside.
->
Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest
55 Savushkina Street, St Petersburg, said to be the headquarters of Russia's 'troll army'. Photograph:
Shaun Walker for the Guardian
One defendant, Irina Kaverzina, is accused of admitting her involvement in the operation and a subsequent
coverup in an email to a relative in September last year, after Mueller's inquiry had begun. "We had a slight
crisis here at work: the FBI busted our activity," Kaverzina allegedly wrote, "so I got preoccupied with covering
tracks together with the colleagues."
The Russians are also accused of working to suppress turnout among ethnic minority voters. They allegedly
created an Instagram account posing as "Woke Blacks" and railed against the notion that African Americans should
choose Clinton as "the lesser of two devils" against Trump.
In early November 2016, according to the indictment, the Russian operatives used bogus "United Muslims of
America" social media accounts to claim that "American Muslims [are] boycotting elections today."
Following Trump's victory, the Russian operation promoted allegations of voter fraud by the Democratic party,
according to Mueller's team. Around that time, Trump repeatedly claimed without evidence that he would have won
the popular vote if not for large-scale voter fraud.
The individuals charged are Mikhail Ivanovich Bystrov, Mikhail Leonidovich Burchik, Aleksandra Yuryevna Krylova,
Anna Vladislavovna Bogacheva, Sergey Pavlovich Polozov, Maria Anatolyevna Bovda, Robert Sergeyevich Bovda,
Dzheykhun Nasimi Ogly Aslanov, Vadim Vladimirovich Podkopaev, Gleb Igorevitch Vasilchenko, Irina Viktorovna
Kaverzina, Yevgeny Viktorovich Prigozhin
and Vladimir Venkov.
All were charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States. Three defendants were charged with conspiracy to
commit wire fraud and bank fraud, and five defendants were charged with aggravated identity theft.
Separately, Mueller's office announced that Richard Pinedo, of Santa Paula, California, had
pleaded guilty to identity
fraud
. Pinedo, 28, admitted to running a website that offered stolen identities to help customers get around
the security measures of major online payment sites. It was not made clear whether his service had been used by
the Russian operatives.
Rosenstein said no contact had been made with Russian authorities regarding the charges so far, but that US
officials intended to seek extradition of the defendants.
US intelligence agencies previously
concluded that Russians mounted
an attack on the US election system aimed at electing
->
Donald
Trump
to the presidency.
Mueller is conducting a criminal inquiry into interference by Russians and possible collusion by Trump's
campaign. Two Trump campaign advisers have pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI. Two others have been charged with
federal crimes.
US investigators have long signalled their belief that Prigozhin, a 56-year-old billionaire businessman, is
behind Russia's internet troll factories.
Nicknamed the "Kremlin's chef", Prigozhin once ran Putin's favourite restaurant in St Petersburg, after which
he was awarded multi-billion pound state catering contracts. He provided catering for Dmitry Medvedev's presidential inauguration in 2008, and also has lucrative contracts
to feed Russia's army and Moscow's schoolchildren.
Prigozhin, who has also been linked to the Wagner Group, a shadowy Kremlin-linked private military contractor
believed to be operating in Syria,
->
was included on a US sanctions list in July
.
Speaking to the RIA Novosti state news agency on Friday, Prigozhin said: "The Americans are really
impressionable people, they see what they want to see. I have great respect for them. If they want to see the
devil -- let them see him."
Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova called the allegations "absurd". "Thirteen people carried out interference in the US elections? Thirteen people against special services with a
budgets of billions?" she wrote in a Facebook post.
Vladimir Putin's spokesman Dmitry Peskov told Russian media he had not yet had a chance to study the
indictments.
"... The Russian organization named in the indictment - the Internet Research Agency - and the defendants began working in 2014 - so one year before the Trump candidacy was even announced - to interfere in U.S. elections, according to the indictment in Washington. ..."
"... 2014.......um, yeah, what a crock of bullshit. ..."
"... Seriously though, what is illegal about what they did? Sowing discord? Hell CNN and all of Soros' org would be guilty of the same thing wouldn't they? Isn't 'sowing discord' like the main mission of the CIA, both here and in other countries? ..."
"... B-but the Russians conspired ... to commit free speech. They obstructed ... by speaking . (The story doesn't mention if what was said was true.) Mr. Mueller, please stop wasting our time and money. ..."
The Russian organization named in the indictment - the Internet Research Agency - and the defendants began working in 2014
- so one year before the Trump candidacy was even announced - to interfere in U.S. elections, according to the indictment in Washington.
They used false personas and social media while also staging political rallies and communicating with "unwitting individuals"
associated with the Trump campaign, it said.
2014.......um, yeah, what a crock of bullshit.
Seriously though, what is illegal about what they did? Sowing discord? Hell CNN and all of Soros' org would be
guilty of the
same thing wouldn't they? Isn't 'sowing discord' like the main mission of the CIA, both here and in other countries?
Not a lawyer, but seems this cannot hold up in court.
Sounds to me like they're being indicted for exercising free speech. Does that only apply to citizens?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging
the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a
redress of grievances.
It restricts Congress .
I believe political speech is the most protected form of speech. I think there's a Supreme Court ruling on that topic.
B-but the Russians conspired ... to commit free speech. They obstructed ... by speaking . (The story doesn't mention if what
was said was true.) Mr. Mueller, please stop wasting our time and money.
I'm re-posting this from an earlier post someone else made. The Internet Research Agency is a CIA hacking group!
The best way to get information is to make it up.
Everything what we know now about the so-called "Kremlin trolls from the Internet Research Agency paid by Putin's favorite
chef," came from one source, a group of CIA spies that used the mascot of Shaltay-Boltay, or Humpty-Dumpty, for their collective
online persona.
"... This rings true as well; "The implications for the future of the American republic were terrifying, Tesich concluded. His words are haunting to read today: We are rapidly becoming prototypes of a people that totalitarian monsters could only drool about in their dreams. All the dictators up to now have had to work hard at suppressing the truth. We, by our actions, are saying that this is no longer necessary, that we have acquired a spiritual mechanism that can denude truth of any significance. In a very fundamental way we, as a free people, have freely decided that we want to live in some post-truth world." ..."
"... This also applies to the UK. What goodwill, mythology ("worldliness, pragmatism") etc. that was attached by continentals to the UK has been "exploded". ..."
"... Lately, I've detected a certain sense of malaise among my fellow citizens. In my opinion, it's long been apparent that this won't end well. All of these factors points to a day of reckoning that is rapidly approaching. Perhaps the prevalence of school shootings is acting as the proverbial canary in the coal mine? ..."
"... Don't think that the elite have not noticed the way things are moving. In my own line of work I interact with the 1% on a regular basis. I can tell you that even though they are doing better that ever, there is a sense of discreet terror. It's obvious when they discuss all the ways that they're trying to replicating their own advantages in the education of their little darlings. ..."
"... I think it's dawning on us that we're not re-experiencing the moment before the election of Franklin Roosevelt, and the beginning of the New Deal, we're actually just now realizing the necessity of the daunting task of organizing, which makes our times resemble 1890 more than 1935. ..."
"... Even if it takes half as much time to defeat the Robber Barons this go-round, many of us will not see anything resembling ' victory ' in our lifetimes, so we have to make adjustments in our expectations, and accept the monumental nature of the tasks ahead. ..."
"... I think delegitimization is upon us. General malaise is nearly to the point of a general strike. The house of cards is in a slow motion but certain wind storm. Those thousand dollar checks at Wal-Mart payday will vanish overnight while the wealthy reap tax benefits for years on end. We are down to the twenty seven percent (Dems) waging false battles with the twenty six percent (Reps). Only the 47 percent rest of us will grow in numbers from here on out. ..."
"... The Anglo-American countries can not be anything but in a class of their own. They include the mother country with former colonies, some especially successful, and rule the world by virtue of language, wealth and, often necessarily, violence, almost always gratuitous. ..."
"... Violence has an effect on peoples lives at both the giving and receiving ends. ..."
"... Image you are in Baghdad on the glorious, glittering night of Shock and Awe to get a feel for things. That happened when the US was supposedly great. ..."
"... Intelligence makes us pessimists, and our will makes us optimists. ..."
"... But Trump is not the problem here, only the Front Man for something larger. Even during the early oughts one could perceive a fundamental societal drift, empowered by a 'conservative' (read: fascist) willingness to do whatever was necessary in pursuit of their particular vision. It is not a vision of returning disempowered white folks to some rosy past that never existed; I sense a more feudal vision, with princes and lords in gated communities, with peasants conned into doing their bidding, every day being fleeced even further. ..."
"... The angst feels not like the angst of an impending, singular catastrophe, but rather the angst of decline. There's a late empire feel to the current mood: leaders without agency, more interested in their own, internal sense of normalcy and maintaining their perches, perches that increasingly feel pointless as they're all just listless figureheads doing what the Magister Militum tells them to do. ..."
"... The military feels all-encompassing yet simultaneously incapable of exercising its will in the theater of war, so dispersed and aimless, as the missions are no longer about winning wars but about resume building ..."
"... Civililizations don't collapse like falling off a table. They stress resources of materials and people and such stresses build and build. This has serious psychological impacts. ..."
"... The moderate catastrophic disasters like Trumps election cause much bigger disruptions to the civilizational equilibrium, but only for a time. We all know deep inside that what comes next in Brexit or say Trumps removal will actually be worse than what we have now. ..."
"... For me the frame changed with the restart of the Cold War. I remember "Duck and Cover, McCarthyism, John Birchers, and Who Lost China". It has all come back. The Democrats are idiots for scapegoating Russia. President Donald Trump is incompetent. ..."
All of the warnings, predictions, knowledge, tech advances and humor of sci-fi, real
science, history, and literature alike has boiled down to this? This low quality "news" that
reports on the latest predictable, preventable outrage/injustice when it not intentionally
turning up the hysteria/fear tuner? It's like living in a simulation of a society ruled by
the insane and hearing about its unwinding day after day.
This rings true as well;
"The implications for the future of the American republic were terrifying, Tesich concluded.
His words are haunting to read today: We are rapidly becoming prototypes of a people that totalitarian monsters could only drool
about in their dreams. All the dictators up to now have had to work hard at suppressing the
truth. We, by our actions, are saying that this is no longer necessary, that we have acquired
a spiritual mechanism that can denude truth of any significance. In a very fundamental way
we, as a free people, have freely decided that we want to live in some post-truth world."
Yeat's captures the inexorable feel of our times perfectly;
William Butler Yeats (1865-1939)
THE SECOND COMING
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: a waste of desert sand;
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Wind shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
This also applies to the UK. What goodwill, mythology ("worldliness, pragmatism") etc.
that was attached by continentals to the UK has been "exploded".
This makes me wonder whether the US will exist in its current form. Is it desirable?
Genuine questions from someone who visits annually, including "fly over", and enjoys doing
so. I don't see the UK existing as currently constituted much beyond the next decade.
Lately, I've detected a certain sense of malaise among my fellow citizens. In my opinion, it's long been apparent that this won't end well.
All of these factors points to a day of reckoning that is rapidly approaching. Perhaps the
prevalence of school shootings is acting as the proverbial canary in the coal mine?
Don't think that the elite have not noticed the way things are moving. In my own line of
work I interact with the 1% on a regular basis. I can tell you that even though they are
doing better that ever, there is a sense of discreet terror. It's obvious when they discuss
all the ways that they're trying to replicating their own advantages in the education of
their little darlings.
I'm starting to think that what we are experiencing is the realization that we've spent
way too much time expecting that explaining our selves, our diverse grievances, and our
political insights would naturally result in growing an irresistible movement that would wash
over, and cleanse our politics of the filth that is the status quo.
It is sobering to realize that it took almost four decades for the original Progressive
Era organizers to bring about even the possibility of change.
I think it's dawning on us that we're not re-experiencing the moment before the election
of Franklin Roosevelt, and the beginning of the New Deal, we're actually just now realizing
the necessity of the daunting task of organizing, which makes our times resemble 1890 more
than 1935.
Government by the people, and for the people has been drowned in the bath-tub, and the
murderers have not only taken the reigns of power, but have convinced half the population
that their murderous act represents a political correction that will return America to
greatness.
It remains to be seen whether we will find it in our hearts to embrace both the hard, and
un-glamorous work of relieving the pain inflicted by the regime that has engulfed us, and the
necessity of embracing as brothers and sisters those who haven't yet realized that it is the
rich and powerful who are the problem, and not all the other poor and oppressed.
The difficulty of affecting political change might be explained the way Black-Smiths
describe their problem;
Life so short the craft so long to learn.
Even if it takes half as much time to defeat the Robber Barons this go-round, many of us
will not see anything resembling ' victory ' in our lifetimes, so we have to make
adjustments in our expectations, and accept the monumental nature of the tasks ahead.
"that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of
the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
A nice excerpt from the non-binding Gettysburg address. Too bad he was referring to a
system of governance which never existed.
In a conversation with several friends yesterday.. all of us found among our greatest
despairs the behavior of our long time friends who are Democrats. Much more pig-headed and
determined to stay that way than Republicans ever were during the Bush Jr. years. Pretending
we live in some sort of system (much less a party) which could or would possibly represent.
Seemingly incapable of listening, blinded by delusion and propaganda demanding anyone in
their presence double down on what's failed so many of us for far longer than we have
lived.
All of us men in our fifties. Hard working. None of us had kids of our own, but several
are in relationships with women who did. None of us have anything close to high living
standards. Barely getting by now with great uncertainty ahead. Hell, we all own our homes
outright, drive ten to twenty year old cars, buy most clothes second hand, grow much of our
own food, cut our own firewood, several live off the grid entirely. Only one has access to
health care and that's because he's on disability due to spinal injury on the job and an
inherited heart condition. He's also the only one who might be able to get by in 'retirement'
years on what he will receive. Every one of the rest of us realized if we lose our current
jobs we would be hard pressed to replace them at half the income we have now.
I went to orientation for jury duty this week. Out of a hundred and fifty people I was the
only man wearing a button down shirt and a sport coat. The only man who removed his hat in
the courtroom. And I felt like a freak. It was all I could do to not ask the judge about jury
nullification. The only reason I held back is because I knew every citizen in the joint just
wanted out of there.
I think delegitimization is upon us. General malaise is nearly to the point of a general
strike. The house of cards is in a slow motion but certain wind storm. Those thousand dollar
checks at Wal-Mart payday will vanish overnight while the wealthy reap tax benefits for years
on end. We are down to the twenty seven percent (Dems) waging false battles with the twenty
six percent (Reps). Only the 47 percent rest of us will grow in numbers from here on out.
Only the 47 percent rest of us will grow in numbers from here on out.
So there is our hope. Personally, I suspect that Trump's working-class supporters will join us sooner than the
deluded, diehard Clintonista faction of the democratic base. And let's hope the false battles don't turn into real battles. It's obvious there are some
who would love to have us throwing rocks at each other, or worse.
Yes, indeed, you have it. Delegitimization is the appropriate word. My thought on seeing
the headline that 17 died in the Florida school shooting was how many months to go before the
school year ends. I won't read anything about the shooter, or the deaths, or the bravery and
self sacrifice. There have been too many; there will be far too many more.
It is an end-of-Vietnam moment. It is a moment for poems such as the above mentioned, and
for me T.S.Eliot's 'Four Quartets'.
Book: The Administration of Fear – Paul Virilio.
From the back cover:
We are facing the emergence of a real, collective madness reinforced by the synchronization
of emotions: the sudden globalization of affects in real time that hits all of humanity at
the same time, and in the name of Progress. Emergency exit: we have entered a time of general
panic.
-- --
Perhaps because I live in the UK, I echo particularly what Clive, Windsock and Plutonium
Kun say.
Having spent much of the winter in Belgium, Mauritius, Spain and France, so none
Anglo-Saxon, it was a relief to get away from the UK in the same way as JLS felt. Although
these countries have their issues, I did notice their MSM appear not as venal as the UK and
US MSM and seem more focused on local bread and butter. Brexit and Trump were mentioned very
briefly, the latter nothing as hysterical and diversionary as in the UK and US. There were
little identity politics on parade. Locals don't seem as worn out, in all respects, as one
observes in Blighty.
With regard to PK's reference about Pearl Harbour, I know some well informed remainers who
want a hard Brexit just for the relief that it will bring. Others, not necessarily remainers,
have no idea what's going on and think Trump is a bigger threat. I must confess to, often,
sharing what the former think, if only to bring the neo-liberal house down once and for
all.
All this makes me think whether anglo-saxon countries are in a class of their own and how,
after Brexit, the EU27 will evolve, shorn of the UK. This is not to say that the UK (the
neo-liberal bit) is the only rotten apple in the EU.
If it was not for this site and community, I know of no other place where I would get a
better source of news, insight and sanity. I know a dozen journalists, mainly in London, well
and echo what Norello said.
The Anglo-American countries can not be anything but in a class of their own. They include
the mother country with former colonies, some especially successful, and rule the world by
virtue of language, wealth and, often necessarily, violence, almost always gratuitous.
Violence has an effect on peoples lives at both the giving and receiving ends. What was this
school shooting? The 13th or something since the beginning of the year. War. Nuclear war. A
fear of war is the undertone which has been droning (!) on long before Donald Trump took
power. Image you are in Baghdad on the glorious, glittering night of Shock and Awe to get a
feel for things. That happened when the US was supposedly great.
Is pretending all is well a rational defense against the overwhelming feeling that there
is nothing an individual can do to deflect the trajectory we are on? And the emotional energy
it takes to keep up that pretense is exhausting.
I think for myself and others that the complete hopelessness of our situation is starting
to take more of a toll. The amount of personal and social capital used to finally get some
sanity back in government after Bush and the disastrous wasted opportunity of Obama that led
to Trump is overwhelming. The complete loss of fairness is everywhere and my pet one this
week is how Experian after losing over 200 million personal financial records is now
advertising during the Olympics as the personal security service experts instead of being
prosecuted out of business.
Yesterday was peculiar, Yves Smith. You should have sent me an e-mail! My colleagues were
having meltdowns (overtired, I think). My computers were glitchy. The WWW seemed to switch on
and off all day long. I am of a mind that it has to due with the false spring: We had a thaw
in Chicago.
Like Lambert, and I won't speak for Lambert, who can speak for himself, I am guardedly
optimistic: I have attended Our Revolution meetings here in Chicago as well as community
meetings. There are many hardworking and savvy people out there. Yet I also believe that we
are seeing the collapse of the old order without knowing what will arise anew. And as always,
I am not one who believes that we should advocate more suffering so that people "learn their
lesson." There is already too much suffering in the world–witness the endless U.S.
sponsored wars in the Middle East. (The great un-covered story of our time: The horrors of
the U.S.-Israeli-Saudi sponsored massacres from Algeria to Pakistan.)
I tend to think that the Anglo-American world is having a well-deserved nervous
breakdown.
I note on my FB page that a "regular Democrat" is calling for war by invoking Orwell. When
someone has reached that point of rottenness, not even knowing that Orwell was almost by
nature anti-war, the rot can only continue its collapse.
So I offer Antonio Gramsci, who in spite of everything, used to write witty letters from
prison. >>
My state of mind brings together these two sentiments and surpasses them: I am pessimistic
because of intelligence, but a willed optimist. I think, in every circumstance, of the worst
scenario so I can marshal all of my reserves of will and be ready to overcome the obstacle. I
never allow myself illusions, and I have never had disappointments. I am always specially
armed with endless patience, not passive or inert, but patience animated by perseverance. –Antonio Gramsci, letter to his brother Gennaro, December 1929. Translation DJG.
Every collapse brings intellectual and moral disorder in its wake. So we must foster
people who are sober, have patience, who do not despair when faced with the worst horrors yet
who do not become elated over every stupid misstep. Intelligence makes us pessimists, and our
will makes us optimists. –Antonio Gramsci, first Prison Notebook, 1929-1930. Translation DJG.
So: Commenting groundlings and comrades, we must be alert, somewhat severe in our
judgments of people and of the news, and yet open to a revolution that includes bread and
roses.
Nice find, DJG: "Our intelligence makes us pessimists, and our will makes us
optimists."
Too big for a bumper sticker . but good for a bedside table or the bathroom mirror. To
remind us that, for the realists, being optimistic takes an effort of will, a determined
reach every single morning to find just one small thing that will keep us going for that day
and give us hope for the future. It could be a rosy sunrise, or the imminent arrival of a
grandchild, or a packet of seeds ready to be sown. Or meeting a good friend for coffee, or
mastering a new dance step or a difficult passage on the fiddle.
Not denial of the world's shameful faults and of our increasingly precarious position
within it, but a refusal to allow them to grind us down completely.
Intelligence makes us pessimists, and our will makes us optimists.
My favorite quote. What else is there?
And if you want to know who the enemy is, it is all those whose cure for what ails us is
either "Just going on living your life (i.e. shopping)" or "just vote". I view the current
period of disquiet and all of us wondering what we can and should do, and who will be
alongside us, or opposed to us, when we do.
> Pessimism of the the intellect, optimism of the will
I think -- call me Pollyanna if you wish -- that optimism of the intellect is warranted as
well. My only concern is that collapse will come (or be induced) when "the good guys,"* let
us say, are still to weak to take advantage of the moment. That's why I keep saying that
gridlock is our friend.
* Who in the nature of the case have been unaccustomed to wielding real power.
I have been fortunate, in the past decade, to have 'hung out' with lots of 20-somethings
(and a few older beings) who have been passionately optimistic about what they can accomplish
against the forces of darkness. From the environmentalists who are fighting the corporations
who would build pipelines and LNG terminals to activists building tiny houses for the
homeless and working with the city to find land to place them on, and those who happily get
arrested for sleeping under a blanket, in protest against 'urban camping' bans, to a woman
who for the last five years has served Friday night meals for all, on sidewalks in front of
businesses supporting the urban camping ban.
And, I have been constantly in awe of those who, in the face of centuries of being
relocated, dispossessed, despised and massacred, will not give up on protecting their lands
and their way of life. These Lakota and Kiowa and Dineh people are truly optimistic that they
will prevail. Or, perhaps fatalistic is a better description; hey know they may die
trying.
Looks like this article has a lot of legs on it but will wait to read more commentator's
thoughts and ideas before doing so myself. Too much to take in. In the meantime. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WatQeG5fMU
As a New Zealander living in the USA for around 7 years now (but routinely spending
Christmas months back in NZ, and often multi month stints remote working in Europe) the
'tension' just living in the USA – NYC / LA is through the roof.
I can remember being in Vienna some time after trump won, a few days shy of returning to
the US and wondering what the hell I was thinking – and that's related to people /
media's reaction to trump just as much as trump being in charge.
It's hard to put your finger on exactly what it is – partly just the 'big
metropolis' thing.. but there's also something else nasty in the air.
Similar (but amplified) feeling at work last week at the office as one quarter of the
company were sacked on a days notice – a downsizing at a start up that supposedly has
'great culture'.
It's that nasty squeeze of fast capitalism I believe that has a grip on everyone's psyche
– elevated fear levels, etc.
Re-read Ames' 'going postal' a few weeks back, which covers brilliantly the vicious
cultural turn under Reagan.
Ps – Naked Capitalism has become my 'News refuge' having dropped off social media
entirely, and wanting to avoid the general insanity of the news cycle but not disengage,
thank you!
It's not so much the presence of angst that I see, among my working brethren we're pretty
numb to the current hopeless future and tend to focus instead on the present for efficiencies
sake, for if one thinks too much about the hopeless future it's hard to get up and get going
on fighting back the tide and muddling through the hopeless present that will be more
hopeless if you don't do anything. (as an aside my opinion is that this psychology has much
to do with the current homeless crisis it takes confidence to try and those who can delude
themselves into doing so seem to be a little better off) But now the angst is in the the
10%er's in my acquaintance, who claim to be really worried about nuclear war. Not
surprisingly they're mostly informed by npr, which as far as I can see makes people really
stupid. The trump as crazy fascist narrative has them in it's clutches so much so that his
weekend I had to give the "don't be too pessimistic b/c if the world doesn't end you will be
unprepared for it, and if it ends who cares?" speech normally reserved for youngsters who see
no point in trying due to end of the world thinking (as anecdote since when I was in college
in the early '80's I was pretty certain there would be a nuclear war and made different
choices than the best ones,, anyone remember the star wars missile defense system?). That
said I think the "we're all gonna die" theme is just more bs sour grapes and more proof that
the residence of hopelessness is actually the democrat partisans who refuse to live in the
present, so denial is where they are at. But isn't that the thing about angst, it doesn't
have to be real to effect one's life negatively, and I'm hearing it from people who I think
should know better, but I read nc daily and live out in the woods (highly recommended, almost
as good as being in another country as the rural areas of the US are actually
another country) and npr was so unhinged this weekend that I felt that even the reporters
were having a hard time mustering the outrage. As Hope said commenting on the uber series
"What a pleasure it is to read a genuine (and all too rare) piece of financial analysis."
I couldn't agree more, and I might send it on to a 10%er, but they seem kind of fragile
lately and I don't know if they could handle "uber is a failing enterprise", they might not
get out of bed
Don't know if I'm any more sensitive than you guys, and I'm certainly not that good at
articulating what's going in with something this subtle.
I will say that when the dogs stop barking its time to start getting REALLY worried. What
we may now be hearing, or not hearing, may be a sign of fatigue, but more depressingly,
impending resignation. EVERY day for the past year there's been yet another affront, and the
opposition has been ineffective in any meaningful sense. Trump has apparently learned that
the way to parry any thrust is to counter with something even more outrageous, literally in a
matter of minutes. The initiative he is thus able to maintain is scary, and something I see
no way to surmount.
But Trump is not the problem here, only the Front Man for something larger. Even during
the early oughts one could perceive a fundamental societal drift, empowered by a
'conservative' (read: fascist) willingness to do whatever was necessary in pursuit of their
particular vision. It is not a vision of returning disempowered white folks to some rosy past
that never existed; I sense a more feudal vision, with princes and lords in gated
communities, with peasants conned into doing their bidding, every day being fleeced even
further.
Hence, having the means, though by no means being rich, I began my move off-shore over ten
years ago. I now have 3 passports and permanent residency on as many continents. What
Jerri-Lynn senses is very, very real, as I learned in the US over Xmas past in a series of
vignettes I'll spare anyone reading this. I was sharing my experiences there to a local
student recently (here in South America) who had once lived in the US and who continues to be
enamored of the now frayed, and largely repudiated, American Dream. As I explained to him,
it's not a pretty picture, and hardly one to succumb to.
My sense is that the media has succeeded in instilling into the North American zeitgeist a
sense of the US being At War against the rest of the world, not unlike that of the mentality
of Israel, which has a far more real situation to contend with. The tragedy, in the case of
the US, is that it really, really does not have to be like this. This is a hole we have begun
digging ourselves into only recently, as opposed to Israel, which at this point can hardly
see the light of day.
At some point this mentality becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, and while the US could
easily turn itself around, the momentum is strong and decidedly in the other direction. The
vision of the fascists and the imperatives of the media pretty much guarantee the US, and by
extension the world, is on a collision course with negative time and space.
I'm probably the last person able to comment on this topic having spent the last three
months ignoring the news and not even reading Naked Capitalism daily. I was never bothered by
the big stories like the drama over North Korea which I thought of as nothing more than a
psy-op incidentally aimed at the American populace. Nor did I find Liberal Hezbollah (The
Resistance) or #Metoo to be anything more than a joke. I kinda suspected that American
culture would be plagued by another round of hysterical superstition driven by Calvinist
social-jihadism.
If there seems to be a lack of consequential events it's because history doesn't move as
swiftly as we might want. It doesn't mean that we aren't moving towards more worldview
shattering events which will challenge the ability of our body politic to react to them. The
United States continues to collapse driven by external and internal factors. The lack of
clarity and unity of action will eventually usher in the end of the empire aboard. The
inability of our ruling class to respond to Trump's election in such a manner which would
constructively restore faith in our institutions will only accelerate the process at home.
There isn't a lack of stories which serve as a useful guide through history. The story about
American troops being ambushed and dying in Niger was significant.
A few years before the Islamic State steamrolled through Iraq and Syria it was mostly
unnoticed that the French were contending with rebels marauding through their African
protection racket in Mali and the Central African Republic. The fact that the US is having to
prop up the French and that the chaos has been migrating southward is significant especially
given the economic factors at stake. Another story I found interesting was a recent DW
article about the woeful state of readiness of the German military given it is assuming
leadership of a prominent position in NATO. It notably reveals that in the aftermath of the
2008 economic crisis and euro crisis the Germans, but probably the European countries as a
whole, have been strip-mining their military budgets which is something that America did
during the Great Depression. I'm sure there is even more stories out there that are little
pieces of a much larger puzzle but to be honest I've mostly spent my downtime playing video
games.
True enough. It shouldn't go unnoticed that Obama was calling for NATO nations to increase
their military spending 'til they reach 2% of their GDP. The Germans wouldn't theoretically
have any trouble meeting under normal circumstances. It's also a far cry from what Germany
spent on the eve of both World Wars.
"Basically everything and anything anti-Republican & anti-Trump that gets published on
Facebook gets re-posted on our church Facebook page."
Hmmm. Are you losing parishioners as a result? Or gaining them? It doesn't seem to me like
what people would be looking for in a faith community – an overload of politics –
but what do I know.
Oh, I see that you've already sort of answered that question.
the tendency to excessive rage when identity is questioned is a feature of narcissism.
excessive, misplaced, out of proportion rage (at being denied what was expected, at being
wrong, at being seen as incompetent, whatever conflicts with the rager's identity) is what
this sounds like to me. which is I guess another form of not thinking enough, unfortunately
narcissism isn't curable.
in fact so much of this thread makes me feel like we're all suffering a bit as grey rocks
in a narcissistic abuse scenario. the narcissism is at the individual level and at the
societal level; we're all just trying to keep our heads down and avoid the maelstrom, which
keeps increasing in intensity to get our attention back.
What I have noticed is: a sense of powerlessness and not being able to control basic
aspects of your life .that at any moment things could spiral widely out of control; people
have become more enraged, meaner and feel they don't even have to be polite anymore (my
friends and I have noticed this even with drivers); people who normally would be considered
comfortable are feeling more and more financially insecure. Almost everyone I know feels this
tension and is trying to figure out what they need to do to survive – I know several
who are exploring becoming expats. I think we are rapidly moving towards a breaking point
.
The angst feels not like the angst of an impending, singular catastrophe, but rather the
angst of decline. There's a late empire feel to the current mood: leaders without agency,
more interested in their own, internal sense of normalcy and maintaining their perches,
perches that increasingly feel pointless as they're all just listless figureheads doing what
the Magister Militum tells them to do.
The military feels all-encompassing yet simultaneously
incapable of exercising its will in the theater of war, so dispersed and aimless, as the
missions are no longer about winning wars but about resume building. Same for the security
agencies, whose invasive practices feel less like a preparation for a 1984-style security
state, and more a cover for their own incompetence and inability to do proper legwork, as
these mass shootings seem to inevitably come with the revelation about how authorities were
alerted prior to the fact of the shooter's warning signs and did no follow up. Meanwhile,
standards of living decline for the vast majority of Americans, the sense of national unity
is eroding as regional and rural/urban identities are superseding that of country. Not to
mention the slow simmer that is global warming and climate change.
So yeah, nothing that translates to a flashy headline or all-at-once collapse, but
definitely an angst of a slow slide down, with too much resistance to the change needed to
reverse it.
My feeling is that the U$A, along with various sovereign entities around much the planet
will, within a decade or so, cease to exist in their current form. When people coalesce and
societies reform, is when one gets/is forced .. to choose their 'new' afilliation(s) !
It will be facinating to behold, if one is alive to partake in it !
As for positive, or negative outcomes who knows ?
I believe that what is happening is that slowly but surely the numbers of people who are
subconsciously reacting to the ongoing collapse of civilization are growing. They are uneasy,
anxious, deflated, waiting for Godot, in depression and so on.
Civililizations don't collapse like falling off a table. They stress resources of
materials and people and such stresses build and build. This has serious psychological
impacts. Numbness to new is bad news. Or what used to be bad news has to be Trumped by
exceedingly bad news before folks can rise to deal with them, but for a shorter time than
they had the ability they used to. As the number of people grows who have reached their
capacity to tolerate the stress we will find more and more of them just shut down as their
subconscious tells them there is no point in caring anymore as things are just going to get
worse.
We all see things getting worse.
So we have little collapses on a regular basis which hardly ruffle anyone's feathers
anymore. The moderate catastrophic disasters like Trumps election cause much bigger
disruptions to the civilizational equilibrium, but only for a time. We all know deep inside
that what comes next in Brexit or say Trumps removal will actually be worse than what we have
now. And we know that such will be the trend for the duration. Each time we seem to overcome
a disaster we will be presented with another building disaster. A worse one. As we continue
to stair step down the long slope that our civilization climbed during the renaissance and
the enlightenment. Trump and Brexit are medium steps down.
The Black Swan is out there somewhere watching us. The big step down. We can feel it
coming and we cannot stop it. We know that what seems bad now is going to be a lot worse in
the future. We know this and it makes us helpless.
Skip above has the word on this.
"The centre does not hold, mere anarchy is loosed upon the world".
The Worst Well-Being Year on Record for the U.S. – Gallup
"Americans' well-being took a big hit nationally in 2017, according to the
Gallup-Sharecare Well-Being Index, which recorded declines in 21 states. Why did well-being
drop, and where were the declines most pronounced?"
OK- no endorsement from me re the validity of this Index, BUT the podcast raises an
important point vis a vis 2009 downturn in their Index.
I think what we have here is a Mexican standoff the likes of which has perhaps never been
seen. I am 51 years old. For most of my life there has been a polite changing of the guards
to no great effect every four years. Trump rode into Washington on a bridge burning mission
and all that has changed. Or were the bridges burned upon his approach, after which he was
framed for the crime? This is the essence of the problem we face as a country, and the world
watching on with bated breath.
I still do not know what is "true" about any of this "Russiagate" contretemps. Perhaps
none of it. Perhaps all of it. I suspect both parties and candidates were hand fed dubious
information then tried to hide the wrappers from the "authorities" who (naturally) were only
interested in how any of it impacted them personally and institutionally, and so on and so
forth, etc. etc.
But where does that get us a nation? If you are a child and you walk into your parent's
bedroom to find your mother screwing the gardener you may be upset. But then if you run down
the hall to your brother's room to tell him and find your father en flagrante with the nanny,
well where do you go from there?
We have to find a way to deescalate with each other as Americans. I find myself repeatedly
smiling blankly in conversations with family, friends, and strangers who will all equally
complain vociferously about someone who is definitely destroying the planet/country/children.
But that only gets you so far. If you do not engage after a few minutes you are viewed with
great suspicion. And then only the strongest bonds of love can save you from being cast aside
or worse.
Deescalate now. I'm gonna put it on a tshirt.
By the way, reading a lot of Jung right now. Anyone else?
For the better part of the last 45 years I have traveled the world, worked with
individuals in different cultures, walked among and shared bread and stories with many people
in their living quarters and the news of today is not so much (occasionally) about the depth
of love that exists around the world but only about the evils we are told about in pages of
the WaPo, NYTimes and even the WST. So sad because there is so much good to view but good
rarely delivers headlines and headlines sell news and make journalists.
The news is slow because the liberal media just can't dig out that one great story or
smokin' gun that brings down Trump & Co. This whole story is stale and at the point of
"who cares" ..well, the liberals seem to be the only interested parties. I am not a
Republican or Conservative or aligned with any party but an American who looks for the best
talent of any party to represent us .citizens of the U.S.A. I laugh at the whole 'Russian
Thing' . like this is NEW news when it's as old as the Roman Empire. There are many of us
true Americans that if our democracy was every challenged, threatened or in trouble would
rise up against any threat–and more than likely not with guns but with our minds, our
knowledge and our ability to talk calmly and rationally rather than shout threats on
Twitter.
The media needs to get over itself and quit trying to be the type of police we all despise
.manipulated headlines are part of the problem with the 'stillness' today. If you can't dig
up any worthy headlines that will sell the news, then go home and close the cover of your
computer and find someone to hug ..God knows we can all use an extra level of love in today's
seemingly gloomy lack of news world.
a pretty good question in the face of all the noise.
i believe it is in response to the saturated level of cognitive dissonance. an inverse
reaction to the lack of transparency and unresponsiveness of both commercial and governmental
activities.
the sensitivity of untoward persuasion on social media an indication of the fallibility of
the centralized narrative?
I have felt an eery disquiet for the last several years, more or less since the year I
retired. I think retirement finally offered me the time I needed to see and think about the
world. For the last few years I have felt a strong need to move away to higher ground and a
smaller community further out from the cities. Churchill's book title "Gathering Storm" seems
apt, but war seems only one of the many possible storms gathering and I think one of the
least likely at present although the actions and qualities of those who rule us make even
nuclear war seem possible. And I take little comfort from learning how close we came to
nuclear war in the past and how the unstable mechanisms guiding us toward this brink remain
in place with new embellishments for greater instability.
The economy is ambling a drunkard's walk climbing a knife's edge. The Corporations remain
hard at work consolidating and building greater monopoly power, dismantling what remains of
our domestic jobs and industry, and building ever more fragile supply chains. The government
is busy dismantling the safety net, deconstructing health care, public education and science,
bolstering the wealth of the wealthy, and stoking foreign wars while a tiff between factions
within those who rule us fosters a new cold war and an arms build-up including building a new
nuclear arsenal. In another direction Climate Disruption shows signs of accelerating while
the new weather patterns already threaten random flooding and random destruction of cities.
It already destroyed entire islands in the Caribbean. The government has proven its inability
and unwillingness to do anything to prepare for the pending disasters or help the areas
struck down in the seasons past. The year of Peak Oil is already in our past and there is
nothing to fill its place. The world populations continue to grow exponentially. Climate
Disruption promises to reduce food production and move the sources for fresh water and the
worlds aquifers are drying up. It's as if a whole flock of black swans is looking for places
to land.
I quit watching tv, listening to the radio, and reading newspapers long ago. The news
desert isn't new or peculiar to this moment. I haven't seen much of interest in the news from
any source since the election. The noise of social media and celebrity news does seem turned
up higher recently, although I base this judgment on occasional peeks at magazines or
snatches of NPR. After the last election I gave up on the possibility that we still had a
democracy in this country. Over the last several years I've had some expensive and unpleasant
dealings with local government, the schools, law enforcement, the courts, and government
agencies in helping one and then the other of my children through difficulties which
confirmed in the particular all my worst beliefs about the decay of our government and legal
systems. In short my personal anxiety has been at a high level for some time now and I can't
say its peaked lately. I don't get out and around enough to get a good sense of how others
feel and certainly can't judge whether this moment is a moment of peaking anxiety. When I've
been in the City and nearby cities I've long had a feeling of passing through a valley
between mountains of very dry tender. I hold my head low and walk quickly to my destinations.
Every so often I warn my children to move out, but they don't listen.
This is an excellent post and valid observations. Things don't seem right. I blame old age
and being awaken by F-16s on combat patrols out of Andrews. For me the frame changed with the
restart of the Cold War. I remember "Duck and Cover, McCarthyism, John Birchers, and Who Lost
China". It has all come back. The Democrats are idiots for scapegoating Russia. President
Donald Trump is incompetent. Scott Pruitt must fly first class because he cannot sit next to
riff-raft like me who worked at his Agency for 37 years and hear that he has sold out the
earth for short term gain and profit. America is at war, inside and out, with no way of
winning.
I am going to try to see if I can make sense of what has been happening the past few years
but I could easily be as wrong as the next person but will try nonetheless. In reading the
comments I can see the tension seeping through so to try to come to terms with it I will use
the US as my focus though I could just as easily be talking about any other western country
like the UK, Germany, Australia, France, etc. The US though is at the forefront of these
changes so should be mentioned first.
The American people are now in what the military call a fire-sac and the door has been
slammed shut behind them. What is more, I think they realize it. A few threads need
mentioning here. A study that came out last year showed that what Americans wanted their
government to do never becomes a consideration unless it aligned what some upper echelon also
wanted. People want a military pull-back but are ignored and now find that American troops
are digging into Syria and are scattered in places like Africa with the military wanting to
go head-to-head with North Korea, Russia, China and a host of other nations. It has become
blatantly obvious too that their vaunted free media has become little more than Pravda on the
Potomac and in fact has aligning with the wealthy against the interests of the American
people. The media is even helping bring in censorship as they know that their position is
untenable. The entire political establishment is now recognized as a rigged deck with radical
neoliberal politicians in charge and at the last election the best candidates that they could
find out of 330 million Americans were Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. The massive industry
that built America has been mostly disassembled and shipped overseas and without the wealth
and skills that it generated, infrastructure has been left to rack and ruin when it should be
a core government function. Climate change cannot be ignored anymore and is starting to bite.
Even the Pentagon is realising that some of its vaunted bases will be underwater in decades.
I am sure other commentators can list yet more trends here but you get the picture.
OK, so there are massive problems but they can be faced and taken on but here is the kicker.
The political establishment in your country does not want anything to change but to keep
doing what is generated these problems. There is too much money at stake to change for them.
In fact, one of the two presidential candidates in 2016 was specifically chosen to keep
things going they way that they are. So where does that leave the American people? British
officers have always been taught that when their men were complaining and bitching, that that
was how it was but when the men were very quiet, that was the time to watch them carefully. I
think something similar is at work here. It has not yet coalesced but what I think we are
seeing is the beginnings of a phase shift in America. The unexpected election of Trump was a
precursor but as nothing changed after he was elected the pressure is still building.
Now here is the part where I kick over everybody's tea wagon. In looking for a root cause to
how all these challenges are being pushed down the road to an even worse conclusion, I am
going to have to say that the problem lies in the fact that representative democracy no
longer works. In fact, the representatives in the form of Senators, Reps, Judges and even the
President have been almost totally dislocated from the will of the people. The connection is
mostly not there anymore. It is this disconnection that is frustrating change and is thus
building up pressure. I am all for democracy but the democracy we have is not the only form
there is of democracy. There are others.
What this means is that somehow this is going to have to be changed and if not done
peacefully, then I suspect that it will be done in some other way. That lull in the news may
represent a general milling around if you will until some unknown catalyst appears to give
the beginnings of a push in another direction. How it will work out in practice I do not know
but if a mass of independents were elected in your mid-terms then that may be a good sign of
change coming. If both parties clamp down and continue to keep all others out and continue
with neoliberal policies, well, game on.
We have for the last generation or two, (maybe three?) been relentlessly conditioned (name
your puppet-master of choice) to equate happiness and contentment with the never ending
pursuit of keeping up with the Joneses. The competitive underpinnings encouraging our
participation in this futile contest fit well with our innate drives for "success". The race
was over-subscribed by throngs of enthusiastic participants yearning for glory.
For decades many of us did well. We ran strong and felt rewarded with the material
enhancements to our lives, which encouraged many of us to run faster, even if that motivation
was rooted more in the fear of being passed by Ron and Nancy Jones than it was for improving
our chances of ending up on the podium.
Even though we never seemed to catch or pass Ron or Nancy, surely they must have been out
there ahead in the haze somewhere? After all, this was the race that we so eagerly had
trained for. Plus, life was going well while we chased, so we figured it was a fruitful one
to be a part of. All the effort and toil would be worth it in the end.
The slow arc of realization and barely perceptible sense over time (coupled with the self
delusion that comes with resisting acceptance) that we have been duped that this Jones
Marathon has actually been taking place on a treadmill which gradually (hardly
noticeable, but cumulatively significant) has been ratcheted up in both speed and incline,
has now hit home. We have been running for years, but going nowhere. We can't find the stop
button, and don't even want to think what will happen to us if we were to slow down or stop
running! Problem is not only are we are growing physically weary, we are dejected and
defeated in spirit knowing that all our efforts have yielded little other than illusionary
gains.
This is the same online site which published Steele dossier
As for daily workloads those nasty Russians looks like real neoliberal slave owners not that
dissimilar to Amazon packers, or WalMart cashiers ;-) "The documents show instructions provided
to the commenters that detail the workload expected of them. On an average working day, the
Russians are to post on news articles 50 times. Each blogger is to maintain six Facebook accounts
publishing at least three posts a day and discussing the news in groups at least twice a day. By
the end of the first month, they are expected to have won 500 subscribers and get at least five
posts on each item a day. On Twitter, the bloggers are expected to manage 10 accounts with up to
2,000 followers and tweet 50 times a day. "
"... Osadchy told BuzzFeed he had never worked for the Internet Research Agency and that the extensive documents -- including apparent budgeting for his $35,000 salary -- were an "unsuccessful provocation." He declined to comment on the content of the leaks. The Kremlin declined to comment. The Internet Research Agency has not commented on the leak. ..."
"... "What, you think crazy Russians all learned English en masse and went off to comment on articles?" said Leonid Bershidsky, a media executive and Bloomberg View columnist. ..."
Plans attached to emails leaked by a mysterious Russian hacker collective show IT managers
reporting on a new ideological front against the West in the comments sections of Fox News,
Huffington Post , The Blaze, Politico , and WorldNetDaily .
The bizarre hive of social media activity appears to be part of a two-pronged Kremlin
campaign to claim control over the internet, launching a million-dollar army of trolls to mold
American public opinion as it cracks down on internet freedom at home.
"Foreign media are currently actively forming a negative image of the Russian Federation in
the eyes of the global community," one of the project's team members, Svetlana Boiko, wrote in
a strategy document. "Additionally, the discussions formed by comments to those articles are
also negative in tone.
"Like any brand formed by popular opinion, Russia has its supporters ('brand advocates') and
its opponents. The main problem is that in the foreign internet community, the ratio of
supporters and opponents of Russia is about 20/80 respectively."
The documents show instructions provided to the commenters that detail the workload expected
of them. On an average working day, the Russians are to post on news articles 50 times. Each
blogger is to maintain six Facebook accounts publishing at least three posts a day and
discussing the news in groups at least twice a day. By the end of the first month, they are
expected to have won 500 subscribers and get at least five posts on each item a day. On
Twitter, the bloggers are expected to manage 10 accounts with up to 2,000 followers and tweet
50 times a day.
They are to post messages along themes called "American Dream" and "I Love Russia." The
archetypes for the accounts are called Handkerchief, Gay Turtle, The Ghost of Marius the
Giraffe, Left Breast, Black Breast, and Ass, for reasons that are not immediately clear.
According to the documents, which are attached to several hundred emails sent to the
project's leader, Igor Osadchy, the effort was launched in April and is led by a firm called
the Internet Research Agency. It's based in a Saint Petersburg suburb, and the documents say it
employs hundreds of people across Russia who promote Putin in comments on Russian blogs.
Osadchy told BuzzFeed he had never worked for the Internet Research Agency and that the
extensive documents -- including apparent budgeting for his $35,000 salary -- were an
"unsuccessful provocation." He declined to comment on the content of the leaks. The Kremlin
declined to comment. The Internet Research Agency has not commented on the leak.
Definitively proving the authenticity of the documents and their authors' ties to the
Kremlin is, by the nature of the subject, not easy. The project's cost, scale, and awkward
implementation have led many observers in Russia to doubt, however, that it could have come
about in any other way.
"What, you think crazy Russians all learned English en masse and went off to comment on
articles?" said Leonid Bershidsky, a media executive and Bloomberg View columnist.
"If it looks like Kremlin shit, smells like Kremlin shit, and tastes like Kremlin shit too --
then it's Kremlin shit."
Despite efforts to hire English teachers for the trolls, most of the comments are written in
barely coherent English. "I think the whole world is realizing what will be with Ukraine, and
only U.S. keep on fuck around because of their great plans are doomed to failure," reads one
post from an unnamed forum, used as an example in the leaked documents.
"... The concern of the American ruling class is not Russian or Chinese "subversion," but the growth of social opposition within the United States. The narrative of "Russian meddling" has been used to justify a systematic campaign to censor the Internet and suppress free speech. ..."
The concern of the American ruling class is not Russian or Chinese "subversion," but the
growth of social opposition within the United States. The narrative of "Russian meddling" has
been used to justify a systematic campaign to censor the Internet and suppress free
speech.
Senator Mark Warner
The performance of Senator Mark Warner , the ranking Democrat on the committee, was
particularly obscene. Warner, whose net worth is estimated at $257 million, appeared to be
doing his best impersonation of Senator Joe McCarthy . He declared that foreign subversion
works together with, and is largely indistinguishable from, "threats to our institutions from
right here at home."
Alluding to the publication of the so-called Nunes memo, which documented the fraudulent
character of the Democratic-led investigation of White House "collusion" with Russia, Warner
noted,
"There have been some, aided and abetted by Russian Internet bots and trolls, who have
attacked the basic integrity of the FBI and the Justice Department."
Responding to questioning from Warner, FBI Director Christopher Wray praised the US
intelligence agencies' greater "engagement" and "partnership" with the private sector,
concluding,
"We can't fully police social media, so we have to work with them so that they can police
themselves."
Wray was referring to the sweeping measures taken by social media companies, working
directly with the US intelligence agencies, to implement a regime of censorship, including
through the hiring of tens of thousands of "content reviewers," many with intelligence
backgrounds, to flag, report and delete content.
The assault on democratic rights is increasingly connected to preparations for a major war,
which will further exacerbate social tensions within the United States. Coats prefaced his
remarks by declaring that "the risk of inter-state conflict, including among great powers, is
higher than at any time since the end of the Cold War."
As the hearing was taking place, multiple news outlets were reporting that potentially
hundreds of Russian military contractors had been killed in a recent US air strike in Syria.
This came just weeks after the publication of the Pentagon's National Defense Strategy, which
declared,
"Inter-state strategic competition, not terrorism, is now the primary concern in US
national security."
However, the implications of this great-power conflict are not simply external to the US
"homeland." The document argues that "the homeland is no longer a sanctuary," and that "America
is a target," for "political and information subversion" on the part of "revisionist powers"
such as Russia and China.
Since "America's military has no preordained right to victory on the battlefield," the only
way the US can prevail in this conflict is through the "seamless integration of multiple
elements of national power," including "information, economics, finance, intelligence, law
enforcement and military."
In other words, America's supremacy in the new world of great-power conflict requires the
subordination of every aspect of life to the requirements of war. In this totalitarian
nightmare, already far advanced, the police, the military and the intelligence agencies unite
with media and technology companies to form a single seamless unit, whose combined power is
marshaled to manipulate public opinion and suppress political dissent.
The dictatorial character of the measures being prepared was underscored by an exchange
between Wray and Republican Senator Marco Rubio , who asked whether Chinese students were
serving as spies for Beijing.
"What is the counterintelligence risk posed to US national security from Chinese students,
particularly those in advanced programs in the sciences and mathematics?" asked Rubio.
Wray responded that
"the use of nontraditional collectors, especially in the academic setting, whether it's
professors, scientists, students, we see in almost every field office that the FBI has around
the country, not just in major cities, small ones as well, basically every discipline."
This campaign, with racist overtones, recalls the official rationale -- defense of "national
security" -- used to justify the internment of some 120,000 people of Japanese ancestry during
the Second World War.
In its open letter calling for a
coalition of socialist, antiwar and progressive websites against Internet censorship, the
World Socialist Web Site noted that
"the ruling class has identified the Internet as a mortal threat to its monopolization of
information and its ability to promote propaganda to wage war and legitimize the obscene
concentration of wealth and extreme social inequality."
It is this mortal threat -- and fear of the growth of class conflict -- that motivate the
lies and hypocrisy on display at the Senate Intelligence Committee hearing.
Two senior FSB officers and a high-level manager of Russia's leading cybersecurity firm
Kaspersky Lab are facing official charges of treason in the interests of the US, a lawyer
representing one of the defendants has confirmed to Interfax. Ruslan Stoyanov, head of
Kaspersky Lab's computer incidents investigations unit, Sergey Mikhailov, a senior Russian FSB
officer, and his deputy Dmitry Dokuchayev are accused of "treason in favor of the US,"
lawyer Ivan Pavlov said on Wednesday, as cited by Interfax. Read more 70mn cyberattacks,
mostly foreign, targeted Russia's critical infrastructure in 2016 – FSB
Pavlov chose not to disclose which of the defendants he represents, adding, however, that
his client denies all charges.
The charges against the defendants do not imply they were cooperating with the CIA, Pavlov
added. "There is no mention of the CIA at all. [The entity] in question is the US, not the
CIA," he stressed, according to TASS.
The lawyer maintained the court files included no mention of Vladimir Anikeev, an alleged
leader of 'Shaltai Boltai', a hacking group that previously leaked emails from top Russian
officials, including Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev.
The hacking group's name was in the news earlier in January, when Russian media reports
linked Mikhailov and Dokuchayev to 'Shaltai Boltai' . In an unsourced article last
Wednesday, Rosbalt newspaper claimed Mikhailov's unit was ordered in 2016 to work with the
group.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told RIA Novosti on Wednesday the treason charges do not
relate to the US suspicions of Russia being behind the alleged cyberattacks on the 2016
presidential elections. He added that President Vladimir Putin is receiving regular updates on
the current investigation.
Russian media reports said Mikhailov was arrested during a conference of top FSB leadership.
He was reportedly escorted out of the room with a bag placed over his head. His deputy,
Dokuchayev, is said to be a well-known hacker who allegedly began cooperating with the FSB
several years ago. Kaspersky Lab manager Stoyanov was also placed under arrest several weeks
ago.
Stoyanov is still employed by Kaspersky Lab, the company told RIA Novosti later on
Wednesday, adding there were "no personnel changes" at this point.
Treason charges mean that the defendants could be handed a sentence of up to 20 years in
prison. The treason charges also mean any trial will not be public due to its sensitive
nature.
"... So, did Mueller address the crime committed by the then FBI head who refused to allow a FBI informant to address Congress on the Uranium One scam before it was authorized? Uh, that would be Mueller, his very self, so the answer is no. ..."
"... What is the definition of a "fake social media account"? What is the crime for operate a fake social medial account? Is this the standard by which we will all be judged? ..."
"... "In other words, anyone who was disparaging Clinton, may have "unwittingly" been a collaborator of the 13 Russian "specialists" who cost Hillary the election." No, not "in other words." That's not what he said at all. Idiot propagandist. ..."
"... And Hillary has done nothing criminal in the last 40 years. All of the evidence has been a fabrication. The Russians perfected time travel technology in the 70's, and have been conspiring against her and planting evidence since then. ..."
"... The goal of the MSM was the opposite. To unfairly disparage Trump and assist the election of Hillary Clinton. So why no indictments of members of the American MSM? ..."
"... What a bunch of horseshit. Mueller did nothing to locate just as much foreign or Russian support for Hillary. Grand Jury is just another one-sided court that passes judgment without any input from the other side. Now where have we seen that before? FISA. ..."
"... What is wrong with anyone doing what they want to support a candidate? If that is somehow illegal interference, why is Soros running loose in the world? ..."
"... I have a friend that was a US Federal Prosecutor. He once told me that the most un-American concepts that exist are grand juries and conspiracy laws. I'm sure he would have included FISA if it existed then. ..."
When does Mueller get charged? He is part of the fabric of the Clinton Gang along with Comey and others. How many people have
posted derogatory comments about Clinton on ZH alone. This sounds like when they ludicrously charged and entire unit of the Chinese
PLA.
Agreed, it's against the law to steal identities and operate bank accounts and all that. But really, compared to the fraud
committed by just one bank - Wells Fargo- this is smal small potatoes.
And did I miss it or did the indictment not even mention the value of the ads bought on Facebook - $100,000. (nope, not missing
any zeros).
And it all started in 2014 while Donald was playing golf and sticking his dick in some whore.
And a few ruskies got into the good ol USofA with false statements on their visas.
While the courts fought Trump on the fact that immigration from a few countries need to be stopped because there was not way
of checking data. I get it - somebody driving too fast gets a speeding ticket, and Muellers investigation gets to issue an indictment.
I'm sure we all feel better now.
So, did Mueller address the crime committed by the then FBI head who refused to allow a FBI informant to address Congress
on the Uranium One scam before it was authorized? Uh, that would be Mueller, his very self, so the answer is no.
What is the definition of a "fake social media account"? What is the crime for operate a fake social medial account? Is
this the standard by which we will all be judged?
Or is it that Mueller has NOTHING and is too big of a corrupt idiot to admit it.
Putin should define what a NGO is. He should tell the world how the US uses NGO's to destabilize elections. He wont do it because
he's digging tunnels for the big day.
"In other words, anyone who was disparaging Clinton, may have "unwittingly" been a collaborator of the 13 Russian "specialists"
who cost Hillary the election." No, not "in other words." That's not what he said at all. Idiot propagandist.
And Hillary has done nothing criminal in the last 40 years. All of the evidence has been a fabrication. The Russians perfected
time travel technology in the 70's, and have been conspiring against her and planting evidence since then.
What planet am I living on again? We have now stepped into the twilight zone. Facepalm.....
"Ultimately, and this is the punchline, the goal was to disparage Hillary Clinton and to assist the election of Donald Trump."
The goal of the MSM was the opposite. To unfairly disparage Trump and assist the election of Hillary Clinton. So why no
indictments of members of the American MSM?
What a bunch of horseshit. Mueller did nothing to locate just as much foreign or Russian support for Hillary. Grand Jury
is just another one-sided court that passes judgment without any input from the other side. Now where have we seen that before?
FISA.
What is wrong with anyone doing what they want to support a candidate? If that is somehow illegal interference, why is
Soros running loose in the world?
I have a friend that was a US Federal Prosecutor. He once told me that the most un-American concepts that exist are grand
juries and conspiracy laws. I'm sure he would have included FISA if it existed then.
The indictment adds that the Russians " were instructed to post content that focused on 'politics in the USA' and to 'use
any opportunity to criticize Hillary and the rest (except Sanders and Trump -- we support them)' ."
Criticizing Hillary Clinton constitutes election interference? This is the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
Over half the United States said she was corrupt and morally bankrupt. Does that mean all those Americans interfered in the
election?
"Some Defendants, posing as U.S. persons and without revealing their Russian association, communicated with unwitting individuals
associated with the Trump Campaign and with other political activists to seek to coordinate political activities."
I thought this was our "shtick" for subverting and overthrowing government(s) since 194_?... Fast forward to 2012 and subverting
sovereign foreign government(s) using other means then election(s) ( https://jasirx.wordpress.com/
)
Just ask this person ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CL_GShyGv3o
) who handed out cookies before starting an "overthrow of a sovereign government" right before a Winter Olympics?... And while
we're on the subject of subversion of sovereign Nation(s) "OCONUS" ask this fat shit how it's going in the Middle East with it's
"partners" (
https://southfront.org/meeting-between-us-state-secretary-and-lebanese-
) Nor should we forget 22 within the Russian diplomatic community in the last 6 years "eliminated" for early retirement courtesy
of the U.S. government...
And if all this is true why isn't Muelller indicting government officials within the FBI Department of immigration and Homeland
Security that would allow "some defendants" to impersonate Americans after 9/11 and the security infrastructure we built around
U.S. to prevent "future attacks" that were obviously (here illegally)???...
What a complete load of horseshit. Waste of time and money while the crimes of the clintons and collaborators remain unpunished,
including Mueller himself.
"Mueller describes a sweeping, years-long, multimillion-dollar conspiracy by hundreds of Russians aimed at criticizing Hillary
Clinton and supporting Senator Bernie Sanders and Trump"
Only in the idiot world of Liberalism and Conservatism is this not a laughable statement.
In a recent interview, James Clapper, who served as President Obama's director of national intelligence, said explicitly that
the Intelligence Community Assessment itself had nothing whatsoever to do with the dossier. "We briefed, John [Brennan, then CIA
director] and I, briefed the president-elect [Trump] at the time, on January 6. He viewed what we presented to him, which had very
high confidence levels in what we presented him, which by the way, a point I'll make, had nothing to do with the dossier. We did
not draw on the dossier. The dossier, the infamous dossier, was not a part of our Intelligence Community Assessment," said Clapper.
"His first reaction to it was that this caused a question about the legitimacy of his election."
Jeffrey Harrison says: February 16, 2018 at 6:08 pm
It's interesting that the Russians set this all up to boost Trump and disparage Three Names before Trump even announced he
was running. The basic set up for this was going on in 2014 whereas Trump announced in 2015.
Carla Skidmore says: February 16, 2018 at 7:29 pm
No, not really. Trump was making gestures of interest in the presidency in 2012
Jeffrey Harrison says: February 16, 2018 at 8:30 pm
Pfui. He also made noises about running in the 2012 election. People don't set up organizations to do stuff just on the off
chance that some politician or wannabe is going to run. These guys ain't got nothin'.
It's been a year since Mueller went to work and what's he got? A couple of Republican political operatives being political
operatives. Their crime was not reporting to the USG that they were working for Ukraine.
Now we're down to social media posts. You're probably one of those people who say, I saw it on the internet so it must be true.
If the government is going to be upset about crap they see on social media from foreign parties, they need to start by telling
said social media that they can't solicit advertising from foreign entities with political overtones as facebook did of RT.
Francis Louis Szot says: February 16, 2018 at 6:05 pm
Apparently, it comes down to trolls who planted various "fake news" stories.
Stipulate to all of that; the worst of it.
How does THAT begin to stack–up against the murderous coup that the USA OPENLY fomented in the Ukraine a couple of years earlier
by bankrolling dozens of Non-governmental organizations whose sole purpose was "regime change"?
Maybe come back to me about all of this when the FBI can convincingly prove that the Russian government armed and funded a
Neo–nazi para–military group that assaulted and burned–down the North Carolina State House.
Clark M Shanahan says: February 16, 2018 at 3:44 pm
I'm hoping the hush-money passed on to two of Trump's romantic caprices, during the election, gets traction.
Tell me, as soon as you can, when having skepticism on the Russia/Election Meddling story is finally permitted. I heard tell,
we've lately dropped the "Treason" narration. Now the spin du jour is that Trump & Co were all duped by them clever Ruskies.
"... Paul Brian is a freelance journalist. He has reported for BBC, Reuters, and Foreign Policy, and contributed to the Week, The Federalist, and others. He covered the fledgling U.S. alt-right at a 2014 conference in Hungary as well as the 2015 New Hampshire primary, and also made a documentary about his time living in the Republic of Georgia in 2012. You can follow him on Twitter @paulrbrian or visit his website www.paulrbrian.com . ..."
The hawks and internationalists who set our house on fire don't now deserve the contract to rebuild it.
While it may have significant popular support, much of the anti-Trump "Resistance" suffers from a severe weakness of message.
Part of the problem is with who the Resistance's leading messengers are: discredited neoconservative poltroons like former president
George W. Bush, unwatchable alleged celebrities like Chelsea Handler, and establishment Republicans who routinely
slash and burn the middle class like Senator Jeff Flake. Furthermore, what exactly is the Resistance's overriding message? Invariably
their sermonizing revolves around vague bromides about "tolerance," diversity, unrestricted free trade, and multilateralism. They
routinely push a supposed former status quo that was in fact anything but a status quo. The leaders of the Resistance have in their
arsenal nothing but buzzwords and a desire to feel self-satisfied and turn back to imagined pre-Trump normality. A president like
Donald Trump is only possible in a country with opposition voices of such subterranean caliber.
Remember when Trump steamrolled a crowded field of Republicans in one of the greatest electoral upsets in American history? Surely
many of us also recall the troupes of smug celebrities and Bushes and Obamas who lined up to take potshots at Trump over his unacceptably
cruel utterances that upset their noble moral sensibilities? How did that work out for them? They lost. The more that opposition
to Trump in office takes the same form as opposition to him on the campaign trail, the more hypocritical and counterproductive it
becomes. Further, the resistance to Trump's policies is coming just at the moment when principled opposition most needs to up its
game and help turn back the hands of the Doomsday Clock. It's social conservatives who are also opposed to war and exploitation of
the working class who have the best moral bona fides to effectively oppose Trump, which is why morally phrased attacks on Trump from
the corporate and socially liberal wings of the left, as well as the free market and interventionist conservative establishment,
have failed and will continue to fail. Any real alternative is going to have to come from regular folks with hearts and morals who
aren't stained by decades of failure and hypocrisy.
A majority of Democrats now have
favorable views
of George W. Bush, and that's no coincidence. Like the supposedly reasonable anti-Trump voices on their side, Bush pops up like a
dutiful marionette to condemn white supremacy and
"nativism," and to
reminisce about the good old days when he was in charge. Bush also lectures about how Russia is ruining everything by meddling in
elections and destabilizing the world. But how convincing is it really to hear about multilateralism and respect for human rights
from Bush, who launched an unnecessary war on Iraq that killed hundreds of thousands of civilians and left thousands of American
servicemen and women dead and wounded? How convincing is it when former secretary of state Madeleine Albright, who famously remarked
that an estimated half a million Iraqis dead from our 1990s sanctions was "worth it," haughtily claims that she's
"offended" by Trump's travel ban ? "Offended" -- is that so, Madame Secretary? I have a feeling millions of Muslims in the Middle
East may have also been "offended" when people like you helped inflame their region and turned it into an endless back-and-forth
firestorm of conflict between U.S.-backed dictators and brutal jihadists, with everyone else caught in between.
Maybe instead of being offended that not everyone can come to America, people like Albright, Kerry, and Bush shouldn't have contributed
to the conditions that wrecked those people's homes in the first place? Maybe the U.S. government should think more closely about
providing military aid to 73 percent of the world's dictatorships? Sorry, do excuse the crazy talk. Clearly all the ruthless
maneuvering by the U.S. and NATO is just being done out of a selfless desire to spread democratic values by raining down LGBT-friendly
munitions on beleaguered populations worldwide. Another congressman just gave a speech about brave democratic principles so we can
all relax.
Generally, U.S. leaders like to team up with dictators before turning on them when they become inconvenient or start to upset
full-spectrum dominance. Nobody have should been surprised to see John Kerry fraternizing in a friendly manner with Syrian butcher
Bashar al-Assad and then moralistically threatening him with war several years later, or Donald Rumsfeld grinning with Saddam Hussein
as they cooperated militarily before Rumsfeld did an about-face on the naïve dictator based on false premises after 9/11. Here's
former president Barack Obama
shaking Moammar Gaddafi's hand in 2009 . I wonder what became of Mr. Gaddafi?
It's beyond parody to hear someone like Bush sternly opine that there's
"pretty clear evidence" Russia meddled in the 2016 election. Even if that were deeply significant in the way some argue, Bush
should be the last person anyone is hearing from about it. It's all good, though: remember when Bush
laughed about how there hadn't been weapons of mass destruction
in Iraq at the White House Correspondents Dinner in 2004? It's all just a joke; don't you get it? (Maybe Saddam Hussein had already
used all the chemical weapons
the U.S. helped him get during the 1980s on Iran in the Iran-Iraq War, which killed over one million people by the time the coalition
of the willing came knocking in 2003). That's the kind of thing people like Bush like to indirectly joke about in the company of
self-satisfied press ghouls at celebratory dinners. However, when the mean man Mr. Trump pals around with Russian baddie Vladimir
Putin, mistreats women, or spews out unkind rhetoric about "shitholes," it's far from a joke: it's time to get out your two-eared
pink hat and hit the streets chanting in righteous outrage.
To be fair, Trump is worthy of opposition. An ignorant, reactive egotist who needs to have his unfounded suppositions and inaccuracies
constantly validated by a sycophantic staff of people who'd be rejected even for a reality show version of the White House, he really
is an unstable excuse for a leader and an inveterate misogynist and all the other things. Trump isn't exactly Bible Belt material
despite his stamp of approval from Jerry Falwell Jr. and crew; in fact he hasn't even succeeded in
getting rid of the Johnson Amendment and allowing churches to get more involved in politics, one of his few concrete promises
to Christian conservatives. He's also a big red button of a disaster in almost every other area as commander-in-chief.
Trump's first military action as president reportedly killed numerous innocent women and children (some unnamed U.S. officials
claim some of the women were militants) as well as a Navy SEAL. Helicopter gunships strafed a Yemeni village for over an hour in
what Trump called a
"highly successful" operation against al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). A senior military official felt differently,
saying that
"almost
everything went wrong." The raid even killed eight-year-old American girl Nawar al-Awlaki, daughter of previously killed extremist
leader Anwar al-Awlaki, whose other innocent child, 16-year-old Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, was also droned while eating outdoors at a
restaurant in 2010 (with several friends and his 17-year-old cousin). The Obama administration dismissed Abdulrahman's death at the
time as
no big deal .
The list goes on with the Trump administration, a hollow outfit of Goldman Sachs operatives and detached industry and financier
billionaires helping out their hedge fund friends and throwing a small table scrap to the peasants every now and then. As
deformed babies are born in Flint, Michigan , Ivanka grandstands about
paid parental leave
. Meanwhile, Trump and Co. work to
expand the war in Afghanistan
and Syria. It's a sad state of affairs.
So who are the right voices to oppose the mango man-child and his cadre of doddering dullards? Not degenerate celebrities, dirty
politicians of the past, or special interest groups that try to fit everyone into a narrow electoral box so mainline Democrats can
pass their own version of corporate welfare and run wars with more sensitive rhetoric and politically correct messaging. Instead,
the effective dissidents of the future will be people of various beliefs, but especially the pro-family and faith-driven, who are
just as opposed to what came before Trump as they are to him. The future of a meaningful political alternative to the underlying
liberalism, materialism, and me-first individualism on the left and right will revolve around traditionalists and pro-family conservative
individuals who define their own destinies instead of letting themselves be engineered into destinies manufactured by multinational
corporations and boardroom gremlins with diversity outreach strategies. It's possible, for example, to be socially conservative,
pro-worker, pro-environment, and anti-war. In fact, that is the norm in most countries that exist outside the false political
paradigm pushed in America.
If enough suburbanite centrists who take a break from Dancing With The Stars are convinced that Trump is bad because
George W. Bush and Madeleine Albright say so, it shows that these people have learned absolutely nothing from Trump or the process
that led to him. These kind of resistors are the people nodding their heads emphatically as they read Eliot Cohen talk about why
he and his friends
can't stomach the evil stench of Trump or
Robert Kagan whine about fascism in The Washington Post. Here's a warning to good people who may not have been following
politics closely prior to Trump: don't get taken in by these charlatans. Don't listen to those who burned your town down as they
pitch you the contract to rebuild it. You can oppose both the leaders of the "Resistance" and Trump. In fact, it is your moral duty
to do so. This is the End of the End of History As We Know It, but there isn't going to be an REM song or Will Smith punching an
alien in the face to help everyone through it.
Here's a thought for those finding themselves enthusiastic about the Resistance and horrified by Trump: maybe, just maybe
, the water was already starting to boil before you cried out in pain and alarm.
Paul Brian is a freelance journalist. He has reported for BBC, Reuters, and Foreign Policy, and contributed to the Week, The
Federalist, and others. He covered the fledgling U.S. alt-right at a 2014 conference in Hungary as well as the 2015 New Hampshire
primary, and also made a documentary about his time living in the Republic of Georgia in 2012. You can follow him on Twitter @paulrbrian
or visit his website www.paulrbrian.com .
"The future of a meaningful political alternative to the underlying liberalism, materialism, and me-first individualism on the
left and right will revolve around traditionalists and pro-family conservative individuals who define their own destinies instead
of letting themselves be engineered into destinies manufactured by multinational corporations and boardroom gremlins with diversity
outreach strategies."
They will have to lose their faith in "Free Market God" first. I don't believe that will happen.
I enjoyed the heat. The comments made are on point, and this is pretty much what my standard response to reactionary trump dissidents
are. Trump is terrible, but so is what came before him, he is just easier to dislike.
Even with inadequate opposition, Trump has managed to be the most unpopular president after one year, ever. I'm guessing this
speaks to his unique talent of messing things up.
Wow! Paul! Babylon burning. Preach it, brother! Takes me back to my teenage years, Ramparts 1968, as another corrupt infrastructure
caught fire and burned down. TAC is amazing, the only place to find this in true form.
Either we are history remembering fossils soon gone, or the next financial crash – now inevitable with passage of tax reform
(redo of 2001- the rich got their money out, now full speed off the cliff), will bring down this whole mass of absolute corruption.
What do you think will happen when Trump is faced with a true crisis? They're selling off the floorboards. What can remain standing?
And elsewhere in the world, who, in their right mind, would help us? Good riddance to truly dangerous pathology. The world
would truly become safer with the USA decommissioned, and then restored, through honest travail, to humility, and humanity.
You are right. Be with small town, front porch, family and neighborhood goodness, and dodge the crashing embers.
The Flying Burrito Brothers: 'On the thirty-first floor a gold plated door
Won't keep out the Lord's burning rain '
The depressing thing to me is how hard it is to get people to see this. You have people who still think Trump is doing a great
job and on the other side people who admire the warmongering Resistance and think Hillary's vast experience in foreign policy
was one of her strengths, rather than one of the main reasons to be disgusted by her. Between the two categories I think you have
the majority of American voters.
U.S. Special Counsel Robert Mueller unveiled the details of a widespread and coordinated
campaign by Russians to influence the U.S. presidential election in favor of Donald Trump,
delivering on his initial mandate by the Justice Department.
In an indictment disclosed in Washington on Friday, Mueller describes a sweeping,
years-long, multimillion-dollar conspiracy by hundreds of Russians aimed at criticizing
Hillary Clinton and supporting Senator Bernie Sanders and Trump. He charged 13 Russian
nationals and three Russian entities and accused them of defrauding the U.S. government by
interfering with the political process.
The Internet Research Agency, a Russian organization, and the defendants began working
in 2014 to interfere in U.S. elections, according to the indictment. They used false
personas and social media while also staging political rallies and communicating with
"unwitting individuals" associated with the Trump campaign, it said.
The documents point to a broader conspiracy beyond the pages of the indictment, saying
the grand jury has heard about other people with whom the Russians allegedly conspired in
their efforts.
Bloomberg News cited a "person with knowledge" of Mueller's investigation in a report on
Friday afternoon to note that this indictment is just the beginning of actions to be expected
and avenues to be explored by Mueller in the coming months ahead. Bloomberg's Chris Strohm
wrote .:
Special Counsel Robert Mueller and his prosecutors haven't concluded their investigation
into whether President Donald Trump or any of his associates helped Russia interfere in the
2016 election, according to a person with knowledge of the probe. Friday's indictment of a
St. Petersburg-based "troll farm" and 13 Russian nationals should be seen as a limited slice
of a comprehensive investigation, the person said. Mueller's work is expected to continue for
months and also includes examining potential obstruction of justice by Trump, said the
person, who requested anonymity to discuss an investigation that is largely confidential.
The indictment targets 13 Russians as well as Internet Research Agency, LLC, which is a
Saint Petersburg-based organization that pushes influence operations on behalf of the Russian
government. The indictment alleges that those 13 Russians and Internet Research Agency, as well
as fellow Russian firms Concord Management and Consulting LLC and Concord Catering,
knowingly and intentionally conspired with each other (and with persons known and unknown
to the Grand Jury) to defraud the United States by impairing, obstructing, and defeating the
lawful functions of the government through fraud and deceit for the purpose of interfering
with the U.S. political and electoral processes, including the presidential election of
2016.
The scheme, the indictment alleges, began as far back as 2014 and continued until after the
2016 presidential election. U.S. intelligence authorities and officials say the Russians intend
to engage in similar actions in 2018's midterm elections here in the United States, and future
elections thereafter.
While the indictment does not say how much money these Russian entities spent on this, it
does say that Concord and Russian oligarch and Vladimir Putin ally Yevgeny Prigozhin "spent
significant funds to further" the operations of Internet Research Agency and "to pay the
remaining defendants" along with others not charged in this indictment but employed by Internet
Research Agency.
In a Friday report filed from Saint Petersburg, the New York Times' Neil
MacFarqhuar noted that Prigozhin is a Russian oligarch with deep connections to Putin.
"Despite his humble, troubled youth, Mr. Prigozhin became one of Russia's richest men,
joining a charmed circle whose members often share one particular attribute: their proximity to
President Vladimir V. Putin," MacFarqhuar wrote
. "The small club of loyalists who gain Mr. Putin's trust often feast, as Mr. Prigozhin has, on
enormous state contracts. In return, they are expected to provide other, darker services to the
Kremlin as needed."
Prigozhin himself, per the Times quoting him via Russian state media outlet Ria
Novosti, responded to the indictment in dark terms.
"The Americans are very impressionable people, they see what they want to see," Prigozhin
said. "I have a lot of respect for them. I am not upset at all that I ended up on this list. If
they want to see the devil, let them see him."
The Mueller indictment alleges that these Russian actors engaged in paid and other social
media efforts as well as staging political rallies and sowing discord in the United States
using identity politics by propping up causes like Black Lives Matter, pro-Islamic causes,
religious entities, and more. And they did it by posing as U.S. persons with falsified or
stolen identities. The indictment reads:
Defendants, posing as U.S. persons and creating false U.S. personas, operated social media
pages and groups designed to attract U.S. audiences. These groups and pages, which addressed
divisive U.S. political and social issues, falsely claimed to be controlled by U.S. activists
when, in fact they were controlled by Defendants. Defendants also used the stolen identities
of real U.S. to post on ORGANIZATION-controlled social media accounts. Over time, these
social media accounts became Defendants' means to reach significant numbers of Americans for
purposes of interfering with the U.S. political system, including the presidential election
of 2016." Some of these Russia-based Defendants, the indictment alleges, "traveled to the
United States under false pretenses for the purpose of collecting intelligence" and obtained
and "procured and used computer infrastructure" that was partially American-based "to hide
the Russian origin of their activities and to avoid detection by U.S. regulators and law
enforcement.
The indictment also details contacts that these Russians, posing as Americans with assumed
or stolen identities, had multiple contacts with "unwitting" campaign officials with President
Trump's campaign.
Internet Research Agency, the indictment says, had a "strategic goal to sow discord in the
U.S. political system" and that the Defendants "posted derogatory information about a number of
candidates, and by early to mid-2016, Defendants' operations included supporting the
presidential campaign of then-candidate Donald J. Trump ('Trump Campaign') and disparaging
Hillary Clinton." The indictment reads:
Defendants made various expenditures to carry out those activities, including buying
political advertisements on social media in the names of U.S. persons and entities.
Defendants also stages political rallies inside the United States, and while posing as U.S.
grassroots entities and U.S. persons, and without revealing their Russian identities and
ORGANIZATION affiliation, solicited and compensated real U.S. persons to promote or disparage
candidates. Some Defendants, posing as U.S. persons and without revealing their Russian
association, communicated with unwitting individuals associated with the Trump Campaign and
with other political activists to seek to coordinate political activities.
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who is overseeing Mueller's investigation after the
recusal of Attorney General Jeff Sessions, said in a press appearance announcing these
indictments that no real U.S. persons who communicated with these fake U.S. persons who were
really Russians actually knew that they were talking with Russians about these activities.
Presumably, Rosenstein's comments would include the various Trump campaign officials and
associates who were in contact with them. Rosenstein said at the press conference:
There is no allegation in this indictment that any American had any knowledge, and the
nature of the scheme was the Defendants took extraordinary steps to make it appear as though
they were ordinary American political activists even going so far as to base their activities
on a virtual private network based here in the United States. If anybody traced it back to
that first jump, they would appear to be Americans.
Rosenstein also said there is nothing in this indictment that suggests that the outcome of
the election was impacted. "There is no allegation in the indictment of any effect on the
outcome of the election," Rosenstein said.
But the allegation does detail a sophisticated scheme by which Russians tried to influence
the American political discourse at such a volatile time in U.S. politics -- and that they did
it through "fraud and deceit" by "making expenditures in connection with the 2016 U.S.
presidential election without proper regulatory disclosure" and "failing to register as foreign
agents carrying out political activities within the United States" as well as "obtaining visas
through false and fraudulent statements."
The indicted Russian organization Internet Research Agency allegedly created a team of
"specialists" who were "tasked to create social media accounts that appeared to be operated by
U.S. persons" then "divided into day-shift and night-shift hours and instructed to make posts
in accordance with the appropriate U.S. time zone." Internet Research Agency also allegedly
"circulated lists of U.S. holidays so that specialists could develop and post appropriate
account activity" and that said specialists were "instructed to write about topics germane to
the United States such as U.S. foreign policy and U.S. economic issues."
They created social media groups designed to enflame the fringes of American society,
including pushing Black Lives Matter, immigration control, religious groups, and certain
geographic areas inside the United States. Examples cited in the indictment include accounts
called things like Blacktivist, United Muslims of America, Army of Jesus, Secured Borders,
South United, and Heart of Texas.
"By 2016, the size of many ORGANIZATION-controlled groups had grown to hundreds of thousands
of online followers," the indictment says.
The Defendants also allegedly bought social media ads starting in or around 2015 designed to
promote their controlled entities, "spending thousands of U.S. dollars every month." They
falsely made a Twitter account called @TEN_GOP to make it appear as though they were the
Republican Party of Tennessee, a major political party in a U.S. State.
As Rosenstein detailed in the press conference, the indictment also explains how the
Russians allegedly hid their Russian identities by buying "space on computer servers located
inside the United States in order to set up virtual private networks ('VPNs')."
"Defendants and their co-conspirators connected from Russia to the U.S.-based infrastructure
by way of these VPNs and conducted activity inside the United States -- including accessing
online social media accounts, opening new accounts, and communicating with real U.S. persons --
while masking the Russian origin and control of the activity," the indictment says.
They also stole U.S. persons' identities -- or used stolen identities -- to engage in this
scheme so they could create PayPal accounts. The indictment says:
In or around 2016, Defendants and their co-conspirators also used, possessed, and
transferred, without lawful authority, the social security numbers and dates of birth of real
U.S. persons without those persons' knowledge or consent. Using these means of
identification, Defendants and their co-conspirators opened account at PayPal, a digital
payment service provider; created false means of identification, including fake driver's
licenses; and posted on ORGANIZATION-controlled social media accounts using the identities of
these U.S. victims. Defendants and their co-conspirators also obtained, and attempted to
obtain, false identification documents to use as proof of identity in connection with
maintaining accounts and purchasing advertisements on social media sites.
Regarding the 2016 election, the Defendants' efforts began per the indictment as far back as
2014 -- and over time became clearer as to their intentions. "They engaged in operations
primarily intended to communicate derogatory information about Hillary Clinton, to denigrate
other candidates such as Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, and to support Bernie Sanders and
then-candidate Donald Trump," the indictment says.
In line-item number 45 on page 17 of the indictment, it says that the Russians "also used
false U.S. personas to communicate with unwitting members, volunteers, and supporters of the
Trump Campaign involved in local community outreach, as well as grassroots groups that
supported then-candidate Trump."
"These individuals [the American Trump backers referenced] and entities at times distributed
the ORGANIZATION's materials through their own accounts via retweets, reposts, and similar
means," the indictment says. "Defendants and their co-conspirators then monitored the
propagation of content through such participants."
In addition, via an Instagram account controlled by the Russian Internet Research Agency
called "Woke Blacks," in the weeks before the general election the account encouraged American
minorities not to vote at all. Another Russian-controlled Instagram account called
"Blacktivist" urged black people to vote for Green Party candidate Jill Stein, something that
would hurt Hillary Clinton's chances. And in early November 2016, the indictment says a Russian
controlled "United Muslims of America" account encouraged Muslims not to vote for Clinton.
The indictment also says that the Russians from April 2016 through November 2016, while
using false identities, "began to produce, purchase, and post advertisements on U.S. social
media and other online sites expressly advocating for the election of then-candidate Trump or
expressly opposing Clinton."
"Defendants and their co-conspirators did not report their expenditures to the Federal
Election Commission, or register as foreign agents with the U.S. Department of Justice," the
indictment says about the ads.
In addition, to pay for the ads, the Russians "established various Russian bank accounts and
credit cards, often registered in the names of fictitious U.S. personas created and used by the
ORGANIZATION on social media." They also allegedly used PayPal accounts.
The ads, several examples of which are detailed on line-item number 50 in the indictment on
page number 20, are expressly political pleas to vote for Trump or oppose Clinton.
Perhaps even more significantly, the indictment alleges that these Russian operatives
engaged in the staging of political rallies in the United States to further their objectives,
starting approximately in June 2016.
"To conceal the fact that they were based in Russia, Defendants and their co-conspirators
promoted these rallies while pretending to be U.S. grassroots activists who were located in the
United States but were unable to meet or participate in person," the indictment says, adding
that the Russians used their social media presence and contacts at they had spent years
building to promote the rallies.
One particularly interesting tidbit comes on line-item 53 on page 21, where it says the
Russian-controlled group "United Muslims of America" promoted a rally titled: "Support Hillary.
Save American Muslims," a July 9, 2016 rally in Washington, D.C.
"Defendants and their co-conspirators recruited a real U.S. person to hold a sign depicting
Clinton and a quote attributed to her stating 'I think Sharia Law will be a powerful new
direction of freedom,'" the indictment says. "Within three weeks, on or about July 26, 2016,
Defendants and their co-conspirators posted on the same Facebook page that Muslim voters were
'between Hillary Clinton and a hard place.'"
In June, July, and August 2016, the indictment says, other pro-Trump Russian-controlled
social media accounts organized and promoted a variety of pro-Trump or anti-Clinton rallies in
New York and "offered money to certain U.S. persons to cover rally expenses."
They also pushed to create pro-Trump rallies in Florida around this time, and in
Pennsylvania. Then, after the election, the Russians organized rallies for and against
then-President-elect Donald Trump.
In the case of the Florida efforts, the indictment details how the Russians created a false
U.S. persona named "Matt Skiber" in August 2016 to communicate with real people connected with
the Trump campaign. The indictment says:
On or about August 15, 2016, Defendants and their co-conspirators received an email at one
of their false U.S. persona accounts from a real U.S. person, a Florida-based political
activist identified as the 'Chair of the Trump Campaign' in a particular Florida county. The
activist identified two additional sites in Florida for possible rallies. Defendants and
their co-conspirators subsequently used their false U.S. persona accounts to communicate with
the activist about logistics and an additional rally in Florida.
The Russians then allegedly used an Instagram account they controlled to buy ads to push the
rally. The indictment continues:
On or about August 18, 2016, the real 'Florida for Trump' Facebook account responded to
the false U.S. persona 'Matt Skiber' account with instructions to contact a member of the
Trump Campaign ('Campaign Official 1') involved in the campaign's Florida operations and
provided Campaign Official 1's email address at the campaign domain donaldtrump.com. On
approximately the same day, Defendants and their co-conspirators used the email address of a
false U.S. persona, [email protected], to send an email to Campaign Official 1 at that
donaldtrump.com email account
In the email, which is partially quoted, the Russian posing an American writes to the
unidentified unassuming Trump campaign official that they are organizing a rally on Aug. 20,
2016, to support Trump. The Russian wrote:
Let us introduce ourselves first. 'Being Patriotic' is a grassroots conservative online
movement trying to unite people offline [W]e gained a huge lot of followers and decided to
somehow help Mr. Trump get elected. You know, simple yelling on the Internet is not enough.
There should be real action. We organized rallies in New York before. Now we're focusing on
purple states such as Florida.
The email, per the indictment, identifies "thirteen 'confirmed locations' in Florida for the
rallies and requested the campaign provide 'assistance in each location.'"
They also sent money via wire transfer to a separate U.S. person "to build a cage large
enough to hold an actress depicting Clinton in a prison uniform" then communicated again with a
second Trump campaign official via official email -- and then the Russians used the fake "Matt
Skiber" Facebook account to communicate with a real third Trump campaign official in Florida.
The indictment then details several other rallies in Florida, New York, and Pennsylvania that
the fake Russians helped organize, including payment via interstate wire transfer for
costs.
That all is part of count one in the indictment, Conspiracy to Defraud the United States.
Count two, Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud and Bank Fraud, as well as counts three through
eight -- all Aggravated Identity Theft charges -- all build upon many of the revelations in the
first part of the indictment.
The Russian organization named in the indictment - the Internet Research Agency - and the
defendants began working in 2014 - so one year before the Trump candidacy was even announced
- to interfere in U.S. elections, according to the indictment in Washington. They used false
personas and social media while also staging political rallies and communicating with
"unwitting individuals" associated with the Trump campaign, it said.
2014.......um, yeah, what a crock of bullshit.
Seriously though, what is illegal about what they did? Sowing discord? Hell CNN and all of
Soros' org would be guilty of the same thing wouldn't they? Isn't 'sowing discord' like the
main mission of the CIA, both here and in other countries?
Not a lawyer, but seems this cannot hold up in court.
The United States, which has interfered in the domestic affairs of nearly every country on
the planet, including not only elections but armed attacks, government overthrows and
assassinations, was terribly hurt by some Facebook ads placed by people who conspired to
defraud this helpless government. The horrors!
from the indictment
From in or around 2014 to the present, in the Dustrict of Columbia and elsewhere,
Defendants, together with others known and unknown to the grand Jury, knowingly and
intentionally conspired to defraud the United States by impairing, obstructing, and
defeating the lawful functions of the Federal Election Commission, the U.S. Department of
Justice, and the U.S. Department of State in administering federal requirements for
disclosure of foreign involvement in certain domestic activities. . . here
One year later we can say with confidence, yes he morphed into a neocon in foreign policy.
What is especially bad is that Trump executed "bait and switch" maneuver as smoothly as Obama. Devastating.
Notable quotes:
"... So now it gets me thinking like this: Who are Mr. Bandow's clients today? ..."
"... Some say that the reason for Trump's total reversal of his campaign-position on Russia is the American Deep State (the U.S. aristocracy and its agents). I agree with that view. ..."
"... I believe the American people are beginning to realize the CIA has the obsession for multiple, unending wars all for the benefit of Wall Street. ..."
"... It appears "military-industrial complex" or "deep state" refuses to take step back and insists on sucking more money from taxpayers. On first glance all is great for them, bombing of Middle East will continue, and so will military expansion at cost of civilian programs. However, ramifications to rest of the world should not be dismissed. EU countries are divided on following Washington hard line against Russia or diverge with USA. Currently, EU is cracking and might fall apart. Some in USA would cheer it but in long run it will mean loss of strongest US supporter against China. Regarding Middle East, Trump punished victims of AlQaeda and did nothing against financiers of AlQaeda, which will only increase local tensions. So indeed, not a great start... ..."
"... While I basically agree that Trump is not following through on his campaign, we must keep in mind that the campaign of his opponent was for MUCH more of the same, new wars, vastly increased fighting in current wars. So more of the same is in fact a big step down from the alternative. ..."
"... Stop those wars. They don't serve us. ..."
"... Trump's a liar, and his whole campaign was a calculated fraud from the beginning. We're the victims of a "bait-and-switch" scam. ..."
"... Because he lied. Just like he lied about draining the swamp and just restocked it with new varmints from Goldman Sachs and even an ex-Soros employee. Nothing new for me. Been watching elections for about 60 years and this is same ole. America can't take much more of this before it collapses and splits apart. The world isn't going to take much more from dc either. God help us. We are in a pickle! ..."
Candidate Donald Trump offered a sharp break from his predecessors. He was particularly critical of neoconservatives, who
seemed to back war at every turn.
Indeed, he promised not to include in his administration "those who have perfect resumes but very little to brag about except
responsibility for a long history of failed policies and continued losses at war." And he's generally kept that commitment, for
instance rejecting as deputy secretary of state Elliot Abrams, who said Trump was unfit to be president.
Substantively candidate Trump appeared to offer not so much a philosophy as an inclination. Practical if not exactly realist, he
cared more for consequences than his three immediate predecessors, who had treated wars as moral crusades in Somalia, the
Balkans, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria. In contrast, Trump promised: "unlike other candidates for the presidency, war and
aggression will not be my first instinct."
Yet so far the Trump administration is shaping up as a disappointment for those who hoped for a break from the liberal
interventionist/neoconservative synthesis.
The first problem is staffing. In Washington people are policy. The president can speak and tweet, but he needs others to turn
ideas into reality and implement his directives. It doesn't appear that he has any foreign policy realists around him, or anyone
with a restrained view of America's international responsibilities.
Rex Tillerson, James Mattis and H. R. McMaster are all serious and talented, and none are neocons. But all seem inclined toward
traditional foreign policy approaches and committed to moderating their boss's unconventional thoughts. Most of the names
mentioned for deputy secretary of state have been reliably hawkish, or some combination of hawk and centrist-Abrams, John Bolton,
the rewired Jon Huntsman.
Trump appears to be most concerned with issues that have direct domestic impacts, and especially with economic nostrums about
which he is most obviously wrong. He's long been a protectionist (his anti-immigration opinions are of more recent vintage). Yet
his views have not changed even as circumstances have. The Chinese once artificially limited the value of the renminbi, but
recently have taken the opposite approach. The United States is not alone in losing manufacturing jobs, which are disappearing
around the world and won't be coming back. Multilateral trade agreements are rarely perfect, but they are not zero sum games.
They usually offer political as well as economic benefits. Trump does not seem prepared to acknowledge this, at least
rhetorically. Indeed he has brought on board virulent opponents of free trade such as Peter Navarro.
The administration's repudiation of the Trans-Pacific Partnership was particularly damaging. Trump's decision embarrassed
Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe, who had offered important economic concessions to join. More important, Trump has abandoned
the economic field to the People's Republic of China, which is pushing two different accords. Australia, among other U.S. allies,
has indicated that it now will deal with Beijing, which gets to set the Pacific trade agenda. In this instance, what's good for
China is bad for the United States.
In contrast, on more abstract foreign policy issues President Trump seems ready to treat minor concessions as major victories and
move on. For years he criticized America's Asian and European allies for taking advantage of U.S. defense generosity. In his
March foreign policy speech, he complained that "our allies are not paying their fair share." During the campaign he suggested
refusing to honor NATO's Article 5 commitment and leave countries failing to make sufficient financial contributions to their
fate.
Yet Secretaries Mattis and Tillerson have insisted that Washington remains committed to the very same alliances incorporating
dependence on America. Worse, in his speech to Congress the president took credit for the small uptick in military outlays by
European NATO members which actually began in 2015: "based on our very strong and frank discussions, they are beginning" to "meet
their financial obligations." Although he declared with predictable exaggeration that "the money is pouring in," no one believes
that Germany, which will go from 1.19 to 1.22 percent of GDP this year, will nearly double its outlays to hit even the NATO
standard of two percent.
Trump's signature policy initiative, rapprochement with Russia, appears dead in the water. Unfortunately, the president's strange
personal enthusiasm for Vladimir Putin undercut his desire to accommodate a great power which has no fundamental, irresolvable
conflicts with the America. Contrary to neocon history, Russia and America have often cooperated in the past. Moreover, President
Trump's attempt to improve relations faces strong ideological opposition from neoconservatives determined to have a new enemy and
partisan resistance from liberal Democrats committed to undermining the new administration.
President Trump also appears to have no appointees who share his commitment on this issue. At least Trump's first National
Security Adviser, Mike Flynn, wanted better relations with Russia, amid other, more dubious beliefs, but now the president seems
alone. In fact, Secretary Tillerson sounded like he was representing the Obama administration when he demanded Moscow's
withdrawal from Crimea, a policy nonstarter. Ambassador-designate Huntsman's views are unclear, but he will be constrained by the
State Department bureaucracy, which is at best unimaginative and at worst actively obstructionist.
"Unfortunately, the president's strange personal enthusiasm for Vladimir Putin undercut his desire to accommodate a great power
which has no fundamental, irresolvable conflicts with the America."
I did my due diligence on the writer after this absolutely baffling argument that has no basis on certain fundamental laws
of geopolitics. Referring to this:
https://www.bloomberg.com/n...
So now it gets me thinking like this: Who are Mr. Bandow's clients today? Figures...
Some say that the reason for Trump's total reversal of his campaign-position on Russia is the American Deep State (the U.S.
aristocracy and its agents). I agree with that view.
And other say you're a sap for believing a bunch of half-baked one-liners that Trump often contradicted in the same sentence...
He never had a coherent policy on anything, no less foreign policy... so don't complain now that he's showing his true colors
The USA should FORCE other nations to use DIPLOMACY as a means to preventing wars. If they don't, they lose all support, financial
and otherwise, from the USA. This would include Israel and Saudi Arabia.
The only thing Trump should take a look at in all this
is the INHUMANE policies that previous administrations have used to placate the military/industrial clique's appetite for money
and blood! If it's going to be "America First" for Trump's administration, it better start diverting this blood money to shore
up America's people and infrastructures!
Most of these issues come down to the fact that President Trump doesn't have anything resembling a "grand strategy", or even
a coherent foreign policy. His views are often at odds with each other (his desire to counter China economically and his opposition
to the TPP, for example), and I suspect that most were motivated by a desire to get votes more than any kind of deep understanding
of global affairs.
Most of his supporters, at least from what I can tell, are actually quite resolutely against entering a new war, and are strongly
condemnatory of the neo-conservatism that involved the United States in Afghanistan and Iraq.
In fact, according to the polls taken at the time, more Democrats favored military intervention in Syria than Republicans did.
It appears "military-industrial complex" or "deep state" refuses to take step back and insists on sucking more money from taxpayers.
On first glance all is great for them, bombing of Middle East will continue, and so will military expansion at cost of civilian
programs. However, ramifications to rest of the world should not be dismissed. EU countries are divided on following Washington
hard line against Russia or diverge with USA. Currently, EU is cracking and might fall apart. Some in USA would cheer it but in
long run it will mean loss of strongest US supporter against China. Regarding Middle East, Trump punished victims of AlQaeda and
did nothing against financiers of AlQaeda, which will only increase local tensions. So indeed, not a great start...
While I basically agree that Trump is not following through on his campaign, we must keep in mind that the campaign of his
opponent was for MUCH more of the same, new wars, vastly increased fighting in current wars. So more of the same is in fact a
big step down from the alternative.
That does not excuse doing more of the same, but just asserts that we did get some of what we voted for/against.
We should get the rest of it. Stop those wars. They don't serve us.
There are similarities between Trump and Putin . The GOP and its rich corporate members have decided to use Trump as the oligarchs
in Russia used Yeltsin. The oligarchs used a drunken Yeltsin to pry the natural resources out of the public commons for the grabbing
by the oligarchs. Likewise, our rich are going to use an unwitting Trump to lower their taxes to nothing while delivering austerity
to the 99%.
To the oligarchs' surprise and dismay, Yeltsin's incompetence led to Putin and his scourge of the oligarchs. So will Trump's incompetence
lead to the end of our system of crony capitalism and the rebirth of socialism such as the New Deal, and higher taxes.
The crooked bastards can never be satisfied even with 3/4 ths of the whole pie, so no-one should pity them for being hoisted on
their own petard.
I'm sorry --- Trump had a foreign policy? As near as I can tell, he just said whatever the crowd in front of him wanted to
hear. Or do you have evidence to the contrary? Remember that this is a man who can be shown, in his own words, to have been on
all sides of almost every issue, depending on the day of the week, and the phase of the moon.
He, they, the US, that is, must obey Israel. Israel wants Assad gone in the end for their territorial expansion. It also helps
the oil companies and isolates Russia further into a geostrategic corner.
This headline is way over the top. The first and foremost foreign policy statement which brought numerous voters to Trump was
the US-Mexico wall and at least some of that wall will be constructed. Hence it is the only promise which has not (yet) changed
except for who will pay for it.
Why must we give Trump the benefit of the doubt and assume that his campaign presentations were made in good faith? That is
a very generous assumption.
There's a simple and more logical explanation for what's going on with "foreign policy" in the "Trump" administration:
Trump's
a liar, and his whole campaign was a calculated fraud from the beginning. We're the victims of a "bait-and-switch" scam.
Because he lied. Just like he lied about draining the swamp and just restocked it with new varmints from Goldman Sachs and
even an ex-Soros employee. Nothing new for me. Been watching elections for about 60 years and this is same ole. America can't
take much more of this before it collapses and splits apart. The world isn't going to take much more from dc either. God help
us. We are in a pickle!
The fundamental problem of exonerating Trump and blaming this non-reversal on the non-existing "deep state" is believing that
anything a candidate said on the campaign trail can be executed when that candidate becomes president. Such reversal has happened
so frequently in our history that it is truly amazing that " he does not do what he promised" still has adherents.
There is no reversal. I see reality clashing with words. I do not blame Trump for reversals. I see some shift from unrealistic
to more realistic. It is called learning on the job.
Every political position on the planet is stuck in the 80s. There is no one with a will to change what is happening, mostly
because no one wants to get tarred and feathered once the:
a) economy implodes upon itself in the most glorious Depression to
ever happen, and;
b) world war 3 erupts but engaging such a variety of opponents, from Islam to China and Russia and even minor
trivial players such as North Korea, and;
c) civil disobedience in the western world rivals that of even third world revolutions
as people revolt against a failure to protect them from Islamic violence, to preserve their standard of living and their perceived
futures. Lots of change coming, but nothing that any politician is promising.
Politicians are dinosaurs. We are entering a world
where large numbers of people will make things happen. It's called Democracy.
Trump will remain close to Putin ideologically and he might continue to admire the man as a strong leader BUT there is one
thing that neither Putin nor Trump can change and it is that Russia and America are natural rivals. Geopolitics. Land vs Sea.
Eurasia vs Atlantic. Heartland vs Outer Rim.
Trump is hawk, don't be mislead. You cannot have a great country if you're not willing
to kill and die for it. Russia knows that. Which is why Putin made Russia great again after the horror of the Yeltsin years. Now
America knows that too.
A video has shown up on
Senator Bernie Sanders' Facebook page, with his name on it and his face in it making all the
familiar (to a small number of people) points about U.S. military spending (how much it is, how
it compares to the rest of the world, how it does not produce jobs, what wonders could be
achieved with a small fraction of it, etc.).
I wish there were mention of the fact that it kills huge numbers of people, or that it risks
apocalypse, or that it damages the earth's environment. I wish the alternatives proposed were
not all of the bring-our-war-dollars-home variety, as if the amount of money under
consideration were not enough to radically transform this and every other country.
Still, had Sanders put out this video in 2015, tens of thousands of people wouldn't have had
to petition him in
vain to oppose militarism, to fill the glaring gap in his website . I wouldn't have had to write
this or this or even
this
.
Sanders willingly subjected himself to endless accusations of raising taxes, rather than
declare that he would push for a small cut in military spending. Jeremy Corbyn has had greater
success -- albeit in a different country -- by taking the other approach. I continue to think
Sanders is snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
It's not as if Sanders doesn't know the issues. A half-century back he would have said
something very close to what I want to hear. There's no reason why he can't do so now. But I'm
afraid that this video may have slipped through because there's not a presidential election
this year, and that such things will be nowhere to be found in the years ahead.
I hope I'm wrong. I hope that Sanders actually declares himself in favor of a serious
transfer of resources from militarism to human and environmental needs. As soon as he does,
I'll start advocating for all of us to work for his election. He can keep promoting the
Russiagate nonsense that was primarily invented to distract from the story of the DNC cheating
him. He can publicly commit to allowing the DNC to cheat him again. He can ask Saudi Arabia
again to kill even more people. But if he comes out against the military budget, that's the big
one. He will deserve the support he could have had last time.
The Russian organization named in the indictment - the Internet Research Agency -
and the defendants began working
in 2014
-
so one year before the Trump candidacy was even announced
- to interfere in U.S.
elections, according to the indictment in Washington.
They used false personas and social media while also staging
political rallies and communicating with "unwitting individuals" associated with the Trump campaign, it said.
2014.......um, yeah, what a crock of bullshit.
Seriously though, what is illegal about what they did? Sowing discord? Hell CNN and all of Soros' org would be gulty of
the same thing wouldn't they?
Isn't 'sowing discord' like the main mission of the CIA, both here and in other countries?
Not a lawyer, but seems this cannot hold up in court.
Sounds to me like they're being indicted for exercising free
speech.
Does that only apply to citizens?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the
right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
the Government for a redress of grievances.
It restricts
Congress
.
I believe political speech is the most protected form
of speech. I think there's a Supreme Court ruling on that
topic.
B-but the Russians
conspired
... to commit free
speech. They
obstructed
... by
speaking
.
(The story doesn't mention if what was said was true.)
Mr. Mueller, please stop wasting our time and money.
I'm re-posting this from an earlier post someone else made.
The Internet Research Agency is a CIA hacking group!
The best way to get information is to make it up.
Everything what we know now about the so-called "Kremlin
trolls from the Internet Research Agency paid by Putin's
favorite chef," came from one source, a group of CIA spies
that used the mascot of Shaltay-Boltay, or Humpty-Dumpty,
for their collective online persona.
So 13 Russians managed materially influence the USA elections. Nice... As ne ZeroHedge
commenter noted "13 Russians can change the course of US history by going on-line and posting
stuff. Okay, sure I buy that BS"
For starters, MIKHAIL IVANOVICH BYSTROV is the former head of the Police in Moscow...While
Yevgeny Viktorovich Prigozhin is a businessman(Friend of Putin) with high-end Russian
restaurants all across the country(In Russia).
So now Russia will go after the NSA trolls and charge them with interfering with their
election, which we did do...
Part of the PsyOps going on as the US public (and really much of the world) becomes MORE
and MORE familiar with the Deep State operation undertaken by three letter agencies, FBI and
DOJ, and the White House in 2016 and expanded after Nov 2016. The Special Council now needs
to provide material to the rabid "Resist" crowd, and even though this entire set of
indictments cannot possibly demonstrate a material alteration of election results, in so
large a country as the USA, this would serve to feed the crowd who will believe this all to
be "definitive". These are primarily political battles, since no one is going to bring
Russian nationals over to the USA to serve time. This helps also to show "results" of the
expensive and mostly useless Special Counsel project.
Around page 12 the indictments says a total of two (2) Russian nationals entered the US
and toured for a short while. How they were able to get rally permits, hand out fliers
organize speakers etc isn't stated. So those claims remain entirely bogus.
The rest of the nefarious plot includes re-posting articles from the MSM or BLM sites...
zero impact... Pathetic nonsense.
Meanwhile Israeli agents and dual-passport types pour hundreds of millions into the
election. Crickets.
Plan: using students who go on delegations abroad on behalf of the Union (approximately
250 students a year) for hasbara purposes. Before each delegation the students will undergo
a hasbara workshop on behalf of the Ministry of Hasbara, which will give them the tools and
information to contend with the questions and the critical salvos and the ability to
present in their stead "a different Israel."
After selecting the students for a delegation, the students will undergo a hasbara
workshop given on behalf of the Ministry of Hasbara, where the logistics are coordinated by
the Department head. This training will be a condition for the student's going on any
delegation this year.
"With Israel coming under ever-increasing criticism for its human rights abuses and war
crimes against Palestinians and other Arabs, changing the subject is a common tactic for
Israel's PR flacks and official propaganda or hasbara efforts .
Attempting to shift the conversation over to Israeli technology in this way is sometimes
dubbed " techwashing ." Similar tactics include " greenwashing " – the effort to
market Israel as supposedly environmentally friendly (something Israel21c is involved in too ) – and "
pinkwashing "
– the effort to market Israel as LGBT-friendly and progressive as well as a welcoming
destination for
gay-male sex tourism .
The main point about such cynical strategies is that, even were these stories all true,
it would not in any way mitigate Israeli atrocities , such as its most recent round of
slaughter in the Gaza
Strip "
"But in fact, these are campaigns of organized lying, orchestrated with
government-approved talking points and crowdsourced volunteers and stipend recipients,"
Shunra added..."
"...Working in 30 languages, the students working this comment far target online forums
including so called "anti-Israel" pages on Facebook and comments sections of online
media."
Require valid ID to vote. How many mexicans vote multiple times? How many *activists* get
bused around from county to county, voting multiple times?
The blue team loves this so no go. It's racist to require ID because blacks are too stupid
to get one That's the democrats talking out of both sides of their mouths.
RT.com had to register as a foreign agent - and you know what, fair enough...
But AIPAC has been allowed to violate the law requiring them to do so by a DOJ that, admin
to admin, never enforces the law as to Israel.
Meanwhile the Jewish/Israel Lobby, with the eager support of US politicians, are
continuing their assault on the 1st Amendment. They want to criminalize boycotts and
criticism of the state/govt of Israel.
And the media is, predictably, silent - and for the record a number of Jewish lawyers and
libertarian writers have been vociferous in their opposition to the assault on free speech -
but the ADL/AIPAC/neocon matrix is all in to criminalize speech that is both fair and
factual.
Which brings me to this indictment, gents.
I'm no lawyer, and would be very happy to get comment/criticism/correction - but how in
the fuck is posting anti-Hillary (or anti-anyone) comments on facebook not protected 1st
Amendment speech?
So far as I know it is not a crime to pretend to be someone else on the internet absent
actual fraud/theft. Israelis quite literally are paid to do so all the time, and while
irritating - that's part of free speech and the free exchange of ideas.
This indictment, apart from more Deep State poking the bear, and distraction from the
FBI's obstruction of justice and felony misrepresentation to a federal judge... is a direct
assault on the 1st Amendment.
How is it 'interfering' with an election to present people with ideas? If presenting
slanted, even false information to voters is now a crime - why arent the executives of CNN
and the Times under indictment?
The Left's hatred of Trump (and I'm not a fan given his moves in Syria and deficit
spending etc) has made them absolutely boond to the dangers to civil liberties, nevermind
world war.
Apart from the idea of some internet trolls having any influence relative to the cia/dni
controlled media being absurd on its face, how can an 'indictment' to 'conspire' to talk
about some political issue even be brought given the 1st Amendment?
If they can indict some Russians for pretending to be Joe Six-pack to help a candidate -
who else can they try to jail for saying the Establishment candidate is a lying cheating
warmonger who belongs in prison?
Cruz was a Canadian until 2014. The People had enough with Obama.
The People had enough of Bush-Clinton from 1989 through 2008.
The odds are that Trump is controlled opposition.
The election process has been corrupted internally since the beginning.
Lincoln was installed by Northeast Industrialists and the Media. His opponent that was
promoted by the large newspapers was the Democrat least likely to threaten Lincoln in an
election.
Dr. Ron Paul received zero Media attention in 2012. Trump was in the news 24 by 7 in
2016.
Those people are only guilty of trolling and that is not a crime . I found ridiculous in
the extreme that Mueller thinks he can seize the property of the agency in question is Russia
! ah,ah,ah, Nobody has told that ass hole that the USA has no Jurisdiction in other countries
? ah,ah,ah !
And then how many times that USA has in the past and in the present tried to interfere
with Russian elections and those of other countries ? What about the coup d'etat in Kiev and
the colored revolution ? Has that buffoon got no memory ?
That buffoon is out of his mind , Who believes his bullshit ? There are a lot
personalities in the USA that buy favorable comments to their Facebook accounts . Thera ere
firms specialist in opening FAKE accounts and writing fake favorable comments for customers .
I am talking about tens of thousands and much more of favorable comments on Facebook and
others social BLS networks . In conclusion this is a fake trumped up operation to continue
with the farce
Exactly. They tried to change hearts and minds. Are we going to criminilaize politics
then? PACs and millions of peoplel try to argue often using anonymous or false identities.
What a load of horseshit this whole thing is.
Btw, the number 13 is a great number. That was my hockey jersey. Also my class rank after
my bitch choir and glee club teacher got the grade for my last 2 years and gave me cs and ds
despite the fact i was the president of the group. Dropped me from like 5th to 13th. Still
pisses me off. And the Templars were burned at the stake on Friday the 13th werent they? Good
enough for me
If we are chasing down foreign nationals attempting to influence the elections, I'm
waiting on the indictment against Vincente Fox.
"Former Mexican President Vicente Fox is urging US voters to look before they leap. The
global consequences would be dramatic if Donald Trump won the presidency, he told DW's James
Blears in Mexico City."
I'm with Schiff, there's ample evidence of election hacking if you are willing to see
it.
So true, the hypocrisy and I'll say glee at watching the unintended consequences of their
ill planned "findings", comments/ general stupidity (iq's just high enough to be a danger to
society, but not high enough to keep society working well)
There is against the violation of a persons civil rights, perjury, using government
resources for personal gain, knowingly introducing falsified evidence to a federal court,
unmasking individuals found by use of said falsified evidence, theft and destruction of
government documents.
Broadly called, a conspiracy and obstruction of justice ;-)
I'm going to start a go-fund-me page to buy mirrors for Rosenstein and Mueller, and the
love-birds (who I surmise have had their wings clipped) and others.
As a point of interest, Rosenstein is the only one left of those who signed off on the now
known to be specious FISA warrant or it's reauthorizations after this known false evidence
had been submitted to a federal court.
The reauthorizations are key, they knew what the "Steele intel dossier" was by then.
And Rosenstein appointed Mueller on the basis of Comey stealing government documents and
giving them to an unauthorized friend.
Basically, Mueller is illegitimate in everyone's eyes except the federal
bureaucracies...hell, even one of the FISA judges recused himself after it came to light that
the Hillary campaign paid Steele for what is, in essence, tabloid muck raking.
Maybe we'll be able to afford two mirrors for Rosie, so he can be doubly sure who the
bastards are.
Meanwhile, Mueller handing down these "indictments" is further making a joke of his
investigation. He's surrounded himself with all of the Hillary partisans, keeping them
closer. It will be worth all of the money and all of the spilled (digital) ink for the
investigation to be a self-discrediting evolution.
I'll disagree with your "everyone" statement--it is only creeping to 50%. It needs to get
up to landslide numbers (>60% or so) for a true black hole implosion.
This honestly looks like a surrender moment. He's saying there were bad people trying to
portray Hillary in a negative light (as if anyone really needed to do that) but Trump's team
were unwitting participants if they participated.
He had to show something for his work but clearly there's no trail of deliberate scheming
and collusion leading to the Trump team. He even throws in the caveat that they were also
working for Sanders.
Stick a fork in it..this is over and MSM once again are full of shit for all to see no
matter how they spin it.
13 Russians can influence US elections meanwhile US CIA and State Department spend $1
BIllion every year on opposition groups inside Russia without success.
"13 Russians can influence US elections meanwhile US CIA and State Department spend $1
BIllion every year on opposition groups inside Russia without success."
... and a billion is but a drop in the bucket compared to what Israel has spent
influencing US elections over the last 4 decades.
Israel has built a money machine. They spend money to bribe politicians in the form of
campaign contributions and PACS. They tell those politicians to vote on large aid packages to
Israel. They take a small portion of the money from those aid packages and spend it to bribe
politicians in the form of campaign contributions and PACS ... rinse and repeat forever. A
wonderful machine that they have built for themselves to endlessly siphon blood and treasure
from the USA for their benefit.
Yes. THIS is the real scandal. Israhell using U.S. aid (U.S. taxpayer dollars) to buy off
U.S. politicians who then undermine the U.S. taxpayers by increasing Israhelli control over
U.S. politics.
But according to Mueller the Zionist can buy members of Congress and the Senate , but
Russian trolls are not allowed ........ ah,ah,ah,ah,
So there is the "good interference" , when it is done by the Rogue state in the Middle
East and then there us the " bad " interference created by foreign trolls .
Concord Catering was serving Smirnoff for sure. That's very influential and definitely
swayed voters. The rest on the list are back ups in case.
What a farce this witch hunt is. USSA is on cruise control and everyone is in the back of
the Winnebago swinging at each other. This is neglect of the electorate and the country as it
spirals into bankruptcy. (again)
Defendants posted derogatory information about a number of candidates, and by early to
mid-2016, Defendants' operations included supporting the presidential campaign of
then-candidate Donald J. Trump ("Trump Campaign") and disparaging Hillary Clinton .
(now what could these people possibly tell me about that ridiculous cunt Hillary that I
didn't already know?)
No, they were Americans who did that (or, at least, "dual citizens"). "Subverting"
democracy in the US is only illegal if carried out by foreign agents.
... with the exception of Saudi Arabia, Israel, Qatar...
Special Counsel Robert Mueller Indicts 13 Russians For Hacking During US Election
My response: ROFL!!!! Since they (MARXIST PROGRESSIVE LIBERALS) could NOT get TRUMP, they
have now decided that they are going after the RUSSIANS directly.
This action is probably really going to piss off PUTIN rightly or wrongly.
WAR DRUMS ARE BEATING AGAIN.
I now believe that a market CRASH is a real distinct possibility.
Mueller is cherry picking a small effect in the market place when there was huge
subversion by Hillary et al - In NYC 125,000 registrations went missing and "the party in
charge fired" at the Board of Elections who had direct line via family to Hillary -
overwhelming number denied access to primary vote were young new residents - white people to
Brooklyn - primarily Bernie voters
things elsewhere the same - Ohio / Iowa but not as much in your face
This is beginning of hit job by Mueller - is it sustainable?
I'd like to see from Muellers analysis how many votes that swayed. Curious if it's as many
as the illegal votes allowed in California. I'm sure the Russians had a huge impact in West
Virginia (being sarcastic)
Let's allow them to hack the next one and see who they pick...maybe we should start
thinking outside the box here...
God, this whole thing must just be an unending source of confusion for Putin. Guy's got to
be watching this, thinking, "What the fuck is wrong with these people?". In fact, anyone
expecting the US to be a source of leadership in the future has to feel like Shelley Duvall
after she found out that Jack Nickolsen's months of work consisted only of typewritten sheets
with "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy." over and over and over again...Her face as
she flips through all those pages is EXACTLY how I imagine Putin's expression as he watches
this unfold...
"Oh my god, it's so much worse than I ever suspected, and winter's only half over..."
How about where was Mueller when the Tsarnov (sp) brothers (Boston Marathon) when Vladimir
warned him about them.
I see that on January 5th, somebody phoned the FBI about the soon-to-be Florida shooter.
This is not to be confused with the September contact which the FBI couldn't track down.
So where was the FBI? Certainly not manning up and resigning in protest about all of the
corruption anybody could see/smell on the 7th floor. Probably watching porn and whacking off
on the job like so many SEC employees.
Robert Peters: SEC pornography scandal shows harms of obscene material
New York City, N.Y., Apr 24, 2010 / 07:02 am ( CNA/EWTN News ).-
The exposure of workplace pornography use at the Securities and Exchange Commission while
the 2008 financial crisis was unfolding shows ........
SO, according to this indictment, if I'm reading it correctly, we also need to indict
every single foreigner that spoke highly, in a positive way, or tried to influence an
American citizen, about Killary? Looks like a lot of indictments to be handed out to pretty
much every Globalist on the planet.
Per the indictment, "Individuals had a strategic goal of sowing discord in the U.S.
political system"
That's a crock, we really didn't need Russian help to make our political system any more
broken and divided than it already is.
Come on, do you really believe the Russians were responsible for the absolute dismal
choice of the two candidates we were stuck with in the last election? And that their effort
made any difference in the outcome.
Read the documents. Read what Muller is actually accusing them of:
- Buying a few thousand bucks worth of ads
- Holding a sparsely attended fake rally
- Trying to contact members of the Trump campaign without identifying themselves (this
right here is the full limit of their vaunted "collusion", if it's even true)
Are any of those things even illegal? Does anyone, anywhere, actually think any of those
things influenced the election in the slightest?
Meanwhile the DNC was paying Russian spies for fake intel so they could use
illegally-obtained surveillance warrants to spy on US citizens and try to stage a coup on a
duly-elected President.
These indictments are basically just Mueller running out of ideas to prolong his meddling.
He had to do something, or else Congress was gonna start saying, "OK, so what do you have?
This has gone on long enough."
Look at the phrasing, "hacking the elections" which is a general term. Doesn't specify
they hacked any specific voting machines. Per CNBC
The defendants allegedly conducted "information warfare" against the United States
election process to help Donald Trump win.
The defendants used fake American personas, social media platforms, and other Internet
media to advance their scheme, according to an indictment.
So basically trolling online. 13 Russian internet trolls swayed the ENTIRE election,
therefore the entire anti-Russian rhetoric, sanctions and a new cold war is justified!.
20 security and espionage agencies! Hundreds of billions in counterintelligence operations
around the world. A fire-armed uprising around RUSSIA! And with just 13 people a few accounts
in faceboock and a few thousand dollars, what does not billions spent on political campaigns
achieve ???? Damn Russians!!??
Rosenstein explained it differently. He claims that these ads or whatever were done for
the benefit of both candidates because Russia wanted to sow dissension and rip the US
apart.
Soros did a much more effective job than that and certainly spent more than the
Russians.
But Mueller doesn't chose to see things as they were and are.
"... First defendant: The Internet Research Agency. On a very ..."
"... "Fake News and Bots May Be Worrisome, but Their Political Power Is Overblown" [ New York Times ]. "Much more remains to be learned about the effects of these types of online activities, but people should not assume they had huge effects. Previous studies have found, for instance, that the effects of even television advertising (arguably a higher-impact medium) are very small. According to one credible estimate, the net effect of exposure to an additional ad shifts the partisan vote of approximately two people out of 10,000. In fact, a recent meta-analysis of numerous different forms of campaign persuasion, including in-person canvassing and mail, finds that their average effect in general elections is zero." ..."
"The office of special counsel Robert Mueller on Friday announced indictments against 13
Russian nationals and a trio of Russian entities on charges related to the Kremlin's efforts
to interfere in the 2016 presidential election" [
Politico ]. "Charges in the indictment include conspiracy to defraud the United States,
conspiracy to commit wire fraud and bank fraud and aggravated identity theft "Some
defendants, posing as U.S. persons and without revealing their Russian association,
communicated with unwitting individuals associated with the Trump Campaign and with other
political activists to seek to coordinate political activities," the indictment said."
Here's the indictment . Finally we get to look at some evidence? First defendant: The
Internet Research Agency. On a very quick read: The theory of the case is that the
defendants used social media to "sow discord"; a search on "vot" yields zero hits.
Realignment and Legitimacy
UPDATE "Fake News and Bots May Be Worrisome, but Their Political Power Is Overblown" [
New York Times ]. "Much more remains to be learned about the effects of these types of
online activities, but people should not assume they had huge effects. Previous studies have
found, for instance, that the effects of even television advertising (arguably a
higher-impact medium) are very small. According to one credible estimate, the net effect of
exposure to an additional ad shifts the partisan vote of approximately two people out of
10,000. In fact, a recent meta-analysis of numerous different forms of campaign persuasion,
including in-person canvassing and mail, finds that their average effect in general elections
is zero."
"From Where I Sit, The Trump Era Began In 2014" [ FiveThirtyEight
]. "Numbers can't prove that 2014 was a pivotal year for the Trumpian political era to come,
but they can show it was a year when Americans' institutional trust bottomed out, something
that would come into play in 2016. A few days after the election, I wrote about the erosion
of trust in American institutions over the past decade. There was a link, I wrote then,
between our loss of trust and electing a man who promised to start a new American order. And
in 2014, overall trust in American institutions, which started falling in the mid-2000s, hit
31 percent -- its lowest point since Gallup starting tracking the metric in 1993 . Trump's
ultimately brilliant political intuition was to burrow deep into this recess of the American
mind and to reflect back the sense of creeping disarray. He capitalized on racial and
economic fears, but his campaign kickoff proclamation that "the
American dream is dead" didn't just resonate with the people who might have voted for
populist and nativist campaigns of the past. Trump's appeal was broad, resonating with
the
relatively well-off and
the well-educated ."
UPDATE "A significant minority of Americans say they could support a military takeover of
the U.S. government" [
WaPo ]. "Our research finds that, in fact, substantial numbers of U.S. adults say they
would embrace ruptures in the constitutional order [and I thought I was the only
one who used this term routinely], which is in keeping with Bright Line Watch findings that
experts believe that measures of U.S. democracy have declined under President Trump . In
2017, about 25 percent of Democrats and 30 percent of Republicans said they favored a
military intervention if the country faced rampant crime or corruption. The figure below
shows the average support for a military coup when there is widespread corruption." More
Third World stuff! Indeed: "U.S. public opinion on these questions resembles that of
Argentina, Chile and Uruguay, countries with a history of military coups and dictatorships."
Let us not, however, focus only on the military! We have an intelligence community, too!
Don't see anything about the DNC or Podesta hacks in the indictment. Isn't that what this
whole thing was about? Changing the 'Russian hacking' meme to mean social media posts was an
amazing feat of goalpost-moving.
And changing "Russian puppet" to "Russian hacking" is also impressive.
That said, there may be more shoes to drop. People who are smarter about investigations than
I am can determine whether this is indicting the small fry to catch the big fish, or not. As a
layperson, it's not clear to me how you do that by indicting Russians, if, as my very
quick reading of the Politico story (and not the indictment), witting cooperation by the Trump
campaign is ruled out. No doubt there will be a good deal of commentary to come!
Rob P and Lambert Strether: The "vindicated" regular Democrats on my FacetoBook thread are
passing around Greg Sargent's WaPo column. Sargent's summary of the indictments:
"Falsely posing as Americans to operate social media to influence voters; employing active
efforts to suppress the turnout of minority groups; creating additional fictional U.S. personas
to sway public opinion; purchasing large numbers of ads on social media; and much more."
Russkies? Uber? Israelis? Saudis? Tell me more. And are those fictional personas swaying our
opinions, ohh, say, Apple and other tax avoiders?
Next up? The Democratic Party praying for a coup, on the assumption that their children
won't be dragged off to jail to be tortured. (Ask South Americans how that worked out.)
I think these indictments are to show credibility of a Russian issue.
I think the Popadopolous and now potentially Gates roll-ups are the missing links to connect
the dots between the campaign and the ongoing operation by the Russians. This really is how
organized crime investigations generally work.
I don't think the claim was ever that the campaign started the Russians doing things; simply
that they were willing to work with them towards a mutual goal. This would be similar to the
GOP claims about the Steele dossier; they leave out that it was begun by a conservative GOP
group and Clinton only got involved when the conservatives dropped out of the race.
Worse, now it is apparently unlawful for a non-US citizen to express in public a preference
with regard to a US election.
This in spite of the fact that UK and other non-US papers do so all the time, and even put
their preferences out there ON THE INTERNET where innocent trusting Americans may stumble upon
them. Not only that, the the Guardian even organized phone banks for Brits to call Ohio voters
in key districts and urge them to vote for Team D.
Surely indictments are forthcoming, right? But let's consider the implications – does
Yves need to check the citizenship status of every poster in a political thread? If not, is she
aiding and abetting "fraud against the United States"? Is Yves now an unindicted
co-conspirator?
Seriously, the implications of this move are terrifying. If that weren't enough, the
indictment was careful to mention Bernie Sanders' name at every opportunity. The insinuation
being that if you support any candidate outside the mainstream of Team D or Team R, then you
are supporting ..
"They engaged in operations primarily intended to communicate derogatory information about
Hillary Clinton, to denigrate other candidates such as Lyin' Ted Cruz and
Little Marco Rubio, and to support Bernie Sanders and then-candidate Donald
Trump."
-- page 17 of Mueller's indictment
So now we know -- Bernie's candidacy was foisted on us by Russians sending thousands of
tainted $27 donations. /snark
' The mountains labored, and brought forth a ridiculous mouse. ' -- Latin proverb
Why couldn't the Russians have just sent better-looking cheerleaders from Moscow to this
country? Why did they keep their armies of beauties in their Motherland?
Hell, UK papers express their preferred outcomes for US elections all the time. And ZOMG! on
the INTERNET! where innocent Americans might stumble across them and be "influenced"! ZOMG!
The Guardian even organized phonebanking campaigns to urge Ohio voters in key districts to
vote Team D.
The "sowing discord" argument makes me crazy, because it's exactly like "outside agitators"
in the segregated South. If only it weren't for Russian bots, "those damned n*****s
voters wouldn't have gotten uppity."
I mean, does anybody really believe there was no discord in American politics before the
2016 elections and social media?
(This is not a theory of the case; something can be wrong and/or illegal even if there are
no ill effects; but to my cynical mind, this is all about creating a casus belli , and
that does require ill effects, I would think.)
Speaking as a Southerner I'd say you are exactly right. The assumption seems to be that
simple minded voters are the puppets of rabble rousers rather than intelligent beings able to
think for themselves.
A couple of things, Watched a lot of russians in the Olympics over the years and these names look incredibly
fake. Usually when you drop news on a Friday afternoon of a three day weekend you want it to get
buried.
MIKHAIL IVANOVICH BYSTROV, MIKHAIL LEONIDOVICH BURCHIK, ALEKSANDRA YURYEVNA KRYLOVA, ANNA VLADISLAVOVNA BOGACHEVA, SERGEY PAVLOVICH POLOZOV, MARIA ANATOLYEVNA BOVDA, ROBERT SERGEYEVICH BOVDA, DZHEYKHUN NASIMI OGLY ASLANOV, VADIM VLADIMIROVICH PODKOPAEV, GLEB IGOREVICH VASILCHENKO, IRINA VIKTOROVNA KAVERZINA, VLADIMIR VENKOV YEVGENIY VIKTOROVICH PRIGOZHIN
America was pure as snow. In fact, Russians are responsible for Jim Crow. Bear with me. The
Czar, an autocrat if there ever was one, sailed the White Fleet in support of Abraham Lincoln.
Perhaps, the British and French would have intervened on behalf of the CSA, thus allowing the
Southern states to secede. Logic dictates this would have meant no Jim Crow. Yes, slavery would
have continued, but it would be in a different country.
As noted by Rob P above, there is no mention of email hacking. Maybe that's coming later,
but I doubt it. Instead, they indicted alleged Russian operators of troll farms. The
implication, I guess, is that these people somehow swayed the election in favor of Trump. Some
questions I have:
– What was the volume of their social media posts? How does that compare to the total
volume of election-related social media posts? – When were these posts actually made? Did they all occur prior to the election? – Did these troll farms make any posts in favor of Clinton? Were there other Russians
posting items in favor of Clinton? – Is there any indication that these posts had any demonstrable impact on the outcome of
the election?
It would be interesting to see these people go on trial. I imagine that a competent defense
attorney would have fun with discovery. But, there's a part of me that suspects that these
Russians were indicted, with the expectation that they won't go on trial. After all, it's a lot
easier to control the narrative, when there's nobody pushing back against it.
So, what we're left with is the impression that the Russians were responsible for all the
bullshirt flying around during the election. Bullshirt being, of course, anything that was
anti-Hillary, or promoted an opponent of hers. All the pro-Hillary stuff doesn't count, of
course. I guess I'm a Russophile for asking the question, but is this really all that they've
got?
Also, I haven't read the indictment, but is there any allegation that these troll farms were
acting in any capacity on behalf of the Russian government?
The indictment indicates that there was some pro-Hillary posts/activity, but the bulk of it
was anti-Hillary/Pro-Trump. Posts were both prior to and after the election. It doesn't look
like the indictment is outright arguing that their activities swayed votes, but just that the
activities violated bank/wire fraud laws (including fraud via cryptocurrencies!) and
electioneering laws (which does not mean that votes were swayed; handing out flyers too close
to a polling site is a violation of electioneering laws).
Looks less like the ultimate smoking gun, and more like another move, such as with Manafort,
to get the small fry to tell on someone higher up.
That's the expectation for how a criminal investigation should take place. But, this is not
a normal criminal investigation. The small fry in this case are Russians, and I'm not sure if
indicting them has the same impact that it would for, say, a similar group of Americans. How
does Mueller flip these Russians? Doesn't he have to get them into custody first?
Indeed. The article on this much ado about not much done by the BBC:
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein said there was no allegation that any American was
"a knowing participant in this illegal activity" nor was it alleged that the meddling altered
the election outcome.
Which, of course, doesn't prevent the brainwashed from dancing with glee and attacking as a
Trump supporter anyone who so much as points out the above. The least offensive response I've
had today was that these things are incremental so this is likely just the starting point. It
no longer matters whether the alleged interference had any effect on the election -- all sense
of logic on this subject has evaporated even among people I know are intelligent enough they
should know better.
Why I added the information on how hard it is to actually change opinion. IIRC, most of the
contemporary hash tag tracking is coming from the highly dubious Hamilton68 dashboard, which is
being treated as an authority even though, last I checked, they hadn't exposed their data or
methods.
Adding, which is pretty funny, when you think about it; depending on whether the IRA was a
contractor for the Russian government, and what its actual mission was*, the Russian government
probably has a stronger case for fraud against them then Mueller does.
Putin's government overpaid for a intelligence tech contractor that promised way more than
it was capable of delivering? Perhaps the Russians aren't so different from us after all.
o "Fake News and Bots May Be Worrisome, but Their Political Power Is Overblown" [New York
Times] -- Oh, I dunno, methinks the Grey lady is being far too pessimistic here. After all, the
NYT's own fake-news project re. Saddam's WMDs 15 years back led to an actual large-scale hot
war, $trillions in juicy defense contracts for US and foreign mercenary/logistics firms and
upwards of a million dead Iraqis whose 'sacrifice', as former SoS and heroic liberal R2P
goddess Madeleine Albright reminded us, was "worth it". So maybe the high-profile-ness and
political connections of the fake news source might play a crucial role in its impact?
Madeleine Albright made that comment in response to a publishing of a study which found that
the US economic sanctions against Iraq resulted in the deaths of more than 500,000
children.
Otherwise your point is valid. As Yves herself has mentioned regarding Judith Miller, the
NYT did indeed publish a lot of "fake news" (also known as "propaganda") in the run-up to the
invasion of Iraq.
"... Thirteen Russian nationals were charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States. Three defendants were also charged with conspiracy to commit wire fraud and bank fraud. Five defendants were charged with aggravated identity theft. Here's a rundown: ..."
The defendants are accused of working in conjunction with the St. Petersburg-based Internet
Research Agency, which is also under indictment for allegedly conducting information operations
to influence the 2016 election in the United States.
The Internet Research Agency operated what's become known as "troll farm" in Russian
President Vladimir Putin's hometown that employed hundreds of English speakers to pose as
Americans and gin up controversy and discord on Twitter, Facebook and other social media
websites during the months leading up to the election.
The company, referred to as the "ORGANIZATION" in the indictment, "had a strategic goal to
sow discord in the U.S. political system, including... supporting the presidential campaign of
then-candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaging Hillary Clinton," according to the
indictment.
Thirteen Russian nationals were charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States.
Three defendants were also charged with conspiracy to commit wire fraud and bank fraud. Five
defendants were charged with aggravated identity theft. Here's a rundown:
Yevgeniy
Viktorovich Prigozhin
Prigozhin, 56, is a businessman from St. Petersburg who's been called "Putin's chef" by
Russian media because his restaurants and catering businesses have hosted dinners between Putin
and foreign dignitaries.
Prigozhin is on the list of those sanctioned by the U.S., according to the Associated
Press.
Prigozhin is accused of funding the Internet Research Agency, through companies he
controlled -- Concord Management and Consulting, and Concord Catering -- and using them to
launch operations against America. He paid the "ORGANIZATION," all the rest of the defendants
and other unnamed employees, the indictment said.
Prigozhin's co-defendants arranged through social media for a U.S. person to stand in front
of the White House on May 29, 2016, three days before Prigozhin's birthday, with a sign saying
"Happy 55th Birthday Dear Boss."
"The Americans are very impressionable people, they see what they want to see," Prigozhin
reportedly told the Russian state news agency Ria Novosti on Friday. "I have a lot of
respect for them. I am not upset at all that I ended up on this list. If they want to see the
devil, let them see him."
Mikhail Ivanovich Bystrov
Bystrov allegedly was named the general director of the Internet Research Agency, and served
as the head of various other entities it used to mask its activities, including Glavset LLC,
where he was also listed as general director.
He is accused of holding regular meetings with Prigozhin around 2015 and 2016. Bystrov is a
retired police colonel, according to Voice of America.
Mikhail Leonidovich Burchik
According to the indictment, Burchik was named executive director of the "ORGANIZATION" as
of March 2014, holding the second-highest ranking position. During operations to interfere in
the U.S. political system, including the 2016 presidential election, Burchik was a manager
involved in operational planning, infrastructure and personnel.
Burchik is described in a 2015 New York Times report as a young tech entrepreneur
connected to the "Masss Post" tool used to create bulk social media postings.
Aleksandra
Yuryevna Krylova
Krylova worked for the IRA from around 2013 to at least November 2014, according to the
indictment, and was its third-highest ranking employee. She allegedly entered the U.S. on false
pretenses in June 2014 and traveled through Nevada, California, New Mexico, Colorado, Illinois,
Michigan, Louisiana, Texas and New York to "gather intelligence."
Sergey Pavlovich
Polozov
Polozov "served as the manager of the IT department and oversaw the procurement of US.
servers and other computer infrastructure that masked the Russian location when conducting
operations within the United States," according to the indictment.
An unnamed co-conspirator who worked for the company traveled to Atlanta in November 2016,
and shared information gathered with Polozov, according to the indictment.
He traveled to the U.S. to create virtual private networks to hide his organization's ties
to Russia, while communicating with U.S. citizens, the indictment said.
Anna
Vladislavovna Bogacheva
According to the indictment, Bogacheva oversaw the IRA's data analysis group, and allegedly
traveled through the U.S. in 2014 to gather intelligence along with Krylova.
Together with Krylova, Bogacheva planned travel itineraries, purchased equipment such as
cameras, SIM cards and disposable phones and discussed security measures, including "evacuation
scenarios" for defendants who traveled to the U.S., the indictment said.
Maria
Anatolyevna Bovda
Bovda worked at the company from November 2013 to October 2014 as head of the translator
project.
The project "focused on the U.S. population and conducted operations on social media
platforms such as YouTube, Facebook, Instagram and Twitter," according to the
indictment.
Robert Sergeyevich Bovda
Robert Bovda served as deputy head of the translator project and tried to travel to the U.S.
under false pretenses to collect intelligence but could not obtain a visa, according to the
indictment.
Irina Viktorovna Kaverzina
The defendant is accused of admitting her involvement in the operation and a subsequent
coverup in an email to a relative in September last year, after Mueller's probe had
started.
"We had a slight crisis here at work: the FBI busted our activity," Kaverzina allegedly
wrote, "so I got preoccupied with covering tracks together with the colleagues."
She also wrote: "I created all these pictures and posts and the Americans believed that it
was written by their people."
Dzheykhun "Jay" Aslanov
Aslanov was described by a manager at the ORGANIZATION's "troll farm" in St. Petersburg,"
according to an October interview on Moscow's Dozhd TV with former employee Alan Baskayev.
Baskayev was the third former troll to identify Aslanov as a supervisor at the facility,
according to the Moscow Times , which described the interview.
"Jay was a really bad manager: not the most competent in this field, well, frankly speaking,
generally incompetent, but he had assistants," Baskayev told Dozhd TV.
Vadim
Vladimirovich Podkopaev
Podkopaev allegedly was responsible for conducting U.S.-focused research and drafting social
media content for the IRA, according to the indictment.
Gleb Igorevich Vasilchenko
Vasilchenko was allegedly "responsible for posting, monitoring, and updating the social
media content" for many IRA-controlled accounts "while posing as U.S. persons or U.S.
grassroots organizations."
Vladimir Venkov
Venkov allegedly "operated multiple U.S. personas, which he used to post, monitor, and
update social media content," the indictment stated.
BREAKING: Mueller concludes Russians posted
mean things on social media about Hillary Clinton
Mueller indicts 13 Russians and 3
companies for hacking the US election.
The indictment of 13 Russian nationals and three entities over allegations by the DOJ that
Russians interfered in US elections – but "did not alter the outcome of the 2016
election" nor that any American was a knowing participant in this activity – are absurd,
Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said on Friday.
"13 people interfered in the US elections?! 13 against an intelligence services budget of
billions? Against intelligence and counterintelligence, against the latest developments and
technologies? Absurd? Yes," Zakharova
wrote in a post on Facebook .
Then again, what else could she say.
Furthermore, as noted in the DOJ complaint, the funding for the Russian operation came from
catering and management companies controlled by defendant Yevgeniy Viktorovich Prigozhin, a
Russian businessman often referred to as "Putin's chef" in the media because his organizations
had hosted dinners for Russian President Vladimir Putin and foreign leaders, the AP
reported.
Prigozhin was quoted in Russian state media responding to the indictments, saying,
"Americans are really impressionable people. They see what they want to see. I greatly respect
them. I'm not upset at all that I am on this list. If they want to see the devil, let them see
him."
This probably means that Russia will not exactly rush to extradite the 13 named officials to
the US.
"Have you had any assurances by the Russians that they will provide these individuals for
prosecution?"
Rosenstein: "We have no communications with the Russians about this. We will follow the
ordinary process of seeking cooperation and extradition." https://t.co/oShWvKYDRWpic.twitter.com/vOT0iH6Cu0
re:So Mueller indict russians for... talking about the american election in russia? What
farce have this become? Posted by: Anon | Feb 16, 2018 3:15:09 PM | 35
Farce is certainly the operative word; two of the 13 Russians are the former head of Moscow
Police and the other is a restaurateur friend of Putin.
And if there were " millions" spent then their is a financial paper trail certainly. Can't
wait to see it...
My favorite parts of this indictment: 1. Trump and his campaign are no longer involved, 2.
the Russians did NOT influence the election, 3. they were supposedly advocating for Bernie as
well as Trump.
Lastly,so much "news" in the last few days; we have a possible Florida false flag, Russia
hacking the world and now this. What are we not meant to see?? My first thought is they are
moving forward with the Syrian chemical attack psy op; next week perhaps?
Yeah, apparentlty these Russians sought to expand the political commentary and voice
support for candidates, how is this even illegal? Ridiculous but this will give the
anti-russia actors 100% more fuel for decades to come. That Trump will even talk with Putin
is out of the question by now unfortunately. WW3 just came closer sigh.
One of the best bits about the indictement is the mention ;"arranging for a Real US person
to stand in front of the White House in the district of Colombia with a sign that read;
"Happy 55th birthday dear boss" (May 29, in 2016)" America must have trembled. (or maybe they
were shaking with laughter?).
People read these accusational headlines, probably just the headlines, and it acts as a virus
and penetrates the membrane of the collective subconscious, without even a moments thought to
question the assertion.
In time, the virus breaks down the will of the rational consumer to
weigh evidence fairly, though it is also aided by further bombardment of fake news, which
increases the rate of infection. The virus then blossoms into a fairly beautiful and uniform
flower with clean, geometric edges and universal appeal which catches the gaze of others and
so is able to double the rate of infection from this secondary source.
This flower, the Ruskiesdidittous, is the result of haphazard propogation, though its ability to survive and
thrive is notable due to a carrier population already enfeebled by a diet of Dr. Pepper and a
lack of discernible vegetables.
The indictment includes charges not yet proven in a court of law, yet prominent Americans
are treating the indictment as fact. from CNN:
>House Speaker Paul Ryan called the Russians' alleged actions "a conspiracy to subvert
the process, and take aim at democracy itself." "We have known that Russians meddled in the
election, but these indictments detail the extent of the subterfuge," Ryan said in a
statement.
>Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said in a statement that given the indictments,
Trump should "immediately" implement the Russia sanctions that Congress passed last summer
to punish Moscow for its election meddling. "The administration needs to be far more
vigilant in protecting the 2018 elections, and alert the American public any time the
Russians attempt to interfere," Schumer said.
>House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said in a statement that the indictments "make
absolutely clear" that Russians tried to influence the presidential election to support
Trump's campaign and continue to try to interfere with our elections. "We are on the eve of
the 2018 midterm elections," the statement added. "There is no time to waste to defend the
integrity of our elections and our democracy."
>Robby Mook, Clinton's former campaign manager, tweeted: "The intelligence community
has repeatedly told us Russia meddled. Now criminal indictments from DOJ. We were attacked
by a foreign adversary. Will our Congress and President stand strong and take action? Or
let it happen again?"
Remember the murderous Anthrax terrorism that happened as Congress was passing the USA
PATRIOT Act? Remember how our
current VP, Pence testified to Congress about it being Saddam's fault?
And that anthrax strain actually was traced to US's Ames Biological Weapons lab?
And FBI Director at that time, Robert
Mueller buried the investigation? What ever happened to that FBI Director who closed a
murderous terrorist attack without having "solved" it?
"... One objective is to keep in place an anti-Russian policy. The coup's instigators want to prevent Trump from letting up on the pressure (sanctions) on Russia and from cooperating with Russia. The coup forces are all anti-Russia, and that serves to unite them. A second objective is to maintain the positions, power, and influence of the coup's seekers. ..."
"... This is a "seed crystal" coup. The model for the seed crystal coup is the Watergate scandal. The operational goal is to crystallize and solidify the disunited Trump opposition into a movement that has irresistible momentum. In much the same way that seed crystals can accelerate a phase change from liquid to solid, the coup perpetrators introduce reports, accusations, and leaks over time in order to create the impression that a widening scandal is occurring. Each component has no merit but the media accept them at face value and provide publicity that creates new adherents and coherence among the anti-Trump forces. The anti-Trump forces are anxious to replicate the success in getting Nixon to resign. ..."
"... The anti-Trump media are critical in this effort. The anti-Trump media keep up a drumbeat of anti-Trump reporting. They slant the news, manufacture stories, repeat them and create fake news. ..."
"... The media must paint Russia and Putin as enemies for this propaganda effort to succeed. The media provide a focal point that coordinates the coup's backers even if they never sit down and conspire with one another. Everyone can observe the media stories and through that the effects of their anti-Trump leaks, reports, and innuendos. This allows them to plan their next moves. ..."
"... Social media have played a role in uprisings during the Arab Spring. The same thing can happen in America. There is a host of groups who are anti-Trump on grounds other than Russia. They can coordinate through social media. These groups seek to de-legitimize Trump so as to maintain items on their agenda. Aides to Hillary Clinton's failed campaign are now piling on to the effort. ..."
"... Positing a coup attempt is the simplest and most comprehensive hypothesis that ties together and explains a host of known facts that we know have occurred. Being a model of events, it is imperfect; but it's better than no model because it still helps us to understand what's going on. We are not seeing a train of unconnected events that just happen to be anti-Trump. It is easier to understand it as a concerted effort going on to emasculate the Trump presidency and possibly see him replaced; and that effort is centered in the CIA. ..."
"... The second victim of the coup is Michael T. Flynn, who resigned as Trump's National Security Advisor after only three weeks in that post. Leaks of tapped phone calls showed that intelligence operatives were behind this shark attack ..."
"... Mainly, unnamed intelligence officials and operatives who are in the CIA or recently retired from such. A number of media outfits are exceptionally active in propagating negative headlines and stories about Trump and his administration. Elements of other intelligence agencies and departments of government are possibly involved. We do not know the names of those operating against Trump, and this is a weakness of the coup hypothesis. ..."
Q. Will the coup succeed in removing Trump from office?
A. Not in its present form. It is currently destined to fail because the investigating
agencies and enemies of Trump haven't found a smoking gun against him on the basis of Russian
ties or influence. No one can prove that Trump is being controlled by Putin, and so he won't
resign for that reason. The coup will peter out unless it comes up with new and more explosive
anti-Trump material that's not obviously specious or doubtful as much of the current material
is. Furthermore, Trump hasn't yet counterattacked and he has plenty of ammunition.
Q. What are the objectives of the coup?
A. One objective is to keep in place an anti-Russian policy. The coup's instigators want
to prevent Trump from letting up on the pressure (sanctions) on Russia and from cooperating
with Russia. The coup forces are all anti-Russia, and that serves to unite them. A second
objective is to maintain the positions, power, and influence of the coup's seekers.
Q. How is the coup being conducted?
A. This is a "seed crystal" coup. The model for the seed crystal coup is the Watergate
scandal. The operational goal is to crystallize and solidify the disunited Trump opposition
into a movement that has irresistible momentum. In much the same way that seed crystals can
accelerate a phase change from liquid to solid, the coup perpetrators introduce reports,
accusations, and leaks over time in order to create the impression that a widening scandal is
occurring. Each component has no merit but the media accept them at face value and provide
publicity that creates new adherents and coherence among the anti-Trump forces. The anti-Trump
forces are anxious to replicate the success in getting Nixon to resign.
Q. What is the role of the establishment media in the coup?
A. The anti-Trump media are critical in this effort. The anti-Trump media keep up a
drumbeat of anti-Trump reporting. They slant the news, manufacture stories, repeat them and
create fake news. They try to convince the public that the coup's promoters are on the
side of the angels (as in protecting national security and the election system's purity) and
Trump is on the side of the devils (as in making concessions to a dangerous foe and being too
respectful to Putin). The media must paint Russia and Putin as enemies for this propaganda
effort to succeed. The media provide a focal point that coordinates the coup's backers even if
they never sit down and conspire with one another. Everyone can observe the media stories and
through that the effects of their anti-Trump leaks, reports, and innuendos. This allows them to
plan their next moves.
Q. What is the role of social media in the coup attempt?
A. Social media have played a role in uprisings during the Arab Spring. The same thing
can happen in America. There is a host of groups who are anti-Trump on grounds other than
Russia. They can coordinate through social media. These groups seek to de-legitimize Trump so
as to maintain items on their agenda. Aides to Hillary Clinton's failed campaign are now piling
on to the effort.
These groups are distinct from the coup's perpetrators. They might launch a coup attempt of
their own or they may become a front line of the existing coup, that is, merge with it as a
force to reckon with that Trump has to address.
Q. How do you answer those who deny that there is an ongoing coup attempt?
A. Positing a coup attempt is the simplest and most comprehensive hypothesis that ties
together and explains a host of known facts that we know have occurred. Being a model of
events, it is imperfect; but it's better than no model because it still helps us to understand
what's going on. We are not seeing a train of unconnected events that just happen to be
anti-Trump. It is easier to understand it as a concerted effort going on to emasculate the
Trump presidency and possibly see him replaced; and that effort is centered in the CIA.
The people behind the coup are operating partly openly and partly covertly. They are not so
far using military means or physically threatening means so that the coup is not clearly
recognizable as such. They are more like sharks circling their intended victims, with each one
being hungry and attacking its own, as opposed to making pre-arranged attacks. Their
coordination is achieved through publicity and a common goal.
We can see these attacks, and they show a pattern, a common goal and a recognizable origin,
primarily among U.S. intelligence agencies, especially the CIA.
Q. What attacks are you referring to?
A. The first victim was Paul Manafort who resigned in mid-August 2016 as Trump's campaign
chairman. His lobbying efforts on behalf of the ousted head of Ukraine, Victor Yanukovych,
resulted in a dirt campaign against him. That attack stemmed from anti-Russian sources in
Ukraine whom the U.S. government supports. Attacks from foreign origins conceal their true U.S.
origins. They are a sign of a CIA operation behind the scenes.
The second victim of the coup is Michael T. Flynn, who resigned as Trump's National
Security Advisor after only three weeks in that post. Leaks of tapped phone calls showed that
intelligence operatives were behind this shark attack .
Q. Who is behind the coup attempt ?
A. Mainly, unnamed intelligence officials and operatives who are in the CIA or recently
retired from such. A number of media outfits are exceptionally active in propagating negative
headlines and stories about Trump and his administration. Elements of other intelligence
agencies and departments of government are possibly involved. We do not know the names of those
operating against Trump, and this is a weakness of the coup hypothesis.
"... Bottom line: Despite the denials of former-CIA Director John Brennan, the dossier may have been used in the ICA. ..."
"... Most disturbing is the fact that Steele reportedly received information from friends of Hillary Clinton. (supposedly, Sidney Blumenthal and others) ..."
"... These are just a few of the questions Steele will undoubtedly be asked if he ever faces prosecution for lying to the FBI. But, so far, we know very little about man except that he was a former M16 agent who was paid $160,000 for composing the dubious set of reports that make up the dossier. We don't even know if Steele's alleged contacts or intermediaries in Russia actually exist or not. ..."
"... Some analysts think the whole thing is a fabrication based on the fact that he hasn't worked the Russia-scene since the FSB (The Russian state-security organization that replaced the KGB) was completely overhauled. Besides, it would be extremely dangerous for a Russian to provide an M16 agent with sensitive intelligence. And what would the contact get in return? According to most accounts, Steele's sources weren't even paid, so there was little incentive for them to put themselves at risk? All of this casts more doubt on the contents of the dossier. ..."
"... What is known about Steele is that he has a very active imagination and knows how to command a six-figure payoff for his unique services. We also know that the FBI continued to use him long after they knew he couldn't be trusted which suggests that he served some other purpose, like providing the agency with plausible deniability, a 'get out of jail free' card if they ever got caught surveilling US citizens without probable cause. ..."
"... Since then, GOP lawmakers have been quietly buzzing about allegations that an Obama-era State Department official passed along information from allies of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that may have been used by the FBI to launch an investigation into whether the Trump campaign had improper contacts with Russia. ..."
"... Regular readers of this column know that we have always believed that the Russiagate psyops originated with Brennan. Just as the CIA launched its disinformation campaigns against Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gadhafi, so too, Russia has emerged as Washington's foremost rival requiring a massive propaganda campaign to persuade the public that America faces a serious external threat. In any event, the demonizing of Russia had already begun by the time Hillary and Co. decided to hop on the bandwagon by blaming Moscow for hacking John Podesta's emails. The allegations were never persuasive, but they did provide Brennan with some cover for the massive Information Operation (IO) that began with him. ..."
"... It was then-CIA Director John O. Brennan, a close confidant of Mr. Obama's, who provided the information -- what he termed the "basis" -- for the FBI to start the counterintelligence investigation last summer .Mr. Brennan told the House Intelligence Committee on May 23 that the intelligence community was picking up tidbits on Trump associates making contacts with Russians. ..."
"... It all started with Brennan. After Putin blocked Brennan's operations in both Ukraine and Syria, Brennan had every reason to retaliate and to use the tools at his disposal to demonize Putin and try to isolate Russia. The "election meddling" charges (promoted by the Hillary people) fit perfectly with Brennan's overall strategy to manipulate perceptions and prepare the country for an eventual confrontation. It provided him the opportunity to kill two birds with one stone, to deliver a withering blow to Putin and Trump at the very same time. The temptation must have been irresistible. ..."
"... But now the plan has backfired and the investigations are gaining pace. Trump's allies in the House smell the blood in the water and they want answers. Did the CIA surveil members of the Trump campaign on the basis of information they gathered in the dossier? Who saw the information? Was the information passed along to members of the press and other government agencies? Was the White House involved? What role did Obama play? What about the Intelligence Community Assessment? Was it based on the contents of the Steele report? Will the "hand-picked" analysts who worked on the report vouch for its conclusions in or were they coached about what to write? How did Brennan persuade the reluctant Comey into opening a counterintelligence investigation on members in the Trump campaign when he knew it would be perceived as a partisan attempt to sabotage the elections by giving Hillary an edge? ..."
"... Brennan, Clapper, Clinton, Blumenthal, Abedin, Mills, Podesta, Strzok, McCabe whoever might have been mastermind or mere footsoldier in the drama, one cannot escape the fact that the Capo di tutti capi is Barak Hussein Obama, even if only on the "Buck stops here" principle. ..."
"... Last September Brennan began a two-year stint as a distinguished fellow for global security at Fordham Law School. Brennan is a 1977 college graduate of this Jesuit institution which undoubtedly laid the groundwork for a career of duplicity and malfeasance ..."
The report ("The Dossier") that claims that Donald Trump colluded with Russia, was paid for
by the DNC and Hillary Clinton campaign. The company that claims that Russia hacked DNC computer servers, was paid by the DNC and
Hillary Clinton campaign. The FBI's counterintelligence probe into Trump's alleged connections to Russia was launched
on the basis of information gathered from a report that was paid for by the DNC and Hillary
Clinton campaign.
The surveillance of a Trump campaign member (Carter Page) was approved by a FISA court on
the basis of information from a report that was paid for by the DNC and Hillary Clinton
campaign.
The Intelligence Community Analysis or ICA was (largely or partially) based on information
from a report that was paid for by the DNC and Hillary Clinton campaign. (more on this
below)
The information that was leaked to the media alleging Russia hacking or collusion can be
traced back to claims that were made in a report that was paid for by the DNC and Hillary
Clinton campaign.
The entire Russia-gate investigation rests on the "unverified and salacious" information
from a dossier that was paid for by the DNC and Hillary Clinton Campaign. Here's how Stephen
Cohen sums it up in a recent article at The Nation:
"Steele's dossier was the foundational document of the Russiagate narrative from the time
its installments began to be leaked to the American media in the summer of 2016, to the US
"Intelligence Community Assessment" of January 2017 .the dossier and subsequent ICA report
remain the underlying sources for proponents of the Russiagate narrative of "Trump-Putin
collision." ("Russia gate or Intel-gate?", The Nation)
There's just one problem with Cohen's statement, we don't really know the extent to which
the dossier was used in the creation of the Intelligence Community Assessment. (The ICA was the
IC's flagship analysis that was supposed to provide ironclad proof of Russian meddling in the
2016 elections.) According to some reports, the contribution was significant. Check out this
excerpt from an article at Business Insider:
"Intelligence officials purposefully omitted the dossier from the public intelligence
report they released in January about Russia's election interference because they didn't want
to reveal which details they had corroborated, according to CNN." ("Mueller reportedly
interviewed the author of the Trump-Russia dossier -- here's what it alleges, and how it
aligned with reality", Business Insider)
Bottom line: Despite the denials of former-CIA Director John Brennan, the dossier may have
been used in the ICA.
In the last two weeks, documents have been released that have exposed the weak underpinnings
of the Russia investigation while at the same time revealing serious abuses by senior-level
officials at the DOJ and FBI. The so called Nunes memo was the first to point out these abuses,
but it was the 8-page "criminal referral" authored by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck
Grassley and Senator Lindsey Graham that gave credence to the claims. Here's a blurb from the
document:
"It appears the FBI relied on admittedly uncorroborated information, funded by and obtained
for Secretary Clinton's presidential campaign, in order to conduct surveillance of an associate
of the opposing presidential candidate. It did so based on Mr. Steele's personal credibility
and presumably having faith in his process of obtaining the information. But there is
substantial evidence suggesting that Mr. Steele materially misled the FBI about a key aspect of
his dossier efforts, one which bears on his credibility."
There it is. The FBI made a "concerted effort to conceal information from the court" in
order to get a warrant to spy on a member of a rival political campaign. So –at the very
least– there was an effort, on the part of the FBI and high-ranking officials at the
Department of Justice, to improperly spy on members of the Trump team. And there's more. The
FBI failed to mention that the dossier was paid for by the Hillary campaign and the DNC, or
that the dossier's author Christopher Steele had seeded articles in the media that were being
used to support the dossier's credibility (before the FISA court), or that, according to the
FBI's own analysts, the dossier was "only minimally corroborated", or that Steele was a
ferocious partisan who harbored a strong animus towards Trump. All of these were omitted in the
FISA application which is why the FBI was able to deceive the judge. It's worth noting that
intentionally deceiving a federal judge is a felony.
Most disturbing is the fact that Steele reportedly received information from friends of
Hillary Clinton. (supposedly, Sidney Blumenthal and others) Here's one suggestive tidbit that
appeared in the Graham-Grassley" referral:
" Mr. Steele's memorandum states that his company "received this report from REDACTED US
State Department," that the report was the second in a series, and that the report was
information that came from a foreign sub-source who "is in touch with REDACTED, a contact of
REDACTED, a friend of the Clintons, who passed it to REDACTED."
It is troubling enough that the Clinton campaign funded Mr. Steele's work, but that these
Clinton associates were contemporaneously feeding Mr. Steele allegations raises additional
concerns about his credibility." (Lifted from The Federalist)
What are we to make of this? Was Steele shaping the dossier's narrative to the
specifications of his employers? Was he being coached by members of the Hillary team? How did
that impact the contents of the dossier and the subsequent Russia investigation?
These are just a few of the questions Steele will undoubtedly be asked if he ever faces
prosecution for lying to the FBI. But, so far, we know very little about man except that he was
a former M16 agent who was paid $160,000 for composing the dubious set of reports that make up
the dossier. We don't even know if Steele's alleged contacts or intermediaries in Russia
actually exist or not.
Some analysts think the whole thing is a fabrication based on the fact
that he hasn't worked the Russia-scene since the FSB (The Russian state-security organization
that replaced the KGB) was completely overhauled. Besides, it would be extremely dangerous for
a Russian to provide an M16 agent with sensitive intelligence. And what would the contact get
in return? According to most accounts, Steele's sources weren't even paid, so there was little
incentive for them to put themselves at risk? All of this casts more doubt on the contents of
the dossier.
What is known about Steele is that he has a very active imagination and knows how to command
a six-figure payoff for his unique services. We also know that the FBI continued to use him
long after they knew he couldn't be trusted which suggests that he served some other purpose,
like providing the agency with plausible deniability, a 'get out of jail free' card if they
ever got caught surveilling US citizens without probable cause.
But that brings us to the strange case of Carter Page, a bit-player whose role in the Trump
campaign was trivial at best. Page was what most people would call a "small fish", an
insignificant foreign policy advisor who had minimal impact on the campaign. Congressional
investigators, like Nunes, must be wondering why the FBI and DOJ devoted so much attention to
someone like Page instead of going after the "big fish" like Bannon, Flynn, Kushner, Ivanka and
Trump Jr., all of whom might have been able to provide damaging information on the real target,
Donald Trump. Wasn't that the idea? So why waste time on Page? It doesn't make any sense,
unless, of course, the others were already being surveilled by other agencies? Is that it, did
the NSA and the CIA have a hand in the surveillance too?
It's a moot point, isn't it? Because now that there's evidence that senior-level officials
at the DOJ and the FBI were involved in improperly obtaining warrants to spy on members of the
opposite party, the investigation is going to go wherever it goes. Whatever restrictions
existed before, will now be lifted. For example, this popped up in Saturday's The Hill:
"House Intelligence Committee lawmakers are in the dark about an investigation into
wrongdoing at the State Department announced by Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) on Friday.
Nunes told Fox News on Friday that, "we are in the middle of what I call phase two of our
investigation. That investigation is ongoing and we continue work toward finding answers and
asking the right questions to try to get to the bottom of what exactly the State Department
was up to in terms of this Russia investigation."
Since then, GOP lawmakers have been quietly buzzing about allegations that an Obama-era
State Department official passed along information from allies of former Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton that may have been used by the FBI to launch an investigation into whether
the Trump campaign had improper contacts with Russia.
"I'm pretty troubled by what I read in the documents with respect to the role the State
Department played in the fall of 2016, including information that was used in a court
proceeding. I am troubled by it," Gowdy told Fox News on Tuesday." ("Lawmakers in dark about
'phase two' of Nunes investigation", The Hill)
So the State Department is next in line followed by the NSA and, finally, the Russia-gate
point of origin, John Brennan's CIA. Here's more background on that from Stephen Cohen's
illuminating article at The Nation:
" .when, and by whom, was this Intel operation against Trump started?
In testimony to the House Intelligence Committee in May 2017, John Brennan, formerly
Obama's head of the CIA, strongly suggested that he and his agency were the first, as The
Washington Post put it at the time, "in triggering an FBI probe." Certainly both the Post and
The New York Times interpreted his remarks in this way. Equally certain, Brennan played a
central role in promoting the Russiagate narrative thereafter, briefing members of Congress
privately and giving President Obama himself a top-secret envelope in early August 2016 that
almost certainly contained Steele's dossier. Early on, Brennan presumably would have shared
his "suspicions" and initiatives with James Clapper, director of national intelligence. FBI
Director Comey may have joined them actively somewhat later .
When did Brennan begin his "investigation" of Trump? His House testimony leaves this
somewhat unclear, but, according to a subsequent Guardian article, by late 2015 or early 2016
he was receiving, or soliciting, reports from foreign intelligence agencies regarding
"suspicious 'interactions' between figures connected to Trump and known or suspected Russian
agents."
In short, if these reports and Brennan's own testimony are to be believed, he, not the
FBI, was the instigator and godfather of Russiagate." ("Russiagate or Intelgate?", Stephen
Cohen, The Nation)
Regular readers of this column know that we have always believed that the Russiagate psyops
originated with Brennan. Just as the CIA launched its disinformation campaigns against Saddam
Hussein and Muammar Gadhafi, so too, Russia has emerged as Washington's foremost rival
requiring a massive propaganda campaign to persuade the public that America faces a serious
external threat. In any event, the demonizing of Russia had already begun by the time Hillary
and Co. decided to hop on the bandwagon by blaming Moscow for hacking John Podesta's emails.
The allegations were never persuasive, but they did provide Brennan with some cover for the
massive Information Operation (IO) that began with him.
According to the Washington Times:
"It was then-CIA Director John O. Brennan, a close confidant of Mr. Obama's, who provided
the information -- what he termed the "basis" -- for the FBI to start the counterintelligence
investigation last summer .Mr. Brennan told the House Intelligence Committee on May 23 that
the intelligence community was picking up tidbits on Trump associates making contacts with
Russians."
It all started with Brennan. After Putin blocked Brennan's operations in both Ukraine and
Syria, Brennan had every reason to retaliate and to use the tools at his disposal to demonize
Putin and try to isolate Russia. The "election meddling" charges (promoted by the Hillary
people) fit perfectly with Brennan's overall strategy to manipulate perceptions and prepare the
country for an eventual confrontation. It provided him the opportunity to kill two birds with
one stone, to deliver a withering blow to Putin and Trump at the very same time. The temptation
must have been irresistible.
But now the plan has backfired and the investigations are gaining pace. Trump's allies in
the House smell the blood in the water and they want answers. Did the CIA surveil members of
the Trump campaign on the basis of information they gathered in the dossier? Who saw the
information? Was the information passed along to members of the press and other government
agencies? Was the White House involved? What role did Obama play? What about the Intelligence
Community Assessment? Was it based on the contents of the Steele report? Will the "hand-picked"
analysts who worked on the report vouch for its conclusions in or were they coached about what
to write? How did Brennan persuade the reluctant Comey into opening a counterintelligence
investigation on members in the Trump campaign when he knew it would be perceived as a partisan
attempt to sabotage the elections by giving Hillary an edge?
Soon the investigative crosshairs will settle on Brennan. He'd better have the right
answers.
That the whole media can be in service of a such a fraud and beam their relentless lies
across millions of TV screens even in a democracy like America goes to tell you that the
Power ultimately decides what is 'fiction' and 'non-fiction'.
Why else would most of Big Media be spreading all these lies about Russia Hacking or
'Russiagate' when the only real 'gate' is Deepstategate and Jewishhategate. The anti-Trump
hysteria is nothing but an act of arson set by Jewish globalists who hate him.
Brennan, Clapper, Clinton, Blumenthal, Abedin, Mills, Podesta, Strzok, McCabe whoever might
have been mastermind or mere footsoldier in the drama, one cannot escape the fact that the
Capo di tutti capi is Barak Hussein Obama, even if only on the "Buck stops here"
principle.
Planting stories in the kept lugenpresse then citing the resulting articles as evidence is a
common technique of the national security state. Anyone remember DickiePoo Cheney (the man
with no heart) planting bogus weapons-of-mass-destruction stories with "reporter" Judith (the
jooie) Miller whose stuff was dutifully published in the rapidly anti arab Jew York Times.
DickiePoo then cited the stories as evidence that Iraq needed to be invaded and destroyed.
This kind of propaganda is quite effective and very long lasting to this day something like
60% of the american public still believe Saddam had a hand in the 911 false flag operation
and probably future history books will agree.
Last September Brennan began a two-year stint as a distinguished fellow for global security
at Fordham Law School. Brennan is a 1977 college graduate of this Jesuit institution which
undoubtedly laid the groundwork for a career of duplicity and malfeasance .
His appointment is in the grand tradition of Jesuitical sucking up to the
powers-that-be.
An especially egregious example of this would be the current Jesuit "Bishop of Rome" (his
preferred parlance) playing footsie with communist China. And in the process throwing
faithful Chinese under the proverbial bus – just being chalked up as collateral
damage!
"... The bottom line is that the memo exposed the ugly truth that, at least in the case of Page, the FBI and DOJ, on multiple occasions, deliberately lied to or otherwise misled the FISA court in an effort to violate Page's Fourth Amendment rights against unlawful search and seizure, or that the FISA court is, in fact, little more than a rubber-stamp entity incapable of adequate oversight of the enormous responsibilities it has been entrusted with---or both. ..."
"... WSJ confirms Carter Page was cooperating with FBI before he entered campaign ..."
"... 'What's notable here that seems to have evaded previous notice is that instead of being a Russian agent of influence, Page at the time he spang briefly into a prominent role within the Trump campaign in early 2016, was already an FBI informant, something the Russians would obviously know. This becomes even more crucial later that summer after Page returned from a business trip to Moscow when he was repeatedly named in the James Steele "dirty dossier" as a close confident of Russian energy officials and bankers. Page actually appears to have all the hallmarks of an FBI informant, or an agent provocateur, who was planted into the Trump campaign as part of an intelligence operation. Only, it seems apparent, the intelligence service he was actually serving was American rather than Russian. ..."
This presupposes that the FISA renewal left unchanged the information linked to Steele that underpinned its initial application.
By January 2018, however, the FBI had terminated its relationship with Steele based on the deceit of the former British intelligence
officer. As such, all Steele's reporting should have been recalled as unreliable, as well as any corroborating information that could
be linked to Steele in any way (such as the Isikoff article, the Papadopoulos investigation and the CIA's information as briefed
to Sen. Reid). Any sworn affidavit and application used in support of a FISA renewal that sustained the Steele reporting would have
been misleading at best, and most probably false, making anyone whose signature appears in any certifying capacity open to charges
of making a false statement---including both Comey and Yates.
The next application for renewal occurred in April 2017. This one would have been signed off by Comey and then-acting Attorney
General Dana Boente, who took over from Yates after she was fired by Trump in January 2017---shortly after she signed off on Page's
FISA warrant renewal application.
What is interesting about the April 2017 application is that the level of public scrutiny of the Steele dossier engendered by
BuzzFeed's publication of it in January 2017 would seem to have at least raised the issue of Steele's credibility as a source, something
that should have been reflected in the FISA renewal application.
Moreover, by the time of the renewal application,
Page had met with the FBI over the course of 10 hours in March 2017, when he was questioned in depth about his interactions with
Russia. Following past practice, the FBI agents conducting the interview would have relied upon FISA material to try and catch Page
in a "perjury trap," where it could be proved that he made a false statement to a federal agent. No such charges have been filed,
strongly suggesting that Page was honest and forthright with the FBI. To what extent, if any, the Steele dossier factored in the
April 2017 application for renewal, and whether the FBI informed the FISA court about the 10 hours of questioning it conducted with
Page, is not known. Nor is the context, if any, the FBI provided to any intercepted communications that would raise them to the level
needed to sustain a renewal of a FISA warrant.
The final FISA renewal application was submitted and approved in July 2017. This one was signed off by McCabe and acting Attorney
General Rod Rosenstein. By this time, the media had run with numerous stories about Page being the subject of a FISA warrant, and
Page himself had appealed to both Rosenstein and Mueller to make public the application used to grant his FISA warrant. Page was
unemployed, his professional life ruined by the public revelations about allegations that he had colluded with the Russians and was
under active FBI investigation, the totality of which could be linked back to the information Steele provided the FBI.
And yet somehow, in the face of overwhelming evidence of Page's innocence, the FISA court saw fit to grant yet another renewal
of its warrant.
... ... ...
The bottom line is that the memo exposed the ugly truth that, at least in the case of Page, the FBI and DOJ, on multiple occasions,
deliberately lied to or otherwise misled the FISA court in an effort to violate Page's Fourth Amendment rights against unlawful search
and seizure, or that the FISA court is, in fact, little more than a rubber-stamp entity incapable of adequate oversight of the enormous
responsibilities it has been entrusted with---or both.
Scott Ritter spent more than a dozen years in the intelligence field, beginning in 1985 as a ground intelligence officer
with the US Marine Corps, where he served with the Marine Corps component of the Rapid Deployment Force at the Brigade and Battalion
level. In 1987 Ritter was hand-picked to serve with the On Site Inspection Agency, where he was responsible for carrying out the
provisions of the Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, signed by American President Ronald Reagan and Soviet Chairman Mikhail
Gorbachev. Ritter served as a Deputy Site Commander of a specialized inspection team stationed outside a Soviet missile factory.
For his work, Ritter received two classified commendations from the CIA. After Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in August 1990, Ritter was
assigned to a special planning cell that reported directly to the Commandant of the Marine Corps, where he helped plan the employment
of Marine Corps combat forces in response to Iraq's actions. He was later deployed to Saudi Arabia, where he served on the intelligence
staff of General Norman Schwartzkopf .
It gets better.......Carter Page was an FBI informant.
WSJ confirms Carter Page was cooperating with FBI before he entered campaign
'What's notable here that seems to have evaded previous notice is that instead of being a Russian agent of influence, Page
at the time he spang briefly into a prominent role within the Trump campaign in early 2016, was already an FBI informant, something
the Russians would obviously know. This becomes even more crucial later that summer after Page returned from a business trip to
Moscow when he was repeatedly named in the James Steele "dirty dossier" as a close confident of Russian energy officials and bankers.
Page actually appears to have all the hallmarks of an FBI informant, or an agent provocateur, who was planted into the Trump campaign
as part of an intelligence operation. Only, it seems apparent, the intelligence service he was actually serving was American rather
than Russian.
That is significant for another very important reason – according to the Washington Post, the FBI obtained a FISA warrant last
summer to spy on the Trump campaign under the pretext that Page was alleged to be a Russian agent.
First!! the agony of those democrats (union rights, civil liberties, protection of the poor etc.) is understood in the light
that there is no democratic party. where have you been?? the clintons and all their charm have wrecked it. bernie sanders is nothing
but 'clinton lite'. look at the record and enlighten yourself. if hellary were elected in 2016 we would be in trouble more so
than trump. fascism is crawling beneath the feet of both these miscreants but hellary had the mechanism of the deep state. they
failed to elect her. forget about the rules and know that, now, trump is the deep state's favorite boy (look his people). trump
has failed to gain the media's favoritism but that will change. given what the FBI has done (if there is no punitive action) we
will have slipped another gear into grinding fascism. we are reaching an overt state. Scott Ritter did well writing about the
bungling of the FBI but that is not new. Some people are welcomed to lie to agents some are not.
But most of all do not forget what Scott Ritter did in the investigation of WMD prior to Bush (deep state) and the Iraq war. Nobody
listened because they did not know how.
If Ritter has the correct analysis then we are all royally screwed. The Dems will be burned for a generation, Trump will be
vindicated and we will all have to drag our sorry butts to Trumps military parade and lick his shoes. I am so depressed after
reading this. I hope Ritter is wrong and overlooking that he may not have all the facts himself. I find it hard to believe the
FISA courts would renew three times when public skepticism was in the air. That would be a major scandal. The problem is that
the GOP won't get religion and start distrusting the police state they helped create. They will ignore the fact that they just
passed legislation bolstering the FISA courts and go back to locking up the plebes and shielding their big money benefactors.
What's funny about this is that this piece is way more solid then the "memo". That alone makes you wonder. I'm not sure what
it means. I await the counter memo with much interest.
The Nunes memo is just a precis of good deal of information, and even that is but a part of the evidence of the Demonazi, and
elements of the FBI and Justice Department, conspiracy to stop Trump. If Trump is capo di tutti capi in Thanatopolis DC, it is
Clinton and her incompetent fellow conspirators' fault.
Democrats are now the Neo-con party and far more dangerous.
Neo -cons wanted Hillary and its why they are going after Trump.Trump was never supposed to win.Trump was a anti-gop candidate.So
republicans are the anti -war party now.
Ironinc no?
How Donald Trump blasted George W. Bush in S.C. -- and won ...
These people--and all these folks in law enforcement and corporate hierarchies and the list goes on and on--they LIE. They
manipulate. Newsflash, that is human nature, despite all of the bogus, idealistic posturing made in these comments and in the
world at large.
But my point is that these same people play by a set of rules that they defined for themselves, and now the conservative faction
wants special treatment for their buffoon Trump. They need to suck it up and take their medicine. Trump is a vile, unintelligent
cretin and a criminal, and I really don't care if the means by which they remove him doesn't rise to the level of your or others
supposed BS-idealism.
The U.S. government is an unethical $hit show driven by the most heinous form of capitalism ever imagined, so what the hell
do you expect? Do try to get in touch with reality and put down your tome of rightwing talking points.
Im a left Sanders voter.Trump is literally doing what you say you want and your too bias to notice.
Newsflash........Trump is bringing to the forefront just how corrupted our system is.The $shitshow has just started........even
MSNBC cant ignore the treason of the FBI and DOJ any more.
And did you miss Trump tweet about the wallstreet crash?
Didnt he call out the fact wallstreet bets against the US economy?
Trump tweeted Wednesday:
"In the 'old days,' when good news was reported, the Stock Market
would go up. Today, when good news is reported, the Stock Market goes down. Big mistake, and we have so much good (great) news
about the economy!"
Didnt Trump just make an important criticism of capitalism?.....I think he did.Sorry you missed it.
The Two Faces of a Police State: Sheltering Tax Evaders, Financial Swindlers and Money Launderers while Policing the Citizens
http://petras.lahaine.org/?...
"... The pro-Hillary warmongering media, the ones that pushed for war in Iraq and elsewhere, through big lies and false evidence, are the vanguard of this ugly machine that supports the most terrible Trump administration bills, yet, this machine can't stop accusing him for 'colluding' with Russia that 'interfered' in the 2016 US election. Of course, no evidence presented for such an accusation and no one really can explain what that 'interference' means. ..."
"... They're accusing the President of the United States of being a Russian agent, this has never happened in American history. However much you may loathe Trump, this is a whole new realm of defamation. For a number of years, there's been a steady degradation of American political culture and discourse, generally. There was a time when I hoped or thought that it would be the Democratic Party that would push against that degradation ..."
"... Now, however, though I'm kind of only nominally, a Democrat, it's the Democratic Party that's degrading our political culture and our discourse. So, this is MSNBC, which purports to be not only the network of the Democratic Party, but the network of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, is now actually because this guy was a semi-anchor was asking the question to an American senator, " Do you think that Representative Nunes, because he wants the memo released, has been compromised by the Kremlin? " ..."
"... And by the way, if people will say, " Well, it's a weak capitulation of McCarthyism, " I say no, it's much more than that because McCarthy was obsessed with Communist. That was a much narrower concept than being obsessed with anybody who might be under Russian influence of any kind. The so-called affinity for Russia. Well, I have a profound affinity for Russian culture and for Russian history. I study it all the time. This is something new. And so, when you accuse a Republican or any Congressman of being a Kremlin agent, this has become a commonplace. We are degraded. ..."
"... We are building up our military presence there, so the Russians are counter-building up, though within their territory. That means the chances of hot war are now much greater than they were before. ..."
"... Every time Trump has tried with Putin to reach a cooperative arrangement, for example, on fighting terrorism in Syria, which is a necessary purpose, literally, the New York Times and the others call him treasonous. Whereas, in the old days, the old Cold War, we had a robust discussion. There is none here. We have no alert system that's warning the American people and its representatives how dangerous this is. And as we mentioned before, it's not only Nunes, it's a lot of people who are being called Kremlin agents because they want to digress from the basic narrative. ..."
"... Meanwhile, people in Moscow who formed their political establishment, who surround Putin and the Kremlin, I mean, the big brains who are formed policy tankers, and who have always tended to be kind of pro-American, and very moderate, have simply come to the conclusion that war is coming. ..."
"... The Democrats couldn't had downgrade their party further. This disgusting spectacle would make FDR totally ashamed of what this party has become. Not only they are voting for every pro-plutocracy GOP bill under Trump administration, but they have become champions in bringing back a much worse and unpredictable Cold War that is dangerously escalating tension with Russia. ..."
How Russiagate fiasco destroys Kremlin moderates, accelerating danger for a hot war with Russiaglobinfo freexchange
Corporate Democrats can't stop pushing for war through the Russiagate fiasco.
The party has been completely taken over by the neocon/neoliberal establishment and has nothing to do with the Left. The pro-Hillary
warmongering media, the ones that pushed for war in Iraq and elsewhere, through big lies and false evidence, are the vanguard of
this ugly machine that supports the most terrible Trump administration bills, yet, this machine can't stop accusing him for 'colluding'
with Russia that 'interfered' in the 2016 US election. Of course, no evidence presented for such an accusation and no one really
can explain what that 'interference' means.
But things are probably much worse, because this completely absurd persistence on Russiagate fiasco that feeds an evident anti-Russian
hysteria, destroys all the influence of the Kremlin moderates who struggle to keep open channels between Russia and the United States.
Stephen Cohen, professor emeritus of Russian studies, history, and politics at NY University and Princeton University, explained
to Aaron Maté and the RealNews
the terrible consequences:
They're accusing the President of the United States of being a Russian agent, this has never happened in American history. However
much you may loathe Trump, this is a whole new realm of defamation. For a number of years, there's been a steady degradation of American
political culture and discourse, generally. There was a time when I hoped or thought that it would be the Democratic Party that would
push against that degradation.
Now, however, though I'm kind of only nominally, a Democrat, it's the Democratic Party that's degrading our political culture
and our discourse. So, this is MSNBC, which purports to be not only the network of the Democratic Party, but the network of the progressive
wing of the Democratic Party, is now actually because this guy was a semi-anchor was asking the question to an American senator,
" Do you think that Representative Nunes, because he wants the memo released, has been compromised by the Kremlin? "
I think all of us need to focus on what's happened in this country when in the very mainstream, at the highest, most influential
levels of the political establishment, this kind of discourse is no longer considered an exception. It is the norm. We hear it daily
from MSNBC and CNN, from the New York Times and the Washington Post, that people who doubt the narrative of what's loosely called
Russiagate are somehow acting on behalf of or under the spell of the Kremlin, that we aren't Americans any longer. And by the way,
if people will say, " Well, it's a weak capitulation of McCarthyism, " I say no, it's much more than that because McCarthy
was obsessed with Communist. That was a much narrower concept than being obsessed with anybody who might be under Russian influence
of any kind. The so-called affinity for Russia. Well, I have a profound affinity for Russian culture and for Russian history. I study
it all the time. This is something new. And so, when you accuse a Republican or any Congressman of being a Kremlin agent, this has
become a commonplace. We are degraded.
The new Cold War is unfolding not far away from Russia, like the last in Berlin, but on Russia's borders in the Baltic and in
Ukraine. We are building up our military presence there, so the Russians are counter-building up, though within their territory.
That means the chances of hot war are now much greater than they were before. Meanwhile, not only do we not have a discussion of
these real dangers in the United States but anyone who wants to incite a discussion, including the President of the United States,
is called treasonous. Every time Trump has tried with Putin to reach a cooperative arrangement, for example, on fighting terrorism
in Syria, which is a necessary purpose, literally, the New York Times and the others call him treasonous. Whereas, in the old days,
the old Cold War, we had a robust discussion. There is none here. We have no alert system that's warning the American people and
its representatives how dangerous this is. And as we mentioned before, it's not only Nunes, it's a lot of people who are being called
Kremlin agents because they want to digress from the basic narrative.
Meanwhile, people in Moscow who formed their political establishment, who surround Putin and the Kremlin, I mean, the big brains
who are formed policy tankers, and who have always tended to be kind of pro-American, and very moderate, have simply come to the
conclusion that war is coming. They can't think of a single thing to tell the Kremlin to offset hawkish views in the Kremlin. Every
day, there's something new. And these were the people in Moscow who are daytime peacekeeping interlockers. They have been
destroyed by Russiagate. Their influence as Russia is zilch. And the McCarthyites in Russia, they have various terms, now
called the pro-American lobby in Russia 'fifth columnists'. This is the damage that's been done. There's never been anything like
this in my lifetime.
The Democrats couldn't had downgrade their party further. This disgusting spectacle would make FDR totally ashamed of what this party
has become. Not only they are voting for every pro-plutocracy GOP bill under Trump administration, but they have become champions
in bringing back a much worse and unpredictable Cold War that is dangerously escalating tension with Russia.
And, unfortunately,
even the most progressives of the Democrats are adopting the Russiagate bogus, like Bernie Sanders, because they know that if they
don't obey to the narratives, the DNC establishment will crush them politically in no time.
"... The DP is a neoliberal party which has been able to distinguish itself from Republicans by campaigning like progressives, but governing as neoliberals. ..."
"... Trump ran his campaign as a populist who would "drain the swamp." He opposed trade deals, and corporations relocating their factories outside the US. The Clinton campaign ran mostly negative personal attacks at Trump's failed marriages, his university, business bankruptcies, abuse of women, and his Russian connection. ..."
"... The DP has a real problem, how can they continue to be a neoliberal party, and cooperate with the RP, while pretending to support progressive causes when more and more people realize the charade and are demanding real progressive change? ..."
Victor Sciamarelli says: February 10, 2018 at 2:35 pm
An interesting article especially the conclusion under "Top Priorities" where it states, "It
is here that Russiagate performs a critical function for Trump's political foes. Far beyond
Israelgate, Russiagate allows them [democrats] to oppose Trump while obscuring key areas where
they either share his priorities or have no viable alternative."
This is important and I largely agree, but the observation could have gone further. The
DP is a neoliberal party which has been able to distinguish itself from Republicans by
campaigning like progressives, but governing as neoliberals.
Trump ran his campaign as a populist who would "drain the swamp." He opposed trade
deals, and corporations relocating their factories outside the US. The Clinton campaign ran
mostly negative personal attacks at Trump's failed marriages, his university, business
bankruptcies, abuse of women, and his Russian connection. Jill Stein was attacked and
brought before the Senate Intelligence Committee because the dossier claimed, falsely, that she
accepted payment from Russia to attend a RT event in Moscow. And we all know what happened to
the Sanders' campaign.
None of this would matter because Clinton was expected to win. Trump is a hypocrite and a
fake populist but the populist message resonated with voters. Bernie Sanders, the real deal
populist, remains the most popular politician in America and he is the most popular democratic
politician among Republican voters.
The recent FISA reauthorization bill passed with 65 House Democrats who joined Trump and the
Republicans. In 2002 the DP controlled the Senate, but 29 Dems joined Republicans to pass the
Iraq War Resolution along with 82 House Dems. And was the Republican regime change in Iraq
better than the Democratic regime change in Libya? And recall that Hugo Chavez, who was
democratically elected, governed constitutionally, and complied with international law, and if
he ever crossed a line it was trivial compared to the lines Bush crossed, was labeled a
dictator and attacked much like Putin is today.
The DP has a real problem, how can they continue to be a neoliberal party, and cooperate
with the RP, while pretending to support progressive causes when more and more people realize
the charade and are demanding real progressive change?
Maintaining a neoliberal course on behalf of elite interests is more important than winning
elections. Thus, while Trump is investigated, the DP and supportive media are preparing to
demonize progressives and any alternative voices as nothing more than Russian puppets.
"... Rachel Maddow, the top-rated cable-news host who covers Russiagate more than all other issues combined , has speculated that Putin was responsible for the hiring of Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson; is inducing Trump to "weaken" the State Department and " bleed out " the FBI; and, via the infamous "pee tape" alleged by Steele, may blackmail Trump into withdrawing US forces near Russia's border . ..."
"... The Washington Post ..."
"... Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists ..."
"... The Wall Street Journal ..."
"... Far beyond Israelgate, Russiagate allows them to oppose Trump while obscuring key areas where they either share his priorities or have no viable alternative. Democrats can claim to be Trump's opposition without having to confront many of the failings that handed them one of the most stunning defeats in US political history. ..."
"... The DP is a neoliberal party which has been able to distinguish itself from Republicans by campaigning like progressives, but governing as neoliberals. ..."
"... Trump ran his campaign as a populist who would "drain the swamp." He opposed trade deals, and corporations relocating their factories outside the US. The Clinton campaign ran mostly negative personal attacks at Trump's failed marriages, his university, business bankruptcies, abuse of women, and his Russian connection. ..."
"... The DP has a real problem, how can they continue to be a neoliberal party, and cooperate with the RP, while pretending to support progressive causes when more and more people realize the charade and are demanding real progressive change? ..."
"... This whole "we lost the election because of Russian interference" argument appears to be roughly on the same level as "the dog ate my homework" dodge. ..."
"... The bottom line of any Trump association is financial - whether or not an association will protect and increase his wealth. Trump most likely believed that Russians were hacking the DNC (and the RNC) and favored him over Clinton, but that is a far cry from proof that he was colluding with a foreign government that committed crimes. The Democrats knee-jerk obsession with Russia serves to inoculate Trump from any real crimes that the Mueller investigation uncovers. Mostly those crimes will be financial, money laundering being the foremost. Democrats, in a 'the sky is falling' tone, breathlessly proclaim the latest revelation that Trump wanted a reset of Russia relations, or that some Trump official actually talked to a Russian official, as proof positive that Trump is a traitor. That Russia is the enemy is a fait accompli. ..."
"... To go on any liberal forum and point out that we really do need a better foreign policy with Russia than demonizing Putin is to bring forth a cascade of vituperation. Russia is the enemy and Trump colluded with the enemy, end of story they say. It's really way more complicated than that. It goes to the heart of the financialization of governments, including ours, to the point where finance can no longer be separated from government, and everything in government becomes a business transaction. Trump views the presidency as just another tool for self-enrichment, on a continuum from his global wheeling-dealing working on the boundaries of the law. The Russian state works in much the same way, a government that is run by a confederation of oligarchs and mob figures. ..."
"... In indulging themselves in Russiagate, Democrats have solidified the current provocative foreign policy that benefits the arms industry while putting civilization in danger. They are closing out all the sane options, and engaging in the same asinine fearmongering that Republicans do. On foreign policy, both parties deserve contempt. ..."
Both scenarios also call into question another foundation of Russiagate, the series of Clinton-campaign-funded intelligence reports
written by former British spy Christopher Steele. The premise of the Steele dossier is of a "well-developed conspiracy of cooperation"
in which Russia has been "cultivating, supporting and assisting Trump for at least five years," beginning back when Trump was hosting
The Apprentice . Russia gives Trump "and his inner circle a regular flow of intelligence from the Kremlin, including on
his Democratic and other political rivals." As an insurance policy, Steele contends, at least two years after their conspiracy began,
the Russians collected a videotape of Trump hiring and watching prostitutes "perform a 'golden showers' (urination) show," in a Moscow
Ritz-Carlton hotel room.
This questionable narrative is perhaps why, according to the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, Mark Warner,
after one year and multiple investigations, the dossier's allegations remain neither "proven nor, conversely, disproven" -- in other
words, not proven. According to Fox News, "when pressed [in recent congressional testimony] to identify what in the salacious document
the bureau had actually corroborated [then–FBI Deputy Director Andrew] McCabe cited only the fact that Trump campaign adviser Carter
Page had traveled to Moscow." It would not have been difficult for the FBI -- or Steele -- to figure that out, given that it was
reported
in The Washington Post and Russian media in early
July. (Steele reports it only on July 19.)
"Missing Hard Evidence"
The shaky evidentiary basis for collusion extends to Russiagate's other central pillars. It has been over a year since the release,
shortly before Trump's inauguration, of a US intelligence report alleging a Russian-government campaign to elect Trump through e-mail
hacking and covert propaganda. Amid the ensuing uproar, some quietly noted at the time that the public version of the report "does
not or cannot provide evidence for its assertions" (
The Atlantic
); contained "essentially no new information" (
Susan Hennessy , Lawfare );
and was "missing what many Americans most eagerly anticipated: hard evidence to back up the agencies' claims" (
The New York
Times ).
If "hard evidence" is what "many Americans most eagerly anticipated" in January 2017, they have continued to wait in vain. The
Russian government may well have hacked Democratic Party e-mails, but evidence of it beyond unsubstantiated claims has yet to arrive.
In its place is a bipartisan fearmongering campaign that recalls the height of the Cold War. The nation is said to face "an ongoing
attack by the Russian government through Kremlin-linked social media actors directly acting to intervene and influence our democratic
process" (
Democrats Representative Adam Schiff and Senator Dianne Feinstein ); in which "Russia continues to disseminate propaganda designed
to weaken our nation" (
former acting CIA director Michael Morell and former Republican Representative Mike Rogers ); which means that we cannot "simply
sit back and hope that we do not face another attack by a hostile foreign power" (Republican Senator Marco Rubio and Democratic Senator
Chris Van Hollen).
A credulous national media has helped disseminate the panic. When news of Russian-linked Facebook ads (in reality,
Russian troll farms ) broke open,
The
Daily Beast calculated that the "Russian-funded covert propaganda posts were likely seen by a minimum of 23 million people
and might have reached as many as 70 million," meaning that "up to 28 percent of American adults were swept in by the campaign."
National audiences were soberly informed of covert Russian attempts to dupe them via
Pokemon Go . CNN
reported
-- and multiple
outlets repeated -- that
"highly sophisticated" Russian Facebook ads targeted "the states that turned out to be pivotal," including "Michigan and Wisconsin,
two states crucial to Donald Trump's victory last November." The New York Times consulted with "analysts"
to ponder over the mysterious significance of a Russian-linked "Facebook group for animal lovers with memes of adorable puppies":
The goal of the dog lovers' page was more obscure. But some analysts suggested a possible motive: to build a large following
before gradually introducing political content. Without viewing the entire feed from the page, now closed by Facebook, it is impossible
to say whether the Russian operators tried such tactics.
We may never know if vulnerable American dog-lovers were compromised by the Russian puppy-gandists. But "analysis" and "exclusives"
like these have drowned out the actual evidence. In brief, more than half of the relatively paltry $100,000 in Facebook ads bought
by "Russian-linked" accounts ran after the election. They were mostly related not to the election but to social issues and were often
juvenile and written in broken English. Those that were "geographically located" came mostly during the primaries. The ads that ran
in battleground states were, as
one study noted , "microscopic": Fewer than a dozen ran in Michigan and Wisconsin combined, and the majority were seen fewer
than 1,000 times. Purported Russian ad spending amounted to $1,979 in Wisconsin -- all but $54 of that during the primary -- $823
in Michigan, and $300 in Pennsylvania.
Summarizing available data, The Washington Post 's Philip Bump
concludes : "what we actually know about the Russian activity on Facebook and Twitter: It was often modest, heavily dissociated
from the campaign itself and minute in the context of election social media efforts."
"Theories With Virtually No Fact"
The impact of Russiagate panic has been magnified by a preponderance of influential exponents wading into imaginative territory.
And their audience happens to be millions of people aggrieved by Trump's presidency and seeking hope that it can be reversed.
The Russian influence theory is so ingrained that Democrats see no irony in invoking it to dismiss the conspiracy theories of
Republicans. Denouncing the current right-wing uproar over alleged anti-Trump bias at the FBI, Senator Chuck Schumer
cautioned that in pushing
"conspiracy theories with virtually no fact," the Republicans "wittingly or unwittingly are acting as allies of Russia's disinformation
campaigns," ultimately "playing right into Putin's hands."
Such is our Trump-era political spectrum: a Republican Party that has graduated from birtherism to now pushing fears of an anti-Trump
FBI "secret society," versus a Democratic Party whose counterattack is to accuse its foes of doing Putin's bidding.
... ... ...
As it ramps up its armed presence near Russia, the Pentagon's new National Defense Strategy declares that the US military advantage
over Russia and China is "eroding," and that reversing it is now more of a priority than stopping ISIS or Al Qaeda. "Great power
competition, not terrorism, is now the primary focus of U.S. national security,"
Defense Secretary James Mattis declared. Russia is the top threat invoked in Trump's Nuclear Posture Review. The plan's centerpiece
is the development of smaller, so-called "low-yield" nuclear weapons, small enough to ensure that Russia fears their actual use.
The review attributes this to the "deterioration of the strategic environment" -- "a nod toward existing tensions with Russia in
particular,"
The Washington Post observes .
Tensions between the world's two major nuclear powers have helped lead the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists to move
its Doomsday Clock to its highest point since 1953. "Nuclear risks have been compounded by US-Russia relations that now feature more
conflict than cooperation," the Bulletin warns . "Coordination on nuclear risk reduction
is all but dead. For the first time in many years, in fact, no US-Russian nuclear arms control negotiations are under way."
The nuclear risks may also be compounded by a US opposition party that has made "more conflict than cooperation" a defining trait.
"Never before has a U.S. president so clearly ignored such a grave threat, and a growing threat, to U.S. national security," declares
Senator Ben Cardin . In not imposing new sanctions, Trump has "let Russia off the hook yet again," says
Representative Eliot Engel . In releasing the House Republican memo, Trump has "Vladimir Putin there smiling like he gave Donald
Trump the script" (
Representative Jackie
Speier ) and has "just sent his friend Putin a bouquet" (
Representative Nancy
Pelosi ). It is difficult to imagine Democrats leading the charge to reduce nuclear tensions with Russia when they expend more
energy urging Trump to be confrontational.
With Trump's actual Russia policies receiving less attention than Russiagate, it also makes sense that his administration has
begun to take advantage of the opportunities that the distraction provides. National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster has
warned that there
are "initial signs" of Russian "subversion and disinformation and propaganda" in
Mexico's upcoming presidential election . McMaster did not cite any evidence, but perhaps he had in mind the multiple polls that
show leftist candidate Andrés Manuel López Obrador as the front-runner
so far .
Top Priorities
The focus on still-absent evidence of Trump-Russia collusion while ignoring increasing US-Russia tensions coincides with the indifference
that has greeted the most concrete case of Trump collusion with a foreign government so far: the Trump transition's effort to undermine
President Obama's abstention on a United Nations Security Council vote condemning Israeli settlements in December 2016. Undertaken
at the request of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, "derailing the vote was Mr. Trump's top priority at that time,"
The Wall Street Journal reports
.
But for Democrats and thought leaders to oppose the Trump transition's "top priority" would mean challenging one that they uphold.
"While [the UN effort] might have otherwise given the Democrats a welcome political opportunity to underscore the perfidy of the
Trump team," Stephen Zunes
observes , "they are hindered by the fact that the majority of Congressional Democrats opposed Obama and supported Trump's position
on the vote."
It is here that Russiagate performs a critical function for Trump's political foes. Far beyond Israelgate, Russiagate allows them
to oppose Trump while obscuring key areas where they either share his priorities or have no viable alternative. Democrats can claim
to be Trump's opposition without having to confront many of the failings that handed them one of the most stunning defeats in US
political history.
In focusing on a foreign villain, there is also little need for Democrats to challenge the powerful sectors of US society that
many Trump voters were duped into thinking that they were voting against -- and whose interests many Democrats have deftly served.
In fact, the outside enemy offers Democrats new opportunities to cater to powerful donors: increased militarism towards a nuclear
power is a boon for the military-security establishment, and lawmakers who promote it have been
duly rewarded .
After more than one year of its engulfing our politics, perhaps that could be Russiagate's most helpful contribution: guiding
us to the challenges that it helps us avoid.
Victor Sciamarelli says: February 10, 2018 at 2:35 pm
An interesting article especially the conclusion under "Top Priorities" where it states, "It is here that Russiagate performs
a critical function for Trump's political foes. Far beyond Israelgate, Russiagate allows them [democrats] to oppose Trump while
obscuring key areas where they either share his priorities or have no viable alternative."
This is important and I largely agree, but the observation could have gone further. The DP is a neoliberal party which has been
able to distinguish itself from Republicans by campaigning like progressives, but governing as neoliberals.
Trump ran his campaign as a populist who would "drain the swamp." He opposed trade deals, and corporations relocating their factories
outside the US. The Clinton campaign ran mostly negative personal attacks at Trump's failed marriages, his university, business
bankruptcies, abuse of women, and his Russian connection. Jill Stein was attacked and brought before the Senate Intelligence Committee because the dossier claimed, falsely, that she accepted
payment from Russia to attend a RT event in Moscow. And we all know what happened to the Sanders' campaign.
None of this would matter because Clinton was expected to win. Trump is a hypocrite and a fake populist but the populist message
resonated with voters. Bernie Sanders, the real deal populist, remains the most popular politician in America and he is the most
popular democratic politician among Republican voters.
The recent FISA reauthorization bill passed with 65 House Democrats who joined Trump and the Republicans. In 2002 the DP controlled
the Senate, but 29 Dems joined Republicans to pass the Iraq War Resolution along with 82 House Dems. And was the Republican regime
change in Iraq better than the Democratic regime change in Libya? And recall that Hugo Chavez, who was democratically elected,
governed constitutionally, and complied with international law, and if he ever crossed a line it was trivial compared to the lines
Bush crossed, was labeled a dictator and attacked much like Putin is today.
The DP has a real problem, how can they continue to be a neoliberal party, and cooperate with the RP, while pretending to support
progressive causes when more and more people realize the charade and are demanding real progressive change?
Maintaining a neoliberal course on behalf of elite interests is more important than winning elections. Thus, while Trump is investigated,
the DP and supportive media are preparing to demonize progressives and any alternative voices as nothing more than Russian puppets.
Jeffrey Harrison says: February 10, 2018 at 12:12 pm
Articles like this one on The Nation surprise me. The Nation seems to be in the pockets of the DNC and their Hillary-bots.
While this is a great article, I'm left with a sense of dissatisfaction based on what was missing from it. Nobody seems to see
the forest for the trees.
The first thing missing is the reality that Three Names won the election by about 3 million votes. Mr Maté does a good job
of pointing out the weaknesses of the whole facebook/twitter meme but leaves out that Three Names' problem was not a lack of votes
but a lack of breadth of votes. She won the major population centers but not the countryside and thus lost the state. Folks in
the countryside are much less likely to be on facebook and twitter than their city cousins and thus will be relatively immune
from the influence of ads on those platforms. If you want to see real meddling, take a look at what AIPAC is doing.
The other thing that's missing is the danger behind sanctions. There's another name for sanctions - economic warfare. These
are actually forbidden by the UN charter unless authorized by the UN but the US has never let its promises keep the US from doing
exactly what it wanted to. In the past, sanctions have, in fact, led to shooting wars. What we are doing is perpetrating economic
warfare on the only country capable of destroying the United States.
In what way could this be considered wise?
Matthew Walsh says: February 10, 2018 at 11:30 am
I appreciate this article--and I agree with many of its arguments--but it contains some layered irony that is important to
address. The author is correct in asserting that there is irony in the Democrats' claim that Republicans' opposition to the investigation
is not based in fact.
But I find it ironic that the author is accusing the Democrats of using Russiagate to empower the military-security complex.
It's a highly plausible prospect, but it's certainly no more plausible than Russian collusion accusations.
Dan Swanson says: February 10, 2018 at 8:36 am
Superb article. My only quibble is that Trump probably did collude with Russians -- not over the election, but over his business
interests, and that exposing this will damage his overall popularity, even among some of his supporters. But the article's major
point still stands -- putting all the opposition eggs into the Russiagate basket is a big risk, especially now that the Republicans
will take aim at Social Security and Medicare. Among major politicians, only Bernie Sanders has recognized that Russiagate distracts
from Trump's true evils.
Robert Borneman says: February 10, 2018 at 2:29 am
Kudos to Mr. Maté for keeping a clear eye out on the facts and evidence of the case against Russia having thrown the election
to Hillary (which is paltry at best, and falsely exculpatory of HRC's own disaster on the simple surface). Kudos to The Nation
for not swallowing the same establishment DNC pill which seeks to provide cover for the neo-liberal wing of the Democratic Party
by blaming Russia instead of their own (DNC's own) anti-democratic machinations and poor decisions.
Philip Gerard says: February 9, 2018 at 5:16 pm
This whole "we lost the election because of Russian interference" argument appears to be roughly on the same level as "the
dog ate my homework" dodge. The democrats just can't admit that they blew the 2016 election . If they did they would have to look
for answers and this is something they really do not want to do. Why? I suspect that they all ready know what they need to do
to win but that would mean cutting ties with their corporate "constituents" and that is something they simply can not bring themselves
to do.
Michael Robertson says: February 9, 2018 at 3:39 pm
The bottom line of any Trump association is financial - whether or not an association will protect and increase his wealth.
Trump most likely believed that Russians were hacking the DNC (and the RNC) and favored him over Clinton, but that is a far cry
from proof that he was colluding with a foreign government that committed crimes. The Democrats knee-jerk obsession with Russia
serves to inoculate Trump from any real crimes that the Mueller investigation uncovers. Mostly those crimes will be financial,
money laundering being the foremost. Democrats, in a 'the sky is falling' tone, breathlessly proclaim the latest revelation that
Trump wanted a reset of Russia relations, or that some Trump official actually talked to a Russian official, as proof positive
that Trump is a traitor. That Russia is the enemy is a fait accompli.
To go on any liberal forum and point out that we really do need a better foreign policy with Russia than demonizing Putin is
to bring forth a cascade of vituperation. Russia is the enemy and Trump colluded with the enemy, end of story they say. It's really
way more complicated than that. It goes to the heart of the financialization of governments, including ours, to the point where
finance can no longer be separated from government, and everything in government becomes a business transaction. Trump views the
presidency as just another tool for self-enrichment, on a continuum from his global wheeling-dealing working on the boundaries
of the law. The Russian state works in much the same way, a government that is run by a confederation of oligarchs and mob figures.
To say that the Russians hacked the election is to say nothing. There is nothing that they have putatively done that we haven't
done to them. The Facebook posts that are evidence of high-level psychological manipulation are indistinguishable from Republican
spin. In indulging themselves in Russiagate, Democrats have solidified the current provocative foreign policy that benefits the
arms industry while putting civilization in danger. They are closing out all the sane options, and engaging in the same asinine
fearmongering that Republicans do. On foreign policy, both parties deserve contempt.
Brian Cairns says: February 9, 2018 at 1:43 pm
Excellent job, Aaron! And thanks to The Nation for not getting swept up in the Russiagate hysteria like so many other progressive
outlets have.
"... Steele also gave the dossier to Winer, who flagged to his superiors at the State Department, according to the source. Kerry was eventually briefed on its existence, and that it wasn't known how much was true. ..."
Shearer, an independent journalist, decided to investigate potential Trump-Russia connections after seeing stories about the hacking
of the Democratic National Committee, the source said.
Shearer's so-called dossier is actually a set of notes based on conversations with reporters and other sources, according to the
person who spoke to CNN, and he circulated those notes to assorted journalists, as well as to Blumenthal.
Blumenthal then passed the notes to Jonathan Winer, who was a State Department special envoy for Libya under former Secretary
of State John Kerry, the source said. Winer had a previous relationship with Steele, and he passed it along to Steele in order to
get his assessment.
Carter Page struggles to explain how he could advise both Kremlin and Trump team
Related Article: Carter Page struggles to explain how he could advise both Kremlin and Trump team
Blumenthal, according to the source, did not know that Winer would consult Steele on the Shearer document, and said Winer made
that decision on his own.
After Winer gave Steele the notes from Shearer, Steele wrote that he found it interesting and it tended to corroborate some of
what he found, but he also noted that it was uncorroborated, the source said.
Shearer's notes, a copy of which were obtained by CNN, make uncorroborated allegations involving Trump and Russia, and they cite
unnamed Russian intelligence and Turkish sources.
Steele provided Shearer's notes to the FBI in October 2016.
What are the GOP allegations? Steele was being paid for his research by the opposition research firm Fusion GPS, which was
hired by a law firm on behalf of Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee. A key allegation
in last week's Nunes memo was that Steele's political connections to Democrats were not told to the FISA court, and Republicans are
charging that Shearer's involvement could show Steele was receiving information from Clinton associates that went into the dossier
he gave to the FBI. The criminal referral from Grassley and Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham --
which was unclassified with some redactions this week -- states that Shearer's notes went to Steele through an official at the
State Department and another person who was a "friend of the Clinton's." "It is troubling enough that the Clinton Campaign funded
Mr. Steele's work, but that these Clinton associates were contemporaneously feeding Mr. Steele's allegations raises additional concerns
about his credibility," the senators wrote in the criminal referral, which does not accuse Steele of wrongdoing but urges the Justice
Department to investigate the matter. Winer worked with Steele from 2014 through 2016, according to another source familiar with
their interactions. Steele provided Winer with reports related to the conflict in Ukraine and Russia as a courtesy, which was not
unusual and considered one source among many used for assessing the situation on the ground in Ukraine, the source said.
Former
CIA Director Brennan says Nunes 'abused his office'Steele also gave the dossier to Winer, who flagged to his superiors at
the State Department, according to the source. Kerry was eventually briefed on its existence, and that it wasn't known how much was
true.
Senior State Department officials showed the dossier to Kerry once it was clear the document was in wide circulation around Washington,
according to the source. Kerry was not briefed on the Shearer document, the source said. Lee Wolosky, an attorney for Winer, said
in a statement that Winer was "concerned in 2016 about information that a candidate for the presidency may have been compromised
by a hostile foreign power." "Any actions he took were grounded in those concerns," Wolosky said.
"Today's attacks are nothing more than a further attempt to undermine the independence and credibility of special (counsel Robert)
Mueller's ongoing investigation into those and related issues." What are Republicans saying? Republicans haven't come out
and accused Blumenthal of any wrongdoing, but they've hinted in public appearances that raw intelligence may have been distributed
for partisan purposes. Rep. Trey Gowdy, who chairs the House Oversight Committee and is a senior Republican on the House Intelligence
Committee, discussed Nunes' State Department investigation a Fox News interview Tuesday, saying he was "troubled" by the role the
State Department played. Gowdy read the classified FISA documents that the Justice Department gave congressional committees access
to on the condition that only one member of the majority and minority would view them. "When you hear who the source, or one of the
sources of that information is, you're going to think, 'Oh, my gosh, I've heard that name somewhere before. Where could he possibly
have been?'" the South Carolina Republican said.
Gowdy:
Memo has no impact on Russia probe "A domestic source. I'm trying to think of Secretary Clinton defined him. I think she said
he was an old friend who emailed her from time to time," Gowdy continued. "Sidney Blumenthal?" Fox News' Martha MacCallum asked.
"That would be really warm," Gowdy concluded. Nunes made headlines over the weekend when he predicted more memos would be coming
from his committee, but he says that the investigation into the State Department has already been in the works. "We have an active
investigation into the State Department. That has been ongoing for a while now," Nunes told Fox News' Sean Hannity.
Nunes has repeatedly declined to discuss his investigations with CNN, saying he doesn't discuss committee business "in the halls."
Graham declined to discuss Blumenthal's role in the committee's investigation into Steele, but said the State Department is one element
of it. "There's some connections outside the Department of Justice and the dossier that we're looking at. One of them goes to the
State Department," Graham told CNN. "It's clear to me he was using the dossier for political purposes and that should have been more
alarming than it was."
Who are the players?
Blumenthal is no stranger to congressional investigations, playing a role in the House Benghazi Select Committee investigation
that was led by Gowdy.
Blumenthal testified behind closed doors as part of the Benghazi investigation, and
he
provided the committee with emails he exchanged with Clinton , who was secretary of state when the 2012 Benghazi attack occurred.
Blumenthal sent Clinton dozens of emails while she was secretary of state on various foreign policy topics, some of which were unsolicited
and others that were requested by Clinton.
A former journalist, Blumenthal has known the Clintons for more than 30 years, and he worked in the Clinton White House as senior
adviser from 1997 to 2001. He's been by the family's side during difficult moments, including President Bill Clinton's impeachment
trial.
"... Trump: Democrats 'Un-American,' 'Treasonous,' During State of the Union ..."
"... National Review ..."
"... Is Trump Serious about 'Treasonous' Democrats? ..."
"... But Trump's "joke" really should be taken seriously. The likes of Nancy Pelosi are traitors in the most literal sense -- in that they openly and explicitly oppose the interests of American citizens ..."
"... Pelosi is entranced by 3 million 'Dreamer' illegals, insults Americans' children ..."
"... This year kicks off the new 3.8 billion yearly to Israel up from 3.1 billion and another 775 million for Israel missile defense and undoubtly more incremental aid bills as the year goes on. ..."
President Trump, allegedly humorously, later described the [neoliberal] Democrats' behavior
during his State of the Union speech as "treasonous" and "un-American," prompting the usual
hysteria [ Trump: Democrats 'Un-American,' 'Treasonous,' During State of the Union,
by Jessica Taylor, NPR, February 5, 2018].
The chutzpah is breathtaking
considering how journalists and their pet elected officials in the Democrat party have waged a
nonstop insurgency against the President of the United States
since his inauguration , accusing him of being a puppet of Russian President Vladimir
Putin.
But Trump's "joke" really should be taken seriously. The likes of Nancy Pelosi are traitors
in the most literal sense -- in that they openly and explicitly oppose the interests of
American citizens and advocate their replacement with foreigners. Pelosi's ludicrous claim that
the Founding Fathers (who created the Naturalization Act of 1790
) would support the mass influx of "Dreamers" and that illegals are "more American than
Americans" is as definitive a statement of hatred for American citizens as can be imagined [
Pelosi is entranced by 3 million 'Dreamer' illegals, insults Americans' children, by Neil Munro, Breitbart, February 7, 2018].
That's 376 bills, more than one a day and I haven't even gotten into the trade and
appropriation categories where they bury other bills for Israel that would take several days
of reading. This year kicks off the new 3.8 billion yearly to Israel up from 3.1 billion and another
775 million for Israel missile defense and undoubtly more incremental aid bills as the year
goes on.
Republicans have revealed that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) treats
Americans not as citizens, but as subjects to spy on. I'd expect nothing less from a Court
created and perpetuated by George W. Bush and his Republicans.
But, what do you know? Following Barack Obama's lead, President Donald Trump and his
Republicans have renewed FISA Section 702, which, in fact, has facilitated the usurpations the
same representatives are currently denouncing.
Also in contravention of a quaint constitutional relic called the Fourth Amendment is
Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Mueller has taken possession of "many tens of thousands of
emails from President Donald Trump's transition team." There is no limit, seemingly, to the
power of the special counsel.
Look, we're living in a post-Constitutional
America. Complaints about the damage done to our "democracy" by outsiders are worse than
silly. Such damage pales compared to what we Americans have done to a compact rooted in the
consent of the governed and the drastically limited and delimited powers of those who
govern.
In other words, a republic. Ours was never a country conceived as a democracy.
To arrive at a democracy, we Americans destroyed a republic.
The destruction is on display daily.
Pray tell where-oh-where in the US Constitution does it say that anyone crossing over into
the US may demand and get an abortion? But apparently, this is settled law -- a universally
upheld right, irrespective of whose property and territory it impinges.
The only aspect our clodhopper media -- left and right -- deign to debate in such
abortion-tourism cases is the interloper's global reproductive rights. So, if abortion is a
service Americans must render to the world, why not the right to a colonoscopy or a
facelift?
Cannabis: The reason it's notin the Constitution is because letting states and
individuals decide is in the Constitution. That thing of beauty is called the Tenth
Amendment:
" The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it
to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
That's right. In American federalism, the rights of the individual were meant to be secured
through strict limits imposed on the power of the central government by a Bill of Rights and
the division of authority between autonomous states and a federal government. Yet on cannabis,
the meager constitutional devolution of power away from the Federales and to states
and individuals Republicans have reversed. Some are even prattling about a constitutional
cannabis amendment, as if there's a need for further "constitutional" centralization of
authority.
After 230 years of just such "constitutional" consolidation, it's safe to say that the
original Constitution is a dead letter; that the natural- and common law traditions, once
lodestars for lawmakers, have been buried under the rubble of legislation and statute that
would fill an entire building floor. However much one shovels the muck of lawmaking aside,
natural justice and the Founders' original intent remain buried too deep to exhume.
Consider: America's Constitution makers bequeathed a central government of delegated and
enumerated powers. The Constitution gives Congress only some eighteen specific legislative
powers. Nowhere among these powers is Social Security, civil rights (predicated as they are on
grotesque violations of property rights), Medicare, Medicaid, and the elaborate public works
sprung from the General Welfare and Interstate Commerce Clauses.
The welfare clause stipulates that "Congress will have the power to provide for the general
welfare." And even though the general clause is followed by a detailed enumeration of the
limited powers so delegated; our overlords, over decades of dirigisme , have taken Article I,
Section 8 to mean that government can pick The People's pockets for any perceivable purpose and
project. Witness a judiciary of scurrilous statists that had even found in the Constitution a
mandate to compel commerce by forcing individual Americans to purchase health insurance on
pains of a fine, an act of force President Trump has mercifully repealed.
A few more observations, with which Ms. Mercer should agree:
The invertebrate Congress has been a weak link in the Constitutional system, deferring in
the last 50 years to the judiciary in matters of domestic policy and to the executive in
matters of foreign policy, most obviously war.
Turning the Constitution into a mystical, living document speaking through robed priests
has served to trash it.
The loss of the States' authority was gradual, but amending the Constitution to have
voters directly elect senators looks in retrospect like a key step in the national
government's arrogation of authority.
The world's gaudiest whorehouse is also wide open for business with foreign interests. And
why not? If Uncle Sam is trying to run the world, then shouldn't everyone in the Empire be
allowed to participate in the democracy?
" treats Americans not as citizens, but as subjects to spy on."
To be correct, the US government considers its subjects to be chattels property. For my
part, the US is my crazy ex-girlfriend, who always wants to know where I'm going, who I'm
seeing, what I'm doing, and who annually wants a full accounting of every Dollar, Pound, Euro
and ounce I earn, spend or hold.
Throughout Donald Trump's campaign and relentlessly chaotic presidency, the single constant presence at his side, outside of his
family, has been the 29-year-old former Ralph Lauren model and White House communications director Hope Hicks.
While aides and advisers fall in and out of favor, Hicks has remained Trump's Oval Office gatekeeper, companion and sounding board,
offering consistent loyalty.
But now Hicks has herself been cast into two plotlines currently playing out in the presidential daytime reality-soap.
In one, Hicks features as a likely target in the special counsel Robert Mueller's effort to acquire cooperating witnesses in the
investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. Hicks has
reportedly
been interviewed by Mueller's investigators.
Publicly, Trump has offered his support for Hicks, saying: "Hope is absolutely fantastic. She was with the campaign from the beginning,
and I could not ask for anything more. Hope is smart, very talented and respected by all."
But in private, the president is believed to have issued rare criticism of a woman who by some estimates is the most influential
figure in the administration after Trump himself.
At issue is whether Hicks, who also served as communications director during the campaign, relaxed her judgment owing to her relationship
with Porter.
White House officials have said Hicks knew that an ex-girlfriend of Porter's had informed aides that both of Porter's ex-wives
had said he was violent. Hicks continued to see him and did not tell the president. Porter denies the allegations against him.
If the unfolding episode calls into question the maturity of Hicks' judgement, she clearly is invaluable as a personal assistant.
In his campaign memoir, Let Trump Be Trump, Corey Lewandowski, the early campaign strategist – with whom, coincidentally, Hicks also
had an affair – described her steaming Trump's suit while he is wearing it.
"She's really quite talented and able," Christopher Ruddy, a close friend of the president and chief executive of the conservative
website Newsmax,
told the Washington Post .
But her professional experience, especially where is comes to matters that carry potentially legal consequences, is limited. Hicks
came to the Trumps through a PR firm that represented the Trump Organization. The family later hired her away to work exclusively
for them, furnishing her with responsibilities that included working on Ivanka Trump's fashion line.
A GQ magazine profile in June
2016 described her: "She is a hugger and a people pleaser, with long brown hair and green eyes, a young woman of distinctly all-American
flavor – the sort that inspires Tom Petty songs, not riots."
But her looks and fashion background can cause people to underestimate her. She has a background in PR and is a graduate of Dallas'
Southern Methodist University.
the MSM deification of Mueller reminds me much of their similar glorification
of J Edgar Hoover at that time.
Notable quotes:
"... Given the state of the law and the Russia-gate cheerleading media -- both mainstream AND progressive -- Mueller's demonstrable malfeasance of the past has not yet put a dent in the "universally respected" honorific the New York Times has bestowed on him. Not yet. ..."
well, in the Bronx, we would call Mueller a crook; in Manhattan, a white-collar
criminal.
Given the state of the law and the Russia-gate cheerleading media -- both mainstream
AND progressive -- Mueller's demonstrable malfeasance of the past has not yet put a dent in
the "universally respected" honorific the New York Times has bestowed on him. Not
yet.
What may do him in, rather, is the same tragic flaw that did in the main actors of the
Greek tragedies of two and a half millennia ago. The Greeks called it hubris.
That Mueller picked Dumb-Strzok and his mistress, senior FBI attorney Lisa Page -- not to
mention so many other widely known supporters/defenders of Mrs. Clinton -- to run his
investigation is a perfect example of the overweening, unbridled arrogance that led to the
downfall of many a Greek hero.
Appearance of bias be damned.
And did no one notice how Mueller' best friend forever Comey immediately admitted that the
reason he had one of his sidekicks leak sensitive information to the NY Times was that he
wanted a special counsel picked toot sweet. And who would that, toot sweet, turn out to be?
his old joined-at-the-hip partner in crime, Bob Mueller (thank you, Jesus!)
The supreme irony is that the "universally respected" Robert Mueller is now hoisted by his
own petard of hubris. The newness about Nunes -- and rowdy Gowdy -- is their willingness to
take on Mueller's closest friends, despite media charges that Republicans are trying to
sabotage his investigation. In reality, Mueller has done a pretty good job of that himself,
thank you very much.
I'm not a politician; cannot gauge whether it a good or bad idea that Mueller, Rosenstein,
et al. be fired for cause (with respect to Rosenstein, signing deceptive FISA applications is
a felony). I would guess it would be best politically to leave Mueller there to stew in his
own juice.
In my view, if Mueller had an ounce of integrity, he would resign -- if only because of
the incredibly partisan way in which he staffed his investigation. Is he perhaps waiting for
his old FBI buddies to dig up some dirt on Nunes and Gowdy? I would not put that past him,
given his checkered career (see, again, Coleen's excellent article of last June).
Be prepared for things to get still uglier.
Once again, hats of to Coleen Rowley -- and Nat Parry. Like father, like son.
Ray McGovern
Bob Van Noy , February 9, 2018 at 1:41 pm
Mr. McGovern I was just reading some of Fletcher Prouty's on-line posts from the past. I
have long admired him. Your background and ethics remind me of his. Many thanks
My guess is that he is a very highly paid lackey for the Rothschilds, much as was J. P.
Morgan. The world would be better off without him, obviously, but the "darkside" globalist
remain, and ultimately they are the real eminence gris control freaks working for
instability, corruption, financial manipulation, fiat money, violence, strife, illegal
immigration, drug epidemics, human trafficking and bad economics, such as mercantilistic,
false capitalism cronyism, among other anti-middle class and anti-liberty movements/phenomena
occurring around the world. G. Edward Griffin might be right! Wikipedia has one of the most
negative bios of him that I've ever read, to his credit, I suppose!
Being a genuine psychopath (they are not quite human due to brain differences) Soros
certainly enjoys his sense of power. They cannot experience conscience nor empathy and that
emotional vacuum can only be filled by a sense of P O W E R over others. Psychopathy used for
political purposes for evil is called Political Ponerology. We watch the movies and think
psychos are out killing prostitutes - we never consider Snakes In Suits! Despite all this
Soros is working for the Zionist World Domination plan (check out the Protocols of the
Learned Elders of Zion).
No, Soros is not just a threat to the 'American way of life'. He organizes color
revolutions around the world including Asia so he is a threat to all nations' sovereignty but
then national sovereignty is to be 'removed' for the Neoliberal World totalitarian goal.
Soros is a front man for the Rothschilds. Plain and simple. That's where he gets the
billions he needs to engage in global activities that destroy religion, morals, values,
gender, nationalism and society. This is the agenda of the Rothschilds, the private central
bankers, and the New World Order.
Do you really think Soros is some kind of investing genius who's made billions on his own,
who is then willing to give it all away for so called "philanthropic" reasons? Bullshit. He's
a hired gun. A front man. A cover for the Rothschilds who have spent two hundred years hiding
in the shadows while others go about doing their dirty work to reshape society for their own
selfish ends – a private, worldwide financial system they own and control.
Just like he pimped for the Nazis, Soros is now pimping for the Rothschilds. He has no
moral center or compass, and has admitted as much in a televised interview. (He said if he
hadn't turned in Jews to the Nazis for money, someone else would have done it.) Wake up
people. Soros is the Sammy the Bull Gravano for the Rothschilds. The Luca Brasi to the
Godfather. He needs to be brought to justice. And so do the Rothschilds.
"... What has happened in America is eerily similar to the color revolutions in targeted countries which leads me to believe the organizers of such revolutions looked at the biggest prize of all and said "Why not.'. ..."
"... Herman.I think you are right. These things are being cooked up–orchestrated to serve the current power block. The mainstream propaganda media plays a big part in that. And sadly, Americans cannot wake up fast enough ..."
"... I am familiar with the tactics of Move-On, and although they would deny it, represent the democratic party. They actually called me up asking for money to create mayhem at Trump's rallies during his run for the presidency. I told them I wouldn't give them a nickel since not only did I see it as undemocratic and contentious, but psychologically idiotic. Idiotic in the sense that the people who supported Trump perceived themselves as victims of a corrupt system who cared little about their needs, and turning Trump's rallies into mayhem would portray him as a victim as well, which would cause his supporters to more fully identify with him, and more committed to getting him elected. ..."
"... This is Jimmy Dore's take on the left falling for Russia-gate and aligning itself with the FBI. As he says, they are reacting to Trump with their lizard brain which makes them easy prey for being led to their own political slaughter. ..."
"... Does anybody ever talk about the failures of capitalism anymore or just about people and politics? ..."
"... Yes, but clearly he doesn't, and therefore he won't. He will drag out his neocon-sponsored witch-hunt as long as possible in order to do the maximum damage possible to all those who don't toe the neocon line. The very existence of Mueller's unholy inquisition constantly forces the president ever-further to the right in an effort to appease his neocon tormentors. That is, further away from détente with Russia and closer to nuclear Armageddon. ..."
"... The neocons' goal is to kill two birds, U.S. democracy and Russia, with one stone -- the Mueller "investigation." ..."
"... yes i agree that Mueller will be exposed (before congress ?) but not in the mainstream media. ..."
"... This article does point to no doubt one of our nation's most evasive, and spookiest courts, which is FISA. Yet, on tv hardly is this subject ever brought up, while instead reissuing every 90 days for permission to monitor Carter Page gets talked about to no end. So far hardly has there been, to when at least I've viewed the anchors and pundits, do they ever discuss the unconstitutionally, or break down of our democratic values, that this FISA court represents. ..."
"... Meanwhile so far what has Robert Mueller come up with? Well, we know that Manafort may be guilty of money laundering with his dealings with foreign officials, which is an easy obstacle splinter to uncover due part and parcel to his trade. We do know that the young up and coming politico operative George Papadopoulos would do well to learn a lesson from his past barroom experience of possibility talking to much to strangers, and skip the bar talk. In many ways it's hard to see to what exactly Lt General Michael Flynn is guilty of. Maybe Flynn as the newly appointed National Security Advisor is guilty of discussing the sanctions imposed onto Russia, or was he guilty of representing Bibi Netanyahu? Probably the former is prosecutable, but of course never the latter for protecting dear sweet Israel in America no matter what is the right thing to do. Protecting Israel may in some people's eyes even seem quite patriotic, as far as that goes, but talking to Russian diplomats, nay, never. ..."
"... Great point Mr. Tedesky. This creepy police-state court is rarely criticized at all in our free [sic] press and establishment media. ..."
"... Population in the country was very poorly informed any how. And now, they, The Ruling Establishment which includes Media, have completely messed the people up – making them compliant and confused. ..."
"... As a foreigner, looking from the outside, it seems Mueller will not find anything on Russia. He already found something on Israel, but he doesn't pursue that. If Americans rally, then it seems you should rally to make an objective and fair inquiry, to nail Israel for what they seem to have done. ..."
"... Many years ago in my early 20s I read 'Guns of August' that described support for the coming WWI. What was so striking about that period was how the public in every relevant European was hell bent on war. Among the major players -- Germany, France, UK, Russia and Austro-hungary -- their populations were demonstrating in the streets and assemblies for war. How was it possible for all of those people to eagerly lust for war that within a few years led to the destruction of the German, Russian and Austrian empires, the deaths of millions of their citizens and multidecade impoverishment for the survivors. The costs of the war resulted in the effective bankruptcy of the UK and French colonial empires as well as millions of dead and traumatized survivors. ..."
"... I never was able to see how so many people then could be so incredibly foolish. In the last two years I have gained some insight. Many of my respected, but now previous, political associates have just gone totally nuts over Russiagate. There was some kind of psychic break in their minds when Hillary lost and they are now little more than raging primates trapped in a cognitive dissonance loop. Not just that, but these are people who are on the verge of supporting war against Russia. ..."
"... Maybe wishful thinking on my part. The Grassley-Graham referral regarding Steele's potential violation of Title 18 Section 1001, lying to the FBI, may or may not be prosecutable depending upon where the "lies" took place and the likely lack of extra-territorial jurisdiction if they occurred in Rome. But even if no criminal violation could be prosecuted, I would think the IG should still investigate the matter for potential administrative discipline. ..."
"... That Russia "meddled in the US election" is totally without foundation and you know it. Any such attempt by them would be pointless, ineffective and detrimental if ever found out. If we had really found out any such thing, we'd all know about it rather than being fed bullshit based upon absolutely no real evidence. America would not be subjected to a year and a half of shenanigans by a thoroughly-biased politically-motivated special prosecutor given a hunting license by a frustrated deep state, a bitter political opposition and a raucous media in the service of both. ..."
"... Give the Clinton right wing credit for achieving what the Republicans had long hoped, but failed, to do. First, they split apart the Dem voting base in the 1990s, middle class vs. poor, and the Obama years served to confirm that this split is permanent. Then they apparently plagiarized old Joe McCarthy's playbook, launching their anti-Russian crusade, splitting apart those who are not on the right wing. Divide, subdivide, conquer. ..."
"... I believe the public is getting played on Mueller. Little hints keep dropping about Trump firing him. Then the media and the left goes into a frenzy, demanding Saint Mueller stay. Mueller has literally become the symbol of hope for the left. ..."
"... Imagine Mueller now coming out and clearing Trump completely while exposing what his real investigative objective was: revealing the deep state. Remember NBC and CNN mentioning Mueller began investigating the Podestas? Then they dropped that story as fast as possible. ..."
"... The thing about liberals is, they'll only accept one result in the Mueller probe. If Trump removes him, he's hiding something. And if Mueller exposes Dem corruption instead of Rep corruption, they'll say its fixed. They want the process to play out, but they'll only accept one result, that of Trump/Russia collusion. They are blinded by their own hate. ..."
"... One of the supreme ironies of our age is how the McCarthyesque focus on Russian interference in our electoral process has completely obscured the domestic politicization of our own institutions of government, that is the damage our now rabid placement of political party party above the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of the American population. ..."
"... Our slow descent into the present National Chaos might well've been birthed under McCarthy antics as cloak&cover for Operation Paperclip. One could rightly label his actions "political theater" or straight subversion. -- Whatever, US actual history is a Disappearing Act with imperious propensity. We, as a nation, have always been imperious and domineering, just as were our British forefathers. ..."
"... Is it a diversion? From what? It is obvious that Israel & Trump are on a roll. Bombing Syria on the skirtings of Iran – "oh joy of joys, one step closer," – to doomsday. Elsewhere i have recommended the Palestinian people exit Palestine ASAP. Foolhardy Israel is only the size of a postage stamp, 4 time the size of Hiroshima. when nerves fray hey! ..."
"... I was actually hoping that with Trump taking over the reigns of the war machine that the left would once again mobilize and oppose our wars and the spying state that walks all over our civil liberties. Trump certainly gives them enough legitimate areas of concern that they have plenty to go on. Sadly this really does show the power of the press to manipulate public opinion and the left-wing media loves Russia Gate. ..."
"... For myself personally, I see the threat of a confrontation with Russia as the #1 concern. We have now entered into a new cold war with all the massive spending, proxy wars and yet again the very real chance of it leading to a hot war that could be the end of all of us. Sadly the "left" in this country has once again fallen for the endless propaganda, their hatred of Trump is only part of this issue. ..."
"... With or without the Mueller investigation the Russia hatred will go on. Mueller could exonerate Trump tomorrow and the anti-Russian propaganda will continue. ..."
"... Yes, the Dem's are wasting valuable time chasing after these Russian hackers who weren't there. ..."
"... The so called liberals tried to redefined the left away from working class to LBGT, Black Lives Matter, abortion rights, etc and , in the process, dug their own graves. ..."
"... I maintain that having only two political parties is the crux of the problem, and clearly both are corporate. People don't get how they are being played. A quote attributed to Mark Twain I just read: "It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they are being fooled." ..."
"... Nuts' indeed. Before raising the temperature over the Russiagate, first. Shave off the Pentagon budget! ..."
Exclusive: Hundreds of thousands have pledged to take to the streets if Special
Counsel Robert Mueller is removed, reflecting misplaced priorities and some fundamental
misunderstandings, report Coleen Rowley and Nat Parry.
... ... ...
Social psychologists have long talked about how emotional manipulation can work effectively
to snooker a large percentage of the population, to get them, at least temporarily, to believe
the exact opposite of the facts. These techniques are known in the intelligence community as
"perception management," and have been refined since the 1980s "to keep the American people
compliant and confused," as the late Robert Parry has reported
. We saw this in action last decade, when after months of disinformation, about 70% of
Americans came to falsely believe that Saddam
Hussein was behind 9/11 when the truth was the opposite – Saddam was actually an enemy of
the Al Qaeda perpetrators.
Such emotional manipulation is the likely explanation for the fact that so many people are
now gearing up to defend someone like Mueller, while largely ignoring other important topics of
far greater consequence. With no demonstrations being organized to stop a possible war with
North Korea – or an escalation in Syria – hundreds of thousands of Americans are
apparently all too eager to go to the mat in defense of an investigation into the president's
possible "collusion" with Russia in its alleged meddling in election 2016.
Setting aside for the moment the merits of the Russiagate narrative, who really is this
Robert Mueller that amnesiac liberals clamor to hold up as the champion of the people and
defender of democracy? Co-author Coleen Rowley, who as an FBI whistleblower exposed numerous
internal problems at the FBI in the early 2000s, didn't have to be privy to his inner circle to
recall just a few of his actions after 9/11 that so shocked the public conscience as to
repeatedly generate moral disapproval even on the part of mainstream media. Rowley was only
able to scratch the surface in listing some of the more widely reported wrongdoing that should
still shock liberal consciences.
Although Mueller and his "joined at the hip" cohort James Comey are now hailed for
their impeccable character by much of Washington, the truth is, as top law enforcement
officials of the George W. Bush administration (Mueller as FBI Director and Comey as Deputy
Attorney General), both presided over post-9/11 cover-ups and secret abuses of the
Constitution, enabled Bush-Cheney fabrications used to launch wrongful wars, and exhibited
stunning levels of incompetence.
Ironically, recent declassifications of House Intelligence Committee's and Senate Judiciary
Committee Leaders letters ( here and
here ) reveal strong parallels between the way the public so quickly forgot Mueller's
spotty track record with the way the FBI and (the Obama administration's) Department of Justice
rushed, during the summer of 2016, to put a former fellow spy, Christopher Steele up on a
pedestal. Steele was declared to be a "reliable source" without apparently vetting or
corroborating any of the "opposition research" allegations that he had been hired (and paid
$160,000) to quickly produce for the DNC and Hillary Clinton's campaign.
There are typically at least two major prongs of establishing the "reliability" of any given
source in an affidavit, the first – and the one mostly pointed to – being the
source's track record for having furnished accurate and reliable information in the past. Even
if it is conceded that Steele would have initially satisfied this part of the test for
determining probable cause, based on his having reportedly furnished some important information
to FBI agents investigating the FIFA soccer fraud years before, his track record for
truthfulness would go right up in smoke only a month or so later, when it was discovered that
he had lied to the FBI about his having previously leaked the investigation to the media.
(Moreover, this lie had led the FBI to mislead the FISA court in its first application to
surveil Carter Page.)
The second main factor in establishing the reliability of any source's information would be
even more key in this case. It's the basis of the particular informant's knowledge,
i.e. was the informant an eye witness or merely reporting double-triple hearsay or
just regurgitating the "word on the street?"
If the actual basis of the information is uncertain, the next step for law enforcement would
normally be to seek facts that either corroborate or refute the source's information. It's been
reported that FBI agents did inquire into the basis for Steele's allegations, but it is not
known what Steele told the FBI – other than indications that his info came from secondary
sources making it, at best, second- or third-hand. What if anything did the FBI do to establish
the reliability of the indirect sources that Steele claimed to be getting his info from? Before
vouching for his credibility, did the FBI even consider polygraphing Steele after he (falsely)
denied having leaked his info since the FBI was aware of significant similarities of a news
article to the info he had supplied them?
Obviously, more questions than answers exist at the present time. But even if the FBI was
duped by Steele – whether as the result of their naivete in trusting a fellow former spy,
their own sloppiness or recklessness, or political bias – it should be hoped by everyone
that the Department of Justice Inspector General can get to the bottom of how the FISA court
was ultimately misled.
As they prepare for the "largest mobilization in history" in defense of Mueller and his
probe into Russiagate, liberals have tried to sweep all this under the rug as a "nothing
burger." Yet, how can liberals, who in the past have pointed to so many abusive past practices
by the FBI, ignore the reality that these sorts of abuses of the FISA process more than likely
take place on a daily basis – with the FISA court earning a
well-deserved reputation as little more than a rubberstamp?
Other, more run-of-the-mill FISA applications – if they were to be scrutinized as
thoroughly as the Carter Page one – would reveal similar sloppiness and lack of factual
verification of source information used to secure surveillance orders, especially after FISA
surveillances skyrocketed after 9/11 in the "war on terror." Rather than dismissing the Nunes
Memo as a nothing burger, liberals might be better served by taking a closer look at this FISA
process which could easily be turned against them instead of Trump.
It must be recognized that FBI agents who go before the secret FISA court and who are
virtually assured that whatever they present will be kept secret in perpetuity, have very
little reason to be careful in verifying what they present as factual. FISA court judges are
responsible for knowing the law but have no way of ascertaining the "facts" presented to
them.
Unlike a criminal surveillance authorized by a federal district court, no FBI affidavit
justifying the surveillance will ever end up under the microscope of defense attorneys and
defendants to be pored over to ensure every asserted detail was correct and if not, to
challenge any incorrect factual assertions in pre-trial motions to suppress evidence.
It is therefore shocking to watch how this political manipulation seems to make people who
claim to care about the rule of law now want to bury this case of surveillance targeting Carter
Page based on the ostensibly specious Steele dossier. This is the one case unique in coming to
light among tens of thousands of FISA surveillances cloaked forever in secrecy, given that the
FISA system lacks the checks on abusive authority that inherently exist in the criminal justice
process, and so the Page case is instructive to learn how the sausage really gets made.
Neither the liberal adulation of Mueller nor the unquestioned credibility accorded Steele by
the FBI seem warranted by the facts. It is fair for Americans to ask whether Mueller's
investigation would have ever happened if not for his FBI successor James Comey having signed
off on the investigation triggered by the Steele dossier, which was paid for by the Clinton
campaign to dig up dirt on her opponent.
In any event, please spare us the solicitations of these political NGOs' "national
mobilization" to protect Mueller. There are at least a million attorneys in this country who do
not suffer from the significant conflicts of interest that Robert Mueller has with key
witnesses like his close, long-term colleague James Comey and other public officials involved
in the investigation.
And, at the end of the day, there are far more important issues to be concerned about than
the "integrity" of the Mueller investigation – one being the need to fix FISA court
abuses and restoring constitutional rights.
Coleen Rowley, a retired FBI special agent and division legal counsel whose May 2002
memo to then-FBI Director Robert Mueller exposed some of the FBI's pre-9/11 failures, was named
one of TIME magazine's "Persons of the Year" in 2002.
What has happened in America is eerily similar to the color revolutions in targeted
countries which leads me to believe the organizers of such revolutions looked at the biggest
prize of all and said "Why not.'.
Tower of Babel , February 9, 2018 at 11:04 am
Herman.I think you are right. These things are being cooked up–orchestrated to serve
the current power block. The mainstream propaganda media plays a big part in that. And sadly,
Americans cannot wake up fast enough
Annie , February 9, 2018 at 10:40 am
I'm not all that familiar with the group Avaaz, but I am familiar with the tactics of
Move-On, and although they would deny it, represent the democratic party. They actually
called me up asking for money to create mayhem at Trump's rallies during his run for the
presidency. I told them I wouldn't give them a nickel since not only did I see it as
undemocratic and contentious, but psychologically idiotic. Idiotic in the sense that the
people who supported Trump perceived themselves as victims of a corrupt system who cared
little about their needs, and turning Trump's rallies into mayhem would portray him as a
victim as well, which would cause his supporters to more fully identify with him, and more
committed to getting him elected.
I discontinued my support for Move-on as a result of these kind of antics. Those I know
who were viciously anti-Trump lost total perspective during his presidential run, and all
supported Clinton whose policies they knew little about. They were hooked into mainstream
media, and none investigated alternative news sources even though they are computer literate
and could have done so. All were hooked into Russia-gate from the beginning, and have never
waivered in their position. I think we have to begin to look at these people not as liberals,
or progressives, but for the most part they are democrats who see their party as representing
liberal causes. None I know who would support this march participated in any anti-war
movement, and were basically silent on Obama's militarism, which informs me these so called
liberals when it comes to war their position is more dependent on who's doing the
killing.
Joe Tedesky , February 9, 2018 at 1:27 pm
Annie I found this statement of yours a very interesting perspective 'and turning Trump's
rallies into mayhem would portray him as a victim as well'. All this noise coming from the
left is never analyzed from the perspective of what would the average Trump supporter think.
Yet, you did this. Pretty good analytical take on these attacks against Trump.
I thought when Trump honored the 'Natve-American code breakers' that by his doing this
function while standing underneath a picture of Andrew 'Trail of Tears' Jackson was very
telling. Although seen properly by many who may have a good sense of history, I thought that
this was purposely done, and done to insight the Trump supporters who's racist attitude were
served quite well with Trump's staging of this honorable affair.
The Left (which isn't really Left) is wandering around trying to bring down Trump, while
at the same time the American Left ignores what a Trump supporter may think. Both groups of
American citizenry would do well to quit with all of this name calling, and derisive contempt
for each other, and they should begin with a dialog which could eventually bring them
together, in order to create a more perfect union.
Then that's where you come in Annie, as to reassure they keep their eye on the ball, and
to what is most important to remember, and that is because we are all together in this big
crazy thing called America. We Americans should bridge our difference into making the U.S. a
better nation for all to live in, and relieve the world from fears of American bombs falling
on their heads.
This is Jimmy Dore's take on the left falling for Russia-gate and aligning itself with the
FBI. As he says, they are reacting to Trump with their lizard brain which makes them easy
prey for being led to their own political slaughter. He does become more foul mouthed towards
the end. I understand his increasing frustration with this insanity.
Your point is NEVER off-subject. Soros may fund one branch of the Capitalist Party and
Singer the other; but they both and all the rest of their ilk, belong to the same
Brotherhood.
alley cat , February 9, 2018 at 4:28 pm
"I'm not a politician; cannot gauge whether it a good or bad idea that Mueller,
Rosenstein, et al. be fired for cause "
Ray, thanks for not being like most politicians (and journalists) who carefully test which
way the political winds are blowing to decide whether something is a good or bad idea. You do
what you think is right, based on considerations more important than your career (gasp!).
"In my view, if Mueller had an ounce of integrity, he would resign "
Yes, but clearly he doesn't, and therefore he won't. He will drag out his neocon-sponsored
witch-hunt as long as possible in order to do the maximum damage possible to all those who
don't toe the neocon line. The very existence of Mueller's unholy inquisition constantly
forces the president ever-further to the right in an effort to appease his neocon tormentors.
That is, further away from détente with Russia and closer to nuclear Armageddon.
The neocons' goal is to kill two birds, U.S. democracy and Russia, with one stone -- the
Mueller "investigation."
Mueller and his co-conspirators, with all their lies and smears, have been subverting our
democracy long enough. Fire him already and oppose Trump democratically instead.
Zachary Smith , February 9, 2018 at 6:56 pm
Nice summary. I can't really think of anything to say to improve on that title remark of
"This is Nuts.
Virginia , February 9, 2018 at 7:12 pm
Ray, Mueller should resign (" if Mueller had an ounce of integrity, he would resign -- if
only because of the incredibly partisan way in which he staffed his investigation") because there is no there there. Just close the investigation and let
Americans get on with our lives.
GEOFF TEAGUE , February 9, 2018 at 9:12 pm
yes i agree that Mueller will be exposed (before congress ?) but not in the mainstream
media. as long as that dog has a bone he will run with it. where's a dog catcher when you
need one??
CitizenOne , February 10, 2018 at 12:13 pm
Thanks Ray,
Way to little truth out there and a whole bunch of characters involved in some modern day
Shakespearean tragedy.
So Tex , February 9, 2018 at 10:48 am
These organizers are arms of or provocateurs for the failing and flailing Democratic
Party.. They have staked their very lives on the Russia-gate nonsense and removing or just
crippling Trump.. It's all very sad since they could be embracing the current political
climate and reforming the once great Democratic Party. The unfortunate reality is that many
people, including good hearted people, are falling for it.
Tower of Babel , February 9, 2018 at 11:00 am
"It is telling that the liberal establishment is mobilizing on this particular issue."
"Social psychologists have long talked about how emotional manipulation can work
effectively to snooker a large percentage of the population, to get them, at least
temporarily, to believe the exact opposite of the facts."
Ain't that the truth. Most Americans want to believe anything that authority tells them to
believe. They are not worthy of the great democracy they inherited. Thank you Colleen. You
are the opposite. We need to see you more often.
Joe Tedesky , February 9, 2018 at 11:25 am
This article does point to no doubt one of our nation's most evasive, and spookiest
courts, which is FISA. Yet, on tv hardly is this subject ever brought up, while instead
reissuing every 90 days for permission to monitor Carter Page gets talked about to no end. So
far hardly has there been, to when at least I've viewed the anchors and pundits, do they ever
discuss the unconstitutionally, or break down of our democratic values, that this FISA court
represents.
Meanwhile so far what has Robert Mueller come up with? Well, we know that Manafort may be
guilty of money laundering with his dealings with foreign officials, which is an easy
obstacle splinter to uncover due part and parcel to his trade. We do know that the young up
and coming politico operative George Papadopoulos would do well to learn a lesson from his
past barroom experience of possibility talking to much to strangers, and skip the bar talk.
In many ways it's hard to see to what exactly Lt General Michael Flynn is guilty of. Maybe
Flynn as the newly appointed National Security Advisor is guilty of discussing the sanctions
imposed onto Russia, or was he guilty of representing Bibi Netanyahu? Probably the former is
prosecutable, but of course never the latter for protecting dear sweet Israel in America no
matter what is the right thing to do. Protecting Israel may in some people's eyes even seem
quite patriotic, as far as that goes, but talking to Russian diplomats, nay, never.
What this Russia-gate investigation has rot among so many other things, is that it has
taken the weakening Left and showed it for what it is. It was one thing when the Clinton's
moved the Democrates over into the Wall Street column, but now with this organized Left push
to support the Mueller Investigation the Left has been moved into the police state category
whether these poorly misguided liberals even realize this fact. This would be akin to Albert
Einstein marching behind a Nazi flag, or his standing next to Joseph Goebbels to help usher
in the sheep to slaughter under the guise of democracy, and everything that's right.
Wake up America.
Drew Hunkins , February 9, 2018 at 11:46 am
"This article does point to no doubt one of our nation's most evasive, and spookiest
courts, which is FISA. Yet, on tv hardly is this subject ever brought up"
Great point Mr. Tedesky. This creepy police-state court is rarely criticized at all in our
free [sic] press and establishment media.
Joe Tedesky , February 9, 2018 at 1:34 pm
Thank you Mr Hunkins, I've read many a comment post of yours, and hardly do I ever
disagree with you. To bad there are not more of us voices for sanity, but with that there go
I. Joe
Joe Tedesky , February 10, 2018 at 12:46 am
I just saw this on the Duran. Duran reporter Jim Jatras details some very interesting
angles of the likes you don't very often hear in regard to Russia-Gate. Be notified Mr Jatras
has a typo where he says Mac Blumenthal he really means the father of Max who is Sidney.
Jatras also points to the same circumstance where many Russians assumed Hillary would be
our next president, so the attraction to sabotage Hillary's campaign seemed to a fruitless
proposition. I remember our own beloved Robert Parry making the same observation.
exiled off mainstreet , February 10, 2018 at 3:35 am
The last sentence sums it up. Any former member of the left who supports this (they became
former once they supported this obviously flawed fascistic phony investigation the
implications of which threaten the rule of law and the stability and sustainability of life
itself) has gone zombie and can be compared to Einstein backing Goebbels.
Joe Tedesky , February 10, 2018 at 8:01 pm
I'm still having a hard time accepting this pseudo Left swing to the National Security
State/Deep State. Nothing in life should surprise me by now, but seeing what calls itself the
Left in the U.S. go the way of the CIA/FBI/NSA is hard to swallow.
The Democrates are soon going to regret spending all of this valuable time wasted on this
Russia-Gate craziness, and then what will they blame? Of course they will blame Trump, and
still invoke Putin's name, because that's what sells tv ratings. In the end the Democrates
may wake up to the realization that they blamed Trump,for all the wrong things that should
have mattered. This distraction for their bend obsession with all things Russian, is what
will have sunk their boat in 2018, and unless the Dem's wise up this unneeded shadow will
hover over them even into 2020. Joe
Drew Hunkins , February 9, 2018 at 11:42 am
The most disconcerting and heartbreaking thing I've witnessed in my 30 plus years of
studying the politico-economic scene is the manner in which otherwise decent liberals have
fallen for (or of course have been more than willing propagandists for) the hoax Russia-gate
narrative. Sure, with the Schiffs (D-Israel), Schumers (D-Israel) and others in the corporate
DNC, it's all to be expected, and no semi-intelligent CN fan would consider them to be
otherwise decent liberals. But to see good domestic populist liberals sell this dangerous
snake-oil has been illuminating and dismaying. For crying out loud -- on this particular
issue Sean Hannity is better than Rachel Maddow!
It demonstrates more than any other issue the lock that Official Washington and its
military driven empire builders along with the blood soaked mass media have on virtually our
entire political spectrum and social discourse.
The recent Nuclear Posture Review just comes out -- putting the world closer to complete
annihilation and total Armageddon -- and there isn't much of a hue and cry from the smart and
most important people in our media-industrial complex. Frightening.
D.H. Fabian , February 9, 2018 at 11:49 am
An additional layer of disappointment is the fascist ideology seen in the liberal
anti-Israel campaign. We really don't all agree that a "fair partitioning" in the Mideast
would be: 100% for the Arabs, 0% for the Jews. For those who don't know, Israel is a tiny
country (roughly the size of New Jersey). It's the sole Jewish nation, surrounded by vast,
oil-rich Arab countries. Jews are, indeed, indigenous to that bit of land. Those called
"Palestinians" are Arabs who are recruited to work toward the destruction of Israel,
establishing a 100% "pure" Moslem Mideast.
Drew Hunkins , February 9, 2018 at 1:07 pm
"An additional layer of disappointment is the fascist ideology seen in the liberal
anti-Israel campaign."
Set up a strawman much?
What you describe is a very, very marginal phenomenon in the Palestinian justice movement,
marginal enough to be totally insignificant. It's interesting that you bring this
disinformation into CN. The Zionist power configuration in America can be relentless, no
doubt. Hasbara is ubiquitous.
Israel's a criminal state and international pariah bent on wiping out any independent pro
Palestinian nation-state in the Middle East and subverting and destabilizing any independent
pro Palestinian head of state. Bloodthirsty Tel Aviv militarists mow the grass in Gaza by
killing and maiming roughly 2,000 women and children every 6 or 7 years. And no, it's not a
"fascist ideology" to point any of this out.
Read Gilad Atzmon, Norman Finkelstein, James Petras, Mearsheimer and Walt and a few others
I'm forgetting at the moment for the real dope.
Joe Tedesky , February 9, 2018 at 1:38 pm
I think D.H. just ran a Zionist commercial on 'the Consortium'. Should we run a
pro-Palestinian commercial, just to be 'fair and balanced'?
Zachary Smith , February 9, 2018 at 6:53 pm
I've noticed the dishonest Zionist was trying to act like a "normal" person a few times
recently. Probably the thought was that this would gain "credibility" for BS like this
"Zionist Commercial" you speak of.
Joe Tedesky , February 9, 2018 at 7:12 pm
Zachary it's interesting to listen to a Zionist using the same talking points that would
describe the horrible plight of the downtrodden Palestinian, and do it so easily without any
conscious effort to hide the truth, of what's really going on. Joe
Lois Gagnon , February 9, 2018 at 11:22 pm
I've seen this troll on other progressive sites using the same exact wording.
Anon , February 9, 2018 at 1:35 pm
Troll alert: please do not reply to DHF comments. This is an attempt to derail the
discussion and debase the participants, a extreme zionist attack, on a site known for more
cautious and fair commenters.
Joe Tedesky , February 9, 2018 at 1:42 pm
Maybe we should aim our conversation to this maddening frustration over all things
Russian, to better describe America's relationship to the Zionist Bibi Netanyahu. Do you hear
me, Robert Mueller? Can you Mr Mueller lean heavily onto Flynn's Israeli heavy lifting, and
why Flynn was serving the needs of the Israeli's?
Martin - Swedish citizen , February 9, 2018 at 6:21 pm
Yes, this comment is so out of touch that it must be a troll looking to discredit this
site.
A previous comment making the same statement was it seems removed. Israel must be a very
sensitive issue in the US.
Drew Hunkins , February 9, 2018 at 8:20 pm
It is beyond belief how sensitive it is. You have no idea. However, now it actually isn't
as subversive and contentious as it was just 15 to 20 years ago. So there has been a small
amount of progress, long way to go though.
Hey Fabian I have some refugees here so I'm taking your land for them. Pack your trash and
move on.
nonsense factory , February 10, 2018 at 10:54 am
The solution is simple: Allow all Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza to vote in
Israeli national parliamentary elections. Only then could Israel call itself a 'true
democracy'. This I believe results in about a 50-50 split in the electorate on religious /
ethnic lines so you could even get a Muslim leader of Israel, or at least a balanced
parliament.
This of course raises the issue of the military and executive and judicial structure of
Israel; land ownership and immigration policy would have to be changed so that any citizen
could own land, and non-Jews would be allowed to emigrate back to the region (i.e. the
Palestinian diaspora would have the same rights as the Jewish diaspora).
An even more tricky issue would be the Israeli nuclear weapons program; the first step
there is for the state of Israel to publicly admit its existence and allow for IAEA
inspections of the program.
Bob Van Noy , February 9, 2018 at 12:17 pm
Many thanks Coleen Rowley and Nat Parry. Drew Hunkins, I think your comment about
"otherwise decent liberals" is prescient but I'll bet that we could have a long, extended
discussion on The illiberalness of this generation of democrats (please note the small
d).
I would argue that with the inception of the Clinton/Blair "Third Way" that the Democratic
Party separated itself from its historic roots. In fact I think the very label of liberal
opposition here used is disingenuous.
These people The Clintons and their Neoliberal constituents have never represented the
Democratic Party in act or deed. The Neocons switching sides prior to the last election cycle
underscored their illiberal attitude. In fact classic party alignment has little to do with
this issue of criminal behavior, it is just the vehicle of divisiveness being utilized in
this instance
Drew Hunkins , February 9, 2018 at 1:09 pm
Points well taken Mr. Van Noy.
Most of the Dem Party has been a complete dumpster fire since corporate Clinton, "New
Democrats!" and DLC completely took over the entire infrastructure.
Nancy , February 9, 2018 at 1:51 pm
Sadly, those decent liberals you speak of also fell for the Clinton/Obama hoax. They are a
big part of the problem -- phonies.
Gregory Herr , February 10, 2018 at 1:45 am
A big part of the problem for sure. Support for the Democrats on the basis of "liberal
causes" is blind, phony. or both. We have suffered soaring housing and health care costs.
Investment in Social Security has been marginalized at the same time war costs are put "off
the books" and deemed a "necessity" of National Security. Public schools are now
"standardized", but standards are lacking and the quality of "higher"education has taken a
hit too while leaving graduates in piles of debt. The safety of our drinking water is suspect
and other environmental concerns take a back seat as well while "fracking" and "drill baby
drill" get passes. Civil liberties are under assault and the war drums beat on. So where are
the liberal Democrats? Taking "contributions", hiding under rocks, or snickering through
3-martini lunches with their Republican cohorts but they certainly haven't been "liberals"
for a long time now. Bill Clinton and Obama were nothing of the sort.
Next time a Democrat calls him/her self a "liberal", they ought to have to express a true
idea of just what that's suppose to mean. And then explain what happened the last
quarter-century and what in the hell their current "resistance" is really about. Don't worry
there won't be any straight answers forthcoming, and likely nary a hint of embarrassment
either. They are shameless traitors or fools
Bob Van Noy , February 10, 2018 at 10:07 am
Nicely done Gregory Herr. The democratic party talks a good game but manages to Never
Deliver the goods. The party hierarchy (DNC) doesn't deserve support
Simply vote for a candidate that delivers. And, never donate to the party
D.H. Fabian , February 9, 2018 at 11:44 am
We saw how powerfully the Clinton "New Democrat Party" gained "influence" over the media
marketed to middle class liberals, from MSNBC to online publications, pulling them well to
the right. The Democrats' anti-Russian crusade does, indeed, mimic Bush's lies about "Iraq's
stockpiles of WMD." What is truly "nuts" is that so much of the liberal media promote the
right wing agenda while wearing their "bold progressive" lapel buttons.
Loretta , February 9, 2018 at 12:05 pm
Thank you for this piece!!
j. D. D. , February 9, 2018 at 12:16 pm
The spectacle of the Democratic Part and even the Black Caucus rallying to support the FBI
is truly a wonder to behold. Have they forgotten the FBI's past in blackmailing presidents
and political leaders including JFK, Robert Kennedy and Matin Luther King? Have they
forgotten its Operation Frugmenschen, which means "ape man" in German to target Balck
politicians and activists, or the threatening dirty tricks letter sent to MLK urging him to
commit suicide? Are they prepared to see through an illegal coup against an elected president
who dared suggest a positive relaitonship with Russia and China, ensuring that no future
president will dare "step out of line" lest the secret files be pulled to create a cripling
scandal?. Apparently not, as the Demcratic Party we knew appears quite dead, perhaps lethally
shot on Nov 22, 1963 and finally buried in 2016 with the nomination of a craven Wall Street
puppet and warmonger.
Thank you, Nat and Coleen, for this article -- as well as continuing and furthering
Consortium News' reputation as one of the few remaining independent outlets that can be
considered trustworthy. In this age, where even Common Dreams has lost its credibility (and
posts by Caitlin Johnstone have to be taken/guarded with grains of salt) it is still a
refreshing rarity.
In overall relation, the following Review is shared as representative:
Robert Shetterly's "Americans Who Tell The Truth.org" continually express, show, and Speak
Truth to Power. During our times of First Draft Coalition[s], where we are subjected to 98%
(?) Controlled Narratives, a predominance critically desires to hear/see those sides which
are purposely and collusively repressed, banned and/or censored. In these
exponentially-escalating periods of secret laws based on secret memos, secret courts acting
with secret evidence (which will not be revealed to the accused), absolute torture to the
point of insanity (and death) as a means of interrogation until one gives predetermined
answers (truthful or not), worldwide surveillance on every inhabitant (without probable
cause) that can be (and is) used as a means to instill fear, to threaten, tarnish, oppress,
and silence even peaceful dissenters of basic causes while (resultantly) turning back history
500 years, we need those with (the ability of) absolute courage to Stand Up Now (more than
ever).
Evolution: from Total Information Awareness (which started long before 9/11) to Total
Information (and Population) Control (as a goal in the present).
Steve , February 9, 2018 at 12:19 pm
FAKE NEWS has been used to snooker the Aemnrician people and as it is gobbled up and
digested and spit back with investigation or corroboration it turns decent folks into FAKE
PEOPLE. Mueller is no choir boy and the mess in Washington is not going away sometime soon.
As for damaging democracy, the 2 party system has taken care of that very nicely but
channeling anger into something positive just wont' be allowed to happen as the media are
controlled by huge moneyed interests.
Janet Zampieri , February 9, 2018 at 12:29 pm
The liberals are reacting this way because of the constant lies they are fed by the
mainstream media. The corporate and CIA control of the media must be exposed and put to an
end.
Bruce Dickson , February 9, 2018 at 12:36 pm
Being a mere paycheque away from disaster, most Americans cannot afford to take to any
streets. The Powers That Be know and exploit this, having orchestrated their captives' dire
straits, all along.
So, whence shall cometh these threatening troops from Camps AVAAZ and MoveOn? By process
of elimination, from the minority well-enough-heeled and the Soros-paid.
Slavery is Freedom! War is Peace! 1984 was a cookbook; we've been reading Orwell all
wrong.
johnnieandroidseed , February 9, 2018 at 9:03 pm
My chuckle for the day was "1984 was a cookbook." Reminded me of the Twilight Zone episode
"To Serve Man" which should be the motto of capitalists everywhere.
"We serve the workers" [to our Distinguished Diners.]
Joe Tedesky , February 10, 2018 at 12:17 am
As the episodes star character Michael Chambers is taken away by the Kanamits for meal
time on their far away planet, Chambers looks at the audience and says, "How about you? You
still on Earth, or on the ship with me? Really doesn't make very much difference, because
sooner or later, all of us will be on the menu all of us."
Yikes how true. Great comment johnnieandroidseed. Joe
Though my instincts tell me there are many more people who are willing to sign a petition
than to actually get out on the street, I might be proved wrong in this particular
instance.
After signing a couple of petitions for this or that, in the forlorn hope they might bring
about change, I began to realize they were mainly designed to make me feel good about myself;
that I was doing something very important to make the world a better place.
Even worse, I saw I was being treated as nothing more than another fish in the net. My
signature had hardly enough time to reach its destination before my inbox was deluged with
requests to sign more petitions, each of which invited me to donate towards the great effort
it takes to think up a petition and put it on the internet. For some unexplained reason, the
process seemed to require highly-remunerated executives, and an awful lot more money than all
the real work needed to run something as work-intensive as Consortium News.
After signing two, I'd already given up the idea of signing more petitions by the time I
was urged to sign one for a no-fly zone over Syria to save hundreds of thousand of lives.
With anti-Russian propaganda being heavily pushed by the corporate media at the time, it was
obvious people who had no idea what a no-fly zone entailed were being manipulated.
We live at a time where, for most people, touchy-feely means engaging with the world
through a screen. No man is an island being far from the state of affairs, all men have
become islands. Far from bringing us together, the internet is being increasingly used to
keep most of us farther and farther away from each other, and the information we need to form
opinions based on facts.
Which leads me to ponder how on earth we arrived at a point where of hundreds of thousands
of people are preparing to come out on the streets to demonstrate their support of an
organization, which just happens to be one of several intelligence agencies, trying to remove
their right to come out on the streets to demonstrate? I hope I'm not the only one who finds
it perversely ironic and extremely disturbing.
Bruce Dickson , February 9, 2018 at 1:16 pm
Do those intending to demonstrate on the FBI's behalf even realize that one of that
agency's most resource-intensive and mission-critical tasks is to record, identify and
profile demonstrators?
"I am marching for my right to be surveilled. Democracy means Dossiers for All! FISA =
Freedom. I'm guided by the beauty of my shackles. Liberty is Liability. Truth is
Treason."
And Insanity is Virtue. Well played, overlords: you have set the stage well – but
for the hubris you can't shake off. Lofty as you are, you don't float above the law of
unintended consequences. Or that of gravity, either.
Gregory Herr , February 10, 2018 at 6:16 am
Love your comments, The bigger they are, the harder they fall.
Martin - Swedish citizen , February 9, 2018 at 2:21 pm
My experience with AVAAZ is similar. They petition for many good causes and seem to
achieve quite a lot, but then there appear a slice of the petitions that are political and
naive, like the no fly zone. Inherent problems in their brand of activism. They should
probably reconsider their scope of issues.
Yes, thank you for the link. I had forgot about that. It's very important that we
understand NGO's roles & who they are working for.
Lethal Weapon: NGO Soft Power
"Along with military invasions and missionaries, NGOs help crack countries open like ripe
nuts, paving the way for intensifying waves of exploitation and extraction" " ~ Stephanie
McMillan
""The NGO 'soft power complex' is now one of the most destructive global forces. It is
employed as an interface between civilians of a target nation, with government, economic or
military structures of the colonialist force intent on harnessing any given nation's
resources or undermining its geopolitical influence. The Democratization process, or the path
to regime change is facilitated by these undercover government or corporate proxy employees
who, once embedded into a society, set about producing the propaganda that will justify
intervention, either economically, politically or militarily. NGO propaganda will often
employ slick social media marketing which is underpinned by advance applied behavioural
psychology and advanced NLP-based 'social enterprise' sales pitches.
A recent piece by researcher Eva Bartlett entitled, "Human Rights Front Groups
[Humanitarian Interventionalists] Warring on Syria", provides a detailed insight into how
this new breed of weaponized politics is being deployed right now in the Middle East.
The perception of a 'non profit' complex who purport to be "working for the betterment and
improvement of humanity" can be a difficult nut to crack, but it must be done. In the west.
charities, not-for-profits and Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) are seen as "do gooders"
and so they rarely fall under public scrutiny. Western governments know the general public
has an inherent faith in their perceived integrity and this provides an ideal cover for
western government and intelligence agencies to operate through their NGO and aid
organisations."
I think it's great that they are calling for massive rallies against the rape of our
democracy by the one percent. It's great to see them rallying hundreds of thousands of us to
protest the state of endless war. It's nice to see them putting all that muscle into the
streets to oppose US foot-dragging on climate change.
Oh wait, I must have misread the article.
On a serious note, we need to see these FISA abuses only as the tools of tyranny. Far more
important is who is wielding them and why.
Thank you Ms. Rowley and Mr. Parry for reporting honestly. If certain factions can set-up
a POTUS, what can they do to "we the people"? Mr. Parry, your father would be proud of
you!
mike k , February 9, 2018 at 1:48 pm
"Liberals?" Just another name for war mongering liars these days. "Conservatives?" Just
another brand of liars and thieves. People who put stock in, and vote on the basis of these
baseless tags are the real suckers that enable our whole doomed evil empire. If you vote for
anyone who uses either of those labels, you are a fool, and a dangerous one at that. Come to
think of it, if you vote at all you are an idiot endorsing a corrupt process.
Drew Hunkins , February 9, 2018 at 1:52 pm
Off topic.
What looks to be an outstanding brand new film is coming out soon. It's entitled, "The
Young Karl Marx." This movie looks like a must-see.
Unfortunately for those very many invested in the Russiagate nonsense, the cold reality is
that doubling down on crazy doesn't somehow magically produce sanity. We're watching the
Western power structure fracture before our eyes as their propaganda operations have become
not simply unbelievable, but now have entered into the world of the totally outlandish and
absurd. The notion that "reality" requires some kind of rational connection to observable
events in the physical world seems to have totally lost any meaning in this current climate
of reality meltdown. Quite amazing to witness actually.
Eddie , February 10, 2018 at 12:49 pm
"doubling down on crazy doesn't somehow magically produce sanity."–Great
phrasing!
alley cat , February 9, 2018 at 2:23 pm
The undead hands of those two zombie neocons, HRC and John Brennan, reach out from the
boneyard of U.S. politics to drag democracy down with them.
The neocons' ultimate target is Russia, together with anyone who dares to utter the truth
about Russia. They are drunk with power and will stop at nothing, not even nuclear war, to
eliminate any rival for global domination. They are so reckless and arrogant that they think
a nuclear war is winnable.
Megalomania much?
Goebbels boasted that he could play the German public like a keyboard. The neofascist
neocons are using the same tactics with the so-called U.S. left, which, measured by
international political metrics, corresponds to the traditional imperialist right. American
so-called liberals are allowing themselves to be played, like the German public was played by
the Nazis before WWII. They are attacking Trump from the reactionary right, not from the
left. In their feckless hysteria, they can't even tell the difference.
Fascist tactics bring fascist results. There are multitudinous grounds to oppose Trump
democratically. Impeaching him based on ginned-up, right-wing, smears would tear this country
apart at the seams.
lindaj , February 9, 2018 at 11:46 pm
"American so-called liberals are allowing themselves to be played, like the German public
was played by the Nazis before WWII. They are attacking Trump from the reactionary right, not
from the left. In their feckless hysteria, they can't even tell the difference."
I'm afraid you are right.
Democrats are not "the left." Have they ever really been? That's why you said "so-called
left" I realize. It makes me laugh when mainstream media calls it such.
Richard Hicks , February 9, 2018 at 2:36 pm
The story says: "Considering all of the threats to democracy posed by unconstitutional
overreach, unfair elections, corruption, and voter suppression – not to mention
environmental challenges, economic inequality, an out-of-control U.S. foreign policy,
numerous foreign conflicts that the U.S. is engaged in, and the ever-present threat of
nuclear war – it is telling that the liberal establishment is mobilizing on this
particular issue."
Yes, it is "telling that the liberal establishment is mobilizing on this particular issue".
Except it's not just this issue. Remember that Al Capone was convicted of crimes other than
the crime he was arrested for. It seems that on an almost daily basis evidence is discovered
that the President is/was involved in crimes other than Conspiracy and/or Obstruction of
Justice. As new evidence is uncovered, it may lead the Mueller investigation in another
direction, and apparently, it has. If that is the case, Mueller is doing his job. The job
that The People hired him to do. If Trump were to fire Mueller, it could very well be because
of newly discovered criminal activity that Trump is, or was involved in, and Trump is nervous
about. Our Nation is a Nation of laws, and no one, even the President is above the law. This
President has a long-standing proven reputation, of difficulty with the Truth. Based on that
alone, if Mueller is fired by Trump, people would be justified taking to the streets, in
protest.
mike k , February 9, 2018 at 3:45 pm
A riot to back up the putch against Trump? Not likely, but a disaster if performed. Is
this how some dream of a new US government? It will take something much deeper and wiser to
accomplish that. Again not likely, but if one has to dream, why not something truly
positive?
mike k , February 9, 2018 at 4:06 pm
"Putin's life work is spying"? You seem to have a rather shallow estimate of someone who
stands against those in the US determined to turn our planet into an ashy corpse.
Best not to lose sight of this fact: there is no liberal cause, especially the incipient
climate disaster, that is not negatively affected by Trump and the legal coup-d etat achieved
by the Republicans. Anyone working to stymie that,whether sinless or simon pure deserves
support. Also, re Russia, Garry Kasparov the Chess Master says it would be naive to think
that Putin whose life work is spying would not use his current sophisticated apparatus to
work his will on any issue or election of interest.
mike k , February 9, 2018 at 4:00 pm
"legal coup d'etat?" That's a new one on me, on the other hand the whole loony scene in
Washington is illegal – so what the hey! Still, removing a sitting President on the
basis of phony charges against him for colluding with Russia would really kick over the chess
board and empower the crazies to do their worst. Or is there anybody still out there who
believes the Russiagate nonsense has a shred of truth in it? I hope not, but I am afraid I am
in danger of overestimating my fellow citizens .
mike k , February 9, 2018 at 4:02 pm
As for Gary Kasparov, he should rest on his fading laurels as a chess master, and stay out
of politics. If he had his way Russians would raise Yeltsin from the grave, and turn their
country back over to the international capitalists.
Mark Thomason , February 9, 2018 at 2:52 pm
Russia-gate has nothing to do with the real Russia.
It is entirely a Team Hillary attack on Trump. It is an attempt to deny the election. It
is rage at losing, looking for excuses to express itself. If not Russia it would be Comey, or
many other things. It has been most convenient to use Putin at the pinata, but that is a
matter of internal US politics, not Putin at all.
irina , February 9, 2018 at 4:17 pm
And luckily for us, Putin not only groks that dynamic but has been brave enough
to say so in public.
What's with all the new-name trolls here today ?
Mr Boompi , February 9, 2018 at 3:02 pm
I hate the term derangement syndrome but some people surely do have Trump derangement
syndrome. It's beaten into them every day on TV and certain internet sites. I believe they
want Trump removed using any means possible, including illegal means. Their derangement
syndrome includes the mistaken belief attempting to enforce the law regarding Clinton emails
and the frauds perpetrated on the FISA court are nothing more than an attempt to obstruct
justice for Trump. Even though there is no evidence Trump has done anything wrong. It's a
shame actually.
Alan , February 9, 2018 at 3:06 pm
Let's take a step or two back and try to see the current state of chaos in a broader
perspective. People are angry. The Trump administration is without question aberrant. Where
is true leadership today? Certainly not with Trump or his administration. The real issue
isn't specifically "Russiagate", but what lies beneath.
We have been mislead, lied to, manipulated by virtually every administration to greater
and lesser degrees. Of relevance here is that both Nixon and Reagan manipulated the American
people through their backchannel negotiations with foreign powers prior to inauguration.
While this Consortiumnews article can shine some light on potential abuses which takes
place through the FISA court we must recognize that we form an imperfect union. This
particular article seems to be like arguing for changes to the fire codes while Rome
burns!
Any mobilization of the "liberal establishment" is far more about the egregious threats to
our democracy than whatever "Russiagate" means. An imperfect Mueller seems to represent our
best way forward to finding the hidden truths behind all of Trump's malfeasance. Let the
people be heard!
mike k , February 9, 2018 at 4:10 pm
The people have been heard! They voted for Trump
WheresOurTeddy , February 9, 2018 at 3:16 pm
Damn the people in this country are easy to manipulate. Pathetic.
If the activists of the last generation could see the sellout pieces of garbage that call
themselves democrats today, they'd roll over in their unmarked graves they were dumped into
by the same alphabet agencies of oppression the stooges are standing up for.
Late stage empire in decline.
mike k , February 9, 2018 at 4:11 pm
Amen.
Maxim , February 9, 2018 at 3:29 pm
They don't want Trump, they want Russia. That's why Trump was "elected". So they could use
Trump to get to Russia. In 2020 Clinton will finally get elected and everyone will be begging
for WWW3 against the Russian Threat. Another false Pearl Harbor is coming. Syria, N.Korea,
Iran or Ukraine are all potential flash points. We're sheep being led to slaughter.
Far , February 9, 2018 at 3:58 pm
In one ponit you are wrong. The orange clown is uninhibited in starting a war. Read just
the new disclosure that pentagon had been resisting requests from the White House to provide
military options for Iran. In his first speach in the UN Trump has threatened to destroy
North Korea totally. This crazy man doesn't deserve to be the president of the US!
mike k , February 9, 2018 at 4:14 pm
Mostly correct, but the Deep State emphatically did NOT want Trump elected. Too
unpredictable. The DS thought Hillary had a lock on the election. Just goes to show that the
DS is not as smart as they like to think they are.
Realist , February 10, 2018 at 4:47 am
For sure, Mike, the DS pulled out all the stops to help Hillary both before and after the
election to no avail. They are still doing it. The most influential insiders in America
couldn't alter the results of the election, yet they would have you believe that Putin merely
snaps his fingers, "meddles in our democracy" and has his way. Yet most people cannot see the
absurdity of that claim because the corporate media, which is part of the real conspiracy
orchestrated by the DS, spews nothing but propaganda full bore 24/7 changing apparent reality
right in front of your own lying eyes.
Now the History Channel is coming out with an extra special demonisation of Putin
extravaganza!!! Be sure to watch if you wanna stay free! These people could rehabilitate
Hitler if it suited their purposes. The American people are putty in their hands. There is no
opposition but those few of us who fail to be hypnotized by the svengalis that represent the
interests of the string puller elites on the boob tube and internets, who and which they
totally own and control. There are so few of us who can still see the truth, I suspect they
could house us all in a single detention camp if it comes to that.
Gregory Herr , February 10, 2018 at 6:49 am
I couldn't suppress a derisive laugh reading an above comment about Putin's ability "to
work his will on any issue or election of interest." Yep, those snapping fingers are rife
with ability not to mention speculation about Putin's desires. What a mad genius he must
be!
Snookered and bamboozled, the show must go on.
Far , February 9, 2018 at 3:45 pm
I would support any measure that tends to an impeachment of a crazy, impulsive and
retarded president. This president is a misfortune for the US and for the world. One can
criticise the actions to support the current investigations in the Russiagate. But if it
helps to get rid of a mentally ill clown then why not!
mike k , February 9, 2018 at 4:18 pm
Good reasoning, but it fails to consider what's next? Believe it or not, there will
probably be a lot worse in store for us than President Donald Trump. Things just tend to get
worse and worse in a collapsing empire ..
Far , February 9, 2018 at 4:39 pm
What's next is a good question. I hope that Clinton leave finally the political world. She
was one of the main reasons that many of voters elected the bad option instead of the worst
option. Collapsing of the system can not be an option. But Trump is well under way to shake
the political system and polarize the civil society more than ever before
Realist , February 10, 2018 at 4:59 am
That's what Susan Sarandon foresaw as the "good" outcome of a Trump victory–the
collapse of the system would be advanced. However, how do we benefit from that opportunity
for change when the only announced candidates for Trump's job are the same ilk (Clinton,
Biden, Kerry) or their even shallower accolytes (Booker, Harris ) that caused all the damage
in the first place? All those idiots are still about fooling and fleecing the American public
and warring upon the rest of the world–friends and foes alike. They offer no peace, no
prosperity, and no future whatsoever, only a bleak struggle for existence in a nuclear winter
by the few survivors of their promised handiwork. You nailed it, Mike, things will only get
worse because our leaders (from both of these two abominable parties) insist upon it.
irina , February 9, 2018 at 4:22 pm
"Why not ?" Because such 'measures' only serve to destroy what little remains of our
democracy. Here's a thought experiment for you : would you support similar 'measures'
if they 'tended to an impeachment' of crazy, impulsive, mentally ill Hillary had she been
elected ? (As co-president with Bill, who she promised to 'put in charge' of the
economy).
Because "We came, we saw, he Died" Hillary is arguably even farther off the rails than
The Donald. And probably more dangerous for many reasons, not the least of which is
that so many people look at her and see someone 'sane'.
Far , February 9, 2018 at 5:06 pm
Crooked Hillary was never be an option. And Trump is definitive not fit for the oval
office. Trump will bury the democracy finally. Damages to the reputation of the US in the
world community is immense. With Trump there is no chance to make a real change. Quit in
contrary the US will face serious social, economic and security challenges without a glimmer
of hope to change the things. My father said that a great ship could be sunk. And if it sinks
it will be just slower than a little one. Trump is not an option anymore to steer the
ship.
Have a look at the less than vigorous investigations run by Mueller into BCCI (Bush crime
family "intelligence" op) pre 911. Mueller can run coverups or smear campaigns. Wonder what
his corporate offshore bank accounts look like
lindaj , February 9, 2018 at 11:50 pm
bank accounts. good question.
weilunion , February 9, 2018 at 5:35 pm
"Social psychologists have long talked about how emotional manipulation can work
effectively to snooker a large percentage of the population, to get them, at least
temporarily, to believe the exact opposite of the facts. These techniques are known in the
intelligence community as "perception management," and have been refined since the 1980s "to
keep the American people compliant and confused," as the late Robert Parry has reported. We
saw this in action last decade, when after months of disinformation, about 70% of Americans
came to falsely believe that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11 when the truth was the opposite
– Saddam was actually an enemy of the Al Qaeda perpetrators."
Cognitive dissonance, lack of critical thinking, reliance on authority, in this case a
former head of a criminal organization called the FBI.
People have no class consciousness. They have no idea who their enemies ar or how to
organize.
This is the sad case of liberalism melting like warm butter while the fascists
congeal.
Joe Tedesky , February 9, 2018 at 7:27 pm
Nicely put.
Dave P. , February 10, 2018 at 2:51 am
"Social psychologists have long talked about how emotional manipulation can work
effectively to snooker a large percentage of the population, to get them, at least
temporarily, to believe the exact opposite of the facts. . ."
Yes. On any bar counter, just start some conversation with the person sitting to you. With
all this bizarre drama – Russia-Gate, Iran, memos, dossier . . . going on TV, and in
Washington being enacted knowingly by the the Powers who rule – both, so called
Liberals and Conservatives – one can see how this emotional manipulation has worked to
snooker just about most of the population. I just had the experience today during lunch at a
bar counter. In our conversation, the person sitting next to me was ready to nuke Iran, N.
Korea, and go after Russia; and go after Hillary too.
Population in the country was very poorly informed any how. And now, they, The Ruling
Establishment which includes Media, have completely messed the people up – making them
compliant and confused.
Does any body have idea how they are going to bring an end to this completely concocted
bizarre drama?
Joe Tedesky , February 10, 2018 at 8:21 pm
Dave the same stupid asses you speak of will still be the same stupid asses long after
these foreign affairs take any turn for the better. The dumb butts are easy to control. It's
like you point and say bad, and these morons growl, as their faces contort in macho anger.
Although, if one day the U.S. should make friends with Iran, N Korea, or Russia, these silly
little stupid puppies will just go back to work. If you tell them it will be exciting to play
the Russians at hockey, well this might get them going a little bit again, but not to worry
because it's just hockey. Oh, easy on the beer, and make sure the refreshment stands have
plenty of nachos and tip. The jackasses like to eat and drink a lot, what can I say? Joe
Both MoveOn and Avaaz get major funding from George Soros.
Martin - Swedish citizen , February 9, 2018 at 6:30 pm
As a foreigner, looking from the outside, it seems Mueller will not find anything on
Russia. He already found something on Israel, but he doesn't pursue that. If Americans rally,
then it seems you should rally to make an objective and fair inquiry, to nail Israel for what
they seem to have done.
Joe Tedesky , February 9, 2018 at 7:28 pm
Now your talking. Good idea.
ToivoS , February 9, 2018 at 7:11 pm
"This is nuts" is a great headline for our current problem.
Many years ago in my early 20s I read 'Guns of August' that described support for the
coming WWI. What was so striking about that period was how the public in every relevant
European was hell bent on war. Among the major players -- Germany, France, UK, Russia and
Austro-hungary -- their populations were demonstrating in the streets and assemblies for war.
How was it possible for all of those people to eagerly lust for war that within a few years
led to the destruction of the German, Russian and Austrian empires, the deaths of millions of
their citizens and multidecade impoverishment for the survivors. The costs of the war
resulted in the effective bankruptcy of the UK and French colonial empires as well as
millions of dead and traumatized survivors.
I never was able to see how so many people then could be so incredibly foolish. In the
last two years I have gained some insight. Many of my respected, but now previous, political
associates have just gone totally nuts over Russiagate. There was some kind of psychic break
in their minds when Hillary lost and they are now little more than raging primates trapped in
a cognitive dissonance loop. Not just that, but these are people who are on the verge of
supporting war against Russia.
Reading other comments here it seems my experience has been shared by others.
Joe Tedesky , February 9, 2018 at 7:49 pm
Yes ToivoS, many of us here have been watching our family, friends, and fellow citizens
lose their minds in mass over the election of Donald J Trump. It's with his Electoral College
win that I noticed the psychic break in many a citizens mind. So now here we are, where this
psychic break has moved good thinking people to the side of the field where the Deep State,
or National Security State if you will, has replaced critical thinking people by turning them
into 'useful idiots', if that is enough of a suitable label to pin on these stray pseudo
liberals.
These misguided liberal thinkers ought to move out of the way, drop this Russia-Gate
travesty, and allow the real Left to emerge so as justice maybe served upon the Trump
Administration. And if these limousine liberal hacks don't wish to travel a different avenue,
as to confront what the Trump team does, then for the love of mike please dear almost
liberals quit getting so cozy with the National Security State. This kind of stuff gives
reason to believe that 'Nightmare on Elm Street' was a documentary, as Freddy Krueger is a
nice guy in real life. Now I'm afraid to go to sleep .take care ToivoS. Joe
Zachary Smith , February 9, 2018 at 11:35 pm
Regarding Guns of August , it's a book I won't be reading. Anything by Barbara
Tuchman connected with WW1 is automatically suspect with me. I've kept many of her other
history books, but will maintain a distinct level of skepticism while reading them. That's
necessary because she was a fanatical Zionist, and lying about Israel-related issues is just
something that type does.
Lois Gagnon , February 10, 2018 at 12:32 am
The term psychic break I think is dead accurate. It made me think of Naomi Klein's "Shock
Doctrine" in that people who are traumatized by natural or man made disasters are taken
advantage of by powerful interests intent on imposing policies that are against the public
interest.
People who are in a state of shock are not equipped to make rational decisions. Trump's
surprise (at least to Clinton voters) win left Democratic Party voters in shock leaving them
vulnerable to the Establishment's agenda of increasing tensions with Russia. Enter
Russia-gate which serves many purposes at once. As we have seen, it worked like a charm.
Those falling for the psy-op have left all reason behind. They are singularly focused. It is
virtually impossible to introduce evidence that contradicts the narrative. It's as
frustrating as talking to a religious fanatic.
Pandas4peace , February 10, 2018 at 11:48 am
In an ironic twist, Naomi Klein today has completely lost her mind due to Trump
Derangement Syndyome.
Larco Marco , February 10, 2018 at 3:34 am
The Ottoman Empire was also destroyed, with the UK subsequently claiming Palestine as a
piece of their own empire.
Sam , February 9, 2018 at 8:26 pm
"[I]t should be hoped by everyone that the Department of Justice Inspector General can get
to the bottom of how the FISA court was ultimately misled."
Is the IG even looking at this? The current investigation by the IG, the one due to report
soon, is looking at the investigation into Clinton's email server. I'm not aware of an IG
investigation on this matter. It would certainly be a good idea – assuming that the IG
is not compromised, which is a big assumption.
Coleen Rowley , February 9, 2018 at 11:20 pm
Maybe wishful thinking on my part. The Grassley-Graham referral regarding Steele's
potential violation of Title 18 Section 1001, lying to the FBI, may or may not be
prosecutable depending upon where the "lies" took place and the likely lack of
extra-territorial jurisdiction if they occurred in Rome. But even if no criminal violation
could be prosecuted, I would think the IG should still investigate the matter for potential
administrative discipline.
GEOFF TEAGUE , February 9, 2018 at 9:05 pm
the so called liberals need god on their side so they can tear down the constitution (at
least what is left of it) and then put trump's head on a pike. the most fearful thing in this
country is watching ignorance in action.
Pandas4peace , February 10, 2018 at 11:45 am
Yes! Stop and think about the consequences of a COUP of a legitimately ELECTED U.S.
President by the Deep State and his political opponents. It's a dangerous game and a slippery
slope. It's frightening to imagine where this could go.
ThomasGilroy , February 9, 2018 at 9:13 pm
To a liberal, the worst possible scenario was the election of Trump – especially
because they are "liberals". That cannot be difficult to see. They rightly see that Russian
inference in the election could have made a significant difference in the swing states.
Whether that is true or not, is irrelevant. There cannot be closure without the
investigation going forward. That Russia meddled in the US election is certainly without
question. Whether Trump colluded or not still needs to be answered.
Finally, future election need to be safeguarded against foreign powers attempting to
influence our system of democracy. Russia had a lot to gain potentially helping to elect
Trump. Trump had a lot to gain by colluding. We need to find out the truth.
Zachary Smith , February 10, 2018 at 1:00 am
"swing states" – do you suppose that Hillary taking several of them for granted had
anything to do with "influencing" the election?
That Russia meddled in the US election is certainly without question.
Without Question! This sounds very much like a religious belief to me. Something like this
1950 declaration by the pope at the time:
By the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and
by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma:
that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her
earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.
Change a few words in that, and we'd have the Tragedy of Saint Hillary.
Finally, future election need to be safeguarded against foreign powers attempting to
influence our system of democracy. Russia had a lot to gain potentially helping to elect
Trump.
And how do you suggest this "safeguarding" happen? Shut down the internet? Imprison anyone
who says a favorable word about Russia?
ThomasGilroy , February 10, 2018 at 3:48 pm
Zachary
HRC was the second worse candidate in US history – just behind Trump. She is
definitely the one most responsible for her loss in the election. None the less, very few
votes separated a significant amount of electoral votes so the Russian influence could have
made a difference. If you view all of the evidence beginning when US intelligence first
identified Russian-related hackers in 2015, followed by Crowdstrike in 2016 (and at least
five other cybersecurity firms which confirmed Crowdstrike's conclusions) , social media and
the obvious reasons that Putin favored Trump over the anti-Russia candidacy of HRC (motive),
then it becomes much more logical that Russia meddled. Assange served the Russian government
as well (mostly with the aid of the Russian government-funded RT). He clearly looked to
undermine the HRC candidacy despite his denials (lies).
The Daily Beast does a nice job with the time line in the current Mueller investigation
(Trump-Russia Isn't About the Cover-Up. It's About the Crime. http://thebea.st/2slKBBE?source=twitter&via=desktop
via @thedailybeast) and Marcie Wheeler (at Empty Wheel) also does a good job presenting
evidence of Russian perfidy. Mueller probably knows a lot more than he is sharing so it's
just a matter of time before the evidence becomes much more difficult to ignore.
Realist , February 10, 2018 at 5:23 am
That Russia "meddled in the US election" is totally without foundation and you know it.
Any such attempt by them would be pointless, ineffective and detrimental if ever found out.
If we had really found out any such thing, we'd all know about it rather than being fed
bullshit based upon absolutely no real evidence. America would not be subjected to a year and
a half of shenanigans by a thoroughly-biased politically-motivated special prosecutor given a
hunting license by a frustrated deep state, a bitter political opposition and a raucous media
in the service of both.
What's the point in dragging out the process if the object is justice and the removal of a
putative pretender to the presidency? The aforementioned insurrectionists cannot pull off
their desired miracle because the evidence doesn't exist and it doesn't exist because the
purported crime was never committed.
Both the Democrats and the Republicans undoubtedly each cheated to win the election in
their own ways, but not in any way involving the Russians who have just served as unwitting
targets by our own domestic villains. Russia has gained NOTHING by seeing Trump in office.
During the election Putin would not even play favorites, stating the obvious: that he could
not predict the future and that he would have to deal with whomever was elected. Your
scenarios are all delusions, Gilroy.
Dave P. , February 10, 2018 at 3:36 pm
Realist – Excellent summation of this whole false, delusionary, bizarre concocted
drama being enacted on the American people, and on people beyond in the World.
Paul Easton , February 9, 2018 at 9:29 pm
The article mentions "perception management" and I think it is well to generalize. Ever
since 9/11 the permanent government has kept the population in line by playing on their
fears, in Trump's case fear of fascism. (And quite possibly the events of 9/11 were planned
and executed for this very purpose.) As it turned out the perception management was all too
effective and by now most of the population is freaking out, in one way or another, and our
society is disintegrating. Personally I am cheering it on. Goodbye USA Thank God!
Liberals getting behind the most
racist government agency in a pathetic display of supporting the
"enemy of my enemy" Donald Trump
gives further proof they are as
unprincipled as any of history's
other "national socialists".
Zachary Smith , February 10, 2018 at 1:02 am
What the hell is this endless repetition of the word "Liberals"? Try "Corporate Democrats"
and you'd be a LOT closer to reality.
Realist , February 10, 2018 at 5:31 am
To be sure. The other biggest mischaracterisation is to call the ring leaders of this
witch hunt "the left" or "leftists." The genuine left (what little still exists of it) are
the few who rail against this nonsense, largely on this or similar sites (e.g., ICH).
Dave P. , February 10, 2018 at 3:40 pm
I completely agree, Zachary. The true democratic party adherents – which includes
lot of us – should have split from the Corporate Democrats long ago during Clinton
presidency.
Bandrui , February 9, 2018 at 10:27 pm
We live in a hall of mirrors. This is yet another example of how easily most Americans are
manipulated, dumbest populace on the planet apparently. I see no hope for us at all.
D.H. Fabian , February 10, 2018 at 12:36 am
Give the Clinton right wing credit for achieving what the Republicans had long hoped, but
failed, to do. First, they split apart the Dem voting base in the 1990s, middle class vs.
poor, and the Obama years served to confirm that this split is permanent. Then they
apparently plagiarized old Joe McCarthy's playbook, launching their anti-Russian crusade,
splitting apart those who are not on the right wing. Divide, subdivide, conquer.
RandyLee , February 10, 2018 at 9:55 am
so the democrats are going for mob rule now? and they have willing accomplices in liberals
who have no idea why they hate Trump, they just know they are supposed to hate Trump. well I
say take to the streets then! give it your best shot! cry and scream and threaten your little
butts off. when you have no real idea why you are doing something, it won't take long before
you realize how stupid you are and will stop listening to those who encourage you from the
sidelines to attack american principles but aren't actually on the streets with you. its ok
for you to take that bullet but they sure as hell won't be taking one for the cause.
Martin S , February 10, 2018 at 10:19 am
The nefarious results of the Left propaganda: CRUSH THE TRUTH AND THE SHEEP WILL
SWALLOW
I believe the public is getting played on Mueller. Little hints keep dropping about Trump
firing him. Then the media and the left goes into a frenzy, demanding Saint Mueller stay.
Mueller has literally become the symbol of hope for the left.
Imagine Mueller now coming out and clearing Trump completely while exposing what his real
investigative objective was: revealing the deep state. Remember NBC and CNN mentioning
Mueller began investigating the Podestas? Then they dropped that story as fast as
possible.
I think we're witnessing the absolute genius of the deep state getting taken down. My
hunch is that Mueller is part of the team and the media is getting outsmarted.
Joe Tedesky , February 10, 2018 at 1:11 pm
One can only wonder to where all of this may go. Read this .
The thing about liberals is, they'll only accept one result in the Mueller probe. If Trump
removes him, he's hiding something. And if Mueller exposes Dem corruption instead of Rep
corruption, they'll say its fixed. They want the process to play out, but they'll only accept
one result, that of Trump/Russia collusion. They are blinded by their own hate.
Joe Tedesky , February 10, 2018 at 8:27 pm
Remember when the Dem's hated Comey? Boy, those were the days, weren't they?
Pandas4peace , February 10, 2018 at 11:35 am
Robert Mueller is leading an open-ended investigation that can cover any potential crime
uncovered during the course of the investigation. He has unlimited resources, no deadlines,
and no oversight. He can't be fired, except by the President. He reports to noone. His
targets have no idea what their crimes may be. His team is stacked with partisan hacks. He
uses heavy-handed tactics intended to break his adversaries, even if they haven't been
charged with a crime. He refuses to consider contrary evidence or to examine the DNC
computers. He won't interview witnesses. The Constitutional and human rights abuses are
alarming.
Douglas Mailly , February 10, 2018 at 11:43 am
Great article, but too bad about the polygraph reference, it just perpetuates the myth
that they are useful
One of the supreme ironies of our age is how the McCarthyesque focus on Russian
interference in our electoral process has completely obscured the domestic politicization of
our own institutions of government, that is the damage our now rabid placement of political
party party above the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of the American population.
Corporations have taken over our legislatures under the guise of "free speech", and the
country's foreign policy is controlled by a military-industrial-security complex that sees
perpetual war as the answer to domestic economic well being and American world hegemony.
While Russians have no doubt used the internet to sow dissent here via "perception
management", as we no doubt have done there and elsewhere around the globe, what we Americans
as masters of Madison Avenue techniques have done to ourselves pales in comparison. Can we
come to grips with this and then get on to building a more cooperative world? It's a cause
worth fighting for.
Mild -ly - Facetious , February 10, 2018 at 5:17 pm
Well said, Howard Mettee.
Our slow descent into the present National Chaos might well've been birthed under McCarthy
antics as cloak&cover for Operation Paperclip. One could rightly label his actions
"political theater" or straight subversion. -- Whatever, US actual history is a Disappearing
Act with imperious propensity. We, as a nation, have always been imperious and domineering,
just as were our British forefathers.
The present personification of our historical arrogance is this trenchantly self-approving
/ self-adoring Trump; (Mala Mens Malus Animus), whose wanton path of destruction is largely
more perverse than any of his predecessors. His path of DECONSTRUCTION is the portent of a
free-radical DISORGANIZATION of the world structure as we've known it. ( Poe aptly depicted
this in his short story, "The Descent Into The Maelstrom")
The foreboding actions from Mr. Trump foreshadow Perilous Times predicted first in First
Timothy 6: 9-10, Trump as forerunner and Second Timothy 3: 1-5 -- either and both apt
descriptions of Donald Trump.
– – – – – – "mala mens malus animus"
R Davis , February 10, 2018 at 2:21 pm
Is it a diversion?
From what?
It is obvious that Israel & Trump are on a roll.
Bombing Syria on the skirtings of Iran – "oh joy of joys, one step closer," – to
doomsday.
Elsewhere i have recommended the Palestinian people exit Palestine ASAP.
Foolhardy Israel is only the size of a postage stamp, 4 time the size of Hiroshima.
when nerves fray hey!
Brad Smith , February 10, 2018 at 2:22 pm
I was actually hoping that with Trump taking over the reigns of the war machine that the
left would once again mobilize and oppose our wars and the spying state that walks all over
our civil liberties. Trump certainly gives them enough legitimate areas of concern that they
have plenty to go on. Sadly this really does show the power of the press to manipulate public
opinion and the left-wing media loves Russia Gate.
For myself personally, I see the threat of a confrontation with Russia as the #1 concern.
We have now entered into a new cold war with all the massive spending, proxy wars and yet
again the very real chance of it leading to a hot war that could be the end of all of us.
Sadly the "left" in this country has once again fallen for the endless propaganda, their
hatred of Trump is only part of this issue.
With or without the Mueller investigation the Russia hatred will go on. Mueller could
exonerate Trump tomorrow and the anti-Russian propaganda will continue. It was already
ramping up well before our elections and much of it was targeted at the left then as well.
Remember Pussy Riot? Remember the stories about how homophobic Russians are? The left has
been primed to hate Putin for a long time by this propaganda and they fell for it well before
Trump ran for office. Think about it this way, before we had the American "Deplorables" we
had "Russians". They were shown as nothing but drunken, wife beating, homophobic, Religious,
white, gun nuts, etc. etc. etc. This Extreme form of stereotyping was meant to invoke hatred
by the left and it worked.
Joe Tedesky , February 10, 2018 at 8:33 pm
Brad you got it right. Yes, the Dem's are wasting valuable time chasing after these
Russian hackers who weren't there. Brad you also got it right, that these so called liberals
are blinded by their hatred of Trump, and in my estimation these kool-aid liberals are
passing up any golden opportunity they may have to go after Trump for what they should be
going after him for. Talk about misdirected, the Dem's aren't even close. Joe
Erelis , February 10, 2018 at 3:24 pm
Well, there was middle last year a nationally organized "March for Truth" which called for
investigation of Trump and any Russian ties. The march by newspaper reports got "hundreds" in
Chicago and NYC. I saw a live stream of the Portland march. Maybe just maybe cracked a
hundred. Basically the march attendees looked like older party partisans. I would expect the
same for any pro-Mueller rallies in that they will be pretty much be democratic party
rallies. As the leadership of groups like Planned Parenthood, unions, and other organizations
are aligned with establishment democrats, I am not sure they can convince their bases to
march.
On the electoral side. Sure some people will show up, and show up in democratic dominated
cities, but in the rest of America, more of a yawn. Establishment democrats think that
Russiagate will win them elections. I think not.
dee , February 10, 2018 at 3:48 pm
The so called liberals tried to redefined the left away from working class to LBGT, Black
Lives Matter, abortion rights, etc and , in the process, dug their own graves.
So far these "liberals" have not dug their own graves, because media supports their
position now despite having primed Trump for winning during campaigning. I maintain that
having only two political parties is the crux of the problem, and clearly both are corporate.
People don't get how they are being played. A quote attributed to Mark Twain I just read: "It
is easier to fool people than to convince them that they are being fooled."
Dave Sullivan , February 10, 2018 at 7:12 pm
Yet another "analysis " of russia-gate without mentioning organized crime. The trump
cronies are mobbed up from top to bottom, and the right is shocked they would be looked at by
the FBI. Talk about snookered. Then the author, denigrates FISA, blames liberals, but doesn't
mention the lockstep GOP vote to continue it, or, the majority of dems who opposed .check
your own cognitive dissonance at the door before you sit to "write" again.
No reason for foul language, doesn't enlighten just plays into the already coarse society
we have. Colleen Rowley in the past has written on Mueller's harmful coverups of FBI behavior
including 9/11 collusion with Bush to ignore Saudi complicity, if I remember correctly.
Yoshi Shimizu , February 10, 2018 at 7:34 pm
Nuts' indeed. Before raising the temperature over the Russiagate, first. Shave off the
Pentagon budget!
"... But not only did Rosenstein discuss with Trump the firing of Comey, he went back to Justice to produce the document to justify what the president had decided to do. ..."
"... How can Rosenstein oversee Mueller's investigation into the firing of James Comey when he was a witness to and a participant in the firing of James Comey? ..."
The most plausible hypothesis is that Steele was simply telling Fusion and the DNC what they wanted to hear to collect the money.
When you go on a witch hunt you're going to find witches.
From the Nunes memo, there was, at the highest level of the FBI, a cabal determined to derail Trump and elect Clinton. Heading
the cabal was Comey, who made the call to exonerate Hillary of criminal charges for imperiling national security secrets, even before
his own FBI investigation was concluded.
Assisting Comey was Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, whose wife, running for a Virginia state senate seat, received a windfall of
$467,000 in contributions from Clinton bundler Terry McAuliffe.
Last week, McCabe was discharged from the FBI. Seems that in late September 2016, he learned from his New York field office that
it was sitting on a trove of emails between Anthony Weiner and his wife, Clinton aide Huma Abedin, which potentially contained security
secrets.
Not until late October did Comey inform Congress of what deputy McCabe had known a month earlier.
Other FBI plotters were Peter Strzok, chief investigator in both the Clinton email server scandal and Russiagate, and his FBI
girlfriend, Lisa Page. Both were ousted from the Mueller investigation when their anti-Trump bias and behavior were exposed last
summer.
Filling out the starting five was Bruce Ohr, associate deputy attorney general under Loretta Lynch. In 2016, Ohr's wife was working
for Fusion GPS, the oppo research arm of the Clinton campaign, and Bruce was in direct contact with Steele.
Now virtually all of this went down before Robert Mueller was named special counsel. But the poisoned roots of the Russiagate
investigation and the bristling hostility of the investigators to Trump must cast a cloud of suspicion over whatever charges Mueller
will bring.
Now another head may be about to fall, that of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.
If Mueller has given up trying to prove Trump collusion with the Kremlin and moved on to obstruction of justice charges, Rosenstein
moves into the crosshairs.
For the heart of any obstruction scenario is Trump's firing of James Comey and his boasting about why he did it.
But not only did Rosenstein discuss with Trump the firing of Comey, he went back to Justice to produce the document to justify
what the president had decided to do.
How can Rosenstein oversee Mueller's investigation into the firing of James Comey when he was a witness to and a participant in
the firing of James Comey?
The Roman poet Juvenal's question comes to mind. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who will watch the watchmen?
Consider where we are. Mueller is investigating alleged Trump collusion with Russia, and the White House is all lawyered up.
The House intel committee is investigating Clinton-FBI collusion to defeat Trump and break his presidency. FBI Inspector General
Michael Horowitz is looking into whether the fix was in to give Hillary a pass in the probe of her email server.
Comey has been fired, his deputy McCabe removed, his chief investigator Strzok ousted by Mueller for bigoted anti-Trump behavior,
alongside his FBI paramour, Page. Bruce Ohr has been demoted for colluding with Steele, who was caught lying to the FBI and fired,
and for his wife's role in Fusion GPS, which was being paid to dig up dirt on Trump for Clinton's campaign
If Americans are losing confidence in the FBI, whose fault is that? Is there not evidence that a hubristic cadre at the apex of
the FBI -- Comey, McCabe, Strzok foremost among them -- decided the Republic must be saved from Trump and, should Hillary fail, they
would step in and move to abort the Trump presidency at birth?
To the deep state, the higher interests of the American people almost always coincide with their own.
a hubristic cadre at the apex of the FBI -- Comey, McCabe, Strzok foremost among them -- decided the Republic must be saved
from Trump and, should Hillary fail, they would step in and move to abort the Trump presidency at birth?
Beautifully written article Mr. Buchanan
To the deep state, the higher interests of the American people almost always coincide with their own.
What it always looks like to me, is that the interests of the deep state never coincide with the actual interests of
the American people, and that indeed, they are mutually incompatible.
It seems to me that one of, if not the main motivation of the deep state is to dismantle the American people's Constitutional
rights, disarm then, and set about creating an Orwellian dystopia for the purpose of exerting total power over them.
Who doubts that Hillary's very grotesque existence is one big collective desire of a certain bent of people to wield total
power over others? Why else would she publically cackle at the torture/murder of a man she disliked unless she figured her audience
agreed that his murder was a good thing, and that once she came to power, that she's really get to the business of putting it
to those deplorables but good! Not for anything they ever did, but for what they were – irredeemable.
In fact, I see the deep state today as an exact incarnation of Orwell's Ingsoc, with it's total surveillance police state,
and all the other tyrannical state power abuses over every aspect of our lives. (Even with the ubiquitous televisions with the
microphones and cameras monitored by the Ministry of Love)
we have the Newspeak speech codes on our universities. The places where our young and brightest are supposed to be taught to
think, and they're doing the opposite- by creating mindless drones who parrot doubleplus good PC bromides.
we have the Eternal Wars
we have the ((inner party))
we have the two minute hate for the Hitler du jour, (Osama, Saddam, Gadhafi, Assad, now Putin )
we have the Ministry of Truth = msm fake news 24/7 lies and more lies
we have the Ministry of Love = Gitmo
we have the all pervasive fear that governs our conversations and alters our behavior. How many dare to discuss the
inner party at dinner parties or at work? How many dare to flout the speech codes?
1984 was the most prescient book ever written, with a nod to The Protocols, as runner up. And the deep state today is nothing
more than what Orwell was writing about. Men and women who seek power for its own sake. And have a deep-seated imperative to wield
that power over others.
That's what the memo is about. Power-crazed assholes hell bent on putting their boot on our collective faces. And mashing it
in.
who doubts, for one second, that John Brenan
(or Hillary or John McCain ) would relish the opportunity to put the metaphorical 'deplorable' in this chair?
for some reason, when I look at that photo, (a peek into the id of the deep state personality) I see Ron Paul in that chair,
with Rudy Giuliani standing there, but it could just as easily be Edward Snowden in the chair, with Dick Cheney presiding..
But the reason I'm belaboring this Orwellian theme is because it is quintessentially salient to this subject of the deep state.
George really laid it all out for us, with the motivations and methods and thoughtcrimes and doublethink and all the rest
"George really laid it all out for us, with the motivations and methods and thoughtcrimes and doublethink and all the rest
"
True enough, but it was Huxley who nailed the underlying theme that made it all possible; the people will trade all of their
other rights for complete sexual freedom.
Orwell's 1984 was an exposition of Totalitarianism, with the Inner Party using these mechanisms because they work. Like you
say, the whole package is now present in the US, although the Inner Party doesn't yet have sufficient power to use full state
violence against the public.
But at some point they'll have to , since the system is based on the implicit threat of violence against dissidents, and it
has to become explicit (social exclusion is not enough). So, realistically, the cabal needs a National Emergency with an official
suspension of Democracy, probably using the framework for emergency rule already in place under Reagan era COG (Continuity of
Government) legislation.
The 9/11 Coup was a failed attempt to activate a COG dictatorship under Cheney (halted by the events in Florida that morning),
but the same planners will inevitably try again. Their private security depends on public insecurity, allowing them to turn the
mechanisms of state power against the public, while paradoxically, they live by the integrity of this same hijacked state structure.
If the state should melt away in generalized anarchy, then the levers of power would no longer work, and they would face the
fate of Ceausescu or Gaddafi – hence the deceptive Doublespeak of the "Patriot Act" and "Homeland Security".
I'm not following this story much because it's boring but I will always be a fan of Nunes by the enemies he keeps. Ana Navarro,
the 'Latina' battle-axe who is a 'Never Trump' 'Republitard' was on TV and made sure to let everybody know that Nunes was not
an Hispanic. He's of Portugese decent, racial politics. LOL Devin Nunes is ok in my book. Hopefully he's not an Israeli firster.
Your information is wrong as always, Corvinky. The leftist "Russian collusion" narrative is collapsing and (((Seth))) and other
lefties are desperate to keep it alive with spin and fake facts. That's why it's quietly changed from claims of collusion to obstruction
of justice since there's no evidence of the former.
If there was other corroborating evidence then why absolutely no mention of it until now? If the (((lamestream media))) knew
and sat on it then they are colluding with the Democrat party on how and what to report which we already know they do. And it
proves that the (((media)) is hyper partisan and not independent but anyone with half a brain already knows that also.
If there was really any evidence of Trump collusion the NSA would have it, but they don't. In fact, it was the NSA that threatened
to spill the beans on the origins of the Steele dossier if the FBI and DOJ failed did not come clean to the FISA court.
San Diego County Sheriff Bill Gore. "Science is our best witness in this case. It is not biased and it doesn't lie."
According to police, Zahau bound her own hands and feet with a thick red rope and hanged herself naked off the second-floor
balcony of a guest bedroom. She appeared to have secured one section of the rope to the footboard of the bed before she bound
her feet, wrapped the rope around her neck, tied her hands behind her back, walked to the balcony, and propelled herself over
the railing.
indeed, I suspect that it is because they so often get away with such things that this mega-wealthy Hollywood insider figured
he'd also get away with it.
"Well, then," he said to the police, "I guess you'll have to find out who did it."
Doesn't work that way in a criminal investigation. Man, you really have little clue how our legal system works.
Obviously, you don't either. As someone who was against the Clinton witch hunt that created a perjury trap when they couldn't
get him on real charges related to Whitewater, I can see perfectly well that this is similar – drag this on and on until they
can create some process crime.
There's now a mountain of evidence that shows that they are lying, and the only way for US society to stabilize, is to pull
every thread of the 9/11 shroud until the whole rotten enterprise is revealed, and the US public can see the plotters in daylight.
[Robert] Mueller took over the FBI one week before the 9/11 attacks
His protestations helped the Bush administration railroad the Patriot Act through Congress, vastly expanding the FBI's prerogatives
to vacuum up Americans' personal information
whoever pulls down the "Democratic" facade will be doing the US a favour.
not just the US. They'll be doing the whole planet a favor. 9/11 has been the pretext for serial wars of aggression against
nations that have done us no harm. It has been used as the pretext for the total police / surveillance state that has eviscerated
our constitution, and rendered it a worthless piece of toilet paper, all to the bovine cud-chewing apathy of the dumbed down Americanus
Bovinus. Who can't wait for the next Hollywood movie based on cartoon characters to come out on the big screen.
I was poised to leave this country if Hillary became potus, and still wonder if there's any hope at all.
These psychopaths are as bad as they get. These Straussian neocons and tribalist Jewish supremacists are bad news, man. Very,
very bad news. They're ideologically driven by a Satanic imperative to dominate, and they will never, ever stop. Until
they are stopped. And that would require a resolve that the Americanus Bovinus is endemically incapable of, because it necessitates
a spiritual mettle that's been systematically bred out of them.
They'd rather embrace their smart device chains, than suffer the egregious enormity of breaking a societal taboo or politically
correct norm. And this has all been very systematically constructed with schools that dumb them down, and universities that create
slavish fealty to virtue signaling uber alles.
It's all so very tragic, because for one thing, these people had it made! They're the most wealthy and powerful demographic
in the country. They enjoy assess and perks wildly out of proportion to their fellow Americans. But that is not enough! Then want
that boot on everyone's neck and they want it now, God damn it!
So the world is driven to the brink to sate an insatiable appetite for grandiose megalomaniacal power. And once they have the
power, what fun is that unless you use it?
George Soros doesn't want his son to see the fall of Europa and Western civilization, HE wants to see it! He wants to cackle
like Hillary was able to over the murder of Gadhafi, only he want the stake though the heart of Hungary in particular.
It's this psychotic need of these people to see everyone else suffer, while they laugh at the misery, knowing that they caused
it all. Whether it's in Palestine or Libya or Ferguson. Hate all day long, and with a bottomless pit of rancor and bile tossed
in for good measure.
Hell, when I contemplate them and their obsession to hate, all day, every day, I almost feel pity. Almost.
hatred of Trump is such that a huge slice of the country would support his removal by extralegal, unconstitutional means.
This is bigger than Watergate, a conspiracy at the highest levels, and before it's over, will decide the fate of the nation.
I just hope Trump is up to the task.
I very much agree.
I know of liberals who're despondent, and nearly catatonic over Trump. I've heard it said they're psychologically in the fetal
position, unable to cope with the ascendancy of Les Deplorables. Or, more precisely, the altering trajectory that doesn't have
a demographic dagger being plunged into the necks of 'the irredeemables' and their children as we speak.
They've been so rapturous over the looming evisceration of heritage America for so long, that having to wait a few more extra
years until that glorious day when the 'patriarchy' is dead and in its grave- is existential for them. Of course! they'd subvert
our 'democracy' and Constitution and all notions of decency in their butt-hurt quest, since they've never had a shred of integrity
to begin with. They don't even know what the word means, except as something to mock.
I wonder why when I replace Mueller with Starr in your post I seem to get the same conclusion?
However, I will give you this, Mueller is a POS protecting the Deep State against somebody he deems not worthy of a seat at
the table. Starr was a sanctimonious POS thinking he was leading a crusade to keep an uncouth lowbrow sleazeball out of an exalted
position.
However, I would suggest that some in the cabal have understood, all along, that in order for their dreams and plans to materialize,
there would have to be a Long March through the institutions and while they were conquering the institutions, the masses would
have to be given their breads and circuses.
A fellow traveler of our cause once said to me, words to the effect that, "they'll let you go on your football trips, and they'll
let the drunks enjoy their Budweiser, and of course they'll let people go to the movies and out to dinner."
"... Only two ways in which Trump candidacy could be destroyed once he was nominated. Official: Trump is charged with conspiring with a foreign government to materially damage America. Public: Trump is maligned as being an tool of the Russians. ..."
"... Official is unlikely as no evidence to date has any chance of being used for an indictment. Not saying that the charges are false just that what was released prior to election was insufficient. ..."
"... Public: most likely avenue. But the details released were not impressive or determinative to the majority of Trump supporters who I see as being more anti-establishment than anti-Russian. True, you could expect the GOP elite to be disturbed but they were anti-Trump before his nomination and wedded to him after. ..."
Addendum: can we all agree that if the STEELE intel was a genuine attempt to ensure
Trump's failure in the election then the effort was the most inept operation in a long
time?
Only two ways in which Trump candidacy could be destroyed once he was nominated.
Official: Trump is charged with conspiring with a foreign government to materially damage
America. Public: Trump is maligned as being an tool of the Russians.
Official is unlikely as no evidence to date has any chance of being used for an
indictment. Not saying that the charges are false just that what was released prior to
election was insufficient.
Public: most likely avenue. But the details released were not impressive or
determinative to the majority of Trump supporters who I see as being more anti-establishment
than anti-Russian. True, you could expect the GOP elite to be disturbed but they were
anti-Trump before his nomination and wedded to him after.
But the "assessment" served a useful purpose for the never-Trumpers: it applied an official
imprimatur on the case for delegitimizing Trump's election and even raised the long-shot hope
that the Electoral College might reverse the outcome and possibly install a compromise
candidate, such as former Secretary of State Colin Powell, in the White House. Though the
Powell ploy fizzled, the hope of somehow removing Trump from office continued to bubble, fueled
by the growing hysteria around Russia-gate.
Virtually all skepticism about the evidence-free "assessment" was banned. For months, the
Times and other newspapers of record repeated the lie that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies
had concurred in the conclusion about the Russian "hack." Even when that falsehood
was belatedly acknowledged , the major news outlets just shifted the phrasing slightly to
say that U.S. intelligence agencies had reached the Russian "hack" conclusion. Shane's blunt
initial recognition about the lack of proof disappeared from the mainstream media's approved
narrative of Russia-gate.
Doubts about the Russian "hack" or dissident suggestions that what we were witnessing
was a "soft coup" were scoffed at by leading media commentators. Other warnings from
veteran U.S. intelligence professionals about the weaknesses of
the Russia-gate narrative and the danger of letting politicized intelligence overturn a
constitutional election were also brushed aside in pursuit of the goal of removing Trump from
the White House.
It didn't even seem to matter when new Russia-gate
disclosures conflicted with the original
narrative that Putin had somehow set Trump up as a Manchurian candidate. All normal
journalistic skepticism was jettisoned. It was as if the Russia-gate advocates started with the
conclusion that Trump must go and then made the facts fit into that mold, but anyone who noted
the violations of normal investigative procedures was dismissed as a "Trump enabler" or a
"Moscow stooge."
The Text Evidence
But then came the FBI text messages, providing documentary evivdence that key FBI officials
involved in the Russia-gate investigation were indeed deeply biased and out to get Trump,
adding hard proof to Trump's longstanding lament that he was the subject of a "witch hunt."
"... Here's the real deal: FISA, the notion of what is essentially a Federal secret police force, most of our post-9-11 infrastructure and our pathetic lack of regulation of information technology has been a problem built by both parties for decades. ..."
We know that FISA knew the dossier was politically motivated and unconfirmed. Even Nunes
acknowledges this . now.
And this is the issue, and the irony of this article. 'Wasn't it nice before journalists
stopped reporting and pushing narratives?' Yes, it was narrative pusher.
Here's the real deal: FISA, the notion of what is essentially a Federal secret police
force, most of our post-9-11 infrastructure and our pathetic lack of regulation of
information technology has been a problem built by both parties for decades. I find it
literally impossible that the most scandal free 'weak kneed' administration was doing
anything other than business as usual in this increasingly dystopian context .
. but now here comes the GOP to try to turn this in to a partisan weapon, and journalists
like you to help them do it increasing division over an issue that should be the people
versus the elites into democrats versus republicans.
And, frankly that was so blatantly the intent given the manner this whole thing has been
handled that only a true hack wouldn't note it in the context of an article like this.
But here's the thing I think deep down you are just too blind to acknowledge that all this
security apparatus, tough on terror,
'freedom-isn't-free-but-I'll-sell-it-for-a-security-from-attacks-less-likely-than-lightning-strikes'
cowardice is the problem.
OF COURSE FISA'S BEING ABUSED (along with the whole intelligence apparatus) it was custom
designed by decades of elites to be so!
What fits the facts more? That the FBI simultaneously conspired to help, and then hurt the
Clinton campaign, all the while saying that they are all just doing their jobs .
Or
That they were just doing their jobs, and this kind of stuff happens all the time.
Wow, the fact that they are talking about talking points to Comey to brief Obama is the big cookie. Obama's legacy is destroyed
completely.
That implements Comey and Obama as traitors. Why does Comey keep tweeting shit? Dude should be lawyering up and perhaps thinking
about getting out of the country.
Hey, Dems? Do we have a Constitutional Crisis yet? LOL at these fuckers.
The best defense is a strong offense. For Comey this worked for a while but I think those days are over. If he was smart he
would lawyer up and shut the fuck up.
Clinton emails found on September 28 and Comey didn't know until October 28, who believes that load of crap.
As soon as I heard in 2007 that the NY Times couldn't find anyone at Columbia who knew Obama,I knew something was up.Columbia
seems to be the default college for frauds with Van Doren,"Dr."Bob Harris,and Meadow Soprano.
. . .yeah and I recall the professor of Political Science who said: never saw him and I knew EVERY student who studied Poli-sci.
It is impossible that I would not have known him. -- or words to that effect.
Lisa Page wrote her lover Peter Strzok about the Clinton probe: Obama 'wants to know everything we're doing'
Obama had said he could 'guarantee' he wouldn't interfere and there would be 'no political influence' in the FBI investigation
The September 2, 2016 text message was among more 50,000 texts the pair sent during a two-year extramarital affair
Page was an FBI lawyer, and Strzok was a leading investigator on both the Clinton probe and the more recent Trump-Russia investigation
Strzok, though expected to be nonpartisan, also called Trump 'a f***ing idiot' and texted Page about a cryptic 'insurance
policy' against a Trump presidency
'NEW FBI TEXTS ARE BOMBSHELLS!' President Trump tweeted on Wednesday
An FBI lawyer wrote in a text to her lover in late 2016 that then-president
Barack Obama wanted updates on the
Hillary Clinton email investigation.
Two months before the presidential election, Lisa Page wrote to fellow FBI official Peter Strzok that she was working on a memo
for then-FBI director James Comey because Obama 'wants to know everything we're doing.'
Obama had said five months earlier during a Fox News Channel interview that he could 'guarantee' he wouldn't interfere with that
investigation.
'I do not talk to the attorney general about pending investigations. I do not talk to FBI directors about pending investigations.
We have a strict line,' he said on April 10, 2016.
'I guarantee it. I guarantee that there is no political influence in any investigation conducted by the Justice Department or
the FBI, not just in this case but in any case. Full stop. Period,' he said.' --> --> -->
The September 2, 2016 text message was among more 50,000 texts the pair sent during a two-year extramarital affair.
Fox News was first to report on the latest batch, which is to be released by Republicans on the Senate Homeland Security Committee.
The committee members will soon publish a report titled 'The Clinton Email Scandal and the FBI's Investigation of it.'
President Donald Trump tweeted on Wednesday: 'NEW FBI TEXTS ARE BOMBSHELLS!'
Comey testified to Congress in June 2017: 'As FBI director I interacted with President Obama. I spoke only twice in three years,
and didn't document it.'
He didn't address possible memos or other written reports he may have sent to the Obama White House.
But Comey did document his 2017 meetings with President Donald Trump, he said, because he feared Trump would interfere with the
Russia probe.
Strzok was the lead investigator on the probe examining Clinton's illicit use of a private email server to handle her official
State Department messages while she was America's top diplomat.
He was later a member of special counsel Robert Mueller's team investigating alleged links betwen Donald Trump's presidential
campaign and Russia.
Comey was to give Obama an update on the Clinton email investigation before the 2016 election, according to Page; he testified
before Congress in 2017 that he only spoke to Obama twice as FBI director – but didn't mention whether he had sent him written reports
Comey announced in July 2016 that he had cleared Clinton of criminal wrongdoing in the email probe, saying that 'we did not find
clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information.'
On October 28, 2016, Comey said in a letter to Congress that the FBI was reviewing new emails related to Clinton's tenure as secretary
of State.
That revelation threw the presidential election into chaos.
On November 6, 2016, Comey told lawmakers that a review of those newly discovered emails had not altered the agency's view that
Clinton should not face criminal charges.
The text messages between Page and Strzok that emerged earlier showed their hatred for Donald Trump.
In August 2016 Strzok wrote to her that he wanted to believe 'that there's no way he gets elected -- but I'm afraid we can't take
that risk. It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40.' --> --> -->
It's unclear what that 'insurance policy' was, but the Justice Department was at the time debating an approach to a federal court
for a surveillance warrant against Trump adviser Carter Page.
Strzok was elevated to overseeing the Trump Russia probe a month earlier.
In a text sent on October 20, 2016, Strzok called the Republican presidential nominee a 'f***ing idiot.'
On Election Day, Page wrote to him: 'OMG THIS IS F***ING TERRIFYING.'
Strzok replied, 'Omg, I am so depressed.'
Five days later, Page texted him again: 'I bought all the president's men. Figure I need to brush up on watergate.'
Why do you dummies believe this junk? ...because Hannity said so?
The "memo" is an altogether ridiculous idea, it's just a piece of
paper of what all these liars thought about something,....it has no
weight on anything anymore than if someone came on tv and gave their
opinion..........and in this case it's just the opinion, like all the
rest, of an incompetent group of people that have no business being
in their positions.
This isn't the usual Dems' vs Repuplican stuff
where they fight about issues ........ this is our government taken
over by reality tv personalities, rich housewives and greedy leeches
of the worst kind.
They're the dummy at the McDonalds counter that
can't understand your order and should all be working some harmless
minimum wage job where they aren't responsible for anything important
or that requires any sort of intellect.
Why do you, dummy, not believe this junk? ...because Don Lemon
and Rachel Maddow said so?
The "memo" is an altogether review
of the evidence at hand that uses what has been derived from
evidence found much through the Inspector General's report and
the testimony from witnesses (that means documented in
writing), both in the House and Senate, plus what has been
released by the DOJ and FBI through both lawsuits and
Congressional requests... Again, it's all documented and
irrefutable.
The dem memo is just a piece of paper of what all
these dem liars thought about something,....it has no weight on
anything anymore than if someone came on tv and gave their
opinion..........and in this case it's just the opinion, like
all the rest, of an incompetent group of people that have no
business being in their positions in the dem party and the left
leaning dem carrier pigeons in the MSM.
This isn't the usual
Dems' vs Repuplican stuff where they fight about issues
........ this is the democrat party desparately trying to block
EVERYTHING because they fully realize what the outcome will be
if all id disclosed.
It will be the end of their party for
decades (similar to republicans during Watergate - I was in DC
then and I know). The dem sycophants like you are the dummy at
the McDonalds counter that can't understand your order and
should all be working some harmless minimum wage job where they
aren't responsible for anything important or that requires any
sort of intellect.
"... Trump doesn't wear the pretty face mask that most recent Presidents had. In that, he is showing that the Emperor has no clothes (and the Empire no morals). This could be a good thing as people realize the one truth he campaigned on – "the system is rigged" is still true. But this Administration's faux "war" with the Establishment is serving to blind many from the reality that it is continuing and even expanding the horrible NeoCon foreign policies and Neoliberal economic policies that the Establishment desires. ..."
"... This Reality TV Show Presidency is sweeping up most USAmericans. Like all Reality TV Shows, we in the audience cheer our favorites and jeer their opponents as if it was real, and not a fully-scripted performance. ..."
"... I feel your pain cmp thank you for your post. For you and others interested in this combination of Student Anti-War activism and Government Surveillance, I'd like to recommend a truly insightful book entitled, "Subversives": The FBI's War On Student Radicals, and Reagan's Rise To Power by Seth Rosenfeld. Matt Taibbi remarked in a review of this book which now seems understated, that "Domestic intelligence forces will tend to use all the powers they're given (and even some that they're not) to spy on people who are politically defenseless, irreverent from a security standpoint and targeted for all the wrong reasons". ..."
"... "Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley's push to force the DOJ to open a criminal investigation into ex-British spy and 'Trump dossier' author Christopher Steele is being met with resistance from the bureau, the latest sign that it doesn't want information about its relationship with Steele to be shared with the public." ..."
'Deep State' Veterans find New Homes in Mainstream Media February 5, 2018
NBC News' hiring of former CIA Director John Brennan is the latest in a wave of intelligence
community stalwarts being given jobs in the media, raising concerns over conflicts of
interests, reports Caitlin Johnstone.
"Former CIA director John Brennan has become the latest member of the NBC News and MSNBC
family, officially signing with the network as a contributor," chirps a recent
article by The Wrap, as though that's a perfectly normal thing to have to write and not a
ghastly symptom of an Orwellian dystopia. NBC reports that the former head of
the depraved ,
lying, torturing ,
propagandizing , drug
trafficking , coup-staging , warmongering Central
Intelligence Agency "is now a senior national security and intelligence analyst."
Brennan, who
played a key role in the construction of the establishment's Russia narrative that has been
used to manufacture public consent for
world-threatening new cold war escalations , is just the latest addition in an ongoing trend
of trusted mainstream media outlets being packed to the gills with stalwarts from the U.S.
intelligence community. Brennan joins CIA and DoD Chief of Staff Jeremy Bash on the NBC/MSNBC lineup, who is
serving there as a national security analyst, as well as NBC intelligence/national security
reporter and known
CIA collaborator Ken Dilanian.
Former CIA analyst and now paid CNN analyst Phil Mudd, who
last year caused Cuomo's show to have to issue a retraction and apology for a
completely baseless claim he made on national television asserting that
WikiLeaks' Julian Assange is "a pedophile", is once again
making headlines for suggesting that the FBI is entering into a showdown with the current
administration over Trump's decision to declassify the controversial Nunes memo.
More and more of the outlets from which Americans get their information are being filled not
just with garden variety establishment loyalists, but with longstanding members of the U.S.
intelligence community. These men got to their positions of power within these deeply
sociopathic institutions based on their willingness to facilitate any depravity in order to
advance the secret agendas of the U.S. power establishment, and now they're being paraded in
front of mainstream Americans on cable news on a daily basis. The words of these "experts" are
consistently
taken and
reported on by smaller news outlets in print and online media in a way that seeds their
authoritative assertions throughout public consciousness.
The term "deep state" does not refer to a conspiracy theory but to a simple concept in
political analysis which points to the undeniable reality that (A) plutocrats, (B) intelligence
agencies, (C) defense agencies, and (D) the mainstream media hold large amounts of power in
America despite their not being part of its elected government. You don't need to look far to
see how these separate groups overlap and collaborate to advance their own agendas in various
ways. Amazon's Jeff Bezos, for example, is deeply involved in
all of the aforementioned groups : (A) as arguably the wealthiest
person ever he is clearly a plutocrat, with a company that is
trying to control the underlying infrastructure of the economy ; (B) he is a CIA contractor ; (C) he is part of a
Pentagon advisory board ; and (D) his
purchase of the Washington Post in 2013 gave him total control over a major mainstream
media outlet.
Bezos did not purchase the Washington Post because his avaricious brain predicted
that newspapers were about to make a profitable resurgence; he purchased it for the same reason
he has inserted himself so very deeply into America's unelected power infrastructure – he
wants to ensure a solid foundation for the empire he is building. He needs a potent propaganda
outlet to manufacture support for the power establishment that he is weaving his plutocratic
tentacles through. This is precisely the same reason other mass media-controlling
plutocrats are stocking their propaganda machines with intelligence community insiders.
Time and again you see connections between the plutocratic class which effectively
owns America's elected
government , the intelligence and defense agencies which operate behind thick veils of
secrecy in the name of "national security" to advance agendas which have nothing to do with the
wishes of the electorate, and the mass media machine which is used to manufacture the consent of the people to be
governed by this exploitative power structure.
America is ruled by an elite class which has slowly created a system where money
increasingly
translates directly into political power , and which is therefore motivated to maintain
economic injustice in order to rule over the masses more completely. The greater the economic
inequality, the greater their power. Nobody would willingly consent to such an oppressive
system where wealth inequality keeps growing as expensive bombs from expensive drones are
showered upon strangers on the other side of the planet, so a robust propaganda machine is
needed.
And that's where John Brennan's new job comes in. Expect a consistent fountain of lies to
pour from his mouth on NBC, and expect them to all prop up this exploitative power
establishment and advance its
geopolitical agendas . And expect clear-eyed rebels everywhere to keep calling it all what
it is.
Yeah, I noticed this too and it disgusts me. It doesn't surprise me, though. Ever since
Oliver North got his own show and has been a regular contributor at Fox News, this has been
the trend. CNN also gives plenty of Air Time to the disgraced John Dean of Watergate
Infamy.
It underscores how vital it is We The People take back The Media from the Corporate
Thieves who now own it. We need to reverse consolidation in the Media Industry and in fact,
reverse the trend of Media as an Industry.
Ol' Hippy , February 5, 2018 at 1:58 pm
There appears to be two types of media these days. The first type plays by the "rules" of
the corporate/banking/military state and gets prestigious jobs with all the perks, i.e. Nice
house, good salary, steady work, etc. The second type works independent from the power
structures. They have integrity; Robert Parry being a prime example. They also become media
pariahs. They work hard for less pay, get denigrated, marginalized, called liars, etc.
Without them we would all be as clueless as those that only read and watch MSM. Thank
goodness for these brave people.
They work hard for less pay, get denigrated, marginalized, called liars, etc. Without
them we would all be as clueless as those that only read and watch MSM. Thank goodness for
these brave people.
Yes, I agree. Thank goodness for the few of us who still remain and persist against all
odds with no support.
Joe Tedesky , February 5, 2018 at 10:48 am
The culture in DC being described recently as 'critters in the swamp', does not nearly
come close to describing the choking filth that has taken our government over. To be clear,
this coup toke place a very longtime ago, but don't announce that to any good red blooded
American Patriot, that is unless you want to be titled 'un-American'.
My hesitation to get excited over the 'Nunes Memo', is my frustration over what all is
missing from this Congressional members flaming Memo. Like where is Brennan, Clapper, or any
DNC Operatives, as if we should have expected the MSM to be mentioned? Why, just go after a
couple of cheating lovers?
Seeing Brennan join the NBC staff, is like watching him walk across the hall at Langley
only to start his mischief in another CIA department. I'd love to wish the old spook good
luck on his first day at his new job, but then that would be like condoning that pain be
inflicted upon more unsuspecting poor souls, so I won't.
Inserting guys like that into the center of the storm within the corporate media whose job
it *should* be to expose the truth to the public is clearly a conflict of interest (because
they themselves are prime suspects in the purported criminal activities) and obvious
obstruction of justice because we know they are actually snow-jobbing the public and hiding
the truth to protect themselves and their puppetmasters.
In all fairness, when does General Flynn, Paul Manafort, Carter Page or Jared Kushner get
to have a regular segment on the Rachel Maddow show? Why doesn't the media interview Barack
Obama himself to find out what he knows and when he first knew it, or to force him into
self-incriminating or at least highly-suspicious obfuscations? It was his justice department
that targeted the Trump campaign on highly problematic grounds. Or, put a microphone in front
of Hillary's face and ask her how the administration (of which she was an organic outgrowth)
interfaced with the FISA court, allegedly on her behalf to spy on the competition.
This caper is not only worse than Watergate (Watergate was conducted in the shadows), this
crime and subsequent cover-up are being carried out in broad daylight with the full
complicity of the media. They don't care who knows because those people, regardless of their
substantiated facts, will never get a hearing in the media which now creates our
moment-to-moment reality, as far as 99% of Americans know or care about.
Joe Tedesky , February 5, 2018 at 3:48 pm
Our MSM is lacking the honor and truthfulness of Robert Parry.
Realist, I always like reading your comments, and with this comment of yours you don't
disappoint. I too would like to know when the truth will be broadcast over our airways, and
printed in our national news outlets. Although, I could watch the grass grow, or the snow
melt, and have better results to jump up and down about, before the MSM will shoot straight
with us viewers. I have come to the conclusion that what hurts our nation most, is we have to
much corporate control, like our infamous corporate owned MSM. These pundits, and news
anchors only do what they do best, and that is they promote themselves. I mean, the omissions
of facts, and the over the top characterizations of world leaders and national political
opponents goes to the degree of slander, and yet life goes on. I know it would be an
impossible task, but wouldn't it be great to if we news junkies could sue the MSM for
fraud?
Realist , February 5, 2018 at 8:44 pm
I could have been more strident than I was, Joe. I might have called the FISA court
outright illegal and unconstitutional like Jimmy Dore did yesterday. I mean, what the hell is
its role in America today? It serves as a SECRET COURT which gives permissions to
intelligence agencies to SPY without limits on any American citizen they choose to target,
including, apparently, their supposed boss, the president of the United States. As if the
carte blanch, full spectrum eavesdropping done by DARPA on every American weren't enough of a
violation of our constitutional rights, they have to dress up some of their spying with
special judicial privilege. Useful tools like Brennan, Clapper, Mueller and Comey have been
justifying or fallaciously LYING about this imposition on our citizens for years now.
Remember when the KGB was disbanded and folks were publicly rooting through the files in a
carnival atmosphere after the Soviet Union collapsed? This country needs a dose of the same
thing. We need more of our freedoms back and less of the so-called "order" imposed by the
Deep State and its string pullers. I don't believe for a moment that the Russians, the
Chinese, ISIS, Al Queda, Kim Yung-Un, the Ayatollahs or a squadron of Klingon battle cruisers
are waiting just outside our borders preparing to attack the United States and we all must be
defended by the "Intelligence Community" by living like Winston Smith.
Joe Tedesky , February 5, 2018 at 9:57 pm
The U.S. is so shallow at even their attempting to address its citizens with the
appropriate truth, that after 50 years to prepare for the public more information on the JFK
Assassination that when the time come the government wasn't even ready for the release. What
an insult to the nation.
The purge you spoke of Realist is a dream in this purist eye. I really do welcome a much
broader investigation of panoramic proportions of our nation's massive bureaucracy, and the
discovery of the elements who only conspire to enact their agendas could then be exposed.
You are right about our freedoms. We Americans are in the end going to need to put our
foot down to our governments police state rules, and all of us will need to brave it out when
going into public places. (Oh boy what false flag bate) At some point it will be necessary to
say, enough is enough, and hopefully catch them while at their game. Joe
Ps that last part I doubt will ever happen.
Gregory Herr , February 6, 2018 at 12:52 am
I think you touched upon something really important referring to the "moment-to-moment
reality" that media "creates". A big problem with television "news" and the funny papers is
the failure to.contextualize what's going on today with related events or issues–even
from the relatively recent past. It's almost always about a myopic and usually distorted
focus on just one particularly vexing item that generates competing opinions that must be
paired and parsed to death–until there's something else to "talk" about. Yeah, yeah!
Pick a team–partisanship is entertaining don't ya know! Rachel's got ratings and
Hannity's one of us!
Just one for instance:
Obama relaxed constraints on sharing of NSA raw data as a parting blow to privacy that also
makes it easier to "leak" and cover up the leaking. He signed a Countering Disinformation and
Propaganda Act which essentially is a way for government to make it harder to "counter" their
disinformation and propaganda. Google and Facebook are are all in on the filter and censor
project. Yet with all this and much more there isn't a peep of a national discussion about
the First Amendment and the value of protecting free and diverse expression. Oh, I know why.
The Court says money is speech so all the "important" people can buy their freedom of
expression. Guess that will leave me out.
Bob Van Noy , February 5, 2018 at 11:16 am
Thank you Caitlin Johnstone!
I'm going to refer readers to an off-guardian article running now and specifically to the
comment pages where one can see Noam Chomsky's (as a young researcher) explain cointelpro.
This is an exceptional explination
Thanks, Caitlin. People need to learn more about Deep State and and also the One World
Order. There are lots of videos on the Internet, including some featuring former CIA
(whistleblower-type) agents who feel impelled to divulge the hidden government. Thanks for
your links, Bob. I'll take a look.
Erin , February 5, 2018 at 11:51 am
Don't watch, don't watch, don't watch!
Skip Scott , February 5, 2018 at 12:42 pm
Erin-
I agree. I think people need to turn off their TV sets. They are mind numbing. People like
Brennan belong in jail, not on television.
Nancy , February 5, 2018 at 2:24 pm
I don't think the majority of people are watching this crap anymore. It's mainly a bunch
of circle jerks mouthing off in an echo chamber. Problem is, the rest of the population is
either preoccupied with making a living or playing with their gadgets to find out what's
really going on. People seem to have given up on the idea of democracy, justice and fairness
and in a way I don't blame them.
It's kind of a curse to still have this notion that a better world is possible.
Good points. I agree. It's as though "The News" is intended for the Oligarchs and the
Political Class. The ads are a dead giveaway that's the target market. The products they are
selling are not for the Average Joe who can't afford such luxuries.
Bob Van Noy , February 5, 2018 at 12:00 pm
Now finally for the most adventurous of you I'll introduce you to a man I discovered in an
agonizingly slow way over the course of years. His name is Carl Oglesby and as a young worker
at a defense industry job he started doing research on the Vietnam War. He ultimately wrote a
book called "The Yankee and Cowboy Wars" that surprisingly accurately describes our current
condition. It is one of those books long out of print worth thousands of dollars in
resale.
I will post a link to Spartacus
Educational below but you can find it on your own..
I promise to now shut-up and listen
I saw that recent Mudd comment regarding President Trump = 13 months vs. Hoover Org. =
since 1908. The President needs to eliminate this agency. Then we can watch this asshole
cough up his spleen LIVE on t.v.! I guess these creatures have license to claim anything they
want and get away with it. His Assange accusation falls out of his mouth and gets repeated
endlessly. Then when the weak retraction occurs, it never gets the same press/traction and
the damage is already done.
Babyl-on , February 5, 2018 at 12:25 pm
Nothing particularly new here, this has been established practice for decades. What is new
about this issue and so many others now is that it is done openly, without any pretense that
there is a constitution. The Imperial institutions housed in the US now act openly for the
interests of an overarching transnational oligarchy.
Trump has destroyed the dominate narrative this is by far the deepest wound I have seen
the Empire receive. No one really believes Clapper any more – whether it is a plurality
or a majority is not the point, enough people don't believe them that the Empire has lost
control of the message. That is the source of their panic. Trotting out their apparatchiks
once worked and worked for decades but – "It's all over now baby blue."
Trump has exposed much of the ways things have been done behind the seines for many years
and unwittingly forced them into the open – this has been his biggest contribution to
the weakening of the Imperial structures. Leaving them naked in their policies of slaughter.
The Empire has nothing now but a huge military which it can't use without destroying
civilization so it goes around the world destroying countries and cities in its helpless
thrashing around slaughtering innocent people as it looses on every front. The last gasp of
Empire – kill them all if they will not submit. In its death throws the Empire will do
untold damage and create vast human suffering, it might very well destroy civilization with
its nuclear weapons rather that accept a place as one part of the human community not the
ruler of humanity.
Daniel , February 5, 2018 at 6:13 pm
Trump doesn't wear the pretty face mask that most recent Presidents had. In that, he is
showing that the Emperor has no clothes (and the Empire no morals). This could be a good
thing as people realize the one truth he campaigned on – "the system is rigged" is
still true. But this Administration's faux "war" with the Establishment is serving to blind many from
the reality that it is continuing and even expanding the horrible NeoCon foreign policies and
Neoliberal economic policies that the Establishment desires.
This Reality TV Show Presidency is sweeping up most USAmericans. Like all Reality TV
Shows, we in the audience cheer our favorites and jeer their opponents as if it was real, and
not a fully-scripted performance.
exiled off mainstreet , February 5, 2018 at 12:29 pm
Yankee media has degenerated into an echo chamber for the deep state structure. This is
just further proof of that salient fact.
No More Neos , February 5, 2018 at 1:35 pm
Maybe we should view this as a good sign that they need to "call in the National Guard"
for corporate media back-up reinforcements. The propaganda machine is sputtering and
sparking, overheated from working OT to push flimsy narrative, which only accentuates the
cartoonish spectacle of it all.
Neoliberalism rests on a fragile foundation of financial myths that are beginning to come
crashing down, aside from shooting itself in the foot in the 2008 crash. They had to admit
that:
Global banks are global in health and national in death. ~ Mervyn King
A growing number of economics students are demanding to be taught economic history and not
just neoclassical economics. Hayek, Friedman, Greenspan and the Apostles of Doublespeak in
the academic and corporate media realm have lost all credibility. Heterodox economists like
Steve Keen, Michael Hudson, Bill Mitchell and Stephanie Kelton are gaining popularity in
their blinders-off clarity of how the economy actually works, sans the political spin.
Even Russia and China have decided to not allow Monsanto to control the world's food
supply, have no desire to continue working with the IMF and World Bank and are wise enough to
see the futility in acquiescing to a unipolar world view. Ultimately, the US will be the
bigger loser by going it alone and not accepting the vast multipolar opportunities that
await, based on faulty principle. But that won't deter them from continuing provocations in
Ukraine, Venezuela (and other Latin American countries), etc., even though Western agenda's
neoliberal offerings are now considered to be an appalling joke internationally.
But this has been known for some time. It was just a matter of time before the "market
society" experiment crashed and burned:
"To allow the market mechanism to be the sole director of the fate of human beings and
their natural environment would result in the demolition of society." ~ Karl Polanyi,
1944
"In 1945 or 1950 if you had seriously proposed any of the ideas and policies in today's
standard neo-liberal toolkit, you would have been laughed off the stage or sent off to the
insane asylum." ~ Susan George
Do not confuse the economic -- oikos nomia -- the norms of running home and community with
chrematistics -- krema atos -- the accumulation of money. ~ Aristotle
Bob Van Noy , February 6, 2018 at 8:50 am
Many thanks No More Neos. I was unaware of most of what you wrote. I have noted the names
that you mentioned and I will pay more attention to them. I do know of Michael Hudson and
admire his work.
It has occurred to me that there will be Rich academic histories written about the
organized management of subject matter by TPTB. See my Response To cmp below.
Re, The Deep State and the "media."Do: "Birds of a feather produce propaganda
together?
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
December 25, 2015
Are the Corporate Media and Others Covering Up The Treachery of The War Criminals?
There is plenty of evidence that people in positions of power planned and plotted a number
of "illegal" wars [1] in "defiance of international law." Unfortunately, this information is
suppressed and censored in most of the corporate monopoly media. Instead we are fed
propaganda that attempts to disguise the truth, and covers up the massive human suffering
caused by the warmongering criminals of these 21st century war crimes. This has resulted in
the creation of millions of refugees, [1a] many soldiers dead and maimed, countries
destroyed, millions dead, children dead and contaminated, and the war criminals are FREE.
[2]
[read more at link below] http://graysinfo.blogspot.ca/2015/12/are-corporate-media-and-others-covering.html
Bob Van Noy , February 5, 2018 at 2:52 pm
Thank you Stephan J. Here is a link that you provided from a Robert Parry piece.
If one goes through the commentary, you will see that comments have always been decent,
informative and educational on this truly wonderful site.
Man oh man I miss Robert Parry and F. G. Sanford where are you?
(Caitlin Johnstone you're our new leader, and apparently another fine journalist. Thank
You)
This article by Caitlin just helps me to be glad that I never bought cable TV. I didn't
realize how many former government criminals/ex-officials populated their polluted networks.
Former head spook Mike Morell on CBS doesn't seem like an anomaly any more. The hens are
fattening the foxes guarding the air and cable waves. No wonder those with little time, due
to work and family matters, know so little about what's actually going on.
j. D. D. , February 5, 2018 at 2:25 pm
Looks like the Obama/British connected warmongering intel agents have decided to eliminate
the "middle-men" (and women) and go directly on record. Rachel, Chris, Jim and Wolfe, your
jobs are in jeopardy, Not to be left out, I expect that Comey, McCabe, Strzok, and perhaps
Mueller, are filling out their own applications right now.
, , February 5, 2018 at 2:45 pm
Johnstone tells it like it is. It's a pure pleasure to read her ripping out the guts of
the oligarchic monster creating our present deepening dystopia. Wouldn't it be nice if every
American could read her little piece, and think about what it says? Maybe I can get a few of
my friends to read it. You have to start somewhere to wake people up. If enough of us gently
encourage our friends to take a brief dip into reality, who knows what might come from
it?
Realist , February 5, 2018 at 2:48 pm
Mainstream liberal pundits used to talk like this, blasting the privileged insiders
"feeding at the trough" and such. Now they have become just a bunch of crybaby spoilers and
haters because their push for power via the Hildebeast movement came crashing down. If they
can't have it, they'd rather break it. They couldn't beat the warmongering neocons or the
rapacious neoliberals, so they joined 'em. They became what they always professed to
hate.
Their followers, being just mindless tribalists rather than the perspicacious philosophers
they are told they are, leap in lockstep over the precipice. They can never give you a
coherent or logical reason why, just vapid slogans usually diametrically at odds with any
real truth. All that matters to them is receiving daily affirmation from their fellow ranks
of sloganeering nincompoops. In their newfound McCarthyism they've morphed into the lost boys
from "Lord of the Flies" who went so far as to kill Piggy, Piggy's counterpart being Al
Franken and his career as a champion of liberal causes in the U.S. senate.
But, in a world where one can purportedly choose any identity one pleases with no basis in
reality, these self-immolations merely win accolades from the right-thinking media clerics as
society in general goes into a death spiral. Living the "theatre of the absurd" has become
the new "American way of life." Now, if we could just quickly get out of the way of the rest
of the world, things might turn out all right for the rest of humanity. Unfortunately,
they've designed an "app" to prevent that, it's called the MIC, and it's not user
friendly.
We are all victims of the pernicious 24/7 scientifically-designed propaganda apparatus. It
has little to do with the victim's intelligence since almost all human opinions are formed by
emotional reactions that occur even before the conscious mind registers the input.
Through critical thinking, we can overcome these emotional impulses, but only with effort,
and a pre-existing skepticism of all information sources. And even still, I have no doubt
that all of us who are aware of the propaganda still accept some falsehoods as true.
It could be that having former Intelligence Agency Directors as "news" presenters, and
Goldman Sachs alum and Military/Industrial complex CEOs running important government agencies
makes clear to some the reality that we live in an oligarchy with near-tyrannical powers. But
most people seem too busy surviving and/or being diverted by the circus to notice the depths
of the propaganda.
Chris , February 5, 2018 at 3:43 pm
"America is ruled by an elite class which has slowly created a system where money
increasingly translates directly into political power, and which is therefore motivated to
maintain economic injustice in order to rule over the masses more completely. The greater the
economic inequality, the greater their power. " This is backwards. The elite does not create
economic injustice to maintain and solidify their power for then there would have been no
French, Russian, Cuban, Chinese revolutions. The capitalist system leads to economic
injustice because it steals unpaid labour power from the working class and puts into the
hands of the capitalists. The reason they keep wages lower is to increase the rate of profit
not to keep power thought they try to hold on to the power to maintain that system. And the
more that inequality is produced the weaker they become because the working class then
realises it has nothing to lose and revolts. This is basic marxism which the writer seems to
be unaware of. The greater the economic inequality, the greater the distress of the working
class is and greater the motivation to change their condition.
backwardsevolution , February 5, 2018 at 4:01 pm
Chris – you are right, conditions must be favorable for any action to take place. It
is when the crowd gets a taste of fear that they move.
Daniel , February 5, 2018 at 7:02 pm
Cold, you may know that the original use of the term "American Exceptionalism" was
Stalin's description of how the USAmerican working classes seem incapable of revolting
against capitalist exploitation, no matter how egregious it becomes. We are "the exception"
to Marx's theories about the tipping points for revolutions.
cmp , February 5, 2018 at 4:20 pm
Just what does democracy look like to these cowards who sell prejudice, discrimination,
hate and violence?
Here is an example of how much they think of their (our) own kids, if they even dare to
speak to the teachers & preachers:
On May 2nd 1970, Governor James A. Rhodes (R-OH), says of student protesters at Kent State
University:
"They're worse than the brown shirts and the communist element and also the night riders and
the vigilantes. They're the worst kind of people we harbor in America. I think that we're up
against the strongest, well-trained, militant revolutionary group that has ever assembled in
America. We're going to eradicate the problem, we're not going to treat the symptoms." Two
days later, on May 4th, National Guardsmen kill four unarmed students on the Kent State
campus and wounded nine others.
~ Jim Hunt; 'They Said What?'; 9/1/ 2009
On May 5th 1970, Governor Ronald Reagan (R-CA) says of the efforts to stop student
protests on university campuses:
"If it takes a bloodbath, then let's get it over with.."
~ Jim Hunt; 'They Said What?'; 9/1/ 2009
.. And, 10 years later, in 1980, America elected who??
Who will the sellers offer up in 2024? Are we closing in on the end of the era of the
puppet?
Perhaps it will be a pro. (with media experience on the resume, to boot) .. A John
Brennan-ite?
If there is a hell, then certainly there must be a special spot reserved for those who are
the worst of the guru's in greed. But, in the meantime, for America's own good, maybe someday
soon, the International Community will close Guantanamo.. .. And, do all of the citizens of
the planet a great justice by reopening it in the middle of the Mohave Desert. These cowards
that corporatize & commercialize prejudice, discrimination, hate and violence, they can
be the honorary members. And since it is they who have long killed their conscience, then
maybe that desert heat will serve as a small reminder for what a little heat really feels
like.
Bob Van Noy , February 6, 2018 at 8:31 am
I feel your pain cmp thank you for your post. For you and others interested in this
combination of Student Anti-War activism and Government Surveillance, I'd like to recommend a
truly insightful book entitled, "Subversives": The FBI's War On Student Radicals, and
Reagan's Rise To Power by Seth Rosenfeld. Matt Taibbi remarked in a review of this book which
now seems understated, that "Domestic intelligence forces will tend to use all the powers
they're given (and even some that they're not) to spy on people who are politically
defenseless, irreverent from a security standpoint and targeted for all the wrong
reasons".
cmp , February 6, 2018 at 4:43 pm
Bob, "Thank You!" I have made a note to look for Lansdale, Carl Oglesby, and now Seth
Rosenfeld. All of this I know, will be such great reading for me!
I also sent you some follow up on the 28th. Did you receive those two? Would you like for
me to send them again?
I look forward to all of your posts – Keep up all of your great work Bob!
backwardsevolution , February 5, 2018 at 4:31 pm
Sean Hannity on Fox is doing a stellar job of exposing the Department of Justice, FBI, and
all of the other characters re the Steele dossier and Russiagate. Every night more
information is revealed; it's like a spy novel. None of the other outlets are even talking
about this stuff. Crickets. If you want the latest on criminality, go there. Meanwhile, Zero
Hedge says:
"Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley's push to force the DOJ to open a
criminal investigation into ex-British spy and 'Trump dossier' author Christopher Steele is
being met with resistance from the bureau, the latest sign that it doesn't want information
about its relationship with Steele to be shared with the public."
The Hillary Clinton campaign and the DNC had paid Steele for his dossier. But the FBI also
hired Steele, and just before they paid out $50,000.00 to Steele for his work, they
discovered he lied, didn't pay him, but still continued to spy on Trump and his team. With
Steele's dossier now discredited in the eyes of the FBI, they should have stopped their
spying, but they didn't. Russiagate has been based on this Steele dossier, and yet there was
"no there there", and the DOJ and the FBI knew it.
Zero Hedge goes on:
"Furthermore, a section on a second memo by Steele says he received information from the
State Department, which in turn got it from a foreign source who was in touch with 'a friend
of the Clintons.'
'It is troubling enough that the Clinton Campaign funded Mr. Steele's work, but that these
Clinton associates were contemporaneously feeding Mr. Steele allegations raises additional
concerns about his credibility,' Grassley and Graham wrote in their criminal referral."
So Steele was receiving information from the State Department and a friend of the
Clinton's? How impartial is that?
All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players;
They have their exits and their entrances,
And one man in his time plays many parts,
~ The Bard
The Reality TV Show Presidency has great ratings.
Do you think Nikki Haley got the red rose? Apparently Michael Wolf, the author of "Fire
and Fury," is backing down on that bit of salacious gossip "news."
backwardsevolution , February 6, 2018 at 4:39 pm
Daniel – and a line I like to quote from Shakespeare applies so well to the
Clinton's:
"Hell is empty, and all the devils are here."
backwardsevolution , February 5, 2018 at 4:36 pm
John Brennan – "By the pricking of my thumbs, something wicked this way comes." That
guy is evil, and nothing good will come of this.
Mark Thompson , February 5, 2018 at 8:13 pm
Really happy to see Caitlin writing on this forum. Keep up the good work Caitlin. You'll
never be short on material to write about. If what we're witnessing in this point in time is
any barometer, we're in for a world of hurt. Orwell is in his grave wishing he had two more
hands. He has to choose whether to cover his eyes or ears. What a sad state of affairs
Lois Gagnon , February 5, 2018 at 11:18 pm
It becomes more evident by the day that we live in a military dictatorship. One of the
incidents that brought this realization home to me was when John Kerry had negotiated a deal
with the Russians regarding military operations in Syria. The military took it upon
themselves to nullify that deal when it purposely attacked and killed 60 Syrian soldiers.
That was a clear case of insubordination that should have led to firings of the military
brass who ordered that strike. Instead, Obama just carried on as if nothing happened except
that the negotiated deal was null and void.
And of course the press said nothing about the blatant criminality of the military
action.
What president is willing to stand up to the military and the Department of Skullduggery
AKA the CIA anymore? Who is really calling the shots?
Thank you Caitlin! Good job! I especially like: "Nobody would willingly consent to such an
oppressive system where wealth inequality keeps growing as expensive bombs from expensive
drones are showered upon strangers on the other side of the planet, so a robust propaganda
machine is needed." I agree! NO ONE is "willfully ignorant". NO ONE chooses to be under the
influence of government mass mind control/propaganda. Mind control is something that is "done
to" people -- – whether the perpetrator is a psychopathic spouse or cult leader;
religious indoctrinator, military boot camp sargeant, and/or the voice of government control
of the media. Blaming victims of mind control for being mind controlled and therefore being
"willfully ignorant" is just another form of mind control used to discount the reality of
mind control.
"... You even had Eleanor Clift and Clarence Page on The McLaughlin Group emphatically stating that the Steele Dossier was 90% factual which is just repeating what Steele said just after the release of the dossier. The veracity has since tumbled as questions arose about the allegations and their sources. But, there is a Cabal that still hang their hopes on the "90%". ..."
"... Seriously, explain to me the difference between the two things. Trump may have sought out dirt on Hillary from Russia and Hillary may have sought out dirt on Trump from an former British spy. ..."
"... We will see what the other memo says but simply as speculation I think the chances are that Democrats probably would be better off cutting ties with Steele, GPS Fusion, Comey, Page, Ohr, Strzok, Lynch even and maybe more, than to parse out why this FISA warrant was not a bad idea. It really is never, ever too late to turn back, but the animus against Donald Trump is clouding a lot of otherwise clear thinking Democrats. "Yeah, that whole mess sure was a screw-up and now let's talk about how terrible Trump's immigration policies would be for the country." ..."
"... the Wall Street Journal calls "disturbing facts about how the FBI and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court appear to have been used to influence the 2016 election and its aftermath." ..."
"... When is somebody going to read United states vs Leon that stands for the rule of law that if a cop (fbi) knowingly or recklessly includes facts in an application for a warrant that the cop knows are false or recklessly includes, then the warrant is quashed and and all evidence is suppressed ..."
"... This whole thing stinks to high heaven. The left is deliberately trying to steer discussion away from the elephant in the room -- the FBI under Obama was no longer neutral but was being used as a political tool to undermine the opposition. This is a serious threat to our democratic process and cannot be taken lightly. Jeff Sessions needs to appoint a special counsel to investigate the Nunes Memo allegations. Rod Rosenstein, Robert Mueller and Christopher Wray all need to be suspended while the investigation is ongoing. ..."
"... The NYT and the [neo]liberal media in general have lost all their journalistic integrity in the way they've been covering up for all of Democrats' corruption and abuse of power the last two decades. The way they fawned over Obama was downright sickening. Watergate was billed as the greatest scandal ever because it was done by a Republican president. What Obama did not just with the 2016 election meddling but with covering for Clinton's Uranium One pay to play scheme was far, far worse. ..."
"... The people aren't as stupid as the liberal elites think we are. That's why the fake news media is losing their stranglehold on news as people turn to alternative news sources thanks to the internet. The Times can print whatever they want, they are only further discrediting themselves as a legitimate news source with each passing day. The delirious, foam at the mouth reader comments that they deemed fit to print just show how hysterical and out of touch the left have become. ..."
You even had Eleanor Clift and Clarence Page on The McLaughlin Group emphatically stating
that the Steele Dossier was 90% factual which is just repeating what Steele said just after
the release of the dossier. The veracity has since tumbled as questions arose about the
allegations and their sources. But, there is a Cabal that still hang their hopes on the
"90%".
ArtR: "You even had Eleanor Clift and Clarence Page on The McLaughlin Group emphatically
stating that the Steele Dossier was 90% factual which is just repeating what Steele said."
Yeah, I caught that doozy over the weekend. Clift, a so-called journalist, also claimed
that Steele and the dossier had been funded by the GOP, which is a false statement that's
still widely circulated, for no good reason.
Katy Tur, another so-called journalist, was calling Nunes "treasonous" on par with Snowden
before the memo release, and is now laughing about it after the fact. When the press acts
like that, not in the public interest but in defense of government secrecy, you can bet
something rotten is going on in the bureaucracy.
Add to that Senators Blumenthal and Booker claiming the release of this memo, and by
extension the public's right to know, would constitute "obstruction of justice" and
"treason", essentially repackaging claims by the intelligence agencies that the release would
jeopardize national security. And again, this was all before the memo release.
Why so much fear-mongering and lying? It suggests there's something to hide. But that
could describe Trump's behavior, too.
"That you CAN'T combine the two speaks of a deeper rot. The opposition researcher was working
with agents of the exact same country and they knew it."
This makes sense to me. I am and continue to be somewhat agnostic and bemused by this
whole russiagate thing. Without defending Trump, who I just assume is corrupt and surrounded
by corrupt people, it is more than a little hard to believe that Steele and the Clinton side
was entirely innocent. On the one hand we are supposed to be scared to death of the mighty
Russian propaganda machine and yet on the other hand people on the left don't stop and ask
whether someone sent to Russia to gather dirt on Trump might have had contact, witting or
not, with Russian intelligence. If they wanted to sow confusion, wouldn't they try to do it
on both sides? Wouldn't they know what Steele was up to? It wasn't like anyone thought Trump
had a good shot of winning, so why wouldn't they play both sides if they wanted to sow
confusion?
Personally, I don't give a crap about any of this. Much of the outrage, I think, is being
fueled by people who want a new Cold War with Russia. Russiagate, true or false, helps keep
the all important fear and loathing of Russia on the front page.
One side collaborating with an adversary nation (Russia) that harms our national interests
is a threat to national security.
The other side is hiring an opposition researcher.
The fact that you can combine the two and compare them speaks of deep the rot is."
Well, I'm not a conservative, so there's that. Second, Russia wasn't an adversary nation
up until about two seconds ago when Democrats suddenly needed a scapegoat for Hillary's
flame-out. Russia wasn't an adversary nation for nearly the entirety of 20th century while
they were being run by a series of despots, but now they're an adversary nation. I think it
was Obama who said, "The 80's called and they want their foreign policy back."
Seriously, explain to me the difference between the two things. Trump may have sought out
dirt on Hillary from Russia and Hillary may have sought out dirt on Trump from an former
British spy.
We will see what the other memo says but simply as speculation I think the chances are that
Democrats probably would be better off cutting ties with Steele, GPS Fusion, Comey, Page,
Ohr, Strzok, Lynch even and maybe more, than to parse out why this FISA warrant was not a
bad idea. It really is never, ever too late to turn back, but the animus against Donald Trump
is clouding a lot of otherwise clear thinking Democrats. "Yeah, that whole mess sure was a
screw-up and now let's talk about how terrible Trump's immigration policies would be for the
country."
1. All reporters, FBI agents, intel agents and
congressional investigators -- Dem and GOP are so incompetent that they can't find
"collusion" after nearly 20 months.
2. Trump is a master genius who has engineered the most
successful cover-up in US history -- keeping all direct evidence of collusion hidden. or
3.
Hillary hated Trump so much she paid for phony Russian dirt and then spread it to law
enforcement and media to ensure that there would not a repeat of Obama snatching the
Presidency away from her.
Since no evidence of collusion has shown up, #3 is most obvious. Of
course, Democrats think "evidence" is "Joe lied about the perfectly legal act of drinking
milk, so that means he must have stolen some milk." Actually, they don't care; any old lie
will do.
what the Wall Street Journal calls "disturbing facts about how the FBI and the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Court appear to have been used to influence the 2016 election and
its aftermath."
When is somebody going to read United states vs Leon that stands for the rule of law that if
a cop (fbi) knowingly or recklessly includes facts in an application for a warrant that the
cop knows are false or recklessly includes, then the warrant is quashed and and all evidence
is suppressed
The FBI should not be conducting political surveillance on opposition candidates in
national elections. If you want to talk about the real Putinization of America, that would be
it.
Further, the fact that the FBI was conducting political surveillance based on unvetted
opposition research which was so badly concocted even the media wouldn't run it for libel
fears, combined with a drunk quip, that is really pathetic.
On the other hand, Machiavelli noted something to the effect that the ends sometimes
justify the means, and its not clear that democracy dies in darkness, it dies in the kind of
anti-constitutional partisanship we are witnessing today, with the media in the Amen
corner.
"If the FBI obtained permission from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to monitor
Trump aide Carter Page based on information from the Christopher Steele dossier, that in
itself is a monumental scandal." If the FBI knew that the allegations of Steele's now-famous
dossier remained unverified and used them anyway, that would constitute an abuse of power and
an effort to manipulate the FISA court [..] what the Wall Street Journal calls "disturbing
facts about how the FBI and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court appear to have been
used to influence the 2016 election and its aftermath."
Dodgy "intel" stovepiped through "dodgy intelligence?
FBI discredited for unconstitutional searches?
FISA secret court revealed as abuse of government power?
This whole affair must be a cunning liberal plot to turn Republicans against
themselves
I will never understand what satisfaction any citizen could draw from the joys of being a
"partisan" of either collection of half-wits that make for our schizoid duopoly of political
"parties". Those "parties", thrown – always – at our expense, are a lot more
educational and even entertaining if you have no dog in this fight, given the inbreeding on
the two lousy, rapid dogs involved.
This whole thing stinks to high heaven. The left is deliberately trying to steer discussion
away from the elephant in the room -- the FBI under Obama was no longer neutral but was being
used as a political tool to undermine the opposition. This is a serious threat to our
democratic process and cannot be taken lightly. Jeff Sessions needs to appoint a special
counsel to investigate the Nunes Memo allegations. Rod Rosenstein, Robert Mueller and
Christopher Wray all need to be suspended while the investigation is ongoing.
The NYT and the [neo]liberal media in general have lost all their journalistic integrity in the
way they've been covering up for all of Democrats' corruption and abuse of power the last two
decades. The way they fawned over Obama was downright sickening. Watergate was billed as the
greatest scandal ever because it was done by a Republican president. What Obama did not just
with the 2016 election meddling but with covering for Clinton's Uranium One pay to play
scheme was far, far worse.
The people aren't as stupid as the liberal elites think we are. That's why the fake news
media is losing their stranglehold on news as people turn to alternative news sources thanks
to the internet. The Times can print whatever they want, they are only further discrediting
themselves as a legitimate news source with each passing day. The delirious, foam at the
mouth reader comments that they deemed fit to print just show how hysterical and out of touch
the left have become.
This is all for the entertainment of the masses..... If you believe otherwise you are
foolish. Just because we are just seeing these texts, doesnt mean that Grandpa sessions hasnt
had them for months... And...... CRICKETS....
The absence of prosecutions will prove they were correct in their assessment that they
were/are above the law. No one is more above the law than Barack Obama and it does not matter
how complicit he was in all of this. Half the country worships him. With HRC, maybe 20% of
the population worships her but that's enough to give her immunity from prosecution too, not
to mention her assassins who will eliminate anyone who might pose a threat to her freedom. We
are not a country of laws, we are a country of fame and fortune. The more fame and fortune
you acquire, the more above the law you become.
As is now becoming the way as the Russiagate scandal unravels, confirmation of the collapse of one of its
central pillars – the claim of proof of collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign which some have
claimed to see in the meeting in Trump Tower in June 2016 between the Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya
and Donald Trump Junior – has slipped out in the most covert way possible.
Nonetheless the confirmation is there and originates in what all the indications suggest is a deliberate
leak either from Special Counsel Robert Mueller's team or from the White House's legal team.
The confirmation is provided in an NBC News
article
which reads as follows
Two sources familiar with the questions Mueller's team have been asking about the meeting say the
investigators are most interested in why the president crafted a misleading statement about the meeting
much later, in July 2017, after a New York Times report about it. The sources say Mueller's office is
trying to confirm every detail it can about the meeting.
Mueller's team is less interested in the meeting as a direct example of collusion, the sources said,
although Trump Jr. accepted the meeting after being told he would receive incriminating information about
Hillary Clinton as part of the Russian government effort to help his father.
No evidence has emerged publicly to contradict Veselnitskaya's account that she wanted to press a case
about U.S. Magnitsky Act sanctions, and that she did not possess significant derogatory information about
Clinton, despite the email from a music promoter to Trump Jr. promising incriminating details about the
Democrat.
Moreover, no evidence has emerged publicly that connects the Russians in the meeting with the Russian
intelligence effort to interfere in the 2016 presidential election.
The issue of Donald Trump's supposedly misleading statement about the meeting is a red herring since it
can have no possible connection to the collusion allegations which Mueller's inquiry is supposed to be
investigating.
Even assuming that Trump's statement was misleading – which some might question – it would hardly be the
first case of a US President making a misleading statement, and it is impossible to see how it can possibly
give rise to a law enforcement issue for Mueller to investigate.
Of much more importance is the confirmation that Mueller's team now acknowledge that there is no evidence
to connect Veselnitskaya to Russian intelligence and that her and Donald Trump Junior's accounts of their
meeting must be accepted as true since there is no evidence to contradict them.
In truth this was obvious from the start as I pointed out in an
article
I wrote on 12th July 2017, written immediately after details of the meeting came to light
The meeting with Veselnitskaya duly took place on 9th June 2016. It turned out that she had no
information about Hillary Clinton to offer and was not a "Russian government attorney". Instead she
wanted to discuss the Magnitsky Act, upon which a baffled Donald Trump Junior politely showed her the
door.
That is the unanimous account of all the participants of the meeting including Donald Trump Junior and
Veselnitskaya herself. All agree that the meeting lasted no more than 20 minutes.
There is no evidence that contradicts their account and the absence of any follow-up to the meeting
essentially corroborates their account.
It seems that Donald Trump Junior and Veselnitskaya have never met since and have had no further
contact with each other.
There is
no
evidence here of any crime or wrongdoing being committed or –
contrary to what many are saying – of any intention to commit one.
Russiagate would not however be Russiagate if this important news that Mueller and his team have come to
the same conclusion was not smuggled out in an NBC News article whose title gives the impression that it is
about the totally meaningless fact that Veselnitskaya after leaving the meeting with Donald Trump Junior had
a brief encounter in the lift of Trump Tower with a blonde woman who might – or might not – have been Donald
Trump's daughter Ivanka.
To such ridiculous lengths to conceal embarrassing truths about Russiagate is the media in the US
increasingly reduced to.
Though the Veselnitskaya-Trump Junior meeting is now being finally acknowledged to be the red herring it
always was, there is one further point about it to make.
In my 12th July 2017 article I speculated that the meeting might have been a sting intended to
corroborate the collusion allegations between the Trump campaign and Russia which were to achieve written
form in the first 20th June 2016 entry of the Trump Dossier, written a few weeks after the
Veselnitskaya-Trump Junior took place.
What led others subsequently to speculate along the same lines was that there appeared to be a connection
between Veselnitskaya and Fusion GPS, the political consultancy firm which commissioned the Trump Dossier on
behalf of the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign.
It turns out that Veselnitskaya was not working for Fusion GPS but rather Fusion GPS was working for her,
in connection with her work on the Magnitsky case.
That in itself makes it inherently unlikely that she was acting as a catspaw for Fusion GPS when she met
Donald Trump Junior.
More to the point, Glenn Simpson's comments about Veselnitskaya are anything but complimentary. He
basically describes her – rather convincingly – as a self-important busybody and a minor league player, and
expresses incredulity at the suggestion that she was a Russian intelligence agent who was working for the
Kremlin.
Simpson's characterisation of Veselnitskaya in testimony in which he strongly promotes the Russiagate
collusion allegations and vouches for the truth of the Trump Dossier makes it all but inconceivable
Veselnitskaya was involved in a sting to set Trump Junior up.
Despite taking place at a time when the Trump-Russia collusion allegations were about to take off,
Veselnitskaya's meeting with Trump Junior must instead be seen as one of those annoying coincidences which
lawyers, journalists, policemen and the public automatically distrust, but which happen in real life.
"Robust regime of oversight" is a joke. Powerful intelligence agencies which are immanent feature of the national security state
tend to acquire control off MSM and never relinquish it.
Notable quotes:
"... There are heroes out there, Dobson of F&F, Binney, Drake, Snowden and others. But the majority of the ppl are kept in the dark via the enemedia. Those who make waves are sent to job Siberia ..."
"... So guilty or not, Carter Page is in the clear. And if the FBI's knowledge of Mike Flynns payment for "lobbying" for Turkey were discovered while the FBI was monitoring Page and his known associates, then the charges against Flynn will be dropped and he will be free and clear as well. ..."
It wasn't the bombshell everyone hoped for. But the release of the FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) memo did corroborate
what we already knew: the government is corrupt.
The FISA Memo Overview: The Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Clinton Campaign paid Christopher Steele
$160,000 to dig up information on Trump team members including Carter Page. Steele also provided this information to the FBI.
The FBI and DOJ asked the FISC (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court) for permission to surveil Page, using the Steele Dossier
as evidence. They did not disclose that Steele was paid by political opponents of their target to compile the information presented
to the court. Based on probable cause from the information amassed by a democrat operative, the court granted their surveillance
request.
So the Republicans are upset a government agency targeted a GOP ally based on information provided by political opponents. That
seems like a valid complaint.
We should note that the FISA memo specifically states that "DOJ and FBI sought and received a probable cause order (not under
title VII) authorizing electronic surveillance on Carter Page from FISC."
That just means that are other parts of FISA that also use secretive proceedings to ignore due process.
So the GOP likes some mass surveillance that violates rights, just not when it targets one of their own.
They seem to think if we just had the right people in power then the government could work for good!
Basic logic says you could not have this level of corruption if they have this much access to everyones data. Unless it was
all being used by the corrupt only.
Its a fair point. It took years to find out "most of the truth" about Fast & Furious and the weaponizing the IRS (again)
against political opponents, surely if there were any "boy scouts believing in truth, justice and the American way", they would
have came forward. But they didn't.
There are heroes out there, Dobson of F&F, Binney, Drake, Snowden and others. But the majority of the ppl are kept in the
dark via the enemedia. Those who make waves are sent to job Siberia or have their homes raided as an example to future whistle
blowers. Just like the populace, too many followers willing to accept their 30 pieces of silver for quiet instead of standing
for principle.
Agreed. But are there enough is the question. People being what they are, they come with all sorts of personalities and belief
systems. There are those who blindly follow orders without any moral or ethical compass, just doing what they are paid for. Then,
there are those with that compass who follow orders anyways knowing its wrong in the hope someone else will straighten it out.
Then you have the Snowdens, Binneys etc of the world who are willing to face ostracization, the character assassination (or
real assassination), loss of family, liberty and possessions for what is a right for all of us.
I would hazard a guess that its less than 10% but on the optimistic side...I think that number is growing ;-)
Id like to see where they stand if there is no chance of a payday for them. A put up or shut up moment is needed. The boy scouts
to feral ratio looks pretty bad.
Ummm...wait...didn't we have Manning, Snowden and Drake? They came forward and told us the truth. All of them were branded
traitors and 2 out of the 3 were prosecuted for telling us.
Excellent article. One of the take aways is: if you think that this is going to manifest itself in any improvement in these
practices, you are sorely mistaken. Did Trump undo Obama's 11th hour executive order distributing the NSA US-surveillance information
to all other intelligence agencies? Not.
Secret police, secret courts, secret investigations, using secret police against political opponents, news media performing
as instruments of propaganda, widespread surveillance of all public communications, and conspiring with foreign agents to overthrow
a government. The U.S. has arrived at the Finland Station. To any clear thinking person in the U.S. government, these secret police
agencies, their endless abuses of the ability to "classify" information, their secret courts, and their secret investigations
must come to an end and be constrained by the rule of law and subject to some form of public of scrutiny. Therefore, why have
Trump and his junta and the Republicans in congress not begun legislation to end the totalitarian regime that Washington has become?
There can be only one reason. They have not ended these totalitarian measures because they seek to use them. Against who? Against
all the "enemies of the state." Who is an "enemies of the state?" Whoever the military decides is an enemy of the state. That
could be you. Get out of that country, right now.
Get out of the U.S.........and go where??? The U.S. is the last, best, hope of mankind in this fallen world. When we fall,
darkness will descend upon all of mankind.
Our constitution was designed to govern a moral and religious people. The U. S. was founded by geniuses. We are now being governed
and led by self-serving idiots.
......And we are no longer a moral and religious people.
Too many crooks in high positions. FISA is not Constitutional. Many years ago, pro wrestling champ Verne Gagne started out
a match with Mad Dog Vashon by viciously attacking him. He broke the rules. But Mad Dog Vashon readily broke the rules repeatedly
in all his matches. Sometimes the good guys break the rules to get rid of the bad guys who pay no attention to them. Same here.
It is NEVER right to do wrong...to do right! The ends NEVER justify the means. Once you go down that slippery slope as a man,
society, government, etc., you are DONE. It is only a matter of time, Mr. Lincoln.
trying to blame the GOP for the indiscriminate abuses of the Democrats is reprehensible. Appointing a chief of police does
NOT authorize the rampant lawlessness he may produce......... when the inofrmants lie to the cops, bad results occur....
+1, but having been involved with Repugnican politics, the memo shouldn't be used to reinforce the illusion that Repugnicans
are in true opposition to the DemonRats. In reality, we have a Uniparty system. The memo does expose .gov's total lack of credibility
because its own law enforcement agencies are corrupt.
In its deeper context, what the FISA Memo CONFIRMED is that.. the America you thought existed, if it ever did, is now just
a fantasy, a fond 'Norman Rockwell' memory... superceded by ZOG USSA, a Rogue Entity - beholden to a 5th Column Cabal of Mega
Criminals controlling over 5000 nuclear weapons - masquerading as a "Legitimate Government". JFK had his brains blown out
for even suggesting such an eventuality - that has now transpired - in his last public speech.
Fewer then 40% of Americans now trust the fbi. Unless Wray or Congress does something, their cred will drop further and crime
will increase since 90% of obeying the law is psychological respect for the law enforcement agencies. If they don't get that back,
people will just spit in their faces when they come to the door.
What planet are you on? "Spit in their faces"? Lol, that's funny right there. All over the western world, governments
are breaking laws, stomping on rights, invading their own countries with 3rd world, radical foreigners, taking out debt so they
can live off the backs of several generations that haven't even been born yet.......and what are the people doing about it? Not
one damn meaningful thing. All they know to do is trust in another goobermint agency to fix another goobermint agency.
What do you think happens when you find out your cook and butler have slowly been poisoning you for weeks? You think they say,
"Oh, gee, we're sorry and won't ever do it again."? No, the jig is up, and they pull out a revolver and shoot you in the head,
or wrestle you down and smother your weak ass. Either way, "finding out the truth" only hastens your demise, unless you or a brother
who just happened to show up can kill them before they kill you.
All we have done here is acquire the truth we are being killed by those who are supposed to serve us. You wait until they come
to your door, and you are dead already. "Spitting" or any action on that level is a joke.
It's not the Agencies that are corrupt, it's is the people in these Agencies that are Corrupt.
And it's these People the Public can not vote for or get rid of them. Even the President can't Fire anybody in these Agencies.
Just removing one or two bad Apples is not going to save the Bunch, and that's the real problem. Does the USA really need
all these, NOT so secret Spy Agencies ? But in true US Fashion, they will probably add another Spy Agency to Spy on the
other US Agencies.
"They are just fighting for the upper hand over their political opponents. This is not freedom versus tyranny.
It is a war of factions ."
Exactly right. It was hypocritical to withhold the FISA memo until after the vote on extending and expanding 702.
It's not just the FBI and DOJ who are corrupt. That said, Nunes provided a weapon to begin ferreting out these weasels.
It needs to be used with maximum effectiveness. Long live the Republic!
However, they need to keep it the way it is until they rout out the components of the government that are controlled by the
elite international power-brokers.
Just like J. Edgar Hoover had everyone in Congress blackmailed, the elite have evidence of everyone in the government they
need to control in compromised status. The elite lost control of the USA Corporation in 2016, when Puerto Rico filed bankruptcy.
Now there is a fight by the heads of that corporation to try to wrestle back control of our nation. Let them use whatever tools
they need to use until the wicked witch is dead!
A tid-bit that should not be lost on us when we consider the origins of the Clinton-Steele dossier is that Steele admitted
to PAYING his russian "informants" for the information that he included in his report. So not only is the information he used
"salacious and unverified", it is also inadmissible as evidence in US court...ANY US court. So even IF, the FBI did not know that
the DNC paid for the dossier, and even IF, the FBI believed the allegations to be true, the FISA warrant they obtained is invalid
and any evidence gathered as a result is inadmissible.
So guilty or not, Carter Page is in the clear. And if the FBI's knowledge of Mike Flynns payment for "lobbying" for Turkey
were discovered while the FBI was monitoring Page and his known associates, then the charges against Flynn will be dropped and
he will be free and clear as well.
I still haven't figured out why Trump hasn't blanket pardoned everyone in his administration. He can pardon a cocksucking illegal
immigrant slavelord, but can't pardon Manafort and Flynn for procedural crimes? WTF...
I don't think people are desensitized to the corruption. We just know that when the smoke clears, none of the big players are
going to jail, and it'll be business as usual. Trump needs an epic win against the swamp, with someone bigger than a deputy assistant
whatever going to prison.
'What the FISA Memo Reveals about the FBI, DNC, GOP–and the sketchy timeline' That the rule of law is effectively, Dead.
Here, try this on for a headline, TDB: 'What the failure to prosecute Hillary Rodham Clinton reveals about the rule of law in
America'
In the period preceding the World War I how many Europeans suspected that their lives would
soon be forever changed – and, for millions of them, ended?
Who in the years, say, 1910 to 1913, could have imagined that the decades of peace,
progress, and civilization in which they had grown up, and which seemingly would continue
indefinitely, instead would soon descend into a horror of industrial-scale slaughter,
revolution, and brutal ideologies?
The answer is, probably very few, just as few people today care much about the details of
international and security affairs. Normal folk have better things to do with their lives.
To be sure, in that bygone era of smug jingosim , there was always the entertainment
aspect that "our" side had forced "theirs" to back down in some exotic locale, as in the
Fashoda incident
(1898) or the Moroccan
crises (1906, 1911). Even the Balkan Wars of 1912-13 seemed less a harbinger of the
cataclysm to come than local dustups on the edge of the continent where the general peace had
not been disturbed even by the much more disruptive Crimean or Franco-Prussian wars.
Besides, no doubt level-headed statesmen were in charge in the various capitals, ensuring
that things wouldn't get out of hand.
Until they did.
A notable exception to the prevailing mood of business-as-usual, nothing-to-see-here-folks
was Pyotr Durnovo, whose remarkable February 1914
memorandum to Tsar Nicholas II laid out not only what the great powers would do in the
approaching general war but the behavior of the minor countries as well. Moreover, he
anticipated that in the event of defeat, Russia, destabilized by unchecked socialist
"agitation" amid wartime hardships, would "be flung into hopeless anarchy, the issue of which
cannot be foreseen." Germany, likewise, was "destined to suffer, in case of defeat, no lesser
social upheavals" and "take a purely revolutionary path" of a nationalist hue.
When the great powers blundered into war in August 1914, each confident of its ability
speedily to dispatch its rivals, the price (adding in the toll from the 1939-1945 rematch) was
upwards of 70 million lives. But the cost of a comparable mistake today might be literally
incalculable – if there's anyone left to do the tally.
During the first Cold War between the US and the USSR, there was a general sense that a
World War III was, in a word, unthinkable. As summed up by Ronald Reagan: " A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be
fought ." Then, it was understood that all-out war, however it started, meant massed ICBMs
over the North Pole and the "
end of civilization as we know it ."
'The 2018 NPR has a vision of nuclear conflict that goes far beyond the traditional
imagery of mass missile launches. While ICBMs and manned bombers will be maintained on a
day-to-day alert, the tip of the nuclear spear is now what the NPR calls "supplemental"
nuclear forces – dual-use aircraft such as the F-35 fighter armed with B-61 gravity
bombs capable of delivering a low-yield nuclear payload, a new generation of nuclear-tipped
submarine-launched cruise missiles, and submarine-launched ballistic missiles tipped with a
new generation of low-yield nuclear warheads. The danger inherent with the integration of
these kinds of tactical nuclear weapons into an overall strategy of deterrence is that it
fundamentally lowers the threshold for their use. [ ]
'Noting that the United States has never adopted a "no first use" policy, the 2018 NPR
states that "it remains the policy of the United States to retain some ambiguity regarding
the precise circumstances that might lead to a US nuclear response." In this regard, the NPR
states that America could employ nuclear weapons under "extreme circumstances that could
include significant non-nuclear strategic attacks." The issue of "non-nuclear strategic
attack technologies" as a potential precursor for nuclear war is a new factor that previously
did not exist in American policy. The United States has long held that chemical and
biological weapons represent a strategic threat for which America's nuclear deterrence
capability serves as a viable counter. But the threat from cyber attacks is different. If for
no other reason than the potential for miscalculation and error in terms of attribution and
intent, the nexus of cyber and nuclear weapons should be disconcerting for everyone. [ ]
'Even more disturbing is the notion that a cyber intrusion such as the one perpetrated
against the Democratic National Committee and attributed to Russia could serve as a trigger
for nuclear war. This is not as far-fetched as it sounds. The DNC event has been
characterized by influential American politicians, such as the Armed Services Committee
Chairman John McCain, as "
an act of war ." Moreover, former vice president Joe Biden hinted that, in the aftermath
of the DNC breach, the United States was launching a retaliatory
cyberattack of its own, targeting Russia. The possibility of a tit-for-tat exchange of
cyberattacks that escalates into a nuclear conflict would previously have been dismissed out
of hand; today, thanks to the 2018 NPR, it has entered the realm of the possible.'
The idea that a first-strike Schlieffen Plan could knock out the
Russians (and no doubt similar contingencies are in place for China) at the outset of
hostilities reflects a dangerous illusion of predictability. Truth may be the first casualty of
war, but "the plan" is inevitably the second. That's because war planners generally don't
consult the enemy, who – annoyingly for the planners – also gets a vote.
Recently
US Secretary of State James Mattis declared that "great power competition – not
terrorism – is now the primary focus of US national security," specifying Russia and
China as nations seeking to "create a world consistent with their authoritarian models,
pursuing veto authority over other nations' economic, diplomatic and security decisions." At
least we can drop the pretense that US policy has been to fight jihad terrorism, not to use it
as a policy tool in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosovo, Libya, Syria, and elsewhere. And of course
Washington never, ever meddles in "other nations' economic, diplomatic and security decisions"
. . .
At this point Trump is fastened to the neocons' and generals' axle, and all he can do is
spin. Echoing Mattis, in his State of the Union speech Trump lumped "rivals like
China and Russia" together with "rogue regimes" and "terrorist groups" as "horrible dangers" to
the United States. (Note: The word "horrible" does not appear in the
posted text . That evidently was Trump's adlib.) The recently issued "name and shame" list
of prominent Russians is a veritable Who's Who of government and business, ensuring that
there's no
American engagement with anyone within screaming distance of the Kremlin .
To be fair, the Russians and Chinese are making their own war preparations. Russia's
"Kanyon," a doomsday nuclear torpedo carrying a massive warhead, is
designed to obliterate the U.S east and west coasts , rendering them inhabitable for
generations. (Wait a minute. Is it any coincidence, Comrade, that the coastal cities are just
where the Democrats' electoral strength is? Talk about "collusion!" Somebody call Bob Mueller!)
For its part, China is developing means to eliminate our white elephant carrier groups –
handy for pummeling Third World backwaters but useless in a war with a major power – with
drone swarms and
hypersonic missiles .
Just as in 1914, when Durnovo referred to "presence of abundant combustible material in
Europe," there is any
number of global flashpoints that could turn Mattis's "great power competition" into a
major conflagration that probably was not desired by anyone. However, if the worst happens, and
the lamps go
out again – maybe this time forever – Americans will not again be immune from
the consequences as we were in the wars of the 20th century. The remainder of our lives,
however brief, might turn out very differently from what we had anticipated
Watch: Bernie Sanders' Response to Trump State of the Union
"Here's the story that Trump failed to mention "
Following President Donald Trump's State of the Union address on Tuesday, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) offered a response.
"I want to take a few minutes of your time to respond to Trump's State of the Union speech," Sanders announced. "But I also want
to talk to you about the major crises facing our country that, regrettably, Trump chose not to discuss."
And, he added, "I want to offer a vision of where we should go as a nation which is far different than the divisiveness, dishonesty,
and racism coming from the Trump Administration over the past year."
Watch:
... ... ...
The complete text of Sanders' prepared remarks follow:
Good evening. Thanks for joining us.
Tonight , I want to take a few minutes of your time to respond to President Trump's State of the Union speech. But I want
to do more than just that. I want to talk to you about the major crises facing our country that, regrettably, President Trump chose
not to discuss. I want to talk to you about the lies that he told during his campaign and the promises he made to working people
which he did not keep.
Finally, I want to offer a vision of where we should go as a nation which is far different than the divisiveness, dishonesty,
and racism coming from the Trump Administration over the past year.
President Trump talked tonight about the strength of our economy. Well, he's right. Official unemployment today is 4.1 percent
which is the lowest it has been in years and the stock market in recent months has soared. That's the good news.
But what President Trump failed to mention is that his first year in office marked the lowest level of job creation since
2010. In fact, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 254,000 fewer jobs were created in Trump's first 11 months in office
than were created in the 11 months before he entered office.
Further, when we talk about the economy, what's most important is to understand what is happening to the average worker. And
here's the story that Trump failed to mention tonight .
Over the last year, after adjusting for inflation, the average worker in America saw a wage increase of, are you ready for
this, 4 cents an hour, or 0.17%. Or, to put it in a different way, that worker received a raise of a little more than $1.60 a week.
And, as is often the case, that tiny wage increase disappeared as a result of soaring health care costs.
Meanwhile, at a time of massive wealth and income inequality, the rich continue to get much richer while millions of American
workers are working two or three jobs just to keep their heads above water. Since March of last year, the three richest people in
America saw their wealth increase by more than $68 billion. Three people. A $68 billion increase in wealth. Meanwhile, the average
worker saw an increase of 4 cents an hour.
Tonight , Donald Trump touted the bonuses he claims workers received because of his so-called "tax reform" bill. What he forgot
to mention is that only 2% of Americans report receiving a raise or a bonus because of this tax bill.
What he also failed to mention is that some of the corporations that have given out bonuses, such as Walmart, AT&T, General
Electric, and Pfizer, are also laying off tens of thousands of their employees. Kimberly-Clark, the maker of Kleenex and Huggies,
recently said they were using money from the tax cut to restructure -- laying off more than 5,000 workers and closing 10 plants.
What Trump also forgot to tell you is that while the Walton family of Walmart, the wealthiest family in America, and Jeff
Bezos of Amazon, the wealthiest person in this country, have never had it so good, many thousands of their employees are forced onto
Medicaid, food stamps, and public housing because of the obscenely low wages they are paid. In my view, that's wrong. The taxpayers
of this country should not be providing corporate welfare to the wealthiest families in this country.
Trump's Broken Promises
Now, let me say a few words about some of the issues that Donald Trump failed to mention tonight , and that is the difference
between what he promised the American people as a candidate and what he has delivered as president.
Many of you will recall, that during his campaign, Donald Trump told the American people how he was going to provide "health
insurance for everybody," with "much lower deductibles."
That is what he promised working families all across this country during his campaign. But as president he did exactly the
opposite. Last year, he supported legislation that would have thrown up to 32 million people off of the health care they had while,
at the same time, substantially raising premiums for older Americans.
The reality is that although we were able to beat back Trump's effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act, 3 million fewer Americans
have health insurance today than before Trump took office and that number will be going even higher in the coming months.
During his campaign, Trump promised not to cut Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid.
As president, however, he supported a Republican Budget Resolution that proposed slashing Medicaid by $1 trillion and cutting
Medicare by $500 billion. Further, President Trump's own budget called for cutting Social Security Disability Insurance by $64 billion.
During Trump's campaign for president, he talked about how he was going to lower prescription drug prices and take on the
greed of the pharmaceutical industry which he said was "getting away with murder." Tonight he said "one of my greatest priorities
is to reduce the price of prescription drugs."
But as president, Trump nominated Alex Azar, a former executive of the Eli Lilly Company -- one of the largest drug companies
in this country -- to head up the Department of Health and Human Services.
Trump spoke about how in other countries "drugs cost far less," yet he has done nothing to allow Americans to purchase less
expensive prescription drugs from abroad or to require Medicare to negotiate drug prices – which he promised he would do when he
ran for president.
During the campaign, Donald Trump told us that: "The rich will not be gaining at all" under his tax reform plan.
Well, that was quite a whopper. As president, the tax reform legislation Trump signed into law a few weeks ago provides 83
percent of the benefits to the top one percent, drives up the deficit by $1.7 trillion, and raises taxes on 92 million middle class
families by the end of the decade.
During his campaign for president, Trump talked about how he was going to take on the greed of Wall Street which he said "has
caused tremendous problems for us.
As president, not only has Trump not taken on Wall Street, he has appointed more Wall Street billionaires to his administration
than any president in history. And now, on behalf of Wall Street, he is trying to repeal the modest provisions of the Dodd-Frank
legislation which provide consumer protections against Wall Street thievery.
What Trump Didn't Say
But what is also important to note is not just Trump's dishonesty. It is that tonight he avoided some of the most important
issues facing our country and the world.
How can a president of the United States give a State of the Union speech and not mention climate change? No, Mr. Trump, climate
change is not a "hoax." It is a reality which is causing devastating harm all over our country and all over the world and you are
dead wrong when you appoint administrators at the EPA and other agencies who are trying to decimate environmental protection rules,
and slow down the transition to sustainable energy.
How can a president of the United States not discuss the disastrous Citizens United Supreme Court decision which allows billionaires
like the Koch brothers to undermine American democracy by spending hundreds of millions of dollars to elect candidates who will represent
the rich and the powerful?
How can he not talk about Republican governors efforts all across this country to undermine democracy, suppress the vote and
make it harder for poor people or people of color to vote?
How can he not talk about the fact that in a highly competitive global economy, hundreds of thousands of bright young people
are unable to afford to go to college, while millions of others have come out of school deeply in debt?
How can he not talk about the inadequate funding and staffing at the Social Security Administration which has resulted in
thousands of people with disabilities dying because they did not get their claims processed in time?
How can he not talk about the retirement crisis facing the working people of this country and the fact that over half of older
workers have no retirement savings? We need to strengthen pensions in this country, not take them away from millions of workers.
How can he not talk about the reality that Russia, through cyberwarfare, interfered in our election in 2016, is interfering
in democratic elections all over the world, and according to his own CIA director will likely interfere in the 2018 midterm elections
that we will be holding. How do you not talk about that unless you have a very special relationship with Mr. Putin?
What Trump Did Talk About
Now, let me say a few words about what Trump did talk about.
Trump talked about DACA and immigration, but what he did not tell the American people is that he precipitated this crisis
in September by repealing President Obama's executive order protecting Dreamers.
We need to seriously address the issue of immigration but that does not mean dividing families and reducing legal immigration
by 25-50 percent. It sure doesn't mean forcing taxpayers to spend $25 billion on a wall that candidate Trump promised Mexico would
pay for. And it definitely doesn't mean a racist immigration policy that excludes people of color from around the world.
To my mind, this is one of the great moral issues facing our country. It would be unspeakable and a moral stain on our nation
if we turned our backs on these 800,000 young people who were born and raised in this country and who know no other home but the
United States.
And that's not just Bernie Sanders talking. Poll after poll shows that over 80 percent of the American people believe that
we should protect the legal status of these young people and provide them with a path toward citizenship.
We need to pass the bi-partisan DREAM Act, and we need to pass it now.
President Trump also talked about the need to rebuild our country's infrastructure. And he is absolutely right. But the proposal
he is bringing forth is dead wrong.
Instead of spending $1.5 trillion over ten years rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure, Trump would encourage states to
sell our nation's highways, bridges, and other vital infrastructure to Wall Street, wealthy campaign contributors, even foreign governments.
And how would Wall Street and these corporations recoup their investments? By imposing massive new tolls and fees paid for
by American commuters and homeowners.
The reality is that Trump's plan to privatize our nation's infrastructure is an old idea that has never worked and never will
work.
Tonight , Donald Trump correctly talked about the need to address the opioid crisis. Well, I say to Donald Trump, you don't
help people suffering from opioid addiction by cutting Medicaid by $1 trillion. If you are serious about dealing with this crisis,
we need to expand, not cut Medicaid.
Conclusion/A Progressive Agenda
My fellow Americans. The simple truth is that, according to virtually every poll, Donald Trump is the least popular president
after one year in office of any president in modern American history. And the reason for that is pretty clear. The American people
do not want a president who is compulsively dishonest, who is a bully, who actively represents the interests of the billionaire class,
who is anti-science, and who is trying to divide us up based on the color of our skin, our nation of origin, our religion, our gender,
or our sexual orientation.
That is not what the American people want. And that reality is the bad news that we have to deal with.
But the truth is that there is a lot of good news out there as well. It's not just that so many of our people disagree with
Trump's policies, temperament, and behavior. It is that the vast majority of our people have a very different vision for the future
of our country than what Trump and the Republican leadership are giving us.
In an unprecedented way, we are witnessing a revitalization of American democracy with more and more people standing up and
fighting back. A little more than a year ago we saw millions of people take to the streets for the women's marches and a few weeks
ago, in hundreds of cities and towns around the world, people once again took to the streets in the fight for social, economic, racial
and environmental justice.
Further, we are seeing the growth of grassroots organizations and people from every conceivable background starting to run
for office – for school board, city council, state legislature, the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate.
In fact, we are starting to see the beginning of a political revolution, something long overdue.
And these candidates, from coast to coast, are standing tall for a progressive agenda, an agenda that works for the working
families of our country and not just the billionaire class. These candidates understand that the United States has got to join the
rest of the industrialized world and guarantee health care to all as a right, not a privilege, through a Medicare for All, single-payer
program.
They understand that at a time of massive income and wealth inequality, when the top one-tenth of one percent now owns almost
as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent, we should not be giving tax breaks for billionaires but demanding that they start paying
their fair share of taxes.
They know that we need trade policies that benefit working people, not large multi-national corporations.
They know that we have got to take on the fossil fuel industry, transform our energy system and move to sustainable energies
like wind, solar and geothermal.
They know that we need a $15 an hour federal minimum wage, free tuition at public colleges and universities, and universal
childcare.
They understand that it is a woman who has the right to control her own body, not state and federal governments, and that
woman has the right to receive equal pay for equal work and work in a safe environment free from harassment.
They also know that if we are going to move forward successfully as a democracy we need real criminal justice reform and we
need to finally address comprehensive immigration reform.
Yes. I understand that the Koch brothers and their billionaire friends are planning to spend hundreds of millions of dollars
in the 2018 mid-term elections supporting the Trump agenda and right-wing Republicans. They have the money, an unlimited amount of
money. But we have the people, and when ordinary people stand up and fight for justice there is nothing that we cannot accomplish.
That has been the history of America, and that is our future.
It was not only that Steele memo enabled eavesdropping. More troubling fact that FBI considered both Trump and Sanders as
insurgents and was adamant to squash them and ensure Hillary victory. In other word it tried to play the role of kingmaker.
Notable quotes:
"... The former British spy Steele had been hired by the Democratic Party via Fusion GPS to dig up dirt about Donald Trump. He came back with a package of "reports" which alleged that Trump was "colluding" with Russia or even a puppet of Putin. The content of the reports is hilarious and so obviously made up that one wonders how anyone could have treated it seriously. ..."
"... Getting a FISA warrant on Carter Page meant that all his communication with the Trump campaign was effectively under surveillance of the Obama administration. While Page was no longer an official member of the campaign at the time of the warrant it is likely that he had kept contact. All internal communication that Page had access to was thereby also accessible for at least some people who tried to prevent a Trump election victory. ..."
"... One may (like me) dislike Trump and the Republican party and all they stand for. But this looks like an extremely dirty play by the Democrats and by the Obama administration far outside of any decency and fairness. The Steele dossier is obviously made up partisan nonsense. To the use it for such a FISA warrant was against the most basic rules of a democratic system. It probably broke several laws. ..."
Over the last month political enemies of U.S. President Trump and the FBI and Justice
Department have desperately tried to prevent the publishing of a memo written by the Republican
controlled House Intelligence Committee.
The memo (pdf) describes parts of the process that let to court sanctioned spying on the
Trump campaign. The
key points of the memo that was just published:
* The Steele dossier formed an essential part of the initial and all three renewal FISA
applications against Carter Page.
* Andrew McCabe confirmed that no FISA warrant would have been sought from the FISA Court
without the Steele dossier information.
* The political origins of the Steele dossier were known to senior DOJ and FBI officials,
but excluded from the FISA applications.
* DOJ official Bruce Ohr met with Steele beginning in the summer of 2016 and relayed to
DOJ information about Steele's bias. Steele told Ohr that he, Steele, was desperate that
Donald Trump not get elected president and was passionate about him not becoming
president.
If the above memo proves to be correct one can conclude that a Democratic front organization
created "evidence" that was then used by the FBI and the Obama Justice Department to get FISA
warrants to spy on someone with intimate contacts into the Trump campaign.
The Democrats as well as the FBI have done their utmost to keep this secret.
Carter Page was a relative low ranking volunteer advisor of the Trump campaign with some
business contacts to Russia. He had officially left the campaign shortly before the above FISA
warrant was requested.
Andrew McCabe was an FBI assistant director. A few month earlier his wife ran for a Virginia
State Senate seat with the help of $700,000 she had received from Clinton allies.
The wife of DOJ official Bruce Ohr worked for Fusion GPS, the outlet hired by the Democrats
to find Trump dirt. Fusion GPS hired the former British agent Steele.
The former British spy Steele had been hired by the Democratic Party via Fusion GPS to dig
up dirt about Donald Trump. He came back with a package of "reports" which alleged that Trump
was "colluding" with Russia or even a puppet of Putin. The content of the reports is hilarious
and
so obviously made up that one wonders how anyone could have treated it seriously.
Getting a FISA warrant on Carter Page meant that all his communication with the Trump
campaign was effectively under surveillance of the Obama administration. While Page was no
longer an official member of the campaign at the time of the warrant it is likely that he had
kept contact. All internal communication that Page had access to was thereby also accessible
for at least some people who tried to prevent a Trump election victory.
One must wonder if the FISA warrant and eavesdropping on Page was the only one related to
the Trump campaign.
One may (like me) dislike Trump and the Republican party and all they stand for. But this
looks like an extremely dirty play by the Democrats and by the Obama administration far outside
of any decency and fairness. The Steele dossier is obviously made up partisan nonsense. To the
use it for such a FISA warrant was against the most basic rules of a democratic system. It
probably broke several laws.
There are still many questions: What was, exactly, the result of the surveillance of Carter
Page and the Trump campaign? Who was getting these results - officially and unofficially? How
were they used?
I am pretty sure now that more heads of those involved will role. Some of the people who
arranged the scheme, and some of those who tried to cover it up, may go to jail.
If Trump and the Republicans play this right they have practically won the next
elections.
" I do think Russia-gate is an over-hyped political campaign. The threat from Russia to
our electoral process is like a cult, in which belief is paramount to rational thinking.
Evidence. Let's see the evidence for all these things."
" The weight of evidence is on the side of the debunkers of Russiagate. This
"debate" is far from a wash, or a draw. The propaganda and spin are from the Russia blamers, not
their refuters."
Notable quotes:
"... Talking about the spin the New York Times is putting on the memo contents (The Nunes Conspiracy), please take a look at last night's PBS News Hour. Instead of what Judy Woodruff and Lisa Desjardins should have reported, they spun Andrew McCabe's "stepping aside" as yet another loss of an important high ranking FBI official causing still more vacancies in the many still unfilled offices due to Trump's failure to appoint people, etc. It was unbelievable! ..."
"... It's painful to say, but the PBS Newshour is a pathetically blatant propaganda outlet. I suspect Judy Woodruff, Mark Shields, etc have nights of troubled sleep. ..."
Talking about the spin the New York Times is putting on the memo contents (The Nunes
Conspiracy), please take a look at last night's PBS News Hour. Instead of what Judy Woodruff
and Lisa Desjardins should have reported, they spun Andrew McCabe's "stepping aside" as yet
another loss of an important high ranking FBI official causing still more vacancies in the
many still unfilled offices due to Trump's failure to appoint people, etc. It was
unbelievable!
Then Judy interviewed Mark Warner, and his spin was even more astounding -- that most
Democrats hadn't read it, implying it was unavailable; also implying that this "memo
creation" hadn't gone through proper channels. Nothing on the up and up with Warner! But, I
don't think they are going to be able to get by with it. Will the American people agree to be
duped by propaganda when the facts are on the table? I'm not seeing that friends of mine are
coming around, but do they really believe in Santa Claus? Is there integrity in the land, or
will truth continue to be trampled in the streets and sold in the shambles? The house of
cards is about to crumble, or will it?
JWalters , January 31, 2018 at 12:54 am
It's painful to say, but the PBS Newshour is a pathetically blatant propaganda outlet. I
suspect Judy Woodruff, Mark Shields, etc have nights of troubled sleep.
Regarding Congressman Nunes,
"The current chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Devin Nunes, R-
California, is one of the few politicians who knows and cares about the attack on the
Liberty."
In further thinking about those two op/eds, the authors wasted their time trying to sway
Trump as he's disowned being the policy leader on Syria, with Defense, State and CIA vying
for leadership despite every policy move they've made ending as gross failures seriously
degrading the Empire's brand which was already eroding under Obama/Kerry. With the
FBI/DNC/HRC related Scandals all reaching their acme in a manner that will exonerate Trump, I
don't see him needing to provoke an overseas distraction as he greatly desires to take down
those that tried to do him in. Indeed, exposing the massive rot and corruption at the core of
the federal government would actually give him a campaign promise victory, one I would
applaud. Of the three agencies, the CIA followed by Defense would be most injured by the
scandal fallout; and of the two, the CIA would be more willing and able to create an overseas
provocation in a desperate attempt to stave off the inevitable.
Wishful thinking--perhaps. Ironically, RussiaGate Truth is on Trump's side. Both RNC and
DNC are vapid and corrupt to the max and the grave awaits them both. Will a domestic
political victory for Trump over RussiaGate provide him with the courage to retake control
over foreign policy? Or will CIA do something more reprehensible than 911 in order to deflect
the fallout? Or ?
"... Free speech is one thing but this stuff shouldn't be allowed. Making up false allegations against someone should Not be protected speech! This guy should be fired immediately! ..."
"... The legal issue is libel and slander, but the laws are very specific and need to be read and understood carefully before launching into a lawsuit against Progressive demagogues. ..."
"... Mr Heileman is behaving in a very McCarthyism manner( I mean the cartoonish liberal version of McCarthyism not the real McCarthy) ..."
Free speech is one thing but this stuff shouldn't be allowed.
Making up false allegations against someone should Not be protected speech!
This guy should be fired immediately!
The legal issue is libel and slander, but the laws are very specific and need to be
read and understood carefully before launching into a lawsuit against Progressive
demagogues.
Yes, many top Democrats have publicly said there is no evidence of Trump/Russia
collusion...
even the melting-face woman Maxine Waters said so. But the fact the search continues IS evidence of Democrat desperation and
childishness.
It is about the spin - deflection - intimidation, or perhaps a hope that the democrats
can get a rise out of Trump or his Family via a tweet. The Administration really needs to
slap this stuff down - hard, and bury these false accusers. Incarcerate, confiscate
assets, freeze the accounts, and when the MSM starts spreading what is false crap, throw
them in too...it might improve the Journalistic standards while where at it. In essence,
make these people accountable for their accusations.
Maybe mr. Heilemann is having nancy Pelosi write up his talking points? Mr. Nunes
looks like a paragon of reason compared to any of the msnbc socialist parrots, and the
comparison is even more extreme when compared to adam shiff. Unfortunately, when your
main goal is to obfuscate and throw incredibly rude comments at your opposition, you
lose.
The Legacy media is always between 24 and 72hr behind what is really going on because
they have to clear their talking points through the DNC and Valarie Jarrett before going
on air.
The memo won't be released until after Trump has had a chance to bask in the glow of
his SOTU. And there's a lot to boast about: the economy is soaring, ISIS is destroyed,
record number of fed judges appointed, tax reform, companies repatriating billions of off
shore dollars. This is one SOTU the Democrats could only DREAM they could have.
Unfortunately, their policies won't allow them.
Well, dunno about any wires, but I did see Harry "the littlest mouse turd" Reid admit
that he got up in front of the senate and told the world the Romney was a tax evader to
the tune of many $millions. You understand that anything can be said on that floor
without legal consequence. Harry LMT told the interviewer it was ok to lie and malign a
person if that's what it took to win the election.
Thankfully, that scum bag is gone. Unfortunately, the Democrats have a limitless
supply of people to replace him. Whatever happened to honest debate and statesmanship?
There was a time when both sides could express opposition, without name calling and
outrageous accusations.
How about the 2005 photo just surfacing this week with Osucko smiling and shaking
hands with the biggest black racist on the planet, Farrakhan? A photo that has been
hidden for the last 13 years because the Congressional Black Caucus didn't want it
released so as not to damage his chances of being elected. If that had surfaced, he
wouldn't have won. Didn't hear about that? Oh, that's right, you only listen to the
ClintonNewsNetwork. Keep shoveling that s*#t down your gullet.
Veteran MSNBC political analyst John Heilemann should put up or shut up. Probably
wrote this to cover some breaking news that excoriates the Dems and Party
The Liberal media's uncontrollable disdain for Donald J. Trump has reached manic
proportions ...and it's going to devour them over the remaining 3-7 years of the Trump
presidency, as it already has THE LOS ANGELES TIMES and THE NEW YORK DAILY NEWS.
The 60th annual Grammy Awards went full anti-President Donald Trump on Sunday as the
awards show host James Corden enlisted singers Cher and John Legend, rappers Snoop Dogg and
Cardi B, music producer DJ Khaled, and failed Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton
to read excepts from Michael Wolff's White House tell-all Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White
House.
"Trump won't read anything. He gets up halfway through meetings with World leaders because
he is bored," Legend read during the surprise comedy bit meant to introduce the Grammy Award
for Best Spoken Word Album.
"His comb-over: A product called 'Just for Men,'" Cher said.
"Trump did not enjoy his own inauguration, he started to get angry and hurt that stars were
there to hurt him and embarrass him," Snoop Dogg said.
"... It has long been known that the constitutional powers of the president are not as well defined as the powers of the other branches of government. And for many years now, Republicans and Democrats have been content to see the powers of the office increased, so long as it was to the benefit of their particular agenda. ..."
"... The Trump administration is the wake-up call both parties need. But whether they are willing to learn and change remains to be seen. ..."
"... "Wasn't MI-6 (British spies) working on behalf of the Democrats and their candidate? " ..."
"... Read The American War Machine by Peter Dale Scott for some idea of the FBI's role in undermining the US Constitution for decades. https://heavywatergate.files.wordpress.com/2018/01/american-war-machine-peter-dale-scott.pdf ..."
"... Are you going on record here saying that Hillary Clinton did not destroy 30,000 emails from her private server? There is a strange one-sided nature to all this - I support Clinton, therefore I will rewrite history to preserve her reputation. I hate Trump and I will write anything regardless of reality in order to attack him. ..."
"... Where was the author for in the last 50 years that she can write the FBI is the torch bearer of freedom and democracy. ..."
"... Attacking the FBI, CIA, Stazi, MI5, SIS and all other secret services and making them accountable to the people should definitely be something we all do. But for a President to attack the FBI, for a personal advantage is insupportable. ..."
"... Under McCarthyism which, let's face it, attacking the FBI should have happened and was about to happen under JFK, until his untimely death, it was deeply suspected that the FBI had a hand in silencing a President ..."
"... I remember acting CIA Director Mike Morell telling Charlie Rose "we need to start killing Iranians and Russians in Syria". Maybe they decided to use another tactic and started killing Russian's ambassadors: https://www.cnn.com/2017/03/24/europe/dead-russians/index.html ..."
"... Wasn't MI-6 (British spies) working on behalf of the Democrats and their candidate? Which foreign influence on US campaigns is acceptable? Is there a list? Or are we supposed to just buy into the concept that only Hillary's favorite bogeymen, the Russians, are worthy of interest? ..."
"... Let's not forget the J Edgar Hoover was a facist tool of presidents who ruined or tried to ruin many a career in Hollywood and academia during decades of secret unlawful espionage against MLK. ..."
"... For better or worse Trump was ELECTED and has a mandate. Separation of powers and checks and balances in America apply to the three branches: executive, legislative and judicial. The FBI is strictly under control of the president. ..."
"... We have seen in Switzerland and in Italy in recent decades plots exposed where various people in security positions organized actual cabals and plots to subvert the elected governments. We now know that military officers and government employees in the time of JFK deliberately refused to follow presidential directives ..."
"... It is this kind of thing which is treason. And that is what the FBI was clearly doing, against Trump and illegally to further Hillary ..."
"... Bye, Bye, FBI? The Case for Disbanding the Federal Frankenstein's Monster https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/01/25/bye-bye-fbi-the-case-for-disbanding-the-federal-frankensteins-monster/ ..."
"Where is my Congress? This is the urgent question posed by these outrageous attempts by the president to subvert the constitution.
The legislative branch of government must hold an out-of-control president with authoritarian tendencies accountable."
Provided that Republicans and Democrats can think and act maturely (a very big 'if'), this may well be the principal benefit
of a Trump administration.
It has long been known that the constitutional powers of the president are not as well defined as the powers of the other branches
of government. And for many years now, Republicans and Democrats have been content to see the powers of the office increased,
so long as it was to the benefit of their particular agenda.
The Trump administration is the wake-up call both parties need. But whether they are willing to learn and change remains to
be seen.
Robert Mueller is NOT the FBI. He is a Special Prosecutor for the Justice Department, which is a far bigger entity than the
FBI. His position is similar, if not identical to any other US Prosecutor.
Mueller is using the FBI as his investigation team because . . . that is what Federal Attorneys do. The FBI is one investigative
branch of the Justice Department. I would be very surprised if Mueller is not using other investigating officers from other Departments,
such as the SEC, IRS for his investigation.
For those reasons attacking the FBI in an attempt to discredit Mueller is just plain stupid.
But then just look at the track record of Republican Congressmen and Senators who are attempting to discredit Mueller. Stupid may very well be their middle names.
So far Trump has said a lot about 'draining the swamp' but has done nothing to re-structure US institutions, or reform Congress
which he probably cannot do anyway. The genuine problem the US has is that in addition to the FBI and Military Intelligence and
the CIA, George W. Bush created the Department of Homeland Security, so there are these overlapping agencies that cost a lot of
money but at times are doing the same thing without communicating with each other.
Yes, the FBI has often had a dubious view that
Martin Luther King and John Lennon were security threats, but it has also played an important role in taking on organized crime
and murder cases that cross state lines. It remains to be seen if Trump is a real radical or just a loud-mouth, but maybe the
US needs to re-think is security apparatus, if only to save money; but as long as an independent body exists to investigate everything
inside the State.
Frankly, it's disturbing to see the rush of "liberals" to defend the FBI, simply because of Trump's opposition to the institution.
Let's not forget this is the same FBI that attempted to drive MLKJr. to suicide through harassing letters. The same FBI that has
initiated mass domestic surveillance on the Citizens of this country (USA), the same FBI that has generated tons of sting operations
goading people into committing "acts of terror", infiltrated environmental organizations in an attempt to turn them violent, and
been used by big corporate interests to spy on anti-fracking activists in Pennsylvania. And now they are Democratic heroes? That
tells you plenty about the heart of the Democratic Party!
Let's not forget that you're describing the FBI at least 50 years ago. MLK was assassinated in 1968. Hoover (1895-1972) tracked
MLK's friendships and love affairs in 1963-65. At this time, the British, West German, Canadian, and French domestic security
services did exactly the same thing, with more discretion than the FBI. That includes Canadian in the discretion dept. Parallel
East German, Czech, Hungarian, and Soviet domestic agencies were a different order of magnitude. They did far more than blackmailing
actresses or trailing human rights activists.
You don't think the FBI losing 5 months of texts between Strzok and Page due to 'software upgrades' is a little bit too coincidental?
just as Clinton's so-called missing emails were in 2016.
Pardon? So-called? Are you going on record here saying that Hillary Clinton did not destroy 30,000 emails from her private
server? There is a strange one-sided nature to all this - I support Clinton, therefore I will rewrite history to preserve her
reputation. I hate Trump and I will write anything regardless of reality in order to attack him.
I think what the author is missing here is the fact that the FBI have no constitutional role in politics yet throughout US
history of the last 60-70 years they have been heavily involved. This is the constitutional crisis - nobody elects the FBI to
tamper with elections, candidates, etc, and they aren't mandated to even play a role. How the author fails to see this is beyond
me.
Did the Guardian order the author to write this story or did you choose it yourself? Where was the author for in the last 50 years
that she can write the FBI is the torch bearer of freedom and democracy. It turns my stomach having lived through the '60s in
college to read anything about the FBI that whitewashes it's history.
Attacking the FBI, CIA, Stazi, MI5, SIS and all other secret services and making them accountable to the people should definitely
be something we all do. But for a President to attack the FBI, for a personal advantage is insupportable.
Under McCarthyism which, let's face it, attacking the FBI should have happened and was about to happen under JFK, until his
untimely death, it was deeply suspected that the FBI had a hand in silencing a President
But Trump is merely trying to muzzle the FBI to ensure his political survival despite some very murky dealings in his camp.
I always become indignant when people, Abramson (who should know better) or anyone else tries to put the FBI up on a pedestal.
No one familiar with the history of this political police agency could do such a thing. Look at the agency's disgraceful efforts
to discredit Dr. King and its role in the assassination of Fred Hampton. In the current context the agency's essentially political
orientation is evident in the anti-Trump text messages by the two FBI officials in formerly key positions.
Anybody with half a brain would figure out that insulting millions of voters might go badly. You are still bad mouthing the voters
a year after the election. Slow learner?
I remember acting CIA Director Mike Morell telling Charlie Rose "we need to start killing Iranians and Russians in Syria". Maybe
they decided to use another tactic and started killing Russian's ambassadors:
https://www.cnn.com/2017/03/24/europe/dead-russians/index.html
Wasn't MI-6 (British spies) working on behalf of the Democrats and their candidate?
Which foreign influence on US campaigns is acceptable? Is there a list? Or are we supposed to just buy into the concept that only
Hillary's favorite bogeymen, the Russians, are worthy of interest?
Let's not forget the J Edgar Hoover was a facist tool of presidents who ruined or tried to ruin many a career in Hollywood and
academia during decades of secret unlawful espionage against MLK. He blackmailed the Kennedys. They weren't thinking about the
constitution then. Now they're the whites in shining armor because it's a requirement to write anything against Trump. Please.
This is a worrying example of how hate for Trump results in damage to logical thought and utter misrepresentation of American
institutions. NB I am NOT a Trump voter.
For better or worse Trump was ELECTED and has a mandate. Separation of powers and checks and balances in America apply to the
three branches: executive, legislative and judicial. The FBI is strictly under control of the president.
We have seen in Switzerland and in Italy in recent decades plots exposed where various people in security positions organized
actual cabals and plots to subvert the elected governments. We now know that military officers and government employees in the
time of JFK deliberately refused to follow presidential directives.
It is this kind of thing which is treason. And that is what the FBI was clearly doing, against Trump and illegally to further
Hillary.
Yes, of course Jill, we know how pristine and "constitutional" the FBI has always been...that is if we ignore the historical record
of shameful disgrace left behind by J. Edgar Hoover.
The press writes as if history started last week, and makes unfounded underlying assumptions.
"... The FBI of course has no place in the US Constitution. It could be argued that its very existence violates that document. Freedom of speech and assembly, etc, combined with the Stasi? ..."
Oh, I am very sorry, but I think you have that quite wrong.
I don't want to defend Trump. He's a nasty piece of work, but even a nasty piece of work can be correct sometimes.
The FBI of course has no place in the US Constitution. It could be argued that its very existence violates that document.
Freedom of speech and assembly, etc, combined with the Stasi?
But if its very existence doesn't violate the Constitution, its hideous lifetime record of behavior does.
And, again, ignoring what we think of Trump, we do have strong suggestions of highly inappropriate behavior by the FBI around
the election of Trump.
Does anyone really think secret police should be able to work against a proper election?
Keeping secret files on Congressmen. Helping Presidents do political spying. Hounding innocent citizens. setting up agent provocateur
operations.
If you want a clear brief history of this abysmal organization, see:
The evidence against the FBI is mounting, to list a few:
Texts between FBI lovers (one involved then fired from the Russian probe) regarding Trump " we cant take the risk" and " an insurance
policy" .
High level FBI employee involved with the Russian probe whos wife works for Fusion GPS.
Texts from the lovers mentioned above regarding Clintons FBI interview " don't go loaded for bear, she could be our president".
Comey writing his exoneration of Clinton months before all people involved were interviewed.
More texts from the lovers go missing, as claimed by the FBI, but are found and are now being released by the Inspector General.
These are all know facts that have been used by both the Oversight and Intelligence committees, you can watch the actual meetings
on YouTube.
The FBI has a trash history of locking up and framing leftists , black activists, native americans or anyone else who has threatened
the establishment. trump is filth but there is a lot lot lower.
If you want to shock yourself with the similarities between Nixon and Trump, try some Hunter S Thompson.
It is Nixon himself who represents that dark, venal and incurably violent side of the American character that almost every
country in the world has learned to fear and despise. Our Barbie-doll president, with his Barbie-doll wife and his boxful of
Barbie-doll children is also America's answer to the monstrous Mr. Hyde. He speaks for the Werewolf in us; the bully, the predatory
shyster who turns into something unspeakable, full of claws and bleeding string-warts on nights when the moon comes too close
Too much rhetoric and too little sourced information. Right off the bat, you need to dispense with appeals to the Pavlovian training
of your readers to accept the narrative of the villainous Russians and Chinese and North Koreans and Vietnamese and all things
related to Communism or even socialism - and start accepting that the political actors of all social entities - especially nations
which are the entities that decide what can be owned and who can be privileged to own it - meddle as much as they can in the selection
processes of all other social entities as much as they can. Certainly , even aside from Western Military interventions, the US,
UK, and the other partners in the Western Hegemony have been using all means possible to influence the political outcomes of other
nations - including the launching of viral autonomous and guided propaganda bots into the media and internet networks of foreign
nations. What would be surprising, and worth investigating, is any significant evidence that a foreign country was not meddling
in the internal affairs of other countries. Please - stop promoting fantasies yourself - and gain credibility by moving your platform
into the real world. I remember when all the Germans in comic books had green faces. It brought back memories when I saw pictures
of contemporary villains depicted on news sites with green faces. This vilification stuff is old. Very old. How about some new
tricks for a change.
This is ridiculous. There is ample evidence, before and after Trump, of FBI incompetence and disarray. Look at the inept handling
of the Boston bombing, the failure to vet the Tsarnov family despite a head's up from Russia that they had been in contact with
extremists. Then there was the failure regarding the Orlando nightclub killings, even though, again, there were ample warnings
ignored. The FBI and Comey are, in addition, extremely suspect for their bizarre handling of the Clinton 'investigation,' so-called:
a hand-picked group of investigators, side-stepping protocols for setting up a team; the fact that an exoneration was written
before the investigators interviewed key witnesses or Clinton herself; granting immunity to the witnesses; failure to impanel
a grand jury; failure to get a subpoena to examine the DNC computers that were breached; changing the wording of the exoneration
to 'extremely careless,' instead of 'reckless,' and of course, the fact that biased, pro-Clinton agent Strozak was the team leader.
If this is not sufficient for Jill, or anyone, to be alarmed about FBI impartiality, I despair. The fact she has made her bias
against Trump known, saying he is unsuitable for the presidency, merely adds to the known biases that permeate this piece and
its defense of the corrupted FBI.
The fogies these days think it is more appropriate to have the actual government intelligence agencies (all seventeen of them)
listen in on the rival party's Presidential campaign conversations, especially when the fogies' personal politics exactly match
those of the administration in power.
Why hire Watergate burglars when you have an alphabet soup of spooks with a trillion dollars in hardware at your disposal?
You'd have to be a complete fool, or a "democrat can do no wrong ever" to not think that Trump has some reason to be suspicious
of the FBI and DOJ. BTW, who the hell keeps on leaking, it's like hour by hour leaks? If I were Trump I'd get rid of Sessions
cuz he sure isn't doing his job. Soooo, why did Rod Rosenstein go to Speaker Ryan and plead with him not to release the "memo"
if there's nothing to hide?
***Even
This is a strange century where liberals and moderates are defending J. Edgar's old haunts. But must agree with the author that
the POTUS is a clear and present danger.
Preview of some upcoming Graun drivels: "Attack on NSA is attack on privacy", "Attack on CIA is attack on international law".
I am sure somebody will correct me, but none of these three letter agencies have anything in common with either the letter or
the spirit of US constitution.
As the Republicans continue their campaign to discredit the FBI, it's important to remember a piece of history. Without
Deep Throat, the Washington Post's secret source, the Watergate scandal might never have been exposed. Deep Throat, we learned
in 2012, was Mark Felt, the No2 official at the FBI.
Another Watergate reference. We hear a great many of them emanating from the US. It does seem as though the American media
is top heavy with old fogies who see every independent council investigation as an opportunity to LARP the glory days of the Watergate
Era.
Yes, CNN staffers have lost their minds. One year of Donald Trump's America and he's
defeated them as thoroughly the New England Patriots beat, well, just about anybody.
We're a year into the most-biased U.S. media in history – tracking at
90 percent biased against President Trump . But there appears to be lasting damage to
journalists, their professionalism and even their ability to pretend they are rational.
In just one week, CNN staffers blamed President Trump for a man who tried to harm people at
their headquarters, ran a piece celebrating
cuckolding (not kidding!) and questioned whether the president deserved "credit" for all of
the good corporate news of raises and bonuses – resulting from his tax cut.
Celebrity clown and CNN Chief White House Correspondent Jim Acosta had
repeated run-ins with whoever the Trump administration put at the podium. In each case,
they smacked him down and showed the lack of depth of his reporting.
... ... ...
2. What FBI Memo? What Missing Messages? Journalists love to highlight the 18-minute
gap in one of President Richard Nixon's tapes. Give them 30,000 missing emails or 50,000
missing texts and they are less thrilled. Perhaps because both of those involved are
liberal.
It was all hands on deck in a desperate quest to control the narrative about the memo and
texts. MSNBC's "Morning Joe" host
Joe Scarborough claimed criticism of the FBI amounted to "conspiracy theories" that were
"making America less safe." CNN talked repeatedly about the effort to
"discredit" the Mueller investigation.
CBS and NBC tried to spin the story away from
the missing texts . But when ABC finally decided to chime in, it went full bore against the
GOP.
Anchor David Muir echoed Democratic talking points about the FBI text messages: "This is a
political battle, and ultimately, the American people will decide whether those personal text
messages were appropriate or not."
... ... ...
4. You Actually Thought Journalists Were Neutral? Part II: The New York Times
actually devoted some opinion space to Trump supporters. Naturally, it caused a
firestorm with its lefty readers and journalists who think those readers aren't left-wing
enough.
Journalistic operations like the Columbia Journalism Review and the Poynter Institute were
joined by HuffPost and others blasting the decision. How dare the Times run content from actual
Trump supporters and turn the page into a "welcome wagon" for his supporters, wrote
Poynter ?
CJR's attack: "The Times's pro-Trump
editorial page is patronizing and circular" at least admitted that the paper has no
pro-Trump voices. "In fact, the Times employs many conservative commentators. It just seems to
be a requirement that those commentators are never-Trumpers."
Is she a MI6 asset? Strong intelligence agencies (and FBI for all practical purposes is a
branch of CIA, when if comes to politics) are grave threat to republican form of government (then
make elections meaningless, as the winner need their support) and remnants of democracy. In
view of FISA memo bomb I like her statement "Comey's independence and ethics cost him his job
when Trump fired him" Such an ethical Comey, using falsified dossier to spy on one of contenders
in the Presidential race ;-)
As one commenter aptly noted:
"Wasn't MI-6 (British spies) working on behalf of the Democrats and their candidate?"
Notable quotes:
"... President Obama, Hillary Clinton, Huma Abedein, Attorney General Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton [remember his surreptitious visit to Lynch's plane during the final days of the investigation?] conspired to compromise the independence of The Justice Department itself. ..."
The only person who can fire Mueller is Rod Rosenstein. From last June:
Amid reports that President Trump is considering firing the special counsel overseeing
the Russia investigations, a senior Justice Department official said Tuesday that he - and
not the president - is the only official empowered to dismiss the prosecutor and that he
sees no reason to do so.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-to-know-about-the-paul-manafort-indictment
/
"This is Mueller's first indictment resulting from his investigation into Russian meddling in
the 2016 U.S. election and any collusion between Trump campaign associates and Russia. But
this indictment does not get to the heart of that matter."
This comment...if it was written by a journalist, would be the perfect example of what we are
discussing. The bias is obvious and it claims to offer facts under the veil of industry
standard sub part evidence (sources within the white house)....sadly, our journalists,
including the Guardian CNN FOX...all of them...now allow their journalists to cross these
ethical lines. The damage is that their audiences swallow it up rather than questioning the
bias and questioning the evidence....in a nut shell, society's critical thinking skills have
deminished and polarization (conquer and divide) has increased.....because dumb or lazy
people don't read and dumb/lazy people don't demand sources or evidence. If everyone took the
10 seconds to simply request that journalist follow their OWN STANDARD OF ETHICS across the
board, the political chaos and polarization we see in the world would be reduced.
Ha ha! Show me a fact, please! I'd love to see what a fact in the National Review looks
like.
Try CBS and other media:
"The FBI recently released records last month that detailed an interview with Clinton
adviser Huma Abedin, in which she was shown an email exchange between Clinton and Mr. Obama.
At first, she didn't recognize that it was the president because he was using a
pseudonym.
"Once informed that the sender's name is believed to be a pseudonym used by the president,
Abedin exclaimed: 'How is this not classified?'" the report said. "Abedin then expressed
her amazement at the president's use of a pseudonym and asked if she could have a copy of the
email." https://www.cbsnews.com/news/did-hillary-clintons-email-servers-jeopardize-obama
/
America exists to serve the powerful and wealthy interests that have always called the
shots.. read the written record expressed by its founders, if you seek proof.
The difference at this current time, is that with trump being the "distractor in chief", there
is little effort to cover up the reality of who exists to serve whom. for those who don't like
it, be patient. Trump will be out on his ear once his usefulness has played out.
This isn't Watergate. I remember it well. Actual crimes were committed. A group of operatives
broke into Democratic headquarters at the Watergate hotel in the middle of the night going
through files. Then you had an unsolved crime seeking the criminals. This is the opposite.
You've decided Trump is a criminal, and now you're desperately seeking a crime to pin on him.
It won't work. Any obstruction charge will either fail at the Supreme Court or during
impeachment proceedings in the Senate. Democrats will claim a moral victory, in that they
actually got Trump charged, if not convicted. This is a farce. Just like the BS charges
against Bill Clinton. Back then we were treated to the ridiculous spectacle of grown men
raising a semen encrusted dress skyward in victory. It's just sad that this is what
government has been reduced to. It's pathetic.
Under Freedom of Speech President Trump has a democratic right to criticize the FBI,
judges, or any other subject he chooses. Just like the Guardian, and numerous other media
publications have a right to criticize the President. No one disputes that judges have the
legal right to render a decision, but you do have every right to criticize that decision.
Same goes for the FBI. They have the legal obligation to investigate and bring charges, but
you can criticize those charges and the impartiality of investigators. Unquestioned obedience
to authority is still fortunately not part of our democratic tradition. If that's what you're
looking for, move to China.
"As the Republicans continue their campaign to discredit the FBI, it's important to remember
a piece of history. Without Deep Throat, the Washington Post's secret source, the Watergate
scandal might never have been exposed. Deep Throat, we learned in 2012, was Mark Felt, the
No2 official at the FBI."
It also important to remember that Nixon was President at the time of the Watergate
break-in, seeking re-election.
It is Obama, Clinton and the serving FBI officers who are under scrutiny for abuse of power
before an election, not Trump.
The Author's selectivity is fascinating as well as ironic. While Trump's harangues are
potentially criminal the notion that they could do much more damage than already done by her
cadre is laughable.
President Obama, Hillary Clinton, Huma Abedein, Attorney General Loretta Lynch and Bill
Clinton [remember his surreptitious visit to Lynch's plane during the final days of the
investigation?] conspired to compromise the independence of The Justice Department
itself.
In fact against regulations not to speak of good investigative practice, an FBI agent
disclosed the name of Barack Obama as a knowing recipient of State Department Emails from her
home grown server, to Huma Abedein, herself a potential material witness and in all
likelihood a target of the investigation.
Who authorized that disclosure isn't documented, but it had to be a higher up.
"How is this not classified?" So exclaimed Hillary Clinton's close aide and confidante,
Huma Abedin. The FBI had just shown her an old e-mail exchange, over Clinton's private
account, between the then-secretary of state and a second person, whose name Abedin did not
recognize. The FBI then did what the FBI is never supposed to do: The agents informed
their interviewee (Abedin) of the identity of the second person. It was the president of
the United States, Barack Obama, using a pseudonym to conduct communications over a
non-secure e-mail system -- something anyone with a high-level security clearance, such
as Huma Abedin, would instantly realize was a major breach.
She recovered quickly enough, though. The FBI records that the next thing Abedin did,
after "express[ing] her amazement at the president's use of a pseudonym," was to "ask if she
could have a copy of the email." Abedin knew an insurance policy when she saw one. If
Obama himself had been e-mailing over a non-government, non-secure system, then everyone else
who had been doing it had a get-out-of-jail-free card.
The FBI is corrupt as is the Department of Justice. Why was Comey signing off investigations
into Hillary's wrongdoings before he's see the evidence?
The whole lot of them are totally anti-Trump and collude together to withhold information
from Congressional Hearings with Trey Gowdy exposing lie after lie..
Be assured, the Clinton's eil influence will be exposed for what it is.
Excellent. Now they've been recovered, which virtually anyone should have been able to do
with forensic software, maybe their contents will become publicly available through their use
in the courts/legal proceedings.
It was Page and Strzok who were the ones using the term 'secret society', from your
link:
Some GOP lawmakers in recent days have homed in on an exchange in recently recovered
texts in which Strzok and Page make reference to a "secret society." Johnson, one of the
senators who has voiced concerns about this exchange, acknowledged Thursday morning the
possibility that the "secret society" reference was made in jest. [note, this is his
speculation]
"Are you even going to give out your calendars?" Page asked Strzok in one of the
messages. "Seems kind of depressing. Maybe it should just be the first meeting of the
secret society."
That's about how long it would take an effective Intel analyst to access, sort, select,
prioritize, arrange, print, cover, staple, and deliver everything in the electronic inventory
of NSA intercepts. That they haven't done so is an indication that the concept of an ongoing
investigation is more important than the outcome.
The true attack on the US Constitution was Hillary Clinton's email management practices. Thank God we dodged that bullet, thanks to the wholly proportionate coverage from media
like Jill's former employer.
"... The Special Counsel Robert Mueller 's main evidence thus far in his "Russiagate" probe is not actually about possible Russian collusion with Trump to win the Presidency, but instead about definite Israeli collusion with Trump after Trump had already won the Presidency but before he became inaugurated. As a lawyer explained on the day when Trump's former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn was indicted in a plea-deal: "Mr. Flynn has just become the prosecution's star witness." What Flynn had pled to was his trying to obtain Russia's support for Israel's Government, against the Palestinians. Russia said no; Putin said no to Flynn's request, which had been made on behalf of Israel. ..."
"... * Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They're Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010 , and of CHRIST'S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity . ..."
If what Mr. Zuesse is writing, in the following, seemingly very well substantiated article,
is true, then extremely serious questions arise as to which forces have helped Mr. Trump become
the President in a country where anybody who challenged the establishment got assasinated (for
ex. the Kennedies) and which forces are controlling him.
Another extraordinary aspect of all that is also the way such forces have succeeded, up to
now, to be hidden behind Russia!
If things like those already revealed are true, then the same forces controlling Mr. Trump
can use the situation they helped engineer, to push him to implement their war agenda against
both Iran and North Korea, in exchange for help to the President to get out of all this mess.
If Mr. Trump will not agree to the war scenarios, then more disturbing revelations may
follow.
We hope that all these are simple suppositions and hypotheses, theories of conspiracies and
not description of real conspiracies.
But, unfortunately, nightmares tend now to happen more often when we wake up, than when we
slip. Maybe this is a reason we slip too much.
K.D.
"Russiagate" Is Actually "Israelgate": Trump as "Agent of Israel", Not of
Russia?
The Special Counsel Robert Mueller 's main evidence thus far in his "Russiagate" probe
is not actually about possible Russian collusion with Trump to win the Presidency, but instead
about definite Israeli collusion with Trump after Trump had already won the Presidency but
before he became inaugurated. As a lawyer explained on the day when Trump's former National
Security Advisor Michael Flynn was indicted in a plea-deal: "Mr. Flynn has just become the prosecution's star witness." What
Flynn had pled to was his trying to obtain Russia's support for Israel's Government, against
the Palestinians. Russia said no; Putin said no to Flynn's request, which had been made on
behalf of Israel.
The way that Mueller's investigation, to find reasons for Trump's impeachment, achieved on
December 1st the indictment and plea-deal with Flynn, was to get Flynn to admit (after his
first having lied to deny) that he had been asked by Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner , who had
been asked by Israel's prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu , to communicate to Russia's
head-of-state Vladimir Putin through Russia's U.S. Ambassador, a request on behalf of the
incoming U.S. Administration of Donald Trump , for Russia to get Israel out of a jam at the
U.N. Security Council. Netanyahu didn't want to be alone in trying to pressure Putin to turn
against the Palestinians; he wanted the incoming Trump Administration also to be pressuring
Putin to do that -- for Russia to veto, this time, a resolution ( #2334 in 2016 ), which, every year in
the past, had been supported by Russia; or, failing to achieve that, to get Russia's support
for Israel's effort to delay the Security Council's vote, until after Trump would become
installed as the U.S. President on January 20th. That's what Putin was saying no to.
The initiative in this matter -- the matter that has oddly become the centerpiece of
Mueller's case for impeaching Trump -- came from Israel's prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu,
not at all from Russia's head-of-state, Vladimir Putin, such as is almost universally reported
to have been the Trump Administration's foreign master (if any). Trump's agent, Kushner, was
the supplicant, on behalf of Israel, for Putin's assistance to Israel. Kushner had been asked
by Netanyahu to do this, and Kushner assigned Flynn to do it, on behalf of Trump. According to
ABC News ,
"Trump phoned Flynn shortly after the election to explicitly ask him to 'serve as point
person on Russia,' and to reach out personally to Russian officials to develop strategies to
jointly combat ISIS."
But, apparently, Flynn accepted Kushner's instructions also (not only Trump's), and he
assumed that what Kushner wanted here (which was not against ISIS, but instead against the
Palestinians) was also what Trump wanted on this matter. In fact,
Eli Lake reported about Flynn, on the day of Flynn's indictment, December 1st,
"that during the last days of the Obama administration, the retired general was instructed
to contact foreign ambassadors and foreign ministers of countries on the U.N. Security Council,
ahead of a vote condemning Israeli settlements. Flynn was told to try to get them to delay that
vote until after Barack Obama had left office, or oppose the resolution altogether."
In other words: Russia refused to comply with the incoming U.S. President's son-in-law's
request that had been passed to Putin through Russia's U.S. Ambassador Sergey Kislyak , through
Flynn, through Kushner, who had received the request directly from Netanyahu (and the
indictment makes no allegation that President-Elect Trump even so much as knew about any
of this; there is no impeachable allegation made there against Trump). Possibly, but not yet
certainly, Kushner had received, from his father-in-law, instructions to comply with Israel's
'requests', so that Kushner didn't need to communicate with Mr. Trump specifically for
permission to pass along to Putin through Russia's U.S. Ambassador, Netanyahu's desire, as
being also America's desire. Not only was Trump not Putin's agent in this matter, but his
son-in-law was instead serving there as Netanyahu's agent, under some as-yet-undetermined
authorization from Trump, but the indictment doesn't even allege there to have been any such
authorization, by Trump, at all .
We can be certain that Kushner did have Trump's authorization, however, in
some form, because even now, Trump hasn't yet fired Kushner. Kushner's incompetence
might bring down Trump, but Trump still stands with Kushner, against Mueller, even though that
seems politically suicidal for Trump to be doing. No doubt, if Trump were to break from
Kushner, then Kushner might testify against Trump -- and so that path (Trump's turning against
Kushner) would also be politically suicidal for Trump. Perhaps Kushner will go to prison
if he becomes prosecuted and doesn't reach any plea-deal. Maybe that's the reason why Trump
doesn't fire Kushner.
The plea-deal with
Flynn has him admitting that his contacts with Kislyak were authorized only by Kushner
(referred to in Flynn's
indictment not by name but only by the vague phrase "a very senior member of the
Presidential Transition Team"). However, Flynn had earlier lied to the FBI and said that he "never
asked Russia's ambassador to Washington, Sergey Kislyak, to delay the vote for the U.N.
Security Council resolution." So: if, subsequently, it somehow does turn out to be Flynn's word
against Trump's word, then the ultimate decision will be made by Senate Republicans when they
either do or don't vote for Mike Pence to take over the remainder of Trump's term. In order for
that switch to be made, two-thirds of the entire U.S. Senate -- that's 67 of the 100 -- would
need to vote for Pence to take over. Whereas Democrats seem eager for Pence to complete Trump's
term, that's only 46 Senators, or 48
if both Independents vote with the Democrats , and at least 9 or 11 of the Senate's 52
Republicans would then also need to vote for Pence. The Vice President would not be the
presiding officer; instead, the Constitution makes the Chief Justice of the U.S. that, and only
the Senators are allowed to be counted in a Senate trial that would follow after the House's
majority-vote for a Senate trial to be held. The V.P. couldn't serve as any 'tie-breaker' in
this trial. And removal-from-office would be the only direct harm to Trump; the U.S. provides
no way to try the President on any charge via the courts -- the only way a U.S. President can
be punished for any crime is by being tried, and then convicted and removed from office, by a
two-thirds vote in the Senate. Other than that, a U.S. President is above the law.
The Flynn
indictment does make one other allegation which specifically concerns Russia:
"FLYNN falsely stated that he did not ask Russia's Ambassador to the United States to
refrain from escalating the situation in response to sanctions that the United States had
imposed against Russia."
Flynn admitted now that that was a lie -- that he had made this request of
Kislyak.
"While the Israel lobby ran interference for Kushner, the favorite pundits of the liberal
anti-Trump 'Resistance' minimized the role of Israel in the Flynn saga. MSNBC's Rachel Maddow ,
who hasdevotedmore content this year to Russia than to any other topic, appeared to
entirely avoid the issue of Kushner's collusion with Israel."
Apparently, exposing Israeli control over the U.S. Government is, in effect, prohibited;
only Russian 'control' over us may be 'exposed'. The very possibility, that when
America's taxpayers pay (via U.S. taxes) annual donations of $3.8 billion per
year to the Government of Israel, which is a 'friend', instead of a master -- an enemy --
of the American people, seems to be prohibited to disprove, or even to question publicly. But
there it is, and Russia gets the blame, which Israel ( and the Sauds ) do not.
Such misdirection of the blame could cause WW III, especially if U.S. media continue calling
this 'evidence' 'against Trump', by such terms as 'Russiagate.' It's not that, at all; and
portraying it as if it were, could do the whole world a whole lot of harm. (I don't say this in
support of Trump, a President I loathe as much as I do his far slicker predecessor, but instead
to expose the current lynch-mob as being what they actually are: psychopathic inciters of the
most horrific -- and unwarranted -- war ever.)
Truth is the first victim of war. This is also true about the Cold War II with Russia.
Notable quotes:
"... MSNBC's Chris Hayes recently asked a question of his Twitter following that was so heavily loaded it wouldn't be permitted on most interstate highways: "Aside from genuine cranks, is there anyone left denying it was the Russians that committed criminal sabotage in the American election?" ..."
"... New York Times ..."
"... You can begin finding your way toward the answer to that question by envisioning the following hypothetical scenario. Imagine what would happen if, instead of promoting the Russiagate narrative, the faces of the consent-manufacturing machine known as the mass media began telling mainstream America that in order to ensure that the US will remain capable of dominating the other countries on this planet, there's going to have to be an aggressive campaign to re-inflame the Cold War with the goal of disrupting and undermining China and its allies ..."
"... This is what Russiagate is ultimately about. Democrats think it's about impeaching Trump and protecting the world from a nigh-omnipotent supervillain in Vladimir Putin, Trump's supporters think it's a "deep state coup" to try and oust their president, but in reality this has nothing to do with Trump, and ultimately not a whole lot to do with Russia either. When all is said and done, Russiagate is about China. ..."
"... In an essay titled "Russia-China Tandem Changes the World", US-Russia relations analyst Gilbert Doctorow explains how the surging economic power China depends upon Russia's willingness to go head-to-head with America and its extensive experience with US attempts to undermine the USSR during the Cold War. Alone both nations are very vulnerable, but together their strengths are complimentary in a way that poses a direct threat to America's self-appointed role as world leader ..."
"... So the strategic value of taking Russia out of the equation is clear, and that's exactly what the US power establishment is attempting to do. California Representative Eric Swalwell, one of the lead congressional promoters of both anti-Russia sentiment and the Trump-Russia "collusion" narrative, admitted last year that he'd like to see tougher sanctions stacked up until they "isolate Russia from the rest of the world" ..."
"... The US oligarchs, the oligarch-owned media outlets, and the oligarch-aligned intelligence/defense agencies can't just come right out and say "Hey America, we need to ensure our power structures remain unrivalled for the foreseeable future, so we're going to have to try and shut down Russia's influence using ever-tightening economic sanctions, NATO expansionism, proxy wars and troops along Russia's border to squeeze them until they lose the capacity to interfere with our ability to crush China. We'll also need a vastly inflated military budget to help facilitate our geopolitical agendas and prepare for a possible world war, please." A few Americans might consent to it, but by and large the US public would rather see those resources spent on making their lives better. ..."
"... So they lie. They use America's deliberately constructed partisan enmity and culture wars to fan the flames of mass hysteria about a new president so that enough Americans will permit continuous escalations with Russia under the mistaken impression that they are helping to resist Trump. ..."
MSNBC's Chris Hayes recently asked a question
of his Twitter following that was so heavily loaded it wouldn't be permitted on most interstate highways: "Aside from genuine cranks,
is there anyone left denying it was the Russians that committed criminal sabotage in the American election?"
Hayes asked this fake question because he works for MSNBC and it is therefore his job, and he asked it in response to a report
first made viral by deranged espionage LARPer
Eric Garland that a Dutch intelligence agency had been observing Russian hackers attacking US political parties in advance of
the 2016 election. Like all "bombshell" Russiagate reports, this one roared through social media like wildfire carried on the wings
of liberal hysteria about the current administration, only to be exposed as being riddled with gaping plot holes as
documented here
by independent journalist Suzie Dawson. The report revolves around an allegedly Russian cyber threat now known in the west as "Cozy
Bear," which as Real News ' Max Blumenthal
notes is not a network of hackers but "a Russian-sounding name the for-profit firm Crowdstrike assigned to an APT to market its
findings to gullible reporters desperate for Russiagate scoops."
This "bombshell" overlapped with another as it was reported by the New York
Times that at one point many months ago Trump had wanted to fire Robert Mueller, but then didn't.
*Cough.*
Why does this keep happening? Why does the public keep getting sold a mountain of suspicion with zero substance? Over and over
and over again these "bombshell" stories come out about Trump and Russia, Russia and Trump, only to be
debunked ,
retracted , or
erased from the spotlight after people start actually reading the allegations and thinking critically about them and see they're
not the shocking bombshells they purport to be? These allegations are all premised upon claims made the US intelligence community,
which has an extensive and well-documented history of lying to advance its agendas, as well as
porous claims made by an
extremely shady and insanely profitable
private cyber security company, and yet all we're ever shown is smoke and mirrors with no actual fire.
Why is that?
You can begin finding your way toward the answer to that question by envisioning the following hypothetical scenario. Imagine
what would happen if, instead of promoting the Russiagate narrative, the faces of the
consent-manufacturing machine known as the mass media began
telling mainstream America that in order to ensure that the US will remain capable of dominating the other countries on this planet,
there's going to have to be an aggressive campaign to re-inflame the Cold War with the goal of disrupting and undermining China and
its allies.
That would be a very different narrative with a very different effect, wouldn't it? But that's exactly what's going on here, and
if the US power establishment and its propaganda machine were in the business of telling people the truth, that's precisely what
they'd say.
It's not a secret that China has been working to surpass the United States as the world's leading superpower as quickly as possible.
Hell, Xi Jinping
flat-out said so during a three and a half hour address last October, and
many experts think it might happen a lot
sooner than Xi's 30-year deadline. An editorial from China's state press agency about the Davos World Economic Forum
asserts that the time has come for the world to choose between the "Xi-style collaborative approach" and Trump's "self-centred
America First policy (which) has led his country away from multiple multilateral pacts and infused anxiety into both allies and the
broader world." China has been collaborating with Russia to
end the hegemony of the US dollar , to
shore up control
of the Arctic as new resources become available, and just generally build up its own power and influence instead of working to
remain in Washington's good graces as most western nations have chosen to do.
Preventing this is the single most important goal of the US power establishment, not just its elected government but the unelected
plutocrats, defense and intelligence agencies which control the nation's affairs behind the scenes. This agenda is so important that
in a letter to his successor the outgoing President Barack Obama made the "indispensable"
nature of American planetary leadership his sole concrete piece of advice, and pro-establishment influence firms like Project for
a New American Century have made preventing the rise of a rival superpower their
stated primary goal
.
This is what Russiagate is ultimately about. Democrats think it's about impeaching Trump and protecting the world from a nigh-omnipotent
supervillain in Vladimir Putin, Trump's supporters think it's a "deep state coup" to try and oust their president, but in reality
this has nothing to do with Trump, and ultimately not a whole lot to do with Russia either. When all is said and done, Russiagate
is about China.
In an essay titled
"Russia-China Tandem Changes the World", US-Russia relations analyst
Gilbert Doctorow explains how the surging economic
power China depends upon Russia's willingness to go head-to-head with America and its extensive experience with US attempts to undermine
the USSR during the Cold War. Alone both nations are very vulnerable, but together their strengths are complimentary in a way that
poses a direct threat to America's self-appointed role as world leader .
"Russia is essential to China because of Moscow's long experience managing global relations going back to the period of the Cold
War and because of its willingness and ability today to stand up directly to the American hegemon," writes Doctorow, "whereas China,
with its heavy dependence on its vast exports to the U.S., cannot do so without endangering vital interests. Moreover, since the
Western establishment sees China as the long-term challenge to its supremacy, it is best for Beijing to exercise its influence through
another power, which today is Russia."
So the strategic value of taking Russia out of the equation is clear, and that's exactly what the US power establishment is
attempting to do. California Representative Eric Swalwell, one of the lead congressional promoters of both anti-Russia sentiment
and the Trump-Russia "collusion" narrative, admitted last year that
he'd like to see tougher sanctions stacked up until they "isolate Russia from the rest of the world" after much badgering from
Fox's Tucker Carlson about his incendiary claims that the alleged cyberattacks constituted an "act of war." It is worth noting here
that despite Swalwell's repeated hysterical claims about Trump and Russia, he
recently voted to renew the treasonous Kremlin-colluding president's godlike surveillance powers anyway.
Establishment muppets like Swalwell and the unelected elites who own them don't care about Trump, they care about crippling China's
right arm Russia so that they can set about sabotaging the agendas of a potential rival superpower unimpeded by the skilful opposition
of a nuclear superpower. But, getting back to the hypothetical situation I asked you to envision earlier, they can't just come right
out and say that.
They can't. The US oligarchs, the oligarch-owned media outlets, and the oligarch-aligned intelligence/defense agencies can't
just come right out and say "Hey America, we need to ensure our power structures remain unrivalled for the foreseeable future, so
we're going to have to try and shut down Russia's influence using ever-tightening economic sanctions, NATO expansionism, proxy wars
and troops along Russia's border to squeeze them until they lose the capacity to interfere with our ability to crush China. We'll
also need a vastly inflated military budget to help facilitate our geopolitical agendas and prepare for a possible world war, please."
A few Americans might consent to it, but by and large the US public would rather see those resources spent on making their lives
better.
Just as importantly, the rest of the world would recoil in revulsion.
So they lie. They use America's deliberately constructed partisan enmity and culture wars to fan the flames of mass hysteria
about a new president so that enough Americans will permit continuous escalations with Russia under the mistaken impression that
they are helping to resist Trump. They think they're lying to you for your own good, because you can't understand how important
it is that they do what they're trying to do. That's why there are so many gaping plot holes and none of this ever quite adds up;
they're lying to you like a parent telling a child he needs to eat his broccoli if he doesn't want a lump of coal for Christmas.
Except instead of eating broccoli it's consenting to dangerous escalations and military expansionism, and instead of a parent it's
a class of elitist sociopaths, and you're always going to get coal.
And sure, an argument can be made that the world is better off under the watchful domination of the US power establishment than
it would be with multipolar power arrangements, and I encounter many establishment loyalists who make precisely that argument. Personally
I would argue that the
death, destruction
and mayhem caused by the intrinsically evil things the US establishment must do in order to maintain dominance completely invalidate
that argument, but it's a debate that people deserve to have, and they can't have it when they're being lied to about what's really
going on.
Insist on the truth. Keep pushing back against this pernicious psyop. Spread the word.
Support Caitlyn Johnstone's work on Patreon or
Paypal . Reprinted with author's permission from her
website .
The financialization of the American economy and continued slide of the lower 80% of
population standard of living might provide the impetus to scale back the MIC. And scaling back
MIC is long overdue
Notable quotes:
"... A thread here not long back with a bit about the Aussie diplomat giving some 'intel' to US IC for the Russia/Trump collusion meme. Now the Dutch are in on it too, hacking into a university beside red square in 2014 and watching Russia hack DNC/Hillary emails or whatever. (apparently no university beside red square) ..."
A thread here not long back with a bit about the Aussie diplomat giving some 'intel' to
US IC for the Russia/Trump collusion meme. Now the Dutch are in on it too, hacking into a
university beside red square in 2014 and watching Russia hack DNC/Hillary emails or whatever.
(apparently no university beside red square)
Ukraine for the Dossier, Australia and Netherlands chipping in with their bits of
'evidence'. The old MH17 crew back in action.
Tillerson/US holding Russia responsible for Syrian chemical weapons attacks, lots of new
sanctions on Russia etc etc.
Saker has an interesting article written for UNZ Review. Ukraine have official changed the
status of Donbass from being terrorist occupied to Russian occupied to dump the Minsk
agreement. US supplying javelin missiles etc.
US about to kick off the war in Ukraine again as revenge for Russia stuffing up their plans
for Syria?
Neoliberal MSM are hired presstitutes on a mission. Ideological soldiers of the neoliberal
Party, if you want to use the Bolsheviks term. To expect from them objectivity is like to expect
snow in hell.
But what is interesting is how Trump managed to undermine this neoliberal fake news industry,
especially WaPo, NYT, and CNN. Now even some neoliberal view those presstitutes with disdain:
they went way too far ion the war trial. Russiagate debacle is one such story.
Notable quotes:
"... This is, at bottom, a battle over the truth. Who owns it, who controls it, who can sell their version to a polarized public that increasingly cannot agree on basic facts. ..."
"... As paradoxical as it sounds, negative coverage helps Trump because it bonds him to people who also feel disrespected by the denizens of the mainstream press. The media take everything literally, and Trump pitches his arguments at a gut level. It is asymmetrical warfare. ..."
"... Every president gets pounded by the press. But no president has ever been subjected to the kind of relentless ridicule, caustic commentary and insulting invective that has been heaped on Trump. I have a name for this half-crazed compulsion to furiously attack one man. It's called Trump Trauma. ..."
"... by Howard Kurtz (Regnery Publishing, Jan. 29), copyright Regnery Publishing. ..."
"... This story appears in the Jan. 25 issue of The Hollywood Reporter magazine. To receive the magazine, click here to subscribe . ..."
This is, at bottom, a battle over the truth. Who owns it, who controls it, who can sell
their version to a polarized public that increasingly cannot agree on basic facts.
Everything you read, hear and see about Trump's veracity is filtered through a mainstream media
prism that reflects a lying president -- and virtually never considers the press' own baggage
and biases. Everything you read, hear and see from the Trump team is premised on the view that
media news is fake news, that journalists are too prejudiced, angry and ideological to fairly
report on the president. Trump and his acolytes use these attacks on the Fourth Estate to
neutralize their own untruths, evasions and exaggerations.
What many journalists fail to grasp is that Trump's supporters love his street talk and view
the media critiques as nonsense driven by negativity. They don't care if he makes mistakes.
As paradoxical as it sounds, negative coverage helps Trump because it bonds him to people
who also feel disrespected by the denizens of the mainstream press. The media take everything
literally, and Trump pitches his arguments at a gut level. It is asymmetrical warfare.
Every president gets pounded by the press. But no president has ever been subjected to
the kind of relentless ridicule, caustic commentary and insulting invective that has been
heaped on Trump. I have a name for this half-crazed compulsion to furiously attack one man.
It's called Trump Trauma.
"... Maybe they get their training from the CIA. ..."
"... Maybe they ARE CIA. ..."
"... Always keep in mind, when a source leaks an "exclusive" to one reporter, there is ALWAYS an ulterior motive, even if the leaked information is true. ..."
We've had people here arguing with each other on another thread about it. They( MSM ) know
how to spin a good story and spread propaganda/disinformation. Maybe they get their training
from the CIA.
It's not like Sundance hasn't been warning us
Sara Carter and Sean Hannity Are Being Played By James Comey Posted on June 13, 2017 by
sundance
Sundance
August 4, 2017: As we pointed out yesterday, the entire Sara Carter presentation of a
letter from current NSA McMaster to former NSA Susan Rice appears to be a propaganda
narrative. –DETAILS HERE– Toward that end, Carter appears with Sean Hannity and
misleads the audience about McMasters letter to Susan Rice.
Sundance 1/13/18 Sara Carter, plays the role of controlled opposition. Carter shiftily helps
Hillary Clinton deal with her "Dossier Problem". Unfortunately, but not unpredictably, Sara
Carter begins deploying deep state
Sundance 1/18/18 There are voices like Sara Carter and Dan Bongino who are rushing to the
motive behind the story and playing directly into the hands of the Swamp Dwellers who use
professional obfuscation (the Potomac two-step) to avoid accountability.
Always keep in mind, when a source leaks an "exclusive" to one reporter, there is ALWAYS an
ulterior motive, even if the leaked information is true.
Every leak has multiple consequences, and it is not clear what the primary motive was. For
example: TheHill leak to Soloman and Carter has:
-S&P leaking various things to various reporters. The one that caught my eye was the
reference to "throwing him under the bus" regarding the CF article (Clinton Foundation?). ie.
they are leaking to get back at superiors who do things re clinton that S&P don't like.
But there are many others, including the actual or likely identities of the reporters being
leaked to.
"... The first was that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein would be naming former FBI Director Robert Mueller as Special Counsel and that the White House would be "blind-sided." The second would be a MSM news report on "MF" (Michael Flynn) to which they planned to "put MF back in the news" by drawing up "a memo on Turkey," stating that "with Erdogan thugs beating protesters on the streets, it fits the news cycle." ..."
"... During the beginning of the conversation it was stated that "I'm hearing Mueller, maybe by the end of the week." By the end of the conversation, someone with a little more knowledge said "RM is happening tonight," to which the original person that mentioned Mueller by name, says "Tonight. F*ck. Quicker than I thought." ..."
On May 17, 2017, a person that calls himself "FreshCamel," posted messages on multiple
forums across the Dark Web
(part of the Internet not included in search engines and requires special encrypted programs to
access it), asking for help to decipher a discussion he had witnessed between five people
communicating using the secure messaging platform
called Gliph .
The same day, the user also uploaded four screen shot links to a pastebin account which allegedly showed the conversation
"FreshCamel" witnessed on Wednesday, May 17, 2017, during a 45 minute period, from 2:31 pm to
3:15 pm.
That time range is incredibly important because the conversation detailed knowledge
and planning of events that had not occurred nor been reported at the time the conversation
took place, meaning those participating in the conversation had first hand knowledge of events
that wouldn't occur until hours later.
The first was that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein would be naming former FBI
Director Robert Mueller as Special Counsel and that the White House would be "blind-sided." The
second would be a MSM news report on "MF" (Michael Flynn) to which they planned to "put MF back
in the news" by drawing up "a memo on Turkey," stating that "with Erdogan thugs beating
protesters on the streets, it fits the news cycle."
During the beginning of the conversation it was stated that "I'm hearing Mueller, maybe
by the end of the week." By the end of the conversation, someone with a little more knowledge
said "RM is happening tonight," to which the original person that mentioned Mueller by name,
says "Tonight. F*ck. Quicker than I thought."
Screen shots below, but first a couple points as to the timeline. The news of Mueller did
not hit the news until 6 pm ET on May 17, 2017 ( CBS
News ) and 7:32 pm (
ABC News ), both of which time stamp their articles, which was 3 1/2 hours after the first
mention in the chat log, and 3 hours after the second person said "RM is happening
tonight."
The second point is that the New York Times article on Michael Flynn and Turkey, and follow
ups by other organizations like
McClatchy , weren't published until 7:27 pm on Wednesday.
Parciat test recovered fromt he image (see the original article for the fuill text)
Dooku joined the group.
Dooku: RR isn't taking shit., and he knows our friends have stuff on him
Dooku: I'm hearing Mueller, maybe by the end of the week
SevernS: May 17 at 2: 37 pm
Hearing that too.. WH will be blind-sided. Let's put MF back in the news? Can have S
draw up
memo on Turkey With Erdogan thugs beating protesters in streets, it fits news cycle, and
I'm
sure we'll need a few more 'memos'' down the road. Good practice :-)
Huck
I'm in. S. you in here? Our friends in NY still have secure connection set up
waiting
Roger
MF was mentioned in company group too... Evidently their work on the limey is paying
off.
Roger
MF was mentioned in company group too... Evidently their work on the limey is paying
off.
Dooku
Paying off how?
Dooku
Getting to him?
Timelines aside, there are a number of other references that line up with the constant leaks
by the Deep State to the MSM.
For example, the reference in the log above, to how their work on "MF" was paying off,
saying he is "scared sh*tless," then the one that calls himself "Roger" stating "didn't AEWP
mention it when we gave him that tape."
Coincidentally, the original report on Michael Flynn, in February 2017, detailing his
conversation with the Russian ambassador to the United States, before Trump took office, was
published by the Washington Post, with one of the writers listed as "Adam Entous." Is that the
"AE" that is one of the Deep States "carrier pigeons?"
Another highly interesting reference is to the "Limey," where the person listed as "Huck,
states "our carrier pigeon said in debrief that they said something along the lines of "No
wonder no one in our business has called the Limey out, what's the point when you all keep
bringing us great stuff? It actually helps our pageviews when she gets all of her minions first
up with dumb sh*t first'."
According to The Third Estate New Group, who broke this story, the Limey reference could be
to "Louise Mensch," who just happens to be the one of the two people that put out the bogus
report that there had been a sealed indictment issued against President Trump, just last week,
and who also has been given space at the New York Times for op-eds.
Another thing that caught my eye was the reference to a "Camp Eagle," to which the user
Roger called an "asset." In the intelligence community an "asset" someone "within organizations
or countries being spied upon who provide information for an outside spy. They are sometimes
referred to as agents, and in law enforcement parlance, as confidential informants, or "CIs"
for short." (Source)
Third Estate also claims they have contacted the person that released these screen shots,
who said that while five people participated int he conversations, there were 13 present in the
message group.
ANP has also reached out to the dark web .onion email address "FreshCamel" posted on the
pastebin account, but have not heard back from him by the time of publishing, but we will
update if we do receive a response.
BOTTOM LINE
While anybody in the intelligence community could be leaking to the press, the specific
knowledge of Rod Rosenstein tapping Robert Mueller as Special Counsel, would have been known to
only a short list of people within the DOJ, and Mueller himself of course.
Since the information aligned so well with actual events that happened after the
conversation took place, this lends considerable credence to the veracity of the Third Estate
claim that they "independently reviewed and verified these screenshots and other information
provided by "FreshCamel."
This is a well planned coup attempt against not just president Trump, but against every
single voter and supporter that fought to get him elected.
Last, but not least, at the top of the first screen shot, it says "Palpatine's Revenge" as
the name of the chat..... which appears to be a reference to a Star Wars character, which has
"has become a widely recognized popular culture symbol of evil, sinister deception,
dictatorship, tyranny, and the subversion of democracy," according to Wikipedia.
The democrats are angling with Mueller not for obstruction, but conspiracy to obstruct.
This case extract fits nicely with the narrative of the day. (Notice it's from Chicago,
and not too old – Aug 2014). This case might have been the inspiration for the WaPo /
NYT fake news stories.
"... at a speed that far exceeds an Internet capability for a remote hack ..."
"... Return to Moscow ..."
"... The demonization of Russian President Vladimir Putin and Russia is where the neocons and the liberal interventionists most significantly come together. The U.S. media's approach to Russia is now virtually 100 percent propaganda. For instance, the full story of the infamous Magnitsky case cannot be told in the West, nor can the objective reality of the Ukrane coup in 2014 . The American people and the West in general are carefully shielded from hearing the "other side of the story." Indeed to even suggest that there is another side to the story makes you a "Putin apologist" or "Kremlin stooge." ..."
The claim of Russian meddling in the US election has brought US-Russia relations to what may
be an all-time low, substantially contributing to the near-universal demonization of Russian
president Vladimir Putin and of Russia itself in virtually all major media, with little or no
discussion of the supposed evidence for the claim. A stellar exception is the London Review
of Books, which published a critically important essay by Rutgers University professor
Jackson Lears in the January 4, 2018 issue. Titled "What We Don't Talk about When We Talk about
Russian Hacking," the article is an excellent overview and analysis of many of the issues the
title suggests.
The claim of Russian meddling in the election remains to this day
evidence-free, although you would never know that from the treatment of the topic in the
mainstream media. As Professor Lears observes:
Like any orthodoxy worth its salt, the religion of the Russian hack depends not on
evidence but on ex cathedra pronouncements on the part of authoritative institutions and
their overlords. Its scriptural foundation is a confused and largely fact-free 'assessment'
produced last January by a small number of 'hand-picked' analysts – as James Clapper,
the director of National Intelligence, described them – from the CIA, the FBI and the
NSA. The claims of the last were made with only 'moderate' confidence. The label Intelligence
Community Assessment creates a misleading impression of unanimity, given that only three of
the 16 US intelligence agencies contributed to the report. And indeed the assessment itself
contained this crucial admission: 'Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof
that shows something to be a fact. Assessments are based on collected information, which is
often incomplete or fragmentary, as well as logic, argumentation and precedents.' Yet the
assessment has passed into the media imagination as if it were unassailable fact, allowing
journalists to assume what has yet to be proved. In doing so they serve as mouthpieces for
the intelligence agencies, or at least for those 'hand-picked' analysts.
But although Professor Lears refers to the reports of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for
Sanity in his discussion of "Russian hacking," it seems clear there must have been a leak, not
a hack, because "the DNC data was copied onto a storage device at a speed that far exceeds
an Internet capability for a remote hack ." ("Was the 'Russian Hack' An Inside Job?", July
25, 2017, https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/07/25/was-the-russian-hack-an-inside-job/
.)
In any case, definitive claims about who was responsible (assuming, purely arguendo
, it was a hack) face the fact that, according to Ray McGovern and William S. Binney, two
members of VIPS,
McGovern was a CIA analyst for 27 years; Binney worked for NSA for 36 years, was the
agency's technical director of world military and geopolitical analysis and reporting, and
created many of the collection systems still used by NSA.
In other words, as Russian president Vladimir Putin has explained,
today's technology is such that the final address can be masked and camouflaged to an
extent that no one will be able to understand the origin of that address. And, vice versa, it
is possible to set up any entity or any individual [so] that everyone will think that they
are the exact source of that attack. (Valdimir Putin's televised interview on NBC (June 4,
2017), by NBC News' Megyn Kelly, text published on the website of the President of
Russia, June 5, 2017.)
[9]
Demonization of Putin and Russia
The demonization of Russian president Vladimir Putin and Russia itself is just part, albeit
the most dangerous part, of a disinformation campaign flowing from the mainstream media. I
don't propose to present a full treatment of the subject here. But in broad outline, it's my
understanding that when the Cold War ended in 1991, Russian president Boris Yeltsin accepted
the advice of Western neoliberal planners and dismantled much of the Russian "safety net," with
the result that the Russian economy tanked and millions of people faced terrific hardship.
Vladimir Putin has been attempting to repair that situation, and his initial success is part of
the reason for his popularity in Russia. That understanding comes from a number of articles
I've read over the years, but primarily from Tony Kevin's book Return to Moscow ,
mentioned above. I'm hardly an expert on internal Russian politics. But I've read many of the
extensive public statements Mr. Putin has made since 2007, and with my primary concern being
his role in international relations and with respect to the control of Russia's nuclear
arsenal, he strikes me as a statesman.
[10] . Yet as investigative journalist Robert Parry observes,
The demonization of Russian President Vladimir Putin and Russia is where the neocons and
the liberal interventionists most significantly come together. The U.S. media's approach to
Russia is now virtually 100 percent propaganda. For instance, the full story of the
infamous
Magnitsky case cannot be told in the West, nor can the objective reality of the Ukrane
coup in 2014 . The American people and the West in general are carefully shielded from
hearing the "other side of the story." Indeed to even suggest that there is another side to
the story makes you a "Putin apologist" or "Kremlin stooge."
Western journalists now apparently see it as their patriotic duty to hide key facts that
otherwise would undermine the demonizing of Putin and Russia. Ironically, many "liberals" who
cut their teeth on skepticism about the Cold War and the bogus justifications for the Vietnam
War now insist that we must all accept whatever the U.S. intelligence community feeds us,
even if we're told to accept the assertions on faith.
[11] .
One result is a needless heightening of the dangers and risks outlined in this article.
Dutch media is trying to help the Russiagate plotters. nice...
Notable quotes:
"... Spying is like a recursive algorithm. Next Russia will announce that they ' spied on the Dutch spies who were spying on them '. Maybe we can skip the ' motivations ': they are all spying on each other, all the time, it is their job description. ..."
It's the summer of 2014. A hacker from the Dutch intelligence agency AIVD has penetrated the computer network of a university
building next to the Red Square in Moscow, oblivious to the implications. One year later, from the AIVD headquarters in Zoetermeer,
he and his colleagues witness Russian hackers launching an attack on the Democratic Party in the United States. The AIVD hackers
had not infiltrated just any building; they were in the computer network of the infamous Russian hacker group Cozy Bear. And unbeknownst
to the Russians, they could see everything.
That's how the AIVD becomes witness to the Russian hackers harassing and penetrating the leaders of the Democratic Party, transferring
thousands of emails and documents. It won't be the last time they alert their American counterparts. And yet, it will be months before
the United States realize what this warning means: that with these hacks the Russians have interfered with the American elections.
And the AIVD hackers have seen it happening before their very eyes.
The Dutch access provides crucial evidence of the Russian involvement in the hacking of the Democratic Party, according to six
American and Dutch sources who are familiar with the material, but wish to remain anonymous. It's also grounds for the FBI to start
an investigation into the influence of the Russian interference on the election race between the Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton
and the Republican candidate Donald Trump. 'High confidence'
After Trump's election in May 2017, this investigation was taken over by special prosecutor Robert Mueller. While it also aims
to uncover contacts between Trump's presidential campaign and the Russian government, the prime objective is bringing to light the
Russian interference with the elections. An attempt to undermine the democratic process, and an act that caused tensions between
the two superpowers to rise to new heights, bringing about a string of diplomatic acts of revenge.
Three American intelligence services state with 'high confidence' that the Kremlin was behind the attack on the Democratic Party.
That certainty, sources say, is derived from the AIVD hackers having had access to the office-like space in the center of Moscow
for years. This is so exceptional that the directors of the foremost American intelligence services are all too happy to receive
the Dutchmen. They provide technical evidence for the attack on the Democratic Party, and it becomes apparent that they know a lot
more.
(This is not a joke)
(Why is this being announced now)
(This is going to run and run)
(Is this even real, sounds quite fishy)
(Navy CSI levels of Drama!!)
According to de Volkskrant, AIVD in 2014 had established surveillance on Cozy Bear, the Russian state hacking group, and
observed its efforts to attack the US Democratic Party's email systems and American government servers.
AIVD was, we're told, able to compromise security cameras surrounding the building used by the Cozy Bear crew, to look out
for known Russian spies entering the joint. The Euro snoops duly tipped off the FBI that something was afoot.
"Hackers from the Dutch intelligence service AIVD have provided the FBI with crucial information about Russian interference
with the American elections," reports the Dutch daily newspaper.
"For years, AIVD had access to the infamous Russian hacker group Cozy Bear AIVD [became] witness to the Russian hackers
harassing and penetrating the leaders of the Democratic Party, transferring thousands of emails and documents.
"It won't be the last time they alert their American counterparts. And yet, it will be months before the United States realize
what this warning means: that with these hacks the Russians have interfered with the American elections. And the AIVD hackers
have seen it happening before their very eyes."
today our secret service made public that they spied on Russian interference in the USA elections
Spying is like a recursive algorithm. Next Russia will announce that they ' spied on the Dutch spies who were spying on
them '. Maybe we can skip the ' motivations ': they are all spying on each other, all the time, it is their job description.
I am still waiting for someone to explain to us how is ' interference ' or ' meddling ' different from having
an opinion about an election. And we all know that Americans (or Dutch) have never, ever, expressed any opinions about other countries'
elections. Right. My democracy promotion is your meddling.
It is bad when you kill my cow. It is very good when I kill your cow. Monkey reasoning level?
President Trump has called for the release of the FISA abuse memo which reportedly lists
abuses by the DoJ/FBI,
The Washington Post reported Saturday. The DoJ warned against its release until they have
had a chance to look it over. This is the same DoJ/FBI that is stonewalling and withholding
information from Congress.
Trump reportedly told Attorney General Jeff Sessions through Chief of Staff John Kelly that
he wants to see the memo released, believing that it will shed light on the special counsel
investigation.
The decision rests with the House Intelligence Committee overseen by Chair Devin Nunes who
has said he wants to release them as early as Monday.
"... "Inevitably there were questions about the strange names his company had given the Russian hackers. As it happened, "Fancy Bear" and "Cozy Bear" were part of a coding system Alperovitch had created. Animals signified the hackers' country of origin: Russians were bears, Chinese were pandas, Iranians were kittens, and North Koreans were named for the chollima, a mythical winged horse. By company tradition, the analyst who discovers a new hacker gets to choose the first part of the nickname. Cozy Bear got its nickname because the letters coz appeared in its malware code. Fancy Bear, meanwhile, used malware that included the word Sofacy, which reminded the analyst who found it of the Iggy Azalea song "Fancy." " ..."
My goodness, what a farce this muh Russia hoax is! I'm sure you're all familiar with Adam
Carter's Guccifer 2.0: Game Over exposing
Crowdstrike.
Besides the wonderful research linked above, here's a very quick retort one can use to
knock out the Dutch intel story (see bold):
In this 10-24-16 puff piece by
Esquire on Crowdstrike, we find a nugget – "Fancy Bear" and "Cozy Bear" are
names created by Crowdstrike . The purported Russian hackers do not call themselves
that. It's Crowdstrike's name for them!!! It's become so used by know-nothing "experts" in
the media that people believe that's what the hackers call themselves.
So, how did Dutch intel know anything about those names – the Russians aren't as
stupid as CNN* to put those names in their coding!
Excerpt from Esquire article:
"Inevitably there were questions about the strange names his company had given the Russian
hackers. As it happened, "Fancy Bear" and "Cozy Bear" were part of a coding system
Alperovitch had created. Animals signified the hackers' country of origin: Russians were
bears, Chinese were pandas, Iranians were kittens, and North Koreans were named for the
chollima, a mythical winged horse. By company tradition, the analyst who discovers a new
hacker gets to choose the first part of the nickname. Cozy Bear got its nickname because the
letters coz appeared in its malware code. Fancy Bear, meanwhile, used malware that included
the word Sofacy, which reminded the analyst who found it of the Iggy Azalea song "Fancy."
" __________
* CNN The Russian
Connection June 2017 video – at 19:00 – 19:11 shows fake computer screen with
the words "Fancy Bear" and "Cozy Bear" and commentary by Hultquist, former senior US Intel
Analyst. CNN didn't have Crowdstrike people presenting that screen; they'd know better.
The whole video is one piece of amateur propaganda laughable puerile piece of .
"Fancy Bear" and "Cozy Bear" are names created by Crowdstrike.
Notable quotes:
"... I'm formerly a VP level IT security expert. The mickey mouse audit Crowdstrike did on the DNC server reads like a port-scan-log for any old box on the internet. So, this "Dutch surprise" is garbage, as is the report from Crowdstrike. That server was a victim of a LEAK, not a hack. ..."
"... IP's from all over the world scan for open and vulnerable ports 24/7/365. The best hackers don't use an IP you'll ever see unless they WANT you to see it – or it is a quick hit-and-run. They allege the activity was going for "years". ..."
"... The Dutch are throwing a pathetic lifeline of slippery dental floss to Obama and Hillary. Won't work. ..."
This is the next desperate grasp at straws. They put a pic of Trump next to Putin –
with no reference regarding Trump at all. Also, funny how this alleged activity is going on
while Obama is in charge of the FBI and Debbie Wasserman Shultz has a gang of Pakistani "IT
Admins" savaging congressional computers / servers.
I'm formerly a VP level IT security expert. The mickey mouse audit Crowdstrike did on the
DNC server reads like a port-scan-log for any old box on the internet. So, this "Dutch
surprise" is garbage, as is the report from Crowdstrike. That server was a victim of a LEAK,
not a hack.
IP's from all over the world scan for open and vulnerable ports 24/7/365. The best hackers
don't use an IP you'll ever see unless they WANT you to see it – or it is a quick
hit-and-run. They allege the activity was going for "years".
The Dutch are throwing a pathetic lifeline of slippery dental floss to Obama and Hillary.
Won't work.
Consider what is now known of how Comey and the FBI set about ensuring Hillary Clinton would
not be indicted for using a private email server to transmit national security secrets. The
first draft of Comey's statement calling for no indictment was prepared before 17 witnesses,
and Hillary, were even interviewed. Comey's initial draft charged Clinton with "gross
negligence," the requirement for indictment. But his team softened that charge in subsequent
drafts to read, "extreme carelessness."
Attorney General Loretta Lynch, among others, appears to have known in advance an
exoneration of Clinton was baked in the cake. Yet Comey testified otherwise.
Also edited out of Comey's statement was that Hillary, while abroad, communicated with
then-President Obama, who had to see that her message came through a private server. Yet Obama
told the nation he only learned Hillary had been using a private server at the same time the
public did.
A trial of Hillary would have meant Obama in the witness chair being asked, "What did you
know, sir, and when did you know it?"
"... For what Mueller is running here is not, as Trump suggests, a "witch hunt." It is a Trump hunt. ..."
"... Mueller's problem: He has no perjury charge to go with it. And the heart of his obstruction case, Trump's firing of FBI Director James Comey, is starting to look like something Trump should have done sooner. ..."
"... More information has also been unearthed about FBI collusion with British spy Christopher Steele, who worked up -- for Fusion GPS, the dirt-divers of the Clinton campaign -- the Steele dossier detailing Trump's ties to Russia and alleged frolics with prostitutes in a Moscow hotel. ..."
"... Not only did the Steele dossier apparently trigger a wider FBI investigation of the Trump campaign, it served as the basis of FBI requests for FISA court warrants to put on Trump the kind of full-court press J. Edgar Hoover put on Dr. King for the Kennedys and LBJ. ..."
"... Amazing. Oppo-research dirt, unsourced and unsubstantiated, dredged up by a foreign spy with Kremlin contacts, is utilized by our FBI to potentially propel an investigation to destroy a major U.S. presidential candidate. And the Beltway media regard it as a distraction. ..."
"... This cabal appears to have set goals of protecting Obama, clearing Hillary, defeating Trump, and bringing down the new president the people had elected, before he had even taken his oath. Not exactly normal business for our legendary FBI. What have these people done to the reputation of their agency when congressmen not given to intemperate speech are using words like "criminal," "conspiracy," "corruption" and "coup" to describe what they are discovering went on in the FBI executive chambers? ..."
"... As for Trump, he should not sit for any extended interview by FBI agents whose questions will be crafted by prosecutors to steer our disputatious president into challenging or contradicting the sworn testimony of other witnesses. This a perjury trap. Let the special counsel submit his questions in writing, and let Trump submit his answers in writing. ..."
"... What is going on in the US is a travesty of justice. For an outside observer of American politics, I'm flappergasted about the corruption and criminal energy the top brass of the FBI, the DOJ, together with the Obama and Clinton mafia, to discredit not only candidate Trump but President-elect Trump and finally the sitting President. Mr. Buchanan is right, arguing that Trump should not sit in with Mueller's agents, who want to trap him. ..."
"... After this witch- or Trump hunt is over, the Trump administration has to be clean up the mess in the FBI, DOJ and the other US institutions. Simultaneously, Clinton, Lynch, Chomey, McCabe and all the political criminals, including former President Obama, have to be brought to justice. What this political gang initiated is unprecedented in US history. Even Watergate fades in the face of this conspiracy of American institutions against a sitting president. ..."
Asked if he would agree to be interviewed by Robert Mueller's team, President Donald Trump
told the White House press corps, "I would love to do it as soon as possible. under oath,
absolutely."
On hearing this, the special counsel's office must have looked like the Eagles' locker room
after the 38-7 rout of the Vikings put them in the Super Bowl. If the president's legal team lets Trump sit for hours answering Mueller's agents, they
should be disbarred for malpractice. For what Mueller is running here is not, as Trump suggests, a "witch hunt." It is a Trump
hunt.
After 18 months investigating Trumpian "collusion" with Putin's Russia in hacking the DNC's
and John Podesta's emails, the FBI has hit a stone wall. Failing to get Trump for collusion,
the fallback position is to charge him with obstruction of justice. As a good prosecutor can
get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich, the tactic is understandable.
Mueller's problem: He has no perjury charge to go with it. And the heart of his obstruction
case, Trump's firing of FBI Director James Comey, is starting to look like something Trump
should have done sooner.
Consider what is now known of how Comey and the FBI set about ensuring Hillary Clinton would
not be indicted for using a private email server to transmit national security secrets. The first draft of Comey's statement calling for no indictment was prepared before 17
witnesses, and Hillary, were even interviewed. Comey's initial draft charged Clinton with "gross negligence," the requirement for
indictment. But his team softened that charge in subsequent drafts to read, "extreme
carelessness."
Attorney General Loretta Lynch, among others, appears to have known in advance an
exoneration of Clinton was baked in the cake. Yet Comey testified otherwise.
Also edited out of Comey's statement was that Hillary, while abroad, communicated with
then-President Obama, who had to see that her message came through a private server. Yet Obama
told the nation he only learned Hillary had been using a private server at the same time the
public did.
A trial of Hillary would have meant Obama in the witness chair being asked, "What did you
know, sir, and when did you know it?"
More information has also been unearthed about FBI collusion with British spy Christopher
Steele, who worked up -- for Fusion GPS, the dirt-divers of the Clinton campaign -- the Steele
dossier detailing Trump's ties to Russia and alleged frolics with prostitutes in a Moscow
hotel. While the Steele dossier was shopped around town to the media, which, unable to substantiate
its lurid and sensational charges, declined to publish them, Comey's FBI went all in.
Not only did the Steele dossier apparently trigger a wider FBI investigation of the Trump
campaign, it served as the basis of FBI requests for FISA court warrants to put on Trump the
kind of full-court press J. Edgar Hoover put on Dr. King for the Kennedys and LBJ.
Amazing. Oppo-research dirt, unsourced and unsubstantiated, dredged up by a foreign spy with
Kremlin contacts, is utilized by our FBI to potentially propel an investigation to destroy a
major U.S. presidential candidate. And the Beltway media regard it as a distraction.
An aggressive Republican Party on the Hill, however, has forced the FBI to cough up
documents that are casting the work of Comey's cohorts in an ever more partisan and sinister
light.
This cabal appears to have set goals of protecting Obama, clearing Hillary, defeating Trump,
and bringing down the new president the people had elected, before he had even taken his
oath. Not exactly normal business for our legendary FBI. What have these people done to the reputation of their agency when congressmen not given to
intemperate speech are using words like "criminal," "conspiracy," "corruption" and "coup" to
describe what they are discovering went on in the FBI executive chambers?
Bob Mueller, who inherited this investigation, is sitting on an IED because of what went on
before he got there. Mueller needs to file his charges before his own investigation becomes the
subject of a Justice Department investigation by a special counsel.
As for Trump, he should not sit for any extended interview by FBI agents whose questions
will be crafted by prosecutors to steer our disputatious president into challenging or
contradicting the sworn testimony of other witnesses. This a perjury trap. Let the special counsel submit his questions in writing, and let Trump submit his answers in
writing.
At bottom, this is a political issue, an issue of power, an issue of whether the Trump
revolution will be dethroned by the deep state it was sent to this capital to corral and
contain.
If Trump is guilty of attempted obstruction, it appears to be not of justice, but
obstruction of an injustice being perpetrated against him.
Trump should be in no hurry to respond to Mueller, for time no longer appears to be on
Mueller's side.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, "Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That
Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever."
What is going on in the US is a travesty of justice. For an outside observer of American
politics, I'm flappergasted about the corruption and criminal energy the top brass of the
FBI, the DOJ, together with the Obama and Clinton mafia, to discredit not only candidate
Trump but President-elect Trump and finally the sitting President. Mr. Buchanan is right,
arguing that Trump should not sit in with Mueller's agents, who want to trap him.
After this witch- or Trump hunt is over, the Trump administration has to be clean up the
mess in the FBI, DOJ and the other US institutions. Simultaneously, Clinton, Lynch, Chomey,
McCabe and all the political criminals, including former President Obama, have to be brought
to justice. What this political gang initiated is unprecedented in US history. Even Watergate
fades in the face of this conspiracy of American institutions against a sitting
president.
To restore the credibility of the FBI, DOJ and all other government institutions,
especially the Intel community, the US administration have to clean out the Augean
stables.
I think some of the accusations being levelled against Mueller are blown out of proportion
and show a misunderstanding of Mueller's task. His job is to investigate what happened,
including the possibility that people working for Trump did illegal things that are not
Trump's own fault. That doesn't imply Mueller is "out to get Trump".
Let me give an example. Michael Flynn conducted some informal contacts with the Russians
during the transition under Trump's instruction and told by Trump not to disclose it. This is
perfectly legal and legitimate. Flynn then mislead Pence, and later lied to the FBI about the
contacts. This was a tactical mistake by Flynn, because he could have told both that he's
under instruction from Trump not to disclose it and refuse to answer. Now Flynn says in his
own defense to Mueller that he was acting under Trump's instruction. So Mueller wants to ask
Trump if Flynn was acting under Trump's instruction. That doesn't mean it's illegal if Flynn
was acting under Trump's instruction. But if Flynn was acting on his own – there may be
a case against Flynn.
You could argue that Trump doesn't care about this – even if Flynn was acting on his
own – which goes back to Trump having constitutional authority to shut down this
fishing expedition because Trump has no interest in it.
The bottom line is that Trump has a problem with Republicans in Congress. Mueller can't do
anything against Trump – only Congress can. Trump doesn't trust Republicans in Congress
to protect him for doing what any President Elect and certainly President is entitled to do.
If Trump could trust Republicans in Congress – he could fire Mueller, Rosenstein and
Sessions and end the investigation.
"... Many Americans do not seem to understand what is at stake. What America is confronted with is a coup conspiracy organized by top officials of the Obama Justice Department, FBI, CIA, the Hillary DNC, and the presstitute media to overturn the result of a democratic election and remove the president from office. The basis of the coup is a fake dossier purchased for money that consists of unsupported allegations against Trump and that was used to obtain warrants from the FISA count to spy on Trump and various associates hoping to find something that can be used against Trump. Regardless, the false allegations could be fed to the CIA's media assets and used to create a scandal requiring a special prosecutor to investigate Russiagate. Once the investigation was under way, the presstitutes kept the scandal alive hoping to convince enough Americans that Trump must have done something -- "where there is smoke, there is fire" -- that justifies his removal. It worked against Richard Nixon, but not against Ronald Reagan, and Trump is no Reagan. ..."
"... Despite my recent postings, many people do not understand that the somewhat redacted FISA court document that has been declassified and released and explained by myself, William Binney, and former US Attorney Joe di Genova (see: https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/01/22/here-are-all-the-facts-about-russiagate/ ) contains admissions by the FBI and DOJ that they improperty spied and obtained warrants from the court under false pretenses. In other words, we have it on the authority of the FISA court itself that the FBI and DOJ have admitted to the court their transgressions. When Department of Justice (sic) congressional liaison Stephen Boyd says the DOJ is "unaware of any wrongdoing," he is lying through his teeth. The DOJ has already confessed its wrongdoing to the FISA court. ..."
"... Most other governments, and one would hope certainly the Russian and Chinese governments, would see the coup as America's final transition into a police state and give up their utopian ideas of reaching accommodation with Washington. The constraints on Washington's ability to bully the world would be greatly strengthened by the universal perception that the government of the United States had devolved into a police state. ..."
The Republicans'
delay in releasing the summary of the House Intelligence Committee's Russiagate investigation
is giving weight to the presstitutes' claim that the report is not being released, because it
is a hack attempt at a Trump coverup that is not believable. Only Republicans are stupid enough
to put themselves in such a situation.
Readers ask me why the summary memo is not released if it is real. There must be some
reasons besides the stupidity of Republicans. Yes, that is so. Among the many reasons that
might be blocking release are:
Republicans are very national security conscious. They don't want to provide precedents
for the release of classified information.
Many Republican congressional districts host installations of the military/security complex.
Upsetting a large employer and directing campaign financing to a challenger is a big
consideration.
The George W. Bush/Dick Cheney regime was a neoconservative regime. One consequence is that
Republicans are influenced by neoconservatives who stress the alleged "Russian threat."
The Israel Lobby can unseat any member of the House and Senate. The Israel Lobby is allied
with the neoconservatives and this alliance intends to keep the US militarily active against
perceived threats to Israel's hegemony in the Middle East and against Russia, which supports
Syria and Iran, countries perceived as threats by Israel.
Many Republicans are themselves invested in false Russiagate allegations against Trump and
would like to replace him with Pence. Other Republicans believe that Trump is undermining
Washington's expensively-purchased foreign alliances and, thereby, undermining US power.
Many Americans do not seem to understand what is at stake. What America is confronted with
is a coup conspiracy organized by top officials of the Obama Justice Department, FBI, CIA, the
Hillary DNC, and the presstitute media to overturn the result of a democratic election and
remove the president from office. The basis of the coup is a fake dossier purchased for money
that consists of unsupported allegations against Trump and that was used to obtain warrants
from the FISA count to spy on Trump and various associates hoping to find something that can be
used against Trump. Regardless, the false allegations could be fed to the CIA's media assets
and used to create a scandal requiring a special prosecutor to investigate Russiagate. Once the
investigation was under way, the presstitutes kept the scandal alive hoping to convince enough
Americans that Trump must have done something -- "where there is smoke, there is fire" -- that
justifies his removal. It worked against Richard Nixon, but not against Ronald Reagan, and
Trump is no Reagan.
If the highest reaches of the police state agencies can get away with an attempted or
successful coup against the president of the United States, then that is the complete end of
democracy and all accountability in government. The House, Senate, and judiciary will become as
powerless as the Roman senate under the caesars. We will live under a dictatorship ruled by
police state agencies.
Many Americans say they don't need the House Intelligence Report, because they don't believe
the Russiagate BS in the first place. They miss the point. They need the report, because those
responsible for this attempt at a coup must be identified, charged, and prosecuted for their
act of high treason.
This is not minor stuff. This goes to the heart of whether any form of liberty will exist.
We all know that the ability of the people to hold government accountable is not assured by
democracy. However, there is no prospect of holding government accountable if it is a police
state, a road that the US has been going down for some time. The audacious coup attempt against
President Trump is our opportunity to stop the momentum to a police state.
Despite my recent postings, many people do not understand that the somewhat redacted FISA
court document that has been declassified and released and explained by myself, William Binney,
and former US Attorney Joe di Genova (see: https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/01/22/here-are-all-the-facts-about-russiagate/
) contains admissions by the FBI and DOJ that they improperty spied and obtained warrants from
the court under false pretenses. In other words, we have it on the authority of the FISA court
itself that the FBI and DOJ have admitted to the court their transgressions. When Department of
Justice (sic) congressional liaison Stephen Boyd says the DOJ is "unaware of any wrongdoing,"
he is lying through his teeth. The DOJ has already confessed its wrongdoing to the FISA
court.
When Admiral Rodgers, director of the National Security Agency, discovered that the FBI and
DOJ were misusing the spy system for partisan political reasons, he let it be known that he was
going to inform the FISA court. This caused the FBI and DOJ to rush to the court in advance and
confess to "mistakes" and to promise to tighten up procedures so as not to make mistakes in the
future. It is these "mistakes" and corrections that the FISA court document reveals.
In other words, the information already exists in the pubic domain that proves that
Russiagate was a conspiracy organized for the purpose of bringing down the elected president of
the United States.
A case can be made that it would be just as well if the coup succeeds as it would bring an
end to Washington's cover as the government of a great democracy with liberty and justice for
all. Most other governments, and one would hope certainly the Russian and Chinese governments,
would see the coup as America's final transition into a police state and give up their utopian
ideas of reaching accommodation with Washington. The constraints on Washington's ability to
bully the world would be greatly strengthened by the universal perception that the government
of the United States had devolved into a police state.
"... In my experience as a journalist, the public have always been ahead of the media. And yet, in many news outlets there has always been a kind of veiled contempt for the public. You find young journalists affecting a false cynicism that they think ordains them as journalists. The cynicism is not about the people at the top, it's about the people at the bottom, the people that Hillary Clinton dismissed as "irredeemable." ..."
"... CNN and NBC and the rest of the networks have been the voices of power and have been the source of distorted news for such a long time. They are not circling the wagons because the wagons are on the wrong side. These people in the mainstream have been an extension of the power that has corrupted so much of our body politic. They have been the sources of so many myths. ..."
"... Media in the West is now an extension of imperial power. It is no longer a loose extension, it is a direct extension. Whether or not it has fallen out with Donald Trump is completely irrelevant. It is lined up with all the forces that want to get rid of Donald Trump. He is not the one they want in the White House, they wanted Hillary Clinton, who is safer and more reliable. ..."
"... I have found that those who voted for Clinton are very quick to swallow what mainstream media has to say, and those that voted for Trump, at this moment, hold the media in contempt, however they also very willingly accept Trump's policies and his lies ..."
"... I would like to add, that In the US most of Americans are usually ignorant of politics and government. Many believe that their votes are unlikely to change the outcome of an election and don't see the point in learning much about the subject. So we have a country of people with little political knowledge and little ability to objectively evaluate what they do know. ..."
Randy Credico: A lot of mainstream journalists complain when Trump refers to them as the enemy of the people, but they
have shown themselves to be very unwilling to circle the wagons around Assange. What is the upshot for journalists of Assange being
taken down?
John Pilger: Trump knows which nerves to touch. His campaign against the mainstream media may even help to get him re-elected,
because most people don't trust the mainstream media anymore.
In my experience as a journalist, the public have always been ahead of the media. And yet, in many news outlets there has
always been a kind of veiled contempt for the public. You find young journalists affecting a false cynicism that they think ordains
them as journalists. The cynicism is not about the people at the top, it's about the people at the bottom, the people that Hillary
Clinton dismissed as "irredeemable."
CNN and NBC and the rest of the networks have been the voices of power and have been the source of distorted news for such
a long time. They are not circling the wagons because the wagons are on the wrong side. These people in the mainstream have been
an extension of the power that has corrupted so much of our body politic. They have been the sources of so many myths.
This latest film about The Post neglects to mention that The Washington Post was a passionate supporter of the Vietnam
War before it decided to have a moral crisis about whether to publish the Pentagon Papers. Today, TheWashington Post
has a $600 million deal with the CIA to supply them with information.
Media in the West is now an extension of imperial power. It is no longer a loose extension, it is a direct extension. Whether
or not it has fallen out with Donald Trump is completely irrelevant. It is lined up with all the forces that want to get rid of Donald
Trump. He is not the one they want in the White House, they wanted Hillary Clinton, who is safer and more reliable.
I've always liked Mr. Pilger, and Mr. Parry, of course, and Hedges and so on However in this statement made by Mr. Pilger,
"Trump knows which nerves to touch. His campaign against the mainstream media may even help to get him re-elected, because most
people don't trust the mainstream media anymore." I would really disagree based on my own personal experiences. I have found
that those who voted for Clinton are very quick to swallow what mainstream media has to say, and those that voted for Trump, at
this moment, hold the media in contempt, however they also very willingly accept Trump's policies and his lies, like his
climate change denial and his position on Iran. It's more about taking sides then it is in being interested in the truth.
Annie , January 24, 2018 at 4:33 pm
I would like to add, that In the US most of Americans are usually ignorant of politics and government. Many believe that
their votes are unlikely to change the outcome of an election and don't see the point in learning much about the subject. So we
have a country of people with little political knowledge and little ability to objectively evaluate what they do know.
Joe Tedesky , January 24, 2018 at 6:28 pm
You got that right Annie. In fact I know people who voted for Hillary, and they wake up every morning to turn on MSNBC or CNN
only to hear what Trump tweeted, because they like getting pissed off at Trump, and get even more self induced angry when they
don't hear his impeachment being shouted out on the screen.
I forgive a lot of these types who don't get into the news, because it just isn't their thing I guess, but I get even madder
that we don't have a diversified media enough to give people the complete story. I mean a brilliant media loud enough, and objective
enough, to reach the mass uncaring community. We have talked about this before, about the MSM's omission of the news, as to opposed
just lying they do that too, as you know Annie, and it's a crime against a free press society. In fact, I not being a lawyer,
would not be surprised that this defect in our news is not Constitutional.
Although, less and less people are watching the news, because they know it's phony, have you noticed how political our Late
Night Talk Show Host have become? Hmmm boy, sometimes you have to give it to the Deep State because they sure know how to cover
the market of dupes. To bad the CIA isn't selling solar panels, or something beneficial like that, which could help our ailing
world.
We are living in a Matrix of left vs right, liberal vs conservative, all of us are on the divide, and that's the way it suppose
to be. You know I don't mean that, but that's what the Deep State has done to us, for a lack of a better description of their
evil unleashed upon the planet.
I like reading your thoughts, because you go kind of deep, and you come up with angles not thought of, well at least not by
me so forgive me if I reply to often. Joe
Annie , January 24, 2018 at 10:18 pm
I know I keep referring to Facebook, but it really allows you to see how polarized people have become. Facebook posts political
non issues, but nonetheless they will elicit comments that are downright hateful. Divide and conquer is something I often think
when I view these comments. I rarely watch TV, but enough to see how TV Talk Show hosts have gotten into the act, and Trump supplies
them with an endless source of material, not that their discussing core issues either.
I don't remember whether I mentioned this before in a recent article on this site, but when a cousin posts a response to a
comment I made about our militarism and how many millions have died as a result that all countries do sneaky and underhanded things,
I can only think people don't want to hear the truth either, and that's why most are so vulnerable to our propaganda, which is
we are the exceptional nation that can do no wrong. Those who are affluent want to maintain the status quo, and those that live
pay check to pay check are vulnerable to Trump's lies, and the lies of the Republican party whose interest lie with the top 1
percent.
Kiza , January 25, 2018 at 12:36 am
Talking about lies you mention only Trump and the Republicans Annie. Is this because the Democrats are such party of criminals
that you consider them worth mentioning only in the crime chronic not in the context of lies?
About that "Climate Change" religion of yours: how much does it make sense that people around US are freezing but TPTB still
want to tax fossil fuels, the only one thing which can keep people warm? Does that not look to your left-wing mind as taking
from the poor to give to the Green & Connected ? Will a wind-turbine or a solar-panel keep you warm on a -50 degree day? I
am yet to live to see one green-scheme which is not for the benefit of the Green & Connected, whilst this constant braying about
global warming renamed into climate change is simply as annoying as the crimes of the Israelis hidden by the media (Did you see
that photo of a 3-year old Palestinian child whose brain was splattered out by an Israeli sniper's bullet? She must have been
throwing stones or slapping Israeli soldiers, right?).
I am not a US voter and I do not care either way which color gang is running your horrible country, because it always turns
out the same. But the blatant criminality of your Demoncrats is only surpassed by their humanitarian sleaze – they always bomb,
kill and rape for the good of humanity or for the greenery or for some other touchy-feelly bull like that, which the left-wing
stupidos can swallow.
Annie , January 25, 2018 at 2:15 am
Oh, Kiza, are you one of those people that patrol the internet for people who dare mention climate change? I have no intentions
of changing your mind on the subject, even though my background is in environmental science with a Masters degree in the subject.
I am not a registered democrat, but an independent and didn't vote for Clinton, or Trump. I'm too much of a liberal. I'm very
aware of the many faults of the democratic party, and you're right about them. They abandoned their working class base decades
ago and they pretty much shun liberals within their own party, and pander to the top 10 percent in this country. Yes, both parties
proclaim their allegiance to their voting base, but both parties are lying, since in my opinion their base is the corporate world
and that world pretty much controls their agenda, and both parties have embraced the neocons that push for war.
P. S. However being fair, the Republican base is the top 1 percent in this country.
Kiza , January 25, 2018 at 6:46 am
Hello again Annie, thank you for your response. I must admit that your mention of climate change triggered an unhappy reaction
in me, otherwise I do think that our views are not far from each other. Thank you for not trying to change my mind on climate
change because you would not have succeeded no matter what your qualifications are. My life experience simply says – always follow
the money and when I do I see a climate mafia similar to the MIC mafia. I did think that the very cold weather that gripped US
would reduce the climate propaganda, but nothing can keep the climate mafia down any more – the high ranked need to pay for their
yachts and private jets and the low ranks have to pay of their house mortgages. But I will never understand why the US lefties
are so dumb – to be so easily taken to imperial wars and so easily convinced to tax the 99% for the benefit of 1% yet again. Where
do you think the nasty fossil fuel producers will find the money to pay for the taxes to be or already imposed? Will they sacrifice
their profits or pay the green taxes from higher prices?
Other than this, I honestly cannot see any difference between the so called Democrats and the so called Republicans (you say
that the Republicans are for the 1%). Both have been scrapping the bottom of the same barrel for their candidates, thus the elections
are always a contest between two disasters.
Sam F , January 25, 2018 at 7:02 am
Good that you both see the bipartisan corruption and can table background issues.
Joe Tedesky , January 25, 2018 at 9:09 am
Yeah Sam I was impressed by their conversation as well. Joe
Bob Van Noy , January 25, 2018 at 11:05 am
I agree, an excellent thread plus a civil disagreement. In my experience, only at CN. Thanks to all of you.
Realist , January 25, 2018 at 1:04 pm
I am with you, Annie, when you state that "They [the Democrats] abandoned their working class base decades ago and they pretty
much shun liberals within their own party, and pander to the top 10 percent in this country." And yet they are so glibly characterised
as "liberal" by nearly everyone in the media (and, of course, by the Republicans). Even the Nate Silver group, whom I used to
think was objective is propagating the drivel that Democrats have become inexorably more liberal–and to the extreme–in their latest
soireé analysing the two parties:
In reality, the Dems are only "liberal" in contrast to the hard right shift of the Republicans over the past 50-60 years. And
what was "extreme" for both parties is being sold to the public as moderate and conventional by the corporate media. It's almost
funny seeing so much public policy being knee-jerk condemned as "leftist" when the American left became extinct decades ago.
Virginia , January 25, 2018 at 12:16 pm
Annie, it's not just the Democrats who are bought and paid for.
Annie , January 25, 2018 at 2:54 pm
Virginia, I didn't say that only the democrats were bought and paid for, but said, " yes, both parties proclaim their allegiance
to their voting base, but both parties are lying, since in my opinion their base is the corporate world and that world pretty
much controls their agenda, and both parties have embraced the neocons that push for war." I also mentioned that the republicans
pander to the top 1 percent in this country.
Virginia , January 25, 2018 at 3:04 pm
And my reply was meant to say,
It's not just the Democrats who pander to the 1% who have bought and paid for them!
The author has made several errors. He assumes that discussing the possibility of a
psychiatric disorder making Trump unfit means proving insanity. In reality, the most likely
disorder does not meet the legal definition of insanity, but does make a person incapable of
competently or faithfully performing the duties of office.
The suggestion that this is some type of superficial soviet style political maneuver
ignores the fact that good diagnosis is done nowadays based to a large extent on observed
behavior, history, and the reports of third parties. This is especially important when the
individual shows signs of being a pathological liar. In these cases, information gained in a
face-to-face interview may be virtually useless.
The condition that Mr. Trump should be assessed for is Antisocial Personality Disorder
with Psychopathic Features. (Alternative PDOs in DSM-5, pg. 761-765 Some of the signs and
symptoms which make such a person unfit for office include-
Dishonesty and fraudulence
Embellishment or fabrication when relating events
Anger or irritability in response to minor slights and insults
Mean, nasty, or vengeful behavior
Boredom proneness and thoughtless initiation of activities to counter boredom
Lack of concern for one's limitations
Acting on the spur of the moment in response to immediate stimuli
Acting on a momentary basis without a plan or consideration of outcomes
Disregard for -- and failure to honor–financial and other obligations or
commitments
No one imagined that someone with this possible disorder would ever make it to the White
House, however, the 25th Amendment provides an avenue for him to temporarily be removed from
power while he can undergo proper evaluation by military psychiatrists and neurologists. This
is all mental health professionals are requesting. These individuals can do tremendous damage
when give power over others.
"The condition that Mr. Trump should be assessed for is Antisocial Personality Disorder
with Psychopathic Features. (Alternative PDOs in DSM-5, pg. 761-765 Some of the signs and
symptoms which make such a person unfit for office include-
Dishonesty and fraudulence
Embellishment or fabrication when relating events
Anger or irritability in response to minor slights and insults
Mean, nasty, or vengeful behavior
Boredom proneness and thoughtless initiation of activities to counter boredom
Lack of concern for one's limitations
Acting on the spur of the moment in response to immediate stimuli
Acting on a momentary basis without a plan or consideration of outcomes
Disregard for -- and failure to honor–financial and other obligations or
commitments "
An Orwellian comment like the above just proves the point of the article, and then some.
As if there isn't anyone in the world who couldn't be shoehorned to fit such a diagnoses,
with a crafty narrative reconfiguring of their actions.
If there are indeed any witch doctors (excuse me, "psychiatrists") pathologizing people on
the basis of a laughable list like the above, then I consider them to be far more undeserving
of the power they have, and far more toxic to society, than Trump in any of the actions or
utterances that he has made.
Susan Dawkins, who claims my article has mistakes, didn't read it. Her amateur diagnosis that
Trump has "Antisocial Personality Disorder with Psychopathic Features" does not make him
UNABLE to be president, which is what the 25th Amendment is for.
She claims he is UNFIT. Fitness is judged primarily by the people, who elected him. If a
president somehow becomes unfit while in office it must be because of "high crimes and
misdemeanors." That's the only reason the Constitution provides for. And impeachment is the
only answer.
Sorry kiddies, the 25th is a not-over for an election Rachael Maddow doesn't like.
This is all mental health professionals are requesting."
"All"? That's rich.
Indeed, is that all that they're requesting? My goodness -- what a modest
request! -- a request merely to have complete veto power over America's entire citizenry, in
terms of who is allowed to be President; a request merely to be able to remove any President
who is not to their liking.
In short, a mere request to be able to legally perform a coup d'etat at will, to overturn
any election that does not yield their desired result.
How gratified we all should be that their request for power is such a small one. Imagine
if they asked for something just a bit more ambitious. "Omnipotence" comes to mind.
Trump is the one who messes with the very fundamentals of our democracy. Remember his voting
commission and the crap they wanted? Force states to provide all the 2016 voter information
to his CosaNostra buddies. And remember when they wanted all Americans to fill out a
registration form similar to the one used when purchasing a gun? They said they wanted to
make sure only those qualified were on the voter registration lists.
These terms must be immediately banned from US political discourse:
These are totally irresponsible statements. There must be absolute responsibility of
press. There must be also absolute transparency of press. Today press in US is a tabloid rug.
New York times and Washington post should be fired and replaced with people from this
website.
Special counsel Robert Mueller and congressional investigators have interviewed roughly 50
people who work at the White House or were involved in Donald Trump's campaign.
Based on
a compilation of CBS of known interviews, that number includes at least 20 White House
employees and one Cabinet official: Attorney General Jeff Sessions.
"... Under Mueller's leadership, the FBI tried to discredit the story, publicly countering that agents found no connection between the Sarasota Saudi family and the 2001 terrorist plot. The reality is that the FBI's own files contained several reports that said the opposite, according to the Ft. Lauderdale-based news group's ongoing investigation . Files obtained by reporters in the course of their lengthy probe reveal that federal agents found "many connections" between the family and "individuals associated with the terrorist attacks on 9/11/2001." The FBI was forced to release the once-secret reports because the news group sued in federal court when the information wasn't provided under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). ..."
"... "find out who really knocked down the World Trade Center," ..."
"... Trump's visit with Saudi King Salman occurred on May 20 - just four days after Judge Altonaga ruled that the FBI should face a Freedom of Information trial in an attempt to pursue transparency surrounding the funding of the 9/11 attacks. During the visit, Trump announced plans for a $110 BILLION weapons deal with Saudi Arabia, which adds a new level of context that should be considered when looking at why Altonaga then reversed her decision on June 29. ..."
"... Now, Americans are told we must believe the outcome of these "investigations" into Russian interference as the man behind them has been exposed as complicit in covering for the people responsible for the deadliest terror attack ever carried out on American soil ..."
Further deteriorating the propaganda surrounding the government's probe into alleged
interference by Russia in the 2016 election, recently discovered court documents have just
revealed that the person leading the investigation, Special Counsel Robert Mueller, was
complicit in covering up Saudi Arabia's role in 9/11. Not only did Mueller cover for the
Florida Saudi family but, according to the documents, he released intentionally deceptive
statements to muddy the official investigation.
The new report, released by
Florida Bulldog is nothing short of bombshell.
According to the CIA's database, 15
of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, and when they first arrived in the United
States, nine of them arrived in Florida.
As TFTP previously reported, Florida Bulldog, a team of investigative journalists that has
spent years probing the connections between the 9/11 hijackers and Saudi Arabia, sued the
FBI in 2012 for details on the ties between the hijackers and a rich Saudi family that
mysteriously left all of their belongings and abandoned their luxury home in Sarasota, Florida,
just two weeks before the attacks. The lawsuit led to the release of materials from a 2002 FBI
report, which found "many connections" between the Saudi family and "individuals associated
with the terrorist attacks on 9/11/2001."
The idea that a federal judge would go from supporting a group of investigative journalists
and pushing for transparency, to supporting the FBI and insisting that protecting the location
of a security camera was worth covering up the funding of the 9/11 attacks, may seem bizarre -
but it is a common practice under all administrations.
Under Mueller's leadership, the FBI tried to discredit the story, publicly countering
that agents found no connection between the Sarasota Saudi family and the 2001 terrorist
plot. The reality is that the FBI's own files contained several reports that said the
opposite, according to the Ft. Lauderdale-based news group's ongoing investigation . Files
obtained by reporters in the course of their lengthy probe reveal that federal agents found
"many connections" between the family and "individuals associated with the terrorist attacks
on 9/11/2001." The FBI was forced to release the once-secret reports because the news group
sued in federal court when the information wasn't provided under the Freedom of Information
Act (FOIA).
The disingenuous statements were issued by FBI officials in Miami and Tampa in a desperate
effort to disparage a 2011 story exposing the agency's covert investigation of the Sarasota
Saudis as well as reporting that it had been concealed from Congress. Mueller is referenced
in a document index that was ordered by a federal judge to be created in late November 2017.
The south Florida judge, William J. Zloch, a Ronald Reagan appointee, asked the FBI to
explain where it had discovered dozens of pages of documents in the public-records case filed
six years ago. The index reference to then-FBI Director Mueller appears in an item involving
an agency white paper written a week after the publication of a news story about the abrupt
departure of Saudis Abdulaziz and Anoud al-Hijji from their Sarasota area home about two
weeks before 9/11. The couple left behind their cars, clothes, furniture, jewelry and other
personal items. "It was created to brief the FBI Director concerning the FBI's investigation
of 4224 Escondito Circle," the al-Hijjis' address, the index says.
Though the recently filed court documents reveal Mueller received a briefing about the
Sarasota Saudi investigation, the FBI continued to publicly deny it existed and it appears
that the lies were approved by Mueller. Not surprisingly, he didn't respond to questions
about this new discovery emailed to his office by the news organization that uncovered it.
Though the mainstream media has neglected to report this relevant development, it's difficult
to ignore that it chips away at Mueller's credibility as special counsel to investigate if
Russia influenced the 2016 presidential election. Even before the Saudi coverup documents
were exposed by nonprofit journalists, Mueller's credentials were questionable to head any
probe. Back in May Judicial Watch reminded of Mueller's
misguided handiwork and collaboration with radical Islamist organizations as FBI
director.
What's more, under Mueller's leadership, the FBI purged all anti-terrorism
material deemed "offensive" to Muslims in an attempt to grovel and give in to multiple radical
Islamist groups.
As The Free Thought Project has
reported , Trump is also complicit in covering for the Saudis, as he went from calling for
holding Saudi Arabia accountable for its involvement in 9/11, to ignoring the idea that the
country could have had any involvement at all.
After months on the campaign trail, in which he pledged that if he was elected, Americans
would "find out who really knocked down the World Trade Center," Trump made Saudi
Arabia the first foreign nation he visited as president of the U.S.
Trump's visit with Saudi King Salman occurred on
May 20 - just four days after Judge Altonaga ruled that the FBI should face a Freedom of
Information trial in an attempt to pursue transparency surrounding the funding of the 9/11
attacks. During the visit, Trump announced plans for a $110
BILLION weapons deal with Saudi Arabia, which adds a new level of context that should be
considered when looking at why Altonaga then reversed her decision on June 29.
Now, Americans are told we must believe the outcome of these "investigations" into
Russian interference as the man behind them has been exposed as complicit in covering for the
people responsible for the deadliest terror attack ever carried out on American soil .
Matt Agorist is an honorably discharged veteran of the USMC and former intelligence
operator directly tasked by the NSA. This prior experience gives him unique insight into the
world of government corruption and the American police state. Agorist has been an independent
journalist for over a decade and has been featured on mainstream networks around the world.
Agorist is also the Editor at Large at the Free Thought Project.
"... Many Americans do not seem to understand what is at stake. What America is confronted with is a coup conspiracy organized by top officials of the Obama Justice Department, FBI, CIA, the Hillary DNC, and the presstitute media to overturn the result of a democratic election and remove the president from office. The basis of the coup is a fake dossier purchased for money that consists of unsupported allegations against Trump and that was used to obtain warrants from the FISA count to spy on Trump and various associates hoping to find something that can be used against Trump. Regardless, the false allegations could be fed to the CIA's media assets and used to create a scandal requiring a special prosecutor to investigate Russiagate. ..."
"... If the highest reaches of the police state agencies can get away with an attempted or successful coup against the president of the United States, then that is the complete end of democracy and all accountability in government. The House, Senate, and judiciary will become as powerless as the Roman senate under the caesars. We will live under a dictatorship ruled by police state agencies. ..."
"... This is not minor stuff. This goes to the heart of whether any form of liberty will exist. We all know that the ability of the people to hold government accountable is not assured by democracy. However, there is no prospect of holding government accountable if it is a police state, a road that the US has been going down for some time. The audacious coup attempt against President Trump is our opportunity to stop the momentum to a police state. ..."
"... When Admiral Rodgers, director of the National Security Agency, discovered that the FBI and DOJ were misusing the spy system for partisan political reasons, he let it be known that he was going to inform the FISA court. This caused the FBI and DOJ to rush to the court in advance and confess to "mistakes" and to promise to tighten up procedures so as not to make mistakes in the future. It is these "mistakes" and corrections that the FISA court document reveals. ..."
"... In other words, the information already exists in the pubic domain that proves that Russiagate was a conspiracy organized for the purpose of bringing down the elected president of the United States ..."
"... A case can be made that it would be just as well if the coup succeeds as it would bring an end to Washington's cover as the government of a great democracy with liberty and justice for all. Most other governments, and one would hope certainly the Russian and Chinese governments, would see the coup as America's final transition into a police state and give up their utopian ideas of reaching accommodation with Washington. The constraints on Washington's ability to bully the world would be greatly strengthened by the universal perception that the government of the United States had devolved into a police state. ..."
The Republicans' delay in releasing the summary of the House Intelligence Committee's Russiagate investigation is giving weight
to the presstitutes' claim that the report is not being released, because it is a hack attempt at a Trump cover-up that is not believable.
Only Republicans are stupid enough to put themselves in such a situation.
Readers ask me why the summary memo is not released if it is real. There must be some reasons besides the stupidity of Republicans.
Yes, that is so. Among the many reasons that might be blocking release are:
1) Republicans are very national security conscious. They don't want to provide precedents for the release of classified information.
2) Many Republican congressional districts host installations of the military/security complex. Upsetting a large employer
and directing campaign financing to a challenger is a big consideration.
3) The George W. Bush/Dick Cheney regime was a neoconservative regime. One consequence is that Republicans are influenced by
neoconservatives who stress the alleged "Russian threat."
4) The Israel Lobby can unseat any member of the House and Senate. The Israel Lobby is allied with the neoconservatives and
this alliance intends to keep the US militarily active against perceived threats to Israel's hegemony in the Middle East and against
Russia, which supports Syria and Iran, countries perceived as threats by Israel.
5) Many Republicans are themselves invested in false Russiagate allegations against Trump and would like to replace him with
Pence. Other Republicans believe that Trump is undermining Washington's expensively-purchased foreign alliances and, thereby,
undermining US power.
Many Americans do not seem to understand what is at stake. What America is confronted with is a coup conspiracy organized by top
officials of the Obama Justice Department, FBI, CIA, the Hillary DNC, and the presstitute media to overturn the result of a democratic
election and remove the president from office. The basis of the coup is a fake dossier purchased for money that consists of unsupported
allegations against Trump and that was used to obtain warrants from the FISA count to spy on Trump and various associates hoping
to find something that can be used against Trump. Regardless, the false allegations could be fed to the CIA's media assets and used
to create a scandal requiring a special prosecutor to investigate Russiagate.
Once the investigation was under way, the presstitutes kept the scandal alive hoping to convince enough Americans that Trump must
have done something -- "where there is smoke, there is fire" -- that justifies his removal. It worked against Richard Nixon, but
not against Ronald Reagan, and Trump is no Reagan. If the highest reaches of the police state agencies can get away with an attempted
or successful coup against the president of the United States, then that is the complete end of democracy and all accountability
in government. The House, Senate, and judiciary will become as powerless as the Roman senate under the caesars. We will live under
a dictatorship ruled by police state agencies.
Many Americans say they don't need the House Intelligence Report, because they don't believe the Russiagate BS in the first place.
They miss the point. They need the report, because those responsible for this attempt at a coup must be identified, charged, and
prosecuted for their act of high treason.
This is not minor stuff. This goes to the heart of whether any form of liberty will exist. We all know that the ability of the
people to hold government accountable is not assured by democracy. However, there is no prospect of holding government accountable
if it is a police state, a road that the US has been going down for some time. The audacious coup attempt against President Trump
is our opportunity to stop the momentum to a police state.
Despite my recent postings, many people do not understand that the somewhat redacted FISA court document that has been declassified
and released and explained
by myself, William Binney, and former US Attorney Joe di Genova contains admissions by the FBI and DOJ that they improperly spied
and obtained warrants from the court under false pretenses. In other words, we have it on the authority of the FISA court itself
that the FBI and DOJ have admitted to the court their transgressions. When Department of Justice (sic) congressional liaison Stephen
Boyd says the DOJ is "unaware of any wrongdoing," he is lying through his teeth. The DOJ has already confessed its wrongdoing to
the FISA court.
(See
Lendman
on Boyd's claim that releasing the memo would harm national security and ongoing investigations. This is always the claim made when
government has to cover up its crimes. )
When Admiral Rodgers, director of the National Security Agency, discovered that the FBI and DOJ were misusing the spy system for
partisan political reasons, he let it be known that he was going to inform the FISA court. This caused the FBI and DOJ to rush to
the court in advance and confess to "mistakes" and to promise to tighten up procedures so as not to make mistakes in the future.
It is these "mistakes" and corrections that the FISA court document reveals.
In other words, the information already exists in the pubic domain that proves that Russiagate was a conspiracy organized for
the purpose of bringing down the elected president of the United States.
A case can be made that it would be just as well if the coup succeeds as it would bring an end to Washington's cover as the government
of a great democracy with liberty and justice for all. Most other governments, and one would hope certainly the Russian and Chinese
governments, would see the coup as America's final transition into a police state and give up their utopian ideas of reaching accommodation
with Washington. The constraints on Washington's ability to bully the world would be greatly strengthened by the universal perception
that the government of the United States had devolved into a police state.
"... I do not think Mueller can get Trump on collusion with Russia ..specifically because there was no collusion with the Kremlin/official Government. Instead there were a lot of contacts with individual Russians seeking to get a deal on something to boost their own Russian creds with Putin or for their own private financial gain. ..."
"... Mueller's investigation has, according to this article, accidentally turned up something that should put Mueller in prison: https://www.sott.net/article/375184-Muellers-investigation-accidentally-exposes-FBI-cover-up-of-Saudi-role-in-9-11 ..."
I do not think Mueller can get Trump on collusion with Russia ..specifically because there
was no collusion with the Kremlin/official Government.
Instead there were a lot of contacts with individual Russians seeking to get a deal on
something to boost their own Russian creds with Putin or for their own private financial
gain. Also outreach by Kushner to Russian money men and bankers for his 1 billion in
debt.
Mueller has a better chance of getting Trump on obstruction of justice and maybe lying to
the FBI because Trump, in the coming trump- Mueller interview, doesn't know what Mueller may
already know from his interviews with others so if he spins and lies he's toast.
I don't care about Trump being impeached as much as I care about removing Kushner. Kushner
is dirtier than pig shit and using his position to trade influence for money for the Kushners
in every foreign contact he makes.
Trumps relationship with Kushner is beyond weird, really, really weird .something ties
them together and I would bet money that's its being party to money laundering thru their
real estate deals and loans. Trump cant be the genius he claims to be, and claims Jared is.
and they not know all the money flowing to them from Russian oligarchs and other known money
movers isn't dirty as hell.
If Trump was the stable genius he says he is, he would have seen to it that Kushner would
never have married his daughter. If he is even a little smart, he would give Kushner the boot
now, though it's probably too late to avoid the consequences of his appointment of
Kushner.
Dimwit that I am, my conclusion is that Trump isn't a genius after all.
As The Free Thought Project has reported, Trump is also complicit in covering for the
Saudis, as he went from calling for holding Saudi Arabia accountable for its involvement in
9/11, to ignoring the idea that the country could have had any involvement at all.
After months on the campaign trail, in which he pledged that if he was elected,
Americans would "find out who really knocked down the World Trade Center," Trump made Saudi
Arabia the first foreign nation he visited as president of the U.S.
Trump's visit with Saudi King Salman occurred on May 20 – just four days after
Judge Altonaga ruled that the FBI should face a Freedom of Information trial in an attempt
to pursue transparency surrounding the funding of the 9/11 attacks.
During the visit, Trump announced plans for a $110 BILLION weapons deal with Saudi
Arabia, which adds a new level of context that should be considered when looking at why
Altonaga then reversed her decision on June 29.
"... It's one giant incestuous circle of corruption. And we have even more proof; James Comey testified that he gave his classified memos To Robert Mueller. ..."
"... Mueller's main focus is, has been, and continues to be carrying out a witch-hunt to unseat a duly elected President of the Untied States - President Trump. It's ridiculous and it's an abomination to our constitution and the rule of law . ..."
The Fox News anchor also notes that former FBI Director James Comey may be in hot water over
leaking a memo he says he wrote containing his concerns over President Trump pressuring him to
go easy on former National Security Advisor Mike Flynn.
Also brand new tonight we have new revelations about one of the lawyers that is now
representing disgraced former FBI director, soon to be probably investigated, national
embarrassment James Comey. According to Buzzfeed, one of Comey's attorneys turns out as his
Columbia law professor buddy - the guy he leaked the memo to to the New York Times because he
wanted a special counsel appointed, which turned out to be "oh, Comey's other BFF Robert
Mueller" You can't make this up in a spy novel!
It's one giant incestuous circle of corruption. And we have even more proof; James Comey
testified that he gave his classified memos To Robert Mueller. And according to the reports,
special counsel interviewed Comey about his memos last year. By the way, they also
collaborated before he testified. Those memos contain classified information. They were
created on government computers, so Comey broke the law by removing them from the FBI, but
it's clear that Mueller didn't care about any of that.
Mueller's main focus is, has been, and continues to be carrying out a witch-hunt to unseat
a duly elected President of the Untied States - President Trump. It's ridiculous and it's an
abomination to our constitution and the rule of law .
To recap: right before the election, Strzok and Page texted about an "
insurance policy " against Donald Trump becoming President.
"Someone must have been telling tales about Josef K., for one morning, without having
done anything wrong, he was arrested."
Thus begins The Trial , Franz Kafka's 1925 work, in which Joseph K., ordinary bank employee,
is arrested at his home by mysterious agents and notified of legal proceedings against him.
He is not informed of the offense or crime of which he would allegedly be guilty – he
is only given to understand that he must have broken some unknown law – and is notified
of a summons to court a certain day, without knowing the exact time or place.
The protagonist is dragged into a completely absurd circle, wavering between inspectors,
bailiffs, lawyers and judges, and not knowing at any time for what or against whom he must
defend himself.
He is finally executed by three distinguished executioners who, with "odious politeness",
plant a butcher's knife in his heart.
"... On Monday night, Reps. John Ratcliffe (R-TX) and Trey Gowdy (R-SC) told Fox News of the "secret society" texts between FBI investigators Peter Strzok and Lisa Page - contained within a 384-page batch of text messages delivered to Congress from the DOJ last Friday. Of note Ratcliffe says that Strzok and Page were included in the clandestine anti-Trump cabal at the highest levels of the American intelligence community . ..."
"... I'm waiting to see when Mueller is implicated in the secret society. Mueller HAD to know. He's best friends with Comey and his appointment was a set up from the beginning. ..."
"... Also need to keep eye out on Bill Priestap, Strzok's immediate boss, and Baker, BFF and legal counsel to Comey and also the guy who was Chief of Staff to Comey. And don't forget all the WAGS of all of them. Wife of Priestap is Goldman Sachs heiress and runs biggest detective agency in DC. ..."
"... Mueller's gravy train ends if he can't find anything. So he's setting perjury traps like IEDs in the Sunni Triangle. ..."
"... Mueller trying to put the onus back on Trump instead of FBI corruption covering up Obama's treason ..."
"... The Dossier scam was supposed to be a flimsy reason they could point to as one of the reasons Trump lost. With Hillary in the WH, the dossier would never be examined...just alluded to in passing. They'd have said Trump had a good start but got hoist on his own uncontrollable personality. ..."
"... Why did Trump sign 702 without hesitation? The same 702 that enabled them to illegally spy on Trump? Moreover, the 702 Trump signed is said to have been modified to make the process of spying easier and with no added safe guards to prevent what happened with the Trump dossier from ever happening again. Does anyone not find it suspicious that no one in the press has questioned Trump directly for an explanation. Someone needs to ask Trump point blank why he signed the re authorization of 702. We need to hear his answer, especially since we are led to believe he has been victimized by it. ..."
"... Andrew McCabe and James Comey had a long time to work on the personnel of the FBI, who rose, who fell, who went to what offices. You can't trust any of the FBI until they prove themselves by tracking down the bad guys in their own ranks. ..."
"... I think that untangling the webs of corruption and compromise is decades, not years. Look at Italy, they still haven't gotten rid of the various mafias. I don't follow Italian politics, but did the issue of Mafia corruption ever die? Or just keep building? Did some areas get clean? ..."
"... Does anyone find it strange that Americans are not allowed to know if their government is corrupt because of national security? Government crimes and violations of the constitution are classified and top secret. That is what you have folks. All of government is a secret society. ..."
"... I know this site is all in on Trump, but did it occur to you that generally people who work in intelligence or have any intelligence would not discuss their illegal ,treasonous, secret society in writing using AGENCY-ISSUED PHONES. ..."
"... You're assumptions are wrong. Arrogance breeds contempt, and they were arrogant, just like Hillary arrogantly put her emails on an unprotected server in contradiction to well established and seriously enforced federal law. No one could be that stupid, but they can be that arrogant - as they were! ..."
"... The disappearance of the txts leaves a presumption of guilt - not innocence . Otherwise culpable parties would wipe the slate clean all day long, as has obviously happened here, and walk away scot free. ..."
"... You overlook the hubris of outsized egos. These people saw themselves as untouchables like Eliot Ness. They thought they could walk people to the edge and push them over and nobody could touch them. ..."
A whistleblower has revealed to Congress that clandestine, offsite meetings between high ranking FBI and DOJ took place in which
officials discussed ways to undermine President Trump after the 2016 election, Rep. Ron Johnson (R-WI) told Fox News on Tuesday.
The bombshell revelation all but confirms a "
secret society " alluded to in text messages released last Friday between two anti-Trump FBI employees tasked with investigating
both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.
" The secret society -- we have an informant talking about a group holding secret meetings off-site ," Johnson said.
"We have to continue to dig into it," he added. " This is not a distraction. This is biased, potentially corruption at the
highest levels of the FB I." - The Hill
On Monday night, Reps. John Ratcliffe (R-TX) and Trey Gowdy (R-SC) told Fox News of the "secret society" texts between FBI
investigators Peter Strzok and Lisa Page - contained within a 384-page batch of text messages delivered to Congress from the DOJ
last Friday. Of note Ratcliffe says that Strzok and Page were included in the clandestine anti-Trump cabal at the highest levels
of the American intelligence community .
What we learned today in the thousands of text messages that we've reviewed that perhaps they may not have done that (checked
their bias at the door). There's certainly a factual basis to question whether or not they acted on that bias. We know about this
insurance policy that was referenced in trying to prevent Donald Trump from becoming president.
We learned today from information that in the immediate aftermath of his election that there may have been a secret society
of folks within the Department of Justice and the FBI to include Page and Strzok to be working against him .
As part of the 384 page document delivery, the Department of Justice notified Congressional investigators that five months of
text messages from December 14, 2016 to May 17, 2017 have gone missing (ironically there is a text message about "not keeping texts"
from last Friday's release).
And while Strzok and Page's communications for five months after the election apparently won't see the light of day, what we do
know is that right before the election, Strzok and Page texted about an "
insurance policy " against Donald Trump becoming President.
" I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy's office - that there's no way he [Trump] gets elected -
but I'm afraid we can't take that risk." writes FBI counterintelligence officer Peter Strzok to FBI lawyer Lisa Page, with whom he
was having an extramarital affair while spearheading both the Clinton email inquiry and the early Trump-Russia probe, adding " It's
like a life insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40 ."
To recap: we now have text messages between Strzok and Page referencing an "insurance policy" and a "secret society" of people
within the DOJ and FBI who came together in the "immediate aftermath" of the 2016 election to undermine President Trump... and a
whistleblower who has now told Congress that's exactly what happened in the form of secret, offsite meetings between officials at
the two agencies.
Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing
or destroying the government of the
United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political
subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or
Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates,
sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity,
desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the
United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or
Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of
persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes
or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of
persons , knowing the purposes thereof --
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by
the
United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
If two or more
persons conspire to commit any
offense named in this section, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and
shall be ineligible for employment by the
United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
As used in this section, the terms "organizes" and "organize", with respect to any society, group, or assembly of
persons , include the recruiting of new members, the forming of new units, and the regrouping or expansion of existing clubs,
classes, and other units of such society, group, or assembly of
persons .
I'm waiting to see when Mueller is implicated in the secret society. Mueller HAD to know. He's best friends with Comey and
his appointment was a set up from the beginning.
Also need to keep eye out on Bill Priestap, Strzok's immediate boss, and Baker, BFF and legal counsel to Comey and also the
guy who was Chief of Staff to Comey. And don't forget all the WAGS of all of them. Wife of Priestap is Goldman Sachs heiress and
runs biggest detective agency in DC.
the CIA clean'd-up the evidence while Mueller was in California to introduce himself to the nations top FBI personnel. thus,
unable to fly back to NYC.
coincidence? why the fuck wasn't the meeting held in NYC!?!
Imagine if the text messages between these "Secret Society" members talks about killing Trump if the Russia-Russia-Russian
Collusion Farce fails. And further imagine if McCabe, Rosenstein, J. Edgar Comey or even some Obama people like Susan Rice and
Valerie Jarrett are included in those very text messages. Imagine further if Obama and/or Huma or Hillary are included in any
of them...........these people are arrogant enough and so full of themselves and their ability to "fix" the world around them
that it is all entirely possible.........
How about this scenario: Hillary and the rest of the Deep State expected her to win via fractional voting. She had a mortal
lock, so they thought except Trump snagged 20 to 30 million more votes than Hillary did, overriding the fractional voting scheme
they had in place.
The Dossier scam was supposed to be a flimsy reason they could point to as one of the reasons Trump lost. With Hillary in the
WH, the dossier would never be examined...just alluded to in passing. They'd have said Trump had a good start but got hoist on
his own uncontrollable personality.
With Hillary at the top of all the levers of the government, Trump would have gotten bitch slapped repeatedly with little recourse.
This isn't just a couple of rogue individuals, this is an organized conspiracy at the very top, using all the power of the
FBI and DOJ to destroy a sitting president up to and including harming him.
"Mueller probe accidentally exposes FBI COVER-UP of Saudi role in 911"
1/24/18 ***oops?!? This is what happens when the Saudi's let China offer the 'Public Offering' of Saudi Aramco' on the Shanghai
INE Exchange beginning mid-Feb/2018 if all is finalized. Perhaps this why the opening was delayed?
Why did Trump sign 702 without hesitation? The same 702 that enabled them to illegally spy on Trump? Moreover, the 702 Trump
signed is said to have been modified to make the process of spying easier and with no added safe guards to prevent what happened
with the Trump dossier from ever happening again. Does anyone not find it suspicious that no one in the press has questioned Trump
directly for an explanation. Someone needs to ask Trump point blank why he signed the re authorization of 702. We need to hear
his answer, especially since we are led to believe he has been victimized by it.
Simple game thinking, I thought. You can't give up the tools they have until you have won.
The good guys have to assume that the bad guys can go on using covert means, likely they have back-doored their own agencies'
info systems. If not, they have their people scattered through the organization. Or both.
Andrew McCabe and James Comey had a long time to work on the personnel of the FBI, who rose, who fell, who went to what offices.
You can't trust any of the FBI until they prove themselves by tracking down the bad guys in their own ranks.
Great, now we have a 'he said, she said' situation, complete with files that can prove anything, how hard is that to arrange?
For all sides?
I think that untangling the webs of corruption and compromise is decades, not years. Look at Italy, they still haven't gotten
rid of the various mafias. I don't follow Italian politics, but did the issue of Mafia corruption ever die? Or just keep building?
Did some areas get clean?
Problem with all this social stuff is that there isn't a clean in/out test for any group. We are going to find that many of
our leading people throughout society have ties in shades from bright white social innocence to partners in crime black, into
the blackest of the crimes. everyone has lots of connections. The more prominent you are, the wider the variety of people you
have mingled with.
There are political careers in the investigations. Trump and his successors can ride this for 2 decades.
Of course, they will become the issue when in some far distant future the last possible bad guy has died and fortune has dispersed
beyond recall, but the surveillance capabilities are greater than ever and the successors of the current good guys refuse to end
the situation.
The compromise will be immediately ending all surveillance, everyone owns their data in return for amnesty for confessions,
files and loss of 90% of fortunes. Ae open all files to everyone and run a public investigation to understand it all.
Does anyone find it strange that Americans are not allowed to know if their government is corrupt because of national security?
Government crimes and violations of the constitution are classified and top secret. That is what you have folks. All of government
is a secret society.
If one loves words and their meanings take note that freedom is the antithesis of government. If you don't understand the
concepts of the words you use, don't complain when you get what you ask for.
I know this site is all in on Trump, but did it occur to you that generally people who work in intelligence or have any intelligence
would not discuss their illegal ,treasonous, secret society in writing using AGENCY-ISSUED PHONES. Also someone once said that
any anonymous informant should be considered made-up. I'm not denying the agency is anti-Trump. There are all kinds of legitimate
reasons to be anti-Trump. I just wish you and Mr. Johnson would bother getting some slightly less flimsy conspiracy theories before
you go blaring them on the banners. It makes you look pathetic and desperate.
You're assumptions are wrong. Arrogance breeds contempt, and they were arrogant, just like Hillary arrogantly put her emails
on an unprotected server in contradiction to well established and seriously enforced federal law. No one could be that stupid,
but they can be that arrogant - as they were!
The disappearance of the txts leaves a presumption of guilt - not innocence . Otherwise culpable parties would wipe the slate
clean all day long, as has obviously happened here, and walk away scot free.
You say Johnson looks pathetic while you spew out terms like "flimsy conspiracy theories" as your 'evidence.' Juggalo, you
look like a dumb f***ing clown with your head so far up your a$$ you think it's nighttime.
You overlook the hubris of outsized egos. These people saw themselves as untouchables like Eliot Ness. They thought they could
walk people to the edge and push them over and nobody could touch them.
No kidding, right? Watched Tucker Carlson last night interviewing Richard Goodstein (former Hillary Campaign Advisor, obviously
unemployed) Great segment asking Goodstein to answer a "Revulsion Test"!
It was unreal! The damn ignorant libtard just would not, could not bring himself to say that anything bothered him about the
corruption going on in the FBI.
Tucker: Does it bother you that the FBI decided not to bring criminal charges against Hillary BEFORE conducting an investigation
of her, or interviewing her.
Goodstein: No
Tucker: Does it bother you that Strozk said he couldn't take the chance that Trump got elected and had an insurance policy
in mind to prevent it, while he was on the committee investigating Trump?
Goodstein: No
Listen to the rest here...its hilarious and shows how Diseased Liberals are mentally!!
Democrats are the spit and image of the Bolsheviks in 1917 Russia. Democrats in America today despise everything and everyone
that is not Democrat in policy, propaganda, attitude, opinion & belief. If the Democrat Party is allowed to continue as it is
there will be blood and lots of it.
"You must understand, the leading Bolsheviks who took over Russia were not Russians. They hated Russians. They hated Christians.
Driven by ethnic hatred they tortured and slaughtered millions of Russians without a shred of human remorse. It cannot be overstated.
Bolshevism committed the greatest human slaughter of all time. The fact that most of the world is ignorant and uncaring about
this enormous crime is proof that the global media is in the hands of the perpetrators."
~Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
Ok congress critters. If all this is true and a lot of it probably is, can someone enlighten me as to why the delay. I really
see no advantage in holding back on this. It gives every advantage to the Blue team to organize a response and create more smoke
screens. The longer this goes on the more likely this will never see the light of day. Especially when one considers the Red teams
past performance. Release it or shut the fuck up.
Remember these are the same "group thinkers/actors" who voted something like 415-5 to impose harsh sanctions on Russia to punish
Russia for "meddling" in our Democratic processes.
I wonder if any of these critters would take back this vote now?
Maybe they should now vote on imposing "sanctions" on the DOJ and HRC's campaign staffers (Hillary included), as well as the
DNC and the MSM organizations/ "journalists" who spread a bogus story-line for nefarious/unpatriotic reasons.
P.S. I also wonder how many stories/posts on Facebook and Twitter advanced this faux story. Probably about 1 billion more than
Russian bots managed to sneak into the national dialogue. I understand the owner of Facebook has deep pockets. Give him the "Saudi
treatment" - pay up or go to jail, buddy.
Both parties are part of the cabal, including Trump. Arming the neonazis in the Ukraine that wants war on Russia, as well as
US and NATO troops on RUSSIA'S borders. Signing off on the FISA spy ring upon Americans, expanding US WARS, in Syria and Afghanistan
and Africa. Wanting war on N. Korea.
If people would just get that the cabal are addicted to WAR and the enrichment that comes from it as well as it's all ZIONIST
wars, for which Trump is now owned by Netanyahu, as is our Congressional dual Israeli citizens, we might be able to organize under
one banner that never changes witj both parties utterly submissive to the military and security complex. No more WAR .
If this is as reported, and if there was a convening of a meeting in secret outside of the professional roles of law enforcement,
for the purposes of a focused prosecution of a duly elected president, then that is at a minimum an offense that would disbar
employment in the federal government. It would also be grounds for disbarring any attorney.
But what I'm finding equally as troubling is the very casual manner in which somebody from say nation A, can hire person in
Nation B, to provide paid hearsay evidence from Nation C to initiate an investigation that circumvents Nation A's laws of privacy
upon a targeted individual.
That makes the NSA the tool of anyone with money to initiate this type of investigation as described above to harass and intimidate
an individual using tax dollar funded services.
I'm not Ok with Republicans or Democrats doing this.
So someone with means initiates NSL's against a person soliciting banking, building, employment, relationships, all designed
to use the institutional credibility of the NSA or even the FBI to tarnish the standing of a targeted individual.
The bank isn't going to disclose, but they might not offer a loan!
The zoning bard will not disclose, but will withhold permits.
And the zeal and the bias that there groups exercise in their zeal to assist their government in an investigation cumulatively
is damaging. Loan delayed is loan denied. Permit delayed is permit denied.
You want to support legitimate law enforcement activities and investigations, but not this fucking circus.
It is as if you are witnessing the prosecutor receiving cash from a private party, then the prosecutor hand the bailiff cash,
who then passes it onto a paid witness prior to testifying and not swearing in, or being available for cross examination. And
that folks is bullshit. Meanwhile the judge, jury, prosecutor, and defense all met in private during recess and agreed that facts
weren't relevant and to not allow facts to stand in the way of their "convictions!"
John Perkins said that to get in the CIA, you have to pass a personality test that shows you are less than morally sound. Just
imagine the test tube of explosive back-stabbing sociopaths that place must be today.
Maybe. I just think these people "self select" their career paths. A certain type of personality type is driven to government
bureaucracies and/or political office and/or capitalist positions that reward "cronies" to government. A certain ambitious type
learns how to "play the game" and rises up the ranks. The culture in these places rewards corruption (or turning a blind eye to
same). These people like the power, prestige and money-making opportunities. They "scratch backs" so their own back can be scratched.
Whatever the psychology or personality type, these people work to preserve and protect the Status Quo.
i don't agree with you on your general premise of immorality. But if things are as reported and as I describe above, then the
NSA is nothing more than the errand chasers of those with cash and connection, and that that service is paid for by the US taxpayer
to be abused by those whom would misuse it as I described. And if that is the way the system is being misused then there is a
problem.
I don't do the hate America first bullshit but I do call em like I see em..
A line pushed repeatedly by Hillary. That was a lie of course. Only a few (hand-picked) "analysts" from three or four of these
agencies signed off on that important "conclusion."
I also think of all the "intelligence experts" who immediately knew that Assad bombed his own people with banned chemicals.
Whatever they say, you know the opposite must be the truth.
How can General Flynn be charged with lying to the FBI when the FBI agent he lied to is plotting to over throw the president?
Who were the coup leaders? It was McCabe's office that set up the meeting with Flynn. Flynn didn't know the meeting was about
Flynn talking with the Russian Ambassador. Which is normal for an incoming National Security Advisor. There were no witnesses
to the meeting except two FBI agents, one of which is the disgraced FBI agent. Flynn thought like a former Intel General, he was
protecting national security information on a need to know basis.(standard military SOP).
It looks like Flynn was set up to frame Trump. Flynn's charges need to be dropped.
Oh, my! It looks like things are beginning to clarify! Dear American public has it ever occured to you that this whole Trump
colluding with Russia as well as the Russia meddling in the election narrative is just a one big lie. Too big to swallow?
If "Russia" wanted to swing or rig an election, they couldn't. The whole premise is preposterous. "Russia" convinced millions
of voters in a dozen swing states to change their votes? With a few Facebook entries? Good God.
I think it was clear to most of us. It was those who couldn't accept Hillary's defeat who wanted the narrative to keep them
sane. They were the same as Strock, et. al. - too stupid to see the train coming straight down the tracks. When they realized
they would lose their lifetime of job safety and corruption, they panicked.
Who in the US didn't know Hillary was the most corrupt politician and ruthless sub-human animal ever to run for office? They
were the ones profiting either directly or indirectly from all the criminality.
You know who has/had Hillary and Bill pegged better than anyone else? Linda Tripp. I wish I had the link to a recent feature
on her. Her main take-away: The rules of society and laws do not apply to her. She (and her husband) can and had gotten away with
everything. But the scary part is how seemingly everyone in D.C. and the Establishment is allied with them and has/had no issue
with their MO. The Swamp is full of the same type of people and their defenders. These are the type people who are attracted to
"government service" and move up the ranks once embedded. Not just in government, but the press corps and the worlds of finance
as well.
I'll say again. If Trump had been sincere in draining the swamp - and had did it - he would have gone down as the greatest
president in U.S. history.
That he is not committed to this mission - or quickly abandoned it - is a tragic disappointment.
(For those who say he is still trying to drain the swamp, explain why he never made an effort to investigate and expose "Crooked
Hillary," has no interest at all in auditing the Fed, signed legislation imposing severe sanctions on Russia for "meddling" and
filled his administration with Goldman Sachs alums, among other swamp-protecting activities).
There are very senior members of the Intelligence Community who risk exposure, ignominy, and possibly even death if their treason
is exposed to the light of day.
These people are the artists who create false flag events and change foreign Governments at the drop of a hat.
If the Intelligence Community needs to start a war to escape the consequences of their treason; that is what they will do;
without the slightest hesitation.
The rest of the world needs to be extremely sceptical regarding "Intelligence" from the U.S., and wide awake to the risk.
Get everything out in the open before it's too late for the human race.
"This is the fundamental game of the Secret Team. They have this power because they control secrecy and secret intelligence
and because they have the ability to take advantage of the most modern communications system in the world, of global transportation
systems, of quantities of weapons of all kinds, and when needed, the full support of a world-wide U.S. military supporting base
structure. They can use the finest intelligence system in the world, and most importantly, they have been able to operate under
the canopy of an assumed, ever-present enemy called "Communism." It will be interesting to see what "enemy" develops in the years
ahead. " [L. Fletcher Prouty, Alexandria, VA 1997]
"... Anyway, the FBI agent texting about deleting texts? These people had "a secret society." They call it that. But it was a group of people that was hell-bent on denying Donald Trump the presidency, and I Look, just to put it on the record here again for I don't know how many umpteenth time: I don't have any doubt in my mind that that phony dossier was used to secure a FISA warrant. I have In fact, let me say it exactly as it is. I have no doubt that they perpetrated a fraud on a judge at the FISA court. ..."
"... I mean, that's really what it is. If they used the dossier to get a FISA warrant to spy on Trump, that means they lied to a judge, unless the judge was in on it -- and when you're talking about the establishment, I mean, who the heck knows? The FISA court is super-secret anyway. But regardless, it's a giant stink bomb. It is dirty as it can be. Trump is tweeting on it, and the more we learn about this, the more easily understandable it is and the more easily believable it is. ..."
"... RUSH: The wheels are coming off the deep state's efforts to deny Trump the presidency, and -- once he won the presidency -- to get him kicked out and removed. Now we've got stories of the missing texts between Peter Strzok and his paramour, Lisa Page. "House Oversight Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) on Monday raised concerns that the two FBI agents mentioned a 'secret society' shortly after [Trump] won the election. ..."
"... And he's probably trying to impress her like nothing. He's married. I don't know if she's married or not, but he's just full-fledged headlong into this affair, and she's probably got her interested in it as well. But it sounds like Strzok was the guy. You know, in a relationship, there's always somebody who loves somebody more than the other. Would you agree with that? ..."
"... GOWDY: What Johnny and I saw today was a text about not keeping texts. We saw more manifest bias against President Trump all the way through the election into the transition. And I saw an interesting text that Director Comey was going to update the president of the United States about an investigation. I don't know if it was the Hillary Clinton investigation -- because, remember, that had been reopened in the fall 2016 -- or whether it was the Trump administration. I just find it interesting that the head of the FBI was gonna update the president of the United States who, at that point, would have been President Obama. ..."
"... RUSH: Okay. So this is -- hang on, now -- June 8th, 2017. "As FBI director, I interacted with President Obama. I spoke only twice in three years and didn't document it." It's unstated: "Because I didn't think Obama needed to be documented! He's the impeccable example of integrity, honesty," which is a crock. But here's the next bite. June 8th. Question: This is from Senator Martin Heinrich, Democrat, New Mexico. "Prior to January 27th of this year," meaning 2017, "have you ever had a one-on-one meeting or a private dinner with a president of the United States?" ..."
"... RUSH: Okay. Here's what MSNBC reported, that Mueller interviewed Comey and that Comey gave Mueller his memos on meetings with Trump. You know, Comey said he had to keep notes 'cause Trump lies. He didn't have to record what Obama said 'cause Obama was the impeccable example of honesty and integrity (and all that rot). But with Trump? What a lying sack of you know what! So, anyway, the New York Times says that Comey gave Mueller his memos on his meetings with Trump, and the "jaw-dropping" nature of the text from Strzok. ..."
"... That's why Trey Gowdy is describing this as "jaw-dropping" with Ratcliffe, 'cause Strzok is writing to Lisa Page, "You and I both know the odds are nothing. If I thought it was likely, I'd be there no question," meaning on the investigating team. "I hesitate " He eventually did join it, obviously. He said, "I hesitate in part because of my gut sense and concern there's no big 'there' there," meaning any collusion. But that didn't stop them from trying to create the illusion that there was, and they spent over a year doing so. But that's why the Strzok text is considering "jaw-dropping," not because of its audacity but because he's talking to somebody close. He doesn't think anybody's ever gonna see it. ..."
Hillary Clinton losing threw the biggest wrench in these people's plans, and they had the fear. They were aware she could lose.
But now we've got a secret society -- DOJ, FBI, intelligence community -- some of it directly in touch with the Obama White House.
No doubt in my mind. "Missing" texts that are not really missing. They are somewhere, just like Hillary's 30,000 emails are somewhere.
They're backed up on servers. They're backed up on devices. They are somewhere. The FBI claims they don't have them, but they are
somewhere.
Just like Hillary's missing 30,000 emails are somewhere. The mystery of the missing text messages between Strzok and the paramour,
Lisa Page, continues to widen and deepen at the same time. It's all too pat. It's too easily understandable. This is easy to understand
as the House Bank Scandal was back in 1988 and '89. An FBI agent even texted about deleting the texts, warning everybody, "You know
what? We might want to get rid of these."
I had a suggestion. Ali on our staff -- not my cat, but Ali on our staff -- suggested, "You know what'd be fun one day?" I'm not
gonna do it today. But I'm thinking about it. "It might be fun one day to take calls from people 30 and under -- you know, Millennials."
The problem with that is that anybody can call and claim they're under 30. So we would have to be really discriminatory and aware
of voices. You know, it's not fair to start judging people by their voices, their gender, their sexual orientation, their race, their
anything.
I mean, even though you can do it, you make a mistake in doing it. You're not supposed to do it. But we would have to raise our
vigilance if we're gonna do that. (interruption) "Profiling!" Yeah, that's exactly right. We would have to profile. If we're gonna
have calls from 30 (maybe even 28, I don't know) and under, then the whole thing's blown if a bunch of 80-year-olds start calling
or 75-year-olds trying to pass themselves off as young whippersnappers.
Anyway, the FBI agent texting about deleting texts? These people had "a secret society." They call it that. But it was a group
of people that was hell-bent on denying Donald Trump the presidency, and I Look, just to put it on the record here again for I don't
know how many umpteenth time: I don't have any doubt in my mind that that phony dossier was used to secure a FISA warrant. I have
In fact, let me say it exactly as it is. I have no doubt that they perpetrated a fraud on a judge at the FISA court.
I mean, that's really what it is. If they used the dossier to get a FISA warrant to spy on Trump, that means they lied to a judge,
unless the judge was in on it -- and when you're talking about the establishment, I mean, who the heck knows? The FISA court is super-secret
anyway. But regardless, it's a giant stink bomb. It is dirty as it can be. Trump is tweeting on it, and the more we learn about this,
the more easily understandable it is and the more easily believable it is.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: The wheels are coming off the deep state's efforts to deny Trump the presidency, and -- once he won the presidency -- to
get him kicked out and removed. Now we've got stories of the missing texts between Peter Strzok and his paramour, Lisa Page. "House
Oversight Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) on Monday raised concerns that the two FBI agents mentioned a 'secret society' shortly
after [Trump] won the election.
"'The day after the election there is a text exchange between these two FBI agents [Strzok and Page], these supposed to be fact-centric
FBI agents saying, 'Perhaps this is the first meeting of the secret society,' Gowdy said 'So I'm going to want to know what secret
society you are talking about, because you're supposed to be investigating objectively the person who just won the Electoral College.'"
Trump "resistance,""secret society." These people probably gave themselves that name. I can see I really can. I can see where these
two Strzok In the first place, you got hormones raging 'cause they're having an affair.
And he's probably trying to impress her like nothing. He's married. I don't know if she's married or not, but he's just
full-fledged headlong into this affair, and she's probably got her interested in it as well. But it sounds like Strzok was the
guy. You know, in a relationship, there's always somebody who loves somebody more than the other. Would you agree with that?
Can I say that without getting beat up by people? (interruption) I can't? Okay, then forget it. I didn't say that. This guy And I
think probably their connections and their contacts as FBI agents
I think they probably really went to their head. They thought they were really doing something important and cool, but they knew
it's on the edge of legality, probably not legal. But they felt protected. They knew that the Obama DOJ was behind 'em, they knew
Obama was behind 'em. Comey, everybody in the deep state knew that they were probably on the edge here, but all aligned -- and I'm
sure it got very heady. This is a very august group, a very small group of people, a very important project: Getting rid of Trump,
defending the Washington establishment.
And I wouldn't be a bit surprised if these people got totally lost and caught up in how important they were and how cool they
were and how exciting what they were doing was and how important it was. And it was clear from the texts of theirs that we've seen
that they knew that they were on the edge and that they had to keep this under wraps and they had to keep it secret. So they probably
name themselves this "secret society," and who knows, folks! I wouldn't doubt if this whole group decided to name themselves that.
I think we're dealing with a degree, a level of arrogance and superiority. I'm talking about psychological superiority. "We are
better than everybody else! We're the defenders. We're the protectors." You combine that with their opinion of Trump, which is nothing
more than he's human debris. "This guy is sewer-level scum." You couple that with the fact that he's won, he's an outsider, he's
outsmarted them, and now the lid's blowing. Now we know that Hillary hired the people that wrote the fake Trump dossier.
And now we're getting closer and closer to confirming that Obama and the DOJ lied to a FISA judge to get a warrant to surveil.
So they're panicking, and that's why a bunch of texts from the five-month period of real activity on this are now missing. But, my
friends, they aren't missing. The FBI claims they can't find 'em, that there's a glitch and something's happened, but they are somewhere.
They are on the original device. I read that the FBI was using Samsung 5s, Samsung Galaxy 5s. Is that right? (interruption) Well,
those are old devices.
Those are very, very old devices. But we're talking about the FBI here! There are servers, there are backups, there is redundancy.
We're being told that this stuff's gone just like Lois Lerner's stuff just miraculously disappeared, just like Hillary's 30,000 emails
just disappeared. They didn't. They're somewhere. Somebody can get them. Somebody has them. Like you. If you use IDrive here, if
you pick up on the idea of backing up your phones and your computer to IDrive, okay. So you may have a glitch on your phone or your
computer and you lose 'em.
But they're there.
They're on that server, they're on the IDrive server, and they may be elsewhere. So Strzok and Page, their two devices are being
used and their computers. Whatever server side backups are happening, whatever the FBI's backups are. These text messages are somewhere.
And somebody could find them if they wanted to. Now, let's go to the audio sound bites. Let's listen. This is, first off, last night
on Fox News, Representative John Ratcliffe, a Texas Republican, along with Trey Gowdy, talking about this "secret society" at the
FBI. This is interesting because they have learned that these two people are talking about an investigation.
Obama was briefed on an investigation, but they don't know which investigation, Trump or Clinton. Let's get started
RATCLIFFE: We learned today about information that in the immediate aftermath of his election that there may have been a "secret
society" of folks within the Department of Justice and the FBI to include Page and Strzok that would be working against him.
RUSH: "We learn today about " This is above and beyond what is in the four-page memo about the FISA warrant. This is additional.
"We learned today about information that in the immediate aftermath of his election that there may have been a 'secret society' of
folks within the Department of Justice and the FBI to include Page and Strzok," meaning others, "that would be working against" Trump.
Here's Trey Gowdy weighing in.
GOWDY: What Johnny and I saw today was a text about not keeping texts. We saw more manifest bias against President Trump all the
way through the election into the transition. And I saw an interesting text that Director Comey was going to update the president
of the United States about an investigation. I don't know if it was the Hillary Clinton investigation -- because, remember, that
had been reopened in the fall 2016 -- or whether it was the Trump administration. I just find it interesting that the head of the
FBI was gonna update the president of the United States who, at that point, would have been President Obama.
RUSH: So that means Obama's in the loop. The "secret society," Strzok, whatever they're doing, Comey knows. He's FBI director,
Strzok and Page are FBI. She's a lawyer; he's an agent. There are other people involved here. They've got this "secret society" going,
and the texts they saw referred to an investigation that Director Comey was gonna update Obama on. But they don't know which, 'cause
he's right: Hillary was being investigated. They reopened this like a weekend before the election, the email server thing -- which
Hillary never forgot.
Or the Trump dossier investigation. Let's go to June 8th, 2017. "If these texts are accurately, it may not look good for Jim Comey.
On June 8th of 2017, Comey testified before a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on Russian interference in the presidential election.
And during the Q&A, Mark Warner, Democrat, Virginia, said, 'In all your experience, Director Comey, President Trump was the only
president you felt like in every meeting you needed to document because at some point -- using your words -- "he might put out a
non-truthful representation of the meeting"'?"
COMEY: As FBI director, I interacted with President Obama. I spoke only twice in three years and didn't document it.
RUSH: Okay. So this is -- hang on, now -- June 8th, 2017. "As FBI director, I interacted with President Obama. I spoke only twice
in three years and didn't document it." It's unstated: "Because I didn't think Obama needed to be documented! He's the impeccable
example of integrity, honesty," which is a crock. But here's the next bite. June 8th. Question: This is from Senator Martin Heinrich,
Democrat, New Mexico. "Prior to January 27th of this year," meaning 2017, "have you ever had a one-on-one meeting or a private dinner
with a president of the United States?"
COMEY: No! I met Dinner, no. I had two one on ones with President Obama that I laid out in my testimony, once to talk about law
enforcement issues -- law enforcement ERASE -- which was an important topic throughout for me and for the president. And then once,
very briefly, to him to say good-bye.
RUSH: Okay. So he tells Mark Warner that as FBI director he interacted with Obama, spoke only twice in three years, didn't document
it. And then he tells Martin Heinrich, Democrat, New Mexico (summarized), "No! Dinner? No. I had two one on ones with Obama that
I laid out in my testimony, one to talk about law enforcement issues, law enforcement ERASE, which was," blah, blah, blah. This was
all about the fact that Comey had to document everything he heard Trump say 'cause Trump's such a liar. Now, if these texts are accurate,
the texts say that Comey was "updating [Obama] on an investigation."
They don't know which, and these are texts that Trey Gowdy and John Ratcliffe read, and the texts detailed Comey updating Obama
on an investigation. Comey under oath doesn't say a word here about updating Obama on anything. All he did was talking about law
enforcement issues and ERASE. So people are thinking Comey may have not have been forthcoming under oath while testifying before
the committees. Based on what we've learned with the texts saying he was actively updating Obama on an investigation. Now, the odds
are he's updating Obama on the Trump investigation, because the only thing about the Hillary investigation is how to cover it up
and make it amount to nothing.
There wouldn't be really be a need for an update of that.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: In jaw dropping (unintelligible) Peter Strzok Strzok expressed concern about joining the Mueller team. My friends, look.
If it looks like a witch hunt and it sounds like a witch hunt and it reads like witch hunt, then it is a witch hunt. You know, stop
and think. The Republicans wasted most of the first year of the Trump the presidency because they thought that the media narrative
on Trump-Putin collusion was true, or they thought it was close enough that they couldn't take any chances about going all in with
Trump in case it turned out to be true and he was eventually to be impeached. They believed it.
Look, they're creatures of the swamp themselves. And there was so much of it. And remember, Washington is Washington. And if the
deep state, if the intelligence agencies are saying this over and over and over and over again, if they're flooding the zone, if
every newspaper, every cable network is reporting these leaks, you can almost see how they would have no choice but than to believe
it. And so they kept their distance from Trump. And that whole year, you know, we're talking here.
We're each saying to ourselves, if they would just get on board for three months, if they'd just get on board the Trump agenda,
there'd be no stopping them. And we thought they weren't getting on board because they didn't like Trump or because they rented Trump,
either one of those things. It wasn't that. It was they fell for the narrative. Enough of them thought there might be something to
it that they couldn't risk not buying into it. Speaking of the intelligence agencies, I'm sure some of you have already thought of
this, but it just hit me a few seconds.
For some reason. I was thinking about the war in Iraq. You remember what the intelligence agencies were telling us about the war
in Iraq? You remember what they were telling us? There was detail, there were photos, there was conclusive evidence Saddam Hussein
had weapons of mass destruction. And it wasn't just U.S. intel. It was MI5, MI6. It was intelligence agencies all over the world.
George W. Bush kept quoting them. George W. Bush kept citing them.
George W. Bush sent Colin Powell to the UN with the so-called evidence, and Colin Powell had to present it to the Security Council.
There were photos and all of these bits of proof that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Colin Powell now says that's the most
embarrassing period in his life, because it turns out none of it was true. And remember the immediate aftermath, everybody said,
"Wow, man. How could they have gotten it so wrong, man?" And the story we got that Saddam himself was to blame because he was leading
everybody on.
He wanted the world to think that he was the biggest Arab in the Middle East. He was the giant that was gonna slay the United
States. So he furthered the belief. He helped it along. Sorry. That doesn't wash with me. Okay, so the guy says he's got 'em. That's
your basis for believing it? What if ? Just what if ? Remember, they all thought Gore had won that election, until the Supreme Court
came along and stole it for Bush. This is what they thought.
The Democrat Party is the Washington establishment, and the Washington establishment believes that Gore won the presidency and
the Florida recount math was bogus and rigged, that James Baker did a better job than the Democrat people did in finding votes, the
hanging chads. What if the intel on the war in Iraq was another disinformation campaign to damage another Republican president? And,
boy, did that work. Ever since there were no weapons of mass destruction, look at what we did?
Bush spent 2-1/2 years traveling the country building support for the war in Iraq. We had the massive opening day of Shock and
Awe, and we had the pictures of Saddam's statue coming down, Saddam eventually being captured, hiding out in a hole in the ground
somewhere. But there were no weapons of mass destruction. After that "No, yes, there were, Rush, yes, there were, they've been moved
to Syria, we have pictures of the trucks, they got 'em out of there, they got 'em out. We know he had this."
Well, we know he used nerve gas on the Kurds at one time, which is weapons of mass destruction. But just what if? The, quote,
unquote, intelligence community misrepresented on purpose the degree to which Hussein had WMDs, cause, I'll tell you, it was a very,
very embarrassing moment for the Bush administration. I mean, two years of ontological certitude. This guy posed a bigger threat
than Al-Qaeda. This guy -- they even showed us photos where Al-Qaeda may have trained outside Baghdad.
Now, we know the Republicans are not the favored party in Washington amongst swamp dwellers. Even though many of the CIA apparatus
were, of course, aligned with Bush. But I was just thinking about this the other day. And that was a glaring example where, if it
was legitimate, look how wrong they were, I mean, they couldn't have been more wrong, and it was not just one intelligence agency.
It was the entire intel community in this country and in the U.K. and all of our allies.
There was supposedly unanimous agreement on Saddam having weapons of mass destruction. Now, what if -- this is hindsight, which
is always 20/20 -- what if, based on what we know now -- we know how the deep state has been trying to undermine Donald Trump from
the days he was a candidate to during his transition to even it's ongoing now as president. We're learning of Strzok and the FBI
and the Hillary opposition research dossier that the ends up becoming fodder for a warrant at the FISA court to spy on Trump.
So we know the deep state can mobilize if they want to, and they can create false narratives that everybody in the media believes.
Even had the Republican Party for a year believing that Trump had conspired with Russia maybe to steal the election. What if Saddam
weapons of mass destruction was also a false narrative designed to ? Did it ultimately embarrass Bush? Did it weaken the U.S. military?
Whatever it did, I mean, it opened the doors for the Democrats to literally destroy his presidency in the second term. Which is what
they did.
They launched every salvo they had. They did everything they could to get John Kerry elected in 2014, as the Democrat nominee.
So I just wonder. And then I remember Chuck Schumer telling Donald Trump after he had criticized the intelligence community one day,
Chuck You said, "You better be careful, 'cause those guys can make your life hell, Mr. President." So I don't know. It's all deep
state. It's all stuff happening way beyond wherever our eyes can see and our ears can hear. PMSNBC is reporting that the
It is the New York Times says that Comey shared memos about Trump's meeting. I'm getting this word by word as it's hunt and pecked
on the New York Times: "Comey Shared Memos About Trump's Meeting with the Special Counsel Team." I don't know what that is. I don't
know. This is dangerous to get headlines off TV. So, anyway, we'll track that down and get to it in due course. I just This whole
deep state intelligence community, all of these errors That weapons of mass destruction, that was just huge, and Bush bought it,
totally trusted it.
We all did. Mind-boggling. Now this? What we're learning about Strzok and Comey and there's no question here that there was a
mighty collusion effort between the Democrats, the Hillary campaign, the FBI, the Department of Justice -- that's the Obama administration
-- to spy on the Trump campaign and then the Trump transition team. And slowly but surely we're getting to the bottom of it, despite
a whole lot of efforts to cover it up.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Okay. Here's what MSNBC reported, that Mueller interviewed Comey and that Comey gave Mueller his memos on meetings with
Trump. You know, Comey said he had to keep notes 'cause Trump lies. He didn't have to record what Obama said 'cause Obama was the
impeccable example of honesty and integrity (and all that rot). But with Trump? What a lying sack of you know what! So, anyway, the
New York Times says that Comey gave Mueller his memos on his meetings with Trump, and the "jaw-dropping" nature of the text from
Strzok.
I was remiss here in not finishing/closing the loop on this. Here's what Strzok Strzok wrote to his paramour, Lisa Page: "You
and I both know the odds are nothing. If I thought it was likely, I'd be there no question. I hesitate in part because of my gut
sense and concern there's no big 'there' there." What this means is Strzok was writing to Page about his lack of desire to be on
the Mueller team 'cause he didn't think there was any collusion!
That's why Trey Gowdy is describing this as "jaw-dropping" with Ratcliffe, 'cause Strzok is writing to Lisa Page, "You and I both
know the odds are nothing. If I thought it was likely, I'd be there no question," meaning on the investigating team. "I hesitate
" He eventually did join it, obviously. He said, "I hesitate in part because of my gut sense and concern there's no big 'there' there,"
meaning any collusion. But that didn't stop them from trying to create the illusion that there was, and they spent over a year doing
so. But that's why the Strzok text is considering "jaw-dropping," not because of its audacity but because he's talking to somebody
close. He doesn't think anybody's ever gonna see it.
FBI Comey testifies again as a result of the recent document releases from the FBI. He
appears much more defensive than I have ever seen him before. Ratcliffe is brutal. Issa catches
Comey in a lie about the immunity agreements.
Jordan, Chaffetz, and Gowdy once again just can't
believe how an indictment wasn't warranted.
"... If the FBI keeps losing stuff they need to hire a security guard to keep it safe. Come on! Start charging these people with treason and this will stop!! ..."
"... I wonder what their plan is when they really have to arrest someone? lol It ain't gonna happen. Theatric, scripted politics. It's like a bad reality show. Compare criminal politics to the sitcom Gilligan's Island. They never get rescued, and criminal politicians never see jail time. ..."
If the FBI keeps losing stuff they need to hire a security guard to keep it safe. Come on!
Start charging these people with treason and this will stop!!
THERE ARE NO TEXTS MISSING!
DETECTIVES GET SEARCH WARRANTS FOR TEXT MESSAGES ALL THE TIME! WHY ARE THESE PEOPLE ANY
DIFFERENT!
I wonder what their plan is when they really have to arrest someone? lol It ain't gonna
happen. Theatric, scripted politics. It's like a bad reality show. Compare criminal politics
to the sitcom Gilligan's Island. They never get rescued, and criminal politicians never see
jail time.
"... Unable to come to terms with losing the 2016 election, Democrats are still pushing the 'Russiagate' probe and blocking the release of a memo describing surveillance abuses by the FBI, former Congressman Ron Paul told RT. ..."
"... I don't think anybody is seeking justice or seeking truth as much as they're seeking to get political advantage ..."
"... "I would be surprised if they haven't spied on him. They spy on everybody else. And they have spied on other members of the executive branch and other presidents." ..."
"... "The other day when they voted to get FISA even more power to spy on American people, the president couldn't be influenced by the fact that they used it against him. And I believe they did, and he believes that." ..."
"... "I've always maintained that government ought to be open and the people ought to have their privacy. But right now the people have no privacy and all our government does is work on secrecy and then it becomes competitive between the two parties, who get stuck with the worst deal by arguing, who's guilty of some crime," the politician explained. ..."
"... Paul also blasted the infamous 'Russian Dossier' compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele, and which the Democrats used in their attack on Trump, saying it ..."
"... "has no legitimacy being revealing [in terms of] of Trump being associated with Russia. From the people I know The story has been all made up, essentially." ..."
"... "I'm no fan of Trump. I'm not a supporter of his, but I think that has been carried way overboard. I think the Democrats can't stand the fact that they've lost the election, and they can't stand the fact that Trump is a little bit more independent minded than they like," he said. ..."
Unable to come to terms with losing the 2016 election, Democrats are still pushing the
'Russiagate' probe and blocking the release of a memo describing surveillance abuses by the
FBI, former Congressman Ron Paul told RT.
A top-secret intelligence memo, believed to reveal political bias at the highest levels of
the FBI and the DOJ towards President Trump, may well be as significant as the Republicans say,
Ron Paul told RT. But, he added, "there's still to many unknowns, especially, from my view
point."
"Trump connection to the Russians, I think, has been way overblown, and I'd like to just
get to the bottom of this the new information that's coming out, maybe this will reveal
things and help us out," he said.
"Right now it's just a political fight," the former US Congressman said. "I think they're
dealing with things a lot less important than the issue they ought to be talking about Right
now, I don't think anybody is seeking justice or seeking truth as much as they're seeking to
get political advantage."
Trump's claims that he was wiretapped by US intelligence agencies on the orders of the Obama
administration may well turn out to be true, Paul said.
"I would be surprised if they haven't spied on him. They spy on everybody else. And they
have spied on other members of the executive branch and other presidents."
However, he criticized Trump for doing nothing to prevent the Senate from voting in the
expansion of warrantless surveillance of US citizens under the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act (FISA) earlier this week.
"The other day when they voted to get FISA even more power to spy on American people, the
president couldn't be influenced by the fact that they used it against him. And I believe
they did, and he believes that."
"I've always maintained that government ought to be open and the people ought to have
their privacy. But right now the people have no privacy and all our government does is work
on secrecy and then it becomes competitive between the two parties, who get stuck with the
worst deal by arguing, who's guilty of some crime," the politician explained.
The fact that Democrats on the relevant committees have all voted against releasing the memo
"might mean that Trump is probably right; there's probably a lot of stuff there that would
exonerate him from any accusation they've been making," he said.
Paul also blasted the infamous 'Russian Dossier' compiled by former British spy Christopher
Steele, and which the Democrats used in their attack on Trump, saying it
"has no legitimacy being revealing [in terms of] of Trump being associated with Russia.
From the people I know The story has been all made up, essentially."
"I'm no fan of Trump. I'm not a supporter of his, but I think that has been carried way
overboard. I think the Democrats can't stand the fact that they've lost the election, and
they can't stand the fact that Trump is a little bit more independent minded than they like,"
he said.
Donald Trump Jr. called for the release of a memo that allegedly contains information about
Obama administration surveillance abuses and suggested that Democrats are complicit with the
media in misleading the public.
"It's the double standard that the people are fed by the Democrats in complicity with the
media, that's why neither have any trust from the American people anymore," Trump said on Fox
News Friday.
Former Attorney General Loretta Lynch knew well in advance of FBI Director James Comey's
2016 press conference that he would recommend against charging Hillary Clinton, according to
information turned over to the Senate Homeland Security Committee on Friday.
The revelation was included in 384 pages of text messages exchanged between FBI officials
Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, and it significantly diminishes the credibility of Lynch's earlier
commitment to accept Comey's recommendation -- a commitment she made under the pretense that
the two were not coordinating with each other.
And it gets worse. Comey and Lynch reportedly knew that Clinton would never face charges
even before the FBI conducted its three-hour interview with Clinton, which was supposedly meant
to gather more information into her mishandling of classified information.
Former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon once told Ivanka Trump: "You're just
another staffer who doesn't know what you're doing," according to a new book.
Related: Ivanka Trump's "special place in hell" for child predators comment trolls Roy Moore
rally
Bannon, who has long critiqued and clashed with Ivanka's and her husband Jared Kushner's
roles in the White House, tried to put the president's daughter in her place in one instance
detailed in the book.
"My daughter loves me as a dad...You love your dad. I get that. But you're just another
staffer who doesn't know what you're doing," Bannon said, The Washington Post reported when it
published excerpts on Monday.
The revelation is part of the latest book about life inside the White House. Howard Kurtz, host
of the Fox News show Media Buzz, wrote the book Media Madness: Donald Trump, The Press, And The
War Over The Truth, set to be released on January 29.
The new book, though perhaps not as sensational as the explosive tell-all Fire and Fury:
Inside the Trump White House, contains several new alleged revelations about the
administration. Along with reports of the turbulent relationship between Ivanka Trump and
Bannon, are claims that the president himself leaked information to journalists, that his aides
referred to his behavior as "defiance disorder" and that his staff was "blindsided" when he
accused former President Barack Obama of wiretapping his phones.
Beware of a strategist who watch how tigers fight in the valley from a safe top of the mountain ~ Shota Rustaveli (c. 1160-after
c. 1220
"Early in the administration, Kurtz describes White House aides waking up one Saturday morning in March, confused and "blindsided,"
to find that Trump had -- without any evidence -- accused former president Barack Obama on Twitter of wiretapping him during the campaign."
-- What a blatant lie, there are tons of evidence that this was the fact. the author desrctied himslef as an
establishment stooge.
Notable quotes:
"... Early in the administration, Kurtz describes White House aides waking up one Saturday morning in March, confused and "blindsided," to find that Trump had -- without any evidence -- accused former president Barack Obama on Twitter of wiretapping him during the campaign. ..."
"... "Nobody in the White House quite knew what to do," Kurtz writes. ..."
"... Priebus watched as his phone exploded with email and text messages, according to the excerpts. "Priebus knew the staff would have to fall into line to prove the tweet correct, the opposite of the usual process of vetting proposed pronouncements," Kurtz writes. "Once the president had committed to 140 characters, he was not going to back off." ..."
In late July, the White House had just finished an official policy review on transgender individuals serving in the military and
President Trump and his then-chief of staff, Reince Priebus, had agreed to meet in the Oval Office to discuss the four options awaiting
the president in a decision memo.
But then Trump unexpectedly preempted the conversation and sent his entire administration scrambling, by tweeting out
his own decision -- that the government would not allow transgender individuals to serve -- just moments later.
" 'Oh my God, he just tweeted this,' " Priebus said, according to a new book by Howard Kurtz, who hosts Fox News's "Media Buzz."
There was, Kurtz writes, "no longer a need for the meeting."
The White House -- and the politerati diaspora -- has just barely stopped reeling from author Michael Wolff's account of life
in Trump's West Wing, "Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House," and now another life-in-the-White-House book is about to drop,
this one from Kurtz.
Like the books that came before it, and almost certainly like the ones still to come, Kurtz's book, "Media Madness: Donald Trump,
The Press, And The War Over The Truth," offers a portrait of a White House riven by chaos, with aides scrambling to respond to the
president's impulses and writing policy to fit his tweets, according to excerpts obtained by The Washington Post.
Kurtz, who worked at The Post from 1981 to 2010, writes that Trump's aides even privately coined a term for Trump's behavior --
"Defiance Disorder." The phrase refers to Trump's seeming compulsion to do whatever it is his advisers are most strongly urging against,
leaving his team to handle the fallout.
The book officially hits stores Jan. 29.
Early in the administration, Kurtz describes White House aides waking up one Saturday morning in March, confused and "blindsided,"
to find that Trump had -- without any evidence -- accused former president Barack Obama on Twitter of wiretapping him during the
campaign.
"Nobody in the White House quite knew what to do," Kurtz writes.
Priebus watched as his phone exploded with email and text messages, according to the excerpts. "Priebus knew the staff would have
to fall into line to prove the tweet correct, the opposite of the usual process of vetting proposed pronouncements," Kurtz writes.
"Once the president had committed to 140 characters, he was not going to back off."
WASHINGTON -- When President Trump mused last year about protecting immigrants brought to the United States illegally as children,
calling them "these incredible kids," aides implored him privately to stop talking about them so sympathetically.
When he batted around the idea of granting them citizenship over a Chinese dinner at the White House last year with Democratic
leaders, Mr. Trump's advisers quickly drew up a list of hard-line demands to send to Capitol Hill that they said must be included
in any such plan.
And twice over the past two weeks, Mr. Trump has privately told lawmakers he is eager to strike a deal to extend legal status
to the so-called Dreamers, only to have his chief of staff, John F. Kelly, and senior policy adviser, Stephen Miller, make clear
afterward that such a compromise was not really in the offing -- unless it also included a host of stiffer immigration restrictions.
But, his favorite NYT reporter also can't help herself from insulting Trump.
... ... ...
Great strategy, NYT. The surest way to get Donald Trump to side with what you demand for the good of the Democratic Party electing
a new electorate is to insult his intelligence.
Your strategy is foolproof! There's nothing Trump like more than being played for a fool. What could possibly go wrong?
There's a lot of media focus on Miller atm, the thrust being that Miller is Bannon* 2.0, riding on the coat tails of The Great
Deal-Maker (formerly the New Hitler, but that didn't work) to push his own agenda.
They're hoping that Trump won't like a staffer getting more attention than he does and will say "you're fired". The same thing
will happen to any Trump appointment who looks like they want to implement the platform Trump ran on.
* AFAIK Bannon wasn't actually doing that, but it's the Narrative.
PS – BBC only ever quote Flake or Ryan when they want a "Republican" view.
OT: while y'all rightly shake with apprehension at what the next skullduggery from the FBI, CIA, or NSA might be, cheer yourselves
up by contemplating the incompetence of the people involved. They're such mugs that a 15-year old can dance rings around their
security procedures.
Still, it doesn't seem to inhibit the FBI from murdering US citizens, staging a slow-motion coup against a President, or manfully
saving the USA from a terrorist attack on 9/11. Hang on; the latter would have called for competence
That's a really fishy development. Like a mafia running inside FBI ;-)
Notable quotes:
"... Intel points to top FBI and DOJ officials communicating via: ..."
"... Burner or disposable smart phones purchased with cash and charged with cash or money order ..."
"... Encrypted phone and web apps, including SIGNAL employed for anonymous texting ..."
"... Phones issued in the name of a spouse or family member, conceivably out of reach of federal subpoenas ..."
"... Use of such telecom devices as part of official government business violates a host of federal laws, insiders said. ..."
"... With many key personnel in the FBI currently under the microscope of the Inspector General -- for potential criminal violations -- top FBI and DOJ officials are communicating on disposable phones via text, voice and internet access to encrypted texting apps, FBI insiders confirm. ..."
"... "The IG is aware of this," one FBI insider said. "They have been up on these guys for a long time." The FBI source's comments reflect the fact that the Inspector General has had court-approved wiretaps running on key members in the FBI and DOJ linked to an assortment of public scandals. ..."
"... "It is OK to publicize this now, because they have dug themselves a very big hole," the FBI source said. "They have switched to burners." ..."
"... The FBI "failed to preserve" five months worth of text messages exchanged between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, the two FBI employees who made pro-Clinton and anti-Trump comments while working on the Clinton email and the Russia collusion investigations. ..."
Members of the FBI and Justice Department's top brass at their Washington D.C.headquarters
and other field offices are now using burner phones to stay under the radar of federal
investigators and lawmakers, according to FBI insiders.
The shocking revelations come on the heels of news that the FBI deleted thousands of text
messages between anti-Trump FBI agents before investigators could review their content.
While that is disturbing on one level, FBI and DOJ hierarchy employing the telecom habits of
drug cartel bosses reaches a new low for the once-heralded federal law enforcement agency and
the DOJ. And breaks federal laws as well.
Intel points to top FBI and DOJ officials communicating via:
Burner or disposable smart phones purchased with cash and charged with cash or money
order
Encrypted phone and web apps, including SIGNAL employed for anonymous
texting
Phones issued in the name of a spouse or family member, conceivably out of reach of
federal subpoenas
Use of such telecom devices as part of official government business violates a host of
federal laws, insiders said.
But that hasn't slowed their use by top law enforcement personnel in the United States.
With many key personnel in the FBI currently under the microscope of the Inspector
General -- for potential criminal violations -- top FBI and DOJ officials are communicating on
disposable phones via text, voice and internet access to encrypted texting apps, FBI insiders
confirm.
"The IG is aware of this," one FBI insider said. "They have been up on these guys for a long
time." The FBI source's comments reflect the fact that the Inspector General has had court-approved
wiretaps running on key members in the FBI and DOJ linked to an assortment of public
scandals.
One of the main reasons why the Inspector General's report of its investigation of the FBI
has been delayed is because investigators keep getting wiretap intelligence on the key players,
the FBI official said.
"It is OK to publicize this now, because they have dug themselves a very big hole," the
FBI source said. "They have switched to burners."
Multiple FBI and federal law enforcement sources disclosed earlier that the IG was running
wiretaps on FBI and DOJ officials to True Pundit but requested an embargo on publishing the
information which would interfere with the investigation. True Pundit agreed to withhold until
given the green light to publish.
The FBI "failed to preserve" five months worth of text messages exchanged between Peter
Strzok and Lisa Page, the two FBI employees who made pro-Clinton and anti-Trump comments while
working on the Clinton email and the Russia collusion investigations.
The disclosure was made Friday in a letter sent by the Justice Department to the Senate
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee (HSGAC).
"The Department wants to bring to your attention that the FBI's technical system for
retaining text messages sent and received on FBI mobile devices failed to preserve text
messages for Mr. Strzok and Ms. Page," Stephen Boyd, the assistant attorney general for
legislative affairs at the Justice Department, wrote to Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson, the
chairman of HSGAC.
He said that texts are missing for the period between Dec. 14, 2016 and May 17, 2017.
Boyd attributed the failure to "misconfiguration issues related to rollouts, provisioning,
and software upgrades that conflicted with the FBI's collection capabilities."
"The result was that data that should have been automatically collected and retained for
long-term storage and retrieval was not collected," Boyd wrote.
Former FBI Director James
Comey has landed a teaching gig at his alma mater, the College of William & Mary, and
will join the ranks of the school's teaching faculty this fall with a course on ethical
leadership.
The Washington Post reports that Comey has accepted a nontenured position as an executive
professor in education with the school, and will teach the course on ethical leadership in fall
2018, spring 2019 and summer 2019 semesters.
I read about this, it was quickly brushed under the rug. Didn't know it was as extensive
because media coverage on this angle hasn't been clear. Good report.
And if this is covered closely, then we may get some traction about how it was done and
who pulled the strings. This maybe why former NSC Clapper is running scared, he set up his
own personal intelligence network (there were reports early on, Clapper had his own
intelligence network besides the 17 official intel agencies) to spy for the Obama WH, both he
and former CIA Brennan were running intel ops for the Obama WH. Brennan ran political intel
for the Obama election campaign. Indicating the Deep State intelligence apparatus is deeply
involved in presidential elections. Brennan political campaign intel network using Deep State
assets, next Obama;s NSC, next Obama's CIA director and was said to be the most political CIA
director in history by CIA employees.
Clapper may have been the one behind using British intelligence to spy on Trump. It would
explain Clappers irrational statements about Trump, sabotage and incitement of government
employees not to follow Trump's orders. We got that from Clapper, Brennan and former CIA
director Hayden. All three have joined forces in LA, using celebrities to continue the coup
against Trump. They formed, essentially a convert political action group using celebrities,
to make their case in the media. It's illogical for Clapper to continue with the coup, there
is no reward in it unless, he is guilty of treason and must continue the coup to protect
himself. In other words, this isn't for Hillary Clinton.
"... Six U.S. agencies created a stealth task force, spearhead by CIA's Brennan, to run domestic surveillance on Trump associates and possibly Trump himself. ..."
"... To feign ignorance and to seemingly operate within U.S. laws, the agencies freelanced the wiretapping of Trump associates to the British spy agency GCHQ. ..."
"... GCHQ did not work from London or the UK. In fact the spy agency worked from NSA's headquarters in Fort Meade, MD with direct NSA supervision and guidance to conduct sweeping surveillance on Trump associates. ..."
"... Following the Trump Tower sit down, GCHQ began digitally wiretapping Manafort, Trump Jr., and Kushner. ..."
"... OK Ron Johnson (R-WI), the author was Steven Boyd, Assistant for Legislative Affairs / DOJ - Hold him in contempt of congress. ..."
Six U.S. agencies created a stealth task force, spearhead by CIA's Brennan, to run
domestic surveillance on Trump associates and possibly Trump himself.
To feign ignorance and to seemingly operate within U.S. laws, the agencies freelanced
the wiretapping of Trump associates to the British spy agency GCHQ.
The decision to insert GCHQ as a back door to eavesdrop was sparked by the denial of
two FISA Court warrant applications filed by the FBI to seek wiretaps of Trump
associates.
GCHQ did not work from London or the UK. In fact the spy agency worked from NSA's
headquarters in Fort Meade, MD with direct NSA supervision and guidance to conduct sweeping
surveillance on Trump associates.
The illegal wiretaps were initiated months before the controversial Trump dossier
compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele.
The Justice Department and FBI set up the meeting at Trump Tower between Trump Jr.,
Manafort and Kushner with controversial Russian officials to make Trump's associates appear
compromised.
Following the Trump Tower sit down, GCHQ began digitally wiretapping Manafort, Trump
Jr., and Kushner.
After the concocted meeting by the Deep State, the British spy agency could officially
justify wiretapping Trump associates as an intelligence front for NSA because the Russian
lawyer at the meeting Natalia Veselnitskaya was considered an international security risk
and prior to the June sit down was not even allowed entry into the United States or the UK,
federal sources said.
By using GCHQ, the NSA and its intelligence partners had carved out a loophole to
wiretap Trump without a warrant. While it is illegal for U.S. agencies to monitor phones
and emails of U.S. citizens inside the United States absent a warrant, it is not illegal
for British intelligence to do so. Even if the GCHQ was tapping Trump on U.S. soil at Fort
Meade.
The wiretaps, secured through illicit scheming, have been used by U.S. Special Counsel
Robert Mueller's probe of alleged Russian collusion in the 2016 election, even though the
evidence is considered "poisoned fruit."
OK Ron Johnson (R-WI), the author was Steven Boyd, Assistant for Legislative Affairs / DOJ
- Hold him in contempt of congress. Have him arrested. During questioning, press him to the
wall, get him to tell him who in the FBI told him 'they couldn't find them.' Then go arrest
that guy too. Rinse and repeat. Look what these bastards did to Mike Flynn. Go get 'em.
NOW!!!
One of the silver linings in this mess is the clear view that the FBI is ridiculously
compromised & has chucked its standard of non-political leanings right out the window.
Shutting it down may have once seemed a long shot, now maybe not so much. If you haven't
noticed, another Trump boomerang has happened to the Left with their favorite word starting
with the letter S. This time I'm thinking Storm is what's about to follow instead of hole or
house.
If the republican leadership hiccup here on the release of the memo then it's things as
usual and forget a full on war from them. I don't trust those bastards as far as I can throw
them. Trump then needs to fire Sessions and Mueller and go full on attack mode with a press
conference doing what he does and light the left's hair on fire like never before. This is
war and it needs kicked off in grand fashion. The left's ability to guilt shame has been
neutered and they know it and are scared to death.
The Genius has lost control. Washington is oozing and dripping its corrupt, manipulating,
narcissistic and deceiving bile. Just one thin mint is all it will take. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJZPzQESq_0
At one point, Peter Strzok made reference to a phone that "could not be traced". He
probably had a 2nd phone for a period. I'd be willing to bet it was a BlackBerry. While he
had (if he had) that 2nd phone, he could have used that more secure phone for his
communications with Lisa Page.
The IG may have all of Strzok's text messages with Lisa Page from his official phone, but
none from the 2nd phone.
The article says that it was Lisa Page who suggested using the 2nd phone. That message
from her was in March 2016.
"Also in March, Page seems to be concerned about whether the things they say about Mr.
Trump can be found out. "So look, you say we can text on that phone when we talk about
Hillary because it cant be traced," she wrote."
Haven't read through the entire thread here, but the end date of the interval for the
missing data is also the date that Mueller was appointed.
All of this shit is at the NSA Blufdale, Utah, facility. Why are the taxpayers spending
umpteen billion dollars collecting and storing this stuff if the government is going to
pretend it doesn't exist? You can bet this internet post, and anyone who replies to it, is
archived there. We are supposed to be afraid of being surveiled by assholes like Clapper and
Brennan. Guess what? We're not.
If Horowitz now claims he really didn't receive all the text messages he requested, then
he too is part of a massive cover-up and any report that is issued by the DOJ's Inspector
General's office can't be believed by definition.
It's possible Horowitz lied then to placate the Congressional inquiry. I believe that the
Deep State believes that they can get Trump impeached before the shit hits the fan with the
Sedition by the FBI. There is always Plan B for the Deep State but 50 years after they rid
the world of 2 Kennedys the general population isn't buying it.
If I understand how US communication systems work, every network has a splitter which
copies all transmissions to NSA, or related agencies, storage devices. I would be shocked if
they didn't collect everything from FBI or DOJ employees, and I mean everything, from FBI
devices or their private devices. If the files are sitting safe and secure on NSA storage
devices, only the NSA could really "lose" them. And this would also be true for every one of
Clinton's messages. Why don't we ever see Congress ask NSA for anything? Is that
verboten?
FBI and DOJ and the Weasel Liar Rosenstein are LIARS. They don't want the world and the
American people know what Liars, corrupt, in the tank for Hilray to know what they did are
still trying to due. Trump needs to clean house of the FBI and DOJ of all Clinton and Obama
people.
"... House Oversight Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) said that after lengthy closed-door testimony by two former top Trump aides, he found that one of the men appears to have a "credibility" problem. ..."
"... But, he said that Bannon's testimony was more eventful. Gowdy said that at one point, Bannon attempted to dodge questions by exercising a privilege that does not exist. "That was his slip-up," Gowdy said. "He got this notion that 'hey, I'm going to create a privilege that no one's ever heard of before that doesn't exist in the law." Gowdy said the only "dangerous" issue for President Donald Trump is if "credible evidence" is presented. ..."
"... He said Bannon's credibility has taken a hit, since he once said there was no chance the Russian lawyer who met with Donald Trump Jr. did not meet Trump Sr. ..."
"... But, after he was fired, Bannon reportedly told author Michael Wolff that there was no chance the meeting hadn't occurred. ..."
"... "This is the same witness that said that members of the president's family committed acts of treason. So, he's got a credibility issue," Gowdy said. "If they're hinging the entire case on Steve Bannon's credibility, good luck to the prosecution." ..."
House Oversight Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) said that after lengthy closed-door
testimony by two former top Trump aides, he found that one of the men appears to have a
"credibility" problem.
Former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski and former White House adviser Steve Bannon spent
several hours testifying before Gowdy's committee Tuesday.
Gowdy said Lewandowski wanted to answer every question posed to him, but that his lawyers
advised him against answering those regarding his work after he left the campaign. "That [onus is] on the lawyer, not the witness. Corey is going to come back and answer every
question anyone has," Gowdy said.
But, he said that Bannon's testimony was more eventful. Gowdy said that at one point, Bannon attempted to dodge questions by exercising a privilege
that does not exist. "That was his slip-up," Gowdy said. "He got this notion that 'hey, I'm going to create a
privilege that no one's ever heard of before that doesn't exist in the law." Gowdy said the only "dangerous" issue for President Donald Trump is if "credible evidence"
is presented.
He said Bannon's credibility has taken a hit, since he once said there was no chance the
Russian lawyer who met with Donald Trump Jr. did not meet Trump Sr.
But, after he was fired, Bannon reportedly told author Michael Wolff that there was no
chance the meeting hadn't occurred.
"This is the same witness that said that members of the president's family committed
acts of treason. So, he's got a credibility issue," Gowdy said. "If they're hinging the entire
case on Steve Bannon's credibility, good luck to the prosecution."
"... But, according to the letter, the FBI told the department that its system for retaining text messages sent and received on bureau phones had failed to preserve communications between Strzok and Page over a five-month period between Dec. 14, 2016, and May 7, 2017. The explanation for the gap was "misconfiguration issues related to rollouts, provisioning, and software upgrades that conflicted with the FBI's collection capabilities." ..."
"... Technical glitches obviously do happen but I can't help getting a bit of a Lois Lerner flashback upon hearing that five months of messages are missing from the time right after Trump was elected until 10 days before Robert Mueller was appointed as Special Counsel. So if you were hoping for any follow up on that comment about an insurance policy, it looks like you can forget it. That's a well-timed glitch. ..."
"... But it seems the DOJ did turn over some additional texts that are worth considering. One involves an early draft of the Comey memo clearing Hillary Clinton. Originally the draft pointed out that Clinton had exchanged emails with President Obama while she was "on the territory" of a hostile power. Eventually, Obama's name was scrubbed from the document and finally all reference to the incident was removed. So that's one more example of the statement being watered down over time. And finally there is this : ..."
"... In another exchange, the two express displeasure about the timing of Lynch's announcement that she would defer to the FBI's judgment on the Clinton investigation. That announcement came days after it was revealed that the attorney general and former President Bill Clinton had an impromptu meeting aboard her plane in Phoenix, though both sides said the email investigation was never discussed ..."
"... Strzok said in a July 1 text message that the timing of Lynch's announcement "looks like hell." And Page appears to mockingly refer to Lynch's decision to accept the FBI's conclusion in the case as a "real profile in courag(e) since she knows no charges will be brought ..."
"... Comey himself had suggested Lynch appeared biased in the email probe and that he felt the need to act independently from her. ..."
"... "And she said, 'Yes, but don't call it that, call it a matter,'" Mr. Comey continued. "And I said, 'Why would I do that?' And she said, 'Just call it a matter.'" ..."
"... Mr. Comey said the "conclusive" episode that persuaded him to make his own announcement in the Clinton investigation rather than leave it to Ms. Lynch came last June, when former President Bill Clinton spontaneously boarded her plane on a tarmac and sat down to talk with her. ..."
"... So the story was that Lynch was biased (she was) but that Comey acted to protect the independence of the investigation. In fact, Lynch knew what Comey was going to say days before he said it. ..."
The Associated Press is reporting that the Department of Justice has given congressional
investigators additional text messages between FBI investigator Peter Strzok and his girlfriend
Lisa Page. The FBI also told investigators that five months worth of text messages, between
December 2016 and May 2017, are unavailable because of
a technical glitch .
On Friday at the Aspen Security Forum former CIA director John Brennan said senior officials in the executive branch should refuse
the order if President Trump fires special counsel Robert Mueller
(VERO BEACH, FL) Speaking on a panel to CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer with former DNI chief James Clapper, John Brennan effectively
called for a coup against the president if he should give the order to fire the DOJ appointed investigator.
"I think it's the obligation of some executive branch officials to refuse to carry that out," Mr. Brennan
said . "I would just hope that this is not going to be
a partisan issue. That Republicans, Democrats are going to see that the future of this government is at stake and something needs
to be done for the good of the future.
"If he's fired by Mr. Trump, or is attempted to be fired by Mr. Trump, I hope, I really hope that our members of congress, our
elected representatives, will stand up and say enough is enough, and stop making apologies and excuses for things that are happening
that really flaunt, I think, our system of laws and government here," Mr. Brennan said.
The editorial staff of ZeroHedge, an influential global blog which covers politics, economics, and war from a libertarian perspective,
also concluded
that Mr. Brennan's statement was "effectively calling for a coup" should President Trump give the order to fire Mr. Mueller.
From May 17, 2017 through Sept. 30, 2017, Robert Mueller's Russia probe spent nearly $7 Million of taxpayers' dollars. In seven
months, no solid evidence has been produced to prove that Pres. Trump colluded with the Russians to impact the elections. The
budget for Mueller's investigation was approved by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. -- 12.5.17 –"Mueller's Russia probe
spent nearly $7M in four months – May 17, 2017 through Sept. 30, 2017" – Fox News --
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/12/05/muellers-russia-probe-spent-nearly-7m-in-first-few-months.html
Now there's a face to go with the name of the biased FBI operative at the center of multiple probes and controversies dogging
the Trump administration.
Fox News has obtained a photo of Peter Strzok, the longtime FBI deputy fired by Special Counsel Robert Mueller over his bias against
President Trump. Strzok (pronounced "Struck"), was sacked by Mueller after electronic messages he reportedly sent to a colleague
emerged, but not before he played key roles in the probes swirling around Trump.
Strzok, a former deputy to the assistant director for counterintelligence at the FBI, oversaw the bureau's interviews with ousted
National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, changed former FBI Director James Comey's early draft language about Hillary Clinton's actions
regarding her private email server from "grossly negligent" to "extremely careless" and reportedly helped push the largely unverified
dossier on Trump that was initially prepared by Fusion GPS for the Clinton campaign's opposition research.
Strzok's messages were reportedly not only anti-Trump, but also pro-Hillary. That has raised the ire of critics because, prior
to joining Mueller's probe, he made edits to Comey's speech exonerating Hillary Clinton.
The language being edited was important because classified material that's been mishandled for "gross negligence" calls for criminal
consequences, analysts point out.
The wording change
came to light last month after newly reported memos to Congress showed that a May 2016 draft of Comey's statement closing out
the email investigation accused the former secretary of state of being "grossly negligent." A June 2016 draft stated Clinton had
been "extremely careless."
The modified language was final when Comey announced in July 2016 that Clinton wouldn't face any charges in the email investigation.
A source close to the matter told Fox News that the probe, which will examine Strzok's roles in a number of other politically
sensitive cases, should be completed by "very early next year."
EXCLUSIVE – Two senior Justice Department officials have confirmed to Fox News that the department's Office of Inspector General
is reviewing the role played in the Hillary Clinton email investigation by Peter Strzok, a former deputy director for counterintelligence
at the FBI who was removed from the staff of Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III earlier this year, after Mueller learned that
Strzok had exchanged anti-Trump texts with a colleague.
The task will be exceedingly complex, given Strzok's consequential portfolio. He participated in the FBI's fateful interview with
Hillary Clinton on July 2, 2016 – just days before then-FBI Director James Comey announced he was declining to recommend prosecution
of Mrs. Clinton in connection with her use, as secretary of state, of a private email server.
As deputy FBI director for counterintelligence, Strzok also enjoyed liaison with various agencies in the intelligence community,
including the CIA, then led by Director John Brennan.
Key figure
House investigators told Fox News they have long regarded Strzok as a key figure in the chain of events when the bureau, in 2016,
received the infamous anti-Trump "dossier" and launched a counterintelligence investigation into Russian meddling in the election
that ultimately came to encompass FISA surveillance of a Trump campaign associate.
The "dossier" was a compendium of salacious and largely unverified allegations about then-candidate Trump and others around him
that was compiled by the opposition research firm Fusion GPS. The firm's bank records, obtained by House investigators, revealed
that the project was funded by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee.
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., has sought documents and witnesses from the Department of Justice
and FBI to determine what role, if any, the dossier played in the move to place a Trump campaign associate under foreign surveillance.
Strzok himself briefed the committee on Dec. 5, 2016, the sources said, but within months of that session House Intelligence Committee
investigators were contacted by an informant suggesting that there was "documentary evidence" that Strzok was purportedly obstructing
the House probe into the dossier.
In early October, Nunes personally asked Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein – who has overseen the Trump-Russia probe since
the recusal of Attorney General Jeff Sessions – to make Strzok available to the committee for questioning, sources said.
While Strzok's removal from the Mueller team had been publicly reported in August, the Justice Department never disclosed the
anti-Trump texts to the House investigators
When a month had elapsed, House investigators – having issued three subpoenas for various witnesses and documents – formally recommended
to Nunes that DOJ and FBI be held in contempt of Congress.
Nunes continued pressing DOJ, including a conversation with Rosenstein as recently as last Wednesday
Contempt citations?
Responding to the revelations about Strzok's texts on Saturday, Nunes said he has now directed his staff to draft contempt-of-Congress
citations against Rosenstein and the new FBI director, Christopher Wray. Unless DOJ and FBI comply with all of his outstanding requests
for documents and witnesses by the close of business on Monday, Nunes said, he would seek a resolution on the contempt citations
before year's end.
"We now know why Strzok was dismissed, why the FBI and DOJ refused to provide us this explanation, and at least one reason why
they previously refused to make [FBI] Deputy Director [Andrew] McCabe available to the Committee for an interview," Nunes said in
a statement.
Those witnesses are FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and the FBI officer said to have handled Christopher Steele, the British
spy who used Russian sources to compile the dossier for Fusion GPS. The official said to be Steele's FBI handler has also appeared
already before the Senate panel.
In addition, Rosenstein is set to testify before the House Judiciary Committee on Dec. 13.
Sources close to the various investigations agreed the discovery of Strzok's texts raised important questions about his work on
the Clinton email case, the Trump-Russia probe, and the dossier matter.
A top House investigator asked: "If Mueller knew about the texts, what did he know about the dossier?"
Carr declined to comment on the extent to which Mueller has examined the dossier and its relationship, if any, to the counterintelligence
investigation that Strzok launched during the height of the campaign season.
Looks like Mueller has strong connections to CIA and according to Brennan is his personal friend. This glowing introduction by none
other then Brenner rises several questions. One is did CIA controlled Mueller during his tenure of FBI director.
The fact the Muller was in charge after 9/11 attacks rases additional questions.
Listening to this, I feel very confident that Mr. Mueller will be able to get to the very bottom of the Russian investigation.
I think he is probably three or more steps ahead of any tricks our "President" might try. This man is a head chess player.
Ash Pro
No wonder Trump and co are scared of this man. He is gonna take the whole thing down.
Looks like another false flag operation , now with the participation of Italian intelligence services.
Notable quotes:
"... Appears Prof. Mifsud of Maltese descent has close links to former Italian Minister of the Interior Vincenzo Scotti and the Italian Intelligence Agency. See more information from the Link Campus based in Rome. With links to a corrupt Saudi Prince, getting some sense now of a covert operation or a piggy-back Mossad act with knowledge of Intelligence gained from Five Eyes raw data ... ..."
"... "We are very excited to be partnering with the Link Campus Foundation to fund and enable important scholarship that looks to build bridges of mediation in conflict regions around the world," ..."
"... "We have respected the work of Link Campus for some time. The Centre hopes to play an important role in contributing to its efforts toward creating peace and good governance by strengthening the ability of researchers, media, and civil society to speak out and be informed on vital contemporary issues." ..."
"... "The Centre will take a very pragmatic approach to helping bring smarter and more relevant thinking to the area of conflict mediation." ..."
"... "Offering this research platform for experts is EDOF's way of trying to support those who are doing the heavy thinking as to how we can bring resolution to some of the more intractable conflicts in our world." ..."
"... Prince Turki Al Faisal said the evidence, disclosed by the United States late, was "overwhelming" and "clearly shows official Iranian responsibility". "Somebody in Iran will have to pay the price," said Prince Turki , who also served as his country's envoy to Britain and the US. ..."
"... ... Prince Turki al-Faisal , the chairman of the King Faisal Center for Research and Islamic Studies, is a former director of Saudi Arabia's intelligence services and ambassador to the United States. ..."
Appears Prof. Mifsud of Maltese descent has close links to former Italian Minister of the Interior
Vincenzo Scotti and the Italian Intelligence
Agency. See more information from the
Link Campus
based in Rome. With links to a corrupt Saudi Prince, getting some sense now of a covert operation or a piggy-back Mossad act with
knowledge of Intelligence gained from Five Eyes raw data ...
The EDOF Centre will work closely with the various interdisciplinary academic departments at the Link Campus University as
well as with international governments and organizations in order to support experts, academics, researchers, diplomats, governments,
and civil society activists in their attempts to help countries in conflict, crisis and transition around the world. The Partnership
Agreement was signed in Rome on May 8, 2017.
"We are very excited to be partnering with the Link Campus Foundation to fund and enable important scholarship that looks
to build bridges of mediation in conflict regions around the world," said
EDOF's CEO, Dr. Nawaf Obaid . "We have respected
the work of Link Campus for some time. The Centre hopes to play an important role in contributing to its efforts toward creating
peace and good governance by strengthening the ability of researchers, media, and civil society to speak out and be informed on
vital contemporary issues."
Professor Joseph Mefsud will be appointed the Founding Director of the Centre for a period of three years. Scholarships
and bursaries will be allocated in the field of War and Peace studies. The Centre will also hold international seminars and conferences,
produce research publications, and appoint Senior Fellows in the field of War and Peace studies.
According to
Tarek Obaid (
1 ), Founder of EDOF, "The Centre will take a very pragmatic approach to helping bring
smarter and more relevant thinking to the area of conflict mediation." It will achieve this by having three areas of concentration:
training, mentoring, and providing platforms for professional and expert seminars; building up the capacity of institutions and
civic groups; and working with independent and official partners to remove barriers to free expression, robust public debate and
open citizen engagement. "Offering this research platform for experts is EDOF's way of trying to support those who are doing
the heavy thinking as to how we can bring resolution to some of the more intractable conflicts in our world."
Nawaf Obaid is the Visiting Fellow for Intelligence & Defense Projects at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.
He is also a weekly columnist for the pan-Arab daily, Al Hayat Newspaper.
He is currently the CEO of the Essam and Dalal Obaid Foundation (EDOF).
From 2004 to 2007, he was Special Advisor for Strategic Communications to
Prince Turki Al Faisal , while Prince Turki was the Saudi Ambassador to the United Kingdom & Ireland, and then the United
States. And from 2007 to 2011, he worked with the Saudi Royal Court, where he was seconded as a Special Advisor to the Saudi Information
Minister. Most recently, he served as the Special Counselor to the Saudi Ambassador to the United Kingdom from 2011 to 2015.
Il 20 marzo alle ore 10:30 presso l'Università degli Studi Link Campus University, si è tenuto il convegno "Brexit: stepping
off a cliff or indipendence day?"
Il convegno determina il primo atto di una collaborazione italo-britannica post Brexit, ed è stato organizzato in occasione
della firma del Protocollo d'intesa tra l'Università degli Studi Link Campus University e la London School of Economics and Political
Science, tenutasi lo stesso giorno nella sede dell'università romana.
Sono intervenuti: Franco Frattini - Presidente del Corso in Studi Strategici e Scienze Diplomatiche e Presidente della SIOI,
Vincenzo Scotti - Presidente dell'Università
degli Studi Link Campus University, Michael Cox - Direttore della LSE IDEAS e Professore di Relazioni Internazionali presso la
LSE.
Prince
Turki Al Faisal said the evidence, disclosed by the United States late, was "overwhelming" and "clearly shows official Iranian
responsibility". "Somebody in Iran will have to pay the price," said
Prince Turki , who also served as his country's
envoy to Britain and the US.
... Prince Turki al-Faisal , the chairman of
the King Faisal Center for Research and Islamic Studies, is a former director of Saudi Arabia's intelligence services and ambassador
to the United States.
The Justice Department confirmed this week that employees in Mueller's office are exempt
from the shutdown and can continue their work. His office is not funded through the regular
congressional appropriations process.
A more interesting question is how those testimonies might affect Bannon -- he is in a very hot water now. If he thought that the
meeting was so incriminating why he did not contact FBI and just decided to feed juicy gossip to Wolff?
Also he was not present at the meeting and was not a member of Trump team until two months later. From who he got all this information
? Was is just a slander by disgruntled employee?
Notable quotes:
"... To reiterate, those comments were not aimed at Don Jr. ..."
"... Bannon has denied that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government during the election ..."
"... Wolff also quotes the former White House strategist as saying, "This is all about money laundering. [Robert] Mueller chose [senior prosecutor Andrew] Weissmann first and he is a money-laundering guy. Their path to fucking Trump goes right through Paul Manafort, Don Jr., and Jared Kushner . . . It's as plain as a hair on your face." ..."
"... Bannon then zeroed in on Kushner specifically, adding that "[i]t goes through Deutsche Bank and all the Kushner shit. The Kushner shit is greasy. They're going to go right through that. They're going to roll those two guys up and say play me or trade me." ..."
"The three senior guys in the campaign thought it was a good idea to meet with a foreign government inside Trump Tower in the
conference room on the 25th floor -- with no lawyers. They didn't have any lawyers," Bannon is quoted as saying in Fire and Fury.
"Even if you thought that this was not treasonous, or unpatriotic, or bad shit, and I happen to think it's all of that, you should
have called the F.B.I. immediately." Bannon reportedly speculated that the chance the eldest Trump son did not involve his father
in the meeting "is zero."
When Bannon's comments became public, Trump excoriated his former strategist, whom
he accused of having "lost his mind."
But while Bannon has since apologized for the remarks and sought to walk back a number of the quotes, he's stopped short of denying
that he viewed the Trump Tower meeting as treasonous. Instead, he's merely shifted the blame away from Trump Jr. and onto Manafort.
"My comments were aimed at Paul Manafort, a seasoned campaign professional with experience and knowledge of how the Russians operate.
He should have known they are duplicitous, cunning, and not our friends. To reiterate, those comments were not aimed at Don Jr.
," Bannon said in
a statement to Axios. ( Bannon has denied that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government during the election
.)
... ... ...
Though the Trump Tower meeting took place before Bannon joined the Trump campaign, Adam Schiff, the ranking Democrat on the House
panel, told
CNN last week that he plans to question Bannon about "why this meeting at Trump Tower represented his treason and certainly unpatriotic
at a minimum."
Jared Kushner's "greasy shit"
Wolff also quotes the former White House strategist as saying, "This is all about money laundering. [Robert] Mueller chose
[senior prosecutor Andrew] Weissmann first and he is a money-laundering guy. Their path to fucking Trump goes right through Paul
Manafort, Don Jr., and Jared Kushner . . . It's as plain as a hair on your face." (Trump Jr., Kushner, and Manafort have all
denied wrongdoing.) Bannon then zeroed in on Kushner specifically, adding that "[i]t goes through Deutsche Bank and all the Kushner
shit. The Kushner shit is greasy. They're going to go right through that. They're going to roll those two guys up and say play me
or trade me."
He and Trump's son-in-law have never seen eye to eye; their White House feuds were a poorly kept secret, and following his ouster,
Bannon has given numerous interviews knocking Kushner, including one to my colleague Gabriel Sherman in which he
questioned Kushner's
maturity level. If Bannon has dirt on Kushner, he will likely get his chance to reveal it; Schiff also
declared
his intent to question Bannon on "the basis of his concern over money laundering."
"... the recent influx of attack dog journalism has resulted in less investigative reporting and a misguided definition of news, both of which have serious, negative implications. ..."
"... All the President's Men ..."
"... The non-news news norm also includes what Larry Sabato referred to as attack dog journalism. That is, "the press coverage attending any political event or circumstance where a critical mass of journalists leap to cover the same embarrassing or scandalous subject and pursue it intensely, often excessively, and sometimes uncontrollably" (Sabato, 1991, p. 6). For instance, Obama's "you didn't build that" remark was immediately removed from context and spread by the mass media (so much so that the GOP then referenced it in their "We Built It" slogan at the Republican National Convention). His minor gaffe matters much less than his policy regarding taxes and social services. Even so, the media coverage did not focus on what his point was in the speech in which his misspoke. Rather, the attention was placed on the comment itself. The news should be what the President said he plans to do if he remains in office, not the poor wording choice. ..."
Journalists' role in the political process should be to serve as intermediaries between
politicians and the public. The average American does not have the means by which to get the
news directly from the White House and other bureaucrats. Therefore, there are reporters, who
exist to provide such information to the people. However, the recent influx of attack dog
journalism has resulted in less investigative reporting and a misguided definition of news,
both of which have serious, negative implications.
Woodward and Bernstein, as portrayed in All the President's Men , should be the
heroes of every news reporter in the country. By tirelessly digging up the dirt on the
Watergate, they discovered a government scandal. The pair adhered to their journalistic duty of
reporting the details to the public, despite hesitation from others and a warning from Deep
Throat that their lives may be in danger. They did not cease their searching once they had
enough to publish a story; rather, they kept probing until they got to the bottom of things.
According to lecture, their investigative journalism is indicative of a shift from lap dog
journalism to watch dog journalism.
Around the 1990s, American journalism lost its watch dog affiliation. Today's reporters are
rarely incited by the whispers of a government cover-up. For example, it took at least eight
years for the public to learn that Iraqi detector Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi lied about
weapons of mass destruction in an effort to influence Western war efforts (
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41609536/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/curveball-i-lied-about-wmd-hasten-iraq-war/#.UFzwiVGQTE0
). Reporters should not be expected to question every government decision. Nevertheless, when
the issue at hand is a war, they should be counted upon to look into why exactly one country
proposes going to war with another – reporting not only why the government is saying it
is time for war, but providing what evidence they are using to authorize their decision. This
is an enormous responsibility that is vital to our very democracy.
That is not to say that investigative journalism or watch dog reporting has died out (e.g.,
http://watchdog.org/about/ ). Rather,
their admirable tactics have been subsumed by the new news norm of non-news. In an effort to
attract an audience, countless news outlets have transitioned to offering non-news items as
news. For instance, the top story's headline on one of Tucson's local news station's websites
reads, "Donate hair this weekend to win tickets to "Disney on Ice." Another is, "Man jumps off
Bronx Zoo train, mauled by tiger." While a contest and a novel story might be interesting
enough for people to tune in, they are undoubtedly not the top stories of the day. One might
find the protesters' overtake of an Islamist group's headquarters in Benghazi more pressing,
especially considering the potential link to the recent attack at the U.S. Consulate in Libya
(or perhaps Mitt Romney's tax release).
The non-news news norm also includes what Larry Sabato referred to as attack dog
journalism. That is, "the press coverage attending any political event or circumstance where a
critical mass of journalists leap to cover the same embarrassing or scandalous subject and
pursue it intensely, often excessively, and sometimes uncontrollably" (Sabato, 1991, p. 6). For
instance, Obama's "you didn't build that" remark was immediately removed from context and
spread by the mass media (so much so that the GOP then referenced it in their "We Built It"
slogan at the Republican National Convention). His minor gaffe matters much less than his
policy regarding taxes and social services. Even so, the media coverage did not focus on what
his point was in the speech in which his misspoke. Rather, the attention was placed on the
comment itself. The news should be what the President said he plans to do if he remains in
office, not the poor wording choice.
The trend away from watch dog journalism toward attack dog journalism, as well as the warped
definition of what is considered news, have serious implications for the country as a whole.
The current nature of political news coverage can serve to place importance on non-issues,
inspire and perpetuate misinformation, and leaves out what is not easily accessible. By giving
so much attention to minor gaffes, rumors, and unimportant issues, the media make such items
salient to the public and communicate that they are important. This can lead to skewed
priorities, as people might find insignificant items to be much more relevant than they
actually should be. Additionally, attack dog journalists' mongering about Obama's birth
certificate led approximately 25% of the country to believe Obama was not born in the United
States – according to 2011 polls, administered two to three years after the rumor's
origin. Finally, acting like attack dogs rather than watch dogs prevents journalists from
investigating stories. Reporters might not act as politicians' lap dogs but by attacking rather
than digging, they fail as watch dogs.
Such a sociological shift in news norms and journalistic tendencies is difficult to reverse,
but not impossible. In All the President's Men , Woodward and Bernstein did not act
alone. While met with hesitation from most, a few people offered invaluable support, such as
their executive editor and Deep Throat. The four of them (Woodward, Bernstein, Ben Bradlee, and
Deep Throat) prove that it does not take an army to reveal a scandal. Both the moral of the
film and the return to watch dog journalism is the belief that all it takes are a few people
impassioned by a desire to get the story and to get it right.
(Sabato's book is titled "Feeding Frenzy: How Attack Journalism Has Transformed American
Politics")
"Institutionally, the Democratic Party Is Not Democratic"
Very apt characterization "the Democratic Party is nothing more
than a layer of indirection between the donor class and the Democratic consultants and the
campaigns they run;" ... " after all, the Democratic Party -- in its current incarnation -- has important roles to play
in not expanding its "own" electorate through voter registration, in the care and feeding of the intelligence community, in
warmongering, in the continual buffing and polishing of neoliberal ideology, and in general keeping the Overton Window firmly
nailed in place against policies that would convey universal concrete material benefits, especially to the working class"
Notable quotes:
"... That said, the revivification of the DNC lawsuit serves as a story hook for me to try to advance the story on the nature of political parties as such, the Democratic Party as an institution, and the function that the Democratic Party serves. I will meander through those three topics, then, and conclude. ..."
"... What sort of legal entity is ..."
"... Political parties were purely private organizations from the 1790s until the Civil War. Thus, "it was no more illegal to commit fraud in the party caucus or primary than it would be to do so in the election of officers of a drinking club." However, due to the efforts of Robert La Follette and the Progressives, states began to treat political parties as "public agencies" during the early 1890s and 1900s; by the 1920s "most states had adopted a succession of mandatory statutes regulating every major aspect of the parties' structures and operations. ..."
"... While 1787 delegates disagreed on when corruption might occur, they brought a general shared understanding of what political corruption meant. To the delegates, political corruption referred to self-serving use of public power for private ends, including, without limitation, bribery, public decisions to serve private wealth made because of dependent relationships, public decisions to serve executive power made because of dependent relationships, and use by public officials of their positions of power to become wealthy. ..."
"... Two features of the definitional framework of corruption at the time deserve special attention, because they are not frequently articulated by all modern academics or judges. The first feature is that corruption was defined in terms of an attitude toward public service, not in relation to a set of criminal laws. The second feature is that citizenship was understood to be a public office. The delegates believed that non-elected citizens wielding or attempting to influence public power can be corrupt and that elite corruption is a serious threat to a polity. ..."
"... You can see how a political party -- a strange, amphibious creature, public one moment, private the next -- is virtually optimized to create a phishing equilibrium for corruption. However, I didn't really answer my question, did I? I still don't know what sort of legal entity the Democratic Party is. However, I can say what the Democratic Party is not ..."
"... So the purpose of superdelegates is to veto a popular choice, if they decide the popular choice "can't govern." But this is circular. Do you think for a moment that the Clintonites would have tried to make sure President Sanders couldn't have governed? You bet they would have, and from Day One. ..."
"... More importantly, you can bet that the number of superdelegates retained is enough for the superdelegates, as a class, to maintain their death grip on the party. ..."
"... could have voluntarily decided that, Look, we're gonna go into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way. ..."
"... That's exactly ..."
"... Functionally, the Democratic Party Is a Money Trough for Self-Dealing Consultants. Here once again is Nomiki Konst's amazing video, before the DNC: https://www.youtube.com/embed/EAvblBnXV-w Those millions! That's real money! ..."
"... Today, it is openly acknowledged by many members that the DNC and the Clinton campaign were running an operation together. In fact, it doesn't take much research beyond FEC filings to see that six of the top major consulting firms had simultaneous contracts with the DNC and HRC -- collectively earning over $335 million since 2015 [this figure balloons in Konst's video because she got a look at the actual budget]. (This does not include SuperPACs.) ..."
"... One firm, GMMB earned $236.3 million from HFA and $5.3 from the DNC in 2016. Joel Benenson, a pollster and strategist who frequents cable news, collected $4.1m from HFA while simultaneously earning $3.3 million from the DNC. Perkins Coie law firm collected $3.8 million from the DNC, $481,979 from the Convention fund and $1.8 million from HFA in 2016. ..."
"... It gets worse. Not only do the DNC's favored consultants pick sides in the primaries, they serve on the DNC boards so they can give themselves donor money. ..."
"... These campaign consultants make a lot more money off of TV and mail than they do off of field efforts. Field efforts are long-term, labor-intensive, high overhead expenditures that do not have big margins from which the consultants can draw their payouts. They also don't allow the consultants to make money off of multiple campaigns all in the same cycle, while media and mail campaigns can be done from their DC office for dozens of clients all at the same time. They get paid whether campaigns win or lose, so effectiveness is irrelevant to them. ..."
"... the Democratic Party is nothing more than a layer of indirection between the donor class and the Democratic consultants and the campaigns they run; ..."
"... the Democratic Party -- in its current incarnation -- has important roles to play in not expanding its "own" electorate through voter registration, in the care and feeding of the intelligence community, in warmongering, in the continual buffing and polishing of neoliberal ideology, and in general keeping the Overton Window firmly nailed in place against policies that would convey universal concrete material benefits, especially to the working class. ..."
"... the bottom line is that if Democratic Party controls ballot access for the forseeable future, they have to be gone through ..."
"... In retrospect, despite Sanders evident appeal and the power of his list, I think it would have been best if their faction's pushback had been much stronger ..."
An alert reader who is a representative of the class that's suing the DNC Services
Corporation for fraud in the 2016 Democratic primary -- WILDING et al. v. DNC SERVICES
CORPORATION et al., a.k.a. the "DNC lawsuit" -- threw some interesting mail over the transom;
it's from Elizabeth Beck of Beck & Lee, the firm that brought the case on behalf of the
(putatively) defrauded class (and hence their lawyer). Beck's letter reads in relevant
part:
What a bombshell! Finally some truth about the "Justice system" in the US.
Following on from this should be the whole subsequent story of the DNC-Fusion-Steele dossier in detail, exposing the MSM too
for what it has been worth.
Perhaps then Trump dares to go against the deep state swamp and stop wars instead of following the dictates of CIA, Israel and
Military Industrialists. That would be a real POTUS PLUS result.
""It's troubling. It is shocking," North Carolina Rep. Mark Meadows said. "Part of me wishes that I didn't read it because
I don't want to believe that those kinds of things could be happening in this country that I call home and love so much.""
***
Come on, child! Enough with that spectacle. Get real. Have the basic courage to know and to admit what everybody has known
about your country for ages!... The entire world already knows.
More proof, if any were needed, that the only threat to the people of the USA comes from their own government. The 'external
threat' is a fiction calculated to enslave the US population and enrich the Oligarchy.
Somebody's going to leak this in short order. Let's take a real look at what both Dems and Repubs just expanded, let's look
at the monster they are feeding in broad daylight.
It is exactly as I told you. Russiagate is a conspiracy between the FBI, the DOJ, and the
Hillary campaign to overturn Donald Trump's election. We have treason committed at the highest
levels of the FBI and Department of Justice and the Democratic National Committee.
If you believed one word of Russiagate, you now must laugh or cry at your incredible
gullibility.
This scandal should also bring down the presstitute media who have done the dirty work for
the conspiracy against Trump.
GOP Rep. Gaetz Calls on House to Release 'Important Intelligence Document' -- Goes to 'Very Foundations of Our
Democracy,' Involves FBI, DoJ and Trump
.
@mattgaetz
: "The
allegations contained in this important intelligence document go to the very foundations of our democracy and
they require an immediate release to the public in my opinion."
pic.twitter.com/kqjxp21GcA
18 Jan, 2018
18 Jan, 2018
Thursday on the Fox Business Network, Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) teased an intelligence memo that he claimed went "to
the very foundations of democracy" and called on his colleagues in the House of Representatives to make the memo
public.
Gaetz told host Liz Claman the memo involved the FBI, the Department of Justice and President Donald Trump.
"The allegations contained in this important intelligence document go to the very foundations of our democracy,
and they require an immediate release to the public in my opinion," Gaetz said. "Unfortunately, I can not talk
about the specific facts contained within this memo. I can only share my observation -- that if the American people
knew what was happening if they saw the contents of this memo, a lot would become clear about the information that
I've been talking about the last several months. And so, I am calling on our leadership to hold a vote on the
floor of the House to make public the key contents of this intelligence memo regarding the FBI, the Department of
Justice and President Trump."
According to Gaetz, a vote could be held simultaneously with a continuing resolution vote that would make the
"critical allegations" in the document on the floor of the House of Representatives.
All hell is breaking loose in Washington D.C. tonight after a four-page memo detailing
extensive
FISA court abuse
was made available to the entire House of Representatives Thursday. The
contents of the memo are so explosive, says Journalist Sara Carter, that it could
lead to the
removal of senior officials in the FBI and the Department of Justice and the end of Robert Mueller's
special counsel investigation.
These sources say the report is "explosive," stating
they would not be surprised if it
leads to the end of Robert Mueller's Special Counsel investigation
into President Trump
and his associates. -
Sara
Carter
A source close to the matter tells
Fox
News
that "the memo details the Intelligence Committee's oversight work for
the FBI and Justice,
including the controversy over unmasking and FISA surveillance."
An
educated guess by anyone who's been paying attention for the last year leads to the obvious conclusion
that the report reveals
extensive abuse of power and highly illegal collusion between the
Obama administration, the FBI, the DOJ and the Clinton Campaign against Donald Trump and his team
during and after the 2016 presidential election.
Lawmakers who have seen the memo are calling for its immediate release, while the phrases
"explosive," "shocking," "troubling," and "alarming" have all been used in all sincerity. One
congressman even likened the report's details to KGB activity in Russia. "
It is so alarming
the American people have to see this,
" Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan told
Fox News
. "
It's
troubling. It is shocking
," North Carolina Rep. Mark Meadows said. "
Part of me wishes
that I didn't read it because I don't want to believe that those kinds of things could be happening in
this country that I call home and love so much.
"
Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., offered the motion on Thursday to make the Republican majority-authored
report available to the members.
"
The document shows a troubling course of conduct and we need to make the document
available, so the public can see it,
" said a senior government official, who spoke on
condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the document. "
Once the public sees it, we
can hold the people involved accountable in a number of ways
."
The government official said that after reading the document "
some of these people
should no longer be in the government.
" -
Sara Carter
Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz (R) echoed Sara Carter's sentiment
that people might lose their job
if the memo is released:
"
I believe the consequence of its release will
be major changes in people currently working at the FBI and the Department of Justice
," he
said, referencing DOJ officials
Rod Rosenstein and Bruce Ohr
.
Meanwhile, Rep. Matt Gatetz (R-FL) said
not only will the release of this memo result in
DOJ firing, but "people will go to jail."
Former Secret Service agent Dan Bongino says "
Take it to the bank, the FBI/FISA docs are
devastating for the Dems
."
The dossier was used in part as evidence for a warrant to surveil members of the Trump
campaign,
according to a
story
published this month
. Former British spy Christopher Steele, who compiled the dossier in 2016,
was hired by embattled research firm Fusion GPS. The firm's founder is Glenn Simpson, a former Wall
Street Journal reporter who has already testified before Congress in relation to the dossier. In
October, The Washington Post revealed for the first time that it was the Hillary Clinton campaign
and the DNC that financed Fusion GPS.
Congressional members are hopeful that the classified information will be declassified and
released to the public.
"
We probably will get this stuff released by the end of the month
," stated a
congressional member, who asked not to be named. -
Sara Carter
Releasing the memo to the public would require a committee vote, a source told
Fox
, adding
that if approved,
it could be released as long as there are no objections from the White House
within five days
.
Reactions from the citizenry have been on point:
... ... ....
Even WikiLeaks has joined the fray, offering a reward in Bitcoin to anyone who will share the memo:
Oddly, the Twitter account for the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence - @HPSCI - has
been mysteriously suspended.
Of all the recent developments in the ongoing investigation(s), this one is on the cusp of turning
into a genuine happening.
"Mr. President," Acosta shouted three times, finally getting Trump's attention, "Did you say
that you want more people to come in from Norway? Did you say that you wanted more people from
Norway? Is that true Mr. President?" Acosta barked at Trump.
" I want them to come in from everywhere everywhere. Thank you very much everybody ," Trump
replied while Acosta continued to interject.
" Just Caucasian or white countries, sir? Or do you want people to come in from other parts
of the world people of color ," Acosta asked - effectively calling Trump racist, to which Trump
looked Acosta directly in the eye and simply said:
Acosta spoke about the incident with Wolf Blitzer afterwards and said it was clear the
president was ordering him out of the room. Acosta said he tried to ask his questions again
when Trump and Nazarbayev gave a joint statement later on, but Deputy Press Secretary Hogan
Gidley "got right up in my face" and started shouting at him to block out any questions.
"It was that kind of a display," Acosta recalled. "It reminded me of something you might see
in less democratic countries when people at the White House or officials of a foreign
government attempt to get in the way of the press in doing their jobs."
Acosta and CNN were infamously humiliated after Trump called them "fake news" during a
January, 2017 press conference in which Acosta attempted to shoehorn a question in front of
another reporter:
Meanwhile, Acosta was shut down in December by White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders
after he tried to grandstand during a press briefing over being called "Fake News," telling her
that sometimes reporters make "honest mistakes."
Sanders shot back; "When journalists make honest mistakes, they should own up to them.
Sometimes, and a lot of times, you don't," only to be temporarily cut off by Acosta.
"I'm sorry, I'm not finished," Sanders fired back, adding "There is a very big difference
between making honest mistakes and purposefully misleading the American people... you cannot
say it's an honest mistake when you're purposely putting out information you know is
false."
Emails
released Tuesday by Trump Jr. reveal that his friend Rob Goldstone pitched the meeting
based on the promise of damning information on Hillary Clinton that supposedly was being
offered by senior Russian government officials. On Monday, Mark
Corallo , a spokesman for President Trump's outside counsel, alleged that the meeting had
been set up under false pretenses and implied that Veselnitskaya's association with Fusion GPS
was relevant to the alleged deception.
"... "Bannon is gone, but he's now become fodder for the book by Michael Wolff which is now being mined by both Mueller and the House Intelligence Committee. We don't know what Bannon told the intelligence committee, since it was behind closed doors. But the New York Times, who broke the story, speculate that the subpoena is a way to get Bannon to agree to an interview rather than stand before the grand jury." ..."
"... Lauria also discussed Wolff's "Fire and Fury," which paints a highly negative image of the first year of the Trump White House -- including a quote from Bannon describing Donald Trump, Jr. and former Trump campaign chief Paul Manafort as "treasonous." ..."
"... The conversation then turned to the specifics of Bannon's claim of treason, the meeting between Manafort, Trump, Jr. and several Russian lobbyists in Trump Tower, and its connection with the famous "dodgy dossier" compiled by Christopher Steele. ..."
"... "The difference is that intelligence reports are vetted by the intelligence agent and then by his superiors and usually by other agencies in his country's intelligence community. It's also a taxpayer-funded operation, supposedly to protect society, although that's not always what intelligence agencies do. Opposition research is a completely different thing: getting dirt on a political opponent, which is what Steele did," Lauria explained. ..."
"... "The idea that Trump, Jr. had gotten this opposition research from the Russian government, as apparently Bannon said, is completely incorrect because there was no one from the Russian government, there was a former KGB agent. The lawyer was not a member of the government and no dirt was ever turned over. [There's] only been one campaign that received opposition research from foreigners during the 2016 campaign: the Clinton campaign that paid for it via a British former intelligence agent and his supposed Russian sources. But foreign opposition research [has] never been established as a crime." ..."
Former White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon has been subpoenaed to testify before a
grand jury, supposedly on alleged ties between the presidential campaign of Donald Trump and
Russian actors. Brian Becker on Radio Sputnik's Loud & Clear was joined by Joe Lauria,
a veteran journalist who has also worked for major newspapers in four countries, perhaps most
notably as the Wall Street Journal's correspondent to the United Nations.
"Mr. Bannon has fallen and I think he was the ideological force behind Trump,
particularly in relations with Russia," said Lauria. "It's interesting to know why did Trump
call for detente, and still seems to be pursuing detente, with Russia. Many people who believe
in Russiagate believe it's because he's somehow beholden to them or has been blackmailed or
whatever. But professor Jeffrey Summers with the University of Wisconsin wrote an interesting
piece where he said Bannon was the one who had impressed upon Trump that he should improve
relations with Russia so they can team up against Islamic extremism."
"Bannon is gone, but he's now become fodder for the book by Michael Wolff which is now being
mined by both Mueller and the House Intelligence Committee. We don't know what Bannon told the
intelligence committee, since it was behind closed doors. But the New York Times, who broke the
story, speculate that the subpoena is a way to get Bannon to agree to an interview rather than
stand before the grand jury."
Lauria also discussed Wolff's "Fire and Fury," which paints a highly negative image of the
first year of the Trump White House -- including a quote from Bannon describing Donald Trump,
Jr. and former Trump campaign chief Paul Manafort as "treasonous."
"If you read the key quote in that book, the House Intelligence Committee wants to question
him about an allegation against Paul Manafort and Donald Trump, Jr. for treason. I find this
very curious. If Bannon wanted Trump to have better relations with Russia, it's curious that he
would roll out an accusation of treason. He's far from the only one to bring the charge against
Trump in this entire Russiagate fiasco, but if you look at treason, it's the only crime defined
in the US Constitution. It says clearly treason against the US consists only of assisting an
enemy of the US in a state of open hostility with us."
"Russia is not in open hostilities with the United States, no one would argue that. The idea
that Trump, Jr. has committed treason is ridiculous. I don't know why Bannon used [the term].
Clearly he was angry at Trump for being fired, I don't know if he was begging for his job back
as Trump tweeted," Lauria said.
The conversation then turned to the specifics of Bannon's claim of treason, the meeting
between Manafort, Trump, Jr. and several Russian lobbyists in Trump Tower, and its connection
with the famous "dodgy dossier" compiled by Christopher Steele.
"If I could talk a second about that Don Jr meeting, there's a core issue in it over the
difference in opposition research and intelligence," Lauria said. "While Christopher Steele was
an MI-6 intelligence agent for Britain, he was working for a private company at the time. He
was hired by the Clinton campaign and the [Democratic National Committee] through Fusion GPS.
Glenn Simpson, of Fusion, who hired Steele directly, wrote in a New York Times editorial that
Steele produced intelligence memos. He was either lying or misleading the readers -- he has to
know the difference between them."
"The difference is that intelligence reports are vetted by the intelligence agent and then
by his superiors and usually by other agencies in his country's intelligence community. It's
also a taxpayer-funded operation, supposedly to protect society, although that's not always
what intelligence agencies do. Opposition research is a completely different thing: getting
dirt on a political opponent, which is what Steele did," Lauria explained.
"The idea that Trump, Jr. had gotten this opposition research from the Russian government,
as apparently Bannon said, is completely incorrect because there was no one from the Russian
government, there was a former KGB agent. The lawyer was not a member of the government and no
dirt was ever turned over. [There's] only been one campaign that received opposition research
from foreigners during the 2016 campaign: the Clinton campaign that paid for it via a British
former intelligence agent and his supposed Russian sources. But foreign opposition research
[has] never been established as a crime."
"... What do you think? Perhaps almost 60,000 Americans dying in Vietnam was a darker time. Or maybe when Hitler's armies rolled across Europe, Japan surprise attacked Pearl Harbor, and 400,000 American soldiers died World War II. ..."
"... Anyone who thinks Trump's Presidency is the darkest time in American history is a poor student of American history. And I must assume their lives are pretty amazing if this is the worst they have ever felt. ..."
I saw someone refer to the Trump Presidency as "possibly the darkest time in American
history." I've heard some iteration of that many times from people still in a frenzy over the
Trump Administration.
I'm not a big Trump fan. I wasn't a big Obama fan either. But their presence in office did
not and does not hang over my life like a dark cloud. They really aren't that important.
Yes, they have the ability to make life more difficult for many. It is unfortunate that any
politicians have that much control over our day to day lives.
But the darkest time in American history ?
What do you think? Perhaps almost 60,000 Americans dying in Vietnam was a darker time. Or
maybe when Hitler's armies rolled across Europe, Japan surprise attacked Pearl Harbor, and
400,000 American soldiers died World War II.
For Japanese Americans, FDR's
presidency was likely a darker time, as they sat in detainment facilities. Their crime was
having Japanese ancestors.
In 1918 the Spanish Flu swept across the globe killing at least 20 million people worldwide,
675,000 Americans. At the same time, soldiers were coming home from WWI blinded by chemicals
and mutilated by bombs.
And that is just going back one century. American history also includes the Civil War,
slavery, and
the Whiskey Rebellion .
Anyone who thinks Trump's Presidency is the darkest time in American history is a poor
student of American history. And I must assume their lives are pretty amazing if this is the
worst they have ever felt.
... ... ...
Look at where it left the global
warming alarmists . They wanted to reduce pollution, which is a noble cause. But they lied
about the goals, they lied about the causes, and they exaggerated the timetable. It's the
classic boy who cried wolf.
... ... ...
I used to be paranoid about the government. Obviously, some of that paranoia is well
founded. They do monitor communications and
disrupt online discourse . They do violate
rights . They are oppressive
in many ways.
Russia's foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, said it was "wild" that Trump's son was being
blamed for speaking with a Russian attorney. Lavrov – who met Trump last week at the G20
summit in Hamburg, together with Vladimir Putin – said he knew nothing of the meeting
with the lawyer. Serious people were trying to "make a mountain out of a molehill", Lavrov
said.
In the emails, Goldstone said he made contact with Trump Jr at the behest of the
Russian-Azeri businessman Aras Agalarov and Aglaravov's pop-star son, Emin. The Agalarovs
hosted Trump when he visited Moscow in 2013 for the Miss Universe beauty pageant.
On Wednesday, Aras Agalarov claimed the story was invented. "I think this is some sort of
fiction. I don't know who is making it up," he told Russia's Business FM radio station, adding:
"What has Hillary Clinton got to do with anything? I don't know."
"Mr. President," Acosta shouted three times, finally getting Trump's attention, "Did you say
that you want more people to come in from Norway? Did you say that you wanted more people from
Norway? Is that true Mr. President?" Acosta barked at Trump.
" I want them to come in from everywhere everywhere. Thank you very much everybody ," Trump
replied while Acosta continued to interject.
" Just Caucasian or white countries, sir? Or do you want people to come in from other parts
of the world people of color ," Acosta asked - effectively calling Trump racist, to which Trump
looked Acosta directly in the eye and simply said:
Acosta spoke about the incident with Wolf Blitzer afterwards and said it was clear the
president was ordering him out of the room. Acosta said he tried to ask his questions again
when Trump and Nazarbayev gave a joint statement later on, but Deputy Press Secretary Hogan
Gidley "got right up in my face" and started shouting at him to block out any questions.
"It was that kind of a display," Acosta recalled. "It reminded me of something you might see
in less democratic countries when people at the White House or officials of a foreign
government attempt to get in the way of the press in doing their jobs."
Acosta and CNN were infamously humiliated after Trump called them "fake news" during a
January, 2017 press conference in which Acosta attempted to shoehorn a question in front of
another reporter:
Meanwhile, Acosta was shut down in December by White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders
after he tried to grandstand during a press briefing over being called "Fake News," telling her
that sometimes reporters make "honest mistakes."
Sanders shot back; "When journalists make honest mistakes, they should own up to them.
Sometimes, and a lot of times, you don't," only to be temporarily cut off by Acosta.
"I'm sorry, I'm not finished," Sanders fired back, adding "There is a very big difference
between making honest mistakes and purposefully misleading the American people... you cannot
say it's an honest mistake when you're purposely putting out information you know is
false."
It would be interesting if they get Wolff to testify too ;-)
Notable quotes:
"... Fox News is reporting that Steve Bannon was told by the White House not to answer questions before House Intel Committee about the White House or the transition. Bannon testified before the committee on Tuesday. ..."
"... the NYT reports that Trump's former chief strategist was subpoenaed last week by the special counsel, Robert Mueller to testify before a grand jury as part of the investigation into possible links between Trump's associates and Russia. ..."
"... After excerpts from the book, "Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House," were published this month, Mr. Trump derided Mr. Bannon publicly and threatened to sue him for defamation. Mr. Bannon was soon ousted as the executive chairman of the hard-right website Breitbart News. ..."
"... The experts also said it could be a signal to Mr. Bannon, who has tried to publicly patch up his falling-out with the president, that despite Mr. Trump's legal threats, Mr. Bannon must be completely forthcoming with investigators. ..."
"... Prosecutors generally prefer to interview witnesses before a grand jury when they believe they have information that the witnesses do not know or when they think they might catch the witnesses in a lie. It is much easier for a witness to stop the questioning or sidestep questions in an interview than during grand jury testimony, which is transcribed, and witnesses are required to answer every question. ..."
"... Whether or not Bannon actually knows something that can help the Mueller probe, of course, remains to be seen. ..."
"... Good! Every time Mueller has tried to tighten the noose in the past more info on his own corruption has come out. Can't wait to find out more about what a fuck-up stoolie for the Clinton eradicate america campaign he's been. ..."
"... Yes, but how long before he finds anything. A blind squirrel could find something with this much time and resources. This really is a witch hunt. ..."
"... So fucking tired of this Democrat led witch hunt. This must be how ordinary people felt in Salem back in 1692-1693. We look like fucking fools and a fucking joke to the rest of the world. ..."
"... Grand Inquisitor Mueller, drowning in a sea of DEMOCRAT Russian collusion, subpoenas...Bannon...lol. ..."
"... How much has this idiot Mueller pissed away in taxpayer money? ..."
"... First, did he even say some of that stuff to the author of the book, as has been well publicized that the author is a known liar, fabricator, creating fiction for the sake of book sales. This stinks of the collusion story from the NY Times, which was BS, that got this whole colossal crock of simmering cow crap started. ..."
"... In his emails to Trump Jr., Goldstone referred to Veselnitskaya as a "Russian government lawyer" who had damaging info on Clinton as "part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump." ..."
"... If the above were a pedophile sting operation, Jr. would be considered beyond any doubt a child predator, even though he didn't actually get the opportunity to act upon the intent of the meeting. ..."
Update:Fox News is reporting that Steve Bannon was told by the White House not to answer questions before House Intel
Committee about the White House or the transition. Bannon testified before the committee on Tuesday.
The bad news for Steve Bannon just keeps on coming.
Not long after Bannon was bounced from Breitbart following his feud with Trump
over his comments in Michael Wolff's book, moments ago the
NYT reports
that
Trump's former chief strategist was subpoenaed last week by the special counsel, Robert Mueller
to testify before a grand
jury as part of the investigation into possible links between Trump's associates and Russia.
And the reason why stocks dipped modestly and the VIX bounced on the news, is that the subpoena marks the first time Mueller is
known to have used a grand jury subpoena to seek information from a member of Mr. Trump's inner circle.
After excerpts from the book, "Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House," were published this month, Mr. Trump derided Mr.
Bannon publicly and threatened to sue him for defamation. Mr. Bannon was soon ousted as the executive chairman of the hard-right
website Breitbart News.
Mueller reportedly issued the subpoena after Mr. Bannon was quoted in a new book criticizing Mr. Trump, saying that Donald
Trump Jr.'s 2016 meeting with Russians was "treasonous" and predicting that the special counsel investigation would ultimately center
on money laundering.
According to the NYT, the subpoena could be a negotiating tactic:
Mr. Mueller is likely to allow Mr. Bannon to forgo the grand jury appearance if he agrees to instead be questioned
by investigators in the less formal setting of the special counsel's offices in Washington, according to the person, who would
not be named discussing the case.
But it was not clear why Mr. Mueller treated Mr. Bannon differently than the dozen
administration officials who were interviewed in the final months of last year and were never served with a subpoena.
Meanwhile, on Tuesday Bannon was testifying behind closed doors before the House Intelligence Committee, which is also investigating
Russia's meddling in the 2016 election and ties between the Trump campaign and Russia.
The NYT quotes legal experts who said
the subpoena could be a sign that the investigation was intensifying, while others
said it may simply have been a negotiating tactic to persuade Mr. Bannon to cooperate with the investigation.
The experts
also said it could be a signal to Mr. Bannon, who has tried to publicly patch up his falling-out with the president, that despite
Mr. Trump's legal threats, Mr. Bannon must be completely forthcoming with investigators.
Prosecutors generally prefer to interview witnesses before a grand jury when they believe they have information that the witnesses
do not know or when they think they might catch the witnesses in a lie. It is much easier for a witness to stop the questioning
or sidestep questions in an interview than during grand jury testimony, which is transcribed, and witnesses are required to answer
every question.
The news will hardly come as a surprise to Trump: "the president appeared to ease his anger toward Mr. Bannon at the end of last
week. When asked in an interview with The Wall Street Journal whether his break with Mr. Bannon was "permanent," the president replied,
"I don't know what the word 'permanent' means.""
As a result, "people close to Mr. Bannon took the president's comments as a signal that Mr. Trump was aware that his fired
strategist would soon be contacted by investigators."
Whether or not Bannon actually knows something that can help the Mueller probe, of course, remains to be seen.
Good! Every time Mueller has tried to tighten the noose in the past more info on his own
corruption has come out. Can't wait to find out more about what a fuck-up stoolie for the
Clinton eradicate america campaign he's been.
Yes, but how long before he finds anything. A blind squirrel could find something with
this much time and resources. This really is a witch hunt. Meanwhile mountains of evidence
being ignored on Comey, Clinton, Lynch
How does a probe "intensify"? Does it mean they discuss things in louder voices?
Wear more colorful clothing? Increase the office lighting brightness?
What I wish would "intensify" is the brainpower of journalists.
Oh . . . and "Hillary" has two l's. Like "hell" has two l's.
They think Bannon is at odds with Trump and will roll over on him.
Must.Get.Moar.Popcorn.
This episode is about to start...
Mike Masr • Jan 16, 2018 1:49 PM Permalink
So fucking tired of this Democrat led witch hunt. This must be how ordinary people felt in Salem back in 1692-1693. We
look like fucking fools and a fucking joke to the rest of the world.
How much has this idiot Mueller pissed away in taxpayer money? Washington
Gov is a total waste.....beyond repair I would say. From that Idiot Black
Chick who wears the Cowboy hats like a Clown from the Circus, to the 84
fucking year old senile Bitch Feinstein......to waste of time and money.
This Country is lost.
First, did he even say some of that stuff to the author of the book, as has been well
publicized that the author is a known liar, fabricator, creating fiction for the sake of book
sales. This stinks of the collusion story from the NY Times, which was BS, that got this
whole colossal crock of simmering cow crap started.
Second, is Bannon that petty or does he
see the bigger picture?
In his
emails
to
Trump Jr., Goldstone referred to Veselnitskaya as a "Russian government lawyer" who had
damaging info on Clinton as "part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump."
"If it's what you say I love it especially later in the summer," Trump Jr. replied to
Goldstone in one email.
Bannon doesn't have to say a word. Trump Jr. stated he loved the idea of Russian Government
support. Bannon is right. Jr.'s intent was treasonous-not to be confused with actually
committing treason.
If the above were a pedophile sting operation, Jr. would be considered beyond any doubt a
child predator, even though he didn't actually get the opportunity to act upon the intent of the
meeting.
"... When the entire episode about the creation of the Trump dossier (by former Brit spy, Christopher Steele) and its dissemination (by Steele and the Democrat hired contractor, FUSION GPS,) to the FBI and the press, is fully exposed, the American people will be confronted with the stark dilemma of how to deal with the fact that there was a failed domestic coup attempted by members of the U.S. intel and law enforcement community. The facts will show that the Director of National Intelligence, the Director of the CIA and the FBI conspired and meddled in the 2016 Presidential election. They lied to a Federal judge about the origins of the dossier and used those lies to get permission to spy on Trump and members of his campaign staff. ..."
"... But U.S. officials have since received intelligence reports that during that same three-day trip, Page met with Igor Sechin, a longtime Putin associate and former Russian deputy prime minister who is now the executive chairman of Rosneft, Russian's leading oil company, a well-placed Western intelligence source tells Yahoo News. ..."
"... The response to the information from the FBI, he recalled, was "shock and horror." After a few weeks, the bureau asked him for information on his sources and their reliability and on how he had obtained his reports. He was also asked to continue to send copies of his subsequent reports to the bureau. These reports were not written, he noted, as finished work products; they were updates on what he was learning from his various sources. ..."
"... "I have recently become concerned that the threat of the Russian government tampering in our presidential election is more extensive than widely known and may include the intent to falsify official election results. The evidence of a direct connection between the Russian government and Donald Trump's presidential campaign continues to mount. . ." ..."
"... Michael Isikoff referenced those briefings : "The activities of Trump adviser Carter Page, who has extensive business interests in Russia, have been discussed with senior members of Congress during recent briefings about suspected efforts by Moscow to influence the presidential election, the sources said. After one of those briefings, Senate minority leader Harry Reid wrote FBI Director James Comey, citing reports of meetings between a Trump adviser (a reference to Page) and "high ranking sanctioned individuals" in Moscow over the summer as evidence of "significant and disturbing ties" between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin that needed to be investigated by the bureau." ..."
"... September 2016. FBI used the Steele memos as part of the basis for requesting a FISA warrant according to reports by the NY Times and the Washington Post : ..."
"... We do not know exactly when the FISA warrant was granted, but the New York Times and the Washington Post have reported, citing U.S. government sources, that this occurred in September 2016 (see here , here , and here ). ..."
"... After Mr. Page, 45 -- a Navy veteran and businessman who had lived in Moscow for three years -- stepped down (26 September 2016) from the Trump campaign in September, the F.B.I. obtained a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court allowing the authorities to monitor his communications on the suspicion that he was a Russian agent. ..."
"... The Justice Department obtained a secret court-approved wiretap last summer on Carter Page, a foreign policy adviser to Donald J. Trump 's presidential campaign, based on evidence that he was operating as a Russian agent, a government official said Wednesday. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court issued the warrant, the official said, after investigators determined that Mr. Page was no longer part of the Trump campaign, which began distancing itself from him in early August. ..."
"... The FBI and the Justice Department obtained the warrant targeting Carter Page's communications after convincing a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court judge that there was probable cause to believe Page was acting as an agent of a foreign power, in this case Russia, according to the officials. ..."
"... Loretta Lynch, Attorney General under President Obama, approved the FISA application. (Note--federal law requires that the attorney general approve every application to the FISA court.) ..."
"... End of September--Steele revealed in a London court filing earlier this year that he was directed by Fusion GPS to brief reporters at outlets like The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN, Yahoo! News and Mother Jones about his Trump findings. ..."
"... End of September--Steele informs Simpson (i.e. Fusion GPS) that the FBI wants to meet him in Rome. ( Senate Judiciary Committee 0n 22 August 2017, p. 171 ) ..."
"... 6 January 2017--FBI Director Comey briefs Trump on the Steele dossier, which Comey describes as "salacious and UNVERIFIED." : ..."
"... The IC leadership thought it important, for a variety of reasons, to alert the incoming President to the existence of this material, even though it was salacious and unverified. Among those reasons were: (1) we knew the media was about to publicly report the material and we believed the IC should not keep knowledge of the material and its imminent release from the President-Elect; and (2) to the extent there was some effort to compromise an incoming President, we could blunt any such effort with a defensive briefing. (Comey's statement before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, 8 June 2017) ..."
"... Describing his reports in the Mother Jones interview, Steele asserted, "This was something of huge significance, way above party politics." Things changed, though, when Steele was sued for libel after the dossier was published in early 2017. Suddenly, when he was in a forum where it was clear to him that making exaggerated or false claims could cost him dearly, he decided his allegations were not of such "huge significance" after all . . . .According to Steele's courtroom version, the dossier is merely a compilation of bits of "raw intelligence" that were "unverified" and that he passed along because they "warranted further investigation" -- i.e., not because he could vouch for their truthfulness. (kudos to Rowan Scarborough who initially broke the story). ..."
"... I think one has to start with the assumption that everyone at the highest levels of the federal government, especially the national security apparatus, is a swamp creature. They just don't get there unless they are one. Weasels like Clapper, Brennan, Hayden. Of course that does not mean a person with honor & integrity doesn't get up there. Just far and few between. ..."
"... It is extremely difficult to uncover malfeasance in government in the best of circumstances and it is practically impossible within the national security apparatus as they have the ever present shield of "state secrets". In this context we have to be thankful for small gifts of transparency coming from inside like these disclosures by IG Horowitz as well as by whistleblowers like Snowden. ..."
"... Are you sure the"insurance policy" referred to a way to destroy Trump if he were to be elected? What if FBI counterintelligence agents were involved in illegal surveillance activities that could possibly come to light if Trump were president? The dossier in fact was the insurance policy that they retroactively used to launder previous illegal searches that would have been covered up if Hillary had won. ..."
"... The primary purpose of the "insurance policy" was to protect FBI agents against accusations of malfeasance, which at present, appears to be an accurate description of their behavior. ..."
"... The ENTIRE SYSTEM of FISA-702 surveillance and data collection was weaponized against a political campaign. The DOJ and FBI used the FISA Court to gain access to Trump data, and simultaneously justify earlier FISA "queries" by their contractor, Fusion GPS. FISA-702 queries were used to gather information on the Trump campaign which later became FBI counterintelligence surveillance on the officials therein. ..."
"... So, the snooping began much before Steele was hired by Fusion GPS. Sundance for example believes that the FBI provided this "unauthorized" access to its subcontractor Fusion GPS. This is how Fusion GPS was paid by the FBI. ..."
"... When the time line and interactions are put together it seems that it all begins at the FBI during March 2016, pretty early in the primary season, possibly with Fusion GPS as the subcontractor. Steele only comes on the scene, after the meeting of Mary Jacoby, Glen Simpson's wife at the White House and Fusion is hired by the Clinton campaign. ..."
"... This post and PT's previous ones on the same topic, concern what many here suspect to be an orchestrated attempt to remove the Constitutionally-elected head of state via extra Constitutional means. In other words a soft coup. Rather than "Trump_vs_deep_state", I think the motivations for exploring this possibility here, by and large, come from feelings of patriotism. Particularly from those who swore to defend the Constitution (not the President) from enemies, both foreign and domestic. ..."
"... The question of whether the Rule of Law, or the observance of contitutional propriety, is being upheld is what is being examined here. That second issue is independent of the first. That is as it should be. If it were so that the FBI had played politics against Mrs Clinton that would be as disturbing as if they had played politics against Mr Trump. ..."
"... It will be most interesting to see Trump's most devoted congressional supporters and 'swamp beast fighters' utilize the timeline and verified facts and (unknown-to-indy investigators) details in the 'private' source, to bring justice to bear on this extremely serious matter. Why hasn't the DOJ appointed a special prosecutor; considering what PT and many others here and elsewhere are "piecing together?" ..."
"... I didn't vote Trump but I was shocked by the obvious coup d'etat to overthrow Trump after the election. You see some of us support the rule of law, our constitution, and established process for political change. Just because someone is elected that is unpopular with the losing side doesn't mean you throw away everything and become a willing banana Republic. While this was going on I predicted that if they had succeeded they would have over a million angry people in Washington and I would have been one of them ..."
"... To amplify your point, Terry: once you give the unelected and unaccountable "intelligence community" (or any other part of the Deep State) a de facto veto over election results, you will never get that power back. ..."
"... You as a country have crossed the Rubicon, and when you get to the other side, you are no longer in a constitutional republic, but in something else. ..."
"... In my view, the deep state......... CIA, FBI, NSA....... had the opportunity to prove their commitment to the welfare of the nation...... given they had the means and opportunity to sway the election. ..."
"... Given that the FBI made no serious effort to analyze the DNC servers after the alleged "hack" and, according to Seymour Hersh, are sitting on an FBI report that fingers murdered DNC staffer Seth Rich as the supplier of the DNC emails to Wikileaks, these two facts also support the conclusion that the FBI at the highest levels are in a criminal conspiracy to overthrow Trump ..."
"... The FBI IS a criminal enterprise ..."
"... The FBI never investigated the DNC servers because they decided to accept CrowdStrike's analysis despite CrowdStrike being run by a Russian ex-pat who hates Russia and sees Russians under every bed. Now they want to try to accuse Trump associates of "hacking"? Seriously? ..."
"... Second, according to Seymour Hersh, the FBI is sitting on a report that explicitly fingers murdered DNC staffer Seth Rich as the source for the DNC emails received by Wikileaks. ..."
The Trump Dossier Timeline, A Democrat Disaster Looming by Publius Tacitus
When the entire episode about the creation of
the Trump dossier (by former Brit spy, Christopher Steele) and its dissemination (by Steele and the Democrat hired contractor, FUSION
GPS,) to the FBI and the press, is fully exposed, the American people will be confronted with the stark dilemma of how to deal with
the fact that there was a failed domestic coup attempted by members of the U.S. intel and law enforcement community. The facts will
show that the Director of National Intelligence, the Director of the CIA and the FBI conspired and meddled in the 2016 Presidential
election. They lied to a Federal judge about the origins of the dossier and used those lies to get permission to spy on Trump and
members of his campaign staff.
Here are the facts as we know them now. (Please note, these facts are sourced and are not my opinion).
Fusion
GPS approached Perkins Coie (a Seattle based law firm) and sought an engagement to continue research it had started on Donald
Trump. (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4116755-PerkinsCoie-Fusion-PrivelegeLetter-102417.html)
The
Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee funded the research that resulted in a now-famous dossier containing
allegations about President Trump's connections to Russia and possible coordination between his campaign and the Kremlin. (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4116755-PerkinsCoie-Fusion-PrivelegeLetter-102417.html,
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/clinton-campaign-dnc-paid-for-research-that-led-to-russia-dossier/2017/10/24/226fabf0-b8e4-11e7-a908-a3470754bbb9_story.html?utm_term=.14d16b270afd).
Russian regime had been cultivating, supporting and assisting TRUMP for at least 5 years.
TRUMP declined various business deals offered him in Russia but accepted a regular flow of intelligence from the Kremlin,
including on his Democratic and other political rivals.
Russian intelligence officer claims FSB has material to blackmail TRUMP.
The Russians had a dossier on Clinton but "nothing embarrassing."
July 2016, Christopher Steele meets with FBI (name of contact unknown) and passes on content from the 20 June memo.
Third report, dated 19 July 2016 , claims that TRUMP advisor Carter PAGE held secret meetings in Moscow with SECHIN and senior
Kremlin Internal Affairs official, DIVYEKIN. (
See dossier ).
But U.S. officials have since received intelligence reports that during that same three-day trip, Page met with Igor Sechin,
a longtime Putin associate and former Russian deputy prime minister who is now the executive chairman of Rosneft, Russian's
leading oil company, a well-placed Western intelligence source tells Yahoo News.
15 August 2016 FBI Agent Strzok's text about the meeting in McCabe's office is dated August 15, 2016. . . According to Agent
Strzok, with Election Day less than three months away, Page, the bureau lawyer, weighed in on Trump's bid: "There's no way he
gets elected."
The response to the information from the FBI, he recalled, was "shock and horror." After a few weeks, the bureau asked
him for information on his sources and their reliability and on how he had obtained his reports. He was also asked to continue
to send copies of his subsequent reports to the bureau. These reports were not written, he noted, as finished work products;
they were updates on what he was learning from his various sources.
"I have recently become concerned that the threat of the Russian government tampering in our presidential election
is more extensive than widely known and may include the intent to falsify official election results. The evidence of a direct
connection between the Russian government and Donald Trump's presidential campaign continues to mount. . ."
Michael Isikoff referenced those briefings : "The activities of Trump adviser Carter Page, who has extensive business interests
in Russia, have been discussed with senior members of Congress during recent briefings about suspected efforts by Moscow to
influence the presidential election, the sources said. After one of those briefings, Senate minority leader Harry Reid wrote
FBI Director James Comey, citing reports of meetings between a Trump adviser (a reference to Page) and "high ranking sanctioned
individuals" in Moscow over the summer as evidence of "significant and disturbing ties" between the Trump campaign and the
Kremlin that needed to be investigated by the bureau."
We do not know exactly when the FISA warrant was granted, but the New York Times and the Washington Post have reported,
citing U.S. government sources, that this occurred in September 2016 (see
here ,
here
, and
here ).
After Mr. Page, 45 -- a Navy veteran and businessman who had lived in Moscow for three years -- stepped down (26
September 2016) from the Trump campaign in September,
the
F.B.I. obtained a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court allowing the authorities to monitor his communications
on the suspicion that he was a Russian agent.
The Justice Department obtained a secret court-approved wiretap last summer on Carter Page, a foreign policy adviser
to Donald J. Trump 's presidential
campaign, based on evidence that he was operating as a Russian agent, a government official said Wednesday. The Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Court issued the warrant, the official said, after investigators determined that Mr. Page was
no longer part of the Trump campaign, which began distancing itself from him in early August.
The FBI and the Justice Department obtained the warrant targeting Carter Page's communications after convincing
a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court judge that there was probable cause to believe Page was acting as an agent of
a foreign power, in this case Russia, according to the officials.
End of September--Steele revealed in a London court filing earlier this year that he was directed by Fusion GPS to brief
reporters at outlets like The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN, Yahoo! News and Mother Jones about his Trump findings.
8 November 2016 , Senator John McCain, accompanied by David Kramer (a Senior Director at Senator McCain's Institute for International
Leadership), met in London with an Associate of Orbis, former British Ambassador Sir Andrew Wood, to arrange a subsequent meeting
with Christopher Steele in order to read the now infamous Steele Dossier.
Once Senator McCain and David Kramer returned to the United States, arrangements were made for Fusion GPS to provide Senator
McCain hard copies of the memoranda.
13 December 2016 , Christopher Steele prepares, on his own, the 17th report in the dossier and sends it to Senator McCain
via David Kramer.
6 January 2017--FBI Director Comey briefs Trump on the Steele dossier, which Comey describes as
"salacious and UNVERIFIED." :
The IC leadership thought it important, for a variety of reasons, to alert the incoming President to the existence
of this material, even though it was salacious and unverified. Among those reasons were: (1) we knew the media was about to
publicly report the material and we believed the IC should not keep knowledge of the material and its imminent release from
the President-Elect; and (2) to the extent there was some effort to compromise an incoming President, we could blunt any such
effort with a defensive briefing. (Comey's statement before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, 8 June 2017)
One of the more interesting developments in the dossier case came as a result of depositions and testimony in the defamation case
that Aleksej Gubarev filed against Christoper Steele in the United Kingdom last year. When pressed to defend the authenticity and
accuracy of the dossier and the allegations against President Trump, Christopher Steele became a British version of Michael Jackson
and moon-walked backwards.
Andy McCarthy describes the situation beautifully :
Describing his reports in the Mother Jones interview, Steele asserted, "This was something of huge significance, way above
party politics." Things changed, though, when Steele was sued for libel after the dossier was published in early 2017. Suddenly,
when he was in a forum where it was clear to him that making exaggerated or false claims could cost him dearly, he decided his allegations
were not of such "huge significance" after all . . . .According to Steele's courtroom version, the dossier is merely a compilation
of bits of "raw intelligence" that were "unverified" and that he passed along because they "warranted further investigation" -- i.e.,
not because he could vouch for their truthfulness. (kudos to
Rowan
Scarborough who initially broke the story).
There are some very interesting unanswered questions. Here are some that I believe are most relevant:
Why does a former MI-6 officer reach out on his own to the FBI when the normal point of contact would be the CIA?
Who did Steele contact at the FBI?
Who at the FBI asked Steele to travel to Rome in October 2016? [Note--this request is quite odd given the fact that the FBI
has a very large presence in London and, if the purpose was simply to inform the FBI about possible nefarious Russian activity,
could have easily walked over to the US Embassy at Grosvenor Square rather than travel to Rome.]
The failure of the FBI and the CIA to disclose to members of Congress and the President that the information they briefed from
the dossier had been paid for by the Clinton campaign is much more than gross negligence and incompetence. It is prima facie evidence
of collusion and meddling in a U.S. domestic election. Only the culprits weren't the Russians.
As Pogo once said , "we have
met the enemy and he is us."
Thanks for spurring my interest on this monumental deceit with your many posts.
I knew nothing about FISA & mass surveillance other than our government was collecting all communications of every American,
before you began posting on this topic. I've learned more since and it is revolting if one is a staunch believer in the Bill of
Rights as what makes America different.
IG Mike Horowitz was barred from investigating the DOJ National Security Division by the Obama administration. It required
an act of Congress and Obama signed it after the election, to allow the IG the ability to investigate all of DOJ. The DOJ NSD
and FBI CounterIntelligence had a big role to play in all this as all the FISA applications originated there. What we know about
Peter Strzok & Lisa Page, Bruce & Nellie Ohr and the Clinton exoneration all came from the IG. In testimony to Congress, Rosenstein
used the IG investigation to stall the production of documents and witness interviews. It seems the IG report will become available
in a few weeks. That will hopefully shed more light.
Considering that in our country the rule of law does not apply to high officials in government, I am not holding my breath
that any of these miscreants will be held accountable or there will be any changes to the surveillance laws.
So, is IG Michael Horowitz one of the honorable guys in this whole thing? You'd never guess judging by his bio. And his ties to
the Democrats and Comey. I've lost all respect for the FBI. And the IC.
I think one has to start with the assumption that everyone at the highest levels of the federal government, especially
the national security apparatus, is a swamp creature. They just don't get there unless they are one. Weasels like Clapper, Brennan,
Hayden. Of course that does not mean a person with honor & integrity doesn't get up there. Just far and few between.
I don't have any basis to judge Michael Horowitz since I didn't even know about him until a few weeks ago. What we know in
this case is he has allowed us to learn about some of the activities of Peter Strozk & Lisa Page as well as Bruce & Nellie Ohr
which has helped further understand Russiagate.
It is extremely difficult to uncover malfeasance in government in the best of circumstances and it is practically impossible
within the national security apparatus as they have the ever present shield of "state secrets". In this context we have to be
thankful for small gifts of transparency coming from inside like these disclosures by IG Horowitz as well as by whistleblowers
like Snowden.
Both Christopher Wray and Rosenstein in separate testimony were unable to confirm that any of the contents in the Steele dossier
was verified, with the exception of Carter Page's visit to Russia.
It's becoming quite clear that Trump, as President, appeared to be such an appalling concept amongst some highly placed functionaries
that "insurance" was needed to deal with the possibility. And these people had contacts with the media, which, by and large, were
as appalled. Thus the current situation.
Quite unfortunately, Trump's unbounded hubris has played into this mess. Trump is very fortunate that his party is in control
of the legislative branches. One thinks of Hercules and the Aegean stables.
Great compilation and analysis of the available facts. No need to publish the following, but I would suggest that your work
is important enough to correct a couple of typos and provide a clarification which I will identify by paragraph number.
1. Perkins Coie (a Seattle Law Firm)--you get the name right in #2.
9. Put "Lisa" in front of "Page" in order to let the reader know you are referring to Lisa Page.
19. Rowan Farrow, I think, not Rowan Scarborough.
Keep posting and keep up the good work. Bob Randolph
Are you sure the"insurance policy" referred to a way to destroy Trump if he were to be elected? What if FBI counterintelligence
agents were involved in illegal surveillance activities that could possibly come to light if Trump were president? The dossier
in fact was the insurance policy that they retroactively used to launder previous illegal searches that would have been covered
up if Hillary had won.
The primary purpose of the "insurance policy" was to protect FBI agents against accusations
of malfeasance, which at present, appears to be an accurate description of their behavior.
The ENTIRE SYSTEM of FISA-702 surveillance and data collection was weaponized against a political campaign. The DOJ and
FBI used the FISA Court to gain access to Trump data, and simultaneously justify earlier FISA "queries" by their contractor, Fusion
GPS. FISA-702 queries were used to gather information on the Trump campaign which later became FBI counterintelligence surveillance
on the officials therein.
Here's something that's puzzling. The FBI directly or indirectly through Fusion GPS or another a subcontractor, began querying
the NSA database around March 2016 as per the FISC ruling. That's pretty early in the primary. I don't think anyone at that point
was thinking Trump was going to clinch the GOP nomination.
Do you think they were doing this on other candidates too? Bernie? Were they already an arm of the Clinton campaign? Or just
snooping on all or some of the candidates communications?
Here's a stab at your relevant unanswered questions.
"Why does a former MI-6 officer reach out on his own to the FBI when the normal point of contact would be the CIA?"
"Who did Steele contact at the FBI?"
"Who at the FBI asked Steele to travel to Rome in October 2016?"
Steele's CIA contacts were probably more of the bureaucratic liaison variety. Hardly memorable. However, he worked closely
with the FBI Eurasian Joint Organized Crime Squad on several operations. He formed strong friendships doing these "heady things"
as Steele describes . When he decided to bring his concerns to the FBI, he found one of these old FBI friends stationed in Rome.
This FBI friend is who he reached out to. This FBI Special Agent seems to be identified in Steele's Judicial Committee testimony,
but the name and position is redacted. Someone in Comey's Russian investigation team probably decided to continue this established
relationship and venue for the October 2016 meeting. Perhaps it was Comey himself.
DC you are entitled to your own opinion but you are not entitled to your own facts. Both the FBI and Steele in his court case
have stated that there is no confirmation of anything in the reports. They are purely hearsay at absolute best and more likely
a deliberate fabrication for political purposes in the opinion of far more knowledgeable people than you.
To put that another way, the chances of your opinion being valid are judged as zero.
Keep your eyes tightly closed. Your hatred of Trump blinds you to what is really going on. Deal with these two indisputable facts:
1) Comey, under oath, almost one year after the info became available, still said it was UNVERIFIABLE; 2) Steele, himself, also
under oath, now disavows the importance of what he originally claimed was so essential. You should write a novel. You're very
good at spinning a tale without having a shred of evidence to go on.
If you look at the FISC ruling that has been declassified but heavily redacted, you will notice the FBI provided a sub-contractor
"unauthorized" access to the NSA database in March 2016. This access to the raw FISA data was discontinued on April 18, 2016.
So, the snooping began much before Steele was hired by Fusion GPS. Sundance for example believes that the FBI provided
this "unauthorized" access to its subcontractor Fusion GPS. This is how Fusion GPS was paid by the FBI.
When the time line and interactions are put together it seems that it all begins at the FBI during March 2016, pretty early
in the primary season, possibly with Fusion GPS as the subcontractor. Steele only comes on the scene, after the meeting of Mary
Jacoby, Glen Simpson's wife at the White House and Fusion is hired by the Clinton campaign.
Not being an academic, mathematician, nor pollster, I simply run an image search on both Clinton and Trump election rallies. These
showed that Trump would win. Early in the campaign, there were several pics of large crowds at Clinton rallies, but from about
six months out, the images all showed her speaking to fifty to hundred people, whereas Trump images always showed packed stadiums.
The Dossier. A person as portrayed in the Steele would be corrupt/dishonest in most everyday business dealings. With the attacks
against Trump, by intelligence and investigative agencies, any dishonesty, breaking the law in business dealings, would have been
brought up. This tells me he has always operated within the letter of the law. Perhaps sharp and ruthless, but within the letter
of the law.
Trump's ideology/culture is USA through and through. Russia has no ideology, and its own culture.
There is no ideology nor religion involved, so why would a man like Trump that has always operated within the letter of the
law be nefariously colluding with a foreign state?
Needs to be a lot more digging like you are doing PT, as the saying goes "Without fear or favor".
Here's a timeline based on Sundance's work to supplement PT's timeline. I did this for my benefit so likely contain errors. Others
here at SST can correct.
- Before March 2016: a)Fusion GPS hired by Washington Free Beacon to do oppo research on Trump. I have read elsewhere that
it was billionaire fund manager Paul Singer who paid for this, presume to provide GOP candidate he supported in the primary
oppo research. b) FBI provides unauthorized FISA 702 access to a subcontractor who conducts numerous FISA 702(16)(17) searches
on NSA database, which lead to FISA 702 violations. Speculation subcontractor is Fusion GPS. The subcontractor's name is redacted
in declassified FISC ruling.
- March 9, 2016: DOJ oversight personnel learn that FBI has disclosed raw FISA information to a subcontractor that went
well beyond what was necessary to respond to FBI's request.
- Early April 2016: Admiral Rogers learns of FISA 702 violations and orders compliance review at NSA.
- April 18, 2016: Access to raw FISA information by subcontractor ended presume after FBI learns that Admiral Rogers is
on to the FISA violations.
- April 19, 2016: White House log shows Mary Jacoby, wife of Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS visits White House.
- Later in April 2016: Clinton campaign hires Fusion GPS to do oppo research on Trump. See PT's timeline.
- March/April 2016: Fusion GPS hires Nellie Ohr, who also works with CIA and is the the wife of DOJ Deputy Bruce Ohr.
- May 2016: Fusion GPS hires Christopher Steele. See PT's timeline. Presume that Steele receives whatever prior oppo research
the Fusion GPS did which may include info obtained from FISA 702 searches (if Fusion GPS is the FBI subcontractor) and whatever
stuff Nellie Ohr has written up until then.
- May 23, 2016: Mary Jacoby applies for ham radio license. Presume to communicate with Steele without getting "collected"
in NSA hoover.
- June 2016 on: Steele dossier dissemination. See PT's timeline for more detail.
- August 2016: Peter Strzok's "insurance policy" text message. See PT's timeline.
- October 2016: a) NSA compliance review completed and Admiral Rogers goes to FISC to report FISA 702 violations and ends
FISA 702(17) searches. b) DOJ NSD prepares FISA application that in part includes content from Steele dossier. c) FISC grants
warrant.
- A week after election: a) Admiral Rogers goes to Trump Tower and spills the beans b) Next day Trump transition moves
out of Trump Tower to Trump Golf Club in Bedminster.
Publius Tacitus: "When James Comey testified in June of 2017 that the dossier was "SALACIOUS AND UNVERIFIED," he made it very
clear that Steele's so-called "raw intelligence" had no value nor corroboration. If Comey had said, "WE HAVE VERIFIED KEY ELEMENTS
OF THE DOSSIER BUT WILL HAVE TO DISCUSS THAT IN CLOSED SESSION," then Trump would have been a dead man walking."
Then Trump is in big trouble. In the June 2017 transcript, Senator Burr questions first. After about a dozen questions:
"BURR: In the public domain is this question of the "Steele dossier," a document that has been around out in for over a year.
I'm not sure when the FBI first took possession of it, but the media had it before you had it and we had it. At the time of your
departure from the FBI, was the FBI able to confirm any criminal allegations contained in the Steele document?
COMEY: Mr. Chairman, I don't think that's a question I can answer in an open setting because it goes into the details of the
investigation."
This post and PT's previous ones on the same topic, concern what many here suspect to be an orchestrated attempt to remove
the Constitutionally-elected head of state via extra Constitutional means. In other words a soft coup. Rather than "Trump_vs_deep_state",
I think the motivations for exploring this possibility here, by and large, come from feelings of patriotism. Particularly from
those who swore to defend the Constitution (not the President) from enemies, both foreign and domestic.
This said, if Trump actually does go to war with Iran (rather than just threaten it) I will agree with your comparison re Bush
and the neocons of his era.
Nice try Lee, but he still does not contradict his sworn testimony, i.e. UNVERIFIED. Not being able to discuss "details of the
investigation" could have opened up questions about when the FBI first learned of the reports in the dossier. That would have
raised even more uncomfortable questions about the FBIs conduct.
"I check in with this site from time to time because I find coverage of the Middle East that I will not find elsewhere. It has
always been informative. But it is curious to find this remarkable devotion to Trump_vs_deep_state."
Right on the first point. Wrong on the second. To my occasional regret the dream of 2016 had and has few all-in adherents here.
The merits of what you term "Trump_vs_deep_state" are examined from time to time on the Colonel's site. The question of whether the
Rule of Law, or the observance of contitutional propriety, is being upheld is what is being examined here. That second issue is
independent of the first. That is as it should be. If it were so that the FBI had played politics against Mrs Clinton that would
be as disturbing as if they had played politics against Mr Trump.
From my point of view - I'm English, as you might notice - the question of whether the UK Security Services helped
play politics in a US presidential election is relevant whoever the target was. I like to think that our Security Services work
as part of our defence forces, not as political hit men.
The Kremlin targeted "educated youth"? Which ones, the Bernie supporters who were going to be screwed by the rigged democratic
primary? How did they do the targeting, by that $100K ad spend with Zuckerberg? Isn't he then also guilty by association or is
he still the good billionaire? Which other US citizens maintain ties to rich businessmen from Axerbaijan? Which law does that
violate?
When the MSM was all a-flutter with coverage of Simpson's testimony in the Capitol, I heard none of the TV hosts mention that
it was the Clinton folks who hired Fusion. If that is not the case, please let me know.
In his testimony, Simpson supposedly said that Russia was just one country that research into Trump's business contacts were
conducted, the others being the likes of South East Asia and Latin America. We have heard nothing about the outcome of that research.
It will be most interesting to see Trump's most devoted congressional supporters and 'swamp beast fighters' utilize the timeline
and verified facts and (unknown-to-indy investigators) details in the 'private' source, to bring justice to bear on this extremely
serious matter. Why hasn't the DOJ appointed a special prosecutor; considering what PT and many others here and elsewhere
are "piecing together?"
If Trump wanted to do so, he could have all this factual stuff published on the WH web site; yes?
If he did so the counter-narrative would be instantly annihilated, right?
I didn't vote Trump but I was shocked by the obvious coup d'etat to overthrow Trump after the election. You see some of us
support the rule of law, our constitution, and established process for political change. Just because someone is elected that
is unpopular with the losing side doesn't mean you throw away everything and become a willing banana Republic. While this was
going on I predicted that if they had succeeded they would have over a million angry people in Washington and I would have been
one of them
What I find remarkable isn't Trump_vs_deep_state - but rather the blind emotional partisanship that drives far too many people and how
willing so many people are to commit treason and tear apart constitutional law just to "win".
- November 2016: Clapper recommended that Rogers be fired. This was soon after Rogers' meeting with Trump.
- March 2017: Trump tweeted that Trump Tower had it's "wires tapped."
Sundance's theory is very interesting. Given the circumstances and the timeline of events, it seems plausible to say the least
that Rogers tipped off Trump.
I have believed that the FISA courts and procedures are a flat violation of the Sixth Amendment (which guarantees public trials,
the right to confront witnesses and the right of the accused to be made aware of the charges against them) ever since the day
I became aware of them.
To amplify your point, Terry: once you give the unelected and unaccountable "intelligence community" (or any other part of
the Deep State) a de facto veto over election results, you will never get that power back.
You as a country have crossed the Rubicon, and when you get to the other side, you are no longer in a constitutional republic,
but in something else.
Americans should be able to put their personal beliefs about Trump aside and realize that our country has a serious problem when
one-sided opposition research containing little more than rumors is used as the basis for starting a FBI investigation on a presidential
candidate during an election. This is especially true when, as we all know, the "news" of such an investigation would soon be
leaked to the press.
Personally, I have a very low opinion of Trump and his policies. However, this whole "Russiagate" thing, from what evidence
I've seen, is complete bullshit. To see that such obvious bullshit was used to start an FBI spying operation and witch hunts by
both the press and a special prosecutor against Trump is outrageous. It is also a crime under our laws. If it can happen to Trump,
it can happen to anyone.
One would think the great harm caused by allowing our government intelligence agencies to spy on political candidates and then
leak both true and false information about those candidates to the press would be obvious. I hope the people who caused this outrage
are prosecuted for the many crimes they committed.
Very, very well done. Andy McCarthy's and Publius Tacitus's combined work in clearing the political and MSM smoke from around
this Beltway debacle alone is more than is needed to predicate a full criminal investigation.
In my opinion, another Special
Counsel is neither needed nor desirable: a competent apolitical United States Attorney with a special Grand Jury and a couple
of squads of FBI Agents brought in from some place like Chicago should be adequate to the job; or the American taxpayer has not
been getting its money's worth. A not inconsiderable side benefit would be that our system of justice and the FBI might start
to reclaim some of their reputation that is lying in tatters.
The only thing I would add is that I would integrate into the design of the case the multiple unmaskings and unfettered leaks.
This case points directly towards the Obama White House and it is reasonable to suspect that it may include Obama himself.
In my view, the deep state......... CIA, FBI, NSA....... had the opportunity to prove their commitment to the welfare of
the nation...... given they had the means and opportunity to sway the election.
I'm speaking of Sanders... There was enough dirt on HRC to blackmail her into giving the nomination to Sanders. There
was enough dirt on DT to show him as the plaything of the Zionists/ Russians. They had both the Post and Times in their pockets,
not to mention Fox and CNN. Only Sanders had a domestic program which could put money into households and thus grow demand and
the economy, and Sanders was/is a hawk. They didn't. Their loyalty to HRC trumped the nation.... The question left un asked.........
WHY??? What did they have to gain from HRC that no one else offered?
Given that the FBI made no serious effort to analyze the DNC servers after the alleged "hack" and, according to Seymour Hersh,
are sitting on an FBI report that fingers murdered DNC staffer Seth Rich as the supplier of the DNC emails to Wikileaks, these
two facts also support the conclusion that the FBI at the highest levels are in a criminal conspiracy to overthrow Trump.
This should come as no surprise to anyone who is familiar with the FBI's history of conducting illegal, criminal activities
against various dissident groups in the US and covering up evidence of criminal activity by their own informants - including murder
- and also covering up evidence of criminal activity by other law enforcement agencies such as the Bureau of Prisons.
If any of Trump's associates knew about and encouraged the hacking of Democrats' emails and computer servers, they could
be charged under the statute.
In November, The Wall Street Journal reported that Mueller's team was letting the original DOJ prosecutors retain the investigation
of the actual cyber intrusions into the DNC and other targets.
This is beyond ridiculous.
The FBI never investigated the DNC servers because they decided to accept CrowdStrike's analysis despite CrowdStrike being
run by a Russian ex-pat who hates Russia and sees Russians under every bed. Now they want to try to accuse Trump associates of
"hacking"? Seriously?
Second, according to Seymour Hersh, the FBI is sitting on a report that explicitly fingers murdered DNC staffer Seth Rich
as the source for the DNC emails received by Wikileaks.
These two facts - along with the compromised FBI personnel involved in the Fusion GPS scandal - demonstrate that the FBI at
the highest levels were involved in a criminal conspiracy to prevent Trump from winning the election.
This establishes that the entire "Russiagate" investigation is nothing but more of the same. The real scandal is that the FBI,
the CIA, and other intelligence agencies are involved in a "soft coup" against an elected President.
I can keep smacking you around all day. Here's what Corn reported in January 2017 about his first conversations with Steele: The
former spy said he soon decided the information he was receiving was "sufficiently serious" for him to forward it to contacts
he had at the FBI. He did this, he said, without permission from the American firm that had hired him. "This was an extraordinary
situation," he remarked.
The response to the information from the FBI, he recalled, was "shock and horror." After a few weeks, the bureau asked him
for information on his sources and their reliability and on how he had obtained his reports. He was also asked to continue to
send copies of his subsequent reports to the bureau. These reports were not written, he noted, as finished work products; they
were updates on what he was learning from his various sources. But he said, "My track record as a professional is second to no
one."
When I spoke with the former spy, he appeared confident about his material -- acknowledging these memos were works in progress
-- and genuinely concerned about the implications of the allegations. He came across as a serious and somber professional who
was not eager to talk to a journalist or cause a public splash. He realized he was taking a risk, but he seemed duty bound to
share information he deemed crucial. He noted that these allegations deserved a "substantial inquiry" within the FBI.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/01/spy-who-wrote-trump-russia-memos-it-was-hair-raising-stuff/
Of course, if you had actually read carefully what I wrote you would have known this.
Bannon backed candidate later lost. So much for this Bannon "success".
This idea of Trump playing 6 dimensional chess is a joke. It's the same explanation that was pushed for Obama disastrous neocon
foreign policy. Here is one very apt quote: "What Trump has done are disasters, and equates to treason. Selling billions of dollars
of weapons the our enemies the terrorists/Saudis, killing innocent people in Syria, and Yemen, sending more troops to
Afghanistan..." What 6-dimetional chess?
According to Occam razor principle the simplest explanation of Trump behaviour is probably the most correct. He does not control
foright policy, outsourcing it to "generals" and be does not pursue domestic policy of creating jobs as he promised his
electorate. In other words, both in foreign policy and domestic policy, he became a turncoat,
betraying his electorate, much like Obama. kind of Republican Obama.
And as time goes by, Trump looks more and more like Hillary II or Republican Obama. So he might have problems with the candidates he supports
in midterm elections. His isolationism, if it ever existed, is gone. Promise of jobs is gone. Detente with Russia is gone.
What's left?
Note the level disappointment of what used to be Trump base in this site comment section...
Notable quotes:
"... In a serious rebuke for President Trump (and perhaps moreso for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell), ousted judge and alt-right favorite Roy Moore has won the Alabama Republican Primary by a landslide ..."
"... The Steve Bannon-backed candidate, who defied court orders to remove the Ten Commandments from his courtroom and refused to recognize gay marriage after the Supreme Court's June 2015 ruling legalizing same-sex marriage, is leading by 9.6 points with 92% of the votes counted... ..."
"... These attacks on Bannon were one of the most prominent news stories in the first week following Trump's election victory. It didn't take long, however, for a counter-attack to emerge - from the right-wing elements of the Jewish community. ..."
"... Bannon is a true fucking patriot trying to pull this once great country from the sinkhole. ..."
"... I think the reality is that this was a message to McConnell much more than Trump. That message is simple: I'm coming to kill your career. Bannon went out of his way to say he fully supports Trump (despite backing the opposite candidate). And, let's face it, if Bannon buries McConnell, he's doing everyone a service, Trump included. ..."
"... The echo chamber media "is so surprised" that in Germany and the US we are seeing a rising tide of pissed off people, well imagine fucking that? Leaving the echo chamber and not intellectually trying to understand the anger, but living the anger. ..."
"... Well, we can only hope that Trump gets the message. He was elected to be President of the USA, not Emperor of the World. Quote from that Monty Python film: "He's not the Messiah; he's a very naughty boy!" ..."
"... A cursory background reading on Roy Moore tells me that he is one of the worst types for public office. And he might just turn out to be like Trump -- act like an anti-swarm cowboy and promise a path to heaven, then show his real colors as an Establishment puppet once the braindead voters put him in office. ..."
"... When Trump won the Republican nomination, and then the Presidency it was because people were rebelling against the establishment rulers. There is considerable disgust with these big government rulers that are working for themselves and their corporate cronies, but not for the US population. ..."
"... Trump seems to have been compromised at this point, and his support of the establishment favourite, Luther Strange is evidence that he isn't really the outsider he claimed to be. Moore's victory in Alabama says the rebellion still has wheels, so there is some hope. ..."
"... In Missouri where I live, the anti-establishment Republican contender for the upcoming US Senatorial 2018 race is Austin Peterson. It will be interesting to see how he, and his counterparts in other states do in the primaries. Both of the current Missouri Senators are worthless. ..."
"... I remember well the last "3-Dimensional Chess master" Obama while he too was always out maneuvering his apponents, per the media reports... ..."
"... Every now and then Trump tends to make huge blunders, and sometimes betrayals without knowing what he is doing. "Champions"- (great leaders) do not do that. ..."
"... What Trump has done are disasters, and equates to treason. Selling billions of dollars of weapons the our enemies the terrorists/Saudis, killing innocent people in Syria, and Yemen, sending more troops to Afghanistan... ..."
"... It is epitome of self-delusion to see people twisting themselves into pretzels, trying to justify/rationalize Trump's continuing display of disloyalty to America ..."
"... YOU CAN'T BE A ZIONIST AND AN AMERICAN FIRSTER, IT IS ONE OR THE OTHER. ..."
Congratulations to Roy Moore on his Republican Primary win in Alabama. Luther Strange started way back & ran a good race. Roy,
WIN in Dec!
In a serious rebuke for President Trump (and perhaps moreso for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell), ousted judge and
alt-right favorite Roy Moore has won the Alabama Republican Primary by a landslide
The Steve Bannon-backed candidate, who defied court orders to remove the Ten Commandments from his courtroom and refused to
recognize gay marriage after the Supreme Court's June 2015 ruling legalizing same-sex marriage, is leading by 9.6 points with 92%
of the votes counted...
... ... ...
However, as Politco
reported this evening, President Donald Trump began distancing himself from a Luther Strange loss before ballots were even cast,
telling conservative activists Monday night the candidate he's backing in Alabama's GOP Senate primary was likely to lose ! and suggesting
he'd done everything he could do given the circumstances.
Trump told conservative activists who visited the White House for dinner on Monday night that he'd underestimated the political
power of Roy Moore, the firebrand populist and former judge who's supported by Trump's former chief strategist Steve Bannon, according
to three people who were there.
And Trump gave a less-than full-throated endorsement during Friday's rally.
While he called Strange "a real fighter and a real good guy," he also mused on stage about whether he made a "mistake" by backing
Strange and committed to campaign "like hell" for Moore if he won.
Trump was encouraged to pick Strange before the August primary by son-in-law and adviser Jared Kushner as well as other aides,
White House officials said. He was never going to endorse Alabama Republican Rep. Mo Brooks, who has at times opposed Trump's agenda,
and knew little about Moore, officials said.
... ... ...
Déjà view -> Sanity Bear •Sep 26, 2017 11:19 PM
AIPAC HAS ALL BASES COVERED...MIGA !
On Sept. 11, the Alabama Daughters for Zion organization circulated a statement on Israel by Moore, which started by saying
the U.S. and Israel "share not only a common Biblical heritage but also institutions of representative government and respect
for religious freedom." He traced Israel's origin to God's promise to Abram and the 1948 creation of modern Israel as "a fulfillment
of the Scriptures that foretold the regathering of the Jewish people to Israel."
Moore's statement includes five policy positions, including support for U.S. military assistance to Israel, protecting Israel
from "Iranian aggression," opposing boycotts of Israel, supporting Israel at the United Nations, and supporting direct Israeli-Palestinian
negotiations without outside pressure. He added, "as long as Hamas and the Palestinian Authority wrongly refuse to recognize Israel's
right to exist, such negotiations have scant chance of success."
While those views would give Moore common ground with much of the Jewish community regarding Israel, most of the state's Jewish
community has been at odds with Moore over church-state issues, such as his displays of the Ten Commandments in courthouses, and
his outspoken stance against homosexuality, both of which led to him being ousted as chief justice.
moore misreads the Bible as most socalled christians do. they have been deceived, they have confused the Israel of God( those
who have been given belief in Christ) with israel of the flesh. They cant hear Christs own words, woe is unto them. they are living
in their own selfrighteousness, not good. they are going to have a big surprise for not following the Word of God instead following
the tradition of men.
They were warned over and over in the Bible but they cant hear.
I Claudius -> VinceFostersGhost •Sep 27, 2017 6:27 AM
Forgive? Maybe. Forget? NEVER!! He tried to sell "US" out on this one. We now need to focus on bringing "Moore" candidates
to the podium to run against the RINO's and take out McConnell and Ryan. It's time for Jared and Ivanka to go back to NYC so Jared
can shore up his family's failing empire. However, if his business acumen is as accurate as his political then it's no wonder
the family needed taxpayer funded visas to sell the property. Then on to ridding the White House of Gen Kelly and McMaster - two
holdover generals from the Obama administration - after Obama forced out the real ones.
Clashfan -> Mycroft Holmes IV •Sep 26, 2017 11:33 PM
Rump has hoodwinked his supoprt base and turned on them almost immediately. Some refuse to acknowledge this.
These attacks on Bannon were one of the most prominent news stories in the first week following Trump's election victory.
It didn't take long, however, for a counter-attack to emerge - from the right-wing elements of the Jewish community. The
Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) came to Bannon's defense and accused the ADL of a "character assassination" against Bannon.
The Wizard -> Oh regional Indian •Sep 26, 2017 10:12 PM
Trump should figure out the Deep State elites he has surrounded himself with, don't have control of the states Trump won. Trump
thought he had to negotiate with these guys and his ego got the best of him. Bannon was trying to convince him he should have
stayed the course and not give in.
~"American politics gets moore strange by the day..."~
Technically speaking OhRI, with Moore's win politics became less Strange, or "Strange less", or "Sans Luther", depending on
how one chose to phrase it [SMIRK]
Adullam -> Gaius Frakkin' Baltar •Sep 26, 2017 11:05 PM
Trump needs to fire Jared! Some news outlets are saying that it was his son in law who advised him to back Strange. He has
to quit listening to those who want to destroy him or ... they will.
overbet -> Killtruck •Sep 26, 2017 9:41 PM
Bannon is a true fucking patriot trying to pull this once great country from the sinkhole.
Juggernaut x2 -> overbet •Sep 26, 2017 10:07 PM
Trump better pull his head out of his ass and quit being a wishy-washy populist on BS like Iran- the farther right he goes
the greater his odds of reelection because he has pissed off a lot of the far-righters that put him in- getting rid of Kushner,
Cohn and his daughter and negotiating w/Assad and distancing us from Israhell would be a huge help.
The whole Russiagate ploy was a diversion from (((them)))
NoDebt -> Killtruck •Sep 26, 2017 9:42 PM
I think the reality is that this was a message to McConnell much more than Trump. That message is simple: I'm coming to
kill your career. Bannon went out of his way to say he fully supports Trump (despite backing the opposite candidate). And, let's
face it, if Bannon buries McConnell, he's doing everyone a service, Trump included.
Oldwood -> NoDebt •Sep 26, 2017 10:08 PM
I think it was a setup.
Bannon would not oppose Trump that directly unless there was a wink and a nod involved.
Trump is still walking a tightrope, trying to appease his base AND keep as many establishment republicans at his side (even
for only optics). By Trump supporting Strange while knowing he was an underdog AND completely apposed by Bannon/his base he was
able to LOOK like he was supporting the establishment, while NOT really. Trump seldom backs losers which makes me think it was
deliberate. Strange never made sense anyway.
But what do I know?
Urahara -> NoDebt •Sep 27, 2017 12:20 AM
Bannon is hardcore Isreal first. Why are you supporting the zionist? It's an obvious play.
general ambivalent -> Urahara •Sep 27, 2017 2:23 AM
People are desperate to rationalise their failure into a victory. They cannot give up on Hope so they have to use hyperbole
in everything and pretend this is all leading to something great in 2020 or 2024.
None of these fools learned a damn thing and they are desperate to make the same mistake again. The swamp is full, so full
that it has breached the banks and taken over all of society. Trump is a swamp monster, and you simply cannot reform the swamp
when both sides are monsters. In other words, the inside is not an option, so it has to be done the hard way. But people would
prefer to keep voting in the swamp.
Al Gophilia -> NoDebt •Sep 27, 2017 3:58 AM
Bannon as president would really have those swamp creatures squirming. There wouldn't be this Trump crap about surrounding
himself with likeminded friends, such as Goldman Sachs turnstile workers and his good pals in the MIC.
Don't tell me he didn't choose them because if he didn't, then they were placed. That means he doesn't have the clout he pretends
to have or control of the agenda that the people asked him to deliver. His backing of Stange is telling.
Bobbyrib -> LindseyNarratesWordress •Sep 27, 2017 5:38 AM
He will not fire Kushner or Ivanka who have become part of the swamp. I'm so sick of these 'Trump is a genius and planned this
all along.'
To me Trump is a Mr. Bean type character that has been very fortunate and just goes with the flow. He has nearly no diplomacy,
or strategic skills.
NoWayJose •Sep 26, 2017 10:35 PM
Dear President Trump - if you like your job, listen to these voters. Borders, Walls, limited immigrants (including all those
that Ryan and McConnell are sneaking through under your very nose), trade agreements to keep American jobs, and respect for our
flag, our country, and the unborn!
I had hope for Trump, but as someone who reads ZH often, and does not suffer from amnesia (like much of America), I knew he
was way too good to be true.
We all know his back tracking, his flip flops...and while the media and many paid bloggers like to spin it as "not his fault",
it actually is.
His sending DACA to Congress was the last straw. Obama enacted DACA with a stroke of his pen, but Trump "needed to send it
to Congress so they could "get it right". The only thing Congress does with immigration is try and get amnesty passed.
Of course while Trump sends DACA to Congress, he does not mind using the military without Congress, which he actually should
do.
Why is it when it's something American's want, it has to go through the "correct channels", but when its something the Zionists
want, he does it with the wave of his pen? We saw the same bull shit games with Obama...
Dilluminati •Sep 26, 2017 11:02 PM
Anybody surprised by this is pretending the civility at the workplace isn't masking anger at corporate America and Government.
I'll go in and put in the 8 hours, I'm an adult that is part of the job. However I'm actually fed up with allot of the stupid
shit and want the establishment to work, problem is that we are witnessing failed nations, failed schools, failed healthcare,
even failed employment contracts, conditions, and wages.
The echo chamber media "is so surprised" that in Germany and the US we are seeing a rising tide of pissed off people, well
imagine fucking that? Leaving the echo chamber and not intellectually trying to understand the anger, but living the anger.
You haven't seen anything yet in Catalonia/Spain etc, Brexit, or so..
This is what failure looks like: That moment the Romanovs and Louis XVI looked around the room seeking an understanding eye,
there was none.
Pascal1967 •Sep 26, 2017 11:19 PM
Dear Trump:
Quit listening to your moron son-in-law, swamp creature, Goldman Sachs douchebag son-in-law Kushner. HE SUCKS!! If you truly
had BALLS, you would FIRE his fucking ass. HE is The Swamp, He Is Nepotism! THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HATE HIM.
MAGA! LISTEN TO BANNON, DONALD.
DO NOT FUCK THIS UP!
ROY MOORE, 100%!!!!
You lost, Trump ... get your shit together before it is too late!
ElTerco •Sep 26, 2017 11:28 PM
Bannon was always the smarts behind the whole operation. Now we are just left with a complete idiot in office.
Also, unlike Trump, Bannon actually gives a shit about what happens to the American people rather than the American tax system.
At the end of the day, all Trump really cares about is himself.
samsara •Sep 26, 2017 11:25 PM
I think most people get it backwards about Trump and the Deplorables.
I believed in pulling troops a from all the war zones and Trump said he felt the same
I believed in Legal immigration, sending people back if here illegal especially if involved in crime, Trump said he felt the
same.
I believed in America first in negotiating treaties, Trump said he felt the same.
I didn't 'vote' for Trump per se, he was the proxy.
We didn't leave Him, He left us.
BarnacleBill •Sep 26, 2017 11:31 PM
Well, we can only hope that Trump gets the message. He was elected to be President of the USA, not Emperor of the World.
Quote from that Monty Python film: "He's not the Messiah; he's a very naughty boy!" It's high time he turned back to the
job he promised to do, and drain that swamp.
napper •Sep 26, 2017 11:47 PM
A cursory background reading on Roy Moore tells me that he is one of the worst types for public office. And he might just
turn out to be like Trump -- act like an anti-swarm cowboy and promise a path to heaven, then show his real colors as an Establishment
puppet once the braindead voters put him in office.
America is doomed from top (the swarm) to bottom (the brainless voters).
Sid Davis •Sep 27, 2017 1:40 AM
When Trump won the Republican nomination, and then the Presidency it was because people were rebelling against the establishment
rulers. There is considerable disgust with these big government rulers that are working for themselves and their corporate cronies,
but not for the US population.
Trump seems to have been compromised at this point, and his support of the establishment favourite, Luther Strange is evidence
that he isn't really the outsider he claimed to be. Moore's victory in Alabama says the rebellion still has wheels, so there is some hope.
In Missouri where I live, the anti-establishment Republican contender for the upcoming US Senatorial 2018 race is Austin Peterson.
It will be interesting to see how he, and his counterparts in other states do in the primaries. Both of the current Missouri Senators
are worthless.
nevertheless -> pfwed •Sep 27, 2017 7:33 AM
I remember well the last "3-Dimensional Chess master" Obama while he too was always out maneuvering his apponents, per the
media reports...
LoveTruth •Sep 27, 2017 2:56 AM
Every now and then Trump tends to make huge blunders, and sometimes betrayals without knowing what he is doing. "Champions"-
(great leaders) do not do that.
nevertheless -> LoveTruth •Sep 27, 2017 7:16 AM
What Trump has done are disasters, and equates to treason. Selling billions of dollars of weapons the our enemies the terrorists/Saudis,
killing innocent people in Syria, and Yemen, sending more troops to Afghanistan...
But most treasonous of all was his sending DACA to "get it right", really? Congress has only one goal with immigration, amnesty,
and Chump knows dam well they will send him legislation that will clearly or covertly grant amnesty for millions and millions
of illegals, dressed up as "security".
Obama enacted DACA with the stroke of a pen, and while TRUMP promised to end it, he did NOT. Why is it when it's something
Americans want, it has to be "Constitutional", but when it comes form his banker pals, like starting a war, he can do that unilaterally.
It is epitome of self-delusion to see people twisting themselves into pretzels, trying to justify/rationalize Trump's continuing
display of disloyalty to America, and loyalty to Zionism.
Trump should always have been seen as a likely Zionist shill. He comes form Jew York City, owes everything he is to Zionist
Jewish bankers, is a self proclaimed Zionist...
YOU CAN'T BE A ZIONIST AND AN AMERICAN FIRSTER, IT IS ONE OR THE OTHER.
Either Zero Hedge is over run with Zionist hasbara, giving cover to their boy Chump, or Americans on the "right" have become
as gullible as those who supported Obama on the "left".
"... As for Bannon himself, his downfall has been fast and unceremonious: trashed by the president after he gossiped to Michael Wolff, abandoned by his deep-pocketed Mercer family funders, sacked by Breitbart, and then forced to watch as Trump indicated in a meeting earlier this week that he could sign a comprehensive immigration reform bill. Marat's downfall saw him elevated into a revolutionary martyr; Bannon has been banished into exile. ..."
"... But revolutions don't die with their figureheads. Bannonism won't either because, unlike the ethereal ideas behind liberalism and conservatism, it's found visceral real-world resonance -- among blue collars who see economic nationalism as a glimmer of hope among boarded-up plants, service-members frustrated with fruitless wars, young men flummoxed by modern feminism, right-wing activists frustrated with their political party's perceived impotence. Taunt Bannon all you like, but the imprint he leaves behind will be far larger than one spurious tell-all. ..."
"... The last blast of paleconservatism was Perot and the strong late 1990s economy halted that movement. ..."
"... The biggest thing lacking of the Bannon/Trump movement is how push back against the economic elite. Trump is governing exactly like an establishment Republican. Look at Trump/Perry ideas on saving coal which was properly turned down. This plan was unbelievably awful and not the right way for a better electric system and was simply handing Murray and First Energy a bunch money. ..."
"... Conservatism stands for stability and community. The accretions of "limited government" and "lower taxes", charming they may be as mantras, are more libertarian (Classic Liberal) than they are conservative ..."
"... A bomb-throwing Bolshevik like Bannon truly belongs on The Left, but in these days of abysmal ignorance of civics, it doesn't matter. "Bannonism" may live on, but thanks to the crackpot nature of its cobbled-together ideology, will remain a niche religion much like hard-core anarcho-libertarianism. ..."
"... Given the current atmosphere of outrage porn, willful ignorance and gleeful brutality, I do not have much hope for a Burkean conservatism to thrive, at least until after the pending social collapse ..."
"... Bannon will likely fade into oblivion via the Bourbon barrel, and the name Trump may become synonymous with "traitor" (but not like the media elite would hope). These men did not create a movement nor inspire anything. They were both savvy enough to see the political reality in this country and to give it voice. They will go, but the reality will remain. Ironically, but predictably, both men will likely be laid low by their own egos. But, so it goes ..."
"... The reality that supersedes these egotistical, narcissistic men is the fact that the traditional core of the American people have "woke" to the fact of their betrayal by the elite class to whom they have entrusted the leadership of this country for decades. They have awakened to find decay and rot throughout every American institution and to discover that these elites have enriched themselves beyond measure with the wealth of the nation at the cost of the workers and taxpayers who make that wealth possible. They have awakened to their own replacement and now realize the disdain with which they are viewed by those who would be their "masters." ..."
"... These Deplorables, white, working, taxpaying, Bible-believing, gun-owning MEN(!), are not going back into the opioid sleep of blissed out suburbia. They are now aware of the ill-hidden hatred which the elite class has for them and the future of serfdom to which these elites have fated them and their children. Gentlemen, a beast is being born out here in the hinterlands. It will not be put back in the cage ..."
Bannon is an imperfect ideologue. He has a gargantuan ego that often leads him astray, perhaps lately towards the delusion that
he himself would be a better populist messenger than the man he helped elect. But he's also hit on a paradox at the core of today's
American conservatism. Conservatives, in theory at least, look with skepticism upon grand projects and giant leaps, which too often
end up rupturing with the societal traditions they hold dear. Yet much of what conservatives support today is actually quite radical:
banning all or most abortions, rolling back the regulatory state, rejecting decades of orthodoxy on the issue of climate change,
a massive downshift of power from the federal government to states and localities, a moral ethic rooted in Christianity rather than
identity politics -- and lately questioning the "liberal international order" in favor of something more nationalist and protectionist.
The enactment of such an agenda would cause a good deal of upheaval and uncertainty, exactly the sort of void conservatives' forebears
feared most.
Some have wrangled with this contradiction by scaling back their proposals, claiming great problems can be addressed with light-touch
solutions, like child tax credits to arrest sagging birth rates. Others, much of Conservative Inc. it seems, are fine pretending
this tension doesn't exist at all. Bannon's approach has been to gleefully embrace conservatism's radical side. Disagree with him
all you like (and I do), but his is a perfectly logical position. His ascent -- some would say his transformation -- is a predictable
consequence of conservatives yearning for something increasingly distant from the modern world, just as did young people in the quietly
simmering 1950s. Indeed, there are many stylistic similarities between the radicals of today and those half a century ago: the "for
the lulz" performance art of a Milo Yiannopoulos contains an echo of the prankster Yippies, for example. Those who lack cultural
power can sell out, they can evolve, they can retreat to the catacombs -- or they can take Bannon's approach, they can transgress
and pump their fists and try to burn it all down.
Bannon's digestible binaries -- establishment versus the people, globalists versus Americans -- are easily superimposed on an
electorate that's itself divided both economically and culturally. Red states and the Rust Belt have for decades been the victims
of bad federal policy; Bannonism gives them an abstract enemy to blame, a valve for their fury. The algorithmic and library-voiced
Mitt Romney and the earnest Paul Ryan seem woefully inadequate by comparison: have those praying they run for higher office again
learned nothing? In The Constitution of Liberty , F.A. Hayek critiques conservatism by defining it as "a brake on the vehicle
of progress" and observing that a mere decrease in speed "cannot offer an alternative to the direction in which we are moving." Likewise,
while conventional taxes-and-terrorism Republican rhetoric doesn't feel like much of a heave on the ship's wheel, Bannonism furnishes
a clear vision, a real change, swords to wield, dragons to slay. Guess which one has greater appeal right now?
The modern right has always had a whiff of radicalism about it, with origins in pushback against the 60s counterculture, a second
wind in Newt Gingrich's legislative reformation, and late-life vitality in the Saul Alinsky-invoking tea party. But it's with Bannon
that the odor has become most pungent. He is an unlikely revolutionary. An
early profile from Bloomberg Businessweek
in 2015 portrays him as more of an operative than anything, determined to professionalize a conservative movement that had made too
many unforced errors. Other pre-Trump appearances found Bannon worrying about the national debt and extolling his Catholic faith.
It's a windy road from there to storming the barricades under Donald Trump's sigil, but it's one many conservatives have traveled
in recent years. The challenge for more traditional Republicans will be fashioning a new politics that quenches voters' burning thirst
for change -- a position they've arrived at themselves, not been brainwashed into by Fox News -- while circumventing Bannonism's
conflagrations and The Camp of the Saints ugliness.
As for Bannon himself, his downfall has been fast and unceremonious: trashed by the president after he gossiped to Michael Wolff,
abandoned by his deep-pocketed Mercer family funders, sacked by Breitbart, and then forced to watch as Trump
indicated in
a meeting earlier this week that he could sign a comprehensive immigration reform bill. Marat's downfall saw him elevated into
a revolutionary martyr; Bannon has been banished into exile.
But revolutions don't die with their figureheads. Bannonism won't either
because, unlike the ethereal ideas behind liberalism and conservatism, it's found visceral real-world resonance -- among blue collars
who see economic nationalism as a glimmer of hope among boarded-up plants, service-members frustrated with fruitless wars, young
men flummoxed by modern feminism, right-wing activists frustrated with their political party's perceived impotence. Taunt Bannon
all you like, but the imprint he leaves behind will be far larger than one spurious tell-all.
Matt Purple is the managing editor of The American Conservative
There is always a level of Bannonism /Paleoconservatism in the US politics but who knows how impactful it will be.
Probably the biggest issue for Bannon was Trump was elected in 2016 and our nation did not want or need a Leninist. (It
wasn't 2008 anymore) Frankly most conservatives were satisfied that HRC and Obama were not President and did not want massive changes.
The whole the people and globalist division is too simplistic and there are a lot 'People' that support free trade or relatively
open borders. (For instance I don't see the economic benefit of steel tariffs at all.)
The last blast of paleconservatism was Perot and the strong late 1990s economy halted that movement.
We still don't know how much a pushback on Trump/Bannonism will be. Trump is not popular and the House is endangered.
5) The biggest thing lacking of the Bannon/Trump movement is how push back against the economic elite. Trump is governing
exactly like an establishment Republican. Look at Trump/Perry ideas on saving coal which was properly turned down. This plan was
unbelievably awful and not the right way for a better electric system and was simply handing Murray and First Energy a bunch money.
It is a cardinal error to confuse conservatism with The Right, as much as it is to conflate liberalism with The Left.
Conservatism stands for stability and community. The accretions of "limited government" and "lower taxes", charming they
may be as mantras, are more libertarian (Classic Liberal) than they are conservative. (Thanks loads, Frank Meyer.)
A bomb-throwing Bolshevik like Bannon truly belongs on The Left, but in these days of abysmal ignorance of civics, it doesn't
matter. "Bannonism" may live on, but thanks to the crackpot nature of its cobbled-together ideology, will remain a niche religion much
like hard-core anarcho-libertarianism.
Given the current atmosphere of outrage porn, willful ignorance and gleeful brutality, I do not have much hope for a Burkean
conservatism to thrive, at least until after the pending social collapse.
Bannon will likely fade into oblivion via the Bourbon barrel, and the name Trump may become synonymous with "traitor" (but
not like the media elite would hope). These men did not create a movement nor inspire anything. They were both savvy enough to
see the political reality in this country and to give it voice. They will go, but the reality will remain. Ironically, but predictably,
both men will likely be laid low by their own egos. But, so it goes.
The reality that supersedes these egotistical, narcissistic men is the fact that the traditional core of the American people
have "woke" to the fact of their betrayal by the elite class to whom they have entrusted the leadership of this country for decades.
They have awakened to find decay and rot throughout every American institution and to discover that these elites have enriched
themselves beyond measure with the wealth of the nation at the cost of the workers and taxpayers who make that wealth possible.
They have awakened to their own replacement and now realize the disdain with which they are viewed by those who would be their
"masters."
These Deplorables, white, working, taxpaying, Bible-believing, gun-owning MEN(!), are not going back into the opioid sleep
of blissed out suburbia. They are now aware of the ill-hidden hatred which the elite class has for them and the future of serfdom
to which these elites have fated them and their children. Gentlemen, a beast is being born out here in the hinterlands. It will
not be put back in the cage.
The writer's allusion to the French Revolution is somewhat telling. The history of the West is replete with moments of savagery
and destruction directed inwardly. It will be so again. When these Deplorables turn on their keepers, it will not be pretty. The
Progressive elites who believe that they can control and shape "narratives" to harness that power are fools. The cloistered intellectuals
who believe that they can "opt" out of the coming clash are dreaming.
The traditional core of the American people are no different than their ancestors. They just don't live as close to the edge
as those folks did. But when they are backed up to that edge, when betrayal has been made clear and the institutions are revealed
for the Oz that they have become, they will recall that old hatred that still courses in the Western man's veins and will react
in ways that will chill the blood. The imaginary "crimes" with which "privileged whites" are damned by the rioting Cultural Marxists
will escape imagination and leap into reality. God help us.
Re: The last blast of paleconservatism was Perot and the strong late 1990s economy halted that movement.
Perot, for whom I voted in 1992 but not 1996, was not a paleoconservative, but rather a pragmatic centrist. Compare his position
on social issues with Pat Buchanan's (Buchanan being Mr. Paleoconservative -- and who ran in 1992 too)
Social order crumbles then the elite became detached from common people and distrusted by
them, as the US neoliberal elite now is. Trump elections were mostly semi-conscious protest
against the neoliberal elite which was symbolized by Hillary candidacy.
The problem with the article is that the author mixed liberalism and neoliberalism:
Liberalism and neoliberalism are opposite. Neoliberalism has nothing to do with Christianity. It
is, in essence, a Satan-worshiping cult ("greed is good"). The fact that it is dominant in the
USA and Western Europe suggests that we can talk about persecution of Christians under
neoliberalism.
That's why neoliberal elite resorted to Russophobia -- to rally the nation against the flag
and to hash the distrust with anti-Russian hysteria.
Notable quotes:
"... It has been observed many times that liberalism is mostly a secularized version of Christianity; there's a lot of truth to that. ..."
I disagree. The problems in liberalism didn't show up until now because most people in
liberal democratic countries took the Judeo-Christian moral framework for granted. If the human
rights (for example) that liberalism enshrines are something real, then they have to be
grounded in something transcendent. It has been observed many times that liberalism is
mostly a secularized version of Christianity; there's a lot of truth to that.
As I read Why Liberalism Failed , I take Deneen as saying that liberalism had to fail
because at its core it stands for liberating the individual from an unchosen obligation.
Ultimately, it forms consumers, not citizens.
I don't see Deneen airbrushing the good parts
of liberalism from history, but rather honing his critique on what he believes are its
structural flaws that make it unsustainable. His critique is strong, certainly, and I think
dead-on, in that he sees that liberalism cannot generate within itself the virtues it needs to
survive.
Deneen's critique is also matter-of-fact. Free markets are a core part of the liberal
democratic model, but given the globalized nature of the economy, and rapid technological
changes, we have to face the possibility that liberalism as we have understood it is inadequate
to provide for the good of workers left behind by these changes.
If we have neglected the moral order embedded within liberalism itself, on what basis can we
regain it? I keep going back to Adams's line about our Constitution is only good for a "moral
and religious people," because self-government by the people can only work for people who
possess the virtues to govern their own passions. This says to me that to perceive and to
achieve the virtues embedded within liberalism, one has to be oriented towards a sense that
there really are moral and religious truths beyond ourselves that bind our conduct.
Liberalism has degenerated into Justice Anthony Kennedy's famous line:
At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning,
of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.
I think most Americans today would not get what the problem is with that definition. You
can't support a governing order based on something that weak. That, I believe, is Patrick
Deneen's overall point.
"If prudence and temperance are synonyms for modesty and self-restraint – the rising
generation of Americans has utterly abandoned these values."
They are not synonyms. Prudence is appropriate concern for the future. It has nothing to
so with modesty. Temperance has to do with appropriate self-restraint. It is not
temperate to constrain oneself in a way that causes oneself senseless suffering. That is what
some conservatives are asking people who don't fit into traditional gender categories to
do.
I believe Brooks is more correct than Deneen. Robert Heinlein always made the point that
liberty was not compatible with ignorance and ineptitude. Rather, liberty and self-ownership
requires a certain level of competence. Competent people are capable of self-rule.
Incompetent people are not. The problem with Deneen's ideas is that they force the competent
people to surrender a certain measure of liberty and self-ownership in order to "accommodate"
and "fit in" with the less competent, and that is a trade off that people like myself will
never accept in a million years. In other words, Deneen does not speak for competent
individuals such as myself. Hence, his ideas could never work for the likes of myself.
I believe the only solution, and a partial one at that (there is no such thing as a
perfect solution as perfection does not exist in nature) is radical decentralization on a
global scale. I call this the "thousand state sovereignty" model or the "21st century
Westphalis". Some might even call it the "Snow Crash" scenario. This is where conventional
nation-states and institutions fade away and new ones based more on networks of individual
with common interests, objectives, and character traits form. The more competent members of
the human race, who have no need to give up classical liberalism and individual
self-ownership are able to form their own societies politically and culturally autonomous
from the rest of the human species. Other factions of humanity can do the same thing. Call it
"GTOW" on a global scale. Hence, the nation-state will decline in relative importance and the
city-state will come back into vogue.
I believe this is the ONLY pathway forward to a better world for everyone. It does have
the advantage of being a "positive-sum" solution, as most everyone gets what they want.
Positive-sum solutions are always superior to zero-sum solutions, which are really
negative-sum solutions.
Even John Locke, who is basically the father of liberalism, said that the state "need not
tolerate" atheism because a state cannot rely on enforcement mechanisms alone to ensure
proper civic behavior. A citizen must have a healthy fear of some form of divine retribution
as guarantor of his behavior. It's possible, of course, to develop some form of morality
based in natural reason that can ensure proper behavior, but I think Locke was onto something
in his exhortation that the law alone is not enough.
Based on Brooks's summary, Deenen appears to believe that people in ancient Greece, ancient
Rome, and medieval times were more virtuous than people are in contemporary America.
That is not a reasonable thing to think. Maybe people in contemporary America have
different vices than people did in past societies. But vice is part of the human condition,
and people in America have not stopped caring for virtue. We value the cardinal virtues of
prudence, justice, fortitude, and temperance as much as ever (though our understanding of
what these virtues require has changed in some ways).
We also continue to value kindness, though Catholic teaching regards kindness as a
theological virtue. True, as religious adherence has declined, some have joined the cult of
Ayn Rand. But a culture of charity flourishes among secular people. Witness the growth of the
effective altruism movement.
The only traditional Christian virtues that are now widely rejected are those specifically
concerning religious belief and those that concerned sexual morality. Even if you think that
sexual purity is a virtue (I don't), regarding it as among the most important virtues has
never been reasonable.
As another writer somewhere wrote on the topic of Deneen's book (or perhaps it was a quote
from the book itself, I don't remember), liberalism has until now been surviving by spending
down the store of accumulated moral norms and civic mindedness that it inherited from its
pre-modern progenitors. But since it cannot replenish those stores, it is essentially
starving itself of that which it needs to survive. Eventually we (the people) will forget
those things, and as norms break down and social trust diminishes toward the point of
anarchy, we will beg for the state to step in and protect us from our fellow citizens. And
that is when liberalism will give way to authoritarianism in what I'm sure will be an irony
appreciated by almost no one when it actually happens.
I'm afraid our gracious host has affirmed David Brooks in the substance of Rod's stated
disagreement. The Judeo-Christian moral order is as good as any moral order, and better than
most in significant aspects. Its probably not the only one that would work, but if liberalism
is a secular version of Christianity, then Brooks is right.
As a critic of liberalism from the left, but a sadder and wiser adherent of constitutional
liberty after flirting in theory with Bolshevism, I think the word "liberal" is overplayed
here. Liberalism is a political expression of laissez-faire capitalism. The concept of
individual liberty, and the concept of ordered liberty, are not the exclusive province of
liberalism.
Colonel Bogey provides a modest case in point. He is an advocate of the divine right of
kings and monarchical superiority to any parliament the king may deign to authorize although
he comfortably enjoys the privileges of living in a federal republic that prohibits any
hereditary nobility. Colonel Bogey is no liberal, yet he is an enemy of the most viable
alternatives to liberalism.
Embedded within liberalism the the emancipation of the self from constraint. How do you
maintain tradition in such a culture?
The murderer is unregulated capitalism a la Ronald Reagan, just as Reagan was the murderer
of the Savings and Loans, a true Mr. Potter. If the only virtue is getting rich at the
expense of the general community, and only a few make it, what do faith, family, and
tradition have to do with it? Now if the union hall was a center of social life, not only for
you but for your entire family, and solidarity was woven into the fabric of your life, things
might be different.
Only certain selves are liberated from restraint by liberalism. It also, historically
speaking, involves the subordination of the employee to the employer, and the consumer to the
purveyor of shoddy goods at exorbitant prices. Which has a morally degrading effect on both
the dominant and the oppressed classes. The faux-left dismissal of the "working class," or to
indulge a politically correct euphemism, the "white working class," is just another variant
on the traditional class distinctions in liberalism.
At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of
meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.
Nothing wrong with that statement, per se. The problem is overlooking that "one's own
concept" is not binding on anyone else, nor does a law of general application have to bend
and twist to accommodate each and every "own concept" every individual may have. Which is why
Lawrence was valid, Windsor plausible and Obergefell a terribly sloppy
application of generally valid constitutional principles.
The problem with Brooks is that he fails to realize that the things he treasures -- personal
virtue, community, self-restraint, temperance and so on -- are not actually creations of
liberalism, nor are they necessary products of it. To a large degree these came from the
pre-existing culture(s) that came to the US before the founding from non-liberal societies.
Included among these was, of course, Christianity as a prominent influence on values,
virtues, community and so on. Liberalism was draped over this, but it doesn't create this,
and none of this is inherent in liberalism. The liberal system in America has "free ridden"
on these inherited aspects, which stem from non-liberal sources, for pretty much the entire
history of the country. But they didn't come from liberalism.
The very things that Brooks values the most do not themselves come from liberalism, and it
is far from clear, particularly as Western liberalism reaches its particularly
illiberal/hegemonic phase culturally, actively seeking to strictly limit the permitted
influence of these things which glued the society together for most of our history but did
not stem from liberalism itself, that liberalism is the best system in which to preserve or
even practice these things moving forward. I think a part of Brooks's brain senses this, but
he is so committed to liberalism -- or at least so fearful of potential alternatives -- that
although he sees the problem (much of his column writing bemoans the loss of these things,
really), he can't really bring himself to see that liberalism is fundamentally indifferent as
to whether the things that David Brooks so cherishes fade into the mists of history
completely, so long as the absolute prioritization of individual freedom of action remains
paramount.
It's unfortunate, really, because it makes a lot of what he writes rather painful to read,
sadly.
"... Come on dude. I mean, I really like your stuff, but get with the times -- the U.S. is "owned" whole and complete. At the risk of repeating thy self; They've got a giant segment of the population duped into believing they live in a democracy, and some of them are just dumb enough to waste their time voting. ..."
"... America is like a religion -- you are required to "believe", because the reality is absent of any kind of deity. ..."
"... If only, Americans could get the kind of understanding of how the owners think of them -- contemptuous at best -- needed for certain tasks, but expendable if required -- basically, not well liked. Akin to a dirty, smelly employee that keeps showing up as not to get fired. ..."
to finally restore the sovereignty of the US to the people of the US
Come on dude. I mean, I really like your stuff, but get with the times -- the U.S. is
"owned" whole and complete. At the risk of repeating thy self; They've got a giant segment of
the population duped into believing they live in a democracy, and some of them are just dumb
enough to waste their time voting.
The owners throw the elected(owned prostitutes) officials a bone now and then, but that's
all they get. If there ever was a corporate house negro, Obama, and the rest of them are it,
and Trump has had his dumb ass neoconed from day one.
America is like a religion -- you are required to "believe", because the reality is
absent of any kind of deity.
If only, Americans could get the kind of understanding of how the owners think of them --
contemptuous at best -- needed for certain tasks, but expendable if required -- basically,
not well liked. Akin to a dirty, smelly employee that keeps showing up as not to get
fired.
Democracy in crisis? What democracy? There has not been a democracy for quite
some time. Matter of fact it turned into a corporate oligarchy ruled by them, Wall Street and
the Pentagon and not to forget Israel.
If Trump is messing with this so called democracy so be it. He is the bull walking through
the delicate china closet the shadow rulers have set up for a long time. He smashes most of all
those delicate dishes who really did not help the regular people at all. They were just there
on display as teasers. Well Trump is smashing things left and right. "Racism" is being so
overdone that it is becoming ridiculous and that real racism is still being hidden. Don't know
about Bannon, never cared or paid much attention to him nor Breitbart news.
But believe me democracy is not in crisis because of Trump. There had to be a real democracy
to begin with in order to be in crisis. What's in crisis is the two party system, the
oligarchy, the false prophets, the media and the exceptionalism of the USA. All good things to
have a crisis over and change things towards a new awakening.
● Republicans are top 25% of society who own 75% of wealth. ● Democrats are educated middle-class who own 25% of wealth. ● Working-poor are uneducated bottom 50% who refuse to vote until they stop getting shit
upon. see more
That is true if the election really reflected the will of the American people. But do our
elections do that?
Although we have all been indoctrinated into believing that we have the best democracy in
the world, do our elections really reflect what the people want? Even if we believe
the counting of votes to be accurate , we know that
many citizens are denied their right to vote by manipulation of the voting rolls, voter
intimidation, or the engineering of long lines.
But even if these issues are ignored, there is
the two-party system that makes it so easy for big money and in particular big media to
ensure that we do not get to choose from candidates that we would really want. A good step in
moving toward a multi-party system would be to adopt
some voting system that would encourage a multi-party system.
Democracy in America? We should work to give it a try.
It's a good point. You figure that, at best, maybe 60 or 70 per cent of voters
actually participate in an election. Then, out of that, it takes only 50%+1 to win. That means
that a seat can be won with as little as perhaps 35% of all voters casting ballots.
However, first-past-the-post vote calculations are not an absolute impediment to winning
elections. In Seattle, there is a socialist on the city council. In Minneapolis, another
socialist came extremely close to a win there also. And the example of Canada's CCF/NDP cannot
be ignored. All of these examples are in the context of first-past-the-post.
Now, I am firmly in favor of RCV. But we will probably only get RCV once the American Left
gets itself to a position of power where it can make that kind of reform reality. The duopoly
powers will not concede this to us gleefully, unless they see an opportunity to benefit from it
somehow, such as gaming the system somehow (maybe setting off competition on the Left to ensure
a win for the Right during a prolonged period of Rightwing solidarity as sometimes happens...
like right now). I urge people to learn about the rise of the NDP even if they do not believe
it to be a legitimate Left party (and there is plenty to support the impression that it has
drifted to the center, sadly). I urge people to closely and carefully the Sawant win in
Seattle. We can learn from these historical lessons.
We could be winning far more often and deeply if we just had something like RCV, like
Proportional Representation (PR). But we don't. And the fact we don't have them should be that
much more fuel for ignition. We must start winning. I always suggest starting at the bottom,
not the top, where the Left could make inroads far more easily than attempting heroic battles
with the duopoly at the highest levels of government. Over time, our presence would strengthen
and our local efforts would weave a strong fabric of regional and maybe federal parties.
Getting depressed by the unfairness of the electoral college should move us in efforts to
abolish it (and that is happening, btw). But at the same time, it should not be discouraging us
from doing sensible things, like organizing local campaigns, taking over city halls, disrupting
city planning departments and planning committees, and beginning to build what will one day
become a national presence.
Yes, we should definitely give democracy a try. And we could be trying, mostly, at the local
level with an eye toward eventual coalescence into more regional bodies of power. It has
been done, and we would be wise to examine thoroughly how it was done and how we could improve
that process.
Bannon's "far right Leninism" does not read well the first time, or the
second time, or as many times as I read and re-read that phrase. I wish writers for the Left
press would take the time to carefully proofread their own work before posting.
Yeah, I think I get what the author meant , but maybe it would have read more easily
if it had been written something like "the Bannon version of authoritarianism" (or whatever it
is the author precisely meant). It would have been clearer and not have appeared to conflate a
rather Leftish ideology with some form of RW extremism.
"... It is amazing that the media is picking apart meetings. I have observed that what ever the deep state wants to hide they play a game of blame and twisting the facts. ..."
"... Anderson Cooper is such an arrogant self righteous elite from an elite family. Jay Sekulow is a great man an one of the greatest attorneys in American. He knows his stuff and could run circles around the entitled Cooper! ..."
"... Cooper is absolute garbage... complete and utter, absolute garbage. If he actually did a true journalistic story that wasn't just cia and deepstate bs talking points, i would have a heart attack. These "news" organizations are terrible ..."
"... CNN is fake news. Don't talk to CNN ..."
"... They conveniently over-look all the Hillary mess. Hmm, wonder why??? ..."
The Clintons and Trump were friends not too long ago. I think they're all elitists. New boss, same owners. Trump is crass but
I think he's doing a surprisingly good job. I am hoping things will continue to look up, economically...because, money changes
everything.
It is amazing that the media is picking apart meetings. I have observed that what ever the deep state wants to hide they play
a game of blame and twisting the facts. It is amazing what the Liberals are emphasizing especially with the terrible things that
occurred with Obama Administration, spending, loss of millions of dollars, and illegal activity.
Anderson Cooper is such an arrogant self righteous elite from an elite family. Jay Sekulow is a great man an one of the
greatest attorneys in American. He knows his stuff and could run circles around the entitled Cooper!
Cooper is absolute garbage... complete and utter, absolute garbage. If he actually did a true journalistic story that wasn't
just cia and deepstate bs talking points, i would have a heart attack. These "news" organizations are terrible
Cooper sounded more like one of the nut job conspiracy theorists, just like all the rest on CNN and MSNBC. They conveniently
over-look all the Hillary mess. Hmm, wonder why???
"... Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-New York, with almost four decades of membership in the House and Senate, openly warned incoming President Trump in January 2017 against criticizing the U.S. intelligence community because U.S. intelligence officials have "six ways from Sunday to get back at you" if you are "dumb" enough to take them on. ..."
"... Senate Judiciary Committee chair Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, says he will ask Strzok to explain the "insurance policy" when he calls him to testify. What seems already clear is that the celebrated "Steele Dossier" was part of the "insurance," as was the evidence-less legend that Russia hacked the DNC's and Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta's emails and gave them to WikiLeaks . <img src="https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/fbiseal-291x300.jpg" alt="" width="291" height="300" srcset="https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/fbiseal-291x300.jpg 291w, https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/fbiseal.jpg 350w" sizes="(max-width: 291px) 100vw, 291px" /> ..."
"... There is a snowball's chance in hell that this is raw intelligence gathered by Steele; rather he seems to have drawn on a single 'trusted intermediary' to gather unsubstantiated rumor already in existence. ..."
"... "The fact that you do not control your sources frequently means that they will feed you what they think you want to hear. Since they are only doing it for money, the more lurid the details the better, as it increases the apparent value of the information. The private security firm in turn, which is also doing it for the money, will pass on the stories and even embroider them to keep the client happy and to encourage him to come back for more. When I read the Steele dossier it looked awfully familiar to me, like the scores of similar reports I had seen which combined bullshit with enough credible information to make the whole product look respectable." ..."
"... How, you might ask, could Strzok and associates undertake these extra-legal steps with such blithe disregard for the possible consequences should they be caught? The answer is easy; Mrs. Clinton was a shoo-in, remember? This was just extra insurance with no expectation of any "death benefit" ever coming into play -- save for Trump's electoral demise in November 2016. The attitude seemed to be that, if abuse of the FISA law should eventually be discovered -- there would be little interest in a serious investigation by the editors of The New York Times and other anti-Trump publications and whatever troubles remained could be handled by President Hillary Clinton. ..."
Special Report: In the Watergate era, liberals warned about U.S. intelligence agencies
manipulating U.S. politics, but now Trump-hatred has blinded many of them to this danger
becoming real, as ex-CIA analyst Ray McGovern notes.
Gorka was actually great in very difficult situation when this smug neoliberal shill Cooper try to bully his way in best tradition
of Bill Oreilly. But Cooper is so well trained in bullshit that it is impossible to 'convert" him on anything. He will try to
promote his fake new lines.
Notable quotes:
"... "Why don't you report on Hillary Clinton's collusion instead?" "Because there's no active FBI investigation into it. There's literally no evidence of anything like that taking place, unlike the Trump investigation, which DOES have an active FBI investigation looking into it." "....yeah, but... why don't you report it anyway? You're fake news." ..."
"Why don't you report on Hillary Clinton's collusion instead?" "Because there's no active FBI investigation into it. There's
literally no evidence of anything like that taking place, unlike the Trump investigation, which DOES have an active FBI investigation
looking into it." "....yeah, but... why don't you report it anyway? You're fake news."
"... The central fact of US political economy, the source of our exceptionalism, is that lower-income whites vote for politicians who redistribute income upward and weaken the safety net because they think the welfare state is for nonwhites. ..."
"... And by voting against its own interests, the white working class isn't just making itself poorer, it's literally killing itself. ..."
"... With some slight variations, Krugman was essentially re-stating the thesis of my 2004 book, What's the Matter With Kansas?, in which I declared on the very first page that working people "getting their fundamental interests wrong" by voting for conservatives was "the bedrock of our civic order; it is the foundation on which all else rests". ..."
On New Year's Day, the economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman issued a series of
tweets in which he proclaimed as follows:
The central fact of US political economy, the source of our exceptionalism, is that lower-income whites vote for politicians
who redistribute income upward and weaken the safety net because they think the welfare state is for nonwhites.
and then, a few minutes later:
And by voting against its own interests, the white working class isn't just making itself poorer, it's literally killing itself.
Was I psyched to see this! With some slight variations, Krugman was essentially re-stating the thesis of my 2004 book, What's
the Matter With Kansas?, in which I declared on the very first page that working people "getting their fundamental interests wrong"
by voting for conservatives was "the bedrock of our civic order; it is the foundation on which all else rests".
... ... ...
Let me be more explicit. We have just come through an election in which underestimating working-class conservatism in northern
states proved catastrophic for Democrats. Did the pundits' repeated insistence that white working-class voters in the north were
reliable Democrats play any part in this underestimation? Did the message Krugman and his colleagues hammered home for years help
to distract their followers from the basic strategy of Trump_vs_deep_state?
I ask because getting that point wrong was kind of a big deal in 2016. It was a blunder from which it will take the Democratic
party years to recover. And we need to get to the bottom of it.
"... It is true that Mr. Miller can come off as serious. After all he is a very serious guy. He does not play mental footsie with fools. The guy has studied U.S. immigration more deeply than just about the entire Washington press corps combined. He knows more about immigration than any of them. Mr. Miller is not going to get into intellectual soft-pillow fights with reporters and lawmakers wearing their silly, soft and fuzzy pajamas. ..."
CNN's Stephen Miller incident proves how fake news ignorantly smears conservatives
White House adviser does not play mental footsie with fools
White House adviser Stephen Miller appears on CNN anchor Jake Tapper Sunday
show. After an exchange, Mr. Tapper cut off Mr. Miller's mic, saying, "I think I've wasted enough of my
viewers' time." (CNN.com)
Behold, the anatomy of a "fake news" smear.
The latest drive-by character assassination of
White House
adviser
Stephen Miller
began, as it so
often does, in a fact-free live TV orgy of public posturing by a journalist eager to display his
virgin-snow virtue when it comes to unalloyed hatred of President
Donald Trump
.
This time it was CNN anchor Jake (
Mr.
Trump
calls him "Fake") Tapper, who invited
Mr. Miller
on his Sunday show to
respond to Mr. Tapper's complex conspiracy theory about how the president is somehow unfit or too
mentally unstable to occupy the
White
House
.
Obviously, Fake Tapper missed the report on Twitter that actually
Mr. Trump
is a "very stable
genius."
Anyhoo,
Mr. Miller
had no
intention of playing any of Fake Tapper's reindeer games. Instead, he wanted to talk about the
unrelenting unfairness of CNN and its coverage of
Mr. Trump
.
When
Mr. Miller
refused to
engage in Mr. Tapper's conspiracy fantasy, the anchor changed his mind and decided he no longer wanted
Mr. Miller
on his show.
"I think I've wasted enough of my viewer's time," he petulantly whined before cutting off
Mr. Miller
's mic.
It was a small, sad, silly moment in the death gurgles of American journalism. But enough to whip
up a little buzz on Twitter or some Internet echo chamber. Which is all Fake Tapper was going for in
the first place.
In all the frenzy, doddering old House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi clamored over to the bright
lights to declare through her unglued dentures that
Mr. Miller
-- a Jew -- is somehow a
"white supremacist."
And then she declared that the Jew be fired from the
White House
. How that does not make
Nancy Pelosi -- a Christian, despite her infatuation with abortion -- an anti-Semite?
Details. Minor details. Then, along comes a Washington reporter who announces that
Mr. Miller
is "standing in the
way of an immigration deal." Not clear if this "deal" is a good one or a bad one.
Mr. Miller
is just standing in
the way of it, which further proves he is a white supremacist. Her entire story was entirely based on unnamed "sources," according to the reporter. Another death
gurgle of American journalism. The story includes a link to a "very tense and loud exchange"
Mr. Miller
had last year with
another CNN reporter in which
Mr.
Miller
utterly eviscerated the reporter over his near total ignorance of immigration policy in
America.
All that matters to doltish reporters around here, though, is that the exchange was "very tense and
loud."
Mr. Miller
is not only a
(Jewish) white supremacist, he is an angry (Jewish) white supremacist. So, like Hitler, basically.
Only Jewish.
It is true that
Mr. Miller
can
come off as serious. After all he is a very serious guy. He does not play mental footsie with fools.
The guy has studied U.S. immigration more deeply than just about the entire Washington press corps
combined. He knows more about immigration than any of them.
Mr. Miller
is not going to get
into intellectual soft-pillow fights with reporters and lawmakers wearing their silly, soft and fuzzy
pajamas.
Rather,
Mr. Miller
-- and his
boss -- wants desperately to fix a horribly broken immigration system that created this whole
unfortunate class of illegal Dreamers in the first place and prevent a future generation of
"Dreamers."
If you have any doubt about the challenge
Mr. Miller
and
Mr. Trump
face in honestly
addressing illegal immigration in this country, consider this: During this week's bipartisan meeting
in the
White House
to begin
negotiations, the word "DACA" was uttered 61 times. The universal sentiment among lawmakers from both
parties was to pass some kind of "DACA" legislation that would legalize the illegal-immigrant
Dreamers.
Sixty-one times.
The word "American" was used just 20 times. "Worker" only twice. "Citizen" not once.
"Citizenship" was used three times -- as in the DACA bill should give Dreamers "citizenship." The words "miner," "unemployed," and "lawful" were never uttered during the 55-minute confab. Perhaps
Mr. Miller
is
"standing in the way of an immigration deal" with these people. But is that a bad thing?
Looks like Bannon is really weak in political economy. He does not even use the term neoliberalism. Go
here to read the full transcript of his speech.
One very interesting quote is ""I believe we've come partly off-track in the years since the fall of the Soviet Union and we're
starting now in the 21st century, which I believe, strongly, is a crisis both of our church, a crisis of our faith, a crisis of the
West, a crisis of capitalism."
Notable quotes:
"... That war triggered a century of barbaric -- unparalleled in mankind's history -- virtually 180 to 200 million people were killed in the 20th century, and I believe that, you know, hundreds of years from now when they look back, we're children of that: We're children of that barbarity. This will be looked at almost as a new Dark Age. ..."
"... I believe we've come partly offtrack in the years since the fall of the Soviet Union and we're starting now in the 21st century, which I believe, strongly, is a crisis both of our church, a crisis of our faith, a crisis of the West, a crisis of capitalism. ..."
"... I see that every day. I'm a very practical, pragmatic capitalist. I was trained at Goldman Sachs, I went to Harvard Business School, I was as hard-nosed a capitalist as you get. I specialized in media, in investing in media companies, and it's a very, very tough environment. And you've had a fairly good track record. So I don't want this to kinda sound namby-pamby, "Let's all hold hands and sing 'Kumbaya' around capitalism." ..."
"... One is state-sponsored capitalism. And that's the capitalism you see in China and Russia. I believe it's what Holy Father [Pope Francis] has seen for most of his life in places like Argentina, where you have this kind of crony capitalism of people that are involved with these military powers-that-be in the government, and it forms a brutal form of capitalism that is really about creating wealth and creating value for a very small subset of people. And it doesn't spread the tremendous value creation throughout broader distribution patterns that were seen really in the 20th century. ..."
"... The second form of capitalism that I feel is almost as disturbing, is what I call the Ayn Rand or the Objectivist School of libertarian capitalism. And, look, I'm a big believer in a lot of libertarianism. I have many many friends that's a very big part of the conservative movement -- whether it's the UKIP movement in England, it's many of the underpinnings of the populist movement in Europe, and particularly in the United States. However, that form of capitalism is quite different when you really look at it to what I call the "enlightened capitalism" of the Judeo-Christian West. It is a capitalism that really looks to make people commodities, and to objectify people, and to use them almost -- as many of the precepts of Marx -- and that is a form of capitalism, particularly to a younger generation [that] they're really finding quite attractive. And if they don't see another alternative, it's going to be an alternative that they gravitate to under this kind of rubric of "personal freedom." ..."
Buzzfeed has the remarks of Stephen Bannon, former CEO of Breitbart News ,
and currently appointed by President Elect Trump to be his chief advisor, at a conference at
the Vatican in the summer of 2014:
Steve Bannon:
Thank you very much Benjamin, and I appreciate you guys including us in
this. We're speaking from Los Angeles today, right across the street from our headquarters in
Los Angeles. Um. I want to talk about wealth creation and what wealth creation really can
achieve and maybe take it in a slightly different direction, because I believe the world, and
particularly the Judeo-Christian west, is in a crisis. And it's really the organizing principle
of how we built Breitbart News to really be a platform to bring news and information to people
throughout the world. Principally in the west, but we're expanding internationally to let
people understand the depths of this crisis, and it is a crisis both of capitalism but really
of the underpinnings of the Judeo-Christian west in our beliefs.
It's ironic, I think, that we're talking today at exactly, tomorrow, 100 years ago, at
the exact moment we're talking, the assassination took place in Sarajevo of Archduke Franz
Ferdinand that led to the end of the Victorian era and the beginning of the bloodiest century
in mankind's history. Just to put it in perspective, with the assassination that took place 100
years ago tomorrow in Sarajevo, the world was at total peace. There was trade, there was
globalization, there was technological transfer, the High Church of England and the Catholic
Church and the Christian faith was predominant throughout Europe of practicing Christians.
Seven weeks later, I think there were 5 million men in uniform and within 30 days there were
over a million casualties.
That war triggered a century of barbaric -- unparalleled in mankind's history --
virtually 180 to 200 million people were killed in the 20th century, and I believe that, you
know, hundreds of years from now when they look back, we're children of that: We're children of
that barbarity. This will be looked at almost as a new Dark Age.
But the thing that got us out of it, the organizing principle that met this, was not
just the heroism of our people -- whether it was French resistance fighters, whether it was the
Polish resistance fighters, or it's the young men from Kansas City or the Midwest who stormed
the beaches of Normandy, commandos in England that fought with the Royal Air Force, that fought
this great war, really the Judeo-Christian West versus atheists, right? The underlying
principle is an enlightened form of capitalism, that capitalism really gave us the wherewithal.
It kind of organized and built the materials needed to support, whether it's the Soviet Union,
England, the United States, and eventually to take back continental Europe and to beat back a
barbaric empire in the Far East.
That capitalism really generated tremendous wealth. And that wealth was really
distributed among a middle class, a rising middle class, people who come from really
working-class environments and created what we really call a Pax Americana. It was many, many
years and decades of peace. And I believe we've come partly offtrack in the years since the
fall of the Soviet Union and we're starting now in the 21st century, which I believe, strongly,
is a crisis both of our church, a crisis of our faith, a crisis of the West, a crisis of
capitalism.
And we're at the very beginning stages of a very brutal and bloody conflict, of which if
the people in this room, the people in the church, do not bind together and really form what I
feel is an aspect of the church militant, to really be able to not just stand with our beliefs,
but to fight for our beliefs against this new barbarity that's starting, that will completely
eradicate everything that we've been bequeathed over the last 2,000, 2,500 years.
Now, what I mean by that specifically: I think that you're seeing three kinds of
converging tendencies: One is a form of capitalism that is taken away from the underlying
spiritual and moral foundations of Christianity and, really, Judeo-Christian belief.
I see that every day. I'm a very practical, pragmatic capitalist. I was trained at
Goldman Sachs, I went to Harvard Business School, I was as hard-nosed a capitalist as you get.
I specialized in media, in investing in media companies, and it's a very, very tough
environment. And you've had a fairly good track record. So I don't want this to kinda sound
namby-pamby, "Let's all hold hands and sing 'Kumbaya' around capitalism."
But there's a strand of capitalism today -- two strands of it, that are very
disturbing.
One is state-sponsored capitalism. And that's the capitalism you see in China and
Russia. I believe it's what Holy Father [Pope Francis] has seen for most of his life in places
like Argentina, where you have this kind of crony capitalism of people that are involved with
these military powers-that-be in the government, and it forms a brutal form of capitalism that
is really about creating wealth and creating value for a very small subset of people. And it
doesn't spread the tremendous value creation throughout broader distribution patterns that were
seen really in the 20th century.
The second form of capitalism that I feel is almost as disturbing, is what I call the
Ayn Rand or the Objectivist School of libertarian capitalism. And, look, I'm a big believer in
a lot of libertarianism. I have many many friends that's a very big part of the conservative
movement -- whether it's the UKIP movement in England, it's many of the underpinnings of the
populist movement in Europe, and particularly in the United States.
However, that form of capitalism is quite different when you really look at it to what I
call the "enlightened capitalism" of the Judeo-Christian West. It is a capitalism that really
looks to make people commodities, and to objectify people, and to use them almost -- as many of
the precepts of Marx -- and that is a form of capitalism, particularly to a younger generation
[that] they're really finding quite attractive. And if they don't see another alternative, it's
going to be an alternative that they gravitate to under this kind of rubric of "personal
freedom."
The other tendency is an immense secularization of the West. And I know we've talked
about secularization for a long time, but if you look at younger people, especially millennials
under 30, the overwhelming drive of popular culture is to absolutely secularize this rising
iteration.
"... "I'm not a white nationalist, I'm a nationalist. I'm an economic nationalist," Bannon told the news outlet earlier this week. "The globalists gutted the American working class and created a middle class in Asia. The issue now is about Americans looking to not get f -- ed over." ..."
"... "Look, are there some people that are white nationalists that are attracted to some of the philosophies of the alt-right? Maybe," Bannon told Mother Jones in August. "Are there some people that are anti-Semitic that are attracted? Maybe. Right? Maybe some people are attracted to the alt-right that are homophobes, right? But that's just like, there are certain elements of the progressive left and the hard left that attract certain elements." ..."
"... "It's everything related to jobs," Bannon said and seemingly bragged about how he was going to drive conservatives "crazy" with his "trillion-dollar infrastructure plan." ..."
"... "With negative interest rates throughout the world, it's the greatest opportunity to rebuild everything. Ship yards, iron works, get them all jacked up," he proposed. "We're just going to throw it up against the wall and see if it sticks. It will be as exciting as the 1930s, greater than the Reagan revolution -- conservatives, plus populists, in an economic nationalist movement." ..."
"... Bannon, in the Reporter interview, also gave some insight into how he viewed his political foes (presumably, liberals and the media) -- and the "darkness" he touts in fighting against them. ..."
Steve Bannon, the chief strategist and right-hand man to President-elect Donald Trump,
denied in an interview that he was an advocate of white nationalism -- and gave hints instead
about how his brand of "economic" nationalism will shake up Washington.
In The Hollywood Reporter, Bannon, the controversial former head of Breitbart News who went
on to chair Mr. Trump's presidential campaign, discussed why he believed his candidate won the
election.
"I'm not a white nationalist, I'm a nationalist. I'm an economic nationalist," Bannon told
the news outlet earlier this week. "The globalists gutted the American working class and
created a middle class in Asia. The issue now is about Americans looking to not get f -- ed
over."
Bannon's appointment to the White House has drawn criticism from Democrats and several civil
liberties groups, in part because of his (and Breitbart's) strong association with
the alt-right , a political movement with strains of white supremacy.
In the past, the former Breitbart CEO has admitted the alt-right's connections to racist and
anti-Semitic agendas.
"Look, are there some people that are white nationalists that are attracted to some of the
philosophies of the alt-right? Maybe,"
Bannon told Mother Jones in August. "Are there some people that are anti-Semitic that are
attracted? Maybe. Right? Maybe some people are attracted to the alt-right that are homophobes,
right? But that's just like, there are certain elements of the progressive left and the hard
left that attract certain elements."
In the Reporter interview, Bannon challenged the notion that racialized overtones dominated
the Trump campaign on the trail. He predicted that if the administration delivered on its
election promises, "we'll get 60 percent of the white vote, and 40 percent of the black and
Hispanic vote and we'll govern for 50 years."
"It's everything related to jobs," Bannon said and seemingly bragged about how he was going
to drive conservatives "crazy" with his "trillion-dollar infrastructure plan."
"With negative interest rates throughout the world, it's the greatest opportunity to rebuild
everything. Ship yards, iron works, get them all jacked up," he proposed. "We're just going to
throw it up against the wall and see if it sticks. It will be as exciting as the 1930s, greater
than the Reagan revolution -- conservatives, plus populists, in an economic nationalist
movement."
Bannon, in the Reporter interview, also gave some insight into how he viewed his political
foes (presumably, liberals and the media) -- and the "darkness" he touts in fighting against
them.
"Darkness is good," Bannon said. "Dick Cheney. Darth Vader. Satan. That's power. It only
helps us when they...get it wrong. When they're blind to who we are and what we're doing."
Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya has become a central figure in the Russia investigation
because of her involvement in the June 9, 2016 Trump Tower meeting.
And one of the stranger wrinkles in that saga is Veselnitskaya's interactions with Simpson
just hours before that controversial conclave.
Simpson's interview transcript confirms past reporting that he was with Veselnitskaya the
day of that meeting as well as the day before and day after.
Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya speaks during an interview in Moscow, Russia
November 8, 2016. REUTERS/Kommersant Photo/Yury Martyanov
But in her own testimony to the Judiciary committee, Veselnitskaya denied encountering
Simpson on those days.
"Did you have contact with Glenn Simpson on June 8, 9, or 10, 2016?" reads one of the 94
questions posed to Veselnitskaya by the Senate panel.
Undercutting that testimony, Simpson said that Veselnitskaya attended dinners
where he was also present on June 8 and June 10. They were also together in a Manhattan court
room on the morning of the Trump Tower meeting.
Simpson's work with Veselnitskaya and Rinat Akhmetshin, a Russian-American lobbyist who also
visited Trump Tower, has stoked speculation that the Russians provided information that ended
up in the dossier.
But Simpson denied in his testimony that either Russian contact told him about the Trump
Tower meeting. He also said he doubted that either provided information to Steele.
Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) ripped ranking member of the House Intel Committee and suspected
leaker Adam Schiff (D-CA) Sunday in a Fox News appearance.
Gowdy told Fox News' Maria Bartiromo that Adam Schiff makes unsubstantiated claims about the
Trump-Russia hoax to further his bid for a U.S. Senate seat.
Maria Bartiromo said to Trey Gowdy, "How long is this going to go on? Because we still
haven't had any evidence of any collusion. When is it appropriate for Bob Mueller to come out
and say, yes, definitively there's no collusion here, but what I have uncovered is collusion at
the top of the FBI between FBI leadership and Hillary Clinton."
Gowdy responded by blasting Adam Schiff.
"Well Maria some of my Democratic colleagues, namely Adam Schiff, said he had evidence, more
than circumstantial evidence of collusion, before the investigation even began so keep that in
mind," Gowdy said.
Dee Plorable • 2 days ago
Schiff is as despicable as they come. He knew from day one this was a non fact based witch
hunt to divert from his floundering DEMONcratic Party. Yet in Oscar worthy performances he
feigns outrage at the President. He tried Forcing Nunes off the investigation but it only
slowed Devin down for a few weeks whereupon he returned more determined ... Fact is Nunes is
back and exposing the real collusion ... involving hugh ranking members of the Clinton
Foundatin & Obama administration ... including the two at the top, Clinton &
Obama
FDNYpatriot • 2 days ago
Blah blah blah, Gowdy had his chance, I had high hopes then. He's all bark and no bite, I
want to see some of these people go to jail, not get the Lerner treatment.
PDXPapaG > FDNYpatriot • 2 days ago
Gowdy is a member of the House and can't indict anyone, let alone prosecute them. Somebody
wake up Jeff Sessions and tell him there is no collusion so he can un-recuse himself now and
do his damn job instead of harassing a person growing a few extra marijuana plants in their
garden.
Lunagirl > PDXPapaG • a day ago
Read Conservative Treehouse today and the below link. I am pretty cynical but I think this
whole thing is going to blow wide open when the IG report comes out, which is why Trump is
not sounding off on Sessions. They are waiting until the damning evidence is released by
Obama appointee Michael Horowitz. No one will be able to deny the horrifying truth of how the
DOJ/FBI and all of the executive branch agencies were weaponized under Obama. Now we know why
he wouldn't appoint an Inspector General the entire time Hillary was head of State. (See
second link).
Thank God Horowitz can do what should have been done then. Horowitz and Mike Rogers will
do down in history as American heroes.
Gowdy is like my neighbors little dog. Always barking and nipping at my ankles but never
biting.
totaldisgust > Up the Coast • 2 days ago
Gowdy cannot charge or prosecute, what he can do is get them to commit under oath on
record to their version of the truth, that is what is coming back to haunt them once the DOJ
gets back on track.
totaldisgust > Campaign Promises • a day ago
I don't equate DOJ with Sessions...and don't consider Pro Trump to equate to pro
establishment. Sessions is deep in the snake pit but that may not make him a snake. The DOJ
and FBI will not be allowed to continue as they have in the past. The swamp has way more
sludge than even Trump expected. I have no doubt it will get done. Trump tried relying on
Ryan and McConnell and he is done with that. Nunes, Jordan and others have picked up the ball
and ran with it. No lie just takes time.
"... When Donald Trump burst onto the scene, Bannon had found what he is quoted describing as a "blunt instrument for us," a man who had "taken this nationalist movement and moved it up twenty years." ..."
"... the rise of Bannon and Trump holds lessons for the Dissident Right. One of them: despite how powerful the Establishment may appear, there are fatal disconnects between it and the people it rules -- for example, on social and identity issues. Thus, many members of this Ruling Class, such as the Republican strategists who predicted a Jeb or Rubio victory, have been more successful in deluding themselves than they have been in building any kind of effective base. Similarly, Clinton campaign operatives believed, without much evidence, that undecided voters would eventually break in their favor. Because the thought of a Trump presidency was too horrifying for them to contemplate, they refused to recognize polls showing a close race, ignored the Midwest and sauntered their candidate off to Arizona in the final days. ..."
"... Of course, currently the ideas that Bannon fought for appear to be on the wane, leading him to declare upon leaving the White House that the "Trump presidency that we fought for, and won, is over." [ Weekly Standard, August 18, 2017] ..."
"... But this is probably somewhat of an exaggeration. I doubt that Bannon laments the fact that the current president is Donald Trump rather than Hillary Clinton or Marco Rubio. But it has proved much more difficult to change government policy than to win an election. Unlike GOP strategists, the Deep State appears to know what it is doing. ..."
Throughout 2016, I would occasionally turn on the television to see how the punditocracy was
responding to the mounting
Trump tsunami . If you get most of your news online, watching cable news is frustrating.
The commentary is so dumbed down and
painfully
reflective of speaker's biases, you can always basically guess what's coming next. With a
few exceptions -- above all Ann Coulter 's famous June 19, 2015
prediction of a Trump victory on
Bill Maher -- these pundits again and again told us that Trump would eventually go away,
first after he made this or that gaffe, then after he "failed" in a debate, then after people
actually started voting in the primaries.
The most interesting cases to me: the "
Republican strategists ," brought on to CNN and MSNBC to give the audience the illusion
that they were hearing both sides: Nicole Wallace, Steve Schmidt, Ana Navarro, Rick Wilson,
Margaret Hoover, Todd Harris.
Mike Murphy even convinced donors to hand him over $100 million to make Jeb Bush the
next president -- [
Jeb's 2016 departure draws out Mike Murphy critics , By Maeve Reston, February 22,
2016]
With campaigns and donors throwing money at these people, and the Main Stream Media touting
them, it was easy to assume they must know what they were talking about. Significantly, each of
these pundits was a national security hawk, center-right on economic issues, and just as
horrified by "
racism " and " sexism
" as their
Leftist counterparts . By a remarkable coincidence, the "
strategic " advice that they gave to Republican candidates lined up perfectly with these
positions. Their prominence was a mirage created by the fact that the MSM
handed this token opposition the Megaphone
because they did not challenge the core prejudices of the
bipartisan Ruling Class.
And of course they were all humiliated in a spectacular fashion, November 8 being only the
climax.
Joshua Green begins his book Devil's
Bargain: Steve Bannon, Donald Trump, and the Storming of the Presidency by giving us a
view inside the Trump campaign on election night, before tracing Steve Bannon's path up to that
point. Reliving the journey is one of the joys of Green's work, which is mostly an intellectual
biography of Steve Bannon,
with a special focus on his relationship with Trump and the election.
Bannon
joined the Trump campaign in the summer of 2016 without any previous experience in
electoral politics. But like the candidate himself, the Breitbart editor showed that he
understood the nature of American politics and the GOP base
better than Establishment Republicans. The "strategists'" supposed "expertise," "strategic
advice," and "analysis" was in reality built on a house of cards. (In fact, the
Bannon-Trump view of the electorate is closer to the consensus
among political scientists that, unlike more nationalist and populist policies,
Republican Establishment positions have relatively little popular support. [ Political Divisions in 2016 and Beyon d | Tensions Between and Within the Two
Parties, Voter Study Group, June 2017]).
Bannon at Breitbart.com gave the Republican base what it wanted. Moral: in a democracy, you
always have a chance at winning when public opinion (or at least intraparty opinion) is on your
side.
Green traces Bannon's journey from his Irish-Catholic
working-class roots and traditionalist upbringing, to his time in the Navy, at Harvard
Business School and Goldman Sachs, and finally Breitbart.com and the pinnacle of American
politics. The picture
that emerges is of a man with principles and vigor, refusing to submit to the inertia that
is part of the human condition, with enough confidence to realize that life is too short to not
make major changes when staying on the current path is not going to allow him to accomplish his
goals.
For example, Bannon originally wanted a career in defense policy, and took a job in the
Pentagon during the Reagan administration. Yet he was off to Harvard Business School when he
realized that the rigid bureaucracy
that he was a part of would not let him move up to a high-level position until he was
middle-aged. Decades later, after taking over his website upon the unexpected death of Andrew Breitbart in
2012, it would have been easy to go low-risk -- sticking to Establishment scripts, making life
comfortable for Republican elites, implicitly submitting to the taboos of the Left.
Instead , he helped turn Breitbart News into a major voice of the populist tide that has
been remaking center-right politics across the globe.
When Donald Trump burst onto the scene, Bannon had found what he is quoted describing as
a "blunt instrument for us," a man who had "taken this nationalist movement and moved it up
twenty years."
From Green, we learn much about Bannon's intellectual influences. Surprisingly, although he
was raised as a Roman Catholic and maintains that faith today, we find out that Bannon briefly
practiced Zen Buddhism while in the Navy. There are other unusual influences that make
appearances in the book, including Rightist philosopher Julius
Evola and
René Guénon, a French occultist who eventually became a Sufi Muslim. Although
not exactly my cup of tea, such eccentric intellectual interests reflect a curious mind that
refuses to restrict itself to fashionable influences.
It's incorrect to call Devil's Bargain a biography. There is practically no mention
of Bannon's personal life -- wives, children. I had to Google to find out that he has three
daughters. His childhood is only discussed in the context of how it may have influenced his
beliefs and political development.
Rather, we get information on Bannon's intellectual and career pursuits and his
relationships with consequential figures such as mega-donor Robert Mercer, Andrew Breitbart and
Donald Trump.
As Bannon exits the White House and returns to Breitbart, we must hope that Bannon and the
movement he's helped to create accomplish enough in the future to inspire more complete
biographies.
But the rise of Bannon and Trump holds lessons for the Dissident Right. One of them:
despite how powerful the Establishment may appear, there are fatal disconnects between it and
the people it rules -- for example, on social and identity issues. Thus, many members of this
Ruling Class, such as the Republican strategists who predicted a Jeb or Rubio victory, have
been more successful in deluding themselves than they have been in building any kind of
effective base. Similarly, Clinton campaign operatives believed, without much evidence, that
undecided voters would eventually break in their favor. Because the thought of a Trump
presidency was too horrifying for them to contemplate, they refused to recognize polls showing
a close race, ignored the Midwest and sauntered their candidate off to Arizona in the final
days.
Of course, currently the ideas that Bannon fought for appear to be on the wane, leading
him to declare upon leaving the White House that the "Trump presidency that we fought for, and
won, is over." [
Weekly Standard, August 18, 2017]
But this is probably somewhat of an exaggeration. I doubt that Bannon laments the fact
that the current president is Donald Trump rather than Hillary Clinton or Marco Rubio. But it
has proved much more difficult to change government policy than to win an election. Unlike GOP
strategists, the Deep State appears to know what it is doing.
In his memoir Nixon's White House Wars , Pat Buchanan writes about how, despite
playing a pivotal role in the election of 1968, the conservative movement was
mostly shut out of high-level jobs:
Then there was the painful reality with which the right had to come to terms. Though our
movement had exhibited real power in capturing the nomination for Barry Goldwater and helping
Nixon crush the Rockefeller-Romney wing of the Republican Party, and though we were
playing a pivotal role in the election of 1968, the conservative movement was
mostly shut out of high-level jobs:
Then there was the painful reality with which the right had to come to terms. Though our
movement had exhibited real power in capturing the nomination for Barry Goldwater and helping
Nixon crush the Rockefeller-Romney wing of the Republican Party, and though we were veterans
of a victorious presidential campaign, few of us had served in the executive branch. We
lacked titles, resumes, credentials Our pool of experienced public servants who could
seamlessly move into top positions was miniscule compared to that of the liberal Democrats
who had dominated the capital's politics since FDR arrived in 1933.
History repeated itself in 2016, when Donald Trump would win the presidency on a nationalist
platform but find few qualified individuals who could reliably implement his agenda.
If nationalists want to ensure that their next generation of leaders is able to effectively
implement the policies they run on, they are going to have to engage in the slow and tedious
project of working their way up through powerful institutions.
Bannon may have been and remains an "outsider" to the political Establishment. But
nonetheless, throughout his life he has leveraged elite institutions such as Harvard, Goldman
Sachs, the Republican Party, and even Hollywood in order to become financially independent and
free to pursue his political goals.
If enough of those on the Dissident Right forge a similar path, we can be sure that future
nationalist political victories will be less hollow. Jeremy Cooper is a specialist in
international politics and an observer of global trends. Follow him at @NeoNeoLiberal .
@Clyde
Wilson Is there any evidence that Trump even tried to find the right people to fill the
offices? Having dabbled ever so slightly in this process in the spring, my impression is that
there is a mechanism run largely by lawyers from the big DC law firms (presumably one for
each party) who are the gatekeepers for applicants. The result of this system, which I have
little doubt that the "Trump Team" did not try to take on (after all, they had only a couple
of months to put together the beginnings of a team, and that left little or no time replacing
The Swamp Machine ) is that the key positions throughout the administration are largely
filled with lawyers from connected law firms. After all, who better to administer the
government than lawyers -- ? -- ?
At any rate, my experience with the process was: on your marks, get set, nothing. 30 years
experience in and around federal government, but not a lawyer. Don't call us, we don't want
to talk to you. (I also made clear in my cover letter that the key motivator for my
application -- and first ever political contributions -- was Trump and his agenda. In
retrospect, this "admission" was probably a kiss of death. I was a Trumpite. Eeeewww -- -- --
(I may well not have been qualified for anything, but I'm SURE I was disqualified by my
support for Trump )
Many got the joke, however, many did not and it gained traction because it was "so plausible." This is what "confirmation bias"
is about.
Notable quotes:
"... The parody paragraphs, below, describe Trump's (fictitious) frustration at not having "the gorilla channel" available on his White House bedroom television, and his staffers' subsequent amusing attempt to appease him ..."
"... Some people online at first incorrectly thought that the passages were actually featured in Wolff's book, in which Trump's former chief strategist Steve Bannon makes claims about the probe into Russian meddling in the 2016 election ..."
The parody paragraphs, below, describe Trump's (fictitious) frustration at not having "the gorilla channel" available on
his White House bedroom television, and his staffers' subsequent amusing attempt to appease him
Some people online at first incorrectly thought
that the passages were actually featured in Wolff's book, in which Trump's former chief strategist
Steve Bannon makes claims about the probe into Russian
meddling in the 2016 election.
On his first night in the White House, President Trump complained that the TV in his bedroom was broken, because it didn't
have "the gorilla channel". Trump seemed to be under the impression that a TV channel existed that screened nothing but gorilla-based
content, 24 hours a day.
To appease Trump, White House staff compiled a number of gorilla documentaries into a makeshift gorilla channel, broadcast
into Trump's bedroom from a hastily-constructed transmission tower on the South Lawn. However, Trump w as unhappy with the channel
they had created, moaning that it was "boring" because "the gorillas aren't fighting".
Staff edited out all the parts of the documentaries where gorillas weren't hitting each other, and at last the president was
satisfied. "On some days he'll watch the gorilla channel for 17 hours straight," an insider told me. "He kneels in front of the
ТV with his face about four inches from the screen, and says encouraging things to the gorillas, like 'the way you hit that other
gorilla was good'. I think he thinks the gorillas can hear him."
Many got the joke, however, but said it gained traction because it was "so plausible."
Too little, too late. Also Bannon by demonizing Russians has shown that his is a dangerous warmonger. And a weak
politician.
Notable quotes:
"... Bannon added that his comments to Wolff were "aimed at Paul Manafort," the former Trump campaign manager who has been charged as part of an investigation into possible collusion between the Russian government and members of Trump's team. Manafort was also at the 2016 Trump Tower meeting. Manafort, Bannon said, "should have known how the Russians operate. He should have known they are duplicitous, cunning and not our friends. ..."
"... Bannon released the statement after a three-day barrage of criticism from Trump and his allies. The president dubbed Bannon "Sloppy Steve." Bannon's statement also followed a CNN appearance on Sunday by Stephen Miller, the president's senior policy adviser and former Bannon ally, who eviscerated his comments to Wolff as "grotesque." ..."
The former White House aide said Donald Trump Jr. is a "patriot and a good man."
Steve Bannon backpedaled on comments to journalist Michael Wolff, whose explosive new book
sparked
a backlash against the former top Donald Trump aide over his remarks about a meeting at
Trump Tower in June 2016. According to the book, released a week early due to high demand, the
former White House strategist called the infamous meeting in New York between Donald Trump Jr.
and Russian operatives at Trump Tower "treasonous."
In a
statement to Axios on Sunday, Bannon heaped praise on Trump and his agenda, and called Don
Jr. a "patriot and a good man." "My comments about the meeting with Russian nationals came from
my life experiences as a Naval officer stationed aboard a destroyer whose main mission was to
hunt Soviet submarines to my time at the Pentagon during the Reagan years when our focus was
the defeat of 'the evil empire' and to making films about Reagan's war against the Soviets and
Hillary Clinton's involvement in selling uranium to them, " Bannon said in the statement.
Bannon
added that his comments to Wolff were "aimed at Paul Manafort," the former Trump campaign
manager who has been charged as part of an investigation into possible collusion between the
Russian government and members of Trump's team. Manafort was also at the 2016 Trump Tower
meeting. Manafort, Bannon said, "should have known how the Russians operate. He should have
known they are duplicitous, cunning and not our friends.
To reiterate, those comments (about
the meeting with the Russians) were not aimed at Don Jr." In the statement, Bannon again denied
that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia. And though he did not deny any of the remarks
that were attributed to him in the book, Bannon said he regretted "that my delay in responding
to the inaccurate reporting regarding Don Jr has diverted attention from the president's
historical accomplishments in the first year of his presidency."
Bannon released the statement
after a three-day barrage of criticism from Trump and his allies. The president dubbed Bannon
"Sloppy Steve." Bannon's statement also followed a CNN appearance on Sunday by Stephen Miller,
the president's senior policy adviser and former Bannon ally, who eviscerated his comments to
Wolff as "grotesque."
Earlier Sunday, Trump railed about what he called Wolff's "Fake Book" on
Twitter:
"... Rod Rosenstein, current Deputy Attorney General under Attorney General Jeff Sessions, is also a member of the Mueller Gang, having worked directly under Robert Mueller at the Department of Justice as far back as 1990. When Comey was still working as the Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division for the U.S. Attorney's office in New York, Mueller and Rosenstein were becoming thick as thieves. ..."
"... He supervised the investigation that found no basis for criminal prosecution of White House officials who had obtained classified FBI background reports. He did a great job covering for the Team Bill Clinton, including covering for Hillary, as she was one of the people who had access to the reports, and may have even requested them. Convenient for the Clintons, no indictments were filed. ..."
"... Having proven his loyalty to the powers that be, Rosenstein was appointed to work in the US Office of the Independent Counsel under Ken Starr on the Whitewater Investigation into then President Bill Clinton. By some miracle, or clever work by insiders, the Clintons escaped culpability once again. Rod wasn't alone, he had help from his co-worker James Comey, who was also making sure the Clintons were exonerated during the Whitewater affair. ..."
"... Who is surprised when three of the top lawman fixers for the Clinton/Bush cabal have axes in their eyes for President Donald J. Trump? ..."
There is a longtime and incestuous relationship between the fixers who have been tasked with taking down President Trump, under
the fake narrative of enforcing the law. James Comey worked in the DOJ directly under Mueller until 2005. Rod Rosenstein and Mueller
go even further back.
James Comey wasn't just some associate of Mueller back then, but rather his protégé. Under the George W. Bush presidency, when
Comey was serving as Deputy Attorney General under John Ashcroft, Robert Mueller was Comey's go-to guy when he needed help. The two
men, as it came to light years later, conspired to disobey potential White House orders to leave Ashcroft alone when he was incapacitated
in March of 2004. These two men, when together, will not obey orders if they think they know better. Being filled with hubris and
almost two decades of doing just about anything they want, they always think they know better.
Rod Rosenstein, current Deputy Attorney General under Attorney General Jeff Sessions, is also a member of the Mueller Gang, having
worked directly under Robert Mueller at the Department of Justice as far back as 1990. When Comey was still working as the Deputy
Chief of the Criminal Division for the U.S. Attorney's office in New York, Mueller and Rosenstein were becoming thick as thieves.
We look back at Rod's loyal work for Hillary Clinton, when he became a clean-up man for the Clinton Administration as an Associate
Independent Counsel from 1995 until 1997. He supervised the investigation that found no basis for criminal prosecution of White House
officials who had obtained classified FBI background reports. He did a great job covering for the Team Bill Clinton, including covering
for Hillary, as she was one of the people who had access to the reports, and may have even requested them. Convenient for the Clintons,
no indictments were filed.
Having proven his loyalty to the powers that be, Rosenstein was appointed to work in the US Office of the Independent Counsel
under Ken Starr on the Whitewater Investigation into then President Bill Clinton. By some miracle, or clever work by insiders, the
Clintons escaped culpability once again. Rod wasn't alone, he had help from his co-worker James Comey, who was also making sure the
Clintons were exonerated during the Whitewater affair.
Here is Robert Mueller, sitting in the middle of his two wunderkinds, making sure the path before them is smooth and obstacle
free, and practically shepherding their careers along the way. Is it any wonder that once Jeff Sessions shamelessly recused himself
from the Russia Collusion Conspiracy investigation and turned it over to his deputy Rod Rosenstein, that Rosenstein would reach out
to his old mentor for help? Who is surprised when three of the top lawman fixers for the Clinton/Bush cabal have axes in their eyes
for President Donald J. Trump?
Enter Lisa Barsoomian, wife of Rod Rosenstein. Lisa is a high-powered attorney in Washington, DC, who specializes in opposing
Freedom of Information Act requests on behalf of the Deep State, err, I mean, the Intelligence Communities.
Same question I have asked before, why are all these Clinton supporters and Obama clones still part of the Trump White House?
Why have they not been removed. It almost seems as if Trump is handing these people the rope they plan to hang him with. You can
bet the farm if Obama was still in office there would be no supporters of a previous Republican administration in his White House.
They would all have been shoved out the back door long ago. Is there no way either Trump or Sessions can get rid of these people?
And if not, why not?
The Trump administration is more than overloaded with Obama holdovers and you can bet none of them is there to help him enact
his America First agenda. Those people have been working to make sure it's "America Last" for decades now.
One wonders how long they will be able to keep pushing that famous non-event, the Trump/Russian collusion theory before they realize
that people are just not buying it anymore.
Years ago, and some of you all may remember it, there was a hamburger commercial on where a little old lady stepped up to the
counter and asked "Where's the beef?" Today the public could just as easily step up and ask the Establishment "Where's the evidence?"
when it comes to Trump and the Russians because all we have heard from the Trump detractors is lots of political bloviation all dressed
up in legalese--but no real evidence to back it up.
Might I suggest that Mr. Trump and/or Mr. Sessions see about removing these people that are willfully preventing the Trump administration
from doing what we elected it to do?
Send your letter modified to be a formal complaint. I have just sent the following letter to Rosenstein by Certified Mail so
that "Someone" needs to sign for it. U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530-0001
Attention: Deputy Attorney General, Mr. Ron Rosenstein, Esq.
August 10, 2017
Subject: Mr. Robert Mueller, Esq. serving as Special Council, and calling for a Grand Jury
Dear Mr. Deputy Attorney General:
I am writing to you primarily as a way to establish a historical record of your endeavor to investigate any collusion between
President Donald J. Trump and the Russians, during the 2016 Federal Election process. Your temporary responsibilities as acting
Attorney General caused you to be attuned to the entire Department of Justice case load. And so, you would be fully aware of all
facets of the Trump-Russia 2016 Election collision, if any. No collusion was discovered. And so, it would behoove the present
Attorney General Mr. Jeffrey Sessions, Esq., to un-recuse himself now that there is no evidence of a Trump felony. You, however,
Mr. Deputy Attorney General, are complicit with Attorney Robert Mueller, Esq. in establishing a Special Council and appointed
Mr. Mueller to that position.
It is known in public circles that Mr. Mueller is a close friend of former Dir. FBI, James B. Comey. When the President of
the United States, Donald Trump fired Comey, Attorney. Robert Mueller can be seen as an extremely biased prosecutor. Mueller's
assignment, at the suggestion of Comey and its actual enactment, is, in my opinion illegal.
The Special Council began his investigation in May 2016, it has been noted in the Main Stream Media. We are now almost midway
into August and there has been no evidence of Trump-Russia collusion.
I am aware that a Special Council is triggered by ongoing or previous criminal activity and is based upon hard evidence that
can be used to prosecute a felon. Yet Atty. Robert Mueller was made Special Council without any criminal activity performed by
a felon and without any evidence. And then, to establish a Grand Jury for the prosecution, that is totally out of line with ethical
justice and the Rule of Law. The final partisan development is that Special Council Mueller has moved the Grand Jury from Virginia
to Washington D. C., wherein he is likely to load the Grand Jury with Democrats who, politically are biased against President
Trump.
How is that possible at such a high level in the DOJ to allow such misdeeds of justice? The complicit activity described in
the body of this letter is the criminal activity, in my opinion. No, the Mueller investigation and Grand Jury is not a witch hunt.
Rather it is a stronger term, a Vendetta.
Alan Dale Rhoads, 1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, Oreland, PA, 19075-1401
Lisa Barsoomian, Rod Rosenstein's wife was FBI FOiA Shot Blocker and
covert communication masking official. Did Rosenstein mention her FBI
oversight duties yesterday?
you don't think that maybe this is a honeypot? I think these over zealous criminals are creaming their pants and hanging themselves,
remember Rogers and the NSA be listening to err thing in the house
Deeply disturbing but not surprising. Rosenstein struck me immediately as another one just like Andrew McCabe, who supposedly
was investigating Hilary's infamous server -- he's married to a Virginia Democrat candidate
though this MSM once-over, like all the others, won't go anywhere near the curious fact that the FBI never actually examined
the server, it took the word of Google-funded puppet Crowdstrike, which just happens to be run by a famously anti-Russian activist
and Terry McAuliffe does seem to lead the charmed life doesn't he? His career seems to be a laundry list of grossly unethical
but just-not-quite-illegal behavior...I guess it helps to have friends in high places.
"Controlling the narrative" is politically correct term for censorship.
Notable quotes:
"... I suspect most of the people who write all that furious invective on the Internet, professional polemicists and semiliterate commenters alike, are lashing out because they've been hurt -- their sense of fairness or decency has been outraged, or they feel personally wounded or threatened. ..."
"... "controlling the narrative" by neoliberal MSM is the key of facilitating the neoliberal "groupthink". Much like was in the USSR with "communist" groupthink. This is a step in the direction of the theocratic society (which the USSR definitely was). ..."
"... In other words "controlling the narrative" is the major form of neoliberal MSM "war on reality" as the neoliberal ideology is now completely discredited and can be sustained only by cult-style methods. ..."
Maybe this is the same kind of clinical detachment doctors have to cultivate, a way of distancing oneself from the subject,
protecting yourself against a crippling empathy. I won't say that writers or artists are more sensitive than other people, but
it may be that they're less able to handle their own emotions.
It may be that art, like drugs, is a way of dulling or controlling pain. Eloquently articulating a feeling is one way to avoid
actually experiencing it.
Words are only symbols, noises or marks on paper, and turning the messy, ugly stuff of life into language renders it inert
and manageable for the author, even as it intensifies it for the reader.
It's a nerdy, sensitive kid's way of turning suffering into something safely abstract, an object of contemplation.
I suspect most of the people who write all that furious invective on the Internet, professional polemicists and semiliterate
commenters alike, are lashing out because they've been hurt -- their sense of fairness or decency has been outraged, or
they feel personally wounded or threatened.
"controlling the narrative" by neoliberal MSM is the key of facilitating the neoliberal "groupthink". Much like was in the
USSR with "communist" groupthink. This is a step in the direction of the theocratic society (which the USSR definitely was).
In other words "controlling the narrative" is the major form of neoliberal MSM "war on reality" as the neoliberal ideology
is now completely discredited and can be sustained only by cult-style methods.
They want to invoke your emotions in the necessary direction and those emotions serve as a powerful filter, a firewall which
will prevents you from seeing any alternative facts which taken as whole form an "alternative narrative".
It also creates certain taboo, such as "don't publish anything from RT", or you automatically become "Putin's stooge." But
some incoherent blabbing of a crazy neocon in Boston Globe is OK.
This is an old and a very dirty game, a variation of method used for centuries by high demand cults:
"Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best
that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece.
Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany.
That is understood.
But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people
along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship
Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell
them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works
the same way in any country."
– Hermann Goering (as told to Gustav Gilbert during the Nuremberg trials)
You need to be able to decipher this "suggested" set of emotions and detach it from the set of facts provided by neoliberal
MSM. It might help to view things "Sine ira et studio" (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sine_ira_et_studio
)
That helps to destroy the official neoliberal narrative.
Here skepticism (whether natural or acquired) can be of great help in fighting groupthink pushed by neoliberal MSM.
We are all guilty of this one sidedness, but I think that we need to put some efforts to move in direction of higher level
of skepticism toward our own views and probably provide at least links to alternative views.
What a wonderfully clear and uncompromising analysis of the current political situation in
the US. And done by two of the sharpest and most charismatic truth-telling figures of the
news landscape! Thank you both, it's such a pleasure to listen to you. I pray to our God that
2018 will be the year that sees the beginning of the swamp draining! God bless you both and
God bless America!
Take all of the clintons money, and don't let them leave the country. And never hold any
government position. And life probation and monitoring on their bank funds from their minimum
wage job. That would probably be the worst thing they could be made to experience. Reduced to
commoners.
I'm concerned, irrationally, about how much Stone is shining right now, as a person. Like
fire burning brightest before the light goes out. Christopher Lee was the same way; embraced
the youth culture, wore a funny hat, and did awesome things then died. I'm selfishly
desperate for Stone to stay alive and remain a champion in this fight.
Roger Stone continually blames Bannon as the one who brought globalist McMaster into the
Trump admin. Yet McMaster was the reason Bannon was booted out, because the two of them did
not agree on the agenda & did not get along. Doesn't make sense.
Sessions is a scum! He's a traitor, who needs to be brought up on charges. An act that
would kill two birds with one stone! Prove the Russian Wikileaks allocations fraudulent, and
get Sessions fired. Inturn getting us, an honest new AG!... Preferably one willing to do his
job!
"... Economic nationalism is a term used to describe policies which are guided by the idea of protecting domestic consumption, labor and capital formation, even if this requires the imposition of tariffs and other restrictions on the movement of labour, goods and capital. It is in opposition to Globalisation in many cases, or at least on questions the unrestricted good of Free trade. It would include such doctrines as Protectionism, Import substitution, Mercantilism and planned economies. ..."
"... Examples of economic nationalism include Japan's use of MITI to "pick winners and losers", Malaysia's imposition of currency controls in the wake of the 1997 currency crisis, China's controlled exchange of the Yuan, Argentina's economic policy of tariffs and devaluation in the wake of the 2001 financial crisis and the United States' use of tariffs to protect domestic steel production. ..."
"... Think about what a trade war with China would do. It would crash the world economy as China tried to cash in on it US Treasury holdings with the US likely defaulting......just one possible scenario. ..."
"... Here is Bannon's latest: Bannon dismissed the far-right as irrelevant: "Ethno-nationalism!it's losers. It's a fringe element. I think the media plays it up too much, and we gotta help crush it, you know, uh, help crush it more." "These guys are a collection of clowns," he added. Bannon is no friend of White Nationalists. ..."
"... I think Bannon is an authentic economic nationalist, and one that Trump feels is good counsel on those matters. If this is so, then Bannon cannot be trying to provoke a trade war with China, since that would be an economic catastrophe for the US (and China and the rest of the world). I'm hoping he's playing bad cop and eventually Trump will play good cop in negotiations for more investment by China in the US and other goodies in exchange for 'well, not much' from the US. Similar to what the US dragged out of Japan in the 80s nd 90s. ..."
"... Bannon (and most of his followers) have no trust in the corporate sector as they are to a large degree Globalists - they used the US and then threw it aside in pursuit of profit elsewhere. For that, he would even call them traitors. So you could call him a Nationalist. ..."
"... Bannon does not seem himself as an "ethno-nationalist". Yet his slanderous contempt for the liberal ethos/values of many Americans would tend to make one question if he can be called a Nationalist. ..."
"... If Bannon was a Zionist, he would never make the comments he does against the financial sector ..."
"... Isn't exceptionalism the same as narcissism? ..."
"... At least the concern for 10 million in Seoul (mostly missing in the discussion of other leaders) show he is not a psychopath ..."
So lets start parsing this economic nationalism that Bannon is making happen with Trump.
Economic nationalism is a term used to describe policies which are guided by the idea of protecting domestic consumption, labor
and capital formation, even if this requires the imposition of tariffs and other restrictions on the movement of labour, goods
and capital. It is in opposition to Globalisation in many cases, or at least on questions the unrestricted good of Free trade.
It would include such doctrines as Protectionism, Import substitution, Mercantilism and planned economies.
Examples of economic nationalism include Japan's use of MITI to "pick winners and losers", Malaysia's imposition of currency
controls in the wake of the 1997 currency crisis, China's controlled exchange of the Yuan, Argentina's economic policy of tariffs
and devaluation in the wake of the 2001 financial crisis and the United States' use of tariffs to protect domestic steel production.
Think about what a trade war with China would do. It would crash the world economy as China tried to cash in on it US Treasury
holdings with the US likely defaulting......just one possible scenario.
At least now, IMO, the battle for a multi-polar (finance) world is out in the open.....let the side taking by nations begin.
I hope Bannon is wrong about the timing of potential global power shifting and the US loses its empire status.
Here is Bannon's latest: Bannon dismissed the far-right as irrelevant: "Ethno-nationalism!it's losers. It's a fringe element.
I think the media plays it up too much, and we gotta help crush it, you know, uh, help crush it more." "These guys are a collection
of clowns," he added. Bannon is no friend of White Nationalists.
Bannon can be perfectly mature, adult and realist on some points and be totally blinded by biases on others - him wanting total
economic war against China is proof enough. So I don't rule out that he has a blind spot over Iran and wants to get rid of the
regime. I mean, even Trump is realist and adult in a few issues, yet is an oblivious fool on others.
Kind of hard to find someone who's always adult and realist, actually. You can only hope to pick someone who's more realist
than most people. Or build a positronic robot and vote for him.
I think Bannon is an authentic economic nationalist, and one that Trump feels is good counsel on those matters. If this is so,
then Bannon cannot be trying to provoke a trade war with China, since that would be an economic catastrophe for the US (and China
and the rest of the world). I'm hoping he's playing bad cop and eventually Trump will play good cop in negotiations for more investment
by China in the US and other goodies in exchange for 'well, not much' from the US. Similar to what the US dragged out of Japan
in the 80s nd 90s.
@ Everybody who bought into the MSM Steve Bannon promoted white supremacy and through Breitbart. Suggested you read his world
view expressed in remarks at Human Dignity Institute, Vatican Conference 2014
Progressives and Steve Bannon have something surprising in common: hating Wall Street
Pop quiz! Which major American political figure said the following:
"The 2008 crisis is really driven I believe by the greed, much of it driven by the greed of the investment banks."
"I think the bailouts in 2008 were wrong."
"[N]ot one criminal charge has ever been brought to any bank executive associated with 2008 crisis."
"The Republican Party "is really a collection of crony capitalists that feel that they have a different set of rules"
and are "the reason that the United States' financial situation is so dire."
In the Vatican talk, Bannon described in length and detail how he views the biggest issues of the day:
He wants to tear down "crony capitalism": "a brutal form of capitalism that is really about creating wealth and
creating value for a very small subset of people.[.]
He is against Ayn Rand's version of libertarianism: "The second form of capitalism that I feel is almost as disturbing,
is what I call the Ayn Rand or the Objectivist School of libertarian capitalism.[.]
He believes the West needs to wage "a global war against Islamic fascism": "They have a Twitter account up today,
ISIS does, about turning the United States into a "river of blood" if it comes in and tries to defend the city of Baghdad.
And trust me, that is going to come to Europe.[.]
He believes the capitalism of the "Judeo Christian West" is in crisis: "If you look at the leaders of capitalism
at that time, when capitalism was I believe at its highest flower and spreading its benefits to most of mankind, almost
all of those capitalists were strong believers in the Judeo-Christian West.[.]
He believes the racists that are attracted to Trump will become increasingly irrelevant: [.]
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
this recent Bannon interview with The American Prospect will now go viral. Drudgereport headlines the WAPO spin.
Except for the selective Zion-flavored warmongering, Bannon appears to be an intelligent and thoughtful person. Also crafty. Is
he not "Trump's Brain" in the way that Rove was Bush's Brain?
Agree. I think Bannon's quite bright and very very clever and crafty.
However, if anyone believes the lies he spewed yesterday about white supremacists, let me enlighten you that that's what's
called "good PR" or something. Bannon is someone whom I hold quite responsible for contributing to the rise of White Supremacy
in the USA, which I consider a clear and present danger. Bannon's dismissive hand waving yesterday is meant to dissemble. Guess
some are willing to buy what he was selling yesterday. Not me.
The first group to call themselves Progressives were the 19th century Populists. Their mantle was adopted by T. Roosevelt and
other like-minded Republicans. Lafollette and Wallace are perhaps the best remembered Progressives--yes, FDR is portrayed as one,
but when examined really isn't: Eleanor was far more Progressive and since she was people also thought he was too. Once Wallace
was ousted from government, Democrats reverted to their old ways, although Truman did order the military to desegregate--perhaps
his only Progressive act. JFK was in the process of becoming a Progressive in the months prior to his murder. LBJ very reluctantly
made some Progressive noises in his War on Poverty that he was essentially forced into thanks to massive ethnic strife and related
riots during the 60s. But essentially since the beginning of WW2, Progressives and their goals vanished from the political landscape.
Nader brought it back to the fringe from the wilderness, but the so-called Progressive Caucus really isn't Progressive thanks
to its war promotion.
Admittedly, I don't know much about Steve Bannon; he certainly isn't a Progressive, but he doesn't seem to be a Regressive
either. The points he made at the Vatican Talk supplied by likklemore @28 are rather encouraging in an anti-Deep State manner.
So, his interaction with The American Prospect I don't see as surprising--he's seeking allies: "'It's a great honor to
finally track you [Robert Kuttner] down. I've followed your writing for years and I think you and I are in the same boat when
it comes to China. You absolutely nailed it.'... Bannon explained that his strategy is to battle the trade doves inside the administration
while building an outside coalition of trade hawks that includes left as well as right. Hence the phone call to me." I think Kuttner
will discover Bannon will "still [be] there" after Labor Day, so he might as well make his travel plans.
I won't give you a pass. Your bias and lack of intelligence is on great display.
Read and understand as Bannon is proven right on events.
The $28 - trillion (US dollar) global bailouts in 2008 is proven to have failed. A handful on Wall Street became trillionaires
instead of being suited in special stripes.
Negative interest rates steal the retirement savings of seniors. Pensions and Insurance companies cannot meet promised payouts.
And all is fine. Corruption flourishes. Judeo-Christian moral values are not in crisis.
@12... "Bannon is a fascist" I'm not so sure. Mussolini defined fascism as being an alliance of corporate and state powers...
but Bannon (and most of his followers) have no trust in the corporate sector as they are to a large degree Globalists - they used
the US and then threw it aside in pursuit of profit elsewhere. For that, he would even call them traitors. So you could call him
a Nationalist.
@ 8 as you say... Bannon does not seem himself as an "ethno-nationalist". Yet his slanderous contempt for the liberal ethos/values
of many Americans would tend to make one question if he can be called a Nationalist.
@ 9 If Bannon was a Zionist, he would never make the comments he does against the financial sector (see @28).
@28 Bannon would never call himself a Socialist, but the most logical expression of his individualist views when applied to
the business world are expressed by none other than Ayn Rand. The financial world simply got legal cover to act on the views that
he rails against. Bannon does not like what he sees when the rules he claims for himself are given to the rest of the world. Which
makes him an "Exceptionalist"??
Isn't exceptionalism the same as narcissism?
At least the concern for 10 million in Seoul (mostly missing in the discussion of other leaders) show he is not a psychopath.
I wish Robert Parry quick and full recovery after his minor stoke. He is a magnificent journalist !
Notable quotes:
"... In the past, America has witnessed "McCarthyism" from the Right and even complaints from the Right about "McCarthyism of the Left." But what we are witnessing now amid the Russia-gate frenzy is what might be called "Establishment McCarthyism, " traditional media/political powers demonizing and silencing dissent that questions mainstream narratives. ..."
"... This extraordinary assault on civil liberties is cloaked in fright-filled stories about "Russian propaganda" and wildly exaggerated tales of the Kremlin's "hordes of Twitter bots," but its underlying goal is to enforce Washington's "groupthinks" by creating a permanent system that shuts down or marginalizes dissident opinions and labels contrary information – no matter how reasonable and well-researched – as "disputed" or "rated false" by mainstream "fact-checking" organizations like PolitiFact. ..."
"... For instance, PolitiFact still rates as "true" Hillary Clinton's false claim that "all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies" agreed that Russia was behind the release of Democratic emails last year. Even the Times and The Associated Press belatedly ran corrections after President Obama's intelligence chiefs admitted that the assessment came from what Director of National Intelligence James Clapper called "hand-picked" analysts from only three agencies: CIA, FBI and NSA. ..."
"... And, the larger truth was that these "hand-picked" analysts were sequestered away from other analysts even from their own agencies and produced "stove-piped intelligence," i.e., analysis that escapes the back-and-forth that should occur inside the intelligence community. ..."
"... And this was not a stand-alone story. Previously, the Times has run favorable articles about plans to deploy aggressive algorithms to hunt down and then remove or marginalize information that the Times and other mainstream outlets deem false. ..."
"... Congress has authorized $160 million to combat alleged Russian "propaganda and disinformation," a gilded invitation for "scholars" and "experts" to gear up "studies" that will continue to prove what is supposed to be proved – "Russia bad" – with credulous mainstream reporters eagerly gobbling up the latest "evidence" of Russian perfidy. ..."
"... And, given the risk of thermo-nuclear war with Russia, why aren't liberals and progressives demanding at least a critical examination of what's coming from the U.S. intelligence agencies and the mainstream press? ..."
"... So, as we have moved into this dangerous New Cold War, we are living in what could be called "Establishment McCarthyism," a hysterical but methodical strategy for silencing dissent and making sure that future mainstream groupthinks don't get challenged. ..."
In the past, America has witnessed "McCarthyism" from the Right and even complaints from the Right about "McCarthyism of the
Left." But what we are witnessing now amid the Russia-gate frenzy is what might be called
"Establishment McCarthyism,
" traditional media/political powers demonizing and silencing dissent that questions mainstream narratives.
This extraordinary assault on civil liberties is cloaked in
fright-filled stories about "Russian
propaganda" and wildly
exaggerated tales of the Kremlin's "hordes of Twitter bots," but its underlying goal is to enforce Washington's "groupthinks"
by creating a permanent system that shuts down or marginalizes dissident opinions and labels contrary information – no matter how
reasonable and well-researched – as "disputed" or "rated false" by mainstream "fact-checking" organizations like PolitiFact.
It doesn't seem to matter that the paragons of this new structure – such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN and,
indeed, PolitiFact – have a checkered record of getting facts straight.
For instance, PolitiFact still
rates as "true" Hillary Clinton's false claim that "all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies" agreed that Russia was behind the release
of Democratic emails last year. Even the Times and The Associated Press belatedly
ran corrections after
President Obama's intelligence chiefs admitted that the assessment came from what Director of National Intelligence James Clapper
called "hand-picked" analysts from only three agencies: CIA, FBI and NSA.
And, the larger truth was that these "hand-picked" analysts were
sequestered away
from other analysts even from their own agencies and produced "stove-piped intelligence," i.e., analysis that escapes the back-and-forth
that should occur inside the intelligence community.
Yet, the Times and other leading newspaper routinely treat these findings as flat fact or the unassailable "consensus" of the
"intelligence community." Contrary information, including WikiLeaks' denials of a Russian role in supplying the emails, and
contrary judgments from former
senior U.S. intelligence officials are ignored.
The Jan. 6 report also tacked on a seven-page addendum smearing the Russian television network, RT, for such offenses as sponsoring
a 2012 debate among U.S. third-party presidential candidates who had been excluded from the Republican-Democratic debates. RT also
was slammed for reporting on the Occupy Wall Street protests and the environmental dangers from "fracking."
How the idea of giving Americans access to divergent political opinions and information about valid issues such as income inequality
and environmental dangers constitutes threats to American "democracy" is hard to comprehend.
However, rather than address the Jan. 6 report's admitted uncertainties about Russian "hacking" and the troubling implications
of its attacks on RT, the Times and other U.S. mainstream publications treat the report as some kind of holy scripture that can't
be questioned or challenged.
Silencing RT
For instance, on Tuesday, the Times published a front-page story entitled "
YouTube Gave Russians Outlet
Portal Into U.S ." that essentially cried out for the purging of RT from YouTube. The article began by holding YouTube's vice
president Robert Kynci up to ridicule and opprobrium for his praising "RT for bonding with viewers by providing 'authentic' content
instead of 'agendas or propaganda.'"
The article by Daisuke Wakabayashi and Nicholas Confessore swallowed whole the Jan. 6 report's conclusion that RT is "the Kremlin's
'principal international propaganda outlet' and a key player in Russia's information warfare operations around the world." In other
words, the Times portrayed Kynci as essentially a "useful idiot."
Yet, the article doesn't actually dissect any RT article that could be labeled false or propagandistic. It simply alludes generally
to news items that contained information critical of Hillary Clinton as if any negative reporting on the Democratic presidential
contender – no matter how accurate or how similar to stories appearing in the U.S. press – was somehow proof of "information warfare."
As Daniel Lazare wrote at Consortiumnews.com
on Wednesday, "The web version [of the Times article] links to an RT interview with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange that ran shortly
before the 2016 election. The topic is a September 2014
email obtained by Wikileaks in which Clinton acknowledges that 'the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia are providing clandestine
financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region.'"
In other words, the Times cited a documented and newsworthy RT story as its evidence that RT was a propaganda shop threatening
American democracy and deserving ostracism if not removal from YouTube.
A Dangerous Pattern
Not to say that I share every news judgment of RT – or for that matter The New York Times – but there is a grave issue of press
freedom when the Times essentially calls for the shutting down of access to a news organization that may highlight or report on stories
that the Times and other mainstream outlets downplay or ignore.
And this was not a stand-alone story. Previously, the
Times has run favorable
articles about plans to deploy aggressive algorithms to hunt down and then remove or marginalize information that the Times and
other mainstream outlets deem false.
Nor is it just the Times. Last Thanksgiving, The Washington Post ran
a fawning front-page article
about an anonymous group PropOrNot that had created a blacklist of 200 Internet sites, including Consortiumnews.com and other
independent news sources, that were deemed guilty of dispensing "Russian propaganda," which basically amounted to our showing any
skepticism toward the State Department's narratives on the crises in Syria or Ukraine.
So, if any media outlet dares to question the U.S. government's version of events – once that storyline has been embraced by the
big media – the dissidents risk being awarded the media equivalent of a yellow star and having their readership dramatically reduced
by getting downgraded on search engines and punished on social media.
Meanwhile, Congress has
authorized $160 million to combat alleged Russian "propaganda and disinformation," a gilded invitation for "scholars" and "experts"
to gear up "studies" that will continue to prove what is supposed to be proved – "Russia bad" – with credulous mainstream reporters
eagerly gobbling up the latest "evidence" of Russian perfidy.
There is also a more coercive element to what's going on. RT is facing demands from the Justice Department that it register as
a "foreign agent" or face prosecution. Clearly, the point is to chill the journalism done by RT's American reporters, hosts and staff
who now fear being stigmatized as something akin to traitors.
You might wonder: where are the defenders of press freedom and civil liberties? Doesn't anyone in the mainstream media or national
politics recognize the danger to a democracy coming from enforced groupthinks? Is American democracy so fragile that letting Americans
hear "another side of the story" must be prevented?
A Dangerous 'Cure'
I agree that there is a limited problem with jerks who knowingly make up fake stories or who disseminate crazy conspiracy theories
– and no one finds such behavior more offensive than I do. But does no one recall the lies about Iraq's WMD and other U.S. government
falsehoods and deceptions over the years?
Often, it is the few dissenters who alert the American people to the truth, even as the Times, Post, CNN and other big outlets
are serving as the real propaganda agents, accepting what the "important people" say and showing little or no professional skepticism.
And, given the risk of thermo-nuclear war with Russia, why aren't liberals and progressives demanding at least a critical
examination of what's coming from the U.S. intelligence agencies and the mainstream press?
The answer seems to be that many liberals and progressives are so blinded by their fury over Donald Trump's election that they
don't care what lines are crossed to destroy or neutralize him. Plus, for some liberal entities, there's lots of money to be made.
For instance, the American Civil Liberties Union has made its "resistance" to the Trump administration an important part of its
fundraising. So, the ACLU is doing nothing to defend the rights of news organizations and journalists under attack. When I asked
ACLU about the Justice Department's move against RT and other encroachments on press freedom, I was told by ACLU spokesman Thomas
Dresslar: "Thanks for reaching out to us. Unfortunately, I've been informed that we do not have anyone able to speak to you about
this."
Meanwhile, the Times and other traditional "defenders of a free press" are now part of the attack machine against a free press.
While much of this attitude comes from the big media's high-profile leadership of the anti-Trump Resistance and anger at any resistors
to the Resistance, mainstream news outlets have chafed for years over the Internet undermining their privileged role as the gatekeepers
of what Americans get to see and hear.
For a long time, the big media has wanted an excuse to rein in the Internet and break the small news outlets that have challenged
the power – and the profitability – of the Times, Post, CNN, etc. Russia-gate and Trump have become the cover for that restoration
of mainstream authority.
So, as we have moved into this dangerous New Cold War, we are living in what could be called "Establishment McCarthyism,"
a hysterical but methodical strategy for silencing dissent and making sure that future mainstream groupthinks don't get challenged.
"... Bannon is almost universally loathed by the Washington press corps, and not just for his politics. When he was the CEO of the pro-Trump Breitbart website, he competed with traditional media outlets, and he has often mercilessly attacked and ridiculed them. ..."
"... The animosity towards Bannon reached new heights last month, when he incautiously told the New York Times that "the media should be embarrassed and humiliated and keep its mouth shut and just listen for a while." He also said the media was "the opposition party" to the Trump administration. To the Washington media, those are truly fighting words. ..."
"... Bannon's comments were outrageous, but they are hardly new. In 2009, President Obama's White House communications director, Anita Dunn, sought to restrict Fox News' access to the White House. She even said, "We're going to treat them the way we would treat an opponent." The media's outrage over that remark was restrained, to say the least. ..."
"... Reporters and pundits are also stepping up the effort to portray Bannon as the puppet master in the White House. Last week, MSNBC's Morning Joe co-host Mika Brzezinski said, "Legitimate media are getting word that Steve Bannon is the last guy in the room, in the evening especially, and he's pulling the strings." Her co-host, Joe Scarborough, agreed that Bannon's role should be "investigated." ..."
"... I'm all for figuring out who the powers behind the curtain are in the White House, but we saw precious little interest in that during the Obama administration. ..."
"... Liberal writer Steven Brill wrote a 2015 book, America's Bitter Pill , in which he slammed "incompetence in the White House" for the catastrophic launch of Obamacare. "Never [has there] been a group of people who more incompetently launched something," he told NPR's Terry Gross, who interviewed him about the book. He laid much of the blame at Jarrett's doorstep. "The people in the administration who knew it was going wrong went to the president directly with memos, in person, to his chief of staff," he said. "The president was protected, mostly by Valerie Jarrett, from doing anything. . . . He didn't know what was going on in the single most important initiative of his administration." How important was Jarrett inside the Obama White House? Brill interviewed the president about the struggles of Obamacare and reported Obama's conclusion: "At this point, I am not so interested in Monday-morning quarterbacking the past." ..."
"... five of the highest-ranking Obama officials had told him that "as a practical matter . . . Jarrett was the real chief of staff on any issues that she wanted to weigh in on, and she jealously protected that position by making sure the president never gave anyone else too much power." When Brill asked the president about these aides' assessment of Jarrett, Obama "declined comment," Brill wrote in his book. That, in and of itself, was an answer. Would that Jarrett had received as much media scrutiny of her role in eight years under Obama as Bannon has in less than four weeks. ..."
"... I've had my disagreements with Bannon, whose apocalyptic views on some issues I don't share. Ronald Reagan once said that if someone in Washington agrees with you 80 percent of the time, he is an ally, not an enemy. I'd guess Bannon wouldn't agree with that sentiment. ..."
Bannon is almost universally loathed by the Washington press corps, and not just for his politics. When he was the
CEO of the pro-Trump Breitbart website, he competed with traditional media outlets, and he has often mercilessly attacked
and ridiculed them.
The animosity towards Bannon reached new heights last month, when he incautiously told the New York Times that "the media
should be embarrassed and humiliated and keep its mouth shut and just listen for a while." He also said the media was "the opposition
party" to the Trump administration. To the Washington media, those are truly fighting words.
Joel Simon, of the Committee to Protect Journalists, told CNN that "this kind of speech not [only] undermines the work of the
media in this country, it emboldens autocratic leaders around the world." Jacob Weisberg, the head of the Slate Group, tweeted that
Bannon's comment was terrifying and "tyrannical."
Bannon's comments were outrageous, but they are hardly new. In 2009, President Obama's White House communications director,
Anita Dunn, sought to restrict Fox News' access to the White House. She even said, "We're going to treat them the way we would treat
an opponent." The media's outrage over that remark was restrained, to say the least.
Ever since Bannon's outburst, you can hear the media gears meshing in the effort to undermine him. In TV green rooms and at Washington
parties, I've heard journalists say outright that it's time to get him. Time magazine put a sinister-looking Bannon on its
cover, describing him as "The Great Manipulator." Walter Isaacson, a former managing editor of Time , boasted to MSNBC that
the image was in keeping with a tradition of controversial covers that put leaders in their place. "Likewise, putting [former White
House aide] Mike Deaver on the cover, the brains behind Ronald Reagan, that ended up bringing down Reagan," he told the hosts of
Morning Joe . "So you've got to have these checks and balances, whether it's the judiciary or the press."
Reporters and pundits are also stepping up the effort to portray Bannon as the puppet master in the White House. Last week,
MSNBC's Morning Joe co-host Mika Brzezinski said, "Legitimate media are getting word that Steve Bannon is the last guy in
the room, in the evening especially, and he's pulling the strings." Her co-host, Joe Scarborough, agreed that Bannon's role should
be "investigated."
I'm all for figuring out who the powers behind the curtain are in the White House, but we saw precious little interest in
that during the Obama administration.
It wasn't until four years after the passage of Obamacare that a journalist reported on just how powerful White House counselor
Valerie Jarrett had been in its flawed implementation. Liberal writer Steven Brill wrote a 2015 book, America's Bitter Pill
, in which he slammed "incompetence in the White House" for the catastrophic launch of Obamacare. "Never [has there] been a group
of people who more incompetently launched something," he told NPR's Terry Gross, who interviewed him about the book. He laid much
of the blame at Jarrett's doorstep. "The people in the administration who knew it was going wrong went to the president directly
with memos, in person, to his chief of staff," he said. "The president was protected, mostly by Valerie Jarrett, from doing anything.
. . . He didn't know what was going on in the single most important initiative of his administration." How important was Jarrett
inside the Obama White House? Brill interviewed the president about the struggles of Obamacare and reported Obama's conclusion: "At
this point, I am not so interested in Monday-morning quarterbacking the past."
Brill then bluntly told the president that five of the highest-ranking Obama officials had told him that "as a practical matter
. . . Jarrett was the real chief of staff on any issues that she wanted to weigh in on, and she jealously protected that position
by making sure the president never gave anyone else too much power." When Brill asked the president about these aides' assessment
of Jarrett, Obama "declined comment," Brill wrote in his book. That, in and of itself, was an answer. Would that Jarrett had received
as much media scrutiny of her role in eight years under Obama as Bannon has in less than four weeks.
I've had my disagreements with Bannon, whose apocalyptic views on some issues I don't share. Ronald Reagan once said that
if someone in Washington agrees with you 80 percent of the time, he is an ally, not an enemy. I'd guess Bannon wouldn't agree with
that sentiment.
But the media's effort to turn Bannon into an enemy of the people is veering into hysterical character assassination. The Sunday
print edition of the New York Times ran an astonishing 1,500-word story headlined: "Fascists Too Lax for a Philosopher Cited
by Bannon." (The online headline now reads, "Steve Bannon Cited Italian Thinker Who Inspired Fascists.") The Times based this
headline on what it admits was "a passing reference" in
a speech by Bannon at a Vatican conference in 2014 . In that speech, Bannon made a single mention of Julius Evola, an obscure
Italian philosopher who opposed modernity and cozied up to Mussolini's Italian Fascists.
George Papadopoulos ... in 03/06//16, he joined the Trump campaign as a low-level foreign
policy adviser.
Between 03/15/16 and 09/15/16 he tried six times to to arrange meetings between the
Trump campaign and Russians, all of them rejected.
On 04/26/16 he met with a Russian contact in London and was "reportedly" offered "dirt" on
Hillary.
05/21/16. According to Mueller's investigation, a Trump campaign official refused
Papadopoulos's offer to broker meetings with Russian officials.
09/15/16. Papadopoulos emailed a Russian contact, Boris Epshteyn, trying to connect him
with Sergei Milliam, author of much of the Fusion GPS "dossier".
01/27/17. Papadopoulos was interviewed by the FBI, which resulted in his eventual
indictment for lying to the Bureau.
As Pat Buchanan discusses above, on 12/30/17, the NYT's Maggie Haberman (known to be
linked with the DNC), marketed a narrative that the FBI opened its Trump investigation due to
Papadopoulos, and not because of the "dossier".
These dated facts are taken, mostly verbatim, from a timeline compiled by Doug Ross
I recommend his: A TIMELINE OF TREASON: How the DNC and FBI Leadership Tried to Fix a
Presidential Election [Updated Saturday, December 30, 2017].
It's an excellent account of the key events, from 05/31/13 to the present, with dates and
links to key documents.
You can find it at his dougross timelineoftreason website.
Central to the Trump-Bannon approach to US politics has been the fist of defiance against
those entities of establishment fame. There is the Central Intelligence Agency, which Trump
scorned; there is the FBI, which Trump is at war with. Then there is the Department of Justice,
which he regards as singularly unjust.
Now he is fraternizing with former enemy
Meantime the Trump machine, continues to function with indignant disdain toward the old Obama
establishment. As long as that lasts, he will thrive.
It was always about the money laundering.
From today's Guardian:
Trump predicted in an interview with the New York Times last week that the special counsel
was "going to be fair", though he also said the investigation "makes the country look very
bad". The president and his allies deny any collusion with Russia and the Kremlin has denied
interfering.
Bannon has criticised Trump's decision to fire Comey. In Wolff's book, obtained by the
Guardian ahead of publication from a bookseller in New England, he suggests White House hopes
for a quick end to the Mueller investigation are gravely misplaced.
"You realise where this is going," he is quoted as saying. "This is all about money
laundering. Mueller chose [senior prosecutor Andrew] Weissmann first and he is a
money-laundering guy. Their path to fucking Trump goes right through Paul Manafort, Don Jr
and Jared Kushner It's as plain as a hair on your face."
Last month it was reported that federal prosecutors had subpoenaed records from Deutsche
Bank, the German financial institution that has lent hundreds of millions of dollars to the
Kushner property empire. Bannon continues: "It goes through Deutsche Bank and all the Kushner
shit. The Kushner shit is greasy. They're going to go right through that. They're going to
roll those two guys up and say play me or trade me."
Blast from the past. Now we know why Coney behaved this way and who was instrumental in exonerating Hillary. They wanted to
derail both sanders and Trump.
Notable quotes:
"... Comey called her "extremely careless." That was highly charitable. But even by that standard, Hillary was grossly negligent with classified material. Comey says Hillary had no intent to transmit information to foreign powers. But that's not what the statute requires. ..."
"... The FBI said in their statement that they found documents classified as Secret and Top Secret on her personal server. ..."
"... That means she gets off if the Defense lawyer can convince the Jury it's reasonable to believe a sixty-something policy wonk had no fucking clue that a server in her basement was less secure then a government email account because she was not consciously choosing to be less secure. ..."
"... So in this case the FBI chose not to charge her for something we all know she did and is a clear violation of the law as written. ..."
"... Lack of legitimacy hasn't hampered her at all. The same goes for lack of morality, lack of patriotism, lack of decency, lack of conscience. Really at this point we need 7 dwarfs and a prince to rid us of her. ..."
"... More than 2,000 of the 30,490 emails Clinton turned over to the State Department in December 2014 contained classified information, including 110 emails in 52 email chains that contained classified information at the time they were sent or received , Comey said. ..."
"... For Hillary the 110 emails have all been verified by the owning agency that the information was classified at the time Hillary included it in her emails. Thus felonies, except that she is a Clinton and is thus exempt from the laws we peons are subject to. ..."
"... She moved, or caused to be moved, classified material off of a secure system onto an un-secure system. It would still be a felony if she had simply moved one of the 110 found documents to a thumb drive! The FBI basically said she broke the law 110 times and we are recommending to not prosecute! ..."
"... "the FBI itself, less than a year ago, charged one Bryan H. Nishimura, 50, of Folsom, who pleaded guilty to "unauthorized removal and retention of classified materials" without malicious intent, in other words precisely what the FBI alleges Hillary did" http://theantimedia.org/this-m... [theantimedia.org] ..."
"... What she did was illegal, and what she did should disqualify her from having a clearance. Far less connected people have done much the same and gotten 2 years probation and $7500 fine. Petraeus did much the same and got 2 years probation and $100,000 fine. There is plenty of evidence of her breaking the law. The problem is that no one will prosecute it because Hillary is rich enough to afford lawyers that could get her off, and it would just make it look political. ..."
"... She flatly violated a statute that only requires gross negligence (aka, "extreme carelessness"), but Comey dodged and said he wouldn't recommend prosecution because he could not prove intent - even though intent is not required by the statute. ..."
"... But the key point is that under the Espionage act (18 USC 793) you don't get to be careless with national secrets. You request a clearance you promise to not be careless under punishment of Law. ..."
"... She instructed her staff to "remove markings and send non-secure." Her defense was "they weren't -marked- classified when I sent them." ..."
"... I would say that her instruction "send non-secure" makes it pretty clear she knew it isn't secure, and was actively thinking of that fact when she told them to do it. At the same time, she was also setting her up defense, having them (illegally?) remove the classification markings so that she could later testify "they weren't marked classified when I forwarded them." Sounds like she knew it was illegal. ..."
"... That's pretty darn specific. If it was just the confidential stuff, I think your implication that the government classifies everything and this isn't a big deal would be very strong. Multiple accidental Top Secret information leaks is a bit different, though. In the last 15 years, we have sent many government workers to jail for leaking information like this, or even just having it stored at their house. [washingtonpost.com] ..."
"... Posting as AC for obvious reasons. If I had done anything remotely like what Hillary did when I was in the intelligence community, I would have gone to jail and never ever seen daylight again. But then again, I wasn't one of the "elite" and laws actually applied to me. ..."
"... In January 2015, officials reported the FBI and Justice Department prosecutors had recommended bringing felony charges against Petraeus for allegedly providing classified information to his biographer, Paula Broadwell (with whom he was having an affair), while serving as the director of the CIA Eventually, Petraeus pleaded guilty to one misdemeanor charge of mishandling classified information... On April 23, 2015, a federal judge sentenced Petraeus to two years' probation plus a fine of $100,000. The fine was more than double the amount the Justice Department had requested. ..."
"... You are correct: what he confirmed was that Clinton lied under oath to Congress, not to the FBI. (He also confirmed that she lied to the American people.) ..."
"... She couldn't have lied under oath to the FBI because she wasn't put under oath, and her interviews were neither recorded nor transcripts prepared, which really makes the whole investigation a farce. ..."
"... Comey will now be tasked with a formal investigation of her lying to Congress. If we're lucky, they'll still get her. ..."
"... I think Clinton is unsuitable for the job of president because she is dishonest, corrupt, and, above all, incompetent. ..."
"... Are you living under a rock? Her private E-mail server, the hundreds of millions of dollars of donations to the Clinton Foundation while she was in office, her nepotism, her speaking fees, her corporate cronyism, her lies about her stance on gay marriage, and her revisionist AIDS history alone ought to be enough to consider her profoundly dishonest, corrupt, and incompetent, and we haven't even gotten to the real political stuff that the Republicans always harp on about. Really, what kind of gullible fool are you? ..."
This statute explicitly states that whoever, "entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document through
gross negligence permits the same to removed from its proper place of custody or having knowledge that the same has been illegally
removed from its proper place of custody.shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."
Comey called her "extremely careless." That was highly charitable. But even by that standard, Hillary was grossly negligent
with classified material. Comey says Hillary had no intent to transmit information to foreign powers. But that's not what the
statute requires.
18 USC 1924.
This statute states that any employee of the United States who "knowingly removes [classified] documents or materials without
authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title
or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both." Hillary set up a private server explicitly to do this.
18 USC 798.
This statute states that anyone who "uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United Statesany classified
informationshall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both." Hillary transmitted classified
information in a manner that harmed the United States; Comey says she may have been hacked.
18 USC 2071.
This statute says that anyone who has custody of classified material and "willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates,
obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years." Clearly,
Hillary meant to remove classified materials from government control.
Anonymous Coward writes: on Thursday July 07, 2016 @09:28PM (
#52467767 )
The FBI said in their statement that they found documents classified as Secret and Top Secret on her personal server.
A clear-case of hate-reading. Which always gets more complicated when you add in legal English. Especially since we're talking
about a defendant in a criminal case, and there's this "Reasonable Doubt" thing that means you can get off even if the Jury
is pretty sure you did it. To counter your specific points:
18 USC 793:
"Gross negligence" is an extremely specific legal term. The
definition [wikipedia.org] starts with extreme
carelessness, but specifies that the carelessness must "shows a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable
care, and likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm." Note all that shit about what's going on in the defendants head
("conscious and voluntary")?
That means she gets off if the Defense lawyer can convince the Jury it's reasonable to believe a sixty-something policy
wonk had no fucking clue that a server in her basement was less secure then a government email account because she was not
consciously choosing to be less secure.
18 USC 1924:
Good luck proving that beyond a reasonable doubt. She swore up and down she had no classified info on the server. Which
means to prove that interesting "knowingly" word you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she was lying when she said
that.
Moreover there's an equally interesting "without authority" clause. She's an OCA, and if her President gets called
to the stand and asked "do you think she did something wrong?" he will say no. Moreover the fact that previous Secretaries
did it without being charged, and that John Kerry felt he had to explicitly ban the practice of keeping info on your own server,
strongly implies that it was authorized at the time.
18 USC 798:
Don't be ridiculous. You're seriously arguing that the Secretary of State, who serves at the pleasure of the person
who defines the national interest of the United States, emailing some foreign leader or another is "using classified info to
harm the United States?" Don't get me wrong I'm sure that in literal terms many cabinet officers have been fuck-ups who were
hurting the country (looking at you Rummy), but that's not illegal.
18 USC 2071:
You see that pronoun "same?" The antecedent is "any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed
or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or
public officer of the United States." The whole problem is that she failed to keep her emails in a governmental system, not
that she went into some US Clerk's office, ransacked the files for her emails, and then ran away laughing evilly.
Anonymous Coward writes: on Thursday July 07, 2016 @09:28AM (
#52462567 )
Comey didn't say that she leaked anything. He said that she didn't properly safeguard classified information.
However, there was no intent to leak information, nor is there evidence that anything was leaked. Comey searched high and low
for a precedent which would allow him to bring charges, and he concluded that if he indicted Clinton, he would probably have to
indict a significant portion of the federal bureaucracy.
Hard to bring criminal charges for utilizing a bad process. "Should have known better" isn't a criminal offense.
Actually, you are wrong, it is a criminal offense. Anyone given classified information is briefed on the proper use and handling
of said classified information. The law, under 18 USC 793 subsection (f) actually states that any form of information that through
gross negligence is removed from it's proper place of custody is subject to criminal fines or up to 10 years in prison.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793
Information that the Secretary of State has that she transmits to her subordinates on an unsecured email server does meet the
requirement of "gross negligence".
So in this case the FBI chose not to charge her for something we all know she did and is a clear violation of the law as
written.
He asks the convention to vote that it is unwilling to select a person who has been shown to be 'careless about protecting
government secrets' etc etc.
The delegates would be free to pass such a motion, despite being bound to vote for Hilary when the actual roll call occurs.
If a large number of her delegates support the critical motion, her legitimacy is gone.
Lack of legitimacy hasn't hampered her at all. The same goes for lack of morality, lack of patriotism, lack of decency,
lack of conscience. Really at this point we need 7 dwarfs and a prince to rid us of her.
Anonymous Coward writes: on Thursday July 07, 2016 @06:36AM (
#52461905 )
Page 21: Secretary Powell did not employ a Department email account, even after OpenNet's introduction. He has publicly written:
"To complement the official State Department computer in my office, I installed a laptop computer on a private line. My personal
email account on the laptop allowed me direct access to anyone online. I started shooting emails to my principal assistants, to
individual ambassadors, and increasingly to my foreign -minister colleagues...."
Much of the Bush White House used email addresses on Bush's private
gwb43.com [wikipedia.org] server.
This was originally set up by Rove and Dubya to coordinate the perfectly legal (and thus, by definition, legitimate) firing of
eight Prosecutors who went after corrupt Republicans, and was designed to be FOIA and Records request immune. It auto-deleted
all emails after a period of time.
While it's hard to find direct evidence of the server Powell used, he
has admitted
[politico.com] that a) he used a private address and b) he has no copies of the emails. He claims he never used it to discuss
classified info, but that's more then a wee bit unlikely as much info is considered classified by somebody, and it's impossible
to verify because all of them are gone. Nonetheless
nonetheless [cnn.com] he did have some classified info sent to his email address. Many of the Hillary emails that were declared
Classified after the fact would be impossible to find for Powell or Rice because they were discussions with people who did not
have state.gov email addresses because at the time the whole state.gov email system was just being set up.
Anonymous Coward writes: on Thursday July 07, 2016 @07:05AM (
#52461955 )
"At a minimum, Secretary Powell should have surrendered all emails sent from or received in his personal account that related
to Department business. Because he did not do so at the time that he departed government service or at any time thereafter, Secretary
Powell did not comply with Department policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act. In an attempt
to address this deficiency, NARA requested that the Department inquire with Secretary Powell's "internet service or email provider"
to determine whether it is still possible to retrieve the email records that might remain on its servers.
The Under Secretary for Management subsequently informed NARA that the Department sent a letter to Secretary Powell's representative
conveying this request. As of May 2016, the Department had not received a response from Secretary Powell or his representative."
Anonymous Coward writes: on Thursday July 07, 2016 @02:10PM (
#52464787 )
A lot of people did the same thing and Colin Powell was one of them.
No. There's a difference here. From FBI director Comey and the State Department:
More than 2,000 of the 30,490 emails Clinton turned over to the State Department in December 2014 contained classified information,
including 110 emails in 52 email chains that contained classified information at the time they were sent or received , Comey said.
The State Department inquiry identified 10 messages sent to Rice's immediate staff that were classified and two sent to Powell,
according to Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland, the ranking member on the House Oversight and Benghazi committees.
The emails, Cummings said, appear to have no classification markings, and it is still unclear if the content of the emails
was or should have been considered classified when the emails were originally written and sent.
It appears that Clinton sent / received over 100 Emails clearly marked "secret" in some form or another; Powell had 2 Emails
retroactively classified. Seems like a very narrow distinction, but it's not. Clinton handled 110 messages (those that were found)
that were unambiguously marked as classified, Powell did not.
The external mail server is not the real problem. Her holding on to the email long after she was supposed to have turned it
over is a minor problem. The 110 Classified emails (those containing information that was classified at the time that she sent
the email) is the problem. Each of those emails is a felony. You don't put classified information on an unclassified network.
Regardless of where the server is hosted from.
A review of Colin Powell's email which was turned over as required upon his departure from the office, (rather than two years
later) found two emails that contained information the State Dept classified after he sent the information. That is not a crime.
It was unclassified when he sent the information. He reviewed the two emails and disagrees that it should have been classified.
And as the top Original Classifying Authority (an individual authorized to determine if information needs to be classified and
at what level) for all of the Dept. of State during his tenure it is his call.
For Sec Rice they found about a dozen emails classified after the fact on her email that was also turned over when required.
Again classified after the fact, so not a crime.
For Hillary the 110 emails have all been verified by the owning agency that the information was classified at the time
Hillary included it in her emails. Thus felonies, except that she is a Clinton and is thus exempt from the laws we peons are subject
to.
Are you seriously trying to make this about a FOIA compliance issue? This has nothing to do with FOIA.
She moved, or caused to be moved, classified material off of a secure system onto an un-secure system. It would still be a felony
if she had simply moved one of the 110 found documents to a thumb drive! The FBI basically said she broke the law 110 times and
we are recommending to not prosecute!
Powell did not have a private server, and while he did have a personal address there is no evidence that any material that
was classified at the time was ever sent to/from it. Politifact rates Clinton's statement that her predecessors did it as "Mostly
false"
"the FBI itself, less than a year ago, charged one Bryan H. Nishimura, 50, of Folsom, who pleaded guilty to "unauthorized
removal and retention of classified materials" without malicious intent, in other words precisely what the FBI alleges Hillary
did" http://theantimedia.org/this-m...
[theantimedia.org]
The Government Has Prosecuted Nearly Every Violator of Secrecy Rules Before Hillary Clinton. The Obama administration has filed
more charges against those who leak classified information than all previous presidential administrations combined, according
to a statement made by CNN's Jake Tapper that was marked "True" by Politifact.
http://usuncut.com/politics/cl...
[usuncut.com]
What she did was illegal, and what she did should disqualify her from having a clearance. Far less connected people have
done much the same and gotten 2 years probation and $7500 fine. Petraeus did much the same and got 2 years probation and $100,000
fine. There is plenty of evidence of her breaking the law. The problem is that no one will prosecute it because Hillary is rich
enough to afford lawyers that could get her off, and it would just make it look political.
(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book,
sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating
to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered
to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same
has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen,
abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior
officer-
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
She flatly violated a statute that only requires gross negligence (aka, "extreme carelessness"), but Comey dodged and said
he wouldn't recommend prosecution because he could not prove intent - even though intent is not required by the statute.
Now, you can argue 18 U.S. Code 793 (a), which requires intent, could not be prosecuted, but 18 U.S. Code 793 (f) clearly was
violated.
Hillary is a criminal who the FBI declined to recommend prosecution for.
Handling classified information requires diligence. You don't get to be careless with it. Intent is not required because you
promise to not be careless with it.
If I allowed through omission, inattention, disregard for process or simple stupidity broke my employer's sensitive data policies
ten times a month I'd have made it around three days before being sacked.
through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody
Comey proved that. She was extremely careless (gross negligence), and she removed classified data from its proper place of
custody (secure networks) and placed it on her private server.
This is beyond a reasonable doubt.
If you assert that Hillary actually ordered the building of a private server, then she's actually guilty of more - that proves
intent :)
The words "extremely careless" were chosen carefully to avoid saying "negligent". To be careless is to be ignorant of the required
security procedures, while to be ignorant is to know what's proper and required, and choosing to not attempt to follow it. If
you're going to go down that road, you'll need to establish that the sysadmins responsible for that server were aware of the that
the system could hold classified information, and they knew the security requirements necessary to protect a system holding classified
information, and chose willingly to leave it unsecured.
What proof is there that the sysadmins were competent, beyond the faint hope that they should be?
What proof do you have that she personally put classified information on her server?
What proof is there that, at the time the server was built, it was intended to hold classified information?
There are an awful lot of bad things here... certainly enough to say the handling was careless. Unfortunately, without an absolutely
solid case for a particular and completely-provable allegation, a successful prosecution is extremely unlikely, and would not
serve the cause of justice in any meaningful way.
This is not about what the sys-admins knew. The server was not on a classified network. It should never have had any classified
on it.
You don't get to be careless with classified information.
The information was on her account that she held the password for. That means she put it on there, or is responsible for giving
an aid her password to put the information on the account. She is only responsible for information she sends, something someone
else sends to her would not be of interest but would result in charges against the other person. Where are those individuals?
This is about classified information put into emails sent from her personal account on her private server. That means she is
responsible, and carelessness is not a valid excuse.
The Server was not intended to hold classified information, it was on the internet, not one of the physically separate classified
networks.
But the key point is that under the Espionage act (18 USC 793) you don't get to be careless with national secrets. You
request a clearance you promise to not be careless under punishment of Law.
That email about the fax proves only that a particular message was requested to be transmitted in an insecure manner. That
does not mean the contents of the fax were sensitive or that removing the markings was improper. As I understand, the subject
of the fax was a set of talking points for a speech, which were sensitive only in that they were not yet publicly released. If
there was indeed a classified piece of information in the fax, it could have been sanitized prior to the insecure transmission.
Without seeing the classified version, it is impossible to tell.
It's not "moving the goal post" to point out that your kick fell far short. Again, consider that a prosecution would be arguing
before a court of law. Nothing is obvious, and nothing is beyond question. If you want to prove something, you have to show your
entire case.
You don't just remove markings. The only exception to this is if the markings were all (U) Unclassified. Then
and only then can they be removed without going through a formal declassification process.
Actually, yes, you can usually just remove markings from (or more precisely, rewrite without markings) unclassified material
that's on a secure system. The unclassified material doesn't need to be "declassified" because it was never classified to begin
with. That includes unclassified parts of a larger document that's marked as containing classified information, and by the same
extension it applies to unclassified data on computer systems that are marked as containing classified data.
What's important is that no classified information actually gets out of the secure environment. Nobody cares about other information,
with a few exceptions.
They are equal as that is the description found in the relevant statute. You don't get to be careless with classified information.
Being careless with classified information is Gross Negligence. This is because mishandled national secrets can cost lives.
Proving Gross negligence is easy. Did classified information get manually transcribed onto the unclassified system? (there
is no software link between the various classified networks and machines and an unclassified network or machine) Yes it did. Was
the intent to transfer to unauthorized persons to cause harm to the US? No, therefore we have Gross negligence.
She instructed her staff to "remove markings and send non-secure." Her defense was "they weren't -marked-
classified when I sent them."
I would say that her instruction "send non-secure" makes it pretty clear she knew it isn't secure, and was actively thinking
of that fact when she told them to do it. At the same time, she was also setting her up defense, having them (illegally?) remove
the classification markings so that she could later testify "they weren't marked classified when I forwarded them." Sounds like
she knew it was illegal.
She consciously refused a state.gov email account.
She voluntarily setup a private email server.
Even a technologically illiterate grandma, when told by her sysadmins at the state department that what she was doing was wrong,
makes is clear that it was likely to cause foreseeable harm.
tl;dr - a technophobic grandma doesn't know enough to ask for a private server, she just takes the state department blackberry
and lives with whatever email it's configured with.
I'm sure this is going to sound stupid, but I'm not sure it's appropriate to prosecute, even when the letter of the law has
been definitively broken. Obviously, this is how it should work, but in many cases laws regarding handling of protected information
are prosecuted with extreme discretion. In other words, charges are often not brought unless there is intent and/or aggravating
factors, even when the law has clearly been broken as written.
Really we need someone with substantial legal experience in this specific area to comment (I won't hold my breath for that).
Despite the fact that the above code is fairly straight forward, I don't feel qualified to assess the FBI's conclusion: "Although
there is evidence of potential violations regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable
prosecutor would bring such a case," (James Comey).
I'm not addressing whether or not it makes sense to use discretion in these cases. Personally, I don't think it's appropriate
and sets a double standard; it's not like someone selling drugs will not get prosecuted because there was no intent to cause addiction.
That said, I don't make the rules, and I really don't think most people in this forum are qualified to judge whether she is
getting preferential treatment by applying the letter of the law, combined with the way that other laws are prosecuted (and the
way laws should be prosecuted). The reality is that, right or wrong, this is not how laws regarding handling of sensitive information
are applied. For the record, I despise Hillary & the Clintons and will not vote for her, even though the alternative is at least
as terrible.
I understand discretion - but if anything, we should hold our government leaders to a higher level of accountability.
Letting Johnny get off with a warning after his first shoplifting attempt, or sending Judy on her way after she's caught speeding
with a warning, is discretion.
But if Johnny is a Congressman, or Judy is the president's daughter, you simply cannot afford to let them off the hook without
damaging the perception of fairness. When the rich and powerful get away with something that we regularly impose upon the poor
and weak, even if occasionally we let the poor and weak get by with just a warning, we destroy the sense of justice in the community.
No the crime is to mishandle or fail to protect classified information. To do so is to be grossly negligent. It does not require
intent, it does not require the act to be willful. Carelessness with classified information is Gross Negligence and is a felony.
Carelessness or willful, both are Gross negligence. Putting classified information into a vulnerable position is Gross Negligence.
When you are granted a Clearance and access, you sign what is basically a Non-disclosure agreement where you acknowledge that
if you have any role in the release or mishandling of classified information you are punishable under the law. She put 110 emails
containing classified information onto an unclassified network. Considering the handling and marking processes of working with
classified information, to describe her actions as careless is false, but that opinion aside, you don't get to be careless with
classified information. Being careless with classified information gets people killed and is illegal.
Anonymous Coward writes: on Wednesday July 06, 2016 @07:33PM (
#52459649 )
He said Clinton and her staff sent 110 emails in 52 chains containing information that was classified at the time. Eight
of those emails carried top secret information , eight contained classified information and 36 had secret info.
I don't think that's what the FBI statement is saying at all, and I think you're looking at something that's not the statement...
It's very clear that the FBI found that classified information was exposed, but not "in such a way as to support an inference
of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice." The FBI characterization
of what was done is "extremely careless." This is interesting wording because that is not a legal term associated with disclosure
of classified material; "grossly negligent" is the legal term associated with the threshold for felony mishandling of classified
information.
The FBI statement is also very clear on the security classification of what they found, which is why I think you're reading
something else.
110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they
were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains
contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification.
That's pretty darn specific. If it was just the confidential stuff, I think your implication that the government classifies
everything and this isn't a big deal would be very strong. Multiple accidental Top Secret information leaks is a bit different,
though. In the last 15 years, we have sent many government workers to jail for leaking information like this, or even
just having it
stored at their house. [washingtonpost.com]
It was on an unclassified server on the internet. It was exposed. It doesn't matter if anyone found it or not.
It was exposed.
As to classified information there is Classified information marked Confidential, Secret and Top Secret (with additional caveats
and Special access designations). That is classified information. That is what was found on her emails. It is all marked very
clearly as to it's classification level. How is it marked? At the top and bottom of every page, the highest level of information
on the page is marked. At the beginning of every paragraph it is marked. And on the first and last page of the document the overall
(highest) level of classification is marked as well as who classified it and instructions as to when it is to be declassified.
There is also sensitive but unclassified information that, unless on a classified system will most likely not be well marked.
That is not what was found 110 emails containing classified information were found 8 instances had TOP SECRET info.
The Classification system for truly Classified information is not vague, it is clear, it is concise. There are specific and
strict rules for marking it as such, and for handling it. That such information ended up on her private unclassified server exposes
the information. Just being put onto an unclassified storage medium is a criminal act. It does not require intent, it does not
require someone without authorization to access it. That the information was in her emails on the unclassified server on the internet
is sufficient to meet the grounds for the Gross Negligence standard of 18, 793(f).
Anonymous Coward writes: on Wednesday July 06, 2016 @07:36PM (
#52459661 )
Posting as AC for obvious reasons. If I had done anything remotely like what Hillary did when I was in the intelligence
community, I would have gone to jail and never ever seen daylight again. But then again, I wasn't one of the "elite" and laws
actually applied to me.
I support the NSA and I also support Snowden. Snowden did a brave and terrifying thing that needed
to happen, that needed to be done, knowing the consequences he faced. The NSA is a good organization with many good people doing
what they need to do with love for their countrymen in their hearts and honor in their actions. Some people in the NSA made bad,
perhaps even evil decisions. Sometimes bad people get put in positions they shouldn't be, and sometimes people with power, even
good people, make decisions that are bad.
Supporting the NSA doesn't mean I support all the decisions or people that are a part of it. I believe the NSA did some bad
things, but that doesn't mean I think the organization is bad or comprised of bad people.
What Snowden did may have been illegal, but it was a choice to do what he believed was right. For what it's worth I believe
it was right too. I think it is a terrible thing to have to choose between following the law and doing what is right when the
two are mutually exclusive.
The US justice system was designed intentionally to have people determine not only whether the law was followed, but also whether
the law should apply. Snowden should be able to face a court of his peers and plead his case and that jury should be able to make
a judgement not based on the law, but on whether what he did was wrong or right. It disturbs and saddens me to realize I don't
trust that he could receive such a fair trial.
The Star Chamber was established to ensure the fair enforcement of laws against socially and politically prominent people so
powerful that ordinary courts would likely hesitate to convict them of their crimes.
The constitution would need to be modified, however.
The only times I've ever heard of an actual prosecution for mishandling has been when the person was suspected of actual spying,
or in Manning's case, whistleblowing
I'm surprised that you've not heard of the David Petraeus case.
In January 2015, officials reported the FBI and Justice Department prosecutors had recommended bringing felony charges
against Petraeus for allegedly providing classified information to his biographer, Paula Broadwell (with whom he was having an
affair), while serving as the director of the CIA Eventually, Petraeus pleaded guilty to one misdemeanor charge of mishandling
classified information... On April 23, 2015, a federal judge sentenced Petraeus to two years' probation plus a fine of $100,000.
The fine was more than double the amount the Justice Department had requested.
Petraeus's mistress was an Army Reserve intelligence officer with Top Secret clearance and had served in the
war zone. She used the information (much of which was Petraeus's notes/notbooks IIRC) to write his biography. I don't recall there
being any allegation of the information going further than that. (It was still wrong.)
As to intent - Hillary Clintons servers were created and operated by her order. Messages were bulk erased by her order. Her
intent of avoiding scrutiny is clear.
Where do you think Sid got the classified information? Why would he have it as an employee of the Clinton Foundation? Did he
have a clearance, and what was his need to know? Who sent it to him? There is little doubt it was all on purpose.
Petreaus doesn't come anywhere near comparing to Snowden. Petreaus gave 8 binders of his notes (some classified some not) to
his Mistress/biographer. She has a clearance, and referred to the notes in preparing the biography but no classified information
was included in her product.
Snowden stole thousands of classified documents and released them without regard to who got them.
The scale and scope are not comparable. Snowden's crime was far worse and far more damaging.
You are correct: what he confirmed was that Clinton lied under oath to Congress, not to the FBI. (He also confirmed that
she lied to the American people.)
She couldn't have lied under oath to the FBI because she wasn't put under oath, and her interviews were neither recorded
nor transcripts prepared, which really makes the whole investigation a farce.
Comey will now be tasked with a formal investigation of her lying to Congress. If we're lucky, they'll still get her.
She said that because nothing marked classified had been sent to her.
She has said that. She has also made the same statement without the word "marked".
I know this may be tough to believe, but a person can be wrong without actually lying.
The fact that she phrased her statement so carefully actually shows the opposite: even if literally true, that statement is
intended to deceive.
Even if the person is question is someone you disagree with politically.
I don't disagree much with Clinton politically as far as I know (it's hard to know what she really believes); I actually used
to be a registered Democrat until a few years ago.
I think Clinton is unsuitable for the job of president because she is dishonest, corrupt, and, above all, incompetent.
Are you living under a rock? Her private E-mail server, the hundreds of millions of dollars of donations to the Clinton
Foundation while she was in office, her nepotism, her speaking fees, her corporate cronyism, her lies about her stance on gay
marriage, and her revisionist AIDS history alone ought to be enough to consider her profoundly dishonest, corrupt, and incompetent,
and we haven't even gotten to the real political stuff that the Republicans always harp on about. Really, what kind of gullible
fool are you?
Michael Wolff (born August 27, 1953)[1] is an American author, essayist, and journalist, and a regular columnist and contributor
to USA Today, The Hollywood Reporter, and the UK edition of GQ.[2] He has received two National Magazine Awards, a Mirror Award, and
has authored seven books, including Burn Rate (1998) about his own dot-com company, and The Man Who Owns the News (2008), a
biography of Rupert Murdoch. He co-founded the news aggregation website Newser and is a former editor of Adweek.
Michael Wolff was born in Paterson, New Jersey, the son of Lewis Allen Wolff (October 10, 1920 - February 18, 1984)[5], an
advertising professional, and Marguerite "Van" (Vanderwerf) Wolff (November 7, 1925 – September 17, 2012)[6] a reporter for Paterson
Evening News.[7][8] He attended Columbia University in New York City, and graduated from Vassar College in 1975.[9] While a student
at Columbia, he worked for The New York Times as a copy boy
How Michael Wolf managed to tape people in WH?
Notable quotes:
"... "Michael Wolff has tapes to back up quotes in his incendiary book -- dozens of hours of them," Allen reports. "Among the sources he taped, I'm told, are Steve Bannon and former White House deputy chief of staff Katie Walsh." ..."
"... Soon after the Axios report dropped Thursday morning, White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders announced a ban on personal cell phones inside the White House -- "for both guests and staff." ..."
"... Wolff wrote in The Hollywood Reporter that he collected the material for his book as a "fly on the wall" over 18 months. Allen says that the White House concedes that Wolff received access to the building less than 20 times since Trump's inauguration. ..."
Mike Allen writes at Axios that Michael Wolff,
author of Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House, has "dozens of hours" of
recordings to corroborate the controversial quotes attributed to senior White House personnel
in the new book -- including former White House Chief Strategist and Breitbart executive
chairman Stephen K. Bannon.
"Michael Wolff has tapes to back up quotes in his incendiary book -- dozens of hours of
them," Allen reports. "Among the sources he taped, I'm told, are Steve Bannon and former White
House deputy chief of staff Katie Walsh."
Soon after the Axios report dropped Thursday morning, White House Press Secretary Sarah
Huckabee Sanders announced a
ban on personal cell phones inside the White House -- "for both guests and staff."
Wolff wrote in
The Hollywood Reporter that he collected the material for his book as a "fly on the wall"
over 18 months. Allen says that the White House concedes that Wolff received access to the
building less than 20 times since Trump's inauguration.
While Richman told CNN "No memo was given to me that was marked 'classified,' and James
Comey told Congressional investigators he tried to "write it in such a way that I don't include
anything that would trigger a classification," it appears the FBI's chief FOIA officer
disagrees .
While we
previously reported that Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) said four of the 7 Comey memos he
reviewed were "marked classified" at the "Secret" or "Confidential" level - tonight we find out
that every single Comey memo was classified at the time, per Judicial Watch director of
investigations Chris Farrell - who has a signed declaration from the FBI's chief FOIA officer
to that effect:
We have a sworn declaration from David Hardy who is the chief FOIA officer of the FBI that
we obtained just in the last few days, and in that sworn declaration, Mr. Hardy says that all
of Comey's memos - all of them, were classified at the time they were written, and they
remain classified. - Chris Farrell, Judicial Watch
Therefore, Farrell points out, Comey mishandled national defense information when he
"knowingly and willfully" leaked them to his friend at Columbia University.
It's also mishandling of national defense information, which is a crime. So it's clear
that Mr. Comey not only authored those documents, but then knowingly and willfully leaked
them to persons unauthorized, which is in and of itself a national security crime. Mr. Comey
should have been read his rights back on June 8th when he testified before the Senate.
In closing, Farrell tells Dobbs "Recently retired and active duty FBI agents have told me -
and it's several of them, they consider Comey to be a dirty cop ."
Trump's campaign to return manufacturing to America and repatriate profits held overseas
makes good business sense. The ravaging of America's once mighty industrial base to boost
corporate profits was a crime against the nation by unscrupulous Wall Street bankers and
short-sighted, greedy CEO's.
The basis of industrial power is the ability to make products people use. Shockingly, US
manufacturing has shrunk to only 14% of GDP. Today, America's primary business has become
finance, the largely non-productive act of paper-passing that only benefits a tiny big city
parasitic elite.
Trump_vs_deep_state is a natural reaction to the self-destruction of America's industrial base. But the
president's mania to wreck international trade agreements and impose tariff barriers will
result in diminishing America's economic and political influence around the globe.
Access to America's markets is in certain ways a more powerful political tool than
deployment of US forces around the globe. Lessening access to the US markets will inevitably
have negative repercussions on US exports.
Trump has been on a rampage to undo almost every positive initiative undertaken by the Obama
administration, even though many earned the US applause and respect around the civilized world.
The president has made trade agreements a prime target. He has targeted trade pacts involving
Mexico, Canada, the EU, Japan, China and a host of other nations by claiming they are unfair to
American workers. However, a degree of wage unfairness is the price Washington must pay for
bringing lower-cost nations into America's economic orbit.
This month, the Trump administration threatened new restrictions against 120 US trade
partners who may now face much higher tariffs on their exports to the US.
Trump is in a hurry because he fears he may not be re-elected. He is trying to eradicate all
vestiges of the Obama presidency with the ruthlessness and ferocity of Stalinist officials
eradicating every trace of liquidated commissars, even from official photos. America now faces
its own era of purges as an uneasy world watches.
"... In a wide-ranging interview with The New American magazine at his Florida studio, Stone offered insight into Trump -- and into his enemies [the deep state] and their tactics. " It's easy to forget that the shocking upset that Donald Trump pulled off has never been forgotten or acknowledged by the globalist cabal that has really infected both of our major parties, " he explained. "I say that as someone who is a sentimental Republican, but a Republican in the mold of Barry Goldwater who wanted government out of the bedroom, out of the boardroom, that believed in peace through strength, not, you know, neocons cruising the globe looking for expensive wars to profiteer in and stick our nose in." – New American ..."
Longtime Trump advisor and confidante Roger Stone is warning America that the Deep State is getting desperate to find a way to
remove Trump from office and since Plan "A" and "B" are not working out, a horrific Plan "C" may have to be put into play.
In a wide-ranging interview with
The New American magazine
at his Florida studio, Stone offered insight into Trump -- and into his enemies [the deep state]
and their tactics. "
It's easy to forget that the shocking upset that Donald Trump pulled off has never been forgotten
or acknowledged by the globalist cabal that has really infected both of our major parties,
" he explained. "I say that
as someone who is a sentimental Republican, but a Republican in the mold of Barry Goldwater who wanted government out of the
bedroom, out of the boardroom, that believed in peace through strength, not, you know, neocons cruising the globe looking for
expensive wars to profiteer in and stick our nose in." –
New
American
"He's a shock to the system," said Stone, a legendary political operative who, in addition to his longtime relationship
with Trump, has served as a senior campaign aide to Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Senator Bob Dole, and others. According to
Stone, Donald Trump's election represented the "hostile takeover of the old Republican Party, which we now hope to remake in
his image as a party that stands for economic nationalism, that stands for putting American interests ahead of globalist interests,
and re-affirms our sovereign rights as Americans."
"Now, I think the establishment, at this time, when the president has just passed his tax cut, has cut these regulations
-- so you see a record stock market, you see unemployment at all time lows, you see a booming housing market --
it's
easy to misread the deep enmity and hatred that the globalists and the Insiders have for this president, and to underestimate
their resolve to remove him
."
Stone believes the Deep State would, in fact, attempt to murder the president when Plan A and B fail, which seems the likely
scenario. "Having written books on the Kennedy assassination, having highlighted the attempted assassination of President Ronald
Reagan by people deeply associated with the Bush family, I think the establishment has Plan A, Plan B, and Plan C," he said.
"
Plan
A is very clearly a take-down by the illegitimate Special Counsel Robert Mueller,
who was appointed not by Jeff Sessions,
not at the direction of the president, but by this fellow Rosenstein, who is a close associate of Mueller and [disgraced former
FBI boss James] Comey, and who is a globalist Bush insider, a liberal Republican, who somehow got the number two position in
the Trump Justice Department," Stone warned, saying the establishment was now hoping Trump would fire Mueller to regain the
upper hand.
The other thing that is becoming more and more apparent, Stone said, is that "neither Mr. Mueller nor the House nor the
Senate Intelligence committees nor the Judiciary committees in those bodies have been able to find any evidence of Russian
collusion."
"Sorry, but Don Jr.'s meeting with a Russian lawyer that provided nothing is perfectly legal and proper," Stone said. "There's
nothing wrong with it. She produced no evidence, but what we did learn is that she was in the country thanks to the Obama FBI,
without a visa, and she was popping up and being photographed at Hillary rallies and in John McCain's office. She's a Quisling!
It's a setup! She's a spy. She delivered nothing. It's an attempt to entrap Donny Jr. in a meeting that's perfectly innocuous
and perfectly legal."
But the deep state's Plan B is to invoke the 25th Amendment.
"So we'll see an uptick in all of this 'Trump is mentally imbalanced, Trump is insane, Trump must be removed,'" Stone warned.
"Now you have to examine the extent to which they can whip up that hysteria as a backdrop because, without that hysteria, such
a political move on the president will fail." And once Plan B fails, the globalists will move on to Plan C, which is simply
an assassination.
"We know Plan C. We saw it in the case of
President John F. Kennedy,
who had crossed the Central Intelligence Agency and the Deep State over both the Cuban Missile
Crisis and the Bay of Pigs, both, I think, central,"
he said.
Today's
report on the filing of a suit against the "Deep State" DOJ, Rosenstein and Mueller by Paul
Manafort is a HUGE story. Manafort's suit is likely to shut down Mueller investigation!
No wonder the MSM came out with the Bannon – Trump story today. Whenever a huge story
comes out about Criminal and Corrupt Mueller and Rosenstein and the Deep State led DOJ, another
story is released by the MSM to change the subject in the media. Today the MSM talked about
Breitbart's Steve Bannon's remarks about members of President Trump's family. These remarks
have not yet been substantiated. However, the much bigger story in the news is that former
Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort sued the DOJ, Robert Mueller and Rod Rosenstein and is
demanding the Mueller investigation be shut down!
We have reported for months on the many criminal and corrupt actions taken by numerous
parties related to the Mueller investigation.
Mueller never should have taken on the job in the first place due to numerous conflicts. He
is best friends with fired leaker and former FBI Director James Comey. He
met with Comey shortly before Comey testified with Congress and for this alone he should
have recused himself. The team Mueller built to attack President Trump and have him removed is
all Deep State attorneys and crooks. Mueller's record in the past is scattered with actions
that let the Clintons off Scott free on numerous occasions when they should have been put in
jail.
But
the perhaps one of the most damning aspects of
the Mueller investigation is that it was not legal . The corrupt Mueller investigation is
tasked with finding a crime that does not exist in the law. It is a legal impossibility.
Mueller is being asked to do something that is manifestly unattainable.
FOX News Legal Analyst Gregg Jarrett stated
in an article a couple of months ago the fact that the entire Mueller investigation is
lawless. Jarrett argued that –
Shortly after the indictments[against Papadopoulos and Manafort] were unsealed, the
media's spirits were suddenly boosted when the special counsel revealed that a former adviser
to Trump pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his contacts with a Russian national during
his time on the Trump campaign. Surely this was evidence of illegal "collusion," right?
Wrong. George Papadopoulos pled guilty to a single charge of making a false statement to
the FBI. He was not charged with so-called "collusion" because no such crime exists in
American statutory law , except in anti-trust matters. It has no application to elections and
political campaigns.
It is not a crime to talk to a Russian. Not that the media would ever understand that.
They have never managed to point to a single statute that makes "colluding" with a foreign
government in a political campaign a crime, likely because it does not exist in the criminal
codes.
Jarrett then turned his attention to Corrupt Hillary –
It is against the law for the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee to
funnel millions of dollars to a British spy and to Russian sources in order to obtain the
infamous and discredited Trump "dossier." The Federal Election Campaign Act (52 USC 30101)
prohibits foreign nationals and governments from giving or receiving money in U.S. campaigns.
It also prohibits the filing of false or misleading campaign reports to hide the true purpose
of the money (52 USC 30121). This is what Clinton and the DNC appear to have done.
Most often the penalty for violating this law is a fine, but in egregious cases, like this
one, criminal prosecutions have been sought and convictions obtained. In this sense, it could
be said that Hillary Clinton is the one who was conspiring with the Russians by breaking
campaign finance laws with impunity.
But that's not all. Damning new evidence appears to show that Clinton used her office as
Secretary of State to confer benefits to Russia in exchange for millions of dollars in
donations to her foundation and cash to her husband. Secret recordings, intercepted emails,
financial records, and eyewitness accounts allegedly show that Russian nuclear officials
enriched the Clintons at the very time Hillary presided over a governing body which
unanimously approved the sale of one-fifth of America's uranium supply to Russia.
If this proves to be a corrupt "pay-to-play" scheme, it would constitute a myriad of
crimes, including bribery (18 USC 201-b), mail fraud (18 USC 1341), and wire fraud (18 USC
1343). It might also qualify for racketeering charges (18 USC 1961-1968), if her foundation
is determined to have been used as a criminal enterprise.
The US statutory law is clear and Jarrett points it out. He concluded with the following
–
Until now, no one had legal "standing" to argue in court that the appointment of Mueller
was illegal. The criminal charges [against Manafort and Papadopoulos] change all that. The
two defendants will be able to argue before a judge that Mueller's appointment by Acting
Attorney General Rod Rosenstein violated the special counsel law.
As I pointed out in a column last May, the law (28 CFR 600) grants legal authority to
appoint a special counsel to investigate crimes. Only crimes. He has limited jurisdiction.
Yet, in his order appointing Mueller as special counsel (Order No. 3915-2017), Rosenstein
directed him to investigate "any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and
individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump." It fails to identify any
specific crimes, likely because none are applicable.
To put it plainly, Mueller is tasked with finding a crime that does not exist in the law. It
is a legal impossibility. He is being asked to do something that is manifestly unattainable.
Today as reported by Cristina Laila at TGP,
Manafort sued the DOJ, Mueller and Rosenstein because what they are doing is not supported
by US Law. This is the biggest story of the day! Manafort is suing to have the Mueller
investigation shut down!
Manafort's case argues in paragraph 33 that the special counsel put in place by crooked
Rosenstein gave crooked and criminal Mueller powers that are not permitted by law –
But paragraph (b)(ii) of the Appointment Order purports to grant Mr. Mueller further
authority to investigate and prosecute " any matters that arose or may
arise directly from the investigation." That grant of authority is not authorized by
DOJ's special counsel regulations. It is not a "specific factual statement of the matter to
be investigated." Nor is it an ancillary power to address efforts to impede or obstruct
investigation under 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).
If Manafort wins this case – which it appears according to the law he will
– the entire investigation would be deemed illegal – which it is – and
therefore legally would have to be shut down – which it should be.
President Trump's former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, sued the special counsel on Wednesday and asked a federal court to
narrow his authority...
... ... ...
Mr. Manafort's lawsuit gives voice to one of the common grievances Mr. Trump's supporters
have with Mr. Mueller: None of the charges he has brought answer the central question of his
inquiry. Mr. Mueller is investigating the Russian government's meddling in the 2016
presidential election and whether anyone close to Mr. Trump was involved.
Mr. Manafort argued in the lawsuit that Mr. Mueller had gone too far. He sued both Mr.
Mueller and Rod J. Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general, who appointed Mr. Mueller. The
lawsuit said Mr. Rosenstein had improperly given Mr. Mueller the authority to investigate
"anything he stumbles across while investigating, no matter how remote."
Mr. Manafort asked a federal judge to reject Mr. Mueller's appointment as overly broad and
to dismiss the indictment against him. He also asked for a court order prohibiting Mr. Mueller
from investigating anything beyond Russian meddling in the election.
She called the controversy a "very well-orchestrated story concocted by one particular
manipulator," whom she identified repeatedly as American businessman Bill Browder.
Browder was once the biggest foreign investor in Russia, but he has since become a vocal
critic of the country's leadership and has clashed with Putin's inner circle.
Browder was a driving force behind the Magnitsky Act, a U.S. law passed in 2012 that imposes
economic sanctions and travel restrictions on Russians named as human rights abusers. Browder
believes it is Putin's No. 1 priority to get the U.S. to lift the sanctions imposed under the
act, which currently affect 44 Russians.
In her interview with Russian government-funded RT, Veselnitskaya called Browder "one of the
greatest experts in the field of manipulating the mass media," and said she had "no doubt that
this whole information campaign is being spun, encouraged and organized by that very man as
revenge" for a legal settlement earlier this year which effectively saw his efforts to expose
alleged Russian money-laundering in the U.S. hit a brick wall.
During Browder's appearance on "CBS This Morning" Tuesday, co-host Charlie Rose called
attention to Browder's description of Veselnitskaya as "probably the most aggressive person I
have ever encountered in all of my contacts with Russians" -- to which Browder replied, "Yes,
she's a remarkable person. I should caveat that: she's not aggressive in a physical
way."
Pat asks interesting question: "If Trump's alleged "collusion" with Putin to damage Clinton
was worthy of an all-out FBI investigation, why did the Clinton-DNC scheme to tie Trump to
Russian prostitutes, using British spies and former KGB agents, not merit an FBI
investigation?"
That suggest that Rosenstein is an accomplice of the FBI "gang of three"
NYT lost any respectability and is just a CIA controlled outlet. As one commenter aptly put
it: "The article provides further proof that anything the NY Times has published in the last 10
years or so, particularly since the organ became the property of Mexican Billionaire Carlos Slim,
is deep state bullshit."
Unlike honest investigation witch hunt has its own rules and dynamics. Mueller is completely
compromised by connections to the FBI "gang of three"
Notable quotes:
"... What was the basis for the belief Trump was colluding, that he was the Manchurian candidate of Vladimir Putin? What evidence did the FBI cite to get FISA court warrants to surveil and wiretap Trump's team? ..."
"... Yet, if Steele's dossier is a farrago of falsehoods and fake news, and the dossier's contents were used to justify warrants for wiretaps on Trump associates, Mueller has a problem. ..."
"... But if Papadopoulos's drunken babbling to the Aussie ambassador triggered the investigation in July 2016, why was George not interviewed by the FBI until January 2017? ..."
"... If Papadopoulos triggered the investigation, why the seeming FBI disinterest in him -- as compared to Steele? ..."
"... If Trump's alleged "collusion" with Putin to damage Clinton was worthy of an all-out FBI investigation, why did the Clinton-DNC scheme to tie Trump to Russian prostitutes, using British spies and former KGB agents, not merit an FBI investigation ..."
"... Why was there less concern about the Clinton campaign's ties to Russian agents, than to Trumpian "collusion" that is yet unproven? Consider what the British spy Steele and his former KGB/FSB comrades accomplished: They have kept alive a special counsel's investigation that has divided our country, imperiled the FBI's reputation, preoccupied and damaged a president, and partially paralyzed the U.S. government. Putin must be marveling at the astonishing success of his old comrades from KGB days, who could pull off an intelligence coup like this and so cripple the superpower that won the Cold War. ..."
What caused the FBI to open a counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign in
July 2016, which evolved into the criminal investigation that is said today to imperil the
Trump presidency?
As James Comey's FBI and Special Counsel Robert Mueller have, for 18 months, failed to prove
Donald Trump's "collusion" with the Kremlin, what was it, in mid-2016, that justified starting
this investigation?
What was the basis for the belief Trump was colluding, that he was the Manchurian
candidate of Vladimir Putin? What evidence did the FBI cite to get FISA court warrants to
surveil and wiretap Trump's team?
Republican congressmen have for months been demanding answers to these questions. And, as
Mueller's men have stonewalled, suspicions have arisen that this investigation was, from the
outset, a politicized operation to take down Trump.
Feeding those suspicions has been the proven anti-Trump bias of investigators. Also, wiretap
warrants of Trump's team are said to have been issued on the basis of a "dirty dossier" that
was floating around town in 2016 -- but which mainstream media refused to publish as they could
not validate its lurid allegations.
Who produced the dossier?
Ex-British spy Christopher Steele, whose dirt was delivered by ex-Kremlin agents. And Steele
was himself a hireling of Fusion GPS, the oppo research outfit enlisted and paid by the Clinton
campaign and DNC. Writes the Washington Times, Steele "paid Kremlin sources with Democratic
cash."
Yet, if Steele's dossier is a farrago of falsehoods and fake news, and the dossier's
contents were used to justify warrants for wiretaps on Trump associates, Mueller has a
problem.
Prosecutions his team brings could be contaminated by what the FBI did, leaving his
investigation discredited.
Fortunately, all this was cleared up for us New Year's Eve by a major revelation in The New
York Times. Top headline on page one:
"Unlikely Source Propelled Russia Meddling Inquiry" The story that followed correctly framed
the crucial question: "What so alarmed American officials to provoke the FBI to open a
counterintelligence investigation of the Trump campaign months before the presidential
election?"
The Times then gave us the answer we have been looking for: "It was not, as Trump and other
politicians have alleged, a dossier compiled by a former British spy hired by a rival campaign.
Instead it was firsthand information from one of America's closest intelligence allies."
The ally: Australia, whose ambassador to Britain was in an "upscale London Bar" in the West
End in May 2016, drinking with a sloshed George Papadopoulos, who had ties to the Trump
campaign and who informed the diplomat that Russia had dirt on Hillary Clinton. Papadopoulos
had reportedly been told in April that Russia had access to Clinton's emails.
Thus, when the DNC and John Podesta emails were splashed all over the U.S. press in June,
Amb. Alexander Downer, recalling his conversation with Papadopoulos, informed his government,
which has excellent ties to U.S. intelligence, and the FBI took it from there.
The Times' story pounds home this version of events: "The hacking and the revelation that a
member of the Trump campaign may have had inside information about it were driving factors that
led the FBI to open an investigation in July 2016 into Russian attempts to disrupt the election
and whether any of Trump's associates conspired."
This, the Times assures us, "answers one of the lingering mysteries of the past year."
Well, perhaps.
But if Papadopoulos's drunken babbling to the Aussie ambassador triggered the
investigation in July 2016, why was George not interviewed by the FBI until January
2017?
According to the Times, an FBI agent in Rome had been told by Steele in June 2016 what he
had learned from the Russians. And Steele was interviewed by the FBI in October 2016.
If Papadopoulos triggered the investigation, why the seeming FBI disinterest in him --
as compared to Steele?
Yet another major question remains unanswered.
If, as the Times writes, the FBI was looking "into Russian attempts to disrupt the
elections," why did the FBI not open an investigation into the KGB roots of the Steele dossier
that was written to destroy the Republican candidate, Donald Trump?
If Trump's alleged "collusion" with Putin to damage Clinton was worthy of an all-out FBI
investigation, why did the Clinton-DNC scheme to tie Trump to Russian prostitutes, using
British spies and former KGB agents, not merit an FBI investigation ?
Why was there less concern about the Clinton campaign's ties to Russian agents, than to
Trumpian "collusion" that is yet unproven? Consider what the British spy Steele and his former
KGB/FSB comrades accomplished: They have kept alive a special counsel's investigation that has
divided our country, imperiled the FBI's reputation, preoccupied and damaged a president, and
partially paralyzed the U.S. government. Putin must be marveling at the astonishing success of
his old comrades from KGB days, who could pull off an intelligence coup like this and so
cripple the superpower that won the Cold War.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, "Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That
Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever."
Mr. Buchanan bangs this into his every column on the subject, thus securing his place on
the right edge of the Establishment's 3×5 card of condoned discourse.
To paraphrase Mr. Orwell, "We always have to be at war with Eastasia."
But if Papadopoulos's drunken babbling to the Aussie ambassador triggered the
investigation in July 2016, why was George not interviewed by the FBI until January
2017?
Exactly. Something's fishy. The Steele dossier that formed the original basis for the
Trump-Russia collusion investigation is falling apart since it's chock full of salacious and
unverified claims. So a new narrative is being constructed to keep this alive and
kicking.
This investigation is nothing more than a political hit and attempted coup d'etat and we
can thank none other than (((Rod Rosenstein))) for this.
The whole Mueller investigation will fall apart. What lessons will the Trump administration
and the American public learn from it? Mr. Buchanan errs that the Russian spin was triggered
by Putin's old KGB comrades. It was homemade.
The whole affair tells the world more about the rottenness of the American political
system and its elites. All the leftover crooks from the Obama and the Clinton political mafia
have to be indicted, starting with Obama, Hillary Clinton, Comey, Lynch, Rosenstein, and
Mueller with his appointed Clinton supporters. But also the former directors such as Clapper,
Brennon and their ilk should be brought to justice.
I mentioned already several times that the FBI, CIA et cetera are criminal organizations,
which are run by a political mafia. I would even terminate the CIA the most significant, best
paid and well-trained terror organization in the world, followed by the Mossad.
To drain the swamp to have to turn the D.C. institutions upside down. But is Trump capable
or still willing doing it? Doubts are appropriate. The Deep State has already gotten hold of
Trump because he gave in by not publishing all the documents of the assassination of JFK.
Wouldn't they have demonstrated that the CIA committed the crime?
Trump should put first his own house in order before starting another war against Iran for
the benefit of Israel.
Putin must be marveling at the astonishing success of his old comrades from KGB days,
who could pull off an intelligence coup like this and so cripple the superpower that won
the Cold War.
No Pat, the US did not win the Cold War. It all ended fairly amicably. The Russians pulled
their forces out of Eastern Europe and let those countries reassert their independence.
Russia should have pressed for a formal treaty, certainly. But that's another matter.
It is true that since the Bill Clinton presidency the US Government has acted as if it did
win the Cold War. This has been one of the root causes of America's disastrous military and
diplomatic policies. But Russia has revived as a great power, and has been joined by
China.
Some victory, then
No Pat, the US did not win the Cold War. It all ended fairly amicably. The Russians
pulled their forces out of Eastern Europe and let those countries reassert their
independence.
Thus, the most salient reason for the Cold War was no more, and the main US Cold War
objective was fulfilled.
After the lies that the NYT spread about the Iraq nuclear capabilities that destroyed the
life of millions of Arabs, Moslem and Christians, I still wonder how anyone could believe
what its pro-Israel journalists keep writing.
With its obvious bias, in my view the NYT has a very low credibility and is deep in the
swamp.
The problem with white men is white privilege. For us to be honest about our history, we'd
have to come clean about our ancestors, our so-called education, the entire system that
allows us to be "color-blind," basically all the lies we've been fed since day one about the
Calvinist work ethic that suggests we made it on humble Christianity and hard work alone.
the family tree is rotten to the root, and our legacy is the inheritance of the
psychopathology that has defined this country since day one. that we choose denial and
avoidance is a testament to our lack of character and the truth of our soul.
The article provides further proof that anything the NY Times has published in the last 10
years or so, particularly since the organ became the property of Mexican Billionaire Carlos
Slim, is deep state bullshit. Actually it has largely been that for twenty years or longer.
The new book by former NY Times ace reporter Risen documents the decline to servile
propaganda status of the onetime newspaper of record.
Bannon is being quoted in the Guardian from his forthcoming book, paraphrasing: "they had
(sic) top officials from the new administration meeting with Russians in Trump Tower and
nobody thought to have a lawyer present? The minimum they could've done was call the
FBI."
This statement doesn't pass the smell test or Bannon is smoking some Colorado grass. One
minute he's against deep state and the next minute he wants to call the FBI? I don't think
so.
The ongoing feud between Steve Bannon and various members of Trump's inner circle, including
family members Jared Kushner and Donald Trump Jr., is hardly a secret (we wrote about it here:
Steve Bannon In "Self-Imposed Exile" After Disputes With Trump's Inner Circle ). But, if
The Guardian 's reporting on excerpts from an explosive new book penned by Michael Wolff
are even directionally accurate, then Bannon has just taken his White House feud to a whole new
level.
According to The Guardian, which apparently got its hands on a copy of "Fire and Fury" ahead
of its expected release next week, Bannon unloads on Don Jr. and Kushner saying that their
meeting with
Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya at Trump Tower in New York was "treasonous" and/or
"unpatriotic" and the FBI should have been called immediately.
Donald Trump's former chief strategist Steve Bannon has described the Trump Tower meeting
between the president's son and a group of Russians during the 2016 election campaign as
"treasonous" and "unpatriotic", according to an explosive new book seen by the Guardian.
The meeting was revealed by the New York Times in July last year, prompting Trump Jr to
say no consequential material was produced. Soon after, Wolff writes, Bannon remarked
mockingly: "The three senior guys in the campaign thought it was a good idea to meet with a
foreign government inside Trump Tower in the conference room on the 25th floor – with
no lawyers. They didn't have any lawyers.
"Even if you thought that this was not treasonous, or unpatriotic, or bad shit, and I
happen to think it's all of that, you should have called the FBI immediately."
Bannon went on, Wolff writes, to say that if any such meeting had to take place, it should
have been set up "in a Holiday Inn in Manchester, New Hampshire, with your lawyers who meet
with these people". Any information, he said, could then be "dump[ed] down to Breitbart or
something like that, or maybe some other more legitimate publication".
... ... ...
Trump is not spared in the new book either. According to The Guardian, Wolff writes that
Thomas Barrack Jr, the billionaire founder of Colony Capital who counts himself as one of
Trump's earliest supporters, allegedly told a friend: "He's not only crazy, he's stupid."
All of which should make for some very entertaining Trump tweets once the book drops next
week.
Meanwhile, even Drudge couldn't avoid getting dragged into the fray and on Wednesday morning
tweeted: "No wonder schizophrenic Steve Bannon has been walking around with a small army of
bodyguards..."
"... Manafort and Gates face a total of 12 criminal charges related to money laundering and failure to file federal disclosures. Both Manafort and Gates have pleaded not guilty and are scheduled to appear again before the judge in the criminal case on January 16. ..."
"... More like "the special counsel doesn't have authority to investigate literally anything" since the charges against Manafort have absolutely NOTHING to do with Trump-Russia. You can't charge someone with a crime when the evidence was obtained illegally... ..."
Paul Manafort, who served as the campaign chair for then-candidate Donald Trump's presidential campaign from March to August 2016,
on Wednesday filed a lawsuit against the US Department of Justice (DOJ), Special Counsel Robert Mueller and Deputy Attorney General
Rod Rosenstein.
The suit brought Wednesday in US District Court in Washington where Manafort and another former Trump campaign aide, Robert Gates,
were charged, contends that the order Rosenstein signed to appoint Mueller "exceeds the scope of Mr. Rosenstein's authority to appoint
special counsel as well as specific restrictions on the scope of such appointments" and challenges Mueller's decision to charge Manafort
with alleged crimes that they say have nothing to do with the 2016 campaign, but rather relate to lucrative lobbying work Manafort
and his deputy did for a former Russia-friendly government in Ukraine . That work ended in 2014, the suit says. Manafort and his
deputy Rick Gates deny the allegations in the charges.
The focus is on a part of the Rosenstein order that says that Mueller may investigate "any matters that arose or may arise directly
from the investigation." The Manafort lawyers say that goes beyond what the law allows Rosenstein to empower Mueller to do.
Further, the Rosenstein order gives Mueller " carte blanche to investigate and pursue criminal charges in connection with anything
he stumbles across while investigating, no matter how remote from the specific matter identified as the subject of the appointment
order ," the lawsuit says.
Manafort and Gates was arrested in October and charged with money laundering and acting as an unregistered foreign agent during his
work as a lobbyist for former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych and his party of regions. None of the charges brought against
Manafort pertain to his work with the Trump campaign.
The legal action represents the latest tack in a broader effort by supporters of the President to push back on the special counsel.
Some Republicans have begun publicly calling for Mueller's probe to be shut down. Manafort's attorneys have echoed the President's
criticism that Mueller's investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election is pursuing crimes that never happened.
Manafort and Gates face a total of 12 criminal charges related to money laundering and failure to file federal disclosures.
Both Manafort and Gates have pleaded not guilty and are scheduled to appear again before the judge in the criminal case on January
16.
Hillary's defense is "What difference, at this point, does it make?" My comment is directed to the fact that we each need 22
sets eyeballs to be able to keep up with all news. Reading headlines is not keeping up with news and to your point of his defense
it is more along the lines of "the special council does not have the ability to charge him because it shouldn't have been in existence
in the first place" based on my first cursory read of it .
More like "the special counsel doesn't have authority to investigate literally anything" since the charges against Manafort
have absolutely NOTHING to do with Trump-Russia. You can't charge someone with a crime when the evidence was obtained illegally...
The need to challenge the legality of the special prosecutor "Since the expiration of the independent counsel statute in 1999,
there has been no federal law governing the appointment of a special prosecutor. Upon the law's expiration in 1999, the Justice
Department, under Attorney General Janet Reno, promulgated procedural regulations governing the appointment of special counsels."
And there has be evidence on wrong doing before appointment!
"... Mr.Molyneux, You've really become the best journalist alive today, thank you for your commitment to courageous integrity in reporting the insane conditions of our society. ..."
It's great that The Deep State's attempted coup against Trump has (thus far) failed...
BUT, given all the serious crimes that The Left has been caught red-handed
involved in, and the complete lack of legal repercussions that have resulted, I'm losing
faith in our ability to mend the American justice OR political systems :/
All these witch hunts have done, is continue to exonerate Trump, and expose crimes, and
corruption from the deep stare, MSM, DNC, Clintons, and Obama. As well as further discredit
our intelligence agencies, and destroy what little faith the people had in them.
All this debacle, constantly demonizing Trump is the Dems way of hiding there own
corruption. Smoke & mirrors. The Dems remind me of an Ouroboros like creature eating its
own tail but destroying itself
Mr.Molyneux, You've really become the best journalist alive today, thank you for your
commitment to courageous integrity in reporting the insane conditions of our society.
"We have a triumvirate of the Democratic Party, New York Times, and FBI, that perfectly parallels their predecessors: the
Communist Party, Pravda, and KGB."
January 4, 2018 at 8:44 pm GMT
"Why was it felt necessary for a DNC-linked "journalist", in a politically-biased "newspaper", to obfuscate the rather obvious
fact that the Fusion GPS "dossier"was the pretext for the FBI investigation? "
Notable quotes:
"... This information has clearly been published in order to counter the increasingly widely circulating claim that it was the Trump Dossier which triggered the Russiagate investigation. ..."
Of much more interest is the new information which has been published about George
Papadopoulos. The information appears in an
article in the New York Times which reads in part as follows
During a night of heavy drinking at an upscale London bar in May 2016, George
Papadopoulos, a young foreign policy adviser to the Trump campaign, made a startling
revelation to Australia's top diplomat in Britain: Russia had political dirt on Hillary
Clinton.
About three weeks earlier, Mr. Papadopoulos had been told that Moscow had thousands of
emails that would embarrass Mrs. Clinton, apparently stolen in an effort to try to damage her
campaign.
Exactly how much Mr. Papadopoulos said that night at the Kensington Wine Rooms with the
Australian, Alexander Downer, is unclear. But two months later,
when leaked Democratic emails began appearing online , Australian officials passed the
information about Mr. Papadopoulos to their American counterparts, according to four current
and former American and foreign officials with direct knowledge of the Australians' role.
This information has clearly been published in order to counter the increasingly widely
circulating claim that it was the Trump Dossier which triggered the Russiagate
investigation.
"... As early as 2009 "secret recordings and intercept emails showed Moscow had compromised an American uranium trucking firm with bribes and kickbacks in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act . ..."
"... The investigation was supervised by then-U.S. Attorney Rod Rosenstein , who is now President Trump's Deputy Attorney General, and then-Assistant FBI Director Andrew McCabe , who is now the deputy FBI director under Trump. Robert Mueller was head of the FBI from Sept 2001-Sept 2013 until James Comey took over as FBI Director in 2013. They were BOTH involved in this Russian scam being that this case started in 2009 and ended in 2015." -- Looks like a nest of traitors and incompetent opportunists fattening on the US taxpayers' money ..."
As early as 2009 "secret recordings and intercept emails showed Moscow had compromised an American uranium trucking firm with
bribes and kickbacks in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act .
The investigation was supervised by then-U.S. Attorney Rod Rosenstein , who is now President Trump's Deputy Attorney General,
and then-Assistant FBI Director Andrew McCabe , who is now the deputy FBI director under Trump. Robert Mueller was head of the
FBI from Sept 2001-Sept 2013 until James Comey took over as FBI Director in 2013. They were BOTH involved in this Russian scam
being that this case started in 2009 and ended in 2015."
-- Looks like a nest of traitors and incompetent opportunists fattening on the US taxpayers' money
It you need to read a singe article analyzing current anti-Russian hysteria in the USA this in the one you should read. This is
an excellent article Simply great !!! And as of December 2017 it represents the perfect summary of Russiagate, Hillary defeat and, Neo-McCarthyism
campaign launched as a method of hiding the crisis of neoliberalism revealed by Presidential elections. It also suggest that growing
jingoism of both Parties (return to Madeleine Albright's 'indispensable nation' bulling. Both Trump and Albright assume that the
United States should be able to do as it pleases in the international arena) and loss of the confidence and paranoia of the US
neoliberal elite.
It contain many important observation which in my view perfectly catch the complexity of the current Us political landscape.
Bravo to Jackson Lears !!!
Notable quotes:
"... Neoliberals celebrate market utility as the sole criterion of worth; interventionists exalt military adventure abroad as a means of fighting evil in order to secure global progress ..."
"... Sanders is a social democrat and Trump a demagogic mountebank, but their campaigns underscored a widespread repudiation of the Washington consensus. For about a week after the election, pundits discussed the possibility of a more capacious Democratic strategy. It appeared that the party might learn something from Clinton's defeat. Then everything changed. ..."
"... A story that had circulated during the campaign without much effect resurfaced: it involved the charge that Russian operatives had hacked into the servers of the Democratic National Committee, revealing embarrassing emails that damaged Clinton's chances. With stunning speed, a new centrist-liberal orthodoxy came into being, enveloping the major media and the bipartisan Washington establishment. This secular religion has attracted hordes of converts in the first year of the Trump presidency. In its capacity to exclude dissent, it is like no other formation of mass opinion in my adult life, though it recalls a few dim childhood memories of anti-communist hysteria during the early 1950s. ..."
"... The centrepiece of the faith, based on the hacking charge, is the belief that Vladimir Putin orchestrated an attack on American democracy by ordering his minions to interfere in the election on behalf of Trump. The story became gospel with breathtaking suddenness and completeness. Doubters are perceived as heretics and as apologists for Trump and Putin, the evil twins and co-conspirators behind this attack on American democracy. ..."
"... Like any orthodoxy worth its salt, the religion of the Russian hack depends not on evidence but on ex cathedra pronouncements on the part of authoritative institutions and their overlords. Its scriptural foundation is a confused and largely fact-free 'assessment' produced last January by a small number of 'hand-picked' analysts – as James Clapper, the director of National Intelligence, described them – from the CIA, the FBI and the NSA. ..."
"... It is not the first time the intelligence agencies have played this role. When I hear the Intelligence Community Assessment cited as a reliable source, I always recall the part played by the New York Times in legitimating CIA reports of the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's putative weapons of mass destruction, not to mention the long history of disinformation (a.k.a. 'fake news') as a tactic for advancing one administration or another's political agenda. Once again, the established press is legitimating pronouncements made by the Church Fathers of the national security state. Clapper is among the most vigorous of these. He perjured himself before Congress in 2013, when he denied that the NSA had 'wittingly' spied on Americans – a lie for which he has never been held to account. ..."
"... In May 2017, he told NBC's Chuck Todd that the Russians were highly likely to have colluded with Trump's campaign because they are 'almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favour, whatever, which is a typical Russian technique'. The current orthodoxy exempts the Church Fathers from standards imposed on ordinary people, and condemns Russians – above all Putin – as uniquely, 'almost genetically' diabolical. ..."
"... It's hard for me to understand how the Democratic Party, which once felt scepticism towards the intelligence agencies, can now embrace the CIA and the FBI as sources of incontrovertible truth. One possible explanation is that Trump's election has created a permanent emergency in the liberal imagination, based on the belief that the threat he poses is unique and unprecedented. It's true that Trump's menace is viscerally real. But the menace posed by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney was equally real. ..."
"... Trump is committed to continuing his predecessors' lavish funding of the already bloated Defence Department, and his Fortress America is a blustering, undisciplined version of Madeleine Albright's 'indispensable nation'. Both Trump and Albright assume that the United States should be able to do as it pleases in the international arena: Trump because it's the greatest country in the world, Albright because it's an exceptional force for global good. ..."
"... Besides Trump's supposed uniqueness, there are two other assumptions behind the furore in Washington: the first is that the Russian hack unquestionably occurred, and the second is that the Russians are our implacable enemies. ..."
"... So far, after months of 'bombshells' that turn out to be duds, there is still no actual evidence for the claim that the Kremlin ordered interference in the American election. Meanwhile serious doubts have surfaced about the technical basis for the hacking claims. Independent observers have argued it is more likely that the emails were leaked from inside, not hacked from outside. On this front, the most persuasive case was made by a group called Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, former employees of the US intelligence agencies who distinguished themselves in 2003 by debunking Colin Powell's claim that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, hours after Powell had presented his pseudo-evidence at the UN. ..."
"... The crucial issue here and elsewhere is the exclusion from public discussion of any critical perspectives on the orthodox narrative, even the perspectives of people with professional credentials and a solid track record. ..."
"... Sceptical voices, such as those of the VIPS, have been drowned out by a din of disinformation. Flagrantly false stories, like the Washington Post report that the Russians had hacked into the Vermont electrical grid, are published, then retracted 24 hours later. Sometimes – like the stories about Russian interference in the French and German elections – they are not retracted even after they have been discredited. These stories have been thoroughly debunked by French and German intelligence services but continue to hover, poisoning the atmosphere, confusing debate. ..."
"... The consequence is a spreading confusion that envelops everything. Epistemological nihilism looms, but some people and institutions have more power than others to define what constitutes an agreed-on reality. ..."
"... More genuine insurgencies are in the making, which confront corporate power and connect domestic with foreign policy, but they face an uphill battle against the entrenched money and power of the Democratic leadership – the likes of Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, the Clintons and the DNC. Russiagate offers Democratic elites a way to promote party unity against Trump-Putin, while the DNC purges Sanders's supporters. ..."
"... Fusion GPS eventually produced the trash, a lurid account written by the former British MI6 intelligence agent Christopher Steele, based on hearsay purchased from anonymous Russian sources. Amid prostitutes and golden showers, a story emerged: the Russian government had been blackmailing and bribing Donald Trump for years, on the assumption that he would become president some day and serve the Kremlin's interests. In this fantastic tale, Putin becomes a preternaturally prescient schemer. Like other accusations of collusion, this one has become vaguer over time, adding to the murky atmosphere without ever providing any evidence. ..."
"... Yet the FBI apparently took the Steele dossier seriously enough to include a summary of it in a secret appendix to the Intelligence Community Assessment. Two weeks before the inauguration, James Comey, the director of the FBI, described the dossier to Trump. After Comey's briefing was leaked to the press, the website Buzzfeed published the dossier in full, producing hilarity and hysteria in the Washington establishment. ..."
"... The Steele dossier inhabits a shadowy realm where ideology and intelligence, disinformation and revelation overlap. It is the antechamber to the wider system of epistemological nihilism created by various rival factions in the intelligence community: the 'tree of smoke' that, for the novelist Denis Johnson, symbolised CIA operations in Vietnam. ..."
"... Yet the Democratic Party has now embarked on a full-scale rehabilitation of the intelligence community – or at least the part of it that supports the notion of Russian hacking. (We can be sure there is disagreement behind the scenes.) And it is not only the Democratic establishment that is embracing the deep state. Some of the party's base, believing Trump and Putin to be joined at the hip, has taken to ranting about 'treason' like a reconstituted John Birch Society. ..."
"... The Democratic Party has now developed a new outlook on the world, a more ambitious partnership between liberal humanitarian interventionists and neoconservative militarists than existed under the cautious Obama. This may be the most disastrous consequence for the Democratic Party of the new anti-Russian orthodoxy: the loss of the opportunity to formulate a more humane and coherent foreign policy. The obsession with Putin has erased any possibility of complexity from the Democratic world picture, creating a void quickly filled by the monochrome fantasies of Hillary Clinton and her exceptionalist allies. ..."
"... For people like Max Boot and Robert Kagan, war is a desirable state of affairs, especially when viewed from the comfort of their keyboards, and the rest of the world – apart from a few bad guys – is filled with populations who want to build societies just like ours: pluralistic, democratic and open for business. This view is difficult to challenge when it cloaks itself in humanitarian sentiment. There is horrific suffering in the world; the US has abundant resources to help relieve it; the moral imperative is clear. There are endless forms of international engagement that do not involve military intervention. But it is the path taken by US policy often enough that one may suspect humanitarian rhetoric is nothing more than window-dressing for a more mundane geopolitics – one that defines the national interest as global and virtually limitless. ..."
"... The prospect of impeaching Trump and removing him from office by convicting him of collusion with Russia has created an atmosphere of almost giddy anticipation among leading Democrats, allowing them to forget that the rest of the Republican Party is composed of many politicians far more skilful in Washington's ways than their president will ever be. ..."
"... They are posing an overdue challenge to the long con of neoliberalism, and the technocratic arrogance that led to Clinton's defeat in Rust Belt states. Recognising that the current leadership will not bring about significant change, they are seeking funding from outside the DNC. ..."
"... Democrat leaders have persuaded themselves (and much of their base) that all the republic needs is a restoration of the status quo ante Trump. They remain oblivious to popular impatience with familiar formulas. ..."
"... Democratic insurgents are also developing a populist critique of the imperial hubris that has sponsored multiple failed crusades, extorted disproportionate sacrifice from the working class and provoked support for Trump, who presented himself (however misleadingly) as an opponent of open-ended interventionism. On foreign policy, the insurgents face an even more entrenched opposition than on domestic policy: a bipartisan consensus aflame with outrage at the threat to democracy supposedly posed by Russian hacking. Still, they may have found a tactical way forward, by focusing on the unequal burden borne by the poor and working class in the promotion and maintenance of American empire. ..."
"... This approach animates Autopsy: The Democratic Party in Crisis, a 33-page document whose authors include Norman Solomon, founder of the web-based insurgent lobby RootsAction.org. 'The Democratic Party's claims of fighting for "working families" have been undermined by its refusal to directly challenge corporate power, enabling Trump to masquerade as a champion of the people,' Autopsy announces. ..."
"... Clinton's record of uncritical commitment to military intervention allowed Trump to have it both ways, playing to jingoist resentment while posing as an opponent of protracted and pointless war. ..."
"... If the insurgent movements within the Democratic Party begin to formulate an intelligent foreign policy critique, a re-examination may finally occur. And the world may come into sharper focus as a place where American power, like American virtue, is limited. For this Democrat, that is an outcome devoutly to be wished. It's a long shot, but there is something happening out there. ..."
American politics have rarely presented a more disheartening spectacle. The repellent and dangerous antics of Donald Trump are
troubling enough, but so is the Democratic Party leadership's failure to take in the significance of the 2016 election campaign.
Bernie Sanders's challenge to Hillary Clinton, combined with Trump's triumph, revealed the breadth of popular anger at politics as
usual – the blend of neoliberal domestic policy and interventionist foreign policy that constitutes consensus in Washington.
Neoliberals celebrate market utility as the sole criterion of worth; interventionists exalt military adventure abroad as a means
of fighting evil in order to secure global progress . Both agendas have proved calamitous for most Americans. Many registered
their disaffection in 2016. Sanders is a social democrat and Trump a demagogic mountebank, but their campaigns underscored a
widespread repudiation of the Washington consensus. For about a week after the election, pundits discussed the possibility of a more
capacious Democratic strategy. It appeared that the party might learn something from Clinton's defeat. Then everything changed.
Special Counsel appointment now looks like a fishing expedition in search of a crime. Why
Department of justice is not investigating DNC for obvious corruption in the USA 2016
elections.
Now Rosenstein looks like a very important witness. Recent "gang of three" revelation
undermined Rosenstein. If Mueller is investigating Trump for obstruction of justice, Rosenstein
should immediately recluse himself.
Rosenstein recommended that Comey be fired. That made him a critical player and potential
witness to the events underlying the obstruction of justice allegations.
If Mueller discussed the Comey's termination with Trump as a candidate for the next FBI
Director, he might also be considered a witness in any obstruction of justice investigation.
Mueller could not be viewed as a neutral choice by anyone on Trump's side due to his history
with Comey. I believe that Rosenstein used poor judgment in his selection.
Like invading Russia in winter, it appears that participating in the Russian investigation is
a prospect fraught with peril for those on the front lines.
Mueller was appointed under 28 CFR 600.7, which states that "[t]he Special Counsel may be
disciplined or removed from office only by the personal action of the Attorney General. The
Attorney General may remove a Special Counsel for misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity,
conflict of interest, or for other good cause, including violation of Departmental policies." If
Mueller is a potential witness, recusal or termination would be warranted under that standard as
a conflict.
Notable quotes:
"... "The investigation is the best thing for the US. It has exposed traitors (leakers) in the US government, the corruption of the FBI (which provided the leaks and did not investigate the allegedly hacked DNC computers and white-washed Clinton's criminal negligence), and the spectacular incompetence of the DNC-FBI deciders (the cooperation with foreigners in order to derail the governance of the US by the elected POTUS). Cannot wait to hear more about Awan affair (the greatest breach of the US cybersecurity under the watch of the current FBI brass) and about the investigation of Seth Rich murder." ..."
"... the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters. ..."
"... "The threshold for making such an appointment should have been probable cause, that is, deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein should have shown why he thought there was 'reasonable basis to believe that a crime had been committed.' That's what's required under the Fourth Amendment, and that's the standard that should have been met. But Rosenstein ignored that rule." ..."
"... I think the position should be narrowed in scope to the charge as opposed a wide open net with a limitless mesh knitting. As is -- it's a sword over the head of any target and that makes for bad politics and policy in my view. Unfair leveraging . . . . b y the losing side to get their way outside the scope of the process. ..."
"... Look, if it turns out that this executive undermined democracy by engaging Russian to cheat our electoral process -- fine. I don't think there's any indication that the accusation is accurate. ..."
"... This is getting so ridiculous! Let's have everyone recuse themselves and get down to the work of running the country! Who the hell cares if it was the Russians who hacked DNC emails that proved their hypocrisy, mendacity and the corruption of the media? Why aren't we "investigating" the DNC? ..."
So Trump a billionare has 3rd rate lawyers.
With all that money, why can't he hire firzt rate lawyers and really world class
investigators? He is never going to receive any kind of a break from the press and what
resemble his allies in Congress Gowdy and Jordan have proved to be windbags only slightly
more effective than Hank Johnson and Maxine Waters. Consequently, he needs to tap independent
investigstive resources or he will not be in office for the November 2018 election. Has he
explored a little help from the Mossad?
"The investigation is the best thing for the US. It has exposed traitors (leakers)
in the US government, the corruption of the FBI (which provided the leaks and did not
investigate the allegedly hacked DNC computers and white-washed Clinton's criminal
negligence), and the spectacular incompetence of the DNC-FBI deciders (the cooperation with
foreigners in order to derail the governance of the US by the elected POTUS). Cannot wait
to hear more about Awan affair (the greatest breach of the US cybersecurity under the watch
of the current FBI brass) and about the investigation of Seth Rich murder."
As always nothing will come of this. Trump screwed himself.
Nor will any be produced either. If Trump were to drop dead tomorrow or, alternatively,
decide to pack it in and go back to running hotels, Mueller's Star Chamber Committee would
close down the day after. Mueller is a tool of The Powers That Be. And they want Trump OUT --
no matter what the cost.
The criminal activist Mr. Rosenstein has come under bright light:
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Office of Deputy Attorney General
Washington D.C. 20530
ORDER NO. 3915-2017
APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COUNSEL TO INVESTIGATE RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE WITH THE 2016
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION AND RELATED MATTERS
By virtue of the authority vested in me as Acting Attorney General, including 28 U.S.C.
§§ 509, 510, and 515, in order to discharge my responsibility to provide
supervision and management of the Department of Justice, and to ensure a full and thorough
investigation of the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential
election, I hereby order as follows:
(a) Robert S. Mueller III is appointed to serve as Special Counsel for the United States
Department of Justice.
(b) The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confinned by then-FBI
Director James 8. Corney in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including:
(i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals
associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and
(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and
(iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a
(c) If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special
Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these
matters.
(d) Sections 600.4 through 600. l 0 of Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations are
applicable to the Special Counsel.
Rod Rosenstein
Acting Attorney General
__________________
"The threshold for making such an appointment should have been probable cause, that
is, deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein should have shown why he thought there was
'reasonable basis to believe that a crime had been committed.' That's what's required under
the Fourth Amendment, and that's the standard that should have been met. But Rosenstein
ignored that rule."
I think the investigation is revealing more about democrats than Republicans or the campaign
of Pres Trump.
I think the position should be narrowed in scope to the charge as opposed a wide open
net with a limitless mesh knitting. As is -- it's a sword over the head of any target and
that makes for bad politics and policy in my view. Unfair leveraging . . . . b y the losing
side to get their way outside the scope of the process.
Look, if it turns out that this executive undermined democracy by engaging Russian to
cheat our electoral process -- fine. I don't think there's any indication that the accusation
is accurate.
Fusion One (the monumental bribery case involving national security), Trailblazer
(fleecing the US taxpayers by Hayden and his coterie of incompetent and greedy contractors,
while persecuting the competent professionals), Awan affair (the greatest breach in national
cybersecurity), the thousands of "declassified" documents on Clinton's server, murder of Seth
Rich (in DC !), delivery of the US weaponry and more to ISIS/Al Qaeda, cooperation of the US
officials with neo-Nazi in Ukraine The list continues. A question: Why the US citizenry
continues paying the exorbitant amounts of money to the incompetent and dysfunctional
national security apparatus?
Debbie Barnhart : June 19, 2017 at 11:00 PM
This is getting so ridiculous! Let's have everyone recuse themselves and get down to
the work of running the country! Who the hell cares if it was the Russians who hacked DNC
emails that proved their hypocrisy, mendacity and the corruption of the media? Why aren't we
"investigating" the DNC?
Answer: because our "media" has been weaponized by them against it's "enemies." Putin is
an enemy because he didn't take kindly to Clinton's political weaponizing the press in it's
sphere of influence. Can't say I blame him. If the CIA can't hack Putin, and the U.S. is
helpless to prevent further hacking, then we have a much bigger problem. Trump's ham-fisted
attempts to get actual government officials to "go public" to reduce the media heat he feels,
is much ado about nothing. I wish he didn't care about the publicity, but then – if he
didn't – he wouldn't be President now.
Links to his blog below. He's what investigative reporters should be like but most
definitely are NOT like these days. He's sharp as a tack and doesn't miss a thing.
Transparent DOJ and FBI Desperation: New York Times Attempts "Trump Operation"
Justification
December 30, 2017
The article found below is where he discusses his first clue about the HUGE scandal
confirmed at the above DETAILED analyses. If this doesn't result in just a whole bunch of
high level swamp creatures doing a perp walk or AT THE VERY LEAST losing their jobs, you'll
know there's no hope:
THE BIG UGLY – Why U.S. District Court Judge Rudolph Contreras Recusal From Mike
Flynn Case is a Big Deal
December 8, 2017
"... The attempt to tease, weave and develop a narrative against President Donald J. Trump over a Russian connection began almost immediately after his victory in November last year. This was meant to be institutional oversight and probing, but in another sense, it was also intended to be an establishment's cry of hope to haul the untenable and inconceivable before some process. No one could still fathom that Trump had actually won on his merits (or demerits). There had to be some other reason. ..."
"... Central to the Trump-Bannon approach to US politics has been the fist of defiance against those entities of establishment fame. There is the Central Intelligence Agency, which Trump scorned; there is the FBI, which Trump is at war with. Then there is the Department of Justice, which he regards as singularly unjust. ..."
"... Australia , Washington's ally with an enthusiastic puppy dog manner, wanted to help, to tip off US authorities that a great Satan, Russia, might be involved. ..."
"... Australian ex-officials were by no means the only ones involved in providing succour to the anti-Trump effort. A picture was being painted by other sources – British and Dutch, for instance – pointing to the Kremlin as central to the Democratic email hacks. The FBI probe, in time, would become the full-fledged investigation led by a former director of the organization, Robert Mueller . ..."
"... "Many people in our Country are asking what the 'Justice' Department is going to do about the fact that totally Crooked Hillary, AFTER receiving a subpoena from the United States Congress, deleted and 'acid washed' 33,000 Emails? No justice!" ..."
"... More to the point, Trump is certainly right in questioning the historic inability of the FBI to be a credible instrument of justice, even if history is not his strong suit. The Bureau under J. Edgar Hoover was a monster of surveillance, its reputation, despite being in deserved tatters, defended by one president after the other. ..."
"... As for bias, Trump is certainly right on the score that certain FBI officials, foremost amongst them lawyer Lisa Page and FBI special agent Peter Strzok , were demonstrably favourable to Clinton over him. ..."
"... Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: [email protected] ..."
The attempt to tease, weave and develop a narrative against President Donald J. Trump
over a Russian connection began almost immediately after his victory in November last year.
This was meant to be institutional oversight and probing, but in another sense, it was also
intended to be an establishment's cry of hope to haul the untenable and inconceivable before
some process. No one could still fathom that Trump had actually won on his merits (or
demerits). There had to be some other reason.
Central to the Trump-Bannon approach to US politics has been the fist of defiance against
those entities of establishment fame. There is the Central Intelligence Agency, which Trump
scorned; there is the FBI, which Trump is at war with. Then there is the Department of Justice,
which he regards as singularly unjust.
The FBI investigation into Trumpland and its reputed nexus with Russia remains both bane and
opportunity for Trump. As long as it continues, it affords Trump ammunition for populist
broadsides and claims that such entities are sworn to destroy him.
To watch this story unfold is to remember how a soap opera can best anything done in
celluloid. The New York Times has given us a New Year's Eve treat, claiming that former
Trump campaign aide George Papadopoulos spilt the beans to former Australian foreign minister
Alexander Downer at London's Kensington Wine Rooms in May 2016.
The two men had, apparently, been doing what any decent being does at such a London venue:
drink. Papadopoulos' tongue started to wag as the imbibing continued. There was a Russian
connection. There was dirt to be had, featuring Hillary Clinton.
Downer, however hazed, archived the discussion. He could make a name for himself with this
decent brown nosing opportunity. Australia , Washington's ally with an enthusiastic puppy dog
manner, wanted to help, to tip off US authorities that a great Satan, Russia, might be
involved. So commenced the long road to the fall of Trump's former aide, who conceded, in time,
to have lied to the FBI. Trump's response was to
degrade Papadopoulos as a "low-level volunteer" and "liar", giving him the kiss of
unimportance.
Australian ex-officials were by no means the only ones involved in providing succour to the
anti-Trump effort. A picture was being painted by other sources – British and Dutch, for
instance – pointing to the Kremlin as central to the Democratic email hacks. The FBI
probe, in time, would become the full-fledged investigation led by a former director of the
organization, Robert Mueller .
This provides the broader context for the Trump assault on all manner of instruments in the
Republic. Earlier in December, Twitter was again ablaze with the president's fury. The blasts
centered on the guilty plea by former national security advisor Michael Flynn. He had, in fact,
had conversations with the former Russian ambassador. Trump's approach was two-fold: claim that Flynn's actions had been initially, at least,
lawful, while the conduct of the
FBI and Department of Justice had been uneven and arbitrary.
"So General Flynn lies to the FBI and his life is destroyed, while Crooked Hillary
Clinton, on that now infamous FBI holiday 'interrogation' with no swearing in and no
recording, lies many times and nothing happens to her?"
He then reserved a salvo for the DOJ.
"Many people in our Country are asking what the 'Justice' Department is going to do about
the fact that totally Crooked Hillary, AFTER receiving a subpoena from the United States
Congress, deleted and 'acid washed' 33,000 Emails? No justice!"
The persistent inability to understand Trumpland as a series of bullying an exploitative
transactions blunts the value of the FBI investigation. Whatever it purports to be, it smacks
of desperation, an effort in search of an explanation rather than a resolution. The Trump
Teflon remains in place, immovable.
More to the point, Trump is certainly right in questioning the historic inability of
the FBI to be a credible instrument of justice, even if history is not his strong suit. The
Bureau under J. Edgar Hoover was a monster of surveillance, its reputation, despite being in
deserved tatters, defended by one president after the other.
As for bias, Trump is certainly right on the score that certain FBI officials, foremost
amongst them lawyer Lisa Page and FBI special agent Peter Strzok , were demonstrably
favourable to Clinton over him.
... ... ...
Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures
at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: [email protected]
"... The best part about Trump is that he does not have to run false flags to get the public's support. ...No inside jobs like 9/11 and no fake shootings like Sandy Hook. He just has some solid policies that benefit normal Americans! ..."
Fox News host Maria Bartiromo interviews Representative Bud Cummins about the 2016
weaponization of the FBI and DOJ and the same group of people in 2017 working to undermine the
Trump administration.
This Tuesday FBI Asst. Director Andrew McCabe will meet with the House Intelligence
Committee. Around the same time Trump lawyers will be meeting with Robert Mueller. Could be a
big news week.
Lutz • 12 days ago
Only the chosen tribe can shut down an agency like the F.B.Lie. Control through money
distribution. They control everyone, PERIOD.
Tom Turek > Claude Taylor • 13 days ago
FBI? On site the night before 911, On site within minutes after Sen Wellstone's chartered
almost new Twin Turboprop Beachcraft with 2 pro plots smashed into the ground on approach.
Wellstone was about to expose 911. Illegally taking over the TWA800 investigation from NTSB
and many times removing evidence overnight that investigators found suspicious of a missile
strike. Told us that a low voltage wire in a fuel tank overheated and caused the plane to
break into 2. Wreckage still under armed guard!
About what 'IDEALS' is DJT talking??
Doctor72 • 13 days ago
The best part about Trump is that he does not have to run false flags to get the public's
support. ...No inside jobs like 9/11 and no fake shootings like Sandy Hook. He just has some
solid policies that benefit normal Americans!
MikeG the Deplorable > Doctor72 • 13 days ago
What a refreshing change.
Cyrano • 13 days ago
This man is afraid to call it treason...
centurion • 13 days ago
It's a very sad day for Trump supporters when they elected a person to jail the law
breakers in Washington, CIA, FBI, BLM, NSA, the Clintons, the Bush's and Trump does
absolutely nothing about it. Failure to do something IS consent.
Mistaron • 13 days ago
Why is this guy dancing around? It's not 'bad management' mate, it's bloody Treason!
Elim • 13 days ago
I just saw a clip of Trump answering questions at a news conference. He was answering
questions about the Russian collusion crap, and was saying that Putin and his government
denied any interference, just as he denied any collusion. When Trump was asked what he
personally believed, he said that he supported what the intelligence agencies said about it.
In other words, he believes what he was told by our intelligence services...which is what,
exactly? He didn't answer the question.
I strongly doubt that there is a break from the principle that the United States of America was the world's only superpower
Notable quotes:
"... During the mandates of George Bush Jr. and Barack Obama, the documents defining their National Security Strategies were based on the principle that the United States of America was the world's only superpower. They could wage the " endless war " advocated by Admiral Arthur Cebrowski, in other words they could systematically destroy any political organisation in the already unstable areas of the planet, beginning with the " Greater Middle East ". The Presidents indicated their projects for every region of the world. All that the unified fighting Commands had to do was apply these instructions. ..."
"... He once again uses his slogan " America First! " and makes it his philosophical foundation. Historically, this formula is still associated with support for Nazism, but this is not its original meaning. It was initially a way of breaking with Roosevelt's Atlantist policy - the alliance with the British Empire in order to govern the world. ..."
During the mandates of George Bush Jr. and Barack Obama, the documents defining their National Security Strategies were
based on the principle that the United States of America was the world's only superpower. They could wage the " endless war " advocated
by Admiral Arthur Cebrowski, in other words they could systematically destroy any political organisation in the already unstable
areas of the planet, beginning with the " Greater Middle East ". The Presidents indicated their projects for every region of the
world. All that the unified fighting Commands had to do was apply these instructions.
Donald Trump's National Security
Strategy breaks almost entirely with this literature. It conserves certain of the mythological elements of these previous
mandates, but attempts above all to reposition the United States as the Republic it was in 1791 (which is to say at the moment of
compromise with the Bill of Rights ) and no longer as the Empire that it became on 11 September 2001.
The role of the White House, its diplomacy and its armed forces is no longer to rule the world, but to protect " the interests
of the people of the United States ".
In his introduction, Donald Trump marks his difference with his predecessors by denouncing the policies of " régime change " and
" world democratic revolution " adopted by Ronald Reagan and managed under successive administrations by Trotskyite senior civil
servants. He reaffirms the classic realpolitik as declared by Henry Kissinger for example, founded on the idea of " sovereign nations
".
The reader will however keep in mind that certain intergovernmental agencies of the " Five Eyes " group, (Australia, Canada, the
United States, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom), such as the National Endowment for Democracy, are still directed by Trotskyists.
Donald Trump distinguishes three types of difficulty that his country is going to have to face -
First of all, the rivalry with Russia and China;
Next, the opposition of " rogue states " (North Korea and Iran) in their respective regions;
Finally, the threat to international law embodied by the jihadist movements and transnational criminal organisations.
Although he too considers the United States to be the incarnation of Good, he does not diabolise his rivals, adversaries and enemies,
but attempts to understand them, unlike his predecessors.
He once again uses his slogan " America First! " and makes it his philosophical foundation. Historically, this formula is
still associated with support for Nazism, but this is not its original meaning. It was initially a way of breaking with Roosevelt's
Atlantist policy - the alliance with the British Empire in order to govern the world.
The reader will remember that the first cabinet of the Obama administration gave an excessive place to the members of the Pilgrim
Society (no connection with the Mont-Pelerin Society), in other words a very private club presided by Queen Elizabeth II. This was
the group which piloted the financial après-crise of 2008.
In order to guide this policy of returning to the Republican principles of 1791 and independence from British financial interests,
Donald Trump poses four pillars:
The protection
of the people of the United States, its homeland and its way of life; The prosperity of
the United States; The power of its
armies; The development
of its influence.
Thus, he does not imagine his strategy in opposition to his rivals, his adversaries and his enemies, but as a function of his
Republican and independent ideal.
In order to avoid misinterpretation, he specifies that while he may consider that the United States is an example for the world,
it is neither possible nor desirable to impose its way of life on others - particularly since this way of life could not be considered
as the " inevitable final outcome of progress ". He does not think of international relations as being the rule of the United States
over the world, but as the search for " reciprocal relations " with his partners.
The four pillars of the America First doctrine of National Security
The protection
of the people of the United States implies, above all, the restoration of the frontiers (terrestrial, aerial, maritime, spatial and
cyber-spatial) which have been progressively destroyed by the globalists.
These frontiers are intended to neutralise the use of weapons of mass destruction by terrorist and criminal groups, and also to
contain pandemics and prevent the entry of drugs or illegal immigrants. Concerning the cyber-spatial frontiers, Donald Trump notes
the necessity of securing the Internet by giving priority, successively, to National Security, Energy, the Banks, Health, Communications
and Transports. But all that remains rather theoretical.
While, since the presidency of Richard Nixon, the war against drugs had been selective, aimed not at drying up the flood of illegal
substances, but at directing it towards certain ethnic minorities, Donald Trump responds to a new need. Aware of the collapse of
life expectancy exclusively affecting white males under Barack Obama, the despair that it caused and the opioïd epidemic that ensued,
Trump considers that the fight against the cartels is a question of national survival.
Speaking of the war against terrorism, it is not clear whether he is referring to the " lone wolves " who continue to fight even
after the fall of the Caliphate, as was the case with certain groups of the Waffen SS after the fall of the Reich, or the maintenance
of the British system of jihadism. If the second hypothesis is correct, it would be a clear retraction of his declarations of intention
during his electoral campaign and the first months of his presidency. He would therefore be obliged to clarify the evolution of relations
between Washington and London, as well the consequences of this change concerning the management of NATO.
In any case, we note a strange passage from the text which states as follows - " The United States will work with their allies
and partners to dissuade and destabilise other groups which threaten the homeland - including the groups sponsored by Iran, like
the Lebanese Hezbollah ".
For all anti-terrorist actions, Donald Trump considers limited alliances with other powers, including Russia and China.
Finally, concerning the resilience of the United States, he validates the programme of " Continuity of Government ", although
it was the direct beneficiary of the coup d'Etat of 9/11. However, he states that citizens who are engaged and informed are the basis
of this system, which would seem to avert the danger of a replay of such an event.
Concerning the
prosperity of the United States , a condition for the development of his Defense programme, Donald Trump is a champion of the " American
dream ", the " minimal State ", and the theory of " trickle-down economics " (from top to bottom). He therefore conceives of an economy
based on free exchange and not financialisation. Taking the opposite point of view from the commonly-believed idea that free exchange
was an instrument of Anglo-Saxon imperialism, he affirms that it is only fair for the primary actors if the new actors accept the
rules. He claims that several states -- including China -- are profiting from this system without ever having entertained the intention
of adopting its values.
He bases himself on this idea -- and not on the analysis of the appearance of a transnational class of the super-rich -- in order
to denounce multilateral commercial agreements.
He continues by announcing the deregulation of all sectors where State intervention is unnecessary. At the same time, he is planning
the opposition to all interventions by foreign States and their nationalised businesses, which could distort fair exchanges with
the United States.
He intends to develop theoretical research and its technical applications, and to support invention and innovation. For that,
he plans for special and advantageous conditions of immigration in order to generate a " brain drain " towards the United States.
Considering the skills thus acquired, not as the means for establishing a toll-booth on the world economy via patents, but as the
motor of the US economy, he intends to create a National Security file of these techniques and to protect them in order to maintain
his advance.
Finally, on the subject of the access to sources of energy, he observes that for the first time, the United States is self-sufficient.
He warns against policies initiated in the name of global warming, which implies limiting the use of energy. Here, Donald Trump is
not talking about the financialisation of ecology, but is clearly lobbing a stone into the garden of France, promoter of the " greening
of finance ". Replacing this question in a more general context, he affirms that the United States will support any States which
are victims of energy blackmail.
Affirming that
while the United States is no longer the sole superpower, it is the dominant power, he states that his central security objective
is the maintenance of this military preeminence , in accordance with the Roman adage Si vis pacem, para bellum [
1 ].
He first observes that " China is attempting to exclude the United States from the Indo-Pacific region, to extend the reach of
its State-run economic model, and to reorganise the region to its own advantage ". According to Trump, Beijing is in the process
of building the world's second military capability (under the authority of General Xi Jinping) leaning for support on the skills
of the United States.
As for Russia, " it is seeking to re-establish its status as a great power and create spheres of influence at its borders ". To
that purpose, it is " attempting to weaken the influence of the United States in the world and separate the USA from its allies and
partners. It perceives NATO and the European Union as threats ".
This is the first analysis of the goals and means of the rivals of the United States. Contrary to the " Wolfowitz doctrine ",
the White House no longer considers the European Union as a competitor, but as the civilian wing of NATO. Breaking with the strategy
of economic sabotage of the European Union by George Bush Sr. and Bill Clinton, Donald Trump posits the possibility of cooperating
with his rivals (which are now Russia and China), but only from a " position of strength ".
The current period sees the return of military competition, with three players this time. Knowing the tendency of military men
to prepare for the last war, rather than trying to imagine the next, it is a good idea to rethink the organisation and allocation
of the armies while remembering that your rivals will position themselves in whatever sector they choose. We should note that it
is not in this chapter that Donald Trump evokes the Pentagon's Achilles heel, but much earlier in the text. It is in his introduction,
at a moment when the reader is absorbed in philosophical considerations, that he mentions the new breed of Russian weapons, and in
particular their capacity to inhibit the commands and controls of NATO equipment.
The Pentagon must renew its arsenal, both in quantity and in quality. It has to abandon the illusion that its technological superiority
(in reality, now overtaken by Russia) can make up for its inferiority in numbers. There follows a long study of the domains of armament,
including nuclear weapons, which have to be modernised.
Donald Trump intends to inverse the current functioning of the Defense industry. The industry currently tries to sell its products
to the Federal state -- Trump hopes that the Federal state will launch its own offers, and that the industrials will respond to these
new needs. We know that today, the Defense industry no longer has the engineers it needs to realise new projects. The failure of
the F-35 is the most striking example of this. The change for which the President is hoping therefore supposes the prior organisation
of the " brain drain " towards the United States which he has already evoked.
As far as Intelligence is concerned, he has adopted the theories of his ex-National Security advisor General Michael Flynn. He
wants to reposition not only the Defense Intelligence Agency, but the entire " Intelligence community ". The objective is no longer
being able to pinpoint, at any moment, one terrorist chief or another, but being able to anticipate the strategic evolutions of its
rivals, adversaries and enemies. This means abandoning the obsession with GPS and high-tech gadgets in order to rehabilitate analysis.
Finally, he considers the State Department to be a tool enabling the creation of a positive environment for his country, including
with his rivals. It is no longer the means of extending the interests of multinational companies, which it was under George Bush
Sr. and Bill Clinton, nor the organiser of the Empire which it became under Bush Jr. and Barack Obama. US diplomats therefore need
to regain a little political dexterity.
The chapter dedicated
to the influence of the United States clarifies the end of the " globalisation " of the " American way of life ". The United States
will not seek to impose their values on others. They will treat all people equally, and will valorise those who respect the rule
of law.
In order to encourage those countries who might wish to become partners, but whose investments are governed by the State, he plans
to offer them alternatives solutions which would facilitate the reform of their economy.
Concerning intergovernmental organisations, he announces that he will refuse to hand over the slightest part of sovereignty if
it must be shared with countries who question the constitutional principles of the USA - a direct allusion to the International Criminal
Court, for example. On the other hand, he says nothing about the extra-territoriality of US Justice, which violates the constitutional
principles of other countries.
Finally, reviewing the long tradition which came from the compromise of 1791, he affirms that the United States will continue
to support those who fight for human dignity or religious freedom (not to be confused with freedom of conscience).
It is only after this long exposé that Donald Trump addresses the regional application of his doctrine. Nothing new is announced,
apart from an alliance with Australia, India and Japan to contain China and combat North Korea.
At best we learn about two new approaches to the Middle East. Experience with Daesh has shown that the main problem is not the
Israëli question, but that of the jihadist ideology. And what Washington blames Iran for is the perpetuation of the cycle of violence
by its refusal to negotiate.
By default, the reader understands that the Pentagon has to abandon the project by Admiral Arthur Cebrowski that Donald Rumfeld
imposed on 11 September. The " endless war " is over. The tension should not only stop spreading throughout the world, but lessen
in the Greater Middle East.
Donald Trump's National Security doctrine is very solidly constructed, on the historical level (we can see the influence of General
Jim Mattis) and on the philosophical level (following ex-Special advisor Steve Bannon). It is based on a rigorous analysis of the
challenges to US power (in conformity with the work of General H. R. McMaster). It validates the State Department's budget cuts (operated
by Rex Tillerson). Contrary to the received wisdom of US journalists, the Trump administration has managed to develop a coherent
synthesis which clearly distances itself from previous visions.
However, the absence of an explicit regional strategy attests to the extent of the ongoing revolution. Nothing guarantees that
the military leaders will apply this new philosophy in their respective domains - particularly since we were able to note, only a
few days ago, the collusion between US Forces and the jihadists in Syria.
Thierry Meyssan
Why Rosenstein does not investigate the DNC corruption instead or along with targeting Trump? "Who the hell cares if it was the Russians who hacked DNC emails that
proved their hypocrisy, mendacity and the corruption of the media?" What was the crime committed by Trump that warrant opening
the investigation ?
Notable quotes:
"... Mueller has a rather large conflict of interest: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-06-19/hillary-clinton-told-fbis-mueller-deliver-uranium-russians-2009-secret-plane-side-ta ..."
"... Mueller participated in one of the greatest expansions of mass surveillance in human history. ..."
"... Mueller was even okay with the CIA conducting torture programs after his own agents warned against participation. Agents were simply instructed not to document such torture, and any "war crimes files" were made to disappear. Not only did "collect it all" surveillance and torture programs continue, but Mueller's (and then Comey's) FBI later worked to prosecute NSA and CIA whistleblowers who revealed these illegalities. ..."
"... There's much more about Mueller which makes it clear he's no friend of democracy. http://www.globalresearch.ca/special-prosecutor-robert-mueller-is-a-political-hack/5594943 ..."
"... Apparatchik /ˌɑːpəˈrɑːtʃɪk/ (Russian: аппара́тчик [ɐpɐˈratɕɪk]) is a Russian colloquial term for a full-time, professional functionary of the Communist Party or government "apparat" (apparatus) that held any position of bureaucratic or political responsibility, with the exception of the higher ranks of management called "Nomenklatura". James Billington describes one as "a man not of grand plans, but of a hundred carefully executed details."[1] It is often considered a derogatory term, with negative connotations in terms of the quality, competence, and attitude of a person thus described.[2] ..."
"... Rosenstein and Mueller's Excellent Adventure. Mr. Mueller's Day Off. Sorry, it is hard to take this unconstitutional special counsel in search of a crime seriously. ..."
"... Rosenstein and Goldilocks??? You know, like from Hamlet. . . ..."
"... When Comey testified that AG Loretta Lynch ordered him to call the criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton's violations of email-protocols on a private server & ignoring security classifications, putting our National Security at risk -- why didn't the Senate Intelligence Committee subpoena Ms. Lynch to testify ..."
"... Why did AG Loretta Lynch refuse to demand that the FBI put Hillary under oath & also record their questioning of her during Emailgate? Why was Hillary accorded special privileges in violation of FBI-protocols -- that citizens would never be accorded? ..."
"... Mueller is close to the Clintons -- he is close to Comey. In my opinion, a man of integrity would not have accepted the role of Special Counsel in this trumped-up coup d'etat. Shame on him. ..."
"... as long as the moronic brain-washed idiots on Broadway continue to give Hillary standing ovations just because she "tried" to break the glass ceiling .you know, the participation trophy ..then she will keep on thinking she is actually someone worth admiring. She is not. She is incompetent. She is corrupt. She is a criminal. She is unethical. She is, and always will be Crooked Hillary. A failed politician who should be in prison for the rest of her life. ..."
"... From Comey's statements regarding Hillary Clinton, I believe that should be reopened, especially regarding Bill Clinton's meeting with then Attorney General Lynch. Is Lynch so stupid not to think the public would see that for what it was, a cover-up. The Russia thing is a cloak to cover the Clinton/Lynch meeting. ..."
"... Rosenstein worked under Mueller for 3 years, early in Rosenstein's DOJ career: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Rosenstein#Department_of_Justice You can argue appearance of impropriety on both sides. Mueller is friends with Comey, and he was Rosenstein's boss at the beginning of Rosenstein's DOJ career. ..."
"... "Hardcore anti-Trump Democrat Senator from Virginia and Russia conspiracy theorist, Mark Warner, made $6 million from Russian search engine and tech company Yandex back in 2012. GotNews reports that the $6 million he pocketed represents 10% of his entire net worth. This is corroborated by the Christian Science Monitor, which reported his net worth to be around $80 million." ..."
"... Let's think about Hillary and Bill that were "broke" when they left the White House and then trace their actions while following the money. The uranium sale to the Russians was just the tip of the iceberg. They enriched themselves on the backs of the American people and should be in jail. Trump acted within the law as far as we can see and the investigations don't stop. ..."
"... It's starting to look more like an insurrection than an investigation. Definition of insurrection : an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government. ..."
"... I think Mueller is too close to Comey to investigate this whole thing. I know that I could not be completely fair if one of my friends was a witness. I would clearly give them more weight. ..."
"... "If he 'doesn't have a conflict of interest' it's because lawyers have turned that phrase into a term-of-art which allows them to go about their scuzzy ways blatant partiality notwithstanding. The man who has no conflict of interest has hired four lawyers who are part of the modest minority of the public who finance Democratic Party campaigns, of which 3 have given four figure sums to Democratic campaigns. It's not difficult to find attorneys who do not make political contributions of note. Only a single-digit minority of the public are campaign contributors ..."
This is getting so ridiculous! Let's have everyone recluse themselves and get down to the work of running the country! Who the
hell cares if it was the Russians who hacked DNC emails that proved their hypocrisy, mendacity and the corruption of the media?
Why aren't we "investigating" the DNC? Answer: because our "media" has been weaponized by them against it's "enemies."
Putin is an enemy because he didn't take kindly to Clinton's political weaponizing the press in it's sphere of influence. Can't
say I blame him. If the CIA can't hack Putin, and the US is helpless to prevent further hacking, then we have a much bigger problem.
Trump's ham-fisted attempts to get actual government officials to "go public" to reduce the media heat he feels, is much ado
about nothing. I wish he didn't care about the publicity, but then – if he didn't – he wouldn't be President now.
G.R. headline: "Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller Is a "Political Hack" -- note what JT said:
snippett: Unsure About Assassination of U.S. Citizens Living On U.S. Soil Rather than saying "of course not!", Mueller said
that he wasn't sure whether Obama had the right to assassinate Americans living on American soil. Constitutional expert Jonathan
Turley commented at the time: "One would hope that the FBI Director would have a handle on a few details guiding his responsibilities,
including whether he can kill citizens without a charge or court order."
***
He appeared unclear whether he had the power under the Obama Kill Doctrine or, in the very least, was unwilling to discuss
that power. For civil libertarians, the answer should be easy: "Of course, I do not have that power under the Constitution."
Mueller participated in one of the greatest expansions of mass surveillance in human history. As we noted in 2013:
FBI special agent Colleen Rowley points out:
Mueller was even okay with the CIA conducting torture programs after his own agents warned against participation. Agents
were simply instructed not to document such torture, and any "war crimes files" were made to disappear. Not only did "collect
it all" surveillance and torture programs continue, but Mueller's (and then Comey's) FBI later worked to prosecute NSA and CIA
whistleblowers who revealed these illegalities.
All parties involved swore a supreme loyalty oath to the U.S. Constitution, which includes fidelity to our Bill of Rights. All
ignored the torture, illegal spying and abusing the Espionage Act but they did lock up those that had fidelity to their oath (i.e.:
John Kiriakou).
Why has the Press lost interest in that disloyalty by most, not all, DOJ employees – they swore to protect Americans' constitutional
rights.
Whenever a member or supporter of the !% tells us that Mr. X is highly respected etc., you can be certain that Mr. X will not
act contrary to the beliefs and aspirations of the established order.
You are exactly right! Mueller is an Apparatchik. Which wiki says is:
Apparatchik /ˌɑːpəˈrɑːtʃɪk/ (Russian: аппара́тчик [ɐpɐˈratɕɪk]) is a Russian colloquial term for a full-time, professional
functionary of the Communist Party or government "apparat" (apparatus) that held any position of bureaucratic or political
responsibility, with the exception of the higher ranks of management called "Nomenklatura". James Billington describes one
as "a man not of grand plans, but of a hundred carefully executed details."[1] It is often considered a derogatory term, with
negative connotations in terms of the quality, competence, and attitude of a person thus described.[2]
Members of the "apparat" were frequently transferred between different areas of responsibility, usually with little
or no actual training for their new areas of responsibility. Thus, the term apparatchik, or "agent of the apparatus" was usually
the best possible description of the person's profession and occupation.[3]
Not all apparatchiks held lifelong positions. Many only entered such positions in middle age.[4]
Today apparatchik is also used in contexts other than that of the Soviet Union or communist countries. According to Collins
English Dictionary the word can mean "an official or bureaucrat in any organization".[5]
According to Douglas Harper's Online Etymology Dictionary, the term was also used in the meaning "Communist agent or spy",
originating in the writings of Arthur Koestler, c. 1941.[6]
In Australia, the term is often used to describe people who have made their career as factional operatives and leaders in
political parties, and who are therefore perceived to have little 'real-world' experience outside politics.
Rosenstein and Mueller's Excellent Adventure. Mr. Mueller's Day Off. Sorry, it is hard to take this unconstitutional
special counsel in search of a crime seriously.
When Comey testified that AG Loretta Lynch ordered him to call the criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton's violations
of email-protocols on a private server & ignoring security classifications, putting our National Security at risk -- why didn't
the Senate Intelligence Committee subpoena Ms. Lynch to testify regarding:
Why did she advise Comey to call the investigation a "matter"? Why was she pressuring him to back-off and not indict
Hillary? To what degree was POTUS Obama involved in Hillary's e-mail gate? What was in the 30,000 emails that Hillary deleted?
What took place between Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch on the airplane during Tarmac-gate in AZ? They didn't talk about
their "grandkids" alone, did they ergo, did Bill Clinton promise that if AG Lynch & Comey refused to recommend an indictment
that Hillary would recommend her to be nominated for the US Supreme Court? What, if any other, quid-pro-quos were offered
by Bill on behalf of Hillary in order to obstruct justice?
Why did AG Loretta Lynch refuse to demand that the FBI put Hillary under oath & also record their questioning of her
during Emailgate? Why was Hillary accorded special privileges in violation of FBI-protocols -- that citizens would never be
accorded? What was Obama-Lynch's role in aiding-and-abetting Hillary to avoid prosecution of crimes that other US citizens
would endure for lesser crimes?
Let's be honest please: It wasn't Trump or the Russians who obstructed justice -- attempted to rig our elections -- who perverted
the course of justice: -- It was Obama, Bill & Hillary Clinton, AG Loretta Lynch and Comey– all of whom thought that Hillary would
be POTUS and were happy to help her out -- and whom were willing to turn a blind-eye -- to her crimes in order to enjoy the perks that
she would provide in return for ignoring her blatant, willful & criminal activities.
Mueller is close to the Clintons -- he is close to Comey. In my opinion, a man of integrity would not have accepted the role of
Special Counsel in this trumped-up coup d'etat. Shame on him.
Yes! But, as long as the moronic brain-washed idiots on Broadway continue to give Hillary standing ovations just because she "tried"
to break the glass ceiling .you know, the participation trophy ..then she will keep on thinking she is actually someone worth
admiring. She is not. She is incompetent. She is corrupt. She is a criminal. She is unethical. She is, and always will be Crooked
Hillary. A failed politician who should be in prison for the rest of her life. The idiots on the left who continue to venerate
her are true 'sycophants' -- emphasis on 'sick.'
From Comey's statements regarding Hillary Clinton, I believe that should be reopened, especially regarding Bill Clinton's meeting
with then Attorney General Lynch. Is Lynch so stupid not to think the public would see that for what it was, a cover-up. The Russia
thing is a cloak to cover the Clinton/Lynch meeting. It's a sham that DOJ has let go. My main complaint is -- how much is this
going to cost the taxpayer? It has no basis in fact from anyone, so why are we here? Well, because the Dems are afraid of Donald
Trump! Sessions should tell his Deputy to end this by terminating the whole thing. Hopefully Dems will,pay for this in 2018. We
will not let Americans forget!
Rosenstein worked under Mueller for 3 years, early in Rosenstein's DOJ career:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Rosenstein#Department_of_Justice
You can argue appearance of impropriety on both sides. Mueller is friends with Comey, and he was Rosenstein's boss at the beginning
of Rosenstein's DOJ career.
The Dems won't rest until they get Trump's tax returns. Next we'll see "leaks" coming out of the IRS because Trump hasn't cleaned
house over there yet.
And, yes, if Trump is to reveal his tax returns, so should every member of Congress be under scrutiny and/or investigation.
I'm sure we'd find some interesting information. Like this from Mark Warner's:
"Hardcore anti-Trump Democrat Senator from Virginia and Russia conspiracy theorist, Mark Warner, made $6 million from Russian
search engine and tech company Yandex back in 2012. GotNews reports that the $6 million he pocketed represents 10% of his entire
net worth. This is corroborated by the Christian Science Monitor, which reported his net worth to be around $80 million."
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -
"As far as we know, President Donald J. Trump has made 0% of his net worth from Russian companies. Maybe Warner should investigate
his own ties to Russia.
Virginia Democratic Senator Mark Warner, the ranking member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, is blocking the
White House from appointing a Treasury Department official to oversee financial crimes committed by terrorists. Warner, worth
over $80 million, is one of the Senate's richest members."
Let's think about Hillary and Bill that were "broke" when they left the White House and then trace their actions while following
the money. The uranium sale to the Russians was just the tip of the iceberg. They enriched themselves on the backs of the American
people and should be in jail. Trump acted within the law as far as we can see and the investigations don't stop.
The left is tribal and now even becoming openly violent.
It's starting to look more like an insurrection than an investigation. Definition of insurrection : an act or instance
of revolting against civil authority or an established government.
What a mess. Mueller has to recuse himself on anything Comey related, right? So, if Mueller opens an investigation into obstruction,
then both he and Rosenstein have to step aside. So Trump is correct when he says he is not under investigation. Hasn't Comey,
(and Coats and Rogers) all testified under oath that there was no obstruction? Hasn't it been determined that there is no 'collusion'
(whatever that means) between Trump and Russia? So what is the special counsel investigating?
How about instead of obstruction, they take a look at sedition?
If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire
to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose
by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by
force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined
under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
Michael Aarethun – he is not going to find Diogenese in Washington, DC. I think Mueller is too close to Comey to investigate
this whole thing. I know that I could not be completely fair if one of my friends was a witness. I would clearly give them more
weight.
Rosenstein has a clear conflict of interest. Mueller probably doesn't have a conflict of interest, but if I were in his shoes,
I would hire an attorney whose sole job is to deal with conflict of interest issues and other ethical issues that are certain
to come up. I would also take steps to see that this "ethics counsel" can't be fired without approval by the (acting) Attorney
General -- whoever is sitting in for Sessions.
"If he 'doesn't have a conflict of interest' it's because lawyers have turned that phrase into a term-of-art which allows
them to go about their scuzzy ways blatant partiality notwithstanding. The man who has no conflict of interest has hired four
lawyers who are part of the modest minority of the public who finance Democratic Party campaigns, of which 3 have given four figure
sums to Democratic campaigns. It's not difficult to find attorneys who do not make political contributions of note. Only a single-digit
minority of the public are campaign contributors. Comment dit-on Establishment stitch-up ?
There is strong circumstantial evidence that an insidious plot unprecedented in American
history was hatched within the FBI and the Obama Justice Department to help elect Hillary
Clinton and defeat Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election.
And when this apparent effort to improperly influence the election did not succeed, the
suspected conspirators appear to have employed a fraudulent investigation of President Trump in
an attempt to undo the election results and remove him as president.
Such a Machiavellian scheme would move well beyond what is known as the "deep state," a
popular reference to government employees who organize in secret to impose their own political
views on government policy in defiance of democratically elected leadership.
However, this apparent plot to keep Trump from becoming president and to weaken and
potentially pave the way for his impeachment with a prolonged politically motivated
investigation – if proven – would constitute something far more nefarious and
dangerous.
Such a plot would show that partisans within the FBI and the Justice Department, driven by
personal animus and a sense of political righteousness, surreptitiously conspired to subvert
electoral democracy itself in our country.
As of now, we have no proof beyond a reasonable doubt of such a plot. But we have very
strong circumstantial evidence.
And as the philosopher and writer Henry David Thoreau wrote in his journal in 1850: "Some
circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk."
Newly revealed text messages about the apparent anti-Trump plot are the equivalent of a
trout in the milk. It smells fishy.
The Plans
The mainstream media and Democrats dismiss talk of an anti-Trump conspiracy by the FBI and
Justice Department as right-wing nonsense – paranoid fantasies of Trump supporters with
no basis in facts. But there are plenty of facts that lay out a damning case based on
circumstantial evidence.
Recently disclosed text messages between FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok and FBI lawyer Lisa
Page suggest there may have been two parts of the apparent anti-Trump plot.
"Part A" was to devise a way to exonerate Clinton, despite compelling evidence that she
committed crimes under the Espionage Act in her mishandling of classified documents on her
private email server.
Absolving Clinton cleared the way for her to continue her candidacy at a time when all polls
and just about every pundit predicted she would be elected president in November 2016. If
Clinton had been charged with crimes she would likely have been forced to drop her candidacy,
and if she remained in the race her candidacy would have been doomed.
But "Part A" of the apparent anti-Trump plot was not enough. A back-up plan would be
prudent. It seems the Obama Justice Department and FBI conjured up a "Part B" just in case the
first stratagem failed. This would be even more malevolent – manufacturing an alleged
crime supposedly committed by Trump where no crime exists in the law.
And so, armed with a fictitious justification, a criminal investigation was launched into
so-called Trump-Russia "collusion." It was always a mythical legal claim, since there is no
statute prohibiting foreign nationals from volunteering their services in American political
campaigns.
More importantly, there was never a scintilla of evidence that Trump collaborated with
Russia to influence the election.
No matter. The intent may have been to sully the new president while searching for a crime
to force him from office.
But thanks to the discovery of text messages, circumstantial evidence has been exposed.
The Texts
The text messages exchanged between Strzok and Page, who were romantically involved, confirm
a stunning hostility toward Trump, calling him an "idiot" and "loathsome."
At the same time, the texts were filled with adoring compliments of Clinton, lauding her
nomination and stating: "She just has to win now."
One text between Strzok and Page dated Aug. 6, 2016 stands out and looks like the proverbial
smoking gun.
Page: "And maybe you're meant to stay where you are because you're meant to protect the
country from that menace." (This is clearly a reference to a Trump presidency).
Strzok: "Thanks. And of course I'll try and approach it that way. I can protect our country
at many levels . "
It is reasonable to conclude that Strzok had already taken steps to "protect" the country
from what he considered would be a dangerous and harmful Trump presidency.
Just one month earlier, then-FBI Director James Comey had announced he would recommend that
no criminal charges be filed by the Justice Department against Clinton. Given all the
incriminating evidence against Clinton, Comey's view that she should not be prosecuted made no
sense by any objective standard.
This is where Strzok played a pivotal role. As the lead investigator in the Clinton email
case, he is the person who changed the critical wording in Comey's description of Clinton's
handling of classified material, substituting "extremely careless" for "gross negligence."
As I explained in
an earlier column , this alteration of two words had enormous consequences, because it
allowed Clinton to evade prosecution. This removed the only legal impediment to her election as
president.
Documents made available by the Senate Homeland Security Committee also show that Comey
intended to declare that the sheer volume of classified material on Clinton's server supported
the "inference" that she was grossly negligent, which would constitute criminal conduct. Yet
this also was edited out, likely by Strzok, to avoid finding evidence of crimes.
This seems to be what Page and Strzok meant when they discussed his role as protector of the
republic. It appears that Strzok was instrumental in clearing Clinton by rewriting Comey's
otherwise incriminating findings.
Were Page and Strzok also referring to the investigation of Trump that was begun in July
2016, right after Clinton was absolved? After all, Strzok was the agent who reportedly signed
the documents launching the bureau's Trump-Russia probe. And he was a lead investigator in the
case before jumping to Robert Mueller's special counsel team.
If there is any doubt that Strzok and Page sought to undermine the democratic process,
consider this cryptic text about their "insurance policy" against the "risk" of a Trump
presidency.
Strzok: "I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy's office –
that there's no way he gets elected – but I'm afraid we can't take that risk. It's like
an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40. "
The reference to "Andy" is likely Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, who was also
supervising the investigation of Clinton's emails at the same time his wife was receiving
roughly $675,000 in campaign money in her race for elective office in Virginia from groups
aligned with Clinton.
What was the "insurance policy" discussed in Andy's office? Was it the FBI's investigation
of Trump and his associates? Or was it the anti-Trump "dossier" that may have been used by the
FBI and the Justice Department as the basis for a warrant to wiretap and spy on Trump
associates? Perhaps it was both.
The Dossier
The "dossier" was a compendium of largely specious allegations about Trump, compiled by the
opposition research firm Fusion GPS. The dossier was funded by the Clinton campaign and the
Democratic National Committee. Comey called it "salacious and unverified."
Various congressional committees suspect the dossier was illegally used to place a Trump
campaign associate, Carter Page, under foreign surveillance. When asked about that on Wednesday
during a hearing on Capitol Hill, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein refused to answer,
which sounds like an implicit "yes."
Using a dubious, if not phony, document in support of an affidavit to obtain a warrant from
a federal judge constitutes a fraud upon the court, which is a crime.
The dossier scandal recently ensnared Bruce Ohr, a top Justice Department official, who was
demoted last week for concealing his meetings with the men behind the document.
Ohr's wife worked for Fusion GPS. This created a disqualifying conflict of interest for Mr.
Ohr. He was legally obligated under Justice Department regulations to recuse himself from the
Mueller investigation of Russia's role in the election, but he did not.
Congress needs to find out whether the dossier was exploited as a pretext for initiating the
Russia probe against President Trump. It would also be unconscionable, if not illegal, for the
FBI and Justice Department to use opposition research funded by Clinton's campaign to spy on
her opponent or his campaign.
Both agencies have been resisting congressional subpoenas and other demands for answers,
which smacks of a cover-up. Since the Justice Department cannot be trusted to investigate
itself, a second special counsel should be appointed.
This new counsel should also reopen the Clinton email case and investigate the conduct of
Strzok, Page, Comey and others who may have obstructed justice by exonerating Clinton in the
face of substantial evidence that she had committed crimes.
If Strzok or anyone else allowed their political views to shape the investigations of either
Clinton or Trump and dictate the outcomes, that is a felony for which they should be
prosecuted.
The Mueller investigation is now so tainted with the appearance of corruption that it has
lost credibility and the public's trust.
The fact that he is employed by Guardia tells a lot how low Guardian fall. It's a yellow press (owned by intelligence agencies
if we talk about their coverage of Russia).
Notable quotes:
"... In theory, it would be hard to find two journalists more qualified to debate each side of this important issue. In practice, it was a one-sided thrashing that The Intercept 's Jeremy Scahill accurately described as "brutal". ..."
"... Russiagate only works if you allow it to remain zoomed out, where the individually weak arguments of this giant Gish gallop fallacy form the appearance of a legitimate argument. ..."
"... That's not how you're going to get the truth about Russia. He's all appeals to authority - Steele's most of all, even name dropping Kerry. To finally land on "oh well if you would read my whole book" is just getting to the silly season. Also "well this is the kind of person Putin is" is a terrible argument. This isn't about either Putin or Trump really, its about the long history of US-Russia relations and all that has occurred. Also, the ubiquitous throwing around of accusations of the murder of journalists in Russia is a straw man argument, especially when it is just thrown in as some sort of moral shielding for a shabby argument. ..."
Have you ever wondered why mainstream media outlets, despite being so fond of dramatic panel
debates on other hot-button issues, never have critics of the Russiagate narrative on to debate
those who advance it? Well, in a recent Real News interview we received an extremely
clear answer to that question, and it was so epic it deserves its own article.
Real News host and producer Aaron Maté has recently emerged as one of the most
articulate critics of the establishment Russia narrative and the Trump-Russia conspiracy
theory, and has published in The Nation some of the
clearest
arguments against both that I've yet seen. Luke Harding is a journalist for The Guardian
where he has been
writing prolifically in promotion of the Russiagate narrative, and is the author of
New
York Times bestseller Collusion: Secret Meetings, Dirty Money, and How Russia Helped Donald
Trump Win.
In theory, it would be hard to find two journalists more qualified to debate each side of
this important issue. In practice, it was a one-sided thrashing that The Intercept 's Jeremy
Scahill accurately described as "brutal".
The term Gish gallop
, named after a Young Earth creationist who was notoriously fond of employing it, refers to a
fallacious debate tactic in which a bunch of individually weak arguments are strung together in
rapid-fire succession in order to create the illusion of a solid argument and overwhelm the
opposition's ability to refute them all in the time allotted. Throughout the discussion the
Gish gallop appeared to be the only tool that Luke Harding brought to the table, firing out a
deluge of feeble and unsubstantiated arguments only to be stopped over and over again by
Maté who kept pointing out when Harding was making a false or fallacious claim.
In this part here , for
example, the following exchange takes place while Harding is already against the ropes on the
back of a previous failed argument. I'm going to type this up so you can clearly see what's
happening here:
Harding: Look, I'm a journalist. I'm a storyteller. I'm not a kind of head of the CIA or
the NSA. But what I can tell you is that there have been similar operations in France, most
recently when President Macron was elected ? -
Harding: Yeah. But, if you'll let me finish, there've been attacks on the German parliament ?
-
Maté: Okay, but wait Luke, do you concede that the France hack that you just claimed
didn't happen?
Harding: [pause] What? -- ?that it didn't happen? Sorry?
Maté: Do you concede that the Russian hacking of the French election that you just
claimed actually is not true?
Harding: [pause] Well, I mean that it's not true? I mean, the French report was inconclusive,
but you have to look at this kind of contextually. We've seen attacks on other European
states as well from Russia, they have very kind of advanced cyber capabilities.
Maté: Where else?
Harding: Well, Estonia. Have you heard of Estonia? It's a state in the Baltics which was
crippled by a massive cyber attack in 2008, which certainly all kind of western European and
former eastern European states think was carried out by Moscow. I mean I was in Moscow at the
time, when relations between the two countries were extremely bad. This is a kind of ongoing
thing. Now you might say, quite legitimately, well the US does the same thing, the UK does
the same thing, and I think to a certain extent that is certainly right. I think what was
different last year was the attempt to kind of dump this stuff out into kind of US public
space and try and influence public opinion there. That's unusual. And of course that's a
matter of congressional inquiry and something Mueller is looking at too.
Maté: Right. But again, my problem here is that the examples that are frequently
presented to substantiate claims of this massive Russian hacking operation around the world
prove out to be false. So France as I mentioned; you also mentioned Germany. There was a lot
of worry about Russian hacking of the German elections, but it turned out? -- ?and there's
plenty of articles since then that have acknowledged this? - ? that actually there was no
Russian hack in Germany.
In the above exchange, Maté derailed Harding's Gish gallop, and Harding actually
admonished him for doing so, telling him "let me finish" and attempting to go on listing more
flimsy examples to bolster his case as though he hadn't just begun his Gish gallop with a
completely
false example .
That's really all Harding brought to the debate. A bunch of individually weak arguments, the
fact that he speaks Russian and has lived in Moscow, and the occasional straw man where he tries to imply that
Maté is claiming that Vladimir Putin is an innocent girl scout. Meanwhile Maté
just kept patiently dragging the debate back on track over and over again in the most polite
obliteration of a man that I have ever witnessed.
The entire interview followed this basic script. Harding makes an unfounded claim,
Maté holds him to the fact that it's unfounded, Harding sputters a bit and tries to zoom
things out and point to a bigger-picture analysis of broader trends to distract from the fact
that he'd just made an individual claim that was baseless, then winds up implying that
Maté is only skeptical of the claims because he hasn't lived in Russia as Harding
has.
jeremy scahill 0
@jeremyscahill
This @aaronjmate interview is brutal. He makes mincemeat of Luke Harding, who can't seem to
defend the thesis, much less the title, of his own book: Where's the 'Collusion' -
YouTube
11:03 AM-Dec 25, 2017
Q 131 11597 C? 1,148
The interview ended when Harding once again implied that Maté was only skeptical of
the collusion narrative because he'd never been to Russia and seen what a right-wing oppressive
government it is, after which the following exchange took place:
Maté: I don't think I've countered anything you've said about the state of Vladimir
Putin's Russia. The issue under discussion today has been whether there was collusion, the
topic of your book.
Harding: Yeah, but you're clearly a kind of collusion rejectionist, so I'm not sure what sort
of evidence short of Trump and Putin in a sauna together would convince you. Clearly nothing
would convince you. But anyway it's been a pleasure.
At which point Harding abruptly logged off the video chat, leaving Maté to wrap up
the show and promote Harding's book on his own.
You should definitely watch this debate for yourself , and enjoy
it, because I will be shocked if we ever see another like it. Harding's fate will serve as a
cautionary tale for the establishment hacks who've built their careers advancing the Russiagate
conspiracy theory , and it's highly unlikely that any of them will ever make the mistake of
trying to debate anyone of Maté's caliber again.
The reason Russiagaters speak so often in broad, sweeping terms? - saying there are too many
suspicious things happening for there not to be a there there, that there's too much smoke for
there not to be fire? - ? is because when you zoom in and focus on any individual part of their
conspiracy theory, it falls apart under the slightest amount of critical thinking (or as
Harding calls it, "collusion rejectionism"). Russiagate only works if you allow it to remain
zoomed out, where the individually weak arguments of this giant Gish gallop fallacy form the
appearance of a legitimate argument.
Well, Harding did say he's a storyteller.
* * *
Thanks for reading! My work here is entirely reader-funded so if you enjoyed this piece
please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook , following me on Twitter , bookmarking my website , throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal , or buying my new book
Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers . Our Hidden History4
days ago (edited) That Harding tells Mate to meet Alexi Navalny, who is a far right
nationalist and most certainly a tool of US intelligence (something like Russia's Richard
Spencer) was all I needed to hear to understand where Luke is coming from.
He's little more than an intelligence asset himself if his idea of speaking to "Russians" is
to go and speak to a bunch of people who most certainly have their own ties back to the western
intelligence agencies.
That's not how you're going to get the truth about Russia. He's all appeals to authority -
Steele's most of all, even name dropping Kerry. To finally land on "oh well if you would read
my whole book" is just getting to the silly season. Also "well this is the kind of person Putin
is" is a terrible argument. This isn't about either Putin or Trump really, its about the long
history of US-Russia relations and all that has occurred. Also, the ubiquitous throwing around
of accusations of the murder of journalists in Russia is a straw man argument, especially when
it is just thrown in as some sort of moral shielding for a shabby argument.
Few in the US know
about these cases or what occurred, or of the many forces inside of Russia that might be
involved in murdering journalists just as in Mexico or Turkey. But these cases are not
explained - blame is merely assigned to Putin himself. Of course if someone here discusses he
death of Michael Hastings, they're a "conspiracy theorist", but if the crime involves a Russian
were to assign the blame to Vladimir Putin and, no further explanation is required.
Nationalism really represent a growing threat to neoliberalism. It is clear the the rise of
nationalism was caused by the triumph of neoliberalism all over the globe. As neoliberal
ideology collapsed in 2008, thing became really interesting now. Looks like
1920th-1940th will be replayed on a new level with the USA neoliberal empire under stress from
new challengers instead of British empire.
Rumor about the death of neoliberalism are slightly exaggerated ;-). This social system still
has a lot of staying power. you need some external shock like the need of cheap oil (defined as
sustainable price of oil over $100 per barrel) to shake it again. Of some financial crisis similar
to the crisis of 2008. Currently there is still
no alternative social order that can replace it. Collapse of the USSR discredited both socialism even
of different flavors then was practiced in the USSR. National socialism would be a step back from
neoliberalism.
Notable quotes:
"... The retreat of [neo]liberalism is very visible in Asia. All Southeast Asian states have turned their backs on liberal democracy, especially Indonesia, the Philippines and Myanmar in the last decade. This NYT article notes that liberalism has essentially died in Japan, and that all political contests are now between what the west would consider conservatives: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/15/opinion/liberalism-japan-election.html ..."
"... What is today called "Liberalism" and "Conservatism" both are simply corrupted labels applied to the same top-down corporate-fascistic elite rule that I think Mr. Buchanan once referred to as "two wings of the same bird of prey." ..."
"... Nobody at the top cares about 'diversity.' They care about the easy profits that come from ever cheaper labor. 'Diversity' is not suicide but rather murder: instigated by a small number of very powerful people who have decided that the long-term health of their nations and civilization is less important than short-term profits and power. ..."
"... Hillary and Obama are to the right of the President that Buchanan served in his White House. Richard Nixon was to the Left of both Hillary and Obama. I can't even imagine Hillary accepting and signing into law a 'Clean Water Act' or enacting Price Controls to fight inflation. No way. Heck would freeze over before Hillary would do something so against her Banker Backers. ..."
"... It's sure that financial (neo)liberalism was in a growth phase prior to year 2000 (under Greenspan, the "Maestro") with a general belief that the economy could be "fine tuned" with risk eliminated using sophisticated financial instruments, monetary policy etc. ..."
"... If [neo] Liberalism is a package, then two heavy financial blows that shook the whole foundation were the collapse of the dot.com bubble (2000) and the mortgage bubble (2008). ..."
"... And, other (self-serving) neoliberal stories are now seen as false. For example, that the US is an "advanced post-industrial service economy", that out-sourcing would "free up Americans for higher skilled/higher wage employment" or that "the US would always gain from tariff free trade". ..."
"... The basic divide is surely Nationalism (America First) vs. Globalism (Neo-Liberalism), as shown by the last US Presidential election. ..."
"... Neoliberalism, of which the Clintons are acolytes, supports Free Trade and Open Borders. Although it claims to support World Government, in actual fact it supports corporatism. This is explicit in the TPPA Trump vetoed. Under the corporate state, the state controls the corporations, as Don Benito did in Italy. Under corporatism, the corporations tell the state what to do, as has been the case in America since at least the Clinton Presidency. ..."
"... But I recall that Pat B also said neoconservatism was on its way out a few years after Iraq war II and yet it's stronger than ever and its adherents are firmly ensconced in the joint chiefs of staff, the pentagon, Congress and the White House. It's also spawned a close cousin in liberal interventionism. ..."
Asked to name the defining attributes of the America we wish to become, many liberals would answer
that we must realize our manifest destiny since 1776, by becoming more equal, more diverse and more
democratic -- and the model for mankind's future.
Equality, diversity, democracy -- this is the holy trinity of the post-Christian secular state
at whose altars Liberal Man worships.
But the congregation worshiping these gods is shrinking. And even Europe seems to be rejecting
what America has on offer.
In a retreat from diversity, Catalonia just voted to separate from Spain. The Basque and Galician
peoples of Spain are following the Catalan secession crisis with great interest.
The right-wing People's Party and far-right Freedom Party just swept 60 percent of Austria's vote,
delivering the nation to 31-year-old Sebastian Kurz, whose anti-immigrant platform was plagiarized
from the Freedom Party. Summarized it is: Austria for the Austrians!
Lombardy, whose capital is Milan, and Veneto will vote Sunday for greater autonomy from Rome.
South Tyrol (Alto Adige), severed from Austria and ceded to Italy at Versailles, written off by
Hitler to appease Mussolini after his Anschluss, is astir anew with secessionism. Even the Sicilians
are talking of separation.
By Sunday, the Czech Republic may have a new leader, billionaire Andrej Babis. Writes The Washington
Post, Babis "makes a sport of attacking the European Union and says NATO's mission is outdated."
Platform Promise: Keep the Muslim masses out of the motherland.
To ethnonationalists, their countrymen are not equal to all others, but superior in rights. Many
may nod at Thomas Jefferson's line that "All men are created equal," but they no more practice that
in their own nations than did Jefferson in his
... ... ...
European peoples and parties are today using democratic means to achieve "illiberal" ends. And
it is hard to see what halts the drift away from liberal democracy toward the restrictive right.
For in virtually every nation, there is a major party in opposition, or a party in power, that holds
deeply nationalist views.
European elites may denounce these new parties as "illiberal" or fascist, but it is becoming apparent
that it may be liberalism itself that belongs to yesterday. For more and more Europeans see the invasion
of the continent along the routes whence the invaders came centuries ago, not as a manageable problem
but an existential crisis.
To many Europeans, it portends an irreversible alteration in the character of the countries their
grandchildren will inherit, and possibly an end to their civilization. And they are not going to
be deterred from voting their fears by being called names that long ago lost their toxicity from
overuse.
And as Europeans decline to celebrate the racial, ethnic, creedal and cultural diversity extolled
by American elites, they also seem to reject the idea that foreigners should be treated equally in
nations created for their own kind.
Europeans seem to admire more, and model their nations more, along the lines of the less diverse
America of the Eisenhower era, than on the polyglot America of 2017.
And Europe seems to be moving toward immigration polices more like the McCarran-Walter Act of
1950 than the open borders bill that Sen. Edward Kennedy shepherded through the Senate in 1965.
Kennedy promised that the racial and ethnic composition of the America of the 1960s would not
be overturned, and he questioned the morality and motives of any who implied that it would.
Liberalism is the naivete of 18th century elites, no different than today. Modernity as you
know it is unsustainable, mostly because equality isn't real, identity has value for most humans,
pluralism is by definition fractious, and deep down most people wish to follow a wise strongman
leader who represents their interests first and not a vague set of universalist values.
Blind devotion to liberal democracy is another one of those times when white people take an
abstract concept to weird extremes. It is short-sighted and autistically narrow minded. Just because
you have an oppressive king doesn't mean everyone should be equals. Just because there was slavery/genocide
doesn't mean diversity is good.
The retreat of [neo]liberalism is very visible in Asia. All Southeast Asian states have turned their
backs on liberal democracy, especially Indonesia, the Philippines and Myanmar in the last decade.
This NYT article notes that liberalism has essentially died in Japan, and that all political contests
are now between what the west would consider conservatives:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/15/opinion/liberalism-japan-election.html
Good riddance. The idea that egalitarianism is more advanced than hierarchy has always been
false, and flies against the long arc of history. Time for nationalists around the world to smash
liberal democracy and build a new modernity based on actual humanism, with respect to hierarchies
and the primacy of majorities instead of guilt and pathological compassion dressed up as political
ideology.
"Liberalism" is not dying. "Liberalism" is dead, and has been since at least 1970.
What is today called "Liberalism" and "Conservatism" both are simply corrupted labels applied
to the same top-down corporate-fascistic elite rule that I think Mr. Buchanan once referred to
as "two wings of the same bird of prey."
Nobody at the top cares about 'diversity.' They care about the easy profits that come from
ever cheaper labor. 'Diversity' is not suicide but rather murder: instigated by a small number
of very powerful people who have decided that the long-term health of their nations and civilization
is less important than short-term profits and power.
Its been dead for nearly 20 years now. Liberalism has long been the Monty Python parrot nailed
to its perch. At this point, the term is mainly kept alive in right-wing attacks by people who
lack the imagination to change their habitual targets for so long.
To my eye, the last 'liberal' politician died in a susupicious plane crash in 2000 as the Bush
Republicans were taking the White House by their famous 5-4 vote/coup and also needed to claim
control of the Senate. So, the last authentic 'liberal' Senator, Paul Wellstone of MN was killed
in a suspicious plane crash that was never properly explained.
Hillary and Obama are to the right of the President that Buchanan served in his White House.
Richard Nixon was to the Left of both Hillary and Obama. I can't even imagine Hillary accepting
and signing into law a 'Clean Water Act' or enacting Price Controls to fight inflation. No way.
Heck would freeze over before Hillary would do something so against her Banker Backers.
And, at the root, that is the key. The 'Liberals' that the right now rails against are strongly
backed and supported by the Wall Street Banks and other corporate leaders. The 'Liberals' have
pushed for a government Of the Bankers, By the Bankers and For the Bankers. The 'Liberals' now
are in favor of Endless Unconstitutional War around the world.
Which can only mean that the term 'Liberal' has been so completely morphed away from its original
meanings to be completely worthless.
The last true Liberal in American politics was Paul Wellstone. And even by the time he died
for his sins, he was calling himself a "progressive" because after the Clintons and the Gores
had so distorted the term Liberal it was meaningless. Or it had come to mean a society ruled by
bankers, a society at constant war and throwing money constantly at a gigantic war machine, a
society of censorship where the government needed to control all music lyrics, the same corrupt
government where money could by anything from a night in the Lincoln Bedroom to a Presidential
Pardon or any other government favor.
Thus, 'Liberals' were a dead movement even by 2000, when the people who actually believed in
the American People over the profits of bankers were calling themselves Progressives in disgust
at the misuse of the term Liberal. And now, Obama and Hillary have trashed and distorted even
the term Progressive into bombing the world 365 days a year and still constantly throwing money
at the military machine and the problems it invents.
So, Liberalism is so long dead that if you exumed the grave you'd only find dust. And Pat must
be getting senile and just throwing back out the same lines he once wrote as a speechwriter for
the last Great Lefty President Richard Nixon.
Another question is whether this is wishful thinking from Pat or some kind of reality.
I think that he's right, that Liberalism is a dying faith, and it's interesting to check the
decline.
It's sure that financial (neo)liberalism was in a growth phase prior to year 2000 (under
Greenspan, the "Maestro") with a general belief that the economy could be "fine tuned" with risk
eliminated using sophisticated financial instruments, monetary policy etc.
If [neo] Liberalism is a package, then two heavy financial blows that shook the whole foundation
were the collapse of the dot.com bubble (2000) and the mortgage bubble (2008).
And, other (self-serving) neoliberal stories are now seen as false. For example, that the
US is an "advanced post-industrial service economy", that out-sourcing would "free up Americans
for higher skilled/higher wage employment" or that "the US would always gain from tariff free
trade".
In fact, the borderless global "world is flat" dogma is now seen as enabling a rootless hyper-rich
global elite to draw on a sea of globalized serf labour with little or no identity, while their
media and SWJ activists operate a scorched earth defense against any sign of opposition.
The basic divide is surely Nationalism (America First) vs. Globalism (Neo-Liberalism),
as shown by the last US Presidential election.
A useful analogy might be Viktor Orbán. He started out as a leader of a liberal party, Fidesz,
but then over time started moving to the right. It is often speculated that he started it for
cynical reasons, like seeing how the right was divided and that there was essentially a vacuum
there for a strong conservative party, but there's little doubt he totally internalized it. There's
also little doubt (and at the time he and a lot of his fellow party leaders talked about it a
lot) that as he (they) started a family and having children, they started to realize how conservatism
kinda made more sense than liberalism.
With Kurz, there's the possibility for this path. However, he'd need to start a family soon
for that to happen. At that age Orbán was already married with children
Neoliberalism, of which the Clintons are acolytes, supports Free Trade and Open Borders.
Although it claims to support World Government, in actual fact it supports corporatism. This is
explicit in the TPPA Trump vetoed. Under the corporate state, the state controls the corporations,
as Don Benito did in Italy. Under corporatism, the corporations tell the state what to do, as
has been the case in America since at least the Clinton Presidency.
Richard Nixon was a capitalist, not a corporatist. He was a supporter of proper competition
laws, unlike any President since Clinton. Socially, he was interventionist, though this may have
been to lessen criticism of his Vietnam policies. Anyway, his bussing and desegregation policies
were a long-term failure.
Price Control was quickly dropped, as it was in other Western countries. Long term Price Control,
as in present day Venezuela, is economically disastrous.
Let's hope liberalism is a dying faith and that is passes from the Western world. If not it will
destroy the West, so if it doesn't die a natural death then we must euthanize it. For the evidence
is in and it has begat feminism, anti-white racism, demographic winter, mass third world immigration
and everything else that ails the West and has made it the sick and dying man of the world.
But I recall that Pat B also said neoconservatism was on its way out a few years after
Iraq war II and yet it's stronger than ever and its adherents are firmly ensconced in the joint
chiefs of staff, the pentagon, Congress and the White House. It's also spawned a close cousin
in liberal interventionism.
What Pat refers to as "liberalism" is now left wing totalitarianism and anti-white hatred and
it's fanatically trying to remain relevant by lashing out and blacklisting, deplatforming, demonetizing,
and physically assaulting all of its enemies on the right who are gaining strength much to their
chagrin. They resort to these methods because they can't win an honest debate and in a true free
marketplace of ideas they lose.
If this is true, then this is definitely a sophisticated false flag operation. Was malware Alperovich people injected specifically
designed to implicate Russians? In other words Crowdstrike=Fancy Bear
Images removed. For full content please thee the original source
One interesting corollary of this analysis is that installing Crowdstrike software is like inviting a wolf to guard your chicken.
If they are so dishonest you take enormous risks. That might be true for some other heavily advertized "intrusion prevention" toolkits.
So those criminals who use mistyped popular addresses or buy Google searches to drive lemmings to their site and then flash the screen
that they detected a virus on your computer a, please call provided number and for a small amount of money your virus will be removed
get a new more sinister life.
"... Disobedient Media outlines the DNC server cover-up evidenced in CrowdStrike malware infusion ..."
"... In the article, they claim to have just been working on eliminating the last of the hackers from the DNC's network during the past weekend (conveniently coinciding with Assange's statement and being an indirect admission that their Falcon software had failed to achieve it's stated capabilities at that time , assuming their statements were accurate) . ..."
"... To date, CrowdStrike has not been able to show how the malware had relayed any emails or accessed any mailboxes. They have also not responded to inquiries specifically asking for details about this. In fact, things have now been discovered that bring some of their malware discoveries into question. ..."
"... there is a reason to think Fancy Bear didn't start some of its activity until CrowdStrike had arrived at the DNC. CrowdStrike, in the indiciators of compromise they reported, identified three pieces of malware relating to Fancy Bear: ..."
"... They found that generally, in a lot of cases, malware developers didn't care to hide the compile times and that while implausible timestamps are used, it's rare that these use dates in the future. It's possible, but unlikely that one sample would have a postdated timestamp to coincide with their visit by mere chance but seems extremely unlikely to happen with two or more samples. Considering the dates of CrowdStrike's activities at the DNC coincide with the compile dates of two out of the three pieces of malware discovered and attributed to APT-28 (the other compiled approximately 2 weeks prior to their visit), the big question is: Did CrowdStrike plant some (or all) of the APT-28 malware? ..."
"... The IP address, according to those articles, was disabled in June 2015, eleven months before the DNC emails were acquired – meaning those IP addresses, in reality, had no involvement in the alleged hacking of the DNC. ..."
"... The fact that two out of three of the Fancy Bear malware samples identified were compiled on dates within the apparent five day period CrowdStrike were apparently at the DNC seems incredibly unlikely to have occurred by mere chance. ..."
"... That all three malware samples were compiled within ten days either side of their visit – makes it clear just how questionable the Fancy Bear malware discoveries were. ..."
Of course the DNC did not want to the FBI to investigate its "hacked servers". The plan was well underway to excuse Hillary's
pathetic election defeat to Trump, and
CrowdStrike would help out by planting evidence to pin on those evil "Russian hackers." Some would call this
entire DNC server hack an
"insurance policy."
This was written almost a year ago. Not author demonstrated tremendous insight which was confirmed by subsequent events.
Notable quotes:
"... The decisive shift to 'regime change' at home has been a continual process organized, orchestrated and implemented by elected and appointed officials within the Obama regime and by a multiplicity of political action organizations, which cross traditional ideological boundaries. ..."
"... The outgoing President Obama mobilized the entire leadership of the security state to fabricate 'dodgy dossiers' linking Donald Trump to the Russian President Vladimir Putin, insisting that Trump was a stooge or 'vulnerable to KGB blackmail'. The CIA's phony documents (arriving via a former British intelligence operative-now free lance 'security' contractor) were passed around among the major corporate media who declined to publish the leaked gossip. Months of attempts to get the US media to 'take the bite' on the 'smelly' dossier were unsuccessful. The semi-senile US Senator John McCain ('war-hero' and hysterical Trump opponent) then volunteered to plop the reeking gossip back onto the lap of the CIA Director Brennan and demand the government 'act on these vital revelations'! ..."
"... Under scrutiny by serious researchers, the 'CIA dossier' was proven to be a total fabrication by way of a former 'British official – now – in – hiding !' Undaunted, despite being totally discredited, the CIA leadership continued to attack the President-Elect. Trump likened the CIA's 'dirty pictures hatchet job' to the thuggish behavior of the Nazis and clearly understood how the CIA leadership was involved in a domestic coup d'état. ..."
"... CIA Director John Brennan, architect of numerous 'regime changes' overseas had brought his skills home – against the President-elect. For the first time in US history, a CIA director openly charged a President or President-elect with betraying the country and threatened the incoming Chief Executive. He coldly warned Trump to ' just make sure he understands that the implications and impacts (of Trump's policies) on the United States could be profound " ..."
The norms of US capitalist democracy include the election of presidential candidates through competitive elections, unimpeded
by force and violence by the permanent institutions of the state. Voter manipulation has occurred during the recent elections, as
in the case of the John F. Kennedy victory in 1960 and the George W. Bush victory over 'Al' Gore in 2000. But despite the dubious
electoral outcomes in these cases, the 'defeated' candidate conceded and sought via legislation, judicial rulings, lobbying and peaceful
protests to register their opposition.
These norms are no longer operative. During the election process, and in the run-up to the inauguration of US President-Elect
Donald Trump, fundamental electoral institutions were challenged and coercive institutions were activated to disqualify the elected
president and desperate overt public pronouncements threatened the entire electoral order.
We will proceed by outlining the process that is used to undermine the constitutional order, including the electoral process and
the transition to the inauguration of the elected president.
Regime Change in America
In recent times, elected officials in the US and their state security organizations have often intervened against independent
foreign governments, which challenged Washington 's quest for global domination. This was especially true during the eight years
of President Barack Obama's administration where the violent ousting of presidents and prime ministers through US-engineered coups
were routine – under an unofficial doctrine of 'regime change'.
The violation of constitutional order and electoral norms of other countries has become enshrined in US policy. All US political,
administrative and security structures are involved in this process. The policymakers would insist that there was a clear distinction
between operating within constitutional norms at home and pursuing violent, illegal regime change operations abroad.
Today the distinction between overseas and domestic norms has been obliterated by the state and quasi-official mass media. The
US security apparatus is now active in manipulating the domestic democratic process of electing leaders and transitioning administrations.
The decisive shift to 'regime change' at home has been a continual process organized, orchestrated and implemented by elected
and appointed officials within the Obama regime and by a multiplicity of political action organizations, which cross traditional
ideological boundaries.
Regime change has several components leading to the final solution: First and foremost, the political parties seek to delegitimize
the election process and undermine the President-elect. The mass media play a major role demonizing President-Elect Trump with personal
gossip, decades-old sex scandals and fabricated interviews and incidents.
Alongside the media blitz, leftist and rightist politicians have come together to question the legitimacy of the November 2016
election results. Even after a recount confirmed Trump's victory, a massive propaganda campaign was launched to impeach the president-elect
even before he takes office – by claiming Trump was an 'enemy agent'.
The Democratic Party and the motley collection of right-left anti-Trump militants sought to blackmail members of the Electoral
College to change their vote in violation of their own mandate as state electors. This was unsuccessful, but unprecedented.
Their overt attack on US electoral norms then turned into a bizarre and virulent anti-Russia campaign designed to paint the elected
president (a billionaire New York real estate developer and US celebrity icon) as a 'tool of Moscow .' The mass media and powerful
elements within the CIA, Congress and Obama Administration insisted that Trump's overtures toward peaceful, diplomatic relations
with Russia were acts of treason.
The outgoing President Obama mobilized the entire leadership of the security state to fabricate 'dodgy dossiers' linking Donald
Trump to the Russian President Vladimir Putin, insisting that Trump was a stooge or 'vulnerable to KGB blackmail'. The CIA's phony
documents (arriving via a former British intelligence operative-now free lance 'security' contractor) were passed around among the
major corporate media who declined to publish the leaked gossip. Months of attempts to get the US media to 'take the bite' on the
'smelly' dossier were unsuccessful. The semi-senile US Senator John McCain ('war-hero' and hysterical Trump opponent) then volunteered
to plop the reeking gossip back onto the lap of the CIA Director Brennan and demand the government 'act on these vital revelations'!
Under scrutiny by serious researchers, the 'CIA dossier' was proven to be a total fabrication by way of a former 'British
official – now – in – hiding !' Undaunted, despite being totally discredited, the CIA leadership continued to attack the President-Elect.
Trump likened the CIA's 'dirty pictures hatchet job' to the thuggish behavior of the Nazis and clearly understood how the CIA leadership
was involved in a domestic coup d'état.
CIA Director John Brennan, architect of numerous 'regime changes' overseas had brought his skills home – against the President-elect.
For the first time in US history, a CIA director openly charged a President or President-elect with betraying the country and threatened
the incoming Chief Executive. He coldly warned Trump to ' just make sure he understands that the implications and impacts (of Trump's
policies) on the United States could be profound "
Clearly CIA Director Brennan has not only turned the CIA into a sinister, unaccountable power dictating policy to an elected US
president, by taking on the tone of a Mafia Capo, he threatens the physical security of the incoming leader.
From a Scratch to Gangrene
The worst catastrophe that could fall on the United States would be a conspiracy of leftist and rightist politicos, the corporate
mass media and the 'progressive' websites and pundits providing ideological cover for a CIA-orchestrated 'regime change'.
Whatever the limitations of our electoral norms- and there are many – they are now being degraded and discarded in a march toward
an elite coup, involving elements of the militarist empire and 'in`telligence' hierarchy.
Mass propaganda, a 'red-brown alliance, salacious gossip and accusations of treason ('Trump, the Stooge of Moscow') resemble the
atmosphere leading to the rise of the Nazi state in Germany . A broad 'coalition' has joined hands with a most violent and murderous
organization (the CIA) and imperial political leadership, which views overtures to peace to be high treason because it limits their
drive for world power and a US dominated global political order.
James Petras is a Bartle Professor (Emeritus) of Sociology at Binghamton University, New York.
http://petras.lahaine.org/
"... I accept your point that the Democrats and the Republicans are two sides of the same coin, but it's important to understand that Putin is deeply conservative and very risk averse. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton may be a threat to Russia but she knows the "rules" and is very predictable, while Trump doesn't know the rules and appears to act on a whim ..."
"... However, given the problems that Hillary Clinton had to overcome to get elected, backing her against Trump would be risky. So the highly risk averse Putin would logically stay out of the election entirely and all the claims of Russia hacking the election are fake news. ..."
"... As for the alleged media campaign, my response is "so what!". Western media, including state-owned media, interferes around the world all the time so complaining about Russian state-owned media doing the same is pure hypocrisy and should be ignored. ..."
On your surmise that Putin prefers Trump to Hillary and would thus have incentive to
influence the election, I beg to differ. Putin is one smart statesman; he knows very well
it makes no difference which candidates gets elected in US elections.
I accept your point that the Democrats and the Republicans are two sides of the same
coin, but it's important to understand that Putin is deeply conservative and very risk
averse.
Hillary Clinton may be a threat to Russia but she knows the "rules" and is very
predictable, while Trump doesn't know the rules and appears to act on a whim , so if
Putin were to have interfered in the 2016 presidential election, logic would suggest that he
would do so on Hillary Clinton's side. However, given the problems that Hillary Clinton
had to overcome to get elected, backing her against Trump would be risky. So the highly risk
averse Putin would logically stay out of the election entirely and all the claims of Russia
hacking the election are fake news.
As for the alleged media campaign, my response is "so what!". Western media, including
state-owned media, interferes around the world all the time so complaining about Russian
state-owned media doing the same is pure hypocrisy and should be ignored.
max Book is just anothe "Yascha about Russia" type, that Masha Gessen represents so vividly.
The problem with him is that time of neocon prominance is solidly in the past and now unpleasant
question about the cost from the US people of their reckless foreign policies get into some
newspapers and managines. They cost the USA tremedous anount of money (as in trillions) and those
money consititute a large portion of the national debt. Critiques so far were very weak and
partially suppressed voices, but defeat of neocon warmonger Hillary signify some break with
the past.
Notable quotes:
"... National Interest ..."
"... Carlson's record suggests that he has been in the camp skeptical of U.S. foreign-policy intervention for some time now and, indeed, that it predates Donald Trump's rise to power. (Carlson has commented publicly that he was humiliated by his own public support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.) According to Carlson, "This is not about Trump. This is not about Trump. It's the one thing in American life that has nothing to do with Trump. My views on this are totally unrelated to my views on Donald Trump. This has been going since September 11, 2001. And it's a debate that we've never really had. And we need to have it." He adds, "I don't think the public has ever been for the ideas that undergird our policies." ..."
"... National Interest ..."
"... But the fight also seems to have a personal edge. Carlson says, "Max Boot is not impressive. . . . Max is a totally mediocre person." Carlson added that he felt guilty about not having, in his assessment, a superior guest to Boot on the show to defend hawkishness. "I wish I had had someone clear-thinking and smart on to represent their views. And there are a lot of them. I would love to have that debate," Carlson told me, periodically emphasizing that he is raring to go on this subject. ..."
"... New York Observer ..."
"... National Interest ..."
"... Weekly Standard ..."
"... Weekly Standard ..."
"... Though he eschews labels, Carlson sounds like a foreign-policy realist on steroids: "You can debate what's in [the United States'] interest. That's a subjective category. But what you can't debate is that ought to be the basic question, the first, second and third question. Does it represent our interest? . . . I don't think that enters into the calculations of a lot of the people who make these decisions." Carlson's interests extend beyond foreign policy, and he says "there's a massive realignment going on ideologically that everybody is missing. It's dramatic. And everyone is missing it. . . . Nobody is paying attention to it, " ..."
This week's primetime knife fights with Max Boot and Ralph Peters are emblematic of the
battle for the soul of the American Right.
To be sure, Carlson rejects the term
"neoconservatism,"
and implicitly, its corollary on the Democratic side, liberal internationalism. In 2016, "the reigning
Republican foreign-policy view, you can call it neoconservatism, or interventionism, or whatever you
want to call it" was rejected, he explained in a wide-ranging interview with the National Interest
Friday.
"But I don't like the term 'neoconservatism,'" he says, "because I don't even know what it means.
I think it describes the people rather than their ideas, which is what I'm interested in. And to
be perfectly honest . . . I have a lot of friends who have been described as neocons, people I really
love, sincerely. And they are offended by it. So I don't use it," Carlson said.
But Carlson's recent segments on foreign policy conducted with Lt. Col.
Ralph Peters and the prominent neoconservative journalist and author
Max Boot were acrimonious even by Carlsonian standards. In a discussion on Syria, Russia and
Iran, a visibly upset Boot accused Carlson of being "immoral" and taking foreign-policy positions
to curry favor with the White House, keep up his
ratings , and by proxy, benefit financially. Boot says that Carlson "basically parrots whatever
the pro-Trump line is that Fox viewers want to see. If Trump came out strongly against Putin tomorrow,
I imagine Tucker would echo this as faithfully as the pro-Russia arguments he echoes today." But
is this assessment fair?
Carlson's record suggests that he has been in the camp skeptical of U.S. foreign-policy intervention
for some time now and, indeed, that it predates Donald Trump's rise to power. (Carlson has commented
publicly that he was humiliated by his own public support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.) According
to Carlson, "This is not about Trump. This is not about Trump. It's the one thing in American life
that has nothing to do with Trump. My views on this are totally unrelated to my views on Donald Trump.
This has been going since September 11, 2001. And it's a debate that we've never really had. And
we need to have it." He adds, "I don't think the public has ever been for the ideas that undergird
our policies."
Even if Carlson doesn't want to use the label neocon to describe some of those ideas, Boot is
not so bashful. In 2005, Boot wrote an essay called
"Neocons May Get
the Last Laugh." Carlson "has become a Trump acolyte in pursuit of ratings," says Boot, also
interviewed by the National Interest . "I bet if it were President Clinton accused of colluding
with the Russians, Tucker would be outraged and calling for impeachment if not execution. But since
it's Trump, then it's all a big joke to him," Boot says. Carlson vociferously dissents from such
assessments: "This is what dumb people do. They can't assess the merits of an argument. . . . I'm
not talking about Syria, and Russia, and Iran because of ratings. That's absurd. I can't imagine
those were anywhere near the most highly-rated segments that night. That's not why I wanted to do
it."
But Carlson insists, "I have been saying the same thing for fifteen years. Now I have a T.V. show
that people watch, so my views are better known. But it shouldn't be a surprise. I supported Trump
to the extent he articulated beliefs that I agree with. . . . And I don't support Trump to the extent
that his actions deviate from those beliefs," Carlson said. Boot on Fox said that Carlson is "too
smart" for this kind of argument. But Carlson has bucked the Trump line, notably on Trump's April
7 strikes in Syria. "When the Trump administration threw a bunch of cruise missiles into Syria for
no obvious reason, on the basis of a pretext that I
question . . . I questioned [the decision] immediately. On T.V. I was on the air when that happened.
I think, maybe seven minutes into my show. . . . I thought this was reckless."
But the fight also seems to have a personal edge. Carlson says, "Max Boot is not impressive. .
. . Max is a totally mediocre person." Carlson added that he felt guilty about not having, in his
assessment, a superior guest to Boot on the show to defend hawkishness. "I wish I had had someone
clear-thinking and smart on to represent their views. And there are a lot of them. I would love to
have that debate," Carlson told me, periodically emphasizing that he is raring to go on this subject.
Boot objects to what he sees as a cavalier attitude on the part of Carlson and others toward allegations
of Russian interference in the 2016 election, and also toward the deaths of citizens of other countries.
"You are laughing about the fact that Russia is interfering in our election process. That to me is
immoral," Boot told Carlson on his show. "This is the level of dumbness and McCarthyism in Washington
right now," says Carlson. "I think it has the virtue of making Max Boot feel like a good person.
Like he's on God's team, or something like that. But how does that serve the interest of the country?
It doesn't." Carlson says that Donald Trump, Jr.'s emails aren't nearly as important as who is going
to lead Syria, which he says Boot and others have no plan for successfully occupying. Boot, by contrast,
sees the U.S. administration as dangerously flirting with working with Russia, Iran and Syrian president
Bashar al-Assad. "For whatever reason, Trump is pro-Putin, no one knows why, and he's taken a good
chunk of the GOP along with him," Boot says.
On Fox last Wednesday, Boot reminded Carlson that he originally supported the 2003 Iraq decision.
"You supported the invasion of Iraq," Boot said, before repeating, "You supported the invasion of
Iraq." Carlson conceded that, but it seems the invasion was a bona fide turning point. It's most
important to parse whether Carlson has a long record of anti-interventionism, or if he's merely
sniffing the throne of the president (who, dubiously, may have opposed the 2003 invasion). "I
think it's a total nightmare and disaster, and I'm ashamed that I went against my own instincts in
supporting it," Carlson told the New York Observer in early 2004. "It's something I'll never
do again. Never. I got convinced by a friend of mine who's smarter than I am, and I shouldn't have
done that. . . . I'm enraged by it, actually." Carlson told the National Interest that he's
felt this way since seeing Iraq for himself in December 2003.
The evidence points heavily toward a sincere conversion on Carlson's part, or preexisting conviction
that was briefly overcome by the beat of the war drums. Carlson did work for the Weekly Standard
, perhaps the most prominent neoconservative magazine, in the 1990s and early 2000s. Carlson today
speaks respectfully of William Kristol, its founding editor, but has concluded that he is all wet.
On foreign policy, the people Carlson speaks most warmly about are genuine hard left-wingers: Glenn
Greenwald, a vociferous critic of both economic neoliberalism and neoconservatism; the anti-establishment
journalist Michael Tracey; Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor of the Nation ; and her husband,
Stephen Cohen, the Russia expert and critic of U.S. foreign policy.
"The only people in American public life who are raising these questions are on the traditional
left: not lifestyle liberals, not the Williamsburg (Brooklyn) group, not liberals in D.C., not Nancy
Pelosi." He calls the expertise of establishment sources on matters like Syria "more shallow than
I even imagined." On his MSNBC show, which was canceled for poor ratings, he cavorted with noninterventionist
stalwarts such as
Ron Paul , the 2008 and 2012 antiwar GOP candidate, and Patrick J. Buchanan. "No one is smarter
than Pat Buchanan," he said
last year of the man whose ideas many say laid the groundwork for Trump's political success.
Carlson has risen to the pinnacle of cable news, succeeding Bill O'Reilly. It wasn't always clear
an antiwar take would vault someone to such prominence. Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio or Mitt Romney could
be president (Boot has advised the latter two). But here he is, and it's likely no coincidence that
Carlson got a show after Trump's election, starting at the 7 p.m. slot, before swiftly moving to
the 9 p.m. slot to replace Trump antagonist Megyn Kelly, and just as quickly replacing O'Reilly at
the top slot, 8 p.m. Boot, on the other hand, declared in 2016 that the Republican Party was
dead , before it went on to hold Congress and most state houses, and of course take the presidency.
He's still at the Council on Foreign Relations and writes for the New York Times (this seems
to clearly annoy Carlson: "It tells you everything about the low standards of the American foreign-policy
establishment").
Boot wrote in 2003 in the Weekly Standard that the fall of Saddam Hussein's government
"may turn out to be one of those hinge moments in history" comparable to "events like the storming
of the Bastille or the fall of the Berlin Wall, after which everything is different." He continued,
"If the occupation goes well (admittedly a big if ), it may mark the moment when the powerful
antibiotic known as democracy was introduced into the diseased environment of the Middle East, and
began to transform the region for the better."
Though he eschews labels, Carlson sounds like a foreign-policy realist on steroids: "You can debate
what's in [the United States'] interest. That's a subjective category. But what you can't debate
is that ought to be the basic question, the first, second and third question. Does it represent our
interest? . . . I don't think that enters into the calculations of a lot of the people who make these
decisions." Carlson's interests extend beyond foreign policy, and he says "there's a massive realignment
going on ideologically that everybody is missing. It's dramatic. And everyone is missing it. . .
. Nobody is paying attention to it, "
Carlson seems intent on pressing the issue. The previous night, in his debate with Peters, the
retired lieutenant colonel said that Carlson sounded like Charles Lindbergh, who opposed U.S. intervention
against Nazi Germany before 1941. "This particular strain of Republican foreign policy has almost
no constituency. Nobody agrees with it. I mean there's not actually a large group of people outside
of New York, Washington or L.A. who think any of this is a good idea," Carlson says. "All I am is
an asker of obvious questions. And that's enough to reveal these people have no idea what they're
talking about. None."
Curt Mills is a foreign-affairs reporter at the National Interest . Follow him on Twitter:
@CurtMills .
Headliner of the week was the Muslim
terrorist attack on a pop concert in Manchester, England. The bomber blew
himself up and took 22 others with him. That's the count as I go to tape
here; over a hundred were injured, some critically, so the death count may
be higher as you hear this.
The bomber was a 22-year-old Muslim, name
of Salman Abedi, born in Britain to parents from Libya. Those parents had
been settled in England as refugees from Colonel
Gaddafy's
government; so that's where the bomber was born, in England,
1994.
Salman Abedi's parents thereupon, in 2011,
returned to Libya. Salman Abedi, then 17, stayed in the U.K.
So I'll just pause to note here that this
is yet another case of
absimilation
. Here yet again is the relevant
passage from
We Are Doomed
, the one book you need to explain the modern
world. Chapter 10, edited quote:
The English word "assimilation" derives
from the Latin prefix
ad
-, which indicates a moving towards
something, and the same language's verb simulare, "to cause a person or
thing to resemble another." You can make a precisely opposite word using
the prefix
ab
-, which marks a moving away from something. Many
immigrants of course assimilate to American society Many others,
however, especially in the second and following generations,
ab
similate.
That's what Salman Abedi did: He
absimilated, ending up hating the country that had taken in his parents.
It wasn't just him, either. His younger
brother Hashim, 20 years old, and so presumably also born in England, seems
to have been an accomplice to the bombing. He was arrested by authorities in
Libya on Tuesday. There's also a slightly older brother, 23-year-old Ismail,
arrested by British police in Manchester, also on Tuesday.
The father has been arrested, too, also in
Libya. The authorities there say he belongs to an extremist sect of Islam.
There's also a sister, 18-year-old
Jomana Abedi
, also born in Manchester, where she is studying molecular
biology with a view to advancing cancer research No, sorry, I got my news
stories mixed up there. Ms. Abedi actually works at a mosque, though I
haven't been able to discover what she does there.
@Anon
The terrorist bombing was terrible, but the concert was worse.
It was a celebration of open borders, degeneracy, interracism, slut
culture for little girls, and jungle fever. It was all about globalist
propaganda for kiddies.
British masses seem to welcome this cultural degeneracy and mass
invasion by foreigners.
How ironic that an Islamic terrorist who gained entry into UK via
globalism threw a monkey wrench at globalism?
If Muslims want to bomb every globalist celebration of open borders,
degeneracy, Afro-colonization of white wombs, and slut culture for kids,
who cares?
Globalism isn't about respect for world cultures and world histories.
It is about spreading mono-culture of Afromania, Homomania, and Ziomania
all over the world.
And the bombing of Libya has nothing to do with it. Stop killing Muslims,
and they will stop killing u. U killmy brother, I kill yours, u kill my
kids I kill yours, simple logic.
Sure, lack of assimilation is the culprit but as a "truther" might say,
this could well be an operation carried out by the deep state. Indeed,
someone put this kid up to this, supplied explosives and logistics, so
perhaps it was an Israeli plot, for certain some Anglo-Zionist one
percenter must be behind all of this. Naturally, as it is often published
here, white Europeans are superior to all other races so the kid was by
virtue of ancestry a lesser, defective human being to begin with
Manchester police announced where the Abedi family got the tens of
thousands of pounds that enabled them to fly back and forth from England
to several countries in the Middle East for years.
Welfare fraud and student loans funded the bombing. Apparently the
English student loan system does not require class attendance and
accumulation of credits to continue receiving loans.
BBC radio useful
idiot programs claim the Abedi brothers might have been bullied by evil
Whites. But they lived on the middle of the Libyan neighborhood so it's
unlikely they were bullied by Whites.
In 2004 the King of Jordan, the ruling Saud at the time in Saudi Arabia,
and Mucharraf in Pakistan all told senator Hollings that the only way to
end terrorism was to establish peace between Israel and the Palestinians.
Since 2004 the west did nothing for peace, on the contrary, efforts to
destabilise the ME, and North Africa continued, an were intensified.
Deradicalisation is making Muslims believe that what they see happening
is not happening.
It may succeed in a few cases, but it so me seems impossible in general.
So attacks in the west will continue, it is, as Mearsheimer and Walt
write 'the strategy of the weak'.
On top of that, the west needs terrorism, if necessary does it herself,
in order to make the western societies more totalitarian all the time
'for our safety'.
The destabilisation in ME and N Africa causes massive migration, the
destabilisation of the European countries is welcome, in order to create
an Europe, a USA clone.
This latest Manchester bombing is the perfect illustration of the twofold
nature of the problem of invade the world/invite the world. Furthermore
it comes on top of another similarly perfect illustration of that twofold
nature, in the Orlando shootings. In both cases a 2nd generation
immigrant whose parents were only here because it suited the US/UK
regimes to have them here as oppositionist tools for the destabilisation
and overthrow of foreign governments, who in each case openly declare the
ongoing butchery our governments are responsible for in the ME and North
Africa as direct motivating factors for their own violence, was enabled
to attack their host nations by immigration.
Derbyshire's piece does a
good job of skewering the "invite the world" side of the issue, but
ignores "invade the world".
In 2011, you'll recall, Barack Obama, prompted by the Three
Horsegirls of the Apocalypse-Samantha Power of Obama's National
Security Council, his U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, and his Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton-who in turn were prompted by Britain and France,
with an assist from George Soros-overthrew Colonel Gaddafy.
Salman Abedi's parents thereupon, in 2011, returned to Libya.
Salman Abedi, then 17, stayed in the U.K.
That's barely the beginning of the story, with its murky elements of
the UK regime's security forces using jihadist terrorism as a weapon for
regime change in Libya and Syria, in which this family seem to have been
up to their necks. Even the BBC reported on some of these murky aspects
in the immediate aftermath of the bombing (though doubtless that line of
inquiry will be quietly dropped, or suppressed).
@Anon
The terrorist bombing was terrible, but the concert was worse.
It was a celebration of open borders, degeneracy, interracism, slut
culture for little girls, and jungle fever. It was all about globalist
propaganda for kiddies.
British masses seem to welcome this cultural degeneracy and mass
invasion by foreigners.
How ironic that an Islamic terrorist who gained entry into UK via
globalism threw a monkey wrench at globalism?
If Muslims want to bomb every globalist celebration of open borders,
degeneracy, Afro-colonization of white wombs, and slut culture for kids,
who cares?
Globalism isn't about respect for world cultures and world histories.
It is about spreading mono-culture of Afromania, Homomania, and Ziomania
all over the world.
"Others said he was a bit of a party animal, who drank vodka and
smoked weed daily, was popular with girls and "always clubbing or at
house parties", listening to rap and grime music. A young man, in
other words,
like so many others in Manchester: unconcerning,
unremarkable
. "
This is how the globalist media
want
us to live.
IIRC the 9/11 bombers liked clubbing, booze and strippers. Lots of
jihadists were petty criminals or drug dealers before the gods of their
far-off land repossessed their blood – and spilled ours
Salman's father Ramadan reportedly was a member of the Libyan Islamic
Fighting Group back in the 90′s which had AQ links. Weren't those people
in cahoots with British intelligence back then in schemes to overthrow
Khaddafi? This explains his supposed resettlement in Britain; he was
connected. Also, Daily Mail has described him as a "former airport
security worker in the UK". Think about that one for a while. They were
reported to the authorities years ago but apparently they were allowed to
go on unencumbered. The son may have gone off and become a loose cannon
but otherwise there's a lot of murkiness involved with these people.
Like the author, I grew up in the UK in happier times and am now a US
citizen.
It is a pity that free speech no longer exists in England,
because prohibiting discussion of ideas skews all political debate. For
example, it is pretty obvious that the successful Brexit vote was pretty
much a plebiscite on unlimited immigration and loss of sovereignty,
except that it would be illegal to say so in a UK publication, as this
would be "hate speech."
However I do believe that the well-intended reason for the hate speech
laws is to prevent a bad situation getting even worse, rather than to
stop people from knowing what they can see with their own eyes.
I am reminded of a court case in the UK a few years ago in which a
well-known soap opera star was on trial for the rape of a 6 year old girl
several years earlier. Many UK readers were baffled by the story since
secrecy laws meant that nearly all the salient details of the case could
not be reported upon, nor were the media even allowed to say what they
were not allowed to report on.
For example, it was not clear why the girl and the allegist rapist
were living under the same roof. Had the public known that the girl in
question was the man's own daughter, and that the rape allegations were
part of a particularly nasty divorce dispute several years later, they
might have been better able to form an opinion of his guilt or innocence.
As it happens, the accused was acquitted, possible because forensic
medical evidence showed that the alleged victim was still a virgin at the
time of the trial, but it was a close run thing, and the judge directed
that jury that medical proof of the girl's virginity did not necessarily
mean that she has not been raped. (Whatever!)
When so much of public life and politics cannot be reported upon, it
is not surprising that people will arrive at false conclusions, or find
ways of protesting that which cannot be discussed.
We should be thankful that all these bombers and shooters leave behind
what those conspiracy nutcases might call magically indestructible
identification so the authorities can go straight to the perp's family
and friends. Apparently these imitators hope to outdo the ID that
survived 911 among incinerated debris in perfect condition. And we should
be doubly thankful that our loyal and patriotic msm have such incredible
journalists that they simultaneously uncover the same evidence and reach
exactly the same conclusions within minutes of each other.
@Alden
Manchester police announced where the Abedi family got the tens of
thousands of pounds that enabled them to fly back and forth from England
to several countries in the Middle East for years.
Welfare fraud and student loans funded the bombing. Apparently the
English student loan system does not require class attendance and
accumulation of credits to continue receiving loans.
BBC radio useful idiot programs claim the Abedi brothers might have been
bullied by evil Whites. But they lived on the middle of the Libyan
neighborhood so it's unlikely they were bullied by Whites.
@Swing
And the bombing of Libya has nothing to do with it. Stop killing Muslims,
and they will stop killing u. U killmy brother, I kill yours, u kill my
kids I kill yours, simple logic.
@jilles dykstra
In 2004 the King of Jordan, the ruling Saud at the time in Saudi Arabia,
and Mucharraf in Pakistan all told senator Hollings that the only way to
end terrorism was to establish peace between Israel and the Palestinians.
Since 2004 the west did nothing for peace, on the contrary, efforts to
destabilise the ME, and North Africa continued, an were intensified.
Deradicalisation is making Muslims believe that what they see happening
is not happening.
It may succeed in a few cases, but it so me seems impossible in general.
So attacks in the west will continue, it is, as Mearsheimer and Walt
write 'the strategy of the weak'.
On top of that, the west needs terrorism, if necessary does it herself,
in order to make the western societies more totalitarian all the time
'for our safety'.
The destabilisation in ME and N Africa causes massive migration, the
destabilisation of the European countries is welcome, in order to create
an Europe, a USA clone.
Jun 27, 2016 What Does G4S Know About the Orlando Nightclub Massacre?
Much has been made in recent weeks of Omar Mateen's background. The
perpetrator of the Orlando, Fla., massacre was alternately a "radical
Islamist," a deeply closeted gay man, a wife abuser, a mental case,
everybody's best friend in high school and a loser. The list goes on. But
what the mainstream media-and the government, for that matter-have not
talked about is the fact that Mateen was employed at the time of his
crime by G4S, a London-based company that is one of the largest mercenary
firms in the world, with intelligence contractors deployed in war zones
and hot spots around the globe.
@Cyrano
The west has two faces in regards to the middle east. One is kind,
welcoming and accepting refugees and immigrants from the ME. The other
face of the west is also supposedly kind – it goes to Muslim counties and
helps them get rid of dictators – although nobody asked them to, but I
guess kindness cannot be contained. Unfortunately, in the process of
helping them reach the pinnacle of human achievement – democracy – the
west wrecks country after country in the ME. My point is that both faces
of the west are phony. You can't be kind and cruel at the same time. It
just doesn't work that way. One overrides the other and can't be
counterbalanced by phoniness.
@unit472
No doubt the murderer Abedi chose his target well. Western pop culture
threatens Islam a helluva of a lot more than democracy or capitalism. It
is assimilative and transcends race and national borders. Its not
possible to put this genie back in the bottle. That battle was lost with
Elvis and the Beatles.
... ... ...
If I ran the CIA I would put my efforts into creating an Islamic
Ariana Grande or forming some 'boy group' Saudi tweens would go crazy
over. Let the devout Muslim mom and dad experience the 'generation gap'.
@Corvinus
"If Muslims want to attack such degeneracy, they have my blessing."
Exactly what I thought. Justify the murder of people because you oppose
the ways they express themselves culturally. Listen, why don't YOU man up
and actually do something about the situation rather than be an armchair
warrior?
@Randal
His comment went too far, perhaps as hyperbole, when he endorsed murder,
for certain.
On the other hand, he was not really expressing sympathy for the
islamists per se as much as expressing agreement with some of their
positions, and that is certainly not unacceptable, treasonous or
perverse, unless you think we should allow our opinions to be determined
by what (a particular brand of) terrorists think.
That's a common trend in the modern US sphere, unfortunately (we must
embrace sexual perversion and general degenerate decadence or we are the
same as sunni muslim terrorists), to the ludicrous extent that we are now
told that opinions and attitudes that the vast majority of our ancestors
up until a couple of generations ago would have regarded as disgusting or
contemptible at best and abominations at worst are "British values" or
"European" or "western" values that we must defend to the death, and even
murder foreigners in order to impose them in their countries.
@LauraMR
Sure, lack of assimilation is the culprit but as a "truther" might say,
this could well be an operation carried out by the deep state. Indeed,
someone put this kid up to this, supplied explosives and logistics, so
perhaps it was an Israeli plot, for certain some Anglo-Zionist one
percenter must be behind all of this. Naturally, as it is often published
here, white Europeans are superior to all other races so the kid was by
virtue of ancestry a lesser, defective human being to begin with...
@Swing
And the bombing of Libya has nothing to do with it. Stop killing Muslims,
and they will stop killing u. U killmy brother, I kill yours, u kill my
kids I kill yours, simple logic.
The terrorist bombing was terrible, but the concert was worse.
It was a celebration of open borders, degeneracy, interracism, slut
culture for little girls, and jungle fever. It was all about globalist
propaganda for kiddies.
British masses seem to welcome this cultural degeneracy and mass
invasion by foreigners.
How ironic that an Islamic terrorist who gained entry into UK via
globalism threw a monkey wrench at globalism?
If Muslims want to bomb every globalist celebration of open
borders, degeneracy, Afro-colonization of white wombs, and slut
culture for kids, who cares?
Globalism isn't about respect for world cultures and world
histories. It is about spreading mono-culture of Afromania, Homomania,
and Ziomania all over the world.
Is Iran a threat to Europe? Is Indonesia (the largest "Islamic" country
in terms of population)?
The real Islamic threat, such as it is, is that propagated by Saudi
Arabia, a country which is embraced with open arms by Western governments
(and their arms industries). And which for some time now has had a de
facto alliance (or "united front" if you like) with Israel.
The Jew entertainment culture lures 8-year-old girls into concerts – then
an enemy of the Jews, kills them. It is called lose – lose!
What are
8-year-old girls doing at a concert where they yell and scream for hours
watching some immature adult bump and grind her intimate body parts,
singing sex empowerment songs.
Isn't there something very wrong about that scene?
Meanwhile – a 145-year-old venerable institution of Western
entertainment – was being closed down forever – Barnum & Bailey Circus.
8-year-olds at the circus are in danger of eating too much cotton candy.
Peace – Art
p.s. Jew entertainment have taken our youth from sugar highs, to sex
highs.
@biz
What about the ongoing Islamist terror campaigns in southern Thailand and
the Philippines, directed largely at Buddhists and tribal villagers? How
about the slow motion genocide of Melanesians in Irian Jaya at the hands
of Indonesian Muslims? Al Shabab slaughtering black Kenyans in a mall?
Are your 'zio-natos' responsible for those too?
@Diversity Heretic
John has in past columns expressed what I interpret as an anti-invasion
policy: wall the Middle East off. The wall keeps them out of the west and
keeps the west out of the Middle East. I concur. The West is following
the worse strategy possible: invade Middle Eastern countries and kill
Muslims, then invite Muslims with a grudge (sometimes justifiable) to
settle here.
madonna as interracist whore and 'pussy march' leader and her ilk have done
more harm than a handful of terrorists.
Terrorists kill a few hundred per year.
Weaponized celebrities are globo agents who colonize the minds of 100s of
millions of whites into accepting slut culture, interracism, 'diversity',
jungle fever, ACOWW, pederasty, 'gay marriage', 'inclusion', cuckery, etc.
Indeed, the reason why Manchester let in all those foreigners and continues
to self-hug itself with ugly anti-racist pseudo-virtue is because its people
have been mentally colonized by PC and pop culture.
Colonization of minds is more dangerous than killing a few.
Romans defeated the Jews and oppressed the Christians, but Christians
colonized Roman minds and Christians won. Romans fed few 100s of Christians
to lions, but Christians colonized the minds of millions of Romans. Today's
mass media spread not only ideas but idols on a global scale to billions of
people.
Pop Culture and PC are weaponized globalist jihad. Pop Culture is no longer
just for fun or a diversion. It is the MAIN culture for most white kids.
Kids worship celebrities as angels of globalism.
Those young white girls at the concert were being mentally colonized and
sensually manipulated into open borders for immigrant invaders and open
vaginas for black Africans.
The concert was a propaganda act of war.
Culture matters. This is why the Progs and Glob tear down Confederate
statues in the South. It is why they make movies like GET OUT, which are far
more dangerous than terror bombings. Terror kills a few 100. Pop Culture or
Prop Culture(as it is propaganda) colonize hundreds of millions of white
hearts/minds and EFFECTIVELY MURDER the patriot soul-spirit within them.
Soul-Murder of whites makes whites welcome invasion and their own
racial-territorial demise.
If you want to know why Manchester welcomed so much invasion and continue to
do so after the bombing, it is because white minds have been colonized by PC
and Pop Culture.
Indeed, these mentally-colonized whites hate terror bombings not because
such attacks are consequences of invasion but because they may strengthen
the nationalists who oppose immigrant-invasion.
Why do whites welcome immigrant-invasion? Because they've been mentally
colonized by PC and Pop Culture that says being a white woman means to whore
out to the world.
Suppose Nazis hadn't dropped bombs in UK in WWII but only propaganda
material from the air and succeeded in winning over the hearts and minds of
millions of Brits. That would have been more damaging.
It's like US took over so many nations with the 'soft power' of media,
academia, and entertainment. Take over minds, you take over souls. The
mind-colonized become your slaves.
Progs know the true meaning of culture as political instrument. This is why
they denounce D.W. Griffith's THE BIRTH OF A NATION. They see it as more
than just a movie. They see it as proud statement of white racial
consciousness. This is why they wage culture war. Culture is a weapon. And
as mass media has access to every home via the TV, the TV is the open gate
thru which the globalisys get to attack and colonize your minds.
Why did Jews react so harshly to PASSION OF THE CHRIST? They saw it as
Culture War in favor of Christian Pride and Jewish Guilt. Why won't
Hollywood make a movie about Nakba or Knoxville Massacre? Because they can
be propaganda against Jewish power.
How did the West come to accept 'gay marriage'? Colonization of white minds
via Pop Culture and PC. PC and Pop Culture are globo-jihad.
They can also be violent. Look at BLM. Look at 'spreading democracy'. Look
at destruction of Libya and coup in Ukraine. Look at destruction of
Christian businesses for not baking 'gay wedding cake'. Globalism uses both
soft jihad and hard jihad. Indeed, even the unleashing of ISIS and Alqaeda
is the result of globalism's war on enemies of Israel. Zionist-globalists
undermined Arab regimes and let ISIS run riot to mess things up. Thus,
Islmic Jihadis are both agents of globalism and its enemy(as Muslims hate
western degeneracy).
Anyway, the real shame is that whites acquiesced to defeat at hands of
globalists without resitance and violence.
I think part of the reason why white rightists rag on Muslim terrorists is
this: Muslims have guts enough to resist globalism(even as they've been
enabled by it). In contrast, even white patriots make a lot of noise but are
afraid to take real action.
There was a time when whites would have used violence against those who'd
dare to stick homo flags in churches, push 'gay marriage' and destroy
Christian bakers, and tear down Confederate statues.
But whites, even right wing ones, don't fight back but only complain NO
MATTER HOW MUCH THEY ARE HUMILIATED, ABUSED, AND ATTACKED. Only the Alt
Right did some pushing back at Berkeley.
So, when they see the courage of Muslim terrorists, they call them 'losers'
and 'cowards'.
Really? The real cowards are whites who do nothing while General Lee statue
is torn down. Real cowards are whites who do nothing while Trump reneges on
all his promises. Real cowards are white men who raise their girls to whore
out to Negroes. Real cowards are white men who let freaks turn big cities
into homo celebration centers and invoke homomania as 'western value' that
must be defended from Muslims. Real cowards are whites who praise Jewish
globalists who are behind homomania, the attack on Confederate culture, open
borders, and Afro-colonization of white wombs.
Compared to these loser white cowards, at least Muslim terrorists take
action against globalist filth.
A Palestinian child with a rock in west Bank has more guts than all white
men in the West who cuck out to Jewish globalists, homo freaks, and black
thugs.
White fathers who let their girls attend that concert are far worse scum
than the terrorist who blew it up.
A Palestinian child with a rock in west Bank has more guts than all white
men in the West who cuck out to Jewish globalists, homo freaks, and black
thugs.
White fathers who let their girls attend that concert are far worse scum
I often call them human urinals
white "men" so filled with racial self-loathing that they symbolically allow
themselves to be pissed on to mollify their excruciating self-hatred
I condemn the terrorist with all my breath, but I have to admit, he isn't
perhaps as morally execrable as the white men who sat by in Rotherham as
their daughters were being passed around
A symbolic pinprick pipe bomb attack on a slut fest and the Brits are
cringing and whining like school girls. At least the muzzies take their
losses (100 to 300/day, mostly civilians) like men without all the
moralizing and faggy hysteria. It's embarrassing
In the wake of the massacre in Manchester, people
rightly warn against blaming the entire Muslim community in Britain and the
world. Certainly one of the aims of those who carry out such atrocities is
to provoke the communal punishment of all Muslims, thereby alienating a
portion of them who will then become open to recruitment by Isis and
al-Qaeda clones.
This approach of not blaming Muslims in
general but targeting "radicalisation" or simply "evil" may appear sensible
and moderate, but in practice it makes the motivation of the killers in
Manchester or the Bataclan theatre in Paris in 2015 appear vaguer and less
identifiable than it really is. Such generalities have the unfortunate
effect of preventing people pointing an accusing finger at the variant of
Islam which certainly is responsible for preparing the soil for the beliefs
and actions likely to have inspired the suicide bomber Salman Abedi.
The ultimate inspiration for such people
is Wahhabism, the puritanical, fanatical and regressive type of Islam
dominant in Saudi Arabia, whose ideology is close to that of al-Qaeda and
Isis. This is an exclusive creed, intolerant of all who disagree with it
such as secular liberals, members of other Muslim communities such as the
Shia or women resisting their chattel-like status.
What has been termed Salafi jihadism, the
core beliefs of Isis and al-Qaeda, developed out of Wahhabism, and has
carried out its prejudices to what it sees as a logical and violent
conclusion. Shia and Yazidis were not just heretics in the eyes of this
movement, which was a sort of Islamic Khmer Rouge, but sub-humans who should
be massacred or enslaved. Any woman who transgressed against repressive
social mores should be savagely punished. Faith should be demonstrated by a
public death of the believer, slaughtering the unbelievers, be they the 86
Shia children being evacuated by bus from their homes in Syria on 15 April
or the butchery of young fans at a pop concert in Manchester on Monday
night.
The real causes of "radicalisation" have
long been known, but the government, the BBC and others seldom if ever refer
to it because they do not want to offend the Saudis or be accused of
anti-Islamic bias. It is much easier to say, piously but quite inaccurately,
that Isis and al-Qaeda and their murderous foot soldiers "have nothing to do
with Islam". This has been the track record of US and UK governments since
9/11. They will look in any direction except Saudi Arabia when seeking the
causes of terrorism. President Trump has been justly denounced and derided
in the US for last Sunday accusing Iran and, in effect, the Shia community
of responsibility for the wave of terrorism that has engulfed the region
when it ultimately emanates from one small but immensely influential Sunni
sect. One of the great cultural changes in the world over the last 50 years
is the way in which Wahhabism, once an isolated splinter group, has become
an increasingly dominant influence over mainstream Sunni Islam, thanks to
Saudi financial support.
A further sign of the
Salafi-jihadi impact is the choice of targets: the
attacks on the Bataclan theatre in Paris in 2015, a gay
night club in Florida in 2016 and the Manchester Arena
this week have one thing in common. They were all
frequented by young people enjoying entertainment and a
lifestyle which made them an Isis or al-Qaeda target.
But these are also events where the mixing of men and
women or the very presence of gay people is denounced
by puritan Wahhabis and Salafi jihadis alike. They both
live in a cultural environment in which the
demonisation of such people and activities is the norm,
though their response may differ.
The culpability of
Western governments for terrorist attacks on their own
citizens is glaring but is seldom even referred to.
Leaders want to have a political and commercial
alliance with Saudi Arabia and the Gulf oil states.
They have never held them to account for supporting a
repressive and sectarian ideology which is likely to
have inspired Salman Abedi. Details of his motivation
may be lacking, but the target of his attack and the
method of his death is classic al-Qaeda and Isis in its
mode of operating.
The reason these two
demonic organisations were able to survive and expand
despite the billions – perhaps trillions – of dollars
spent on "the war on terror" after 9/11 is that those
responsible for stopping them deliberately missed the
target and have gone on doing so. After 9/11, President
Bush portrayed Iraq not Saudi Arabia as the enemy; in a
re-run of history President Trump is ludicrously
accusing Iran of being the source of most terrorism in
the Middle East. This is the real 9/11 conspiracy,
beloved of crackpots worldwide, but there is nothing
secret about the deliberate blindness of British and
American governments to the source of the beliefs that
has inspired the massacres of which Manchester is only
the latest – and certainly not the last – horrible
example.
(Reprinted from The Independent by permission of author
or representative)
Thanks! For a while I thought you might identify
their motivation with our having bombed Muslim
countries pretty much continuously since 1946.
Nice save!
@Godfree Roberts
Thanks! For a while I thought you might identify
their motivation with our having bombed Muslim
countries pretty much continuously since 1946.
Nice save!
Why do those responsible deliberately miss the
target and have gone on doing so? Because they all
profit greatly from it. Who are they? The war
industry and its various 'communities', the Jews.
the media, you name it, they're all in it for fun
and profit. None of them would have an income if it
all just stopped, if they actually wanted, you know,
peace whatever that is.
They can manufacture an
invasion of Iraq based on non-existent WMDs as
punishment for 911, when apparently the real
culprits were supposed to be Saudis. They can
pretend that the conflict in Syria is a 'civil war'
rather than a proxy invasion by the US, Saudi Arabia
and other Arab states. They can manufacture groups
like Al-Qaeda and ISIS but pretend that these groups
arose independently from their own funding,
operations and just plain meddling in everybody
else's business. They can pretend that Iran is the
major sponsor of terrorism in the ME when clearly it
isn't. They can bullshit really anything they want
and everybody just buys it.
If they can do all this, then 911 ought not be
too difficult either. The press and so-called
intellectual class just buys into whatever the
narrative is supposed to be. Karl Rove's statement
that 'the empire can create it's own reality now' is
fairly obviously a sly reference to 911. How does
the empire get to this level of expertise? Clearly a
military industrial complex funded to the tune of a
trillion dollars per year that can research any
problem and do whatever it wants could run such a
project without much difficulty. It can also buy off
the press and influence the intellectual classes in
all sorts of ways that conform to some manual in
some top secret facility that nobody has ever heard
of and never will.
The release of the redacted 28 pages shows that
Prince Bandar, good friend of the Bush family,
funded two the supposed hijackers for a year while
they prepared for the 'attack'. This indicates
without any doubt that the hijackers were Saudi
intelligence assets pretending to be hijackers.
(Unless you are wacky enough to believe that Prince
Bandar, good friend of the Bush family, secretly
sought to stab his good friends in the back by
committing a heavy atrocity upon them, or at least
didn't tell them about it in advance). So its
obvious that the Saudis were running the hijacker
side of the 911 operation for their good friends in
America because thats what good friends do. That's
why the hijackers were Saudi, rather than say Iraqi
or Iranian, and thats why America didn't invade the
Saudis as punishment for the terrible deed.
Of course we also know that the CIA let these
same two hijackers, or rather Saudi intelligence
assets, into the United States without telling the
FBI about it although it had several occasions to do
so. How odd, yet these same two hijackers, or rather
Saudi intelligence assets, were known terrorists and
the CIA definitely knew all about them.
Please Mr Cockburn can you explain in your own
words why believing 911 was an inside job is somehow
crackpot?
@The Anti-Gnostic
So how come these attacks only happen in proudly
tolerant, liberal countries at venues like teen
concerts, coastal promenades, gay nightclubs, rock
concert halls? I'd venture to say the victims were
probably 90+% opposed to Middle Eastern wars or
discrimination against Muslims.
We Know What Inspired the Manchester Attack –
We Just Won't Admit It
No, you won't, it seems.
You'll happily point to wahhabism as one of the
contributory factors. I'd have thought you would be
prepared to point to the history of aggressive US
sphere military intervention in muslim countries,
though you seem a little coy about that in this
case, presumably so as not to distract from your
case against wahhabism, which so conveniently ties
in with your bête noir Trump's recent stupidity in
Saudi Arabia.
But you won't ever admit that immigration is one
of the prime factors.
So in this case we have a bombing carried out by
a 2nd generation immigrant muslim Libyan whose
father was admitted to the country for political
reasons because he was an active member of the
opposition to the Libyan government, which our
government sought to encourage, in the context of
Libya having recently been effectively destroyed and
consigned to brutally murderous, bloody chaos by
aggressive UK military action.
And yet for Cockburn and for most of the media
and political establishments, it's seemingly vital
to pretend that it's nothing to do with either
"invade the world" or "invite the world".
It now seems this was a bombing carried out by a 2nd
generation immigrant muslim Libyan whose father was
admitted to the country for political reasons
because he was an active member of the opposition to
the Libyan government, which our government sought
to encourage, in the context of Libya having
recently been effectively destroyed and consigned to
brutally murderous, bloody chaos by aggressive UK
military action.
Here's the BBC on the tangled web
of foreign conflicts our government has enmeshed us
in in Libya, by allowing immigration from a country
and regime changing its government by aggressive
military force:
There is a stark similarity here with the recent
Orlando nightclub shooting. In that case the
attacker was likewise a second generation immigrant
muslim from a country (in that case Afghanistan) the
US government has destroyed by aggressive military
action, whose parents were admitted to the country
because his father was part of the opposition to a
government the US regime wanted changed. Mateen made
online posts calling for revenge on the US for what
it had done to ME countries and even called the
police in the midst of his shootings to declare it
was an act of retaliation for US killings, and yet
those with an interest in obfuscation have looked
high and low for other motivations to obscure the
obvious one.
Invade the world and invite the world. It really
is as simple as that. Our governments interfere
murderously in other countries whilst importing
foreigners from those same countries and related
ones, and then act all horrified when it turns out
they have imported those wars along with the people.
@The Anti-Gnostic
So how come these attacks only happen in proudly
tolerant, liberal countries at venues like teen
concerts, coastal promenades, gay nightclubs, rock
concert halls? I'd venture to say the victims were
probably 90+% opposed to Middle Eastern wars or
discrimination against Muslims.
Taking punitive action against all Muslims is the
strategic goal of these people, widening the gulf
between Muslims and non-believers and moving towards
some kind of major clash of civilisations. They will
not be dissuaded by the West making Islam illegal,
shutting mosques and – somehow – exiling their own
third-and-fourth generation citizens. As well as not
being practical, it stands counter to our values, to
whit punishing the actions of the overwhelming
majority for the actions of the lunatic fringe few.
Britain endured 300,000 dead to defeat Nazi
Germany, France over 700,000 dead. We are simply not
going to be intimidated by such measures. If
anything, they will strengthen our resolve.
These people are also not part of a centralised
campaign being run by ISIS they are lone actors
What we need is more immigration so that Muslims
feel more comfortable. As long as white hold any
power in any society these attacks will continue
We can't control what goes on in
darkies'/non-Europeans' heads. They may hate us and
want to kill us, or they may not. They may decide to
set off bombs, chop off heads, etc., or they may
not.
But if we don't let them into our countries,
it doesn't matter if they hate us, want to kill us,
want to set off bombs, or want to chop off heads.
They won't
be able
to do any of those things.
See how logic works, lefties? (Please say you do.
The matter is very much in doubt.)
In that case the attacker was likewise a
second generation immigrant muslim from a country
(in that case Afghanistan) the US government has
destroyed
Has anyone really made the case that Afghanistan
was destroyed, by anyone? I've never seen it done
convincingly.
The place has long been a complete dump; there's
just never been anything to destroy. Not within
living memory, anyway.
Beyond the question of Islam, the people from Muslim
nations are for the most part lousy human specimens,
Islam or not. Does Islam put them into garish track
suits? Is Islam commanding them to grift on welfare
and other public services? Is it Islam that has them
sex grooming young white girls?
Or is this just the behavior one would expect
from an invading army that faces no resistance?
Indeed, not only are they not resisted, they are
feted (but never vetted). They are given MORE RIGHTS
by law than the native population. They are
encouraged to remain tribal.
In other words, they see their host nations as
weak, foolish, cowardly places simply asking to be
exploited to the max. For one Mohammed maybe it's
welfare fraud. For another it's hanging about in
public spaces, threatening the native population.
For another, it's bullying the white kids at school.
For another, it's strapping on a bomb. These are all
the same things, just at different places on a
continuum.
And since they are nearly all low IQ with little
future time orientation, they will never turn into
the doctors and layers and computer programmers of
Liberal fantasy.
Sure, it's pretty convenient that Islam is
morally OK with any and all of this behavior. But
the bottom line is that Europe is importing vast
numbers of degenerate human specimens that will
never amount to a thing and will be a problem in
perpetuity. That is, until they take over and kill
or enslave the remaining whites. Then hey, no more
problem!
@Svigor
We can't control what goes on in
darkies'/non-Europeans' heads. They may hate us and
want to kill us, or they may not. They may decide to
set off bombs, chop off heads, etc., or they may
not.
But if we don't let them into our countries,
it doesn't matter if they hate us, want to kill us,
want to set off bombs, or want to chop off heads.
They won't
be able
to do any of those things.
See how logic works, lefties? (Please say you do.
The matter is very much in doubt.)
In that case the attacker was likewise a second
generation immigrant muslim from a country (in
that case Afghanistan) the US government has
destroyed
Has anyone really made the case that Afghanistan was
destroyed, by anyone? I've never seen it done
convincingly.
The place has long been a complete
dump; there's just never been anything to destroy.
Not within living memory, anyway.
The real reason is the politically correct genocidal
racism and racist colonialism that brought this
bomber and his fellow invaders to the West in the
first place. Those forces spend a hell of a a lot
more money and effort in exterminating the West and
its peoples than Wahhabism does promoting Sunni
extremism. Stop cucking around the real issue,
violent Muslim terrorism and crime in the West is a
by-product of white-hating racism so intense and
genocidal that its perpetrators will import,
embrace, and support Muslims and Muslim terrorists.
Taking punitive action against all Muslims is the
strategic goal of these people, widening the gulf
between Muslims and non-believers and moving towards
some kind of major clash of civilisations. They will
not be dissuaded by the West making Islam illegal,
shutting mosques and - somehow - exiling their own
third-and-fourth generation citizens. As well as not
being practical, it stands counter to our values, to
whit punishing the actions of the overwhelming
majority for the actions of the lunatic fringe few.
Britain endured 300,000 dead to defeat Nazi Germany,
France over 700,000 dead. We are simply not going to
be intimidated by such measures. If anything, they
will strengthen our resolve.
These people are also not part of a centralised
campaign being run by ISIS they are lone actors
What we need is more immigration so that Muslims
feel more comfortable. As long as white hold any
power in any society these attacks will continue
In the wake of the massacre in Manchester,
people rightly warn against blaming the entire
Muslim community in Britain and the world.
Certainly one of the aims of those who carry out
such atrocities is to provoke the communal
punishment of all Muslims, thereby alienating a
portion of them who will then become open to
recruitment by Isis and al-Qaeda clones.
Thats a good one . The British are completely
helpless against Muslims, the police are trained to
punish whites not Muslims. Look at the Rotherham
(actually every city in England) scandal. The only
immigration that is vulnerable to public opinion is
EU immigration.
President Trump is ludicrously accusing Iran
of being the source of most terrorism in the
Middle East.
Americans like Trumps defence advisor McMaster
way have been rather put off Iran due to them
supplying explosively formed penetrator weapons to
their Shia proxy terrorist force in Iraq,which used
them to kill hundreds of US troops., and leave many
others without arms legs or testicles. McMaster was
in Iraq at the time and he knows it was the Iranians
.
Trump's original pick for McMaster's job, General
Flynn, was there in Iraq too and later head of the
DIA. By all accounts he was infuriated by Iranians
supplying the Explosively formed penetrator weapons
to Shia groups so their IEDs could blast though
armour on US vehicles in Iraq. They, especially
Flynn had access to all the examination of the
wrecked vehicles and I suppose autopsies on US
soldiers as well. Iran ludicrously took on the US,
and now comes the reckoning.
@Randal
Because those are the easy targets that create the
most impact.
Of course they don't "mostly happen at venues like
teen concerts, coastal promenades, gay nightclubs,
rock concert halls", those are just the ones that
make the big news splashes.
Nor do they "only happen in proudly tolerant,
liberal countries": they mostly happen in the
countries destabilised by US sphere military action.
The vast, vast majority of all islamist terrorism
happens in those countries (Iraq, Libya, Syria) and
not "in proudly tolerant, liberal countries" at all.
@Svigor
We can't control what goes on in
darkies'/non-Europeans' heads. They may hate us and
want to kill us, or they may not. They may decide to
set off bombs, chop off heads, etc., or they may
not.
But if we don't let them into our countries,
it doesn't matter if they hate us, want to kill us,
want to set off bombs, or want to chop off heads.
They won't
be able
to do any of those things.
See how logic works, lefties? (Please say you do.
The matter is very much in doubt.)
In that case the attacker was likewise a second
generation immigrant muslim from a country (in
that case Afghanistan) the US government has
destroyed
Has anyone really made the case that Afghanistan was
destroyed, by anyone? I've never seen it done
convincingly.
The place has long been a complete
dump; there's just never been anything to destroy.
Not within living memory, anyway.
In the wake of the massacre in Manchester, people
rightly warn against blaming the entire Muslim
community in Britain and the world. Certainly one
of the aims of those who carry out such
atrocities is to provoke the communal punishment
of all Muslims, thereby alienating a portion of
them who will then become open to recruitment by
Isis and al-Qaeda clones.
Thats a good one . The British are completely
helpless against Muslims, the police are trained to
punish whites not Muslims. Look at the Rotherham
(actually every city in England) scandal. The only
immigration that is vulnerable to public opinion is
EU immigration.
President Trump is ludicrously accusing Iran of
being the source of most terrorism in the Middle
East.
Americans like Trumps defence advisor McMaster way
have been rather put off Iran due to them supplying
explosively formed penetrator weapons to their Shia
proxy terrorist force in Iraq,which used them to
kill hundreds of US troops., and leave many others
without arms legs or testicles. McMaster was in Iraq
at the time and he knows it was the Iranians .
Trump's original pick for McMaster's job, General
Flynn, was there in Iraq too and later head of the
DIA. By all accounts he was infuriated by Iranians
supplying the Explosively formed penetrator weapons
to Shia groups so their IEDs could blast though
armour on US vehicles in Iraq. They, especially
Flynn had access to all the examination of the
wrecked vehicles and I suppose autopsies on US
soldiers as well. Iran ludicrously took on the US,
and now comes the reckoning.
Very good posts. Also, as I pointed out in another
thread, the security services have two different
levels of prioritization when it comes to elites vs
proles.
Note that this guy was reported to the police by his
own family, acquaintances and security agencies knew
he had traveled to Daesh-controlled territory in
Libya:
"Two people who knew Salman Abedi are said to have
called the police counter-terrorism hotline five
years ago to raise concerns that he thought 'being a
suicide bomber was OK'.
And a senior US intelligence official has claimed
that members of his own family had warned police
that he was 'dangerous' It is understood that Abedi
was 'known' to the Security Services through his
associations to those linked to terrorism in
Manchester's Libyan community According to NBC, a
senior US intelligence official said Abedi's family
had warned police that he was 'dangerous'. He was
identified after the attack by his bankcard and had
used a 'big and sophisticated bomb' using materials
not widely available in Britain."
But when a guy was reported last month by the Muslim
community, they picked up on it right away - well,
guess what the target was:
"A suspected terrorist attack was foiled after armed
police arrested a man who is alleged to have been
found carrying knives near the Houses of Parliament.
The Guardian understands the operation was triggered
following a tip-off to police by a member of
Britain's Muslim community who was concerned about
the man's behaviour."
Let us not leave out the good offices of the DNC,
from where Hillary and Obama murdered millions
collectively. The butcher's bill is still piling up
in Syria, Iraq and especially, Libya. Bomb churches,
they might get bombed back. And bomb a Synagogue?
Not smart unless you want your entire crew invited
to a seance with the Mossad. Wall Street and oil
companies? Too secure, public venues are the
easiest. But we get your point, Anti, you want
Republicans, Jews and Christians and money to die,
that will make you happy. Too bad for you, everyday
gays and women are suffering the most anywhere you
have the Muslims in all the Euro-flophouses..
Feminists, gays and Liberals in general are the
first to the beheading line when the Caliphate is
installed.
In the wake of the massacre in Manchester, people
rightly warn against blaming the entire Muslim
community in Britain and the world. Certainly one
of the aims of those who carry out such
atrocities is to provoke the communal punishment
of all Muslims, thereby alienating a portion of
them who will then become open to recruitment by
Isis and al-Qaeda clones.
Thats a good one . The British are completely
helpless against Muslims, the police are trained to
punish whites not Muslims. Look at the Rotherham
(actually every city in England) scandal. The only
immigration that is vulnerable to public opinion is
EU immigration.
President Trump is ludicrously accusing Iran of
being the source of most terrorism in the Middle
East.
Americans like Trumps defence advisor McMaster way
have been rather put off Iran due to them supplying
explosively formed penetrator weapons to their Shia
proxy terrorist force in Iraq,which used them to
kill hundreds of US troops., and leave many others
without arms legs or testicles. McMaster was in Iraq
at the time and he knows it was the Iranians .
Trump's original pick for McMaster's job, General
Flynn, was there in Iraq too and later head of the
DIA. By all accounts he was infuriated by Iranians
supplying the Explosively formed penetrator weapons
to Shia groups so their IEDs could blast though
armour on US vehicles in Iraq. They, especially
Flynn had access to all the examination of the
wrecked vehicles and I suppose autopsies on US
soldiers as well. Iran ludicrously took on the US,
and now comes the reckoning.
Though in this particular case I doubt they had much
to go on with just a report that a teenager was
spouting off about suicide bombing - that must be
pretty commonplace.
Americans like Trumps defence advisor McMaster
way have been rather put off Iran due to them
supplying explosively formed penetrator weapons
to their Shia proxy terrorist force in Iraq,which
used them to kill hundreds of US troops., and
leave many others without arms legs or testicles.
McMaster was in Iraq at the time and he knows it
was the Iranians .
Then the likes of McMaster need to grow up a bit and
recognise that going to war doesn't just mean that
Americans get to kill other people without anyone
fighting back.
Iran was being menaced and harmed by the US long
before - decades before - the US chose to invade its
neighbour whilst giving clear signals that if its
occupation went well then Iran would be next. A
grownup would understand that just as the US killed
all the Iraqis it felt were necessary to the success
of its policy, so Iran in turn helped kill all the
Americans it felt were necessary to prevent that
success and prevent the likely subsequent attack on
Iran.
Hardball cuts both ways and big boys take their
lumps and move on, when (as with the US and Iran)
there is nothing the US can gain by coming back for
another round and vast opportunities for yet
another, worse, disaster.
And, of course, the Iranians weren't the ones
supplying the sunni jihadists in Iraq, who killed
more than their share of US troops, with money to
buy weapons, for that McMaster would need to look
closer to home - at the very same foreign interests
currently trying to manufacture another
confrontation of Iran.
Iran ludicrously took on the US, and now comes
the reckoning.
Unlikely, since those who would gain from a
confrontation between the US and Iran live in Riyadh
and Tel Aviv, and in plush offices in Washington,
not in the real America. Most likely the US regime
will back away from a full confrontation when it
comes down to it, as they have on every previous
occasion since they were rightly turfed out of Iran
with their tails between their legs in 1979.
And while those people do have the clout to
manufacture consent for a war with Iran as they did
with Iraq, they obviously (and rightly) fear the
consequences for themselves when it all goes bad.
And if they don't back away from it then the
consequences will be every bit as costly, and more,
as the invasion and occupation of Iraq proved for
the region and for the US and for American soldiers,
and this time those responsible for it will likely
face a lot more than general political
embarrassment.
The ultimate inspiration for such people is
Wahhabism, the puritanical, fanatical and regressive
type of Islam dominant in Saudi Arabia, whose
ideology is close to that of al-Qaeda and Isis
Absolutely right. And we just swindled them for out
of $110 billion to prop up our war industries so
these "sand#@*&#$s" can go and do the dirty job for
our masters in Tel-Aviv and their representatives in
Washington.
Are we really "friends" with a regime that is only
different from N. Korea because of its oil?
Even the Islam they're propagating is exactly what
The Prophet Muhammad fought against, until they lost
and had to convert. Its Islam, is a cult that
follows strict Bedouin traditions, that are typical
Semitic. Women and others who rank low in the tribe
are considered less human. Orthodox Judaism, and
their Bedouin half brothers have had this law of no
rights to the above mentioned since time immemorial.
Jewish women are forbidden to touch or read the
Torah. This is a religious law. If they do it now
its only because of progress.
So Arabs who have adopted Wahhabism (they have lots
of money to spend) are trying to infuse their
culture as part of Islam. Which it is not
Good luck to those who will receive the brunt of our
mighty bombs thru the Wahhabis
Young men, and occasionally women, from Muslim
cultures are particularly prone to turn to a very
nasty form of murder suicide when things go wrong in
their lives, or they become depressed.
They tend
to externalize their own unhappiness and blame
others. Often the unhappiness is related to sexual
frustration and their inability to form satisfying
relationships.
Probably this killer found Ariana Grande sexually
desirable, but unobtainable.
Within their cultures there are plenty of other
equally embittered individuals willing to encourage
and facilitate them and give them material support.
@Svigor
We can't control what goes on in
darkies'/non-Europeans' heads. They may hate us and
want to kill us, or they may not. They may decide to
set off bombs, chop off heads, etc., or they may
not.
But if we don't let them into our countries,
it doesn't matter if they hate us, want to kill us,
want to set off bombs, or want to chop off heads.
They won't
be able
to do any of those things.
See how logic works, lefties? (Please say you do.
The matter is very much in doubt.)
In that case the attacker was likewise a second
generation immigrant muslim from a country (in
that case Afghanistan) the US government has
destroyed
Has anyone really made the case that Afghanistan was
destroyed, by anyone? I've never seen it done
convincingly.
The place has long been a complete
dump; there's just never been anything to destroy.
Not within living memory, anyway.
But it's saying the guy's family called him out to
the police. And that he was known to security
services based on ties to terrorist sympathizers in
the Libyan community in Manchester. Furthermore, the
article mentions that they knew he went to Libya and
what part of Libya - what the hell??!!
Furthermore, at this point - if you have teenager
talking smack about suicide bombing - take it
seriously.
@Randal
I'm not sure it's feasible to take seriously every
report of a teenage immigrant (1st or 2nd gen) lad
making big talk about suicide bombing or whatever.
There are probably thousands of them, most of them
just hormoned up boys making themselves feel big or
expressing their inadequately controlled emotions.
In this case it was complicated by the fact that his
family connections were to "our" terrorists in Libya
and Syria. On the one hand that might suggest you
should take it more seriously (he clearly had access
to dodgy contacts and materials the average teenage
wannabee doesn't have), but apart from whatever
connections his family undoubtedly had in the UK
security forces themselves, how would they be sure
he was talking about blowing up people here and not
blowing up people our government likes to see blown
up in Libya or Syria?
The latter, of course, is an area we will never see
honestly reported.
I think this lady has found the solution to stop
these guys:
"'Much needs to be done to eradicate this evil. 'But
there is one simple step which we can take now: we
must bring back the death penalty.'"
So long as the Afghan government is aligned
with India, as it now is, Pakistan must support
the Taliban. The Taliban offers its only option
for an alliance with Afghanistan, which it must
have for strategic depth vis-a-vis India.
Remember, India is Pakistan's number one
strategic threat. A pro-India Afghanistan
threatens Pakistan with a two-front war, which is
intolerable. So Pakistan is tied to the Taliban
whether it wants to be or not (my guess is not).
Makes perfect sense.
This is literally stupid, and I have no doubt
you know better. You imply that in this context
actions have no consequences, but in the real
world of course they do.
We can influence those things, but we have no
control, and no guarantee. Keeping them out is fully
under our control, and is guaranteed to work.
This is true only up to a point
It's far truer and more reliable than treating
Muslims nicely.
Actions have consequences.
Yep; open borders leaves us vulnerable to foreign
terrorism.
Really, I say to the Libertardians/Leftists/Muslim
sympathizers, and to the Zionists/Cucked
Right/'Murricans, a pox on both your houses. Both of
you lie through your teeth on a constant basis. Both
groups are fanatically pro-open-borders, for the
most part.
This is such an ignorant statement that it
almost defies belief. It is the type of statement
that, were I from a Muslim nation, would almost
make me think that the terrorists were not
completely unjustified.
It's beyond your ken that when people talk of the
destruction of Afghanistan, some other people point
out that there wasn't far to fall?
Keep it to talk of dead Afghans, that works a lot
better.
So long as the Afghan government is aligned with
India, as it now is, Pakistan must support the
Taliban. The Taliban offers its only option for
an alliance with Afghanistan, which it must have
for strategic depth vis-a-vis India. Remember,
India is Pakistan's number one strategic threat.
A pro-India Afghanistan threatens Pakistan with a
two-front war, which is intolerable. So Pakistan
is tied to the Taliban whether it wants to be or
not (my guess is not).
Afghanistan is a pawn in the Pakistan-India
conflict, just as Syria is caught up in a
Arab-Persian quarrel that started at the dawn of
recorded history. All this reduction to the variant
of Islam promoted by the Saudis Cockburn does leaves
you none the wiser.
The irony is that the places that terrorists
targeted were the very places that would give the
most support to Muslims and refugees. And they still
would, too. The very same neighborhood in Paris that
suffered from the 2015 attacks rejected Le Pen at an
even higher margin than the last election. I suppose
these people have a death wish.
@Svigor
Really, I say to the Libertardians/Leftists/Muslim
sympathizers, and to the Zionists/Cucked
Right/'Murricans, a pox on both your houses. Both of
you lie through your teeth on a constant basis. Both
groups are fanatically pro-open-borders, for the
most part.
Sorry, but the Wahhabis were happily slaughtering
fellow Sunni, Jews, Shia, and anyone else they
decided to declare a "pagan" (kaffirun) in order to
legitimize raping, robbing, enslaving, and murdering
them LONG before the West even considered bothering
to colonize the Arabs.
The Wahhabi originated in
the one part of Arabia that the Prophet (SAAW)
refused to bless – the Najd. He stated that that was
the place where fitnah (disorder, chaos) came from.
The preaching of Abdul-Wahhab was very popular
among the bedu clan ruled by the Saud family. This
practice of takfir, insisting other Muslims were
heretics, polytheists, pagans (kaffirun) made
robbing pilgrimage and other caravans a
*virtue*
instead of brigandage. The British
put the Sauds in charge of the Arabian peninsula,
now known as Saudi Arabia.
The Wahhabis promptly slaughtered those they
considered pagan – Maliki, Hanafi, Shafi, Shia – it
didn't matter. Unless you believed in their
literalist primitive understanding of Islam, you
were obviously a pagan. The Wahhabi focus almost
entirely on outward conformity from what I have
seen. While other Muslims are discussing the
attributes of God, the Wahhabis are ordering Hanafi
women to "follow the stronger evidence" and cover
their *feet.* Seriously. For real.
Go to any Saudi supported masjid in the US, and
notice how many have filthy, horrible areas for
women to pray, often only accessible by passing
through the area outside where the dumpsters are,
and note that the women's restroom many be filthier
than a porta-potti in Tijuana. This is no accident.
Wahhabis think women should be neither seen nor
heard. They know more than the Caliph Umar who
accepted a correction on Islamic law from a woman –
in public – and acknowledged to all present that she
was correct, and he was wrong. No danger of that
happening in Wahhabi land – a woman's voice is
considered part of her awrah or nakedness.
If a religious education program for women even
*exists*
, it will tend to focus on
the importance of wearing a head scarf, and covering
one's feet. Sometimes it will stress how a woman's
prayer is "better" for her at home – so why are all
of you ladies here for Juuma every Friday?
The importance of prayer seems to be limited to
having the exact "correct" position of the hands,
feet, etc. – and saying the "correct" exact words.
Imagine my surprise when I was earnestly informed
that I should never, ever pray in sadl – with my
arms down – because Imam Malik only did that
"because he had been tortured." When I asked a
Mauritania Shaykh, a noted religious scholar about
this statement, he was rather blunt. It seems that
"whoever says that is a liar." And that they really
need to fear God.
So, while silly westerners are running around and
claiming that Daesh and crew are really upset about
colonialism or whatever, the extremists keep telling
us all what they really want – and the left of the
west is so bigoted and patronizing that it literally
insists that the extremists are so backward and
stupid that they don't really mean what they say
because anyone with half a brain would be irate over
*material*
issues, not religious
matters.
You can find the Daesh English language
publication on line. Read it before you continue
blathering endless irrelevancies about
"colonialism."
While I fully concur the views stated here by Mr.
Cockburn on this matter, "western" regimes have a
more direct link to the Manchester terrorist act:
the fact that the destruction of Libya by Obama and
the French, spearheaded in the US by then foreign
secretary Hillary Clinton against the advice of
Gates, the war minister at the time, and contrary to
Obama's instincts was a direct link in the chain
leading to this Libyan's terrorist act. There are
also rumours published elsewhere that this terrorist
underwent training to act as one of the "tame"
rebels working to overthrow the Assad government.
The support for the Cameron government for the Libya
action puts the blood of this event on the hands of
the successor tory May government, in its use of
this blowback event to gain electoral mileage in its
effort to stay in power in Britain.
As indicated,
I concur with inferences of the comment by Randal,
#8 above that western actions, including the
destruction of Libya, played the key role in this
attack.
@The Kid
Sorry, but the Wahhabis were happily slaughtering
fellow Sunni, Jews, Shia, and anyone else they
decided to declare a "pagan" (kaffirun) in order to
legitimize raping, robbing, enslaving, and murdering
them LONG before the West even considered bothering
to colonize the Arabs.
The Wahhabi originated in the one part of Arabia
that the Prophet (SAAW) refused to bless - the Najd.
He stated that that was the place where fitnah
(disorder, chaos) came from.
The preaching of Abdul-Wahhab was very popular among
the bedu clan ruled by the Saud family. This
practice of takfir, insisting other Muslims were
heretics, polytheists, pagans (kaffirun) made
robbing pilgrimage and other caravans a *virtue*
instead of brigandage. The British put the Sauds in
charge of the Arabian peninsula, now known as Saudi
Arabia.
The Wahhabis promptly slaughtered those they
considered pagan - Maliki, Hanafi, Shafi, Shia - it
didn't matter. Unless you believed in their
literalist primitive understanding of Islam, you
were obviously a pagan. The Wahhabi focus almost
entirely on outward conformity from what I have
seen. While other Muslims are discussing the
attributes of God, the Wahhabis are ordering Hanafi
women to "follow the stronger evidence" and cover
their *feet.* Seriously. For real.
Go to any Saudi supported masjid in the US, and
notice how many have filthy, horrible areas for
women to pray, often only accessible by passing
through the area outside where the dumpsters are,
and note that the women's restroom many be filthier
than a porta-potti in Tijuana. This is no accident.
Wahhabis think women should be neither seen nor
heard. They know more than the Caliph Umar who
accepted a correction on Islamic law from a woman -
in public - and acknowledged to all present that she
was correct, and he was wrong. No danger of that
happening in Wahhabi land - a woman's voice is
considered part of her awrah or nakedness.
If a religious education program for women even
*exists*, it will tend to focus on the importance of
wearing a head scarf, and covering one's feet.
Sometimes it will stress how a woman's prayer is
"better" for her at home - so why are all of you
ladies here for Juuma every Friday?
The importance of prayer seems to be limited to
having the exact "correct" position of the hands,
feet, etc. - and saying the "correct" exact words.
Imagine my surprise when I was earnestly informed
that I should never, ever pray in sadl - with my
arms down - because Imam Malik only did that
"because he had been tortured." When I asked a
Mauritania Shaykh, a noted religious scholar about
this statement, he was rather blunt. It seems that
"whoever says that is a liar." And that they really
need to fear God.
So, while silly westerners are running around and
claiming that Daesh and crew are really upset about
colonialism or whatever, the extremists keep telling
us all what they really want - and the left of the
west is so bigoted and patronizing that it literally
insists that the extremists are so backward and
stupid that they don't really mean what they say
because anyone with half a brain would be irate over
*material* issues, not religious matters.
You can find the Daesh English language publication
on line. Read it before you continue blathering
endless irrelevancies about "colonialism."
@Godfree Roberts
Thanks! For a while I thought you might identify
their motivation with our having bombed Muslim
countries pretty much continuously since 1946.
Nice save!
@aceofspades
The irony is that the places that terrorists
targeted were the very places that would give the
most support to Muslims and refugees. And they still
would, too. The very same neighborhood in Paris that
suffered from the 2015 attacks rejected Le Pen at an
even higher margin than the last election. I suppose
these people have a death wish.
In the wake of the massacre in Manchester, people
rightly warn against blaming the entire Muslim
community in Britain and the world. Certainly one
of the aims of those who carry out such
atrocities is to provoke the communal punishment
of all Muslims, thereby alienating a portion of
them who will then become open to recruitment by
Isis and al-Qaeda clones.
Thats a good one . The British are completely
helpless against Muslims, the police are trained to
punish whites not Muslims. Look at the Rotherham
(actually every city in England) scandal. The only
immigration that is vulnerable to public opinion is
EU immigration.
President Trump is ludicrously accusing Iran of
being the source of most terrorism in the Middle
East.
Americans like Trumps defence advisor McMaster way
have been rather put off Iran due to them supplying
explosively formed penetrator weapons to their Shia
proxy terrorist force in Iraq,which used them to
kill hundreds of US troops., and leave many others
without arms legs or testicles. McMaster was in Iraq
at the time and he knows it was the Iranians .
Trump's original pick for McMaster's job, General
Flynn, was there in Iraq too and later head of the
DIA. By all accounts he was infuriated by Iranians
supplying the Explosively formed penetrator weapons
to Shia groups so their IEDs could blast though
armour on US vehicles in Iraq. They, especially
Flynn had access to all the examination of the
wrecked vehicles and I suppose autopsies on US
soldiers as well. Iran ludicrously took on the US,
and now comes the reckoning.
Why do those responsible deliberately miss the
target and have gone on doing so? Because they
all profit greatly from it. Who are they? The war
industry and its various 'communities', the Jews.
the media, you name it, they're all in it for fun
and profit. None of them would have an income if
it all just stopped, if they actually wanted, you
know, peace whatever that is.
They can
manufacture an invasion of Iraq based on
non-existent WMDs as punishment for 911, when
apparently the real culprits were supposed to be
Saudis...
Looks like neoliberal Guardian presstitutes love neocons and religious nuts Cruz. Who would guess
? Interesting...
Notable quotes:
"... He also has a certain kind of roguish charm and can be quite amusing, which Hillary Clinton rarely is; he'd easily win the "who'd I prefer to have a beer with" competition. ..."
"... How can anyone say that yet? What we DO know is that the Bush-Obama administration has been an unqualified disaster on many fronts. Change, even with the possibility - NOT 'certainty' - of "bad things happening" is much more desirable... ..."
"... The more this election plays out the more I totally understand why Trump has made it this far. I've lived a long time and been politically active my entire adult life, and I've never seen voters send such a resounding and well deserved fuck you to the political elite. ..."
"... Indeed, the failure and dysfunction of the present political system in the US can be traced to one thing: the failure of the fourth estate. It is worse than failure, it is a betrayal of the nation for those thirty pieces of silver. ..."
"... What his campaign ultimately proves, is that only appealing to ideologically conservative Republicans is not enough to win the nom. The bulk of the party is traditionalist and reactionary rather than puritanical. They'll pretty reliably vote for any grumpy old white guy with a sense of humour (Nixon, Reagan, Bush I, Romney, McCain, now Trump). Secondly Cruz misread the issues of the year. People are frustrated because they believe that they are struggling while others are milking them. Trump gets this, so does Bernie. Hillary, not so much. This will be a big problem for her in the general. ..."
"... I'm getting just a bit tired of the feigned "I can't understand it" air of these articles about Donald Trump. The Trump gave the voters in his party the red meat of bigotry and hate that they require. The others dog-whistled a merry tune. Why talk about 'strange political jujitsu'? Why not admit that a large portion of the Republican Party is unloved by their own candidates. Why not look at the fact that Republicans accept the votes of 'poor white trash' but do nothing for them. ..."
No, I did not think that....however, I do think that there is enough awareness of this issue
that it does not get dangerously into the main stream in Europe. In the US there much less awareness.
Decades of the indoctrination that all bad things are either "communist" or "socialist" has left
the door wide open for a return of the populist nationalist. Trump is just that.
bluet00ns 5 May 2016 13:18
"happy campaign"?...review the tapes, "happy" is nowhere in the oily, twisted, display of sly
that was cruz's campaign, the numb, if not painful, looks on the faces of family as he trotted
them out like props, is exhibit A.
bcarey -> sour_mash 5 May 2016 13:08
My point is that it's common for candidates to suspend their campaigns and continue to
collect money.
Definitely true.
However, we must also take into account the fact that the Cruz delegates are still active and
maybe able to deliver Cruz.... or Romney if necessary. It is likely that Trump will get way more
delegates than needed to stop a contested/open convention, however.
The Cruz suspension is about 2 things. It accomplishes potentially 2 things. Money is just
one of them. The other part is Romney, if he can.
fallentower 5 May 2016 13:02
I actually think the Republican Party made a good choice once it was down to "Cruz or Trump"
by sitting on its hands and thereby letting Trump win. Of course, Trump is far more likely to
do and say unorthodox (from a post-Reagan Republican Party standpoint) things, and will probably
increase the tension and turmoil within the party. But he actually has a chance of winning the
election; Cruz's smarmy personality and nauseating brand of religious conservatism would have
gone down like a lead balloon outside the Bible belt, and he's too committed ideologically to
change his policy positions.
Trump will turn on a sixpence and happily disavow things he may have said in the primary if
he considers them unhelpful baggage for the general, and because he's seen as a showman rather
than a professional politician he'll have much more leeway to do so than your average flip-flopper.
He also has a certain kind of roguish charm and can be quite amusing, which Hillary Clinton
rarely is; he'd easily win the "who'd I prefer to have a beer with" competition. Admittedly
he is going to have to cut down on the clownishness and ill-disciplined outbursts, but if he gets
the right campaign team together and they manage to keep him vaguely on-message I think he'll
have good chances. Better than Cruz, anyway, who had zero chance.
sour_mash bcarey 5 May 2016 12:58
I take your point regarding Secret Agent Mormon and I was aware that he had filed with the
FEC. My point is that it's common for candidates to suspend their campaigns and continue to collect
money.
The exploratory PAC is the new retirement vehicle but that's a different issue.
taxhaven wjousts 5 May 2016 12:58
Trump most certainly is not change for the better.
How can anyone say that yet? What we DO know is that the Bush-Obama administration has
been an unqualified disaster on many fronts. Change, even with the possibility - NOT 'certainty'
- of "bad things happening" is much more desirable...
Harry Dresdon 5 May 2016 12:42
Good riddance to Cruz. Boehner called him "the devil in the flesh". Cruz would have been way
worse for the country than Trump will ever be. Sad but true.
DillyDit2 5 May 2016 12:34
Hey Stephanie Cutter: You think Bernie is responsible for what his supporters think, whether
we'll support Hillary, and how we will decide to vote in the fall? Pappa Bernie should tell us
what to do, and we should fall in line and salute?
Could Cutter and Hillary's minions be any more clueless?! And could they reveal their top down
authoritarian mindset any more clearer?
The more this election plays out the more I totally understand why Trump has made it this
far. I've lived a long time and been politically active my entire adult life, and I've never seen
voters send such a resounding and well deserved fuck you to the political elite.
I wish I could support Trump, because I second that fuck you. For now, along with what is likely
the majority of American voters, all I can do is say- pox on BOTH your houses and may 2020 be
the year an Independent runs and wins.
danubemonster 5 May 2016 12:32
I think it is worth comparing Cruz with Nixon. Both men are/were not particularly likable,
yet Nixon was able to be a two-term president. Nixon was a conservative, but he was not an ideologue
- and he lived in an age where the Republican Party was a relatively broad church. Nixon also
have political instincts which were way beyond those of Cruz. He knew how to play high politics,
and he knew what was required to get to the White House.
PATROKLUS00 -> Tommy Cooper 5 May 2016 12:14
Trump will beat her to death with being the Queen of the Establishment... the Dems will be
idiots to nominate her.
PATROKLUS00 -> voxusa 5 May 2016 12:12
Indeed, the failure and dysfunction of the present political system in the US can be traced
to one thing: the failure of the fourth estate. It is worse than failure, it is a betrayal of
the nation for those thirty pieces of silver.
PATROKLUS00 -> 8MilesHigh 5 May 2016 12:09
Yup, and the Democrat establishment is too stupid and out of touch to recognize that HRC is
just the grist that Trump needs for his anti-establishment mill.
PATROKLUS00 5 May 2016 12:07
Cruz a master strategist???? BWWWWWwwwwwaaaaahhhhhhhaaaaaaaa! Ludicrous ... beyond ludicrous.
Vintage59 David Perry 5 May 2016 12:07
His religious beliefs and the political dogma that goes with them have been well documented.
Have you not been paying attention? Do you insist your wife get you a beer from the fridge when
you can get off your ass and get it yourself?
8MilesHigh 5 May 2016 12:06
What his campaign ultimately proves, is that only appealing to ideologically conservative
Republicans is not enough to win the nom. The bulk of the party is traditionalist and reactionary
rather than puritanical. They'll pretty reliably vote for any grumpy old white guy with a sense
of humour (Nixon, Reagan, Bush I, Romney, McCain, now Trump). Secondly Cruz misread the issues
of the year. People are frustrated because they believe that they are struggling while others
are milking them. Trump gets this, so does Bernie. Hillary, not so much. This will be a big problem
for her in the general.
MalleusSacerdotum 5 May 2016 12:05
I'm getting just a bit tired of the feigned "I can't understand it" air of these articles
about Donald Trump. The Trump gave the voters in his party the red meat of bigotry and hate that
they require. The others dog-whistled a merry tune. Why talk about 'strange political jujitsu'?
Why not admit that a large portion of the Republican Party is unloved by their own candidates.
Why not look at the fact that Republicans accept the votes of 'poor white trash' but do nothing
for them.
The Donald has understood the dynamic better than the rest and has given the voters a coherent,
albeit repugnant, analysis of their problems. An article like this that can shed no light on the
phenomenon that is Trump is hardly worth publishing.
"... Equality in America has been falling since 1980's, real terms median income falling since 1999. Black or white, America was a more equal more livable place 20-30 years ago. ..."
"... You should speak for yourself. Look at the economic data for American GDP, Inequality and real terms household income. The economy used to work better for the average American. Rising income trends have been reversed by globalisation and automation, not by increasing diversity. Why should American voters trust mainstream candidates who simply repeat the same failed messages they have stuck to for the last generation? ..."
"... median household incomes in America peaked (in real terms) around 1999 and inequality has been rising since 1980. The drivers of this are automation and globalisation, not increasing diversity. ..."
"... Yeah, my family has white privilege- write a play about this. My great-great grandfather served two enlistments in the northern army of the Civil war to free the slaves. Lucky for him, he survived and I got to be born 90 years later. Many of his friends died and their entire future family line got cut off. I dare say that tens of millions of white Americans never got to be born, because their kin fought and died in the Civil war to free the slaves. I don't think blacks today appreciate the blood sacrifice that was made by northern whites to free them. ..."
"... The Southern Baptist church attended by millions of African-Americans, with its traditional, creationist, homophobic platform, is far more representative of African-American culture than is the select group of playwrights listed in the article. ..."
It took how many years to come up with the appalling misconception that blue collar steel workers
benefited from any type of "supremacy" unless you believe that having a job that pays enough to
put a roof over your family's heads and food on the table should be beyond the reach of all but
a selected few....Blue collar workers have only ever aspired to keeping their kids in school as
long as possible and neither they nor their kids ever had any designs on a college education.
Word hard, pay the bills, retire, and die within five years. I don't know in what world that translates
to white privelege or advantage, especially when they worked with African Americans and Latinos.
Now politicians promise every child a college education. If you can't understand the difference
between this generation that has been told the world is their oyster and the ones who worked in
the Steel mills for generations and knew what their kids could look forward, knew that college
was beyond the modest aspirations of their kids and their grandkids you didn't ask the right questions
or the right people and the result is an ideologically driven mess of race baiting, sexist claptrap.
Get used to being called on your bullsh*t. We all need to check our privilege when we write about
race. Talk about entitlement.
The tough part for me is constantly hearing about what the President did or didn't do. The US
government is structured specifically to limit the actions of the executive branch. The conditions
of the economic disaster were exacerbated by the unparalleled obstructionism of the opposition
party and the lack of support from the president's own party. If Democrats had been willing to
oppose a sitting president back in '03 we might have avoided a bankrupting war that still has
not ended.
Not really. Equality in America has been falling since 1980's, real terms median income falling
since 1999. Black or white, America was a more equal more livable place 20-30 years ago.
For sure it was better to be white then black but since you can never really measure the extent
of white privilege on your own life, how can you have nostalgia for it?
The writer claims that current political events are being shaped by a chimaera she can provide
no evidence for and ignoring the very real changes that could be driving the political shifts
toward more radical candidates.
You should speak for yourself. Look at the economic data for American GDP, Inequality and
real terms household income. The economy used to work better for the average American. Rising
income trends have been reversed by globalisation and automation, not by increasing diversity.
Why should American voters trust mainstream candidates who simply repeat the same failed messages
they have stuck to for the last generation?
Trump is insane, of course, but voting for Hillary or Cruz is equally insane for most of middle
America. They would effectively be voting to see their incomes go down and to fall further behind
the wealthiest. Why is that a good decision?
For sure there is nostalgia: nostalgia for the time when middle class incomes were enough to provide
a decent lifestyle, were expected to rise and provide enough to pay for your kids to get a decent
education. The writer then frames this as nostalgia for white privilege, but I have to question
that. Surely the expectation was that as discrimination was rolled back, ethnic minorities would
start to come up and equalise their incomes with the white population. After all, that is what
every mainstream politician promised would happen. But median household incomes in America
peaked (in real terms) around 1999 and inequality has been rising since 1980. The drivers of this
are automation and globalisation, not increasing diversity.
And *every* US president and political party has dissembled on this point. Every time, the
promise is the same - we can get back to the rising incomes and increasing equality of the last
century. And every time, nothing of the sort is delivered.
So if there is nostalgia, it not only has a very real basis in fact, but is a nostalgia for
a time when economic gains were distributed more equally, not a nostalgia for a time when white
privilege (whatever that means) was a greater force.
Sanders and Trump both represent a break from politicians and messages that have palpably failed
to deliver. The voters put up with being lied to for some time but their patience has run out.
Of course Trump can be portrayed as an out and out racist, so its easy to say - well his support
is based on race politics. I have no doubt that many do support him for that reason. But the wider
picture is this:
The American voters feel they have been lied to by established politicians and are now looking
for alternatives. If they have nostalgia for times past, that is founded not on a dream of white
supremacy, but founded on a recollection of times when the economy did work better for the majority.
Yeah, my family has white privilege- write a play about this. My great-great grandfather served
two enlistments in the northern army of the Civil war to free the slaves. Lucky for him, he survived
and I got to be born 90 years later. Many of his friends died and their entire future family line
got cut off. I dare say that tens of millions of white Americans never got to be born, because
their kin fought and died in the Civil war to free the slaves. I don't think blacks today appreciate
the blood sacrifice that was made by northern whites to free them.
They now realize their automatic entitlement to being consequential is gone
What the hell are you talking about? My father didn't have any damn " entitlement to
being consequential". He worked his heart out for it, day in and out, and I was proud to do it
alongside him.
Maybe instead of just applying a racist take on perspective, why not think about what you write
first? And why is it that every time - every. single. time - this topic comes up that someone
widens the gap of guilt to the entirety of white people generally? Where's the border for you?
Canada? The UK? Latvia? What is enough of a geographic guilt complex for your needs? Let us know.
The Southern Baptist church attended by millions of African-Americans, with its traditional,
creationist, homophobic platform, is far more representative of African-American culture than
is the select group of playwrights listed in the article.
the fact that the more academically qualified white female has less chance of getting a place
in harvard than a wealthy African-American, is hardly the fault of African Americans or any form
of reverse racism, it s the fault of first Harvard being a private university that caters to economic
elites, the lack of funding in education and that education is handled at the local level, so
funding and quality depend greatly on the education level of the local community and how wealthy
they are. This perpetuates inequalities. Still, if you put this hypothetical white female from
Harlan County in nice clothes and send her to a fancy mall, together with an equally well dressed
young black woman, who do you think security will follow?
There are also studies where equal CV were sent to potential employers, with the only difference
being white, latino, asian or African American sounding names, and the white sounding names were
picked more often, everything else being equal.
It is time that you realize that racism is a real thing and no, working class whites 't doing
poorly because of minorities, they are doing poorly (together with minorities) because of the
economic system. Unless of course, you think that whites should do better, because, well, they
are whites. The later is what I think the nostalgia is all about, 50 years ago white would have
had an edge over minorities that today no longer have in most places.
This woman is so so wise and enlightened that that her extreme intellect has crossed the line
on insanity. Liberals like her will do their best to herd the rest of us into believing that only
white working class men are attracted to people like trump and it's only because they are racists.
No no lady bone head.
First of all, you and your elitists, pompous and supposed educated comrades need to stop using
the race card overtime you find someone you disagree with. Secondly, Trump has attracted the attention
on a multitude of people across all facets of our society and it's not because we are racists,
it't because he at least vocalizes, inspire of all of your absurd PC proclamations, facts that
the majority of us Americans know and see each day.
By the way, I am an American with brown skin who's ancestry is African and I appreciate most
of what Trump espouses. So please stop trying to make the rest of us fear and hate white working
class men just because you've fantasized about their hatred toward you. You and your kind (elitists
liberals) will no longer lead me down the path of destruction.
Exactly, all the places that hit rock bottom during the crack epidemic are on their way up now
just in time to start attracting people back from the suburban and peri-urban sprawl with its
body and soul weakening car dependent isolation.
Cities like New York and DC are way ahead of surrounding areas in providing public services
and creating sustainable buildings plus car-less ways of getting around.
It is interesting the Guardian support this warmonger neocon. Another proof the it is
Blairite "Third Way"
propagandist. A neoliberal, moderate, right wing newspaper now.
Notable quotes:
"... Good luck with that ..."
"... Trump is waging political war the way that Patriots coach Bill Belichick wins football games: take away the opponent's best weapon, then play to your strengths. ..."
"... On Monday, Trump tweeted : "If Hillary thinks she can unleash her husband, with his terrible record of women abuse, while playing the women's card on me, she's wrong!" ..."
"... really like ..."
"... Hillary Clinton – be it her demeanor in front of a crowd or the manufactured scandals and mischaracterizations by conservative media and officials – just doesn't connect with audiences ..."
"... Yes he does and his wife is the hypocrite for her stance on women's rights and enlisting the support of her husband who has the deserved label of being a womanizer ..."
the first reaction to ... Donald Trump
criticizing Bill Clinton's scuzzy personal record with women should be, Good luck with that.
But Trump is waging political war the way that Patriots coach Bill Belichick wins football games:
take away the opponent's best weapon, then play to your strengths.
It just happens that playing to Trump's strengths involves sounding like an abusive comment thread
with the long-term memory of a mosquito.
On Monday,
Trump tweeted: "If Hillary thinks she can unleash her husband, with his terrible record of women
abuse, while playing the women's card on me, she's wrong!" It's more pointed than his general,
aimless displays of boorishness and chauvinism but, like using Megyn Kelly's alleged menses to explain
her justifiably holding him to account in the first Republican debate, Trump was taking a tactical
approach.
The Clinton campaign does plans to "unleash" Bill Clinton on the stump, and people really
like Bill Clinton.
Hillary Clinton – be it her demeanor in front of a crowd or the manufactured scandals and
mischaracterizations by conservative media and officials – just doesn't connect with audiences
as well as Bill does; but then, Bill's probably the most charismatic politician of the last two generations.
Mihai Filip, 30 Dec 2015 23:43
I don't have a dog in this fight, nevertheless I've read on Breitbart the accusations for wich
Bill Clinton settled out of court for 850k and that lady claimed he came on to her with his errect
penis asking her to kiss it. I think the liberal media must start planning some sort of retreat
on this issue before going on the suicidal path shown in this article, because this becomes an
indefensible political position. Bill knew that already, that's why he paid the 850.000 dollars.
Martin Joseph -> lefthalfback2, 30 Dec 2015 23:56
You forgot to mention her corruption. Which makes her the perfect Clinton candidate.
Todd Owens, 30 Dec 2015 19:02
This article is peak identity politics. However negatively you feel about Trump the simple
fact of the matter is President Clinton has a horrible record with women.
SemperTi Todd Owens, 30 Dec 2015 19:11
Yes he does and his wife is the hypocrite for her stance on women's rights and enlisting
the support of her husband who has the deserved label of being a womanizer and when outed
directly or indirectly attacked those women in the press.
The Last but not LeastTechnology is dominated by
two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt.
Ph.D
FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available
to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social
issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which
such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free)
site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should
be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors
of this site
Disclaimer:
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or
referenced source) and are
not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society.We do not warrant the correctness
of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be
tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without
Javascript.
France Probes Any Moscow Role in Yellow-Vest Movement
Matthew Walther The failure and delusions of the adults in the room 
Matthew Walther The 2020 Democratic frontrunner is a Republican
Former Trump
campaign adviser targeted by Mueller for his appearances on RT
'Treason or
fake news?' Trump urges NYT to reveal its White House 'resistance' insider
?
Clinton's new
book removes all doubt. She still has no idea why she lost
The passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act has refuted any notion that
Trump's ascension to the White House would mark an end to neoliberalism. Poor whites who
supported Trump expected him to offer America a new version of conservativism that would break
with neoliberalism. Instead, furthering neoliberal policies has become a critical objective
that works in tandem with Trump's xenophobic rhetoric
'Wasting taxpayers'
money': Lawyer Veselnitskaya talks Trump's dossier & Fusion GPS
'Weapon of mass
suppression': Russiagate now used to target any dissent in US – Max Blumenthal
Entangling
alliances or scoring at home? Why US went out of its way with Russian diplomat expulsions
US indicts 13
Russians for 2016 election meddling, but 'no allegations' they influenced outcome
Vladimir Anikeyev /
Photo: anikeevv/vk.com
Not long after Gerasimov's resignation at the end of January, reports emerged from numerous
Kremlin-linked media outlets in what appeared to be a coordinated flood of information and
disinformation about the arrests of senior TsIB officers. One of the cyber unit's operational
directors, Sergei Mikhailov, was arrested toward the end of last year along with his deputy,
Dmitri Dokuchaev, and charged with treason. Also arrested around the same time was Ruslan
Stoyanov, the chief investigator for Kaspersky Lab, which is the primary cybersecurity
contractor for the TsIB. There is much conjecture, but Mikhailov was apparently forcibly
removed from a meeting with fellow FSB officers -- escorted out with a bag over his head, so
the story goes -- and arrested. This is thought to have taken place some time around Dec. 5.
His deputy, a well-respected computer hacker recruited by the FSB, was reportedly last seen in
November. Kaspersky Lab's Stoyanov was a career cybersecurity professional, previously working
for the Indrik computer crime investigation firm and the Interior Ministry's computer crime
unit. Novaya Gazeta, a Kremlin-linked media outlet, reported that two other unnamed FSB
computer security officers were also detained. Theories, Accusations and Rumors
70mn cyberattacks,
mostly foreign, targeted Russia's critical infrastructure in 2016 – FSB
The protection
of the people of the United States, its homeland and its way of life; 
Senators Jeanne Shaheen and Maggie Hassan from my deep purple state of NH both, voted to allow the bill to proceed. And of course my esteemed congress critter, Annie Kuster, did her bit in congress. Only 968 days until I can exact my retribution on Shaheen at the polls, first and foremost for her vote in favor of fast track, but damned if she doesn't give me another good reason on almost a daily basis.